Re: [PSES] Pending Regulatory Change to UKCA Program

[Doug Powell]

Rich, et al,

I've had the opposite experience.  On a particular occasion, a field sales
person was on the site of a notably abrasive customer. Initially, that
customer was a little cagey saying "Can you see the difference, and what's
wrong with yours?"  Eventually, after playing the game for a time, that
customer pointed out how the competitor's product had one more safety
marking that ours did not.  While I haven't seen this sort of
behaviour very often, I have seen a similar attitude prevail for many years.

Unfortunately, a few sales people, whom I know and call my friends, have
sometimes complained about the lack of value that product certs bring to
the table; then complain about delays in time-to-market, and the added cost
of goods sold...  And I have the evidence to prove that a safety redesign
of an existing "low cost" product family with multiple models and
configurations allowed us to further reduce the COGS by an additional 6%
overall.  So that argument does not hold water with me.

It has always been my belief that product certs are not so much a hit to
productivity and value, but they do open markets that would otherwise be
closed. And this along with evidence of due diligence, and ultimately the
safety of the end user are their true value.  A singular focus on
profitability in the short term is a disservice to everyone.

-Doug


Douglas E Powell
Laporte, Colorado USA
doug...@gmail.com
LinkedIn 

(UTC -06:00) Mountain Time (US-MDT)






On Mon, Nov 7, 2022 at 12:39 PM Richard Nute  wrote:

>
>
> “It’s a fact the CE mark adds way more cost than the return on investment
> of performance improvement.”
>
>
>
> Reminds me of a marketing manager saying to me that safety (and, I assume,
> safety certification and EMC) do not generate sales.
>
>
>
> Rich
>
>
> -
> 
>
> This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
> discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
> emc-p...@ieee.org
>
> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
> http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
>
> Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
> Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to
> unsubscribe) 
> List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
>
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
> Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org
>
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.org
> David Heald dhe...@gmail.com
> --
>
> To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link:
> https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1
>

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

Re: [PSES] FW: Intertek message FYI: Important Update: Pending Regulatory Change to UKCA Program

[Doug Powell]

Thanks John,

As you can imagine mainstream media tends to give us a filtered view,
with various unspoken motivations.  This is the very reason I do not rely
upon a single source.  And of course, guidance provided on
https://www.gov.uk should always be viewed in its official capacity.

I appreciate your insider's perspective,  -Doug


Douglas E Powell
Laporte, Colorado USA
LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/coloradocomplianceguy/>

(UTC -06:00) Mountain Time (US-MDT)

On Mon, Nov 7, 2022 at 9:58 AM  wrote:

> Doug & co
>
>
>
> I can only speak for myself and what I have seen & heard in the mainstream
> broadcast media (don’t do Twitter, FB etc!).
>
>
>
> The majority viewpoint seems to be that it is far too late to do anything
> in the short-medium term about re-joining the EU, even if there was another
> referendum on the subject that said “Yes, Rejoin”. None of the main-stream
> political parties are pushing for it *(at least those in England, but
> there are very different views held by some parties in Wales, N. Ireland
> and especially the SNP in Scotland!).*
>
>
>
> Thus I can’t see it happening “anytime soon”, if at all!
>
>
>
> FWIW: To state my personal perspective, I was very much in favour of the
> UK joining in the first place many years ago because of my experiences of
> the many “technical barriers to trade” which made exporting to the then
> (IIRC!) Common Market countries really difficult due to all the differences
> between them. Then, in the Referendum I was very much in favour of
> Remaining in the EC & very disappointed in the (marginal!) result *(my
> opinion of those who voted to leave was/still is fairly unprintable –
> something about “cutting off your nose to spite your face”!)*
>
>
>
> John E Allen
>
> W. London, UK
>
> *From:* Doug Powell 
> *Sent:* 07 November 2022 16:15
> *To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> *Subject:* Re: [PSES] FW: Intertek message FYI: Important Update: Pending
> Regulatory Change to UKCA Program
>
>
>
> I've been watching the latest UK news with interest.  From my perspective
> in the US news media, it seems with the financial, energy, and PM woes,
> there is a small movement discussing how BREXIT may have been a mistake.
> Possibly John Allen can elaborate about how the locals feel about this, Is
> there any real possibility of reverting to EU membership, or not?
>
>
>
> thanks,  -Doug
>
>
>
>
>
> Douglas E Powell
>
> Laporte, Colorado USA
>
> LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/coloradocomplianceguy/>
>
>
>
> (UTC -06:00) Mountain Time (US-MDT)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 7, 2022 at 8:53 AM Richard Georgerian <
> richa...@mesanetworks.net> wrote:
>
> Greetings all,
>
>
>
> As a follow-up to John Allen’s email below –
>
>
>
> Has the UK submitted and/or passed any legislation for the UKCA labelling
> easement until December 31, 2025? Otherwise, the UKCA labelling starts on
> December 31, 2022.
>
> I went to the www.gov.uk website and there is no mention of the specific
> legislation. Just the announcement that the UK *intends to submit*
> legislation for the easement.
>
>
>
> Thank-you,
>
>
>
> …Richard Georgerian
>
> Compliance Engineer
>
> HID Global
>
>
>
> *From:* John E Allen <09cc677f395b-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org>
> *Sent:* Thursday, August 4, 2022 9:01 AM
> *To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> *Subject:* [PSES] FW: Intertek message FYI: Important Update: Pending
> Regulatory Change to UKCA Program
>
>
>
> For anyone who has not seen this or something similar!
>
>
>
> John E Allen
>
> W.London, UK
>
>
>
> *From:* Intertek 
> *Sent:* 03 August 2022 12:58
> *To:* john_e_al...@blueyonder.co.uk
> *Subject:* Important Update: Pending Regulatory Change to UKCA Program
>
>
>
> The UK Government has announced its intention to introduce new regulation
> as a principle ͏‌ ͏‌ ͏‌ ͏‌ ͏‌ ͏‌ ͏‌ ͏‌ ͏‌ ͏‌ ͏‌ ͏‌ ͏‌ ͏‌ ͏‌ ͏‌ ͏‌ ͏‌
>
>
>
>
>
> [image: Intertek]
> <http://links.intertek.mkt4245.com/els/v2/pwaLHKk2DmCr/WFpETTVWYjJqaDhRL3kwZmJzejB4VE05NlQwVlBlNUtvRGx0dDVOaWNGZ0RZYmtrdCtybytMRVJxb0UwWVhzRnBkaWZROWJwcnJiU1BjTWdxc0J4MDduTUxhQWx0R1k2d2c1TTNWR2ZSMFE9S0/b3grNmY2R3BIM2RhZ1VheDBwYlVydUt2VjRQV3piYUtiOHgvbTNvSGIyd3g0eVQrVEVMbEtJWElxS0V0U2lZNjZveVQzQTFUSjF3YjZnaWhyNDNLR2E5b0dZUFduUFgvZGhlQVZBLzM1YncxYVY1TE8zcU5EVitsbnRmMGNBMDBEUENMaE9QTmVudmhvM1Q1MXJrcmZQZkR1MkZtRXo2bU1wVVgrWTlIVFY0PQS2>
>
> [image: Total Quality. Assured.]
>
>
>
>
>
> *The UK is pending a regulatory change to their UKCA Program*
>
>
>
>
>
> The UK Government has announced its intenti

Re: [PSES] FW: Intertek message FYI: Important Update: Pending Regulatory Change to UKCA Program

[Doug Powell]

I've been watching the latest UK news with interest.  From my perspective
in the US news media, it seems with the financial, energy, and PM woes,
there is a small movement discussing how BREXIT may have been a mistake.
Possibly John Allen can elaborate about how the locals feel about this, Is
there any real possibility of reverting to EU membership, or not?

thanks,  -Doug


Douglas E Powell
Laporte, Colorado USA
LinkedIn 

(UTC -06:00) Mountain Time (US-MDT)



On Mon, Nov 7, 2022 at 8:53 AM Richard Georgerian 
wrote:

> Greetings all,
>
>
>
> As a follow-up to John Allen’s email below –
>
>
>
> Has the UK submitted and/or passed any legislation for the UKCA labelling
> easement until December 31, 2025? Otherwise, the UKCA labelling starts on
> December 31, 2022.
>
> I went to the www.gov.uk website and there is no mention of the specific
> legislation. Just the announcement that the UK *intends to submit*
> legislation for the easement.
>
>
>
> Thank-you,
>
>
>
> …Richard Georgerian
>
> Compliance Engineer
>
> HID Global
>
>
>
> *From:* John E Allen <09cc677f395b-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org>
> *Sent:* Thursday, August 4, 2022 9:01 AM
> *To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> *Subject:* [PSES] FW: Intertek message FYI: Important Update: Pending
> Regulatory Change to UKCA Program
>
>
>
> For anyone who has not seen this or something similar!
>
>
>
> John E Allen
>
> W.London, UK
>
>
>
> *From:* Intertek 
> *Sent:* 03 August 2022 12:58
> *To:* john_e_al...@blueyonder.co.uk
> *Subject:* Important Update: Pending Regulatory Change to UKCA Program
>
>
>
> The UK Government has announced its intention to introduce new regulation
> as a principle ͏‌ ͏‌ ͏‌ ͏‌ ͏‌ ͏‌ ͏‌ ͏‌ ͏‌ ͏‌ ͏‌ ͏‌ ͏‌ ͏‌ ͏‌ ͏‌ ͏‌ ͏‌
>
>
>
>
>
> [image: Intertek]
> 
>
> [image: Total Quality. Assured.]
>
>
>
>
>
> *The UK is pending a regulatory change to their UKCA Program*
>
>
>
>
>
> The UK Government has announced its intention to introduce new regulation
> as a principle so to reduce the costs involved for the
> re-certification/re-testing of products for UKCA marking. This new
> regulation, when introduced (no timelines given), and based on the summary
> notice criteria, will effectively increase the acceptance of CE marking of
> products as a means of meeting UKCA marking requirements.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *Until this new regulation is introduced, the current framework, timelines
> and conformity assessment process for UKCA marking remains, in that from 01
> January 2023, CE marking will no longer be accepted when placing product
> onto the Great Britain Market.*
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> The full details of the UK Government announcement can be found here
> .
> Please refer to the 22 June update.
>
>
>
>
>
> *READ THE UPDATE*
> 
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *On Introduction of The New Regulation*
>
>
>
>
>
> In summary, product conformity assessment will see the following changes:
>
>
>
>- Completed conformity assessment activities carried out on product
>under EU requirements (including existing testing, certification, and
>contractual arrangements relating to the quality control or auditing of
>existing certificates) undertaken by non-UK conformity assessment bodies
>(EU Notified Bodies accredited by their national accreditation body) for CE
>certification before 1 January 2023 to be used by manufacturers to declare
>existing product types as compliant with UKCA.
>- Products must still bear UKCA marking and will need to undergo
>conformity assessment with a UK Approved Body at the expiry of the
>certificate or after 5 years (31 December 2027), whichever is sooner.
>- Manufacturers to apply the UKCA mark without the need for any
>UK-recognised CAB involvement and continue to place their goods on the
>market, on the basis of their existing CE type examination completed before
>31 December 2022, for the lifetime of the certificate issued, or until 31
>December 2027 (whichever is sooner).
>- Conformity assessment procedures not completed and supported by a CE
>certificate issued before 1 January 2023, 

Re: [PSES] Surge Protection Device required by NEC

[Doug Powell]

>From the 2020 Edition, emphasis is mine.

"670.6 Surge Protection. Industrial machinery with safety interlock control
devices *not effectively protected from voltage surges on the incoming
supply circuit* shall have surge protection installed."


It does not say where this protection needs to be applied, so I assume it
can be within the machine or somewhere in machine supply. Also, does the
product you are inquiring about fall under the definition of *Industrial
Machinery*, NFPA 79?

-Doug

Douglas E Powell
Laporte, Colorado USA
doug...@gmail.com
LinkedIn 

(UTC -06:00) Mountain Time (US-MDT)



On Tue, Nov 1, 2022 at 11:55 AM Brian Kunde  wrote:

> It just came to my attention that section 670.6 of the US National
> Electric Code 2017 requires a listed Surge Protection Device (SPD) to be on
> any Industrial Machine that has an Interlock, or I assume any kind of
> safety function.  Is this true? The only information I can find on the
> internet is from the companies that make and sell the SPDs which can often
> be very one sided.  Is there more to this story that I am missing?
>
> Does the Surge Protection have to be listed? Are there specifications for
> the SPD? Is there a Surge Immunity Test that be used to validate and
> verify whether an additional SPD is required or not?
>
> Thanks,
> The Other Brian
> -
> 
>
> This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
> discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
> emc-p...@ieee.org
>
> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
> http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
>
> Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
> Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to
> unsubscribe) 
> List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
>
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
> Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org
>
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.org
> David Heald dhe...@gmail.com
> --
>
> To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link:
> https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1
>

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

Re: [PSES] Capacitor Friday question

[Doug Powell]

  Thanks Ken,I had not realized anyone else on this forum had ever worked around vacuum tubes. Good to know.Yes, I've always understood capacitor formation is a gradual thing. And especially not with high ripple current as is likely in the method described in the video.   Doug--Douglas E Powelldoug...@gmail.comhttps://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01   From: ibm...@gmail.comSent: January 17, 2020 8:32 PMTo: doug...@gmail.comCc: EMC-PSTC@listserv.ieee.orgSubject: Re: [PSES] Capacitor Friday question  Hi Doug!Reforming capacitors is definitely a thing but it sounds like your skepticism comes from the allegation that capacitors can reform themselves in-circuit.  I think this is also 'a thing', though probably not recommended in the way shown in the video (dumping full line voltage across the equipment and waiting).  I recall hearing a common suggestion for working on older (vacuum tube) radios and such; that it was a good idea to bring them up slowly on a variac to allow for precisely this (capacitors to reform themselves).  Another thing that rubs me the wrong way about the approach shown in the video:  If there's a question about a piece of equipment (whether old or new) it would be wise to open it up and check some things out first, even if only a visual inspection to look for bulged, vented, or leaky caps.  This is doubly a concern due to the industry-wide problem of 'capacitor plague' from the 90's to the early 2000's.  The general public may only have tangentially been aware of this due to significant fallout in Dell computers, but many manufacturers were affected.  The story behind it is actually quite fascinating:  https://www.theguardian.com/technology/blog/2010/jun/29/dell-problems-capacitors-KenOn Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 8:22 PM Doug Powell <doug...@gmail.com> wrote:This is somewhat off topic but still I feel it can be relevant to equipment reliability.My daughter found this article on Facebook and successfully got her sewing machine running again, after a fairly long period of storage. The link  has an interesting theory about old electrolytic capacitors restoring themselves and I'm not sure I buy it. I've never heard of this before sort of thing before. What do you think? https://m.facebook.com/DrDavesSewingMachines/posts/1273259472698687Have a great weekend. ~Doug  --Douglas E Powelldoug...@gmail.comhttps://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01 
-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc.


Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas sdoug...@ieee.org
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher  j.bac...@ieee.org
David Heald dhe...@gmail.com



-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc.


Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas sdoug...@ieee.org
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher  j.bac...@ieee.org
David Heald dhe...@gmail.com

[PSES] Capacitor Friday question

[Doug Powell]

This is somewhat off topic but still I feel it can be relevant to equipment reliability.My daughter found this article on Facebook and successfully got her sewing machine running again, after a fairly long period of storage. The link  has an interesting theory about old electrolytic capacitors restoring themselves and I'm not sure I buy it. I've never heard of this before sort of thing before. What do you think? https://m.facebook.com/DrDavesSewingMachines/posts/1273259472698687Have a great weekend. ~Doug  --Douglas E Powelldoug...@gmail.comhttps://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01 
-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc.


Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas sdoug...@ieee.org
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher  j.bac...@ieee.org
David Heald dhe...@gmail.com

Re: [PSES] act of God versus safety

[Doug Powell]

  Rich,While many standards do indeed refer to foreseeable events, misuse, etc. I'm not certain this would automatically confer Act of God status to an unforeseen event. This hypothetical event may be a case of degrees and not of two extremes, especially in the case of a formerly unforeseeable and now preventable situation. Isn't this how many standards are developed over the years?    I still remember shoe stores in the 1950s that offered real-time x-ray of how well shoes fit the customer's feet. An unforeseeable hazard at the time and now incredibly obvious. Would injury in the former time be an Act of God?   Best wishes, Doug   From: ri...@ieee.orgSent: December 29, 2019 5:19 PMTo: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORGReply-to: ri...@ieee.orgSubject: [PSES] act of God versus safety    The Florida state Supreme Court ruled in 1944 that an act of God is “an act or occurrence so extraordinary and unprecedented that human foresight could not foresee or guard against it.” If a product that complies with a safety standard injures a person, is the injury an act of God? Best wishes for the holiday season, Rich  
-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc.


Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher  
David Heald 

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc.


Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas sdoug...@ieee.org
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher  j.bac...@ieee.org
David Heald dhe...@gmail.com

Re: [PSES] HV relay

[Doug Powell]

  BOštjanIn the past when I've had to deal with this, I explained to the safety inspector that internal spacings (clearance and creepage) are not applicable. Nearly all IEC based standards use IEC 60644-1 as the basis of their spacings determination. Since there is no atmosphere inside a vacuum relay, things like pollution degree do not apply, additionally you can invoke the Paschen's Law for voltage standoff capability, which is very high for a deep vacuum.  I have achieved 30 kV with just few millimeters. Of course, nearly all vacuum HV relays use shaped electrodes for homogenous e-field control.  That said, normal spacings concern still apply to the exterior surfaces of the relay.  Since most of these are made of glass-like materials or ceramics you can claim CTI I for the material class.  Best fo luck, doug--Douglas E Powelldoug...@gmail.comhttps://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01  Currently working from my Android phone   From: bostjan.gla...@siq.siSent: November 25, 2019 8:22 AMTo: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORGReply-to: bostjan.gla...@siq.siSubject: [PSES] HV relay  
Dear experts,
 
Is anyone familiar with requirements for HV relay in vacuum? Are clearances and creepage distances between contacts applicable for such relay?
 
Thank you for your support.
 
Best regards,
BOštjan

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc.


Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher  
David Heald 


-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc.


Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas sdoug...@ieee.org
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher  j.bac...@ieee.org
David Heald dhe...@gmail.com

Re: [PSES] Vacuum hazards

[Doug Powell]

  Joshua,Thanks for that. Yes I am familiar and I may have an older edition on hand. I'll check.The vacuum I'm dealing with is actually very low pressure and nor just a ventilator.  Think semiconductor manufacturing processes with deep vacuums.Doug Currently out of the office and working from my Android phone   From: joshua.wise...@orthoclinicaldiagnostics.comSent: September 4, 2019 6:27 PMTo: doug...@gmail.com; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORGSubject: RE: [PSES] Vacuum hazards  
Doug,
 
Not sure what type of device you’re working with.  Have you checked the 60335 standards?  There is one for vent hoods and a couple for vacuums.  The vent hoods is more geared toward commercial kitchen venting, but you may find something
 else in the 60335 family.
 

Josh
 
Joshua Wiseman

Systems Engineering
Staff Engineer, Product Safety/EMC
Ortho Clinical Diagnostics
 


 


From:  Douglas Powell 
Sent: Wednesday, September 4, 2019 6:12 PM
To:  EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Vacuum hazards


 

EXTERNAL SENDER: Verify links, attachments and sender before taking action

 



All,


 


Looking into MD and LVD using EN 60204-1 and EN 61010-1.  I find absolutely nothing on vacuum hazards.  Is anyone aware of guidance on this topic?


 


Thanks so much,  Doug


 


 


 

-- 





 

Douglas E Powell

doug...@gmail.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01





-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc.
Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell  
For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher 
David Heald  



-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc.


Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas sdoug...@ieee.org
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher  j.bac...@ieee.org
David Heald dhe...@gmail.com

Re: [PSES] User Documents & EU Official Languages, Friday Question

[Doug Powell]

Thanks all,

As always, the discussion is interesting and also surprising in some ways.

Have a great weekend,

Doug


Douglas E Powell
Laporte, Colorado USA
doug...@gmail.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01

On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 1:01 AM Doug Powell  wrote:

> All,
>
> I haven't written a Friday Question in some time, so here is a new
> installment.
>
> With the exit of Britain for the European Union (Brexit), I find it
> interesting but not surprising that English remains one of the official
> languages, at least for now. For many years there has been a large body of
> documentation provided in English and indeed, many of the European Norms
> are based on IEC standards originating in French & English. I wonder, will
> this policy change in the foreseeable future?
>
> It has been my practice to tell clients that the minimum requirement for
> translation of user document(s) and product markings is they must first be
> in one of the official languages and upon request by the end user, the
> local language becomes a requirement as well. I haven't checked in some
> time, but the Machinery Directive may require this without end user
> involvement. In some cases, local regulatory requirements may dictate which
> languages must be used for specific information especially involving EHS.
> Incidentally, a good friend who is in Planetary Aeronomy and
> Astro-geophysics has told me, if you know just one of a handful of
> languages, you can just about go anywhere in the scientific
> world community; these being English, French, German, Japanese and possibly
> Russian.
>
> So now there is the question of which "English" is the official language
> of the EU, British (Cambridge) English?  I suspect that Brits, Aussies and
> Americans will all have no trouble understanding one another, even with
> differences in spelling, grammar and possibly idioms. Or as Wikipedia puts
> it, these are "mutually comprehensible" (
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dialects_of_English).  I noticed
> one form of English not mentioned in the Wikipedia article, Texas.
>
> All the best, Doug
>
> PS - The bottom line, every Tom, Dick and Harry should avoid cliché at all
> costs.
>
>
> --
>
> Douglas E Powell
>
> doug...@gmail.com
> http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01
>


-- 

Douglas E Powell

doug...@gmail.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

[PSES] User Documents & EU Official Languages, Friday Question

[Doug Powell]

All,

I haven't written a Friday Question in some time, so here is a new
installment.

With the exit of Britain for the European Union (Brexit), I find it
interesting but not surprising that English remains one of the official
languages, at least for now. For many years there has been a large body of
documentation provided in English and indeed, many of the European Norms
are based on IEC standards originating in French & English. I wonder, will
this policy change in the foreseeable future?

It has been my practice to tell clients that the minimum requirement for
translation of user document(s) and product markings is they must first be
in one of the official languages and upon request by the end user, the
local language becomes a requirement as well. I haven't checked in some
time, but the Machinery Directive may require this without end user
involvement. In some cases, local regulatory requirements may dictate which
languages must be used for specific information especially involving EHS.
Incidentally, a good friend who is in Planetary Aeronomy and
Astro-geophysics has told me, if you know just one of a handful of
languages, you can just about go anywhere in the scientific
world community; these being English, French, German, Japanese and possibly
Russian.

So now there is the question of which "English" is the official language of
the EU, British (Cambridge) English?  I suspect that Brits, Aussies and
Americans will all have no trouble understanding one another, even with
differences in spelling, grammar and possibly idioms. Or as Wikipedia puts
it, these are "mutually comprehensible" (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dialects_of_English).  I noticed one
form of English not mentioned in the Wikipedia article, Texas.

All the best, Doug

PS - The bottom line, every Tom, Dick and Harry should avoid cliché at all
costs.


-- 

Douglas E Powell

doug...@gmail.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] Pearson RF Current Probe

[Doug Powell]

Do you need the same maximum current and frequency range?

I've used the Pearson 101, 110 and Pearson 411 in the past, mainly because
of the 3 dB low-frequency cutoff and the very flat phase / frequency
response within the band pass. However, sensitivity is different by a
couple orders.  It will be difficult to get that same flat response in a
generic current sensor.  As I understand it, the windings, and shield are
laid out on the core in a proprietary manner.

