RE: Grounding

[Crabb, John]

I might have expected that folk would look for a definition of "reliably
grounded".
I would quote from the lecture I give each year to manufacturing engineering
students
with regard to other questionable methods of grounding : -
"Would YOU risk YOUR life on such parts being reliably connected to ground
?"

Invite the bean counters to hang onto the door while you apply 230V ac to
it,
pointing out that "it's grounded - the fuse will blow, and you'll be ok."

Regards,
John Crabb,  (Product Safety) , 
NCR  Financial Solutions Group Ltd.,  Discovery Centre, 
3 Fulton Road, Dundee, Scotland, DD2 4SW
E-Mail :john.cr...@scotland.ncr.com
Tel: +44 (0)1382-592289  (direct ). Fax +44 (0)1382-622243.   



From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
[mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org] On Behalf Of Gary McInturff
Sent: 14 November 2003 18:46
To: Crabb, John; Ned Devine; IEEE EMC/Product Safety (IEEE, EMC/Product
Safety)
Subject: RE: Grounding



John,
You are correct, but you have just presented the conundrum of the
thread. 
"Reliably grounded" can be determined through test - 25 or 30 amps
for a minute. A new hinge will likely pass that test. A "used" one may
likely fail because of the corrosion and wear discussed by others. So the
conundrum is do you test to get through the standard or do you use the
standard to help you design something which hopefully remains safe.
Personally, I don't like hinges for grounds - PE or earth and for
the very cost sensitive it can be a real issue with the management guys and
bean counters.
Gary 


This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Dave Heald:   emc_p...@symbol.com

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line.
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

RE: Grounding

[Crabb, John]

2.6.1 of IEC 60950-1 refers to "parts of equipment shall be reliably
connected to the main protective earthing terminal".A hinge would
certainly not be regarded as a "reliable connection".

As far as your door is concerned, is there any single insulated hazardous
voltage wiring likely to contact it, or any other single faults which would
cause the door to assume a hazardous voltage ?
If not, it could be debated that it doesn't require to be grounded.

Regards,
John Crabb,  (Product Safety) , 
NCR  Financial Solutions Group Ltd.,  Discovery Centre, 
3 Fulton Road, Dundee, Scotland, DD2 4SW
E-Mail :john.cr...@scotland.ncr.com
Tel: +44 (0)1382-592289  (direct ). Fax +44 (0)1382-622243.   



From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
[mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org] On Behalf Of Ned Devine
Sent: 14 November 2003 15:29
To: IEEE EMC/Product Safety (IEEE, EMC/Product Safety)
Subject: Grounding



Hi,

I need some help.  I told someone that you can not depend on mechanical
contact only (i.e. in this case a door hinge) for protective earth.  Even if
it passes the test, it would still not be acceptable because it does not
meet the construction requirements.  He then asked me to show him were it
said that in the standard (IEC 60950-1 or IEC 60601-1).  I looked and could
not find it.  Am I just missing it, or is it not in the standards?

There is a reference in CSA standards to C22.2 No. 0.4 that has the
requirement, but I can not find a similar reference in UL or IEC standards.


Ned Devine
Program Manager III
Entela, Inc.
3033 Madison Ave. SE
Grand Rapids, MI  49548

Phone: 616 248 9671
Fax: 616 574 9752
e-mail: ndev...@entela.com
www.entela.com 
1-800-888-3787 
Web:  www.entela.com 
Grand Rapids * Detroit * Boston * Toronto * Taipei



This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Dave Heald:   emc_p...@symbol.com

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line.
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

RE: Security and Alarm Systems

[Crabb, John]

A limited amount of information may be found in CENELEC Report R079-001:1998 

Guide to achieving compliance with EC directives for alarm systems 

I don't have a copy, however.

Regards,

John Crabb,  (Product Safety) , 
NCR  Financial Solutions Group Ltd.,  Discovery Centre, 
3 Fulton Road, Dundee, Scotland, DD2 4SW 
E-Mail :john.cr...@scotland.ncr.com 
Tel: +44 (0)1382-592289  (direct ). Fax +44 (0)1382-622243.   


From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
[mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org] On Behalf Of peter merguerian
Sent: 13 November 2003 23:08
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: Security and Alarm Systems


Hello All,
 
I am intersted to know about European Directives for Alarm and similar
security systems used in commercial (airports, businesses) and household
applications. What are the Directives (RTTE, Construction, etc.) involved, the
standards and some of the Recognized Test Agencies for a wi-fi type alarm
system. These are some of the standards that may or may not be applicable:
 
1. CEI 79-16 Level B

2. CEI79-2 Level 1

3. EN3220-3

4. EN301489-1

5. EN301-3

6. EN60950 

7. EN50130-4

8. IMQ Level 1

Best Regards,

Peter

RE: LCD Displays and Safety

[Crabb, John]

You will have noted in IEC 60950-1 Clause 4.2.5 Impact Test, that it states
"the test is not applied to flat panel displays or to the platen glass of
equipment (for example, copying machines)".

The waiver for flat panel displays appeared in the third edition of IEC
60950 - some time ago I trawled back through all my IEC committee papers
trying to find the justification for this change - but couldn't find
anything. I spoke to some committee members who seemed to think it was
included because LCDs couldn't withstand the impact test !

The real issue, however, is whether there is a hazard in the LCD display
that requires a degree of protection. I am aware of 2 possible hazards : 
High voltage present at the lamps within the LCD. In all the LCDs we use in
our Automated Teller Machines (ATMs), I perform the limited current test and
prove that the circuitry used meets the requirements for a limited current
circuit. I would also conduct a short circuit test on the driver circuit for
the lamp(s) - usually an oscillator feeding thru a transformer - but
typically the power output is so low that the oscillator shuts down when a
short is applied to the output transformer.

The second possible hazard might be considered to be the chemicals present
in the LCD. This has been the subject of some debate, the conclusion (based
on information from LCD suppliers) being that there is no chemical hazard
present. If you want any further details, let me know and I can probably
recover something from my files.

Regards, 

John Crabb,  (Product Safety) , 
NCR  Financial Solutions Group Ltd.,  Discovery Centre, 
3 Fulton Road, Dundee, Scotland, DD2 4SW
E-Mail :john.cr...@scotland.ncr.com
Tel: +44 (0)1382-592289  (direct ). Fax +44 (0)1382-622243.   



From: Speakman, Jim [mailto:jim.speak...@uk.thalesgroup.com] 
Sent: 09 September 2003 08:19
To: 'emc-pstc'
Subject: LCD Displays and Safety



IT equipment Standards (BS EN 60950) define mechanical safety requirements
for display screens of the Cathode Ray Tube type in order to provide
protection from implosion.

LCD displays do not manifest this hazard, but does anyone know of any
International or National Standards requirements anywhere that mandates the
minimum structural integrity, and/or provision of protective devices for LCD
displays from accidental damage that may lead to a hazard resulting in an
accident to personnel?

__
Jim Speakman
(Design Safety Representative (Southern Sites)

Thales Defence Ltd
Thales Sensors 
Manor Royal
Crawley
West Sussex
RH10 9PZ


> * Tel:+44(0)1293 644911
> * Mob:+44(0)7968 529439
> *  Fax :  +44(0)1293 644194
> *e-mail   jim.speak...@uk.thalesgroup.com


This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Dave Heald:   emc_p...@symbol.com

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line.
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

RE: New EU Member States

[Crabb, John]

As a matter of interest, I have read that the enlargement of the EU is going
to provide many, many jobs as translators, and there are anticipated to be
major problems ahead since for some language combinations it is expected
that there is 
no-one trained as a translator, and therefore they would need a translator
to translate language A into, for example, English, and then another
translator to translate from English into language B.

Regards,
John Crabb,  (Product Safety) , 
NCR  Financial Solutions Group Ltd.,  Discovery Centre, 
3 Fulton Road, Dundee, Scotland, DD2 4SW
E-Mail :john.cr...@scotland.ncr.com
Tel: +44 (0)1382-592289  (direct ). Fax +44 (0)1382-622243.   



From: richwo...@tycoint.com [mailto:richwo...@tycoint.com] 
Sent: 13 May 2003 18:06
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: New EU Member States



I understand that the following states will enter the EU in May 2004. I have
listed what I understand to be the ISO 2-letter country codes and official
languages of these states, but I am seeking confirmation of the accuracy of
this information. Under the RTTE Directive, a DoC in the national language
must be included with the equipment. However, what is not clear to me
concerning Malta, for example, is if the DoC must be in both Maltese and
English or in at least one of those languages. Comments?

Czech Republic (CZ), Czech
Hungary (HU), Hungarian
Poland (PL), Polish
Slovak Republic (SK), Slovak
Slovenia (SI), Slovene
Estonia (EE), Estonian
Latvia (LV), Latvian
Lithuania (LT), Lithuanian
Cyprus (CY), Greek and Turkish
Malta (MT), Maltese and English

Richard Woods
Sensormatic Electronics
Tyco International



This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee
emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Dave Heald:   davehe...@attbi.com

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All
emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc


This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Dave Heald:   davehe...@attbi.com

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line.
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

RE: required power cord markings

[Crabb, John]

Typically the requirements for a European power cord is that it should be
marked , indicating that it has been approved through a European
"harmonized" scheme for the approval of such cords.  Without going into the
complications of this arrangement, I believe that manufacturers of such cords
in countries which do not adopt  European standards cannot obtain HAR
approval, and to get round this, they get an approval to the appropriate
European standard from a European test house such as VDE (or indeed, from many
test houses). 
Without entering into the debate on whether a power cord is a component, and
whether components should be CE marked, I can only say that I haven't seen a
CE marked power cord, only cords marked either with  or VDE, etc.
 
To summarise, I believe that your VDE approval is all you require.
Regards,
John Crabb,  (Product Safety) , 
NCR  Financial Solutions Group Ltd.,  Discovery Centre, 
3 Fulton Road, Dundee, Scotland, DD2 4SW 
E-Mail :john.cr...@scotland.ncr.com 
Tel: +44 (0)1382-592289  (direct ). Fax +44 (0)1382-622243.   


From: George Stults [mailto:george.stu...@watchguard.com] 
Sent: 13 May 2003 18:20
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: required power cord markings



Hello Group,

 

I have a detachable AC power cord proposed for shipment to Europe.  It has VDE
markings which I take to be a German safety approval, but no CE mark.  Must it
have the CE mark for shipment to Europe?  The ITE equipment that it ships with
is CE marked.

 

Thanks in advance

 

George Stults

WatchGuard Technologies Inc.

RE: Crossed out wheelie bin symbol (WEEE Directive)

[Crabb, John]

In directive 93/86/EEC (relating to batteries containing certain dangerous
substances),
it says "the symbol shall cover 3% of the area of the largest side of the
battery
or accumulator, up to a maximum size of 5 cm x 5 cm.  For cylinrical cells
the symbol
shall 3% of half the surface area of the battery or accumulator and shall a
maximum
size of 5 cm x 5 cm."

Not a lot of help, I'm afraid.
I thought "wheelie bin" was unique to Scotland.
Regards,
John Crabb,  (Product Safety) , 
NCR  Financial Solutions Group Ltd.,  Discovery Centre, 
3 Fulton Road, Dundee, Scotland, DD2 4SW
E-Mail :john.cr...@scotland.ncr.com
Tel: +44 (0)1382-592289  (direct ). Fax +44 (0)1382-622243.   



From: James, Chris [mailto:c...@dolby.co.uk] 
Sent: 27 March 2003 14:27
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Crossed out wheelie bin symbol (WEEE Directive)




Anyone know if there is a size requirement for this symbol? 

i.e. not less than a certain height as applies to the CE mark which must be
at least 5mm tall.

Regards, 

Chris 
___ 
Chris James 
Engineering Services Manager 
Dolby Laboratories, Inc. (UK) 


This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Dave Heald:   davehe...@attbi.com

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line.
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

RE: 230V Transition for EU?

[Crabb, John]

Cenelec document HD 472 S1, 1989, nominal voltages for low voltage public
electricity supply systems
is the document that states for the "first step", namely to 230V +10% -6%,
"Note: The dead-line
for the completion of the first step is envisaged for 1995".

It also states that "The transition period (to +/- 10%) should be as short
as possible and
should not exceed the year 2003".

However, at the request of the German National Committee, Cenelec BT
resolved to extend the 
transition period, and a Corrigendum to HD 472 S1, dated February 2002,
changes the above
sentence to read "The transition period should be as short as possible and
should not exceed the year 2008".

My electricty supply company advised me of the change to a declared nominal
supply voltage of
230V +10% -6%, from January 1995.

Regards,
John Crabb,  (Product Safety) , 
NCR  Financial Solutions Group Ltd.,  Discovery Centre, 
3 Fulton Road, Dundee, Scotland, DD2 4SW
E-Mail :john.cr...@scotland.ncr.com
Tel: +44 (0)1382-592289  (direct ). Fax +44 (0)1382-622243.   



From: John Barnes [mailto:jrbar...@iglou.com] 
Sent: 01 February 2003 03:48
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: 230V Transition for EU?



EMC-PSTC'ers,
Some of my references on international primary power say that the European
Union was to transition to 230V power in two phases:
*  On 1 JAN 1995 the United Kindon and other countries using 240VAC 
   were supposed to declare that their power was now 230VAC +10% -6%, 
   while the countries using 220VAC would declare that their power 
   was now 230VAC +6% -10%.
*  On 1 JAN 2003 all the countries in the European Union would declare
   that their power was now 230VAC +10% -10%.

Did that actually happen?  Can you point me to any official documents to
that effect, maybe in the Official Journal of the European Communities (OJ)?


Thanks!
John Barnes KS4GL, PE, NCE, ESDC Eng, SM IEEE
dBi Corporation
http://www.dbicorporation.com/


This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Dave Heald:   davehe...@attbi.com

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line.
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

RE: Mercury and Europe

[Crabb, John]

Annex ZC (Informative) A-Deviations, in EN 60950-1, states
Clause 1.5.1 Deviation
Sweden (Ordinance 1990:944) 
Add the following:
NOTE In Sweden, switches containing mercury such as
thermostats, relays and level controllers are not allowed.

Switzerland (Ordinance on environmentally hazardous substances 
SR 814.013, Annex 3.2, Mercury)
Add the following:
NOTE In Switzerland, switches containing mercury such as
Thermostats, relays and level controllers are not allowed.

Regards,
John Crabb,  (Product Safety) , 
NCR  Financial Solutions Group Ltd.,  Discovery Centre, 
3 Fulton Road, Dundee, Scotland, DD2 4SW
E-Mail :john.cr...@scotland.ncr.com
Tel: +44 (0)1382-592289  (direct ). Fax +44 (0)1382-622243.   


---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Dave Heald:   davehe...@attbi.com

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/
Click on "browse" and then "emc-pstc mailing list"

Use of "pre-plated" steel.

[Crabb, John]

Has anyone encountered problems in the use of 
"pre-plated" sheet steel in IT equipment metalwork ?
Typically such material is cheaper to use than
having to plate parts after they have been produced,
but there may be issues with sharp edges produced
when the material is punched out, and with rust on
the edges which are not protected.

Regards,
John Crabb, Development Excellence (Product Safety) , 
NCR  Financial Solutions Group Ltd.,  Discovery Centre, 
3 Fulton Road, Dundee, Scotland, DD2 4SW
E-Mail :john.cr...@scotland.ncr.com
Tel: +44 (0)1382-592289  (direct ). Fax +44 (0)1382-622243. 

---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Dave Heald:   davehe...@attbi.com

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/
Click on "browse" and then "emc-pstc mailing list"

RE: Water + Electricity

[Crabb, John]

You can say that electricity in a bathroom can be dangerous,
and in the UK, we are very cautious in this respect:
You don't have a wall mounted light switch in a bathroom,
it is either outside the room, or the light is operated by
a pull cord operated switch on the ceiling.
You are not allowed to have a power outlet in a bathroom,
with the exception of an outlet for an electric razor,
which has to be fed from an isolating transformer (usually built
into a combined light fitting/razor outlet).

Regards,
John Crabb, Development Excellence (Product Safety) , 
NCR  Financial Solutions Group Ltd.,  Discovery Centre, 
3 Fulton Road, Dundee, Scotland, DD2 4SW
E-Mail :john.cr...@scotland.ncr.com
Tel: +44 (0)1382-592289  (direct ). Fax +44 (0)1382-622243. 

---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Dave Heald:   davehe...@attbi.com

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/
Click on "browse" and then "emc-pstc mailing list"

RE: Banned Substances in Sweden

[Crabb, John]

Annex ZC of EN60950-1, IT Equipment - Safety, states:
Sweden (Ordinance 1990:944), In Sweden, switches 
containing mercury such as thermostats, relays
and level controllers are not allowed.

Regards,
John Crabb, Development Excellence (Product Safety) , 
NCR  Financial Solutions Group Ltd.,  Discovery Centre, 
3 Fulton Road, Dundee, Scotland, DD2 4SW
E-Mail :john.cr...@scotland.ncr.com
Tel: +44 (0)1382-592289  (direct ). Fax +44 (0)1382-622243.

-Original Message-
From: Jim Eichner [mailto:jim.eich...@xantrex.com]
Sent: 09 August 2002 19:51
To: 'EMC-PSTC - forum'
Subject: Banned Substances in Sweden



We have had a request from a customer to verify a lack of certain substances
in one of our products.  Rather than provide us with a regulatory-based list
of substances, they have provided us with a particular company's proprietary
list of substances it bans (and that company is in no way involved in the
dealings between us and our customer).  

Does anyone know where I can get an official list of what substances Sweden
bans in electronic products?

Thanks as always,

Jim Eichner, P.Eng. 
Manager, Engineering Services 
Xantrex Technology Inc. 
Mobile Power
web: www.xantrex.com 

RE: Liquid Nitrogen Safety

[Crabb, John]

This is way out of my normal range of Product Safety experience,
but I can say "BE VERY CAREFUL" with liquid nitrogen.

My memory bank reminded of a fatality in Scotland not that 
long ago, and after a short search on liquid+nitrogen+death, 
I came up with the following :
-
Chemical spill kills lab technician 
Gerard Seenan
Tuesday October 26, 1999
The Guardian

A man was killed and four others injured yesterday after a chemical
spillage in a human genetics laboratory. 

The laboratory assistant, who has not been named, was discovered in a 
medical research council laboratory in the Western general hospital, 
Edinburgh, yesterday morning. Four colleagues who attempted to go to 
his aid sustained minor injuries and were treated for the affects of 
chemical inhalation. 

A spokesman for Lothian and Borders fire brigade said liquid nitrogen,
a coolant used in medical and chemical laboratories, had escaped from 
a tank. The spillage was confined to a basement laboratory, well away
from the main hospital building. 

Around 40 people were evacuated from the four-storey building after 
the spillage, which firefighters managed to quickly isolated. The MRC 
said no member of the public was ever at risk. 

The four co-workers who attempted to help the man suffered minor injuries 
and were treated for the affects of chemical inhalation in hospital. All 
four were released yesterday evening. 

The fire brigade spokesman praised their bravery. "His colleagues saw 
that he was in trouble and tried to take him out of what was a very 
dangerous area," he said. 

A spokeswoman for the health and safety executive, which is 
investigating the incident, said the cause of death was not yet known. 

Liquid nitrogen is capable of causing severe burns and, in the confined 
space in which the man was working, asphyxiation is also a possible 
cause of death. 

The HSE will also be looking at whether the man, who had considerable 
experience in working with the chemical, died from a medical condition 
before the spillage. 

Nicholas Hastie, director of the genetics research laboratory, said 
liquid nitrogen was used commonly. "We believe we have all the right 
safety precautions in place." 

The Edinburgh research laboratory is is one of the MRC's largest units, 
monitoring genetic factors in disease and in normal and abnormal human 
development. 

Liquid nitrogen is used to freeze human cell samples for use in the 
lab's genetic research. The dead man, who had worked for the MRC 
for 10 years, was using liquid nitrogen at the time of the accident, 
but it is not clear what led to the spillage. 

Professor Hastie said: "This person was very experienced. We have 
very good safety measures and I have no idea what led to the death." 


Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2001
-

Regards,
John Crabb, Development Excellence (Product Safety) , 
NCR  Financial Solutions Group Ltd.,  Discovery Centre, 
3 Fulton Road, Dundee, Scotland, DD2 4SW
E-Mail :john.cr...@scotland.ncr.com
Tel: +44 (0)1382-592289  (direct ). Fax +44 (0)1382-622243. 



-Original Message-
From: brian_ku...@leco.com [mailto:brian_ku...@leco.com]
Sent: 05 August 2002 16:38
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Liquid Nitrogen Safety



Greetings all,

We are designing an instrument for laboratory use that will use liquid
nitrogen.
We will need to design our own dewar system too.

Being new to the use of liquid nitrogen we want to make sure we apply all
the
necessary safety requirements to our product.  We have searched the internet
and
have found the MSDS and several websites that give safety suggestions to
avoid
burns, over pressure of the container, and asphyxiation.

Is there any standards that we should apply other than the normal EN61010-1
and
equivilent?  Does any country have special requirements that we need to keep
in
mind?

Thanks,
Brian Kunde
LECO

---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Dave Heald:   davehe...@attbi.com

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/
Click on "browse" and then "emc-pstc mailing list"

RE: Compliance Primer

[Crabb, John]

I agree with Rich on the moral obligation a 
company has to avoid injury to those who
use its products.

Every year I give a lecture on Product Safety
to manufacturing engineering students at our
local university. This is what I say in answer to
Why have Product Safety ? -

As well as the corporate and legal requirements, 
designers have an obvious ethical duty to design 
safe products.

No one wants the injury or death of a user of our 
products on their conscience.

Especially if it could have been avoided by 

- a piece of double insulation

- a cover

- a warning label

- a little common sense  

Regards,
John Crabb, Development Excellence (Product Safety) , 
NCR  Financial Solutions Group Ltd.,  Discovery Centre, 
3 Fulton Road, Dundee, Scotland, DD2 4SW
E-Mail :john.cr...@scotland.ncr.com
Tel: +44 (0)1382-592289  (direct ). Fax +44 (0)1382-622243. 



-Original Message-
From: Rich Nute [mailto:ri...@sdd.hp.com]
Sent: 31 July 2002 01:08
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Re: Compliance Primer

It has been some time since I have had to explain
or justify product safety activity to a high-level 
manager-type.  As others have said, it is fraught 
with difficulties.

Success depends on first determining the mindset 
of the person asking the question.  I believe I
would first ask a number of questions to find out
where the person is coming from, why he is asking,
and what his objective is in learning about 
product safety activity.  Then, I would enter into
a conversation where there is a lot of back-and-
forth so that I could continuously read the person 
as to what he wants to know.

For a business, product safety, EMC, and other
regulatory or compliance activity usually represent 
a cost without a benefit, a cost without an 
associated income.  No wonder management will 
occasionally inquire as to what happens in the
compliance department.

There is no income derived or guaranteed from 
having a set of bumper-stickers on your product.  
In some cases, those bumper-stickers may comprise 
a passport for the product, but in themselves, they 
generate no revenue.  Indeed, some organizations 
can and do get by without the bumper-stickers, but 
usually not for the long term.

Making a product safe, or complying with EMC and
other regulatory issues can prevent fines, and
can prevent a government-ordered product recall.

One management question is:  How much money do I
spend to prevent a recall?  And, does spending 
that money guarantee no recall?

As a general rule, the cost of a recall exceeds
the per-unit profit.  Its a money-loser.

And, even the best of us cannot foresee every
product safety event.  A product safety recall
is almost inevitable at least once in the lifetime
of a company.  Consultants universally advise that
each company should have a product recall plan in
place before the recall.

I address the question of "Why product safety?" 
by stating that a company has a moral (as well as
legal) obligation not to injure its customers.

Depending on mindset, management may only agree
with this principle for major injuries, not for
minor injuries (and management decides which 
injury is major and which is minor).

Do I sound pessimistic?

Scott raised another issue in that we don't have
such things as primers on compliance and 
similar subjects.  Nor do we have papers on more
complex subjects (in the field of product safety). 

Some years ago, we had the Product Safety 
Newsletter.  We used this newsletter as a means
for publishing papers on safety topics (although
none was published on this subject).  

With thanks to Jim Bacher, many of the old PSNs 
are now available for download from: 

http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/psn/

While the IEEE EMC society has several 
publications, the product safety folks have 
nothing.  We need to develop both authors and a
publication medium.  We have the medium, the
mindcruiser web site.  While it is not perfect,
it is usable.

http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/

We intend this web site as an electronic version 
of the PSN.  But, we haven't yet developed a 
cadre of authors who would post papers to this 
web.  

This is an open invitation to post papers of 
general interest to the product safety, emc, 
and telecom communities to this web site.  

We're looking for the equivalent of an editor 
to oversee this function.  Volunteers please 
contact me or Jim Bacher.


Best regards,
Rich

---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Dave Heald:   davehe...@attbi.com

For policy questions, send mail to:

RE: IEC60320

[Crabb, John]

I have never heard of an inlet with provision for a spare fuse.
Are you sure it wasn't a double pole fused inlet ?
(SOME PEOPLE say double pole fusing is a requirement of IEC 60950,
"but it ain't necessarily so").

Regards, 
John Crabb, 
NCR  Financial Solutions Group Ltd.,  Discovery Centre, 
3 Fulton Road, Dundee, Scotland, DD2 4SW
E-Mail :john.cr...@scotland.ncr.com
Tel: +44 (0)1382-592289  (direct ). Fax +44 (0)1382-622243.  

-Original Message-
From: Mark Schmidt [mailto:mschm...@xrite.com]
Sent: 22 July 2002 14:28
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: IEC60320



Oops, I seem to left the problem out. The manufacturer now puts a rib in
the spare fuse holder so you cannot put a spare fuse in. Sorry for the
confusion.

Mark Schmidt
Regulatory Compliance 
X-Rite Incorporated 
USA
(616) 257 2469
mschm...@xrite.com


 -Original Message-
From:   Mark Schmidt  
Sent:   Monday, July 22, 2002 8:46 AM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject:IEC60320


Is anyone familiar with IEC60320? We use an AC input module that
includes a power switch and fuse holder. The fuse holder is a separate
piece that is inserted in the module it also allowed storage for a spare
fuse. In our product we shipped them with a spare fuse in order to
benefit the customer in case they needed it. The intent was that in case
they did blow the fuse that they would have an identical and properly
rated replacement fuse available to them. This would hopefully eliminate
or reduce the risk of putting an improperly rated fuse in the module. 

I received a letter from the manufacturer indicating that the design
change was made in order to comply with IEC60320. It seems to me that we
have now introduced a additional risk, it just doesn't make sense to me.
Any comments?

Mark Schmidt
Regulatory Compliance 
X-Rite Incorporated 
USA
(616) 257 2469
mschm...@xrite.com  


---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Dave Heald:   davehe...@attbi.com

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/
Click on "browse" and then "emc-pstc mailing list"


---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Dave Heald:   davehe...@attbi.com

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/
Click on "browse" and then "emc-pstc mailing list"

---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Dave Heald:   davehe...@attbi.com

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/
Click on "browse" and then "emc-pstc mailing list"

RE: TOUCH CURRENT LIMIT

[Crabb, John]

Rich Nute said : -
For grounded (Class I) equipment for the home, the UL leakage current 
is 0.5 mA.  (This is NOT a 60950 limit.)

UL reasoned that if 0.5 mA arises from both real and stray capacitance,
then, for double-insulated (Class II) equipment, the current should be
one-half of 0.5 mA because the standard requires the same insulation
to be applied again (i.e., the second half of double insulation), thus 
halving the capacitance.  Half of the capacitance results in half of 
the current, therefore 0.25 mA.

UL carried this concept from their generic double-insulation standard
into IEC 60950.

Surely the 0.25mA for Class II products was just copied from IEC380
into IEC 60950 ?

I also note that in my copy of ANSI C101-1992, standard for leakage
current for appliances, that the limit for 2 wire appliances is the 
same as for 3 wire appliances, namely 0.5 MIU = 0.5 mA.

Regards
John Crabb, Development Excellence (Product Safety) , 
NCR  Financial Solutions Group Ltd.,  Discovery Centre, 3 Fulton Road,
Dundee, Scotland, DD2 4SW
E-Mail :john.cr...@scotland.ncr.com
Tel: +44 (0)1382-592289  (direct ). Fax +44 (0)1382-622243.  



-
> 
> Touch current limit for accessible parts and circuits not connected
> 
> to protective earth: 0.25 mA
> 
> question 1 : How does it (0.25mA) come from and what  it is based on?


The UL reasoning is faulty because in real life the two capacitances
need not be equal.  And, this is certainly not the case for reinforced
insulation.

Furthermore, the current, 0.5 mA, is deemed acceptable in terms of 
the safe current that can be applied to the body.  

Therefore, the 0.25 mA limit is not related to the effects of the 
current on the body, but presumes a product construction comprised of 
double insulation where each insulation system provides exactly the 
same capacitance.



Best regards,
Rich


---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Dave Heald:   davehe...@attbi.com

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/
Click on "browse" and then "emc-pstc mailing list"

---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Dave Heald:   davehe...@attbi.com

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/
Click on "browse" and then "emc-pstc mailing list"

RE: SI Unit for volume

[Crabb, John]

Answer is presumably in ISO 1000, specification for 
SI units and recommendations for the use of their
multiples and of certain other units.

Regards,
John Crabb, Development Excellence (Product Safety) , 
NCR  Financial Solutions Group Ltd.,  Discovery Centre, 
3 Fulton Road, Dundee, Scotland, DD2 4SW
E-Mail :john.cr...@scotland.ncr.com
Tel: +44 (0)1382-592289  (direct ). Fax +44 (0)1382-622243. 


From: richwo...@tycoint.com [mailto:richwo...@tycoint.com]
Sent: 21 June 2002 13:33
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: SI Unit for volume



Nevermind. I found the answer to be cubic meters. 

>  -Original Message-
> From: WOODS, RICHARD  
> Sent: Friday, June 21, 2002 8:28 AM
> To:   'emc-pstc'
> Subject:  SI Unit for volume
> 
> When stating a cubic volume in SI units, is liters the correct unit. If
> not, what is the correct method of expression?
> 
> Richard Woods
> Sensormatic Electronics
> Tyco International
> 

---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Dave Heald:   davehe...@attbi.com

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/
Click on "browse" and then "emc-pstc mailing list"

---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Dave Heald:   davehe...@attbi.com

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/
Click on "browse" and then "emc-pstc mailing list"

RE: Constant for Change of Resistance formula.

[Crabb, John]

The formula for calculating the temperature rise of a winding
can be found in Annex E of IEC 60950 - and all the experts in 
TC 74 can't be wrong ?? (I also found the same formula in my
1985 issue of IEC 380.

Different temperature coefficents for copper have been quoted,
and as far as I can determine, the reason for this is as follows:

Definition of "temperature coefficent of resistance" is "the ratio
of the increase of resistance per degree C rise of temperature
to the resistance at 0 degrees C", and for a "standard annealed
copper conductor", this is 1/234.5 = .004264.

However, "the ratio of the increase of resistance per degree C 
rise of temperature to the resistance at 20 degrees C" is 
apparently .00393.

Regards,
John Crabb, Development Excellence (Product Safety) , 
NCR  Financial Solutions Group Ltd.,  Discovery Centre, 
3 Fulton Road, Dundee, Scotland, DD2 4SW
E-Mail :john.cr...@scotland.ncr.com
Tel: +44 (0)1382-592289  (direct ). Fax +44 (0)1382-622243.   


-Original Message-
From: Robert Macy [mailto:m...@california.com]
Sent: 13 May 2002 14:54
To: Bill Ellingford; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Re: Constant for Change of Resistance formula.



Bill,

Thanks for the site.

Went there and found the same formula and constant I use.

For copper, Temp Coeff = 3.9 x 10-3

Then I clicked on table of coeff and there was a very long list of
materials, but the temp coeff of copper there was 6.8 x 10-3  ???!!!

Any ideas for this disparity?

- Robert -

   Robert A. Macy, PEm...@california.com
   408 286 3985  fx 408 297 9121
   AJM International Electronics Consultants
   619 North First St,   San Jose, CA  95112

---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Dave Heald:   davehe...@attbi.com

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/
Click on "browse" and then "emc-pstc mailing list"

RE: Constant for Change of Resistance formula.

[Crabb, John]

If you plot resistance of copper vertically, against
temperature horizontally, and extend the graph
backwards, the point of intersection with the
horizontal axis is found to be -234.5 degrees C.

(Got this out of my early years text book which
I keep at my desk !)

"Hence for a standard copper conductor having a 
resistance of 1 ohm at 0 degrees C, the variation
of resistance over a range of 234.5 degrees C 
is 1 ohm".

Regards,
John Crabb, Development Excellence (Product Safety) , 
NCR  Financial Solutions Group Ltd.,  Discovery Centre, 
3 Fulton Road, Dundee, Scotland, DD2 4SW
E-Mail :john.cr...@scotland.ncr.com
Tel: +44 (0)1382-592289  (direct ). Fax +44 (0)1382-622243. 


-Original Message-
From: Colgan, Chris [mailto:chris.col...@tagmclaren.com]
Sent: 13 May 2002 10:28
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: Constant for Change of Resistance formula.



Ned is referring to the constant used in the "temperature rise calculated by
change in resistance formula" ie

 <<...>> 

Where dt is the temperature rise, R1 is start resistance, R2 is end
resistance, T1 is start ambient and T2 is end ambient.  234.5 is the formula
constant for copper.

This formula is used extensively when heat testing transformers and coils.

I'm afraid I don't know the constant for brass but I believe the figure may
be related to the "inferred absolute zero" of a material.  Try asking a
metallurgist?

Regards

Chris Colgan
Compliance Engineer
TAG McLaren Audio Ltd
The Summit, Latham Road
Huntingdon, Cambs, PE29 6ZU
*Tel: +44 (0)1480 415 627
*Fax: +44 (0)1480 52159
* Mailto:chris.col...@tagmclaren.com
* http://www.tagmclaren.com




> -Original Message-
> From: Robert Wilson [SMTP:robert_wil...@tirsys.com]
> Sent: Friday, May 10, 2002 7:00 PM
> To:   emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org; Ned Devine
> Subject:  RE: Constant for Change of Resistance formula.
> 
> What are the units? 234.5 ...what?? Looking at what the units are, will
> basically tell you exactly what the property is related to.
> 
>  
> 
> Nonetheless, you cannot possibly directly determine what the temperature
> change of something as physically and geometrically complex as a
> connector, merely by factoring in what its resistance change is. Among
> other things, the solution is extremely non-linear and iterative. Changing
> resistance will generate more heat, which will increase temperature, which
> will generate even more heat and on and on! Add this to the fact the
> resistance coefficient with temperature is itself non-linear, and you can
> see how this complicates things further. The final temperature that the
> "system" stabilizes at, is reached when the logarithmically increasing
> (i.e. also very non-linear) heat transfer to the environment caused by
> increasing temperature, balances increased heat being generated. 
> 
>  
> 
> To reach a solution, you need to iterate your calculations, where the
> results of one calculation are plugged as variables into the next
> iteration. Typically a thermal analysis program will require several
> hundred iteration before a converged solution results.
> 
>  
> 
> Bob Wilson 
> TIR Systems Ltd. 
> Vancouver. 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Ned Devine [mailto:ndev...@entela.com] 
> Sent: May 10, 2002 8:29 AM
> To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
> Subject: Constant for Change of Resistance formula.
> 
>  
> 
> Hi,
> 
>  
> 
> Does any one know how the constant for CoR formula was determined?  I know
> the K is 234.5 for copper and 226 for aluminum, but what property is this
> related to?  
> 
>  
> 
> I am trying to determine the change in temperature of a connector, based
> on the change of resistance.  The connector contacts are made of brass.  
> 
>  
> 
> Thanks
> 
>  
> 
> Ned
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Ned Devine 
> Program Manager 
> Entela, Inc. 
> 3033 Madison Ave. SE 
> Grand Rapids, MI  49548 
> 1 616 248 9671 Phone 
> 1 616 574 9752 Fax 
> ndev...@entela.com e-mail 
> 
> Entela, Inc. A Certified Woman Owned Business 
> www.entela.com 

---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Dave Heald:   davehe...@attbi.com

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/
Click on "browse" and then "emc-pstc mailing list"

RE: IEC 60601-2-24 / Magnetic Field

[Crabb, John]

I can imagine that it is a perfectly reasonable requirement
that electricity meters be required to operate correctly
when subjected to high magnetic fields, to overcome any
likely fraud attempts by enterprising consumers with 
permanent magnets, trying to reduce their electricity bills.
I suspect that is the reason for the requirement in 
IEC 60521.

Regards,
John Crabb, Development Excellence (Product Safety) , 
NCR  Financial Solutions Group Ltd.,  Discovery Centre, 
3 Fulton Road, Dundee, Scotland, DD2 4SW
E-Mail :john.cr...@scotland.ncr.com
Tel: +44 (0)1382-592289  (direct ). Fax +44 (0)1382-622243.


-Original Message-
From: plaw...@west.net [mailto:plaw...@west.net]
Sent: 02 May 2002 16:24
To: EMC-PSTC
Subject: Re: IEC 60601-2-24 / Magnetic Field



Are you sure about the IEC 60521 reference?
  IEC 60521 (1988-03)
  Class 0.5, 1 and 2 alternating-current watthour meters

  Applies only to newly manufactured induction type watt-hour meters of
  accuracy classes 0.5, 1 and 2, for the measurement of alternating current
  electrical active energy of a frequency in the range 45 Hz to 65 Hz and to
  their type tests only. This publication supersedes IEC 60043 (1960), 60170
  (1964) and 60280 (1968). 


Patrick Lawler
plaw...@west.net

On Mon, 29 Apr 2002 10:55:57 -0400, Ned Devine  wrote:
>I can help much, but, for this paragraph, the rationale at the back of the
>standard states that "Annex AAA of the Collateral Standard IEC 60601-1-2
>states that the limits and methodology are under consideration by technical
>committee 77.  This Particular Standard, however, refers for the time being
>to IEC 60521 in which 400 A/m is required."
>
>For the Second Edition of IEC 60601-1-2, Clause 36.202.8.1, the limit is 3
>A/m.
>
>Ned Devine
>Program Manager
>Entela, Inc.
>3033 Madison Ave. SE
>Grand Rapids, MI  49548
>1 616 248 9671 Phone
>1 616 574 9752 Fax
>ndev...@entela.com e-mail
>
>Entela, Inc. A Certified Woman Owned Business
>www.entela.com 
>
>-Original Message-
>From: am...@westin-emission.no [mailto:am...@westin-emission.no]
>Sent: Sunday, April 28, 2002 3:40 PM
>To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
>Subject: IEC 60601-2-24 / Magnetic Field
>
>Hi all,
>A colleague was checking the IEC 60601-2-24:98 and found the Magnetic Field
>Req't (paragraph 36.202.6) far too high: 400 Ampere-per-meter! I'd like to
>check this requirement for its correctness or history with backgrounds for
>such a demand. I know that 3A/m, 10A/m and 30A/m are often used, but 400A/m
>.
>
>Can anybody help?
>
>Best regards
>Amund Westin, Oslo/Norway
>
>PS: IEC 60601-2-24:98 - "Medical electrical equipment - Part 2-24:
>Particular requirements for the safety of infusion pumps and controllers"

---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Dave Heald:   davehe...@attbi.com

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/
Click on "browse" and then "emc-pstc mailing list"

RE:Draft BS ISO/IEC 17024, certification schemes for persons .

[Crabb, John]

I have just obtained the above "draft for public comment",
which is the BS implemenation of Draft International
Standard ISO/IEC 17024 General requirements for bodies operating
certification schemes for persons. Apparently the circulation
of this draft ISO/IEC standard is also a CEN(ELEC) parallel
enquiry, and this first edition of ISO/IEC 17024 is a revision
of EN 45013:1989.

So if you want to know how "certifiers" will be "certified",
"in response to specific government requirements (i.e protection 
of the public) or a demonstrated market need/desire (i.e 
credibility, confidence and improvement of the profession)",
this might be of interest.

Regards,
John Crabb, Development Excellence (Product Safety) , 
NCR  Financial Solutions Group Ltd.,  Discovery Centre, 
3 Fulton Road, Dundee, Scotland, DD2 4SW
E-Mail :john.cr...@scotland.ncr.com
Tel: +44 (0)1382-592289  (direct ). Fax +44 (0)1382-622243. 

---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Dave Heald:   davehe...@attbi.com

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/
Click on "browse" and then "emc-pstc mailing list"

RE: IP Rating and EN60950

[Crabb, John]

1.1.2 of EN 60950-1:2001 states "requirements additional to those
specified in this standard may be necessary for .. equipment
intended for use where ingress of water is possible; for 
guidance on such requirements and on relevant testing, see
annex T."  Annex T, which refers to IEC 60529, is informative,
however.

IEC TC74, WG8, has an ad-hoc group working on requirements for
outdoor equipment. I am a member of that group. I have to say 
that it will be some time before any new document is published.

The lack of any specific requirements in the standard does not
relieve you from the responsibility of producing a safe product.
For our automated teller machines, I use the UL rain test to show
that we prevent water ingress causing a hazard, rather than the 
requirements of IEC 60529, which in my opinion may show that a 
sealed box is watertight, but are inadequate for enclosures with
openings where an extended test (one hour) is necessary to 
confirm that rain ingress does not cause a problem.

Strictly speaking, the answer to your question is : -
EN 60950 does not normative reference EN 60529 because 
EN 60950 is a clone of IEC 60950, which did not normative
reference IEC 60529.

Regards,
John Crabb, Development Excellence (Product Safety) , 
NCR  Financial Solutions Group Ltd.,  Discovery Centre, 
3 Fulton Road, Dundee, Scotland, DD2 4SW
E-Mail :john.cr...@scotland.ncr.com
Tel: +44 (0)1382-592289  (direct ). Fax +44 (0)1382-622243. .



-Original Message-
From: richwo...@tycoint.com [mailto:richwo...@tycoint.com]
Sent: 20 March 2002 20:00
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: IP Rating and EN60950



I would like someone to explain to me why EN60950 does not normative
reference EN60529. While the latter is referenced in the OJ, the scope of
the standard seems to indicate that it is a basic standard to be referenced
in product standards. The scope says, "It will remain the reponsibility of
the individual Technical Committes to decide on the extent and manner in
which the classification is used in their standards and to define
'enclosure' as it applies to their equipment.

 

Richard Woods
Sensormatic Electronics
Tyco International

---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Dave Heald:   davehe...@mediaone.net

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/
Click on "browse" and then "emc-pstc mailing list"

RE: chassis bonding - star washers enough?

[Crabb, John]

I knew I shouldn't have commented on this subject !!

We perform the IEC 60950 grounding test by connecting our 
25A source between the ground pin of the mains cord and 
the metalwork we want to check - and measure the volt drop
between the two points. If the surface was painted, we 
might have to "dig" through the coating with our test probe.
Basically, our products consist of many steel parts all 
screwed together, most of them plated, but some of them 
painted. Where we have an ac operated module within our 
products, such as a printer, monitor, or power supply,
invariably with a plated chassis, (screwed down 
with the afore-mentioned screws), we supply it from a 3 core cord, 
but if we removed the ground wire from this cord (which 
would run back to an ac distribution circuit), there is no 
noticeable difference in the results we get.

Regards,
John Crabb, Development Excellence (Product Safety) , 
NCR  Financial Solutions Group Ltd.,  Discovery Centre, 
3 Fulton Road, Dundee, Scotland, DD2 4SW
E-Mail :john.cr...@scotland.ncr.com
Tel: +44 (0)1382-592289  (direct ). Fax +44 (0)1382-622243. 



-Original Message-
From: Ron Pickard [mailto:rpick...@hypercom.com]
Sent: 25 March 2002 15:28
To: Crabb, John
Cc: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: RE: chassis bonding - star washers enough?

Hi John,

You wrote:

>We use screws which have combined hex/posidriv heads with
>serrations under the head, which eliminates the need for star washers.
>We find these work very well for zinc plated parts. On epoxy painted
>parts,  they also seem to cut thru the paint and give a satisfactory
>result - you might feel "happier" if you have more than one screw
>for any given part.

Using these screw types may be "satisfactory" at the time of production, but
what will be expected
when the product is placed into service and into varying environments? Will
the newly exposed
chassis surfaces (I agree that they would very small) become so oxidized
that the oxidation leaches
to the "satisfactory" ground connection? Probably not, but IMHO, due
diligence might prescribe an
evaluation.

>We also use self-clinching PEM nuts with good results.
>Typically we find that where a grounding conductor has been
>brought to a particular area of our products, we would still
>pass the 0.1 ohm, 25A test when we remove the conductor.

May I ask how you pass this test when, as you stated, the conductor is
removed (just curious).
Please provide clarification.

Best regards,

Ron Pickard
rpick...@hypercom.com


---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Dave Heald:   davehe...@mediaone.net

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/
Click on "browse" and then "emc-pstc mailing list"

RE: chassis bonding - star washers enough?

[Crabb, John]

We use screws which have combined hex/posidriv heads with
serrations under the head, which eliminates the need for star washers.
We find these work very well for zinc plated parts. On epoxy painted 
parts,  they also seem to cut thru the paint and give a satisfactory 
result - you might feel "happier" if you have more than one screw
for any given part.
 
We also use self-clinching PEM nuts with good results.
Typically we find that where a grounding conductor has been
brought to a particular area of our products, we would still 
pass the 0.1 ohm, 25A test when we remove the conductor.
 
Conductive paint has been mentioned - we have used this in
the past, but our suppliers now don't want to use it because of 
concerns regarding toxicity. In any case, the aforesaid screws
would cut right through the coating.
 
Regards,
John Crabb, Development Excellence (Product Safety) , 
NCR  Financial Solutions Group Ltd.,  Discovery Centre, 3 Fulton Road,
Dundee, Scotland, DD2 4SW 
E-Mail :john.cr...@scotland.ncr.com 
Tel: +44 (0)1382-592289  (direct ). Fax +44 (0)1382-622243.   VoicePlus
6-341-2289. 

 

RE: LED Color

[Crabb, John]

Clause 1.7.8.2 Colours, of IEC 60950-1 states 
"Where safety is involved, colours of controls and indicators
shall comply with IEC 60073. Where colours are used for
functional controls or indicators, any colour, including
red, is permitted provided that it is clear that safety
is not involved."

Regards.
John Crabb, Development Excellence (Product Safety) , 
NCR  Financial Solutions Group Ltd.,  Discovery Centre, 
3 Fulton Road, Dundee, Scotland, DD2 4SW
E-Mail :john.cr...@scotland.ncr.com
Tel: +44 (0)1382-592289  (direct ). Fax +44 (0)1382-622243.  

---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Dave Heald:   davehe...@mediaone.net

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/
Click on "browse" and then "emc-pstc mailing list"

RE: Wire spool labeling requirements

[Crabb, John]

Surely the requirement is as found in the "Guideinfo" for
CCN (AVLV2) Appliance Wiring Material, namely ;
The Recognition Mark of Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. 
(illustrated below) on the attached tag, the reel or the 
smallest unit container in which the product is packaged 
is the only met.. - 11/28/2001]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Listprocessor-Version: 8.1 beta -- ListProcessor(tm) by CREN
X-Mozilla-Status: 
X-Mozilla-Status2: 
X-UIDL: <200111281824.kaa18...@listproc4.pcworld.com>


 
=   

PC World's Hot Shareware Newsletter 
http://www.pcworld.com/downloads  
  
==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- 
DELL 
 
10% off all Software & Peripherals! When you shop online at our 
Software & Peripherals site you’ll get 10% off your online purchase. 
Hurry! Offer ends soon.  
http://www.dell@www.pcworld.com/go/3634849.html   
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= 

 
November 28th, 2001

TODAY'S PICKS:  

Grokster 

Are your file-sharing sessions plagued by broken or slow downloads? 
Grokster is a peer-to peer application that downloads files from 
multiple sources, choosing the fastest connections. It also makes 
broken connections less common. You can share any type of file, as 
well as preview audio and video files as they're being downloaded.  

When you install Grokster, you are asked to specify folders on your 
hard disk to share with other Grokster members. The program then 
automatically categorizes files by media type, artist, category, and 
the like. 

Version: 1.3.3  
File Size: 1040 KB  
Price: Free  
Operating System(s): Windows 9.x, Windows Me, Windows 2000, Windows NT 

Download Grokster now at:  
http://www.pcworld.com/downloads/file_description/0,fid,16722,tk,hsx,00.asp  

TweakMaster 

It's difficult to know the exact cause of sluggish downloads, but this 
tool can help ensure that it's not a problem stemming from your 
computer's settings.  

TweakMaster adjusts your registry settings, walking you through some 
recommended settings when you first use the program, which you can 
then adjust until your connection is optimal. Your connection is also 
sped up by its DNS caching abilities, which saves the numerical 
address of your visited sites, so that it doesn't have to translate 
the name into its numerical address each time. 

TweakMaster also allows you to perform regularly scheduled updates to 
your PC's clock from Internet time servers. You can schedule these 
updates daily or weekly if you like or perform them manually at any 
time to keep your PC synched. 

This application can also be set to automatically answer "Yes" when 
AOL asks if you'd like to remain online. 

Version: 1.50 Build 114  
File Size: 1335 KB  
Price: Free trial; $20 to keep  
Operating System(s): Windows 9.x, Windows NT 

Download TweakMaster now at:  
http://www.pcworld.com/downloads/file_description/0,fid,4168,tk,hsx,00.asp  
   
 
= 
 
TOP NEWS FROM PC WORLD  
   
 
* Smallest Projectors Now Down to 2 Pounds   
Book-size model sacrifices some--but not many--features.
http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,67164,tk,cx112701a,00.asp   
   
* Web Designers Should Stop Searching   
To satisfy surfers, online content must be easy to find--without that 
pesky search engine.
http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,73103,tk,cx112701a,00.asp
  
* Check out all of today's news...  
   
http://www.pcworld.com/news/index/0,tk,cxA,00.asp 
 
= 
 
EDITORS' PICKS 
 
How To Uninstall Files 
 
Your "Add/Remove Programs" window leaves stray entries and unnecessary 
programs. These downloads can help. 
http://www.pcworld.com/downloads/collection/0,collid,444,tk,picks,00.asp 
 
Add/Remove Plus! 2002 
Make certain that programs are actually removed when you delete them. 
http://www.pcworld.com/downloads/file_description/0,fid,6477,tk,picks,00.asp 
 
Perfect Companion 
Remove all remnants of programs when you uninstall them. 
http://www.pcworld.com/downloads/file_description/0,fid,8092,tk,picks,00.asp 
 
Uninstall Manager 
Properly remove unwanted software and return your system to its 
original state. 
http://www.pcworld.com/downloads/file_description/0,fid,7921,tk,picks,00.asp 
 
Norton Uninstall Deluxe 
Thoroughly delete programs when you no longer want them clogging your 
hard drive. 
http://www.pcworld.com/dow

RE: South Korean Power System

[Crabb, John]

IEC60950 has a requirement (1.6.4) that "the neutral conductor,
if any, shall be insulated from earth and from the BODY 
throughout the equipment as if it were a line conductor. Components
connected between neutral and earth shall be rated for the
line-to-neutral voltage".

Typically I would expect IT equipment to be safe if line and neutral
were reversed, except for the issues relating to a single pole
disconnect device and fusing.

Regards,
John Crabb, Development Excellence (Product Safety) , 
NCR  Financial Solutions Group Ltd.,  Discovery Centre, 3 Fulton Road, 
Dundee, Scotland, DD2 4SW
E-Mail :john.cr...@scotland.ncr.com
Tel: +44 (0)1382-592289  (direct ). Fax +44 (0)1382-622243.   



-Original Message-
From: Price, Ed [mailto:ed.pr...@cubic.com]
Sent: 20 February 2002 16:09
To: 'EMC-PSTC List'
Subject: RE: South Korean Power System



Hi Listmembers!


I asked a general question yesterday about Korean AC power, but now I have a
little better idea about what I need to discover. One of our field engineers
said that AC power at South Korean military bases used the SCHUKO style
outlet system. But he said that one of the power pins was somehow referenced
to the safety ground. Thus, one pin to safety ground was 220 V, the other
pin to safety ground was 0 V. Can anyone confirm this? And if so, which pin
is the "hot" pin?

John Woodgate pointed out that SCHUKO plugs are symmetrical, and can be
plugged in two ways. That seems to imply that even if one pin is referenced
to safety ground, the appliance manufacturer must design his device to
accept the plug connected either way. I think that means the appliance
manufacturer must then design for the possibility that either input
powerline might be hot. Comments?

Thanks again,

Ed


>-Original Message-
>From: Price, Ed 
>Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2002 4:12 PM
>To: 'EMC-PSTC List'
>Subject: South Korean Power System
>
>
>
>Hi Listmembers:
>
>Can anyone tell me which is the correct electrical wiring 
>commonly used for
>South Korea?  I understand that the power is 60 Hz, 220 Vrms.
>
>I believe that two types of outlets are common there. First is 
>a two round
>pin, round connector. This does not have a safety ground 
>connection. Second
>is a "SCHUKO" type outlet, with two round pins and two safety 
>ground tabs.
>(A 2-pin plug, without a safety ground, can also plug into 
>this outlet.) 
>
>Are both wires floating off of ground? Or is one of the power conductor
>wires tied to safety ground? And, if one conductor is 
>grounded, as you face
>into a socket, is it the left or right contact?
>
>Thanks,
>
>Ed
>
>
>Ed Price
>ed.pr...@cubic.com
>Electromagnetic Compatibility Lab
>Cubic Defense Systems
>San Diego, CA  USA
>858-505-2780  (Voice)
>858-505-1583  (Fax)
>Military & Avionics EMC Services Is Our Specialty
>Shake-Bake-Shock - Metrology - Reliability Analysis
>

---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Dave Heald:   davehe...@mediaone.net

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/
Click on "browse" and then "emc-pstc mailing list"

---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Dave Heald:   davehe...@mediaone.net

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/
Click on "browse" and then "emc-pstc mailing list"

RE: Japan mains voltage

[Crabb, John]

According to "World Electricity Supplies" from BSI,
voltage is 200/100, 60 Hz.
We have certainly produced 100V 60 Hz "specials" for
Japan.
 
Regards,
John Crabb, Development Excellence (Product Safety) , 
NCR  Financial Solutions Group Ltd.,  Discovery Centre, 3 Fulton Road,
Dundee, Scotland, DD2 4SW 
E-Mail :john.cr...@scotland.ncr.com 
Tel: +44 (0)1382-592289  (direct ). Fax +44 (0)1382-622243.   VoicePlus
6-341-2289. 

-Original Message-
From: Darren Pearson [mailto:dar...@genesysibs.com]
Sent: 20 February 2002 12:46
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: Japan mains voltage


Can anyone tell me what the mains voltage is in Japan,
 
I  think it is 110V but I do not know the frequency.
 
apart from this, does any one know of a web site  that gives information
about the mains voltage and frequency of various countries ?
 
  Regards Darren.
 
 
Darren Pearson
Radio & Telecom Approval Services
Genesys
Singleton Court, Wonastow Road
Monmouth, NP25 5JA
UK
Tel: +44 1600 710300
Fax: +44 1600 710301
email: dar...@genesysibs.com  
web: www.genesysibs.com  

RE: Downloadable CENELEC Standards

[Crabb, John]

As a matter of interest, when you order a free amendment or 
corrigendum from BSI, you have a reasonable chance of being
supplied with the whole standard !! (which makes my day : )
John Crabb, Development Excellence (Product Safety) , 
NCR  Financial Solutions Group Ltd.,  Discovery Centre, 
3 Fulton Road, Dundee, Scotland, DD2 4SW
E-Mail :john.cr...@scotland.ncr.com
Tel: +44 (0)1382-592289  (direct ). Fax +44 (0)1382-622243.  

-Original Message-
From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk]
Sent: 11 February 2002 15:06
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Re: Downloadable CENELEC Standards

I read in !emc-pstc that richwo...@tycoint.com wrote (in <846BF526A205F8
4BA2B6045BBF7E9A6A01F13DC6@flbocexu05>) about 'Downloadable CENELEC
Standards', on Mon, 11 Feb 2002:
>BSI only has the ammended standards available - just
>what I wanted to do - pay over and over again for the original standard.

That is not invariably true; some amendments are published separately,
but many amendments are so complicated to work with in parallel with the
original text that it is false economy not to buy the amended standard. 

In The February 2002 issue of 'Update Standards', there are 20 free
amendments available and 13 cases of 'updated standard' only.
-- 
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk


---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Dave Heald:   davehe...@mediaone.net

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/
Click on "browse" and then "emc-pstc mailing list"

RE: Teslars???

[Crabb, John]

There are a series of ENs, 50121, relating to EMC 
requirements for "railway equipment".
That's all I know - I just noted in my records back
in 1997 that they were starting to appear.

I also note in EN 61000-4-8 Power frequency magnetic
field immunity, that 1 A/m corresponds to a free space
induction of 1.26 uT, and test levels of 1, 3, 10, 30,
and 100 A/m are given for continuous field. 

Regards,
John Crabb, Development Excellence (Product Safety) , 
NCR  Financial Solutions Group Ltd.,  Discovery Centre, 
3 Fulton Road, Dundee, Scotland, DD2 4SW
E-Mail :john.cr...@scotland.ncr.com
Tel: +44 (0)1382-592289  (direct ). Fax +44 (0)1382-622243. 

-Original Message-
From: marti...@appliedbiosystems.com
[mailto:marti...@appliedbiosystems.com]
Sent: 07 February 2002 22:22
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Teslars???



We have a customer that is concerned about how our product, laboratory
equipment, will respond to electromagnetic disturbances from a high speed
train that runs close to their lab.  The customer states that the
disturbance will be around 0.7-1.2 m Teslar.

Can someone please explain what the unit Teslar is and how that unit
relates, or if it relates, to the immunity tests of EN 61000-4-3 Radiated
immunity, or any other immunity test.

Has anyone ever had a similar concern from a customer dealing with this
type of disturbance?

Your responses are appreciated.

Regards

Joe Martin
EMC/Product Safety Engineer
Applied Biosystems
marti...@appliedbiosystems.com

---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Dave Heald:   davehe...@mediaone.net

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/
Click on "browse" and then "emc-pstc mailing list"

RE: SV: Generic emissions - EN 61000-6-3

[Crabb, John]

I seem to recollect that I have previously pointed out 
that the LVD states "electrical equipment which complies 
withharmonised standards shall be regardedas complying";
and "standards shall be regarded as harmonized once they are
drawn up by common agreementand published under national 
procedures. FOR PURPOSES OF INFORMATION the list of harmonized
standards and their references shall be published in the OJ".

So I am in agreement with Rich Woods on this one !!

John Crabb, Development Excellence (Product Safety) , 
NCR  Financial Solutions Group Ltd.,  Discovery Centre, 3 Fulton Road,
Dundee, Scotland, DD2 4SW
E-Mail :john.cr...@scotland.ncr.com
Tel: +44 (0)1382-592289  (direct ). Fax +44 (0)1382-622243.   VoicePlus
6-341-2289.



-Original Message-
From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk]
Sent: 29 January 2002 21:43
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Re: SV: Generic emissions - EN 61000-6-3



I read in !emc-pstc that richwo...@tycoint.com wrote (in <846BF526A205F8
4BA2B6045BBF7E9A6A01F13D09@flbocexu05>) about 'SV: Generic emissions -
EN 61000-6-3', on Tue, 29 Jan 2002:
>As long as we are getting picky, let's don't forget that the Directives
>don't have a harmonized definition of what harmonized means. The defintion
>in the LVD does not include the need to be referenced in the OJ.
Publication
>is for information only. Thus, a CENELEC safety standard may be applied as
>soon as it is ratified and presuption of conformity to the essential
>requirements is provided.

Pardon? Your text is rather unclear, but if you are claiming that an EN
can be used to demonstrate conformity BEFORE it is *notified* in the
Official Journal, I do not think that is correct. 

Harmonization is a separate issue.
-- 
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk

After swimming across the Hellespont, I felt like a Hero.
PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL!

---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org
 Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old 
messages are imported into the new server.

RE: What about 480 VAC in Europe? RE: 2 Phases in North America

[Crabb, John]

Just to clarify the position in the UK, although it was stated below
that the nominal voltage is 415V, I am almost certain that the DECLARED
VOLTAGE is 400V. I base this on the fact that domestic consumers
were advised that the declared voltage changed from 240V to 230V, 
and 230 X 1.732 = 400V, and my 1996 BSI "World Electricity Supplies"
shows the UK voltage (and the Italy voltage) to be 400/230V.
 
In practice, the voltage didn't change - we went from 240 +/- 6%
= 225.6 - 254.4, to 230 -6%/+10% = 216.2 - 253, and the "old" voltage
fits within the window of the "new" voltage, if you accept that 253 and
254.4 are near enough the same.
 
Regards,
John Crabb, Development Excellence (Product Safety) , 
NCR  Financial Solutions Group Ltd.,  Discovery Centre, 3 Fulton Road,
Dundee, Scotland, DD2 4SW 
E-Mail :john.cr...@scotland.ncr.com 
Tel: +44 (0)1382-592289  (direct ). Fax +44 (0)1382-622243.   VoicePlus
6-341-2289. 

-Original Message-
From: Paolo Gemma [mailto:paolo.ge...@icn.siemens.it]
Sent: 17 January 2002 17:56
To: acar...@uk.xyratex.com
Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Re: What about 480 VAC in Europe? RE: 2 Phases in North America


Also Italy have a nominal phase to phase of 380VAC.
Ciao
Paolo
At 11:20 1/17/02 +, Andrew Carson wrote:



Terry

Then nominal EU phase to phase voltage is 400VAC with a +6/-10% Tolerance.
Distribution is Three Phase Star, Earthed Neutral.

Some countries are still a little behind in the voltage harmonization e.g..
Belgium is a nominal 380VAC. Other have not
changed as they fall within the tolerance limits already, e.g. the UK is a
nominal 415VAC

Generally with switch mode supplies, provided your incoming wiring feed is
changed to take into account the Star and not
Delta, configuration. They can accommodate the voltage difference.

Terry Meck wrote:

> High all:
>
> I have been away form the forum,  very busy, and a quick review notes you
have been discussing Power distribution in USA.
>
> What about Europe?  We have an application needing 480 VAC here in USA.
> How compatible will 480 VAC be in Europe?
> Someone told me 390 VAC is more real in Europe. !?!
> How do you see this 480 VAC being impacted by the EN 61000-3-3 harmonic
standard?
>
> Thanks for any input in advance!
>
> Best regards,
> Terry J. Meck
> Senior Compliance/Test Engineer
> tjm...@accusort.com
>

RE: date of publication relevance to CB Certs

[Crabb, John]

I would agree that whether a safety standard is published 
in the OJ against the LVD should never be an issue.

I would remind everyone that the LVD states "electrical
equipment which complies with the safety provisions of 
harmonized standards shall be regarded...as complying".
"FOR PURPOSES OF INFORMATION the list of harmonized 
standards...shall be published in the OJ".  

John Crabb, Development Excellence (Product Safety) , 
NCR  Financial Solutions Group Ltd.,  Discovery Centre,
3 Fulton Road, Dundee, Scotland, DD2 4SW
E-Mail :john.cr...@scotland.ncr.com
Tel: +44 (0)1382-592289  (direct ). Fax +44 (0)1382-622243. 

---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org
 Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old 
messages are imported into the new server.

RE: CEN Standards free on-line

[Crabb, John]

Before we start cutting our budgets for the purchase of standards,
I read in another CEN announcement ;
"eEurope standards are defined in workshops whose agreements will 
be made available for downloading free of charge from the CEN web 
site".

So it may just be CEN Workshop Agreements (CWAs) that are available
for free.

These seem to be rather unique documents. To quote from BSI Update
Standards "A CEN Workshop agreement (CWA) represents only the
concensus of those who participated in the parent CEN Workshop; 
hence, a CWA may not represent the views of all interested parties
and so is not accorded the status of a European standard. The
solutions offered through a CWA may compete with those offered in 
another CWA in the same field or a related European standard."

Regards,
John Crabb, Development Excellence (Product Safety) , 
NCR  Financial Solutions Group Ltd.,  Kingsway West, Dundee, Scotland. DD2
3XX
E-Mail :john.cr...@scotland.ncr.com
Tel: +44 (0)1382-592289  (direct ). Fax +44 (0)1382-622243.   VoicePlus
6-341-2289.



-Original Message-
From: richwo...@tycoint.com [mailto:richwo...@tycoint.com]
Sent: 04 January 2002 13:40
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: CEN Standards free on-line



For those of you having difficulty with the link - the link overflowed onto
the next line. You will have to paste it back together to obtain the full
and correct link.

And John is correct. Someone forget to tell the CEN website that the
documents are now free.

Richard Woods
Sensormatic Electronics
Tyco International


-Original Message-
From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk]
Sent: Friday, January 04, 2002 1:39 AM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Re: CEN Standards free on-line



I read in !emc-pstc that richwo...@tycoint.com wrote (in <846BF526A205F8
4BA2B6045BBF7E9A6ABC4FDD@flbocexu05>) about 'CEN Standards free on-
line', on Thu, 3 Jan 2002:
>According to this press release, CEN standards should now be on line for
>free.
>
>http://europa.eu.int/rapid/start/cgi/guesten.ksh?p_action.gettxt=gt&doc=IP/
0
>1/1837|0|RAPID&lg=EN

It does indeed say that, BUT the CEN web page itself still refers one to
national standards bodies for purchasing the standards! No mention at
all of any free downloads!
-- 
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk

---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org
 Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old 
messages are imported into the new server.

RE: EMC-related safety issues

[Crabb, John]

Seeing that we have got round to the subject of thermocouples, etc, I often
use a Solartron SI3535D datalogger with thermocouples for measuring 
component temperatures, and find quite often that it does not give "correct"
readings when thermocouples are placed on transformers in switching
power supplies, high voltage transformers in monitors, etc.  I can get a 
"correct" reading by switching off the EUT momentarily, obviously 
removing the source of the problem. Note that the problem can occur 
even if the thermocouple is not making an electrical connection to the
component winding involved.
 
Any suggestions how to overcome this ? My previous antique datalogger
didn't have this problem, but it eventually had to be scrapped due to lack
of spare parts - and the expectation that a more modern unit would be
better !.
 
Regards,
John Crabb, Development Excellence (Product Safety) , 
NCR  Financial Solutions Group Ltd.,  Kingsway West, Dundee, Scotland. DD2
3XX 
E-Mail :john.cr...@scotland.ncr.com 
Tel: +44 (0)1382-592289  (direct ). Fax +44 (0)1382-622243.   VoicePlus
6-341-2289. 

RE: EN60529

[Crabb, John]

John, I have forwarded this information to the chairman of 
BSI committee EPL/74 (which deals with EN60950), with the 
suggestion that CENELEC be asked to get EN60529 removed 
from the list of LVD "notified standards". We'll see what
happens.

On the same subject, TC74 is working on requirements for
outdoor IT equipment, (in which I am involved). I believe 
that while IEC 60529 may well be used to prove that a 
sealed box is watertight, a prolonged "rain test", such
as the UL one hour rain test, is more relevant to "real" IT
equipment (such as "my" ATMs) which interact with the public,
and which will have openings which have to be designed to 
eliminate ingress of water, or which have water management 
systems to divert water away from areas where a hazard could 
otherwise be introduced.

Regards, 
John Crabb, Development Excellence (Product Safety) , 
NCR  Financial Solutions Group Ltd.,  Kingsway West, Dundee, Scotland. DD2
3XX
E-Mail :john.cr...@scotland.ncr.com
Tel: +44 (0)1382-592289  (direct ). Fax +44 (0)1382-622243.   VoicePlus
6-341-2289.



-Original Message-
From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk]
Sent: 02 January 2002 21:30
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Re: EN60529



I read in !emc-pstc that richwo...@tycoint.com wrote (in <846BF526A205F8
4BA2B6045BBF7E9A6ABC4FD0@flbocexu05>) about 'EN60529', on Wed, 2 Jan
2002:
>It is referenced in
>the OJ under the LVD, yet a reading of the standard indicates that it is a
>basic standard intended to be referenced in product standards.

It appears to be a mistake, because, as you say, it is a Basic Standard.
Astonishing as it must seem to mere mortals, the CENELEC Technical Board
is not utterly infallible. 
-- 
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk


---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org
 Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old 
messages are imported into the new server.

RE: 2 Phases in North America

[Crabb, John]

Bill - you absolutely correct in describing the North American system as 
"single-phase, 3 wire". After all, that is how it is described in Annex V,
Figure V.4 of IEC60950:1999 - and there is NO WAY that IEC TC74
could be wrong, is there ? (especially since the US committee must
have voted yes, to include this change, the purpose of which was to
educate those of us who weren't too clear on the subject).
 
Fortunately I am on holiday (vacation) from tonight until January 3,
so to all our readers, best wishes for the Christmas season, and a 
happy and prosperous 2002.
John Crabb, Development Excellence (Product Safety) , 
NCR  Financial Solutions Group Ltd.,  Kingsway West, Dundee, Scotland. DD2
3XX 
E-Mail :john.cr...@scotland.ncr.com 
Tel: +44 (0)1382-592289  (direct ). Fax +44 (0)1382-622243.   VoicePlus
6-341-2289. 

-Original Message-
From: Bill Lawrence [mailto:wlawr...@capecod.net]
Sent: 14 December 2001 22:33
To: 'Wagner, John P (John)'; 'Robert Johnson'; 'Cortland Richmond'
Cc: 'Barry Esmore'; 'EMC-PSTC Forum'
Subject: RE: 2 Phases in North America


Two Phase / 5 Wire (4 "hots" and a neutral) was a common power distribution
in US cities in the early part of this century.  Many early motors are
"2-phase" motors.  I learned about this when helping with connection of
these motors to run on a 3 phase power system via a special "Scott-T"
transformer connection.
 
The correct designation for the 120/240 power system described is "Single
Phase / 3 Wire".
 
Bill Lawrence

RE: ITE equipment in Petrol Station (Gas) outlets

[Crabb, John]

ANSI/NFPA 30A is the Automobile and Marine Service Station Code,
and has a table of "Electrical Equipment Classified Areas - Service
Stations", which described the extent of classified areas adjacent
to pumps and underground tanks. 

For our Automated Teller Machines, I always ask the customer to tell 
me whether the installation is to be in a Classified Area (USA) or 
Hazardous Zone (UK). If they say that it is, I have to say that we 
do not claim that our products are suitable for such an installation,
and that a fairly lengthy and probably expensive exercise would be 
necessary to research the requirements and to modify the products to
meet the requirements.  One such requirement is "all sources of
ignition, including those associated with sparks of any sort or hot
surfaces of electrical equipment should be excluded from hazardous
areas, or, in the case of electrical equipment, should be specially 
protected". I think this came from BS5345, now superseded by
EN60079.
 
Typically, however, our products are installed in the sales area of 
a service station, where, as already noted, "normal" IT equipment 
can be found. The table in the above NFPA document puts "sales, 
storage, and rest rooms" in the category "nonclassified".

I believe you also have to watch out for any equipment which might
draw air in from a hazardous zone, in that this will effectively
extend the hazardous zone; and also that the parking position of
a delivery tanker might also extend a hazardous zone.

Please be aware I am not an expect on this subject - as you can
see from the above, I have tried not to become involved - 
successfully so far.  

Regards,
John Crabb, Development Excellence (Product Safety) , 
NCR  Financial Solutions Group Ltd.,  Kingsway West, Dundee, Scotland. DD2
3XX
E-Mail :john.cr...@scotland.ncr.com
Tel: +44 (0)1382-592289  (direct ). Fax +44 (0)1382-622243.   VoicePlus
6-341-2289.



-Original Message-
From: Alex McNeil [mailto:alex.mcn...@ingenicofortronic.com]
Sent: 04 December 2001 11:50
To: 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org'
Subject: ITE equipment in Petrol Station (Gas) outlets




Hi Group,

Can someone clarify the standards required for ITE to be placed in Petrol
Station (or Gas for our N. American friends) outlets? The ITE may be placed
indoors or outdoors at these sites.

Normally our products are qualified for:
Europe: EN55022 + EN55024 (EMC) and EN60950 (Safety for "indoor use only"
class)
N. America: FCC Part 15, ECES-003 (EMC) and UL1950 (Safety for "indoor use
only" class)

Petrol Station Indoors
Europe???
N.America???

Petrol Station Outdoors
Europe???
N.America???

Kind Regards
Alex McNeil
Principal Engineer
Tel: +44 (0)131 479 8375
Fax: +44 (0)131 479 8321
email: alex.mcn...@ingenicofortronic.com


---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org
 Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old
messages are imported into the new server.

---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org
 Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old 
messages are imported into the new server.

RE: Mains Cords in the UK and the fuse rating

[Crabb, John]

Almost certainly the answer will be found in BS1363 Part 1, 
Specification for rewirable and non-rewirable 13A fused plugs.
(I assume you are referring to UK plugs, as I don't know of
any other plug with a fuse).

My copy of BS1363 is rather old, but there is a table which shows
a 3A (5A) fuse used with 0.5 sq mm cord, and 13A fuses used with 
0.75, 1.0, 1.25 and 1.5 sq mm cord.

A note states "the figure in brackets indicates the fuse rating 
where a non-rewirable plug/cord assembly is used with certain 
types of equipment where the use of a 5A fuse-link is necessary
because of the high instantaneous input current".

So the answer to your question is yes, BS1363 specifies a 13A fuse
for 0.75 sq mm cords. 

Regards,
John Crabb, Development Excellence (Product Safety) , 
NCR  Financial Solutions Group Ltd.,  Kingsway West, Dundee, Scotland. DD2
3XX
E-Mail :john.cr...@scotland.ncr.com
Tel: +44 (0)1382-592289  (direct ). Fax +44 (0)1382-622243.   VoicePlus
6-341-2289.

-Original Message-
From: Chris Allen [mailto:chris_al...@eur.3com.com]
Sent: 29 November 2001 14:14
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Mains Cords in the UK and the fuse rating

For an IT product there is a restriction in the use of mains cords with a
cross
sectional area of 0.75mm2 for units up to 6 amps when the cord is greater
than
2m in length (EN60950: 2000 section 3.2.5)

Can anyone tell me is there is a requirement (in any standard) specifying a
maximum fuse rating that should be fitted to the plug of such a cord and
what it
is?

Thanks in advance.

Kind regards,
Chris.

---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org
 Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old 
messages are imported into the new server.

RE: EMI filter hazards

[Crabb, John]

There are many EMI filters on the market with a discharge resistor across
line and neutral 
to discharge the capacitor(s). The filter we use has a one megohm resistor
built in.

IEC60950 requires that capacitor exceeding 0.1uF should have a means of
discharge resulting
in a time constant not exceeding 1 second for pluggable equipment Type A.

At one time we used a filter which was just below 0.1uF, and therefore
didn't need a 
discharge resistor. It may have complied with the standard, but you
certainly felt it if
you grabbed the plug pins too quickly.

Regards,
John Crabb, Development Excellence (Product Safety) , 
NCR  Financial Solutions Group Ltd.,  Kingsway West, Dundee, Scotland. DD2
3XX
E-Mail :john.cr...@scotland.ncr.com
Tel: +44 (0)1382-592289  (direct ). Fax +44 (0)1382-622243.   VoicePlus
6-341-2289.



-Original Message-
From: wmf...@aol.com [mailto:wmf...@aol.com]
Sent: 26 October 2001 12:42
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: EMI filter hazards



Many of us incorporate these little babies in our designs, and good design
practices require their placement at the enclosure threshhold to prevent
re-radiation. This sometimes means the filter is upstream of the/any mains
switch or breaker.

In these cases, what can be done to mitigate the shock risk at the equipment
plug for those first seconds after removal? We warn our customers at the
mains terminals and in the manual, but, still

---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org
 Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old 
messages are imported into the new server.

RE: skinny power cords.

[Crabb, John]

"Far be it from me to criticize" UL Listed products,
or UL standards, but it seems to me that the plug in
question was not "suitable for its intended use".

I can recall conducting a humidity test on one of our
products, and at the conclusion of the test, it failed
a dielectric test, and I traced the failure to a
UL Listed or Recognized plug, where the insulating 
material which carried the pins appeared to be little 
more than layers of compressed paper !! 

Regards,
John Crabb, Development Excellence (Product Safety) , 
NCR  Financial Solutions Group Ltd.,  Kingsway West, Dundee, Scotland. DD2
3XX
E-Mail :john.cr...@scotland.ncr.com
Tel: +44 (0)1382-592289  (direct ). Fax +44 (0)1382-622243.   VoicePlus
6-341-2289.



-Original Message-
From: Rich Nute [mailto:ri...@sdd.hp.com]
Sent: 25 October 2001 22:11
To: jack.c...@cax.usa.xerox.com
Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Re: skinny power cords.






Hi Jack:


>   I'm having a problem with Rich's explanation in this particular case (I
know
>   it's often true, though).  How did resisitive heating occur *without*
>   current flow?  It was clearly stated that the heater was switched OFF.

I believe that the process I described takes a 
lot of time.  It starts when the heater is first
used, i.e., a heavy current through the plug and
socket.  The heating due to the contact resistance
degrades the material between the blades of the 
plug due to pyrolysis, the decomposition of a 
material by heat alone.

The decomposition results in unknown materials 
between the blades.  Plastics are carbon-based. 
Decomposition of carbon-based materials tends to
reduce the size of the molecule, and the material
approaches pure carbon, a resistor.

So, we can assume that these unknown materials 
are resistive.  We will have a leakage current 
through the resistance.  

Once the leakage path is established, the heater 
does not need to be on for the process to continue.

Since this isn't a "good" resistance, some elements
will open, and micro-arcs will occur.  These micro-
arcs create new resistances, and the leakage current
will continue to increase.  And the arcs get bigger.

Etc.

I could be wrong...


Best regards,
Rich




---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org
 Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old 
messages are imported into the new server.

Photo Sensitive Epilepsy. (PSE)

[Crabb, John]

Would anyone have any guidelines on how to design computer graphics
in such a way to avoid inducing Photo Sensitive Epilepsy in anyone
who suffers from that complaint ?

Regards,
John Crabb, Development Excellence (Product Safety) , 
NCR  Financial Solutions Group Ltd.,  Kingsway West, Dundee, Scotland. DD2
3XX
E-Mail :john.cr...@scotland.ncr.com
Tel: +44 (0)1382-592289  (direct ). Fax +44 (0)1382-622243.   VoicePlus
6-341-2289.

---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org
 Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old 
messages are imported into the new server.

RE: Manufacturing Hipot Testing

[Crabb, John]

Far be it from me to "nit-pick", but to say in a standard that 
"the tests specified in this annex SHOULD be carried out by the
manufacturer on each luminaire after production", doesn't sound 
like a "normative" requirement. They should have used "SHALL".

But maybe it is an informative annex ?

Regards,
John Crabb, Development Excellence (Product Safety) , 
NCR  Financial Solutions Group Ltd.,  Kingsway West, Dundee, Scotland. DD2
3XX
E-Mail :john.cr...@scotland.ncr.com
Tel: +44 (0)1382-592289  (direct ). Fax +44 (0)1382-622243.   

-Original Message-
From: raymond...@omnisourceasia.com.hk
[mailto:raymond...@omnisourceasia.com.hk]
Sent: 23 August 2001 15:13
To: kazimier_gawrzy...@dell.com
Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: Manufacturing Hipot Testing

I just found out the notes about the hipot testing.  The standard is IEC
60598-1 Page 343 Annex Q "Conformity testing during manufacture".   Under
General para., "The tests specified in this annex should be carried out by
the manufacturer on each luminaire after production and are intended to
reveal, as far as safety is concerned, unacceptable variation in material
and manufacture.  These tests are intended not to impair the properties and
the reliability of the luminaire, and they vary from certain type tests in
the standard by the lower voltages utilised." is stated.  For hipot test,
it suggests a minimum voltage of 1.5 kV a.c. for a minimum of 1 s and
maximum breakdown current 5 mA for class 1 luminaires and class 2
luminaires metal encased.

Thanks and regards,

Raymond Li

 

---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org
 Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old 
messages are imported into the new server.

RE: Creepage dist. for more than 1000V ?

[Crabb, John]

I hesitate to remind you all, but if anyone has a problem
"interpreting" the requirements of IEC 60950, there is
the TC74 Chairman's Advisory Panel.

Briefly, the procedure is as follows : 

Questions for interpretation should, as a minimum
- define the problem, making reference to a specific 
subclause or subclauses of the Publication and, where
appropriate,include a sketch;
- provide an explanation of the actual situation that 
initiated the need for interpretation; and
- be phrased, where possible, to permit a specific 
"yes" or "no" answer.

Requests for interpretation of test results will not 
be considered by the Panel.

Questions for interpretation should be submitted initially 
to the appropriate National Committee for TC74. Those that 
cannot be handled by the National Committee are forwarded 
to the Secretary of TC74.

The Secretary of TC74 refers the Question to the Chairman 
of the Panel. 

...and it goes on.

I have personally had a request for interpretation answered, 
to the effect that :
The unanimous Opinion of the Chairman's Advisory Panel is 
that the apparent difference represented by the words 
"overbalance" and "tip over" (in 4.1 stability requirements)
is an editorial accident and that all three requirements are 
the same.

Regards,
John Crabb, Development Excellence (Product Safety) , 
NCR  Financial Solutions Group Ltd.,  Kingsway West, Dundee, Scotland. DD2
3XX
E-Mail :john.cr...@scotland.ncr.com
Tel: +44 (0)1382-592289  (direct ). Fax +44 (0)1382-622243.   VoicePlus
6-341-2289.

---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org
 Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.rcic.com/  click on "Virtual Conference Hall,"

RE: How Safe ???

[Crabb, John]

There are stability tests in UL751 - Vending machines,
which I have in my fantastic filing system. (Just in case
anyone thought "my" products - Automated Teller Machines,
were vending machines).
I can't be sure if they are also in UL541 - Refrigerated 
Vending machines - since I don't have a copy.
Regards,
John Crabb, Development Excellence (Product Safety) , 
NCR  Financial Solutions Group Ltd.,  Kingsway West, Dundee, Scotland. DD2
3XX
E-Mail :john.cr...@scotland.ncr.com
Tel: +44 (0)1382-592289  (direct ). Fax +44 (0)1382-622243.   VoicePlus
6-341-2289.



-Original Message-
From: oover...@lexmark.com [mailto:oover...@lexmark.com]
Sent: 25 July 2001 13:26
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: How Safe ???





In light of the recent e-traffic on labels, warnings, and litigation I think
that this is a good article.

A better rant than I could write (and have written).  When you need a break
...
___

By Mark Morford
morning...@sfgate.com
All contents, except the swearing and the random blasphemy, (tm) (c)
2001 Hearst Communications Inc.

MARK'S NOTES & ERRATA
Where opinion meets benign syntax abuse...
***
Twenty-one-year-old college student bangs and rocks and tilts
900-pound Coke machine to dislodge a can of soda. Coke machine
finally tips over on top of college student. College student dies.

College student's parents sue Coca-Cola, vending-machine
manufacturer, and school, claiming there should've been some sort of
warning. The gods of Fate and Destiny shake their heads and sigh.
This is a true story.

Coke begins placing cautionary stickers on vending machines:
"Warning: Tipping may cause injury or death." This part is also true.
Many employees at the vending machine company undoubtedly got a good
laugh out of this, wondered what's next, stickers on fine cutlery
saying "Warning: Inserting butcher knife into body may cause injury
or death"?

Or perhaps on large bridges: "Warning: Leaping off may cause death or
at least a bad headache." Buses? "Warning: Do not step in front of
this vehicle or you might die in a manner everyone jokes about and
then how would you feel?" The list goes on, and it too may cause
injury or death.

Oh how the jokes were flying, yes indeed, much like they probably
were at snide ol' McDonald's HQ a few years back when that old woman
spilled hot coffee on herself and sued because the coffee was too hot
and it burned her and everyone knows coffee is supposed to be
lukewarm and pleasing and mild. She won her case. The jokes stopped.
And the cynicism began.

And let us pause for a moment to pay our respects to what must be a
horrendous level of sadness and loss for the family in question, what
can only be a miserable and terrible event in the life of a parent.
There is genuine sorrow and rage here and the need to assign blame
and of course it can't be laid at the feet of the college student in
question because he was clearly the innocent victim of a malicious
vending machine attack and we as humans can *not* be held responsible
for our frequent lapses of judgement or common sense, can we? Can we?

Because after all this kid was just being a typical mindless male and
was likely just following the behavior of other students who he'd
seen bash the machine to score a free Mountain Dew and besides
someone at the school probably knew the machine was kinda tippy and
folks at the vending machine company probably knew those old models
weren't as completely secure as the newer versions.

But hey, it's not like the machines were malevolent capsizing demons
just lying in wait for the next hapless student to come along and
breathe on them wrong and then, whump.

It is not as if this laptop computer right here in front of me is
right this minute poised to to electrocute me if I decide to slam the
lid repeatedly to get it to unfreeze. See that big bookshelf in the
library? Pull on it too hard, it'll probably fall over on you. Should
you sue the shelf manufacturer? The book authors? Gravity? What if
our college boy had climbed atop the Coke machine and jumped off and
broken his neck? Is the manufacturer responsible? The shoe company?
The concrete floor? Where do you draw the line?

This is the ultimate question. It's an ever-shifting line in the sand
of human stupidity, a vague cultural boundary defining how much we
expect our products and corporations to protect us from ourselves and
how much we're willing to be answerable for our actions, a line
dividing how logic-impaired we're willing to admit we sometimes are
and how responsible a given corporation should be for dumping shoddy
and/or dangerous products on the market without warning.

In a perfect world (like, you know, Atlantis), it's a fair
distribution of both, an equal balance of good faith: people take
full responsibility for their lives and actions and don't blame the
government or the media or God or big mean corporations

RE: Voltage Range in Asia

[Crabb, John]

Figures I have entered below are from the 1996 edition of the 
BSI publication World Electricity Supplies.
 
Regards,
John Crabb, Development Excellence (Product Safety) , 
NCR  Financial Solutions Group Ltd.,  Kingsway West, Dundee, Scotland. DD2
3XX 
E-Mail :john.cr...@scotland.ncr.com 
Tel: +44 (0)1382-592289  (direct ). Fax +44 (0)1382-622243.   VoicePlus
6-341-2289. 

-Original Message-
From: Luiz Claudio [mailto:luizboni...@ig.com.br]
Sent: 22 June 2001 10:29
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Cc: luiz_c_boni...@multibras.com.br
Subject: Voltage Range in Asia


Dear Colleagues,
 
I am trying to find reliable information regarding the actual voltage range
found in some Asian countries. I already have some information, but it looks
like the actual conditions are worse than those published. Since travelling
to each country with a multimeter would be quite expensive, I would really
appreciate if someone could give me some help.
 
Specifically, I am looking for information about the following countries:
 
Taiwan   220/110, or 400/300, +/- 10%, 60 Hz
Thailand 220 or 380, +/- 10%, 50 Hz 
Philippines  220/110, or 440, +/- 5%, 60 Hz
Hong Kong 380/220,  +/- 6%, 50 Hz
Singapore 400/230, +/- 6%, 50 Hz 
India Bombay 440/250, or 230, +/- 4%, 50 Hz
 New Delhi 400/230, +/- 6%, 50 Hz 
Malaysia 415/240, +5%, -10%, 50 Hz 
South Korea Household voltage 220 +/- 10% or 110 +/- 6%, 50 Hz
   Commercial voltage 220 +/- 13% 
 
Thanks in advance for your kind attention.
 
Regards,
 
Luiz
 

RE: Protective Bonding-UL 60950 (replacement for UL 1950)

[Crabb, John]

As a previous reply has suggested, but not in the same words,
surely one question that has to be considered is whether this hinged
panel is required to be earthed. The requirement in UL60950 2.6.1 a)
refers to "accessible conductive parts that might assume a HAZARDOUS
VOLTAGE in the event of a single fault".

I would suggest that if there are no single insulated hazardous voltages
(typically wiring) touching this panel, or close to it, then why go to
the trouble of earthing it. If a single fault caused a hazardous voltage
to touch your metal enclosure, this should be taken care of by the 
protection you have built in. You could even consider that in such a case,
it would be better if the hinged panel was isolated from the rest of
the enclosure.

I will be interested to see what comments this brings out - I can 
only make the point that I got both UL and CSA to agree that I don't
have to ground the doors of the safes in our Automated Teller Systems,
based on the above arguments.

Regards,
John Crabb, Development Excellence (Product Safety) , 
NCR  Financial Solutions Group Ltd.,  Kingsway West, Dundee, Scotland. DD2
3XX
E-Mail :john.cr...@scotland.ncr.com
Tel: +44 (0)1382-592289  (direct ). Fax +44 (0)1382-622243.   VoicePlus
6-341-2289.



-Original Message-
From: Andrews, Kurt [mailto:kandr...@tracewell.com]
Sent: 16 May 2001 19:18
To: EMC-PSTC
Subject: Protective Bonding-UL 60950 (replacement for UL 1950)



Hi group,

We are designing a new piece of class I equipment to be evaluated under UL
60950 (replaced UL 1950). The equipment has a metal enclosure. It has a
metal access panel that is hinged at the bottom with a piano type hinge. It
is secured at the top by two screws. This panel is hinged so that the
customer's service personnel can have access to a PC board for configuration
purposes. There are hazardous (AC mains) voltages behind this panel. We are
concerned that this panel may not make a reliable earth connection to the
rest of the metal enclosure, especially if the customer fails to fully
tighten the two screws. We are planning on adding a wire from this panel to
a side panel of the enclosure to reliably ground the panel to the rest of
the enclosure. This wire will be on the inside of the unit. According to UL
60950 this wire would be considered a Protective Bonding Conductor. We are
planning on using a stranded 14 AWG wire with ring terminals on both ends
for this Protective Bonding Conductor. It would be fastened to the two
panels via threaded studs mounted in the panels. We plan on placing the ring
terminals on the studs and securing them with toothed lock washers and nuts.
I have a question about the requirements for this Protective Bonding
Conductor. According to UL 60950, clause 2.6.5.7, at least two screws must
be used for each connection. Does this clause apply in a case such as this?
Or is it meant to be used in cases where two metal panels are fastened
together with screws to provide Protective Bonding between the panels. I
don't really see how we can use two screws for each connection when using a
wire for this purpose unless there is a crimp terminal that has two rings on
it which I haven't seen. I have copied the clause from UL 60950 below for
your reference.

Any advice on this matter would be greatly appreciated.

Kurt Andrews
Compliance Engineer

Tracewell Systems, Inc.
567 Enterprise Drive
Westerville, Ohio 43081
voice:  614.846.6175
toll free:  800.848.4525
fax: 614.846.7791

http://www.tracewellsystems.com/  

2.6.5.7 Screws for protective bonding

NOTE -The following requirements are additional to those in 3.1.6.

Self-tapping (thread-cutting and thread-forming) and spaced thread (sheet
metal) screws are
permitted to provide protective bonding but it shall not be necessary to
disturb the connection
during servicing.

In any case, the thickness of the metal part at the point where a screw is
threaded into it shall
be not less than twice the pitch of the screw thread. It is permitted to use
local extrusion of a
metal part to increase the effective thickness.

At least two screws shall be used for each connection. However, it is
permitted to use a single
self-tapping screw provided that the thickness of the metal part at the
point where the screw is
threaded into it is a minimum of 0,9 mm for a screw of the thread-forming
type and 1,6 mm for
a screw of the thread-cutting type.

Compliance is checked by inspection.

---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org
 Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net

For policy questions, send 

RE: US Mains Plug/Earthing

[Crabb, John]

I don't know if you "have" to fit a plug, but I can 
certainly tell you that our USA customers would be
VERY UNHAPPY if we supplied a product without a plug.
I certainly have the impression that fitting a plug 
in the USA is not something that people expect to
have to do.

Regards,
John Crabb, Development Excellence (Product Safety) , 
NCR  Financial Solutions Group Ltd.,  Kingsway West, Dundee, Scotland. DD2
3XX
E-Mail :john.cr...@scotland.ncr.com
Tel: +44 (0)1382-592289  (direct ). Fax +44 (0)1382-622243.   VoicePlus
6-341-2289.



-Original Message-
From: Enci [mailto:e...@cinepower.com]
Sent: 17 May 2001 08:03
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Re: US Mains Plug/Earthing



Thank you for all your comments.

Do EU manufacturers have to fit a suitable mains plug
to appliances when exporting to USA?... or can it
be supplied without a plug, putting the requirement on the user
to follow the instructions - in my case, stating that
a grounding plug must be used ?


Thank you.


---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org
 Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.rcic.com/  click on "Virtual Conference Hall,"

RE: Classification of Office Equipment

[Crabb, John]

The scope of EN60950 Safety of IT Equipment reads :
"SAFETY OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY EQUIPMENT -
1 General
1.1 Scope
1.1.1 Equipment covered by this standard
This standard is applicable to mains-powered or 
battery-powered information technology
equipment, including electrical business equipment 
and associated equipment, with a RATED VOLTAGE not 
exceeding 600 V.
This standard is also applicable to such information 
technology equipment designed and intended to be 
connected directly to a TELECOMMUNICATION NETWORK, 
regardless of the source of power.
Examples of equipment which is in the scope of this standard are:
accounting machines
bookkeeping machines
calculators
cash registers
copying machines
data circuit terminating equipment
data preparation equipment
data processing equipment
data terminal equipment
dictation equipment
document shredding machines
duplicators
electrically operated drawing machines
erasers
facsimile equipment
key telephone systems
magnetic tape handlers
mail processing machines
micrographic office equipment
modems
monetary processing machines including automated
teller (cash dispensing) machines
motor-operated files
PABX's
paper jogging machines
paper trimmers (punchers, cutting machines,
separators)
pencil sharpeners
personal computers
photoprinting equipment
plotters
point of sale terminals including
associated electronic scales
postage machines
public information terminals
staplers
telephone answering machines
telephone sets
text processing equipment
typewriters
visual display units
This list is not intended to be comprehensive, and 
equipment that is not listed is not necessarily excluded
from the scope."

I believe that a manufacturer can decide whether he is 
declaring compliance to the LVD or to the Machinery
Directive. I seem to recall that the Provision and Use of
Work Equipment regulations state that conformance to these
regulations can be shown by conformance to applicable 
directives, and both the LVD and Machinery Directives are 
listed as applicable.

John Crabb, Development Excellence (Product Safety) , 
NCR  Financial Solutions Group Ltd.,  Kingsway West, Dundee, Scotland. DD2
3XX
E-Mail :john.cr...@scotland.ncr.com
Tel: +44 (0)1382-592289  (direct ). Fax +44 (0)1382-622243.   VoicePlus
6-341-2289.



-Original Message-
From: Tony Reynolds [mailto:reyno...@pb.com]
Sent: 21 February 2001 15:06
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: Classification of Office Equipment



 All,
 
 Does anyone know within the scope of Safety Standards and Directives 
 (LVD and Machinery) how they classify office equipment / office 
 machinery.  In other words what is an office and more importantly 
 where do you stop using office terminology and start using factory / 
 warehouse terminology.
 
 Thankyou in advance.
 
 Tony Reynolds
 Pitney Bowes Ltd
 Tel +44 (0) 1279 449479
 Fax +44 (0) 1279 449118

---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org

RE: FLAME RATING OF STANDOFFS

[Crabb, John]

I certainly have a lot of "small" plastic parts in my products which I
consider to be "exempt" and are not described in any procedure - and they
may well be a lot bigger than your standoff !!
I certainly think your agency is not-picking !!

One point to consider is that I write the procedure for UL and the report
for CSA for my products, and I include what I think should be included, and
exclude what I don't think needs to be there - and if you could work this
way with your agency,(if they will let you), you will save yourself a lot of
grief.

John Crabb, Development Excellence (Product Safety) , 
NCR  Financial Solutions Group Ltd.,  Kingsway West, Dundee, Scotland. DD2
3XX
E-Mail :john.cr...@scotland.ncr.com
Tel: +44 (0)1382-592289  (direct ). Fax +44 (0)1382-622243.   VoicePlus
6-341-2289.



-Original Message-
From: Terry Meck [mailto:tjm...@accusort.com]
Sent: 20 February 2001 15:44
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: FLAME RATING OF STANDOFFS



Hi group!

I need a sanity check on a `new approach' our safety agency has recently
taken.

We have an open frame power supply ( has all the certs through the CB report
etc. for EN 60950 UL 1950 )

On of the conditions of acceptability is one mounting standoff shall be
insulated.  We have this supply in no less then 4 listed products without
any reference to the flame rating of the standoff having to be checked when
the inspector comes in.  
I consider that to be reasonable. section 4.4.3.3  UL 1950 has exception:
"gears, cams, belts, bearings and other small parts which would contribute
negligible fuel to a fire;"

Recently new products have been reviewed and the new procedures require
`traceable 94V-2' standoffs!?!?  Which manufacturing engineering says is
difficult to procure a traceable recognized plastic standoff.

Questions:
Has my fever and pneumonia the past weeks clouded my reasoning?  What am I
missing?  You place a .5 inch #6 standoff between a V-0 board and a medal
chassis what requires a recognized part except maybe `straining out the
gnats so we can swallow the camel' somewhere else.

Sick and Tired
Terry J. Meck
Senior Compliance / Test Engineer
Accu-Sort Systems

---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org

RE: 230 Vac or 240 Vac?

[Crabb, John]

I cannot answer for all the countries involved,
but I can quote the document which was delivered 
to my home address in 1995 from my electricity 
supplier (Scottish Hydro-Electric), and which,
naturally, I brought into work and filed under 
"230V harmonization" : -

DECLARED NOMINAL SUPPLY VOLTAGE in acordance with
Electricity Supply Regulations 1988 (as amended,
Regulation 30. Declared Nominal Supply Voltage
(and permitted variation) from January 1995, 
Most domestic customers 230 volts (216.2V - 253V);
Most commercial or industrial customers
400/230 volts (376.0V - 440V).

So my supplier is categorically telling me that 
they are complying with the appropriate
requirements, and I imagine the other UK suppliers
would have made the same declaration. 

John Crabb, Development Excellence (Product Safety) , 
NCR  Financial Solutions Group Ltd.,  Kingsway West, Dundee, Scotland. DD2
3XX
E-Mail :john.cr...@scotland.ncr.com
Tel: +44 (0)1382-592289  (direct ). Fax +44 (0)1382-622243.   VoicePlus
6-341-2289.



-Original Message-
From: Canio Dichirico [mailto:cdich...@eso.org]
Sent: 13 February 2001 12:55
To: geor...@lexmark.com
Cc: IEEE EMC List
Subject: Re: 230 Vac or 240 Vac?




...
> The 240V countires agreed, but never changed their nominals, as this
> would have involved serious changes to their power generation equipment.
>
...

Hi George and All!

The statement quoted above raises some doubts in me.

Since 1983 the nominal voltage of existing 220/380V and 240/415V systems
(should) have been evolving towards the value of 230/400V recommended by IEC
(600)38 "IEC standard voltages". The transition period will (should?) end by
the year 2003. During this period, as a first step, the electricity supply
authorities of countries with 220/380V systems (e.g., Germany, Italy, etc.)
(should) have been bringing their voltages within the range 230/400V
+6%, -10% and those of countries with 240/415V systems (e.g., UK) (should)
have been bringing the voltage within the range 230/400V +10%,-6%. At the
end of the transition period (2003), the tolerance of 230/400V ±10% (i.e., a
range from 207V to 253V for the 230V value) should be achieved. A reduction
of this range to 230/400V ±6% (i.e., a range from 216V to 243V for the 230V
value) was (is?) under consideration.

AFAIK the distribution transformers in countries with nominal voltage
380/220 VAC used to have 400 V as no-load secondary voltage. Analogously 433
VAC used to be the no-load secondary voltage of the distribution
transformers in countries with nominal voltage 415/240 VAC. (Am I right?)

The new nominal voltage of 400 VAC may be achieved by means of distribution
transformers with a no-load secondary voltage of 410 VAC. (A distribution
transformer with 410 VAC no-load secondary voltage provides about 400 VAC at
full load with a lagging power factor between 0.85 and 0.90.) No-load 410
VAC may be well approximated also by "old" distribution transformers
provided that they be provided with voltage taps +/- 2 x 2.5%. By adopting
the +2.5% tap, the no-load secondary voltage of a "continental" transformer
would increase from 400 VAC to 410 V. Analogously, by adopting the -2 x 2.5%
(= -5%) tap, the no-load secondary voltage of a "UK" transformer would
decrease from 433 VAC to about 411 V.

Not by chance, CENELEC HD 538.1 S1/A1 - issued in March 1995 - states that
"For the low-voltage winding" the "Rated voltage 410 V is suitable for new
transformers in the intermediary steps of bringing low-voltage systems,
originally at 380 V, within the range 400 V +6%/-10%".

All this should have allowed all the European utilities to switch to the
nominal 400 VAC standardized by IEC (600)38 either by adopting new
distribution transformers conforming to CENELEC HD 538.1 S1/A1 or by
adopting the above-mentioned voltage taps of their "old" transformers
(provided the "old" transformers were provided with such taps).

My doubts:

1. Why should the power generation equipment be affected by the adoption of
400 VAC? The change affects only the distribution transformers. Conversely
the alternators are electrically very distant from the low-voltage customers
and many voltage levels exist in between (generation, transmission, primary
distribution, secondary distribution).

2. However why are the European utilities still so late in adopting 400 VAC?


Who has any replies or comments?

TIA

Canio Dichirico
European Southern Observatory
Technical Division - Electronic Systems Department
Karl-Schwarzschild-Str. 2
D-85748 Garching bei München

Tel./Fax +49-89-3200 6500
Fax +49-89-3200 6694
email: cdich...@eso.org
website: www.eso.org


- Original Message -
From: 
To: 
Cc: 
Sent: Friday, February 02, 2001 20:30
Subject: Re: 230 Vac or 240 Vac?


>
> David,
>
> Here is my understanding based on an earlier discussion on this forum
> and some of our business experiences.  The agreement amongst many high
> volt countries was on a 220-240V range.  This implies a 230V nominal.
> The 240V

RE: Client Presence During Testing

[Crabb, John]

We are "fortunate" in that we always get the lab personnel to
come to our facility to test our products. This has many 
advantages, the main ones being that any issues can be cleared
up with the design engineers, and you don't let the lab people
go until they agree to approve your product !! 

Obviously we witness all the tests - in almost every case, we
actually conduct the test, and the agency personnel witnesses us !
John Crabb, Development Excellence (Product Safety) , 
NCR  Financial Solutions Group Ltd.,  Kingsway West, Dundee, Scotland. DD2
3XX
E-Mail :john.cr...@scotland.ncr.com
Tel: +44 (0)1382-592289  (direct ). Fax +44 (0)1382-622243.   VoicePlus
6-341-2289.



-Original Message-
From: k.macl...@aprel.com [mailto:k.macl...@aprel.com]
Sent: 24 January 2001 01:04
To: t...@world.std.com; emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: Client Presence During Testing



Hello, Folks - 

Can you share with me how your favourite/preferred lab(s) handle client
presence during testing?  I'd like to know 

a) Do they allow presence in lab (technical area) itself ?  If not, then
where are clients who are at the lab normally placed?
b) Are engineering/design type tests handled differently than compliance in
this respect?  
c) What about formal witnessing of tests?
d) How you feel about the policies that are in use?  Do they influence your
choice of labs?
f)  Have any related polices recently changed in the labs you use?  How do
you feel about this, and is it an influencer?
e) Any other comments about this?

Huge thanks in advance for your input!  (Labs are welcome to comment, too!)

Kate

Kathy M. MacLean
President, APREL Laboratories
-EMC-RF Safety-Antenna design/test-SAR/MPE-
-Environmental-Acoustics-Wireless- 
51 Spectrum Way, Nepean, Ontario K2R 1E6
(613) 820-2730 fax (613) 820-4161 
cell (613) 791-3777
Web site:  http://www.aprel.com - watch for our new web site coming soon!

---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org

RE: ECMA standards

[Crabb, John]

The ECMA 2000 "Memento" (their yearly handbook)shows ECMA-97
as "withdrawn", with no note of any equivalent international 
or European standard. There is no copy of ECMA-97 on the 
CD-ROM distributed with the 2000 ECMA "Memento".  Unfortunately
I have disposed of my previous ECMA CD-ROMs, but maybe 
someone else will have had the foresight to hang onto older
copies, which might have ECMA-97 on them.

Regards,
John Crabb, Development Excellence (Product Safety) , 
NCR  Financial Solutions Group Ltd.,  Kingsway West, Dundee, Scotland. DD2
3XX
E-Mail :john.cr...@scotland.ncr.com
Tel: +44 (0)1382-592289  (direct ). Fax +44 (0)1382-622243.   VoicePlus
6-341-2289.



-Original Message-
From: Nick Williams [mailto:nick.willi...@conformance.co.uk]
Sent: 23 January 2001 23:21
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: ECMA standards



A client has asked about ECMA standards. Apparently they have to 
respond to a tender document which requires compliance with ECMA 97.

There would appear to be no mention of ECMA 97 on their web site. I'd 
be interested to hear from anyone who has any information on this 
standard, and in particular knows anything about equivalence to US or 
EN standards.

Thanks

Nick

---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org


---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org

RE: PUWER Directive?

[Crabb, John]

This directive states : -
that employers "must obtain and/or use work equipment which, if provided to
workers in the undertaking and/or establishment for the first time after 31
December 1992, complies with the provisions of any relevant Community
directive which is applicable". 

I read this as requiring employers to ensure that "work equipment" used by
their employees, must comply with any applicable Community directives, of
which the EMC and LVD are surely applicable.

I have just managed to find, in my fantastic filing system : ), the UK
implementation of the above Directive, namely SI 1992 No. 2932, "The
Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1992", which states : -
"Every employer shall ensure that any item of work equipment provided for
use in the premises or undertaking of the employer complies with the
enactment which implements in Great Britain any of the relevant Community
directives listed in Schedule 1 which is applicable to that item of work
equipment".Schedule 1 lists among other Directives, the EMC Directive
and the LVD. 

An interesting point is that if employers "must ...use work equipment which
complies with the provisions of any relevant Community directive which
is applicable",
there could be an on-going requirement to show the compliance of such work
equipment, and there is therefore a problem if the basis of any claim of
compliance is to a harmonized standard which has been, or will be, removed
from the OJ list.

John Crabb, Development Excellence (Product Safety) , 
NCR  Financial Solutions Group Ltd.,  Kingsway West, Dundee, Scotland. DD2
3XX
E-Mail :john.cr...@scotland.ncr.com
Tel: +44 (0)1382-592289  (direct ). Fax +44 (0)1382-622243.   VoicePlus
6-341-2289.



-Original Message-
From: wmf...@aol.com [mailto:wmf...@aol.com]
Sent: 14 December 2000 15:18
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: PUWER Directive?



Where can I find (.pdf) OJ list of standards used to demonstrate conformance
to Provisions and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 89/655/EEC. I cannot
fathom the http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/oj/index-list.html
site, as many times as I've tried getting info. Please help.

WmFlanigan

---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org

RE: International Equivalent of EN50116

[Crabb, John]

As a member of the British EPL/74 committee, I can say that I 
know of no plans to issue an IEC standard equivalent to EN50116.

Historically, almost certainly ECMA will have produced their standard
and then given it to CENELEC who issued it as EN50116. 

I don't know if IEC would entertain producing such a standard.
Routine electrical testing is a "best practice", "quality", "certification",
"compliance" issue, and it is debateable whether IEC should start
dictating on such issues. Equally it could be said that we should 
not have allowed CENELEC to dictate on such issues either.
I don't know if EN 50116 is listed against the LVD - I would expect
not.

Regards,
John Crabb, Development Excellence (Product Safety) , 
NCR  Financial Solutions Group Ltd.,  Kingsway West, Dundee, Scotland. DD2
3XX
E-Mail :john.cr...@scotland.ncr.com
Tel: +44 (0)1382-592289  (direct ). Fax +44 (0)1382-622243.   VoicePlus
6-341-2289.


> -Original Message-
> From: Allen, John [SMTP:john.al...@rdel.co.uk]
> Sent: 08 December 2000 09:00
> To:   'geor...@lexmark.com'; reyno...@pb.com
> Cc:   emc-p...@ieee.org
> Subject:  RE: International Equivalent of EN50116
> 
> 
> Hi folks
> 
> IEC/EN60950: 2000 Clause 5.2.2 Note 1 refers to routine electric strength
> tests of 1 second duration being permissable.
> 
> There is also the following ECMA std which says pretty much as EN50116:
> 
> ECMA-166  Information Technology Equipment - Routine Electrical Safety
> Testing in Production  
> 
> The next logical place to ask questions is of members of IEC TC74 - does
> any
> one on that committee or its sub-committees know of plans to issue an IEC
> along the lines of EN50116?
> 
> Regards
> 
> John Allen
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: geor...@lexmark.com [mailto:geor...@lexmark.com]
> Sent: 07 December 2000 17:07
> To: reyno...@pb.com
> Cc: emc-p...@ieee.org
> Subject: Re: International Equivalent of EN50116
> 
> 
> 
> Tony,
> 
> My understanding is that there is no international equivalent to EN50116.
> It is also my understanding that IEC 60950 incoporates the essential
> production testing requirements of EN50116 for ITE, viz. earthing
> resistance
> and electric strength.
> 
> But then I have been wrong before
> 
> George
> 
> 
> 
> 
> reynolto%pb@interlock.lexmark.com on 12/07/2000 10:47:41 AM
> 
> Please respond to reynolto%pb@interlock.lexmark.com
> 
> To:   emc-pstc%ieee@interlock.lexmark.com
> cc:(bcc: George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark)
> Subject:  International Equivalent of EN50116
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  All,
> 
>  Can anyone point me in the right direction of an International
>  Equivalent of the European Standard EN50116:1996 Information
>  Technology Equipment - Routine Electrical Safety Testing in
>  Production.
> 
>  Thanks
> 
>  Tony Reynolds
>  Pitney Bowes Ltd
>  The Pinnacles
>  Harlow
>  Essex
>  CM19 5BD
>  UK
>  Tel +44 (0) 1279 449479
>  Fax +44 (0) 1279 449118
>  E-Mail: reyno...@pb.com
> 

---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org

RE: End of Line Testing of IT Equipment

[Crabb, John]

I'm sure we have been through this all before, but here goes :
For equipment certified by UL and CSA (and I assume by other
agencies, but I have no personal experience), the End of Line
Tests will be specified as part of your certification.

For Europe, there is EN 50116, which "defines the routine electrical
safety tests and their procedures to be applied during or after the
manufacturing process of equipment certified or declared as 
complying with EN 60950."

This requires the Earth Bonding Test at 1.5 times the current 
capacity of the circuit, but not more than 25A, with the 0.1 
ohm limit, and an electric stregth test of 1500V ac or the dc 
equivalent, for basic insulation, and 3000V or the dc equivalent
for reinforced insulation, with the proviso that "testing of components
connected between the primary and secondary circuits shall be
performed before final assembly". (i.e. it is ok to use power supplies
where the transformers, etc, have been 100% tested at 3000V).
There is no Insulation Resistance Test specified, and I am unaware
of any such requirement for IT products.

Regards,
John Crabb, Development Excellence (Product Safety) , 
NCR  Financial Solutions Group Ltd.,  Kingsway West, Dundee, Scotland. DD2
3XX
E-Mail :john.cr...@scotland.ncr.com
Tel: +44 (0)1382-592289  (direct ). Fax +44 (0)1382-622243.   VoicePlus
6-341-2289.


> -Original Message-
> From: Tony Reynolds [SMTP:reyno...@pb.com]
> Sent: 29 November 2000 11:02
> To:   emc-p...@ieee.org
> Subject:  End of Line Testing of IT Equipment
> 
> 
>  All,
>  
>  What are the exact requirements for End of Line testing and do they 
>  differ from country to country.  We currently subject products to the
> 
>  following tests:
>  
>  1. Earth Bonding at 25A (resistance to be less than 0.1 Ohms) 
>  
>  2. Dielectric strength test of 2.1KVDC for 2 seconds. 
>  
>  3. Insulation resistance test of 500VDC (resistance to be greater
> than 
> 10MOhms).  
>  
>  Question
>  
>  
>  Is this last test mandatory for product compliance in 
>  UK/Europe/USA/Rest of the World?
>  
>  
>  Kind Regards
>  
>  Tony Reynolds
>  Principal Compliance Engineer
>  Pitney Bowes Ltd
>  The Pinnacles
>  Harlow
>  Essex
>  CM19 5BD
>  Tel +44 1279 449479
>  Fax +44 1279 449118
>  E-Mail: reyno...@pb.com
>  www.pitneybowes.com
> 

---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org

RE: Rechargeable Batteries

[Crabb, John]

One reason I have heard - and I can't recall where, was simply
that the "equipment" (in particular - toys) had originally been 
tested and found to comply with the appropriate requirements, 
when tested with zinc carbon batteries, and manufacturers are 
loath to claim that their equipment is ok with rechargeable 
batteries without doing further tests, so they "default" to making 
the statement referred to. Seems very plausible !!

Regards,
John Crabb, Development Excellence (Product Safety) , 
NCR  Financial Solutions Group Ltd.,  Kingsway West, Dundee, Scotland. DD2
3XX
E-Mail :john.cr...@scotland.ncr.com
Tel: +44 (0)1382-592289  (direct ). Fax +44 (0)1382-622243.   VoicePlus
6-341-2289.


> -Original Message-
> From: cdup...@cs.com [SMTP:cdup...@cs.com]
> Sent: 23 November 2000 23:47
> To:   m...@cjbdev.demon.co.uk; emc-p...@ieee.org
> Subject:  Re: Rechargeable Batteries
> 
> 
> Hi Mark.
> 
> You asked:
> << why do so many battery operated equipments 
>  state that they must not be operated using rechargeable batteries? >>
> 
> There is no one all-purpose reason, but the two main ones, at least the
> ones 
> I worry about with battery powered stuff, are:
> 
> 1.  As you already implied, terminal voltage.  
> NiCads are typically 20% lower terminal volts than Alkaline cells, and as 
> lots of battery operated stuff needs a stabilised supply the headroom 
> required to produce a stabilised supply can take the volts down too low.
> 
> 2.  Short circuit current is very high with NiCad's.  If there is a fault 
> internally, or as in one case that I had, if you drop it in water, the 
> resulting current can destroy the PCB and associated components.  Alkaline
> 
> cells, ar even better, Zinc/carbon cells have a much lower short circuit 
> cirrent and the liklihood of damage, or even fire, is reduced or even 
> prevented completely.
> 
> The short circuit thing is interesting.  My son has a radio controlled car
> 
> with a 7.2V NiCad battery pack.  The short circuit current was enough to
> melt 
> the PVC insulation on the battery wires, 1.5mm^2, and I measured it 
> subsequently at 82Amps.  You could probably start a European car with one
> of 
> those!
> 
> Chris Dupres
> Surrey UK.
> 
> p.s. Anyone wrapped up a alkaline watch battery in aluminum foil?  Don't!

---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org

RE: EPA Hazardous Materials & Lithium Batteries disposal

[Crabb, John]

As far as lithium battery disposal is concerned, for some of our
products, we have had to include the required warning from UL1950, 
1.7.17, in our manuals, namely "CAUTION, Danger of explosion 
if battery is incorrectly replaced. Replace only with the same or 
equivalent type recommended by the manufacturer. Dispose of
used batteries according to the manufacturer's instructions."

It certainly seems to be a complete waste of time including this,
as it is open to question whether there really is a "danger of 
explosion", and also since we don't provide the manufacturer's 
disposal instructions (which for one manufacturer was 
"dispose of according to local regulations"), there is no guidance 
for disposal.

Looking at a UL report from a well known manufacturer of lithium
batteries, they seem pretty robust. The test record shows:
temperature cycling at -54 and +71 degrees C, short circuit
tests, heating in a sand bath at 180 degrees C, being crushed, 
vibration,forced discharge and charge, drop tests, etc. At no
time was there any any evidence of any "danger of explosion",
so maybe we should argue that there is no need for the above
statement - but it's sometimes easier not argueing with UL !!

Regards,
John Crabb, Development Excellence (Product Safety) , 
NCR  Financial Solutions Group Ltd.,  Kingsway West, Dundee, Scotland. DD2
3XX
E-Mail :john.cr...@scotland.ncr.com
Tel: +44 (0)1382-592289  (direct ). Fax +44 (0)1382-622243.   VoicePlus
6-341-2289.


> -Original Message-
> From: Collins, Jeffrey [SMTP:jcoll...@ciena.com]
> Sent: 15 November 2000 21:04
> To:   IEEE EMC-PSTC Forum
> Subject:  EPA Hazardous Materials & Lithium Batteries disposal
> 
> 
> Group,
> 
> I've got two general questions regarding hazardous material:
> 
> 1). Any experience with identifying materials defined as hazardous by the
> EPA? (Is there a list somewhere??)  My customer is interested in steps
> that
> should be taken to: 
> 
>  * Avoid exposure
>  * Avoid injury 
>  * Proper disposal of the material
> 
> I took a look at the EPA website but it appears not to be straight forward
> in identifying what is and is not hazardous.
> We are the Mfg of Telecom equipment so there are no chemicals or fumes
> associated with our products. 
> I've also looked at the WEEE Directive but this is a US based customer and
> they are specifically referencing the EPA.
> 
> 2). Do you provide any instructions / processes regarding the disposal of
> Lithium batteries for your customers?
>  If so what documents/standards are you referencing???
> 
> 
> All replies are appreciated..
> 
> 
> Jeffrey Collins 
> MTS, Principal Compliance Engineer
> Ciena Core Switching Division
> jcoll...@ciena.com
> www.ciena.com
> 
> 

---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org

RE: safe voltage limits for cattle ( cows horses etc)

[Crabb, John]

Try EN 61011, Electric fence energizers.
Safety requirements for mains-operated electric fence energizers.

EN 61011-1 Safety requirements for battery-operated electric
fence energizers suitable for connection to the supply mains.

EN61011-2 Safety requirements for battery-operated electric
fence energizers not for connection to the supply mains.

Not surprisingly, I don't have copies of these, so I don't know
if they will contain the required information.
Regards,

John Crabb, Development Excellence (Product Safety) , 
NCR  Financial Solutions Group Ltd.,  Kingsway West, Dundee, Scotland. DD2
3XX
E-Mail :john.cr...@scotland.ncr.com
Tel: +44 (0)1382-592289  (direct ). Fax +44 (0)1382-622243.   VoicePlus
6-341-2289.


> -Original Message-
> From: CE-test - Ing. Gert Gremmen - ce-marking and more...
> [SMTP:cet...@cetest.nl]
> Sent: 10 November 2000 11:35
> To:   Emc-Pstc@Ieee. Org
> Subject:  safe voltage limits for cattle ( cows horses etc)
> 
>  << Message: Untitled Attachment >>  << File: Gert Gremmen.vcf >> 

---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org

RE: Directive 96/29/euratom

[Crabb, John]

URL for required Directive - happy reading !
http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/lif/dat/1996/en_396L0029.html
John Crabb, Development Excellence (Product Safety) , 
NCR  Financial Solutions Group Ltd.,  Kingsway West, Dundee, Scotland. DD2
3XX
E-Mail :john.cr...@scotland.ncr.com
Tel: +44 (0)1382-592289  (direct ). Fax +44 (0)1382-622243.   VoicePlus
6-341-2289.


>   From:   Chaplis, Bob [SMTP:chapl...@genrad.com]
>   Sent:   08 November 2000 21:21
>   To: 'emc-p...@ieee.org'
>   Subject:Directive 96/29/euratom
> 
> 
>   Hello,
> 
> Can anyone tell me when directive 96/29/EURATOM of 13 May 96 was
> published
>   in the European Journal and would anybody have a copy of the
> directive that
>   they would be willing to send me. I would also like to know what the
>   standard is ( if one ) that the EU has published as acceptable to
> show
>   compliance to that directive. Any help would be appreciated.
> 
> 
>Thank You
> 
>   Bob Chaplis
> 
>   Genrad.
> 

---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org

RE: Directive 96/29/euratom

[Crabb, John]

In the latest edition of EN 60950:2000, Safety of IT Equipment,
Annex H, Ionizing Radiation, you will find the following changed 
text : -
"At any point 10cm from the surface of the OPERATOR ACCESS 
AREA, the dose rate shall not exceed 1uSv/h (0.1 mR/h) (see note).
Account is taken of the background level.
NOTE - These values appear in Directive 96/29/Euratom."

The previous limit was 0.5 mR/h at 5cm, taken from ICRP 15.

I had noted that it is surprising 
a) that nobody requested this change until now - shows you how 
(un)important it is, and 
b) that nobody objected to the Euratom Directive when it was
proposed, as the new limit is different from that found in IEC 60950 
and in 21CFR, Subchapter J.

Which brings me on to a long-standing "beef" of mine :
Given that the X-ray requirements for monitors in UL1950 and 
21CFR are to all intent and purposes the same, can CDRH not
be persuaded to drop all their paperwork that has to be gone
thru to get an Accession number for a monitor, if it is already
UL Listed or Recognized ?

Regards.
John Crabb, Development Excellence (Product Safety) , 
NCR  Financial Solutions Group Ltd.,  Kingsway West, Dundee, Scotland. DD2
3XX
E-Mail :john.cr...@scotland.ncr.com
Tel: +44 (0)1382-592289  (direct ). Fax +44 (0)1382-622243.   VoicePlus
6-341-2289.


> -Original Message-
> From: Chaplis, Bob [SMTP:chapl...@genrad.com]
> Sent: 08 November 2000 21:21
> To:   'emc-p...@ieee.org'
> Subject:  Directive 96/29/euratom
> 
> 
> Hello,
> 
>   Can anyone tell me when directive 96/29/EURATOM of 13 May 96 was
> published
> in the European Journal and would anybody have a copy of the directive
> that
> they would be willing to send me. I would also like to know what the
> standard is ( if one ) that the EU has published as acceptable to show
> compliance to that directive. Any help would be appreciated.
> 
> 
>  Thank You
> 
> Bob Chaplis
> 
> Genrad.
> 

---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org

RE: UL1950 - Clause 2.5.5

[Crabb, John]

I am sure that UL would not make an issue of this - I have 
certainly mentioned it to UL engineers in the past, and have
been told they would not prevent Listing of a product to 
UL1950 because of a green wire in a power cord - no more
than they would prevent Listing of a product with an internal
US NEMA socket/plug, where you can touch the pins during
disconnection !!

Reagrds,
John Crabb, Development Excellence (Product Safety) , 
NCR  Financial Solutions Group Ltd.,  Kingsway West, Dundee, Scotland. DD2
3XX
E-Mail :john.cr...@scotland.ncr.com
Tel: +44 (0)1382-592289  (direct ). Fax +44 (0)1382-622243.   VoicePlus
6-341-2289.


> -Original Message-
> From: Loop, Robert [SMTP:rl...@hnt.wylelabs.com]
> Sent: 06 November 2000 15:53
> To:   emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
> Subject:  UL1950 - Clause 2.5.5
> 
> 
> Group,
> 
> We are looking at a Class 1, cord connected product that utilizes a NEMA
> 5-15P plug on one end and is wired to a non-service accessible terminal
> block in the rear of the unit with a Recognized compression fitting for
> strain relief.  The product is being evaluated against UL1950.
> 
> Here's the problem:
> 
> The manufacturer only wants to sell the product in the USA and is using a
> UL
> listed cordset with US color code (black/white/green).  Clause 2.5.5
> requires that the ground wire be bare or green with a yellow stripe.  They
> have expressed an unwillingness to change out the cordset claiming ( in
> which my experience agrees) that no one sells a cordset with
> black/white/green-yellow color code. 
> 
> In order to meet the letter of the clause, we could require them to strip
> the 1-1/2 " portion of the green wire that extends past the outer
> jacketing,
> but it seems like a backhanded way of meeting the Clause (does the bare
> wire
> make the product any safer?).
> 
> I remember some clause in 1950 making reference to installing the product
> "in accordance with the national wiring rules", but can't seem to locate
> it.
> If that's the case, and the NEC does recognize the black/white/green color
> code, what's the best answer to resolve this?
> 
> Your engineering expertise and enlightenment is always welcomed.
> 
> 
> Sincerely,
> Robert Loop
> Engineering Supervisor
> Wyle Laboratories 
> Product Safety
> ph - (256) 837-4411 x313
> fax- (256) 721-0144
> e-mail: rl...@hnt.wylelabs.com
> 
> 
> ---
> This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
> Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.
> 
> To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
>  majord...@ieee.org
> with the single line:
>  unsubscribe emc-pstc
> 
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
>  Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
>  Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org
> 
> For policy questions, send mail to:
>  Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
> 

---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org

RE: Test voltage for products to the U.K.

[Crabb, John]

I still have in my filing tray, the following statement which I received
from my electricity supply company : 
"From 1 January 1995, the declared nominal voltage of your electricity 
supply will change.
Existing declared nominal supply voltage and permitted variation
240V (225.6 - 254.4 V)"   (= 240 +/- 6%)

"Nominal Supply Voltage and permitted variation from Jan 1 1995
230V (216.2 - 253 V)" (= 230 -6% +10%).

There is also the subtle statement "You will see that the existing
voltage range falls almost entirely within the new range".

What this meant, is that in order to comply with HD 472 S1, which
required that "the electricity supply authorities of countries having 
240/415 V systems should bring the voltage within the range 
230/400 V +10% -6%", the UK effectively did nothing, since, as 
you will see above, the new declared voltage range almost falls 
within the old declared voltage range.

IEC 60950 was changed to include the requirement that "if the rated 
voltage is 230V ...the tolerance (in determining the most unfavourable
supply voltage for a test) shall not be less than +10% and - 10%",
particularly to take the new European declared voltage and 
tolerance into account. As I recollect, the BSI committee (of which
I am a member) reluctantly agreed that a product which was "safe" 
at 230V +10%, namely 253V, would probably still be safe at
240V +6%, namely 254.4V. We did note, however, that other 
safety standards had not changed the tolerances on their test
voltages - but we were only responsible for IEC/EN 60950. 

Digging around further, I have found the following : -
"BEAB Requirement No. 22", June 1995.
"Testing of products rated 230V only.
Requirement. When products are assessed for use in the UK,
and are marked 230V only, where the standard calls for a 
factor greater than 1.0 of rated voltage or rated inpurt, the
tests shall be based on an assumed rated voltage of 240V. 
Where appropriate, rated input shall be recalculated for
testing purposes."
"Information. At a meeting on 23 February 1995 the UK
Notified Bodies expressed to the DTI their concern that a 
test to the standard of a product for the UK marked 230V only
would not adequately meet their obligation under the Low
Voltage Directive as implemented by the Electrical Equipment
(Safety) Regulations 1994, knowing that the product would be
connected to a supply centered on 240V.  The DTI accepted 
the decisions of the meeting as representing "good engineering
practice" concerning the testing for safety of products for the
UK market, and will so advise the European Commission. This
BEAB Requirement gives guidance to Test Laboratories 
following that decision".

I have no knowledge of any later revisions of the above BEAB
document.

Regards,
John Crabb, Development Excellence (Product Safety) , 
NCR  Financial Solutions Group Ltd.,  Kingsway West, Dundee, Scotland. DD2
3XX
E-Mail :john.cr...@scotland.ncr.com
Tel: +44 (0)1382-592289  (direct ). Fax +44 (0)1382-622243.   VoicePlus
6-341-2289.

---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org

RE: Correlation of UL 1950 and "DIN EN 60950 (VDE 0805)" also EN/ IEC 60721-3-3 (-2)

[Crabb, John]

EN 60721-3 = Classification of groups of environmental parameters
and their severities.

According to the BSI catalogue,  EN 60721-3-2 is identical to 
IEC 60721-3-2, Transportation, defines conditions to which a product 
is subjected while being transported from one place to another after 
being made ready for dispatch from the manufacturing factory.

Similarly EN 60721-3-3 is identical to IEC 60721-3-3, Stationary use
at weatherprotected locations, classifies the groups of environmental
parameters and their severities to which products are subjected when
mounted for stationary use at weatherprotected locations.

As far as DIN and/or VDE "equivalents" are concerned, I can only 
comment that when an EN is published, the European members of 
CEN/CENELEC are mandated to transpose the EN into a national
standard without modification. I seem to recall once having seen 
a copy of VDE 0805, the German version of EN 60950 - and it had 
pages and pages of German modifications.
Regards,
John Crabb, Development Excellence (Product Safety) , 
NCR  Financial Solutions Group Ltd.,  Kingsway West, Dundee, Scotland. DD2
3XX
E-Mail :john.cr...@scotland.ncr.com
Tel: +44 (0)1382-592289  (direct ). Fax +44 (0)1382-622243.   VoicePlus
6-341-2289.


> -Original Message-
> From: Terry Meck [SMTP:tjm...@accusort.com]
> Sent: 09 May 2000 20:06
> To:   emc-p...@ieee.org
> Subject:  Correlation of UL 1950 and "DIN EN 60950 (VDE 0805)" also
> EN/IEC 60721-3-3 (-2)
> 
> 
> Hello:
> 
> Who knows what the correlation is between UL 1950 and "DIN EN 60950
> (VDE 0805)" ? 
> Can it be said that when CB deviations are considered both standards
> are covered?
> 
> I am also looking for a description of:
> 
> DIN EN/IEC 60721-3-3 class combination IE33
> DIN EN/IEC 60721-3-2 class combination IE21
> 
> Will I have what I need if I purchase the EN/IEC 60721-3-3 and EN/IEC
> 60721-3-2.  Obviously I don't know these standards.  
> Any direction will be appreciated.
> Thanks!
> 
> 
> Best regards,
> Terry J. Meck
> Senior Compliance/Test Engineer
> Phone:215-721-5280
> Fax:215-721-5551 hard copy;
> Fax PC: 215.799.1650 To my desk PC
> tjm...@accusort.com
> Accu-Sort Systems Inc.
> 511 School House Rd.
> Telford, PA 18969-1196 USA
> 
> 
> ---
> This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
> Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.
> 
> To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
>  majord...@ieee.org
> with the single line:
>  unsubscribe emc-pstc
> 
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
>  Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
>  Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org
> 
> For policy questions, send mail to:
>  Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
> 

---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org

RE: Indicator Color and Safety

[Crabb, John]

The use of the colour red for on/off switches is now enshrined in 
history, and I see no reason to "outlaw" the practice, provided it 
"does not create a hazard". ( I must be getting old, if I am 
starting to use the "it has always been this way" argument).

