Re: EN 61000-6-2:2001 vs EN 61000-6-2:1999

[KC CHAN [PDD]]

The major change is :

In the 1999 version, "In some non-European countries, the transition frequency
between conducted and radiated radio-frequency test is optional within the
range 26 MHZ and 80 MHZ.  In these countries, the test may be carried out at a
start frequency lower than 80 MHZ, but not less than 26 MHZ."

In the 2001 version, no such requirement, meaning that the start frequency of
radiated immunity is 80MHz.

>>> "Terry Meck"  02/07/03 12:45am >>>
Hi again!
Are there any major changes between EN 61000-6-2:2001 vs EN 61000-6-2:1999
which has a Date of cessation of 01.07.2004.
I am in the process of ordering it but am too impatient to wait on the
delivery :-)
Best regards,
Terry J. Meck
Senior Compliance Engineer
tjm...@accusort.com



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

Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line.
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

Re: EN60950 protective conductor test (was Re: Circuit Breaker Tripping Dring Fault Tests)

[peter merguerian]

Dear Friends,

Thanks very much to the input regarding CB Tripping During Fault Testing.
There were many thoughts on the subject and I am sure that next time the wall
CB trips during fault tests at your third part certification laboratory, you
have something to talk about - make sure they do not charge you for the
discussion time!

Peter




  _  

Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus 
 - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now http://mailplus.yahoo.com> 

RE: EN 55022:1998 plus A1:2000

[Pettit, Ghery]

Cortland,

Amendment 1 to CISPR 22:1997 requires the clamps on all cables leaving the
measurement area.  This includes power cords.  The cables are specified to
enter the clamp at the point where the cable reaches the surface of the
turntable.  I don't believe that your suggestion meets this requirement.

Ghery


From: Cortland Richmond [mailto:72146@compuserve.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2003 3:20 PM
To: ieee pstc list
Subject: Re: EN 55022:1998 plus A1:2000



Tim Pierce wrote:

>> The new amendment calls out for ferrite tubes on all power cables and
I/O 
cables exiting the test site.  The problem I'm finding is that the FCC will

not accept this test setup.  Does anyone know if the FCC is going to
approve 
this test setup? <<

What of buried cables? It is preferred to bring cables below the ground
plane to exit the test area, thus insuring better controlled high-frequency
NSA; it seems to me that the FCC has not concerned itself with such things
as permeability of the material surrounding buried cables. Might this not
be one way to meet the intent of BOTH standards, by lining the exit conduit
with ferrite to the desired CM impedance?


Cortland


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

Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line.
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc


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

Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line.
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

RE: Plenum Ratings

[Peter L. Tarver]

David -

Yes, the wiring either must be plenum rated or must be
completely enclosed in an approved wiring method.  If
pigtails are provided, installation instructions or markings
should give some advice about properly installing the
equipment.

Background:

The requirements in the US are found in NFPA70 (US NEC),
Section 300-22.  Three types of installations are addressed:

300-22(a) ducts for dust, loose stock or vapor removal,
wherein no wiring or electrical equipment of any kind is
allowed, due to potential explosive atmospheres;

300-22(b) ducts or plenums used for environmental air,
wherein there are special ratings required for wiring
systems; equipment is limited to that necessary for taking
some direct action upon or sensing of the contained air;

300-22(c) other space used for environmental air, such aas
the spaces above acoustic tile ceilings that are also used
for air return ducts, wherein similar requirements apply
with respect to plenum ratings of wiring methods and
equipment, there are effectively no limitations on equipment
function, provided it meets the requirements for the
installation environment;

300-22(d) which addresses spaces below raised floors in ITE
rooms and references Article 645



Regards,

Peter L. Tarver, PE
Product Safety Manager
Sanmina-SCI Homologation Services
San Jose, CA
peter.tar...@sanmina-sci.com

> -Original Message-
> From: Cereceres, David
> Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2003 1:31 PM
>
> Hello Group,
> I was wondering if anyone out there had any
> knowledge in Plenum
> ratings/requirements. Here's my situation:
> We have a box that has a plenum rating (that's
> all I know) and it has an 18
> inch 3 wire pigtail coming out of
> it that does not have a plenum rating. Are there
> any specific requirements
> on the wire length or if they must
> also have a plenum rating? Is there any reference
> material out there?
>
> Your help would be once again greatly appreciated,
> David Cereceres
> Safety Design Engineer
> Pelco



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

Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line.
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

Re: Ethernet Creepage and Clearance

[John Woodgate]

I read in !emc-pstc that neve...@attbi.com wrote (in <200302061923.h16JN
5k29...@orion2.ieee.org>) about 'Ethernet Creepage and Clearance' on
Thu, 6 Feb 2003:
>There shall be no insulation breakdown, as defined in Section 5.3.2 of IEC 
>60950, 1991, 

That's OLD!
-- 
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

Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line.
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

Re: Maintaining conductivity of freshly machined aluminum

[John Woodgate]

I read in !emc-pstc that Barker, Neil 
wrote (in <4f826f960057d4118ec3009027e2453808a52...@whl17.e2v.uk>) about
'Maintaining conductivity of freshly machined aluminum' on Thu, 6 Feb
2003:
>Aluminium oxidises extremely rapidly in normal atmospheric conditions.

Indeed. See what happens when mercury removes the oxide film.

>You really cannot rely on untreated aluminium to aluminium interfaces
>unless they are closely mated immediately 

The oxide film forms in milliseconds. You would have to be VERY quick.

>after machining or abrasive
>cleaning and are subsequently protected from the atmosphere.

If that were entirely true, aluminium exposed to air would appear to be
a non-conductor, and it doesn't. The oxide film is only about 1 molecule
thick, and the measured conductivity with it present is little different
>from that of aluminium machined in a vacuum or under argon.

I'd like to see some results of conductivity testing two blocks bolted
together with no surface treatment and two similar blocks bolted
together with the surface treatment of your choice. The only stipulation
is that the atmosphere is not abnormally corrosive.
-- 
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

Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line.
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

RE: EN60950-1 - Time Scale??

[Richard Hughes]

Peter, 

 

To answer your question directly, I would say that it is the choice of the
manufacture, based on their market (international or just European) and
product lifetime to make their decisions.

 

For instance, the OJEC in relation to the LVD states that the third amendment
to EN 60950 has a date of cessation of 1/7/2006: therefore, if a manufacturer
is today placing a product on the European market that has a product life that
extends beyond 1/7/2006 then they may well consider it useful to adopt EN
60950-1 now.  However, if the manufacturer's product only has a market life of
a couple of years and they want to make maximum use of the IECEE CB Scheme to
gain multiple approvals across the world then they may decide that one of the
earlier variants of IEC 60950 would be a better way to go.

 

In fact, I would like to ask a completely different but related question. 
Given that Europe ratified EN 60950-1 in December 2001, why has it taken so
long for other countries to adopt IEC 60950-1 as their own national standard? 
Particularly so for those countries whose native language is English or French
and so the task of translation should be minimal.

 

While on the subject of what's going on around the world to adopt IEC 60950-1,
perhaps you have some information regarding the situation in Israel?

 

Regards,

 

Richard Hughes


From: peter merguerian [mailto:pmerguerian2...@yahoo.com]
Sent: 06 February 2003 18:09
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: EN60950-1 - Time Scale??



Group,

EN60950-1 appears in the OJ and there is a CB TRF issued by Fimko to this
standard. 

Is it wise to obtain a CB Test Report and Certificate to this standard when
most countries, including the US and Canada, have not adopted their versions
of the standard?

What is going on around the world to adopt the IEC 60950-1 standard?

Peter




  _  

Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail  
Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up  <
ttp://rd.yahoo.com/mail/mailsig/*http://mailplus.yahoo.com> now

Re: EN 55022:1998 plus A1:2000

[Cortland Richmond]

Tim Pierce wrote:

>> The new amendment calls out for ferrite tubes on all power cables and
I/O 
cables exiting the test site.  The problem I'm finding is that the FCC will

not accept this test setup.  Does anyone know if the FCC is going to
approve 
this test setup? <<

What of buried cables? It is preferred to bring cables below the ground
plane to exit the test area, thus insuring better controlled high-frequency
NSA; it seems to me that the FCC has not concerned itself with such things
as permeability of the material surrounding buried cables. Might this not
be one way to meet the intent of BOTH standards, by lining the exit conduit
with ferrite to the desired CM impedance?


Cortland


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

Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line.
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

CE marking and additional information requirements

[Georgerian, Richard]

Greetings All,
 
Thank-you to everyone who responded to my queries.
 
Richard
==
Richard Georgerian
Compliance Engineer 
Carrier Access Corporation
5395 Pearl Parkway
Boulder, CO 80301
USA
Tele: 303-218-5748 Fax: 303-218-5503
 mailto:rgeorger...@carrieraccess.com
 


*
This e-mail transmission, and any documents, files, or previous
e-mail messages attached to it may contain information that is 
confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended 
recipient, or a person responsible for delivering it to the 
intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you must not 
read this transmission and that any disclosure, copying, printing,
distribution, or use of any of the information contained in or 
attached to this transmission is strictly prohibited. If you have 
received this transmission in error, please immediately notify the 
sender by telephone or return e-mail and delete the original 
transmission and its attachments without reading or saving them 
in any manner. Thank you.
*

RE: User manual CD web or paper

[Gregg Kervill]

I do see a few issues using CDROM's for safety information.


