RE: Product Risks
For those that remember a little farther back there used to be an old joke circa 1970) that the worse thing you could see outside your windshield was a Ford Pinto with Firestone 721 tires header your direction backwards. For the youngsters in the group. There was time when a Pinto or two would blow up on impact allegedly because of a defect in the placement of the gas tank, and Firestone almost went out of business because of the above tires failing. Both of them occurred roughly the same time, hence the joke. Gary -Original Message- From: geor...@lexmark.com [mailto:geor...@lexmark.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 1:36 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Product Risks Allow me to make one addendum to my prior note before I get blasted by the readers. I implied that virtually all traffic accidents are due to bad drivers. I overlooked the infamous Firestone tire episode. However, this does not alter my position. If you had a pie diagram indicating the accidents vs. (1) bad driver choices, and (2) vehicle defects, the latter would be a barely discernable sliver. 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 --- 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: FW: [Fwd: [SI-LIST] : Copper balance] {Venting of PCBs}
Cortland, The holes or slots may also be required to meet the Maximum unpierced conductor area requirement of UL796 Standard for Printed-Wiring Boards for your particular PWB supplier. In the UL Recognized Component Directory (vol. 3, ZPMV2) it is listed as Maximum, Area, Diameter, Inches. Regards, Larry Merchell Taiyo Yuden (USA), Inc. San Marcos, CA -Original Message- From: Cortland Richmond [mailto:72146@compuserve.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 8:38 AM To: Debbie Mallory; ieee pstc list Subject: Re: FW: [Fwd: [SI-LIST] : Copper balance] Debbie, Doug Powell explained it as venting, where slots or holes are added to a plane in order to let vapor out. However, it is my belief that this is also done to keep copper balanced during the etching process. I may well be mistaken, but the EMI and signal integrity concerns we have with the practice are all valid. Cheers, Cortland == Original Message Follows Date: 23-Jan-01 07:25:06 MsgID: 1077-23952 ToID: 72146,373 From: Debbie Mallory INTERNET:debbie.mall...@fibre.com Subj: FW: [Fwd: [SI-LIST] : Copper balance] Chrg: $0.00 Imp: Norm Sens: StdReceipt: NoParts: 1 From: Debbie Mallory debbie.mall...@fibre.com Subject: FW: [Fwd: [SI-LIST] : Copper balance] List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 07:21:35 -0800 Cortland, I, too, am having problems passing radiated emissions because of 350Mz originating from a 50MHz processor that uses a 50MHz oscillator. I thought I understood thieving until you said you have to put it on the ground plane also. Can you explain further why and how thieving is applied to the ground plane? Thanks. Regards, Debbie Mallory Advanced Fibre Communications Largo, FL == End of Original Message = --- 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: Product Marking
Consider the cost of educating the customer. For a low-priced commodity product a recognizable NRTL logo is preferable. An expensive product with considerable pre-sales contact can use a legal but rarer logo because there is time to explain the approval. Some NRTL's logos include specification numbers beside their mark (e.g. 'UL1950', 'CSA 22.2#950'). Other NRTL's allow some latitude (code letters or specification #). Marketing should be made aware that certain major cities require NRTL marks on product placed in offices and large buildings. A CB report or self declaration is insufficient. The logo implies the manufacturing line is under the NRTL's surveillance. David -Original Message- From: John Juhasz [mailto:jjuh...@fiberoptions.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 2:35 PM To: 'Courtland Thomas'; emcpost Subject: RE: Product Marking Courtland, There is nothing in UL1950 that says you MUST have an NRTL logo . . . there are requirements for ratings/safety markings, but not a logo. NRTLs typically have specifications on their logos, and how they must appear/be used. I don't recall seeing that you MUST apply the mark . . . Simply put, the NEC dictates (I don't have the exact location handy) that an electrical/electronic product must be evaluated by an NRTL against the standard that is applicable to that product. Once you have permission to apply a mark from an NRTL, you demonstrate the 'listing' by application of the logo. Electricians (competent ones) look for a logo and act accordingly. If they don't see one they may not wire it up, or they can unplug it (they have that right through the NEC). On another note, using one NRTL over another does have it's advantages (evaluation cost aside). Some NRTL logos are more readily recognizable than others by consumers. In many cases that I've directly experienced, market pressure forced my to use one NRTL logo over another. It depends on your customer base. If your customers are regulatory savy, and understand the NRTL program, it doesn't matter who you use . . . Unfortunately, the average person does not know about any other logo other than one particular prominent one. That makes it difficult . . . It is wise to evaluate your customer base from this respect. . . . The opinions expressed here are solely my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of my employer . . . John Juhasz Fiber Options Bohemia, NY -Original Message- From: Courtland Thomas [ mailto:ctho...@patton.com mailto:ctho...@patton.com ] Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 4:05 PM To: emcpost Subject: Product Marking Hello group, I have a question concerning labeling a product. If we go to a NRTL and get Safety testing performed, we typically put the Safety logo (UL for example) on the product label. Our marketing people have a problem with having different logo's. They would like to standarize on a single logo such as UL. This kind of thinking hinders the process of getting the best price possible. I would like to get the testing performed at a lab which doesn't use UL. Would it be possible to just put Conforms to UL 1950 and CAN/CSA 1950 on the label and forget the logo? Or is there a requirement to have a logo? Thanks, Courtland Thomas Patton Electronics --- 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: Looking at leakage current specs
Robert, Very nice response. Well summarized. I am pushing for option 2, disconnection of one of the many and test. Then repeat for all supplies. You exactly state my reasoning in this option as well. The standard is trying to protect against an inadvertent loss of the grounding or bonding connection which would then leave a person to be the touch current ground path. But with multiple power cords even the failure of a single ground connection would not result in the loss of grounding wire, and the current would indeed be directed to ground rather than the roughly 2 Kohm impedance of a person. The standards already direct that only a single fault at a time can be introduced to the test for compliance. Option 1 effectively introduces 1 for each successive supply provided. I am waiting for an answer from the safety agencies right now. I'll let you know what I hear. As always that doesn't necessarily mean it will get interpreted the same next time, but it certainly helps. Thanks Gary PS. This will still take some thinking for the Nordic countries which have deviations based on the fact that they don't expect to see a good ground path in many instances. -Original Message- From: Griffin, Robert [mailto:robert.grif...@compaq.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 7:08 AM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RE: Looking at leakage current specs Ron Pickard commented (questioned) ** Also, an interesting paragraph exists in 5.2.2. It states Equipment designed for multiple (redundant) power supplies shall be tested with only one supply connected. How would one interpret this? Only one supply connected and then the other, and then add the currents? ** I will not specifically comment on Ron's question but will pose another. One of the problems we have today is that many products have multiple power supplies that are not always considered redundant. IEC TC74 changed the IEC60950 3rd Edition text to ?clarify? this requirement. All the IEC60950 3rd Ed. based standards now read: Equipment which is designed for connection to multiple power sources, only one of which is required at a time (e.g. for backup) shall be tested with only one source connected. Equipment requiring power simultaneously from two or more power sources shall be tested with all power sources connected. Perhaps that in itself helps Ron but... this text was debated prior to release because it is still not clear in its intent for some applications. There are at least 2 prevailing opinions (perhaps there are more). Multiple AC connections are common with the use of smaller power supplies in larger quantity within a products that might have 1 power supply providing backup for several required power supplies (2+1 or 3+1 protection schemes). Many designs included AC filtering at each power supply and overall product leakage currents (touch and protective earth currents as they are now known) are perhaps increasing along with the number of mains connections. Now we approach this from at least 2 ways Opinion 1 - You should test the system with all the required power supplies collectively by testing the loop from all the AC mains to any accessible collective earthing connections. Effect = Sum the touch/PE currents from each required source and the sum of all required sources shall not exceed the limits. Opinion 2 - With more than one power supply required to be connected, then the product has multiple required earthing connections. Test for the touch/PE currents from each power supply with the other supply connected to the mains (including its earthing connection). Any measurable touch/protective earth connection would flow through the 2nd earthing path. Effect = The product's chassis is earthed through the second required power supply, the measurable touch/PE currents will be negligible and the test quite easy to pass regardless of the limits. So... Is the requirement intended to capture and limit the increasing leakage currents as the number of power supplies per product grows. OR is the requirement intended to give credit (and latitude) to a product that has required multiple earthing connections? It will be interesting to see where this goes as the 3rd Edition standard's use becomes more widespread. Bob Griffin Compaq Computer Corp. robert.grif...@compaq.com -Original Message- From: David Gelfand [mailto:gelf...@memotec.com] Sent: Monday, 22 January, 2001 12:25 PM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Re: Looking at leakage current specs As I understand it, a truly redundant power supply system means that only one supply is connected and working at a given time. In this case you can measure the leakage current from only one supply. Our system uses two power supplies that share the load, if one dies, the other can maintain the full load. In this case the leakage current is measured with both supplies connected. I think the way to approach this is, what happens if there is no protective earth? In
RE: Product Marking