Looking in catalogues for switches in common use in the UK,
I can find many examples of switches with red neon indicators.
For example, a wall mounted on/off switch used to isolate your
stove, water heater, or furnace, invariably has such an indicator, 
and "everyone" knows that it is just indicating that power is "on".
If your customer asks for a red neon indicator in the switch, 
and wants his product certified to 60950, I doubt if a certifying
agency will make any comment.
John Crabb, Development Excellence (Product Safety) , 
NCR  Financial Solutions Group Ltd.,  Kingsway West, Dundee, Scotland. DD2
3XX
E-Mail :john.cr...@scotland.ncr.com
Tel: +44 (0)1382-592289  (direct ). Fax +44 (0)1382-622243.   VoicePlus
6-341-2289.


> -Original Message-
> From: wo...@sensormatic.com [SMTP:wo...@sensormatic.com]
> Sent: 22 March 2000 18:48
> To:   emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
> Subject:  RE: Indicator Color and Safety
> 
> Robert, I disagree with your premise but I believe your conclusion is
> correct. Equipment can have a switch that does not comply as the primary
> disconnect as long as it has an acceptable disconnect means such as an
> appliance coupler. In that case, the switch provides a user function but
> not
> a safety function within the meaning of the standard.
> 
> Any color indicator may be used as long as it is clear that the indicator
> is
> not related to safety. For example, a red activity indicator on a disk
> drive
> is acceptable. However, a red indicator on a power on/off switch may be a
> problem even if the switch is not the primary disconnect.
> 
> Richard Woods
>   --
>   From:  Robert Legg [SMTP:rl...@tectrol.com]
>   Sent:  Wednesday, March 22, 2000 12:34 PM
>   To:  IEEE EMC-PSTC Forum
>   Subject:  Indicator Color and Safety
> 
>   The on/off power switch for a module or system must surely be
> considered
>   to be 'safety related', and therefore subject to the provisions of
> IEC73.
> 
>   What do you do if a customer specifies an integral red neon
> indicator in
>   the switch and certification to 60950?
> 
>   R.Legg
>   Tectrol Inc.
>   rl...@tectrol.com
> 
> 

---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org

RE: Inquiry on Restrictions and Bans of Mercury in Product compon ents

[Crabb, John]

The A deviation for Sweden is in the current issue of EN 60950,
and is also in the latest version of EN60950 (not yet issued, 
equivalent to IEC 60950 third edition).

I note that the latest version of EN 60950 also has the same note
re switches containing mercury, as an A Deviation for Switzerland,
with the reference "Ordinance on environmentally hazardous 
substances SR 814.013, Annex 3.2, Mercury"

Regards,
John Crabb, Development Excellence (Product Safety) , 
NCR  Financial Solutions Group Ltd.,  Kingsway West, Dundee, Scotland. DD2
3XX
E-Mail :john.cr...@scotland.ncr.com
Tel: +44 (0)1382-592289  (direct ). Fax +44 (0)1382-622243.   VoicePlus
6-341-2289.


> -Original Message-
> From: Paul J Smith [SMTP:paul_j_sm...@notes.teradyne.com]
> Sent: 07 January 2000 17:13
> To:   Crabb, John
> Cc:   emc-p...@ieee.org
> Subject:  RE: Inquiry on Restrictions and Bans of Mercury in Product
> components
> 
> 
> John,
> 
> Thanks for your reply.
> 
> Following up on this deviation for restricting switched containing
> mercury- When
> a country as Sweden did in 1995 becomes a member of the EU does anyone
> know if
> the A deviations cited in EN60950 was relaxed or removed?
> 
> re: Annex ZC, A-Deviations, in EN 60950 :Swedish National deviation:-
> Clause 1.5.1 Sweden (Ordinance SFS 1991:1290)
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> If questions, please contact me ASAP.
> 
> 
> Best Regards,Paul J Smith
>Teradyne, Inc.,
>    paul.j.sm...@teradyne.com
>Fax 603-843-7526
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Crabb, John"  on 01/07/2000 04:21:29 AM
> 
> To:   Paul J Smith/Bos/Teradyne@Teradyne
> cc:
> Subject:  RE: Inquiry on Restrictions and Bans of Mercury in Product
> compon ents
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Annex ZC, A-Deviations, in EN 60950 includes the following
> Swedish National deviation:-
> Clause 1.5.1 Sweden (Ordinance SFS 1991:1290)
> Add the following:
> Note:Switches containing mercury such as thermostats, relays
> and level controllers are not allowed.
> 
> Regards,
> John Crabb, Development Excellence (Product Safety) ,
> NCR  Financial Solutions Group Ltd.,  Kingsway West, Dundee, Scotland. DD2
> 3XX
> E-Mail :john.cr...@scotland.ncr.com
> Tel: +44 (0)1382-592289  (direct ). Fax +44 (0)1382-622243.   VoicePlus
> 6-341-2289.
> 
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From:   Paul J Smith [SMTP:paul_j_sm...@notes.teradyne.com]
> > Sent:   04 January 2000 21:45
> > To: s...@world.std.com; n...@world.std.com; t...@world.std.com;
> > emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
> > Subject: Inquiry on Restrictions and Bans of Mercury in Product
> > components
> >
> >
> > Folks,
> >
> > Can anyone provide specific text or reference that provides a specific
> > restriction, limitation or ban to import into Europe or North America of
> > any
> > component or system that includes relays with mercury in it . I only
> found
> > a ban
> > for  Mercury content of all kinds of batteries ( except button cells) in
> > Directive 91/157/EEC
> >
> > Further, can someone provide any reference to a similar ban or
> restriction
> > on
> > electronics use of Cadmium, Lead, Nickel, Tin, or  Beryllium? Any
> feedback
> > is
> > appreciated.  Thanks
> >
> > Best Regards,Paul J Smith
> >Teradyne, Inc.,
> >Boston, MA 02118
> >paul.j.sm...@teradyne.com
> >Voice 617-422-2997
> >Fax 603-843-7526 or Fax 627-422-2801
> >
> >
> >
> > -
> > This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
> > To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
> > with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
> > quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
> > jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
> > roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
> >
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -
> This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
> To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
> with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
> quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
> jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
> roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
> 

-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

RE: Y2K glitch

[Crabb, John]

As the worlds "No. 1" manufacturer of ATMs, and probably the manufacturer
of the ATM in question, I have received the following information from our 
people in Hungary : -
"The scanned ATM receipt is NOT REAL, the date on it  had been manually 
altered, but it is not a good joke, it is a serious assault to OTP, and they
have 
already taken legal actions against an anonymus person, who made this and 
put it on the Internet."

Possibly we should be more careful about circulating information which
could be considered defamatory. However, as I always say, "I am not a 
lawyer !" (Safety engineers don't get paid that much !!!)

Regards,
John Crabb, Development Excellence (Product Safety) , 
NCR  Financial Solutions Group Ltd.,  Kingsway West, Dundee, Scotland. DD2
3XX
E-Mail :john.cr...@scotland.ncr.com
Tel: +44 (0)1382-592289  (direct ). Fax +44 (0)1382-622243.   VoicePlus
6-341-2289.


> -Original Message-
> From: Ken Javor [SMTP:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com]
> Sent: 06 January 2000 19:21
> To:   emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
> Subject:  FW: Y2K glitch
> 
> Here's a little (real) Y2 K glitch from Hungary.  The attached picture is
> of
> an automatic teller machine receipt.  The date is circled in orange, as is
> a
> proud disclaimer beneath stating that the OTP Bank's ATMs are Y2K
> compliant.
> Enjoy! << File: OTPy2k.jpg >> 

-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

RE: Mercury content and Bio degradable packaging

[Crabb, John]

Not particularly relating to packaging, but there is an A-Deviation
in Annex ZC of EN 60950 for Sweden, (Ordinance SFS 1991:1290)
stating Clause 1.5.1,
"Switches containing mercury such as thermostats, relays and
level controllers are not allowed."

Regards.
John Crabb, Development Excellence (Product Safety) , 
NCR  Financial Solutions Group Ltd.,  Kingsway West, Dundee, Scotland. DD2
3XX
E-Mail :john.cr...@scotland.ncr.com
Tel: +44 (0)1382-592289  (direct ). Fax +44 (0)1382-622243.   VoicePlus
6-341-2289.


> -Original Message-
> From: Leslie Bai [SMTP:leslie_...@yahoo.com]
> Sent: 10 December 1999 22:21
> To:   EMC-PSTC
> Subject:  Mercury content and Bio degradable packaging
> 
> 
> Hello, Group:
> 
> I would appreciate any comments on the
> following two issues:
> 
> 1. Has the use/content of mercury been 
> banned substaince in EC? I know Denmark
> has already implemented. Any other countries?
> 
> 2. What countries has required for 
> bio-degradable packaging of products?
> 
> It would be very much helpful if anyone
> can direct me to the source of information provided.
> 
> Thanks in advance.
> 
> Leslie
> Digital Microwave Corporation
> San Jose, California
> 

-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

RE: Products with high power LEDs

[Crabb, John]

I would suspect that any lawyer would tell you that you should apply 
"due diligence", and use EN 60825-1.
Regards,
John Crabb, Development Excellence (Product Safety) , 
NCR  Financial Solutions Group Ltd.,  Kingsway West, Dundee, Scotland. DD2
3XX
E-Mail :john.cr...@scotland.ncr.com
Tel: +44 (0)1382-592289  (direct ). Fax +44 (0)1382-622243.   VoicePlus
6-341-2289.


> -Original Message-
> From: wo...@sensormatic.com [SMTP:wo...@sensormatic.com]
> Sent: 07 December 1999 21:23
> To:   emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
> Subject:  Products with high power LEDs
> 
> 
> Assume a business product with a high power LED for use in the EU and that
> it operates at 230V. It will be subject to the Low Voltage Directive, so
> EN60950 and EN60825-1 would apply. Now assume a similar product but it
> operates at 24V. The LVD would not apply in this case. What are the legal
> compliance requirements for the LED output?
> 
> -
> This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
> To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
> with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
> quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
> jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
> roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
> 

-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

RE: Handheld tool display window

[Crabb, John]

As a manufacturer of Automated Teller Machines (ATMs)
which are subject to considerable mechanical abuse, we
have not found any particular standards detailing tests for
such abuse. There are requirements for impact tests for the 
exterior of enclosures which would give access to hazards, 
in IEC 60950. (Dropping the 50 mm dia steel ball thru 1.3m).
I would suggest that you consider using clear polycarbonate 
sheet rather than glass, since such sheeting is very resistant to 
abuse. Have a look at your competitors products !
Regards,
John Crabb, Development Excellence (Product Safety) , 
NCR  Financial Solutions Group Ltd.,  Kingsway West, Dundee, Scotland. DD2
3XX
E-Mail :john.cr...@scotland.ncr.com
Tel: +44 (0)1382-592289  (direct ). Fax +44 (0)1382-622243.   VoicePlus
6-341-2289.


> -Original Message-
> From: Richard Lanzillotto [SMTP:rl...@concentric.net]
> Sent: 30 November 1999 22:23
> To:   emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
> Subject:  Handheld tool display window
> 
> For display window of hand held tool, concern is of glass shattering. 
> We would like to develop mechanical abuse test plan.  
> Is anyone familar with UL, CE, MIL or industry specs 
> that address this? Thank You.

-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

RE: Earth Leakage Measurement Circuit per EN 60950

[Crabb, John]

I use a Yokogawa Type 3226 Universal Leakage Current Meter
which is quite old, (10 years ++) and can measure ac current, 
dc current, and dc+ac current, with input resistances of 1,
1.5 and 2 kohms.

I also have a Simpson 229-2 (also quite old) which gives me very
similar results to the above.

The UL Data Sheets I use for the submission of results through
the Client Test Data Program, (dated 1997) state "for 
measurements involving UL1950 second edition, use the Simpson 
229-2 or equivalent.
For UL1950 Third Edition testing, use the Simpson 228 or 
equivalent".  A previous revision of these Data Sheets dated 1995
had the meter numbers the other way round, which might explain 
your problem. The 228 meter is the "latest" meter.

UL (and CSA) seem quite happy to accept my results using the 
Yokogawa meter. I once got the UL engineer to bring his Simpson 
228 with him, and if I recall correctly, it read slightly higher than the 
Yokogawa, and the UL engineer allowed me to continue using
the Yokogawa. It would be interesting to directly compare results
using the 2 Simpson meters on typical IT equipment. I suspect 
there would not be much difference in the readings. I do wonder
how the Simpson 228 with a moving needle indication manages
to meet the 1 MHz frequency requirement of IEC 60950.

I have literature on a HIOKI 3155-01 Leak Current HiTESTER,
which can be fitted with networks for 990/1010-1/950, or for
IEC 601-1. IT IS EXPENSIVE (2110 pounds + 245 pounds
for the 950/990 network). I thought about getting this meter,
but as long as UL and CSA accept the results from my "golden
oldie", I couldn't justify it !!
John Crabb, Development Excellence (Product Safety) , 
NCR  Financial Solutions Group Ltd.,  Kingsway West, Dundee, Scotland. DD2
3XX
E-Mail :john.cr...@scotland.ncr.com
Tel: +44 (0)1382-592289  (direct ). Fax +44 (0)1382-622243.   VoicePlus
6-341-2289.


> -Original Message-
> From: Scott Douglas [SMTP:s_doug...@ecrm.com]
> Sent: 29 November 1999 13:31
> To:   peperk...@compuserve.com; dincan.ho...@snellwilcox.com
> Cc:   emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
> Subject:  RE: Earth Leakage Measurement Circuit per EN 60950
> 
> 
> Peter,
> 
> I own and once used a Simpson 228 and was told that it did not comply with
> the test requirements of '950. So I bought the Simpson 229-2 and that was
> accepted. Since then, the standard was changed again and the 229-2 was no
> longer compliant. I ended up buying an ED&D LT-951 Leakage Current Tester
> that has since been accepted as performing the test according to the
> standard. I never really understood the total issue (did not spend the
> time
> to) and just bought equipment that would satisfy those agency guys. Shame
> on
> me.
> 
> I would like to hear from others as to what equipment they use and does
> anybody really know if it complies to the standard?
> 
> Scott
> s_doug...@ecrm.com
> ECRM Incorporated
> Tewksbury, MA  USA
> 

-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

RE: Supply tolerance for Brazil

[Crabb, John]

"World Electricity Supplies (from BSI) gives household voltage as
220/127V, +5%. -7.5%.
John Crabb, Development Excellence (Product Safety) , 
NCR  Financial Solutions Group Ltd.,  Kingsway West, Dundee, Scotland. DD2
3XX
E-Mail :john.cr...@scotland.ncr.com
Tel: +44 (0)1382-592289  (direct ). Fax +44 (0)1382-622243.   VoicePlus
6-341-2289.


> -Original Message-
> From: Jasmine TAN [SMTP:sb...@ctlsg.creaf.com]
> Sent: 22 November 1999 07:36
> To:   emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
> Subject:  Supply tolerance for Brazil
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Understood that the operating (domestic)  voltage in Brazil ranges from
> 110-220V 60Hz.
> Can someone pls advise on the supply tolerance.
> 
> Thanks
> Jess
> 
> 
> -
> This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
> To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
> with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
> quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
> jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
> roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
> 

-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

RE: Non flammable material

[Crabb, John]

>From IEC 74/510/CD, draft amendment to IEC 60950,
Material flammability classifications,  
HBF replaced by FH-3. "The new definitions are not in all
cases identical to the earlier ones."

I imagine the -40 in the FH3-40 you refer to is the burning
rate of 40mm/min specified for HBF.

A certain national committee, not too many miles from Dundee,
commented on this proposal that we "welcome the proposal 
in principle. However, in view of the widespread use of 
UL-recognized materials, (we) would not support the proposal 
being advanced to a CDV until it is agreed that IEC-rated and  
UL-rated materials are accepted by test houses world-wide 
as equivalent and interchangeable"

John Crabb, Development Excellence (Product Safety) , 
NCR  Financial Solutions Group Ltd.,  Kingsway West, Dundee, Scotland. DD2
3XX
E-Mail :john.cr...@scotland.ncr.com
Tel: +44 (0)1382-592289  (direct ). Fax +44 (0)1382-622243.   VoicePlus
6-341-2289.


> -Original Message-
> From: raymond...@dixonsasia.com.hk [SMTP:raymond...@dixonsasia.com.hk]
> Sent: 18 November 1999 08:11
> To:   emc-p...@ieee.org
> Subject:  Non flammable material
> 
> Can anyone tell me where I can find the corresponding UL non flammable
> material of FH3-40 required in EN60065 (referenced to IEC60384-1).  The
> material suppliers in the Far East are more familiar with UL materials
> than
> European materials.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Raymond Li
> 

-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

RE: internet information

[Crabb, John]

Sorry to add to the confusion, but the British trade 
association FEI publishes a document on periodic 
safety checks for business equipment, which includes 
a table of conductor sizes and fuse sizes
for British plugs, with the following note:
"BS 1363 specifies only the use of 3 A or 13 A fuses. 
Conditions applicable to using a 5 A fuse with a 0.5 mm2 
conductor are given in BS 1363."

This seems to tie up with my (old) copy of BS1363, 
which specifies a 3A fuse for 0.5mm2 cord, and a 13A fuse 
for 0.75, 1.00, 1.25 and 1.50 mm2 cords. 
Adjacent to the 3A fuse rating for 0.5 mm2 cord is (5);
with a note that "the figure in brackets indicates the fuse
rating where a non-rewirable plug/cord assy is used
with certain types of equipment where the use of a 5A
fuse link is necessary because of the high instantaneous
input current".

If anyone has the latest version of BS 1363:1984, or 
BS 1363:Part 1:1995, they could confirm the above.
I note that in the BSI catalogue, under the entry for 
BS 1362 (fuses for BS 1363 plugs), it states 
"for use in plugs complying with BS 1363, the preferred
current ratings are 3A and 13A. 
John Crabb, Development Excellence (Product Safety) , 
NCR  Financial Solutions Group Ltd.,  Kingsway West, Dundee, Scotland. DD2
3XX
E-Mail :john.cr...@scotland.ncr.com
Tel: +44 (0)1382-592289  (direct ). Fax +44 (0)1382-622243.   VoicePlus
6-341-2289.


> -Original Message-
> From: Chris Duprés [SMTP:chris_dup...@compuserve.com]
> Sent: 17 November 1999 23:36
> To:   Laura Leyba-Newton
> Cc:   emc-pstc
> Subject:  RE: internet information
> 
> 
> Hi Laura.
> 
> You mention wire type:
> 
> 
> This looks like 0.75mm2 cross section area cable, and should be protected
> by a 5A fuse.
> 
> Chris Duprés
> Surrey, UK.
> 

-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

RE: Underfloor Radiant Heating Panels for Europe

[Crabb, John]

In the BSI catalogue I have found : -
BS EN 1264 Floor Heating. Systems and Components
comprises :
BS EN 1264-1:1998 Definitions and symbols
BS EN 1264-2:1998 Determination of the thermal output
BS EN 1264-3: 1998 Dimensioning
All the above BS are identical to the EN.
There is also a BSI CP 1018 (Code of practice), Electric 
floorwarming systems for use with off-peak and similar 
supplies of electricity.
Regards,
John Crabb, Development Excellence (Product Safety) , 
NCR  Financial Solutions Group Ltd.,  Kingsway West, Dundee, Scotland. DD2
3XX
E-Mail :john.cr...@scotland.ncr.com
Tel: +44 (0)1382-592289  (direct ). Fax +44 (0)1382-622243.   VoicePlus
6-341-2289.


> -Original Message-
> From: pmerguer...@itl.co.il [SMTP:pmerguer...@itl.co.il]
> Sent: 16 November 1999 13:57
> To:   emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
> Subject:  Underfloor Radiant Heating Panels for Europe
> 
> 
> Hello Group!
> 
> Can someone help me identify the correct standard for the subject product
> to be used in buildings to warm the floor? The panels are to be under the
> floor or under the carpet and permanently installed to the supply through
> an electrical junction box.
> 
> If it helps, these panels are covered under UL1693 in the US.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> +++
> RTTE Directive Seminar
> Renaissance Hotel, Tel-Aviv
> 12th January 2000. For details:
> http://www.itl.co.il/RTTE.htm
> +++
> 
> 
> Peter Merguerian
> Managing Director
> Product Testing Division
> I.T.L. (Product Testing) Ltd.
> Hacharoshet 26, POB 211
> Or Yehuda 60251, Israel
> 
> 

-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

RE: Grounding Questions

[Crabb, John]

Ed, we do not find it necessary to specify an additional ground for our
Automated Teller Machines, other than the ground provided thru the
power cord. They are used in similar circumstances to your products.
We do state in our "site preparation" documents, "WARNING This
equipment must be earthed". If for any reason the product was not
grounded, I suspect you would find out quite quickly, since the leakage
current, although under 3.5 mA, would be noticable !!
Regards,
John Crabb, Development Excellence (Product Safety) , 
NCR  Financial Solutions Group Ltd.,  Kingsway West, Dundee, Scotland. DD2
3XX
E-Mail :john.cr...@scotland.ncr.com
Tel: +44 (0)1382-592289  (direct ). Fax +44 (0)1382-622243.   VoicePlus
6-341-2289.


> -Original Message-
> From: Price, Ed [SMTP:ed.pr...@cubic.com]
> Sent: 15 November 1999 22:12
> To:   'emc-p...@ieee.org'
> Subject:  Grounding Questions
> 
> 
> Hi Listmembers!
> 
> 
> I have some questions about electrical power feed grounding.
> 
> One of our divisions makes revenue control equipment (turnstiles, change
> machines, ticket vending machines) which are installed in rapid transit
> stations. The physical installation ranges from free concrete floor
> standing
> to mounting in a concrete wall alcove. All machines have massive
> (vandalism
> problems with cash inside machines) stainless steel housings which the
> public can and will touch constantly (while standing on possibly wet
> concrete floors).
> 
> In the USA, the power for these machines is supplied from a central
> distribution panel, through conduit, to a surface-mount electrical box
> equipped with a Twist-Lock style female connector. (All items up to and
> including the female outlet are customer supplied, and the distance from
> the
> distribution panel to the box may be as much as 1500 feet.) The power
> supplied is 277 VAC, 60 Hz single phase power, in a 3 wire system (third
> wire is safety ground), with a typical load of about 4 Amps.
> 
> Should we provide a separate ground stud on our machine case and require
> the
> transit district to provide a ground rod at each machine site? Does this
> present any problems with duplicating the electrical ground which may (or
> may not) exist at the distribution panel? Can we realistically depend on
> the
> third wire ground for safety? If several machines are mounted in a
> gallery,
> should we have a ground rod for each machine?
> 
> Thanks in advance!
> 
> Ed

-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

RE: European Standards in conflict with the EMC directive

[Crabb, John]

I presume you have a copy of PD 6608:1997 = CENELEC REPORT
R079-001:1996, Guide to achieving compliance with EC directives for 
alarm systems. (I don't know if a more up-to-date version exists).
I bought this document to see what it said about safety, but it just 
said "EN 60950 shall apply".

I am NOT an EMC expert, so all I can do is quote 2 statements from
this document : -
"EMC 89/336 Immunity, the product family standard for immunity 
EN 50130-4 shall be used".

"For the time being the Commission did not decide which procedure
is applicable accordingly to Article 13.4 of the CPD Directive. In 
addition to that no Harmonized Standards for components of fire
detection and fire alarm systems have been published in the OJ of
the EU, neither bodies have been notified to issue European Technical
Approvals. Therefore, the CPD is not yet applicable."

I don't know if any this helps, or just adds to the confusion !!
Regards,
John Crabb, Development Excellence (Product Safety) , 
NCR  Financial Solutions Group Ltd.,  Kingsway West, Dundee, Scotland. DD2
3XX
E-Mail :john.cr...@scotland.ncr.com
Tel: +44 (0)1382-592289  (direct ). Fax +44 (0)1382-622243.   VoicePlus
6-341-2289.


> -Original Message-
> From: Ing. Gert Gremmen [SMTP:cet...@cetest.nl]
> Sent: 12 November 1999 08:43
> To:   Kevin Harris
> Cc:   Emc-Pstc
> Subject:  RE: European Standards in conflict with the EMC directive
> Importance:   High
> 
> 
> Here Kevin
> 
> The difference is between
> 
> EN 50130-4  for components of 
> EN 54  ...  for systems as a whole
> 
> The latter deals with requirements of reliability and safety for the whole
> installation
> the earlier deals with protection of the frequency spectrum (EMC
> directive)
> and functional immunity.
> 
> It would have been very nice if the two were made up from the same test
> suite with
> different criteria. They aren't, partially because different people made
> it,
> partially because systems are much larger and don't fit into the 130-4
> suite, and partially because the requirements are different.
> 
> There is also difference in enforcement of the two and in compliance
> routes
> (as you probably noted).
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Gert Gremmen Ing.
> 
> == Ce-test, Qualified testing ==
> Consultants in EMC, Electrical safety and Telecommunication
> Compliance tests for European standards and ce-marking
> Member of NEC/IEC voting committee for EMC.
> Our Web presence: http://www.cetest.nl
> List of current harmonized standards http://www.cetest.nl/emc-harm.htm
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: owner-emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf
> Of
> Kevin Harris
> Sent: woensdag 10 november 1999 18:16
> To:   EMC-PSTC (E-mail)
> Subject:  RE: European Standards in conflict with the EMC directive
> 
> 
> Hello All,
> 
> Well judging by the responses I worded my question poorly. I was trying to
> avoid specifics because I felt the general case would be more of interest
> to
> the group at large. So let me restate the problem.
> 
> 
> Generically
> 
> 1. There is a EMC family product specification for a product published in
> the OJ as a method of  showing compliance to the EMC directive.
> 
> 2. There is a CENELEC document which is published as a EN which is not
> part
> of any new approach directive. It contains (among a lot of other things)
> EMC
> testing clauses.
> 
> 3. CENELEC regulations require national standard organisations to
> implement
> European standards
> 
> 4.The EMC directive requires member countries to adopt standards published
> in the OJ for that directive
> 
> 5.Both CENELEC and the EMC directive require conflicting standards to be
> withdrawn.
> 
> 6.The EMC product family standard and the CENELEC standard have EMC tests
> and test methods which are at odds with each other. They therefor are
> conflicting standards.
> 
> 
> In my case specifically,
> 
> 1.The products are fire systems or components of fire systems
> 
> 2. The EMC family product spec is EN50130-4
> 
> 3. The CENELEC document is EN54 (In several parts) which is a performance
> standard for Fire detection systems
> 
> So my question would be
> 
>  Is there an established procedure for making requests that these groups
> harmonise and follow their own regulations? Does one complain to CENELEC,
> the European Commission or both or someone else entirely?
> 
> Jon Curtis mentioned in his reply that he thought  "attempting to change
> the
> way CENELEC does business is futile". but I think that still I must try
> for
> several reasons.
> 1. This double testing costs large companies like ourselves tens of
> thousands of dollars in added testing cost per year for no particular good
> reason.
> 2. When it gets down to it, CENELEC actually is responsible for the EMC
> document EN 50130-4 as well as the fire standard EN54. If we accept that
> groups within the same standards organisation can't harmonise where does
> that leave us on global standardisation.
> 
> 
> BTW Fo

RE: Operating Tolerance

[Crabb, John]

BSI World Electricity Supplies quotes +/-10% for overhead cable and
+/-7% for underground cables for 220V in Argentina.
For the US, there are tolerances quoted for some cities.
Worst is +/-10% for Pittsburgh for "power" as opposed to "lighting".
Regards
John Crabb, Development Excellence (Product Safety) , 
NCR  Financial Solutions Group Ltd.,  Kingsway West, Dundee, Scotland. DD2
3XX
E-Mail :john.cr...@scotland.ncr.com
Tel: +44 (0)1382-592289  (direct ). Fax +44 (0)1382-622243.   VoicePlus
6-341-2289.


> -Original Message-
> From: Jasmine TAN [SMTP:sb...@ctlsg.creaf.com]
> Sent: 11 November 1999 10:27
> To:   emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
> Subject:  Operating Tolerance
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Could someone please advise if the supply voltage tolerance for US &
> Argentina should be
> +6-10% or +/-10%  of 120V for US & 220V for Argentina ?
> 
> 
> Thanks in advance!
> 
> Jess

-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

RE: IEC 127 fuse

[Crabb, John]

I am going on vacation (to Florida!) tonight, but just to stir things up,
WHY ALL THESE NEVER-ENDING DISCUSSIONS ON IEC127
and UL FUSES.

It IS possible to get products approved by UL and European agencies,
without using different fuses. We buy power supplies and monitors, 
with UL and at least one European approval, and one common fuse. 
(Some with a 1 1/4" fuse, some with a 20 mm).
So make it simple for yourself !

By the way, I have used a SIBA 1 1/4" fuse with IEC 127 characteristics,
but with no approvals, in a "self-declared" product !

Regards,
John Crabb, Development Excellence (Product Safety) , 
NCR  Financial Solutions Group Ltd.,  Kingsway West, Dundee, Scotland. DD2
3XX
E-Mail :john.cr...@scotland.ncr.com
Tel: +44 (0)1382-592289  (direct ). Fax +44 (0)1382-622243.   VoicePlus
6-341-2289.


> -Original Message-
> From: Rick Loiselle [SMTP:rick.loise...@bostonacoustics.com]
> Sent: 29 September 1999 14:57
> To:   emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
> Subject:  IEC 127 fuse
> 
> Hello, 
> 
> We are looking for a 1 1/4", T5AL/250V, customer replaceable fuse for our
> European Audio Amplifier unit, that meets IEC 127.
> 
> Everyone that I've talked to so far (including the big USA Fuse Mfgr's)
> recommend the 5x20mm fuse and fuseholder.  The 5x20mm meets IEC 127, but
> I'm trying to avoid changing the fuseholder.
> 
> Do any of you know where I can find a 1 1/4" fuse, that meets IEC 127 (EN
> 60127)? 
> 
> Best Regards, 
> Rick 
> 

-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

RE: IEC 60990 Vs IEC 60950

[Crabb, John]

For my sins, I am on the BSI committee which provides the British
input to IEC 60950, and I have every sympathy with you, Nick.

I can advise from memory, that the British committee usually tries
to ensure that all the requirements end up in IEC 60950, where 
reasonably practical. I seem to recall this coming up when the 
various circuit diagrams for power systems (1.2.12 in the second 
edition) were to be removed from the third edition, but are now in Annex V.
I can certainly recall at least one member of the UK trade organization,
FEI, insisting recently that he wanted all of the requirements for 
some particular test included in IEC 60950, to avoid the need to buy 
another standard.

The problem is trying to avoid making EN 60950 "enormous", and we 
have to strike a balance.

I must admit that I have copies of IEC 60990, 60529, 479-1, 1032,
and quite a few others which I have bought over the years, just to
get "all" the information. I hate to admit it, but each month I try to read 
the BSI magazine Update Standards from cover to cover, noting any
new standards and Drafts for Public Comment which might affect my 
company. If I think they are sufficiently important, I will buy them !
  
I hesitate to suggest who you should make your point to, but it is no 
secret that the chairman of BSI committee EPL/74, which is responsible 
for IEC 60950, is Robert Ferguson:robert.fergu...@cwcom.net

(I hope he doesn't read this !!!)
Regards,
John Crabb, consultant Engineer, Development Excellence (Product Safety) ,

NCR  Financial Solutions Group Ltd.,  Kingsway West, Dundee, Scotland. DD2
3XX
E-Mail :john.cr...@scotland.ncr.com
Tel: +44 (0)1382-592289  (direct ). Fax +44 (0)1382-622243.   VoicePlus
6-341-2289.


> -Original Message-
> From: Nick Williams [SMTP:n...@conformance.co.uk]
> Sent: 28 September 1999 08:50
> To:   emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
> Subject:  Re: IEC 60990 Vs IEC 60950
> 
> 
> Very little to do with the topc in the header I'm afraid, but...
> 
> This post raises a point which has concerned me for some time, and which
> I'd be interested in opinions from other sources on.
> 
> It is my impression (and it is only an impression - I have made no attempt
> to gather objective evidence) that it is increasingly common for new
> standards to be issued,  and existing standards to be modified, with
> certain tests removed from the standard itself and replaced with a cross
> reference to another harmonised or IEC standard.
> 
> This seems to be particularly true of mechanical tests (e.g. vibration,
> drop test, enclosure access).
> 
> Standards writers would doubtless argue that this makes good sense because
> it make updating these specialist requirements easier, and it standardises
> (!) the requirements between different documents.
> 
> Personally, it's a practice which annoys me and I think it is bad standard
> making. I say this on two grounds:
> 
> 1. Few things annoy me more in relation to standards than spending a shed
> load of money on an enormous document which is supposed to be a
> comprehensive set of requirements and then discovering I have to spend a
> load more money to buy subsidiary standards in order to find out what the
> requirements of the main standard really are. It's difficult not to
> conclude that this is profiteering by the standards publishing bodies.
> 
> 2. When you get a test certificate for an appliance which has been tested
> to (say) BSEN60950:1992 it would be nice to think you could tell exactly
> what requirements have been applied to the product. However, if one has to
> know which version of the subsidiary standards have been applied, the
> process quickly becomes a nightmare.
> 
> 60950 may be a bad choce to illustrate this phenomenon - I'm not very
> familiar with it, although I know lots of other people on this list are.
> The problem is particularly prevalent in machinery standards, but it is
> also creeping into the main electrical safety standards (e.g. EN60204 and
> 60335).
> 
> Personally I can see no reason not to give the full requirements of the
> subsidiary standard in the main standard, and to cross reference the
> subsidiary standard as well. That way, when you buy the main standard you
> get a completely comprehensive set of requirements, but if you want to see
> what might develop you can look at how the subsidiary standards have been
> changed since the main standard was last issued.
> 
> I'd be interested in commends from others on this topic - especially
> anyone
> on the list who is closely involved in standards writing. Maybe if enough
> people agree with me I could turn this into a comment to be sent to
> someone
> who ought to listen.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Nick.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At 12:17 -0400 24/9/99, Peter E. Perkins wrote:
> >PSNet
> >
> >The announcement of the availability of the update to IEC 60990,
> >shown below, has been circulating for a short time now.  As Convenor
> >(Chairman) of this committee I had not g

RE: Re: EN 60 950 and Denmark

[Crabb, John]

For everyones information, the wording of the Danish Special 
National Condition, as found in Annex ZB (normative) of 
BS EN 60950 = EN 60950 is : 
Clause 1.2.4.1,  In Denmark, certain types of Class 1 appliances
(see subclause 3.2.1) may be provided with a plug not
establishing earthing continuity when inserted into Danish
socket-outlets.  
Regards,
John Crabb, Development Excellence (Product Safety) , 
NCR  Financial Solutions Group Ltd.,  Kingsway West, Dundee, Scotland. DD2
3XX
E-Mail :john.cr...@scotland.ncr.com
Tel: +44 (0)1382-592289  (direct ). Fax +44 (0)1382-622243.   VoicePlus
6-341-2289.


> -Original Message-
> From: b...@anritsu.com [SMTP:b...@anritsu.com]
> Sent: 27 September 1999 23:42
> To:   emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
> Subject:  fwd: Re: EN 60 950 and Denmark
> 
> Does Denmark have a different standard from EN60950? 
> Is Denmark a member of CE?
> 
> Barry Ma
> Anritsu Co.
> -- Original Text --
> 
> From: , on 9/27/99 3:31 PM:
> To: iSMTP@ACUS7@Servers[]
> Cc: iSMTP@ACUS7@Servers[]
> 
> Peter,
> Can you cite the IEC 60950 section where this deviation occurs.  In
> looking
> over my copy of the standards, and listed deviations in CBs we have done,
> I could not find a Denmark deviation as the one you stated.
> 
> George Alspaugh
> Lexmark International Inc.
> 
> peter%itl.co...@interlock.lexmark.com on 09/27/99 01:47:46 PM
> 
> Please respond to peter%itl.co...@interlock.lexmark.com
> 
> To:   emc-pstc%majordomo.ieee@interlock.lexmark.com
> cc:
> Subject:  EN 60 950 and Denmark
> 
> Hello Group
> 
> There is a deviation in Denmark which states that earthing
> connection in Denmark may not be established through wall
> socket. My question is how do they earth Class I products in this
> case (if at all)? Is Class I equipment forbidden in Denmark?
> 
> Thank you All,
> 
> PETER S. MERGUERIAN
> MANAGING DIRECTOR
> PRODUCT TESTING DIVISION
> I.T.L. (PRODUCT TESTING) LTD.
> HACHAROSHET 26, P.O.B. 211
> OR YEHUDA 60251, ISRAEL
> 
> TEL: 972-3-5339022
> FAX: 972-3-5339019
> E-MAIL: pe...@itl.co.il
> Visit our Website: http://www.itl.co.il
> 

-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

RE: LCD Displays

[Crabb, John]

If you perform a limited current test on your inverter, as per 
IEC 60950 2.4.2, you will probably find it meets these requirements,
which means that theoretically Operator access is allowed - though
you'll definitely feel it if you touch it :( .However, it does mean that
if the invertor output is not hazardous, you don't have to do the steel 
ball test on the screen.

Rich, you said below "Assuming you are using IEC 60950, a fire 
enclosure is required for any circuit exceeding the limits of ELV,
independent of available current or power."

Why did you mention "exceeding the limits of ELV" ?Surely specific
components require a fire enclosure, regardless of voltage ?
Regards
John Crabb, Development Excellence (Product Safety) , 
NCR  Financial Solutions Group Ltd.,  Kingsway West, Dundee, Scotland. DD2
3XX
E-Mail :john.cr...@scotland.ncr.com
Tel: +44 (0)1382-592289  (direct ). Fax +44 (0)1382-622243.   VoicePlus
6-341-2289.


> -Original Message-
> From: Rich Nute [SMTP:ri...@sdd.hp.com]
> Sent: 24 September 1999 19:27
> To:   duncan.ho...@snellwilcox.com
> Cc:   emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
> Subject:  Re: LCD Displays
> Hi Duncan:
> >   I have a product that has an LCD display with an Inverter that
> operates at
> >   100Khz 2KV and I believe is capable of supplying 6.5mA The question is
> does it
> >   require a fire enclosure? 
> 
> Assuming you are using IEC 60950, a fire enclosure is
> required for any circuit exceeding the limits of ELV,
> independent of available current or power.
> 
> However, you MAY be able to invoke other requirements
> to avoid a fire enclosure.  Here are some of the "outs:"
> 
> Sub-clause 4.4.5.2, third dashed paragraph:
> 
> Some interpretations of allow that once a limited 
> power source has been achieved, ALL circuits down-
> stream from that limited power source are treated
> as limited power even if the voltage is stepped up
> above the limits of limited power.
> 
> Sub-clause 4.4.1, method 2.
> 
> This allows fault testing in lieu of a fire enclosure.
> Most low-power, high voltage inverters are rather 
> simple circuits; extensive fault testing only involves 
> a few components, so such testing is feasible and likely 
> to result in acceptable results.  
> 
> >   If it does what are the requirements for the flamability of the screen
> and any
> >   plastic protective covers fitted to it. 
> 
> A fire enclosure requires that the plastic materials be
> rated V-1 or better.  Note that the fire enclosure need
> not be the overall product enclosure (e.g., screen), but
> can be an inner part designated as the fire enclosure for
> the inverter circuit.
> 
> Best regards,
>  Richard Nute  Product Safety Engineer
>  Hewlett-Packard Company   Product Regulations Group 
>  AiO Division  Tel   :   +1 858 655 3329 
>  16399 West Bernardo Drive FAX   :   +1 858 655 4979 
>  San Diego, California 92127   e-mail:  ri...@sdd.hp.com 
> 

-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

RE: EN60950 - conduit entry dimensions

[Crabb, John]

Looking at a knockout in a box for 20mm conduit, it seems to be 20mm.
My technician, who was an electrician, has never come across 16mm
conduit. I would have thought that if the OD was 16mm, and it was then 
threaded to take a nut, it would go thru a 16mm hole.
regards,
John Crabb, Development Excellence (Product Safety) , 
NCR  Financial Solutions Group Ltd.,  Kingsway West, Dundee, Scotland. DD2
3XX
E-Mail :john.cr...@scotland.ncr.com
Tel: +44 (0)1382-592289  (direct ). Fax +44 (0)1382-622243.   VoicePlus
6-341-2289.


> -Original Message-
> From: Jim Eichner [SMTP:jeich...@statpower.com]
> Sent: 23 September 1999 18:49
> To:   'EMC-PSTC - forum'
> Subject:  EN60950 - conduit entry dimensions
> 
> 
> Greetings all:  In clause 3.2.2 allows the provision of knockouts, cable
> entries, etc. in lieu of a non-detachable power cord for permanently
> connected equipment.  In Table 10, it lists the overall diameter of
> conduit based on the number of conductors involved, up to 16A.  
> 
> In my particular application, there are 2 wires plus earth, and the
> current (and the branch circuit protection) is less than 16A, so the
> table tells me I need a knockout that can accommodate a 16.0mm O.D.
> conduit.  If things are done there anything like they are done here,
> this 16mm conduit will be secured in a fitting of some sort, and the
> knockout needs to be matched to the fitting, not the conduit (i.e. a
> 16mm hole is likely too small).  
> 
> Is there a reference, or can anyone tell me, what the appropriate sized
> hole will be?  Is this standardized somewhere?  
> 
> Thanks in advance for your help,
> 
> 
> Jim Eichner
> > Senior Regulatory Compliance Engineer
> Statpower Technologies Corporation
> jeich...@statpower.com
> http://www.statpower.com
> Any opinions expressed are those of my invisible friend, who really
> exists.  Honest.
>   
> 

-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

RE: UL1950 Flammibility Requirements

[Crabb, John]

UL1950 states : 
4.4.5.2 Components not requiring a fire enclosure
-components in a SECONDARY CIRCUIT supplied by a limited power 
source complying with 2.11, provided that :
-the components are mounted on materials of FLAMMABILITY 
CLASS V-1 or better, and
-the wiring used in such circuits is insulated with PVC,
TFE, PTFE, FEP, neoprene or polyimide.

4.4.4 Materials for enclosures and for decorative parts.
"MECHANICAL ENCLOSURES, ELECTRICAL ENCLOSURES 
and parts of such ENCLOSURES, if located externally to 
FIRE ENCLOSURES, and DECORATIVE PARTS shall be 
of FLAMMABILITY CLASS HB or better, except that small 
external DECORATIVE PARTS that would contribute negligible
fuel to a fire, such as nameplates, mounting feet, key caps,
knobs and the like, shall be exempt from this requirement." 

Seems pretty definite you can use HB material. As far as I know,
"limited power sources" are there in the standard to allow
such things as telephones and PC keyboards to have
HB enclosures.
Regards,  
John Crabb, Development Excellence (Product Safety) , 
NCR  Financial Solutions Group Ltd.,  Kingsway West, Dundee, Scotland. DD2
3XX
E-Mail :john.cr...@scotland.ncr.com
Tel: +44 (0)1382-592289  (direct ). Fax +44 (0)1382-622243.   VoicePlus
6-341-2289.


> -Original Message-
> From: Paul Smith [SMTP:phsm...@excite.co.uk]
> Sent: 22 September 1999 17:13
> To:   emc-p...@ieee.org
> Subject:  UL1950 Flammibility Requirements 
> 
> 
> We are about to trial a protype unit that has a user interface of about 36
> keys in 6 by 6 matrix. We are considering replacing the individual keys
> with a single moulded rubber keypad.
> What flammibility should we be looking to use. (The unit is outside of a
> fire enclosure, is 24 volts and the power source is limited)
> Reading 1950 it would appear that V2 (minimum) is required. It has been
> suggested that the material could be rated as low as HB, but i'm not so
> sure.
> Anybody have any views?
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Paul
> 
> 
> Excite -- Control Yourself.
> This E-mail brought to you by Excite's free E-mail service.
> Get your own E-mail address at http://www.excite.co.uk
> 
> -
> This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
> To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
> with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
> quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
> jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
> roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
> 

-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

RE: FW: Double pole fusing

[Crabb, John]

I recalled that this subject had been discussed in depth at a BSI
committee meeting, but had to dig back to 1995 to find it.
The BSI committee stated, in response to any enquiry such as yours : -

---
Please be aware that the third amendment to IEC 950 explains 
that Tables 1 and 2 are informative, the requirements being contained 
within the text of 2.7.1. and 2.7.4. Incorporating fuses in both the
phase and neutral conductors remains an option and you may prefer
to design your products using this approach.
We have learned that, in practice, there are many items in 
circulation in Europe which incorporate only single pole fusing.
Furthermore, the NOTE in 2.7.4 says that the examples are not
necessarily valid for protective devices in the building installation. 
Where single pole fusing is adopted for Class 1 equipment to be 
installed in countries without a polarised supply connection,
then 2 alternative construction practices which you may like
to consider are : -
1. provide double insulation between both the phase and neutral 
and Protective Earth; or
2. Ensure that both the Protective Earth and un-fused conductor 
are capable of carrying the maximum fault current available
from the building wiring.
This information is provided in good faith and without liability. 

--

I have noted that at least one manufacturer of fused inlet/filters,
Schaffner, I think, have stated in their adverts for such double
fused inlet connectors, that double pole fusing IS a requirement
of IEC 950. I wrote complaining about this (as I tend to do), but
I can't recall any response.

We use single pole fusing in our products, though I note that the
monitors we buy from an Italian supplier, certified by VDE, have
double pole fusing.

Regards. 
John Crabb, Development Excellence (Product Safety) , 
NCR  Financial Solutions Group Ltd.,  Kingsway West, Dundee, Scotland. DD2
3XX
E-Mail :john.cr...@scotland.ncr.com
Tel: +44 (0)1382-592289  (direct ). Fax +44 (0)1382-622243.   VoicePlus
6-341-2289.


-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

RE: Suppression capacitors

[Crabb, John]

The standard which applies is IEC 60384-14 Fixed capacitors for 
use in electronic equipment-Part 14, Sectional Specification;
Fixed capacitors for electromagnetic interference suppression and 
connection to the supply mains.

I only have a draft in my possession. It states "Capacitor of Class X,
a capacitor of a type suitable for use in situations where failure
of the capacitor would not lead to danger of electric shock...divided
into 3 sub-classes according to the peak voltage of the impulses 
superimposed on the mains voltage to which they may be subjected 
in service."  

"Capacitor of Class Y, a capacitor suitable for use in situations where
failure of the capacitor could lead to danger of electric shock...
divided into 4 sub-classes Y1, Y2, Y3, and Y4."

I'm sure you could get lots of information from any filter manufacturer,
especially Schaffner, or from a capacitor manufacturere such as 
EVOX/RIFA. I can tell you now that it is a complicated subject that I
am not expert on, but I have a file of magazine articles, etc.
You only have to look at clause 1.5.6 Mains Capacitors of IEC 60950
to see how complicated it is. 

Nick - if you want me to send you copies of anything I have on the
subject, let me know your address, but anything I have goes back 
to around 1992, and the draft IEC 384-14 which became 
IEC 384-14: 1993.
Regards.
John Crabb, Development Excellence (Product Safety) , 
NCR  Financial Solutions Group Ltd.,  Kingsway West, Dundee, Scotland. DD2
3XX
E-Mail :john.cr...@scotland.ncr.com
Tel: +44 (0)1382-592289  (direct ). Fax +44 (0)1382-622243.   VoicePlus
6-341-2289.


> -Original Message-
> From: Nick Williams [SMTP:n...@conformance.co.uk]
> Sent: 08 September 1999 10:12
> To:   emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
> Subject:  Suppression capacitors
> 
> 
> I'd appreciate it if someone could confirm (and/or add to) the following,
> which is my understanding of the application of the various classes of
> supression capacitor:
> 
> X2 -  suitable for applications where the supply is connected directly
> across the capacitor but the appliance is not permanently connected;
> 
> X1 -  Suitable for applications where the supply is connected directly
> across the capacitor and the appliance is permanently connected;
> 
> Y -   Suitable for applications where the capacitor is connected
> directly  between the supply and accessible conductive parts.
> These definitions are based on Clause 14.2 of EN60065 but any references
> to
> other standards which apply would also be useful.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Nick.
> 

-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

RE: Grounding Bond Test

[Crabb, John]

The original post said :
EN 50116 for ITE specifies the earthing terminal or earthing contact may not
exceed 0.1 ohms when 1.5 times the current capacity of hazardous circuits is
applied, but not more than 25 A (ac or dc) for 60 seconds.

My copy of EN50116 specifies the time as being "for the time required to 
obtain a meaningful reading". I don't think this has been changed.

As far as the test required for CSA - look in your CSA Test Report on your
product under "Factory Tests".

For UL, in the "Standardized Appendix Pages" for IT Equipment (NWGQ),
(See Subject 1950 and 1459 letter from UL dated October 26, 1998) 
you will see that the Production Line Grounding Continuity Test only
requires "any suitable continuity indicating device such as an ohmmeter,
a battery and buzzer combination, or the like", with no mention of a 
specific current or time.

Regards,  
John Crabb, Development Excellence (Product Safety) , 
NCR  Financial Solutions Group Ltd.,  Kingsway West, Dundee, Scotland. DD2
3XX
E-Mail :john.cr...@scotland.ncr.com
Tel: +44 (0)1382-592289  (direct ). Fax +44 (0)1382-622243.   VoicePlus
6-341-2289.


-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

RE: Temperature Measuring of Magnetic Components

[Crabb, John]

I would not have thought that a variation of 10-15 degrees was unusual. If
you 
apply your thermocouples to the outside of a coil or transformer winding, it
is 
likely that there will be localised hot spots, depending on how close you
are to 
the core; how many layers of insulation there may be in the region of your
thermocouple; air gaps between the windings and the insulation; and the
consistency
of the "thermal resistance" between your thermocouple and the point of
application.

I have also noted wild discrepancies when measuring temperatures of EHT
transformers in VDUs, (obviously due to EMC affecting my data-logger !!),
which I could only resolve by momentarily switching off the VDU and making
my
measurement quickly.
Regards,
John Crabb, Development Excellence (Product Safety) , 
NCR  Financial Solutions Group Ltd.,  Kingsway West, Dundee, Scotland. DD2
3XX
E-Mail :john.cr...@scotland.ncr.com
Tel: +44 (0)1382-592289  (direct ). Fax +44 (0)1382-622243.   VoicePlus
6-341-2289.


> -Original Message-
> From: Kamran Mohajer [SMTP:kmoha...@cisco.com]
> Sent: 24 August 1999 22:50
> To:   emc-p...@ieee.org
> Subject:  Temperature Measuring of Magnetic Components
> 
> 
> Hello EMC-PSTCers,
> 
> I wonder if anyone knows of the method of measuring temperature limits on
> magnetic components.  I happen to get involved in this and found that my
> results are different than the vendors result by as much as 10-15 degrees
> on measuring on a same magnetic component.  Even applying the thermocouple
> to different location on a coil seems to give you different results.  Is
> there a method that I should be following to measure temperature with
> thermocouples methods, not change of resistance, on magnetic parts such as
> transformers, coils, etc.? 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
>  
> **
> *
> Kamran Mohajer
> DSL Compliance Lead
> Cisco Systems, Inc.
> Phone(408)-525-6121
> Fax(408)527-0495
> kmoha...@cisco.com
> **
> *
> 
> -
> This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
> To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
> with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
> quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
> jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
> roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
> 

-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

RE: Equipment designed and manufactured for use in-house

[Crabb, John]

Since this is a "UK question", "The Provision and Use of Work Equipment
Regulations 1992"  (SI 1992 No. 29323) would seem to apply. It states 
under "Conformity with Community requirements" 10 - (1)  Every employer 
shall ensure that any item of work equipment provided for use in the
premises 
or undertaking of the employer complies with any enactment (whether in an 
Act or instrument) which implements in Great Britain any of the relevant 
Community directives listed in Schedule 1 which is applicable to that item 
of work equipment.

In Schedule 1 are the LVD, machinery and EMC directives, and a lot more. 

(And dare I ask, does a piece of equipment which complies with an old 
revision of a standard which has been removed from the OJ, continue to
 comply with the LVD ??)

You could always argue that your equipment meets the essential requirements,
spelt out in the Work Equipment Regulations, since the LVD only applies tp
equipment "placed on the market".
Regards,
John Crabb, Development Excellence (Product Safety) , 
NCR  Financial Solutions Group Ltd.,  Kingsway West, Dundee, Scotland. DD2
3XX
E-Mail :john.cr...@scotland.ncr.com
Tel: +44 (0)1382-592289  (direct ). Fax +44 (0)1382-622243.   VoicePlus
6-341-2289.


> -Original Message-
> From: Colgan, Chris [SMTP:chris.col...@tagmclarenaudio.com]
> Sent: 13 August 1999 11:14
> To:   emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
> Subject:  RE: Equipment designed and manufactured for use in-house
> 
> 
> I don't know whether the LV and EMC Directives apply to in house
> manufcatured test boxes, test jigs and the like.
> 
> One thing I do know is that if I told my manager that we had to test all
> our
> stuff and either chuck out or modify anything that didn't comply he'd
> string
> me up
> 
> Chris Colgan
> EMC & Safety
> TAG McLaren Audio Ltd
> 
> mailto:chris.col...@tagmclarenaudio.com
> 
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From:   carlos.perk...@eu.effem.com
> [SMTP:carlos.perk...@eu.effem.com]
> > Sent:   13 August 1999 07:22
> > To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
> > Subject:Equipment designed and manufactured for use in-house
> > 
> > 
> > Dear All,
> > 
> > A question from UK:
> > 
> > Does anyone have a strategy for handling the Low Voltage and EMC
> Directive
> > requirements relating to equipment made for use in-house?
> > 
> > By this, I mean test boxes, power supplies, break-out boxes, etc.
> > 
> > These products are not meant to be offered for sale (ie not 'placed on
> the
> > market'), but have been 'taken into service' by being switched on and
> > used.
> > I think, therefore, that the protection requirements of the Directives
> > must
> > be met, but CE marking is not necessary.
> > 
> > In terms of Safety, I think EN 60950 and EN 61010-1 are relevant.
> > 
> > Does anyone have a view on this?
> > 
> > Cheers,
> > 
> > Carlos Perkins
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > -
> > This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
> > To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
> > with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
> > quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
> > jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
> > roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
> > 
> =
> Authorised on 08/13/99 at 11:17:09; code 37453441765A44CC.
> The contents of this E-mail are confidential and for the exclusive use of
> the intended recipient.
> If you receive this E-mail in error, please delete it from your system
> immediately and notify us either by E-mail, telephone or fax. You should
> not copy, forward or otherwise disclose the content of the E-mail.
> 
> TAG McLaren Audio Ltd, Ermine Business Park
> Huntingdon, Cambs, PE18 6XY
> Telephone : 01480 415600 (+44 1480 415600)
> Facsimile : 01480 52159 (+44 1480 52159)
> 
> -
> This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
> To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
> with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
> quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
> jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
> roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
> 

-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

RE: WEEE Directive

[Crabb, John]

Doug, I would have thought you would already have come across the
symbol for the "crossed-out wheeled bin" in the directive 93/86/EEC
which "adapts to technical progress Council Directive 91/157/EEC
on batteries and accumulators containing certain dangerous substances",
the dangerous substances being lead, cadmium, and mercury.

The WEEE directive is a real "bag of worms" - it bans the use of lead 
based solder for a start !
I'm afraid I haven't been following the progress of  this particular
directive
very diligently, since it is really "environmental" rather than "safety",
but
there is certainly a lot of criticism from industry flying around.
John Crabb, Development Excellence (Product Safety) , 
NCR  Financial Solutions Group Ltd.,  Kingsway West, Dundee, Scotland. DD2
3XX
E-Mail :john.cr...@scotland.ncr.com
Tel: +44 (0)1382-592289  (direct ). Fax +44 (0)1382-622243.   VoicePlus
6-341-2289.


> -Original Message-
> From: POWELL, DOUG [SMTP:doug.pow...@aei.com]
> Sent: 03 August 1999 01:01
> To:   EMC-PSTC (E-mail)
> Subject:  WEEE Directive
> 
> 
> Hello group,
> 
> This may be off-topic, then again it maybe not.  It is regulatory for
> electronic equipment.
> 
> I currently have a copy of the second draft of the "Proposal for a
> directive
> on waste from electrical and electronic equipment".  Now I have done a
> fair
> amount of searching about this and located a number of pages to review on
> the Eur-Lex website.  But I still am not sure what the impact is for my
> company.  It appears that manufacturers will eventually be required to
> provide a free service for recycling their obsolete products.
> 
> Does anyone know if and when this goes into force.  And if this comes
> about
> what are the implications to manufacturers who import their products into
> the European Community.  What is the appearance of this symbol described
> as
> a "crossed-out wheeled bin"?  What notifications are required in user
> documentation?  Is there a requirement to either provide or contract
> recycling centers?
> 
> Thanks for any help,
> 
> -doug
> 
> ===
> Douglas E. Powell, Compliance Engineer
> Advanced Energy Industries, Inc.
> Fort Collins, Colorado 80525 USA
> ---
> 970-407-6410  (phone)
> 970-407-5410  (e-fax)
> mailto:doug.pow...@aei.com  
> http://www.advanced-energy.com  
> ===
> 

-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

RE: CSA C22.2 No. 950

[Crabb, John]

You could try asking CSA for a copy of their
CSA 950/UL1950 Design Manual, which includes a fair
amount of the French marking text (and is quite a good 
"short list" of basic design requirements). I would expect that 
this document would be free.

I am a little puzzled by a note in the rather old copy I have,
stating "If the NRTL/C indicator is used, all warnings and
caution markings required by CSA are in both English and
French for equipment which is for use/sale/display in Canada."

This implies that if you don't have the NRTL/C mark, this
requirement doesn't exist. This would seem to agree with 
a statement in an even older CSA 950 Design Manual, that
"these markings are not a condition of our certification."

If you do decide to buy a copy of CSA950/UL1950, compare the prices
from CSA and UL - I'm sure CSA is cheaper !
 John Crabb, Development Excellence (Product Safety) , 
NCR  Financial Solutions Group Ltd.,  Kingsway West, Dundee, Scotland. DD2
3XX
E-Mail :john.cr...@scotland.ncr.com
Tel: +44 (0)1382-592289  (direct ). Fax +44 (0)1382-622243.   VoicePlus
6-341-2289.


> -Original Message-
> From: Donald McElheran [SMTP:don...@hq.rossvideo.com]
> Sent: 07 July 1999 15:08
> To:   emc-p...@ieee.org
> Subject:  CSA C22.2 No. 950 
> 
> 
> Could someone with a canadian version of the ITE 950 standard 
> indicate whether or not they are aware of any additions to the 
> marking requirements from that of the IEC 950 version. I have a 
> copy of the IEC standard but would like to avoid purchasing the 
> Canadian version, at least at this time. 
> 
> The markings I had in mind, would be those that maybe required to 
> address both Canadian official languages.
> 
> Any help would be appreciated.  
> 
> Donald McElheran
> Ross Video Ltd.
> Product Development Co-ordinator
> 

-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

RE: FDA requirements

[Crabb, John]

As far as I am aware, the FDA requirements (21CFR) relate to the emission
of X-rays from CRTs within monitors. We always state that any LCD displays
within our products are therefore exempt from the FDA requirements.

I also have on file a letter to "all manufacturers and importers of
television
receivers", from the FDA, dated January 31, 1994, which states : -
"Policy: It is the position of the National Center for Devices and
Radiological Health that television receivers using liquid crystal displays
and containing no high voltage vacuum tubes or other components which
can generate x radiation, are not subject to the Federal performance 
standard for television receivers (21CFR 1020.10)". 

As I am sure you are aware, the FDA considers that VDUs, monitors, 
and similar products are subject to 21CFR 1020.

As an aside, given that the FDA requirements are the same as those in
UL1950,
isn't it about time you got the law changed to allow UL Listing/Recognition
to be
an acceptable substitute to the tedious FDA requirements ? In any case, I
have yet 
to get to get a reading from the front of a monitor with my Victoreen 440
RF/C 
x-ray meter.  Indeed, although I get it calibrated each year, I have no way
of 
knowing whether it is working, since I can never get a reading !! 
John Crabb, Development Excellence (Product Safety) , 
NCR  Financial Solutions Group Ltd.,  Kingsway West, Dundee, Scotland. DD2
3XX
E-Mail :john.cr...@scotland.ncr.com
Tel: +44 (0)1382-592289  (direct ). Fax +44 (0)1382-622243.   VoicePlus
6-341-2289.


> -Original Message-
> From: Martin Johnson [SMTP:calpe1...@yahoo.com]
> Sent: 25 June 1999 11:42
> To:   emc-p...@ieee.org
> Subject:  FDA requirements
> 
> 
> When producing equipment that uses flat screen (LCD) 1/4 VGA displays,
> is there any requirement to meet FDA emission requirements (overall
> equipment is not for medical use, and would never find its way into a
> hospital environment).
> 
> I only ask as one of my collegues is quite insistent that we have to
> consider the requirement (because he had to in his previous job, again
> not medical equipment). Its the first time i've come across it and all
> i can find on the subject are advisory guideline requirements, no
> mandatory requirements.
> 
> Anybody able to shed some more light on this for me.
> Web sites, any info. gratefully received.
> 
> Many Thanks
> 
> MJ.
> _
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
> 
> 
> -
> This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
> To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
> with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
> quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
> jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
> roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
> 

-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

RE: Back-Light Circuit

[Crabb, John]

I agree with Rich's suggestion re treating this as a Limited Current
Circuit, and 
carrying out the test in 2.4 with a 2000 ohm resistor. We have done this for
several LCD displays we use, to satisfy UL, and they seem happy to accept
this.
We also short circuit the transformer output to prove that no hazard
results, and if
I recall correctly, this also serves to satisfy 5.4.4 c) if the operational
creepage 
and clearances at the transformer output are insufficient (which is quite
likely).

Note that the wiring from the backlight circuit to the lamp needs to be
rated for
the voltage being produced - normal 600V wiring won't be good enough. Our
vendors typically supply the backlight circuit board with flying leads using
silicn rubber insulation.
Regards,
John Crabb, Development Excellence (Product Safety) , 
NCR  Financial Solutions Group Ltd.,  Kingsway West, Dundee, Scotland. DD2
3XX
E-Mail :john.cr...@scotland.ncr.com
Tel: +44 (0)1382-592289  (direct ). Fax +44 (0)1382-622243.   VoicePlus
6-341-2289.


> -Original Message-
> From: pe...@itl.co.il [SMTP:pe...@itl.co.il]
> Sent: 18 May 1999 20:30
> To:   'emc-pstc'; t...@world.std.com
> Cc:   pmerguer...@itl.co.il; al...@itl.co.il; ico...@itl.co.il;
> plei...@itl.co.il; zoh...@itl.co.il
> Subject:  Back-Light Circuit
> 
> 
> Dear All,
> 
> I am investigating an ITE product with a backlight-circuit (used to 
> provide the background lighting for an LCD display located in 
> SELV). However, manufacturer of product cannot get hold of the 
> backlight circuit schematics. I intend to use Clause 2.3.5 of the 
> UL1950/EN 60 950 standard. This allows the SELV to be 
> connected to hazardous voltages (approx 1500 V) in the backlight 
> circuit as long as the SELV limits are maintained even after single 
> faults.
> 
> Missing the schematics, I wonder if  if anyone can explain how a 
> backlight circuit works and what components in such a circuit are 
> candidates for shorting and/or open-circuiting?
> 
> Thanks and Best Regards,
> PETER S. MERGUERIAN
> MANAGING DIRECTOR
> PRODUCT TESTING DIVISION
> I.T.L. (PRODUCT TESTING) LTD.
> HACHAROSHET 26, P.O.B. 211
> OR YEHUDA 60251, ISRAEL
> 
> TEL: 972-3-5339022
> FAX: 972-3-5339019
> E-MAIL: pe...@itl.co.il
> Visit our Website: http://www.itl.co.il
> 

-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

RE: Australian electricity supply

[Crabb, John]

My 1996 World Electrical Supplies says 240 V +/- 6%
Regards,
John Crabb, Development Excellence (Product Safety) , 
NCR  Financial Solutions Group Ltd.,  Kingsway West, Dundee, Scotland. DD2
3XX
E-Mail :john.cr...@scotland.ncr.com
Tel: +44 (0)1382-592289  (direct ). Fax +44 (0)1382-622243.   VoicePlus
6-341-2289.


> -Original Message-
> From: Colgan, Chris [SMTP:chris.col...@tagmclarenaudio.com]
> Sent: 29 April 1999 09:48
> To:   'Emc-Pstc' (E-mail)
> Subject:  Australian electricity supply
> 
> Hello group
> 
> Can anyone tell me the limits of the Australian consumer mains supply
> voltage, ie 240V +?% -?%.
> 
> I have ordered a copy of World Electricity Supplies but it hasn't arrived
> yet.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> 
> Chris Colgan
> EMC & Safety
> TAG McLaren Audio Ltd
> 
> mailto:chris.col...@tagmclarenaudio.com

-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

RE: What color is neutral.

[Crabb, John]

I would tend to agree with your interpretation that " light
blue is only required WHERE A CIRCUIT INCLUDES A NEUTRAL 
IDENTIFIED BY COLOR. If another acceptable means of identification 
is used, such as marking, then light blue is not required."

(I am mystified why they have chosen to specify the neutral
conductor colour
but have left the line conductor requirements as "preferred"
colours).

You could always ask IEC TC16 for a formal "interpretation" of this
requirement.
I do not know if they have a formal process for such requests.
For IEC 60950, there is the IEC/TC 74 Chairmans Advisory Panel
which answers such requests.

Another couple of points.

I would imagine that the very definite requirement for protective
conductors
to be green/ellow is there because this is the most critical
conductor, and 
we do not want any other (confusing) method of identification other
than
colour.

Surely you have to concern yourself with the requirements in the
appropriate 
product standard which applies to your particular product. IEC 60446
is not a
product standard.

Is there an EN 60446 ? It is not mentioned in the 1998/99 BSI
Catalogue.
You quote from EN 60446 ed3, but given IEC 60446 was dated February
1999,
I would not have expected the equivalent EN to be available so
quickly.
Regards,
John Crabb, Development Excellence (Product Safety) , 
NCR  Financial Solutions Group Ltd.,  Kingsway West, Dundee, Scotland. DD2
3XX
E-Mail :john.cr...@scotland.ncr.com
Tel: +44 (0)1382-592289  (direct ). Fax +44 (0)1382-622243.   VoicePlus
6-341-2289.


> -Original Message-
> From: Crane, Lauren [SMTP:lcr...@bev.etn.com]
> Sent: 21 April 1999 16:18
> To:   'Crabb, John'; 'discussion group'
> Subject:  RE: What color is neutral.
> 
> Mr. Crabb, 
> 
> I appreciate your spending 2c (or is that 2p!) on this issue. 
> As the 'thread' initiator, I hope I can trouble you with a follow-up.
> 
> As you and Mr. John Woodgate (often read in the s.e.e.c newsgroup)
> suggested, I have attempted to contact the ANSI-listed members of the US
> TC44 committee regarding this issue. I still am waiting for their replies.
> 
> 
> Since you are so close to the standards development process.
> 
> Regarding 602446, I did get a copy of the recent (third) edition. Its
> terminology is substantially the same as EN 60204-1 1997.
> 
> This is the point where I would be very interested in your comments.
> 
> The standard reads (quoting from EN 60446 ed3 section 3.2.2) 
> "Where a circuit includes a neutral or mid-point conductor identified by
> colour, the colour used for this purpose shall be blue. In order to avoid
> confusion with other colours it is recommended to use an unsaturated
> colour
> blue, called here 'light blue'."
> 
> My thesis (that has been supported by some notified/competent bodies but
> rejected by many peers in the industry) is that, as the section says,
> light
> blue is only required WHERE A CIRCUIT INCLUDES A NEUTRAL IDENTIFIED BY
> COLOR. If another acceptable means of identification is used, such as
> marking, then light blue is not required. 
> 
> This language in this section on neutrals is substantially different from
> other sections, such as the protective conductor (3.3.2) which allows no
> discretion on identifying the conductor. That is to say "The bi-colour
> combination green-and-yellow shall be used for identifying the protective
> conductor." 
> 
> This is much more exact than what is said for the neutral.
> 
> Am I missing something here???
> 
> Thanks for any comments.
> 
> PS - the equipment we make is hard wired into the customers facility
> (rather
> than plug & cord connected) so it frequently comes under the scrutiny of
> electrical inspectors. 
> 
> Lauren Crane
> Eaton Corporation
> lcr...@bev.etn.com
> 

-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

What color is neutral.

[Crabb, John]

In our detachable cord connected products, we use American power cords
with black, white, green wires on 120V units which are UL Listed, CSA 
Certified; and European cords with brown, blue, green/yellow wires on 230V
units.
(As an aside, note how UL and CSA choose to ignore the UL1950 requirement 
that earthing conductors be green/yellow in this case - or maybe they don't 
regard the detachable mains cord as part of the UL1950 product !)

Inside our products, where we use 3 core cable for ac distribution, we use
the 
European colors. Where we use individual wires, e.g. around the on/off
switch, 
fuse, etc, we usually use black and white hook-up wire.

There were moves some time ago in the British trade association FEI, to
get requirements for internal ac wiring coloring to be included in IEC 950,
but it died a death.

Have just noticed the announcement of the publication of IEC 60446,
Edition 3, February 1999 : Basic and safety principles for man-machine
interface, marking and identification - Identification of conductors by
colours or numerals. I'm afraid I don't have a copy - and won't be buying 
one either, but I've made a note to have a look at it in the BSI library
next time I'm at a BSI meeting. The last draft I saw (16/367/CDV)
required the neutral conductor to be light blue.
However, I did make the following comments to BSI 2 years ago
(and they seem to have been ignored !!)  : -

"Note 2 in clause 3.2.2 reads "In the United States of America and 
Canada, the colour identification white for the mid-wire or neutral 
conductor is used as equivalent to the colour identification light blue."  
This note is informative, and since the USA and Canada are unlikely to 
adopt the use of light blue for neutral (other than in power cords), it 
would be preferable to change every reference to "light blue" in Clause 
3.2.2 to read "light blue or white", and delete Note 2.

Clause 3.2.3 reads "The colours light blue, black and brown are 
preferred for conductors of AC systems". In view of my comment above, 
and since the colour black as used in the USA for line has been included, 
this should be changed to read "The colours light blue, white, black and 
brown are preferred for conductors of AC systems". Whether the word
 "preferred" should be used is open to question !"

You'll see that I feel bound to put in my 2c worth of comment on any
standard which happens to "float" past my desk. It is the only way
that we can influence what is going on out there - if you you don't 
participate, and attempt to influence the content of standards, you
can't complain about the standards you get stuck with.

To make my point - we only have the dreaded IEC 61000-3-2
harmonics standard because the majority of countries voted 
for it !!

And now I'll get down from my high horse and creep back to 
work.
John Crabb, Development Excellence (Product Safety) , 
NCR  Financial Solutions Group Ltd.,  Kingsway West, Dundee, Scotland. DD2
3XX
E-Mail :john.cr...@scotland.ncr.com
Tel: +44 (0)1382-592289  (direct ). Fax +44 (0)1382-622243.   VoicePlus
6-341-2289.



-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

RE: US/ HAR line Cord

[Crabb, John]

I managed to find in the top 6 inches of my in-tray (piled 18 inches high),
the 
Subject 1950 and 1459 letter from UL dated October 26, 1998;
Subject: New Issue of Standardized Appendix Pages.
These are for ITE (NWGQ), Power Supplies for ITE (QQGQ); Telephone
Appliances (WYQQ); and Power Supplies for Telephone Appliances (QQJE),
and other additional categories.
In Appendix D, page 3, we find : -
"1.7 Power Supply Cords.
B. Detachable Power Supply Cord. A detachable power supply cord as 
described in the individual sections of the Procedure may or may not
be shipped with the unit(s). When a cord is provided, it should either:
1. Comply with the specific description in the procedure or,
2. Be provided for products for use outside of the USA and/or Canada.

In case 2, the manufacturer is to supply the UL representative with
information that allows the Representative to verify that the products
are intended to be sold outside of the USA and/or Canada and that 
the cord is certified or similarly appropriate for use in the destination
country."

So it seems that UL allow the use of a HAR cord for products not 
going to the USA or Canada.
We used to solve this problem by only using a US cord, forcing our 
non-US customers to cut off the US plug and fit their own, and 
"self-declaring" our products for Europe ! Now we supply a US cord 
with 120V units, and a HAR cord with 220/230/240V units.

As other folk have pointed out, if you dig deep enough, you can find  
cordage acceptable in the US and Europe. Years ago, I started along
this route, and found a Pacific Electrocord cable which had UL and VDE 
certifications (It couldn't have HAR because it wasn't made in Europe).
However, I'm afraid I gave up and went for the 2 different cord sets.
John Crabb, Development Excellence (Product Safety) , 
NCR  Financial Solutions Group Ltd.,  Kingsway West, Dundee, Scotland. DD2
3XX
E-Mail :john.cr...@scotland.ncr.com
Tel: +44 (0)1382-592289  (direct ). Fax +44 (0)1382-622243.   VoicePlus
6-341-2289.

-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

RE: R&TTE Directive

[Crabb, John]

I received the following yesterday from one of my "sources" :

---
Message from ETSI

The much heralded R&TTE Directive was adopted on the 9th March and is
known as 99/5/EC. It is still to be published in the OJEC (approximately 4
to 6 weeks at the most). It comes fully into force on 10th March 2000 if the
dates are constant.

  Claire d'Esclercs
 ETSI Standards Making Support Department

--
Regards,
John Crabb, Development Excellence (Product Safety) , 
NCR  Financial Solutions Group Ltd.,  Kingsway West, Dundee, Scotland. DD2
3XX
E-Mail :john.cr...@scotland.ncr.com
Tel: +44 (0)1382-592289  (direct ). Fax +44 (0)1382-622243.   VoicePlus
6-341-2289.


> -Original Message-
> From: WOODS, RICHARD [SMTP:wo...@sensormatic.com]
> Sent: 12 March 1999 15:40
> To:   'emc-pstc'
> Subject:  R&TTE Directive
> 
> My source believes that the Radio and Telecommunications Terminal
> Equipment
> Directive will be published in the OJ in April and will take effect after
> one year. What do you hear?
> 

-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

RE: Leakage Current Measurements

[Crabb, John]

We use a Yokogawa 3226 Universal Leakage Current Tester
together with a 3227 Test Box.  The meter has both an "AC" and
an "AC+DC" current range, and switchable 1K, 1.5K, and 2K 
input resistance. The test box has a polarity and an on-off switch to 
simplify testing, and has a US mains socket into which we plug the 
product to be tested, using a cord with the earth pin cut off, which we 
can also readily reverse.
UL and CSA seem quite happy to use this meter when they come here
to review our products. 
We also have a Simpson 229-2 which is there to be used if the other
meter is being calibarated, and it gives similar results to
the Yokogawa.
I asked UL to bring their Simson 228 meter here during a recent 
investigation, to compare results. It read a little higher than the
Yokogawa, but UL were happy for us to continue using the Yokowawa.
They certainly do not insist on the use of the Simpson 228.

I had some information on a Hioki Model 3155-01 Leakage Current
Tester, which is claimed to meet the latest IEC 950 requirements, but
I can't readily lay my hands on it. IT WAS EXPENSIVE.
It is a digital meter, could also measure the voltage/current going
to the equipment, and had pluggable networks for 950 and medical
equipment measurements.

>From time to time when I am doing leakage current measurements, 
I check that the results I get ARE VERY SIMILAR to the reading I 
get if I just put the meter in series with the ground conductor of the 
product. (And they are always almost identical)  Could somebody 
explain why this much simpler method is not used ?  

John Crabb, Development Excellence (Product Safety) , 
NCR  Financial Solutions Group Ltd.,  Kingsway West, Dundee, Scotland. DD2
3XX
E-Mail :john.cr...@scotland.ncr.com
Tel: +44 (0)1382-592289  (direct ). Fax +44 (0)1382-622243.   VoicePlus
6-341-2289.


-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

RE: Company Name Change

[Crabb, John]

I have a file at least an inch thick on "company name change", since 
NCR changed to AT&T  and back again. Certainly it was simple as far as 
UL and CSA were concerned. For UL you will have to notify them of the 
change of Listee, Applicant, Manufacturer, etc, as appropriate for each 
volume of your files, and a new Follow-Up Agreement will have to executed.
CSA will also require a new Product Service Agreement to be signed,
and are likely to ask you "whether this change is due to a corporate
restructuring or whether there has been a change in ownership as a result
of an acquisition". I have always said it was a "corporate restructuring".
We only deal with UL and CSA (ain't we lucky !!), so that's all I can tell
you.
Regards, and best wishes to all our readers for the Christmas Season, 
from Dundee, the City of Discovery.  (The current slogan for our City).
John Crabb, Development Excellence (Product Safety) , 
NCR  Financial Solutions Group Ltd.,  Kingsway West, Dundee, Scotland. DD2
3XX
E-Mail :john.cr...@scotland.ncr.com
Tel: +44 (0)1382-592289  (direct ). Fax +44 (0)1382-622243.   VoicePlus
6-341-2289.


> -Original Message-
> From: Allan, James [SMTP:james_al...@racal.com]
> Sent: 22 December 1998 13:12
> To:   'emc-pstc'
> Subject:  Company Name Change
> 
> My company is in the process of undergoing a name change.  Is there any
> advice from the board as to pitfalls and oh-oh's that have been
> experienced as I begin the process of having product safety, EMC and
> Telecomm registration certificates changed over to the new company name.
> What I am looking for are unexpected surprises that come from out of
> nowhere.
> 
> Thanks
> Jim
> 
> -
> This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
> To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
> with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
> quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
> j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
> roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).