RE: Vibration and Shock Testing
-Original Message- From: Bandele Adepoju [mailto:badep...@jetstream.com] Sent: Friday, September 01, 2000 12:08 PM To: 'Ken Javor' Cc: emc-p...@ieee.org; 'ricklinf...@phobos.com'; jestuckey Subject: RE: Vibration and Shock Testing ...Regardless, I still feel the same about DoD Compliance (EMC, Environmental etc.,) overall today as I felt about it in the yesteryear - it is a bureaucratic maze cluttered with US Government jargon and disdain to the intelligence of the rest of the world. (For some reason, the expression faraday shield keeps popping into my mind every time I hear or see the phrase military standard.) Anyway, DoD compliance is only really applicable to the USofA. It is not relevant to Europe, Asia, South America - or even Canada! You would find yourself continuously having to justify the rational of its standards in most areas of the world, if any are put to used for compliance at an international level. At least the commercial standards are ubiquitous in this aspect. The flavors out there of commercial standards on a subject are a derivative of a single standard on the same subject - in requirement and rational. I would advise you not let the plagiarism of standards in their various numerical schemes fool or confuse you. Bandele Jetstream Communications, Inc. badep...@jetstream.com -Original Message- From: Ken Javor [mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com] Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2000 8:04 PM To: jestuckey; 'ricklinf...@phobos.com'; emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Re: Vibration and Shock Testing A general philosophical response to Mr. Stuckey's specific and cogent reply. Twenty years ago when I told colleagues I did military engineering, I would uniformly get comments about how could I stand the bureaucracy, red tape, and yes, comments to the effect of Customers of limited intelligence. Fade to the present, and I feel exactly the same way when someone tells me they do commercial EMC/safety/etc., especially after reviewing the e-mail trails I get off this service. And DoD EMC seems to have a much better foundation in reality in terms of justifiable limits than the commercial world has. I realize that commercial EMC/safety is in a period of transition, but for now I am quite content to be where I am and simply sit back and watch the chaos and confusion... -- From: jestuckey jestuc...@micron.com To: 'ricklinf...@phobos.com' ricklinf...@phobos.com, emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RE: Vibration and Shock Testing Date: Thu, Aug 31, 2000, 5:24 PM When in doubt and there are no defined industry requirements, you can safely go to Mil STD 810 E and find profiles for the proposed environment and shipping mode to which your equipment will be subjected. It provides you with an articulable and justifiable position from which to answer questions. Further before anyone questions the use of Mil STD, if you review other Standards and practices the majority of them have as a reference Mil STD 810. Hope this helps. Best regards, JOHN E. STUCKEY EMC Engineer Micron Technology, Inc. Integrated Products Group Micron Architectures Lab 8455 West Emerald St. Boise, Idaho 83704 PH: (208) 363-5313 FX: (208) 363-5596 jestuc...@micron.com [snip] Bandele: Faraday shields are your friends; embrace them (or at least let them embrace you). I find that DoD Mil Standards are fairly jargon-free, and they have been edited for comprehension at about the level of a US 13-year-old. But everyone has their own package of jargon (even if I lived on Main Street, I would still get my electrical power delivered on lines, not mains). In the EMC area, you will find that USA Mil Standards have had wide international influence. The British Def Stan 59-41 is strongly derived from Mil-Std-461C/462, with a splash of 461/462D and a filigree of Crown decorations. The NATO Stanags also were influenced by the Mil Standards. Cubic has an Australian program which used Mil-Std-461D, and a Canadian program which uses the British MoD 59-41. Finally, I suppose the USA DoD does insult worldwide intelligence by making their documents available for FREE, downloadable from the web, 24 hours a day. You have my sympathies. Regards, Ed :-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-) Ed Price ed.pr...@cubic.com Electromagnetic Compatibility Lab Cubic Defense Systems San Diego, CA. USA 858-505-2780 (Voice) 858-505-1583 (Fax) Military Avionics EMC Services Is Our Specialty Shake-Bake-Shock - Metrology - Reliability Analysis :-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-) --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single
RE: Used Equipment
-Original Message- From: lfresea...@aol.com [mailto:lfresea...@aol.com] Sent: Friday, September 01, 2000 10:42 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Used Equipment Hi all, I'm trying to get a rough idea how much some used equipment I've been offered is worth. Anyone an opinion? 10 microfarad caps ( fair condition ) 50 microhenry LISN ( well used... ) Monopole antenna, untouched since 1991... EFS 1 and EFS 3 Field meters with leveling preamps. Thanks, Derek. I just bought an EFS-3 on Ebay for $66.00. If the leveling pre-amp is similar to an IFI LPA-5x, then you will have a complete RF leveling capability; sensor, fiber-optic link and indicator/variable gain element. See IFI's web site for specs on the EFS series. What kind of monopole? Active? The internal battery may have caused chemical havoc since 1991! Some passive monopoles use a switching network for the matching coils, so you need to supply DC power and up to nine command select lines (and the connector is usually expensive and/or hard to get). Regards, Ed :-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-) Ed Price ed.pr...@cubic.com Electromagnetic Compatibility Lab Cubic Defense Systems San Diego, CA. USA 858-505-2780 (Voice) 858-505-1583 (Fax) Military Avionics EMC Services Is Our Specialty Shake-Bake-Shock - Metrology - Reliability Analysis :-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-) --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. 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: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
RE: Why routine hipot is required.
