Re: [PSES] Date of Withdrawal for ISO 9001?
These standards have three-year 'cycles' that limit what the registrar is allowed to use. Existing 9001:2008 accreditation certs will expire after 2018Q3. But would not be in any rush to update until 2017 as the registrars will need a significant learning period for the new stuff. The last available audits for 9001:2008 will probably be 2017Q4. The Klingon High Command has deprecated all ISO 9k and 14k standards by Imperial Edict. Brian From: Doug Powell [mailto:doug...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 4:05 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: [PSES] Date of Withdrawal for ISO 9001? All, I know that many on this forum also deal with ISO 9001. With the soon to be released ISO 9001:2015, a client has asked me when it is mandatory to update. Their registrar has already sent letters to this effect. In gist of the letter, the registrar's says that the company must be updated to a minimum of ISO 9001:2008 and be ready to begin the transition to the 2015 edition. In trying to understand how this works, I find that staying up to date may not be mandatory. Instead it may simply be that the registrar who is accredited by ANAB may want the company to update to the latest version that they have within the scope of their accreditation. Is this a fair assessment? thanks a bunch, Doug -- Douglas E Powell doug...@gmail.com Skype: doug.powell52 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 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] Dielectric Grease
Looked at the stuff we have on the shelf -> 'MOLYKOTE G-5008' Brian -Original Message- From: Brian Oconnell [mailto:oconne...@tamuracorp.com] Sent: Friday, August 28, 2015 10:25 AM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] Dielectric Grease Perhaps this is the Dow Corning 'molykote' grease? Brian From: Douglas Powell [mailto:doug...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, August 28, 2015 10:11 AM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] Dielectric Grease Ted, I'm about 80% certain. It was being used around automotive ignition systems. I am looking into the idea of a gel dielectric and hoping to find an abundant source. Thanks, Doug From: Ted Eckert Sent: Friday, August 28, 2015 10:21 AM To: doug...@gmail.com; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: RE: [PSES] Dielectric Grease Hello Doug, How confident are you that the grease in question is a dielectric grease? Your description sounds a lot like some of the high temperature automotive and industrial greases. There are a few brands of synthetic grease that have a green color. They aren’t tested for their electrical properties, but they are designed for high temperature use. Ted Eckert Compliance Engineer Microsoft Corporation ted.eck...@microsoft.com The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my employer. From: Douglas Powell [mailto:doug...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2015 8:20 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: [PSES] Dielectric Grease All, I am trying to locate a particular high voltage insulating grease or gel. I am unable to identify the manufacturer and type. The only description I can give at this point is the appearance which is green in color with an iridescent sheen. It looks much like automotive antifreeze fluid only thick like grease. Any help is much appreciated. -Doug Douglas E Powell 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 All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas Mike Cantwell For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher David Heald - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas Mike Cantwell For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher David Heald - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas Mike Cantwell For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: David Heald: - 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 ho
Re: [PSES] Dielectric Grease
Perhaps this is the Dow Corning 'molykote' grease? Brian From: Douglas Powell [mailto:doug...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, August 28, 2015 10:11 AM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] Dielectric Grease Ted, I'm about 80% certain. It was being used around automotive ignition systems. I am looking into the idea of a gel dielectric and hoping to find an abundant source. Thanks, Doug From: Ted Eckert Sent: Friday, August 28, 2015 10:21 AM To: doug...@gmail.com; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: RE: [PSES] Dielectric Grease Hello Doug, How confident are you that the grease in question is a dielectric grease? Your description sounds a lot like some of the high temperature automotive and industrial greases. There are a few brands of synthetic grease that have a green color. They aren’t tested for their electrical properties, but they are designed for high temperature use. Ted Eckert Compliance Engineer Microsoft Corporation ted.eck...@microsoft.com The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my employer. From: Douglas Powell [mailto:doug...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2015 8:20 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: [PSES] Dielectric Grease All, I am trying to locate a particular high voltage insulating grease or gel. I am unable to identify the manufacturer and type. The only description I can give at this point is the appearance which is green in color with an iridescent sheen. It looks much like automotive antifreeze fluid only thick like grease. Any help is much appreciated. -Doug Douglas E Powell 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 All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas Mike Cantwell For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher David Heald - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas Mike Cantwell For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher David Heald - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas Mike Cantwell For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: David Heald:
Re: [PSES] New EMCD DoC Requirements
Declarations, test reports, etc are part of a contractual law system, so this will reference the legal point of view, and as am not a solicitor or attorney, you should to talk to the one retained by your employer. 'for and behalf of' relates to the term 'procuration' - essentially a proxy by formal appointment. In Europe, there are many similarities in corporate contract law, but there are significant differences. Reference the UK Companies Act 2006 (s. 43). The UK is weird in that the affixing of 'seals' remain in legal code, so the seal of the corp is binding, while the signatory may not necessarily be representative. Most EU countries also require 'on behalf of' signatory where the signature indicates a conglomerate of interests; that is, more than one legal body. U.S. corporate law is bit messy because of state differences (the reason American contracts indicate which state's laws are applicable to the terms). For the U.S., the reference 'for and behalf of...' is to indicate that the signatory may not be a corporate officer that has the authority to legally bind the company. It does indicates that the signatory is cognizant and authorized. For example, my employer(the CEO) wrote a Letter of Appointment to make this peon the signatory for product regulatory issues. And because not an officer of the company, sign stuff 'for and behalf of...'. Whereas a corporate officer, that is empowered to legally bind the company, would just sign with title affixed, or apply a thumbprint using the blood fallen engineers. Brian -Original Message- From: Kunde, Brian [mailto:brian_ku...@lecotc.com] Sent: Friday, August 21, 2015 9:56 AM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] New EMCD DoC Requirements So let's tackle this one example, for now. Annex IV point 8 says, 8. Additional information: Signed for and on behalf of: (place and date of issue): (name, function) (signature): So the text, "Signed for and on behalf of:" is required no matter who signs the DoC or is it only required if the signatory is the European Representative, importer, etc. (someone who does not directly work for the manufacturer)? This only makes sense to me if it is only required if the signatory is not an direct employee of the manufacturer. Since I work for the Manufacturer I should not need to prefix my signature with this statement? Yes, or no? If no, then who am I signing for; my company or an officer of my company (actual person)? Do I state, "Signed for and on behalf of " then insert my company's name, my boss' name, Director, VP, owner of the company, CEO, ??? Doesn't the fact that I am signing the DoC show that the company I work for has given me the authority to sign this document on their behalf? Am I not representing my company whether this is stated or not? The Other Brian -Original Message- From: CR [mailto:k...@earthlink.net] Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2015 6:10 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] New EMCD DoC Requirements On 8/20/2015 5:20 PM, Gary McInturff wrote: > Signed for and on behalf of - the CEO doesn't get to claim plausible > deniability you are signing this for him. How IS a CEO expected to know that what has been signed for is actually what was done EXCEPT by relying on other peoples' signatures? Might we again see EMC audits on outside vendor sub-assemblies? Shades of 0871! I once listened as a well-known EMC engineer told about a VP who'd contracted him to teach a class on EMC compliance, but only spent a few moments in the room before hurrying away. The exec explained during a quick break that he'd wanted to avoid liability for nonconformity by remaining ignorant of what it required. Naughty of him -- and if I understand correctly, willful ignorance is never an acceptable defense. Cortland Richmond [mostly retired] - 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] New IEEE standard
Mr. Woodgate can really trip my triggers. The mode and ranges are already covered in IEEE754. There was no reason that this should not have been part of 754, as it is now in the community as IEC60559. The committee attempted to call 1788 a 'basic' standard, but the IEEE shoved it back, so they relegated an important basis for ALU design and Computer Science to an isolated, stand-alone standard. And it does NOT cover de-normalized float intervals. Meh. This is what happens when we allow too many mathematicians into an engineering subject domain. Pitchforks and flaming torches would be appropriate. You can pry my 17 significant decimal digits from my cold, dead hands. Brian -Original Message- From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk] Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2015 12:12 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: [PSES] New IEEE standard IEEE 1788™-2015, Standard for Interval Arithmetic 'Have we got time to get four gin and tonics before the next act, given that 583 people want drinks and there are five baristas?' Use logarithms. -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. With best wishes. See www.jmwa.demon.co.uk When I turn my back on the sun, it's to look for a rainbow John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 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] 208V/30A/3PH NEMA 3R power distribution question
Have you talked to a certified industrial electrician? Had a customer that bought several 250kVA distribution transformers that also wanted some custom wiring harness and downstream panel boxes. So hired an industrial electrician to advise us on materials and build it up. Passed on-site assessment with no problems. Probably saved hundreds of hours of engineering time, and $ in wasted material costs. Brian From: Adam Dixon [mailto:lanterna.viri...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2015 12:39 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: [PSES] 208V/30A/3PH NEMA 3R power distribution question First-time post with an application question after getting guidance from many of you earlier this year about how/where to learn more about safety. So here goes.I would appreciate recommendations for either reference materials I should read or hardware options to convert a 208V/30A/3PH branch circuit to support qty. 6 of 208V/15A/1PH loads while trying to minimize the hardware volume. Loads do not have internal supplementary protection devices, so I cannot rely on the 30A branch circuit protection w/simple disconnect switch for service support, similar to my home 240V air conditioning compressor circuit. I've searched the PSES archives with a variety of terms (208V, 3 phase, load center, molded case breaker, DIN rail, NEMA, etc.) and have been looking at online (well-known load center/circuit breaker suppliers, electrical supply companies, Mike Holt forums, etc.) and just started calling/visiting local electrical supply companies and big box home improvement stores. Haven't landed on a clear option yet. 3PH load centers all appear rated for 100A or larger capacity requiring larger AWG supply conductors than what I am told the branch circuit will have (10AWG or possibly 8AWG depending on final building construction plans). Descriptions of DIN Rail circuit breakers/supplementary protection devices sounded promising for the smaller form factors, but I haven't found a source that puts all of the hardware pieces together (supplementary protection devices, DIN rails, housing, etc.) into a system that meets NEC requirements -- this doesn't look like a common configuration. I also looked at suppliers of rack mount PDU gear and found one option that is about the size of a 12 circuit load center, but doesn't have a NEMA 3R requirement (surprise..) and would require a larger housing. The 208V PDU's that I have seen and in a couple of cases, peeked inside, have double-pole breakers with C19 outlets rated for 12A continuous load. Are there other options worth investigating or aspects of the power distribution design that I likely am not understanding? Kind regards, 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:
Re: [PSES] About NexTek for surge protection
Sorry, but know nothing of this particular company. Please note following when dealing with North American companies. 1. Companies seldom note and respond to web-site contact info, even if it is correctly forwarded to sales people. 2. Go to the company's 'Contact Us' page and look for personal email addresses of sales individuals. 3. Search the contact list for reps and other sales sites that are within your geographical region. 4. Unless requesting samples, only attempt to buy low volumes from distros (Digikey, Farnel, etc.). 5. Western sales dweebs will want project information in exchange for free samples, so be clear if for a project in active development. 6. Download technical support files and look for contact names where technical support required. 7. Do not depend on Google Translate to talk to Americans because important details and contextual information will be lost, and we only speak very little English, and an unintelligible dialect of Spanish. Some Canadians can speak something that resembles French. 8. Many Mexico companies have Asian employees, so not uncommon to find contacts that can speak Japanese or Mandarin. 9. Some North Americans may also speak Klingon. Avoid doing business transactions in Klingon. Brian From: Li Di [mailto:li...@conorthtech.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2015 9:03 AM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: [PSES] About NexTek for surge protection Hi Greetings, Does anybody know NexTek company? I found this company on the web. This company locates at U.S. And they design and produce RF surge protection components. I tried to contact with them using their webmail but failed to get any response. As anybody know or have any contact in this company, please help me. Thanks a lot. Best regards, Li Di Conorth Technologies Co., Ltd. - Address: Room 212, Building C, No.15 Baiziwan Road, Chaoyang District, Beijing Tel (Fax): 0086-10-60530811 (Office) Mobile: 0086-13701332910 Email: li...@conorthtech.com Website: www.conorthtech.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 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] Gage R&R for standards development?
In a recent UL CSDS notice in the 'work area' for a standard, found this: "Repeatability and Reproducibility - Gage R&R (NOTE: The following is for informational purposes only) The proposal under review may include a reference to whether an assessment of repeatability and reproducibility (R&R) was conducted for a proposed new or revised test requirement. If applicable, associated data and/or other related information may also be included as part of the proposal. The following is intended to provide a brief explanation of the basic concepts associated with Gage R&R... ... In an effort to drive consistency, UL has begun to incorporate Gage R&R concepts into the standards development process for UL" Would appreciate comments from people currently sitting on STPs, or associated with North American standards development, to comment on the intended end-effect (both political and technical) of requiring gage R&R for process and test data. Thanks, 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] FCC market surveillance
https://apps.fcc.gov/kdb/GetAttachment.html?id=AWhYotapku%2FSkvVA1wkMAw%3D%3D&desc=610077%20D01%20TCB%20Post%20Market%20Surveillance%20v06r01&tracking_number=20540 Brian -Original Message- From: itl-emc user group [mailto:itl...@itl.co.il] Sent: Saturday, August 08, 2015 9:29 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] FCC market surveillance I don't know if they publish their findings but we have had a few customers who were requested to send samples to either the TCB or FCC for market surveillance. The results are sent directly to the customer as the test lab is not involved. Regards, David Shidlowsky | Technical Reviewer Address 1 Bat-Sheva St. POB 87, LOD 71100 Israel Tel 972-8-9186113 Fax 972-8-9153101 Mail dav...@itl.co.il/e...@itl.co.il Web www.itl.co.il Fill out Customer Satisfaction Survey Global Certifications You Can Trust -Original Message- From: Amund Westin [mailto:am...@westin-emission.no] Sent: Friday, August 07, 2015 1:35 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: [PSES] FCC market surveillance Do FCC carry out any market surveillance to check out FCC approved equipment? If yes, do they publish their findings? Best regards Amund - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas Mike Cantwell For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: David Heald:
Re: [PSES] Australia/New Zealands mains voltage
AS61000.3.100 is scoped for the utility, and for some of the grid-connected stuff. Use as reference for what the power grid is supposed to be feeding to your equipment. Although power in Australia is notorious for its variability - may frequently not be 230-240V, but it is there most of the time pouring stuff into the electron pipes. Brian -Original Message- From: Scott Xe [mailto:scott...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2015 10:09 AM To: Brian Oconnell Cc: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] Australia/New Zealands mains voltage Brian, Regarding AS 61000.3.100, is it an EMC requirement? What does it require additional criteria for power? Thanks and regards, Scott > On 4 Aug, 2015, at 12:57 am, Brian Oconnell wrote: > > AS60038 indicates 230V as nominal, plugs must be rated 250V. First noted in > 2001. > > AS61000.3.100, published 2011, has additional requirements for power. > > As of Feb 2015, the ACMA indicates that the 'public' mains is 230V, and that > your equipment must be rated for 230V/50Hz. > > AS3000.2 indicates 230V for Australia in general, but utilities for Vickie, > NSW, North, and Queensland, all indicate 240V as of 2009. Tasmania > utilities indicates 230V. > > For some limited data points, my cousin says that it is typically 240V, but > as you get towards interior, expect somewhere between 218 and 250V; and a > customer that ships stuff to Aus/NZ rate their box for 200-240V. > > Brian > > > From: Scott Xe [mailto:scott...@gmail.com] > Sent: Monday, August 03, 2015 6:08 AM > To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG > Subject: [PSES] Australia/New Zealands mains voltage > > Hi All, > > Australia has changed to 230 Vac from 240 Vac in 1980 in line with the IEC > deciding to rationalise the 220V, 230V and 240V nominal voltage levels around > the world to a consistent 230V. The voltage tolerance has been changed to > +10/-6% due to this change so Australia did not need to do anything and was > still in compliance. Australia adopted a 20 year plan to convert Australia > from the nominal 240 volts to 230 volts, to align with European Standards. > What is the current status in terms of voltage change? > > In addition, what are the specs on product (packaging, advertisement, etc.), > the testing house and market surveillance positions to judge the product > compliance – 230 or 240V? > > Thanks & best regards, > > Scott > > - > > This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc > discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to > > > 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] Australia/New Zealands mains voltage
