Re: [PSES] 60950 1st edition and amendments
In message d250d01e39356a4e9cc3b4b459d6655097dcf...@ms-cda-01.advanced-input.com, dated Thu, 18 Jul 2013, McInturff, Gary gary.mcintu...@esterline.com writes: Anybody know the Docopocoss (or whatever on that) on IEC 60950-1:2001, First Edition I have a small sale - not large enough to generate the approval fees to 2nd edition and latest amendments. But if the date of cessation et al - hasn't passed we could continue with the sale. My first answer was no to the Marketeers - but I think I'm wrong if the old standard still provides presumption of conformity. It expired on 1 December 2010. -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. See www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Why is the stapler always empty just when you want it? John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com
Re: [PSES] EMC Required?
Hello Scott, Here are my rambling thoughts For the EU, I think you need to comply with the EMC Directive because I recon your product satisfies the following Directive definition... /‘apparatus’ means any finished appliance or combination thereof made commercially available as a single functional unit, intended for the end user and liable to generate electromagnetic disturbance, or the performance of which is liable to be affected by such disturbance;/ Think about a wall-wart power supply, usless by itself, but it still subject to the EMCD. You need to meet the Directive’s “Essential Requirements” 1. Protection requirements Equipment shall be so designed and manufactured, having regard to the state of the art, as to ensure that: (a) the electromagnetic disturbance generated does not exceed the level above which radio and telecommunications equipment or other equipment cannot operate as intended; (b) it has a level of immunity to the electromagnetic disturbance to be expected in its intended use which allows it to operate without unacceptable degradation of its intended use. From what little I know about your product, in the case of (a) disturbance, I would write a technical rationale and justification as to how the product cannot produce electromagnetic interference due to the nature of its design and operating characteristics. Your product appears to include active gain stages and therefore has the risk potential of parasitic oscillation. Some brief measurements with a high impedance oscilloscope probe or near-field probes and a spectrum analyser /may/ be prudent and include the results in your justification. In the case of (b) immunity, assuming there is no harmonised standard for you product, I would define my acceptable performance degradation and the disturbance levels by drawing from standards for similar products or from standards for similar markets, e.g. consumer, industrial, vehicular etc., wherever you product is aimed at. You will probably have to test this, radiated immunity as a minimum, perhaps ESD and maybe conducted immunity if there is risk of EMI from the host product. Sounds to me like a very short day at the cheapest test lab you can find, provided it has documented test methods for the tests you have chosen, reasonable quality procedures and calibration. Take the lab’s raw logbook results, plenty of photographs, copies of calibration certificates and write them up yourself, or splash out on a test report if you wish. To do nothing or to say it doesn’t matter if the product fails under electromagnetic disturbance wouldn’t be acceptable, that’s right against the spirit of the Directive which we (well, I) believe you need to meet. Consumers like me expect stuff to work while the vacuum cleaner's running, my daughter's on Facebook via the wireless router, I'm chatting to a friend on my mobile while the 4 DECT phones are ringing, the iron's thermostat is clicking on and off, the washing machine's running, and when I operate it after shuffling across the carpet in my nylon trousers (fussy bunch consumers). Compile your product schematics and drawings (or a list thereof), your ratioale and justification for meeting the emissions requirements, your rationale for choosing your performance criteria and disturbance levels, write-ups of the testing you undertook, and hey-presto, you have your EMC Directive Technical Construction File, give it a document name or number. Oh, and don't forget your EU Declaration of Conformity. Just what I'd do, but follow at your own risk :-) T - Original Message - From: Scott Douglas Sent: 07/12/13 02:47 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: [PSES] EMC Required? Hi folks, Consider a simple circuit. IR diode, a transistor or two, some resistors and caps. Receives input from IR remote, converts to electrical and sends down a wire. No clock in the thing so you could call is passive. But does it need EMC testing for US or EU? The IR signal will be in the 35-50 kHz range so pulses down the wire will be the same. Does this make it fit within the realm of EMC required? The device is sold by itself without other products, but is always connected to something else in use. Something else could be a wide variety of anything. I think of it like a stand-alone audio speaker. Purely a passive device that is driven by signals that fall within the EMC required realm. So do you do EMC or not? Looking forward to your opinions on this. Scott - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-! p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can
Re: [PSES] Lock washers for bolted bonding connections
The USA standard on this used to be MIL-B-5087, but I'm sure that must have been superseded by now. Still, it essentially said no star washer, use split-ring washers only. The rationale was stars only made tiny point-contacts, which could be vaporized and cause arcing under high-fault conditions. It didn't talk about Belleville washers, which have a smaller but stiffer compression range than a split-ring, but I think there is nothing inherently bad about a Belleville. Either way, you never want the washer or bolt or nut to try to punch through crud to make the bond. Rather, you prepare the base metal surfaces carefully, abrading a zone down to base metal, possibly plating the exposed metal, and torqueing to specs. Ed Price WB6WSN Chula Vista, CA USA -Original Message- From: Douglas Nix [mailto:d...@mac.com] Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 6:31 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: [PSES] Lock washers for bolted bonding connections Colleagues, Recently I had a conversation with a German colleague who told me that 'star washers', commonly used for making vibration resistant bonding connections in North America, are not permitted for this use in Germany. Only lock washers meeting DIN 6796, commonly called 'Belleville' washers, are accepted. When I pressed him for a standard or a regulation that made that requirement, he was not able to provide one. I know from experience that Bellville washers are superior in performance, and the serrated version will definitely cut through any surface coating to the bare metal substrate. Star washers can usually do this, but they do not provide as uniform a tension on the bolt as a Belleville. Any comments on the regulatory or standards-based source for this requirement? Sent from my iPhone Doug Nix d...@complianceinsight.com Mobile: (519) 729-5704 Office:(519) 650-4753 Fax: (519) 653-1318 - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com
Re: [PSES] India ITE approvals
Can't comment on ITE equipment since we make Audio Video products but I have found this process to be very chaotic and time consuming for our products There was a considerable amount of documentation required especially for the manufacturing facilities. There are only a handful of accredited labs in India and they are still trying to figure out what they need to do. CB reports are not officially recognized but are helpful. It took us close to 5 months to get our first report with a lot of back and forth with the test house and BIS and that was with local representation. Just a suggestion based on our experience. 1. Study the regulations and don't just rely on the Indian test lab you pick as they are still trying to figure things out. 2. Don't be afraid to push back with the lab as they are not experts yet and rely on BIS for direction. 3. Don't over think the forms you are required to complete. There is considerable documentation to be completed which takes a lot of time. 4. Don't wait until the last minute as the lead time is very long. Good luck. Sent from my ASUS Pad Gelfand, David david.gelf...@ca.kontron.com wrote: As of July 3 there is are new mandatory approvals requiring in-country safety testing. Has there been any extension of this date? Could anyone share their experience getting India approvals under this new scheme? Thanks, David David Gelfand Compliance Specialist Kontron Canada Inc - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com
Re: [PSES] Power distribution submetering application - Safety standard for Instrument Current Transformers on mains relative to IEC/EN/UL61010-1 3rd 61010-2-030?
Thanks John Besides IEC 60044-8. the general transformer standard IEC 61558-1, -2.4 and -2.6 I was also advised to consider EN61869-1:2009 - Instrument Transformers, General Requirements EN61869-2:2012 - Instrument Transformers, Additional Requirements for Current Transformers. Chris Wells Eaton -Original Message- From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of John Woodgate Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 9:15 AM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: Power distribution submetering application - Safety standard for Instrument Current Transformers on mains relative to IEC/EN/UL61010-1 3rd 61010-2-030? In message 4DA8FE10C88F443E988CA5E66A960CE9@christopher, dated Thu, 18 Jul 2013, Chris Wells radioactive55...@comcast.net writes: what standard would be best to use to validate/control the CT production as a separate independent component? There is an IEC standard specifically for current transformers and it does address safety issues. IEC 60044-8. There is also the general transformer standard, of which IEC 61558-1, -2.4 and -2.6 may be applicable. -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. See www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Why is the stapler always empty just when you want it? John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com
Re: [PSES] Power distribution submetering application - Safety standard for Instrument Current Transformers on mains relative to IEC/EN/UL61010-1 3rd 61010-2-030?
In message A55CB212C030418F8FD1EC87CC2A5E4B@christopher, dated Fri, 19 Jul 2013, Chris Wells radioactive55...@comcast.net writes: I was also advised to consider EN61869-1:2009 - Instrument Transformers, General Requirements EN61869-2:2012 - Instrument Transformers, Additional Requirements for Current Transformers. I agree; the original IEC documents were not shown in a search for relevant IEC standards. -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. See www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Why is the stapler always empty just when you want it? John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com
Re: [PSES] 60950 1st edition and amendments
In message d250d01e39356a4e9cc3b4b459d6655097dd0...@ms-cda-01.advanced-input.com, dated Fri, 19 Jul 2013, McInturff, Gary gary.mcintu...@esterline.com writes: Thanks for the input so far and the date of standard withdrawal, but still need to understand if I can maintain presumption of conformity if the docopos-whatever hasn't expired. The docopocoss is the date at which the old standard expired. Two of us have told you that date. You cannot use the old standard now. -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. See www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Why is the stapler always empty just when you want it? John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com
Re: [PSES] 60950 1st edition and amendments
Gary You have a presumption of conformity when you apply a Harmonised Standard up until it is superseded by a new version (or new amendment to existing version) - the DOCOPOCOSS date. For LVD there is no requirement to use Harmonised Standards. However, evidence/experience/heresay would suggest that EU enforcement authorities expect to see CURRENT Harmonised Standards on DoCs. If you don't use them expect some (possibly uneducated) questions as to why you haven't and requirement to provide more justification That said, the LVD only applies if your product is powered from a voltage that puts it within scope of LVD, otherwise the LVD doesn't actually apply. The General Product Safety Directive (GPSD) applies to those products, and 60950 is a Harmonised Standard for GPSD, but that isn't a CE marking directive so doesn't go on DoC Regards Charlie -Original Message- From: McInturff, Gary [mailto:gary.mcintu...@esterline.com] Sent: 19 July 2013 16:06 To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] 60950 1st edition and amendments Ha now I'm getting new words - lost favor and expired, but not so not sure I have asked the right question and I have a follow-up question. First of all my preference would be to update to the current standards etc but we have an existing product with very small sales for Europe. Sales is all over the place claiming low voltage directive, and I am pointing out that an even though the ITE equipment is in fact powered by very low voltage there is a harmonized standard for this type of equipment that takes precedence, 60950. Obviously they disagree since it affects their sales. I am holding my ground since it is my function to help protect our markets in EU and for the potential legal and economic impact on our company if all goes wrong. In the middle I suppose is that the risk is very small - a logical argument that I have to counter every so often. So what I'm really trying to determine is this. Obviously new products have to meet 60950 but existing products have a presumption of conformity even under old standards for X time. So if it still maintains presumption of... and that presumption of hasn't expired cannot I not release the small number of units to sales? I'm really trying to find a middle ground while these guys get their act together to build a business case that would warrant the expenditure to update the product to the new standards. I have to dig out the scope for the LVD, but I do have to admit I don't have a great argument why the low voltage ITE device couldn't satisfy the safety directives by claiming it under the LVD (still has EMC concerns which are in fact addressed). Hopefully I can develop that argument before I get the call I know is coming from the VP of sales etc. Thanks for the input so far and the date of standard withdrawal, but still need to understand if I can maintain presumption of conformity if the docopos-whatever hasn't expired. Happy to send John the nickel. Gary -Original Message- From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk] Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 11:30 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] 60950 1st edition and amendments In message d250d01e39356a4e9cc3b4b459d6655097dcf...@ms-cda-01.advanced-input.com, dated Thu, 18 Jul 2013, McInturff, Gary gary.mcintu...@esterline.com writes: Anybody know the Docopocoss (or whatever on that) on IEC 60950-1:2001, First Edition I have a small sale - not large enough to generate the approval fees to 2nd edition and latest amendments. But if the date of cessation et al - hasn't passed we could continue with the sale. My first answer was no to the Marketeers - but I think I'm wrong if the old standard still provides presumption of conformity. It expired on 1 December 2010. -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. See www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Why is the stapler always empty just when you want it? John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com - This message is from the IEEE
Re: [PSES] 60950 1st edition and amendments
Gary - Per the list of harmonized standards published by the European Commission, EN 60950-1:2001 was superseded by EN60950-1:2006 on 1JAN2010. Per CENELC's web site, EN60950-1:2006 was published in 14APR2006. If we were to assume even a three months delay before being published in the EU OJ, there was about a 3 1/2 year transition window. Peter Tarver -Original Message- From: McInturff, Gary [mailto:gary.mcintu...@esterline.com] Sent: Friday, July 19, 2013 08:06 To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] 60950 1st edition and amendments Ha now I'm getting new words - lost favor and expired, but not so not sure I have asked the right question and I have a follow-up question. First of all my preference would be to update to the current standards etc but we have an existing product with very small sales for Europe. Sales is all over the place claiming low voltage directive, and I am pointing out that an even though the ITE equipment is in fact powered by very low voltage there is a harmonized standard for this type of equipment that takes precedence, 60950. Obviously they disagree since it affects their sales. I am holding my ground since it is my function to help protect our markets in EU and for the potential legal and economic impact on our company if all goes wrong. In the middle I suppose is that the risk is very small - a logical argument that I have to counter every so often. So what I'm really trying to determine is this. Obviously new products have to meet 60950 but existing products have a presumption of conformity even under old standards for X time. So if it still maintains presumption of... and that presumption of hasn't expired cannot I not release the small number of units to sales? I'm really trying to find a middle ground while these guys get their act together to build a business case that would warrant the expenditure to update the product to the new standards. I have to dig out the scope for the LVD, but I do have to admit I don't have a great argument why the low voltage ITE device couldn't satisfy the safety directives by claiming it under the LVD (still has EMC concerns which are in fact addressed). Hopefully I can develop that argument before I get the call I know is coming from the VP of sales etc. Thanks for the input so far and the date of standard withdrawal, but still need to understand if I can maintain presumption of conformity if the docopos- whatever hasn't expired. Happy to send John the nickel. Gary -Original Message- From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk] Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 11:30 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] 60950 1st edition and amendments In message D250D01E39356A4E9CC3B4B459D6655097DCF204@MS-CDA- 01.advanced-input.com, dated Thu, 18 Jul 2013, McInturff, Gary gary.mcintu...@esterline.com writes: Anybody know the Docopocoss (or whatever on that) on IEC 60950-1:2001, First Edition I have a small sale - not large enough to generate the approval fees to 2nd edition and latest amendments. But if the date of cessation et al - hasn't passed we could continue with the sale. My first answer was no to the Marketeers - but I think I'm wrong if the old standard still provides presumption of conformity. It expired on 1 December 2010. -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. See www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Why is the stapler always empty just when you want it? John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK - --- - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc- p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product- compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user- guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com - --- - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc- p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product- compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc.
Re: [PSES] 60950 1st edition and amendments
There are also amendments. As of 01 Mar 2013, this means EN60950-1:2006 plus amendments A11:2006 , A1:2010, and A12:2011. Jim Hulbert -Original Message- From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Peter Tarver Sent: Friday, July 19, 2013 11:35 AM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: RE: [PSES] 60950 1st edition and amendments Gary - Per the list of harmonized standards published by the European Commission, EN 60950-1:2001 was superseded by EN60950-1:2006 on 1JAN2010. Per CENELC's web site, EN60950-1:2006 was published in 14APR2006. If we were to assume even a three months delay before being published in the EU OJ, there was about a 3 1/2 year transition window. Peter Tarver -Original Message- From: McInturff, Gary [mailto:gary.mcintu...@esterline.com] Sent: Friday, July 19, 2013 08:06 To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] 60950 1st edition and amendments Ha now I'm getting new words - lost favor and expired, but not so not sure I have asked the right question and I have a follow-up question. First of all my preference would be to update to the current standards etc but we have an existing product with very small sales for Europe. Sales is all over the place claiming low voltage directive, and I am pointing out that an even though the ITE equipment is in fact powered by very low voltage there is a harmonized standard for this type of equipment that takes precedence, 60950. Obviously they disagree since it affects their sales. I am holding my ground since it is my function to help protect our markets in EU and for the potential legal and economic impact on our company if all goes wrong. In the middle I suppose is that the risk is very small - a logical argument that I have to counter every so often. So what I'm really trying to determine is this. Obviously new products have to meet 60950 but existing products have a presumption of conformity even under old standards for X time. So if it still maintains presumption of... and that presumption of hasn't expired cannot I not release the small number of units to sales? I'm really trying to find a middle ground while these guys get their act together to build a business case that would warrant the expenditure to update the product to the new standards. I have to dig out the scope for the LVD, but I do have to admit I don't have a great argument why the low voltage ITE device couldn't satisfy the safety directives by claiming it under the LVD (still has EMC concerns which are in fact addressed). Hopefully I can develop that argument before I get the call I know is coming from the VP of sales etc. Thanks for the input so far and the date of standard withdrawal, but still need to understand if I can maintain presumption of conformity if the docopos- whatever hasn't expired. Happy to send John the nickel. Gary -Original Message- From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk] Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 11:30 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] 60950 1st edition and amendments In message D250D01E39356A4E9CC3B4B459D6655097DCF204@MS-CDA- 01.advanced-input.com, dated Thu, 18 Jul 2013, McInturff, Gary gary.mcintu...@esterline.com writes: Anybody know the Docopocoss (or whatever on that) on IEC 60950-1:2001, First Edition I have a small sale - not large enough to generate the approval fees to 2nd edition and latest amendments. But if the date of cessation et al - hasn't passed we could continue with the sale. My first answer was no to the Marketeers - but I think I'm wrong if the old standard still provides presumption of conformity. It expired on 1 December 2010. -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. See www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Why is the stapler always empty just when you want it? John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK - --- - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc- p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product- compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user- guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com - --- - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a
Re: [PSES] 60950 1st edition and amendments
Hi Gary: Personally, I support the sales force with whatever they need. If I understand correctly, you have low-voltage device. Chances are that none of the standards changes affect your device. Updating your certification should take less time than arguing against the work, and would make your sales force happy. Good luck, and best regards, Rich On 7/19/2013 8:05 AM, McInturff, Gary wrote: Ha now I'm getting new words - lost favor and expired, but not so not sure I have asked the right question and I have a follow-up question. First of all my preference would be to update to the current standards etc but we have an existing product with very small sales for Europe. Sales is all over the place claiming low voltage directive, and I am pointing out that an even though the ITE equipment is in fact powered by very low voltage there is a harmonized standard for this type of equipment that takes precedence, 60950. Obviously they disagree since it affects their sales. I am holding my ground since it is my function to help protect our markets in EU and for the potential legal and economic impact on our company if all goes wrong. In the middle I suppose is that the risk is very small - a logical argument that I have to counter every so often. So what I'm really trying to determine is this. Obviously new products have to meet 60950 but existing products have a presumption of conformity even under old standards for X time. So if it still maintains presumption of... and that presumption of hasn't expired cannot I not release the small number of units to sales? I'm really trying to find a middle ground while these guys get their act together to build a business case that would warrant the expenditure to update the product to the new standards. I have to dig out the scope for the LVD, but I do have to admit I don't have a great argument why the low voltage ITE device couldn't satisfy the safety directives by claiming it under the LVD (still has EMC concerns which are in fact addressed). Hopefully I can develop that argument before I get the call I know is coming from the VP of sales etc. Thanks for the input so far and the date of standard withdrawal, but still need to understand if I can maintain presumption of conformity if the docopos-whatever hasn't expired. Happy to send John the nickel. Gary -Original Message- From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk] Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 11:30 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] 60950 1st edition and amendments In message d250d01e39356a4e9cc3b4b459d6655097dcf...@ms-cda-01.advanced-input.com, dated Thu, 18 Jul 2013, McInturff, Gary gary.mcintu...@esterline.com writes: Anybody know the Docopocoss (or whatever on that) on IEC 60950-1:2001, First Edition I have a small sale - not large enough to generate the approval fees to 2nd edition and latest amendments. But if the date of cessation et al - hasn't passed we could continue with the sale. My first answer was no to the Marketeers - but I think I'm wrong if the old standard still provides presumption of conformity. It expired on 1 December 2010. - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com
Re: [PSES] 60950 1st edition and amendments
Thanks Jim. I'm aware of those as well. If justification could be made to jump to the appropriate edition we would also upgrade for the latest amendment, and quite possible proposed changes under the right circumstances. Thanks all Gary -Original Message- From: Jim Hulbert [mailto:jim.hulb...@pb.com] Sent: Friday, July 19, 2013 10:13 AM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] 60950 1st edition and amendments There are also amendments. As of 01 Mar 2013, this means EN60950-1:2006 plus amendments A11:2006 , A1:2010, and A12:2011. Jim Hulbert -Original Message- From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Peter Tarver Sent: Friday, July 19, 2013 11:35 AM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: RE: [PSES] 60950 1st edition and amendments Gary - Per the list of harmonized standards published by the European Commission, EN 60950-1:2001 was superseded by EN60950-1:2006 on 1JAN2010. Per CENELC's web site, EN60950-1:2006 was published in 14APR2006. If we were to assume even a three months delay before being published in the EU OJ, there was about a 3 1/2 year transition window. Peter Tarver -Original Message- From: McInturff, Gary [mailto:gary.mcintu...@esterline.com] Sent: Friday, July 19, 2013 08:06 To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] 60950 1st edition and amendments Ha now I'm getting new words - lost favor and expired, but not so not sure I have asked the right question and I have a follow-up question. First of all my preference would be to update to the current standards etc but we have an existing product with very small sales for Europe. Sales is all over the place claiming low voltage directive, and I am pointing out that an even though the ITE equipment is in fact powered by very low voltage there is a harmonized standard for this type of equipment that takes precedence, 60950. Obviously they disagree since it affects their sales. I am holding my ground since it is my function to help protect our markets in EU and for the potential legal and economic impact on our company if all goes wrong. In the middle I suppose is that the risk is very small - a logical argument that I have to counter every so often. So what I'm really trying to determine is this. Obviously new products have to meet 60950 but existing products have a presumption of conformity even under old standards for X time. So if it still maintains presumption of... and that presumption of hasn't expired cannot I not release the small number of units to sales? I'm really trying to find a middle ground while these guys get their act together to build a business case that would warrant the expenditure to update the product to the new standards. I have to dig out the scope for the LVD, but I do have to admit I don't have a great argument why the low voltage ITE device couldn't satisfy the safety directives by claiming it under the LVD (still has EMC concerns which are in fact addressed). Hopefully I can develop that argument before I get the call I know is coming from the VP of sales etc. Thanks for the input so far and the date of standard withdrawal, but still need to understand if I can maintain presumption of conformity if the docopos- whatever hasn't expired. Happy to send John the nickel. Gary -Original Message- From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk] Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 11:30 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] 60950 1st edition and amendments In message D250D01E39356A4E9CC3B4B459D6655097DCF204@MS-CDA- 01.advanced-input.com, dated Thu, 18 Jul 2013, McInturff, Gary gary.mcintu...@esterline.com writes: Anybody know the Docopocoss (or whatever on that) on IEC 60950-1:2001, First Edition I have a small sale - not large enough to generate the approval fees to 2nd edition and latest amendments. But if the date of cessation et al - hasn't passed we could continue with the sale. My first answer was no to the Marketeers - but I think I'm wrong if the old standard still provides presumption of conformity. It expired on 1 December 2010. -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. See www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Why is the stapler always empty just when you want it? John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK - --- - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc- p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product- compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user- guide.html List rules:
Re: [PSES] 60950 1st edition and amendments
I suppose that someone should do a session at the symposium on Errors, Omissions, Obligations, and Professional Ethics for Compliance Engineers. Support of sales is important; and should be in a regulatory professional's pro forma list. I have prefaced all requestedd compliance requirements with cost. Make the sales manager do the math to determine if an update has any ROI. If there is no ROI for updating reports to latest standard, try to determine the loss of 'good will' to the company name when the product line must be abandoned. But protecting the customer and the corporation are paramount. This is part of risk mitigation. And if personally accredited by an agency, measure the potential risk to your good name. Brian -Original Message- From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org]On Behalf Of Richard Nute Sent: Friday, July 19, 2013 11:52 AM To: McInturff, Gary Cc: 'John Woodgate'; 'EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG' Subject: Re: [PSES] 60950 1st edition and amendments Hi Gary: Personally, I support the sales force with whatever they need. If I understand correctly, you have low-voltage device. Chances are that none of the standards changes affect your device. Updating your certification should take less time than arguing against the work, and would make your sales force happy. Good luck, and best regards, Rich On 7/19/2013 8:05 AM, McInturff, Gary wrote: Ha now I'm getting new words - lost favor and expired, but not so not sure I have asked the right question and I have a follow-up question. First of all my preference would be to update to the current standards etc but we have an existing product with very small sales for Europe. Sales is all over the place claiming low voltage directive, and I am pointing out that an even though the ITE equipment is in fact powered by very low voltage there is a harmonized standard for this type of equipment that takes precedence, 60950. Obviously they disagree since it affects their sales. I am holding my ground since it is my function to help protect our markets in EU and for the potential legal and economic impact on our company if all goes wrong. In the middle I suppose is that the risk is very small - a logical argument that I have to counter every so often. So what I'm really trying to determine is this. Obviously new products have to meet 60950 but existing products have a presumption of conformity even under old standards for X time. So if it still maintains presumption of... and that presumption of hasn't expired cannot I not release the small number of units to sales? I'm really trying to find a middle ground while these guys get their act together to build a business case that would warrant the expenditure to update the product to the new standards. I have to dig out the scope for the LVD, but I do have to admit I don't have a great argument why the low voltage ITE device couldn't satisfy the safety directives by claiming it under the LVD (still has EMC concerns which are in fact addressed). Hopefully I can develop that argument before I get the call I know is coming from the VP of sales etc. Thanks for the input so far and the date of standard withdrawal, but still need to understand if I can maintain presumption of conformity if the docopos-whatever hasn't expired. Happy to send John the nickel. Gary -Original Message- From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk] Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 11:30 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] 60950 1st edition and amendments In message d250d01e39356a4e9cc3b4b459d6655097dcf...@ms-cda-01.advanced-input.com, dated Thu, 18 Jul 2013, McInturff, Gary gary.mcintu...@esterline.com writes: Anybody know the Docopocoss (or whatever on that) on IEC 60950-1:2001, First Edition I have a small sale - not large enough to generate the approval fees to 2nd edition and latest amendments. But if the date of cessation et al - hasn't passed we could continue with the sale. My first answer was no to the Marketeers - but I think I'm wrong if the old standard still provides presumption of conformity. It expired on 1 December 2010. - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim
Re: [PSES] Looking for an alternative to SII in Israel
Peter The other alternative is Ministry of Industry and Trade application of exemption based on test reports but it may not be available - depends on HS code To get SII you need a person on the ground and who speaks the same language Let me know how I can help Sent from my iPhone Peter S. Merguerian pe...@goglobalcompliance.com Go Global Compliance Inc. www.goglobalcompliance.com (408) 931-3303 On Jul 18, 2013, at 11:42 AM, Peter Tarver ptar...@enphaseenergy.com wrote: Photovoltaic inverters and related equipment. Poor service and lousy communications are leading me to consider a move. Any input will be accepted. Regards, Peter L. Tarver This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not an intended recipient, you may not review, use, copy, disclose or distribute this message. If you received this message in error, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com