-Original Message- From: Mike Morrow [mailto:mi...@ucentric.com] Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2000 10:40 AM To: EMC Society Subject: Why routine hipot is required. I've been asked why a routine hipot test is required on an end assembly computer when it uses a Listed power supply that has already been hipot tested. So far I don't like the way I've worded my response. Basically what I've said is that a power supply is approved as a component. The end safety of the device depends on the installation. Can anyone add some more beef to this statement. Thanks. Mike Morrow Senior Compliance Engineer Ucentric Systems 978-897-6482 mi...@ucentric.com www.ucentric.com So how about adding: During the manufacturing process, we assemble a collection of approved components into a finished product. There is a possibility that one of our operations may damage or degrade one of these approved components. Further, these approved components are connected with materials added by us during the manufacturing process. Any of these materials may be mis-applied or damaged during the process, also degrading the performance of our finished product. In order to ensure the safety of our product, we must perform a final high-voltage integrity test. A little beef, a little chicken, and a schmear of lox. Ed :-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-) Ed Price ed.pr...@cubic.com Electromagnetic Compatibility Lab Cubic Defense Systems San Diego, CA. USA 858-505-2780 (Voice) 858-505-1583 (Fax) Military Avionics EMC Services Is Our Specialty Shake-Bake-Shock - Metrology - Reliability Analysis :-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-) --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. 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: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
RE: Why routine hipot is required.
Mike, I have in the past had UL/CSA hi-pot testing waived for the production line testing of the end product based on the specific method of installation of the power supply in the end product. Bandele Jetstream Communications, Inc. badep...@jetstream.com -Original Message- From: Mike Morrow [mailto:mi...@ucentric.com] Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2000 10:40 AM To: EMC Society Subject: Why routine hipot is required. I've been asked why a routine hipot test is required on an end assembly computer when it uses a Listed power supply that has already been hipot tested. So far I don't like the way I've worded my response. Basically what I've said is that a power supply is approved as a component. The end safety of the device depends on the installation. Can anyone add some more beef to this statement. Thanks. Mike Morrow Senior Compliance Engineer Ucentric Systems 978-897-6482 mi...@ucentric.com www.ucentric.com --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. 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: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. 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: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
RE: Why routine hipot is required.