AS60038 indicates 230V as nominal, plugs must be rated 250V. First noted in 2001. AS61000.3.100, published 2011, has additional requirements for power. As of Feb 2015, the ACMA indicates that the 'public' mains is 230V, and that your equipment must be rated for 230V/50Hz. AS3000.2 indicates 230V for Australia in general, but utilities for Vickie, NSW, North, and Queensland, all indicate 240V as of 2009. Tasmania utilities indicates 230V. For some limited data points, my cousin says that it is typically 240V, but as you get towards interior, expect somewhere between 218 and 250V; and a customer that ships stuff to Aus/NZ rate their box for 200-240V. Brian From: Scott Xe [mailto:scott...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, August 03, 2015 6:08 AM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: [PSES] Australia/New Zealands mains voltage Hi All, Australia has changed to 230 Vac from 240 Vac in 1980 in line with the IEC deciding to rationalise the 220V, 230V and 240V nominal voltage levels around the world to a consistent 230V. The voltage tolerance has been changed to +10/-6% due to this change so Australia did not need to do anything and was still in compliance. Australia adopted a 20 year plan to convert Australia from the nominal 240 volts to 230 volts, to align with European Standards. What is the current status in terms of voltage change? In addition, what are the specs on product (packaging, advertisement, etc.), the testing house and market surveillance positions to judge the product compliance – 230 or 240V? Thanks & best regards, Scott - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 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] ISO TC 15223-1 TR 60878 iso/CD 15223-1
Do not have either standard, and have relied on the test lab's or the customer's marking requirements (life is much easier for a component mfr). As both are called for in 60601-1 in several places, would go by Annex D and use 60878 unless the clause specifically specifies 15223-1 (which seems to be intended for marking packing materials). Brian From: Gary McInturff [mailto:gary.mcintu...@esterline.com] Sent: Friday, July 31, 2015 10:37 AM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: [PSES] FW: ISO TC 15223-1 TR 60878 iso/CD 15223-1 Can anyone tell me the difference between these two documents ISO TC 15223-1 and TR 60878 The both have similar titles and scopes I have the 15223-1 document but can only read the scope of the TR 60878, which is similar to the 15223-1 also. I don't want to purchase another standard if the one I have is sufficient for medical icons. Does one subsume the other? I tried to look at dates and history of both hoping they would somehow refer to each other - but no such luck Thanks Gary McInturff Reliability/Compliance Engineer Esterline Interface Technologies Featuring ADVANCED INPUT, GAMESMAN, and LRE MEDICAL products 600 W. Wilbur Avenue Coeur d'Alene, ID 83815-9496 Toll Free: 800-444-5923 X1XXX Tel: (509) 868 2279 Fax: (208) 635-863 8306 - 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] GFCI Nuisance Tripping
Understand what is being said, and it is valid for the input filter before the bridge, but some SMPS can have caps on the DC bus or DC return which are effected by both the PFC and main converter stuff. This is not always 100Hz sinusoidal stuff. The other problems with many PFC controllers is that they cannot get as close to unity at 100V as they can at 240V. So 'noise' current through ground wire can be significantly different for same loading conditions at different input V. Capacitive coupling from h/s to ground can be significant, but the better designs mitigate this so not a dominant effect. Much of the 'ground' noise can be stuff that is radiated from the main converter's power loop directly into a primary trace or other component that is somehow coupled to ground. When I become emperor, only flyback converters without PFC will be allowed. There will be much noise and we will like it... Brian -Original Message- From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk] Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2015 2:25 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] GFCI Nuisance Tripping In message , dated Thu, 23 Jul 2015, Brian Oconnell writes: >No. And is dependent on converter topology and operating conditions and >whims of the Klingon High Command. Since the supply current is (nearly) sinusoidal, I suppose that the leakage current through the 'hot' Y-cap is sinusoidal, but the current due to the capacitance to ground of the switching device's heat sink (and maybe other parts) is not sinusoidal and may not be negligible. -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. With best wishes. See www.jmwa.demon.co.uk When I turn my back on the sun, it's to look for a rainbow John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 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] GFCI Nuisance Tripping
After a little thought, should extend and be less obtuse. The current through ground line will always have the significant 100Hz or 120Hz component as the haversine from the input bridge is what the PFC controller is using as the comparator's reference and is what resets the off timer. But response of an active PFC circuit is dependent on the dynamic characteristics of unit loading. This 'corrective' response can result in very high crest-factor waveforms that may not always affect the RMS value of the current, but can have peaks with an amplitude that are multiples of the 120Hz stuff. And for PFC and or the main converter, 120Hz is not the fundamental. Most my experience is PFC in CCM, so there are many other facets to PFC not being talked about. Also note that each cycle starts when the core is reset, so if next cycle is not able to re-start then there is ringing at the PFC FET. This is considered acceptable for dynamic response, and should not be a dominant noise source for the typical test done at static load. Should be noted that much of the radiated noise actually results from the PFC diode, and that much of the conducted noise results from the main converter power loop. Brian -Original Message----- From: Brian Oconnell [mailto:oconne...@tamuracorp.com] Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2015 1:52 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] GFCI Nuisance Tripping No. And is dependent on converter topology and operating conditions and whims of the Klingon High Command. Brian -Original Message- From: Richard Nute [mailto:ri...@ieee.org] Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2015 1:43 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] GFCI Nuisance Tripping When a PFC (power factor correction) circuit is used ahead of a SMPS, is the protective conductor (leakage) current sinusoidal? 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: - 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] GFCI Nuisance Tripping
No. And is dependent on converter topology and operating conditions and whims of the Klingon High Command. Brian -Original Message- From: Richard Nute [mailto:ri...@ieee.org] Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2015 1:43 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] GFCI Nuisance Tripping When a PFC (power factor correction) circuit is used ahead of a SMPS, is the protective conductor (leakage) current sinusoidal? 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: - 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] GFCI Nuisance Tripping
" Preliminary EMI testing showed that there was no measurable impact on conducted emissions when the second stage Y capacitors were removed." Methinks this would be an unusual result for many power conversion and drive circuits, and too broad of a design statement for my simple little mind to cover. There is a reason for pi filters in this configuration. So we have opposing forms of safety requirements and definitions of emissions test conditions. This is Mr Perkins' "Elephant". Brian -Original Message- From: Richard Nute [mailto:ri...@ieee.org] Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2015 5:01 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] GFCI Nuisance Tripping http://www.jonathankimball.com/pdf/gfci_ecce.pdf - - 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] International EMF Scientist Appeal
Letter that appears to be designed to enable more UN/WHO influence over EMC standards. www.emfscientist.org/index.php/emf-scientist-appeal Dunno what to think about this stuff. Much of their basis comes from 15 to 20 year old studies, at least one of which seems to have been recently discredited Personally, prefer to keep my phone close to head - keeps the brain warmer. And am looking at buying some land near the Sunrise HV distribution line (500kV) so that we can bask in SLF 'radiation'. Whom is the bigger idiot - myself or these scientists? 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] Production Line testing for UL60950
Anywhere it refers to a 'routine' test. Otherwise, the references are to Type Tests. Brian From: John Allen [mailto:jral...@productsafetyinc.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2015 2:37 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: [PSES] Production Line testing for UL60950 Can someone point me in the right direction (i.e.; what clause number can I find it??) regarding production line testing in UL60950-1. Thanks, John - 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] Medical Device approval for U.S. market
The FDA website(s) are rather unruly, but is good place to start. You will eventually have to start a dialog with an NRTL, so talk to a local lab that is also an NRTL/SCC that has experienced medical labs in North America. The U.S. FDA and Health Canada, depending on the equipment type, can be more onerous than stuff for the EU. The FDA has issued guidance docs for portable equipment. Brian From: Amund Westin [mailto:am...@westin-emission.no] Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2015 6:31 AM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: [PSES] Medical Device approval for U.S. market Anyone who can give me a tip where to start looking for the requirements? Talking about portable medical equipment, and also for use in vehicles and aircrafts. CE Medical Device Directive approval (by a notified body) will be in place before the U.S. approval project starts. Regards Amund - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas Mike Cantwell For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: David Heald:
Re: [PSES] leakage current tests
Y2 caps are typically designed to meet the test level for BI where unit rated less than 300V input. Where the test level is intended to verify RI, or where an approved GDT or similar component is across an isolation boundary, the circuit is typically not installed in the end-use chassis until after the test, then the test for BI is performed. Y1 caps are rated for most RI-level tests. If a Y- cap cannot withstand the hi-pot, then would question the design. X-caps should not be subject to these test levels, but should not be an issue as they are not rated for use where protection from shock required. There is no specific current limit for di-electric withstand, and all NRTLs that my employer uses "SUGGEST" that the current 'trip setting' level be adjustable for each product. The test can be dual purpose, in that the upper and lower current settings for test equipment will roughly verify the y-cap value. Testing of some telecom products can be different. Brian From: ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen [mailto:g.grem...@cetest.nl] Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2015 11:57 AM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] leakage current tests >I can't provide a justification for not testing a radio interference filter >for both leakage current and electric strength. The filter is a leakage >current path and is subject to transient overvoltages. Because AC voltage electrical strength testing creates high leakage currents? And thus false fails. And because they have been built with approved components withstanding electrical strength tests ? (Y type capacitors for example) Gert Gremmen Van: Richard Nute [mailto:ri...@ieee.org] Verzonden: dinsdag 2 juni 2015 0:17 Aan: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Onderwerp: Re: [PSES] leakage current tests Hi Ralph: The "protective impedance" leakage current is separately measured (8.1.4). The "protective impedance" is connected between a live part and an accessible conductive part, not to earth. "Leakage current" and electric strength is measured from each pole of the supply across basic insulation (Table 4) to an accessible conductive part, not necessarily through a "protective impedance" (13.2). The "protective impedance" is only subject to transient overvoltages when the accessible conductive part is touched, otherwise it is an open circuit and there is no voltage drop across it. I suppose this is the reason for not subjecting the "protective impedance" to the dielectric test. (If the part is touched at the same time as a transient overvoltage, an electric shock injury is not likely because transient overvoltages are of very short duration.) I can't provide a justification for not testing a radio interference filter for both leakage current and electric strength. The filter is a leakage current path and is subject to transient overvoltages. Best regards, Rich From: McDiarmid, Ralph [mailto:ralph.mcdiar...@schneider-electric.com] Sent: Monday, June 01, 2015 12:30 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] leakage current tests IEC 60335-1 13 Leakage current and electric strength at operating temperature Protective Impedance and radio interference filters are to be disconnected before carrying out the tests. I suppose they are merely checking for an obvious no-no, like using accessible chassis metalwork as a current carrying conductor. However, don't radio frequency interference filters often have capacitors which use a metal enclosure as a common connection point? ___ Ralph McDiarmid | Schneider Electric | Solar Business | CANADA | Regulatory Compliance Engineering - 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] FCC 14-208, ET Docket No. 13-44
Suppose that this indicates is still a proposal? https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2014/01/07/2013-29703/unified-agenda-of-federal-regulatory-and-deregulatory-actions-fall-2013#h-35 Brian -Original Message- From: Knighten, Jim L [mailto:jim.knigh...@teradata.com] Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2015 3:34 PM To: Brian Oconnell; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: RE: FCC 14-208, ET Docket No. 13-44 Thanks, but no, that is the Report and Order. This is supposed to be published in the Federal Register before it becomes effective. __ James L. Knighten, Ph.D. EMC Engineer Teradata Corporation 17095 Via Del Campo San Diego, CA 92127 858-485-2537 - phone 858-485-3788 - fax (unattended) -Original Message- From: Brian Oconnell [mailto:oconne...@tamuracorp.com] Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2015 3:29 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] FCC 14-208, ET Docket No. 13-44 Is this it? https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-14-208A1.pdf Brian From: Knighten, Jim L [mailto:jim.knigh...@teradata.com] Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2015 1:12 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: [PSES] FCC 14-208, ET Docket No. 13-44 Has FCC 14-208, ET Docket No. 13-44, REPORT AND ORDER released 12/30/2014 In the Matter of Amendment of Parts 0, 1, 2, and 15 of the Commission's Rules regarding Authorization of Radiofrequency Equipment and Amendment of Part 68 regarding Approval of Terminal Equipment by Telecommunications Certification Bodies Been published yet in the Federal Register? I have not seen it, but am not skilled at looking for it. Jim __ James L. Knighten, Ph.D. EMC Engineer Teradata Corporation 17095 Via Del Campo San Diego, CA 92127 858-485-2537 - phone 858-485-3788 - fax (unattended) - 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] FCC 14-208, ET Docket No. 13-44
Is this it? https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-14-208A1.pdf Brian From: Knighten, Jim L [mailto:jim.knigh...@teradata.com] Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2015 1:12 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: [PSES] FCC 14-208, ET Docket No. 13-44 Has FCC 14-208, ET Docket No. 13-44, REPORT AND ORDER released 12/30/2014 In the Matter of Amendment of Parts 0, 1, 2, and 15 of the Commission's Rules regarding Authorization of Radiofrequency Equipment and Amendment of Part 68 regarding Approval of Terminal Equipment by Telecommunications Certification Bodies Been published yet in the Federal Register? I have not seen it, but am not skilled at looking for it. Jim __ James L. Knighten, Ph.D. EMC Engineer Teradata Corporation 17095 Via Del Campo San Diego, CA 92127 858-485-2537 - phone 858-485-3788 - fax (unattended) - 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] UL HTTPS
Yes sir, that is what members have said (off line), so looked at what DNS was resolving too and noticed several "jumps' for the IP for a given URL (one poor soul said that he had a 50% 'fail' getting into the CDA). Many thanks to the members that responded on and off line. Long live the emperor, and hail to the hostess with the mostess, and other such stuff. Brian -Original Message- From: Peter Tarver [mailto:ptar...@enphaseenergy.com] Sent: Friday, May 15, 2015 3:58 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] UL HTTPS UL recently changed a number of URLs and other items, probably as a matter normal churn. Several bookmarks no longer worked. This is probably a related thing that they'll work through in time. Regards, Peter Tarver > -Original Message- > From: Brian Oconnell > Sent: Friday, May 15, 2015 12:39 > > Anyone know what is with UL's CDA site? Seems to have lost > the secure connect for last several days. The pages seem > only partially encrypted or perhaps mixed scripts, but cannot > detect anything using inspect mode on browser. Hopefully > they just need to renew cert. > > Sent email to them several days past - no response. - 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] UL HTTPS
Anyone know what is with UL's CDA site? Seems to have lost the secure connect for last several days. The pages seem only partially encrypted or perhaps mixed scripts, but cannot detect anything using inspect mode on browser. Hopefully they just need to renew cert. Sent email to them several days past - no response. If the good people at UL see this, please fix because my IS manager will eventually have me shot for port tunneling. 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] Interference Caused by Microwave Oven
Correct, microwave ovens have, in series, several safety interlock switching devices that control the HV transformer. But opening the door prior to the set time-out will not immediately de-energize the magnetron; that is, the delay is programmatic, not electro-mechanical. Brian -Original Message- From: Ken Javor [mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com] Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2015 4:26 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] Interference Caused by Microwave Oven Newsworthy indeed, but hardly something to self-promote through publication! And I would think that the interlock would interrupt magnetron operation as soon as the latching mechanism was depressed, which is before the door actually even begins to open, so that the gasket should still be making the seal. Ken Javor Phone: (256) 650-5261 > From: CR > Reply-To: > Date: Thu, 14 May 2015 19:21:42 -0400 > To: > Subject: Re: [PSES] Interference Caused by Microwave Oven > > On 5/14/2015 6:58 PM, Ken Javor wrote: >> why doesn¹t the rf shut off when the door is opened? And a second >> one: why was it deemed worthy of publishing an article that a >> microwave oven interfered with data collection since 1988? > > It does, but probably not instantly. Just guessing, but ... A magnetron > is a thermal diode that can continue to generate RF as long as there's > enough emission, and enough voltage to move electrons past its cavity > resonators. The door uses a choke joint to prevent RF from escaping, and > as that's being opened, it can radiate. And it's newsworthy because > people smart enough to run a radio telescope should be smart enough to > run down something like this. IMO! > > Cortland Richmond > KA5S > (semi) retired from EMC engineering - 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] Interference Caused by Microwave Oven
Think that CISPR32 is supposed to address very short-term stuff, but since is not recurring and periodic, would a few hundred mSec affect test limits? So what is the SAR for 2.5GHz stuff? Is it an integral effect for exposure time? Is safety issue per new LVD (2014/35/EU), and would need a good rationale per required risk analysis. Bet that most of you EMC engineers would have this figured out in a few hours. PhD astronomers and rocket scientists, 17 years - meh. Brian From: Doug Powell [mailto:doug...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2015 3:18 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: [PSES] Interference Caused by Microwave Oven All, Today Interference Technology published on their website, "Astronomers Discover 17-Year Interference Caused by Microwave Oven" Link: http://www.interferencetechnology.com/astronomers-discover-17-year-interference-caused-by-microwave-oven/?utm_source=itnewsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20150514 My question is this. If the RF generated inside the oven does not stop prior to the opening of the RF seal on the door, which testing is responsible to identify this problem, EMC or the Safety testing? Thanks, Doug Douglas E Powell 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 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] Accreditation for standard comprehension?
Very interesting question - have never thought about this. Am not aware of such a 'KSA' requirement for evaluations of an individual other than for building code inspectors (AHJ) in North America, and for most certified electricians in U.S. and Canada. But not certain that these evaluations address any particular safety standards. Suppose that various agencies do this indirectly via evaluation of reports if your facility performs tests internally and writes reports for NRTL/SCC or NB review. There are general standards on how to run an accreditation scheme, but do not remember if standards knowledge is addressed. After more thought given, the only instances where subject to specific questions on safety/EMC standards was for various interviews, and where an IEC 'standard' unit was being used to verify veracity of my Type Test data and test technique. Would be interested in what others have encountered. Brian From: Crane, Lauren [mailto:lauren.cr...@kla-tencor.com] Sent: Monday, May 11, 2015 4:16 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: [PSES] Accreditation for standard comprehension? 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 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] Wire Questions
CSA-C22.2 No 0.4 (Bonding of Electrical Equipment) has this 3.4.3.2 The fault capacity of a bond shall be adequate if the bond complies with one of the following requirements: (a) the bond is made from a suitably terminated conductor not smaller than the specified minimum size of bonding conductors in Table 16 of Part I of the CEC; Note: When equipment contains two or more motors connected to a circuit in the equipment that does not have overcurrent protection, the bonding conductor size is selected by assuming that the branch circuit protection is equal to three times the full load current of the largest motor plus the current required by the other loads. (b) in cord-connected equipment, the bond is made from a suitably terminated conductor not smaller than the bonding conductor in the supply cord; (c) the bond is made from a copper conductor not smaller than the applicable minimum size specified in Table 1 and meets the test requirements specified in Clause 4.1; (d) the bond is made from a conductor smaller than that required in Item (b) or (c), or smaller than required in Item (a) for overcurrent protection rated 40 A or more, and meets the test requirements specified in Clauses 4.1 and 4.3; or (e) the bond is made from a conductive element, other than a conductive element specified in Items (a) to (d), that meets the test requirements specified in Clauses 4.1 and 4.3 And table 1 indicates: Rating of branch circuitMinimum bonding conductor size, AWG required for equipment, A 15 20 20 18 30 14 Note that the 20gauge wire contradicts some stuff in NEC article 250(NFPA70), and CEC Part II (CSA C22.2 No 0-M9). Brian From: John Allen [mailto:john_e_al...@blueyonder.co.uk] Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2015 11:09 AM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] Wire Questions Brian Grounding Conductor size An interesting question with respect to internal grounding conductors, and one which made me refer to a very old copy of CSA Technical Note TN-017 “Bonding and Grounding of Electrical Equipment (Protective Grounding)”, dated January 13, 1993, which I have – don’t know if there is a newer version, but I suspect there is (if so, does anyone have a copy of this or of whatever has replaced it?) so the following comments may well be out-of-date! TN-017 refers to CSA C22.0.4, which I don’t think I have, as the basic requirements for grounding of equipment, so obviously not sure what that currently states. However: Page 2 of TN-017, under “Grounded (Class I) Equipment” states that “IEC standards require the ground path impedance to be less than or equal to 0.1 ohm. Although it is a satisfactory criteria for evaluating a path to ground where overcurrent protection is rated or set at 15A and 20A, this approach fails to provide proper protection when overcurrent devices are rated or set at 30A or higher” Page 6, Under “National Electric Code (NEC)” states: “Article 250 of NEC defines grounding and bonding requirements for installations of electrical equipment in the United States. Articles250-60, 250-95 and 250-155 also define min size of ground conductor required. Also see Articles 250-42, 250-45, 250-59, 250-113 and 250-114. NEC requires the following in particular. (a) Ground conductor must not be smaller than specified in Table 250-95 with the exceptions that the ground conductor: i. Must not be smaller than 18A AWG copper and not smaller than circuit conductors. ii. Need not be larger than the AC circuit conductors. This means that the min cord size permitted is No 18 AWG, and min size of ground conductor shall be No 18 AWG. (b) Ground conductor may be without insulation but if insulation is provided, it shall be coloured green or green with one or more yellow stripes. (c) All non-current carrying metal parts of fixed, portable and mobile equipment shall be grounded. Grounding conductors not part of cable assembly must not be smaller that No 6 AWG.” NB: w.r.t. (c) above, there are exceptions elsewhere for double-insulated (etc.) equipment! Can’t find any definitive statement in TN-017 as to the required internal grounding conductor sizes, but, from the above, it seems to me that the issue you mention relates to a combination of the following: - The IEC continuity test at 25A is only adequate at supply currents which would be protected by a 15A/20A external breaker, which is probably why 61010-1 states different – see below; - the potential AWG size of the external supply cord – and that the grounding conductor needs to be > the size of the current-carrying conductors; - the current rating of the protection in the installation – and if the latter is >15A/20A, then the internal conductor would have to be larger than 18AWG. Since you were using a 16AWG power cord
Re: [PSES] CB Philosophy Questions
Doug, Thanks, will look for this stuff. The only stuff seen to date for component evaluation is in UL PAGs, CSA informs, and the IECEE CTL stuff. Are these component acceptance 'guides' part of the National Differences in a TRF, or regulatory law administered by the state? According to the OSHA guy that is the NRTL program director, they are in process of removing component standards from their official listing (do a search on the EMC-PSTC listserv archives for his comments). Do not understand "Having a CB report is not a foregone guarantee that it will always be accepted". Do you mean that the TRF was rejected because of poor component descriptions, or that changes to the C/C table in the TRF was rejected, or something else? Brian -Original Message- From: dougp01 [mailto:doug...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2015 5:53 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] CB Philosophy Questions Brian I suggest you reference the IECEE website and read through the component acceptance requirements for each target country, including the USA. I haven't checked but there may also be such a document for the -2-29 you mention. These can be found in the same general area as the national differences documents. Both are interesting reading. If you are not able to access these contact your certifying agency and they should be willing to supply copies. As for what is typical in each country, I have learned that this is variable. In general the office tasked with reviewing and accepting your CB report definitely feels they have the authority to do as they please. And to a large extent this is true. Having a CB report is not a foregone guarantee that it will always be accepted. Regards, - doug Douglas Powell http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01 Original Message From: Brian Oconnell Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2015 6:39 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Reply To: Brian Oconnell Subject: Re: [PSES] CB Philosophy Questions In both procedural controls and scoped test standards, North America (NRTL/SCC/NOM) reports and the IECEE CB scheme are becoming more similar where state-enforced codes do not contradict the scoped standard. It has been several years since the NRTLs and other test agencies have routinely accepted a blanket 'equivalent' in the C/C table of submitted reports for all components. Typically stuff such as components that not across mains, or are not bridging insulation or a safety boundary can be cited in general terms with no particular mfr name or part no. The issue is that the agency assessment engineer cannot be certain which characteristics of a component are important to something on the C/C table. So they test your box with the assumption that the design team has verified performance only for the particular combination of stuff on the BoM and the board layout that was submitted for assessment. The other issue is that there is no formal IEC or SCC or OSHA standard or regulation that defines how to assess an equivalent component, or whom in the company shall be the qualified signatory for equivalent item approval (exceptions for programs such as CSA cat cert and others). Do not agree with much of the shenanigans employed by the various agencies to effectively control market share through pseudo-engineering principles, but do agree in principle with the reductions in 'equivalent' components allowed on the critical component table. Brian From: Brian Ceresney [mailto:bceres...@delta-q.com] Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2015 4:09 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: [PSES] CB Philosophy Questions Greetings, Compliance Experts, I'm finding myself in a curious situation, and wondering if you have had similar experiences, and may have some advice to share. We are in the process of using a CB report for an industrial battery charger( to IEC60335-2-29) to obtain an in-country certification in an Asian country, and have run into an interesting difficulty. When our CB report was issued, the engineer was not willing to add wording to the Critical Components list to allow alternate components(X, Y caps, opto-isolators) with equivalent ratings and Regulatory Approvals to be added, with the implication being that this addition was not allowed by the authorities. As expected, two years later, we are going through one country's approval process, using our CB report, and the national regulatory organization has decided that the use of a different brand of opto-isolator and X/Y capacitor is a non-compliance, as they are not specifically in the CB report. (The electrical, environmental ratings, and the regulatory approvals are equivalent to the original components). a.) Are these attitudes typical in the CB "world"? b.) Can anybody explain the apparent reticence of CB testing labs to allow alternate components in a CB report? c.) Is i
Re: [PSES] CB Philosophy Questions
Optos are an excellent example. There are a myriad of parameters that will allow the safe operation of a typical power supply that are not considered in certs per IEC60747-5-x and UL1577. Stuff such as CTR drift within the rated temperature range, themal de-rate for linear optos, frequency BW per capacitance per temperature, and the Bugs Bunny factor. And a 'shallow' assessment will only indicate equivalent ratings and test certs to same standards. Brian From: Ted Eckert [mailto:ted.eck...@microsoft.com] Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2015 5:14 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] CB Philosophy Questions Hello Brian, Most CB Test Laboratories (CBTLs) will allow and accept the use of the term "interchangeable" for some components. However, there are a few CBTLs that will not accept this term and they require each and every alternate source to be explicitly listed. If you indicated to your test lab that your CB report would be used for approval in one of these countries, your CB test lab may have proactively prevented you from including "interchangeable" in the report. Many manufacturers will structure the components list in their CB report to use the term "interchangeable" where appropriate and allowed. The manufacturer will then create a specific list of critical components for those countries that require the extra detail. The CB report is then used to provide the test data and construction review and the amended critical components list is used to meet the stricter component requirements. CBTLs are not required to accept alternate components that are not on the critical components list. It is up to the discretion of the test lab to determine if an alternate is acceptable. Each CBTL will have limits on which component types are eligible for generic descriptions. Most will allow generic descriptions for printed circuit boards with only the temperature and flame ratings specified. Many will allow generic descriptions for X and Y capacitors. I would not expect a CBTL to allow generic descriptions for optocouplers as there is often more to be controlled. Ted Eckert Compliance Engineer Microsoft Corporation ted.eck...@microsoft.com The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my employer, the CB test laboratories I work with or the CB test laboratories I don't work with. From: Brian Ceresney [mailto:bceres...@delta-q.com] Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2015 4:09 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: [PSES] CB Philosophy Questions Greetings, Compliance Experts, I'm finding myself in a curious situation, and wondering if you have had similar experiences, and may have some advice to share. We are in the process of using a CB report for an industrial battery charger( to IEC60335-2-29) to obtain an in-country certification in an Asian country, and have run into an interesting difficulty. When our CB report was issued, the engineer was not willing to add wording to the Critical Components list to allow alternate components(X, Y caps, opto-isolators) with equivalent ratings and Regulatory Approvals to be added, with the implication being that this addition was not allowed by the authorities. As expected, two years later, we are going through one country's approval process, using our CB report, and the national regulatory organization has decided that the use of a different brand of opto-isolator and X/Y capacitor is a non-compliance, as they are not specifically in the CB report. (The electrical, environmental ratings, and the regulatory approvals are equivalent to the original components). a.) Are these attitudes typical in the CB "world"? b.) Can anybody explain the apparent reticence of CB testing labs to allow alternate components in a CB report? c.) Is it likely that a National Body will eventually compromise, and use engineering judgement in accepting alternate components? Or is this usually a firm "no"? The North American NRTL organizations are proactive in allowing equivalently rated and approved components to be sourced in a product, and frequently state this in their reports. IMHO, it seems a bit archaic to not account for second-sourcing of common off-the-shelf critical components such as these. d.) Is there a philosophical or historical difference between the two systems(CB and NRTL) that accounts for this difference in approaches? Thanks in advance for your attention- your response is appreciated. Brian Ceresney - 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
Re: [PSES] CB Philosophy Questions
In both procedural controls and scoped test standards, North America (NRTL/SCC/NOM) reports and the IECEE CB scheme are becoming more similar where state-enforced codes do not contradict the scoped standard. It has been several years since the NRTLs and other test agencies have routinely accepted a blanket 'equivalent' in the C/C table of submitted reports for all components. Typically stuff such as components that not across mains, or are not bridging insulation or a safety boundary can be cited in general terms with no particular mfr name or part no. The issue is that the agency assessment engineer cannot be certain which characteristics of a component are important to something on the C/C table. So they test your box with the assumption that the design team has verified performance only for the particular combination of stuff on the BoM and the board layout that was submitted for assessment. The other issue is that there is no formal IEC or SCC or OSHA standard or regulation that defines how to assess an equivalent component, or whom in the company shall be the qualified signatory for equivalent item approval (exceptions for programs such as CSA cat cert and others). Do not agree with much of the shenanigans employed by the various agencies to effectively control market share through pseudo-engineering principles, but do agree in principle with the reductions in 'equivalent' components allowed on the critical component table. Brian From: Brian Ceresney [mailto:bceres...@delta-q.com] Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2015 4:09 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: [PSES] CB Philosophy Questions Greetings, Compliance Experts, I'm finding myself in a curious situation, and wondering if you have had similar experiences, and may have some advice to share. We are in the process of using a CB report for an industrial battery charger( to IEC60335-2-29) to obtain an in-country certification in an Asian country, and have run into an interesting difficulty. When our CB report was issued, the engineer was not willing to add wording to the Critical Components list to allow alternate components(X, Y caps, opto-isolators) with equivalent ratings and Regulatory Approvals to be added, with the implication being that this addition was not allowed by the authorities. As expected, two years later, we are going through one country's approval process, using our CB report, and the national regulatory organization has decided that the use of a different brand of opto-isolator and X/Y capacitor is a non-compliance, as they are not specifically in the CB report. (The electrical, environmental ratings, and the regulatory approvals are equivalent to the original components). a.) Are these attitudes typical in the CB "world"? b.) Can anybody explain the apparent reticence of CB testing labs to allow alternate components in a CB report? c.) Is it likely that a National Body will eventually compromise, and use engineering judgement in accepting alternate components? Or is this usually a firm "no"? The North American NRTL organizations are proactive in allowing equivalently rated and approved components to be sourced in a product, and frequently state this in their reports. IMHO, it seems a bit archaic to not account for second-sourcing of common off-the-shelf critical components such as these. d.) Is there a philosophical or historical difference between the two systems(CB and NRTL) that accounts for this difference in approaches? Thanks in advance for your attention- your response is appreciated. Brian Ceresney Regulatory Lead Delta-Q Technologies Corp. - 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] 16 AWG wire usage
UL/CSA60950-1 has very specific material requirements for motors. And 508C being deprecated, we now have UL61800-5-1, so that might be helpful if this is a controlled-drive motor, but have not read so not certain. IEC60204 has broad scope, so there an 'equivalent' ANSI or CSA standard not available. Also, remember that NFPA79 has some stuff that required same awg wire into equipment as provided by the external distribution circuit. But if the equipment terminal goes into rated interrupt device, then should be ok for decrease wire size. Happy reading, the scoped standards and code cannot possibly be more than 1500 pages Brian -Original Message- From: Nyffenegger, Dave [mailto:dave.nyffeneg...@bhemail.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2015 12:06 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] 16 AWG wire usage I'm trying a preemptive attack on the design to make sure it complies before we get questioned by any AHJ or NRTL. Perhaps I should clarify the my original question is relevant to wiring internal to machinery hence the reference to NFPA 79. I'll take a look at NFPA 70 in a bit. Next on my list it to look at EN 60950-1 and EN 60204-1 to look for any similar relevant restrictions as I need compliance with all of these. -Dave -Original Message- From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk] Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2015 12:30 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] 16 AWG wire usage In message , dated Wed, 15 Apr 2015, Brian Oconnell writes: >Article 430 should be referenced for this stuff. In general, overload >protection required for each branch circuit at the distribution panel. Less bother doing it that way, than arguing with the AHJ. -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. With best wishes. See www.jmwa.demon.co.uk When I turn my back on the sun, it's to look for a rainbow John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas Mike Cantwell For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: David Heald: - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas Mike Cantwell For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: David Heald: - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas Mike Cantwell For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: David Heald:
Re: [PSES] 16 AWG wire usage
Have an aphorism for this that was derived from another common one (Shaw), that found its way into a product's installation instructions: Do not argue with an AHJ, you will get dirty and the AHJ probably likes the dirt. Brian -Original Message- From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk] Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2015 9:30 AM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] 16 AWG wire usage In message , dated Wed, 15 Apr 2015, Brian Oconnell writes: >Article 430 should be referenced for this stuff. In general, overload >protection required for each branch circuit at the distribution panel. Less bother doing it that way, than arguing with the AHJ. -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. With best wishes. See www.jmwa.demon.co.uk When I turn my back on the sun, it's to look for a rainbow John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 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] 16 AWG wire usage
Article 430 should be referenced for this stuff. In general, overload protection required for each branch circuit at the distribution panel. My experience with current interrupt stuff embedded within motor is typically to meet the EIS ratings (limits of windings), and unless it is thermomagnetic, probably cannot meet all O/L and S/C and FLA requirements. Brian -Original Message- From: Nyffenegger, Dave [mailto:dave.nyffeneg...@bhemail.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2015 9:32 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: [PSES] 16 AWG wire usage Hi folks, NFPA 79:2012 12.6.1.1 defines requirements for permitting the use of 16 AWG wire for motor power circuits if among other things the "Circuit is provided with Class 10 overload protection". Does anyone know if the Class 10 protection rating applies/can be implemented with a motor's internal automatic thermal protection or if the requirement can only apply to external overload protection relays? David P. Nyffenegger, PMP, SM-IEEE Product Development Manager - 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] EMC software
There have been previous questions to this listserv about EMC software. April issue of Incompliance magazine has article on evaluation of this stuff by Jack McFadden. The 'turtle' analogy is a bit strange, but the article does seem to cover most of what should be evaluated. In my little EMC-amateur mind, the only major issue not addressed is platform abstraction and dependency. Found it interesting that the author emphasized SWEBOK, which many consider intimidating because of its large technical scope. The same guy also wrote a paper that covers the intersection of software engineering and EMC test design: http://www.ets-lindgren.com/pdf/IC102013.pdf 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] IEC60950-1 Table 4B insulation temperatures
Perfect. Cookies and ale for Ted. While normal operating ambient limits are largely based on heat energy transfer (or lack of), the thermal de-rating portion of a power supply is typically limited by the EIS class. And note the Arrhenius equation, where reliability rapidly takes a dive for increasing component temperatures. So you could be looking at reliability problems. There are probably no modern converter designs where there is not one or more types of thermal limiting circuits or components. As airflow through and around the power supply, whether convection or forced, cannot be reliably modeled for all end-use conditions, designs include stuff in to disable the unit when something critical is out of its SOA. Brian From: Ted Eckert [mailto:ted.eck...@microsoft.com] Sent: Friday, April 10, 2015 2:07 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] IEC60950-1 Table 4B insulation temperatures The insulation is tested to determine what rating it is given. In the United States, the test procedure is UL 1446. The manufacturer specifies what temperature rating they want for their insulation system and it is tested to that limit. If it retains its dielectric strength, it passes. I can't tell you how insulation behaves above its tested temperature. Part of the problem is that an insulation may be good to 165, but if the manufacturer only asks for Class 120 test, it won't get tested at a higher temperature. The test is only done to the limit requested, not to failure. As such, it may be difficult to determine if the insulation in your system is close to the limit or if it has plenty of margin. That being said, my experience is that the ambient temperature limits for power supplies are typically determined by their ability to dissipate heat, not by the insulation rating. The output current limiting is often done with thermally. If the ambient exceeds the rating, the thermal limiting may shut off the output at a lower current than what the power supply is rated for. There will also likely be thermal limiters on the semiconductors to keep their junction temperatures within acceptable limits. These thermal cut-outs may activate at higher ambient temperatures shutting off the switch-mode system. The system doesn't become unsafe above the specified ambient temperature, but it can stop operating. Ted Eckert Compliance Engineer Microsoft Corporation ted.eck...@microsoft.com The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my employer. - 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] IEC60950-1 Table 4B insulation temperatures
Someone with TC108 connections needs to shout out. In any case, Table 4B is based on stuff in UL446 and IEC60085, where the delta T is based reliability of safety for the life of the equipment for windings in motors and transformers. The original IEC85 stuff was based on paper by T. W. Dakin written well before my parents found me under a desert rock. Also UL746B has long-term polymeric stuff to determine RTI. The standards for electrical insulation systems and polymerics are designed for a long-term safety margin and to handle fault conditions and a 10 degC hot-spot margin but, for obvious reasons, thermal limits should be observed. Brian From: Charlie Blackham [mailto:char...@sulisconsultants.com] Sent: Friday, April 10, 2015 11:29 AM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: [PSES] IEC60950-1 Table 4B insulation temperatures All I'm looking at an enclosed IT system that contains a number of 3rd party power supplies and, under normal conditions, the ambient temperature around various wall-wart and "soap-on-a-rope" power supplies is a few degrees above their stated maximum ambient temperatures. The parts that make up the system are being used with their supplied PSUs and a future redesign will look at using a higher temperature rated open frame power supply and DC bus, or other solution, but we can't do that for the initial customer demonstration unit. The customer demonstration unit needs to be run at their site for a period of time and we obviously want it to be "safe". Where do the maximum temperatures of insulation in table 4B originate from - is it extensive experiment, or finger in the air? Where insulation is run above rated temperature, what is the degradation method and does it follow the Arrhenius equation? Several of the system parts are standard off-the-shelf pieces of IT equipment so the "40C rating" is probably based on standard expectations for indoor environment and it would be a coincidence if it was also exactly the maximum permitted temperature under 60950, so there's almost certainly some hidden margin, but of course that's difficult to prove and quantify with an encapsulated PSU. I'm trying to develop an argument as to how the initial customer demo system might still be considered "safe", for a period of say 2-3 months, whilst not meeting the letter of the appropriate standard. Suggestions and comments welcome. Regards Charlie Charlie Blackham Sulis Consultants Ltd Tel: +44 (0)7946 624317 LinkedIn: uk.linkedin.com/in/charlieblackham/ Web: www.sulisconsultants.com Registered in England and Wales, number 05466247 - 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] directives for ITE equipment
Good People, Have a customer that wants 2004/40/EC on the D of C. The declaration that was provided listed the EMC, ROHS and LVD, and cited the respective harmonized standards per the OJ. Because 2004/40/EC is not a marking directive, and the equipment is not an intentional radiator, would seem that Class B ITE would be covered solely by the standards per the EMC directive. Dissenting opinions are welcome. Thanks, 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] Germanwings crash
In another life, long ago, in a galaxy far away, was a member of a squadron that frequently deployed detachments to isolated and not nice places. Our security model was based 99% on exogenous events/effects. The only internal influence considered was weapons proficiency and material assignment for the tech or mechanic that was on watch. Internal personnel security failure, until the recent sand-pile wars, had not been addressed by the military managers that were planning deployments. Perhaps it is time for commercial aviation to study procedures and processes of internal security for forward deployed military units. Boeing and Airbus spend their lobby dollars on procurement issues; and it may have never occurred to senior corporate management to consider because of the ROI for development of materials to support logistics and tactics of cockpit security. Is the failure of internal personel an extension of 'forseeable misuse' ? Brian -Original Message- From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk] Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2015 11:37 AM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] Germanwings crash In message , dated Wed, 1 Apr 2015, Ken Javor writes: >These type doors became mandatory after 9/11. Boeing was sued after >9/11 because these type doors had not been installed. > >What is the manufacturer to do? I feel that Boeing and Airbus have enough clout to get bad decisions by FAA, ICAO or whomever reconsidered. -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. With best wishes. See www.jmwa.demon.co.uk When I turn my back on the sun, it's to look for a rainbow John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 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] Basic instruction in EMC and safety requirements for the non-professional
Mr. Nute, As this is probably for management, respectfully suggest that the premier exposition for PHBs is none other than a reference to some Wile E. Coyote videos. This is well within the MBA attention span and their required level of understanding for product performance and conformity. Brian From: Richard Nute [mailto:ri...@ieee.org] Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 12:57 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] Basic instruction in EMC and safety requirements for the non-professional Hi Ken: Oh, boy. EMC and safety requirements are a cost without a sale. That is what a VP of marketing told me. For the most part, management would prefer to keep the costs at a minimum. EMC, ROHS, and safety requirements are rules that the products must comply with in order to sell in various countries. 1) The requirements must be included in the design of the product. 2) Tests verify that the product complies with the requirements and determine whether the product can bear certification marks. 3) Marks applied to the product attest to compliance with the requirements. 4) For some countries, documents accompanying the product attest to compliance with the requirements. 5) Some countries and certification houses require factory inspection as a condition for marking the product. 6) Some certification houses require periodic factory surveillance. 7) The cost of compliance at our company is. The number of full-time employees in this activity is. I'm sure that you can amplify on any of these points if asked. Good luck, and best regards, Rich From: Ken Javor [mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 10:39 AM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: [PSES] Basic instruction in EMC and safety requirements for the non-professional Can anyone out there suggest either some texts or urls covering the subject matter for management at a higher level not interested in details? Especially as to impact on selling equipment outside a country's own borders. Thank you, Ken Javor Phone: (256) 650-5261 - 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] NEC vs CEC for Transformer Protection
5085-3/CSA No66.3 scoped only where class 2 or 3 stuff is required, and generally not considered for industrial environment where the secondary circuit not exposed. Other than Class 2 would be scoped by UL1012 and CSA107.1. For industrial control transformers, the scoped standard would probably be UL508 or UL508A, where the tables in clause 42 of 508A would apply for overcurrent protection of both transformer sides. In U.S. (not certain about Mexico), anything over 2kVA is considered a power transformer, where branch circuit protection is required; for Canada all power transformers are provided current interrupt via the branch circuit protection, and supplementary protection device must be certified per CSA No235-4. For distribution transformers over 10kVA, UL1561 and CSA No47 are scoped, where branch protection not necessarily considered, and probably not relevant to this discussion. Brian From: Brian Gregory [mailto:brian_greg...@netzero.net] Sent: Monday, March 30, 2015 10:03 AM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] NEC vs CEC for Transformer Protection 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" 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, "Overcurrent protection for dry=type transformer circuits rated 750V or less", which states the primary overcurrent protection device cannot exceed 125% of the transformer current rating. That'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, "Overcurrent protection for power and distribution transformer circuits rated 750 V or less, other than dry-type transformer
Re: [PSES] NEC vs CEC for Transformer Protection
Inrush peak for 50/60Hz transformers mostly from magnetizing current -> core saturation and residual flux, and of course input V. As the saturation curve does not extend past the pi/2 inrush peak, any further inrush past a few mSec is typically from filling up the coulomb buckets on the secondary side. This is a tau-based thing, so both DCR and Z would be used to determine the current-interrupt component's expected I2T. Inrush for the 'small' transformer is being discussed can have peak inrush well over 20x rated continuous. For the smaller industrial control stuff under 5kVA, series thermistor in lieu of fuse is common where wire and breaker are correctly sized. The AHJ's focus should be on SCCR, which is inversely proportional to the DCR of the secondary windings, and coordination between the distribution breaker and the fuse. Perhaps you can distract the assessment person with a Bugs Bunny or Daffy Duck cartoon on your pad/laptop. 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] USB and radiated emission issues
>From Intel: www.ti.com/sc/docs/apps/msp/intrface/usb/emitest.pdf Brian From: Amund Westin [mailto:am...@westin-emission.no] Sent: 20 March 2015 12:10 To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: [PSES] USB and radiated emission issues Got some serious radiated emission issues from a USB 2.0 stick (high-speed 480Mb/sec). Spectrum shows the 480MHz way over the EN55022 limit line. We’ve been told to implement a common mode choke between the USB IC and the input/output port. That means on the D+ and D- transmission lines. http://www.coilcraft.com/0805usb.cfm Anybody who have experience with such design? #Amund - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas Mike Cantwell For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: David Heald:
Re: [PSES] Nameplate and DoC requirements Machinery Directive
Did not that ISO stuff was required. What is basis for requirement to indicate accreditations/certifications on the machinery directive D of C? Another member of the esteemed Brian Club. Brian From: Brian Gregory [mailto:brian_greg...@netzero.net] Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2015 12:39 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] Nameplate and DoC requirements Machinery Directive 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 - 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 Sherman Graco Inc. From: "Brian Kunde" To: "EMC-PSTC" 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 - 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 administrator
Re: [PSES] Safety standards versus safety engineering
John Allen's approach and advice is reasonable. Some our more experienced denizens such as Rich Nute and Pete Perkins and have written some articles on safety engineering principles for the PSES newsletter. Ted Eckert did a session on compliance and regulatory sources at a recent ISPCE. Cannot remember which year, but most of the presentations are available online. And Gary Tornquist did a session on component power supply evaluation at a previous ISPCE. Cannot remember whom (all of the MS people look alike to me) did some sessions on basic stuff such as fuse selection, power strips, building code analysis, and probably other fundamental topics. This listserv has had a few threads on knowledge resources. There are other on-line discussions, such as the numerous LinkedIn groups. And the many Bugs Bunny videos available on youtube. Brian From: Adam Dixon [mailto:lanterna.viri...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 5:18 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] Safety standards versus safety engineering For the design engineer who wants to learn more about safety regarding both product design (systems using 85-264VAC sources; mostly digital logic but including an Ethernet physical layer interface) and production test, but is on a very tight budget, are there recommended references? Soft and/or hardcopy are fine. I have searched the archives using a variety of terms to locate recommended references but didn't locate any lists. I've read the discussions about lowest cost sources for standards. IEC 60950-1:2013 is 707 Euros from what I see on the Estonian site. The UL version is $493 for starters. Purchasing any number of standards certainly is a moderate to significant investment for the individual. I checked out the HBSE per Rich's post about how it came to be, but don't have $1050 for the two day workshop at this time either. There look to be a handful of texts on Amazon. Electrical Safety Handbook, 4th edition looks like the most appropriate title -- any benefit with something from Amazon or other publishing house/distributor compared to the actual standards? If I've missed pertinent discussions in the archives or if you would consider sharing a recommended reading/standards list, I would appreciate any guidance/feedback. Kind regards, Adam Dixon adam.di...@ieee.org - 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] Encapsulation for Creepage & Clearance
Before we walk up the hill(sunny and 27degC) to Stone to partake of honey-mustard pretzels and IPA have an off-site engineering meeting, want to add to Mr. Nute's most thoughtful reply that 'conformal' coatings (at least for NRTLs) is more process-oriented than just material. That is, the application must be part of the FUS audit. Potting and coating requires recurring test. Brian From: Richard Nute [mailto:ri...@ieee.org] Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2015 12:28 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] Encapsulation for Creepage & Clearance Hi John: Clearance is defined as the shortest distance between conductors in air. Creepage is not an insulator, but the interface between air and solid insulation. Creepage is defined as the shortest distance between conductors across the surface of the interposed solid insulation. (Physically, creepage cannot be shorter than clearance.) Encapsulation and conformal coatings supposedly displace the air with a solid insulation; since there is no air, there is no clearance or creepage between conductors. (Some authorities and standards will disagree with this statement.) There is only distance through solid insulation. The issue is whether the encapsulation and conformal coatings truly displace the air. And, if the encapsulation and conformal coating material is impervious to air. And, the "stick-to-it-ness" of the materials to the conductors and substrate. And maybe some other parameters. If your product complies with the required clearance and creepage without the encapsulation or conformal coating, then you don't have to address the encapsulation and conformal coating requirements. I know that I haven't answered your questions. But, maybe, I have given you a perspective. Good luck, 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:
Re: [PSES] Shrink-wrap on soldered connections
Thought about this and realized that I have never seen crimped connector fail where the connector components have test certificate, and where the crimping tool is subject to recurring calibration, and where the correct wiring materials implemented. And have never used crimping tools or connector materials that did not have instructions and conditions of acceptability. You get what you pay for. This is basis of my requirement for crimped pins on transformer flying leads, which are then soldered into the PCB. Would be very interested in other's experience with crimped connector failures. Brian From: ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen [mailto:g.grem...@cetest.nl] Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2015 12:11 AM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] Shrink-wrap on soldered connections I agree with Gary, but the quality depends on wire type and match between wire and crimp. Also the tool quality (if the right tool is used at all) is essential. Crimps are suitable for stranded wire only, and the wire need to be inserted far enough. Crimps are subject to a number of failure causes, and I have seen many wires come out of a crimp connector without force. Not all safety critical parts have full compatible flat 6.3 mm terminals, the retention hole is missing or adapted so as to allow wires be soldered into. Manufacturers of crimp terminals often fail to provide decent assembly and safety instructions with their products leaving ample space to for misfits.. There is also no (safety) convention on where to select what type of terminal, be it ring, fork or pin or connector type, so the component applied determines the choice of type, not necessarily leading to a safe solution. This is the more true as component manufacturers provide safety-approved and non-approved types of the same component, mostly at a better price, differing only a type of connection. I have seen pin type of crimp connectors used at a screwed power supply terminal (mains side), and I fail to see the added value of the double crimp action in that case. If the screw comes loose then. I have seen no safety standard explicitly refusing shrinked connections within the restrictions Rich mentioned. Interesting question on heat shrinks is there possible qualification as an insulator... ?? Gert Gremmen Ce-test From: Gary McInturff [mailto:gary.mcintu...@esterline.com] Sent: Tuesday 10 March 2015 20:14 To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] Shrink-wrap on soldered connections I've seen the same, although I generally use double crimp wire connections even on the smaller gauge wires. One crimp obviously attaches to the copper conductor the other crimp attaches to the wire insulation. Both Crimps are made with the same tool in the same crimping action. I suppose there is a small cost difference in the piece part, but it's a better, in my opinion, method for providing a secure double connection mac From: Richard Nute [mailto:ri...@ieee.org] Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2015 11:53 AM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] Shrink-wrap on soldered connections Hi Charlie: On certified products, I have seen shrink-wrap holding soldered connections in place. The shrink-wrap must attached to both the wire and some other "thing" that holds the wire in place should the solder connection fail. I have seen the shrink wrap covering both the solder joint and the terminal such that the terminal is the other "thing" that holds the wire in place. The issue is that if the solder joint fails, the wire can contact some other potential that would create a dangerous situation. I have seen cabling used for this purpose. Note that the solder joint itself must be mechanically secure prior to soldering. Best regards, 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 - 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 Onli
Re: [PSES] Shrink-wrap on soldered connections
Concur. Two methods of securement are required for ground bond material connections. And assume that heat-shrink material is being referenced. Heat shrink is not intended for this use, nor has any safety standard provided assessment methods where heat shrink is used for other than boot and insulator. Brian From: Nyffenegger, Dave [mailto:dave.nyffeneg...@bhemail.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2015 11:05 AM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] Shrink-wrap on soldered connections I'd think not,, especially earth wire connection unless the shrink wrap manufacturer claims it can be used for securing. Soldering is generally frowned upon in the safety standards and especially for earth connections. -Dave From: Charlie Blackham [mailto:char...@sulisconsultants.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2015 1:33 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: [PSES] Shrink-wrap on soldered connections Group I'm looking for examples of what would and would not be considered as acceptable positioning or support devices for soldered connections. Can shrink-wrap alone be considered to provide acceptable "holding in place" , particularly in the earth wire. I think not, but would be grateful for other opinions Regards Charlie - 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] UL Trademark and Tradename Indexes no longer public
This is probably better idea, as the material designation is typically part of the silk screen. The 'IQ' databases for PCBs can search via this designation. Brian -Original Message- From: Charlie Blackham [mailto:char...@sulisconsultants.com] Sent: Monday, March 09, 2015 10:35 AM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] UL Trademark and Tradename Indexes no longer public Carl Have you looked at http://iq.ul.com/ regards Charlie -Original Message- From: Carl Newton [mailto:emcl...@gmail.com] Sent: 09 March 2015 16:56 To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: [PSES] UL Trademark and Tradename Indexes no longer public Members, UL has always kept the list of their customers trademarks and tradenames indexes public. I've always relied heavily upon that information for ZPMV2 printed wiring board identification. I need to know what the temperature rating is on a power supply PWB and as usual, all I have to work with is the PWB manufacturer trademark. The following link is no longer functional: http://database.ul.com/cgi-bin/XYV/template/LISEXT/1FRAME/glocids.html I called UL and the customer service rep was as helpful as possible. But the short answer after he chased the question a bit is that UL will no longer make this information public. Have any of you bumped into this issue yet, and if so, have you found an alternate solution? Thanks, Carl - 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] UL Trademark and Tradename Indexes no longer public
