Re: [PSES] fire safety test methods for different country standards

[Ralph McDiarmid]

Thanks for the explanation Brian; it makes things clearer.

Ralph McDiarmid
Product Compliance
Engineering
Solar Business
Schneider Electric




*Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail



-Original Message-
From: Kunde, Brian [mailto:brian_ku...@lecotc.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 09, 2016 6:00 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] fire safety test methods for different country standards

Ralph,

This might be true but that is not how we saw it way back when. The 240VA 
"Energy Hazard" was not a consideration for the protection against Fire but a 
limit value for accessible parts by the User. We still today consider 
accessible circuits, regardless of the voltage, to be "Hazardous Live" if the 
circuit exceeds 240VA. This requirement is not specifically called out in our 
working safety standard (IEC/EN 61010-1 for Laboratory Equipment) but we still 
take this condition under consideration especially with products that exposes 
the user to high currents at low voltages such as Electrode Furnaces (similar 
to a welder).

In Tempest Computers which fell under the IEC950, the hard drives had to be 
made removable so they could be easily taken with during an invasion or 
destroyed in a giant shredder machine. The opening in the front of the computer 
gave the User access to a small backplane card and the data and power 
connectors for the hard drive. The backplane had to be limited to less than 
240VA if the User could touch it.  Fire was a completely different evaluation.

My step dad was working on a car a got his metal watch band between the starter 
solenoid and the chassis. It instantly welded his watch to the car and turned 
the band into a glowing red hot heating element within a second. He was able to 
break it loose and get the watch off but not before he was badly burned. Almost 
required skin grafts. However, according to most safety standards, 12 volts at 
high current is NOT considered hazardous live and does not limit access to 
Users. Yes, it is a fire hazard but I don't think that is where the 240VA 
requirement comes from.

Like the watch band, I have heard where people have reached inside of a piece 
of electronic gear and shorted out a circuit with their wedding ring. If this 
condition is possible, I believe the circuit would have to be limited to 240VA.

This is my recollection of where 240VA came from and how it was used. I do not 
have any current documented support for it use today. But we still consider it 
for circuits accessible to the User to determine an Energy Hazard.

The Other Brian

-Original Message-
From: Ralph McDiarmid [mailto:ralph.mcdiar...@schneider-electric.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2016 4:31 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] fire safety test methods for different country standards

So, for the protection against FIRE, we have two energy rates, 100VA and 240VA, 
used across quite a number of standards, and the units are wrong.  Should be 
Watts.

Ralph McDiarmid
Product Compliance
Engineering
Solar Business
Schneider Electric




*Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail



-Original Message-
From: Nyffenegger, Dave [mailto:dave.nyffeneg...@bhemail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2016 1:27 PM
To: Ralph McDiarmid ; 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: [PSES] fire safety test methods for different country standards

EN 60950-1:2006  2.5  uses 100 VA for LPS and is also referenced for fire 
enclosure requirements in section 4.7.2.1.

-Dave

-Original Message-
From: Ralph McDiarmid [mailto:ralph.mcdiar...@schneider-electric.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2016 3:11 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] fire safety test methods for different country standards

Hi Chuck,

A poor choice of words on my part.  I should have written, "in most of the 
standards I have worked in".   Those include CSA107.1, UL1741, UL1012, and 
IEC62109-1

The 240VA (I think they meant 240W) must have come from some base standard as a 
normative reference.  I don't know what is special about that number, but some 
committee somewhere may have concluded that power (rate of energy) below that 
threshold was unlike to be a source of ignition.  I've seen 30V and 8A used to 
define an energy limited, extra-low voltage circuit. (UL calls that a Class 2 I 
think).   The product of 8A and 30V gives 240VA as a third criterion.   I'm not 
sure it's that simple though.

Regards,

Ralph McDiarmid
Product Compliance
Engineering
Solar Business
Schneider Electric





*Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail



-Original Message-
From: Chuck August-McDowell [mailto:chu...@meyersound.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2016 11:22 AM
To: Ralph McDiarmid 
Subject: RE: [PSES] fire safety test methods for different country standards

Hi Ralph,

I live in the IEC/EN/UL 60065 standard world.

Re: [PSES] slightly off target but NEMA 4

[Bill Lawrence]

The NEMA 4 test is about 5 psi. The IPX6 test is about three times that 
pressure. Less flow but higher pressure. In my opinion, a more severe test. 

