Australian Telecom Surge testing

[John Cronin]

 
Hi group
Can anyone tell me offhand whether the surge test requirement for Australia is to IEC 1000-4-5 which uses a network with a 1 uF source capacitor or is it similar to the FCC test which I believe uses a 20 uF capacitor.
Best Regards
John CroninJoin the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. Click Here

---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

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:
 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Dave Heald:   davehe...@attbi.com

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/
Click on "browse" and then "emc-pstc mailing list"

RE: NEC Questions

[Robert Johnson]

1) Correct, this cannot be used in a multiwire branch circuit since it
may eventually be removed without being bypassed. The concern is that an
open neutral in a multiwire (e.g. 120/240 3w or 120/208 4w) circuit
leaves loads connected in series phase to phase. The voltage across a
product intended to operate phase to neutral then becomes dependent on
the other series loads.
Note also that measuring the current in the neutral of a multiwire
circuit will not provide power measurement for any currents flowing
phase to phase. For example when loads on each phase are equally
balanced, neutral current would be zero (ignoring harmonics).
I see no other code complications. I wonder however why you need to make
the current measurement in the neutral rather than the phase conductor.

2) The 15 or 20 amp receptacles must be protected with Listed devices
(not recognized devices such as supplementary protectors). This
protection however may be provided by the branch circuit. If the product
with receptacles has a plug of the same size (e.g. 15 or 20 amps) then
you can assume it is connected to a circuit with the proper protection
and therefore avoid additional protection. If it plugs into a larger
circuit such as a 30 amp receptacle, then you will need to add Listed 15
or 20 amp overcurrent protection within the product for protection of
the smaller receptacles.
Note that UL is reconsidering this requirement, but standards changes
have not been made yet. 
Note also that Canada does not permit 15 amp receptacles on 20 amp
circuits (and therefore does not permit the T-slot type 5-20R
receptacles), although this may have changed recently. Maybe Canadians
can clarify.
My responses are based on UL/CSA 60950, but I think you will find this
subject is consistent across other standards.



Bob Johnson
ITE Safety
 

-Original Message-
From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
[mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org] On Behalf Of Richard Meyette
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2002 1:05 PM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: NEC Questions


I have a couple of questions regrading the National Electrical Code:

1) Consider a power measuring device that is intended to be installed
into 
a residential 120V branch circuit, protected by a single 15 A or 20 A 
circuit breaker.  The device would be installed into a conduit outlet
box 
on the load side of the breaker to measure the power loads on the outlet

receptacles or lights connected to the branch circuit.  The device has
two 
neutral terminals with a 12 AWG copper wire connected between them to
sense 
the load currents.  This device would be wired in series with the
neutral 
(grounded) conductor for the branch circuit.  The live (ungrounded) 
conductor of the branch circuit would have a common connection on this
device.

Based on Section 300-13(b) of the NEC (NFPA 70), this device could not
be 
used in a multi-wire branch circuit, since the removal of the device
would 
interrupt the continuity of the grounded conductor.  However, I cannot
find 
any requirements that would prohibit the use of this device in a single 
phase branch circuit, protected by one circuit breaker.  Since the 
resistive loss in the neutral circuit through this device would be 
negligible, would this device comply with the NEC?

My guess is yes, that it meets the NEC code requirements for this branch

circuit.  Any comments?

2) Consider the same power measuring circuit installed into a direct 
plug-in (NEMA 5-15P) with a single outlet receptacle (NEMA 5-15R) or
into 
an outlet strip with a 16 AWG power cord with several outlet 
receptacles.  Assuming that the measuring circuit is provided with a 
suitable fuse for overcurrent protection, are the outlet receptacles 
required to be protected by a 15 A fuse or circuit breaker in the device
or 
can they rely on the circuit breaker for the branch circuit for
overcurrent 
protection?

The UL product standard for this device is UL 3111-1 (Electrical
Measuring 
and Test Equipment), which is harmonized with IEC 61010-1, requires an 
overcurrent protector to be fitted within the equipment for all devices 
connected to the mains supply (9.6.2). There are no US deviations in
this 
standard that would allow the circuit breaker to provide this
protection, 
so based on this I would assume that a 15 A circuit breaker of fuse
would 
be required for the NEMA 5-15R receptacles.  I would also assume that a
20 
A overcurrent protector would be required for a NEMA 5-20R outlet
receptacle.

However, the UL product standard for household appliances (UL 60335-1)
does 
have a US deviation to a similar requirement for overcurrent devices
(19.1, 
Note 2) that states the "The PROTECTIVE DEVICE in the fixed wiring does
not 
provide the necessary protection."  However, the US deviation states
"The 
circuit protection device is permitted to provide necessary 
protection".  If I am interpreting this correctly, a household appliance
in 
the USA could rely on the panel breaker for overcu

Re: IEC 60601-2-24 / Magnetic Field

[Nick Rouse]

I'm no medical Guru either but I know the sort of field levels involved.
They range from about .5 to 3 teslas. This is not much higher 
than the fields in the gaps of electrical motors and generators
(up to 1.8T in normal silicon iron and  up to 2.1 T in cobalt 
iron used in aerospace machines) The difference is the length of
the effective magnetic dipole. The field in an MRI machine is almost
constant across the whole bore of the machine and for whole body 
machines this gives a dipole length of a metre or more.  You are
still in the near field up to a couple of dipole lengths before the
field strength starts drooping as the inverse cube of the distance.
Thus it is quite possible to have fields up 1T a metre or more 
from the machine this corresponds to an H field of 790 kA/m
and this is sufficient to lift large ferromagnetic objects. The dipole
length in a normal electrical machine is about the size of the air 
gap, about 1mm or less. Thus there are very strong magnetic
fields only out to a few centimetres. I don't know if this is the 
reasoning behind the field values in IEC 60601-2-24  but
if it is the levels do not seem unreasonable.

Nick Rouse
.  
- Original Message - 
From: "Chris Maxwell" 
To: ; 
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2002 4:22 PM
Subject: RE: IEC 60601-2-24 / Magnetic Field


> 
> Hi Amund,
> 
> I read your email (below).  I'm no medical device expert; but I'm
> wondering if the magnetic strength limit was set so high due to MRI
> (Magnetic Resnonance Imaging) devices.  My understanding is that MRI
> devices produce HUGE magnetic field levels.  According to a recent
> newspaper story that I read, these fields are strong enough to draw a
> metal oxygen tank across the room to the MRI machine.
> 
> Is there any chance that the device in question could be used around an
> MRI?   It would be a real bummer if someone's infusion pump suddenly
> changed its run rate due to a nearby magnetic field.
> 
> Could that be what the standard is safeguarding against?  Any medical
> device gurus care to comment?
> 
> 
> 
> Chris Maxwell | Design Engineer - Optical Division
> email chris.maxw...@nettest.com | dir +1 315 266 5128 | fax +1 315 797



---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

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:
 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Dave Heald:   davehe...@attbi.com

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/
Click on "browse" and then "emc-pstc mailing list"

RE: CE MARKING A SYSTEM

[Alexandru Guidea]

We are facing the same challenge.
The way we address it is essentially the TCF route, including a Competent
Body involvement.
Our installation contains some equipment qualified for residential
environment only, which wouldn't meet the industrial immunity test levels by
itself. We add filters in the power distribution path, shield the data
paths, and so on, to pass some of the required tests. For some other, we use
exceptions permitted by the standards. For example, an installation which
draws more than 16A, fed by a transformer sub-station dedicated to that
facility, can be exempted from certain immunity tests. We also had to buy
industrial-grade equipment for parts of our installation where commercial
one would have done the job.
If you need more info, we can continue this discussion via private email.

Alexandru Guidea

CAE Inc.

-Original Message-
From: Gordon,Ian [mailto:ian.gor...@edwards.boc.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2002 4:57 AM
To: 'IEEE EMC & SAFETY PSTC'
Subject: CE MARKING A SYSTEM



Can anyone advise the course of action in applying a CE mark as regards EMC
to a system some of whose component parts are not built by us and whose D of
C's claim light industrial immunity. However, the system has been running in
very harsh environments e.g. plasma etch applications at customer sites and
we wish to claim industrial level immunity for the system. The system is
obviously "fit for purpose" in the intended environment.
We have performed radiated testing to this level on the whole system.
Unfortunately if we surge test these "light industrial" components which
form part of the system we are certain they will fail at the appropriate
levels. One component is an "industrial" PC.
Does anybody have any suggestions as to what action to take to allow us to
apply the CE mark and claim industrial immunity?

Thanks
Ian Gordon




*
This footnote confirms that this e-mail message has been scanned for
the presence of known computer viruses by the MessageLabs Virus 
Control Centre. However, it is still recommended that you use
local virus scanning software to monitor for the presence of viruses.
*


---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

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:
 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Dave Heald:   davehe...@attbi.com

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/
Click on "browse" and then "emc-pstc mailing list"

---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

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:
 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Dave Heald:   davehe...@attbi.com

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/
Click on "browse" and then "emc-pstc mailing list"

Re: DWELL TIME FOR AVERAGE DETECTORS

[Ken Javor]

I would amplify on my original MOTO response and say that it is common 
practice to scan using peak detection, and use average detection only at
frequencies where an outage condition occurs; that will drastically reduce
test time.

--
>From: "Gert Gremmen" 
>To: "Ken Javor" , "Gordon,Ian"
, "'IEEE EMC & SAFETY PSTC'"

>Subject: RE: DWELL TIME FOR AVERAGE DETECTORS
>Date: Tue, Apr 30, 2002, 2:46 PM
>

> At ce-test, we call this kind of answer EOE - Evidence by Experience,
> in addition to MOTO, the dwell time should extend any slow variations
> that EUT emission contains
> A fine and obvious example is the Microwave oven: emission varies
> substantially with the rotation degree of the food rotating platform,
> so the emission spectrum has a max and min that oscillates with rotation
> time.
> This of cpourse is valid for any detector. Emission testing DOES
> require knowledge of the EUT to provent EOI problems (Error of Ignorant)
> often caused by too much of automation in emission test labs !
>
> Gert Gremmen
>
> ce-test, qualified testing
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
> [mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Ken Javor
> Sent: dinsdag 30 april 2002 16:26
> To: Gordon,Ian; 'IEEE EMC & SAFETY PSTC'
> Subject: Re: DWELL TIME FOR AVERAGE DETECTORS
>
>
>
> At NASA we call this kind of answer MOTO - Master of the Obvious, but I
> can't think of any reason the dwell time would be other than the longer of
> the detector time constant or a small integer multiple of the broadband
> spike repetition period.
>
> --
>>From: "Gordon,Ian" 
>>To: "'IEEE EMC & SAFETY PSTC'" 
>>Subject: DWELL TIME FOR AVERAGE DETECTORS
>>Date: Tue, Apr 30, 2002, 4:18 AM
>>
>
>>
>> Can anybody advise as to what dwell time should be used for an average
>> detector when measuring a broadband noise source? This time obviously
>> increases the total test time unnecessarily if set too high and reduces
> the
>> measurement accuracy if set too low.
>> Thanks
>> Ian Gordon
>>
>>
>>
>> *
>> This footnote confirms that this e-mail message has been scanned for
>> the presence of known computer viruses by the MessageLabs Virus
>> Control Centre. However, it is still recommended that you use
>> local virus scanning software to monitor for the presence of viruses.
>> *
>>
>>
>> ---
>> This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
>> Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.
>>
>> Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/
>>
>> 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:
>>  Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
>>  Dave Heald:   davehe...@attbi.com
>>
>> For policy questions, send mail to:
>>  Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
>>  Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org
>>
>> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
>> http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/
>> Click on "browse" and then "emc-pstc mailing list"
>>
>
> ---
> This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
> Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.
>
> Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/
>
> 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:
>  Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
>  Dave Heald:   davehe...@attbi.com
>
> For policy questions, send mail to:
>  Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
>  Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org
>
> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
> http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/
> Click on "browse" and then "emc-pstc mailing list"
> 

---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

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:
 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Dave Heald:   davehe...@attbi.com

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/
Click on "browse" and then "emc-pstc mailing list"

RE: DWELL TIME FOR AVERAGE DETECTORS

[Gert Gremmen]

At ce-test, we call this kind of answer EOE - Evidence by Experience,
in addition to MOTO, the dwell time should extend any slow variations
that EUT emission contains
A fine and obvious example is the Microwave oven: emission varies
substantially with the rotation degree of the food rotating platform,
so the emission spectrum has a max and min that oscillates with rotation
time.
This of cpourse is valid for any detector. Emission testing DOES
require knowledge of the EUT to provent EOI problems (Error of Ignorant)
often caused by too much of automation in emission test labs !

Gert Gremmen

ce-test, qualified testing



-Original Message-
From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
[mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Ken Javor
Sent: dinsdag 30 april 2002 16:26
To: Gordon,Ian; 'IEEE EMC & SAFETY PSTC'
Subject: Re: DWELL TIME FOR AVERAGE DETECTORS



At NASA we call this kind of answer MOTO - Master of the Obvious, but I
can't think of any reason the dwell time would be other than the longer of
the detector time constant or a small integer multiple of the broadband
spike repetition period.

--
>From: "Gordon,Ian" 
>To: "'IEEE EMC & SAFETY PSTC'" 
>Subject: DWELL TIME FOR AVERAGE DETECTORS
>Date: Tue, Apr 30, 2002, 4:18 AM
>

>
> Can anybody advise as to what dwell time should be used for an average
> detector when measuring a broadband noise source? This time obviously
> increases the total test time unnecessarily if set too high and reduces
the
> measurement accuracy if set too low.
> Thanks
> Ian Gordon
>
>
>
> *
> This footnote confirms that this e-mail message has been scanned for
> the presence of known computer viruses by the MessageLabs Virus
> Control Centre. However, it is still recommended that you use
> local virus scanning software to monitor for the presence of viruses.
> *
>
>
> ---
> This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
> Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.
>
> Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/
>
> 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:
>  Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
>  Dave Heald:   davehe...@attbi.com
>
> For policy questions, send mail to:
>  Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
>  Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org
>
> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
> http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/
> Click on "browse" and then "emc-pstc mailing list"
>

---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

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:
 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Dave Heald:   davehe...@attbi.com

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/
Click on "browse" and then "emc-pstc mailing list"


---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

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:
 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Dave Heald:   davehe...@attbi.com

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/
Click on "browse" and then "emc-pstc mailing list"

Re: Power Factor regulations.

[John Woodgate]

I read in !emc-pstc that Robert Wilson  wrote
(in <3FF57405336C9B4C976A1819F860A2560F698D@xng_tirsys.TIRSYS.COM>)
about 'Power Factor regulations.', on Tue, 30 Apr 2002:

>We will be starting the design of a relatively simple, off-line
>switchmode power supply that will be used to power an LED Luminaire (for
>lighting up the outside of buildings). A power supply will be used to
>drive each of the 3 colours independently (for dynamic colour changing).
>It will be designed for universal 120/230 Volt input, with an adjustable
>20 to 28 Volt DC output. Power output will be 40 Watts maximum. As
>mentioned, 3 of these power supplies will be used in each Luminaire.
>
>My question is: what (if any) power factor requirements are we required
>to meet, both for North America and for the EU. My first thought was
>that there are no specific power factor requirements since ordinary
>computer power supplies have no PFC correction whatsoever (at least not
>the ones normally available here in North America). But I recall a year
>or two ago, a conversation with Jim Eichner (one of the inhabitants of
>this group) where he mentioned there were impending EU power factor
>requirements.
>
>Can anyone shed any light on what PF requirements exist at this power
>level?

Although it could be argued otherwise, your product is 'lighting
equipment' in the context of IEC/EN61000-3-2, and the Class C limits
apply. You have a choice at present of using the 1995 edition of the EN
with all its amendments OR the 2000 edition. The differences in respect
of Class C are subtle, so choose carefully.
-- 
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk 
Interested in professional sound reinforcement and distribution? Then go to 
http://www.isce.org.uk
PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL!

---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

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:
 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Dave Heald:   davehe...@attbi.com

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/
Click on "browse" and then "emc-pstc mailing list"

Re: General Product Safety Directive

[John Woodgate]

I read in !emc-pstc that richwo...@tycoint.com wrote (in <846BF526A205F8
4BA2B6045BBF7E9A6A01F140FA@flbocexu05>) about 'General Product Safety
Directive', on Tue, 30 Apr 2002:

>Now, back to the original question. I found the following definition of
>professional apparatus in EN 55103-2 (immunity for professional A/V
>equipment): "Apparatus intended for use in trades, professions or industries
>and which is not intended for sale to the general public." The scope of the
>standard says that the standard does not apply to "consumer apparatus". So,
>it seems that the CENELEC authors of this standard are of the opinion that
>there is a difference between professional and consumer apparatus. 

Yes, we do.

>If the
>authors are correct, the professional equipment I described is not included
>within the scope of the GPSD. 

No, because we can't dictate to the Commission how to define 'consumer',
more particularly because they speak a superior sort of English with
which we are rather unfamiliar in Britain. 

>If that is true, what safety related
>Directive, if any, applies? The only one I could find is the Liability
>Directive, 85/374/EEC. The closest that document comes to having an
>essential requirement is that "Lack of safety which the general public is
>entitled to expect determines the defectiveness of a product." Could it be
>that the regulation of safety of these types of products are the
>responsibility of the member states and governed by national worker safety
>regulations? Seems weird that there is a gap in the harmonization process
>for these types of products.

National worker safety regulations apply *in parallel* with the EU
product safety Directives, and they may well be inconsistent. I have a
case of that at present, but I won't go into much detail at this moment.
It involves EN60065 7th edition and the Health and Safety at Work Act in
Britain.
-- 
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk 
Interested in professional sound reinforcement and distribution? Then go to 
http://www.isce.org.uk
PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL!

---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

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:
 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Dave Heald:   davehe...@attbi.com

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/
Click on "browse" and then "emc-pstc mailing list"

Re: CE MARKING A SYSTEM

[John Woodgate]

I read in !emc-pstc that Gordon,Ian  wrote
(in ) about 'CE
MARKING A SYSTEM', on Tue, 30 Apr 2002:
>Can anyone advise the course of action in applying a CE mark as regards EMC
>to a system some of whose component parts are not built by us and whose D of
>C's claim light industrial immunity. However, the system has been running in
>very harsh environments e.g. plasma etch applications at customer sites and
>we wish to claim industrial level immunity for the system. The system is
>obviously "fit for purpose" in the intended environment.
>We have performed radiated testing to this level on the whole system.
>Unfortunately if we surge test these "light industrial" components which
>form part of the system we are certain they will fail at the appropriate
>levels. One component is an "industrial" PC.
>Does anybody have any suggestions as to what action to take to allow us to
>apply the CE mark and claim industrial immunity?

If you are sure it won't pass the normal industrial immunity tests, but
is fit for purpose and thus you don't want to have to make it conform,
you have to use the Technical File route.
-- 
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk 
Interested in professional sound reinforcement and distribution? Then go to 
http://www.isce.org.uk
PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL!

---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

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:
 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Dave Heald:   davehe...@attbi.com

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/
Click on "browse" and then "emc-pstc mailing list"

Power Factor regulations.

[Robert Wilson]

I have a general question regarding power factor limits relating to the
design of off-line switchmode power supplies.

We will be starting the design of a relatively simple, off-line
switchmode power supply that will be used to power an LED Luminaire (for
lighting up the outside of buildings). A power supply will be used to
drive each of the 3 colours independently (for dynamic colour changing).
It will be designed for universal 120/230 Volt input, with an adjustable
20 to 28 Volt DC output. Power output will be 40 Watts maximum. As
mentioned, 3 of these power supplies will be used in each Luminaire.

My question is: what (if any) power factor requirements are we required
to meet, both for North America and for the EU. My first thought was
that there are no specific power factor requirements since ordinary
computer power supplies have no PFC correction whatsoever (at least not
the ones normally available here in North America). But I recall a year
or two ago, a conversation with Jim Eichner (one of the inhabitants of
this group) where he mentioned there were impending EU power factor
requirements.

Can anyone shed any light on what PF requirements exist at this power
level?

Bob Wilson
TIR Systems Ltd.
Vancouver.


---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

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:
 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Dave Heald:   davehe...@attbi.com

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/
Click on "browse" and then "emc-pstc mailing list"

NEC Questions

[Richard Meyette]

I have a couple of questions regrading the National Electrical Code:

1) Consider a power measuring device that is intended to be installed into 
a residential 120V branch circuit, protected by a single 15 A or 20 A 
circuit breaker.  The device would be installed into a conduit outlet box 
on the load side of the breaker to measure the power loads on the outlet 
receptacles or lights connected to the branch circuit.  The device has two 
neutral terminals with a 12 AWG copper wire connected between them to sense 
the load currents.  This device would be wired in series with the neutral 
(grounded) conductor for the branch circuit.  The live (ungrounded) 
conductor of the branch circuit would have a common connection on this device.


Based on Section 300-13(b) of the NEC (NFPA 70), this device could not be 
used in a multi-wire branch circuit, since the removal of the device would 
interrupt the continuity of the grounded conductor.  However, I cannot find 
any requirements that would prohibit the use of this device in a single 
phase branch circuit, protected by one circuit breaker.  Since the 
resistive loss in the neutral circuit through this device would be 
negligible, would this device comply with the NEC?


My guess is yes, that it meets the NEC code requirements for this branch 
circuit.  Any comments?


2) Consider the same power measuring circuit installed into a direct 
plug-in (NEMA 5-15P) with a single outlet receptacle (NEMA 5-15R) or into 
an outlet strip with a 16 AWG power cord with several outlet 
receptacles.  Assuming that the measuring circuit is provided with a 
suitable fuse for overcurrent protection, are the outlet receptacles 
required to be protected by a 15 A fuse or circuit breaker in the device or 
can they rely on the circuit breaker for the branch circuit for overcurrent 
protection?


The UL product standard for this device is UL 3111-1 (Electrical Measuring 
and Test Equipment), which is harmonized with IEC 61010-1, requires an 
overcurrent protector to be fitted within the equipment for all devices 
connected to the mains supply (9.6.2). There are no US deviations in this 
standard that would allow the circuit breaker to provide this protection, 
so based on this I would assume that a 15 A circuit breaker of fuse would 
be required for the NEMA 5-15R receptacles.  I would also assume that a 20 
A overcurrent protector would be required for a NEMA 5-20R outlet receptacle.


However, the UL product standard for household appliances (UL 60335-1) does 
have a US deviation to a similar requirement for overcurrent devices (19.1, 
Note 2) that states the "The PROTECTIVE DEVICE in the fixed wiring does not 
provide the necessary protection."  However, the US deviation states "The 
circuit protection device is permitted to provide necessary 
protection".  If I am interpreting this correctly, a household appliance in 
the USA could rely on the panel breaker for overcurrent protection.  Any 
comments?


Thanks in advance for anyone willing to wade through this and send me a 
response.


Richard A. Meyette. PE
meye...@pacbell.net




---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

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:
Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
Dave Heald:   davehe...@attbi.com

For policy questions, send mail to:
Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
   http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/
   Click on "browse" and then "emc-pstc mailing list"

RE: General Product Safety Directive

[richwoods]

Well, this series sure took a left turn and accelerated hurriedly out of
site of the original intent which was to determine what the term "consumer"
means as used in the GPSD. The imaginary product example I put forth was
intended solely to support the question, and I in no way advocated that such
a product be placed upon the market without the proper safety analysis.

Now, back to the original question. I found the following definition of
professional apparatus in EN 55103-2 (immunity for professional A/V
equipment): "Apparatus intended for use in trades, professions or industries
and which is not intended for sale to the general public." The scope of the
standard says that the standard does not apply to "consumer apparatus". So,
it seems that the CENELEC authors of this standard are of the opinion that
there is a difference between professional and consumer apparatus. If the
authors are correct, the professional equipment I described is not included
within the scope of the GPSD. If that is true, what safety related
Directive, if any, applies? The only one I could find is the Liability
Directive, 85/374/EEC. The closest that document comes to having an
essential requirement is that "Lack of safety which the general public is
entitled to expect determines the defectiveness of a product." Could it be
that the regulation of safety of these types of products are the
responsibility of the member states and governed by national worker safety
regulations? Seems weird that there is a gap in the harmonization process
for these types of products.

Richard Woods
Sensormatic Electronics
Tyco International


>  -Original Message-
> From: WOODS, RICHARD  
> Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2002 1:28 PM
> To:   'emc-pstc'
> Subject:  General Product Safety Directive
> 
> Let's take an example of a non-rechargable 9V battery operated ITE product
> intended soley for business use; and due to its nature, it is highly
> unlikely to be used by laymen outside that business environment (i.e., not
> in the home). That product is not subject to the LVD, but it might be
> subject to the GPSD depending upon scope of the term "consumer". The GPSD
> uses the word "consumer" without defining the term. What is the legal
> meaning and scope of that term in the EU? Comments?
> 
> Richard Woods
> Sensormatic Electronics
> Tyco International
> 

---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

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:
 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Dave Heald:   davehe...@attbi.com

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/
Click on "browse" and then "emc-pstc mailing list"

RE: CE MARKING A SYSTEM

[Gary McInturff]

You have me all confused here. You claim the equipment should be able 
to state heavy industrial immunity but at the same time acknowledge that some 
of the components don't meet the surge requirements. Kind of like the 
government saying fiscal responsibility - an oxymoron.
If the purchased parts met the requirements I would agree with Richard. 
But if I buy something from you and it breaks, or worse yet in an industrial 
workplace hurts someone,  my lawyers are going to be talking to your lawyers, 
and your lawyers are going to be talking to your accountants, who are going to 
be writing me a check. 
Your lawyers might want to turn around and talk to the other vendors 
lawyers those lawyers are going to simply point to the their DoC and its light 
industrial marks. It becomes obvious you are using the product outside of the 
scope of the equipment.
The only other attack I see is that you claim the standards are wrong. 
The equipment works fine in the heavy industrial zone, therefore the surge 
requirements are invalid. I don't see that going very well either. The standard 
could indeed be wrong, but now you have to show that to be true. 
Seems the best bet if you need this to be industrial is to find OEM 
parts that will meet the stated requirements.
Gary


-Original Message-
From: richwo...@tycoint.com [mailto:richwo...@tycoint.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2002 6:04 AM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: CE MARKING A SYSTEM



Gordon, cosider constructing a Technical Construction File (TCF) and
submitting it to a Competent Body. Your product may comply with the
essential requirements when operating in its intended environment without
the need to apply the full industrial strength tests. At least, you could
make that argument to the CB.

Richard Woods
Sensormatic Electronics
Tyco International


-Original Message-
From: Gordon,Ian [mailto:ian.gor...@edwards.boc.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2002 4:57 AM
To: 'IEEE EMC & SAFETY PSTC'
Subject: CE MARKING A SYSTEM



Can anyone advise the course of action in applying a CE mark as regards EMC
to a system some of whose component parts are not built by us and whose D of
C's claim light industrial immunity. However, the system has been running in
very harsh environments e.g. plasma etch applications at customer sites and
we wish to claim industrial level immunity for the system. The system is
obviously "fit for purpose" in the intended environment.
We have performed radiated testing to this level on the whole system.
Unfortunately if we surge test these "light industrial" components which
form part of the system we are certain they will fail at the appropriate
levels. One component is an "industrial" PC.
Does anybody have any suggestions as to what action to take to allow us to
apply the CE mark and claim industrial immunity?

Thanks
Ian Gordon




*
This footnote confirms that this e-mail message has been scanned for
the presence of known computer viruses by the MessageLabs Virus 
Control Centre. However, it is still recommended that you use
local virus scanning software to monitor for the presence of viruses.
*


---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

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:
 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Dave Heald:   davehe...@attbi.com

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/
Click on "browse" and then "emc-pstc mailing list"

---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

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:
 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Dave Heald:   davehe...@attbi.com

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/
Click on "browse" and then "emc-pstc mailing list"

---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc 

RE: IEC 60601-2-24 / Magnetic Field

[Chris Maxwell]

Hi Amund,

I read your email (below).  I'm no medical device expert; but I'm
wondering if the magnetic strength limit was set so high due to MRI
(Magnetic Resnonance Imaging) devices.  My understanding is that MRI
devices produce HUGE magnetic field levels.  According to a recent
newspaper story that I read, these fields are strong enough to draw a
metal oxygen tank across the room to the MRI machine.

Is there any chance that the device in question could be used around an
MRI?   It would be a real bummer if someone's infusion pump suddenly
changed its run rate due to a nearby magnetic field.

Could that be what the standard is safeguarding against?  Any medical
device gurus care to comment?



Chris Maxwell | Design Engineer - Optical Division
email chris.maxw...@nettest.com | dir +1 315 266 5128 | fax +1 315 797
8024

NetTest | 6 Rhoads Drive, Utica, NY 13502 | USA
web www.nettest.com | tel +1 315 797 4449 | 

> -Original Message-
> From: am...@westin-emission.no [mailto:am...@westin-emission.no]
> Sent: Sunday, April 28, 2002 3:40 PM
> To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
> Subject: IEC 60601-2-24 / Magnetic Field
> 
> 
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> A colleague was checking the IEC 60601-2-24:98 and found the Magnetic
> Field
> Req't (paragraph 36.202.6) far too high: 400 Ampere-per-meter! I'd
> like to
> check this requirement for its correctness or history with backgrounds
> for
> such a demand. I know that 3A/m, 10A/m and 30A/m are often used, but
> 400A/m
> .
> 
> Can anybody help?
> 
> Best regards
> Amund Westin, Oslo/Norway
> 
> PS: IEC 60601-2-24:98 - "Medical electrical equipment - Part 2-24:
> Particular requirements for the safety of infusion pumps and
> controllers"
> 
> 
> 

---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

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:
 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Dave Heald:   davehe...@attbi.com

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/
Click on "browse" and then "emc-pstc mailing list"

Re: Anti-static Insulating Tape ???

[Patrick Lawler]

How do the safety standards (for example, IEC 60950 and their clones) define
'insulating tape'?
Are the insulating properties determined as applied in the end product by hipot
and leakage current?

On Mon, 29 Apr 2002 12:16:16 -0700 (PDT), Rich Nute  wrote:
>Thanks for sharing your findings on insulating tape
>and anti-static tape.
>
>All insulators have the property of insulation
>resistance.  Modern insulations have insulation
>resistances in the gigaohm and teraohm ranges.
>
>I would guess that anti-static insulators have a
>relatively low value of insulation resistance.  From
>what you describe, the manufacturer has assumed that
>his anti-static material is not suitable as an
>insulator, presumably because the insulation 
>resistance is relatively low.
>
>The insulation resistance required by a circuit is
>relative to the circuit resistances.  
>
>Insulation is in parallel to circuit resistances.
>The effect of insulation resistance is usually 
>ignored because we assume the insulation resistance
>is very high compared to the circuit resistance.
>
>For relatively low circuit resistances, I would 
>think that relatively low insulation resistances
>-- say megohm range -- would be acceptable.  I 
>would think that one could use an anti-static 
>material as an insulator if the insulation 
>resistance was sufficiently high compared to the 
>circuit resistance.
>
>I wonder of anti-static material manufacturers have
>studied the long-term effects of various values of
>working voltage on the material?
>
>
>Best regards,
>Rich
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>---
>This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
>Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.
>
>Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/
>
>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:
> Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
> Dave Heald:   davehe...@attbi.com
>
>For policy questions, send mail to:
> Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
> Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org
>
>All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
>http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/
>Click on "browse" and then "emc-pstc mailing list"


Patrick Lawler
plaw...@west.net

---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

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:
 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Dave Heald:   davehe...@attbi.com

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/
Click on "browse" and then "emc-pstc mailing list"

Re: DWELL TIME FOR AVERAGE DETECTORS

[Ken Javor]

At NASA we call this kind of answer MOTO - Master of the Obvious, but I 
can't think of any reason the dwell time would be other than the longer of
the detector time constant or a small integer multiple of the broadband
spike repetition period.

--
>From: "Gordon,Ian" 
>To: "'IEEE EMC & SAFETY PSTC'" 
>Subject: DWELL TIME FOR AVERAGE DETECTORS
>Date: Tue, Apr 30, 2002, 4:18 AM
>

>
> Can anybody advise as to what dwell time should be used for an average
> detector when measuring a broadband noise source? This time obviously
> increases the total test time unnecessarily if set too high and reduces the
> measurement accuracy if set too low.
> Thanks
> Ian Gordon
>
>
>
> *
> This footnote confirms that this e-mail message has been scanned for
> the presence of known computer viruses by the MessageLabs Virus
> Control Centre. However, it is still recommended that you use
> local virus scanning software to monitor for the presence of viruses.
> *
>
>
> ---
> This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
> Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.
>
> Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/
>
> 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:
>  Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
>  Dave Heald:   davehe...@attbi.com
>
> For policy questions, send mail to:
>  Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
>  Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org
>
> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
> http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/
> Click on "browse" and then "emc-pstc mailing list"
> 

---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

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:
 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Dave Heald:   davehe...@attbi.com

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/
Click on "browse" and then "emc-pstc mailing list"

RE: General Product Safety Directive - sorry missed something

[Gregg Kervill]

Robert - I know that it may SEEM heavy but there is not NEED to go overboard
- do you remember the incident where a (Lithium) battery was 'charged' as a
result of a fault condition?  The FAA banned all Lithium batteries in
aircraft for many years after the incident. Have you not mentioned any
external conditions or connection - or given us any idea of what the product
is. Therefore I cannot and will not make any assumptions.




I am not suggesting a major exercise - I am suggesting that you document
your method - and decision - I am also suggesting that you use some sort of
template - like the appropriate standard.  The whole exercise would have
been completed within the time that we have all have been discussing it.
1-2 hours tops

Best regards

Gregg




PLEASE NOTE:

We are currently experiencing serious problems with our service provider
PLEASE reply only to gr...@test4safety.com 
and ignore any reference to pgtv.net, Thank you.



--Original Message-
-From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
-[mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Robert Wilson
-Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 1:43 PM
-To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
-Subject: RE: General Product Safety Directive - sorry missed something
-
-
-
-With regards to the "need" to subject something running from a 9V
-battery to a "battery" (pun not intended) of safety approvals, to me
-this shows how some aspects of regulatory control are just a "solution"
-searching desperately for a "problem". There are times when it seems to
-me that the entire process, which had sensible beginnings, has come
-completely off the rails. I can't wait for the day when toothpicks
-"need" to carry a litany of approvals.
-
-Bob Wilson
-TIR Systems Ltd.
-Vancouver.
-
--Original Message-
-From: Gregg Kervill [mailto:gkerv...@pgtv.net] 
-Sent: April 29, 2002 7:29 AM
-To: richwo...@tycoint.com; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
-Subject: RE: General Product Safety Directive - sorry missed something
-
-
- "-Let's take an example of a non-rechargable 9V battery operated -ITE
-product"(sic)
-
-
-
-
-
-Consider the liability and your defense - it you review to the ITE
-standard
-then you have performed due diligence - if you do not review to the ITE
-standard then you have not!
-
-If you assume that the product is safe and there is an accident what is
-you
-defense???
-
-
-There may be an issue about CEMARKING the product:-
-
-
-LVD/MDD/EMC/RTTE etc   - REVIEW and CE MARKING
-
-GSD - REVIEW
-
-
-
-IMPORTANT PRINCIPLE:- The GSD is merely a catch-all to make sure that
-unsafe
-products are not put on the market.
-It covers any product that is not covered by a harmonized standard - so
-there is no option.
-
-Whether the ITE - LVD - GSD apply is irrelevant to safety and reviews.
-
-
-
-However it would be covered by the RTTE and that would require a file
-and CE
-Marking.
-
-Best regards
-
-Gregg
-
-PLEASE NOTE:
-
-We are currently experiencing serious problems with our 
-service provider
-PLEASE reply only to gr...@test4safety.com
-
-and ignore any reference to pgtv.net, Thank you.
-
-
-

-This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
-Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.
-
-Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/
-
-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:
- Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
- Dave Heald:   davehe...@attbi.com
-
-For policy questions, send mail to:
- Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
- Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org
-
-All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
-http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/
-Click on "browse" and then "emc-pstc mailing list"
<>

RE: General Product Safety Directive - sorry missed something

[Gregg Kervill]

John is absolutely correct - an experienced engineer can run through '950
with a product in a couple of hours AND record WHY the various clauses and
entire sections are not applicable to a simple product.

I certainly would not intend to spend more time than that on something
simple - HOWEVER - there will be readers of this group that are not
experience product safety engineers and will make incorrect assumptions.

The value of using a standard as a template is because it provide a
framework AND EVIDENCE.


Best regards

Gregg




PLEASE NOTE:

We are currently experiencing serious problems with our service provider
PLEASE reply only to gr...@test4safety.com 
and ignore any reference to pgtv.net, Thank you.



--Original Message-
-From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
-[mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of John Woodgate
-Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 4:11 PM
-To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
-Subject: Re: General Product Safety Directive - sorry missed something
-
-
-
-I read in !emc-pstc that Robert Wilson  wrote
-(in <3FF57405336C9B4C976A1819F860A2560F698B@xng_tirsys.TIRSYS.COM>)
-about 'General Product Safety Directive - sorry missed something', on
-Mon, 29 Apr 2002:
->With regards to the "need" to subject something running from a 9V
->battery to a "battery" (pun not intended) of safety approvals, to me
->this shows how some aspects of regulatory control are just a
-"solution"
->searching desperately for a "problem".
-
-Europe has eliminated 'approvals' in almost all cases where
-they are not
-essential. The manufacturer need only do an *assessment* of a product
-that appears to have no safety and/or EMC issues, and record the
-conclusions of that assessment. For the products I deal with, the
-assessment takes about an hour usually, and maybe 15 to 30 minutes to
-write the formal report. No big deal.
-
-> There are times when it seems to
->me that the entire process, which had sensible beginnings, has come
->completely off the rails. I can't wait for the day when toothpicks
->"need" to carry a litany of approvals.
-
-I believe that in some countries they do already. 'This is for use in
-the mouth. Do not put it in your eye or nostril, or into someone else's
-mouth without their written consent. Flammable. May have sharp points.
-Do not eat.'
---
-Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
-http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk
-Interested in professional sound
-reinforcement and distribution? Then go to
-http://www.isce.org.uk
-PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL!
-

-This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
-Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.
-
-Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/
-
-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:
- Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
- Dave Heald:   davehe...@attbi.com
-
-For policy questions, send mail to:
- Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
- Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org
-
-All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
-http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/
-Click on "browse" and then "emc-pstc mailing list"
-


---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

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:
 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Dave Heald:   davehe...@attbi.com

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/
Click on "browse" and then "emc-pstc mailing list"

RE: CE MARKING A SYSTEM

[richwoods]

Gordon, cosider constructing a Technical Construction File (TCF) and
submitting it to a Competent Body. Your product may comply with the
essential requirements when operating in its intended environment without
the need to apply the full industrial strength tests. At least, you could
make that argument to the CB.

Richard Woods
Sensormatic Electronics
Tyco International


-Original Message-
From: Gordon,Ian [mailto:ian.gor...@edwards.boc.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2002 4:57 AM
To: 'IEEE EMC & SAFETY PSTC'
Subject: CE MARKING A SYSTEM



Can anyone advise the course of action in applying a CE mark as regards EMC
to a system some of whose component parts are not built by us and whose D of
C's claim light industrial immunity. However, the system has been running in
very harsh environments e.g. plasma etch applications at customer sites and
we wish to claim industrial level immunity for the system. The system is
obviously "fit for purpose" in the intended environment.
We have performed radiated testing to this level on the whole system.
Unfortunately if we surge test these "light industrial" components which
form part of the system we are certain they will fail at the appropriate
levels. One component is an "industrial" PC.
Does anybody have any suggestions as to what action to take to allow us to
apply the CE mark and claim industrial immunity?

Thanks
Ian Gordon




*
This footnote confirms that this e-mail message has been scanned for
the presence of known computer viruses by the MessageLabs Virus 
Control Centre. However, it is still recommended that you use
local virus scanning software to monitor for the presence of viruses.
*


---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

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:
 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Dave Heald:   davehe...@attbi.com

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/
Click on "browse" and then "emc-pstc mailing list"

---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

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:
 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Dave Heald:   davehe...@attbi.com

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/
Click on "browse" and then "emc-pstc mailing list"

DWELL TIME FOR AVERAGE DETECTORS

[Gordon,Ian]

Can anybody advise as to what dwell time should be used for an average
detector when measuring a broadband noise source? This time obviously
increases the total test time unnecessarily if set too high and reduces the
measurement accuracy if set too low.
Thanks
Ian Gordon



*
This footnote confirms that this e-mail message has been scanned for
the presence of known computer viruses by the MessageLabs Virus 
Control Centre. However, it is still recommended that you use
local virus scanning software to monitor for the presence of viruses.
*


---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

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:
 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Dave Heald:   davehe...@attbi.com

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/
Click on "browse" and then "emc-pstc mailing list"

CE MARKING A SYSTEM

[Gordon,Ian]

Can anyone advise the course of action in applying a CE mark as regards EMC
to a system some of whose component parts are not built by us and whose D of
C's claim light industrial immunity. However, the system has been running in
very harsh environments e.g. plasma etch applications at customer sites and
we wish to claim industrial level immunity for the system. The system is
obviously "fit for purpose" in the intended environment.
We have performed radiated testing to this level on the whole system.
Unfortunately if we surge test these "light industrial" components which
form part of the system we are certain they will fail at the appropriate
levels. One component is an "industrial" PC.
Does anybody have any suggestions as to what action to take to allow us to
apply the CE mark and claim industrial immunity?

Thanks
Ian Gordon




*
This footnote confirms that this e-mail message has been scanned for
the presence of known computer viruses by the MessageLabs Virus 
Control Centre. However, it is still recommended that you use
local virus scanning software to monitor for the presence of viruses.
*


---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

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:
 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Dave Heald:   davehe...@attbi.com

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/
Click on "browse" and then "emc-pstc mailing list"

Australia EMC standard for battery toy

[Tsang Steven]

Hi all,
I believe you have to apply C-tick mark to fulfill australia EMC 
requirement. Do any one could tell me which AS standard and procedure 
applicable to Battery toy that has motor and PCB circuit?


Thank you

Steven
QA Engineer
Tiger Electronics Far East Ltd.  


_
MSN 相簿提供您最簡單的方式分享並列印您的相片，請移至：
http://photos.msn.com.hk/support/worldwide.aspx


---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

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:
Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
Dave Heald:   davehe...@attbi.com

For policy questions, send mail to:
Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
   http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/
   Click on "browse" and then "emc-pstc mailing list"

Re: A very nice game (an example)

[Dr. Jeffrey Race]

On Wed, 24 Apr 2002 13:44:34 -0700, Doug McKean wrote:
>For those interested in how to track down something like this, 
>take a look at the header information.  You'l see a bunch of 
>"Received: xx" lines.  

Lots of tricks involved here, including possibility of forged
headers.   Those interested may want to look at


Jeffrey Race


---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

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:
 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Dave Heald:   davehe...@attbi.com

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/
Click on "browse" and then "emc-pstc mailing list"