Farewell - For Now

[Dick Grobner]

To the "valued" emc-pstc group:
I have been participating in this forum for around 4 years. The amount of
knowledge I gained as being a member in this forum was priceless. Where else
could one gain such a wealth of information for free!!! Everyone on this
forum (especially the ones who provide their past experiences - good & bad)
should feel very gratified by being able to share their knowledge with
others who are just getting their feet wet! As I have stated to other
colleagues - there are no schools (very few if any) that can teach this kind
of stuff, you need to "mingle" with those working in it - this forum
provides just that! You people are irreplaceable - just remember that at all
times.

I will be leaving my position with my present employer as Compliance
Engineer on the 17th (one day to go). My new career path will not be taking
me down this avenue for now. But - as soon as I get established I may be
logging back in just to stay abreast of what's going on in this area, and
hopefully will be able to still contribute now and then.  
It has been a joy getting to know all of you via this forum - may God bless
all of you in your endeavors through life!

I almost forgot - a special "thank you" to the list administrators who keep
this forum running smoothly!

So Long All

Dick Grobner
Medical Graphics Corporation
350 Oak Grove Parkway
St Paul MN 55127
1-651-766-3395
1-651-766-3389 (fax)
dick.grob...@medgraph.com
www.medgraphics.com


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

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

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

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

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

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

RE: Oils for the 950 Hot Flaming Oil Test

[Dick Grobner]

You could try searching the following web based data bases for MSDS's
www.msdssearch.com
www.cdc.gov/niosh/npg/pgintrod.html
Good Luck


-Original Message-
From: Peter Merguerian [mailto:pmerguer...@itl.co.il]
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2001 2:19 AM
To: "EMC-PSTC (E-mail)" <
Subject: Oils for the 950 Hot Flaming Oil Test 



Dear All,

Does anyone have the MSDS for Kerosene # 1? This is the oil used by UL to
conduct the Hot Flaming Oil Test in the UL60950/EN 60 950  ITE standards
when the bottom openings do not comply with some of the bottom
cfonstructions specified in the standard.

I am also trying to determine other types of oils (and relevant MSDSs) which
may be suitable for the test.


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:
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: Certificate of Incorporation???

[Dick Grobner]

FYI - In the state of Minnesota they refer to this document as "Article of
Incorporation" and not "Certificate of Incorporation". I confirmed by
checking ours.

-Original Message-
From: Clement Dave-LDC009 [mailto:dave.clem...@motorola.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2001 3:59 PM
To: 'Veit, Andy'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: Certificate of Incoorporation???



Andy,

"Certificate of Incorporation" usually is the piece or paper from the
Secretary of State of the state your company is incorporated in as a
business. I have had to provide this as evidence that the company is a real
company when doing approval work but it certainly has nothing to do with and
EU DofC and CE marking.

David Clement
Motorola Inc.
Global Homologation Engineering
20 Cabot Blvd.
Mansfield, MA 02048

P: 508-261-4389
F: 508-261-4777
C: 508-725-9689
E: 




-Original Message-
From: Veit, Andy [mailto:andy.v...@mts.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2001 2:28 PM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Certificate of Incoorporation???



Hello-
Can someone explain to me what a "Certificate of Incorporation" is?  One of
our vendors wants to supply this in lieu of an "EU Declaration of
Conformity" for CE compliance.
Can someone enlighten me?

Thanks again-
-Andy

Andrew Veit
Systems Design Engineer
MTS Systems Corp
Ph: 919.677.2507
Fax: 919.677.2480
1001 Sheldon Drive 
Cary, NC 27513 


---
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: World-wide approvals radio transmitters

[Dick Grobner]

I thought Japan - VCCI was for ITE equipment only? or am I wrong? I believe
that Japanese safety standards are JIS - #. Which number applies to radios
Tx/Rx I have no idea. hopefully someone else in the forum will know.
Good Luck.

-Original Message-
From: am...@westin.org [mailto:am...@westin.org]
Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2001 4:33 PM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: World-wide approvals radio transmitters



HI all !

I guess this question has been addressed during the last year, but I have
lost 
track 

Product: Radio transmitter/receiver (10-12GHZ)

We want access to the following markeds:
1. Europe (CE-marking, EMC,LVD,RTTE)
2. US (UL, FCC)
3. Canada (CSA)
4. Japan (VCCI)
5. Other places  (CB scheme)

Am I missing something regarding the above mentioned markeds and 
regulations ? 'Other places' could be anywhere, but CB might be good to have

anyway ?

Any suggestion of a web-site which covers the EMC and safety regulations in 
different countries ?

Thanks for feedback.

Best regards
Amund Westin, Oslo/Norway

-- 
Get your firstname@lastname email for FREE at http://Nameplanet.com/?su

---
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,"

Serial Number Format - Medical Devices

[Dick Grobner]

A question to the group:
Referencing the Medical Device Directive, Annex I, paragraph 13.3 The label
must bear the following particulars: (l), "year of manufacture for active
devices other than those covered by (e). This indication may be included in
the batch or serial number".   
One of my colleagues (in another company) was told by their Notified Body
(BSI) that it has been interpreted (by whom?) that this means the month and
year needs to be embedded into the actual serial number, such as XXZZ1
whereas XX: month and ZZ: year (or similar). 
We have never encountered this with our Notified Body (TUV). Our S/N's cross
back to a SN log which will reveal the month and year of manufacture.
Who is right? Does anyone know where this "official" interpitation is coming
from? The rational behind it?
Thank You
 
Dick Grobner
Medical Graphics Corporation
350 Oak Grove Parkway
St Paul MN 55127
651-766-3395
651-766-3389 (fax)
dick.grob...@medgraph.com



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

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

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

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

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

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

RE: RTTE & Harmonized Bands

[Dick Grobner]

Richard
In a FAQ RTTE document I pulled from
http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/rtte/faq.htm page 11 it deals with this
issue, put give no source definitive source. There are some other
interesting comments to some of the questions posed in this document. This
is new for me so any bit of info is interesting! 
Take a look and enjoy the reading!

-Original Message-
From: wo...@sensormatic.com [mailto:wo...@sensormatic.com]
Sent: Friday, June 22, 2001 12:41 PM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RTTE & Harmonized Bands



In reference to the RTTE Directive, what organization, if any, is
responsible for declaring a frequency band to be harmonized within the EU?
Where can one find a listing of harmonized bands?

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,"

RE: FCC + FCC = FCC? - Outlaw

[Dick Grobner]

 


 
I forgot to mention, however we do test four equipment for emissions to FCC
Class B.

-Original Message-
From: Dick Grobner 
Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2001 3:33 PM
To: 'Tania Grant'
Cc: 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org'
Subject: RE: FCC + FCC = FCC? - Outlaw


"Will put Tania" and I agree with your reasoning!
We don't deal with the FCC as we are a medical manufacturer, but we do deal
with the FDA and the Europeans. We are a small medical manufacture compared
to the Big Boys and we must play by the same rules! Size and dollars has
nothing to do with it and shouldn't. 

-Original Message-
From: Tania Grant [mailto:taniagr...@msn.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2001 11:23 AM
To: Doug McKean; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Re: FCC + FCC = FCC? - Outlaw


Hello Doug,
 
I may or may not agree with FCC (on some issues I agree, on others I don't);
however, ignorance of the law is no excuse.
 
The FCC Rules do make the assembler responsible for compliance.  And the FCC
was NOT created to protect big companies from themselves but to allocate
spectrum and watch for abuses.   The air waves were consigned to bona-fide
communication equipment.  The early computers were nothing more than
super-whiz-bang typewriters-cum-adding machines and not considered
communication devices.   Thus, they were not supposed to interfere with
communication equipment;-- e.g., the Rules.
 
The fact that you can assemble your own, and that you are small fry compared
to the big companies, has nothing to do with the fact that your assembled
equipment need not  comply with the Rules.  (I sympathize with small fry,
being one myself.)  If you disagree with the Rules, you have ample
opportunity to write to the FCC and present your case to them;-- they have
to publish your letter and present an argument for or against your position.
And the FCC in the past has relented and conceded many points when presented
with convincing evidence from the industry and from communication companies.
(Witness the recent changes to accept DoC instead of the cumbersome
Certification procedure for Class B devices.)  I believe that this is the
democratic and responsible way of addressing the problem rather than
disregarding the law because it is inconvenient for you, or because your
equipment is just a small pebble in a big pond of boulders and no one will
notice.
 
Tania Grant
taniagr...@msn.com

- Original Message -
From: Doug McKean
Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2001 12:19 AM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: FCC + FCC = FCC? - Outlaw
 

Sorry but I respectfully disagree ...

If the FCC were to say yes to anyone being an
outlaw for building their own PC and not having
it tested, then why does the FCC label essentially
tell everyone suffering from interefernce to take
care of it themselves?

The FCC was created to protect the big alphabet
communication companies from themselves. Me building
my own PC is peanuts compared to some of the issues
these guys deal with.  And cable tv is starting to
make the issue of interfering with commercial
broadcast a moot point.  Heck, I don't even see
the pixels blink at all anymore even with the
microwave being used only 10 feet away.

I was told, not sure how true it is, that the
FCC in the early years of Part 15 took to task
a famous computer company selling computers
which hooked up to your tv screen.  They were
famous for intereference.  I know, I had one.
So the FCC threatened to confiscate the units
from said company.  Well, the sales were going
down and the company said, "sure big brother,
to ahead ..."  So the FCC took them.  Lots of
them.  In fact, so many, they had to store them
all in an area which closed down part of the
FCC facility.  The company went on to declare
it all as a loss.  The FCC got stuck with the
inventory.

I don't think they want to repeat that again.

And thus the reason for the wording of the
label.  Unless you're a real threat to
commercial communications (such as a ham)
they really don't want to be bothered.

Just my 3.1415 cents worth ...

- 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:
 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: FCC + FCC = FCC? - Outlaw

[Dick Grobner]

"Will put Tania" and I agree with your reasoning!
We don't deal with the FCC as we are a medical manufacturer, but we do deal
with the FDA and the Europeans. We are a small medical manufacture compared
to the Big Boys and we must play by the same rules! Size and dollars has
nothing to do with it and shouldn't. 

-Original Message-
From: Tania Grant [mailto:taniagr...@msn.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2001 11:23 AM
To: Doug McKean; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Re: FCC + FCC = FCC? - Outlaw


Hello Doug,
 
I may or may not agree with FCC (on some issues I agree, on others I don't);
however, ignorance of the law is no excuse.
 
The FCC Rules do make the assembler responsible for compliance.  And the FCC
was NOT created to protect big companies from themselves but to allocate
spectrum and watch for abuses.   The air waves were consigned to bona-fide
communication equipment.  The early computers were nothing more than
super-whiz-bang typewriters-cum-adding machines and not considered
communication devices.   Thus, they were not supposed to interfere with
communication equipment;-- e.g., the Rules.
 
The fact that you can assemble your own, and that you are small fry compared
to the big companies, has nothing to do with the fact that your assembled
equipment need not  comply with the Rules.  (I sympathize with small fry,
being one myself.)  If you disagree with the Rules, you have ample
opportunity to write to the FCC and present your case to them;-- they have
to publish your letter and present an argument for or against your position.
And the FCC in the past has relented and conceded many points when presented
with convincing evidence from the industry and from communication companies.
(Witness the recent changes to accept DoC instead of the cumbersome
Certification procedure for Class B devices.)  I believe that this is the
democratic and responsible way of addressing the problem rather than
disregarding the law because it is inconvenient for you, or because your
equipment is just a small pebble in a big pond of boulders and no one will
notice.
 
Tania Grant
taniagr...@msn.com

- Original Message -
From: Doug McKean
Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2001 12:19 AM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: FCC + FCC = FCC? - Outlaw
 

Sorry but I respectfully disagree ...

If the FCC were to say yes to anyone being an
outlaw for building their own PC and not having
it tested, then why does the FCC label essentially
tell everyone suffering from interefernce to take
care of it themselves?

The FCC was created to protect the big alphabet
communication companies from themselves. Me building
my own PC is peanuts compared to some of the issues
these guys deal with.  And cable tv is starting to
make the issue of interfering with commercial
broadcast a moot point.  Heck, I don't even see
the pixels blink at all anymore even with the
microwave being used only 10 feet away.

I was told, not sure how true it is, that the
FCC in the early years of Part 15 took to task
a famous computer company selling computers
which hooked up to your tv screen.  They were
famous for intereference.  I know, I had one.
So the FCC threatened to confiscate the units
from said company.  Well, the sales were going
down and the company said, "sure big brother,
to ahead ..."  So the FCC took them.  Lots of
them.  In fact, so many, they had to store them
all in an area which closed down part of the
FCC facility.  The company went on to declare
it all as a loss.  The FCC got stuck with the
inventory.

I don't think they want to repeat that again.

And thus the reason for the wording of the
label.  Unless you're a real threat to
commercial communications (such as a ham)
they really don't want to be bothered.

Just my 3.1415 cents worth ...

- 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:
 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: (Assault and) Batteries (On The Planet) ...

[Dick Grobner]

In the eyes of corporate officers - "as long as it doesn't cost us extra $'s
or cuts into the bottom line"!
>From my experience - if I have a standard or regulation to back up these
types of requirements it does make my job allot easier! In (most of) the
corporate world, the almighty buck carries more weight than an unwritten
regulation or standard. 
I'm not saying that I am in agreement with this, but in most companies today
it is the way it is.
PS - Wearing the additional hat of "hazardous waste coordinator", we
(company) do recycle regulated waste following the laws that have been
established within out county / state. In fact we recycle some of our waste
that is not "regulated" (just don't tell my upper management people!!).  

However - I do personally agree with your thoughts on this matter!


-Original Message-
From: Whitehouse, Terence (Terry) [mailto:twhiteho...@avaya.com]
Sent: Friday, June 15, 2001 8:15 PM
To: 'Mike Murphy'; 'emc-p...@ieee.org'
Subject: (Assault and) Batteries (On The Planet) ...



Mike,
 
You deserve an award*** for your refreshing display of common sense.  I
suggest that we can all learn from your response.
 
As responsible private individuals and regulatory guardians of our corporate
interests, we should all be more willing to volunteer to do what is
appropriate to protect everybody and everything around us from the (human),
mechanical, electrical and toxic hazards so prevalent in our complex
society.
 
Too often, we spend time examining legislation and standards to decide how
to define the bare minimum to be compliant with the production and use of
the items for which we are responsible.  As good citizens, we ought not to
wait for legislation to "force" us to do the right thing.
 
There is lots of information readily available, which, in conjunction with
the ever louder voice of social conscience, should be more than sufficient
for us to discharge our personal and regulatory responsibilities
appropriately.
 
*** Take a step outside to reward yourself with some deep breaths of fresh
air - while there is still some around to inhale!
 
 
(For the group members in the UK, as "Del Boy" would say - "... you know it
makes sense ")
 
 
Terry Whitehouse 
Avaya Regulatory Milpitas 
(408) 577-7714 
 

-Original Message-
From: Mike Murphy [mailto:mmur...@alesis.com]
Sent: Friday, June 15, 2001 2:14 PM
To: 'emc-p...@ieee.org'
Subject: Batteries ...



Doug, 

>From an environmental, not compliance, standpoint, batteries leech nasty
chemicals into the groundwater supply as they age in landfills. Enlightened
communities sponsor 'hazardous waste roundups' periodically. So, my
suggestion is to keep the dead batteries in a sealed container in the home
until they can be handed off to qualified disposal specialists such as at
these roundups.

This is what I do as a matter of course--it's not difficult at all. 

For Our Little Planet, 
Mike Murphy 


---
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: Batteries ...

[Dick Grobner]

However - Beware
The county (Ramsey County, Minnesota) we are located in has jurisdiction of
the "stuff" we dispose of into our "general industrial waste" container
(i.e. the dumpster). 
Regarding Lithium Ion batteries:
"small cells", that is,  9 volts or less, are classified as Non-Hazardous. 
"large cells", greater than 9 volts, are classified as Potentially Hazardous
(unless one can show that it is non-hazardous, it will be considered as
hazardous for reactivity).
In all cases I have never ran across a cell that is more than 9 volts. So I
would have to state that a majority of the Lithium Ion batteries used in ITE
would be classified as "Non-Hazardous" to the environment.
Now for Europe and other parts of the word regarding Lithium Ion batteries -
I have a new learning opportunity ahead of me!

-Original Message-
From: Hare, Paul [mailto:ph...@pirus.com]
Sent: Friday, June 15, 2001 1:13 PM
To: 'Dick Grobner'; 'Doug McKean'
Cc: IEEE EMC-PSTC E-Mail Forum (E-mail)
Subject: RE: Batteries ... 


This is from the Panasonic Battery Disposal Guidelines webpage with respect
to Lithium-ion battery disposal in the US:

"All Panasonic Lithium Ion batteries are classified by the federal
government as non-hazardous waste and are safe for disposal in the normal
municipal waste stream."

http://www.panasonic.com/industrial_oem/battery/battery_oem/enviro/enviro.ht
m

Go figure...

Paul Hare   e: ph...@pirus.com
Compliance Engineer w: 978.206.9179
Pirus Networks  f: 978.206.9199
43 Nagog Park   c: 508.450.0376
Acton, MA 01720 i: www.pirus.com


-Original Message-
From: Dick Grobner [mailto:dick.grob...@medgraph.com]
Sent: Friday, June 15, 2001 11:55 AM
To: 'Doug McKean'
Cc: IEEE EMC-PSTC E-Mail Forum (E-mail)
Subject: RE: Batteries ... 




I would check with the:
local
county
state
federal
requirements - in that order. That is the hierarchy established here in the
State of Minnesota.
I was also advised during a recent ISO Audit that we as a supplier of
electronic equipment using a Lithium Ion battery are required to advise our
European customers of "proper disposal techniques" in our device labeling
(i.e. user manual). I have not had time to research these requirements as of
yet. Does anyone in the forum have any references they are willing to pass
on regarding this situation?
Thank You 

PS - I'm beginning to believe that Lithium Ion Batteries are not a good
thing to tie into electronic equipment!


-Original Message-
From: Doug McKean [mailto:dmck...@corp.auspex.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2001 2:56 PM
To: EMC-PSTC Discussion Group
Subject: Batteries ... 



Maybe sort of off topic.  

What's the disposal procedures for batteries such as 
the A, AA, AAA, C, D, lithiums ... ? 

Are you supposed to just throw them into the trash? 

What if a customer a customer calls in to ask such 
a question and let's say they're in the US, Canada, 
or Europe?   What are you supposed to say or 
what agency or website? 

- Doug 



---
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

F

RE: Batteries ...

[Dick Grobner]

I would check with the:
local
county
state
federal
requirements - in that order. That is the hierarchy established here in the
State of Minnesota.
I was also advised during a recent ISO Audit that we as a supplier of
electronic equipment using a Lithium Ion battery are required to advise our
European customers of "proper disposal techniques" in our device labeling
(i.e. user manual). I have not had time to research these requirements as of
yet. Does anyone in the forum have any references they are willing to pass
on regarding this situation?
Thank You 

PS - I'm beginning to believe that Lithium Ion Batteries are not a good
thing to tie into electronic equipment!


-Original Message-
From: Doug McKean [mailto:dmck...@corp.auspex.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2001 2:56 PM
To: EMC-PSTC Discussion Group
Subject: Batteries ... 



Maybe sort of off topic.  

What's the disposal procedures for batteries such as 
the A, AA, AAA, C, D, lithiums ... ? 

Are you supposed to just throw them into the trash? 

What if a customer a customer calls in to ask such 
a question and let's say they're in the US, Canada, 
or Europe?   What are you supposed to say or 
what agency or website? 

- Doug 



---
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: Product Safety: A Matter of Law or Litigation?

[Dick Grobner]

Doug - as Glenn stated, one of your other customers may have a requirement
to obtain a third party safety approval that your device is installed in.
With out an approval on your device it would make their job allot harder and
the cost would probably increase. As the compliance engineer for a  medical
device manufacturer I have made it a requirement that items such as
transformers, power supplies, motor, fuses, pc's, printers, etc. carry a
third party approval. And for some components, if it goes into a device
destined for Europe that it have one of the EU country approvals (or CE if
applicable).  I have told our engineers not to even consider bringing in
such a component without an approval. It's not worth the time and dollars
saved in the long run.  As pointed out already - you are liable for what you
sell! A third party approval may prove to very useful in such a case!

-Original Message-
From: Lesmeister, Glenn [mailto:glenn.lesmeis...@compaq.com]
Sent: Monday, June 04, 2001 8:29 AM
To: 'Massey, Doug C.'; 'IEEE Forum'
Subject: RE: Product Safety: A Matter of Law or Litigation?



Doug, 

I don't know your product line, but one thing that might be an issue is that
some of your customers may use your products as part of their end products
that do fall into the scope of the LVD.  In order for them to meet the
applicable requirements, they are going to need sufficient information and
possibly test data from you to prove this.  This may not provide the legal
justification for your work, but it could be one heck of a customer
requirement.

Regards,

Glenn Lesmeister
Product Regulatory Compliance

Compaq Computer Corp.   Tel: 281-514-5163
20555 SH 249, MS60607   Fax: 281-514-8029
Houston,  TX 77070-2698 Pgr: 713-786-4930
glenn.lesmeis...@compaq.com


 -Original Message-
From:   Massey, Doug C. [mailto:masse...@ems-t.com] 
Sent:   Monday, June 04, 2001 7:47 AM
To: 'IEEE Forum'
Subject:Product Safety: A Matter of Law or Litigation?


Colleagues:

I have been tasked with justifying the need for independent, third party
evaluations of the safety of our company's products to applicable standards.
Our company manufactures various ITE equipment, either handheld, battery
powered devices, or ITE devices powered by vehicle batteries. In particular,
the scope of the LVD states that it is applicable to devices rated
50-1000Vac or 75-1500Vdc; most of our products are below 75Vdc. We market
these products in 35 countries; North America, the EU/EFTA, and others - in
fact, pretty much all of the countries participating in the CB Scheme.

In the US, OSHA regs justify this requirement, as our equipment is sold
through direct channels solely for logistics applications - in other words,
US workers will be using the equipment - it's not for general consumer use. 
TITLE 29--LABOR PART 1910--OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH STANDARDS--Table
of Contents Subpart S--Electrical Sec. 1910.399 Definitions applicable to
this subpart. Acceptable. An installation or equipment is acceptable to the
Assistant Secretary of Labor, and approved within the meaning of this
Subpart S: (i) If it is accepted, or certified, or listed, or labeled, or
otherwise determined to be safe by a nationally recognized testing
laboratory; or (ii) With respect to an installation or equipment of a kind
which no nationally recognized testing laboratory accepts, certifies, lists,
labels, or determines to be safe, if it is inspected or tested by another
Federal agency, or by a State, municipal, or other local authority
responsible for enforcing occupational safety provisions of the National
Electrical Code and found in compliance with the provisions of the National
Electrical Code as applied in this subpart; or ...

In the EU/EFTA, the justification is not so easy.  As I mentioned earlier,
the products are exempt from the LVD. The General Product Safety Directive,
and the Product Liability Directive, do not give me an easy justification,
such as in the case of the OSHA regs stated in US Federal Code. My company
has always had all products evaluated to the -950 standards, but has
observed that other manufacturers of similar equipment do not have their
products evaluated to applicable safety standards, and CE mark their
products based on compliance to the EMC Directive, but not to the LVD. 

I would greatly appreciate your insights, opinions, and assistance with this
question. 

Doug Massey
Safety Approvals Engineer
LXE, Inc.
Norcross, GA., USA
Ph.  (770) 447-4224 x3607
FAX (770) 447-6928
e-mail: masse...@lxe.com

Cruise our website at: http:\\www.lxe.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 administra

RE: EMC/RFI Gaskets

[Dick Grobner]

I would have to state that the polymeric material would be listed under the
manufacture of that material (not necessarily the EMI gasket manufacturer)
and the shield effectiveness data would be from the manufacturer of the EMI
gasket. You should be able to contact the EMI gasket manufacture for this
information. This is what I have experienced in the past.
Good Luck!

-Original Message-
From: Peter Merguerian [mailto:pmerguer...@itl.co.il]
Sent: Friday, June 01, 2001 8:03 AM
To: "EMC-PSTC (E-mail)" <
Subject: EMC/RFI Gaskets
Importance: High



Dear All,

While UL does its' own research, under what UL category one can find
polymeric insulated RFI/EMI gaskets that have been previously evaluated for
flammability and shielding effectiveness? 



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:
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: Clamp-on Ground Resistance Testers

[Dick Grobner]

Some companies to check with are:
NGI, Elk Grove Village IL 1-708-437-6444
AEMC Instruments, Boston MA 1-800-343-1391 www.aemc.com

Both companies make / distribute ground (soil) resistance testers 

Good Luck!

-Original Message-
From: Leslie Bai [mailto:leslie_...@yahoo.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2001 6:38 PM
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: Clamp-on Ground Resistance Testers



Hi members,

I have a quick question here for you, just we need to
know your experience &
comments regarding to the so-called "Clamp-on ground
resistance tester".

We need such kind of tester to take measurements of
grounding resistance in the
field, it seems such type of "Clamp-on" tester very
useful for us, because we need do it on the building
roof and the standard procedure is almost impossible
to implement.

Some of our applications are:
* Measure ground rod and small grid resistance;
* Measure resistance and continuity of grounding loops
around pads and buildings;
* Conduct quick field checks;
* Measure leakage current flowing to ground or
circulating in ground loops, etc.

Does anyone have any recommendations, comments,
suggestions, brands, specs..etc...for such tester...? 

Thanks in advance.
Leslie


__
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices
http://auctions.yahoo.com/

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

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

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

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

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

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
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: Cable Drawing Standards

[Dick Grobner]

Good Day Andy
About three years ago I had the same dilemma. I searched and found no such
standard that was directed toward just this subject. There are many articles
written and published in magazines, technical books, etc. dealing with
proper cable construction. I then decided that I would compile all of this
info into an "internal" engineering standard titled - "Shielded Cable
Assemblies". This standard deals with molded signal cables used to
externally interface our medical devices. These cables are sourced
externally. So far, it seems to be doing the job! I reference this
engineering standard on our cable specifications and a copy goes to all of
our suppliers of this commodity. 
If you wish, I could send a copy of the document as a reference. Let me know
if you would like a copy!
I would be curious from the rest of the forum if such a standard does exist.
I guess we will wait and see!

-Original Message-
From: Veit, Andy [mailto:andy.v...@mts.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2001 7:35 AM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Cable Drawing Standards



All-
I have an unusual request for information.  I was recently asked if there
are standards for cable construction, and standards that describe how a
desired construction is to be documented - i.e. preferred ways to terminate
shields on a connector backshell and how to show this type of information as
clearly and unambiguously as possible on cable drawings. 

I am guessing that many of you have probably come across this type of thing
before, either in your current work or in a past life.  Are there IEEE,
ANSI, MIL or other standards that are commonly used as guides when creating
cable assembly drawings/documentation?  I have also been told that
"workmanship" standards exist as well, but I have not been able to locate
any yet.

Thank you-
-Andy

Andrew Veit
MTS Systems

---
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: [Fwd: ESD Gun recommendations?]

[Dick Grobner]

Dan - we have a Keytek Model MZ-15/EC Mini-zap ESD simulator with contact
discharge tip Model MZTPC-2. We use it for pre-compliance testing per
EN61000-4-2. We have been very pleased with its performance. We have Keytek
perform the calibration and maintenance of the simulator and it never has
been in need of repair. You should be able to locate a local rep for a demo
and I would think they would provide a loaner for a few days.
Good Luck on your search! 

-Original Message-
From: David Heald [mailto:davehe...@mediaone.net]
Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2001 10:37 AM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org; daniel.bi...@gefanuc.com
Subject: [Fwd: ESD Gun recommendations?]



Forwarded for Daniel Biggs .  Please include
Daniel in any replies.
-Dave Heald

 Original Message 
Subject: ESD Gun recommendations?
List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 11:04:23 -0400
From: "Biggs, Daniel (IndSys, GEFanuc, NA)" 
To: "'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org'" 

Greetings,

Looking to replace our old ESD guns and would appreciate any
recommendations
on who makes a good product and what features are most important.  Also,
when it comes to EMC test equipment which companies offer better
services
and technical support.

Thanks,
DB


___
GE Fanuc Automation

Daniel Biggs
Test Engineer
Hardware Design Services

ph: 804-978-6946
fax:  804-978-5588
e-mail:  daniel.bi...@cho.ge.com

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

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

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

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

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

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
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: Production Line Test Requirements - Medical Devices

[Dick Grobner]

Jon
Thx for the info, however, I re-checked the two known US standards (UL2601,
Appendix D - Manufacturer's Responsibilities, Construction Considerations
and Requirements for Factory Tests) (NFPA 99, Grounding Circuit Continuity -
Measurement of Resistance). UL defines "Production Line Grounding Continuity
Test Equipment" as: Any suitable continuity indication device (such as an
ohmmeter, a battery and buzzer combination, or the like) may be used to
determine compliance with Grounding Continuity Test requirements. The NFPA
std is even less definitive on this matter.
EN60601-1, Appendix B - "Testing During Manufacture and/or Installation",
Not Used. See rational to sub-clause 4.1. Which states - Tests described in
this standard are type tests.

I checked all of the amendments including EN60601-1 for medical systems, and
I do not see anything changing this.

My questions remains, where does it state to use the 10-25Amp, 50 or 60Hz @
6Volt for 5 seconds test? Is this a carry over from another EN standard? Why
wouldn't a simple continuity tests as defined by UL be appropriate from
equipment coming off of the production line (assuring that the protective
earth circuit in intake)? 

Appreciate your feedback Jon! & thanks again.
 
Does anyone else on this forum have any input - would appreciate it.


-Original Message-
From: Jon Griver [mailto:jo...@medson.com]
Sent: Monday, May 21, 2001 9:16 AM
To: Dick Grobner
Subject: RE: Production Line Test Requirements - Medical Devices


Dick,

The requirements for production tests of medical equipment generally are:

1. Hipot at 1500AC - between live and neutral connected together and earth.
2. Earth continuity at 25A between earth pin on plug and enclosure (choose a
point that may be problematic if there are manufacturing problems)
3. Earth and/or patient leakage. Whether you do both, one or neither of
these tests depends on the product.

As the production tests are intended to find production problems (as opposed
to type tests which are intended to find design problems), choose the tests
that you think make sense from the production engineering point of view.
Document the reasoning behind your choice.

IT equipment only requires Hipot and earth continuity tests.

Hope this helps,


Jon


> -----Original Message-
> From: Dick Grobner [mailto:dick.grob...@medgraph.com]
> Sent: Monday, May 21, 2001 16:36
> To: 'Jon Griver'
> Subject: RE: Production Line Test Requirements - Medical Devices
>
>
> Jon
> Thanks, you have confirmed what I thought I knew. We just had our
> annual ISO
> 9001 audit (2 weeks ago). One issue that one of the two auditors
> raised was
> why are you not doing the ground integrity test (25 Amp test) on 100% of
> your production units? I asked "do you mean ground continuity
> (Ohm test) and
> he said no, the ground integrity test". That's when I started digging into
> the standards. UL (and the former ETL) states high potential and ground
> continuity tests on all production units. EN60601-1 states that all tests
> within this document are "type" tests. The auditor gave me no reference to
> any EN, etc. when I asked. So, I have a suspicion that this is
> his wish and
> not stated in any EN (at least that I know of so far). SO - I
> will continue
> to pursue with other outside sources (but not this one auditor!)
> Thanks for the reply back!
> PS - does ITE equipment require this test (ground integrity ((25
> Amp)) test?
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Jon Griver [mailto:jo...@medson.com]
> Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2001 1:34 AM
> To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
> Subject: FW: Production Line Test Requirements - Medical Devices
>
>
>
> Dick,
>
> To the best of my knowledge there is no EN standard or guidance on
> production tests for medical equipment (There is a standard, EN 50116, for
> IT equipment).
> Your best bet is to discuss this with your Notified Body and to come to a
> mutually acceptable set of tests.
>
> Regards,
>
> Jon Griver
> Medson Ltd.
>
>
> > Good Day Everyone
> > Question I have - Does anyone out there know if an EN standard
> or guidance
> > document exists that deals with production line test requirements of
> > finished medical devices.
> > Reading in EN60601-1 it states that the test (ground resistance, high
> > potential, etc.) are type test only (See appendix B, and then paragraph
> > 4.1). Thus - they are not identified as production line tests.
> I know that
> > the NRTL's in the USA (UL/ETL) specifically call out what tests
> are to be
> > performed after the production build of equipment.
> > Any input would be appreciated.
> > Thx
> >
> > Dick Grobner
> > Medical Graphics Corporation
>

Production Line Test Requirements - Medical Devices

[Dick Grobner]

Good Day Everyone
Question I have - Does anyone out there know if an EN standard or guidance
document exists that deals with production line test requirements of
finished medical devices.
Reading in EN60601-1 it states that the test (ground resistance, high
potential, etc.) are type test only (See appendix B, and then paragraph
4.1). Thus - they are not identified as production line tests. I know that
the NRTL's in the USA (UL/ETL) specifically call out what tests are to be
performed after the production build of equipment.
Any input would be appreciated.
Thx

Dick Grobner
Medical Graphics Corporation
350 Oak Grove Parkway
St Paul MN 55127
651-766-3395
651-766-3389 (fax)
dick.grob...@medgraph.com



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

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

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

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

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

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

RE: New Immunity/ESD Specs.

[Dick Grobner]

I just received word yesterday that IEC has just released the following
publications:
IEC 61000-4-2 (2001-04) Edition 1.2 (ESD) Includes amendments 1&2
IEC 61000-4-3 (2001-04) Edition 1.2 (RF Radiated Immunity) Includes
amendment 1&2
IEC 61000-4-5 (2001-04) Edition 1.1 (Surge) Includes amendment 1
IEC 61000-4-6 (2001-04) Edition  1.1 (Immunity to Conducted Disturbances by
RF Fields)  Includes amendment 1
IEC 61000-4-12 (2001-04) Edition 1.1 (Oscillatory Waves Immunity Test)
Includes amendment 1
 
I would guess the EN version of these would be soon to follow.
 

-Original Message-
From: John Juhasz [mailto:jjuh...@fiberoptions.com]
Sent: Monday, April 30, 2001 3:49 PM
To: 'emc-p...@ieee.org'
Subject: New Immunity/ESD Specs.



Hello all . . . 

A 3rd party statement was made to me today about 'new' immunity
specifications for ITE. More specifically 
for ESD. 
I am currently using EN 50082-1:1997 for the immunity series, my ESD being
EN 61000-4-2:1995. 
Is there anything newer going to be introduced any time soon? 

Thanks 

John Juhasz 
Fiber Options 
Bohemia, NY 

RE: Medical Directive

[Dick Grobner]

With regards to your questions:
Mobile or not does not make a difference. We manufacturer diagnostic
equipment and use "off the shelf" PC's to do the number crunching. CE
marking on the PC has always been an issue with us. About two years ago I
did a PC search regarding CE marked equipment under the MDD - no such luck!
I contacted UL in Northbrook and asked the question if they have ever
evaluated a PC under UL2601 - no luck! What we have done is used a line
isolation transformer for the PC, opto-isolated the RS232 to eliminate any
ground loop currents. Test the combination per 60601-1-1. We also assure
that the PC's, monitors and printers we re-sell have CE (low voltage
directive) with our equipment being CE marked under the MDD.
CE marking under the MDD can become quite involved, depending on what you do
in your facility you may need to pursue quality certification by a Notified
Body (NB). If you already have an NB I would definitely contact them
regarding this issue, if you don't I would get one, at least to consult
with!
With regards to 60601-1-2, there is a second draft of this document. I have
a copy which I received from a colleague. If there is a web site for the
draft I'm not aware of the address. Perhaps one of the other forum members
knows of a site and will share with us!
We just tested one of our systems, with the recommendation of our NB we
added 61000-4-11 (voltage dips), 61000-3-2 (harmonics), 61000-3-3 (flicker).
This addresses some of the changes (additions) coming with 60601-1-2. With
regards to EN 55011, we tested group 1, class A. I'm not aware of the Sweden
and Germany requirement for class B.
With regards to the "demo" equipment. You can distribute to Europe without
CE marking, however the unit needs to be clearly labeled as "Demo Use Only"
(or similar) and must be used only by your people or your authorized
representative / distributor. They must be made aware of any potential harm
that may be imposed upon the patient, operator or bystander or the
environment (EMI/RFI, landfill waste, etc.). You are still held responsible
for your equipment!
I hope this sheds some light on your issues, & good luck!
  



-Original Message-
From: Binnom, Cyril A [mailto:binno...@ems-t.com]
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2001 9:46 AM
To: emc-pstc
Subject: Medical Directive



Group:

I am attempting to send ITE equipment to the European Union, and the unit
will be used in a hospital environment. I have no problem testing to the
Medical or EMC Directive,  whichever is applicable, but I am in need of some
clarification

My questions are:

*   I have been told that if the unit is mobile, (which it is) then the
Medical Directive applies. There is no patient interface but it will be in a
hospital environment.
*   Will EN 60601-1-2 (Medical Immunity) be upgraded in the near future
as I do not want to test to the current standard and have to go back in a
year or two and retest the unit, and if so is there a proposed standard for
review.
*   Does the unit under EN 55011 have to be tested to Class B or Class A
limits for hospital use. I have been told that in Sweden and Germany, Class
B is mandatory.
*   A demo has been requested A.S.A.P. Does the demo have to be CE mark,
(it will not be sold) or is there room or a  clause that allows this one
unit to be shipped to the EU while compliance is being completed. I am under
the assumption, that the demo will be used in the hospital during this time.

Regards,

Cyril A. Binnom Jr.
EMI/EMC Approvals Engineer
LXE, Inc.
(770) 447-4224 Ext. 3240
(770) 447-6928 Fax
binno...@lxe.com   

 



 



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

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

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

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

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

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
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 posti

RE: Transformer Question

[Dick Grobner]

We have a "certificate of conformity" shipped with each lot of our
transformers. This document defines in detail the materials and construction
of the transformer. We have been using this method for a few years on about
3-4 transformers and have not had any problems with the UL factory
inspections. We have had two UL field inspectors in that time span. I would
contact your UL field inspector and propose this idea to him/her.
Good Luck

-Original Message-
From: Chris Wells [mailto:cdwe...@stargate.net]
Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2001 8:42 PM
To: 'emc-pstc'
Subject: Fw: Transformer Question




- Original Message -
From: Wells, Christopher D 
To: 'Chris Wells' 
Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2001 9:19 AM
Subject: RE: Transformer Question


> Tac Pham - Regarding transformer recognition.
> When I have designed a custom power supply like Ken has and the
transformer
> is made by an outside vendor, then I have inspection problems with UL.
That
> is if I try to keep it simple under just an insulating system.
> The problem usually boils down to proving that the transformer is what my
> drawings say it is.
> The UL file calls out the vendor # and my drawings detail, but he/she
wants
> me to prove it.
> Since I do not manufacture the transformer it doesn't work.
> I can't easily show that the varnish is this brand, the tape another, the
> bobbin is etc - I get stuck in a mess.
>
> The only way I know to clearly get out of this issue is to have the
> transformer construction controlled in a file by the vendor.
> The vendor is then checked for these details which they can prove since
they
> manufacture it and then my UL inspector leaves me alone and I am happy.
> Costs me ~ $2K which is worth the headaches that go away!
>
> If there is another way to keep me out of the inspection loop that would
be
> great.
> I have found that some mag vendors will not do the work to get a
> construction file.
> Some how they expect me to do it relative to their process - I do not see
> how that can work!
>
> Anyways it sounds like you have been through this many more times than I.
> Any more feed back on the subject would be greatly appreciated.
>
> Thanks
>  Chris Wells
> Sen. Des. Eng.
> Cutler-Hammer
> Power Management Products Center
> Pittsburgh Pa.
> ph 412 490 6862
> FAX 412 490 6803
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Chris Wells [SMTP:cdwe...@stargate.net]
> > Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2001 1:44 AM
> > To: Wells, Christopher D
> > Subject: Fw: Transformer Question
> >
> >
> > - Original Message -
> > From: Pham, Tac 
> > To: 'Matsuda, Ken' ; 
> > Sent: Monday, April 23, 2001 11:21 AM
> > Subject: RE: Transformer Question
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Ken,
> > >
> > > Depend on the type of transformer, such as isolating or signal, you
> > should
> > > be aware of the following:
> > >
> > > 1. The temperature rating would dictate the insulation class A (105),
B
> > > (130), and so on... in accordance with IEC85. These insulating systems
> > will
> > > identify the tapes, wires, plastic material, varnish. Every time you
> > request
> > > for the substitution of these component, you must ensure that new
> > components
> > > are specified in the insulation system.
> > >
> > > 2. It does not matter that your company or your vendors manufactured
> > this
> > > transformer, UL will require a copy of winding sheet, a BOM for
review,
> > that
> > > including type of tapes, bobbin material, sleeving... and
constructional
> > > such as margin, creepage.
> > >
> > > 3. Your transformer is customized and use in only one power supply
> > model,
> > it
> > > is not required this xfmr bear the UL recognition mark. Many
> > manufacturers
> > > provides the UL recognition mark on transformers , but the end-users
> > must
> > > verify the thermal, short circuit test... per specific application.
> > >
> > > 4. If you have a second source (more than one vendor) for this xfmr,
> > then
> > > your report must identify all vendors and theirs insulation system.
> > >
> > > Please note that only UL has this requirement, other agencies
determine
> > the
> > > temperature class by the rating of material without additional tests
as
> > an
> > > insulation system.
> > >
> > > Tac Pham
> > > Power-One TSD
> > > 949-261-2200
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Matsuda, Ken [mailto:matsu...@curtisinst.com]
> > > Sent: Saturday, April 21, 2001 1:38 AM
> > > To: emc-p...@ieee.org
> > > Subject: Transformer Question
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Group,
> > >
> > > I was wondering if you could help me with this one?  Currently, I have
a
> > > switching power supply, using custom transformers. Now I am looking at
> > > submitting this product to a agency...
> > >
> > >  Many transformer manufacturers claim they build to UL ...standards,
> > > obviously, this is not considered approved, but are there
> > >
> > > transformer houses that can manufacture transformers that are
considered
> > > recognized components under a

RE: mil standard specs

[Dick Grobner]

Try the following site:
http://astimage.daps.dla.mil/quicksearch/
Mil stds are downloadable free of charge.
Now for the kicker - I tried to get into the site just now and was unable. I
tried last week and a message came up stating it was under maintenance.
Guess that is why I can not get in today!!!
Good Luck
 
-Original Message-
From: John Coyle [mailto:jco...@silent-witness.com]
Sent: Friday, April 06, 2001 12:21 PM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: mil standard specs



Hello,

Where can I find  or buy mil standard specs such as mil std 883b?


Thanks

John Coyle


---
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: MDS-201-004 help

[Dick Grobner]

You can obtain a free copy using the FDA search web site:

http://www.fda.gov/search.html

Just type in MDS-201-004

Good Luck!


-Original Message-
From: Schaefer, Rolf [mailto:rolf.schae...@de.unisys.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2001 2:51 AM
To: 'Matsuda, Ken'
Cc: 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org'
Subject: AW: MDS-201-004 help



Ken,

I found a reference saying

"Electromagnetic Compatibility Standard for Medical Devices", MDS-201-0004,
can be
obtained from the FDA, CDRH, Division of Small Manufacturers Assistance by
calling
(800) 638-2041.

Rolf Schaefer


-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Matsuda, Ken [mailto:matsu...@curtisinst.com]
Gesendet: Dienstag, 3. April 2001 23:33
An: 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org'
Betreff: MDS-201-004 help

Greetings.  I was wondering if anyone could help me locate this particular
standard

Electromagnetic Compatibility Standard for Medical Devices MDS-201-004

Any information would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,

Ken

---
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: Equipment for own use (was gas appliance)

[Dick Grobner]

Kind of follows the USA (OSHA) CFR 29, Part 1910, Sub-Part S requirements.
That is - if the equipment is used within the work place it is the employers
responsibility to ensure that the equipment is safe for use by his/her
employees. Sub-Part S describes the means of achieving this.

-Original Message-
From: tim.hay...@baesystems.com [mailto:tim.hay...@baesystems.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2001 7:13 AM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Re: Equipment for own use (was gas appliance)



Hi Everybody...

In the EU there is workplace legislation that in the UK is implemented
under the "Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations" (PUWER)
1998.

In these regulations anything that is provided for use at work is
required to comply with the relevant Directives. If the equipment is
"old" there are a set of equivalent requirements. 

Regards 
Tim


---
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: Cable Harnesses and Product Safety (UL1950/CSA C22.2 no. 950)

[Dick Grobner]

I would state the requirements (UL Recognized) for the wire, heat shrink,
etc. on the print somewhere. You may want to also set up some sort of
"certification" process with your supplier, that is, you and your supplier
work up a certification document stating that components used on your
assembly are constructed using UL Recognized parts. This cert is completed
and shipped with each shipment of your cables. We presently do this on some
of our components that appear on the UL Test Report, such as transformers,
finished plastic parts. It has pleased two of our UL field inspectors over
the past years, so far so good! 
Good Luck!

-Original Message-
From: Hare, Paul [mailto:ph...@pirus.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2001 6:05 PM
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: Cable Harnesses and Product Safety (UL1950/CSA C22.2 no. 950)



I use an outside vendor to assemble various cable harnesses for my products.
The vendor is recognized by UL and CSA and undergoes quarterly audits.  I
supply a drawing that specifies certain components (e.g. Connector X, Line
Filter Y).  However, I leave it up to them to use whatever UL/CSA recognized
wire and shrink tube they have laying around. (I indicate the color, gauge,
etc., but not the manufacturer or part number.)

When my product safety evaluation is performed, what documentation do I need
to satisfy the UL/CSA engineer regarding the wire and shrink tube?

Comments are appreciated.

Paul Hare   e: ph...@pirus.com
Compliance Engineer w: 978.206.9179
Pirus Networks  f: 978.206.9199
43 Nagog Park   c: 508.450.0376
Acton, MA 01720 i: www.pirus.com


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

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

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

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

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

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
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: Repeat Postings

[Dick Grobner]

Yes
I returned to work this past Monday only to see that I received over 80
e-mails over the weekend. After I recovered from the shock I started opening
them, only to find about 60 or so were repeats from the last part of last
week. I also have seen a few repeated these past few days. It appears that
not all get repeated, and some get repeated more than once on different
days.  

-Original Message-
From: geor...@lexmark.com [mailto:geor...@lexmark.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2001 2:27 PM
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: Repeat Postings





Has anyone noticed that postings to this listserver repeat several days
later?
For example, Chris Colgan's question about switching NRTLs first posted
about
3/6/01 appeared again this afternoon?

George



---
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: DoC

[Dick Grobner]

We have a similar scenario presently. It was explained by our Notified Body
this way:

We, company B, are ISO certified and wish to market company A's device into
the EU. However, company A is not ISO certified and wishes not to be (small
company with little cash). The Medical Device Directive applies to the
device. 
So:
We (company B) are selling (for a profit) the product that company A
manufactures within the EU, and thus we (company A) are the responsible
party to assure that it complies with all relevant directives. We are
required to label the device and identify that we (company B) are the
manufacture (however company A really is). I then put the burden back on the
manufacture (company A) to create the technical file (under my guidance).
Once I proofed and OK'ed the Tech File and performed an on site audit of
company A I can create the DoC and apply the CE to the device. We also have
contractual agreements with company A with regards to device changes, etc.
As long as I do regular audits on company A we are in compliance (according
to out Notified Body).
Also - company A did apply the safety standards, applicable EMI standards,
risk assessment and so on to the device being sold.
I hope this does not confuse anyone any more than we already are!
-Original Message-
From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk]
Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2001 12:38 PM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Re: DoC



,
wo...@sensormatic.com inimitably wrote:
>Companies A and B are located in the EU. Company A manufacturers a product
>and applies the name of Company B. Company B sells the product to a
customer
>and the product is shipped from Company A direct to the customer.
>Which company is responsible for the technical file and issuing the DoC?

Company A is the manufacturer and is responsible. Company B may be just
a sales unit with insufficient technical knowledge to know whether the
DoC is honest or not. But Company A need not put its own name on the
DoC. The rules about that vary a bit from one country to another, so the
authorities should be contacted.
-- 
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. Phone +44 (0)1268 747839
Fax +44 (0)1268 777124. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Foxhunters suffer from 
tallyhosis. PLEASE do not mail copies of newsgroup posts to me.

---
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: consumer electronics used on board aircraft

[Dick Grobner]

It must be interesting in New York City then! Every building must have a
cell antenna on top of it.

-Original Message-
From: eric.lif...@ni.com [mailto:eric.lif...@ni.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2001 1:27 PM
To: Brent DeWitt
Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org; owner-emc-p...@ieee.org; rbus...@es.com
Subject: RE: consumer electronics used on board aircraft




Cell phone techology is fundamentally flawed when used in flight/altitudes
(even tall buildings).

Problem: there is a limited number of frequencies (or bands) allocated by
the authorities, and must be "resusable" on a grid of "cells" with minimal
overlap from cell to cell.

Cellphone users in flight (or any high altitude) occupy a given "channel"
over potentially hundreds of "cells".  Each tower, hearing a strong signal
on that user's channel, no longer considers that channel to be available to
other users: when all the channels are busy, calls can't be made by cell
phone clients, and they can't take calls either, the system is overloaded.

If you juggle the numbers in your head, considering the number of aircraft
in flight -- around any given aircport, times the number of people that
have cell phones (on average) per aircraft, then you see the problem.  Out
of six on my row in a recent domestic flight, three of us had cell phones
(that I could see).  I leave the math to the reader.

Eric Lifsey
Compliance Manager
National Instruments




 

"Brent

DeWitt"  To: ,



etcom.com>   cc:

Sent by: Subject: RE: consumer
electronics used on board  
owner-emc-pstaircraft

c...@ieee.org

 

 

01/25/2001

12:09 PM

Please

respond to

"Brent

DeWitt"

 

 






It's conceivable, but the folks at Qualcomm I did base station testing for
seemed to think the problem was real, and they don't make aircraft systems.

-Original Message-
From: owner-emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@ieee.org]On Behalf
Of rbus...@es.com
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2001 10:26 AM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: consumer electronics used on board aircraft



I may regret saying this, but isn't it conceivable that the FCC Rules that
make it illegal to use a cell phone in the air has more to do with the
right
of the airline to sell expensive phone time, than the technical issues? :(

-Original Message-
From: Brent DeWitt [mailto:bdew...@ix.netcom.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2001 10:08 AM
To: Mike Hopkins; 'Colgan, Chris'; 'Emc-Pstc' (E-mail)
Subject: RE: consumer electronics used on board aircraft



My background is the pretty much the same as Mike's, which is probably why
I
agree with his response.  I just wanted to add that the prohibition on cell
phone usage (in the US at least) is not FAA or airline driven, but mandated
by the FCC.  The architecture of the cellular system is rather carefully
planned.  The placement of antenna sites, coverage and hand-off algorithms
are based on the propagation from land based phones, which is quite
different from a phone in an airliner 25000' feet up.  The FCC has
therefore
made it illegal to operate a cell phone after the wheels of the plane leave
the ground.

Regards,

Brent DeWitt

"Takeoffs are optional.  Landings are mandatory"

-Original Message-
From: owner-emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@ieee.org]On Behalf
Of Mike Hopkins
Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 11:38 AM
To: 'Colgan, Chris'; 'Emc-Pstc' (E-mail)
Subject: RE: consumer electronics used on board aircraft



As a frequent flyer and private pilot with some knowledge of EMC, I'll
throw
in a few comments:

It is clear to me that consumer electronics can interfere with aircraft
electronics, and I've probably heard all the same horror stories -- DC10
finds itself off course on landing, false engine warnings, interrupted
communications, etc... It isn't clear to me how prevalent this problem is
or
if it happens often enough to be considered a problem. One instance of
electronic interference is enough to have everyone up in arms against the
use of ANY electronics in ANY airplane.

On a 747 flight to the Pacific, I'd bet there are as many as 30 to 40 lap
top computers operating together at some point during the flight.
Additionally, there are probably another 40 to 50 walkman tape players or
CD
players in operation, plus the on-board entertainment systems and a few
in-flight telephones being used. On shorter flights, there may still be a
large number of laptops being used by business people plus tape/CD players
and air phones and the like in use during the flight. I don't think this is
a general problems for aircraft electronics.

HOWEVER; if radio or television receivers or cell phones were allowed, I
believe the level of in

RE: Product Marking

[Dick Grobner]

I agree, many years ago we did exactly that, labeled the product as
"conforms too _ _ _  _" before we started using an NRTL for product safety
testing. Eventually the larger medical institutions and corporations got
wise and started asking too see the third party NRTL mark on the product.
Sense, we have all of our devices tested for compliance by an NRTL for
product safety. We place this mark onto the product, our sales literature
and within our user manuals. Does this bring in additional sales - unknown
(not my expertise), but at least it shows due diligence on our part of
providing a safe product to our customers (and in a law suit if it ever came
to that). Some of our larger customers just look for this NRTL mark, and if
it is on the product it moves right through their bureaucracy, if not we
receive a phone call and we start to scramble. I also know that the City of
L.A. is a stickler for a third party mark on a medical device (and I would
suspect other devices as will), if it isn't there you submit your device
along with mounds of data to the cities electrical department, and pay the
$2-3K for their inspection and sticker. 
Overall, it makes good business sense to use a reputable third party NRTL
when doing business.   

Original Message-
From: kazimier_gawrzy...@dell.com [mailto:kazimier_gawrzy...@dell.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 10:22 AM
To: ctho...@patton.com; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: Product Marking



Hi Courtland,

For an NRTL approved product, it's generally a requirement that's captured
in the agreement drawn between agency and client plus in their report for
the product.

In my experience, the wording "...conforms with" won't mean much  and
would mean even less without the mark of an agency behind it and visible on
your product.  The NRTL's will generally insist on having their mark on a
product they approve unless it's too small physically.  In such an event,
they tend to allow the packaging to be marked but that's a case-by-case item
and fully at the discretion of the NRTL (for example some very small
conductors might nor necessarily have all the info on the conductor
insulation but it would likely be visible on the spool).

Usually, the visible mark of a safety agency on a given product enhances
marketing since it's the agency's declaration of their having deemed the
product safe (as opposed to the manufacturer).

My 2 cents and not that of my employer.
Regards,
Kaz Gawrzyjal
kazimier_gawrzy...@dell.com


-Original Message-
From: Courtland Thomas [mailto:ctho...@patton.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 3:05 PM
To: emcpost
Subject: Product Marking



Hello group,

I have a question concerning labeling a product. If we go to a NRTL and get
Safety testing performed, we typically put the Safety logo (UL for example)
on the product label. Our marketing people have a problem with having
different logo's. They would like to standarize on a single logo such as UL.
This kind of thinking hinders the process of getting the best price
possible. I would like to get the testing performed at a lab which doesn't
use UL. Would it be possible to just put "Conforms to UL 1950 and CAN/CSA
1950" on the label and forget the logo? Or is there a requirement to have a
logo?

Thanks,

Courtland Thomas
Patton Electronics


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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

RE: Copper Thieving

[Dick Grobner]

I agree - what is it? I tried looking it up in some of my PC design books at
the start of this one and came up blank. Does it go by another name?

-Original Message-
From: rehel...@mmm.com [mailto:rehel...@mmm.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2001 8:15 AM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Copper Thieving



Please excuse my lack of knowledge..what is "copper
thieving"?


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

FW: Medical devices

[Dick Grobner]

The device will need CE, thus the typical route is a tech file and a DoC.
Refer to the Medical Device Directive (MDD) or the In-Vitro directive. From
the little info you provided I would guess the Medical Directive is the one.
Reading the scope of both should assist you in selecting the appropriate
directive. Annex I in the directive provides the "essential requirements"
you need to be compliant with. You also need to (first thing) classify your
device, article 9 of the MDD will assist here. Article 11 of the MDD
addresses conformity assessment procedure, this identifies which of the
other Annexes you may follow to  allow CE marking of the device. 
This is somewhat condensed, best advise - obtain the directives, read
through them (more than once is highly recommended) and comprehend the
contents.
Good Luck!
If you wish you can contact me directly with any other questions, I may have
the right answer! 

 

-Original Message-
From: k...@i-data.com [mailto:k...@i-data.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2001 2:13 AM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Medical devices



Hi all

Can some one give me links to information regarding EU Medical Devices
directive.

My problem is to define the requirement for the following situation:

A manufacturer is making an add-on device for another company's medical
device and the total equipment is CE approved without involving the
manufacturer. Now the manufacturer want to CE mark this add-on device and
sell it to other companies as a CE approved device still for medical
equipment.

What is the requirements for this manufacturer, they have never been into
CE markin before.

The equipment is used in laboratoriums to move small glases with different
materials for testing in another test device.

best regards,

Kim  Jensen



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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

RE: UL/CSA/IEC/EN Standards Search

[Dick Grobner]

For UL Standards:
http://ulstandardsinfonet.ul.com/
For IEC Standards:
http://www.iec.ch/webstore/
For EN's I usually call:
Simcom International, Atlanta GA 1-770-730-9980 and ask for revision level
of doc and $
Another good source for checking and purchasing standards is Global
Engineering Documents @ http://global.ihs.com

Hope this helps!!

-Original Message-
From: Peter Merguerian [mailto:pmerguer...@itl.co.il]
Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 8:49 AM
To: "EMC-PSTC (E-mail)" <
Subject: UL/CSA/IEC/EN Standards Search



Dear All,

I have yet to find a reliable source for determining the most recent edition
and revision levels with dates for UL/CSA/IEC/EN Standards. Can anyone help?


I have subsciption service for Perinorm from BSI but it does not give the
revision levels and is too complicated to use. I also tried MSSN
http://www.nssn.org/  but it is not very reliable with the most recent
revisions.



Peter Merguerian
Managing Director
Product Testing Division
I.T.L. (Product Testing) Ltd.
Hacharoshet 26, POB 211
Or Yehuda 60251, Israel

Tel: 972-3-5339022 Fax: 972-3-5339019
e-mail: pmerguer...@itl.co.il
website: http://www.itl.co.il 

TO LEARN ABOUT AUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZEALAND REQUIREMENTS, CONTACT ME AT THE
EARLIEST STAGES OF YOUR DESIGN; REQUIREMENTS CAN BE TRICKY!



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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

RE: Documents with 'CE' products

[Dick Grobner]

Medical Device Directive
As I understand it (and our Notified Body) all warning messages on the
device, the "basic" operating instructions are required to be translated. We
have taken our User Manuals and streamlined them into the basic information
required to safely and effectively operate the device, this is called the
Operation Guide and is translated. Software is another issue (a gray area it
seems), from the marketing side - yes, from the regulatory side ?. If the
software has imbedded into it the devices operational instructions this
portion would need to be translated. In the case of medical, the minimal
amount of information to be provided to the customer is given in Annex I of
the MDD (directive and in EN60601-1 Clause 6, this information shall be
translated into the native language of the country that the device is
offered for sale and use.   
This is not RTTE directive but I'm sure the directives requirements are
similar in some ways.
Hope this helps in some way.


-Original Message-
From: Praveen Rao [mailto:p...@tennyson.com.au]
Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 12:47 AM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Documents with 'CE' products



Dear Members,

We are in the process of organising our shipments to various countries in
the EU. We have tested and complied with the RTTE directive and understand
the CE marking requirements. We had the following doubts wrt to the shipment
of the products.

Is it legally required to :

*   Ship product manuals (installation, service and administration) with
every product sample. We intend to send manuals only to the distributor in
the respective countries and not with every box. If yes, does this legally
have to be in the respective national language. We understand that there are
11 official languages in EU. This may be required from 'marketing point of
view', but is it a legal requirement as per any directives ?
*   We have a regulatory document which explains the different approvals
(stating compliances with the directive and standards tested to, etc) and
warnings we have for Europe, USA, etc. Is there a legal requirement to have
such a document stating Compliance with each sample shipped. If yes, does
this have to be in a hard copy format in the respective national language.
Alternatively, can this document be posted on the website and indicate the
access details with the product. Is this legal ?  

My specific questions are as below.

1. What information (in any format) must we supply (eg. Regulatory
document).  If any, what are the requirements with respect to format and
language?

2 Is there a requirement for us to provide any other information in the
native language of the country we sell into?

3 Is there a requirement for any information we supply to be in hardcopy, or
is softcopy sufficient?

4 Are there any restrictions or perhaps concessions made for putting
information on our website for people to download?  Could we for example,
put all information on there and have them download all requirements?

Your comments please

Praveen Rao


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

RE: EN documents for service, support, vibration and shock?

[Dick Grobner]

We have used the "International Safe Transit Association" standard 1A for
testing our medical devices. This is for products (in general) weighting up
to 100 lbs. This has been accepted by our Notified Body for addressing the
"Essential Requirements" within the Medical Device Directive. 
Hope this helps!

-Original Message-
From: O'Shaughnessy, Paul [mailto:paul_oshaughne...@affymetrix.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 12:28 PM
To: 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org'
Subject: EN documents for service, support, vibration and shock?



Dear List,

Can anyone provide reference to the correct European Standards on length of
time service and support must be maintained for a product?  (ie. five years,
ten years, etc.)

Also, what are the appropriate EN documents relating to the vibration and
shock that instruments must withstand during shipment and normal use?

The product family is laboratory instrumentation.

Many thanks for your assistance.

Paul O'Shaughnessy
Affymetrix, Inc.


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

RE: Seeking assistance from Chemical Experts

[Dick Grobner]

FYI:

>From Webster's Third New International Dictionary:

STODDARD SOLVENT: "a straight run petroleum naphtha fraction of low
flammability containing principally aliphatic hydrocarbons and conforming to
specifications (as water-white color, distillation range 300°F to 400°F, and
a flash point over 100°F) for use chiefly in dry cleaning - compare
PETROLEUM SPRIT"

PETROLEUM SPRIT: "a flammable petroleum distillate that boils lower than
kerosene and is suitable for use as a solvent and thinner esp. for paints
and varnishes - compare NAPHTHA

Will this help?

Also - Back on 10-10-00 Ned Divine (in this forum) stated that IEC60650
requirement is for the use of aliphatic solvent hexane. He also stated that
it is available through Aldrich Chemical #20,875-2. He also stated that the
CAS # is 110-5A-3.
  

-Original Message-
From: Hans Mellberg [mailto:ha...@cisco.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2001 4:50 PM
To: Kenneth McCormick; emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: RE: Seeking assistance from Chemical Experts



At 01:40 PM 1/2/01 -0700, Kenneth McCormick wrote:

>Thanks guys...BUT, I am not trying to convince UL that I am correct. This 
>is all internal to the company I am working with.

There are at least four chemical compositions that "qualify" for the term 
"petroleum spirits" You can find their specification at the ASTM website

http://www.astm.org/DATABASE.CART/PAGES/D235.htm

The spec you want is:

D235-99 Standard Specification for Mineral Spirits (Petroleum Spirits) 
(Hydrocarbon Dry Cleaning Solvent) 

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

RE: OATS Turntable Canopy

[Dick Grobner]

What about using the fake wood that they have out now? It is composed of
some type of plastic but not sure of the base material used, or if it is
re-cycled plastic. Just another thought, I'm sure it would hold its shape
better in the high heat regions of the US.
 
One source is McMaster-Carr (spendy source however) 
http://www.mcmaster.com
punch in #8506K33, search by "product index" option.

Hope this provides another option for you!

-Original Message-
From: wo...@sensormatic.com [mailto:wo...@sensormatic.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2001 7:28 AM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: OATS Turntable Canopy



Thanks to everyone who responded. Several of you suggested using PVC pipe.
We have tried using schedule 40 PVC pipe (the stuff you find at Home Depot)
for other outside structural uses and have found that the material creeps
badly in the Florida heat. The result is sagging horizontal supports. Has
anyone successfully built an 8-10 foot wide durable outside structure using
PVC pipe? If so, what type of PVC pipe was it?

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

RE: Hazardous Material Questions

[Dick Grobner]

The lead used in the tin lead solder is considered hazardous waste, unless
you are using lead free solder. I also believe there may be mercury in the
LCD displays. We dispose of our scrap Printed Circuit Boards with a licensed
recycler. They reclaim the precious metals (gold and silver) from the
components and properly recycle the lead, tin, etc. The moneys received for
the precious metals cancels the recycling fees so it is a wash. 
Hope this Helps!   

> -Original Message-
> From: Marko Radojicic [mailto:ma...@mapleoptical.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 27, 2000 4:17 PM
> To:   emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org; t...@world.std.com
> Subject:  Hazardous Material Questions
> 
> Greetings EMC-PSTC and TREG Groups,
> 
> I was hoping that others may have been in a similar position and been
> asked to respond to Hazardous Material related topics in an RFP.
> 
> My company is designing a fiber optic networking product and is using all
> the normal materials you would assume for electronic equipment, i.e., no
> weird or unusual compounds - only FR-4, ICs, sheet metal, etc. Is there
> anything commonly used in the manufacture of electronic equipment which is
> considered a Hazardous Material according to the US Department of
> Transportation or a Carcinogen by the National Toxicology Program (NTP)? 
> 
> We are not using any batteries so that should eliminate several potential
> problems.
> 
> Any help would, of course, be appreciated.
> 
> Regards,
> Marko Radojicic
> Hardware Design Assurance
> www.mapleoptical.com
> ma...@mapleoptical.com
> Phone: 408/545-1263
> FAX: 408/434-9209
> 

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

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

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

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

RE: Thermocouple issues

[Dick Grobner]

Opps - I ment to say cyanoacrylate adhesive (supper glue) and an
accelerator.
Sorry!

-Original Message-
From: Dick Grobner [mailto:dick.grob...@medgraph.com]
Sent: Friday, December 15, 2000 4:03 PM
To: 'Joe Finlayson'
Cc: IEEE EMC-PSTC E-Mail Forum (E-mail)
Subject: RE: Thermocouple issues



If you are welding up your own thermocouples, 2 part epoxy works well. You
may destroy the thermocouple removing it but if you weld up your own - who
cares.
Hope this helps.

-Original Message-
From: Joe Finlayson [mailto:jfinlay...@telica.com]
Sent: Friday, December 15, 2000 1:53 PM
To: 'NEBS Newsgroup'; 'EMC PSTC'
Subject: Thermocouple issues




I am in the process of performing a thermal evaluation and am using
thermocouples to measure surface temperatures of IC's, etc.  I'm finding
that the thermocouple tape that I'm using tends to experience a degradation
of the adhesive as the temperatures increase (in the 80-100°C range) causing
the thermocouples to separate from the surfaces.  I'd appreciate any advice
that could point to a higher performing tape/adhesive for such an
application.  Some of the IC's are quite small which doesn't leave much
surface area for adhesion and I am using as many as 40 thermocouples per
card.

Thx,


Joe

*
 <<...>> 

Joe Finlayson
Manager, Compliance Engineering
Telica, Inc.
734 Forest Street, Bldg. G, Suite 100
Marlboro, MA 01752
Tel:(508) 480-0909 x212
Fax:(508) 480-0922
Email:  jfinlay...@telica.com
Web:www.telica.com


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

RE: Thermocouple issues

[Dick Grobner]

If you are welding up your own thermocouples, 2 part epoxy works well. You
may destroy the thermocouple removing it but if you weld up your own - who
cares.
Hope this helps.

-Original Message-
From: Joe Finlayson [mailto:jfinlay...@telica.com]
Sent: Friday, December 15, 2000 1:53 PM
To: 'NEBS Newsgroup'; 'EMC PSTC'
Subject: Thermocouple issues




I am in the process of performing a thermal evaluation and am using
thermocouples to measure surface temperatures of IC's, etc.  I'm finding
that the thermocouple tape that I'm using tends to experience a degradation
of the adhesive as the temperatures increase (in the 80-100°C range) causing
the thermocouples to separate from the surfaces.  I'd appreciate any advice
that could point to a higher performing tape/adhesive for such an
application.  Some of the IC's are quite small which doesn't leave much
surface area for adhesion and I am using as many as 40 thermocouples per
card.

Thx,


Joe

*
 <<...>> 

Joe Finlayson
Manager, Compliance Engineering
Telica, Inc.
734 Forest Street, Bldg. G, Suite 100
Marlboro, MA 01752
Tel:(508) 480-0909 x212
Fax:(508) 480-0922
Email:  jfinlay...@telica.com
Web:www.telica.com


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

RE: Application of CE Mark

[Dick Grobner]

We have placed the CE marking onto our external packaging for the very same
reason. We have been doing this for 21/2 years and no issues have been
raised. I can not assure you that this will minimize the chances of the
local custom officials from opening the carton and assuring that he device
is marked also. 

-Original Message-
From: Binnom, Cyril A [mailto:binno...@ems-t.com]
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2000 1:50 PM
To: emc-pstc
Subject: Application of CE Mark 



Group,

I am currently debating about recommending that our company affix the CE
mark to all packaging (boxes etc.) slated to be shipped to the European
Communities. We currently only affix the mark to the compliant apparatus and
from my research (89/336/EEC Article 10(1) I have not found it to be
applicable anywhere else other than the apparatus.

With the growing talk of enforcement, is it conceivable to believe that
marking the packaging along with the apparatus and instructions will aid in
preventing future shipments from being tampered with or spot checked while
entering the EC? 

Does the CE mark on the packaging aid in marketing of the apparatus?

Thanks in advance for any and all help.

Cyril A. Binnom Jr.
EMI/EMC Approvals Engineer
LXE, Inc.
(770) 447-4224 Ext. 3240
(770) 447-6928 Fax


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

RE: ESD Floor waxing

[Dick Grobner]

I would contact the ESD Assoc. at 315-339-6937 and pose the question to
them. There is an ESD Assoc. standard #S7.1 but I believe it deals with
actual ESD flooring materials (i.e.tile). A company that supplies ESD floor
finish products is ACL Inc. 1-800-782-8420. I hope this helps!

-Original Message-
From: Dave Wilson [mailto:dwil...@alidian.com]
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2000 1:21 PM
To: 'emc-p...@ieee.org'; 't...@world.std.com'
Subject: ESD Floor waxing



Anybody know what spec has requirements/guidance for ESD floor waxing?

Thanks,

Dave Wilson
Alidian Networks

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

IEC 61000-3-2 & -3-3

[Dick Grobner]

At the web address below you will find an article written by J.M. Woodgate
dealing with 61000-3-2 & -3. This may be of interest to some on this forum
as I know the issue seems to surface about every other week.
Happy Reading! 


http://www.conformity-update.com/iec-61000-000908.htm

Dick Grobner
Compliance Engineering
Medical Graphics Corporation
350 Oak Grove Parkway
St Paul, MN 55127
651-766-3395
651-766-3389 (fax)
dick.grob...@medgraph.com



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

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

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

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

RE: Testing as a system for harmonics?

[Dick Grobner]

We just finished harmonics testing today. The lab did not have us plug
everything into one strip. We had two AC devices which make up the system.
Both were tested separately, not together!
Hope you can get this straighten out!
Good luck!


-Original Message-
From: marti...@appliedbiosystems.com
[mailto:marti...@appliedbiosystems.com]
Sent: Monday, November 27, 2000 12:19 PM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Testing as a system for harmonics?



One of our products is sold as a system with several other non-connected
products as well as a computer system and printer. We brought this product
to a well known EMC Testing facility to perform Harmonics testing.  They
required that we plugged our product, as well as all of the peripheral
devices, into a power strip and they then tested the complete system
together for Harmonics.  Obviously, it failed.

Has anyone else had an EMC Lab make this request of testing the complete
system?  Is anyone aware of any document that requires system testing for
Harmonics?

All responses are appreciated.

Regards

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

RE: ITE Emissions above 1 GHz

[Dick Grobner]

Short range device? Look at ETSI 300-683, EMC Std for Short Range Devices -
operating freq. 9kHz to 25GHz. Chapter 8 deals with emissions.
Hope this helps!

-Original Message-
From: wo...@sensormatic.com [mailto:wo...@sensormatic.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2000 3:10 PM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: ITE Emissions above 1 GHz



I have an Information Technology device that intentionally generates and
uses 2.45 GHz signals. EN55022 does not provide limits above 1 GHz. Is there
another harmonized EN that can be applied for spurious emissions above 1
GHz? If not, will this product have to be submitted to a Competent Body?

Richard Woods

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

RE: UL rec. needed on custom transformer ???

[Dick Grobner]

I would like to add that I (my employer) also have used Tania's #1
suggestion with regards to a similar device. Has worked out well over the
past years. Responsibility of compliance stays within the manufacturer's
facility and not ours! 

-Original Message-
From: Gary McInturff [mailto:gary.mcintu...@worldwidepackets.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2000 10:29 AM
To: 'Grant, Tania (Tania)'; 'Chris Wells'; 'emc-pstc'
Subject: RE: UL rec. needed on custom transformer ??? 



Just another vote for Tania's plan outlined below. I have used that
in the past, and used path 1. Including I changed potential vendors, when
the first guy didn't want to work with me. I paid the investigation fee's,
and he paid the follow-up just as Tania described. I'm sure the cost went a
few quid when I wasn't looking, but the overall cost of continued compliance
was still cheaper with him being inspected rather than me trying to pry open
transformers and verifying the system every so often.
You may even want to make it an unlisted component - in other words
it is recognized only in your files. The vendor cannot now start advertising
and selling the transformer as recognized to others. You own the information
out of the UL investigation.
Why is it called an "unlisted" component when its recognized. UL
abhors the use of the term listed in their reports in order to avoid
confusion with the word as it is used on a complete product?
Gary


-Original Message-
From: Grant, Tania (Tania) [mailto:tgr...@lucent.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2000 6:23 PM
To: 'Chris Wells'; 'emc-pstc'
Subject: RE: UL rec. needed on custom transformer ??? 
Importance: High



Chris,
Per your description, your Current Transformer is in a safety circuit.  The
fact that "normally" you do not have high voltages on the primary side does
not cut it.  (Besides, what is "high" voltage???)  You have several choices
(in order of what my preference would be, and money being no object!).
However, if I misunderstood you, and your transformer is NOT in a safety
circuit, then all you need to do is to prove to UL that this is the case;--
it should be obvious from your schematics.
 
1.   Since the transformer manufacturer already is using a UL
coordinated/approved insulation system, it would not take much more money
for him to submit this particular transformer to UL.  Your company probably
should pay for the UL submittal costs, but the manufacturer should pay for
UL factory inspections.   This way, you are off the hook when he changes
construction;-- he has to maintain compliance at all costs, and you don't
need to know the details as to how he does this.
 
2.   If the manufacturer is very stubborn for some reason, and does not
want to do the above, tell him you will submit the transformer, however, you
will need complete construction details that he will have to provide you.
Since this is a custom design, he should not mind this.   Thus, you pay
directly to UL for this evaluation.   However, you also designate the
manufacturing location the address of your vendor, not your own.  (This is
not the same as split inspection.)   Here, you have more of a headache:  you
pay for UL factory inspections;-- whenever anything is wrong UL writes you
letters about it, since you are the listee and applicant.   Thus, you know
every time your vendor trips up.   Be sure to tell him that now you will
have this knowledge!
 
3.   You submit this transformer to UL as described in 2 above, but do
not designate the vendor as the manufacturing location.   Now you have a
very big headache.   Whenever the vendor changes construction, you don't
know anything about this, and then you get a spiffy UL field inspector who
demands that you saw the transformer in half so that he can measure the
spacings and count the number of windings!   (Don't ever fall for this!
You need a laboratory special saw to do this correctly.)   I would never
never choose this last option!
 
Thus, number 1 is your best choice even if your company has to pay up-front
costs for the UL evaluation-- after all, it is a custom design!   However,
you save money and time down the road.  I hope I have given you some
justifications for your decision.

Tania Grant,  tgr...@lucent.com 
Lucent Technologies, Switching Solutions Group 
Intelligent Network and Messaging Solutions 

 
-Original Message-
From: Chris Wells [mailto:cdwe...@stargate.net]
Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2000 5:20 PM
To: 'emc-pstc'
Subject: UL rec. needed on custom transformer ??? 


Question - What is the simplest, least expensive,  way to define an
isolation transformer used in a UL508 (or similar standard) recognized
product?  The transformer is a custom design made by a magnetics vendor for
use in our industrial products.
The product is manufactured under a UL coordinated insulation system or
recipe.
Do I need the manufacture to obtain a UL construction file?
I am concerned about managing

RE: DC Fuse for Power Supply

[Dick Grobner]

They are in the Schurter catalog dated 10/99, pages 144 - 155
Good Luck!

-Original Message-
From: jrbar...@lexmark.com [mailto:jrbar...@lexmark.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2000 1:50 PM
To: dmck...@gte.net; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: DC Fuse for Power Supply



Doug,
I ran into a problem in 1990 where we needed to add a primary fuse to a
brick
power supply, without changing the circuit board or the case.  We had two
holes
in the circuit board where we could install a pigtailed fuse if we could
find
one that would meet UL and SEMKO requirements.  (SEMKO did not allow
soldered-on
pigtails on primary fuses).   Our solution, and I have yet to see a better
alternative, was to buy 5mm x 20mm fuses from Schurter with push-on endcaps.
These endcaps have the lead wires welded on, meeting the word and the spirit
of
the EMKO Deviations that applied at that time.  Since no heat is applied
when
these endcaps are installed on the fuses, they have no effect on their
electrical characteristics.

I've given my Schurter catalog to the engineer who's taken over
specifying/qualifying power supplies from me, so I don't have the part
number
handy, and I don't know if these fuses are available in the rating you need.
But this, or something like this, might get you out of your bind.
  John Barnes  Advisory Engineer
  Lexmark International



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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

RE: Holes, waveguides and honeycombs

[Dick Grobner]

My knowledge is limited in this area, but try contacting Tech-Etch, Plymouth
MA - USA http://www.tech-etch.com They supply (manufacturer?) honeycome
filter panels. Hope this helps.

-Original Message-
From: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com [mailto:jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com]
Sent: Friday, October 20, 2000 9:31 AM
To: Paolo Roncone; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Re:Holes, waveguides and honeycombs



forwarding for pronc...@cisco.com

Reply Separator
Subject:Holes, waveguides and honeycombs
Author: Paolo Roncone 
List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org
Date:   10/20/00 12:03 PM

Group,

We are working on a couple of designs of telecom gear contained in metal 
s.u.b.-racks and we have to meet emission limits up to 40 GHz.
I need some advice on the workings of waveguides below cut-off and 
honeycombs, because we have to include ventilation openings without 
possibly degrading the shielding effectiveness.
First, I made an inquiry on textbook formulas for circular and rectangular 
waveguide cut-off frequencies. I was happy to find consistency among three 
different sources (I found the same formulas although rearranged in 
different fashions).
 From Ott's "Noise reduction techniques in electronic systems" I found:

fc = [6.9/d] GHz   for circular waveguides

fc = [5.9/l] GHz  for rectangular waveguides

where fc = cutoff frequency
d = diameter of circular section (inches)
l = longer side of rectangular section (inches)

Now my question is: what about honeycomb panels ?
Can I use the same formulas for honeycombs ? Here the single cells are 
neither circular nor rectangular. Can I still apply these formulas with 
good accuracy ? If not, anyone knows of other formulas that apply in this
case?
As for attenuation (shielding effectivenes) of one single waveguide 
opening, if  the frequency is well below cutoff , this is proportional to 
the ratio of length/diameter of the waveguide. The recommended ratio is 2:1 
to 4:1 in order to get good attenuation.

Now, I just found a formula for attenuation of honeycomb panels as function 
of frequency, length-to-width ratio of each cell and also number of cells:

S [dB]  = 20log(fc/f) + 27.3(t/W) - 10log(n)(f < fc/10)

where:

S [dB] = Shielding Effectiveness in dB
fc = cutoff frequency of waveguide
f = frequency
t = cell length (or thickness)
W = cell section width
n = number of cells in honeycomb panel

I have no problems with the first two terms in the above equation. As for 
the third term, that means that increasing the number of cells (n) in the 
honeycomb panel degrades the shielding effectiveness of  the panel (ex. 
1000 cells means 30 dBs lost).
Before finding this formula I had a feeling that due to the skin-effect 
each honeycomb cell could be treated as a single cell.
So far I wasn't able to find other formulas for honeycomb panels. So I'd 
like to have some feedback on this.
I hope to get some useful directions.

Thank you in advance,

Paolo Roncone
Cisco Photonics, Italy

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

RE: Power Line Voltages

[Dick Grobner]

Web sites - try:
http://www.kropla.com/electric2.htm
http://www.interpower.com/guide.htm
http://www.quail.com/locator/index.html

Books:
Electric Current Abroad - US Dept of Commerce, 1-800-553-NTIS, or
http://www.ntis.gov  the order number is PB98-193383 I think

California Instruments: Current Guide for World Power (1993),
1-800-4AC-POWER, FREE! Availability?

Good Luck! 


-Original Message-
From: Flinders, Randall [mailto:randall.flind...@emulex.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2000 7:00 PM
To: emc-pstc
Subject: Power Line Voltages


Greetings group!

I am looking for a resource, preferrably but not neccessarily on the
web, were I can get all of the power line voltages and frequencies for
every country.  This includes Europe, The Pac Rim, Autralia, Africa,
Middle East, etc

Can anyone direct me to this information?  Any help would be greatly
appreciated!

Regards,


Randy Flinders
EMC Engineer
Emulex Corp.
r.flind...@ieee.org

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

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

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

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

RE: Safety test your EMC test sample?

[Dick Grobner]

My input - I vote number 3. I usually run a leakage test and the high
voltage potential test on devices following he Immunity tests. I have also
experienced No. 1 however (smoke and fire during surge testing - and the dog
still hated the cat!). 
Later!


-Original Message-
From: eric.lif...@ni.com [mailto:eric.lif...@ni.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2000 2:02 PM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Safety test your EMC test sample?





"Equipment shall not become dangerous or unsafe as a result of the
application
of the tests defined in this section of IEC  1000-4."

That statement appears in (with only slight variations) -2, -3, -4, -5 and
-6.
Dangerous or unsafe is not defined.  There are no links to any safety
standards
or other criteria to apply.  So, which one of the following would apply?

  1. No smoke, no fire, the cover didn't fly off, dogs still hate cats, so
it's
safe!
  2. The usual standards-driven safety qualification is done on another
sample,
the EMC sample is not safety tested unless something very obvious has
happened.
  3. Take the EMC sample(s) to the safety lab for validating key parameters
like
dielectric withstand and leakage current.
  4. Take the EMC sample(s) to the safety lab for a full safety evaluation.

Regards,
Eric Lifsey
Compliance Manager
National Instruments



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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

RE: Application of agency safety markings

[Dick Grobner]

May I add: UL has a publication titled "Show the UL Mark". The copy I have
is hardcopy and it may be available on their web site http://www.ul.com or
you may be able to request copy via e-mail. It is a very informative
document - worth obtaining & reading! 

-Original Message-
From: Colgan, Chris [mailto:chris.col...@tagmclarenaudio.com]
Sent: Friday, September 22, 2000 5:14 AM
To: 'emc-p...@ieee.org'
Subject: RE: Application of agency safety markings



At my last company, we were allowed to silk screen the UL logo (when we used
UL) and the CSA logo (when we switched to CSA) on the unassembled metalwork
of our products.  The silkscreened metalwork was produced at several
unspecified engineering companies, so in effect the logo wasn't applied
anywhere in particular.

Chris Colgan
EMC & Safety
TAG McLaren Audio Ltd

mailto:chris.col...@tagmclarenaudio.com


> -Original Message-
> From: Grant, Tania (Tania) [SMTP:tgr...@lucent.com]
> Sent: 22 September 2000 02:52
> To:   'emc-p...@ieee.org'
> Subject:  Application of agency safety markings
> Importance:   High
> 
> Does anyone know whether NRTLs, other than UL, have the requirement that
> their labels must only be applied at the factory location?   And if so, is
> this an urban legend, or is this actually specified somewhere in writing?
> 
> I know and respect UL's position but I was wondering whether other NRTLs
> in this country have the same requirement.   Any replies or experience you
> might have had are welcome!
> 
> Tania Grant,  tgr...@lucent.com
> Lucent Technologies, Switching Solutions Group
> Intelligent Network and Messaging Solutions
> 
=
Authorised on 09/22/00 at 11:08:40; code 37f48bf30B94BD74.


**  
   Please visit us at www.tagmclarenaudio.com
**

The contents of this E-mail are confidential and for the exclusive
use of the intended recipient. If you receive this E-mail in error,
please delete it from your system immediately and notify us either
by E-mail, telephone or fax. You  should not  copy, forward or 
otherwise disclose the content of the E-mail.

TAG McLaren Audio Ltd
The Summit, 11 Latham Road
Huntingdon, Cambs, PE29 6ZU
Telephone : 01480 415600 (+44 1480 415600)
Facsimile : 01480 52159 (+44 1480 52159)

**  
   Please visit us at www.tagmclarenaudio.com
**

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

RE: Red LED's

[Dick Grobner]

May I add: In IEC/EN 60601-1 (medical) red may only be used to alert the
operator/user of an immediate danger to patient, operator or bystander. Use
of red as an indicator should be avoided.   

-Original Message-
From: Mark Schmidt [mailto:mschm...@xrite.com]
Sent: Friday, September 22, 2000 8:59 AM
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: Red LED's



Is the use of Red LED's acceptable for I.T.E. equipment in the EU in
accordance with LVD and EMCD? All comments welcome.
Thank you.

Mark Schmidt
X-Rite Incorporated 
U.S.A.
mschm...@xrite.com



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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

FW: Application of agency safety markings

[Dick Grobner]

I would also like to add that you could label the devices in the warehouse
but it would fall under a "field inspection". This is when an ETL engineer
would go on site, run the required tests, inspect the device for compliance
to the test report, etc. Cost allot of dollars and some time. I have
experienced this and personally do not recommend it as a viable option.

-Original Message-
From: Lyons, Jim [mailto:jim.ly...@gtech.com] 
Sent: Friday, September 22, 2000 7:44 AM
To: 'Grant, Tania (Tania)'; 'emc-p...@ieee.org'
Subject: RE: Application of agency safety markings



I recently had a situation where we had transferred some completed product
to a warehouse to free up floor production space while an ETL investigation
was still underway, but before we had obtained the ETL approval. ETL would
not allow us to simply go to the warehouse and affix the markings even
though the units were identical to the ones still on the production line,
and 100% had undergone the required hipot and ground testing.

We were required to transport the units back to the factory for the sole
purpose of marking them.

So, add ETL to the list with UL.

James W. Lyons
Manager - Product Compliance
GTECH Corp.
55 Technology Way
West Greenwich, RI  02817
Tel (401) 392-7723
Fax (401) 392-4955
Email jim.ly...@gtech.com 

> -Original Message-
> From: Grant, Tania (Tania) [mailto:tgr...@lucent.com]
> Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2000 9:52 PM
> To:   'emc-p...@ieee.org'
> Subject:  Application of agency safety markings
> Importance:   High
> 
> Does anyone know whether NRTLs, other than UL, have the requirement that
> their labels must only be applied at the factory location?   And if so, is
> this an urban legend, or is this actually specified somewhere in writing?
> 
> I know and respect UL's position but I was wondering whether other NRTLs
> in this country have the same requirement.   Any replies or experience you
> might have had are welcome!
> 
> Tania Grant,  tgr...@lucent.com
> Lucent Technologies, Switching Solutions Group
> Intelligent Network and Messaging Solutions
> 


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

FW: Double Retention

[Dick Grobner]

My 2 cents - I have used a piece of heatshirnk with the inner adhesive (that
melts upon shrinking) to comply with the same requirement. The shrink goes
over the barrel of the contact / lug and the insulation of the wire. After
shrinking / cooling the adhesive retains the  wire pretty will.

-Original Message-
From: Gary McInturff [mailto:gary.mcintu...@worldwidepackets.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2000 9:40 AM
To: 'Rich Nute'; andy.v...@mts.com
Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: Double Retention



Just adding to what Rich has said below about methods. The double
crimp (or insulation crimp) is probably the best method because both crimps
are made with the same tool at the same time so there is no manufacturing
cost penalty, and several vendors supply the parts and I don't believe that
there is any appreciable cost penalty for the parts. Simpler solutions are
available if needed. You can tie one wire to the next with a wire tie for
example. The first attachment point is the wire to connector pin, the second
retention method then is the wire tie which is anchoring the wire itself to
an adjacent pin, standoff or whatever. 
I prefer the first method for several reasons but wanted to point
out the next most common, in my experience, method.
Gary

-Original Message-
From: Rich Nute [mailto:ri...@sdd.hp.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2000 4:08 PM
To: andy.v...@mts.com
Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Re: Double Retention






Hi Andy:


>   I have been told that either "double crimp" terminals (fast-ons, ring,
>   spade) must be used for insulated wire, or a secondary method must be
used
>   to secure the wire's insulation near the point of connection.  I have
not
>   seen this described in the standards I have read or in the archived
emails
>   on the RCIC database - where should I look?  At this point, I don't even
>   know if this is a UL or a LVD thing. 

This is a long-standing, traditional, and semi-secret
safety requirement.  In my experience, it has been
applied by both CSA and UL.

The requirement is based on the concept that safety
must be provided both for normal conditions and in
the event of a fault.

Where a wire could come loose and bridge a safety 
insulation, then that wire must have a second 
mechanical scheme that prevents the wire from 
bridging the insulation.

The requirement is stated in IEC 60950 and its 
clones in Sub-clause 3.3.4 for power supply cord 
wires.  This same requirement MAY be applied to 
other wires at hazardous voltage by the many 
different certification engineers, each of whom 
has a different reason for doing so.

There is a similar requirement for containment of
strands of stranded wire.  See Sub-clause 3.3.9.

You didn't ask what are the secondary methods.

Any secondary method that keeps the wire from 
bridging a safety insulation is generally 
acceptable.

The "double crimp" is acceptable because the 
first crimp is to the wire, and the second crimp
is to the insulation.  Two, more-or-less 
independent fixings.


Best regards,
Rich





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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Enclosure Material & Immunity

[Dick Grobner]

Good Day Forum Members
I have just been posed with a question here at work and I have no immediate
answer. Someone asked if an electronic enclosure constructed of stainless
steel is in any way more superior (or equivalent too) against EMI/RFI (ESD,
radiated RF, Magnetic, etc.) over one constructed of steel (zinc plated). In
the past all of our enclosure have been constructed of steel or aluminum and
plated accordingly. I do not have much in the line of resources on this
subject so any input from the forum would be appreciated!! Provide me with
your experiences, good or bad!

Thanks (in advance)  

Dick Grobner
Compliance Engineering
Medical Graphics Corporation
350 Oak Grove Parkway
St Paul, MN 55127
651-766-3395
651-766-3389 (fax)
dick.grob...@medgraph.com


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

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

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

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

RE: Shielded Cables

[Dick Grobner]

Yes - I have experienced it in the past. Another wiring scheme you may see
is the "pigtail" connection of the cable shield terminating to the connector
shell (if your lucky) but more typical it is terminated to the metal portion
of the connector body. Both methods of terminating the cable shield is
marginal at best. Still - these cable are advertised in the product catalogs
as "shielded" cables. If the cost of a typical shielded cable is around $5-8
beware!!! A will constructed shielded cable (typ 10') will run around $15-30
each. After constantly running into this issue with our purchasing people
(as they are always looking at ways to save a few $'s) I created an
"in-house" engineering standard dealing with proper cable shielding &
construction. Now when our purchasing group goes looking for a new cable
supplier they send out the standard, if they can not supply cables complying
with the standard - we don't even bother bringing in a sample for
evaluation. This has worked very well for us over the past 3 years.
I hope this sheds some light on the issue.

-Original Message-
From: Darrell Locke (msmail) [mailto:dlo...@advanced-input.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2000 5:27 PM
To: 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org'
Subject: Shielded Cables



We recently received some shieled PS-2 cables from a vendor.  Upon
inspection of the cables I saw that the shield was not soldered positively
to the shell, it was just twisted back, I guess in hope that the wire would
make contact.  When we returned these to the vendor they said "you never
asked for that.  We'll gladly do it for an extra charge".  Huh?  Am I in
another world here?  I assumed that all shielded cables were positively
connected to the shell, at least all the ones I have seen.  Has anyone else
encountered this?  How prevalent is this in others experience?

Darrell Locke
Advanced Input Devices

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

RE: Vibration and Shock Testing

[Dick Grobner]

For our medical equipment we have used ASTM D4169-96 & D4728-95 and most
recently ISTA Procedure 1 & 1A. The ISTA appears to be the more universally
accepted standard. 
Good Luck!

-Original Message-
From: ricklinf...@phobos.com [mailto:ricklinf...@phobos.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2000 3:28 PM
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: Vibration and Shock Testing



This may not be the correct group to ask environmental questions, but I
thought it was a good place to start considering so many in the group wear
different hats or have past experience. In an effort to understand
principles of shock and vibration compliance, I have searched companies
like HP, Compaq and CISCO only to find if vibration and shock are called
out it is not even the same within the same company.

The task is to define the correct vibration and shock testing for
electronic equipment, considering operational, non-operational and
transportation will have different levels.

Are there accepted existing standard like CISPR 22 and IEC 60950 for
vibration, shock or other environmental parameters?

Is there a similar group to this one that deals with environmental testing
and compliance?

Thank you in advance for time on this matter.

Rick Linford
rlinf...@phobobs.com





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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

RE: Why routine hipot is required.

[Dick Grobner]

Basically - high potential testing is a means to check the integrity
(safety) of the wiring/components and construction used in the "front end"
before the power supplies. I have two "free" publications, from two
companies that manufacture high potential testers, that explain the process
and needs very well. I checked their web sites but they were not available
on the site. You may need to call them.
Slaughter - 800-412-1921 - Basic Facts About High Voltage Testing
Associated Research, Inc. - 1-800-858-8378 - A Basic Guide to Electrical
Product Safety Testing

Good Luck!

-Original Message-
From: Mike Morrow [mailto:mi...@ucentric.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2000 12:40 PM
To: EMC Society
Subject: Why routine hipot is required.



I've been asked why a routine hipot test is required on an end assembly
computer when it uses a Listed power supply that has already been hipot
tested.  So far I don't like the way I've worded my response.  Basically
what I've said is that a power supply is approved as a component.  The end
safety of the device depends on the installation.

Can anyone add some more beef to this statement.  Thanks.

Mike Morrow
Senior Compliance Engineer
Ucentric Systems
978-897-6482
mi...@ucentric.com
www.ucentric.com


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

RE: PTCs

[Dick Grobner]

We have been using Raychem for a few years now as overload protection. We
have had no problems with safety approvals, etc. As far as I know we have
had no reported failures, etc.
I have also had excellent engineering support when needed.
No affiliation with Raychem - but they do make a good product.
Hope this helps in your decision process!

-Original Message-
From: Dave Wilson [mailto:dwil...@alidian.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2000 12:52 PM
To: 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org'
Subject: PTCs



We supply -48V to each card in our shelf, each having their own DC-DC
converter. Each card also has an on-board fuse, we are thinking about going
to PTCs instead.

The values range from 0.75A to 5A. I've seen devices from Bourns Inc. and
Littelfuse.

Anyone have any recommendations/suggestions?

Thanks,

Dave Wilson
Alidian Networks Inc.

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

RE: product cert question

[Dick Grobner]

Fabian
Ray Russell and Rich Nute are correct. It can be done and we presently have
an OEM device under a "split inspection" program of our NRTL. I would
strongly recommend against it fir the same reason the other two members
mention. It takes longer, cost more, in our case - we had to do all the
support work (gather specifications, pre-compliance test, coordinate the
testing, re-design if required, communicate as required back to the
manufacture, etc.). We even had to pay for the evaluation and quarterly
inspection fees! This was due to the fact that the manufacturer did not want
anything to do with an NRTL or the safety standards! The best approach is to
have the OEM obtain the certification and maintain it, not you!
Good Luck  

-Original Message-
From: Russell, Ray [mailto:ray_russ...@gastmfg.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2000 12:03 PM
To: 'Spadaccini, Fabian'; 'EMC-PSTC'
Subject: RE: product cert question



Hello Fabian,
 
The NRTL we deal with uses a scheme called a split inspection. We do the
submittal, and they will inspect at our suppliers facility. It's a little
tricky, but it does work. However, I would be concerned about the
possibility that the supplier does not have an NRTL listing, and may not
meet the product standard. I have suffered many delays due to a component
that does not have an approval, and is not discovered until the end of a
product cycle. This scenario has either caused redesign, or additional
testing at our costs.
 
Good Luck,
 
Ray Russell
ray_russ...@gastmfg.com  

-Original Message-
From: Spadaccini, Fabian [mailto:fspadacc...@tainst.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2000 11:47 AM
To: 'EMC-PSTC'
Subject: product cert question



Hello, Listmembers. 

We have a potential supplier of an OEM equipment that is not
NRTL listed. They suggested we have it listed (i. e. pay for the testing
ourselves) as part of  our system.  I am not aware of any case histories of
this nature.  Has anyone had this experience?  Can an NRTL issue a listing
for one company (buyer of product), yet audit another (the manufacturer)?  I
am skeptical of this suggestion. 

Regards, 
Fabian Spadaccini 
TA Instruments-Waters LLC 
(p) 302-427-4189 
(f) 302-427-4081 
fspadacc...@tainst.com 
www.tainst.com 


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

RE: Certification for FDA Process

[Dick Grobner]

Joe - I'm not aware of any FDA Certifications via the FDA or anyone else for
that matter. One source would be the MD&M (Medical Design and Manufacturing)
(http://www.canontradeshows.com) exposition we have in our area of ST Paul /
Minneapolis. They usually have numerous FDA speakers for various FDA related
seminars during the exposition (the Twin Cities have one of the nations
highest number of medical device manufactures). Another source would be the
FDA web site http://www.fda.gov/default.htm. You should be able to pull up
some FDA guidance documents. This is a good way one can educate themselves
in the FDA processes. If you do get any leads sent directly too you please
forward them onto me - I would be interested also.
Good Luck & Happy Learning!

-Original Message-
From: marti...@appliedbiosystems.com
[mailto:marti...@appliedbiosystems.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2000 11:08 AM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Certification for FDA Process





I have seen many seminars available providing various information on the FDA
Approval process for Diagnostic Equipment and pharmaceutical approvals.

Is anyone aware of a program where an individual can get some type of
certification or detailed educational training on these FDA  processes?

All responses are appreciated.

Regards

Joe Martin
Applied Biosystems
marti...@appliedbiosystems.com



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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

RE: UL Acceptance of On-Line Manuals

[Dick Grobner]

We have played with the idea but have consistently talked ourselves out of
it. Reasons have been:
- the ability to read the manuals (one also needs to provide a copy of some
sort of "reader software" such as Adobe)
- Revision control is a concern along with the cost.
- Our manuals are quite complex, you need the ability to quickly reference
(back and forth) multiple sections within the manual at a given time. If you
have ever tried this with a large on screen document it can be quite a slow
process, thus annoying.
- We do not supply the PC at all times with our device, some users in third
world countries may not have the "top of the line" computing hardware that
we are accustom to here in the US. This could cause yet another problem. 
- if you have mechanical drawings (typ in a service manual) based in say -
AutoCAD you need to provide a viewer such as VoloVeiw. The same holds true
for schematics.
So - for now we have opted to stay with the "old fashion" paper hardcopy
versions.
Hope this provides some insight.
Never approached UL on this one, but I would think if you have a revision
control plan/scheme in place it should be no problem. 
Good Luck!
-Original Message-
From: marti...@appliedbiosystems.com
[mailto:marti...@appliedbiosystems.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2000 5:11 PM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: UL Acceptance of On-Line Manuals





We are planning to switch over to an on-line system for our User Manuals.
Does
anyone have any experience with using an on-line system?  Does the user have
the
same access as with paper manuals?  What are the downsides of such a system?

Has anyone dealt with UL and the European Union on their acceptance of
on-line
manuals?

All information is appreciated.

Regards

Joe Martin
marti...@appliedbiosystems.com



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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Medical Device License - Canada

[Dick Grobner]

Good Day Forum Members
I have a question in regards to the listing of medical devices under
Canada's Therapeutic Products Program (TPP). All medical devices sold and
put into use in Canada are required to be licensed. Along with the licensing
there is also a fee.

The question I have is: Has anyone on this forum had the experience of
device licensing and the fee they charge?

I'm having no luck corresponding by e-mail or phone with the folks in
Canada. If you have had experience please contact me directly at the e-mail
address below. I need info on the fee's they charge and how they break them
out.
Thank you  

Dick Grobner
Compliance Engineering
Medical Graphics Corporation
350 Oak Grove Parkway
St Paul, MN 55127
651-766-3395
651-484-8941 (fax)
dick.grob...@medgraph.com


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

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

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

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

RE: Telecom Ports

[Dick Grobner]

Mr. Woods informed me of missing data from my first e-mail - sorry about
that!

Equipment is medical (EN60601-1 Safety, EN60601-1-2 EMI)
Countries: USA, Canada and Europe at this time
There is also an option to use a short range telemetry unit with this device
to transmit patient data. It is spread spectrum at 2.4 GHz. Is an OEM
configuration which we repackage (the transmitter) into the battery back
(+12V) worn my the athlete/patient. It does not have CE, but is complaint
with ETSI 300.28 (I'm not sure what this is it yet)and FCC (which I still
have not seen any FCC cert. yet). Does the telemetry module fall under the
scope of the RTTE directive?   
If I'm missing any other pertinent information please advise.
Thank you

-Original Message-
From: wo...@sensormatic.com [mailto:wo...@sensormatic.com]
Sent: Friday, July 14, 2000 9:32 AM
To: dick.grob...@medgraph.com
Subject: RE: Telecom Ports


You will have to provide the forum with additional information. 

What kind of equipment? ITE, test equipment, medical, etc.
What countries? Europe, North America, other

Richard Woods

--
    From:  Dick Grobner [SMTP:dick.grob...@medgraph.com]
Sent:  Friday, July 14, 2000 10:07 AM
To:  IEEE EMC-PSTC E-Mail Forum (E-mail)
Subject:  Telecom Ports


Good Day Forum Members
I have a very similar question that Barry Ma presented on 7-13. It
regarded
a Ethernet port on test equipment. His question was as follows:
 
1. A phone line port has to comply with related regulations in
Telecom
world. In my recollection, PC industry just added an Immunity
requirement to
the phone line port. (It is included in EN55024?) But Ethernet can
be
converted to phone line through an adapter. Is there a similar
immunity
requirement for the Ethernet port in test equipment? If not, should
it be
added to EN61326?

My dilemma is that my company "inherited" a piece of equipment via
an
earlier acquisition. On this piece of equipment they incorporated an
RJ-11
telecom jack. Over this jack they are running power (+12V & pwr gnd)
from a
remote battery pack and RS-232 (Tx & Rx)comm which terminates to a
PC. Can
anyone provide me with some insight with regards to EMI/RFI
requirements and
device safety (I have somewhat of a handle on the safety side - but
welcome
other opinions!). None of these four lines have any type of safety
(over
current/voltage) protection nor any EMI filtering, etc. If you can
provide
some insight or reference to required standards I would appreciate
it

Thank You (in advance)
     
Dick Grobner
Compliance Engineering
Medical Graphics Corporation
350 Oak Grove Parkway
St Paul, MN 55127
651-766-3395
651-484-8941 (fax)
dick.grob...@medgraph.com


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Telecom Ports

[Dick Grobner]

Good Day Forum Members
I have a very similar question that Barry Ma presented on 7-13. It regarded
a Ethernet port on test equipment. His question was as follows:
 
1. A phone line port has to comply with related regulations in Telecom
world. In my recollection, PC industry just added an Immunity requirement to
the phone line port. (It is included in EN55024?) But Ethernet can be
converted to phone line through an adapter. Is there a similar immunity
requirement for the Ethernet port in test equipment? If not, should it be
added to EN61326?

My dilemma is that my company "inherited" a piece of equipment via an
earlier acquisition. On this piece of equipment they incorporated an RJ-11
telecom jack. Over this jack they are running power (+12V & pwr gnd) from a
remote battery pack and RS-232 (Tx & Rx)comm which terminates to a PC. Can
anyone provide me with some insight with regards to EMI/RFI requirements and
device safety (I have somewhat of a handle on the safety side - but welcome
other opinions!). None of these four lines have any type of safety (over
current/voltage) protection nor any EMI filtering, etc. If you can provide
some insight or reference to required standards I would appreciate it

Thank You (in advance)
 
Dick Grobner
Compliance Engineering
Medical Graphics Corporation
350 Oak Grove Parkway
St Paul, MN 55127
651-766-3395
651-484-8941 (fax)
dick.grob...@medgraph.com


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

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

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

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

RE: EN60601 - idle curiosity

[Dick Grobner]

Nick - 
A quick review of 601-1-1 revealed a couple of main issues to be considered.
One is labeling (i.e. manuals & equipment)that is, if the equipment is not
complaint with 601-1 the warning symbol (symbol 14, table 1, 601-1) needs to
be on the equipment and explanation within the user documentation as to the
why and means to take to prevent an unsafe situation to the patient or user.
Another point to bring out is higher than allowed (per 601-1) chassis
leakage currents. If the non-601-1 equipment (outside patient vicinity) has
high leakage current (greater than 300uA) and is cabled to the patient
contact equipment which in turn connects the two pieces of equipment chassis
ground (i.e. cable shields) then measures must be taken to eliminate the
hazard (i.e. isolation transformer). Also one needs to consider when the
operator touches the non 601-1 equipment and in unison touches the patient.

All of this needs to be describing in the "accompanying documents".
Other areas such as mechanical hazards and cleaning & sterilization are also
discussed. I would suggest obtaining a copy of 60601-1-1 and review.
Hope this helps!

-Original Message-
From: Nick Williams [mailto:nick.willi...@conformance.co.uk]
Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2000 3:42 PM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: EN60601 - idle curiosity



Can someone tell me what (in general) EN60601-1-1 "Medical electrical 
equipment. General requirements for safety. Collateral standard. 
Safety requirements for medical electrical systems" contains which is 
not already in the basic general requirement EN60601-1?

Many thanks

Nick.

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

RE: Are NTCs Safe to Use in Electrical Equipment

[Dick Grobner]

Raychem (www.raychem.com)is one manufacturer that have PTC's that are UL
Recognized. I'm not sure if they have NTC's. We use their PTC's as
resettable overload devices (in transformers mainly) in our UL Certified
product line (medical). We have never had a problem with UL evaluating the
devices with PTC's. We have been using them successfully for 5 years. No
experience with NTC's but do know they can be used as a limiter for in-rush
currents.
List of companies that Mfg NTC's (UL recognized?)
Western Electronic Corp 805-482-8002
Sensor Scientific 800-524-1610 (www.sensorsci.com)
Ketema 714-630-0081 

FYI: Sensor Scientific has a planning guide for NTC's

Good Luck!

-Original Message-
From: Peter Merguerian [mailto:pmerguer...@itl.co.il]
Sent: Monday, July 10, 2000 9:58 AM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Are NTCs Safe to Use in Electrical Equipment



Dear All,

I have seen some design where NTCs are used to limit inrush currents in
motion controllers. 

Q. Are NTCs safe and reliable as means to limit inrush currents?

Q. Are there safety considerations to consider for circuits employing NTCs?

Q. Are there any Approved (previously evaluated) NTC components out there?


I appreciate all of your comments and/or links regarding the use of NTCs in
electrical equipment.

Thanks 

Peter Merguerian
Managing Director
Product Testing Division
I.T.L. (Product Testing) Ltd.
Hacharoshet 26, POB 211
Or Yehuda 60251, Israel

Tel: 972-3-5339022 Fax: 972-3-5339019
e-mail: pmerguer...@itl.co.il
website: http://www.itl.co.il 






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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

RE: General Product Safety and Liability Directives

[Dick Grobner]

Here's my 2 cents:
In Webster's II New Riverside Dictionary the definition of Consumer is:
1)one that consumes 2) A buyer of goods and services
Thus - Wouldn't one of our customers who buys our goods and services, say a
hospital, thus be a consumer! 

-Original Message-
From: wo...@sensormatic.com [mailto:wo...@sensormatic.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2000 3:45 PM
To: t...@world.std.com; emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: RE: General Product Safety and Liability Directives



Articles 2 and 3 of the General Product Directive specifically mention
"consumers". Check also, the fourth "whereas" which mentions consumers.

Likewise, many of the "whereas" clauses of the Liability Directive mention
consumers. Article 9(b)(I) indicates that the products are for "private use
or consumption".

All of above leads me to my conclusion that both directives are intended for
consumer products.

Richard Woods

--
From:  Ron Pickard [SMTP:rpick...@hypercom.com]
Sent:  Tuesday, June 20, 2000 1:47 PM
To:  wo...@sensormatic.com
Cc:  t...@world.std.com; emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject:  Re: General Product Safety and Liability Directives


Hi Richard,

I disagree with you regarding your claim about these two directives
only
being applicable to consumer products.

The General Product Safety Directive (GPSD) is focused towards
product
where no other directives apply. The GPSD states"


 Article 1

 1. The purpose of the provisions of this Directive is to ensure
that   
 products placed on the market are safe.

 2. The provisions of this Directive shall apply in so far as there
are no  
 specific provisions in rules of Community law governing the safety
of the  
 products concerned.



 It is agreed that as time moves on, there will be more product
family  
 specific directives put into force effectively limiting the scope
of the   
 GPSD.






The Liability Directive (LD) title is focused to "... concerning
liability
for defective products". And, Article 1 of the LD states "The
producer
shall be liable for damage caused by a defect in his product." This
directive, in fact, deals with the liabilities of defective products
regardless of market focus.




 As can be plainly seen, neither directive is focused toward
consumer   
 products. In fact, they reference to no particular product areas.
However, 
 the GPSD appears to be a catchall where no other directive applies.



 Well, so much for my 2 cents worth of opinions. Comments?



 Best regards,

 Ron Pickard

 rpick...@hypercom.com












WOODS@Sensormatic

.com To:
emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org, t...@world.std.com 
Sent by: cc:

treg-approval@worSubject: General
Product Safety and Liability Directives
ld.std.com





06/20/00 07:58 AM

Please respond to

WOODS








In the following discussion, I am interested in determining the
legal
aspects only.

The General Product Safety Directive and the Liability Directives
apply to
consumer products and not to products used in the workplace.
Consider
electrical products that would otherwise be subject to the Low
Voltage
Directive but operate below the lower voltage limits of the
directive. The
safety of such products intended for use in the workplace are
subject only
to non-harmonized national regulations concerning worker safety. Do
these
national regulations make the assumption that such equipment must
comply
with the applicable essential requirements that are normally
associated
with
equipment covered by the LVD?

Richard Woods




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

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

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

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


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

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org

RE: Notified Body Numbers

[Dick Grobner]

Our notified body ID number consist of four digits, other ones I have seen
also have four digits.

-Original Message-
From: wo...@sensormatic.com [mailto:wo...@sensormatic.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2000 2:50 PM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Notified Body Numbers



How many characters are there in a Notified Body number? I am laying out a
label and want to make sure I allow sufficient room for the maximum number
of characters.

Richard Woods

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

RE: Is the "modular approach to EMC" the same as CE + CE = CE?

[Dick Grobner]

Sense this discussion has started regarding CE + CE = CE, I have one
question, and by the way - I agree with Paolo's comments (and the European
Commission Guidance Doc). We offer with our device an off the shelf standard
PC along with a printer, monitor, etc. This interfaces with our manufactured
medical device, class IIa. We have tested devices in the past to the EMC
Directive and the Medical Device Directive. When we tested the device we
manufacture we did not test the computer, printer, etc. However, I assure
that all PC's and related peripheral devices are compliant with the EMC
Directive, etc (labeled CE). Our rational is that PC's, line printers, video
monitors have a life span of about a year. This would relate to us having to
test new combinations about three- four times a year (our test house would
like that - extra $). Our Declaration of Conformities (DoC's)reflect this.
We also assure that all interface cables are EMI compliant, that is, they
are braid over foil with metal hoods, etc. and are terminated to the device.
We communicate via RS-232 to a remote (outside chamber) PC during testing,
the cable is heavily shielded at the chamber exit point using clamp on
ferrite's. 

By questions are:
1) Does this scenario match anyone else's product they offer for sale
internationally?  
2) How do you deal with it? That is - the short life span of computers and
their related peripheral devices. 
Also - the life span of our devices are approximately 5 years
Thx in advance. 

-Original Message-
From: paolo.ronc...@compuprint.it [mailto:paolo.ronc...@compuprint.it]
Sent: Monday, March 27, 2000 9:51 AM
To: Canio Dichirico; emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: Re: Is the "modular approach to EMC" the same as CE + CE = CE?




Here is my understanding of the approach to systems compliance for CE
marking.
If all parts of the system are CE marked you are not (legally) required to
re-test the system for compliance to the EMC Directive, provided you give
clear
instructions for assembly/installation/operation/maintenance in the
instructions
for use ("installation guidelines"). The Declaration of Conformity , as well
as
the instructions for use, must refer to the system as a whole. My
understanding
of the "modular approach" is that if all parts are CE-marked you are not
required to put the CE mark on the system as a whole. This is the legal
aspect.
On the other end, I fully agree that CE + CE  = CE is far from sure until
you
have tested the whole system for compliance ! There is a clear statement on
this
in the "Guide to the Application of Directive 89/336/EEC" published by the
European Commission (1997). In sec. 6.4.2.1 (System assembled from only CE
marked apparatus)  there is a paragraph titled "Additional comment":
"... combining two or more CE-marked subassemblies may not automatically
produce
a system which meets the requirements of the relevant standard."
I fully agree with this statement, since the
wirings/packaging/grounding/shielding aspects of any assembly process can
determine the EMC behavior of the complete system.
So my conclusion is: the safest way is to test the system as a whole,
because in
any case (whether you choose to follow the modular approach or not) the
Declaration of Conformity refers to the whole system and manufacturer is
responsible for compliance.

Hope this helps.

Best Regards,

Paolo Roncone
Compuprint - Italy






"Canio Dichirico"  on 27/03/2000 14.30.50

Please respond to "Canio Dichirico" 
  
  
  
 To:  "IEEE EMC List"  
  
 cc:  (bcc: Paolo Roncone/IT/BULL)
  
  
  
 Subject: Is the "modular approach to EMC" the same as CE +   
  CE = CE?
  







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

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

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

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

RE: Certification of Products and other emerging countries

[Dick Grobner]

Such as Appendix "A" in UL2601 - "General Guidance and Rational"
I've been in this section more than once and find it very useful.
Also for medical - The European Commission puts out "Working Documents"
titled MEDDEV's. These are used to explain and define either a directive, or
define terminology within directives, very useful documents.
Some do exist today, but more certainly wouldn't hurt!

-Original Message-
From: Scott Douglas [mailto:s_doug...@ecrm.com]
Sent: Monday, March 27, 2000 7:10 AM
To: tgr...@lucent.com
Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: Certification of Products and other emerging countries



Tania,

I wholeheartedly concur with your comments. The single biggest thing I fight
as a compliance engineer is the lack of clear and sufficient communications.
Poor writing techniques, to include grammar and choice of words, are the
toughest of problems. I see this every day in every aspect of life, whether
here in the compliance world, at home with communications from my children's
schools, and in local politics. Having been a local elected official, I have
seen the results of poorly written regulations allow some to do what they
please, in spite of the desires of the community in general. When the
regulations are made clear and precise, enforcement gets easier. But when
the reason why is added to the regulation, there are many fewer attempts to
get around them and less enforcement is required.

So here is my vote for adding the whyfors to the whats in all of our
standards. And I am not talking about adding pages here, just a simple clear
concise sentence of the intent would be adequate.

Scott
s_doug...@ecrm.com
ECRM Incorporated
Tewksbury, MA  USA


-Original Message-
From: tgr...@lucent.com [mailto:tgr...@lucent.com]
Sent: Friday, March 24, 2000 4:58 PM
To: tgr...@lucent.com; ri...@sdd.hp.com
Cc: geor...@lexmark.com; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org;
private_u...@lexmark.com
Subject: RE: Certification of Products and other emerging countries
Importance: Low



Thank you, Rich,

I notice that I am more tolerant of requirements when I understand their
reason for existence.This, unfortunately, is not part of a standard's
format;-- however, it would be of great benefit ( I am changing subjects
now!) if standards routinely identified the objective of every test, and
sometimes even of requirements.   What happens often is that due to either
poor sentence structure or poor translations, the language is so garbled
that it is not at all clear what the whole thing is all about.   This then
becomes an open field for a multitude of 'interpretations'.In majority
of cases this could be avoided by clearly stating the objective and
employing good writing techniques.

Tania Grant,  tgr...@lucent.com 
Lucent Technologies, Communications Applications Group


--
From:  Rich Nute [SMTP:ri...@sdd.hp.com]
Sent:  Thursday, March 23, 2000 5:25 PM
To:  tgr...@lucent.com
Cc:  geor...@lexmark.com; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org;
private_u...@lexmark.com
Subject:  Re: Certification of Products and other emerging countries




Hi Tania:


>>   For example, I always thought that it was a perfectly ridiculous idea
>to
>>   require that all equipment falling under the scope of IEC 950 should
>be
>>   double insulated, as pushed by certain Nordic countries many ages ago.
>>   Until--- until it was pointed out to me that certain Nordic countries
have a
>>   heck of a time finding a reliable ground connection in permafrost.   I
no
>>   longer think that this is a ridiculous idea;--  I am just grateful
>that
we
>>   still have choice in IEC 60950.

That's not the only reason...

Norway uses the IT power distribution system; nothing
wrong with that.

But, not all Norwegian outlets include a ground contact.
A few years ago, I was at NEMKO in Oslo for a meeting.
The NEMKO main meeting room has two-wire outlets!  (Their
labs have grounding-type outlets.)

When I lived in Spain, my NEW condo (1994) had BOTH
grounding and two-wire outlets, depending on location.
The outlets that were optimally positioned for lamps
were two-wire; all of the rest were grounding.  Unlike
the USA, the two-wire outlets in both NEMKO and my
condo accept grounding-type plugs.

Two-wire outlets commonly exist in homes throughout the
world.  For this reason, our grounded products are also
double-insulated.  (The ground wire is for EMC purposes,
not for safety purposes.)


Best regards,
Rich






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

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

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

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

RE: UL544 Leakage Limits Patient Equipment

[Dick Grobner]

Good Day - First, why are you using UL544? Why not use UL2601, based on
IEC601-1 with US deviations? Beware, UL544 & UL187 may be used until Jan 1
2003, after that use of UL2601 will be mandatory. Also, As of Jan 1 2005,
all Listed, Classified and Recognized medical and dental products, where
UL544 or UL187 was used to evaluate the product, must comply with UL2601-1
(direct quote from UL2601).

This may shed some light - definitions from UL2601 

Applied Part: Entirety of all parts of equipment including the patient leads
which come intentionally into contact with the patient to be examined or
treated. For some equipment, particular standards may consider parts in
contact with the operator as an applied part.

Enclosure: Exterior surface of equipment including:
- all accessible metal parts, knobs, grips and the like
- accessible shafts
- for the purpose of tests, metal foil, with specified dimensions, applied
in contact with parts of the exterior surface made of material with low
conductivity or made of insulating material (i.e. insulated / double
insulated enclosures)

Patient Circuit: Electrical circuit of which the patient forms a part. 

F-Type applied part: Applied part isolated from all other parts of the
equipment to such a degree that the patient leakage current allowable in
single fault condition is not exceeded when a voltage equal to 1.1 times the
highest rated mains voltage is applied between the applied part and earth.

Type B equipment: equipment providing a particular degree of protection
against electric shock, particularly regarding: allowable leakage current,
reliability of the protective earth connection (if present)

Type BF equipment: Type B equipment with an F-Type applied part.

Allowable leakage currents:
Enclosure Leakage: N.C. (normal condition) .1 milliamps, S.F.C. (single
fault condition) .5 milliamps
Same limits for Type B or BF equipment
Patient Leakage: Same as Enclosure Leakage for both Type B or BF equip.
(Taken from Table IV of UL2601, other leakage currents of concern are Earth
Leakage, Patient Aux Current, Patient Leakage Current with Mains Voltage
Applied)

With regards to your equipment, depending on your design, I would say it is
either a Type B or Type BF. I would lean towards the Type B. 
It would be VERY wise to confer with the engineer at your chosen NRTL
(domestic National Recognized Testing Lab). These are the people you need to
convince on the classification of your product and your chosen route to
compliance.

I hope this didn't confuse you any more, I know it can be and that's why I
do not hesitate to contact the engineers at UL from time to time. I have
found the ones I deal with helpful and very understanding and easy to work
with (this is not intended to promote UL, only my opinion of them).   

-Original Message-
From: me...@aol.com [mailto:me...@aol.com]
Sent: Friday, March 24, 2000 2:36 PM
To: jjuh...@fiberoptions.com; m.r...@ieee.org;
emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: UL544 Leakage Limits Patient Equipment*



Most esteemed colleagues, we are looking for your professional opinion on a 
UL 544 leakage limit (I think you will find this interesting):

1. This particular product uses a UL 544 evaluated direct plug in power 
supply with outputs to the patient care equipment. In this case it is a 
diagnostic unit that sends an audible tone to headphones (audiometer). The 
plug in power supply Conditions of Acceptability indicate the outputs are 
"not evaluated for patient leads" (i.e. applied parts").

2. Table 42.1 of UL 544 specifies leakage limits. "patient connection" 
footnote "a" references testing of "patient leads (applied parts)"  
connections. There is no written definition for "patient leads" or "applied 
parts" in UL544. 

As such NFPA 99 supplements UL 544 as it draws from the NEC and NFPA 99 
(referenced in UL 544):

NFPA 99 defines the US definition of  "Patient Lead" = "A deliberate 
electrical connection that can carry current between an appliance and 
patient. It is not intended to include adventitious or casual contacts such 
as a push button, bed surface, lamp, hand held appliance, etc."

3. As the headphones of this audiometer are clearly not "deliberate 
electrical connections" we conclude these are not "patient leads (applied 
parts)" which would not fall under the limits for "patient connection"
limits 
per 544. The applicable limits would be as defined under "enclosure or 
chassis" "grounded " or" double insulated" Now be careful not to jump to

a conclusion yet. You might say "enclosure or chassis?", but if you 
examine this, you will find the footnotes reference UL 544's Enclosure 
definition:

"Enclosure =  That external portion of an appliance that serves to house or 
support component parts, or both. Enclosure of patient care equipment likely

to be contacted by a patient include, for example, bedside monitors, bed 
frames, dental chairs, and examination stands."

Our conclusion: Due to the US definition of "

RE: Lightning Surge Equipment

[Dick Grobner]

A company called Caddock (www.caddock.com) makes high voltage non-inductive
resistors. I didn't see anything in their on-line short order catalog that
would work. It would be worth a try to contact them and give them your
requirements.
Good Luck!

-Original Message-
From: Mike Hopkins [mailto:mhopk...@keytek.com]
Sent: Friday, March 24, 2000 8:25 AM
To: 'David Spencer'; 'n...@world.std.com'; 'EMC PSTC'
Cc: Mike Giallongo; Doug Dufault
Subject: RE: Lightning Surge Equipment



Bellcore 4.5.9 Intrabuilding lightning calls for testing with 2/10us waves,
but as David says, allows for the use of resistor networks added on to a
1.2/50us generator. 2/10 generators for both 2 and 4 wire applications are
available for roughly the same price David paid for the Schaffner unit, plus
they can be expanded to perform the other Bellcore tests as well. The KeyTek
generator mentioned is much less expensive but then you need to build the
resistor networks to meet the spec -- 

You may find it difficult to get the power resistors required: they need to
be non-inductive and capable of handling both the voltage (>1500V) plus the
100A surge currents. 

Let me know if you need help there.

Mike Hopkins
KeyTek

> -Original Message-
> From: David Spencer [SMTP:dspen...@oresis.com]
> Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2000 11:16 AM
> To:   'n...@world.std.com'; 'EMC PSTC'
> Subject:  RE: Lightning Surge Equipment
> 
> 
> Joe,
> If you are only going to do intrabuilding, you can get away with just
> about
> anything capable of the 1.2/50uSec wave form (see the provision in the GR
> for using this waveshape with series resistors).  I am just now setting up
> a
> lab here and decided to go with Schaffner NSG2050, because it would be an
> easy module addition should we decide to do outside plant in the future.
> With the CDN, mainframe, module and 1089 box it was ~34K.
> 
> Again, if you only want intrabuilding, Keytec makes a product called the
> CE
> master for about 17K that will do the waveshape.  Keep in touch off line
> and
> I will let you know how it all works out once I have played with it (oops,
> I
> mean, executed some test plans ;) for a while.
> Dave Spencer
> Compliance Engineer
> Oresis Communications
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Joe Finlayson [mailto:jfinlay...@telica.com]
> Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2000 6:16 AM
> To: 'NEBS Newsgroup'; 'EMC PSTC'
> Subject: Lightning Surge Equipment
> 
> 
> 
>   I am trying to gather information on equipment capable of
> performing, at minimum, the lightning tests of Bellcore GR-1089-CORE
> 4.5.9,
> Intrabuilding Lightning Surge.  I am specifically interested in opinions
> of
> different equipment, cost and extent of functionality (is there a cost
> savings for equipment whose functionality is limited to this test?).  Any
> input on used equipment would also be helpful.  I am initially interested
> in
> pre-test if that makes a difference.  Any input would be greatly
> appreciated.
> 
> Thx,
> 
> 
> Joe
> 
> *
>  <<...>> 
> 
> Joe Finlayson
> Manager, Compliance Engineering
> Telica, Inc.
> 734 Forest Street, Bldg. G, Suite 100
> Marlboro, MA 01752
> Tel:  (508) 480-0909 x212
> Fax:  (508) 480-0922
> Email:jfinlay...@telica.com
> Web:  www.telica.com
> 
> ---
> This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
> Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.
> 
> To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
>  majord...@ieee.org
> with the single line:
>  unsubscribe emc-pstc
> 
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
>  Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
>  Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org
> 
> For policy questions, send mail to:
>  Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
> 

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

FW: Certification of Products and other emerging countries

[Dick Grobner]

I have tried for years advising our International Sales & Marketing group to
budget into their yearly budget plan the cost of compliance. As usually when
I try too find a dept. account number with some cash in it to reference on
my PO's I get to this "strange" look back - like "what are you asking for?"
It has always been my experience that compliance engineering is the last
concern with management when it comes too releasing new product or marketing
into an International country. If I don't constantly remind the dept
managers & engineers of the "why's" and "need's" of product compliance it
would be an after thought, if a thought at all. But - I guess that's what
keeps this job challenging. 
If anyone has experienced the same and has recommended solutions please
advise (or is it just by employer?).
Thx in advance.

-Original Message-
From: Egon H. Varju [mailto:e...@varju.bc.ca]
Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2000 8:13 AM
To: EMC-PSTC
Subject: RE: Certification of Products and other emerging countries



At 07:24 PM 22/03/2000, you wrote:

>This issue isn't change - its the gyrations, expense and increased
>overhead incurred by manufacturing companies that is the concern
>here.

Excuse me for being a bit blunt, but if any foreign company wants to sell 
their product in the US, they have to face the gyrations, expense and 
increased overhead of having to comply with NRTL, FCC, FDA, OSHA, etc., ad 
nauseum.  I see no reason why other countries shouldn't put up similar 
economic trade barriers.

Anyway, if your company has a market in these countries, then you are 
presumably making a profit.  In most cases, if you look at your marketing 
and advertising cost in each of these countries, I suspect that the 
compliance costs pale in comparison.  It's not a big deal.

Perhaps what companies should do is to include the compliance costs in 
their marketing budget.  In this case, you could get on with your job, 
without having to put up with any more bitching from all those 
bean-counters and pimple-faced MBAs.

Just my 2 yen's worth ...

Egon :-)

__

Egon H. Varju, PEng
E.H. Varju & Associates Ltd.
North Vancouver, Canada

Tel:   1 604 985 5710 HAVE MODEM
Fax:  1 604 273 5815 WILL TRAVEL

E-mail:  e...@varju.bc.ca
   eva...@compuserve.com
   egon.va...@csa-international.org
__


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

RE: Sizes for Power, Control and Signal Cords/Cables/Wires

[Dick Grobner]

I have received more than two from different parties, is there an issue with
the 'EMC-PSTC' server, etc. I thought it may have been on my end. 

-Original Message-
From: John Allen [mailto:john.al...@rdel.co.uk]
Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2000 9:28 AM
To: 'EMC-PSTC'
Subject: RE: Sizes for Power, Control and Signal Cords/Cables/Wires



This the second message I have received this afternoon that is blank except
for the title

John Allen

--
From:   jrbar...@lexmark.com[SMTP:jrbar...@lexmark.com]
Sent:   22 March 2000 19:17
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject:Re: Sizes for Power, Control and Signal Cords/Cables/Wires



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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

RE: FW: SHARP EDGES/SURFACES

[Dick Grobner]

Richard - I would like to know two things:
- what is the preferred radius used?
- what type of tape? can I assume "standard" masking tape is used?
This would be good info when doing risk assessments. If you have your
information source that would be great, for when I run into the
"non-believers".
Thx

-Original Message-
From: wo...@sensormatic.com [mailto:wo...@sensormatic.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2000 10:27 AM
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: RE: FW: SHARP EDGES/SURFACES



For those of you who perform a risk assessment on enclosures, what objective
criteria do you apply to ensure that cutting hazards due to burrs and sharp
edges are minimized to an acceptable level? So far I have heard of two
methods: a specified minimum radius and a physical test of running tape over
edges (the UL test).

Richard Woods

--
    From:  Dick Grobner [SMTP:dick.grob...@medgraph.com]
Sent:  Tuesday, March 21, 2000 10:10 AM
To:  'pmerguer...@itl.co.il'
Cc:  'emc-p...@ieee.org'
Subject:  RE: FW: SHARP EDGES/SURFACES


When we perform a "risk assessment" on the design of one of our
equipment
enclosures, we also consider any possible hazards within the
enclosure. Any
harm or injury to the patient, operator or bystander (this is where
I
include service personnel)is not allowed, unless it can be duly
justified
(we strive to "design out" all potential risks). In some cases we
utilize
third party service personnel on a worldwide basis. I would not want
any
undue negative feedback related to personnel injury (or personal
liability
claims). Yes - I would consider internal hazards as well as
external. I hope
this clears things a little! 

-Original Message-
From: pmerguer...@itl.co.il [mailto:pmerguer...@itl.co.il]
    Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2000 8:46 AM
To: Dick Grobner
Subject: Re: FW: SHARP EDGES/SURFACES


Dick,

My question was related to SEMI standards and not IEC 601-1. Brian
Harlowe
gave a very good answer regarding the SEMI requirements.

Now back to 950/601/1010 standards, is the requirement stricly for
outer
surfaces (where operator is likely to touch) or also for places such
as
within an enclosure where access is restricted to service personnel.
I have
seen many Listed/Approved units which have rough edges/surfaces
which may
injure a serviceman if touched (edges of PWB, card guides, heat
sinks,
etc.). 

Best Regards


 

At 08:16 21/03/2000 -0600, you wrote:
>EN 60601-1 (UL2601)section 23 states:
>Surfaces, corners and edges:
>Rough surfaces, sharp corners and edges which may cause injury or
damage
>shall be avoided or covered.
>In particular, attention shall be paid to flange or frame edges and
the
>removal of burrs 
>Compliance is checked by inspection.
>
>I'm not familiar with ITE standards, but I would suspect that
UL1950 would
>address this issue also.
>
>In addition: a Risk Assessment / Hazard Analysis should be
performed on the
>design and if such hazards exist they would be identified and
addressed /
>eliminated.
>
>Hope this helps!!
>
>
>
>
>-Original Message-
>From: bharl...@vgscientific.com [mailto:bharl...@vgscientific.com] 
>Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2000 5:29 AM
>To: pmerguer...@itl.co.il
>Cc: emc-p...@ieee.org
>Subject: Re: SEMI and SHARP EDGES
>
>
>
>Hi Peter
>   The only reference I can find is in SEMI S8-95 the 
>ergonomics bit. Clause 10.1.6 states " Sharp edges or corners that 
>present a personnel safety hazard or potential damage to clothing
or 
>equipment should be suitably protected or rounded"  but they do not

>give any dimensions.
>
>Mind you how do you radius the average table top/panel to 2.5ins???
>
>
>Brian Harlowe
>  
>
>---
>This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
>Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.
>
>To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
> majord...@ieee.org
>with the single line:
> unsubscribe emc-pstc
>
>For help, send mail to the list administrators:
> Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
> Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.or

RE: Sharp edges

[Dick Grobner]

I agree with Scott and will try to do better on future correspondences. It
is nice to have the reference even when dealing with co-workers who question
your knowledge or judgement in a matter. It too bad but I have run into this
many times in the past both internally and externally.
PS - Do not split this forum!!

-Original Message-
From: sbarr...@icomply.com [mailto:sbarr...@icomply.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2000 1:23 PM
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: Re: Sharp edges



I sometimes see threads come through that deal with discrepancies noted by a
Laboratory, Agency or some other reviewing entity. Typically the person with
the question has been told that there is a problem but not a reference for
this problem.

As a Safety Engineer (you EMC guys can split now) in a Laboratory, I would
never write a crit letter unless I indicate the paragraph associated with
the discrepancy. This allows the customer to look up the particular
requirement and formulate a fix or a good arguement why not.

I am an old timer who had two very good mentors in his career (John Bertalan
from Xerox and George Jurasich from TUV Rheinland) that beat this into me,
but I get the feeling that the pro's have gotten away from this.

Scott Barrows
Senior Product Safety Engineer
KTL Dallas

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

RE: FW: SHARP EDGES/SURFACES

[Dick Grobner]

When we perform a "risk assessment" on the design of one of our equipment
enclosures, we also consider any possible hazards within the enclosure. Any
harm or injury to the patient, operator or bystander (this is where I
include service personnel)is not allowed, unless it can be duly justified
(we strive to "design out" all potential risks). In some cases we utilize
third party service personnel on a worldwide basis. I would not want any
undue negative feedback related to personnel injury (or personal liability
claims). Yes - I would consider internal hazards as well as external. I hope
this clears things a little! 

-Original Message-
From: pmerguer...@itl.co.il [mailto:pmerguer...@itl.co.il]
Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2000 8:46 AM
To: Dick Grobner
Subject: Re: FW: SHARP EDGES/SURFACES


Dick,

My question was related to SEMI standards and not IEC 601-1. Brian Harlowe
gave a very good answer regarding the SEMI requirements.

Now back to 950/601/1010 standards, is the requirement stricly for outer
surfaces (where operator is likely to touch) or also for places such as
within an enclosure where access is restricted to service personnel. I have
seen many Listed/Approved units which have rough edges/surfaces which may
injure a serviceman if touched (edges of PWB, card guides, heat sinks,
etc.). 

Best Regards


 

At 08:16 21/03/2000 -0600, you wrote:
>EN 60601-1 (UL2601)section 23 states:
>Surfaces, corners and edges:
>Rough surfaces, sharp corners and edges which may cause injury or damage
>shall be avoided or covered.
>In particular, attention shall be paid to flange or frame edges and the
>removal of burrs 
>Compliance is checked by inspection.
>
>I'm not familiar with ITE standards, but I would suspect that UL1950 would
>address this issue also.
>
>In addition: a Risk Assessment / Hazard Analysis should be performed on the
>design and if such hazards exist they would be identified and addressed /
>eliminated.
>
>Hope this helps!!
>
>
>
>
>-Original Message-
>From: bharl...@vgscientific.com [mailto:bharl...@vgscientific.com] 
>Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2000 5:29 AM
>To: pmerguer...@itl.co.il
>Cc: emc-p...@ieee.org
>Subject: Re: SEMI and SHARP EDGES
>
>
>
>Hi Peter
>   The only reference I can find is in SEMI S8-95 the 
>ergonomics bit. Clause 10.1.6 states " Sharp edges or corners that 
>present a personnel safety hazard or potential damage to clothing or 
>equipment should be suitably protected or rounded"  but they do not 
>give any dimensions.
>
>Mind you how do you radius the average table top/panel to 2.5ins???
>
>
>Brian Harlowe
>  
>
>---
>This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
>Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.
>
>To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
> majord...@ieee.org
>with the single line:
> unsubscribe emc-pstc
>
>For help, send mail to the list administrators:
> Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
> Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org
>
>For policy questions, send mail to:
> Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
>
>
Peter Merguerian
Managing Director
Product Testing Division
I.T.L. (Product Testing) Ltd.
Hacharoshet 26, POB 211
Or Yehuda 60251, Israel

Tel: 972-3-5339022 Fax: 972-3-5339019
e-mail: pmerguer...@itl.co.il
website: http://www.itl.co.il 





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

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

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

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

RE: ESD wrist strap

[Dick Grobner]

In the US (for rest of world?) the "industry standard" seems to be 1/8" dia
x 1/2"L banana plug. This would be for the "standard" ESD wrist strap, that
is, NOT a continuously monitored ESD surveillance system (These types
usually utilize a dual conductor phone plug). I have purchased from many
different manufacturers of ESD wrist strap cords and they always come in
with the 1/8"dia x 1/2"L banana plug.   

-Original Message-
From: daniel.sic...@na.marconicomms.com
[mailto:daniel.sic...@na.marconicomms.com]
Sent: Monday, March 20, 2000 10:01 AM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: ESD wrist strap





Thanks for your answers.

As I mentionned in my query we already have a banana plug connector
installed
on our equipments and we do mark the equipment and have instructions
included
in the installation/maintenance guide.

The question I was asked was regarding the type of connector to provide.
The
mechanical designers were asking if it was okay to continue using banana
plug
connectors or if another type of connector was more "preferred" in the
industry.
I have looked in TA-TSY-00078 an ancestor of GR-78 (still waiting for my
copy of
that one) as well as GR-1089 but I found only testing requirements in these.
I also looked at the site pointed to me by Douglas Smith and found nothing
requesting or indicating a preference for wriststrap connector type (20.20
standard only mandated the use of a wriststrap).

Thus looking at your answers it does seem that there is no such thing as a
"industry standard" or "industry preferred" type of wriststap connector to
be
installed on an ITE equipment used in a telecom environment (COs, CPEs...).


Daniel Sicard
Compliance Engineer / Ingénieur Certification
Marconi Communications - Optical Network Corp
Tel: 514-685-1737 Ext. 4631  Fax: 514-822-4054
E-mail: daniel.sic...@na.marconicomms.ca
Web: http://www.marconi.com



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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

FW: SEMI and SHARP EDGES

[Dick Grobner]

EN 60601-1 (UL2601)section 23 states:
Surfaces, corners and edges:
Rough surfaces, sharp corners and edges which may cause injury or damage
shall be avoided or covered.
In particular, attention shall be paid to flange or frame edges and the
removal of burrs 
Compliance is checked by inspection.

I'm not familiar with ITE standards, but I would suspect that UL1950 would
address this issue also.

In addition: a Risk Assessment / Hazard Analysis should be performed on the
design and if such hazards exist they would be identified and addressed /
eliminated.

Hope this helps!!




-Original Message-
From: bharl...@vgscientific.com [mailto:bharl...@vgscientific.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2000 5:29 AM
To: pmerguer...@itl.co.il
Cc: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: Re: SEMI and SHARP EDGES



Hi Peter
   The only reference I can find is in SEMI S8-95 the 
ergonomics bit. Clause 10.1.6 states " Sharp edges or corners that 
present a personnel safety hazard or potential damage to clothing or 
equipment should be suitably protected or rounded"  but they do not 
give any dimensions.

Mind you how do you radius the average table top/panel to 2.5ins???


Brian Harlowe
  

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

RE: SAF: Insulation resistance and hipot tests

[Dick Grobner]

EN60601-1 (Medical Safety) Appendix C provides a list entitled "Sequence of
Testing". This list is used during the course of the safety investigation on
the device. It follows as:
C24: Cont. leakage currents and patient auxiliary currents at operating temp
C25: Dielectric strength at operating temp
C26: Humidity preconditioning treatment
C27: Dielectric strength test (cold condition after humidity conditioning)
C28: Leakage current test after humidity preconditioning treatment

In our production testing we perform a high potential dielectric strength
test first followed by a leakage current test. Our high potential tester has
a ground continuity circuit and will warn the operator if the safety ground
circuit is not in place (open).

-Original Message-
From: mark.dagost...@vsea.com [mailto:mark.dagost...@vsea.com]
Sent: Friday, March 17, 2000 7:37 AM
To: Bruce Touzel; Art Michael
Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org; Martin Rowe (TMW)
Subject: Re: SAF: Insulation resistance and hipot tests



Folks:

EN 60204-1 also specifies an insulation resistance test.
Depending on the standard, they tell you the sequence of the various safety
tests.
For example, in EN 60204-1, clause 19.1 (the test clause) states:
"When these test are performed, it is recommended that they follow the
sequence listed."

For EN 60204-1, it is Ground continuity, then Insulation resistance, then
Hipot, then cap discharge.

I hope this helps.

At 01:21 PM 3/16/00 -0800, Bruce Touzel wrote:
>
>Insulation resistance tests would apply only to IEC 950 I believe, so this
may
>not apply for you ?
>
>Art Michael wrote:
>
>> Hello Martin,
>>
>> I don't have the answer to your question, but do caution that the First
>> Test to be run (if the DUT is grounded) is the Ground Continuity Test
(for
>> test-operator protection).
>>
>> Regards, Art Michael
>>
>>  * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
>> *   International Product Safety Bookshop   *
>> *  Check out our current offerings! *
>> *  *
>> *   *
>> * Now offering BSI's Books & Reports*
>> *  including, "World Electricity Supplies"  *
>> *   *
>> * Another service of the Safety Link*
>> *   *
>>  * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
>> --
>>
>> On Thu, 16 Mar 2000, Martin Rowe (TMW) wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > Group,
>> >
>> > A reader asked about the order of performing safety tests.
>> > Should he perform insulation resistance tests before or after
>> > hipot tests? The reader didn't say what type of product he's
>> > testing, but I can ask.
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> >
>> > /\
>> > | Martin Rowe  |   /  \
>> > | Senior Technical Editor  |  /\  /\
>> > | Test & Measurement World | /  \/  \/\  
>> > | voice 617-558-4426   |/\  /\  /  \/
>> > | fax 617-928-4426 |  \/  \/
>> > | e-mail m.r...@ieee.org   |   \  /
>> > | http://www.tmworld.com   |\/
>> > 
>> >
>> >
>> > ---
>> > This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
>> > Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.
>> >
>> > To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
>> >  majord...@ieee.org
>> > with the single line:
>> >  unsubscribe emc-pstc
>> >
>> > For help, send mail to the list administrators:
>> >  Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
>> >  Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org
>> >
>> > For policy questions, send mail to:
>> >  Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> ---
>> This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
>> Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.
>>
>> To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
>>  majord...@ieee.org
>> with the single line:
>>  unsubscribe emc-pstc
>>
>> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
>>  Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
>>  Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org
>>
>> For policy questions, send mail to:
>>  Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
>
>
>---
>This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
>Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.
>
>To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
> majord...@ieee.org
>with the single line:
> unsubscribe emc-pstc
>
>For help, send mail to the list administrators:
> Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
> Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org
>
>For pol

RE: EN standard for pacemaker immunity

[Dick Grobner]

You could contact our Notified Body - TUV Product Services at 1-651-638-0261
or http://www.tuvps.com Dennis Swanson is the EMI Engineer I deal with. I
know they do quite allot of EMI work on pacemakers/defibrillators and the
like as we have some of the "big boys" up here in Mpls/St.Paul (i.e.
Medtronic, Guidant, St Jude Med)
Good Luck

-Original Message-
From: jestuckey [mailto:jestuc...@micron.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2000 12:15 PM
To: 'Michael Taylor'
Cc: 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org'
Subject: RE: EN standard for pacemaker immunity



Contact ISMAEL MARTINEZ NCE/NCT   210-522-3631   imarti...@swri.org
SwRI EMCR group does a large amount of work in this area for government and
civilian applications.

 JOHN E. STUCKEY
 EMC Engineer
 
 Micron Technology, Inc.
 Integrated Products Group 
 Micron Architectures Lab
 8455 West Emerald St.
 Boise, Idaho 83704
 PH: (208) 363-5313
 FX: (208) 363-5596
 jestuc...@micron.com
 
 


-Original Message-
From: Michael Taylor [mailto:mtay...@hach.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2000 07:19
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: EN standard for pacemaker immunity



Greetings all.
An issue came up that needs answers as soon as possible.  Does anyone in the
group know if there are any European standards covering pacemaker (and
similar devices) immunity to Electric & Magnetic fields.  A search of Global
Eng. Documents product list proved fruitless.  I'm sure there is someone in
the group that has the answer.

I will be most grateful for any answers or leads on this issue.

Best regards.
Michael Taylor
Snowed-in,  in Colorado.

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

RE: ESD wrist strap

[Dick Grobner]

Our field service group uses an ESD field service kit. This is provided with
the standard ESD wrist strap & grounding cord terminated with the standard
banana plug. We also provide them with   a large "gator" clip which can plug
into the banana plug. We have also incorporated onto our device enclosures a
small metal banana jack, labeled it "ESD Grounding" and advice our service
staff to connect their ESD wrist strap/cord into this jack when ever
performing field service repair work (ESD related). Metal to metal contact
is assured between the banana jack and the frame. The service person is
advised to also assure that the device is plugged into the A/C wall outlet
during service repair.  (provided they are not repairing the A/C power
circuit/components!) Even if the device is not connected to A/C safety
ground, ESD charges will be equalized between the repair technician, parts
and device under rapier thus minimizing voltage differentials. I hope this
sheds a little light on your question!

-Original Message-
From: daniel.sic...@na.marconicomms.com
[mailto:daniel.sic...@na.marconicomms.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2000 11:31 AM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: ESD wrist strap





Hi Group,

I have been asked  by the design group if there is an industry standard in
the telecom business (North America) for the connection of ESD protective
wrist strap (banana plug,  snap type, ...) used for maintenance operation
on equipment containing static sensitive assembly.

We are presently using banana plug type.

The views expressed are my own and not necessarily that of my employer's.

Daniel Sicard
Compliance Engineer / Ingénieur Certification
Marconi Communications - Optical Network Corp.
Tel: 514-685-1737 Ext. 4631  Fax: 514-822-4054
E-mail: mailto:daniel.sic...@na.marconicomms.ca
Web: http://www.marconi.com



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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

RE: EMC and product safety split?

[Dick Grobner]

I would like the list to stay as is. Even though I deal with medical
equipment I find the discussions related to ITE also interesting and
sometimes applicable to medical. I'm sure that for some of you your employer
is of a small caliber like mine as compared to the "big guns", so you wear
many "hats" like myself. I deal with safety, EMC, regulatory, quality and so
on. The broader the forum the better it is for me. This forum has been
invaluable in my everyday functions. Lets keep it the way it is! I'm still
in "awe" at the broad knowledge base that resides within this group - lets
keep the open discussions going!
Thx

-Original Message-
From: rehel...@mmm.com [mailto:rehel...@mmm.com]
Sent: Monday, March 13, 2000 7:21 AM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: EMC and product safety split?





I would NOT like to see a split as well.

==



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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

FW: Correction factor for power supply cords.

[Dick Grobner]

-I agree with Ed's comment. Were mfg. of medical equipment, thus within our
"global" standard EN60601-1 Table XV provides a cross reference between the
conductors cross sectional area (mm sq. for copper)and the rated current of
the equipment. Also referring to UL 2601 (our US std) in the "UL Deviations"
too IEC 601-1 it doesn't reference the NEC. I'm not an electrician (or an
expert on the NEC)but would tend to say that the NEC would not "regulate"
this area but rather the appropriate product standard would. 
Hope this helps

-Original Message-
From: ed.ra...@na.marconicomms.com [mailto:ed.ra...@na.marconicomms.com]
Sent: Friday, March 10, 2000 9:12 AM
To: Kelly Tsudama
Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Re: Correction factor for power supply cords.





Kelly:
The NEC is written to keep structures safe. Flexible cords used in
structures
are normally used in free air.
If you are using a flexible cord in equipment, you need to rate its ampacity
in
accordance with whatever standard you are using. The NEC relies on the NRTL
label and testing for the safety of equipment.
If you are using a flexible cord in a high ambient I would contact the mfg
for
the appropriate derating.




Kelly Tsudama  on 03/09/2000 09:33:14 PM

Please respond to Kelly Tsudama 

To:   emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
cc:(bcc: Ed Rauch/MAIN/MC1)

Subject:  Correction factor for power supply cords.






Hi Group

I am hoping that I can get your opinions with an issue regarding the
correction
factor of power supply cords.  For instance, in the NEC table 310-17, for
single
conductors in free air, there is a chart at the bottom of the table that
allows
you to determine how to factor in the ambient temperature.  However, for a
flexible power cord, the table 400-5 does not have any correction factor
table.

At first I thought that this is because cords always have a temperature
rating
marked on them, but then I recall that most (if not all) single conductors
have
this marking too Is there a need to "de-rate" a power cord's current
rating
based on the expected ambient temperature?  If so, where in the NEC did I
miss
this fact?  If not, why not?

Thanks for your help,
Kelly


Kelly Tsudama
Cisco Systems
ktsud...@cisco.com
408-527-0216
408-525-9150 fax
408-322-9024 pager

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

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

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

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









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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

RE: Certification School

[Dick Grobner]

I may add that UL does offer a two day course on UL 2601 (Medical Safety)and
I'm sure they have similar courses for UL1950 and so on. I'm still trying to
convince my employer to spend the $800 and fly me to Chicago but so far it
hasn't happen but who knows -

-Original Message-
From: Compliance [mailto:complia...@eoscorp.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2000 12:32 PM
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: RE: Certification School



All -

There is a Product Safety School...It goes by the name of Underwriters
Laboratories in the United States.  It is a two to three year apprenticeship
following a basic BS in Engineering.

The school offers training seminars about 1-2 times a month during the first
two years and private sessions with standards experts.  The advanced student
is offered an opportunity to work on special projects or standards
development to enhance their knowledge.

On one hand, I am joking, but there may be some truth in the matter.

I know that in the past, UL's would "train the industry" by hiring fresh
college graduates (or war veterans).  They would then train them in the
concepts of safety and then allow/force them to leave (by offering
sub-standard wages for the level of experience).  No, I did not make this
up.  It came from a book that I had read 4-5 years ago.  It was written by
one of the former UL presidents (Baron Whitaker?).

Brent Taira

> -Original Message-
> From: owner-emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@ieee.org]On Behalf
> Of sbarr...@icomply.com
> Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2000 6:14 AM
> To: emc-p...@ieee.org
> Subject: Certification School
>
>
>
> Years ago when the Product Safety Society was petitioning the IEEE for
> Society status, the subject of Safety Professional Certification was
> discussed. It was assumed that our alliance with the IEEE would
> enhance this
> move.
>
> Well, 15 years later, we are still petitioning the IEEE for society status
> and discussing certification for professionals.
>
> In order to achieve these goals, product safety professionals from all
> disciplines need to talk to the various colleges, at the
> community level as
> well as 4 year ones. I have found with talking to professors that they are
> in favor of Safety and EMC professionals coming in to give seminars and
> short classes. This needs to be better organized and a good video
> or face to
> face presentation prepared, so that each working group/ area can work with
> the local educational establishments to build an appreciation of the
> precepts of our chosen field. It may take a long time before classes are
> actually given (may give consultants something to do when they
> retire?), but
> if we don't start nothing will happen.
>
> My 2 cents because I don't really think The IEEE has given us
> much over the
> years (I haven't changed my mind Rich), and if there is going to
> be value in
> the alliance, then this would be the place to start.
>
> Scott Barrows
>
>
>
>
> ---
> This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
> Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.
>
> To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
>  majord...@ieee.org
> with the single line:
>  unsubscribe emc-pstc
>
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
>  Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
>  Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org
>
> For policy questions, send mail to:
>  Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
>
>
>


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

RE: Product Safety Certification School

[Dick Grobner]

My 2 cents: I agree, it would make my life easier in compliance engineering
if the EE's & ME's would have a little basic understanding of the concepts
of product safety. It seems that they have a general knowledge of EMI/RFI
but the product safety side is still missing. 

-Original Message-
From: Rich Nute [mailto:ri...@sdd.hp.com]
Sent: Friday, March 03, 2000 5:01 PM
To: dan_mitch...@condordc.com
Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Re: Product Safety Certification School





Hi Dan:


>   Last year, sometime, reference was made about the possible creation of a
>   University program to teach Product Safety.  I was wondering if anybody
has
>   heard anything further about this program?

I probably was the one who mentioned that engineering
schools should include a 1-term course in product 
safety.

Its on my wish-list.  I'd like to find even one 
engineering school that would consider such a course,
and then I'd volunteer to help create the course.

But, I believe that no engineering school currently
has such a course.


Best regards,
Rich





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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

RE: Demo Units Sent to EU w/o CE ?

[Dick Grobner]

In the Medical Device Directive (93/42/EEC) Article 4 paragraph 3 states:
"At trade fairs, exhibitions, demonstrations, etc. Member States shall not
create any obstacles to the showing of devices which do not conform to this
Directive, provided that a visible sign clearly indicates that such a device
cannot be marketed or put into service until they have been made to comply"
I do not know if this same statement is in place in other directives, such
as low voltage, EMC, etc.
However - Common sense would state that one would want to assure that the
device is "risk free" to environment, humans, etc. if one was going to have
the device placed into an operational mode at a trade show. A risk
assessment should be done to assure the device is electrically safe,
compliant with EMI/RFI (especially emissions, unless you want to "blast" out
your competitors next door in booth) basic requirements. I hope this helps!
-Original Message-
From: Lyons, Jim [mailto:jim.ly...@gtech.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2000 4:29 PM
To: 'emc-p...@ieee.org'
Subject: Demo Units Sent to EU w/o CE ?



Can anyone tell me if there are provisions for sending prototype electrical
equipment to Europe before it has been CE approved? This equipment would
normally be subject to the LVD and EMC directive, and would be used at shows
to demonstrate the equipment. It is possible that attendies at the show
would touch or operate the equipment.

Thanks for any comments or insight.

Jim Lyons
Mgr - Product Compliance
GTECH Corp.


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

RE: Technical Documentation

[Dick Grobner]

Within the Medical Device Directive, 93/42/EEC,  Annex VII it states as:

"The manufacturer must prepare the technical documentation described in
Section 3 (TDF). The manufacturer or his authorized representative
established within the community must make this documentation, including the
declaration of conformity, available to the national authorities for
inspection purposes for a period ending at least five years after the last
product has been manufactured." 

It seems it can be either one. However - our Authorized Representative has
requested a copy of our technical documentation file and we obliged. 
There is also a similar requirement in Article 10 of the EMC Directive
89/336/EEC. 
Hope this helps.

-Original Message-
From: Stafford, Jim [mailto:jstaff...@carrieraccess.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2000 1:50 PM
To: IEEE EMC BB
Subject: RE: Techinical Documentation



a couple of questions to round out this thread.

Let me start off with definitions
TCF : document for "type" approval by competent body
Technical documentation file (TDF): manufacturer's documentation
that show conformity with essential requirements.


1) Can either of the these files mentioned above (which depends upon the
certification route) be held by a foreign manufacturer (non-EC member) or do
they need to be held
within the community by authorized representative?

2) Does this vary depending upon the directive(s) to which conformity is
being shown?


jim stafford 
carrier access corporation
jstaff...@carrieraccess.com


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

FW: EMC for medical devices

[Dick Grobner]

-Original Message-
From: Dick Grobner 
Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2000 11:19 AM
To: 'Kevin Newland'
Subject: RE: EMC for medical devices


Europe is EN 60601-1-2
In 1996 - for the US - it was the FDA's "draft" document entitled "Reviewers
Guidance for Premarket Notification Submissions" which was in line with the
requirements of 60601-1-2. However it does include a few additional immunity
tests which we have successfully waved with the FDA on past submissions. I'm
not aware of any other US "requirements" regarding EMC & medical equip.
 
-Original Message-
From: Kevin Newland [mailto:kevin_newl...@yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2000 4:09 PM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: EMC for medical devices



Hello All,

Could someone let me know the answer to the following
questions please:

1-What are the immunity standards used in Europe for
medical devices? 

2-What EMC standards is used in US/Canada for medical
devices? 

The product in question is approved for safety to
IEC601-1.

Thank you
Kevin
__
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com

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


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

RE:

[Dick Grobner]

You can purchase them from:

Simcom International, L.L.C.
Atlanta GA
770-730-9980
www.eurocom.com

These people have been the most affordable in the past.
Standards received in a couple of days - US Mail.
Good Luck!
-Original Message-
From: Beard, Susan [mailto:sbe...@ge-harris.com]
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2000 7:32 AM
To: 'emc-p...@ieee.org'
Subject: 



Can someone tell where I can get a copy of EN 50126?

Thanks,
Susan Beard

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


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

RE: ESD GUIDELINES FOR SEMICON INDUSTRY.

[Dick Grobner]

Another source may be the ESD Association. Two standards that may apply (as
I have never seen  nor used them) may be EOS/ESD S5.201994 and ESD-DSP
10.1-1999 (draft)? There web site address is www.eosesd.org
Good Luck!

-Original Message-
From: Christian Martí [mailto:cma...@efinet.com]
Sent: Monday, January 17, 2000 3:03 AM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: ESD GUIDELINES FOR SEMICON INDUSTRY.





Hi ,

1) Any general guidelines when designing a machine to handle semicon 
products so as it is ESD safe?

2) What should be the standards to follow? (Only the EN61000-4-2?)

All responses are appreciated


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


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

RE: Lead Banned in Europe & Japan?

[Dick Grobner]

Ok - I couldn't resist - so my .02 is:
Up here in the great north (Minnesota) lead has been banned from the factory
waste stream for years. We as an electronic manufacturer of electronic
equipment are required by state and local environmental laws to properly
dispose of all lead based waste. Of course this includes electronic printed
wiring assemblies. Our chosen path is to recycle. Our recycler, within their
process, removes all metals from the assemblies / components, this includes
lead, silver & gold. Don't be surprised, but we even get paid $$'s back
because of the recaptured precious metals. Seems like a win - win situation
for all of us. I think it is a no-brainer that recycling is a solution to
allot of our environmental problems. The one problem with recycling that
does occur in our area is finding a use for the volume of recycled waste -
which is a good thing.  
One last comment - one of my other areas of expertise is plumbing with
copper pipe and lead free solder (as this is required per our building
codes). I have made many soldered pipe junctions (100's) with lead free
solder following the same processes as for lead based solders. If you
properly clean the copper, use the right flux, the results are leak free
soldered junctions!
The end!  
-Original Message-
From: Chris Duprés [mailto:chris_dup...@compuserve.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2000 1:08 AM
To: Mel Pedersen
Cc: emc-pstc
Subject: RE: Lead Banned in Europe & Japan?



Hi Mel.

You wrote:


I get the impression, from various sources, that the removal of lead from
the environment is a politically driven thing, in the same way that lead
was driven from petrol.  No one can doubt that Lead in petrol has
environmental risks, but the headless chicken charge towards removing it
with a blindfolded view on what comes in it's place seems to have left us
in a worse position.  I've read vatious learned articles about the use of
long chain polymers, phenols, metals, etc. in either 'Super Unleaded or
'Lead Replacement Fuel' causing long and very long term environmental time
bombs.

Lead has been made illegal for use in UK domestic plumbing systems for a
few years now, I think, and lead free solders seem to work OK, but
according to one chap are more difficult to work with - causing additional
time/cost, need higher temperatures - causing more fires to be started, ,
are more prone to leaks (presumeably due to the difficulties) - causing
more insurance claims and house and property damage,  and there seems to be
some doubt about the safety of the fumes during soldering.  The point is
that I can't see how the world has benefitted overall.

A secondary advantage of the need to remove solder may be to force
companies to produce thick film designs, or cram more onto silicon with
attendant positive effects on reliability, but not necessarily reduced cost
- at least for low quanties.  I read somewhere of PCB's composed of screen
printed conductive polymer inks which would melt and 'glue' the SM
component to the track thereby removing the need for solder at all, but
I've never seen any products made like this.  Maybe they are out there
somewhere, I'm no expert.

Lead also appears in the environment in many other ways of probably equal
amounts.  For instance free turning steels are made with added lead, 'C12
modified' is one that comes to mind,  This sort of stuff is used to make
mass produced articles - there must be millions of tons of this stuff made
every year, and as it rusts (as it surely will) the lead is put into the
environment.

I applaud the activities of the Poliitically Correct, Environmental police,
Nature preserving amongst us, but I sometimes wonder if their enthusiasm is
insufficiently tempered with a longer term view, or what used to be called
Wisdom.  Charging ahead blindly into doing the right thing today may well
be laying the foundations of catastrophe for the future, the truth is we
probably don't know.

Just a few moments of completely self opinionated, uninformed, hunch.

Chris Dupres
Surrey, UK. 


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


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

RE: Proper Protective Earth Ground Symbol

[Dick Grobner]

This may help; We have successfully used the upside down tree within the
circle. Our NRTL has accepted this. They are available for $120 in pkg. of
1000 from EuroPort 508-526-1687.

-Original Message-
From: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com [mailto:jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2000 7:18 AM
To: Jackson; William; 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org'
Subject: Re:Proper Protective Earth Ground Symbol



forwarded for William  Jim

Reply Separator
Subject:Proper Protective Earth Ground Symbol
Author: "Jackson; William" 
List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org
Date:   01/14/00 4:59 PM

Greetings all,
 
I have a request for interpretation of requirement.  Which symbol is correct
for use on a chassis for protective earthing - the upside down tree or the
circle upside down tree or the pitchfork??  (Note:- the ground on the back
of the box is generally marked "GND" and is screw and locking washer
configuration).  What is the correct marking to satisfy a NRTL for a
marking? 
 


Thanks, 
Bill 
Bill Jackson, CQE 
QA Prgms&Eng/Product Safety 
Harris 
RF Communications Division (RCD) 
(716)-242-3897 
wjack...@harris.com 


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


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

RE: EN 61000-4-2

[Dick Grobner]

Mr Jenson - I agree with Bill's input. When I do in house validation I will
usually go to 10kV (or K) - 12kV for a test level. The standard we use is EN
60601-1-2 (medical electrical equipment) which states 3kV contact discharge
and 8kV air discharge. These values are way too conservative for our
Minnesota winters, when the air is dry and one can easily generate voltages
up into the 10k - 12k range. I've witnessed many of our older products that
would pass the requirements for the DoC but would fail once placed in the
field if we followed the standards test level requirements. I highly
recommend to test to as many "user contact" test points as deemed
appropriate, use higher test levels than the standards specify and if
questionable results - test at more than 10 discharges per test point.
Assure that all interface cables are connected to the EUT and opposite end
terminated if required. Cables with a marginal shielding design can have a
big impact on the results. Also assure that you perform ESD discharges to
the horizontal and vertical planes. I have seen devices pass the contact
discharge ESD events but fail when performing the vertical coupling plane
tests. 
Good Luck! 

-Original Message-
From: Jacowleff, Bill [mailto:bjacowl...@vdo.com]
Sent: Monday, January 17, 2000 7:43 AM
To: 'kim.boll.jen...@lasat.com'; emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: RE: EN 61000-4-2



Dear Mr. Kim Boll Jensen:

Well the answer to your question is 10 discharges to each point per
polarity.  A few other things to consider. 

It is also important to step through the voltages and not skip any.

Is your internal test procedure going to be used as a supporting test for a
DOC or is it for a DV or PV?  If it is a Design validation it is quite
possible to want to exceed the specs per the standard, it all depends on
what you expect to learn from this type of testing.   The Design Validations
I have composed for ESD have exceeded the standard specifications.

Best Regards,

Bill Jacowleff
VDO Control Systems
Airpax Instruments
150 Knotter Drive
Cheshire, CT 06410
Phone: 203 271-6394
FAX:203 271-6200
bjacowl...@vdo.com

 

-Original Message-
From: kim.boll.jen...@lasat.com [mailto:kim.boll.jen...@lasat.com]
Sent: Monday, January 17, 2000 5:41 AM
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: EN 61000-4-2



Dear all

I'm writing on a internal testprocedure for our products, and have now come
to
EN 61000-4-2 ESD. What confuse me is that the standard (as I read it) only
refere to 10 discharges at each point (and each polarity), but I have been
told
from several different persons that the right number is 50 at each points
(but
without any reference to any standard).

Do anynoe know what the right number is and where I can find it

Best regards,

Mr. Kim Boll Jensen
i-data international
Denmark



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


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


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

RE: LVD voltage range.

[Dick Grobner]

I agree with Georges comments - We market numerous PC's, Laptop's and
Handheld computers, printers, etc. with our devices, as compliance engineer
for my company I look for the required marks such as UL,CSA,GS, CE etc.
Without these they don't get into our back door - thus not to our customer
site, and thus - hopefully - no liability suits.  

-Original Message-
From: geor...@lexmark.com [mailto:geor...@lexmark.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2000 1:54 PM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Re: LVD voltage range.




>just thinking out loud but
>Is it possible that adding more approvals identification helps give a
>marketing advantage over other brands, even though it may not be required?
>ie. Customers just like to see more approvals

This is an astute observation with many answers. First let's discuss
"business
products intended for use in commercial applications.  In this case, the
"customer" may be a bank with many offices, government agency, major
automobile
manufacturer, or a company which wishes to buy the product and re-market
under
their logo.  In these cases, the more certifications the better, whether
they
are mandatory or not.  Why? Because it is usually less expensive to get the
certifcations than explain why they are not required.  Most such RFQs now
include a section on certifications, copied from the last RFQ, copied from
the
RFQ before that.

Consumer products are another matter.  If you conducted "exit polls" outside
Walmart, I doubt that any consumers would know what marks were on the
electrical
"appliances" they had just purchased.  However, in the U.S., these customers
are the quickest to launch liability suits in the event of an injury, even
if
the injury stemmed from extremely unwise actions on the part of the user.
For
this reason, it is prudent to have independent test lab assessments and
marks.
These show due diligence, but will not guarantee a reasoned jury verdict.

Europe is similar to the U.S. for business products.  However, I believe the
average European consumer is more aware of safety, health, and environmental
issues than their U.S. counterpart.  Even with the advent of the CE mark, it
is often wise to obtain certain country approval "marks" (now optional) to
improve the product's marketability.  Many country approval agencies spend a
good deal of money to promote the use of their "mark", to maintain revenues
lost by virtue of the sole mandatory CE mark.

In the ideal world, there will be one global mark to indicate that the
product meets all safety, health, EMC, environmental, and other applicable
standards.  The CE mark is virtually this ideal mark, but is only accepted
within the 15 member states of the European Union and a few other countries.

George Alspaugh
Lexmark International Inc.



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


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

RE: UPS standards

[Dick Grobner]

Our supplier of UPS's test theirs to UL 1778 and certified to CSA Product
Class 5311 05 The medical grade version to the earlier UL544 and certified
to CSA Product Class 8741 01. They also test their products following UL
1449 which is intended as a guide when testing Transient Voltage Surge
Suppressors.
Hope this helps!  

-Original Message-
From: Kevin Newland [mailto:kevin_newl...@yahoo.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2000 4:34 PM
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: UPS stnadards



Hello all,

can someone let me know what are the safety AND EMC
stnadards for UPS (Uninterruptible power system)for
USA, Canada? I know that in Europe they use EN50091-1
and EN50091-2 and I am guessing that the rest of the
world would probably use the above EN's.

thanks
Kevin
__
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com

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


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

RE: Safety Listing Required in Canada ?

[Dick Grobner]

Good Day
I had a very similar inquiry last week, I received addresses to about 6
sites where one could retrieve text files of CFR's. I just finished
researching (hunting through)them. The best (my opinion) one seems to be:
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/cfr-retrieve.html You can do a full text
search by entering 29CFR 1910 Subpart S. Its on my screen now!
To all emc-pstc subscribers - Merry Xmas and a quiet Y2K!!
Thanks for all your help in 1999! 

-Original Message-
From: Aschenberg, Mat [mailto:matt.aschenb...@echostar.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 1999 11:46 AM
To: 'Ron Pickard/Hypercom/US'; emc-p...@ieee.org; t...@world.std.com
Subject: RE: Safety Listing Required in Canada ?



Does anyone have a copy of the 29CFR Part 1910 Subpart S they can fax me?
I need to see this law. 
Mat

-Original Message-
From: Ron Pickard/Hypercom/US [mailto:rpick...@hypercom.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 1999 1:51 PM
To: emc-p...@ieee.org; t...@world.std.com
Subject: Safety Listing Required in Canada ?



Hello to all,

This is focused to the knowledgeable folks in Canada and to others that
might know the answer(s) to this query.

In the USA, there exists the federal approval/listing requirements found in
29CFR Part 1910 Subpart S.

Does anyone know if there is a similar set of rules requiring safety
Listing/Certification in Canada? If so, please identify them, how we can
obtain them, and are they available on the web?

If there is an absence of this type of regulation, is safety
Listing/Certification actually required in Canada?

Best regards,
Ron Pickard
rpick...@hypercom.com



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


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


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

CFR's

[Dick Grobner]

Does anyone out there know if you can download Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR's) at no charge. If so does anyone have the site address. I know you
can purchase them for a fee from the people who sell standards, etc. Any
input would be appreciated.
Thx & Happy Holidays! 

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

RE: Notified Bodies

[Dick Grobner]

What do you mean "official opinion"? I have consulted our Notified Body
numerous times but I was told by my Notified Body contact that it is his
option (or interpretation of the directive, etc.)and not necessarily that of
the Notified Body - or an "official opinion". I have asked a second Notified
Body with he same response. I feel that they (Notified Bodies) seem to put
the burden of responsibility back on the manufacturer of the device who is
placing it onto the market.
Just my 2 cents worth
Happy Holidays!

 

-Original Message-
From: wo...@sensormatic.com [mailto:wo...@sensormatic.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 16, 1999 1:42 PM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Notified Bodies



Is it allowed to obtain an official opinion from a Notified Body on one
particular issue and obtain an official opinion from a second Notified Body
on a different issue where the issues are not related?


Richard Woods

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


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

RE: Mesh Screen for 950

[Dick Grobner]

I'm not sure of the requirements within UL1950, seeing we are a medical
device manufacturer, but a good source for screen and perforated metal is
McMaster Carr. Great source for hardware, in low volumes due to the high
cost, but they stock everything that is in their catalog and will be in your
hands the next day. Their number is 1-630-833-0300
Good Luck  
-Original Message-
From: Russell, Ray [mailto:ray_russ...@gastmfg.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 1999 8:55 AM
To: 'IEEE PSTC'
Subject: Mesh Screen for 950



Seasons Greetings!

We are having some trouble with the bottom openings in a piece of equipment,
and I'm wondering if you might be able to provide a source for the screen
mentioned in UL1950 Sec 4.4.6. 

Thank you and I hope you all have a great Holiday!

Ray Russell
Regulatory Compliance Engineer


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


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