Mike, In my experience, the purpose of the end-assembly, 100% mfg. hi-pot test is to check the integrity of the electrical connections and of the required isolation levels. On the manufacturing end, any number of events can create a disturbance in the insulation of the product. These can often include insulation migration, miswiring, skinned insulation on conductors, quality issues with OEM supplied parts (i.e. connectors, supplies, etc.) due to time or transportation effects and so onthink Murphy's Law. Restated, the factory test will help identify an otherwise catastrophic fault waiting to happen out in the field. For the most part, it's effective and pretty much required by a safety agency as part of the approval. Cheers, Kaz Gawrzyjal Sr. Product Safety Engineer -- Sanmina Canada ULC Wireless Development Centre 2924 11 Street NE Calgary, Alberta Canada, T2E 7L7 tel:403-232-4805 (ESN 765) fax:403-232-4813 (ESN 765) e-mail: k...@nortelnetworks.com -Original Message- From: Mike Morrow [mailto:mi...@ucentric.com] Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2000 11:40 AM To: EMC Society Subject: Why routine hipot is required. I've been asked why a routine hipot test is required on an end assembly computer when it uses a Listed power supply that has already been hipot tested. So far I don't like the way I've worded my response. Basically what I've said is that a power supply is approved as a component. The end safety of the device depends on the installation. Can anyone add some more beef to this statement. Thanks. Mike Morrow Senior Compliance Engineer Ucentric Systems 978-897-6482 mi...@ucentric.com www.ucentric.com --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. 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: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
RE: Vibration and Shock Testing
...Regardless, I still feel the same about DoD Compliance (EMC, Environmental etc.,) overall today as I felt about it in the yesteryear - it is a bureaucratic maze cluttered with US Government jargon and disdain to the intelligence of the rest of the world. (For some reason, the expression faraday shield keeps popping into my mind every time I hear or see the phrase military standard.) Anyway, DoD compliance is only really applicable to the USofA. It is not relevant to Europe, Asia, South America - or even Canada! You would find yourself continuously having to justify the rational of its standards in most areas of the world, if any are put to used for compliance at an international level. At least the commercial standards are ubiquitous in this aspect. The flavors out there of commercial standards on a subject are a derivative of a single standard on the same subject - in requirement and rational. I would advise you not let the plagiarism of standards in their various numerical schemes fool or confuse you. Bandele Jetstream Communications, Inc. badep...@jetstream.com -Original Message- From: Ken Javor [mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com] Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2000 8:04 PM To: jestuckey; 'ricklinf...@phobos.com'; emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Re: Vibration and Shock Testing A general philosophical response to Mr. Stuckey's specific and cogent reply. Twenty years ago when I told colleagues I did military engineering, I would uniformly get comments about how could I stand the bureaucracy, red tape, and yes, comments to the effect of Customers of limited intelligence. Fade to the present, and I feel exactly the same way when someone tells me they do commercial EMC/safety/etc., especially after reviewing the e-mail trails I get off this service. And DoD EMC seems to have a much better foundation in reality in terms of justifiable limits than the commercial world has. I realize that commercial EMC/safety is in a period of transition, but for now I am quite content to be where I am and simply sit back and watch the chaos and confusion... -- From: jestuckey jestuc...@micron.com To: 'ricklinf...@phobos.com' ricklinf...@phobos.com, emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RE: Vibration and Shock Testing Date: Thu, Aug 31, 2000, 5:24 PM When in doubt and there are no defined industry requirements, you can safely go to Mil STD 810 E and find profiles for the proposed environment and shipping mode to which your equipment will be subjected. It provides you with an articulable and justifiable position from which to answer questions. Further before anyone questions the use of Mil STD, if you review other Standards and practices the majority of them have as a reference Mil STD 810. Hope this helps. Best regards, JOHN E. STUCKEY EMC Engineer Micron Technology, Inc. Integrated Products Group Micron Architectures Lab 8455 West Emerald St. Boise, Idaho 83704 PH: (208) 363-5313 FX: (208) 363-5596 jestuc...@micron.com -Original Message- From: ricklinf...@phobos.com [ mailto:ricklinf...@phobos.com mailto:ricklinf...@phobos.com ] Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2000 14:28 To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Vibration and Shock Testing This may not be the correct group to ask environmental questions, but I thought it was a good place to start considering so many in the group wear different hats or have past experience. In an effort to understand principles of shock and vibration compliance, I have searched companies like HP, Compaq and CISCO only to find if vibration and shock are called out it is not even the same within the same company. The task is to define the correct vibration and shock testing for electronic equipment, considering operational, non-operational and transportation will have different levels. Are there accepted existing standard like CISPR 22 and IEC 60950 for vibration, shock or other environmental parameters? Is there a similar group to this one that deals with environmental testing and compliance? Thank you in advance for time on this matter. Rick Linford rlinf...@phobobs.com --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. 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: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list
RE: Vibration and Shock Testing
-Original Message- From: Ken Javor [mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com] Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2000 8:04 PM To: jestuckey; 'ricklinf...@phobos.com'; emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Re: Vibration and Shock Testing A general philosophical response to Mr. Stuckey's specific and cogent reply. Twenty years ago when I told colleagues I did military engineering, I would uniformly get comments about how could I stand the bureaucracy, red tape, and yes, comments to the effect of Customers of limited intelligence. Fade to the present, and I feel exactly the same way when someone tells me they do commercial EMC/safety/etc., especially after reviewing the e-mail trails I get off this service. And DoD EMC seems to have a much better foundation in reality in terms of justifiable limits than the commercial world has. I realize that commercial EMC/safety is in a period of transition, but for now I am quite content to be where I am and simply sit back and watch the chaos and confusion... [snippo] Oh, it just could be a case of embracing the devil that you know. grin Just never sit back so far that you can't reach the pizza beer. Regards, Ed :-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-) Ed Price ed.pr...@cubic.com Electromagnetic Compatibility Lab Cubic Defense Systems San Diego, CA. USA 858-505-2780 (Voice) 858-505-1583 (Fax) Military Avionics EMC Services Is Our Specialty Shake-Bake-Shock - Metrology - Reliability Analysis :-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-) --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. 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: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
Re: Why routine hipot is required.
Hi Mike: I've been asked why a routine hipot test is required on an end assembly computer when it uses a Listed power supply that has already been hipot tested. So far I don't like the way I've worded my response. Basically what I've said is that a power supply is approved as a component. The end safety of the device depends on the installation. There are two answers... First, certification houses require testing of the end-product in its final configuration. This requirement is based on the idea that the end-product manufacturer can affect the primary circut insulation until the enclosure is installed. In some cases, where the power supply includes all of the primary circuit including the input connector, and is fully enclosed in its own enclosure that meets end- product specs, the certifier will waive the end-product test. Note that this waiver is based on the idea that the construction of the power supply precludes the end- product manufacturer from affecting the primary circuit insulation. Second, it is appropriate to re-test due to the effects of time and transportation on the power supply. Others have already provided anecdotes on these effects. I'll add one more: A primary wire was pinched, but passed the power supply manufacturer's hi-pot test. After crossing the ocean in a ship, the power supply failed the hi-pot test. During the crossing, the wire insulation cold-flowed until the remaining insulation was too thin to pass the hi-pot test. Best regards, Rich --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. 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: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
RE: Why routine hipot is required.
Basically - high potential testing is a means to check the integrity (safety) of the wiring/components and construction used in the front end before the power supplies. I have two free publications, from two companies that manufacture high potential testers, that explain the process and needs very well. I checked their web sites but they were not available on the site. You may need to call them. Slaughter - 800-412-1921 - Basic Facts About High Voltage Testing Associated Research, Inc. - 1-800-858-8378 - A Basic Guide to Electrical Product Safety Testing Good Luck! -Original Message- From: Mike Morrow [mailto:mi...@ucentric.com] Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2000 12:40 PM To: EMC Society Subject: Why routine hipot is required. I've been asked why a routine hipot test is required on an end assembly computer when it uses a Listed power supply that has already been hipot tested. So far I don't like the way I've worded my response. Basically what I've said is that a power supply is approved as a component. The end safety of the device depends on the installation. Can anyone add some more beef to this statement. Thanks. Mike Morrow Senior Compliance Engineer Ucentric Systems 978-897-6482 mi...@ucentric.com www.ucentric.com --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. 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: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. 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: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
Used Equipment
Hi all, I'm trying to get a rough idea how much some used equipment I've been offered is worth. Anyone an opinion? 10 microfarad caps ( fair condition ) 50 microhenry LISN ( well used... ) Monopole antenna, untouched since 1991... EFS 1 and EFS 3 Field meters with leveling preamps. Thanks, Derek. --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. 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: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
Re: Why routine hipot is required.
Mike, I made the same mistake. The power supply was recognized. - Original Message - From: Pryor McGinnis c...@prodigy.net To: Mike Morrow mi...@ucentric.com; EMC Society emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Sent: Friday, September 01, 2000 12:31 PM Subject: Re: Why routine hipot is required. Mike, Back in my days as Compliance Engineer for ATT Global Information Solutions (NCR), I was successful in obtaining UL/CSA waiver for production line hipot testing of the end product on the basis of using a listed power supply that had already been subjected to hipot as a part of the power supply manufacturing process. Hipot was still required as a part of the UL/CSA evaluation for initial listing of the end product. Ground continuity testing was still required due to the fact that the mounting of the power supply in the end product established necessary contacts for ground continuity. - Original Message - From: Mike Morrow mi...@ucentric.com To: EMC Society emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2000 1:40 PM Subject: Why routine hipot is required. I've been asked why a routine hipot test is required on an end assembly computer when it uses a Listed power supply that has already been hipot tested. So far I don't like the way I've worded my response. Basically what I've said is that a power supply is approved as a component. The end safety of the device depends on the installation. Can anyone add some more beef to this statement. Thanks. Mike Morrow Senior Compliance Engineer Ucentric Systems 978-897-6482 mi...@ucentric.com www.ucentric.com --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. 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: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. 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: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
RE: Why routine hipot is required.
Mike, I have had instances on the manufacturing line were the unit would fail the Hipot or Ground Bond test. The same holds true. The power supply is an approved part and was tested by the power supply house. With this information alone I would recommend doing the tests on the end product. Josh -Original Message- From: Mike Morrow [mailto:mi...@ucentric.com] Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2000 10:40 AM To: EMC Society Subject: Why routine hipot is required. I've been asked why a routine hipot test is required on an end assembly computer when it uses a Listed power supply that has already been hipot tested. So far I don't like the way I've worded my response. Basically what I've said is that a power supply is approved as a component. The end safety of the device depends on the installation. Can anyone add some more beef to this statement. Thanks. Mike Morrow Senior Compliance Engineer Ucentric Systems 978-897-6482 mi...@ucentric.com www.ucentric.com --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. 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: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
RE: Why routine hipot is required.
Mike: Here's the beef. The hi-pot test on the completed assembly, or final product, should be done as close as possible to the point of production where the product is boxed up for shipping and/or storage. The purpose of this is to try and find a defect in the primary side of the product wiring that may have been induced as part of the assembly process, such as a cable being pinched where the insulation is now broken. Even if the component power supply you are installing in your product is Listed (most are Recognized), there may be an instance where someone on the production line had too much weekend and wired something incorrectly (such as the input to the supply). In my days of working for a computer manufacturer, I can recall a specific instance where a listed molded cordset had ground and line reversed on one end. What a happy surprise for the test operator that was. Bottom line is that the production hi-pot test is the last line of defense in assuring that the manufacturer is not sending out a liability inducing, honey, we just lost the farm death trap. Sincerely, Robert Loop Engineering Supervisor Wyle Laboratories Product Safety ph - (256) 837-4411 x313 fax- (256) 721-0144 e-mail: rl...@hnt.wylelabs.com __Reply Separator -- From: Mike Morrow[SMTP:mi...@ucentric.com] Reply To: Mike Morrow Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2000 12:40 PM To: EMC Society Subject: Why routine hipot is required. I've been asked why a routine hipot test is required on an end assembly computer when it uses a Listed power supply that has already been hipot tested. So far I don't like the way I've worded my response. Basically what I've said is that a power supply is approved as a component. The end safety of the device depends on the installation. Can anyone add some more beef to this statement. Thanks. Mike Morrow Senior Compliance Engineer Ucentric Systems 978-897-6482 mi...@ucentric.com www.ucentric.com --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. 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: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. 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: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
RE: Why routine hipot is required.
Mike, During Hi-pot testing, in addition to punctured wiring insulation and blatant mis-wiring, I have experienced failures due to faulty/broken components recognized power supplies used inthe equipment. Therefore I am all for it . . . . John Juhasz Fiber Options Bohemia, NY -Original Message- From: Eric Petitpierre [mailto:eric.petitpie...@pulse.com] Sent: Friday, September 01, 2000 8:33 AM To: Mike Morrow Subject: Re: Why routine hipot is required. Mike, It would be an easier job to explain if the supply was Recognized rather than Listed. The best way I can think to support you arguement is to give examples. For example, I have seen ac leads get miswired. If the supply is fed through an on board IEC connector, it is hard to mess that up. Another example is the screws holding the supply in place. Suppose the usual screws are not available for whatever reason..longer screws get used instead. Those screws could compromise the isolation. Seen that happen as well.. Good luck, Eric Petitpierre eric.petitpie...@pulse.com _ _ Reply Separator _ Subject: Why routine hipot is required. Author: mi...@ucentric.com (Mike Morrow) at smtp List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date:8/31/00 1:40 PM I've been asked why a routine hipot test is required on an end assembly computer when it uses a Listed power supply that has already been hipot tested. So far I don't like the way I've worded my response. Basically what I've said is that a power supply is approved as a component. The end safety of the device depends on the installation. Can anyone add some more beef to this statement. Thanks. Mike Morrow Senior Compliance Engineer Ucentric Systems 978-897-6482 mi...@ucentric.com www.ucentric.com --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. 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: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. 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: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
Why routine hipot is required.
Mike, The global safety standards for ITE require an electric strength test per section 5.3. This applies to the entire assembly as certilisted. Section 5.3.2 describes the type test necessary for certification. IEC 60950, nor its counterparts, explicitly state that production hi- pot testing must be conducted, but the section does include a note that for production test purposes the duration of the test can be reduced to 1 sec. However, I believe that any agency, especially those with mandatory follow-up-services, will require production hi-pot testing to approve an ITE product. This is usually the most scrutinized process step for any initial factory inspection, even by China's CCIB or Poland's PCBC. Suppose an ITE product contains multiple sub-assemblies which include mains voltages or higher, e.g. power supply, fuser, CRT, etc. Suppose each is an agency recognized or listed component, and undergo a hi-pot check at their site of manufacture. Why hi-pot a product comprised of theses sub-asseblies? The reasons are many. The sub-assemblies can be damaged in shipment. During final product assembly, a nut or screw can fall into a power supply or other sub-assemly. All mains cabling and connections between the separate assemblies must be verified to pass hi-pot. Hope this helps. George -- Forwarded by George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark on 09/01/2000 12:10 PM --- mikem%ucentric@interlock.lexmark.com on 08/31/2000 01:40:27 PM Please respond to mikem%ucentric@interlock.lexmark.com To: emc-pstc%majordomo.ieee@interlock.lexmark.com cc:(bcc: George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark) Subject: Why routine hipot is required. I've been asked why a routine hipot test is required on an end assembly computer when it uses a Listed power supply that has already been hipot tested. So far I don't like the way I've worded my response. Basically what I've said is that a power supply is approved as a component. The end safety of the device depends on the installation. Can anyone add some more beef to this statement. Thanks. Mike Morrow Senior Compliance Engineer Ucentric Systems 978-897-6482 mi...@ucentric.com www.ucentric.com --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. 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: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. 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: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
Re: Why routine hipot is required.
Mike, Back in my days as Compliance Engineer for ATT Global Information Solutions (NCR), I was successful in obtaining UL/CSA waiver for production line hipot testing of the end product on the basis of using a listed power supply that had already been subjected to hipot as a part of the power supply manufacturing process. Hipot was still required as a part of the UL/CSA evaluation for initial listing of the end product. Ground continuity testing was still required due to the fact that the mounting of the power supply in the end product established necessary contacts for ground continuity. - Original Message - From: Mike Morrow mi...@ucentric.com To: EMC Society emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2000 1:40 PM Subject: Why routine hipot is required. I've been asked why a routine hipot test is required on an end assembly computer when it uses a Listed power supply that has already been hipot tested. So far I don't like the way I've worded my response. Basically what I've said is that a power supply is approved as a component. The end safety of the device depends on the installation. Can anyone add some more beef to this statement. Thanks. Mike Morrow Senior Compliance Engineer Ucentric Systems 978-897-6482 mi...@ucentric.com www.ucentric.com --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. 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: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. 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: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
Re: OSHA regulations
I don't know if there is a government regulation, but some shipping companies do have requirements for heavy packages. UPS requires special marking for packages over 70 pounds (31.5 kg.) For packages over this weight, two people may be used to lift the package. If one person feels comfortable moving the package on his own, he may do so. However, he is not required to move the package alone if it is over the weight limit. http://www.ups.com/using/services/packaging/over70.html Ted Eckert Regulatory Compliance Engineer American Power Conversion Corporation teck...@apcc.com The items contained in this e-mail reflect the personal opinions of the writer and are only provided for the assistance of the reader. The writer is not speaking in an official capacity for APC nor representing APC's official position on any matter. Please respond to Dave Wilson dwil...@alidian.com Sent by: owner-emc-p...@ieee.org To: 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org' emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org cc: From: Dave Wilson dwil...@alidian.com@ieee.org on 08/31/2000 10:00 PM Subject: OSHA regulations One of our sales guys claims that we should have a label on our shipping package to show that it takes two men to lift it. He claims that this is an OSHA requirement. I had a look at their web-site but couldn't find anything in the contents of 29CFR etc. Anyone recognize this? Is it an actual requirement or simply a duty of care? Thanks, Dave Wilson Alidian Networks Inc. --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. 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: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. 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: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
RE: RE: EN55024 question
Bandele - Please forgive an ignorant question: I'm not going to pretend to be an EMC standards expert, but I fail to see how the presence or absence of processing an incoming signal has anything to do with whether there is a direct or indirect connection to outside lines. To wit: outside is easily enough understood as a line (presumed metallic) that enters a building structure from an uncontrolled environment and subject to transients. Direct implies to me that there is no interposing hardware, other than interconnects (no voltage surge suppression devices, galvanic isolating equipment, etc). Is this an interpretation from a Notified Body or known to be the intent of the standards committee that wrote the requirement? Regards, Peter L. Tarver, PE ptar...@nortelnetworks.com -Original Message- From: Bandele Adepoju Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2000 1:16 PM Hello Debbie, If the jack has processing capabilities (if it takes the incoming data signal and reprocesses it or reformats it), any connection to it is considered to be an indirect connection. If the jack does not have processing capabilities (if it passes the data signal straight through), any connection to it is considered to be a direct connection. Regards, Bandele Jetstream Communications, Inc. badep...@jetstream.com -Original Message- From: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com [mailto:jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com] forwarding for Debbie... Reply Separator Subject:EN55024 question Author: Debbie Mallory debbie.mall...@fibre.com List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: 8/25/00 10:59 AM Hello, I have a question about the use of the word directly in Note 2, of Table 2, in EN55024: 1998. It says Applicable only to [telecommunication] ports which according to the manufacturer's specification may connect directly to outdoor cables. If the TTE has a T1/E1 interface that connects to the outdoor cable via a smart jack, is this considered a direct connection (and thus subject to immunity testing) or does it not apply? Can I make any assumptions about whether phone companies throughout the EEU install smart jacks at the customer premises? Thanks for your comments. Regards, Debbie Mallory AFC, Inc. Largo, FL
RE: Vibration and Shock Testing
Hello All... I've attached ISTA's list of test labs (listed by state) for your reference. Enjoy! George -Original Message- From: Matthew Meehan [mailto:mee...@i-kk.co.jp] Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2000 8:43 PM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RE: Vibration and Shock Testing Rick, Try the IEC 60068 series. You'll need part 1 (IEC 60068-1) and an appropriate part 2. Warning! May cause drowsiness. Do not operate heavy machinery while reading. IEC 60068-2-47 (1999-10) Environmental testing - Part 2-47: Test methods - Mounting of components, equipment and other articles for vibration, impact and similar dynamic tests IEC 60068-2-50 (1983-01) Environmental testing. Part 2: Tests. Tests Z/AFc: Combined cold/vibration (sinusoidal) tests for both heat-dissipating and non-heat-dissipating specimens IEC 60068-2-51 (1983-01) Environmental testing. Part 2: Tests. Tests Z/BFc: Combined dry heat/vibration (sinusoidal) tests for both heat-dissipating and non-heat-dissipating specimens IEC 60068-2-53 (1984-12) Environmental testing. Part 2: Tests. Guidance to Tests Z/AFc and Z/BFc: Combined temperature (cold and dry heat) and vibration (sinusoidal) tests For more information you might want to contact a company that performs HALT (Highly Accelerated Life Test) and/or HASS (Highly Accelerated Stress Screen). They should be able to advise you about industry standards and make recommendations regarding your products. Regards, Matt This may not be the correct group to ask environmental questions, but I thought it was a good place to start considering so many in the group wear different hats or have past experience. In an effort to understand principles of shock and vibration compliance, I have searched companies like HP, Compaq and CISCO only to find if vibration and shock are called out it is not even the same within the same company. The task is to define the correct vibration and shock testing for electronic equipment, considering operational, non-operational and transportation will have different levels. Are there accepted existing standard like CISPR 22 and IEC 60950 for vibration, shock or other environmental parameters? Is there a similar group to this one that deals with environmental testing and compliance? Thank you in advance for time on this matter. Rick Linford rlinf...@phobobs.com --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. 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: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. 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: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org ISTA_labs.pdf Description: Binary data
RE: Vibration and Shock Testing
For our medical equipment we have used ASTM D4169-96 D4728-95 and most recently ISTA Procedure 1 1A. The ISTA appears to be the more universally accepted standard. Good Luck! -Original Message- From: ricklinf...@phobos.com [mailto:ricklinf...@phobos.com] Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2000 3:28 PM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Vibration and Shock Testing This may not be the correct group to ask environmental questions, but I thought it was a good place to start considering so many in the group wear different hats or have past experience. In an effort to understand principles of shock and vibration compliance, I have searched companies like HP, Compaq and CISCO only to find if vibration and shock are called out it is not even the same within the same company. The task is to define the correct vibration and shock testing for electronic equipment, considering operational, non-operational and transportation will have different levels. Are there accepted existing standard like CISPR 22 and IEC 60950 for vibration, shock or other environmental parameters? Is there a similar group to this one that deals with environmental testing and compliance? Thank you in advance for time on this matter. Rick Linford rlinf...@phobobs.com --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. 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: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. 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: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
An interesting source for copper foil tape
...and what do slugs and snails have to do with circuit prototyping, debugging, or EMC work? Have you ever had a need for copper foil tape on short notice for circuit prototyping, debugging, or EMC work? This month's technical tidbit is on a source of such material, the local hardware store. Details are at http://www.dsmith.org at the bottom of the index page. The particular material described is the one I use for most of my measurement/EMC projects. The article is shorter than normal this month as I have spent most of the month on business trips including the IEEE EMC Symposium and preparing for next month's high frequency design and measurement public seminar. Doug -- --- ___ _ Doug Smith \ / ) P.O. Box 1457 = Los Gatos, CA 95031-1457 _ / \ / \ _ TEL/FAX: 408-356-4186/358-3799 / /\ \ ] / /\ \ Mobile: 408-858-4528 | q-( ) | o |Email: d...@dsmith.org \ _ /]\ _ / Website: http://www.dsmith.org --- --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. 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: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
RE: Vibration and Shock Testing
Rick, Try the IEC 60068 series. You'll need part 1 (IEC 60068-1) and an appropriate part 2. Warning! May cause drowsiness. Do not operate heavy machinery while reading. IEC 60068-2-47 (1999-10) Environmental testing - Part 2-47: Test methods - Mounting of components, equipment and other articles for vibration, impact and similar dynamic tests IEC 60068-2-50 (1983-01) Environmental testing. Part 2: Tests. Tests Z/AFc: Combined cold/vibration (sinusoidal) tests for both heat-dissipating and non-heat-dissipating specimens IEC 60068-2-51 (1983-01) Environmental testing. Part 2: Tests. Tests Z/BFc: Combined dry heat/vibration (sinusoidal) tests for both heat-dissipating and non-heat-dissipating specimens IEC 60068-2-53 (1984-12) Environmental testing. Part 2: Tests. Guidance to Tests Z/AFc and Z/BFc: Combined temperature (cold and dry heat) and vibration (sinusoidal) tests For more information you might want to contact a company that performs HALT (Highly Accelerated Life Test) and/or HASS (Highly Accelerated Stress Screen). They should be able to advise you about industry standards and make recommendations regarding your products. Regards, Matt This may not be the correct group to ask environmental questions, but I thought it was a good place to start considering so many in the group wear different hats or have past experience. In an effort to understand principles of shock and vibration compliance, I have searched companies like HP, Compaq and CISCO only to find if vibration and shock are called out it is not even the same within the same company. The task is to define the correct vibration and shock testing for electronic equipment, considering operational, non-operational and transportation will have different levels. Are there accepted existing standard like CISPR 22 and IEC 60950 for vibration, shock or other environmental parameters? Is there a similar group to this one that deals with environmental testing and compliance? Thank you in advance for time on this matter. Rick Linford rlinf...@phobobs.com --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. 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: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. 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: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
