These standards have three-year 'cycles' that limit what the registrar is
allowed to use. Existing 9001:2008 accreditation certs will expire after
2018Q3. But would not be in any rush to update until 2017 as the registrars
will need a significant learning period for the new stuff. The last
Perhaps this is the Dow Corning 'molykote' grease?
Brian
From: Douglas Powell [mailto:doug...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, August 28, 2015 10:11 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Dielectric Grease
Ted,
I'm about 80% certain. It was being used around automotive ignition
Looked at the stuff we have on the shelf - 'MOLYKOTE G-5008'
Brian
-Original Message-
From: Brian Oconnell [mailto:oconne...@tamuracorp.com]
Sent: Friday, August 28, 2015 10:25 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Dielectric Grease
Perhaps this is the Dow Corning
Declarations, test reports, etc are part of a contractual law system, so this
will reference the legal point of view, and as am not a solicitor or attorney,
you should to talk to the one retained by your employer. 'for and behalf of'
relates to the term 'procuration' - essentially a proxy by
Mr. Woodgate can really trip my triggers.
The mode and ranges are already covered in IEEE754. There was no reason that
this should not have been part of 754, as it is now in the community as
IEC60559. The committee attempted to call 1788 a 'basic' standard, but the IEEE
shoved it back, so they
Have you talked to a certified industrial electrician?
Had a customer that bought several 250kVA distribution transformers that also
wanted some custom wiring harness and downstream panel boxes. So hired an
industrial electrician to advise us on materials and build it up. Passed
on-site
Sorry, but know nothing of this particular company.
Please note following when dealing with North American companies.
1. Companies seldom note and respond to web-site contact info, even if it is
correctly forwarded to sales people.
2. Go to the company's 'Contact Us' page and look for personal
In a recent UL CSDS notice in the 'work area' for a standard, found this:
Repeatability and Reproducibility - Gage RR (NOTE: The following is for
informational purposes only)
The proposal under review may include a reference to whether an assessment of
repeatability and reproducibility (RR) was
https://apps.fcc.gov/kdb/GetAttachment.html?id=AWhYotapku%2FSkvVA1wkMAw%3D%3Ddesc=610077%20D01%20TCB%20Post%20Market%20Surveillance%20v06r01tracking_number=20540
Brian
-Original Message-
From: itl-emc user group [mailto:itl...@itl.co.il]
Sent: Saturday, August 08, 2015 9:29 PM
To:
of the time pouring stuff
into the electron pipes.
Brian
-Original Message-
From: Scott Xe [mailto:scott...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2015 10:09 AM
To: Brian Oconnell
Cc: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Australia/New Zealands mains voltage
Brian,
Regarding
AS60038 indicates 230V as nominal, plugs must be rated 250V. First noted in
2001.
AS61000.3.100, published 2011, has additional requirements for power.
As of Feb 2015, the ACMA indicates that the 'public' mains is 230V, and that
your equipment must be rated for 230V/50Hz.
AS3000.2 indicates
Do not have either standard, and have relied on the test lab's or the
customer's marking requirements (life is much easier for a component mfr).
As both are called for in 60601-1 in several places, would go by Annex D and
use 60878 unless the clause specifically specifies 15223-1 (which seems
No. And is dependent on converter topology and operating conditions and whims
of the Klingon High Command.
Brian
-Original Message-
From: Richard Nute [mailto:ri...@ieee.org]
Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2015 1:43 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] GFCI Nuisance Tripping
converter
power loop.
Brian
-Original Message-
From: Brian Oconnell [mailto:oconne...@tamuracorp.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2015 1:52 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] GFCI Nuisance Tripping
No. And is dependent on converter topology and operating conditions and whims
.prod.outlook
.com, dated Thu, 23 Jul 2015, Brian Oconnell oconne...@tamuracorp.com
writes:
No. And is dependent on converter topology and operating conditions and
whims of the Klingon High Command.
Since the supply current is (nearly) sinusoidal, I suppose that the
leakage current through the 'hot' Y
Preliminary EMI testing showed that there was no measurable impact on
conducted emissions when the second stage Y capacitors were removed.
Methinks this would be an unusual result for many power conversion and drive
circuits, and too broad of a design statement for my simple little mind to
Letter that appears to be designed to enable more UN/WHO influence over EMC
standards.
www.emfscientist.org/index.php/emf-scientist-appeal
Dunno what to think about this stuff. Much of their basis comes from 15 to 20
year old studies, at least one of which seems to have been recently
Anywhere it refers to a 'routine' test. Otherwise, the references are to Type
Tests.