Joe: I believe you are correct. Check the following URL http://www.osha-slc.gov/dts/otpca/nrtl/nrtlmrk.html, and you will find the following: ...OSHA accepts only those products that contain the NRTL's mark and that the NRTL has certified within its scope of recognition, which includes the test standards and testing sites that OSHA has recognized for the NRTL Of course, OSHA only has jurisdiction over the workplace, but my understanding the the requirement that NRTL listed products be marked is written into the NEC and Local codes as well. I can't site chapter and verse, but I believe you are correct Joe. Also, we know that many consumer electronic devices are used within the workplace, and I believe OSHA inspectors look for NRTL labels on equipment used in the workplace. Regards All, - Mel -Original Message- From: Joe Finlayson [mailto:jfinlay...@telica.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 2:45 PM To: 'Courtland Thomas'; emcpost Subject: RE: Product Marking My understanding of the NRTL marking is that if you don't mark it, it is not considered Listed. It doesn't matter if it has been tested or not. I believe the issue is that if the NRTL is performing a factory audit, they will only review marked product. Therefore, if you do not mark it, you can not claim NRTL Listing. -Original Message- From: Courtland Thomas [mailto:ctho...@patton.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 4:05 PM To: emcpost Subject: Product Marking Hello group, I have a question concerning labeling a product. If we go to a NRTL and get Safety testing performed, we typically put the Safety logo (UL for example) on the product label. Our marketing people have a problem with having different logo's. They would like to standarize on a single logo such as UL. This kind of thinking hinders the process of getting the best price possible. I would like to get the testing performed at a lab which doesn't use UL. Would it be possible to just put Conforms to UL 1950 and CAN/CSA 1950 on the label and forget the logo? Or is there a requirement to have a logo? Thanks, Courtland Thomas Patton Electronics --- 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: Product Risks
My two cents . . . And many of those related to part failure are still related to human error. There is some evidence that the Firestone problem is related to under inflated tires which is a driver responsibility. This doesn't even address the faulty maintenance that causes accidents that may never be attributed to human error beyond the driver. (i.e. faulty brake jobs, missing lug nuts, etc.) There was a news report recently that showed recording of a State Patrolman's car camera. While stopped for a traffic accident the camera recorded a car crossing the median in a slow rotation and striking a tow truck that was trying to remove the first wrecked vehicles. The reporter stated that the cause was the bad weather. Did the driver have any responsibility for driving too fast on ice covered roads? Besides the litigious culture, we want to blame all of our problem on someone else. I agree that virtually all of the automotive accidents are traceable to the nut that holds the steering wheel. OO George_Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark.LEXMARK@sweeper.lex.lexmark.com on 01/24/2001 04:36:15 PM Please respond to George_Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark.LEXMARK@sweeper.lex.lexmark.com To: emc-pstc%majordomo.ieee@interlock.lexmark.com cc:(bcc: Oscar Overton/Lex/Lexmark) Subject: Product Risks Allow me to make one addendum to my prior note before I get blasted by the readers. I implied that virtually all traffic accidents are due to bad drivers. I overlooked the infamous Firestone tire episode. However, this does not alter my position. If you had a pie diagram indicating the accidents vs. (1) bad driver choices, and (2) vehicle defects, the latter would be a barely discernable sliver. 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 --- 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: Product Marking
Courtland, The NRTL (UL, CSA) would not like the idea that one marked the product with the word UL or CSA because (their argument) it is misleading. In some cases, TUV, ETL etc. can certify some products using UL/CSA standards. Tac, Power-One TSD -Original Message- From: Courtland Thomas [mailto:ctho...@patton.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 1:05 PM To: emcpost Subject:Product Marking Hello group, I have a question concerning labeling a product. If we go to a NRTL and get Safety testing performed, we typically put the Safety logo (UL for example) on the product label. Our marketing people have a problem with having different logo's. They would like to standarize on a single logo such as UL. This kind of thinking hinders the process of getting the best price possible. I would like to get the testing performed at a lab which doesn't use UL. Would it be possible to just put Conforms to UL 1950 and CAN/CSA 1950 on the label and forget the logo? Or is there a requirement to have a logo? Thanks, Courtland Thomas Patton Electronics --- 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: Product Marking
Dear George, Just a small clarification: in regard to item 5, one of the following.., are mixed-up TESTING AGENCIES(NRTLs) with MARKS. In Canada, are acceptable the following MARKS: CSA, cETL (issued by ITS - Intertek Testing Services, formerly Inchcape T.S.), cUL and ULC. (for CERTIFICATION purposes.) Respectfully yours, Constantin Constantin Bolintineanu P.Eng. DIGITAL SECURITY CONTROLS LTD. 3301 LANGSTAFF Road, L4K 4L2 CONCORD, ONTARIO, CANADA e-mail: bolin...@dscltd.com telephone: 905 760 3000 ext 2568 www.dscgrp.com -Original Message- From: geor...@lexmark.com [mailto:geor...@lexmark.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 3:49 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Product Marking Courtland, You raise a very interesting question, prompted by the usual Dilbert marketing thinking. Here are some comments, in no particular order, nor do I draw a conclusion: 1. As you know, OSHA has approved multiple NRTLs to issue certifications to UL 1950 and other standards. We were once acquiring a product which used the CSA/NRTL mark, i.e. perfectly acceptable. Marketing thought the world would come to an end, as they would not be able to respond to bids (particularly gov't bids) specifying UL approval. I personally assured marketing that if a U.S. gov't bid held to the UL approval requirement they would be at odds with OSHA, i.e. the Code of Federal Regulations. We wrote a statement for them to the effect that the product was tested as conforming to UL 1950 etc. without specifying the agency. They finally accepted our position, but we still get the UL mark on most products. 2. Similarly, Canada will accept a CSA or c-UL mark. However, it seems that the Canadian gov't prefers the CSA mark when bidding for their use. Hence, we normally require the CSA mark for models that would most likely be candidates for gov't office use. 3. It is my observation and position that customers buying off-the- shelf or over the internet have no clue what a power rating label is nor do they look at it after purchase. Therefore, for the average consumer, the particular marks or absence thereof matters little. 4. Large customers of business products do often want know the details of marks and approvals, but do not necessarily understand that UL = CSA/NRTL = ITS = MET etc. if tested to the same UL/CSA standards. 5. If you do NOT market to Canadian gov't, I suggest using any one of the following, acceptable for other customers in both countries, assuming your marketing can live with any of these: - c-UL-us - MET - ITS - TUVR George Alspaugh -- Forwarded by George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark on 01/24/2001 03:35 PM --- cthomas%patton@interlock.lexmark.com on 01/24/2001 04:05:09 PM Please respond to cthomas%patton@interlock.lexmark.com To: emc-pstc%majordomo.ieee@interlock.lexmark.com cc:(bcc: George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark) Subject: Product Marking Hello group, I have a question concerning labeling a product. If we go to a NRTL and get Safety testing performed, we typically put the Safety logo (UL for example) on the product label. Our marketing people have a problem with having different logo's. They would like to standarize on a single logo such as UL. This kind of thinking hinders the process of getting the best price possible. I would like to get the testing performed at a lab which doesn't use UL. Would it be possible to just put Conforms to UL 1950 and CAN/CSA 1950 on the label and forget the logo? Or is there a requirement to have a logo? Thanks, Courtland Thomas Patton Electronics --- 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: Product Marking
I see no cETL listed at http://www.scc.ca/certific/colist.html I did see ITS listed. bolintic%dscltd@interlock.lexmark.com on 01/24/2001 04:52:35 PM To: George_Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark.LEXMARK@sweeper.lex.lexmark.com, emc-pstc%majordomo.ieee@interlock.lexmark.com cc:(bcc: George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark) Subject: RE: Product Marking Dear George, Just a small clarification: in regard to item 5, one of the following.., are mixed-up TESTING AGENCIES(NRTLs) with MARKS. In Canada, are acceptable the following MARKS: CSA, cETL (issued by ITS - Intertek Testing Services, formerly Inchcape T.S.), cUL and ULC. (for CERTIFICATION purposes.) Respectfully yours, Constantin Constantin Bolintineanu P.Eng. DIGITAL SECURITY CONTROLS LTD. 3301 LANGSTAFF Road, L4K 4L2 CONCORD, ONTARIO, CANADA e-mail: bolin...@dscltd.com telephone: 905 760 3000 ext 2568 www.dscgrp.com -Original Message- From: geor...@lexmark.com [mailto:geor...@lexmark.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 3:49 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Product Marking Courtland, You raise a very interesting question, prompted by the usual Dilbert marketing thinking. Here are some comments, in no particular order, nor do I draw a conclusion: 1. As you know, OSHA has approved multiple NRTLs to issue certifications to UL 1950 and other standards. We were once acquiring a product which used the CSA/NRTL mark, i.e. perfectly acceptable. Marketing thought the world would come to an end, as they would not be able to respond to bids (particularly gov't bids) specifying UL approval. I personally assured marketing that if a U.S. gov't bid held to the UL approval requirement they would be at odds with OSHA, i.e. the Code of Federal Regulations. We wrote a statement for them to the effect that the product was tested as conforming to UL 1950 etc. without specifying the agency. They finally accepted our position, but we still get the UL mark on most products. 2. Similarly, Canada will accept a CSA or c-UL mark. However, it seems that the Canadian gov't prefers the CSA mark when bidding for their use. Hence, we normally require the CSA mark for models that would most likely be candidates for gov't office use. 3. It is my observation and position that customers buying off-the- shelf or over the internet have no clue what a power rating label is nor do they look at it after purchase. Therefore, for the average consumer, the particular marks or absence thereof matters little. 4. Large customers of business products do often want know the details of marks and approvals, but do not necessarily understand that UL = CSA/NRTL = ITS = MET etc. if tested to the same UL/CSA standards. 5. If you do NOT market to Canadian gov't, I suggest using any one of the following, acceptable for other customers in both countries, assuming your marketing can live with any of these: - c-UL-us - MET - ITS - TUVR George Alspaugh -- Forwarded by George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark on 01/24/2001 03:35 PM --- cthomas%patton@interlock.lexmark.com on 01/24/2001 04:05:09 PM Please respond to cthomas%patton@interlock.lexmark.com To: emc-pstc%majordomo.ieee@interlock.lexmark.com cc:(bcc: George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark) Subject: Product Marking Hello group, I have a question concerning labeling a product. If we go to a NRTL and get Safety testing performed, we typically put the Safety logo (UL for example) on the product label. Our marketing people have a problem with having different logo's. They would like to standarize on a single logo such as UL. This kind of thinking hinders the process of getting the best price possible. I would like to get the testing performed at a lab which doesn't use UL. Would it be possible to just put Conforms to UL 1950 and CAN/CSA 1950 on the label and forget the logo? Or is there a requirement to have a logo? Thanks, Courtland Thomas Patton Electronics --- 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:
