Re: Electrical Medical Product Production Testing

[Siemic (China) Certification Services]

Josh is correct.

China CCC requires the manufacturer have a procedure to perform such testing
on a routine basis. It is written in the CCC rules, depends on the product
type, for ITE, it is written in Section 5: Routine Tests and Verification
Tests, Page 17, Ref.No.CNCA-01C-021:2001.

Hope this helps.
Jeff



From: "Joshua Wiseman" 
To: "FastWave" ; 
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2003 1:22 PM
Subject: RE: Electrical Medical Product Production Testing



Bill,

I don't have it in writing but when I went through the factory inspection
for CCIB it was required that it was checked on a routine basis.  Rather
than put it on the line I started it in our audit process.  Every line gets
one test per week.

Good Luck,
Josh



Does anybody know any Certification Agencies and/or Standards anywhere in
the world requiring Production Line Leakage Current Testing on Electrical
Medical Products? If so, does anybody have it in writing?

Thanks for the help,

Bill Bisenius
ED&D, Inc.
bi...@productsafet.com 
www.productsafet.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

FW: IEEE Meeting at Emulex

[Flinders, Randall]

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.



From: Robert Tozier [mailto:robert.toz...@ckc.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 3:51 PM
To: Flinders, Randall
Subject: IEEE Meeting at Emulex


 IEEE Meeting February 25, 2003 at 6:30 pm

The Continuum of ESD as Exhibited in Nature and Applied to Systems

The presentation will consist of reviewing the dynamic continuum of impulse
waveforms experienced for personnel ESD as it occurs in nature combined with
the mechanisms that produce the variables in these effects. The ESD impulse
wave shapes will be described for : humans directly; humans with metallic
objects; and ESD from furnishings, such as chairs and carts. These "real"
ESD events will be contrasted to those established by standards committees.
A brief over-view of how different spectra derived from various ESD
amplitudes effectively propagates in systems will conclude the program.

Speaker:
W. Michael King
W. Michael King, after a period of design and production in the professional
audio recording industry, entered the field that is now known as EMC in 1960
(at that time the concept was defined simply as a segment within the
discipline of systems integration and spectrum management) when still in
education with the Capitol Radio Engineering Institute (CREI - accredited EE
program). He has been participating in the field of Electromagnetic
Compatibility (EMC) engineering for over forty-two years. Within that
period, he has been: engaged in the EMC definition, design, evaluation,
implementation, management and execution of well over (an estimated) one
thousand programs and projects; engaged in contracts with over 1,000 project
and systems developers with over 400 clients. During his tenure in the
engineering and management disciplines he has held positions that, as a
partial though significant list, include (in sequence): Lab EMC supervisor;
Lab manager; Systems Engineer; Director, Systems Engineering; Project
Manager for ELINT; Senior Technical Specialist (Airesearch); Chief
Electronics Engineer (Teledyne Radar Relay Division); Manager of EMI/EMC
Operations; Technical Program Monitor for NAVSEC/SYSCOM; EMC Integration
Advisor to NAVWEPS/NWC; Advisor/Integration USAF/MOL Orthogonal Array; Plant
Operations General Manager; EMC Program Manager; Policy Advisor to Senior
Corporate Staffs (Government and Commercial Projects); and General
Program/Hardware manager for many projects.
The speaker was responsible for seminal studies in ESD that contributed to
the art as it is known today.
Please visit:
www.systemsemc.com or www.systems-emc.com for more information about the
speaker.

Location:
Emulex Corporation in Costa Mesa
Entrance between the Emulex and QLogic buildings
3535 Harbor Blvd
Costa Mesa, Ca. 92626

When:
February 25, 2003
6:30pm Dinner Served
Presentation 7:00pm to 8:00pm

MEETINGS ARE NOW FREE
FREE! for IEEE Members and Students with Valid Student ID Card
FREE! for non-IEEE Members
Reservations requested by 5:00 p.m. February 21.
Please e-mail or call.
Robert Tozier at 714-337-1133 or
robert.toz...@ckc.com

Best Regards,


Robert Tozier
Business Development Specialist
CKC Laboratories, Inc.
Direct 714-337-1133
Office 714-993-6112
Fax 714-993-0171
Toll-Free (800) 500-4EMC

http//: www.ckc.com
CKC Certifications Services has been designated as a TCB for all scopes
subject to  US (FCC) Certifications!  Go to http://www.ckccertification.com
for more information.


Title: FW: IEEE Meeting at Emulex








-Original Message-

From: Robert Tozier [mailto:robert.toz...@ckc.com]

Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 3:51 PM

To: Flinders, Randall

Subject: IEEE Meeting at Emulex



 IEEE Meeting February 25, 2003 at 6:30 pm


The Continuum of ESD as Exhibited in Nature and Applied to Systems


The presentation will consist of reviewing the dynamic continuum of impulse

waveforms experienced for personnel ESD as it occurs in nature combined with

the mechanisms that produce the variables in these effects. The ESD impulse

wave shapes will be described for : humans directly; humans with metallic

objects; and ESD from furnishings, such as chairs and carts. These "real"

ESD events will be contrasted to those established by standards committees.

A brief over-view of how different spectra derived from various ESD

amplitudes effectively propagates in systems will conclude the program.


Speaker:

W. Michael King

W. Michael King, after a period of design and production in the professional

audio recording industry, entered the field that is now known as EMC in 1960

(at that time the concept was defined simply as a segment within the

discipline of systems integration and spectrum management) when still in

education with the Capitol Radio Engineering Institute (CREI - accredited EE

program). He has been participating in the field of Electromagnetic

Compatibility (EMC) engineering for over forty-two years. Within that

period, he has been: engaged in the EMC definition, design, evaluation,

i

RE: Fuse Holders

[Robert Johnson]

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
You may want to consider using the fuses outside their rating.
If you can show the fuse is not needed for safety purposes by bypassing the
fuse during safety tests, and show that if the fuse does operate, no hazard
results (this may be an issue with high DC currents which are hard to
interrupt), then choice of the fuse and fuseholder is simply a functional
consideration.
Similarly, you may be able to show that the fuse performs its safety
reliably in application, even though your application is outside normal
component ratings. Testing to justify such a stance would be necessary.

Bob Johnson
ITE Safety
 


From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
[mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org] On Behalf Of Chris Maxwell
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 10:08 AM
To: EMC-PSTC Internet Forum
Subject: Fuse Holders


Hi all,

I have a design that has a 36 to 72 VDC input rated for up to 14 Amps.

I've looked at the standard 5x20mm and 6x32mm fuseholders that we have; and
they are rated for 6.3 Amps (SEMKO)  10 Amps (VDE) and 16 Amps (UL).  Of
course these fuseholders are also rated for up to 250VAC.

What I like about the standard fuseholders is the fact that they solder to a
PCB with a "right angle" footprint.  That is, the PCB can be perpendicular
to the panel that the fuses stick out through.  We can then design the panel
to allow the fuses to protrude; which would allow for safe and convenient
user replacement of fuses.

Problem is, their current rating is insufficient.

Can anybody recommend a fuse-holder that is a right angle PCB mount that
will handle the voltages and currents that I'm suggesting above?  It would
be alright if we need to use a different style of fuse.  What is important
to me is:  current and voltage rating,  low form factor, right angle PCB
mount and ease of user replacement.  I would like to avoid fuseholders that
require cable mounting; I want them to solder to the PCB.

As a fallback position, I have considered using two of the above fuseholders
in parallel with 7.5 Amp fuses installed.  Can anybody see a compliance
problem with this (considering EN 61010-1).?

Thanks for your collective time.

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 | 





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

Title: RE: Fuse Holders






You may want to consider using the fuses outside their rating.

If you can show the fuse is not needed for safety purposes by bypassing the

fuse during safety tests, and show that if the fuse does operate, no hazard

results (this may be an issue with high DC currents which are hard to

interrupt), then choice of the fuse and fuseholder is simply a functional

consideration.

