RE: Suitability of X2 Capacitors as Basic Insulation
Scott, You may be right with UL1950, but EN60950 tells that the CO battery of 72 volt is a TNV-2 circuit that only needs functional insulation w.r.t. PE. If the CO battery voltage in the US is lower than 60 volt dc, it also requires only functional insulation. Best regards, Chris On Fri, 06 October 2000, Scott Lemon wrote: Subject: RE: Suitability of X2 Capacitors as Basic Insulation Return-Path: sle...@caspiannetworks.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Length: 4101 Mime-Version: 1.0 To: 'Chris Collin' globalass...@altavista.com, pmerguer...@itl.co.il X-Received: 6 Oct 2000 21:06:06 GMT Delivered-To: altavista.com%globalass...@altavista.com From: Scott Lemon sle...@caspiannetworks.com Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2000 14:10:43 -0700 Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Message-Id: 2ff612b13481d311b40a009027b0c838bc8...@mail.packetcom.com X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Received: by mail.packetcom.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id SG87V1MD; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 14:10:52 -0700 from mail.packetcom.com (63.108.173.140) by smtp.c012.sfo.cp.net (209.228.13.148) with SMTP; 6 Oct 2000 14:06:06 -0700 by mail.packetcom.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id SG87V1MD; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 14:10:52 -0700 Peter indicates that he is using this cap in an application up to 72 Vdc which is hazardous voltage according to UL 1950. Hazardous voltage must be separated from earth by at least basic insulation (clause 2.3.3.2). Regards, Scott Lemon Caspian Networks - RTP email: sle...@caspiannetworks.com phone: (919) 466-0315 fax: tbd -Original Message- From: Chris Collin [mailto:globalass...@altavista.com] Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2000 3:26 PM To: pmerguer...@itl.co.il Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: Suitability of X2 Capacitors as Basic Insulation Peter, I understand you want to use this capacitor between the Central Office battery and Ground (Protective Earth). Why do you need Basic Insulation anyway if you interconnect to Protective Earth. From my point of view, you only need Operational insulation. Regards, Chris Collin On Thu, 05 October 2000, Peter Merguerian wrote: Sender: owner-emc-p...@ieee.org X-Listname: emc-pstc To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Delivered-To: altavista.com%globalass...@altavista.com X-Moderator-Address: emc-pstc-appro...@majordomo.ieee.org X-Sender: itldom /pmerguerian@10.0.0.2 X-Resent-To: Multiple Recipients emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Received: by ruebert.ieee.org (8.9.3/8.9.3)id EAA17721; Thu, 5 Oct 2000 04:35:25 -0400 (EDT) from ruebert.ieee.org (199.172.136.3) by smtp.c012.sfo.cp.net (209.228.13.220) with SMTP; 5 Oct 2000 03:44:44 -0700 by ruebert.ieee.org (8.9.3/8.9.3)id EAA17721; Thu, 5 Oct 2000 04:35:25 -0400 (EDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Length: 1102 X-Received: 5 Oct 2000 10:44:44 GMT Precedence: bulk Subject: Suitability of X2 Capacitors as Basic Insulation X-Info: [Un]Subscribe requests to majord...@majordomo.ieee.org [Un]Subscribe requests to majord...@majordomo.ieee.org From: Peter Merguerian pmerguer...@itl.co.il Return-Path: owner-emc-p...@ieee.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Reply-To: Peter Merguerian pmerguer...@itl.co.il Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2000 11:28:26 +0200 Message-Id: 3.0.6.32.20001005112826.00890790@10.0.0.2 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Is it possible to use a 250 Vac X2 approved capacitor as a y capacitor (input to ground) for a unit with an input voltage of 48/60Vdc up to 72Vdc? In other words, is an X2 capacitor suitable for basic insulation? 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 ___ Free Unlimited Internet Access! Try it now! http://www.zdnet.com/downloads/altavista/index.html ___ --- This message is
RE: Have I baffled the Product Safety Technical Committee?????
Jeffrey: I don't know the Class 2 designation as regards flammability, but here are some old e-mails on the flame classifications, in case they help. Regards, Jim -Original Message- From: Collins, Jeffrey [mailto:jcoll...@ciena.com] Sent: Friday, October 06, 2000 1:20 PM To: Collins, Jeffrey; 'emc-p...@ieee.org' Subject: Have I baffled the Product Safety Technical Committee? I know there's NEBS conferences on both coasts this week so many of you may be out of the office.(I'm attending the one in Baltimore) Does anyone have a good handle on all the different flame spec's and if there's some correlation between them. See my first message below... -Original Message- From: Collins, Jeffrey Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2000 3:52 PM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: UL Class 2 Flammability Ratings Correlation Group, Is anyone knowledgeable on how a UL Class 2 Flammability rating correlates with a UL 94-V? or HB rating? I have seen the Class 2 flammability ratings on air filters. I have a Telecom product that is being designed not only for UL-1950 certification but will meet the Bellcore GR-63 flammability spec's. I am doing an analysis on fuel load and am curious what relationship, if any, there is between these ratings. While on this topic, has anyone had experience with correlating UL flammability ratings with NFPA flammability ratings? All comments are welcome.. Jeffrey Collins MTS, Principal Compliance Engineer Ciena Core Switching Division jcoll...@ciena.com www.ciena.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 ---BeginMessage--- Hi Terry, To answer your question bluntly, NO, there is no correlation between VW-1 and UL94V-1,HF-1, etc. The VW-1 rating is a flame test and rating performed on wire and cable constructions only. The combination of the wire, plus any insulstion, jacket, shielding, or taping, and coloring, is tested and given the rating. The UL94 tests, the same tests as the IEC V-0, V-1, V-2 tests, are tests performed on samples of insulation material. The test samples are bars of certain shape tested to a certain method. How the sample bars perform under controlled conditions determines whether they are rated V-0 (best) V-1 V-2 (worst). Furthermore, insulation materials can be tested to various test methods to determine relative flammability. The rating hierarchy is as follows: UL94 5V-A (best) 5V-B V-0 V-1 V-2 HB (worst) Furthermore, some materials are unfairly biased against by the test methods for the above tests. These are Very Thin Materials (VTM) and Highly Foamed Materials (HF). They have special test methods, that correspond to flammability ratings above: UL94 VTM-0 = V-0 VTM-1 = V-1 VTM-2 = V-2 UL94 HF-0 = V-0 HF-1 = V-1 HF-2 = V-2 HBF = HB Note that all of these insulation (plastics) ratings are component (insulation) tests only, for use as relative data with conditions of acceptabilty, etc. The construction of the sample shapes are pre-defined specifically for the test. For the wire and cable tests, actual constructions are tested, ie number of conductors, insulation, jacket and shileds, tapes etc. are all tested as actually representative of the constructions being sold. Conditions of acceptability are determined based on this fact. What does this mean to 950/1950 examinations? Well, for one, the requirement V-1 or better flammabilty does not apply to the wires and cables in or connected to your unit. Second, it will be up to the organization who is performing the testing/giving the certification for your unit to determine what flame rating is needed for your wires and cables.You may only need a Horizontal flame test rating for some wires and cables in some areas in your unit, while other areas and wires and cables may need a VW-1 vertical rating. Some areas/constructions/testing agencies may actually not require any flame rating for the wires in certain constructions! Finally, you mentioned UL1581 as a wire class - it isn't. UL1581 is the standard that includes all the basic wire tests and requirements for wire and cable that are used in various UL wire standards - it is called the Test Reference Standard for wire and cable. The other numbers you
RE: Suitability of X2 Capacitors as Basic Insulation
Peter indicates that he is using this cap in an application up to 72 Vdc which is hazardous voltage according to UL 1950. Hazardous voltage must be separated from earth by at least basic insulation (clause 2.3.3.2). Regards, Scott Lemon Caspian Networks - RTP email: sle...@caspiannetworks.com phone: (919) 466-0315 fax: tbd -Original Message- From: Chris Collin [mailto:globalass...@altavista.com] Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2000 3:26 PM To: pmerguer...@itl.co.il Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: Suitability of X2 Capacitors as Basic Insulation Peter, I understand you want to use this capacitor between the Central Office battery and Ground (Protective Earth). Why do you need Basic Insulation anyway if you interconnect to Protective Earth. From my point of view, you only need Operational insulation. Regards, Chris Collin On Thu, 05 October 2000, Peter Merguerian wrote: Sender: owner-emc-p...@ieee.org X-Listname: emc-pstc To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Delivered-To: altavista.com%globalass...@altavista.com X-Moderator-Address: emc-pstc-appro...@majordomo.ieee.org X-Sender: itldom /pmerguerian@10.0.0.2 X-Resent-To: Multiple Recipients emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Received: by ruebert.ieee.org (8.9.3/8.9.3)id EAA17721; Thu, 5 Oct 2000 04:35:25 -0400 (EDT) from ruebert.ieee.org (199.172.136.3) by smtp.c012.sfo.cp.net (209.228.13.220) with SMTP; 5 Oct 2000 03:44:44 -0700 by ruebert.ieee.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA17721; Thu, 5 Oct 2000 04:35:25 -0400 (EDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Length: 1102 X-Received: 5 Oct 2000 10:44:44 GMT Precedence: bulk Subject: Suitability of X2 Capacitors as Basic Insulation X-Info: [Un]Subscribe requests to majord...@majordomo.ieee.org [Un]Subscribe requests to majord...@majordomo.ieee.org From: Peter Merguerian pmerguer...@itl.co.il Return-Path: owner-emc-p...@ieee.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Reply-To: Peter Merguerian pmerguer...@itl.co.il Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2000 11:28:26 +0200 Message-Id: 3.0.6.32.20001005112826.00890790@10.0.0.2 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Is it possible to use a 250 Vac X2 approved capacitor as a y capacitor (input to ground) for a unit with an input voltage of 48/60Vdc up to 72Vdc? In other words, is an X2 capacitor suitable for basic insulation? 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 ___ Free Unlimited Internet Access! Try it now! http://www.zdnet.com/downloads/altavista/index.html ___ --- 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
Antenna Distance
Is 10m emissions testing going away or unnecessary? What does the future hold? (Please indicate degree of uncertainty when projecting future changes.) We are a global company and must meet all international requirements as well as Bellcore. The reason I ask this is that I keep hearing via third parties that some test lab or other is claiming that they do all certification testing in a 3m / 5m chamber. Regards, Marvin Wolak Marconi Communications marvin.wo...@marconi.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
Have I baffled the Product Safety Technical Committee?????
I know there's NEBS conferences on both coasts this week so many of you may be out of the office.(I'm attending the one in Baltimore) Does anyone have a good handle on all the different flame spec's and if there's some correlation between them. See my first message below... -Original Message- From: Collins, Jeffrey Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2000 3:52 PM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: UL Class 2 Flammability Ratings Correlation Group, Is anyone knowledgeable on how a UL Class 2 Flammability rating correlates with a UL 94-V? or HB rating? I have seen the Class 2 flammability ratings on air filters. I have a Telecom product that is being designed not only for UL-1950 certification but will meet the Bellcore GR-63 flammability spec's. I am doing an analysis on fuel load and am curious what relationship, if any, there is between these ratings. While on this topic, has anyone had experience with correlating UL flammability ratings with NFPA flammability ratings? All comments are welcome.. Jeffrey Collins MTS, Principal Compliance Engineer Ciena Core Switching Division jcoll...@ciena.com www.ciena.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: Correction - When is an LED evaluated to IEC 825, like a Las er?
Thanks Ron! From: ron_well...@agilent.com To: kathy@eng.sun.com, emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: Correction - When is an LED evaluated to IEC 825, like a Las er? Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 16:16:19 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Hello Kathy, I assume that you are designing products to IEC 60950. However, which edition? There is a big difference between the 2nd and 3rd editions when it comes to LEDs. IEC 60950 3rd edition does not specify LEDs having to be compliant with IEC 60825-1, only lasers (see clause 4.3.13 and Annex H). Regards, +=+ |Ronald R. Wellman|Voice : 408-345-8229 | |Agilent Technologies |FAX : 408-345-8630 | |5301 Stevens Creek Blvd.,|E-Mail: ron_well...@agilent.com| |Mailstop 54L-SQ |WWW : http://www.agilent.com | |Santa Clara, California 95052 USA| | +=+ | Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age | | eighteen. - Albert Einstein | +=+ -Original Message- From: Kathy Toy [mailto:kathy@eng.sun.com] Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2000 11:05 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Correction - When is an LED evaluated to IEC 825, like a Laser? (I restated the question.) Our design engineers are using LED more often and have been asked if the LED are approved by IEC 825. Question: When does an LED need to be evaluated to IEC 825 standard? Are there any other industry limits for specific LEDs? It seems that in the past LEDs were basicly ignored except for color issues. What is the current thought or rule on this issue? Thanks in advance, kt --- 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 _/_/_/ _/_/ _/ _/Kathy Toy _/ _/_/ _/_/ _/ Safety Compliance Engineer _/_/_/ _/_/ _/ _/ _/ Office/Voice Mail:(650)786-3210 _/ _/_/ _/ _/_/ Dept. FAX: (650)786-3723 _/_/_/ _/_/_/ _/ _/Email:kathy@eng.sun.com M I C R O S Y S T E M S --- 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: Overcurrent Protection: One or Both Sides?
You are correct that fuse protection in the British cord is for fault protection of the building wiring. I could be wrong, but I thought that there were two fuses in the plug. Perhaps others can comment on this. Fusing of the neutral is a messy issue. If you use only one fuse, it cannot be in the neutral. If you use a fuse in the line and a fuse in the neutral, the warnings you indicated must be present. Richard Woods -- From: jradom...@clare.com [SMTP:jradom...@clare.com] Sent: Friday, October 06, 2000 3:15 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Cc: wo...@sensormatic.com Subject: RE: Overcurrent Protection: One or Both Sides? Richard, To prevent unexpected hazards to service persons, that fuse may not be place in an identified neutral line. It is permitted to place a fuse in an identified neutral line provided that the live side is fused + special information/marking is given Having said that, the UK and some other parts of the world have a power mains setup that allows for heavy earth fault currents from either pole. So they use dual fused power cords. Could you give an example of dual fused power cord? The British AC plug is equipped with just one fuse connected to the L side. But as I understand this system is used to protect their unique building wiring, not the equipment. John Radomski Compliance Engineer Clare Corp. --- 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: EN 61000-3-2/A14
I tried to refresh my memory about quoted abbreviations but even using the Official Journal's search engine I got not beyond 'DOW Jones Industrial'. Thus I like to appeal to any merciful soul out there to straighten me out.. dow: is the date at which the standard is enforced and therefore the date at which product being brought onto the market has to comply ? Thank you Fred Adt compliance reliability manager a...@viewsonic.com phone (909) 444-8958 Helge Knudsen h...@jyske-emc.com 10/06/00 02:50AM Hello group EN 61000-3-2/A14 was ratificated 2000-10-03 with the following dates: dor: 2000-10-03 doa: 2000-12-01 dop: 2001-01-01 dow: 2004-01-01 It is expected that the amendment will be announced in Official Journal before 2001-01-01. Best regards Helge Knudsen Jyske EMC Denmark --- 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
EMC Laboratory
If anyone is interested in purchasing a well equipped, accredited EMC Test lab with a 10 m OATS 3 m semi-anechoic chamber, contact: Sunbelt Business Brokers Mr. Cecil E. Martin cmar...@sunbeltnetwork.com or contact me off line and I will put you in contact with the owners. --- 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: Label Rub test per IEC60950
Hi Doug, I think you will find that the common mineral spirit found in your local hardware store is used by most companies to perform the test in order to get a good idea if the label and print will pass. I have found that UL will accept the results. By the way, the gallon of mineral spirits I have at home is also labeled petroleum spirit. If you are doubtful of this test result, you may want to have an agency such as UL do the test for you or use an approved label system. In my experience I have found mineral spirit to be a more harsh chemical than Isopropyl Alcohol. The alcohol test is performed on labels that are used in medical environments per IEC 60601. Ed From: Massey, Doug C. masse...@lxe.com Reply-To: Massey, Doug C. masse...@lxe.com To: 'IEEE Forum' emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Label Rub test per IEC60950 Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2000 10:22:27 -0400 Does anyone know what the trade name for the chemical used for the rub test in 60950 clause 1.7.15 is ? The standard calls it petroleum spirit, then describes an aliphatic solvent hexane, with several properties, none of which are a chemical formula. Is it common mineral spirits available at most hardware stores? Also, is Isopropyl Alcohol a more harsh solvent than the petroleum spirits? Thanks 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 _ 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
Overcurrent Protection: One or Both Sides?
The issue of designing in Overcurrent Protection on one side or both sides of the AC mains keeps coming up. We deal in Laboratory Equipment so the EN 61010-1 is the standard we use. I'm not sure what EN60950 would say on the subject. The only area I have found that deals with this question is a NOTE in section 9.6 of EN61010-1 which says, Overcurrent protection devices (e.g. fuses) should preferably be fitted in all supply conductors. This seems GRAY to me and I get beat up on it all the time. I feel that overcurrent protection should be on all current carrying conductors. With a 230V~ product you never know where in the world the product will be shipped, if the AC Main has a grounded neutral, or if the receptacle is polarized. So, I feel you never know for sure which line or if both lines will be HOT in reference to Earth ground. If my thinking is correct, shouldn't ALL 230V~ products have overcurrent protection on both sides of the line? I would think so, but I see products everyday that only have ONE side of the line fused. My superiors feel that if others can get away with it, why can't we. Why add the extra cost of double pole breakers or double fuse holders if it is not necessary? Am I being too cautious or do I have a point? Thank you for your support and advice. Brian Kunde LECO Corp. --- 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
PFC..
Hello All, I might be behind the 8-ball on this one... can anyone tell me if Europe is imposing / enforcing PFC requirements for residential products using unregulated linear supplies (wall warts) or switch mode supplies as of 01/2001 or any time soon ? If yes, please identify the applicable std(s). Thanks Once Again, George.
RE: RTTE PTT Notification
The following link from the Low Power Radio Association may prove useful http://www.lpra.org/html/era.htm http://www.lpra.org/html/era.htm Best Regards, Kevin Harris Manager, Approval Services Digital Security Controls 3301 Langstaff Road Concord, Ontario CANADA L4K 4L2 Tel: +1 905 760 3000 Ext. 2378 Fax +1 905 760 3020 Email: harr...@dscltd.com mailto:harr...@dscltd.com -Original Message- From: Wismer, Sam [mailto:wisme...@lxe.com] Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2000 4:39 PM To: wo...@sensormatic.com; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject:RE: RTTE PTT Notification No, seemed fairly simple once I figured out where to send the notifications to. Let me know if you need some of that information, I have developed a good database. Oh I did get a call from someone in France about my notification. He sounded like he was at a payphone in a train station. On top of that, his English was bad and my French was worse so you can imagine the call wasn't productive. I'm still not sure why he called although he did say everything was okay. That's all I needed to know, so that's where the conversation ended. All in all, my 1st experience with the new directive has gone well. I am now in the process of converting our existing approvals over to the new scheme. ~ Sam Wismer RF Approvals Engineer LXE, Inc. (770) 447-4224 Ext. 3654 Visit Our Website at: http://www.lxe.com -Original Message- From: wo...@sensormatic.com [mailto:wo...@sensormatic.com] Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2000 2:19 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: RTTE PTT Notification Thanks for blazing the trail, Sam. Did you run into any quirks in other EEA countries? Richard Woods -- From: Wismer, Sam [SMTP:wisme...@lxe.com] Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2000 2:04 PM To: wo...@sensormatic.com; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: RTTE PTT Notification Hi Richard, Yes that was me. For our 2.4GHZ equipment, I made notification to the RegTP declaring complaince to the essential requirements of the RTTE Directive as required by Article 6.4 of the directive. The response I received back was that it was necessary to declare complaince to their national standard, BAPT 222 ZV 126 in this case, as well as the ETS standards(ETS 300 328). I thought this to be in violation of the directive and thus European law and asked my notified body for advice. They too thought this to be a violation of the directive and agreed to look into the matter. I never heard back from them on this issue. I went ahead and re-issued my notification form declaring compliance to both standards since after review, I found them to be technically equivalent. ~ Sam Wismer RF Approvals Engineer LXE, Inc. (770) 447-4224 Ext. 3654 Visit Our Website at: http://www.lxe.com http://www.lxe.com -Original Message- From: wo...@sensormatic.com [ mailto:wo...@sensormatic.com mailto:wo...@sensormatic.com ] Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2000 9:29 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RTTE PTT Notification We are about to begin our RTTE notification process to the various PTTs in the EEA member countries. I read on this forum that Germany requires declaration to their national standard and not an ETSI standard. Are there any countries that have special requirements for the notification? Richard Woods
RE: ETSI standards vs NEBS
Robert, Yes, as far as I am aware there are no legislative (regulatory) requirements that would enforce either the ETS 300 019 or ETS 300 119 series of ETSI standards. There is Directive 94/62/EC that deals with packaging. Also draft legislation to cover environmental concerns for recycling and use of lead etc. (the WEEE Directive and its derivatives) and proposals to implement the Energy Star programme in Europe. But nothing specific to central office environments or telecoms for that matter that would enforce the ETSI equivalent of the NEBS standards. I hope this clarifies my earlier statement. In fact, to my knowledge NEBS is also only a commercial compliance issue - isn't it? Best regards and those of you in N.America have a relaxing long weekend, Edward -Original Message- From: Robert Macy [mailto:m...@california.com] Sent: Sunday, October 01, 2000 8:01 PM To: Edward Fitzgerald Subject: Re: ETSI standards vs NEBS -Original Message- From: Edward Fitzgerald edward.fitzger...@ets-tele.com To: 'Gorodetsky, Vitaly' vgorodet...@canoga.com; 'Dave Wilson' dwil...@alidian.com; 'n...@world.std.com' n...@world.std.com; 'emc-p...@ieee.org' emc-p...@ieee.org; 't...@world.std.com' t...@world.std.com List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: Friday, September 29, 2000 3:20 AM Subject: RE: ETSI standards vs NEBS Dear Dave / Vitaly, In general terms throughout Europe (West [EU] - Central - East [incl. CIS]) the ETS 300 019/119 series tends to take precedence [over NEBS] where required by customers (e.g. Network Operators). There are no regulatory requirements in the EU and strictly speaking there are only environmental reliability requirements to be met for the Russian Federation's Elektrosviaz (Telecom) Certification. Are you saying there are no regulatory requirements in the EU to comply with the ETSI standards? - Robert - --- 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
When is an LED evaluated to IEC 825?
Kathy, et al, The classification of LED's with lasers has brought heartburn to many a product compliance engineer... how do you prove that there is no hazard under both normal and fault conditions from the LED? Further, it is clear that LED's are being used in high power applications which could be hazardous... (Just look at the adverts for them)... So, the IEC comes to the rescue... See IEC TS 60825-6: Safety of products with optical sources, exclusively used for visible information transmission to the human eye. This standard classifies the devices into categories and gives details for test and measurements for categorization and labeling of devices. I intend to ask manufacturers to issue a Manufacturers Declaration of Conformity - which will probably be a letter - classifying their device and declaring compliance to these requirements. This is also a great opportunity for Test Houses to set up a component program and provide independent certification of these devices. Ah, thank you IEC, you have simplified my life - and placed the burden on the LED manufacturers... br, Pete Peter E Perkins, PE Principal Product Safety Consultant Tigard, ORe 97281-3427 503/452-1201 fone/fax p.perk...@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: ESD Opportunities
Barry Ma wrote: Please allow me to ask a relevant question only for curiosity. We have no idea of what charge (positive or negative) would go to the DUT in ordinary ESD. That's why we have to test two polarities in ESD immunity test. Lightning is a kind of ESD happened between a charged cloud and objects on earth surface. Some figures imply that an electron current flows from the charged cloud to the earth. Is it possible to have an opposite direction - electron flows from earth to cloud? If you want to hunt this down, the best man by far is a Dr. Uman. Considered the world's expert on the subject. Wrote a classic during the mid-80s titled Lightning. Believe his Ph.D. is in plasma physics which is the only way to really understand lightning. I wrote a paper which tried to do a mathematical analysis of lightning for grad school, but there's so much more that isn't known about it. There's much associated very odd phenomena also under the subject of lightning. Anywho, once the leader has made a path from the cloud to ground, there are exchanges back and forth for each strike. Several strikes adding up to what we see as one bolt of lightning which I'm sure you know. There are positive strikes, but they are rarer and carry a great amount of power. A negative strike transferring something on the order of 50Q from cloud to ground would be considered large. --- 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
Label Rub test per IEC60950
Does anyone know what the trade name for the chemical used for the rub test in 60950 clause 1.7.15 is ? The standard calls it petroleum spirit, then describes an aliphatic solvent hexane, with several properties, none of which are a chemical formula. Is it common mineral spirits available at most hardware stores? Also, is Isopropyl Alcohol a more harsh solvent than the petroleum spirits? Thanks 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
RE: Overcurrent Protection: One or Both Sides?
Brian, I can only speak about EN 60950, but I think the basics apply to all equipment. There are two types of faults for which there must be protection: earth faults and overload. Each line of the mains must be protected from earth faults. That protection may be in the equipment, or if allowed by the standard, that protection may be in the building wiring. The equipment must include over current protection for each phase. If you only have one phase, only one protective device is required. Usually that protective device is a fuse. To prevent unexpected hazards to service persons, that fuse may not be place in an identified neutral line. So, the end result for normal low power pluggable equipment is that the equipment has one fuse for over current protection and it is located on the hot side of the line and there is a breaker/fuse in the building mains for earth fault protection. Having said that, the UK and some other parts of the world have a power mains setup that allows for heavy earth fault currents from either pole. So they use dual fused power cords. Richard Woods -- From: brian_kunde [SMTP:brian_ku...@leco.com] Sent: Friday, October 06, 2000 12:32 PM To: emc-pstc Subject: Overcurrent Protection: One or Both Sides? The issue of designing in Overcurrent Protection on one side or both sides of the AC mains keeps coming up. We deal in Laboratory Equipment so the EN 61010-1 is the standard we use. I'm not sure what EN60950 would say on the subject. The only area I have found that deals with this question is a NOTE in section 9.6 of EN61010-1 which says, Overcurrent protection devices (e.g. fuses) should preferably be fitted in all supply conductors. This seems GRAY to me and I get beat up on it all the time. I feel that overcurrent protection should be on all current carrying conductors. With a 230V~ product you never know where in the world the product will be shipped, if the AC Main has a grounded neutral, or if the receptacle is polarized. So, I feel you never know for sure which line or if both lines will be HOT in reference to Earth ground. If my thinking is correct, shouldn't ALL 230V~ products have overcurrent protection on both sides of the line? I would think so, but I see products everyday that only have ONE side of the line fused. My superiors feel that if others can get away with it, why can't we. Why add the extra cost of double pole breakers or double fuse holders if it is not necessary? Am I being too cautious or do I have a point? Thank you for your support and advice. Brian Kunde LECO Corp. --- 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: Correction - When is an LED evaluated to IEC 825, like a Las er?
Kathy, We have one agency that we deal with that has insisted compliance with the IEC825/LED issue. We went to the LED vendors and found that they generally have not addressed this issue. We drew a big blank there. Originally, we were submitting LEDs for measurement to the agency. Currently, the agency has developed a formula which when evaluated, gives a pass/fail criteria for class 1. The formula is based on the aperture of the emitting area, the wavelength, and the intensity (mcd) at the operating current. We had one instance where we chose to reduce the current to a high intensity red LED in order to avoid the additional warnings that were required. The observable intensity change was not that noticeable. The acceptable range of mcd varies a lot between the different colors. We have stayed below 800mcd lately, and not had any problem. James Goedderz Product Safety Engineer Sensormatic -- From: Kathy Toy[SMTP:kathy@eng.sun.com] Reply To: Kathy Toy Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2000 2:05 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Correction - When is an LED evaluated to IEC 825, like a Laser? (I restated the question.) Our design engineers are using LED more often and have been asked if the LED are approved by IEC 825. Question: When does an LED need to be evaluated to IEC 825 standard? Are there any other industry limits for specific LEDs? It seems that in the past LEDs were basicly ignored except for color issues. What is the current thought or rule on this issue? Thanks in advance, kt --- 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: Overcurrent Protection: One or Both Sides?
Hi Brian, You likely will also see many products with no fuses, since if the product can be proven safe without fuses, then having 1 fuse or 2 only increases safety incrementally. For the reasons you give, 2 fuses are better than one. But one is better than none, and none might be good enough. Enough, yes? Mike Harris/Teccom -Original Message- From: brian_kunde brian_ku...@leco.com To: emc-pstc emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: Friday, October 06, 2000 7:26 AM Subject: Overcurrent Protection: One or Both Sides? The issue of designing in Overcurrent Protection on one side or both sides of the AC mains keeps coming up. We deal in Laboratory Equipment so the EN 61010-1 is the standard we use. I'm not sure what EN60950 would say on the subject. The only area I have found that deals with this question is a NOTE in section 9.6 of EN61010-1 which says, Overcurrent protection devices (e.g. fuses) should preferably be fitted in all supply conductors. This seems GRAY to me and I get beat up on it all the time. I feel that overcurrent protection should be on all current carrying conductors. With a 230V~ product you never know where in the world the product will be shipped, if the AC Main has a grounded neutral, or if the receptacle is polarized. So, I feel you never know for sure which line or if both lines will be HOT in reference to Earth ground. If my thinking is correct, shouldn't ALL 230V~ products have overcurrent protection on both sides of the line? I would think so, but I see products everyday that only have ONE side of the line fused. My superiors feel that if others can get away with it, why can't we. Why add the extra cost of double pole breakers or double fuse holders if it is not necessary? Am I being too cautious or do I have a point? Thank you for your support and advice. Brian Kunde LECO Corp. --- 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
When is an LED a Laser?
Kathy, I should have added in my earlier note that many of the lasers used in ITE products use an LED type device as the source of their power. For example, our laser printer manuals contain a laser notice declaring a Class I laser, and stipulating the source as, for example, a 5mW gallium arsenide laser. So, an LED like device may be the source for a laser device. However, as per Chris' note, the key is the amount of light energy in any particular direction, i.e. concentration of energy. George --- 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
EN 61000-3-2/A14
Hello group EN 61000-3-2/A14 was ratificated 2000-10-03 with the following dates: dor: 2000-10-03 doa: 2000-12-01 dop: 2001-01-01 dow: 2004-01-01 It is expected that the amendment will be announced in Official Journal before 2001-01-01. Best regards Helge Knudsen Jyske EMC Denmark --- 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: When is an LED a Laser?
Correct, leds are covered. Typically it will be ultrabright leds used in daylight displays and custom arrays of ultrabright led dies that will fall into the scope of IEC825. We use such a device in a film reader. If you believe you are using a led which is bright enough to make you look away or not look directly at it in the first place, especially at close ( 1m say) range, then it's best to get it tested. Else someone somewhere may be tempted to stare into it just as they put pet poodles in microwaves to dry them Chris -Original Message- From: O'Shaughnessy, Paul [mailto:paul_oshaughne...@affymetrix.com] Sent: 05 October, 2000 10:01 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Cc: kathy@eng.sun.com Subject: RE: When is an LED a Laser? I should restate what I said earlier - LEDs are covered under IEC 825, but the typical display LED falls so far below the Maximum Permissible Exposure levels as to be exempt (see Scope of IEC 825). Paul O'S. -Original Message- From: geor...@lexmark.com [mailto:geor...@lexmark.com] Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2000 1:49 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Cc: kathy@eng.sun.com Subject: When is an LED a Laser? Kathy, I am no expert on IEC 60825, but may help a little. The standard is intended to prevent human exposure to light energy within specified wavelengths. It initially focused only on laser safety, because lasers represent a beam of focused energy, i.e. more uW per area. An LED is not a laser, but merely a light source. When this light is collimated and concentrated into a single beam, then it is a laser. LEDs were added to the scope of IEC 60825 to ensure that the output of any LEDs (laser or not) would be within acceptable exposure limits. In general, common LEDs used for operator panel indicators distribute their light energy over a roughly hemi-spherical surface, although not equally. In most cases, there is insufficient energy in any vector to cause an exposure problem. George -- Forwarded by George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark on 10/05/2000 01:31 PM --- kathy.toy%eng.sun@interlock.lexmark.com on 10/05/2000 01:08:52 PM Please respond to kathy.toy%eng.sun@interlock.lexmark.com To: emc-pstc%majordomo.ieee@interlock.lexmark.com cc: kathy.toy%eng.sun@interlock.lexmark.com (bcc: George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark) Subject: When is an LED a Laser? Hi: Our design engineers are using LED more often and have been asked if the LED are approved by IEC 825. My question: When is an LED a Laser? In other words, at what power level does an LED become required to meet the IEC 825 standard? Are there industry limits for specific LEDs? It seems that in the past LEDs were basicly ignored except for color issues. What is the current thought or rule on this issue? Thanks in advance, kt _/_/_/ _/_/ _/ _/ Kathy Toy _/ _/_/ _/_/ _/ Safety Compliance Engineer _/_/_/ _/_/ _/ _/ _/ Office/Voice Mail:(650)786-3210 _/ _/_/ _/ _/_/ Dept. FAX: (650)786-3723 _/_/_/ _/_/_/ _/ _/ Email:kathy@eng.sun.com M I C R O S Y S T E M S --- 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: UL 508 C
Dear Sirs, How can I know the equivalent IEC standard of the UL 508 C ? Thanks very mush for your time and collaboration. Rafael, I think it depends on your application. We manufacture dimmers, so 508 is relevent for North America, for Europe we use EN 60439-1. That deals with distribution for low voltage switch gear and control gear assemblies. For any associated 'control' circuits we use EN60950. As there are so many subsections of 508 (18 or so classes) it might take some time to pinpoint the exact specifiction you need. What equipment are you manufacturing? Regards Paul ___ Get 100% private, FREE email for life from Excite UK Visit http://inbox.excite.co.uk/ --- 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: UL 508 C
RE: UL 508 CHi Rafael, most companies in Europe approve their equipment to UL508-c, CSA22.2-14, EN50178. I have a report format for EN50178. Let me know, if this would be af any help for you. With best regards H.Haug - Original Message - From: Kazimier Gawrzyjal To: 'Rafael González' ; emc-p...@ieee.org Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2000 5:39 PM Subject: RE: UL 508 C Hi Rafael, I don't know how to exactly align UL 508C to an IEC equivalent, although some of the learned members of this forum are sure to have suggestions. Mine would be to contact UL. UL is well connected with a European agency and so I'm assuming they would likely be able to supply the information fairly quickly. Good Luck. My opinion and not that of Sanmina Canada. Regards, Kaz Gawrzyjal Sr. Product Safety Engineer -- Sanmina Canada ULC Wireless Development Centre 2924 11 Street NE Calgary, Alberta Canada, T2E 7L7 tel:403-769-4805 (ESN 758) fax:403-769-4813 (ESN 758) e-mail: k...@nortelnetworks.com Sanmina Canada ULC does not accept liability for any errors, omissions, corruption or virus in the contents of this message or any attachments that arise as a result of e-mail transmission. *** -Original Message- From: Rafael González [mailto:rgonza...@cetecom.es] Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2000 8:49 AM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: UL 508 C Importance: High Sensitivity: Personal Dear Sirs, How can I know the equivalent IEC standard of the UL 508 C ? Thanks very mush for your time and collaboration. Rafael González Licerán Area Seguridad Eléctrica rgonzál...@cetecom.es _ CENTRO DE TECNOLOGIA DE LAS COMUNICACIONES, S.A. PTA - C/Severo Ochoa 2, 29590 Campanillas (Málaga) Tel: 34 952619100 - Fax: 34 952619113 - Web: http://www.cetecom.es/ _ --- 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
ESD
I referred the ESD question to a good friend of mine who studied lightning and its mode of operation for many years and share this reply. Ralph Cameron EMC Consultant and Suppression of Consumer Electronics (After Sale)
Re: Band reject filters
Try www.tte.com - they should be able to supply what you need and up to fairly high RF power, if required. --- 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: Electron Flow
Ross: I'm with you. The earth represents the reference plane so the charge actually moves from the earth to the cloud to neutralize it. Ralph Cameron - Original Message - From: Hunt, Richard rh...@canoga.com To: 'Lichtenstein, Ross' ross.lichtenst...@owenscorning.com; 'Barry Ma' barry...@altavista.com; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2000 12:23 PM Subject: RE: Electron Flow Here we go...this ought to be good. Richard Hunt Engineering Services Manager Direct: (818) 678-3860 Canoga Perkins Corp. Main:(818) 718-6300 20600 Prairie Street FAX: (818) 678-3760 Chatsworth CA 91311-6008 e-mail: rh...@canoga.com rh...@canoga.com -Original Message- From: Lichtenstein, Ross [mailto:ross.lichtenst...@owenscorning.com] Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2000 7:54 AM To: 'Barry Ma'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: Electron Flow Barry, I could be wrong, and if so I would stand corrected, but from my basic electronics training, I recall that electron flow is from negative to positive. I also recall being taught that lightning actually travels from earth (neg. charge) upward to the positive charge of the clouds. Then there is also the case of lightning between clouds of opposite charge, and again the electron flow direction is from neg. to pos. Ross -Original Message- From: Barry Ma [mailto:barry...@altavista.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2000 5:58 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: ESD Opportunities Please allow me to ask a relevant question only for curiosity. We have no idea of what charge (positive or negative) would go to the DUT in ordinary ESD. That's why we have to test two polarities in ESD immunity test. Lightning is a kind of ESD happened between a charged cloud and objects on earth surface. Some figures imply that an electron current flows from the charged cloud to the earth. Is it possible to have an opposite direction - electron flows from earth to cloud? Thanks. Barry Ma ___ Free Unlimited Internet Access! Try it now! http://www.zdnet.com/downloads/altavista/index.html ___ --- 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 --- 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