Brian
From: John Allen [mailto:jral...@productsafetyinc.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2015 2:37 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Production Line testing for UL60950
Can someone point me in the
The FDA website(s) are rather unruly, but is good place to start. You will
eventually have to start a dialog with an NRTL, so talk to a local lab that is
also an NRTL/SCC that has experienced medical labs in North America. The U.S.
FDA and Health Canada, depending on the equipment type, can be
Y2 caps are typically designed to meet the test level for BI where unit rated
less than 300V input. Where the test level is intended to verify RI, or where
an approved GDT or similar component is across an isolation boundary, the
circuit is typically not installed in the end-use chassis until
, May 21, 2015 3:34 PM
To: Brian Oconnell; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: FCC 14-208, ET Docket No. 13-44
Thanks, but no, that is the Report and Order. This is supposed to be
published in the Federal Register before it becomes effective.
__
James L. Knighten
Is this it?
https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-14-208A1.pdf
Brian
From: Knighten, Jim L [mailto:jim.knigh...@teradata.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2015 1:12 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] FCC 14-208, ET Docket No. 13-44
Has FCC 14-208, ET Docket No. 13-44,
items, probably as a matter
normal churn. Several bookmarks no longer worked.
This is probably a related thing that they'll work through in time.
Regards,
Peter Tarver
-Original Message-
From: Brian Oconnell
Sent: Friday, May 15, 2015 12:39
Anyone know what is with UL's CDA site
Think that CISPR32 is supposed to address very short-term stuff, but since is
not recurring and periodic, would a few hundred mSec affect test limits?
So what is the SAR for 2.5GHz stuff? Is it an integral effect for exposure time?
Is safety issue per new LVD (2014/35/EU), and would need a good
Correct, microwave ovens have, in series, several safety interlock switching
devices that control the HV transformer. But opening the door prior to the set
time-out will not immediately de-energize the magnetron; that is, the delay is
programmatic, not electro-mechanical.
Brian
-Original
Very interesting question - have never thought about this. Am not aware of such
a 'KSA' requirement for evaluations of an individual other than for building
code inspectors (AHJ) in North America, and for most certified electricians in
U.S. and Canada. But not certain that these evaluations
CSA-C22.2 No 0.4 (Bonding of Electrical Equipment) has this
3.4.3.2
The fault capacity of a bond shall be adequate if the bond complies with one of
the following
requirements:
(a) the bond is made from a suitably terminated conductor not smaller than the
specified minimum size
of bonding
Optos are an excellent example. There are a myriad of parameters that will
allow the safe operation of a typical power supply that are not considered in
certs per IEC60747-5-x and UL1577. Stuff such as CTR drift within the rated
temperature range, themal de-rate for linear optos, frequency BW
In both procedural controls and scoped test standards, North America
(NRTL/SCC/NOM) reports and the IECEE CB scheme are becoming more similar where
state-enforced codes do not contradict the scoped standard.
It has been several years since the NRTLs and other test agencies have
routinely
://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01
Original Message
From: Brian Oconnell
Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2015 6:39 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Reply To: Brian Oconnell
Subject: Re: [PSES] CB Philosophy Questions
In both procedural controls and scoped test standards, North America
(NRTL/SCC/NOM) reports
Article 430 should be referenced for this stuff. In general, overload
protection required for each branch circuit at the distribution panel.
My experience with current interrupt stuff embedded within motor is typically
to meet the EIS ratings (limits of windings), and unless it is
...@jmwa.demon.co.uk]
Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2015 9:30 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] 16 AWG wire usage
In message
blupr02mb116aef4c518d40f7344d15dc1...@blupr02mb116.namprd02.prod.outlook
.com, dated Wed, 15 Apr 2015, Brian Oconnell oconne...@tamuracorp.com
writes:
Article 430
blupr02mb116aef4c518d40f7344d15dc1...@blupr02mb116.namprd02.prod.outlook
.com, dated Wed, 15 Apr 2015, Brian Oconnell oconne...@tamuracorp.com
writes:
Article 430 should be referenced for this stuff. In general, overload
protection required for each branch circuit at the distribution panel.
