Re: [PSES] HiPot Testing of 3-Phase PSU Question

[Brian Gregory]

 L-G failure sounds like the Y-caps conducting. I made a special input 
connector for my unit that connected to traces that went around the Y-caps 
and/or the GDTs on the input (single phase 120V) that was used during FAT.IIRC, 
we also had to pull pins b/c we had faults from a UL-rated Phoenix connector.   
It wasn't the connector, it was the solder bumps under the board that were 
arc'ing.  So, we had a customer connector made that only used 3 of the 5 
sockets. Amongst the tricks I've had to employ  Colorado Brian   
-- Original Message --
From: Doug Nix 
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] HiPot Testing of 3-Phase PSU Question
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2024 15:31:19 -0400


Hi Brian,
 This is my bailiwick. If you are talking about semiconductor manufacturing 
equipment, the correct standard is IEC 60204-33. If its standard 
manufacturing machinery, then its IEC 60204-1. Clause 18 calls out 1 kV 
or 2x nominal mains voltage, whichever is more for the voltage 
test (read hipot) for machinery designed for connection to a TN supply. 
The standard permits you to disconnect any equipment that is either 
pre-certified (as most industrial PSUs are) or that might be damaged by the 
test. Any industrial PSU built today will have surge suppressors on the primary 
side. Also, mains filters used in these machines will have Y-caps that will 
conduct significant current between the mains conductors and PE during a hipot 
test. So, the answer is to disconnect these devices and test the mains voltage 
wiring upstream and downstream of them separately. If the PSU is downstream of 
a control transformer, you need only test up to the primary of the control 
transformer. All industrial equipment is supposed to be hipot tested at the 
factory; however, just because its supposed to be done doesn't make it 
so.Best regards, Doug nixd...@ieee.org+1 (519) 729-5704 
On Jun 24, 2024, at 08:19, Brian Kunde  wrote:I 
understand that commercial products are %100 HiPot tested at the factory.  Does 
this rule hold true for 3-phase industrial machinery?
 Here is why I am asking.  I just pre-tested a German build 400-480Vac to 24Vdc 
power supply (DIN Rail Mount). It passed all the tests, except it failed the 
Phase-to-PE HiPot test at around 1000V. I tried both AC and DC voltage and 
tried connecting it from a single phase to PE and tried all phases connected 
together to PE.  I tested a second power supply of the same model and it did 
the same exact thing. So I am thinking that it is supposed to perform this way. 
My concern is that in our factory, they will not be able to HiPot the final 
product when the power supply is installed.   I assume the power supply has 
some kind of built in surge suppression. So how am I to use this PSU in my 
final product? Thoughts and comments would be appreciated. Best regards to all. 
The Other BrianThis 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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/ Website:  
https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/ 
 Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
 List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html
For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
 Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org
For policy questions, send mail to:
 Jim Bacher at:  j.bac...@ieee.org
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1
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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/
Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/ 
 Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
 List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html
For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
 Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org
For policy questions, send mail to:
 Jim Bacher at:  j.bac...@ieee.org
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

-

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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: 

[PSES] Australian Standards / Electric Code

[Brian Gregory]

 We've gotten an order for energy monitoring equipment to Australia.Generally, 
this is low-energy, web-active electronics approved to UL 61010-1, and CTs that 
are recognized to UL 2808 (thereby approved for placement in residential 
panels)..  Anyone know of a way to cross-check UL/US and NEC approval with 
what's required for the land down under?  Colorado Brian

-

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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

Re: [PSES] EU Energy Labeling Conformity

[Brian Gregory]

  This looks like an EU version of Energy Star;  am I reading this right? I 
started to try to figure out the Energy Efficiency classes, but that appears to 
be even beyond Bing's AI ability Brian Gregory
720-450-4933

-- Original Message --
From: Scott Xe 
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Declaration of Conformity
Date: Sat, 1 Jun 2024 09:32:53 +0800


Hello Experts, According to the Ecodesign Directive (EU) 2009/125, 
manufacturers must draw up a declaration of conformity for covered products. 
However, the Energy Labelling Regulation (EU) 2017/1369 does not explicitly 
mention this requirement.  Is a declaration of conformity also mandatory for 
products covered under the Energy Labelling Regulation (EU) 2017/1369 as part 
of the compliance process?
 Cheers, ScottThis 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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/
Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/ 
 Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
 List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html
For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
 Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org
For policy questions, send mail to:
 Jim Bacher at:  j.bac...@ieee.org
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

-

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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

[PSES] Couple of loosely related safety questions

[Brian Gregory]

 1.  Clearances for US Safety:   I'd cite the relevant standards, but they are 
so alike (identical Clearance tables), and so alike to UL 508, I'll defer.  
Here's the question: When citing clearance spacing from "uninsulated live 
components"  does one measure from the edge of a PCB to the enclosure well, or 
only from the live components, like a pad, or the bottom pin of a thru-hole 
cap?1a.  what sort of passivation or RTV could make those live components not 
"uninsulated"? 2.  Slots to increase creepage for high-voltage components A FET 
that's rated for say 600V does not have to follow PCB-creepage rules for 600V, 
is clearly stated places like UL 1741, §26.1.1 exception #8.  For other 
components, like say 1000V caps in 0805 packages or FET driver chips the 
requirements aren't as clear.  Is a slot needed to maintain creepage or not if 
the component is properly rated?  It does appear from a TI support page for 
dual-bridge converters, that slots are recommended in order to prevent 
contamination that may compromise the components isolation performance. My gut 
says:  no, slots are not needed between component terminals on a PCB, but could 
be recommended for sensitive parts, like FET drivers. Thoughts?  Colorado Brian

-

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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

[PSES] Conducted emissions test bench

[Brian Gregory]

  We're going to DIY a portable table for CE.  We won't have a dedicated space 
for it, so the table and ground plane will need to me ... portable.1.  How big 
must the test table be for normal FCC class B (CISPR 16, I think) conducted 
emissions, from  0.15 - 30 MHz?Same question for the ground plane.  We might 
have to be creative as our lab is already very cramped. Thanks, Colorado Brian

-

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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

[PSES] Fw: Re: [PSES] Radiated Emissions - How many points to QP?

[Brian Gregory]

  Just finished some testing at an accredited lab.  For an accredited report, 
they run QPs on all measurements whose peak are w/in 6 dB of the limit.  I 
don't know if that's their rule, or by the regulations.  FYI Colorado Brian
-- Forwarded Message --
From: Bill Owsley <00f5a03f18eb-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org>
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Radiated Emissions - How many points to QP?
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2024 06:19:10 +


 It reads like there are two limits, peak and QP.  Go over either one and by 
how many and by how much over, does not matter.  it is a fail and fix it.
Otherwise, the lab should be recording the 6 points of each P and QP for 12 
points, well,  let the slide if all points are below the QP limit and graph 
shows that.
Now to get lab to show a continuous graph for radiated emissions might be a 
problem.
Easier to get a new lab !
Some cheap labs will fake a continuous plot by connecting the highest dots.  
Run from them !
Long details on the experience that I got.


 On Friday, April 5, 2024 at 03:33:01 PM EDT, Stultz, Mark 
<0f79f2e10e47-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org> wrote:  Hello PSES brain 
trust,
When doing radiated emissions measurements, how many frequencies should be 
quasi-peaked? 
CISPR 16-2-3 clause 6.4.9 states:
Of those disturbances above (L-20dB), where L is the limit level in 
logarithmic units, the disturbance levels and the frequencies of at least the 
six highest disturbances shall be recorded.
 
We have always done QP measurements on all peak measurements above the limit, 
even if that is more than six points.
I have a lab arguing that they only need to measure the top six, regardless of 
how many peak measurements are above the limit.
Any thoughts are appreciated.
 
Thanks,
Mark
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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/Website:  
https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/ 
 Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
 List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html
For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
 Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org
For policy questions, send mail to:
 Jim Bacher at:  j.bac...@ieee.org
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1
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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/
Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/ 
 Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
 List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html
For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
 Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org
For policy questions, send mail to:
 Jim Bacher at:  j.bac...@ieee.org
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

-

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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

[PSES] Conducted emissions for Split-phase 120/240V needs three-phase LISN?

[Brian Gregory]

 Hello and Happy Friday, I've got a sales guy telling me our 120/240V EUT needs 
two pair of single-phase LISNs for our CE test bench.That's only slightly 
cheaper than a 3-phase unit at > 50A, but very bulky. Can someone remind me why 
I'd need 4, 50A single-phase LISNs for our unit?  I could see 3 (one for the 
neutral) but I'm not so savvy on EMC test equipment. thanks,  Colorado Brian

-

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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

[PSES] MTBF Calculations / testing

[Brian Gregory]

 Hello,this is a little off topic for an EMC board, but y'all have a great ken 
("ken" not _Ken_ Wyatt, even as great as he is). Can anyone recommend a lab or 
company to help us run some MTBF calculations for a N. American residential 
appliance? thank you, Colorado Brian

-

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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

[PSES] Fw: Re: [PSES] ISED Requirements for Self-Declaration of Conformity

[Brian Gregory]

  Doug, applicable CSA reg is RSS-247.  We put "ICES-003" on our label. Brian 
-- Forwarded Message --
From: Douglas Nix 
Subject: Re: [PSES] ISED Requirements for Self-Declaration of Conformity
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2024 15:55:30 -0500


Hi Brian,
 Do you know which ICES standard applies to your product? You can start here if 
you dont know quite where to start. If you know what ICES standard 
applies, youll find the requirements for labelling and declaration in 
the relevant document. Heres the link to that part of the ISED website 
in case you dont have it yet. A good place to start is with the 
documents RSS-Gen, General Requirements for Compliance of Radio Apparatus, and 
ICES-Gen, General Requirements for Compliance of Interference-Causing Equipment.
Doug NixKitchener, Ontario, canadad...@mac.com+1 (519) 729-5704 
On Feb 22, 2024, at 13:54, Brian Gregory  wrote:  
Hello fellow EMC Nerds, I had posted a time or two on our EMC issues with a 
unit that has a class B certified WiFi/BT module.  With improved results 
compared to the originally approved unit, we've been able to attest to 
compliance via the SELF DECLARATION of CONFORMITY (SDoC) process as defined in 
the FCC guidance documents for our unit under the Class 1 Permissive Change 
(C1PC) rules, re: Part 47 / § 15.101.   Does ISED have a similar SDoC process 
for Canadian compliance for devices qualifying under FCC C1PC rules? thanks, 
Colorado Brian 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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/ Website:  
https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/ 
 Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
 List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html
For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
 Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org
For policy questions, send mail to:
 Jim Bacher at:  j.bac...@ieee.org
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

-

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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

[PSES] ISED Requirements for Self-Declaration of Conformity

[Brian Gregory]

  Hello fellow EMC Nerds, I had posted a time or two on our EMC issues with a 
unit that has a class B certified WiFi/BT module.  With improved results 
compared to the originally approved unit, we've been able to attest to 
compliance via the SELF DECLARATION of CONFORMITY (SDoC) process as defined in 
the FCC guidance documents for our unit under the Class 1 Permissive Change 
(C1PC) rules, re: Part 47 / § 15.101.   Does ISED have a similar SDoC process 
for Canadian compliance for devices qualifying under FCC C1PC rules? thanks, 
Colorado Brian

-

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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

[PSES] Metallic table for conducted emissions?

[Brian Gregory]

 Hello fellow experts, we're looking to build a conducted emission 
pre-compliance test station to FCC Part 15 Subpart B requirements (residential 
applications).Is a non-metallic table a necessity for reasonable accuracy? We 
have a number of lab benches with wood tops and metal legs that would fit far 
better than jamming an all wooden, non-folding table into our modest space. 
thanks all and Happy New Year, Colorado Brian

-

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:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

Re: [PSES] FCC label for White Labeled products

[Brian Gregory]

  
-- Original Message --
From: Charlie Blackham 
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] FCC label for White Labeled products
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2023 15:40:25 +


 
> If you have integrated a FCC module, with modular certification, your product 
> label should state 
> contains FCC ID:XX where XX is the FCC ID of 
> the module.
 
Yup, thanks for the confirmation.  Our contractor already took the "Grantee 
Code - Product Code" route, including doing Subpart C testing!  So, we're stuck 
with the label, but I've gotten around doing any more Subpart C. 
 
> Unless you have separately certified your product as a radio transmitter, 
> theres no other FCC ID label for you to apply
 No, they didn't go that far:  the "Grantee Code" above is the FCC ID of the 
WiFi module.  Thanks for the feedback!Colorado Brian
From: Brian Gregory  
 Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2023 10:06 PM
 To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
 Subject: [PSES] FCC label for White Labeled products
 
 
 Hello experts,
 
Our existing product label has our FCC ID, just under the FCC logo in the 
classic form:x-y,  where
 
x =  the FCC ID of the imbedded, compliant WiFi model ("Grantee Code" in 
FCC lingo), and   
y = our product name, per the UL label. ("Product Code" ).
 
We're trying to offer a label to our strategic partner who is selling the same 
product under their product name:   z.
 
So, it seemed obvious to label that product's FCC ID as  x-z.
 
I'm trying to confirm this from FCC on this, and can't find much in the way of 
official guidance, nor any response from the help ticket I pulled nor on our 
FRN registration page.
Anybody else have experience with alternate product codes on FCC labelling?
 
Colorado Brian 
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: 
 https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/
Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/ 
 Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
 List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html
For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
 Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org
For policy questions, send mail to:
 Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link:  
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1
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: 
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/
Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/ 
 Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
 List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html
For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
 Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org
For policy questions, send mail to:
 Jim Bacher at:  j.bac...@ieee.org
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

-

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:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

[PSES] FCC label for White Labeled products

[Brian Gregory]

  Hello experts, Our existing product label has our FCC ID, just under the FCC 
logo in the classic form:x-y,  where x =  the FCC ID of the 
imbedded, compliant WiFi model ("Grantee Code" in FCC lingo), and   y = our 
product name, per the UL label. ("Product Code" ). We're trying to offer a 
label to our strategic partner who is selling the same product under their 
product name:   z. So, it seemed obvious to label that product's FCC ID as  
x-z. I'm trying to confirm this from FCC on this, and can't find much 
in the way of official guidance, nor any response from the help ticket I pulled 
nor on our FRN registration page.Anybody else have experience with alternate 
product codes on FCC labelling? Colorado Brian

-

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:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

Re: [PSES] 10m chambers in Colorado?

[Brian Gregory]

 Thanks Ken,you are the master!  The NTS facility is alive and well, just not 
advertising much!  Colorado Brian
-- Original Message --
From: Ken Wyatt 
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] 10m chambers in Colorado?
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2023 14:54:26 -0700


As far as I know, NTS is now the only 3rd party test lab in Colorado with 10m 
chambers. 


Kenneth WyattWoodland Park, COSent from my iPhone.
On Nov 8, 2023, at 14:25, Brian Gregory  wrote:

  Hello experts, once upon a time, there were several 10m chambers in Colorado, 
3-4 north of Denver that I knew about.The only one I know should still exist is 
at NTS in Longmont;  the ones that were at Hp and StorageTek are long gone, I'm 
afraid. NTS is now owned by Element, with whom I've engaged to no effect (not 
even a bid from West coast or Chicago labs). So, do any know of functioning 10m 
EMC chambers in the Denver area?  Even Colorado Springs is acceptable at this 
point. thanks, Colorado Brian 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: 
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/
Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/ 
 Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
 List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html
For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
 Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org
For policy questions, send mail to:
 Jim Bacher at:  j.bac...@ieee.org
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1
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: 
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/
Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/ 
 Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
 List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html
For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
 Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org
For policy questions, send mail to:
 Jim Bacher at:  j.bac...@ieee.org
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

-

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:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

[PSES] 10m chambers in Colorado?

[Brian Gregory]

  Hello experts, once upon a time, there were several 10m chambers in Colorado, 
3-4 north of Denver that I knew about.The only one I know should still exist is 
at NTS in Longmont;  the ones that were at Hp and StorageTek are long gone, I'm 
afraid. NTS is now owned by Element, with whom I've engaged to no effect (not 
even a bid from West coast or Chicago labs). So, do any know of functioning 10m 
EMC chambers in the Denver area?  Even Colorado Springs is acceptable at this 
point. thanks, Colorado Brian

-

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:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

[PSES] 2 simple questions on EMC

[Brian Gregory]

Hi, 1.  Our unit is passing by a whisker, under 1dB @ 30 Mhz in a 3m chamber 
against SubpartB requirements.  Can we expect margin to improve in a 10m 
chamber? 2.  It's lightly loaded in the chamber (10% of FL), we do expect the 
peak to squash down a bit with full load;  they do when going from zero load to 
10%.   3.  We were idly wondering about cable loop;  the output cable (bundled 
AWG #6) is 6' runs about 12" in front of the unit towards the antenna and the 
balance of it is currently coiled up in a loose bundle under the test setup.  
The standards don't say anything about cable routing, just that it should be on 
the ground plane.  I don't like it running 'in front' of the unit, but the lab 
tech says that's pretty standard and not driven by the necessities of the test 
setup.  Is that standard for a radiated setup? Colorado Brian

-

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:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

[PSES] FCC product registration - listed module

[Brian Gregory]

 I finally got the feedback I was seeking from a swarm of quotes for EMC 
testing for FCC and ISED, concerning qualifying a product with an 
FCC-registered  WiFi module deployed onto our PCB.  I've tried processing the 
FCC orders on what upholds or doesn't when placing the module on your PCB and 
came away more confused than before.   The official way to test, measure and 
report that your WiFi module is still OK when mounted on your board is via the 
FCC guideline, KDB 996369 for Spurious Emissions.  This saves the whole suite 
of intentional radiator testing to the tune of $15-20k.   What I am faced with 
is that our product already did the full testing, and got its own FCC ID, so 
taking this approach will probably require re-registration with FCC, am I 
correct? Next question is:  can one keep Bluetooth (BT) classic, but dispense 
with BT/Low Energy easily?  This also costs an extra $6-7k in an EMC lab and I 
don't even know how much BTLE is really used.  All the best,Colorado Brian 


-

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:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

Re: [PSES] AI & Regulatory Compliance

[Brian Gregory]

 Chat GPT is essentially a BS generator.  A very smart friend, a very 
successful entrepreneur, finds it quite useful for writing add copy, which I 
think proved my point. The one time I tried challenging GPT with a question on 
power factor with generator convention (where positive power generation is 
represented as negative), it failed miserably.  Echoing Dan's point;  what 
other AI's are more suitable to electrical engineering concepts, including 
testing and reviewing lists of standards?  If I had to pick one question for an 
AI I think might qualify would be:  " does this requirement apply to a 
residential unit? "Colorado Brian 

-- Forwarded Message --
From: Dan Roman <0d75e04ed751-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org>
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] AI & Regulatory Compliance
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2023 22:21:26 -0400


Has anyone tried feeding a standard or set of standards, into Chat GPT for 
example, and ask it product construction or testing questions? I've seen demos 
of Chat GPT digesting complex equipment manuals and being able to generate what 
amounts to a quick start guide and answer questions about operating or 
servicing the equipment. I can't try this with the free version.

--Dan Romandanpses@verizon.netOn Oct 9, 2023, at 7:31 PM, Douglas Powell 
 wrote:I've done some playing around with ChatGPT, 
Claude.AI, Perplexity.AI, BIng Chatbot, and a few others.   My first test was 
to see if these Large Language Models (LLM) could accurately answer questions 
where I feel I have good expertise, such as "How do I select a complete list of 
safety-critical components using UL XYZ?" or "Write a comprehensive Test 
Protocol for  a  kitchen appliance using IEC 60335-*X-X." For the most part 
they failed in several points when the questions got just a little technical.  
Sometimes, I would challenge the AI on answers it gave, and occasionally it 
would backpedal.  Even so, I do find them useful as a starting point for 
writing White Papers and PowerPoint slides or procedural documents at the 
paragraph-level, for internal distribution.  Try prompting an AI to generate 20 
PowerPoint slides for basic Risk Assessment Training using ISO 31000.  In every 
case however, I only use AI to do the initial grunt work and then personally 
edit everything for accuracy. So far, my favorite is Perplexity.AI because it 
gives attribution of sources for all its answers, second place is possibly 
Claude.AI.  And been using QuillBot.AI to check grammar and paraphrase complex 
paragraphs.  But when it comes to life-safety issues, I will always be very 
careful and check the work. Incidentally, I've tried a few fun things as a 
lunchtime diversion.  I'll prompt the AI with something like: "Entropy simply 
isnt what it used to be."  or "Schrödingers cat walks into a bar. 
And doesnt." And of course the AI never gets the joke.   -Doug
 Douglas E PowellLaporte, Colorado, USALinkedIn (UTC-06:00, US-MDT)
On Fri, Oct 6, 2023 at 3:59PM Regan Arndt  
wrote:Greetings fellow members,
Our industry will not be immune to this new era of AI technology and want to 
bring up this topic again to obtain some more insight from the forum into:
"How do you think AI will play a future role in our Regulatory compliance 
world?"
 
I can see some real benefits to this when applying it to a risk assessment, EMC 
redesign including change out of critical components, & possibly to help 
support engineering judgments in lieu of testing (i.e. temperature modeling), 
etc.though I think we would have to include the usage of AI as one of 
the potential risks in the risk assessment. lol
UL touched base on this topic during their UL Innovations summit held in 
Fremont, CA yesterday.
I know there is the ISO/IEC DTR 5469 in development, but this appears, I 
believe, to only address functional safety of the AI systems in question, and 
not addressing AI in normal compliance assessments for products under the 
category of laboratory, IT, audio, etc.
Also, is there someone out there that will be speaking to this during the 2024 
ISPCE in Chicago next May? Perhaps there should be an IEEE PSES technical 
committee created for this?
Side note: Nordcloud puts out a good summary blog on this: 
https://nordcloud.com/blog/how-ai-can-help-you-obtain-regulatory-compliance/
There are other AI blogs out there in the ether but more tuned for the 
financial sector and other industries.
Looking forward to the discussion.
 
P.S.
I am now the Chair for the IEEE PSES Risk assessment technical committee and am 
looking for any volunteers to join our group. This topic will be one to discuss 
soon within our group. Please email me at regan.ar...@ieee.org or 
reganar...@gmail.com if you are interested in joining.
Cheers!
Regan Arndt
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 

[PSES] Timeframe for new FCC registration

[Brian Gregory]

 Hello, I'd like to have all options fleshed out prior to committing to a 
fairly expensive quote for full FCC & ISED re-test and re-register our level 2 
EV Charging unit for residential applications, which already has FCC and ISED 
registration numbers.   If we choose the option of not refreshing the 
registration for our current FCC / ISED, only completing the testing & 
reportage for Subpart C and spurious emissions in order to realize substantial 
savings, then we'd have to start a new FCC registration.  About how long is the 
process to get a new FCC and ISED registration, after all the testing and 
reports are complete? BackgroundWe have a quote for the full set of EMC testing 
to refresh our FCC and ISED registrations, based on several board changes.  In 
order to maintain our FCC registration, time has come for re-test and we've 
scoped out full Subpart B and Subpart C testing for BLE, BT classic and 802.11, 
even though our chip has it's own FCC ID.  We completed a Self-Declaration 
(SDoC) process for some minor changes completed in early summer, but the 
component changes continued so it's time to re-test and re-register.   The main 
circuits and WiFi chip implementation have not changed. Thanks,Colorado Brian

-

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:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

[PSES] Reliability/Fault analysis tools?

[Brian Gregory]

  EV Chargers getting more and more complicated For our controls 
investigations, hardware failures need to be assessed.  One of the safety 
standards calls out MIL-STD-217, which has got to be nearly as old as my Dad.   
Looking for more up to date, modern and computer-based processes and 
procedures. thanks all! Colorado Brian 


-

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:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

[PSES] Fw: FCC/ISED file change update

[Brian Gregory]

 Good afternoon, I'll repeat my earlier story and give the group an update. We 
have made some small changes to our product (prominently to Y-caps, and some 
beads) which unfortunately did not increase our margin vs EMC limits, but the 
product still passes FCC and ISED.  Engineering wanted to use the 
self-declaration process to document these changes, including passing test 
results w/o going through the TCB and re-file process.  The changes do appear 
to classify for what CFR 47, Part 15 § 2.1043  call a class II permissive 
change, but it's just as certain that the original FCC and ISED ID's are still 
valid as the product is roughly the same, still passes emission limits and made 
no changes to the WiFi system (same chip, location, antenna, and firmware). 
I've been told - by (a) an engineer from a well-known EMC/TCB, and (b) an 
engineer at a local EMC test lab -  that Class II permissive change only 
applies to intentional radiators.   I can't find the legal language in Part 15 
that spells this out;  does anyone know? Does anyone want to confirm 
Engineering's assertion that SDoC will suffice? Thanks,  Colorado Brian 



Please note: forwarded message attached

From: David Schaefer 
To: Brian Gregory , "EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG" 

Subject: RE: [PSES] Necessary Lab accreditations, class 2 permissible change
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2023 15:42:24 +


-

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:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1
--- Begin Message ---
Certification activities in the USA are handled by TCBs. Most test labs either 
have a separate TCB group, or work with a specific TCB for approvals. You 
should work with a lab to determine what tests need to be repeated, and take 
the data. Based on the new data the lab can determine if it is a Class 1 or 
Class 2. For a Class 2 the TCB will do a filing with the FCC. For a Class 1 you 
just need to keep the data on hand internally to prove the change was 
investigated.



[cid:image439490.jpg@6431776C.1BB6A68A]
David Schaefer​
Technical Manager
Element Materials Technology
9349 W Broadway Ave
Brooklyn Park
,
MN
55445
,
United States
O +1 612 638 5136
ext. 10461
david.schae...@element.com<mailto:david.schae...@element.com>
www.element.com<https://www.element.com/>
[cid:image333160.png@4AF050CB.ADA894E2]<https://www.linkedin.com/organization-guest/company/element-materials-technology?challengeId=AQFf9AemZ4SobwAAAXOQwivOsnkHiTt2ByoCkOxVQjOGOjRlivicVgYlN1dz5QXjId9bpa0keWzfVxhl8KPj78uD6-S6nfqRsg=e49e0dc0-96a3-2516-27fa-ee2e8c42b177>
[cid:image439401.png@6BA00905.6FD1FCB6]<https://twitter.com/ElementTesting/>
[cid:image942733.png@1540D0F8.60649E36]<https://www.instagram.com/elementtesting/>
[cid:image077280.png@866A6847.6767A7AC]<https://www.youtube.com/c/ElementTesting>
[cid:image873315.jpg@A94560F1.CC1DFEA7]<https://elementmaterials.eu.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_3xQqm84s6IydI5D>
From: Brian Gregory [mailto:brian_greg...@netzero.net]
Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2023 10:01 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Necessary Lab accreditations, class 2 permissible change


CAUTION:This email originated from outside of Element Materials Technology. DO 
NOT click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know 
the content is safe. Please contact IT Service Desk if you are in any doubt 
about this email.

Yes, we increased the Y-Caps to get more margin.  And we did!
So, to qualify for a Class 1 permissive change, we'd need to show before & 
after data ?

Applying for a Class 2 permissive change, means FCC will look only at the 
latest data to be sure it passes?

Colorado Brian

-- Original Message --
From: John Woodgate mailto:j...@woodjohn.uk>>
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Subject: Re: [PSES] Necessary Lab accreditations, class 2 permissible change
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2023 00:02:42 +0100

What are you changing about the Y-caps? If it's just a new supplier and the 
caps conform to the required component standard, there is no degradation. 
Reducing he capacitance would be a degradation for EMC but not for safety.

Who determines the

Re: [PSES] Necessary Lab accreditations, class 2 permissible change

[Brian Gregory]

 Yes, we increased the Y-Caps to get more margin.  And we did!So, to qualify 
for a Class 1 permissive change, we'd need to show before & after data ? 
Applying for a Class 2 permissive change, means FCC will look only at the 
latest data to be sure it passes? Colorado Brian

-- Original Message --
From: John Woodgate 
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Necessary Lab accreditations, class 2 permissible change
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2023 00:02:42 +0100


What are you changing about the Y-caps? If it's just a new supplier and the 
caps conform to the required component standard, there is no degradation. 
Reducing he capacitance would be a degradation for EMC but not for safety. 
 
Who determines the class is the person who has all the necessary data. The test 
house of surveillance authority check the decision.
 
On 2023-08-09 23:20, Brian Gregory wrote:  Hello EMC experts, A question came 
up today about filing new results to FCC for our legacy product. 1.  If the 
filing is only for FCC, then the lab providing the report does not need A2LA 
accreditation,2.  If the filing is for a safety report, then the lab does need 
A2LA accreditation. Have I got that right? We're filing some small board 
changes, including Y-caps and can't figure out if this is a Class 2 permissible 
change, defined as:  " includes those modifications which degrade the 
performance characteristics as reported to the Commission" 3.  How or who 
determines if our change is Class 2 (degraded performance) or Class 1? We think 
the results are better, but it's not like we got uniformly more margin across 
the board.Thanks! Colorado Brian720-450-4933This 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: 
 https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/
Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/ 
 Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
 List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html
For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
 Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org
For policy questions, send mail to:
 Jim Bacher at:  j.bac...@ieee.org
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1
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: 
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/
Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/ 
 Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
 List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html
For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
 Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org
For policy questions, send mail to:
 Jim Bacher at:  j.bac...@ieee.org
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

-

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:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

[PSES] Necessary Lab accreditations, class 2 permissible change

[Brian Gregory]

  Hello EMC experts, A question came up today about filing new results to FCC 
for our legacy product. 1.  If the filing is only for FCC, then the lab 
providing the report does not need A2LA accreditation,2.  If the filing is for 
a safety report, then the lab does need A2LA accreditation. Have I got that 
right? We're filing some small board changes, including Y-caps and can't figure 
out if this is a Class 2 permissible change, defined as:  " includes those 
modifications which degrade the performance characteristics as reported to the 
Commission" 3.  How or who determines if our change is Class 2 (degraded 
performance) or Class 1? We think the results are better, but it's not like we 
got uniformly more margin across the board.Thanks! Colorado 
Brian720-450-4933

-

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:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

Re: [PSES] Woodgate's reply on residential Immunity field strength

[Brian Gregory]

 The reference for 20 V/m to EV chargers comes from UL 2231-2.  This is not a 
medical standard, but Annex A does call out the medical standard 60601-1-2 as a 
reference, as well as CENELEC 50204.  We can't figure out why;  cell phones 
produce less than half that, and our WiFi transmitter is probably 
representative, and is rated well under 1 W.  I could see a higher immunity 
standard as needed for commercial environments, say in a bank of 4-5 chargers. 
Following along in 61000-4-3, we agree with John that residential applications 
are clearly best matched to the definition for Class 2 environment, and the 
table in Clause 5 says the limits for Class 2 equipment is 3 V/m.  20 V/m does 
not show up in Clause 5 of 61000-4-3 for any class.   So, I've should to reach 
out to a UL standards group and find out if this is really necessary for 
residential applications.   Our local lab can't do more than 10, and an 
overseas affiliated lab is similarly limited.  I'd like to know were this 
requirement comes from.   This is more a question for EV Charging safety than a 
mainstream EMC question.  As a backup, I could request a comment to Ken's point 
is if they define the peak of the modulation as 20 V/m.  I don't know where 
these are defined. Thanks for all the detailed replies! Colorado Brian 
720-450-4933

-- Original Message --
From: John Woodgate 
To: Brian Gregory 
Subject: Re: [PSES] Immunity test field strength, residential setting
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2023 18:05:59 +0100


61000-4-3 is a Basic Standard. It does not specify test levels but indicates 
possible test levels. You need to look in detail at Clause 5, but look at these 
words:
 Product committees shall select the appropriate test level for each frequency 
range needing to be tested as well as the frequency ranges.
The residential environment is usually designated Class 2 (see Annex E of the 
standard), which calls for 3 V/m.
==
 Best wishes John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
 www.woodjohn.uk
 Rayleigh, Essex UK
 
 I hear, and I forget. I see, and I remember. I do, and I understand. Xunzi 
(340 - 245 BC)On 2023-07-21 17:44, Brian Gregory wrote: Hello colleagues,  We 
are building EV Chargers for residential markets (not just US) and one of the 
safety applicable standards is UL 2231-2.  It calls out  IEC 61000-4-3 for 
immunity testing parameters, which states a requirement for a field strength of 
20V/m.  Our EMC expert says typically testing is "done at 3 Vrms, which is 
standard for most products in residential environments."   He can only test up 
to 10V, and we're hearing the same from an overseas lab to whom our 
manufacturer refers.   Does FCC Part B have guidelines for field strength we 
can cite?   Can some offer this "DC guy" (aka, 60 Hz) a quick definition of 
what the 20V/m represents? I'm guessing 20 V/m is for higher density commercial 
applications, aka charging stations, so we probably need an exception for 
residential.   Thank you! Colorado Brian 
 720-450-4933This 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: 
 https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/
Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/ 
 Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
 List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html
For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
 Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org
For policy questions, send mail to:
 Jim Bacher at:  j.bac...@ieee.org
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

-

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:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

[PSES] Immunity test field strength, residential setting

[Brian Gregory]

 Hello colleagues,  We are building EV Chargers for residential markets (not 
just US) and one of the safety applicable standards is UL 2231-2.  It calls out 
 IEC 61000-4-3 for immunity testing parameters, which states a requirement for 
a field strength of 20V/m.  Our EMC expert says typically testing is "done at 3 
Vrms, which is standard for most products in residential environments."   He 
can only test up to 10V, and we're hearing the same from an overseas lab to 
whom our manufacturer refers.   Does FCC Part B have guidelines for field 
strength we can cite?   Can some offer this "DC guy" (aka, 60 Hz) a quick 
definition of what the 20V/m represents? I'm guessing 20 V/m is for higher 
density commercial applications, aka charging stations, so we probably need an 
exception for residential.   Thank you! Colorado Brian 
720-450-4933

-

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:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

[PSES] FCC Part B questions

[Brian Gregory]

  Hi there, A question came up that I can't answer w/o a copy of Part 47.Does 
the FCC report require Quasi-Peak (QP) data, or just Avg and Peak.  When do 
peak readings trigger the need to report QP?  I'm pretty sure Part 15 has AVG 
and QP limits listed. Next was what sort of margin is expected in order to pass 
CE emissions requirements (CISPR 16 or 32)?  Memory serves that one wants 3dB 
of margin, but memories can be imperfect!  "Colorado" Brian 
720-450-4933

-

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

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:
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

Re: [PSES] Techstreet Tracking standards

[Brian Gregory]

Word is that IEEE/SA bought up Techstreet a while back.My Chrome browser 
automatically routes me to IEEE/SA.  The Edge browser gets me to the old 
Techstreet page, and tells me that I'm already registered  :-) So, they must be 
one... at some point!  Brian Gregory
720-450-4933

-- Original Message --
From: 
To: "'Brian Gregory'" 
Subject: RE: Techstreet Tracking standards
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2023 16:08:47 -0600


Brian,
 
That is strange. That is not what I get when I go to Tecstreet.com. It is a 
private company that sells standards:
 
https://www.techstreet.com/
Regards,
Tom Smith, P.Eng 
Principal Engineer
TJS Technical Services Inc.
Tel: +1 403-612-6664 
Email: tsm...@tjstechnical.com 
http://tjstechnical.com
Compliance News Updates: https://corp.social/@TJS_Technical
 
From: Brian Gregory  
Sent: Monday, June 19, 2023 3:56 PM
To: tsm...@tjstechnical.com
Subject: Fw: Techstreet Tracking standards
 
 Hi Tom,
thanks for the feedback.  The Techstreet URL points me to the IEEE/SA 
(standards association).
It looks so similar to my normal IEEE account, that I thought I was a 
subscriber to SA, but I can't say I'm 100% confident in that.  Often, things 
that say they're available at the SA website don't seem to work with my IEEE 
membership.  For instance, I just asked them about ANSI C63.4, which is 
supposed to be free. 
 
I guess I'll try again to IEEE/SA  and set up a new, different account.
 
 Regards,
 
Brian Gregory
Denver, Colorado
720-450-4933


-- Forwarded Message --
From: Tom Smith 
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Tracking standards updates
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2023 11:36:57 -0600
Brian,
 
For IEC and EN, EVS in Estonia (www.evs.ee) has a Information Service. You can 
set up an account there and tell them what standards you want monitored for 
changes.
 
For general standards, Techstreet.com has a standards tracker. This should 
cover standards for US and for UK also.
Regards,
Tom Smith, P.Eng 
Principal Engineer
TJS Technical Services Inc.
Tel: +1 403-612-6664 
Email: tsm...@tjstechnical.com 
http://tjstechnical.com
Compliance News Updates: https://corp.social/@TJS_Technical
 
From: Brian Gregory  
Sent: Monday, June 19, 2023 11:21 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Tracking standards updates
 
 
Good afternoon compliance colleagues,
 
Have a curiously open-ended question from a major OEM who's very 
process-oriented.
So, I'm gathering ideas on how to track standard updates and changes in 
multiple markets (US, EU, etc.).
 
I'm familiar with IAEI for collaborating with NA inspectors on NEC updates, and 
know that UL & ETL have various update notice/networks, but have no idea how to 
track IEC updates, nor residential code changes for someplace like the UK.  
This is applicable mostly for safety, perhaps a little on EMC.
 
thanks!
 
"Colorado" Brian 
720-450-4933
 
-

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
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:
Mike Cantwell 
For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher 
David Heald 
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1
 
 
Virus-free.www.avast.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 

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
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:
Mike Cantwell 
For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher 
David Heald 
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

-

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

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:
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
J

[PSES] Tracking standards updates

[Brian Gregory]

 Good afternoon compliance colleagues, Have a curiously open-ended question 
from a major OEM who's very process-oriented.So, I'm gathering ideas on how to 
track standard updates and changes in multiple markets (US, EU, etc.). I'm 
familiar with IAEI for collaborating with NA inspectors on NEC updates, and 
know that UL & ETL have various update notice/networks, but have no idea how to 
track IEC updates, nor residential code changes for someplace like the UK.  
This is applicable mostly for safety, perhaps a little on EMC. thanks! 
"Colorado" Brian 
720-450-4933

-

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

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:
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

[PSES] EMS in NFPA

[Brian Gregory]

 I'd posted a week or two back about residential EV chargers.Here's the current 
theory: My company sells a that's residential energy monitoring system (V2) 
certified to 61010, an and EV charger certified to UL 2564.  Customers assert 
that extra market can be obtained by combined deployment of the two as an 
Energy Management System (EMS), per NFPA 625.42.  This avoids having to upgrade 
panels that are only 100A when installing a level 2 charger.  Now jump to 
NFPA's definition of an EMS from 750.6"Listed individual components assembled 
as a system." My theory is that a V2 listed to 61010 installed with a charger 
listed to 2594 could be employed as an EMS without the need for additional 
certifications, or haggling over which standard would best apply. We may 
eventually pursue UL 916 certification in the future, but I think we don't need 
to at present. Thoughts ideas and input welcome;  anybody know any inspectors 
who've had questions about EV chargers? Colorado Brian 
720-450-4933

-

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

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:
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

Re: [PSES] Vehicle Chargers

[Brian Gregory]

 Yes,these are all UL.  We've got a short list of SAE "J" standards as well, 
and we do have plans to go to the UK, but not right now, that I know of. 
Thanks. Brian Gregory
720-450-4933

-- Original Message --
From: John Woodgate 
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Vehicle Chargers
Date: Tue, 16 May 2023 23:52:17 +0100


These are UL standards?
==
 Best wishes John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
 www.woodjohn.uk
 Rayleigh, Essex UK
 
 I hear, and I forget. I see, and I remember. I do, and I understand. Xunzi 
(340 - 245 BC)On 2023-05-16 23:39, Brian Gregory wrote: As in EV chargers. Just 
started a new gig, and I'm back in compliance.Looking for info on testing & 
compliance to the applicable standards: 2202, 2231, and an exciting new concept 
that might require 9741 or 916. Please advise if this is off scope for what's 
titled an EMC ListServe, but my experience is that y'all cast a wide net :-)  
"Colorado" Brian 
 720-450-4933-
 
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
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:
 Mike Cantwell 
For policy questions, send mail to:
 Jim Bacher 
 David Heald 
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1
-
 
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
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:
 Mike Cantwell 
For policy questions, send mail to:
 Jim Bacher 
 David Heald 
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

-

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

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:
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

[PSES] Vehicle Chargers

[Brian Gregory]

 As in EV chargers. Just started a new gig, and I'm back in compliance.Looking 
for info on testing & compliance to the applicable standards: 2202, 2231, and 
an exciting new concept that might require 9741 or 916. Please advise if this 
is off scope for what's titled an EMC ListServe, but my experience is that 
y'all cast a wide net :-)  "Colorado" Brian 
720-450-4933

-

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

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:
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

[PSES] Fw: Re: [PSES] How to Measure Surface Conductivity?

[Brian Gregory]

 Conductive epoxy bonding the probe to the surface?Calibrate with a current 
shunt. "Colorado" Brian 
720-450-4933

-- Forwarded Message --
From: Marko Radojicic <052300254e41-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org>
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] How to Measure Surface Conductivity?
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2023 13:00:08 -0700


Try a conductive elastomer on the DMM probes. Intent is to not scratch the 
surface. 
 However from your description, new coating appears functionally equivalent 
especially if bonding mechanisms use any type of sharp edge (BeCu gasket, 
screw, etc)

Sent from my mobilePlease excuse brevity & grammar 
On Apr 11, 2023, at 12:45 PM, Brian Kunde  wrote:

I have been given two samples of metal plates; one plated in our current 
material and the other with a new plating material we want to switch to in 
production.  I have been tasked to compare the electrical surface conductivity. 
What is the best way to do this?  How is this done in the industry? I have 
tried the following methods;1. DMM (Ohm Meter) = inconclusive results2. Used 5 
volts from a current limited power supply and measured the current = 
inconclusive results3. Used our Ground Bond Tester set to 60 amps. One plate 
measured 3-4m, the other 1-3m I measured 1 inch apart and from 
corner to corner. Test #3 above is the only test that showed any difference.   
BTW, I use 3/4" squares of soft braid material between the probes and surface. 
The probes are zeroed out between tests.   So far, I can conclude that the new 
material is as good as, or slightly better than our current production plating 
material.   What more can I do, within reason? Thanks to all.The Other Brian-
 
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
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:
 Mike Cantwell 
For policy questions, send mail to:
 Jim Bacher 
 David Heald 
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1
-
 
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
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:
 Mike Cantwell 
For policy questions, send mail to:
 Jim Bacher 
 David Heald 
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

-

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

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:
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

[PSES] PSES: EMC engineer, Salem VA

[Brian Gregory]

 FYI, folks.   Greetings,My name is Deepak Prasher from USG ("United Software 
Group"). I am an Account Manager. I came across your resume and wanted to send 
a quick note your way.  We have an opening that might be a great next step for 
you.  Please carefully read the Job Description below, and if you would like to 
pursue this opportunity please email me an updated resume and Let me know the 
best time to reach you. I appreciate your time and look forward to hearing from 
you.Job description:Role: Electromagnetic Compatibility engineerSalem VA 
The EMC (Electromagnetic Compatibility) engineer is an electrical engineer who 
possesses analog and electrical circuit design and analysis capability in 
conjunction with a specialization in the domain of electromagnetic 
susceptibility and emissions. In this role the EMC engineer will assist in the 
testing and certification of electronic equipment by accompanying the equipment 
to a certified lab, preparing the equipment for test, analyzing the test 
results, diagnosing any non-conformances, and recommending potential solutions. 
If any design changes are required, the EMC engineer may implement the changes 
and prepare the equipment for retesting.Familiarity and practical experience 
with Mark VIe control systems is a desire Account ManagerThanks & RegardsDeepak 
Prasher
United Software Group Inc.
565 Metro Place S. Suite # 110
Dublin, OH 43017
Direct: 614-588-8479 (Ext: 491)||Fax: 1-866-764-114www.usgrpinc.com|| 
https://www.linkedin.com/in/deepak-kumar-4131b378/ To unsubscribe from this 
mailing, please reply to this email with the word UNSUBSCRIBE in the subject 
line, or click here UNSUBSCRIBE.USG is an Equal Opportunity Employer. Qualified 
applicants will receive consideration for employment without regard to race, 
color, religion, gender, age, disability, military status, national origin or 
any other characteristic protected under federal, state, or applicable local 
law Brian Gregory
720-450-4933

-

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] RF engineer needed

[Brian Gregory]

 Good evening, A Boulder company is looking to replace their EMC-compliance 
design consultant sometime by the end of the year.This would be part time 
consulting.  Please reach out to me or call with questions, and I can forward 
any interested parties. The company is Radiometrics. Colorado Brian(Brian 
Gregory)
720-450-4933

-- Original Message --
From: Paul Scott 
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Implementing decision 2019/1326
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2019 14:46:32 +


Hello,
 
With regards to the standards listed in Annex I of this implementing decision 
(for me, EN55035 specifically); do we expect the harmonized standards list for 
the EMCD to be updated shortly to include these standards? Should I expect to 
see a DOW for EN55024?
 
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/GA/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32019D1326
 
Regards,
 
Paul
 
 
 
NOTE: This e-mail (including any attachments) is for the sole use of the 
intended recipient(s) and may contain information that is confidential and/or 
protected by legal privilege. Any unauthorized review, use, copy, disclosure or 
distribution of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended 
recipient, please notify Mitel immediately and destroy all copies of this 
e-mail. Mitel does not accept any liability for breach of security, error or 
virus that may result from the transmission 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 

-

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] Thermal equilibrium - 10% rule

[Brian Gregory]

 I worked for a NRTL for years, and no reviewer worth his salt ever accepted an 
equation for thermal time constant or steady-state temperature.  Just the data, 
Ma'am Brian Gregory720-450-4933

-- Original Message --
From: Doug Powell 
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Thermal equilibrium - 10% rule
Date: Sun, 8 Jan 2017 11:38:30 -0700


Richard, I have tried a number of approaches in the past.  Given that most 
products are quite complex with regard to all the potential heat sources/sinks 
and interfaces I decided that anything along the lines of FEA is impractical.   
I also tried the time constants idea which is analogous to RC time constants.  
I found this works well enough if you have a good amount of history with the 
product itself.  Otherwise, due to the non-linear nature of the problem, it is 
difficult to predict end time or temperature until 3 to 4 time constants have 
already passed. I tried using the slope of T to estimate when the end of 
the test is pending. The next attempt was to dig in a little following the 
equations V = Voe-(t/RC) and V = Vo[1-e-(t/RC)] where I substitute V for the 
the various temperatures (Vo = the absolute value of the temperature delta from 
start to end), C is analogous to product mass and R is the Rtheta of the 
product. With a little testing history, you can assume the composition of the 
product is similar for other products designed by the same company (copper, 
steel, plastics, air, liquids, etc), I solved for RC and then rearranged the 
algebra to solve for t which is time.  There are a couple of problems in that I 
am still unable to come up with a general purpose solution.  First this is a 
simultaneous solution of several unknowns which is not conducive to quick on 
the fly solutions.  This is especially true when you are in the early stages of 
a temperature run when things are still moving quickly.  As you know 
extrapolating outside an existing dataset is risky, especially when 
nonlinearities are involved.   I am now going back to basics.  Q = Cp * m * 
abs(T2-T1) q = heat energy in Joulesm = mass of the productCp = specific heat 
of the productT1 = The initial temperature of the product at the startT2 = The 
final temperature of the productabs() is used to correct for heating or cooling 
With the start/final temperatures and mass taken from prior tests I can extract 
a Cp for a particular product. Understanding one watt is Joules/second you can 
factor into the equation time.My thought is that the composition of a 
product from the same engineering group with have similar ratios of copper, 
iron, plastics, etc.  And then I may be able to solve for total test time or 
final temperature.  Not forgetting that the air mass and equipment of the 
environmental chamber is part of the big picture. I have not fully tested this 
method yet, but so far I remain hopeful.  If this works, I plan to build a 
small database of product Cp values.  I would be interested to know if anyone 
else gives this a go and how as yet undiscovered problems are overcome.  -Doug 
Douglas E PowellLaporte, Colorado 
USAdougp01@gmail.comhttp://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01   
On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 12:51 PM, Richard Nute  wrote:
> We have to consider that the temperatures sought are not of
 > metrological value, but to
 > to establish a safe/non-safe result.
 
 Yes!
 
 > The mathematical limit of an exponential rise is easy to
 > estimate, once a few timed samples are available,
 
 I haven't been able to come up with an equation, even though I have tried and 
sought help from folks who are more knowledgeable than me in the field of 
thermodynamics.  Please tell us your methodology.
 
 Best wishes for the New Year!
 Rich
 
 -
 
 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: 
 -- 
 Douglas E Powell

doug...@gmail.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01-
 
This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send 

Re: [PSES] PV Connectors: UL 6(9)703?

[Brian Gregory]

  Thanks Dave, that was very helpful! Where did you find this bulletin?  I 
can't get anything from their website... Brian Gregory
720-450-4933

-- Original Message --
From: "Nyffenegger, Dave" <dave.nyffeneg...@bhemail.com>
To: Brian Gregory <brian_greg...@netzero.net>, "EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG" 
<EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Subject: RE: [PSES] PV Connectors:  UL 6(9)703?
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2016 00:19:10 +


It looks like both are valid.
 
There is a bulletin dated 9/7/12 on A meeting of the Standards Technical 
Panel of UL for Connectors for Use in Photovoltaic Systems was
held on August 8 and 9, 2012 at the UL San Jose office. The purpose of the 
meeting was to discuss
revisions to ULs Subjects 6703, 6703A and 9703.
 
which includes discussion
 
6. Relationship with harnesses (9703)
Chris Flueckiger, UL, provided an overview of the UL Subject 9703, 
Outline of Investigation for Distributed
Generation Wiring Harnesses, which was published on August 2, 2011. Chris 
indicated that this was not
intended to be a standard for individual components, but for a system. A 
harness is a system consisting
of PV certified connectors along with certified conductor in a complete 
assembly. This standard has been
included under the scope of STP 6703 to address wiring harnesses in PV 
applications such as connecting
junction boxes, inverters, tracker devices. Jake Killinger and Chris Flueckiger 
also discussed situations
when a harness is considered a PV connector under 6703. It was noted that an 
incomplete system with
only a single connector attached on the conductor/cable with the opposing 
end(s) open would not be
considered a harness.
 
-Dave
 
From: Brian Gregory [mailto:brian_greg...@netzero.net] 
 Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2016 5:33 PM
 To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
 Subject: [PSES] PV Connectors: UL 6(9)703?
 
 
I'm trying to find out if UL 6703 (connectors for PV systems) is being upgraded 
to UL 9703 or the other way around.   UL's site isn't helpful - it could be 
drawings I got are just misprinted, but there was a UL 9703, "Outline for 
Investigation"
 
thanks, 
 
Colorado Brian
720-450-4933

 
 -- Original Message --
 From: Doug Powell <doug...@gmail.com>
 To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
 Subject: Re: [PSES] Counterfeit tracking
 Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2016 08:14:14 -0600
 
 What you see is what you get.  This is ListServ software and has been in use 
since the 1990s or before.  It has served us well.   
 
 If you are looking for something like a phpBB, I don't think this is 
available.  Of course you can always talk to one of the good people listed at 
the bottom of every email.  
 
 All the best,  Doug
 
 
   Original Message  
 From: jamison.kor...@ecolab.com
 Sent: September 28, 2016 7:24 AM
 To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
 Reply-to: jamison.kor...@ecolab.com
 Subject: Re: [PSES] Counterfeit tracking
 
 On an unrelated note - is there another way to interact with this community 
other than through emails? Is there a board, or something somewhere? 
 
 Thanks,
 
 Jamison
 
 -Original Message-
 From: Brian O'Connell [mailto:oconne...@tamuracorp.com] 
 Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2016 8:30 PM
 To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
 Subject: Re: [PSES] Counterfeit tracking
 
 There have been some consistency problems with this service, probably from 
usage of direct CSS url links and/or my stupid brute-force script, so my 
simple-minded approach is to have my crawler run the login(which has changed 
several times), then resolve the href-tagged links, then go from there to each 
notification page. Could be done manually, but all hail the power of 
beautifulsoup.
 
 Have not used for very long time, but so far does seem to be a decent source 
of global regulatory information.
 
 Brian
 
 -Original Message-
 From: Kortas, Jamison [mailto:jamison.kor...@ecolab.com]
 Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2016 4:23 PM
 To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
 Subject: Re: [PSES] Counterfeit tracking
 
 Hopefully - I am doing this right - this is my first post.
 
 I recently found Notify U.S.  
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tsapps.nist.gov_notifyus_data_home_home.cfm=DQIDaQ=clRTYxLjfWTYQkksq4Trqw=SuXR4v_cWDGps50Ob7OgG3eGvjdtolb5h84QBM8NxmY=IReRG-UxkmrJ8pyfltBE4hphRlWOTXCfdP53vklA2x4=urX8Yhg2scOT-Og6yRG5v1sZ5EbS7Klt5JP3l2bKbBU=
   which is run by the NIST in the Dept. Of Commerce and it notifies me of 
anything published by the WTO an others. You can filter it by field of interest 
and country. It is quite informative and free.
 
 Here are the "fields of interest":
 
 65  Agriculture
 49  Aircraft and Space Vehicle Engineering
 71  Chemical Technology
 93  Civil Engineering
 61  Clothing Industry
 CA  Conformity Assessment Procedures
 91  Construction Materials and Building
 97  Domestic and Commercial Equipment. Entertainment. Sports
 29  Electrical Engineering
 31  Electronics
 27  Energy a

[PSES] PV Connectors: UL 6(9)703?

[Brian Gregory]

 I'm trying to find out if UL 6703 (connectors for PV systems) is being 
upgraded to UL 9703 or the other way around.   UL's site isn't helpful - it 
could be drawings I got are just misprinted, but there was a UL 9703, "Outline 
for Investigation" thanks,  Colorado Brian720-450-4933

-- Original Message --
From: Doug Powell 
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Counterfeit tracking
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2016 08:14:14 -0600

What you see is what you get.  This is ListServ software and has been in use 
since the 1990s or before.  It has served us well.   

If you are looking for something like a phpBB, I don't think this is available. 
 Of course you can always talk to one of the good people listed at the bottom 
of every email.  

All the best,  Doug


  Original Message  
From: jamison.kor...@ecolab.com
Sent: September 28, 2016 7:24 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Reply-to: jamison.kor...@ecolab.com
Subject: Re: [PSES] Counterfeit tracking

On an unrelated note - is there another way to interact with this community 
other than through emails? Is there a board, or something somewhere? 

Thanks,

Jamison

-Original Message-
From: Brian O'Connell [mailto:oconne...@tamuracorp.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2016 8:30 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Counterfeit tracking

There have been some consistency problems with this service, probably from 
usage of direct CSS url links and/or my stupid brute-force script, so my 
simple-minded approach is to have my crawler run the login(which has changed 
several times), then resolve the href-tagged links, then go from there to each 
notification page. Could be done manually, but all hail the power of 
beautifulsoup.

Have not used for very long time, but so far does seem to be a decent source of 
global regulatory information.

Brian

-Original Message-
From: Kortas, Jamison [mailto:jamison.kor...@ecolab.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2016 4:23 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Counterfeit tracking

Hopefully - I am doing this right - this is my first post.

I recently found Notify U.S. 
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tsapps.nist.gov_notifyus_data_home_home.cfm=DQIDaQ=clRTYxLjfWTYQkksq4Trqw=SuXR4v_cWDGps50Ob7OgG3eGvjdtolb5h84QBM8NxmY=IReRG-UxkmrJ8pyfltBE4hphRlWOTXCfdP53vklA2x4=urX8Yhg2scOT-Og6yRG5v1sZ5EbS7Klt5JP3l2bKbBU=
   which is run by the NIST in the Dept. Of Commerce and it notifies me of 
anything published by the WTO an others. You can filter it by field of interest 
and country. It is quite informative and free.

Here are the "fields of interest":

65  Agriculture
49  Aircraft and Space Vehicle Engineering
71  Chemical Technology
93  Civil Engineering
61  Clothing Industry
CA  Conformity Assessment Procedures
91  Construction Materials and Building
97  Domestic and Commercial Equipment. Entertainment. Sports
29  Electrical Engineering
31  Electronics
27  Energy and Heat Transfer Engineering
13  Environment. Health Protection. Safety
23  Fluid Systems and Components for General Use Measurement of fluid flow, see 
17.120
67  Food Technology
01  Generalities. Terminology. Standardization. Documentation
81  Glass and Ceramics Industries
11  Health Care Technology
37  Image Technology
35  Information Technology. Office Machines
25  Manufacturing Engineering
This field includes standards for general use
53  Materials Handling Equipment
07  Mathematics. Natural Sciences
21  Mechanical Systems and Components for General Use
77  Metallurgy
95  Military Engineering
73  Mining and Minerals
55  Packaging and Distribution of Goods
87  Paint and Colour Industries
85  Paper Technology
75  Petroleum and Related Technologies
17  Physical Metrology and Measurement. Physical Phenomena
39  Precision Mechanics. Jewellery
45  Railway Engineering
43  Road Vehicle Engineering
83  Rubber and Plastics Industries
47  Shipbuilding and Marine Structures
03  Sociology. Services. Company Organization and Management. Administration. 
Transport
33  Telecommunications. Audio and Video Engineering
19  Testing
This field includes standards for general use only Analytical chemistry, see 
71.040
59  Textile and Leather Technology
79  Wood Technology

Thanks,

-Jamison

-Original Message-
From: Doug Powell [mailto:doug...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2016 2:53 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Counterfeit tracking

Thanks, I'll check out DuckDuckGo, it sounds like it may have possibilities.  

I have looked at rss aggregators in the past.  It's kind of hard to find one 
that consolidates similar postings in multiple locations.  This also may be 
worth another look.

All the best. Doug. 


  Original Message
From: oconne...@tamuracorp.com
Sent: September 27, 2016 1:39 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Reply-to: oconne...@tamuracorp.com
Subject: Re: [PSES] Counterfeit tracking

Distill will monitor selected pages, but is not very 

Re: [PSES] Using 60hz motors in 50hz countries

[Brian Gregory]

 The third Brian opines:   do what O'Connel says, then do a few tests, 
too!Adjust load ratings for 50 Hz if necessary... Brian Gregory
720-450-4933

-- Original Message --
From: "Brian O'Connell" <oconne...@tamuracorp.com>
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Using 60hz motors in 50hz countries
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2016 17:36:38 +

How components are used cannot be controlled by manufacturer, so your due 
diligence is to ship each unit with conditions of acceptability and 
install/operate instructions that are scoped per the standards that would apply 
to the component and to the end-use equipment. Carefully control what is on 
your website and what your sales peoples say to customer. 

If a buyer or designer asks you about a use not within the nameplate ratings or 
instructions, the legally correct response is the unit has been assessed for 
use at the following operating conditions... blah.

There are other things that can be said or done, but your risk increases. Do 
not offer 'probably will' advice unless you have empirical test data supporting 
those operating conditions; and never admit that you have test data for 
operations outside of the unit's ratings.

Brian


-Original Message-
From: Kunde, Brian [mailto:brian_ku...@lecotc.com] 
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2016 7:39 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Using 60hz motors in 50hz countries

Dear experts,

Can AC brushless motors (in this case 230V~ 3-phase 3hp motors) that are rated 
"60HZ" be used in products going to countries that have 50HZ power?  I believe 
the motors will run a little slower which will not affect the function of the 
product, but is there a safety issue with this?  The motors are thermally, 
overload, and short circuit protected.  They are "intermittent use" and not 
likely to overheat.

As a rule, we only market and sell such products to countries with 60hz power. 
However, a North America company might purchase one and ship it to one of their 
international locations with 50hz power without our knowledge. Do we need to be 
concerned about this?

Of course, this fact has our sales force wondering if it is OK to market and 
sell 60hz motor driven products in countries with 50hz.  I really don't know. I 
cannot see a safety issue but one can say that the motor would be used in a way 
it is not intended to be used resulting in a higher risk if something did 
happening.

Any opinions on this?

Thanks,
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 
<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://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 <sdoug...@ieee.org>
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://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 <sdoug...@ieee.org>
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

Re: [PSES] Need a LARGE Chamber

[Brian Gregory]

 Intertek has a group out of Boston that specializes in "in situ" EMC testing, 
even outdoors.  That's the best bet I can think of.  Colorado Brian 

-- Original Message --
From: Ken Javor 
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Need a LARGE Chamber
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2016 13:01:37 -0500


He said Canada.  The only question in my mind is, is there any part of Canada 
that is not remote? :-)
 
 Ken Javor
 Phone: (256) 650-5261
 
 

From: Doug Powell 

-

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] SAFETY FEATURES controlled by ....SOFTWARE

[Brian Gregory]

 Just like CE Compliance, the scope statement is the key.  OEM's should state 
carefully where and how one does these things:the best use of language is not 
to say "it's SAFE" (unless you're a paid umpire).  I counsel my customers to 
say that products have been tested to be in compliance with the proper 
component (safety) standard(s).  Even Intertek and UL stay far away from the 
word "safe." "Safety" testing is done by product standard.  UL 508 and the like 
have sections to deal with control systems.  The best I've seen was actually in 
NFPA 79.  Woodward's nice generation control PLCs are product certified to UL 
508.  I consider this primary safety (against, fire, shock, etc.), and all 
please note that safety of control systems has been termed "Functional Safety." 
 Leave the software out of it for now. How one establishes safety of control 
systems (which run the software), is a certification to IEC 61508.61508 calls 
the control systems (and potentially, sensors):  Functional Safety of 
Electrical/Electronic/Programmable Electronic Safety-related Systems (E/E/PE, 
or E/E/PES).  Woodward generation control systems (like Mironet+) cite SIL-3 
certification for one example.  UL 1998 is still around, but in five years of 
searching, I've not found any products certified to it. There are some good 
presentations, UL and MTL Instruments are the best I've seen so far.   MTL's 
starts simple with terms like ALARP As Little As Realistically 
Practicable and concepts and goes into some level of detail for 
calculating MTBF, "dangerous failure rates" and PFD averages. MTL certifies 
systems and sensors to 61508, apparently.  Don't let the discussions of risk 
assessment/analysis make you crazy, that's just what they want!  UL's 
presentation is more friendly, far reaching and less detailed.  Slide # 19 
lists all the relevant standards from IEC, ISO, etc. Give it whirl, and watch 
your terminology! "Colorado" Brian GregoryPower Plant Electrical 
Engineer,Leidos, Inc.
720-450-4933

-- Original Message --
From: "Brian O'Connell" 
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] SAFETTY FEATURES controlled by SOFTWARE
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2016 16:37:02 +

Please beat a rapid and clear path to the local expert at your preferred 
conformity assessment body. In the meantime, read UL1998, IEC61508, MISRA, and 
perhaps UL991 for FIT. And there is another IEC standard for power systems SIL 
that cannot remember.

As for my employer's stuff - my 'tactic' has been to prove that the code is NOT 
a safety-critical component, rather than do a certification that plays 
probabilistic games with the "likelihood of occurrence".

Brian


From: Bolintineanu, Constantin [mailto:cbolintine...@tycoint.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2016 7:33 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] SAFETTY FEATURES controlled by SOFTWARE


Dear Colleagues,

I would like to kindly ask those who have an extensive experience regarding the 
above subject, to share their opinion about the following aspect:

Having a circuit which is charging a battery, and having it controlled and 
protected by SOFTWARE ONLY from the point of view of CHARGING , 
DISCHARGING, OVERCHARGING,

1. How do you think that SINGLE FAULT CONDITIONS shall be applied? (without 
SOFTWARE working at all? Or by providing a fault on the component where the 
SOFTWARE is stored? OR BOTH
2. Which conditions do you think that shall be imposed to the software and/or 
to the memory in which it is stored?

Any other suggestions/observations/comments are more than welcome.

Sincerely,

Constantin Bolintineanu P.Eng.




This e-mail contains privileged and confidential information intended for the 
use of the addressees named above. If you are not the intended recipient of 
this e-mail, you are hereby notified that you must not disseminate, copy or 
take any action in respect of any information contained in it. If you have 
received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail 
and immediately destroy this e-mail and its attachments.
-

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 

Re: [PSES] Safety requirements in US

[Brian Gregory]

 NESC and NETA {2013} are both ANSI standards and are both pretty much aimed at 
the utility-distribution crowd:  aka, 4 kV and above.  Colorado Brian Gregory
720-450-4933

-- Original Message --
From: John Allen <john_e_al...@blueyonder.co.uk>
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Safety requirements in US
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2016 11:23:00 +0100


What a web of interconnecting (and not!) US regulations, 
standards, codes and regulatory authorities!. But we still sometimes then get 
US-based questions on the European Wiring Regs or similar - seems 
like a case of Physician, heal thyself first. J
John E Allen
W.London, UK
 
From: Scott Douglas [mailto:sdouglas...@gmail.com] 
Sent: 26 July 2016 03:59
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Safety requirements in US
 
And not to confuse the issue even more, but then there is the N.E.S.C. - 
National Electrical Safety Code (or nowadays ANSI Standard C2) published by 
IEEE. Adopted in most states in some fashion, except for California which does 
its own thing. I think this one is primarily aimed at utilities though. Dates 
back to 1913.
 
On 7/25/2016 6:34 PM, Brian O'Connell wrote:
Correct, National Electric Code is pro forma NFPA70, or at least per 
administrative laws of each U.S. state. 
 
But the reader should understand that there are state and municipal regulations 
that also specifically and formally refer to NFPA79 and NFPA99 as national 
building codes.
 
And the NFPA itself refers to 99 as a national 'Code'. 
 
The scope of the thread was OSHA per the NEC and associated test standards, 
where my premise is that 'code' and standards evolve and are contrived via 
various circular references.
 
And Mr. Nute pointed to the problem of the various NEC versions enacted locally 
(most, but not all, have adopted 2014) vs the referenced product safety 
standard that would be used to verify compliance by the AHJ. And the OSHA 
cannot affect any force for an organizing change as their statue scopes only 
workplace safety.
 
Brian
 
From: msherma...@comcast.net <msherma...@comcast.net>
Sent: Monday, July 25, 2016 6:02 PM
To: Brian O'Connell; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Safety requirements in US
 
NEC is specifically NFPA 70, otherwise known as the National Electrical Code. 

Sent from Xfinity Connect Mobile App

-- Original Message --

From: Brian O'Connell
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Sent: July 25, 2016 at 7:26 PM
Subject: Re: [PSES] Safety requirements in US
By 'NEC", will assume that the reference is something like NFPA70 or 79. There 
are, as we all know, many other elements of NFPA construction requirements . 
NFPAs can reference ANSI, IEC, NEMA, ASME, IEEE, and other standards; and many 
ANSI, NEMA, and IEEE standards reference one or more NFPA elements in the scope 
statements. So the references are intended to be circular. 
 
Brian
From: Richard Nute <ri...@ieee.org>
Sent: Monday, July 25, 2016 2:15:11 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Safety requirements in US
 
 
Each NRTL has a scope of test standards that they are recognized 
for
https://www.osha.gov/dts/otpca/nrtl/
Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratories (NRTLs)
www.osha.gov
OSHA's Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL) Program. Recognizes 
private sector organizations to perform certification for certain products to 
ensure that ...
 
 
NRTL certification for OSHA purposes is limited to its scope of test standards. 
 Check out your favorite NRTL for its OSHA test standards.
 
We dont yet know whether the NEC is limited to the OSHA NRTL scope test 
standards or is open to all test standards the NRTL certifies products to.  
(Awful English, but understandable.)
 
And, we dont yet know whether the locally-adopted NEC will be the OSHA 
NRTL scope test standards or will be open to all test standards the NRTL 
certifies products to.   
 
 
Rich
 
 
-

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://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 <sdoug...@ieee.org>
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 E

Re: [PSES] NEC 2017

[Brian Gregory]

 Let's also remember that there are categories of Listed products at companies 
like UL, CSA and Intertek:  including 'recognized' and 'approved.'   The 
difference is out of scope for this discussion.  The proper phrase from a legal 
standpoint IMO, should be approved and not "listed."  As such, listed, 
recognized or approved, are all "approved" appliances.  It's what I always 
used. I'll say that AHJ's aren't often in the position of inspecting plugged-in 
units,  My experience suggests that only happens when there's been some sort of 
problem, and also the person who has had an AHJ called on them is likely the 
type who's too lazy to unplug things and generally tidy up for an inspection. 
In regards to Mr. Eckert's question: "whether there has been a problem with 
products being released with a Listing mark from a test lab that does not have 
NRTL approval" When I worked at an NRTL, a story circulated (veracity never 
verified, but useful for hawking testing services) about a person in Oregon who 
purchased a non-approved exercise stroller appliance from overseas via the 
Internet.  It subsequently caught fire and burned the house down. The story 
goes that the insurance company found out all about the source of the fire, and 
thence in either its by-laws or state code a prohibition of non-approved 
appliances and was able to legally refuse payment. So, that's an example.  
Another is to research Home Depot's buyer's guide:  I believe they somewhere 
say in writing that they'll not sell non-approved plug-in appliances. happy 
weekend all, Colorado Brian 

-- Original Message --
From: Ted Eckert <07cf6ebeab9d-dmarc-requ...@ieee.org>
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] NEC 2017
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2016 16:08:54 +


I concur with Mr. Perkins assessment. The NEC has used the term 
Listed for quite a while without specifically connecting it to 
the NRTL program. It only had to be a Listing acceptable to the 
local AHJ, which almost always meant NRTL Listed. I believe the intent of is to 
clarify the intent of current practice.
 
In regards to Mr. Powells comments; the AHJ will normally sign off 
before many plug-connected appliances are installed. Most of the AHJ inspection 
will cover appliances attached to building structure which are largely covered 
by the NRTL program. There are installations where this will be a problem as 
noted below. However, I dont expect most AHJs to know which products are 
covered by the NRTL program and which are not. The AHJ will likely accept an 
approval mark by a test lab in the NRTL program even if that test lab 
doesnt have the standard for that product within the scope of their NRTL 
registration. 
 
The question I have is whether there has been a problem with products being 
released with a Listing mark from a test lab that does not have NRTL approval 
for the standard being certified when that standard is covered by the NRTL? In 
other words, have any AHJs accepted products with meaningless Listing marks for 
products covered under the NRTL program?
 
 
Ted Eckert
Microsoft Corporation
 
The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my 
employer.
 
From: Doug Powell [mailto:doug...@gmail.com] 
 Sent: Friday, July 22, 2016 5:47 AM
 To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
 Subject: Re: [PSES] NEC 2017
 
I need to read the 2017 edition as well. 
 
Requiring NRTL simply seems wrong, if only because not all appliance standards 
are available under the NRTL program 
https://www.osha.gov/dts/otpca/nrtl/list_standards.html. 
 
I am presently working on certifying a UL 1973 product and will have to settle 
for the agency monogram but no NRTL. I am certain there are many more product 
types like this.  
 
In addition, the first 1/4th of that listing of standards are not UL standards 
at all. It would seem that if OSHA is able to understand this nuance, then NFPA 
and AHJs should be able to understand this as well.  
 
All the best, Doug
 
Douglas E Powell
https://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01
 
 
 
 
From: Pete Perkins
Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2016 11:46 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Reply To: Pete Perkins
Subject: Re: [PSES] NEC 2017
 
Dave, et al,. 
This is not a new requirement for the NEC.  In the past the NEC 
required that all equipment be Labeled [Art 100 definition] by an organization 
acceptable to the AHJ indicating compliance with appropriate standards ...  The 
Handbook explanation also adds a reference to  Art 90.7 which  is an 
examination of equipment for safety.  
 
I haven't read the 2017 NEC but you claim that NRTL has been added.  If 
so, I'm not surprised as this is just a clarification to what has been 
understood for years.  
As has been discussed before, Americans are quick to promulgate rules 
but reluctant to spend anything on enforcement.  OSHA invokes the NRTL cert 
requirement for equipment used in the workplace.   Other enforcement is mixed; 
much enforcement is 

Re: [PSES] Transformer insulation class

[Brian Gregory]

 To simplify;  I often saw transformers declared class A pretty simply w/o any 
record of an independent evaluation or certification. Higher classes are 
another matter completely.  To get a transformer approved for operation above 
the limits for class A, one needs a separate evaluation.  I'll skip detail over 
which standard or process could be used, simply to assert that you'll need to 
talk to your NRTL or NB about this... unless the vendor has a class B 
equivalent. You'll need either:  a class B transformer, a new certification for 
the transformer in use to class B, or some fairly specialized in-product 
testing and additional safeguards. Any way you take that advice, you're going 
back to your NRTL or NB...  Colorado Brian 

-- Original Message --
From: Scott Aldous <0220f70c299a-dmarc-requ...@ieee.org>
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Transformer insulation class
Date: Thu, 19 May 2016 08:22:22 -0700


I assume this is in regard to certification for the US (i.e. NRTL 
certification). UL 1446 is the standard for insulating material systems (UL 
category code OBJY2). Interpretation of this particular requirement may vary 
depending on the agency you are dealing with and the product category for the 
end product. As the guide card information I linked to indicates, UL generally 
considers insulation systems rated higher than class A to require evaluation to 
UL 1446. The rationale is that there are interactions of the materials 
(including items specific to construction configuration) that come into play, 
so individual insulation system component ratings are not sufficient 
information to determine the classification of the whole insulation system. If 
your product is subject to UL and/or IEC 60950-1, then IEC 60085 is referenced 
in Annex P.1, and UL 1446 is referenced in Annex P.2. (as an alternate 
component standard for the US). If you have access to the UL Practical 
Application Guidelines for UL 60950-1, take a look at P1.5.2-5 Required use of 
insulation systems other than Class A. This PAG notes that both the IEC and UL 
standards have statements to the effect that a system class cannot be 
determined just from the individual materials used.  The "OTHER" section of the 
PAG has the interesting statement that "Most NCBs do not apply IEC 60085 as 
intended..."
On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 7:55 AM, Doug Powell  wrote:
Ian, My personal experience is mainly with custom switch mode transformers, 
some very high power and intended for use in high temperature ambients.  These 
have been used in European, North American and Asian markets. In every case 
these transformers have been approved through evaluation within the product or 
products where they are used. This evaluation included material classes for 
insulation, thermal and flammability; construction review and finally 
performance testing within the product itself. In twenty years, I have yet to 
certify a custom made switch mode transformer as a separate component.   That 
said, I have on a couple of occasions had to get a special evaluation done on 
some insulating materials, such as ball pressure, hot wire, etc. In these 
cases, I find it best to have your supplier do these evaluations and pass the 
certs along to you. It can take months to complete. All the best,   Doug 
--
Sent from my smartphone, please excuse the typos.From: McBurney, IanSent: 
Thursday, May 19, 2016 3:19 AMTo: emc-p...@listserv.ieee.ORGReply To: McBurney, 
IanSubject: [PSES] Transformer insulation class 
Hello colleagues.
 
The switch mode transformers we use in our power supplies are specified by the 
testing  agency as insulation class A even though the materials used in the 
transformer are all rated for 130°C operation.
We have asked the agency to up rate the transformer to insulation class B but 
the say they cannot do this as the transformer would have to be approved as a 
component.
Is this correct?
 
Many thanks in advance.
 
Ian McBurney
Design & Compliance Engineer.
 
Allen & Heath Ltd.
Kernick Industrial Estate,
Penryn, Cornwall. TR10 9LU. UK
T: 01326 372070
E: ian.mcbur...@allen-heath.com
 
 
Allen & Heath Ltd is a registered business in England and Wales, Company 
number: 4163451. Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual 
and not necessarily those of the company. -
 
 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 

Re: [PSES] power quality monitors/analyzers

[Brian Gregory]

 For field use I've found Dranetz and RPM 
(http://www.powerqualityinc.com/rpm.html) to be the most durable.   Colorado 
Brian

-- Original Message --
From: "Brian O'Connell" 
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] power quality monitors/analyzers
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2016 18:41:39 +

PQ monitor is not same animal as power analyzer. If for "occasional field use", 
do not understand your I/O requirements.

For PQ/datalogging, make my own stuff. For power analyzer, tend to prefer 
Voltech and Fluke. Note that Voltech PAs were transferred to Tektronix.

Rent the most likely candidates before you buy.

Brian

From: Adam Dixon [mailto:lanterna.viri...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2016 8:55 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] power quality monitors/analyzers

I would appreciate recommendations for power quality monitors/analyzers to use 
for occasional field use.  There are a couple of archive threads related to 
this (1999 and 2006) where a few manufacturers are shared.  I've searched the 
web several times in the past few weeks and it appears that there is a wide 
cost range depending on sample rate, single vs. three phase, low voltage only, 
networked, etc. and that the marketing term 'low cost' is relative.  ;-)
The power supplies with which I am working have a 20ms hold-up spec and are 
85-264VAC rated.  

Ideally it would be networked in some fashion, whether built-in Ethernet 
(TCP/IP) or tethered via USB or RS232 to a PC that is networked which may 
remain in-situ for hours to weeks depending on the test requirement.
Is there a make/model that you think has an obvious price/performance benefit 
and/or one that is quite low cost if evaluating rent vs purchase?
I have read datasheets from Fluke, Dranetz, Yokogawa, Hiok, Megger, PSL, Setra, 
Rockwell Automation, ACScout, ACR Systems and a few others which escape me at 
the moment.
Thanks for reading.

Cheers,
Adam

-

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] Standards for Photo Voltaics Inverter

[Brian Gregory]

 Grace,Safety standards are: IEC 62109-1 and UL 62109-1 is now approved for 
N.America. Brian Gregory
720-450-4933

-- Original Message --
From: Grace Lin <graceli...@gmail.com>
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Standards for Photo Voltaics Inverter
Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2016 06:30:51 -0800


Dear Members, Could you please advise what are the appropriate standards for 
photo voltaics inverters (360Vdc in, 110Vac or 230Vac out)?  Does 61000-4-13 
apply. Thank you very much and I look forward to your help. Best regards,Grace 
Lin -
 
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://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 <sdoug...@ieee.org>
 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://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 <sdoug...@ieee.org>
Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org>

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  <j.bac...@ieee.org>
David Heald: <dhe...@gmail.com>

Re: [PSES] grounding of output of solar inverter

[Brian Gregory]

 Brian is right;  all NEC rules apply to the installation.  In this case, the 
practical solution could be a sub-panel for the house loads that are served by 
the inverter, but there are several ways it could be done.  You are looking 
inside the inverter (and the inverter safety standard) for the solution.  Look 
outside the box. Colorado Brian

-- Original Message --
From: "Brian O'Connell" 
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] grounding of output of solar inverter
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2016 17:27:37 +

Reference articles 250 and 690 of the NEC (NFPA70). Canada and Mexico code 
similar.

Brian

From: Botjan Glavi [mailto:bostjan.gla...@siq.si] 
Sent: Monday, February 15, 2016 9:05 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] grounding of output of solar inverter

Dear experts,

Is anyone familiar with UL 1741? I am dealing with solar inverter for US 
market. Solar inverter can operate in utility interactive mode (feeding the 
grid) or in a standalone mode where only homeloads are supplied by 
inverter (anti-islanding relays are open, due to problems with the grid). When 
anti-islanding relays are open, I have an issue of grounding the neutral 
conductor of output for homeloads. How can this grounding be achieved? Clause 
19.2 does not allow grounding inside the unit (or I have understood it 
incorrectly and it only prohibits fixed connection) and clause 19.3 requires 
that output is grounded. Below is extract from the standard.
Any idea? I think it is the same issue as with UPS.

19.2 An inverter intended to be utility-interactive shall not have a 
direct/solid electrical connection between any output ac conductor and the 
enclosure.

19.3 Other than as specified in 19.2, each ac output circuit shall have a 
grounded conductor. The ac output circuit conductor to be grounded shall be as 
follows:
a) Single-phase, 2-wire - one conductor.
b) Single-phase, 3-wire - the neutral conductor.
c) Multiphase system having one wire common to all phases - the common 
conductor.
d) Multiphase system in which one phase is used as in item (b) - the neutral 
conductor.

19.4 The conductor specified in 19.3 is to be connected by a bonding jumper 
connected between the grounded conductor and:
a) The enclosure of a metal-enclosed unit, or
b) For a nonmetallic enclosed unit, the metal chassis that is bonded to the 
equipment grounding
conductor or terminal. See 18.2.1.

Thank you for your support.

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] Is your company doing enough to ensure adequate EMC complia nce?

[Brian Gregory]

 Ah yes, I recall a conversation with a bright one from Garrad Hassan about a 
mutual customer.  He was establishing their compliance with GH's established 
financial qualifications for an undisclosed analysis.  I picked on the 
distinction rather quickly and had to clarify to him what compliance meant to 
me, representing an NRTL. Colorado Brian 

-- Original Message --
From: Scott Aldous <0220f70c299a-dmarc-requ...@ieee.org>
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Is your company doing enough to ensure adequate EMC complia 
nce?
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2016 10:11:52 -0800


As is made somewhat more clear in this article (linked to by the original), 
this has nothing to do with technical product compliance but is about 
securities compliance.  Sloppy use of the term "compliance" with no explanation 
of the specific meaning. Scott (am I the "other" Scott?) just made a similar 
point... I will post anyway.
On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 9:52 AM, Brian Gregory <brian_greg...@netzero.net> 
wrote:
  If you read the article (and others) it can be read either way.  The blog's 
purpose is to give Compliance Officers tools, reference information and 
background as to what is going on.  That the SEC is getting involved in 
Compliance investigations indicates to me increased scrutiny of companies' 
compliance issues.  As a technical issue, this appears to me to be bureaucratic 
overreach at the least, since SEC and DOJ aren't safety organizations like 
OSHA.  I think out-of-compliance issues should be (1) safety based and (2) 
customer sourced.  SEC or DOJ get involved when there's a user-related problem 
or clear malfeasance (altering of documentation, unsubstantiated claims, etc.), 
which are covered under existing laws. As I see IEC regulations leaning more 
towards risk management/aversion, I get the feeling that standards 
organizations are also contributing to this overreach by trying to solve 
problems, via regulation/standardization that haven't been proven yet to be 
problems in the actual marketplace of people, customers and products.  If 
you've been involved in any STP's, it's hard to avoid the feeling that there 
are some making hay out of increased regulatory oversight, including many ways 
that help consultants more than end users.  Colorado Brian 

-- Original Message --
From: "gdstuyvenb...@yahoo.com"  
<058ee1229c70-dmarc-requ...@ieee.org>
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Is your company doing enough to ensure adequate EMC 
compliance?
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2016 13:29:10 +

Ken, wasn't suggesting increased government regulation, rather useful tips for 
our own consideration.  
Gary StuyvenbergThompson Consulting From: Ken Javor 
<ken.ja...@emccompliance.com>
 To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG 
 Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2016 10:59 PM
 Subject: Re: [PSES] Is your company doing enough to ensure adequate EMC 
compliance?
 
Last week was a good one for the compliance profession.   Could 
not disagree more.  This is big brother, or socialism, call it what you will.  
A product either meets requirements, or it doesn't. The govt instructing 
the private sector on how to get there is worse than superfluous, its 
damaging.  Ken Javor Phone: (256) 650-5261   From: "gdstuyvenb...@yahoo.com" 
<058ee1229c70-dmarc-requ...@ieee.org> Reply-To: "gdstuyvenb...@yahoo.com" 
<gdstuyvenb...@yahoo.com> Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2016 03:33:42 + To: 
<EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> Subject: [PSES] Is your company doing enough to 
ensure adequate EMC compliance?  As this is a board that deals primarily with 
regulatory/compliance issues, I thought the following article was pertinent to 
our cause and deserving of consideration.FEDS AS THOUGHT LEADERS: A 
BACK-DOOR COMPLIANCE DEFENSE TAKES SHAPE 
<http://www.fcpablog.com/blog/2015/11/11/feds-as-thought-leaders-a-back-door-compliance-defense-takes.html>
  By Richard L. Cassin <http://www.fcpablog.com/blog/author/fcpablog>  | 
Wednesday, November 11, 2015 at 7:53AM Assistant Attorney General Leslie 
Caldwell said last week the DOJ's hiring of a compliance counsel doesn't mean 
the agency is "moving toward recognizing or instituting a 'compliance 
defense.'" What then will the compliance counsel do? "She will help us evaluate 
each compliance program on a case-by-case basis -- just as the department 
always has -- but with a more expert eye," AAG Caldwell told a gethering 
<http://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/assistant-attorney-general-leslie-r-caldwell-speaks-sifma-compliance-and-legal-society>
  of compliance officers in New York. Caldwell, pictured above, then set out 
the factors the DOJ compliance counsel will assess: Does the institution ensure 
that its directors and senior managers provide strong, explicit and visible 
support for its corporate compliance policies? 
Do t

Re: [PSES] Is your company doing enough to ensure adequate EMC complia nce?

[Brian Gregory]

  If you read the article (and others) it can be read either way.  The blog's 
purpose is to give Compliance Officers tools, reference information and 
background as to what is going on.   That the SEC is getting involved in 
Compliance investigations indicates to me increased scrutiny of companies' 
compliance issues.  As a technical issue, this appears to me to be bureaucratic 
overreach at the least, since SEC and DOJ aren't safety organizations like 
OSHA.  I think out-of-compliance issues should be (1) safety based and (2) 
customer sourced.  SEC or DOJ get involved when there's a user-related problem 
or clear malfeasance (altering of documentation, unsubstantiated claims, etc.), 
which are covered under existing laws. As I see IEC regulations leaning more 
towards risk management/aversion, I get the feeling that standards 
organizations are also contributing to this overreach by trying to solve 
problems, via regulation/standardization that haven't been proven yet to be 
problems in the actual marketplace of people, customers and products.  If 
you've been involved in any STP's, it's hard to avoid the feeling that there 
are some making hay out of increased regulatory oversight, including many ways 
that help consultants more than end users.  Colorado Brian 

-- Original Message --
From: "gdstuyvenb...@yahoo.com"  
<058ee1229c70-dmarc-requ...@ieee.org>
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Is your company doing enough to ensure adequate EMC 
compliance?
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2016 13:29:10 +


Ken, wasn't suggesting increased government regulation, rather useful tips for 
our own consideration.  
Gary StuyvenbergThompson Consulting From: Ken Javor 

 To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG 
 Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2016 10:59 PM
 Subject: Re: [PSES] Is your company doing enough to ensure adequate EMC 
compliance?
 
Last week was a good one for the compliance profession.   Could 
not disagree more.  This is big brother, or socialism, call it what you will.  
A product either meets requirements, or it doesn't. The govt instructing 
the private sector on how to get there is worse than superfluous, its 
damaging.  Ken Javor Phone: (256) 650-5261   From: "gdstuyvenb...@yahoo.com" 
<058ee1229c70-dmarc-requ...@ieee.org> Reply-To: "gdstuyvenb...@yahoo.com" 
 Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2016 03:33:42 + To: 
 Subject: [PSES] Is your company doing enough to 
ensure adequate EMC compliance?  As this is a board that deals primarily with 
regulatory/compliance issues, I thought the following article was pertinent to 
our cause and deserving of consideration.FEDS AS THOUGHT LEADERS: A 
BACK-DOOR COMPLIANCE DEFENSE TAKES SHAPE 

  By Richard L. Cassin   | 
Wednesday, November 11, 2015 at 7:53AM Assistant Attorney General Leslie 
Caldwell said last week the DOJ's hiring of a compliance counsel doesn't mean 
the agency is "moving toward recognizing or instituting a 'compliance 
defense.'" What then will the compliance counsel do? "She will help us evaluate 
each compliance program on a case-by-case basis -- just as the department 
always has -- but with a more expert eye," AAG Caldwell told a gethering 

  of compliance officers in New York. Caldwell, pictured above, then set out 
the factors the DOJ compliance counsel will assess: Does the institution ensure 
that its directors and senior managers provide strong, explicit and visible 
support for its corporate compliance policies? 
Do the people who are responsible for compliance have stature within the 
company? Do compliance teams get adequate funding and access to necessary 
resources? Of course, we wont expect that a smaller company has the same 
compliance resources as a Fortune-50 company. 
Are the institutions compliance policies clear and in writing? Are they 
easily understood by employees? Are the policies translated into languages 
spoken by the companys employees? 
Does the institution ensure that its compliance policies are effectively 
communicated to all employees? Are its written policies easy for employees to 
find? Do employees have repeated training, which should include direction 
regarding what to do or with whom to consult when issues arise? 
Does the institution review its policies and practices to keep them up to date 
with evolving risks and circumstances? This is especially important if a 
U.S.-based entity acquires or merges with another business, especially a 
foreign one. 
Are there mechanisms to enforce compliance policies? Those include both 
incentivizing good compliance and disciplining violations. Is discipline even 
handed? The department 

Re: [PSES] spacex EMC tst engr job

[Brian Gregory]

  Just so's all of you know;  Hawthorn isn't exactly the jewel of the west! 
Colorado Brian 

-- Original Message --
From: Ed Price 
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] spacex EMC tst engr job
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2016 18:25:03 -0800


Yes, that 50 WPM typing requirement disqualifies me too. I only type with two 
fingers, and even that skill is degraded when I need to use one finger for 
signaling.
 
Ed Price
WB6WSN
Chula Vista, CA USA


 
From: McDiarmid, Ralph [mailto:ralph.mcdiar...@schneider-electric.com] 
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2016 2:41 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] spacex EMC tst engr job
 
I though this funny that one of the preferred skills is, "Able to type at a 
rate of at least 50 wpm" 

I think my mom could do 60 wpm in about 1950 on a manual typewriter.  I think I 
can do about 40 wpm on a good day on a keyboard;  50 would be take some 
training and dedication. 
___ 

Ralph McDiarmid  |   Schneider Electric   |  Solar Business  |   CANADA  |   
Regulatory Compliance Engineering 



From:
"Brian O'Connell" 
To:
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG, 
Date:
01/14/2016 01:57 PM
Subject:
[PSES] spacex EMC tst engr job
 



Saw this on the SpaceX web site.

http://www.spacex.com/careers/position/8459

damn, makes me wish that my specialty is EMC.



-
 
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] Cable retention force

[Brian Gregory]

  UL 508A refers us to UL 310 for bushings;  UL 486A-486B Table 27 has values 
for #30 up to 2000 kCM, but that is only based on cable size, not the weight of 
equipment.  My non-indexed search didn't come up with anything else through a 
dozen or so IEC standards while searching for "retention" or "pullout."  
Interesting challenge.  You might try ASME standards on the bushings. Colorado 
Brian 
720-450-4933

-- Original Message --
From: Gary McInturff 
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Cable retention force
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2015 17:04:38 +


Does anybody know of a standard which describes cable retention force other 
than safety standards such as 60601-1 (Medical General Safety) or 60950 (ITE 
general safety) and if so can you give me the numbers. The product is about 2 
pounds. ITE would say that the value is about 6 pounds.
-
 
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] Unexplained High Fallout of Power Supplies

[Brian Gregory]

 -- Original Message --
From: "Kunde, Brian" 
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2015 20:13:33 +


Hello Brian,
 
> test to IEC 61000-4-11

 
I think the problem is line surges external to your units, and you are on the 
right track when you suspect that all the test equipment is very 
current-limited, yet the collection systems in your customers' applications are 
not.  Even surge testers have limits, unless the stack is as tall as you are. 
 
> power supplies are failing while the instruments are in Stand-by mode 
> (running but not during an analysis), meaning, 
> the high current filter is not running at the time of the failures. 
 
I've only had so much time to follow this very interesting topic.  To be sure 
it's external circumstances, I'd tie a signal of some sort from the 
high-current furnace into your line analyzer (or feed both that and an external 
trigger from the analyzer into a storage scope).  If a failure or line surge 
corresponds to the furnace coming on, then you look inside your unit.  
Otherwise, Occam's razor is cutting towards line surges from the facility.

 
> failure in our Apps Lab a few nights ago in one of the same units that failed 
> a few weeks ago. We installed a Surge Suppressor in
> an adjacent instrument which did not fail. Our AC Line Analyzer showed a 
> transient  pulse which was clipped off (probably by the
> surge suppressor) at 600 volts with a duration of 14us.  
 
Did you get waveshape capture?  If so, and the peak is quite flat, then it's 
for sure the TVS in the adjacent device clamped the surge.  14 uSec. is longer 
than any of the waveforms provided by standard testers.
 
> power supply blew its fuses (one on each side of the line) plus  opened an 
> upstream 15 amp circuit breaker. ... it did not blow 
> its guts out like previous failures. This one just opened the fuses. We 
> replaced the fuses and the power supply was functional.  
 
I'd say you need some TVS devices...  how widely spread, geographically, have 
been the failures?   Transients (often from power line capacitor switching) 
akin to what was measured in your Lab are more widespread than reported.

 
> Surge Immunity tests on this same instrument with the same surge suppressor 
> according to IEC 61000-4-5 up to 6KV without
> damage.  So something is different from this test setup verses the real 
> world. 
 
Check the surge generator;  I'll bet its current limit is tightly tied to 8/20 
usec waveforms.  Grids are not.   Still, I'm a bit troubled by the sudden 
uptick in failures, including in units (correct assumption?) that have been 
installed and running for a year or more
 
Colorado Brian  

-

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] IEC 61010-1 Table K.17

[Brian Gregory]

  Doug, The standard must assume the RF circuits are even more energy-limited 
than secondary circuits is my best guess.  If so, it doesn't say that anywhere 
I could find.  It takes voltage, but also energy to create an ionizing path.   
Regards,  Brian Gregory
720-450-4933

-- Original Message --
From: Doug Powell doug...@gmail.com
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] IEC 61010-1 Table K.17
Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2015 16:47:28 -0600


All,
 
 I am evaluating spacings for an RF product that operates at 13.56 MHz and can 
produce maximum voltages of 5,000 Vrms (7,070 Vpk).  If I do an interpolation 
of using Table 6 (Mains 230 V, OV Cat II, indexing on 5,000 Vrms), I get a 
minimum clearance requirement of 14.9 mm.  When I do the same calculation on 
Table K.17 (column 3, indexing on 7,070 Vpk), I get 12.7 mm.  
 
 Now I understand the effects of high frequency voltage stress causing air 
molecules to become more energetic and therefore more likely to break down at 
lower voltages.  So why in this case does IEC 61010-1 Table K.17 result in 
lower clearance values than Table 6?  Somehow, this just seems wrong.
 
 Please note that in the case of high frequencies paragraph K.3.1 indicates I 
am to skip over section K.3.2 with the D1 + F × (D2 ndash; D1) calculations.
 
 Thanks a bunch!
 
 Doug
 
 Douglas E Powell
 doug...@gmail.com
 http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01
-
 
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://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 sdoug...@ieee.org
 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://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 sdoug...@ieee.org
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  j.bac...@ieee.org
David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com

Re: [PSES] Accreditation for standard comprehension?

[Brian Gregory]

  The only ones that come to mind are ISO audits, and the contractual 
requirements between you entity and the NRTL/NB you engage to provide your 
certifications. These only require that you possess the standard in question 
and employees can locate it when necessary, thereby establishing familiarity. 
 None that I know require any demonstration of competence.  NRTL's must 
establish competence, and adequacy of their facilities, to their auditors. 
Colorado Brian 

-- Original Message --
From: Crane, Lauren lauren.cr...@kla-tencor.com
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Accreditation for standard comprehension?
Date: Mon, 11 May 2015 23:15:53 +


Does anyone know of any conformance assessor certification schemes that have 
provisions requiring the applicant to demonstrate familiarity with the 
standards to which they will be assessing?
 
I am familiar with a couple lab certification schemes that appear to focus on 
general business practices and professional qualifications and rigor of 
assessment, but not necessarily needing to demonstrate the assessor knows well 
what the standard requires.
 
Regards,
Lauren Crane
KLA-Tencor
 
-
 
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://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 sdoug...@ieee.org
 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://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 sdoug...@ieee.org
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  j.bac...@ieee.org
David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com

Re: [PSES] Warning Label: Disconnect from Mains

[Brian Gregory]

 Hello again, Brian;  It sure does sound to me like you've done your basic 
diligence;  are the ANSI compliant symbols any different from the JIT compliant 
symbols?  Even when I was with an NRTL/NB organization, I was often irked by 
standards requirements that were not requested or considered useful by actual 
customers. That being said, I've got the feeling that an informed answer would 
require a fairly detailed account of getting dinged in Europe  Regards, Brian 
Gregory[Colorado] 
720-450-4933

-- Original Message --
From: Kunde, Brian brian_ku...@lecotc.com
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Warning Label: Disconnect from Mains
Date: Fri, 1 May 2015 18:15:40 +


Thanks Doug and Colorado Brian. We liked the look of the new ANSI labels so we 
switch over all the warning labels on our products to this style a few years 
ago. But now we are getting dinged in Europe and have to replace the labels 
with symbols only or with the text in the language of the country we sold in. 
This is difficult to do because sometime we ship instruments to our sales 
offices in Europe but we donrsquo;t know what country it might be sold in 
until it is purchased. 
 
Why donrsquo;t the EU just decide on one language like the Chinese did? (Those 
are fighting words). 
 
We do explain the meaning of our warning symbols in the Userrsquo;s Manual and 
the manuals are translated into different languages depending on the country it 
is sold and what our customers want. The users of our type of instruments are 
generally well educated (scientists, chemists, engineers, technicians, etc.) 
and most of the time they are happy with English only. But when other languages 
are requested we try to provide them translated copies fairly quickly. 
Itrsquo;s very costly , too.
 
Most of our customers send their Users for training at our facility in the US. 
Classes are in English Only. 

 The other Brian
 
From: dougp01 [mailto:doug...@gmail.com] 
 Sent: Friday, May 01, 2015 1:48 PM
 To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
 Subject: Re: [PSES] Warning Label: Disconnect from Mains
 
I agree with Colorado Brian. It seems that more and more, IEC-based standards 
are requiring a full explanation of symbols and warnings in the user 
documentation. As it turns out, many clients of mine leave the user manuals to 
the very last and they are usually very lacking. Where possible using symbols 
only is an economical option. 
 
One exception to using just symbols might be in certain industries where using 
an ANSI/IEC compliant labeling system is required.  lrm;In this case some 
verbiage is required. The text should simply describe the problem and how to 
avoid it. Nothing more. Proper use of the keywords Danger, Warning, and Caution 
are also essential.  Since overstating the hazard is not advisable.
 
All the best, Doug

 
 

 
 
From: Brian Gregory
Sent: Friday, May 1, 2015 11:31 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Reply To: Brian Gregory
Subject: Re: [PSES] Warning Label: Disconnect from Mains
 
 
 
-- Original Message --
 From: Kunde, Brian brian_ku...@lecotc.com
 Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2015 18:54:17 +
Brian, thanks for your input. Can the potential hazard be addresses without 
English Text which may be misunderstood by those unfamiliar with the language? 
Wouldnrsquo;t Symbols Only be better? 
 
[Colorado Brian here]  Symbols ON the equipment are sufficient, and often 
preferred.  John's answer is also correct, that the symbols (even fully 
JIT-compliant ones) need explained, in all the appropriate languages (as 
defined by ND's), in the supplied documentation.  Any additional needed 
information can be added at this point by the manufacturer.  
 
 
So if AHJs, NRTLs, etc. like to see some kind of warning on the outside of 
electrical equipment, then wonrsquo;t the Hazardous Voltage Warning symbol 
alone meet this requirement WITHOUT any Text?  
 
As the Machinery Directive states, ldquo;Information and warnings on the 
machinery should preferably be provided in the form of readily understandable 
symbols or pictograms.rdquo;
 
Bingo;  warnings on the machinery 
 
And in the case given in the 61010-1 standards, it doesnrsquo;t say that you 
have to use Text, but what the warning marking should state. A symbol or 
symbols can ldquo;staterdquo; or have the same meaning as text without the 
concern of the User needing to be able to understand the language of the text.  
 
I advise being verbose as possible in the documentation;  this can be in 
digital format, so needn't incur much additional expense.  You, as the 
manufacturer, are now officially on record as directing the end user:  DO this, 
NOT that... etc.   Wordy labels can be expensive, and possibly confusing (esp. 
when many languages get involved);  I was always perfectly happy with symbols.
 
CYA, baby 
 
The Colorado Brian
 

  
 
From: Nyffenegger, Dave [mailto:dave.nyffeneg...@bhemail.com] 
 Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2015 10:39 AM

Re: [PSES] Warning Label: Disconnect from Mains

[Brian Gregory]

  -- Original Message --
From: Kunde, Brian brian_ku...@lecotc.com
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2015 18:54:17 +


Brian, thanks for your input. Can the potential hazard be addresses without 
English Text which may be misunderstood by those unfamiliar with the language? 
Wouldnrsquo;t Symbols Only be better? 
 
[Colorado Brian here]  Symbols ON the equipment are sufficient, and often 
preferred.  John's answer is also correct, that the symbols (even fully 
JIT-compliant ones) need explained, in all the appropriate languages (as 
defined by ND's), in the supplied documentation.  Any additional needed 
information can be added at this point by the manufacturer.  

 

So if AHJs, NRTLs, etc. like to see some kind of warning on the outside of 
electrical equipment, then wonrsquo;t the Hazardous Voltage Warning symbol 
alone meet this requirement WITHOUT any Text?  
 
As the Machinery Directive states, ldquo;Information and warnings on the 
machinery should preferably be provided in the form of readily understandable 
symbols or pictograms.rdquo;
 
Bingo;  warnings on the machinery 
 
And in the case given in the 61010-1 standards, it doesnrsquo;t say that you 
have to use Text, but what the warning marking should state. A symbol or 
symbols can ldquo;staterdquo; or have the same meaning as text without the 
concern of the User needing to be able to understand the language of the text.  
 
