Double copies
Dear group, Is it just me or is anyone else receiving each message twice? Best regards, David Sproul.
FW: More CE mark issues...
From: David Sproul [mailto:david.spr...@alexanderlynn.co.uk] Sent: 11 November 2003 22:35 To: John Allen Subject: RE: More CE mark issues... Hi John, Yes you are absolutely correct. The LVD doesn't have any exemptions for military equipment. I was still thinking EMC directive when I responded to Dave's posting. I have written to him to acknowledge my misinformation, and now also feel a little foolish about my sarcastic comments in my original e-mail. I didn't know about Geoff Hoon's reinforcement of civil safety legislation for military equipment, but I do now. Thanks for keeping me right. Best regards, David Sproul From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of John Allen Sent: 11 November 2003 15:28 To: 'David Sproul' Cc: EMC-PSTC; Coleman, David Subject: RE: More CE mark issues... David S Unfortunately I have to correct you with respect to the LVD - it currently does not have an exemption for military equipment and neither does most (including UK) national implementing legislation. In the UK, the need for military equipment to comply with civilian legislation is reinforced by the Secretary of State for Defence' (Geoff Hoon) Safety and Environment policy statement in July 2000, which basically says the military will follow civilian legislation and standards unless there is an overriding operational need to deviate from the latter requirements - and even then the military must operate precautions to ensure a similar level of overall safety (and do the formal Safety Case). Thus my opinion is CE Mark it - And it is easier overall than explaining why you did not John Allen (ex Racal/Thales, but now) Technical Consultant EMC and Safety Engineering ERA Technology Ltd. Cleeve Road Leatherhead Surrey KT22 7SA UK Tel: +44-1372-367025 (Direct) +44-1372-367000 (Switchboard) Fax: +44-1372-367102 From: David Sproul [mailto:david.spr...@alexanderlynn.co.uk] Sent: 11 November 2003 13:21 To: Coleman, David Cc: EMC-PSTC Subject: RE: More CE mark issues... Hi David, I can only answer with my own opinion which will probably be both backed up and refuted by others who may respond. First of all, military equipment does not have to be CE marked, unless that has been changed very recently. However if the equipment has to go to Germany, they apparently insist that electronic military equipment be CE marked. From your description it would appear that, to your customer at least, your IA is the part of the ATE that they will access most. Although you are not responsible for the safe design of the ATE, unless you are selling it to the customer, (then you share responsibility with the manufacturer) you are responsible for your IA. You must therefore ensure that it is safe for your customers to use. Supplies passing through your IA from the ATE to the customers equipment must be handled in an acceptably safe manner. Since you are familiar with EN 61010 you will be aware of the potential hazards you should protect against. From discussions with individuals from within your organisation I know that your company can be very thorough in their risk assessment, so identifying those risk probably won't be a problem to you either. As you will be aware, a recent string in this group has been discussing when to CE mark and when not. I will dare to suggest that since without the ATE your IA is an expensive paperweight, you need not CE mark it. However, this does not release you from your obligations to ensure it is safe for your customers to use. I hope this has helped. Undoubtedly confusion will still reign when others tell you that they agree with me, while other will suggest that I should find another profession. Best regards, David Sproul From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Coleman, David Sent: 11 November 2003 08:36 To: EMC-PSTC Subject: More CE mark issues... My company designs and manufactures ATE systems and components for the Military, Aerospace and Functional test markets. Often what we are supplying is just an interface adapter (IA) that sits between another suppliers ATE and the customers unit under test (UUT). An IA consists of a metal box mounted on the front of the ATE, with I/O connectors on most panels. Whilst it is normally the case that the IA consists entirely of passive components, they do route AC power through to the UUT. From an EMC point of view, as they are passive and a component of a larger system (the ATE), the EMC directive need not apply. The problem is the LVD. Whilst we design and manufacture the item to meet the relevant harmonised standard (EN61010), the safety of the IA is often heavily dependant on the parent ATE (for which we are not the design authority), due to the use of safety features in the ATE (i.e. interlocks etc.) Historically, we have not CE marked these IAs. Are we correct? regards, Dave Coleman Racal Instruments Group
RE: More CE mark issues...
Hi David, I can only answer with my own opinion which will probably be both backed up and refuted by others who may respond. First of all, military equipment does not have to be CE marked, unless that has been changed very recently. However if the equipment has to go to Germany, they apparently insist that electronic military equipment be CE marked. From your description it would appear that, to your customer at least, your IA is the part of the ATE that they will access most. Although you are not responsible for the safe design of the ATE, unless you are selling it to the customer, (then you share responsibility with the manufacturer) you are responsible for your IA. You must therefore ensure that it is safe for your customers to use. Supplies passing through your IA from the ATE to the customers equipment must be handled in an acceptably safe manner. Since you are familiar with EN 61010 you will be aware of the potential hazards you should protect against. From discussions with individuals from within your organisation I know that your company can be very thorough in their risk assessment, so identifying those risk probably won't be a problem to you either. As you will be aware, a recent string in this group has been discussing when to CE mark and when not. I will dare to suggest that since without the ATE your IA is an expensive paperweight, you need not CE mark it. However, this does not release you from your obligations to ensure it is safe for your customers to use. I hope this has helped. Undoubtedly confusion will still reign when others tell you that they agree with me, while other will suggest that I should find another profession. Best regards, David Sproul From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Coleman, David Sent: 11 November 2003 08:36 To: EMC-PSTC Subject: More CE mark issues... My company designs and manufactures ATE systems and components for the Military, Aerospace and Functional test markets. Often what we are supplying is just an interface adapter (IA) that sits between another suppliers ATE and the customers unit under test (UUT). An IA consists of a metal box mounted on the front of the ATE, with I/O connectors on most panels. Whilst it is normally the case that the IA consists entirely of passive components, they do route AC power through to the UUT. From an EMC point of view, as they are passive and a component of a larger system (the ATE), the EMC directive need not apply. The problem is the LVD. Whilst we design and manufacture the item to meet the relevant harmonised standard (EN61010), the safety of the IA is often heavily dependant on the parent ATE (for which we are not the design authority), due to the use of safety features in the ATE (i.e. interlocks etc.) Historically, we have not CE marked these IAs. Are we correct? regards, Dave Coleman Racal Instruments Group ** IMPORTANT NOTICE The information contained in this e-mail is confidential. It may also be legally privileged. It is intended only for the stated addressee(s) and access to it by any other person is unauthorised. If you are not an addressee, you must not disclose, copy, circulate or in any other way use or rely on the information contained in this e-mail. Such unauthorised use may be unlawful. If you have received this e-mail in error, please inform Racal Instruments Group Ltd. immediately by emailing postmas...@racalinstrumentsgroup.co.uk or phoning +44 (0)1202 872800 (ask for the I.T. Dept.) and delete it and all copies from your system. www.racalinstrumentsgroup.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: 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 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
RE:FCC and Canada
Many thanks to all of you who replied. You have all been very helpful, and have taught me quite a bit. Thanks again, David Sproul, Business Development Manager, Alexander Lynn Approvals Management Services
RE: FCC and Canada
Before anyone asks, some of somebody means that I changed my mind on the wording of the message and omitted to delete all of the original word. Hopefully this explanation can help avert the bizarre tangential discussions involving some of the stranger senses of humour that participate in this discussion group (amusing as they often are.) Best regards, David Sproul.
FW: FCC and Canada
Dear Group, I apologise to for sending this out twice, but the copy of my original message arrived back with no text. I hope the text will be included this time. Best regards, David Sproul. From: David Sproul [mailto:david.spr...@alexanderlynn.co.uk] Sent: 20 August 2003 11:27 To: EMC-PSTC Subject: FCC and Canada Dear Group, Could some of somebody please remind me whether or not IT equipment compliant with the FCC requirements for the US would also be eligible for sale to Canada, or would we need to apply further CSA standards ? (The safety assessment has been done by UL.) Thanks to you all for your assistance, Best regards, David Sproul,
RE: Russian (GOST) equivalent standards.
Hello John, I find your response to Neil's comments to be most interesting. In my original posting I said that I had used the generics to cover the emc requirements. I had guessed these from memory, but when I actually checked I found that we had in fact used the EN 55103 standards that Neil had referred to. I also noticed that section G.2.2.4 (Entertainment lighting control apparatus:) was highlighted in the my copy of the standard. After an endless period of head scratching, I began to recall the lengthy debates we had at the time with, our client and the test house. There are 2 standards for EMC that generally cover lighting products, namely EN 55015 for emissions and EN61547 for immunity. EN 61547 also includes in it's scope entertainment lighting control equipment for professional purpose. On the other hand there are the EN 55103 standards which are specifically named Product family standard for audio, video, audio-visual and entertainment lighting control apparatus for professional use. Since our client made lighting control equipment for use in theatres, we saw the latter standards as being the most appropriate ones to use. EN 55015 did not seem to be the most appropriate standard for us. Our client's units have an on-board processor running at several MHz, which monitors load currents and voltages, dimmer temperature and control instructions for the 96 channels being run simultaneously. With load cables several 10's of metres long, we saw there was a high likelihood of radiated emissions, which are not covered by EN55015. This again is why we opted for the EN55103 standards which do specify radiated emissions measurements up to 1GHz. As I stated earlier, we did also notice this peculiar clause in the informative Annex G within EN55103-1 (Product family standard for ...entertainment lighting control apparatus for professional use) which seemed to excluded professional lighting control equipment from the professional lighting control equipment standard. Perhaps incorrectly, as you would argue, we interpreted that clause in a way that suited our case. It says that the standard applies to control desks (but not dimmers or luminaires, to which EN 55014 or EN 55015 applies) If it had said to which EN 55014 or EN 55015 apply, that would have said to me that dimmers or luminaires are covered exclusively by these 2 standards. But because it said applies we chose to read that as EN55103 does not apply to dimmers for which the scope of EN 55015 fully covers all their EMC emissions protection requirements. As far as we could see, EN 55015 did not address all the particular protection requirements for emissions from our clients' equipment. Nevertheless. In the light of (no pun intended) the recent prosecution of a hairdryer manufacturer for not ensuring their equipment was compliant with all the EMC requirements for the intend working environment, we have recommended to our client that they carry out Conducted Emission tests between 9kHz and 150kHz, as required by EN55015, but excluded from EN55103-1. In this way we are now confident that our clients equipment now meets the protection requirements for the environment in which it is designed to work. I look forward (I think) to your comments, Best regards, David Sproul. From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of John Woodgate Sent: 15 April 2003 08:31 To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: Russian (GOST) equivalent standards. I read in !emc-pstc that Barker, Neil neil.bar...@e2vtechnologies.com wrote (in 4f826f960057d4118ec3009027e2453808a52...@whl17.eev.uk) about 'Russian (GOST) equivalent standards.' on Mon, 14 Apr 2003: Although the technical requirements are somewhat similar, you should be using EN 55103-1 EN 55103-2 for EMC as they are the product specific standards for audio, video, and lighting control apparatus for professional use. I would make sure that you meet these first. I don't agree with earlier advice to us EN 55015 as this applies to the luminaires rather than the control equipment. Well, I'm afraid you are wrong in respect of dimmers, as you would know if you had read clause G.2.2.4 of EN 55103-1. The OP's 'dimmer/control equipment' suggested to me that the control was integrated in the dimmer rack, in which case EN 55015 applies to the whole box. -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Interested in professional sound reinforcement and distribution? Then go to http://www.isce.org.uk 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p
Russian (GOST) equivalent standards.
Dear Group, I am trying to find out what standards a theatre lighting dimmer / controller would have to comply with before being eligible for sale in Russia. In Europe we currently use EN 61000-6-1 -3 for EMC, and EN 60439-1, EN 61010-1 and EN 60950 to cover the safety requirements. Can anyone tell me if the Russians have direct equivalents of these standards, or whether there is a product specific standard that they would use? Are there any agency requirements still exist in Russia, such as GOST, and if so what do we have to do to meet their requirements?. I look forward to your responses, Best regards, David Sproul,
G5-4 Harmonics Emissions Limits for Industrial Apparatus.
Dear group, Has anyone heard of G5-4 which is apparently a new standard or amendment to an existing standard within Europe, dealing with the Harmonic Current limits for industrial equipment, presumably meaning equipment rated at more than 16A per phase. I would like to know when is it due to come into force, or when it was ratified, and what exactly it applies to. I thank you in advance for your responses. Best regards, David Sproul, Business Development Manager, Alexander Lynn Approvals Management Services,
EU standards applying to Furnaces
Dear all, Can anyone advise what directive and standards we should be applying to industrial furnaces. I am quite confident in covering the safety requirements of the associated control and electrics, but I have no idea on how to approach a furnace with vacuum inside to remove impurities from their process. Secondly, on some of the larger models, there is an overhead crane included in the plant to move the metal parts from one part of the process to another. The company is confident that they have all the necessary safety requirements covered, but they are looking for verification from an outside source. Can anyone suggest which standards from the Machinery Directive and / or the Low Voltage Directives should be applied. I thank you in advance for your help. Best regards, David Sproul, Business Development Manager, Alexander Lynn Approvals Management Services
Sun Beds
Many thanks to all of you for your help with the Sun Bed Standards. Best regards, David Sproul, Business Development Manager, Alexander Lynn Approvals Management Services
RE: EN 55103 declaration
Dear Mr Chan, you may get an e-mail from BSI justifying what they do, but I find it irritating (mainly because I wish I had thought of it first.) If you look at most of the BS EN standards, you will see that they are the EN Standards with a BSI front and back cover. This makes it an official British standard, since traditionally BSI set various standards within the UK. The rest of the standard is invariably identical to the EN standard. What I find irritating is that BSI then charge us a lot of money for putting these extra pages onto the EN standard for you. No-one (except this miserable tight-fisted Scotsman) seems to mind paying them for this service. Oh how I wish I had thought of this first. Best regards, David Sproul. From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of KC CHAN [PDD] Sent: 07 January 2003 02:42 To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org; boconn...@t-yuden.com Subject: RE: EN 55103 declaration EN and BSI EN are the same, but I would suggest you use EN standards on your DoC, instead of BS EN. The publish date of the standards from EN and BS EN might not be the same, so to avoid confusion, use EN, which the publish date(actually the date is version) are same as those listed in OJ. boconn...@t-yuden.com 01/04/03 12:46am Sir What is the rationale given for some people not accepting an EN standard issued by BSI? My employer typically buys EN stds from BSI. Is there something different about BSI-printed standards? thanks for info. R/S, Brian O'Connell Taiyo Yuden (USA), Inc. From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk] Sent: Friday, January 03, 2003 7:41 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: EN 55103 declaration 76011...@gandalf.allen-heath.com) about 'EN 55103 declaration' on Fri, 3 Jan 2003: As a UK manufacturer and European exporter of professional electronic audio products, we declare conformity with the relevant EMC product family standards. For testing purposes, we use EN 55103:1996 Parts 1 2 but our EU Declaration of conformity states compliance with BS EN 55103:1997 Parts 1 2. As the majority of our products are exported to mainland Europe should we specify compliance with the EN or BS EN version of the standards? While it is quite reasonable to cite the BS EN, some people may not think so, thus you should cite the EN. 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
Sun Beds
Dear Group, A Happy and Prosperous New Year to you all. Could someone please advise me on the appropriate EMC and Safety Standards to apply to domestic sun-beds for sale in Europe and the US. Thank you all in anticipation, Best regards, David Sproul, Business Development Manager, Alexander Lynn Approvals Management Services
Vehicle Mounted PCB
Thanks to all those who responded to my posting. Some responses were helpful, some were amusing, and some were both, but all were gladly received. Best regards, David Sproul,
Vehicle Mounted PCB's
Dear group, A customer has been asked to redesign a board to stop it malfunctioning due to vibration, temperature and radio interference. They have been given a control PCB which they are told is the main culprit for the malfunctions. They circuit is mounted in an armoured vehicle as part of a security system which sprays bank notes with red ink when it believes a robbery is taking place. Apparently it sprays ink if it gets too hot, too cold, gets bumped, or if a radio or mobile phone is operated too close to it. The bad news is that this is on the market and being used by security firms within the UK and mainland Europe, with no real evidence of previous compliance with anything. Should this comply with any of Vehicle directive requirements? Are there any peculiar EMC requirements other than the usual 61000 series? What standard is likely to cover this device for use in vehicles? Although they haven't asked, what would be the most appropriate standard to cover safety requirements for this device. (Although is runs of only 12V, I am concerned about a fault causing a short across the battery, for example)? There was mention of selling it in the US too. If any has thoughts on what such a device should comply with there, all comments would be gratefully received. If you are thinking of writing back and suggesting the device be thrown in the bin, then I'm sorry to say that someone else has beaten you to it. Best regards, David Sproul,
RE: Filtered D Types.
Many thanks for all your help. Best regards, David Sproul.
Filtered D-Types.
Hello Group, does anyone knee where I can get either filtered D-type connectors or filter cards that be inserted inside the shell to filter the signals? I was at a seminar where these were shown being used in a Japanese video, (with English voice over) and I was asked if I could source them. Can anyone help? Best regards, David Sproul,
RE: Creepage
Peter Tarver and all, Yes I know that these aren't harmonised standards. My original query I guess was why independent bodies should decide upon such varying creepage distance requirements. I had naively thought that these distances would have been determined by some universally recognised formula, that would have given the same results for the same circumstances wherever in the world it was applied. It has now be made clear to me (thanks to all who helped me understand) that this wasn't the case, and that throughout the world some very different methods are used to determine appropriate creepage distances. Perhaps one day there will be method accepted by all disciplines of product design around the world, like everyone using IEC 60664 for instance. But until that day comes I now at least have an answer for our customers when they ask about the different requirements. Thanks you all again. Best regards, David Sproul. -Original Message- From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Peter L. Tarver Sent: 11 October 2002 17:27 To: EMC-PSTC Subject: RE: Creepage David - These are not harmonized standards. UL 891 bases it's spacings on US electrical distribution standards, while EN60439-1 most likely relies on IEC60664. Regards, Peter L. Tarver, PE Product Safety Manager Sanmina-SCI Homologation Services San Jose, CA peter.tar...@sanmina-sci.com -Original Message- From: David Sproul Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 6:15 AM Sorry Brian, I missed your response until now. The standards I was using was EN 60439-1 for Europe and UL 891 in America. These were the standards recommended by the customers association and UL. Best regards, David Sproul. --- 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: David Sproul...UL creepage limits ;~)
Ted, thank you for your response. I do not claim to be an expert, but I cannot accept that creepage has anything to to with the current flowing in a circuit. Surely it is the voltage across the material and the CTI of that material which determines the likelihood of tracking across the material to take place. As for your car battery melting story, cars must be wired differently in the US than in the UK, because I have connected negative to negative and positive to positive on many occaisions, and never had anything anymore exciting happen than the second car starts. Best regards, David Sproul. -Original Message- From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Ted Rook Sent: 09 October 2002 15:28 To: Subject: David Sproul...UL creepage limits ;~) This is because when you double the voltage the power is proportional to a quarter of the current squared. In America the 120V power is at lower voltage but the current is twice as much and so the creepage is twice as well. Very high voltage circuits hardly creep at all whereas low voltages creep the most. That is why you should never join the two negative terminals when you jump start a car, the car battery charging circuits have so much creepage they can melt the battery. I though everybody knew that... --- 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: Creepage
Can anyone give a rational reason why UL ask for around twice the creepage distances for 120V that EN standards ask for 230V. I realise this is a bit vague, but I can dig out some examples if any needs to be convinced. I have been asked this by customers on a number of occasions, and have always meant to find out so I would no longer have to apologise for not knowing. Thanks Richard for jogging my memory. Best regards, David Sproul. -Original Message- From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of richwo...@tycoint.com Sent: 07 October 2002 19:46 To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Creepage What is a good source that explains the rational for the values for creepage distances? 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: Safety Symbol / Hot surfaces
Hello David / Neil, I wasn't sure if either of you were in the UK or on the other side of the pond. In the UK I have been supplied with these labels from a company called HTE Controls. Their phone number is +44 (0) 1355 238641. They have many different labels in different sizes , printed on self adhesive plastic. I have no connection with this company other than to occasionally buy labels from them. Best regards, David Sproul, Alexander Lynn Approvals Management Services -Original Message- From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Neil Helsby Sent: 26 September 2002 08:34 To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Hot surfaces The hot symbol is also found at ISO 7000 pattern 0535 and BS 6217 pattern 5041. We have recently introduced this symbol on some of our products. The problem with this, and other safety required symbols, is that we have been unable to locate a source that supplies these as standard off the shelf items. It has therefore been necessary to pay for artworks to be designed and this adds considerable cost to the product. Once the artwork has been paid for, the cost between printing 100 and 1000 labels s generally minimal in comparison so our batch of labels should last a long time. Does anyone know of a source of these types of labels or is this a business opening for someone? Regards, Neil Helsby ** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses. www.mimesweeper.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
RE: Earthing through screws.
Hello Doug, I believe you are right. If I had taken the trouble to read EN60950 para 2.6.5.7, I would have saved my self from asking stupid questions. Thanks also to all those who responded to my orignial posting. regards, David Sproul. -Original Message- From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Doug McKean Sent: 16 September 2002 18:58 To: EMC-PSTC Subject: Re: Earthing through screws. I wasn't aware that primary grounding securements could be used for another purpose. Regards, Doug McKean --- 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
Earthing through screws.
Dear group, Could someone please remind me of the marking requirements for screws used for safety earthing purposes. The screws in question are also used to secure a small drawer into a grounded metal rack. Would it be sufficient to include a warning in the installation manual that the screws are also required for earthing purposes, or would they have to be visibly identified as part of the safety earthing? Your comment would be gratefully received. Best regards, David Sproul,
RE: ISO 9k/2k relevance
Hello Brian, I don't have any helpful answers for you. I used to sell ISO 9000 and the majority of times I heard its benefits praised was by my bosses and the sales information. I do remember a small number of customers saying that, for them to be considered in bids, they had to have ISO 9000. However, I have also work for ISO 9000 companies whose day to day working practices were a mess, but come audit day they would come up smelling of roses. I suspect that ISO 9000 / 2000 will improve this situation, and perhaps through time, if customer companies see marked improvements in their own operations, more of them will start to insist on their suppliers having the same accreditation. From personal experience, the companies I have had dealings with are still in a period of transition from the old ISO 9000, and therefore any benefits of the new system are still to be realised. Best regards, David Sproul -Original Message- From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Brian O'Connell Sent: 08 August 2002 15:36 To: Product Safety Technical Committee Subject: ISO 9k/2k relevance Good People of the PSTC: I've had some conversations with our Component Engineers, Sales and QA people. I could not identify any customer that placed an order based on our ISO 9k and/or 2k certification. Nor could I identify any component specified and/or purchased that was based on whether a supplier has ISO certification. Is the ISO paper mill relevant? Is there empirical evidence that ISO certification results in better stuff? Is ISO certification a requirement for your purchasing policies? Has ISO certification been a determining or contributing factor for selection of your company's products? At this point, I am not being critical of the ISO process; I am attempting to understand its ROI and relevance to product quality. I speak only for myself; nothing said here represents my employer's policies. R/S, Brian --- 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: HALT and HAAS
Hello group, I would actually disagree that HALT is misnamed, as Brian suggests. I have seen clients find mechanical and electronic weakness in their designs within days of testing that may otherwise have taken many weeks of conventional temperature and vibration testing, or even years in the field, before they were discovered. By fixing these problems these companies were able to strengthen their product still further and greatly reduce, and in some cases eradicate, repairs or returns from customers. I may be wrong, but is it not the case that components destined for non military use do not come with MTBF figures, thus making it impossible to calculate accurate MTBF figures for products they are used in? I must stress that I this is more supposition that known fact. If it is so, then perhaps HALT could be seen as a commercial alternative to MTBF. I think HAAS may actually be HASS, which stands for highly accelerated stress screening. This I'm afraid I've had very little experience of, but It seems to take the product lessons learned from your HALT testing and apply them, in a less destructive manner, to the manufacturing process. HALT and HASS are very expensive and must be weighed against perceived potential savings from reduced field repairs or replacements. I know it is not for all companies. I used to work for a large British manufacturer of military electronics who made as much money (if not more) from spares and repairs, as they did from the original product sales. I hope this has helped. Best regards, David Sproul. -Original Message- From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Brian O'Connell Sent: 31 July 2002 14:12 To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RE: HALT and HAAS Geez, just jump to Google. HALT- misnamed: Highly Accelerated Life Testing. Actually has noting to do with Life-time or MTBF-type longevity analysis. Look at the Calmer web site; they were one of the pioneers of HALT. Also, GM has published an engineering standard, GMW8287, that provides a decent overview of HALT and HASS/HASA processes. There may be minimal ROI for simple digital stuff, but mixed-signal and/or more complex mechanical constructions should be subject to HALT, and perhaps HASS follow-up. If your manufacturing and design engineers take the time to actually READ your HALT report and take corrective action, you will probably find that RMA problems are greatly reduced. In any case, playing with liquid nitrogen is great fun... Brian -Original Message- From: Peter Merguerian [mailto:pmerguer...@itl.co.il] Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2002 3:38 AM To: EMC-PSTC (E-mail) Subject: HALT and HAAS Dear All, 1. Has anyone heard of HALT and HAAS? 2. What are some overseas labs (in Europe, North America and Asia) testing for HALT and HAAS? 3. What does a manufacturer testing to HALT and HAAS gain? --- 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: Multiple Product Variants under EN60439.
Scott, from reading what you have written, I guess you must be about 900 years old to have acquired such wisdom. Thank you for your encouragement. Now I will feel a little less intimidated by experts. Thanks best regards, David Sproul. -Original Message- From: Scott Douglas [mailto:dougl...@naradnetworks.com] Sent: 28 June 2002 13:34 To: David Sproul; Nick Williams Cc: EMC-PSTC Subject: RE: Multiple Product Variants under EN60439. Nick, In my years of being a compliance type, I have found many cases where I could not get an agency or test house to make a bold statement about this or that. Often one can accept that and understand why they will not commit. For one reason, they do not want to be the one sued by some disgruntled customer because something happened (or didn't happen). But just as often, I have found it extremely frustrating that I cannot get a straight answer from the same people. What I have come to realize is this. Yes, I always thought the agency / test house / whatever should be the experts and should always be able to give concrete answers. Why do I think this? Because they eat sleep and breathe standards every day for a living. So they should be able to answer our sometimes really hard questions. As for me, I am a compliance guy with 19 years on the job. But you know what? I do not live with standards every day, some days I actually do other stuff not compliance related. That is why I do not always know my standards as well as I might need to. So I turn to the experts. And sometimes get the same frustrations as you. Another thing I have come to realize is that the people in our field of compliance are just that, people. Wherever we work, be it an agency, test house, or manufacturer, we are all human. And that means that some of us are really good at what we do, some of us are okay at the job, and some of us should be in another field. I won't go in to percentages in any category, we know who we are. So how does this help you? I can tell you that I have learned to always question everything. Especially if it does not sound or feel right. Compliance is really about common sense with a little bit of overkill thrown in for good measure. When someone tells you that you must do it this way, ask why, ask to see it written in the standard, ask them to justify what they are saying. Done reasonably, no one should take offense at your questioning them. You are only trying to learn after all. To become better at your job. And, as often as not, I have seen lights go on in many an agent or test house person when they had to explain themselves. As I said earlier, we are all human. And for every one you ask a question of, you will as often get that many answers. In the end, it is always up to us as individuals to do what we think is right in order to comply with the spirit and intent of the standard. Sometimes that means gritting our teeth and doing something that is not likeable or pleasant. Sometimes that means not doing specifically what is told to us to do. And sometimes that means negotiating an acceptable compromise between you and the teller of what you don't agree with. So, never accept anything on blind faith because the other person is the expert. Sometimes you put it in mind to accept it, but always keep that question there as well. Have faith in yourself that you know what you are doing. But always ask to be shown how you are wrong about some particular point. Then, if they convince you, admit your error, change your way, and move on. And if they don't convince you, then make that hard decision to do what you feel is right and be prepared to support or defend that position. Anyway, off the soap box now. Regards, Scott At 10:28 PM 6/27/02 +0100, David Sproul wrote: Thanks Nick, I knew that what was happening with the CB wasn't right, but I was afraid to challenge them since they would presumably know more than me, and therefore in some way may have been able to justify what they were (are) doing. As for the EN60439 issue, I have found that certain labs will not make engineering judgements, depending on which body has accredited them. They will only report on facts derived from testing. Even when the engineers say off the record it will be OK, they still won't put it in a report and say It is our considered opinion that this or that change is unlikely to effect the compliance of this or that product. I do find the whole thing so very frustrating, made even more so because, to me EN60439 is an awkward standard to follow. Perhaps it is just me. Thanks again, David Sproul. -Original Message- From: Nick Williams [mailto:nick.willi...@conformance.co.uk] Sent: 27 June 2002 21:47 To: David Sproul Cc: EMC-PSTC Subject: Re: Multiple Product Variants under EN60439. David, Replies in the text of your questions... At 17:25 +0100 26/6/02, David Sproul wrote: Dear Group, As you will all know, under the EMC Directive a range of product variants can
RE: Multiple Product Variants under EN60439.
Thanks Nick, I knew that what was happening with the CB wasn't right, but I was afraid to challenge them since they would presumably know more than me, and therefore in some way may have been able to justify what they were (are) doing. As for the EN60439 issue, I have found that certain labs will not make engineering judgements, depending on which body has accredited them. They will only report on facts derived from testing. Even when the engineers say off the record it will be OK, they still won't put it in a report and say It is our considered opinion that this or that change is unlikely to effect the compliance of this or that product. I do find the whole thing so very frustrating, made even more so because, to me EN60439 is an awkward standard to follow. Perhaps it is just me. Thanks again, David Sproul. -Original Message- From: Nick Williams [mailto:nick.willi...@conformance.co.uk] Sent: 27 June 2002 21:47 To: David Sproul Cc: EMC-PSTC Subject: Re: Multiple Product Variants under EN60439. David, Replies in the text of your questions... At 17:25 +0100 26/6/02, David Sproul wrote: Dear Group, As you will all know, under the EMC Directive a range of product variants can be covered by a Technical Construction File. A company who manufactures control panels for large industrial plant has to re-submit every control panel it makes the a Competent Body because it was impossible for them to build a super panel with every conceivable component included. I have 3 questions: 1/ Is there any other way they can have their range cover by a TCF without having to re-submit to the Competent Body? Firstly, I suggest they find a new CB - it sounds like the one they have got is more interested in making money at their expense than in solving a problem for their clients. Secondly, it's highly likely they don't need to be using a TCF anyway. 2/ Under the LVD, do these panels have to be type tested to EN60439 by a Certified Body? No. And 60439 may not be the right standard anyway. 3/ Is there anyway they can have their panel range reviewed to EN60439 and be sure that their Safety Technical File will cover future variants, without having to return to the Certified Body for each new Panel. Yes. They need to be trained to know how to do it for themselves. The industry they work in is very competitive, so they cannot raise their prices too much. Therefore each visit to the Competent Body and the Certified Body is eating into their meagre profits. Most of their competitors don't bother with independent verification for either safety or EMC. Are there any significantly knowledgeable people who could bring this company some good news? It's what we do for a living. To say more would be an abuse of the EMC-PSTC forum. Best regards, David Sproul, Alexander Lynn Approvals Management, Tel/fax +44 (0) 1383 85 Mobile +44 (0) 7950 744466 Regards Nick. Conformance Ltd - Product safety, approvals and CE-marking consultants Tel. + 44 1298 873800, Fax. +44 1298 873801 Registered in England, Company No. 3478646 --- 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
Multiple Product Variants under EN60439.
Dear Group, As you will all know, under the EMC Directive a range of product variants can be covered by a Technical Construction File. A company who manufactures control panels for large industrial plant has to re-submit every control panel it makes the a Competent Body because it was impossible for them to build a super panel with every conceivable component included. I have 3 questions: 1/ Is there any other way they can have their range cover by a TCF without having to re-submit to the Competent Body? 2/ Under the LVD, do these panels have to be type tested to EN60439 by a Certified Body? 3/ Is there anyway they can have their panel range reviewed to EN60439 and be sure that their Safety Technical File will cover future variants, without having to return to the Certified Body for each new Panel. The industry they work in is very competitive, so they cannot raise their prices too much. Therefore each visit to the Competent Body and the Certified Body is eating into their meagre profits. Are there any significantly knowledgeable people who could bring this company some good news? Best regards, David Sproul, Alexander Lynn Approvals Management, Tel/fax +44 (0) 1383 85 Mobile +44 (0) 7950 744466
RE: Slotted Busbars.
Dear Group, Thank you all again for you help in this issue. I have since found out that one of the Engineers I initially contacted was in fact working on a customer's site. For this reason he was unable to respond to my initial request for information. It was therefore perhaps unjustified, not to mention unproffessional, for me to imply that his company had given me a poor service. I would therefore like to take this opportunity to apologise for including this unfair remark in my original e-mail. Best regards, David Sproul, Alexander Lynn Approvals Management, Tel/fax +44 (0) 1383 85 Mobile +44 (0) 7950 744466
Slotted Busbars.
Dear Group, thank you all for you speedy but varied answers. Best regards, David Sproul,
Slotted Busbars
Dear Group, I have a client who wishes to use open slots instead of closed holes for the connecting bolts used in joining two 400A busbar within their product. This decision was taken to make installation and maintenance easier. However, their installation Manager has objected to this without giving a reason. I have e-mailed my contacts within TUV and UL, and after some 48 hours they have not responded. Are there any sufficiently knowledgeable people who can tell me whether or not this is permissible, and why. Best regards, David Sproul.