Less bother
There have been previous questions to this listserv about EMC software. April
issue of Incompliance magazine has article on evaluation of this stuff by Jack
McFadden. The 'turtle' analogy is a bit strange, but the article does seem to
cover most of what should be evaluated. In my little
Someone with TC108 connections needs to shout out. In any case, Table 4B is
based on stuff in UL446 and IEC60085, where the delta T is based reliability of
safety for the life of the equipment for windings in motors and transformers.
The original IEC85 stuff was based on paper by T. W. Dakin
Perfect. Cookies and ale for Ted.
While normal operating ambient limits are largely based on heat energy transfer
(or lack of), the thermal de-rating portion of a power supply is typically
limited by the EIS class. And note the Arrhenius equation, where reliability
rapidly takes a dive for
Good People,
Have a customer that wants 2004/40/EC on the D of C. The declaration that was
provided listed the EMC, ROHS and LVD, and cited the respective harmonized
standards per the OJ.
Because 2004/40/EC is not a marking directive, and the equipment is not an
intentional radiator, would
In another life, long ago, in a galaxy far away, was a member of a squadron
that frequently deployed detachments to isolated and not nice places. Our
security model was based 99% on exogenous events/effects. The only internal
influence considered was weapons proficiency and material assignment
Mr. Nute,
As this is probably for management, respectfully suggest that the premier
exposition for PHBs is none other than a reference to some Wile E. Coyote
videos. This is well within the MBA attention span and their required level of
understanding for product performance and conformity.
5085-3/CSA No66.3 scoped only where class 2 or 3 stuff is required, and
generally not considered for industrial environment where the secondary circuit
not exposed. Other than Class 2 would be scoped by UL1012 and CSA107.1.
For industrial control transformers, the scoped standard would probably
Inrush peak for 50/60Hz transformers mostly from magnetizing current - core
saturation and residual flux, and of course input V. As the saturation curve
does not extend past the pi/2 inrush peak, any further inrush past a few mSec
is typically from filling up the coulomb buckets on the
From Intel: www.ti.com/sc/docs/apps/msp/intrface/usb/emitest.pdf
Brian
From: Amund Westin [mailto:am...@westin-emission.no]
Sent: 20 March 2015 12:10
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] USB and radiated emission issues
Got some serious radiated emission issues from a USB 2.0
John Allen's approach and advice is reasonable.
Some our more experienced denizens such as Rich Nute and Pete Perkins and have
written some articles on safety engineering principles for the PSES newsletter.
Ted Eckert did a session on compliance and regulatory sources at a recent
ISPCE. Cannot
Did not that ISO stuff was required. What is basis for requirement to indicate
accreditations/certifications on the machinery directive D of C?
Another member of the esteemed Brian Club.
Brian
From: Brian Gregory [mailto:brian_greg...@netzero.net]
Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2015 12:39 PM
To:
Before we walk up the hill(sunny and 27degC) to Stone to partake of
honey-mustard pretzels and IPA have an off-site engineering meeting, want to
add to Mr. Nute's most thoughtful reply that 'conformal' coatings (at least for
NRTLs) is more process-oriented than just material. That is, the
Thought about this and realized that I have never seen crimped connector fail
where the connector components have test certificate, and where the crimping
tool is subject to recurring calibration, and where the correct wiring
materials implemented. And have never used crimping tools or
Concur. Two methods of securement are required for ground bond material
connections.
And assume that heat-shrink material is being referenced. Heat shrink is not
intended for this use, nor has any safety standard provided assessment methods
where heat shrink is used for other than boot and
This is probably better idea, as the material designation is typically part of
the silk screen. The 'IQ' databases for PCBs can search via this designation.
Brian
-Original Message-
From: Charlie Blackham [mailto:char...@sulisconsultants.com]
Sent: Monday, March 09, 2015 10:35 AM
To:
Available if you know company name when you look at the vendor's 'ZPMV2' file
number
http://database.ul.com/cgi-bin/XYV/template/LISEXT/1FRAME/index.htm
But do not understand your need to know PCB ratings. If you must evaluate
construction of the component power supply, then respectfully
PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Safety standards versus safety engineering
In message
blupr02mb116c7f64747a124b4c99cdbc1...@blupr02mb116.namprd02.prod.outlook
.com, dated Fri, 6 Mar 2015, Brian Oconnell oconne...@tamuracorp.com
writes:
TAANSFL.
Pardon? TANSTAAFL?
--
OOO
Process Control; that is, the construction prints and BoM are controlled
documents, and any deviations are subject to a formal change order where the
senior regulatory person is final signatory. Makes some people rather unhappy,
but seems to work for my employer. The downside is the significant
Software, where not safety-critical, is a different subject. Microsoft has
published several design guides (most are on the MSDN site) and has several
long web pages that instruct and admonish programmers about the proper use of
the various dialog boxes and how to phrase and title the dialog
each lug.
The Other Brian
-Original Message-
From: Brian Oconnell [mailto:oconne...@tamuracorp.com]
Sent: Monday, March 02, 2015 5:10 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Serrated head screws for grounding/bonding
The 'star' washer should be gas-tight seal. If a serrated
Picochance? What SI unit is the 'chance' derived from?
This could be useful in my uncertainty calculations.
Brian
-Original Message-
From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk]
Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 10:11 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Harmonised
/bonding
In message
blupr02mb1160acb7f7c87a911caabc6c1...@blupr02mb116.namprd02.prod.outlook
.com, dated Mon, 2 Mar 2015, Brian Oconnell oconne...@tamuracorp.com
writes:
Saw exactly this happen on flight deck of USS Midway during 1979. While
troubleshooting APD10 radar, the hydraulics guy
Saw exactly this happen on flight deck of USS Midway during 1979. While
troubleshooting APD10 radar, the hydraulics guy that was helping me shorted the
400Hz bus to the box containing the power supply, and a star washer vaporized
because part of the converter was floated. The star washer was
https://www.vde-verlag.de/standards/1800179/e-din-en-55024-a1-vde-0878-24-a1-2015-02.html
From: Schaefer, David [mailto:dschae...@tuvam.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 8:56 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] EN 55024 updates
Hi all,
Can anyone share knowledge of the 2015
Non sequitur? The survey indicated injury rates, not recalled products
(actually preferable to injuries).
A small example from my edge of the desert. With exception of the U.K. and
Germany, all of the PV stuff that has been reviewed by self that was built in
the EU required some significant
AM
To: Brian Oconnell; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: [PSES] Class 1 appliances
Hi Brian:
I said such designation is not a requirement in
any safety standard that I know of. I didn't say
that it was not a part of a TRF.
I am not familiar with NFPA 70, 70E, and 99. Hmm.
Are 5-15R Class
Hello Mr. Nute,
Not certain of your meaning for Designating a product as a Class I, Class II,
orClass III is not a requirement in any safety standard that I know of.
In all of the IEC-format TRFs issued as CB reports issued for my employer's
stuff, the first or second page has 'Class of
The phrase all lower levels must be satisfied” is what bites you for
three-phase. Did this recently, where the only mitigation was to rent a 3-ph
master-blaster tester and do a complete pre-comp series, where the data was
used to justify the (much reduced) test series done by the lab that wrote
http://industries.ul.com/blog/effective-date-information
From: McBurney, Ian [mailto:ian.mcbur...@allen-heath.com]
Sent: Monday, February 16, 2015 2:01 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] UL updates
Dear colleagues;
Can anyone let me know if there is website that lists all the
This is not among the easy tests. Did something mathematically analogous to
prove that the code was not a safety-critical component for a custom power
converter, but was much easier than your case because the processor could
operate down to static clock mode and memory was only EEPROM and
Also, have used the Arbiter Model 936A to verify a 1000A shunt. Some rental
houses have this unit.
Brian
-Original Message-
From: Brian Oconnell
Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2015 1:33 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: [PSES] ISO17025 calibration lab
Required bandwidth
Required bandwidth?
From: McDiarmid, Ralph [mailto:ralph.mcdiar...@schneider-electric.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2015 1:32 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] ISO17025 calibration lab
Can anyone recommend a calibration lab for current tranducers rated to 3,000A
(ac
decision
What is the purpose of the MOV in this situation?
What is the MOV Joule dissipation rating (can it dissipate the expected
overvoltage)?
Is the MOV protected by a fuse?
(An equipment d.c. bus is not likely to have high-voltage transients.)
-Original Message-
From: Brian Oconnell
Can the Recognized Testing Standards lists on the OSHA (NRTL) web site be
considered current ?
If not, what is the canonical and authoritative listing for each recognized
NRTL?
Thanks,
Brian
-
This message is from the IEEE
Just finished with a box having USB port - what a pain. Test, testing, and yet
more tests are the only way to go.
Lotsa stuff and papers from TI, On semi, TE, Littelfuse, etc. If you are very
lucky, and the space aliens do interfere, you may be able to find a FAE that
actually knows this
Whatever the reason, may have to go back 100 years. Go to books.google and read
Practical testing of electrical machines by Leonard Oulto. Remember that the
periods for some test sequences are similar. Same time period also found in
other standards for some types of mold stress-relief tests,
Which is why many of these Type Tests should be automated - human testers miss
too much stuff during a long-term test. And choose to not live at work for the
15 day tests required for some of the over-loads that must be done on
employer's stuff.
Brian
From: Richard Nute
Was reviewing customer's construction where a 475V MOV was across the (floated)
420Vdc bus. Said this was bad idea, and they referred me to OSM/EE decision
sheet 09/01 for EN60950-1:2006; which says ok to do whatever you want with a
VDR on primary side that is not connected to mains. Can think
Greetings Mr. Nute,
See below.
Brian
-Original Message-
From: Richard Nute [mailto:ri...@ieee.org]
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2015 1:52 PM
To: Brian Oconnell; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: [PSES] OSM decision
What is the purpose of the MOV in this situation?
As SPD
Class II is a type of construction - not necessarily relevant to this thread ?
Class 2 is a North American code stuff (similar to an LPS).
Brian
From: Scott [mailto:0182a58d8335-dmarc-requ...@ieee.org]
Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2015 9:19 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re:
Mr. Nute's response is significant and is worthy of re-emphasis.
And Mr. Woodgate answered this same question to Mr. Nyffenegger previously:
The power supply as a whole cannot claim that unless ALL its outputs
meet the SELV requirements. But it does meet the requirements for safety
Dunno, as my only experience was doing some power converters for an industrial
scale.
My customer used the WELMEC organization to advise on scoped directives and
standards and marks. Have you read 2014/32/EU ?
Brian
-Original Message-
From: Nyffenegger, Dave
Which is why some never bother to renew IEEE membership. After several years of
membership, the IEEE 'lost' my data, yet still seems able to retain enough of
my personal info to send email and snail mail about re-join. Maroons.
Brian
-Original Message-
From: John Woodgate
The Union of Allied Planets does not desire the overt and published knowledge
of 'FELV', and would prefer that one not meddle in the tools of an Operative.
Brian
-Original Message-
From: John Allen [mailto:john_e_al...@blueyonder.co.uk]
Sent: Friday, January 16, 2015 12:07 PM
To:
, January 14, 2015 9:34 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] safety distances in DC/DC
In message
blupr02mb11639e55993bee1e45c09ffc1...@blupr02mb116.namprd02.prod.outlook
.com, dated Wed, 14 Jan 2015, Brian Oconnell oconne...@tamuracorp.com
writes:
if the input and/or output
a. Depends on measured WV of the converter. Fault tests non sequitur for
functional insulation as basis for protection from shock or prevention of fire.
Fault tests are indicated only to demonstrate SELV during fault. By definition,
FI does not provide any level of protection. Di-electric
This is good stuff, and Mr Nute reminded me of related stuff that UL has
recently changed. Where construction of magnetics incorporates an UL-recognized
Electrical Insulation System, the component can now reference the UL file
number and EIS designation on the label without necessarily having
Clauses 6, 9, and 10 provide definition of a hazard and a hazardous condition.
Some motors are designed with a section of the winding to act as a fusible
link, so not unreasonable for a section of the winding to melt. In any case, it
is advisable to repeat abnormal operating conditions tests in
. Did you lock the motor on your pump or
block the port? Don't know which would apply depending on the details of
your pump construction.
-Dave
-Original Message-
From: Brian Oconnell [mailto:oconne...@tamuracorp.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2015 4:09 PM
To: EMC-PSTC
No.
As for an EIS, the UL file will specify this in the respective section's
general description unless the mfr has de-rated the unit, then the max
operating temp will be in the C of A.
Brian
-Original Message-
From: Kunde, Brian [mailto:brian_ku...@lecotc.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January
2d ed of CISPR32 just published as FDIS, with a proposed publication date of
March 2015.
As the FCC (47CFR) references ANSI C63.4, and EU obsoletion of CISPR22/EN55022
seems to be years away (new EMCD not effective until April 2016), so will
probably advise customers to not worry for at least
12:21 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] CISPR 32 adoption
In message
blupr02mb1162390c6fb353ca7ba2677c1...@blupr02mb116.namprd02.prod.outlook
.com, dated Fri, 9 Jan 2015, Brian Oconnell oconne...@tamuracorp.com
writes:
2d ed of CISPR32 just published as FDIS, with a proposed
Very much concur with Mr. Nute for ITE and CTE stuff.
My employer makes all manner of power conversion stuff. Approx 20% of my time
is for direct customer support or supporting the documentation requirements of
the Conformity Assessment Body's engineer that is looking at the customer's
stuff.
Unless specifically stated in the safety standard used to assess the end-use
equipment, dunno. Might want to look at NFPA70E article 130.
Due to the calculations that must be performed in order properly label
equipment, gonna guess that the 'generic' warnings/cautions and symbols could
be
Pathos and tragedy, with a bit of comedy, in the EMC lab. Once had the sales
manager for a major lab say we have never done that test but would give you a
good deal so we could get experience...
Brian
From: Ed Price [mailto:edpr...@cox.net]
Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2014 1:29 PM
To:
At least two test labs have written papers about use of ITE component power
supplies in equipment scoped for 61010. The Emperor's search engine should
suffice.
Am very careful about recommending use of my employers ITE-certified stuff in
customer's test equipment. The 61010 3d edition has some
, but they exist as pro forma requirements.
Brian
-Original Message-
From: Nyffenegger, Dave [mailto:dave.nyffeneg...@bhemail.com]
Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2014 6:34 PM
To: Brian Oconnell; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: Certification of Unique Equipment
In my research I have
A simple generic answer would not be practical for most cases. Depends on
intended end user and intended end use. For EMC, see 47CFR, Ch I, Subch A,
Pt2, Subpt K (specifically §2.1204)for import of stuff. For U.S. safety of
products in the workplace, see 29CFR1910.
Many, perhaps most, design
Depends on what the gas is and where used. Do not have access to my std
database at this site, but off top of my pointy head, from a power converter
project where my widget provided power to a pump monitor system:
1. ASME Pressure Vessel Code ???
2. ASME B31.x for piping and other stuff
3. EU
This is art; it shall be framed.
Brian
From: Ed Price [mailto:edpr...@cox.net]
Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2014 5:02 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] EMC test lab errors
I'll dare to mention a few errors which I have seen first-hand; I would say
that these are all in the
Any modification done to an existing power unit that bears the label of another
company and/or the mark of an accredited lab can result in one or more of
following.
1. a fire hazard
2. a shock hazard
3. an unreliable power converter
4. litigation by the OEM for placing a modified unit on the
Have seen somewhat useable app notes by Vicor, Calex, Interpoint for dealing
with DC/DC switching noise.
For DC stuff, typically recommend caps, as there can be secondary affects (be
careful if you must meet LPS/Class 2). If no spacing or thermal issues, a tight
can or some level of close-in
answer for the lazy non-thoughtful engineer.
Brian
-Original Message-
From: Doug Smith [mailto:d...@emcesd.com]
Sent: Monday, December 01, 2014 1:41 PM
To: Brian Oconnell
Cc: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Noisy DC / DC converter
Hi Brian,
One needs to be a little
]
Sent: 21 November 2014 19:54
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] RoHS directive
Brian
2002 version is obsolete and should not be referenced
( it wasn't a CE marking directive either)
Regards
Charlie
Sent from my mobile
From: Brian Oconnell
If rated for 1 or 2kV, this could be the ESD discharge cap that is typically
between 'ground' and power that is located directly on the RJ45 port. If the
cap is used with ferrite beads, then probably for noise decoupling. Later
designs tend to not use caps on secondary side of xfmr because the
Non-sequitur. Either the cap is rated for the working voltage, or should not
be used where the component required to provide basic protection from shock.
There are several mfrs that make 300Vac X and Y-caps that are also specified
for 1kVdc. The problem is that the IEC60384-14 cert will not
Am hesitant to provide this, as some of the ANSI and ASME standards do not
reflect the 'common' use. But this wiki entry does provide some standards for
ref designators.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reference_designator
Brian
-
1 - 100 of 491 matches
Mail list logo