I advise being verbose as possible in the documentation;  this can be in 
digital format, so needn't incur much additional expense.  You, as the 
manufacturer, are now officially on record as directing the end user:  DO this, 
NOT that... etc.   Wordy labels can be expensive, and possibly confusing (esp. 
when many languages get involved);  I was always perfectly happy with symbols.

 
CYA, baby 
 
The Colorado Brian
 

  
From: Nyffenegger, Dave [mailto:dave.nyffeneg...@bhemail.com] 
 Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2015 10:39 AM
 To: Kunde, Brian
 Cc: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
 Subject: RE: Warning Label: Disconnect from Mains
 
Our NRTL asks for the warning ldquo;No User Serviceable Parts Insiderdquo;  
when that is the case but that is relative to products complying with UL/EN 
60950-1 and EN 60204-1.   Of course that needs to be translated into all 
appropriate languages too.
 
-Dave
 
From: Kunde, Brian [mailto:brian_ku...@lecotc.com] 
 Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2015 10:21 AM
 To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
 Subject: [PSES] Warning Label: Disconnect from Mains
 
Greetings.
 
We make laboratory equipment designed to the requirements of the IEC/EN/UL/CSA 
61010-1 Ed. 3 standard.  
 
Most electrical equipment has at least one warning somewhere visible on the 
outside of the equipment that states something like, ldquo;Disconnect Power 
Before Servicingrdquo;. 
Where does this requirement come from? I see no such requirement in the 61010-1 
standard.
 
The 61010-1 does say, ldquo;If the instructions for use state that an OPERATOR 
is permitted to gain access, using a TOOL, to a part which
in NORMAL USE may be HAZARDOUS LIVE, there shall be a warning marking which 
states that the equipment
must be isolated or disconnected from the HAZARDOUS LIVE voltage before 
access.rdquo;
 
However, if our users do not need to gain access inside our equipment, then I 
assume such warning is unnecessary.
 
We used to have a warning label on any tool assessable panel that has hazardous 
voltages behind it. However, I do not see this as a requirement in the 61010-1. 
 In the past, we have had inspectors write us up for not having such labels on 
all panels with hazardous voltage behind it. Does this requirement come from 
somewhere else? Are the inspectors wrong?
 
The label we commonly use has the Symbol 12 (hazardous voltage warning) and 
English Text that states something like, ldquo;Disconnect Power Before 
Servicingrdquo;. However, when our products are sold into non-English speaking 
countries, we sometimes get dinged for the English Text; especially in French 
speaking counties.  So, if such a label truly is required, can we get away with 
only using the Symbol 12?, or can we use a label with a combination of symbols, 
such as Symbol 12 and maybe the ISO 3864-2 Disconnect Mains Plug symbol?  Is 
text of some kind required or can we just use symbols?
 
Any suggestions or recommendations? 
 
Thanks to all for your input.
 
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 
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 

Re: [PSES] Warning Label: Disconnect from Mains

[Brian Gregory]

  Both these are fairly standard disclaimers:  they are not required by the 
standard, but they allow the NRTL to establish that risk of access to energized 
to parts in the end application is minimized. They are words I used often in my 
technical, internal, reviews when establishing that exposure to potential 
hazards have been addressed.  Sometimes, when risk was more elevated (higher 
voltage, easy access to device internals via battery compartments), I would 
require my customers, if they wanted their approval label, to beef up their 
labeling. Regards,Brian Gregory
720-450-4933

-- Original Message --
From: Nyffenegger, Dave dave.nyffeneg...@bhemail.com
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Warning Label: Disconnect from Mains
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2015 14:39:09 +


Our NRTL asks for the warning ldquo;No User Serviceable Parts Insiderdquo;  
when that is the case but that is relative to products complying with UL/EN 
60950-1 and EN 60204-1.   Of course that needs to be translated into all 
appropriate languages too.
 
-Dave
 
From: Kunde, Brian [mailto:brian_ku...@lecotc.com] 
 Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2015 10:21 AM
 To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
 Subject: [PSES] Warning Label: Disconnect from Mains
 
Greetings.
 
We make laboratory equipment designed to the requirements of the IEC/EN/UL/CSA 
61010-1 Ed. 3 standard.  
 
Most electrical equipment has at least one warning somewhere visible on the 
outside of the equipment that states something like, ldquo;Disconnect Power 
Before Servicingrdquo;. 
Where does this requirement come from? I see no such requirement in the 61010-1 
standard.
 
The 61010-1 does say, ldquo;If the instructions for use state that an OPERATOR 
is permitted to gain access, using a TOOL, to a part which
in NORMAL USE may be HAZARDOUS LIVE, there shall be a warning marking which 
states that the equipment
must be isolated or disconnected from the HAZARDOUS LIVE voltage before 
access.rdquo;
 
However, if our users do not need to gain access inside our equipment, then I 
assume such warning is unnecessary.
 
We used to have a warning label on any tool assessable panel that has hazardous 
voltages behind it. However, I do not see this as a requirement in the 61010-1. 
 In the past, we have had inspectors write us up for not having such labels on 
all panels with hazardous voltage behind it. Does this requirement come from 
somewhere else? Are the inspectors wrong?
 
The label we commonly use has the Symbol 12 (hazardous voltage warning) and 
English Text that states something like, ldquo;Disconnect Power Before 
Servicingrdquo;. However, when our products are sold into non-English speaking 
countries, we sometimes get dinged for the English Text; especially in French 
speaking counties.  So, if such a label truly is required, can we get away with 
only using the Symbol 12?, or can we use a label with a combination of symbols, 
such as Symbol 12 and maybe the ISO 3864-2 Disconnect Mains Plug symbol?  Is 
text of some kind required or can we just use symbols?
 
Any suggestions or recommendations? 
 
Thanks to all for your input.
 
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 
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://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 sdoug...@ieee.org
 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://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

Re: [PSES] NEC vs CEC for Transformer Protection

[Brian Gregory]

 I'd restate Dave's case below to say:  PE's are really only required for 
Public Sector work.  Industrial/commercial products are certified (where 
necessary) by NRTL testing, and - as Brian has noted - by application of 
CEC/NEC. Brian Kunde's situation appears to be that NEC and CEC have 
conflicting interpretations of what allows for a safe installation. 1.  dry 
type is any transformer not encased in oil or other cooling dielectric media.  
It can be encapsulated.  See UL 5085 or CSA C22.2 No.66.1 to be sure.2.  
Ideally, the vendor has guidelines backed up by test data, or if it's CSA 
listed, their file provides guidance;  but that may not be judged suitable to 
your application.  When confronted with a picky inspector (right or wrong), you 
get into a difficult place.  I agree with you that a 2 or 2.25 A slo-blow fuse 
is best, esp. when the vendor says 1.8 is too small and you have to go looking 
look for special long-delay types (which will vary, thereby pose reliability 
problems).  However, an inspector is difficult to outflank, for reasons which 
are generally all good. So, if #2 (mfr. test data) doesn't resolve the 
situation, I see two alternatives:  2a:  have test data showing that ~2A 
sustained** current does not lead to temperatures that lead to an insulation 
breakdown, and present that to the inspector.2b:  have an NRTL do a field label 
of the equipment to allow the inspector to hang his safety hat on the NRTL 
report.  **  The time that this current needs to be sustained would be in 
either UL 5085-3 or C22.2 #66.1 under temperature or abnormal testing (sorry, 
don't have them handy) in real world terms, this is 10~15 min. but in some 
cases is stretched out until the XF gets to a stable temperature. Good luck! 
Brian Gregory
720-450-4933

-- Original Message --
From: Nyffenegger, Dave dave.nyffeneg...@bhemail.com
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] NEC vs CEC for Transformer Protection
Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2015 16:03:28 +

Engineers doing any sort of direct public work in the U.S. must be licensed 
or working under a (licensed) PE (in which case they are not an engineer in the 
eyes of the law) regardless of the discipline.  This applies to private 
consulting firms doing public work or within government agencies.  The same 
industrial exception exists in the US and this does carry through to products 
for sale.

-Dave


From: Kunde, Brian [mailto:brian_ku...@lecotc.com]
Sent: Friday, March 27, 2015 1:27 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] NEC vs CEC for Transformer Protection
 
Please help.
 
We have a product, laboratory equipment, that has a 330 watt 1:1 230Vac 
isolation transformer.  330w / 230V = 1.34 amps.
 
To protect this transformer we applied the US-NEC table 450.3(B) to where the 
primary protector can be up to 300% of the of 1.34 amps. The transformer 
manufacturer recommended a 2.25A time lag circuit breaker to handle the inrush 
current from this transformer. Life is good.
 
Then, we had this product inspected in Canada to which they apply the Canadian 
Electric Code section 26-256, ldquo;Overcurrent protection for dry=type 
transformer circuits rated 750V or lessrdquo;, which states the primary 
overcurrent protection device cannot exceed 125% of the transformer current 
rating. Thatrsquo;s 134 amps * 1.25 (125%) = 1.78 amps. Rounded up, the 
inspector said we had to use a fuse or breaker no larger than 1.8 amps.
 
We notified the transformer manufacturer who said (and we confirmed) that 1.8 
amp protection device will nuisance trip due to Inrush Currents.
 
The transformer CSA inspector and a representative from Littelfuse both are 
telling us that the inspector applied the wrong section of the Electric Code 
and that section 26-254, ldquo;Overcurrent protection for power and 
distribution transformer circuits rated 750 V or less, other than dry-type 
transformersrdquo; should be applied.  This section of the CEC does alien 
better with the US-NEC.
 
However, what is a ldquo;dry-type transformerrdquo;??  From my understanding, 
our transformer is not an oil or dielectric cooled transformer and it should be 
considered a ldquo;Dry-Typerdquo; transformer which would make the inspector 
correct in applying section 26-256.
 
Am I missing something here?  It makes sense that the NEC and CEC should track 
closely in this regard but it appears as Canadarsquo;s requirement for 
dry-type transformers trump these low current transformers that would be 
impossible to properly protect according to their code.
 


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

Re: [PSES] Nameplate and DoC requirements Machinery Directive

[Brian Gregory]

 Advice from one with mostly US experience, but with an NRTL/NB: Until 
otherwise prohibited by MD, best practices are: - use of company issued 
documentation to properly describe the products covered by a DoC.   Types, 
application and ratings need to be crystal clear in the documentation.  Use 
product safety reports from NRTLs as a guide.  I would not use either S/N or 
model numbers. - Be accurate and precise about the scope (the extent) of your 
organization's ISO 9001 or (other relevant) certifications or accreditations, 
as far as both the activities and geographical locations covered by the 
certifications and product use applications are concerned.  another Brian 

-- Original Message --
From: Mike Sherman - Original Message - msherma...@comcast.net
Subject: Re: [PSES] Nameplate and DoC requirements Machinery Directive


Brian -- I would think a model number might suffice as designation of the 
machinery. In my way of thinking, there has to be something that ties the 
nameplate to the DoC; we use the model number, not a functional 
description---have never run into that interpretation before. Although the 
Annex describing the contents of the DoC includes a SN, the required markings 
on the machine in Annex I do *not* require a SN. My approach is that if it's 
not required to be on the machine and therefore is not on the machine, it 
doesn't exist and therefore is not required to be on the DoC.  I think there's 
nothing wrong with electronic signatures and generic DoCs. How many of us have 
seen exactly that printed in owner's manuals? Mike ShermanGraco Inc. From: 
Brian Kunde brian_ku...@lecotc.com
To: EMC-PSTC EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 12:18:55 PM
Subject: [PSES] Nameplate and DoC requirements Machinery Directive
 I'm getting beat up again in France for non-compliances according to the 
machinery Directive on our Nameplate and DoC. I know we have discussed these 
issues in the past but I was wondering if things have changed or become clearer 
over time. We want to do things right but some items are hard for us to 
implement and don't want to have to do unless we really have to.
 Nameplate (label) according to MD 1.7.3 - designation of the machinery.  The 
Test Lab in France wants up to put something like Carbon and Sulfur 
Determinator on our nameplate which we just do not have room for. Do others 
struggle with this requirement? What ways have you found to comply with this 
requirement?
 Declaration of Conformity according to MD Annex II, Serial Number.  The Test 
Lab insist that the serial number must be on the DoC even though many have 
explained why this is not required. TUV:SUD has also told us that the serial 
number does not have to be on the DoC unless it is needed to determine a CE 
Compliant instrument from a non-CE compliant instrument, but we do not have 
this in writing. All of our products are CD compliant so the serial number has 
no purpose. Does anyone have a document that clearly explains when the serial 
number is and is not required on the DoC?  We cannot really use the methods 
described in the Guide, such as using a Range of serial numbers because we 
built one at a time per customer order.  The Test Lab wants the DoC to have the 
exact same information as the Nameplate so they say we cannot use Series in 
the model number or Product Name.  Do others use such shortcuts?  To do what 
they want we would have to type up a custom DoC for every instrum!
 ent we build with a dedicated document number, have it signed, and store 
copies either paper or electronic file for 10 years. That's crazy.
 Should I just give in or do I have any ammo in fighting this?   Some of the 
items this Test Lab said was required six months they are now backing down 
saying things like it would be nice . . . .
 Thanks for the help.
 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 
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://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 sdoug...@ieee.org
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org
 For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  

Re: [PSES] UL Trademark and Tradename Indexes no longer public

[Brian Gregory]

 My comments are threefold. 1.  Searching UL databases is not a slam dunk:  one 
almost never discovers exactly the details sought.  The UL file #'s for PWBs 
and for insulating materials are the exceptions to this rule.  In the past (I 
worked for a competitor to UL), I would have to use the UL file information in 
addition to physical inspection and some directed references, including public 
papers. From: Carl NewtonSent: Monday, March 9, 2015 10:56 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Reply To: Carl Newton
Subject: [PSES] UL Trademark and Tradename Indexes no longer public

 I need to know what the temperature rating is on a power supply PWB and as 
 usual,  2. It's usually considered as an insulation system, and the temp 
 ratings are given by the stamping (aka, 94 V-0).  The UL file can be 
 invaluable here, because the conditions of use (most often thickness) are 
 very important.

  http://database.ul.com/cgi-bin/XYV/template/LISEXT/1FRAME/glocids.html no 
 longer active... I called UL and the customer service rep was as helpful as 
 possible.  3. Do a  bit of online research;  UL has LOTS of databases:  even 
 when I had to use them several times per week, I nearly always found a new 
 one I hadn't known about.  The new Insulation Database cited on this group 
 looks promising, but the class Online database is still quite useful.   he 
 chased the question a bit is that UL will no longer make this information 
 public. Sounds more like a generic reply a help-desk person will give to end 
 the call.  However, I do not believe UL is legally bound to keep detailed 
 records public, only Company Name  file number.  Hence, #3 is a valuable 
 skill to have.

Regards,Brian Gregory

-

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://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 sdoug...@ieee.org
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  j.bac...@ieee.org
David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com