RE: Product Marking
From: Dick Grobner [mailto:dick.grob...@medgraph.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 4:01 PM . I also know that the City of L.A. is a stickler for a third party mark on a medical device (and I would suspect other devices as will), if it isn't there you submit your device along with mounds of data to the cities electrical department, and pay the $2-3K for their inspection and sticker. Overall, it makes good business sense to use a reputable third party NRTL when doing business. We ran into a situation in LA with a piece of recognized (back in the dys UL resisted giving a listing to any piece of rack mount equipment) rack mount equipment installed in a bank computer center. They would not issue the bank an occupancy certificate unless the product was listed or there was field evaluation of the installation by an NRTL and a listing is approved. I have been following this thread and one comment that has not been made that is quite relevant is; You do not want to be shopping around to NRTLs for the best price all the time. Every NRTL is going to have yearly fees and factory inspection fees not to mention the disruption of the factory during the factory inspections (that could mean 4 x the number of NRTLs you have product certified by). If the goal is cost and cycletime reduction to certification setting up your own safety lab and having it accredited ubder one of the client test data / self certification programs such as ULs COMPASS, CSAs Category or TUVs ACT will significantly reduce the cost of product certification and will cut the cycltime in 1/2 or better. If your products are designed using approved power supplies and you use certified components anywhere it has a safety impact the lab you set up does not need to be very elaborate or take up much space. David Clement Motorola Inc. Global Homologation Engineering 20 Cabot Blvd. Mansfield, MA 02048 P: 508-261-4389 F: 508-261-4777 C: 508-725-9689 E: mailto:dave.clem...@motorola.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
Product Risks
Allow me to make one addendum to my prior note before I get blasted by the readers. I implied that virtually all traffic accidents are due to bad drivers. I overlooked the infamous Firestone tire episode. However, this does not alter my position. If you had a pie diagram indicating the accidents vs. (1) bad driver choices, and (2) vehicle defects, the latter would be a barely discernable sliver. 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
Product Risks
Product safety is a relative term. It usually means that a product meets the public's generally accepted level of risk for the benefits it provides. My plastic coffee mug is quite safe, aside from the stuff that I sometimes allow to grow inside. My chain saw is a nightmare waiting to happen, but it provides benefits well beyond the hand powered bow saw I once used. Humans are willing to take many risks which have some rewards, driving a car, flying in a plane, skiing, filling up their gas tank, etc. In my opinion, even if cellphones are someday found to increase the risk of cancerous brain tumors, the public will not let that stop them from suing what has become a part of the culture, moreso in underdeveloped countries, as their existing land line phone systems suck. However, there are some products we purchase and use all the time for which we assume there is little or no risk. A good example might be the home or office ITE devices we use. Do you really think of possible injuries when using your PC, printer, scanner, etc.? Aslo, look at how many CPSC recalls are for seemingly benign products; pajamas, plastic toys, curtains, ..? Speaking of vehicle safety, when was the last time you heard of an accident that was totally due to a defective part. Accidents are largely due to bad drivers. When we speak of car safety, don't we usually mean that when a bad driver causes an accident, the car's design should protect us from any serious consequences? Most folks in first world countries have enough drugs in their medicine cabinet, and flammable liquids in their garage to either poison or burn down the entire neighborhood. Is this safe? I don't think so, but these are products we have accepted as a part of everyday life. Go figure George Alspaugh --- 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: Cell Phone Suit Will Get Its Day in Court
I just couldn't resist. How many times do I have to tell you about blow drying your hair in the shower? JOHN E. STUCKEY -Original Message- From: Bill Ronzio [mailto:bill.ron...@flextronics.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 12:14 To: 'Mark Gill'; peter.tar...@sanmina.com; 'PSTC - articles 1' Subject: RE: Cell Phone Suit Will Get Its Day in Court And how about those Chain Saws, there sharp! -Original Message- From: Mark Gill [mailto:gil...@nortelnetworks.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 10:33 AM To: peter.tar...@sanmina.com; 'PSTC - articles 1' Subject: RE: Cell Phone Suit Will Get Its Day in Court Funny thing - automobile manufacturers are making and selling cars with the knowledge that they may be dangerous! -Original Message- From: Tarver, Peter [SC1:9031:EXCH] Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 10:32 AM To: PSTC - articles 1 Subject:Cell Phone Suit Will Get Its Day in Court From the Telecom Digest Monty Solomon wrote: Cell Phone Suit Will Get Its Day in Court NEW ORLEANS, La. - In ruling that could shake the cell phone industry, a federal judge let stand a lawsuit that says companies are making and selling cell phones with the knowledge that they may be dangerous. http://www.thestandard.com/article/display/0,1151,21540,00.html http://www.thestandard.com/article/display/0,1151,21540,00.html -- The Telecom Digest is currently mostly robomoderated. Please mail messages to edi...@telecom-digest.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: Cell Phone Suit Will Get Its Day in Court
I sure hope my Colt Python is very dangerous, but in only one direction! Ed Price ed.pr...@cubic.com Electromagnetic Compatibility Lab Cubic Defense Systems San Diego, CA. USA 858-505-2780 (Voice) 858-505-1583 (Fax) Military Avionics EMC Services Is Our Specialty Shake-Bake-Shock - Metrology - Reliability Analysis -Original Message- From: Bill Ronzio [mailto:bill.ron...@flextronics.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 11:14 AM To: 'Mark Gill'; peter.tar...@sanmina.com; 'PSTC - articles 1' Subject: RE: Cell Phone Suit Will Get Its Day in Court And how about those Chain Saws, there sharp! -Original Message- From: Mark Gill [mailto:gil...@nortelnetworks.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 10:33 AM To: peter.tar...@sanmina.com; 'PSTC - articles 1' Subject: RE: Cell Phone Suit Will Get Its Day in Court Funny thing - automobile manufacturers are making and selling cars with the knowledge that they may be dangerous! -Original Message- From: Tarver, Peter [SC1:9031:EXCH] Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 10:32 AM To: PSTC - articles 1 Subject:Cell Phone Suit Will Get Its Day in Court From the Telecom Digest Monty Solomon wrote: Cell Phone Suit Will Get Its Day in Court NEW ORLEANS, La. - In ruling that could shake the cell phone industry, a federal judge let stand a lawsuit that says companies are making and selling cell phones with the knowledge that they may be dangerous. http://www.thestandard.com/article/display/0,1151,21540,00.html -- The Telecom Digest is currently mostly robomoderated. Please mail messages to edi...@telecom-digest.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
Product Marking
Hello group, I have a question concerning labeling a product. If we go to a NRTL and get Safety testing performed, we typically put the Safety logo (UL for example) on the product label. Our marketing people have a problem with having different logo's. They would like to standarize on a single logo such as UL. This kind of thinking hinders the process of getting the best price possible. I would like to get the testing performed at a lab which doesn't use UL. Would it be possible to just put Conforms to UL 1950 and CAN/CSA 1950 on the label and forget the logo? Or is there a requirement to have a logo? Thanks, Courtland Thomas Patton Electronics --- 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: Product Marking
I agree, many years ago we did exactly that, labeled the product as conforms too _ _ _ _ before we started using an NRTL for product safety testing. Eventually the larger medical institutions and corporations got wise and started asking too see the third party NRTL mark on the product. Sense, we have all of our devices tested for compliance by an NRTL for product safety. We place this mark onto the product, our sales literature and within our user manuals. Does this bring in additional sales - unknown (not my expertise), but at least it shows due diligence on our part of providing a safe product to our customers (and in a law suit if it ever came to that). Some of our larger customers just look for this NRTL mark, and if it is on the product it moves right through their bureaucracy, if not we receive a phone call and we start to scramble. I also know that the City of L.A. is a stickler for a third party mark on a medical device (and I would suspect other devices as will), if it isn't there you submit your device along with mounds of data to the cities electrical department, and pay the $2-3K for their inspection and sticker. Overall, it makes good business sense to use a reputable third party NRTL when doing business. Original Message- From: kazimier_gawrzy...@dell.com [mailto:kazimier_gawrzy...@dell.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 10:22 AM To: ctho...@patton.com; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: Product Marking Hi Courtland, For an NRTL approved product, it's generally a requirement that's captured in the agreement drawn between agency and client plus in their report for the product. In my experience, the wording ...conforms with won't mean much and would mean even less without the mark of an agency behind it and visible on your product. The NRTL's will generally insist on having their mark on a product they approve unless it's too small physically. In such an event, they tend to allow the packaging to be marked but that's a case-by-case item and fully at the discretion of the NRTL (for example some very small conductors might nor necessarily have all the info on the conductor insulation but it would likely be visible on the spool). Usually, the visible mark of a safety agency on a given product enhances marketing since it's the agency's declaration of their having deemed the product safe (as opposed to the manufacturer). My 2 cents and not that of my employer. Regards, Kaz Gawrzyjal kazimier_gawrzy...@dell.com -Original Message- From: Courtland Thomas [mailto:ctho...@patton.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 3:05 PM To: emcpost Subject: Product Marking Hello group, I have a question concerning labeling a product. If we go to a NRTL and get Safety testing performed, we typically put the Safety logo (UL for example) on the product label. Our marketing people have a problem with having different logo's. They would like to standarize on a single logo such as UL. This kind of thinking hinders the process of getting the best price possible. I would like to get the testing performed at a lab which doesn't use UL. Would it be possible to just put Conforms to UL 1950 and CAN/CSA 1950 on the label and forget the logo? Or is there a requirement to have a logo? Thanks, Courtland Thomas Patton Electronics --- 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: Product Marking
My understanding of the NRTL marking is that if you don't mark it, it is not considered Listed. It doesn't matter if it has been tested or not. I believe the issue is that if the NRTL is performing a factory audit, they will only review marked product. Therefore, if you do not mark it, you can not claim NRTL Listing. -Original Message- From: Courtland Thomas [mailto:ctho...@patton.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 4:05 PM To: emcpost Subject: Product Marking Hello group, I have a question concerning labeling a product. If we go to a NRTL and get Safety testing performed, we typically put the Safety logo (UL for example) on the product label. Our marketing people have a problem with having different logo's. They would like to standarize on a single logo such as UL. This kind of thinking hinders the process of getting the best price possible. I would like to get the testing performed at a lab which doesn't use UL. Would it be possible to just put Conforms to UL 1950 and CAN/CSA 1950 on the label and forget the logo? Or is there a requirement to have a logo? Thanks, Courtland Thomas Patton Electronics --- 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: Product Marking
Hi Courtland, You asked: I have a question concerning labeling a product. If we go to a NRTL and get Safety testing performed, we typically put the Safety logo (UL for example) on the product label. Our marketing people have a problem with having different logo's. They would like to standarize on a single logo such as UL. This kind of thinking hinders the process of getting the best price possible. I would like to get the testing performed at a lab which doesn't use UL. Would it be possible to just put Conforms to UL 1950 and CAN/CSA 1950 on the label and forget the logo? Or is there a requirement to have a logo? Exactly what will Conforms to UL1950 and CSA 1950 mean to your customers, given that they are unfamiliar with your products and knowers of the law? Personally, I would not believe it since a NRTL mark is not present (not legal in the workplace environment) and especially since I believe you were referring CSA C22.2 No. 950-95. I'm curious, do you switch NRTLs because one is cheaper (um, less expensive) than another? In my experience, I like to stick with a single NRTL. They get to know me, I get to know them, and we both get a good working relationship and respect out of the deal. This is worth far more than a few bucks saved by switching NRTLs. Here in the US, such practice is mandated by US law in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), specifically 29 CFR Part 2910 Subpart S. These federal regulations come from OSHA and the US Dept. of Labor and can be viewed on-line at: http://www.osha-slc.gov/OshStd_toc/OSHA_Std_toc_1910_SUBPART_S.html BTW, 1910.399(a) gives 3 routes to compliance: 1. Listing by a NRTL, 2. Inspection by a local municipal inspector of every installation*, or 3. For custom-made equipment, test data must be made available for inspection by the Asst. Secretary of Labor. * will likely fall back to a NRTL anyway due to the inspector's lack of technical expertise. IMHO, I do believe that choice #1 would be the path of least resistance. And, why would anyone willingly invite the government into their organization? (rhetorical question here) Also, the US National Electric Code (NEC) requires NRTL listing of products. I am very sure that Canada has a similar system in place requiring product certification. Thanks, No problem. I hope this helps. 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: Product Marking
Courtland, There is nothing in UL1950 that says you MUST have an NRTL logo . . . there are requirements for ratings/safety markings, but not a logo. NRTLs typically have specifications on their logos, and how they must appear/be used. I don't recall seeing that you MUST apply the mark . . . Simply put, the NEC dictates (I don't have the exact location handy) that an electrical/electronic product must be evaluated by an NRTL against the standard that is applicable to that product. Once you have permission to apply a mark from an NRTL, you demonstrate the 'listing' by application of the logo. Electricians (competent ones) look for a logo and act accordingly. If they don't see one they may not wire it up, or they can unplug it (they have that right through the NEC). On another note, using one NRTL over another does have it's advantages (evaluation cost aside). Some NRTL logos are more readily recognizable than others by consumers. In many cases that I've directly experienced, market pressure forced my to use one NRTL logo over another. It depends on your customer base. If your customers are regulatory savy, and understand the NRTL program, it doesn't matter who you use . . . Unfortunately, the average person does not know about any other logo other than one particular prominent one. That makes it difficult . . . It is wise to evaluate your customer base from this respect. . . . The opinions expressed here are solely my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of my employer . . . John Juhasz Fiber Options Bohemia, NY -Original Message- From: Courtland Thomas [mailto:ctho...@patton.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 4:05 PM To: emcpost Subject: Product Marking Hello group, I have a question concerning labeling a product. If we go to a NRTL and get Safety testing performed, we typically put the Safety logo (UL for example) on the product label. Our marketing people have a problem with having different logo's. They would like to standarize on a single logo such as UL. This kind of thinking hinders the process of getting the best price possible. I would like to get the testing performed at a lab which doesn't use UL. Would it be possible to just put Conforms to UL 1950 and CAN/CSA 1950 on the label and forget the logo? Or is there a requirement to have a logo? Thanks, Courtland Thomas Patton Electronics --- 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: Cell Phone Suit Will Get Its Day in Court
And how about those Chain Saws, there sharp! -Original Message- From: Mark Gill [mailto:gil...@nortelnetworks.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 10:33 AM To: peter.tar...@sanmina.com; 'PSTC - articles 1' Subject: RE: Cell Phone Suit Will Get Its Day in Court Funny thing - automobile manufacturers are making and selling cars with the knowledge that they may be dangerous! -Original Message- From: Tarver, Peter [SC1:9031:EXCH] Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 10:32 AM To: PSTC - articles 1 Subject:Cell Phone Suit Will Get Its Day in Court From the Telecom Digest Monty Solomon wrote: Cell Phone Suit Will Get Its Day in Court NEW ORLEANS, La. - In ruling that could shake the cell phone industry, a federal judge let stand a lawsuit that says companies are making and selling cell phones with the knowledge that they may be dangerous. http://www.thestandard.com/article/display/0,1151,21540,00.html http://www.thestandard.com/article/display/0,1151,21540,00.html -- The Telecom Digest is currently mostly robomoderated. Please mail messages to edi...@telecom-digest.org.
RE: Product Marking
Cortland, The three NRTLs that we have used require their mark to be on the product. They even have very strict guidelines as to how it is to appear. We have used TÜV Product Service, UL, and Intertek (ETL). In the case of UL if you look at the product listing information on their web site it even specifically says that the only proof that a product is listed is the UL mark on the product itself. In most cases there also is a number that is supposed to be used with the mark on the product. This number identifies the manufacturer of the product and in some cases the actual production location where there is more than one. NRTLs also have a big problem if you use their mark on a product that they did not test or in advertising for a product they did not test. UL especially protects their mark and will sue anyone using it that is not authorized to do so. So you definitely should not put the UL mark on a product that UL did not test even if it was tested to UL standards. If you manufacture commercial/industrial equipment the NRTL mark is what is checked by OSHA or the Authority Having Jurisdiction to ensure that electrical equipment used in the workplace is safe as is required by law. Kurt Andrews Compliance Engineer Tracewell Systems, Inc. 567 Enterprise Drive Westerville, Ohio 43081 voice: 614.846.6175 toll free: 800.848.4525 fax: 614.846.7791 http://www.tracewellsystems.com/ http://www.tracewellsystems.com/ -Original Message- From: Courtland Thomas [SMTP:ctho...@patton.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 4:05 PM To: emcpost Subject:Product Marking Hello group, I have a question concerning labeling a product. If we go to a NRTL and get Safety testing performed, we typically put the Safety logo (UL for example) on the product label. Our marketing people have a problem with having different logo's. They would like to standarize on a single logo such as UL. This kind of thinking hinders the process of getting the best price possible. I would like to get the testing performed at a lab which doesn't use UL. Would it be possible to just put Conforms to UL 1950 and CAN/CSA 1950 on the label and forget the logo? Or is there a requirement to have a logo? Thanks, Courtland Thomas Patton Electronics --- 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: Product Marking
Hi Courtland: I have a question concerning labeling a product. If we go to a NRTL and get Safety testing performed, we typically put the Safety logo (UL for example) on the product label. Our marketing people have a problem with having different logo's. They would like to standarize on a single logo such as UL. This kind of thinking hinders the process of getting the best price possible. I would like to get the testing performed at a lab which doesn't use UL. Would it be possible to just put Conforms to UL 1950 and CAN/CSA 1950 on the label and forget the logo? Or is there a requirement to have a logo? The NRTL does not *require* you to use the mark. For most NRTLs, if the specified mark is not on the product, then the product is not certified -- even though it meets all of the requirements. The problem is that almost all USA jurisdictions require safety certification by a lab acceptable to the jurisdiction. Certification is demonstrated by the product bearing the mark of an accepted lab. Recall that there are two jurisdictions that apply: OSHA for products used in the workplace, and the local version of the NEC for products used in areas covered by the code. Both OSHA and the NEC require third-party safety certification. So, while the NRTL does not require use of the mark, OSHA and the NEC *do* require use of the mark -- at least in those areas subject to OSHA or NEC regulations (which is almost everywhere in the USA). Since, according to one management consultant, the purpose of a business is to create a customer, it would seem prudent to satisfy your marketing people. In practice, however, it is my belief that customers simply presume that products comply with OSHA and NEC requirements. The choice of NRTL or consistency of NRTL from product-to- product is inconsequential to customers. Diplomatically, you could ask your marketing people to validate through a customer survey the marketing position that your customers want a single NRTL for all of your products. Of course, such a survey is frought with the danger that one NRTL's mark is well-known, while others are hardly known. If marketing wants just one NRTL, and you are interested in least cost, then you might want to consider entering into an annual or product-by-product contract with your cert house that results in costs acceptable to you. Good luck, and best regards, Rich --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
RE: Product Marking
The US National Electrical Code and many local ordinances require equipment to be Listed. Most, if not all, of the Canadian Provinces require equipment to be Certified (except for equipment powered by Class 2 sources). Richard Woods -- From: Courtland Thomas [SMTP:ctho...@patton.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 4:05 PM To: emcpost Subject: Product Marking Hello group, I have a question concerning labeling a product. If we go to a NRTL and get Safety testing performed, we typically put the Safety logo (UL for example) on the product label. Our marketing people have a problem with having different logo's. They would like to standarize on a single logo such as UL. This kind of thinking hinders the process of getting the best price possible. I would like to get the testing performed at a lab which doesn't use UL. Would it be possible to just put Conforms to UL 1950 and CAN/CSA 1950 on the label and forget the logo? Or is there a requirement to have a logo? Thanks, Courtland Thomas Patton Electronics --- 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: consumer electronics used on board aircraft
As a frequent flyer and private pilot with some knowledge of EMC, I'll throw in a few comments: It is clear to me that consumer electronics can interfere with aircraft electronics, and I've probably heard all the same horror stories -- DC10 finds itself off course on landing, false engine warnings, interrupted communications, etc... It isn't clear to me how prevalent this problem is or if it happens often enough to be considered a problem. One instance of electronic interference is enough to have everyone up in arms against the use of ANY electronics in ANY airplane. On a 747 flight to the Pacific, I'd bet there are as many as 30 to 40 lap top computers operating together at some point during the flight. Additionally, there are probably another 40 to 50 walkman tape players or CD players in operation, plus the on-board entertainment systems and a few in-flight telephones being used. On shorter flights, there may still be a large number of laptops being used by business people plus tape/CD players and air phones and the like in use during the flight. I don't think this is a general problems for aircraft electronics. HOWEVER; if radio or television receivers or cell phones were allowed, I believe the level of interference could easily reach the level of being at least disruptive to aircraft systems if not downright dangerous. I have personally seen commercial scanners and FM broadcast receivers that will interfere with voice comms -- 118MHz to 136MHz -- which means they could certainly interfere with nav equipment operating between 108MHz and 118MHz (VOR's and ILS's, specifically). I also have a Garmin hand held GPS system that I cannot find anything that it will interfere with nor have I found anything that interferes with it (except things getting in the way of the antenna - Maybe I'm just lucky?). My sense is the following: Interference with nav stuff is the most likely -- a VOR indicator off, or something like that. With GPS back-up (or getting to be primary) in most aircraft, a faulty Nav indication would likely be caught before it was a problem (NOT so if you're on an ILS approach in IMC (Instrument meteorological conditions) where a faulty indication can run you into terrain -- this is why no electronics should be operated on the aircraft below 10,000 feet on take-off or approach). I doubt a cell phone caused the Saab to crash -- most airplanes will still fly even with all electronics blocked out (don't know if the Saab is fly by wire or not, but I don't think so). Horizontal situation indicators and gyro's are driven by vacuum and in larger airplanes, there's back-up vacuum, red flashlights in the cockpit, etc... Upsetting autopilot controls might cause the airplane to do something erratic, but that sort of thing should be recoverable as long as someone in the cockpit is paying attention. Enough of that -- need to get back to my real job Mike Hopkins KeyTek -Original Message- From: Colgan, Chris [mailto:chris.col...@tagmclarenaudio.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 6:15 AM To: 'Emc-Pstc' (E-mail) Subject: consumer electronics used on board aircraft There is growing concern amongst professional aircrew about the use of consumer electronics (CD players, mobile phones, hand held GPS etc) on board aircraft. Some claim that passenger electronics has definitely interfered with navigation systems, primary flight displays or engine warning systems. There are rumours that a mobile phone contributed to the demise of a Crossair Saab 340 on 10 Jan 2000 killing all passengers and crew. Some pilots reckon that it is absolute nonsense. Knowing what you do, about how EM disturbance can affect electronics equipment, that it is almost impossible to make electronics equipment completely immune to EM effects, that FCC class B or CE marked equipment has not been tested (presumably) with avionics in mind etc, etc, how do you feel when the guy next to you on your flight gets his Minidisc player or laptop out? Remember, when you are descending through a cloud layer, the pilot is relying solely on electronics receiving equipment to get the aircraft on the runway. Do you think all consumer electronics should be banned from aircraft, that FCC or CE equipment is okay or that the whole issue is scaremongering piffle. Any comments gratefully received, I will post a summary on a professional pilots forum and let you know that results. Regards Chris Colgan Compliance Engineer TAG McLaren Audio Ltd The Summit, Latham Road Huntingdon, Cambs, PE29 6ZU *Tel: +44 (0)1480 415 627 *Fax: +44 (0)1480 52159 * Mailto:chris.col...@tagmclarenaudio.com * http://www.tagmclarenaudio.com ** Please visit us at www.tagmclarenaudio.com ** The contents of this E-mail are confidential and for the exclusive use of the intended recipient. If you receive this E-mail in error,
RE: Cell Phone Suit Will Get Its Day in Court
The same is easily said of other products, Rick, like firearms (where there are politically motivated lawsuits in progress and also directly analogous to the tobacco lawsuits on many levels), hot coffee from MacDonalds, ad infinitum. That a product is known to be hazardous or dangerous is not particularly relevant to lawsuits of this type. Regards, Peter L. Tarver, PE Product Safety Manager Sanmina Homologation Services peter.tar...@sanmina.com -Original Message- From: rbus...@es.com [mailto:rbus...@es.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 9:01 AM The difference is that everyone knows that a car can be dangerous. IF cell phones are proven hazardous, most people would not be aware or understand the risk. Im not saying that these aligations are valid, but it does make sense to keep informed. Rick Busche -Original Message- From: Mark Gill [mailto:gil...@nortelnetworks.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 8:33 AM Funny thing - automobile manufacturers are making and selling cars with the knowledge that they may be dangerous! -Original Message- From: Tarver, Peter [SC1:9031:EXCH] Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 10:32 AM NEW ORLEANS, La. - In ruling that could shake the cell phone industry, a federal judge let stand a lawsuit that says companies are making and selling cell phones with the knowledge that they may be dangerous. http://www.thestandard.com/article/display/0,1151,21540,00.html
RE: Product Marking
Hi Courtland, For an NRTL approved product, it's generally a requirement that's captured in the agreement drawn between agency and client plus in their report for the product. In my experience, the wording ...conforms with won't mean much and would mean even less without the mark of an agency behind it and visible on your product. The NRTL's will generally insist on having their mark on a product they approve unless it's too small physically. In such an event, they tend to allow the packaging to be marked but that's a case-by-case item and fully at the discretion of the NRTL (for example some very small conductors might nor necessarily have all the info on the conductor insulation but it would likely be visible on the spool). Usually, the visible mark of a safety agency on a given product enhances marketing since it's the agency's declaration of their having deemed the product safe (as opposed to the manufacturer). My 2 cents and not that of my employer. Regards, Kaz Gawrzyjal kazimier_gawrzy...@dell.com -Original Message- From: Courtland Thomas [mailto:ctho...@patton.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 3:05 PM To: emcpost Subject: Product Marking Hello group, I have a question concerning labeling a product. If we go to a NRTL and get Safety testing performed, we typically put the Safety logo (UL for example) on the product label. Our marketing people have a problem with having different logo's. They would like to standarize on a single logo such as UL. This kind of thinking hinders the process of getting the best price possible. I would like to get the testing performed at a lab which doesn't use UL. Would it be possible to just put Conforms to UL 1950 and CAN/CSA 1950 on the label and forget the logo? Or is there a requirement to have a logo? Thanks, Courtland Thomas Patton Electronics --- 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: Cell Phone Suit Will Get Its Day in Court
Interesting, Guess the power companies will be the next target since the jury still seems to be out on impacts of low frequency E-H fields. We already know the pollution generated by companies (which also fuel the economy) is bad. Can I sue? I can't get away from it unless I buy bottled air...a niche market of the future no doubt. Does the plaintiff just want a free headset? The article discusses the use of headsets with the implication of their use as a method of reduction of exposure. Weren't there studies conducted indicating that some headsets on some phones increased the radiation levels? Besides, even if supplied, how do you prove the headset was/was not used? There's always testimonials I suppose. Hot dogs. What do they feed the critters that end up on every child's plate in the form of a weenie? Are the critter feeds sprayed with pesticides and herbicides? Do the critter-feed pesticides/herbicides bear the warning of might be harmful if consumed? I wonder how far David will get against goliath? The legal folks are sure to benefit and we'll all see yet another definition of dangerous. My opinion only and not that of my employer. Kaz Gawrzyjal -Original Message- From: rbus...@es.com [mailto:rbus...@es.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 11:01 AM To: gil...@nortelnetworks.com; peter.tar...@sanmina.com; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: Cell Phone Suit Will Get Its Day in Court The difference is that everyone knows that a car can be dangerous. IF cell phones are proven hazardous, most people would not be aware or understand the risk. Im not saying that these aligations are valid, but it does make sense to keep informed. Rick Busche -Original Message- From: Mark Gill [mailto:gil...@nortelnetworks.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 8:33 AM To: peter.tar...@sanmina.com; 'PSTC - articles 1' Subject: RE: Cell Phone Suit Will Get Its Day in Court Funny thing - automobile manufacturers are making and selling cars with the knowledge that they may be dangerous! -Original Message- From: Tarver, Peter [SC1:9031:EXCH] Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 10:32 AM To: PSTC - articles 1 Subject:Cell Phone Suit Will Get Its Day in Court From the Telecom Digest Monty Solomon wrote: Cell Phone Suit Will Get Its Day in Court NEW ORLEANS, La. - In ruling that could shake the cell phone industry, a federal judge let stand a lawsuit that says companies are making and selling cell phones with the knowledge that they may be dangerous. http://www.thestandard.com/article/display/0,1151,21540,00.html http://www.thestandard.com/article/display/0,1151,21540,00.html -- The Telecom Digest is currently mostly robomoderated. Please mail messages to edi...@telecom-digest.org.
Re:RE: Client Presence During Testing
forwarding for ro...@tgc.se Reply Separator Subject:RE: Client Presence During Testing Author: Roger Magnuson ro...@tgc.se List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: 1/24/01 2:47 PM Kate, We are a test lab as well as a regular client at many different labs around the world and we never use test labs that don't allow us to attend the testing. We always provide technical support during testing which in my opinion benefits all involved. The same applies when we do the testing, if only the client representative is competent we prefer to get immediate support instead of endless discussions via email (or late night phone calls). Roger Magnuson Managing Director, TGC AB Dalvagen 28, 169 56 SOLNA, Sweden TEL: +46 856250050 (direct) FAX: +46 856250045 mobile: +46 707770594 mailto:ro...@tgc.se internet: http://www.tgc.se -Original Message- From: treg-appro...@world.std.com [mailto:treg-appro...@world.std.com]On Behalf Of k.macl...@aprel.com Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 2:04 AM To: t...@world.std.com; emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Client Presence During Testing Hello, Folks - Can you share with me how your favourite/preferred lab(s) handle client presence during testing? I'd like to know a) Do they allow presence in lab (technical area) itself ? If not, then where are clients who are at the lab normally placed? b) Are engineering/design type tests handled differently than compliance in this respect? c) What about formal witnessing of tests? d) How you feel about the policies that are in use? Do they influence your choice of labs? f) Have any related polices recently changed in the labs you use? How do you feel about this, and is it an influencer? e) Any other comments about this? Huge thanks in advance for your input! (Labs are welcome to comment, too!) Kate Kathy M. MacLean President, APREL Laboratories -EMC-RF Safety-Antenna design/test-SAR/MPE- -Environmental-Acoustics-Wireless- 51 Spectrum Way, Nepean, Ontario K2R 1E6 (613) 820-2730 fax (613) 820-4161 cell (613) 791-3777 Web site: http://www.aprel.com - watch for our new web site coming soon! Received: from ruebert.ieee.org ([199.172.136.3]) by mail.monarch.com with SMTP (IMA Internet Exchange 3.14) id 00014999; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 08:49:08 -0800 Received: by ruebert.ieee.org (8.9.3/8.9.3)id IAA18141 Received: from gemini3.ieee.org by ruebert.ieee.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA18121; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 08:49:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from tfs.tgc.se ([193.15.228.173]) by gemini3.ieee.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA26745 for emc-p...@ieee.org; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 08:49:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from roger.tgc.se (roger) [192.168.135.231] by tfs.tgc.se with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1 (Debian)) id 14LQHW-cE-00; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 14:48:14 +0100 Reply-To: ro...@tgc.se From: Roger Magnuson ro...@tgc.se To: k.macl...@aprel.com, t...@world.std.com, emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RE: Client Presence During Testing List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 14:47:06 +0100 Message-ID: ndbblkigklgdgamafbhjceiecmaa.ro...@tgc.se MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: 3144CA05F1D7D211851900105AC9801E15BC1D@APR01S1 X-Resent-To: emc-pstc-ad...@ieee.org Precedence: bulk --- 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: Client Presence During Testing
Without exception I attend the tests - I don't for the safety tests unless it is something I haven't seen before. There is a concern over client confidentiality that has to be addressed. Just as you don't want competitors to see your equipment, your competitors don't want you seeing theirs so large safety outfits guard against you seeing anything other than your equipment. So you have to work that issue, I've been known to show up late at night and stand next to equipment that was actually covered so I couldn't see what it was. That was highly unusual thought. For the EMC, and NEBS stuff there hasn't been a problem with the labs I use. I spend about half my time thinking that it is wasting my time to be there and the other half in either panic mode because of a problem or glad I was there to facilitate either the set-up or transfer from one test section to the other. Ultimately I am always glad I was on site during the critical times. Gary -Original Message- From: Aschenberg, Mat [mailto:matt.aschenb...@echostar.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 6:21 AM To: 'k.macl...@aprel.com'; t...@world.std.com; emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RE: Client Presence During Testing see below -Original Message- From: k.macl...@aprel.com [SMTP:k.macl...@aprel.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2001 6:04 PM To: t...@world.std.com; emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Client Presence During Testinge Hello, Folks - Can you share with me how your favourite/preferred lab(s) handle client presence during testing? I'd like to know a) Do they allow presence in lab (technical area) itself ? If not, then where are clients who are at the lab normally placed? Yes, I wont send my equipment to a test if I can't witness the testing. While the test lab is certifying that the testing is performed correctly, I believe the customer also has that responsibility. The customer is ultimately responsible for the compliance of the unit. b) Are engineering/design type tests handled differently than compliance in this respect? Often the rates for engineering testing are different than compliance testing. c) What about formal witnessing of tests? d) How you feel about the policies that are in use? Do they influence your choice of labs? f) Have any related polices recently changed in the labs you use? How do you feel about this, and is it an influencer? e) Any other comments about this? Huge thanks in advance for your input! (Labs are welcome to comment, too!) Kate Kathy M. MacLean President, APREL Laboratories -EMC-RF Safety-Antenna design/test-SAR/MPE- -Environmental-Acoustics-Wireless- 51 Spectrum Way, Nepean, Ontario K2R 1E6 (613) 820-2730 fax (613) 820-4161 cell (613) 791-3777 Web site: http://www.aprel.com - watch for our new web site coming soon! --- 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: Cell Phone Suit Will Get Its Day in Court
The difference is that everyone knows that a car can be dangerous. IF cell phones are proven hazardous, most people would not be aware or understand the risk. Im not saying that these aligations are valid, but it does make sense to keep informed. Rick Busche -Original Message- From: Mark Gill [mailto:gil...@nortelnetworks.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 8:33 AM To: peter.tar...@sanmina.com; 'PSTC - articles 1' Subject: RE: Cell Phone Suit Will Get Its Day in Court Funny thing - automobile manufacturers are making and selling cars with the knowledge that they may be dangerous! -Original Message- From: Tarver, Peter [SC1:9031:EXCH] Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 10:32 AM To: PSTC - articles 1 Subject:Cell Phone Suit Will Get Its Day in Court From the Telecom Digest Monty Solomon wrote: Cell Phone Suit Will Get Its Day in Court NEW ORLEANS, La. - In ruling that could shake the cell phone industry, a federal judge let stand a lawsuit that says companies are making and selling cell phones with the knowledge that they may be dangerous. http://www.thestandard.com/article/display/0,1151,21540,00.html http://www.thestandard.com/article/display/0,1151,21540,00.html -- The Telecom Digest is currently mostly robomoderated. Please mail messages to edi...@telecom-digest.org.
Re: FW: [Fwd: [SI-LIST] : Copper balance]
Debbie, Doug Powell explained it as venting, where slots or holes are added to a plane in order to let vapor out. However, it is my belief that this is also done to keep copper balanced during the etching process. I may well be mistaken, but the EMI and signal integrity concerns we have with the practice are all valid. Cheers, Cortland == Original Message Follows Date: 23-Jan-01 07:25:06 MsgID: 1077-23952 ToID: 72146,373 From: Debbie Mallory INTERNET:debbie.mall...@fibre.com Subj: FW: [Fwd: [SI-LIST] : Copper balance] Chrg: $0.00 Imp: Norm Sens: StdReceipt: NoParts: 1 From: Debbie Mallory debbie.mall...@fibre.com Subject: FW: [Fwd: [SI-LIST] : Copper balance] List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 07:21:35 -0800 Cortland, I, too, am having problems passing radiated emissions because of 350Mz originating from a 50MHz processor that uses a 50MHz oscillator. I thought I understood thieving until you said you have to put it on the ground plane also. Can you explain further why and how thieving is applied to the ground plane? Thanks. Regards, Debbie Mallory Advanced Fibre Communications Largo, FL == End of Original Message = --- 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: Cell Phone Suit Will Get Its Day in Court
Funny thing - automobile manufacturers are making and selling cars with the knowledge that they may be dangerous! -Original Message- From: Tarver, Peter [SC1:9031:EXCH] Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 10:32 AM To: PSTC - articles 1 Subject: Cell Phone Suit Will Get Its Day in Court From the Telecom Digest Monty Solomon wrote: Cell Phone Suit Will Get Its Day in Court NEW ORLEANS, La. - In ruling that could shake the cell phone industry, a federal judge let stand a lawsuit that says companies are making and selling cell phones with the knowledge that they may be dangerous. http://www.thestandard.com/article/display/0,1151,21540,00.html -- The Telecom Digest is currently mostly robomoderated. Please mail messages to edi...@telecom-digest.org.
Cell Phone Suit Will Get Its Day in Court
From the Telecom Digest Monty Solomon wrote: Cell Phone Suit Will Get Its Day in Court NEW ORLEANS, La. - In ruling that could shake the cell phone industry, a federal judge let stand a lawsuit that says companies are making and selling cell phones with the knowledge that they may be dangerous. http://www.thestandard.com/article/display/0,1151,21540,00.html -- The Telecom Digest is currently mostly robomoderated. Please mail messages to edi...@telecom-digest.org.
RE: Client Presence During Testing
We are fortunate in that we always get the lab personnel to come to our facility to test our products. This has many advantages, the main ones being that any issues can be cleared up with the design engineers, and you don't let the lab people go until they agree to approve your product !! Obviously we witness all the tests - in almost every case, we actually conduct the test, and the agency personnel witnesses us ! John Crabb, Development Excellence (Product Safety) , NCR Financial Solutions Group Ltd., Kingsway West, Dundee, Scotland. DD2 3XX E-Mail :john.cr...@scotland.ncr.com Tel: +44 (0)1382-592289 (direct ). Fax +44 (0)1382-622243. VoicePlus 6-341-2289. -Original Message- From: k.macl...@aprel.com [mailto:k.macl...@aprel.com] Sent: 24 January 2001 01:04 To: t...@world.std.com; emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Client Presence During Testing Hello, Folks - Can you share with me how your favourite/preferred lab(s) handle client presence during testing? I'd like to know a) Do they allow presence in lab (technical area) itself ? If not, then where are clients who are at the lab normally placed? b) Are engineering/design type tests handled differently than compliance in this respect? c) What about formal witnessing of tests? d) How you feel about the policies that are in use? Do they influence your choice of labs? f) Have any related polices recently changed in the labs you use? How do you feel about this, and is it an influencer? e) Any other comments about this? Huge thanks in advance for your input! (Labs are welcome to comment, too!) Kate Kathy M. MacLean President, APREL Laboratories -EMC-RF Safety-Antenna design/test-SAR/MPE- -Environmental-Acoustics-Wireless- 51 Spectrum Way, Nepean, Ontario K2R 1E6 (613) 820-2730 fax (613) 820-4161 cell (613) 791-3777 Web site: http://www.aprel.com - watch for our new web site coming soon! --- 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: Looking at leakage current specs
Ron Pickard commented (questioned) ** Also, an interesting paragraph exists in 5.2.2. It states Equipment designed for multiple (redundant) power supplies shall be tested with only one supply connected. How would one interpret this? Only one supply connected and then the other, and then add the currents? ** I will not specifically comment on Ron's question but will pose another. One of the problems we have today is that many products have multiple power supplies that are not always considered redundant. IEC TC74 changed the IEC60950 3rd Edition text to ?clarify? this requirement. All the IEC60950 3rd Ed. based standards now read: Equipment which is designed for connection to multiple power sources, only one of which is required at a time (e.g. for backup) shall be tested with only one source connected. Equipment requiring power simultaneously from two or more power sources shall be tested with all power sources connected. Perhaps that in itself helps Ron but... this text was debated prior to release because it is still not clear in its intent for some applications. There are at least 2 prevailing opinions (perhaps there are more). Multiple AC connections are common with the use of smaller power supplies in larger quantity within a products that might have 1 power supply providing backup for several required power supplies (2+1 or 3+1 protection schemes). Many designs included AC filtering at each power supply and overall product leakage currents (touch and protective earth currents as they are now known) are perhaps increasing along with the number of mains connections. Now we approach this from at least 2 ways Opinion 1 - You should test the system with all the required power supplies collectively by testing the loop from all the AC mains to any accessible collective earthing connections. Effect = Sum the touch/PE currents from each required source and the sum of all required sources shall not exceed the limits. Opinion 2 - With more than one power supply required to be connected, then the product has multiple required earthing connections. Test for the touch/PE currents from each power supply with the other supply connected to the mains (including its earthing connection). Any measurable touch/protective earth connection would flow through the 2nd earthing path. Effect = The product's chassis is earthed through the second required power supply, the measurable touch/PE currents will be negligible and the test quite easy to pass regardless of the limits. So... Is the requirement intended to capture and limit the increasing leakage currents as the number of power supplies per product grows. OR is the requirement intended to give credit (and latitude) to a product that has required multiple earthing connections? It will be interesting to see where this goes as the 3rd Edition standard's use becomes more widespread. Bob Griffin Compaq Computer Corp. robert.grif...@compaq.com -Original Message- From: David Gelfand [mailto:gelf...@memotec.com] Sent: Monday, 22 January, 2001 12:25 PM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Re: Looking at leakage current specs As I understand it, a truly redundant power supply system means that only one supply is connected and working at a given time. In this case you can measure the leakage current from only one supply. Our system uses two power supplies that share the load, if one dies, the other can maintain the full load. In this case the leakage current is measured with both supplies connected. I think the way to approach this is, what happens if there is no protective earth? In test 5.2.3 and 5.2.4, there is no permanent earth connection to the EUT. Any current leaking to the chassis can be shunted to ground through someone touching it. This current must be less than 3.5 mA. My CSA rep accepts the permanent ground connection, but management does not like the warning. We are also working with the manufacturer to reduce the leakage current on each supply. Best regards, David. - Original Message - From: Ron Pickard rpick...@hypercom.com To: Gary McInturff gary.mcintu...@worldwidepackets.com Cc: emc-p...@ieee.org Sent: Friday, January 19, 2001 3:42 PM Subject: RE: Looking at leakage current specs Gary, If this equipment has a chassis bonding connection like you find in telephone line up equipment, would then it fall under the class B pluggable. I can still remove power cords, but have a chassis to frame bonding wire in parallel to that. (Yes, I know most of that stuff is DC but there is a small number that is not). I hope to work with the power supply folks to reduce the problem through filter design if I can, but I think this is an interesting questions. What do you think? Pluggable Type B is a term which only refers to an industrial type power plug. Having a permanently connected earthing connection may provide the relief from the excessive leakage currents you're experiencing. Such a connection might be described in 6.3.3.2,
FW: Client Presence During Testing
Here's my experience: a) Do they allow presence in lab (technical area) itself ? If not, then where are clients who are at the lab normally placed? I am indeed allowed to be in the 'technical area', or I may stay int eh customer lounge. Beverages/food are not allowed in the technical area. Only in customer lounge. Typically I just take my product to the lab and drop it off. I normally don't stay to witness the tests unless there is a concern with a particular test. Then I only witenss that test. b) Are engineering/design type tests handled differently than compliance in this respect? I typically do all engineering type tests in-house, the exception being radiated immunity. That is conducted by the testing laboratory and the set-up/procedure is conducted jsut as a compliant run. c) What about formal witnessing of tests? All our compliant tests are done by a well regarded local lab. We do not conduct compliant tests in-house that may require formal witnessing. If I conducted in-house compliant tests, and formal witnessing was required, I would have no problem with it. I have nothing to hide. d) How you feel about the policies that are in use? Do they influence your choice of labs? I would indeed want to be able to witness a test. If I wasn't allowed to do so, I would be suspect of the lab. f) Have any related polices recently changed in the labs you use? How do you feel about this, and is it an influencer? Haven't experienced this. e) Any other comments about this? No John Juhasz Fiber Options Bohemia, NY
RE: Client Presence During Testing
see below -Original Message- From: k.macl...@aprel.com [SMTP:k.macl...@aprel.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2001 6:04 PM To: t...@world.std.com; emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Client Presence During Testing Hello, Folks - Can you share with me how your favourite/preferred lab(s) handle client presence during testing? I'd like to know a) Do they allow presence in lab (technical area) itself ? If not, then where are clients who are at the lab normally placed? Yes, I wont send my equipment to a test if I can't witness the testing. While the test lab is certifying that the testing is performed correctly, I believe the customer also has that responsibility. The customer is ultimately responsible for the compliance of the unit. b) Are engineering/design type tests handled differently than compliance in this respect? Often the rates for engineering testing are different than compliance testing. c) What about formal witnessing of tests? d) How you feel about the policies that are in use? Do they influence your choice of labs? f) Have any related polices recently changed in the labs you use? How do you feel about this, and is it an influencer? e) Any other comments about this? Huge thanks in advance for your input! (Labs are welcome to comment, too!) Kate Kathy M. MacLean President, APREL Laboratories -EMC-RF Safety-Antenna design/test-SAR/MPE- -Environmental-Acoustics-Wireless- 51 Spectrum Way, Nepean, Ontario K2R 1E6 (613) 820-2730 fax (613) 820-4161 cell (613) 791-3777 Web site: http://www.aprel.com - watch for our new web site coming soon! --- 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: Client Presence During Testing
Kate, I have worked with two outside labs over the last 5 years. Both have had an almost identical policy with regard to this. My answers to your questions are below: Question A: I have always been allowed into the laboratory area (unless there is a safety hazard). I usually sit with the test technician. So far, I have not had to worry about being kept away from competitors' equipment; but this is just a coincidence. It just so happens that our competitors don't use the same labs. One thing I have noticed is that one laboratory keeps equipment covered with cloths and/or locked in a cage area when not being tested. These are some simple measures that I have noticed them using to ensure their clients' equipment doesn't get tampered with or inspected by snooping competitors. Question B: My answer to question A above is true whether the tests were for design or for certification. Question C: Not sure what you mean by formal witnessing. Question D: I like the policies as they are. Yes I would be influenced if they changed. I wouldn't like the idea of sending my product into a black hole for testing. I want to know how things are going. I want to know if I can help. I wouldn't like waiting in the lobby watching Barney the Dinosaur re-runs, smoking cigarettes, drinking coffee and reading those enthralling trade magazines like Lock Washer Design News. It probably would also be a waste of the technician's time if they had to come get me any time they had a question. Question F: I have seen no change in the policies. They have been the same for the last 4 or 5 years. Question E: Other comments? I have sent some products off to the lab for testing without myself being present. However, I only do this for simple products and simple tests. Or products that are so over-designed that they are almost guaranteed passes. If we have a product that is hard to set up and hard to monitor, I go to the lab with it. I usually provide written operating instructions and back it up by being there myself in order to help set up and monitor. I have had more than one experience where the team effort of the test technician's testing knowledge combined with my knowledge of our product has resulted in quick fixes of failures that we have encountered. As a matter of fact, many times, while the test is running, myself and the test technician are discussing possible failure mechanisms and possible fixes even before they are encountered. (We also may discuss family, kids, sports, politics ... but that's a different email) I also perform the task of making the required modifications if they are difficult. If I ruin my own circuitboard, than I only have myself to blame. It takes some pressure off of the technician. They only have to worry about performing and monitoring the test. The point is, my company pays about $150 per hour for testing. We want to get the most of our time. The most efficient usage of time sometimes requires a team effort of test technician and client. Most of my comments above relate to EMC testing. I usually leave the product for safety testing without my presence. My experience with safety testing is that it consists of a good deal of checklist reviewing and tests that show obvious pass/fail results. (i.e. burnt circuitboards). My feeling is that I would be wasting my time and hassling the technician if I were looking over their shoulder during safety testing. Chris Maxwell Design Engineer GN Nettest 6 Rhoads Drive, Building 4 Utica,NY 13502 email: chris.maxw...@gnnettest.com phone: 315-266-5128 fax: 315-797-8024 -Original Message- From: k.macl...@aprel.com [SMTP:k.macl...@aprel.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2001 8:04 PM To: t...@world.std.com; emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Client Presence During Testing Hello, Folks - Can you share with me how your favourite/preferred lab(s) handle client presence during testing? I'd like to know a) Do they allow presence in lab (technical area) itself ? If not, then where are clients who are at the lab normally placed? b) Are engineering/design type tests handled differently than compliance in this respect? c) What about formal witnessing of tests? d) How you feel about the policies that are in use? Do they influence your choice of labs? f) Have any related polices recently changed in the labs you use? How do you feel about this, and is it an influencer? e) Any other comments about this? Huge thanks in advance for your input! (Labs are welcome to comment, too!) Kate Kathy M. MacLean President, APREL Laboratories -EMC-RF Safety-Antenna design/test-SAR/MPE- -Environmental-Acoustics-Wireless- 51 Spectrum Way, Nepean, Ontario K2R 1E6 (613) 820-2730 fax (613) 820-4161 cell (613) 791-3777 Web site: http://www.aprel.com - watch for our new web site coming soon! --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product
Remote control units
Hello readers, Little question about Remote Controls (to be used for TV and video recorders) and functioned by using an infra red transmitter. Need this product also comply to the EU-EMC and Safety directive (2 small batteries used) and so marked with a CE symbol? And what about the US requirements like FCC and UL is this also applicable for this product. Thanks in advance for your reply. Jan Mobers --- 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: Client Presence During Testing
ce-test is a test house ... We do ce-testing for LVD, EMC and MDD Class 1 and RTTE equipment. We can perform tests without client coming over but We usually appreciate clients coming over. First because we want to make sure the equipment under test is operating correctly. and because the miscellaneous test operating modi are better known by client. Second: Client can also function as a free second operator for those large EUT's difficult to operate alone. Operating at 2 from us costs us more... Third : for a durable customer relation, he needs to understand the problems of emc-testing, and witness how a small modification, apparently unimportant may make or break his design. Next time his product complies at once, drastically reducing test time (especially emissions) and this creates benefits to us and them being able to negotiate better prices. Fourth: Witnessing the test makes customers have confidence in the way you treat their product serious. (we do!) We can make mistakes, clients help us avoiding them. you forgot to restart. This avoids us to have to cover up those annoying errors that some customers don't accept us to make This always pays back to us in the four ways above, and has created many lasting customers. One disadvantage: After a few tests customers think we can do it alone...,;)) Regards, Gert Gremmen, (Ing) ce-test, qualified testing === Web presence http://www.cetest.nl CE-shop http://www.cetest.nl/ce_shop.htm /-/ Compliance testing is our core business /-/ === -Original Message- From: owner-emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@ieee.org]On Behalf Of k.macl...@aprel.com Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 2:04 AM To: t...@world.std.com; emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Client Presence During Testing Hello, Folks - Can you share with me how your favourite/preferred lab(s) handle client presence during testing? I'd like to know a) Do they allow presence in lab (technical area) itself ? If not, then where are clients who are at the lab normally placed? b) Are engineering/design type tests handled differently than compliance in this respect? c) What about formal witnessing of tests? d) How you feel about the policies that are in use? Do they influence your choice of labs? f) Have any related polices recently changed in the labs you use? How do you feel about this, and is it an influencer? e) Any other comments about this? Huge thanks in advance for your input! (Labs are welcome to comment, too!) Kate Kathy M. MacLean President, APREL Laboratories -EMC-RF Safety-Antenna design/test-SAR/MPE- -Environmental-Acoustics-Wireless- 51 Spectrum Way, Nepean, Ontario K2R 1E6 (613) 820-2730 fax (613) 820-4161 cell (613) 791-3777 Web site: http://www.aprel.com - watch for our new web site coming soon! --- 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 attachment: Gert Gremmen.vcf
consumer electronics used on board aircraft
There is growing concern amongst professional aircrew about the use of consumer electronics (CD players, mobile phones, hand held GPS etc) on board aircraft. Some claim that passenger electronics has definitely interfered with navigation systems, primary flight displays or engine warning systems. There are rumours that a mobile phone contributed to the demise of a Crossair Saab 340 on 10 Jan 2000 killing all passengers and crew. Some pilots reckon that it is absolute nonsense. Knowing what you do, about how EM disturbance can affect electronics equipment, that it is almost impossible to make electronics equipment completely immune to EM effects, that FCC class B or CE marked equipment has not been tested (presumably) with avionics in mind etc, etc, how do you feel when the guy next to you on your flight gets his Minidisc player or laptop out? Remember, when you are descending through a cloud layer, the pilot is relying solely on electronics receiving equipment to get the aircraft on the runway. Do you think all consumer electronics should be banned from aircraft, that FCC or CE equipment is okay or that the whole issue is scaremongering piffle. Any comments gratefully received, I will post a summary on a professional pilots forum and let you know that results. Regards Chris Colgan Compliance Engineer TAG McLaren Audio Ltd The Summit, Latham Road Huntingdon, Cambs, PE29 6ZU *Tel: +44 (0)1480 415 627 *Fax: +44 (0)1480 52159 * Mailto:chris.col...@tagmclarenaudio.com * http://www.tagmclarenaudio.com ** Please visit us at www.tagmclarenaudio.com ** The contents of this E-mail are confidential and for the exclusive use of the intended recipient. If you receive this E-mail in error, please delete it from your system immediately and notify us either by E-mail, telephone or fax. You should not copy, forward or otherwise disclose the content of the E-mail. TAG McLaren Audio Ltd The Summit, 11 Latham Road Huntingdon, Cambs, PE29 6ZU Telephone : 01480 415600 (+44 1480 415600) Facsimile : 01480 52159 (+44 1480 52159) ** Please visit us at www.tagmclarenaudio.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: ECMA standards
The ECMA 2000 Memento (their yearly handbook)shows ECMA-97 as withdrawn, with no note of any equivalent international or European standard. There is no copy of ECMA-97 on the CD-ROM distributed with the 2000 ECMA Memento. Unfortunately I have disposed of my previous ECMA CD-ROMs, but maybe someone else will have had the foresight to hang onto older copies, which might have ECMA-97 on them. Regards, John Crabb, Development Excellence (Product Safety) , NCR Financial Solutions Group Ltd., Kingsway West, Dundee, Scotland. DD2 3XX E-Mail :john.cr...@scotland.ncr.com Tel: +44 (0)1382-592289 (direct ). Fax +44 (0)1382-622243. VoicePlus 6-341-2289. -Original Message- From: Nick Williams [mailto:nick.willi...@conformance.co.uk] Sent: 23 January 2001 23:21 To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: ECMA standards A client has asked about ECMA standards. Apparently they have to respond to a tender document which requires compliance with ECMA 97. There would appear to be no mention of ECMA 97 on their web site. I'd be interested to hear from anyone who has any information on this standard, and in particular knows anything about equivalence to US or EN standards. Thanks 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
AW: ECMA standards
Nick, this is what ECMA-97 used to be (from an earlier version of the ECMA CD-ROM): Standard ECMA-97 Local Area Networks - Safety Requirements 2nd Edition (December 1992) This ECMA Standard applies to networks equipment which consist of access units, interface connectors and the design of interface circuits between data terminal equipment and network components. Additionally, installation and maintenance instructions for cabling between units is covered in this Standard. This Standard applies only to networks that normally operate at ELV or TNV. For information systems designed to have interconnect cabling up to a few hundred meters in length and hence installed in a relatively small area, Standard ECMA-129 or IEC Publication 950 fully covers the safety requirements. Sorry, I don't know if and when it was withdrawn. The secretary of the committee that developed the standard (TC 12) is Gino Lauri, you could contact him at g...@ecma.ch Rolf Schaefer -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: Nick Williams [mailto:nick.willi...@conformance.co.uk] Gesendet: Dienstag, 23. Januar 2001 23:21 An: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Betreff: ECMA standards A client has asked about ECMA standards. Apparently they have to respond to a tender document which requires compliance with ECMA 97. There would appear to be no mention of ECMA 97 on their web site. I'd be interested to hear from anyone who has any information on this standard, and in particular knows anything about equivalence to US or EN standards. Thanks 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
Re: Client Presence During Testing
Hi Kate: a) Do they allow presence in lab (technical area) itself ? If not, then where are clients who are at the lab normally placed? Depends on whether the lab is testing a competitor's products. If not, then I can usually observe the testing. If I can't go into the lab to witness testing of my product, then I won't go to the cert house at all. Or, I will re-schedule for a date when I can witness the testing. b) Are engineering/design type tests handled differently than compliance in this respect? We do most engineering/design testing at our site. There is one test we cannot do. So we engage our test house, and we observe the test. If it fails, we go home and fix it. If it passes, then the test results count towards our certification. c) What about formal witnessing of tests? As mentioned, we do most tests at our site; when we do certification tests, we invite an engineer to our site to witness the tests. d) How you feel about the policies that are in use? Do they influence your choice of labs? I wouldn't work with a lab that wouldn't let me witness the tests. If the test fails, then you may not understand the test process, and may not be able to fix the problem. There is nothing like witnessing a test, either pass or fail, to fully understand the intent of the requirement. f) Have any related polices recently changed in the labs you use? How do you feel about this, and is it an influencer? Not that I know of. e) Any other comments about this? No. Best regards, Rich --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
Client Presence During Testing
Hello, Folks - Can you share with me how your favourite/preferred lab(s) handle client presence during testing? I'd like to know a) Do they allow presence in lab (technical area) itself ? If not, then where are clients who are at the lab normally placed? b) Are engineering/design type tests handled differently than compliance in this respect? c) What about formal witnessing of tests? d) How you feel about the policies that are in use? Do they influence your choice of labs? f) Have any related polices recently changed in the labs you use? How do you feel about this, and is it an influencer? e) Any other comments about this? Huge thanks in advance for your input! (Labs are welcome to comment, too!) Kate Kathy M. MacLean President, APREL Laboratories -EMC-RF Safety-Antenna design/test-SAR/MPE- -Environmental-Acoustics-Wireless- 51 Spectrum Way, Nepean, Ontario K2R 1E6 (613) 820-2730 fax (613) 820-4161 cell (613) 791-3777 Web site: http://www.aprel.com - watch for our new web site coming soon! --- 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 55024 particular conditions
Hi Geoff, The criteria for particular conditions is section 7.2 in EN55024. The generic immunity spec EN50082-1 is similar to general performance criteria of section 7.1 in EN55024. Annex A criteria A is for Radiated and Conducted RF immunity only (not for ESD, EFT or Surges). Tables 1 to 4 specify the pass/fail criteria(A,B or C) against the Annex A Particular performance criteria. Measurement method 1 needs a calibrated artificial ear but Measurement method 2 has the accoustic sound level measured using an external microphone. I'm not sure how many people are following the particular test methods in the Annex. The standards are effective from 1st of July 2001. I will be interested to know from people testing to these Annexures. Best Regards, Praveen -Original Message- From: Geoff Lister [mailto:geoff.lis...@motion-media.com] Sent: Tuesday, 23 January 2001 11:00 PM To: Praveen Rao Cc: 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org' Subject: RE: EN 55024 particular conditions--Re-sending Praveen, The criteria A, B C have been present for some time in the generic immunity spec EN50082-1. The body of EN55024 covers the detail of the criteria, in particular section 7.1, and tables 1 to 4 list the required performance criteria against each test. Annex A covers the audio interface and defines the acceptable limits for criterion A with respect to RF immunity. The verification of these levels is going to be a challenge for many of us over the next few months. Precision artificial ears tend to be designed for benign acoustic chambers and not for 3V/m RF. I would suggest that you contact your regular test house and discuss it with them. Best wishes, Geoff Lister Senior Engineer Motion Media Technology Ltd., Bristol, UK. http://www.motion-media.com -Original Message- From: Praveen Rao [mailto:p...@tennyson.com.au] Sent: 23 January 2001 01:10 To: 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org' Subject: EN 55024 particular conditions--Re-sending -Original Message- From: Praveen Rao Sent: Friday, 19 January 2001 4:59 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: EN 55024 particular conditions Dear Members, For immunity tests in accordance with EN 55024 : 1998, 'Telecommunications terminal equipment' (analogue and digital), have particulat test conditions in Annex A of the standard. It is highlighted in the standard (section 7.2) that the criteria given in Annex takes precedence over the general performance criteria. There are two methods of measurement in Annex A for radiated and conducted immunity tests. Anyone familiar with these measurements ? comments please. What will be criteria for other immunity tests like the ESD, EFT, etc. ? Criteria B and C are clear but criteria A is only for radiated and conducted immunity tests. Thanks for your responses. Praveen --- 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 --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.227 / Virus Database: 109 - Release Date: 17/01/01 --- 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
ECMA standards
A client has asked about ECMA standards. Apparently they have to respond to a tender document which requires compliance with ECMA 97. There would appear to be no mention of ECMA 97 on their web site. I'd be interested to hear from anyone who has any information on this standard, and in particular knows anything about equivalence to US or EN standards. Thanks 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
