[PSES] SV: [PSES] IEC/EN62368-1 includes requirements (Annex M) to IEC/EN 62133-2

Thanks, James! Seems we might have an issue here since the cells are not IEC62133-2 approved. But the cells are UN38.3 certified. And we are now running UN38.3 on the complete product (product and cells includes). Do you know if such UN38.3 tests will be good as IEC62133-2 compliance? BR

[PSES] FCC product registration - listed module

I finally got the feedback I was seeking from a swarm of quotes for EMC testing for FCC and ISED, concerning qualifying a product with an FCC-registered WiFi module deployed onto our PCB. I've tried processing the FCC orders on what upholds or doesn't when placing the module on your PCB and

Re: [PSES] IEC/EN62368-1 includes requirements (Annex M) to IEC/EN 62133-2

Hi Amund, Annex M (batteries) is normative = shall comply. You only get to comply with Annex M if you pass M.2.1 which requires that cells comply with the relevant IEC standard. IEC 62133 (all parts) are in Annex ZA as an undated reference meaning you should be looking to use the latest one -

[PSES] IEC/EN62368-1 includes requirements (Annex M) to IEC/EN 62133-2

An IT product must comply to EN62368-1. It contains Lithium LiPo batter. According to EN/IEC62368-1-1:2020, § M.2 Safety of batteries and their cells, the standard IEC 62133-2 is listed, and batteries and cells shall comply according to that standard. Could this be interpreted as an invariable

[PSES] Arc Flash assessment

All, I am interested in locating an registered PE who can do a DC Arc Flash assessment on a battery energy storage system with an Energy Capacity greater than 4 MWh, and can provide services for the Northern Colorado USA region. PE registration within the state of Colorado is not essential in

Re: [PSES] safety under single fault

" This incident serves to remind us that in our field of product safety, we require the product to be safe even in the event of a failure of any single component. " Maybe better to claim "product safety compliant under any single-fault". It's quite a reach and perhaps not appropriate to claim

Re: [PSES] safety under single fault

I suppose same can be said for any Google search done on the job site. -Original Message- From: Mark Gandler Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2023 2:28 PM To: rmm.priv...@gmail.com; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: RE: [PSES] safety under single fault Just a simple reminder, especially

Re: [PSES] safety under single fault

Obviously, even an "antiquated design with a single point of failure", gets an air worthiness certificate by the FAA. However, LFP batteries need a fault-tolerant battery management system and tons of testing called out in UL1973 3rd edition. Not all aircraft need single-fault tolerance. I

Re: [PSES] safety under single fault

Just a simple reminder, especially if anyone uses their employer or private business devices to use AI tools: the information used for questions immediately and forever becomes public property. -Original Message- From: Ralph McDiarmid Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2023 2:08 PM To:

Re: [PSES] safety under single fault

Here's what ChatGPT 3.5 says about fault-tolerance and general aviation aircraft: Fault-tolerance systems in general aviation aircraft can enhance safety, but their inclusion is not mandatory for all such aircraft. The need for fault-tolerance systems depends on several factors, including the

[PSES] safety under single fault

Hello from Bend, Oregon: On September 4, 2022, a plane carrying 10 people crashed into Puget Sound's Mutiny Bay near Whidbey Island. The National Transportation Safety Board, which investigated the crash, said Thursday that a single component of a critical flight control system failed, causing

Re: [PSES] AI & Regulatory Compliance

Hey, Ralph, Listen, I get being excited about AI and the possibilities. The problem I have with this discussion is the approach that some people are taking using this tool. There are some excellent AI-based academic tools available: ▸Wisio.app (limted free version) ▸Jenni.ai ▸OpenRead.academy

Re: [PSES] AI & Regulatory Compliance

That analogy was not intended, and I’m merely trying to point out that AI is here to stay and is expected to become a more useful tool in our industry as it has been proven to be in the medical profession. From: Douglas Nix Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2023 1:03 PM To: rmm.priv...@gmail.com

Re: [PSES] AI & Regulatory Compliance

You cannot compare ChatGPT to a medical AI that has been tailored for a specific task like medical image analysis. That’s like saying a 1968 Mini Cooper and Dodge 440 HEMI Charger are comparable because they are both cars. Nope. Using ChatGPT to summarize a paper, produce an abstract from

Re: [PSES] AI & Regulatory Compliance

Which is another way of saying that ChatGPT and other similar AI are tools used by professionals to assist with improving their productivity, but not something to be used in lieu of a professional. (at least not in this decade). That time may come, but I suspect engineering jobs are safe for

Re: [PSES] AI & Regulatory Compliance

I would add that about 9 out of 10 power engineers I’ve worked with over the years are equally confused with the “convention” of power factor and sign convention of real and reactive power flow. Microelectronics engineers also often get the sign convention wrong when considering current source

Re: [PSES] AI & Regulatory Compliance

Very interesting demo of its capabilities. I am wondering if the $20 per month version of ChatGPT might be worthwhile. Ralph From: Dan Roman <0d75e04ed751-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org> Sent: Monday, October 9, 2023 7:21 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] AI &

Re: [PSES] AI & Regulatory Compliance

“Even so, I do find them useful as a starting point for writing White Papers and PowerPoint slides or procedural documents at the paragraph-level, for internal distribution. “ I do the same. It’s useful now, even though not perfect, and AI is only going to get better and that will happen

Re: [PSES] AI & Regulatory Compliance

Other than playing around with text queries the most useful thing I have found either Chat GPT or Bard (the two I have used regularly) good for is Python coding. While I can never take the code as is, it does offer tips on libraries that I did not even know existing to more easily perform a

Re: [PSES] AI & Regulatory Compliance

Chat GPT is essentially a BS generator. A very smart friend, a very successful entrepreneur, finds it quite useful for writing add copy, which I think proved my point. The one time I tried challenging GPT with a question on power factor with generator convention (where positive power

Re: [PSES] AW: [PSES] Directives that require the CE Marking

Me again  The opening sentence tells you to tread carefully: The CE mark is a certification mark that indicates conformity with health, safety, and environmental protection standards for products sold within the European Economic Area (EEA * It’s not a “certification” mark * Not all

Re: [PSES] AI & Regulatory Compliance

Has anyone tried feeding a standard or set of standards, into Chat GPT for example, and ask it product construction or testing questions? I've seen demos of Chat GPT digesting complex equipment manuals and being able to generate what amounts to a quick start guide and answer questions about

Re: [PSES] AI & Regulatory Compliance

I've done some playing around with ChatGPT, Claude.AI, Perplexity.AI, BIng Chatbot, and a few others. My first test was to see if these Large Language Models (LLM) could accurately answer questions where I feel I have good expertise, such as "*How do I select a complete list of safety-critical

Re: [PSES] Timeframe for new FCC registration

Brian, For the context, by "registration number", do you mean FCC/ISED ID numbers? I would estimate you are using TCB route? If yes, and if there are no major findings, like reports deficiencies which will require re-test, it takes an average of 2-3 weeks for TCB to review and to be able to

Re: [PSES] [PSES] Directives that require the CE Marking

Gentlemen, ChatGPT is not a research tool. It hallucinates wildly because it is optimized to give a response to the user. Do not use ChatGPT as a research tool unless you want to be mislead. There are many many other, better tools for this purpose. Doug Nix d...@mac.com "The man who does not

[PSES] Timeframe for new FCC registration

Hello, I'd like to have all options fleshed out prior to committing to a fairly expensive quote for full FCC & ISED re-test and re-register our level 2 EV Charging unit for residential applications, which already has FCC and ISED registration numbers. If we choose the option of not

Re: [PSES] AW: [PSES] Directives that require the CE Marking

I agree that tools like ChatGPT have a long way to go before their response can be trusted without question, but the response below is from the free version. The $20 a month version might provide a clearer answer. I use ChatGPT as a starting point for topics I have some familiarity with, then

Re: [PSES] AI & Regulatory Compliance

Regan —   Good topic. Maybe we should also consider some techniques for sniffing out the BS from AI generated text, which appears to source whatever is on the web, right or wrong.  Note also that the new Machinery Regulation also addresses AI. See

Re: [PSES] AW: [PSES] Directives that require the CE Marking

A nice example of why ChatGPT won’t put us all out of a job just yet  Point 9 is wrong – you may not use the CE mark to demonstrate compliance with a “non CE marking” Directive, that is one that does not contain the provision for CE marking within its Articles or Annexes Point 3 does not make

[PSES] AI & Regulatory Compliance

Greetings fellow members, Our industry will not be immune to this new era of AI technology and want to bring up this topic again to obtain some more insight from the forum into: *"How do you think AI will play a future role in our Regulatory compliance world?"* I can see some real benefits to

Re: [PSES] AW: [PSES] Directives that require the CE Marking

Here’s what ChatGPT told me about this directive: The General Product Safety Directive (2001/95/EC) in the European Union (EU) is a legal framework designed to ensure the safety of consumer products placed on the EU market. It sets out general requirements for the safety of products,

Re: [PSES] Labelling in Canada

Hi Charlie, Thank you for answering. That's the way it is working in Canada. Very good. Now the label can be correct. Thanks to all who answered. Mvh./Regards, Niels Hougaard Bolls ApS Denmark Tlf. 4818 3566 Direkte 5379 6991 [ http://www.bolls.dk/ | www.bolls.dk ] Fra:

Re: [PSES] Labelling in Canada

Niels The applicable standard is ICES-003 issue 7. This standard allows one of 2 test methods to be used, CAN/CSA-CISPR 32:17 or ANSI C63.4, but the standard you are stating compliance to is ICES-003. If you follow the CAN/CSA-CISPR 32 test method this is detailed in the report but no

Re: [PSES] Labelling in Canada

Hi Bart, Thanks for answering. I have looked into pages like this, and I think that my question actually can be turned into: Does Canada accept CISPR 32? If so it must be this standard that has to be mentioned on the label. Mvh./Regards, Niels Hougaard Bolls ApS Denmark Tlf. 4818

Re: [PSES] Labelling in Canada

Hi Niels, Did you look into the below webpage? https://ised-isde.canada.ca/site/spectrum-management-telecommunications/en/devices-and-equipment/interference-causing-equipment-standards-ices/ices-gen-general-requirements-compliance-interference-causing-equipment#s5.3 Greetings, Bart

[PSES] Labelling in Canada

Hello, Product in question is a loudspeaker for commercial marked. It is going to be sold in Canada and question is, if the labelling concerning EMC should be This Class B apparatus complies with Canadian ICES-003. Cet appareil de la classe B est conforme à la norme NMB-003 du Canada.

[PSES] UK WEEE compliance and 2012/19/EU WEEE Directive

Hello, Is it appropriate to use the 2012/19 EU WEEE compliance report for the UK WEEE compliance requirement? Thanks Cecil - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a

[PSES] SV: [PSES] SV: [PSES] Radio receivers under RED? Yes

>From RED guide: 11.3.3 Products within old/new LVD/EMCD but then fall within RED (after applicability of RED) For example pure television and sound broadcasting receivers. Fra: Ralph McDiarmid Sendt: 5. oktober 2023 19:23 Til: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Emne: Re: [PSES] SV: [PSES]

Re: [PSES] KC certification

Here’s what ChatGPT recommends: In South Korea, to obtain KC (Korea Certification) registration for a Class III radio device, you will need to follow a specific process to ensure your product complies with the country's regulatory requirements. Here are the general steps you should

Re: [PSES] SV: [PSES] Radio receivers under RED? Yes

I thought the EMCD would be sufficient for radio and television receivers. To include them within scope of the RED seems an overreach. From: Charlie Blackham Sent: Thursday, October 5, 2023 12:38 AM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] SV: [PSES] Radio receivers under RED?

[PSES] KC certification

Hello group, I have a client who has recently managed to getaccreditation from Korea for their EMI lab. Now they want to submit their firstproduct and get KC registration under Broadcasting and Communication Equipment.The product is a simple Class III without any radio. They have all

[PSES] SV: [PSES] SV: [PSES] Radio receivers under RED? Yes

Thanks Charlie The product (navigation analyzer) is being used to adjust, verify and record radio parameters from a VHF/UHF radio system. As you say (and the big question), is it a “test equipment” or “radio equipment”? And in this case is “test” and “analyzer” the same thing? Maybe

Re: [PSES] SV: [PSES] Radio receivers under RED? Yes

Television and radio receivers are within scope of RED  (they weren’t under R) @Amund Westin – you should be careful determining whether your item is “test equipment” or “radio equipment” – wideband spectrum monitoring equipment which can receive and determine

Re: [PSES] SV: [PSES] Radio receivers under RED? Yes

Given the reasoning you propose, your spectrum analyser, as an unintentional radiator, should be out of scope of the RED. If it were, then all television and radio receivers would also fall under the RED. From: Amund Westin Sent: Wednesday, October 4, 2023 10:51 AM To:

[PSES] SV: [PSES] Radio receivers under RED? Yes

Hi Charlie I was made aware that in the RED Guide, there is something about equipment that does not fall under the RED. 1.6.3.3 Products that use electromagnetic waves exclusively for other purposes than radio communication and/or radiodetermination Products and applications that

Re: [PSES] [EXTERNAL] Re: [PSES] ESD testing - Contact Mode to plated metal surfaces? - Thanks

Thanks to all who replied publicly and privately to my question on ESD to metal surfaces with non-paint coatings. It seems everyone agrees to treat them the same as paint. As Brian points out, the Standard I'm looking at (BS EN 61000-4-2:2009) is a bit fuzzy using the term "paint" then

[PSES] seeing postings

I see that I had to set something up on the list server so that I can see my own postings. - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your

Re: [PSES] EMI filtering for 600V AC mains system

Circuit simulation (Pspice or similar) would allow you to find highest working voltage on each capacitor under normal and under single-fault conditions including component tolerances and line voltage variation.  In this country, a nominal 347/600V service has voltage variation limits of 550V to

[PSES] test message only

- This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:

Re: [PSES] Reliability/Fault analysis tools?

Brian, As a good starting point, I recommend reading the following: UL991 : Safety-Related Controls Employing Solid-State Devices CSA C22.2 No. 0.8 : Safety Functions Incorporating Electronic Technology There is functional safety analysis software available, but some may have a hefty price

Re: [PSES] 50Hz Product and the EMC Directive

Scott If you read the Guide to the EMC Directive, specifically section 1.4.4 Inherently benign equipment you will find multiple references to certain product categories being exempt only if they are “without active electronic parts or active components;” A transistor is an active component.

Re: [PSES] 50Hz Product and the EMC Directive

The phrase, “as to ensure that”, implies some testing would be needed for both emissions and immunity. The directive doesn’t insist on testing, but to meet the “essential requirements” testing would seem the only way to reinforce a claim of compliance. Ralph McDiarmid (Vancouver) From:

Re: [PSES] 50Hz Product and the EMC Directive

Isn't this one of the product compliance conditions that a Notified Body can issue a judgement? They *should* cast in your favor. On Wed, Sep 27, 2023 at 7:35 AM Scott Douglas wrote: > * This message originated outside of DISH and was sent by: > sdouglas...@gmail.com * >

Re: [PSES] 50Hz Product and the EMC Directive

The phrase, “as to ensure that”, implies some testing would be needed for both emissions and immunity. The directive doesn’t insist on testing, but in order to meet the “essential requirements” testing would seem the only way to reinforce a claim of compliance. From:

Re: [PSES] 50Hz Product and the EMC Directive

Hi Scott, The directive also states: ANNEX I ESSENTIAL REQUIREMENTS 1. General requirements Equipment shall be so designed and manufactured, having regard to the state of the art, as to ensure that: (a) the electromagnetic disturbance generated does not exceed the level above

[PSES] 50Hz Product and the EMC Directive

Hello List Experts, We have a product that operates at line frequency (50 or 60 Hz). It is a power conditioner which includes filtering, surge suppression, and extreme voltage shut down. It is purely analog and contains nothing more complex than transistors. We believe the EU EMC Directive

Re: [PSES] EN 62368-1:2020 - MOVs - contradiction?

Hello Bernd, Thanks for the information. In that case, what I’m looking for is some kind of comparison table between UL 1449 tests and IEC tests. The question I would like to answer: is UL 1449 ≥ IEC 61051-2 for the tests in EN 62368-1? (preferably without having to splash out on IEC

[PSES] AW: [PSES] EN 62368-1:2020 - MOVs - contradiction?

Hello James, depending on the product safety standard and the certification scheme, a certification to the applicable IEC component standard (e.g. IEC 61051-2) may not be mandatory. In many cases, IEC product safety standards do not reference a varistor component standard like IEC 61051-2

Re: [PSES] EN 62368-1:2020 - MOVs - contradiction?

Thanks Joe, we shall do a bit more digging. The response we had from one of the manufacturers was "UL 1449. That's it." All the best James James Pawson Managing Director & EMC Problem Solver Unit 3 Compliance Ltd EMC : Environmental & Vibration : Electrical Safety : CE & UKCA :

Re: [PSES] EN 62368-1:2020 - MOVs - contradiction?

Hi James: This finding surprised me, since MOVs are routinely used internationally for surge protection on the AC mains input to power supplies. Is that the application you have in mind? Typically, MOVs have multiple approvals. So, having a UL approval does not necessarily mean that the

Re: [PSES] EN 62368-1:2020 - MOVs - contradiction?

Hello Joe, Thanks for the feedback and the article link, much appreciated. We are seeing a lot of varistors from large manufacturers (Wurth, Bourns, Littelfuse) declaring compliance to UL1449 rather than the IEC standards. This makes recommending parts to our customers a bit harder. If

Re: [PSES] EN 62368-1:2020 - MOVs - contradiction?

Hi James: Yes, I think you have arrived at the correct interpretation. The committee was simply trying to reduce the scope of Annex G.8 in order to avoid re-stating requirements that already appear in other IEC standards. Otherwise, Annex G.8 would have been much longer than just three

Re: [PSES] EN 62368-1:2020 - MOVs - contradiction?

Hello me again, Whilst the wording of the standard is not entirely clear, after a bit of head scratching my interpretation is: EN 62368-1:2020 * 5.5.7: MOVs must comply with G.8 (not necessarily with the IEC standard) * G.8.1: comply with either * IEC 61051-2, or *

[PSES] EN 62368-1:2020 - MOVs - contradiction?

Hello all, Not sure if this is an amusing contradiction or I'm missing something? See green highlight below. All the best James EN 62368-1:2020 5.5.7 SPDs Where a varistor is used between a mains circuit at ES3 voltage and protective earthing: - the earth connection shall

Re: [PSES] RED certificate - validity period

Amund There’s no explicit validity date in the Directive and I’ve seen different NBs use different expiration dates, however, RED Annex III, Module B, para 7 states: The notified body shall keep itself apprised of any changes in the generally acknowledged state of the art which indicate that

[PSES] RED certificate - validity period

The RED EU-Type Examination Certificates I have seen, are valid for 4 years. Is the validity period something regulated by the EU or is it up to the Notified Body to set the period on the RED certificate? Best regards Amund -

[PSES] Reliability/Fault analysis tools?

EV Chargers getting more and more complicated For our controls investigations, hardware failures need to be assessed. One of the safety standards calls out MIL-STD-217, which has got to be nearly as old as my Dad. Looking for more up to date, modern and computer-based processes and

Re: [PSES] UK extends CE mark recognition indefinitely

Sam Those directives are enforced by a different UK government department that didn’t put out a press release. There’s been no further communication on this issue so we’re really waiting to see what the draft legislation says when that’s published (whenever that may be) Best regards Charlie

Re: [PSES] UK extends CE mark recognition indefinitely

In reviewing this, I don’t see that it addresses RoHS and Ecodesign directives. Would products in scope of these directives still require the UKCA mark by December 2024? SAM Davis Sr. Regulatory Engineering Manager Customer Engineering Services www.jabil.com From:

Re: [PSES] Directives that require the CE Marking

Hi Brian Unless it is for use in an explosive atmosphere, then I can’t see that any CE marking legislation will apply. If it is intended for consumers or likely, under reasonably foreseeable conditions, to be used by consumers even if not intended for them, then the General Product Safety

Re: [PSES] ESD testing - Contact Mode to plated metal surfaces?

The standard I have says this in section 8.3.2: *"In the case of painted surfaces covering a conducting substrate, the following procedure shall be adopted: * *If the coating is not declared to be an insulating coating by the equipment manufacturer, then the pointed tip of the generator shall

[PSES] AW: [PSES] Directives that require the CE Marking

Hello Brian, in lack of any more specific EU Directive, a product will be in the scope of the General Product Safety Directive 2001/95/EC (Consolidated TEXT: 32001L0095 - EN - 01.01.2010 (europa.eu))

[PSES] Directives that require the CE Marking

I have a non-electrical benchtop product that holds a piece of sandpaper while slowly running water over the sandpaper. The only connection to this product is a water supply at normal water supply pressure. The User holds the item they want to sand in their hand and rubs it back and forth on the

Re: [PSES] ESD testing - Contact Mode to plated metal surfaces?

I believe the language said something like: "the contact discharge tip shall be applied to any coating not expressly declared as insulative" Could be wrong though. Brent DeWitt Milford, MA On 9/18/2023 7:39 PM, Ken Wyatt wrote: Always had the impression the sharp end of the CD tip was

Re: [PSES] ESD testing - Contact Mode to plated metal surfaces?

Always had the impression the sharp end of the CD tip was designed to punch through any coated metal. Kenneth WyattWoodland Park, COSent from my iPhone.On Sep 18, 2023, at 09:48, Sykes, Bob wrote: Worldly Experts,   I have a question regarding the suitability of contact mode ESD testing

[PSES] ESD testing - Contact Mode to plated metal surfaces?

Worldly Experts, I have a question regarding the suitability of contact mode ESD testing to plated metal surfaces. I understand the wording in IEC 61000-4-2 regarding painted and bare metal. Does the same logic used for painted metal surfaces also apply to other coatings (anodized, plated,

[PSES] audio amplifier tests - UL 1711

Anyone know the technical justification for the percent THD limit calculation in clause 35.2 in UL1711 ? Without HTML, the plain text reads: THD (%) = 20 x e^(-0.000189(f-2800)) where f is the bandwidth in Hz. Seems a strange way to specify THD as a function of audio amplifier

[PSES] PSES SCV/SF/OEB Joint Chapter Presentation

Hello everyone! It is less than 2 weeks until the next online presentation sponsored by the PSES SCV/SF/OEB Joint Chapter. (I could write out our whole Chapter title without acronyms, but that would be WAY too long!) *If you deal with humans as part of your product safety evaluation - which

[PSES] IEC / EN 62368-1 Annex E

Hello experts I have a question about how Annex E of EN 62368-1:2020 should be interpreted. Does the classification of the audio amplifier output terminals need to be done with the worst case out-of-phase audio signals (to give the maximum channel to channel voltage) or with the signals in

Re: [PSES] Radio receivers under RED? Yes

Amund Yes, receivers are within scope of RED as they meet the definition of “radio equipment” in article 2: ‘radio equipment’ means an electrical or electronic product, which intentionally emits and/or receives radio waves for the purpose of radio communication and/or radiodetermination, or

[PSES] Radio receivers under RED? Yes

I think we have discussed this topic previous, but I can’t find the email tread. But I assume it is the fact the equipment that even only receive, will anyway be included under RED. In this case, it’s a radio receiver measurement device with whip antenna mounted and that receives in the VHF/UHF

Re: [PSES] DFMEA Component Selection

I would only add that those details need to be consider during design, not after the design. Ralph From: Douglas Nix <0bb8ff993b10-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org> Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2023 6:31 AM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] DFMEA Component

Re: [PSES] Proceedings and Papers from EMC Symposium 2023

Thank you. I would be willing to pay for the proceedings of course if the access was available on the IEEE Explore. On Tue, Aug 29, 2023 at 3:08 PM Jim Bacher, WB8VSU wrote: > * This message originated outside of DISH and was sent by: > ja.bac...@outlook.com * > --

[PSES] Absence of Voltage Tester Design Flaw Impact

Hi All, Thank you again for your responses about my DFMEA question they were very helpful. I have another question about safety design. We are using an absence of voltage tester (AVT) that provides a UL approved method to open an enclosure without having to put on PPE and perform a live dead

Re: [PSES] DFMEA Component Selection

I would argue that if you impose any requirements (such as AWG size or design of terminal block) then yes absolutely you need to have those components in the test environment.It is my impression that if your system fails for any reason that could be attributed to poor installation, then the

[PSES] Looking for someone with EMC & Functional safety experience for IEC Standards development

Colleagues, As some of you may know, Keith Armstrong is preparing to retire. One of the important projects he has been leading, IEEE 1848 on EM resilience is entering revisions for the second edition. An important EM standard referenced in that document is IEC 61000-6-7:2014, Electromagnetic

Re: [PSES] DFMEA Component Selection

I agree with John. FMEAs are most helpful for determining Diagnostic Coverage or β-factor when doing the functional safety analysis. Risk assessments, when done correctly, are intended to help make decisions about risk control measures, including assessing the effectiveness of existing

Re: [PSES] DFMEA Component Selection

Hi Mike, I agree completely. These are the details that, after the design, can make or break a product.. -- Doug Nix d...@mac.com When you put a thing in order, and give it a name, and you are all in accord, it becomes. From the Navajo, Masked Gods, Waters, 1950 > On Aug 29, 2023, at

Re: [PSES] Fw: FCC/ISED file change update

Brian > I can't find the legal language in Part 15 that spells this out; does anyone know? It’s not in part 15  Part 2.1043 and FCC KDB 178919 Best regards Charlie Charlie Blackham Sulis Consultants Ltd Tel: +44 (0)7946 624317

Re: [PSES] Fw: FCC/ISED file change update

Brian, I agree that Class II permissive changes only applies to intentional radiators. The catch is if your device contains a Wi-Fi device, then your device is also a Wireless device / intentional radiator. However as you are not modifying the Wi-Fi module there is no reason to do a formal

[PSES] Fw: FCC/ISED file change update

Good afternoon, I'll repeat my earlier story and give the group an update. We have made some small changes to our product (prominently to Y-caps, and some beads) which unfortunately did not increase our margin vs EMC limits, but the product still passes FCC and ISED. Engineering wanted to use

[PSES] Proceedings and Papers from EMC Symposium 2023

Hello, I could not attend the EMC Sy,p[osium this year and now I am on the hunt for the papers and presentations and proceedings. Does anyone know where I can obtain these items from? -- Charles Grasso Dish Technologies (c) 303-204-2974 (w) 303-706-5467 (h) 303-317-5530 (e )

[PSES] DFMEA Component Selection

Hi All, We are going through a DFMEA process for an enclosure we have designed but are having trouble determining which components to analyze. We know we want all the safety rated components and likely the upstream components of those as well. We're unsure if we should include components

Re: [PSES] Flame testing lab

I have used MET/Eurofins lab for our UL94V-0 Flammability tests.regardsChristopher On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 11:03:37 PM PDT, Amund Westin wrote: We have some pieces of plastic that need to be tested, if they are UL94V-0 compliant. Anyone who knows European labs that

[PSES] AW: [PSES] Flame testing lab

Hi Amund, apart from local subsidiaries of UL, you could check with your local accreditation body. For example, for Germany, you can search the database of accredited bodies of German accreditation body DAkks at https://www.dakks.de/en/accredited-bodies-search.html If you enter "ANSI/UL 94"

[PSES] Flame testing lab

We have some pieces of plastic that need to be tested, if they are UL94V-0 compliant. Anyone who knows European labs that deliver such service? BR Amund - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society

Re: [PSES] Lasers

Hi Steve, Generally speaking for Class 3 lasers that are conducted from the laser to a receiver or point of use, the fibre should be interlocked with the laser safety interlock so that that laser cannot operate if the fibre is disconnected. For a Class 4 laser this is a mandatory requirement.

[PSES] Lasers

Laser Ecperts: if a 3B laser light is transmitted via fiber optic cable, is there a requirement for any connections in that cable, if opened, trigger the laser generator to shut down the laser?Cable is secured in place from end to end, but it is possible for service personnel to unsecure the

Re: [PSES] Reese’s Law (P.L. 117-171) - Has the CPSC's Section 2 rule been published?

Many thanks indeed Scott! Cheers, John John E. Riutta, MA, MBA, FLS I Product Development and Product Compliance Manager I jriu...@celestron.com I 323.446.1076 CELESTRON, LLC. I 2835 Columbia Street I Torrance, CA 90503 From: Scott Aldous Sent: Friday, August

Re: [PSES] Reese’s Law (P.L. 117-171) - Has the CPSC's Section 2 rule been published?

I reached out to the CPSC on this about a month ago and they replied very quickly. The final rule has not been published yet. CPSC is working through comments received, which were extensive. They were not able to provide an estimated date for publication of the final rule since they expected the

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >