Good morning, Richard. I'm not familiar with the UL 498, other than reading it's scope, but the reason the receptacles are rated 60 C may be based, in part, on the temperature rating of the wire that's expected to be connected to it. The most common building wire rating is 60 C and is most likely what's used in the vast majority of applications (because it's also the least expensive). Similarly, the most widely available flexible cords are rated 60 C.
Speculation aside, medical grade devices seems the shortest answer. Cooper has several medical grade duplex receptacles to 70 C: http://64.239.63.88/catalog/ B-I-A in Germany claims 75 C: http://www.biagmbh.com/katalog/pdfs/18/1884.pdf I also saw a couple of Chinese companies claiming 66 C ratings. A longer answer: You didn't give much detail on which components in the DPITU were getting to 64 C. What should be important is what temperature the attachment plug blades and the insulating materials used in the receptacle and DPITU housing get to. If these are sufficiently below 60 C that inaccuracy of test equipment and test methods can be comfortably accounted for, the application might be OK. You'll be tied to only those manufacturers/cat. nos. you test. Or, select a little outside the minimum. Perhaps using the above detailed thermal analysis in conjunction with selecting a 5-20R T-blade outlet. If there's room in your compliance budget and not in your manufacturing budget, you can consider repeating the testing in UL 498 on candidate receptacles at the higher temperature. This means you'll need to follow Ted Eckert's advice of contacting Regards, Peter L. Tarver, PE ptar...@ieee.org CONFIDENTIALITY This e-mail message and any attachments thereto, is intended only for use by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail message, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail message, and any attachments thereto, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail message in error, please immediately notify the sender and permanently delete the original and any copies of this email and any prints thereof. ABSENT AN EXPRESS STATEMENT TO THE CONTRARY HEREINABOVE, THIS E-MAIL IS NOT INTENDED AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR A WRITING. Notwithstanding the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act or the applicability of any other law of similar substance and effect, absent an express statement to the contrary hereinabove, this e-mail message its contents, and any attachments hereto are not intended to represent an offer or acceptance to enter into a contract and are not otherwise intended to bind the sender, Sanmina-SCI Corporation (or any of its subsidiaries), or any other person or entity. - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc ______________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email ______________________________________________________________________
