Note that the hammer method does create a weld.
Another method that can be used is solder. Purists complain that this creates
two junctions. However when they are both at the tip where you are measuring
the temperature, the intermediate metal is irrelevant.
I weld with line voltage ac, a light
Hi,
does anyone have translated guidelines for moving towards KCC certification vs
MIC in Korea?
As far as I know, it is going to be mandatory from January 2010 and
technically speaking they are the same requirements, just under different
government agency. My main question is: what about the
Yes, Sodium Silicate and Kaolin are specified by the IECEE in CTL-OP 108.
I prefer this attachment only for HALT series, otherwise I prefer
cyanoacrylate for product safety Type tests.
Brian
From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org]On Behalf Of Brent G DeWitt
Sent: Tuesday, June 16,
So I guess nobody much uses Sodium Silicate and Kaolin as thermocouple
adhesive anymore?
Brent (old dinosaur) DeWitt
From: Ralph McDiarmid [mailto:ralph.mcdiar...@xantrex.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 3:13 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Thermocouple welder
I
This is, for me, good stuff. I adore the physics of measurements.
Mr. Dudek has provided a link to a good info source that I was remiss for
not including. On this general subject of test data acceptance, please
note that all such UL guides are at
Thanks Grace!
--- On Tue, 6/16/09, Grace Lin graceli...@gmail.com wrote:
From: Grace Lin graceli...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: New China CCC Document - English Translation
To: Price, Edward ed.pr...@cubic.com
Cc: owner-emc-p...@listserv.ieee.org,
From UL's website, acceptance of thermocouple guidelines for DAP participants.
http://www.ul.com/global/eng/documents/
fferings/services/programs/dap/tools/Equipment_Thermocouple.pdf
Regards
John F. Dudek
Manager, Product Safety Engineering
Corcom Products, Tyco Electronics Corp.
Mundelein, Il.
I don’t know how one would calibrate a thermocouple, but we use a welding
device cobbled together from carbon rod (from a dry-cell) and a 40Vdc power
supply and an alligator clip. It takes 10 minutes to setup and couple of per
thermocouple to weld and inspect to ensure there is a little ball of
Hey John
You didn't miss anything at all - this is something that was proposed for the
draft ANSI C63.4 to be released later this year. It may have changed since
last year, so not 100% verbiage is still in there. My understanding is that it
is.
Best regards,
Mac Elliott
[] Motorola
Hi Tim
I think that you would only need the amount of absorber needed to pass the
CISPR requirements - which do not have dimensions of absorber footprint. That
is an ANSI alternative.
As far as the second question, according to presenters at the ANSI workshop
the answer to the second question
Hi Michael
I can't speak for the FCC but can say that during the ANSI C63.4 workshop last
year in Detroit the OET was represented on the panel when these topics were
discussed.
I definitely understand your question / concern
If 1 GHz NSA comes in with the absorber + ANSI C63.5:2006
We are currently evaluating absorber material for our OATS, and are trying to
determine how much of the ground plane we need to cover. Obviously, the entire
turntable is covered, but how far, perpendicular to the antenna-EUT axis, do
the absorbers need to extend on the ground plane between the
Hi Mac,
Per CISPR 22, emission measurements above 1GHz are done at a 3 meter test
distance, even on a 10 meter site. Doesn't this mean that the same amount of
absorber would be used on a 3 meter or 10 meter site since the test distance
is 3 meters?
Even if the NSA below 1GHz is passing, I
Mac,
Has the FCC changed it's position on needing reflection (bounce) ground plane
requirement? Seems like you'll need two sites now, one for FCC and one for
CISPR?
Michael Sundstrom
Electronic Lab Analyst, EMC Lead
Overhead Door
TREQ Center, Dallas
michael_sundst...@overheaddoor.com
OFC:
I buy thermocouple wire on separate spools so that I can control the twisted
pair, then cut the twisted pairs into 1.5m segments. Then I choose a pair from
the first third and a pair from the last third of the spools to verify. No
complaints from any auditors to date. For calibration, look at ASTM
The best way to approach is to ask the customers/buyers.
From my own opinion, for those organizations/companies and individuals that do
not receive government fund should not be worry about.
On 6/16/09, Price, Edward ed.pr...@cubic.com wrote:
-Original Message-
I don't know how due diligence works in the US, but in Europe failure of a
device that has been shown to have been designed as safe as 'reasonably
practicable' then the manufacturer will not be charged with breaking the
law; he may however still be ordered to pay compensation, but that would be
You could pull the whole spool off and make your 2nd junction from the last
bit, then re-wrap the whole spool :-)
I talked to a UL team lead on their DAP/ISO 17025 program and he had the
following comments;
-This requirement is based on a CTL decision
-You must validate one TC from the beginning
Perhaps I did not understand the proposed legislation.
My interpretation is, regardless of FDA and NRTL assessments and
certification, that the failure of a fully conforming device will make the
vendor subject to all manner of litigation, and that there is no such thing as
all due diligence.
Due to the new Medical Device Safety Act 2009, I might expect the risk
assessment requirements of the 3rd edition to become more important, since
the FDA, who may now share in a manufacturer's liability by approving test
reports, will need more effort from manufacturers in order to demonstrate
Hey Tim / group
I don't know whether or not this would meet the CISPR requirements but may be
a place to start.
The proposed ANSI C63.4 revision [that I saw last year] requires meeting the
CISPR 16-1-4 requirements or alternately using absorber that is at least 20 dB
down for freqs over 1 GHz
While we are on the subject. Anyone have an inexpensive solution to the big
NRTL's new
Calibrated Thermocouple requirement?
As I read the spec it requires calibrating the first and last T-Couple off of
the spool
minimum. Takes me a couple years to use 500ft. So I would technically only
need to
I used the Omega for many years in a previous job. We tested air conditioners
and welded 20 – 30 thermocouples a week without problems. It proved to be a
reliable tool. However, for the budget minded, there are other options.
DCC HotSpot http://www.dcccorporation.
-Original Message-
From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf
Of Grace Lin
Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 5:49 AM
To: jeffcollin...@yahoo.com
Cc: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: New China CCC Document - English Translation
Jeff,
My interpretation:
This is the same welder I use and am very happy with it. Bought it over 10
years ago and it is still going strong. Needed to replace the needle nose
pliers used to hold onto the TC wires once (some of the techs here are not
very careful with their welding). My only complaint about it would be
Jeff,
My interpretation: If you (your employer) do not sell your products
to Chinese government(or any party subject to government rules), you
don't need to worry about the rules (similar to WLAN products).
I attach a quick translation for your reference.
Regards,
Grace Lin
Not to hijack this thread, but what is the best way to hold a thermocouple in
place and get the best most accurate readings?
Is there a special cement or glue to glue the tip right to what you are trying
to measure?
We try to secure the thermocouple back from the tip and use thermo paste on
You will not get away with twisting and smacking the leads if you are under
IECEE SMT. You have to weld them. Also, my lab uses lots of TCs and we reuse
them so you may have to re-weld them after each use because whatever cement
you use to apply the TCs can very well cause you to rip the end of
Group,
The official CNCA document for CCC compliance was just released in May 2009.
Does anyone have an official or unofficial translation in English? I'm
specifically interested in knowing if Network Intrusion and Network Monitoring
equipment now require the CCC mark. These categories of
On Mon, 15 Jun 2009 19:49:18 EDT,
emcp...@aol.com wrote:
I have a question on the new CISPR22 ammendment that becomes effective
10-2010. It requires free space emission measurements above 1GHz. This is
typically done with ferrite absorber on the chamber floor.
How does one address this
Hi All,
Thought you might be interested in this. See
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/Lex
riServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:148:0027:0028:EN:PDF
Best regards,
Paul
Paul Lovell
Group Regulatory Specialist
ArjoHuntleigh
Tel: +44 (0)1582 745891
Mob: +44 (0)791 956 5599
The
Peter
Why bother?
Unless you need really long thermocouples that are not available off the shelf
as pre-welded units, it simply isn't worth the time and trouble. We treat
thermocouples as consumable items. They cost about £5 ($7) each and we just
discard them when broken. The thermocouples come
I've done the twisted together and the hammer smacking method before. The
twisting worked the best between the two methods since the one of the metal was
brittle and cracked easily instead staying attached when smacked the hammer,
and neither agreed much with the reference. But one was easy
Hi Ken,
Pete did say that he wanted a very inexpensive solution, which is what I
suggested, topping off at about $15 w/o the DC supply. The hammer idea would
need some safety glasses, a quality hammer and a hard striking surface, which
probably would likely exceed the $15 in total if those
34 matches
Mail list logo