Available if you know company name when you look at the vendor's 'ZPMV2' file number http://database.ul.com/cgi-bin/XYV/template/LISEXT/1FRAME/index.htm But do not understand your need to know PCB ratings. If you must evaluate construction of the component power supply, then respectfully suggest that you find another supplier. Or am missing something obvious? Brian -Original Message- From: Carl Newton [mailto:emcl...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 09, 2015 9:56 AM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: [PSES] UL Trademark and Tradename Indexes no longer public Members, UL has always kept the list of their customers trademarks and tradenames indexes public. I've always relied heavily upon that information for ZPMV2 printed wiring board identification. I need to know what the temperature rating is on a power supply PWB and as usual, all I have to work with is the PWB manufacturer trademark. The following link is no longer functional: http://database.ul.com/cgi-bin/XYV/template/LISEXT/1FRAME/glocids.html I called UL and the customer service rep was as helpful as possible. But the short answer after he chased the question a bit is that UL will no longer make this information public. Have any of you bumped into this issue yet, and if so, have you found an alternate solution? Thanks, Carl - 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 standards versus safety engineering
'TANSTAAFL' format is from Heinlein's "Moon Is A Harsh Mistress", and is, as Mr. Woodgate notes, the literally correct acronym. The ' TAANSFL' format is from some of Friedman's stuff, where there are at least three forms of this acronym for (presumably) the same thing. While in this divergent context, worth noting that Heinlein's books directly address the ethics (but not morality) of public and worker safety vs cost to the individual and the cost to the society. Brian -Original Message- From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk] Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2015 11:53 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] Safety standards versus safety engineering In message , dated Fri, 6 Mar 2015, Brian Oconnell writes: > TAANSFL. Pardon? TANSTAAFL? -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. With best wishes. See www.jmwa.demon.co.uk When I turn my back on the sun, it's to look for a rainbow John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 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 standards versus safety engineering
Process Control; that is, the construction prints and BoM are controlled documents, and any deviations are subject to a formal change order where the senior regulatory person is final signatory. Makes some people rather unhappy, but seems to work for my employer. The downside is the significant chunk of time that a senior member of the design team must devote to sustaining. TAANSFL. And I do 'own' it forever. Brian -Original Message- From: CR [mailto:k...@earthlink.net] Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2015 5:47 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] Safety standards versus safety engineering On 3/5/2015 5:36 PM, Richard Nute wrote: > The product safety engineer is a member of that > team, overtly or not, and owns the safety of the > product. S(he) can't own it forever, though. One designed, a product is subject to being changed by people the safety engineer might never know -- and never control. Cortland Richmond - 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] Signal words, definition and usage
Software, where not safety-critical, is a different subject. Microsoft has published several design guides (most are on the MSDN site) and has several long web pages that instruct and admonish programmers about the proper use of the various dialog boxes and how to phrase and title the dialog strings. Code monkeys seldom read this stuff. The general level of recommended escalation is typically 1. info/notification msg 2. warning msg 3. error msg 4. system exit Warnings resulting from a programmatic process are appropriate even where safety is not involved, as there could be an impending loss/corruption of data - analogous to equipment damage. For most programming language compilers, a message that is not a result of normal progress, is considered a 'warning' or an 'error'. Warnings can be specifically ignored/overridden, but errors (by definition) can halt the tool-chain sequence. Most software shops have formal policies for messages emitted by the elements of the tool-chain. It becomes a really big thing for security and/or safety-critical code where MISRA C or Ada is implemented, as suppressed warning flag settings must be approved by quality managers. Brian From: Mike Sherman - Original Message - [mailto:msherma...@comcast.net] Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2015 1:09 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] Signal words, definition and usage Re "use the signal words for other purposes than potential injury": 1. Windows 95, I think it was, broadly corrupted the exclamation point/triangle hazard symbol by placing it in their pop up system error boxes. I'm glad to see that this is no longer practiced. 2. I once had a discussion at a former employer with software GUI programmers, who similarly used the word "warning" for software system error messages that again had nothing to do with safety. My argument was that we, as the manufacturer, had to have a consistent vocabulary across our entire user interface---labels, manuals, GUI, training materials---and I reserved the words DANGER, WARNING and CAUTION for personal injury issues. The software programmers then switched to ALERT or other words for software issues not related to safety. Mike Sherman Graco Inc. - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 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] Harmonised Standards for EMC Directive 2014/30/EU and Low Voltage Directive 2014/35/EU
Picochance? What SI unit is the 'chance' derived from? This could be useful in my uncertainty calculations. Brian -Original Message- From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk] Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 10:11 AM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] Harmonised Standards for EMC Directive 2014/30/EU and Low Voltage Directive 2014/35/EU In message <000f424e.66f2bca822817...@rpqconsulting.com>, dated Tue, 3 Mar 2015, "Ron Pickard (RPQ)" writes: >For your question, I guess we'll have to wait and see if the member >states and ETSI meet the 2016 dates in those directives. I meant a bit more than that. What chance is there of all the work being done in time? 1 picochance? -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. With best wishes. See www.jmwa.demon.co.uk When I turn my back on the sun, it's to look for a rainbow John Woodgate - 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] Serrated head screws for grounding/bonding
CSA provides the respective standard's Design Manual for clients that are accredited per their Category Certification program. Coatings and paint are specifically disallowed per CSA No. 0.4 (which is a requirement per ANSI60950-1), and this standard is the basis of the 40A test. Also, various NEC code articles such as 200,250, and 690 specify materials and construction where being used as any electrical bonding surface. Brian -Original Message- From: Kunde, Brian [mailto:brian_ku...@lecotc.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 6:06 AM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] Serrated head screws for grounding/bonding Is there a free on-line reference showing acceptable methods for ground bonding? Screws vs studs? How to properly stack ground bond lugs on to a single stud? Lock washers, star washers, lugs with serrated edges, screws with serrated heads, etc..? Something like this would be most helpful. I recall seeing this kind of information in the back of safety standards we used years ago. BTW, I have reviewed products from several far east companies who use heavy and thick powder coat paint on their products. Then they'll use a screw into a threaded whole for ground bonding without removing the paint. When I bring this to their attention as a possible non-compliance, they reply, "Test It". Sure enough, it will pass a Ground Bond test at 40 amps for 2 minutes. So it is ok as long as it passes the test? The standard we deal with doesn't say anything about surfaces being paint free, cutting through paint, gas-tight, or what type of lock washers to use. It only says, "Screw connections shall be secured against loosening." It doesn't say anything about stacking ground bond lugs on a stud or if you have to use individual nuts between each lug. The Other Brian -Original Message- From: Brian Oconnell [mailto:oconne...@tamuracorp.com] Sent: Monday, March 02, 2015 5:10 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] Serrated head screws for grounding/bonding The 'star' washer should be gas-tight seal. If a serrated-headed screw is even less of seal, than higher risk-level indicated. Faulty logic? Anyone else observe failure modes of ground-bond hardware? The CSA Design Manuals (not all standards have a respective D.M.) have drawings and specifications for acceptable materials and combinations of ground bond hardware. Recommended. Brian -Original Message- From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk] Sent: Monday, March 02, 2015 11:47 AM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] Serrated head screws for grounding/bonding In message , dated Mon, 2 Mar 2015, Brian Oconnell writes: >Saw exactly this happen on flight deck of USS Midway during 1979. While >troubleshooting APD10 radar, the hydraulics guy that was helping me >shorted the 400Hz bus to the box containing the power supply, and a >star washer vaporized because part of the converter was floated. The >star washer was not authorized construction. I was talking about serrated-headed screws, not star washers. - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas Mike Cantwell For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: David Heald: LECO Corporation Notice: This communication may contain confidential information intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you received this by mistake, please destroy it and notify us of the error. Thank you. - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas Mike Cantwel
Re: [PSES] Serrated head screws for grounding/bonding
The 'star' washer should be gas-tight seal. If a serrated-headed screw is even less of seal, than higher risk-level indicated. Faulty logic? Anyone else observe failure modes of ground-bond hardware? The CSA Design Manuals (not all standards have a respective D.M.) have drawings and specifications for acceptable materials and combinations of ground bond hardware. Recommended. Brian -Original Message- From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk] Sent: Monday, March 02, 2015 11:47 AM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] Serrated head screws for grounding/bonding In message , dated Mon, 2 Mar 2015, Brian Oconnell writes: >Saw exactly this happen on flight deck of USS Midway during 1979. While >troubleshooting APD10 radar, the hydraulics guy that was helping me >shorted the 400Hz bus to the box containing the power supply, and a >star washer vaporized because part of the converter was floated. The >star washer was not authorized construction. I was talking about serrated-headed screws, not star washers. - 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] Serrated head screws for grounding/bonding
Saw exactly this happen on flight deck of USS Midway during 1979. While troubleshooting APD10 radar, the hydraulics guy that was helping me shorted the 400Hz bus to the box containing the power supply, and a star washer vaporized because part of the converter was floated. The star washer was not authorized construction. This was my first experience with 'compliance engineering' . Brian -Original Message- From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk] Sent: Sunday, March 01, 2015 11:33 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] Serrated head screws for grounding/bonding In message <001401d0546c$35404530$9fc0cf90$@ieee.org>, dated Sun, 1 Mar 2015, Richard Nute writes: >OTOH, there is still that possibility of a heavy fault current blasting >away tiny point-contact conduction paths. I wonder whether that actually happens. It seems to me that the points might, instead, melt and weld to the substrate. That's how spot-welding works. An experiment or three is indicated. - 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] EN 55024 updates
https://www.vde-verlag.de/standards/1800179/e-din-en-55024-a1-vde-0878-24-a1-2015-02.html From: Schaefer, David [mailto:dschae...@tuvam.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 8:56 AM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: [PSES] EN 55024 updates Hi all, Can anyone share knowledge of the 2015 Amendment of EN 55024? I haven't heard details of what is being changed. Thanks, David Schaefer - 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 NRTL listing mandatory for consumer-grade telephone terminal equipment?
Non sequitur? The survey indicated injury rates, not recalled products (actually preferable to injuries). A small example from my edge of the desert. With exception of the U.K. and Germany, all of the PV stuff that has been reviewed by self that was built in the EU required some significant fixes - did not conform to EN62109-1 much less UL1741/1703. Methinks the industry attitude of many southern EU states needs some adjustment. The only thing that OSHA and SCC should fix is the mess that is the (lack of) mutual recognition among accredited labs. If one NRTL thinks another NRTL's work cannot be accepted, then make a regulatory framework where they are required to be doing the same thing or the offending NRTL's VP of engineering goes to jail. Brian From: John Allen [mailto:john_e_al...@blueyonder.co.uk] Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2015 1:46 AM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] Is NRTL listing mandatory for consumer-grade telephone terminal equipment? Good morning (London time!) W.r.t. the OSHA survey – things have changed a bit in the EU since 2008 – for both good and bad! I think there is more general awareness of the hazards of electrical and other goods – and certainly there are more product recalls than there ever were in earlier days, and the supply chain is more aware of its responsibilities to ensure that only “safe” items are supplied. You only have to look at the number of high-profile product recalls that now routinely occur! OTOH, the ranges of goods on offer, and the variety of sources from which they come, have expanded enormously – and that, unfortunately, has lead to more “holes in the systems” for trying to ensure that only “safe” items are put on the market. However, I think that there are several common factors which are tending to reinforce the overall trend towards safer products across the World, and thus in both N.America and Europe, such as: 1) More and more products are being developed for worldwide, as opposed to national, markets, and that means that the designers and manufacturers have to take all the market requirements into account – and, with the welcome rise in the importance of truly international safety standards, that means that those suppliers do more closely try to meet them (or then either fail to get their products into the big markets, or else get widely taken to account for supplying unsafe products) The NTRL approach in N. America and the EU CE marking requirements over here have both substantially contributed to that both directly in their own marketplaces and more globally as the less economically-developed countries (even the big ones like China!) pragmatically adopt the similar standards and regulatory controls on the basis that “if it works in the big countries then it should work for us as well” (and as well as encouraging and helping their own manufacturers to meet those same standards in order to have much wider export markets – or at least not to lose them!). 2) Intelligence gathering and dissemination of information on unsafe products is now much more worldwide – and so knowledge of those products quickly gets to both the regulators and the general public, and the latter are in a much better position to put pressure on the former to get the suppliers to get the problems fixed! Gone are the days when a supplier in one country could be reasonably sure that faults in products on one side of the World would not become public knowledge elsewhere – or that a local supplier could claim that a product was OK and a particular safety problem had never been known about in his marketplace, even though it was well known to the suppliers and regulators in another. National product-alert/recall regimes are much more established in both of the big markets – the legally-enforced systems such CPSC/OHSA in the US and RAPEX in the EU have more clout than they did before. Even if many of the individual regulators are short of funds to enforce the rules, the combined effects of all of them help collectively So where do I think that leaves us? Well, collectively a lot better than we were in 2008, and with a general way forward to better, safer products. Is the NTRL system in the US still necessary? Yes, because that is how the State regulators and the public expect/require it to be at present – but in another 10-20 years, maybe it will become a fond memory from the past! ☺ John Allen W.London, UK From: Kevin Robinson [mailto:kevinrobinso...@gmail.com] Sent: 21 February 2015 03:21 To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] Is NRTL listing mandatory for consumer-grade telephone terminal equipment? OSHA Conducted a Request for Information (RFI) back in 2008 that compared the effectiveness and overall costs of SDoC vs 3rd Party Conformity assessment, the full summary report can be found here http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=OSHA-2008-0032-0099 . While there was no c
Re: [PSES] Class 1 appliances
Rich, Dunno what 'class' a 5-15 receptacle would be considered, because could be used with Class I or II equipment. As newer 5-15R stuff is supposed to be 'polarized', the intention is for connection to both classes of equipment, and to accommodate the idiots that clip the ground pin, so that L/N polarity is retained. >From UL63368-1, F.3.6.2 Class II equipment: "Equipment providing protective earthing to other equipment cannot be regarded as CLASS II EQUIPMENT" "For CLASS II EQUIPMENT provided with a MAINS cord having a conductor with green-and-yellow insulation that is used only to provide a connection to FUNCTIONAL EARTH , there are no requirements other than those in 4.6 regarding the termination of this conductor at the equipment end." Still confused. Brian -Original Message- From: Richard Nute [mailto:ri...@ieee.org] Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2015 10:48 AM To: Brian Oconnell; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: RE: [PSES] Class 1 appliances Hi Brian: I said such designation "is not a requirement in any safety standard that I know of." I didn't say that it was not a part of a TRF. I am not familiar with NFPA 70, 70E, and 99. Hmm. Are 5-15R Class II? Best regards, 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:
Re: [PSES] Class 1 appliances
Hello Mr. Nute, Not certain of your meaning for " Designating a product as a Class I, Class II, orClass III is not a requirement in any safety standard that I know of". In all of the IEC-format TRFs issued as CB reports issued for my employer's stuff, the first or second page has 'Class of Equipment', wherein 'Class I' or 'Class II' or 'Class III' is indicated. A similar classification of electrical equipment and components is also indicated per NEC (NFPA70, 70E, and 99). So what am I missing in the use and definitions of class designations? Brian -Original Message- From: Richard Nute [mailto:ri...@ieee.org] Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2015 10:08 AM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] Class 1 appliances Designating a product as a Class I, Class II, or Class III is not a requirement in any safety standard that I know of. We safety professionals use the Class designations to evaluate the safeguards in the product. We fool ourselves by designating the Class, and, often, by ignoring other Class construction within the product. I prefer not designating the product class, but designating where the Class I and Class II construction exists within the product. For a moment, consider the common "brick" power supply used with laptops and other computer peripherals. Most are insulation encased. Some have a mains cord with a PE (protective earth). In today's SMPS, there is no grounded barrier in the transformer, so Class I construction is not used in the transformer as a barrier between the mains and the SELV output. Instead, the construction between mains and SELV is Class II. So, what is the PE used for? In most "brick" power supplies, the PE is used to connect the system FE (functional earth) to earth. (Often, one pole of the d.c. output is connected to FE.) If the "brick" employs Y1 EMI capacitors, the earthed side if the capacitors is FE. Is the "brick" a Class I or Class II product? If the "brick" employs Y2 EMI capacitors, the earthed side if the capacitors is PE. Is the "brick" a Class I or Class II product? If the d.c. FE passes the high-current test, but not the constructional requirements, is the FE a PE and is the product a Class I product? The argument as to the Class designation of a product is futile and not useful (and unending with no conclusion). Best regards, 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:
Re: [PSES] Surge Testing 3 phase Equipment
The phrase "all lower levels must be satisfied” is what bites you for three-phase. Did this recently, where the only mitigation was to rent a 3-ph master-blaster tester and do a complete pre-comp series, where the data was used to justify the (much reduced) test series done by the lab that wrote the report. Talk to your local EMC lab guys, they probably have developed a rationale for reduced testing. Brian From: Kunde, Brian [mailto:brian_ku...@lecotc.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2015 8:20 AM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: [PSES] Surge Testing 3 phase Equipment We perform Surge Immunity test according to IEC/EN 61000-4-5. Family and Generic standards call out voltage levels for “Line to Line” and “Line to Earth”. So for single phase electrical equipment we perform surge test on the following coupling modes which can take between 1-4 hours to perform depending on the time between pulses, number of phase angles tested, and number of voltage levels tested: L1-N L1-PE N-PE We are looking to perform the Surge test on a 3 phase device (first time for our corporate lab). However, the possible coupling choices appear to be almost endless (18 additional modes). To test all coupling modes available from our test equipment, this test could take an entire week to perform. I’m guessing we can reduce the number of coupling paths. What do most other labs do? What would you do? For instances; Line to Line L1-L2 L1-L3 L2-L3 L1-N L2-N L3-N Line to Earth L1-PE L2-PE L3-PE N-PE Is the above adequate or do I also have to test these Line to Earth combinations, such as: L1+L2-PE L2+L3-PE L1+L3-PE L1+N-PE L2+N-PE L3+N-PE L1+L2+L3-PE L1+L2+N-PE L1+L3+N-PE L2+L3+N-PE L1+L2+L3+N-PE Pros, Cons, Suggestions, opinions, etc.?? Thanks to all. The Other Brian LECO Corporation Notice: This communication may contain confidential information intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you received this by mistake, please destroy it and notify us of the error. Thank you. - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas Mike Cantwell For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher David Heald - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas Mike Cantwell For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: David Heald:
Re: [PSES] Simulating soft errors in memory
This is not among the easy tests. Did something mathematically analogous to prove that the code was not a safety-critical component for a custom power converter, but was much easier than your case because the processor could operate down to static clock mode and memory was only EEPROM and flash, so simulated corruption of opcode/operands was relatively easy . My initial approach was using continuously random variable pairs to bias memory locations, but it gave the agency assessment people migraines. In any case, do not believe that 'gaussian' random variable pairs are legit for bit upsets due to particle hits, but ya gotta use whatever the agency people can understand. For statistical simulations, DRAM test fixtures would require an interface that could affect the data and address bus, and/or the refresh strobes. For physically induced failures, you would need a controlled radiation source (see JESD89 ). And alpha particles are only one of three sources for radiation upsets. Note that smoke detectors can emit both alpha and gamma stuff. There have been many papers on testing and simulating DRAM soft errors; the Emperor's Search Engine awaits your bidding. Ignore the cosmic-ray stuff. Brian From: Moshe Valdman [mailto:mvald...@netvision.net.il] Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2015 7:03 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: [PSES] Simulating soft errors in memory Hi all, Sorry if this is a bit out of this forum's theme.I hope some of you might be able to help (or at least direct me to a more relevant forum) I am looking for a simple, inexpensive way to cause soft errors (AKA SEU) im dynamic memories, FPGAs etc. in an operating system. The idea is: see what the effects are and convince designers we have to handle the problem Could smoke detectors or other devices which create some alpha particles help create soft errors effects? thanks, Moshe Valdman - 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] UL updates
http://industries.ul.com/blog/effective-date-information From: McBurney, Ian [mailto:ian.mcbur...@allen-heath.com] Sent: Monday, February 16, 2015 2:01 AM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: [PSES] UL updates Dear colleagues; Can anyone let me know if there is website that lists all the amendments and updates to a particular standard. In this case I am interested to know all the latest updates to UL 60065. 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 - 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] ISO17025 calibration lab
Also, have used the Arbiter Model 936A to verify a 1000A shunt. Some rental houses have this unit. Brian -Original Message- From: Brian Oconnell Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2015 1:33 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: RE: [PSES] ISO17025 calibration lab Required bandwidth? From: McDiarmid, Ralph [mailto:ralph.mcdiar...@schneider-electric.com] Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2015 1:32 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] ISO17025 calibration lab Can anyone recommend a calibration lab for current tranducers rated to 3,000A (ac and dc) to ISO17025 with a certificate? - 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] ISO17025 calibration lab
Required bandwidth? From: McDiarmid, Ralph [mailto:ralph.mcdiar...@schneider-electric.com] Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2015 1:32 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] ISO17025 calibration lab Can anyone recommend a calibration lab for current tranducers rated to 3,000A (ac and dc) to ISO17025 with a certificate? - 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] OSHA NRTL lists
Can the Recognized Testing Standards lists on the OSHA (NRTL) web site be considered current ? If not, what is the canonical and authoritative listing for each recognized NRTL? Thanks, 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] OSM decision
Mr P - Correct about the change of scoped voltage. UL62109-1 scopes 1500Vdc (not listed by ANSI or SCC yet), and NEC article 690 will be also updated. FWIW, took customer's box back to the ranch and did several fault conditions and some surge stuff(C62.41 and 4-5). What a mess. They never listen. What a maroon. Brian -Original Message- From: Pete Perkins [mailto:0061f3f32d0c-dmarc-requ...@ieee.org] Sent: Monday, January 26, 2015 7:28 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: [PSES] FW: [PSES] OSM decision Rich, et al, I wouldn't be so quick to claim that dc systems will not have transient voltages on them. I recently worked on a certification project that included solar panels feeding power back into the line to make the overall project 'greener'. In commercial systems solar panels are ganged together to get the overall voltage up to 600Vdc with 10's of Amps per ganged collexion. 10 or more of these are combined to drive a SMPS inverter which outputs AC fed into the power system. Atmospherics can disrupt either the dc or the AC side so protection of the SMPS inverter on each side should be considered. More nightmares for the designers and field folks who need a clean design that is robust and long-lived giving continued protection. Some new work is being done with SPDs. See IEEE Xactions on EMC v56n6 Dec 2014: HE & Dy, SPD Protection Distance to Household Appliances Connected in Parallel. There might be other info that could be pulled from the bibliography for this paper. Finally, for your fun and enjoyment, the US NEC is being updated to allow the Low Voltage DC limits to go to 1000V soon and 1500Vdc later to accommodate larger solar panel installations. :>) br, Pete Peter E Perkins, PE Principal Product Safety Engineer PO Box 23427 Tigard, ORe 97281-3427 503/452-1201 fone/fax p.perk...@ieee.org -Original Message- From: Richard Nute [mailto:ri...@ieee.org] Sent: Monday, January 26, 2015 1:52 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] OSM decision What is the purpose of the MOV in this situation? What is the MOV Joule dissipation rating (can it dissipate the expected overvoltage)? Is the MOV protected by a fuse? (An equipment d.c. bus is not likely to have high-voltage transients.) -Original Message- From: Brian Oconnell [mailto:oconne...@tamuracorp.com] Sent: Monday, January 26, 2015 11:56 AM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: [PSES] OSM decision Was reviewing customer's construction where a 475V MOV was across the (floated) 420Vdc bus. Said this was bad idea, and they referred me to OSM/EE decision sheet 09/01 for EN60950-1:2006; which says ok to do whatever you want with a VDR on primary side that is not connected to mains. Can think of more than one SFC that would result in this combination of circuit configuration and component ratings making a mess. Any record of TC108 having affirmed this? Thanks, 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] Historical question, 7 hours
Which is why many of these Type Tests should be automated - human testers miss too much stuff during a long-term test. And choose to not live at work for the 15 day tests required for some of the over-loads that must be done on employer's stuff. Brian From: Richard Nute [mailto:ri...@ieee.org] Sent: Monday, February 02, 2015 5:27 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] Historical question, 7 hours Hi Doug: You are correct. One-half hour to set up, seven hours to test, and one-half hour to record results and take down. Eight-hour day. Works for most equipment. For small equipment, it is a long test. For large equipment (intended for long-term operation), it may be too short. And, the equipment should not be unattended during the test as unanticipated failures can occur. Best regards, 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:
Re: [PSES] Historical question, 7 hours
Whatever the reason, may have to go back 100 years. Go to books.google and read "Practical testing of electrical machines" by Leonard Oulto. Remember that the periods for some test sequences are similar. Same time period also found in other standards for some types of mold stress-relief tests, min pre-conditioning, and other non-electrical stuff. So your theory of the work-day period seems more than coincidental. But we still need the insight from those older and wiser as to why this time period seems to be common. Note that most of the transformer standards have a (convoluted) test flow where the 7 hour over-load test is just the 'gateway' for other longer-term stuff. Brian From: Doug Powell [mailto:doug...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, February 02, 2015 4:35 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: [PSES] Historical question, 7 hours All, Today I was reviewing an output overload requirement and once again there is that ubiquitous number of "7 hours" in the test duration. I have seen this in a wide variety of tests such as power supply output overloads and short circuits, locked rotor tests, battery reversal tests and so on. Of course, there are many other tests with different durations, but this #7 seems to be very common. For a number of years I have wondered what is the magic behind this number and so today I am asking if anyone actually knows the history behind this choice. My suspicion is that this number is based the need of a 1/2 hour to set up the test and a 1/2 hour to record the results, 7 hours to stabilize the results, making for an 8 hour day. Apparently, back in the mists of time, someone came up with this scheme and thereafter everyone else copied it (plagiarism being the sincerest form of flattery). Could it really be as simple as that or is there no other scientific basis to prove all tests lasting at more than 7 hours will not fail... say 7 hours and 5 minutes? On a side note, I have worked with products having enough thermal capacity that one thermal time constant is on the order of hours. On some of those products, thermal stability is not achievable in less than 10 hours. Thanks, :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 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] ESD protection for USB 3.0
Just finished with a box having USB port - what a pain. Test, testing, and yet more tests are the only way to go. Lotsa stuff and papers from TI, On semi, TE, Littelfuse, etc. If you are very lucky, and the space aliens do interfere, you may be able to find a FAE that actually knows this stuff and can save you from making poor layout and component selection decisions. That is, the physical construction of your box can be just as important as the TVS that is incorporated. Lotsa luck. Brian From: Grasso, Charles [mailto:charles.gra...@echostar.com] Sent: Monday, February 02, 2015 12:53 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: [PSES] ESD protection for USB 3.0 Hello all, Does anyone have a paper/info on the problems of (and hopefully the solutions for!) ESD protection on the USB3.0 interface? Best Regards Charles Grasso Compliance Engineer Echostar Communications - 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] OSM decision
Greetings Mr. Nute, See below. Brian -Original Message- From: Richard Nute [mailto:ri...@ieee.org] Sent: Monday, January 26, 2015 1:52 PM To: Brian Oconnell; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: RE: [PSES] OSM decision What is the purpose of the MOV in this situation? As SPD, and to push me one step closer to madness What is the MOV Joule dissipation rating (can it dissipate the expected overvoltage)? NO - at least not by my calculations - and the MOV will, during some line/load conditions, probably start conducting a few mA during 'normal' operations Is the MOV protected by a fuse? Fuse on line input. And doubt that it would pass the G.8 stuff in 63268-1(but submittal is 60950-1) (An equipment d.c. bus is not likely to have high-voltage transients.) AC mains input to this equipment, so must assume the box will see at least 2500V -Original Message----- From: Brian Oconnell [mailto:oconne...@tamuracorp.com] Sent: Monday, January 26, 2015 11:56 AM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> Subject: [PSES] OSM decision Was reviewing customer's construction where a 475V MOV was across the (floated) 420Vdc bus. Said this was bad idea, and they referred me to OSM/EE decision sheet 09/01 for EN60950-1:2006; which says ok to do whatever you want with a VDR on primary side that is not connected to mains. Can think of more than one SFC that would result in this combination of circuit configuration and component ratings making a mess. Any record of TC108 having affirmed this? Thanks, 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:
[PSES] OSM decision
Was reviewing customer's construction where a 475V MOV was across the (floated) 420Vdc bus. Said this was bad idea, and they referred me to OSM/EE decision sheet 09/01 for EN60950-1:2006; which says ok to do whatever you want with a VDR on primary side that is not connected to mains. Can think of more than one SFC that would result in this combination of circuit configuration and component ratings making a mess. Any record of TC108 having affirmed this? Thanks, 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] safety distances in DC/DC
Class II is a type of construction - not necessarily relevant to this thread ? Class 2 is a North American code stuff (similar to an LPS). Brian From: Scott [mailto:0182a58d8335-dmarc-requ...@ieee.org] Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2015 9:19 AM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] safety distances in DC/DC Try class II, class 2, or current limiting devices. Scott B On Jan 21, 2015, at 11:15 AM, Dan Roman wrote: I am afraid it is even worse for SELV than a search of “SELV” would appear. Some standards do not use the acronym and do not show up in a “SELV” search. Do a search for “safety extra-low voltage” and you get even more! Did not try expanding out the other acronyms. Dan --Original Message-- From: Richard Nute Date: Jan 16, 2015 2:37:58 PM Subject: Re: [PSES] safety distances in DC/DC To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG See: http://std.iec.ch/glossary?ref=extfooter Enter SELV, PELV, and FELV, and enjoy! There are many definitions of SELV and PELV. It would seem that every TC has its own definitions. Just 5 for FELV and they are consistent. Also, check out ELV (which makes the FELV inconsistent). 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:
Re: [PSES] SELV rated power supplies
Mr. Nute's response is significant and is worthy of re-emphasis. And Mr. Woodgate answered this same question to Mr. Nyffenegger previously: " The power supply as a whole cannot claim that unless ALL its outputs meet the SELV requirements. But it does meet the requirements for safety isolation, so those outputs that meet the voltage requirements are SELV." SELV, TNVx, LPS, LCC, etc are specific ratings that would be indicated in the Conditions of Acceptability in both the test certification document required to bear a CAB's logo and the respective CB report. And as many power supplies are components, the report will be necessarily incomplete; and only the assessment in the end-use construction can provide a complete report. Per Mr. Nute, other than simple flyback converters, most component SMPS are too complex to be evaluated by other than an assessment directed by the original manufacturer (in last 15 years, have encountered only three agency engineers capable of a complete and independent assessment of SMPS). There is never any logical reason to assume a 'certified' component power supply will meet any specific ratings unless stated in a CAB's report. Brian -Original Message- From: Richard Nute [mailto:ri...@ieee.org] Sent: Monday, January 19, 2015 12:55 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] SELV rated power supplies Hi Dave: EN60950-1 is not equal to SELV. Certifications and reports do not necessarily indicate outputs are SELV, although careful reading of the test results can conclude that the outputs are SELV or not. Not all outputs of EN60950-1 power supplies are SELV and need not be. The power supplies are nevertheless EN60950-1 power supplies. The requirement for SELV is whether or not the circuit is accessible. Accessible circuits must be SELV. To perform a single-fault test, one must understand how the circuits operate, and what faults could cause the output to possibly exceed SELV limits. In today's power supply topology, such circuit analysis is not necessarily straight-forward. Your statement "Therefore my contention is it cannot be assumed that a power supply listed as EN 60950-1 compliant on a manufacturer's data sheet is also SELV compliant unless explicitly stated so or proven in the test report results." is correct. Best regards, 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:
Re: [PSES] safety distances in DC/DC
The Union of Allied Planets does not desire the overt and published knowledge of 'FELV', and would prefer that one not meddle in the tools of an Operative. Brian -Original Message- From: John Allen [mailto:john_e_al...@blueyonder.co.uk] Sent: Friday, January 16, 2015 12:07 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] safety distances in DC/DC Yes, I'll run - but in which direction for "safety"? (and that's the problem here as well: to SELV, PELV, FELV or "somewhere" / "something else" ?) ;-) John -Original Message- From: Kunde, Brian [mailto:brian_ku...@lecotc.com] Sent: 16 January 2015 19:59 To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] safety distances in DC/DC John, when you are visited by two men in suits with blue nitrate gloves and your nose and eyes start to bleed, RUN!! "Two by two, hands or blue" - River (Firefly) The other Brian -Original Message- From: John Allen [mailto:john_e_al...@blueyonder.co.uk] Sent: Friday, January 16, 2015 2:48 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] safety distances in DC/DC Rich That seems like a classic case of the IEC "management" not clearly "laying down the law" on the need for the various TCs to ensure that they operate in a consistent manner - maybe these terms should be defined clearly in IEC 60050 and for the various TCs to use those definitions very consistently, and without deviation? (or have I just opened another can of worms that nobody wants to get to grips with?) John Allen W. London, UK -Original Message- From: Richard Nute [mailto:ri...@ieee.org] Sent: 16 January 2015 19:36 To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] safety distances in DC/DC See: http://std.iec.ch/glossary?ref=extfooter Enter SELV, PELV, and FELV, and enjoy! There are many definitions of SELV and PELV. It would seem that every TC has its own definitions. Just 5 for FELV and they are consistent. Also, check out ELV (which makes the FELV inconsistent). 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: - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas Mike Cantwell For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: David Heald: LECO Corporation Notice: This communication may contain confidential information intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you received this by mistake, please destroy it and notify us of the error. Thank you. - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas Mike Cantwell For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: David Heald: - 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-ps
Re: [PSES] CISPR 32 adoption
Which is why some never bother to renew IEEE membership. After several years of membership, the IEEE 'lost' my data, yet still seems able to retain enough of my personal info to send email and snail mail about re-join. Maroons. Brian -Original Message- From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk] Sent: Friday, January 16, 2015 12:07 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] CISPR 32 adoption In message <003701d031c0$75888ef0$6099acd0$@ieee.org>, dated Fri, 16 Jan 2015, Richard Nute writes: >For attachments, see instructions below the dotted line. DOH! As is **far too often the case with the IEEE web**, the site http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ claims that my account is suspended and the link to contact IEEE to complain does not work; it just refers back to the Error page. I have never found a link to complain about being rejected that works for me. What has the IEEE got against me? > >Alternatively, use Dropbox and send the URL. I don't like Dropbox for security. -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. With best wishes. See www.jmwa.demon.co.uk When I turn my back on the sun, it's to look for a rainbow John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 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] CE Declaration of Conformity
Dunno, as my only experience was doing some power converters for an industrial scale. My customer used the WELMEC organization to advise on scoped directives and standards and marks. Have you read 2014/32/EU ? Brian -Original Message- From: Nyffenegger, Dave [mailto:dave.nyffeneg...@bhemail.com] Sent: Friday, January 16, 2015 10:14 AM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: [PSES] CE Declaration of Conformity Hi folks, I design and manufacture light machinery that includes some sub-assemblies which we purchase and integrate. The sub-assemblies come with their own DoI. In particular I may integrate automatic and non-automatic weighing scales that would come with a DoI or DoC for the machinery and directive and a DoC or DoI for the EMC, 2004/22/EC Measuring Instruments, and 2009/23/EC Non-automatic Weighing Instruments directives. I do not modify the weighing functionality of the scales nor do I do any additional certification on them. The metrology directives require special marking, the CE mark as well as the "M" mark and notified body ID which come already on the units I integrate. There are no weighing devices that I directly manufacturer that are part of the machinery. What I'm not clear on is whether I should claim compliance to the 2004/22/EC Measuring Instruments and 2009/23/EC Non-automatic Weighing Instruments directives on my DoC and/or product nameplate for the complete machine or whether I should just include the OEM's DoC along with my DoC in the paperwork supplied with the machine (and technical file). I don't know if this situation is different than any are CE marked component within the machine but it would seem so. The EU directives do not actually apply directly to many components that the OEM marks and claims compliance to CE to make it easier for system builders like me. (Some actually state that on their DoCs). The Metrology directives are specific to the scales. Does anyone have any experience with this or something similar? thanks David P. Nyffenegger, PMP, SM-IEEE Product Development Manager - 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 distances in DC/DC
Other than BS7671/IEC60364, what standards or codes use 'FELV' and what is intended end-use? Have never seen in NFPA70, but remember something in IEC60364 that restricts plug configurations. Brian -Original Message- From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk] Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2015 9:34 AM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] safety distances in DC/DC In message , dated Wed, 14 Jan 2015, Brian Oconnell writes: > if the input and/or output referenced to reliable ground bond. Note that only(?) 60950-1 allows SELV to be grounded. Other standards require it to float, and call the grounded kind FELV (Functional...). -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. With best wishes. See www.jmwa.demon.co.uk When I turn my back on the sun, it's to look for a rainbow John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 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 distances in DC/DC
a. Depends on measured WV of the converter. Fault tests non sequitur for functional insulation as basis for protection from shock or prevention of fire. Fault tests are indicated only to demonstrate SELV during fault. By definition, FI does not provide any level of protection. Di-electric withstand to indicate BI performance levels for FI also non-sequitur unless you want this as part of your internal product spec. b. Use of spacing and materials to meet BI requirements has nothing to do with unit's performance during abnormal operating conditions. c. Unknown as depends on where the WV was measured and if input and output terminals remain reliably SELV during faults and abnormal operating conditions and if the input and/or output referenced to reliable ground bond. See table 2H. Brian From: Boštjan Glavič [mailto:bostjan.gla...@siq.si] Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2015 10:03 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: [PSES] safety distances in DC/DC Dear experts, We are evaluating DC/DC converter with SELV-in/SELV-out specification according to IEC 60950-1. We have measured internal working voltages on the transformer between input and output side and they were above SELV circuit (88Vpk). Could you please comment following scenarious: a) If internal distances input to output comply with functional insulation only, fault condition tests need to be performed on functional insulation (including transformer) in order to be sure that output remains SELV. In addition, transformer needs to pass electric strength test for basic insulation b) If internal distances input to output comply with basic insulation, there is no need for fault condition tests. c) Since measured working voltage 88Vpk is above TNV-2 limit it is considered as hazardous secondary voltage and we need reinforced insulation in order to avoid fault condition tests. I am quite positive about scenario a) and c) but not sure about scenario b). Thank you for your support. Best regards, Boštjan Glavič - 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 of Small Motors
This is good stuff, and Mr Nute reminded me of related stuff that UL has recently changed. Where construction of magnetics incorporates an UL-recognized Electrical Insulation System, the component can now reference the UL file number and EIS designation on the label without necessarily having been evaluated in any way by a NRTL. And the component's label could indicate something like this: EIS B1234 Class 130 UL File E123456 So upon looking up the file reference (http://database.ul.com/cgi-bin/XYV/template/LISEXT/1FRAME/index.htm), you would not see any reference to component models, but only an EIS. Note that UL1446 does not scope any performance requirements for any class of end-use equipment. Brian From: Richard Nute [mailto:ri...@ieee.org] Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2015 4:45 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] Safety of Small Motors Hi Brian: when we attempted this test the motor got hot very quickly and then failed open circuit Failure is acceptable provided it is repeatable. In the past, UL would require three repetitions of the tests to prove that the failure is repeatable; I don’t know if this is still their rule. Another rule is that the motor does not cause a fire (in the end-product). What component or part failed (opened the circuit)? I would want to know what part failed as this becomes a critical part of the motor. And then, periodically inspect the motor to determine that the construction or part is still as in the tested motors. I suspect the failure is a wire leading to one of the windings, either the stator or the rotor. If so, the length in free air is probably the point where the wire heats to the point of failing. This will be hard to control as a critical component. stable winding temperature reading Sneak up on the temperature by loading the motor or by using a variable dc supply. This way, you can get a temperature reading just before the winding opens. The pump manufacturer is telling us the motor is UL Recognized even though the marking does not appear on the motor. Ask the manufacturer for a copy of the UL report. If he won’t provide the report (because it contains proprietary information), ask for his UL file number and UL Project Number and the name of the UL project engineer. You can then call UL and confirm that the motor is UL-Recognized (or not). I suspect that it is not recognized. He may believe that since he uses UL-Recognized magnet wire, his motor is UL-Recognized. If the motor is not UL-Recognized, I suggest you look for another motor that is. You can put a fuse in series with the motor to keep it from overheating under stalled rotor or other overload conditions. This will enable you to use the motor as-is. If you do this, UL will not care that the motor is not a UL-Recognized component. 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 - 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 of Small Motors
No. As for an EIS, the UL file will specify this in the respective section's general description unless the mfr has de-rated the unit, then the max operating temp will be in the C of A. Brian -Original Message- From: Kunde, Brian [mailto:brian_ku...@lecotc.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2015 1:34 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] Safety of Small Motors The pump manufacturer just sent me a picture of the motor name plate which must somehow be hidden from view when installed in the pump assembly. Anyway, the motor is made in Germany and has the CE marking and the UL Recognized component mark. Is this adequate to determine the pump/motor is safe for use or does it still have to pass the locked rotor test? The pump manufacturer says the motor is not thermally protected but has Class F insulation. I will ask if there are any Conditions of Acceptability for the motor. I can also ask if the motor has any component or section of the windings that acts as a fusible link. That would explain why the motor went open circuit before we could get stable temperature readings. Thanks to all. -Original Message- From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk] Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2015 4:03 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] Safety of Small Motors In message <64D32EE8B9CBDD44963ACB076A5F6ABB026CA9B0@Mailbox-Tech.lecotech.local>, dated Tue, 13 Jan 2015, "Kunde, Brian" writes: >If the winding overheated and melted open, would this be considered a >fire hazard? Not just for that reason. Does it emit flame or flammable vapour? 61010-1 is rather too vague about what constitutes a fire hazard. >Or because something in the motor failed before the winding temperature >reached 190ºC that this motor can be considered inherently safe? Perhaps. The standard allows a thermal cut-out: Motors which, when stopped or prevented from starting (see 4.4.2.5), would present an electric shock HAZARD, a temperature HAZARD, or a fire HAZARD shall be protected by an overtemperature or thermal protection device meeting the requirements of 14.3. Does the manufacturer say whether there is a cut-out? -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. With best wishes. See www.jmwa.demon.co.uk When I turn my back on the sun, it's to look for a rainbow John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 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 of Small Motors
Clause 16 has that wonderful 'forseeable misuse'. Whatever the rating and certification of the motor, all of these abnormal operating conditions should be performed as part of the assessment for the end-use equipment. As for Listed vs Recognized - not gonna know what was tested until you look at the UL report's conditions of acceptability. Brian -Original Message- From: Nyffenegger, Dave [mailto:dave.nyffeneg...@bhemail.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2015 1:28 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] Safety of Small Motors I've been told that UL does not necessarily do locked rotor test for recognized motors, they would for listed. If you can get locked rotor test data from the OEM you can use it otherwise you need to do it yourself.I recall the standard says for integrated blowers and such you don't actually lock the motor, you block the ports. Did you lock the motor on your pump or block the port? Don't know which would apply depending on the details of your pump construction. -Dave -----Original Message- From: Brian Oconnell [mailto:oconne...@tamuracorp.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2015 4:09 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] Safety of Small Motors Clauses 6, 9, and 10 provide definition of a hazard and a hazardous condition. Some motors are designed with a section of the winding to act as a fusible link, so not unreasonable for a section of the winding to melt. In any case, it is advisable to repeat abnormal operating conditions tests in the end-use installation to verify the component meets the original safety assessment. Avoid using the term 'inherently' unless the component has been assessed and there is certification. If the motor is an UL- recognized component, then there will be a file number, designation, and conditions of acceptability that specify the ratings. Each section of an UL file indicates what pages may be reproduced. Brian From: Kunde, Brian [mailto:brian_ku...@lecotc.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2015 12:40 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: [PSES] Safety of Small Motors We want to use a small air pump, about the size of an aquarium pump, in one of our products (laboratory equipment). It has a small 24Vdc brushed motor without any visible safety certification markings. In these cases, we usually perform the locked rotor test according to IEC/UL/EN 61010-1 section 14.2. However, when we attempted this test the motor got hot very quickly and then failed open circuit before we could get a stable winding temperature reading. Max. temperature read was about 120ºC at 40ºC ambient. This motor has Class F insulation which can handle 190ºC in a fault condition, but like I said the motor failed before we could reach a stable temperature. If the winding overheated and melted open, would this be considered a fire hazard? Or because something in the motor failed before the winding temperature reached 190ºC that this motor can be considered inherently safe? The pump manufacturer is telling us the motor is UL Recognized even though the marking does not appear on the motor. If this motor is UL Rec. can I assume it would pass the locked rotor test? I have heard in the past that UL certified motors are not always tested for locked rotor. Is this true? If you were me, what criteria would you require for use of such a motor in your product? Thank you in advance. 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 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/listrul
Re: [PSES] Safety of Small Motors
Clauses 6, 9, and 10 provide definition of a hazard and a hazardous condition. Some motors are designed with a section of the winding to act as a fusible link, so not unreasonable for a section of the winding to melt. In any case, it is advisable to repeat abnormal operating conditions tests in the end-use installation to verify the component meets the original safety assessment. Avoid using the term 'inherently' unless the component has been assessed and there is certification. If the motor is an UL- recognized component, then there will be a file number, designation, and conditions of acceptability that specify the ratings. Each section of an UL file indicates what pages may be reproduced. Brian From: Kunde, Brian [mailto:brian_ku...@lecotc.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2015 12:40 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: [PSES] Safety of Small Motors We want to use a small air pump, about the size of an aquarium pump, in one of our products (laboratory equipment). It has a small 24Vdc brushed motor without any visible safety certification markings. In these cases, we usually perform the locked rotor test according to IEC/UL/EN 61010-1 section 14.2. However, when we attempted this test the motor got hot very quickly and then failed open circuit before we could get a stable winding temperature reading. Max. temperature read was about 120ºC at 40ºC ambient. This motor has Class F insulation which can handle 190ºC in a fault condition, but like I said the motor failed before we could reach a stable temperature. If the winding overheated and melted open, would this be considered a fire hazard? Or because something in the motor failed before the winding temperature reached 190ºC that this motor can be considered inherently safe? The pump manufacturer is telling us the motor is UL Recognized even though the marking does not appear on the motor. If this motor is UL Rec. can I assume it would pass the locked rotor test? I have heard in the past that UL certified motors are not always tested for locked rotor. Is this true? If you were me, what criteria would you require for use of such a motor in your product? Thank you in advance. 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 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] CISPR 32 adoption
As an EMC amateur, have believed that '80/80' rule is about production variations, so that an emissions failure on a single unit cannot be necessarily considered an issue (until further batch investigation). So are you saying that they want to also codify the site's measurement and other uncertainties into the mix to enforce a margin that is more stringent than the standard's limits such that a single field failure would represent a regulatory violation/legal problem ? Brian -Original Message- From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk] Sent: Friday, January 09, 2015 12:21 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] CISPR 32 adoption In message , dated Fri, 9 Jan 2015, Brian Oconnell writes: >2d ed of CISPR32 just published as FDIS, with a proposed publication >date of March 2015. It still might not pass the vote. CENELEC is having palpitations about the EC ruling that the 80/80 rule is regulatory. Now try to explain to a lawyer that the Laws of Physics require it to be taken into account somewhere, and if it is regulatory it should be in the Directive. > >As the FCC (47CFR) references ANSI C63.4, and EU obsoletion of >CISPR22/EN55022 seems to be years away (new EMCD not effective until >April 2016), The new EMCD has nothing to do with when EN 55032 comes into mandatory effect. > so will probably advise customers to not worry for at least three >years. The risk is that Canada ICES003 will not continue with C63.4, >and/or the Pacific rim states will go to CISPR 32 more sooner than >later. > >Opinions ? Assumptions reasonable? Any country that applies CISPR 32 (not the EN) to imports stands to have it applied to its exports. -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. With best wishes. See www.jmwa.demon.co.uk When I turn my back on the sun, it's to look for a rainbow John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 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] CISPR 32 adoption
2d ed of CISPR32 just published as FDIS, with a proposed publication date of March 2015. As the FCC (47CFR) references ANSI C63.4, and EU obsoletion of CISPR22/EN55022 seems to be years away (new EMCD not effective until April 2016), so will probably advise customers to not worry for at least three years. The risk is that Canada ICES003 will not continue with C63.4, and/or the Pacific rim states will go to CISPR 32 more sooner than later. Opinions ? Assumptions reasonable? Thanks, 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] fusing outputs of small power supplies
Very much concur with Mr. Nute for ITE and CTE stuff. My employer makes all manner of power conversion stuff. Approx 20% of my time is for direct customer support or supporting the documentation requirements of the Conformity Assessment Body's engineer that is looking at the customer's stuff. Suffice to say, have seen much weirdness for employer's products where used in industrial equipment. The component power supply is one of the principle instruments intended to provide galvanic isolation and to provide other forms of protection from shock and fire. Circuits and materials that are incorporated in the end-use installation of the CPS, typically intended to increase safety margin, may decrease the margin. 1. UL508 and 508A, depending on the OVC and operating environment and other installation peculiarities for your equipment, can have some significant requirements not seen in ITE. The tables in UL508A for SCCR will kill many ITE-certified CPS. 2. Fusing of the mains input should be part of the component power supply's construction. Recommend that additional current interrupt components not be installed at input to CPS unless the conditions of acceptability or installation instructions for the power supply clearly indicate requirement for input fusing. Type tests for an ITE CPS are typically performed to verify there is no fire or shock hazard that would result from a fault condition. Type tests for a typical CPS rated for OVC II/III must be performed with a 20A (or greater) distribution breaker, lo-Z, and 'stiff' mains. So your input wiring and connection components must support the unit's least favorable abnormal/fault condition. NFPA70 (mostly article 310) and NFPA70E has ratings for this stuff. 3. Current limiting components on the output of a power supply, as others indicated, must have the margin to tolerate the conditions of the least favorable fault conditions that were observed during the assessment of the CPS. This information would be available to the CAB engineer via the TRFs that support the units certification. Do NOT use a CPS where the CAB engineer cannot obtain a copy of the certification report. 4. Most CPS are not intended for powering motors of significant power levels. Nollaig Shona Daoibh, Brian From: Richard Nute [mailto:ri...@ieee.org] Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2014 1:57 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] fusing outputs of small power supplies Hi Bob: You have three issues to deal with: 1) Regulatory - standards and codes; 2) Safety; 3) Reputable manufacturer. For regulatory, see IEC/EN/UL/CSA 60950-1, Tables 2B and 2C. These two tables define a NEC Class 2 circuit. Class 2 circuits are doorbell circuits; the wires can be run without mechanical protection and a fire enclosure, and can be accessible. Your specs, 24 volts and 4 amps, are very close to the 100 VA limit. You will exceed the 100 VA limit with any load that exceeds 4.17 amps, let alone short-circuit (Table 2B). So, you need to go to Table 2C to select a fuse value. Since your output voltage is more than 20 but less than 30, the maximum output fuse value is 100/24 (assuming the supply is less than 250 VA before the fuse). You are stuck with a 4 amp (or less) fuse to achieve Class 2 (which is desirable for avoiding further regulation of your wiring). Fuses and equivalent operate under fault conditions to prevent fire. To determine an effective fuse value, test - without overcurrent protection -- under short-circuit to see what overheating and possible fire occurs. Then, select a fuse rating that will prevent the overheating and fire. Since the power supply manufacturer doesn't know this stuff, I would select another manufacturer who does. You may have a power supply that will catch fire or cause an electric shock despite the fusing. Good luck, and have a happy holiday, Rich From: Bob LaFrance [mailto:b...@creare.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2014 10:40 AM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: [PSES] fusing outputs of small power supplies Greetings, I am curious to know what guidelines to use when fusing power supplies. I have a machine with some small 4amp 24v power supplies. I have placed breakers on the input side of supplies. I don't know if the current limit circuits within the power supply can be expected to protect output wiring. I am mainly concerned with NFPA 7 & NEC, but I would like to hear UL or IEC thoughts on the subject. The power supply manufacturers I have asked don't seem to know - that struck me as very odd. Many years ago I worked for a manufacturer of motor drives. We developed a software implementation of a motor overload relay and got UL 508 blessing. I am looking for similar arrangement. Thank you and Merry Christmas. Bob N9NEO - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc dis
Re: [PSES] Brick power supplies and test errors (two topics)
Pathos and tragedy, with a bit of comedy, in the EMC lab. Once had the sales manager for a major lab say "we have never done that test but would give you a good deal so we could get experience..." Brian From: Ed Price [mailto:edpr...@cox.net] Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2014 1:29 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] Brick power supplies and test errors (two topics) Ghery: I found that business conditions have created large labs which strive to provide one-stop compliance services, and that this concept is subject to corruption by enthusiasm. By that, I mean that the labs often have a little subsection which is tasked with doing nothing but expanding the range of accreditations; these are the chaps who paper entire hallways with certificates of accreditation, allowing you to take comfort that if you ever needed a machine safety certificate for Kleptostan, you were already in the right place. A certain disconnect exists between these certificate harvesters (think marketing) and the other part of the lab (think engineering) which actually has to do that rare and idiosyncratic test. Ed Price WB6WSN Chula Vista, CA USA From: Pettit, Ghery [mailto:ghery.pet...@intel.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2014 10:00 AM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] Brick power supplies and test errors (two topics) I brought up some serious problems with accredited labs at the ASC C63 meetings in Mesa last month. One accrediting body seems interested in dealing with the issue, the others not so much. It's so much fun to go into a lab that isn't properly equipped to perform tests listed on its Scope of Accreditation. Ghery S. Pettit From: Grasso, Charles [mailto:charles.gra...@echostar.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2014 9:57 AM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] Brick power supplies and test errors (two topics) It would appear that the best efforts of lab accreditations are not living up to expectations? Or am I expecting too much? Best Regards Charles Grasso Compliance Engineer Echostar Communications (w) 303-706-5467 (c) 303-204-2974 (t) 3032042...@vtext.com (e) charles.gra...@echostar.com (e2) chasgra...@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 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] Arc Flash Requirements NFPA 79
Unless specifically stated in the safety standard used to assess the end-use equipment, dunno. Might want to look at NFPA70E article 130. Due to the calculations that must be performed in order properly label equipment, gonna guess that the 'generic' warnings/cautions and symbols could be applied at factory, with specific data at installation. Brian From: Nyffenegger, Dave [mailto:dave.nyffeneg...@bhemail.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2014 11:34 AM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] Arc Flash Requirements NFPA 79 So I’m looking at the new NFPA 79 2015 (which you can view on-line for free now) and they have added 16.2.3 Electrical equipment for industrial machines such as control panels and disconnects shall be marked according to ANSI Z535.4 to warn of shock and arc flash hazards. I don’t have a copy of the ANSI standard. NFPA 79 doesn’t say anything further regarding applying the label in the field or in the factory. Do we assume this implies field labeling as it’s been or does this mean we are now to apply the arc flash labels in the factory? I’m guessing the ANSI standard only covers the label and says nothing about when the label is applied. -Dave From: Scott Aldous [mailto:0220f70c299a-dmarc-requ...@ieee.org] Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2014 11:43 AM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] Arc Flash Requirements NFPA 79 FYI - Regarding the SCCR, it's really not about the interrupt rating of overcurrent protection devices. It relates to the ability of the equipment to withstand the fault currents that overcurrent devices would let through in a short circuit event. Looking through the supplement in UL 508A is instructive. If you try to evaluate through the "weakest link" method rather than testing, values are assigned to components commonly found in switchgear, including bus bars. If you have overcurrent protection that is current lmiting, it helps reduce the required withstand rating of components downstream, but this is dependent on the extent of current limiting rather than interrupt rating. On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 8:33 AM, Ted Eckert wrote: Hello Brian, The role the enclosure plays in arc flash protection may be less than you would expect. The concern about arc flash isn't for normal operation of the equipment. Arc flash and arc blasts are considered an issue for the servicing of equipment. The concern is that service personnel may accidentally create a short circuit between two phases or a phase and ground. This could occur due to improperly de-energizing circuits or when a metal tool or part is accidentally placed such that it creates a short circuit. NFPA 70E requires that the arc flash boundary be calculated, although it is assumed to be 4 feet (1.2 meters) for typical small equipment rated 250 V or less connected to a branch circuit breaker. The boundary will be greater depending on the rating of the circuits overcurrent protector. NFPA 70E requires that untrained and unprotected personnel must remain outside of that boundary during the service of equipment. Personnel inside of that boundary must be properly trained and they must be wearing the correct PPE based on the arc flash hazard risk. Since this is an issue during the servicing of equipment when doors are open and covers are off, the enclosure provides no protection. The arc flash rules just require marking indicating the hazard so that service personnel can take the proper precautions. Field wired equipment that never needs to be serviced live should be marked with instructions to disconnect all power before servicing. If this can be done properly, arc flash marking may not be required. The marking may not be required if the equipment is installed with an external disconnect. Arc flash marking is generally not required for plug connected equipment. Pick your favorite search engine and search for "arc flash labels" and you will find examples of the marking typically required. Ted Eckert Compliance Engineer Microsoft Corporation ted.eck...@microsoft.com The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my employer. -Original Message- From: Kunde, Brian [mailto:brian_ku...@lecotc.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2014 6:08 AM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] Arc Flash Requirements NFPA 79 Thanks for the input. Because our products are Laboratory Equipment and not Industrial Machines, I assume NFPA 79 would not apply. So the SCCR on the nameplate would not be required. It would be difficult to provide anyway. Since we are only required to provide supplementary over current protection the SCCR value is really unknown. Our Circuit Breaker manufacturer rates their parts with a 5kA SCCR but to my understanding they don't even have to survive the test. So the Branch Circuit Breaker is relied upon to provide the protection and the necessary SCCR value would be based on the Customer's powe
Re: [PSES] 60950-1 PSU in a 61010-1 product
At least two test labs have written papers about use of ITE component power supplies in equipment scoped for 61010. The Emperor's search engine should suffice. Am very careful about recommending use of my employers ITE-certified stuff in customer's test equipment. The 61010 3d edition has some significant changes that could affect requirements not addressed in a 60960 CB report. So it depends on the end-use equipment construction, ratings, and power supply construction. Brian From: Amund Westin [mailto:am...@westin-emission.no] Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2014 2:02 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: [PSES] 60950-1 PSU in a 61010-1 product The final product will be tested according to IEC/EN61010-1 (measurement, control, and laboratory use). To power this product, an open frame AC/DC power will be uses and it holds a CB certificate according to IEC/EN60950-1. Will we run into trouble with this configuration? In the past, the final product was powered by a medical PSU (IEC/EN60601-1). I would like to switch to the 60950-1 PSU if possible …. #Amund - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas Mike Cantwell For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: David Heald:
Re: [PSES] Certification of Unique Equipment
There are several federal agencies that enforce safety regulations for specific types of workplaces in the U.S. (FAA, DOE, DOI,etc), but only the Dept of Labor has the general worker protection mandate by statutory law. Others have their authority through adjudication and administrative law, where enforcement is an 'ancillary' process. The respective agencies for Canada and Mexico were specified in my original reply, and have (somewhat) similar infrastructure and procedural systems as the U.S. DOL. The Canadian labor safety regulations are enforced by a governmental 'corporation'. Their labor law says something similar to "The design, construction, and install of all electrical equipment shall comply with CEC part I if reasonably practicable" (do not remember exact phrase but see section 8). NOMs, via the STPs are a bit more circuitous for electrical equipment certifications, but they exist as pro forma requirements. Brian -Original Message- From: Nyffenegger, Dave [mailto:dave.nyffeneg...@bhemail.com] Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2014 6:34 PM To: Brian Oconnell; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: RE: Certification of Unique Equipment In my research I have found only OSHA covers safety compliance regulations nationally in the US. And OSHA enforces their regulations on the employer not the manufacturer. Of course FCC requires compliance for EMC in the US but that can be self-certified. OSHA 29CFR1910 defines many things that must be approved and Subpart S-Electrical 1910.399 defines approved as "Acceptable. An installation or equipment is acceptable to the Assistant Secretary of Labor, and approved within the meaning of this Subpart S: (1) If it is accepted, or certified, or listed, or labeled, or otherwise determined to be safe by a nationally recognized testing laboratory recognized pursuant to § 1910.7; or (3) With respect to custom-made equipment or related installations that are designed, fabricated for, and intended for use by a particular customer, if it is determined to be safe for its intended use by its manufacturer on the basis of test data which the employer keeps and makes available for inspection to the Assistant Secretary and his authorized representatives. Approved. Acceptable to the authority enforcing this subpart. The authority enforcing this subpart is the Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health. The definition of "acceptable" indicates what is acceptable to the Assistant Secretary of Labor, and therefore approved within the meaning of this subpart." This directly addresses your question on "one of a kind system to a unique customer ". I guess it's up to the manufacturer to determine what test data is relevant, I've not found further clarification on that from OSHA yet. Perhaps others can chime in on that. Beyond that you still need to satisfy the AHJ requirements. For a specific customer at a specific location you'd have to research what that may be and whether NRTL certification is required or not. The US NEC is "national" but it's enforcement is by the AHJ which can choose to do what it want's with it. I've not identified the specific requirements for Canada yet other than CEC CSA C22.1 which I think is similar to the US NEC which requires that all electrical utilization systems are listed, labeled, identified or approved as compliant to the requirements of relevant electrical safety standards. This statement to me reads that a manufacturer could self-certify to the safety standards for US NEC or Canada CEC. -Dave -Original Message- From: Brian Oconnell [mailto:oconne...@tamuracorp.com] Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2014 5:18 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] Certification of Unique Equipment A simple generic answer would not be practical for most cases. Depends on intended end user and intended end use. For EMC, see 47CFR, Ch I, Subch A, Pt2, Subpt K (specifically §2.1204)for import of stuff. For U.S. safety of products in the workplace, see 29CFR1910. Many, perhaps most, design engineers are not aware of North American (OSHA/CCOHS/STPS) requirements for safety of equipment and buildings in the workplace, so not surprising that typical Joe Engineer is not aware of compliance stuff. Nobody cares about 'certification' until there is an accident, which is when your insurance company is legally allowed to abandon its client due to failure to conform. As for never seeing a safety auditor in the workplace, the federal safety agencies tend to focus on work sites having known problems. State and local agencies may focus on work sites where the probability for extraction of fees and fines are higher. For "what point is certification required" depends on the local building code enforcement for some stuff, and various state and federal
Re: [PSES] Certification of Unique Equipment
A simple generic answer would not be practical for most cases. Depends on intended end user and intended end use. For EMC, see 47CFR, Ch I, Subch A, Pt2, Subpt K (specifically §2.1204)for import of stuff. For U.S. safety of products in the workplace, see 29CFR1910. Many, perhaps most, design engineers are not aware of North American (OSHA/CCOHS/STPS) requirements for safety of equipment and buildings in the workplace, so not surprising that typical Joe Engineer is not aware of compliance stuff. Nobody cares about 'certification' until there is an accident, which is when your insurance company is legally allowed to abandon its client due to failure to conform. As for never seeing a safety auditor in the workplace, the federal safety agencies tend to focus on work sites having known problems. State and local agencies may focus on work sites where the probability for extraction of fees and fines are higher. For "what point is certification required" depends on the local building code enforcement for some stuff, and various state and federal laws for other stuff. For equipment not intended to be placed on the market, and clearly marked for evaluation, there are few federal requirements for any registered body to have performed an assessment where the usage is controlled for access and exposure (assuming medical or hazmat is not scoped). This is more than a compliance engineering issue - there are legal risks, some of which cannot be reliably mitigated in North America. In any case, once the equipment is sold for industrial use, even if a singular unit, it is typically subject to the federal regulations scoped for EMC and for the safety of equipment in the workplace. Brian From: Rick Busche [mailto:rick.bus...@qnergy.com] Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2014 12:33 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: [PSES] Certification of Unique Equipment It is always my desire to provide products that are CE Marked for Europe and NRTL listed for North America. That said, I continue to find products delivered for our own production environment that carry no safety marking that I can identify. I have discussed this concern with other engineers who worked in previous companies who indicated that they NEVER were required to have certification on their products. As I understand it I could deliver a one of a kind system to a unique customer without certification in North America. At what point is certification required? Is it based on the quantity of systems, the customer, the AHJ, OSHA or marketing? Is it allowable to ship a unique, prototype system to a specialized customer, without NRTL? Thanks Rick - 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] Hi pressure Gas safety regulations
Depends on what the gas is and where used. Do not have access to my std database at this site, but off top of my pointy head, from a power converter project where my widget provided power to a pump monitor system: 1. ASME Pressure Vessel Code ??? 2. ASME B31.x for piping and other stuff 3. EU PED/UK PER/EN13445-x (somewhat similar to ASME stuff) 3. DOT CFR 49, parts ??? for hazardous stuff - copied by several North and South American states 4. IEC62271 switchgear std has a pressure withstand test for gas-filled stuff 5. several China GB standards for hi-pressure materials for chemical industry 6. look at mfrs of hi-press check-ball pumps for stds info 7. numerous ISO stds for containers -> strange and useless 8. Wile E Coyote, Supergenius -> pressure venting techniques Brian From: W Richard Gartman [mailto:richard.gart...@agilent.com] Sent: Friday, December 12, 2014 1:10 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: [PSES] Hi pressure Gas safety regulations To the Collective knowledge of this group, I am looking for regulations that would impact lab or industrial equipment that uses high pressure gases. This would be gases at pressures up to 600 Bar/ 8000 psi. This is not for petro-chem industry. What countries have high pressure gas regulations and do these regulation reference international standards? Thank you for you guidance, W. Richard Gartman, CSP - 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] Noisy DC / DC converter
Any modification done to an existing power unit that bears the label of another company and/or the mark of an accredited lab can result in one or more of following. 1. a fire hazard 2. a shock hazard 3. an unreliable power converter 4. litigation by the OEM for placing a modified unit on the market that bears their company name 5. a unit that no longer meets any 'special' requirements (LPS, LCC, Class 2/3, Class II/III, TNV-x, etc) 6. a unit that no longer meets EMC immunity and/or emissions. It cannot be over-stated that power converters that are depended on for the system's galvanic isolation and/or for providing a safe output voltage or power level should never be modified by anyone other than the original mfr. Brian -Original Message- From: Rob Oglesbee [mailto:rogles...@radianresearch.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2014 5:59 AM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] Noisy DC / DC converter Amund, Here are a few more generic things you can look at... - RC snubber across diodes (output rectifiers, primary-side snub diode) - Change the gate drive of the switching FET, if discrete, by adding small resistance between the driver and the gate (sometimes a diode is added across the resistor to have different turn on/turn off time). Be careful with this one, it can really nail your efficiency and cause your switch to fail thermally. - RC snubber across the switch. - If you can change the layout, take a look to make sure the main switching path and return are optimized. - Sometimes adding in a little discrete inductance between the switch and the transformer can help (another way to slow the switching edges). - Resonances in the transformer due to parasitics (leakage inductance interwinding capacitances) can be snubbed out with RC's, but that takes a bit more work. Regards, Rob Oglesbee Radian Research (765) 449-5505 This message, and any attachments to it, may contain information that is privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, copying, or communication of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail or call 765-449-5500 and delete the message and any attachments. Thank you. -Original Message- From: Amund Westin [mailto:am...@westin-emission.no] Sent: Monday, December 01, 2014 2:48 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: [PSES] Noisy DC / DC converter Got a DC / DC converter in an ITE. >From a radiated emission plot, I can see lot of spikes with spacing 330kHz in >the region 30-80MHz. The DC / DC converter datasheet tells that the switching frequency is 330kHz. No suppression components around the converter. I assume a common mode choke could block some on the noise, so it does not enter the power supply cable, which may act as an antenna in this case. Any other "tricks" for EMI suppression of DC / DC converters? #Amund - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas Mike Cantwell For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: David Heald:
Re: [PSES] EMC test lab errors
This is art; it shall be framed. Brian From: Ed Price [mailto:edpr...@cox.net] Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2014 5:02 AM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] EMC test lab errors I'll dare to mention a few errors which I have seen first-hand; I would say that these are all in the "we don't know what we don't know" category. * Having an abiding faith that mixers can handle any power you push down a coax. * Thinking that coaxial directional couplers are as broadband as the coax. * Assuming that components must blow smoke before death. * That amplifiers only amplify. * That signal sources are clean. * Not realizing that coax cables are not water pipes, and that stacking several 3-way Tees at a junction will have no effect on impedance. * That anything performs as promised without cross-checking. * That what was good last week is still good. * That the little mistake you made earlier couldn't have any cascading effects. * That the software knows what it's doing. * That you know what the software is doing. * That you have all the variables under control. * That everyone wants to know the truth. Ed Price WB6WSN Chula Vista, CA USA - 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] Noisy DC / DC converter
Good point - should have been more explicit . Use of caps should be well tested and limited to the input. Changes to output capacitance could also affect control loop zeros and poles. If nothing is transferred between C and L, there is no resonance, so a perfect power source is the theoretical answer for the lazy non-thoughtful engineer. Brian -Original Message- From: Doug Smith [mailto:d...@emcesd.com] Sent: Monday, December 01, 2014 1:41 PM To: Brian Oconnell Cc: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] Noisy DC / DC converter Hi Brian, One needs to be a little careful with caps on the output. I have seen many cases where they form a resonant circuit with the inductance of wires connected to the supply and make the problem even worse. How about a puzzle? How do you make a non-resonant capacitor using three components? Doug - 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] Noisy DC / DC converter
Have seen somewhat useable app notes by Vicor, Calex, Interpoint for dealing with DC/DC switching noise. For DC stuff, typically recommend caps, as there can be secondary affects (be careful if you must meet LPS/Class 2). If no spacing or thermal issues, a tight can or some level of close-in shielding referenced to secondary can be best solution if input not referenced to output. Brian -Original Message- From: Amund Westin [mailto:am...@westin-emission.no] Sent: Monday, December 01, 2014 11:48 AM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: [PSES] Noisy DC / DC converter Got a DC / DC converter in an ITE. >From a radiated emission plot, I can see lot of spikes with spacing 330kHz in >the region 30-80MHz. The DC / DC converter datasheet tells that the switching frequency is 330kHz. No suppression components around the converter. I assume a common mode choke could block some on the noise, so it does not enter the power supply cable, which may act as an antenna in this case. Any other "tricks" for EMI suppression of DC / DC converters? #Amund - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas Mike Cantwell For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: David Heald: - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas Mike Cantwell For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: David Heald:
Re: [PSES] RoHS directive
The boys in our Tijuana factory were asking why so many suppliers' regulatory/compliance docs were hosed. Could only reply that el mundo esta mucho loco. Brian From: John Allen [mailto:john_e_al...@blueyonder.co.uk] Sent: Friday, November 21, 2014 1:57 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] RoHS directive And then I re-read it and see that you could interpret a DoC to mean that reference to 2002/95/EC means that the declaration is NOT a reference to 2011/65/EU! Most confusing if you don’t know of Art 26 – in which case an Authority could reject it as out of date!! Thus I would strongly recommend that only 2011/65/EU be stated. John Allen From: John Allen [mailto:john_e_al...@blueyonder.co.uk] Sent: 21 November 2014 20:18 To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] RoHS directive Agreed- see Article 26 “Repeal” of 2011/65/EU, (RoHS 2) which states: “Directive 2002/95/EC as amended by the acts listed in Annex VII, Part A is repealed with effect from 3 January 2013 without prejudice to the obligations of the Member States relating to the time limits for transposition into national law and application of the Directive set out in Annex VII, Part B. References to the repealed acts shall be construed as references to this Directive and shall be read in accordance with the correlation table in Annex VIII.” No argument there! John Allen Compliance with Experience. West London UK From: Charlie Blackham [mailto:char...@sulisconsultants.com] Sent: 21 November 2014 19:54 To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] RoHS directive Brian 2002 version is obsolete and should not be referenced ( it wasn't a CE marking directive either) Regards Charlie Sent from my mobile ____ From: Brian Oconnell Sent: 21/11/2014 19:43 To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: [PSES] RoHS directive The boss questioned the way declarations are written after looking at some other's documents where their D of C is worded thus: "Directive 2002/95/EC (and its amendments and 2011/65/EU)" Is not the RoHS directive now 2011/65 ? Is the 2002/95 stuff considered not obsolete? Any good reason to reference 2002/95? http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2011:174:0088:0110:en:PDF 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] Gigabit Ethernet Magnetics configuartion question
If rated for 1 or 2kV, this could be the ESD discharge cap that is typically between 'ground' and power that is located directly on the RJ45 port. If the cap is used with ferrite beads, then probably for noise decoupling. Later designs tend to not use caps on secondary side of xfmr because the commonly used TVSs can have significant capacitance, but many designers still like to put those little guys everywhere. Remember an Intel MB design guide that had section on gigabit interface - recommended. Brian From: Grasso, Charles [mailto:charles.gra...@echostar.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2014 10:50 AM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: [PSES] Gigabit Ethernet Magnetics configuartion question Hello, I have seen schematics of Gigabit Ethernet connectors that have the CTs on the input side connected to VCC and then to GND with a 0.1uF cap as a "decoupler?" across the connections. I have no experience with sort of configuration other than to think "it must be OK because gigabit has been out for a while". I would appreciate someone sharing any "gotchas" that they have seen using this type of connector. Is this design unique or is it specified by a standard ..or.??? Thanks in advance! Best Regards Charles Grasso Compliance Engineer Echostar Communications - 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] Y2 capacitor in DC circuit
Non-sequitur. Either the cap is rated for the working voltage, or should not be used where the component required to provide basic protection from shock. There are several mfrs that make 300Vac X and Y-caps that are also specified for 1kVdc. The problem is that the IEC60384-14 cert will not indicate that the 1kVdc is a rating. Brian From: Boštjan Glavič [mailto:bostjan.gla...@siq.si] Sent: Monday, November 10, 2014 11:04 AM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: [PSES] Y2 capacitor in DC circuit Dear experts, I have one question. One of our clients is generating high voltage DC bus out of primary circuit without the insulation. This 800VDC circuit is therefore considered as part of primary circuit. They are using Y2 capacitor between this DC voltage and PE (accross basic insulation). Measured working voltage accross the capacitor was 800VDC (worse case). Y2 capacitor has only rating for AC voltage (250V). They could not find any Y capacitor with DC voltage. Do you see any issue with such construction? Best regards, Bostjan SIQ - 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: