Dear Tom,
Thanks for your information. May I ask a few more questions regarding
compliance to EMC in Japan for non-specific electrical appliances, Is it
voluntary or mandatory? Is METI the regulator? Where can I learn more about
all these information?
Thanks and regards
Paul Chan
-
John,
Regarding your comment:
Aren't you trying to conform to IEC 60950? If so, the code that I posted is
what is required. I am surprised that clause 1.7.6 is so vague, when the
corresponding clause in IEC 60065 is very explicit that the code specified in
IEC 60127 shall be used
There are
John,
Regarding your comment:
Aren't you trying to conform to IEC 60950? If so, the code that I posted is
what is required. I am surprised that clause 1.7.6 is so vague, when the
corresponding clause in IEC 60065 is very explicit that the code specified in
IEC 60127 shall be used
There are
John,
Regarding your comment:
Aren't you trying to conform to IEC 60950? If so, the code that I posted is
what is required. I am surprised that clause 1.7.6 is so vague, when the
corresponding clause in IEC 60065 is very explicit that the code specified in
IEC 60127 shall be used
There are
On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 09:54:04 +0800,
Paul Chan ncc...@tuvps.com.hk wrote:
As far as I know there is no specific method of fulfilling Category
B product for Circular PSE Mark, the manufacturers or importers may
confirm these products by themselves. Is this true?
Yes. Self-confirmation is
John,
I have no specific experience with either product, so my comments are a
bit more general.
Schaffner and Dynamic Sciences have been in the business for a long
time. I recall using a DSI receiver when I worked for the Navy back in
the late 1970s, so they are not a newcomer to receiver
Could all responses please be posted to the list group as I would be
interested in hearing feedback about these 2 instruments as well.
Thanks,
Monty
From: John Jankowski [mailto:john_jankow...@cnt.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2003 11:33 AM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: EMI
I read in !emc-pstc that Peter L. Tarver peter.tar...@sanmina-sci.com
wrote (in nebbkemlgllmjofmopleeefkekaa.peter.tar...@sanmina-sci.com)
about 'fuse replacement markings' on Wed, 27 Aug 2003:
Since the fuse is operator replaceable, I do not expect that marking as
you represented below, will
List members,
I am in the process of expanding the capabilities of our Open Area Test
Site and have been searching for a replacement receiver.
During the IEEE EMC Symposium in Boston, I reviewed two models;
Schaffner - SMR 4518 ( 9khz-18Ghz)
Dynamic Sciences International - DSI 600
Hi Peter:
Is anyone aware of any CTL decisions for
IEC60950:2000 or -1, where operator accessible
fuse replacement marking requirements may be
waived, based on the fuse not being required for
safety reasons (did not open during any test
under any conditions of test) and where of the
John -
I agree that the fuse may be deleted from the product on the
basis it is not required for safety compliance. It's
ultimately the decision of my customer to accept or reject
any such advice.
Since the fuse is operator replaceable, I do not expect that
marking as you represented below,
Again I am slightly bemused with the Test House comment about the connector
de-rating at full load. Clearly fault conditions are excluded!
Have you looked at something from Amphenol, DL5015 Pre-Mating Earth range?
Farnell 391-1070. Maybe ok for your 115VAC 3 phase. (200V or so interphase)?
I read in !emc-pstc that Peter L. Tarver peter.tar...@sanmina-sci.com
wrote (in nebbkemlgllmjofmopliekaa.peter.tar...@sanmina-sci.com)
about 'fuse replacement markings' on Tue, 26 Aug 2003:
Is anyone aware of any CTL decisions for
IEC60950:2000 or -1, where operator accessible
fuse
Were you going to use the contacts at maximum current rating?
No. At the lowest voltage the current would be 20A, the maximum rating for
the connector is 35A (derated 50°C).
Incidentally, I have spent some time today searching for a suitable
connector. What I have noticed is that there are
At 14:19 26/08/2003 +0100, Gibling, Vic wrote:
Did you get a satisfactory answer from the forum? I ask as I just been told
by a test house that the ITT-Canon CGL Industrial power connector we had
wanted to use as a primary coupler is not suitable - apparently should only
be used with secondary
15 matches
Mail list logo
