Re: [PSES] Link to secondary legislation draft RE: [PSES] SI amendment providing UKCA label deadline extension.

[John E Allen]

FYI, the latest CMS Law-Now report on progress of the legislation  

https://www.cms-lawnow.com/ealerts/2022/11/the-uk-government-will-review-the
-broadcast-rules-on-listed-sporting-events?cc_lang=en

 

John E Allen

W. London, UK

 

From: Lauren Crane <1afd08519f18-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org> 
Sent: 16 November 2022 15:41
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Link to secondary legislation draft RE: [PSES] SI amendment
providing UKCA label deadline extension.

 

Hello All, 

 

In case you are interested in seeing it is more concretely true, here is a
link to the secondary legislation laid before parliament that is a proposal
to modify many (most/all) of the UKCA SI's with the extended date. Click on
"full wording" top left, to see the draft. 

 

https://statutoryinstruments.parliament.uk/instrument/Iej3CpFt/

 

Best Regards, 

-Lauren


LAM RESEARCH CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail transmission, and any
documents, files, or previous e-mail messages attached to it, (collectively,
"E-mail Transmission") may be subject to one or more of the following based
on the associated sensitivity level: E-mail Transmission (i) contains
confidential information, (ii) is prohibited from distribution outside of
Lam, and/or (iii) is intended solely for and restricted to the specified
recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient, or a person responsible
for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that
any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information
contained in or attached to this message is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you have
received this transmission in error, please immediately notify the sender
and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading
them or saving them to disk. Thank you.

 

Confidential - Limited Access and Use

-


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
mailto: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) <http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html> 
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html 

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Cantwell mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org> > 

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

  _  

To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC
<https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1> &A=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&A=1

Re: [PSES] SI amendment providing UKCA label deadline extension.

[John E Allen]

So, half-way between the current date and the 2026 one that was “vaguely 
postulated” in that CMS Cameron-Mckenna blog! 

 

Probably “about right” to move it out, but not too far as to allow people to 
forget that all that legislation must be reviewed/amended and dealt with in 
relatively short order.

 

John E Allen

W. London, UK

 

From: Tom Smith  
Sent: 14 November 2022 17:37
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] SI amendment providing UKCA label deadline extension.

 

An announcement was made this morning extending allowance for using the CE 
marking for an additional 2 years until Dec 31, 2024.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/businesses-to-be-given-uk-product-marking-flexibility

Regards,

Tom Smith, P.Eng 

Principal Engineer
TJS Technical Services Inc.

Tel: +1 403-612-6664 

Email:  <mailto:tsm...@tjstechnical.com> tsm...@tjstechnical.com 
 <http://tjstechnical.com/> http://tjstechnical.com 

Follow us on Twitter: TJS_Technical

 

From: Scott Xe mailto:scott...@gmail.com> > 
Sent: November 14, 2022 9:30 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> 
Subject: Re: [PSES] SI amendment providing UKCA label deadline extension.

 

Dear Scott & Lauren,

 

Today, I received the following info to supplement the above development.

 

"Some news from the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy 
(BEIS):-

 

HMG intends to introduce legislation to continue recognition of the CE marking 
and reversed epsilon marking until 31 December 2024 for most goods being placed 
on the market or put into service in Great Britain as part of new ministers’ 
commitment to reduce burdens for industry.

 

This package of measures is intended to provide businesses with more 
flexibility and reduce burdens for businesses. We will use our regulatory 
autonomy to help businesses navigate the current global economic and supply 
chain challenges whilst prioritising growth.   

 In parallel, we will also consider how we could reduce costs and burdens 
associated with the UK regulatory framework in the longer-term, including 
opportunities under the Product Safety Review. 

 

We also intend to introduce legislation to give effect to the measures 
previously announced in June 2022 with amended timescales, in line with the 
extension.  These measures intend to: 

 

• Reduce labelling costs by continuing to allow businesses to affix 
the UKCA marking, and to include importer information for products from EEA 
countries (and in some cases, Switzerland) on an accompanying document or a 
label until 31 December 2027. 

 

• Reduce re-testing costs for UKCA certification by allowing 
conformity assessment activities for CE marking undertaken by 31 December 2024 
to be used by manufacturers as the basis for UKCA marking, until the expiry of 
the certificate or until 31 December 2027, whichever is sooner."

 

Cheers,

 

Scott

 

On Sat, 12 Nov 2022 at 05:55, Scott Aldous 
<0220f70c299a-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org 
<mailto:0220f70c299a-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org> > wrote:

Hi Lauren,

 

It's a good question. A draft amendment was published on 6 September to effect 
the extension, but the draft was withdrawn on 10 October, stating that "a new 
version will be published in due course". More information here 
<https://www.gov.uk/eu-withdrawal-act-2018-statutory-instruments/the-product-safety-and-metrology-amendment-regulations-2022>
 .

 

ExVeritas published an article on this on 3 November (in the context of ATEX 
Directive but generally applicable). You can find that article here 
<https://www.exveritas.com/2022/11/03/proposed-ukca-ex-atex-legislation-changes-withdrawn/>
 . Unfortunately the article doesn't give much more information.

 

On Wed, Nov 9, 2022 at 11:14 AM Lauren Crane 
<1afd08519f18-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org 
<mailto:1afd08519f18-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org> > wrote:

Hello All, 

 

Among all the UKCA discussion I have not noticed information on whether the 
promised no-label extension to 2026, though promised on government websites, is 
actually in the works with hope of becoming law before Jan 1, 2023.

 

Does anyone have information on this point? 

 

Best Regards, 

-Lauren

 


LAM RESEARCH CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail transmission, and any 
documents, files, or previous e-mail messages attached to it, (collectively, 
"E-mail Transmission") may be subject to one or more of the following based on 
the associated sensitivity level: E-mail Transmission (i) contains confidential 
information, (ii) is prohibited from distribution outside of Lam, and/or (iii) 
is intended solely for and restricted to the specified recipient(s). If you are 
not the intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivering it to the 
intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copyi

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

[John E Allen]

Hi Folks

 

Don’t count 100% on there being no more EU exits if – and I’m quite serious – 
more extreme Right Wing politicians get into power in their respective member 
countries as quite a few of them are very nationalistic and anti-EU! 

 

NB: that is NOT meant in any way to be a “politically-biased  comment”, just an 
observation on what is actually going on in some member countries across the EU 
!

 

John E Allen

W. London, UK.

 

From: Glyn Payne <0d283c0acebb-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org> 
Sent: 09 November 2022 17:51
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Intertek message FYI: Important Update: Pending Regulatory 
Change to UKCA Program

 

Hi John,

 

Fingers crossed there will be no more EU exits, though it would make producing 
safety guides in all EU languages a bit easier!

 

All the best,

 

 

Glyn

 

From: John Mcbain mailto:johnmcb...@ieee.org> > 
Sent: 08 November 2022 21:08
To: Glyn Payne mailto:gl...@solidstatelogic.com> >
Cc: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> 
Subject: Re: [PSES] Intertek message FYI: Important Update: Pending Regulatory 
Change to UKCA Program

 

Hi Glyn - 

 

Thanks for your comments!  I understand that each EU country implements the EU 
regulations for itself, although homogeneous application is expected (after the 
discussion and voting you mentioned).

 

However, as I said in my previous message, I was selfishly looking only at the 
additional product regulatory work for me, if every country in the EU decided 
to follow the example of the UK and implement separate national regulations, 
marking and documentation instead of the uniform CE Marking and Declaration of 
Conformity.

 

I am not particularly interested in sovereignty, but I am interested (dismayed, 
actually) at the thought of doing 10 times more work with the same resources 
and absolutely no value added.




Best regards,

John McBain

 

 

On Tue, Nov 8, 2022 at 9:00 AM Glyn Payne mailto:gl...@solidstatelogic.com> > wrote:

Hi John,

 

“I would hate to see the other countries in the EU decide to seize national 
sovereignty and implement their own regulations,”

 

Good point, however the Sovereignty bit was always a red herring since any 
Directive issued by the EU is already agreed by the Commission, who are the 
member governments, so the UK Government would be party to any Directive in the 
first place. The Commissions Directive is then voted on by the MEPs, which of 
course included elected UK MEPs, and if passed then the Directive is issued to 
all member states for them to implement in a way that is compatible with their 
Sovereign Laws. 

 

In the UK’s case, before a Directive became UK Law it was scrutinised and voted 
on by UK MPs, then scrutinised and voted on by the House of Lords, before it 
ultimately becomes part of UK Sovereign Law. No EU Directive could ever be 
imposed in individual sovereign governments without the agreement of their 
Parliaments.

 

All the best,

 

 

Glyn Payne.

 

From: John Mcbain mailto:johnmcb...@ieee.org> > 
Sent: 07 November 2022 22:08
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> 
Subject: Re: [PSES] Intertek message FYI: Important Update: Pending Regulatory 
Change to UKCA Program

 

My apologies to everyone - I did not intend to drift into a political 
discussion!  My question was meant to be focused on the product safety / 
regulatory concerns that arose after Brexit (that is, ones that did not 
previously exist), NOT whether sovereignty is good or bad in any other way.

 

>From just that single-minded perspective I found in my own job that Brexit 
>created more work without adding an iota of value to the product.  Also from 
>that selfish point-of-view I would hate to see the other countries in the EU 
>decide to seize national sovereignty and implement their own regulations, 
>their own markings and their own paperwork.

  😖

In other words from the narrow product safety / regulatory position (which is 
how I was looking at it), "encouraging [the UK] to exit from the EU" did the 
OPPOSITE of the "removal of unnecessary trade barriers".  It may or may not 
have had other beneficial results - a political argument for which this is NOT 
the forum - but for me it just meant more paperwork that previously had not 
existed.

 

Along the same lines in the US - the National Electric Code (NEC) is a guide 
for the thousands of Authorities Having Jurisdiction (AHJ) within the country - 
in other words "sovereignty" within their city / county / state - to decide 
what applies to their bailiwick.  Does this make life easier for those trying 
to build or install a product if the standards vary across the country?  
Certainly not!

 

Which of course is one reason why UL / Intertek / CSA / other NRTLs have been 
successful.  But that is another discussion.




Best regards,

John McBa

Re: [PSES] Pending Regulatory Change to UKCA Program

[John E Allen]

John

 

I’m sorry but I’ve never been part of the “network” monitoring the UKCA and 
have not followed it’s “story”, and therefore am absolutely unable to give or 
assist with the sort of presentation you propose.

 

John E Allen

W. London, UK

 

From: John Mcbain  
Sent: 08 November 2022 21:42
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Pending Regulatory Change to UKCA Program

 

Hello John (and others)

 

Thanks for your interesting message pointing out that perhaps the UKCA 
program/me is not quite as settled and the timeline not quite as established as 
we may have thought.

 

At least I think that is what your message was saying?

 

Since this topic confuses me, I am going to assume others may be confused as 
well - which leads to the following request:

Would you (or any other participant on this site) be interested in giving a 
short update presentation about "The State of the UKCA Programme"?

 

Our PSES Chapter has been doing online presentations each month, and of course 
we are always looking for new topics and speakers.  Past topics and slide sets 
can be seen at our Chapter website:  https://r6.ieee.org/scv-pses/  

 

In fact we will be having our November presentation tomorrow (information 
below).

 

So ... anyone who would like to educate the Silicon Valley Chapter about the 
latest UK developments - or other safety & regulatory related topics - is very 
welcome to join us!
Please let me know at: johnmcb...@ieee.org <mailto:johnmcb...@ieee.org>   and 
we will set up a date for your presentation.

 

Thanks, and if you may want to attend tomorrow's presentation in spite of the 
time difference, then please register using the link below.

==


Mexico Market Access and Changes in 2022


Wednesday, November 9 @ 5:00 pm – 6:30 pm Pacific Time (US and Canada)


Please register in advance for this meeting at:
 
<https://us02web.zoom.us/meeting/register/tZwrcOCopjMoG9dhL8sgdiNTm6AvfM37V_2R> 
https://us02web.zoom.us/meeting/register/tZwrcOCopjMoG9dhL8sgdiNTm6AvfM37V_2R

After registering, you will receive a confirmation email with a link to join 
the meeting.

Planning to send your products to Mexico? Already selling into the market and 
wondering how the recent changes for electronics and wireless products affect 
your existing compliance?  This presentation will cover:

*   What are the Compliance Requirements for Safety, Wireless & Energy 
Efficiency)?
*   How does the Mexico HS code (harmonized tariff code) drive regulatory 
requirements?
*   What is meant by Point of Entry vs. Point of Sale in Mexico?
*   Which NOM requirements apply to IT, Audio, Video or Wireless products?
*   What else is new – Regulatory Updates!

Speakers:  Maja Bland and Nadia Farfán

Both speakers work at Underwriters Laboratories (UL). Maja Bland is the 
Business Development Manager for Global Market Access (GMA) located in 
Minnesota, USA. Nadia Farhan is the GMA Knowledge Specialist for the Latin 
America region located in Mexico City, Mexico.

Maja Bland is originally from Bosnia and moved to the USA in 1995. She studied 
in Spain through the University of Minnesota and has worked for several 
compliance companies – TUV SUD (13 years), 7layers (part of Bureau Veritas, 
specializing in wireless technologies), and most recently with UL for 3 years. 
She tracks Regulatory Trade updates and global export compliance rules and is 
the Global Market Access Track Chair for the IEEE International Symposium on 
Product Compliance Engineering (ISPCE).

Nadia Farfán is a Global Market Access Project Engineer who tracks regulatory 
compliance for Latin American countries, including Mexico.  She worked at NYCE 
for 11 years and has been at UL since 2022. She is familiar with laboratory 
test methods related to fabrics, shoes, wheels and safety protection, but the 
last 3 years she has focused on providing advice about Mexican regulations, 
including accreditations of certification and inspection bodies, laboratories 
and providers of proficiency testing schemes.

 

Best regards,

John McBain, PSES SCV Chapter Secretary

 

 

On Tue, Nov 8, 2022 at 9:22 AM John E Allen 
<09cc677f395b-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org 
<mailto:09cc677f395b-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org> > wrote:

Afternoon All!

 

Further to the UKCA program(me!) emails over the last few days, you might like 
to take a look at this blog from CMS Cameron McKenna: “Retained EU Legislation 
Bill: Part 2: Will the Bill survive the new Government” 
https://www.cms-lawnow.com/ealerts/2022/11/retained-eu-legislation-bill-part-2-will-the-bill-survive-the-new-government?cc_lang=en

This proposed UK Bill is all about the overall situation regarding continued 
legal implementation, or not, of a huge amount of EU legislation that was 
adopted into UK law before we left the EU – the number of regs etc., (nearly 
4,000)  that would

Re: [PSES] Pending Regulatory Change to UKCA Program

[John E Allen]

Afternoon All!

 

Further to the UKCA program(me!) emails over the last few days, you might like 
to take a look at this blog from CMS Cameron McKenna: “Retained EU Legislation 
Bill: Part 2: Will the Bill survive the new Government” 
https://www.cms-lawnow.com/ealerts/2022/11/retained-eu-legislation-bill-part-2-will-the-bill-survive-the-new-government?cc_lang=en

This proposed UK Bill is all about the overall situation regarding continued 
legal implementation, or not, of a huge amount of EU legislation that was 
adopted into UK law before we left the EU – the number of regs etc., (nearly 
4,000)  that would have to  be reviewed, updated &/or changed, or totally 
rescinded, and the huge load that this would place on the UK Civil Service at a 
time when  they already under considerable strain with “current issues” and so 
on. 

 

However, the minister that was driving the Bill forward has now “left” the 
Government (thank goodness – I and many others never liked him!) and it looks 
like the whole thing could be dropped and the current proposed timescales for 
completing the task (Dec 2023) might now stretch out to 2026. How that would 
affect the UKCA regime implementation is not addressed but it might also be 
affected – but who knows ATM?

 

BTW: For anyone with an interest in the whole UK/EU/”World in general” 
legislation “scene” I suggest that you go to the main CMS Cameron Mckenna “Law 
Now” webpages and sign up to that service (see 
https://www.cms-lawnow.com/subscription , and choose the countries and subject 
areas in which you are specifically interested. Then you should get their 
frequent, and often quite detailed, emailed blogs on those areas. By sending 
them, the company hopes to get you to use their legal services for more 
detailed assistance (for which you would, of course, pay!) but the Law-Now 
service itself is free - and well-worth subscribing to if my many years of 
using it is anything to go by 
(NB: I have ABSOLUTELY NO affiliation with the company or any of the paid-for 
services it claims to provide!)

 

John E Allen

W. London, UK

 

From: Doug Powell  
Sent: 07 November 2022 22:54
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Pending Regulatory Change to UKCA Program

 

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

 <mailto:doug...@gmail.com> doug...@gmail.com

 <https://www.linkedin.com/in/coloradocomplianceguy/> LinkedIn

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

On Mon, Nov 7, 2022 at 12:39 PM Richard Nute mailto:ri...@ieee.org> > 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 <mailto: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) 
<http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html> 
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html 

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

For policy question

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

[John E Allen]

Folks 

 

I also totally agree! – I did say that my main input nowadays on the general 
subject was mainstream media, BUT that’s not to say that I agree with what I 
see/hear on it , nor is it my ONLY input, as  I’m an argumentative sceptic on 
most subjects and generally tend to disagree with what the media says (as you 
may have noted from my previous comments!) – especially where it relates to 
what politicians and some lawmakers say/do !

 

John E Allen

W. London, UK

 

From: Chas Grasso  
Sent: 07 November 2022 20:59
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Intertek message FYI: Important Update: Pending Regulatory 
Change to UKCA Program

 

Totally agree!! 

 

On Mon, Nov 7, 2022 at 11:14 AM Lfresearch 
<00734758d943-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org 
<mailto:00734758d943-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org> > wrote:

 This message originated outside of DISH and was sent by: 
00734758d943-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org 
<mailto:00734758d943-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org>  

 

  _  

I think most people have learned to not listen to MSM, but rely on individuals 
in groups like this to further knowledge. It’s highly beneficial to have 
working members, most without a dog in the fight, in multiple economic zones.

 

That said, and to counterpoint a different position, I was originally in favor 
of England joining the EU many years ago since the idea of removing barriers to 
free trade is highly appealing.

 

HOWEVER, what has transpired while populations have been asleep at the wheel is 
nothing other than a power grab of sovereignty: Totally unacceptable and it was 
highly encouraging for England to exit from the EU and I hope other will 
follow. I have a hope that the UK and the rest of the world can work toward the 
removal of unnecessary trade barriers and standardization. Something I devote 
many hours a day promoting.

 

Cheers,

 

Derek.





On Nov 7, 2022, at 11:45 AM, Doug Powell mailto:doug...@gmail.com> > wrote:

 

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 
<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

 <https://www.linkedin.com/in/coloradocomplianceguy/> LinkedIn

 

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

 

On Mon, Nov 7, 2022 at 9:58 AM mailto:john_e_al...@blueyonder.co.uk> > 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 mailto:doug...@gmail.com> > 
Sent: 07 November 2022 16:15
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto: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

 <https://www.linkedin.com/in/coloradocomplianceguy/> LinkedIn

 

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

 

 

 

On Mon, Nov 7, 2022 at 8:53 AM Richard Georgerian mailto: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? Oth

Re: [PSES] Pending Regulatory Change to UKCA Program

[John E Allen]

The original question related to the UK and EU certification regimes , but it 
seems to have “drifted” to the regimes across  the Pond !  That being the case, 
one might have “reminded” the marketing manager (and others of like mind) of 
the US legal framework and the effect of NOT  having the relevant safety/EMC 
certifications/”listings”  on potential sales, especially in states & cities 
where those are mandated by the local legislation AND on the likely penalties 
for non-compliance &/or after accidents and the resulting court cases!. 😊

 

FWIW, OTOH, over this side of the Pond (both in the UK & EU) we tend to have a 
more “measured” approach to enforcement (where we are quite similar) and the 
penalties for non-compliance tend to be somewhat lower (but differ between 
countries), and that’s not likely to change that much after BREXIT .

 

As regards the UK, the current political & financial “situations” are delaying 
a lot of frankly “more important” legislation that affects large sections of 
the population and so finalisation and implementation of the latter (and 
definitely should) takes  priority over changes in these certification regimes! 

 

On the thorny subject of “BREXIT or not”, in today’s modern (or  should be)  
World, I would generally prefer to be part of a  larger group of countries that 
have strong collective policies and targets – and with the “negotiating power” 
that comes with that – than be trying to work out and agree individual trade 
deals with all the large politico-economic  groupings elsewhere in the World.

 

That’s why I consider the issues around the perceived importance of UK national 
sovereignty is actually rather overrated and over-egged by quite a few 
politicians and, even more  sadly, a large proportion of what is a 
unfortunately large aging and poory-educated segment of the population (who 
still remember/dream of the old British Empire!) –  and can you the possible 
parallels “elsewhere but closer to home”??

 

John E Allen

W. London, UK 

 

From: Richard Nute  large 
Sent: 07 November 2022 19:40avi
To: emc-p...@listserv.ieee.ORGhere <mailto:emc-p...@listserv.ieee.ORGhere> 
Subject: Re: [PSES] Pending Regulatory Change to UKCA Program

 

“It’s a fact the CE mark adds way tiomore cost than the return on investment of 
performance improvement.”

E p

Reminds me of a marketing manager saying to me that safety (and, I assume, 
safety certification and EMC) do not generate sales. p

 

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 
mailto: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) 
<http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html> 
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html 

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Cantwell mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org> > 

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

  _  

To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC 
<https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1> &A=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&A=1

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

[John E Allen]

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

 <https://www.linkedin.com/in/coloradocomplianceguy/> LinkedIn

 

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

 

 

 

On Mon, Nov 7, 2022 at 8:53 AM Richard Georgerian mailto: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 <http://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 
<mailto:09cc677f395b-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org> > 
Sent: Thursday, August 4, 2022 9:01 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto: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 mailto:nore...@e.intertek.com> > 
Sent: 03 August 2022 12:58
To: john_e_al...@blueyonder.co.uk <mailto: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 ͏‌ ͏‌ ͏‌ ͏‌ ͏‌ ͏‌ ͏‌ ͏‌ ͏‌ ͏‌ ͏‌ ͏‌ ͏‌ ͏‌ ͏‌ ͏‌ ͏‌ ͏‌  




 

 



 
<http://links.intertek.mkt4245.com/els/v2/pwaLHKk2DmCr/WFpETTVWYjJqaDhRL3kwZmJzejB4VE05NlQwVlBlNUtvRGx0dDVOaWNGZ0RZYmtrdCtybytMRVJxb0UwWVhzRnBkaWZROWJwcnJiU1BjTWdxc0J4MDduTUxhQWx0R1k2d2c1TTNWR2ZSMFE9S0/b3grNmY2R3BIM2RhZ1VheDBwYlVydUt2VjRQV3piYUtiOHgvbTNvSGIyd3g0eVQrVEVMbEtJWElxS0V0U2lZNjZveVQzQTFUSjF3YjZnaWhyNDNLR2E5b0dZUFduUFgvZGhlQVZBLzM1YncxYVY1TE8zcU5EVitsbnRmMGNBMDBEUENMaE9QTmVudmhvM1Q1MXJrcmZQZkR1MkZtRXo2bU1wVVgrWTlIVFY0PQS2>
 


  <https://cdn.intertek.com/mail/images/2018_template/tqa_white.png> 




 

 



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 
<http://links.intertek.mkt4245.com/els/v2/K6~VJWdr~zQZ/WFpETTVWYjJqaDhRL3kwZmJzejB4VE05NlQwVlBlNUtvRGx0dDVOaWNGZ0RZYmtrdCtybytMRVJxb0UwWVhzRnBkaWZROWJwcnJiU1BjTW

Re: [PSES] Measurement of X and Y capacitors for electric shock

[John E Allen]

Correction – IEC 620/60620 should of course have read IEC 320/60320 – my 
failing memory! ☹

 

From: John E Allen <09cc677f395b-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org> 
Sent: 29 October 2022 20:39
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Measurement of X and Y capacitors for electric shock

 

I had a similar customer complaint when working for HP in the late 1980’s – on 
that occasion it was from the pins of the IEC 620 (now 60620) power connector 
of a rather large & heavy’ish (c 18kg!) unit - which the user then dropped on 
his foot!

 

I did some investigation and discussed the matter with my colleagues at the 
supplying division, and concluded that the product did actually meet the 
current requirements of the relevant product standard  (IEC 380) – can’t 
remember just what happened after that, apart from making a strong 
recommendation to that division and HP Coporate  to redesign  products to 
reduce/eliminate  the shock issue because it was definitely not 
“customer-friendly”, even if relevant product standards were met!

 

John E Allen

W. London, UK 

 

 

 

From: Bill Owsley < <mailto:00f5a03f18eb-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org> 
00f5a03f18eb-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org>  
Sent: 29 October 2022 20:21
To:  <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Measurement of X and Y capacitors for electric shock

 

A personal history, as intern/coop student, circa 1980-81, I was tasked with 
trying to capture the cap voltage just after disconnect.  Because a consumer 
complained about getting shocked.  

Engineers general thoughts were it decays fast enough to not be a problem, and 
that ought teach the consumer to not touch the plug pins.

Well I got the job of providing evidence.

So setup scopes and a stock of polaroid film (only way for screen captures), 
after some time plugging and unplugging subject equipment, the high voltage and 
decay time were recorded.

Consumer indeed could get shocked.

Internal corp redesigned all pluggable power supplies to decay at an arbitrary 
rate influenced by safety opinions.

And data went to committees for additional debates.  

And here we are !!!

 

 

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android 
<https://go.onelink.me/107872968?pid=InProduct&c=Global_Internal_YGrowth_AndroidEmailSig__AndroidUsers&af_wl=ym&af_sub1=Internal&af_sub2=Global_YGrowth&af_sub3=EmailSignature>
 

 

On Mon, Oct 17, 2022 at 18:01, Richard Nute

< <mailto:ri...@ieee.org> ri...@ieee.org> wrote:

 

 

See attached for a comprehensive discussion of X and Y capacitor discharge 
measurement techniques.

 

In some standards, the use of a 100-megohm probe is accepted without correction 
for its resistance.  

 

Best regards,

Rich

IEEE Life Fellow

IEEE Medal for Environmental and Safety Technologies

 

 

 

 

-


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 
mailto: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) 
<http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html> 
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html 

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Cantwell mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org> > 

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

  _  

To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC 
<https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1> &A=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 
mailto: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) 
<http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html> 
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html 

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Cantwell mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org> > 

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

  _  

To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC 
<https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1> &A=1 

-


This message is f

Re: [PSES] Measurement of X and Y capacitors for electric shock

[John E Allen]

I had a similar customer complaint when working for HP in the late 1980’s – on 
that occasion it was from the pins of the IEC 620 (now 60620) power connector 
of a rather large & heavy’ish (c 18kg!) unit - which the user then dropped on 
his foot!

 

I did some investigation and discussed the matter with my colleagues at the 
supplying division, and concluded that the product did actually meet the 
current requirements of the relevant product standard  (IEC 380) – can’t 
remember just what happened after that, apart from making a strong 
recommendation to that division and HP Coporate  to redesign  products to 
reduce/eliminate  the shock issue because it was definitely not 
“customer-friendly”, even if relevant product standards were met!

 

John E Allen

W. London, UK 

 

 

 

From: Bill Owsley <00f5a03f18eb-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org>  
Sent: 29 October 2022 20:21
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Measurement of X and Y capacitors for electric shock

 

A personal history, as intern/coop student, circa 1980-81, I was tasked with 
trying to capture the cap voltage just after disconnect.  Because a consumer 
complained about getting shocked.  

Engineers general thoughts were it decays fast enough to not be a problem, and 
that ought teach the consumer to not touch the plug pins.

Well I got the job of providing evidence.

So setup scopes and a stock of polaroid film (only way for screen captures), 
after some time plugging and unplugging subject equipment, the high voltage and 
decay time were recorded.

Consumer indeed could get shocked.

Internal corp redesigned all pluggable power supplies to decay at an arbitrary 
rate influenced by safety opinions.

And data went to committees for additional debates.  

And here we are !!!

 

 

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android 
<https://go.onelink.me/107872968?pid=InProduct&c=Global_Internal_YGrowth_AndroidEmailSig__AndroidUsers&af_wl=ym&af_sub1=Internal&af_sub2=Global_YGrowth&af_sub3=EmailSignature>
 

 

On Mon, Oct 17, 2022 at 18:01, Richard Nute

mailto:ri...@ieee.org> > wrote:

 

 

See attached for a comprehensive discussion of X and Y capacitor discharge 
measurement techniques.

 

In some standards, the use of a 100-megohm probe is accepted without correction 
for its resistance.  

 

Best regards,

Rich

IEEE Life Fellow

IEEE Medal for Environmental and Safety Technologies

 

 

 

 

-


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 
mailto: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) 
<http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html> 
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html 

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Cantwell mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org> > 

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

  _  

To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC 
<https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1> &A=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 
mailto: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) 
<http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html> 
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html 

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Cantwell mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org> > 

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

  _  

To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC 
<https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1> &A=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.h

Re: [PSES] Confusion about IEC 60601-1-11 Power Cord Requirements and Functional vs Protective Earth Terminals

[John E Allen]

A comment from my "impressions only" as to why the requirement exists:

 

In many parts of the World, a majority of power outlets in household
locations do not include a protective earth/ground contact - and thus any
such connection in connected equipment might induce a false sense of
"security" in the users, and thus it was "prohibited" by the standard and
replaced by the Class II/external supply requirement.  (Anyone who has
travelled widely should appreciate that reason!)

 

John.E.Allen

W.London, UK.

 

 

From: Richard Nute  
Sent: 18 October 2022 20:21
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Confusion about IEC 60601-1-11 Power Cord Requirements
and Functional vs Protective Earth Terminals

To why 

 

Hi Matthew:

 

According to IEC 60601-1 Sub-clause 6.2:

 

ME EQUIPMENT energized from an external electrical power source shall be
classified as

CLASS I ME EQUIPMENT or CLASS II ME EQUIPMENT

 

Its okay to have Class I equipment with Class II construction throughout.
However, you are likely to find it unacceptable to authorities to use a
protective earth cord without an internal connection.  I suggest you run a
PE wire from the appliance inlet to the metal tank or some other metal in
the equipment - even though it is not needed as the equipment is
double-insulated throughout.

 

Best regards,

Rich

 

 

 

From: Matthew D. Varas mailto:m...@wrmed.com> > 
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2022 9:53 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG  
Subject: [PSES] Confusion about IEC 60601-1-11 Power Cord Requirements and
Functional vs Protective Earth Terminals

 

Hello, 

 

We are converting a product to comply with 60601-1-11 for home use and I was
hoping to get some clarification on the power cord requirements. 

 

The device is a mains-powered heating tank which uses snap-action
thermostats to control mains power through the internal heating pad. It is
currently intended for professional healthcare environments and has a metal
tank that is treated as an applied part. A three-prong power cord is used to
provide a protective earth connection as a MOP which, as I understand it, is
not allowable per clause 6 of 60601-1-11 ("shall be class II or internally
powered" and "shall not have a functional earth terminal"). 

 

The sales and marketing folks do not want to switch to a two-prong cord out
of concern that it will look unprofessional when used in a professional
healthcare environment, regardless of the fact that it will be redesigned to
be double insulated through other MOP's. In trying to respond to them a
coworker and I are in disagreement about how to interpret clause 6 and could
use some help. Does this mean that :

 

1.  The power cord must be two prong, or
2.  The power cord can be three prong but can have the earth terminal
not connected internally

If it were to not be connected internally, I assume that a C18 connector on
the device (while still using the three-prong cord) would be the correct
path, however I interpret this to mean option 1 is correct. 

 

 

Which leads to the second related part of my question: 

I am unclear on the differences between a functional earth terminal and a
protective earth terminal. After looking at Figure 2 in 60601-1, in this
particular application it doesn't seem like there would be a difference
between the two since it uses only mains power. Is this correct and can
someone help me understand what the difference would be between the two,
especially as it relates to home use? 

 

Thank you,

 

Matthew Varas

Electrical Engineer

WR MEDICAL ELECTRONICS CO.

direct  651.604.8473 | cell 763.222.6900

email m...@wrmed.com  

follow wr medical   Twitter
  |
wrmed.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
mailto: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

Re: [PSES] IEC/EN 62368-1 Test report template

[John E Allen]

Afternoon all.

 

The TRF was designed for use by well-established  test labs with experienced 
test personnel who are familiar with all the “unspoken requirements” that lay 
behind those actually stated.

 

As such they are a nightmare for manufacturers’ own engineers to try to 
understand, interpret and provide relevant AND ACCURATE compliance data. 

 

I know that because I had to do that for an earlier edition of 62368-1 – and 
finished up with a set of requirements and relevant simple Yes/No/Not 
Applicable questions which came to a 200+ page document (and that was without 
the actual compliance data which the engineers then had to provide and 
document)! 

 

Therefore, I don’t think that the TRF itself is the place to start for 
inexperienced companies and their engineers!

 

John E Allen

W. London  UK

 

PS: I’ve said the above before on this forum – but I think it was worth 
repeating!

 

 

AFrom: James Pawson (U3C)  to To: 
emc-p...@listsetrirv.ieee.org
Subject: Re: [PSES] IEC/EN 62368-1 Test report template

 

Hi Amund,

 

If you have the money you can buy these from the IEC - 
https://webstore.iec.ch/publication/68495 - but they aren’t cheap (cue the 
Yorkshire War Cry of  “ ‘ow much? ”)

 

If you have the time, you can search for “EN 62368-1:2014 test report”, see the 
format, and copy/paste/mess around with formatting until you have a suitable 
document. This is what I did. Having filled in a proper TRF befor, I 
(personally) strongly dislike  of the formatting choices.

 

I don’t believe there is a formal requirement to have a safety assessment 
report in IECEE TRF format, but there may be an informal expectation.

 

All the best

James

 

James Pawson

Managing Director & EMC Problem Solver

 

Office hours:

My mornings are reserved for full attention on consultancy, testing, and 
troubleshooting activities for our customers’ projects.

I am otherwise contactable between 1300h to 1730h from Monday to Friday.

For inquiries, bookings, and testing updates please send us an email on  
<mailto:he...@unit3compliance.co.uk> he...@unit3compliance.co.uk or call 01274 
911747.

Our lead times for testing and consultancy are typically 4-5 weeks.

 

Unit 3 Compliance Ltd

EMC : Environmental & Vibration : Electrical Safety : CE & UKCA : Consultancy

 

 <http://www.unit3compliance.co.uk/> www.unit3compliance.co.uk  |   
<mailto:ja...@unit3compliance.co.uk> ja...@unit3compliance.co.uk 

+44(0)1274 911747  |  +44(0)7811 139957

2 Wellington Business Park, New Lane, Bradford, BD4 8AL

Registered in England and Wales # 10574298

 

 

 

From: Amund Westin mailto:am...@westin-emission.no> 
> 
Sent: 31 August 2022 07:50
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> 
Subject: [PSES] IEC/EN 62368-1 Test report template

 

We are considering a review of the standard IEC/EN 62368-1. A test report 
template would be helpful. Anyone who sell such a template?

 

BR

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 
mailto: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) 
<http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html> 
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html 

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Cantwell mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org> > 

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

  _  

To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC 
<https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1> &A=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 
mailto: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) 
<http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html> 
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html 

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Cantwell mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org> > 

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

  _  

To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC 
<https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A

Re: [PSES] High Touch Current and GFCIs

[John E Allen]

Afternoon

 

W.r.t. Doug’s comments, & FWIW, here are a few of my experiences & suggestions:

 

1.  Many years ago I had a customer complain that a model of monitor that 
HP supplied to the UK exceeded the 0.75mA limit. After a lot of investigation 
(including building a small measuring set with switchable IEC and other bypass 
networks) and discussion, I concluded that the monitor was OK but the customer 
must have been using a measuring set with no IEC HF “body simulation” network – 
and that resulted in his measurements being higher than the IEC limit and 
that’s why he had complained. I explained that out to him and no more 
complaints were then heard!

 

Nevertheless, do be aware of that “problem” because I later found that many of 
the cheap  combined “hipot/ leakage/touch current” test-sets on the market ( at 
least in the UK/Europe) still don’t (or at least didn’t a very few years ago) 
include an IEC-type network to filter out the HF currents – therefore they are 
VERY prone to giving very high & fluctuating readings that can provoke 
customers to complain, as per my experience above!!! (I had to use several of 
those on occasions and simply had to ignore the touch/leakage current readings 
because I knew why it was happing!)

 

2.  As has been said here, racked systems pose specific issues because of 
the multiple leakage paths which the assembler can only partially control in 
many cases due to the difficulties in removing filters on individual units, 
and, even then, how does one ensure that subsequent field-placement units are 
similarly modded before installation? (generally you can’t, unless you create 
specific part numbers for the modded units and accompanied by very specific 
replacement instructions!) 

 

3.  Isolation transformers for fully loaded racks will be both heavy and 
expensive – if you can even find space for them? Not really realistic in most 
environments, except possibly medical, unless there is an overriding reason to 
limit possible leakage currents into other associated equipment?

 

4.  Personally, with IT & Industrial electronics systems, I found it 
easier, quicker and cheaper to take advantage of the relaxed 5mA leakage limit 
afforded by specifying that an additional heavy duty grounding cable be 
installed from the rack to the building distribution system – it’s relatively 
easy to require in the installation instructions and then relatively easy to 
actually install in most well-controlled & managed industrial (and even 
office)-type buildings.

 

That gets you out of the problem of having to minutely control the overall rack 
configuration - in my experience both suppliers and end-users are prone to 
changing rack assemblies for something “better” or “new” without telling the 
engineering compliance guys. That extra cable should give a reasonable “safety 
margin” for someone to add (unbeknown to you!) additional units to the rack to 
“upgrade” / “enhance” its facilities.

 

OTOH, just make sure you stick a (preferably several!) large “High Leakage” 
/”Touch current” label on the rack near the power inlet (and possibly on the 
control /connector panels) to alert users to the situation, and explain the 
requirements in the installation & operation instructions.

 

5.  As has been noted, the possible effects on GFCI’s/RCDs  etc., will vary 
somewhat unpredictably around the World according to the distribution systems 
and the actual GFC/RCDs in use. Therefore there may well be no “fits all 
solution” and one might have to negotiate with individual local inspectors 
(etc) on what will be acceptable (&/or even actually test those on sale locally 
to try to identify ones less sensitive to nuisance tripping??) 

 

FWIW, in one “extreme” case I had to resort to a separate RCD to cover a 
particularly leaky rack subsystem which couldn’t be otherwise “fixed” as  it 
had to have multiple “military-grade mains filters” with very low frequency 
bandpass characteristics, and thus high value X/Y capacitors and leakage! 

 

My “3 pennyworth ” / “5 cents” contributions, and anyone is welcome to take 
issue – but please do consider possible “real life” situations before you fire 
the big guns!

 

John E Allen

W. London, UK

 

From: Douglas E Powell  
Sent: 24 August 2022 23:22
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] High Touch Current and GFCIs

 

Brian,

 

Depending on the class of that circuit breaker, the answer is probably yes.  
See this article 
<https://code-authorities.ul.com/about/blog/understanding-ground-fault-and-leakage-current-protection/#:~:text=It%20states%20that%20a%20Class,Ground%2D%20Fault%20Circuit%2DInterrupters.>
 

 

Sometimes when dealing with high leakage current the relevant safety standard 
allows you to go to a much higher level if you provide secondary chassis 
grounding (earthing) and a warning label. Of course, this all depends on how 
the product is configured. Chec

Re: [PSES] Safety for e-scooters, e-bikes

[John E Allen]

Comments from purely subjective personal experience:

*   True for their “professional” grade power tools
*   Maybe less so for their “consumer/domestic” grade products (especially 
gardening power tools where I have had several failures)? 
*   OTOH the resulting warrantee service has generally been very good.

 

John E Allen

W.London, UK

 

From: Scott Xe  
Sent: 20 August 2022 16:51
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Safety for e-scooters, e-bikes

 

Dan,

 

It appears to me that Bosch's products are well designed and made in general 
and agree to have high confidence in their products.

 

Rgds,

 

Scott

 

 

On Thu, 18 Aug 2022 at 21:30, Dan Roman 
<0d75e04ed751-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org 
<mailto:0d75e04ed751-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org> > wrote:

Doug/Scott,

 

My wife’s e-bike has a Bosch motor and battery and seems to be well made and 
certified so I am comfortable storing and charging it in my garage.  Included a 
picture of the label with agency marks, sorry it is a little blurry.

 

So I think there are definitely safety schemes available, but as with 
everything, quality may vary from vendor to vendor.  I would trust Bosch over a 
vendor I never heard of and the Bosch motor and battery certainly played a 
large role in picking which e-bike to purchase.

 

Dan

 



 

From: Scott Xe [mailto:scott...@gmail.com <mailto:scott...@gmail.com> ] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2022 10:54 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> 
Subject: Re: [PSES] Safety for e-scooters, e-bikes

 

Dear Doug,

 

I learned that China prohibits carrying e-scooters and e-bikes to their houses 
and even entering the lifts of the building for storage/charging.  Since the 
battery capacity is much bigger than the li-ion battery using in normal 
portable devices, the battery and the charger must comply with rigid safety 
requirements.  Do not recommend buying unknown brand products in this type of 
goods.

 

Regards,

 

Scott

 

 

On Sat, 13 Aug 2022 at 05:27, Douglas E Powell mailto:doug...@gmail.com> > wrote:

All,

 

My Friday question is about storage/charging of e-scooters and e-bikes. It 
seems that these days more and more people are using these devices and fire 
safety is a growing concern. It seems my news feed has a new instance every few 
days.  Some of these cases are very tragic outcomes, in that the owner brings 
these devices just inside the door to their apartment for overnight charging.  
Of course, if there is a lithium fire, it is rather violent and blocks the exit 
for the occupants.

 

I am not very familiar with which safety standards are available in North 
America and Europe, and do they have requirements to address such concerns in 
the user documentation?  I do know that some building owners are taking matters 
into their own hands and requiring these devices be charged outdoors; which may 
have varying success in mitigating building fires.  In any case, many e-scooter 
owners are probably not very keen on leaving their property where it can be 
easily stolen.

 

Thoughts?

 

-Doug

 

Laporte, Colorado USA

 <https://www.linkedin.com/in/coloradocomplianceguy/> LinkedIn

 

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

 

-


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 <mailto: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) 
<http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html> 
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html 

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

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


  _  


To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC 
<https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1> &A=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 
mailto: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) 
<http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html> 
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html 

For he

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

[John E Allen]

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 ͏‌ ͏‌ ͏‌ ͏‌ ͏‌ ͏‌ ͏‌ ͏‌ ͏‌ ͏‌ ͏‌ ͏‌ ͏‌ ͏‌ ͏‌ ͏‌ ͏‌ ͏‌  




 

 



 
<http://links.intertek.mkt4245.com/els/v2/pwaLHKk2DmCr/WFpETTVWYjJqaDhRL3kwZmJzejB4VE05NlQwVlBlNUtvRGx0dDVOaWNGZ0RZYmtrdCtybytMRVJxb0UwWVhzRnBkaWZROWJwcnJiU1BjTWdxc0J4MDduTUxhQWx0R1k2d2c1TTNWR2ZSMFE9S0/b3grNmY2R3BIM2RhZ1VheDBwYlVydUt2VjRQV3piYUtiOHgvbTNvSGIyd3g0eVQrVEVMbEtJWElxS0V0U2lZNjZveVQzQTFUSjF3YjZnaWhyNDNLR2E5b0dZUFduUFgvZGhlQVZBLzM1YncxYVY1TE8zcU5EVitsbnRmMGNBMDBEUENMaE9QTmVudmhvM1Q1MXJrcmZQZkR1MkZtRXo2bU1wVVgrWTlIVFY0PQS2>
 


  <https://cdn.intertek.com/mail/images/2018_template/tqa_white.png> 




 

 



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  
<http://links.intertek.mkt4245.com/els/v2/K6~VJWdr~zQZ/WFpETTVWYjJqaDhRL3kwZmJzejB4VE05NlQwVlBlNUtvRGx0dDVOaWNGZ0RZYmtrdCtybytMRVJxb0UwWVhzRnBkaWZROWJwcnJiU1BjTWdxc0J4MDduTUxhQWx0R1k2d2c1TTNWR2ZSMFE9S0/>
 here. Please refer to the 22 June update.

 





 



 
<http://links.intertek.mkt4245.com/els/v2/_k~8BzWqA_QR/WFpETTVWYjJqaDhRL3kwZmJzejB4VE05NlQwVlBlNUtvRGx0dDVOaWNGZ0RZYmtrdCtybytMRVJxb0UwWVhzRnBkaWZROWJwcnJiU1BjTWdxc0J4MDduTUxhQWx0R1k2d2c1TTNWR2ZSMFE9S0/>
 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, these products are considered ‘new’ 
products. This also includes where goods are subject to important changes, 
overhauling its original performance, purpose, or type requiring new 
certification. Any ‘new’ good must comply with GB regulatory requirements, 
including the requirement for conformity assessment by a UK approved body from 
1 January 2023.

 



 

 





The new legislation when introduced concerning UKCA marking effect only the 
following UK Regulations: 

 

*   Noise Emission in the Environment by Equipment for Outdoor Use 
Regulations 2001
*   Supply of Machinery (Safety) Regulations 2008
Ecodesign for Energy-Related Products Regulations 2010
*   Toys (Safety) Regulations 2011
*   Explosives Regulations 2014
*   Pyrotechnic Articles (Safety) Regulations 2015
*   Electromagnetic Compatibility Regulations 2016
*   Simple Pressure Vessels (Safety) Regulations 2016
*   Lifts Regulations 2016
*   Pressure Equipment (Safety) Regulations 2016
*   Equipment and Protective Systems Intended for Use in Potentially 
Explosive Atmospheres Regulations 2016
*   Non-automatic Weighing Instruments Regulations 2016
*   Measuring Instruments Regulations 2016
*   Recreational Craft Regulations 2017
*   Radio Equipment Regulations 2017
*   Regulation 2016/425 on personal protective equipment as it applies in GB
*   Regulation 2016/426

Re: [PSES] UK plug adaptors with fuse?

[John E Allen]

John W

 

Thanks, and, now that you have reminded me, I do seem to remember BS1363-5 
(but, TBH, I haven’t been taking a great interest in the evolution of standards 
over the last few years, having retired in 2015! 😊).

 

So as John Woodgate has now pointed out to me, the correct standard for such 
adapters is BS 1363-5:2016 “13 A plugs, socket-outlets, adaptors and connection 
units. Specification for fused conversion plugs” – and, again, a good summary 
of the scope & contents can be found on the ANSI webstore here 
https://webstore.ansi.org/preview-pages/BSI/preview_30391432.pdf

 

Apologies for the error of omission!

 

John E Allen

W. London, UK

 

From: John Woodgate  
Sent: 28 April 2022 11:31
To: john_e_al...@blueyonder.co.uk
Subject: Re: [PSES] UK plug adaptors with fuse?

 

That standard is indeed withdrawn and should not be used. BS 1363-5 is valid.

==
Best wishes John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
www.woodjohn.uk <http://www.woodjohn.uk> 
Rayleigh, Essex UK
Istae nunc praetereunt nisi non ubicumque




On 2022-04-28 11:14, John E Allen wrote:

Morning

 

AFAIK, the most appropriate British Standard would appear to be:

BS8546: 2016 “Travel adaptors compatible with UK plug and socket system. 
Specification” 
https://shop.bsigroup.com/products/travel-adaptors-compatible-with-uk-plug-and-socket-system-specification-1/standard

There is a confusing reference to “Withdrawn” on that webpage, but I don’t 
think that it has been!

It also incorporates by Normative reference a very large number of other BSS as 
here: 
https://shop.bsigroup.com/products/travel-adaptors-compatible-with-uk-plug-and-socket-system-specification-1/standard/details

The most detailed description of the scope of that standard that I could find 
quickly seems to be here on the ANSI webstore: 
https://webstore.ansi.org/preview-pages/BSI/preview_30377194.pdf

 

On a more general level, BS 5733: 2010 “General requirements for electrical 
accessories - specification (+A1:2014)” 
https://shop.bsigroup.com/products/general-requirements-for-electrical-accessories-specification/standard
  is used to assess many types of “electrical accessories” such as cable 
extension sockets and “plug-in accessories”, and, again, implements by 
Normative reference other BSS to cover specific aspects of design & 
construction.

 

Again, the ANSI webstore site gives helpful detail, 
https://webstore.ansi.org/preview-pages/BSI/preview_30288272.pdf

 

Obviously you can buy elsewhere, including BSI’s own website here 
https://www.bsigroup.com/en-GB/standards/!

 

John E Allen

W. London, UK

 

From: Kim Boll Jensen  
<mailto:199f0011b1e3-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org> 
<199f0011b1e3-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org> 
Sent: 27 April 2022 12:46
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> 
Subject: [PSES] UK plug adaptors with fuse?

 

Hi

 

We have been checking several travel adopters for importers here in EU, but we 
have to fail nearly all of them.

 

One big issue is the UK plug. As I understand they shall comply with BS 1363-3. 
And in this standard §12.4 e) there is a requirement for BS 1363 or BS 643 
fuses.

 

Some adapters have an 5x20 IEC fuse some have thermo fuses and many have no 
fuse at all.

 

Do I overlook some exceptions or new requirements, that allows adaptors without 
BS fuse, or are they all just "normal" Asian low quality?

 

Med venlig hilsen / Best regards,

Kim Boll Jensen
Bolls Aps
22 99 69 91

-


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 
mailto: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 mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org> >
Mike Cantwell mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org> > 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org> >
David Heald mailto: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 
mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org> >

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

Attach

Re: [PSES] UK plug adaptors with fuse?

[John E Allen]

Morning

 

AFAIK, the most appropriate British Standard would appear to be:

BS8546: 2016 “Travel adaptors compatible with UK plug and socket system. 
Specification” 
https://shop.bsigroup.com/products/travel-adaptors-compatible-with-uk-plug-and-socket-system-specification-1/standard

There is a confusing reference to “Withdrawn” on that webpage, but I don’t 
think that it has been!

It also incorporates by Normative reference a very large number of other BSS as 
here: 
https://shop.bsigroup.com/products/travel-adaptors-compatible-with-uk-plug-and-socket-system-specification-1/standard/details

The most detailed description of the scope of that standard that I could find 
quickly seems to be here on the ANSI webstore: 
https://webstore.ansi.org/preview-pages/BSI/preview_30377194.pdf

 

On a more general level, BS 5733: 2010 “General requirements for electrical 
accessories - specification (+A1:2014)” 
https://shop.bsigroup.com/products/general-requirements-for-electrical-accessories-specification/standard
  is used to assess many types of “electrical accessories” such as cable 
extension sockets and “plug-in accessories”, and, again, implements by 
Normative reference other BSS to cover specific aspects of design & 
construction.

 

Again, the ANSI webstore site gives helpful detail, 
https://webstore.ansi.org/preview-pages/BSI/preview_30288272.pdf

 

Obviously you can buy elsewhere, including BSI’s own website here 
https://www.bsigroup.com/en-GB/standards/!

 

John E Allen

W. London, UK

 

From: Kim Boll Jensen <199f0011b1e3-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org> 
Sent: 27 April 2022 12:46
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] UK plug adaptors with fuse?

 

Hi

 

We have been checking several travel adopters for importers here in EU, but we 
have to fail nearly all of them.

 

One big issue is the UK plug. As I understand they shall comply with BS 1363-3. 
And in this standard §12.4 e) there is a requirement for BS 1363 or BS 643 
fuses.

 

Some adapters have an 5x20 IEC fuse some have thermo fuses and many have no 
fuse at all.

 

Do I overlook some exceptions or new requirements, that allows adaptors without 
BS fuse, or are they all just "normal" Asian low quality?

 

Med venlig hilsen / Best regards,

Kim Boll Jensen
Bolls Aps
22 99 69 91

-


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 
mailto: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 mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org> >
Mike Cantwell mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org> > 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org> >
David Heald mailto: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:  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] Minimizing EM radiation from a 5G multi device test lab

[John E Allen]

Get in the respective network Router settings and ensure the various WiFi 
networks are not using the same channels numbers – & use a wifi inspection App 
(something like “WiFi Analsyer”) on a mobile phone to look for unused/ low 
signal strength channels to help you choose the ones that allow each network to 
use the least used in that area of the building.

 

NB: might need to get the paid-for version of the App to ensure it can display 
all the relevant WiFi bands!

 

John E Allen

W. London, UK

 

From: Charles Grasso  
Sent: 02 February 2022 19:45
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Minimizing EM radiation from a 5G multi device test lab

 

Greetings from snowy Colorado!

 

We have multiple WIFI devices in a lab and we need to suppress the RF signals 
(NOT EMI) to reduce the interference from affecting other WIFI areas of the 
building.

Does anyone know of a cheap and effective way of doing this? 

 

 

TIA

 

Chas

 

 

 

 

-- 

Charles Grasso

Dish Technologies

 (c) 303-204-2974

(h) 303-317-5530

(e ) charles.gra...@dish.com <mailto:charles.gra...@dish.com> 

(e2) chasgra...@gmail.com <mailto:chasgra...@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 
mailto: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 mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org> >
Mike Cantwell mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org> > 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org> >
David Heald mailto: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:  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] [PSES] CE marked products

[John E Allen]

Correction – correct reference in the quoted Regs is Clause 12 (2) (b) – sorry 
for the error

 

John E Allen

W. London UK

From: John E Allen <09cc677f395b-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org> 
Sent: 26 January 2022 14:48
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES]  [PSES] CE marked products

 

Scott

 

In the UK (don’t know about Eire) the law (UK Plug & Socket Regs 1994 
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1994/1768/made) Clause 9 require that an 
appliance with a non-UK plug be supplied with a suitable “conversion plug” that 
does meet UK requirements and will fit a standard UK 13A socket. Suitable 
“conversion plugs” are widely available in the UK.

 

John E Allen

W. London, UK

From: scott...@gmail.com <mailto:scott...@gmail.com>  mailto:scott...@gmail.com> > 
Sent: 26 January 2022 14:39
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> 
Subject:  [PSES] CE marked products

 

In general understanding, products bearing CE Mark are free movement in the EU. 
I doubt how can they do it.  For example, a Euro plug is fitted in the product. 
 How can it operate in Ireland where UK plug is common?  Do the products mark 
the CE Mark incorrectly or must the products comply with all national 
deviations in the LVD standard (some EPSs do supply different plugs but costly 
& not common on products)?  Did I miss something in the requirements to look 
after this scenario?  Appreciate the guidance to read the requirements 
correctly!

 

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 
mailto: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 mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org> >
Mike Cantwell mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org> > 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org> >
David Heald mailto: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 
mailto: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 mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org> >
Mike Cantwell mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org> > 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org> >
David Heald mailto: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:  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] [PSES] CE marked products

[John E Allen]

Scott

 

In the UK (don’t know about Eire) the law (UK Plug & Socket Regs 1994 
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1994/1768/made) Clause 9 require that an 
appliance with a non-UK plug be supplied with a suitable “conversion plug” that 
does meet UK requirements and will fit a standard UK 13A socket. Suitable 
“conversion plugs” are widely available in the UK.

 

John E Allen

W. London, UK

From: scott...@gmail.com  
Sent: 26 January 2022 14:39
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject:  [PSES] CE marked products

 

In general understanding, products bearing CE Mark are free movement in the EU. 
I doubt how can they do it.  For example, a Euro plug is fitted in the product. 
 How can it operate in Ireland where UK plug is common?  Do the products mark 
the CE Mark incorrectly or must the products comply with all national 
deviations in the LVD standard (some EPSs do supply different plugs but costly 
& not common on products)?  Did I miss something in the requirements to look 
after this scenario?  Appreciate the guidance to read the requirements 
correctly!

 

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 
mailto: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 mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org> >
Mike Cantwell mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org> > 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org> >
David Heald mailto: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:  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] Help required - I need to change my registered email address

[John E Allen]

Good morning

 

As above, and so please could one of the staff contact me and arrange to do
that.

 

Thanks in advance.

 

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 


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 Compliance Testing: It's A Business, So Shop Around

[John E Allen]

Doug and friends

 

The thought that comes (and has for a very long time!) to mind then relates to 
the detailed wording of the contract between the company and the contractor – 
and more specifically the consultant because the contractor is actually on the 
company payroll, whereas the consultant is generally not.

 

>From the company’s perspective, it might want to try to pin all legal (and 
>financial) responsibility for the completeness and correctness of resultant 
>documentation on the contract/consultant.

 

OTOH, from the contractor’s/consultant’s perspective, the above would be the 
very last thing that he/she would want to happen because of the legal 
implications of “getting it wrong” as the possible financial /maybe criminal 
liabilities could be literally be “life-changing”. 

 

Unfortunately however, the contractor/consultant may be in the very difficult 
position of having to decide whether to sign the contract and take the risk – 
or decline to take the work, and thus lose the income stream. 

 

In my case, , I went in with my eyes “fairly open” but certainly didn’t realise 
the “difficulties” that I would be facing, particularly in the last contracting 
job, because the company hadn’t really understood the extent to which it’s 
systems didn’t “make the grade”. OTOH, I did make sure that I had pretty 
substantial liability insurance cover - and I kept paying for that for at least 
a year after I left (at which point, the company compliance systems were in a 
much better state of affairs than when I had arrived) !.

 

Thus, to return somewhat to my initial comment about that para in the article, 
there are risks on both sides, and everyone involved really needs to understand 
them and the possible consequences if “things go wrong” – but unfortunately, 
that is rarely the case, especially when a company takes the gist of that para 
as being “all one has to do is….”

 

John E Allen

W. London, UK 

 

 

From: Douglas Nix <0bb8ff993b10-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org> 
Sent: 18 October 2021 16:56
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Safety Compliance Testing: It's A Business, So Shop Around

 

I could not agree more. As a consultant, the best we can do is address the 
obvious problems, the subtle ones that may exist with in an organization are 
unlikely to be revealed during most consulting engagements, no matter how good 
a consultant you are.

 

Doug Nix
d...@mac.com <mailto:d...@mac.com> 
+1.519.729.5704

“The best way to predict your future is to create it” — Peter F. Drucker

 

 





On 16-Oct-21, at 05:35, John E Allen 
<09cc677f395b-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org 
<mailto:09cc677f395b-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org> > wrote:

 

Good morning all.

 

I printed out the article, read it quite closely and can only agree with 95%+ 
of what the author wrote – the notable exception being the paragraph on the 1st 
page beginning “CE is all about …”

 

Like many of you guys, whilst in “gainful employment” I did a LOT of “CE 
compliance” work for various companies, generally as an employee - but 
sometimes as a contractor/ consultant and, from my own experience, I can say 
that employing one of the latter to do the work is potentially a very “risky” 
approach!

 

As most of us know (or should by now!), it is the company’s, not the 
contractor’s /consultant’s,  legal responsibility to ensure that the CE 
compliance files are complete and correct and do demonstrate that the legal 
requirements have been met – and there’s the big risk in employing a 
contractors/consultant to do the legwork to create them.

 

Unless that person has been working for the company for long enough to really 
know and understand how the company systems work – especially in the areas of 
design, development and materials control & manufacturing – then he/she won’t 
know the “whole story” behind the product & project. Therefore he/she is very 
likely to miss critical issues that could affect whether the final compliance 
documentation actually reflects the way in which the product has been designed 
& built and whether it actually meets the requirements of the “CE compliance” 
regulations & standards. 

 

Most contractors/consultants that are brought into a company for a specific 
time/cost constrained compliance project won’t know “all of that”, and 
therefore the company is at risk of signing off on faulty documentation and 
leaving themselves open to possible legal action in the future…….

 

John E Allen

W. London, UK

From: Richard Nute mailto:ri...@ieee.org> > 
Sent: 15 October 2021 19:34
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> 
Subject: [PSES] Safety Compliance Testing: It's A Business, So Shop Around

 

<<...>> 

I found this article to be very interesting.  It may be useful to you.

Stay safe, and best regards,

Rich

 

-
---

Re: [PSES] Safety Compliance Testing: It's A Business, So Shop Around

[John E Allen]

Morning all

 

FWIW, I’ve sent James a (edited!) version of the questionnaire that I prepared 
many years ago to get a “feel” for how much a company, with which I was 
thinking of doing some compliance contracting, knew about “CE compliance”  and 
how prepared they were – or were not!

 

He’s going to take a good look at it in a few weeks’ time, and then, maybe, 
I’ll share any resultant version with forum members (since I won’t be using it 
myself, having been retired for so long – OTOH, if anyone wants to “call me 
back in” then I might still be interested in doing that 😊).

 

John E Allen

W. London, UK

 

 

 

From: James Pawson (U3C)  
Sent: 18 October 2021 09:30
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Safety Compliance Testing: It's A Business, So Shop Around

 

Hello John,

 

These are excellent points. I was going to say that I’ve not come across this 
attitude with many of my customers but then the question popped into my head of 
“how do I know that for sure?”

 

What questions would you typically ask of your clients to understand their 
attitude to their business and their risk tolerance?

 

I’ll often ask customers about what their previous experience with compliance 
is, how they have handled it for other products, and to see an example 
Technical File equivalent for a previous product. This helps me understand what 
their internal processes are.

 

Some instructive chats are often had with the equivalent of the Service Manager 
to get an understanding of any field related compliance problems that sometimes 
don’t make it back to the design team.

 

I’ve tended to find (with occasional exceptions) that appetite for compliance 
risk is inversely proportional to size of company, which makes sense when you 
consider the mindset of someone starting a business vs an established company 
with more to lose.

 

(Sidebar: There was a recent  
<https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/safety-regulations-compliance-study>
 study that compared the effect of penalty rates, accessibility of info on the 
penalty scheme, and income of business with compliance rates in a simulated 
setting. Given the simulated setting I’m not sure what useful information you 
can draw from this. For example, I don’t play board games like I play business. 
My wife and friends would all have better EMC consultancies than me if this 
were the case!)

 

Looking forward to hearing your thoughts

All the best

James

 

 

 

 

James Pawson

The EMC Problem Solver

 

Unit 3 Compliance Ltd

EMC : Environmental : Safety : CE + UKCA : Consultancy

 

 <http://www.unit3compliance.co.uk/> www.unit3compliance.co.uk  |   
<mailto:ja...@unit3compliance.co.uk> ja...@unit3compliance.co.uk 

+44(0)1274 911747  |  +44(0)7811 139957

2 Wellington Business Park, New Lane, Bradford, BD4 8AL

Registered in England and Wales # 10574298

 

 

From: John E Allen <09cc677f395b-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org> 
Sent: 16 October 2021 11:21
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Safety Compliance Testing: It's A Business, So Shop Around

 

& PS: Something I should have mentioned about how some companies treat their 
contractors /consultants doing this sort of work.

 

Like mushrooms they are often “kept in the dark and fed on “you know what”!”, 
i.e. the companies don’t (often just plain “can’t”) provide the contractor 
/consultant with all the info that should be in the compliance files -> GIGO 
situation!

John E Allen

W. London, UK

 

From: John E Allen < <mailto:09cc677f395b-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org> 
09cc677f395b-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org> 
Sent: 16 October 2021 10:36
To:  <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Safety Compliance Testing: It's A Business, So Shop Around

 

Good morning all.

 

I printed out the article, read it quite closely and can only agree with 95%+ 
of what the author wrote – the notable exception being the paragraph on the 1st 
page beginning “CE is all about …”

 

Like many of you guys, whilst in “gainful employment” I did a LOT of “CE 
compliance” work for various companies, generally as an employee - but 
sometimes as a contractor/ consultant and, from my own experience, I can say 
that employing one of the latter to do the work is potentially a very “risky” 
approach!

 

As most of us know (or should by now!), it is the company’s, not the 
contractor’s /consultant’s,  legal responsibility to ensure that the CE 
compliance files are complete and correct and do demonstrate that the legal 
requirements have been met – and there’s the big risk in employing a 
contractors/consultant to do the legwork to create them.

 

Unless that person has been working for the company for long enough to really 
know and understand how the company systems work – especially in the areas of 
design, development and materials control & manufacturing – th

Re: [PSES] Safety Compliance Testing: It's A Business, So Shop Around

[John E Allen]

& PS: Something I should have mentioned about how some companies treat their
contractors /consultants doing this sort of work.

 

Like mushrooms they are often "kept in the dark and fed on "you know
what"!", i.e. the companies don't (often just plain "can't") provide the
contractor /consultant with all the info that should be in the compliance
files -> GIGO situation!



John E Allen

W. London, UK

 

From: John E Allen <09cc677f395b-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org> 
Sent: 16 October 2021 10:36
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Safety Compliance Testing: It's A Business, So Shop
Around

 

Good morning all.

 

I printed out the article, read it quite closely and can only agree with
95%+ of what the author wrote - the notable exception being the paragraph on
the 1st page beginning "CE is all about ."

 

Like many of you guys, whilst in "gainful employment" I did a LOT of "CE
compliance" work for various companies, generally as an employee - but
sometimes as a contractor/ consultant and, from my own experience, I can say
that employing one of the latter to do the work is potentially a very
"risky" approach!

 

As most of us know (or should by now!), it is the company's, not the
contractor's /consultant's,  legal responsibility to ensure that the CE
compliance files are complete and correct and do demonstrate that the legal
requirements have been met - and there's the big risk in employing a
contractors/consultant to do the legwork to create them.

 

Unless that person has been working for the company for long enough to
really know and understand how the company systems work - especially in the
areas of design, development and materials control & manufacturing - then
he/she won't know the "whole story" behind the product & project. Therefore
he/she is very likely to miss critical issues that could affect whether the
final compliance documentation actually reflects the way in which the
product has been designed & built and whether it actually meets the
requirements of the "CE compliance" regulations & standards. 

 

Most contractors/consultants that are brought into a company for a specific
time/cost constrained compliance project won't know "all of that", and
therefore the company is at risk of signing off on faulty documentation and
leaving themselves open to possible legal action in the future...

 

John E Allen

W. London, UK

From: Richard Nute mailto:ri...@ieee.org> > 
Sent: 15 October 2021 19:34
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> 
Subject: [PSES] Safety Compliance Testing: It's A Business, So Shop Around

 

<<...>> 

I found this article to be very interesting.  It may be useful to you.

Stay safe, and 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
mailto: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 mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org> >
Mike Cantwell mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org> > 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org> >
David Heald mailto: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
mailto: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 mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org> >
Mike Cantwell mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org> > 

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


-
-

Re: [PSES] Safety Compliance Testing: It's A Business, So Shop Around

[John E Allen]

Good morning all.

 

I printed out the article, read it quite closely and can only agree with
95%+ of what the author wrote - the notable exception being the paragraph on
the 1st page beginning "CE is all about ."

 

Like many of you guys, whilst in "gainful employment" I did a LOT of "CE
compliance" work for various companies, generally as an employee - but
sometimes as a contractor/ consultant and, from my own experience, I can say
that employing one of the latter to do the work is potentially a very
"risky" approach!

 

As most of us know (or should by now!), it is the company's, not the
contractor's /consultant's,  legal responsibility to ensure that the CE
compliance files are complete and correct and do demonstrate that the legal
requirements have been met - and there's the big risk in employing a
contractors/consultant to do the legwork to create them.

 

Unless that person has been working for the company for long enough to
really know and understand how the company systems work - especially in the
areas of design, development and materials control & manufacturing - then
he/she won't know the "whole story" behind the product & project. Therefore
he/she is very likely to miss critical issues that could affect whether the
final compliance documentation actually reflects the way in which the
product has been designed & built and whether it actually meets the
requirements of the "CE compliance" regulations & standards. 

 

Most contractors/consultants that are brought into a company for a specific
time/cost constrained compliance project won't know "all of that", and
therefore the company is at risk of signing off on faulty documentation and
leaving themselves open to possible legal action in the future...

 

John E Allen

W. London, UK

From: Richard Nute  
Sent: 15 October 2021 19:34
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Safety Compliance Testing: It's A Business, So Shop Around

 

<<...>> 

I found this article to be very interesting.  It may be useful to you.

Stay safe, and 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
mailto: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 mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org> >
Mike Cantwell mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org> > 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org> >
David Heald mailto: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:  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] U.S. equivalent to BS 1363...

[John E Allen]

Pete (and friends, of course!)

 

When I downloaded WD6, it was because it was of use “at work” – OTOH, since I 
progressed “beyond work” (i.e. I retired – 6 yrs ago!), the need for having an 
up-to-date version has become of “less relevance” to me in the UK😊.

 

John E Allen

w. London, UK 

 

From: Pete Perkins <0061f3f32d0c-dmarc-requ...@ieee.org> 
Sent: 07 September 2021 19:48
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] U.S. equivalent to BS 1363...

 

John, ‘some years ago’… Just watch the date, the standard is updated from 
time to time.  

 

:>) br,  Pete

 

Peter E Perkins, PE

Principal Product Safety & Regulatory Affairs Consultant

PO Box 1067

Albany, ORe  97321-0413

 

503/452-1201

 

IEEE Life Fellow

IEEE PSES 2020 Distinguished Lecturer

 <http://www.researchgate.net/Peter%20Perkins> www.researchgate.net search my 
name

 <mailto:p.perk...@ieee.org> p.perk...@ieee.org

 

 

Entropy ain’t what it used to be

 

From: John E Allen <09cc677f395b-dmarc-requ...@ieee.org 
<mailto:09cc677f395b-dmarc-requ...@ieee.org> > 
Sent: Tuesday, September 7, 2021 10:58 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> 
Subject: Re: [PSES] U.S. equivalent to BS 1363...

 

IIRC – I downloaded that F.O.C from the NEMA website some years ago.

 

John E Allen

W. London UK

 

From: Matthew Wilson | GBE mailto:matthew.wil...@gbelectronics.com> > 
Sent: 07 September 2021 17:37
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> 
Subject: Re: [PSES] U.S. equivalent to BS 1363...

 

Hello Ted, that’s great, thank you very much.

 

Kind regards,

 

Matthew Wilson,

GB Electronics (UK) Ltd.

 



 

From: Ted Eckert mailto:ted.eck...@microsoft.com> > 
Sent: 07 September 2021 14:37
To: Matthew Wilson | GBE mailto:matthew.wil...@gbelectronics.com> >; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG 
<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> 
Subject: RE: U.S. equivalent to BS 1363...

 

Hello Matthew,

 

I believe you are looking for NEMA WD-6.

Wiring Devices—Dimensional Specifications (nema.org) 
<https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nema.org%2FStandards%2Fview%2FWiring-Devices-Dimensional-Specifications&data=04%7C01%7Cmatthew.wilson%40GBELECTRONICS.COM%7C353a4c0f553c472ca9b608d972049525%7C0991060a48f54e72abaa7189692c6192%7C1%7C0%7C637666186275255283%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=P35GvXHRLaWaYh%2BANF9GwP31O2c0Hwj2LFKDIFk9RQw%3D&reserved=0>
 

 

Best regards,

Ted Eckert

The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my 
employer.

 

From: Matthew Wilson | GBE mailto:matthew.wil...@gbelectronics.com> > 
Sent: Tuesday, September 7, 2021 1:36 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> 
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [PSES] U.S. equivalent to BS 1363...

 

Hello all, unfortunately I'm not too familiar with U.S. standards. I am looking 
for the equivalent information of BS 1363-1 that would describe the standard 
U.S. mains plug and socket dimensions, plug pin lengths, spacings etc. I nice 
2D dimensioned drawing would be ideal.

The reason is we are needing to make sure some third party sourced plug top 
'wall wart' power supply units intended for use in the U.S. will be correct 
mechanically regards the plug & pins.

Thanks for any help, much appreciated.









Disclaimer:​ This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and 
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are 
addressed. If you have received this email in error please delete it from your 
system, do not use or disclose the information in any way and notify the sender 
immediately. The contents of this message may contain personal views which are 
not the views of the company, unless specifically stated.




​GB Electronics (UK) Ltd is a company registered in England and Wales under 
number 06210991.
​Registered office: Ascot House Mulberry Close, Woods Way, Goring By Sea, West 
Sussex, BN12 4QY.

-


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 
mailto: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://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ieee-pses.org%2Femc-pstc.html&data=04%7C01%7Cmatthew.wilson%40GBELECTRONICS.COM%7C353a4c0f553c472ca9b608d972049525%7C0991060a48f54e72abaa7189692c6192%7C1%7C0%7C637666186275265286%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=rEYPzvyIeEGtgJpBpGaJo2YK1n7ilP2tLJf1aeLULf8%3D&reserved=0>
 

Attachments are not pe

Re: [PSES] U.S. equivalent to BS 1363...

[John E Allen]

IIRC – I downloaded that F.O.C from the NEMA website some years ago.

 

John E Allen

W. London UK

 

From: Matthew Wilson | GBE  
Sent: 07 September 2021 17:37
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] U.S. equivalent to BS 1363...

 

Hello Ted, that’s great, thank you very much.

 

Kind regards,

 

Matthew Wilson,

GB Electronics (UK) Ltd.

 



 

From: Ted Eckert mailto:ted.eck...@microsoft.com> > 
Sent: 07 September 2021 14:37
To: Matthew Wilson | GBE mailto:matthew.wil...@gbelectronics.com> >; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG 
<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> 
Subject: RE: U.S. equivalent to BS 1363...

 

Hello Matthew,

 

I believe you are looking for NEMA WD-6.

Wiring Devices—Dimensional Specifications (nema.org) 
<https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nema.org%2FStandards%2Fview%2FWiring-Devices-Dimensional-Specifications&data=04%7C01%7Cmatthew.wilson%40GBELECTRONICS.COM%7C353a4c0f553c472ca9b608d972049525%7C0991060a48f54e72abaa7189692c6192%7C1%7C0%7C637666186275255283%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=P35GvXHRLaWaYh%2BANF9GwP31O2c0Hwj2LFKDIFk9RQw%3D&reserved=0>
 

 

Best regards,

Ted Eckert

The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my 
employer.

 

From: Matthew Wilson | GBE mailto:matthew.wil...@gbelectronics.com> > 
Sent: Tuesday, September 7, 2021 1:36 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> 
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [PSES] U.S. equivalent to BS 1363...

 

Hello all, unfortunately I'm not too familiar with U.S. standards. I am looking 
for the equivalent information of BS 1363-1 that would describe the standard 
U.S. mains plug and socket dimensions, plug pin lengths, spacings etc. I nice 
2D dimensioned drawing would be ideal.

The reason is we are needing to make sure some third party sourced plug top 
'wall wart' power supply units intended for use in the U.S. will be correct 
mechanically regards the plug & pins.

Thanks for any help, much appreciated.









Disclaimer:​ This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and 
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are 
addressed. If you have received this email in error please delete it from your 
system, do not use or disclose the information in any way and notify the sender 
immediately. The contents of this message may contain personal views which are 
not the views of the company, unless specifically stated.




​GB Electronics (UK) Ltd is a company registered in England and Wales under 
number 06210991.
​Registered office: Ascot House Mulberry Close, Woods Way, Goring By Sea, West 
Sussex, BN12 4QY.

-


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 
mailto: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://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ieee-pses.org%2Femc-pstc.html&data=04%7C01%7Cmatthew.wilson%40GBELECTRONICS.COM%7C353a4c0f553c472ca9b608d972049525%7C0991060a48f54e72abaa7189692c6192%7C1%7C0%7C637666186275265286%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=rEYPzvyIeEGtgJpBpGaJo2YK1n7ilP2tLJf1aeLULf8%3D&reserved=0>
 

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ 
<https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fproduct-compliance.oc.ieee.org%2F&data=04%7C01%7Cmatthew.wilson%40GBELECTRONICS.COM%7C353a4c0f553c472ca9b608d972049525%7C0991060a48f54e72abaa7189692c6192%7C1%7C0%7C637666186275275276%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=eCj2pZK43PJPJ8sjeXX83Go2bCIB2QC5pB5IUPzawqg%3D&reserved=0>
  can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc.

Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ 
<https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ieee-pses.org%2F&data=04%7C01%7Cmatthew.wilson%40GBELECTRONICS.COM%7C353a4c0f553c472ca9b608d972049525%7C0991060a48f54e72abaa7189692c6192%7C1%7C0%7C637666186275275276%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=8vFcTTuqyrQE3PU6WAusr2iyc1w9DyXVzy35ZWicRso%3D&reserved=0>
 
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) 
<https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ieee-pses.org%2Flist.html&data=04%7C01%7Cmatthew.wilson%40GBELECTRONICS.COM%7C353a4c0f553c472ca9b608d972049525%7C0991060a48f54e72abaa7189692c619

Re: [PSES] Friday question

[John E Allen]

Rich

 

My approach at HP Bristol in the late 1980s’s was much the same, and with 
pretty much the same results during certification and then the follow-up 
inspections – although:

*   We did get caught out when building a product for another division 
because one plastic part met the material flammability spec on the dwgs, but 
the other division had changed the originally-certified material for a lower 
UL94-rated alternative, and the FUS inspector picked that up and “stopped the 
line”!
*   We nearly got caught out by a FUS inspection when a quick check on the 
line by my colleague, after the inspector arrived but before he got to that 
line, found the wrong labelling mtl in the printers – “fixed” by the time the 
inspector did get to it! 😊

 

I left the company soon after that (a “management” issue – my then new 
“manager” tried to treat me like someone just out of college, instead of 
someone who actually did know what had to be done, what was required, and how 
to do it! ☹ ) so I don’t know how it went later on, but I left a good system in 
place and I hope it lasted (at least until the Bristol plant was closed some 
years later).

 

“People” seem to forget the “simplest things” are often of considerable 
importance in both certification and FUS activities – notably that these should 
actually be “formal processes” which must be established and tested, and then 
followed and implemented.

 

John E Allen

W. London, UK.

 

From: Richard Nute  
Sent: 27 June 2021 00:47
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Friday question

 

 

 

Hi Doug:

 

My employer had a course entitled “Zero Defects.”  We were encouraged to apply 
it to our function.  Mine, of course, was safety certification and all that it 
entailed.  Good course as it wanted a scorecard for each activity.  

 

Using the scorecard, all my submittals went without action items.  Okay, a few 
action items that I successfully showed them where they were wrong.  I took to 
arguing with the cert engineer.  In one case, he wouldn’t accept my argument, 
so I took the product to another cert house and was successful.

 

I applied the same process to follow-up inspections.  After a year or so of no 
defects, the certification house was upset.  So, they sent a bigwig to 
accompany the inspector (probably to check whether I was intimidating the 
inspector).  No defects!  

 

Rich

 

 

From: Douglas E Powell mailto:doug...@gmail.com> > 
Sent: Friday, June 25, 2021 10:55 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> 
Subject: [PSES] Friday question

 

Out of curiosity, 

 

I would like to know (especially from those who have been in the business for a 
while) what is your "first pass success rate" for safety certifications on new 
product introductions? That is, to achieve a product safety certification from 
an accredited laboratory with no action items required coming out of the 
preliminary design review.  It's helpful if you can indicate how complex the 
projects are.

 

In my 26 years as a compliance engineer, I've observed possibly three in total 
for products with a reasonably high complexity.

 

Thanks! Doug

--

 

Douglas E Powell
doug...@gmail.com <mailto: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 
mailto: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 mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org> >
Mike Cantwell mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org> > 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org> >
David Heald mailto: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 
mailto: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

Re: [PSES] Friday question

[John E Allen]

Well said!

 

From: rwell...@wellman.com  
Sent: 25 June 2021 21:49
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Friday question

 

A man in a hot air balloon realized he was lost. He reduced altitude and 
spotted a woman below. He descended a bit more and shouted, "Excuse me, can you 
help me? I promised a friend I would meet him an hour ago, but I don't know 
where I am."

 

The woman below replied, "You're in a hot air balloon hovering approximately 30 
feet above the ground. You're between 40 and 41 degrees north latitude and 
between 59 and 60 degrees west longitude."

 

"You must be an engineer," said the balloonist.

 

"I am," replied the woman, "How did you know?"

 

"Well," answered the balloonist, "everything you told me is, technically 
correct, but I've no idea what to make of your information, and the fact is I'm 
still lost. Frankly, you've not been much help at all. If anything, you've 
delayed my trip."

 

The woman below responded, "You must be in Management."

 

"I am," replied the balloonist, "but how did you know?"

 

"Well," said the woman, "you don't know where you are or where you're going. 
You have risen to where you are, due to a large quantity of hot air. 

 

You made a promise, which you've no idea how to keep, and you expect people 
beneath you to solve your problems. The fact is you are in exactly the same 
position you were in before we met, but now, somehow, it's my fault."

 

From: Brian Kunde mailto:bkundew...@gmail.com> > 
Sent: Friday, June 25, 2021 12:46 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG  
Subject: Re: [PSES] Friday question

 

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/ship-repair-man-story-why-experts-get-paid-more-faiz-noor/

 

A giant ship engine failed. The ship’s owners tried one expert after another, 
but none of them could figure but how to fix the engine.

Then they brought in an old man who had been fixing ships since he was young. 
He carried a large bag of tools with him, and when he arrived, he immediately 
went to work. He inspected the engine very carefully, top to bottom.

Two of the ship’s owners were there, watching this man, hoping he would know 
what to do. After looking things over, the old man reached into his bag and 
pulled out a small hammer. He gently tapped something. Instantly, the engine 
lurched into life. He carefully put his hammer away. The engine was fixed!

A week later, the owners received a bill from the old man for ten thousand 
dollars.

“What?!” the owners exclaimed. “He hardly did anything!”

So they wrote the old man a note saying, “Please send us an itemized bill.

The man sent a bill that read:

Tapping with a hammer……….. $ 2.00

Knowing where to tap.. $ 9,998.00

Effort is important, but knowing where to make an effort makes all the 
difference!

 

On Fri, Jun 25, 2021 at 2:59 PM Dennis Ward 
<0dbeaa892a40-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org 
 > wrote:

A company once made glassware. They could not figure out why it did not hold 
water.  They hired an engineer who told them to put a bottom on the glass.  It 
held water.  The manager that hired the engineer left the company and a new 
manager was hired.  He asked why this engineer was hired and did not see the 
reason for him.  So he left and the company went back to making glass ware the 
old way.  To this day, their glasses don’t hold water and they can’t figure out 
why.

 

 


Dennis Ward
Senior Reviewing Engineer
PCTEST Engineering Laboratory, LLC.
7185 Oakland Mills Road
Columbia, MD  21045
1 410 290 6652)

dennis.w...@pctest.com   | www.pctest.com 
  | www.element.com   

This communication and any attachment contain information from PCTEST 
Engineering Laboratory, LLC. and is intended for the exclusive use of the 
recipient(s) named above.

 

From: Ken Javor mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com> > 
Sent: Friday, June 25, 2021 11:19 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG  
Subject: Re: [PSES] Friday question

 

CAUTION:This email originated from outside of Element Materials Technology. DO 
NOT click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know 
the content is safe. Please contact IT Service Desk if you are in any doubt 
about this email.

Second hand info.

A colleague of mine, Mark Nave, was hired as an EMC engineer by Network 
Appliance in the early 2000s.  He took them to regularly passing the first time 
through.

After awhile, the VP who hired him retired or moved on, and the new VP didn’t 
have the history of not passing changing to passing.  He questioned why they 
had even hired Mark – what did he do for them?

Mark got angry, and left.

End of story.

Ken Javor
Phone: (256) 650-5261


  _  


From: "doug...@gmail.com 

Re: [PSES] EN 61010-1 under LVD and Functional safety

[John E Allen]

Brian is correct regarding risk assessment under 61010-1 (and I had to make, 
and prove, that “point” to my last contract employer – and without doing that, 
some of their products could never be legitimately certified to the previous 
edition of that standard) , but, frankly, the same is true (or should be, even 
if not specifically referenced ) for any safety (and possibly other categories 
of ) standards.

 

Thus one needs to consider, and prove compliance with, any likely-relevant 
standards, and any “not mentioned in the standard” risks that are unique to 
“your product” , or, otherwise, you may  risk some form of legal action if 
“something goes wrong” and damage /environmental damage / injury /death then 
ensues – “We never thought that could happen” probably won’t “cut the mustard” 
if it comes to a court action, and the penalties may then be very severe.

 

John E Allen

W. London, UK.

 

From: Brian Kunde  
Sent: 15 June 2021 21:10
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] EN 61010-1 under LVD and Functional safety

 

IEC/EN/UL 61010-1 standard in section 17 states that if there is a hazard not 
addressed by the standard that you must perform a risk assessment.  In a note, 
it lists some Risk Assessment standards, but the most used and current standard 
is the ISO 12100 which calls out many other standards including the ISO 
13849-1.  

 

Hope this is helpful.

 

The Other Brian

 

On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 9:48 AM Rodriguez, Daniel (ESP) 
<123de38bd494-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org 
<mailto:123de38bd494-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org> > wrote:

Good morning all

We have a system that generates a chemical but without pumps and only electro 
valves as moving part. The system has been checked for EN 61010-1

There is a risk that an hazardous gas release can happen and we have a gas 
detector for that.

The question is that as it is not a Machinery (no moving part) , don’t we need 
to apply functional safety under EN 13849-1 and confirm the Performance Level 
of the Safety Control?

 

EN 61010-1 doesn’t refer to functional safety and only list IEC 61508 in 
bibliography...

 

Thank you for your answers!

 

Kind Regards / Saludos cordiales / Mit freundlichen Grüßen

 

Daniel Rodríguez

Sr. Equipment Compliance Specialist EMEA

T +34 673556249 

E  <mailto:drodrig...@ecolab.com> drodrig...@ecolab.com

ecolab.com <http://ecolab.com> 

 

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail communication and any attachments may 
contain proprietary and privileged information for the use of the designated 
recipients named above. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or 
distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please 
contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original 
message.

-


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 <mailto: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 <mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org> >
Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org <mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org> > 

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

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

Re: [PSES] [EXTERNAL] Re: [PSES] What percentage of products pass first time?

[John E Allen]

Not bragging - given that I have quite a few “physical problems” ( arthritic 
knee, displace L3 vertibra)  that have since all but prevented me from actually 
doing most of what I previously hoped that I could be doing now ☹

 

From: Pete Perkins  
Sent: 04 June 2021 20:58
To: john_e_al...@blueyonder.co.uk; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: [PSES] [EXTERNAL] Re: [PSES] What percentage of products pass 
first time?

 

Ok, Quit bragging, I’ve got you both beat.  

 

:>) br,  Pete

 

Peter E Perkins, PE

Principal Product Safety & Regulatory Affairs Consultant

PO Box 1067

Albany, ORe  97321-0413

 

503/452-1201

 

IEEE Life Fellow

IEEE PSES 2020 Distinguished Lecturer

 <http://www.researchgate.net/Peter%20Perkins> www.researchgate.net search my 
name

 <mailto:p.perk...@ieee.org> p.perk...@ieee.org

 

 

Entropy ain’t what it used to be

 

From: John E Allen <09cc677f395b-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org 
<mailto:09cc677f395b-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org> > 
Sent: Friday, June 4, 2021 12:54 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> 
Subject: Re: [PSES] [EXTERNAL] Re: [PSES] What percentage of products pass 
first time?

 

Correct, but I made mine about 5 ½ yrs after the end of my last contract – so 
many other “things” I wanted to do that I’d not had time for over the previous 
many years.

 

From: John Woodgate mailto:j...@woodjohn.uk> > 
Sent: 04 June 2021 20:42
To: john_e_al...@blueyonder.co.uk <mailto:john_e_al...@blueyonder.co.uk> ; 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> 
Subject: Re: [PSES] [EXTERNAL] Re: [PSES] What percentage of products pass 
first time?

 

Everyone has a choice. 

==
Best wishes John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
www.woodjohn.uk <http://www.woodjohn.uk> 
Rayleigh, Essex UK
Istae nunc praetereunt nisi non ubicumque

On 2021-06-04 20:40, john_e_al...@blueyonder.co.uk 
<mailto:john_e_al...@blueyonder.co.uk>  wrote:

No way will I be “going back to contracting”  - 6 yrs away from all that hassle 
has convinced me that it wouldn’t be worth all the hassle & stress (had quite 
enough of that whilst I was working - contract or not!), especially now that 
the UK tax regs on contract work have become more complex & difficult to 
“navigate”. ☹

 

OTOH, I thought I’d deleted my LinkedIn a/c but I still get a few “job 
opportunities” flagged up by various agencies which got my contact details from 
that site – seems that deleting those a/c’s is considerably more “difficult” 
than it should be ☹.

 

John E Allen

W.London, UK

 

From: John Woodgate  <mailto:j...@woodjohn.uk>  
Sent: 04 June 2021 19:56
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> 
Subject: Re: [PSES] [EXTERNAL] Re: [PSES] What percentage of products pass 
first time?

 

Don't assume. I've just been hired at 83.5 years old. Not a long-term hire, nor 
well paid, but every little helps.

==
Best wishes John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
www.woodjohn.uk <http://www.woodjohn.uk> 
Rayleigh, Essex UK
Istae nunc praetereunt nisi non ubicumque



On 2021-06-04 18:54, Cortland Richmond wrote:

I retried to a few years working on contracts, and I doubt I'll be working 
again at 77 -- but it was FUN.

 


 
<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
 

Virus-free.  
<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
 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 
mailto: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 mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org> >
Mike Cantwell mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org> > 

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

-


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

Re: [PSES] [EXTERNAL] Re: [PSES] What percentage of products pass first time?

[John E Allen]

Correct, but I made mine about 5 ½ yrs after the end of my last contract – so 
many other “things” I wanted to do that I’d not had time for over the previous 
many years.

 

From: John Woodgate  
Sent: 04 June 2021 20:42
To: john_e_al...@blueyonder.co.uk; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] [EXTERNAL] Re: [PSES] What percentage of products pass 
first time?

 

Everyone has a choice. 

==
Best wishes John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
www.woodjohn.uk <http://www.woodjohn.uk> 
Rayleigh, Essex UK
Istae nunc praetereunt nisi non ubicumque




On 2021-06-04 20:40, john_e_al...@blueyonder.co.uk 
<mailto:john_e_al...@blueyonder.co.uk>  wrote:

No way will I be “going back to contracting”  - 6 yrs away from all that hassle 
has convinced me that it wouldn’t be worth all the hassle & stress (had quite 
enough of that whilst I was working - contract or not!), especially now that 
the UK tax regs on contract work have become more complex & difficult to 
“navigate”. ☹

 

OTOH, I thought I’d deleted my LinkedIn a/c but I still get a few “job 
opportunities” flagged up by various agencies which got my contact details from 
that site – seems that deleting those a/c’s is considerably more “difficult” 
than it should be ☹.

 

John E Allen

W.London, UK

 

From: John Woodgate  <mailto:j...@woodjohn.uk>  
Sent: 04 June 2021 19:56
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> 
Subject: Re: [PSES] [EXTERNAL] Re: [PSES] What percentage of products pass 
first time?

 

Don't assume. I've just been hired at 83.5 years old. Not a long-term hire, nor 
well paid, but every little helps.

==
Best wishes John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
www.woodjohn.uk <http://www.woodjohn.uk> 
Rayleigh, Essex UK
Istae nunc praetereunt nisi non ubicumque





On 2021-06-04 18:54, Cortland Richmond wrote:

I retried to a few years working on contracts, and I doubt I'll be working 
again at 77 -- but it was FUN.

 


 
<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
 

Virus-free.  
<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
 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 
mailto: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 mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org> >
Mike Cantwell mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org> > 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org> >
David Heald mailto: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:  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] Re: [PSES] What percentage of products pass first time?

[John E Allen]

No way will I be “going back to contracting”  - 6 yrs away from all that hassle 
has convinced me that it wouldn’t be worth all the hassle & stress (had quite 
enough of that whilst I was working - contract or not!), especially now that 
the UK tax regs on contract work have become more complex & difficult to 
“navigate”. ☹

 

OTOH, I thought I’d deleted my LinkedIn a/c but I still get a few “job 
opportunities” flagged up by various agencies which got my contact details from 
that site – seems that deleting those a/c’s is considerably more “difficult” 
than it should be ☹.

 

John E Allen

W.London, UK

 

From: John Woodgate  
Sent: 04 June 2021 19:56
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] [EXTERNAL] Re: [PSES] What percentage of products pass 
first time?

 

Don't assume. I've just been hired at 83.5 years old. Not a long-term hire, nor 
well paid, but every little helps.

==
Best wishes John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
www.woodjohn.uk <http://www.woodjohn.uk> 
Rayleigh, Essex UK
Istae nunc praetereunt nisi non ubicumque




On 2021-06-04 18:54, Cortland Richmond wrote:

I retried to a few years working on contracts, and I doubt I'll be working 
again at 77 -- but it was FUN.

 


 
<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
 

Virus-free.  
<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
 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 
mailto: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 mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org> >
Mike Cantwell mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org> > 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org> >
David Heald mailto: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:  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] What percentage of products pass first time?

[John E Allen]

Like a “lot” of people here, I never had any formal education in either safety 
or EMC compliance – I just had to learn “on the job” about “what worked and 
what didn’t”, and often in very challenging situations. 

(OTOH, I was never the “sharpest tool in the toolbox” in engineering  parlance 
– which was a “problem”  when engaging with local management which, frankly, 
mainly “didn’t to know” ☹, ) 

 

Therefore safety, standards compliance and EMC standards compliance REALLY MUST 
be an integral component of engineering education – and ALSO for company 
management - forward from where we are “now”.

 

John E Allen

W. London, UK.

 

 

From: Dennis Ward <0dbeaa892a40-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org> 
Sent: 25 May 2021 21:09
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] What percentage of products pass first time?

 

Having been in the EMC business now for going on 40+years, I concur with what 
Pete is saying.  The truth of the matter is, this field of study is sadly under 
taught and is still more hands on and learning by trial and error for the most 
part.  Yes, there are a lot of good ‘classes’ you can take, but the fact 
remains, this is more than not an OJT field.

 

As to manufacturers designing at the limit.  This is also true, and also 
problematic as it means far too many products still fail first time out.  

 

I don’t know if I would necessarily agree with the percentages reported, but it 
is getting a better.  

 

My last 20+ years has been working in the regulatory approvals end and I can 
say that failure to comply with rules and standards is still a big issue with 
manufacturers.

 

Thanks 

 


Dennis Ward
Senior Reviewing Engineer
PCTEST Engineering Laboratory, LLC.
7185 Oakland Mills Road
Columbia, MD  21045
1 410 290 6652)

dennis.w...@pctest.com <mailto:dennis.w...@pctest.com>  | www.pctest.com 
<http://www.pctest.com/>  | www.element.com <http://www.element.com/>  

This communication and any attachment contain information from PCTEST 
Engineering Laboratory, LLC. and is intended for the exclusive use of the 
recipient(s) named above.

 

From: Pete Perkins <0061f3f32d0c-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org 
<mailto:0061f3f32d0c-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org> > 
Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2021 12:39 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> 
Subject: Re: [PSES] What percentage of products pass first time?

 

CAUTION:This email originated from outside of Element Materials Technology. DO 
NOT click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know 
the content is safe. Please contact IT Service Desk if you are in any doubt 
about this email.

James,   

You don’t have to denigrate yourself as not being a guru.  You have plenty of 
experience in this as shown by your comments.  Sharing this is quite valuable 
to the others on this thread.  

   All of us started out as ignorant of any of these requirements 
because they are not taught in formal college level courses; a few exceptions 
seem to exist.  

   Some folks might get specialized training – if they work for a 
gov’t agency or a safety test organization; else it’s all OJT.  

   I don’t see that changing any time soon; the academic folks have 
their interests which continue to push mathematical analysis techniques (and 
that will continue).  More and more technical folks will get higher degrees 
[you know what BS is, MS is More of the Same and PhD is Piled higher and Deeper 
:>) ], hardly any of which is of interest at our daily working level.  
Manufacturers will continue to steal trained folks from test labs; probably not 
too bad a deal especially if the folks move back and forth to spread what 
they’ve learned going each way.  

   Finally, the standards keep getting more complex (PhD effect) 
and interrelated as issues are delved into more deeply; plus manufacturers are 
getting better trained to design near the limit without as much margin so the 
compliance is close to falling off of the edge of the world at any moment.  

 

   So keep at what you are doing as long as you enjoy it; then get 
out gracefully – keeping your reputation intact to maintain a legacy as you go. 
  

   

   Enough of Phil 101 today.  

 

:>) br,  Pete

 

Peter E Perkins, PE

Principal Product Safety & Regulatory Affairs Consultant

PO Box 1067

Albany, ORe  97321-0413

 

503/452-1201

 

IEEE Life Fellow

IEEE PSES 2020 Distinguished Lecturer

 
<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.researchgate.net%2FPeter%2520Perkins&data=04%7C01%7Cdennis.ward%40pctest.com%7Cf10796d676544029a29a08d91fb4b724%7C048204512a274c35a1d499fa8eb67e80%7C0%7C0%7C637575683315196024%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=vMP7NQX0RVdQw7XX7mD2zN56lfu9cAx6

Re: [PSES] What percentage of products pass first time?

[John E Allen]

“From much experience” I can only concur with Pete, Monrad and yourself –  
safety, EMC  & RoHS compliance must be  explicitly built into the Product 
Lifecycle structure and process. Failure to do that, and to then make sure that 
that all WORKS is a route to “painful”, time-consuming and expensive results 
(“been there and seen that” – and recounted that here -  far too many times!). ☹

 

John E Allen

W.London, UK  

 

 

 

 

From: Richard Nute  
Sent: 24 May 2021 19:45
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] What percentage of products pass first time?

 

 

Hi Charles:

 

Not what you asked for, but a set of principles for success with third-party 
testing, from a product safety point of view:

 

1.  The design engineer and the product safety engineer should be able to 
predict the outcome of any test.
2.  Testing simply confirms (or not) the prediction.
3.  Failure of a test or other requirement at the third-party delays the 
third-party investigation which can imperil the product schedule.  To maintain 
schedule, the product must comply with all tests before it is submitted to the 
third-party.
4.  If the product that you successfully tested fails a third-party test, 
then your or the third-party test was in error.  This can open a dialogue 
between you and the third-party as to test process.
5.  Tests to standards requirements are either pass or fail; always record 
the measurement.  If the test requires a stimulation, then adjust the 
stimulation to the point of failure and record the measurement.  Both tell you 
the margin between pass and failure.  
6.  Provide your measurement data to the third-party when you submit the 
product.  If the third-party measurement data differs from your data, some 
third-parties will do their own investigation as to why.  

 

In my opinion, EMC is not a black art and can follow these same principles.

 

Stay safe, and best regards,

Rich

 

 

 

 

From: Grasso, Charles [Outlook] mailto:charles.gra...@dish.com> > 
Sent: Monday, May 24, 2021 7:47 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> 
Subject: [PSES] What percentage of products pass first time?

 

Hello EMC gurus!

 

Calling all labs - In your experience how many products pass the Unintentional 
Emissions
test first time? ​

 

 

-


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 
mailto: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 mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org> >
Mike Cantwell mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org> > 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org> >
David Heald mailto: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 
mailto: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 mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org> >
Mike Cantwell mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org> > 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org> >
David Heald mailto: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:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html

Re: [PSES] EU Authorized Representative service for Market Surveillance Regulation (EU) 2019/1020

[John E Allen]

I absolutely agree with Charlie because many “small importers” often have 
absolutely “no idea” of their responsibilities in law. “Been there, done that” 
as a private purchaser of electronic  “stuff” from the Far East” from such 
importers in the UK that had supplied “non-compliant” kit – and so had to point 
out to them “the error of their ways”, and that was even before Brexit!

 

OTOH,  when I was in “gainful employment” I used to (or try to!) teach both my 
employers and  “general industry” (designed and ran “CE compliance” courses at 
reputable consulting and certification companies) and tried to emphasise and 
reinforce the need for compliance with their legal obligations – and thus the 
need for written, solid and enforceable & legally-binding agreements and 
documentation .

 

John E Allen

W. London, UK  

From: Charlie Blackham  
Sent: 06 May 2021 21:09
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] EU Authorized Representative service for Market 
Surveillance Regulation (EU) 2019/1020

 

Strictly speaking the manufacturer doesn’t need a formal agreement with the 
Importer, the importer take on that responsibility under the Directive as soon 
as they import something from manufacturer who is not in the EU

 

The problem is that many “companies who import” don’t know that they are 
“importers” with responsibilities as defined in the directive

 

The obligations on the importer are clear (in the Directive) and should be the 
responsibility of the importer alone, but experience of market enforcement is 
that these “companies who import” are doing what is required (and probably 
don’t know they need to as they may be importing products falling under 
multiple directives) and of course the “manufacturer” has their name on the 
product and packaging and is easy to identify

 

Reality and best practice may well dictate that a written agreement is best way 
forward.

 

Best regards

Charlie

 

Charlie Blackham

Sulis Consultants Ltd

Tel: +44 (0)7946 624317

Web: https://sulisconsultants.com/ 

Registered in England and Wales, number 05466247

 

From: Carl Newton mailto:emcl...@gmail.com> > 
Sent: 06 May 2021 20:43
To: Charlie Blackham mailto:char...@sulisconsultants.com> >; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG 
<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> 
Subject: Re: [PSES] EU Authorized Representative service for Market 
Surveillance Regulation (EU) 2019/1020

 

Yes Charlie.  I used the AR term loosely.  There are five types of operator 
that qualify.  Manufacturers still need a formal agreement with one of them.

Best regards,

Carl

On 5/6/2021 2:33 PM, Charlie Blackham wrote:

You don’t have to have an Authorised Representative as long as you have an 
importer who is prepared to act as an importer as defined in the NLF aligned 
Directives (such as current RoHS, EMC, LVD, RED etc.)

 

Best regards

Charlie

 

Charlie Blackham

Sulis Consultants Ltd

Tel: +44 (0)7946 624317

Web: https://sulisconsultants.com/ 

Registered in England and Wales, number 05466247

 

From: Carl Newton  <mailto:emcl...@gmail.com>  
Sent: 06 May 2021 16:31
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> 
Subject: [PSES] EU Authorized Representative service for Market Surveillance 
Regulation (EU) 2019/1020

 

Can anyone in the group offer one or more references for an Authorized 
Representative service within the EU that will satisfy the requirements 
mandated within Market Surveillance Regulation (EU) 2019/1020?  This comes into 
effect on July 16.  Please feel free to contact me directly at the CC email 
address above if you prefer.

Thanks very much,

Carl

-


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 
mailto: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 mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org> >
Mike Cantwell mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org> > 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org> >
David Heald mailto: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 
mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org> >

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the we

Re: [PSES] EMC/EMI Cables - Don't cut yourself

[John E Allen]

"Pretty Similar" story from about 8 yrs ago when working  as a contractor  for 
a UK division of a very large Oil & Gas instrumentation contractor:

The DUT consisted of a surface control & interface  unit and a "downhole" (i.e. 
goes down inside the metal casing of a oil well extraction pipe)  measuring 
unit, and, for testing purposes on the surface, connected by an about 2m long 
cable assembly.

Took it for Class A RE testing at a very local lab, but stopped the test after 
about 20 mins when it was clear that the DUT was "spewing" RF "everywhere" 
across the spectrum

I immediately had a pretty good idea where the problem lay because everything 
but the connecting cable was pretty much solidly metal-cased - thus the cable 
was the prime suspect.

Back in the lab, I disassembled the cable = 2 lengths of reasonably well 
shielded cable -  but joined in the middle by a small electronic interface unit 
in a plastic box with only a very thin stranded conductor between the screens 
of the two cables! (The original designers were generally very good and clued 
up, but had little concept of EMC design  & control!).

Long story cut short: replaced the plastic box with a metal one with 360 deg 
shielded metal cable glands at each end, and introduced 360 deg  shielding on 
the cable connecters to the control unit and the downhole measuring unit -> 
result = passed Class with a reasonable margin, but it cost the company well 
over £300 to replace the cables in each of the 200+ kits that they had already 
shipped, AND a lot of time & effort to do that!

"Simple" good EMC design practice much earlier on would have saved that company 
a LOT of heartache & cash!
 
John E Allen
W. London, UK.

-Original Message-
From: David Garnier  
Sent: 29 April 2021 18:10
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] EMC/EMI Cables - Don't cut yourself

Story.

This happened 20+ years ago so don't shoot me.

An outside vendor was supplying the Operator Interface Console for our new 
Ultrasound machine. This console was a slick EMC design, each of the 11 or more 
rotary encoders that used low power CPU's that went to sleep after rotation. I 
was told the PIC chips were parasitic powered to reduce EMC. Wow, nice 
considering diagnostic Ultrasound was essentially a multi channel sub-microvolt 
receiver with a piezoelectric transducer as the patient antenna.

The new machine was failing RE on the 10m OATS and the operator interface 
console EMC Engineer came to visit us to see why.
"How good are your 360 degree shielded connectors?" "We don't know."
The EMC Engineer then looks at us and says some to the effect, "Oh goody, this 
is the part I like the most." He whips out his pocket knife and starts pealing 
off the hard plastic over-molded connector...
The project engineer and myself looks at each other with our mouths hanging 
open while the connector was being dissected - and then the EMC guy cuts 
himself. I felt bad for him, he was a "sharp" EMC engineer and he did find the 
problem.

Moral to this story - Don't cut yourself!

Dave Garnier - Retired GEHC

Dave Garnier - Retired GEHC

-

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] Instruction for use symbol...

[John E Allen]

I think reference of ISO 3864 would be pertinent – I don’t have an anywhere 
near current copy to-hand, but this Wikipedia page outlines the subparts of 
that standard and give the basic requirements for defining the meaning of a 
symbol by its colour. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_3864

 

Thus a Blue sign indicates a “Mandatory” requirement.

 

John E Allen

West London, UK

 

From: Matthew D. Varas  
Sent: 05 February 2021 15:57
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Instruction for use symbol...

 

We went through this recently with one of our products and our NRTL was 
explicit that the having the blue color “was critical.”  

 

Matthew Varas

Electrical Engineer

WR Medical Electronics Co

1700 Gervais Avenue | Maplewood, MN 55109 | U.S.A.

Cell: 763.222.6900

Office: 651.604.8473

 <mailto:m...@wrmed.com> m...@wrmed.com 

 

From: Matthew Wilson | GBE mailto:matthew.wil...@gbelectronics.com> > 
Sent: Friday, February 5, 2021 9:24 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> 
Subject: [PSES] Instruction for use symbol...

 

I was asked what symbol should be used on a piece of equipment, where the EN 
61010-1 safety standard applies, to denote 'read the instructions for use'? 
Prior just some English wording was used but a symbol would be better as the 
equipment may be used within the EU.

It is not clear to me which symbol it should be. I thought the experts here 
might have an opinion.

Should it be ISO 7000-1641, the 'book' with a 'i' in it.
https://www.iso.org/obp/ui#iso:grs:7000:1641

Or ISO 7010-M002, a person holding a book within in a circle
https://www.iso.org/obp/ui#iso:grs:7010:M002

For the latter, this is a blue colour circle. Can that be black rather than 
blue? The reason for asking that is that on the equipment all the graphics 
(manufacturer logo, AC input etc) would be screen printed on to the metalwork, 
and they are black.

Thanks for any information, it is much appreciated.











Disclaimer:​ This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and 
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are 
addressed. If you have received this email in error please delete it from your 
system, do not use or disclose the information in any way and notify the sender 
immediately. The contents of this message may contain personal views which are 
not the views of the company, unless specifically stated.




​GB Electronics (UK) Ltd is a company registered in England and Wales under 
number 06210991.
​Registered office: Ascot House Mulberry Close, Woods Way, Goring By Sea, West 
Sussex, BN12 4QY.

-


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 
mailto: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://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ieee-pses.org%2Femc-pstc.html&data=04%7C01%7C%7Cd80cbc9c8fc047d6503e08d8c9ea13f1%7C6dd4532213424424b49f6ed32f836526%7C0%7C0%7C637481354483701950%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=c1S%2Buve%2FmvV%2FSST6YzIgG3xCwFcXdhORRs671ueS4oQ%3D&reserved=0>
 

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ 
<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fproduct-compliance.oc.ieee.org%2F&data=04%7C01%7C%7Cd80cbc9c8fc047d6503e08d8c9ea13f1%7C6dd4532213424424b49f6ed32f836526%7C0%7C0%7C637481354483701950%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=NoJCmVgSc1YqfzJeFPCRJo8dPXjqJDN1gVH6ubEB%2BfU%3D&reserved=0>
  can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc.

Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ 
<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ieee-pses.org%2F&data=04%7C01%7C%7Cd80cbc9c8fc047d6503e08d8c9ea13f1%7C6dd4532213424424b49f6ed32f836526%7C0%7C0%7C637481354483711907%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=9Gm06rUHLikCWVkTjZDc6s3Fwe%2BBV19uhC6Hc3ZyCeU%3D&reserved=0>
 
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) 
<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ieee-pses.org%2Flist.html&data=04%7C01%7C%7Cd80cbc9c8fc047d6503e08d8c9ea13f1%7C6dd4532213424424b49f6ed32f836526%7C0%7C0%7C637481354483711907%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=c%2FqSKpnOEzeQioHS0DZgRjry8%2FlKwMT%2BCQSK2kehmKA%3D&reserved=0>
 
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listru

Re: [PSES] Plastic enclosure manufacturer

[John E Allen]

Amund

 

Might help to get advice if you could outline the product type,  intended
markets (and standards), box dimensions and the countries/regions where the
product is intended to be marketed - clarification of those might prompt
suggestions as to manufacturers which could meet your requirements.

 

John E Allen

W. London, UK  

 

From: Amund Westin  
Sent: 22 November 2020 20:44
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Plastic enclosure manufacturer

 

Looking for plastic enclosure manufacturers for custom box design. We have
prepared a first 3D drawing, but need help to smoothen the look and make a
first small production serie.

Any recommended manufactures out there?   

 

Thanks!

 

Best regards

Amund Westin

Oslo, Norway

 

 

 

 

-


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
mailto: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 mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org> >
Mike Cantwell mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org> > 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org> >
David Heald mailto: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:  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] Job Opening: Clarion Safety Systems

[John E Allen]

 

 

From: Regan Arndt  
Sent: 19 November 2020 20:04
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Job Opening: Clarion Safety Systems

 

“Thanks Doug. I imagine they will not get many prospects because it mentions 
the pay is $0.00/hr.lol”

That’s what a lot of people who consider themselves  “suitable applicants” 
might actually be worth (saw that quite a few times whilst I was in “gainful 
employment”)  ☹

PS: that was a “sort of joke” – and certainly not applicable to most/all 
members of this forum!

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 


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] Electric Current Abroad

[John E Allen]

The actual paper version of “Electric Current Abroad”  (“ECA”) was around in 
the early 1990’s when I was working at BSI’s Technical Help to Exporters” 
(“THE”) service, and, even then, I was pretty sure  that it had quite a few 
errors/”generalisations”!– so I really do wonder if it ever got comprehensively 
updated before  that PDF version was prepared, because, since then, far more, 
and more specific, info has become available via the internet and people in a 
huge number of countries??? 

 

Therefore, I would, again, treat info in ECA with that proverbial “pinch of 
salt”.

 

John E Allen

West London, UK.

 

From: Douglas Powell  
Sent: 28 October 2020 23:04
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Electric Current Abroad

 

This does look useful. The Electric Current Abroad PDF document also provides 
the number of wires from which you can possibly surmise the phase 
configuration. This almost appears to be the same data converted to a web page. 
I'm doing something similar on My Drive and combining ISO 2-letter country 
codes, travel advisory lookups, etc. and using query() for lookups. Surprising 
how much can be done in google sheets for scraping external website data.  

 

In the end, the power requirements need to be agreed upon in the customer 
contract, but getting ahead by providing a suitable product without 
customization is always a good idea. 

 

Thanks a bunch!  

 

-Doug

 

 

Douglas E Powell

Laporte, Colorado USA

 <mailto:doug...@gmail.com> doug...@gmail.com

 <http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01> http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01


 

 

 

 

 

On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 3:19 PM Scott Aldous mailto:scottald...@google.com> > wrote:

Hi Doug,

 

Have you seen the list from worldstandards? It doesn't cover the phase 
configurations directly but does have a column for number of wires.

 

https://www.worldstandards.eu/electricity/three-phase-electric-power/

 

On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 1:48 PM Douglas Powell mailto:doug...@gmail.com> > wrote:

All,

 

In the distant past I struggled to learn what were the expected electrical 
voltage, frequency, and phase configurations (delta, wye, high-leg, etc) for 
commercial/industrial facilities in various countries. I know about IEC 60038 
standard voltages, but standard voltages don't always represent real life in 
specific locales. What I wanted was a good country-by-country listing for three 
phase power. The source I most often used was 
"http://www.ita.doc.gov/media/Publications/pdf/current2002FINAL.pdf";. A 2002 
reprint of the 1998 document, and now a broken link. After a generic search of  
www.ita.doc.gov <http://www.ita.doc.gov> , It seems it is no longer available.  

 

Yes, I realize the information was getting old but finding no up to date 
alternative, I searched elsewhere.  And besides, It's not likely that such 
things like this change rapidly.  

 

Google Books: Link 
<https://books.google.com/books?id=0hAdYfH_feQC&newbks=1&newbks_redir=1&dq=Electric%20Current%20Abroad&pg=PA1#v=onepage&q=Electric%20Current%20Abroad&f=false>
 

Wayback Machine: Link 
<https://web.archive.org/web/20130423040219/http:/www.ita.doc.gov/media/Publications/pdf/current2002FINAL.pdf>
  

 

I seem to remember a place on the web with a database lookup. Does anyone know 
of a comprehensive resource for three-phase power in this world?  No need to 
refer to orbital platforms, the moon, or other planets just yet. 

 

Thanks!  Doug

 

 

-- 

Douglas E Powell

doug...@gmail.com <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org> >
Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org <mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org> > 

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




 

-- 

Scott Aldous | Regulatory Compliance Manager | scottald...@google.com 
<mailto:scottald...@google.com>  | 650-253-1994

 




 

-- 

 

Douglas E

Re: [PSES] [EXTERNAL] Re: [PSES] Electric Current Abroad

[John E Allen]

Absolutely!

 

Thus, an equipment mfr  really does need to ask their local importer/agent in 
the country concerned to confirm the  local 3-/1-phase voltage actually IS in 
the location(s) where that kit will/might be installed/sold – especially in 
less-developed/”3rd World” countries.

 

John E Allen

West London, UK.

 

From: Ted Eckert  
Sent: 28 October 2020 22:47
To: john_e_al...@blueyonder.co.uk; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: [PSES] Electric Current Abroad

 

As John noted, some are a “bit different”. For example, you will occasionally 
find Scott transformers <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott-T_transformer>  in 
Japan. Then there is Brazil where you could find practically anything. 
Single-phase could be 110 V, 120 V, 127 V, 220 V or 230 V. It can vary within 
different locations in a city.

 

Ted Eckert

Microsoft Corporation

 

The opinions experessed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my 
employer.

 

 

 

From: John E Allen <09cc677f395b-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org 
<mailto:09cc677f395b-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org> > 
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2020 3:00 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> 
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [PSES] Electric Current Abroad

 

That worldstandards  list is, in reality, inaccurate w.r.t. the 3-phase 
voltages in the UK, and in countries where UK design practice prevails, where 
the “real world” 3-phase (STAR/WYE config) was/is around  415V (even  though 
the UK now “conforms” to the long-ago EU agreed level of 380V  because 380V 
+10% is 418V - i.e. = 415V, or “near enough”).  In reality that means the 
1-phase voltage is around 240-245V (recently measured 243V upstairs in this 
house).

 

Thus one should take that list with the proverbial “pinch of salt” as the “real 
world” voltages in some countries may be a “bit different” to the nominal ones.

 

John E Allen

West London, UK

 

From: Scott Aldous <0220f70c299a-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org 
<mailto:0220f70c299a-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org> > 
Sent: 28 October 2020 21:19
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> 
Subject: Re: [PSES] Electric Current Abroad

 

Hi Doug,

 

Have you seen the list from worldstandards? It doesn't cover the phase 
configurations directly but does have a column for number of wires.

 

https://www.worldstandards.eu/electricity/three-phase-electric-power/ 
<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.worldstandards.eu%2Felectricity%2Fthree-phase-electric-power%2F&data=04%7C01%7Cted.eckert%40microsoft.com%7C95e92ee86677454ea8df08d87b8d1659%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C0%7C0%7C637395194073397525%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=EyfZMKjgvCYvimgM%2Bp79za%2BffqgUkGZwwCAvO8AvQ1Q%3D&reserved=0>
 

 

On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 1:48 PM Douglas Powell mailto:doug...@gmail.com> > wrote:

All,

 

In the distant past I struggled to learn what were the expected electrical 
voltage, frequency, and phase configurations (delta, wye, high-leg, etc) for 
commercial/industrial facilities in various countries. I know about IEC 60038 
standard voltages, but standard voltages don't always represent real life in 
specific locales. What I wanted was a good country-by-country listing for three 
phase power. The source I most often used was 
"http://www.ita.doc.gov/media/Publications/pdf/current2002FINAL.pdf 
<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ita.doc.gov%2Fmedia%2FPublications%2Fpdf%2Fcurrent2002FINAL.pdf&data=04%7C01%7Cted.eckert%40microsoft.com%7C95e92ee86677454ea8df08d87b8d1659%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C0%7C0%7C637395194073407494%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=%2BPgczaXTNxb9l9muvirDA1W0SiZfo5fwXkUlBUnEpiE%3D&reserved=0>
 ". A 2002 reprint of the 1998 document, and now a broken link. After a generic 
search of  www.ita.doc.gov 
<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ita.doc.gov%2F&data=04%7C01%7Cted.eckert%40microsoft.com%7C95e92ee86677454ea8df08d87b8d1659%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C0%7C0%7C637395194073407494%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=kgNk62JOps4%2BJdjaH7j7L%2FVmmtV9IjuO2aHo%2BOllS3U%3D&reserved=0>
 , It seems it is no longer available.  

 

Yes, I realize the information was getting old but finding no up to date 
alternative, I searched elsewhere.  And besides, It's not likely that such 
things like this change rapidly.  

 

Google Books: Link

Wayback Machine: Link 
<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fweb.archive.org%2Fweb%2F20130423040219%2Fhttp%3A%2Fwww.ita.doc.go

Re: [PSES] Electric Current Abroad

[John E Allen]

That worldstandards  list is, in reality, inaccurate w.r.t. the 3-phase 
voltages in the UK, and in countries where UK design practice prevails, where 
the “real world” 3-phase (STAR/WYE config) was/is around  415V (even  though 
the UK now “conforms” to the long-ago EU agreed level of 380V  because 380V 
+10% is 418V - i.e. = 415V, or “near enough”).  In reality that means the 
1-phase voltage is around 240-245V (recently measured 243V upstairs in this 
house).

 

Thus one should take that list with the proverbial “pinch of salt” as the “real 
world” voltages in some countries may be a “bit different” to the nominal ones.

 

John E Allen

West London, UK

 

From: Scott Aldous <0220f70c299a-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org> 
Sent: 28 October 2020 21:19
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Electric Current Abroad

 

Hi Doug,

 

Have you seen the list from worldstandards? It doesn't cover the phase 
configurations directly but does have a column for number of wires.

 

https://www.worldstandards.eu/electricity/three-phase-electric-power/

 

On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 1:48 PM Douglas Powell mailto:doug...@gmail.com> > wrote:

All,

 

In the distant past I struggled to learn what were the expected electrical 
voltage, frequency, and phase configurations (delta, wye, high-leg, etc) for 
commercial/industrial facilities in various countries. I know about IEC 60038 
standard voltages, but standard voltages don't always represent real life in 
specific locales. What I wanted was a good country-by-country listing for three 
phase power. The source I most often used was 
"http://www.ita.doc.gov/media/Publications/pdf/current2002FINAL.pdf";. A 2002 
reprint of the 1998 document, and now a broken link. After a generic search of  
www.ita.doc.gov <http://www.ita.doc.gov> , It seems it is no longer available.  

 

Yes, I realize the information was getting old but finding no up to date 
alternative, I searched elsewhere.  And besides, It's not likely that such 
things like this change rapidly.  

 

Google Books: Link 
<https://books.google.com/books?id=0hAdYfH_feQC&newbks=1&newbks_redir=1&dq=Electric%20Current%20Abroad&pg=PA1#v=onepage&q=Electric%20Current%20Abroad&f=false>
 

Wayback Machine: Link 
<https://web.archive.org/web/20130423040219/http:/www.ita.doc.gov/media/Publications/pdf/current2002FINAL.pdf>
  

 

I seem to remember a place on the web with a database lookup. Does anyone know 
of a comprehensive resource for three-phase power in this world?  No need to 
refer to orbital platforms, the moon, or other planets just yet. 

 

Thanks!  Doug

 

 

-- 

Douglas E Powell

doug...@gmail.com <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org> >
Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org <mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org> > 

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




 

-- 

Scott Aldous | Regulatory Compliance Manager | scottald...@google.com 
<mailto:scottald...@google.com>  | 650-253-1994

 

-


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 
mailto: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 mailto:sdoug..

Re: [PSES] 61010 vs 60601

[John E Allen]

WHICH “61010 vs 60601” – EU CE requirements OR US/Canadian (OR “somewhere 
else”) requirements because they likely “differ in the details”?:)

 

John E Allen

W.London, UK

 

From: sgbrody  
Sent: 21 May 2020 20:16
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] 61010 vs 60601

 

Fellow gurus,

 

I have a client who has a product certified to 60601-1 and now they have a 
non-medical application and are looking for 61010-1.

 

Can the medical cert and report be leveraged towards 61010-1 or a new report be 
started from scratch?

 

Same for EMC.

 

Thanks,

 

 

 

 

Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy 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 
mailto: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 mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org> >
Mike Cantwell mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org> > 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org> >
David Heald mailto: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:  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] 62368-1 Section 6.4.8 Flammability Confusion

[John E Allen]

As I outlined in a PM to John Woodgate, I'm not able to do that for various
reasons ATM, but it basically involves a (long, tedious, and oft-times
repetitive!) process of dissecting and analysing each section/clause,
paragraph, sentence and  phrase of a standard to the level that one can give
one of the following responses regarding  the "compliance" of the product to
each one of those:

1.  "Not applicable" - with very good reason(s)!
2.  "Compliant" - with the reference to the evidence as necessary (e.g.
test reports, drawings of the compliant parts/labels/etc., materials specs,
compliance reports, etc.)
3.  "Not Compliant" - with the reasons - in which case the "problem"
must be "fixed"! Of course, in the final version of such a product
compliance report then there will be NO statements to this effect because
everything WILL have been "fixed" and thus the response will be either "1"
or "2" above!
4.  "Not established" because "we don't know" - meaning  that further
work is required to establish what then needs to be done to work out what
needs to be checked out in detail and then "fixed, and will result the
response being either "1" or "2" above!

 

Thus, only when all the responses are either "1" or "2" above can the
product be declared compliant to the standard in question.

 

"Simples" in theory, but very difficult/time-consuming in practice - thus it
would be far better for everyone, everywhere, if the IEC committees made
sure that checklists were prepared for each standard in a form that "your
("average" in safety compliance issues but otherwise very competent!)
development engineer" can understand and then meet!

 

In other words: The IEC committees should make sure this is done it right
first time, so that multiple "interpretations" of the standards - and thus
multiple "controversies" are avoided - and thus that compliance verification
process will become more straightforward.

 

PS: it might hopefully  then also result in the standards being far more
clearly and explicitly worded as the committees realise the "errors of their
ways"

 

John E Allen

W.London, UK

From: John Woodgate  
Sent: 06 May 2020 23:06
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] 62368-1 Section 6.4.8 Flammability Confusion

 

Can you please share the format of your 'document and worded' exercise? I
might be able to get at lease a small part of IEC interested in it.

Best wishes John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only www.woodjohn.uk
<http://www.woodjohn.uk>  Rayleigh, Essex UK MAY THE VIRUS NOT BE WITH YOU

On 2020-05-06 20:40, John E Allen wrote:

IMHO & TBH. I encountered such inconsistencies in IEC standards too many
times - which was why I "dissected" several standards (notably 60950, 60204
and 61010-1), rigourously followed the various cross-references, and then
documented and worded them in a form that would allow your ("average" in
safety compliance issues but otherwise very competent!) development
engineers to understand and then meet the  requirements of the standards in
question.

 

Great pity that the IEC tech committees never seem to do the thing - but, if
they did then their standards and Technical Report formats would be far more
easily and clearly understood by everyone!

 

John E Allen

W.London, UK.

 

From: John Woodgate  <mailto:j...@woodjohn.uk>  
Sent: 06 May 2020 19:45
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> 
Subject: Re: [PSES] 62368-1 Section 6.4.8 Flammability Confusion

 

This is the sort of thing that can easily happen in a huge document. It is
extremely difficult, especially where there is a chain of forward and back
cross references, and text pushed off from its primary context to multiple
annexes, to ensure internal consistency.

Best wishes John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only www.woodjohn.uk
<http://www.woodjohn.uk>  Rayleigh, Essex UK MAY THE VIRUS NOT BE WITH YOU

On 2020-05-06 18:35, Carl Newton wrote:

I'm wondering if any list members can explain the rationale behind 62368-1,
in sections 6.4.8.2.2 and 6.8.8.4.  I'm looking at the 2014 edition.

Clause 6.4.6,  Control of fire spread in a PS3 circuit, states that, "Fire
spread in PS3 circuits shall be controlled by applying all of the following
supplementary safeguards:".  In that clause it includes, "by providing a
fire enclosure as specified in 6.4.8."  

Clause 6.4.8.2.2,  Requirements for a fire enclosure, states "For circuits
where the available power does not exceed 4 000 W (see 6.4.1), a fire
enclosure shall comply with the requirements of Clause S.1."  That clause
then goes on to say that V-1 is acceptable

Clause (6.4.8.4) is addressing "Separ

Re: [PSES] 62368-1 Section 6.4.8 Flammability Confusion

[John E Allen]

IMHO & TBH. I encountered such inconsistencies in IEC standards too many
times - which was why I "dissected" several standards (notably 60950, 60204
and 61010-1), rigourously followed the various cross-references, and then
documented and worded them in a form that would allow your ("average" in
safety compliance issues but otherwise very competent!) development
engineers to understand and then meet the  requirements of the standards in
question.

 

Great pity that the IEC tech committees never seem to do the thing - but, if
they did then their standards and Technical Report formats would be far more
easily and clearly understood by everyone!

 

John E Allen

W.London, UK.

 

From: John Woodgate  
Sent: 06 May 2020 19:45
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] 62368-1 Section 6.4.8 Flammability Confusion

 

This is the sort of thing that can easily happen in a huge document. It is
extremely difficult, especially where there is a chain of forward and back
cross references, and text pushed off from its primary context to multiple
annexes, to ensure internal consistency.

Best wishes John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only www.woodjohn.uk
<http://www.woodjohn.uk>  Rayleigh, Essex UK MAY THE VIRUS NOT BE WITH YOU

On 2020-05-06 18:35, Carl Newton wrote:

I'm wondering if any list members can explain the rationale behind 62368-1,
in sections 6.4.8.2.2 and 6.8.8.4.  I'm looking at the 2014 edition.

Clause 6.4.6,  Control of fire spread in a PS3 circuit, states that, "Fire
spread in PS3 circuits shall be controlled by applying all of the following
supplementary safeguards:".  In that clause it includes, "by providing a
fire enclosure as specified in 6.4.8."  

Clause 6.4.8.2.2,  Requirements for a fire enclosure, states "For circuits
where the available power does not exceed 4 000 W (see 6.4.1), a fire
enclosure shall comply with the requirements of Clause S.1."  That clause
then goes on to say that V-1 is acceptable

Clause (6.4.8.4) is addressing "Separation of a PIS from a fire enclosure
and a fire barrier" and is only requiring the application of the S.2 flame
test, which I believe is less demanding in that only a 60 s flame is applied
rather than three steps up to 120 s for the S.1 test method.  Clause 6.4.8.4
then goes on to state that a V-0 material is excluded from the requirement.
So unless I'm mistaken, this clause 6.4.8.4 (which addresses separation) is
requiring a lesser flame requirement than S.1, yet goes on to exclude V-0,
but not V-1.

I don't see the rationale.  I must be missing something here. The most
fundamental question in my mind here is why does 6.8.8.4 allow the S.2 test
method?

Thanks,

Carl

-


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
mailto: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 mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org> >
Mike Cantwell mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org> > 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org> >
David Heald mailto: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
mailto: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 mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org> >
Mike Cantwell mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org> > 

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


-

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

Re: [PSES] NATO Standards

[John E Allen]

You and/or your company may be required to have national security clearance
to the “Restricted” level (and that requires some form of formal security
vetting) in order to gain access to such documents – at least, that’s how it
works in the UK.

 

John E Allen 

W. London, UK

From: loerzer_mob...@globalnorm.de  
Sent: 05 February 2020 12:19
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] NATO Standards

 

Hello,

 

does anybody a source or website where I can get the following standards:

 

-AD 80-83, Allied Command Operations (Aco) Electronic Warfare (EW)
Protection Joint Restricted Frequency List (JRFL) (NATO Restricted, to be
acquired through National Authorities by the Supplier)

-SDIP 27/2 (NATO Confidential, to be acquired through National
Authorities by the Supplier) 

-SDIP 29/2 (NATO Restricted, to be acquired through National
Authorities by the Supplier) 

 

 

Best reagards

 

Dipl.-Ing. (FH) Michael Loerzer

__  __  __  __ 

 

Regulatory Affairs Specialist 

Managing Director
GLOBALNORM

Fon +49 30 3229027-51

Fax +49 30 3229027-59

 <mailto:michael.loer...@globalnorm.de> michael.loer...@globalnorm.de

 <https://www.globalnorm.de/?pk_campaign=Signatur&pk_content=Link> »
globalnorm.de

__  GLOBALNORM  STANDARDS 

 

 
<https://standards.globalnorm.de/normenmanagementsystem-globalnorm.html?pk_c
ampaign=signatur&pk_content=unten> Produktkonformität effizienter gestalten
GLOBALnorm – unser Tool für Normenmanagement
» Jetzt über alle Vorteile informieren!

 

 

Globalnorm GmbH | Sitz der Gesellschaft: Kurfürstenstraße 112, 10787 Berlin
| Geschäftsführer: Dipl.-Ing. (FH) Michael Loerzer | Amtsgericht
Berlin-Charlottenburg HRB 105204 B | USt-ID-Nummer: DE251654448

 

-


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
mailto: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 mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org> >
Mike Cantwell mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org> > 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org> >
David Heald mailto: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:  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: