UL
http://database.ul.com/cgi-bin/XYV/template/LISEXT/1FRAME/index.htm
CSA
http://directories.csa-international.org/
TUV
http://www.tuvdotcom.com/TUVdotCOM/home.jsp
VDE
http://pzi.vde.com/en/ (search for certification register)
Brian
-Original Message-
From: Ron Pickard [
Sir
I must concur with Mr Woodgate. This particular instance in (very) infamous in
the U.S. Navy USMC, but mostly for shipboard fire-fighting instruction and
damage control protocol. The flight-deck videos of this are still shown to
students of the fire-fighting school for carrier crew.
The
If you are actually refering to EN 60950:1992 + A2, the date in CC paragraph
is listed as March 2000, so any certification may no longer be valid.
Assuming the standard used for the investigation is still valid, I would still
assume that , due to annex C, withstand test levels, and other national
Good People,
In corporate America, the IT folks have become principal policy makers; they
influence most high-level business decisions. Engineering groups cannot effect
change to information security policy. And, with the advent of Windows 2000
becoming the common desktop OS, individual
CONFLICT OF INTEREST NOTICE:
my employer makes component SMPSs
A common problem, often perceived as noise, is when the control loop of the
electronic load is operating at a beat frequency of one of the SMPS control
loops. I typically use a quality (X/Y-rated) cap from the load test-power
Good People of PSTC:
I have noted that there is a CCA decision stating that the plastic enclosure
of a semiconductor cab be considered as basic insulation...
But I cannot find manufacturers' specs listing the dielectric strength of the
plastic case (e.g., TO-0220). Am I overlooking an obvious
Makes sense to me, but we are not shipping to a customer on this side of the
pond...
So the consensus is, that I write the power supply's D of C to conform to the
LVD, and cite EN 60601-1 (the standard referenced in the unit's agency
certifications and CB Report).
thanks much,
Brian
Would
Gentlemen
Thanks for the ideas. But as the LVD specifically precludes medical stuff, how
can I declare conformity? Has any NCB issued a formal recomendation for this
particular combination?
Would my customer (manufacturer of the end-use medical device) have any
trouble in Europe when the D of C
Good people of PSTC
One of our custom (component) SMPS is evaluated/certified to IEC/EN60601-1.
The LVD precludes medical stuff, and the MDD is ambiguous on components or
materials being scoped by the MDD.
The customer has determined that indicated conformance should be the LVD. If
the
Many good Sorenson, HP, Agilent, and other units always seem to be available
on ebay. Be careful how you pay.
Search for Surplus Test Equipment on google.
good luck,
Brian
I am looking for an inexpensive AC to DC power supply with an ADJUSTABLE
0-80 V dc and up to 125 A output. I am sure
Mr Poore
While you are correct in the intent and meaning of the standard; my point was,
that if the customer specs product compliance with standard xyz, than the
requirements of xyz becomes your design and test target. I have lost count of
the number of times that a customer has spec'd 601-1 or
The term monitor in the Instrumentation context does not always infers a
display device. Monitor, in this context, could refer to a data acquisition
device.
I have not read anything in 601-x-x standards or the med directive, that would
make me believe that the intended end-use of an instrument
If end-use wiil never see contact w/patient or test subject, and equipment can
be classified as Electrical Test and/or Measurement equipment, and does NOT
fall under the scope of the Med Directive, and can be scoped under the LVD,
then 61010-1 is applicable standard.
Of course, the customer spec
The index of my copy of EN 60950:2000 refers to non-existent clauses (e.g.,
7.x, 1.2.13.14, etc). Is is safe to assume that these are typos ?
R/S,
Brian O'Connell
Taiyo Yuden (USA), Inc.
Type Test voltages are not the same as the unit's ratings. If the unit is
based on a 1010-1 or 950 standard, the voltage range for Type Tests must be
10% less and 6% greater than the unit's ratings.
The FUS report will not include the unit's Test Report; as an individual FUS
report is intended
Assuming the ripple portion of the current signal does not have a significant
crest factor, a decent digital multimeter accross a shunt (both shall be
calibrated units) will provide acceptable data. If the unit cannot maintain a
current level, than the load must be reduced. In general,
Sir
For some time, both UL and TUV have required my employer to test with a 25A to
40A current, depending on the branch circuit rating that the device can be
connected to (as specified in the Conditions of Acceptability). Also, CSA has
(at least for as long as I have been employed here) always
Sir
Based on *anecdotal* experience, use of PWB trace for P.E. is common only in
SMPSs that have no chassis or surrounding frame. For example, my employer,
mostly for the reasons published in this thread, does not use a PWB-only P.E
on any (AC/DC converter) SMPS. While my employer offers some
LO - internal backup battery weak
50 - not listed
81 - not listed
if the error was actually 580, the amp was not able to complete a probe
offsett adjustment. Make sure the probe jaws are completly closed.
the firmware for my units only displays error codes 260.
Brian
-Original
The Bad: some FETs fail very violently, and can actually be a fire hazard
and/or shock hazard in open-frame switchers;
Really? There doesn't seem to be enough combustible material to cause a
fire hazard, and an open-frame switcher always has to be in some sort of
outer enclosure, doesn't it?
Sir
To paraphrase Mr. Mertinooke (previous post in this thread), my testing also
goes way beyond requirments of 950 and 1010-based standards, because these
standards have not, and cannot keep up with advances in circuit design and
materials technology. As very small, hi power-density (e.g.,
of the testing that I perform that the
agencies think is really great stuff...
R/S,
Brian
From: Lou Aiken [mailto:ai...@gulftel.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2003 2:19 PM
To: boconn...@t-yuden.com; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Re: single fault conditions
Wow, I would have to think
Good People of PSTC
The environment being considered is a switching power supply. The technique
that safety agencies use to simulate a SFC on a power FET does not seem, IMHO,
to simulate the actual failure mode of the device. To wit: when the mosfet
fails short, it blows itself open; so the
Sir
A rather large bucket of worms, these PFC and conducted emissions issues (pls
see 61000-3-2).
No, this is not much of an issue for the U.S. (unless your facility is
actually affecting the utility); but I have read that the EC is currently
engaged is some interesting emission requirements
Sir
Board level buses, (IIC, etc) are not intended for external use. Note that
the electrical part of these standards do not really address EMC issues.
These busses are intended as internal constructions (no permanent external
port), logic-level, and are mostly just software protocols.
I
Good People of PSTC
Can EN60950-1:2001 be used agency reports and certificates?
Can IEC60950-1, 1st ed be used for CB reports?
R/S,
Brian O'Connell
Taiyo Yuden (USA), Inc.
Sir
What is the rationale given for some people not accepting an EN standard
issued by BSI?
My employer typically buys EN stds from BSI. Is there something different
about BSI-printed standards?
thanks for info.
R/S,
Brian O'Connell
Taiyo Yuden (USA), Inc.
-Original Message-
Good People
Is there a formal definition for End User, as found in the proposal for the
new EMC Directive ( 2002/0306(COD) )?
Would a component power supply be considered an apparatus under this
proposal?
thanks much.
R/S,
Brian O'Connell
Taiyo Yuden (USA), Inc.
28 matches
Mail list logo
