significant deviations among national implementations of EN standards.
I have seen that there *can* be some significant differences between a DIN standard and the IEC/DIN version of the same standard. I wonder if I should be cautious about the potential difference between, say BSI/EN 60204-1 and DIN/EN 60204-1? My first impulse is to assume no since designation as an EN implies a significant amount of harmony among the Member States regarding the document. Thanks in advance for your opinions and insight. Regards, Lauren Crane Product Regulatory Analyst Corporate Product EHS Lead Applied Materials Inc. Austin, TX 512 272-6540 [#922 26540] - external use - Save paper and trees! Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald dhe...@gmail.com
RE: Cigarette socket in vehicles
My latest 2 cars, both Toyota and 4+ years old, have two-prong 110 AC outlets that can source about 1 amp before the fuse blows. Now I want more amperage so I can design spreadsheets on my laptop while brewing coffee and watching TV on the way to work.! Lauren - external use - Save paper and trees! Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. James, Chris c...@dolby.co.uk Sent by: emc-p...@ieee.org 01/19/2009 09:20 AM To Piotr Galka piotr.ga...@micromade.pl, EMC-PSTC emc-p...@ieee.org cc Subject RE: Cigarette socket in vehicles Perhaps because the cigarette lighter came before electronic gadgets in vehicles and when gadgets did start to come to market they had to use what was available with the result that the whole after-market gadget industry is subsequently geared up to use the lighter socket as a power source From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Piotr Galka Sent: 19 January 2009 15:11 To: EMC-PSTC Subject: Re: Cigarette socket in vehicles By the way. I don't understand why cars still don't have specialised sockets for electronic equipment. The cigarette sockets likes to lose contact (it is my experience). Piotr Galka - Original Message - From: Scott Xe mailto:scott...@gmail.com To: emc-p...@ieee.org mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org Sent: Monday, January 19, 2009 2:38 PM Subject: Cigarette socket in vehicles I have learnt that cigarette sockets supply two voltages: 12 or 24 volts. 12-volt sockets are widely used in light duly vehicles while 24-volt sockets in heavy duty vehicles. The sockets are identical in terms of configuration and dimensions. Is there any mechanism to prevent a 12-volt equipment from being plugged in a 24-volt socket? Thanks, Scott - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net mailto:emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.org mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald dhe...@gmail.com mailto:dhe...@gmail.com - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net mailto:emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.org mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald dhe...@gmail.com mailto:dhe...@gmail.com This message (including any attachments) may contain confidential information intended for a specific individual and purpose. If you are not the intended recipient, delete this message. If you are not the intended recipient, disclosing, copying, distributing, or taking any action based on this message is strictly prohibited. - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas
RE: Cigarette socket in vehicles
Scott, Unfortunately I can't help you with information about power quality. My experience here is only as a consumer. Lauren The content of this message is Applied Materials Confidential. If you are not the intended recipient and have received this message in error, any use or distribution is prohibited. Please notify me immediately by reply e-mail and delete this message from your computer system. Thank you. Save paper and trees! Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. Scott Xe scott...@gmail.com Sent by: emc-p...@ieee.org 01/19/2009 11:15 AM To Lauren Crane/APPLIED MATERIALS@AMAT, emc-p...@ieee.org cc Subject RE: Cigarette socket in vehicles Lauren, Oh, the latest cars are now equipped with built-in DC-AC converter that operates normal light duty household appliances in car. Are you aware of squarewave or sinewave output and any shortcomings on squarewave output apart from limited power output? Scott From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of lauren_cr...@amat.com Sent: Monday, January 19, 2009 11:44 PM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RE: Cigarette socket in vehicles My latest 2 cars, both Toyota and 4+ years old, have two-prong 110 AC outlets that can source about 1 amp before the fuse blows. Now I want more amperage so I can design spreadsheets on my laptop while brewing coffee and watching TV on the way to work.! Lauren - external use - Save paper and trees! Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. James, Chris c...@dolby.co.uk Sent by: emc-p...@ieee.org 01/19/2009 09:20 AM To Piotr Galka piotr.ga...@micromade.pl, EMC-PSTC emc-p...@ieee.org cc Subject RE: Cigarette socket in vehicles Perhaps because the cigarette lighter came before electronic gadgets in vehicles and when gadgets did start to come to market they had to use what was available with the result that the whole after-market gadget industry is subsequently geared up to use the lighter socket as a power source From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Piotr Galka Sent: 19 January 2009 15:11 To: EMC-PSTC Subject: Re: Cigarette socket in vehicles By the way. I don't understand why cars still don't have specialised sockets for electronic equipment. The cigarette sockets likes to lose contact (it is my experience). Piotr Galka - Original Message - From: Scott Xe mailto:scott...@gmail.com To: emc-p...@ieee.org mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org Sent: Monday, January 19, 2009 2:38 PM Subject: Cigarette socket in vehicles I have learnt that cigarette sockets supply two voltages: 12 or 24 volts. 12-volt sockets are widely used in light duly vehicles while 24-volt sockets in heavy duty vehicles. The sockets are identical in terms of configuration and dimensions. Is there any mechanism to prevent a 12-volt equipment from being plugged in a 24-volt socket? Thanks, Scott - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net mailto:emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.org mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald dhe...@gmail.com mailto:dhe...@gmail.com - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net mailto:emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send
Re: Certification Standards for terminal block accessories?
All, Thanks for the suggestions on this topic (summarized below). I have browsed through UL 1059 and the UL versions of the 60947-7-X documents and can find no criteria that appear to address accessory jumpers that a terminal block manufacturer might supply for their own product. Does anyone know of a chapter and verse they can point me two that explicitly (or I guess implicitly is okay too) addresses terminal jumpers? Thanks again, Lauren Have you looked at the -7-x parts of the EN 60947 series of standards (e.g. EN 60947-7-1)? Look at IEC 60947-7-1,2 and 3. These are the likely standards. ANSI/UL 1059 http://ulstandardsinfonet.ul.com/scopes/scopes.asp?fn=1059.html , Terminal Blocks http://ulstandardsinfonet.ul.com/scopes/scopes.asp?fn=1059.html http://ulstandardsinfonet.ul.com/scopes/scopes.asp?fn=1059.html IEC 60947-7-1 http://ulstandardsinfone .ul.com/scopes/scopes.asp?fn=60947-7-1.html , Low-Voltage Switchgear and Controlgear - Part 7-1: Ancillary Equipment - Terminal Blocks for Copper Conductors IEC 60947-7-2 http://ulstandardsinfone .ul.com/scopes/scopes.asp?fn=60947-7-2.html , Low-Voltage Switchgear and Controlgear - Part 7-2: Ancillary Equipment - Protective Conductor Terminal Blocks for Copper Conductors The IEC 60947-7-x Standards are used in conjunction with IEC 60947-1 http://ulstandardsinfonet.ul.com/scopes/scopes.asp?fn=60947-1.html , Low-Voltage Switchgear and Controlgear - Part 1: General Rules. There are also ANSI/UL versions of the IEC 60497 standards listed above that are options to UL 1059. http://ulstandardsinfonet.ul.com/scopes/scopes.asp?fn=60947-1.html http://ulstandardsinfonet.ul.com/scopes/scopes.asp?fn=60947-1.html http://ulstandardsinfonet.ul.com/scopes/scopes.asp?fn=60947-7-1.html http://ulstandardsinfonet.ul.com/scopes/scopes.asp?fn=60947-7-1.html = Lauren Crane Product Regulatory Analyst Corporate Product EHS Lead Applied Materials Inc. Austin, TX 512 272-6540 [#922 26540] - external use - Save paper and trees! Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald dhe...@gmail.com
Re: WEEE statements in user manuals?
Certainly the multi-lingual approach is in line with explicit criteria other directives and regulations such as RTTE, MD, REACH, CLP where communication to an end user in a Member State is envisioned. In WEEE Art 10.4 Member States appear to be given the possibility of laying down criteria for how producers/distributors convey info to recipients. So each MS implementation of WEEE might speak to this point separately rather than it appearing in the directive to the MS (i.e. the base directive). Lauren Crane Product Regulatory Analyst Corporate Product EHS Lead Applied Materials Inc. Austin, TX 512 272-6540 [#922 26540] The content of this message is Applied Materials Confidential. If you are not the intended recipient and have received this message in error, any use or distribution is prohibited. Please notify me immediately by reply e-mail and delete this message from your computer system. Thank you. Save paper and trees! Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. Dave Heald emcp...@gmail.com Sent by: emc-p...@ieee.org 01/15/2009 10:47 AM To emc-p...@ieee.org cc Subject WEEE statements in user manuals? All, I've seen various implementations of WEEE statements in user manuals. Some contain 20+ language translations of a short statement regarding how to recycle your product, while others have just a passing mention in a single language (I presume the entire manual is translated in this case but haven't had the necessary time to research this). I admit that it's entirely possible that I overlooked a requirement in the directive, but can anyone provide insight into why certain companies feel that it is necessary to include the 20+ translations in print? This has puzzled me for a while and I am trying to resolve the issue. Thanks in advance! -Dave Heald - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net mailto:emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.org mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald dhe...@gmail.com mailto:dhe...@gmail.com - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald dhe...@gmail.com
Certification Standards for terminal block accessories?
All, Does anyone know of a certification standard (e.g., UL, EN) that may exist for terminal block accessories. I am specifically curious about jumper bars used to bridge the continuity of adjacent terminals. I've gotten a few hits on Google related to ATEX considerations, but my focus is just on basic shock and fire issues. Regards, Lauren Crane Product Regulatory Analyst Corporate Product EHS Lead Applied Materials Inc. Austin, TX 512 272-6540 [#922 26540] - external use - Save paper and trees! Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald dhe...@gmail.com
Re: First EUP Regulation implementation regarding standby power
What I find troubling in this new reg is the last line of the definition for equipment in scope..(ref art 2.1) also when marketed for non-household or non-office use; This seems to create some ambiguity with regard to the question of does this regulation apply to consumer-type equipment that happens to be integrated as a component of industrial equipment? Why do these EU parties always leave me with a hangover? Regards, Lauren Crane Product Regulatory Analyst Corporate Product EHS Lead Applied Materials Inc. Austin, TX 512 272-6540 [#922 26540] - external use - Save paper and trees! Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. James, Chris c...@dolby.co.uk Sent by: emc-p...@ieee.org 01/13/2009 06:35 AM To emc-p...@ieee.org cc Subject First EUP Regulation implementation regarding standby power http://tinyurl.com/6tkth3 http://tinyurl.com/6tkth3 Entered into force 7/1/09 If the interpretation of Annex I (3) (below) is the same as RoHS where consumer covered B2B professional products also then we have another party to go to... :-( 3. Consumer equipment Radio sets Television sets Videocameras Video recorders Hi-fi recorders Audio amplifiers Home theatre systems Musical instruments And other equipment for the purpose of recording or reproducing sound or images, including signals or other technologies for the distribution of sound and image other than by telecommunications Chris This message (including any attachments) may contain confidential information intended for a specific individual and purpose. If you are not the intended recipient, delete this message. If you are not the intended recipient, disclosing, copying, distributing, or taking any action based on this message is strictly prohibited. - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net mailto:emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.org mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald dhe...@gmail.com mailto:dhe...@gmail.com - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald dhe...@gmail.com
Predicting the Future - Re: First EUP Regulation implementation regarding standby power
Predicting the future is not now allowed in Europe, because of the lead content of the crystal balls is far in excess of RoHS limits. Thanks for that, John. You've just made my day bearable. Regards, Lauren - external use - Save paper and trees! Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. John Woodgate j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk Sent by: emc-p...@ieee.org 01/13/2009 12:00 PM To Kunde, Brian brian_ku...@lecotc.com cc emc-p...@ieee.org Subject Re: First EUP Regulation implementation regarding standby power In message 0ed66cd2c9bd0a459d54fb9119a60567d55...@mailserver.lecotc.com, dated Tue, 13 Jan 2009, Kunde, Brian brian_ku...@lecotc.com writes: So, it would be difficult to identify something as professional when the definition of the type of devices used in a home is constantly changing. Predicting the future is not now allowed in Europe, because of the lead content of the crystal balls is far in excess of RoHS limits. [snip - lec] - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald dhe...@gmail.com
RE: Revision of the WEEE and RoHS directives
Richard, At the bottom of http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/weee/index_en.htm you will see links to two proposals. Those are the proposed revisions for the two directives (WEEE and RoHS). What makes this official or almost official and is there a date with these changes below? In my experience, proposals generally make it through the legislation machine with a little revision, so they are a pretty good predictor of the final official document. Can't estimate very definitely on what the final kick in dates would be for these... both appear to have an 18mo transition date proposed in the text, so probably in the 2-3 year time frame from now. Regards, Lauren Crane Product Regulatory Analyst Corporate Product EHS Lead Applied Materials Inc. Austin, TX 512 272-6540 [#922 26540] -external use- Save paper and trees! Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. Richard Stone richard.st...@dialogic.com 01/06/2009 07:19 AM To Lauren Crane/APPLIED MATERIALS@AMAT cc Subject RE: Revision of the WEEE and RoHS directives Hello Lauren Thnak you for the updates below, Is there any hard copy documents you could forward? What makes this official or almost official and is there a date with these changes below? Thanks again for your time, Richard, From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of lauren_cr...@amat.com Sent: Friday, December 12, 2008 11:25 AM To: Nick Williams Cc: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Re: Revision of the WEEE and RoHS directives Nick, Yes. These proposed revisions to WEEE and RoHS are very interesting. Some of what I see; * RoHS has its own scope now. Essentially the Annex from WEEE has been pulled into RoHS. * For WEEE the situation is reversed - It now points to RoHS for scope. * The RoHS spare parts exemption is changed and, I think, eroded. Three scenarios provide exemption- military equipment; components of out-of-scope equipment that fulfills its function only if part of that equipment; and equipment not intended to be placed on the market as a single functional or commercial unit - all rather vague concepts that will, no doubt, require much guidance and source much debate. * RoHS contains a new criteria prohibiting the big 6 RoHS materials from spare parts for the repair or reuse of EEE (ref art. 4.1) * There is a new Annex III with 4 materials list and a very confusing linkage of these materials to risk assessment and the REACH candidate list in Art. 4.7 * RoHS is now a CE Marking directive (sigh) * RoHS takes steps to make it clear that importers are manufacturers (regardless of whether there is an OEM external to the EU). * Use exemptions in RoHS annex V and VI are extended to be exemptions also from REACH authorization criteria (once any get crafted). * The definition of homogeneous material is now defined in RoHS. * WEEE has exemptions similar to RoHS. * Both directives now kindly give a nod towards REACH and essentially say Yep, you gotta do REACH too. * Scope of WEEE is now explicitly on waste from private households or users other than private households (this seems to be all users). I guess WEEE was just silent on this point prior. * EN 50419 is now the reference for the ex-bin symbol (one of the few cases where a directive mandates the use of a standard). === I am particularly interested in how RoHS's new treatment of integrated parts would apply in the following scenario A large scale stationary industrial tool (LSIT), say a printing press, is imported to the EU. It might be considered an electrical tool but is exempt because of the LSIT exemption in Annex I.6. The printing press has a power supply in it. The power supply manufacturer also happens to market their supply in the EU as a single commercial unit. The printing press manufacturer has no intention of marketing the power supply as a separate commercial unit, but they do provide it as a spare part in their support supply chain. Must the printing press company ensure the power supply is RoHS compliant as an industrial control instrument (controlling voltage)? Regards, Lauren Crane Product Regulatory Analyst Corporate Product EHS Lead Applied Materials Inc. Austin, TX 512 272-6540 [#922 26540] - External Use - Save paper and trees! Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. Nick Williams nick.willi...@conformance.co.uk Sent by: emc-p...@ieee.org 12/12/2008 04:38 AM To emc-p...@ieee.org cc Subject Revision of the WEEE and RoHS directives I'm sure many readers here will be interested in the information at the following location: http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAct on.do?reference=IP/08/1878format=HTMLaged=0language=ENguiLanguage=en Nick. - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send
RE: Revision of the WEEE and RoHS directives
Chris,
Is that your read of the current RoHS or the revision proposal? My question is
related to the revision proposal. This is what I see
Original RoHS said
This Directive does not apply to: spare parts for the repair, or to the reuse,
of electrical and electronic equipment put on the market before 1 July 2006.
[Art 2.3]
Proposed Change says
This Directive does not apply to:
(a) equipment which is necessary for the protection of the essential interests
of the security of Member States, including arms, munitions and war material
intended for specifically military purposes ;
(b) equipment which is specifically designed as part of another type of
equipment that does not fall within the scope of this Directive and can
fulfill its function only if it is part of that equipment;
(c) equipment which is not intended to be placed on the market as a single
functional or commercial unit.
[Art 2.3]
So getting exemption here depends on
* clearly understanding can fulfill its function only if is part of that
equipment - It seems a PSU can still fulfill its function of providing power,
in or out of a printing press.
OR
* demonstrating that the PSU is not being placed on the market as a single
functional or commercial unit - but what exactly is meant by single
functional unit or commercial unit? No defs. are provided.
Further, later in the proposal it is stated
Member States shall ensure that EEE, including spare parts for its repair or
its reuse placed on the market does not contain the substances listed in Annex
IV {the big 6}. [Art 4.1]
With some exceptions
4. Paragraph 1 shall not apply to spare parts for the repair or to the reuse
of the following:
(a) EEE placed on the market before 1 July 2006.
(b) Medical devices placed on the market before 1st January 2014.
(c) In vitro diagnostic medical devices placed on the market before 1st
January 2016.
(d) Monitoring and control instruments placed on the market before 1st January
2014.
(e) Industrial monitoring and control instruments placed on the market before
1st January 2017.
(f) EEE which benefited from an exemption and was placed on the market before
that exemption expired.
So the PSU which might be considered a monitoring and control instrument in
its own right, is a spare part for the printing press (a electrical tool) and
so may only benefit from (a), but if the particular printing press being
repaired was placed on the market this year, there is no available exemption.
Regards,
Lauren
- external use -
Save paper and trees! Please consider the environment before printing this
e-mail.
James, Chris c...@dolby.co.uk
12/15/2008 03:14 AM To
Lauren Crane/APPLIED MATERIALS@AMAT
cc
emc-p...@ieee.org, Nick Williams nick.willi...@conformance.co.uk
Subject
RE: Revision of the WEEE and RoHS directives
Lauren,
If the PSU is being supplied as a spare to repair a product not in scope then
the spare can be rohs or non-rohs so there would be no need to prove it is
RoHS.
Chris
From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of
lauren_cr...@amat.com
Sent: 12 December 2008 16:25
To: Nick Williams
Cc: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: Re: Revision of the WEEE and RoHS directives
Nick,
Yes. These proposed revisions to WEEE and RoHS are very interesting.
Some of what I see;
* RoHS has its own scope now. Essentially the Annex from WEEE has been
pulled into RoHS.
* For WEEE the situation is reversed - It now points to RoHS for scope.
* The RoHS spare parts exemption is changed and, I think, eroded. Three
scenarios provide exemption- military equipment; components of out-of-scope
equipment that fulfills its function only if part of that equipment; and
equipment not intended to be placed on the market as a single functional or
commercial unit - all rather vague concepts that will, no doubt, require much
guidance and source much debate.
* RoHS contains a new criteria prohibiting the big 6 RoHS materials from
spare parts for the repair or reuse of EEE (ref art. 4.1)
* There is a new Annex III with 4 materials list and a very confusing
linkage
of these materials to risk assessment and the REACH candidate list in Art. 4.7
* RoHS is now a CE Marking directive (sigh)
* RoHS takes steps to make it clear that importers are manufacturers
(regardless of whether there is an OEM external to the EU).
* Use exemptions in RoHS annex V and VI are extended to be exemptions also
from REACH authorization criteria (once any get crafted).
* The definition of homogeneous material is now defined in RoHS.
* WEEE has exemptions similar to RoHS.
* Both directives now kindly give a nod towards REACH and essentially say
Yep, you gotta do REACH too.
* Scope of WEEE is now explicitly on waste
RE: Revision of the WEEE and RoHS directives
Chris, Elaboration -- It is frustrating how many laws in general in a country, and the EU specifically (though not a country), affect similar classes of products but do not reference each other. For example, a small aerosol can of specialized oil for a machine might be within scope of the EU Narcotics Precursor Regulation, the REACH Regulation, the Dangerous Preparations Directive, the Aerosol Dispensers Directive and the Prepackaged Products directive, but the laws do not always cross reference each other (though there is some). In this same way, EEE within scope of RoHS could easily contain materials relevant to the restrictions of REACH (Annex XVII) or the Candidate List materials of REACH. It is nice to see the RoHS directive explicitly mention REACH (see the following) and to say it applies even though RoHS might also. REACH, of course, is the acronym for Regulation 1907/2006. Reference to REACH - This Directive shall apply without prejudice to requirements of Community legislation on safety and health, on chemicals, in particular Regulation (EC) 1907/2006 as well as of specific Community waste management legislation. Hope that helps Lauren - external use - Save paper and trees! Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. James, Chris c...@dolby.co.uk 12/15/2008 03:35 AM To Lauren Crane/APPLIED MATERIALS@AMAT cc emc-p...@ieee.org, Nick Williams nick.willi...@conformance.co.uk Subject RE: Revision of the WEEE and RoHS directives Lauren, Please elaborate or what you mean by Yep, you gotta do REACH too. Chris From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of lauren_cr...@amat.com Sent: 12 December 2008 16:25 To: Nick Williams Cc: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Re: Revision of the WEEE and RoHS directives Nick, Yes. These proposed revisions to WEEE and RoHS are very interesting. Some of what I see; * RoHS has its own scope now. Essentially the Annex from WEEE has been pulled into RoHS. * For WEEE the situation is reversed - It now points to RoHS for scope. * The RoHS spare parts exemption is changed and, I think, eroded. Three scenarios provide exemption- military equipment; components of out-of-scope equipment that fulfills its function only if part of that equipment; and equipment not intended to be placed on the market as a single functional or commercial unit - all rather vague concepts that will, no doubt, require much guidance and source much debate. * RoHS contains a new criteria prohibiting the big 6 RoHS materials from spare parts for the repair or reuse of EEE (ref art. 4.1) * There is a new Annex III with 4 materials list and a very confusing linkage of these materials to risk assessment and the REACH candidate list in Art. 4.7 * RoHS is now a CE Marking directive (sigh) * RoHS takes steps to make it clear that importers are manufacturers (regardless of whether there is an OEM external to the EU). * Use exemptions in RoHS annex V and VI are extended to be exemptions also from REACH authorization criteria (once any get crafted). * The definition of homogeneous material is now defined in RoHS. * WEEE has exemptions similar to RoHS. * Both directives now kindly give a nod towards REACH and essentially say Yep, you gotta do REACH too. * Scope of WEEE is now explicitly on waste from private households or users other than private households (this seems to be all users). I guess WEEE was just silent on this point prior. * EN 50419 is now the reference for the ex-bin symbol (one of the few cases where a directive mandates the use of a standard). === I am particularly interested in how RoHS's new treatment of integrated parts would apply in the following scenario A large scale stationary industrial tool (LSIT), say a printing press, is imported to the EU. It might be considered an electrical tool but is exempt because of the LSIT exemption in Annex I.6. The printing press has a power supply in it. The power supply manufacturer also happens to market their supply in the EU as a single commercial unit. The printing press manufacturer has no intention of marketing the power supply as a separate commercial unit, but they do provide it as a spare part in their support supply chain. Must the printing press company ensure the power supply is RoHS compliant as an industrial control instrument (controlling voltage)? Regards, Lauren Crane Product Regulatory Analyst Corporate Product EHS Lead Applied Materials Inc. Austin, TX 512 272-6540 [#922 26540] - External Use - Save paper and trees! Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. Nick Williams nick.willi...@conformance.co.uk Sent by: emc-p...@ieee.org 12/12/2008 04:38 AM To emc-p...@ieee.org cc Subject Revision of the
Re: Revision of the WEEE and RoHS directives
Nick, Yes. These proposed revisions to WEEE and RoHS are very interesting. Some of what I see; * RoHS has its own scope now. Essentially the Annex from WEEE has been pulled into RoHS. * For WEEE the situation is reversed - It now points to RoHS for scope. * The RoHS spare parts exemption is changed and, I think, eroded. Three scenarios provide exemption- military equipment; components of out-of-scope equipment that fulfills its function only if part of that equipment; and equipment not intended to be placed on the market as a single functional or commercial unit - all rather vague concepts that will, no doubt, require much guidance and source much debate. * RoHS contains a new criteria prohibiting the big 6 RoHS materials from spare parts for the repair or reuse of EEE (ref art. 4.1) * There is a new Annex III with 4 materials list and a very confusing linkage of these materials to risk assessment and the REACH candidate list in Art. 4.7 * RoHS is now a CE Marking directive (sigh) * RoHS takes steps to make it clear that importers are manufacturers (regardless of whether there is an OEM external to the EU). * Use exemptions in RoHS annex V and VI are extended to be exemptions also from REACH authorization criteria (once any get crafted). * The definition of homogeneous material is now defined in RoHS. * WEEE has exemptions similar to RoHS. * Both directives now kindly give a nod towards REACH and essentially say Yep, you gotta do REACH too. * Scope of WEEE is now explicitly on waste from private households or users other than private households (this seems to be all users). I guess WEEE was just silent on this point prior. * EN 50419 is now the reference for the ex-bin symbol (one of the few cases where a directive mandates the use of a standard). === I am particularly interested in how RoHS's new treatment of integrated parts would apply in the following scenario A large scale stationary industrial tool (LSIT), say a printing press, is imported to the EU. It might be considered an electrical tool but is exempt because of the LSIT exemption in Annex I.6. The printing press has a power supply in it. The power supply manufacturer also happens to market their supply in the EU as a single commercial unit. The printing press manufacturer has no intention of marketing the power supply as a separate commercial unit, but they do provide it as a spare part in their support supply chain. Must the printing press company ensure the power supply is RoHS compliant as an industrial control instrument (controlling voltage)? Regards, Lauren Crane Product Regulatory Analyst Corporate Product EHS Lead Applied Materials Inc. Austin, TX 512 272-6540 [#922 26540] - External Use - Save paper and trees! Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. Nick Williams nick.willi...@conformance.co.uk Sent by: emc-p...@ieee.org 12/12/2008 04:38 AM To emc-p...@ieee.org cc Subject Revision of the WEEE and RoHS directives I'm sure many readers here will be interested in the information at the following location: http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAct on.do?reference=IP/08/1878format=HTMLaged=0language=ENguiLanguage=en Nick. - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald dhe...@gmail.com
RE: NFPA 79 Section 9.1.4.1
Brian, Well, I agree with you in that I don't see 9.1.4.1 prohibiting what the inspector claims it prohibits, but this may be a moot point. If we are speaking of a true jurisdiction electrical inspector and not a third party hired to assess the conformance of your design to NFPA 79, then it could be you just gotta do what he says. Depending on the wording of the jurisdiction's electrical legislation, the inspector may have full discretionary authority for what designs are acceptable or not. It could be, that if you had your design evaluated by a third party field evaluator to NFPA 79 and they put their sticker on your device, then the reluctant inspector might yield (it's no longer his *** on the line, its that of the field evaluator). If this inspector doesn't get that 9.1.4.1 is not intended for application to power circuits, other arguments are likely to be non-value added. Regards, Lauren The content of this message is Applied Materials Confidential. If you are not the intended recipient and have received this message in error, any use or distribution is prohibited. Please notify me immediately by reply e-mail and delete this message from your computer system. Thank you. Save paper and trees! Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. Kunde, Brian brian_ku...@lecotc.com Sent by: emc-p...@ieee.org 10/28/2008 08:45 AM To Lauren Crane/APPLIED MATERIALS@AMAT cc emc-p...@ieee.org Subject RE: NFPA 79 Section 9.1.4.1 Lauren, When I read 9.1.4.1, I also think it is referring to the circuit driving the coil of the relay and not the heater circuit. However, the inspector is telling me this code is mandating that I cannot have a solid state relay in the Neutral side of the heater element and I don’t see his interpretation. So I was hoping that someone more familiar then I with NFPA 79 could help me out. BTW, the two thermal switches are the same kind used in cloth dryers to control temperature. They are not intended to be redundant but have different values and are located in different locations for better temp control. I’m not good at drawing schematics from ascii characters so I’ll try to better describe it. It is fairly simple. 115VAC Plug, power cord enters unit, then a double pole circuit breaker/switch. On the Line side, there is one side of an indicator light and two thermal switched in series, then the heating element. The Neutral side of the heating element connects to the other side of the indicator light, then through the contact side of a solid state relay, then back to the Mains circuit breaker/switch. The coil side of the solid state relay is controlled by a small circuit board running at 24 volts dc. The low side of the coil goes directly to logic ground. Seems simple enough. But the inspector is saying I cannot have components on both the line side and the neutral side of the heating element. When I ask why not, he says because 9.1.4.1 says so. I’m just trying to understand the code and reason for it for the future. Thanks for your time and help. The Other Brian From: lauren_cr...@amat.com [mailto:lauren_cr...@amat.com] Sent: Monday, October 27, 2008 6:12 PM To: Kunde, Brian Cc: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Re: NFPA 79 Section 9.1.4.1 It's a little hard to comment w/o a schematic. But note that under NFPA 79 there are two classes of circuits. It seems like your heater circuit may be considered a power circuit. Therefore, the inspector could be commenting on the circuit which controls the coil of the 24V solid state relay. Note also that even though you have two thermal switches on the line side of the heater coil it's not clear whether they are fail-safe. Redundancy doesn't add much value if the failure of the switch is not revealed somehow. Regards, Lauren Crane Product Regulatory Analyst Corporate Product EHS Lead Applied Materials Inc. - External Use - Save paper and trees! Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. Kunde, Brian brian_ku...@lecotc.com Sent by: emc-p...@ieee.org 10/27/2008 11:53 AM To emc-p...@ieee.org cc Subject NFPA 79 Section 9.1.4.1 Dear Experts, Can anyone please explain to me section 9.1.4.1 of NFPA 79? (see below) NFPA 79 9.1.4 Connection of Control Circuit Devices. 9.1.4.1 All operating coils of electromechanical magnetic devices and indicator lamps (or transformer primary windings for indicator lamps) shall be directly connected to the same side of the control circuit. All control circuit contacts shall be connected between the coil and the other side of the control circuit. A safety inspector is telling me the following circuit is in violation of the above requirements: 115VAC Heating Element wired with a solid state relay (for circuit
Re: NFPA 79 Section 9.1.4.1
It's a little hard to comment w/o a schematic. But note that under NFPA 79 there are two classes of circuits. It seems like your heater circuit may be considered a power circuit. Therefore, the inspector could be commenting on the circuit which controls the coil of the 24V solid state relay. Note also that even though you have two thermal switches on the line side of the heater coil it's not clear whether they are fail-safe. Redundancy doesn't add much value if the failure of the switch is not revealed somehow. Regards, Lauren Crane Product Regulatory Analyst Corporate Product EHS Lead Applied Materials Inc. - External Use - Save paper and trees! Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. Kunde, Brian brian_ku...@lecotc.com Sent by: emc-p...@ieee.org 10/27/2008 11:53 AM To emc-p...@ieee.org cc Subject NFPA 79 Section 9.1.4.1 Dear Experts, Can anyone please explain to me section 9.1.4.1 of NFPA 79? (see below) NFPA 79 9.1.4 Connection of Control Circuit Devices. 9.1.4.1 All operating coils of electromechanical magnetic devices and indicator lamps (or transformer primary windings for indicator lamps) shall be directly connected to the same side of the control circuit. All control circuit contacts shall be connected between the coil and the other side of the control circuit. A safety inspector is telling me the following circuit is in violation of the above requirements: 115VAC Heating Element wired with a solid state relay (for circuit on/off, not for temperature control) on the Neutral side of the heating element. There are several thermal switches on the Line side of the heating element. The relay is controlled by a 24 volt circuit and ground. There is a manual power switch that opens both sides of the line. If the relay failed in a short condition or if the neutral side of the heating element shorts to chassis ground , no hazard occurs because the temperature is controlled by two thermal switches. How would this circuit violate 9.1.4.1? The safety inspector is saying that this section of the standard mandates the solid state relay must be on the Line side of the heating element along with the thermal switches. Is he correct? Thank you for your help. The Other Brian _ LECO Corporation Notice: This communication may contain confidential information intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you received this by mistake, please destroy it and notify us of the error. Thank you. - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
Re: Plug-top style vaporisers
Might be a hoax... check, for example h tp://www.hoax-slayer.com/glade-plug-in-fire.html or google [hoax plug in air freshener] Regards, Lauren Crane Product Regulatory Analyst Corporate Product EHS Lead Applied Materials Inc. Austin, TX 512 272-6540 [#922 26540] - External Use- Save paper and trees! Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. Nick Williams nick.willi...@conformance.co.uk Sent by: emc-p...@ieee.org 10/06/2008 02:16 PM To emc-p...@ieee.org cc Subject Plug-top style vaporisers A friend of mine who is a fire accident investigator recently sent me the following, which had been sent in turn to him by one of his contacts. I'm not a fan of chain e-mails but I'm posting this to this mailing list since I think it's of particular interest to this group of readers. I also hope that someone might be able to confirm whether there is, in fact, any evidence of these products being the cause of multiple house fires and, this being the case, whether there is any standards related activity in response. I'd welcome other considered and engineering based comments as well as hearing from anyone who has received this or a similar e-mail from another another source. I need to declare an interest. I've been involved in designing and manufacturing plug-top vaporiser type products for many years and at one time had a bit to do with the development of standards for them both in the UK and the US. However, that's more than a dozen years ago now so although we still have clients who make and sell this group of products I'm no longer 'close to the coal-face' of standards development. I've intentionally deleted the brand name from the following text. The photograph which accompanied the original message can be seen on line at www.hucklow.com/MISC/VAPORISER/att1.jpg. Regards Nick. House fires--please read! This photo was taken at the scene of a house fire that occurred over the weekend. I've never heard this info before... House fires--please read! Received from a friend who is in the insurance property business. It is well worth reading. This is one of those e-mails that if you don't send it, rest assured someone on your list will suffer for not reading it. The original message was written by a lady whose brother and wife learned a hard lesson this past week. Their house burnt down.. nothing left but ashes. They have good insurance so the house will be replaced and most of the contents. That is the good news. However, they were sick when they found out the cause of the fire. The insurance investigator sifted through the ashes for several hours. He had the cause of the fire traced to the master bathroom. He asked her sister-in-law what she had plugged in the bathroom. She listed the normal thingscurling iron, blow dryer. He kept saying to her, 'No, this would be something that would disintegrate at high temperatures'. Then her sister-in-law remembered she had a [major brand name deleted], in the bathroom. The investigator had one of those 'Aha' moments. He said that was the cause of the fire. He said he has seen more house fires started with the plug-in type room fresheners than anything else. He said the plastic they are made from is THIN. He also said that in every case there was nothing left to prove that it even existed. When the investigator looked in the wall plug, the two prongs left from the plug-in were still in there. Her sister-in-law had one of the plug-ins that had a small night light built in it. She said she had noticed that the light would dim and then finally go out. She would walk in to the bathroom a few hours later, and the light would be back on again. The investigator said that the unit was getting too hot, and would dim and go out rather than just blow the light bulb. Once it cooled down it would come back on. That is a warning sign. The investigator said he personally wouldn't have any type of plug in fragrance device anywhere in his house. He has seen too many places that have been burned down due to them. PLEASE PASS THIS ON TO ALL THE PEOPLE IN YOUR ADDRESS BOOK. NOT ONLY COULD IT SAVE SOMEONE'S HOUSE, BUT IT COULD SAVE SOMEONE'S LIFE - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
Acceptability of English Language labels in high-tech workplaces.
Our company is hoping for some opportunities in new countries for which we have not yet design hazard alert labels (aka 'safety labels'). One thesis being considered is that English language labels might be acceptable in high tech workplaces (e.g., not for consumer goods, but machinery in 'sophisticated' workplaces). It seems that icon-only (pictogram-only) labels are one possible solution. However some are wondering if we could just provide our English language labels (i.e. pictogram with word-message panel) as is. Does anyone have relevant anecdotes/information about translating (or not) English word-messages for labels intended for sophisticated workplaces where English is not an official language of the country? Regards, Lauren Crane (Mr.) Product Regulatory Analyst Corporate Product EHS Lead Applied Materials Inc. Austin, TX 512 272-6540 [#922 26540] The content of this message is Applied Materials Confidential. If you are not the intended recipient and have received this message in error, any use or distribution is prohibited. Please notify me immediately by reply e-mail and delete this message from your computer system. Thank you. Save paper and trees! Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
VDE 0100-530 RCD type AC
I am struggling with a claim that German Law does not allow type AC RCDs (Residual Current Devices) in industrial machinery. The 2005-06 edition (in German) is being cited. If anyone has experience in this area I would welcome your insight. I can not find a link between German Law or CE marking and VDE 0100-530 nor its cousin IEC 60364-5-53. I have an English copy of the IEC doc and see no restriction on type AC RCDs but it does appear to be very different from the German VDE. The claim is, in part, that VDE 0100-530 and IEC 60364-5-53 are not equivalent (the VDE being stricter) but this seems to be contrary to the association of the two at DKE ref http://www.dke.din.de/cmd;jsessioni =58E350673DC30AED0D45A327BF55FD4D.4?lev l=tpl-art-detailansichtartid=85316918 ommitteeid=54738887bcrumblevel=2languageid=en I suspect that VDE 0100 plays a role much like the NEC in the US, and that it does not constrain industrial machinery (just as the NEC has section 670 pointing to NFPA 79 for industrial machinery). So even if VDE 0100-530 does have the suggested prohibition of Type AC RCDs it is not clear that this should apply to machinery. Regards, Lauren Crane (Mr.) Product Regulatory Analyst Corporate Product EHS Lead Applied Materials Inc. Austin, TX 512 272-6540 [#922 26540] -External Use- Save paper and trees! Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
Re: VDE 0100-530 RCD type AC
John, Thanks for the perspective. Just so I have an example of how it might be done (not that DE law parallels UK) can you tell me how BS 7671 is linked to UK law (such as an SI requiring it)? In the US the NEC (aka NFPA 70) is adopted a various legislative levels. It might be by the state, or it might be by the city. Usually it is a rev dependent adoption, so some cities/states have older version of the NEC as law. Absent adoption of the NEC some cities/states ensure safety at the discretion of an electrical inspector or some other provision. Regards, Lauren The content of this message is Applied Materials Confidential. If you are not the intended recipient and have received this message in error, any use or distribution is prohibited. Please notify me immediately by reply e-mail and delete this message from your computer system. Thank you. Save paper and trees! Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. John Woodgate j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk Sent by: emc-p...@ieee.org 08/14/2008 12:41 PM To emc-p...@ieee.org cc Subject Re: VDE 0100-530 RCD type AC In message of862d497c.88c563c6-on862574a5.00510c78-862574a5.00543...@amat.com, dated Thu, 14 Aug 2008, lauren_cr...@amat.com writes: I am struggling with a claim that German Law does not allow type AC RCDs (Residual Current Devices) in industrial machinery. [snip] I suspect that VDE 0100 plays a role much like the NEC in the US, and that it does not constrain industrial machinery (just as the NEC has section 670 pointing to NFPA 79 for industrial machinery). So even if VDE 0100-530 does have the suggested prohibition of Type AC RCDs it is not clear that this should apply to machinery. This is a rather too-frequent problem that arises with the various European national implementations of IEC 60364. The level of 'harmonization' is fully in line with the most outré current classical music. But I think that all their specific provisions apply exclusively to **the electrical installations in buildings**, except that they have some 'motherhood and apple pie' statements about equipment, just to prove that the issuing authorities are indeed sole rulers of the Universe. In the UK version (BS 7671), the relevant text (in the 16th edition - I don't yet have the 17th) is Regulation 110-04-01: The Regulations apply to items of electrical equipment only so far as selection and application of the equipment in the installation are concerned. The Regulations do not deal with requirements for the construction of prefabricated assemblies of electrical equipment, which are required to comply with appropriate specifications. You probably have to look at the corresponding text in VDE 0100 to see if it is equivalent or more restrictive. -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk Either we are causing global warming, in which case we may be able to stop it, or natural variation is causing it, and we probably can't stop it. You choose! John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
Re: Proposed EuP directive?
Check out http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/eco_design/index_en.htm The EuP (Energy Using Products) directive has been out for a while and already has three product sectors in scope (ballasts, refrigerators,and water heaters). There have been recent consultation efforts and proposals to expand the list of products that fall under EuP (which happens to be a CE marking directive). Regards, Lauren Crane (Mr.) Product Regulatory Analyst Corporate Product EHS Lead Applied Materials Inc. Austin, TX 512 272-6540 [#922 26540] -External Use- Save paper and trees! Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. Conway, Patrick R (Houston) p.con...@hp.com Sent by: emc-p...@ieee.org 06/11/2008 11:32 AM To emc-p...@ieee.org emc-p...@ieee.org cc Subject Proposed EuP directive? List-members. I hear there are some proposed regulations for future mandate of power usage in the EU. Does anyone have any pointers to the proposed or draft regulations? Thanks in advance. Best Regards, Patrick Conway, NCE. Hewlett-Packard Co. p.con...@hp.com 281.514.2259 281-514.5473(fax) - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
Re: The New EMC Directive and the D of C
Products that have already been placed on the market (prior to implementation of the new directive) require no change, but this is a piece-part consideration, not a product line consideration. As with several recent directive re-writes, the new EMCD has this interesting phrase, References to directive 89/63/EEC shall be construed as references to this directive [i.e., 2004/108/EC] and should be read in accordance with the correlation table set out in Annex VII (article 14). I *believe* this allows declarations to the old directive to be read as declarations to the new directive, but, of course, you must meet the criteria of the new directive. Note: There are some significant differences in the new directive that may warrant attention, particularly regarding marks and information (article 9). Lauren Crane (Mr.) Product Regulatory Analyst Corporate Product EHS Lead Applied Materials Inc. - external use - Save paper and trees! Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. White, Ian ianwh...@spiraxsarco.com Sent by: emc-p...@ieee.org 05/16/2008 09:39 AM To IEEE Forum (E-mail) emc-p...@ieee.org cc Subject The New EMC Directive and the D of C Can l have your views on the following please. As l understand it all new Electronic products should now have their Declaration of Conformities to the new EMC Directive 2004/108/EC, but products already on the market can still quote the old Directive in their D of C's It is a common practice for company's to take anther manufactures product and put their company logo on - badge engineer it basically. In the past they issued a D of C in their name, based on the other manufacturers D of C. During this change over period if a company wishes to badge engineer a product, but the D of C is to the old Directive what should they do : 1) Write a D of C to the old Directive under the argument that product is in the market already anyway - if only with a different name 2) Ask the supplier manufacturer for an updated D of C. There a small differences between the two Directives. Thanks for your help Ian White - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
Re: Machine Nameplate - Full Load Amp rating
Glyn, Just double checked with NFPA codes online and the excerpt is correct. The difference between 79 and 70 in this respect is ...that can be in operation ... vs. ...that may be in operation at the same time under normal conditions of use. See NEC 2008 section 670.3. Lauren -external use- Save paper and trees! Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. Glyn Garside lis...@garside.us Sent by: emc-p...@ieee.org 05/07/2008 04:37 PM To emc-p...@ieee.org cc Subject Re: Machine Nameplate - Full Load Amp rating For industrial machinery, the NEC (NFPA 70) requires an FLA marking on the machine nameplate, and that the value shall not be less than the sum of the full-load currents required for all motors and other equipment that may be in operation at the same time under normal conditions of use. I believe that is a quote from NFPA 79 (clause 16.4), not from NFPA 70. - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
Machine Nameplate - Full Load Amp rating
For industrial machinery, the NEC (NF{PA 70) requires an FLA marking on the
machine nameplate, and that the value shall not be less than the sum of the
full-load currents required for all motors and other equipment that may be in
operation at the same time under normal conditions of use.
Large, complex machinery may have many, many loads fed from its internal power
distribution system (e.g., controllers, power supplies, robots, etc...). Each
of these sub-systems is usually a stand-alone commercial product with a
nameplate of its own indicating its own FLA rating.
More often than not, such large complex machinery is not operated with all of
its sub-systems running at full power (e.g., all set to '10'). In typical
operation it may be that many are set at 8, most at 5 and a few at 2 (for
example).
Does the 'may' in 'may be in operation at the same time' require that one
consider what *could* happen even if it is not how the machine would ever,
realistically, be operated, or is it acceptable to take some empirical
measurements for a 'typical' operating scenario and set the nameplate FLA
based on that?
Is there any commonly accepted position paper for US electrical inspectors on
this point?
The issue of course is whoever installs the machine has to design their
infrastructure to support the nameplate FLA. If a machine nameplate FLA must
be determined by the simple addition of sub-system FLA's, then there is
possibility for great waste (unneeded current carrying capability). If a
machine nameplate FLA can be set by some more empirical method (e.g., current
draw during intended use), then sensible infrastructure is possible.
==
60204-1:2005
The question converts into the EU also since '204 has very similar criteria
for the full-load current marking of the nameplate.
The full-load current shown on the nameplate shall be not less than the
running currents for all motors and other equipment that can be in operation
at the same time under normal conditions.
Thanks for any insight/advice.
Lauren Crane (Mr.)
Product Regulatory Analyst
Corporate Product EHS Lead
Applied Materials Inc.
Austin, TX 512 272-6540 [#922 26540]
- External Use -
Save paper and trees! Please consider the environment before printing this
e-mail. -
This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org
Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org
For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: emc-p...@daveheald.com
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
RE: Machine Nameplate - Full Load Amp rating
Thanks all for the input so far
To address one question from Peter,
Q Yes, if it's a possible use, it must be considered. One way to think of
this is, if there's a setting from 0 to 10 and typically used at 2, why is it
adjustable beyond 2, if it isn't expected to be used at that level?
A When complex machinery is designed on a tight design timeline there are
two primary drivers for spec'ing sub-assemblies that may have capacity in
excess of what is needed.
1. The component was used on a previous machine and we have confidence in its
performance. So let's use it again even though we don't need all its power.
This will also save on inventory since we can spec one {fill in the blank} for
6 different machine designs. (volume discounts from suppliers also have
influence and there is only one design that service techs have to learn).
2. I have about 60 seconds to find a {fill in the blank} to go into this
machine. This one looks like it will get the job done. I'm not sure what the
final machine design function will be so I'll get one with a little head room
just in case.
Regards,
Lauren
-External Use-
Save paper and trees! Please consider the environment before printing this
e-mail.
- This
message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org
Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org
For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: emc-p...@daveheald.com
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
