Cord Flexing Test
Hello All, I am searching for a facility that can conduct the cord flexing test in accordance with IEC60227-2. Any leads that anyone can give me are greatly appreciated. Regards, Ken _ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
RE: skinny power cords.
I think the answer to the problem exists. The 2002 version of the National Electric Code will require Arc Fault Interrupters in bedrooms. See the link below from the CPSC for details. http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/pubs/afci.html From: Colgan, Chris chris.col...@tagmclaren.com Reply-To: Colgan, Chris chris.col...@tagmclaren.com To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: skinny power cords. Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 09:51:20 +0100 I used to curse the size of our British BS1363 plugs and socket outlets. I won't be so hasty in the future. Chris Colgan Compliance Engineer TAG McLaren Audio Ltd The Summit, Latham Road Huntingdon, Cambs, PE29 6ZU *Tel: +44 (0)1480 415 627 *Fax: +44 (0)1480 52159 * Mailto:chris.col...@tagmclaren.com * http://www.tagmclaren.com -Original Message- From: Dan Kwok [SMTP:dk...@intetron.com] Sent: 26 October 2001 00:10 To:Robert Macy Cc:emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: skinny power cords. Robert, It would seem this kind of problem may also happen without an extension cord. I know a fellow that used to unplug most of his appliances from the wall in anticipation of a lightning storm. I guess you can't be too careful. - Dan Kwok, P.Eng. Principal Engineer Electromagnetic Compatibility Intetron Consulting, Inc. Ph (604) 432-9874 E-mail dk...@intetron.com Internet http://www.intetron.com Robert Macy wrote: It definitely was not supplied by the heater company. It was a high quality UL approved cord. It's just that this cord carbonized and burst into flame as the arc was existing. The flames did immediately extinguish when the arc was stopped by unplugging the cord which is good. But again, it was disturbing that the 15A breaker provided no protection. Anyway, it was a good lesson for this sleeping guy. Now I take electrical distribution inside my home much more seriously. - Robert - Robert A. Macy, PEm...@california.com 408 286 3985 fx 408 297 9121 AJM International Electronics Consultants 619 North First St, San Jose, CA 95112 -Original Message- From: Dan Kwok dk...@intetron.com To: Robert Macy m...@california.com; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Date: Thursday, October 25, 2001 1:42 PM Subject: Re: skinny power cords. Hi Robert, Recently, I bought several similar heaters for my home. I recall reading in the operation instructions, explicit safety warnings against using extension cords with the heater. Was the extension cord supplied with the heater? - Dan Kwok, P.Eng. Principal Engineer Electromagnetic Compatibility Intetron Consulting, Inc. Ph (604) 432-9874 E-mail dk...@intetron.com Internet http://www.intetron.com --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server. ** Please visit us at www.tagmclaren.com ** The contents of this E-mail are confidential and for the exclusive use of the intended recipient. If you receive this E-mail in error, please delete it from your system immediately and notify us either by E-mail, telephone or fax. You should not copy, forward or otherwise disclose the content of the E-mail. TAG McLaren Audio Ltd The Summit, 11 Latham Road Huntingdon, Cambs, PE29 6ZU Telephone : 01480 415600 (+44 1480 415600) Facsimile : 01480 52159 (+44 1480 52159) ** Please visit us at www.tagmclaren.com ** --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For
Re: looking for used power supply
It sounds like Mike is looking for a power supply to provide power to test electrical devices (not a power supply to be installed in a product). I Interpret Mikes E-mail to be: The power supply should be able to supply 50-60Hz (when connected to a 60Hz supply, 3 phase supply (likely 120/208)) Single phase output variable over the range of 120-240V (Mike, I would suggest looking for something that can provide 90-260V) 16A Max (which would give you approximately 3KVA @ 240V (3840VA to be exact) Mike, Have you tried Elgar, Pacific Power, TestMart, or TestEquity? I have a 1.5KVA Elgar unit that I purchased used several years ago. They are VERY Hard to come by used (And rather expensive if purchased new) Are you set on using something that is powered from the AC Mains, or would you be willing to consider a Diesel Generator? Ken From: Fred Townsend f...@poasana.com Reply-To: Fred Townsend f...@poasana.com To: Mike Stone mst...@lsr.com CC: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: looking for used power supply Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 13:42:25 -0700 I can see why you might have difficulty finding such a device. Your specifications are ambiguous. Do you really mean variable frequency or the ability to operate from either 50 or 60 Hz mains. Ditto for variable voltage. 3000VA makes no sense in the context of 120VAC or 230VAC at 16 amps. It is not clear what commercial benefit such a device would have (except to separate a fool and his money) so I am skeptical you would ever find such a device used. Fred Townsend Silicon Valley Mike Stone wrote: Good Day,I am looking into purchasing a used power supply.Minimum requirements are: 3 phase input, single phase outputvariable frequency, 50/60 Hzvariable voltage, 120VAC, 230 VAC3 KVA16 Amps I have tried a number of resellers, with not much luck.Thank you in advance for your help. Best Regards, Michael Stone L. S. Compliance W66 N220 Commerce Court Cedarburg, WI 53012 V 262-375-4400 F 262-375-4248 _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.rcic.com/ click on Virtual Conference Hall,
RE: Seeking assistance from Chemical Experts
Thanks guys...BUT, I am not trying to convince UL that I am correct. This is all internal to the company I am working with. Just to give you an idea of how confusing this issue is, I have privately received responses stating that all the following are acceptable: Kerosene Isopropyl alcohol Rubbing Alcahol Lamp Oil Hexane Now I am not a chemical expert, but the chemical properties of these chemicals are not similar to one another (the simplest comparison is the boiling point, the above range from 60C - 300C). Calling UL and asking them what they use is easy...the hard part is proving that whatever the subject chemical is, it complies with the standard. Just wondering if anyone has had this experience before. From: Gary McInturff gary.mcintu...@worldwidepackets.com To: 'oover...@lexmark.com' oover...@lexmark.com, kmccormick...@hotmail.com CC: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RE: Seeking assistance from Chemical Experts Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 12:24:17 -0800 Not only cheap, but sometimes it is much easier just to do it their way than argue with them that you material should or should not be acceptable. Pick your battles. Let them win this one. Gary -Original Message- From: oover...@lexmark.com [mailto:oover...@lexmark.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2001 10:46 AM To: kmccormick...@hotmail.com Cc: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Re: Seeking assistance from Chemical Experts From the UL Test Data Sheets provided to me by my UL engineering office, the material listed in the text of the test data sheet is kerosene. I don't know what the actual physical characteristics are, but if UL uses this for their test I would assume that it is acceptable for me to use. Kerosene is an easy product to obtain and is not that expensive. I have included an excerpt of the UL 1950 test data sheet that I was given by UL. Oscar # Excerpt from the UL 1950 Test Data Sheets # 1.7.15 - PERMANENCE OF MARKING TEST: METHOD A sample of the marking label was subjected to this test. The surface of each marking as noted below was rubbed by hand for a period of 15 seconds with a water soaked cloth, and again for a period of 15 seconds with a cloth soaked with the petroleum spirit noted below. RESULTS TEST CONDITIONS: Use of Marking _ Material_ Held by _ Applied Surface Material_ OBSERVATIONS: Water Kerosene Any Damage? _ _ Legible? _ _ Curled? _ _ Edge Lifted? _ _ Easily Removed Intact?_ _ The marking was/was not durable and legible. Comments:___ _ Document: 060.Eng # End of Excerpt from UL 1950 # kmccormickinc%hotmail@interlock.lexmark.com on 01/02/2001 01:12:36 PM Please respond to kmccormickinc%hotmail@interlock.lexmark.com To: emc-pstc%ieee@interlock.lexmark.com cc:(bcc: Oscar Overton/Lex/Lexmark) Subject: Seeking assistance from Chemical Experts _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.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
Seeking assistance from Chemical Experts
Recently, I was asked to show that the hexane that I was using for UL1950 and related standards (Marking durability test of 1.7.15) infact complied with the requirements in the standard, Specifically: The petroleum spirit to be used for the test is aliphatic solvent hexane having a maximum aromatics content of a 0.1% by volume, a kauri-butanol value of 29, an initial boiling point of approximately 65°C, a dry point of approximately 69°C and a mass per unit volume of approximately 0.7 kg/l. I am communicating with the company that I purchased the chemical from, and all I get is the MSDS Sheets which do not have all of the above information. Has anyone else had to locate these specifications? How did you go about obtaining them. I am not opposed to having a lab test for these characteristics, but I have no clue where to begin with such a test...chemistry was NOT my best subject! I know that this conversation came up in the past and I believe everyone agreed that standard hexane would suffice...I just need to be able to show that hexane meets the above requirements. Thanks in advance, Kenneth _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.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
Lasers in ITE Equipment
I am working with a client who has posed a question that I am not sure that I can accurately answer. What are the NRTLs (and for that matter, other test laboratories) requiring for Laser Certifications. Annex NAE of UL1950/CSA C22.2 No 950 is an INFORMATIVE annex(and mentions the regultory requirements of a CDRH Report in US and a REDR in Canada), however Clause 4.3.12 leads me to believe that proof of compliance with these regulatory requirements is REQUIRED by the standard. With EN60950, compliance with IEC825 is required by clause 4.3.12. Are the certifying laboratories witholding certification until the manufacturer can show compliance with the applicable requirements, or are they simply stating that compliance with the applicable laser requirements is the responsibility of the manufacturer? If they are holding certification, what proof will typically meet their requirements? Will documentation showing that the application has been submitted to the CDRH suffice, or do they typically require the final reports and approval issued by CDRH? What laser markings, if any, are these laboratories requiring in their compliance reports? Is anyone aware of some documents that summarize the requirements of the CFR IEC825? Thank you in advance, Kenneth _ Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.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: Hot Flaming Oil Test
I am glad that I was able to assist in allowing Rich to earn his keep. I received several responses both public and privately...most said the same thing, it is a difficult test to conduct and comply with. Many thanks to those that responded, your advice and expertise have given me several good ideas on how to conduct the test and addressed several of the concerns (safety and repeatibility) that I had about the test. Now I'm off to purchase some Diesel... Regards, Ken From: Grant, Tania (Tania) tgr...@lucent.com Reply-To: Grant, Tania (Tania) tgr...@lucent.com To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org, 'John Juhasz' jjuh...@fiberoptions.com Subject: RE: Hot Flaming Oil Test Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2000 12:43:05 -0700 So it took hot flaming oil to assess Rich's worth! _ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.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
Hot Flaming Oil Test
I have been asked by one of our mechanical engineers to look into conducting the Hot Flaming oil test of IEC60950 based standards (reference to Annex A.5) Has anyone had experience with this test especially in conducting or witnessing the test (first hand experience)? The standards specify the oil as being: distillate fuel oil which is a medium volitile distillate having a mass per unit volume between 0.845 g/ml and 0.865 g/ml, a flash point between 43.5C and 93.5C and an average calorific value of 38MJ/l. In laymans terms...what type of oil will satisfy these requirements. Any suggestyions on the test setup are also appreciated. Regards, Ken McCormick _ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.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: UL544 Leakage Limits Patient Equipment*
I also agree that the headphones are a patient connection. Hi, Its been a while since I looked at UL 544, but a few comments. 1. Headphones are an applied part (UL2601-1) or patient connection (UL544). They come into direct contact with the patient. You can argue that they are an ordinary patient connection (Clause 2.18 of UL544). But, it is still a patient connection. The limit is 50 uA for ordinary patient connection. 2. How long is this product going to be in the market? UL 544 goes away on 1/1/2003 for new products and 1/1/2005 for all products. You might be better off going to UL2601-1 now. In UL2601-1 this type of patient connect is Type BF. The patient leakage current limit is 100 uA in normal condition and 500 uA in single fault condition. 3. Call UL. Maybe I missed some out in UL544. Ned Devine Entela, Inc. Program Manager III Phone 616 248 9671 Fax 616 574 9752 e-mail ndev...@entela.com -Original Message- From: me...@aol.com [mailto:me...@aol.com] Sent: Friday, March 24, 2000 3:36 PM To: jjuh...@fiberoptions.com; m.r...@ieee.org; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: UL544 Leakage Limits Patient Equipment* Most esteemed colleagues, we are looking for your professional opinion on a UL 544 leakage limit (I think you will find this interesting): 1. This particular product uses a UL 544 evaluated direct plug in power supply with outputs to the patient care equipment. In this case it is a diagnostic unit that sends an audible tone to headphones (audiometer). The plug in power supply Conditions of Acceptability indicate the outputs are not evaluated for patient leads (i.e. applied parts). 2. Table 42.1 of UL 544 specifies leakage limits. patient connection footnote a references testing of patient leads (applied parts) connections. There is no written definition for patient leads or applied parts in UL544. As such NFPA 99 supplements UL 544 as it draws from the NEC and NFPA 99 (referenced in UL 544): NFPA 99 defines the US definition of Patient Lead = A deliberate electrical connection that can carry current between an appliance and patient. It is not intended to include adventitious or casual contacts such as a push button, bed surface, lamp, hand held appliance, etc. 3. As the headphones of this audiometer are clearly not deliberate electrical connections we conclude these are not patient leads (applied parts) which would not fall under the limits for patient connection limits per 544. The applicable limits would be as defined under enclosure or chassis grounded or double insulated Now be careful not to jump to a conclusion yet. You might say enclosure or chassis?, but if you examine this, you will find the footnotes reference UL 544's Enclosure definition: Enclosure = That external portion of an appliance that serves to house or support component parts, or both. Enclosure of patient care equipment likely to be contacted by a patient include, for example, bedside monitors, bed frames, dental chairs, and examination stands. Our conclusion: Due to the US definition of patient leads (applied parts), the earphones of an audiometer (patient care equipment) are subjected to the leakage current limits for enclosure or chassis, and not the limits of patient connection. For this particular application, we conclude that based on the C of As, the output of the power supply has already been evaluated for enclosure or chassis leakage limits. Your Thoughts??? Drew PS: If you care to look, CSA supports this position in that 50uA is related to cardiac tissue limits only. See Appendix A of CSA 22.2 125 (500uA). --- 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 __ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.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:
