Re: [PSES] Assess risk of electric shock from charged capacitors

[Douglas E Powell]

As I mentioned, I agree.

However, I am not the one who signs the certification, so I must use the
guidance I receive.

-Doug


Douglas E Powell
Laporte, Colorado USA
doug...@gmail.com
LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/coloradocomplianceguy/>

(UTC -06:00) Mountain Time (US-MDT)


On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 10:18 AM Ken Javor 
wrote:

> The comparison is inaccurate and misleading.  A measuring device must be
> suitable to the application, so recognized and calibrated and approved for
> use. A device that is a stimulus, or a means to a stimulus, whose proper
> operation is measured and verified by an accepted and calibrated device
> should not even be a subject of debate.
>
> Ken Javor
> Phone: (256) 650-5261
>
>
>
> --
> *From: *"doug...@gmail.com" 
> *Date: *Tue, 18 Oct 2022 10:06:20 -0600
> *To: *Ken Javor 
> *Cc: *
> *Subject: *Re: [PSES] Assess risk of electric shock from charged
> capacitors
>
> Ken,
>
> I may be wrong but I believe the reluctance to accept in-house constructed
> circuits is similar to the low acceptance of digital meters for touch
> current measurements that we saw until the 1980s.  Until True R.M.S. DVMs
> had a well established track record (e.g. Fluke 8060A), neither my LGA or
> CSA certification engineers would accept those, and I kept a
> calibrated analog meter on hand for a very long time.
>
> A similar concern was expressed for capacitor discharge testing, any
> in-house trigger circuit that is not able to carry a calibration label was
> suspect. I agree that a small circuit can be validated and used,
> although I've personally not heard directly from any agency representative
> that this is now possible.
>
> -Doug
>
>
> Douglas E Powell
> Laporte, Colorado USA
> doug...@gmail.com
> LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/coloradocomplianceguy/>
>
> (UTC -06:00) Mountain Time (US-MDT)
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 17, 2022 at 8:12 PM Ken Javor 
> wrote:
>
> I’m curious as to the rationale behind that. It should be obvious that the
> power was turned off at the appropriate time. That would be demonstrated
> using an o’scope, just as in the hit or miss method.
>
> What’s different?
>
> Ken Javor
> Phone: (256) 650-5261
>
>
> --
> *From: *"doug...@gmail.com <http://doug...@gmail.com> "  <http://doug...@gmail.com> >
> *Reply-To: *"doug...@gmail.com <http://doug...@gmail.com> " <
> doug...@gmail.com <http://doug...@gmail.com> >
> *Date: *Mon, 17 Oct 2022 17:37:21 -0600
> *To: *http://EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> >
> *Subject: *Re: [PSES] Assess risk of electric shock from charged
> capacitors
>
> Ken,
>
> Yes, but I have had certification engineers hesitate or disallow using any
> home-brew solid state circuits to control safety testing.
>
> -Doug
>
>
> Douglas E Powell
> Laporte, Colorado USA
> doug...@gmail.com <http://doug...@gmail.com>
> LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/coloradocomplianceguy/>
>
> (UTC -06:00) Mountain Time (US-MDT)
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 17, 2022 at 1:18 PM Ken Javor  http://ken.ja...@emccompliance.com> > wrote:
>
> A simple circuit can provide disconnect at the peak of the ac waveform.
>
> Ken Javor
> Phone: (256) 650-5261
>
>
> --
> *From: *"doug...@gmail.com <http://doug...@gmail.com>  <
> http://doug...@gmail.com> " http://doug...@gmail.com>
>  <http://doug...@gmail.com> >
> *Reply-To: *"doug...@gmail.com <http://doug...@gmail.com>  <
> http://doug...@gmail.com> " http://doug...@gmail.com>
>  <http://doug...@gmail.com> >
> *Date: *Mon, 17 Oct 2022 13:08:17 -0600
> *To: *http://EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>  <
> http://EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> >
> *Subject: *Re: [PSES] Assess risk of electric shock from charged
> capacitors
>
> On the question of probe resistance, I always recommend 100:1 probes which
> will have a negligible effect on overall timing.  Additionally, it may be
> necessary to perform the test a number times to ensure the disconnect
> occurs at the peak of the sine wave.  For me, experience has shown this may
> take up to 10x attempts.
>
> -Doug
>
>
> Douglas E Powell
> Laporte, Colorado USA
> doug...@gmail.com <http://doug...@gmail.com>  <http://doug...@gmail.com>
> LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/coloradocomplianceguy/>
>
> (UTC -06:00) Mountain Time (US-MDT)
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 17, 2022 at 11:32 AM Richard Nute  http://ri...@ieee.org>  <http://ri...@ieee.org> >

Re: [PSES] Assess risk of electric shock from charged capacitors

[Douglas E Powell]

Ken,

I may be wrong but I believe the reluctance to accept in-house constructed
circuits is similar to the low acceptance of digital meters for touch
current measurements that we saw until the 1980s.  Until True R.M.S. DVMs
had a well established track record (e.g. Fluke 8060A), neither my LGA or
CSA certification engineers would accept those, and I kept a
calibrated analog meter on hand for a very long time.

A similar concern was expressed for capacitor discharge testing, any
in-house trigger circuit that is not able to carry a calibration label was
suspect. I agree that a small circuit can be validated and used,
although I've personally not heard directly from any agency representative
that this is now possible.

-Doug


Douglas E Powell
Laporte, Colorado USA
doug...@gmail.com
LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/coloradocomplianceguy/>

(UTC -06:00) Mountain Time (US-MDT)





On Mon, Oct 17, 2022 at 8:12 PM Ken Javor 
wrote:

> I’m curious as to the rationale behind that. It should be obvious that the
> power was turned off at the appropriate time. That would be demonstrated
> using an o’scope, just as in the hit or miss method.
>
> What’s different?
>
> Ken Javor
> Phone: (256) 650-5261
>
>
> --
> *From: *"doug...@gmail.com" 
> *Reply-To: *"doug...@gmail.com" 
> *Date: *Mon, 17 Oct 2022 17:37:21 -0600
> *To: *
> *Subject: *Re: [PSES] Assess risk of electric shock from charged
> capacitors
>
> Ken,
>
> Yes, but I have had certification engineers hesitate or disallow using any
> home-brew solid state circuits to control safety testing.
>
> -Doug
>
>
> Douglas E Powell
> Laporte, Colorado USA
> doug...@gmail.com
> LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/coloradocomplianceguy/>
>
> (UTC -06:00) Mountain Time (US-MDT)
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 17, 2022 at 1:18 PM Ken Javor 
> wrote:
>
> A simple circuit can provide disconnect at the peak of the ac waveform.
>
> Ken Javor
> Phone: (256) 650-5261
>
>
> --
> *From: *"doug...@gmail.com <http://doug...@gmail.com> "  <http://doug...@gmail.com> >
> *Reply-To: *"doug...@gmail.com <http://doug...@gmail.com> " <
> doug...@gmail.com <http://doug...@gmail.com> >
> *Date: *Mon, 17 Oct 2022 13:08:17 -0600
> *To: *http://EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> >
> *Subject: *Re: [PSES] Assess risk of electric shock from charged
> capacitors
>
> On the question of probe resistance, I always recommend 100:1 probes which
> will have a negligible effect on overall timing.  Additionally, it may be
> necessary to perform the test a number times to ensure the disconnect
> occurs at the peak of the sine wave.  For me, experience has shown this may
> take up to 10x attempts.
>
> -Doug
>
>
> Douglas E Powell
> Laporte, Colorado USA
> doug...@gmail.com <http://doug...@gmail.com>
> LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/coloradocomplianceguy/>
>
> (UTC -06:00) Mountain Time (US-MDT)
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 17, 2022 at 11:32 AM Richard Nute  http://ri...@ieee.org> > wrote:
>
>
>
> Hi Scott:
>
> Many dual channel scopes (whether digital or analog) include an “add”
> function for the two channels.  One channel must be inverted to measure the
> charged capacitance.
>
> The resistance of the two probes must be accounted for in the capacitance
> discharge time.  (The same – for only one probe -- is true for the scheme
> using an isolating transformer.)
>
> You should get the same results for both methods.
>
> Best regards,
> Rich
> IEEE Life Fellow
> IEEE Medal for Environmental and Safety Technologies
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Scott Xe http://scott...@gmail.com> >
> *Sent:* Monday, October 17, 2022 8:18 AM
> *To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <http://EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
> *Subject:* Re: [PSES] Assess risk of electric shock from charged
> capacitors
>
>
> In order to judge if there is no risk of electric shock from charged
> capacitors, it is required to measure the voltage across L and N of mains
> plug after the removal of power input.  To avoid grounding loop between
> test equipment and the unit under test, an isolating transformer is
> strongly recommended.  I have learnt another way by using Add Function and
> two hot probes of a dual channel DSO.  Can someone advise which way is more
> common in safety conformity test.  Especially the latter one, I have not
> tried it yet before and appreciate any notes I must take in the measurement.
>
>
>
> Thanks and regards,
>
>
>
> Scott
> -
> 
>
> This messa

Re: [PSES] Assess risk of electric shock from charged capacitors

[Douglas E Powell]

Ken,

Yes, but I have had certification engineers hesitate or disallow using any
home-brew solid state circuits to control safety testing.

-Doug


Douglas E Powell
Laporte, Colorado USA
doug...@gmail.com
LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/coloradocomplianceguy/>

(UTC -06:00) Mountain Time (US-MDT)




On Mon, Oct 17, 2022 at 1:18 PM Ken Javor 
wrote:

> A simple circuit can provide disconnect at the peak of the ac waveform.
>
> Ken Javor
> Phone: (256) 650-5261
>
>
> --
> *From: *"doug...@gmail.com" 
> *Reply-To: *"doug...@gmail.com" 
> *Date: *Mon, 17 Oct 2022 13:08:17 -0600
> *To: *
> *Subject: *Re: [PSES] Assess risk of electric shock from charged
> capacitors
>
> On the question of probe resistance, I always recommend 100:1 probes which
> will have a negligible effect on overall timing.  Additionally, it may be
> necessary to perform the test a number times to ensure the disconnect
> occurs at the peak of the sine wave.  For me, experience has shown this may
> take up to 10x attempts.
>
> -Doug
>
>
> Douglas E Powell
> Laporte, Colorado USA
> doug...@gmail.com
> LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/coloradocomplianceguy/>
>
> (UTC -06:00) Mountain Time (US-MDT)
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 17, 2022 at 11:32 AM Richard Nute  wrote:
>
>
>
> Hi Scott:
>
> Many dual channel scopes (whether digital or analog) include an “add”
> function for the two channels.  One channel must be inverted to measure the
> charged capacitance.
>
> The resistance of the two probes must be accounted for in the capacitance
> discharge time.  (The same – for only one probe -- is true for the scheme
> using an isolating transformer.)
>
> You should get the same results for both methods.
>
> Best regards,
> Rich
> IEEE Life Fellow
> IEEE Medal for Environmental and Safety Technologies
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Scott Xe 
> *Sent:* Monday, October 17, 2022 8:18 AM
> *To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> *Subject:* Re: [PSES] Assess risk of electric shock from charged
> capacitors
>
>
> In order to judge if there is no risk of electric shock from charged
> capacitors, it is required to measure the voltage across L and N of mains
> plug after the removal of power input.  To avoid grounding loop between
> test equipment and the unit under test, an isolating transformer is
> strongly recommended.  I have learnt another way by using Add Function and
> two hot probes of a dual channel DSO.  Can someone advise which way is more
> common in safety conformity test.  Especially the latter one, I have not
> tried it yet before and appreciate any notes I must take in the measurement.
>
>
>
> Thanks and regards,
>
>
>
> Scott
> -
> 
>
> This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
> discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
> emc-p...@ieee.org
>
> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
> http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
>
> Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
> Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to
> unsubscribe) <http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html>
> List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
>
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
> Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org
>
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Jim Bacher  j.bac...@ieee.org
> David Heald dhe...@gmail.com
> --
>
>  To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link:
> https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1
>
> -
> 
>
> This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
> discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to <
> emc-p...@ieee.org>
>
> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
> http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
>
> Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
> Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to
> unsubscribe) <http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html>
> List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
>
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
> Mike Cantwell 
>
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Jim Bacher  
> David Heald 
> --
>
>  To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link:
> https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1
>
> -
> 
>
> This m

Re: [PSES] Assess risk of electric shock from charged capacitors

[Douglas E Powell]

On the question of probe resistance, I always recommend 100:1 probes which
will have a negligible effect on overall timing.  Additionally, it may be
necessary to perform the test a number times to ensure the disconnect
occurs at the peak of the sine wave.  For me, experience has shown this may
take up to 10x attempts.

-Doug


Douglas E Powell
Laporte, Colorado USA
doug...@gmail.com
LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/coloradocomplianceguy/>

(UTC -06:00) Mountain Time (US-MDT)




On Mon, Oct 17, 2022 at 11:32 AM Richard Nute  wrote:

>
>
>
>
> Hi Scott:
>
>
>
> Many dual channel scopes (whether digital or analog) include an “add”
> function for the two channels.  One channel must be inverted to measure the
> charged capacitance.
>
>
>
> The resistance of the two probes must be accounted for in the capacitance
> discharge time.  (The same – for only one probe -- is true for the scheme
> using an isolating transformer.)
>
>
>
> You should get the same results for both methods.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Rich
>
> IEEE Life Fellow
>
> IEEE Medal for Environmental and Safety Technologies
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Scott Xe 
> *Sent:* Monday, October 17, 2022 8:18 AM
> *To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> *Subject:* Re: [PSES] Assess risk of electric shock from charged
> capacitors
>
>
>
> In order to judge if there is no risk of electric shock from charged
> capacitors, it is required to measure the voltage across L and N of mains
> plug after the removal of power input.  To avoid grounding loop between
> test equipment and the unit under test, an isolating transformer is
> strongly recommended.  I have learnt another way by using Add Function and
> two hot probes of a dual channel DSO.  Can someone advise which way is more
> common in safety conformity test.  Especially the latter one, I have not
> tried it yet before and appreciate any notes I must take in the measurement.
>
>
>
> Thanks and regards,
>
>
>
> Scott
> -
> 
>
> This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
> discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
> emc-p...@ieee.org
>
> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
> http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
>
> Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
> Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to
> unsubscribe) <http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html>
> List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
>
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
> Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org
>
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.org
> David Heald dhe...@gmail.com
> --
>
> To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link:
> https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1
>

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

Re: [PSES] Assess risk of electric shock from charged capacitors

[Douglas E Powell]

Scott,

I very much prefer the two-channel o'scope dual-probe method using the A-B
function.  Alternatively a differential o'scope probe is an option,
although they tend to be rather pricey.  It is usually not necessary to get
high speed probes as this is only line frequency.

It is inadvisable to isolate the o'scope and use the grounding pin on
Neutral as any errors can cause the o'scope chassis to go live.  In that
case, even the set screws holding knobs on the controls would be a
potential shock hazard.

-Doug


Douglas E Powell
Laporte, Colorado USA
doug...@gmail.com
LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/coloradocomplianceguy/>

(UTC -06:00) Mountain Time (US-MDT)


On Mon, Oct 17, 2022 at 9:17 AM Scott Xe  wrote:

> In order to judge if there is no risk of electric shock from charged
> capacitors, it is required to measure the voltage across L and N of mains
> plug after the removal of power input.  To avoid grounding loop between
> test equipment and the unit under test, an isolating transformer is
> strongly recommended.  I have learnt another way by using Add Function and
> two hot probes of a dual channel DSO.  Can someone advise which way is more
> common in safety conformity test.  Especially the latter one, I have not
> tried it yet before and appreciate any notes I must take in the measurement.
>
> Thanks and regards,
>
> Scott
>
>> -
> 
>
> This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
> discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
> emc-p...@ieee.org
>
> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
> http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
>
> Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
> Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to
> unsubscribe) <http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html>
> List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
>
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
> Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org
>
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.org
> David Heald dhe...@gmail.com
> --
>
> To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link:
> https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1
>

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

Re: [PSES] List of Common Misuses

[Douglas E Powell]

You might put in a few obvious answers, like do not connect to power of the
incorrect voltage, not for household use, or some such thing.  I tend to
agree with you, I've had clients get a little crazy dreaming up "what if"
scenarios, like what if a forklift crashes into?  or a terrorist fires a 50
cal. at it?  Yes, those were real questions, I've been asked.

When I first started in safety engineering years ago, I was told that
equipment should be safe to use for anyone who comes in contact with it,
trained or untrained, normal operation or single fault, up to but not
incldueding people with suicidal intentions.

I have on occasion used the phrase "*no reasonably foreseeable hazards
identified"*, just to fill in the blank on the form.  And of course,
"reasonably foreseeable" is only defined in some standards I've worked
with, and even then the definition is rather vague, referring to other than
the supplier's intended use. It may seem cynical but in my view "Caveat
emptor" is becoming obsolete and it is being replaced by "Caveat-venditor".

-Doug

Douglas E Powell
Laporte, Colorado USA
doug...@gmail.com
LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/coloradocomplianceguy/>

(UTC -06:00) Mountain Time (US-MDT)




On Wed, Oct 5, 2022 at 12:01 PM Brian Kunde  wrote:

> My company manufactures Laboratory Equipment such as analyzers and
> determinators. They are highly specialized equipment, yet have an infinite
> range of uses.
>
> Even though all known residual risks are documented in the Safety Warning
> section of the manual, they will commonly request a list of Misuses.  There
> are no buttons, or settings that can be changed by the User that can cause
> a hazard.  The operational environment is clearly defined. So in most all
> cases, I am not aware of any "Misuse" that can cause a hazard. For some
> reason, this answer is not acceptable.  We are expected to come up with
> something.
>
> Is there a standard or common list of MisUses that seem to satisfy this
> requirement?
>
> How crazy are we to get with this?, e.g., don't use the 400lb analyzer
> while taking a bath?  Don't use it to mow your lawn?  Common
>
> I used to work for a computer company and I couldn't believe the stupid
> warnings we had to put in the manual.
>
> Thanks to all.
>
> The Other Brian
> -
> 
>
> This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
> discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
> emc-p...@ieee.org
>
> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
> http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
>
> Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
> Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to
> unsubscribe) <http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html>
> List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
>
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
> Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org
>
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.org
> David Heald dhe...@gmail.com
> --
>
> To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link:
> https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1
>

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

Re: [PSES] Cybersecurity?

[Douglas E Powell]

David,

In the USA, wouldn't that fall under homeland security?

~Doug


Douglas E Powell
Laporte, Colorado USA
doug...@gmail.com
LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/coloradocomplianceguy/>

(UTC -06:00) Mountain Time (US-MDT)


On Tue, Oct 4, 2022 at 11:26 AM David Huff  wrote:

> Note, it is not just the EU, I am seeing it as a requirement for Radio
> Device certification from ANATEL (Brazil) ANATEL Act No. 77 of January 5,
> 2021.
>
> <
> https://www.ul.com/news/anatel-act-no-772021-instructions-regarding-cybersecurity-rules
> >
>
>
>
> I would be willing to bet the FCC will come along with something similar
> soon.
>
> Thanks,
>
> David
>
> Vermeer compliance / ATS
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Douglas E Powell 
> *Sent:* Monday, October 3, 2022 3:29 PM
> *To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> *Subject:* Re: [PSES] Cybersecurity?
>
>
>
> Interesting, and I've seen some parallels in the RED directive. Using Risk
> Analysis terminology, I've been thinking about how to mitigate the problem.
> -Doug Douglas E Powell Laporte, Colorado USA dougp01@ gmail. com ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍
> ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍
>
> Interesting,  and I've seen some parallels in the RED directive.  Using
> Risk Analysis terminology, I've been thinking about how to mitigate the
> problem.
>
>
>
> -Doug
>
>
>
>
>
> Douglas E Powell
>
> Laporte, Colorado USA
>
> doug...@gmail.com
>
> LinkedIn
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.linkedin.com/in/coloradocomplianceguy/__;!!ICUevlz5aoA!pYfqiZgFjr3WMfVZ8EhT_6A9XgCE_4yH7NXRGxd_Yf_xQIAeblm59N8IDrEaIR-VyTsputIZBs_r3A$>
>
>
>
> (UTC -06:00) Mountain Time (US-MDT)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 3, 2022 at 2:24 PM Chris Brown <
> 1ca53b7356f5-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org> wrote:
>
> Doug,
>
> Yes, the EU has a new cybersecurity requirement for IoT devices (WiFi,
> Bluetooth, etc.) – basically anything wireless.  This is probably why you
> are being peppered with emails.
>
> I would expect to see a lot more about this topic as implementation dates
> get closer.
>
> Chris
>
>
> *Sent:* Monday, October 03, 2022 4:10 PM
> *To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> *Subject:* [PSES] Cybersecurity?
>
>
>
> All,
>
>
>
> In the last few months, I've received a number of inquiries from
> recruiters thinking I have an interest in Cybersecurity.  Many of these
> come to me via LinkedIn and I realize the word "compliance" shows up in
> many disciplines such as legal, financial, medical, etc.  But now it seems
> all the recent hype into Cybersecurity and I.T. Compliance has created a
> fair bit of "noise"; and in my case as it is never related to EMC or
> Product Safety.  Although I suppose Regulatory Compliance could be
> construed...
>
>
>
> I am curious to know if others on this forum are seeing a similar increase
> in inquiries, or is it just me?
>
>
>
> Thanks,  Doug
>
>
>
> Douglas E Powell
>
> Laporte, Colorado USA
>
> doug...@gmail.com
>
> LinkedIn
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/can01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https*3A*2F*2Fwww.linkedin.com*2Fin*2Fcoloradocomplianceguy*2F=05*7C01*7CChris.Brown*40startech.com*7Cf07d4ff668b746a743d108daa57b51ab*7C0bf3d7afc3864a2b87b016e76addfb23*7C0*7C0*7C638004246350695221*7CUnknown*7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0*3D*7C3000*7C*7C*7C=ccRg86UxBR57bOgDpVBe8e5aXovN5YZ8EUOAyx*2B7oGs*3D=0__;JSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSU!!ICUevlz5aoA!pYfqiZgFjr3WMfVZ8EhT_6A9XgCE_4yH7NXRGxd_Yf_xQIAeblm59N8IDrEaIR-VyTsputK-ISZvrw$>
>
>
>
> (UTC -06:00) Mountain Time (US-MDT)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -
> 
>
> This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
> discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to <
> emc-p...@ieee.org>
>
> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
> http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/can01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http*3A*2F*2Fwww.ieee-pses.org*2Femc-pstc.html=05*7C01*7CChris.Brown*40startech.com*7Cf07d4ff668b746a743d108daa57b51ab*7C0bf3d7afc3864a2b87b016e76addfb23*7C0*7C0*7C638004246350695221*7CUnknown*7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0*3D*7C3000*7C*7C*7C=vZ9T9qFDhFtCiwqr4zesA*2FlcWUnGrmu*2BX*2FK6WOrc1O4*3D=0__;JSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSU!!ICUevlz5aoA!pYfqiZgFjr3WMfVZ8EhT_6A9XgCE_4yH7NXRGxd_Yf_xQIAeblm59N8IDrEaIR-VyTsputLjhia3-Q$>
>
> Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
>

Re: [PSES] Cybersecurity?

[Douglas E Powell]

Thanks Charlie



On Mon, Oct 3, 2022 at 2:50 PM Charlie Blackham <
char...@sulisconsultants.com> wrote:

> Some more information on Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2022/30,
> <https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv%3AOJ.L_.2022.007.01.0006.01.ENG=OJ%3AL%3A2022%3A007%3ATOC>
> :
>
>
>
> European Standards Organisations (ESOs) are proposing to create 3
> harmonised standards to meet the new EU RE-Direct Cybersecurity
> requirements under Art 3.3 d), e) f):
>
>
>
> · Common security requirements for *internet
> connected radio equipment*
>
>
>
> · Common security requirements for *equipment
> processing data* (internet connected radio equipment, childcare radio
> equipment, toys radio equipment and wearable radio equipment)
>
>
>
> · Common security requirements for *internet
> connected radio equipment processing virtual money/monetary value*
>
>
>
> These new standards will be based on the applicable parts of the following
> existing standards:
>
>- EN 303 645 (consumer)
>- IEC 62443-4-2 (industrial)
>
>
>
> These new requirements will become mandatory from 1st August 2024
>
>
>
> The timescales are such that these is insufficient time for standards to
> be written and published in the EU OJ, so a Notified Body will be mandatory
> for any radio equipment within scope.
>
>
>
> There are a number of sources of additional information, but there is more
> information in this article Delegated Regulation Cybersecurity RED
> Article 3.3 | Element
> <https://www.element.com/nucleus/2022/cybersecurity-and-the-red>, and in
> a webinar recording that can be watched after free registration
> https://register.gotowebinar.com/register/2306105117227103244
>
>
>
>
>
> Best regards
>
> Charlie
>
>
>
> *Charlie Blackham*
>
> *Sulis Consultants Ltd*
>
> *Tel: +44 (0)7946 624317*
>
> *Web: https://sulisconsultants.com/ <https://sulisconsultants.com/> *
>
> Registered in England and Wales, number 05466247
>
>
>
> *From:* MIKE SHERMAN 
> *Sent:* 03 October 2022 21:28
> *To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> *Subject:* Re: [PSES] Cybersecurity?
>
>
>
> Oh, I just learned something about that:
>
>
>
> Requirements coming in under Article 3.3 (d) (e) and (f) of RED (Radio
> Equipment Directive), and effective August 1, 2024.  See EU Delegated
> Regulation 2022/30.
>
>
>
> Mike Sherman
>
> Sherman PSC LLC
>
> On 10/03/2022 3:24 PM Chris Brown <
> 1ca53b7356f5-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> Doug,
>
>
>
> Yes, the EU has a new cybersecurity requirement for IoT devices (WiFi,
> Bluetooth, etc.) – basically anything wireless.  This is probably why you
> are being peppered with emails.
>
>
>
> I would expect to see a lot more about this topic as implementation dates
> get closer.
>
>
>
> Chris
>
>
>
>
>
> *Chris Brown*
> Team Lead Compliance
>
> *t   *800-265-1844 - Ext 1380 <+1800-265-1844%20-%20Ext%201380>
> *t   *519-455-9675 - Ext 1380 <,1380>
>
>
>
> <https://www.startech.com/>
>
>
> [image: Mobile Workforce solutions]
> <http://www.startech.com/mobile-workforce-solutions>
>
>
> [image: Facebook] <https://www.facebook.com/Startechdotcom>  [image:
> Linkedin] <http://www.linkedin.com/company/startech-com>  [image: Twitter]
> <https://twitter.com/STARTECHdotCOM>  [image: Contact us]
> <https://www.startech.com/ContactUs>
>
> This email from StarTech.com, including any attachments, may contain
> confidential and/or privileged information for the intended recipient(s)
> only and the sender does not waive any related legal rights or privilege.
> Any use or disclosure of the information by an unintended recipient is
> unauthorized and prohibited. If you have received an email message in
> error, please delete the entire message, including attachments if any, and
> inform us by return email.
>
>
>
> *From:* Douglas E Powell 
> *Sent:* Monday, October 03, 2022 4:10 PM
> *To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> *Subject:* [PSES] Cybersecurity?
>
>
>
> All,
>
>
>
> In the last few months, I've received a number of inquiries from
> recruiters thinking I have an interest in Cybersecurity.  Many of these
> come to me via LinkedIn and I realize the word "compliance" shows up in
> many disciplines such as legal, financial, medical, etc.  But now it seems
> all the recent hype into Cybersecurity and I.T. Compliance has created a
> fair bit 

Re: [PSES] Cybersecurity?

[Douglas E Powell]

Interesting,  and I've seen some parallels in the RED directive.  Using
Risk Analysis terminology, I've been thinking about how to mitigate the
problem.

-Doug


Douglas E Powell
Laporte, Colorado USA
doug...@gmail.com
LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/coloradocomplianceguy/>

(UTC -06:00) Mountain Time (US-MDT)




On Mon, Oct 3, 2022 at 2:24 PM Chris Brown <
1ca53b7356f5-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org> wrote:

> Doug,
>
>
>
> Yes, the EU has a new cybersecurity requirement for IoT devices (WiFi,
> Bluetooth, etc.) – basically anything wireless.  This is probably why you
> are being peppered with emails.
>
>
>
> I would expect to see a lot more about this topic as implementation dates
> get closer.
>
>
>
> Chris
>
>
>
> Chris Brown
> Team Lead Compliance
> t   800-265-1844 - Ext 1380 <+1800-265-1844%20-%20Ext%201380>
> t   519-455-9675 - Ext 1380 <,1380>
> <https://www.startech.com>
>
> [image: Mobile Workforce solutions]
> <http://www.startech.com/mobile-workforce-solutions>
>
> [image: Facebook] <https://www.facebook.com/Startechdotcom>  [image:
> Linkedin] <http://www.linkedin.com/company/startech-com>  [image: Twitter]
> <https://twitter.com/STARTECHdotCOM>  [image: Contact us]
> <https://www.startech.com/ContactUs>
>
> This email from StarTech.com, including any attachments, may contain
> confidential and/or privileged information for the intended recipient(s)
> only and the sender does not waive any related legal rights or privilege.
> Any use or disclosure of the information by an unintended recipient is
> unauthorized and prohibited. If you have received an email message in
> error, please delete the entire message, including attachments if any, and
> inform us by return email.
>
> *From:* Douglas E Powell 
> *Sent:* Monday, October 03, 2022 4:10 PM
> *To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> *Subject:* [PSES] Cybersecurity?
>
>
>
> All,
>
>
>
> In the last few months, I've received a number of inquiries from
> recruiters thinking I have an interest in Cybersecurity.  Many of these
> come to me via LinkedIn and I realize the word "compliance" shows up in
> many disciplines such as legal, financial, medical, etc.  But now it seems
> all the recent hype into Cybersecurity and I.T. Compliance has created a
> fair bit of "noise"; and in my case as it is never related to EMC or
> Product Safety.  Although I suppose Regulatory Compliance could be
> construed...
>
>
>
> I am curious to know if others on this forum are seeing a similar increase
> in inquiries, or is it just me?
>
>
>
> Thanks,  Doug
>
>
>
> Douglas E Powell
>
> Laporte, Colorado USA
>
> doug...@gmail.com
>
> LinkedIn
> <https://can01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin.com%2Fin%2Fcoloradocomplianceguy%2F=05%7C01%7CChris.Brown%40startech.com%7Cf07d4ff668b746a743d108daa57b51ab%7C0bf3d7afc3864a2b87b016e76addfb23%7C0%7C0%7C638004246350695221%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C=ccRg86UxBR57bOgDpVBe8e5aXovN5YZ8EUOAyx%2B7oGs%3D=0>
>
>
>
> (UTC -06:00) Mountain Time (US-MDT)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -
> 
>
> This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
> discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to <
> emc-p...@ieee.org>
>
> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
> http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
> <https://can01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ieee-pses.org%2Femc-pstc.html=05%7C01%7CChris.Brown%40startech.com%7Cf07d4ff668b746a743d108daa57b51ab%7C0bf3d7afc3864a2b87b016e76addfb23%7C0%7C0%7C638004246350695221%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C=vZ9T9qFDhFtCiwqr4zesA%2FlcWUnGrmu%2BX%2FK6WOrc1O4%3D=0>
>
> Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
> <https://can01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ieee-pses.org%2F=05%7C01%7CChris.Brown%40startech.com%7Cf07d4ff668b746a743d108daa57b51ab%7C0bf3d7afc3864a2b87b016e76addfb23%7C0%7C0%7C638004246350695221%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C=IEYoMCKdrEWxiPswxr07lAUUESd%2F2OAQmlayZQ7e7wM%3D=0>
> Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to
> unsubscribe)
> <https://can01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ieee-pses.org%2Flist.html=05%7C01%7CChris.Brown%40startech.com%7Cf07d4ff668b746a743d108daa57b51ab%7C0bf3d7afc

Re: [PSES] Cybersecurity?

[Douglas E Powell]

Yes, that too.  But mostly canvasing from recruiters, who I suspect don't
even know what an engineer does, exactly.

-Doug


Douglas E Powell
Laporte, Colorado USA
doug...@gmail.com
LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/coloradocomplianceguy/>

(UTC -06:00) Mountain Time (US-MDT)


On Mon, Oct 3, 2022 at 2:17 PM MIKE SHERMAN  wrote:

> I was wondering why I was getting emails asking me to participate in cyber
> surveys!
>
> Mike Sherman
> Sherman PSC LLC
>
> On 10/03/2022 3:09 PM Douglas E Powell  wrote:
>
>
> All,
>
> In the last few months, I've received a number of inquiries from
> recruiters thinking I have an interest in Cybersecurity.  Many of these
> come to me via LinkedIn and I realize the word "compliance" shows up in
> many disciplines such as legal, financial, medical, etc.  But now it seems
> all the recent hype into Cybersecurity and I.T. Compliance has created a
> fair bit of "noise"; and in my case as it is never related to EMC or
> Product Safety.  Although I suppose Regulatory Compliance could be
> construed...
>
> I am curious to know if others on this forum are seeing a similar increase
> in inquiries, or is it just me?
>
> Thanks,  Doug
>
> Douglas E Powell
> Laporte, Colorado USA
> doug...@gmail.com
> LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/coloradocomplianceguy/>
>
> (UTC -06:00) Mountain Time (US-MDT)
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -
> 
>
> This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
> discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to <
> emc-p...@ieee.org>
>
> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
> http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
>
> Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
> Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to
> unsubscribe) <http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html>
> List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
>
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
> Mike Cantwell 
>
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Jim Bacher 
> David Heald 
> --
>
> To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link:
> https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1
>
> -
> 
>
> This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
> discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
> emc-p...@ieee.org
>
> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
> http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
>
> Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
> Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to
> unsubscribe) <http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html>
> List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
>
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
> Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org
>
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.org
> David Heald dhe...@gmail.com
> --
>
> To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link:
> https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1
>

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

[PSES] Cybersecurity?

[Douglas E Powell]

All,

In the last few months, I've received a number of inquiries from
recruiters thinking I have an interest in Cybersecurity.  Many of these
come to me via LinkedIn and I realize the word "compliance" shows up in
many disciplines such as legal, financial, medical, etc.  But now it seems
all the recent hype into Cybersecurity and I.T. Compliance has created a
fair bit of "noise"; and in my case as it is never related to EMC or
Product Safety.  Although I suppose Regulatory Compliance could be
construed...

I am curious to know if others on this forum are seeing a similar increase
in inquiries, or is it just me?

Thanks,  Doug

Douglas E Powell
Laporte, Colorado USA
doug...@gmail.com
LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/coloradocomplianceguy/>

(UTC -06:00) Mountain Time (US-MDT)

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

[PSES] IEC 62368-1 Creepage distances

[Douglas E Powell]

All,

I was reviewing the rationale document IEC TR 62368-2 and found a comment
in 5.4.3: "*However, there is no rationale why the creepage distances are
different for printed wiring boards and other isolation material under the
same condition (same PD and same CTI). *"

Apparently some important concepts have been lost over the years. So I am
writing this email to provide a historical perspective that is a detailed
basis of my understanding for this concern.

I have personally studied the IEC 60664-x standards since the days it was
simply known as  IEC 664A.  This, along with the old VDE 0160 which was
eventually the basis for EN 50178. This European Norm was strongly
influenced by the 664 family of standards. EN 50178 has a reference to
reduced creepage distances for printed circuit boards.  Back in the day,
the rationale, as explained to me through DIN VDE 0160, EN 50178, and by
representatives at LGA Landesgewerbeanstalt Bayern, was that printed
circuit material has very well controlled tolerances and is dimensionally
stable. Therefore, if it passes the engineering type tests, then there is
very good confidence that subsequent manufacture will remain so.  When I
asked if the fact that most PCB laminate material is CTI III, and if this
makes any difference, the answer was consistently No.

EN 50178 (1997 & 1998) Table 6 Minimum Creepage Distances, has a note
referring to PCBs for Pollution Degree 1 and 2:

"*These columns apply also to components and parts on PCBs and to other
insulation arrangements with a comparable control of tolerances*"


This was thinking in those days and yes a rationale does exist.  Also, as I
understand it, this rationale came out of a many months long
German-American research project: *Schau, P.v., Middendorf, W.H.: An
International Research Project to Determine New Dimensioning Rules for
Creepage Distances.IEEE Trans. on Electrical Insulations, Vol.EI-18, No.2,
 April 1983; *https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/4081070/

I really would like to review the original IEEE paper but unfortunately it
is locked in my subscription.

-Doug


Douglas E Powell
Laporte, Colorado USA
doug...@gmail.com
LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/coloradocomplianceguy/>

(UTC -06:00) Mountain Time (US-MDT)

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

[PSES] IEC 62368-1 vs IEC 112

[Douglas E Powell]

All,

Can anyone definitely tell me if the Third Edition of IEC 62368-1 has
finally replaced IEC Guide 112, all editions?

I am aware that up to IEC 62368-1 ED2, A2 certain aspects of multimedia
equipment were not yet incorporated.  The IEC Webstore does not seem to
indicate if this has been completed.
https://webstore.iec.ch/publication/60675


Thanks, -Doug


Douglas E Powell
Laporte, Colorado USA
doug...@gmail.com
LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/coloradocomplianceguy/>

(UTC -06:00) Mountain Time (US-MDT)

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

Re: [PSES] EN 62368-1 - device include batteries (LiPo)

[Douglas E Powell]

Amund,

You should also consider any UN 38.3 transportation requirements that may
apply.  For example, if you plan to ship an appliance with removable
batteries in place, they should not be electrically connected during
shipment, and if permanently soldered into place the power switch cannot be
inadvertently enabled from bumping or jostling.

https://unece.org/transport/dangerous-goods/rev7-files


-Doug

Douglas E Powell
Laporte, Colorado USA
doug...@gmail.com
LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/coloradocomplianceguy/>

(UTC -06:00) Mountain Time (US-MDT)


On Mon, Sep 5, 2022 at 3:05 AM Amund Westin 
wrote:

> Some thoughts …
>
> Device with a metallic enclosure, covering the batteries, will reduce the
> concern for «fire enclosure»-issues, as long as there are no significant
> large holes in the enclosures.
>
> PCB and other components close to the battery compartment, are V-0 flame
> class, and no possible path for potential spread for internal fire.
>
>
>
> Are the other aspects that should be kept in mind, when we are planning
> the needed space (volume) for the battery inside the device. Usually, an
> energy source should have some distances to the surrounds, but here the
> battery is placed in a metallic cover.
>
>
>
> BR
>
> Amund
>
>
> -
> 
>
> This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
> discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
> emc-p...@ieee.org
>
> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
> http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
>
> Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
> Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to
> unsubscribe) <http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html>
> List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
>
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
> Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org
>
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.org
> David Heald dhe...@gmail.com
> --
>
> To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link:
> https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1
>

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

Re: [PSES] High Touch Current and GFCIs

[Douglas E Powell]

Brian,

Depending on the class of that circuit breaker, the answer is probably
yes.  See this article
<https://code-authorities.ul.com/about/blog/understanding-ground-fault-and-leakage-current-protection/#:~:text=It%20states%20that%20a%20Class,Ground%2D%20Fault%20Circuit%2DInterrupters.>

Sometimes when dealing with high leakage current the relevant safety
standard allows you to go to a much higher level if you provide secondary
chassis grounding (earthing) and a warning label. Of course, this all
depends on how the product is configured. Check for this provision in the
safety standard you are using.

This may be a case where your rack system has multiple devices, each with
their own EMI line filter.  And the "Y" caps in all the line filters add up
to a larger contribution of leakage current.  One option might be to remove
the individual filters (if possible) and provide a single low-leakage EMI
filter on the rack power inlet.  Alternatively you could entertain the idea
often used on equipment that requires very low leakage current in the 50 uA
range.  That is, an approved isolation transformer built into the rack
power distribution.

-Doug


Douglas E Powell
Laporte, Colorado USA
LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/coloradocomplianceguy/>

(UTC -06:00) Mountain Time (US-MDT)


On Wed, Aug 24, 2022 at 2:27 PM Brian Kunde  wrote:

> If I have a rake of electrical equipment with a single power cord and a
> combined touch current exceeding 6mA, and I plug the rake into a circuit
> with a GFCI, will it trip?
>
> Thanks.
>
> The Other Brian
> -
> 
>
> This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
> discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
> emc-p...@ieee.org
>
> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
> http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
>
> Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
> Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to
> unsubscribe) <http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html>
> List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
>
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
> Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org
>
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.org
> David Heald dhe...@gmail.com
> --
>
> To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link:
> https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1
>

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

Re: [PSES] [EXTERNAL] [PSES] Safety for e-scooters, e-bikes

[Douglas E Powell]

That is very interesting, and there's something to be said about timing.

-Doug


Douglas E Powell
Laporte, Colorado USA
doug...@gmail.com
LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/coloradocomplianceguy/>

(UTC -06:00) Mountain Time (US-MDT)


On Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 10:14 AM Ted Eckert 
wrote:

> By coincidence, there was a notice in today’s Federal Register that OSHA
> is extending UL’s scope of recognition to add two standards.
>
>- UL 2272: Standard for electrical systems and personal e-mobility
>devices
>- UL 2849: Standard for electrical systems for eBikes
>
>
>
> Ted Eckert
>
> The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of
> my employer.
>
>
>
> *From:* Douglas E Powell 
> *Sent:* Friday, August 12, 2022 2:26 PM
> *To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] [PSES] Safety for e-scooters, e-bikes
>
>
>
> All,
>
>
>
> My Friday question is about storage/charging of e-scooters and e-bikes. It
> seems that these days more and more people are using these devices and fire
> safety is a growing concern. It seems my news feed has a new instance
> every few days.  Some of these cases are very tragic outcomes, in that the
> owner brings these devices just inside the door to their apartment for
> overnight charging.  Of course, if there is a lithium fire, it is rather
> violent and blocks the exit for the occupants.
>
>
>
> I am not very familiar with which safety standards are available in
> North America and Europe, and do they have requirements to address such
> concerns in the user documentation?  I do know that some building owners
> are taking matters into their own hands and requiring these devices be
> charged outdoors; which may have varying success in mitigating building
> fires.  In any case, many e-scooter owners are probably not very keen on
> leaving their property where it can be easily stolen.
>
>
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
>
> -Doug
>
>
>
> Laporte, Colorado USA
>
> LinkedIn
> <https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin.com%2Fin%2Fcoloradocomplianceguy%2F=05%7C01%7Cted.eckert%40microsoft.com%7Cc9e9a9f3e2954464402e08da7ca96ba4%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C0%7C0%7C637959364369664940%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C=CDrDKIswhEfpV%2Fmm61vNnocmmFbLkH6I5WQ0QL%2BHmrk%3D=0>
>
>
>
> (UTC -06:00) Mountain Time (US-MDT)
>
>
>
> -
> 
>
> This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
> discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to <
> emc-p...@ieee.org>
>
> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
> http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
> <https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ieee-pses.org%2Femc-pstc.html=05%7C01%7Cted.eckert%40microsoft.com%7Cc9e9a9f3e2954464402e08da7ca96ba4%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C0%7C0%7C637959364369664940%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C=nserf1Q7zzpqgpUhWVn6OGEnzLuUQ4F6W1iFwJaft8Y%3D=0>
>
> Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
> <https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ieee-pses.org%2F=05%7C01%7Cted.eckert%40microsoft.com%7Cc9e9a9f3e2954464402e08da7ca96ba4%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C0%7C0%7C637959364369664940%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C=eKruJaUYkunRpVkrEZ%2BgwRI4R5%2Fy5Vz5fvPZ1EbdNWE%3D=0>
> Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to
> unsubscribe)
> <https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ieee-pses.org%2Flist.html=05%7C01%7Cted.eckert%40microsoft.com%7Cc9e9a9f3e2954464402e08da7ca96ba4%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C0%7C0%7C637959364369664940%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C=39g2D9JBvayhDtjj4kQK4W0GAcVMDJwixHgM36rMGmQ%3D=0>
> List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
> <https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ieee-pses.org%2Flistrules.html=05%7C01%7Cted.eckert%40microsoft.com%7Cc9e9a9f3e2954464402e08da7ca96ba4%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C0%7C0%7C637959364369664940%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C=vbf0G9GTYYJuQv%2Bez5DImLOBFrq7ymdQ9lWu5KZO5yw%3D=0>
>
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
> Mike Cantwell 
>
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Jim Bacher 
> David Heald 
> 

Re: [PSES] Safety for e-scooters, e-bikes

[Douglas E Powell]

Thank you Scott,

-Doug


Douglas E Powell
Laporte, Colorado USA
doug...@gmail.com
LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/coloradocomplianceguy/>

(UTC -06:00) Mountain Time (US-MDT)


On Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 8:30 AM Scott Xe  wrote:

> Dear Doug,
>
> Panasonic, ATL/CATL, BYD, Samsung, LG are good batteries for this type of
> product.
>
> Regards,
>
> Scott
>
> On Thu, 18 Aug 2022 at 22:37, Douglas E Powell  wrote:
>
>> Thanks Dan,
>>
>> So I have to wonder what brand lithium battery Bosch is using.  And this
>> is a great starting point for me to dig in a little.
>>
>> -Doug
>>
>>
>> Douglas E Powell
>> Laporte, Colorado USA
>> doug...@gmail.com
>> LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/coloradocomplianceguy/>
>>
>> (UTC -06:00) Mountain Time (US-MDT)
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 18, 2022 at 7:30 AM Dan Roman <
>> 0d75e04ed751-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Doug/Scott,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> My wife’s e-bike has a Bosch motor and battery and seems to be well made
>>> and certified so I am comfortable storing and charging it in my garage.
>>> Included a picture of the label with agency marks, sorry it is a little
>>> blurry.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> So I think there are definitely safety schemes available, but as with
>>> everything, quality may vary from vendor to vendor.  I would trust Bosch
>>> over a vendor I never heard of and the Bosch motor and battery certainly
>>> played a large role in picking which e-bike to purchase.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Dan
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* Scott Xe [mailto:scott...@gmail.com]
>>> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 17, 2022 10:54 AM
>>> *To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
>>> *Subject:* Re: [PSES] Safety for e-scooters, e-bikes
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Dear Doug,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I learned that China prohibits carrying e-scooters and e-bikes to their
>>> houses and even entering the lifts of the building for storage/charging.
>>> Since the battery capacity is much bigger than the li-ion battery using in
>>> normal portable devices, the battery and the charger must comply with rigid
>>> safety requirements.  Do not recommend buying unknown brand products in
>>> this type of goods.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Scott
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, 13 Aug 2022 at 05:27, Douglas E Powell 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> All,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> My Friday question is about storage/charging of e-scooters and e-bikes.
>>> It seems that these days more and more people are using these devices and
>>> fire safety is a growing concern. It seems my news feed has a new instance
>>> every few days.  Some of these cases are very tragic outcomes, in that the
>>> owner brings these devices just inside the door to their apartment for
>>> overnight charging.  Of course, if there is a lithium fire, it is rather
>>> violent and blocks the exit for the occupants.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I am not very familiar with which safety standards are available in
>>> North America and Europe, and do they have requirements to address such
>>> concerns in the user documentation?  I do know that some building owners
>>> are taking matters into their own hands and requiring these devices be
>>> charged outdoors; which may have varying success in mitigating building
>>> fires.  In any case, many e-scooter owners are probably not very keen on
>>> leaving their property where it can be easily stolen.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thoughts?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -Doug
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Laporte, Colorado USA
>>>
>>> LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/coloradocomplianceguy/>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> (UTC -06:00) Mountain Time (US-MDT)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -
>>> 
>>>
>>> This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society
>>> emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail
>>> to emc-p...@ieee.org
>>>
>>> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the w

Re: [PSES] CE marking of a high voltage output supply for laboratory / industrial environmental use

[Douglas E Powell]

I have worked with H.V. power supplies in the past, and there is a point
where IEC-based standards simply run out.

In most cases, I found certifying agencies are accepting of IEC 61010-1 (or
national derivatives) using the tables in Annex K (2010 edition). You still
need to pay attention to the mains voltage, but in your case I believe the
spacings you need are all secondary circuits. Starting at Table K.10 and
following.  In there you will find clearance and creepage requirements up
to 63 kV.  This will apply to steady state voltages as well as calculations
for plasma strike voltages, in the standard referred to as temporary
overvoltages or repetitive peaks.

Above 63 kV, I found some agencies I worked with were willing to accept an
engineering rationale using classical HV e-field evaluation for uniform
fields around geometric structures for clearances; and a linear
extrapolation for creepage, up to as high as 200 kV.  Of course, creepage
can never be less than clearance in your results.  And you must pay
close attention to electrode shaping, CTI, Pollution Degree, altitude, etc.
I also found it very helpful to study parts of the IEC 60664-X standards.
There is a wealth of information there.

The considerations for solid insulation are very different, and the old
rule of thumb using 0.4mm thickness for everything is no where close to
accurate.  Let's just say that small thicknesses like that are almost
useless after a point, and especially when the solid insulation is adjacent
to an air gap, which essentially forms a multiple dielectric capacitor.  As
it turns out, almost 100% of the voltage distributed across the dielectric
stack up is impressed almost entirely on the air layer, as opposed to that
of the solid insulation layer.

Best of luck,  -Doug


Douglas E Powell
Laporte, Colorado USA
doug...@gmail.com
LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/coloradocomplianceguy/>

(UTC -06:00) Mountain Time (US-MDT)






On Thu, Aug 18, 2022 at 1:43 PM  wrote:

> Dear experts,
>
>
>
> A client is looking for regulatory guidance to CE certify a high voltage
> output supply  (with regular AC mains 230V/50Hz input).
>
> The supply has an output voltage upto 25kV (upto 50kHz) output.   It
> concerns a supply to be used for plasma reactor applications.
>
>
>
> As the output voltage is not inside the  voltage limits for the Low
> Voltage Directive, the LVD directive is not applicable?
>
> The  Machine Directive also excludes these high voltage products.
>
>
>
> So, wondering which Directive to apply related tot he safety testing
> part.  (The General Safety Product Directive?)
>
> Any suggestions as to which safety standard to apply for such products?
>
>
>
> Any suggestions are highly appreciated.
>
>
>
> Thanks !
> -
> 
>
> This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
> discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
> emc-p...@ieee.org
>
> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
> http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
>
> Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
> Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to
> unsubscribe) <http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html>
> List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
>
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
> Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org
>
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.org
> David Heald dhe...@gmail.com
> --
>
> To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link:
> https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1
>

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

Re: [PSES] Safety for e-scooters, e-bikes

[Douglas E Powell]

Thanks Dan,

So I have to wonder what brand lithium battery Bosch is using.  And this is
a great starting point for me to dig in a little.

-Doug


Douglas E Powell
Laporte, Colorado USA
doug...@gmail.com
LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/coloradocomplianceguy/>

(UTC -06:00) Mountain Time (US-MDT)


On Thu, Aug 18, 2022 at 7:30 AM Dan Roman <
0d75e04ed751-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org> wrote:

> Doug/Scott,
>
>
>
> My wife’s e-bike has a Bosch motor and battery and seems to be well made
> and certified so I am comfortable storing and charging it in my garage.
> Included a picture of the label with agency marks, sorry it is a little
> blurry.
>
>
>
> So I think there are definitely safety schemes available, but as with
> everything, quality may vary from vendor to vendor.  I would trust Bosch
> over a vendor I never heard of and the Bosch motor and battery certainly
> played a large role in picking which e-bike to purchase.
>
>
>
> Dan
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Scott Xe [mailto:scott...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 17, 2022 10:54 AM
> *To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> *Subject:* Re: [PSES] Safety for e-scooters, e-bikes
>
>
>
> Dear Doug,
>
>
>
> I learned that China prohibits carrying e-scooters and e-bikes to their
> houses and even entering the lifts of the building for storage/charging.
> Since the battery capacity is much bigger than the li-ion battery using in
> normal portable devices, the battery and the charger must comply with rigid
> safety requirements.  Do not recommend buying unknown brand products in
> this type of goods.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Scott
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, 13 Aug 2022 at 05:27, Douglas E Powell  wrote:
>
> All,
>
>
>
> My Friday question is about storage/charging of e-scooters and e-bikes. It
> seems that these days more and more people are using these devices and fire
> safety is a growing concern. It seems my news feed has a new instance
> every few days.  Some of these cases are very tragic outcomes, in that the
> owner brings these devices just inside the door to their apartment for
> overnight charging.  Of course, if there is a lithium fire, it is rather
> violent and blocks the exit for the occupants.
>
>
>
> I am not very familiar with which safety standards are available in
> North America and Europe, and do they have requirements to address such
> concerns in the user documentation?  I do know that some building owners
> are taking matters into their own hands and requiring these devices be
> charged outdoors; which may have varying success in mitigating building
> fires.  In any case, many e-scooter owners are probably not very keen on
> leaving their property where it can be easily stolen.
>
>
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
>
> -Doug
>
>
>
> Laporte, Colorado USA
>
> LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/coloradocomplianceguy/>
>
>
>
> (UTC -06:00) Mountain Time (US-MDT)
>
>
>
> -
> 
>
> This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
> discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
> emc-p...@ieee.org
>
> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
> http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
>
> Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
> Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to
> unsubscribe) <http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html>
> List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
>
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
> Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org
>
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.org
> David Heald dhe...@gmail.com
> --
>
> To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link:
> https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1
>
> -
> 
>
> This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
> discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to <
> emc-p...@ieee.org>
>
> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
> http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
>
> Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
> Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to
> unsubscribe) <http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html>
> List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
>
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
> Mike Cantwell 
>
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Jim Bacher 
> David Heald 
> --

[PSES] Safety for e-scooters, e-bikes

[Douglas E Powell]

All,

My Friday question is about storage/charging of e-scooters and e-bikes. It
seems that these days more and more people are using these devices and fire
safety is a growing concern. It seems my news feed has a new instance
every few days.  Some of these cases are very tragic outcomes, in that the
owner brings these devices just inside the door to their apartment for
overnight charging.  Of course, if there is a lithium fire, it is rather
violent and blocks the exit for the occupants.

I am not very familiar with which safety standards are available in
North America and Europe, and do they have requirements to address such
concerns in the user documentation?  I do know that some building owners
are taking matters into their own hands and requiring these devices be
charged outdoors; which may have varying success in mitigating building
fires.  In any case, many e-scooter owners are probably not very keen on
leaving their property where it can be easily stolen.

Thoughts?

-Doug

Laporte, Colorado USA
LinkedIn 

(UTC -06:00) Mountain Time (US-MDT)

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

Re: [PSES] Using E-Stop in a Non-Emergency Task

[Douglas E Powell]

I would use caution.

I have looked into this in the past and possibly there have been recent
developments that would change what I learned.  My main concern is the
cycle life rating of the switch.  For what ever reason, many E-Stop
switches had a rating of only a few thousand cycles while your normal
on/off controls often have more than 100,000 cycle ratings.  I have
recommended to clients that on this alone, they should not be using an
E-Stop for routine on/off control.

That said, I have seen recent offerings of long life E-switches with
greater han 1 million cycle ratings. So I would say it pays to read the
ratings of the particular switch you are using and specicfically to learn
if the life cycle rating is controlled by the product certifications, or
not.

-Doug


Douglas E Powell
Laporte, Colorado USA
doug...@gmail.com
LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/coloradocomplianceguy/>

(UTC -06:00) Mountain Time (US-MDT)


On Tue, May 31, 2022 at 6:28 PM IBM Ken  wrote:

> From a practical standpoint, some designs use an EPO/EMO in series with a
> motor or other high current device potentially creating a hazard (laser,
> linear actuator, etc).  I can see why you would not want to use an EPO in
> this manner (breaking significant current on a regular basis could cause
> damage to the switch terminals).  However, if your EPO goes to a
> logic-level or low power control input to a relay, perhaps that is OK.  The
> standard I work with does not prohibit you from doing this.  You would need
> to show that the relay is designed appropriately to function as an on/off
> switch.  You might also want to consider the effect of 'training' users to
> use the EPO switch during service- that might lead to some learned behavior
> that is not appropriate for other pieces of equipment.
>
> -Ken A
>
> On Tue, May 31, 2022 at 9:20 AM Brian Kunde  wrote:
>
>> Greetings  to All!!
>>
>> I have an industrial machine with blades that has to be changed out by
>> the User/Operator.  The blade is behind a door with a positive mechanical
>> action switch that when opened puts the motor's VFD into a Safe Stop
>> Function Mode (this is a certified Safety Function).  In addition, power is
>> removed from the Start Button circuit so the motor cannot unexpectedly
>> start.
>>
>> When the E-Stop button is pressed, it does the same as the Door Switch
>> above, but in addition, it also opens the Motor Enable Relay which removes
>> the 3-phase power from the VFD.  Now the motor really really cannot
>> unexpectedly start.  I think this circuit arrangement is typical.
>>
>> We noticed that many of our Customers instruct their Employees
>> (Operators) to PRESS the E-STOP Button before changing out the Blade taking
>> advantage of the extra layers of protection.
>>
>> So here is my question.  Is it OK to instruct the Operator in OUR MANUALS
>> to Press the E-Stop when changing the blades?  We have always been told
>> that the E-Stop function should ONLY be used for Emergency and not for
>> routine tasks.  Is there any additional liability on  our company if we
>> give these instructions? In doing so, are we admitting that our product is
>> unsafe or not as safe and may unexpectedly start unless you press the
>> E-Stop?
>>
>> What is your opinion of this topic?
>>
>> Thanks to all.
>> The Other Brian
>>
>>
>> -
>> 
>>
>> This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
>> discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
>> emc-p...@ieee.org
>>
>> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
>> http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
>>
>> Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site
>> at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in
>> well-used formats), large files, etc.
>>
>> Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
>> Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to
>> unsubscribe) <http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html>
>> List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
>>
>> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
>> Scott Douglas sdoug...@ieee.org
>> Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org
>>
>> For policy questions, send mail to:
>> Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.org
>> David Heald dhe...@gmail.com
>>
> -
> 
>
> This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
> discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
> emc-p...@ieee

[PSES] Am I missing something?

[Douglas E Powell]

All,

When I try to log in to the https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/emc-pstc.html
webpage, I get a 401 error message, saying I'm not logged in .

[image: image.png]


All other of my bookmarked pages seem broken and when I go to the root page
a message "Our hosting frontpage has moved to https://sites.ieee.org.
Please update your bookmarks" with an auto redirect.  But it seems all the
other pages on the original site are simply dead ends.

Thanks, -Doug


Douglas E Powell
Laporte, Colorado USA

(UTC -06:00) Mountain Time (US-MDT)

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

[PSES] NFPA Code Adoption

[Douglas E Powell]

All,

In the past, I've used the NFPA 70 NEC Code Adoption web page
<https://www.nfpa.org/NEC/NEC-adoption-and-use/NEC-adoption-maps> many
times and even keep a web monitor to track periodic updates. Now I find
myself wanting something similar for the NFPA 2 Hydrogen Technologies
Code.  Does anyone know if such a web page exists?

Thanks! -Doug

Douglas E Powell
Laporte, Colorado USA
doug...@gmail.com
LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/coloradocomplianceguy/>

(UTC -06:00) Mountain Time (US-MDT)

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] Fuse designations

[Douglas E Powell]

Very nice, thanks.

Now I may need to convince my client to stop using Slow Blow on
international shipments.

-Doug


Laporte, Colorado USA
LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/coloradocomplianceguy/>

(UTC -07:00) Mountain Time (US-MST)




On Wed, Mar 2, 2022 at 3:34 PM Scott Aldous <
0220f70c299a-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org> wrote:

> Hi Doug,
>
> As the link Rich provided from Littelfuse indicates, the international
> symbols come from IEC 60127-1. See the last page of this preview
> <https://www.sis.se/api/document/preview/568043/>, section 6.1.
>
> On Wed, Mar 2, 2022 at 2:22 PM Richard Nute  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Here is some info:
>>
>>
>>
>> https://www.swe-check.com.au/pages/learn_fuse_markings.php
>>
>>
>> https://www.littelfuse.com/~/media/files/littelfuse/technical-resources/documents/reference-documents/littelfuse_5x20mm-iec-fuse-cap-marking_guide.pdf
>>
>>
>>
>> Rich
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Brian Kunde 
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 2, 2022 1:08 PM
>> *To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
>> *Subject:* Re: [PSES] Fuse designations
>>
>>
>>
>> I do not know where the information I have originally came from, but I
>> got this and have been using this for over 30 years:
>>
>>
>>
>> FF = Very Fast Acting
>>
>> F = Fast Acting (Common)
>>
>> M = Medium Time Lag
>>
>> T = Time Lag (Common)
>>
>> TT = Long Time Lag
>>
>>
>>
>> I got this from Bud Lang who was our Safety Guru at Heath Kit many years
>> ago.
>>
>>
>>
>> The Other Brian
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 1, 2022 at 5:33 PM Douglas E Powell 
>> wrote:
>>
>> All,
>>
>>
>>
>> Over the years, I've seen various ways people include a caution or
>> warning, in their user documents or product labels, for replacement fuses.
>> Similar to: "replace only with same type and rating of fuse";  followed by
>> a code: T1.6AH250V. And for those who may not understand the code, they may
>> sometimes add in parentheses some variant of "(1.6 Amp time-lag, ~250V,
>> high breaking capacity)".
>>
>>
>> So now to my question, US manufacturers sometimes use the phrase
>> "SLO-BLO" or "Slow Blow" instead of Time-Lag or Time-Delay.  Are these terms
>> commonly used internationally and if so, are they clearly understood?
>>
>>
>>
>> I took some time to look up SLO-BLO and found it's a registered trademark
>> for Littelfuse going back to 1957, and it has been continuously renewed
>> since that time.
>>
>>
>> Incidentally, a German Engineer once told me the way he would designate a
>> fuse type for a variety of tripping characteristics was in this order from
>> very slow to very fast: TT1.0A250V, T1.0A250V, 1.0A250V, F1.0A250V,
>> FF1.0A250V.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks, -Doug
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Douglas E Powell
>>
>> Laporte, Colorado USA
>>
>>
>>
>> (UTC -07:00) Mountain Time (US-MST)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -
>> 
>>
>> This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
>> discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
>> emc-p...@ieee.org
>>
>> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
>> http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
>>
>> Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site
>> at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in
>> well-used formats), large files, etc.
>>
>> Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
>> Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to
>> unsubscribe) <http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html>
>> List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
>>
>> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
>> Scott Douglas sdoug...@ieee.org
>> Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org
>>
>> For policy questions, send mail to:
>> Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.org
>> David Heald dhe...@gmail.com
>>
>
>
> --
> Scott Aldous | Regulatory Compliance Manager | scottald...@google.com |
>  650-253-1994
>
> -
> 
>
> This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
> discussion list. To post a

Re: [PSES] Fuse designations

[Douglas E Powell]

Thanks Brian,

I knew about the prefixes Fs & Ts but not the M. I tried looking for source
information in the past and at the time I was certifying to a VDE standard
through LGA Nuremberg. I was also told the acronyms used different German
terms, but fortunately the first letters were the same as for English
words.

A quick check again today and I found:

[image: image.png]

Thanks

-Doug

Laporte, Colorado USA
doug...@gmail.com
<https://www.linkedin.com/in/coloradocomplianceguy/>
(UTC -07:00) Mountain Time (US-MST)





On Wed, Mar 2, 2022 at 2:07 PM Brian Kunde  wrote:

> I do not know where the information I have originally came from, but I got
> this and have been using this for over 30 years:
>
> FF = Very Fast Acting
> F = Fast Acting (Common)
> M = Medium Time Lag
> T = Time Lag (Common)
> TT = Long Time Lag
>
> I got this from Bud Lang who was our Safety Guru at Heath Kit many years
> ago.
>
> The Other Brian
>
> On Tue, Mar 1, 2022 at 5:33 PM Douglas E Powell  wrote:
>
>> All,
>>
>> Over the years, I've seen various ways people include a caution or
>> warning, in their user documents or product labels, for replacement fuses.
>> Similar to: "replace only with same type and rating of fuse";  followed by
>> a code: T1.6AH250V. And for those who may not understand the code, they may
>> sometimes add in parentheses some variant of "(1.6 Amp time-lag, ~250V,
>> high breaking capacity)".
>>
>> So now to my question, US manufacturers sometimes use the phrase
>> "SLO-BLO" or "Slow Blow" instead of Time-Lag or Time-Delay.  Are these terms
>> commonly used internationally and if so, are they clearly understood?
>>
>> I took some time to look up SLO-BLO and found it's a registered trademark
>> for Littelfuse going back to 1957, and it has been continuously renewed
>> since that time.
>>
>> Incidentally, a German Engineer once told me the way he would designate a
>> fuse type for a variety of tripping characteristics was in this order from
>> very slow to very fast: TT1.0A250V, T1.0A250V, 1.0A250V, F1.0A250V,
>> FF1.0A250V.
>>
>> Thanks, -Doug
>>
>>
>> Douglas E Powell
>> Laporte, Colorado USA
>>
>> (UTC -07:00) Mountain Time (US-MST)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -
>> 
>>
>> This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
>> discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
>> emc-p...@ieee.org
>>
>> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
>> http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
>>
>> Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site
>> at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in
>> well-used formats), large files, etc.
>>
>> Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
>> Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to
>> unsubscribe) <http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html>
>> List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
>>
>> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
>> Scott Douglas sdoug...@ieee.org
>> Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org
>>
>> For policy questions, send mail to:
>> Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.org
>> David Heald dhe...@gmail.com
>>
>

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

[PSES] Fuse designations

[Douglas E Powell]

All,

Over the years, I've seen various ways people include a caution or warning,
in their user documents or product labels, for replacement fuses. Similar
to: "replace only with same type and rating of fuse";  followed by a
code: T1.6AH250V.
And for those who may not understand the code, they may sometimes add in
parentheses some variant of "(1.6 Amp time-lag, ~250V, high breaking
capacity)".

So now to my question, US manufacturers sometimes use the phrase "SLO-BLO"
or "Slow Blow" instead of Time-Lag or Time-Delay.  Are these terms commonly
used internationally and if so, are they clearly understood?

I took some time to look up SLO-BLO and found it's a registered trademark
for Littelfuse going back to 1957, and it has been continuously renewed
since that time.

Incidentally, a German Engineer once told me the way he would designate a
fuse type for a variety of tripping characteristics was in this order from
very slow to very fast: TT1.0A250V, T1.0A250V, 1.0A250V, F1.0A250V,
FF1.0A250V.

Thanks, -Doug


Douglas E Powell
Laporte, Colorado USA

(UTC -07:00) Mountain Time (US-MST)

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

[PSES] UL Certified Functional Safety Professional

[Douglas E Powell]

All,

I would like to know if anyone here has been certified for UL Functional
Safety Professional and are the benefits worthwhile considering the expense
and time? I have noted that there are several categories: automotive,
cybersecurity, electronic control systems, semiconductor, and machinery.
My primary interest would be in electronic control systems.

Any comments or experiences are welcome.

-Doug

Douglas E Powell
Laporte, Colorado USA
LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/coloradocomplianceguy/>

(UTC -07:00) Mountain Time (US-MST)

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] Risk assessment versus HBSE

[Douglas E Powell]

 *Saf.
> Sci.*, vol. 99, pp. 140–155, 2017.
>
> [10] X. Ruan, Z. Yin, and D. M. Frangopol, “Risk Matrix Integrating Risk
> Attitudes Based on Utility Theory,” *Risk Anal.*, vol. 35, no. 8, pp.
> 1437–1447, 2015.
>
> [11] S. Albery, D. Borys, and S. Tepe, “Advantages for risk assessment:
> Evaluating learnings from question sets inspired by the FRAM and the risk
> matrix in a manufacturing environment,” *Saf. Sci.*, vol. 89, pp.
> 180–189, 2016.
>
> [12] P. Thomas, R. B. Bratvold, and J. E. Bickel, “The Risk of Using Risk
> Matrices,” *SPE Annu. Tech. Conf. Exhib.*, no. April 2015, 2013.
>
> [13] F. Gauthier, Y. Chinniah, D. Burlet-Vienney, B. Aucourt, and S.
> Larouche, “Risk assessment in safety of machinery: Impact of construction
> flaws in risk estimation parameters,” *Saf. Sci.*, vol. 109, no. June,
> pp. 421–433, 2018.
>
> [14] O. Amundrud and T. Aven, “On how to understand and acknowledge risk,”
>  *Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf.*, vol. 142, pp. 42–47, 2015.
>
> [15] S. O. Hansson and T. Aven, “Is Risk Analysis Scientific?,” *Risk
> Anal.*, vol. 34, no. 7, pp. 1173–1183, 2014.
>
> [16] J. Li, C. Bao, and D. Wu, “How to Design Rating Schemes of Risk
> Matrices: A Sequential Updating Approach,” *Risk Anal.*, 2018.
>
> [17] L. A. Cox, D. Babayev, and W. Huber, “Some limitations of qualitative
> risk rating systems,” *Risk Analysis*, vol. 25. pp. 651–662, 2005.
>
> [18] L. A. Cox, “What’s wrong with risk matrices?,” *Risk Anal.*, vol.
> 28, no. 2, pp. 497–512, Apr. 2008.
>
> [19] A. Quintino, “What’s Wrong with Risk Matrices? Decoding a Louis
> Anthony Cox paper Reshaping dowsntream configuration View project An
> integrated risk management model for an oil and gas company View project,”
> no. March 2011, 2016.
>
> --
> Doug Nix
> d...@mac.com
>
> “If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they
> went.” -Will Rogers
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 12-Feb-22, at 16:59, Richard Nute  wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I don’t like the Risk Assessment process because it is highly subjective
> and not very repeatable.
>
>
>
> When I was with Hewlett Packard, three of us developed “Hazard Based
> Safety Engineering,” HBSE.  The basis for HBSE was James J. Gibson’s
> (Cornell University) research into child injury from auto accidents.
> Gibson said:
>
>
>
> “Injuries to a living organism can be produced only by some energy
> interchange. Consequently, a most effective way of classifying sources of
> injury is according to the forms of physical energy involved. The analysis
> can thus be exhaustive and conceptually clear. Physical energy is either
> mechanical, thermal, radiant, chemical, or electrical.”
>
>
>
> In a moving automobile, the automobile and its passengers have kinetic
> (mechanical) energy.  In an accident, the kinetic energy of the automobile
> is dissipated in crumpling parts.  The kinetic energy of the passengers is
> dissipated in injuries to the body.  Seat belts transfer the passenger
> kinetic energy to the automobile.  Air bags slow the rate of kinetic energy
> transfer to the automobile.
>
>
>
> HBSE identified the magnitudes each kind of physical energy necessary to
> cause injury.  We called this “hazardous” energy.  Then, HBSE went on to
> specify safeguards that would attenuate or prohibit hazardous energy
> interchange.
>
>
>
> When I evaluate a product, I look for the physical energy sources, and
> then determine if the energy sources are hazardous or not.  Unlike Risk
> Assessment, this is easy and repeatable and not subjective.  For example,
> all primary circuits are hazardous energy circuits that can cause injury
> (electric shock, thermal, fire, and maybe more) and safeguards must be
> provided.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Rich
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Douglas E Powell 
> *Sent:* Friday, February 11, 2022 11:37 AM
> *To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> *Subject:* Re: [PSES] EN 62368-1 : 2020 Ed 3
>
>
>
> In my view, the Risk Assessment should never be treated as a 'get out of
> jail' card or panacea. Instead, it is only a starting point for a safe
> design and should be done near the beginning of a project, not the end. I
> agree with what Rich says, I've seen a lot of subjective assessments by
> cross-functional teams, with variability based on personal risk tolerance
> or risk aversion.  There are any number of articles pointing to why humans
> are not very good at assessing risk (Google search
> <https://www.google.com/search?q=humans+are+not+very+good+at+assessing+risk>
> ).
>
>
>
> When using FMEA for risk assessment, I always stress that the RPN factors
> of probability of occurrence, 

Re: [PSES] Risk assessment versus HBSE

[Douglas E Powell]

Mark,

I did something along those lines back in 2012 when a question came up
about the need for a finger guard on a low power fan. In order to better
understand the possibility of injury, I estimated the surface contact area
of the blade edge against a finger, rotational speed and mass of the fan
impeller in terms of mechanical energy. I think I converted to J/mm^2. In
any case, the result was quite low and in my opinion "safe". To prove it
out, I was willing to first try jamming  a #2 pencil, and then my finger
into the fan while running at full speed. So far, 10 years later, I still
have my fully intact finger, but sadly the pencil was eventually used or
otherwise lost.

-Doug

Douglas E Powell
Laporte, Colorado USA
doug...@gmail.com
LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/coloradocomplianceguy/>

(UTC -07:00) Mountain Time (US-MST)


On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 4:04 PM Mark Ortlieb 
wrote:

> Hello all,
>
> I am keenly interested in this discussion on energy vs energy/time with
> respect to causing injury, especially from a physical contact perspective.
> A couple of other considerations that are worthy to be included in such a
> discussion, which would add another layer of complexity would be:
>
>- The geometry of the object that comes into contact with the body.
>Take a needle as an example, or a knife edge. Let's say the needle is very
>light (a gram or two) and moving very slowly (1 mm/hour), at some point
>severe injury could take place through piercing of skin. Real world
>scenario aside, this illustrates a different kind of potential harm that
>can be inflicted. I don't know if there is a practical way to incorporate
>such a factor into an equation (such as the Energy Transfer equation), but
>certainly it needs to be included as part of a thorough analysis.
>- The kind of "victim" person being considered, for example a child vs
>an adult. A child may not be able to withstand the same level of energy
>transfer as an adult, or may be subject to a different kind of injury as
>the result of an energy transfer, that is, a secondary injury, such as
>being more easily pushed down and hitting their head on the floor. In fact,
>I am interested to know if there are others out there who are aware of any
>data or studies regarding impact with children.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Mark
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi Doug:
>
>
>
> Thanks for your comments.
>
>
>
> What bothers me about risk assessment is that the committees that have
> written the standards requiring risk assessment have not critically
> evaluated the risk assessment process.  If they had done so, we would not
> have the process as we know it today.
>
>
>
> Actually, I do not fully agree with the Gibson finding that energy causes
> injury.  I can show that the injury parameter is energy per unit time,
> e.g., joules/second.  The body can absorb energy slowly without injury, but
> not quickly.  Consider that a car with people in it can brake or stop
> without causing injury to the passengers, but cannot “crash” to a stop
> where injury is likely.  In both cases, the kinetic energy to stop is the
> same, but the kinetic energy per time to stop is low in braking, but high
> in crashing.
>
>
>
> The attached picture is that of catching three objects and assumes the
> deceleration time is the same for each object.  Note that when we catch an
> object, we can catch it “slowly” and distribute the energy over a longer
> time than catching it “directly.”  I submit this as proof that energy per
> unit time is the parameter that causes injury.
>
>
>
> HBSE does indeed have (or can have) energy criteria for each form of
> energy.  However, I agree that some energy data is not readily available
> and must be researched.  And, using the energy model can be quite complex.
> For example, injury from thermal energy is often simply taken as accessible
> temperature, sometimes including a time of contact.  Using a single
> parameter, temperature, or including time of contact parameter, does not
> address the difference between an aluminum block and aluminum foil (which
> is the issue some members of IEC TC108/HBSDT are addressing).   Or the
> difference between an aluminum block and a plastic block.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Rich
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Douglas Nix  
> *Sent:* Monday, February 14, 2022 12:46 PM
> *To:* Richard Nute  
> *Cc:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> *Subject:* Re: [PSES] Risk assessment versus HBSE
>
>
>
> Hi Rich,
>
>
>
> I have to admit that I’ve been thinking about your reply all weekend.
>
>
>
> As you know, I teach machinery risk assessment and consult in this area

Re: [PSES] Earthing -- Star vs Spring/Split Washers

[Douglas E Powell]

James,

Most safety standards have requirements for ground bond testing based on
the current available in the hazard. I've never seen
requirements specifying the type of washer other than it cannot have
compressible material in the stack up, as polymers or fiber washers.

Back in the day, I learned my earthing (EU) or grounding (US) for high
power equipment from a German expert at LGA Landesgewerbeanstalt Bayern in
Nürnberg and the guidance I received was to use star washers on plain metal
surfaces; not to cut through paint as many believe, but to dig into the
metal parts to provide an oxygen free connection. Yes, initial conductivity
for a steel star washer is not great, but the EU Liability Directive would
indicate that the connection needs to be reliable for up to 10 years. For a
normally very low current (mA) ground to launch into service at a moment's
notice, and safely carry away a few hundred amps, is sometimes a challenge
if the long term environment is in the least bit corrosive.

Notably, my mentor also allowed serrated lock washers.

Best,  Doug

Douglas E Powell
Laporte, Colorado USA
LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/coloradocomplianceguy/>

(UTC -07:00) Mountain Time (US-MST)



On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 8:34 AM James Pawson (U3C) <
ja...@unit3compliance.co.uk> wrote:

> Hello all,
>
>
>
> I’ve given myself a regular internet headache trying to understand the
> relative merits of spring vs star washers for use on an earth stud for
> protective earthing purposes.
>
>
>
> What is the conventional wisdom and justification? I know I can trust you
> folks to be above a simple “we’ve always done it this way”
>
>
>
> Can anyone point me towards any citable references or standards covering
> this subject?
>
>
>
> I promise I will write a blog post to pull the information together for
> future confused generations.
>
>
>
> Thanks and all the best,
>
> James
>
>
>
>
>
> James Pawson
>
> The EMC Problem Solver
>
>
>
> *Unit 3 Compliance Ltd*
>
> *EMC : Environmental & Vibration : Electrical Safety : CE & UKCA :
> Consultancy*
>
>
>
> www.unit3compliance.co.uk  |  ja...@unit3compliance.co.uk
>
> +44(0)1274 911747  |  +44(0)7811 139957
>
> 2 Wellington Business Park, New Lane, Bradford, BD4 8AL
>
> Registered in England and Wales # 10574298
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> [image: AVG logo] <https://www.avg.com/internet-security>
>
> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
> www.avg.com <https://www.avg.com/internet-security>
>
> <#m_848691752694288160_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
> -
> 
>
> This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
> discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
> emc-p...@ieee.org
>
> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
> http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
>
> Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at
> http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in
> well-used formats), large files, etc.
>
> Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
> Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to
> unsubscribe) <http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html>
> List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
>
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
> Scott Douglas sdoug...@ieee.org
> Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org
>
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.org
> David Heald dhe...@gmail.com
>

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] Risk assessment versus HBSE

[Douglas E Powell]

Hi Doug,

This looks like a very good summary and mentions a few of the things I was,
in my poor attempt, trying to point out. One of my concerns about RA, and
FMEA in particular, is that this method does have a lot of numeric
computation for what is essentially a qualitative process. As such, it
gives the "appearance" of quantifiable due diligence, which many decision
makers want to see. Sad to say, when I've been involved in meetings with
various SMEs, I've occasionally heard discussions on how to adjust the
parameters in order to keep a particular risk listed on the spreadsheet but
not trigger any corrective actions. As with any system, there are those who
would like to manipulate it to their own advantage. It is for this reason
that, when I am leading the team effort and using a severity scale of 1 to
10, I always press for mandatory action when severity is a 9 or 10
(disabling injury or worse), regardless of the other parameters.

Oh, and that's a nice bibliography as well. I think I just received my
summer reading list.

Best,  Doug

Douglas E Powell
Laporte, Colorado USA
LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/coloradocomplianceguy/>

(UTC -07:00) Mountain Time (US-MST)


On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 1:45 PM Douglas Nix <
0bb8ff993b10-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org> wrote:

> Hi Rich,
>
> I have to admit that I’ve been thinking about your reply all weekend.
>
> As you know, I teach machinery risk assessment and consult in this area
> regularly. I want to stipulate that there are some significant issues with
> risk assessment the way it is most commonly applied in industry, see my
> list of references on this topic at the end of my message.
>
> The inherent subjectivity of risk assessments that are performed without
> empirical data is unquestioned. The difficulty is that for many areas of
> human endeavour we have no empirical data, and try as we might we cannot
> calculate without numeric data. Nevertheless, we must be able to make
> risk-based decisions when designing products and equipment, and so we
> muddle along with the best tools that we have, hopefully while recognizing
> their flaws.
>
> The HBSE model is a good one, and it fits machinery applications as
> readily as does risk assessment, however, the risk assessment methods that
> are used today have a history that stretches back to the 1960s, while the
> HBSE model is much younger. This doesn’t take away from HBSE in any way for
> me, but it does have an impact on the broader acceptance of the method
> since it is not yet as widely known as “conventional” risk assessment. None
> of the the standards in the machinery safety sector recognize the method as
> yet, so getting regulators and users to consider the method is a challenge.
>
> HBSE also suffers from issues with lack of data when it comes to
> characterizing some hazards, leaving the user to estimate the
> characteristics. This brings in the biases of the person(s) doing the
> estimating just as surely as conventional risk assessment methods.
>
> The absence of a probability parameter in the HBSE model is an interesting
> one, since the probability aspect is the one most subject to error in
> conventional risk assessment. Humans are notoriously bad at estimating
> probability. It appears to me that the absence of that parameter implies
> that the presence of a hazard will inevitably lead to harm, which I don’t
> disagree with. CSA Z1002, OHS risk assessment, actually states that this is
> the case, and recommends that hazards are eliminated on this basis whenever
> possible.
>
> So we’re left with this situation, I think:
>
> 1) Risk assessment, when done quantitatively using sound statistical
> techniques and valid data is a useful and relatively objective method to
> provide data to decision makers,
> 2) Conventional risk assessment using subjective opinions and risk
> matrices or decision trees are unrepeatable and therefore unscientific,
> however. despite their flaws, they provide a means to help guide decision
> makers,
> 3) HBSE improves on some aspects of conventional risk assessment by
> eliminating the probability parameters, but is still subject to some
> subjectivity, and is still not widely accepted enough for some decision
> makers.
>
> I wish there was a more utopian perspective to take on the topic, but I
> have yet to find my way to it.
>
> *References*
>
> [1] E. S. Levine, “Improving risk matrices: The advantages of
> logarithmically scaled axes,” *J. Risk Res.*, vol. 15, no. 2, pp.
> 209–222, 2012.
>
> [2] R. Long, “Calculators , Matrices and Mumbo Jumbo Risk Assessment,” 
> *Safetyrisk.net
> <http://Safetyrisk.net>*, 2016. [Online]. Available:
> http://www.safetyrisk.net/calculators-matrices-and-mumbo-jumbo-risk-assessment/.
> [Acces

Re: [PSES] EN 62368-1 : 2020 Ed 3

[Douglas E Powell]

In my view, the Risk Assessment should never be treated as a 'get out of
jail' card or panacea. Instead, it is only a starting point for a safe
design and should be done near the beginning of a project, not the end. I
agree with what Rich says, I've seen a lot of subjective assessments by
cross-functional teams, with variability based on personal risk tolerance
or risk aversion.  There are any number of articles pointing to why humans
are not very good at assessing risk (Google search
<https://www.google.com/search?q=humans+are+not+very+good+at+assessing+risk>
).

When using FMEA for risk assessment, I always stress that the RPN factors
of probability of occurrence, severity, and detection be quantified
separately without regard to the other factors, not an easy task. There is
also the problem of RPN vs Criticality (severity x occurrence).  If using
the RPN, there is the possibility that Detection can dilute the RPN number
to a point below the threshold for action. So in my view, Criticality alone
should be used to trigger action.

Kenneth Ross wrote a very good article last month on Navigating the Safety
Hierarchy; for me, it was an excellent refresher on how I should use
risk assessment more effectively (
https://incompliancemag.com/article/navigating-the-safety-hierarchy/).

-Doug

Douglas E Powell
Laporte, Colorado USA

(UTC -07:00) Mountain Time (US-MST)


On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 11:52 AM Richard Nute  wrote:

>
>
>
>
> I would say “…risk assessment WILL have variants…”
>
>
>
> The risk assessment process is subjective.  If you perform a risk
> assessment on an ordinary extension cord, you can find that it is
> marginally safe.
>
>
>
> Rich
>
>
>
> *From:* scott...@gmail.com 
> *Sent:* Friday, February 11, 2022 9:14 AM
> *To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> *Subject:* Re: [PSES] EN 62368-1 : 2020 Ed 3
>
>
>
> Hi Charlie,
>
>
>
> It is pity.  The risk assessment may have variants and inconsistence
> amongst test engineers and make the compliance more difficult.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Scott
>
>
>
>
> -
> 
>
> This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
> discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
> emc-p...@ieee.org
>
> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
> http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
>
> Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at
> http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in
> well-used formats), large files, etc.
>
> Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
> Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to
> unsubscribe) <http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html>
> List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
>
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
> Scott Douglas sdoug...@ieee.org
> Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org
>
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.org
> David Heald dhe...@gmail.com
>


-- 

-Doug

Douglas E Powell
Laporte, Colorado USA
doug...@gmail.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] Magnets as reliable fasteners

[Douglas E Powell]

Gary,

That's quite an idea, and I'm generally not one to squelch innovation.
However, most of the safety standards I work with require that
accessibility is only through use of a tool. The definition of a tool is
sometimes questioned, but typically this includes keys, screwdrivers,
pliers, coins, etc. If the assembly or cover is it is hand removable, then
this would not be considered tool only access.

One cautionary note, I've worked with at least one safety standard that
requires hazard alert labeling for static fields with magnetic flux density
high enough to affect wearable, or implanted medical devices. I actually
discovered a violation for a magnetically mounted ventilation filter that
exceeded the limits of a static field. In that instance, the limits at 0.0
Hz for Head and Torso 200 mT (2000 G), limbs 2 T (20,000 G).

If you are so inclined, you might present this to the IEC committee as a
question or suggestion.

-Doug


Douglas E Powell
Laporte, Colorado USA
doug...@gmail.com
LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/coloradocomplianceguy/>



On Tue, Feb 8, 2022 at 7:51 PM Gary Tornquist <05big...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hello experts,
>
> Can magnets be used to fasten line voltage assemblies to the inside of an
> electrical panel?
>
> To restate my concerns, if strong enough could they be considered to
> reliably maintain creepage and clearance distances, as well as not
> overstressing wires terminating at the assembly?
>
> And how strong is strong enough?  Test T2 calls for pushing on parts in
> the most unfavorable direction with 10 newtons of force for 5 seconds – is
> this an appropriate test?
>
>
>
> The application is in stationary equipment that does not include motors,
> so vibration should not be a concern.
>
>
>
> I welcome advice – this is the first time I’ve seen such proposed
> construction and I don’t know a standard such as 62368 to mention it.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
> Gary Tornquist
> Product Safety Consultants
> Opinions expressed are my own, not of my employer or client
> -
> 
>
> This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
> discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
> emc-p...@ieee.org
>
> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
> http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
>
> Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at
> http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in
> well-used formats), large files, etc.
>
> Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
> Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to
> unsubscribe) <http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html>
> List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
>
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
> Scott Douglas sdoug...@ieee.org
> Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org
>
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.org
> David Heald dhe...@gmail.com
>


-- 

-Doug

Douglas E Powell
Laporte, Colorado USA
doug...@gmail.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] EMC/SIPI symposium question

[Douglas E Powell]

Doug,

I've been seeing reports from some nations that the case load is beginning
to trend down. Whether this is a result of everyone being exposed and the
general population gaining some natural immunity is unknown. However, a
small number of professionals are beginning to talk about the pandemic
transitioning to an endemic in certain locations. Your guess is as good as
mine as to when that may happen in this country.

Where I live, restrictions are still in place, and I do not see any light
in the tunnel yet.

-Doug


Douglas E Powell
Laporte, Colorado USA
doug...@gmail.com
LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/coloradocomplianceguy/>


On Thu, Jan 27, 2022 at 3:05 PM doug emcesd.com  wrote:

> Hi Everyone,
>
>
>
> I just saw an announcement from the Symposium in August in Spokane, WI and
> had a question.
>
>
>
> What is the current Covid climate like there from the point of review of
> restrictions and as a local, do you think it will change by the end of
> summer? The kind of typical restrictions I see around the country would
> make the event not worth attending for me, certainly taking away from the
> pleasure of going to the Symposium, potentially increasing the cost of
> going there significantly.
>
>
>
> I am hoping that like England, Ireland, and Denmark have done, all the
> restrictions will go away soon here.
>
>
>
> Here in Boulder City, NV my personal life has been very little effected
> during the pandemic. I hope Spokane is the same.
>
>
>
> Doug
>
>
> -
> 
>
> This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
> discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
> emc-p...@ieee.org
>
> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
> http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
>
> Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at
> http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in
> well-used formats), large files, etc.
>
> Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
> Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to
> unsubscribe) <http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html>
> List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
>
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
> Scott Douglas sdoug...@ieee.org
> Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org
>
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.org
> David Heald dhe...@gmail.com
>


-- 

-Doug

Douglas E Powell
Laporte, Colorado USA
doug...@gmail.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] UL Standards - Old School Spacings

[Douglas E Powell]

Hi Rich,

Yes, I obtained a copy of Mr. Stimper's book in 1995 and after learning it
is no longer published in English, I obtained permission from him to use it
in my own work; with proper attribution. This book is an excellent the
resource. I first learned my compliance with IEC, DIN-VDE and EN standards.
When I was finally exposed to UL standards it was somewhat discouraging and
felt like taking many steps backward. As a result of that experience, I
occasionally like to challenge the status quo.

I can't help but wonder if the old school UL spacings were somehow based in
industrial equipment for rather dirty locations.

All the best, Doug



On Tue, Jan 25, 2022 at 12:38 PM Richard Nute  wrote:

>
>
>
>
> Hi Doug:
>
>
>
> I don’t have any history.  But I do have data for how air behaves as an
> insulator and protection methods for creepage distances.
>
>
>
> The data for air insulation as a function of distance (2000 meters
> altitude) and field shape was given in IEC 664, first edition, 1980.  The
> data was not carried over to later editions.  The upper line is for a
> homogeneous field, the lower line for an inhomogeneous field.  I believe
> the changes in slope are due to anomalies in the measurement method (they
> should be straight lines).  The lines converge at about 327 volts, the
> Paschen lower limit for air.  (It makes no sense to require clearances for
> voltages below the Paschen limit!)
>
>
>
>
>
> Creepage distances were researched by Klaus Stimper, “The physical
> fundamentals of low-voltage insulation co-ordination,” VDE 57, 104 pages.
> I have this but it is too large a file to send by e-mail.  If you are
> interested in studying this text, I can make this available in Dropbox.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Rich
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Douglas E Powell 
> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 25, 2022 10:27 AM
> *To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> *Subject:* [PSES] UL Standards - Old School Spacings
>
>
>
> All,
>
>
>
> I'm interested in learning the history behind what I call old school
> spacings found in UL standards. In recent years there has been
> considerable progress toward harmonizing UL spacings to international
> standards, derived from IEC 60664-x. However, still today I encounter
> many UL standards with the old spacings table (interpolation is not
> allowed).
>
>
>
> Circuit Ratings
> V
>
> *Minimum Spacings*
>
>
> *Through air*Between parts of opposite polarity,
> live and non-current carrying parts
> and live and ground connections
> mm (in)
>
> *Over surface*
> Between parts of opposite polarity,
> live and non-current carrying parts
> and live and ground connections
> mm (in)
>
> 30 - 50
>
> 1.6 (1/16)
>
> 1.6 (1/16)
>
> 51 - 150
>
> 3.2 (1/8)
>
> 6.4 (1/4)
>
> 151 - 300
>
> 6.4 (1/4)
>
> 9.5 (3/8)
>
> 301 - 660
>
> 9.5 (3/8)
>
> 12.7 (1/2)
>
> 661 - 1000
>
> 19.1 (3/4)
>
> 19.1 (3/4)
>
>
>
> I've had more than a few "discussions" with design engineers about tables
> like this since the numbers seem very arbitrary, and I have to agree. The
> most frequent trouble I have is trying to explain why an increase of just 1
> volt over 300V results in such a large jump in the over surface
> requirements. Usually I am forced to end with, "it is what it is, and we
> have to follow the rules".
>
>
>
> Any thoughts?
>
>
>
> -Doug
>
>
>
> Douglas E Powell
>
> Laporte, Colorado USA
>
> doug...@gmail.com
>
> LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/coloradocomplianceguy/>
>
>
>


-- 

-Doug

Douglas E Powell
Laporte, Colorado USA
doug...@gmail.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] UL Standards - Old School Spacings

[Douglas E Powell]

Sorry all,

I knew the listserv would not support images, but since it regularly sends
me HTML email, I had thought it would allow tables in the body of the email
 .  Hopefully you'll still get the gist of the email.

~Doug

On Tue, Jan 25, 2022 at 11:26 AM Douglas E Powell  wrote:

> All,
>
> I'm interested in learning the history behind what I call old school
> spacings found in UL standards. In recent years there has been
> considerable progress toward harmonizing UL spacings to international
> standards, derived from IEC 60664-x. However, still today I encounter
> many UL standards with the old spacings table (interpolation is not
> allowed).
>
>
> Circuit Ratings
> V
> *Minimum Spacings*
>
> *Through air*Between parts of opposite polarity,
> live and non-current carrying parts
> and live and ground connections
> mm (in) * Over surface*
> Between parts of opposite polarity,
> live and non-current carrying parts
> and live and ground connections
> mm (in)
> 30 - 50 1.6 (1/16) 1.6 (1/16)
> 51 - 150 3.2 (1/8) 6.4 (1/4)
> 151 - 300 6.4 (1/4) 9.5 (3/8)
> 301 - 660 9.5 (3/8) 12.7 (1/2)
> 661 - 1000 19.1 (3/4) 19.1 (3/4)
>
>
> I've had more than a few "discussions" with design engineers about tables
> like this since the numbers seem very arbitrary, and I have to agree. The
> most frequent trouble I have is trying to explain why an increase of just 1
> volt over 300V results in such a large jump in the over surface
> requirements. Usually I am forced to end with, "it is what it is, and we
> have to follow the rules".
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> -Doug
>
> Douglas E Powell
> Laporte, Colorado USA
> doug...@gmail.com
> LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/coloradocomplianceguy/>
>


-- 

-Doug

Douglas E Powell
Laporte, Colorado USA
doug...@gmail.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

[PSES] UL Standards - Old School Spacings

[Douglas E Powell]

All,

I'm interested in learning the history behind what I call old school
spacings found in UL standards. In recent years there has been considerable
progress toward harmonizing UL spacings to international standards, derived
from IEC 60664-x. However, still today I encounter many UL standards with
the old spacings table (interpolation is not allowed).


Circuit Ratings
V
*Minimum Spacings*

*Through air*Between parts of opposite polarity,
live and non-current carrying parts
and live and ground connections
mm (in) * Over surface*
Between parts of opposite polarity,
live and non-current carrying parts
and live and ground connections
mm (in)
30 - 50 1.6 (1/16) 1.6 (1/16)
51 - 150 3.2 (1/8) 6.4 (1/4)
151 - 300 6.4 (1/4) 9.5 (3/8)
301 - 660 9.5 (3/8) 12.7 (1/2)
661 - 1000 19.1 (3/4) 19.1 (3/4)


I've had more than a few "discussions" with design engineers about tables
like this since the numbers seem very arbitrary, and I have to agree. The
most frequent trouble I have is trying to explain why an increase of just 1
volt over 300V results in such a large jump in the over surface
requirements. Usually I am forced to end with, "it is what it is, and we
have to follow the rules".

Any thoughts?

-Doug

Douglas E Powell
Laporte, Colorado USA
doug...@gmail.com
LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/coloradocomplianceguy/>

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] Notice about LVD compliance in a DoC for machinery?

[Douglas E Powell]

I have had resistance to placing both directives on a single DoC. Mostly
from strong proponents of the MD who believe that all equipment is under
their control. It was the same people who told me that even a mechanical
writing instrument such as a ball point pen is "machinery".

It should be noted however, that since the MD specifically invokes
Directive 73/23/EEC (LVD) for equipment with an electrical supply, you are
already covered in that case. To put it another way, the MD does not
replace the LVD, it incorporates it. However, as mentioned before, the
authorities may not be aware of this nuance.

By the way, the MD's reference to the LVD out of date and the LVD is now
2014/35/EU. So I might suggest if you include both LVD directives in your
documentation by stating something like Directive 73/23/EEC
(LVD) superseded by 2014/35/EU (LVD).

What a mess

-Doug


Douglas E Powell
Laporte, Colorado USA
doug...@gmail.com
LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/coloradocomplianceguy/>



On Mon, Jan 17, 2022 at 10:25 AM MIKE SHERMAN 
wrote:

> While I pay close attention to the Guide, I am doubtful that going against
> its guidance to, in effect, over document, is sufficient to invalidate a
> DoC.
>
> I have not ever encountered resistance to listing both MSD and LVD---has
> anyone on this listserv?
>
> Mike Sherman
>
> On 01/17/2022 10:54 AM Charles Grasso  wrote:
>
>
> Other that the fact that the statement is  "the manufacturer’s EC
> Declaration of
> conformity *shall not* refer to the LVD but to the MD".?
>
> My guess is that you could invalidate the DoC if you violate that
> requirement.
>
>
> Chas
>
> On Mon, Jan 17, 2022 at 9:41 AM Oliver Betz  wrote:
>
> This message originated outside of DISH and was sent by:
> owner-emc-p...@listserv.ieee.org
>
> Hi all,
>
> the "Guide to application of the Machinery Directive 2006/42/EC",
> Edition 2.2: https://ec.europa.eu/docsroom/documents/38022 states:
>
> "...Thus, whilst machinery with an electrical supply, which is not in
> any of the categories listed in Article 1(2) (k) of MD, shall fulfil the
> safety objectives of the LVD, the manufacturer’s EC Declaration of
> conformity shall not refer to the LVD but to the MD".
>
> Yet, EN60204-1:2018 is listed in the LVD summary of harmonised standards.
>
> Would it harm to state also the LVD conformity in a DoC for machinery?
>
> The above mentioned guide writes that the DoC "shall *not* refer to the
> LVD but to the MD" but I'm not sure about the intention behind.
>
> And we have problems with Turkish customs insisting that the DoC shall
> list also LVD compliance.
>
> I wonder whether / how I can phrase an elegant note on the LVD compliance.
>
> Any ideas?
>
> Oliver
>
> -
> 
> This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
> discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to <
> emc-p...@ieee.org>
>
> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
> http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
>
> Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at
> http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in
> well-used formats), large files, etc.
>
> Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
> Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to
> unsubscribe)
> List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
>
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
> Scott Douglas 
> Mike Cantwell 
>
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Jim Bacher:  
> David Heald: 
>
>
>
> --
>
> Charles Grasso
>
> Dish Technologies
>
>  (c) 303-204-2974
>
> (h) 303-317-5530
>
> (e ) charles.gra...@dish.com
>
> (e2) chasgra...@gmail.com
> -
> 
>
> This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
> discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to <
> emc-p...@ieee.org>
>
> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
> http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
>
> Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at
> http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in
> well-used formats), large files, etc.
>
> Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
> Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to
> unsubscribe) <http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html>
> List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
>
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
> Scott Douglas 
> Mik

Re: [PSES] Very high temperature thermal fuse / snap switch

[Douglas E Powell]

Charlie,

It seems to me that you will eventually be limited by the metallurgy of the
fusible element. Most fuses are made of NiCr wire or  other  alloy with
nickel content. NiCr does have a melting point near 1400 C, but I've never
run across a thermal fuse that goes beyond 200-250 C. I suppose you could
try constructing your own, but there are several problems. It would be
non-certified, and very difficult to control the melting temperature with
any precision, since most thermal fuses open based on the combination of
current and temperature.  If you decide to try this,
https://www.goodfellow.com/ is a possible source for exotic wire types, and
they have a nice search tool as well.

Doug







On Thu, Jan 6, 2022 at 9:39 AM Charlie Blackham <
char...@sulisconsultants.com> wrote:

> Client is looking for a thermal fuse or similar that would operate at
> around 800 C – does anyone know of such a component?
>
>
>
> Best regards
>
> Charlie
>
>
>
> *Charlie Blackham*
>
> *Sulis Consultants Ltd*
>
> *Mead House*
>
> *Longwater Road*
>
> *Eversley*
>
> *RG27 0NW*
>
> *UK*
>
> *Tel: +44 (0)7946 624317*
>
> *Email: char...@sulisconsultants.com *
>
> *Web: https://sulisconsultants.com/ <https://sulisconsultants.com/> *
>
> Registered in England and Wales, number 05466247
>
>
> -
> 
>
> This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
> discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
> emc-p...@ieee.org
>
> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
> http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
>
> Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at
> http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in
> well-used formats), large files, etc.
>
> Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
> Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to
> unsubscribe) <http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html>
> List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
>
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
> Scott Douglas sdoug...@ieee.org
> Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org
>
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.org
> David Heald dhe...@gmail.com
>


-- 

-Doug

Douglas E Powell
Laporte, Colorado USA
doug...@gmail.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] RoHS III references on the DoC?

[Douglas E Powell]

Thank you everyone. As always, very informative.

-Doug


Douglas E Powell
Laporte, Colorado USA
doug...@gmail.com
LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/coloradocomplianceguy/>

On Sun, Dec 19, 2021 at 9:05 PM Bill Owsley <
00f5a03f18eb-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org> wrote:

> And if asked to provide evidence, documents, etc backing up the
> declaration, there will be a limited time to do so.
> Management might take the position to get the doc's when asked, and hope
> that they are indeed in compliance.
> The consequence can be banned from the market for a period.
> That happened due to a manufacturing defect and insufficient quality
> control to detect the defect.
> Near a year to correct and demonstrate compliance before getting off the
> ban.
>
> So nothing moves into our distribution control without solid evidence of
> compliance.
> A letter from an importer does not suffice, but if often offered.
> Even a big time manufacturer has offered to print anything we want on the
> label.
>
>
>
> On Thursday, December 16, 2021, 3:30:12 PM EST, John Woodgate <
> j...@woodjohn.uk> wrote:
>
>
> My advice is always cite, because Mr. Militant Customs Man can challenge
> your import because there is no proof on the DoC that you have taken all
> the amendments into account. You don't need to list every amendment; 'and
> all amendments up to the date of dispatch' should be enough.
>
> ==
> Best wishes John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
> www.woodjohn.uk
> Rayleigh, Essex UK
> Istae nunc praetereunt nisi non ubicumque
>
>
>
> On 2021-12-16 20:23, Charlie Blackham wrote:
>
> Doug
>
>
>
> It’s not required – the applicable Directive is still 2011/65/EU
>
>
>
> 2015/863 Directive amended it…….as did 60 or so Commission Delegated
> Directives
>
>
>
> Whether you like it or not, declaring compliance to RoHS means that you
> are declaring compliance with RoHS, as amended, with applicable permitted
> exemptions if permitted, at the time of signing.
>
>
>
> Lots of people like ask to see it on the DoC, so I agree that it won’t
> hurt, probably isn’t “wrong”, but also is not “required”
>
>
>
> You do not however declare compliance to RoHS III (it doesn’t exist)
>
>
>
> Best regards
>
> Charlie
>
>
>
> *Charlie Blackham*
>
> *Sulis Consultants Ltd*
>
> *Tel: +44 (0)7946 624317*
>
> *Web: https://sulisconsultants.com/ <https://sulisconsultants.com/> *
>
> Registered in England and Wales, number 05466247
>
>
>
> *From:* John Woodgate  
> *Sent:* 16 December 2021 20:19
> *To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> *Subject:* Re: [PSES] RoHS III references on the DoC?
>
>
>
> It can't hurt to cite it. There are cases where a citation is not allowed,
> but I don't think this is one of them.
>
>
> ==
> Best wishes John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
> www.woodjohn.uk
> Rayleigh, Essex UK
> Istae nunc praetereunt nisi non ubicumque
>
>
> On 2021-12-16 19:48, Douglas E Powell wrote:
>
> All,
>
>
>
> Given that Directive 2011/65/EU has been amended by Directive (EU)
> 2015/863, is it now necessary to reference the amendment on the Declaration
> of Conformity?
>
>
>
> This is an amendment to Annex II, and "RoHS III" appears terminology used
> by the unwashed masses.
>
>
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
>
> -Doug
>
>
>
>
>
> Douglas E Powell
>
> Laporte, Colorado USA
>
> doug...@gmail.com
>
> LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/coloradocomplianceguy/>
>
> -
> 
>
> This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
> discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to <
> emc-p...@ieee.org>
>
> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
> http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
>
> Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at
> http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in
> well-used formats), large files, etc.
>
> Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
> Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to
> unsubscribe) <http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html>
> List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
>
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
> Scott Douglas 
> Mike Cantwell 
>
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Jim Bacher 
> David Heald 
>
>

[PSES] RoHS III references on the DoC?

[Douglas E Powell]

All,

Given that Directive 2011/65/EU has been amended by Directive (EU)
2015/863, is it now necessary to reference the amendment on the Declaration
of Conformity?

This is an amendment to Annex II, and "RoHS III" appears terminology used
by the unwashed masses.

Thoughts?

-Doug


Douglas E Powell
Laporte, Colorado USA
doug...@gmail.com
LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/coloradocomplianceguy/>

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] IEEE Xplore access

[Douglas E Powell]

Thank you Dan,

I found them just as you suggested.

All the best,

-Doug


Douglas E Powell
Laporte, Colorado USA
doug...@gmail.com
LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/coloradocomplianceguy/>

On Wed, Dec 15, 2021 at 8:16 PM Dan Roman <
0d75e04ed751-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org> wrote:

> All,
>
>
>
> The conference CDs for the PSES Conferences are posted to the members-only
> section of the PSES website, at least that was the practice from the
> beginning to 2018.  I have verified that they are indeed there.  Current
> volunteers may not be aware or may not be keeping up the website as it
> stops at 2018.  I noticed that the newsletters stop at 2020.  Perhaps the
> website is not being maintained.  If anyone on the Board of Governors is
> monitoring this listserv, perhaps it is something that can be looked into.
>
>
>
> Dan
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Scott Aldous [mailto:
> 0220f70c299a-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 15, 2021 5:19 PM
> *To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> *Subject:* Re: [PSES] IEEE Xplore access
>
>
>
> Hi Doug,
>
>
>
> My understanding is that the ISPCE proceedings are intended for registered
> attendees only. I imagine at least part of the reason is to encourage
> attendance at the conference.
>
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 15, 2021 at 2:03 PM Douglas E Powell 
> wrote:
>
> Well, at least the EMC society posts copies of their symposium CD-ROM on
> the member website behind the login.
>
>
>
> Maybe we can get the others to do something similar.
>
>
>
> All the best, Doug
>
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 15, 2021 at 2:37 PM Richard Nute  wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> I have the same problem.
>
> Rich
>
> Life Fellow
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Douglas E Powell 
> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 15, 2021 12:58 PM
> *To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> *Subject:* [PSES] IEEE Xplore access
>
>
>
> All,
>
>
>
> I have been an IEEE member for over 15 years and member of the EMC, PES,
> and PSES societies.
>
>
>
> When I visit the IEEE Xplore  I find that many of conference proceedings
> have me locked out.  For example, Symposium on Product Compliance
> Engineering (PSES)
> <https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/conhome/1001426/all-proceedings>.
>
>
>
> Being a paid-in-full member, shouldn't I be able to access all those
> papers?
>
>
>
> Thanks,  -Doug
>
>
>
>
>
> Douglas E Powell
>
> Laporte, Colorado USA
>
> doug...@gmail.com
>
> LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/coloradocomplianceguy/>
>
> -
> 
>
> This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
> discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to <
> emc-p...@ieee.org>
>
> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
> http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
>
> Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at
> http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in
> well-used formats), large files, etc.
>
> Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
> Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to
> unsubscribe) <http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html>
> List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
>
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
> Scott Douglas 
> Mike Cantwell 
>
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Jim Bacher 
> David Heald 
>
>
>
>
> --
>
>
>
> -Doug
>
>
>
> Douglas E Powell
>
> Laporte, Colorado USA
>
> doug...@gmail.com
>
> http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01
>
> -
> 
>
> This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
> discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
> emc-p...@ieee.org
>
> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
> http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
>
> Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at
> http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in
> well-used formats), large files, etc.
>
> Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
> Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to
> unsubscribe) <http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html>
> List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
>
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
> Scott Douglas sdoug...@ieee.org
> Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org
>
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Ji

Re: [PSES] IEEE Xplore access

[Douglas E Powell]

Well, at least the EMC society posts copies of their symposium CD-ROM on
the member website behind the login.

Maybe we can get the others to do something similar.

All the best, Doug

On Wed, Dec 15, 2021 at 2:37 PM Richard Nute  wrote:

>
>
>
>
> I have the same problem.
>
> Rich
>
> Life Fellow
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Douglas E Powell 
> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 15, 2021 12:58 PM
> *To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> *Subject:* [PSES] IEEE Xplore access
>
>
>
> All,
>
>
>
> I have been an IEEE member for over 15 years and member of the EMC, PES,
> and PSES societies.
>
>
>
> When I visit the IEEE Xplore  I find that many of conference proceedings
> have me locked out.  For example, Symposium on Product Compliance
> Engineering (PSES)
> <https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/conhome/1001426/all-proceedings>.
>
>
>
> Being a paid-in-full member, shouldn't I be able to access all those
> papers?
>
>
>
> Thanks,  -Doug
>
>
>
>
>
> Douglas E Powell
>
> Laporte, Colorado USA
>
> doug...@gmail.com
>
> LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/coloradocomplianceguy/>
>
> -
> 
>
> This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
> discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to <
> emc-p...@ieee.org>
>
> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
> http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
>
> Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at
> http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in
> well-used formats), large files, etc.
>
> Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
> Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to
> unsubscribe) <http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html>
> List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
>
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
> Scott Douglas 
> Mike Cantwell 
>
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Jim Bacher 
> David Heald 
>


-- 

-Doug

Douglas E Powell
Laporte, Colorado USA
doug...@gmail.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

[PSES] IEEE Xplore access

[Douglas E Powell]

All,

I have been an IEEE member for over 15 years and member of the EMC, PES,
and PSES societies.

When I visit the IEEE Xplore  I find that many of conference proceedings
have me locked out.  For example, Symposium on Product Compliance
Engineering (PSES)
<https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/conhome/1001426/all-proceedings>.

Being a paid-in-full member, shouldn't I be able to access all those papers?

Thanks,  -Doug


Douglas E Powell
Laporte, Colorado USA
doug...@gmail.com
LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/coloradocomplianceguy/>

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] EU CE Marking Exemptions for Military Equipment Query

[Douglas E Powell]

There are other examples of exemptions.

My son works for a power conversion company in Colorado who deals with both
the US Military and NASA. There have been instances where their contract
specifically states you shall not use lead-free (RoHS) materials.
Apparently they are aware of the tin whisker problem and explicitly
prohibit the use of such materials.

Have a great weekend,

-Doug


Douglas E Powell
Laporte, Colorado USA
doug...@gmail.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01

On Fri, Oct 22, 2021 at 4:35 AM Matthew Wilson | GBE <
matthew.wil...@gbelectronics.com> wrote:

> It’s old now but this article, written by someone working for TUV SUD, was
> handy for me when needing to deal with the ‘military exempt argument’ a
> while ago.
>
>
>
>
> https://www.newelectronics.co.uk/electronics-technology/the-military-ce-marking-conundrum/64803/
>
>
>
> It agrees with your stance, which I personally also agree with, FWIW.
>
>
>
> “They have informed us that there is a CE Marking Exemption for Military
> Equipment in France and Germany for these products”
>
>
>
> Why not ask them for documentary proof or some such of the exemption?
> They may well struggle!
>
>
>
> Good luck.
>
>
>
> Matthew Wilson,
>
> GB Electronics (UK) Ltd.
>
>
> Disclaimer:​ This email and any files transmitted with it are
> confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to
> whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please
> delete it from your system, do not use or disclose the information in any
> way and notify the sender immediately. The contents of this message may
> contain personal views which are not the views of the company, unless
> specifically stated.
> ​GB Electronics (UK) Ltd is a company registered in England and Wales
> under number 06210991.
> ​Registered office: Ascot House Mulberry Close, Woods Way, Goring By Sea,
> West Sussex, BN12 4QY.
>
> *From:* Philip Stevenson 
> *Sent:* 21 October 2021 11:16
> *To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> *Subject:* [PSES] EU CE Marking Exemptions for Military Equipment Query
>
>
>
> Dear All
>
>
>
> I am contacting this forum for advice on whether there are any EU CE
> Marking Exemptions for Military Equipment in France and Germany?
>
>
>
> My reason for asking is that the manufacturers of Military off the shelf
> equipment (MOTS) who are based in France and Germany that we incorporate
> into some of our Military CE marked products which we manufacture. They
> have informed us that there is a CE Marking Exemption for Military
> Equipment in France and Germany for these products. These products are not
> covered by Article 296 and therefore not specifically exempt CE Marking.
> This equipment also falls within the scope of the EMC Directive.
>
>
>
> My view is that Military equipment not covered by Article 296 do not have
> a general exemption to CE marking EMC requirements and that exemptions for
> specific applications are contained within certain directives such as
> 2014/53/EU Radio Equipment and 2011/65/RoHS  Directives, but other
> directives such as EMC and Low Voltage Directives do not contain any
> exemption.
>
>
>
> Is my assessment correct?
>
>
>
> If you prefer please contact me directly at my personal Email address
> below and I will not post these replies online.
>
>
>
> Regards
>
>
>
> Philip Stevenson
>
>
>
> Email: pw...@hotmail.co.uk
>
>
>
> -
> 
>
> This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
> discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to <
> emc-p...@ieee.org>
>
> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
> http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
> <https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ieee-pses.org%2Femc-pstc.html=04%7C01%7Cmatthew.wilson%40gbelectronics.com%7Ca13968a157c04093dbc808d9947bc20f%7C0991060a48f54e72abaa7189692c6192%7C1%7C0%7C637704081525408366%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000=A8HbYGG993laHHBSPLjqva7w03aW58z3WJzSLNup5Ew%3D=0>
>
> Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at
> http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/
> <https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fproduct-compliance.oc.ieee.org%2F=04%7C01%7Cmatthew.wilson%40gbelectronics.com%7Ca13968a157c04093dbc808d9947bc20f%7C0991060a48f54e72abaa7189692c6192%7C1%7C0%7C637704081525408366%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000=6a0a1dt7gDKh4I35R3QCqrSQjmav8cT

[PSES] Hazop consultant

[Douglas E Powell]

All,

I am interested in locating a product safety consultant who is
experienced in Hazop evaluations, specifically with hydrogen generation /
electrolysis equipment.  Please contact me directly if you know of someone.

Thanks!

-Doug

Douglas E Powell
Laporte, Colorado USA
doug...@gmail.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] UL 510 Flame retardant tape

[Douglas E Powell]

Charlie,

Kapton is a Dupont registered trademark for polyimide film (not polyamide
which is nylon).  Uncertain, you can construct an enclosure with this.

However, I have seen the use of machined or molded blocks of polyimide
(Ultem™ 1000, Sabic) because of its nice flammability, thermal ratings and
good dielectric strength.  And here were a few drawbacks.  One was chemical
compatibility, it reacted to certain solvents which embrittled the
material and the use of torqued fasteners which caused corners to cleave
off.  One other concern, as an insulator, polyimide generally has a
tracking index of CTI IIIa, b rating (UL 746, PLC 4), so you will have to
account for that if you are evaluating creepage distances. Of course,
depending on your exact selection of the material, your mileage may vary.

Ref.: http://www.matweb.com/search/QuickText.aspx?SearchText=ultem

-Doug


Douglas E Powell
Laporte, Colorado USA
doug...@gmail.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01



On Fri, Oct 8, 2021 at 7:25 AM Charlie Blackham <
char...@sulisconsultants.com> wrote:

> All
>
>
>
> Various Kapton tapes are sold as Flame Retardant, some seem to reference
> UL 94 and others UL 510.
>
>
>
> The scenario is a product falling under EN 62368-1 and the secondary
> lithium battery needs a fire enclosure and rather than using the product
> enclosure, one could be made for the battery using a suitable plastic or
> manual application of retardant tape.
>
>
>
> Is there any correlation between UL 510 and UL94 when considering creating
> a Fire Enclosure for a battery as per Clause M.4.3 ?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Best regards
>
> Charlie
>
>
>
> *Charlie Blackham*
>
> *Sulis Consultants Ltd*
>
> *Mead House*
>
> *Longwater Road*
>
> *Eversley*
>
> *RG27 0NW*
>
> *UK*
>
> *Tel: +44 (0)7946 624317*
>
> *Email: char...@sulisconsultants.com *
>
> *Web: https://sulisconsultants.com/ <https://sulisconsultants.com/> *
>
> Registered in England and Wales, number 05466247
>
>
> -
> 
>
> This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
> discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
> emc-p...@ieee.org
>
> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
> http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
>
> Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at
> http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in
> well-used formats), large files, etc.
>
> Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
> Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to
> unsubscribe) <http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html>
> List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
>
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
> Scott Douglas sdoug...@ieee.org
> Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org
>
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.org
> David Heald dhe...@gmail.com
>

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] Suitable Test equipment for Touch temperature Testing in accordance with EN 62368-1

[Douglas E Powell]

Sorry all, it was pointed out the correct document is  IECEE OD-5012 v1.2

All the best, Doug



On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 4:38 PM Douglas E Powell  wrote:

> Test labs are required to follow IEC rules about
> temperature measurements.  While I.R> guns and FLIR cameras can be used for
> diagnostic purposes, I believe they all still want thermocouples for final
> measurement.  In addition, there are rules about the maximum wire gauge and
> preferences on using special limits of error wire.
>
> See IECEE OD-2012 v1.2 for Laboratory procedure for preparation,
> attachment, extension and use of thermocouples.  Formerly OP-108.
>
> https://www.iecee.org/documents/refdocs/
>
> -Doug
>
>
> Douglas E Powell
> Laporte, Colorado USA
> doug...@gmail.com
> http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01
>
>
>
>
> CTL-OP 108 Use of Thermocouples
>
> On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 10:57 AM Richard Nute  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi Phillip:
>>
>>
>> As far as I know, 62368-1 does not specify the method for measuring touch
>> temperatures.  Be aware that certification houses usually measure touch
>> (and all other) temperatures with a thermocouple.
>>
>>
>>
>> Stay safe, and best regards,
>>
>> Rich
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Philip Stevenson 
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 22, 2021 7:42 AM
>> *To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
>> *Subject:* [PSES] Suitable Test equipment for Touch temperature Testing
>> in accordance with EN 62368-1
>>
>>
>>
>> Dear List Members
>>
>>
>>
>> I am looking for advice of whether the use of an Infra Red (IR) Digital
>> Thermometer is suitable for performing Touch temperature Testing in
>> accordance with EN 62368-1. Provided that factors for the different surface
>> materials are applied to the temperature measurements?
>>
>>
>>
>> If you prefer to reply to me directly instead of vis the listing please
>> do so at pw...@hotmail.co.uk.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks in advance for your help.
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards
>>
>>
>>
>> Philip Stevenson
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -
>> 
>>
>> This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
>> discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
>> emc-p...@ieee.org
>>
>> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
>> http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
>>
>> Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site
>> at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in
>> well-used formats), large files, etc.
>>
>> Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
>> Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to
>> unsubscribe) <http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html>
>> List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
>>
>> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
>> Scott Douglas sdoug...@ieee.org
>> Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org
>>
>> For policy questions, send mail to:
>> Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.org
>> David Heald dhe...@gmail.com
>>
>

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] Suitable Test equipment for Touch temperature Testing in accordance with EN 62368-1

[Douglas E Powell]

Test labs are required to follow IEC rules about temperature measurements.
While I.R> guns and FLIR cameras can be used for diagnostic purposes, I
believe they all still want thermocouples for final measurement.  In
addition, there are rules about the maximum wire gauge and preferences on
using special limits of error wire.

See IECEE OD-2012 v1.2 for Laboratory procedure for preparation,
attachment, extension and use of thermocouples.  Formerly OP-108.

https://www.iecee.org/documents/refdocs/

-Doug


Douglas E Powell
Laporte, Colorado USA
doug...@gmail.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01




CTL-OP 108 Use of Thermocouples

On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 10:57 AM Richard Nute  wrote:

>
>
>
>
> Hi Phillip:
>
>
> As far as I know, 62368-1 does not specify the method for measuring touch
> temperatures.  Be aware that certification houses usually measure touch
> (and all other) temperatures with a thermocouple.
>
>
>
> Stay safe, and best regards,
>
> Rich
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Philip Stevenson 
> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 22, 2021 7:42 AM
> *To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> *Subject:* [PSES] Suitable Test equipment for Touch temperature Testing
> in accordance with EN 62368-1
>
>
>
> Dear List Members
>
>
>
> I am looking for advice of whether the use of an Infra Red (IR) Digital
> Thermometer is suitable for performing Touch temperature Testing in
> accordance with EN 62368-1. Provided that factors for the different surface
> materials are applied to the temperature measurements?
>
>
>
> If you prefer to reply to me directly instead of vis the listing please do
> so at pw...@hotmail.co.uk.
>
>
>
> Thanks in advance for your help.
>
>
>
> Regards
>
>
>
> Philip Stevenson
>
>
>
>
> -
> 
>
> This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
> discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
> emc-p...@ieee.org
>
> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
> http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
>
> Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at
> http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in
> well-used formats), large files, etc.
>
> Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
> Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to
> unsubscribe) <http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html>
> List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
>
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
> Scott Douglas sdoug...@ieee.org
> Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org
>
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.org
> David Heald dhe...@gmail.com
>

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] [EXTERNAL] [PSES] Over Reliance on Automated Safety Controls (Friday question)

[Douglas E Powell]

Ted,

I agree with your comments. My concern today is about hazards that
ancestors even one generation ago did not have. While my
original question is mainly about human behavior and not the scale or
proximity of a hazard, we are these days seeing problems that can become
very catastrophic. One case I have in mind is the Lithium Battery Incident
in Surprise Arizona.  You see, we even soft pedal the problem by calling a
serious explosion an incident.  Reminds me of the old joke where medical
practitioners will use the euphemism "negative patient outcome" for a death.

I also live very near a wilderness area with a variety of large animals; in
the foothills area of the Cache la Poudre Wilderness in Colorado.  I like
to think I am an observer of human behavior, at least to some extent, and I
still get surprised at how people respond to dangerous situations.

Have a great weekend,  ~ Doug

On Fri, Sep 3, 2021 at 9:14 AM Ted Eckert  wrote:

> Hi Doug,
>
>
>
> Let me ask your question a different way. Haven’t humans always used
> technology to provide some level of safety that allows us to use or time
> and mental capacity for other tasks?
>
>
>
> Millenia ago, hunter-gatherer groups had many things to be fearful of.
> Surviving the night might require keeping a fire going to stay warm in the
> winter. It might require having somebody stay up to keep an eye open for
> wild animals or other groups of humans who might be hostile. We might not
> think of the solutions to these problems as technology, but they were. As
> we built cities with walls and homes with more efficient heating systems,
> we stopped worrying about these issues.
>
>
>
> Medical technology has made us safer and allowed us to stop thinking about
> many health issues that used to be more common. Food-safety technology has
> improved, and we don’t need to spend as much time thinking about curing and
> preserving foods to make them safe for consumption. In both cases, a
> failure of the safety system has dramatic results. How often do we hear of
> a case of contaminated food leading to a salmonella or e-coli outbreak?
>
>
>
> I live my life without thinking about issues that my ancestors from 200,
> 1000 or 10,000 years ago had to be concerned with. The safety issues aren’t
> gone, they are just managed by the technology of modern life. I recognize
> that I am complacent, but I’ll let technology free me to think of other
> things.
>
>
>
> For reference, I live at the urban-wilderness interface. Running into
> large animals is a possibility in my neighborhood. It’s common enough that
> we have to have rules about garbage cans to reduce interaction with bears.
>
> Bears Like Our Garbage! – Issaquah Highlands
> <https://www.issaquahhighlands.com/bears-like-our-garbage/>
>
>
>
> Ted Eckert
>
> The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily represent those
> of my employer, humanity in general, or the large carnivores of western
> Washington.
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Douglas E Powell 
> *Sent:* Friday, September 3, 2021 7:00 AM
> *To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] [PSES] Over Reliance on Automated Safety Controls
> (Friday question)
>
>
>
> All,
>
>
>
> My question is probably philosophical.
>
>
>
> With the advent of Safety rated PLCs, Safety Relays, and other solid
> state and programmable safety devices in certified and listed products, are
> we at risk of becoming over reliant on automated safety systems. I'm
> thinking in terms of IEC 61508, ISO 12100, UL 1998, UL 991, and many
> others. While I agree that use of programmable devices for safety control
> is in our future, it seems we, as a society, are putting a lot of reliance
> in this. It is well known that zero risk is impossible, but it also
> seems that "people these days" routinely ignore the risks, and it is my
> view that humans have a very bad history of correctly estimating risk out
> in the wild. It's not my intention to pick on autonomous vehicles only,
> since I've seen this sort of care-less behavior played out in other places
> as well.
>
>
>
> Some keywords I have in mind:
>
>- Automation Dependency
>- Automation Bias
>    - Automation Induced Complacency
>
> In general, do you feel we are becoming a society that relies too much on
> technology and automation to keep us safe from harm? I'm looking for an
> open discussion on this and what do you feel will be in store for us in the
> future.
>
>
>
> -Doug
>
>
>
>
>
> Douglas E Powell
>
> Laporte, Colorado USA
>
> doug...@gmail.com
>
> http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01
>
> <https

[PSES] Over Reliance on Automated Safety Controls (Friday question)

[Douglas E Powell]

All,

My question is probably philosophical.

With the advent of Safety rated PLCs, Safety Relays, and other solid
state and programmable safety devices in certified and listed products, are
we at risk of becoming over reliant on automated safety systems. I'm
thinking in terms of IEC 61508, ISO 12100, UL 1998, UL 991, and many
others. While I agree that use of programmable devices for safety control
is in our future, it seems we, as a society, are putting a lot of reliance
in this. It is well known that zero risk is impossible, but it also
seems that "people these days" routinely ignore the risks, and it is my
view that humans have a very bad history of correctly estimating risk out
in the wild. It's not my intention to pick on autonomous vehicles only,
since I've seen this sort of care-less behavior played out in other places
as well.

Some keywords I have in mind:

   - Automation Dependency
   - Automation Bias
   - Automation Induced Complacency

In general, do you feel we are becoming a society that relies too much on
technology and automation to keep us safe from harm? I'm looking for an
open discussion on this and what do you feel will be in store for us in the
future.

-Doug


Douglas E Powell
Laporte, Colorado USA
doug...@gmail.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] Multiple Power cord-sets bundled with product

[Douglas E Powell]

Sure,

Doing as a line item at the order entry stage is very workable. It just
needs the attention of someone who does configuration control.

-Doug


Douglas E Powell
Laporte, Colorado USA
doug...@gmail.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01



On Wed, Jul 21, 2021 at 12:49 PM Scott Douglas 
wrote:

> Chuck,
>
> We ship up to 4 power cords with plenty of products without any issues.
> The only complaint is from product managers trying to squeeze every last
> bit of margin out of products. Those extra $6 or so get thrown out in most
> cases.
>
> In past lives we did what Doug suggested. Made the power cord a separate
> line on the customer order. That worked well for us. Only issue there was
> the power cord was not packed in the box with the product.
>
> Scott
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 21, 2021, 11:19 AM Douglas E Powell  wrote:
>
>> Chuck,
>>
>> My experience has been that sometimes it works, other times not.  I
>> understand the desire ensure the end user get the cord set they actually
>> need, but I've also seen where there is backlash.  Some recipients simply
>> throw away the cord they don't need.
>>
>> The best solution I've seen, is to structure top-level BOMs with a
>> generic product BOM as one of the "components" and then add country
>> specific sub-assemblies, labels, translated user manuals, etc. I've even
>> seen where top-level BOMs will have the 2-letter ISO 3166 country code
>> baked into the part number.  Keeping in mind, the ISO 639 language codes
>> are not the same as country codes.
>>
>> Best of luck,  Doug
>>
>> Douglas E Powell
>> Laporte, Colorado USA
>> doug...@gmail.com
>> http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 21, 2021 at 12:01 PM Charles Jackson <
>> 156eedbcc0fd-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Hello
>>>
>>> I’m wondering if anyone has experience and/or specific information on
>>> legal/customs requirements that restrict the bundling of multiple region
>>> power cord-sets with a product.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks in advance
>>>
>>> Chuck
>>> -
>>> 
>>>
>>> This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society
>>> emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail
>>> to emc-p...@ieee.org
>>>
>>> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
>>> http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
>>>
>>> Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site
>>> at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in
>>> well-used formats), large files, etc.
>>>
>>> Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
>>> Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to
>>> unsubscribe) <http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html>
>>> List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
>>>
>>> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
>>> Scott Douglas sdoug...@ieee.org
>>> Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org
>>>
>>> For policy questions, send mail to:
>>> Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.org
>>> David Heald dhe...@gmail.com
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Douglas E Powell
>>
>> doug...@gmail.com
>> http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01
>> -
>> 
>>
>> This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
>> discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
>> emc-p...@ieee.org
>>
>> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
>> http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
>>
>> Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site
>> at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in
>> well-used formats), large files, etc.
>>
>> Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
>> Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to
>> unsubscribe) <http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html>
>> List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
>>
>> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
>> Scott Douglas sdoug...@ieee.org
>> Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org
>>
>> For policy questions, send mail to:
>> Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.org
>> David Heald dhe...@gmail.com
>>
>

-- 

Dougla

Re: [PSES] Multiple Power cord-sets bundled with product

[Douglas E Powell]

Chuck,

My experience has been that sometimes it works, other times not.  I
understand the desire ensure the end user get the cord set they actually
need, but I've also seen where there is backlash.  Some recipients simply
throw away the cord they don't need.

The best solution I've seen, is to structure top-level BOMs with a generic
product BOM as one of the "components" and then add country specific
sub-assemblies, labels, translated user manuals, etc. I've even seen where
top-level BOMs will have the 2-letter ISO 3166 country code baked into the
part number.  Keeping in mind, the ISO 639 language codes are not the same
as country codes.

Best of luck,  Doug

Douglas E Powell
Laporte, Colorado USA
doug...@gmail.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01





On Wed, Jul 21, 2021 at 12:01 PM Charles Jackson <
156eedbcc0fd-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org> wrote:

> Hello
>
> I’m wondering if anyone has experience and/or specific information on
> legal/customs requirements that restrict the bundling of multiple region
> power cord-sets with a product.
>
>
>
> Thanks in advance
>
> Chuck
> -
> 
>
> This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
> discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
> emc-p...@ieee.org
>
> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
> http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
>
> Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at
> http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in
> well-used formats), large files, etc.
>
> Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
> Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to
> unsubscribe) <http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html>
> List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
>
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
> Scott Douglas sdoug...@ieee.org
> Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org
>
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.org
> David Heald dhe...@gmail.com
>


-- 

Douglas E Powell

doug...@gmail.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] Friday question

[Douglas E Powell]

Thanks Brian, I appreciate it.

It was a team effort, and I provided regulatory guidance.  The team was
very receptive to my recommendations, and it shows. BTW - I forgot to
mention, it went from an prototype to certification in 4 months time.  In a
few of my past lives this would have taken six months to two years.

-Doug


Douglas E Powell
Laporte, Colorado USA
doug...@gmail.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01


On Mon, Jun 28, 2021 at 11:28 AM Brian Kunde  wrote:

> Doug,
>
> This is a huge accomplishment and you and your entire design team should
> be very proud. A celebration of some kind would be expected.  For companies
> like ours who have been making the same type of products for many years, we
> usually pass safety inspections in the first pass because we know what we
> are doing and have lots of experience, and have taken our lumps over many
> years.  But for a start-up or any company making a new type of product, to
> pass out of the gate is fantastic and almost unheard of.  Good Job!!! all
> around.
>
> The Other Brian
>
> On Sat, Jun 26, 2021 at 1:14 AM Douglas E Powell 
> wrote:
>
>> The reason I asked this question is because a company I have been
>> consulting with for the last 4 months, has this week successfully had their
>> 80 kWh energy storage system reviewed and tested for a UL 9540 listing.
>> This a startup company and they achieved first pass certification of their
>> product. A limited production certificate was issued and now they are at
>> the point where they will want to ramp up for factory certification. I was
>> duly impressed and felt priveledged to be a part of the team. I also felt
>> this was a very rare achievement and wanted to know the experience of
>> others in this regard.
>>
>> Doug
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 25, 2021, 8:12 PM Scott Xe  wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Doug,
>>>
>>> Very interesting question and I would like to know it as well.  Suggest
>>> to go to the testing lab for the answer.  They should have the statistics
>>> in their business.
>>>
>>> Would you mind sharing why you want to know it, what for?  Although I do
>>> not have the figures I am aware of the answers why the product cannot pass
>>> the test in the first attempt.  Below is my experience in dealing with
>>> Asian suppliers in the past many years.
>>>
>>>- No safety engineer to go thru the design against the applicable
>>>standards before submitted for testing.
>>>- No proper facilities to conduct the pre-tests.
>>>- The employer does not recognise the importance of this position
>>>and results in no safety engineer in the manufacturer.  The design 
>>> engineer
>>>is also not brave enough to tell the employer that they do not have
>>>knowledge, experience and test facilities in doing the relevant test work
>>>so the employer believes he/she looks after this as well.
>>>- The design engineer does not have relevant knowledge and training
>>>for the test work.  There is little education system in current
>>>universities/vocational institutes to help the society.  Most test
>>>engineers in public test labs are trained by the employers, not from the
>>>current educational system.  Some small associations (TIC - Testing,
>>>Inspection & Certification) from the industry are setting up routes to be
>>>certified testing professionals in the current educational system with 
>>> the
>>>help from the Government Industry Department.  Just some improvement but
>>>not sufficient IMO!
>>>
>>> Based on the above facts, it leads to other potential issues in the
>>> finished products.  Even if the product has passed the conformity test, the
>>> manufacturer may not know why their design meets the requirements.  How can
>>> they maintain the compliance in production?  If the manufacturer does not
>>> have this knowledge, how can they plan their assurance protocol for mass
>>> production in order to validate the finished products in compliance with
>>> the original design limits before leaving the factory?
>>>
>>> Best regards, ☺
>>>
>>> Scott
>>>
>>> On Sat, 26 Jun 2021 at 01:56, Douglas E Powell 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Out of curiosity,
>>>>
>>>> I would like to know (especially from those who have been in the
>>>> business for a while) what is your "first pass success rate" for safety
>>>> certifications on new product introductions? That is, to ac

Re: [PSES] Friday question

[Douglas E Powell]

The reason I asked this question is because a company I have been
consulting with for the last 4 months, has this week successfully had their
80 kWh energy storage system reviewed and tested for a UL 9540 listing.
This a startup company and they achieved first pass certification of their
product. A limited production certificate was issued and now they are at
the point where they will want to ramp up for factory certification. I was
duly impressed and felt priveledged to be a part of the team. I also felt
this was a very rare achievement and wanted to know the experience of
others in this regard.

Doug

On Fri, Jun 25, 2021, 8:12 PM Scott Xe  wrote:

> Dear Doug,
>
> Very interesting question and I would like to know it as well.  Suggest to
> go to the testing lab for the answer.  They should have the statistics in
> their business.
>
> Would you mind sharing why you want to know it, what for?  Although I do
> not have the figures I am aware of the answers why the product cannot pass
> the test in the first attempt.  Below is my experience in dealing with
> Asian suppliers in the past many years.
>
>- No safety engineer to go thru the design against the applicable
>standards before submitted for testing.
>- No proper facilities to conduct the pre-tests.
>- The employer does not recognise the importance of this position and
>results in no safety engineer in the manufacturer.  The design engineer is
>also not brave enough to tell the employer that they do not have knowledge,
>experience and test facilities in doing the relevant test work so the
>employer believes he/she looks after this as well.
>- The design engineer does not have relevant knowledge and training
>for the test work.  There is little education system in current
>universities/vocational institutes to help the society.  Most test
>engineers in public test labs are trained by the employers, not from the
>current educational system.  Some small associations (TIC - Testing,
>Inspection & Certification) from the industry are setting up routes to be
>certified testing professionals in the current educational system with the
>help from the Government Industry Department.  Just some improvement but
>not sufficient IMO!
>
> Based on the above facts, it leads to other potential issues in the
> finished products.  Even if the product has passed the conformity test, the
> manufacturer may not know why their design meets the requirements.  How can
> they maintain the compliance in production?  If the manufacturer does not
> have this knowledge, how can they plan their assurance protocol for mass
> production in order to validate the finished products in compliance with
> the original design limits before leaving the factory?
>
> Best regards, ☺
>
> Scott
>
> On Sat, 26 Jun 2021 at 01:56, Douglas E Powell  wrote:
>
>> Out of curiosity,
>>
>> I would like to know (especially from those who have been in the business
>> for a while) what is your "first pass success rate" for safety
>> certifications on new product introductions? That is, to achieve a product
>> safety certification from an accredited laboratory with no action items
>> required coming out of the preliminary design review.  It's helpful if you
>> can indicate how complex the projects are.
>>
>> In my 26 years as a compliance engineer, I've observed possibly three in
>> total for products with a reasonably high complexity.
>>
>> Thanks! Doug
>> --
>>
>> Douglas E Powell
>> doug...@gmail.com
>> http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01
>>
>> -
>> 
>>
>> This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
>> discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
>> emc-p...@ieee.org
>>
>> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
>> http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
>>
>> Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site
>> at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in
>> well-used formats), large files, etc.
>>
>> Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
>> Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to
>> unsubscribe) <http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html>
>> List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
>>
>> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
>> Scott Douglas sdoug...@ieee.org
>> Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org
>>
>> For policy questions, send mail to:
>> Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.org
>> David Heald dhe...@gmail

Re: [PSES] Friday question

[Douglas E Powell]

Amusing indeed.

I have a few private answers about companies who have succeeded, but I
suspect that many new products that passed first time were mainly variants
of exisiting product lines. My question was about new product introductions.

I am know several design engineers who have learned by way of the school of
hard knocks, and either they design for compliance or at the very least
submit designs to someone like myself before calling in the safety agency.

Doug

On Fri, Jun 25, 2021, 6:07 PM Ron Pickard  wrote:

> Amusing anecdotes so far, but no answers for Doug yet.
>
> Over the years in a time long ago (retired for a few years now) I gained
> much success with first time submissions with experience (relationships
> with labs & agencies were also important for this).
>
> The big continuing annoyance was with product variations found during
> factory inspections due to part availability issues and manufacturer
> ingenuity (loved working those variation notices).
>
> Enjoying retirement & best regards,
>
> Ron Pickard
> *Sent from my smartphone*
> On Jun 25, 2021, at 10:59 AM, Douglas E Powell  wrote:
>>
>> Out of curiosity,
>>
>> I would like to know (especially from those who have been in the business
>> for a while) what is your "first pass success rate" for safety
>> certifications on new product introductions? That is, to achieve a product
>> safety certification from an accredited laboratory with no action items
>> required coming out of the preliminary design review.  It's helpful if you
>> can indicate how complex the projects are.
>>
>> In my 26 years as a compliance engineer, I've observed possibly three in
>> total for products with a reasonably high complexity.
>>
>> Thanks! Doug
>> --
>>
>> Douglas E Powell
>> doug...@gmail.com
>> http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01
>>
>> -
>> 
>>
>> This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
>> discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to <
>> emc-p...@ieee.org>
>>
>> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
>> http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
>>
>> Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site
>> at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in
>> well-used formats), large files, etc.
>>
>> Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
>> Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to
>> unsubscribe) <http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html>
>> List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
>>
>> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
>> Scott Douglas 
>> Mike Cantwell 
>>
>> For policy questions, send mail to:
>> Jim Bacher 
>> David Heald 
>>
>

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

[PSES] Friday question

[Douglas E Powell]

Out of curiosity,

I would like to know (especially from those who have been in the business
for a while) what is your "first pass success rate" for safety
certifications on new product introductions? That is, to achieve a product
safety certification from an accredited laboratory with no action items
required coming out of the preliminary design review.  It's helpful if you
can indicate how complex the projects are.

In my 26 years as a compliance engineer, I've observed possibly three in
total for products with a reasonably high complexity.

Thanks! Doug
--

Douglas E Powell
doug...@gmail.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] SCCR of an electrical cabinet

[Douglas E Powell]

I am presently certifying my product to a different UL standard, and I
believe my situation is similar.  I have a 200 Amp three-phase circuit
breaker on the power input, rated for 25 kAIC. This will become the SCCR
for the overall product, and it will be marked on the rating plate as well
as in the user manual. Doing it this way puts the onus on the system
installer to provide a service that does not exceed this rating.

Thanks, Doug

Douglas E Powell
Laporte, Colorado USA
doug...@gmail.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01


On Thu, Jun 3, 2021, 5:30 AM Víctor Ostíbar  wrote:

> Dear members:
>
> My company is developing machinery for the USA market and we are having
> contact with UL508A.
>
>
>
> According to the standard, the label must contain the SCCR of the cabinet
> in order to avoid the connection to a mains that can deliver higher
> currents in case of short circuit. The supply terminals of are connected
> directly to a transformer and the method provided by the standard states 
> *“Power
> transformers, reactors, current transfomers, dry-type capacitors,
> resistors, varistors, and voltmeters are not required to have a short
> circuit current rating”*.  Having into account that the transformer is
> the only component in the primary side. How can we determine the SCCR of
> our equipment?? We determined the SCCR of the secondary side following the
> standard but I’m stuck with the primary side.
>
>
>
> I’m thinking about put an infinite SCCR value but perhaps I’m being a bit
> optimistic.
>
>
>
> I hope someone can give us any guidance.
>
>
>
> Thank you very much in advance!!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *Víctor Ostíbar*
> *Product Compliance*
>
> vosti...@meler.eu
> Tel. +34 948 68 19 31
>
>
>
>
>
> Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente al destinatario identificado, y
> puede contener información confidencial sometida a secreto profesional, o
> cuya divulgación esté legalmente prohibida. Si ha recibido este mensaje por
> error, le rogamos nos lo comunique de forma inmediata por esta misma vía y
> proceda a su eliminación, así como a la de cualquier documento adjunto al
> mismo, advirtiéndole que no está autorizado a utilizar, revelar,
> distribuir, divulgar, imprimir, copiar o realizar ningún tipo de acción
> sobre todo o parte de la información contenida en el mensaje. Se declina
> cualquier responsabilidad de Focke Meler Gluing Solutions, S.A. derivada de
> cualquier cambio realizado en el contenido del mensaje tras su envío.
>
> This e-mail is addressed exclusively to the recipient and may contain
> privileged information under a professional confidential agreement or it
> may be against the law to disclose its contents. If you receive this e-mail
> in error, please let us know immediately (by return e-mail) and proceed to
> its destruction, as well as any document attached to it, since you are not
> authorized to execute any action, use, disclose, distribute, print or copy
> all or part of the contained information. Focke Meler Gluing Solutions,
> S.A. is not responsible for changes made to this message after it was sent.
>
>
>
>
> -
> 
>
> This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
> discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
> emc-p...@ieee.org
>
> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
> http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
>
> Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at
> http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in
> well-used formats), large files, etc.
>
> Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
> Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to
> unsubscribe) <http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html>
> List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
>
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
> Scott Douglas sdoug...@ieee.org
> Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org
>
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.org
> David Heald dhe...@gmail.com
>

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] Hot surface sign

[Douglas E Powell]

I once informed an engineer he needed a hot surface label, because he
exceeded the limit. After selecting an adhesive label, he asked how hot can
it get if it's labeled.  Tongue in cheek, I told him he could not melt or
burn the label since it had to remain legible.

-Doug


Douglas E Powell
Laporte, Colorado USA
doug...@gmail.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01

On Wed, May 26, 2021 at 1:19 PM Charlie Blackham <
char...@sulisconsultants.com> wrote:

> Scott
>
>
>
> I’ve not read it (44 pages) but EU LVD market enforcement did a report 
> “Non-functional
> Hot Surfaces Project”
>
>
>
> https://ec.europa.eu/docsroom/documents/5263/attachments/1/translations
>
>
>
> Some standards, such as EN 60335-2-9 (Household and similar electrical
> appliances - Safety - Part 2-9: Particular requirements for grills,
> toasters and similar portable cooking appliances) have different limits if
> equipment is labelled
>
>
>
> The ISO symbol IEC 60417 - 5041, Caution, hot surface (iso.org)
> <https://www.iso.org/obp/ui#iec:grs:60417:5041>, is often referred to,
> but I’m not aware that colours or contrast is mandated
>
>
>
> Best regards
>
> Charlie
>
>
>
> *Charlie Blackham*
>
> *Sulis Consultants Ltd*
>
> *Tel: +44 (0)7946 624317*
>
> *Web: https://sulisconsultants.com/ <https://sulisconsultants.com/> *
>
> Registered in England and Wales, number 05466247
>
>
>
> *From:* Brian Kunde 
> *Sent:* 26 May 2021 18:08
> *To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> *Subject:* Re: [PSES] Hot surface sign
>
>
>
> Usually, high-temperature surface warning symbols are only required if the
> hazard is not obvious.  So in ovens, stovetops, griddles, toasters,
> heat-sinks, etc. do not require them.
>
>
>
> However, if such appliances or device have areas that are hot but it is
> not obvious it is hot, a warning symbol might be required.
>
>
>
> At home, I have a 2-slice toaster. It is a "Cool Touch" toaster that has
> no hot exposed surfaces, except from the small surface between the two
> slots on the top.  So the manufacturer engraved the symbol on the metal
> surface.  Not a bad idea.  But back in the day, the sides of a toaster got
> really hot; hot enough to melt the Wonder Bread bag.  As a kid, I think
> every toaster I ever saw had a Wonder Bread bag melted on the side.
>
>
>
> The Other Brian
>
>
>
> On Wed, May 26, 2021 at 10:04 AM Scott Xe  wrote:
>
> In some cooking appliances, there are some hot surfaces that may cause
> burn injury and safety standards suggest putting a hot surface sign to
> alert the users.
>
>- Is there any specific colour requirement?  Common practice is black
>colour on yellow background or white colour on black background.
>- Is an embossed sign black on black considered as a legible sign in
>EU criteria perspective?
>- In case of ink-printed label, is it put on the top of the hot
>surface or next to the hot surface?  If on the top of surface, the colours
>are protected from heat degradation and specialized adhesives should be
>used to withstand higher temperatures.  Is there any test criteria for
>verification?
>
> Thanks and regards,
>
>
>
> Scott
>
> -
> 
>
> This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
> discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
> emc-p...@ieee.org
>
> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
> http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
>
> Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at
> http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in
> well-used formats), large files, etc.
>
> Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
> Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to
> unsubscribe) <http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html>
> List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
>
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
> Scott Douglas sdoug...@ieee.org
> Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org
>
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.org
> David Heald dhe...@gmail.com
>
> -
> 
>
> This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
> discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to <
> emc-p...@ieee.org>
>
> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
> http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
>
> Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site 

Re: [PSES] What percentage of products pass first time?

[Douglas E Powell]

Pete,

I definitely agree with you on your points about experience. It seems the
highly experienced ones are those who are most successful on first pass EMC
testing. You can often tell who these people are on the design team by the
number of war stories they can tell. I sometimes think of this in the same
way as parenting. You can read all the books and get all the advice, but it
seems getting your own hands-on experience is the key.

-Doug

Douglas E Powell
Laporte, Colorado USA
doug...@gmail.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01

On Mon, May 24, 2021 at 11:20 AM Pete Perkins <
0061f3f32d0c-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org> wrote:

> Charles, et al, You question is rather simplistic, in my opinion.
>
>
>
>From my more than 25 years doing safety & regulatory
> consulting with dozens and dozens of companies both large and small, I find
> that the experience of the design team is the key to meeting the
> requirements early on.
>
>
>
>First timers (no prior experience having an outside lab
> test any of their work for compliance) has a pretty low pass rate; no
> matter how much advice is given during the design phase.
>
>
>
>Design teams quickly gain experience ramp up & meet
> compliance requirements on the next project or two providing the design is
> similar to their earlier experience.
>
>
>
>This level of competence can be confounded (made worse) if
> there are substantial changes in the design team between projects.  Newbies
> always think they understand the needs and design accordingly; unless an
> experienced team manager can ferret out the issue before testing and get
> them to change.
>
>
>
>Additional features (especially radios) complicate the
> issue, even for experienced design teams.
>
>
>
>To specifically answer your question, first designs from an
> inexperienced design team generally will need another pass (or more) thru
> the lab to qualify.  Experienced teams will have a high 1st time pass
> rate in most cases.
>
>
>
>To relate one scenario, a complex electronic research
> instrument was developed by a 3 man team of PhD physicists who struggled
> when going thru the EMC lab; they had no prior product certification
> experience.  I had offered to go to the lab with them but they thought they
> could handle it themselves.  They had no concept of the needs to provide
> the proper isolation between major pieces (e.g. cables routinely pierced
> the chassis and made connexion well within the equipment).  After the 2nd
> failure the lab manager, a  long-time colleague, talked to me and said that
> they weren’t listening to his comments about needed changes to fix it.
> Upon talking to them, they had dismissed him as just a technician (ignoring
> his EE training and EMC lab experience) and they believed that they knew
> better (but not good enough, as evidenced by the continuing failure).  So
> we had a ‘managerial discussion’ and I went to the EMC lab with them from
> then  on.  The baling wire fixes tried at the lab showed improvement when
> applied and led to installing proper connectors at the chassis interfaces
> along with some other changes; it finally passed.
>
>
>
>Others probably have more interesting cases to relate,
> too.
>
>
>
>Does that fit with your experience?
>
>
>
> :>) br,  Pete
>
>
>
> Peter E Perkins, PE
>
> Principal Product Safety & Regulatory Affairs Consultant
>
> PO Box 1067
>
> Albany, ORe  97321-0413
>
>
>
> 503/452-1201
>
>
>
> IEEE Life Fellow
>
> IEEE PSES 2020 Distinguished Lecturer
>
> www.researchgate.net <http://www.researchgate.net/Peter%20Perkins> search
> my name
>
> p.perk...@ieee.org
>
>
>
>
>
> Entropy ain’t what it used to be
>
>
>
> *From:* Grasso, Charles [Outlook] 
> *Sent:* Monday, May 24, 2021 7:47 AM
> *To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> *Subject:* [PSES] What percentage of products pass first time?
>
>
>
> Hello EMC gurus!
>
>
>
> Calling all labs - In your experience how many products pass the
> Unintentional Emissions
> test first time? ​
>
>
>
>
>
> -
> 
>
> This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
> discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to <
> emc-p...@ieee.org>
>
> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
> http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
>
> Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Com

[PSES] UL Rain Test Nozzle

[Douglas E Powell]

All,

Has anyone ever taken time to find the coefficient of discharge for the UL
rain test nozzle (
https://www.shopulstandards.com/ProductDetail.aspx?UniqueKey=27488)?

The Type 3R test I'm doing requires 5 PSI of water pressure on a
straight pipe. Using the Pitot Gauge equation, it seems to me I should be
able to figure out how much water is being used every hour.  I suppose I
could simply spray into a bucket to learn the flow rate in GPM or LPM, but
my nozzles are still on order and have not arrived yet.

Thanks,  Doug
--

Douglas E Powell

doug...@gmail.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

[PSES] UL Standards Effectivity Dates

[Douglas E Powell]

Hello all,

I would like to understand the use of effectivity dates, specifically for
UL standards, when dealing with rather large leased equipment used in
association with an energy production facility. The plan is that an
original manufacturer will build, install, monitor, and maintain the
equipment as a lease and not for sale. The idea is that the equipment is
put into service with the required certifications of the day.

If at some later time, possibly a few years later, the equipment is taken
out of service, moved to a new location to be put into service once again
(the ownership has not changed) and if in that interim period the
applicable product standards have been revised, effectivity dates
established, and the new edition of the standard is mandatory for new
products, is it necessary to re-certify that equipment?

In my scenario that equipment may or may not involve refurbishing or
updating when it is relocated.

Thanks, Doug

-- 

Douglas E Powell
doug...@gmail.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] EMC/EMI Cables - Don't cut yourself

[Douglas E Powell]

Sorry, too late.

A few years back I cut myself on copper quilted foil.  Hurts like the
dickens.

-Doug


Douglas E Powell
Laporte, Colorado USA
doug...@gmail.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01

On Thu, Apr 29, 2021 at 11:09 AM David Garnier  wrote:

> Story.
>
> This happened 20+ years ago so don't shoot me.
>
> An outside vendor was supplying the Operator Interface Console for
> our new Ultrasound machine. This console was a slick EMC design,
> each of the 11 or more rotary encoders that used low power CPU's that
> went to sleep after rotation. I was told the PIC chips were parasitic
> powered to reduce EMC. Wow, nice considering diagnostic Ultrasound
> was essentially a multi channel sub-microvolt receiver with a piezoelectric
> transducer as the patient antenna.
>
> The new machine was failing RE on the 10m OATS and the operator
> interface console EMC Engineer came to visit us to see why.
> "How good are your 360 degree shielded connectors?" "We don't know."
> The EMC Engineer then looks at us and says some to the effect,
> "Oh goody, this is the part I like the most." He whips out his pocket knife
> and starts pealing off the hard plastic over-molded connector...
> The project engineer and myself looks at each other with our mouths
> hanging open while the connector was being dissected - and then the
> EMC guy cuts himself. I felt bad for him, he was a "sharp" EMC
> engineer and he did find the problem.
>
> Moral to this story - Don't cut yourself!
>
> Dave Garnier - Retired GEHC
>
> Dave Garnier - Retired GEHC
>
> -
> 
> This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
> discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to <
> emc-p...@ieee.org>
>
> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
> http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
>
> Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at
> http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in
> well-used formats), large files, etc.
>
> Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
> Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to
> unsubscribe)
> List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
>
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
> Scott Douglas 
> Mike Cantwell 
>
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Jim Bacher:  
> David Heald: 
>


-- 

Douglas E Powell

doug...@gmail.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] Electrical safety certification for US / Canada

[Douglas E Powell]

If you check with the OSHA NRTL listing you can click into each
organization and see the list of standards to which they are authorized to
test and certify.  I have not compiled a full list as it can be time
consuming.

https://www.osha.gov/nationally-recognized-testing-laboratory-program/current-list-of-nrtls

-Doug


Douglas E Powell
Laporte, Colorado USA
doug...@gmail.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01




On Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 2:54 AM Amund Westin 
wrote:

> The following can issue Electrical safety certifications:
> CSA
> UL
> FM
>
> Any others?
>
> It's IT-products.
>
> BR
> Amund
> -
> 
>
> This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
> discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
> emc-p...@ieee.org
>
> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
> http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
>
> Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at
> http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in
> well-used formats), large files, etc.
>
> Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
> Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to
> unsubscribe) <http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html>
> List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
>
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
> Scott Douglas sdoug...@ieee.org
> Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org
>
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.org
> David Heald dhe...@gmail.com
>


-- 

Douglas E Powell

doug...@gmail.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

[PSES] UL 1699B

[Douglas E Powell]

All,

UL 1699B:2018 § 1.4 has an interesting statement, it says "*These devices
are not intended to detect glowing connections*", and further explanation.
Are they referring to faulty connections that have enough gap to allow
visible arcing?  The only other mention of "glow" or "glowing" is in the
pass criteria for testing.

Thanks!  Doug
--

Douglas E Powell

doug...@gmail.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] AW: [PSES] Friday Question - table of electrochemical potentials

[Douglas E Powell]

 Thanks Ken,

I have seen tables like this before, and this one is nice by virtue of its
publishing date. I wonder where they obtained their information, is it
possible that in the past it was considered "common knowledge"?  Most
tables like this I've seen tend to only cover elemental metals. Personally,
I find that correlating two different alloyed metals to a list like this is
very hard.

In the end, I suppose what I really want is a way to understand the
potential for corrosion between any two metals and ultimately what is the
likelihood of a product operating correctly for its entire life. This is
probably the reason we still do salt fog testing in the real world.

-Doug


Douglas E Powell
Laporte, Colorado USA
doug...@gmail.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01



On Mon, Feb 8, 2021 at 9:21 AM Ken Javor 
wrote:

> From the Reference Handbook for Radio Engineers, 2nd edition, 1946:
>
>
>
>
>
> Ken Javor
> Phone: (256) 650-5261
>
> > From: John Barnes 
> > Reply-To: John Barnes 
> > Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2021 10:43:29 -0500
> > To: 
> > Subject: Re: [PSES] AW: [PSES] Friday Question - table of
> electrochemical
> > potentials
> >
> > Dürrer,
> > The table in the Wikipedia article
> >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galvanic_corrosion#Anodic_index
> > has more entries, is more descriptive, and doesn't totally agree with
> > Table 7-1 on page 156 of Gershon J. Wheeler's book, The Design of
> > Electronic Equipment: A Manual for Production and Manufacturing:
> >
> > Table 7-1 Galvanic Series
> >
> > Metal Anodic Index (0.01 volt)
> > - 
> > Gold, Platinum  0
> > Rhodium10
> > Silver 15
> > Nickel 30
> > Copper 35
> > Brass  40
> > Stainless Steel50
> > Chromium   60
> > Tin-Plate, Tin-Lead Solder 65
> > Iron   85
> > Aluminum Alloys90
> > Cadmium95
> > Zinc  125
> > Magnesium 175
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > John Barnes KS4GL, PE, NCE, NCT, ESDC Eng, ESDC Tech, PSE, Master EMC
> >   Design Eng, SM IEEE (retired)
> > 216 Hillsboro Ave
> > Lexington, KY  40511-2105
> > (859)253-1178  phone
> > jrbar...@iglou.com
> > http://www.dbicorporation.com/
> >
> > -
> > 
> > This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society
> emc-pstc
> > discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to
> > 
> >
> > All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
> > http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
> >
> > Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site
> at
> > http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in
> well-used
> > formats), large files, etc.
> >
> > Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
> > Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to
> > unsubscribe)
> > List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
> >
> > For help, send mail to the list administrators:
> > Scott Douglas 
> > Mike Cantwell 
> >
> > For policy questions, send mail to:
> > Jim Bacher:  
> > David Heald: 
> -
> 
>
> This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
> discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
> emc-p...@ieee.org
>
> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
> http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
>
> Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at
> http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in
> well-used formats), large files, etc.
>
> Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
> Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to
> unsubscribe) <http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html>
> List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
>
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
> Scott Douglas sdoug...@ieee.org
> Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org
>
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.org
> David Heald dhe...@gmail.com
>


-- 

Douglas E Powell

doug...@gmail.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01

-
---

Re: [PSES] Friday Question - table of electrochemical potentials

[Douglas E Powell]

Hello Bernd,

Yes the table does show up in several standards and IEC 60950-1 was one of
the first where I saw it.  I have notes going back to the early 1990s from
the time when the standard was known simply as IEC 950. Since then it was
renamed IEC 60950 and later IEC 60950-1.  Now it has been replaced by IEC
62368-1 and the table is still included in Annex N. It is basically
unchanged, I might add.

Before I knew of this table, the only resource I had available was a table
for metals ranking them from most anodic to most cathodic and it was
published by a naval guide book on corrosion. The ranking system was less
than ideal since it was most likely based on empirical data and nothing was
about the specific potentials for corrosion. Even so, at the time it was
the best resource I had.

I attempted to learn more by using the various tables in chemistry
handbooks including topics such as 1st, 2nd, and 3rd ionisation potentials.
However, chemists have a propensity for diving deeply into science instead
of simply listing compatibility of metals in a table.  It is my belief that
the simplicity of the IEC table is the main reason it has survived for so
long.  And of course, one of the issues I have is that the 950 list of
metals in that table does not nearly cover all the possible alloyed metals
in use today.  In addition, it makes no attempt to address the possibility
of electroplated coatings to minimize corrosion. For example with Zinc or
Nickel.

All the best, and have a great week,

-Doug


Douglas E Powell
Laporte, Colorado USA
doug...@gmail.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01



On Mon, Feb 8, 2021 at 2:59 AM Dürrer Bernd  wrote:

> Hi Douglas,
>
>
>
> I am only aware of Table J.1 in IEC 60950-1. Are there any other IEC
> standards that reference the same or a different table?
>
>
>
> I do not know its source for sure, but the values given in this table seem
> to match those from the anodic index cited in Wikipedia (
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galvanic_corrosion#Anodic_index), which
> gives the following reference: Wheeler, Gerson J., The design of electronic
> equipment: a manual for production and manufacturing, Prentice-Hall, 1972.
>
>
>
> Can anybody confirm that this is the source and happens to have a copy of
> the original publication?
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
>
>
> Bernd
>
>
>
>
>
> *Von:* Douglas E Powell 
> *Gesendet:* Freitag, 5. Februar 2021 19:05
> *An:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> *Betreff:* [PSES] Friday Question - table of electrochemical potentials
>
>
>
> For years, I've used the same or similar table for dissimilar metals and
> the possibility of corrosion for "pairs of common metals in use". This
> table shows up in many IEC based standards and no one I know questions the
> validity. I got curious as to the source and why this particular list of
> "common metals" was chosen. Going as far back as the early 1990s I cannot
> find any attribution to the source material.
>
>
>
> Can anyone provide some background on this?
>
>
>
> Thanks, Doug
>
>
>
> --
>
> Douglas E Powell
>
> Laporte, Colorado USA
>
> doug...@gmail.com
> http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01
> <https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin.com%2Fin%2Fdougp01=04%7C01%7C%7Cf1bd65beb30b4b56e63208d8ca00abdc%7C39288a38ff19432c80111cd9d0dff445%7C0%7C0%7C637481451516750325%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000=Bk8gGVbChDBVZEmGmC5SuuXySJtTdOINhiNyWlHavQc%3D=0>
>
> -
> 
>
> This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
> discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to <
> emc-p...@ieee.org>
>
> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
> http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
> <https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ieee-pses.org%2Femc-pstc.html=04%7C01%7C%7Cf1bd65beb30b4b56e63208d8ca00abdc%7C39288a38ff19432c80111cd9d0dff445%7C0%7C0%7C637481451516750325%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000=%2BuqyQJpXM%2BnjNv%2Fo%2BGWEg58OaBhn48A%2FYJVfFVqxl8c%3D=0>
>
> Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at
> http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/
> <https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fproduct-compliance.oc.ieee.org%2F=04%7C01%7C%7Cf1bd65beb30b4b56e63208d8ca00abdc%7C39288a38ff19432c80111cd9d0dff445%7C0%7C0%7C637481451516760280%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000=%2Fr8w4XGuE4KS9TUE0Q4s7OrcDRWJWdzpPPEuJKne3So%3D=0>
&

[PSES] Friday Question - table of electrochemical potentials

[Douglas E Powell]

For years, I've used the same or similar table for dissimilar metals and
the possibility of corrosion for "pairs of common metals in use". This
table shows up in many IEC based standards and no one I know questions the
validity. I got curious as to the source and why this particular list of
"common metals" was chosen. Going as far back as the early 1990s I cannot
find any attribution to the source material.

Can anyone provide some background on this?

Thanks, Doug

-- 
Douglas E Powell
Laporte, Colorado USA
doug...@gmail.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

[PSES] Audio Amplifiers

[Douglas E Powell]

All,

This morning I received a notification on the USA WTO TBT website of a
proposal for audio amplifiers and the Federal Trade Commission is asking
for comment to the Amplifier Rule of 1971 (39 FR 15387).

Notification Number: USA/1679 (United States of America)
Date Issued: 12/21/2020
Products: Amplifiers in home entertainment products
Title: Trade Regulation Rule Relating to Power Output Claims for Amplifiers
Utilized in Home Entertainment Products
Final date for comments: 2/16/2021


I am interested in learning how the FTC public comment system works and
especially if there is a publicly viewable clearinghouse on comments and
balloting. I've tried following some of the links and the trail seems to
end for me at https://beta.regulations.gov/. Or at least, I'm not confident
I am in the right place when I get there.

Can anyone point me in the right direction?

Thanks!  Doug

-- 
Douglas E Powell
doug...@gmail.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

[PSES] EMO Switch anti-tease mechanism

[Douglas E Powell]

I was in a discussion with a co-worker when the anti-tease mechanism of an
EMO came up and I was reminded of an anecdotal story from the late 1990s
that I heard from a German Safety engineer at LGA Nürnberg. What was told
to me is the anti-tease requirement came about partly because people on an
italian auto assembly line wanted an extra smoke break. They would tease
the switch until the assembly line shut down and the switch would not
retain the 'tripped" position to identify exactly who did it.

Can anyone validate this story?

Thanks, doug

-- 

Douglas E Powell

doug...@gmail.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: