RE: RTCA document vs. IEC 60601-1-02
Late reply: I have not looked at DO-199, but I noticed that RTCA also has the following document: DO-233 Issued: 08/20/1996 Description: This document addresses the potential interference to installed aircraft electrical and electronic systems from Portable Electronic Devices (PEDs) carried aboard by passengers. It defines the potential interference phenomena; outlines the risk potential from interference events; provides test methods to determine whether or not a potential for interference exists for certain PEDs, aircraft and combinations thereof; and addresses acceptable levels of interference. The report also recommends modification of Federal Aviation Regulation 91.21, continued PEDs testing to identify and better define the possibility of interference to aircraft electronic systems, increased public awareness of the potential for interference from PEDs, and the development and use of devices to detect spurious PEDs emissions. FYI, here is the descriptions for DO-199 Volumes I and II: DO-199 Issued: 09/16/1988 Description: Reports on the investigation to determine potential interference effects to aircraft electronic systems due to emissions from self-powered portable electronic and electrical devices operated aboard aircraft. Recommends regulatory actions relating to operation and identification of passenger- operated devices to assure control of possible sources of interference, and recommends standardized procedures for reporting suspected interference. Volume I is the basic report and includes background, data collection, data analysis, conclusions and recommendations. Volume II provides amplification or background material for some of the summary data included in the basic report. Superseded DO-119 Sincerely, Mark E. Bushnell, Technical Writer IEEE EMC P299 WG m.bushn...@ieee.org L-3 communications Integrated Systems, Greenville, Texas Tel. 903.457.6375 Fax 903.457.4413 This message is printed on 100% recycled electrons. -- From: Ron[SMTP:r...@vascor.com] Reply To: Ron Sent: Friday, September 13, 2002 01:58 PM To: EMC Subject:RTCA document vs. IEC 60601-1-02 I recently came across a synopsis of document DO-199, Potential Interference to Aircraft Electronic Equipment from Devices Carried Aboard. Since I don't have the complete document, does anyone know if this document contains EMC specs/limits on RF emissions, etc. Are these the same specs/limits as outlined in IEC 60601-1-02? ... same as CISPR 11? --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
Re: Layered Reinforced Insulation
I read in !emc-pstc that richwo...@tycoint.com wrote (in 846BF526A205F8 4BA2B6045BBF7E9A6A046758DF@flbocexu05) about 'Layered Reinforced Insulation' on Mon, 28 Oct 2002: Someone mentioned that the two insulations must be the same material in order for the system to be classified as reinforced. I cannot find that requirement in the standard. Nor can I find any statement that says that a two part insulation system must consider one part to be basic insulation and the other part to be supplementary insulation. These requirements may have been in *an* edition of the standard, but it has changed a lot over the years. You need to look at the latest edition, IEC 60950-1. -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Interested in professional sound reinforcement and distribution? Then go to http://www.isce.org.uk PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL! --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
Re: Do I need to Test for Harmonics?
I read in !emc-pstc that Scott Douglas dougl...@naradnetworks.com wrote (in 5.0.2.1.2.20021022080058.00a69...@pop.business.earthlink.net ) about 'Do I need to Test for Harmonics?' on Tue, 22 Oct 2002: One argument says that we are not connected to the public low-voltage distribution system, instead the ferroresonant supply is. Therefore, since we ARE NOT connected we do not need to do the harmonics test. That is most probably the case. What matters is what is emitted into the public supply. The flip side argument says that we still have to test harmonics because the supply does nothing but provide power to our product and therefore we ARE connected. That's not the point at all, I suspect. Is there any significant correlation between the harmonic current amplitudes at the output of the ferroresonant supply and those at its input? If not, there is absolutely no point in measuring those at its output, which are not those that are emitted into the public supply. Understand that this system consists of power supplies and amplifiers, etc. from one or more than one supplier (read that more than one manufacturer). We cannot guarantee we are the sole provider here, in fact will most likely not be the sole provider. Especially since we do not manufacture or sell power supplies. It isn't a 'system' in the sense of the EMC Directive unless the whole thing is supplied as a single article of commerce, i.e. one single item on the invoice. You are only concerned with your own product. -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Interested in professional sound reinforcement and distribution? Then go to http://www.isce.org.uk PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL! --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
RE: Do I need to Test for Harmonics?
I would agree with your argument that you need not comply because you are not connected to the public low voltage supply. Furthermore, the standards you cite are written for 230V, 50Hz distribution, so your voltage is not even within the scope of the standard. John P. Wagner Regulatory Compliance Mandatory Standards AVAYA Strategic Standards. 1300 W. 120th Ave, Room B3-D16 Westminster, CO 80234-2726 Phone/Fax: (303) 538-4241 johnwag...@avaya.com -- From: Scott Douglas[SMTP:dougl...@naradnetworks.com] Reply To: Scott Douglas Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2002 5:02 AM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Do I need to Test for Harmonics? Fellow Listees: There were some recent threads regarding what testing is required for a product that obtains power from a supply external to the product and maybe not supplied by the manufacturer. I think the questions were related to EFT or surge. I have a similar situation. Our products are network powered; that is, there is a ferroresonant power supply connected to the network and we just tap into that available power. This is CATV land and not Telco. We do not make the supply nor do we sell them. Our products have switching supplies which run on the quasi-square wave provided by the ferroresonant supply. Voltage of the supply is in the 60-90 VAC range. Question is: EN 50083-2 : 2001 (4.1.2 Disturbance Voltages From Equipment...) says that if our products fall within the input current range of EN 61000-3-2, then the tests and limits of that standard apply. Then EN 61000-3-2 : 2000 (1. Scope) says that the standard applies to products intended to be connected to public low-voltage distribution systems. One argument says that we are not connected to the public low-voltage distribution system, instead the ferroresonant supply is. Therefore, since we ARE NOT connected we do not need to do the harmonics test. The flip side argument says that we still have to test harmonics because the supply does nothing but provide power to our product and therefore we ARE connected. Understand that this system consists of power supplies and amplifiers, etc. from one or more than one supplier (read that more than one manufacturer). We cannot guarantee we are the sole provider here, in fact will most likely not be the sole provider. Especially since we do not manufacture or sell power supplies. So all powerful and wise list, what's a mother to do? Do I, or do I not, test? Am I required to test? Have I missed something? Thanks for all of the wisdom you are about to impart. Regards, Scott Douglas Senior Compliance Engineer Narad Networks 515 Groton Road Westford, MA 01886 phone: 978 589-1869 dougl...@naradnetworks.com www.naradnetworks.com http://www.naradnetworks.com/ --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
RE: Do I need to Test for Harmonics?
Scott, you do not have to test for power line harmonics or flicker if 1) your product is not mains powered, and 2) you have no intention of selling it along with a particular power source, and 3) you do not specify that it be used with a particular power source. If the choice of power source is up to the system manufacturer, he is responsible for compliance of the system including all of its variants. Richard Woods Sensormatic Electronics Tyco International -Original Message- From: Scott Douglas [mailto:dougl...@naradnetworks.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2002 8:02 AM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Do I need to Test for Harmonics? Fellow Listees: There were some recent threads regarding what testing is required for a product that obtains power from a supply external to the product and maybe not supplied by the manufacturer. I think the questions were related to EFT or surge. I have a similar situation. Our products are network powered; that is, there is a ferroresonant power supply connected to the network and we just tap into that available power. This is CATV land and not Telco. We do not make the supply nor do we sell them. Our products have switching supplies which run on the quasi-square wave provided by the ferroresonant supply. Voltage of the supply is in the 60-90 VAC range. Question is: EN 50083-2 : 2001 (4.1.2 Disturbance Voltages From Equipment...) says that if our products fall within the input current range of EN 61000-3-2, then the tests and limits of that standard apply. Then EN 61000-3-2 : 2000 (1. Scope) says that the standard applies to products intended to be connected to public low-voltage distribution systems. One argument says that we are not connected to the public low-voltage distribution system, instead the ferroresonant supply is. Therefore, since we ARE NOT connected we do not need to do the harmonics test. The flip side argument says that we still have to test harmonics because the supply does nothing but provide power to our product and therefore we ARE connected. Understand that this system consists of power supplies and amplifiers, etc. from one or more than one supplier (read that more than one manufacturer). We cannot guarantee we are the sole provider here, in fact will most likely not be the sole provider. Especially since we do not manufacture or sell power supplies. So all powerful and wise list, what's a mother to do? Do I, or do I not, test? Am I required to test? Have I missed something? Thanks for all of the wisdom you are about to impart. Regards, Scott Douglas Senior Compliance Engineer Narad Networks 515 Groton Road Westford, MA 01886 phone: 978 589-1869 dougl...@naradnetworks.com www.naradnetworks.com http://www.naradnetworks.com/ --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
RE: China CCC Certification
Rich, This is correct. As I understand the standard is identical to EN 61000-3-2. Regards, Josh Josh Wiseman EMC/Product Safety -Original Message- From: richwo...@tycoint.com [mailto:richwo...@tycoint.com] Sent: Monday, October 28, 2002 4:59 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: China CCC Certification I received the following information from a US organization. Harmonics testing has been added as part of the conversion from CCIB and CCEE to the new CCC mark. IEC 61000-3-2 (Limits for Harmonic Current Emissions) is similar in content to GB 17625.1. Is this true? Richard Woods Sensormatic Electronics Tyco International --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
RE: English vs. American - very off topic, but in line with current thread Re: Definition ?
You are going to have to forgive Bruce. He is originally from South Africa, transplanted first to western Canada, and now to Eastern Canada. John -Original Message- From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Jason Greenwood Sent: Friday, October 25, 2002 11:01 AM To: douglas_beckw...@mitel.com; John Woodgate Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: English vs. American - very off topic, but in line with current thread Re: Definition ? even better Nice toque, Eh? -Original Message- From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of douglas_beckw...@mitel.com Sent: Friday, October 25, 2002 10:53 AM To: John Woodgate Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: English vs. American - very off topic, but in line with current thread Re: Definition ? Eh? John Woodgate j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk@majordomo.ieee.org on 10/25/2002 11:01:45 AM Please respond to John Woodgate j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk Sent by: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org cc: Subject: Re: English vs. American - very off topic, but in line with current thread Re: Definition ? I read in !emc-pstc that Jacob Schanker schan...@frontiernet.net wrote (in 001301c27c1f$b550d880$6401a8c0@net1) about 'English vs. American - very off topic, but in line with current thread Re: Definition ?' on Fri, 25 Oct 2002: Back in March 2000, I wrote the following piece for The Rochester Engineer magazine. I think it fits in nicely with the current Definition ? thread contrasting English English with American English. It's 'British English', not 'English English'. Professional translators recognise them as two closely allied but distinct language variants, as are Australian and South African English. It is important to translate from, say, German, into the right one for the client. US barbecue, British barbecue, Aus barbie, SA braai, for example. I am not a professional translator, but I work in technical writing and standards writing with people from both sides of the Pond, so I tend to be able to switch from one to the other. Many of my US colleagues can also do that. We NEVER know which terms to use when addressing Canadians, and one Canadian colleague confirmed that each Canadian citizen picks his or her own selection from the two variants. (;-) There are also a few Canadian English words. -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Interested in professional sound reinforcement and distribution? Then go to http://www.isce.org.uk PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL! --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
RE: Layered Reinforced Insulation
OK, I'll get more specific. I have an external interconnecting cable that contains hazardous voltages. Because of the application, in the USA I must use UL Listed CL3P cable which is rated for use in risers and air handling spaces (smoke requirements of the National Electrical Code). The insulation system of a standard CL3P cable consists of the wire insulation and external jacket, and the sum thickness is 0.4 mm. It is not clear that the insulation parts are constructed of the same material. I must determine if the cable complies with the reinforced insulation requirements of UL60950/EN60950, or if I need to have a special cable constructed. Someone mentioned that the two insulations must be the same material in order for the system to be classified as reinforced. I cannot find that requirement in the standard. Nor can I find any statement that says that a two part insulation system must consider one part to be basic insulation and the other part to be supplementary insulation. Frankly, I can find nothing in the standard that indicates why the particular construction of this cable is not allowed to be considered as reinforced insulation. The only issue at hand, it appears, is that it must be shown that the insulation is mechanically durable in the intended application. That is where I rely upon the the UL Listing - they seem to believe that it is perfectly acceptable for a 300V interconnection application - at least the kind that my equipment will employ. Your comments would be appreciated. Richard Woods Sensormatic Electronics Tyco International --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
Re: China CCC Certification
I read in !emc-pstc that richwo...@tycoint.com wrote (in 846BF526A205F8 4BA2B6045BBF7E9A6A046758D9@flbocexu05) about 'China CCC Certification' on Mon, 28 Oct 2002: Harmonics testing has been added as part of the conversion from CCIB and CCEE to the new CCC mark. IEC 61000-3-2 (Limits for Harmonic Current Emissions) is similar in content to GB 17625.1. Is this true? H'mmm. The Chinese NC does not send an expert to SC77A/WG1. I hope that they are quite SURE that IEC 61000-3-2 is compatible with their supply system. The WG dare not assume that, and the same applies to other 230/240 V systems.(;-) -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Interested in professional sound reinforcement and distribution? Then go to http://www.isce.org.uk PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL! --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
Re: LED's and laser safety?
I read in !emc-pstc that Richard Hughes rehug...@nortelnetworks.com wrote (in 6b78f2524cd7d5118a0402204840075b02795...@zhard0jc.europe.nort el.com) about 'LED's and laser safety?' on Mon, 28 Oct 2002: If I said that the LVD was 'new approach' then you or someone else would feel the necessity to correct me. Instead I am being castigated for being accurate but hair-splitting. Oh, sure. You can't win. I would not have contested 'new approach', of course, but someone else might indeed do so. Anality rules! -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Interested in professional sound reinforcement and distribution? Then go to http://www.isce.org.uk PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL! --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
RE: ENGLISH, STILL OFF TOPIC!
Ted, I have just been to the site and agree it is excellent. I cannot believe the many differences! It is almost a wonder we communicate at all!! Once or twice I went That's why he didn't understand or So that's what she meant. Of course a lot of it can be deduced from context, but there are some really interesting ones there .. but still no 'strangler' under motoring. - Chris (UK) -Original Message- From: Ted Rook [SMTP:t...@crestaudio.com] Sent: Friday, October 25, 2002 11:37 PM To: Subject:ENGLISH, STILL OFF TOPIC! The website recommended I think by Jacob earlier at http://www.effingpot.com is excellent. I had no idea there were so many peculiar 'Bringlish' words and phrases, and I'm speaking as a Brit. Recommended reading for all, very entertaining and good for Anglo-American relations! Ed, thanks for the Amphibicar pic. Working on it must be a real relief after MIL this and ANSI that!. Best Regards Ted Rook, Console Engineering, ext 4659 Please note our new location and phone numbers: Crest Audio Inc, 16-00 Pollitt Drive Fair Lawn, NJ 07410 USA 201 475 4600 telephone receptionist, 8.30 - 5 pm EST. 201 475 4659 direct line w/voice mail, 24 hrs. 201 475 4677 fax, 24 hrs. --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star Internet. The service is powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit: http://www.star.net.uk This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star Internet. The service is powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit: http://www.star.net.uk --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
RE: Layered Reinforced Insulation
I certainly agree that reinforced can be a solid insulation - hence the 0.4. mm thickness requirement. Sorry if my memo gave you a different impression. Bill Bisenius bi...@productsafet.com -Original Message- From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org] On Behalf Of Peter L. Tarver Sent: Friday, October 25, 2002 4:41 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject:RE: Layered Reinforced Insulation Bill - This is not quite correct. Reinforced Insulation may also be a single piece of insulation (I do note you used may). There's no definition, per se, of multiple layers, except for the case of thin sheet material. Regards, Peter L. Tarver, PE Product Safety Manager Sanmina-SCI Homologation Services San Jose, CA peter.tar...@sanmina-sci.com From: Bill Bisenius A reinforced insulation system by definition may be multiple layers if it is all the same insulating material. --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
[no subject]
unsubscribe emc-pstc raymond.gar...@casa.eads.net end --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
RE: Value of Using Non-NRTL Engineering Firms?
Chris - On the basis of workplace safety, listing by a nonNRTL is largely useless. On the other hand, if the persons providing the listing are a competent engineering firm, using licensed engineers, there may be some credibility to the listing (for instance, the NEC allows waivers of certain requirements, if the installation is under the supervision of a licensed engineer), though it still falls short of the cited bureaucratic dictum. Keep in mind, that butting heads with OSHA will probably only give you a headache. I note that the OSHA response you provided left out 29 CFR §1910.399 (iii), for custom equipment. In this case, an NRTL might not be required. You make no claims that the equipment is custom built and the conspicuous absence of a reference to 29 CFR §1910.399 (iii) in the Director's letter leads me to believe it is not custom built equipment. Hair splitting: OSHA does not create law; only Congress can do so. OSHA's charter from Congress, however, states that it's regulations have the power of law, so there's not much practical difference. Regards, Peter L. Tarver, PE Product Safety Manager Sanmina-SCI Homologation Services San Jose, CA peter.tar...@sanmina-sci.com From: me...@aol.com We are working some responses to OSHA and would like to ask for some industry response from the Product Safety group (EMC welcome to respond too). Just looking for a quick statement on the Value of using a Non-NRTL firm for testing and/or certification (Listing). Statement: Non-NRTL laboratories can provide Listings and publish the customers (thus Listing) however, based OSHA law, NEC requirements, Retailer specification, and other MOU/MRA with Canada/EU, it would not seem to be a significant accomplishment if not an NRTL. In a quick paragraph, would you provide your opinion on the value of a Non-NRTL Listing Certification. Thanks Much Chris PS: Attached is a pdf from Richard Fairfax - OSHA's Director Directorate of Compliance Programs which states that Electrical products in the workplace must be Listed or Labeled by an NRTL to meet OSHA Law. --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
RE: LED's and laser safety?
John, If I said that the LVD was 'new approach' then you or someone else would feel the necessity to correct me. Instead I am being castigated for being accurate but hair-splitting. So be it. Richard Hughes -Original Message- From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk] Sent: 28 October 2002 12:08 To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: LED's and laser safety? I read in !emc-pstc that Richard Hughes rehug...@nortelnetworks.com wrote (in 6b78f2524cd7d5118a0402204840075b02795...@zhard0jc.europe.nort el.com) about 'LED's and laser safety?' on Mon, 28 Oct 2002: A product carries a CE marking to show that it complies with the national implementations of all applicable 'new approach' EU Directives (and the LVD, which isn't 'new approach'). Why do you say that the LVD is not 'new approach'? It refers to standards, and does not embody the technical provisions itself. I suppose it's not formally 'new approach' because it dates from 1973, long before the term 'new approach' was introduced. But that is hair- splitting. -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Interested in professional sound reinforcement and distribution? Then go to http://www.isce.org.uk PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL! --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
RE: 60601-1-2
Hello Bob, The document has not been published in the OJ yet but it has been recognized by the FDA for use where the 1983 version was not recognized for use in the US. Brodie Pedersen Nonin Medical Inc. -Original Message- From: Véronique Beauvois [mailto:v.beauv...@ulg.ac.be] Sent: Friday, October 25, 2002 11:18 AM To: rehel...@mmm.com Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: 60601-1-2 Hello Bob, Point to : http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/newapproach/standardization/harmstds/reflist/meddevic.html Regards, Véronique rehel...@mmm.com wrote: Has the version EN 60601-1-2 : 2002 been published in the OJ yet? Or is the 1993 version still the latest? Can someone point me to the web for the latest harmonized standards list to the Medical Device Directive? Thanks, Bob Heller 3M Product Safety, 76-1-01 St. Paul, MN 55107-1208 Tel: 651- 778-6336 Fax: 651-778-6252 --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list -- Ir. Véronique Beauvois Université de Liège Département d'Electricité, Electronique et Informatique Service d'Electricité Appliquée (Prof. W. Legros) Institut Montefiore B28 4000 LIEGE - BELGIQUE Tél: +32-4-3663746 GSM: 0477/87.12.80 Fax: +32-4-3662910 http://elap.montefiore.ulg.ac.be --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
RE: Compliance Engineering Status Report
Oops! I need more coffee. Please disregard and delete. Richard Woods Sensormatic Electronics Tyco International -Original Message- From: WOODS, RICHARD Sent: Monday, October 28, 2002 9:16 AM To: 'emc-pstc' Subject: Compliance Engineering Status Report File: Test sched master.xlsFile: deliverables.doc --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
Compliance Engineering Status Report
Test sched master.xls deliverables.doc Test sched master.xls Description: application/excel deliverables.doc Description: MS-Word document
China CCC Certification
I received the following information from a US organization. Harmonics testing has been added as part of the conversion from CCIB and CCEE to the new CCC mark. IEC 61000-3-2 (Limits for Harmonic Current Emissions) is similar in content to GB 17625.1. Is this true? Richard Woods Sensormatic Electronics Tyco International --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
Re: LED's and laser safety?
I read in !emc-pstc that Richard Hughes rehug...@nortelnetworks.com wrote (in 6b78f2524cd7d5118a0402204840075b02795...@zhard0jc.europe.nort el.com) about 'LED's and laser safety?' on Mon, 28 Oct 2002: A product carries a CE marking to show that it complies with the national implementations of all applicable 'new approach' EU Directives (and the LVD, which isn't 'new approach'). Why do you say that the LVD is not 'new approach'? It refers to standards, and does not embody the technical provisions itself. I suppose it's not formally 'new approach' because it dates from 1973, long before the term 'new approach' was introduced. But that is hair- splitting. -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Interested in professional sound reinforcement and distribution? Then go to http://www.isce.org.uk PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL! --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
RE: LED's and laser safety?
Warren, A product carries a CE marking to show that it complies with the national implementations of all applicable 'new approach' EU Directives (and the LVD, which isn't 'new approach'). Exactly which EU Directive(s) do you think apply to LEDs as components? The LVD certainly does not apply and neither does the RTTED. The General Product Safety Directive does apply but that does not require the CE marking. If the legislation in Europe did require LEDs to be CE marked then it would require an amending EU directive (which would then need to be transposed into the laws of each Member State) to change things. What we were discussing was the level of detail required to show whether certain LEDs came within the category of being inherently Class 1 per IEC/EN 60825-1. Let's not confuse standards with Directives: it is possible to use a Harmonised Standard to demonstrate conformity with the provisions of certain EU Directives, but that does not mean that compliance with a standard confers the right to fit the CE marking where no directive applies. Regards, Richard Hughes -Original Message- From: Warren Birmingham [mailto:war...@comfortjets.com] Sent: 27 October 2002 21:40 To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Re: LED's and laser safety? I think the confusion came from the different types of lasers, which I did not provide any differentiation. I was speaking about non-focused LEDs that are on display panels, not LEDs that are considered Class I lasers. All LEDs were previously subject to approval for a CE Mark, but non-focused display types were not required to be by UL. The Europeans have adopted UL viewpoint on these types of LEDs only. Non-focused display LEDs are being dropped from the program, the others continue to require approval by both the Europeans and UL. Sorry about any confusion. Warren Birmingham Epsilon-Mu Consultants On Monday, Oct 14, 2002, at 04:53 US/Pacific, richwo...@tycoint.com wrote: I sure would love to hear that argument. Richard Woods Sensormatic Electronics Tyco International -Original Message- From: Warren Birmingham [mailto:war...@comfortjets.com] Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 6:06 PM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Re: LED's and laser safety? Gary, I was recently in conversation with UL about LEDs whereas I am now being told that UL has convinced the European counterparts that LEDs are no longer considered Class I Lasers and the requirements for them to be tested as such has been dropped. UL no longer treats them that way in their CB Reports. Warren Birmingham Epsilon-Mu Consultants (510) 793-4806 email: war...@epsilon-mu.com website: http://www.epsilon-mu.com On Thursday, Oct 10, 2002, at 08:53 US/Pacific, Gary McInturff wrote: IEC-825 has incorporated LED's into the safety standard but, from what I can tell, left a great deal of confusion. I typically deal with the 5 - 10 mcd devices and haven't been required to provide any IEC-825 conformity proof for the Western European test house. We may be jumping up to about 60 mcd and non-focused devices and I don't know where the standard starts to become concerned. I hate to buy the standard if it doesn't provide any clarity for these types of parts. Could you folks clue me in? Gary --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee
Do I need to Test for Harmonics?
Fellow Listees: There were some recent threads regarding what testing is required for a product that obtains power from a supply external to the product and maybe not supplied by the manufacturer. I think the questions were related to EFT or surge. I have a similar situation. Our products are network powered; that is, there is a ferroresonant power supply connected to the network and we just tap into that available power. This is CATV land and not Telco. We do not make the supply nor do we sell them. Our products have switching supplies which run on the quasi-square wave provided by the ferroresonant supply. Voltage of the supply is in the 60-90 VAC range. Question is: EN 50083-2 : 2001 (4.1.2 Disturbance Voltages From Equipment...) says that if our products fall within the input current range of EN 61000-3-2, then the tests and limits of that standard apply. Then EN 61000-3-2 : 2000 (1. Scope) says that the standard applies to products intended to be connected to public low-voltage distribution systems. One argument says that we are not connected to the public low-voltage distribution system, instead the ferroresonant supply is. Therefore, since we ARE NOT connected we do not need to do the harmonics test. The flip side argument says that we still have to test harmonics because the supply does nothing but provide power to our product and therefore we ARE connected. Understand that this system consists of power supplies and amplifiers, etc. from one or more than one supplier (read that more than one manufacturer). We cannot guarantee we are the sole provider here, in fact will most likely not be the sole provider. Especially since we do not manufacture or sell power supplies. So all powerful and wise list, what's a mother to do? Do I, or do I not, test? Am I required to test? Have I missed something? Thanks for all of the wisdom you are about to impart. Regards, Scott Douglas Senior Compliance Engineer Narad Networks 515 Groton Road Westford, MA 01886 phone: 978 589-1869 dougl...@naradnetworks.com www.naradnetworks.com --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on "browse" and then "emc-pstc mailing list"
