I am looking for gas flow sensors that will be used as components in a gas
mixing ratio interlock system.
The gas will be one of Ar, O2 or H2
The flow rates will be from 0 to 20 slpm.
Gas pressure will be on the order of 30 psi.
The components need to be rated for use in a safety system, or
: Friday, January 05, 2001 6:33 AM
To: Crane, Lauren
Cc: 's...@world.std.com'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Re: HCFC ban in Europe - EC reg 2037/2000
Hi Lauren et al
I would like to take this opportunity to share some information with you and
the
rest of the group.
[snip - lec
resend - didn't see original post
-Original Message-
From: Crane, Lauren
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 11:15 AM
To: 's...@world.std.com'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: HCFC ban in Europe - EC reg 2037/2000
Summary ===
The EC ozone
Summary ===
The EC ozone regulation No. 2037/2000 does, indeed, prohibit the use of
HCFC's as early as 1/1/00. In fact, some uses of HCFC's as early as 1/1/96.
The trick to reading this regulation is to understand that the prohibition
dates are scheduled according to the
Dave,
It is my understanding, as you state, that earth ground and neutral should
not be tied together in a piece of equipment except to ground reference the
output of a transformer that is part of the equipment, although I can not
quote chapter and verse from the NEC or 1950 on this. I suspect
Colleagues,
I have an internal client who is proposing a design. In this design, a
resistive heating load is being supplied by conductors that are far below
the 125% of load recommended/required by the NEC or NFPA-79 (ref 1994 sect
15.5.3). The client argues that it is okay that the supply
Can anyone recommend a design standard for an oven intended to bake
silicon wafers, (or closely related product standards).
My primary interest is electrical design requirements for resistive heating
elements.
Similar products may be
Kilns for wood drying or ceramics,
Ovens for food or
Ryan,
I work in the Semiconductor Manufacturing Equipment industry. We have heard
a bit about the Korean S-Mark lately, but not much about the Jun Mark (also
known as Choen Mark?).
Can you shed any light on how the S-mark and the Jun-mark are related?
Thanks in advance...
Lauren E. Crane
*
Safety minded folk,
I am stumped finding chapter and verse on the following common sense ideas
(i.e. in what part of which standard are the following issues addressed).
Sometimes the simplest things are the hardest to find! Any corrections would
be appreciated. I generally work in the realm of
The S-Mark is administered within Korea. I believe the organization is
called KISCO. The S-mark only has meaning within Korea.
I believe the administrative organization declares, somehow, what types of
equipment must bear the S-mark and may go without.
I believe the S-mark requires
Eaton Corporation is expanding their Engineering Product Design Safety and
Compliance group. In their Beverly Massachusetts facility.
I am looking for an individual who can contribute in the following
ways
Please forward this information to anyone you may think is interested.
Do any list members have experience with the Korean Radio Waves Act
exemption process as detailed in Chapter 6 of the RRA's public notice
2011-15?
I am particularly interested in knowing whether one exemption
application form can cover multiple different parts, or only multiple
quantities of a
With regard to the EU EMC Directive, can anyone recommend a rule of
thumb for when it can be said that equipment is a) incapable of
generating or contributing to electromagnetic emissions which exceed a
level allowing radio and telecommunication equipment and other equipment
to operate as
John,
A small detail - the term of art for RoHS 'homogeneous layer' rather
than 'separable part'.
Scott,
REACH strives to control substance use with a couple 'lists'. The
so-called 'Candidate List substances' (a.k.a. 'SVHCs') *are* permitted
above a 0.1% weight of substance per total
RESEND as there seemed to be some problem with first transmission.
Regards,
Lauren Crane
KLA-Tencor
[snip]
John,
A small detail - the term of art for RoHS is 'homogeneous layer' rather
than 'separable part'.
Scott,
REACH strives to control substance use with a couple
From: Crane, Lauren [mailto:lauren.cr...@kla-tencor.com]
Sent: 30 January 2012 16:04
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] RESEND - FW: [PSES] REACH - a concentration of 0.1% (w/w).
RESEND as there seemed to be some problem with first transmission
One of the more interesting new Articles in RoHS II is Article 12
Identification of economic operators
Member States shall ensure that economic operators, on request, identify
the following to the market surveillance authorities, for 10 years
following the placing on the market of the EEE:
I'm glad this question has come up again 'cause I've been puzzling over
related issues for several months and I think I see how things should
stack up now.
Article 2.1 implies that IMACI (Industrial Monitoring and Control
Instruments) are in scope (thus bound by all articles of the directive)
Here is relevant guidance from the revised Commission guide to the EMC
directive. plug-in boards are an example, but only those that are for
incorporation into an apparatus by the end-user
1.2.3.1 Components/sub-assemblies within scope
Components or sub-assemblies on the market which are:
- for
John,
It seems possible the x-cap and relay manufacturer could be CE marking
for the RoHS-2 Directive particularly if the items are offered for sale
to anyone out of a catalog. The Commission has yet to issue guidance
as to whether B2B component sales require CE marking for RoHS-2.
Why is a
I've experienced this (customs reacting to what an import looks like
rather than what it is) a few times over my career. I'm beginning to
wonder in this climate where so many details matter that may be beyond
the reasonable knowledge of a customs inspector, if something like a
declaration of
Brian,
My opinion is that the Machinery Directive does not strictly require an
AC Lock Out Device, an Emergency Stop Switch, and a Light Tower per se.
Have you read the directive and guidance on these points and believe
that it does?
Just because 61010-1 is not harmonized to the MD does not
It might be worth recalling at this time there are two major TUV’s in the
assessment game; TUV SUD (aka TUV America, aka TUV Product Service) and TUV
Rheinland. Though personnel often hop back and forth between the two, they are
separate, competing enterprises, possibly with different
The battery directive does not require CE marking.
RoHS does not *yet* require CE marking (not 'til Jan 2013 for Member
States to enact their legislation). The battery supplier may be
responding early?
The toy directive seems to have a scope that would rather clearly
exclude batteries {unless
Sudhakar,
Could you explain more about the link between IEC60950-1 and CE marking.
I can't quite see why the battery would be CE marked for product safety.
Here's what I am working from. Perhaps I am missing something.
1. 60950-1 on its own does not require CE marking.
2.
Brian,
I see the answer a little differently from John. (And I may well have
misunderstood John, but the balance of this message assumes I haven't).
Probability of Exposure does not ask for an analysis of whether the
hazard *could* be got to, but rather *will* it be got to. And I think
this
The CE marking remains the same.
The meaning is 'Caveat Emptor' ;-)
Regards,
Lauren Crane
KLA-Tencor
-Original Message-
From: Brian Oconnell [mailto:oconne...@tamuracorp.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2012 2:44 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] EC vs EU suffix
Related to this topic, the draft RoHS2 FAQ attempts to address the issue
of cables and has, in my opinion, some room for improvement.
Ref http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/rohs_eee/events_rohs3_en.htm
Consultation is open until Sept 14th.
Regards,
Lauren Crane
KLA-Tencor
...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Crane,
Lauren
Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2012 11:07 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: [PSES] CE Marking of Power Cables
Related to this topic, the draft RoHS2 FAQ attempts to address the issue
of cables and has, in my opinion, some room
The directive itself does not address such fine point questions well,
but the FAQ seems to tend towards the logic of differentiating things
that can be separated from each other and still function successfully,
vs. things that must be together. If they must be together, and one of
the items is
?
Brian
-Original Message-
From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org]On Behalf Of Crane,
Lauren
Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2012 9:33 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: [PSES] RoHS Question
The directive itself does not address such fine point questions well,
but the FAQ
Nick,
I completely agree with your first point. One of the 'counterfit'
discussions that has gone around is related to a 'Chinese Export' mark
where the font was the same but the spacing between the 'C' and the 'E'
was diminished. There was even a YouTube cast posted from an EU
FYI - The LVD is in the process of being recast to align it with the New
Legislative Framework.
The Commission's legislative proposal for the recast can be found here
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2011:0773:FIN:
EN:PDF
The Parliament's draft report on the
consider the environment before printing.
From: Crane, Lauren [mailto:lauren.cr...@kla-tencor.com]
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 10:26 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Speaking of the LVD Revision.
FYI - The LVD is in the process of being recast to align it with the New
The EU Commission has published a proposal for the recast of the RTTE
Directive, in part intended to bring it in line with the New Legislative
Framework.
Press release
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-12-1109_en.htm
Regards,
Lauren Crane
KLA-Tencor
-
Does anyone know what requirements apply to the transportation by air in China
of lithium button cells installed in equipment ?
I have one Chinese regulation à “Administrative Provisions on Transport of
Dangerous Goods by the Civil Aviation of China” (“中国民用航空危险品运输管理规定”), which
defines
Some of the new EU Member States have near bargin basement prices on
standards. I found this one (EN 50581:2012) sold by the Estonian Center
for Standardization for only 8 Euros - electronic download.
Regards,
Lauren Crane
KLA-Tencor
-Original Message-
From: Brian Oconnell
: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org]On Behalf Of Crane,
Lauren
Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 12:26 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: [PSES] RoHS2 - Harm. Std List in OJ
Some of the new EU Member States have near bargin basement prices on
standards. I found this one (EN 50581
Just saw an apparent German REACH CLP helpdesk position from September
on the Once an Article Always an Article (1O5A) interpretation of
articles, particularly as it relates to REACH article 33. (link
http://www.reach-clp-helpdesk.de/de/Downloads/Kurzinfo/Kurzinfo%20Einma
The use of standards to demonstrate compliance is voluntary, not
mandatory, but if it conformance to the standard is the basis for your
compliance that you want to 'advertise' then yes, mention it in the DoC.
Regards,
Lauren Crane
KLA-Tencor
From: Amund Westin
No. You only have presumption of conformity to the issues covered by EN
50581. It's annex ZZ says it only covers the criteria of Article 7 in
the directive. There are many other Articles/obligations to consider.
Regards,
Lauren Crane
KLA-Tencor
From: Knighten, Jim L
To allow transportation within China, I need to prove the UN38.3
certification of some batteries in replacement parts (e.g., batteries on
motherboards). Other conditions prevent me from doing something sensible
like removing the batteries prior to shipment and having them installed
at destination.
-
perspective comes before and after the race. Preparation equals success.
http://education.ti.com/us/productstewardship
From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Scott Xe
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 10:46 AM
To: Crane, Lauren; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re
air fly rule.
Regards
Tim
From: Crane, Lauren [mailto:lauren.cr...@kla-tencor.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 11:51 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Proving UN38.3 certification of common batteries.
Richard,
Can you say more about China has added new
The Commission has released an updated FAQ for RoHS2
Ref
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/rohs_eee/events_rohs3_en.htm
Regards,
Lauren Crane
KLA-Tencor
-
This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society
One of the most frustrating aspects of EU directives is that placed on
the market must be assessed as the market placement of each individual
unit, not a model line or similar concept. As the Commission's so called
blue-guide states on page 18, Moreover, the concept of placing on the
market refers
As many know, the LVD is in the process of being recast for alignment with the
New Legislative Framework (NLF).
The Commission proposed text, (COM(2011) 773 final), calls for what looks like
a unique equipment identification number do be provided in the Declaration of
Conformity (DoC). The
[mailto:john_t...@bose.com]
Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2013 3:21 PM
To: Crane, Lauren; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: One DoC per manufactured Unit?!
I don't know Lauren, I read COM(2011) 773 final and NLF Council Decision
768/2008 and I interpret it to mean you need a unique model number
into
law. I think the little skirmish that is happening over the LVD recast in this
regard is a sign that some few people are now waking up.
Regards,
Lauren Crane
KLA-Tencor
From: Tyra, John [mailto:john_t...@bose.com]
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2013 12:42 PM
To: Crane, Lauren; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
FYI - Looks like the beginning of a project to potentially expand the number of
substances restricted by RoHS.
Regards,
Lauren Crane
KLA-Tencor
From: rohs2.ann...@umweltbundesamt.at [mailto:rohs2.ann...@umweltbundesamt.at]
Sent: Monday, January 21, 2013 8:51 AM
To:
of the List of
Restricted Substances under Directive 2011/65/EU (RoHS 2)
In message
617eb8c8634c9149aa66c853d7b8ac53f76...@by2prd0310mb389.namprd03.prod.out
look.com, dated Mon, 21 Jan 2013, Crane, Lauren
lauren.cr...@kla-tencor.com writes:
FYI - Looks like the beginning of a project to potentially
EU RoHS has a couple exemptions related to lead used in a C-press compliant
pin connector systems. Could someone tell me what a C-press compliant pin
connector system is?
I've tried Google, but I only get hits on RoHS and everyone's reiteration of
the RoHS exemptions.
Regards,
Lauren Crane
Marko,
Thanks! I think I have a rough idea of the meaning now. Can you tell me a
couple manufacturers of such things so I can get a couple pictures off the web?
Regards,
Lauren
From: Marko Radojicic [mailto:radojic...@yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2013 8:29 PM
To: Crane, Lauren; EMC
The directive requires
a dated reference to the specifications under which conformity is declared to
ensure the conformity of the apparatus
with the provisions of this Directive
The EMC guidance document says
In most cases, the dated references to the specifications under which
conformity is
Is 'ELF' (as in 'ELF EMI testing') well established in any region(s) (US, EU,
etc...) as a particular frequency set, or is it primarily a subjective term for
low-ish frequencies?
If the former, document citations would be very much appreciated.
Regards,
Lauren Crane
KLA-Tencor
P.S. I
John, since you ask...(but perhaps you only meant the re-scoping)...
The RTTE recast is also be stepping forward with the unique equipment number
requirement in the DoC which seems to require 1 DoC per unit (rather than 1 DoC
per model line).
As I've mentioned in a previous post, this is also
.namprd03.pro
d.o utlook.com, dated Mon, 25 Feb 2013, Crane, Lauren
lauren.cr...@kla-tencor.com writes:
John, since you ask...(but perhaps you only meant the re-scoping)...
I did mean the re-scoping.
The RTTE recast is also be stepping forward with the unique
equipment number requirement
I received a nice response from Ms. Roithova (the parliamentarian who proposed
a change to point 1 language in the LVD recast). She says the LVD recast
language has been changed in negotiations and the current version does not
mention unique identification. So the problem may be solved for the
Scott,
Thanks for sharing this.
I wonder how their exclusion logic works(rhetorical) If a RoHS exemptions
lets you put Hg in, does this, then make you take it back out? If you are
excluded from RoHS, even though your product is EEE, is it in scope of this
Danish legislation.
Regards,
Just got word of a proposed new EU market surveillance regulation amending
everything CE (including existing new legislative framework legislation?).
https://tsapps.nist.gov/notifyus/docs/wto_country/EU/full_text/pdf/EU99(english).pdf
It has some pretty big boots, including requiring economic
I am looking for advice on how to determine the EU RTTE class of a product.
The product has a base station and a sensor. The battery powered sensor can be
taken out of the base station and used elsewhere to do its sensing thing, and
then be brought back to the base station for charging and
class.
Hi Lauren
Is this over the air 1700 kHz transmission or conducted over wire or AC mains?
best regards
Tom Cokenias
On Apr 10, 2013, at 4:00 PM, Crane, Lauren wrote:
I am looking for advice on how to determine the EU RTTE class of a product.
The product has a base station and a sensor
,
Lauren
-Original Message-
From: T.Sato [mailto:vef00...@nifty.ne.jp]
Sent: Friday, April 12, 2013 5:43 AM
To: Crane, Lauren
Cc: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: How to determine EU RTTE class.
On Wed, 10 Apr 2013 23:00:27 +,
Crane, Lauren lauren.cr...@kla-tencor.com wrote
Thanks for the links, Ted.
Some context on the EU legislative process - The document Ted provided the
links to is the input proposal from the EU Commission to the Council and the
Parliament. As those two houses debate things, amendments to the Commission
proposal will be put forward and argued
Brian
Reselling some other company's product in another region is known as
gray-marketing. The model of laptop you acquire in the US might not be the one
intended by the OEM for sale in Europe. Just because the OEM might be well
established, does not mean your company is acting according to
Gary
AFIK none of the CE marking directives address replacement parts explicitly
(with a couple exceptions). Several of the directives have established in their
guidance materials that the directives apply only to so-called finished
products - which can be loosely defined (sometimes just by
Dear Experts, I am looking for help in understanding how to correctly address
LVD concerns within the RTTED.
The RTTED has three main concerns (essential requirements),
1. Radio spectrum issues [art. 3.2]
2. Low voltage safety [art. 3.1.a] - LVD
3. Electromagnetic
I have experience with the question, but no experience getting a good answer.
I have had the opinion that test and measurement equipment is different from
monitoring and control equipment, but apparently, many companies used the old
WEEE+RoHS exclusion from RoHS for monitoring and control
In the Machinery Directive
1. If a manufacturer has designated an Authorized Representative, the AR
name must be marked on the machine (ref Annex I, 1.7.3 1st indent).
2. A person must be identified in the Declaration of Conformity who is
established in the EU and is
thousands of products labeled and warehoused ready to be shipped to
the EU when the person quits. Nightmare.
The Other Brian
From: emc-p...@ieee.orgmailto:emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On
Behalf Of Nick Williams
Sent: Monday, July 15, 2013 6:39 PM
To: Crane, Lauren
Cc: EMC-PSTC
Brian,
Regarding #1, note that directives (like RoHS2) now end in EU instead of EC.
John W. can probably correct this, but I believe there was a change in the
founding documents for the European Region (e.g., Treaty of Rome is replaced by
Treaty of Lisbon, or some such formality) and it may
Dear Experts,
Do any of you have experience using SafeGard CC-3400 - an electrically
conductive RoHS compliant chemical conversion coating for aluminum,
particularly as a substitute for gold alodining?
I am particularly interested in an technical challenges for conversion, chassis
supplier
A great source for WEEE and batteries MS info.
http://www.b2bweee.com/
Regards,
Lauren Crane
KLA-Tencor
From: Dan Roman, N.C.E. [mailto:danp...@verizon.net]
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2013 8:59 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Databases of WEEE registrations
Hello list members.
It is important to note that when the scope shift happens in WEEE (in 2018, I
think), the old RoHS-like categories dies, and new ones are born. Two new
categories come on line that are essentially large things and small things.
I figure everything will fit in either of those two buckets, if not
Thanks for the helpful replies so far. I should clarify in this case the
regulatory context is Korea – ENs are essentially equivalent to KNs.
Regards,
Lauren Crane
KLA-Tencor
From: msherma...@comcast.net [mailto:msherma...@comcast.net]
Sent: Friday, August 30, 2013 3:18 PM
To: Crane, Lauren
Cc
Dear Experts,
A test lab is suggesting that because EN61000-6-4:2007 will be superseded in
2014, all conforming products must be retested to the new standard, even if no
changes have occurred in the product.
Is this a fair claim?
Regards,
Lauren Crane
KLA-Tencor
-
Yes, Richard, this is a fun one! It is related to a so-called
“safe-for-transport certificate” (very rough English translation). If an item
looks like it could be a DG you need to get a cert saying that it is not. Li
batteries are particularly difficult.
Only certain recognized labs/companies
Michael,
I've been working with CE in the semiconductor industry for about 3
years. Here are some things to look out for.
Self declaration to the Machinery Directive is not very complicated.
Make sure your client has a response to every one of the essential
requirements of Annex 1. It would be
My guess for a first pass is empty it out, put a spectrum analyzer in
with a broadband antenna and see if you can 'hear' anything at a level
that is near what you are testing for.
Cheers,
Lauren Crane
-Original Message-
From: peterh...@aol.com [SMTP:peterh...@aol.com]
Sent: Tuesday,
The way I understand it
Each directive is written differently. The Machinery and EMC directives
are structured so that supporting data must be made available in a
reasonable amount of time. This allows the data to reside in the U.S.
for U.S. manufacturers. However, the Low Voltage Directive
Moshe,
I have dealt with situations similar to what you describe in item 2, and
long discussions with a Competent Body regarding them. What I got out of
those conversations is that you must build your equipment to operate
properly in the environment that it is intended for and any reasonably
I suspect, but don't know, that such a device may be covered by a different
directive concerned with railway issues.
I suspect this because I notice exceptions in a few directives for railway
carriages.
If there is not a directive for railway line equipment then I think the
Machinery
To those that have assisted me with this question, THANKS.
For those that missed the thread...The present proposed draft of the Waste
from Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive calls for a phase out of
these materials (among others) beginning in 2004. I had no idea what they
were and how
Although the equipment my employer produces does not fall under the
scope of the Waste from Electrical and Electronic Equipment
Directive,
many of the commercial components we integrate into our product do
fall
under the scope.
With regard to these
Brian,
Be sure you are not imposing tests on yourself that are not required.
You may protect against accessible parts becoming live under single fault in
one of three ways.
Try looking at your product as if you are using double insulation (6.5.2)
rather than protective bonding. If you can
Trying to be helpful, and I create more trouble...oh well...
some people were not able to open the Word document I attached to a previous
message. It was created under windows 95 Word 7.0 SR1.
Here is the same document saved as RTF. Hope this helps.
-Lauren Crane
PED analysis.rtf
PED
Dear Colleagues,
Two items regarding this.
==
In reading through the PED (97/23/EC) I notice the following, apparent
contradiction...
The text of say Article 3, section 1.1(a) first indent says
for fluids in Group 1 with a volume greater than 1 L and a
Dear Colleagues,
NFPA 79 (1997) provides the following requirement regarding overcurrent
protective devices...
8.4 Overcurrent protective devices shall be located at the point where the
conductor to be protected receives its supply.
Then two exceptions are provided. However, it is not explicit
Dear Colleagues,
I am working to grasp the implications of the PED (Pressurized Equipment
Directive) for our equipment.
I have managed to wade through the articles and determine which Annex II
tables I should be concerned with.
I'm stuck on determining the DN value for tubing in our equipment.
Dear Colleagues,
I am looking for failure modes and reliability information for magnetic reed
switches.
I have tried general surfing on the net. I find many sites that talk about
physics of failure and reliability but none come out an provide direct
information on reed switches.
Where can I
Dear Colleagues,
I am looking for a sanity check on a rumor that has come to my attention.
I have heard from contacts in Taiwan that it is illegal to use R22 there.
R22 is the brand name of the heat transfer fluid (often a replacement for
Freon). It is classified as a class 2 ozone
Determining the actual heat dissipation of your product could be very time
consuming. It would involve, in part, knowing the electrical efficiency of
all components used. Because all components deviate from their ideal models,
some of the electrical energy that passes through them is converted to
It is not so much that red not be used, but that it not be used for safe,
normal, expected conditions of the equipment.
One example of this is a PREFERENCE stated in EN 60204-1 section 10.3.2. (It
does allow deviations based on specific agreement with customers.)
I think the underlying thought
AM
To: 'Crane, Lauren'; 'discussion group'
Subject: RE: What color is neutral.
I would tend to agree with your interpretation that light
blue is only required WHERE A CIRCUIT INCLUDES A NEUTRAL
IDENTIFIED BY COLOR. If another acceptable means of identification
Mr. Crabb,
I appreciate your spending 2c (or is that 2p!) on this issue.
As the 'thread' initiator, I hope I can trouble you with a follow-up.
As you and Mr. John Woodgate (often read in the s.e.e.c newsgroup)
suggested, I have attempted to contact the ANSI-listed members of the US
TC44
Doug
here's something I had on file
Compliance Regulatory Committee Members:
From Peter Clark of Watkins Johnson
On the RCF subject, we have gotten tons of technical information
from the RCF Coalition. Members wanting additional information on RCF
should pick up a copy of
Doug,
What is your product?
Is it plug cord connected? (i.e. no reason for an municipal electrical
inspector to go poking about in the innards)
Or is it hard-wired into a building's circuitry (i.e. electrical inspectors
tend to look into at least the/a main power distribution assembly in the
Message-
From: Graham Rae Dulmage [SMTP:grdulm...@sympatico.ca]
Sent: Monday, April 19, 1999 5:51 PM
To: Robert Johnson
Cc: Crane, Lauren; IEEE
Subject: Re: White neutrals in Europe
Both responses given so far are correct. It would be nice if we all
eventually come
to common
Is it acceptable to ship equipment to Europe with neutral conductors (hook
up wire) that is white, particularly if the ends are marked with the
letter 'N' ?
It seems to me that this would be acceptable to both the Machinery
Directive and the Low Voltage Directive. Neither of these
For those who have a penchant for developing regulations, or have legal or
policy groups you can set on the challenges, the EU is rapidly working on a new
market surveillance regulation that will amend all CE marking directives and a
bit more. The base Commission proposal as well as the 300+
1 - 100 of 176 matches
Mail list logo