The tradition operations manual that can include uncrating and handling will
be lost - and so will our ability to protect the user. Finding an equipment
manual is never easy in a business but there is usually a picture to help us
match the manual to the equipment.


We cannot just consider items weighing less than 20 kg -- so how do you pack
a CDROM to the OUTSIDE of a crate and expect it to arrive in ONE piece (let
alone unscratched).


In my opinion it is unreasonable to expect a 'USER' (see definition in '950)
to find the CDROM  (wherever it might be) load it onto a computer and search
through all the information for SAFETY INSTRUCTIONS and WARNINGS BEFORE
doing anything.


Besides not all companies have PC's for each individual - or a spare one
that sit next to the equipment being operated. (I'm thinking complex signal
analyzers here where interference would ALSO be a problem).  Not all
companies use the same computer system - on one defense program we have a
Vax with dumb terminals. Our security (and finance) departments would not
have allowed a PC - even if was essential to read the manual.


The manual gives a PERMANENT HARDCOPY that is easily browsed - it does not
rely upon having a high tech 'reading' device NOR does it break if you drop
it or spill coffee on it - and do all the thing to it that regularly happen
to manuals.


Of course - if the instructions on the CDROM are for a PC - that that is
obvious a non-starter - unless the device is so well designed that it
doesn't need any safety warnings.


Users, and particularly (ex-)design engineers like me, like that warm fuzzy
feeling.




Finally how do we determine that a CDROM can be supplied with a modem but
not with a fly-press - we might even need another Standard.   :  ^}




Best regards

Gregg


From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
[mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Andre Boons
Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2003 7:30 PM
To: gary.mcintu...@worldwidepackets.com; doug.pow...@aei.com;
jon.jo...@atltelecom.com; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: User manual CD web or paper


Gary,

If soft-manuals are delivered with the product, a CD drive is needed. I
agree. This depends on the kind of product. If you sell modems , the user
who buys it certainly has a PC (with a CD drive) and a small note on a small
paper can instruct the user to read the CD first on by means of his PC.
Supplying the manual by the internet is something else, but even then, I do
not see any "safety" problems in short term when a modem is installed and
the user is instructed to read the manual ASAP after installation. In real
life, almost nobody, except some weird safety freaks, read manuals.

You say that you checked with UL and TUV. Do you consider their response as
an advise or as a requirement?
Some countries completely rely on so-called certification by agencies, but
many countries like Europe, rely on legislation and Self declaration (but
maybe this is another subject focussing on the different approach between
Europe and some other countries)

Regards,
Andre

>From: "Gary McInturff" 
>Reply-To: "Gary McInturff" 
>To: "POWELL, DOUG" ,   "Jon Jones"
>,   "Emc-Pstc (E-mail)"
>
>Subject: RE: User manual CD web or paper
>Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 11:05:10 -0800
>
>
>   I checked this out awhile ago with both UL and TUV, and both
reluctantly
>rejected it. The problem is as you note below safety related information
>doesn't get to the user if your product doesn't have a CD drive. It
>couldn't be assured that the customer would have access to it. That's been
>about 6 months ago.
>   We send a 1 or 2 page installation document with the products, along
with
>the CD which has the whole user manual, installation instructions, and the
>standard regulatory stuff that accompanies the product.
>   We make Ethernet switches and routers and if you need one of those
you
>must have a computer or two hanging around that could access the CD or web
>address - but oh well.
>   Gary
>
>-Original Message-
>From: POWELL, DOUG [mailto:doug.pow...@aei.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2003 8:49 AM
>To: 'Jon Jones'; Emc-Pstc (E-mail)
>Subject: RE: User manual CD web or paper
>
>
>
>Jon,
>
>We routinely provide user manuals on CD.  We also offer printed media on
>request.  We've had no complaints.
>
>-doug
>
>Douglas E. Powell
>Regulatory Compliance Engineer
>Advanced Energy Industries, Inc.
>Fort Collins, CO 80535 USA
>
>
>
>-Original Message-
>From: Jon Jones [mailto:jon.jo...@atltelecom.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2003 8:51 AM
>To: Emc-Pstc (E-mail)
>Subject: User manual CD web or paper
>
>
>
>Group,
>
>In general circumstances is there any documented legislation regarding the
>format a user manual can or must be supplied with the product to the
>customer, (Paper, CD, web address etc)
>
>namely if a user manual is to be supplied on CD ROM or via web address ,
>then yo

RE: EN 55022:1998 plus A1:2000

[Pettit, Ghery]

Tim,
 
Officially, the DoW is still 1 August 2003.  However, a number of alphabet
groups have written letters to the commission asking that EN 55022:1998 be
delayed again as the telecommunication port conducted emissions test problems
won't be fixed in time.  That will have the effect of delaying the clamps, as
well.  CENELEC is reported to be in agreement with the additional delay and is
even concerned about the clamps.  The delay hasn't been granted, but it is
expected.
 
At present, you have to perform radiated emissions testing twice.  It's not
just the FCC that doesn't accept the clamps, it's a number of regulatory
bodies.  In fact, the only ones that come to mind as wanting them at this
moment are the EU and Israel.  The FCC is looking at this issue (and has been
for some time) and work is ongoing in ANSI to add them to ANSI C63.4.  Next
year might be the earliest to expect them to show up.  In an ideal world
(anybody know where I might find one?) all regulators would make the change at
the same time, thus avoiding having to double test.  Until we have an ideal
world, however...
 
Double testing isn't the worst of it.  Adding the clamps can, on occasion,
cause a compliant product to fail.  Doesn't that stink?
 
You have a number of choices for the ferrite.  You can "roll your own" using
ferrite blocks if you have a way to demonstrate that they give 15 dB of loss
in a 50 ohm system.  Another option is to use existing EM clamps, isolation
clamps or absorbing clamps.  Pricey and big, but they work.  Or, you can send
your money to our old friends at Fischer Custom Communications and they'll
send you smaller clamps that meet the requirement.  A final option is to live
with a little extra risk, assume that the EU will delay the standard, and do
nothing for now.  Of course, AS/NZS CISPR 22:2000 goes into effect on January
21, 2004 down under.  It is CISPR 22:1997 plus Amendment 1 with no changes. 
Now, if the EU delays EN 55022:1998, does anyone have some influence with the
folks in Australia and New Zealand that might get a delay down there?
 
Hope this helps.
 
Ghery Pettit
Intel
 

From: emcp...@aol.com [mailto:emcp...@aol.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2003 2:04 PM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: EN 55022:1998 plus A1:2000


Does anyone know what is going on with the final word on EN 55022:1998 plus
A1:2000?  Is it still going into effect in August 2003?

The new amendment calls out for ferrite tubes on all power cables and I/O
cables exiting the test site.  The problem I'm finding is that the FCC will
not accept this test setup.  Does anyone know if the FCC is going to approve
this test setup?  I would hate to have to test my equipment twice every time I
go to the lab for radiated emissions testing.  Also, does anyone recommend
where to buy these ferrite tubes?

Thanks.
Tim Pierce 

Re: EN 55022:1998 plus A1:2000

[lfresea...@aol.com]

In a message dated 2/6/2003 4:10:16 PM Central Standard Time, emcp...@aol.com
writes:



Also, does anyone recommend where to buy these ferrite tubes?




Hi Tim,

Schaffner makes these. Call John Parnell on 1-800-367-5566 He's on Ext 225 ( I
think )

I'm sure there are others...

Cheers,

Derek Walton

EN 55022:1998 plus A1:2000

[emcp...@aol.com]

Does anyone know what is going on with the final word on EN 55022:1998 plus
A1:2000?  Is it still going into effect in August 2003?

The new amendment calls out for ferrite tubes on all power cables and I/O
cables exiting the test site.  The problem I'm finding is that the FCC will
not accept this test setup.  Does anyone know if the FCC is going to approve
this test setup?  I would hate to have to test my equipment twice every time I
go to the lab for radiated emissions testing.  Also, does anyone recommend
where to buy these ferrite tubes?

Thanks.
Tim Pierce

RE: Agilent 6842A

[emcp...@aol.com]

Agilent is not supporting anything after EN 61000-3-2:1995, plus A1:1998, plus
A14:2000.  Also they are not supporting anything after EN 61000-3-3:1995 for
the Agilent 6842A.

Thanks.
Tim Pierce





Tim, which amendments or revisions of the test equipment standards or product
test standards do you believe are not supported?

Richard Woods 
Sensormatic Electronics 
Tyco International 




From: emcp...@aol.com [mailto:emcp...@aol.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2003 1:00 PM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Agilent 6842A


I think all of the people that own the Agilent 6842A Harmonic and Flicker Test
System should get together and request Agilent to update their software for
the new standards.  As a loyal HP/Agilent customer, I would expect them to
take care of this issue.  This is why we buy certain brands of test equipment,
and not others.  I feel that we "got ripped" on this deal since the 6842A is
not a cheap piece of test equipment.

