Hi Andrew, I have generically dealt with motherboard alternates and other pesky stuff as well. Nearly all motherboards I have seen employ a non-rechargeable primary type lithium cell for CMOS backup, and all I have seen use a keyed receptacle that prevents polarity reversal, along with a label or a bit of text in the owner's manual on warnings and battery replacement.
The MFR's know about these requirements and enable their integrating customers to gain certification by including these features in their product's design. They may or may not engage in the services of a safety agency to gain formal certification, because this drives up the cost of their product. Its sort of a game they play with us...some Asian power supply mfr's do this too. For MB's that have no UL file number on them (that would indicate the pwb and it's myriad of circuits are compliant to the 60950 standard. -primarily, overload of user accessible connectors and flame rating of the PWB material) you can perform the tests to produce data that indicates compliance. (assuming you are a client test data certified lab) Most MB's I have seen have a UL or vendor logo marking on the board to indicate flame rating. I have, more than once, been forced to perform the battery charge protection circuitry fault tests, but not on motherboards. hmm,mm the aroma of roasting FR-4 and chip resistors in the morning... You can save yourself some grief by selecting a MB that has a UL file number on it and specifying that in your description. Some agency engineers are skeptical of Asian products and demand test data. Again, it depends on the confidence level you have with your agency folks. I try to cultivate good relations with them. It makes my life easier. I like this replaceable secondary lithium battery backed CMOS memory IC that ST makes. It is UL recognized -no testing required. We use a lot of those. btw, cecil's email bounced, I think because any text in the 'subject' field makes the server barf. kyle -----Original Message----- From: acar...@uk.xyratex.com [mailto:acar...@uk.xyratex.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2001 11:04 AM To: Ehler, Kyle Cc: 'cecil.gitt...@kodak.com'; 'EMC and Safety list' Subject: Re: (was blank, now Alternate construction strategies) Kyle That is exactly the same strategy we take when selling products with integrated PCs. Specify a max power consumption and aim for using a Listed PC. If not, spec the PSU and try keep everything generic. But wanted to high light that changing a mother board can be a little bit more involved. The BIOS will require a lithium power source, and the agencies will want to know specific battery details and the charge protection circuit. Andrew Carson - Product Safety Engineer, Xyratex, UK Phone: +44 (0)23 9249 6855 Fax: +44 (0)23 9249 6014 "Ehler, Kyle" wrote: Hi Cecil! >From a product safety point of view it depends on how extensive the 'upgrade' is and how you have worded your product construction descriptions and 'critical component list'. In this biz, it matters to some degree that my lab is ISO 9001, COMPASS and a UL Client Test Data Program (CTDP) participant. These credentials support the fact that I can be trusted to use impeccable judgment in evaluating the hazard impact to my listed products as they evolve. For example, in most of the ITE products I support, we may uprate the disk drive to a larger capacity, or the controller interface to a higher speed processor, or a different vendor fan. I spec these as a component with a maximum current draw. Provided the alternate components fit within these specifications, the task simplifies to filing a change request with the agencies and providing certificates for the alternate components. Depending on the item being alternately listed, you may have to provide test data (as would be the case with a new power supply with vastly different ratings). In your case, I would attempt to describe the computer as a listed component with a maximum power consumption. When that pc goes end of life, just spec another as alternate, but select a pc that is at or below your previous descriptions. To the product safety agencies, these are simple SELV changes and the underwriting agencies are not overly concerned in the hazards these pose. I describe such components generically if possible to allow substitution, but they must always bear some level of agency recognition (UL listed or recognized component, and/or TUV/VDE marked) that guarantees that the alternate construction components have been evaluated for hazards. >From the EMC point of view, you must fully test to verify compliance and file the data. There is no easy way around it. Regards, Kyle Ehler KCOIQE <mailto:kyle.eh...@lsil.com> Assistant Design Engineer LSI Logic Storage Systems Div. 3718 N. Rock Road U.S.A. Wichita, Kansas 67226 Ph. 316 636 8657 Fax 316 636 8321 -----Original Message----- From: cecil.gitt...@kodak.com [mailto:cecil.gitt...@kodak.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2001 4:42 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: From: Cecil A. Gittens Hi Folk, I have a computer that supports a Color Proofing System. Since any given computer have life cycle of 4 to 6 months. My question is there any way to avoid rectification testing of the computer with each upgrade. Regards Cecil -------------------------------------------