-Doug


Douglas E Powell
Laporte, Colorado USA
doug...@gmail.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01

On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 3:28 PM Jones, Richard 
wrote:

> Anybody know of an equivalent to a Pearson 2877?
>
>
>
> Rich
>
>
> -
> 
>
> This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
> discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
> emc-p...@ieee.org
>
> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
> http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
>
> Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at
> http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in
> well-used formats), large files, etc.
>
> Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
> Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to
> unsubscribe) 
> List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
>
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
> Scott Douglas sdoug...@ieee.org
> Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org
>
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.org
> David Heald dhe...@gmail.com
>


-- 

Douglas E Powell

doug...@gmail.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] Measuring Insertion Loss of Absorber Sheets

[Doug Powell]

Nicely done,

Thank you!  Doug



Douglas E Powell
Laporte, Colorado USA
doug...@gmail.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01

On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 10:21 AM Ken Wyatt  wrote:

> Hi Group,
>
> I recently published an article on evaluating the insertion loss of
> various absorber sheets. So many manufacturers specify the permeability of
> these, but for an EMC engineer, we want to know the absorption or insertion
> loss. Here are measurements of five manufacturers.
>
>
> https://www.edn.com/electronics-blogs/the-emc-blog/4462154/Insertion-loss-measurements-of-ferrite-absorber-sheets
>
> Cheers, Ken
>
> ___
>
> I'm here to help you succeed! Feel free to call or email with any
> questions related to EMC or EMI troubleshooting - at no obligation.
> I'm always happy to help!
>
> Kenneth Wyatt
> Wyatt Technical Services LLC
> 56 Aspen Dr.
> Woodland Park, CO 80863
>
> Phone: (719) 310-5418
>
> Web Site  | Blog 
> The EMC Blog (EDN)
> 
> Subscribe to Newsletter
> 
> Connect with me on LinkedIn 
>
> -
> 
>
> This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
> discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
> emc-p...@ieee.org
>
> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
> http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
>
> Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at
> http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in
> well-used formats), large files, etc.
>
> Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
> Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to
> unsubscribe) 
> List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
>
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
> Scott Douglas sdoug...@ieee.org
> Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org
>
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.org
> David Heald dhe...@gmail.com
>


-- 

Douglas E Powell

doug...@gmail.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] Plasma generator

[Doug Powell]

Steve,

I've dealt with plasma generators before, in my case atmospheric plasma for
cleaning. Unless the plasma wand is under some form of robotic control I
would not think this is not machinery. And in my view it is not an arc
welder. What I used in the past was use EN 61000-6-2 and EN 61000-6-4 for
Industrial and for Group 2 Class A invoking the clause "for treatment of
material".  If you use IEC 61010-1 for the safety portion, you are then
required to use  IEC 61326-1, which once again refers back to the same
family of test standards with various tweaks to the test levels.

Best of luck,  Doug

doug...@gmail.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01



On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 2:22 PM Steve Brody  wrote:

> Experts:
>
> One of my clients has a process tool for use in a controlled EMI
> environment, that incorporates a plasma generator for cleaning housings
> before glue is applied.  The plasma electron density is typically around 10
> 11 cm-3
>
>
> There are two parts to this question:
>
>- an EMC test house told them that because it had a plasma generator
>it would need to be EMC tested to EN 60974-10 which is for arc welders and
>associated equipment. This scope of this standard says, in part, *"IEC
>60974-10:2014 specifies a) applicable standards and test methods for
>radio-frequency (RF) emissions; b) applicable standards and test methods
>for harmonic current emission, voltage fluctuations and flicker; c)
>immunity requirements and test methods for continuous and transient,
>conducted and radiated disturbances including electrostatic discharges.
>This standard is applicable to equipment for arc welding and allied
>processes, including power sources and ancillary equipment, for example
>wire feeders, liquid cooling systems and arc striking and stabilizing
>devices."*
>   - So the question is to continue to use EN 61000-6-2 and EN
>   61000-6-4 if classified as machinery, or EN 61326-1 if classified as MCE
>   equipment, or have a separate report done for EN 60974-10?
> - The individual tests still use the EN 61000-4-x series, but with some
>   modification.  It also requires testing to EN 61000-3-2, and 3-3, which
>   would normally be done for machinery or MCE.
>
>
>
>- The second part is safety evaluation of the complete product.  There
>is nothing in EN 61010-1 or EN 60204-1 that has the word 'plasma'.
>Operator safety meets requirements.  I am not aware of any special
>consideration that needs to be given to the plasma generator.  In fairness
>I have not contact the plasma generator manufacturer yet to see what if any
>standards their units are, I assume, approved to.
>
> Thought and comments greatly appreciated.
> -
> 
>
> This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
> discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
> emc-p...@ieee.org
>
> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
> http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
>
> Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at
> http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in
> well-used formats), large files, etc.
>
> Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
> Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to
> unsubscribe) 
> List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
>
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
> Scott Douglas sdoug...@ieee.org
> Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org
>
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.org
> David Heald dhe...@gmail.com
>


-- 

Douglas E Powell

doug...@gmail.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] UL 61010-1 7.4 stabilty

[Doug Powell]

  Thanks Rich,This is helpful. I think I know how to deal with this. And I will argue against a broken wheel test which would be an unwarranted abnormal operations test in my view. In this case, the wheels are rated for the load; if they were underrated then a test like that might be in order. Best regards, Doug Currently out of the office and working from my Android phone   From: ri...@ieee.orgSent: July 22, 2019 8:44 PMTo: doug...@gmail.com; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORGReply-to: ri...@ieee.orgSubject: Re: [PSES] UL 61010-1 7.4 stabilty  Hi Doug:
  
  See IEC 61010, 3rd edition, Clause 7.4 d) and e).
  
  The 4X load is only applied to the support or castor that has the
  greatest load (independent of the equipment) (d).  I guess the
  pass criterion is no failure of the support or castor.  (If the
  support or castor is rated 4X or more of its load, then no test is
  necessary.)
  
  The maximum load support or castor is removed; the equipment shall
  not overbalance (but without the 4X load) (e).  (Hmm.  If the
  support or castor meets (d), then what is the value of assuming
  its failure?)  
  
  The inspector has not written the two requirements correctly.
  
  Best regards,
  Rich
   
On 7/22/2019 5:11 PM, Doug Powell
  wrote:

  
  
  
   An interesting requirement
came up today on a system that uses wheels for mobility. The
inspector says clause 7.4 requires "... the unit be stable in
the upright orientation, with wheels augmented with floor-braces
or other such parts as necessary such that each wheel or brace
can withstand four times the weight normally applied to it and
the unit will remain stable and upright if any wheel or support
is removed or broken." This is the exact in the letter report.

  

  I have no problem
  with stability requirements but I checked the third edition of
  UL 61010-1 and the national differences. I found nothing like
  this statement in the standard.  It didn't even mention the
  words wheels or castors. I am familiar with the four times
  requirements for handles, lifting rings and the like but not
  for wheels in particular. Also, I do know about various topple
  tests and the like are performed but a broken wheel or broken
  support test?  
  
  
  This made me wonder if the
certifying agency has internal requirements or possibly the
inspector is confusing wheel requirements from IEC 60601-1 for
"transportable equipment" .  
  
  
  Does anyone know where the
above may have originated? 
  
  
  Thanks everyone!
  
  
  Doug
  
  
  --
  Douglas E Powell
  doug...@gmail.com
  https://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01 

  


-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc.


Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas sdoug...@ieee.org
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher  j.bac...@ieee.org
David Heald dhe...@gmail.com

Re: [PSES] UL 61010-1 7.4 stabilty

[Doug Powell]

  It may be possible except my client is the producer selling the product on wheels. The inspector is certifying the end product of which this device is only a large component. I really don't want to challenge them straight away and possibly sour the relations between my client and their customer. In any case, I'm beginning to suspect this may be an internally circulated technical information letter or engineering judgement at the agency. There are three other observations I need to deal with and we should be done. This stability requirement is the one that seems just a bit weird. Tis a complicated world we live in, eh? Thanks, Doug   From: j...@woodjohn.ukSent: July 22, 2019 11:05 PMTo: doug...@gmail.com; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORGSubject: Re: [PSES] UL 61010-1 7.4 stabilty  Is it possible to ask the inspector to give
publication and clause references to the claimed provisions?
Best wishes
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UKOn 2019-07-23 01:11, Doug Powell wrote:

  
  
  
   An interesting requirement
came up today on a system that uses wheels for mobility. The
inspector says clause 7.4 requires "... the unit be stable in
the upright orientation, with wheels augmented with floor-braces
or other such parts as necessary such that each wheel or brace
can withstand four times the weight normally applied to it and
the unit will remain stable and upright if any wheel or support
is removed or broken." This is the exact wording in the letter
report.
  

  I have no problem
  with stability requirements but I checked the third edition of
  UL 61010-1 and the national differences. I found nothing like
  this statement in the standard.  It didn't even mention the
  words wheels or castors. I am familiar with the four times
  requirements for handles, lifting rings and the like but not
  for wheels in particular. Also, I do know about various topple
  tests and the like are performed but a broken wheel or broken
  support test?  
  
  
  This made me wonder if the
certifying agency has internal requirements or possibly the
inspector is confusing wheel requirements from IEC 60601-1 for
"transportable equipment" .  
  
  
  Does anyone know where the
above may have originated? 
  
  
  Thanks everyone!
  
  
  Doug
  
  
  --
  Douglas E Powell
  doug...@gmail.com
  https://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01 


  
Currently out of the office and working from my
  Android phone
  

  
  -
  
  This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering
Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list,
send your e-mail to <emc-p...@ieee.org>
  All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web
at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
  Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online
Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/
can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files,
etc.
  Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html
  (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
  
  For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas <sdoug...@ieee.org>
Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org>
  
  For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher <j.bac...@ieee.org>
David Heald <dhe...@gmail.com>
  


-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc.


Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mai

[PSES] UL 61010-1 7.4 stabilty

[Doug Powell]

 An interesting requirement came up today on a system that uses wheels for mobility. The inspector says clause 7.4 requires "... the unit be stable in the upright orientation, with wheels augmented with floor-braces or other such parts as necessary such that each wheel or brace can withstand four times the weight normally applied to it and the unit will remain stable and upright if any wheel or support is removed or broken." This is the exact wording in the letter report.I have no problem with stability requirements but I checked the third edition of UL 61010-1 and the national differences. I found nothing like this statement in the standard.  It didn't even mention the words wheels or castors. I am familiar with the four times requirements for handles, lifting rings and the like but not for wheels in particular. Also, I do know about various topple tests and the like are performed but a broken wheel or broken support test?  This made me wonder if the certifying agency has internal requirements or possibly the inspector is confusing wheel requirements from IEC 60601-1 for "transportable equipment" .  Does anyone know where the above may have originated? Thanks everyone!Doug--Douglas E Powelldoug...@gmail.comhttps://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01   Currently out of the office and working from my Android phone 
-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc.


Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas sdoug...@ieee.org
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher  j.bac...@ieee.org
David Heald dhe...@gmail.com

Re: [PSES] Listing confusion

[Doug Powell]

Yes, and it is an especially fancy monogram too.  Multi-color process makes
labels more expensive.

Best, Doug


On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 9:13 AM John Woodgate  wrote:

> Unfortunately, the DLC logos include the L-word:
>
> https://www.designlights.org/terms/logo-guidelines/
>
> Best wishes
> John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
> J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
> Rayleigh, Essex UK
>
> On 2019-07-19 15:43, Doug Powell wrote:
>
> All,
>
> Well actually, I'm not confused. But I'm certain some consumers are.
>
> I ran across an LED lighting fixture product and they were promoting "*ETL
> and DLC Listed*", of course I became curious. DLC is a consortium about
> energy efficiency and in this company's view DLC gets top billing along
> with ETL safety certification. DLC has been around for some time and
> possibly this is the first time I've seen the two promoted in this manner,
> but it got my attention. Some companies ethically make the distinction that
> DLC is not a safety certification while others do not.
>
> Maybe I'm blowing this all out of proportion and possibly I'm becoming
> territoriality minded, I simply don't want other people treading on my
> safety certs soil and that said we certainly don't have exclusive use of
> the generic word "listed". I simply don't like the phrase *DLC Listed*.
> I've seen this sort of thing before when acronyms are added to product
> labeling a little like NASCAR racing stickers or all the special labeling
> for food and shampoo, that is when it is used as a sales tool. Of course,
> the more acronyms and symbols you add to a product the better it is,
> right?  Maybe someday we'll have fat-free, range-free, non-GMO, fair trade,
> gluten free, grass fed, humanely handled, made from recycled HDPE lighting
> products... or maybe not.
>
> Here is that DLC link, https://www.designlights.org/
>
> Happy Friday and best to all, Doug
> --
> Douglas E Powell
> doug...@gmail.com
> https://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01
>
>
> -
> 
>
> This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
> discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to <
> emc-p...@ieee.org>
>
> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
> http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
>
> Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at
> http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in
> well-used formats), large files, etc.
>
> Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
> Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to
> unsubscribe) <http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html>
> List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
>
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
> Scott Douglas 
> Mike Cantwell 
>
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Jim Bacher 
> David Heald 
>
>

-- 

Douglas E Powell

doug...@gmail.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] Listing confusion

[Doug Powell]

Right.

Its an age old argument about UL Certified.  I've had clients who believe
UL is a government department of some kind.  The other NRTLs do spend some
effort to correct this mistake of their own validity vs UL, usually in the
form of a white paper and UL is nearly silent on the matter. Same kind of
confusion exists over listed vs recognized, etc. I had one person tell me
the recognized is not as good as listed and is inferior in some way. While
there may be some truth in that this part is not in full compliance, he
meant it in a denigrating manner.

Best, Doug


On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 9:07 AM Nyffenegger, Dave <
dave.nyffeneg...@bhemail.com> wrote:

> Doug, There is so much confusion and inaccuracy out there on this topic I
> could write a book on it.  The majority of the OEM spec sheets I deal with
> do not have the compliance information clearly identified and mix up the
> difference between actual NRTL approvals and the standards.  I can only
> hope when the put the NRTL artwork mark on the data sheets that the product
> is actually certified/listed.  Otherwise when they just list a UL standard
> under “approvals” I have to confirm who actually certified it.
>
>
>
> Just this week I had to explain to one of *my* supplier OEM product
> managers, that no, *their* product is not UL listed, it is ETL certified
> to a UL standard.  Their documentation is clear and correct but they’ve
> been verbally communicating it was “UL listed”.  I sometimes act as an
> intermediary between Intertek and my OEM, having pointed them to Intertek.
>
>
>
> -Dave
>
>
>
> *From:* Doug Powell [mailto:doug...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Friday, July 19, 2019 10:43 AM
> *To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> *Subject:* [PSES] Listing confusion
>
>
>
> All,
>
>
>
> Well actually, I'm not confused. But I'm certain some consumers are.
>
>
>
> I ran across an LED lighting fixture product and they were promoting "*ETL
> and DLC Listed*", of course I became curious. DLC is a consortium about
> energy efficiency and in this company's view DLC gets top billing along
> with ETL safety certification. DLC has been around for some time and
> possibly this is the first time I've seen the two promoted in this manner,
> but it got my attention. Some companies ethically make the distinction that
> DLC is not a safety certification while others do not.
>
>
>
> Maybe I'm blowing this all out of proportion and possibly I'm becoming
> territoriality minded, I simply don't want other people treading on my
> safety certs soil and that said we certainly don't have exclusive use of
> the generic word "listed". I simply don't like the phrase *DLC Listed*.
> I've seen this sort of thing before when acronyms are added to product
> labeling a little like NASCAR racing stickers or all the special labeling
> for food and shampoo, that is when it is used as a sales tool. Of course,
> the more acronyms and symbols you add to a product the better it is,
> right?  Maybe someday we'll have fat-free, range-free, non-GMO, fair trade,
> gluten free, grass fed, humanely handled, made from recycled HDPE lighting
> products... or maybe not.
>
>
>
> Here is that DLC link, https://www.designlights.org/
>
>
>
> Happy Friday and best to all, Doug
>
> --
>
> Douglas E Powell
>
> doug...@gmail.com
>
> https://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01
>
>
>
>
>
> -
> 
>
> This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
> discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to <
> emc-p...@ieee.org>
>
> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
> http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
>
> Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at
> http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in
> well-used formats), large files, etc.
>
> Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
> Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to
> unsubscribe) <http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html>
> List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
>
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
> Scott Douglas 
> Mike Cantwell 
>
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Jim Bacher 
> David Heald 
>


-- 

Douglas E Powell

doug...@gmail.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.ht

[PSES] Listing confusion

[Doug Powell]

All,

Well actually, I'm not confused. But I'm certain some consumers are.

I ran across an LED lighting fixture product and they were promoting "*ETL
and DLC Listed*", of course I became curious. DLC is a consortium about
energy efficiency and in this company's view DLC gets top billing along
with ETL safety certification. DLC has been around for some time and
possibly this is the first time I've seen the two promoted in this manner,
but it got my attention. Some companies ethically make the distinction that
DLC is not a safety certification while others do not.

Maybe I'm blowing this all out of proportion and possibly I'm becoming
territoriality minded, I simply don't want other people treading on my
safety certs soil and that said we certainly don't have exclusive use of
the generic word "listed". I simply don't like the phrase *DLC Listed*.
I've seen this sort of thing before when acronyms are added to product
labeling a little like NASCAR racing stickers or all the special labeling
for food and shampoo, that is when it is used as a sales tool. Of course,
the more acronyms and symbols you add to a product the better it is,
right?  Maybe someday we'll have fat-free, range-free, non-GMO, fair trade,
gluten free, grass fed, humanely handled, made from recycled HDPE lighting
products... or maybe not.

Here is that DLC link, https://www.designlights.org/

Happy Friday and best to all, Doug
-- 
Douglas E Powell
doug...@gmail.com
https://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] Ground on ship

[Doug Powell]

 This is purely speculation on my part but it seems to me that the single syllable "ground" is a lazy way of referring to anything that is a common return line, whether bonded to earth or not. I've seen circuits with references to Gnd0, Gnd1, Gnd2, Gnd-Iso, etc.  Of course, this shorthand way of referring to circuits does cause a lot of confusion. And, I personally classify this as falling into the same category as when people with an inexperienced eye say this bit of failed electronics "must have a short somewhere" .Doug--Douglas E Powelldoug...@gmail.comhttps://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01   Currently out of the office and working from my Android phone   From: ri...@ieee.orgSent: July 13, 2019 1:26 PMTo: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORGReply-to: ri...@ieee.orgSubject: Re: [PSES] Ground on ship  Hi Bill:
On 7/13/2019 10:42 AM, Bill Owsley
  wrote:
They
  started out, and still in some rural areas, use earth as the
  "ground" for the return of the AC power being provided to users. 

  The descriptive term is "SWER,"  Single Wire Earth Return.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-wire_earth_return
https://www.esdnews.com.au/swer-still-going-strong/
  
  A brief history and acknowledgement of the SWER inventor:
https://www.engineeringnz.org/our-work/heritage/heritage-records/single-wire-earth-return-swer/
  
  And, a more scholarly report:
https://scholarsmine.mst.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6061=masters_theses
  
  Best regards,
  Rich
  

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc.


Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher  
David Heald 


-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc.


Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas sdoug...@ieee.org
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher  j.bac...@ieee.org
David Heald dhe...@gmail.com

Re: [PSES] Ground on ship

[Doug Powell]

In actuality the ship's hull is not that well connected to the water. There
are a number of issues such as the paint used on the hull to prevent
corrosion in salt water and the fact that the ship's screws are generally
made of brass and galvanic corrosion is a problem. Which is why US Navy
ships have large sacrificial anode of lead on the bottom of the hull. Ships
can also become magnetized and often must pass through a degaussing range
on return to port. As for RF ground with respect to sea water, one might
argue that the paint is so thin that is the effective capacitance negates
any insulating value at frequency. However naval radio and radar systems
are very high powered and I don't believe they rely on that alone.

Best, Doug



On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 1:48 PM Richard Nute  wrote:

>
> Hi Peter:
>
> Sea water is a very good conductor, better than soil.  Fresh water is an
> okay conductor.  Pure water is a poor conductor.
>
> The hull of a steel ship is well grounded in the ocean, and reasonably
> well grounded in fresh water due to the large contact area with the water.
>
> If the hull is not steel, there usually are enough fittings that the ship
> is reasonably well-connected to the water.  The propeller and drive shaft
> also provide a connection to the water.
>
> I've heard of ship-board hams who will tow a large brass plate for a good
> ground for their transmitter.
>
> Commercial AM transmitters try to locate their antennas near a body of
> salt water like San Francisco Bay or the Great Salt Lake.
>
> I would guess that a ground pin of a shipboard outlet would be connected
> to the hull metal.  This gives the same protection from electric shock as
> land-based outlets.
>
> See also:
>
>
> http://electrotechnical-officer.com/primary-methods-of-grounding-and-bonding-on-ship/
>
>
> Best regards,
> Rich
>
> On 7/8/2019 11:19 AM, 06cee064502d-dmarc-requ...@ieee.org wrote:
>
> Hello group,
>
> Is there a real ground in a ship?  i.e if a Class I product is used on the
> board of a ship, does the ground pin actually doing anything? The ship is
> floating in the ocean and I cannot understand if there is a real ground
> there or not? Can you guys educate me please?
>
> Thank you
> Peter
>
>
> -
> 
>
> This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
> discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
> emc-p...@ieee.org
>
> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
> http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
>
> Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at
> http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in
> well-used formats), large files, etc.
>
> Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
> Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to
> unsubscribe) 
> List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
>
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
> Scott Douglas sdoug...@ieee.org
> Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org
>
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.org
> David Heald dhe...@gmail.com
>


-- 

Douglas E Powell

doug...@gmail.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] Tilt stability and CoG test lab

[Doug Powell]

A quick and dirty way to find the center of gravity is to hang the product
from each of the four corners on top, one at a time. For example from
lifting rings or similar.  The imaginary vertical lines that passes through
the product should all intersect at the COG. Similarly, you could simply
tilt up to the balance point on all four edges and the four imaginary
vertical planes will intersect at the COG.

-Doug


Douglas E Powell
Laporte, Colorado USA
doug...@gmail.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01

On Fri, Jul 5, 2019 at 7:00 AM frankt_cpmt <
0d3fa4ae712a-dmarc-requ...@ieee.org> wrote:

> Hi Everyone,
> I have been searching and drawing blanks for test labs in the bay area
> capable of performing tilt stability and measuring center of gravity in bay
> area California, San Jose, Fremont, Santa Clara, Sunnyvale, etc.
> Is there a lab or facility someone in this community uses to perform such
> testing and measurements for large scale equipments, 5 feet (w)× 6 feet
> (l)× 7.5 feet (h)?
>
>
>
> Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S8, an AT 5G Evolution capable smartphone
> -
> 
>
> This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
> discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
> emc-p...@ieee.org
>
> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
> http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
>
> Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at
> http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in
> well-used formats), large files, etc.
>
> Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
> Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to
> unsubscribe) 
> List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
>
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
> Scott Douglas sdoug...@ieee.org
> Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org
>
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.org
> David Heald dhe...@gmail.com
>


-- 

Douglas E Powell

doug...@gmail.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] Guidelines v Standards v Codes

[Doug Powell]

  All interesting comments.  So, in the context of North American Codes and Standards, is it fair to tell someone that one way to tell them apart is that codes usually involve on site inspection by local authorities and certified products generally involve certification marks with periodic factory inspections, not withstanding the process of field labeling?   Thanks, Doug Currently out of the office and working from my Android phone   From: doug...@gmail.comSent: June 27, 2019 10:22 AMTo: EMC-PSTC@listserv.ieee.orgSubject: Guidelines v Standards v Codes  Good morning all,I am attempting to explain to a client the differences between guidelines, standards and codes for products without going into an hour long explanation of all the ins and outs of regulatory compliance. I suppose I might call it an executive review or presentation. See if you think my thoughts are accurate.Codes (Directives) are the law of the land. That is, they describe what must be done, but not necessarily how to do it. Codes are not used for the design of products, instead they are focused on protection of people, animals, property and environment in the workplace as well as public and residential areas. The writing of codes is the responsibility of the government entities and may involve committees of interested parties but in the end are the sole responsibility of that entity. Codes often require the use of certified products evaluated to certain standards by an accredited inspection body.Product standards (Norms), especially for products entering the marketplace, are requirements in design, construction, test and installation. Standards tell you what needs to be done and how to do it. Many standards may used to evaluate and certify products by third parties which are accredited by a government entity and as such are one way to show compliance with codes, Standards are almost exclusively written by balanced committees of professionals, with public review and clause by clause balloting. Guidelines are recommended or best practices and may reference either codes or standards. These guides are often given from experience and lessons learned. One of the hallmarks of guidelines is the use of non-mandatory verbs such as "may", "should", "would" or "could".  Guidelines are sometimes compiled by groups of professionals, but may be from individuals or a result of industry self-regulation. In general, products reviewed solely to guidelines are not able to be certified by third parties accredited under government regulation. This said, there are many guidelines used by reputable organizations and issuance of certificates, stamps or markings are common.Thoughts?Thanks - Doug-- Douglas E Powelldoug...@gmail.comhttp://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc.


Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas sdoug...@ieee.org
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher  j.bac...@ieee.org
David Heald dhe...@gmail.com

Re: [PSES] Guidelines v Standards v Codes

[Doug Powell]

Hi Charlie,

I understand.  Not to put too fine a point on it, I was referring mainly to
North America and yes, the EU does instruct member states to create laws
and enforce them as well.

Best, -Doug


Douglas E Powell
Laporte, Colorado USA
doug...@gmail.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01


On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 10:53 AM Charlie Blackham <
char...@sulisconsultants.com> wrote:

> Doug
>
>
>
> EU Directives are not laws – they are instructions to member states to
> create laws
>
>
>
> The EU also publishes Regulations, Decisions and Recommendations.
>
>
>
> More detail / better summary at
> https://europa.eu/european-union/eu-law/legal-acts_en and
> https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/law-making-process/types-eu-law_en
>
>
>
> Regards
>
> Charlie
>
>
>
> *Charlie Blackham*
>
> *Sulis Consultants Ltd*
>
> *Tel: +44 (0)7946 624317*
>
> *Web: https://sulisconsultants.com/ <https://sulisconsultants.com/> *
>
> Registered in England and Wales, number 05466247
>
>
>
> *From:* Doug Powell 
> *Sent:* 27 June 2019 17:23
> *To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> *Subject:* [PSES] Guidelines v Standards v Codes
>
>
>
> Good morning all,
>
>
>
> I am attempting to explain to a client the differences between guidelines,
> standards and codes for products without going into an hour long
> explanation of all the ins and outs of regulatory compliance. I suppose I
> might call it an executive review or presentation. See if you think my
> thoughts are accurate.
>
>- Codes (Directives) are the law of the land. That is, they describe
>what must be done, but not necessarily how to do it. Codes are not used for
>the design of products, instead they are focused on protection of people,
>animals, property and environment in the workplace as well as public and
>residential areas. The writing of codes is the responsibility of the
>government entities and may involve committees of interested parties but in
>the end are the sole responsibility of that entity. Codes often require the
>use of certified products evaluated to certain standards by an accredited
>inspection body.
>
>
>- Product standards (Norms), especially for products entering the
>marketplace, are requirements in design, construction, test and
>installation. Standards tell you what needs to be done and how to do it.
>Many standards may used to evaluate and certify products by third parties
>which are accredited by a government entity and as such are one way to show
>compliance with codes, Standards are almost exclusively written by balanced
>committees of professionals, with public review and clause by clause
>balloting.
>
>
>- Guidelines are recommended or best practices and may reference
>either codes or standards. These guides are often given from experience and
>lessons learned. One of the hallmarks of guidelines is the use of
>non-mandatory verbs such as "may", "should", "would" or "could".
>Guidelines are sometimes compiled by groups of professionals, but may be
>from individuals or a result of industry self-regulation. In general,
>products reviewed solely to guidelines are not able to be certified by
>third parties accredited under government regulation. This said, there are
>many guidelines used by reputable organizations and issuance of
>certificates, stamps or markings are common.
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
>
> Thanks - Doug
>
>
>
> --
>
>
>
> Douglas E Powell
>
> doug...@gmail.com
> http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01
>
> -
> 
>
> This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
> discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to <
> emc-p...@ieee.org>
>
> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
> http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
>
> Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at
> http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in
> well-used formats), large files, etc.
>
> Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
> Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to
> unsubscribe) <http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html>
> List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
>
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
> Scott Douglas 
> Mike Cantwell 
>
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Jim Bacher 
> David Heald 
>


-- 

Douglas E Powell

doug...@gmail.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01

-

[PSES] Guidelines v Standards v Codes

[Doug Powell]

Good morning all,

I am attempting to explain to a client the differences between guidelines,
standards and codes for products without going into an hour long
explanation of all the ins and outs of regulatory compliance. I suppose I
might call it an executive review or presentation. See if you think my
thoughts are accurate.

   - Codes (Directives) are the law of the land. That is, they describe
   what must be done, but not necessarily how to do it. Codes are not used for
   the design of products, instead they are focused on protection of people,
   animals, property and environment in the workplace as well as public and
   residential areas. The writing of codes is the responsibility of the
   government entities and may involve committees of interested parties but in
   the end are the sole responsibility of that entity. Codes often require the
   use of certified products evaluated to certain standards by an accredited
   inspection body.


   - Product standards (Norms), especially for products entering the
   marketplace, are requirements in design, construction, test and
   installation. Standards tell you what needs to be done and how to do it.
   Many standards may used to evaluate and certify products by third parties
   which are accredited by a government entity and as such are one way to show
   compliance with codes, Standards are almost exclusively written by balanced
   committees of professionals, with public review and clause by clause
   balloting.


   - Guidelines are recommended or best practices and may reference either
   codes or standards. These guides are often given from experience and
   lessons learned. One of the hallmarks of guidelines is the use of
   non-mandatory verbs such as "may", "should", "would" or "could".
   Guidelines are sometimes compiled by groups of professionals, but may be
   from individuals or a result of industry self-regulation. In general,
   products reviewed solely to guidelines are not able to be certified by
   third parties accredited under government regulation. This said, there are
   many guidelines used by reputable organizations and issuance of
   certificates, stamps or markings are common.

Thoughts?

Thanks - Doug

-- 

Douglas E Powell

doug...@gmail.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] Tilt test

[Doug Powell]

You might also check IEC 610100-1 which is harmonized to UL.

Clauses 7.4 Stability, 8.3 Drop test and 11.4 if the tilt question is bout
overflow (containment of liquids).

All the best, Doug


Douglas E Powell
Laporte, Colorado USA
doug...@gmail.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01



On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 3:00 PM John Woodgate  wrote:

> Clause 8.6 of IEC 62368-1. I don' t know if the UL version differs.
>
> Best wishes
> John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
> J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
> Rayleigh, Essex UK
>
> On 2019-06-11 21:18, Frank Tang wrote:
>
> Hi Engineering community,
> I'm trying to find information regard tilt testing, such as minimal tilt
> angle based on system weight, how to safely perform this test, etc; can
> someone direct me to site(s) or standards I can reference?
> Google for once isn't helping.
>
> --
> Thank you and best regards.
> - Frank
> -
> 
>
> This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
> discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to <
> emc-p...@ieee.org>
>
> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
> http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
>
> Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at
> http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in
> well-used formats), large files, etc.
>
> Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
> Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to
> unsubscribe) 
> List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
>
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
> Scott Douglas 
> Mike Cantwell 
>
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Jim Bacher 
> David Heald 
>
> -
> 
>
> This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
> discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
> emc-p...@ieee.org
>
> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
> http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
>
> Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at
> http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in
> well-used formats), large files, etc.
>
> Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
> Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to
> unsubscribe) 
> List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
>
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
> Scott Douglas sdoug...@ieee.org
> Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org
>
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.org
> David Heald dhe...@gmail.com
>


-- 

Douglas E Powell

doug...@gmail.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] Just curiosity

[Doug Powell]

  This is likely based on the NEC which does not allow the conduit to be the sole means of grounding.  This said, I doubt the addition of the copper conductor will make much difference in a real life scenario. Doug--Douglas E Powelldoug...@gmail.comhttps://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01    From: ken.ja...@emccompliance.comSent: May 14, 2019 9:36 PMTo: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORGReply-to: ken.ja...@emccompliance.comSubject: Re: [PSES] Just curiosity  I should have said that for lightning, all the conduit needed to do was act as a lightning rod.

Ken Javor
Phone: (256) 650-5261



From: Ken Javor 
Reply-To: Ken Javor 
Date: Tue, 14 May 2019 21:47:10 -0500
To: 
Conversation: Just curiosity
Subject: Re: [PSES] Just curiosity

The steel conduit is all-around protection.  I doubt it is one continuous piece, but as long as sections make ohmic connections, I don’t see a problem. It’s just acting as a lightning rod.

Ken Javor
Phone: (256) 650-5261


From: Rene Charton 
Date: Wed, 15 May 2019 00:56:06 +
To: Ken Javor , "EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG" 
Conversation: Just curiosity
Subject: RE: Just curiosity

I guess the steel conduit is for electrostatic shielding, but probably cannot carry the surge current if a lightning strikes.
Is the steel conduit one continuous tube? I doubt that.
 

Kind regards
 
René Charton
 


Care for our planet, think before you print.
保护环境 三思而印
保護環境 三思而印

This email and any attachments is intended for use only by the specified addresses and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. We cannot guarantee the completeness of messages transmitted by this e-mail, and will not be responsible for errors, omissions, corruption or virus in the contents of this message or any attachments that arise as a result of this e-mail transmission or any modifications made to this message after sending by us. 

If you have received this email in error, please notify us immediately by reply email and immediately delete this message and any attachments from your system. Please be noted that any use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this email is strictly prohibited.


From:  Ken Javor 
Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2019 08:20
To:  EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Just curiosity
 
In the below pictures, galvanized steel conduit is paralleled by copper conductor that is a lightning conductor to ground.

Question: why is that necessary?





Ken Javor
Phone: (256) 650-5261
-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc.

Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)  
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html 

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher 
David Heald 

-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)  
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html 

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher  
David Heald 



-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 

Re: [PSES] Automated listserv error message

[Doug Powell]

All again,

It seems this is a system -wide problem and not gmail specifically.
Someone on the server side is tweaking the system and I recommend we
allow some time to work it out.  We should probably minimize the "me
too" messages.

Thanks all, Doug

On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 9:32 AM Doug Powell  wrote:
>
> All,
>
> Yesterday I received what was called an automatic removal message from
> the listserv.  The subject line was "Your removal from the EMC-PSTC
> list".  And indeed, I was unsubscribed for the first time since 1997.
> I wondered if anyone else with a gmail account has this problem.
>
> I was advised to contact my email administrator and of course you can
> see I am on gmail.  Apparently there were three separate message
> rejections with error 5.0.0
>
> Best, Doug
>
> --
>
> Douglas E Powell
>
> doug...@gmail.com
> http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01



-- 

Douglas E Powell

doug...@gmail.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

[PSES] Automated listserv error message

[Doug Powell]

All,

Yesterday I received what was called an automatic removal message from
the listserv.  The subject line was "Your removal from the EMC-PSTC
list".  And indeed, I was unsubscribed for the first time since 1997.
I wondered if anyone else with a gmail account has this problem.

I was advised to contact my email administrator and of course you can
see I am on gmail.  Apparently there were three separate message
rejections with error 5.0.0

Best, Doug

-- 

Douglas E Powell

doug...@gmail.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

[PSES] UL 891 panelboard strength

[Doug Powell]

All,

I am researching a topic that is new for me related to UL 891, to calculate
a proper mechanical design before we cut metal for a new panelboard.

In particular, for a bolted fault (short circuit) of a certain magnitude,
how to calculate the magnetic forces involved, and how to simulate or
calculate if our mounting structure and busbars are able to withstand the
stresses.  I've seen information regarding support of cable conductors
during an arc but not much in the way of mechanical structure and busbars.
It is my guess that these calculations are part of determining the strength
of an enclosure for maximum short circuit ratings.

Any pointers in the right direction are appreciated.

Thanks, Doug

-- 

Douglas E Powell

doug...@gmail.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] PLINE 1610

[Doug Powell]

  You might try ATE Corp.  They still rent these and may also have maintenance shop services. Anyway, you could ask.  Best, DougCurrently out of the office and working from my Android phone   From: markschm...@xrite.comSent: March 20, 2019 9:33 AMTo: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORGReply-to: markschm...@xrite.comSubject: [PSES] PLINE 1610  
Hello all,
 
I have an old Haefely Trench PLINE 1610 Mains Interference Simulator that needs repair. Does anyone know who might be willing to repair the 1610. I have already gotten a couple of no quotes in which I appreciated their sincerity since there
 was typically a fee associated just for looking at it.
 
Thanks,
Mark
 
 
 

Please be advised that this email may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify us by email by replying to the sender and delete this message. The sender disclaims that the content of this email constitutes an offer
 to enter into, or the acceptance of, any agreement; provided that the foregoing does not invalidate the binding effect of any digital or other electronic reproduction of a manual signature that is included in any attachment.


-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc.


Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher  
David Heald 


-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc.


Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas sdoug...@ieee.org
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher  j.bac...@ieee.org
David Heald dhe...@gmail.com

Re: [PSES] Sheet resistor material

[Doug Powell]

The only thing I have worked with along that line is the resistive pastes or 
inks used on hybrid circuits.  In this case you can think of the resistance in 
terms of square ohms.

Good luck,

doug




--


Douglas E Powell
doug...@gmail.com
https://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01 



  Original Message  



From: 00734758d943-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org
Sent: March 9, 2019 8:43 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Reply-to: lfresea...@aol.com
Subject: [PSES] Sheet resistor material


Hi All,

I’m looking for a source for Sheet resistor material. So far my internet 
searching has pulled up nothing, can anyone give me some pointers?

Thanks,

Derek.

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] Brexit and impact on offical langugages

[Doug Powell]

Right... Geneva

Not certain why Brussels popped into my head, I've known that fact for a
couple decades.

I've still concerned about having to update a number of existing company
documents for use in Europe.

Thanks

On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 11:06 AM  wrote:

> Doug,
>
>
>
> That is an interesting question.  Don’t worry about the IEC.  It is not
> part of the EU.  In fact, the US is a member country (as is the UK).
> English isn’t going anywhere in the IEC (BTW, IEC HQ is in Geneva, not
> Brussels).
>
>
>
> Ghery S. Pettit
>
> Chair, CISPR SC I
>
>
>
> *From:* Doug Powell 
> *Sent:* Thursday, March 7, 2019 9:57 AM
> *To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> *Subject:* [PSES] Brexit and impact on offical langugages
>
>
>
> All,
>
>
>
> With March 29 approaching, I've seen plenty of discussion on the impact of
> Brexit.  However, I've seen virtually nothing on official languages of the
> EEC.  And in particular how this might affect Declarations of
> Conformity/Incorporation as well as labeling and user documentation.  In
> the past, my advice has always been to start with one of the official
> languages and if requested by the end user to provide in another language
> this then becomes mandatory.  With implementation of Brexit is English no
> longer an official language of the community?
>
>
>
> This seems an interesting question to me because it seems that English /
> French will remain intact for the IEC in Brussels.  I suppose we can
> continue to watch the O.J. after the withdrawal of Britain.
>
>
>
> Best to all,  Doug
>
>
>
> --
>
> Douglas E Powell
> doug...@gmail.com
> http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01
>
> -
> 
>
> This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
> discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to <
> emc-p...@ieee.org>
>
> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
> http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
>
> Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at
> http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in
> well-used formats), large files, etc.
>
> Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
> Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to
> unsubscribe) <http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html>
> List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
>
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
> Scott Douglas 
> Mike Cantwell 
>
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Jim Bacher 
> David Heald 
>


-- 

Douglas E Powell

doug...@gmail.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

[PSES] Brexit and impact on offical langugages

[Doug Powell]

All,

With March 29 approaching, I've seen plenty of discussion on the impact of
Brexit.  However, I've seen virtually nothing on official languages of the
EEC.  And in particular how this might affect Declarations of
Conformity/Incorporation as well as labeling and user documentation.  In
the past, my advice has always been to start with one of the official
languages and if requested by the end user to provide in another language
this then becomes mandatory.  With implementation of Brexit is English no
longer an official language of the community?

This seems an interesting question to me because it seems that English /
French will remain intact for the IEC in Brussels.  I suppose we can
continue to watch the O.J. after the withdrawal of Britain.

Best to all,  Doug

-- 
Douglas E Powell
doug...@gmail.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

[PSES] Work Equipment Directive 2009/104/EC

[Doug Powell]

Use of the Work Equipment Directive 2009/104/EC does not fall under CE
marking per se.  It does however, mention the use of "...any relevant
Community directive which is applicable" as applied to work equipment.
My question relates to customer designed equipment used only during
commissioning of machinery and only by trained workers.  Is my assumption
correct, that CE marking is not required for equipment to be used only
temporary and to be removed after work is complete?

Thanks all!

Doug

-- 

Douglas E Powell

doug...@gmail.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] Type F receptacle wiring

[Doug Powell]

Thanks all,

Very helpful and reassures me that I am not doing anything to get myself
into hot water.

Have a great weekend,

Doug

Douglas E Powell
doug...@gmail.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01

-
Some have said I am an "expert" in my field.

ex-pert etymology

/ekˌspərt/

from: ex- (“*has been*”) + spurt (“*drip under pressure*”)


Ngram (link
<https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?year_start=1800_end=2008=15=7_insensitive=on=expert_url=t4%3B%2Cexpert%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3Bexpert%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BExpert%3B%2Cc0>
)





On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 2:41 PM Ted Eckert <
07cf6ebeab9d-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org> wrote:

> This is my understanding. If you are looking at the face of the plug, with
> the line and neutral pins pointing at you, and the hole for ground up,
> neutral should be on the left. As such, on the receptacle, with ground at
> the top, neutral should be on the right when looking at the front.
>
>
>
> That being said, I would expect it to be highly likely that the
> receptacles are not wired consistently.
>
>
>
> Ted Eckert
>
> Microsoft Corporation
>
>
>
> The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of
> my employer, LCIE or anybody who has actually wired a French outlet.
>
>
>
> *From:* John Woodgate 
> *Sent:* Friday, February 22, 2019 10:28 AM
> *To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> *Subject:* Re: [PSES] Type F receptacle wiring
>
>
>
> The plug is not reversible in France and Belgium.
>
> Best wishes
>
> John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
>
> J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk 
> <https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.woodjohn.uk=02%7C01%7Cted.eckert%40microsoft.com%7C2cb6a8aac91d445fada408d698f376b9%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636864568775180819=jQd4EPi00Gmlgflm6t6luApDsIDIcM4NKNK0D4nicb8%3D=0>
>
> Rayleigh, Essex UK
>
> On 2019-02-22 18:13, John Allen wrote:
>
> Doug
>
>
>
> As I am sure that many others will confirm, that CEE 7 socket does NOT
> have any defined polarity for the Live/Line and Neutral contact tubes, and
> thus the Line/Live and Neutral wires to those contact tubes can & are
> connected either way around according to the “wim” of the installer –
> unlike N.America and the UK (for example) which do have defined polarities
> for some sockets .
>
>
>
> PS: researched this in detail about 20 yrs ago and I am quite sure that
> the situation has not changed since (as it had not changed in the decades
> before that).
>
>
>
> John E Allen
>
> W. London, UK
>
>
>
> *From:* Doug Powell [mailto:doug...@gmail.com ]
> *Sent:* 22 February 2019 17:48
> *To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> *Subject:* [PSES] Type F receptacle wiring
>
>
>
> All,
>
>
>
> I am searching for wiring information for the TYPE E CEE7/5, 250 Volt, 16
> Amp receptacle for France and Belgium.  The earth pin is obvious and for
> some reason, I am unable to find information on the correct pins for Line
> and Neutral.  The receptacle has no makings to this effect.  One resource
> even says the left/right orientation is interchangeable since neutral is
> considered as live. The best I can find indicates neutral is on the left
> when viewing the reception from the front.  True?
>
>
>
> Thanks!  -- Doug
>
>
>
>
>
> Douglas E Powell
>
> doug...@gmail.com
> http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01
> <https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin.com%2Fin%2Fdougp01=02%7C01%7Cted.eckert%40microsoft.com%7C2cb6a8aac91d445fada408d698f376b9%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636864568775190832=0YT5fvInK%2Bg2Wb%2BXgbqOWYE9OUe9ePa6VB8o4KcwW9g%3D=0>
>
> -
> 
>
> This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
> discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to <
> emc-p...@ieee.org>
>
> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
> http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
> <https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ieee-pses.org%2Femc-pstc.html=02%7C01%7Cted.eckert%40microsoft.com%7C2cb6a8aac91d445fada408d698f376b9%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636864568775190832=VZB9SVERGV9wGqhaf75F6U1U4UCoJIMpXVrQ%2Fggtnp8%3D=0>
>
> Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at
> http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/
> <https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fproduct-compliance.oc.ieee.org%2F=02%7C01%7Cted.eckert%40microsoft.com%7C2cb6a8aac91d445fada408d698f376b9%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2

[PSES] Type F receptacle wiring

[Doug Powell]

All,

I am searching for wiring information for the TYPE E CEE7/5, 250 Volt, 16
Amp receptacle for France and Belgium.  The earth pin is obvious and for
some reason, I am unable to find information on the correct pins for Line
and Neutral.  The receptacle has no makings to this effect.  One resource
even says the left/right orientation is interchangeable since neutral is
considered as live. The best I can find indicates neutral is on the left
when viewing the reception from the front.  True?

Thanks!  -- Doug


Douglas E Powell

doug...@gmail.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] Johnson City NY - crazy street lights

[Doug Powell]

  Interesting indeed,The thing that probably should surprise me and does not is that as we get more sophisticated in our technology the more ways that technology can fail. I can't help but remember the old copy machine in our offices that had nothing more a zoom control, number of copies and a big green button to make the copies happen.  That machine outlasted the next three generations of copiers containing all the features you could ever imagine.  All the features except longevity.Best,Doug in Colorado    From: lanterna.viri...@gmail.comSent: February 4, 2019 5:54 PMTo: doug...@gmail.comCc: EMC-PSTC@listserv.ieee.orgSubject: Re: [PSES] Johnson City NY - crazy street lights  These are LED technology from a 2015-2016 vintage conversion.It could be any number of possible causes.  Based on the power outage, it could be a low voltage startup behavior of the LED driver.  Could also be comms-related as you describe.  Would be interesting if anyone has a reference related to voltage fluctuation during various power outages/grid designs.In my locale, brightness sensors are not per luminaire.  They are ganged/controlled in larger groups.  I was curious about the type installed in my neighborhood and got the datasheet from the electrical utility.  It appears to be a common supplier/type from reading articles about street light LED conversions and health/environmental concerns.  I inquired w/the supplier about in-rush performance of their driver having seen a few descriptions of hundreds of amps depending on the driver design.I've seen similar frequency pulsing behaviors with individual LED lights during an early morning commute as well as a couple of bulbs in my home.  The in-home case, along with a couple of other electronics failures were due to failed electrolytic caps on the primary side.Regards,Adam in Atlantaadam.di...@ieee.orgOn Mon, Feb 4, 2019 at 5:58 PM Doug Powell <doug...@gmail.com> wrote:I tend to agree with your statements.  I have worked in a volunteer capacity in TV production studios and doing stage design using LED lighting.  I am familiar with the stroboscopic effects the more economical (Alibaba) multiplexed LED drivers have on TV camera sensors and I believe this flashing is far too low frequency,  This was part of the reason I suggested communications issues.  Since street lighting falls under a public safety category, many of the companies who produce these products are exempt from EMC considerations and the equipment is made as cheaply as possible. I believe this is why years ago, we often heard a lot of interference on AM radio when stopped near traffic lights.  Nowadays it is likely these fixtures are on a DMX512 universe and individually controlled by digital address.  But now that I think it over, DMX512 is not two-way communications as such and would not be able to report a defective fixture needing maintenance, the next level protocol they may be used is called "RDS" which does have two-way data communications.  If the main controller were damaged in some way or if there is intermittent loss of communication, the lights may behave in a wonky manner by starting and stopping each time their digital address is polled.Of course this is all speculation on my part.  I hope to finally learn what is found in the investigation.All the best, DougDouglas E PowellLaporte, Colorado USAdoug...@gmail.comhttp://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01On Mon, Feb 4, 2019 at 3:03 PM Richard Nute <ri...@ieee.org> wrote: Hi Doug: Each individual light is blinking at its own pace.  You can see this by pausing the video; at each pause, some lights are on, while some are off.  (At first, I thought they were blinking in sequence, but you can see that this is not the case by pausing the video at different times.) I agree that the lights are probably LEDs because they have none of the start-up and shut-down partial illumination of other lamp technology.  (I think there is very little stroboscopic effect of the TV camera.) LEDs have different start-up times depending on the individual drive circuitry.  Hence, they will come on at different times after application of the supply.   Here is one hypothesis:  The LED driver circuitry has automatic excessive voltage protection, and shuts down the circuitry in the event of an overvoltage.  Then, it auto-starts, the LED comes on, but shuts down as the voltage is too high.   Another hypothesis:  Street lights are/were in series to cut down on wire size for a large string.  But, to prevent all lights from going out if one is burned out, each lamp is supplied by an individual transformer or a film cut-out.  https://en.wikipedia

Re: [PSES] Johnson City NY - crazy street lights

[Doug Powell]

I tend to agree with your statements.

I have worked in a volunteer capacity in TV production studios and doing
stage design using LED lighting.  I am familiar with the stroboscopic
effects the more economical (Alibaba) multiplexed LED drivers have on TV
camera sensors and I believe this flashing is far too low frequency,  This
was part of the reason I suggested communications issues.  Since street
lighting falls under a public safety category, many of the companies who
produce these products are exempt from EMC considerations and the equipment
is made as cheaply as possible. I believe this is why years ago, we often
heard a lot of interference on AM radio when stopped near traffic lights.
Nowadays it is likely these fixtures are on a DMX512 universe and
individually controlled by digital address.  But now that I think it over,
DMX512 is not two-way communications as such and would not be able to
report a defective fixture needing maintenance, the next level protocol
they may be used is called "RDS" which does have two-way data
communications.  If the main controller were damaged in some way or if
there is intermittent loss of communication, the lights may behave in a
wonky manner by starting and stopping each time their digital address is
polled.

Of course this is all speculation on my part.  I hope to finally learn what
is found in the investigation.

All the best, Doug

Douglas E Powell
Laporte, Colorado USA
doug...@gmail.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01

On Mon, Feb 4, 2019 at 3:03 PM Richard Nute  wrote:

>
>
> Hi Doug:
>
>
>
> Each individual light is blinking at its own pace.  You can see this by
> pausing the video; at each pause, some lights are on, while some are off.
> (At first, I thought they were blinking in sequence, but you can see that
> this is not the case by pausing the video at different times.)
>
>
>
> I agree that the lights are probably LEDs because they have none of the
> start-up and shut-down partial illumination of other lamp technology.  (I
> think there is very little stroboscopic effect of the TV camera.)
>
>
>
> LEDs have different start-up times depending on the individual drive
> circuitry.  Hence, they will come on at different times after application
> of the supply.
>
>
>
> Here is one hypothesis:  The LED driver circuitry has automatic excessive
> voltage protection, and shuts down the circuitry in the event of an
> overvoltage.  Then, it auto-starts, the LED comes on, but shuts down as the
> voltage is too high.
>
>
>
> Another hypothesis:  Street lights are/were in series to cut down on wire
> size for a large string.  But, to prevent all lights from going out if one
> is burned out, each lamp is supplied by an individual transformer or a film
> cut-out.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Street_light  In the video, the
> street lights have a common controller somewhere, that is, they don’t have
> individual light-dark sensors.  The controller may have malfunctioned,
> creating the effect of a relaxation oscillator.
>
>
>
> Other hypotheses?
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Rich
>
>
>
>
>


-- 

Douglas E Powell

doug...@gmail.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

[PSES] Johnson City NY - crazy street lights

[Doug Powell]

I am curious to know if anyone on this forum was close to this situation,
traffic lights going crazy after a transformer fire and repair.
http://www.wicz.com/story/39887995/transformer-fire-creates-scene-out-of-horror-movie-in-jc

My guess is they already have LED lighting installed which helps explain
the rapid on/off behavior of the lights and one of a few other
possibilities.  Either there is some sort of signal integrity problem, the
new transformer is the wrong voltage or possibly loss of communication to
the lights.  I am particularly interested to know if this is a signal
integrity problem as I frequently run into engineers that fully understand
digital electronics but not the protection of I/O lines from the
processor.  This would be an excellent example for educational purposes.

Thanks a bunch!  Doug



-- 

Douglas E Powell

doug...@gmail.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

[PSES] World Weather

[Doug Powell]

All,

I realize the specification for climatic conditions of outdoor products is
ultimately a matter of the agreement between the product supplier and end
user.  Nevertheless, I find it useful to briefly survey expected weather
conditions, such as temperature, pressure, %RH, precip, wind, sunshine
(UV).  There are any number of resources (too many) for this type of
information on the web and I wondered what resources members of this forum
prefer for worldwide locations.

Thanks!  Doug

-- 

Douglas E Powell

doug...@gmail.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] TRF Verdicts

[Doug Powell]

I downloaded and searched for this terminology in all the OD documents
available as well as "AD" documents, including all past revisions I could
locate.  Some 300+ documents. To set the stage, I always think of type
testing as being an exercise in  "cause and effect". That is, some defect
(cause) potentially results in a hazard (effect).  Saying there is a
deficiency, fault or even failure has not identified a hazard.  Here is
what I found (or didn't find).

"Fault" generally occurs in context of a device failure, fault condition or
control fault. This seems to me like a condition of the equipment, not a
verdict as such.  Not a very satisfactory usage.

"Deficiency" or "Deficient" do not occur anywhere.  Also unsatisfactory...


I also searched the IEC Electrotechnical Dictionary:

"Fault" appears several times in Area 192 "Dependability", none of which
are specifically referre3d to as a verdict or outcome of type testing.
192-03-17 failure mode
192-04-01 fault, 
192-04-02 software fault
192-04-04 permanent fault, 
192-04-05 transient fault, 
192-04-06 intermittent fault, 
192-04-07 dormant fault, 
192-04-08 latent fault, 
192-04-09 systematic fault, 
192-04-10 specification fault, 
192-04-11 design fault, 
192-04-12 manufacturing fault, 
192-04-13 data-sensitive fault, 
192-04-14 program-sensitive fault, 

"Deficiency" appeared in the dictionary a few times,
192-04-01 fault, 
521-02-04 impurity
845-10-53 mine safety lam
903-01-16 malfunction


Again in Area 192 for dependability and referring to the fault of an item.

"inability to perform as required, due to an internal state
"Note 1 to entry: A fault of an item results from a failure, of the item
itself, or from a deficiency in an earlier stage of the life cycle, such as
specification, design, manufacture or maintenance. See latent fault "


Also in area 192 for Risk Assessment under definition for 903-01-16
malfunction

"design error or deficiency (e.g. software errors);"


Incidentally, I searched for definitions of the terms "verdict", "pass",
and "fail" with similar unsatisfactory results.

I know many times people will say the definition of terms are self-evident
and in the case of the IEC 60204-1, it would seem the agencies who write
TRFs are making a change practice with no clarification.  And obviously,
the subsequent revisions of the TRF have carried this over without
question.  Maybe I'm asking too much or being too picky but is seems to me
when there is a deviation from the accepted worldwide practice (Pass, Fail,
N/A), an explanation should be given.

Thanks all for hearing me out and have a great weekend.

Doug



On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 1:59 PM Doug Powell  wrote:

> Yes, I'll look.
>
> I already know there's no explanation in OD 2020 but possible in something
> else.
>
> Thanks!  Doug
>
> Currently out of the office and working from my Android phone
> *From:* ri...@ieee.org
> *Sent:* December 13, 2018 12:19 PM
> *To:* doug...@gmail.com; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> *Reply-to:* ri...@ieee.org
> *Subject:* RE: [PSES] TRF Verdicts
>
>
>
> Hi Doug:
>
>
>
> Maybe one of these documents will have the definitions you are looking for.
>
>
>
> https://www.iecee.org/documents/refdocs/
>
>
>
> Best wishes for the holiday season,
>
> Rich
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Doug Powell 
> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 12, 2018 2:29 PM
> *To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> *Subject:* [PSES] TRF Verdicts
>
>
>
> Greetings all, hope your week is going well,
>
>
>
> I see differences in TRFs for both IEC and EN standards relating to the
> verdict columns.  IEC OD 2020 ed. 3.3 specifies allowed verdicts are *Pass,
> Fail *and *N/A (Not applicable)*.  There is an exception for MED category
> allowing *N/E (Not evaluated)*.  However, I commonly see in TRFs for
> EN/IEC 60204-1 these verdicts: *N/A, Yes, No *and *Fault *or *Deficiency*.
> I am a little uncertain about what the word "No" means in this context. OD
> 2020 has no exception for MACH products, and yet I see these verdicts
> commonly used.  Also, within the TRF there is no definition of what these
> verdicts specifically mean.
>
>
>
> Can anyone explain why these are in use and what they mean, exactly?
>
>
>
> Thanks!  Doug
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


-- 

Douglas E Powell

doug...@gmail.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitt

Re: [PSES] TRF Verdicts

[Doug Powell]

  Yes, I'll look.I already know there's no explanation in OD 2020 but possible in something else.Thanks!  DougCurrently out of the office and working from my Android phone   From: ri...@ieee.orgSent: December 13, 2018 12:19 PMTo: doug...@gmail.com; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORGReply-to: ri...@ieee.orgSubject: RE: [PSES] TRF Verdicts   Hi Doug: Maybe one of these documents will have the definitions you are looking for. https://www.iecee.org/documents/refdocs/ Best wishes for the holiday season,Rich  From:  Doug Powell <doug...@gmail.com>Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2018 2:29 PMTo:  EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORGSubject: [PSES] TRF Verdicts Greetings all, hope your week is going well, I see differences in TRFs for both IEC and EN standards relating to the verdict columns.  IEC OD 2020 ed. 3.3 specifies allowed verdicts are Pass, Fail and N/A (Not applicable).  There is an exception for MED category allowing N/E (Not evaluated).  However, I commonly see in TRFs for EN/IEC 60204-1 these verdicts: N/A, Yes, No and Fault or Deficiency.  I am a little uncertain about what the word "No" means in this context. OD 2020 has no exception for MACH products, and yet I see these verdicts commonly used.  Also, within the TRF there is no definition of what these verdicts specifically mean. Can anyone explain why these are in use and what they mean, exactly? Thanks!  Doug   
-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc.


Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas sdoug...@ieee.org
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher  j.bac...@ieee.org
David Heald dhe...@gmail.com

[PSES] TRF Verdicts

[Doug Powell]

Greetings all, hope your week is going well,

I see differences in TRFs for both IEC and EN standards relating to the
verdict columns.  IEC OD 2020 ed. 3.3 specifies allowed verdicts are *Pass,
Fail *and *N/A (Not applicable)*.  There is an exception for MED category
allowing *N/E (Not evaluated)*.  However, I commonly see in TRFs for EN/IEC
60204-1 these verdicts: *N/A, Yes, No *and *Fault *or *Deficiency*.  I am a
little uncertain about what the word "No" means in this context. OD 2020
has no exception for MACH products, and yet I see these verdicts commonly
used.  Also, within the TRF there is no definition of what these verdicts
specifically mean.

Can anyone explain why these are in use and what they mean, exactly?

Thanks!  Doug



-- 

Douglas E Powell

doug...@gmail.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

[PSES] Use of committee draft for product testing

[Doug Powell]

All,

In the past few years, large scale energy storage has been taking a lot of
space in the media and the IEC TC 21 committee has been circulating many
draft standards.

While we wait for publication of these documents at the IEC, Germany has
run ahead of the game by publishing drafts (Entwurf), presumably for use by
manufacturers. These drafts are now several IEC revisions old and
apparently translated to German outside the approvals process of IEC
committees.  My reference document today is DIN EN 62932-2-1 (VDE
0510-932-2-1) 2016-06-22. Since the time this was published there have been
six additional stages of work at the IEC and just 39 days ago (2018-10-19)
the final committee draft was approved and moved to “International Draft”,
it is to be translated 2019-05.  Forecast for publication of IEC Edition 1
of this standard is January 2020.  In addition, we don't know what future
date this standard will become mandatory. While I feel it may be useful to
learn the intentions of the committee, I have learned the 2016 draft is
actively being used today for product testing.



See
https://www.vde-verlag.de/standards/1500084/e-din-en-62932-2-1-vde-0510-932-2-1-2016-05.html



See
https://www.iec.ch/dyn/www/f?p=103:38:9141579476776FSP_ORG_ID,FSP_APEX_PAGE,FSP_PROJECT_ID:1290,23,21430




I would like to hear what is the view of forum members on the use of draft
standards, especially when the ongoing committee work is not necessary
available to the public?

Thanks! Doug


-- 

Douglas E Powell

doug...@gmail.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

[PSES] Mobile EMC testing

[Doug Powell]

All,

I am searching for resources in "mobile*" *EMC testing capability in a
pre-compliance sense.  I need to look into some of the industrial
testing within EN IEC 61000-6-2 and EN IEC 61000-6-4.  Any in locating such
resources is appreciated.

All the best,  Doug


-- 

Douglas E Powell

doug...@gmail.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

[PSES] My update and tracking services

[Doug Powell]

All,

I thought I would share a list of URLs I monitor for Update Services and
Product Alerts.  Obviously this list is not comprehensive and some require
you to have a subscription.  One category I would like to locate is a
centralized information outlet for counterfeit components and products.
For many on the list, I use a tool called Distil Web Monitor, available as
an add-in for both Firefox and Chrome browsers (https://distill.io/).  It
has some nice features for filtering and monitoring periods. In the case of
RSS, I use Distil to notify me and then use my RSS reader.  For web pages
Distil cannot interpret, I set up a reminder to check manually. If anyone
has other resources to help out in the day-to-day of compliance
engineering, I hope you are willing to share.

*Update Services:*

   - IEC Just Published https://webstore.iec.ch/justpublished
   - IEC Just Published (RSS)
   https://rss.iec.ch/Webstore/IECCata.nsf/wsrssfeed.rss?OpenPage
   - Interference-Causing Equipment (Canada)
   http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/smt-gst.nsf/eng/h_sf06127.html
   - Intertek SUN http://www.intertek.com/standards-updates/
   - Punto Focal (Argentina)
   http://www.puntofocal.gov.ar/formularios/ultimas_notif.php
   - Radio Equipment (Canada)
   http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/smt-gst.nsf/eng/h_sf06128.html
   - Technical Barriers to Trade (WTO)
   https://tsapps.nist.gov/notifyus/data/home/home.cfm
   - Techstreet Tracking https://www.techstreet.com/account/tracked_products
   - Travel Alerts (USA)
   
https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/traveladvisories/traveladvisories.html
   - UL Updates (RSS)
   https://rss.iec.ch/Webstore/IECCata.nsf/wsrssfeed.rss?OpenPage

*Product Alerts, Notices & Recalls:*

   - CPSC Recalls https://www.cpsc.gov/Recalls
   - CPSC Recalls (RSS)
   https://www.cpsc.gov/Newsroom/CPSC-RSS-Feed/Recalls-RSS
   - CSA Group
   
https://www.csagroup.org/services-industries/marks-labels/brand-protection/product-alerts-recalls/
   - ESA Recalls (Canada)
   https://www.esasafe.com/electricalproducts/recalls-and-alerts
   - ESA Safety Alerts (Canada)
   https://www.esasafe.com/contractors/safety-alerts
   - ESA Flash Notices  (Canada)
   https://www.esasafe.com/contractors/flash-notices
   - Export Controlled or Sanctioned
   
https://doresearch.stanford.edu/research-scholarship/export-controls/export-controlled-or-sanctioned-countries-entities-and-persons
   - FM Approvals
   https://www.fmapprovals.com/product-alerts-and-news-events/product-alerts
   - Intertek http://www.intertek.com/public-notices/
   - UL Notices & Recalls https://www.ul.com/newsroom/publicnotices/
   - Conflict Minerals
   https://www.gleif.org/en/lei-data/global-lei-index/lei-search#


All the best, Doug

-- 

Douglas E Powell

doug...@gmail.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] Making 50 Hz power

[Doug Powell]

I've worked with both brands in the past, as well as Elgar in the 100 kW
range.  I found the CI to be a little more fragile than the PP units as I
believe the current sharing scheme of the parallel AC modules was not the
best design.  I am thinking about this option, if I can find a suitable
source for rentals.  Solid state certainly has advantages like not having
to carry cans of fuel.

Thanks!  Doug



On Fri, Sep 7, 2018 at 1:44 PM IBM Ken  wrote:

> California Instruments or Pacific Power agile power supplies.  480VAC 60hz
> input, variable output.  If >250V l-l is needed, add a step-up transformer
> to the output.  Pacific Power 3060MS cabinets can be paralleled to
> significant output levels.  I assembled a lab with about half a megawatt of
> output power available from a seven cabinet system.
>
> On Fri, Sep 7, 2018 at 3:15 PM, Doug Powell  wrote:
>
>> Greetings all,
>>
>> In the past I've needed to produce three phase 50 Hz power to do safety,
>> EMC testing as well as certain validation tests.  I've used several methods
>> including gas powered generators, electric motor-generators with different
>> sized pulleys and of course AC Power Sources.  Once again, I am faced with
>> this need and must make a choice as to which route to follow.  As for
>> budgetary, rental is preferred over purchase and I am working in the 50 to
>> 100 KVA range.  I d need variable frequency as well as voltage adjustment
>> for high and low line.  I have a small collection of transformers to help
>> with large voltage changes.  Although I've never done it, I am also aware
>> that it is possible to configure motor-generators with direct drive shafts
>> and select the number of poles and RPM to change output frequency.
>>
>> My question is what method are most folks in this forum using when it
>> comes to 50 Hz higher power levels?
>>
>> Thanks!  Doug
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Douglas E Powell
>>
>> doug...@gmail.com
>> http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01
>> -
>> 
>>
>> This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
>> discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
>> emc-p...@ieee.org
>>
>> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
>> http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
>>
>> Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site
>> at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in
>> well-used formats), large files, etc.
>>
>> Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
>> Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to
>> unsubscribe) <http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html>
>> List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
>>
>> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
>> Scott Douglas sdoug...@ieee.org
>> Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org
>>
>> For policy questions, send mail to:
>> Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.org
>> David Heald dhe...@gmail.com
>>
>
>

-- 

Douglas E Powell

doug...@gmail.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

[PSES] Making 50 Hz power

[Doug Powell]

Greetings all,

In the past I've needed to produce three phase 50 Hz power to do safety,
EMC testing as well as certain validation tests.  I've used several methods
including gas powered generators, electric motor-generators with different
sized pulleys and of course AC Power Sources.  Once again, I am faced with
this need and must make a choice as to which route to follow.  As for
budgetary, rental is preferred over purchase and I am working in the 50 to
100 KVA range.  I d need variable frequency as well as voltage adjustment
for high and low line.  I have a small collection of transformers to help
with large voltage changes.  Although I've never done it, I am also aware
that it is possible to configure motor-generators with direct drive shafts
and select the number of poles and RPM to change output frequency.

My question is what method are most folks in this forum using when it comes
to 50 Hz higher power levels?

Thanks!  Doug



-- 

Douglas E Powell

doug...@gmail.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] hipot test

[Doug Powell]

Pete,

Your statements may be true for many product types certified to 60950-1,
61010-1, etc.  However when dealing with power conversion products that
have secondary voltages well above mains voltages, this is no longer true.
In the region of 5,000 V and above, corona is a common occurrence in
inhomogeneous fields and this has the effect of causing surface damage
(carbonization) on insulation with any organic content.  Inorganic
insulators such as ceramics and glass seem to be much less affected.

Such phenomena is mentioned in Klaus Stimper's book, The Physical
Fundamentals of Low-Voltage Insulation Co-ordination.

All the best,  Doug



On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 10:04 AM Pete Perkins <
0061f3f32d0c-dmarc-requ...@ieee.org> wrote:

> All, This discussion goes around  year after year.
>
>
>
>The test results reported – especially Nute – show that it
> takes dozens, maybe  hundreds of hipot tests to damage adequate
> insulation.
>
>
>
>In the UK, so I hear, the gov’t safety folks expect each
> piece of equipment to be hipot retested annually to demonstrate adequate
> insulation.  We don’t hear a large hue and cry about failing equipment in
> that arena.
>
>
>
>So from the experience and the data it is clear that both
> the engineering type hipot testing and the factory routine testing should
> not pose any problem to properly designed and manufactured products.
>
>
>
>For line connected products it is foolishness to remove
> components for hipot testing.  If that is being done the product is not
> robust enough in the first place.  This includes DC line powered equipment
> since so much DC power is being installed and used in places where it is
> subject to the same lighting and starting impulses traditionally seen on AC
> line operated equipment.
>
>
>
> :>) br,  Pete
>
>
>
> Peter E Perkins, PE
>
> Principal Product Safety & Regulatory Affairs Consultant
>
> PO Box 23427
>
> Tigard, ORe  97281-3427
>
>
>
> 503/452-1201
>
>
>
> IEEE Life Fellow
>
> p.perk...@ieee.org
>
>
>
> *From:* Jim Hulbert 
> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 15, 2018 5:25 AM
> *To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> *Subject:* Re: [PSES] hipot test
>
>
>
> I disagree with your NRTL.  If the hipot test can degrade the insulation
> (we’re talking about a single test on the production line), then the
> insulation system is not up to par.
>
>
>
> Jim
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Nyffenegger, Dave [mailto:dave.nyffeneg...@bhemail.com
> ]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 15, 2018 12:18 AM
> *To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> *Subject:* Re: [PSES] hipot test
>
>
>
> The NRTL I typically use always runs the hipot test for 60 seconds for
> type testing during product certification.  The listing reports always
> specify a 1 second hipot for production line testing 100% of all units.
> Their claim is that the hipot can degrade some insulation and should be
> kept to a minimum.
>
>
>
> -Dave
>
>
>
> *From:* Richard Nute [mailto:ri...@ieee.org ]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 14, 2018 5:34 PM
> *To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> *Subject:* [PSES] hipot test
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi Doug:
>
>
>
> I've always viewed the purpose of hipot testing as verification only.
> During engineering type testing, it is design verification.
>
>
>
> I disagree.  The hi-pot test determines the minimum electric strength of
> the insulation system.  Design is an indirect measure of electric strength
> by selecting the distances through solid and air (clearance) insulations.
> However, design rarely includes the shape of the electric field, which is a
> parameter that determines electric strength.
>
>
>
> Since hipot is so stressful to insulation…
>
>
>
> Again, I disagree.  If the design is “good” (adequate electric strength),
> then the hi-pot test does not stress the insulation system.  See Agilent
> Technologies Optocoupler Input-Output Endurance Voltage Application Note
> 1074.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Rich
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Doug Powell 
> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 14, 2018 1:50 PM
> *To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> *Subject:* Re: [PSES] X & Y Cap rating due to hipot test
>
>
>
> I've always viewed the purpose of hipot testing as verification only.
> During engineering type testing, it is design verification.  During routine
> testing for manufacturing, it is workmanship and build verification.
>
>
>
> During type testing many safety standards will ask for hipot verification
> at various stages, after thermal/humidity tests, after

Re: [PSES] X & Y Cap rating due to hipot test

[Doug Powell]

I've always viewed the purpose of hipot testing as verification only.
During engineering type testing, it is design verification.  During routine
testing for manufacturing, it is workmanship and build verification.

During type testing many safety standards will ask for hipot verification
at various stages, after thermal/humidity tests, after abnormal operations,
etc.  Since hipot is so stressful to insulation, it is possible to
introduce latent failures in the test sample after performing multiple
hipot tests, combining many hipots into one is allowable by many
inspectors.

During routine testing, a brief hipot is added at the end of the
manufacturing cycle to ensure wire routing is correct (spacings are
maintained), integrity of insulation is maintained, in cases where
vibration testing is involved a test for chafing of wire insulation and so
on.  Most safety standards have provision for "allowable disconnects"
during the hipot such as surge suppressors and the like.  Also, hipot of
sub-assemblies in lieu of the finished assembly if it can be shown that the
test is representative.

Best to all, Doug

-- 

Douglas E Powell

doug...@gmail.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] External toothed star washer used in earth connection

[Doug Powell]

  As I see it, the star between the lug and the sheet metal is for for conductivity.  The star above the lug is for mechanical securement.  It is therefore possible to use additional techniques for mechanically securing the fastener; SEM screws, KEP nuts, jam nuts, etc. If you think about the path current takes you realize the metal parts located above do not actually contribute to conductivity.  A German safety engineer I know from LGA Nuremberg used to press his thumb sideways against the lug and try to loosen the connection. A proper hardware stack up would always prevent this. Have a great weekend, Doug Sent from my Android on the Verizon 4G LTE Network   From: scott...@gmail.comSent: August 11, 2018 3:13 AMTo: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORGReply-to: scott...@gmail.comSubject: Re: [PSES] External toothed star washer used in earth connection  Scott,Thanks for your sharing experience on this matter!  What is the purpose for the second star washer?  Double protection on top of the first one.  The star washer is a very essential part for the success of good earth the metal enclosure.Regards,ScottOn Sat, 11 Aug 2018 at 02:11, Scott Douglas  wrote:Many years ago a TUV Engineer drummed into my head "the only acceptable way" to make protective earth bonds was chassis > star > ring lug > star > nut for ground studs pressed into the chassis.On Fri, Aug 10, 2018, 9:54 AM Scott Xe  wrote:Hi Rich, Thanks for your advice!   Regarding the flat washer, can it be the flat ring lug of the connecting wire instead? Between the screw head and the metal enclosure, do we need a flat washer?  That is to say: screw head -> flat washer -> metal enclosure -> on other side of metal enclosure with paint removed in the contact area with the flat ring lug -> flat ring lug of the earthing wire -> split ring lock washer -> plain nut to establish a good electrical earth connection. Thanks and regards, Scott Sent from Mail for Windows 10 From: Richard NuteSent: Friday, 10 August 2018 03:11 AMTo: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORGSubject: Re: [PSES] External toothed star washer used in earth connection  "The lock washer should not interface between the bolt head and the metal, the lock washer should be between the head and a flat washer." That locks the bolt to the flat washer so they turn together.   Establishes a good electrical connection between the bolt and the flat washer!   Rich  -This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.htmlAttachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators:Scott Douglas Mike Cantwell  For policy questions, send mail to:Jim Bacher David Heald   -

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc.


Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas sdoug...@ieee.org
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher  j.bac...@ieee.org
David Heald dhe...@gmail.com



-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc.


Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  

Re: [PSES] X & Y Cap rating due to hipot test

[Doug Powell]

  Ken,Yes and No, the line to line "X" caps will not see hipot potentials since you should tie lines and neutral together during the test.  Line to earth "Y” caps will see the entire voltage during the test.  This assumes of course you have manually closed any circuit breakers, contractors or switches that may otherwise isolate the equipment internals.  All the best, Doug--Douglas E Powelldoug...@gmail.comhttps://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01 Sent from my Android on the Verizon 4G LTE Network   From: ken.ja...@emccompliance.comSent: August 10, 2018 12:44 PMTo: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORGReply-to: ken.ja...@emccompliance.comSubject: [PSES] X & Y Cap rating due to hipot test  Does a 1000 V insulation resistance test requirement force line-connected caps to the high pot potential?

Thank you,

Ken Javor
Phone: (256) 650-5261

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc.


Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher  
David Heald 


-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc.


Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas sdoug...@ieee.org
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher  j.bac...@ieee.org
David Heald dhe...@gmail.com

[PSES] Machinery Directive Harmonized Standards

[Doug Powell]

Today, I've been combing through the list of standards at
https://ec.europa.eu/growth/single-market/european-standards/harmonised-standards/machinery_en
.

The list has Type A, B & C standards in sequence under those categories.
For some reason about 3/4 of the way down, they restart list again at
Type-B & Type-C following the original series.  Out of curiosity, does
anyone happen to know the reasoning behind this? I originally wondered if
there was a copy & paste error when they last published the list.

Thanks!  Doug

-- 

Douglas E Powell

doug...@gmail.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] External toothed star washer used in earth connection

[Doug Powell]

 I have used IPC guidance in the past and while they have many good things to say, the primary aim is for reliability.  Product safety is considered but of secondary importance in my view.  Based on IPC workmanship standards and the requirements of  product safety standards combined, best practice is to not rely on the star to cut through paint. If you study such connections by disassembling, you will see a bit of paint or a single paint chip at the bottom of the holes created by the star points. This is a resistance point which may degrade over time.  I much prefer to have the metal surface spot faced or masked, conductive coatings excepted.  The purpose is to provide and oxygen free connection so the long term corrosion effects are negligible.  I believe the product liability directive in Europe requires 10 years from the date when the product is put into service.  A safety earth connection seldom carries much current during its life and may be called into service for full fault current at any time during that period. Fastener torque should be high enough to secure the fastener just short of deforming or crushing the star or other connective parts. This may take some experimentation with a few test samples. Experimental test results always supercede the tables and calculations found in the International Fastener Institute (IFI) books. I use stars only for safety grounding and not for conductors carrying very much current such as mains; steel makes a comparatively poor conductor. Although there are some steep pitch stars made of phosphor bronze and are suitable for high current connections. External tooth has not been mandatory in the safety standards I use, but the modern GTD tolerancing methods used by mechanical engineers often result in fairly large holes. An internal tooth star may not engage the metallic surface correctly. Best of luck,  Doug--Douglas E Powelldoug...@gmail.comhttps://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01  Sent from my Android on the Verizon 4G LTE Network   From: scott...@gmail.comSent: August 8, 2018 7:22 AMTo: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORGReply-to: scott...@gmail.comSubject: [PSES] External toothed star washer used in earth connection  Notice that it is common to use external toothed star washer to cut through the paint on metal enclosure instead of removing the paint for earthing.  The connection effectiveness may be affected with following thingsSharpness of teeth on washer (some toothed washers are single sided instead of 2-sided)Material of washerPaint thicknessScrew torqueIs there any standard to give the guidance of minimum requirement for this purpose?Thanks and regards,Scott
-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc.


Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher  
David Heald 


-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc.


Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas sdoug...@ieee.org
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher  j.bac...@ieee.org
David Heald dhe...@gmail.com

Re: [PSES] Safety Test Templates Question

[Doug Powell]

Likely not, but we'll never know for sure.

Doug


On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 12:53 PM Ted Eckert <
07cf6ebeab9d-dmarc-requ...@ieee.org> wrote:

> Does the testing involve Schroedinger’s cat?
>
>
>
> Ted Eckert
>
> Microsoft Corporation
>
>
>
> The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of
> my employer.
>
>
>
> *From:* Kevin J Harris 
> *Sent:* Thursday, August 2, 2018 10:06 AM
> *To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> *Subject:* [PSES] Safety Test Templates Question
>
>
>
> Hello
>
>
>
> On test templates from several laboratories I have noticed where they
> indicate whether or not a particular test was successful or not, that there
> is an arrangement of text such as this
>
>
>
> Conforms:Y □N  □
>
> Non-Conforms:  Y □N  □
>
>
>
> Is there a technical or legal reason behind this sort of double statement?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
> Kevin
>
>
>
> -
> 
>
> This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
> discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to <
> emc-p...@ieee.org>
>
> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
> http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
> 
>
> Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at
> http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/
> 
> can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc.
>
> Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
> 
> Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to
> unsubscribe)
> 
> List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
> 
>
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
> Scott Douglas 
> Mike Cantwell 
>
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Jim Bacher 
> David Heald 
> -
> 
>
> This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
> discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
> emc-p...@ieee.org
>
> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
> http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
>
> Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at
> http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in
> well-used formats), large files, etc.
>
> Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
> Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to
> unsubscribe) 
> List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
>
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
> Scott Douglas sdoug...@ieee.org
> Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org
>
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.org
> David Heald dhe...@gmail.com
>


-- 

Douglas E Powell

doug...@gmail.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott 

Re: [PSES] Safety Test Templates Question

[Doug Powell]

Interesting,

Seems like the test lab has put together their own criteria. The official
TRF has this information.

*Possible test case verdicts:*



*- test case does not apply to the test object. :*

N/A

*- test object does meet the requirement... :*

P (Pass)

*- test object does not meet the requirement. :*

F (Fail)

Best, Doug



On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 12:01 PM Kevin J Harris 
wrote:

>
>
> Hi Doug
>
>
>
> The testing templates were for tests found in either IEC 60950 or IEC
> 62368.
>
>
>
> Kevin
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Doug Powell [mailto:doug...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Thursday, August 02, 2018 1:27 PM
> *To:* Kevin J Harris 
> *Cc:* EMC-PSTC 
> *Subject:* Re: [PSES] Safety Test Templates Question
>
>
>
> Interesting question/
>
>
>
> Can you be more specific on the type of test or the standards involved.
> Most IEC-based test report forms I use have P, F, NA
>
>
>
> Thx, Doug
>
>
>
> Douglas E Powell
>
> Laporte, Colorado USA
>
> doug...@gmail.com
>
> http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin.com%2Fin%2Fdougp01=02%7C01%7Ckevin.3.harris%40jci.com%7Cd5f7f9454de21aeb08d5f89d3157%7Ca1f1e2147ded45b681a19e8ae3459641%7C0%7C0%7C63668827638677=F1yGeOvyb2%2F32VT%2FSeqOxZq4n1w%2FiQtgOf7KeO%2BMt48%3D=0>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 11:21 AM Kevin J Harris 
> wrote:
>
> Hello
>
>
>
> On test templates from several laboratories I have noticed where they
> indicate whether or not a particular test was successful or not, that there
> is an arrangement of text such as this
>
>
>
> Conforms:Y □N  □
>
> Non-Conforms:  Y □N  □
>
>
>
> Is there a technical or legal reason behind this sort of double statement?
>
>
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
> Kevin
>
>
>
> -
> 
>
> This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
> discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
> emc-p...@ieee.org
>
> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
> http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ieee-pses.org%2Femc-pstc.html=02%7C01%7Ckevin.3.harris%40jci.com%7Cd5f7f9454de21aeb08d5f89d3157%7Ca1f1e2147ded45b681a19e8ae3459641%7C0%7C0%7C63668827638677=E1NBRrd7wOw%2BVvG0CEQf5jz92zyFSbt%2B6mJOlJOdKyo%3D=0>
>
> Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at
> http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fproduct-compliance.oc.ieee.org%2F=02%7C01%7Ckevin.3.harris%40jci.com%7Cd5f7f9454de21aeb08d5f89d3157%7Ca1f1e2147ded45b681a19e8ae3459641%7C0%7C0%7C63668827638677=Ec3Izrz63jHb9xM5LOodt%2FF8i2AGN1jcBM2t7y%2FBLYA%3D=0>
> can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc.
>
> Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ieee-pses.org%2F=02%7C01%7Ckevin.3.harris%40jci.com%7Cd5f7f9454de21aeb08d5f89d3157%7Ca1f1e2147ded45b681a19e8ae3459641%7C0%7C0%7C63668827638677=n9MjmtF46fMCAm6LoUcJV4LY9eDkLjsw1e2S%2BbCnszE%3D=0>
> Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to
> unsubscribe)
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ieee-pses.org%2Flist.html=02%7C01%7Ckevin.3.harris%40jci.com%7Cd5f7f9454de21aeb08d5f89d3157%7Ca1f1e2147ded45b681a19e8ae3459641%7C0%7C0%7C63668827638677=8G3iglnsKr%2BzisP3oSFo2LjJRfaV1grJX%2FVKNddQ3gw%3D=0>
> List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ieee-pses.org%2Flistrules.html=02%7C01%7Ckevin.3.harris%40jci.com%7Cd5f7f9454de21aeb08d5f89d3157%7Ca1f1e2147ded45b681a19e8ae3459641%7C0%7C0%7C63668827638677=m1M3sJ84pRy96FMIutrlf3yHNbX%2BkUs0UQtU%2FItt8N8%3D=0>
>
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
> Scott Douglas sdoug...@ieee.org
> Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org
>
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.org
> David Heald dhe...@gmail.com
>
>
>
>
> --
>
>
>
> Douglas E Powell
>
> doug...@gmail.com
> http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin.com%2Fin%2Fdougp01=02%7C01%7Ckevin.3.harris%40jci.com%7Cd5f7f9454de21aeb08d5f89d3157%7Ca1f1e2147ded45b681a19e8ae3459641%7C0%7C0%7C63668827638677=F1yGeOvyb2%2F32VT%2FSeqOxZq4n1w%2FiQtgOf7KeO%2BMt48%3D=0>
>


-- 

Dou

Re: [PSES] Safety Test Templates Question

[Doug Powell]

Interesting question/

Can you be more specific on the type of test or the standards involved.
Most IEC-based test report forms I use have P, F, NA

Thx, Doug

Douglas E Powell
Laporte, Colorado USA
doug...@gmail.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01

On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 11:21 AM Kevin J Harris 
wrote:

> Hello
>
>
>
> On test templates from several laboratories I have noticed where they
> indicate whether or not a particular test was successful or not, that there
> is an arrangement of text such as this
>
>
>
> Conforms:Y □N  □
>
> Non-Conforms:  Y □N  □
>
>
>
> Is there a technical or legal reason behind this sort of double statement?
>
>
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
> Kevin
>
>
> -
> 
>
> This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
> discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
> emc-p...@ieee.org
>
> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
> http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
>
> Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at
> http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in
> well-used formats), large files, etc.
>
> Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
> Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to
> unsubscribe) 
> List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
>
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
> Scott Douglas sdoug...@ieee.org
> Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org
>
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.org
> David Heald dhe...@gmail.com
>


-- 

Douglas E Powell

doug...@gmail.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] CE marking of machinery that moves about

[Doug Powell]

It seems to me that in addition to the MD, you may need to look at any
vehicular issues.  Depending on the engine type possibly batteries, fuels,
etc.  The term forklift may not work and instead try lift truck.

I would be curious to see what you finally decide.

Thanks,  Doug

-

Werner Heisenberg, Kurt Gödel, and Noam Chomsky walk into a bar. Heisenberg
turns to the other two and says, “Clearly this is a joke, but how can we
figure out if it’s funny or not?” Gödel replies, “We can’t know that
because we’re inside the joke.” Chomsky says, “Of course it’s funny. You’re
just telling it wrong.”


On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 8:08 AM Mike Sherman  wrote:

> Pete --
>
> Things to consider:
> 1.  Section 3 of Annex I of the Machinery Safety Directive.
>
> 2.  There may be some Type C EN standards that are applicable, or from
> which you could glean some useful requirements.
>
> 3.  Product might be out of scope of RoHS directive, if it meets the
> definition of professional off road mobile machinery. See Guideline to the
> RoHS directive for the finer points of this.
>
> Mike Sherman
> Graco Inc.
>
> --
> *From: *"Pete Perkins" <0061f3f32d0c-dmarc-requ...@ieee.org>
> *To: *"EMC-PSTC" 
> *Sent: *Thursday, August 2, 2018 7:28:39 AM
> *Subject: *[PSES] CE marking of machinery that moves about
>
> Colleagues, I’ve been dealing with CE marking of machinery for
> some time but now am interested in a variation on that theme, machinery
> that moves.  Think of a fork-lift or front loader each of which lifts a
> load and moves it before setting it down again.  What additional
> requirements are placed upon such a machine.
>
>
>
> :>) br,  Pete
>
>
>
> Peter E Perkins, PE
>
> Principal Product Safety & Regulatory Affairs Consultant
>
> PO Box 23427
>
> Tigard, ORe  97281-3427
>
>
>
> 503/452-1201
>
>
>
> IEEE Life Fellow
>
> p.perk...@ieee.org
>
>
> -
> 
>
> This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
> discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
> emc-p...@ieee.org
>
> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
> http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
>
> Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at
> http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in
> well-used formats), large files, etc.
>
> Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
> Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to
> unsubscribe) 
> List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
>
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
> Scott Douglas sdoug...@ieee.org
> Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org
>
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.org
> David Heald dhe...@gmail.com
>
> -
> 
>
> This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
> discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
> emc-p...@ieee.org
>
> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
> http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
>
> Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at
> http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in
> well-used formats), large files, etc.
>
> Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
> Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to
> unsubscribe) 
> List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
>
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
> Scott Douglas sdoug...@ieee.org
> Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org
>
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.org
> David Heald dhe...@gmail.com
>


-- 

Douglas E Powell

doug...@gmail.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

[PSES] Handy tip for inserting symbols in document text.

[Doug Powell]

All,

I often wished for a way to simply "type" certain symbols within the text
of a Word document instead of inserting graphics and then struggling with
various text flow and alignment problems.  Today I discovered a neat way to
insert the triangle exclamation point symbol as text within a document
using unicode characters (Not sure why this never occurred to me before).

Open MS Word and simply type *U+26A0*, with no other punctuation or
characters hit Alt-X and you get ⚠.  From here you may resize, bold or use
font coloring as needed (italics are a little weird).  I believe this works
in MS Word 2007 and onward, probably in MS Outlook and it appears to be
working right here in my gmail account.  These keystrokes do not work in MS
Excel but you can copy/paste from a document as needed.  This
successfully printed
to a PDF files as well.  I have not tried using these codes in autocorrect
just yet but hopefully that will work too.  Sorry, I cannot speak to other
platforms or software, just MS products on this one.

With the vast array of unicode symbols, this opens a whole realm of
possibilities for me when writing company documents and procedures.

All the best, Doug


-- 

Douglas E Powell

doug...@gmail.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] Customer Requests for Risk Assessments

[Doug Powell]

Brian,

I have been asked to provide a risk assessment prior to the contract being
signed.  In my case it is for large systems to be installed on a customer
site by an EPC (engineering procurement & construction).  When I received
an example report from the EPC, it too was a fairly "*dumbed down*" version
of what I would normally do. It was in the form of an FMEA, which matches
what we do.

When I submitted my version (PDF only) to the EPC, they immediately came
back with several comments related to format and the color highlights I
used on the RPN numbers as related to thresholds, but nothing of actual
substance.  So, I took the opportunity to reformat.

   - All conditional color highlights are now tied to a flag I can turn on
   and off for printing.  This made for a basically B report and we use the
   colors with our team of SMEs.
   - Proprietary information is masked and marked as such prior to printing
   in PDF.  The topic headings were listed, proprietary information masked and
   resulting RPN numbers given. This was not done if the company has a
   confidentiality agreement of some kind.
   - Any FMEA risk items we felt had no direct impact on the customer, end
   users, etc.and would not change based on customer any known action or
   protections were removed.  We kept the master list for internal purposes
   only.  Examples may be found in PFEMA or MFMEA as opposed to DFMEA.
   - I developed various report formats using original data and based on
   requirements from IEC/ISO, UL/CSA, MIL-STD, etc.
   - I never put a functional excel worksheet in our company document
   system as too often our sales people would tell the customer, "*Oh, I
   have something here, let me just send it long*"

On the topic of removed items, in one example we listed a risk of fire ants
(genus Solenopsis) attracted to electrical fields in equipment and causing
damage; not applicable in many parts of the world.  And taking this out it
streamlines the review process as it avoided questions like "*what does
this mean?*".

Out of curiosity, I decided to look up the professional profile a few of
these people who are making the requirements and found they are often
non-technical,
paper pushers.  So in the end what they wanted was a document to add to
their files to show they are exercising due diligence and to check off one
more box on their checklist.

-Doug


Douglas E Powell
Laporte, Colorado USA
doug...@gmail.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01

---
I don't get lost, I accidentally go on adventures.







On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 12:43 PM, Kunde, Brian 
wrote:

> Our company makes Laboratory Equipment (test and measurement analyzers).
>
>
>
> Our company performs a Risk Assessment early in the development stage of
> all new products as so suggested by such documents. We generally use the EN
> ISO 12100. Creating this document highlights the possible sources of risks
> and allows our engineers to design products with an inherent design which
> minimizes the risks as much as possible.   Our Risk Assessment becomes a
> document with a lot of detailed information including calculations, test
> results, detailed data, and other design specifications.  Such information
> is considered highly confidential by our company.
>
>
>
> On occasion, and in increasing frequency, our company is asked by
> potential customers to provide them with a Risk Assessment Report for our
> products. Sometimes they threaten us such as they will not or cannot
> consider our products unless we provide such documentation.
>
>
>
> 1.   Why are customers asking for a Risk Assessment?  Where did that
> requirement become from?
>
> 2.   Other than the potential loss of a sale, are we obligated to
> provide our customer with a Risk Assessment?  I do not see such a
> requirement in the Directives or Standards we use.
>
> 3.   Any of you been receiving similar requests? If so, do you
> provide a Risk Assessment? If so, are you not worried about providing such
> information?  Couldn’t this information be used against you in court? Is
> there a fear of providing useful information to your competitors?
>
>
>
> Part 2:
>
> I have requested a sample of the Risk Assessment our customers are
> expecting our company to provide. The examples documents are for the most
> part meaningless with little real detail about anything.  But, if that is
> all they want to make them happy, we are considering generating such a
> document just to satisfy these requests.  Any comments?
>
>
>
> When I ask our customers what information they are looking to gain from
> the Risk Assessment, they tell me they want to know the level of residual
> risks our products might have.  I reply that all residual risks are well
> documented and warned about in the provided User Manual.  However, this
> doesn’t seem to satisfy them. They still want a Risk Assessment Report.
>
>
>
> So 

Re: [PSES] EN50131-1 Battery spec vs. Environmental class

[Doug Powell]

Amund,

You may consider heaters for the low temp ambients and if necessary coolers
for the high.

You might also consider operationally limiting your charge cycles to only
times when the ambient is within acceptable limits and make this a part of
your certification by placing it in the conditions of use.  I have seen
this scenario before in solar systems located in very cold climates.  In
that case it was fortunate that the daytime temperatures warmed things up
when the sunlight was available.

All the best,

-Doug


Douglas E Powell
Laporte, Colorado USA
doug...@gmail.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01



On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 11:12 AM, Nyffenegger, Dave <
dave.nyffeneg...@bhemail.com> wrote:

> If power is available to charge the battery then the product could also
> employ a battery strip heater thermostatically controlled to bring the temp
> up to minimum.
>
> I have a low voltage low power strip heater on the battery in my listed
> outdoor gate opener controller.  It happens to be a sealed lead acid
> battery but something similar should work for Li.  The heater sits flush on
> the entire side of the battery, a few mm thick.
>
> -Dave
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Brian O'Connell [mailto:oconne...@tamuracorp.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2018 12:54 PM
> To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: Re: [PSES] EN50131-1 Battery spec vs. Environmental class
>
> Depends on Security Grade requirements and where the battery is stored.
>
> Li batteries can be used in discharge mode to -20C.  Have only done one
> project for this, where the battery temperature was monitored by the
> charger, and shut down charge current when outside rated temperature range,
> but allowed discharge to -20C.
>
> Brian
>
>
> From: Amund Westin [mailto:am...@westin-emission.no]
> Sent: Monday, April 16, 2018 11:42 PM
> To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: [PSES] EN50131-1 Battery spec vs. Environmental class
>
> EN50131-1: Alarm systems - Intrusion and hold-up systems -- Part 1: System
> requirements
>
> From the standard:
> Environmental Class II: Indoor General (-10º to +40º)
>
>
> Li-Ion batteries may have this spec:
> Charging: 0º C to 45º C
> Discharge/standby: -20ºC to +50º C:
>
> As I understand the Li-Ion tech, the batteries should not be charged when
> temperature is below 0º C and that means it's not possible to qualify for
> Environmental Class II (-10º to +40º) Indoor General.
> Unless you monitor the temperature and prevents charging when temperature
> is under 0º C, but that may lead you into other trouble if temperature
> remains low over a long period.
> Any others who has considered the same case and agree?
>
> Best regards
> Amund
>
> -
> 
> This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
> discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to <
> emc-p...@ieee.org>
>
> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
> http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
>
> Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at
> http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in
> well-used formats), large files, etc.
>
> Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
> Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to
> unsubscribe) List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
>
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
> Scott Douglas 
> Mike Cantwell 
>
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Jim Bacher:  
> David Heald: 
>
> -
> 
> This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
> discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to <
> emc-p...@ieee.org>
>
> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
> http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
>
> Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at
> http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in
> well-used formats), large files, etc.
>
> Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
> Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to
> unsubscribe)
> List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
>
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
> Scott Douglas 
> Mike Cantwell 
>
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Jim Bacher:  
> David Heald: 
>



-- 

Douglas E Powell

doug...@gmail.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:

Re: [PSES] EMCO Model 4630 Refrad Comb Generator

[Doug Powell]

  If you're feeling adventurous, here is another DIY generator from EDN, this one is 6 GHz.https://www.edn.com/electronics-blogs/the-emc-blog/4402169/DIY-6-GHz-comb-generatorBest, Doug   From: mbar...@integrity.comSent: April 1, 2018 2:10 PMTo: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORGReply-to: mbar...@integrity.comSubject: Re: [PSES] EMCO Model 4630 Refrad Comb Generator  Hi Richard, Here's a copy of the 19-page manual:http://manualzz.com/doc/11597273/model-4630-refrad-reference-radiator-manualIt doesn't have schematics but maybe there's something in the manual that may help. Also check this 20 year old e-mail from the EMC-PSTC archive:https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/msg05914.htmlMaybe this person has some useful information.It's a long shot but still worth a check. Manny Barron   From:  Richard Marshall [mailto:0aeebd4dc3f4-dmarc-requ...@ieee.org]Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2018 4:56 AMTo:  EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORGSubject: [PSES] EMCO Model 4630 Refrad Comb Generator Hi All,I am trying to resurrect the Electronics of an EMCO model 4630 refrad comb generator for use on an international standardisation project. Whilst in storage for the last three years it has developed a fault, I think with the 70 V power supply, but I do not have the schematic to help with further investigation.Can anyone supply me with a schematic of this comb generator, or other circuit-board level technical information that might help? Thanks in anticipation, and a happy Easter to you all. Richard G3SBA Richard Marshall Laboratories,30 Ox Lane, Harpenden, Herts.,    AL5 4HE, UK +44 (0)1582 460815www.design-emc.co.ukMember of the EMC Industry Association  Virus-free. www.avg.com -This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.htmlAttachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators:Scott Douglas Mike Cantwell  For policy questions, send mail to:Jim Bacher David Heald  
-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc.


Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher  
David Heald 

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc.


Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas sdoug...@ieee.org
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher  j.bac...@ieee.org
David Heald dhe...@gmail.com

Re: [PSES] Neat Funny Stories regarding EMI

[Doug Powell]

Charles,

Hope you are well.

Although not directly about EMC or laboratory practices and the like, take
a look into RF lotions, creams and gels not for ultrasound. For example
Facial Radiofrequency Gel with anti-aging RF treatment. I can't exactly
tell if they are trying to prevent or enhance RF. Possibly something like
the old radium treatments? There are some pretty amazing health claims
being made which in my view are unverifiable.

Second, there was the phenomenon in the audiophile crowd who believe gold
plated contacts and high quality wiring in an AC power cable is all you
need reduce RF interference. As I recall one company advertised that it
could eliminate all RF interference. Here is one article along that line:
http://www.empiricalaudio.com/computer-audio/technical-papers/myths-and-snake-oil

Finally what I consider is the best. In the EMC Journal, March 2010, was an
article on "Feng Shui in the anechoic chamber", starting on page 5 of
http://www.compliance-club.com/pdf/Issue87.PDF, I take this to be a
humorous article but who knows, maybe the author was a little serious.  I
think the potted plant and the water feature would be a very nice touch for
all such labs.

All the best, Doug

Douglas E Powell
doug...@gmail.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01







On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 8:49 AM, Grasso, Charles 
wrote:

> Hi all,
>
>
>
> I am writing a column internal to my company about the topic
> of EM emissions.  Considering the topic(!) I would like to
> add some humor to keep the reader engaged.
>
> I would be grateful if any of you that have humerous stories
> related to EMI that you would share them with me!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
> Charles Grasso
>
> (w) 303-706-5467 <(303)%20706-5467>
>
>
> -
> 
>
> This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
> discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
> emc-p...@ieee.org
>
> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
> http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
>
> Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at
> http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in
> well-used formats), large files, etc.
>
> Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
> Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to
> unsubscribe) 
> List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
>
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
> Scott Douglas sdoug...@ieee.org
> Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org
>
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.org
> David Heald dhe...@gmail.com
>



-- 

Douglas E Powell

doug...@gmail.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

[PSES] Minimum Sound Requirements

[Doug Powell]

A few years ago on this forum we discussed something about the quiet nature
of electric and hybrid vehicles and how this can be a hazard for
pedestrians.  It seems there is an action in the Federal Register to
address this problem.

Notification Number: USA/777/Rev.1 (United States of America)
Date Issued: 3/2/2018
Products: Hybrid and electric vehicles
Title: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Minimum Sound Requirements
for Hybrid and Electric Vehicles
Full text:
https://members.wto.org/crnattachments/2018/TBT/USA/18_1154_00_e.pdf


If you are not a registered user, the main page is here:
https://tsapps.nist.gov/notifyus/data/index/index.cfm

​All the best,  Doug

​

-- 

Douglas E Powell

doug...@gmail.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] IATA/ICAO and U 83.3 rules

[Doug Powell]

Thank you all, once again very helpful information.

Have a great weekend,  Doug




On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 2:09 PM, Ted Eckert <ted.eck...@microsoft.com>
wrote:

> Hello Doug,
>
>
>
> Go to the following website and download the “Shipping lithium batteries –
> documentation requirements” file.
>
> http://www.fedex.com/id/tools/lithium.html
>
>
>
> It has a flow chart showing the UN shipping requirements for batteries
> packaged within products. The batteries will need UN 38.3 testing, but
> shipping batteries in products is fairly simple after that.
>
>
>
> Ted Eckert
>
> Microsoft Corporation
>
>
>
> The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of
> my employer.
>
>
>
> *From:* Doug Powell [mailto:doug...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Thursday, January 25, 2018 12:45 PM
> *To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> *Subject:* [PSES] IATA/ICAO and U 83.3 rules
>
>
>
> Hi all,
>
>
>
> I am curious to know if anyone is familiar with IATA/ICAO and UN 83.3
> rules as they apply to shipment of cell phones (and other products) with
> built in batteries.  Many manufacturers generally separate the battery from
> the product or insulate one of the terminals to prevent inadvertent
> activation during shipment. With built in batteries this is not always
> possible.  I don't believe the rules specifically say batteries must be
> removed or disconnected.  So how, exactly is this handled by most people?
>
>
>
> Thanks all.  Doug
>
>
>
> -- Hel
>
>
>
> Douglas E Powell
>
> doug...@gmail.com
> http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin.com%2Fin%2Fdougp01=02%7C01%7Cted.eckert%40microsoft.com%7C5bdc0ee927cf4ff52a5b08d56434886d%7Cee3303d7fb734b0c8589bcd847f1c277%7C1%7C0%7C636525099150693182=uMrSQEcnVpM%2FCQJUKkhf7ERMyspiL%2FQlU5kjFSt13pk%3D=0>
>
> -
> 
>
> This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
> discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to <
> emc-p...@ieee.org>
>
> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
> http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ieee-pses.org%2Femc-pstc.html=02%7C01%7Cted.eckert%40microsoft.com%7C5bdc0ee927cf4ff52a5b08d56434886d%7Cee3303d7fb734b0c8589bcd847f1c277%7C1%7C0%7C636525099150693182=cI6T1K5Aj%2FJNVMwVILD2mCK%2B%2B65HhAdGTEce9Fm33GQ%3D=0>
>
> Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at
> http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fproduct-compliance.oc.ieee.org%2F=02%7C01%7Cted.eckert%40microsoft.com%7C5bdc0ee927cf4ff52a5b08d56434886d%7Cee3303d7fb734b0c8589bcd847f1c277%7C1%7C0%7C636525099150693182=jX0wTTG6W3zwhJwvredHD3RBP5NxzzaPwajFD6JdSL0%3D=0>
> can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc.
>
> Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ieee-pses.org%2F=02%7C01%7Cted.eckert%40microsoft.com%7C5bdc0ee927cf4ff52a5b08d56434886d%7Cee3303d7fb734b0c8589bcd847f1c277%7C1%7C0%7C636525099150703187=YcCqpzjMACh1Hk%2BpGfVnoEMMhxswm3ee9wDdIEDHfFQ%3D=0>
> Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to
> unsubscribe)
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ieee-pses.org%2Flist.html=02%7C01%7Cted.eckert%40microsoft.com%7C5bdc0ee927cf4ff52a5b08d56434886d%7Cee3303d7fb734b0c8589bcd847f1c277%7C1%7C0%7C636525099150703187=fa6qa9GK11ESMI%2B0jEDC3BTsAhmcyT6ql1u3%2FQcAsIw%3D=0>
> List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ieee-pses.org%2Flistrules.html=02%7C01%7Cted.eckert%40microsoft.com%7C5bdc0ee927cf4ff52a5b08d56434886d%7Cee3303d7fb734b0c8589bcd847f1c277%7C1%7C0%7C636525099150703187=9e30o6ffwiJrOFQm%2FXcta59F2vhGfJGKqr6wViqmQII%3D=0>
>
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
> Scott Douglas <sdoug...@ieee.org>
> Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org>
>
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Jim Bacher <j.bac...@ieee.org>
> David Heald <dhe...@gmail.com>
>



-- 

Douglas E Powell

doug...@gmail.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
<emc-p...@ieee.org>

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-

[PSES] IATA/ICAO and U 83.3 rules

[Doug Powell]

Hi all,

I am curious to know if anyone is familiar with IATA/ICAO and UN 83.3 rules
as they apply to shipment of cell phones (and other products) with built in
batteries.  Many manufacturers generally separate the battery from the
product or insulate one of the terminals to prevent inadvertent activation
during shipment. With built in batteries this is not always possible.  I
don't believe the rules specifically say batteries must be removed or
disconnected.  So how, exactly is this handled by most people?

Thanks all.  Doug

-- 

Douglas E Powell

doug...@gmail.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] Safety Testing Sotware

[Doug Powell]

Brian,

Although I prefer a structured approach to programming, I had a good
experience with Labview, even though it is an icon driven programming
environment.  I think of it as more of a flow chart than a state machine.
In many ways it is similar to ETS-LIndgren Tile!

Your comment about ARM is intriguing and Python seems to be the language
du-jur. I wonder how agencies are to accepting data from single board
computers, I know it shouldn't matter and the idea of dedicated hardware
watching over a long environmental tests is compelling.  I personally don't
prefer Arduino, it is a good learning environment and has lots of expansion
possibilities but I feel it is somewhat limited on networking abilities.
In general, Raspberry PI certainly has more processing power, the linux OS
is pretty lean and it has good networking, but is probably not a good
choice for real-time processes since it is so interrupt driven.  I believe
Beaglebone may have some potential but have not really evaluated this
option yet.

All the best and have a wonderful Christmas,

Doug
-

Douglas E Powell

doug...@gmail.com
Skype: doug.powell52
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01


-- 

Douglas E Powell

doug...@gmail.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01

On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 11:08 AM, Brian O'Connell <oconne...@tamuracorp.com>
wrote:

> We have had similar discussions on the automation of Type Tests. Might be
> worth one's time to search the archives.
>
> Canned code that comes with the instrument can be effective. Have use
> Benchlink, and with regret, have noted that Keysight people have ruined a
> once very reliable (for windoze) utility (some of Benchlink's problems have
> been fixed by the Win10 USB implementation). Have droned at length on
> LabView, so will, at least once, spare our group from further my rants of
> 25 years of using this unsupportable nightmare (will somebody explain to
> these Austin PhDs how a state machine is supposed to work). Excel VBA can
> be surprisingly effective, but instrument drivers and other
> hardware-dependent code are frequently broken from each progression of
> versioning for either windoze or MS Office.
>
> Test automation is more than data logging. Test automation adds smarts by
> watching the data stream and removing the human from any control of test
> conditions. Test Automation requires the use of deterministic response to
> hardware events. Test Automation requires the reliable and continued
> recording of data when things go wrong. Test automation systems know when
> something is wrong with the test instruments.
>
> Typically have done Type Test automation using Python/C++ on a Linux
> platform. But as of late, have been using multiple ARM processors (at least
> M4) that control the tests, talk to the instruments, and stream buffered
> data to the computer.
>
> My next big project will be to put Type Test systems into the factory for
> my employer's large magnetic stuff.
>
> Brian
>
>
> From: Doug Powell [mailto:doug...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2017 9:30 AM
> To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: [PSES] Safety Testing Sotware
>
> All,
>
> Am aware of several EMC testing software packages available.  Today, I am
> curious to know if you use automated software for safety type testing
> (engineering tests).  I am also aware of solutions intended for high volume
> production line testing.  From my experience it seems that the most
> valuable software tools for safety type testing are available with the
> instrument, Excel VBA scripting, Labview or an in-house compiled solution.
> I have used Benchlink from HP/Agilent/Keysight and if a custom application
> is needed with several instruments then I've used Excel or Labview.
>
> What has been your experience?
>
> Thanks!
>
> --
>
> Douglas E Powell
>
> doug...@gmail.com
> http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01
>
> -
> 
> This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
> discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to <
> emc-p...@ieee.org>
>
> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
> http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
>
> Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at
> http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in
> well-used formats), large files, etc.
>
> Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
> Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to
> unsubscribe)
> List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
>
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
> Scott Dougl

[PSES] Safety Testing Sotware

[Doug Powell]

All,

Am aware of several EMC testing software packages available.  Today, I am
curious to know if you use automated software for safety type testing
(engineering tests).  I am also aware of solutions intended for high volume
production line testing.  From my experience it seems that the most
valuable software tools for safety type testing are available with the
instrument, Excel VBA scripting, Labview or an in-house compiled solution.
I have used Benchlink from HP/Agilent/Keysight and if a custom application
is needed with several instruments then I've used Excel or Labview.

What has been your experience?

Thanks!

-- 

Douglas E Powell

doug...@gmail.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] Was there ever a comparison between IEC 60950-1 and IEC 62368-1 (current edition preferable)? And any rationale for any of the changes

[Doug Powell]

Back in the day, the question was asked: "What's the difference between an
elephant and a plum?"  Answer: "They're exactly the same, except the
elephant."




On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 12:19 PM, Pete Perkins <
0061f3f32d0c-dmarc-requ...@ieee.org> wrote:

> Leo,
>
>
>
> The requirements in 62368-1 are supported by the rationale
> document 62368-2 which more fully explains the basis for the requirements
> in the standard.  It has been put together to help standards committees –
> such as yours – understand these.
>
>
>
> There was an early on comparison between 60950 and 62368
> (already discussed here) which could be generally helpful but has not been
> kept up to the latest changes.
>
>
>
> The ongoing intent in 62368-1 has been to ensure that
> present practices should be acceptable under the new standard as long as
> they meet the requirements of the new standard.
>
>
>
> Most generally it probably can be assumed that they
> provide equivalent safety protection under each standard (altho there are
> some significant differences – e.g. the 10 or 100 uA touch current limits
> in 60601-1 which are lower than the allowed limits of 0.5 and 5mA in
> 62368-1); so it may not immediately fall out from some simple discussion
> since there are many details in each standard which need to be compared
> unless you accept the general assumption.
>
>
>
> TC108 is still struggling with the issues surrounding
> moving from 60950 to 62368 details, such as how to accept components
> designed to 60950 in the context of the new standard.  TC108 has, in the
> past, invoked additional requirements on components when it appeared that
> the component standard did not meet the expected requirements of the
> standard.  It is not unreasonable to do so again.  Altho TC108 has worked
> with SC22E on their Low Voltage Switch Mode Power Supplies safety standard,
> IEC 61207-7, and have achieved considerable harmonization in the
> requirements the inclusion of that as a normative standard within 62368-1
> certification is not yet automatically accepted; awaiting the outcome of
> the related issues discussed here.
>
>
>
> SC62A should request to work with TC108 in your process of
> review and change.  This probably won’t work out for this week’s meeting
> but should provide you with a path to understanding how to incorporate
> these devices in your medical systems.
>
>
>
> Good luck in working thru all of this.
>
>
>
> :>) br,  Pete
>
>
>
> Peter E Perkins, PE
>
> Principal Product Safety & Regulatory Affairs Consultant
>
> PO Box 23427
>
> Tigard, ORe  97281-3427
>
>
>
> 503/452-1201 <(503)%20452-1201>
>
>
>
> p.perk...@ieee.org
>
>
>
> *From:* Leo Eisner [mailto:l...@eisnersafety.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, December 5, 2017 4:40 PM
> *To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> *Subject:* [PSES] Was there ever a comparison between IEC 60950-1 and IEC
> 62368-1 (current edition preferable)? And any rationale for any of the
> changes
>
>
>
> I am in IEC SC62A (60601-1 series of standards - Medical electrical
> equipment & systems) meetings this week and we are trying to id the
> differences between these 2 standards so we can figure out how to integrate
> IEC 62368-1 into IEC 60601-1, 3rd ed. + A2, if we have the time and
> agreement with the National Committees is to be determined. We are working
> on A2 currently (at CD1 stage) and initially we decided not to include IEC
> 62368-1 in the A2 but wait for 4th ed. but that likely may be too late for
> power supplies as 60950 is ending in a couple years for at least EU.
>
>
>
> Thx all,
>
>
>
> *Leonard (Leo) Eisner, P.E.*
> Principal Consultant, Eisner Safety Consultants
>
> Phone: (503) 244-6151
>
> Mobile: (503) 709-8328
>
> Email: l...@eisnersafety.com
>
> Website: www.EisnerSafety.com 
>
> *** Internet E-mail Confidentiality Disclaimer ***
>
> This e-mail message may contain privileged or confidential information. If
> you are not the intended recipient, you may not disclose, use, disseminate,
> distribute, copy or rely upon this message or attachment in any way. If you
> received this e-mail message in error, please return by forwarding the
> message and its attachments to the sender.
>
>
>
> Eisner Safety Consultants do not accept liability for any errors,
> omissions, corruption or virus in the contents of this message or any
> attachments that arise as a result of e-mail transmission.
>
> 
> ***
>
>
>
> -
> 
>
> This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
> discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to <
> emc-p...@ieee.org>
>
> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
> http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
>

Re: [PSES] Pickle

[Doug Powell]

John,

UL 991 is a test method for qualifying solid-state circuits for safety
function.  It is generally referenced by another standard and is not used
as a primary certification standard as such.  Additionally, semiconductors
are not certified individually to UL 991 as this is not a component
standard.  It is very important that the circuits where the semiconductors
are used be evaluated.  If you are familiar with the EMC immunity testing
of IEC/CISPR standards, it is very much like this.  Radiated immunity, EFT,
surge, ESD,  etc.

-Doug


Douglas E Powell
Laporte, Colorado USA
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01

On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 11:44 AM, John Allen 
wrote:

> Hi,
>
>
> We have a pickle of a situation and wondering if anyone knows a simple
> fix.
>
>
> We have a moving wall that complies with the maximum force limits of UL962.
>
> An IC measures the voltage of a resistor and if appropriate, allows the
> correct current to be sent to a motor that moves the wall.
>
> If too much current is allowed to the motor, the force created is greater
> than the limit.
>
> We have a fuse, but it won't open before the force is created.
>
>
> A UL991 investigation on the IC and Resistor circuit is necessary.  I
> agree with that.  That said -
>
>
>
>1. I could not find any UL Recognized Component circuits that comply
>with UL 991.  Is there such a category??  I searched UL's database for
>anything UL 991 and came up with a few categories.  FSPC2 is a likely
>candidate, but the few Listings that are in there are heavy duty motor
>controllers or position sensing devices, etc.
>2. If we redesign to not use the IC, won't we still be subjected to UL
>991?  If we use discrete components (resistors and capacitors vs ICs) does
>that get us out of UL 991?
>
>
> Any insight would be appreciated.
>
>
> Best Regards,
>
>
> John
>
> -
> 
>
> This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
> discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
> emc-p...@ieee.org
>
> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
> http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
>
> Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at
> http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in
> well-used formats), large files, etc.
>
> Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
> Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to
> unsubscribe) 
> List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
>
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
> Scott Douglas sdoug...@ieee.org
> Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org
>
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.org
> David Heald dhe...@gmail.com
>



-- 

Douglas E Powell

doug...@gmail.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] Safety Link - has changed

[Doug Powell]

Thanks Dan,

The link looks good although I'm guessing Art will not maintain links as
carefully as before.  Of course I could be wrong about that.

It's very nice having an information clearing house like this.

Best,  Doug


On Nov 14, 2017 6:48 PM, "Dan Roman" <danp...@verizon.net> wrote:

> Hi Doug,
>
>
>
> Art Michael sold that URL off a while back.  I do not think it is back up
> permanently but an old copy can be found here:
>
>
>
> http://shelltown.net/~amichael/
>
>
>
> Art is not on this list but maybe someone has his contact info?  I thought
> I did but cannot find it at the moment.
>
>
>
> __
> Dan Roman, N.C.E.
>
> Senior Member
>
> IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society
>
> mailto:dan.ro...@ieee.org <dan.ro...@ieee.org>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Doug Powell [mailto:doug...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, November 14, 2017 4:04 PM
> *To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> *Subject:* [PSES] Safety Link - has changed
>
>
>
> All,
>
>
>
> For a number of years I have used a website that now seems to be retired
> and recycled.  Safety Link was great resource and is now a company working
> in Fall Protection.  You can see the changes at archive.org
>
>
>
>- Old: ​https://web.archive.org/web/20170711180031/http://www.
>safetylink.com/
><https://web.archive.org/web/20170711180031/http:/www.safetylink.com/>​
>
>
>
>- New: ​https://web.archive.org/web/20171005105521/http://www.
>safetylink.com/
><https://web.archive.org/web/20171005105521/http:/www.safetylink.com/>
>
> ​
>
> I understand how websites come and go.  Does anyone know of a similar
> website with up to date links?
>
>
>
> Thanks,  Doug
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
>
>
> Douglas E Powell
>
> doug...@gmail.com
> http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01
>
> -
> 
>
> This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
> discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to <
> emc-p...@ieee.org>
>
> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
> http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
>
> Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at
> http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in
> well-used formats), large files, etc.
>
> Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
> Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to
> unsubscribe) <http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html>
> List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
>
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
> Scott Douglas <sdoug...@ieee.org>
> Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org>
>
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Jim Bacher <j.bac...@ieee.org>
> David Heald <dhe...@gmail.com>
>

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
<emc-p...@ieee.org>

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas <sdoug...@ieee.org>
Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org>

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  <j.bac...@ieee.org>
David Heald: <dhe...@gmail.com>

[PSES] Safety Link - has changed

[Doug Powell]

All,

For a number of years I have used a website that now seems to be retired
and recycled.  Safety Link was great resource and is now a company working
in Fall Protection.  You can see the changes at archive.org


   - Old: ​
   https://web.archive.org/web/20170711180031/http://www.safetylink.com/​



   - New: ​
   https://web.archive.org/web/20171005105521/http://www.safetylink.com/

​
I understand how websites come and go.  Does anyone know of a similar
website with up to date links?

Thanks,  Doug


-- 

Douglas E Powell

doug...@gmail.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

[PSES] Authorized personnel only

[Doug Powell]

Greeting all,

In the interest of minimizing translation costs, I am attempting to use
symbols as much as possible for cautionary signage.  Naturally these should
be internationally recognized when possible, https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/.
One I am having trouble finding is an "authorized personnel only" or
"unauthorized keep out".  I find a few made by sign companies that have
their own designs with various circle-bar, stop signs, police hands, etc.
Nothing consistent or without the hackneyed or silly appearance we often
see.

Does anyone know of such a symbol?


-- 

Douglas E Powell

doug...@gmail.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

[PSES] FAA Draft Free flame test

[Doug Powell]

I thought the forum may find this interesting.

DOT/FAA/AR-00/12 AIRCRAFT MATERIALS FIRE TEST HANDBOOK (
https://www.fire.tc.faa.gov/pdf/00-12.pdf).

Clause 1.3.1 actually recommends testing for a draft-free environment my
using "*a smoldering and smoking material, such as a lighted cigarette, in
the test cabinet*". It seems this may be a carry over from the days when
smoking was socially acceptable.

​All the best, Doug

​

-- 

Douglas E Powell

doug...@gmail.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] IEC 60950-1 power supply in IEC 61010-1 equipment

[Doug Powell]

  There are a few considerations. First, a 60950-1 power supply is generally evaluated to Overvoltage Category II, the 61010-1 application may be something else.  Second, 61010-1 electrical leakage current requirements are much lower.  Third, the standard used for EMC evaluation is different, although the test standards and levels that are used may ultimately be the same. Best of luck,  DougFrom: 08e6c8d35910-dmarc-requ...@ieee.orgSent: September 1, 2017 8:14 PMTo: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORGReply-to: ntueeestud...@yahoo.comSubject: [PSES] IEC 60950-1 power supply in IEC 61010-1 equipment  Hi allGood evening, Since power supply units certified to IEC 60950-1 are more commonly available, may I know can one use a IEC 60950-1 power supply unit to power a test instrument (e.g. In Vitro Diagnostic Instrument) that is going to be certified for IEC 61010-1 ?Hope to hear from you soon.Thank you a lot.Vincent 
-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc.


Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher  
David Heald 

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc.


Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas sdoug...@ieee.org
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher  j.bac...@ieee.org
David Heald dhe...@gmail.com

[PSES] Outsource Manufacturing Supplier Certs

[Doug Powell]

All,

Does anyone here have experience with outsourcing or contract manufacturing
function and a program to pass along certificates of the materials used?
I know this can be managed and I'm not even certain what a program/process
like this would be called.  ​For example, when a manufacturer builds
subassemblies like circuit boards or custom magentics, safety critical
materials they use must ​be inspected prior to assembly (optocouplers,
wire, fuses, connectors, etc.).   Evidence of inspection for these
materials in the form of certificates may need to be passed along when
these assemblies are shipped to the end manufacturer.

I am interested to learn what points should be considered to monitor this
process.

​Thanks, Doug

​

-- 

Douglas E Powell

doug...@gmail.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

[PSES] EU Blue Guide

[Doug Powell]

Is anyone else having difficulty downloading a working copy of the Blue
Guide at http://ec.europa.eu/DocsRoom/documents/18027/

I've tried both formats to no avail.

thanks, Doug

-- 

Douglas E Powell

doug...@gmail.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

[PSES] Flame retardancy GB/T 8624-2012

[Doug Powell]

Greetings all,

I am attempting to determine equivalency of a flame retardancy rating of B3
in GB/T 8624-2012 to the Flame Spread Indices of ASTM E84.  In particular,
I really don't know if "B3" is good bad or otherwise.  Interestingly, the
old idea of flammable vs inflammable has come up and is used in contrast to
the terms combustible vs incombustible. And now my head is beginning to
ache.

I really don't have a desire to purchase a chinese standard and read it
completely through just to answer this question. Does anyone know of a
resource that can help me cross reference flammability classifications of
these two standards?



Thanks, Doug



Douglas E Powell
doug...@gmail.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] 230V 3-phase in Europe

[Doug Powell]

  Actually, I think if you go to Wikipedia and re-write the laws of physics, it could be anything you want. :)   Best,  Doug   From: jmw1...@btinternet.comSent: August 7, 2017 2:01 PMTo: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORGReply-to: jmw1...@btinternet.comSubject: Re: [PSES] 230V 3-phase in Europe  Unless the European Commission has changed the square-root of 3, the system is 127/220. With best wishes DESIGN IT IN! OOO – Own Opinions Onlywww.jmwa.demon.co.uk J M Woodgate and Associates Rayleigh England Sylvae in aeternum manent. From: Carpentier Kristiaan [mailto:kristiaan.carpent...@technicolor.com] Sent: 07 August 2017 20:52To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORGSubject: Re: [PSES] 230V 3-phase in Europe That’s correct John, and some old houses still have 127/230 (Belgium).My home has now 400/230 Y thus with Neutral. Best regardsKris Carpentier,  From: john Allen [mailto:09cc677f395b-dmarc-requ...@ieee.org] Sent: maandag 7 augustus 2017 21:39To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORGSubject: Re: [PSES] 230V 3-phase in Europe ** WARNING: This mail is from an external source ** John W I think you are probably correct, but I also seem to remember that – many years ago – some parts some parts of Europe used a 127V/230V Star/Wye system. John E AllenW. London, UK From: John Woodgate [mailto:jmw1...@btinternet.com] Sent: 07 August 2017 20:25To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORGSubject: Re: [PSES] 230V 3-phase in Europe You are quite right; the household supply is 230/400V.  I suspect that the product description is wrong. 133/230 V isn’t used anywhere in the world, I think. With best wishes DESIGN IT IN! OOO – Own Opinions Onlywww.jmwa.demon.co.uk J M Woodgate and Associates Rayleigh England Sylvae in aeternum manent. From: Kunde, Brian [mailto:brian_ku...@lecotc.com] Sent: 07 August 2017 19:50To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORGSubject: [PSES] 230V 3-phase in Europe Greetings.   Sorry if this is a stupid question (I’ve asked more than I’m allowed, I’m sure), but in Europe, is there 230 volt 3-phase (230 volt line to line)?  I thought 230 volt single phase was derived from 380V 3-phase (230V from Line to Neutral).    I see a 230V 3-phase saw with a CE marking and I was wondering if this product can actually be used in Europe. Thanks for any info.  Don’t beat up the yank too much. The Other BrianLECO Corporation Notice: This communication may contain confidential information intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you received this by mistake, please destroy it and notify us of the error. Thank you. -This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.htmlAttachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators:Scott Douglas Mike Cantwell  For policy questions, send mail to:Jim Bacher David Heald  -This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.htmlAttachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators:Scott Douglas Mike Cantwell  For policy questions, send mail to:Jim Bacher David Heald  -This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.htmlAttachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 

Re: [PSES] Quasipeak definition

[Doug Powell]

  As I understand it differs from the peak and average in that it is a quick detect and slow decay.  The purpose was to emulate electronic devices that are sensitive to this sort of response.  As such, we use to peak to detect potential interference and then a combination of average and QP for pass/fail determination.  All the best Doug   From: jmw1...@btinternet.comSent: July 31, 2017 8:40 AMTo: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORGReply-to: jmw1...@btinternet.comSubject: Re: [PSES] Quasipeak definition  It’s a peak detector that has a carefully-controlled time-response that is not quite fast enough to show the true peak value of a very fast transient that might occur. With best wishes DESIGN IT IN! OOO – Own Opinions Onlywww.jmwa.demon.co.uk J M Woodgate and Associates Rayleigh England Sylvae in aeternum manent. From: Paasche, Dieter [mailto:dieter.paas...@christiedigital.com] Sent: 31 July 2017 15:35To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORGSubject: [PSES] Quasipeak definition How would you define the Quasipeak detector to somebody that is not EMC knowledgeable.   Sincerely,  Dieter PaascheSenior Product Developer, ElectricalCHRISTIE809 Wellington Street NorthKitchener, ON N2G 4Y7Phone: 519-744-8005 ext.7211www.christiedigital.com This e-mail message (including attachments, if any) is confidential.  Any unauthorized use, distribution or disclosure is prohibited.  If you have received this e-mail message in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail or telephone and delete it and any attachments from your computer system and records. -This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.htmlAttachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators:Scott Douglas Mike Cantwell  For policy questions, send mail to:Jim Bacher David Heald  
-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc.


Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher  
David Heald 

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc.


Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas sdoug...@ieee.org
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher  j.bac...@ieee.org
David Heald dhe...@gmail.com

Re: [PSES] Organize my standards => ISBN 13 Digit code

[Doug Powell]

Interesting idea to use ISBN.  It would be a unique identifier.  I am curious 
to know what everyone feels is the best practice for sorting a database on 
harmonized standards.  For example, all of the 61010-1 national derivatives and 
national differences for IEC, EN, ANSI, CSA, UL, etc.  

I have in a spreadsheet a separate publisher column and the base document 
number.   I also track publication date and date of withdrawal, if available. I 
am a bit of a pack rat in this regard, I keep most of my data forever plus or 
minus a few decades.

Sometimes when I have an updated publication available, I do a textual word by 
word comparison document to flag the differences.  I am frequently surprised 
and the number of "editorial" changes that do not make it into the change logs 
or the magazine articles or even the big four certifying agencies here in the 
USA.

Doug




  Original Message  
From: oconne...@tamuracorp.com
Sent: June 23, 2017 6:18 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Reply-to: oconne...@tamuracorp.com
Subject: Re: [PSES] Organize my standards => ISBN 13 Digit code

When you have bazillions of standards, the ISBN is handy as a unique identifier 
(unique and/or primary key), as each version has different reference; otherwise 
no other significant use. For example, an excerpt from my database:

ISBN 9780580910234 BS EN 62368-1:2014

ISBN 9782832214053 IEC 62368-1 Edition 2.0 2014-02

ISBN 9782889106844 IEC 62368-1 Edition 1.0 2010-01

ISBN 97811554364159 CSA C22.2 NO. 60950-1B-07

Brian


From: Chuck August-McDowell [mailto:chu...@meyersound.com] 
Sent: Friday, June 23, 2017 4:47 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Organize my standards => ISBN 13 Digit code

Greetings form Berkeley,
 
Does using the International Standard Book Number (ISBN) 13 digit code work to 
organize your standard's collection?
 
Thank you in advance for comments,
 
Mr. Chuck McDowell
Compliance Specialist 
Meyer Sound Laboratories Inc.
 
 
 
 
-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.
Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html 
For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell  
For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher 
David Heald  

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] NFPA 407 Label use in Canada

[Doug Powell]

Thanks Brian

I have seen the individual pictograms from Canada, was hoping for a ess
complicated layout.

It is my understanding that OSHA has officially terminated the MSDS in
favor of the SDS as prescribed by the GHS system.  US workplace placards
are supposed to be converted by June 1st, 2016.  Although my experience
with this has been similar to the long standing "metrication" efforts going
back to the 1970s. I'm going to have to come up with another saying for
MSDS vs SDS like the one I use for the SI system: "We should go metric,
every inch of the way!"

best, Doug

BTW, I am currently re-running TNG and DS9 chronologically and I could not
believe it ... Worf told his grown son from the future (a.k.a. K'mtar), "*I
love you*".  And I thought there were no platonic phrases such as this, '*ej
yIlIjQo': reH qamuSHa*'.







On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 5:28 PM, Brian O'Connell <oconne...@tamuracorp.com>
wrote:

> Dunno, as Canada supposedly uses the GHS, so the diamond would probably
> have the Hazcom 2012 requirements, and not the NFPA/OSHA numbers. FWIW, the
> severity rating numbers are reversed for NFPA701 vs HazCom2012, and there
> are numerous additional pictograms for GHS.
>
> A while back, OSHA added GHS stuff to the MSDS requirements, but not aware
> of any DoT requirements for the pictograms.  Klingon hazardous chemicals
> marks all directly translate to 'drink all of this'.
>
> Brian
>
>
> From: Doug Powell [mailto:doug...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2017 3:29 PM
> To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: [PSES] NFPA 407 Label use in Canada
>
> Hi all,
>
> I was wondering, does anyone have experience with using the NFPA 704
> chemical diamond in Canada and in Canadian French?
>
> I realize NFPA for U.S.A. concerns and possibly there is a Canadian
> equivalent.
>
> Thanks,  Doug
>
>
> --
>
> Douglas E Powell
>
> doug...@gmail.com
>



-- 

Douglas E Powell

doug...@gmail.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
<emc-p...@ieee.org>

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas <sdoug...@ieee.org>
Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org>

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  <j.bac...@ieee.org>
David Heald: <dhe...@gmail.com>

[PSES] NFPA 407 Label use in Canada

[Doug Powell]

Hi all,

I was wondering, does anyone have experience with using the NFPA 704
chemical diamond in Canada and in Canadian French?

I realize NFPA for U.S.A. concerns and possibly there is a Canadian
equivalent.

Thanks,  Doug


-- 

Douglas E Powell

doug...@gmail.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] No Postings?? [General Use]

[Doug Powell]

​Well, yours just came through... so there's one

Maybe everyone is too busy.

Best,  Doug


Douglas E Powell
Laporte, Colorado USA

doug...@gmail.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01


Doug



On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 1:45 AM, Price, Andrew (Leonardo, UK) <
andrew.p.pr...@leonardocompany.com> wrote:

> Hi there Group
>
> For some reason it appears that I am not getting any postings from the
> forum?
> Does anyone know why this as occurred?
>
> Regards
> Andy
>
>
>
>
>  Andrew Price
>  Land & Naval Defence Electronics Division
>  Prinicpal Environmental Engineer (EMC)
>
>  Leonardo MW Ltd
>  Sigma House, Christopher Martin Rd, Basildon SS14 3EL, UK
>  Tel  EMC LAB : +44 (0)1268 883308
>  Mobile: +44 (0)7507 854888
>  andrew.p.pr...@leonardocompany.com rew.p.pr...@leonardocompany.com>
>  leonardocomapany.com
> HELICOPTERS / AERONAUTICS / ELECTRONICS, DEFENCE AND SECURITY SYSTEMS /
> SPACE
>
> * Please consider the environment before printing this email.
>
>
>
>
> Leonardo MW Ltd
> Registered Office: Sigma House, Christopher Martin Road, Basildon, Essex
> SS14 3EL
> A company registered in England & Wales.  Company no. 02426132
> 
> This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
> recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
> recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
> You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or
> distribute its contents to any other person.
> 
>
> -
> 
> This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
> discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to <
> emc-p...@ieee.org>
>
> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
> http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
>
> Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at
> http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in
> well-used formats), large files, etc.
>
> Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
> Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to
> unsubscribe)
> List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
>
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
> Scott Douglas 
> Mike Cantwell 
>
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Jim Bacher:  
> David Heald: 
>



-- 

Douglas E Powell

doug...@gmail.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] Interior lighting for large control panels

[Doug Powell]

All thank you for your replies.

This is pretty much what I anticipated.  My certification engineer made an
off hand comment of how NFPA 70 Art. 410 requires it.  However, in reading
all 160 subsections I found again that that the text of the code more or
less assumes that if you provide lighting here is how it must be done.  In
no place did I find anything that says "*thou shalt provide lighting*".

The agency engineers are supposed to be the "go to" experts but I find they
are much like the rest of us mere mortals in that they sometimes miss on
the details.

All the best, Doug




On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 9:42 PM, Doug Powell <doug...@gmail.com> wrote:

> All,
>
> I just finished reviewing older editions of UL 508 (2005) and UL 508A
> (2003) for any requirements specifically for interior lighting of large
> cabinets.  This would be for cabinets large enough to be a container with
> personnel doors.  I do see requirements for how to implement "maintenance
> lighting" if provided but not a requirement specifically stating
> maintenance lighting "shall be provided". Also, if the latest editions of
> the UL standards now include sections on risk assessment, I can see how a
> maintenance person who is inadvertently entrapped (e.g. wind closed the
> door) would then could become disoriented and egress lighting would be
> important to mitigate the hazard.
>
> Any guidance on mandatory lighting requirements for maintenance is greatly
> appreciated.
>
> ​Thanks,  Doug
>
> ​
>
> --
>
> Douglas E Powell
>
> doug...@gmail.com
> http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01
>



-- 

Douglas E Powell

doug...@gmail.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
<emc-p...@ieee.org>

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas <sdoug...@ieee.org>
Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org>

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  <j.bac...@ieee.org>
David Heald: <dhe...@gmail.com>

Re: [PSES] Interior lighting for large control panels

[Doug Powell]

Understood, completely!  

Nyrd in Colorado


  Original Message  
From: oconne...@tamuracorp.com
Sent: April 21, 2017 1:41 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Reply-to: oconne...@tamuracorp.com
Subject: Re: [PSES] Interior lighting for large control panels

29CFR1910.37 would probably be the 'root cause' for any lighting requirements 
in an ANSI standard, but is incomplete and ambiguous. Therefore, henceforth, 
and heretofore; per the largess of our federal government, the offering of 
29CFR1926.56 is scoped for illumination of the workplace.

It should be noted that the Peoples' Republic of Kalifornia has additional 
lighting requirements, most of which will be disallowed in a few years by our 
robot overlords.

Brian


From: Doug Powell [mailto:doug...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2017 8:43 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Interior lighting for large control panels

All,

I just finished reviewing older editions of UL 508 (2005) and UL 508A (2003) 
for any requirements specifically for interior lighting of large cabinets.  
This would be for cabinets large enough to be a container with personnel doors. 
 I do see requirements for how to implement "maintenance lighting" if provided 
but not a requirement specifically stating maintenance lighting "shall be 
provided". Also, if the latest editions of the UL standards now include 
sections on risk assessment, I can see how a maintenance person who is 
inadvertently entrapped (e.g. wind closed the door) would then could become 
disoriented and egress lighting would be important to mitigate the hazard.  

Any guidance on mandatory lighting requirements for maintenance is greatly 
appreciated.

​Thanks,  Doug

-- 

Douglas E Powell

doug...@gmail.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
<emc-p...@ieee.org>

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas <sdoug...@ieee.org>
Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org>

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  <j.bac...@ieee.org>
David Heald: <dhe...@gmail.com>

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
<emc-p...@ieee.org>

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas <sdoug...@ieee.org>
Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org>

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  <j.bac...@ieee.org>
David Heald: <dhe...@gmail.com>

[PSES] Interior lighting for large control panels

[Doug Powell]

All,

I just finished reviewing older editions of UL 508 (2005) and UL 508A
(2003) for any requirements specifically for interior lighting of large
cabinets.  This would be for cabinets large enough to be a container with
personnel doors.  I do see requirements for how to implement "maintenance
lighting" if provided but not a requirement specifically stating
maintenance lighting "shall be provided". Also, if the latest editions of
the UL standards now include sections on risk assessment, I can see how a
maintenance person who is inadvertently entrapped (e.g. wind closed the
door) would then could become disoriented and egress lighting would be
important to mitigate the hazard.

Any guidance on mandatory lighting requirements for maintenance is greatly
appreciated.

​Thanks,  Doug

​

-- 

Douglas E Powell

doug...@gmail.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] Voltage Rating vs Voltage Specification

[Doug Powell]

Dave,

You are correct about selectors.  This can mean a "selectable" voltage
whether accomplished by a switch a screw terminal, auto-select, transformer
tap or whatever.  The idea is the voltage range is no longer contiguous and
even if automatic there is a gap or a jump of some kind. Safety standards
such as IEC 61010-1 are concerned about this for a few reasons, not the
least of which is many products with a voltage selector switch also have a
different fuse value. As in the example of a fused IEC 320 inlet module.
One of the abnormal tests is to place the higher current fuse on the higher
voltage setting, when it is user serviceable.  Or to move a user selectable
voltage setting to one position and plug into the wrong voltage.  For
auto-selection, I have seen abnormal tests such as a failed voltage
detection circuit configured in such a way as to create worst case
condition high voltage connected to the low voltage selection.

Of course for these abnormals, the two possible failure modes are high
voltage breakdown in one case or high current heating/fire in the other
case.

Thanks,  Doug



On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 12:37 PM, Nyffenegger, Dave <
dave.nyffeneg...@bhemail.com> wrote:

> That’s how I would have interpreted as well.  Also, I don’t know that the
> / implies a selector switch as was mentioned earlier.  I’ve seen power
> supplies rated for two non-contiguous ranges for input voltage that still
> auto-adjust for the actual input voltage, no selector switch required.
>
>
>
> Some of the standards call for +-10%  minimum tolerance and some, the UL I
> think,  call for +6%-10% minimum.  As far as certification is concerned,
> all depends on what standards apply.
>
>
>
> -Dave
>
>
>
> *From:* Doug Powell [mailto:doug...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 11, 2017 2:10 PM
>
> *To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> *Subject:* Re: [PSES] Voltage Rating vs Voltage Specification
>
>
>
> Actually this looks redundant to me. The 100-115-120/208-220-230-240 can
> be expressed as 100-120/208-240.  This is because the dash character
> indicates a range and the slash character indicates a selectable value.  In
> quasi boolean fashion, this could be explained as (from 100 to 120) OR
> (from 208 to 240).
>
>
>
> One more point for the sake of clarity, the ±10% tolerance for a range is
> based on the end limits or a range.  In your example above, -10% of 100V
> thru +10% of 120V and -10% of 208V thru +10% of 240V which translates into
> 90 thru 132 an 187.2 thru 264. This would not be included on a rating
> label however.
>
>
>
> In my experience ±10% is standard operating conditions (SOC) when
> not otherwise specified.  This has been expanded on occasion in product
> design proposals where the customer has specified +10% / -15% as a
> preliminary step toward mitigating voltage dips and sags.
>
>
>
> All the best, doug
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 9:24 AM, Kunde, Brian <brian_ku...@lecotc.com>
> wrote:
>
> Is something like this allowed?
>
> 100-115-120/208-220-230-240
>
> Will a ±10% tolerance always be assumed? If your tolerance was something
> different, such as -15%/+10%, does this information have to be on the
> device or is the manual good enough?
>
> The Other Brian
>
> -Original Message-
> From: John Woodgate [mailto:jmw1...@btinternet.com]
> Sent: Friday, April 07, 2017 5:01 PM
> To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: Re: [PSES] Voltage Rating vs Voltage Specification
>
> These runes differ in meaning:
>
> I have seen products rated 85-264V and others rated 100/120/208/230/240.
>
> 85-264 means any voltage within that range. You could put in 165 V and
> expect no problem.
>
> 100/120/208/230/240 means only those voltages, with whatever the relevant
> standard says about tolerances. 165 V would not work for this product.
>
> With best wishes DESIGN IT IN! OOO – Own Opinions Only
> www.jmwa.demon.co.uk J M Woodgate and Associates Rayleigh England
>
> Sylvae in aeternum manent.
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Ralph McDiarmid [mailto:ralph.mcdiar...@schneider-electric.com]
> Sent: Friday, April 7, 2017 8:29 PM
> To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: Re: [PSES] Voltage Rating vs Voltage Specification
>
> I don't know, but I suppose it could be addressed by an "abnormal test" to
> see if UUT fails in a way which then renders it potentially unsafe by way
> of non-compliance with a criterion in the standard.
>
> I have seen products rated 85-264V and others rated 100/120/208/230/240.
>  I would expect the first one to pass thermal test criteria at 85V, at
> rated power, at highest rated ambient .  One corner of the "perf

Re: [PSES] Voltage Rating vs Voltage Specification

[Doug Powell]

Actually this looks redundant to me. The 100-115-120/208-220-230-240 can be
expressed as 100-120/208-240.  This is because the dash character indicates
a range and the slash character indicates a selectable value.  In quasi
boolean fashion, this could be explained as (from 100 to 120) OR (from 208
to 240).

One more point for the sake of clarity, the ±10% tolerance for a range is
based on the end limits or a range.  In your example above, -10% of 100V
thru +10% of 120V and -10% of 208V thru +10% of 240V which translates into
90 thru 132 an 187.2 thru 264. This would not be included on a rating
label however.

In my experience ±10% is standard operating conditions (SOC) when not
otherwise specified.  This has been expanded on occasion in product design
proposals where the customer has specified +10% / -15% as a
preliminary step toward mitigating voltage dips and sags.

All the best, doug




On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 9:24 AM, Kunde, Brian 
wrote:

> Is something like this allowed?
>
> 100-115-120/208-220-230-240
>
> Will a ±10% tolerance always be assumed? If your tolerance was something
> different, such as -15%/+10%, does this information have to be on the
> device or is the manual good enough?
>
> The Other Brian
>
> -Original Message-
> From: John Woodgate [mailto:jmw1...@btinternet.com]
> Sent: Friday, April 07, 2017 5:01 PM
> To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: Re: [PSES] Voltage Rating vs Voltage Specification
>
> These runes differ in meaning:
>
> I have seen products rated 85-264V and others rated 100/120/208/230/240.
>
> 85-264 means any voltage within that range. You could put in 165 V and
> expect no problem.
>
> 100/120/208/230/240 means only those voltages, with whatever the relevant
> standard says about tolerances. 165 V would not work for this product.
>
> With best wishes DESIGN IT IN! OOO – Own Opinions Only
> www.jmwa.demon.co.uk J M Woodgate and Associates Rayleigh England
>
> Sylvae in aeternum manent.
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Ralph McDiarmid [mailto:ralph.mcdiar...@schneider-electric.com]
> Sent: Friday, April 7, 2017 8:29 PM
> To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: Re: [PSES] Voltage Rating vs Voltage Specification
>
> I don't know, but I suppose it could be addressed by an "abnormal test" to
> see if UUT fails in a way which then renders it potentially unsafe by way
> of non-compliance with a criterion in the standard.
>
> I have seen products rated 85-264V and others rated 100/120/208/230/240.
>  I would expect the first one to pass thermal test criteria at 85V, at
> rated power, at highest rated ambient .  One corner of the "performance
> envelope" if you will.  And then, do I test the latter at 100V -10%   ?
>
> And, I don't think that compliance with a standard proves a product safe;
> only that it complies with a specific set of criteria.  Product safety is
> hard to define, much harder to accurately assess, even with use of the
> AFMEA and FTA tools, which are subjective so it seems to me.
>
> Ralph McDiarmid
> Product Compliance
> Engineering
> Solar Business
> Schneider Electric
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Richard Nute [mailto:ri...@ieee.org]
> Sent: Friday, April 07, 2017 10:51 AM
> To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: Re: [PSES] Voltage Rating vs Voltage Specification
>
> Supposedly, since the ratings are specified in the standard, they must
> involve safety if not done according to the standard.  So, what is the
> safety issue if the ratings are not in accordance with the standard?  What
> is the injury?
>
> What is the safety issue if the applied voltage is less than or more than
> the marked ratings but still within the nominal from the electric power
> utility?  Again, what is the injury?
>
> Rich
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: John Woodgate
> > [mailto:jmw1...@btinternet.com]
> > Sent: Friday, April 07, 2017 9:11 AM
> > To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> > Subject: Re: [PSES] Voltage Rating vs Voltage Specification
> >
> > There are in fact two IEC resources, Electropedia, which has all the
> > formal definitions produced by TC1 and Glossary, which has a selection
> > of terms, culled from many standards, that have not been adopted by
> > TC1.
> >
> > http://www.electropedia.org/?ref=extfooter
> >
> > http://std.iec.ch/glossary?ref=extfooter
> >
> > Neither can be comprehensive at one instant, because new terms are
> > being added all the time.
> >
> > With best wishes DESIGN IT IN! OOO – Own Opinions Only
> > www.jmwa.demon.co.uk J M Woodgate and Associates Rayleigh England
> >
> > Sylvae in aeternum manent.
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Ralph McDiarmid
> > [mailto:Ralph.McDiarmid@SCHNEIDER-
> > ELECTRIC.COM]
> > Sent: Friday, April 7, 2017 4:42 PM
> > To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> > Subject: Re: [PSES] Voltage Rating vs Voltage Specification
> >
> > Pete, I wonder if the onus to define the terminology like “rated
> > voltage” should really be on the technical 

Re: [PSES] Voltage Rating vs Voltage Specification

[Doug Powell]

There is a resource, but few actually use it to my knowledge.

http://www.electropedia.org/

Doug



On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 9:41 AM, Ralph McDiarmid <
ralph.mcdiar...@schneider-electric.com> wrote:

> Pete, I wonder if the onus to define the terminology like “rated voltage”
> should really be on the technical committees, not academia.  I know that is
> some standards, terms like "disconnect" and "trip" are loosely defined.  I
> wonder if there should be one IEC document, which could serve as a
> reference to all others for terminology.  I think there is one, but it is
> likely not comprehensive.
>
> Ralph McDiarmid
> Product Compliance
> Engineering
> Solar Business
> Schneider Electric
>
>
>
> From: Pete Perkins [mailto:0061f3f32d0c-dmarc-requ...@ieee.org]
> Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2017 10:20 PM
> To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: Re: [PSES] Voltage Rating vs Voltage Specification
>
> All,
>
>Yes, the consultant or safety engineers dream/nightmare.
> We have to realize that the glass is half empty for most of the world and
> we have an ongoing opportunity to strike them across the knuckles with a
> ruler (as the nuns did in primary school) and begin the teaching mode.
>
>As PT Barnum (the American circus entrepreneur) once said
> (and quoted often) ‘There is a fool born every minute’.
>
>If the technical schools provided all of this detailed
> training we wouldn’t have anything to do.
>
>So fill your peddler’s sack with all of these important
> stories and smile, but not laugh out loud, when you run into the same
> situation again (and again, and again).
>
>Every project and every design team is an opportunity to
> straighten out the world.
>
> :>) br,  Pete
>
> Peter E Perkins, PE
> Principal Product Safety & Regulatory Affairs Consultant
> PO Box 23427
> Tigard, ORe  97281-3427
>
> 503/452-1201
>
> mailto:p.perk...@ieee.org
>
> From: john Allen [mailto:john_e_al...@blueyonder.co.uk]
> Sent: Thursday, April 6, 2017 12:57 AM
> To: mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: Re: [PSES] Voltage Rating vs Voltage Specification
>
> As Dave said, this is “age old problem” that we also faced at HP Bristol
> in the 1980s when we built peripherals that had to operate across the World
> – and that meant from 100V 50 & 60Hz in Japan and up to 240V 50Hz for the
> UK and a few other places, AND +/- to cope with the relevant required local
> tolerances (and so effectively meant +/- 10% across the board). This meant
> careful selection and testing of PSUs and of the ratings to be marked on
> the end-use products, but fortunately most of our products did not have
> directly mains-powered motors.
>
> In practice, if you have a product that does have such motors then it may
> well mean that you need to produce separate models with different motors
> for the geographical areas that operate at the extremes of the
> voltage/frequency ranges – especially  those at the lower end thereof – or
> else change the designs to use DC motors supplied from full
> voltage/frequency range-capable PSUs (or, possibly, use AC motors rated for
> the lowest “worst case” voltage/ frequency / tolerance combination, but
> with solid state control systems which ensure that those motors are
> operated within that regime regardless of the actual supplied mains
> voltages/ frequencies/ tolerances?).
>
> OTOH, the latter approaches are probably impracticable in most cases for
> cost /space /weight / technology reasons , and so that  means you need a
> “horses for courses” approach.
>
> John E Allen
> W. London, UK
>
> -
> 
> This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
> discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to <
> emc-p...@ieee.org>
>
> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
> http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
>
> Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at
> http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in
> well-used formats), large files, etc.
>
> Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
> Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to
> unsubscribe)
> List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
>
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
> Scott Douglas 
> Mike Cantwell 
>
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Jim Bacher:  
> David Heald: 
>



-- 

Douglas E Powell

doug...@gmail.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:

Re: [PSES] Voltage Rating vs Voltage Specification

[Doug Powell]

This idea of using using an AC/DC PSU to run a motor is approximately what
we have done.  However, to keep it a 3-phase AC drive we use a VFD and
being a fluid pumping situation we can vary the pump speed if we wish.  The
only problem with VFDs is they are horrible for EMC and some companies even
offer a line reactor accessory.  Apparently there is a new generation of
these devices coming out that are much quieter.

-Doug


Douglas E Powell
Laporte, Colorado USA
doug...@gmail.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01

On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 1:56 AM, john Allen <john_e_al...@blueyonder.co.uk>
wrote:

> As Dave said, this is “age old problem” that we also faced at HP Bristol
> in the 1980s when we built peripherals that had to operate across the World
> – and that meant from 100V 50 & 60Hz in Japan and up to 240V 50Hz for the
> UK and a few other places, AND +/- to cope with the relevant required local
> tolerances (and so effectively meant +/- 10% *across the board*). This
> meant careful selection and testing of PSUs *and of the ratings to be
> marked on the end-use products*, but fortunately most of our products did
> not have directly mains-powered motors.
>
>
>
> In practice, if you have a product that does have such motors then it may
> well mean that you need to produce separate models with different motors
> for the geographical areas that operate at the extremes of the
> voltage/frequency ranges – especially  those at the lower end thereof – *or
> else change the designs to use DC motors supplied from full
> voltage/frequency range-capable PSUs (or, *possibly, use AC motors rated
> for the lowest “worst case” voltage/ frequency / tolerance combination, *but
> with solid state control systems which ensure that those motors are
> operated within that regime regardless of the actual supplied mains
> voltages/ frequencies/ tolerances*?).
>
>
>
> OTOH, the latter approaches are probably impracticable in most cases for
> cost /space /weight / technology reasons , and so that  means you need a
> “horses for courses” approach.
>
>
>
> John E Allen
>
> W. London, UK
>
>
>
> *From:* Nyffenegger, Dave [mailto:dave.nyffeneg...@bhemail.com]
> *Sent:* 06 April 2017 00:43
> *To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> *Subject:* Re: [PSES] Voltage Rating vs Voltage Specification
>
>
>
> Ha!  Age old problem.  Just have to explain it as you did.  And also for
> the end product consumer nameplate I don’t put the +-10% rating on the
> plate.  Had a major motor manufacturer recently trying to tell me that the
> motor they have rated for 230V was OK to run at 208V because it’s good for
> 230 +-10%. Had to explain to them that I need it to run at 208V – 10%.
> Crickets on that one.
>
> A previous motor from that manufacturer was rated for something like 208V
> @60Hz but 190V @50Hz and sure enough when tested at 208V + 10% @ 50Hz the
> windings saturated and drew crazy current.
>
>
>
> Likewise have to explain to design engineers that they cannot use a 230V
> motor in the product rated at 208V and rate the end product at 208V – 0%.
>
>
>
> -Dave
>
>
>
> *From:* Doug Powell [mailto:doug...@gmail.com <doug...@gmail.com>]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 05, 2017 6:52 PM
> *To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> *Subject:* [PSES] Votlage Rating vs Voltage Specificaion
>
>
>
> Hi all,
>
>
>
> Has anyone found a good way to explain to non-compliance types the
> difference between voltage rating and voltage specification?  After all
> these years I still run into this discussion and have not found a good way
> to clear the air.
>
>
>
> A classic example is an open frame AC/DC power supply used to produce the
> housekeeping voltages within a larger product.  In a recent example, the
> PSU datasheet stated the voltage input range as 85 to 264 VAC.  This is
> great and I really like that specification. However, I also had a design
> engineer who took those numbers from the datasheet and transcribed them
> directly to the rating label of his product.  As a result the agency
> engineer wanted to apply the ±10% rule to the rating label voltage and
> the rating tests were then 76.5 to 290.4 VAC (this was not an ITE
> product).  Note: a little quick math shows that the 264 VAC upper limit of
> the PSU is actually a result of 240 V plus 10%.
>
>
>
> All this seems obvious to me but apparently not to everyone ... and maybe
> it's me who is just a few sandwiches short of a picnic.
>
>
>
> I would be grateful to hear any experiences where explanations were
> successful and lasting.
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
>
>
> Douglas E Powell
>
> doug...@gmail.com
> http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01
>
> -
> --

Re: [PSES] Votlage Rating vs Voltage Specificaion

[Doug Powell]

  Unfortunately this was a consulting job and the arrangements had already been made by the company in question.  I was there to help them through the findings of the PDR. Doug   From: ri...@ieee.orgSent: April 6, 2017 11:46 AMTo: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORGReply-to: ri...@ieee.orgSubject: Re: [PSES] Votlage Rating vs Voltage Specificaion   “As a result the agency engineer wanted to apply the ±10% rule to the rating label voltage…” Never submit a product to a certification house that you have not tested and evaluated for all the requirements.  You should not have any failures at the certification house (and the certification will be complete on the promise date).  Keep a running list of all your submittals and the deficiencies.  The list will be useful in your performance review or, if consulting, in building client confidence.  Easy to do with the CB report form (which you can submit with the product and will bias the cert house to your way of interpreting the requirements as applied to your product).   Rich 
-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc.


Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher  
David Heald 

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc.


Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas sdoug...@ieee.org
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher  j.bac...@ieee.org
David Heald dhe...@gmail.com

Re: [PSES] Votlage Rating vs Voltage Specificaion

[Doug Powell]

  Bostjan,Thank you, I am also familiar with Working Voltage.  And I sometimes add 'long term working voltage'.  On occasion, some engineers have attempted to use the isolation voltage of a component as the voltage rating. Most often the isolation voltage is the 60 second dielectric test voltage.  And so, on it goes...All my best,  DougFrom: bostjan.gla...@siq.siSent: April 5, 2017 6:08 PMTo: doug...@gmail.com; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORGSubject: RE: [PSES] Votlage Rating vs Voltage Specificaion  







Hi Doug,
 
I am familiar with expressions: operational voltage range  and rated voltage range. Operational voltage range is in fact
 rated voltage range with tolerances. In your case 85-264V is operational voltage range, while unit is rated 100-240V. tolerances on rated voltages in your case are -15%/+10%.
 
I hope this helps a bit.
 
Best regards,
Bostjan
 
 
 
From: Doug Powell [mailto:doug...@gmail.com]

Sent: Thursday, April 6, 2017 12:52 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Votlage Rating vs Voltage Specificaion
 


Hi all,


 


Has anyone found a good way to explain to non-compliance types the difference between voltage rating and voltage specification?  After all these years I still run into this discussion and have not found a good way to clear the air.


 


A classic example is an open frame AC/DC power supply used to produce the housekeeping voltages within a larger product.  In a recent example, the PSU datasheet stated the voltage input range as 85 to 264 VAC.  This is great and I really
 like that specification. However, I also had a design engineer who took those numbers from the datasheet and transcribed them directly to the rating label of his product.  As a result the agency engineer wanted to apply the
±10% rule to the rating label voltage and the rating tests were then 76.5 to 290.4 VAC (this was not an ITE product).  Note: a little quick math shows that the 264 VAC upper limit of the
 PSU is actually a result of 240 V plus 10%. 


 


All this seems obvious to me but apparently not to everyone ... and maybe it's me who is just a few sandwiches short of a picnic.


 


I would be grateful to hear any experiences where explanations were successful and lasting.


 


 

-- 





 

Douglas E Powell

doug...@gmail.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01





-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to <emc-p...@ieee.org>
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc.
Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas <sdoug...@ieee.org>
Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org> 
For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher <j.bac...@ieee.org>
David Heald <dhe...@gmail.com> 




-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc.


Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas sdoug...@ieee.org
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher  j.bac...@ieee.org
David Heald dhe...@gmail.com

Re: [PSES] Voltage Rating vs Voltage Specification

[Doug Powell]

  Dave, I like you motor example.  It's one more bit I can add to make my case.  I guess I'm resigned to always having to explain this.  best, dougFrom: dave.nyffeneg...@bhemail.comSent: April 5, 2017 5:43 PMTo: doug...@gmail.com; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORGSubject: RE: [PSES] Voltage Rating vs Voltage Specification  







Ha!  Age old problem.  Just have to explain it as you did.  And also for the end product consumer nameplate I don’t put the +-10% rating on the plate.  Had
 a major motor manufacturer recently trying to tell me that the motor they have rated for 230V was OK to run at 208V because it’s good for 230 +-10%. Had to explain to them that I need it to run at 208V – 10%.  Crickets on that one.
A previous motor from that manufacturer was rated for something like 208V @60Hz but 190V @50Hz and sure enough when tested at 208V + 10% @ 50Hz the windings
 saturated and drew crazy current.  
 
Likewise have to explain to design engineers that they cannot use a 230V motor in the product rated at 208V and rate the end product at 208V – 0%.
 
-Dave
 
From: Doug Powell [mailto:doug...@gmail.com]

Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2017 6:52 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Votlage Rating vs Voltage Specificaion
 


Hi all,


 


Has anyone found a good way to explain to non-compliance types the difference between voltage rating and voltage specification?  After all these years I still run into this discussion and have not found a good way to clear the air.


 


A classic example is an open frame AC/DC power supply used to produce the housekeeping voltages within a larger product.  In a recent example, the PSU datasheet stated the voltage input range as 85 to 264 VAC.  This is great and I really
 like that specification. However, I also had a design engineer who took those numbers from the datasheet and transcribed them directly to the rating label of his product.  As a result the agency engineer wanted to apply the
±10% rule to the rating label voltage and the rating tests were then 76.5 to 290.4 VAC (this was not an ITE product).  Note: a little quick math shows that the 264 VAC upper limit of the
 PSU is actually a result of 240 V plus 10%. 


 


All this seems obvious to me but apparently not to everyone ... and maybe it's me who is just a few sandwiches short of a picnic.


 


I would be grateful to hear any experiences where explanations were successful and lasting.


 


 

-- 





 

Douglas E Powell

doug...@gmail.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01





-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to <emc-p...@ieee.org>
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc.
Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas <sdoug...@ieee.org>
Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org> 
For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher <j.bac...@ieee.org>
David Heald <dhe...@gmail.com> 




-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc.


Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas sdoug...@ieee.org
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher  j.bac...@ieee.org
David Heald dhe...@gmail.com

[PSES] Votlage Rating vs Voltage Specificaion

[Doug Powell]

Hi all,

Has anyone found a good way to explain to non-compliance types the
difference between voltage rating and voltage specification?  After all
these years I still run into this discussion and have not found a good way
to clear the air.

A classic example is an open frame AC/DC power supply used to produce the
housekeeping voltages within a larger product.  In a recent example, the
PSU datasheet stated the voltage input range as 85 to 264 VAC.  This is
great and I really like that specification. However, I also had a design
engineer who took those numbers from the datasheet and transcribed them
directly to the rating label of his product.  As a result the agency
engineer wanted to apply the ±10% rule to the rating label voltage and the
rating tests were then 76.5 to 290.4 VAC (this was not an ITE product).
Note: a little quick math shows that the 264 VAC upper limit of the PSU is
actually a result of 240 V plus 10%.

All this seems obvious to me but apparently not to everyone ... and maybe
it's me who is just a few sandwiches short of a picnic.

I would be grateful to hear any experiences where explanations were
successful and lasting.


-- 

Douglas E Powell

doug...@gmail.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] E-Box Layout on Factory Machines

[Doug Powell]

Just my opinion but the use of heavy locked enclosures (pre-dating DIN
Rail) has been industry practice for many years.  I suspect that part of
the reason of enclosure similarity is from the desire to keep costs down by
having a minimum number of different boxes in inventory. In addition, NEMA
has quite a bit to say about design for enclosure strength, ingress,
accessibility, etc.

As for the harnesses I feel DIN Rail is a result of organized wiring
layouts, not a cause, I have worked with systems when everything was
connected with ring lugs and very long terminal blocks. It may not be so
obvious on smaller systems but larger systems are often very configurable
and rather complex.  This made it much easier to manufacture harnesses in
quantity on plywood board and nail setups with each conductor is identified
and tagged on both ends. I learned my electronics on radar and
countermeasures systems in the US Navy and we had to have wires harnessed
and secured cable in this way.  I even learned to tie the standardized
knots to use on harness lacing twine. I haven't checked in a few years but
this may still be a practice in military equipment and I'm pretty sure in
avionics too. In industry, the tywrap has all but taken over. I suspect
many of the MIL STD practices have made their way into industry because
they have been proven to work.

In the early days of mainframe computers, there were attempts to dress out
wiring in a similar fashion and it was found that the cross-talk between
conductors could actually be detrimental.  This was likely one of the
contributing factors to the old "rats nest" and thick blankets of 30 AWG
wire used in wire-wrapped backplanes and main frames.  The more or less
randomly routed wires were less likely to cross talk when laid out in
quasi-orthogonal arrangements and when squeezing out every bit of speed was
imperative, direct point to point wiring was just a tad bit faster.  Just
for fun, try a google image search for Cray Computer Backplane.  It becomes
very apparent why technicians would pull out their hair.

-Doug


Douglas E Powell
Laporte, Colorado USA
doug...@gmail.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01



On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 6:54 AM, Kunde, Brian  wrote:

> I notice that most industrial factory machinery is designed with a large
> metal electronic box with a hinged door and some kind of keyed lock. Inside
> the components are DIN mounted and the wiring is all dressed very neatly in
> these gray plastic cable runs with snap-on lids. Every wire is labeled with
> a small tag.
>
>
>
> Why are these machines so similar in design?  Even among different
> manufacturers, they look similar.  Is there a standard or standards that
> dictate exactly how this is done?  What criteria is used to determine if
> your product must follow these construction rules?
>
>
>
> Seems strange to me that they are so similar and if required to be that
> way, then standards and/or governments are dictating design. Even if it was
> for the “greater-good”, I thought that was a no-no.  Dictate design, stifle
> creativity, invite those who would take advantage for financial gain.
>
>
>
> Just curious.  I’m most interested in the criteria question, though.
>
> The Other Brian
>
>
> --
> *LECO Corporation Notice:* This communication may contain confidential
> information intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you received this
> by mistake, please destroy it and notify us of the error. Thank you.
> -
> 
>
> This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
> discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
> emc-p...@ieee.org
>
> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
> http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
>
> Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at
> http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in
> well-used formats), large files, etc.
>
> Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
> Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to
> unsubscribe) 
> List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
>
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
> Scott Douglas sdoug...@ieee.org
> Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org
>
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.org
> David Heald dhe...@gmail.com
>



-- 

Douglas E Powell

doug...@gmail.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 

Re: [PSES] IEC/ANSI/UL/CSA 60950-1 ed.2 Mains Vrms vs Vpeak

[Doug Powell]

 "Unlike all other engineering disciplines, safety engineering is consensus driven, not research driven.  It is almost devoid of physical laws to guide its practitioners.” Yikes! This sounds rather subjective and flies in the face of one of my arguments to design engineers who say these rules are just opinions and therfore invalid.  My answer to them usually is, while it is true that many requirements are a result of litigation and CYA, much of it is also based in real science.  I usually point to IEC 60664-1.  Now I am hearing that the 60950 committee did not use the document so much as I had originally thought.  I'm not sure I'm happy with this idea. Maybe those design engineers have a point after all.-- DougDouglas E Powelldoug...@gmail.com From: ri...@ieee.orgSent: March 31, 2017 5:11 PMTo: doug...@gmail.com; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORGReply-to: ri...@ieee.orgSubject: RE: [PSES] IEC/ANSI/UL/CSA 60950-1 ed.2 Mains Vrms vs Vpeak    Hi Doug: From your message, I don’t know if your question is about the concept of “significant digits” or the standard itself.  Perhaps I can answer both. The number 300 can have one, two, or three significant digits.  One, for sure.  If we multiply by the square root of 2 to get the peak, and if we follow the significant digits rules, we can only say 400, not 420 or 424 without knowing the significant digits in the value of 300.  0.300 x 103 would be three significant units, in which case the peak value would be 424.   (Standards committees have little understanding or patience for significant digits.) In the standard, the 300 volts was chosen because, throughout the world, mains voltages are either comfortably below or above that value, e.g., 220, 230, 240, including tolerances.  240 +10% would be 264, which is comfortably below 300.   Working backwards, 420 divided by the square root of 2 is 296, still comfortably above 250.  This bit of discrepancy doesn’t get in the way of determining the clearance for almost any of the world’s mains voltages, including tolerances.   If you look at the “rms” values for Table K, they are:  50.2 rms for   71 peak (for   50 rms)    148   rms for 210 peak (for 150 rms)    296   rms for 420 peak (for 300 rms)    593   rms for 840 peak (for 600 rms)    Etc. Maybe you can round to the nearest 10 when multiplying by square root of 2.  But, it may not always work since committee judgement was used to arrive at the values.  You may have to resort to something like “If more than 150 and not more than 300, then Table K.”   Table L only applies when the “working voltage” exceeds the mains voltage.  This was to account for the switching voltage of a SMPS exceeding the mains voltage. Back in the days of IEC 60950-1, 2nd, little attention was paid to IEC 60664-1. One of my colleagues said: “Unlike all other engineering disciplines, safety engineering is consensus driven, not research driven.  It is almost devoid of physical laws to guide its practitioners.” Best regards,Rich   From: Doug Powell [mailto:doug...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 5:49 PMTo: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORGSubject: [PSES] IEC/ANSI/UL/CSA 60950-1 ed.2 Mains Vrms vs Vpeak All, I am reviewing the requirements of "2.10.3.3 Clearances in primary circuits" and it seems interesting to me that the math is off by just a little bit.  In particular "For an AC MAINS SUPPLY not exceeding 300 V r.m.s. (420 V peak)". When in actuality the calculated peak of 300 Vrms is 424 Vpeak.  Using three significant digits instead of two.  This value is important to spacings determination in that it invokes using tables 2K plus 2L instead of table 2K alone.  I checked the Edition 2 of IEC, ANSI/UL and CSA standards and they all have the same statement.  Edition 1 of IEC 60950-1 does not include this value within parenthesis which tells me it was probably added as a clarification by the committee in Edition 2. I am one to build excel-based spacings calculators and this has changed the math somewhat, rounding up to the nearest 10 Volts =IF(10*ROUNDUP(Vrms*SQRT(2)/10,0)>420,"Tables 2K + 2L","Table 2K") instead of using =IF(Vrms*SQRT(2))>424,"Tables 2K & 2L","Table 2K") (Note: use of =MROUND() could potentially round down and not up) In several other sections of the standard another pair of voltages appear together in at least 8 locations and are rendered "42,4 V peak, or 60 V d.c"; which is correct for three significant digits.  I know the consequences are probably minimal and it has raised my curiosity as to why this happened. Was anyone in this forum present during this 

Re: [PSES] IEC/ANSI/UL/CSA 60950-1 ed.2 Mains Vrms vs Vpeak

[Doug Powell]

  Good point, I'll take a look this morning.Thanks! Doug   From: ibm...@gmail.comSent: March 29, 2017 7:43 PMTo: doug...@gmail.comCc: EMC-PSTC@listserv.ieee.orgSubject: Re: [PSES] IEC/ANSI/UL/CSA 60950-1 ed.2 Mains Vrms vs Vpeak  Hi Doug;Have you taken a look at IEC 60664 to see if has a similar statement or provides any clarification?  Maybe what you're seeing is just a mistake in 60950-1, 2nd ed...-KenOn Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 8:48 PM, Doug Powell <doug...@gmail.com> wrote:All,I am reviewing the requirements of "2.10.3.3 Clearances in primary circuits" and it seems interesting to me that the math is off by just a little bit.  In particular "For an AC MAINS SUPPLY not exceeding 300 V r.m.s. (420 V peak)". When in actuality the calculated peak of 300 Vrms is 424 Vpeak.  Using three significant digits instead of two.  This value is important to spacings determination in that it invokes using tables 2K plus 2L instead of table 2K alone.  I checked the Edition 2 of IEC, ANSI/UL and CSA standards and they all have the same statement.  Edition 1 of IEC 60950-1 does not include this value within parenthesis which tells me it was probably added as a clarification by the committee in Edition 2.I am one to build excel-based spacings calculators and this has changed the math somewhat, rounding up to the nearest 10 Volts=IF(10*ROUNDUP(Vrms*SQRT(2)/10,0)>420,"Tables 2K + 2L","Table 2K")instead of using=IF(Vrms*SQRT(2))>424,"Tables 2K & 2L","Table 2K")(Note: use of =MROUND() could potentially round down and not up)In several other sections of the standard another pair of voltages appear together in at least 8 locations and are rendered "42,4 V peak, or 60 V d.c"; which is correct for three significant digits.  I know the consequences are probably minimal and it has raised my curiosity as to why this happened. Was anyone in this forum present during this part of the revision discussions and can shed some light?thanks Doug-- Douglas E Powelldoug...@gmail.comhttp://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc.


Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas sdoug...@ieee.org
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher  j.bac...@ieee.org
David Heald dhe...@gmail.com



-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc.


Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas sdoug...@ieee.org
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher  j.bac...@ieee.org
David Heald dhe...@gmail.com