System Safety Position - US Army Safety Center
Cobro Corp. has two openings for System Safety Engineers at the U. S. Army Safety Center, Ft. Rucker, AL. Job Description: Performs a variety of systems safety engineering, risk management integration duties. Serve as primary monitor and coordinator of the Army System Safety Program. Assess, assure and evaluate safety engineering compliance during development, acquisition and utilization of Army systems. Review systems safety life cycle documentation on assigned systems development, test, and employment, to evaluate compliance with Army directives. Participates in HQDA program reviews, conferences and meetings on assigned systems. Perform visits to commands, agencies and field locations to identify specific system hazards, establish and validate mishap casual factors, measure effectiveness of safety engineering programs, and perform investigation of high interest mishaps. Provide developers of major systems with appropriate historical mishap data on similar fielded systems. Design and conduct research to support system safety activities and develop improvements in system safety engineering and management applications in the Army. Assist in the development of system safety doctrine for HQDA for inclusion in DA and DOD regulatory guidance. Represent HQDA in interservice, interagency, and international systems activities. Develop system safety tools, policies, procedures, and guidance for integrating risk management into Army processes. Provide engineering expertise in Independent Safety Assessment (ISA) of Army Acquisition Systems as required. Provide appropriate Program Executive Office (PEO) or the Program manager (PM) and ISA for final review and submission to the Army System Acquisition Review Council (ASARC). Assist the Director of Army Safety (DASAF) in developing system safety policies, objectives, and evaluation standards. Provide assistance to the DASF in the establishment, identification and maintenance of a DA program of generic system safety research in support of Army development and acquisition programs. Job Skills & Qualifications: 10 years of experience in system safety engineering disciplines preferably in ground safety. Possess professional knowledge of mathematical principles, physical and related scientific disciplines, and of engineering design and analysis principles and methods in order to specify, predict, and evaluate the safety of military systems. Knowledge and experience is high desirable in Army system safety policy and procedures, risk management, DOD/Army standards and information systems. Applicant selected for this position may be subject to a Government Security Investigation and must meet eligibility for access to classified information. Education: Bachelor of Science degree in one of the major engineering disciplines from an accredited engineering college or university. Salary in the upper tier for System Safety Engineers. Comprehensive benefits package. Fax or E-mail resumes to: FAX (334) 598-8662 E-mail co...@alaweb.com Attn: Jim Callen EEO M/F/D/V Daniel E. Teninty, P.E. System Safety Engineer US Army Safety Center Ft. Rucker, AL (334)255-2933 daniel.teni...@safetycenter.army.mil --- 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: Bonding Impedance
Ron, I'm sure you'll get lots of responses on this one. Here is what I believe/know. For cord connected equipment that connects to wall outlets protected with 20 A overcurrent protection devices, 25 Amps is 125% of rated current. 25A X 0.1Ohms=2.5V, safe even in a damp environment. The NEC requires selecting an overcurrent protection device at 125% of continuous load (210.20 A of 2002 NEC). The rationale is that if an internal conductor shorts to the grounded enclosure the overcurrent protection device will interrupt the supply and no damage will occur to the conductors or the enclosure due to I squared X R heating effects. This 25 A value for a test current is a conservative way to ensure that the voltage developed across the bonding impedance is of a low value. MIL-STD 882, System Safety, requires testing bonding impedance at 125% of the rating of the overcurrent protection device and the calculated impedance must be less than 0.1 ohm. I suspect that the MIL-STD "boilerplate" worked its way into some industry/UL standards. Best regards, Daniel E. Teninty, P.E. Managing Partner DTEC Associates LLC (509) 443-0215 (509) 443-0181 fax http://www.dtec-associates.com Streamlining The Compliance Process While Advancing New Products To Market This e-mail message may contain privileged or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not disclose, use, disseminate, distribute, copy or rely upon this message or attachment in any way. If you received this e-mail message in error, please return by forwarding the message and its attachments to the sender. -Original Message- From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of ron_well...@agilent.com Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2002 1:58 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Bonding Impedance Hello all, I recent issue has come up for me regarding why some safety standards specify 100 milliohms as the acceptable impedance for a protective earth ground bonding test. I am curious as to what the rationale is for this specific value and why 25 amps is chosen as the default test current. Regards, +=+ |Ronald R. Wellman|Voice : 408-345-8229 | |Agilent Technologies |FAX : 408-553-2412 | |5301 Stevens Creek Blvd.,|E-Mail: ron_well...@agilent.com| |Mailstop 54L-BB |WWW : http://www.agilent.com | |Santa Clara, California 95052 USA| | +=+ --- 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: NEC Wiring Question
NEC Wiring QuestionMichael, The 1996 version of the NEC addresses this issue by saying that if a connector is not specifically listed for an application, it is not OK. The reference is: 300-15(c) - "Fittings & Connectors shall be used only with the specific wiring methods for which they are designed and listed." IMHO, this means that unless the device, connector, terminal is specifically listed for use with multiple wires of different sizes in the same hole, then it is not allowed. At Fluke, when I was working with IEC 61010 and UL 3111, our standard practice was that one terminal location could have one wire. Connector and terminal block manufacturers make bridging or shorting bars to connect multiple terminals together. The rationale is that multiple wires in a terminal can work themselves loose over time and with stress. Best regards, Daniel E. Teninty, P.E. Managing Partner DTEC Associates LLC (509) 443-0215 (509) 443-0181 fax http://www.dtec-associates.com Streamlining The Compliance Process While Advancing New Products To Market This email transmission is confidential and intended for the addressee only. It may contain privileged and confidential information. If you are not the person or organization to whom it is addressed, you must not copy, distribute, or take any action in reliance upon it. -Original Message- From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Michael Taylor Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2002 10:15 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: NEC Wiring Question Greetings all, An issue came up in a product 61010 safety evaluation and no one here can remember if you can / can't do it. Does anyone out in Cyberland know if the NEC allows 2 wires of different sizes (awg) to be clamped together in a clamping type PC mounted wiring terminal. The wire is striped bare & inserted into a slot on the side of a terminal block that has a screw on top for tightening. I seem to remember the code does not allow wires of different gauges to be clamped together under a single compression clamping terminal. I have searched the NEC and can't find anything on this. Can anyone remember chapter & verse on this issue. If I'm wrong, please be kind, the 60 hour weeks are getting to us. Thanks in advance Michael Taylor Colorado
RE: SMPS Derating reqs for Altitude range of 5000-10000ft
>From the Paschen curve, the electrical spacings must be increased 14% at 3000 meters over those at 2000 meters. Thermal derating is a tougher call since some smps vendors engineer in more cooling capacity than others. Testing for your application is the only reliable way to make a good determination if the manufacturer does not specify a derating curve. Daniel E. Teninty, P.E. Managing Partner DTEC Associates LLC Streamlining The Compliance Process Advancing New Products To Market http://www.dtec-associates.com (509) 443-0215 (509) 443-0181 fax -Original Message- From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Carmen.Filimon Sent: Friday, January 04, 2002 8:28 AM To: EMC Forum Subject: SMPS Derating reqs for Altitude range of 5000-1ft Hi All I'm trying to find out what the specified operational altitude range(s) is (are) for power supplies (particularly switching mode ones). Do any of you know what that spec may be, and particularly what is the rule for derating at altitude for thermal issues. Many manufacturers don't specify a maximum altitude but instead design in enough thermal overhead to accommodate any reasonable terrestrial location. According to GR-63-CORE the operating range without derating is 1800m above sea level. If derating is required above 1800m then the manufacturer must specify any additional requirements. Is it a safety derating factor so that customers at 5000-1ft don't smell smoke? Do we have any recommendations for derating the operational temperature / power consumption of power supplies as the operational altitude increases? Any information or ideas you have would be appreciated. Regards, Carmen Filimon Leitch Canada > > --- 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: FAA
Peter, Try NSSN.com Best regards, Dan Daniel E. Teninty, P.E. Managing Partner DTEC Associates LLC Streamlining The Compliance Process Advancing New Products To Market http://www.dtec-associates.com (509) 443-0215 (509) 443-0181 fax -Original Message- From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Peter Merguerian Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2001 12:07 AM To: "EMC-PSTC (E-mail)" < Subject: FAA Dear All, I have an ITE (usual 100-240 Vac, 50/60 Hz) product going into Air Force 1. My client was requested to meet the following FAA standards: AC43.13-1b, AC 25-16, and AC 25-10. Anyone knows the scope of these standards and the difficulty in meeting the requirements? Also, where can I access a copy of the standards? This e-mail message may contain privileged or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not disclose, use, disseminate, distribute, copy or rely upon this message or attachment in any way. If you received this e-mail message in error, please return by forwarding the message and its attachments to the sender. PETER S. MERGUERIAN Technical Director I.T.L. (Product Testing) Ltd. 26 Hacharoshet St., POB 211 Or Yehuda 60251, Israel Tel: + 972-(0)3-5339022 Fax: + 972-(0)3-5339019 Mobile: + 972-(0)54-838175 --- 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: FW: Quality Assurance and Product Approvals
Charles, I would like to offer an explanation for EMC limits being set where they are and a reason for meeting or beating the limits. I agree, 0.5 dB doesn't seem like the end of the world and under management guidance/pressure to ship product and produce revenue, it takes a lot of conviction to announce that an additional turn or some tweaking of the design is required. Those who have ever supplied avionics or anything electric to Boeing have read somewhere in the spec that Boeing guarantees a certain level of performance from the aircraft electrical system. Frequency stability, THC, Voltage tolerance, etc. GREAT NEWS ! think the designers, until later in the spec they read the part about the stringent requirements on the "box" going into the airplane. It seems you can't have clean power without having clean "boxes". The EMC limits in the standards are derived with some exceptions more or less along the limits established long ago by MIL-STD 461/462. These limits are well below where they would create problems in the environment, but allow for the inevitable degradation in product performance that can occur through component value shift, environmental conditions, and other fugitive variables. In order to be able to set limits for Radiated/Conducted susceptibility, an assumption has to be made about the Radiated/Conducted emissions and how much radiated/conducted noise there is in an intended environment. If, "the product works fine" was the criteria for emissions, then the task of hardening products against radiated and conducted energy would become much more difficult. My $0.02 Daniel E. Teninty, P.E. Managing Partner DTEC Associates LLC Streamlining The Compliance Process Advancing New Products To Market http://www.dtec-associates.com (509) 443-0215 (509) 443-0181 fax -Original Message- From: Charles Grasso [mailto:chasgra...@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2001 9:29 AM To: dteni...@dtec-associates.com; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: FW: Quality Assurance and Product Approvals Hi all, I have been following this discussion with great interest and could not resist adding my 2c. Lest face it - EMC is nothing more than pure overhead to any corporation. We all have experience of products that work perfectly fine yet fail the emissions profile by 0.5dB. I will contend that this experience far outweighs the opposite .Spinning a board or adding ferrites or adding shielding does nothing to help our discipline reputation. Couple that with the "twilight zone" impression of EMC and one can easily understand why most companies implement EMC into their process reluctantly. I will add to that one important factor The regulatory bodies - especially the FCC. Thanks in large part to the new FCC Class B compliance procedure ( which inadvertantly allows failing products into the market place) companies are more convinced that ever that EMC is more of an annoyance than a necessity. ( Some exceptions duly noted..) Unlike safety, there is no perceived benefit in squeezing that extra 0.5db out of the emissions profile at a cost od even .03c. The saving grace might be the immunity standards. I have had a whole lot more help when the design engineer actually witnesses his product doing wierd things. NARTE is straying in the direction of elitism. Worse than that they now have professors offering questions for inclusion in the NARTE exam. We need to be vigilant and keep the infulence of the academics to a minimum. Example: The ACES (Applied Computations Society) started a a group with the goal of PRACTICAL applications for comutation ..sound familiar. ?? It wasn't long before the academics (Phds & the like) dominated the group and turned it to a purely theoretical group - a place to publish papers etc Now don't get me wrong.I am all for professors that are willing to teach and guide and mentor. There is how ever a human tendancy towards "creeping elegance" and we ned to ensure that the EMC discipline does not tend in that direction. My 2c Charles Grasso Ansoft Corporation >From: "Dan Teninty" >Reply-To: "Dan Teninty" >To: "PSTC IEEE-EMC" >Subject: FW: Quality Assurance and Product Approvals >Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 12:11:38 -0800 > > >Rich, > >After sending you my reply, I thought that I would open it up to the group >for comment. I thought I would pass on the information about the NARTE >certification for Product Safety engineers. > >Best regards, > >Dan > >Daniel E. Teninty, P.E. >Managing Partner >DTEC Associates LLC >Streamlining The Compliance Process >Advancing New Products To Market >http://www.dtec-associates.com >(509) 443-0215 >(509) 443-0181 fax > >-Original Message- >From: Dan Teninty [mailto:dteni...@dtec-associates.com] >Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2001 12:01 PM
RE: Quality Assurance and Product Approvals
Charles, Yup, I knew that. I think that Dell recognizes that the whole compliance picture involves more than just getting some certification marks slapped on the product. Daniel E. Teninty, P.E. Managing Partner DTEC Associates LLC Streamlining The Compliance Process Advancing New Products To Market http://www.dtec-associates.com (509) 443-0215 (509) 443-0181 fax -Original Message- From: Charles Grasso [mailto:chasgra...@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2001 9:33 AM To: dteni...@dtec-associates.com; ri...@sdd.hp.com; nutwoo...@nutwood.eu.com Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: Quality Assurance and Product Approvals One comment on the VP for compliance.. It is my undersyand that the Dell VP position does ALL the functions that are imposed by legislation on a compamy. EMC is one part. There is of course Safety, Environmental Issues, Lead-free solder etc.. Dell is taking a very professional approach to addresses ALL the issues - not just EMC. >From: "Dan Teninty" >Reply-To: "Dan Teninty" >To: "Rich Nute" , >CC: >Subject: RE: Quality Assurance and Product Approvals >Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 01:24:35 -0800 > > >Rich, > >Dell Computers, as well as a few other major players, take a proactive >approach to compliance and actually have a VP position for compliance. With >a little investigation into the benefits of having a first rate compliance >department with the ability to design for compliance, test to relevant >standards, compile reports, participate on standards committees, and deal >directly with world wide agencies I would think that most companies that >have global markets would see both the short term and long term benefits to >the bottom line. I would tend to include PC's into the ordinary products >pile, wouldn't you? > >Companies that choose to take the adversarial approach to compliance by >cutting corners or only doing the minimum to comply, save dollars in the >short term, but pay later in lost customers, or worse, lawsuits. One of our >clients, had a management team that took this denial/avoidance approach to >NEBS. When the Telecom downturn came, they were left in a position where >there was lots less demand and what demand there was, was for NEBS >compliant >products. Most of the management team that made those decisions have either >left the company in recent right-sizing exercises, or are working in lesser >positions. > >It seems that hindsight is always able to find a goat. When I explain the >benefits of compliance to management teams, I try to focus on the bottom >line benefits of having a product that is marketable everywhere. The costs >for compliance, when compared to the total development cost for a new >product tend to be in the noise. If these costs are amortized over >reasonable quantities, then the unit cost for compliance tends to be a >bargain. > >Its not hard to dig up a few good case studies in Product Liability to >drive >home the point. > >Best regards, > >Daniel E. Teninty, P.E. >Managing Partner >DTEC Associates LLC >Streamlining The Compliance Process >Advancing New Products To Market >http://www.dtec-associates.com >(509) 443-0215 >(509) 443-0181 fax > >-Original Message- >From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org >[mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Rich Nute >Sent: Monday, November 26, 2001 12:36 PM >To: nutwoo...@nutwood.eu.com >Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org >Subject: Re: Quality Assurance and Product Approvals > > >Hi Alan: > > > Two questions, does the group see a time when we have a VP Compliance >on > > level terms with VP Finance, VP Marketing etc, or is this already > > happening in the US. > >No. And not likely to happen in companies with ordinary >products. > >As a general rule, "compliance" is seen as a necessary >evil. It is a cost without an associated revenue (or >customer-recognized need or benefit). Few companies >want to give VP status (and an empire) to a non-revenue- >generating function. > >Many companies measure the product incremental cost for >"compliance." The objective is to find methods and means >for minimizing these product costs. > >Furthermore, few companies recognize the work of "compliance" >folks as prevention of future unanticipated costs such as >failure of sales due to non-compliance, product liability, >or even product recalls. The reason the work is not >recognized is the difficulty of measuring the future cost of >non-compliance, especially if the company has never had such >an incident. > > > Second Question. Does the group think a formal qualification in > > Compliance Management & CE Markin
FW: Quality Assurance and Product Approvals
Rich, After sending you my reply, I thought that I would open it up to the group for comment. I thought I would pass on the information about the NARTE certification for Product Safety engineers. Best regards, Dan Daniel E. Teninty, P.E. Managing Partner DTEC Associates LLC Streamlining The Compliance Process Advancing New Products To Market http://www.dtec-associates.com (509) 443-0215 (509) 443-0181 fax -Original Message- From: Dan Teninty [mailto:dteni...@dtec-associates.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2001 12:01 PM To: Rich Nute Subject: RE: Quality Assurance and Product Approvals Rich, I don't disagree with your point of view. It seems that there are a lot of MBA's devoting allot of time to reducing costs. This is how business is run. The days are gone when, like the founders of your organization, companies could compete on quality, reliability, features, and perceived value. Now everything boils down to "how can we shave unit cost another $0.03?" General Motors has had some high profile cases where this philosophy has led to injuries and deaths. The world is changing, not always for the better and I will continue to tilt at windmills. I believe that consumers expect/assume that products they purchase are "safe" and won't scramble their TV's picture during the Super Bowl. Quantifying this perception into a benefit that can be placed into a spread sheet is, I agree, a difficult if not impossible task, but a good actuary could probably come up with a defensible number. The point is that the philosophy of corporate management sets the tone for the rest of the company and if regulatory compliance is not a priority for management, then it won't be a priority for the compliance department. Reducing the amount of flame retardant plastic in a product is commendable if it doesn't compromise the protection it provides. Engineering is about trade-offs of conflicting requirements. Integrating compliance into a product should trade off the risk/consequence of non-compliance leading to an event. Events lead to lawsuits. I've always made a distinction between standards requirements and safety. Walt Hart at Fluke was an early mentor in product safety and taught me to differentiate between a requirement for a wire to be blue and a requirement that 5000 Volts not reach an end user. Harking back to an earlier thread, there are compliance engineers like yourself who go far beyond the requirements in the standards and understand the basic principles involved and how this basic science leads to standards. Then there are the folks who have compliance thrust upon them and at the extreme, haven't got a clue. In the commercial world of putting up buildings and other public structures there is a requirement that a registered professional engineer review and sign off on drawings. This is not a perfect solution and there are bad apples, but there is a minimum level of competence assumed that does not exist in the product safety world. EMC engineers have NARTE certification to add to their qualifications and most of the NARTE certified EMC engineers I've encountered were competent to say the least. NARTE has just recently, at the EMC meeting in Montreal, announced a similar certification for product safety engineers. Some will say this is an attempt at empire building or elitism, but I contend that raising the bar will benefit society as a whole and perhaps eventually elevate the status of compliance engineers from, as we were affectionately known at Fluke, "Those *&%holes downstairs" to respected professionals. My 2 cents, Best regards, Dan Daniel E. Teninty, P.E. Managing Partner DTEC Associates LLC Streamlining The Compliance Process Advancing New Products To Market http://www.dtec-associates.com (509) 443-0215 (509) 443-0181 fax -Original Message- From: Rich Nute [mailto:ri...@sdd.hp.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2001 10:35 AM To: dteni...@dtec-associates.com Cc: nutwoo...@nutwood.eu.com; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: Quality Assurance and Product Approvals Hi Dan: > Dell Computers, as well as a few other major players, take a proactive > approach to compliance and actually have a VP position for compliance. With > a little investigation into the benefits of having a first rate compliance > department with the ability to design for compliance, test to relevant > standards, compile reports, participate on standards committees, and deal > directly with world wide agencies I would think that most companies that > have global markets would see both the short term and long term benefits to > the bottom line. I would tend to include PC's into the ordinary products > pile, wouldn't you? I do agree with (and we practice) a pro-active approach to compliance. In my experience, though, I am surprised that a compliance manager would be a VP position (
RE: Quality Assurance and Product Approvals
Rich, Dell Computers, as well as a few other major players, take a proactive approach to compliance and actually have a VP position for compliance. With a little investigation into the benefits of having a first rate compliance department with the ability to design for compliance, test to relevant standards, compile reports, participate on standards committees, and deal directly with world wide agencies I would think that most companies that have global markets would see both the short term and long term benefits to the bottom line. I would tend to include PC's into the ordinary products pile, wouldn't you? Companies that choose to take the adversarial approach to compliance by cutting corners or only doing the minimum to comply, save dollars in the short term, but pay later in lost customers, or worse, lawsuits. One of our clients, had a management team that took this denial/avoidance approach to NEBS. When the Telecom downturn came, they were left in a position where there was lots less demand and what demand there was, was for NEBS compliant products. Most of the management team that made those decisions have either left the company in recent right-sizing exercises, or are working in lesser positions. It seems that hindsight is always able to find a goat. When I explain the benefits of compliance to management teams, I try to focus on the bottom line benefits of having a product that is marketable everywhere. The costs for compliance, when compared to the total development cost for a new product tend to be in the noise. If these costs are amortized over reasonable quantities, then the unit cost for compliance tends to be a bargain. Its not hard to dig up a few good case studies in Product Liability to drive home the point. Best regards, Daniel E. Teninty, P.E. Managing Partner DTEC Associates LLC Streamlining The Compliance Process Advancing New Products To Market http://www.dtec-associates.com (509) 443-0215 (509) 443-0181 fax -Original Message- From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Rich Nute Sent: Monday, November 26, 2001 12:36 PM To: nutwoo...@nutwood.eu.com Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: Quality Assurance and Product Approvals Hi Alan: > Two questions, does the group see a time when we have a VP Compliance on > level terms with VP Finance, VP Marketing etc, or is this already > happening in the US. No. And not likely to happen in companies with ordinary products. As a general rule, "compliance" is seen as a necessary evil. It is a cost without an associated revenue (or customer-recognized need or benefit). Few companies want to give VP status (and an empire) to a non-revenue- generating function. Many companies measure the product incremental cost for "compliance." The objective is to find methods and means for minimizing these product costs. Furthermore, few companies recognize the work of "compliance" folks as prevention of future unanticipated costs such as failure of sales due to non-compliance, product liability, or even product recalls. The reason the work is not recognized is the difficulty of measuring the future cost of non-compliance, especially if the company has never had such an incident. > Second Question. Does the group think a formal qualification in > Compliance Management & CE Marking would be a good idea. While we may think this is a good idea, most professional managers in the field of compliance consider the job as one interim step in their career. If "compliance" is a non- revenue-generating activity, then the step to personal growth is to measure the cost of compliance for the duration of one's leadership, and add this to one's CV. Then, move on. Candidates for compliance management might find courses useful. However, the value of such qualifications is not for the long term. Another problem is that upper management doesn't want to be told that they are restricted by compliance rules insofar as setting objectives for the products and the company. They certainly don't want to feel that the only management folks qualified for managing a compliance function are those that are trained and qualified in compliance management. Formal qualification in compliance management may be seen by upper management as a power play where the compliance manager uses his knowledge to gain some degree of control over other managers. If "formal qualification" in compliance management is principally that of methodology for measuring and reducing cost of compliance, then I would think this would be a very good idea. 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
RE: Quality Assurance and product approvals
Here, here ! Best regards, Daniel E. Teninty, P.E. Managing Partner DTEC Associates LLC http://www.dtec-associates.com Streamlining the Compliance Process 5406 S. Glendora Drive Spokane, WA 99223 (509) 443-0215 (509) 443-0181 fax -Original Message- From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Tania Grant Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2001 10:32 PM To: am...@westin-emission.no; 'EMC-PSTC Discussion Group' Subject: Re: Quality Assurance and product approvals Amund, Since I transferred, over more than 20 years ago, from Quality Assurance to Regulatory compliance/product safety, I will share with you my opinions and my experience. However, I would also be interested in hearing about the experience of others. In my opinion, QA and regulatory compliance are different enough functions that require different experiences and disciplines that would not necessarily make it effective for a QA organization to either write or enforce procedures on the regulatory compliance functions. That does not mean that regulatory compliance shouldn't have a more formal process and a procedure to go with it. For myself, I know that having a QA background made me a more effective regulatory "guru" at the company. But I don't see how the two can be meshed under the same umbrella without diluting one or the other. Both require focus but it would be a rare Janus that could manage this effectively. However, the regulatory processes could, and should, be integrated into the whole engineering design process;-- and so should the QA process. Thus, the two can and should help each other, but I just don't see that a QA oversight by itself would make the regulatory process better or more effective. Now, I have a problem with your statement "...have your companies made procedures which in details describes the product approval process from beginning to end ?" You are quite right that any procedure should describe a process in detail from beginning to end. This lends itself quite well to any and all test procedures, assembly of various parts, and other such functions where the same process is repeated over and over again. However, with the regulatory approval process, each product is different enough, that a procedure, especially one that is "detailed", would not work. And the approval process is not always "from the beginning to end" but very often just a test or two have to be repeated, but not all, and sometimes you just notify the authorities about this and that, and sometimes you don't, but only document it or write up a justification why a particular test is not required. So how do you write a procedure around this? If I had to religiously do all this, I would be writing a procedure practically every time I was submitting a new or providing changes to a product. And I sure as heck would have been very upset if someone else (say from QA) were writing these "procedures" for me, especially since they wouldn't know what was required, or how to achieve this. A procedure describes "how" something is done. If I don't know how to do it, I shouldn't be working in that position. If the QA person is writing such a procedure (and assuming they are effective at it, which is problematic) then they should be working in that position and not me. Thus, I am not in favor of "procedures". However, I am very much in favor of regulatory compliance plans that should be written for each new product, or a major regulatory up-date to a product. This compliance plan is really a communication device that informs Marketing, Engineering, QA, etc., the regulatory strategy: what the requirements are for this particular product, for which countries, to which standards, where the various tests will be performed, the approximate time assuming only one sample is available, and so forth. I am in favor, when a later update is made to the same product, to add an addendum to the same plan rather than generate a brand new plan. This way you can only add the delta tests that have to be done rather than start from scratch. And you have a history of the compliant process in one convenient location. Note that a compliance plan describes "what" is to be done and sometimes "why", if that is crucial, but it does not really go into the details of the "how". I don't want to start writing "how" I thermocouple the various components to get the product ready for safety heating tests! That, I consider, is part of training;-- and I have trained many to do this, all without benefit of writing any "procedures." However, I do insist (and I believe that all companies also do this) that there is a Hi-pot test procedure available (and I usually review it), and that designated personnel are properly trained on how to run these tests, whether this function is under the QA or manufacturing test umbrella. Thus, I consider that the regulatory functions (safety, EMC, te
Definitions - Safety Critical, Safety Circuit
Group, I pulled these from Cigital labs web site. A good first crack at definitions that perhaps the "community" could agree on. I am familiar with MIL-HDBK-882C and have used it on several occasions to evaluate things that go boom in a loud way. This is generally considered "BAD" by those in close proximity to the event. The details are left to the skill and experience of a competent safety engineer to ensure that those in close proximity are "them" and not "us". Safety-Critical A term applied to a condition, event, operation, process, object, function or system whose proper recognition, control, performance or tolerance is essential to safe system operation or use; e.g., safety critical function, safety critical path, safety critical component (882C). Safety Circuit A single, or a network of, simple circuit element(s) which are required to function in the support or enabling of a safety function. Where a simple circuit element is the mathematical model of a two terminal device, or function, which cannot be further subdivided into other two-terminal devices, or functions. Best regards, Daniel E. Teninty, P.E. Managing Partner DTEC Associates LLC http://www.dtec-associates.com Streamlining the Compliance Process 5406 S. Glendora Drive Spokane, WA 99223 (509) 443-0215 (509) 443-0181 fax --- 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: NEC Question BUT REMEMBER OSHA
Don't forget the Product Liability Lawyers ! ! Listing a product does not "protect" the manufacturer from being sued, it just establishes that the manufacturer has been duly diligent and therefore has not been negligent. This makes a huge difference when a lawsuit happens. In our society, where lawyers outnumber engineers, suit happens. Best regards, Dan DTEC Associates LLC http://www.dtec-associates.com Streamlining the Compliance Process 5406 S. Glendora Drive Spokane, WA 99223 (509) 443-0215 (509) 443-0181 fax -Original Message- From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Gregg Kervill Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2001 6:12 AM To: 'Jacob Schanker'; wo...@sensormatic.com; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org; mi...@ucentric.com Subject: RE: NEC Question BUT REMEMBER OSHA Just to ensure that I have my understanding right - if the equipment is used where OSHA applies then it must be approved by a third party like UL If it is domestic then it does not (in most states. Comments please. AND, does anyone have a list of States where certification is mandated? Best regards Gregg --- 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: Fish paper
RE: Fish paperI smelt that coming :>) Dan DTEC Associates LLC http://www.dtec-associates.com Streamlining the Compliance Process 5406 S. Glendora Drive Spokane, WA 99223 (509) 443-0215 (509) 443-0181 fax -Original Message- From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of lcr...@tuvam.com Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2001 6:36 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: Fish paper I think you have Perch'ed your argument rather precariously. Walleye understand where you are coming from, Salmon is sure to disagree with you. Best reference the National Electrical Cod. ;-) Lauren Crane -Original Message- From: wmf...@aol.com [mailto:wmf...@aol.com] Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2001 7:04 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: Fish paper Of course; after its namesake, fish paper could be expected to be hygroscopic. Or maybe someone just called it fish paper for the halibut. --- 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: Fluid flow rate
Robert, I remember solving a similar problem, water cooled heat-sink, using a machinists handbook. If you have one handy it saves dragging out the Fluid dynamics text and clearing the cobwebs. Best regards, Daniel E. Teninty, P.E. Managing Partner DTEC Associates LLC http://www.dtec-associates.com Streamlining the Compliance Process 5406 S. Glendora Drive Spokane, WA 99223 (509) 443-0215 (509) 443-0181 fax -Original Message- From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Robert Macy Sent: Friday, October 12, 2001 7:35 AM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Fluid flow rate Sorry about this being so far off topic, but I don't know where else to find the largest group of technology professionals who can answer this question: How much water will flow out of a 3/4 inch pipe which is under 60 psi? There is a restriction and the actual inside ID is around 7/16 inch. My guess is more than 5 gal/min. For example, when I get gasoline the tank will fill (20 gal) in less than 2 minutes. So it's got to be somewhere in this range, right? - 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: 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: Need electrical characteristics of epidermis (skin)
Robert, The best I can do is point you in the direction of IEC 479-1 which is by now IEC 600479. The title is "Effects of current passing through the human body". The electrical model for the human body is derived from this information. There is a good description of this in Annex A of ANSI/ISA S82.01-1994 which is harmonized, more or less identical to, UL 3111. Best regards, Daniel E. Teninty, P.E. Managing Partner DTEC Associates LLC http://www.dtec-associates.com Streamlining the Compliance Process 5406 S. Glendora Drive Spokane, WA 99223 (509) 443-0215 (509) 443-0181 fax -Original Message- From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Robert Macy Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2001 5:08 PM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Need electrical characteristics of epidermis (skin) Sorry to post here but am running into a brick wall at trying to find out something as simple as the resistivity and dielectric constant for skin! Does anybody have a source? Need quick, please. - Robert - --- 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.
Limitations on use and installation of Class A equipment in the EU
Do any of my esteemed colleagues know what restrictions EN 55022 places on Class A equipment? I was having a discussion today and the topic came up. I understand that a transmitting license is required in Germany? Are there any other restrictions for Class A equipment? Thanks in advance, Daniel E. Teninty, P.E. Managing Partner DTEC Associates LLC http://www.dtec-associates.com Streamlining the Compliance Process 5406 S. Glendora Drive Spokane, WA 99223 (509) 443-0215 (509) 443-0181 fax --- 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,"
Hot Swappable Power Supplies ?
Do any of my esteemed colleagues know of any specific requirements in 60950 (UL/CSA or EN) relating specifically to hot swappable power supplies? A search in the PDF version of UL/CSA 60950 reveals nothing specific when searching for "hot", "swap", or "power supply". A visual search of the TOC also reveals nothing specific. 2.6.5.4 deals with : Parts that can be removed by an operator Protective earthing connections shall make earlier and break later than the supply connections in each of the following: the connector of a part that can be removed by an OPERATOR; a plug on a power supply cord; an appliance coupler. Compliance is checked by inspection. This is the most I could find that was related, and then it is referring to the AC side. Thought I would triple check with the collective brain trust to be sure. Appreciate any pointers to passages that I missed. Thanks, Daniel E. Teninty, P.E. Managing Partner DTEC Associates LLC Streamlining the Compliance Process 5406 S. Glendora Drive Spokane, WA 99223 (509) 443-0215 (509) 443-0181 fax --- 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,"
Announce - Position for Compliance Engineer
DTEC Associates LLC is a Regulatory Compliance Consulting Firm located in Spokane Washington. We are looking for someone with a BSEE and an IT background with experience in World Wide approvals, and NEBS. We would consider having someone work from a home office. If you are West of Denver, have the degree and the background, and the interest in being semi-independent, please send me your resume. Best regards, Daniel E. Teninty, P.E. Managing Partner DTEC Associates LLC Streamlining the Compliance Process 5406 S. Glendora Drive Spokane, WA 99223 (509) 443-0215 (509) 443-0181 fax --- 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: EN61010-1 scope
EN 61010-1 has indeed been harmonized. In the US it exists as UL 3111 and ANSI/ISA S82.01. The National Forward addresses NEC specific issues. Daniel E. Teninty, P.E. Managing Partner DTEC Associates LLC Streamlining the Compliance Process (509) 443-0215 (509) 443-0181 fax -Original Message- From: owner-emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@ieee.org]On Behalf Of Terry Meck Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2001 12:07 PM To: paul_oshaughne...@affymetrix.com; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org; wo...@sensormatic.com Subject: RE: EN61010-1 scope Hi All: As long as your on this discussion I would like to know if this has been harmonized to the degree that IEC 950 has? I suspect the answer is no. Thanks! Terry >>> "O'Shaughnessy, Paul" 04/05/01 01:57PM >>> The opening paragraph of the Scope of 1010-1 states it covers "electrical equipment intended for professional, industrial process, and educational use, including equipment and computing devices for * measurement and test; * control; * laboratory use; * accessories intended for use with the above (eg. sample handling equipment)" The basic intent here is industrial. 950 covers ITE, which I believe emphasizes home or office computing, printing, etc., equipment. Other opinions? I think that's the simple answer. Paul O'Shaughnessy Affymetrix, Inc. -Original Message- From: wo...@sensormatic.com [mailto:wo...@sensormatic.com] Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2001 11:30 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: EN61010-1 scope I am trying to determine if a particular device should be safety certified under EN 60950 or EN 61010-1. It would be appreciated if someone would provide me with the scope of EN 61010-1. Thanks. Richard Woods --- 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," --- 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," --- 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," --- 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: Transformer isolation (military)
Dave, In my experience, a design that meets a MIL-STD carries absolutely no weight with any NRTL's, Notified Bodies, or Competent Bodies if the design is not compliant with the applicable standard. If the equipment is to be placed on the market in the EU, then of course, it must comply with all applicable standards. So bottom line, unless the product enjoys some sort of exemption for military use, it will need to comply with the applicable standard for the end product and any components. Best regards, Daniel E. Teninty, P.E. Managing Partner DTEC Associates LLC Streamlining the Compliance Process Spokane, WA (509) 443-0215 (509) 443-0181 fax -Original Message- From: owner-emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@ieee.org]On Behalf Of k3row Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2001 12:51 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Transformer isolation (military) Has anyone out there got any comments about the following: I have been involved with the import, into the U.K, of an item of "off the shelf" military equipment from the U.S.A. This avionics item operates from 3 phase 115v rms. I am told that the internal step down power transformer, which as far as I am concerned is required to provide double insulation primary to secondary, is only required to have 500v rms isolation, primary to secondary. This attribute, it is said, is compliant to MIL-T-27. There is always the perennial problem of matching military equipment characteristics to modern safety specifications, particularly for existing equipment, but 500v seems rather low, but then the MIL spec is current. Does anyone have any comments or advice about this. Dave Palmer
Re: Interlocks
Ray, I agree with Opinion 1. The required warning must have the following three components: 1) WARNING 2) Risk of Electric Shock. 3) To avoid .Do xx. On Fri, 20 Sep 1996 09:24:37 -0700 Ray Russell wrote: > > > Dear Friends, > > I've received some contradicting information in relation to the need > for interlocks, and would like to bring it up to the group for > discussion. We have an instrument that has a removable side panel. A > tool is required to remove the panel and there is hazardous voltages > behind the panel. The user is instructed to remove the panel for > installing options, and maintenance. > > Opinion 1 - Access is restricted by a tool, so no interlock is > required. EN61010-1 sec 6.1.1 states: > > The following Hazardous live parts are permitted to be accessible to > the operator during normal use: > > - parts intended to be replaced by the operator (e.g. batteries) and > which may be Hazardous live during the replacement or other operator > action, but only if they are accessible only by means of a tool and > have a warning marking.. > > Opinion 2 - When an operator is instructed to remove the panel, an > interlock is required. An agency told me that once an operator is > instructed to remove a panel, it is treated as if no tool was required > to remove it. > > Also, if anyone has information on high integrity components, such as > interlock switches and relays, I would appreciate some information. > > Thank you for your thoughts. > > Ray > > ray_russ...@leco.com > Dan Teninty P.E. Senior Design Engineer Product Safety teni...@tc.fluke.com FLUKE Corporation Everett, Washington (206) 356-6035 (206) 356-6490 fax
Re: Virus and the IEEE emc-pstc listserver.
Rich, Your response was well considered and appropriate. I think it is good to keep a perspective on who the users of this fourum are and their mean level of computer sophistication. Now that you are no longer the administrator of this fourum, who will be filling in ? Dan Teninty P.E. Senior Design Engineer Product Safety teni...@tc.fluke.com FLUKE Corporation Everett, Washington (206) 356-6035 (206) 356-6490 fax
Re: Certification of Product Safety Personnel
Bravo Rich !! I don't think I could have crafted a better answer in two weeks of wordsmithing. On Tue, 27 Aug 1996 13:14:00 -0700 Rich Nute wrote: > > > > Art Kampmeier and Gabriel Roy raise some interesting questions regarding > selection, qualification, and evaluation of the safety professional. > > Unfortunately, I think they both missed the basic question: What do you > want your safety professional to do? That is, what is his output? > > If you don't have the answer to this question, then you can't select, > qualify, or evaluate your personnel. > > I would expect that the safety professional would be responsible for > assuring the safety of products produced by the organization. He may > also be responsible for obtaining safety certifications from various > third-party safety certification organizations. > > But, this may not be the case for your organization. I would be curious > as to what your organization expects you to do. And, I would be curious > as to how your organization evaluates your effectiveness. > > For example, if you are responsible for the safety of products, then I > would suggest that you would or should be measured by the number of > injuries caused by the product. Other measures would be the number of > injuries ALLEGED as capable of being caused by the product even though > an injury did not occur. Yet another measure would be the number of > product recalls for safety reasons. The number of production-line > shutdowns due to safety problems. For each of these, the goal would > be zero. > > If you are responsible for obtaining third-party safety certification, > then I would suggest that you should be measured by having those > certifications complete by a planned date. Another measure would be > the number of changes required by the third-party. (A GOOD safety > professional should be able to submit a product with NO changes > required of the product.) Another measure would be the number of > variation notices found by third-party production inspectors. > > If you want your safety professional to advise R&D engineers about > ways in which the design can meet the safety standard, then you may > require your safety professional to be trained as an engineer. > > If you want your safety professional to test products and provide > feedback, then you may need your safety professional to be trained > in testing and report-writing. > > Etc. > > The point is, if you know what you want your safety professional to > do, then you can establish criteria for selection, qualification, > and evaluation. > > > Regards, > Rich > > > +===+ > |Richard Nute |Quality Department | > |Hewlett-Packard Company |Product Regulations Group| > |San Diego Division (SDD) |Tel : 619 655 3329 | > |16399 West Bernardo Drive|FAX : 619 655 4979 | > |San Diego, California 92127 |e-mail: ri...@sdd.hp.com | > +===+ > > > Dan Teninty P.E. Senior Design Engineer Product Safety teni...@tc.fluke.com FLUKE Corporation Everett, Washington (206) 356-6035 (206) 356-6490 fax
Re: Voltage for 3 pahse systems
On Thu, 18 Jul 1996 02:32:37 -0700 Chris Dupres wrote: > From: Chris Dupres > Date: Thu, 18 Jul 1996 02:32:37 -0700 > Subject: Re: Voltage for 3 pahse systems > To: moshe_vald...@mail.stil.scitex.com > Cc: emc-p...@ieee.org > > Moshe and everyone. > > A bit more information on the BSI document. > > 'World Electricity Supplies". > > This is available from: > British Standards Information Centre. > 389 Chiswick High Road, > London W4 4AL > > tel +44 81 996 7111 / fax +44 81 996 7048 > > or: > > British Standards Institution Inc. > Tycon Towers at Tycon Corner > 8000 Towers Crescent Drive > Suite 1350 > Vienna > Virginia 22182 > USA > > Tel 703 760 7828 / Fax 703 761 2770 > > Cost is about 33 UKP. > > Enjoy > > > Chris Dupres > EMC Specialist. VG Microtech. > cdup...@vacgen.fisons.co.uk > tel +44 (0) 1825 761077 > fax +44 (0) 1825 768343 > 'Opinions expressed are personal, not necessarily Corporate' Chris et al; Did some phoning to the BSI office in Virginia. Turns out that they are a sales office for services and BSI and other standards are available in the US from the British - American Chamber of Commerce in San Francisco, Calif. (415) 296-8645. The catalog # for the Book is TH 20338, cost $ 33.00 US. The wall chart catalog # is TH 20329 and the cost is the same as for the book. I spoke to a very pleasant and helpful gentelman there by the name of LLoyd Mostyn. Dan Teninty P.E. Senior Design Engineer Product Safety teni...@tc.fluke.com FLUKE Corporation Everett, Washington (206) 356-6035 (206) 356-6490 fax