Tim Pierce 

Plenum Ratings

[Cereceres, David]

Hello Group, 
I was wondering if anyone out there had any knowledge in Plenum
ratings/requirements. Here's my situation:
We have a box that has a plenum rating (that's all I know) and it has an 18
inch 3 wire pigtail coming out of 
it that does not have a plenum rating. Are there any specific requirements
on the wire length or if they must 
also have a plenum rating? Is there any reference material out there?  

Your help would be once again greatly appreciated,
David Cereceres 
Safety Design Engineer
Pelco


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

Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line.
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

Re: HP 6034L Power supply schematics / repair

[Kurt M. Marden]

Thank you to everyone who supplied information on how to get this unit
repaired.

Kurt

-- 

Kurt M. Marden

Environmental Simulation Manager



Curtis-Straus LLCkmar...@curtis-straus.com

Laboratory for EMC,Safety   Environmental Simulation Lab

NEBS,SEMI-S2 and Telecom168 Ayer Rd.

527 Great Road  Littleton,  MA   01460

Littleton, MA 01460 voice (978) 486-8880

http://www.curtis-straus.comfax   (978) 486-0806

RE: Ethernet Creepage and Clearance

[neve...@attbi.com]

The isolation is handled by:

a) transformer

AND

b) clearance/dielectric between "ground" and the nets that connect between the 
connector and the transformer. 

On the practical side, 5 mil of FR4 is enough to provide isolation in inner 
layers, and min of about 50-75 mil on the ouoter layers.

The moat under transformer has nothing to do with it.

Neven
> 
> 
>   Not for safety, sorry the 802 reference was from the IEEE 802.3 
> Ethernet 
> standards. I forget which section but there is a section on the electrical 
> characteristics for the port and the wiring. Unless its been changed there
is  
> 1500 v isolation requirement between signals and chassis. Quite often that
was 
> handled by separate ground plains between system and the Ethernet drivers.
If 
> you look at a system that has external magnetic you cans see the split
between 
> the input and output of the magnetics. It was there for noise control as
well.
>   If the SELV is earthed (logic and chassis kinda-sorta the same point) 
> its functional between that and unearthed SELV, or earthed or unearthed
TNV-1, 
> basic for the rest. Table 2G or figure 2F. 
> The follow your mains voltage, pollution degrees, and whether or not you
going 
> to see transients and it'll give you the figures your looking for. 
>   Gary
> -Original Message-
> From: Peter L. Tarver [mailto:peter.tar...@sanmina-sci.com]
> Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2003 7:30 AM
> To: Alex McNeil; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
> Subject: RE: Ethernet Creepage and Clearance
> 
> 
> 
> Ethernet is an SELV signal circuit.  Fully IEEE 802.3
> compliant products will not require any special treatment.
> Just the usual materials requirements regarding
> flammability.
> 
> If this is a powered VOIP product, there may be some
> additional things to consider.
> 
> Please be certain to purchase a copy of and read the
> standard.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Peter L. Tarver, PE
> Product Safety Manager
> Sanmina-SCI Homologation Services
> San Jose, CA
> peter.tar...@sanmina-sci.com
> 
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Alex McNeil
> > Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2003 11:56 PM
> >
> > Hi Forum,
> > Are there any ethernet and PCB safety
> > requirements, ie are there rules like
> > those for the modem side of things (isolation in
> > particular) or is the
> > transformer sufficient?
> >
> > Kind Regards
> > Alex McNeil
> > Principal Engineer
> > Tel: +44 (0)131 479 8375
> > Fax:+44 (0)131 479 8321
> > email: alex.mcn...@ingenicofortronic.com
> 
> 
> ---
> 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
> 
> Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line.
> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
> http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
> 
> ---
> 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
> 
> Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line.
> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
> http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc


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

Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line.
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

RE: What happens when an RTTE non compliant product is placed on the market?

[richwo...@tycoint.com]

There are three Directives at play here, LVD, EMCD, and RTTED.

Market survalence authorities under the LVD:
http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/electr_equipment/lv/index.htm

Under the EMCD: Not listed on the commission's web site, but check out the
guidelines.
http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/electr_equipment/emc/index.htm

Under the RTTED: Not listed but I understand they are the spectrum
management authorities.
http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/rtte/infor.htm

Also see:
http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/newapproach/legislation/guide/legislati
on.htm

Richard Woods
Sensormatic Electronics
Tyco International




From: Ilan Cohen [mailto:ico...@itl.co.il]
Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2003 1:34 PM
To: 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org'
Subject: What happens when an RTTE non compliant product is placed on the
market?




Hi All

Does anyone know the format and the status of the surveillance bodies which
were supposed to be places by the member states and by the EU for
enforcement of the RTTE directive.

What happens when an RTTE  non compliant product is placed on the market?
Does anyone care?
(For example an RTTE product which is declared under the LVD and the EMC
only. Or worse, when a product is being declared to comply with the RTTE
directive without compliance with the RTTE directive requirements of EMC,
safety, telecom and the construction file) 

Ilan


Ilan Cohen
Technical Director, Safety & Telecom Divisions
I.T.L (PRODUCT TESTING) Ltd.
26 Hacharoshet St, POB 211, Or Yehuda, Israel.
Tel 972-3-5339022, Fax 972-3-5339019
ico...@itl.co.il, website: http://www.itl.co.il 





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

Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line.
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc


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

Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line.
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

Re: What happens when an RTTE non compliant product is placed on the market?

[john.radom...@modicon.com]

For non-radio equipment, the only requirements deemed essential are the
safety and EMC requirements. There are no mandatory telecom requirements in
the EEA.

John Radomski
Schneider Electric



  
 
  Ilan Cohen  
 
  To:  
"'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org'"  
  Sent by:  cc:   
 
  owner-emc-pstc@majordoSubject:  What happens
when an RTTE  non compliant product is placed on the 
  mo.ieee.orgmarket?  
 
  
 
  
 
  02/06/2003 01:34 PM 
 
  Please respond to Ilan  
 
  Cohen   
 
  
 
  
 






Hi All

Does anyone know the format and the status of the surveillance bodies which
were supposed to be places by the member states and by the EU for
enforcement of the RTTE directive.

What happens when an RTTE  non compliant product is placed on the market?
Does anyone care?
(For example an RTTE product which is declared under the LVD and the EMC
only. Or worse, when a product is being declared to comply with the RTTE
directive without compliance with the RTTE directive requirements of EMC,
safety, telecom and the construction file)

Ilan


Ilan Cohen
Technical Director, Safety & Telecom Divisions
I.T.L (PRODUCT TESTING) Ltd.
26 Hacharoshet St, POB 211, Or Yehuda, Israel.
Tel 972-3-5339022, Fax 972-3-5339019
ico...@itl.co.il, website: http://www.itl.co.il





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

Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line.
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc






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

Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line.
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

Re: Ethernet Creepage and Clearance

[neve...@attbi.com]

Per high-voltage isolation requirement of IEEE 802.3, 2000, Ethernet front-end 
(media-side) must meet at least (any) one of the following three tests:


a) 1500 V rms at 50 Hz to 60 Hz for 60 s, applied as specified in Section
5.3.2 
of IEC 60950, 1991

b) 2250 Vdc for 60 s, applied as specified in Section 5.3.2of IEC 60950, 1991

c) a sequence of ten 2400 V impulses of alternating polarity, applied at 
intervals not less than 1 s. The shape of the impulses shall be 1.2/50 us (1.2 
us virtual front time, 50 us virtual time of half value), as defined in IEC 
60060.

There shall be no insulation breakdown, as defined in Section 5.3.2 of IEC 
60950, 1991, during the test. The resistance after the test shall be at least
2 
MOhm, measured at 500 Vdc.

Neven
> 
> Hi Forum,
> Are there any ethernet and PCB safety requirements, ie are there rules like
> those for the modem side of things (isolation in particular) or is the
> transformer sufficient?
> 
> Kind Regards
> Alex McNeil
> Principal Engineer
> Tel: +44 (0)131 479 8375
> Fax:+44 (0)131 479 8321
> email: alex.mcn...@ingenicofortronic.com
> 
> 
> ---
> 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
> 
> Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line.
> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
> http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc


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

Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line.
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

Re: EN60950 protective conductor test (was Re: Circuit Breaker Tripping Dring Fault Tests)

[Rich Nute]

Hi Peter:


My comments were based on the proposed requirement to
test the PE path with the circuit prospective current
transient, e.g. 200 amps from a 10,000-amp source for 
the period of time required to operate the overcurrent 
device  -- say less than a second or so.

(The 200 amps is a function of the contact resistances 
and the wire resistances, independent of the fault; 
the duration is a function of the overcurrent device.
200 amps is a reasonable number for plug-and-socket
cord-connected products.)

In order to get this maximum current, the fault must
be near zero ohms for the duration of the current
transient.  

To achieve near-zero ohms, the fault must be a large-
area fault.  A small-area fault is likely to fuse
open due to the current density and resistance at the
contact.

(I had the unfortunate experience that such a test by
a cert house used a small-area contact at a point where
no basic insulation fault could occur; the PWB PE path
was destroyed.  We repeated the test at a large-area
contact where basic insulation could fault, and the
PWB PE path passed.)

>   What if the over current device operates, the earthing path
>   is compromised by the fault, but not destroyed?  

I believe this is the objective of the proposal -- to
test the PE path with the circuit prospective current.
I would expect the compliance criterion to be no damage 
to the PE path.

>   What if the fault is of nonnear-zero impedance, the earthing
>   path is damaged, but not opened, and resetting of the
>   breaker does occur, but at some point the breaker holds due
>   to the relatively high impedance?

This scenario moves from withstanding the circuit 
prospective current to withstanding the steady-state
current just below the operating point of the over-
current device.  

I suggest that this is the objective of the existing 
requirement to test at twice the overcurrent device
rating or 25 amps, whichever is less.

>   a relatively complex earthing path, I have prepared a
>   separate e-mail that includes some construction details and
>   empirical data for a product in my lab.  To be sent soon.

I appreciate you sharing this data.


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

Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line.
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

What happens when an RTTE non compliant product is placed on the market?

[Ilan Cohen]

Hi All

Does anyone know the format and the status of the surveillance bodies which
were supposed to be places by the member states and by the EU for
enforcement of the RTTE directive.

What happens when an RTTE  non compliant product is placed on the market?
Does anyone care?
(For example an RTTE product which is declared under the LVD and the EMC
only. Or worse, when a product is being declared to comply with the RTTE
directive without compliance with the RTTE directive requirements of EMC,
safety, telecom and the construction file) 

Ilan


Ilan Cohen
Technical Director, Safety & Telecom Divisions
I.T.L (PRODUCT TESTING) Ltd.
26 Hacharoshet St, POB 211, Or Yehuda, Israel.
Tel 972-3-5339022, Fax 972-3-5339019
ico...@itl.co.il, website: http://www.itl.co.il 





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

Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line.
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

RE: UL508 and UL60950

[Momcilovic, Nick]

A lot depends on whether the device is UL Listed or UL Recognized and if the
end product standard to be complied with is UL 508 (Industrial Control
Equipment) or UL 508A (Industrial Control Panels; standard used in UL's
Industrial Control Panel Program).  I will speak of my experience with UL
508A and UL's ICP program.

There are generally no issues with using a Listed ITE device in an UL 508A
enclosure other than using the device within the manufacturers ratings and
intended purpose.  Keep in mind though that even though it may be acceptable
>from a compliance perspective there may be other issues you will need to
deal with in an industrial environment (i.e., dust, heat, vibration, etc).
On the other hand, most ITE Recognized devices (i.e., UL 1950, UL 60950) are
not allowed to be used within an enclosure "as is" unless they are included
in the UL File of the manufacturer integrating that device.  From my
experience, this usually is not a problem however there is a cost and time
associated with submitting the device for inclusion in your UL File.  This
would not be necessary if the ITE device you select is Recognized to UL 508.

Therefore, if you are in a situation like we are where you are integrating
devices into or on your enclosures, it will be easier from a compliance
perspective to use devices Recognized to UL 508 than UL 1950/60950.
Although your decision will most likely be based on cost and availability.

Sincerely,

Nick Momcilovic
Product Safety Coordinator
QTI
http://www.qtiworld.com



From: cnew...@xycom.com [mailto:cnew...@xycom.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2003 9:00 AM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Re: UL508 and UL60950

Pierre,

The compliance with UL 60950 will not be a problem.

My company was one of the first to enter the industrial HMI and industrial
computer markets.  We dropped UL 508 (auxiliary devices)  in favor of UL
1950
(and now of course UL 60950) in 1995.  We have thousands of industrial
computers in control panels all over the world.  This includes the Big
Three US automakers - extremely picky about what goes into their plants.

Not once have system integrators ever had a problem in the field with our
compliance to the ITE standard.  In addition to the ITE standard, we also
test and gain compliance to UL 50 Type 4/4X/12 enclosure ratings as well
as IEC 529 IP65.  Most systems also have Class I and Class II, Division 2,
hazardous locations compliance (UL 1604).  UL accepts compliance with
60950 with regard to hazardous locations, by the way.

These systems are typically used as interface to a control process - not
direct control.  If the system is to perform direct control then I would
certainly
agree that the process control standard is more appropriate.  But don't
expect that to happen any time soon because the PC operating systems
can't be trusted to that degree.

The truth is that the ITE standard imposes greater constraints upon the
system.  For example, no clear ventilation openings are allowed on the
bottom of the enclosure.  Whereas the Process Control standard assumes
that in the factory the surface below the equipment will be either metal,
concrete, or equivalent and subsequently does allow such openings in
electronic enclosure.  But the advantages to complying with the ITE
standard are obvious to members of this group.

The "proof is in the pudding".  The last market survey that I saw was
a couple of years ago, but Xycom had the largest market share in the
panel mount computer industry  within the USA - more than Allen
Bradley, Siemans, and Schnieder Electric (who just happened to purchase
our parent company recently).

Carl




From: john.radom...@modicon.com on 02/04/2003 11:09 AM

Please respond to john.radom...@modicon.com

To:   "Pierre SELVA" 
cc:   emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org (bcc: Carl Newton/XYCOM)

Subject:  Re: UL508 and UL60950




Pierre,

Industrial computer systems are not covered by UL60950, they are covered by
UL508. So, I believe that your system (PLC, computer, etc.) needs to be
evaluated to the requirements of UL508.

John Radomski
Schneider Electric





  "Pierre SELVA"
 To:

  Sent by:  cc:
  owner-emc-pstc@majordoSubject:  UL508 and
UL60950
  mo.ieee.org


  02/04/2003 07:48 AM
  Please respond to
  "Pierre SELVA"







Hello from France,

One of my customer is providing Human Machine Interfaces (Industrial
programmable controllers, Displays, ...).
Most of these products are included in UL508 certified complete products,
and are themselves UL508 certified.

But, can we use UL60950 certified products in a complete UL508 product.
In other words, do we have to demonstrate compliance of the included
product to UL 508 if it's UL60950 certified ?
For example, can we use UL60950 industrial computers in a UL 508 complete
product ?

Any

RE: Ethernet Creepage and Clearance

[Gary McInturff]

Not for safety, sorry the 802 reference was from the IEEE 802.3 Ethernet
standards. I forget which section but there is a section on the electrical
characteristics for the port and the wiring. Unless its been changed there is 
1500 v isolation requirement between signals and chassis. Quite often that was
handled by separate ground plains between system and the Ethernet drivers. If
you look at a system that has external magnetic you cans see the split between
the input and output of the magnetics. It was there for noise control as well.
If the SELV is earthed (logic and chassis kinda-sorta the same point) 
its
functional between that and unearthed SELV, or earthed or unearthed TNV-1,
basic for the rest. Table 2G or figure 2F. 
The follow your mains voltage, pollution degrees, and whether or not you going
to see transients and it'll give you the figures your looking for. 
Gary

From: Peter L. Tarver [mailto:peter.tar...@sanmina-sci.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2003 7:30 AM
To: Alex McNeil; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: Ethernet Creepage and Clearance



Ethernet is an SELV signal circuit.  Fully IEEE 802.3
compliant products will not require any special treatment.
Just the usual materials requirements regarding
flammability.

If this is a powered VOIP product, there may be some
additional things to consider.

Please be certain to purchase a copy of and read the
standard.

Regards,

Peter L. Tarver, PE
Product Safety Manager
Sanmina-SCI Homologation Services
San Jose, CA
peter.tar...@sanmina-sci.com


> -Original Message-
> From: Alex McNeil
> Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2003 11:56 PM
>
> Hi Forum,
> Are there any ethernet and PCB safety
> requirements, ie are there rules like
> those for the modem side of things (isolation in
> particular) or is the
> transformer sufficient?
>
> Kind Regards
> Alex McNeil
> Principal Engineer
> Tel: +44 (0)131 479 8375
> Fax:+44 (0)131 479 8321
> email: alex.mcn...@ingenicofortronic.com



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

Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line.
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc


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

Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line.
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

EN60950-1 - Time Scale??

[peter merguerian]

Group,

EN60950-1 appears in the OJ and there is a CB TRF issued by Fimko to this
standard. 

Is it wise to obtain a CB Test Report and Certificate to this standard when
most countries, including the US and Canada, have not adopted their versions
of the standard?

What is going on around the world to adopt the IEC 60950-1 standard?

 

Peter




  _  

Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus 
 - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now http://mailplus.yahoo.com> 

Re: Ethernet Creepage and Clearance

[John Woodgate]

I read in !emc-pstc that Alex McNeil 
wrote (in <5685ADDE2285D511925200508BB9F5031EC33B@FORT2>) about
'Ethernet Creepage and Clearance' on Thu, 6 Feb 2003:
>Are there any ethernet and PCB safety requirements, ie are there rules like
>those for the modem side of things (isolation in particular) or is the
>transformer sufficient?

Look in IEC/EN 60950 or UL 950.
-- 
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

Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line.
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

RE: User manual CD web or paper

[Gary McInturff]

Andre,
Mostly I was just polling them at the time. The pain level for us to 
put in
just the double sided installation guide was so small that it simply didn't
warrant trying to go to the mat with them over it. There are other issues that
I have argued, CSA certification of Class 1 eye safe laser modules, for
example which is ongoing, but this just wasn't worth the battle to us. We send
the voluminous User's Manual on CD and it includes the same stuff as the
installation manual.
About the only time I can remember where it really caused a concern was 
for a
keyboard manufacturer. The cost to the OEM for the assembled keyboard was
about $6.00 (it's now closer to $3.00). A penny or a half penny per unit is a
huge issue to those guys. There weren't any safety instructions but the FCC
warnings are suppose to be in the manual or a loose piece of paper. There
wasn't any user manual and the sheet of paper with printing was about 1.5
cents. That issue was big enough that I called the feds and asked if we could
print the warnings inside the box right next to the keyboard.
Beyond, the insignificant cost and effort to us, we still print and
distribute the installation instructions and put them into the box. We want
one last chance to tell them to load it properly into the racks, and not to
use it to set stuff on etc. Text warnings are the lowest level of protection,
and are often unread or ignored, but if we tell you and you choose to ignore
it, I'm not sure what we can, as a manufacturer, do about it.
One might also make a note that neither of these agencies actually have 
any
ability to see whether or not you actually do include the user manual. I don't
think even the "section general" which describes some generic checks, - wire
must be UL Listed or recognized, PCB callouts, and even the labeling
suitability, says anything about the user's or installation manual so the
follow-up-services inspector isn't checking for it. I'm certainly not making a
recommendation here. Its just one of those little observations about how
things are stated and how they actually work.
Gary



From: Andre Boons [mailto:andrebo...@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2003 4:30 PM
To: Gary McInturff; doug.pow...@aei.com; jon.jo...@atltelecom.com;
emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: User manual CD web or paper



You say that you checked with UL and TUV. Do you consider their response as 
an advise or as a requirement?
Some countries completely rely on so-called certification by agencies, but 
many countries like Europe, rely on legislation and Self declaration (but 
maybe this is another subject focussing on the different approach between 
Europe and some other countries)
>


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

Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line.
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

RE: mouse heart monitor

[Dean Gerard (gdean)]

To my reading the MDD applies only to human patients. 


Irrespective of the applicable Directive, you need to consider the
suitabilty of the Standrd you choose to adopt. 
In this case 60601 must be more appropriate than 61010 - not least because
safety provisions in the latter make no allowance for deliberate electrical
connection of a living creature to your (presumably electronic) device. 
61010 takes no account of the fact that a patient (in this case your mouse)
is connected via an Applied Part(and so potentailly more suceptible to
electric shock), nor that skin resistance is often deliberately reduced or
even bypassed for this connection, nor that in the event that shock should
occur then the patint is often unable to take any avoiding action. 
For these and other reasons the electrical safety requirements in 60601 are
necessarily more stringent - the requirements in 61010 are inappropriate and
inadequate for your application. 
(I've not checked, but I also assume that 61010 doesn't address other
'patient' safety issues suuch as biocompatibilty either). 


However, further risk assessment may still be required. The safety
requirements in 60601 are based upon human responses to adverse agents -
might mice be more sensitive (to leakge currents, for example) ? 
(Though the Standrd does still include animals as wellas humans in the
definition of the 'Patient').
Even if - as you suggest -you are not concerned with preserving your mouse's
life, you still have a requirement for the mouse to survive the duration of
your expeeriment and, as others have already observed, for the mouse to be
free from stresses which could affect your experimental results. On top of
which you have an ethical obligation to ensure minimum suffering to the
creature. I don't see how 61010 can satisfy these rquirements.


Ged Dean



> -Original Message-
> From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
> [mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Sam Davis
> Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2003 3:01 PM
> To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
> Subject: mouse heart monitor
> 
> 
> 
> All,
> I'm trying to work up a quote for testing a product which monitors various
> heart functions of living laboratory mice.  Would this fall into the
Medical
> Directive under 60601, or the LVD, under 61010?  I'm just looking at the
> safety aspects, not EMC.
> 
> The question comes up because the definition of "patient" in 601 (old
> version at least) includes "human or animal".  This is not veterinary
> equipment (save the mouse's life), but laboratory equipment (use the
mouse's
> life to learn how to save human's lives).
> 
> Thanks,
> Sam
> 


**
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
the system manager.

This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by
MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses.

NCHT
**




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

Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line.
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

RE: mouse heart monitor

[Cortland Richmond]

Chris Maxwell wrote:

>>  There may be some "administrative" (follow on testing, factory
auditing...) aspects of EN 60601 which may have costs that are hard to
justify for a mouse tester. <<


Some years ago a NEMKO engineer recounted (while witnessing a test at my
then employer) having tested a fixture for slaughtering fur-bearing foxes.
Factory auditing and follow-on testing could be interesting for an electric
chair!


Cortland


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

Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line.
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

RE: Feb 11 / Petition for Formation of a Product Safety Society

[Jim Bacher]

As we are having an issue with the new server
(https://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc), please use the file's on our
normal web site given below.  On the new server it should have been visible
under the "List" and in the folder General. I will look into the issue with
the new server.


From: Roman, Dan 
Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2003 11:27 AM

Rich,

Direct them to http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc.  The forms are there
and there is no logging in or registering involved.  A direct link right to
the PDF version is http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/IEEEpetition.pdf.

BTW, noticed that "petition" is spelled wrong in the subject line of the
message that went out on the listserver.

Dan


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

Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line.
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

Re: CE marking and additional information requirements

[John Woodgate]

I read in !emc-pstc that Barker, Neil 
wrote (in <4f826f960057d4118ec3009027e2453808a52...@whl17.e2v.uk>) about
'CE marking and additional information requirements' on Thu, 6 Feb 2003:

>I quite agree that unmarked product cannot be in free circulation.
>I wasn't implying that it was or even could be.
>However, I was thinking of a scenario where an importer assumed
>responsibility for the CE marking. He would therefore import unmarked
>product to a single point within the EU, do whatever he had to do to
>show due diligence, issue his D of C, apply the CE marking to the product,
>then put the product 'on the market' and 'in free circulation'. I am not
>aware of any regulations that prevent this.

I believe that you are right in this special case: **with proper
explanatory documentation** such a product can cross a member state
border **from outside the EU** for processing, including the application
of the CE mark.
-- 
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

Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line.
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

EN 61000-6-2:2001 vs EN 61000-6-2:1999

[Terry Meck]

Hi again!

Are there any major changes between EN 61000-6-2:2001 vs EN 61000-6-2:1999
which has a Date of cessation of 01.07.2004.

I am in the process of ordering it but am too impatient to wait on the
delivery :-)

Best regards,
Terry J. Meck
Senior Compliance Engineer
tjm...@accusort.com

 

RE: Ethernet Creepage and Clearance

[Gary McInturff]

Unless of course it self limits the current etc when max power is 
measured,
or not provided.
Gary


From: david_ster...@ademco.com [mailto:david_ster...@ademco.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2003 5:43 AM
To: alex.mcn...@ingenicofortronic.com; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: Ethernet Creepage and Clearance



The only safty reg I know of pertains to the 15-pin DB-mini connector for
the 'AUI' interface:
Safety agencies require a fuse (or current-limiting) on AUI Pin 13 which
sources 12 volts.  Otherwise they consider the AUI 'hazardous', requiring
all sorts of stickers and warnings.  

ANSI/IEEE 802.3 specifies 300mA source capability for the AUI but not all
AUI interfaces are 802.3 compliant; they may source less than 300mA.

Review all power supply outputs (PC card, custom adapters) to verify they
are limited-current per EN 60950.

David


From: Alex McNeil [mailto:alex.mcn...@ingenicofortronic.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2003 2:56 AM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Ethernet Creepage and Clearance



Hi Forum,
Are there any ethernet and PCB safety requirements, ie are there rules like
those for the modem side of things (isolation in particular) or is the
transformer sufficient?

Kind Regards
Alex McNeil
Principal Engineer
Tel: +44 (0)131 479 8375
Fax:+44 (0)131 479 8321
email: alex.mcn...@ingenicofortronic.com



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

Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line.
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc


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

Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line.
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc


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

Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line.
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

(Fwd) mouse heart monitor

[soundsu...@aol.com]

>>>Going through 60601 would help to show that the device won't harm or 
disturb the mouse, which may be important to the user.  After all, the user 
would want to know that the mouse's heart rate was going up because he saw a 
female mouse or a piece of cheese...not because the heart rate monitor is 
giving him the juice.  

I don't think it would show that.  The leakage current limits in any UL or 
IEC standard were arrived at based on the effects of electric current on 
humans, and at best could be extrapolated to an animal that is roughly 
analagous to a small human in size and weight.(Research by Dalziel on the 
thresholds of fibrillation due to external electrical excitement were 
actually done using dog hearts, which are not too far off in size from the 
heart of a human child.)  So the application of 60601 would not convince me 
that the device would be benign when used on a 5 ounce rodent.  
 
However, I also support the use of 60601 due to the fact that 
medical/laboratory personnel will be handling the device, and if they have 
any experience with heart monitors used for humans, they will naturally be 
expecting the *patient* contact leads to be safe to the touch, even under 
conditions of enhanced conductivity.  I believe 60601 addresses this aspect 
most appropriately.

Just my opinion.



Greg Galluccio
www.productapprovals.com


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

Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line.
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

RE: mouse heart monitor

[john.radom...@modicon.com]

In IEC/EN60601 the definition of PATIENT reads: "Living being (person or
animal) undergoing medical investigation or treatment". So I would say,
that IEC/EN60601 is the correct standard.

John Radomski
Schneider Electric



  
 
  Ned Devine  
 
To:   "'Sam Davis'"
, emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org   
  Sent by:  cc:   
 
  owner-emc-pstc@majordoSubject:  RE: mouse heart
monitor   
  mo.ieee.org 
 
  
 
  
 
  02/06/2003 09:20 AM 
 
  Please respond to Ned   
 
  Devine  
 
  
 
  
 





Hi,

I vote for LVD and IEC 61010-1.

The definition of a medical device in the MDD and IVD includes "...
intended
by the manufacturer to be used for human beings for the purpose of..."  So,
the MDD and IVD don't apply.

In IEC 60601-1, the definition of Patient (Clause 2.12.4) does include
animals.  But, the definition for Medical Electrical Equipment (Clause
2.2.15) states "...intended to diagnose, treat, or monitor the Patient
under
medical supervision...".   So, from the purpose that you described, I don't
think IEC 60601-1 is the correct standard.

IEC 61010-1:2001, does not limit its scope to humans.  The scope for
electrical laboratory equipment includes "...measures, indicates, monitors
or analyses substances, or is used to prepare materials,...".  This sounds
like the purpose of your device.

Ned Devine
Entela, Inc.
3033 Madison Ave. SE
Grand Rapids, MI  49548

Phone: 616 248 9671
Fax: 616 574 9752
e-mail: ndev...@entela.com
www.entela.com
Entela, Inc. A Certified Woman Owned Business







From: Sam Davis [mailto:sda...@ptitest.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2003 5:01 PM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: mouse heart monitor


All,
I'm trying to work up a quote for testing a product which monitors various
heart functions of living laboratory mice.  Would this fall into the
Medical
Directive under 60601, or the LVD, under 61010?  I'm just looking at the
safety aspects, not EMC.

The question comes up because the definition of "patient" in 601 (old
version at least) includes "human or animal".  This is not veterinary
equipment (save the mouse's life), but laboratory equipment (use the
mouse's
life to learn how to save human's lives).

Thanks,
Sam



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

Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line.
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc


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:   

RE: Ethernet Creepage and Clearance

[Peter L. Tarver]

Ethernet is an SELV signal circuit.  Fully IEEE 802.3
compliant products will not require any special treatment.
Just the usual materials requirements regarding
flammability.

If this is a powered VOIP product, there may be some
additional things to consider.

Please be certain to purchase a copy of and read the
standard.

Regards,

Peter L. Tarver, PE
Product Safety Manager
Sanmina-SCI Homologation Services
San Jose, CA
peter.tar...@sanmina-sci.com


> -Original Message-
> From: Alex McNeil
> Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2003 11:56 PM
>
> Hi Forum,
> Are there any ethernet and PCB safety
> requirements, ie are there rules like
> those for the modem side of things (isolation in
> particular) or is the
> transformer sufficient?
>
> Kind Regards
> Alex McNeil
> Principal Engineer
> Tel: +44 (0)131 479 8375
> Fax:+44 (0)131 479 8321
> email: alex.mcn...@ingenicofortronic.com



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

Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line.
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

RE: User manual CD web or paper

[Gary McInturff]

I read in !emc-pstc that Andre Boons  wrote (in
) about 'User manual CD web or
paper' on Thu, 6 Feb 2003:
> In real 
>life, almost nobody, except some weird safety freaks, read manuals.


Well, in real life not a lot of folks seem to read the warnings on cigarette
packages either. That doesn't mean that there isn't a penalty for ignoring the
warnings.

Cool, we now have another set of letters we can put behind our names for
professional meetings etc.

Gary - WSF


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

Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line.
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

Re: UL508 and UL60950

[cnew...@xycom.com]

Pierre,

The compliance with UL 60950 will not be a problem.

My company was one of the first to enter the industrial HMI and industrial
computer markets.  We dropped UL 508 (auxiliary devices)  in favor of UL 1950
(and now of course UL 60950) in 1995.  We have thousands of industrial
computers in control panels all over the world.  This includes the Big
Three US automakers - extremely picky about what goes into their plants.

Not once have system integrators ever had a problem in the field with our
compliance to the ITE standard.  In addition to the ITE standard, we also
test and gain compliance to UL 50 Type 4/4X/12 enclosure ratings as well
as IEC 529 IP65.  Most systems also have Class I and Class II, Division 2,
hazardous locations compliance (UL 1604).  UL accepts compliance with
60950 with regard to hazardous locations, by the way.

These systems are typically used as interface to a control process - not
direct control.  If the system is to perform direct control then I would
certainly
agree that the process control standard is more appropriate.  But don't
expect that to happen any time soon because the PC operating systems
can't be trusted to that degree.

The truth is that the ITE standard imposes greater constraints upon the
system.  For example, no clear ventilation openings are allowed on the
bottom of the enclosure.  Whereas the Process Control standard assumes
that in the factory the surface below the equipment will be either metal,
concrete, or equivalent and subsequently does allow such openings in
electronic enclosure.  But the advantages to complying with the ITE
standard are obvious to members of this group.

The "proof is in the pudding".  The last market survey that I saw was
a couple of years ago, but Xycom had the largest market share in the
panel mount computer industry  within the USA - more than Allen
Bradley, Siemans, and Schnieder Electric (who just happened to purchase
our parent company recently).

Carl




From: john.radom...@modicon.com on 02/04/2003 11:09 AM

Please respond to john.radom...@modicon.com

To:   "Pierre SELVA" 
cc:   emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org (bcc: Carl Newton/XYCOM)

Subject:  Re: UL508 and UL60950





Pierre,

Industrial computer systems are not covered by UL60950, they are covered by
UL508. So, I believe that your system (PLC, computer, etc.) needs to be
evaluated to the requirements of UL508.

John Radomski
Schneider Electric





  "Pierre SELVA"
 To:

  Sent by:  cc:
  owner-emc-pstc@majordoSubject:  UL508 and UL60950
  mo.ieee.org


  02/04/2003 07:48 AM
  Please respond to
  "Pierre SELVA"







Hello from France,

One of my customer is providing Human Machine Interfaces (Industrial
programmable controllers, Displays, ...).
Most of these products are included in UL508 certified complete products,
and are themselves UL508 certified.

But, can we use UL60950 certified products in a complete UL508 product.
In other words, do we have to demonstrate compliance of the included
product to UL 508 if it's UL60950 certified ?
For example, can we use UL60950 industrial computers in a UL 508 complete
product ?

Any input is welcome
Many thanks in advance.
Pierre Selva







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

Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line.
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc








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

Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line.
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

RE: MRA US-EU: Sectoral Annex Safety suspended

[Carpentier Kristiaan]

Alan,
You can find the text of the MRA (in plain English) on the following site>
Somewhere in the middle of the document, you find your answer under the
heading SECTORAL ANNEX FOR ELECTRICAL SAFETY, only a few lines.  

http://www.europa.eu.int/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexapi!prod!CELEXnu
mdoc&lg=EN&numdoc=21999A0204(01)&model=guichett


From: Hudson, Alan [mailto:alan.hud...@amsjv.com]
Sent: donderdag 6 februari 2003 12:50
To: EMC-pstc (E-mail)
Subject: RE: MRA US-EU: Sectoral Annex Safety suspended




Carpentier Kristiaan wrote:
> This seems to be the end of the Sectoral Annex Electrical Safety.
> 
>




H'ixcuse ma h'igorance, but what *was* this mutual recognition agreement on
electrical safety about anyway (in plain English!)?

Regards,

Alan

Alenia Marconi Systems
Scotland


This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or
distribute its contents to any other person.



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

Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line.
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc


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

Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line.
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

RE: EN60950 protective conductor test

[boconn...@t-yuden.com]

Sir 

Based on *anecdotal* experience, use of PWB trace for P.E. is common only in
SMPSs that have no chassis or surrounding frame. For example, my employer,
mostly for the reasons published in this thread, does not use a PWB-only P.E
on any (AC/DC converter) SMPS. While my employer offers some frame-less DC/DC
converters that do have a "de-facto" PW-based P.E., none are intended for the
TNV enviroment.

And, AFAIK, all Class 1 SMPS should have a chassis-based P.E. 

R/S, 
Brian 

-Original Message- 
From: John Woodgate 

I read in !emc-pstc that Rich Nute  wrote (in 
<200302051810.kaa05...@epgc264.sdd.hp.com>) about 'EN60950 protective 
conductor test' on Wed, 5 Feb 2003: 

>In my experience, PWB PE circuits are common, 
>and most difficult to obviate. 

So says our SMPS expert on the national committee. Well, chacun à son 
gout: I'll do my best to avoid them entirely. 
-- 
Regards, John Woodgate 

Agilent 6842A Technical Question

[richwo...@tycoint.com]

Is anyone aware of any amendments or revisions of the relevant test equipment
standards or product test standards that are not supported by the Agilent
6842A?
 
We are currently trying to evaluate dmax during power up (inrush current) per
Annex B of EN 61000-3-3 + A1 and having some difficulty. Has anyone found a
way of programming the unit to allow this test? In particular, can the
equipment report the rms current during any half period (we can only find an
estimated current), and can the equipment report all 24 values of dmax (we can
only find the maximum value in the series)?
Richard Woods 
Sensormatic Electronics 
Tyco International 

RE: mouse heart monitor

[Ned Devine]

Hi,

I vote for LVD and IEC 61010-1.

The definition of a medical device in the MDD and IVD includes "... intended
by the manufacturer to be used for human beings for the purpose of..."  So,
the MDD and IVD don't apply.  

In IEC 60601-1, the definition of Patient (Clause 2.12.4) does include
animals.  But, the definition for Medical Electrical Equipment (Clause
2.2.15) states "...intended to diagnose, treat, or monitor the Patient under
medical supervision...".   So, from the purpose that you described, I don't
think IEC 60601-1 is the correct standard.

IEC 61010-1:2001, does not limit its scope to humans.  The scope for
electrical laboratory equipment includes "...measures, indicates, monitors
or analyses substances, or is used to prepare materials,...".  This sounds
like the purpose of your device.

Ned Devine
Entela, Inc.
3033 Madison Ave. SE
Grand Rapids, MI  49548

Phone: 616 248 9671
Fax: 616 574 9752
e-mail: ndev...@entela.com
www.entela.com 
Entela, Inc. A Certified Woman Owned Business 







From: Sam Davis [mailto:sda...@ptitest.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2003 5:01 PM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: mouse heart monitor


All,
I'm trying to work up a quote for testing a product which monitors various
heart functions of living laboratory mice.  Would this fall into the Medical
Directive under 60601, or the LVD, under 61010?  I'm just looking at the
safety aspects, not EMC.

The question comes up because the definition of "patient" in 601 (old
version at least) includes "human or animal".  This is not veterinary
equipment (save the mouse's life), but laboratory equipment (use the mouse's
life to learn how to save human's lives).

Thanks,
Sam



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

Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line.
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc


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

Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line.
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

[Fwd: Feb 11 / Pettion for Formation of a Product Safety Society within IEEE]

[John Barnes]

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
Don, Elwood, Art, et al,
If you are an IEEE member, please look at this petition to create a
Product Safety Society within the IEEE.  I attended the TC-8 meeting at
the IEEE EMC Symposium last August, where this was discussed.  I thought
that having such a group as an official part of the IEEE would really
add a lot of value to my IEEE membership.  

I would be very interested in helping form a local chapter of such a
Product Safety Society in Lexington, Kentucky.  

But I can't invest much time in such a project until after August 1,
2003, when I am supposed to have the camera-ready manuscript for my
second book, Robust Electronic Design Reference, submitted to Kluwer. 
Chapter 34, EMC and Safety, and Appendix J, International Safety
Requirements, will be specifically devoted to product safety.

Thanks!
John Barnes KS4GL, PE, NCE, ESDC Eng, SM IEEE
dBi Corporation
http://www.dbicorporation.com/

--- Begin Message ---


Next week, several key players in the field of product safety will be

attending the IEEE board series meeting. At this meeting, the President of

the IEEE, the Board of Directors, and every department and organization

within IEEE will be present. The unit identified as the Technical Activities

Board (TAB) is responsible for the oversight of 50 Societies and Councils.

Our representatives will attend the TAB caucus along with other operational

units as we finalize the creation of the new "IEEE Product Safety Society."

If all goes well, the society should be voted into existence no later than

June of this year.



There is some administrative work left uncompleted. One item is to present a

petition from IEEE members, to TAB, indicating an interest in seeing a

society created. A petition campaign was started two years ago. We are

asking every subscriber to "emc-pstc" that is an IEEE member, to sign this

petition whether you did so a long time ago or not. We currently have the

required number of petitions but desire more to show that support is out in

industry for this new Society. Due to the urgency of this request, a

response must occur before Feb. 11, 2003, only a few days away. Signing of

this petition does "not" commit you to membership in this new Society. It

only provides statistical information regarding the level of interest in

this society worldwide.



Petition to IEEE TAB

 For many years, discussion on creating a Product Safety Society within

IEEE has been discussed, both through the Internet and the IEEE EMC

Society's TC-8 (Electromagnetic Product Safety Technical Committee) and its

working group, the Product Safety Technical Committee (PSTC). Due to

administrative reasons, benefits as a committee within EMCS is limited in

scope.  

 Many in our ranks hold joint membership in both the IEEE and PSTC.

Safety is a worldwide concern to both manufacturers and consumers.  A shift

in the safety paradigm has occurred from adding safety at the back end to

incorporating safety in the earliest phases of product concept, design and

specification. Therefore, the time is right to establish a Product Safety

Society within IEEE.

 If we successfully complete the formal IEEE Society application

process, we can enjoy the following benefits, and more: 



1.  Operating funds to improve our programs and services. 

2.  Professional publications (Transactions, newsletters, etc); opportunity

to publish papers in a technical forum.

3.  The hosting of an international conference or symposium every year.

4.  Ability to attract a wider range and variety of speakers from local,

national and international IEEE chapters through a distinguished lecturer

program.

5.  Creation of local product safety chapter that are autonomous.

5.  Improved networking opportunities for professional growth. 

7.  The opportunity to participate in the formation of IEEE and

International standards as a recognized committee member, which is a major

benefit because we live within these regulations.



The first phase of the application process is to collect signatures in

support of our petition to create a Product Safety Society. If you are an

IEEE member and approve of this action, please download the form off of our

website at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org:80/soc/emcs/pstc/ print the page, sign

it where indicated, and either mail it to Daniece Carpenter, 9709 Quilberry

Drive, Austin, TX 78729, or fax it to 512-728-5278, or email a signed copy

to daniece_carpen...@dell.com, as soon as possible, but no later than Feb.

11, 2003. Please add your areas of interest, comments and suggestions if

desired.  Many thanks for your support!



Note: You may also go to https://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc?go=l137008

and fill in your information. 



Thanks.

TC-8 and the IEEE Product Safety Society Steering Committee.





This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety

Technical Committee

RE: Ethernet Creepage and Clearance

[david_ster...@ademco.com]

The only safty reg I know of pertains to the 15-pin DB-mini connector for
the 'AUI' interface:
Safety agencies require a fuse (or current-limiting) on AUI Pin 13 which
sources 12 volts.  Otherwise they consider the AUI 'hazardous', requiring
all sorts of stickers and warnings.  

ANSI/IEEE 802.3 specifies 300mA source capability for the AUI but not all
AUI interfaces are 802.3 compliant; they may source less than 300mA.

Review all power supply outputs (PC card, custom adapters) to verify they
are limited-current per EN 60950.

David


From: Alex McNeil [mailto:alex.mcn...@ingenicofortronic.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2003 2:56 AM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Ethernet Creepage and Clearance



Hi Forum,
Are there any ethernet and PCB safety requirements, ie are there rules like
those for the modem side of things (isolation in particular) or is the
transformer sufficient?

Kind Regards
Alex McNeil
Principal Engineer
Tel: +44 (0)131 479 8375
Fax:+44 (0)131 479 8321
email: alex.mcn...@ingenicofortronic.com



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

Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line.
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc


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

Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line.
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

RE: mouse heart monitor

[Chris Maxwell]

I second this opinion for a different reason.  EN 61010-1 doesn't have any
tests that pertain to electrical connections that are intentionally connected
to a living thing, be it animal or human.  Going through 60601 would help to
show that the device won't harm or disturb the mouse, which may be important
to the user.  After all, the user would want to know that the mouse's heart
rate was going up because he saw a female mouse or a piece of cheese...not
because the heart rate monitor is giving him the juice.  

It seems as though EN 60601 would be the appropriate test standard to follow. 
The interpretation probably comes in when you try to determine how closely you
want to follow it.  There may be some "administrative" (follow on testing,
factory auditing...) aspects of EN 60601 which may have costs that are hard to
justify for a mouse tester.

Just an opinion from a semi-educated, non-medical-expert bystander; but I hope
it helps.

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: Chris K. Poore [SMTP:chr...@percept.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2003 6:40 PM
> To:   emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
> Subject:  RE: mouse heart monitor
> 
> 
> On the odd chance that some researcher (or other human / animal) trys to
> connect this to themselves -- it should be evaluated to the MDD.
> 
> Just a guess...
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
> [mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Sam Davis
> Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2003 3:01 PM
> To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
> Subject: mouse heart monitor
> 
> 
> 
> All,
> I'm trying to work up a quote for testing a product which monitors various
> heart functions of living laboratory mice.  Would this fall into the Medical
> Directive under 60601, or the LVD, under 61010?  I'm just looking at the
> safety aspects, not EMC.
> 
> The question comes up because the definition of "patient" in 601 (old
> version at least) includes "human or animal".  This is not veterinary
> equipment (save the mouse's life), but laboratory equipment (use the mouse's
> life to learn how to save human's lives).
> 
> Thanks,
> Sam
> 
> 


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

Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line.
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

Feb 11 / Pettion for Formation of a Product Safety Society within IEEE

[Jim Bacher]

Next week, several key players in the field of product safety will be
attending the IEEE board series meeting. At this meeting, the President of
the IEEE, the Board of Directors, and every department and organization
within IEEE will be present. The unit identified as the Technical Activities
Board (TAB) is responsible for the oversight of 50 Societies and Councils.
Our representatives will attend the TAB caucus along with other operational
units as we finalize the creation of the new "IEEE Product Safety Society."
If all goes well, the society should be voted into existence no later than
June of this year.

There is some administrative work left uncompleted. One item is to present a
petition from IEEE members, to TAB, indicating an interest in seeing a
society created. A petition campaign was started two years ago. We are
asking every subscriber to "emc-pstc" that is an IEEE member, to sign this
petition whether you did so a long time ago or not. We currently have the
required number of petitions but desire more to show that support is out in
industry for this new Society. Due to the urgency of this request, a
response must occur before Feb. 11, 2003, only a few days away. Signing of
this petition does "not" commit you to membership in this new Society. It
only provides statistical information regarding the level of interest in
this society worldwide.

Petition to IEEE TAB
 For many years, discussion on creating a Product Safety Society within
IEEE has been discussed, both through the Internet and the IEEE EMC
Society's TC-8 (Electromagnetic Product Safety Technical Committee) and its
working group, the Product Safety Technical Committee (PSTC). Due to
administrative reasons, benefits as a committee within EMCS is limited in
scope.  
 Many in our ranks hold joint membership in both the IEEE and PSTC.
Safety is a worldwide concern to both manufacturers and consumers.  A shift
in the safety paradigm has occurred from adding safety at the back end to
incorporating safety in the earliest phases of product concept, design and
specification. Therefore, the time is right to establish a Product Safety
Society within IEEE.
 If we successfully complete the formal IEEE Society application
process, we can enjoy the following benefits, and more: 

1.  Operating funds to improve our programs and services. 
2.  Professional publications (Transactions, newsletters, etc); opportunity
to publish papers in a technical forum.
3.  The hosting of an international conference or symposium every year.
4.  Ability to attract a wider range and variety of speakers from local,
national and international IEEE chapters through a distinguished lecturer
program.
5.  Creation of local product safety chapter that are autonomous.
5.  Improved networking opportunities for professional growth. 
7.  The opportunity to participate in the formation of IEEE and
International standards as a recognized committee member, which is a major
benefit because we live within these regulations.

The first phase of the application process is to collect signatures in
support of our petition to create a Product Safety Society. If you are an
IEEE member and approve of this action, please download the form off of our
website at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org:80/soc/emcs/pstc/ print the page, sign
it where indicated, and either mail it to Daniece Carpenter, 9709 Quilberry
Drive, Austin, TX 78729, or fax it to 512-728-5278, or email a signed copy
to daniece_carpen...@dell.com, as soon as possible, but no later than Feb.
11, 2003. Please add your areas of interest, comments and suggestions if
desired.  Many thanks for your support!

Note: You may also go to https://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc?go=l137008
and fill in your information. 

Thanks.
TC-8 and the IEEE Product Safety Society Steering Committee.


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

Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line.
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

RE: MRA US-EU: Sectoral Annex Safety suspended

[Hudson, Alan]

Carpentier Kristiaan wrote:
> This seems to be the end of the Sectoral Annex Electrical Safety.
> 
>




H'ixcuse ma h'igorance, but what *was* this mutual recognition agreement on
electrical safety about anyway (in plain English!)?

Regards,

Alan

Alenia Marconi Systems
Scotland


This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or
distribute its contents to any other person.



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

Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line.
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

RE: Maintaining conductivity of freshly machined aluminum

[Rob Humphrey]

Alocrom 1200 is a CHROMATE CONVERSION COATING system for Aluminium and
aluminium alloys.

We use a proprietary coating system which deposits a chromate coating onto an
etched surface.

Chromate coating is recommended for use prior to painting, but because of its
ability  to prevent atmospheric oxidation is often used without further
finishing.

Providing the thickness of coating is properly specified and regulated, it is
possible for the conductive properties of the treated material to be
sufficient to allow earth bonding without further mechanical treatment of the
aluminium surface.

Customers should refer to DEF-STAN 03-18 or MIL-C-5541 for further information
as to the suitability of this treatment for their applications.

We have used this treatment for a number of years on earth bonding to
aluminium finished devices and it has been very successful.

Regards Rob



From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk] 
Sent: 06 February 2003 09:47
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Re: Maintaining conductivity of freshly machined aluminum



I read in !emc-pstc that Scott Lacey  wrote (in
<3E4144F6.3539.FA6BC@localhost>) about 'Maintaining conductivity of freshly
machined aluminum' on Wed, 5 Feb 2003:

>Does anyone know of any conductive coating, preferably spray-on,
>that could be used on mating aluminum chassis surfaces? We 
>manufacture (in very low volume) test equipment that is housed in a 
>commercially manufactured anodized aluminum enclosure. Our 
>machine shop mills the anodizing from mating surfaces and adds 
>additional screw holes to improve bonding. The concern is that the 
>surfaces will not remain conductive over time.

Is there any evidence for such an effect (assuming a normal atmosphere, not
especially spiked with corrosive gases)? I suspect not. If there is, than many
existing products may be vulnerable! 
-- 
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

Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc
postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc



Visit our Internet site at http://www.reuters.com

Get closer to the financial markets with Reuters Messaging - for more
information and to register, visit http://www.reuters.com/messaging

Any views expressed in this message are those of  the  individual
sender,  except  where  the sender specifically states them to be
the views of Reuters Ltd.



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

Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line.
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

Re: User manual CD web or paper

[John Woodgate]

I read in !emc-pstc that Andre Boons  wrote (in
) about 'User manual CD web or
paper' on Thu, 6 Feb 2003:
> In real 
>life, almost nobody, except some weird safety freaks, read manuals.

Well, that characterizes about half of the members of this group. Of
course, they are not weird safety freaks by nature, they do it for
money. (;-)
-- 
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

Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line.
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

Re: Maintaining conductivity of freshly machined aluminum

[John Woodgate]

I read in !emc-pstc that Scott Lacey  wrote (in
<3E4144F6.3539.FA6BC@localhost>) about 'Maintaining conductivity of
freshly machined aluminum' on Wed, 5 Feb 2003:

>Does anyone know of any conductive coating, preferably spray-on, 
>that could be used on mating aluminum chassis surfaces? We 
>manufacture (in very low volume) test equipment that is housed in a 
>commercially manufactured anodized aluminum enclosure. Our 
>machine shop mills the anodizing from mating surfaces and adds 
>additional screw holes to improve bonding. The concern is that the 
>surfaces will not remain conductive over time.

Is there any evidence for such an effect (assuming a normal atmosphere,
not especially spiked with corrosive gases)? I suspect not. If there is,
than many existing products may be vulnerable! 
-- 
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

Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line.
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

Re: mouse heart monitor

[John Woodgate]

I read in !emc-pstc that Sam Davis  wrote (in
) about 'mouse heart
monitor' on Wed, 5 Feb 2003:
>I'm trying to work up a quote for testing a product which monitors various
>heart functions of living laboratory mice.  Would this fall into the Medical
>Directive under 60601, or the LVD, under 61010?  I'm just looking at the
>safety aspects, not EMC.
>
>The question comes up because the definition of "patient" in 601 (old
>version at least) includes "human or animal".  This is not veterinary
>equipment (save the mouse's life), but laboratory equipment (use the mouse's
>life to learn how to save human's lives).

The researchers won't be at all pleased if your monitor introduces a
stress that interferes with their experiments. To prevent this, you may
even have to surpass the 60601 requirements.
-- 
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

Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line.
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

Ethernet Creepage and Clearance

[Alex McNeil]

Hi Forum,
Are there any ethernet and PCB safety requirements, ie are there rules like
those for the modem side of things (isolation in particular) or is the
transformer sufficient?

Kind Regards
Alex McNeil
Principal Engineer
Tel: +44 (0)131 479 8375
Fax:+44 (0)131 479 8321
email: alex.mcn...@ingenicofortronic.com



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

Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line.
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

(Fwd) mouse heart monitor

[jgri...@601help.com]

Sam,

A review of the MDD scope shows that if it is not to be used on humans, then
the MDD is not the 
appropriate directive. So the LVD would be the applicable directive.

Nevertheless, I would say the the most appropriate standard to use is EN
60601-1, even though it is 
not an LVD harmonised standard. On the other hand, I doubt if you would have
any trouble with the 
authorities if you were to use EN 61010, together with a written justification
for doing this  - 
"not to save the mouse's life, but using the mouse's life to learn how to save
human's lives".

Regards,

Jon Griver
http://www.601help.com
The Medical Device Designer's Guide to IEC 60601-1


-
>All,
>'m trying to work up a quote for testing a product which monitors various
>heart functions of living laboratory mice.  Would this fall into the Medical
>Directive under 60601, or the LVD, under 61010?  I'm just looking at the
>safety aspects, not EMC.
>
>The question comes up because the definition of "patient" in 601 (old
>version at least) includes "human or animal".  This is not veterinary
>equipment (save the mouse's life), but laboratory equipment (use the mouse's
>life to learn how to save human's lives).

>Thanks,
>Sam





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

Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line.
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc