: Thursday, June 09, 2016 6:00 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] fire safety test methods for different country standards
Ralph,
This might be true but that is not how we saw it way back when. The 240VA
"Energy Hazard" was not a consideration for the protection ag
> This is my recollection of where 240VA came from and
> how it was used.
In a 1966 UL meeting with industry on the requirements in UL 478, the minutes
report:
"Where high current is available at potentials down to about 2 volts, enough
energy is available to melt and splatter metal from neck
> The 240VA "Energy Hazard" was not a
> consideration for the protection against Fire but a limit
> value for accessible parts by the User.
The energy hazard requirement (in the 950-series standards) is that the
conductors shall not be bridged by the test finger (which has a spherical tip).
If
2016 3:11 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] fire safety test methods for different country standards
Hi Chuck,
A poor choice of words on my part. I should have written, "in most of the
standards I have worked in". Those include CSA107.1, UL1741, UL1012, and
IEC62
> The 15W is the *dissipated* power level to determine if
> PIS. The standard is somewhat ambiguous because it uses
> the term 'location' in definition, but 'circuit' in 6.2.
Well... the intent was the maximum power available into a fault.
Rich
-
-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] fire safety test methods for different country standards
> Example: I measure and determine that an electrolytic
> capacitor temperature is compliant with the standard, but
> what happens when that capacitor eventually fails due to
> large ri
> Example: I measure and determine that an electrolytic
> capacitor temperature is compliant with the standard, but
> what happens when that capacitor eventually fails due to
> large ripple current and then overheats and catches fire.
> That's a single fault condition (a component fault), but
PM
To: Ralph McDiarmid <ralph.mcdiar...@schneider-electric.com>
Cc: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: [PSES] fire safety test methods for different country standards
Tried a flint and steel recently? Lots of history!
>-Original Message-
>From: Ralph McDiarmid [mailto:
@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] fire safety test methods for different country standards
> So, for the protection against FIRE, we have two energy
> rates, 100VA and 240VA, used across quite a number of
> standards, and the units are wrong. Should be Watts.
Agree. But, for pessimis
> So, for the protection against FIRE, we have two energy
> rates, 100VA and 240VA, used across quite a number of
> standards, and the units are wrong. Should be Watts.
Agree. But, for pessimism, use VA.
My experience and tests show that a product fire can be started by 15 watts!
The
> " Safety standards are not tested to see if they accomplish
> the objective"
>
> I'm not sure how one would go about doing that, other
> than gathering data from customer returns and from
> product recalls.
All safety standards include means to determine if the product complies with
the
-
From: Ralph McDiarmid [mailto:ralph.mcdiar...@schneider-electric.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2016 1:31 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] fire safety test methods for different country standards
So, for the protection against FIRE, we have two energy rates, 100VA and 240VA
ERV.IEEE.ORG
>Subject: Re: [PSES] fire safety test methods for different country standards
>
To
>assume a prototype or two accurately represents a field population of say
>10,000
>units is an act of faith, and hoping that the odds are with you.
>
>Ralph McDiarmid
>Product Com
Tried a flint and steel recently? Lots of history!
>-Original Message-
>From: Ralph McDiarmid [mailto:ralph.mcdiar...@schneider-electric.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, June 8, 2016 5:27 PM
>To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
>Subject: Re: [PSES] fire safety test methods for di
C-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] fire safety test methods for different country standards
Hi Chuck,
A poor choice of words on my part. I should have written, "in most of the
standards I have worked in". Those include CSA107.1, UL1741, UL1012, and
IEC62109-1
The 240VA (I think they
: [PSES] fire safety test methods for different country standards
> Not following instructions is foreseeable misuse...
Depends.
I define "misuse" as using the product for some use other than its intended
use. Standing on a chair is misuse of the chair.
Misuse (my defin
Subject: Re: [PSES] fire safety test methods for different country standards
Hi Chuck,
A poor choice of words on my part. I should have written, "in most of the
standards I have worked in". Those include CSA107.1, UL1741, UL1012, and
IEC62109-1
The 240VA (I think they meant 240W) must
ri...@ieee.org]
Sent: Sunday, May 22, 2016 2:39 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] fire safety test methods for different country standards
Our most common and serious safety issue is that of product electrically-caused
fire. I subscribe to "In Compliance" weekly recal
240 VA (not W) is defined as "energy hazard" in UL/IEC 60950 and its
predecessors, UL 950 and UL 478. "Energy hazard" only applies if the potential
is 2 V or more.
(The dimension for energy is the Joule, not the volt-ampere.)
The standards state:
"A risk of injury due to an energy
.@schneider-electric.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2016 3:11 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] fire safety test methods for different country standards
Hi Chuck,
A poor choice of words on my part. I should have written, "in most of the
standards I have worked in".
uck August-McDowell [mailto:chu...@meyersound.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2016 11:22 AM
To: Ralph McDiarmid <ralph.mcdiar...@schneider-electric.com>
Subject: RE: [PSES] fire safety test methods for different country standards
Hi Ralph,
I live in the IEC/EN/UL 60065 standard world.
Could yo
> Not following instructions is foreseeable misuse...
Depends.
I define "misuse" as using the product for some use other than its intended
use. Standing on a chair is misuse of the chair.
Misuse (my definition) cannot be foreseeable because it depends on what the
user needs to do (and has
-
From: Richard Nute [mailto:ri...@ieee.org]
Sent: Sunday, May 22, 2016 5:40 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] fire safety test methods for different country standards
Hi John:
Thanks for your additional comments.
> Could it be that the scenarios which the standa
11:11 PM
> To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: Re: [PSES] fire safety test methods for different country standards
>
> Rich.
>
> Could it be that the scenarios which the standards committees envisage are not
> "the real deal", OR that the products
Hi John:
Thanks for your additional comments.
> Could it be that the scenarios which the standards
> committees envisage are not "the real deal"
In my opinion, this is the case.
> OR that the
> products which cause the fires just don't comply with the
> standards?
Of course, counterfeit and
2:39
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] fire safety test methods for different country standards
Our most common and serious safety issue is that of product electrically-caused
fire. I subscribe to "In Compliance" weekly recall notices; most are fire.
As Ge
Our most common and serious safety issue is that of product electrically-caused
fire. I subscribe to "In Compliance" weekly recall notices; most are fire.
As Gert Gremmen has stated, no fault-testing has resulted in a product fire in
the test lab, yet product fires continue to occur in the
@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] fire safety test methods for different country standards
Gert
In many instances I think you are probably on the right track - but mainly
w.r.t. to 61010 kit for professional / semi-professional use, as opposed to
60950 where a lot of the kit certified
RG
Subject: Re: [PSES] fire safety test methods for different country standards
I was wondering if these type of fire propagation tests are still of any
relevance.
Nowadays most electronic designs have been built with compliant (be it UL or
VDE or any other reputable test house) and wir
E.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] fire safety test methods for different country standards
Hi Scott:
“In general, the users and testing houses are referring to the rating of UL
yellow card rather than the actual test on individual final designed pcb.
Should we use it to object their normal pra
Hmm. Thanks to Ted Eckert, the small tablet may have been methenamine.
Rich
-
This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your
Thanks, Brian.
I recall now. I used hexamine tablets. I used two sizes, one about ½ inch
diameter and ¼ inch thick, and the other about the size of an aspirin tablet.
I placed the hexamine on top of the component I expected to catch fire, ignite
the pellet, put the enclosure back on,
reflect those of my
employer.
From: Brian O'Connell [mailto:oconne...@tamuracorp.com]
Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2016 3:51 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] fire safety test methods for different country standards
Rich,
Congratulations on your IEEE Fellow appointment. Do we
by igniting several bars in sealed
chamber, then marching the troops in to subsequently remove their masks to sing
our ‘tribal song’.
Brian
From: Richard Nute [mailto:ri...@ieee.org]
Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2016 10:32 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] fire safety test methods
EE.ORG; 'John Woodgate' <jmw1...@btinternet.com>
Subject: RE: [PSES] fire safety test methods for different country standards
BTW: if that “safety expert” had looked closer, I think he would have found
that something like 60065 would have been far more difficult with which to
comply than
[mailto:john_e_al...@blueyonder.co.uk]
Sent: 21 May 2016 20:44
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] fire safety test methods for different country standards
John
Re
“I had an enquiry once as to whether IEC 60065 could be applied to a 10 kW
industrial fan heater, because
From: John Allen [mailto:john_e_al...@blueyonder.co.uk]
Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2016 7:47 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] fire safety test methods for different country standards
Rich
With respect to actual testing of the materials in the enclosure, that was also
ct: Re: [PSES] fire safety test methods for different country standards
Rich
With respect to actual testing of the materials in the enclosure, that was also
impractical because there was (still is) a wide range of lengths and diameters,
which were always very well populated because the
was adequate – and we were!
John E Allen
W. London, UK
From: Richard Nute [mailto:ri...@ieee.org]
Sent: 21 May 2016 18:32
To: 'John Allen'; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: [PSES] fire safety test methods for different country standards
Hi John:
Thanks for your comments
Hi John:
Thanks for your comments.
In the end, the “solution” was a different sort of pragmatic approach because
the boards were always enclosed in hermetically sealed high pressure (10,000
psi+) / temperature (180C+) -resistant stainless steel tubes which have very
little
Hi Scott:
“In general, the users and testing houses are referring to the rating of UL
yellow card rather than the actual test on individual final designed pcb.
Should we use it to object their normal practice. How often is it successful?”
Testing in place is a
@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] fire safety test methods for different country standards
In my last job I tried to do something similar w.r.t. PWB materials for
applications where V-1 or better materials aren’t any good because the
retardants result in reduced service lives
Hi Rich,
Thanks for your sharing experience! In general, the users and testing houses
are referring to the rating of UL yellow card rather than the actual test on
individual final designed pcb. Should we use it to object their normal
practice. How often is it successful?
Regards,
Scott
In my last job I tried to do something similar w.r.t. PWB materials for
applications where V-1 or better materials aren’t any good because the
retardants result in reduced service lives in hostile equipment environments,
whereas some specific (and very special!) HB materials last much
ld lead you to UL
> 723 (ASTM E84) amongst other things
>
>
>
> John E Allen
>
>
>
> *From:* John Allen [mailto:john_e_al...@blueyonder.co.uk]
> *Sent:* 19 May 2016 18:31
> *To:* 'Adam Dixon'; 'EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG'
> *Subject:* RE: [PSES] fire s
for assessing the fire hazard of electrotechnical
products –
General guidelines”
John E Allen.
W.London, UK
From: Adam Dixon [mailto:lanterna.viri...@gmail.com]
Sent: 19 May 2016 13:44
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] fire safety test methods for different country standards
of electrotechnical
products –
General guidelines”
John E Allen.
W.London, UK
From: Adam Dixon [mailto:lanterna.viri...@gmail.com]
Sent: 19 May 2016 13:44
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] fire safety test methods for different country standards
Apart from purchasing multiple standards
Apart from purchasing multiple standards, are there reference materials
that may guide preliminary in-house fire safety testing (flame spread) for
materials categorized as building components? I have come across summary
descriptions of multiple test standards (BS476, ISO9705, ISO5660, DIN-4102,
48 matches
Mail list logo
