Re: Desperate for help on a UL1950 interpretation
Doug, Since you have LPS and a fire enclosure is not required, your foam is not within a fire enclosure and so the requirement does not apply. If test house wants to be picky, then they could say that it now must meet the decorative parts criteria which means you must provide an HBF foam. Regards At 12:37 29/09/2000 -0400, Massey, Doug C. wrote: Hello All - I desperately need some opinions on an interpretation of a particular clause in UL1950. The background: I have an investigation underway to UL1950 of a portable handheld computer, powered by battery and other power options, all of which meet the requirements for inherently LPS. Clause 4.4.3.1 states, Components inside a FIRE ENCLOSURE, and continues into flammability requirements of materials and components. Clause 4.4.5.2 addresses components not requiring a fire enclosure, and states, -components in a SECONDARY CIRCUIT supplied by a limited power source complying with 2.11, provided that The product in question absolutely meets the requirements of clause 4.4.5.2, which I interpret to mean that a fire enclosure is not required. However, the test house performing the evaluation is applying all of the criteria of clause 4.4.3.2. Unfortunately, I have a relatively small foam spacer inside that does not meet the flammability class HF-2 or better as specified in 4.4.3.2. The test house tells me that yes, the product meets the requirements for the exemption allowed in 4.4.5.2, but that I cannot literally interpret the statement in 4.4.3.1 to mean that the substance of clause 4.4.3 regards only component and material flammability ratings inside a fire enclosure. I guess I'm a literal type guy - I can't see any other way to interpret the standard. Can anyone shed some light on this interpretation so that I can read between the lines and understand the real requirements? I'm not trying to make an enclosure of gasoline-impregnated paper, and with the exception of a small (but critical) piece of foam, everything else meets the requirements without the exclusion allowed by 4.4.5.2. HELP !?!? Doug Massey Safety Approvals Engineer LXE, Inc. Norcross, GA., USA Ph. (770) 447-4224 x3607 FAX (770) 447-6928 e-mail: masse...@lxe.com Cruise our website at: http:\\www.lxe.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 Peter Merguerian Managing Director Product Testing Division I.T.L. (Product Testing) Ltd. Hacharoshet 26, POB 211 Or Yehuda 60251, Israel Tel: 972-3-5339022 Fax: 972-3-5339019 e-mail: pmerguer...@itl.co.il website: http://www.itl.co.il TO LEARN ABOUT AUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZEALAND REQUIREMENTS, CONTACT ME AT THE EARLIEST STAGES OF YOUR DESIGN; REQUIREMENTS CAN BE TRICKY! --- 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: MRAs
forwarded for gho...@us.tuv.com Reply Separator Subject:RE: MRAs Author: gho...@us.tuv.com List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: 10/2/00 10:42 AM Hi Ron, That is exactly correct. There is a definite distinction in the U.S. between residential requirements and commercial application requirements. Commercial is mandated through legislation as you stated, whereby products destined for residential only applications is voluntary. The Consumer Protection Agency in the U.S. can verify this. The liable issue and buyer contracts for large retailers ( specifying in their contracts that approvals are required) is what usually drives a consumer product manufacturer to regulatory testing. In Canada, both consumer and commercial applications have mandatory requirements under, if I remember correctly, the National Electrical Code. Best regards, Garry Hojan Division Manager-Telecom Services TUV Telecom Services, Inc. 1279 Quarry Lane, Suite A Pleasanton, CA 94566 Tel: 925-249-9123 Ext 127 Fax: 925-249-9124 Mobile: 650-465-8383 email: gho...@us.tuv.com Ron Pickard rpick...@hypercom.com@world.std.com on 09/29/2000 08:43:50 AM Please respond to Ron Pickard rpick...@hypercom.com Sent by: treg-appro...@world.std.com To: Ben Wrigley bwrig...@ktl.com cc: t...@world.std.com, emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RE: MRAs Hi Ben, In your reply, you stated: As far as electrical safety is concerned the MRA offers little advantage since the possibility of local assessment of products was already possible. You should also be aware that approvals such as UL markings are not covered by the MRA since they are not mandated through legislation. The requirement to place UL or equivalent marks on products is voluntary, although you may experience difficulty selling products which are not marked! Products intended for the US market must still be safe though. Voluntary, bah. In the USA, NRTL safety approvals, thus NRTL safety marks, for equipment intended for the commercial environment, in fact, are required AND mandated through legislation. This requirement is found in the US's Code of Federal Regulations (29CFR Part 1910 Subpart S) and is regulated by the US Dept. of Labor (I'm not so sure about the requirements of products intended for the residential environment). With that being said, UL or other NRTL safety marks are also required, however, it is up to the manufacturer to decide which NRTL, therefore which NRTL mark, to use. Best regards, Ron Pickard rpick...@hypercom.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: Getting Started
On the subject of TCF and waiving tests, lets say you were to waive a test because its non-applicable. For instance, line conducted when the unit is battery powered. Does this mean that you are required to go the TCF route? -Original Message- From: tinb...@aol.com [mailto:tinb...@aol.com] Sent: Monday, October 02, 2000 10:25 AM To: cdup...@cs.com; fr...@amcomm.com Cc: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Re: Getting Started Chris, I am interested in knowing the basis of your response to items 1 and 2, as it is contrary to my understanding of the EMC Directive. Specifically, it was my understanding that unless the manufacturer is following ALL of the requirements specified in Standard(s), that they must follow the TCF route and obtain a report or certificate from a Competent Body, as outlined per Article 10(2) of the EMC Directive states that In the case of apparatus for which the manufacturer has not applied, or has applied only in part, the standards referred to in Article 7(1) or failing such standards, the manufacturer or his authorized respresentative established within the Community shall hold at the disposal of the relevant competent authorities, as soon as the apparatus is placed on the market, a technical construction file. This file shall describe the apparatus. and include a technical report or certificate, one or other obtained from a competent body. If a manufacturer uses their engineering rationale to waive all of the EMC testing specified in standards, they have only applied part of the standard and as such, the EMC Directive would require that the rationale and the TCF be reviewed by a European EMC Competent Body. Furthermore, I believe that UK's DTI is consistent with EMC Directive's philosophy outlined in Article 10(2). In the October 1992 DTI's Guidance Document on the Preparation of a Technical Construction File as required by EC Directive 89/336, Section 1.3 outlines the Circumstances where the TCF might be used, ii) For apparatus where harmonized standards exist but the manufacturer applied that standard in part only, eg where a manufacturer can justify that a particular type of apparatus complies with the protection requirements of the Directive without performing tests to any or all of the phenomena described in the relevant harmonized specifications. I am interested in learning whether UK has established an updated position which allows manufacturer to waive testing (altogether) and still self-declare conformity to the EMC Directive through the standards route? Regards Tin In a message dated Sun, 1 Oct 2000 2:58:00 AM Eastern Daylight Time, cdup...@cs.com writes: In a message dated 29/09/00 15:43:06 GMT Daylight Time, fr...@amcomm.com writes: I'm just getting started in the world of EMI and would like to ask a few questions. I'm not sure if I should be going the TCF route or the Standards Route. The company that I work for manufactures products which have many variants. 1) Is it EC law that a manufacturer must perform EMI testing before applying the CE mark? No. In the UK, the Electromagnetic Compatibility Regulations don't require testing if you follow the Standards Route. But you must make the Declaration of Compliance before you use the CE mark and be able to provide evidence of compliance to the regulatory authorities when challenged. This can be test results, or detailed analysis, or statements etc. Again, 'testing' per se is not a particular requirement. For instance, a simple resistive convection heater could be stated to Comply because there are no non-linear elements to produce or be affected by EMI. No need to test. Having said that, testing is the only absolutely certain way of proving compliance. And don't forget that the Regulations are Criminal Law! 2) If a manufacturer follows the Standards Route, does EC law require each variant to be tested? No. There is nio statutory need to test. But you need to provide firm evidence, when asked, that the variant is not significantly different in EMC terms to the original subject of the Compliance Declaration. A detailed technical statement would suffice, but must be accurate and traceable. Again, we are taking Criminal Law here! 3) If, when testing, the limit is exceeded, can the CE mark still be applied? No. The CE mark means that ALL relevant Directives have been complied with. If EMC limits are exceeded when using the Standards Route then it doesn't comply with the EMC Directive. If the product can't be produced without exceeding the limits, then the TCF route to compliance should be used. 4) Are the services of a Competent Body required in order to put together a TCF or can the manufacturer do that on his own? A TCF is only valid when qualified by a Competent Body. A manufacturer can build his own TCF, or an external Test House/Competent Body can build it, but at the end of the day the Competent Body signs/takes responsibility for it.
RE: Harmonics and the 600W limit
Do you know whether or not this amendment has been published in the O.J. yet? If so, does anyone have the date of publication? Thanks. Don Rhodes Principal EMC Engineer (503) 685-8588 voice (503) 685-8887 fax -Original Message- From: Wagner, John P (John) [mailto:johnwag...@avaya.com] Sent: Monday, October 02, 2000 7:10 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org; 'gunter_j_ma...@embraco.com.br' Subject: RE: Harmonics and the 600W limit CENELEC prA14 passed amending EN61000-3-2 Class D to include only PC's, monitors, and TV's. So, if your product is not in any of those categories, you need not comply with Class D after the doa of the amendment. Nevertheless, if your product is Class D, the Class D limits are the same as those for Class A for the 5th harmonic and very close for most of the other harmonics which are likely to be close to the limit. Class D allows you to test at rated power which is the same as max power expected to be drawn from the unit. This allows you to test at one power level, unless your product has fluctuating harmonics. Fluctuating harmonics are usually present in products which have electronic power supplies plus intermittent motor or heater loads which turn off and on during normal operation. In such a case, you must test in both operating conditions John P. Wagner AVAYA Communication 11900 N. Pecos St, Room 2F58 Denver CO 80234 email: johnwag...@avaya.com phone: 303 538-4241 fax: 303 538-5211 -- From: gunter_j_ma...@embraco.com.br[SMTP:gunter_j_ma...@embraco.com.br] Reply To: gunter_j_ma...@embraco.com.br Sent: Monday, September 25, 2000 7:20 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Harmonics and the 600W limit Correcting my English: A question about the famous 61000-3-2. What should I consider if my equipment works with an input power less than, and sometimes above 600W in normal conditions ? Will my equipment need to mutate to comply with class A and D !? :-) Thanks. Günter J. Maass Eletronic Researcher EMBRACO S.A. --- 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 --- 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: EN50178 question
Nick: Here's what I've got on it... 1. Scope = electronic equipment with control action on systems and processes such as generation, distribution, conversion and control of electrical energy. 2. It was apparently published in the OJ under the LVD. 3. It is mainly based on EN60664 (whatever that is). Hope this helps, Jim Eichner Sr. Regulatory Compliance Engineer Xantrex Technology Inc., Mobile Markets jim.eich...@xantrex.com Any opinions expressed are those of my invisible friend, who really exists. Honest. -Original Message- From: Nick Williams [mailto:nick.willi...@conformance.co.uk] Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2000 1:39 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: EN50178 question BSI's on-line and printed catalogues give the following information about the above standard: BS EN 50178:1998 Electronic equipment for use in power installations That's all it says, except a list of cross references as long as both your arms. Before I waste GBP56 of my hard earned cash on buying a copy just to see if it has any relevance to one of my client's projects, can someone give me a good idea of what this standard is really all about? Thanks for any help. Nick. --- 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
Laser safety training
I was looking on the Laser Institute of America web-site and came across a set of videos for training on safe handling of lasers. Tape 5 ($500) covers Servicing High-Powered Lasers and Optical Fiber Communication Systems. Has anyone out there viewed this and would you recommend it for the OFCS section? Thanks, Dave Wilson Alidian Networks --- 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
IEC/EN Standard for Independent Lamp Control Gear
Group: I need information on what standard covers an independent lamp control device. This product is used in a commercial environment, has a data interface to a computer and is used to turn fluorescent light fixtures on and off (not dim). It is self-contained in its own enclosure and uses electro-mechanical relays to provide mains power to a series of lights. It was suggested by another forum subscriber that we look at EN60598-1 Luminaries. Unfortunately, in order to look at an EN standard, one generally has to purchase them and they are not inexpensive. To make a long story short, EN60598 only covers the light fixture itself, not the device that is used to turn it on and off. After reviewing all of the standards covered under the LVD in the OJEC, nothing jumps out and says here I am. The only standard I could find that might be applicable: EN60669-2-2:1997 - Switches for household and similar fixed installations. Section 2: Electromagnetic remote-control switches. Can anyone say yes, you're right, or no, you're out in left field? Any help is greatly appreciated. Sincerely, Robert Loop Engineering Supervisor Wyle Laboratories Product Safety ph - (256) 837-4411 x313 fax- (256) 721-0144 e-mail: rl...@hnt.wylelabs.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: Getting Started
Chris, I am interested in knowing the basis of your response to items 1 and 2, as it is contrary to my understanding of the EMC Directive. Specifically, it was my understanding that unless the manufacturer is following ALL of the requirements specified in Standard(s), that they must follow the TCF route and obtain a report or certificate from a Competent Body, as outlined per Article 10(2) of the EMC Directive states that In the case of apparatus for which the manufacturer has not applied, or has applied only in part, the standards referred to in Article 7(1) or failing such standards, the manufacturer or his authorized respresentative established within the Community shall hold at the disposal of the relevant competent authorities, as soon as the apparatus is placed on the market, a technical construction file. This file shall describe the apparatus. and include a technical report or certificate, one or other obtained from a competent body. If a manufacturer uses their engineering rationale to waive all of the EMC testing specified in standards, they have only applied part of the standard and as such, the EMC Directive would require that the rationale and the TCF be reviewed by a European EMC Competent Body. Furthermore, I believe that UK's DTI is consistent with EMC Directive's philosophy outlined in Article 10(2). In the October 1992 DTI's Guidance Document on the Preparation of a Technical Construction File as required by EC Directive 89/336, Section 1.3 outlines the Circumstances where the TCF might be used, ii) For apparatus where harmonized standards exist but the manufacturer applied that standard in part only, eg where a manufacturer can justify that a particular type of apparatus complies with the protection requirements of the Directive without performing tests to any or all of the phenomena described in the relevant harmonized specifications. I am interested in learning whether UK has established an updated position which allows manufacturer to waive testing (altogether) and still self-declare conformity to the EMC Directive through the standards route? Regards Tin In a message dated Sun, 1 Oct 2000 2:58:00 AM Eastern Daylight Time, cdup...@cs.com writes: In a message dated 29/09/00 15:43:06 GMT Daylight Time, fr...@amcomm.com writes: I'm just getting started in the world of EMI and would like to ask a few questions. I'm not sure if I should be going the TCF route or the Standards Route. The company that I work for manufactures products which have many variants. 1) Is it EC law that a manufacturer must perform EMI testing before applying the CE mark? No. In the UK, the Electromagnetic Compatibility Regulations don't require testing if you follow the Standards Route. But you must make the Declaration of Compliance before you use the CE mark and be able to provide evidence of compliance to the regulatory authorities when challenged. This can be test results, or detailed analysis, or statements etc. Again, 'testing' per se is not a particular requirement. For instance, a simple resistive convection heater could be stated to Comply because there are no non-linear elements to produce or be affected by EMI. No need to test. Having said that, testing is the only absolutely certain way of proving compliance. And don't forget that the Regulations are Criminal Law! 2) If a manufacturer follows the Standards Route, does EC law require each variant to be tested? No. There is nio statutory need to test. But you need to provide firm evidence, when asked, that the variant is not significantly different in EMC terms to the original subject of the Compliance Declaration. A detailed technical statement would suffice, but must be accurate and traceable. Again, we are taking Criminal Law here! 3) If, when testing, the limit is exceeded, can the CE mark still be applied? No. The CE mark means that ALL relevant Directives have been complied with. If EMC limits are exceeded when using the Standards Route then it doesn't comply with the EMC Directive. If the product can't be produced without exceeding the limits, then the TCF route to compliance should be used. 4) Are the services of a Competent Body required in order to put together a TCF or can the manufacturer do that on his own? A TCF is only valid when qualified by a Competent Body. A manufacturer can build his own TCF, or an external Test House/Competent Body can build it, but at the end of the day the Competent Body signs/takes responsibility for it. Think of a TCF as a new EMC standard which relates ONLY to that particular product. A simple rule is 'if it complies with the Standards then use the Standards Route, if it doesn't then use the TCF route. Hope is useful. Chris Dupres Surrey, UK. --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.
Date of withdrawal
Hello- I am reviewing CE documentation for a product of ours that, until recently, was manufactured in France. I have been able to find the effective dates and dates of withdrawal for all standards listed in the support documentation I have, but I ran across something that has me totally stumped. I have a 1997 document from Bureau Veritas that documents conformance to Decree 92-767, specifically to Article R 233.83 of the Code du Travail. Decree 92-767 appears to be French legislation for the adoption of the Machinery Directive. It does not specify any reference EN documents. Can anyone tell me what Decree 92-767 was? And more importantly, if I can use it as a supporting document for EN 60204-1? My hunch is that I can't, but obviously I need some facts. EN 60204-1:1992 has a date of withdrawal of July 1, 2001 anyway. Thanks in advance- -Andy Andrew Veit Systems Design Engineer MTS Systems Corp Cary, NC --- 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: Probing power plane with analyser.
Yes, Not only will the LISN have poor performance above 100 MHz, but the CISPR voltage probe or a down and dirty series capacitance will have trouble at these frequencies, although they will all work well at lower frequencies. Many of the other suggestions from members on this subject can be used to measure higher frequencies. As is invariably the case in this business, the correct answer depends on the frequency range of concern and the problem actually trying to be identified. Usually for the higher frequencies I use field probes along the board or cables rather than contact, sometimes adding short wires as intentional unintentional radiators. Paul McCoy chasgra...@aol.com@ieee.org on 09/29/2000 02:17:49 PM Please respond to chasgra...@aol.com Sent by: owner-emc-p...@ieee.org To: pwmc...@ra.rockwell.com, O'p...@ali.com.au cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org, seif...@ali.com.au Subject: Re: Probing power plane with analyser. Hi there - The AC LISN will have a very poor performance above about 100MHz don't you think?? --- 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: Harmonics and the 600W limit
CENELEC prA14 passed amending EN61000-3-2 Class D to include only PC's, monitors, and TV's. So, if your product is not in any of those categories, you need not comply with Class D after the doa of the amendment. Nevertheless, if your product is Class D, the Class D limits are the same as those for Class A for the 5th harmonic and very close for most of the other harmonics which are likely to be close to the limit. Class D allows you to test at rated power which is the same as max power expected to be drawn from the unit. This allows you to test at one power level, unless your product has fluctuating harmonics. Fluctuating harmonics are usually present in products which have electronic power supplies plus intermittent motor or heater loads which turn off and on during normal operation. In such a case, you must test in both operating conditions John P. Wagner AVAYA Communication 11900 N. Pecos St, Room 2F58 Denver CO 80234 email: johnwag...@avaya.com phone: 303 538-4241 fax: 303 538-5211 -- From: gunter_j_ma...@embraco.com.br[SMTP:gunter_j_ma...@embraco.com.br] Reply To: gunter_j_ma...@embraco.com.br Sent: Monday, September 25, 2000 7:20 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Harmonics and the 600W limit Correcting my English: A question about the famous 61000-3-2. What should I consider if my equipment works with an input power less than, and sometimes above 600W in normal conditions ? Will my equipment need to mutate to comply with class A and D !? :-) Thanks. Günter J. Maass Eletronic Researcher EMBRACO S.A. --- 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: MRAs
Doug, From my reading of 29 CFR 1910 I believe that it applies to all electrically powered equipment, not only mains powered. From 1910.302(a) and (a)(1): Scope - Covered. The provisions of 1910.302 through 1910.308 of this subpart cover electrical installations and utilization equipment (my italics) installed or used within or on buildings, structures, and other premises And from 1910.399(a) Definitions applicable to 1910.302 through 1910.330: Utilization Equipment: Utilization equipment means equipment which utilizes electric energy for mechanical, chemical, heating, lighting, or similar useful purpose. Since it specifies that any equipment which uses electric energy is covered I have taken this to mean that it also includes 24 and 48 VDC powered equipment since it of course uses electric energy. We have had 48VDC powered ITE equipment Listed using UL 1950. The scope of 1950 specifies any mains powered or battery powered equipment with an input rating up to 600V. (There is no minimum voltage listed). Kurt -Original Message- From: Doug [SMTP:dmck...@gte.net] Sent: Saturday, September 30, 2000 1:40 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject:Re: MRAs Rich Nute wrote: Hi Ron: In the USA, NRTL safety approvals, thus NRTL safety marks, for equipment intended for the commercial environment, in fact, are required AND mandated through legislation. This requirement is found in the US's Code of Federal Regulations (29CFR Part 1910 Subpart S) and is regulated by the US Dept. of Labor (I'm not so sure about the requirements of products intended for the residential environment). With that being said, UL or other NRTL safety marks are also required, however, it is up to the manufacturer to decide which NRTL, therefore which NRTL mark, to use. Be careful here. 1. NRTL approval is NOT mandated through legislation (see points 3 and 4 below). 2. NRTL certification is NOT for equipment intended for the commercial environment, but for equipment intended for use by employees in the workplace. 3. 29 CFR Part 1910, Subpart S applies to employers, not to equipment manufacturers. 4. Subpart S has two alternatives for employers: a) employees may use equipment with an NRTL mark, or b) employees may use equipment the employer has tested and found to be safe according to various safety codes. Clearly, the easy way for employers to comply is to only buy and use equipment that has an NRTL mark. (As manufacturers, it behooves us to obtain the voluntary -- for us -- NRTL mark.) 5. Products intended for all other environments are subject to the local electrical code, which generally is the NEC, which invokes listing. As a general rule, NRTL certification satisfies listing under the local electrical code. Actually, I believe the wording has to do with equipment attached to mains voltages which restricts points #3, #4, #5 even more. And this has made for some interesting discussions concerning 48vdc central offices or 24vdc cell sites which are isolated from the public mains. And on another note, IMO, both the US and EC way of doing product declarations are really the same. The declarations in both American and European markets are done by the mfr. - Doug --- 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
UL Listing
Hi group Currently there is no MRA between the US and Europe on Safety testing basically because the Americans don't trust the European allowance for self assessment. Everything in the States has to be third party inspected by an NRTL. Also US employment law does not allow untested apparatus to be used in the workplace so any purchaser is breaking the law if he puts non marked equipment into service. We use one of two options which is we use ITS who are an NRTL and have the ETL mark which is accepted. They come and inspect the equipment in our factory and issue a report and do the labelling. The other process is to go to UL and have full listing carried out and have the equpment labelled. It all depends on the numbers of units you intend to ship if it is small then the first option is the most cost effective. But if it is large then a full listing is the better option. Brian Harlowe Thermo V.G. Scientific Tel +44 (0)1342 327211 Fax +44 (0)1342 315074 --- 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
Resistor design and ESD Symposium pictures
Hi All, The EOS/ESD (electrical overstress/electrostatic discharge) Symposium was last week in Anaheim, CA, USA. I focused on the system level effects of ESD, as a source of EMI, as opposed to controlling static charge. 18 representative pictures are now posted at www.dsmith.org under Miscellaneous next to the pictures of Veldhoven and Zug. Some of the pictures show useful and novel measuring instruments related to the EMI potential of ESD and other sources from companies like Barth and Credence as well as others. If you want to grab a picture, just right click (on a PC running Windows) the picture and enter the location where you want it to be stored on your machine. Links to the websites of the companies whose equipment is shown are also included in many cases. The Technical Tidbit for October relates to high frequency design of resistors for measurement or incorporation into designs. An example of a resistor from Barth Electronics is discussed. This is the design Barth uses in his DC to ~20GHz T-Pad that is described in an earlier Technical Tidbit titled Tapered Wall Cavity that I posted to the site exactly one year ago. The picture was taken at the Barth booth. 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: CEI 255
255-4 is a 1.2/50uS pulse via 500 ohms output impedance. If memory serves me correctly it is an insulation test. I believe I have details of the 255-5 if yuo wish the essential details. Versions of these are available to purchase off the IEC website www.iec.ch ? regards John Cronin From: Maxwell, Chris chr...@gnlp.com Reply-To: Maxwell, Chris chr...@gnlp.com To: 'EMC-PSTC Internet Forum' emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: CEI 255 Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 13:36:37 -0400 Guys, (ladies too) We have a customer specification in spanish which refers to CEI 255-4 and CEI 255-5. I am assuming that these are IEC specifications. As a matter of fact, the text reads (forgive my Spanish spelling) CONDICIONES ELECTROMAGNETICAS (I think I can figure this line out :-) Toda las bornas y conectores dberan ser capaces de superar las siguientes condiciones sin midificar su rendimiento de trabajo. 4.1 Aislamiento: 2KV/50hz/1m. segun norma CEI 255-5 4.2 Pertubaciones Impulso de tension 5KV segun norma CEI 255-5 Interferencias de A.F. 2.5KV en modo longitudinal Interferencia de A.F. 1KV en modo transversal, segun norma CEI 255-4; apartado E. Anybody want to fathom a guess at this? My catalog of standards does not include either a CEI 255 or an IEC 255. Gracias Chris Maxwell a.k.a. Speedy Gonzales, Designo Engineero GN Nettest Optical Division 6 Rhoads Drive, Building 4 Utica, NY 13502 PH: 315-797-4449 FAX: 315-797-8024 EMAIL: chr...@gnlp.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 _ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.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
