Re: [PSES] why compliance engineers hate the WWW

Imagine how he'd react to learning there are wet transformers in deserts. Call it a waste of water? Cortland, KA5S Not wet behind the years On 6/8/2016 1:04 PM, Brian O'Connell wrote: A customer pointed me to the below link as an authoritative source. Told the sales manager that the

Re: [PSES] EU OJ today

Charlie, Thanks for your suggestion. We may discover more errors later since the new list contains 11 added and 33 deleted. Not everyone uses them all. Scott > On 9 Jun 2016, at 1:37 AM, Charlie Blackham > wrote: > > Scott > > No argument with your

Re: [PSES] fire safety test methods for different country standards

> The 15W is the *dissipated* power level to determine if > PIS. The standard is somewhat ambiguous because it uses > the term 'location' in definition, but 'circuit' in 6.2. Well... the intent was the maximum power available into a fault. Rich -

Re: [PSES] fire safety test methods for different country standards

The 15W is the *dissipated* power level to determine if PIS. The standard is somewhat ambiguous because it uses the term 'location' in definition, but 'circuit' in 6.2. Brian -Original Message- From: Richard Nute [mailto:ri...@ieee.org] Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2016 4:58 PM To:

Re: [PSES] fire safety test methods for different country standards

> Example: I measure and determine that an electrolytic > capacitor temperature is compliant with the standard, but > what happens when that capacitor eventually fails due to > large ripple current and then overheats and catches fire. > That's a single fault condition (a component fault), but

Re: [PSES] fire safety test methods for different country standards

The replies so far seem to suggest that a VA rating is almost meaningless. Rich says 15W will do it, and John quite rightly points out that a small spark will do it too. I don't think product standards assure a safe device, only that it complies with a set of requirements arrived at by

Re: [PSES] fire safety test methods for different country standards

Moi hath misspoke, as 240 VA is part of SELV requirements (Canada national dif) and the limit for a 60Vdc mains, and definition for hazardous energy level for ITE. Brian -Original Message- From: Richard Nute [mailto:ri...@ieee.org] Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2016 2:21 PM To:

Re: [PSES] fire safety test methods for different country standards

> So, for the protection against FIRE, we have two energy > rates, 100VA and 240VA, used across quite a number of > standards, and the units are wrong. Should be Watts. Agree. But, for pessimism, use VA. My experience and tests show that a product fire can be started by 15 watts! The

Re: [PSES] fire safety test methods for different country standards

> " Safety standards are not tested to see if they accomplish > the objective" > > I'm not sure how one would go about doing that, other > than gathering data from customer returns and from > product recalls. All safety standards include means to determine if the product complies with the

Re: [PSES] fire safety test methods for different country standards

Different things. 100VA for Class 2 and 3 stuff (see UL1310/CSA223 and UL5085-3), and 240VA is for LPS (see 2.5 in 60950-1). There are other numbers for some industrial stuff. The energy limit for a good burrito, based on empirical data, is approximately 400VA Brian -Original

Re: [PSES] fire safety test methods for different country standards

The requirements in the standards include 'safety factors' intended to allow for unquantified variations between samples. >-Original Message- >From: Ralph McDiarmid [mailto:ralph.mcdiar...@schneider-electric.com] >Sent: Wednesday, June 8, 2016 9:22 PM >To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

Re: [PSES] fire safety test methods for different country standards

Tried a flint and steel recently? Lots of history! >-Original Message- >From: Ralph McDiarmid [mailto:ralph.mcdiar...@schneider-electric.com] >Sent: Wednesday, June 8, 2016 5:27 PM >To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG >Subject: Re: [PSES] fire safety test methods for different country

Re: [PSES] fire safety test methods for different country standards

So, for the protection against FIRE, we have two energy rates, 100VA and 240VA, used across quite a number of standards, and the units are wrong. Should be Watts. Ralph McDiarmid Product Compliance Engineering Solar Business Schneider Electric *Please consider the environment before

Re: [PSES] fire safety test methods for different country standards

Maybe we better tighten our belts and get ready for a new round of public misuse. There's going to be a new MacGyver series on TV this fall:) -Original Message- From: Richard Nute [mailto:ri...@ieee.org] Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2016 3:15 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject:

Re: [PSES] fire safety test methods for different country standards

EN 60950-1:2006 2.5 uses 100 VA for LPS and is also referenced for fire enclosure requirements in section 4.7.2.1. -Dave -Original Message- From: Ralph McDiarmid [mailto:ralph.mcdiar...@schneider-electric.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2016 3:11 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

Re: [PSES] fire safety test methods for different country standards

" Safety standards are not tested to see if they accomplish the objective" I'm not sure how one would go about doing that, other than gathering data from customer returns and from product recalls. It may not be only a problem with standards, but also with how the standards are applied

Re: [PSES] fire safety test methods for different country standards

240 VA (not W) is defined as "energy hazard" in UL/IEC 60950 and its predecessors, UL 950 and UL 478. "Energy hazard" only applies if the potential is 2 V or more. (The dimension for energy is the Joule, not the volt-ampere.) The standards state: "A risk of injury due to an energy

Re: [PSES] fire safety test methods for different country standards

Back in my computer days, IEC 950 clause 1.2.8.7 defined a "Hazardous Energy Level" as "A stored energy level of 20 J or more, or an available continuous power level of 240 VA or more, at a potential of 2 V or more." Ever since, we refer to 240VA or more as an "Energy Hazard" and take that into

Re: [PSES] fire safety test methods for different country standards

Hi Chuck, A poor choice of words on my part. I should have written, "in most of the standards I have worked in". Those include CSA107.1, UL1741, UL1012, and IEC62109-1 The 240VA (I think they meant 240W) must have come from some base standard as a normative reference. I don't know what is

Re: [PSES] fire safety test methods for different country standards

> Not following instructions is foreseeable misuse... Depends. I define "misuse" as using the product for some use other than its intended use. Standing on a chair is misuse of the chair. Misuse (my definition) cannot be foreseeable because it depends on what the user needs to do (and has

Re: [PSES] fire safety test methods for different country standards

Not following instructions is foreseeable misuse and needs a FMEA and maybe a Fault Tree analysis too, if a hazard is the anticipated result. Getting back to this HB enclosure discussion earlier in this discussion thread, I see that most standards appear to limit rate of energy transfer (e.g.

Re: [PSES] EU OJ today

Scott No argument with your comments, except that I would expect you’ll be a long time waiting for a “whoops, we got it wrong, please ignore what we published in the Official Journal on the 13th May, but please don’t ignore anything else we have published in it” – there’s no mechanism for it,

[PSES] why compliance engineers hate the WWW

Love the internet as a platform; hate the WWW. A customer pointed me to the below link as an authoritative source. Told the sales manager that the customer's purchasing manager needs to let his engineers make technical decisions and to restrict his WWW use to viewing cat videos and working on

Re: [PSES] EU OJ today

Hi Charlie, According to their guide, we can follow the old list if no new list is published for the new EMCD. However the old list for old EMCD is not valid due to the 1st list for the new EMCD. The new list is for new EMCD. EU should notify the public for next step - awaiting for new one

Re: [PSES] EU OJ today

Scott Remember EN 50561-1:2013 will only supersede EN55022 for equipment that is within its scope, i.e. PLT/PLC. http://ec.europa.eu/growth/single-market/european-standards/harmonised-standards/electromagnetic-compatibility/index_en.htm is actually listing the OJ C 173 of 13/05/2016 as well

Re: [PSES] EU OJ today

Dear All, Pls accept my apology to the typo - EN 50361 should read EN 50561-1 : 2013. Regards, Scott > On 8 Jun 2016, at 8:14 PM, Scott Xe wrote: > > Is there any progress about the latest update that both EN 55022 and EN 55032 > will be replaced by EN EN 50361and EN

Re: [PSES] EU OJ today

Is there any progress about the latest update that both EN 55022 and EN 55032 will be replaced by EN EN 50361and EN 55013 removed? Scott > On 14 May 2016, at 2:27 AM, John Allen wrote: > > “Someone” needs a really good “talking to”, I would think. L > > John