[PSES] SPC component properties

2011-11-15 Thread Mick Maytum
Brian, I appreciate for your purposes the SPC component of choice is the MOV. Quite right too, if you are considering cost and device safety standards like UL 1449. SPC standards, which tend to be for component electrical and environmental performance, can only overlap the requirements

[PSES] Northeast Product Safety Society Vendor’s Night Tomorrow, November 16th

2011-11-15 Thread Matthew Campanella
All,   The Northeast Product Safety Society invites you to the 17th annual Vendor’s Night to be held at the Marlborough Holiday Inn next week tomorrow, November 16th from 5:00 to 9:30 PM.  Vendor's Night is opportunity to get answers to all your product safety/EMC questions in one evening. 

Re: [PSES] SPC component properties

2011-11-15 Thread Brian Oconnell
Mick, Good points, most of which are within the realization of my employer's designs. For example, for the automotive stuff, we tend to not use MOVs, but as you suggested, an avalanche diode(where our big concern is not surge, but ESD). But for component conversion devices, where the rated input

Re: [PSES] AC Powering or not to AC power that is the test option

2011-11-15 Thread Mick Maytum
Brian, I find portions of our discussion has been transcribed to the entire IEC TC 108 group. Thus I feel I should respond to your TC 108 comments A problem NOT ADDRESSED by TC108 is the increased energy AFTER a surge, or during a SFC, due to the 120% rating requirement. Perhaps this was

Re: [PSES] CE marking of deep-fat fryer

2011-11-15 Thread McInturff, Gary
Ralph, no real argument to the benefit except especially the safety folks won't even go into court as an expert witness on your behalf. But the benefit of the third party is more in how deep they get into your wallet. is the reasonable manufacturer doctrine in Tort law. It's just what it sounds

Re: [PSES] CE marking of deep-fat fryer

2011-11-15 Thread Peter Tarver
From: ralph.mcdiar...@schneider-electric.com [mailto:ralph.mcdiar...@schneider-electric.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2011 08:51 I don't think UL would be sued; the manufacturer is ultimately liable.  The is little or no benefit of 3rd party certification of a product under Tort law. The

Re: [PSES] CE marking of deep-fat fryer

2011-11-15 Thread McInturff, Gary
Yup, it's the theory of deep pockets but there still has to be proximal cost for them to drag anybody into the fray UL didn't design it, they didn't sell it, and they didn't tell anybody it was safe - only that it meets the standards for safety that exist at the time of review. I suppose it was