RE: Verifying functionality of the equipment for Production Safety Testing
Paul, There will always be some small current flowing during a hipot test. If there isn't any current flowing, it's probably because you're circuit is open somewhere (probably the test jig, or the hipot tester's leads). To prevent this problem from going undetected some manufacturers began to include an adjustable "minimum current detection" circuit. An alarm sounds if the set minimum current is not detected while the equipment is in test mode. I think QuadTech and Kikusui both sell equipment with "minimum current detection". A nice feature, but I sometimes wonder how reliable it is. If this is manufacturing's only reason for purchasing a new hipot tester, you might suggest that they just buy a calibrated resistor. Before performing the hipot test, check the hipot tester using the resistor. That way you can be check both the voltage across the test points, and the correct function of the current monitor in the hipot tester. Additionally, if you check the hipot equipment before each equipment test you can justify longer periods between hipot calibrations. This can save you quite a bit of pocket change. A good resistor has high reliability and can calibrated much more cheaply. This isn't too practical for high volume production line testing, but can work pretty well for some machinery manufacturers. Even if you are doing high volume, you can still reasonably use this approach by testing at the beginning and at the end of a lot (kind of a drag if you have a problem with the last unit though). Matt > > Folks, > > My manufacturing contacts have asked for a lead on a supplier of test > equipment that I can use to be able to test the Hi pot lead for it not to > be open. If you run the Hi Pot test holding the lead in the air it will > pass . We need a way to test that the lead is not open . > > The Test requirement (as far as I know) is to verify functionality of the > equipment before testing. > > Best Regards, > > Paul J. Smith, Teradyne > > > > > > > > > Kevin Harris on 09/25/2000 01:39:29 PM > > Please respond to Kevin Harris > > > > > > > > > To: "'Maxwell, Chris'" > > cc: "EMC-PSTC (E-mail)" (bcc: Paul J > Smith/Bos/Teradyne) > > > > Subject: RE: Battery Safety > > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > I've seen this done before on low current designs. Sometimes when you > replace the batteries in this type of design the circuit voltage does not > have time to drop completely away due to the charge saved on bulk > capacitors. When the new batteries are added the circuit comes up in a > peculiar state. This is particularly true of uP power on reset circuits. > There are more elegant ways to take care of this problem but I suppose a > single resistor would be the cheapest (if one ignored battery life). > > Regards, > > Kevin Harris > Manager, Approval Services > Digital Security Controls > > > > -Original Message- > From: Maxwell, Chris [mailto:chr...@gnlp.com] > Sent: Monday, September 25, 2000 11:31 AM > To: 'EMC-PSTC Internet Forum' > Subject: Battery Safety > > > > All, > > We have inherited a design from a company which we purchased. The product > is a handheld and can be operated from a pair of Alkaline batteries. > Inside > the unit, there is a 91 KOhm resistor across the + and - terminals of the > batteries. Since the people who designed the instrument are long gone, > some > of my collegues have asked me if this resistor could be a safety feature. > > I can't think of any way this resistor would help the safety of the > instrument. I did read through the safety test report; and I found no > reference to this resistor being required. All it does is provide a > constant drain on the battery (reducing battery life). It has been > suggested to me that some designers put resistors across batteries to > reduce > the electrical noise in a product. To me a capacitor would be better for > this because it wouldn't drain the battery while it was filtering. Even > so, > isn't a battery the ultimate capacitor? I'm just drawing a blank why > anyone > would do this. I'd love to recommend that we pull this resistor out > bec
RE: Vibration and Shock Testing
Rick, Try the IEC 60068 series. You'll need part 1 (IEC 60068-1) and an appropriate part 2. Warning! May cause drowsiness. Do not operate heavy machinery while reading. IEC 60068-2-47 (1999-10) Environmental testing - Part 2-47: Test methods - Mounting of components, equipment and other articles for vibration, impact and similar dynamic tests IEC 60068-2-50 (1983-01) Environmental testing. Part 2: Tests. Tests Z/AFc: Combined cold/vibration (sinusoidal) tests for both heat-dissipating and non-heat-dissipating specimens IEC 60068-2-51 (1983-01) Environmental testing. Part 2: Tests. Tests Z/BFc: Combined dry heat/vibration (sinusoidal) tests for both heat-dissipating and non-heat-dissipating specimens IEC 60068-2-53 (1984-12) Environmental testing. Part 2: Tests. Guidance to Tests Z/AFc and Z/BFc: Combined temperature (cold and dry heat) and vibration (sinusoidal) tests For more information you might want to contact a company that performs HALT (Highly Accelerated Life Test) and/or HASS (Highly Accelerated Stress Screen). They should be able to advise you about industry standards and make recommendations regarding your products. Regards, Matt > This may not be the correct group to ask environmental questions, but I > thought it was a good place to start considering so many in the group wear > different hats or have past experience. In an effort to understand > principles of shock and vibration compliance, I have searched companies > like HP, Compaq and CISCO only to find if vibration and shock are called > out it is not even the same within the same company. > > The task is to define the correct vibration and shock testing for > electronic equipment, considering operational, non-operational and > transportation will have different levels. > > Are there accepted existing standard like CISPR 22 and IEC 60950 for > vibration, shock or other environmental parameters? > > Is there a similar group to this one that deals with environmental testing > and compliance? > > Thank you in advance for time on this matter. > > Rick Linford > rlinf...@phobobs.com > > > > > > --- > This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety > Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. > > To cancel your subscription, send mail to: > majord...@ieee.org > with the single line: > unsubscribe emc-pstc > > For help, send mail to the list administrators: > Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com > Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org > > For policy questions, send mail to: > Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org > > > --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
FYI: Report of the Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones entitled Mobile Phones and Health
According to their website: The report of the Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones entitled Mobile Phones and Health was published on Thursday, 11 May. A press conference was also held on 11 May at The Royal Academy of Engineering, London. The report is available here: http://www.iegmp.org.uk/IEGMPtxt.htm Matt --- 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: BG Approval
Dear Peter, BG stands for Berufsgenossenschaften (don't ask*). I think the certification mark "BG" has a rather overweight ... uh thinness challenged "i" to the left of it. The interlock was certified by the BG Institute for occupational safety in Germany. You may also see IEC/EN 60947-5-1 (chapter 3) written on the switch. This signifies that it is a positive opening device. Regards, Matt *Professional associations dealing with statutory insurance and the prevention of accidents (and many other things). > Dear Group, > > An interlock has "BG Approval". Does anyone know what it is? > > Peter Merguerian > Managing Director > Product Testing Division > I.T.L. (Product Testing) Ltd. > Hacharoshet 26, POB 211 > Or Yehuda 60251, Israel > > Tel: 972-3-5339022 Fax: 972-3-5339019 > e-mail: pmerguer...@itl.co.il > website: http://www.itl.co.il > > > > > > > --- > This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety > Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. > > To cancel your subscription, send mail to: > majord...@ieee.org > with the single line: > unsubscribe emc-pstc > > For help, send mail to the list administrators: > Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com > Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org > > For policy questions, send mail to: > Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org > > > --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
RE: Actual requirement or money making scheme?
Hi Brent, > Subject: Actual requirement or money making scheme? Definitely an actual requirement. (about the rest of your subject: No comment). Decision: Original CB Test Reports can be subjected to three (3) amendments only, after which a new CB Test Report and associate CB Test Certificate shall be issued. Explanatory notes: Experience shows that by making more than three amendments to a CB Test Report the technical features of the initial product becomes such that the tracking against the Master File can be lost. To get your very own copy go to: http://www2.imq.it/ctldecisions/collect.htm choose sheet 291 (bottom right) Regards, Matt > Subject: Actual requirement or money making scheme? > > > > Hello wise colleagues - > > Just recently, we have decided to add some alternate components to one of > our CB Reports and was informed by a particular agency that we needed to > have a new CB Report issued since we already have 3 updates to the existing > report. > > In the past, we were able to add an alternate plastic to the CB report and > just pay for an addendum (few thousand...I know, I am already getting ripped > off). But, now to add an alternate component and pay for a full CB Report > and Certificate?! That does not make sense. After talking to the project > engineer, he indicated that this is the direction of his organization and > this interpretation will be implemented across the board with all member > agencies. We only have a few products with few changes. I would hate to > work for a computer manufacturer who changes the disk drive manufacturer and > model numbers like it was last month's model. Oh yeah, it was last month's > model. > > All I know is that this change in policy will push me well over budget this > year. Without turning this into a bashing session of any particular agency, > can anyone direct me to an agency that has a more relaxed interpretation of > the "CB Update" requirement? > > Thank you very much for your time and your expert advice. > > Best Regards, > Brent Taira > > > --- > This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety > Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. > > To cancel your subscription, send mail to: > majord...@ieee.org > with the single line: > unsubscribe emc-pstc > > For help, send mail to the list administrators: > Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com > Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org > > For policy questions, send mail to: > Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org > > > --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
RE: Number of connections per terminal - chapter and verse?
Lauren, The EN 60947-* specifies the tests for Circuit Breakers, Control Switches, Terminal Blocks, ... The test series assumes that only one unprepared conductor will be attached to a terminal unless the manufacturer specifies otherwise. When the manufacturer specifies otherwise, the tests become quite time consuming. Although I can't comment on the relevance of the test series to actual installation conditions, I can tell you that I have seen tests with multiple conductors fail on multiple occasions. Anyway, connecting more than one conductor (when not specifically allowed) is using a component outside of it's approved (certified) specifications. If you want to quote a specific requirement from the 204, look in Chapter 14, Wiring Practices. Matt > -Original Message- > From: owner-emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@ieee.org]On Behalf > Of Crane, Lauren > Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2000 5:07 AM > To: 'emc-p...@ieee.org' > Subject: Number of connections per terminal - chapter and verse? > > > > Safety minded folk, > > I am stumped finding chapter and verse on the following common sense ideas > (i.e. in what part of which standard are the following issues addressed). > Sometimes the simplest things are the hardest to find! Any corrections would > be appreciated. I generally work in the realm of the NEC (NFPA 70), NFPA 79, > EN 60204 and EN 61010-1 (aka UL3121). If you know of a related section in > one of these I would appreciate the direction. > > 1. Unless explicitly stated otherwise in the manufacturer's documentation, > it is only appropriate to apply one wire to one terminal on a commercial > electrical device such as a contactor or circuit breaker. > > 2. For screw-terminal terminal strips, there should be no more than two ring > or spade lugs, this includes jumper straps between barriers. > > Lauren E. Crane > * Eaton Corporation, SEO > * Ion Beam Systems Division > * Manager - Product Design Safety and Compliance > * lcr...@bev.etn.com 978.921-9745 > > > --- > 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: What is "Fire-wire"?
Hi Robert, Try PC World Online for a good primer. http://www1.pcworld.com/heres_how/article/0,1400,14371,00.html Regards Matt > Heard of this high speed interface? > > Anybody know about it? > > Need information, please. > > Something about IEEE1394 > > Is the cable defined *very* well? like CAT-5? > >- Robert - > > > - > This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. > To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org > with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the > quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, > jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or > roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). > > > - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
Re: Servicing and Repairs
Brian, You can provide maintenance and servicing info to your customer. Just be sure your manuals are in order. To write a any kind of manual, a clear definition "audience" is necessary. In your case, you are considering the training and knowledge of the average laboratory user - about the hazards of performing maintenance on electrical equipment (best to assume none). Qualified as a scientist (even in an electrical field) has no relation to a qualification to perform maintenance tasks. Tasks requiring the ability to understand (and avoid) the hazards present must only be carried out by truly qualified personnel. You recognize this in the construction of your equipment. > My main area of difficulty lies in that we rely on the fact > that our electronic units are located behind locked doors or screwed > panels to achieve our LVD compliance. You should clearly establish at least two categories of personnel who will be interacting with your equipment: 1. Skilled personnel (maintenance staff, specialists). You must define the general skills/knowledge required or the necessary qualification(s) of skilled personnel. You must also specify any specific training/knowledge these skilled personnel will require to be able to recognize and avoid any proprietary hazards in your equipment. 2. Users (operators). Assume: they cannot recognize any hazards (they only know what you've told them in the manual) they will ignore many of your warnings (which is why some designers use special screws for closing off non-user areas) You cannot assume that the user is a skilled person. EN 61010 does not assume this. Your duty as the manufacturer is to CLEARLY separate tasks which can be performed by users from those which must only be performed by skilled/trained personnel. Then, you must explain how to carry out these tasks safely. Regards, Matt PS If you want to talk about the "qualifications" of scientists - just browse around the internet. Or go directly here: http://www.rli.com/accident/year_lists/pre-1987.html #021: 1977: Scientist blinded by pulsed Nd:YAG laser. A scientist was partially blinded by a reflection from what was called a relatively weak Nd:YAG The exposure in the eye was approximately 6 mJ. However, 6 mJ in a 10 nsec exposure time creates enormous peak power approximately a thousand times greater than the limit allowed into the eye. Although the laser was thought to be relatively weak, in fact it was many orders of magnitude above the accepted safe exposure limit. As a result of the exposure, a vitreous hemorrhage was produced and the person went into shock. Fortunately, the hemorrhage did not produce a foveal lesion, and eventually some vision did return. The accident was due to the fact that although eye protection, was available, it was not being used. This incident could have been avoided if a laser safety program had developed a safety awareness so that people wore protective eyewear. - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
Re: Ground lugs
> Happy Holidays group, > > In getting agency approval on our I.T.E. product, the safety ground terminal > has come into question. > When hard wiring a product, Para. 3.3.7 indicates that the conductor is to > be clamped between metal surfaces, and the terminal shall not damage the > conductor. This has been interpreted as the terminal must have a metal plate > that clamps down on the conductor, and no rotational stresses from the screw > are applied to the conductor. Hi James, Not clear what the problem is here. "Rotational stresses"? Is the conductor being visably damaged by your terminal? If not, sounds like someone's getting a little overzealous. The clamping plate you refer to is used to secure the conductor - not to prevent "rotational stresses from the screw". Additionally, European standards such as EN60947 recognize, and even contain drawings of the type of terminal you describe - without clamping plates. Problem is, if you show this to your agency, they may decide they want to carry out testing according to the requirements of the standard (EN60998/999 are probably more appropriate in this case). Rather than worry about "rotational stresses" - I would be more worried about long term security. Is it really a screw terminal, or is it a stud (bolt) terminal? In the case of a screw type terminal for PE, I would generally expect to see a stud terminal with a bolt, a clamping plate, and a spring (lock) washer. If you feel confident about your terminal however, crimp a terminal lug to the conductor. This should solve your problem with the agency about "rotational stresses". > In Europe, I understand that a rail terminal block, where one of the > terminals is shorted to a rail, is generally used, and accepted, but > somewhat costly. There may also be alternatives, but we haven't found an off > the shelf one yet. "Somewhat costly" is an interesting expression. I've heard this and "relatively expensive" both offered as reasons when designers don't want to change their design. Can anyone give me a rough idea (perhaps as a percentage of unit cost) of what "somewhat costly" mean? > I am looking for a grounding terminal that accepts #14-#18 AWG wire, has a > clamping plate, is tin plated, and has a mount or hole for direct connection > to a chassis. Most of the approved terminals I know of are for rail mounting (DIN...). Don't think it would make too much sense to install a rail just for one PE terminal. If you're looking for rail mounted terminals however, check Weidmueller and Wago. Both companies offer PE terminals that can be snapped onto a carrier rail. Worth a look if you're including many terminals in your equipment. Good luck, Matt - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
Re: GROUND COLOR CODE FOR CE MARK (EN60204-1)
Hello Christian, > I have a doubt regarding the color code for ground cables according > EN60204-1 (for CE mark): > > In the norm is stated that all protective earth wires MUST be yellow green. I don't think EN60204-1 contains this requirement. I have IEC60204-1:1997. It requires "GREEN-AND-YELLOW" for insulated conductors. Shape, location, or marking are acceptable methods for identifying a non insulated PE conductor. > What color must be cables that are connected to ground because they need > to be referenced to ground, but are NOT protective earth wires? (ex: > secondary of a transformer,...that´s what I think is called functional equipotential > conections ) The norm calls these "operational bonding". Refer to clause 8. > According to the norm seems that they still need to be yellow-green, but No. Only a protective conductor should be GREEN-AND-YELLOW (i.e. required for protection against electric shock). See clause 14. > one guy from TUV told me that these wires MUST NOT be yellow-green (they > could be any different color except yellow-green). This is not correct : when you use color (only) to identify a conductor - yellow or green cannot be used in combination with another color light blue cannot be used when light blue is used to identify the neutral conductor in the circuit when a green wire or a yellow wire could possibly be confused with a "GREEN-AND-YELLOW" wire. If you use BLACK, RED, BLUE, or ORANGE - make sure you read subclause14.2.4. Finally, make sure that your wires are identified as indicated in your documentation. Regards, Matt > > I appreciate your comments, and advises of were to find this information. > Thanks. > > - > This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. > To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org > with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the > quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, > jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or > roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). > > > - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
Re: warning label overkill?
Sean, > Serious question even though this involves a non-electrical product: at > what point do warning labels undermine themselves? This is a good question. Unfortunately, it's very difficult to answer. One of the biggest problems is that response to warning labels varies greatly depending on the viewer's age, education and cultural background. > It didn't seem to be any more carbonated than the Cokes I usually buy. I > can see the point of such labels on Champaign with the corks that often > become projectiles. But the physics of a screw-off soda bottle cap just > doesn't seem to have the same ballistic potential. (I know, I know, the > GC made them do it. But still.) Contrary to what you might think, these caps do have "ballistic potential". To read an opinion on one of these suits, follow the link below. Caution! The information at the end of this link may cause drowsiness. Do not design equipment while reading. http://www.trinity.edu/departments/business_admin/lone2.htm Roughly, the points of interest: In 1976 a witness for ALCOA testified that from 1967 to 1975, thirty four personal injury law suits were filed against ALCOA (cap blow off). One of the main points of contention during the subsequent trial (and appeals) was to determine if ALCOA had done its duty to inform the final user of the possible hazard of cap blowoff. Since ALCOA was not the actual manufacturer (manufacturing was performed based on their patented design) - could they really make sure that the final user was informed? No. But what must they do convince a jury that they tried to make sure the user was informed? One of the judges felt that if ALCOA had made a contract with the manufacturer/bottler - requiring the man. to include a (proper?) warning on the bottle - ALCOA would be performing its duty to inform. So what does this mean now? If there is an injury from blowoff, everyone pays (liability is not avoided by labelling). However, if there is a warning label, everyone probably pays less. > I was surprised to find this warning label on a 20 oz bottle of Dr. > Pepper. It seems to be unique to that brand -- Coke, Pepsi and whatnot > don't seem to carry it. Maybe it was not Dr. Pepper's desire to put the label on. Maybe the designer of the closure system required it. > ! WARNING (exclamation point is inside a triangle) > CONTENTS UNDER PRESSURE. CAP MAY BLOW OFF CAUSING EYE OR OTHER SERIOUS > INJURY. POINT AWAY FROM FACE AND PEOPLE, ESPECIALLY WHILE OPENING. All capitals for the message is not in accordance with the relevant ANSI standard. Furthermore, a non pictorial warning is better than nothing - but not best case. Also, did the warning get your attention BEFORE you were "in range"? But I guess this is another topic. If you really want some gratuitous warnings the list below taken from http://www.geocities.com/ResearchTriangle/System/8884/more.html "Caution: The contents of this bottle should not be fed to fish."-- On a bottle of shampoo for dogs. "Do not use while sleeping"--On a hair dryer "Do not light in face, nor expose face to flame"--On a lighter "Warning: May cause drowsiness"--On a bottle of Nytol brand sleeping pills "Not to be used as a personal floatation device"--On a 6X10 inch inflatable picture frame "Do not drive the cars in ocean"--In small print at the bottom of the screen, during a car commercial which showed the car in the ocean "Do not put lit candles on phone"--On the instructions for a cordless phone "Do not put in mouth"--On a box of bottle rockets "Warning: Misuse may cause injury or death"--Stampled on the metal barrel of a .22 calibre rifle from http://www.geocities.com/ResearchTriangle/System/8884/more.html Thanks, This was a real eye-opener for me! Matt > -- > Sean Oberle > Vice President of New Products > Washington Business Information, Inc. > 1117 N 19th St, Ste 200, Arlington, VA 22209 > Voice: 703/247-3429; Fax: 703/247-3421 > > > > - > This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. > To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org > with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the > quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, > jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or > roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). > > > - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
Re: Article to UL
