Ken,
Regarding frequency of inspection, my sarcastic response (with a spritz of
reality) is that this depends on the budget that our Congress gives them,
which will vary year to year. In the past CAL-OSHA (the California arm of
OSHA) was very aggressive in workplace inspections. Nowadays,
Hi Stig,
I have a copy of Croner's Industrial Equipment Safety which has a risk
calculator which is based on a nomogram introduced in British Standard BS
5304:1988. The calculator has three input parameters, Probability level,
Exposure Frequency and Consequences. The output of the calculator
Hello group,
I would like to know if there are any requirements for CE Marking a cable or
any passive device, such as a basic surge protector.
Thanks,
Courtland Thomas
Patton Electronics
---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Barry brings up a good point. The products manufactured by my company, Evans
Sutherland, are typically high computer systems (flight simulators) used
in a Heavy Industrial environments. As such we routinely test to EN 55022
Class A (emissions) and EN 50082-2 (immunity). More recently we have
Hi Chris,
I agree with 99.9% of your convincing opinions with a tiny question. You said:
I believe its because the scope of EN 55024 is geared toward the residential,
commercial and light industrial environment. If I were producing a piece of ITE
equipment intended for a truly industrial
Hi Stig:
I believe you are interested in severity of injury,
not potential for injury, or risk of injury.
Here is a numerical assignment for severity of injury
that I found in my files. I have no idea of its
source.
10 Death
9 Long-term or permanent coma
8 Full body
Hi Group, Dec 07,2000
I am in the process of establishing the potential for an injury from a
hazard.
I can get a reasonable 'expression' to describe the potential for a hazard
to turn into an accident (event). I am looking for the words that
classifies the
Chris,
My point exactly! I was starting to wonder if my question was not
clear. By the way you just made my colleagues Gold EMC List.
I share the same point of view, the environment shall eventually
decide the level!
Thanks to all(I enjoyed the debate),
William
Tony,
My understanding is that there is no international equivalent to EN50116.
It is also my understanding that IEC 60950 incoporates the essential
production testing requirements of EN50116 for ITE, viz. earthing resistance
and electric strength.
But then I have been wrong
I don't see the concern about identifying compliance with the
standard. You analyzed it and discovered that it doesn't apply. By analyzing
the requirement and arriving at a determination that it doesn't apply that
constitutes , in my opinion, complaisance, just as sufficiently as passing
Yes. A DOC without EN61000-3-3 may be interpreted as incomplete. We are in
the same sitiuation as you -- our products don't cause fluctuations or
fllicker. Nevertheless, we write a test report for EN61000-3-3 (just a
paragraph or so) citing section 6.1 -- and we list EN61000-3-3 on the DOC.
All,
Can anyone point me in the right direction of an International
Equivalent of the European Standard EN50116:1996 Information
Technology Equipment - Routine Electrical Safety Testing in
Production.
Thanks
Tony Reynolds
Pitney Bowes
Hi Chris,
how are you!
I would say that nothing is done wrong
if you assume that your product is in a
scope of std but you consider it as compliant
without testing.
I thing the safest way would be to include
the std in DoC and make a notion about
the compliance w/o test in the file where
you
Let me first say that I think people are missing the thrust of William's
initial question. The ensuing debate has taken a life of its own. (I can't
resist a debate, so I'll weigh in after looking at William's question).
William is wondering why EN 55024 (an ITE standard) only has immunity limits
Some standards are very clear that some tests may not be necessary under
certain circumstances. It is required that the test report properly reflects
what was done and a reason given for not performing a test.
In my opinion, you can claim compliance to any standard when the equipment
complies
Only because I really enjoy stirring the pot...if you read EN 55022 1998,
clause 4.2 clearly states,
Class A is a category of all other ITE which satisfies Class A ITE limits
but not the class B ITE limits. Such equipment should not be restricted in
its sale but the following warning shall be
Hey Cameron -
Damaging currents can be either a.c. power currents due to different ground
potentials, a.c. fault currents, or large lightning surges (due to external
strikes as well as intrabuilding). These phenomena are the reason shielded
cables can not be consistently connected at both ends
Good questiondoes this also hold true for 61000-3-2 if your
product is under 75 watts?
==
Chris Allen chris_al...@eur.3com.com on 12/07/2000 03:31:14 AM
Please respond to Chris Allen
The very latest SLIM document can be downloaded from our web site. Just log
on and select Newsflash.
It is a21 page pdf file. If you prefer I can email it to you in Word.
Cheers
Alan E Hutley
Editor EMC+Compliance Journal
www.emc-journal.co.uk http://www.emc-journal.co.uk/
nutwoo...@msn.com
I have a question regarding EN 61000-3-3. The standard states under section 6.1
that Tests shall not be made on equipment which is unlikely to produce
significant voltage flicker and fluctuations. This is true for the equipment in
question.
I have been asked by a customer to included the
Just to stay with the apples:
Compliance to EN 55022 is like ordering an apple on
the Internet. Your ordered it, but will you receive
an apple ?
Compliance with EN 55022 gives presumption of compliance only.
When the product standard refuses to comply to what the EC had in
mind , the EN will
Hi All,
I believe there would be safety considerations when using non-isolated RS
485 for communications between machines that may be separated by large
distances in a building and consequently be powered from different
circuits/phases. The communication circuits ground is connected to the
Bill:
Sorry, but I don't have any info about DO-160B.
DO-160D, issued 29 July 1997, is the current version. There is a US
Department of Transportation FAA Advisory Circular, AC 21-16D, dated 21 July
1998, which recommends that DO-160D may be used to demonstrate airworthiness
requirements. It
23 matches
Mail list logo
