Re: [PSES] Additional AC power cords in the same shipment

[Greg McClure]

In our experience:

Argentina, Australia and China (PRC) cords are mutually exclusive and cannot be 
bundled together.

Brazil no longer accepts any cord that looks like a US NEMA 5-15 plug.

India and South Africa cords are mutually exclusive unless you can get one that 
carries certifications for both countries.

Japan, Taiwan and the US are mutually exclusive due to different certification 
requirements for the plugs and cordage.

There may be ways around some of these but they tend to drive up the cost of 
the cordset.


Gregory H. McClure
Lexmark Product Safety
Product Safety Team Lead
859-232-3240 office

From: Gary Tornquist <05big...@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 6, 2021 1:38 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Additional AC power cords in the same shipment

Hi All,
I would like to get your experience and opinions on including 'extra' ac power 
cord in shipments of IT equipment.  To minimize the number of SKU's that need 
to be maintained in the supply chain it can be useful to include AC power cords 
suitable and certified for multiple different countries in the same box.  The 
intent is that the customer uses the cord appropriate to his country and 
disposes of the rest.  Customs of some countries may object, but others are OK 
with this practice.

Do you know of countries where this is OK?  And others where is isn't?

Cheers,

Gary Tornquist
Sr. Consultant

Your Outsourced Compliance Department

[DD1479DB]
1618 236th Ave NE
Sammamish, WA 98074
(425) 279-3996
http://www.productsafetyinc.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 
mailto: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 mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org>>
Mike Cantwell mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org>>

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org>>
David Heald mailto: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 

Re: [PSES] Multiple Power cord-sets bundled with product Redux UK Plugs BS 1363 as the standard plug

[Greg McClure]

Chuck,

In our case, our cord supplier has obtained all the certifications for the UK, 
Saudi Arabia and Singapore and applied those marks to the plug so we can use 
the same part in all 3 geographies.

Gregory H. McClure
Lexmark Product Safety
Product Safety Team Lead
859-232-3240 office

From: Chuck August-McDowell 
Sent: Wednesday, August 4, 2021 10:50 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Multiple Power cord-sets bundled with product Redux UK 
Plugs BS 1363 as the standard plug

Dear List members,

I found the information in this thread very useful especially the "mutually 
exclusive" designations.

I am writing today seeking comments on UK Plugs BS 1363 as the standard plug 
and cordage to ask if any are also known "mutually exclusive" issues.
For example between United Kingdom, Saudi Arabia, Singapore?

Thank you in advance,

Chuck August-McDowell


From: Greg McClure mailto:greg.mccl...@lexmark.com>>
Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2021 8:16 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Subject: Re: [PSES] Multiple Power cord-sets bundled with product


[EXTERNAL EMAIL]
In our experience:

Argentina, Australia and China (PRC) cords are mutually exclusive and cannot be 
bundled together.

Brazil no longer accepts any cord that looks like a US NEMA 5-15 plug.

India and South Africa cords are mutually exclusive unless you can get one that 
carries certifications for both countries.

Japan, Taiwan and the US are mutually exclusive due to different certification 
requirements for the plugs and cordage.

There may be ways around some of these but they tend to drive up the cost of 
the cordset.

Regards,

Gregory H. McClure
Lexmark Product Safety
Product Safety Team Lead
859-232-3240 office

From: Charles Jackson 
<156eedbcc0fd-dmarc-requ...@ieee.org<mailto:156eedbcc0fd-dmarc-requ...@ieee.org>>
Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2021 10:45 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Subject: Re: [PSES] Multiple Power cord-sets bundled with product

Thanks, I appreciate the feedback!
Sounds like there have been no legal/importation issues bundling cord sets with 
a product.

Chuck

From: Stultz, Mark 
<0f79f2e10e47-dmarc-requ...@ieee.org<mailto:0f79f2e10e47-dmarc-requ...@ieee.org>>
Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2021 7:16 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Subject: Re: [PSES] Multiple Power cord-sets bundled with product

External email: Use caution opening links or attachments

We build a top-level generic and then pack the power cord right before crating. 
 Where we run into issues is when we have a distributor in Europe or Asia 
orders the machine based on their location but the end-user is in a different 
country.

Mark Stultz | CMSE(r) | Sealed Air | Automated Packaging Systems | Streetsboro, 
OH | 330-342-2402

From: Scott Douglas mailto:sdouglas...@gmail.com>>
Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2021 2:49 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Subject: Re: [PSES] Multiple Power cord-sets bundled with product


 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click 
links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content 
is safe.

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 
mailto:doug...@gmail.com>> 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<mailto:doug...@gmail.com>
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01<https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin.com%2Fin%2Fdougp01=04%7C01%7Cgreg.mcclure%40lexmark.com%7Ce9f20e207bf34cec0b6508d9575720c0%7C127090656e6c41c99e4dfb0a436969ce%7C1%7C1%7C637636853999483410%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik

Re: [PSES] CB Certification

[Greg McClure]

Steve,

That is the way we certify our products, which are to IEC/EN/UL 62368-1.

The alternative is to have the power supply re-tested and listed as part of 
your product, with all the critical components added to your CCL and the 
applicable fault testing of the power supply repeated in your product. That 
will add considerably to the cost and test time.

Gregory H. McClure
Lexmark Product Safety
Product Safety Team Lead
859-232-3240 office

From: Steve Brody 
Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2021 11:12 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] CB Certification

Experts,

A question came up relative to obtaining a CB Cert for an EN 61010-1 product 
that is using OEM AC/DC power supplies.

An NRTL who is doing the CB Cert for the end product has said that the internal 
power supplies, which are US NRTL and CE marked, must have their own CB Report 
in order proceed with the CB Report for the end product.

I have not run into that requirement previously so I am asking for your input 
on whether this is a CB Report requirement, or think it might be their internal 
requirement.

As always thank you in advance for your responses,

Best to all and stay healthy,

Steve Brody
sgbr...@comcast.net
C - 603 617 9116
-


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 
mailto: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 mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org>>
Mike Cantwell mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org>>

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org>>
David Heald mailto: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] Multiple Power cord-sets bundled with product

[Greg McClure]

In our experience:

Argentina, Australia and China (PRC) cords are mutually exclusive and cannot be 
bundled together.

Brazil no longer accepts any cord that looks like a US NEMA 5-15 plug.

India and South Africa cords are mutually exclusive unless you can get one that 
carries certifications for both countries.

Japan, Taiwan and the US are mutually exclusive due to different certification 
requirements for the plugs and cordage.

There may be ways around some of these but they tend to drive up the cost of 
the cordset.

Regards,

Gregory H. McClure
Lexmark Product Safety
Product Safety Team Lead
859-232-3240 office

From: Charles Jackson <156eedbcc0fd-dmarc-requ...@ieee.org>
Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2021 10:45 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Multiple Power cord-sets bundled with product

Thanks, I appreciate the feedback!
Sounds like there have been no legal/importation issues bundling cord sets with 
a product.

Chuck

From: Stultz, Mark 
<0f79f2e10e47-dmarc-requ...@ieee.org>
Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2021 7:16 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Multiple Power cord-sets bundled with product

External email: Use caution opening links or attachments

We build a top-level generic and then pack the power cord right before crating. 
 Where we run into issues is when we have a distributor in Europe or Asia 
orders the machine based on their location but the end-user is in a different 
country.

Mark Stultz | CMSE(r) | Sealed Air | Automated Packaging Systems | Streetsboro, 
OH | 330-342-2402

From: Scott Douglas mailto:sdouglas...@gmail.com>>
Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2021 2:49 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Multiple Power cord-sets bundled with product


 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click 
links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content 
is safe.

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 
mailto:doug...@gmail.com>> 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 

Re: [PSES] Question - not EMC

[Greg McClure]

Gary,

It may depend on which standard you are using to certify your product. Here are 
3 references from an investigation I performed in 2014:


  1.  UL 60950-1, Annex NAE, Clause 3.2.5, Cord-connected equipment - "The 
length of a power supply cord shall not exceed 4.5 m (14.76 ft)" [NEC 400.8, 
645.5(B)]
  2.  UL 60950-1, Annex NAE, Clause 3.2.5, Cord-connected equipment - "The 
minimum length of a power supply cord shall be 1.5 m unless it is intended for 
a special installation, such as dedicated equipment intended to be mounted near 
a receptacle. ..." [NEC 210]
  3.  US National Electrical Code Handbook 2008 Section 210.52 - "Receptacles 
are required to be located so that no point in any wall space is more than 6 ft 
(1.83 m) from a receptacle. This rule intends that an appliance or lamp with a 
flexible cord attached may be placed anywhere in the room near a wall and be 
within 6 ft (1.83 m) of a receptacle, thus eliminating the need for extension 
cords.   ..." (emphasis added)


Gregory H. McClure
Lexmark Product Safety
Product Safety Team Lead
859-232-3240 office

From: Darnel, Gary 
Sent: Wednesday, September 9, 2020 11:51 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Question - not EMC

I have a general question, I hope someone here knows the history on it.


Is there is a length restriction on power cords for instruments?  I am not 
referring to extension cords.  But either hard connected cord, or the the 
removeable C13/C14 style cords?

If so, what is it, and why is it?  Discounting the EMC issues, what, if any, is 
the safety issue with a long power cord?  Which standards spell out this 
length?  What testing or rationale supports this?


Many thanks,

Regards,

Gary


Gary Darnel, P.Eng.
Senior R Engineer
Laboratory Automation








-


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 
mailto: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 mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org>>
Mike Cantwell mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org>>

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org>>
David Heald mailto: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] FDA status on IEC 60825-1:2014

[Greg McClure]

Ted,

Exactly our concern, we were looking at when the best time to update all of
our laser safety reports to the new edition would be, but we didn't want to
leave the FDA compliance behind.


Gregory H. McClure
Lexmark Product Safety
859 232 3240 office
859 232 6882 fax

On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 12:06 PM, Ted Eckert <ted.eck...@microsoft.com>
wrote:

> As far as I am aware, the FDA has not made any public statements regarding
> the third edition since their February 2015 guidance on the laser
> illuminated projectors
> <http://www.fda.gov/ucm/groups/fdagov-public/@fdagov-meddev-gen/documents/document/ucm434502.pdf>.
> This does not necessarily imply that there have been no discussions that
> have not yet been made public.
>
>
>
> It appears we have only 15 months before the third edition will be
> required for the presumption of conformity in Europe yet the United States
> would still require the second edition under Laser Notice 50. It is not an
> optimal situation.
>
>
>
> Ted Eckert
>
> Compliance Engineer
>
> Microsoft Corporation
>
> ted.eck...@microsoft.com
>
>
>
> The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of
> my employer.
>
>
>
> *From:* Greg McClure [mailto:gmccl...@lexmark.com]
> *Sent:* Thursday, March 24, 2016 8:10 AM
> *To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> *Subject:* [PSES] FDA status on IEC 60825-1:2014
>
>
>
> Has anyone seen an update on the FDA accepting the 3rd Ed of IEC60825-1?
>
>
>
> Gregory H. McClure
>
> Lexmark Product Safety
>
> 859 232 3240 office
>
> 859 232 6882 fax
>
> -
> 
>
> 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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2fwww.ieee-pses.org%2femc-pstc.html=01%7c01%7cted.eckert%40MICROSOFT.COM%7cf6888139a2ab44d7829808d353f6c4b3%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1=xcUNIO1CBwKEV9NZ0hRsF7%2fO80ku4COpwpsz3G6hQvA%3d>
>
> Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at
> http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2fproduct-compliance.oc.ieee.org%2f=01%7c01%7cted.eckert%40MICROSOFT.COM%7cf6888139a2ab44d7829808d353f6c4b3%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1=%2b8Vu21ZdwoXTMhYziUOgKanfdrr1kM1DbDoeOEnYys8%3d>
> can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc.
>
> Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2fwww.ieee-pses.org%2f=01%7c01%7cted.eckert%40MICROSOFT.COM%7cf6888139a2ab44d7829808d353f6c4b3%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1=VwWFXEqtKsr3%2bdwPvsMNhXKvHk90mY2Cd%2bxg1Ex7tOQ%3d>
> Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to
> unsubscribe)
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2fwww.ieee-pses.org%2flist.html=01%7c01%7cted.eckert%40MICROSOFT.COM%7cf6888139a2ab44d7829808d353f6c4b3%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1=U%2bGvZH%2bPYYJ0FTO6ArWuydTnlDV51vHsVbxtQ0ObDxc%3d>
> List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2fwww.ieee-pses.org%2flistrules.html=01%7c01%7cted.eckert%40MICROSOFT.COM%7cf6888139a2ab44d7829808d353f6c4b3%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1=%2fuBTs3OzEnl%2bWyCz4fs1XzfPTXjX9qdsSK2M4NZYHQo%3d>
>
> 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 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 <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>

[PSES] FDA status on IEC 60825-1:2014

[Greg McClure]

Has anyone seen an update on the FDA accepting the 3rd Ed of IEC60825-1?

Gregory H. McClure
Lexmark Product Safety
859 232 3240 office
859 232 6882 fax

-

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] Dual polarity DC electric strength test

[Greg McClure]

Rich,

We have always preferred the AC test in manufacturing, as we felt it was a
better test. However some technical issues, not safety related, have come
up that caused one of the development teams to request investigating using
the DC test for the routine manufacturing test.

Thanks,


Gregory H. McClure
Lexmark Product Safety
859 232 3240 office
859 232 6882 fax

On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 2:09 PM, Richard Nute ri...@ieee.org wrote:





 Hi Greg:





 The standard is incorrect in requiring tests of both polarity d.c.  There
 is no physical rationale for both polarities.  But, at this time, if you
 opt for d.c. testing, you must test with both polarities.  I would advise
 testing with a.c. to avoid capital expense of a new d.c. tester.





 Best regards,

 Rich






-

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 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

[PSES] Dual polarity DC electric strength test

[Greg McClure]

All,

In reviewing IEC 62368-1 Clause 5.4.9.1 the test procedure states about
halfway down the page:

The insulation is subjected to the highest test voltage as follows:

- by applying an a.c. voltage of substantially sine-wave form having a
frequency of 50 Hz or 60 Hz; or

- by applying a d.c. voltage in one polarity for the time specified below
and then repeat it in the reverse polarity.

Is anyone aware of a piece of test equipment that is capable of providing
both polarities for the DC test on the high voltage output automatically or
under software control?

The equipment we have in our lab only provides a single polarity, positive
with respect to ground when in DC mode, which requires us to manually
reverse the leads to perform the test. We would like to automate this
without requiring the operator to manipulate the test leads.

We also do not want an operator to be involved in reversing the leads if we
need to perform this as a routine test in manufacturing.

Response here or off-line would be greatly appreciated.


Gregory H. McClure
Lexmark Product Safety
859 232 3240 office
859 232 6882 fax

-

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 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

Re: [PSES] Dual polarity DC electric strength test

[Greg McClure]

Doug, John,

We have discussed these options with our test equipment group and could
build the test fixtures as suggested. However, we hesitate to use a
reversing scheme with a switch or high voltage relay in manufacturing
because it would require making the chassis of the product hot for one
polarity and our practice has always been to keep the chassis/frame at
ground potential to make it safer for the operator. We could build a cage
that prevents access to any part of the EUT but that would require a major
change to the design of the hi-pot station.


Gregory H. McClure
Lexmark Product Safety
859 232 3240 office
859 232 6882 fax

On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 9:43 AM, Greg McClure gmccl...@lexmark.com wrote:

 All,

 In reviewing IEC 62368-1 Clause 5.4.9.1 the test procedure states about
 halfway down the page:

 The insulation is subjected to the highest test voltage as follows:

 - by applying an a.c. voltage of substantially sine-wave form having a
 frequency of 50 Hz or 60 Hz; or

 - by applying a d.c. voltage in one polarity for the time specified below
 and then repeat it in the reverse polarity.

 Is anyone aware of a piece of test equipment that is capable of providing
 both polarities for the DC test on the high voltage output automatically or
 under software control?

 The equipment we have in our lab only provides a single polarity, positive
 with respect to ground when in DC mode, which requires us to manually
 reverse the leads to perform the test. We would like to automate this
 without requiring the operator to manipulate the test leads.

 We also do not want an operator to be involved in reversing the leads if
 we need to perform this as a routine test in manufacturing.

 Response here or off-line would be greatly appreciated.


 Gregory H. McClure
 Lexmark Product Safety
 859 232 3240 office
 859 232 6882 fax


-

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 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

Re: [PSES] Signal words, definition and usage

[Greg McClure]

Brian, Mike,

Thank you, you have nailed the chief objections we have been struggling
with as well. Our attempt to align usage across the business has received
the strongest objections from the code guys because Microsoft does it. We
will look at the MSDN site as well.

Regards,


Gregory H. McClure
Lexmark Product Safety
859 232 3240 office
859 232 6882 fax

On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 7:32 PM, Brian Oconnell oconne...@tamuracorp.com
wrote:

 Software, where not safety-critical, is a different subject. Microsoft has
 published several design guides (most are on the MSDN site) and has several
 long web pages that instruct and admonish programmers about the proper use
 of the various dialog boxes and how to phrase and title the dialog strings.
 Code monkeys seldom read this stuff.

 The general level of recommended escalation is typically
 1. info/notification msg
 2. warning msg
 3. error msg
 4. system exit

 Warnings resulting from a programmatic process are appropriate even where
 safety is not involved, as there could be an impending loss/corruption of
 data - analogous to equipment damage. For most programming language
 compilers, a message that is not a result of normal progress, is considered
 a 'warning' or an 'error'. Warnings can be specifically ignored/overridden,
 but errors (by definition) can halt the tool-chain sequence.

 Most software shops have formal policies for messages emitted by the
 elements of the tool-chain. It becomes a really big thing for security
 and/or safety-critical code where MISRA C or Ada is implemented, as
 suppressed warning flag settings must be approved by quality managers.

 Brian


 From: Mike Sherman - Original Message - [mailto:
 msherma...@comcast.net]
 Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2015 1:09 PM
 To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
 Subject: Re: [PSES] Signal words, definition and usage

 Re use the signal words for other purposes than potential injury:
 1.  Windows 95, I think it was, broadly corrupted the exclamation
 point/triangle hazard symbol by placing it in their pop up system error
 boxes. I'm glad to see that this is no longer practiced.
 2.  I once had a discussion at a former employer with software GUI
 programmers, who similarly used the word warning for software system
 error messages that again had nothing to do with safety.
 My argument was that we, as the manufacturer, had to have a consistent
 vocabulary across our entire user interface---labels, manuals, GUI,
 training materials---and I reserved the words DANGER, WARNING and CAUTION
 for personal injury issues. The software programmers then switched to ALERT
 or other words for software issues not related to safety.

 Mike Sherman
 Graco Inc.

 -
 
 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 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 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 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

Re: [PSES] Signal words, definition and usage

[Greg McClure]

Rich,

Thanks for forcing my brain into another frame of mind. I had not thought
of it in exactly that way until I read your comment. The statements we are
discussing are either those prescribed by the applicable standard, or more
often, the CYA type statements we all include in our users guides (such as
do not connect a fax machine to the telephone line during a lightning
storm).

We have been trying to align any statements with the ANSI and ISO standard
and have been getting some resistance from other groups that use the signal
words for other purposes than potential injury. I was looking for
additional perspective to bolster our argument.

Thanks everybody, this has all been good food for thought.

Regards,


Gregory H. McClure
Lexmark Product Safety
859 232 3240 office
859 232 6882 fax

On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 2:17 PM, Richard Nute ri...@ieee.org wrote:





 Hi Greg:





 If you have a product that requires the use of the signal words (except
 “notice”), then you have, by definition of the signal word, an un-safe
 product.  For conventional products, you shouldn’t have to use the signal
 words.





 Best regards,

 Rich






-

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 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

[PSES] Signal words, definition and usage

[Greg McClure]

Looking for input from the group.

The definition of the signal words per ISO 3864-2 and ANSI Z535.6 are:

DANGER - signal word used to indicate an imminently hazardous situation
which, if not avoided, will result in death or serious injury

WARNING - signal word used to indicate a potentially hazardous situation
which, if not avoided, could result in death or serious injury

CAUTION - signal word used to indicate a potentially hazardous situation
which, if not avoided, could result in minor or moderate injury

NOTICE - indicates information considered important, but not hazard-related
(e.g. messages related to property damage). The safety alert symbol shall
not be used with this signal word. When a signal word is used for messages
relating to property damage, NOTICE is the choice of signal word. [This
definition is from ANSI Z535.6, NOTICE does not appear in ISO 3864-2]

The signal words are to be used to identify safety messages and property
damage messages. In another context, some of the signal words have been
used to warn of data loss or damage, which I suppose is a form of property
damage.

Many standards allow the use/definition of the signal words to be modified,
provided they are defined in the documentation provided with the product.
In many cases we have seen the severity associated with the words Warning
and Caution reversed, or even the mention of injury deleted such that
Warning is associated with equipment or property damage only and Caution is
used to refer to potential injury.

Has anyone had an experience with any agency or test house where the use of
signal words was challenged, or any case where the definition had to be
defended when it was not strictly in line with the standards?

Gregory H. McClure
Lexmark Product Safety
859 232 3240 office
859 232 6882 fax

-

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 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

Re: [PSES] Surface mount resistors failing short circuit

[Greg McClure]

Charlie,

The spacing between the pads where the SMT resistor is mounted may be so
small that the resistor failure mode doesn't matter. The creepage distance
itself may require consideration of a short between the pads as a valid
single fault condition..


Gregory H. McClure
Lexmark Product Safety
859 232 3240 office
859 232 6882 fax

On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 4:40 AM, Charlie Blackham 
char...@sulisconsultants.com wrote:

  All



 Have a discussion with an NRTL regarding fault testing on the
 charge/discharge circuit for a 65mAh 3.1V coin cell battery in product
 being assessed against 60950-1.



 The NRTL insist on short-circuiting the single 560R current limiting
 resistor and I am unable to find any evidence that thick-film or thin-film
 surface mount resistors can fail short-circuit as they appear to fail
 open-circuit



 Now, we could add a 2nd series resistor, but that would require a board
 change  - can SMT resistors fail this way, or are the NRTL being
 over-enthusiastic (unreasonable)



 Thanks

 Charlie



 *Charlie Blackham*

 *Sulis Consultants Ltd*

 *Tel: +44 (0)7946 624317 %2B44%20%280%297946%20624317*

 *LinkedIn: **uk.linkedin.com/in/charlieblackham/*
 http://uk.linkedin.com/in/charlieblackham/

 *Web: www.sulisconsultants.com http://www.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 LT;
 emc-p...@ieee.orgGT;

 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 LT;sdoug...@ieee.orgGT;
 Mike Cantwell LT;mcantw...@ieee.orgGT;

 For policy questions, send mail to:
 Jim Bacher LT;j.bac...@ieee.orgGT;
 David Heald LT;dhe...@gmail.comGT;


-

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 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

Re: [PSES] Chinese CCC Requirements for Altitude and Tropics

[Greg McClure]

Mike,

For the 5000 m requirement, you need to multiply the Clearance requirements
by 1.48 per Table A.2 of GB/T 16935.1 (equivalent to IEC 60664-1) to
correct for the altitude change from 2000 m to 5000 m. This will also drive
your Creepage requirements to match the Clearance values as Creepage cannot
be less than Clearance. It is most helpful if you have these measurements
documented in the CB report investigation with a note that Clearance was
evaluated at 1.48 times the 2000 m values in the standard.

For the Tropical Humidity requirement the maximum ambient of your product
spec must be at least 35 C (which also drives the limits in your heating
tests). The actual Tropical Humidity test is a minimum of 120 hours at 40 C
+/- 2 C, 93 % +/- 3 % relative humidity (non-operating) followed by
successfully passing the Electric Strength test.

You should contact your test engineer at the agency writing your CB report
and ask about the China National Deviations, there are more than these two
requirements, although the rest should be less of an issue for a 220-240 V
rated product. You can also get the China National Deviations with a
subscription to the CB Bulletin on the IEC web-store. At least they are
listed for IEC 60950-1 in the OFF category. Have not investigated other
standards for China.

Regards,


Gregory H. McClure
Lexmark Product Safety
859 232 3240 office
859 232 6882 fax


On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 11:32 AM, Mike Sherman - Original Message -
msherma...@comcast.net wrote:

 I'm exploring CCC marking a product for China. I've been told that unless
 the product passes certain tests, it has to be marked as not for use: above
 2000 m; or in tropical regions.
  I'm assuming that the 2000 m issue is related to clearances, and the
 tropics to some sort of additional humidity conditioning.

 QUESTION
 Does any one have examples of what these specific
 tests/evaluations/requirements are? I would like, of course, to test my
 product before sending it to a Chinese CCC lab.

 Thanks,
 Mike Sherman
 Graco Inc.
 Product Safety and Compliance Engineer
 -
 

 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 LT;
 emc-p...@ieee.orgGT;

 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 LT;emcp...@radiusnorth.netGT;
 Mike Cantwell LT;mcantw...@ieee.orgGT;

 For policy questions, send mail to:
 Jim Bacher LT;j.bac...@ieee.orgGT;
 David Heald LT;dhe...@gmail.comGT;


-

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 emcp...@radiusnorth.net
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  j.bac...@ieee.org
David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com

Re: [PSES] Safety and Altitude

[Greg McClure]

We spec an operating altitude to 3000 m (10,000 feet. sometimes 9800 or
9500 ft, depends on who did the math). We have moved most of our power
supplies to 5000 m in the CQC report for the supply in order to allow us to
claim compliance with the safety requirement to 5000 m in China. We have
not increased the operational altitude spec.


Gregory H. McClure
Lexmark Product Safety
859 232 3240 office
859 232 6882 fax


On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 4:49 PM, Mark Gandler markgand...@hotmail.comwrote:

 Hi there,**

  

 Wanted to get some simple data point based on your experiences across
 different companies and industries: what are an altitude levels been used
 while evaluating 60950-1 isolation requirements? By default you get 2000m,
 how many of you used different levels? 

 This is driven by 5000m CCC requirement and some critical power supply
 component limitations. 

 If there will be enough responses, I’ll send back statistical breakdown. *
 ***

  

 Thank you for reading,

 Mark
  -
 

 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 LT;
 emc-p...@ieee.orgGT;

 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://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html
 List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

 For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Scott Douglas LT;emcp...@radiusnorth.netGT;
 Mike Cantwell LT;mcantw...@ieee.orgGT;

 For policy questions, send mail to:
 Jim Bacher LT;j.bac...@ieee.orgGT;
 David Heald LT;dhe...@gmail.comGT;


-

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://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  j.bac...@ieee.org
David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com