[PSES] EN 62368-1 : 2014

CENELEC recently extended DoW for 18 months from 06/01/2023 to 06/07/2024. What are the impacts on importers/manufacturers, test houses and market surveillances? EN 62368-1 : 2014 is still valid for LVD/RED in EUOJ. All the relevant products should follow this version for EU markets. What is

Re: [PSES] "how to fish" - UKCA extension legislation

Andrew, Colleagues, I watched the proceeding today, and the proposal received acceptance after some debate. If you missed it, you can view the recording here: https://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/072dac0e-318e-403b-bd0c-29d3834427dd#player-tabs/. It’s also possible to download a recording for

Re: [PSES] Regulation vs Directive

Hi Charlie, Thanks for the explanation! It seems the importers and manufacturers do not have much differences to implement the law accordingly. Regards, Scott On Wed, 7 Dec 2022 at 00:09, Charlie Blackham wrote: > Scott > > > > A Directive has to be transposed into the law of each member

[PSES] Electrical Safety - Fundamental Standards and Concepts

Hello experts, My goal is to put together a reading and reference list of fundamental standards that help me understand the basic physics and rationale behind the requirements in safety standards (mainly EN 62368-1, EN 61010-1, EN 60335-1). I've been finding a lot of useful references from

Re: [PSES] Regulation vs Directive

Scott A Directive has to be transposed into the law of each member state A Regulation applies without the need to do this Types of legislation (europa.eu) The EU is moving towards Regulations as they are

[PSES] Regulation vs Directive

Dear All, Some of the new proposals of Directive change the Directive to Regulation such as General Product Safety Regulation, Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation, Portable battery regulation, etc, . What are the key differences between Regulation and Directive? Thanks and regards, Scott

[PSES] data presentation on ESD simulators

Hi All, I have been hinting at my efforts to characterize ESD simulators and have generated a treasure trove of data on most modern ESD simulators for waveform and E-field emissions to 5 GHz. This data can save an engineer, company, or test lab a lot of effort during ESD testing. The data

Re: [PSES] Secondary creepage/clearance

Thank you to all who provided a response to my question. Your input and comments are, as always, greatly appreciated. Happy Holidays to all I look forward to seeing you at ISPCE in Dallas in May. Best regards, > On 12/01/2022 3:51 PM Steve Brody wrote: > > > I have a client who

[PSES] static fields

Hi All, Did you know that just a static E-field can cause improper operation of some equipment like smoke detectors? No discharge necessary. Just "ES" without "D"! One of my E-field experiments set off a smoke detector in the next room, reliably, from 15+ feet away! You don't want to be near

Re: [PSES] Secondary creepage/clearance

I've had personal experience with lightning coupled transients to the secondary, strong enough to burn out an office Mr Coffee pot. Interestingly, if you have a transformer in the coupling path and the windings are oriented to normally invert a sine wave, the transient will likely not be inverted.

Re: [PSES] Secondary creepage/clearance

Hi Steve: Mains circuits are subject to lightning and switching transients both line-to-neutral and line/neutral-to-ground. The transients are normal; to prevent insulation breakdown and consequential electric shock, the electric strength of mains-to-ground and mains-to-other

[PSES] "how to fish" - UKCA extension legislation

For those keeping score at home on when the UKCA 2yr extension legislation is actually passed, this is how I am tracking Goto https://commonsbusiness.parliament.uk/ Click on HTML or PDF version of "Daily Order Paper" in the "Today's business papers" section. Search on "Metrology" and you

Re: [PSES] Secondary creepage/clearance

Sorry, a word missing: , if your best efforts to find a documented rationale to not apply the requirement FAIL, == Best wishes John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only www.woodjohn.uk Rayleigh, Essex UK I hear,

Re: [PSES] Secondary creepage/clearance

Very good advice. There is a 'dumb' fallback, if your best efforts to find a documented rationale to not apply the requirement, is to consider how much extra it costs to comply with it, compared to the cost of trying to find a reason not to comply with it. For example, I found that replacing

Re: [PSES] Secondary creepage/clearance

Hi Steve: I work mostly with the 60950-1 and 62368-1 standards for ITE, so I’m not familiar with the details of the requirements in 61010-1. That being said, I’ve seen many cases where someone misinterpreted the creepage/clearance/dielectric requirements in 60950-1 and 62368-1, not

Re: [PSES] Secondary creepage/clearance

The simple answer is that you need to provide creepage and clearance distances in secondary circuits to avoid arcing when the circuit is subjected to the absolute worst case surges and transients that the circuit might see. Since this can be difficult to determine, most people just use the tables

[PSES] incorrect test failures

Hi All, Test failures (performance, compliance, or any other) just before product introduction are very expensive. It is not unusual to cost a company US$100,000 or more revenue per day of product delay. Given that... There is an issue with IEC61000-4-2 based ESD testing, and it is

[PSES] Secondary creepage/clearance

I have a client who has a secondary pwb that has traces and vias that may have 100 vdc on them adjacent to ground. Per 61010-1 there is a requirement for spacing and/or dielectric test, both depending on what the mains voltage is. The question is why is the mains voltage a consideration or

[PSES] Latest Technical Tidbit

Hi All, I believe I sent this link at the beginning of the long holiday weekend here in the US. If you are like me, by Monday morning, the email was a few hundred emails down in the list and many missed it. The article talks about the poor repeatability of ESD testing results for IEC

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

Thank-you Mark, .Richard Georgerian Compliance Engineer HID Global From: Stultz, Mark Sent: Monday, November 28, 2022 8:48 AM To: Richard Georgerian ; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: RE: [PSES] Link to secondary legislation draft RE: [PSES] SI amendment providing UKCA label

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

The draft instrument Product Safety and Metrology (Amendment and Transitional Provisions) Regulations 2022 was reviewed and approved by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments on 2022-11-23 ( https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/31741/documents/178147/default/) It now needs to be

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

Greetings all, I have been monitoring the following websites to see when the UKCA legislation has been implemented regarding the easement of the IUKCA marking to 31 DEC 2024. Other than the website below advising that it has been extended to 31 DEC 2024, the actual legislation for the

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

Amund At the bottom of this page https://www.gov.uk/guidance/using-the-ukca-marking 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: Amund Westin Sent: 25 November 2022

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

Sorry if I have missed that information, but where can I find requirements for the UKCA logo which shall be affixed to the product. Need the check out the shape, minimum size, etc. Just like the CE logo has requirements. Thanks! BR Amund Fra: Lauren Crane Sendt: 16. november

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

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

Re: [PSES] EN 62368-1 Ed 3 2020 + A11 : 2020 for GPSD

Thank-you Charlie, .Richard Georgerian Compliance Engineer HID Global From: Charlie Blackham Sent: Monday, November 21, 2022 12:49 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] EN 62368-1 Ed 3 2020 + A11 : 2020 for GPSD Richard My understanding is that CENELEC have just voted

Re: [PSES] EN 62368-1 Ed 3 2020 + A11 : 2020 for GPSD

Richard My understanding is that CENELEC have just voted and decided to extend the DOW of EN 62368-1:2020 to 2024-07-06 As an aside, when selecting standards for CE/UKCA marking (as opposed to IEC CB scheme or similar), it is the manufacturer's responsibility to decide what version of the

[PSES] EN 62368-1 Ed 3 2020 + A11 : 2020 for GPSD

Greeting everyone, To continue this thread - At the CENELEC website: https://standards.cencenelec.eu/dyn/www/f?p=CENELEC:110:FSP_PROJECT,FSP_ ORG_ID:66779,1257189

[PSES] New Technical Tidbit article

Hi All, I have started adding Technical Tidbit articles on my website again. This one is on the significantly different testing outcomes that result from the undocumented (not described in IEC 61000-4-2) differences in ESD simulators because of noise on the current waveforms and E-field

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

Lauren, tks for sharing! Cheers, Scott On Wed, 16 Nov 2022 at 23:41, Lauren Crane < 1afd08519f18-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org> wrote: > Hello All, > > > > In case you are interested in seeing it is more concretely true, here is a > link to the secondary legislation laid before

[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.

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

Dear Members, Would like to receive confirmation that this (proposed) continued acceptance of the CE Mark also applies to the UKCA DoCs. Does anyone has information on this matter? Thank you, Sincerely, Ryan Jazz Ryan Jayasinghe Regulatory Compliance Engineer

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

So we carry on as before … CE mark the product and issue the (CE) EU declaration of Conformity up to Dec. 31, 2024? The UKCA mark and UKCA declaration of Conformity will be voluntary in addition to the CE marking? Best regards Amund Fra: Tom Smith Sendt: 15. november 2022

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

The government has introduced the legislation to make it happen. The government has a majority in parliament therefore passage of the legislation is as certain as anything can be in politics. As it is right now, CE marking (and alternatively UKCA marking) is recognized in the UK, so as long as

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

Thanks for clarification. Do they take effect immediately? On Tue, 15 Nov 2022 at 12:51, wrote: > The June proposal had similarities, but the difference between now and > June is that the June proposal was to allow UKCA markings alternatively on > the accompanying documents whereas this

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

The June proposal had similarities, but the difference between now and June is that the June proposal was to allow UKCA markings alternatively on the accompanying documents whereas this proposal extends recognition of the CE marking. Regards, Tom Smith, P.Eng Principal Engineer TJS Technical

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

Hi Charlie, Yes, it is not a brand new extension as it was mentioned in June this year. Hope it amends the SI shortly. Regards, Scott On Tue, 15 Nov 2022 at 01:44, Charlie Blackham wrote: > All > > > > This relaxation has been trailed / announced, but it is not law until the > Statutory

Re: [PSES] Time zone? RE: [PSES] SI amendment providing UKCA label deadline extension.

I don't know, but would assume time zone local to BEIS. With regard to the legislation title, I don't know that either. I was planning on just checking the new legislation link. On Mon, Nov 14, 2022 at 1:52 PM wrote: > Scott, > > > > One more question…. 3pm in what time zone? > > > > Best

[PSES] Time zone? RE: [PSES] SI amendment providing UKCA label deadline extension.

Scott, One more question 3pm in what time zone? Best Regards, -Lauren From: Scott Aldous <0220f70c299a-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org> Sent: Monday, November 14, 2022 10:52 AM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] SI amendment providing UKCA label deadline extension. You

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

Scott, Thanks for the further information. I've had quite a bit of fun boot-strapping on how to search for "documents laid", etc... Can you say what the title of the secondary legislation will be like when it is laid? Best Regards, -Lauren From: Scott Aldous

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

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

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

All This relaxation has been trailed / announced, but it is not law until the Statutory Instrument has been published on https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ (it’s not there at time of typing) Best regards Charlie Charlie Blackham Sulis Consultants Ltd Tel: +44 (0)7946 624317 Web:

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.

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

Thanks, Scott, for sharing. Some additional information from the same BEIS announcement I received through ITI : We expect the legislation to be laid later today. You will be able to find it on legislation.gov.uk. We are also hosting a webinar specifically for businesses

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

[PSES] SI amendment providing UKCA label deadline extension.

Same here, thank-you Scott. Best regards, .Richard Georgerian HID Compliance Engineer From: Lauren Crane <1afd08519f18-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org> Sent: Friday, November 11, 2022 3:20 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] SI amendment providing UKCA label

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

Thank you very much, Scott. Best Regards, -Lauren From: Scott Aldous Sent: Friday, November 11, 2022 1:55 PM To: Crane, Lauren Cc: EMC-PSTC@listserv.ieee.org Subject: Re: [PSES] SI amendment providing UKCA label deadline extension. External Email: Do NOT reply, click on links, or open

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

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

Re: [PSES] EMC + SIPI 2022 Proceedings Download Issue

Dear Amy Thanks for your Email. Just to let you know that I was able to download and access the EMC + SIPI 2022 Proceedings Download this evening. Therefore my issue is resolved. Please close this incident. Regards Philip Stevenson Sent from

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

John, Sorry, but let me point out that you describe a group of people a potentially undesirable name based on your opinion of what they stand for: that is political. I will be happy to discuss this further, but lets please take the discussion off list. It has no place here. Sincerely,

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

Derek Your comment is itself VERY political! Mine was simply an observation on what might possibly happen  if current trends continue in some EU countries and was in direct reply to John M's question! John E Allen W London, UK ⁣Get BlueMail for Android ​ On 9 Nov 2022, 19:06, at 19:06,

[PSES] SI amendment providing UKCA label deadline extension.

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,

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

Thanks for the "heads up", John. Yes, we make every effort to avoid politics and focus on engineering, but sometimes politics doesn't avoid us.  Possible silver lining - more job openings for product safety / regulatory engineers? 樂 Or even raises??  Best regards, John McBain On Wed, Nov

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

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

Re: [PSES] Pending Regulatory Change to UKCA Program

Hi John - Thanks for letting me know! I admit I would have been surprised (and very pleased) if you had been able to tell me you were ready to give a presentation, but certainly worth asking.  And if I am lucky, some other participant will have a presentation on another product safety /

Re: [PSES] Pending Regulatory Change to UKCA Program

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] Pending Regulatory Change to UKCA Program

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”

Re: [PSES] AW: [PSES] Magnetic fields, human exposure standards, and pacemakers

Thanks Bernd. Does it sound like it also covered magnetic fields from fixed magnets? Dan From: Dürrer Bernd [mailto:bernd.duer...@wilo.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2022 4:19 AM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: [PSES] AW: [PSES] Magnetic fields, human exposure standards, and

[PSES] AW: [PSES] Magnetic fields, human exposure standards, and pacemakers

Hello Dan, on https://www.bfarm.de/DE/Medizinprodukte/Aufgaben/Risikobewertung-und-Forschung/Wissenschaftliche-Aufarbeitung/EMV-Studie_Herzschrittmacher.html you may find a press release from the German Bundesinstitut für Arzneimittel und Medizinprodukte (BfArM; Federal Institute for Drugs and

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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] Pending Regulatory Change to UKCA Program

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

Re: [PSES] Pending Regulatory Change to UKCA Program

Not the same analogy. Sorry. > On Nov 7, 2022, at 1:39 PM, Richard Nute wrote: > > > “It’s a fact the CE mark adds way more cost than the return on investment of > performance improvement.” > > Reminds me of a marketing manager saying to me that safety (and, I assume, > safety

Re: [PSES] Pending Regulatory Change to UKCA Program

“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 -

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

Easy John, but first address my key issue with the EU: surrender of sovereignty. Period. Second, EU is not the only trading market, something missed by members of the community. It’s a fact the CE mark adds way more cost than the return on investment of performance improvement. Not having to

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

Hello Lfresearch - Would you please explain to me how you reconcile "removal of unnecessary trade barriers" and "encouraging for England [*note: actually UK*] to exit from the EU"? Those views seem to be mutually incompatible, since Brexit has raised new non-tariff trade barriers (additional

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

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

Re: [PSES] Magnetic fields, human exposure standards, and pacemakers

Hi Charles, Yes, that would be my take. They know a magnet is used to perform some tasks and they can’t be expected to investigate every fitness tracker or earbud magnet so a blanket CYA is appropriate. If you think about the number of gadgets that have magnets in them it is really up to

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

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

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

Greetings all, My apologies for sending the message again. I shortened the mail. 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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] SV: [PSES] UKCA marking replaces the CE on 01/01/2023

Hi Amund, This https://www.legislation.gov.uk/search is a good source and offer consolidated legislation. The documents are a bit of a mess of amendments because they took the base SIs that implemented CE and then did spot amendments to realize them as UKCA/UKNI documents. Most have sections

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

Greetings all, As a follow-up to John Allen’s email below – Has the UK submitted and/or passed any legislation for the UKCA labelling easement until December 31, 2025? Otherwise, the UKCA labelling starts on December 31, 2022. I went to the www.gov.uk website and

Re: [PSES] Magnetic fields, human exposure standards, and pacemakers

Hello Dan, Dont you think that (irrespective of the warning ) the magnet on the DC cord is *much* weaker than a magnet used to penetrate through the thickness of the human body and then trigger the reed switches? My first thought is that the warning is there as a CYA? Perhaps? On Sun, Nov 6,

Re: [PSES] SV: [PSES] UKCA marking replaces the CE on 01/01/2023

Hi Amund, The legislation used instead of the CE marking directives is almost identical to the EU Directives (pre-brexit we ‘nationalised’ EU directives like the EMC Directive), but with some post-brexit wording changes e.g. Notified Body --> Approved Body Harmonised Standards -->

[PSES] SV: [PSES] UKCA marking replaces the CE on 01/01/2023

Where manufacturers are using existing CE certification completed before 1 January 2023 as the basis to demonstrate compliance with UKCA for their products, we recommend that they include in the UK Declaration of Conformity the list of relevant UK designated standards and equivalent EU

[PSES] UKCA marking replaces the CE on 01/01/2023

«The UK Conformity Assessed (UKCA) mark is a mandatory mark on certain products, for example mobile phones, to indicate that they conform to Great Britain legislation. Businesses have until 1 January 2023 to start using UKCA marking which replaces the CE and reverse epsilon markings now that we

Re: [PSES] Magnetic fields, human exposure standards, and pacemakers

Thank you everyone for the responses. Contacting the customer support number gets you to someone who basically reads back what is on the website and the user manual, so it was not particularly helpful when trying to get to the specifics. In a roundabout way through a friend of a friend I

Re: [PSES] Magnetic fields, human exposure standards, and pacemakers

Dan -- I'd suggest that you have your relative call Support at the pacemaker/defib manufacturer. On a slightly different project, I found a lot of on-line information about device immunity, and I think we even called Support and got additional clarifying information. Go to the source! Mike

Re: [PSES] Magnetic fields, human exposure standards, and pacemakers

Hi Dan, So the issue here is that pacemakers are designed to be stopped with the use of a permanent magnet. When the cardiologist is checking the operation of the pacemaker in the office, they will stop it by placing a permanent magnet on the chest of the patient. They can then see how the

Re: [PSES] Magnetic fields, human exposure standards, and pacemakers

Mains power lines running overhead make magnetic fields at 50/60 hertz…. I lived near Barcelona, Spain, for almost two years. The local trains used overhead lines. The stations used color CRT displays for train info. You could tell when a train was arriving as the display would distort

Re: [PSES] Magnetic fields, human exposure standards, and pacemakers

Recall from school that the H field roll off is third order.  The size of the magnets is small, about 1/8 inch on the ones I have.For comparison, the speaker magnetics in some smart phones are a bit larger and stronger.  And the phone NFC, near field communication, uses AC magnetic fields. Oh,

[PSES] Magnetic fields, human exposure standards, and pacemakers

Hello list! I have a relative with an implanted pacemaker/defibrillator who recently got a fitness tracker that has a magnet for attachment/alignment of the charging cord. There are warnings in the user manual advising against people with pacemakers using this product because of the magnets,

Re: [PSES] Surge Protection Device required by NEC

Since you are seeking compliance with a US-based electrical code, the IEC 61000-4-5 documents may not be applicable. Under UL 508 (17th Ed.), "Industrial Control Equipment", I found the following under " Isolated power supply circuit requirements": b) The construction or circuitry shall

Re: [PSES] Surge Protection Device required by NEC

Exactly!!! The IEC 62326-1 calls out Immunity Test Requirements for Industrial Electromagnetic Environment on the AC Mains, such as ±2kV Fast Transients/Burst, Surges, and Voltage dips and interruptions. If an Industrial Machine is tested and passes these tests, then is additional SPDs required?

Re: [PSES] Surge Protection Device required by NEC

If you are declaring conformance with the EU’s EMC Directive, there are standard surge tests to run. There are generic “light industrial” and “heavy industrial” levels of surge immunity. As shorthand, “heavy” can be interpreted as a facility with its own pad transformer, and “light” as

Re: [PSES] Surge Protection Device required by NEC

Very good information, all. So how do I know if my product is "*effectively protected from voltage surges on the incoming supply circuit"??* Can I test my product to the Surge Immunity Test IEC 61000-4-5 at some voltage??? 2kV?, 3kV? 4kV? higher? to make that determination? How is a Field

Re: [PSES] Surge Protection Device required by NEC

I understand that this is also stated in NFPA 79:2020. Our product would fall under the definition of an industrial machine, but it does not have an Industrial Control Panel. It does have interlocked guards and safety functions to prevent the unexpected starting of the motor when the guard is

Re: [PSES] EU harmonised standard of EN 62368-1 Ed3 : 2020 for General Product Safety Directive

Scott — I am not aware of any policy or practice of eliminating transition periods. My reference is the official list of harmonized standards for each directive on the EU website. I trust that more than the CENELEC dates in the beginning of

Re: [PSES] EU harmonised standard of EN 62368-1 Ed3 : 2020 for General Product Safety Directive

Dear Mike, Appreciate your spotting out the essential part that was over-looked. As explained in above reply, it seems a full version of EN 62368-1 : 2020 is still applied. Did EU remove the transitional period for any updates/amendments recently? From now on, all listed standards take effect

Re: [PSES] EU harmonised standard of EN 62368-1 Ed3 : 2020 for General Product Safety Directive

Hi Charlie, You are right the edition 2 has not been listed in GPSD. The 2022/1401 decision amending 2019/1698 decision states that row 66 and 67 are replaced by EN IEC 62368-1 : 2020 and EN IEC 62368-1 : 2020/A11 : 2020. The row 66 and 67 of 2019/1698 are referenced to EN 60065 and 60950-1.

[PSES] job openings (Kansas City and Raleigh NC area)

Hi All, Garmin has an opportunity for a Sr. Compliance Engineer with 5 years' experience. At our HQ in the Kansas City suburbs, and at our North Carolina campus, we have a product regulatory compliance position that will embed you with some product development teams. You will lead the way to

Re: [PSES] Surge Protection Device required by NEC

Group, The requirement for surge protection in NFPA 70 (2023): 670.6 goes back to NFPA 79, “Electrical Standard for Industrial Machinery.” The scope NEC 70 (2023): 670 refers to NFPA 79, as follows: Article 670 Industrial Machinery 670.1 Scope. This article covers the nameplate data for,

Re: [PSES] Surge Protection Device required by NEC

I am a bit fuzzy on the details, but spd internal to machine has to meet a certain requirement, while if mounted outside, it met another requirement.The outside one was "easier".So a surge box was installed outside of machine.  Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android On Tue, Nov 1, 2022 at 16:02,

Re: [PSES] Surge Protection Device required by NEC

The NEC 670.6 quote triggers some questions: I wonder why industrial machinery with a safety interlock is required to have surge protection as opposed to machinery that does not have an interlock? Is an “on-off” or “run-stop” control considered a “safety interlock”? Is the “surge”

<    5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   13   14   >