RE: UL 508 C

[Kazimier Gawrzyjal]

Hi Rafael,

I don't know how to exactly align UL 508C to an IEC equivalent, although
some of the learned members of this forum are sure to have suggestions.
Mine would be to contact UL.  UL is well connected with a European agency
and so I'm assuming they would likely be able to supply the information
fairly quickly.

Good Luck.
My opinion and not that of Sanmina Canada.

Regards,
Kaz Gawrzyjal 
Sr. Product Safety Engineer
--
Sanmina Canada ULC
Wireless Development Centre
2924 11 Street NE   
Calgary, Alberta
Canada, T2E 7L7 
tel:403-769-4805 (ESN 758)
fax:403-769-4813 (ESN 758)
e-mail:  k...@nortelnetworks.com

Sanmina Canada ULC  does not accept liability for any errors,
> omissions, corruption or virus in the contents of this message or
> any attachments that arise as a result of e-mail transmission.
> ***
> 


-Original Message-
From: Rafael González [mailto:rgonza...@cetecom.es]
Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2000 8:49 AM
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: UL 508 C
Importance: High
Sensitivity: Personal



Dear Sirs,

How can I know the equivalent IEC standard of the UL 508 C ?

Thanks very mush for your time and collaboration.


Rafael González Licerán
Area Seguridad Eléctrica
rgonzál...@cetecom.es
_
CENTRO DE TECNOLOGIA DE LAS COMUNICACIONES, S.A.
PTA - C/Severo Ochoa 2, 29590 Campanillas (Málaga)
Tel: 34 952619100 - Fax: 34 952619113 - Web: http://www.cetecom.es/
_




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

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

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

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

RE: Desperate for help on a UL1950 interpretation

[Kazimier Gawrzyjal]

Hi Doug,

Without knowing the details of your product, how the part is implemented,
what exactly it is exposed to or the concerns of the safety house, a
question I would ask is what exactly is the concern?  Is it possible that
the exemptions under 1950, 3rd, cl. 4.4.3.2  .7th hyphenated item
dealing with abnormal testing per 5.4.6 to prove in  no issues could be
applied?  Keep in mind it's a D3 deviation so although it might work for
North America, you might have issues with non-North American markets.
Another pointer might be the general description regarding the use of small
parts, cumulative effects and the propagation of flame in 4.4.3.1-it is a
bit nebulous and leaves the door open to applying engineering judgement.

Good Luck!

My opinion and not that of Sanmina Canada.

Regards,
Kaz Gawrzyjal, P. Eng. 
Sr. Product Safety Engineer
--
Sanmina Canada ULC
Wireless Development Centre
2924 11 Street NE   
Calgary, Alberta
Canada, T2E 7L7 
tel:403-769-4805 (ESN 758)
fax:403-769-4813 (ESN 758)
e-mail:  k...@nortelnetworks.com
calgary...@aol.com

Sanmina Canada ULC  does not accept liability for any errors,
> omissions, corruption or virus in the contents of this message or
> any attachments that arise as a result of e-mail transmission.
> ***
> 


-Original Message-
From: Massey, Doug C. [mailto:masse...@lxe.com]
Sent: Friday, September 29, 2000 10:37 AM
To: 'emc-p...@ieee.org'
Subject: Desperate for help on a UL1950 interpretation



Hello All -

I desperately need some opinions on an interpretation of a particular clause
in UL1950. The background: I have an investigation underway to UL1950 of a
portable handheld computer, powered by battery and other power options, all
of which meet the requirements for inherently LPS.

Clause 4.4.3.1 states, "Components inside a FIRE ENCLOSURE", and
continues into flammability requirements of materials and components.

Clause 4.4.5.2 addresses components not requiring a fire enclosure, and
states, "-components in a SECONDARY CIRCUIT supplied by a limited power
source complying with 2.11, provided that"

The product in question absolutely meets the requirements of clause 4.4.5.2,
which I interpret to mean that a fire enclosure is not required. However,
the test house performing the evaluation is applying all of the criteria of
clause 4.4.3.2. Unfortunately, I have a relatively small foam spacer inside
that does not meet the flammability class HF-2 or better as specified in
4.4.3.2. 

The test house tells me that yes, the product meets the requirements for the
exemption allowed in 4.4.5.2, but that I cannot literally interpret the
statement in 4.4.3.1 to mean that the substance of clause 4.4.3 regards only
component and material flammability ratings inside a fire enclosure.

I guess I'm a literal type guy - I can't see any other way to interpret the
standard. Can anyone shed some light on this interpretation so that I can
read between the lines and understand the real requirements? I'm not trying
to make an enclosure of gasoline-impregnated paper, and with the exception
of a small (but critical) piece of foam, everything else meets the
requirements without the exclusion allowed by 4.4.5.2.

HELP !?!?


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

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



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

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

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

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

RE: Application of agency safety markings

[Kazimier Gawrzyjal]

Tania,

With UL, I've found the requirement to apply the listing mark at the
approved factory location gets invoked in the FUS Procedure, very first page
identifying the Listee, applicant and possibly the manufacturing location
and the CCN (a one page document at the start of the FUS proceduresorry
to the UL folks but I'm not sure what the page is called). Section General
of the FUS also reflects the requirement.  Finally, this requirement is
further indicated in the original Follow Up Service Agreement, signed by UL
and the "Subscriber" sections 1 and 2.  I assume a similar process
requirement is held by other NRTL's.

Was the option of field investigations or the like explored at all?  It's
often more expensive and good for a one-shot type of application or quickie
field deployment but it can get the job done.

My 2 cents and not that of Sanmina Canada ULC.

Regards,
Kaz Gawrzyjal, P. Eng. 
Sr. Product Safety Engineer
--
Sanmina Canada ULC
Wireless Development Centre
2924 11 Street NE   
Calgary, Alberta
Canada, T2E 7L7 
tel:403-769-4805 (ESN 758)
fax:403-769-4813 (ESN 758)
e-mail:  k...@nortelnetworks.com




-Original Message-
From: Lyons, Jim [mailto:jim.ly...@gtech.com]
Sent: Friday, September 22, 2000 6:44 AM
To: 'Grant, Tania (Tania)'; 'emc-p...@ieee.org'
Subject: RE: Application of agency safety markings



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

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

So, add ETL to the list with UL.

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

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


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

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

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

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

RE: Red LED's

[Kazimier Gawrzyjal]

Hi,

I'm not familiar with any requirements disallowing the use of red leds (at
least per IEC 60950 and derivatives) but you'll need to ensure the LEDs (and
the application) meet EN 60825 laser class 1 requirements (ref. to cl.
0.2.6; 4.3.13 and Annex P)..

My opinion and not that of Sanmina Canada ULC.

Regards,
Kaz Gawrzyjal, P. Eng.
Sr. Product Safety Engineer
--
Sanmina Canada ULC
Wireless Development Centre
2924 11 Street NE   
Calgary, Alberta
Canada, T2E 7L7 
tel:403-769-4805 (ESN 758)
fax:403-769-4813 (ESN 758)
e-mail:  k...@nortelnetworks.com


-Original Message-
From: Mark Schmidt [mailto:mschm...@xrite.com]
Sent: Friday, September 22, 2000 7:59 AM
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: Red LED's



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

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



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

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

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

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

RE: Application of agency safety markings

[Kazimier Gawrzyjal]

Sorry folks...need more coffee today as the info I added wasn't an answer
Tania's question.

I've found the same requirement in the CSA Product Service agreement,
section 1.2 (b).

Again, my opinion and not that of Sanmina Canada ULC.

Regards,
Kaz Gawrzyjal, P. Eng. 
Sr. Product Safety Engineer
--
Sanmina Canada ULC
Wireless Development Centre
2924 11 Street NE   
Calgary, Alberta
Canada, T2E 7L7 
tel:403-769-4805 (ESN 758)
fax:403-769-4813 (ESN 758)
e-mail:  k...@nortelnetworks.com


> 


-Original Message-
From: Gawrzyjal, Kazimier [WDC:C149:EXCH] 
Sent: Friday, September 22, 2000 8:47 AM
To: 'Lyons, Jim'; 'Grant, Tania (Tania)'; 'emc-p...@ieee.org'
Subject: RE: Application of agency safety markings


Tania,

With UL, I've found the requirement to apply the listing mark at the
approved factory location gets invoked in the FUS Procedure, very first page
identifying the Listee, applicant and possibly the manufacturing location
and the CCN (a one page document at the start of the FUS proceduresorry
to the UL folks but I'm not sure what the page is called). Section General
of the FUS also reflects the requirement.  Finally, this requirement is
further indicated in the original Follow Up Service Agreement, signed by UL
and the "Subscriber" sections 1 and 2.  I assume a similar process
requirement is held by other NRTL's.

Was the option of field investigations or the like explored at all?  It's
often more expensive and good for a one-shot type of application or quickie
field deployment but it can get the job done.

My 2 cents and not that of Sanmina Canada ULC.

Regards,
Kaz Gawrzyjal, P. Eng. 
Sr. Product Safety Engineer
--
Sanmina Canada ULC
Wireless Development Centre
2924 11 Street NE   
Calgary, Alberta
Canada, T2E 7L7 
tel:403-769-4805 (ESN 758)
fax:403-769-4813 (ESN 758)
e-mail:  k...@nortelnetworks.com




-Original Message-
From: Lyons, Jim [mailto:jim.ly...@gtech.com]
Sent: Friday, September 22, 2000 6:44 AM
To: 'Grant, Tania (Tania)'; 'emc-p...@ieee.org'
Subject: RE: Application of agency safety markings



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

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

So, add ETL to the list with UL.

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

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


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

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

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

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

RE: Using fuse to protect wire undersized for load?

[Kazimier Gawrzyjal]

Lauren,
 
To add to Peter's comments below, another relevant factor might be the
required observation of termination temperatures and conductor ampacity and
therefore selection per NEC art. 110-14(c).  Without knowing more of the
product nature or implementation, the requirement may yet add further
argument to increasing conductor size beyond 2/0.
 
My 2 cents and not that of my employer.
 
Kaz Gawrzyjal , P. Eng.
Sr. Product Safety Engineer 
-- 
Sanmina Canada ULC 
Wireless Development Centre 
2924 11 Street NE   
Calgary, Alberta
Canada, T2E 7L7 
tel:403-769-4805 (ESN 758) 
fax:403-769-4813 (ESN 758) 
e-mail:  calgary...@aol.com  ,
k...@nortelnetworks.com   

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Tarver, Peter [SC1:9031:EXCH] 
Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2000 5:02 PM
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: RE: Using fuse to protect wire undersized for load?



Lauren - 

I'm not familiar with NFPA79, so I'll answer only with regard to NFPA70 (the
US NEC). 

The 125% issue in the NEC is for two items:  attachment plugs sizing and
circuit breaker sizing (1/1.25 = 0.80), both relative to load current.
Attachment plugs for equipment that contain motors must be rated for not
less than 125% of the steady state operating current.  General purpose
circuit breakers need to be sized at 80% of steady state operating current
for all branch circuits, unless marked for 100% load rating when used as a
switch for lighting circuits (IIRC, this marking is "SWD").

Fuses, on the other hand, are useable up to 100% of their marked rating. 

Wiring need must be sized according to the applicable load current and
overcurrent protection provided according to the wire size and load current.

The above, of course, can be used outside these ratings, if under
engineering supervision and acceptable to the Authority Having Jurisdiction.
Use at lesser currents than rated is just fine for wiring, fuses, circuit
breakers and attachment plugs.

It's difficult to comment further, without knowing more detail about the
product, since speculation can get far afield from your specific case.

BTW, I hope your client is aware of Sections 400-7 and 400-8 of the NEC, as
well as the notes to Table 400-5(b).  I would have normally expected to use
the tables in Article 310 for this.

Regards, 

Peter L. Tarver, PE 
ptar...@nortelnetworks.com 


-Original Message- 
From: Crane, Lauren 


Colleagues, 

I have an internal client who is proposing a design. In this design, a 
resistive heating load is being supplied by conductors that are far below 
the 125% of load recommended/required by the NEC or NFPA-79 (ref 1994 sect 
15.5.3). The client argues that it is okay that the supply conductors are 
far below because they are fused at a level that will protect them. 

.26 ohm load 
driven at 120 volts max 

Full Load Amps calculates to 462 amps. 125% = 577 amps. 60degC wire size 
should be 700 mcm per NFPA-79 1994 table 11. 

Client proposes using 2/0 90degC wire because drive circuit is an SCR 
controller fused to 50 amps feeding a 4:1 step down transformer. They 
rationalized max current (given 50A fuses) is 200 amps on the secondary. 2/0

90degC wire is rated to 300 amps per NEC table 400-5b. 

It seems clear to me that the codes say the wire should be sized to the 
load. But the codes don't seem to say that wires SHOULD NOT be sized to 
thier over current protection (regardless of the load). 

Does anyone have a pro or con rational for undersizing the conductors to a 
load provided they are protected correctly by a fuse or breaker? 

Thanks in advance.  

Lauren Crane (my own opinions, not my employeer's) 
*   Product Design Safety & Compliance Manager 
*   Ion Beam and Thermal Processing Systems 
*   Axcelis Technologies Inc. 
*   108 Cherry Hill Dr. 
*   Beverly, MA  01915 
*   978.921-9745   lauren.cr...@axcelis.com 


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

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

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

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

RE: RE: EN55024 question

[Kazimier Gawrzyjal]

Folks,
 
Just to add to the mix of questions so far, here's a few more that Debbie
may wish to consider:
1)  is the demarkation point for the product clearly identified?  
2)  Is a smart jack always to be used with the product?  Who supplies it
(i.e. mfg. or customer)?
3)  Is the product in question specified to meet the immunity requirements
with/without the use of the smart connector?
4)  Are there a million+1garden variety smart jacks or is there only a
unique smart jack to connect with this particular product?
5)  What will the customer's obligations for installation and deployments of
the product be?
 
I guess the point I'm raising is that the product Debbie(below) refers to
has to live up to it's specs...whatever they are.  If the immunity spec is
not to be met stand-alone (i.e. without smart jack) due to whatever the mfg.
pushes onto the customer...that's fine but it should be clearly identified
on the mfg's side and to their customers in one way or another.  Any
assumptions that are made regarding what it is that Telcos supply is ok as
well...they might be wrong however, so the design docs, approvals and
customer supplied information should clearly spell out what the product
meets and what the customer's obligations are prior to deployments,
implementation and possible field issues.
 
My 2 Cents...if I'm way off track, please accept my apologies.
 
Kaz Gawrzyjal, P. Eng.
k...@nortelnetworks.com  
calgary...@aol.com  
-Original Message-
From: Tarver, Peter [SC1:9031:EXCH] 
Sent: Friday, September 01, 2000 9:00 AM
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: RE: RE: EN55024 question



Bandele - 

Please forgive an ignorant question: 

I'm not going to pretend to be an EMC standards expert, but I fail to see
how the presence or absence of processing an incoming signal has anything to
do with whether there is a direct or indirect connection to outside lines.
To wit: "outside" is easily enough understood as a line (presumed metallic)
that enters a building structure from an uncontrolled environment and
subject to transients.  Direct implies to me that there is no interposing
hardware, other than interconnects (no voltage surge suppression devices,
galvanic isolating equipment, etc).

Is this an interpretation from a Notified Body or known to be the intent of
the standards committee that wrote the requirement?

Regards, 

Peter L. Tarver, PE 
ptar...@nortelnetworks.com 


-Original Message- 
From: Bandele Adepoju 
Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2000 1:16 PM 


Hello Debbie, 

If the jack has processing capabilities (if it takes the incoming 
data signal and reprocesses it or reformats it), any connection to 
it is considered to be an "indirect" connection.  If the jack does 
not have processing capabilities (if it passes the data signal 
straight through), any connection to it is considered to be a 
"direct" connection. 

Regards, 

Bandele 
Jetstream Communications, Inc. 
badep...@jetstream.com 


-Original Message- 
From: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com [ mailto:jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
 ] 

forwarding for Debbie... 

Reply Separator 
Subject:EN55024 question 
Author: Debbie Mallory  
List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org
Date:   8/25/00 10:59 AM 


> Hello, 
> 
> I have a question about the use of the word "directly" in Note 2, of Table

> 2, in EN55024: 1998.  It says "Applicable only to [telecommunication] 
> ports which according to the manufacturer's specification may connect 
> directly to outdoor cables." 
> 
> If the TTE has a T1/E1 interface that connects to the "outdoor cable" via 
> a smart jack, is this considered a direct connection (and thus subject to 
> immunity testing) or does it not apply?  
> 
> Can I make any assumptions about whether phone companies throughout the 
> EEU install smart jacks at the customer premises?
> 
> Thanks for your comments. 
> 
> Regards, 
> 
> Debbie Mallory 
> AFC, Inc. 
> Largo, FL 

RE: Why routine hipot is required.

[Kazimier Gawrzyjal]

Mike,

In my experience, the purpose of the end-assembly, 100% mfg. hi-pot test is
to check the integrity of the electrical connections and of the required
isolation levels.  On the manufacturing end, any number of events can create
a disturbance in the insulation of the product.  These can often include
insulation migration, miswiring, skinned insulation on conductors, quality
issues with OEM supplied parts (i.e. connectors, supplies, etc.) due to time
or transportation effects and so onthink Murphy's Law.  Restated, the
factory test will help identify an otherwise catastrophic fault waiting to
happen out in the field.

For the most part, it's effective and pretty much required by a safety
agency as part of the approval.

Cheers,
Kaz Gawrzyjal 
Sr. Product Safety Engineer
--
Sanmina Canada ULC
Wireless Development Centre
2924 11 Street NE   
Calgary, Alberta
Canada, T2E 7L7 
tel:403-232-4805 (ESN 765)
fax:403-232-4813 (ESN 765)
e-mail:  k...@nortelnetworks.com

>



-Original Message-
From: Mike Morrow [mailto:mi...@ucentric.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2000 11:40 AM
To: EMC Society
Subject: Why routine hipot is required.



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

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

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


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

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

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

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

RE: Implanted IC in brain

[Kazimier Gawrzyjal]

Greetings,

Interesting topic

Personally if forced to choose, I'd place my money on the recent advances
announced by the genetics community to get my great-grand kids to the
"enhanced" state of humanity as opposed to a chip set in the old
noodlemy thoughts will continue to be my own and not accessible by the
crackers of tomorrow via the wireless web concept.

Seems some form of operating system would be required to get the web
interface runninganyone have that much faith in the existing options
today as to load up some software in your noggin??  Hopefully airline pilots
will be excluded from this vision of the future else face at least one crash
per week.Can you go to "Bob's Headshop" for some aftermarket knock-off
parts?

Does UL 1950 cl. 1.1.2 and 1.1.3 allow for added abnormals?

My 2 Cents and not those of my current employer.
Kaz Gawrzyjal
Safety Guy
nortel networks
k...@nortelnetworks.com
k...@hotmail.com

-Original Message-
From: Mel Pedersen [mailto:mpeder...@midcom-inc.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2000 10:54 AM
To: 'Barry Ma'; EMC-PSTC
Subject: RE: Implanted IC in brain



Hello:

I believe we should consider what precedents the Medical Equipment community
has laid out hereat least as a startIEC 60601, FDA regs, etc

these address safety concerns for implanted.

Just my humble thoughts on the matter.

- Mel

-Original Message-
From: Barry Ma [mailto:barry...@altavista.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2000 7:14 PM
To: EMC-PSTC
Subject: Implanted IC in brain



Hi,

It seems not a pure friction to implant intelligent IC into human brains.
Some people made prediction about this new breed of human being. Some are
talking about downloading certain virtual sense from Internet. ... Let's put
aside the feasibility and focus only on related EMC/Safety concerns.

1. If there going to be a wireless access from human brain to Internet, do
we have the same Safety concern as cellular phone?
2. It would also be possible to directly communicate each other via brain
ICs. We don't have to exchange thoughts by means of any language (spoken and
written) or eye contact. ...  Should we have EMC standards to regulate the
emission level of brain waves and immunity capability for brain ICs?

Thanks.
Best Regards,
Barry Ma
ANRITSUwww.anritsu.com
Morgan Hill, CA 95037
Tel. 408-778-2000 x 4465
___

$1 million in prizes! 20 daily instant winners. 
AltaVista Rewards: Click here to win! 
http://shopping.altavista.com/e.sdc?e=3

___


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

RE: UL1950/UL2601 Thermals

[Kazimier Gawrzyjal]

Hi Dan,

The guideline you've mentioned below is one that I've heard from UL and CSA
in the past and have applied within the realm of engineering
judgement/common sense as much as possible without much issue.  It is
reasonable to expect that ambient temperature may fluctuate somewhat in pace
with the test lab conditions or EUT design and operation ( EUT may cycle in
operation).  The objective of the temperature test is to determine the
operating temperatures of critical and accessible components of the EUT
stabilized over a period of time under conditions that are considered
representative of the normal operation for the EUT to ensure that fire or
shock hazard does not exist.  

With that in mind, if your temperatures vary a bit but are cyclical in
nature and offer much margin at the high points, what's the safety issue?
On the other side of the fence, if your temps. are on the edge of "failure"
and the stability question is the defining factor, you'd probably want to
revisit the design anyhow, to alleviate safety and reliability concerns. 

To date, the safety engineers in both agencies that I've worked with have
applied engineering judgement in terms of "thermal stability" since the
definition can easily vary with the EUT design, operation and of course with
the test being appliedanother good reason for tracking the external
ambient.

Have you requested a written definition from whichever safety agency you're
working with?

My 2 cents and not those of my current employer.

Kaz Gawrzyjal, P. Eng.
Product Safety Engineer
--
Nortel Networks-Wireless Solutions
Wireless Development Centre
2924 11 Street NE   
Calgary, Alberta
Canada, T2E 7L7 
tel:403-232-4805 (ESN 765)
fax:403-232-4813 (ESN 765)
e-mail:  k...@nortelnetworks.com
e-,ail:  k...@hotmail.com




-Original Message-
From: Dan Mitchell [mailto:dan_mitch...@condordc.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2000 9:32 AM
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: UL1950/UL2601 Thermals



In UL2601 Clause 42.3.3) Duty Cycle - for Equipment for Continuous
operation it lists 2 ways to conclude the test a) temperature of the
windings stabilize and do not increase by more than 2 deg. C in 1 hr, or b)
2.5 hr, which ever is shorter.

UL1950 only states that; "for continuous operation, until steady conditions
are established".  I haven't been able to establish what is meant by
"Steady Conditions".  I was told once by a rep. of a large safety company
that it meant "no more than a 1 deg. C rise in 15 minute period".  However,
since I can't find this written in the standard, I am a bit skeptical.

If anybody has a good definition of "Steady Conditions" and can point it
out to me in UL1950 or in the PAGs, I would appreciate it.


Daniel W. Mitchell
Product Safety Engineer
Condor DC Power Supplies, Inc.

P: (805) 486-4565 x323
F: (805) 483-4307




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

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

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

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

RE: Fwd:R&TTE directive

[Kazimier Gawrzyjal]

Hi Jim,

Try the following link.

http://www.tsacc.ic.gc.ca/MRA/BlueGuide.pdf

My 2 Cents and not that of my current employer.

Regards,
Kaz Gawrzyjal, P. Eng.
Product Safety Engineer
--
Nortel Networks-Wireless Solutions
Wireless Development Centre
2924 11 Street NE   
Calgary, Alberta
Canada, T2E 7L7 
tel:403-232-4805 (ESN 765)
fax:403-232-4813 (ESN 765)
e-mail:  k...@nortelnetworks.com


-Original Message-
From: Allan, James [mailto:james_al...@milgo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2000 1:01 PM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: Fwd:R&TTE directive



Does anyone have a link to a copy of the "Blue Guide" mentioned by Tony
below? 

Jim Allan
Senior Compliance Engineer
Milgo Solutions Inc.
E-mail james_al...@milgo.com

> -Original Message-
> From: Tony Reynolds [SMTP:reyno...@pb.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2000 10:56 AM
> To:   k...@i-data.com; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org;
> jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
> Subject:  Re: Fwd:R&TTE directive
> 
> 
>  Kim,
>  
>  According to the information I have on the R&TTE Directive (99/5/EC) 
>  the following applies to the Declaration of Conformity.
>  
>  'There is ONE Declaration of Conformity.  It is held by the 
>  manufacturer with the technical file for the product.  The standard 
>  EN45014 is an accepted model for the DoC, referred to in the Blue 
>  Guide*, therefore manufacturers would seem to have no good reason not
> 
>  to use this model.  The DoC is signed by the manufacturer, and is 
>  expected to be in the language used by the manufacturer (and 
>  understood by the signatory). A COPY of the DoC (in its original 
>  language) must accompany every product.'
>  
>  *This is a guide to the implementation of Directives based on the New
> 
>  Approach and Global Approach (EC Doc Certif 98/1) also known as the 
>  'Blue Guide'.
>  
>  This information was on a DTI FAQ paper recently distributed at a
> TAPC 
>  meeting.
>  
>  I hope this helps.
>  
>  Kind Regards
>  
>  Tony Reynolds
>  Principal Compliance Engineer
>  Pitney Bowes Ltd
>  The Pinnacles
>  Harlow
>  Essex.  CM19 5BD
>  UK
>  
>  Tel +44 (0) 1279 449479
>  Fax +44 (0) 1279 449118
>  e-mail: reyno...@pb.com
>  
>  
> 

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

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

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

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

RE: Safety testing for 48 VDC powered ITE Equipment

[Kazimier Gawrzyjal]

Hi Kurt,

I believe that under the R&TTE Directive, now in full bloom, the
requirements of the LVD apply without the voltage limits.

For North America, UL 1950, third edition/CAN CSA C22.2 No. 950-M95 (the
binational standard) would likely be your best fit.

My 2 Cents and not that of my current employer.

Regards,
Kaz Gawrzyjal , P. Eng.
Product Safety Engineer
--
Nortel Networks-Wireless Solutions
Wireless Development Centre
2924 11 Street NE   
Calgary, Alberta
Canada, T2E 7L7 
tel:403-232-4805 (ESN 765)
fax:403-232-4813 (ESN 765)
e-mail:  k...@nortelnetworks.com



-Original Message-
From: Andrews, Kurt [mailto:kandr...@tracewell.com]
Sent: Friday, May 19, 2000 11:04 AM
To: EMC-PSTC
Subject: Safety testing for 48 VDC powered ITE Equipment



I'm looking for information as to what is required as far as safety testing
for a piece of 48 VDC powered ITE Equipment. All outputs will be 12 VDC or
less. This is a commercial unit and will not be sold to consumers.

In Europe it would fall outside the scope of the LVD as it starts at 75V for
DC powered equipment and this will be powered by 48 VDC. 

Does anyone know if there any other safety standards required in Europe for
this type of equipment?

It does appear that safety testing and listing is required by OSHA for use
in a U.S. workplace. According to OSHA Standard 1910 Subpart S all "electric
utilization equipment" is required to be "approved" which in most cases
means Listing by a NRTL. In 1920.399 OSHA defines "electric utilization
equipment" as equipment which uses electrical energy for mechanical,
chemical, heating, lighting, or similar useful purpose. My interpretation of
this is that any equipment which uses electricity, AC or DC, would need to
be tested and Listed.

Is my interpretation of the OSHA requirements correct?

What about requirements for Canada?

Any insights into these questions would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,

Kurt Andrews
Compliance Engineer
Tracewell Systems, Inc.
567 Enterprise Dr.
Westerville, OH 43081
Ph. 614-846-6175
Fax 614-846-7791
Email: kandr...@tracewell.com 

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

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

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

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

RE: Dust-Tight/Water-Tight Connectors For Use Under Raised Floors

[Kazimier Gawrzyjal]

Oops,

Can't unsend the previous response so I'll apologize instead...the last
effort seems to be totally off-track.  

Instead of a direct requirement, I've noticed a possible exemption in the
1999 NEC Handbook to alleviate Article 300 wiring Methods requirements per
installations in information technology equipment rooms.  

The commentary following Section 645-5 (d) indicates that all of methods for
branch wiring under raised floors are subject to the specific article for
the wiring method used and also that Article 300 applies, except where
modified by Article 645.  So, Sections 300-22(b) and (c) have some
discussion that connectors used with flexible metal conduit shall
effectively close any openings in the connection.  300-22(c) has further
requirements on wiring methods for spaces other than ducts or plenums, used
for environmental air which must be "listed for the use"...a possible entry
to the dust tight req't you've mentioned.  The commentary following 300-22
states the intent is to limit the use of materials that would contribute
smoke and products of combustion during a fire and to provide an effective
barrier against the spread of combustion products into the ducts or plenums
(might be relevant to the dust proof connector req't.)  

However, the commentary following Section 300-22 (d)states that it is not
intended that the requirements of Sections 300-22(b) and 300-22(c)apply to
air-handling areas beneath raised floors in information equipment technology
rooms and follows up with a reference back to 645.  

So the exemption appears to be there from an NEC (Handbook) standpoint but
of course, the handbook qualifies the commentary as opinion of the editor or
other contributors and not the official interpretation of the NFPA or it's
technical committees. Personally I find the commentary useful but if it's
not official, how often is it in conflict with an official interpretation?

Is it possible the installation you've mentioned might be seen (by the
inspector) as an indoor wet installation?  Is a local code being invoked?

My 2 cents and not that of my current employerapologies for the previous
clutter folks.

Regards,
Kaz Gawrzyjal, P. Eng. 
Product Safety Engineer
--
Nortel Networks-Wireless Solutions
Wireless Development Centre
2924 11 Street NE   
Calgary, Alberta
Canada, T2E 7L7 
tel:403-232-4805 (ESN 765)
fax:403-232-4813 (ESN 765)
e-mail:  k...@nortelnetworks.com



-Original Message-
From: Gawrzyjal, Kazimier [WDC:2Y31:EXCH] 
Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2000 2:31 PM
To: 'shad...@us.ibm.com'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: Dust-Tight/Water-Tight Connectors For Use Under Raised
Floors


Ken,

You might check the varied assortment of UL standards dealing with fittings.
The following link may be of use (the only one I have readily available).
I'm assuming CSA and others, will have similar info on the web.:

http://ulstandardsinfonet.ul.com/catalog/

Regards,

Kaz Gawrzyjal, P. Eng.
Product Safety Engineer
--
Nortel Networks-Wireless Solutions
Wireless Development Centre
2924 11 Street NE   
Calgary, Alberta
Canada, T2E 7L7 
tel:403-232-4805 (ESN 765)
fax:403-232-4813 (ESN 765)
e-mail:  k...@nortelnetworks.com

The Contents of this Email are Nortel Networks Confidential
-Original Message-
From: shad...@us.ibm.com [mailto:shad...@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2000 10:50 AM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Dust-Tight/Water-Tight Connectors For Use Under Raised Floors



Can anyone point to a requirement for dust-tight/water-tight connectors for
use under a raised floor in a computer room?  I believe that City of
Chicago requires dust-tight/water-tight connectors when the area beneath
the raised floor is also used as a plenum (e.g., a return or supply for
'conditioned' air).  The NEC and NFPA 75 do not directly mention
dust-tight/water-tight connectors.

Any help or comments would be appreciated.

Thank you and best regards,

Ken Shadoff
Product Safety, Environmentally Conscious Products, & Installation Planning
Technology
IBM Corp. - Enterprise Systems Group
2455 South Road
Poughkeepsie, NY 12601
Dept. GFQA, B/416, Rm. 10-16, M.S. P932
Phone:  (914)-433-4699,  T/L 8-293-4699
Fax : (914) 432-9807,  T/L 8-292-9807
E-mail:  shad...@us.ibm.com



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

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

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

RE: Dust-Tight/Water-Tight Connectors For Use Under Raised Floors

[Kazimier Gawrzyjal]

Ken,

You might check the varied assortment of UL standards dealing with fittings.
The following link may be of use (the only one I have readily available).
I'm assuming CSA and others, will have similar info on the web.:

http://ulstandardsinfonet.ul.com/catalog/

Regards,

Kaz Gawrzyjal, P. Eng.
Product Safety Engineer
--
Nortel Networks-Wireless Solutions
Wireless Development Centre
2924 11 Street NE   
Calgary, Alberta
Canada, T2E 7L7 
tel:403-232-4805 (ESN 765)
fax:403-232-4813 (ESN 765)
e-mail:  k...@nortelnetworks.com

The Contents of this Email are Nortel Networks Confidential
-Original Message-
From: shad...@us.ibm.com [mailto:shad...@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2000 10:50 AM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Dust-Tight/Water-Tight Connectors For Use Under Raised Floors



Can anyone point to a requirement for dust-tight/water-tight connectors for
use under a raised floor in a computer room?  I believe that City of
Chicago requires dust-tight/water-tight connectors when the area beneath
the raised floor is also used as a plenum (e.g., a return or supply for
'conditioned' air).  The NEC and NFPA 75 do not directly mention
dust-tight/water-tight connectors.

Any help or comments would be appreciated.

Thank you and best regards,

Ken Shadoff
Product Safety, Environmentally Conscious Products, & Installation Planning
Technology
IBM Corp. - Enterprise Systems Group
2455 South Road
Poughkeepsie, NY 12601
Dept. GFQA, B/416, Rm. 10-16, M.S. P932
Phone:  (914)-433-4699,  T/L 8-293-4699
Fax : (914) 432-9807,  T/L 8-292-9807
E-mail:  shad...@us.ibm.com



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

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

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

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

RE: EMC and product safety split?

[Kazimier Gawrzyjal]

I echo Tania's point of view.  From a product safety standpoint, I have
found several "EMC" topics of discussion in this forum which were of use
since there are at times, impacts to product safety.implement an EMC
fix...create a safety concern..besides it's my belief that to broaden one's
horizons is always a good thing.

Regards,
Kaz Gawrzyjal ( gav jay ow)
Product Safety Engineer
--
Nortel Networks-Wireless Solutions
Wireless Development Centre
2924 11 Street NE   
Calgary, Alberta
Canada, T2E 7L7 
tel:403-232-4805 (ESN 765)
fax:403-232-4813 (ESN 765)
e-mail:  k...@nortelnetworks.com



-Original Message-
From: Grant, Tania (Tania) [mailto:tgr...@lucent.com]
Sent: Friday, March 10, 2000 4:35 PM
To: IEEE EMC-PSTC Forum; 'Robert Legg'
Subject: RE: EMC and product safety split?



If this is becoming an issue, I would like to recommend that the Subject
header in the e-mail be preceded by either "EMC:" or "SAF:" followed by the
subject.This way, persons not interested in one or the other could
easily delete the message without opening it.However, I would not like
to see a split;--   there are many engineers that are responsible for both
functions and, as mentioned previously, many safety issues could affect EMC,
and vice versa.

And, into what category would you place requests for ALL regulatory
requirements for different countries?   Do we have to send such to three
different addresses?

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


--
From:  Robert Legg [SMTP:rl...@tectrol.com]
Sent:  Friday, March 10, 2000 10:33 AM
To:  IEEE EMC-PSTC Forum
Subject:  EMC and product safety split?



Is there any possibility of getting the EMC and product safety postings
partitioned ~ to assist in cutting surplus mail traffic?

Rob Legg
rl...@tectrol.com


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

RE: Correction factor for power supply cords.

[Kazimier Gawrzyjal]

Kelly,

For another, possibly different point of view, you might consider contacting
the good folks at the NFPA, who write the NEC for their interpretation.

Regards,
Kaz Gawrzyjal
k...@nortelnetworks.com

-Original Message-
From: ed.ra...@na.marconicomms.com [mailto:ed.ra...@na.marconicomms.com]
Sent: Friday, March 10, 2000 8:12 AM
To: Kelly Tsudama
Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Re: Correction factor for power supply cords.





Kelly:
The NEC is written to keep structures safe. Flexible cords used in
structures
are normally used in free air.
If you are using a flexible cord in equipment, you need to rate its ampacity
in
accordance with whatever standard you are using. The NEC relies on the NRTL
label and testing for the safety of equipment.
If you are using a flexible cord in a high ambient I would contact the mfg
for
the appropriate derating.




Kelly Tsudama  on 03/09/2000 09:33:14 PM

Please respond to Kelly Tsudama 

To:   emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
cc:(bcc: Ed Rauch/MAIN/MC1)

Subject:  Correction factor for power supply cords.






Hi Group

I am hoping that I can get your opinions with an issue regarding the
correction
factor of power supply cords.  For instance, in the NEC table 310-17, for
single
conductors in free air, there is a chart at the bottom of the table that
allows
you to determine how to factor in the ambient temperature.  However, for a
flexible power cord, the table 400-5 does not have any correction factor
table.

At first I thought that this is because cords always have a temperature
rating
marked on them, but then I recall that most (if not all) single conductors
have
this marking too Is there a need to "de-rate" a power cord's current
rating
based on the expected ambient temperature?  If so, where in the NEC did I
miss
this fact?  If not, why not?

Thanks for your help,
Kelly


Kelly Tsudama
Cisco Systems
ktsud...@cisco.com
408-527-0216
408-525-9150 fax
408-322-9024 pager

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

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

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

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









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

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

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

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

RE: Where has the rcic gone to?

[Kazimier Gawrzyjal]

All,

Thanks for the prompt responses. Seems I've uncovered a curiosity.  My
browser still takes me to never-never-land.

Cheers,
Kaz Gawrzyjal
k...@nortelnetworks.com

> -Original Message-
> From: Gawrzyjal, Kazimier [WDC:2Y31:EXCH] 
> Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2000 12:17 PM
> To:   'emc-pstc'
> Subject:  Where has the rcic gone to?
> 
> Folks, 
> 
> Can anyone tell me where the Regulatory Compliance Information Center has
> moved to in cyber space?  It seems www.rcic.com is now the "Future Home of
> a Dotster Registered Domain"?
> 
> Comments? 
> 
> Regards, 
> Kaz Gawrzyjal 
> k...@nortelnetworks.com 
> 

Where has the rcic gone to?

[Kazimier Gawrzyjal]

Folks,

Can anyone tell me where the Regulatory Compliance Information Center has
moved to in cyber space?  It seems www.rcic.com is now the "Future Home of a
Dotster Registered Domain"?

Comments?

Regards,
Kaz Gawrzyjal
k...@nortelnetworks.com

RE: Canadian Equivalent to NEC Article 810

[Kazimier Gawrzyjal]

Hi,

I think CEC Sections 16, 54 and 60  might fit the bill...depends on the
details of your system.

Regards,
Kaz Gawrzyjal
Product Safety Eng.
Nortel Networks
k...@nortelnetworks.com

> -Original Message-
> From: pmerguer...@itl.co.il [SMTP:pmerguer...@itl.co.il]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 1999 7:29 AM
> To:   emc-pstc
> Subject:  Canadian Equivalent to NEC Article 810
> 
> 
> Hello All,
> 
> 
> I understand that for ITE with means for connection to outside antenna, UL
> requires reference to Article 810 of the NEC (in respect to clearances
> from
> power and lighting conductors, mounting, and if necessary, grounding). 
> 
> Does anyone know the equivalent of the Canadian Electrical Code (CEC) to
> the NEC Article 810?
> 
> Best Regards,
> +++
> RTTE Directive Seminar
> Renaissance Hotel, Tel-Aviv
> 12th January 2000. For details:
> http://www.itl.co.il/RTTE.htm
> +++
> 
> 
> Peter Merguerian
> Managing Director
> Product Testing Division
> I.T.L. (Product Testing) Ltd.
> Hacharoshet 26, POB 211
> Or Yehuda 60251, Israel
> 
> Tel: 972-3-5339022 Fax: 972-3-5339019
> e-mail: pmerguer...@itl.co.il
> website: http://www.itl.co.il 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -
> This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
> To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
> with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
> quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
> jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
> roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
> 
> 

Nortel Networks EMC Career Opportunity

[Kazimier Gawrzyjal]

Folks,

Nortel Networks Wireless Solutions has the following career opportunity.
Interested applicants are  asked to respond to the contact person below.

Regards,
Kaz Gawrzyjal, P. Eng.
Product Safety
Nortel Networks
k...@nortelnetworks.com

-
Position:   Sr. EMC Design Engineer
Contact:Adiseshu Nyshadham, 
e-mail: adise...@nortelnetworks.com
Tel.: 403.232.4172
Fax:403.232.4813

Job Description

Primary Responsibilities/Position Purpose

Nortel Networks Wireless Development Center , Calgary, Alberta, Canada is
involved in the design and development State of Art Technologies for
Wireless Communication Products.All wireless communication products must
meet the National and International Regulatory standard specifications for
Electromagnetic Interference and Compatibility (EMI/EMC). 

At WDC we strive for excellence and our goal is to design, develop, create
and maintain world class EMI/EMC designer tools and test facilities.  We are
looking for a Sr. EMI/EMC Design Engineer who can champion the EMI
Designer's Tool Development activity in architecture, in development and
implementation.  

The Key Responsibilities Are:

- Provide Leadership to the EMI/EMC design teams and actively participate in
the area of System level EMI/EMC Tool development (including, defining are
assist in defining Design tool architecture, development and completion).

- Work effectively with Nortel Functional groups (Digital HW Design, RF HW
Design, Packaging Design, Contract Manufacturing including various OEM
supplier groups and Service groups (System Integrity, Product Integrity, PCB
Design) to define and create design specifications and guidelines for
designers.

- To develop and validate techniques and algorithms for module as well as
system level EMI/EMC predictions and simulations. 

- To develop techniques for determining GTEM correlation models for various
sub-system and system architectures.

- Development of models for various sub-system and system configurations
using standard Numerical SW packages (Moment method, Finite element Method,
Time domain techniques, etc.)

Qualifications/Experience (Required)

-   Ph.D. in electrical Engineering with 3 yrs related experience or,
Master Degree in Electrical Engineering with 6 yrs related experience, or
Bachelor's Degree in Electrical Engineering with 8 yrs of related experience
-   Knowledge and intent of the EMI/EMC standards, test procedures
-   Experience with best class Numerical Techniques and procedures.
-   Strong administrative, project management, team leadership, problem
resolution and interpersonal skills.
-   Familiarity with software development techniques and web based
application development

Note: candidates who demonstrate exceptional abilities are also considered
with less experience.

Employment Opportunity

[Kazimier Gawrzyjal]

Folks,

My apologies,

Please note the correction to the fax number.  It should read 403-232-4813.


Nortel Networks - Wireless Solutions has the following career opportunity:

Nortel Networks
LOCATION: 63B/WDC 2924 - 11Th Street, N.E.,  Calgary, Alberta, Canada, T2E
7L7
DEPT: Systems Integrity
TITLE:  Power, Protection & Grounding (PP&G) Engineer

JOB DESCRIPTIONS AND REQUIREMENTS  

Position Title:  Power, Protection & Grounding (PP&G) Engineer

Targeted Disciplines:  Electrical Engineering

Departmental Function:

Provide design input, test and qualification of Nortel Networks Wireless
products 
in the areas of regulatory and product integrity (systems integrity).

Key Responsibilities:

- Provide design input for compliance to PP&G specs. 
- Test Wireless Products to industry recognized and
corporate PP&G specs.
- Develop and maintain PP&G Lab to keep with industry
standards.

Skills Required:

- Analytical approach to problem solving. 
- Familiarity with PC applications. 
- Some experience in test and measurement.
- Familiarity with the principles involved
in communication systems an asset.
- Good communication and teamwork skills.


LEVEL OF EDUCATION REQUIRED:  Bachelors Degree in Engineering

Please send resumes by fax or e-mail to the attention of:

Janet Johanntges
jjoha...@nortelnetworks.com
fax:  403-232-4813


Regards,
Kaz Gawrzyjal (gav jay ow)
Product Safety Engineer
Nortel Networks-Wireless Solutions
k...@nortelnetworks.com  


-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

RE: NRTL requirement in the NEC?

[Kazimier Gawrzyjal]

Jeff,

It's a bit difficult to provide an exact answer since it's dependent on the
design of your system.  Is the system approved by an NRTL?  What is the
nature of the approval (i.e. listed, recognized, field investigated, etc.).
Different AHJ's may interpret and accept different markings from some NRTLs
as opposed to all markings from any NRTLs and it would have to be on your
shoulders to convince him/her otherwise.  

I suspect the inspector is drawing upon section 90-7 of the NEC and also the
definition of "Listed" in article 100.

My 2 Cents,

Kaz Gawrzyjal
k...@nortelnetworks.com

> -Original Message-
> From: JENKINS, JEFF [SMTP:jeff.jenk...@aei.com]
> Sent: Thursday, March 11, 1999 10:48 AM
> To:   'emc-pstc'
> Subject:  NRTL requirement in the NEC?
> 
> Hello Group,
> 
> Has anyone heard of a requirement in the National Electrical Code that
> power
> supplies which are components of larger systems be approved by an NRTL?  I
> have an inspector telling me this, but our copy of the NEC is 20 years
> old,
> and I can't find it, anyway.  In this case, the power supply is part of a
> rack system.  It was my understanding that the supply could be evaluated
> as
> a component of the system.  Is that not true?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Jeff Jenkins
> Senior Regulatory Compliance Engineer
> Advanced Energy Industries, Inc.
> Fort Collins, CO USA 80525
> 
> Opinions are my own and not necessarily shared by Advanced Energy
> Industries, Inc. or its affiliates. 
> 
> -
> This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
> To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
> with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
> quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
> j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
> roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

RE: Consultants

[Kazimier Gawrzyjal]

Monty,

If you're serious about a cost estimate, you might consider contacting the
safety consultant(s) in a more direct manner, for negotiating purposes.

My guess is the more info you provide in terms of the product, which markets
you are targeting, etc., the more accurate a response you'll get from the
forum.  The complexity of the product would affect the total cost of
services since a large and complicated product will likely require more
design review, more testing and more paperwork (therefore more time, effort
and use of resources)than something small and simple.  If the safety efforts
have to be revisited due to design changes, that would probably be reflected
in the bill as well.

My 2 Cents,
Kaz Gawrzyjal
Safety Eng.
k...@nortel.com

> -Original Message-
> From: Griffith, Monty [SMTP:mgrif...@ingr.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 1998 7:14 AM
> To:   'EMC POST'
> Subject:  Consultants
> 
> What is the typical cost of a safety consultant? This would include design
> review, tests, test report and construction report generation for ITE
> products. Thanks!!!
> 
> Monty Griffith
> Senior Product Safety Engineer
> Intergraph Computer System
> Huntsville, AL 35894-0001
> PH: (256) 730-6017
> FX: (256) 730-6239
> http://mecsrv.b29.ingr.com
> 
> -
> This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
> To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
> with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
> quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
> j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
> roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
> 

-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

RE: Factory Mutual

[Kazimier Gawrzyjal]

Steve,

I have never had direct contact with Factory Mutual but if you check their
website, you may find what you're looking for. 

http://www.factorymutual.com/  try the "contact us" link and then the "FM
office".

Regards,
Kaz Gawrzyjal
Nortel Safety Eng.
\k...@nortel.com

> -Original Message-
> From: Steve Grobe [SMTP:ste...@transition.com]
> Sent: Friday, July 24, 1998 7:53 AM
> To:   emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
> Subject:  Factory Mutual
> 
> Does anybody have a contact at Factory Mutual?
> 
> Steve Grobe - Transition Networks

RE: generating 50Hz power in the US

[Kazimier Gawrzyjal]

Richard,

Check out Elgar Corporation at www.elgar.com.  They may have an output
variable (frequency and AC volts) power supply to suit your needs.

Kaz Gawrzyjal
Nortel
k...@nortel.com

> -Original Message-
> From: Richard Cass [SMTP:richard_c...@iris.scitex.com]
> Sent: Friday, June 12, 1998 7:37 AM
> To:   emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
> Subject:  generating 50Hz power in the US
> 
>  We want to do ongoing testing of an ITE product (here in the US) on
> 220 VAC 
>  50Hz power to simulate the European environment to make sure our
> power 
>  supply vendor is doing his job.  In this esteemed group's experience,
> what 
>  is best (i.e easiest, cheapest, most reliable) way to set this up.  I
> have 
>  an electrician describing scenarios of a 60Hz electric motor
> mechanically 
>  driving a 50Hz generator.  In this age of high power solid state 
>  electronics, I gotta believe there's a better way.   Please keep
> answers 
>  simple as I am only a lowly mechanical engineer (analogies to water
> running 
>  through pipes always is always big help to me).  At 120VAC our
> products 
>  pull 6 amps peak at start up and only 3 amps running.  I would never
> test 
>  more than 4 products at a time. 
>  
>  Thanks in advance for the usually invaluable help that I get from
> this 
>  group.
>  
>  Richard Cass
>  Iris Graphics, Inc. 

RE: What is Class 1, Div. 1 Group D?

[Kazimier Gawrzyjal]

Jim,

I'm not positive but that sounds like classifications under a Hazardous
Locations safety standard (UL or CSA) ... I don't have any on hand to
verify.  

Kaz Gawrzyjal
Nortel
k...@nortel.com

> -Original Message-
> From: bach...@ccmail.mmsday.com [SMTP:bach...@ccmail.mmsday.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 1998 6:14 AM
> To:   emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
> Subject:  What is Class 1, Div. 1 Group D?
> 
> Yesterday we had a customer call asking if our products were Class 1, Div.
> 
> 1, Group D compliant.  Can anyone tell me where I can get information on 
> what it is and what it takes to meet it?
> 
> Jim Bacher
> Paxar-Monarch
> bach...@monarch.com

FWD>EMC Immunity - plug-in

[Kazimier Gawrzyjal]

Mail*Link® SMTP   FWD>EMC Immunity - plug-in boards

Sure am getting lots of these

--
List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org
Date: 4/29/97 4:14 PM
From: Mark Briggs

Doug,


Whenever testing PC boards against the generic immunity standard we
usually test as follows:

The host PC's AC power supply for EFT (although it could be argued that
since the board does not have an external power port the test is not
required ??)

ESD to the PC bracket of the card, to the PC chassis in the vicinity of
the card, to the sides and top of the PC's enclosure (rationale being
that the most likely ESD events in the vicinity of the card will be to
the PC's enclosure), and to the coupling planes (if testing to
IEC801-2:1991).

Radiated immunity on the system.

Interesting to see what everyone else is doing ???

Any news on EN55024 anyone ???

Mark Briggs



>To demonstrate compliance of a computer option board with the EMC
>Directive, EN 55022/A1 allows testing in a single compliant host for
>emissions.  Immunity testing is another matter, with the lack of a
>harmonized ITE immunity standard.  Is there any consensus or opinions on
>the appropriate immunity testing on, for example, a video graphics
>adapter?  Using the generic residential immunity standard (EN
>50082-1:1992), my take would be ESD to 8 kV air, 4 kV contact, in the
>vicinity of the output connector.  However, assuming video cabling to be
>typically short (<3m) EFT testing would be performed only on the host
>computer's AC input and RF immunity on the system.  These latter tests
>seem to be of limited value at best, but I cannot locate rationale for
>their exemption.  Any thoughts from the forum?
>
>
>Doug Frazee

-- RFC822 Header Follows --
Received: by nmisq2.miss.nt.com with SMTP;29 Apr 1997 16:11:49 -0400
Received: from bcarsde4.localhost (actually bcarsde4.ott.bnr.ca)
  by bcarsfbb.ott.bnr.ca; Tue, 29 Apr 1997 16:06:44 -0400
Received: from ruebert.ieee.org by bcarsde4.localhost;
  Tue, 29 Apr 1997 16:02:04 -0400
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by ruebert.ieee.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id JAA12281
  for emc-pstc-list; Tue, 29 Apr 1997 09:38:03 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: EMC Immunity - plug-in boards
List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 97 18:00:58 -0700
x-sender: mbri...@pop.elliottlabs.com
x-mailer: Claris Emailer 1.1
From: Mark Briggs 
To: EMC-PSTC 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Message-ID: <1349875714-26183...@mail.elliottlabs.com>
Sender: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Mark Briggs 
X-Resent-To: Multiple Recipients 
X-Listname: emc-pstc
X-List-Description: Product Safety Tech. Committee, EMC Society
X-Info: Help requests to emc-pstc-requ...@majordomo.ieee.org
X-Info: [Un]Subscribe requests to majord...@majordomo.ieee.org
X-Moderator-Address: emc-pstc-appro...@majordomo.ieee.org

Re: Just a Reminder for SCPS

[Kazimier Gawrzyjal]

REGARDINGRE>Just a Reminder for SCPSTC

Kamran,

Will there be any minutes/documentation resulting from the environmental 
discussion made available through this forum?

Unfortunately I will not be able to attend but am very interested in global 
developments regarding environmental legislation.

Regards,
Kaz Gawrzyjal
Nortel
kazimier.gawrzy...@nt.com

--
List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org
Date: 4/18/97 2:56 PM
To: Kazimier Gawrzyjal
From: Kamran Mohajer
Santa Clara Product Safety Technical Committee (PSTC), April 22 & May 27,
1997 Meeting Notices

Please mark your calendar and join us for the following meetings.

List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org
Date: April 22,1997
Time: 7:00 p.m.
Topic:  Overview of  Environmentally Related
  Product Legislation and Regulations
Speaker: Mr. Larry Holbrook, Program Manager for Environmental Product
  Regulations at Hewlett-Packard
Location: Hewlett Packard, 19447 Prunridge Ave. Cupertino CA, Bldg. 48,
  Oakroom

Summary:

 Product related environmental laws and  regulations  are increasing at
 a rapid rate throughout the world.  Individual countries have or are 
 proposing legislation for addressing issues such as product take back,
 energy efficiency, chemical prohibitions, hazardous materials,
 eco-taxes and eco-labels.  The proliferation of individual country
 specific laws  represents major challenges for companies selling into
 the international market place.  Multinational companies need to
 contribute to the shaping of environmental public policy in their
 major world-wide markets by promoting the use of guiding principles in
 policy formation. This presentation includes 1:) an overview of the
 current global legislative and regulatory environment; 2:) challenges
 of addressing the proliferation and complexity of these new and
 proposed requirements and 3:) Hewlett-Packard Company's approach to
 addressing  those challenges.

If you are interested in joining the speaker for dinner at El Torito's (by
Vallco Fashion Park at Wolfe and Hwy 280), it will be at 5:30 p.m. RSVP to
Kamran Mohajer.


List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org
Date: May 27,1997
Time: 7:00 p.m.
Topic: Solid state circuit reliability and safety related software
Speaker: Mr. Alan Flandez
Location: Hewlett Packard, 19447 Prunridge Ave. Cupertino CA, Bldg. 48,
Oakroom

Summary:

Alan will review some evaluation methods used in UL Standards for
safety-related controls.  He will cover requirements which have been
developed for several types of electromechanical controls, and provide an
overview of UL's programs for evaluating solid state circuit reliability
and safety related software.

Biography:

Alan is an Engineering Group Leader at Underwriters Laboratories in Santa
Clara, CA. He has been with UL since 1985. His current responsibilities
include working with manufacturers of electric vehicle charging system
equipment, fuel storage and dispensing equipment, seismic actuated gas
shutoff systems, and electromechanical equipment. Alan holds a B. S.
degree
in Chemical Engineering from the University of California at Davis, and
has
been a registered Safety Professional Engineer in the State of California
since 1988.


Should you need a map, please get in touch with me and I will be happy to send
you one. Looking forward to seeing you at the meeting.

Kamran Mohajer, Vice-Chair of SCPSTC
Sr. Agency Compliance Engineer
BABT Deputy Approvals Liaison Engineer
N.E.T. (Network Equipment Technologies)
800 Saginaw Drive
Redwood City , CA 94063
Tel:  415-780-5365
Fax: 415-780-5004
kamran_moha...@net.com




-- RFC822 Header Follows --
Received: by nmisq2.miss.nt.com with SMTP;18 Apr 1997 14:50:45 -0400
Received: from bcarsde4.localhost (actually bcarsde4.ott.bnr.ca)
  by bcarsfbb.ott.bnr.ca; Fri, 18 Apr 1997 14:39:38 -0400
Received: from ruebert.ieee.org by bcarsde4.localhost;
  Fri, 18 Apr 1997 14:34:48 -0400
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by ruebert.ieee.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id NAA12045
  for emc-pstc-list; Fri, 18 Apr 1997 13:47:47 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: 
List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org
Date: 18 Apr 1997 10:46:29 -0800
From: Kamran Mohajer 
Subject: Just a Reminder for SCPSTC
To: EMC-PSTC , Treg 
X-Mailer: Mail*Link SMTP-QM 4.0.0
Sender: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Kamran Mohajer 
X-Resent-To: Multiple Recipients 
X-Listname: emc-pstc
X-List-Description: Product Safety Tech. Committee, EMC Society
X-Info: Help requests to emc-pstc-requ...@majordomo.ieee.org
X-Info: [Un]Subscribe requests to majord...@majordomo.ieee.org
X-Moderator-Address: emc-pstc-appro...@majordomo.ieee.org

Re: Voltage for 3 pahse syst

[Kazimier Gawrzyjal]

  RE>Voltage for 3 pahse systems  7/16/96
   Kaz-ESN 765-4805

Moshe,

I  believe there exists a document, put out by the U.S. Department of Commerce 
(National Technical Information Service), titled " Electric Current Abroad 1991 
Edition".  By the title, this document is likely out of date but still highly 
useful.. It outlines power systems throughout the world as well as the type of 
attachment plugs used in principal cities throughout the world.

There may also be a website available.

Regards,
Kaz Gawrzyjal
Safety Engineer
Nortel
0307...@nt.com

--
List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org
Date: 7/16/96 10:35 AM
To: Kazimier Gawrzyjal
From: Moshe Valdman
   - E X T E R N A L L Y  O R I G I N A T E D  M E S S A G E -

 Hello everyone,

 Sorry, I asked this several days ago and got no response, so maybe the
 email just didn't come through.

 Would anyone know what are the voltages/frequencies used in the
 various countries/environments around the world for high power
 industrial 3 phase equipment?

 thanks
 moshe valdman


-- RFC822 Header Follows --
Received: by nmisq2.miss.nt.com with SMTP;16 Jul 1996 10:33:31 -0400
Received: from ruebert.ieee.org by corpgate.rich.nt.com with SMTP (PP);
  Tue, 16 Jul 1996 14:31:26 +
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by ruebert.ieee.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id JAA23446
  for emc-pstc-list; Tue, 16 Jul 1996 09:44:15 -0400 (EDT)
List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 96 16:34:16 EST
From: Moshe Valdman 
Message-Id: <9606168375.aa837560...@mail.stil.scitex.com>
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: Voltage for 3 pahse systems
Sender: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Moshe Valdman 
X-Resent-To: Multiple Recipients 
X-Listname: emc-pstc
X-List-Description: Product Safety Tech. Committee, EMC Society
X-Info: Help requests to emc-pstc-requ...@majordomo.ieee.org
X-Info: [Un]Subscribe requests to majord...@majordomo.ieee.org
X-Moderator-Address: emc-pstc-appro...@majordomo.ieee.org

Re: Routine Hipot testing

[Kazimier Gawrzyjal]

  RE>>Routine Hipot testing   5/8/96
   Kaz-ESN 765-4805

Agreed.

Cheers,
Kaz Gawrzyjal
Nortel-Safety Eng.
0307...@nt.com

--
List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org
Date: 5/6/96 10:38 PM
To: Kazimier Gawrzyjal
From: Egon H. Varju
   - E X T E R N A L L Y  O R I G I N A T E D  M E S S A G E -

Hi Kaz,

You wrote:

>You may have a point.
>However, Note 1 of UL 1950 ed. 3, cl. 5.3.2  merely reads:  "For =
>production test purposes, it is permitted to reduce the duration of the =
>electric strength test to 1 s.  Alternative methods of production test =
>are under consideration."  The above sub-clause note, in no way details =
>manufacturing and production test requirements, unlike UL 1459 (cl.6.3).
>Hence, there is much implied in the above note while not much is stated =
>regarding production testing requirements.  This is likely due to the =
>complete reliance of such requirements being stated in the report as =
>opposed to being a specified standard requirement.

Yes, I agree with you that the requirement may be viewed as implied, rather than
stated.  The way I read it personally is that this is more in the nature of a
fait accompli.  Since, historically, all safety agencies have always required a
production test, I assume that the 950 subcommittee decided that there is no
need to get too verbose about this.  As you point out, it's going to be in the
Certification Report, or other document, anyway.

But the nice thing about this paragraph is that it defines both the voltage and
the duration, thus ensuring that there is only one test requirement.  This used
to be a bit of a manufacturing nightmare in the past, when each agency in each
country required different test parameters.

By the way, it is also interesting to note that the most frequent complaints
about Std 950 are to the effect that it's TOO verbose.  I don't think we should
encourage them to add another 5 pages, just to explain the factory hipot.
:-)

Cheers,
Egon


-- RFC822 Header Follows --
Received: by nmisq2.miss.nt.com with SMTP;6 May 1996 22:33:52 -0400
Received: from mail.ieee.org (actually rab.ieee.org) by ntigate.rich.nt.com
  with SMTP (PP); Tue, 7 May 1996 02:32:42 +
Received: by mail.ieee.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id TAA22000 for emc-pstc-list;
  Mon, 6 May 1996 19:16:26 -0400 (EDT)
List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org
Date: 06 May 96 19:12:17 EDT
From: "Egon H. Varju" <73132.2...@compuserve.com>
To: Kazimier Gawrzyjal 
Cc: IEEE 
Subject: Re: Routine Hipot testing
Message-ID: <960506231217_73132._ehj7...@compuserve.com>
Sender: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Egon H. Varju" <73132.2...@compuserve.com>
X-Resent-To: Multiple Recipients 
X-Listname: emc-pstc
X-List-Description: Product Safety Tech. Committee, EMC Society
X-Info: Help requests to emc-pstc-requ...@majordomo.ieee.org
X-Info: [Un]Subscribe requests to majord...@majordomo.ieee.org
X-Moderator-Address: emc-pstc-appro...@majordomo.ieee.org

Regulatory Approvals for Ch

[Kazimier Gawrzyjal]

REGARDINGRegulatory Approvals for Chile
From:  Kaz Gawrzyjal-ESNÉ

All,
My thanks to all who have responded with answers; to my inquiry on regulatory 
approval requirements for market access into Chile.  The following is a summary 
of the response:  (Thanks Lori Wilson)

Summary:  Products can be imported without restrictions as there are no
formal import restrictions.  For products in question since Homologation is 
required and safety testing must be done before submitting for homologation,all 
is required.

Product Safety Testing: Testing in labs in Chile is required.  While not
required, it is recommended that a Chilean Corporation request and hold
Safety Certificate.

Import Restrictions:  Again there are none.

Telecommunications: Homologation required.  Testing/Review for all products 
that will connect to national phone network.

Specific Regulations for Satellite Receivers:  Conditional, In process.

Key Agencies:

CENET=CHILE-TELEPHONE/REGULATORY AGENCY
CEO Mr. Jonny Wolf

Address:  Anturo Prat 1171 of 304
  Saniago Chile
  562-556-1535

Home Phone Connections: Standard connection is RS-11.  In very limited
amounts, other older types are also present.

The Compliance Process:
Chile has regulations requiring testing and certification.

1) Product Safety - Chile recognizes Safety Certification from other
countries, as the basis for their approval.  The products are required to be
processed/tested in Chile.  Our team in Chile reports that enforcement of
the regulations is very lax.

1A) Documentation - The following is required for Product Safety submission to 
a Lab in Chile.
A) A Spanish Language Owners/Users Manual and
B) Power Supply Schematics.  Recommended additional Documentation:  ETL,UL,etc. 
Listing Letter and two (2) samples to be submitted.  Timing for the typical 
product safety test for electronic products requires two/three weeks.

2) Certification of Testing - Only Chilean Corporations may apply for and
receive Certificates.  Certificates are issued by CENET (Takes 2 to 4
weeks.) They (CENET) will also require a submittal of the Manufacturer's
Declaration of Quality, in Spanish.

3) Telecommunications (Homologation) Approval:

A) Review/Testing - Any product that will connect to the National Phone
System or use radio frequencies must be submitted for Evaluation/Testing and 
Licensing by the CENET.  All products submitted for Evaluation/Testing must 
first be approved for Product Safety.

Telecommunications products with FCC Part 68 approval may be submitted for 
Review with three (3) copies of the FCC Part 68 report (required to enter the 
Review Process).  Products are also to submitted to the examiner.  This review 
takes about two (2) to four (4) weeks.

After this is completed the Review Report or Lab Report is submitted to
CENET with an application for License.  This takes approximately 20 working 
days from the receipt of documents for the File Number/Certificate/

4) General Comment - Chile is a "free" market, but has a political content
beyond the Certification process.  Concessions have been granted to private 
companies to operate cable and cellular systems in Chile.  Depending on the 
company that introduces the product into the Chilean Market, there is a 
potential for "Administrative Review" before Certification may be obtained.

And yet another question.  Does Chile require any power factor correction on 
equipment tied into the power grid?  Is there a specification.?  David?

Regards,
Kaz Gawrzyjal
Nortel-Safety Eng.
0307...@nt.com

Re: Routine Hipot testing

[Kazimier Gawrzyjal]

  RE>>Routine Hipot testing   5/6/96
   Kaz-ESN 765-4805

Egon,
You may have a point.
However, Note 1 of UL 1950 ed. 3, cl. 5.3.2  merely reads:  "For production 
test purposes, it is permitted to reduce the duration of the electric strength 
test to 1 s.  Alternative methods of production test are under consideration."  
The above sub-clause note, in no way details manufacturing and production test 
requirements, unlike UL 1459 (cl.6.3).
Hence, there is much implied in the above note while not much is stated 
regarding production testing requirements.  This is likely due to the complete 
reliance of such requirements being stated in the report as opposed to being a 
specified standard requirement.


 Cheers,
Kaz Gawrzyjal
Safety Eng-Nortel
0307...@nt.com

--
List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org
Date: 5/6/96 12:12 PM
To: Kazimier Gawrzyjal
From: Egon H. Varju
   - E X T E R N A L L Y  O R I G I N A T E D  M E S S A G E -

Kaz,

On 1996.5.5 you wrote:

>I believe that the harmonized, 3rd edition of UL 1950/ CSA C22.2 N0. 950 
>has pulled the requirement for 100 % hi-pot testing out of the standard. 
>Not to say that this is no longer a requirement.  A comment from a UL
>rep. was that such factory testing is included in the Certification
>reports (or Follow Up Service Agreements) as a requirement and so the
>text has been removed from the bi-national standard.  Nevertheless, it
>must still be performed.

Actually, the requirement has not been removed from the bi-national standard.
See Sub-Clause 5.3.2, Note 1.

:-)
Egon Varju

Re- Chile info request

[Kazimier Gawrzyjal]

REGARDINGRe:  Chile info request

Hello again Group,
My apologies.  I've been told that my message has been put out to the world 
repeatedly, resulting in lots and lots of e-pollution.  Something has gone awry 
with my e-mail (QM).

Kaz Gawrzyjal
Nortel

Chile-Reg. Requirements

[Kazimier Gawrzyjal]

REGARDINGChile-Reg. Requirements

Hi Group,
I'm looking for info for getting ITE Product to Chile.  Generally, does Chile 
have it's own interconnect std. or would they accept FCC Part 68?  What about 
safety and EMC?  Will UL 1950 (3rd ed.) or IEC 950 as well as FCC part 15 do 
the trick?

If specific Chilean standards apply, can anyone provide the spec. numbers or at 
least point me to a source of information?

Your input is much appreciated.

Regards,
Kaz Gawrzyjal
Nortel