Re: FCC part 15 class B, testing

[Ken Javor]

anechoic or semi-anechoic?

--
>From: ron_cher...@densolabs.com
>To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
>Subject: FCC part 15 class B, testing
>Date: Tue, Nov 23, 1999, 10:29 AM
>

>
> I would like to know if I can take compliance data for FCC part 15 class B
> in an anechoic chamber if I can't
> vary the receive antenna from 1 to 4 metres?? (The chamber is not tall
> enough) Or do I need an OATS or GTEM?
> I would also like to do FCC parts 22 and 24 on AMPS and PCS phones. Any
> information would be appreciated.
>
>
>
>
>
> Ron Chernus, Associate Test Engineer, DVT
> Denso International
> Carlsbad, California, USA
>
>
>
> -
> This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
> To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
> with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
> quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
> jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
> roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
>
> 

-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

Safety Listing Required in Canada ?

[Ron Pickard/Hypercom/US]

Hello to all,

This is focused to the knowledgeable folks in Canada and to others that
might know the answer(s) to this query.

In the USA, there exists the federal approval/listing requirements found in
29CFR Part 1910 Subpart S.

Does anyone know if there is a similar set of rules requiring safety
Listing/Certification in Canada? If so, please identify them, how we can
obtain them, and are they available on the web?

If there is an absence of this type of regulation, is safety
Listing/Certification actually required in Canada?

Best regards,
Ron Pickard
rpick...@hypercom.com

Re: NRTL acceptance

[Tac Pham]

Hello all,

Would the NRTL program be a big plus for the ITE certified component, such
as power supply???

Tac Pham
HC Power, inc.



> I tried to recall NRTLs that were approved for asessments of ITE to
> UL1950.  I did not overlook MET (listed in my note), but may have
> missed NTS which may fit this description.  I'm not sure the others
> are sanctioned for listing of ITE under UL1950.
>
> There are many NTRLs, including UL.  There is no "NRTL" mark, as all
> NRTLs are legally equal.  The mark of some NRTLs has included the
> letters "NRTL" as part of their mark, apparantly by choice.  The
> CSA/NRTL mark is an example.  To my knowledge, the use of "NRTL" in
> an agency's mark is not mandatory.  CSA has recently changed their
> mark to drop the "NRTL" and simply show the CSA mark with "US"
> subscript for assessment to the U.S. stadnard.
>
> However, Canada does not recognize the U.S. NRTLs to assess an ITE
> product to the Canadian standard.  There is a mutual agreement between
> Canada and the U.S. that "allows" a UL assessment to the Canadian ITE
> safety standard.  This results in the UL mark with a subscript "C",
> often called the "c-UL" mark.  It is my understanding that when the
> Canadian government bids out ITE for its own use, they tend to prefer
> the CSA mark over the c-UL mark.  This seems to violate the "spirit"
> of the agreement, but who can force them to do otherwise?
>
> George Alspaugh
>
> (Some or all of the above may reveal ignorance on my part, which can
> be "cured" by more enlightened appends to follow.)



-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

RE: NRTL acceptance

[georgea]

Vitaly,

Allow me to try and clear some confusion over NRTLs and marks.
NRTL is not a mark.  An NRTL is an OSHA Nationally Recognized
Testing Laboratory accredited to evaluate products to specific
standards for the U.S.

Each NRTL can authorize the use of its own mark for use on U.S.
products, e.g. UL, CSA, MET, ITS, TUVR, and SGS.  At one time,
some chose to add the subscript "NRTL" beside their mark.  Now
it is more common to use a subscript "US" indicating testing to
U.S. standards.

The term NRTL has no meaning for Canadian compliance.  Canada
uses the term "Certification Organizations" (COs) for those
test houses accredited by the Standards Council of Canada (SCC)
for test houses that can assess products to Canadian standards.

Examples:

UL can authorize use of the UL (U.S.) and c-UL (Canada) marks
by virtue of their SCC accredited CO status.

CSA can authorize use of the CSA (Canada) and CSA/US (U.S.)
marks by virtue of their OSHA NRTL status.

There is no literal "NRTL" or "c-NRTL" mark issued by CSA or
any other agency.  The agency marks of all NRTLs could be called
NRTL marks when used for U.S. products, but none must use "NRTL"
as part of the mark.

I hope this does not further confuse the issue!

George Alspaugh

-- Forwarded by George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark on 11/23/99
02:03 PM ---

vgorodetsky%canoga@interlock.lexmark.com on 11/23/99 12:44:02 PM

To:   grdulmage%sympatico...@interlock.lexmark.com
cc:   George_Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark@LEXMARK,
  emc-pstc%majordomo.ieee@interlock.lexmark.com (bcc: George
  Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark)
Subject:  RE: NRTL acceptance



Graham,

In the second paragraph, I said "CSA is recognized NRTL".  Thus, CSA can
issue both NRTL and c-NRTL marks (as well as UL and c-UL marks as far as I
know).  I would appreciate if you would mail me information on these two
NRTL marks.

My mailing address is:  20600 Prairie Street   Chatsworth, CA 91311

Best Regards,
Vitaly Gorodetsky



-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

EN60950 3rd Edition?

[Ron Pickard/Hypercom/US]

Hello out there,

I have some questions regarding the adoption if IEC60950 3rd Edition.

1) Now that IEC60950 3rd Ed. is now out and UL60950 3rd Ed. is out for
review, when will EN60950 catch up and follow IEC60950 3rd Ed.?

2) And for that matter, how about AS/NZ 3260 and other 950 derivatives?

3) When will the CB Scheme adopt IEC60950 3rd Ed.?

I'm trying to get a time frame when (if ever) the respective standards will
be upgraded. And, I'm sure the group would be interested to know more.

Anyone out there who has their ear into what's happening on these
questions?

Best regards,
Ron Pickard
rpick...@hypercom.com



-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

EMC Automation software

[RON_CHERNUS]

I am looking for PC based EMC Automation software for an anechoic chamber
for FCC part 15 class B testing.
 I have HP analyzers. I would also like the software to do automated NSA
meaurements.

Ron Chernus, Associate Test Engineer, DVT
Denso International
Carlsbad, California, USA



-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

FCC part 15 class B, testing

[RON_CHERNUS]

I would like to know if I can take compliance data for FCC part 15 class B
in an anechoic chamber if I can't
vary the receive antenna from 1 to 4 metres?? (The chamber is not tall
enough) Or do I need an OATS or GTEM?
I would also like to do FCC parts 22 and 24 on AMPS and PCS phones. Any
information would be appreciated.





Ron Chernus, Associate Test Engineer, DVT
Denso International
Carlsbad, California, USA



-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

RE: NRTL acceptance

[Gorodetsky, Vitaly]

Graham,

In the second paragraph, I said "CSA is recognized NRTL".  Thus, CSA can
issue both NRTL and c-NRTL marks (as well as UL and c-UL marks as far as I
know).  I would appreciate if you would mail me information on these two
NRTL marks.  

My mailing address is:  20600 Prairie Street   Chatsworth, CA 91311
 
Best Regards,
Vitaly Gorodetsky

> -Original Message-
> From: Graham Rae Dulmage [SMTP:grdulm...@sympatico.ca]
> Sent: Monday, November 22, 1999 7:06 PM
> To:   Gorodetsky, Vitaly
> Cc:   'geor...@lexmark.com'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
> Subject:  Re: NRTL acceptance
> 
> Vitaly, your comment regarding CSA is incorrect. CSA is an NRTL just like
> the
> others. CSA has a mark for NRTL approval.
> 
> Regards
> 
> 
> G. Rae Dulmage
> 
> "Gorodetsky, Vitaly" wrote:
> 
> > George,
> > You have overlooked MET, NTS, WYLE, SWRI and others.  For a complete
> list
> > and the scope of recognition, go to the OSHA website.
> > Though, CSA is recognized NRTL, I am afraid, that the issuance of the
> NRTL
> > mark does not necessarily mean that CSA mark can be automatically
> affixed to
> > a product.  There should be Mutual Recognition Agreement between a
> > particular NRTL and the CSA.  Is it correct?
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: geor...@lexmark.com [SMTP:geor...@lexmark.com]
> > > Sent: Monday, November 22, 1999 5:11 AM
> > > To:   emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
> > > Subject:  RE: NRTL acceptance
> > >
> > >
> > > Actually, the following NRTLs are approved by OSHA for evaluation
> > > to UL 1950:
> > >
> > > UL, CSA, ITS (former ETL), TUV Rheinland, MET, and SGS.
> > >
> > > There may be some I have overlooked.
> > >
> > > George Alspaugh
> > >
> > > -- Forwarded by George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark on
> > > 11/22/99
> > > 08:09 AM ---
> > >
> > > vgorodetsky%canoga@interlock.lexmark.com on 11/19/99 04:57:29 PM
> > >
> > > Please respond to vgorodetsky%canoga@interlock.lexmark.com
> > >
> > > To:   George_Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark@LEXMARK,
> > >   emc-pstc%majordomo.ieee@interlock.lexmark.com
> > > cc:(bcc: George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark)
> > > Subject:  RE: NRTL acceptance
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Terry and George,
> > >
> > > In this country of ours, there are three equally acceptable safety
> marks:
> > > UL, ETL and NRTL.  But, as we all know, some acceptable marks are more
> > > equal
> > > than others.
> > >
> > > > -Original Message-
> > > > From:   geor...@lexmark.com [SMTP:geor...@lexmark.com]
> > > > Sent:   Friday, November 19, 1999 11:02 AM
> > > > To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
> > > > Subject: NRTL acceptance
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Terry,
> > > >
> > > > You have raised a very good question.  The problem is that the U.S.
> > > > had only one approved safety agency  for so long, that it is
> > > > difficult to wean non-laymen away from that one agency mark.  This
> > > > includes your (and my) management, marketing, customers, etc.  Few
> > > > of these understand the meaning of NRTL, with its variety of agency
> > > > approvals and marks.
> > > >
> > > > I did fight this battle over an off-the-shelf peripheral we needed
> > > > to market which did not have the "traditional" safety mark, but an
> > > > acceptable NRTL mark.  One of the positions I to confront was that
> > > > many Federal, state, or local "government" bids require "the" mark.
> > > >
> > > > I referenced the Code of Federal Regulations, OSHA sections, citing
> > > > acceptable U.S. authorized NRTLs.  I pointed out that compliance to
> > > > UL 1950 was the needed requirement, not which agency did the actual
> > > > assessment.  One problem is that those who write the specifications
> > > > for government bids are not aware of this fact, and do continue to
> > > > list only one agency mark into the document.  In a way, this is
> > > > probably a violation of federal law, i.e. requiring vendors to do
> > > > "business" with a specified private company, thus stifling any
> > > > competition.  Isn't this what the goverment is accusing Microsoft
> > > > of doing?
> > > >
> > > > You are exactly right.  As PSE professionals, we should be able to
> > > > look for and use whatever options are legally available to meet our
> > > > employer's certification needs in the most timely and cost effective
> > > > manner.  Unfortunately, in the U.S. this requires a significant
> > > > amount of internal and external education as to the actual legal
> > > > options.
> > > >
> > > > George Alspaugh
> > > > Lexmark International Inc.
> > > >
> > > > -- Forwarded by George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark on
> > > > 11/19/99
> > > > 01:41 PM ---
> > > >
> > > > tjmeck%accusort@interlock.lexmark.com on 11/19/99 12:25:38 PM
> > > >
> > > > Please respond to tjmeck%accusort@interlock.lexmark.com
> > > >
> > > > To:   emc-pstc%ieee@interlock.lexmark.com
> > > > cc:(bcc: George Alsp

RE: NRTL acceptance

[Gorodetsky, Vitaly]

George,
Do I have to feel sorry about opening this Pandora's Box (I seem to
originate this turn in discussion)?  I meant to make innocuous remark
(referring to Orwell).  Everyone benefits from clarification.

c-ETL is perfectly OK.  As to NRTL mark(s), I know of recent agreement
between TUV Rheinland and CSA but have not seen the c-version of the mark
yet.  Hope someone from CSA would clarify for all of us who is recognized CO
and who is not.

Best Regards

> -Original Message-
> From: geor...@lexmark.com [SMTP:geor...@lexmark.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 1999 5:02 AM
> To:   emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
> Subject:  RE: NRTL acceptance
> 
> 
> S. William,
> 
> Thanks for the words on COs and TOs and SCCs.  Apparantly UL is one or
> more of these, as the c-UL mark is legally acceptable in Canada.
> 
> Now, what other COs has the SCC accredited to issue an approved Canadian
> mark?  Not CSA, but alternatives to CSA?
> 
> George
> 
> -- Forwarded by George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark on
> 11/23/99
> 07:57 AM ---
> 
> swilliam%apcc@interlock.lexmark.com on 11/22/99 05:02:15 PM
> 
> To:   George_Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark@LEXMARK
> cc:   emc-pstc%majordomo.ieee@interlock.lexmark.com (bcc: George
>   Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark)
> Subject:  RE: NRTL acceptance
> 
> 
> 
> George, Canada is not as straight forward as that. There is not a mutual
> agreement. In order for a lab to issue a Canadian Approval Mark, the lab
> must be accredited as a CO(Certifying Organization) by the SCC(Standards
> Council of Canada). The CO must use data that has come from a TO(Testing
> Organization) that is also accredited by the SCC. Most labs that issue
> their Canada Mark are both a CO and TO so it is very easy for them. The
> critical item is that the product has to have been tested against the
> relevant Canadian National Standard(very easy for ITE as 1950 is a joint
> standard).
> If you want to do everything by the book, your US Mark should be from an
> NRTL certified by OSHA to the standards that apply to your product and the
> Canadian Mark must be from a CO accredited by the SCC.
> 
> 
> Please respond to geor...@lexmark.com
> 
> To:   emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
> cc:(bcc: Steve Williams/SDD/NAM/APCC)
> From: geor...@lexmark.com on 11/22/99 03:42 PM
> Subject:  RE: NRTL acceptance
> 
> 
> I tried to recall NRTLs that were approved for asessments of ITE to
> UL1950.  I did not overlook MET (listed in my note), but may have
> missed NTS which may fit this description.  I'm not sure the others
> are sanctioned for listing of ITE under UL1950.
> 
> There are many NTRLs, including UL.  There is no "NRTL" mark, as all
> NRTLs are legally equal.  The mark of some NRTLs has included the
> letters "NRTL" as part of their mark, apparantly by choice.  The
> CSA/NRTL mark is an example.  To my knowledge, the use of "NRTL" in
> an agency's mark is not mandatory.  CSA has recently changed their
> mark to drop the "NRTL" and simply show the CSA mark with "US"
> subscript for assessment to the U.S. stadnard.
> 
> However, Canada does not recognize the U.S. NRTLs to assess an ITE
> product to the Canadian standard.  There is a mutual agreement between
> Canada and the U.S. that "allows" a UL assessment to the Canadian ITE
> safety standard.  This results in the UL mark with a subscript "C",
> often called the "c-UL" mark.  It is my understanding that when the
> Canadian government bids out ITE for its own use, they tend to prefer
> the CSA mark over the c-UL mark.  This seems to violate the "spirit"
> of the agreement, but who can force them to do otherwise?
> 
> George Alspaugh
> 
> (Some or all of the above may reveal ignorance on my part, which can
> be "cured" by more enlightened appends to follow.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -
> This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
> To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
> with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
> quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
> jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
> roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
> 

-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

RE: Enclosure Units.

[Hunt, Richard]

One rack unit is 1.75 inches.  The allowable panel size is nU - 0.031".  For
example, a 3U panel is (3 * 1.75) - 0.031 = 5.25 - 0.031 = 5.219.
 
-Original Message-
From: David Monreal [mailto:dmonr...@advancedshielding.com]
Sent: Monday, November 22, 1999 1:49 AM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Enclosure Units.


Hello,
 
first of all, thanks for the information you sent to me about the Shielding
Enclosures Standards.
 
I've been looking through Compaq and IBM web sites and have seen they
measure its enclosures in U's. Have tried to know wich units U is: 4,4cm,
4,7cm, 5cm... Can't find a concrete figure for U.
 
Could you please tell me what U is? (Half a disquette, answered a guy in the
customer service).
 
Even noticed they do not offer major protection against EMF. Do they have it
or I have not searched enough?
 
Thanks.
 
 
David Monreal
Telf: +34 93 475 14 80
FAX: +34 93 377 64 64
http://www.advancedshielding.com  

-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

RE: NRTL acceptance

[Kevin Robinson]

Thanks for that link George.  That was a quick/concise list
that I was looking for. To get the information you mentioned (what the scope
of each CO is), you go to the link that I mentioned
http://www.scc.ca/search-front/index.html
  , click on accreditations and
then certification orgs, and type in the name of the Lab you are interested
in, for the sake of argument, if you type "MET", a list of all related links
for MET Laboratories will show up.  You should have a link to a MS Word
document, which if you click on, will show you the scope of our laboratory,
which includes all electrical equipment, (which includes CSA C22.2 No 950).
Similar results would be obtained if you typed in the name for all the other
COs.   

SCC is a bit more broad as they typically accredit labs for
types of equipment (i.e. all electrical products etc.) vs. OSHA/NRTL which
accredits based by standard.   If you combine the NRTL list with the SCC
list, by my count (correct me if I am wrong) you come up with about 5 labs
(MET, CSA, Intertek, Entela, and UL) that can provide you with US & Canadian
certifications (including UL1950/CSA C22.2 No 950, among others) that from
the legal aspect are equal.  Hope this helps to answer your question.

Kevin Robinson
Project Engineer/QA
MET Laboratories
Phone: (410) 354-3300x361
Fax: (410) 354-3313
E-Mail: krobin...@metlabs.com 



-Original Message-
From:   geor...@lexmark.com
[SMTP:geor...@lexmark.com]
Sent:   Tuesday, November 23, 1999 10:01 AM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject:RE: NRTL acceptance


Kevin,

Thanks for the website pointer.  I found the site
nearly impossible
to use via the search function.  I got no hits for
COs no matter
what I tried, including UL and Underwriters
Laboratories.  Somehow
I stumbled on to the following site which DOES list
all COs.

http://www.scc.ca/certific/colist.html

There are 20 SCC accredited COs listed, including
CSA, UL, ITS, and
MET.  Now, back to the original question.  Who knows
which of the
20 listed COs can authorize the use of a mark
indicating compliance
with CAN/CSA 22.2 950-95 for the safety of ITE, i.e.
legally
equivalent to the CSA mark?

George
-- Forwarded by George
Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark on 11/23/99
09:34 AM ---

krobinson%metlabs@interlock.lexmark.com on
11/23/99 08:54:51 AM

Please respond to
krobinson%metlabs@interlock.lexmark.com

To:
emc-pstc%majordomo.ieee@interlock.lexmark.com
cc:(bcc: George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark)
Subject:  RE: NRTL acceptance

  You can check out the SCC website at
www.scc.ca
  , click on "accreditations" and
then "certification
orgs" and type in the name of your favorite test lab
(or your least favorite
as the case may be :-) )to see if they are a CO.
You can try a general
search for "laboratories" but it did not tun up all
of the laboratories that
I knew were CO's, I had better luck searching for
specific laboratories.

  Kevin Robinson
  Project Engineer/QA
  MET Laboratories
  Phone: (410) 354-3300x361
  Fax: (410) 354-3313
  E-Mail: krobin...@metlabs.com


-Original Message-
From: geor...@lexmark.com
[SMTP:geor...@lexmark.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 1999 8:02 AM
To:  emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject:  RE: NRTL acceptance


S. William,

Thanks for the words on COs and TOs and SCCs.
Apparantly UL
is one or more of these, as the c-UL mark is legally
acceptable
in Canada.  Now, what other COs has the SCC
accredited to issue
an approved Canadian mark?  Not CSA, but
alternatives 

RE: NRTL acceptance

[Ned Devine]

Hi,

For a list of Accredited certification organizations go to 

http://www.scc.ca/certific/colist.html

For the scope of Accredited certification organizations  go to
http://www.scc.ca/search-front/indexacc.html



Ned Devine
Entela, Inc.
Program Manager III
Phone 616 248 9671
Fax  616 574 9752
e-mail  ndev...@entela.com 


PS  Yes, Entela is a CO.


-Original Message-
From: geor...@lexmark.com [mailto:geor...@lexmark.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 1999 8:02 AM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: NRTL acceptance



S. William,

Thanks for the words on COs and TOs and SCCs.  Apparantly UL is one or
more of these, as the c-UL mark is legally acceptable in Canada.

Now, what other COs has the SCC accredited to issue an approved Canadian
mark?  Not CSA, but alternatives to CSA?

George

-- Forwarded by George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark on 11/23/99
07:57 AM ---

swilliam%apcc@interlock.lexmark.com on 11/22/99 05:02:15 PM

To:   George_Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark@LEXMARK
cc:   emc-pstc%majordomo.ieee@interlock.lexmark.com (bcc: George
  Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark)
Subject:  RE: NRTL acceptance



George, Canada is not as straight forward as that. There is not a mutual
agreement. In order for a lab to issue a Canadian Approval Mark, the lab
must be accredited as a CO(Certifying Organization) by the SCC(Standards
Council of Canada). The CO must use data that has come from a TO(Testing
Organization) that is also accredited by the SCC. Most labs that issue
their Canada Mark are both a CO and TO so it is very easy for them. The
critical item is that the product has to have been tested against the
relevant Canadian National Standard(very easy for ITE as 1950 is a joint
standard).
If you want to do everything by the book, your US Mark should be from an
NRTL certified by OSHA to the standards that apply to your product and the
Canadian Mark must be from a CO accredited by the SCC.


Please respond to geor...@lexmark.com

To:   emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
cc:(bcc: Steve Williams/SDD/NAM/APCC)
From: geor...@lexmark.com on 11/22/99 03:42 PM
Subject:  RE: NRTL acceptance


I tried to recall NRTLs that were approved for asessments of ITE to
UL1950.  I did not overlook MET (listed in my note), but may have
missed NTS which may fit this description.  I'm not sure the others
are sanctioned for listing of ITE under UL1950.

There are many NTRLs, including UL.  There is no "NRTL" mark, as all
NRTLs are legally equal.  The mark of some NRTLs has included the
letters "NRTL" as part of their mark, apparantly by choice.  The
CSA/NRTL mark is an example.  To my knowledge, the use of "NRTL" in
an agency's mark is not mandatory.  CSA has recently changed their
mark to drop the "NRTL" and simply show the CSA mark with "US"
subscript for assessment to the U.S. stadnard.

However, Canada does not recognize the U.S. NRTLs to assess an ITE
product to the Canadian standard.  There is a mutual agreement between
Canada and the U.S. that "allows" a UL assessment to the Canadian ITE
safety standard.  This results in the UL mark with a subscript "C",
often called the "c-UL" mark.  It is my understanding that when the
Canadian government bids out ITE for its own use, they tend to prefer
the CSA mark over the c-UL mark.  This seems to violate the "spirit"
of the agreement, but who can force them to do otherwise?

George Alspaugh

(Some or all of the above may reveal ignorance on my part, which can
be "cured" by more enlightened appends to follow.)




-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).


-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

RE: NRTL acceptance

[georgea]

Kevin,

Thanks for the website pointer.  I found the site nearly impossible
to use via the search function.  I got no hits for COs no matter
what I tried, including UL and Underwriters Laboratories.  Somehow
I stumbled on to the following site which DOES list all COs.

http://www.scc.ca/certific/colist.html

There are 20 SCC accredited COs listed, including CSA, UL, ITS, and
MET.  Now, back to the original question.  Who knows which of the
20 listed COs can authorize the use of a mark indicating compliance
with CAN/CSA 22.2 950-95 for the safety of ITE, i.e. legally
equivalent to the CSA mark?

George
-- Forwarded by George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark on 11/23/99
09:34 AM ---

krobinson%metlabs@interlock.lexmark.com on 11/23/99 08:54:51 AM

Please respond to krobinson%metlabs@interlock.lexmark.com

To:   emc-pstc%majordomo.ieee@interlock.lexmark.com
cc:(bcc: George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark)
Subject:  RE: NRTL acceptance

  You can check out the SCC website at www.scc.ca
  , click on "accreditations" and then "certification
orgs" and type in the name of your favorite test lab (or your least favorite
as the case may be :-) )to see if they are a CO.  You can try a general
search for "laboratories" but it did not tun up all of the laboratories that
I knew were CO's, I had better luck searching for specific laboratories.

  Kevin Robinson
  Project Engineer/QA
  MET Laboratories
  Phone: (410) 354-3300x361
  Fax: (410) 354-3313
  E-Mail: krobin...@metlabs.com 

-Original Message-
From: geor...@lexmark.com [SMTP:geor...@lexmark.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 1999 8:02 AM
To:  emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject:  RE: NRTL acceptance


S. William,

Thanks for the words on COs and TOs and SCCs.  Apparantly UL
is one or more of these, as the c-UL mark is legally acceptable
in Canada.  Now, what other COs has the SCC accredited to issue
an approved Canadian mark?  Not CSA, but alternatives to CSA?

George

 Forwarded by George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark on 11/23/99 07:57 AM -
swilliam%apcc@interlock.lexmark.com on 11/22/99
05:02:15 PM

To:   George_Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark@LEXMARK
emc-pstc%majordomo.ieee@interlock.lexmark.com
Subject:  RE: NRTL acceptance


George, Canada is not as straight forward as that.  There is not
a mutual agreement. In order for a lab to issue a Canadian Approval
Mark, the lab must be accredited as a CO(Certifying Organization)
by the SCC(Standards Council of Canada). The CO must use data that
has come from a TO(Testing Organization) that is also accredited by
the SCC.  Most labs that issue their Canada Mark are both a CO and
TO so it is very easy for them. The critical item is that the
product has to have been tested against the relevant Canadian National
Standard(very easy for ITE as 1950 is a joint standard).

If you want to do everything by the book, your US Mark should be from
an NRTL certified by OSHA to the standards that apply to your product
and the Canadian Mark must be from a CO accredited by the SCC.




-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

RE: NRTL acceptance

[swilliam]

I know ETL is one because I used to work there. But, they are not the only
ones. I assume reps from all the labs monitor this list and I am sure they
can contact you with their accreditation( I think there are many)



Please respond to geor...@lexmark.com

To:   emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
cc:(bcc: Steve Williams/SDD/NAM/APCC)
From: geor...@lexmark.com on 11/23/99 08:02 AM
Subject:  RE: NRTL acceptance





S. William,

Thanks for the words on COs and TOs and SCCs.  Apparantly UL is one or
more of these, as the c-UL mark is legally acceptable in Canada.

Now, what other COs has the SCC accredited to issue an approved Canadian
mark?  Not CSA, but alternatives to CSA?

George

-- Forwarded by George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark on 11/23/99
07:57 AM ---

swilliam%apcc@interlock.lexmark.com on 11/22/99 05:02:15 PM

To:   George_Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark@LEXMARK
cc:   emc-pstc%majordomo.ieee@interlock.lexmark.com (bcc: George
  Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark)
Subject:  RE: NRTL acceptance



George, Canada is not as straight forward as that. There is not a mutual
agreement. In order for a lab to issue a Canadian Approval Mark, the lab
must be accredited as a CO(Certifying Organization) by the SCC(Standards
Council of Canada). The CO must use data that has come from a TO(Testing
Organization) that is also accredited by the SCC. Most labs that issue
their Canada Mark are both a CO and TO so it is very easy for them. The
critical item is that the product has to have been tested against the
relevant Canadian National Standard(very easy for ITE as 1950 is a joint
standard).
If you want to do everything by the book, your US Mark should be from an
NRTL certified by OSHA to the standards that apply to your product and the
Canadian Mark must be from a CO accredited by the SCC.


Please respond to geor...@lexmark.com

To:   emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
cc:(bcc: Steve Williams/SDD/NAM/APCC)
From: geor...@lexmark.com on 11/22/99 03:42 PM
Subject:  RE: NRTL acceptance


I tried to recall NRTLs that were approved for asessments of ITE to
UL1950.  I did not overlook MET (listed in my note), but may have
missed NTS which may fit this description.  I'm not sure the others
are sanctioned for listing of ITE under UL1950.

There are many NTRLs, including UL.  There is no "NRTL" mark, as all
NRTLs are legally equal.  The mark of some NRTLs has included the
letters "NRTL" as part of their mark, apparantly by choice.  The
CSA/NRTL mark is an example.  To my knowledge, the use of "NRTL" in
an agency's mark is not mandatory.  CSA has recently changed their
mark to drop the "NRTL" and simply show the CSA mark with "US"
subscript for assessment to the U.S. stadnard.

However, Canada does not recognize the U.S. NRTLs to assess an ITE
product to the Canadian standard.  There is a mutual agreement between
Canada and the U.S. that "allows" a UL assessment to the Canadian ITE
safety standard.  This results in the UL mark with a subscript "C",
often called the "c-UL" mark.  It is my understanding that when the
Canadian government bids out ITE for its own use, they tend to prefer
the CSA mark over the c-UL mark.  This seems to violate the "spirit"
of the agreement, but who can force them to do otherwise?

George Alspaugh

(Some or all of the above may reveal ignorance on my part, which can
be "cured" by more enlightened appends to follow.)




-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).









-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

RE: NRTL acceptance

[Kevin Robinson]

You can check out the SCC website at www.scc.ca
  , click on "accreditations" and then "certification
orgs" and type in the name of your favorite test lab (or your least favorite
as the case may be :-) )to see if they are a CO.  You can try a general
search for "laboratories" but it did not tun up all of the laboratories that
I knew were CO's, I had better luck searching for specific laboratories.

Kevin Robinson
Project Engineer/QA
MET Laboratories
Phone: (410) 354-3300x361
Fax: (410) 354-3313
E-Mail: krobin...@metlabs.com 



-Original Message-
From:   geor...@lexmark.com
[SMTP:geor...@lexmark.com]
Sent:   Tuesday, November 23, 1999 8:02 AM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject:RE: NRTL acceptance


S. William,

Thanks for the words on COs and TOs and SCCs.
Apparantly UL is one or
more of these, as the c-UL mark is legally
acceptable in Canada.

Now, what other COs has the SCC accredited to issue
an approved Canadian
mark?  Not CSA, but alternatives to CSA?

George

-- Forwarded by George
Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark on 11/23/99
07:57 AM ---

swilliam%apcc@interlock.lexmark.com on 11/22/99
05:02:15 PM

To:   George_Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark@LEXMARK
cc:
emc-pstc%majordomo.ieee@interlock.lexmark.com (bcc: George
  Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark)
Subject:  RE: NRTL acceptance



George, Canada is not as straight forward as that.
There is not a mutual
agreement. In order for a lab to issue a Canadian
Approval Mark, the lab
must be accredited as a CO(Certifying Organization)
by the SCC(Standards
Council of Canada). The CO must use data that has
come from a TO(Testing
Organization) that is also accredited by the SCC.
Most labs that issue
their Canada Mark are both a CO and TO so it is very
easy for them. The
critical item is that the product has to have been
tested against the
relevant Canadian National Standard(very easy for
ITE as 1950 is a joint
standard).
If you want to do everything by the book, your US
Mark should be from an
NRTL certified by OSHA to the standards that apply
to your product and the
Canadian Mark must be from a CO accredited by the
SCC.


Please respond to geor...@lexmark.com

To:   emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
cc:(bcc: Steve Williams/SDD/NAM/APCC)
From: geor...@lexmark.com on 11/22/99 03:42 PM
Subject:  RE: NRTL acceptance


I tried to recall NRTLs that were approved for
asessments of ITE to
UL1950.  I did not overlook MET (listed in my note),
but may have
missed NTS which may fit this description.  I'm not
sure the others
are sanctioned for listing of ITE under UL1950.

There are many NTRLs, including UL.  There is no
"NRTL" mark, as all
NRTLs are legally equal.  The mark of some NRTLs has
included the
letters "NRTL" as part of their mark, apparantly by
choice.  The
CSA/NRTL mark is an example.  To my knowledge, the
use of "NRTL" in
an agency's mark is not mandatory.  CSA has recently
changed their
mark to drop the "NRTL" and simply show the CSA mark
with "US"
subscript for assessment to the U.S. stadnard.

However, Canada does not recognize the U.S. NRTLs to
assess an ITE
product to the Canadian standard.  There is a mutual
agreement between
Canada and the U.S. that "allows" a UL assessment to
the Canadian ITE
safety standard.  This results in the UL mark with a
subscript "C",
often called the "c-UL" mark.  It is my
understanding that when the
Canadian government bids out ITE for its own use,
they tend to prefer
the CSA mark over the c-UL mark.  This seems to
violate the "spirit"

RE: A-t/m vs A-t/cm

[UMBDENSTOCK]

Notice that the multiplier is 4*pi and a power of 10 if you are looking for
precision.  I use 79.6 for meaningful engineering work that I deal with.

> --
> From: Robert Macy[SMTP:m...@california.com]
> Reply To: Robert Macy
> Sent: Monday, November 22, 1999 10:45 PM
> To:   Lou Gnecco; emc-p...@ieee.org
> Subject:  Re: A-t/m vs A-t/cm
> 
> 
> The tricky part is making sure that the conversion is the right direction.
> 
> 1 A/m = 0.01 A/cm
> 
> If you have oersteds and want amperes per meter, multiply by 79.577
> If you have amperes per meter and want oersteds, multiply by 0.01257
> 
>  - Robert -
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Lou Gnecco 
> To: emc-p...@ieee.org 
> Date: Monday, November 22, 1999 6:45 PM
> Subject: A-t/m vs A-t/cm
> 
> 
> >
> >Group:
> >I want to make sure I did this right.
> >I was trying to determine the permeability of this material.
> >The B-H curve shows Flux density B in Teslas. (1 tesla = 10,000
> Gauss, )
> >But the Field Strength H is in A/cm. How do I convert this into
> >something I can use like Oersteds or A/m?
> >No guessing, please. I would appreciate hearing from someone with
> >experience dealing with these units.
> >Arun? Hans?? Are you out there?? help!!
> >
> >Regards,
> >Lou
> 
> 
> 
> -
> This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
> To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
> with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
> quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
> jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
> roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
> 
> 

-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

RE: NRTL acceptance

[georgea]

S. William,

Thanks for the words on COs and TOs and SCCs.  Apparantly UL is one or
more of these, as the c-UL mark is legally acceptable in Canada.

Now, what other COs has the SCC accredited to issue an approved Canadian
mark?  Not CSA, but alternatives to CSA?

George

-- Forwarded by George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark on 11/23/99
07:57 AM ---

swilliam%apcc@interlock.lexmark.com on 11/22/99 05:02:15 PM

To:   George_Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark@LEXMARK
cc:   emc-pstc%majordomo.ieee@interlock.lexmark.com (bcc: George
  Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark)
Subject:  RE: NRTL acceptance



George, Canada is not as straight forward as that. There is not a mutual
agreement. In order for a lab to issue a Canadian Approval Mark, the lab
must be accredited as a CO(Certifying Organization) by the SCC(Standards
Council of Canada). The CO must use data that has come from a TO(Testing
Organization) that is also accredited by the SCC. Most labs that issue
their Canada Mark are both a CO and TO so it is very easy for them. The
critical item is that the product has to have been tested against the
relevant Canadian National Standard(very easy for ITE as 1950 is a joint
standard).
If you want to do everything by the book, your US Mark should be from an
NRTL certified by OSHA to the standards that apply to your product and the
Canadian Mark must be from a CO accredited by the SCC.


Please respond to geor...@lexmark.com

To:   emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
cc:(bcc: Steve Williams/SDD/NAM/APCC)
From: geor...@lexmark.com on 11/22/99 03:42 PM
Subject:  RE: NRTL acceptance


I tried to recall NRTLs that were approved for asessments of ITE to
UL1950.  I did not overlook MET (listed in my note), but may have
missed NTS which may fit this description.  I'm not sure the others
are sanctioned for listing of ITE under UL1950.

There are many NTRLs, including UL.  There is no "NRTL" mark, as all
NRTLs are legally equal.  The mark of some NRTLs has included the
letters "NRTL" as part of their mark, apparantly by choice.  The
CSA/NRTL mark is an example.  To my knowledge, the use of "NRTL" in
an agency's mark is not mandatory.  CSA has recently changed their
mark to drop the "NRTL" and simply show the CSA mark with "US"
subscript for assessment to the U.S. stadnard.

However, Canada does not recognize the U.S. NRTLs to assess an ITE
product to the Canadian standard.  There is a mutual agreement between
Canada and the U.S. that "allows" a UL assessment to the Canadian ITE
safety standard.  This results in the UL mark with a subscript "C",
often called the "c-UL" mark.  It is my understanding that when the
Canadian government bids out ITE for its own use, they tend to prefer
the CSA mark over the c-UL mark.  This seems to violate the "spirit"
of the agreement, but who can force them to do otherwise?

George Alspaugh

(Some or all of the above may reveal ignorance on my part, which can
be "cured" by more enlightened appends to follow.)




-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

RE: Supply tolerance for Brazil

[Colgan, Chris]

Hi Jess

I am afraid BSI does not give anything away for free.  The publication
"World Electricity Supplies" number TH20338 is available from BSI at a cost
of £50.

http://www.bsi.org.uk/

Regards

Chris

> -Original Message-
> From: Jasmine TAN [SMTP:sb...@ctlsg.creaf.com]
> Sent: 23 November 1999 02:30
> To:   Colgan, Chris
> Cc:   emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
> Subject:  RE: Supply tolerance for Brazil
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Chris,
> 
> Is it in the web page which you could direct me to ?
> 
> Thanks in advance! ...Jess
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Colgan, Chris"  on 11/22/99 06:10:13 PM
> To:   "'Jasmine TAN'" 
>   emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
> cc:
> 
> Subject:  RE: Supply tolerance for Brazil
> 
> 
> Hi Jess
> 
> According to British Standards' World Electricity Supplies the supply
> voltage tolerance for Brazil is +5 -7.5%.  There is no frequency tolerance
> listed.
> 
> I understand that 254V may also be used as the line voltage.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Chris Colgan
> EMC & Safety
> TAG McLaren Audio Ltd
> 
> mailto:chris.col...@tagmclarenaudio.com
> 
> 
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From:   Jasmine TAN [SMTP:sb...@ctlsg.creaf.com]
> > Sent:   22 November 1999 07:36
> > To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
> > Subject: Supply tolerance for Brazil
> >
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > Understood that the operating (domestic)  voltage in Brazil ranges from
> > 110-220V 60Hz.
> > Can someone pls advise on the supply tolerance.
> >
> > Thanks
> > Jess
> >
> >
> > -
> > This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
> > To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
> > with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
> > quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
> > jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
> > roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
> >
> =
> Authorised on 11/22/99 at 10:10:29; code 37f48bf3D204F5B1.
> The contents of this E-mail are confidential and for the exclusive use of
> the intended recipient.
> If you receive this E-mail in error, please delete it from your system
> immediately and notify us either by E-mail, telephone or fax. You should
> not copy, forward or otherwise disclose the content of the E-mail.
> 
> TAG McLaren Audio Ltd, The Summit, 11 Latham Road
> Huntingdon, Cambs, PE18 6ZU
> Telephone : 01480 415600 (+44 1480 415600)
> Facsimile : 01480 52159 (+44 1480 52159)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -
> This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
> To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
> with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
> quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
> jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
> roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
> 
=
Authorised on 11/23/99 at 11:45:06; code 37f48bf3DB64426A.
The contents of this E-mail are confidential and for the exclusive use of the 
intended recipient.
If you receive this E-mail in error, please delete it from your system 
immediately and notify us either by E-mail, telephone or fax. You should not 
copy, forward or otherwise disclose the content of the E-mail.

TAG McLaren Audio Ltd, The Summit, 11 Latham Road
Huntingdon, Cambs, PE18 6ZU
Telephone : 01480 415600 (+44 1480 415600)
Facsimile : 01480 52159 (+44 1480 52159)

-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

RE: NRTL acceptance

[Frank West]

Hi all!

I hope you were referring to Missouri in the best
positive light.  As you know, the Missouri ethic of
denying everything until it is shown to them, hits
them upside the head, and sits down to dinner with
them makes for the best compliance engineers.

Frank West
Sr. Engineer
TUV Rheinland NA
Born and raised in Richland, MO.


--- umbdenst...@sensormatic.com wrote:
> 
> A corollary to Jim's comments -- 
> 
> We were using a "non-traditional" NRTL with
> favorable experiences -- rapid
> approval process, cost competitive, etc.  Then a
> particular contract that we
> were bidding on specified the "traditional" NRTL. 
> Our original NRTL was
> assisting us with the educational process until the
> customer came up with
> his own "educational exposure".  It seems that our
> previous NRTL had not
> applied or been approved for the specific standards
> (a new business that we
> had entered into at that time) required for this
> contract.  They were more
> than willing to learn the process, but bottom line,
> they were not approved
> by OSHA for that standard at that time.  The NRTL
> did not volunteer that
> information; the customer pulled it out of the NRTL
> in one of those "I'm
> from Missouri -- show me" challenges.
> 
> So when investigating an alternative NRTL, be sure
> they have the correct
> approvals (documented) for the standards applicable
> to your product.
> 
> Don Umbdenstock
> Sensormatic  
> 
> > --
> > From: 
>
goedd...@sensormatic.com[SMTP:goedd...@sensormatic.com]
> > Reply To:   goedd...@sensormatic.com
> > Sent:   Friday, November 19, 1999 2:07 PM
> > To: emc-p...@ieee.org
> > Subject:RE: NRTL acceptance
> > 
> > 
> > Terry,
> > 
> > We have used four agencies through the years, and
> still have many products
> > with other than our main agency.
> > 
> > Over the past three years, there was one incident
> with a NEC inspector
> > that
> > did not correctly identify the backwards RU of a
> very famous NRTL. There
> > were a couple of other times where the inspector
> was looking for a certain
> > mark, and flagged us until we could explain that
> we used a different
> > agency.
> > So generally speaking, there is sometimes an
> education process required. 
> > 
> > On the positive side, the NRTL involved has always
> been very helpful in
> > the
> > education process.
> > 
> > James Goedderz
> > Sensormatic
> > 
> > > --
> > > From: Terry Meck[SMTP:tjm...@accusort.com]
> > > Reply To: Terry Meck
> > > Sent: Friday, November 19, 1999 12:25 PM
> > > To:   emc-p...@ieee.org
> > > Subject:  NRTL acceptance
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Hi:
> > > 
> > > We have been using an old reliable but very busy
> Safety agency to
> > > review our products and apply their safety mark.
> > > 
> > > From time to time we are approached by their
> competitors, NRTLs, or
> > > European soon to be NRTL labs for our business.
> > > 
> > > My question is in this `NRTL enlightened market
> are there still
> > > inspectors out there that will still require
> education about the NRTL
> > > status and the acceptability of an NRTL lab
> Listing vs the old familiar
> > > ones?
> > > 
> > > As you all know time to market is critical and 3
> to 6 months is too
> > > long to wait.  We will need to look for other
> solutions and I am trying
> > > to review the whole range of issues involved in
> changing the primary
> > > NRTL.
> > > 
> > > I hope this is not too commercial a question! 
> If you feel it is please
> > > reply to me directly.
> > > 
> > > Thank you!
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Best regards,
> > > Terry J. Meck
> > > Senior Compliance/Test Engineer
> > > Phone:215-721-5280
> > > Fax:215-721-5551 hard copy;
> > > Fax PC: 215.799.1650 To my desk PC
> > > tjm...@accusort.com
> > > Accu-Sort Systems Inc.
> > > 511 School House Rd.
> > > Telford, PA 18969-1196 USA
> > > 
> > > 
> > > -
> > > This message is coming from the emc-pstc
> discussion list.
> > > To cancel your subscription, send mail to
> majord...@ieee.org
> > > with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc"
> (without the
> > > quotes).  For help, send mail to
> ed.pr...@cubic.com,
> > > jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
> > > roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list
> administrators).
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> > -
> > This message is coming from the emc-pstc
> discussion list.
> > To cancel your subscription, send mail to
> majord...@ieee.org
> > with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc"
> (without the
> > quotes).  For help, send mail to
> ed.pr...@cubic.com,
> > jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
> > roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list
> administrators).
> > 
> > 
> 
> -
> This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion
> list.
> To cancel your subscription, send mail to
> majord...@ieee.org
> with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc"
> (without the
> quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
> jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
> roger.

Re: FW: Compressed Air. Pneumatics, Safety requirements

[Frank West]

Good Morning Israel!

You want to purchase a copy of EN 983:1996.  This
standard is Safety of Machinery, Safety of Fluid Power
Systems, Pneumatics.  This standard explains in detail
the requirements for pneumatic systems on industrial
machinery.

Regards,

Frank West
Sr. Engineer
TUV Rheinland NA


--- Israel Yeshurun 
wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From:   Israel Yeshurun
> > Subject:Compressed Air. Pneumatics,  Safety
> requirements
> > 
> > 
> >Dear Group Members,
> > 
> >I would appreciate comments to the
> following:
> > 
> >  General:  In some equipment,
> Compressed Air is used to
> > energize mechanical parts (in addition to
> electrical power used in the
> > equipment)  safety Interlocking of those
> mechanical parts, can be
> > performed by draining of the pressured air or by
> equalizing air pressure
> > on both sides of the operating pistons, or by ?? 
> The compressed air can
> > be supplied from outside of the machine or be
> produced inside the machine
> > by intended internal air compressor.This may
> rise the following
> > questions: 
> > 
> >1)  For Low Voltage Directive Equipment,
> utilizing compressed air,
> > are there any specific Safety requirements?  I
> looked in UL1950, EN60950
> > but could not find such.
> > 
> >2)  Regarding Machinery Directive products:
>   Are there specific
> > requirements?  intended standards ?
> > 
> >   Any response will be appreciated,  
> >  
> >Regards, 
> Israel Yeshurun,
> > Compliance Engineer.   
> 
> -
> This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion
> list.
> To cancel your subscription, send mail to
> majord...@ieee.org
> with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc"
> (without the
> quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
> jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
> roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list
> administrators).
> 
> 
> 


=
Frank West
Senior Engineer
TUV Rheinland of North America
NW/Portland OR Office
__
Do You Yahoo!?
Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com

-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

Re: Earth Potential Equalizing

[Frank West]

Good Morning Janne!

It has been my experience that units seperate from the
control cabinet that supplies power to them are
grounded to the same ground potential as the the
cabinet, assuming you are not using an IT type power
system (which is what is used in the Nordic countries
for example) where the PE is seperated from true
ground by protective impedances.  

IEC 60204-1 indicates that all parts of equipment
should have earth continuity back to the primary earth
stud/connection.  In fact, section 19 gives testing
requirements for this to be 0.1 ohms or less.

I hope this helps.  Please email me if you need
specific data.

Regards, 

Frank West
Sr. Engineer
TUV Rheinland NA

--- Janne_Engström  wrote:
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> We are manufacturing heating equipment for
> industrial use.
> Our equipment is one part in an "in line" setup of
> machines.
>  We are required, by one company we deliver to, to
> provide a wire
> for equalizing the earth potential between our
> control cabinet and 
> the frame of the main machine.
> 
> The heater is about 50kW at 400V. 
> 
> The required wire is 35 square millimeters copper
> wire.
> 
> The equiment in this case is for the European
> market.
> 
> I think what they are afraid of is that current will
> flow in the shields in
> the control cables between the different parts of
> the setup, creating problems.
> 
> Are there any standards that require this? Is this
> "standard procedure"?
> 
> Best regards
> 
> Janne Engstrom
> 
>  
> 
> 
> -
> This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion
> list.
> To cancel your subscription, send mail to
> majord...@ieee.org
> with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc"
> (without the
> quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
> jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
> roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list
> administrators).
> 
> 
> 

__
Do You Yahoo!?
Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com

-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

RESP: Compressed Air. Pneumatics, Safety requirements

[Peter E. Perkins]

Israel and PSNet,

Since you've asked about pneumatic controls, you are apparently
dealing with a machine - which would invoke the Machinery Directive.  

The risk assessment which you will do (from EN 292) would flag your
assessment of the risks associated with the pneumatic system.  Cl 1.5.3 of
the MD Annex I specifically enquires about Energy Supply other than
Electricity, which would also flag the issues here.  A review of the CEN
catalog (using the handy, dandy KWIC index) would point you to a standard
such as EN 983, Pneumatics which you would use to evaluate compliance with
the requirements therein.  

I hope that this helps.  

- - - - -

Peter E Perkins
Principal Product Safety Consultant
Tigard, ORe  97281-3427

+1/503/452-1201 phone/fax

p.perk...@ieee.org  email

visit our website:

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/peperkins

- - - - -

-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

Re: A-t/m vs A-t/cm

[Robert Macy]

The tricky part is making sure that the conversion is the right direction.

1 A/m = 0.01 A/cm

If you have oersteds and want amperes per meter, multiply by 79.577
If you have amperes per meter and want oersteds, multiply by 0.01257

 - Robert -

-Original Message-
From: Lou Gnecco 
To: emc-p...@ieee.org 
List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org
Date: Monday, November 22, 1999 6:45 PM
Subject: A-t/m vs A-t/cm


>
>Group:
>I want to make sure I did this right.
>I was trying to determine the permeability of this material.
>The B-H curve shows Flux density B in Teslas. (1 tesla = 10,000
Gauss, )
>But the Field Strength H is in A/cm. How do I convert this into
>something I can use like Oersteds or A/m?
>No guessing, please. I would appreciate hearing from someone with
>experience dealing with these units.
>Arun? Hans?? Are you out there?? help!!
>
>Regards,
>Lou



-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

Re: NRTL acceptance

[Graham Rae Dulmage]

Vitaly, your comment regarding CSA is incorrect. CSA is an NRTL just like the
others. CSA has a mark for NRTL approval.

Regards


G. Rae Dulmage

"Gorodetsky, Vitaly" wrote:

> George,
> You have overlooked MET, NTS, WYLE, SWRI and others.  For a complete list
> and the scope of recognition, go to the OSHA website.
> Though, CSA is recognized NRTL, I am afraid, that the issuance of the NRTL
> mark does not necessarily mean that CSA mark can be automatically affixed to
> a product.  There should be Mutual Recognition Agreement between a
> particular NRTL and the CSA.  Is it correct?
>
> Regards
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: geor...@lexmark.com [SMTP:geor...@lexmark.com]
> > Sent: Monday, November 22, 1999 5:11 AM
> > To:   emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
> > Subject:  RE: NRTL acceptance
> >
> >
> > Actually, the following NRTLs are approved by OSHA for evaluation
> > to UL 1950:
> >
> > UL, CSA, ITS (former ETL), TUV Rheinland, MET, and SGS.
> >
> > There may be some I have overlooked.
> >
> > George Alspaugh
> >
> > -- Forwarded by George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark on
> > 11/22/99
> > 08:09 AM ---
> >
> > vgorodetsky%canoga@interlock.lexmark.com on 11/19/99 04:57:29 PM
> >
> > Please respond to vgorodetsky%canoga@interlock.lexmark.com
> >
> > To:   George_Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark@LEXMARK,
> >   emc-pstc%majordomo.ieee@interlock.lexmark.com
> > cc:(bcc: George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark)
> > Subject:  RE: NRTL acceptance
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Terry and George,
> >
> > In this country of ours, there are three equally acceptable safety marks:
> > UL, ETL and NRTL.  But, as we all know, some acceptable marks are more
> > equal
> > than others.
> >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From:   geor...@lexmark.com [SMTP:geor...@lexmark.com]
> > > Sent:   Friday, November 19, 1999 11:02 AM
> > > To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
> > > Subject: NRTL acceptance
> > >
> > >
> > > Terry,
> > >
> > > You have raised a very good question.  The problem is that the U.S.
> > > had only one approved safety agency  for so long, that it is
> > > difficult to wean non-laymen away from that one agency mark.  This
> > > includes your (and my) management, marketing, customers, etc.  Few
> > > of these understand the meaning of NRTL, with its variety of agency
> > > approvals and marks.
> > >
> > > I did fight this battle over an off-the-shelf peripheral we needed
> > > to market which did not have the "traditional" safety mark, but an
> > > acceptable NRTL mark.  One of the positions I to confront was that
> > > many Federal, state, or local "government" bids require "the" mark.
> > >
> > > I referenced the Code of Federal Regulations, OSHA sections, citing
> > > acceptable U.S. authorized NRTLs.  I pointed out that compliance to
> > > UL 1950 was the needed requirement, not which agency did the actual
> > > assessment.  One problem is that those who write the specifications
> > > for government bids are not aware of this fact, and do continue to
> > > list only one agency mark into the document.  In a way, this is
> > > probably a violation of federal law, i.e. requiring vendors to do
> > > "business" with a specified private company, thus stifling any
> > > competition.  Isn't this what the goverment is accusing Microsoft
> > > of doing?
> > >
> > > You are exactly right.  As PSE professionals, we should be able to
> > > look for and use whatever options are legally available to meet our
> > > employer's certification needs in the most timely and cost effective
> > > manner.  Unfortunately, in the U.S. this requires a significant
> > > amount of internal and external education as to the actual legal
> > > options.
> > >
> > > George Alspaugh
> > > Lexmark International Inc.
> > >
> > > -- Forwarded by George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark on
> > > 11/19/99
> > > 01:41 PM ---
> > >
> > > tjmeck%accusort@interlock.lexmark.com on 11/19/99 12:25:38 PM
> > >
> > > Please respond to tjmeck%accusort@interlock.lexmark.com
> > >
> > > To:   emc-pstc%ieee@interlock.lexmark.com
> > > cc:(bcc: George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark)
> > > Subject:  NRTL acceptance
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi:
> > >
> > > We have been using an old reliable but very busy Safety agency to
> > > review our products and apply their safety mark.
> > >
> > > From time to time we are approached by their competitors, NRTLs, or
> > > European soon to be NRTL labs for our business.
> > >
> > > My question is in this `NRTL enlightened market are there still
> > > inspectors out there that will still require education about the NRTL
> > > status and the acceptability of an NRTL lab Listing vs the old familiar
> > > ones?
> > >
> > > As you all know time to market is critical and 3 to 6 months is too
> > > long to wait.  We will need to look for other solutions and I am trying
> > > to review the whole range of issues involved in changing the primary
> > > N

RE: Supply tolerance for Brazil

[Jasmine TAN]

Hi Chris,

Is it in the web page which you could direct me to ?

Thanks in advance! ...Jess






"Colgan, Chris"  on 11/22/99 06:10:13 PM
To:   "'Jasmine TAN'" 
  emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
cc:

Subject:  RE: Supply tolerance for Brazil


Hi Jess

According to British Standards' World Electricity Supplies the supply
voltage tolerance for Brazil is +5 -7.5%.  There is no frequency tolerance
listed.

I understand that 254V may also be used as the line voltage.

Regards

Chris Colgan
EMC & Safety
TAG McLaren Audio Ltd

mailto:chris.col...@tagmclarenaudio.com



> -Original Message-
> From:   Jasmine TAN [SMTP:sb...@ctlsg.creaf.com]
> Sent:   22 November 1999 07:36
> To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
> Subject: Supply tolerance for Brazil
>
>
> Hi,
>
> Understood that the operating (domestic)  voltage in Brazil ranges from
> 110-220V 60Hz.
> Can someone pls advise on the supply tolerance.
>
> Thanks
> Jess
>
>
> -
> This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
> To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
> with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
> quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
> jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
> roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
>
=
Authorised on 11/22/99 at 10:10:29; code 37f48bf3D204F5B1.
The contents of this E-mail are confidential and for the exclusive use of
the intended recipient.
If you receive this E-mail in error, please delete it from your system
immediately and notify us either by E-mail, telephone or fax. You should
not copy, forward or otherwise disclose the content of the E-mail.

TAG McLaren Audio Ltd, The Summit, 11 Latham Road
Huntingdon, Cambs, PE18 6ZU
Telephone : 01480 415600 (+44 1480 415600)
Facsimile : 01480 52159 (+44 1480 52159)





-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

Re: ESD EN 61000-4-2 question

[James Ericson]

>During a quality inspection in my lab the inspector
>I've got a non-conformity due to the lack of resistivity  check on the
>470 Kohm resistor employed to connect the reference plane of the ESD table
>to the ground.
>This is required according to EN 61000-4-2
>Could anyone give me some hints in order to understand the influence of that
>resistor on the ESD test ?

The HCP is connected to ground via the 470k resistors (one at each end of
the cable) both for safety considerations (same idea as the 1 Megohm
resistance in most ESD wriststraps), and also to serve as a drain path for
charge that builds up during the process of testing.  Without the drain,
the HCP surface would eventually charge to the point where discharges to
the gun would not occur.

The identical resistance values connecting the VCP (Vertical Coupling
Plane) to ground are required for the same reasons.

It is a good idea to check the resistance path fairly often using an
ohmmeter since the connections typically are subject to quite a bit of
mechanical movement.



-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

A-t/m vs A-t/cm

[Lou Gnecco]

Group:
I want to make sure I did this right.
I was trying to determine the permeability of this material. 
The B-H curve shows Flux density B in Teslas. (1 tesla = 10,000 Gauss, )
But the Field Strength H is in A/cm. How do I convert this into
something I can use like Oersteds or A/m? 
No guessing, please. I would appreciate hearing from someone with
experience dealing with these units.
Arun? Hans?? Are you out there?? help!!

Regards,
Lou


-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).