Similarly, you may be able to show that the fuse performs its safety

reliably in application, even though your application is outside normal

component ratings. Testing to justify such a stance would be necessary.


Bob Johnson

ITE Safety

 


-Original Message-

From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org

[mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org] On Behalf Of Chris Maxwell

Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 10:08 AM

To: EMC-PSTC Internet Forum

Subject: Fuse Holders



Hi all,


I have a design that has a 36 to 72 VDC input rated for up to 14 Amps.


I've looked at the standard 5x20mm and 6x32mm fuseholders that we have; and

they are rated for 6.3 Amps (SEMKO)  10 Amps (VDE) and 16 Amps (UL).  Of

course these fuseholders are also rated for up to 250VAC.


What I like about the standard fuseholders is the fact that they solder to a

PCB with a "right angle" footprint.  That is, the PCB can be perpendicular

to the panel that the fuses stick out through.  We can then design the panel

to allow the fuses to protrude; which would allow for safe and convenient

user replacement of fuses.


Problem is, their current rating is insufficient.


Can anybody recommend a fuse-holder that is a right angle PCB mount that

will handle the voltages and currents that I'm suggesting above?  It would

be alright if we need to use a different style of fuse.  What is important

to me is:  current and voltage r

Violation of IEEE emc-pstc advertising rule

[Rich Nute]

A message was posted by the EMC Compliance 
Management Group that was a blatant violation 
of our rules against advertising.

The subscriber has been un-subscribed and
notified as to the reason.  


Richard Nute
Administrator, IEEE emc-pstc listserver






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: Here comes China - FYI

[Siemic (China) Certification Services]

Dear Tian,
 
I personally do not think this is approporiate to send out such type of this
email to the group.
 
In additon, I have been noticed your company website for quite a while, not
only myself, but several other professionals in this group, have found that
your company has been misleading US manufacturers by "claiming" you are the
"CNCA accredited test laboratory". In fact, the "Certificate" shown in your
website is NOT the accreditation from CNCA, but a CCC certificate issued by
CQC to one of your Chinese manufacturers and written in Chinese so not many of
us in this group could tell what it really is. If by any chance, I am
mistaken, I would like to appoogoze and please show us your "CNCA
Accreditation" in English.
 
Kind regards,
Jeff Jin
Siemic (China) Certification Services
No.5 University Road
Haidian District, 
Beijing, China
 
 
 
- Original Message - 
From: Tian   Mendez Ext.186 
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org 
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 1:59 PM
Subject: Here comes China - FYI


EMC Compliance Management Group values your business and will remove your name
>from our e-mail list if you do not wish to receive future e-mails. Please
reply to this e-mail if you would like to be removed, with "REMOVE" as the
subject.
 

  Here Comes China


   
 
 
 
   

 
  Start the route to market
for your products in China 
at EMC Compliance Management Group!
 

 
  _  

 
 

 

   
 
Your guide to China import product certification,
your ticket to global regulatory compliance.
 

 
  _  

 
 

 

 
 
 

 
What Is CCC?
CCC stands for China Compulsory Certificate. As of May 1, 2002, the CCC mark
is mandatory for hundreds of products. Manufacturers must affix the CCC mark
to the actual product in advance of its sales in China. All processes relevant
to the Compulsory Product Certificate Scheme must be completed before products
enter China's market.

How can I get CCC approval?  
Click here!

Global expertise in EMC compliance management and control techniques for
compliance success, lower development costs and increased profit margins.

To learn more about our services,   click here.
 

 
 
 
   
EMC Compliance worldwide compliance management for EMC and Product Safety.
HEADQUARTERS
670 National Avenue
Mountain View, CA 94043
(800) 936-6988
fax (650) 988-6647
  www.emclab2000.com
  sa...@emclab2000.com
CHINA OFFICE 
China Merchants Tower, Suite D1, 9th Floor, No.2
Dong Huan South Road, Chao Yang District
Beijing, 100022, China
86-10-6566-9689
fax 86-10-6566-9687
TAIWAN OFFICE 
3F, 27, Chung Shan North Road, Sec. 3
Taipei 104, Taiwan, R.O.C
886-2-2594-6534
fax 886-2-2594-3515 
  _  

  Get approval to sell your
products in China, the newest member of the WTO! 
  EMC Compliance Home
  _  

EMC Compliance Management Group values your business and will remove your name
>from our e-mail list if you do not wish to receive future e-mails. Please
reply to this e-mail if you would like to be removed, with "REMOVE" as the
subject.
 

 
 
 

   
 

RE: 121 MHz message unreadable

[Joshua Wiseman]

Cortland,

I am sending email in plain text (ASCII) format.  I have not sent any
attachments.  I noticed that the last 2 messages I have sent out have been
delayed somewhere.  They have been taking over a day to post to the group.  My
guess is that the problem is with my company server or the emc pstc server.

Regards,
Josh


From: Cortland Richmond [mailto:72146@compuserve.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 2:10 PM
To: Joshua Wiseman; ieee pstc list
Subject: 121 MHz message unreadable


As you can see, the below message arrived unreadable at my compuserve
account. Since I can't read attachments with my off-line reader anyway
without (1) finding a numbered file and (2) opening it  with a text reader,
would you be kind enough to re-send the message, this time as ASCII text,
and NOT as an attachment?

Thanks,

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

121 MHz message unreadable

[Cortland Richmond]

As you can see, the below message arrived unreadable at my compuserve
account. Since I can't read attachments with my off-line reader anyway
without (1) finding a numbered file and (2) opening it  with a text reader,
would you be kind enough to re-send the message, this time as ASCII text,
and NOT as an attachment?

Thanks,

Cortland



>> Date:  12-Feb-03 11:51:12  MsgID: 1084-5536  ToID: 72146,373
From:  "Joshua Wiseman" >INTERNET:jwise...@printronix.com
Subj:  RE: Real product interference source at 121 MHz
Chrg:  $0.00   Imp: Norm   Sens: StdReceipt: NoParts: 2



The following message is an Internet MIME message.  It was not decoded
by the CompuServe Internet mail gateway for the following reason(s):

premature termination of base64 encoded data

The complete MIME message is attached as a separate part.  You may use
a third party MIME decoder to attempt to process the attachment message.



Sender: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Received: from ruebert.ieee.org (ruebert.ieee.org [140.98.193.10])
by siaag2aa.compuserve.com (8.9.3/8.9.3/SUN-1.18) with ESMTP id
OAA06627;
Wed, 12 Feb 2003 14:35:39 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
by ruebert.ieee.org (Switch-2.2.4/Switch-2.2.4) id h1CJRXd20631
for emc-pstc-resent; Wed, 12 Feb 2003 14:27:33 -0500 (EST)
content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Subject: RE: Real product interference source at 121 MHz
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0
List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org
List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org
List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org
List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 10:22:22 -0800
Message-ID:

X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
Thread-Topic: Real product interference source at 121 MHz
Thread-Index: AcLR9erRIxGBRm1bTxqUR1jeSXs8twAAiVcg
From: "Joshua Wiseman" 
To: "drcuthbert" ,
"Kurt Fischer" ,

X-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 Feb 2003 18:22:22.0792 (UTC)
FILETIME=[85481C80:01C2D1FA]
Sender: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org


Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Joshua Wiseman" 
X-Resent-To: Multiple Recipients 
X-Listname: emc-pstc
X-Info: Help requests to  emc-pstc-requ...@majordomo.ieee.org
X-Info: [Un]Subscribe requests to  majord...@majordomo.ieee.org
X-Moderator-Address: emc-pstc-appro...@majordomo.ieee.org


S3VydCwNCg0KSW4gbXkgQWlyIFRyYWZmaWMgcmFkaW8gcmVwYWlyIGRheXMgSSBiZWNhbWUgaW5
0
aW1hdGVseSBmYW1pbGlhciB3aXRoIDEyMS41IGFuZCAyNDMgTUh6LiAgVGhlc2UgYXJlIHRoZSB
l
bWVyZ2VuY3kgZnJlcXVlbmNpZXMgdXNlZCBOLiBBbWVyaWNhLiAgVGhleSBhcmUgdXNlZCBmb3I
g
bG9jYXRpbmcgYm90aCB0aGUgcGxhbmUgYW5kIHBpbG90IGluIHRoZSBldmVudCBvZiBhbiBlbWV
y
Z2VuY3kuICBUaGV5IGFyZSBhbHNvIHVzZWQgYnkgcGlsb3RzIHdoZW4gdGhleSBoYXZlIGxvc3Q
g <<


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: Symbols and Markings: Color scheme

[Gary McInturff]

The copy I have is the first edition 1984-03-01
It identifies three 4 types of symbols Prohibition Signs, Mandatory
actions signs, Warning signs (this is the one you reference) and informative
signs. Each has its own background color, red, blue, Yellow, or green. The
text is white, blue, black, white.
The only exception I see is for the prohibition signs, where the white
background color "in some countries" can be replaced with safety yellow.
So unless I have an old outdated copy (certainly possible) you would need
a black triangle, black lightning bolt, and yellow background.
I thought there were black and white versions of the warning signs but
sure didn't find one.
Gary


From: Georgerian, Richard [mailto:rgeorger...@carrieraccess.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 1:15 PM
To: IEEE emc-pstc
Subject: Symbols and Markings: Color scheme



Greetings All, 

To meet UL60950:2000 Third Edition and CSA C22.2 No 60950:2000 Third Edition,
is it a mandatory requirement that the electric shock symbol and cautionary
symbol markings be black lettering on a yellow background? Or is the intent is
to have the markings with a high contrast, by using alternate colors, such as
black lettering on a white background. 

Specifically these are the symbols from the ISO Publication ISO 3864, No.
B.3.6 for the electric shock symbol and No. B.3.1 for the cautionary symbol.
Since at this time we don't have the ISO publication, does the publication
allow for alternate colors of contrast?

Does UL60950 and CSA C22.2 No 60950 allow the use of IEC 60417 for such
symbols with contrasting colors for lettering and background?

A more general question to keep this thread on more general terms - 
For safety requirements, are there specific color codes that one must adhere
to for specific symbols? Or is it enough to show a high contrast between
lettering and background for such symbols?

Thanks in-advance. 

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.
*

Here comes China - FYI

[Tian Mendez Ext.186]

EMC Compliance Management Group values your business and will remove your name
>from our e-mail list if you do not wish to receive future e-mails. Please
reply to this e-mail if you would like to be removed, with "REMOVE" as the
subject.
 

  Here Comes China


   
 
 
 
   

 
  Start the route to market
for your products in China 
at EMC Compliance Management Group!
 

 
  _  

 
 

 

   
 
Your guide to China import product certification,
your ticket to global regulatory compliance.
 

 
  _  

 
 

 

 
 
 

 
What Is CCC?
CCC stands for China Compulsory Certificate. As of May 1, 2002, the CCC mark
is mandatory for hundreds of products. Manufacturers must affix the CCC mark
to the actual product in advance of its sales in China. All processes relevant
to the Compulsory Product Certificate Scheme must be completed before products
enter China's market.

How can I get CCC approval?  
Click here!

Global expertise in EMC compliance management and control techniques for
compliance success, lower development costs and increased profit margins.

To learn more about our services,   click here.
 

 
 
 
   
EMC Compliance worldwide compliance management for EMC and Product Safety.
HEADQUARTERS
670 National Avenue
Mountain View, CA 94043
(800) 936-6988
fax (650) 988-6647
  www.emclab2000.com
  sa...@emclab2000.com
CHINA OFFICE 
China Merchants Tower, Suite D1, 9th Floor, No.2
Dong Huan South Road, Chao Yang District
Beijing, 100022, China
86-10-6566-9689
fax 86-10-6566-9687
TAIWAN OFFICE 
3F, 27, Chung Shan North Road, Sec. 3
Taipei 104, Taiwan, R.O.C
886-2-2594-6534
fax 886-2-2594-3515 
  _  

  Get approval to sell your
products in China, the newest member of the WTO! 
  EMC Compliance Home
  _  

EMC Compliance Management Group values your business and will remove your name
>from our e-mail list if you do not wish to receive future e-mails. Please
reply to this e-mail if you would like to be removed, with "REMOVE" as the
subject.
 

 
 
 

   
 

RE: Real product interference source at 121 MHz

[Gary McInturff]

What are the 3 and 6 db points of the 121.5 Mhz skirts? The original 
note was 121 Mhz. How wide is the satellite link? Shouldn't the be exclusive?
Gary


From: Joshua Wiseman [mailto:jwise...@printronix.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 10:22 AM
To: drcuthbert; Kurt Fischer; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: Real product interference source at 121 MHz


Kurt,

In my Air Traffic radio repair days I became intimately familiar with 121.5 and 
243 MHz.  These are the emergency frequencies used N. America.  They are used 
for locating both the plane and pilot in the event of an emergency.  They are 
also used by pilots when they have lost their bearings and need help getting to 
their destination among other things.

This frequency has added power when transmitter from the ground so that it can 
be heard at a greater distance.

Good Luck,
Josh


From: drcuthbert [mailto:drcuthb...@micron.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 8:32 AM
To: 'Kurt Fischer'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: Real product interference source at 121 MHz



Kurt,
this could be aviation communications. AM voice is centered at about 121
MHz. 

   Dave


From: Kurt Fischer [mailto:kurt.fisc...@hyperinterop.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 8:03 AM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Real product interference source at 121 MHz


Hello all,
 
A strange request but this has become an interference issue with a sattelite
communications link There seems to be a very strong interferer at 121 MHz
that is intermittent in nature and physically located in Northern
USA/Canada. 
 
It could be the marketing of a non-compliant consumer products or perhaps
some after market sattelite rec. retro-fit kit??
 
Has anyone else had this experience in the last year --- (the problem was
not present 2 years ago)?
It does appear to getting worse and is spreading geographically as well.
 
Regards,
Kurt Fischer
Hyper Corp
N,jࢱ^ AȞ#ˡ&zܓygƥ
^y\v+:""ybb2+hnȭya0{by種̡ޙ?&\:jw*.˛
بǧvf&j:+v   瞢0m"   ^)޺{.n+l5h.ǧvf-b2)²ڶF-צr-rz(&
+u֯z֭ah%̪-ʉ̱ݙbrtۭzxy+!zi^'z!
ⱷ   p{ॕǢ{^+bwWr-r,)౪j7!jwly*zma60rx(l


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
Nj zy
yvny{yᙦjvjvnvFω᭭צr-rz(&
૫猀u֯z֭ah%̪-銉̱ݙbrtۭzxy+耘!zi退^'z!ʊ�� p{奕Ǣ{^ޞ+bwWr-r,)౪j!jwlyzɉmaබ䵌
0rɉx(Øl
N,j^ AȞ#ۜ&zܓygƥ
^y霦\v+"ybb+hnȭya0{by種ޙ?\:jw*.˛بǧvf&j:+v瞢0m" 
^)޺{.n+lhǧvf-b֝)ڶFωצr-rz(&
u֯z֭ah%̪-ݙbrtۭzxy+!zi^'z!  p{{^+bwWr-r,)౪j!jwly܅zma0rx(ޙl

Fuse Holders

[Chris Maxwell]

Hi all,

I have a design that has a 36 to 72 VDC input rated for up to 14 Amps.

I've looked at the standard 5x20mm and 6x32mm fuseholders that we have; and
they are rated for 6.3 Amps (SEMKO)  10 Amps (VDE) and 16 Amps (UL).  Of
course these fuseholders are also rated for up to 250VAC.