> Hello Matthew! > > I think that under US tax code the terms "non-profit" > and "not-for-profit" have special, distinct meanings > that govern how the organization must handle income > and profits. Again, not being a tax law expert, I > could not explain what the difference is. The IRS helpfully points out that "Non-profit and not-for-profit are state law concepts." (Experts and non-experts alike can find such info at http://www.irs.gov). UL derives its tax-exempt status from § 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. This is the section defines "charitable, religious, educational, scientific, . organizations" that are considered "tax-exempt". > As to your second question, I object! Objecting to UL's tax-exempt status? Frank, people who test in glass laboratories shouldn't ... Or is my understanding of TUV (current and past) in need of revision? Regards, Matt > Regards, > > Frank West > Sr. Engineer > TUV Rheinland of NA > > --- Matthew Meehan wrote: > > > > Hello Frank, > > > As my UL friends are always quick to point out, > > they > > > are not-for-profit, not non-profit. Not being > > expert, > > > I assume there is some subtle difference that is > > lots > > > on the rest of us. > > nonprofit - not established to make a profit > > (nonprofit organizations) - > > Cambridge Dictionary of American English > > (http://www.cup.cam.ac.uk/elt/dictionary/) > > By this definition, UL is a nonprofit organization. > > I assume that your > > friends (and the Post) consider profit to mean > > "money that a business earns > > above what it costs to produce and sell goods and > > services". Given the > > general usage of the prefix "non", and that UL's > > earnings are higher than > > it's costs - perhaps they feel that "not-for-profit" > > more clearly describes > > the company. > > > A more general question is, why is does UL > > continue to > > > enjoy special consideration when what they are > > doing > > > is not unique? > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > Frank West > > > Sr. Engineer > > > TUV Rheinland NA > > Is it necessary to do something unique to enjoy > > "special consideration"? > > When you say "special consideration", I assume you > > are referring to UL's > > tax-exempt status. > > Do you object to UL's tax-exempt status, or covet > > it? > > > > Regards, > > Matt > > > > > > > > > > > --- Barry Ma wrote: > > > > > > > > Chaz, Why do they call UL a non-profit > > organization? > > > > Barry > > > > Anritsu Co. > > > > > > > > From: "Grasso, Charles (Chaz)" > > > > , on 11/24/99 > > 1:23 > > > > PM: > > > > > > > > Forgive a jaded old man but two things jumped > > out at > > > > me when I read the article. > > > > > > > > 1. "In many other countries, standards are set > > or > > > > approved by a government entity with industry > > > > involvement. U.S. safety standards, on the other > > > > hand, are set primarily by private industry - > > either > > > > in independent labs such as UL or by industry > > > > associations or organizations. The CPSC, an > > > > independent regulatory agency charged with > > > > protecting consumers from hazardous products, > > > > imposes federal regulations only when it > > believes > > > > industry's voluntary efforts are insufficient. " > > > > > > > > Oh Boy. Lets see look like UL is ripe for a > > > > government takeover to me!! > > > > > > > > 2. Many experts interviewed contend that UL's > > recent > > > > problems can be traced to the way the company is > > > > organized and funded - with more than > > nine-tenths of > > > > its revenue coming from companies for testing > > > > products. UL also sets industry safety standards > > - > > > > which it then measures products against - but > > does > > > > not > > > > charge for that. Lets see - if we reorganize and > > - > > > > more importantly - change the funding (a > > euphemism > > > > for taxation) then we'll all be sa
Re: Article to UL
Hello Frank, > As my UL friends are always quick to point out, they > are not-for-profit, not non-profit. Not being expert, > I assume there is some subtle difference that is lots > on the rest of us. nonprofit - not established to make a profit (nonprofit organizations) - Cambridge Dictionary of American English (http://www.cup.cam.ac.uk/elt/dictionary/) By this definition, UL is a nonprofit organization. I assume that your friends (and the Post) consider profit to mean "money that a business earns above what it costs to produce and sell goods and services". Given the general usage of the prefix "non", and that UL's earnings are higher than it's costs - perhaps they feel that "not-for-profit" more clearly describes the company. > A more general question is, why is does UL continue to > enjoy special consideration when what they are doing > is not unique? > > Regards, > > Frank West > Sr. Engineer > TUV Rheinland NA Is it necessary to do something unique to enjoy "special consideration"? When you say "special consideration", I assume you are referring to UL's tax-exempt status. Do you object to UL's tax-exempt status, or covet it? Regards, Matt > --- Barry Ma wrote: > > > > Chaz, Why do they call UL a non-profit organization? > > Barry > > Anritsu Co. > > > > From: "Grasso, Charles (Chaz)" > > , on 11/24/99 1:23 > > PM: > > > > Forgive a jaded old man but two things jumped out at > > me when I read the article. > > > > 1. "In many other countries, standards are set or > > approved by a government entity with industry > > involvement. U.S. safety standards, on the other > > hand, are set primarily by private industry - either > > in independent labs such as UL or by industry > > associations or organizations. The CPSC, an > > independent regulatory agency charged with > > protecting consumers from hazardous products, > > imposes federal regulations only when it believes > > industry's voluntary efforts are insufficient. " > > > > Oh Boy. Lets see look like UL is ripe for a > > government takeover to me!! > > > > 2. Many experts interviewed contend that UL's recent > > problems can be traced to the way the company is > > organized and funded - with more than nine-tenths of > > its revenue coming from companies for testing > > products. UL also sets industry safety standards - > > which it then measures products against - but does > > not > > charge for that. Lets see - if we reorganize and - > > more importantly - change the funding (a euphemism > > for taxation) then we'll all be safer!! > > > > Sorry - Just could not resist.. > > > > > > > __ > > Open your mind. Close your wallet. > > Free Internet Access from AltaVista. > > http://www.altavista.com > > > > > > - > > This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion > > list. > > To cancel your subscription, send mail to > > majord...@ieee.org > > with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" > > (without the > > quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, > > jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or > > roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list > > administrators). > > > > > > > > > = > Frank West > Senior Engineer > TUV Rheinland of North America > NW/Portland OR Office > __ > Do You Yahoo!? > Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products. All in one place. > Yahoo! Shopping: http://shopping.yahoo.com > > - > This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. > To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org > with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the > quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, > jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or > roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). > > > - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
Re: Grounding Questions
Robert, I don't think GFIs are failsafe. Don't they all come with test buttons? Matt > > Why has no one mentioned using a GFI detector as a "failsafe" way to make > certain the installation is done per spec? > > After all, in the US the manufacturer still comes out liable for any > damages. > > - Robert - > > -Original Message- > From: Crabb, John > To: 'Price, Ed' ; 'emc-p...@ieee.org' > > Date: Tuesday, November 16, 1999 3:03 AM > Subject: RE: Grounding Questions > > > > > >Ed, we do not find it necessary to specify an additional ground for our > >Automated Teller Machines, other than the ground provided thru the > >power cord. They are used in similar circumstances to your products. > >We do state in our "site preparation" documents, "WARNING This > >equipment must be earthed". If for any reason the product was not > >grounded, I suspect you would find out quite quickly, since the leakage > >current, although under 3.5 mA, would be noticable !! > >Regards, > >John Crabb, Development Excellence (Product Safety) , > >NCR Financial Solutions Group Ltd., Kingsway West, Dundee, Scotland. DD2 > >3XX > >E-Mail :john.cr...@scotland.ncr.com > >Tel: +44 (0)1382-592289 (direct ). Fax +44 (0)1382-622243. VoicePlus > >6-341-2289. > > > > > >> -Original Message- > >> From: Price, Ed [SMTP:ed.pr...@cubic.com] > >> Sent: 15 November 1999 22:12 > >> To: 'emc-p...@ieee.org' > >> Subject: Grounding Questions > >> > >> > >> Hi Listmembers! > >> > >> > >> I have some questions about electrical power feed grounding. > >> > >> One of our divisions makes revenue control equipment (turnstiles, change > >> machines, ticket vending machines) which are installed in rapid transit > >> stations. The physical installation ranges from free concrete floor > >> standing > >> to mounting in a concrete wall alcove. All machines have massive > >> (vandalism > >> problems with cash inside machines) stainless steel housings which the > >> public can and will touch constantly (while standing on possibly wet > >> concrete floors). > >> > >> In the USA, the power for these machines is supplied from a central > >> distribution panel, through conduit, to a surface-mount electrical box > >> equipped with a Twist-Lock style female connector. (All items up to and > >> including the female outlet are customer supplied, and the distance from > >> the > >> distribution panel to the box may be as much as 1500 feet.) The power > >> supplied is 277 VAC, 60 Hz single phase power, in a 3 wire system (third > >> wire is safety ground), with a typical load of about 4 Amps. > >> > >> Should we provide a separate ground stud on our machine case and require > >> the > >> transit district to provide a ground rod at each machine site? Does this > >> present any problems with duplicating the electrical ground which may (or > >> may not) exist at the distribution panel? Can we realistically depend on > >> the > >> third wire ground for safety? If several machines are mounted in a > >> gallery, > >> should we have a ground rod for each machine? > >> > >> Thanks in advance! > >> > >> Ed > > > >- > >This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. > >To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org > >with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the > >quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, > >jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or > >roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). > > > > > > > - > This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. > To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org > with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the > quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, > jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or > roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). > > > - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
Re: Shielded Enclosure Fire Hazard
> My lab just had an annual inspection visit by our friendly fire hazard > inspector. Seems that after 4 successive years of inspections, I suddenly > failed this year. Hi Ed, Don't shoot the bearer. Go find the guy who passed you the last 3 years - shoot him. If it's the same guy - well it's nice to see he's got the devotion to re-evaluate his own work (and the ability to admit errors - no small feat in an inspector). > Now I'm all in favor of sprinklers; there's several in the ceiling of the > parent room that contains my enclosure. But that doesn't protect the > contents of the shielded enclosure. What if a fire started inside the > enclosure and then had time to grow? The parent room sprinklers might not be > able to stop the blaze then! Never mind that there's almost no fuel within > the enclosure; just fire-retardant rated anechoic foam and a 10' long table > made out of wood 4x4's. Ed, don't you think the inspector stopped by the water cooler to check on your prospects? Do you mean to tell me you haven't heard the rumors? I heard they were moving you out to baha to work on your open site ideas - and your lab is going to be turned into a storage area for all unread quality documents (lot of tinder there). > So I don't suppose this is really about common sense. Has anyone recently > addressed the issue of fire protection within a shielded enclosure? Or A fire enclosure for people, hmm. Is this your secret "shake and bake" recipe? Seriously though, unless you could get the room certified as a fire enclosure I don't think you'll get any flexibility from inspector. Sorry I couldn't be more humorous but its been a long day. Matt - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
Re: impact /probes
try www.ergonmicsusa.com - Original Message - From: Dwight Hunnicutt To: EMC PSTC Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 1999 3:20 AM Subject: impact /probes > > Mech testers- > > Anyone know of sources for the UL1950 Impact Ball (500g, 50mm dia.)? > (I know of one online source, but $150 for a ball?!? How about a > ball-bearing shop?) > > Also, how about a source for the UL1950: > Test Pin (Fig. 20) > Telecom Test Probe (Fig. 16) > > thanks > D > -- > _ > > DWIGHT HUNNICUTT Sr.Compliance Engineer > > _/_/ _/ _/_/ _/ > _/_/ _/ _/_/ _/ _/ _/ >_/_/ _/ _/ _/_/_/_/ >_/ _/_/ _/_/_/_/_/_/ > _/ _/ _/_/_/_/ > > T E C H N O L O G I E S > 510-771-3349 520-244-2721 fax > www.vina-tech.com > _ > > - > This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. > To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org > with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the > quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, > jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or > roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). > > > - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
Re: "ECO" ?
> A chemist friend called me this weekend and asked if I had ever heard of a > European "ECO" requirement. Hi Ed, How about the European eco-label ? The requirements for labeling a computers with the "daisy mark" are listed in: 1999/205/EC: Commission Decision of 26 February 1999 establishing ecological criteria for the award of the Community eco-label to personal computers http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/lif/dat/1999/en_399D0205.html > His company makes polymer resins, and sells to > molders in Europe who do injection molding of computer housings. He said the > molders seemed to think "ECO" involved some kind of EMC/RFI requirement. Probably a recycling concern. EMC countermeasures might make the computer housing difficult to recycle. The section probably most interesting to your friend is : "BEST PRACTICE CRITERIA 4. Take-back and recycling The manufacturer shall guarantee the take-back of the personal computer and of components being replaced, except for items contaminated by users (e.g. in medical or nuclear applications). In addition, the personal computer shall meet the following criteria: 1. one trained person, alone, shall be able to dismantle the system unit; 2. the manufacturer shall check the disassembly of the system unit and provide a disassembly report. Amongst others, the report shall confirm that joints are: - easy to find and accessible, - as standardised as possible, - accessible with all-purpose tools; 3. incompatible and hazardous materials shall be separable; 4. 90 % of plastic and metal materials in the housing and chassis shall be recyclable; 5. if labels are required, they shall be easily separable or inherent; 6. plastic parts shall: (a) have no lead or cadmium added by the manufacturer; (b) be of one polymer or compatible polymers, except for the cover which shall consist of no more than 2 types of polymer which are separable; (c) contain no metal inlays that cannot be separated; 7. plastic parts heavier than 25 grams shall: (a) not contain flame retardants that contain organically bound bromine or chlorine; (b) have a permanent marking identifying the material, in conformity with ISO 11469. Excluded from this criterion are extruded plastic materials." Hope this helps. Regards, Matt - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
Re: Humidity Test
> Can anyone steer me to an appropriate standard that would specify > Humidity tests for a heavy industrial product? > > Best Regards, > > Bill Jacowleff Bill, "Appropriate" covers a lot of ground. Especially since you didn't specify your market (country, equipment category (e.g. semiconductor machinery)). You also didn't mention if you are interested in compliance - or if you're just looking for a little light reading. If you're looking for international standards try searching: http://www.iec.ch/ Since you have not specified I'll just stick with the general standards (there may be a more suitable product family standard). IEC 60204-1 (1997-10) Electrical equipment of industrial machines - Part 1: General requirements Provides a requirement stating that machines must be capable of correct operation at 40 degress C (humidity <=50%). This requirement can be altered however by agreement with your customer (see Appendix B). You might also consider the following standards: IEC 60068-2-56 - Ed. 1.0 - Bilingual Title: Environmental testing - Part 2: Tests. Test Cb: Damp heat, steady state, primarily for equipment Publication date: 1988-12 TC: 104 (ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS, CLASSIFICATION AND METHODS OF TEST) Pages: 15 Price: 36.00 CHF (price code : H). Abstract: Determines the suitability of electrotechnical products, principally equipment, for use and storage under conditions of high humidity. You would also need the IEC 60068-1 as well. I imagine a few different tests plans are described in the standard. IEC GUIDE 106 (1996-07) Ed. 2.0 CHF 27.00 17 pages Guide for specifying environmental conditions for equipment performance rating This standard is listed in the bibliography of the IEC 60204 Hope this helps. Regards, Matt - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
Re: Hot Surface. Hot air.
> Now, 70 degrees C for external equipment surface that may be touched > seems pretty high to me. 100 degrees C metal surface will, I believe, cause > a burn to that part of the human body that touched it. > So maybe my interpretation is not true ??and, can someone point > another regulatory source for Hot surface permissible temperature ? Israel, As others have pointed out - EN 563 can be used as a "regulatory source". The standard "... applies to "hot surfaces of all products and equipment that must or can be touched during their normal use. That includes the area of safety of machinery as well as any other applications." The standard "does not apply, if a large area of the skin (approximately 10% or more of the skin of the whole body) can be in contact with the hot surface. This standard also does not apply to skin contact with more than 10% of the head or contact which could result in burns of vital areas of the face (e.g. burn resulting in the restriction of airways). In these cases severe injuries may occur, even if the surface temperature does not exceed the values specified in this standard." Does the EN 60950 consider these exceptions relevant? For your average office printer, PC, or monitor they probably aren't. There are however some fairly large equipment which are certified to this standard (mainframes?). You stated that "70 degrees C for external equipment surface that may be touched seems pretty high to me." Figure 2 of EN 563 indicates that at 70 degrees C, contact with a smooth uncoated metal surface for more than 1 second will result in a burn. For less than 1 second of contact time, there is "no reliable data" available (possible burn). Consider any forseeable problems - like someone falling onto your equipment. At 70 degrees, breaking a fall by placing your hands against the equipment could be rather unpleasant. And don't forget head contact. Regards, Matt - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
Re: "Kill" Switch Requirements
> Is anyone aware of any requirements anywhere in the world stating that a
device
> that is considered a "transport mechanism" must have a red kill switch or
button
> on the unit..Does the Machinery Directive have such a requirement??
Martin,
If you consider your device a "transport mechanism" you should probably
check the machinery directive. It defines machinery as:
"- an assembly of linked parts or components, at least one of which moves,
with the appropriate actuators, control and power circuits, etc., joined
together for a specific application, in particular for the processing,
treatment, moving or packaging of a material
- an assembly of machines which, in order to achieve the same end, are
arranged and controlled so that they function
as an integral whole,
- interchangeable equipment modifying the function of a machine, which is
placed on the market for the purpose of
being assembled with a machine or a series of different machines or with a
tractor by the operator himself in so far
as this equipment is not a spare part or a tool;"
The "Machinery Directive" does require an Emergency stop ("kill switch") for
most machines.
Article 1 of the "Machinery Directive":
"1.2.4. Stopping device
.
Emergency stop
Each machine must be fitted with one or more emergency stop devices to
enable actual or impending danger to be
averted. The following exceptions apply:
- machines in which an emergency stop device would not lessen the risk,
either because it would not reduce the
stopping time or because it would not enable the special measures required
to deal with the risk to be taken,
- hand-held portable machines and hand-guided machines.
This device must:
- have clearly identifiable, clearly visible and quickly accessible
controls,
- stop the dangerous process as quickly as possible, without creating
additional hazards,
- where necessary, trigger or permit the triggering of certain safeguard
movements."
"Clearly identifiable" in the case of an emergency stop control actuator
would generally mean a RED, MUSHROOM or PALM actuator, with a YELLOW
background (around the actuator).
You can refer to IEC 60204-1 for these and other general requirements
regarding emergency stops.
Regards,
Matt
From:
To:
Sent: Saturday, September 18, 1999 5:27 AM
Subject: "Kill" Switch Requirements
> Is anyone aware of any requirements anywhere in the world stating that a
device
> that is considered a "transport mechanism" must have a red kill switch or
button
> on the unit.
>
> This question came from an associate of mine while talking with potential
> customers in Scotland.
> We certify our product to the Low Voltage Directive using EN 61010. I am
not
> familiar with such a requirement for the LVD. Does the Machinery
Directive have
> such a requirement??
>
> Any comments are appreciated.
>
> Regards
>
> Joe Martin
> EMC/Product Safety Engineer
> P.E. Biosystems
> marti...@pebio.com
>
>
>
> -
> This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
> To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
> with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
> quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
> jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
> roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
>
>
>
-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
Re: Ground Bond Testers - Continued
Brian, Try this loophole on for size. Depending upon the installation location - it may be necessary (required by law) to perform an earth bond test after installation of the equipment. In such a case, testing at your production site would not guarantee a higher level of safety. After all, the reason for making routine earth bond tests is to confirm proper assembly. I have seen production testing waived by a certifier under these conditions (not a high volume product - known installation locations - report of site testing kept for records). Example: You ship your equipment in sections and then assemble (or provide instructions to assemble) the equipment on site. After assembly the earth bond test is performed. Your customer should have access to the necessary equipment if testing is required. Good luck, Matt - Original Message - From: Brian At Work To: Sent: Monday, September 13, 1999 11:26 PM Subject: Ground Bond Testers - Continued > > Thanks to everyone for your replies. > > Using step down transformers, variacs, and current clamps work well for > performing the Ground Bond test here in our safety lab with trained > personnel, but this is not an acceptable procedure for less trained > production line personnel. > > The lack of a commercial Ground Bond Tester that will achieve high current > has me wondering if other manufacturers of high current equipment is > performing 100% production line Ground Bond tests. Am I missing something > here? Does this test not need to be done outside the safety lab? Am I > foolishly looking for a easy, safe, production line solution for high > current ground bond testers? > > Thanks, > Brian > > > - > This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. > To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org > with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the > quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, > jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or > roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). > > > - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
