In message f2efb1f7-984a-4b3a-b606-767a591e1...@honeywell.com, dated
Wed, 29 Apr 2015, Jones, Richard richard.jon...@honeywell.com
writes:
KN22 and KN24 are based on CISPR22 and 24 not the EN standards,
In respect of 'scrolling H', EN 55024:2010 and CISPR 24:2010 do not
differ.
--
OOO -
One absolutely wonderful workaround might be user machine states
displayed with labelled indicators incapable of scrolling anything.
More realistically, perhaps the initial install could be done similarly
to field firmware updates, using a JTAG header unreachable with the
equipment closed and
Hi,
We're in need of a consultant with experience in UL489 and UL67. A client has
new IP that the NRTL's haven't seen yet.
Please respond to me directly.
John
jral...@productsafetyinc.com
-
This message is from the IEEE
Any recommendations on where to buy and where to get a good deal on Common Mode
Absorbing Devices (CMAD) according to CISPR 16-1-4 and 2-3? They seem like a
simple device and shouldn't cost all that much but I'm sure some will want top
dollar for them.
Is there any DIY instructions on the
In message
cy1pr0701mb188350deb98388a86224efe8e3...@cy1pr0701mb1883.namprd07.prod.o
utlook.com, dated Thu, 30 Apr 2015, Brian Ceresney
bceres...@delta-q.com writes:
When our CB report was issued, the engineer was not willing to add
wording to the Critical Components list to allow alternate
Brian
I suggest you reference the IECEE website and read through the component
acceptance requirements for each target country, including the USA. I haven't
checked but there may also be such a document for the -2-29 you mention. These
can be found in the same general area as the national
Optos are an excellent example. There are a myriad of parameters that will
allow the safe operation of a typical power supply that are not considered in
certs per IEC60747-5-x and UL1577. Stuff such as CTR drift within the rated
temperature range, themal de-rate for linear optos, frequency BW
Brian,
Rules for component acceptance are submitted by each country to the IEC,
archived in the IECEE website and posted in the same general area as national
differences. You could simply try a Google search. These documents are
supposed to be official but I have found your mileage may vary.
Try this link
http://members.iecee.org/iecee/ieceemembers.nsf/ACRFList?readform
Doug.
Original Message
From: dougp01
Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2015 7:50 PM
To: oconne...@tamuracorp.com; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] CB Philosophy Questions
Brian,
Rules for component
In both procedural controls and scoped test standards, North America
(NRTL/SCC/NOM) reports and the IECEE CB scheme are becoming more similar where
state-enforced codes do not contradict the scoped standard.
It has been several years since the NRTLs and other test agencies have
routinely
Doug,
Thanks, will look for this stuff. The only stuff seen to date for component
evaluation is in UL PAGs, CSA informs, and the IECEE CTL stuff. Are these
component acceptance 'guides' part of the National Differences in a TRF, or
regulatory law administered by the state?
According to the
All,
You may want to reach out to the National Committee in your Country, For
the US National Committee (USNC), the best point of contact would be Joel
Solis at NEMA who serves as the Secretary. They might be able to bring
this up at a future CB Scheme meeting and encourage all countries to
Hello Brian,
Most CB Test Laboratories (CBTLs) will allow and accept the use of the term
interchangeable for some components. However, there are a few CBTLs that will
not accept this term and they require each and every alternate source to be
explicitly listed. If you indicated to your test
Greetings, Compliance Experts,
I'm finding myself in a curious situation, and wondering if you have had
similar experiences, and may have some advice to share.
We are in the process of using a CB report for an industrial battery charger(
to IEC60335-2-29) to obtain an in-country certification
14 matches
Mail list logo
