Richard -
For a long time, UL (and I believe CSA) thought any device deriving power
from a Class 2 source needed listing. In fact, they were adamantly opposed
to it, even when requests for such certification were made. UL's primary
basis was that the NEC didn't care what was supplied by a Class
To muddy the waters further, Ron, I offer a converse reminder: many
Authorities Having Jurisdiction are still using versions of the NEC the
precede the introduction of 800-4 (and the previous location of the same
idea in the 1990 NEC that eludes me). I've known of some jurisdictions to
use the 198
Even though it wasn't you point, Daniel, it should be noted that the CB
Scheme provides for participating NCBs to accept one anothers' test data,
but by no means guarantees that an NCB reviewing a CB Scheme Test Report
will not ask to perform some testing. The testing might be required by an
NCB d
s selling the EN60959 (BS) A5
> right now, according to their latest literature.
>
> Jim
>
>
> __ Reply Separator
> _____
> Subject: RE: EN 60950 A5
> Author: "Peter Tarver" at Internet
&
Just to fill the pot with more speculation, my recollection of college
chemistry tells me that alcohol readily absorbs moisture from the
atmosphere, so that any container opened to normal atmospheric conditions
for more than a few seconds will autodilute to somewhere around 93% (that's
the number i
Jim -
Yes, that's pretty much how respooling works.
The most odd aspect was that this was wiring already in a wiring harness,
taken from a box with the appropriate wiring harness labeling. The FUS Rep
wanted to see our drawings to verify the design of the harness, which is
normal, but specificall
In the following, I'll speak only to UL certified wire. To get an official
reading, call the nearest UL office and ask for the client advisor, then ask
them to direct you to an engineer working with wire and cable.
One of the best resources for information about any UL product category is
the Gui
A few safety type markings are translated into French in Annex NAA of
CSA950/UL1950.
Regards,
Peter L. Tarver
Nortel
ptar...@nt.com
> --
> From: ron_pick...@hypercom.com[SMTP:ron_pick...@hypercom.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 1998 3:06 PM
>
> Hello from quite sunny Ari
A point of clarification here. UL Recognized AWM isn't required to be
surface marked at all. The marking is perfectly legitimate if it is on the
spool the wire is taken from.
Yet another voice chiming in that it was probably not traceable as being R/C
AWM.
Regards,
Peter L. Tarver
Nortel
ptar.
Gary -
You seem to be doing just fine for your current market. As you market
expands (you mentioned GOST), however, the CB Scheme Test Report does offer
portability to a greater degree than a lesser. Many of the agencies will
want a sample for a looksee, a few may want to perform minor verificat
Richard -
In addition to the previously mentioned manufacturers, there is also Behlman
http://www.behlman.com/
also sold through Electro Venture
http://www.electroventure.com/
Regards,
Peter L. Tarver
Nortel
ptar...@nt.com
> --
> From: Richard Cass[SMTP:richard_c...@iris.sci
Alan -
I'm not certain about the origin of the application of Tables 3, 4 and 5 in
your example, but since Tables 3, 4 and 5 generally have lesser distances
for the same voltages than are found in Table 6, this seems primarily an
academic exercise for which I'd need a specific safety concern to pu
Heber -
This may depend on who's doing the certification of your equipment. I've
heard of certain agencies ignoring faceplate LEDs, but not yet of any
wanting to test. According to Jerome Dennis of the CDRH (at the 1997
International Laser Safety Conference), discussions at the IEC TC76 meetings
As with many things in life, there is no simple answer to your whole
question list, but I'll address what I can in a short form.
A telco is a utility and normally a monopolistic entity. The systems and
equipment the telco use are maintained (supposedly) to a much higher degree
(at least inside th
George -
While I have not found myself in quite the same predicament as you describe,
I have had good success with your Option D. This quite often clarifies the
applicable requirements for a product's audit and has also quite often
exposes misunderstanding on the part of the inspector as to what
Jeff -
This rumor doesn't make much sense as an across-the-board requirement,
especially considering UL has a component product category for MOVs and
other transient voltage surge suppressors, along with some product standards
that allow reductions of over-surface and through-air electrical spacin
Mike -
but it may get this discussion rolling and I'm most
certainly interested in the outcome.
I don't have specifics on IEC 332 and I can not strictly testify to the
accuracy of the following, but from discussions with a coworker in the
UK, EEA countries generally dislike plenum rated cables f
Doug -
Delta-delta transformers are popular with the utilities for economy's
sake (they are less expensive than WYE transformers) For similar
reasons, some industrial applications distribute and use power within
their plants on delta feeds.
In office environments, however, it's typical to use a
26, 1998 3:47 AM
>
> Peter Tarver wrote:
>
> Delta-delta transformers are popular with the utilities for economy's
> sake (they are less expensive than WYE transformers) For similar
> reasons, some industrial applications distribute and use power within
> their pl
A resend of a response I mailed yesterday that didn't echo out yet.
> --
> From: Tarver, Peter
> Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 1998 1:19 PM
> To: emc-pstc Discussion Group
> Subject: Delta transformer grounding (was: RE: GFCI in IT (three
> phase) Networks)
>
> Doug -
Jim -
I offer the following. I hope you'll take the mild chiding as my own
asininity, rather than anything serious.
Regards,
Peter L. Tarver
Nortel
ptar...@nt.com
>--
>From: JIM WIESE[SMTP:jim.wi...@adtran.com]
>Sent: Friday, February 27, 1998 6:32 AM
>
>Dear Colleagues,
>
>I have a
Ron -
Different UL standards have different requirements for these capacitors.
It is my understanding that:
UL1950 (ITE) does not have an issue specifically with UL1283 capacitors
(yet)
UL1459 (Telephone Equipment) does have requirements specifically
requiring UL1414 capacitors (which if memory
But would you be surprised to know that UL doesn't retest a laminate's
CTI after processing? They don't, unless specifically asked by the
board mfg., which I'd have to suggest is rare. The CTI for finished
boards in UL's RCD is based on those for the base laminate and no
assumption should be made
A more general question: what are the names and identifiers for these
codes, and what are their latest editions/amendments?
Regards,
Peter L. Tarver
Nortel
ptar...@nt.com
>--
>From: GOEDDERZ, JIM[SMTP:goedd...@sensormatic.com]
>Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 1998 10:31 AM
>
>Where the pro
Ned -
Since you didn't mention your particular application, a good source for
a very broad number of applications is Bruel & Kjaer
http:\\www.bk.dk
Their regional US representatives moved to a central North American
location
Bruel & Kjaer
Division of Spectris Technologies I
When I sent this out, I selected reply to sender, rather than to all.
Here's what Rich got. For your perusal.
Peter L. Tarver
Nortel
ptar...@nt.com
>--
>From: Tarver, Peter (P.T.)
>Sent: Friday, December 12, 1997 8:30 AM
>
>--
>From: Rich Nute[SMTP:ri...@sdd.hp.com]
>Sent: Th
Doug, et al -
The FDA is concerned about contacting a responsible company, should any
incident(s) occur for any given product. This would be to affect
recalls and/or repairs/modifications, etc., to Certified equipment.
Also, this is intended to allow a user to contact the responsible
company with
Further to Rich's comments...
>--
>From: Rich Nute[SMTP:ri...@sdd.hp.com]
>Sent: Thursday, December 04, 1997 10:38 AM
>
>Hello Vagn:
>
>
>1. Why do standards specify a minimum output current for
>hi-pot testers?
>
>Another reason for a minimum current requirement is that some
>of
Of equal concern for minor excessive temperatures, is that the bond
strength of the copper on the PWB will be the first thing affected. The
copper may pull away from the laminate due to thermal stresses and
eventually result in high impedance connections. Such poor electrical
connections could le
Richard, et al -
Patty Elliot took care of Euro requirements.
I refer you to DHHS Laser Notice No. 42, dated 18DEC89. The FDA does
not require labeling or reporting of a product that incorporates a Class
I laser product that is "certified and reported by other manufacturers"
into another product
As a result of the recent discussions, I have received far too many
unsolicited pieces of e-mail with graphics and other attachments. I
insist that this practice cease.
Peter L. Tarver
Nortel
ptar...@nt.com
However, I do see a problem with sending even small graphics in e-mail.
Many of the subscribers to this listserver do not have T3 pipes coming
into their businesses or subscribe through accounts that are through AOL
(the very definition of slow), Compuserve, etc. (all ISPs are not
equal), or have a
This kind of commercial post is explicitly forbidden by the Charter of
the EMC-PSTC listserver. Please don't do it again.
Peter L. Tarver
Nortel
ptar...@nt.com
>--
>From: Adrian Aldape[SMTP:b...@centuryinter.net]
>Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 1997 1:13 PM
>To:emc-pstc
>Subject:
Relocatable power taps are considered "temporary" extensions of the
branch circuit. They are not appliances and that is the crux of the
issue. Placing any active electronic circuitry inside (I assume this is
what you mean by "contains other control circuits"), other than passive
surge and overcu
>--
>From: donne...@agcs.com [SMTP:donne...@agcs.com]
>Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 1997 12:29 PM
>
>I am wrestling with the concept of clearances as they apply
>to our -50Vdc power circuits in a telecom application.
>Looking at UL 1950 (3rd edition), Clause 3.4.1 says that
>the
>"connections"
Well put, Chris. On this same topic, I've been curious for many years
now about the suitability of Hall Effect sensors in interlock circuits.
Any comments?
Peter L. Tarver
Nortel
ptar...@nortel.com
>--
>From: Chris Dupres[SMTP:chris_dup...@compuserve.com]
>Sent: Monday, June 23, 1997 11
Bob -
The limits are similar, but not identical, (yet).
As to the failure mode considerations, IEC 825-1 contains requirements
for imposing fault conditions on components and the like that might
affect the laser class. This is probably the origin of the safety
notice.
Please note that fault con
Egon wrote:
>
>Please note that by federal regulations telecom equipment ALSO needs to be
>certified, for interconnect purposes, by Communications Canada (aka.
>Department of Communications), which is similar to the US FCC. I suspect
>this may not be up to date, but the address I have is:
Peter w
Richard -
It is my understanding that if an enclosure is built in accordance with
the construction specifications in the standard, it will already meet
>the requirement to prevent the spread
of flames. No additional text needs to be added to the standard in this
area and any attempt to do so will
Hi, Bob.
As a point of clarification, it's important to make the distinction of
what you mean by "circuit breaker." "Circuit breaker" has long since
become the name applied to the manually resettable, handle type
supplementary overcurrent protectors (in some circles, calling one of
these a circui
Below, Bruce Hunter assumes Hans Mellberg is using an air gap comprised
of traces on a printed wiring board. When I first read Hans' message, I
thought he was discussing discrete components. I have seen both used,
but would like to ask you, Hans, to clarify your application, before we
get off on
The safety agencies will primarily look to see if the inrush will cause
nuisance tripping of any overcurrent protection devices, including the
branch circuit protection, and sometimes effects on additional earth
leakage current. For your application, the North American agencies will
assume branch
Cortland Richmond wrote:
>Rich,
>
>This
>
>> the City's own testing laboratory and labelling service.
>
> sounds odd. Is the City of Los Angeles running a NRTL? Heck, if I'd known
>that I would not have bothered sending for UL.
>
>
>Cortland
Not an NRTL, Cortland, just their own test lab. Man
Or, try Melles-Griot. Their general catalog also lots of basic optics
information you may find useful. They have a sales office in Boulder, CO:
4665 Nautilus Court South
Boulder, CO 80301
fax: 303-581-0960
Regards,
Peter L. Tarver
Nortel
peter_tarver-mt...@nt.com
---
Steve Chin asked about labeling.
>My company produces a number of ITE products which all use the same compliance
>label with customizations specific to each product (model name, electrical
>ratings, etc.). These customizations are imprinted on a generic label by a
>laser printer. The UL field eng
This regards last month's discussion of fuse selection and transients,
initiated by Fred Waechter and responded to most excellently by Rich Nute and
Heber Farnsworth. My apologies for the tardiness of this minor point of
clarification, but e-mail was a low priority for me in December.
Specific
Sandy -
Why, yes it does. For a convenient reference on this, refer to the Fall, 1996,
issue of UL's _On the Mark_, in the _Lab Data_ section. There's an article on
this very topic. In the absence of this tract, you can vivis UL's web site to
look it over ( point your browser to http://www.u
Mail*Link® SMTP FWD>RE>IEC-950 4th Amendment
- E X T E R N A L L Y O R I G I N A T E D M E S S A G E -
Just received notice that Amendment 4 to IEC Publication 950 was published in
August 1996.
It was prepared by IEC TC 74 which prepares requirements for the safety and
Michael -
If the filter is UL Recognized, you might wind up asking for trouble. First
off, the markings on the outside of the can are what identify the filter as
Recognized (mfg's. name and cat. no., and the backwards UR ligature). Removing
the can removes traceability of the filter and that
Judd and Art -
I know this particular product well. It was one of my projects, while working
at UL. I can't give you many details, on ethical grounds, but IMO, it's good
stuff, within its Recognized limits. Please note that:
the manufacturer in the 1996 UL RCD is Furukawa Electric Co
One point that must be made clear on the QMRX2 -vs- QMSS2 product categories.
As an end-product manufacturer, the purchasing agent should use QMRX2
exclusively, where ever possible. Doing so ties one into the actual company
applying the coating to the specific part and, if selected on the basi
All -
Rich forgot one more color of concern in North America:
Natural Gray: Neutral
I think this is a light gray color. I couldn't begin to tell you what makes
any gray color unnatural, but you might as well avoid gray altogether (anywhere
but for the neutral), if there's any possib
Believe it or not, Eric, there are some 30 V rated cables. They're usually
better insulated than that, IMHO, but, the surface markings say 30 V. Usually
some kind of data cable.
Regards,
Peter L. Tarver
peter_tarver-mt...@nt.com
--
>"rated voltage of 30V."
Simply, no. There are special tests performed to determine if a cable is made
from low smoke producing, slow burning insulating materials. The UL Standard
is UL 910. The type of Listed (not Recognized Component) cables that are
appropriate for use in plenums have the cable designation followe
As an aside to the current discussion, and since Gabe kinda sorta asked for
clarification on the origins of the 60 Vdc in the NEC for Class 2 circuits, can
someone also give the origins of the 250 VA limit for fused Class 2 circuits?
Is this a skin-burn issue, as it is for the 240 VA requiremen
Mail*Link¨ SMTP FWD>help
Doe sanyone out there know where Paul is and can check up on him?
Peter Tarver
Northern Telecom
peter_tar...@nt.com
--
List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org
Date: 6/21/96 6:06 AM
From: Paul Reilly
- E X T E R N A L L Y
Tom Bao asks about what configurations make products Pluggable Equipment Type B.
Where North America is concerned, this was discussed at UL and it was
essentially determined that any attachment plug other than , ANSI/NEMA 1-15P,
5-15P and 5-20P (the 125V, 15A and 20A plugs) makes ITE Pluggable E
Reply to: RE>>FW- Electrical Safety
Keith put it in a nutshell. There was quite a tangent developed.
UL has refurbished equipment programs for a limited number of types of
equipment, but do involve entanglements, similar to those Tania mentioned.
They are designed to look official a
Reply to: FWD>RE>FW: Infrared Viewers
Once again:
Infraspect's phone no. is 802-985-2500.
Other vendor information I found in a literature catalog includes:
Inframetrics: 508-670-
ISI Group: 505-298-7646
Santa Barbara Infrared: 805-965-3669
Cole-Parmer: 800-323-4340
Omega
Reply to: RE>FW: Infrared Viewers
Keith -
While I don't have any direct experience with IR imagers and their related
analysis software, I would suggest getting your hands on some trade magazines,
such as Photonics Spectra, Lasers and Optronics, etc. There are at least a few
vendors
Reply to: RE>>Merger of Component Manufactures
All -
While the emphasis in this discussion has been on ways to bandaid(tm) reports
to avoid FUS problems for OEMs, I see this as a problem with the way FUS is
coordinated by the safety certifiers.
While at UL, mergers of companies prove
Reply to: RE>>FWD>RE>>Limited Power Sourc
Egon, et al
My typo. I intended to say, "above 20 V, the maximum fuse size..."
Regards,
Peter L. Tarver
Northern Telecom, Inc.
peter_tar...@nt.com
--
List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org
Date: 4/26/96 10:47 PM
To:
Reply to: FWD>RE>>Limited Power Source
Egon H. Varju wrote:
> On 20/4/1996 Kendal Wilcox wrote:
>> I was discussing UL 1950/CSA950/EN60950 clause 2.11, Limited Power
>> Source with a colleague, and we were looking at the Table 9 limits for
>> maximum output current Isc (10
As of this morning (18APR), a FAQ was posted by Bill Lyons. Thank you for your
work on this, Bill.
Peter
--
List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org
Date: 4/17/96 12:24 PM
From: Tarver, Peter
I visited this newsgroup and discovered it is now active. Two messages were
301 - 364 of 364 matches
Mail list logo
