[PSES] Date of withdrawal for UL 60950-1 and CSA 60950-1

of withdrawal for UL 60950-1 and CSA 60950-1 Greetings all, Is there a date of withdrawal for the UL and CSA 60950-1? It appears that as long as the product was certified to 60950-1 before December 20, 2020, and the design does not change electrically or use alternate components that require

[PSES] [External] : [PSES] Date of withdrawal for UL 60950-1 and CSA 60950-1

Thanks Monrad. I appreciate the feedback. Thank-you, .RichardG From: Monrad Monsen Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2021 3:31 PM To: Richard Georgerian ; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: RE: [External] : [PSES] Date of withdrawal for UL 60950-1 and CSA 60950-1 Hi Richard, US

Re: [PSES] [External] : [PSES] Date of withdrawal for UL 60950-1 and CSA 60950-1

sday, January 26, 2021 8:49 AM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: [External] : [PSES] Date of withdrawal for UL 60950-1 and CSA 60950-1 Greetings all, Is there a date of withdrawal for the UL and CSA 60950-1? It appears that as long as the product was certified to 60950-1 before December 20,

[PSES] Date of withdrawal for UL 60950-1 and CSA 60950-1

Greetings all, Is there a date of withdrawal for the UL and CSA 60950-1? It appears that as long as the product was certified to 60950-1 before December 20, 2020, and the design does not change electrically or use alternate components that require a certification review, the product can still

Re: [PSES] Correct interpretation of EN 60950-1 or EN 62368-1

ate data; CSA C22.1 Canadian > Electric Code, clause 2-100 marking of equipment give organized > requirements. The requirements here are principally taken from IEC 60065 and > > IEC 60950 series. > > > > *F.3.3.2 Equipment without direct connection to mains* > > Source:

Re: [PSES] Correct interpretation of EN 60950-1 or EN 62368-1

quirements. The requirements here are principally taken from IEC 60065 and > > IEC 60950 series. > > > > *F.3.3.2 Equipment without direct connection to mains* > > Source: IEC 60950-1 > > Purpose: To clarify that equipment powered by mains circuits, but not > direc

Re: [PSES] Correct interpretation of EN 60950-1 or EN 62368-1

direct connection to mains Source: IEC 60950-1 Purpose: To clarify that equipment powered by mains circuits, but not directly connected to the mains using standard plugs and connectors, need not have an electrical rating. Rationale: Only equipment that is directly connected to the mains supplied

[PSES] Correct interpretation of EN 60950-1 or EN 62368-1

Power rating under cl 1.7.1 of EN 60950-1 or cl F3.3 of EN 62368-1 states that "If a unit is not provided with a means for direct connection to a mains supply, it need not be marked with any electrical rating, such as its rated voltage, rated current or rated power." In general, "

[PSES] CSA/UL 60950-1 4.7.2.2 Parts not requiring a fire enclosure

Hi folks, Well, more on the interesting topic of fire enclosures, CSA/UL 60950-1 has 4.7.2.2 Parts not requiring a fire enclosure The following do not require a FIRE ENCLOSURE: - motors; - transformers; - electromechanical components complying with 5.3.5 The question is since motors

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

afety.com] Sent: Thursday, December 7, 2017 11:11 AM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: [PSES] Fwd: [PSES] Was there ever a comparison between IEC 60950-1 and IEC 62368-1 (current edition preferable)? And any rationale for any of the changes It seems like my e-mail response got bounced

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

It seems like my e-mail response got bounced so I am sending again. Apologies if a duplicate. > > Thx to all your feedback and I clearly get the point these are very different > standards but changing from using bits and pieces of IEC 60950-1 to IEC > 62368-1 in our draft IEC 606

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

live the Empire. And my employer tends to absolve themselves of my public statements From: Ted Eckert [mailto:07cf6ebeab9d-dmarc-requ...@ieee.org] Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2017 1:50 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] Was there ever a comparison between IEC 60950-1

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

It appears that my copy of 60950-1 is a bit old. It was hand written on a vellum scroll. My company antiquities director prohibits me from cutting off a piece for spectrographic analysis. Ted Eckert Microsoft Corporation The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those

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

:* Wednesday, December 6, 2017 11:32 AM *To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG *Subject:* Re: [PSES] Was there ever a comparison between IEC 60950-1 and IEC 62368-1 (current edition preferable)? And any rationale for any of the changes Back in the day, the question was asked: "What's the diffe

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

: Doug Powell [mailto:doug...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 6, 2017 11:32 AM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] Was there ever a comparison between IEC 60950-1 and IEC 62368-1 (current edition preferable)? And any rationale for any of the changes Back in the day, the question

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

n working thru all of this. > > > > :>) br, Pete > > > > Peter E Perkins, PE > > Principal Product Safety & Regulatory Affairs Consultant > > PO Box 23427 > > Tigard, ORe 97281-3427 > > > > 503/452-1201 <(503)%20452-1201>

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

lto:p.perk...@ieee.org> p.perk...@ieee.org From: Leo Eisner [mailto:l...@eisnersafety.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 5, 2017 4:40 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: [PSES] Was there ever a comparison between IEC 60950-1 and IEC 62368-1 (current edition preferable)? And any rati

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

te [mailto:j...@woodjohn.uk] Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2017 2:05 AM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> Subject: Re: [PSES] Was there ever a comparison between IEC 60950-1 and IEC 62368-1 (current edition preferable)? And any rationale for any of the chang

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

Re 'rationale', there is some information in Clause 0 of 62368-1 and in IEC 62368-2. But 60950-1 and 62368-1 are fundamentally different, because most of the provisions of 60950-1 were derived from experience and ad-hoc reasoning  but those of 62368-1 are derived from structured reasoning

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

to use TR-106 to compare 60950-1 with 62368-1, 2nd edition). I made some cross-referencing notes for internal use, but even with that, it was fiddly to use. I don't know of anything that compares 60950-1 to the current (2nd) edition or the upcoming 3rd edition. Your favorite NRTL or test house might

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

ECMA TR106, but was done for 1st ed only. Brian From: Leo Eisner [mailto:l...@eisnersafety.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2017 4:40 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: [PSES] Was there ever a comparison between IEC 60950-1 and IEC 62368-1 (current edition preferable)? And any

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

I am in IEC SC62A (60601-1 series of standards - Medical electrical equipment & systems) meetings this week and we are trying to id the differences between these 2 standards so we can figure out how to integrate IEC 62368-1 into IEC 60601-1, 3rd ed. + A2, if we have the time and agreement with

Re: [PSES] Routine Test 60950-1, 62368-1

the construction of your product). >> >> Regarding your comment about height above sea level; the hipot test is >> based on the working voltage and the maximum operating altitude as designed >> (it is not dependent on the actual altitude of the factory). >> >>

Re: [PSES] Routine Test 60950-1, 62368-1

: Kurt Beneder [mailto:kurt.bene...@ieee.org] Sent: Sunday, September 3, 2017 9:20 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] Routine Test 60950-1, 62368-1 Dear Ken its a 19 inch rack mountable product with a backplane and several submodule plug-in pcb's. It has a metall case for mo

Re: [PSES] Routine Test 60950-1, 62368-1

ng voltage and the maximum operating altitude as designed > (it is not dependent on the actual altitude of the factory). > > -Ken A > > > On Sun, Sep 3, 2017 at 11:28 AM, Kurt Beneder <kurt.bene...@ieee.org> > wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> i am defining the routine te

Re: [PSES] Routine Test 60950-1, 62368-1

From: IBM Ken [mailto:ibm...@gmail.com] Sent: 03 September 2017 17:10 To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] Routine Test 60950-1, 62368-1 Hi Kurt! At the system (end product level); -Do you add a PDU and plug on the manufacturing line and plug all the modules

Re: [PSES] Routine Test 60950-1, 62368-1

ll, > > i am defining the routine tests for a 19 inch Rack System according to IEC > 60950-1 and IEC 62368-1. > We test routinely the solid insulation of each submodule during production. > The final system is variable, so some modules are sometimes in the system > or not, dependin

Re: [PSES] Routine Test 60950-1, 62368-1

ttp://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk/> www.jmwa.demon.co.uk J M Woodgate and Associates Rayleigh England UK is a sovereignty, not a Zollverein-ty From: Kurt Beneder [mailto:kurt.bene...@ieee.org] Sent: Sunday, September 3, 2017 4:29 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: [PSES] Routine Test 60950-1, 62368-1

[PSES] Routine Test 60950-1, 62368-1

Hi all, i am defining the routine tests for a 19 inch Rack System according to IEC 60950-1 and IEC 62368-1. We test routinely the solid insulation of each submodule during production. The final system is variable, so some modules are sometimes in the system or not, depending on the configuration

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

There are a few considerations. First, a 60950-1 power supply is generally evaluated to Overvoltage Category II, the 61010-1 application may be something else.  Second, 61010-1 electrical leakage current requirements are much lower.  Third, the standard used for EMC evaluation is different

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

Hi all Good evening,  Since power supply units certified to IEC 60950-1 are more commonly available, may I know can one use a IEC 60950-1 power supply unit to power a test instrument (e.g. In Vitro Diagnostic Instrument) that is going to be certified for IEC 61010-1 ? Hope to hear from you

Re: [PSES] IEC/ANSI/UL/CSA 60950-1 ed.2 Mains Vrms vs Vpeak

2017 11:25 AM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] IEC/ANSI/UL/CSA 60950-1 ed.2 Mains Vrms vs Vpeak Hi Doug: IEC 60664-1 is based on “The physical fundamentals of LOW-VOLTAGE INSULATION CO-ORDINATION,” VDE 57, by Klaus Stimper. This book reports the research basis fo

Re: [PSES] IEC/ANSI/UL/CSA 60950-1 ed.2 Mains Vrms vs Vpeak

;EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>; Richard Nute <ri...@ieee.org> Subject: Re: [PSES] IEC/ANSI/UL/CSA 60950-1 ed.2 Mains Vrms vs Vpeak "Unlike all other engineering disciplines, safety engineering is consensus driven, not research driven. It is almost devoid of physical laws to g

Re: [PSES] IEC/ANSI/UL/CSA 60950-1 ed.2 Mains Vrms vs Vpeak

I have not spent nearly as much time on standards committees as the esteemed Mr. Nute. However, my experience has shown that there is an effort to ensure that there is science backing up the work. IEC 60950-1 has a long history and stems from older standards. We constantly have to balance new

Re: [PSES] IEC/ANSI/UL/CSA 60950-1 ed.2 Mains Vrms vs Vpeak

C/ANSI/UL/CSA 60950-1 ed.2 Mains Vrms vs Vpeak Hi Doug: >From your message, I don’t know if your question is about the concept of >“significant digits” or the standard itself. Perhaps I can answer both. The number 300 can have one, two, or three significant digits. One, for s

Re: [PSES] IEC/ANSI/UL/CSA 60950-1 ed.2 Mains Vrms vs Vpeak

[PSES] IEC/ANSI/UL/CSA 60950-1 ed.2 Mains Vrms vs Vpeak   Hi Doug: From your message, I don’t know if your question is about the concept of “significant digits” or the standard itself.  Perhaps I can answer both. The number 300 can have one, two, or three significant digits.  One, for sure. 

Re: [PSES] IEC/ANSI/UL/CSA 60950-1 ed.2 Mains Vrms vs Vpeak

Product Compliance Engineering Solar Business Schneider Electric From: Richard Nute [mailto:ri...@ieee.org] Sent: Friday, March 31, 2017 4:11 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] IEC/ANSI/UL/CSA 60950-1 ed.2 Mains Vrms vs Vpeak Hi Doug: From your message, I don’t know if your

Re: [PSES] IEC/ANSI/UL/CSA 60950-1 ed.2 Mains Vrms vs Vpeak

ccount for the switching voltage of a SMPS exceeding the mains voltage. Back in the days of IEC 60950-1, 2nd, little attention was paid to IEC 60664-1. One of my colleagues said: “Unlike all other engineering disciplines, safety engineering is consensus driven, not research driven. It is almost devoid of ph

Re: [PSES] IEC/ANSI/UL/CSA 60950-1 ed.2 Mains Vrms vs Vpeak

@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 5:49 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: [PSES] IEC/ANSI/UL/CSA 60950-1 ed.2 Mains Vrms vs Vpeak All, I am reviewing the requirements of "2.10.3.3 Clearances in primary circuits" and it seems interesting to me that the math is off

Re: [PSES] IEC/ANSI/UL/CSA 60950-1 ed.2 Mains Vrms vs Vpeak

...@gmail.comCc: EMC-PSTC@listserv.ieee.orgSubject: Re: [PSES] IEC/ANSI/UL/CSA 60950-1 ed.2 Mains Vrms vs Vpeak Hi Doug;Have you taken a look at IEC 60664 to see if has a similar statement or provides any clarification?  Maybe what you're seeing is just a mistake in 60950-1, 2nd ed...-KenOn Wed, Mar 29, 2017

Re: [PSES] IEC/ANSI/UL/CSA 60950-1 ed.2 Mains Vrms vs Vpeak

Hi Doug; Have you taken a look at IEC 60664 to see if has a similar statement or provides any clarification? Maybe what you're seeing is just a mistake in 60950-1, 2nd ed... -Ken On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 8:48 PM, Doug Powell <doug...@gmail.com> wrote: > All, > > I am reviewing t

[PSES] IEC/ANSI/UL/CSA 60950-1 ed.2 Mains Vrms vs Vpeak

k of 300 Vrms is 424 Vpeak. Using three significant digits instead of two. This value is important to spacings determination in that it invokes using tables 2K plus 2L instead of table 2K alone. I checked the Edition 2 of IEC, ANSI/UL and CSA standards and they all have the same statement. Edit

Re: [PSES] IEC 60950-1 PSU acceptance

Looking for a pre-compliance spectrum analyzer for in-house checking. Found this one from R http://value.rohde-schwarz.com/vi/value/spectrum-analyzers/hms-spectrum-analyzer.html Anyone who have used this one? Regards Amund -

Re: [PSES] IEC 60950-1 PSU acceptance

an.mcbur...@allen-heath.com From: Richard Nute [mailto:ri...@ieee.org] Sent: 05 January 2016 18:58 To: McBurney, Ian <ian.mcbur...@allen-heath.com>; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: RE: [PSES] IEC 60950-1 PSU acceptance Hi Ian: Clause 7.2 only applies if the steady-state current ex

Re: [PSES] IEC 60950-1 PSU acceptance

this exception to the requirement.) Rich From: McBurney, Ian [mailto:ian.mcbur...@allen-heath.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2016 2:05 AM To: ri...@ieee.org; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: RE: [PSES] IEC 60950-1 PSU acceptance Hello Rich. The product only consumes 5W so

Re: [PSES] IEC 60950-1 PSU acceptance

Ian, I am afraid it is not so. I only know that IEC 62368-1 standard that will replace IEC 60950-1 and IEC 60065 is accepting power supply certified to IEC 60065 or IEC 60950-1. Maybe think if you are able to certify your product according to IEC 60950-1 or maybe IEC 62368-1. Check IEC guide

Re: [PSES] IEC 60950-1 PSU acceptance

: McBurney, IanSent: Tuesday, January 5, 2016 6:00 AMTo: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORGReply To: McBurney, IanSubject: [PSES] IEC 60950-1 PSU acceptance Dear Colleagues.   A happy new year to you all!   I have a problem with a well-known safety testing agency regarding an AC/DC “wall wart” ty

Re: [PSES] IEC 60950-1 PSU acceptance

Subject: [PSES] IEC 60950-1 PSU acceptance Dear Colleagues. A happy new year to you all! I have a problem with a well-known safety testing agency regarding an AC/DC "wall wart" type adapter. The adapter is fully approved to IEC/UL 60950-1 but in this case I am using i

[PSES] IEC 60950-1 PSU acceptance

Dear Colleagues. A happy new year to you all! I have a problem with a well-known safety testing agency regarding an AC/DC "wall wart" type adapter. The adapter is fully approved to IEC/UL 60950-1 but in this case I am using it to power a product that is being evaluated to IE

[PSES] 60950-1 Needle Flame Test Questions

List members, I'm hoping that those of you with needle flame test experience can help me with the following questions. This is with regard to fire enclosure plastic compliance within 60950-1 cl. 4.7 and the alternative flame test allowed in A.2: 1. Is the IEC 60695-11-4 flame more

Re: [PSES] 60950-1 Needle Flame Test Questions

Hi Rich, You've covered it all. Thanks! Carl On Sat, 24 Oct 2015 15:07:04 -0400, Richard Nute wrote: Hi Carl: 1. Is the IEC 60695-11-4 flame more or less difficult to pass than the alternative 60695-11-5 flame? The 11-4 is a premixed flame. The 11-5 is not a

Re: [PSES] 60950-1 Needle Flame Test Questions

Hi Carl: > 1. Is the IEC 60695-11-4 flame more or less difficult to pass than the > alternative 60695-11-5 flame? The 11-4 is a premixed flame. The 11-5 is not a premixed flame. The premixed flame would have more energy and therefore hotter and more likely to raise the sample under test to

Re: [PSES] 60950-1 PSU in a 61010-1 product

for the holiday season, Rich -Original Message- From: Doug Powell [mailto:doug...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2014 8:24 AM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] 60950-1 PSU in a 61010-1 product Brian, All quite true and it has been a bit of a problem when

Re: [PSES] 60950-1 PSU in a 61010-1 product

will work safely and properly in the end user environment. The Other Brian -Original Message- From: Gary McInturff [mailto:gary.mcintu...@esterline.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2014 6:39 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] 60950-1 PSU in a 61010-1 product One

Re: [PSES] 60950-1 PSU in a 61010-1 product

.   Finally, there are altitude requirements for greater than 2000 meters.   Finding 60950-1 PSU certified to 3000 meters is extremely difficult. Thanks, - doug Douglas Powell http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01     Original Message   From: Kunde, Brian Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2014 7:07 AM

Re: [PSES] 60950-1 PSU in a 61010-1 product

will work safely and properly in the end user environment. The Other Brian -Original Message- From: Gary McInturff [mailto:gary.mcintu...@esterline.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2014 6:39 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] 60950-1 PSU in a 61010-1 product One

[PSES] 60950-1 PSU in a 61010-1 product

, the final product was powered by a medical PSU (IEC/EN60601-1). I would like to switch to the 60950-1 PSU if possible …. #Amund - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list

Re: [PSES] 60950-1 PSU in a 61010-1 product

@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: [PSES] 60950-1 PSU in a 61010-1 product The final product will be tested according to IEC/EN61010-1 (measurement, control, and laboratory use). To power this product, an open frame AC/DC power will be uses and it holds a CB certificate according to IEC/EN60950-1

Re: [PSES] 60950-1 PSU in a 61010-1 product

[mailto:oconne...@tamuracorp.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2014 2:19 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] 60950-1 PSU in a 61010-1 product At least two test labs have written papers about use of ITE component power supplies in equipment scoped for 61010. The Emperor's search engine

[PSES] Li battery requirements per 60950-1

Good People, Questions for members, or those that have contact with members, of TC108 and/or the North American STP. What is the intent of the last(A2) revision of 60950-1 for Li batteries? Is the requirement for battery assessment to IEC62133 intended just for batteries that are installed

Re: [PSES] Li battery requirements per 60950-1

In message 85ee5c3c683e44e6bb316a26baa77...@blupr02mb116.namprd02.prod.outlook.com , dated Mon, 13 Oct 2014, Brian Oconnell oconne...@tamuracorp.com writes: Is the requirement for battery assessment to IEC62133 intended just for batteries that are installed in the end-use equipment, or does

Re: [PSES] Li battery requirements per 60950-1

On 13. okt. 2014, at 19:22, Brian Oconnell oconne...@tamuracorp.commailto:oconne...@tamuracorp.com wrote: Good People, Questions for members, or those that have contact with members, of TC108 and/or the North American STP. What is the intent of the last(A2) revision of 60950-1 for Li

Re: [PSES] UL 60950-1 clause 2.2.3

In message f6d1e59f218e.540c8...@bendbroadband.com, dated Sun, 7 Sep 2014, Rich Nute ri...@bendbroadband.com writes: I believe the authors of 60950-22 expected that user-accessible parts would comprise SELV circuits rather than grounded parts. See 2.1.1 and 2.2 in 60950-1. Grounded parts

Re: [PSES] UL 60950-1 clause 2.2.3

, 2014 2:42 AM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] UL 60950-1 clause 2.2.3 In message f6d1e59f218e.540c8...@bendbroadband.com, dated Sun, 7 Sep 2014, Rich Nute ri...@bendbroadband.com writes: I believe the authors of 60950-22 expected that user-accessible parts would comprise SELV

Re: [PSES] UL 60950-1 clause 2.2.3

In message b87b3216c599564e9071daf63e06e7491eab4b8...@exchange.wonderwarene.com, dated Mon, 8 Sep 2014, John Cochran jcoch...@strongarm.com writes: require the installer to use the external ground connection in addition to the internal PE ground. The system is safe under normal conditions,

Re: [PSES] UL 60950-1 clause 2.2.3

To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] UL 60950-1 clause 2.2.3 It appears that I can only meet this requirement for outdoor enclosures by either using a Class 2 power supply, or require the installer to use the external ground connection in addition to the internal PE ground

Re: [PSES] UL 60950-1 clause 2.2.3

In message ea4ca5c9ced91040aa61aacf92458866a42...@ukldexm02.global.spiraxsarco.com , dated Mon, 8 Sep 2014, Ian White (SXS UK) ian.wh...@uk.spiraxsarco.com writes: Not wishing to throw a spanner in the works - l have to mention different earths can be at different potentials. Strange but

Re: [PSES] UL 60950-1 clause 2.2.3

HI John: As mentioned in my first response, you will have the same problem (half the mains on the enclosure) if you use a Class II power supply. If you talk with your NRTL, I'm sure he will accept your construction based on 60950-1, 5.1 rather than 60950-22. Your equipment is not unsafe

Re: [PSES] UL 60950-1 clause 2.2.3

Actually I need to meet the standard for outdoor enclosures, UL 60950-22, and clause 6.1 refers back to UL 60950-1 clause 2.2.2 and 2.2.3. The difference is the voltage limits are reduced, due to contact resistance of the body being reduced when subjected to wet locations. The clause states

Re: [PSES] UL 60950-1 clause 2.2.3

In message b87b3216c599564e9071daf63e06e7491eab4b8...@exchange.wonderwarene.com, dated Sun, 7 Sep 2014, John Cochran jcoch...@strongarm.com writes: Actually I need to meet the standard for outdoor enclosures, UL 60950-22, and clause 6.1 refers back to UL 60950-1 clause 2.2.2 and 2.2.3

Re: [PSES] UL 60950-1 clause 2.2.3

Hi John: I believe the authors of 60950-22 expected that user-accessible parts would comprise SELV circuits rather than grounded parts. See 2.1.1 and 2.2 in 60950-1. Grounded parts would be subject to 5.1 in 60950-1. Best regards, Rich - Original Message - From: John Cochran

[PSES] UL 60950-1 clause 2.2.3

From: John Cochran Sent: Friday, September 05, 2014 3:47 PM To: 'emc-p...@ieee.org' Subject: UL 60950-1 clause 2.2.3 I am doing compliance testing on an outdoor computer/display and am having problems with complying with clause 2.2.3 of UL 60950-1 and clause 6.2 of UL 60950-22. When the earth

Re: [PSES] UL 60950-1 clause 2.2.3

:* Friday, September 05, 2014 3:47 PM *To:* 'emc-p...@ieee.org' *Subject:* UL 60950-1 clause 2.2.3 I am doing compliance testing on an outdoor computer/display and am having problems with complying with clause 2.2.3 of UL 60950-1 and clause 6.2 of UL 60950-22. When the earth ground is disconnected

[PSES] IEC/EN/UL/CSA 60950-1 (ed. 2) A2

List members, I'm having a hard time understanding how this safety standard can require 'all symbols' used on a product to be explained in the operators manual? The non-safety symbols especially. Anyone know of any IEC TC108 members I can email? I have a call into my overseas safety lab tonight.

[PSES] IEC 60950-1 A2:2013 clause 1.7.1.3

Thanks everyone for your replies. The consensus is that every symbol needs to be explained in the owner's manual. Thanks, Michael Sundstrom Garmin Compliance Engineer 2-2606 (913) 440-1540 Whatever your discipline, become a student of excellence in all things. Take every opportunity to

[PSES] IEC 60950-1 A2:2013 clause 1.7.1.3

I have a question about interpretation of this clause: 1.7.1.3 Use of graphical symbols Graphical symbols placed on the equipment, whether required by this standard or not, shall be in accordance with IEC 60417 or ISO 3864-2 or ISO 7000, if available. In the absence of suitable symbols, the

Re: [PSES] IEC 60950-1 A2:2013 clause 1.7.1.3

standards (after paying for them) to look up their meaning (not a very reasonable expectation). Regards, Lauren Crane KLA-Tencor From: Sundstrom, Mike [mailto:mike.sundst...@garmin.com] Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2014 3:09 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: [PSES] IEC 60950-1 A2:2013 clause

Re: [PSES] IEC 60950-1 A2:2013 clause 1.7.1.3

] IEC 60950-1 A2:2013 clause 1.7.1.3 I have a question about interpretation of this clause: *1.7.1.3 Use of graphical symbols* Graphical symbols placed on the equipment, whether required by this standard or not, shall be in accordance with IEC 60417 or ISO 3864-2 or ISO 7000, if available

Re: [PSES] IEC 60950-1 A2:2013 clause 1.7.1.3

@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] IEC 60950-1 A2:2013 clause 1.7.1.3 It seems to me the only reasonable interpretation is A (All symbols). If that were *not* the correct answer it would imply either 1) the IEC/ISO symbols were perfectly self-explanatory (and I think they are not), or 2

Re: [PSES] 60950-1 durability test solvent

In message 5BE799EB4B1A424BA16063A6C0D9D6DB@Pete97219Compaq, dated Tue, 26 Mar 2013, Pete Perkins peperkin...@cs.com writes: Complication, obfuscation and despair... How can something so simple be made so complicated. As I explained, simply by a convener not being a chemist and

Re: [PSES] 60950-1 durability test solvent

Sent: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 4:28 Subject: Re: [PSES] 60950-1 durability test solvent David et al, Lot's of discussion around a topic that is hardly mainstream in most roduct certifications. The frustrating part is that the 950 committee intended to implement simple test that had

Re: [PSES] 60950-1 durability test solvent

Lighter re-fill fluid (as used in Zippo type cigarette lighters) is a pretty good match for the solvent required and comes in handy sized containers from many high street locations. Nick. On 26 Mar 2013, at 18:32, Gelfand, David david.gelf...@ca.kontron.com wrote: Is there a product I

Re: [PSES] 60950-1 durability test solvent

eBay - http://www.ebay.com/sch/n-hexane T - Original Message - From: Gelfand, David Sent: 03/26/13 06:32 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: [PSES] 60950-1 durability test solvent Is there a product I can buy at the hardware store that is roughly equivalent to the hexane

Re: [PSES] 60950-1 durability test solvent

In message 20130327092640.323...@gmx.com, dated Wed, 27 Mar 2013, Anthony Thomson ton...@europe.com writes: eBay - http://www.ebay.com/sch/n-hexane T Yes, this is the genuine stuff, and I don't suppose the bottles are labelled 'Methyl Alcohol'. (;-) -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. See

Re: [PSES] 60950-1 durability test solvent

In message 7dbab8bb-e580-4ce5-9119-91dba3c7a...@conformance.co.uk, dated Wed, 27 Mar 2013, Nick Williams nick.willi...@conformance.co.uk writes: Lighter re-fill fluid (as used in Zippo type cigarette lighters) is a pretty good match for the solvent required and comes in handy sized

Re: [PSES] 60950-1 durability test solvent

Or ask UL where they purchase their stuff! Sent from my iPhone Peter S. Merguerian pe...@goglobalcompliance.com Go Global Compliance Inc. www.goglobalcompliance.com (408) 931-3303 On Mar 26, 2013, at 4:51 PM, John Woodgate j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk wrote: In message

Re: [PSES] 60950-1 durability test solvent

Anthony, IF we are following the CAS Number, then, this ebay product  is definitely not the one specified within the 60950-1 Standard. As per cas.org, a CAS Nr: - Is a unique numeric identifier - Designates only one substance - Has no chemical significance - Is a link to a wealth

Re: [PSES] 60950-1 durability test solvent

In message 3d061464a0c0bb438a8712afce9013831d92d...@tor1exc01.americas.tsp.ad, dated Wed, 27 Mar 2013, Bolintineanu, Constantin cbolintine...@tycoint.com writes: IF we are following the CAS Number, then, this ebay product  is definitely not the one specified within the 60950-1 Standard

Re: [PSES] 60950-1 durability test solvent

- From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of John Woodgate Sent: March-27-13 7:59 AM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] 60950-1 durability test solvent In message 3d061464a0c0bb438a8712afce9013831d92d...@tor1exc01.americas.tsp.ad, dated Wed, 27 Mar 2013

Re: [PSES] 60950-1 durability test solvent

*Monohydroxymethane *NSC 85232 *Solutions, Bieleski's *UN 1230 *UN 1230 *WOOD ALCOHOL The seller specifies that in those WHITE (?) bottles is a chemical with CAS 110-54-3...I will never buy that stuff... Is this Methanol considered acceptable for testing as per the Clause 1.7.11 of 60950-1 series of Standards

Re: [PSES] 60950-1 durability test solvent

: Bolintineanu, Constantin Sent: 03/27/13 11:38 AM To: Anthony Thomson, EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: RE: [PSES] 60950-1 durability test solvent Anthony, IF we are following the CAS Number, then, this ebay product is definitely not the one specified within the 60950-1 Standard. As per cas.org

Re: [PSES] 60950-1 durability test solvent

] On Behalf Of John Woodgate Sent: March-27-13 8:26 AM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] 60950-1 durability test solvent In message 3d061464a0c0bb438a8712afce9013831d92e...@tor1exc01.americas.tsp.ad, dated Wed, 27 Mar 2013, Bolintineanu, Constantin cbolintine...@tycoint.com writes

[PSES] Fw: RE: [PSES] 60950-1 durability test solvent

I should add that the the eBay item I refer to is http://www.ebay.com/itm/121054199276 - Original Message - From: Anthony Thomson Sent: 03/27/13 12:41 PM To: Bolintineanu, Constantin, EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: RE: [PSES] 60950-1 durability test solvent Constantine, You should

Re: [PSES] 60950-1 durability test solvent

applicable rights to privilege have not been waived. From: Anthony Thomson [mailto:ton...@europe.com] Sent: March-27-13 8:42 AM To: Bolintineanu, Constantin; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: RE: [PSES] 60950-1 durability test solvent Constantine,   You should read the original post

Re: [PSES] 60950-1 durability test solvent

In message 3d061464a0c0bb438a8712afce9013831d92e...@tor1exc01.americas.tsp.ad, dated Wed, 27 Mar 2013, Bolintineanu, Constantin cbolintine...@tycoint.com writes: John you are right! (my opinion only!). Those are not the required substances. The bottles aren't; they are just pictures of the

Re: [PSES] 60950-1 durability test solvent

In message 3d061464a0c0bb438a8712afce9013831d92e...@tor1exc01.americas.tsp.ad, dated Wed, 27 Mar 2013, Bolintineanu, Constantin cbolintine...@tycoint.com writes: I would like to be more specific: I did not consider that Anthony specified the WHITE bottles. Those (in my opinion) are NOT

Re: [PSES] 60950-1 durability test solvent

received this e-mail in error, please contact the sender and delete it from your system. From: Pete Perkins peperkin...@cs.com To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Date: 03/26/2013 11:29 PM Subject:Re: [PSES] 60950-1 durability test solvent David et al, Lot's

Re: [PSES] 60950-1 durability test solvent

In message OFE815E095.D25FB00D-ON86257B3B.004CB8DC-86257B3B.0051B80F@LocalDomain, dated Wed, 27 Mar 2013, Binayak Marahatta binayak.maraha...@kebamerica.com writes: I believe that the value of Durability of marking is very high. When I worked for ITT in Britain, we used the definitive

[PSES] 60950-1 durability test solvent

Is there a product I can buy at the hardware store that is roughly equivalent to the hexane specified in durability test: The petroleum spirit to be used for the test is aliphatic solvent hexane having a maximum aromatics content of 0,1 % by volume, a kauributenol value of 29, an initial

Re: [PSES] 60950-1 durability test solvent

the same as 60950-1! Best regards, Rich On 3/26/2013 11:32 AM, Gelfand, David wrote: Is there a product I can buy at the hardware store that is roughly equivalent to the hexane specified in durability test: The petroleum spirit to be used for the test is aliphatic solvent hexane having

  1   2   3   4   5   >