Hi Guys, I've been in a lot of trouble this week and had a lot of questions. But, my way of thinking is...if you're not in a little trouble, you're not in the game.
Anyway...we want to purchase fiber optic switches for use with our OTDR (Optical Time Domain Reflectometer) modules. The switches and OTDR modules mount in a Compact PCI chassis as separate cards. We have always labeled our OTDR modules with their respective laser classification, submitted to the CDRH... Our current modules are all "Class I" according to CDRH and EN 60825-1. There may be some future modules with "Class III" power levels. From this point, assume that the modules are labeled and compliant with CDRH and EN 60825-1. Now, what about the fiber optic switch cards that route the OTDR output? My thinking is this... the cards should be labelled with a generic laser radiation warning label without a specific classification. This warning label would refer the user to the manual where verbage such as..."Treat the all output ports of the switch with caution appropriate to the class of the source fed to the input" (paraphrased) Others have said that we should label the switches at the time of sale with the laser classification of their accompanying module. I have two problems with this... 1. The switch is not a laser device. It has no classification of its own. 2. There is no guarantee in the field that the switch will always be used to route radiation within the power levels of its marked classification. For example, what if a user buys an OTDR and switch combination both labeled "Class I". Then, later, they upgrade their OTDR to a "Class III" module. In this case I believe that the "Class I" label on the switch would be misleading and give a false sense of security. Knowledgable users know that "Class I" is eye safe. I also don't want to rely on us trying to track units and send new labels to the user for their switch if they upgrade their OTDR. There is no guarantee that they would get installed. There is no guarantee that we could track units that well. I would rather have the switch give no classification at all and force the user to find out what power levels are routed through it.(by reading the laser class tags on the source feeding it). My other line of thinking is that all switches could be marked with the worst case classification ("Class III"). But I still don't like that because we don't have control at the user level. The worst case module that WE would sell them with a switch is "Class III". But who knows what other signals the user could route through? They could always route a higher power through the switch and render our labeling misleading and inappropriate. Again, I fall back to the generic label and forcing the user to know what power levels they are dealing with. As always, the advice and experience of my colleagues (comiserators) is welcomed and appreciated. Chris Maxwell | Design Engineer - Optical Division email chris.maxw...@nettest.com | dir +1 315 266 5128 | fax +1 315 797 8024 NetTest | 6 Rhoads Drive, Utica, NY 13502 | USA web www.nettest.com | tel +1 315 797 4449 | ------------------------------------------- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson: pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Heald davehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.