Re: [PSES] Connection to ac mains with split end line cord

[Boštjan Glavič]

Hi Ken,

With short delay, Thank you.

So on short, if flexible cord is used, cord must have a plug, if wiring 
terminals are used, cord must be put in conduits.

Do you know the background of this requirement? Is this applicable even if unit 
is used in a computer room with raised floor?

Best regards,
Bostjan

From: IBM Ken [mailto:ibm...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, September 5, 2016 6:52 PM
To: Boštjan Glavič 
Cc: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Connection to ac mains with split end line cord

Hi Bostjan!

NEC (NFPA 70) has an Article 645 which covers "Information technology 
equipment" rooms.  This article states, among other things, that flexible 
linecords must have a 'plug cap'.
People sometimes mistakenly stop their analysis there, stating either that the 
intended installation location is not an "ITE room" or that the local Authority 
Having Jurisdisction has waived that requirement.

However, 60950-1 has D1 deviations and Annex NAE makes specific reference to 
the fact that equipment must comply with the requirements in article 645 of 
NFPA 70.  Therefore, ITE (regardless of what the intended installation location 
is or what the AHJ says) Listed to 60950 must comply by having a plug on the 
end of the flexible line cord (which also must be <14' long after exiting the 
cabinet, by the way).

Some will attempt to work around this by declaring the mains branch circuit 
breaker box as another piece of ITE and then declaring the flexible linecord as 
'interconnecting cable' but this is not legitimate either.

The only accepted method of providing stripped power leads that meets the 
requirements of 60950-1 and the NEC is to provide the equipment with wiring 
terminals and provision for mounting of conduit.

-Ken A

On Mon, Sep 5, 2016 at 9:36 AM, Boštjan Glavič 
> wrote:
Dear experts,

Can you help me with below item. I do not have experiences with NEC/CEC. Some 
people told me that only ATMs are allowed to be connected to mains without the 
plug, but i think this is strange requirement.

Customer has an IT equipment cabinet (IEC 60950-1) with built-in power supply 
rack (shelf) with several modular power supplies. Power of such cabinet is 
rated round 200 kVA. The power supply rack is provided with two special (UL 
1977) input connectors. Connection to supply will be realized by split end line 
cord (with plug/connector on unit side and split end on the other side). Split 
end of the cord will be connected to junction box mounted under the floor. 
Junction box will be connected to control panel. Unit will not be directly 
supplied from the panel, but always from the junction box.
Cables and connectors will not be visible / accessible from outside, but only 
after opening of front cover of the end system rack (this action is allowed to 
service personnel only).

Manual circuit breaker will be provided in wall installation.

Is such construction acceptable by NEC and CEC?

Best regards,
Bostjan

-

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: >


-

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: 

Re: [PSES] Fire ants

[Peter Tarver]

Reminds me of a movie, Them!

From: Ed Price [mailto:edpr...@cox.net]
Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2016 23:09

Plutonium is probably not a good answer;
The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential. 
It is intended to be read only by the individual or entity to whom it is 
addressed or by their designee. If the reader of this message is not the 
intended recipient, you are on notice that any distribution of this message, in 
any form, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, 
please immediately notify the sender and delete or destroy any copy of this 
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 


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: 

Re: [PSES] Risk Assessment of Air Filter

[Peter Tarver]

Brian -

UL will generally accept a Class 1 air filter. These are evaluated against UL 
900.

Otherwise, it depends on the standard for the end product what requirement 
apply. I recall 60950-1 accepting HF-1.


Peter Tarver

From: Kunde, Brian [mailto:brian_ku...@lecotc.com]
Sent: Monday, September 19, 2016 09:43

But what type of Fault Testing or Risk assessment needs to be done regarding 
the filter?  With the filter removed, the instrument passes the construction 
requirements for a Fire Enclosure. But with the filter installed and because of 
its close proximity to the fan/blower;

1.does this filter have to meet Flammability requirements? Does the 
filters have to be certified (expensive)? UL 94 HF-1?, UL 94 HF-2?, UL 900?  
How are these ratings/certifications viewed outside of North America?  Will 
they have to meet local requirements??

2.   If the fan/blower is certified and limited energy circuit does the 
filter have to have any kind of rating or certification? In other words, with a 
certified fan/blower, do I have to consider the fault condition of the fan 
failing in a way where it could catch the filter on fire?

3.   How is a fault and/or risk assessment performed on an air filter?

4.   Are we responsible to consider the hazards from a burning filter when 
it is dirty? How would we know what type of contaminates might collect in a 
filter?

5.   If the filter we provide is UL 94 HF-1 and UL 900 rated/certified, 
what would stop our customer from replacing it with whatever filter they 
wanted? Are we responsible to include a warning label and statements in the 
manual regarding this?  Example, "Use only Air Filter part number XYZ".

6.   Any other suggestions or issues that we are not considering?

Thanks in advance. Have a nice day.

The Other Brian

LECO Corporation Notice: This communication may contain confidential 
information intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you received this by 
mistake, please destroy it and notify us of the error. Thank you.
-


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 >

The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential. 
It is intended to be read only by the individual or entity to whom it is 
addressed or by their designee. If the reader of this message is not the 
intended recipient, you are on notice that any distribution of this message, in 
any form, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, 
please immediately notify the sender and delete or destroy any copy of this 
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 


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: 

[PSES] Harmonized standard listed under LVD with EMC tests included

[Amund Westin]

IEC/EN61581-22: 2001 


 

EN61581-22 is listed in OJ under LVD. But the standard also includes EMC
requirements. But will those EMC test justify EMC for fulfilling CE? I doubt
that.

An harmonized EMC standard in addition, would give a combination of LVD and
EMC standards for fulfilling CE marking.

 

Agree?

 

 


By the way . EN61581-22 is listed with no date under Date of cessation of
presumption of conformity of superseded standard

What does that really mean?

 

 

Regards

Amund

 

 


-

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: 

Re: [PSES] USB spectrum analyser

[Grasso, Charles]

If you are taking  relative measurements of a single spur then this device 
might work just fine...

>From your message it sounds like you are off measuring a radio ...?


-Original Message-
From: Ken Javor [mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com] 
Sent: Monday, September 19, 2016 7:42 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] USB spectrum analyser

Based on the limited info you provide, perhaps some on this forum automatically 
know the level of rf you need to measure as well as the desired frequency 
accuracy.  Not me.

Any spectrum analyzer can measure any level, with appropriate internal/external 
attenuation and/or pre-amplification.

They don't specify frequency accuracy, but the minimum available BW is 50 kHz, 
which forms a lower bound on that number. Also the 5 ppm stat on the local 
oscillator is 12 kHz at 2.4 GHz, and 36 kHz at the third harmonic.
Those will likely rss with 50 kHz uncertainty.  Again, don't know what your 
frequency accuracy need is, but most specs use 1 MHz BW at these frequencies 
for EMI work.

Ken Javor
Phone: (256) 650-5261


> From: Amund Westin 
> Reply-To: Amund Westin 
> Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2016 11:49:30 +0200
> To: 
> Subject: [PSES] USB spectrum analyser
> 
> Going to measure in the frequency range 2.4GHz.
> Will this USB spectrum do the job? Any experience about this unit?
> http://triarchytech.com/product8G.html
> 
> Measure output RF level at 2.4GHz and 3rd harmonic is important.
> Frequency accuracy aswell.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Best regards
> Amund
> 
> -
> 
> 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: 

-

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: 

-

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: 

Re: [PSES] Risk Assessment of Air Filter

[Joe Randolph]

Hi Brian:

 

I have only a passing familiarity with the type of requirements that you are
asking about, but I can offer a few tidbits.

 

For telecom carrier equipment, requirement GR-63-CORE (2012) requires a
filter on all fan-cooled equipment, and contains requirements for the
filtering ability of the filter, ease-of-replacement, and fire resistance.
For the tests on filtering ability, GR-63-CORE references "ASHRAE 52.1
(1992)" and "ANSI/ASHRAE 52.2 (2007)."

 

For the fire resistance tests, GR-63-CORE calls out UL 900 (2004).  

 

I do not have copies of the ASHRAE standards or UL 900, so I can't readily
check to see what they say.

 

I should mention that at engineering conferences for telecom equipment, the
vendor display area usually has one or two vendors that specialize in
GR-63-CORE compliant filter arrangements.  I can't recall the vendor names I
have seen, but a little google searching will likely turn them up.  

 

 

Joe Randolph

Telecom Design Consultant

Randolph Telecom, Inc.

781-721-2848 (USA)

  j...@randolph-telecom.com

  http://www.randolph-telecom.com

 

From: Kunde, Brian [mailto:brian_ku...@lecotc.com] 
Sent: Monday, September 19, 2016 12:43 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Risk Assessment of Air Filter

 

I seek advice and opinions from fellow safety minded people.

 

Our typical product has a metal chassis which is constructed as a Fire
Enclosure (laboratory equipment 61010-1). On the back is a cutout for a
cooling fan/blower mounted in the cutout. The fan is 24Vdc, certified by
several safety agencies, and has a finger guard.  This is typical
configuration on most electronics.

 

Now, our customers want us to install an externally changeable Air Filter on
the outside surface of our instrument where the fan is mounted to filter
dust particles from the incoming air. We already perform Blocked Vent and
Stalled Fan tests to insure no hazards are caused from the rise in internal
temperatures.  

 

But what type of Fault Testing or Risk assessment needs to be done regarding
the filter?  With the filter removed, the instrument passes the construction
requirements for a Fire Enclosure. But with the filter installed and because
of its close proximity to the fan/blower;

1.does this filter have to meet Flammability requirements? Does the
filters have to be certified (expensive)? UL 94 HF-1?, UL 94 HF-2?, UL 900?
How are these ratings/certifications viewed outside of North America?  Will
they have to meet local requirements??

2.   If the fan/blower is certified and limited energy circuit does the
filter have to have any kind of rating or certification? In other words,
with a certified fan/blower, do I have to consider the fault condition of
the fan failing in a way where it could catch the filter on fire?  

3.   How is a fault and/or risk assessment performed on an air filter? 

4.   Are we responsible to consider the hazards from a burning filter
when it is dirty? How would we know what type of contaminates might collect
in a filter?  

5.   If the filter we provide is UL 94 HF-1 and UL 900 rated/certified,
what would stop our customer from replacing it with whatever filter they
wanted? Are we responsible to include a warning label and statements in the
manual regarding this?  Example, "Use only Air Filter part number XYZ". 

6.   Any other suggestions or issues that we are not considering?  

 

Thanks in advance. Have a nice day.


The Other Brian

  _  


LECO Corporation Notice: This communication may contain confidential
information intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you received this
by mistake, please destroy it and notify us of the error. Thank you. 


-


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  > 


-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering 

Re: [PSES] Risk Assessment of Air Filter

[John Allen]

Brian


>From "memory" of 60950 and the like, in view of the testing you have already
done, and because the filter is outside the fire enclosure, then, for Q1, an
HBF ("Horizontal Burning, Foam" IIRC) rating should be "adequate" to meet
the standard in the same way that a piece of external solid "trim" material
generally need only be HB, i.e. it will burn but only relatively slowly and
won't just flare up.

 

However, given your reservations, I would have thought that using a more
flame-retardant filter material would be a "very good idea"!

 

As for the customer replacing your filter by "something else" &/or it
getting clogged with flammable dust, I would cover those issues in the
manuals and training in the same way as all the other do's and don'ts that
are (hopefully!) already there - then, if he changes it to "something else"
or else does not change it when it is dirty, it is essentially his
responsibility. OTOH, a suitable warning notice beside the filter housing
might also be a good idea.

 

After all, as a piece of professional-use 61010-1 equipment, it is to be
expected that the people using/maintaining it will be relatively
"intelligent" and will suitably trained in how to perform those tasks
correctly, and that includes use of the correct replacement parts during
user maintenance.

 

John E Allen

W.London, UK

 

From: Kunde, Brian [mailto:brian_ku...@lecotc.com] 
Sent: 19 September 2016 17:43
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Risk Assessment of Air Filter

 

I seek advice and opinions from fellow safety minded people.

 

Our typical product has a metal chassis which is constructed as a Fire
Enclosure (laboratory equipment 61010-1). On the back is a cutout for a
cooling fan/blower mounted in the cutout. The fan is 24Vdc, certified by
several safety agencies, and has a finger guard.  This is typical
configuration on most electronics.

 

Now, our customers want us to install an externally changeable Air Filter on
the outside surface of our instrument where the fan is mounted to filter
dust particles from the incoming air. We already perform Blocked Vent and
Stalled Fan tests to insure no hazards are caused from the rise in internal
temperatures.  

 

But what type of Fault Testing or Risk assessment needs to be done regarding
the filter?  With the filter removed, the instrument passes the construction
requirements for a Fire Enclosure. But with the filter installed and because
of its close proximity to the fan/blower;

1.does this filter have to meet Flammability requirements? Does the
filters have to be certified (expensive)? UL 94 HF-1?, UL 94 HF-2?, UL 900?
How are these ratings/certifications viewed outside of North America?  Will
they have to meet local requirements??

2.   If the fan/blower is certified and limited energy circuit does the
filter have to have any kind of rating or certification? In other words,
with a certified fan/blower, do I have to consider the fault condition of
the fan failing in a way where it could catch the filter on fire?  

3.   How is a fault and/or risk assessment performed on an air filter? 

4.   Are we responsible to consider the hazards from a burning filter
when it is dirty? How would we know what type of contaminates might collect
in a filter?  

5.   If the filter we provide is UL 94 HF-1 and UL 900 rated/certified,
what would stop our customer from replacing it with whatever filter they
wanted? Are we responsible to include a warning label and statements in the
manual regarding this?  Example, "Use only Air Filter part number XYZ". 

6.   Any other suggestions or issues that we are not considering?  

 

Thanks in advance. Have a nice day.


The Other Brian

  _  


LECO Corporation Notice: This communication may contain confidential
information intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you received this
by mistake, please destroy it and notify us of the error. Thank you. 


-


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  


-

This message is from the IEEE 

Re: [PSES] Risk Assessment of Air Filter

[John Woodgate]

Most PCs don't blow air in, they blow it out, and the air inlet is well away
from the power supply block. This tends to blow dust *out* of the innards
and seems to work well, without the use of a filter. Of course, I don't know
whether you can do that with your product.
 
With best wishes DESIGN IT IN! OOO - Own Opinions Only
  www.jmwa.demon.co.uk J M Woodgate and
Associates Rayleigh England
 
Sylvae in aeternum manent.
 
From: Kunde, Brian [mailto:brian_ku...@lecotc.com] 
Sent: Monday, September 19, 2016 5:43 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Risk Assessment of Air Filter
 
I seek advice and opinions from fellow safety minded people.
 
Our typical product has a metal chassis which is constructed as a Fire
Enclosure (laboratory equipment 61010-1). On the back is a cutout for a
cooling fan/blower mounted in the cutout. The fan is 24Vdc, certified by
several safety agencies, and has a finger guard.  This is typical
configuration on most electronics.
 
Now, our customers want us to install an externally changeable Air Filter on
the outside surface of our instrument where the fan is mounted to filter
dust particles from the incoming air. We already perform Blocked Vent and
Stalled Fan tests to insure no hazards are caused from the rise in internal
temperatures.  
 
But what type of Fault Testing or Risk assessment needs to be done regarding
the filter?  With the filter removed, the instrument passes the construction
requirements for a Fire Enclosure. But with the filter installed and because
of its close proximity to the fan/blower;
1.   does this filter have to meet Flammability requirements? Does the
filters have to be certified (expensive)? UL 94 HF-1?, UL 94 HF-2?, UL 900?
How are these ratings/certifications viewed outside of North America?  Will
they have to meet local requirements??
2.  If the fan/blower is certified and limited energy circuit does the
filter have to have any kind of rating or certification? In other words,
with a certified fan/blower, do I have to consider the fault condition of
the fan failing in a way where it could catch the filter on fire?  
3.  How is a fault and/or risk assessment performed on an air filter? 
4.  Are we responsible to consider the hazards from a burning filter
when it is dirty? How would we know what type of contaminates might collect
in a filter?  
5.  If the filter we provide is UL 94 HF-1 and UL 900 rated/certified,
what would stop our customer from replacing it with whatever filter they
wanted? Are we responsible to include a warning label and statements in the
manual regarding this?  Example, "Use only Air Filter part number XYZ". 
6.  Any other suggestions or issues that we are not considering?  
 
Thanks in advance. Have a nice day.

The Other Brian
  _  


LECO Corporation Notice: This communication may contain confidential
information intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you received this
by mistake, please destroy it and notify us of the error. Thank you. 

-

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  > 

-

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:  

[PSES] Risk Assessment of Air Filter

[Kunde, Brian]

I seek advice and opinions from fellow safety minded people.

Our typical product has a metal chassis which is constructed as a Fire 
Enclosure (laboratory equipment 61010-1). On the back is a cutout for a cooling 
fan/blower mounted in the cutout. The fan is 24Vdc, certified by several safety 
agencies, and has a finger guard.  This is typical configuration on most 
electronics.

Now, our customers want us to install an externally changeable Air Filter on 
the outside surface of our instrument where the fan is mounted to filter dust 
particles from the incoming air. We already perform Blocked Vent and Stalled 
Fan tests to insure no hazards are caused from the rise in internal 
temperatures.

But what type of Fault Testing or Risk assessment needs to be done regarding 
the filter?  With the filter removed, the instrument passes the construction 
requirements for a Fire Enclosure. But with the filter installed and because of 
its close proximity to the fan/blower;

1.does this filter have to meet Flammability requirements? Does the 
filters have to be certified (expensive)? UL 94 HF-1?, UL 94 HF-2?, UL 900?  
How are these ratings/certifications viewed outside of North America?  Will 
they have to meet local requirements??


2.   If the fan/blower is certified and limited energy circuit does the 
filter have to have any kind of rating or certification? In other words, with a 
certified fan/blower, do I have to consider the fault condition of the fan 
failing in a way where it could catch the filter on fire?


3.   How is a fault and/or risk assessment performed on an air filter?


4.   Are we responsible to consider the hazards from a burning filter when 
it is dirty? How would we know what type of contaminates might collect in a 
filter?


5.   If the filter we provide is UL 94 HF-1 and UL 900 rated/certified, 
what would stop our customer from replacing it with whatever filter they 
wanted? Are we responsible to include a warning label and statements in the 
manual regarding this?  Example, "Use only Air Filter part number XYZ".


6.   Any other suggestions or issues that we are not considering?

Thanks in advance. Have a nice day.

The Other Brian

LECO Corporation Notice: This communication may contain confidential 
information intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you received this by 
mistake, please destroy it and notify us of the error. Thank you.

-

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: 

Re: [PSES] USB spectrum analyser

[Ken Javor]

Based on the limited info you provide, perhaps some on this forum
automatically know the level of rf you need to measure as well as the
desired frequency accuracy.  Not me.

Any spectrum analyzer can measure any level, with appropriate
internal/external attenuation and/or pre-amplification.

They don't specify frequency accuracy, but the minimum available BW is 50
kHz, which forms a lower bound on that number. Also the 5 ppm stat on the
local oscillator is 12 kHz at 2.4 GHz, and 36 kHz at the third harmonic.
Those will likely rss with 50 kHz uncertainty.  Again, don't know what your
frequency accuracy need is, but most specs use 1 MHz BW at these frequencies
for EMI work.

Ken Javor
Phone: (256) 650-5261


> From: Amund Westin 
> Reply-To: Amund Westin 
> Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2016 11:49:30 +0200
> To: 
> Subject: [PSES] USB spectrum analyser
> 
> Going to measure in the frequency range 2.4GHz.
> Will this USB spectrum do the job? Any experience about this unit?
> http://triarchytech.com/product8G.html
> 
> Measure output RF level at 2.4GHz and 3rd harmonic is important.
> Frequency accuracy aswell.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Best regards
> Amund
> 
> -
> 
> 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: 

-

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: 

Re: [PSES] ant control

[Kunde, Brian]

Boric Acid is also very deadly to bees. In fact, bees can take the powder back 
to the hive in which it can kill off in just a few days. Most anything that is 
going to kill an ant is also going to kill bees and other insects. That’s why 
they prefer you use ant bait in little cans with holes in them so the ants can 
get to the bait but bees are too big to fit through the holes.

The other Brian

From: Curtis McNamara [mailto:mcnam...@umn.edu]
Sent: Friday, September 16, 2016 5:14 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] ant control

John W said:

"Bifenthrin has been banned in Europe since mid-2011. It is a pyrethroid and is 
probably toxic to bees."
Yes, very toxic to bees.
"Bifenthrin is highly toxic to fish and small aquatic organisms. It's also very 
highly toxic to bees."
http://npic.orst.edu/factsheets/bifgen.html#wildlife
Curt
-


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 >


LECO Corporation Notice: This communication may contain confidential 
information intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you received this by 
mistake, please destroy it and notify us of the error. Thank you.

-

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: 

[PSES] USB spectrum analyser

[Amund Westin]

Going to measure in the frequency range 2.4GHz.
Will this USB spectrum do the job? Any experience about this unit? 
http://triarchytech.com/product8G.html


Measure output RF level at 2.4GHz and 3rd harmonic is important.
Frequency accuracy aswell.

Thanks!

Best regards
Amund

-

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: 

Re: [PSES] FW: Testing to EN 55013 or EN 55032

[Michael Derby]

Hello,

 

I think you're possibly correct, but I also see that happening regularly
with the attempts to squeeze more users into the finite amount of spectrum.

 

A long time ago now, the decision was made that "effective use of spectrum"
in the EU RED would mean that all radios have receiver performance tests,
and in many cases some additional 'spectrum sharing' (like the adaptivity we
see in the WLAN standards, or low duty cycle requirements).

It was then decided that part of the solution to this requirement was the
addition of the receiver tests.

 

This is one of the main reasons why a test report used as compliance for
article 3.2 of the R Directive, is not sufficient for compliance against
article 3.2 of the RE Directive.   Simply, there are new test cases added
for the RED, that did not exist under the R   The receiver tests.

And FM radio receivers (and other broadcast receivers, such as television)
are within scope of the RED.

(They were specifically excluded from the R, but they are not excluded
from the RED).

 

A few years ago, the FCC made significant changes to their Part 90 rules in
some frequency bands.   'Narrowbanding' was one of the terms used.   They
basically phased out the use of channels which are "wider than they need to
be".   For example, if you used a 25 kHz channel for a simple voice call
which could be done in 6.25 kHz or 12.5 kHz, then you were no longer
permitted to use the 25 kHz channel.   It was phased out over a few years
and now it's just not permitted.

I think it's all part of looking at how people use the spectrum.

 

You could say that this is an example of manufacturers being forced to use a
modulation scheme which is most efficient.

 

To quote (almost) the phrase which was used during the creation of the WLAN
adaptivity tests..

 

Sharing of radio spectrum to all users.   And in the case of conflict, a
graceful degradation of all.

 

 

You know we'd just get bored if these things didn't keep changing, right?

 

 

Michael.

 

 

Michael Derby 

Senior Regulatory Engineer 

Director 

ACB Europe 

 

Certification Resource for the Wireless Industry 

Web:   www.acbcert.com   

  

e-mail:micha...@acbcert.com   

Direct phone:(+1) 703 468 1746   (USA area code) 

Mobile phone:   (+44) 7939 880829   (UK area code) 

 

From: John Woodgate [mailto:jmw1...@btinternet.com] 
Sent: 19 September 2016 08:32
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] FW: Testing to EN 55013 or EN 55032

 

Who decides if a given technology makes 'efficient use'? For example, simple
AM could be disallowed because it's not as 'efficient use' as 16-OFDM.

 

I am concerned because a certain novel technique may quite possibly be
unusable in Europe because of this 'efficiency' provision.

 

With best wishes DESIGN IT IN! OOO - Own Opinions Only

  www.jmwa.demon.co.uk J M Woodgate and
Associates Rayleigh England

 

Sylvae in aeternum manent.

 

From: Charlie Blackham [mailto:char...@sulisconsultants.com] 
Sent: Monday, September 19, 2016 8:00 AM
To: John Woodgate  >;
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG  
Subject: RE: [PSES] FW: Testing to EN 55013 or EN 55032

 

I'm not sure whether or not you're being serious, but I'll bite - It's got
nothing to do with "suppressing stuff"

 

Excerpt the Directive "whereas"

 

In order to ensure that radio equipment uses the radio spectrum effectively
and supports the efficient use of radio spectrum, radio equipment should be
constructed so that: in the case of a transmitter, when the transmitter is
properly installed, maintained and used for its intended purpose it
generates radio waves emissions that do not create harmful interference,
while unwanted radio waves emissions generated by the transmitter (e.g. in
adjacent channels) with a potential negative impact on the goals of radio
spectrum policy should be limited to such a level that, according to the
state of the art, harmful interference is avoided; and, in the case of a
receiver, it has a level of performance that allows it to operate as
intended and protects it against the risk of harmful interference, in
particular from shared or adjacent channels, and, in so doing, supports
improvements in the efficient use of shared or adjacent channels.

 

One example, would be a TV viewer hoping that their TV might still work
whilst they're sat 2m away accessing the internet using a 700 MHz band LTE
mobile phone.

This problem didn't exist in the 1990's when the R directive was
written...

 

Charlie

 

 

From: John Woodgate [mailto:jmw1...@btinternet.com] 
Sent: 18 September 2016 21:37
To: Charlie Blackham; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
 
Subject: RE: [PSES] FW: Testing to EN 55013 or EN 55032

 

As I said, nodded through. This 'efficient use' provision is carte blanche
for 

Re: [PSES] FW: Testing to EN 55013 or EN 55032

[John Woodgate]

Who decides if a given technology makes 'efficient use'? For example, simple
AM could be disallowed because it's not as 'efficient use' as 16-OFDM.
 
I am concerned because a certain novel technique may quite possibly be
unusable in Europe because of this 'efficiency' provision.
 
With best wishes DESIGN IT IN! OOO - Own Opinions Only
  www.jmwa.demon.co.uk J M Woodgate and
Associates Rayleigh England
 
Sylvae in aeternum manent.
 
From: Charlie Blackham [mailto:char...@sulisconsultants.com] 
Sent: Monday, September 19, 2016 8:00 AM
To: John Woodgate ; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: [PSES] FW: Testing to EN 55013 or EN 55032
 
I'm not sure whether or not you're being serious, but I'll bite - It's got
nothing to do with "suppressing stuff"
 
Excerpt the Directive "whereas"
 
In order to ensure that radio equipment uses the radio spectrum effectively
and supports the efficient use of radio spectrum, radio equipment should be
constructed so that: in the case of a transmitter, when the transmitter is
properly installed, maintained and used for its intended purpose it
generates radio waves emissions that do not create harmful interference,
while unwanted radio waves emissions generated by the transmitter (e.g. in
adjacent channels) with a potential negative impact on the goals of radio
spectrum policy should be limited to such a level that, according to the
state of the art, harmful interference is avoided; and, in the case of a
receiver, it has a level of performance that allows it to operate as
intended and protects it against the risk of harmful interference, in
particular from shared or adjacent channels, and, in so doing, supports
improvements in the efficient use of shared or adjacent channels.
 
One example, would be a TV viewer hoping that their TV might still work
whilst they're sat 2m away accessing the internet using a 700 MHz band LTE
mobile phone.
This problem didn't exist in the 1990's when the R directive was
written...
 
Charlie
 
 
From: John Woodgate [mailto:jmw1...@btinternet.com] 
Sent: 18 September 2016 21:37
To: Charlie Blackham; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
 
Subject: RE: [PSES] FW: Testing to EN 55013 or EN 55032
 
As I said, nodded through. This 'efficient use' provision is carte blanche
for suppression of anything the government doesn't like. 
 
With best wishes DESIGN IT IN! OOO - Own Opinions Only
  www.jmwa.demon.co.uk J M Woodgate and
Associates Rayleigh England
 
Sylvae in aeternum manent.
 
From: Charlie Blackham [mailto:char...@sulisconsultants.com] 
Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2016 9:04 PM
To: John Woodgate  >;
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG  
Subject: RE: [PSES] FW: Testing to EN 55013 or EN 55032
 
John
 
Receiver Sensitivity is an Article 3.2 RF Spectrum matter and not an EMC
matter.
 
Article 3.2 of the R Directive requires:
radio equipment shall be so constructed that it effectively uses the
spectrum allocated to terrestrial/ space radio communication and orbital
resources so as to avoid harmful interference.
 
Article 3.2 of the Radio Equipment Directive has an additional requirement
in that it requires:
Radio equipment shall be so constructed that it both effectively uses and
supports the efficient use of radio spectrum in order to avoid harmful
interference.
 
Article 3.2 Harmonised Standards  are effective mandatory as any
manufacturer not wishing to apply them in full must obtain a Notified Body
opinion and the Notified Body should really consider Harmonised Standards
where they have been published.
 
Regards
Charlie
 
From: John Woodgate [mailto:jmw1...@btinternet.com] 
Sent: 18 September 2016 20:45
To: Charlie Blackham; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
 
Subject: RE: [PSES] FW: Testing to EN 55013 or EN 55032
 
The draft specifies receiver sensitivity, which is surely not an EMC matter
and severely restricts manufacturers' freedom of design and offering of a
range of products at different prices. It could even be challenged as a
restraint of trade. But I expect it will be nodded through.
 
With best wishes DESIGN IT IN! OOO - Own Opinions Only
  www.jmwa.demon.co.uk J M Woodgate and
Associates Rayleigh England
 
Sylvae in aeternum manent.
 
From: Charlie Blackham [mailto:char...@sulisconsultants.com] 
Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2016 8:01 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG  
Subject: Re: [PSES] FW: Testing to EN 55013 or EN 55032
 
David
 
The other thing to add is that this is within scope of the Radio Equipment
Directive, which must be applied from 13th June 2017, so you may wish to
look at the receiver performance requirements in Draft ETSI EN 303 345
V1.1.1