What I like about the standard fuseholders is the fact that they solder to a
PCB with a "right angle" footprint.  That is, the PCB can be perpendicular to
the panel that the fuses stick out through.  We can then design the panel to
allow the fuses to protrude; which would allow for safe and convenient user
replacement of fuses.

Problem is, their current rating is insufficient.

Can anybody recommend a fuse-holder that is a right angle PCB mount that will
handle the voltages and currents that I'm suggesting above?  It would be
alright if we need to use a different style of fuse.  What is important to me
is:  current and voltage rating,  low form factor, right angle PCB mount and
ease of user replacement.  I would like to avoid fuseholders that require
cable mounting; I want them to solder to the PCB.

As a fallback position, I have considered using two of the above fuseholders
in parallel with 7.5 Amp fuses installed.  Can anybody see a compliance
problem with this (considering EN 61010-1).?

Thanks for your collective time.

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 | 





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

ACIL Meeting

[steve.ost...@flextronics.com]

Could someone summarize the outcome of the recent ACIL meeting concerning the
Verizon ITL program.  Please reply off-line.
 
Thanks,
Steve

RE: Symbols and Markings: Color scheme

[peter merguerian]

Rich, 


It is enough to show high contrast between lettering and the background. 


Best Regards, 


Peter 


  


 "Georgerian, Richard"  wrote: 


I apologize to all, as this is a resend. The first one I sent did not connect
to the IEEE host server. 

Richard 

 -Original Message- 
From:   Georgerian, Richard  
Sent:   Tuesday, February 11, 2003 2:16 PM 
To: 'IEEE emc-pstc' 
Subject:Symbols and Markings: Color scheme 

Greetings All, 

To meet UL60950:2000 Third Edition and CSA C22.2 No 60950:2000 Third 
Edition,
is it a mandatory requirement that the electric shock symbol and cautionary
symbol markings be black lettering on a yellow background? Or is the intent is
to have the markings with a high contrast, by using alternate colors, such as
black lettering on a white background. 

Specifically these are the symbols from the ISO Publication ISO 3864, 
No.
B.3.6 for the electric shock symbol and No. B.3.1 for the cautionary symbol.
Since at this time we don't have the ISO publication, does the publication
allow for alternate colors of contrast?

Does UL60950 and CSA C22.2 No 60950 allow the use of IEC 60417 for such
symbols with contrasting colors for lettering and background?

A more general question to keep this thread on more general terms - 
For safety requirements, are there specific color codes that one must adhere
to for specific symbols? Or is it enough to show a high contrast between
lettering and background for such symbols?

Thanks in-advance. 

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 n! otify 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.
*





  _  

Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Shopping   - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day

RE: best screw/washer choices for attaching PCB to Chassis?

[Angus McGill]

Has anyone tried square-cone sems screws for holding down PCBs?  I am
tempted to recommend them, as I've seen them used in this type of
application, They have properties of flat and locking washers in a single,
captive washer (fewer parts to manage).  They come in 4-40 phillips pan
head, with zinc or other platings.

Angus McGill
Regulatory Engineer
Cascade Engineering Services, Inc.
ang...@cascade-eng.com


From: Robert Johnson
To: 'Kim Flint'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Sent: 2/11/03 8:28 PM
Subject: RE: best screw/washer choices for attaching PCB to Chassis?


The product I'm referring to used screws to fasten a two layer FR4
fiberglass/epoxy PWB to copper bars. I think it had a 5V output at about
50A. The memories are really foggy since this was about twenty years
ago,
but as I recall it used a couple screws with flat and split lock
washers.
Although properly torqued in initial manufacture, they started coming
back
>from the field after a year or two with failures where the hardware had
loosened and the resulting loose connection would progress to heating
and
arcing with destruction of the board in the joint area. The smoke and
charring brought it to the attention of product safety, but failures
never
generated further risk due to enclosure protections.

We didn't do a lot of research as to how the failure progressed, just
reworked the product so that etch was securely soldered to the
connections
and did not depend on the screws. Board compression may have been due to
heat cycling or simply cold flow. However, the connection eventually
loosened and that was what we had to fix. I have often seen grounding
done
with board mounting screws and have recommended against it. Grounding
doesn't experience any heat cycling, nor does it usually experience
sustained currents which burn the connection, but if it loosens, it is
not
usually obvious in the field.

You probably can't calculate a prediction about compression. You would
need
to do lab experiments plotting compression against time, pressure and
temperature. It's easier to just find an alternative construction.

Bob Johnson
ITE Safety
 


From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
[mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org] On Behalf Of Kim Flint
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 7:52 PM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: best screw/washer choices for attaching PCB to Chassis?


That's interesting. I can understand that the glass in the PCB is a
fluid
and will flow over time. But is there something more quantifiable than
"gradually squashes"? Would this mean by next Thursday, next year, or
1000
years from now? By how much would it deform over time? If I wanted to
calculate this effect, how would I do that? (I'm an electrical engineer
-
fluid dynamics is a very distant memory at this point)

In the particular case I'm looking at right now, this connection is not
serving as a DC power path so I'm not so concerned about arcing here.
However, it would be interesting to understand this better for future
designs.

In fact I might be more concerned about the screw actually coming loose
as a
result of this compression, however I've never heard of such a thing. I
guess that returns me to my locking washer question.

thanks,
kim



From: Robert Johnson [mailto:john...@itesafety.com]
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2003 8:09 PM
To: Kim Flint; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: best screw/washer choices for attaching PCB to Chassis?


You should not include the PWB as part of the sandwich in an electrical
connection. It gradually squashes and leaves a loose connection. The
answer
is generally to use a soldered jumper and lug to make connections from
board
to chassis. The same applies to other board connections such as board to
busbar or similar connections. We have experienced arcing and board
destruction due to such designs on DC power output connections.

Bob Johnson
ITE Safety
 


From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
[mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org] On Behalf Of Kim Flint
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2003 9:15 PM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: best screw/washer choices for attaching PCB to Chassis?


Hi-

We have a fairly straightforward requirement of mounting a PCB into a
steel
chassis. The chassis has PEM type standoffs and the PCB is held to them
with
machine screws. These connections provide an electrical ground path
between
the PCB and the chassis. 

In other words, we have what seems to be the fairly ordinary and common
set
of requirements. We need to have mechanical reliability (so the PCB is
held
in place), nothing should break during assembly, the screws should not
be
able to work themselves out, and electrical conductivity should be low
for a
low impedance ground path. Seems simple, yet all of us here have a
different
opinion about how to do this properly, we've all done it a variety of
ways
in our past, and none of us seems to have the right expertise to really
claim to know the definitive answer. 

I'm hoping to get som

RE: Multi-colored LED

[Sylvia Toma]

Mark - GR-2914.

Sylvia


From: Gandler, Mark [mailto:mgand...@ciena.com]
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2003 3:37 PM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Multi-colored LED



Hi,
is there any BellCore standards regarding , multi-colored LED's?
Thanks,
Mark Gandler
Ciena


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

QA safety EMC technician wanted

[Brodie Pedersen]

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
Nonin Medical Inc. 
A noninvasive medical device manufacturer is looking for an expirienced
technician to assist in our device qualification testing.  See attached
for more information.

Contact a...@nonin.com with resume and qualifications if interested.

Brodie Pedersen
SW QA Engineer
Nonin Medical Inc.
 <> 

Title: QA safety EMC technician wanted






Nonin Medical Inc. 

A noninvasive medical device manufacturer is looking for an expirienced

technician to assist in our device qualification testing.  See attached

for more information.


Contact a...@nonin.com with resume and qualifications if interested.


Brodie Pedersen

SW QA Engineer

Nonin Medical Inc.

 <> 






Quality Technician.doc
Description: Binary data

RE: EMC-Related Functional Safety

[Gary McInturff]

H, that seems to be a double fault. 
Fault 1) Some knucklehead put a flammable object on top of a device that
generates lots of heat as its normal operating condition. 
Fault 2) An unintended signal caused the heating device to operate
unintentionally. 
Break either one of those links in the chain and no hazard exists.
Are scissors under consideration as well?
You can run or you can hold scissors but if you run and hold scissors
should I then design the product to detect motion and grow a guard over the
blades?
I think the working party needs to move on to another topic.
Gary


From: Richard Hughes [mailto:rehug...@nortelnetworks.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 7:35 AM
To: 'Stone, Richard A (Richard)'; 'Brent DeWitt'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: EMC-Related Functional Safety


Richard,
 
I think that you may be getting things mixed up.
 
The aspect of Functional Safety that was being discussed is when a safety
hazard results from the equipment under consideration being exposed to a level
of em radiation greater than that which it was designed for.  We are not
discussing whether it is possible to increase emissions due to a single fault.
 
In fact this topic has been discussed in the LVD Working Party with a
particular situation as follows.  The issue was caused by an electronically
controlled bread-toaster.  The consumer had put his newspaper on the (cold)
toaster - presumably due to lack of space in his kitchen. He then received an
incoming call on his mobile 'phone, which turned his toaster on (due to lack
of immunity).   The hot toaster then set the newspaper on fire.
 
Personally, I am not convinced that simply carrying out single fault testing
will ensure that there is no safety hazards in all cases.  It really depends
on the design of the electronics in the equipment.  Perhaps the design
requires two separate transistors to be turned on by two independent
microprocessors in order to create some kind of hazard.  However, if the
immunity of the system is poor then both of these microprocessors could
generate signals that turn both of these transistors ON.  Of course, this is
just a thought experiment and I have no personal experience of this being a
problem in real life.  With safety it is very difficult to prove that a hazard
can not exist by inspection of the design when - as Ken Javor said - "Genius
has its limits, but ignorance has none."
 
While I am on line, I never said that the content of the article was
technically good, only that it was interesting!  It has certainly caused a
stir.
 
Regards,
 
another Richard.
 

From: Stone, Richard A (Richard) [mailto:rsto...@lucent.com]
Sent: 12 February 2003 13:23
To: 'Brent DeWitt'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: EMC-Related Functional Safety


its not the fault of a component that
concerns me
For EMI interference,just running normal.,
a very loud radiator could interfere with something
else, wheel chair controller, as mentioned,
thats why testing is critical...now for the fault!
 
Not an expert,
but a component fault,typically
may make something not work,
but worse emissions as a result?
 
anyone have information on this event?
 
thanks,
Richard,

From: Brent DeWitt [mailto:bdew...@ix.netcom.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 9:39 PM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: EMC-Related Functional Safety


Gregg,
 
As an EMC engineer and a member of the IEC committee that wrote the 2nd
edition of IEC 60601-1-2, I find your "challenge" interesting.  First, I have
to say I was not impressed with the referenced article.  Facts were played a
little bit too loose for my preferences.  That said, I strongly believe that
EMI is an inseparable portion of product safety.  You mention that "EMC
interferes" and I agree.  When it interferes with a wheelchair controller and
drives the patient into traffic or causes an infusion pump to triple the drug
delivery rate, it can kill.  I don't believe I have enough product safety
experience to say if those same failures could have been caused by single
component faults, but I suspect that a real world examination of the product
has a significant possibility of missing the single component that was
effected.  I can say from 15 years or so experience that it takes much less
than a microwave oven to cause medically critical control electronics to
misbehave.
 
Regards,
 
Brent DeWitt
Datex-Ohmeda
Louisville, CO

From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
[mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Gregg Kervill
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 12:14 PM
To: 'Richard Hughes'; 'drcuthbert'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: EMC-Related Functional Safety


I fully agree with Richard Hughes - it is an interesting article but those of
us who have conducted "Flight Safety" work will find it VERY weak is its
content and treatment.
 
 
Whilst EMC interferes (unless you are sitting in a microwave oven) - it is
Product Safety (or the lack ther

RE: Real product interference source at 121 MHz

[Joshua Wiseman]

Kurt,

In my Air Traffic radio repair days I became intimately familiar with 121.5 and 
243 MHz.  These are the emergency frequencies used N. America.  They are used 
for locating both the plane and pilot in the event of an emergency.  They are 
also used by pilots when they have lost their bearings and need help getting to 
their destination among other things.

This frequency has added power when transmitter from the ground so that it can 
be heard at a greater distance.

Good Luck,
Josh


From: drcuthbert [mailto:drcuthb...@micron.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 8:32 AM
To: 'Kurt Fischer'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: Real product interference source at 121 MHz



Kurt,
this could be aviation communications. AM voice is centered at about 121
MHz. 

   Dave


From: Kurt Fischer [mailto:kurt.fisc...@hyperinterop.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 8:03 AM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Real product interference source at 121 MHz


Hello all,
 
A strange request but this has become an interference issue with a sattelite
communications link There seems to be a very strong interferer at 121 MHz
that is intermittent in nature and physically located in Northern
USA/Canada. 
 
It could be the marketing of a non-compliant consumer products or perhaps
some after market sattelite rec. retro-fit kit??
 
Has anyone else had this experience in the last year --- (the problem was
not present 2 years ago)?
It does appear to getting worse and is spreading geographically as well.
 
Regards,
Kurt Fischer
Hyper Corp
N,jࢱ^ AȞ#ˡ&zܓygƥ
^y\v+:""ybb2+hnȭya0{by種̡ޙ?&\:jw*.˛
بǧvf&j:+v   瞢0m"   ^)޺{.n+l5h.ǧvf-b2)²ڶF-צr-rz(&
+u֯z֭ah%̪-ʉ̱ݙbrtۭzxy+!zi^'z!
ⱷ   p{ॕǢ{^+bwWr-r,)౪j7!jwly*zma60rx(l


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
N,j^ AȞ#ۜ&zܓygƥ
^y霦\v+"ybb+hnȭya0{by種ޙ?\:jw*.˛بǧvf&j:+v瞢0m" 
^)޺{.n+lhǧvf-b֝)ڶFωצr-rz(&
u֯z֭ah%̪-ݙbrtۭzxy+!zi^'z!  p{{^+bwWr-r,)౪j!jwly܅zma0rx(ޙl

RE: Symbols and Markings: Color scheme

[Georgerian, Richard]

I apologize to all, as this is a resend. The first one I sent did not connect
to the IEEE host server. 

Richard 

 -Original Message- 
From:   Georgerian, Richard  
Sent:   Tuesday, February 11, 2003 2:16 PM 
To: 'IEEE emc-pstc' 
Subject:Symbols and Markings: Color scheme 

Greetings All, 

To meet UL60950:2000 Third Edition and CSA C22.2 No 60950:2000 Third 
Edition,
is it a mandatory requirement that the electric shock symbol and cautionary
symbol markings be black lettering on a yellow background? Or is the intent is
to have the markings with a high contrast, by using alternate colors, such as
black lettering on a white background. 

Specifically these are the symbols from the ISO Publication ISO 3864, 
No.
B.3.6 for the electric shock symbol and No. B.3.1 for the cautionary symbol.
Since at this time we don't have the ISO publication, does the publication
allow for alternate colors of contrast?

Does UL60950 and CSA C22.2 No 60950 allow the use of IEC 60417 for such
symbols with contrasting colors for lettering and background?

A more general question to keep this thread on more general terms - 
For safety requirements, are there specific color codes that one must adhere
to for specific symbols? Or is it enough to show a high contrast between
lettering and background for such symbols?

Thanks in-advance. 

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.
*

Symbols and Markings: Color scheme

[Georgerian, Richard]

Greetings All, 

To meet UL60950:2000 Third Edition and CSA C22.2 No 60950:2000 Third Edition,
is it a mandatory requirement that the electric shock symbol and cautionary
symbol markings be black lettering on a yellow background? Or is the intent is
to have the markings with a high contrast, by using alternate colors, such as
black lettering on a white background. 

Specifically these are the symbols from the ISO Publication ISO 3864, No.
B.3.6 for the electric shock symbol and No. B.3.1 for the cautionary symbol.
Since at this time we don't have the ISO publication, does the publication
allow for alternate colors of contrast?

Does UL60950 and CSA C22.2 No 60950 allow the use of IEC 60417 for such
symbols with contrasting colors for lettering and background?

A more general question to keep this thread on more general terms - 
For safety requirements, are there specific color codes that one must adhere
to for specific symbols? Or is it enough to show a high contrast between
lettering and background for such symbols?

Thanks in-advance. 

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: Electrical Medical Product Production Testing

[Joshua Wiseman]

Bill,

I don't have it in writing but when I went through the factory inspection for
CCIB it was required that it was checked on a routine basis.  Rather than put
it on the line I started it in our audit process.  Every line gets one test
per week.

Good Luck,
Josh



Does anybody know any Certification Agencies and/or Standards anywhere in
the world requiring Production Line Leakage Current Testing on Electrical
Medical Products? If so, does anybody have it in writing?

Thanks for the help,

Bill Bisenius
ED&D, Inc.
bi...@productsafet.com  
www.productsafet.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

FW: ITU or ETSI standards for PSTN Network impairment

[Sylvia Toma]

Hello Andre,
 
The following is a list of the G-series ITU standards - Transmission systems
and media, digital systems and networks.  Hopefully you will find what you're
looking for from this list. 
 
Sylvia



G0100E.PDF  
ITU-T Rec. G.100 (03/93) Definitions used in Recommendations on general
characteristics of international telephone connections and circuits 
G0101E.PDF  ITU-T 
Rec.
G.101 (08/96) The transmission plan 
G0101P1E.PDF  ITU-T
Rec. G.101 Appendix 1 (05/00) A computational model for guidance in
transmission planning - To be published 
G0102E.PDF  ITU-T 
Rec.
G.102 (11/88) Transmission performance objectives and Recommendations   
G0103E.PDF  ITU-T 
Rec.
G.103 (12/98) Hypothetical reference connections
G0105E.PDF  ITU-T 
Rec.
G.105 (11/88) Hypothetical reference connection for crosstalk studies   
G0107E.PDF  ITU-T 
Rec.
G.107 (05/00) The E-Model, a computational model for use in transmission
planning - To be published  
G0108CNE.PDF  ITU-T
Rec. G.108 Covering Note (09/99) Application of the E-model: A planning guide   
G0108E.PDF  UIT-T 
Rec.
G.108 (09/99) Application of the E-model: A planning guide  
G0108_1E.PDF  ITU-T
Rec. G.108.1 (05/00) Conversational impacts on end-to-end speech transmission
quality - Evaluation of effects not covered by the E-model - To be published
G0109E.PDF  ITU-T 
Rec.
G.109 (09/99) Definition of categories of speech transmission quality   
G0111E.PDF  ITU-T 
Rec.
G.111 (03/93) Loudness ratings (LRs) in an international connection 
G0113E.PDF  ITU-T 
Rec.
G.113 (02/96) Transmission impairments  
G0113P1E.PDF  ITU-T
Rec. G.113 Appendix I (09/99) Transmission impairments - Appendix I:
Provisional planning values for the equipment impairment factor Ie  
G0114E.PDF  ITU-T 
Rec.
G.114 (05/00) One-way transmission time - To be published   
G0115E.PDF  ITU-T 
Rec.
G.115 (02/96) Mean active speech level for announcements and speech synthesis
systems 
G0116E.PDF  ITU-T 
Rec.
G.116 (09/99) Transmission performance objectives applicable to end-to-end
international connections   
G0117E.PDF  ITU-T 
Rec.
G.117 (02/96) Transmission aspects of unbalance about earth 
G0120E.PDF  ITU-T 
Rec.
G.120 (12/98) Transmission characteristics of national networks 
G0121E.PDF  ITU-T 
Rec.
G.121 (03/93) Loudness ratings (LRs) of national systems
G0122E.PDF  ITU-T 
Rec.
G.122 (03/93) Influence of national systems on stability talker echo in
international connections   
G0126E.PDF  ITU-T 
Rec.
G.126 (03/93) Listener echo in telephone networks   
G0131E.PDF  ITU-T 
Rec.
G.131 (08/96) Control of talker echo
G0131P2E.PDF  ITU-T
Rec. G.131 Appendix II (09/99) Control of talker echo - Appendix II: Relation
between echo disturbances under single talk and double talk conditions
(evaluated for one-way transmission time of 100 ms) 
G0136CNE.PDF  ITU-T
Rec. G.136 Covering Note (09/99) Application rules for Automatic Level Control
Devices 
G0136E.PDF  ITU-T 
Rec.
G.136 (09/99) Application rules for automatic level control devices 
G0142E.PDF  ITU-T 
Rec.
G.142 (12/98) Transmission characteristics of exchanges 
G0164E.PDF  ITU-T 
Rec.
G.164 (11/88) Echo suppressors  
G0165E.PDF  ITU-T 
Rec.
G

PCs Included In Configuration

[Juhasz, John (IndSys, GE Interlogix)]

I believe I've seen postings similar to this, but I don't recall the
response.
 
The scenario:
A system that includes various components,
all listed/approved/evaluated according to 'product family specific'
standards. 
While the system can/normally does operate independently,
a user can monitor/communicate with this system using a standard
off-the-shelf personal computer via LAN/WAN.
OR the PC can be co-located with the system and connected directly via RS232. 
 
Further, with an off-the-shelf consumer add-on card, the PC can also send a 
signal to an alarm panel.
 
The question is, does the PC fall under the product family standard of the 
system - in either case.
 
PS: the user can buy a PC themselves if they like and merely connect it
and add the software. Does that change the requirements?
 
John A. Juhasz 

GE Interlogix 
Fiber Options Div. 
Bohemia, NY 

RFI Help in Golden Valley, MN Area

[Price, Ed]

An unusual & very local request for today.

Would any of our members find it possible to provide some technical
assistance or even some hands-on help to a Handicapped Amateur Radio
organization in Golden Valley, Minnesota?

The Handi-Hams ( http://www.mtn.org/handiham/contact.htm ) have an RFI
problem; several new computer-controlled ABB air handlers in their building
are causing broadband noise which seriously degrades their operating
abilities.

I have emailed them as much advice as possible, but remote assistance has
its limits. Contact me off-line, and I'll fill you in on the details.

Thanks!
or in this case, 73's!

Ed
WB6WSN

Ed Price
ed.pr...@cubic.com
Electromagnetic Compatibility Lab
Cubic Defense Systems
San Diego, CA  USA
858-505-2780  (Voice)
858-505-1583  (Fax)
Military & Avionics EMC Is Our Specialty
Shake-Bake-Shock - Metrology - Reliability Analysis



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: EMC-Related Functional Safety

[Richard Hughes]

Richard,
 
I think that you may be getting things mixed up.
 
The aspect of Functional Safety that was being discussed is when a safety
hazard results from the equipment under consideration being exposed to a level
of em radiation greater than that which it was designed for.  We are not
discussing whether it is possible to increase emissions due to a single fault.
 
In fact this topic has been discussed in the LVD Working Party with a
particular situation as follows.  The issue was caused by an electronically
controlled bread-toaster.  The consumer had put his newspaper on the (cold)
toaster - presumably due to lack of space in his kitchen. He then received an
incoming call on his mobile 'phone, which turned his toaster on (due to lack
of immunity).   The hot toaster then set the newspaper on fire.
 
Personally, I am not convinced that simply carrying out single fault testing
will ensure that there is no safety hazards in all cases.  It really depends
on the design of the electronics in the equipment.  Perhaps the design
requires two separate transistors to be turned on by two independent
microprocessors in order to create some kind of hazard.  However, if the
immunity of the system is poor then both of these microprocessors could
generate signals that turn both of these transistors ON.  Of course, this is
just a thought experiment and I have no personal experience of this being a
problem in real life.  With safety it is very difficult to prove that a hazard
can not exist by inspection of the design when - as Ken Javor said - "Genius
has its limits, but ignorance has none."
 
While I am on line, I never said that the content of the article was
technically good, only that it was interesting!  It has certainly caused a
stir.
 
Regards,
 
another Richard.
 

From: Stone, Richard A (Richard) [mailto:rsto...@lucent.com]
Sent: 12 February 2003 13:23
To: 'Brent DeWitt'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: EMC-Related Functional Safety


its not the fault of a component that
concerns me
For EMI interference,just running normal.,
a very loud radiator could interfere with something
else, wheel chair controller, as mentioned,
thats why testing is critical...now for the fault!
 
Not an expert,
but a component fault,typically
may make something not work,
but worse emissions as a result?
 
anyone have information on this event?
 
thanks,
Richard,

From: Brent DeWitt [mailto:bdew...@ix.netcom.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 9:39 PM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: EMC-Related Functional Safety


Gregg,
 
As an EMC engineer and a member of the IEC committee that wrote the 2nd
edition of IEC 60601-1-2, I find your "challenge" interesting.  First, I have
to say I was not impressed with the referenced article.  Facts were played a
little bit too loose for my preferences.  That said, I strongly believe that
EMI is an inseparable portion of product safety.  You mention that "EMC
interferes" and I agree.  When it interferes with a wheelchair controller and
drives the patient into traffic or causes an infusion pump to triple the drug
delivery rate, it can kill.  I don't believe I have enough product safety
experience to say if those same failures could have been caused by single
component faults, but I suspect that a real world examination of the product
has a significant possibility of missing the single component that was
effected.  I can say from 15 years or so experience that it takes much less
than a microwave oven to cause medically critical control electronics to
misbehave.
 
Regards,
 
Brent DeWitt
Datex-Ohmeda
Louisville, CO

From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
[mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Gregg Kervill
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 12:14 PM
To: 'Richard Hughes'; 'drcuthbert'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: EMC-Related Functional Safety


I fully agree with Richard Hughes - it is an interesting article but those of
us who have conducted "Flight Safety" work will find it VERY weak is its
content and treatment.
 
 
Whilst EMC interferes (unless you are sitting in a microwave oven) - it is
Product Safety (or the lack thereof) that kills!
 
 
Furthermore I challenge anyone to demonstrate that the EMC related fatalities
could not have been caused by a single components failure.
 
 
 
 
Best regards
 
Gregg
 
 

From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
[mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Richard Hughes
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 11:01 AM
To: 'drcuthbert'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: EMC-Related Functional Safety
 
Dave, 
As you say, an interesting article. 
Note however that it states in regard to the LVD that: 
"The Low Voltage Directive (LVD) 
Although the LVD (73/23/EEC, modified by 93/68/EEC) is generally reckoned to
cover functional safety, there are no words in its text that specifically
mention it - never mind EMC-related functional safety"
While this is accurate as far as it goes (and remembering that the Safety

ITU or ETSI standards for PSTN Network impairment

[Andre, Pierre-Marie]

Hi All,

I am looking for the equivalent of the standard TIA/EIA-793  in ITU-T or ETSI.

  Title: North American Telephone Network Transmission Model for Evaluating
Analog Client and Digitally Connected Server Modems (ANSI/TIA/EIA-793-2001) 

Description: This document defines a model of the characteristics of the
Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN) in the continental United States of
America which determine PCM modem transmission performance

I have found the ITU-T  G.102  but there are not actual values for
impairments, only the definition.

Thanks for your help 

Pierre-Marie Andre
Senior Approval Engineer
 

RE: EMC-Related Functional Safety

[Stone, Richard A (Richard)]

its not the fault of a component that
concerns me
For EMI interference,just running normal.,
a very loud radiator could interfere with something
else, wheel chair controller, as mentioned,
thats why testing is critical...now for the fault!
 
Not an expert,
but a component fault,typically
may make something not work,
but worse emissions as a result?
 
anyone have information on this event?
 
thanks,
Richard,

From: Brent DeWitt [mailto:bdew...@ix.netcom.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 9:39 PM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: EMC-Related Functional Safety


Gregg,
 
As an EMC engineer and a member of the IEC committee that wrote the 2nd
edition of IEC 60601-1-2, I find your "challenge" interesting.  First, I have
to say I was not impressed with the referenced article.  Facts were played a
little bit too loose for my preferences.  That said, I strongly believe that
EMI is an inseparable portion of product safety.  You mention that "EMC
interferes" and I agree.  When it interferes with a wheelchair controller and
drives the patient into traffic or causes an infusion pump to triple the drug
delivery rate, it can kill.  I don't believe I have enough product safety
experience to say if those same failures could have been caused by single
component faults, but I suspect that a real world examination of the product
has a significant possibility of missing the single component that was
effected.  I can say from 15 years or so experience that it takes much less
than a microwave oven to cause medically critical control electronics to
misbehave.
 
Regards,
 
Brent DeWitt
Datex-Ohmeda
Louisville, CO

From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
[mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Gregg Kervill
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 12:14 PM
To: 'Richard Hughes'; 'drcuthbert'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: EMC-Related Functional Safety


I fully agree with Richard Hughes - it is an interesting article but those of
us who have conducted "Flight Safety" work will find it VERY weak is its
content and treatment.
 
 
Whilst EMC interferes (unless you are sitting in a microwave oven) - it is
Product Safety (or the lack thereof) that kills!
 
 
Furthermore I challenge anyone to demonstrate that the EMC related fatalities
could not have been caused by a single components failure.
 
 
 
 
Best regards
 
Gregg
 
 

From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
[mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Richard Hughes
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 11:01 AM
To: 'drcuthbert'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: EMC-Related Functional Safety
 
Dave, 
As you say, an interesting article. 
Note however that it states in regard to the LVD that: 
"The Low Voltage Directive (LVD) 
Although the LVD (73/23/EEC, modified by 93/68/EEC) is generally reckoned to
cover functional safety, there are no words in its text that specifically
mention it - never mind EMC-related functional safety"
While this is accurate as far as it goes (and remembering that the Safety
Objectives of the LVD were published in 1973), it could give people a false
impression.
The February 2001 version of the Commission publication "GUIDELINES ON THE
APPLICATION OF COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 73/23/EEC" states:
"The Commission interpret that all electromagnetic aspects relating to safety
including functional safety are covered by the LVD."
 
Many of you will be aware that a revision to the LVD is underway.  At the
present state of discussions the draft "essential requirements" are far more
detailed than the old "safety objectives" and certainly include this issue. 
Of course, what the final text will be is not known with certainty at this
time.
Regards, 
Richard Hughes 
Personal opinions only, of course. 
 
-Original Message- 
From: drcuthbert [ mailto:drcuthb...@micron.com] 
Sent: 10 February 2003 19:27 
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org 
Subject: EMC-Related Functional Safety 
 

RE: Real product interference source at 121 MHz

[David Gelfand]

I saw a tv clip on "grey-market" modifications to satellite receivers in
southern Ontario and Quebec allegedly causing interference, they used a
4.5MHz clock.  

Best regards,

David.

David Gelfand
Approvals/Design Engineer
Memotec Inc.

Tel: 514 738 4781 x4151
Fax: 514 738 4436
david.gelf...@memotec.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

Rules to post here and in s.e.e.c

[Oliver Betz]

Hello All,

reading this list for some little time now, I would like to know 
whether it's suitable or impolite to post the same topic here and in 
the sci.engr.electrical.compliance newsgroup or what delay for a 
repost in the other group/list is adequate.

After all I wonder what's the priority of the list/the newsgroup.

Oliver


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

Grounding of EUT in EN61000-4-6 conducted immunity test

[Oliver Betz]

Hello All,

how shall conductive cases of a EUT (intended to be mounted to a 
grounded metal construction in real life) be connected to the 
reference plane during a EN61000-4-6 test: directly, via a resistor 
or not at all?

I remember only that (auxiliary?) earth connectors have to be 
connected to ground via 150 Ohms, but I don't remember any word about 
the case of the EUT.

Thanks in advance,

Oliver


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

Position available

[Garry Hojan]

Hello group,

I was asked by a friend to send the following:

Lighting equipment and associated apparatus product safety / energy star
testing firm located in Northern Georgia, USA now accepting applications for
technician and jr. engineer level product safety professionals. Experience
with lighting equipment and standards a plus. Previous employment with a
lighting manufacturer a plus. Previous employment with a NRTL such as CSA,
UL, TUV, ETL, etc., a plus. Product safety background a requirement.

Local candidates preferred however will consider outside area candidates.
Relocation not available in most cases.

Send resume, references, and salary requirements to:

LTG Services, Inc.
Attn: Operations Manager
2210 Justin Trail
Alpharetta, GA 30004
F 770.772.0709



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: EMC-Related Functional Safety

[Ken Javor]

Dear Forum Members,

Keith Armstrong brought this subject up a little over a year ago and stirred
up a hornet's nest of a response.  I saved many of the postings because I
thought they were quite valuable.

Last time Mr. Armstrong made some rather wild claims I thought were
technically unjustified and I said so, and so did a host of others.  This
time he seems to be saying that if the function of an equipment is critical,
then its immunity should be controlled so that its functionality can be
relied on under reasonable operating conditions.  I find this assertion
difficult to argue against.

Mr. Armstrong did resurrect one red herring, which is a bad thing to do with
year old fish.  Cell phone operation is prohibited on aircraft in flight
because they are intercepted by multiple towers which confuses the system,
not because of flight safety concerns.  Also, one astute forum member
pointed out last year that airlines would stand to lose significant income
>from their air phones if cell phones were used instead!  Seriously, the
assertion that cell phone transmissions would cause flight or engine control
degradation in a modern aircraft is irresponsible.  Flight critical avionics
are qualified to levels way in excess of cell phone radiated fields.  And
the cell band is not in band to aircraft COMM/NAV radios - forum members
please jump in and correct me if I am out-of-date here. I am thinking of
VHF-AM, UHF COMM, VOR/ILS/glideslope, DME, ADF, GPS.  Maybe I am missing
something that overlaps the cell band, but I don't think so.

I think it is the tenor of Mr. Armstrong's article that is off-putting,
rather than the substance.  He holds out the prospect of ruinous lawsuits as
a punishment for not foreseeing every possible application/misapplication of
a given product.  I know, from previous communication, he would state that
this is the world we live in, so deal with it.  But I think that accepting
and adopting this mindset is collaboration with a force aligned against a
technological civilization - a mindset that demands not only foolproof but
damn-foolproof products, and the measure of success or failure in this
regards is whether or not a fool and a product come together.  In other
words, if someone misuses a product, then that is prima facie evidence that
inadequate protections were built into the product.

I will now repeat what I have said before along these lines:

"Genius has its limits, but ignorance has none."

Sincerely,

Ken Javor




on 2/10/03 1:26 PM, drcuthbert at drcuthb...@micron.com wrote:

> 
> An interesting article in the January issue of EMC Compliance Journal
> EMC-Related Functional Safety
> http://www.compliance-club.com/article.php?sid=119&mode=&order=0
> 
> Dave Cuthbert
> 
> ---
> 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
> 

-- 

Ken Javor
EMC Compliance
Huntsville, Alabama
256/650-5261




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: best screw/washer choices for attaching PCB to Chassis?

[Robert Johnson]

The product I'm referring to used screws to fasten a two layer FR4
fiberglass/epoxy PWB to copper bars. I think it had a 5V output at about
50A. The memories are really foggy since this was about twenty years ago,
but as I recall it used a couple screws with flat and split lock washers.
Although properly torqued in initial manufacture, they started coming back
>from the field after a year or two with failures where the hardware had
loosened and the resulting loose connection would progress to heating and
arcing with destruction of the board in the joint area. The smoke and
charring brought it to the attention of product safety, but failures never
generated further risk due to enclosure protections.

We didn't do a lot of research as to how the failure progressed, just
reworked the product so that etch was securely soldered to the connections
and did not depend on the screws. Board compression may have been due to
heat cycling or simply cold flow. However, the connection eventually
loosened and that was what we had to fix. I have often seen grounding done
with board mounting screws and have recommended against it. Grounding
doesn't experience any heat cycling, nor does it usually experience
sustained currents which burn the connection, but if it loosens, it is not
usually obvious in the field.

You probably can't calculate a prediction about compression. You would need
to do lab experiments plotting compression against time, pressure and
temperature. It's easier to just find an alternative construction.

Bob Johnson
ITE Safety
 


From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
[mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org] On Behalf Of Kim Flint
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 7:52 PM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: best screw/washer choices for attaching PCB to Chassis?


That's interesting. I can understand that the glass in the PCB is a fluid
and will flow over time. But is there something more quantifiable than
"gradually squashes"? Would this mean by next Thursday, next year, or 1000
years from now? By how much would it deform over time? If I wanted to
calculate this effect, how would I do that? (I'm an electrical engineer -
fluid dynamics is a very distant memory at this point)

In the particular case I'm looking at right now, this connection is not
serving as a DC power path so I'm not so concerned about arcing here.
However, it would be interesting to understand this better for future
designs.

In fact I might be more concerned about the screw actually coming loose as a
result of this compression, however I've never heard of such a thing. I
guess that returns me to my locking washer question.

thanks,
kim



From: Robert Johnson [mailto:john...@itesafety.com]
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2003 8:09 PM
To: Kim Flint; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: best screw/washer choices for attaching PCB to Chassis?


You should not include the PWB as part of the sandwich in an electrical
connection. It gradually squashes and leaves a loose connection. The answer
is generally to use a soldered jumper and lug to make connections from board
to chassis. The same applies to other board connections such as board to
busbar or similar connections. We have experienced arcing and board
destruction due to such designs on DC power output connections.

Bob Johnson
ITE Safety
 


From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
[mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org] On Behalf Of Kim Flint
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2003 9:15 PM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: best screw/washer choices for attaching PCB to Chassis?


Hi-

We have a fairly straightforward requirement of mounting a PCB into a steel
chassis. The chassis has PEM type standoffs and the PCB is held to them with
machine screws. These connections provide an electrical ground path between
the PCB and the chassis. 

In other words, we have what seems to be the fairly ordinary and common set
of requirements. We need to have mechanical reliability (so the PCB is held
in place), nothing should break during assembly, the screws should not be
able to work themselves out, and electrical conductivity should be low for a
low impedance ground path. Seems simple, yet all of us here have a different
opinion about how to do this properly, we've all done it a variety of ways
in our past, and none of us seems to have the right expertise to really
claim to know the definitive answer. 

I'm hoping to get some expert opinions from this group, or at least some
idea of what others do assuming there is some reasonable justification for
it. Can you help? Or perhaps point me towards some good discussion on the
subject? (I did search the 2+ years of mail I have from this group, since
the archives don't seem to be online...) 

The questions are:

Screw/Washer choice:
- should a washer be used or not?
- if a washer is used, should it be a locking washer?
- Is it possible for a locking washer to cause unwanted damage to the PCB?
- Is an adhesive like Loctite a reasonable altern