Sent from Bill Lawrence's iPhone

> On Jun 10, 2016, at 1:48 PM, Gary McInturff  
> wrote:
> 
> Hey Don,
> Thank you for the information very enlightening and surprising. I was going 
> to have my ME’s check the pressure (force) because the unit under test will 
> be an unsupported touch panel assembly and I was a bit concerned that the 
> water pressure would distort the touch sensors and pull them free of the 
> bezel. If that was the case I was thinking about 3D printing a backstop for 
> the panel. (We don’t have the full assembly at this plant so doing the test 
> on a subset of the equipment)
>  
> Again thank you for the effort and for teaching me something new
> Gary
>  
> From: Gies, Don (Nokia - US) [mailto:don.g...@nokia-bell-labs.com] 
> Sent: Friday, June 10, 2016 10:17 AM
> To: Gary McInturff; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: slightly off target but NEMA 4
>  
> Gary,
>  
> The short answer for the difference in tests is because the NEMA 250 and IEC 
> 60529 standards evolved separately and became the norms for North America and 
> the rest of the world, respectively.
>  
> A mechanical engineer colleague of mine once pointed out that the pressure 
> coming out of the nozzle for the IPX6 test nozzle, 100 liters per minute 
> through a 12.5 mm diameter circular opening, is actually higher than that of 
> the NEMA Type 4 Hosedown Test, conducted at 240 liters per minute (65 gallons 
> per minute) through a 25 mm (1 inch) diameter circular opening.  I can 
> confirm this because when we put a set-up in our facility at Bell Labs, 
> Murray Hill, NJ by having a fire-hose spigot put into the main water line, we 
> had enough water pressure to conduct the NEMA Type 4 Hosedown Test, but not 
> enough to conduct the IPX6 test. We installed a fire pump in the water line 
> to boost the pressure up in order to conduct the IPX6 test.
>  
> Best regards,
>  
> DON GIES 
> NOKIA Bell Labs
> SENIOR PRODUCT COMPLIANCE ENGINEER
> GLOBAL PRODUCT COMPLIANCE LABORATORY
> 600-700 Mountain Avenue
> Room 5B-104
> Murray Hill, NJ 07974-0636 USA   
> Phone: +1 908 582 5978
> Mobile: +1 732 207 7828
> don.g...@nokia-bell-labs.com
>  
>  
> From: Gary McInturff [mailto:gary.mcintu...@esterline.com] 
> Sent: Friday, June 10, 2016 12:51 PM
> To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: [PSES] slightly off target but NEMA 4
>  
> Have a request from a customer to do a NEMA 4 Spray test. I had always 
> equated NEMA and the EU IPX series as roughly equivalent – and in fact have 
> pumps and equipment to do the IPX6 test but was double checking to see that 
> it was sufficient for NEMA 4. Turns out NEMA is about double the flow 
> requirement of IPX6 requiring 65 gallons per minute. Yikes! Anybody know a 
> reason why that, to me, outrageous flow rate.
>  
> I’ll get the pumps etc. but that just seems way overkill so I’m just trying 
> to put some reasoning behind the number.
>  
>  
> Gary McInturff
> Reliability/Compliance Engineer
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
> Esterline Interface Technologies
> Featuring
> ADVANCED INPUT, GAMESMAN, LRE MEDICAL, and MEMTRON  products  
> 600 W. Wilbur AvenueCoeur d’Alene, ID  83815-9496
> Toll Free: 800-444-5923
> Tel:  (208) 635-8306
>  
> www.esterline.com/interfacetechnologies
>  
> Technology, Innovation, Performance…
> "Information in or attached to this e-mail message may be subject to export 
> control restrictions of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) 
> (22 CFR pts. 120-130) or the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) (15 CFR 
> pts. 730-774).  Before exporting this information outside the United States 
> or releasing it to a foreign person in the United States, you need to 
> determine whether a license under the EAR or the ITAR is required to do so.  
> If you have any questions about this obligation, please contact me."
>  
> Click here to read disclaimer
>   
>  
>  
> -
> 
> 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 
> 
> 
> 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://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 
> unsubscribe)
> List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
> 
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
> Scott Douglas 
> Mike Cantwell 
> 
> For policy questions, send 

Re: [PSES] slightly off target but NEMA 4

[Gary McInturff]

Hey Don,
Thank you for the information very enlightening and surprising. I was going to 
have my ME's check the pressure (force) because the unit under test will be an 
unsupported touch panel assembly and I was a bit concerned that the water 
pressure would distort the touch sensors and pull them free of the bezel. If 
that was the case I was thinking about 3D printing a backstop for the panel. 
(We don't have the full assembly at this plant so doing the test on a subset of 
the equipment)

Again thank you for the effort and for teaching me something new
Gary

From: Gies, Don (Nokia - US) [mailto:don.g...@nokia-bell-labs.com]
Sent: Friday, June 10, 2016 10:17 AM
To: Gary McInturff; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: slightly off target but NEMA 4

Gary,

The short answer for the difference in tests is because the NEMA 250 and IEC 
60529 standards evolved separately and became the norms for North America and 
the rest of the world, respectively.

A mechanical engineer colleague of mine once pointed out that the pressure 
coming out of the nozzle for the IPX6 test nozzle, 100 liters per minute 
through a 12.5 mm diameter circular opening, is actually higher than that of 
the NEMA Type 4 Hosedown Test, conducted at 240 liters per minute (65 gallons 
per minute) through a 25 mm (1 inch) diameter circular opening.  I can confirm 
this because when we put a set-up in our facility at Bell Labs, Murray Hill, NJ 
by having a fire-hose spigot put into the main water line, we had enough water 
pressure to conduct the NEMA Type 4 Hosedown Test, but not enough to conduct 
the IPX6 test. We installed a fire pump in the water line to boost the pressure 
up in order to conduct the IPX6 test.

Best regards,

DON GIES
NOKIA Bell Labs
SENIOR PRODUCT COMPLIANCE ENGINEER
GLOBAL PRODUCT COMPLIANCE LABORATORY
600-700 Mountain Avenue
Room 5B-104
Murray Hill, NJ 07974-0636 USA
Phone: +1 908 582 5978
Mobile: +1 732 207 7828
don.g...@nokia-bell-labs.com


From: Gary McInturff [mailto:gary.mcintu...@esterline.com]
Sent: Friday, June 10, 2016 12:51 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] slightly off target but NEMA 4

Have a request from a customer to do a NEMA 4 Spray test. I had always equated 
NEMA and the EU IPX series as roughly equivalent - and in fact have pumps and 
equipment to do the IPX6 test but was double checking to see that it was 
sufficient for NEMA 4. Turns out NEMA is about double the flow requirement of 
IPX6 requiring 65 gallons per minute. Yikes! Anybody know a reason why that, to 
me, outrageous flow rate.

I'll get the pumps etc. but that just seems way overkill so I'm just trying to 
put some reasoning behind the number.


Gary McInturff
Reliability/Compliance Engineer










Esterline Interface Technologies

Featuring
ADVANCED INPUT, GAMESMAN, LRE MEDICAL, and MEMTRON  products

600 W. Wilbur AvenueCoeur d'Alene, ID  83815-9496
Toll Free: 800-444-5923
Tel:  (208) 635-8306

www.esterline.com/interfacetechnologies

Technology, Innovation, Performance...
"Information in or attached to this e-mail message may be subject to export 
control restrictions of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) 
(22 CFR pts. 120-130) or the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) (15 CFR 
pts. 730-774).  Before exporting this information outside the United States or 
releasing it to a foreign person in the United States, you need to determine 
whether a license under the EAR or the ITAR is required to do so.  If you have 
any questions about this obligation, please contact me."

Click 
here
 to read disclaimer





-


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 
>

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: 

[PSES] slightly off target but NEMA 4

[Gary McInturff]

Have a request from a customer to do a NEMA 4 Spray test. I had always equated 
NEMA and the EU IPX series as roughly equivalent - and in fact have pumps and 
equipment to do the IPX6 test but was double checking to see that it was 
sufficient for NEMA 4. Turns out NEMA is about double the flow requirement of 
IPX6 requiring 65 gallons per minute. Yikes! Anybody know a reason why that, to 
me, outrageous flow rate.

I'll get the pumps etc. but that just seems way overkill so I'm just trying to 
put some reasoning behind the number.


Gary McInturff
Reliability/Compliance Engineer












Esterline Interface Technologies

Featuring
ADVANCED INPUT, GAMESMAN, LRE MEDICAL, and MEMTRON  products

600 W. Wilbur AvenueCoeur d'Alene, ID  83815-9496
Toll Free: 800-444-5923
Tel:  (208) 635-8306
www.esterline.com/interfacetechnologies
Technology, Innovation, Performance...
"Information in or attached to this e-mail message may be subject to export 
control restrictions of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) 
(22 CFR pts. 120-130) or the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) (15 CFR 
pts. 730-774).  Before exporting this information outside the United States or 
releasing it to a foreign person in the United States, you need to determine 
whether a license under the EAR or the ITAR is required to do so.  If you have 
any questions about this obligation, please contact me."
Click 
here
 to read disclaimer






-

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 


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://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: