Re: [PSES] ISO TC 15223-1 TR 60878 iso/CD 15223-1

[Momcilovic, Nick (GE Healthcare)]

ISO 15223-1 has about 44 symbols in it.  IEC/TR 60878 has over 500 in it.  Many 
of the symbols in 15223-1 are in the 60878 but not all.  However, the good news 
is that 60878 is being revised and the 3rd Ed should be published soon and will 
have all the symbols from 15223-1 in it (and over 800 symbols in it).  60878 is 
just a compilation of commonly used symbols in the medical device industry 
pulling from existing IEC 60417, ISO 7000 & ISO 7010 symbols (and a few 
others).  So, if you can wait, you may want to wait until the new version of 
60878 is published and get that one.

Another really good resource for all IEC & ISO symbols and safety signs, is the 
ISO Online Browsing Platrform (www.iso.org/obp) where 
you can search and view all published symbols and their descriptions, but you 
will not be able to get high resolution versions of them unless you buy them 
individually.  Lastly, there is also a paid subscription service through 
IEC/ISO (www.graphical-symbols.info) where 
you get all the IEC & ISO symbols (not safety signs) in high resolution (pdf & 
other formats).

Hope that helps.

Regards,
Nick

From: Gary McInturff [mailto:gary.mcintu...@esterline.com]
Sent: Friday, July 31, 2015 12:37 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] FW: ISO TC 15223-1 TR 60878 iso/CD 15223-1

Can anyone tell me the difference between these two documents

ISO TC 15223-1 and TR 60878
The both have similar titles and scopes I have the 15223-1 document but can 
only read the scope of the TR 60878, which is similar to the 15223-1 also. I 
don't want to purchase another standard if the one I have is sufficient for 
medical icons.
Does one subsume the other? I tried to look at dates and history of both hoping 
they would somehow refer to each other - but no such luck
Thanks

Gary McInturff
Reliability/Compliance Engineer



Esterline Interface Technologies

Featuring
ADVANCED INPUT, GAMESMAN,
and LRE MEDICAL  products

600 W. Wilbur Avenue
Coeur d'Alene, ID  83815-9496
Toll Free: 800-444-5923 X1XXX
Tel:  (509) 868 2279
Fax: (208) 635-863 8306

www.esterline.com/interfacetechnologies

Technology, Innovation, Performance...

"Information in or attached to this e-mail message may be subject to export 
control restrictions of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) 
(22 CFR pts. 120-130) or the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) (15 CFR 
pts. 730-774).  Before exporting this information outside the United States or 
releasing it to a foreign person in the United States, you need to determine 
whether a license under the EAR or the ITAR is required to do so.  If you have 
any questions about this obligation, please contact me."





-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org>>

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/
 can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc.

Website: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

Re: [PSES] Signal words, definition and usage

[Momcilovic, Nick (GE Healthcare)]

The way I would apply it would be first to apply any specific safety messages 
that the end product standard states.  If you need a safety message that is not 
defined by the end product standard, than the signal word you choose should 
follow their definitions and matched up with your risk assessment.  For 
example, you could create a matrix with likelihood of harm across the top of 
the matrix and severity of injury along the left side of the matrix and then 
you fill in the matrix with the signal words.  After doing all that you would 
still explain it in your user manual.

I’m not familiar with end product standards allowing modification of the signal 
words.  You may want to share examples of this.

Nick

From: Greg McClure [mailto:gmccl...@lexmark.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 9:40 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Signal words, definition and usage

Looking for input from the group.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org>>

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org>>
Mike Cantwell mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org>>

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

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] Lists Of Harmonised Standards

[Momcilovic, Nick (GE Healthcare)]

I heard that the MDD HS list may get updated in November. Not sure about the 
others. If anyone has any details, on how the timing of the HS list updates 
occur, please provide the details.

Nick

On Aug 21, 2013, at 11:19 PM, "itl-emc user group" 
mailto:itl...@itl.co.il>> wrote:

Hi,
Does anyone have any leads as to when a new list of harmonized standards to the 
EMC, Medical Devices, and R&TTE Directives will be published.
I recall reading in some previous posts that the R&TTE Directive is going to be 
discontinued and a Directive concerning radio only will be published.

Regards,
David Shidlowsky | Technical Writer
Address 1 Bat-Sheva St. POB 87, LOD 71100 Israel
Tel 972-8-9186113 Fax 972-8-9153101
Mail e...@itl.co.il/dav...@itl.co.il  
Web www.itl.co.il

Fill out Customer Satisfaction 
Survey
Global Certifications You Can Trust

-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org>>

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://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 mailto:emcp...@radiusnorth.net>>
Mike Cantwell mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org>>

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

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://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 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] AAMI version of 60601-1 3rd ed - requirement for SI Units

[Momcilovic, Nick (GE Healthcare)]

The data must be able to be displayed in SI units but it does not prohibit the 
equipment to display other units of measure.  At least that is my understanding 
of this requirement.

Regards,
Nick Momcilovic

From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Carl Newton
Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2012 8:56 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: AAMI version of 60601-1 3rd ed - requirement for SI Units

Group,

Does anyone have experience with the AAMI version of 60601-1, 3rd edition and 
clause 7.4.3?  This clause requires that measurement parameters be in SI units. 
I'm working on a therapeutic exercise device which requires patients to enter 
weight as a step in the setup process.  American patients will be befuddled if 
required to enter kg.  Anyone aware of a loophole?  I'm working with the EN 
edition.

Thanks,

Carl
-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org>>

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://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 mailto:emcp...@radiusnorth.net>>
Mike Cantwell mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org>>

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

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://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 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] Date of cessation of 60601-1 edition 2 in EU

[Momcilovic, Nick (GE Healthcare)]

Gary, not sure you are going to find anything more clear than what is
shown in the OJ for dates.  Here is the latest info on 60601 3rd Ed
implementation dates that I am aware of:

 

- USA:  30-Jun-2013.  Applies to new registrations submitted on or after
this date.  Does not apply to existing products registered prior to this
date.

 

- Canada:  01-Jun-2012 for products under scope of only -1 or 3 years
after the date of publication of the 2-xx standard (if applicable),
whichever is later.  Applies to new registrations submitted on or after
this date.  Does not apply to existing products registered prior to this
date.

 

- EU:  01-Jun-2012 for products under scope of only -1 or the "Date of
cessation of presumption of conformity of superseded standard" shown in
the OJ for the -2-xx standard (if applicable).  Applies to any existing
or new product "placed on the market" in the EU on or after that date.

 

- Brazil: 01-Jan-2014.  Applies to new registrations & renewals
submitted on or after this date.  Does not apply to existing products
registered prior to this date.

 

- Japan: no formal implementation date yet but they just published their
national version (JIS T 0601-1:2012) and begun accepting registrations
with 3rd Ed as of 01-Jan-2012

 

- Korea: no formal implementation date yet but they have started
accepting registrations done with 3rd Ed of 60601-1 as of late last
year.

 

- China: working on 3rd ed but they are probably still 3-5 years out
from implementation.

 

Bottom line, if you want to ship globally, you will need to be compliant
to both 2nd & 3rd Ed of 60601 until all countries have accepted 3rd Ed.

 

Regards,

Nick

 

From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Morse,
William
Sent: Friday, July 13, 2012 10:07 AM
To: McInturff, Gary; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: Date of cessation of 60601-1 edition 2 in EU

 

I am not in the office right at the moment otherwise I would dig up the
dates but for the EU the date of withdraw was last month for the 2nd
edition but for those products that have a particular 2-x standard
associated with them that has not been transcribed to the 3rd edition
there is an extension of the 2nd. 

 

FDA accepts both the 2nd and 3rd editions until 2013 (not sure of the
month but it is early 2013) then only the 3rd edition will be a
"recognized" standard. 

 

Canada follows the EU and Australia has not announced.

 

Bill



From: McInturff, Gary [gary.mcintu...@esterline.com]
Sent: Friday, July 13, 2012 7:18 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Date of cessation of 60601-1 edition 2 in EU

I'm trying to support boss hog just a bit on a product. I'm looking in
OJ for the dates of withdrawal for the 2nd edition of the medical safety
standard, and I think I can find that, is there anything more clear that
just simple says it's can't be used after such and such a date. We're
putting something on hold until it finishes a standards change and a bit
of a fight, and I'm just trying to put a stake in the vampires heart and
just referencing the docopos etc is going to take further explaination
for those that don't deal with it all the time. So I'm also looking for
a paragraph in plain English (US or EK J )

Thanks

 

Gary McInturff

Reliability/Compliance Engineer

 

 

 

 

Esterline Interface Technologies

Featuring

ADVANCED INPUT, MEMTRON, and LRE MEDICAL products

 

600 W. Wilbur Avenue

Coeur d'Alene, ID  83815-9496

Office:208-635-8306

Cell:  509 868 2279

Toll Free: 800-444-5923 X 1238

gary.mcintu...@esterline.com  

 

 

www.esterline.com/interfacetechnologies
 

 

Technology, Innovation, Performance...

 

 

-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society
emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your
e-mail to 

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site
at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in
well-used formats), large files, etc.

Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://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 
Mike Cantwell  

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher 
David 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 

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site
at http://product-compliance.oc.iee

Re: [PSES] 60601-1 drop dead date - June 2012 for EU

[Momcilovic, Nick (GE Healthcare)]

See section 2.3 of the " Guide to the implementation of directives based
on the New Approach and the Global Approach" for guidance on "placing on
the market".  Here is a link:
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/single-market-goods/files/blue-g
uide/guidepublic_en.pdf

Couple other things to point out:

The 01-Jun-2012 60601-1 date in the EU is only for products not covered
by a particular (-2-xx) standard.  If a particular standard exists, it
takes precedence and drives the deadline in the EU.  Some are before the
01-Jun-2012 date and some are after.  You can see the dates in the OJ
here:
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/european-standards/harmonised-st
andards/medical-devices/

In the EU the date applies to any product "placed on the market" after
that date, whereas the 60601-1 implementation dates for the US & Canada
are based on new product registrations submitted (not for existing
products).  US is 30-Jun-2013 for all products under the scope of
60601-1 (not based on the particular standard).  Canada was 01-Jun-2012,
but recently came out with some guidance, which clarified the date.  The
date is either 01-Jun-2012 or 3 years following the date the 2-xx
particular standard was published, whichever is later.

Nick

-Original Message-
From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of
McInturff, Gary
Sent: Monday, April 02, 2012 2:51 PM
To: 'John Woodgate'; 'EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG'
Subject: RE: [PSES] 60601-1 drop dead date - June 2012 for EU

John and Brian,
Thanks for the input. I do appreciate it.

Gary

-Original Message-
From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk]
Sent: Monday, April 02, 2012 12:21 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] 60601-1 drop dead date - June 2012 for EU

In message
,
dated Mon, 2 Apr 2012, "McInturff, Gary" 
writes:

>What about products that are in our customers warehouses in the EU at 
>that time? Do they have to be recalled or can they be used until the 
>warehouse is empty?

If they are in *customers* warehouses, they have a 'reasonable time' to
clear stocks. What is 'reasonable' depends on the type of product.

>They are in EU but can they cross boarders?

Yes.
--
OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk
John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK If
'QWERTY' is an English keyboard, what language is 'WYSIWYG' for?

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society
emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your
e-mail to 

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site
at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in
well-used formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://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 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David 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 

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site
at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in
well-used formats), large files, etc.

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

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David 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 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

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

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] Factory symbol - does anybody know the IEC/ISO number for the symbol that denotes a factory or manufacturing facility?

[Momcilovic, Nick (GE Healthcare)]

Helge,

 

Thanks for the clarification and you are absolutely correct.  I should
have clarified that this symbol is for Date of Manufacture.

 

Gary,

 

There is not an ISO/IEC symbol for just "Manufacturer" that I am aware
of. However, in the EU for medical devices under the MDD, EN 980 (2008)
does contain a "Manufacturer" symbol (clause 5.12) which is identical to
ISO 7000-2497 with the difference being all black instead of
black/white.  EN 980 is harmonized under the MDD.  Here is the
associated text to 5.12:

 

"This symbol shall be accompanied by the name and the address of the
manufacturer (the person placing the device on the market), adjacent to
the symbol (see A.6). The address is not required with the symbol on an
in vitro diagnostic device immediate container as specified in EN 375,
EN 376, EN 591 and EN 592, except when the immediate container is also
the outer container. Guidance on the requirements for Council Directive
90/385/EEC and Council Directive 93/42/EEC is given in EN 1041.

NOTE 1 The relative size of the symbol and the size of the name and
address are not specified.

NOTE 2 The full definition of 'manufacturer' is given in Council
Directives 90/385/EEC, 93/42/EEC and 98/79/EC.

NOTE 3 The date of manufacture as well as the name and address of the
manufacturer can be combined in one symbol (see A.7)."

 

Hope that helps.

 

Nick

 

From: Helge Knudsen [mailto:hknud...@mail.tele.dk] 
Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2011 11:08 AM
To: Momcilovic, Nick (GE Healthcare); 'McInturff, Gary';
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: Factory symbol - does anybody know the IEC/ISO number for
the symbol that denotes a factory or manufacturing facility?

 

Hi Gary (and Nick),

This mark (ISO 7000-2497) indicate / show "Date of Manufacture":

 

Date of manufacture

NOTE This symbol is accompanied by the date that the device was

manufactured. The date could be a year, year and month, or year,

month, and day, as appropriate.

Br. 

Helge Knudsen

Denmark

 

From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of
Momcilovic, Nick (GE Healthcare)
Sent: 29. november 2011 16:47
To: McInturff, Gary; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: Factory symbol - does anybody know the IEC/ISO number for
the symbol that denotes a factory or manufacturing facility?

 

ISO 7000-2497

 

From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of
McInturff, Gary
Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2011 9:31 AM
To: 'EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG'
Subject: Factory symbol - does anybody know the IEC/ISO number for the
symbol that denotes a factory or manufacturing facility?

 

IF I recall it basically looks like a rectangle with smokestacks or
something

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society
emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your
e-mail to 

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/
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 
Mike Cantwell  

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher 
David 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 

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/
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 
Mike Cantwell  

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher 
David 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 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/
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 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] Factory symbol - does anybody know the IEC/ISO number for the symbol that denotes a factory or manufacturing facility?

[Momcilovic, Nick (GE Healthcare)]

ISO 7000-2497

 

From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of
McInturff, Gary
Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2011 9:31 AM
To: 'EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG'
Subject: Factory symbol - does anybody know the IEC/ISO number for the
symbol that denotes a factory or manufacturing facility?

 

IF I recall it basically looks like a rectangle with smokestacks or
something

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society
emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your
e-mail to 

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/
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 
Mike Cantwell  

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher 
David 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 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/
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 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] Medical Stent for CE

[Momcilovic, Nick (GE Healthcare)]

Go to the following website that shows all the NB's under the MDD.
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/newapproach/nando/index.cfm?fuseaction=di
rective.notifiedbody&dir_id=13&type_dir=NO
CPD&pro_id=9&prc_id=9&ann_id=9&prc_anx=9
 .  You can then narrow it down by
selecting the appropriate category under the Products field.  Non-active
implants are MD 0200 - MD 0204.  Pick the one that best fits your device
and you will get the NB's that have coverage for that type of device.

 

Hope this helps.

 

Regards,

Nick Momcilovic

 

From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of
jral...@productsafetyinc.com
Sent: Monday, November 21, 2011 11:03 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Medical Stent for CE

 

Hi,

 

Does anyone know of a Notified Body that works with medical Stents?

 

John Allen

Product Safety Consulting, Inc.

605 Country Club Drive, Suites I & J

Bensenville, IL  60106

P - 630 238-0188 / F - 630 238-0269

1-877-804-3066

jral...@productsafetyinc.com

http://www.productsafetyinc.com  

 

 

Although PSC maintains the highest level of virus protection, this
e-mail and any attachments should be scanned by your virus protection
software.  It is the responsibility of the recipient to check that it is
virus free.  PSC does not accept any responsibility for data loss or
systems damage arising in any way from its use.  This message is
confidential and intended only for the individual to whom or entity to
which it is addressed.  If you are not the intended recipient or
addressee, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this
message to the addressee, you are hereby notified that any
dissemination, distribution, or copying, in whole or part, of this
message is strictly prohibited.  If you believe that you have been sent
this message in error, please do not read it.  Please immediately reply
to sender that you have received this message in error.  Then
permanently delete all copies of the message. Thank you.

 

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society
emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your
e-mail to 

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/
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 
Mike Cantwell  

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher 
David 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 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/
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 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

RE: UL 94 Table 8.1 Interpretation

[Momcilovic, Nick (GE Healthcare)]

Thanks Brian.  Since posting this, I just found that IEC 60695-11-10
(similar to part of UL 94) more clearly addresses these criteria inline
with Int.1 (1st criteria) and Int.2 (2nd criteria) below.  Unless
someone disagrees, no further discussion needed on this topic.

Nick


From: Brian O'Connell [mailto:oconne...@tamuracorp.com] 
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2009 3:02 PM
To: Momcilovic, Nick (GE Healthcare); emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: RE: UL 94 Table 8.1 Interpretation


example based on tests done with UL personnel - the 94V-0 rating is
based on:

Flaming combustion time for each specimen less than or equal to 10sec
 - AND -
Summation of total flaming combustion time for all 5 specimens of any
set less than or equal to 50 sec

for each individual test, any single failure requires a complete new
sample set, where no failures are allowed.

also interested in hearing about requirements of any other NRTL when the
test standard is UL94.



From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org]On Behalf Of
Momcilovic, Nick (GE Healthcare)
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2009 12:01 PM
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: UL 94 Table 8.1 Interpretation

I have heard two interpretations for the first two criteria conditions
shown in Table 8.1 of UL 94.  If you are familiar with the flammability
testing of UL 94, let me know which interpretations you believe are
correct.  I have heard arguments for both.

First criteria - "Afterflame time for each individual specimen t1 or t2"

Int.1 - both t1 AND t2 have to be equal or less than x-seconds
Int.2 - either t1 OR t2 can be less than x-seconds

Second Criteria - "Total afterflame time for any condition set (t1 plus
t2 for the 5 specimens)"

Int.1 - t1+t2 for each individual sample has to be equal or less than
x-seconds
Int.2 - t1+t2 for all 5 samples cumulative has be equal or less than
x-seconds

Regards,
Nick Momcilovic

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.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 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

UL 94 Table 8.1 Interpretation

[Momcilovic, Nick (GE Healthcare)]

I have heard two interpretations for the first two criteria conditions
shown in Table 8.1 of UL 94.  If you are familiar with the flammability
testing of UL 94, let me know which interpretations you believe are
correct.  I have heard arguments for both.

First criteria - "Afterflame time for each individual specimen t1 or t2"

Int.1 - both t1 AND t2 have to be equal or less than x-seconds
Int.2 - either t1 OR t2 can be less than x-seconds

Second Criteria - "Total afterflame time for any condition set (t1 plus
t2 for the 5 specimens)"

Int.1 - t1+t2 for each individual sample has to be equal or less than
x-seconds
Int.2 - t1+t2 for all 5 samples cumulative has be equal or less than
x-seconds

Regards,
Nick Momcilovic

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.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 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

References for Three Phase Power Around the World

[Momcilovic, Nick (GE Healthcare)]

Anyone have any good references for standard 3 phase power (voltage/frequency)
around the world.  I have seen several references (i.e., Interpower) that have
nice reference charts for single phase, but not 3 phase.  Right now I am
particularly interested in Korea.
 
Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Kind regards,
Nick Momcilovic 
GE Healthcare 
Standards Compliance/Certification Lead Engineer, MR 

T  262.521.6426 
D  *320-6426 
C  262.527.1965 
F  262.521.6549 
E  nick.momcilo...@ge.com 
www.gehealthcare.com 

3200 N Grandview Blvd, W-827 
Waukesha, WI  53188-1693 

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at
http://www.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 
Mike Cantwell  

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher 
David Heald  

Number of Terminations on a Ground Stud?

[Momcilovic, Nick]

Is anyone familiar with any requirement that limits the number of ground
terminations on a single stud?  I heard that the limit is two per stud but I
was not able to confirm this with any of the standards we have.

Thanks in advance for your help.

Sincerely,

Nick Momcilovic
Product Safety

Quad/Tech, Inc.
A Subsidiary of Quad/Graphics

Sussex, Wisconsin
414-566-7915 phone
414-566-9576 fax 
nick.momcilo...@qtiworld.com
www.qtiworld.com


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

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

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

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Dave Heald:   emc_p...@symbol.com

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line.
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

RE: IP ratings vs Nema Ratings

[Momcilovic, Nick]

As you are probably aware, there are no exact equivalencies between IP &
NEMA/UL Type ratings since they are based on different standards/tests.  The
only standard that I am aware of that provides a general comparison guide
between the two is the 2003 version of NFPA 79 (Table F.5.5).

Sincerely,

Nick Momcilovic
Product Safety

Quad/Tech, Inc.
A Subsidiary of Quad/Graphics

Sussex, Wisconsin
414-566-7915 phone
414-566-9576 fax 
nick.momcilo...@qtiworld.com
www.qtiworld.com



From: Sotherden, Jim (IndSys, GEFanuc, NA)
[mailto:jim.sother...@gefanuc.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 9:46 AM
To: 'emc-pstc'
Subject: IP ratings vs Nema Ratings



Group,
I am trying to find a cross reference between Nema ratings for
enclosures and IP ratings for enclosures.  I have looked  at three different
cross references and come up with three different answers. 


Thanks,

Jim Sotherden 
Agency Coordinator/Test Engineer
 

GE Fanuc Automation NA
Route 29N & 606, Charlottesville, VA 22911 
PH: (434) 978-6224  Fax: (434) 978-5102 Dial Com *277-6224 
Email: jim.sother...@gefanuc.com 
Web: www.gefanuc.com 



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

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

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

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Dave Heald:   emc_p...@symbol.com

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line.
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc


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

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

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

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Dave Heald:   emc_p...@symbol.com

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line.
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

PELV Question

[Momcilovic, Nick]

Hello all,

In IEC/EN 60204-1 (safety of machinery), one of the conditions required to
meet a PELV circuit is:

6.4.1 c) live parts of PELV circuits shall be electrically separated from
other live circuits.  Electrical separation shall be not less than that
required between the primary and secondary circuits of a safety isolating
transformer (see IEC 60742).

Does anyone know what the required separation between the primary and
secondary of a safety isolating transformer?  I have a copy of IEC 61558-2-6
which has/will replace IEC 60742 and I was unable to find anything regarding
this.

Any help you can provide would be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,

Nick Momcilovic
Product Safety Coordinator
QTI
mailto:nick.momcilo...@qtiworld.com
http://www.qtiworld.com


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

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

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

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Dave Heald:   davehe...@attbi.com

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line.
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

RE: UL508 and UL60950

[Momcilovic, Nick]

A lot depends on whether the device is UL Listed or UL Recognized and if the
end product standard to be complied with is UL 508 (Industrial Control
Equipment) or UL 508A (Industrial Control Panels; standard used in UL's
Industrial Control Panel Program).  I will speak of my experience with UL
508A and UL's ICP program.

There are generally no issues with using a Listed ITE device in an UL 508A
enclosure other than using the device within the manufacturers ratings and
intended purpose.  Keep in mind though that even though it may be acceptable
>from a compliance perspective there may be other issues you will need to
deal with in an industrial environment (i.e., dust, heat, vibration, etc).
On the other hand, most ITE Recognized devices (i.e., UL 1950, UL 60950) are
not allowed to be used within an enclosure "as is" unless they are included
in the UL File of the manufacturer integrating that device.  From my
experience, this usually is not a problem however there is a cost and time
associated with submitting the device for inclusion in your UL File.  This
would not be necessary if the ITE device you select is Recognized to UL 508.

Therefore, if you are in a situation like we are where you are integrating
devices into or on your enclosures, it will be easier from a compliance
perspective to use devices Recognized to UL 508 than UL 1950/60950.
Although your decision will most likely be based on cost and availability.

Sincerely,

Nick Momcilovic
Product Safety Coordinator
QTI
http://www.qtiworld.com



From: cnew...@xycom.com [mailto:cnew...@xycom.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2003 9:00 AM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Re: UL508 and UL60950

Pierre,

The compliance with UL 60950 will not be a problem.

My company was one of the first to enter the industrial HMI and industrial
computer markets.  We dropped UL 508 (auxiliary devices)  in favor of UL
1950
(and now of course UL 60950) in 1995.  We have thousands of industrial
computers in control panels all over the world.  This includes the Big
Three US automakers - extremely picky about what goes into their plants.

Not once have system integrators ever had a problem in the field with our
compliance to the ITE standard.  In addition to the ITE standard, we also
test and gain compliance to UL 50 Type 4/4X/12 enclosure ratings as well
as IEC 529 IP65.  Most systems also have Class I and Class II, Division 2,
hazardous locations compliance (UL 1604).  UL accepts compliance with
60950 with regard to hazardous locations, by the way.

These systems are typically used as interface to a control process - not
direct control.  If the system is to perform direct control then I would
certainly
agree that the process control standard is more appropriate.  But don't
expect that to happen any time soon because the PC operating systems
can't be trusted to that degree.

The truth is that the ITE standard imposes greater constraints upon the
system.  For example, no clear ventilation openings are allowed on the
bottom of the enclosure.  Whereas the Process Control standard assumes
that in the factory the surface below the equipment will be either metal,
concrete, or equivalent and subsequently does allow such openings in
electronic enclosure.  But the advantages to complying with the ITE
standard are obvious to members of this group.

The "proof is in the pudding".  The last market survey that I saw was
a couple of years ago, but Xycom had the largest market share in the
panel mount computer industry  within the USA - more than Allen
Bradley, Siemans, and Schnieder Electric (who just happened to purchase
our parent company recently).

Carl




From: john.radom...@modicon.com on 02/04/2003 11:09 AM

Please respond to john.radom...@modicon.com

To:   "Pierre SELVA" 
cc:   emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org (bcc: Carl Newton/XYCOM)

Subject:  Re: UL508 and UL60950




Pierre,

Industrial computer systems are not covered by UL60950, they are covered by
UL508. So, I believe that your system (PLC, computer, etc.) needs to be
evaluated to the requirements of UL508.

John Radomski
Schneider Electric





  "Pierre SELVA"
 To:

  Sent by:  cc:
  owner-emc-pstc@majordoSubject:  UL508 and
UL60950
  mo.ieee.org


  02/04/2003 07:48 AM
  Please respond to
  "Pierre SELVA"







Hello from France,

One of my customer is providing Human Machine Interfaces (Industrial
programmable controllers, Displays, ...).
Most of these products are included in UL508 certified complete products,
and are themselves UL508 certified.

But, can we use UL60950 certified products in a complete UL508 product.
In other words, do we have to demonstrate compliance of the included
product to UL 508 if it's UL60950 certified ?
For example, can we use UL60950 industrial computers in a UL 508 complete
product ?

Any

RE: Proximity Switch Listed to UL 508 (NKCR)

[Momcilovic, Nick]

Peter,

According to Table 46.1 of UL 508, the minimum amount of cycles the
proximity switch would have been subjected to is 6000.  However, the
manufacturer may have chosen to have the device tested above 6000 cycles.
Ultimately you should contact the manufacturer to find out how many cycles
their device was subjected to.

Sincerely, 

Nick Momcilovic 
Product Safety Coordinator 
Engineering Technical Services 

QTI 
N64W23110 Main Street 
Sussex, WI 53089-5301 
USA 

Phone:  +1-414-566-7915 
Fax:  +1-414-566-9576 
mailto:nick.momcilo...@qtiworld.com 
http://www.qtiworld.com 
-Original Message-
From: Peter Merguerian [mailto:pmerguer...@itl.co.il]
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 7:01 AM
To: "EMC-PSTC (E-mail)" <
Subject: Proximity Switch Listed to UL508 (NKCR)



Dear All,

Can someone tell me if a proximity sensor UL Listed to UL508 and UL's
category for Proximity Switches (NRKH) has been tested for min. 10,000
cycles of operation?



This e-mail message may contain privileged or confidential information. If
you are not the intended recipient, you may not disclose, use, disseminate,
distribute, copy or rely upon this message or attachment in any way. If you
received this e-mail message in error, please return by forwarding the
message and its attachments to the sender.






PETER S. MERGUERIAN
Technical Director
I.T.L. (Product Testing) Ltd.
26 Hacharoshet St., POB 211
Or Yehuda 60251, Israel
Tel: + 972-(0)3-5339022  Fax: + 972-(0)3-5339019
Mobile: + 972-(0)54-838175
http://www.itl.co.il
http://www.i-spec.com





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

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

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

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Dave Heald:   davehe...@mediaone.net

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/
Click on "browse" and then "emc-pstc mailing list"

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

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

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

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Dave Heald:   davehe...@mediaone.net

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/
Click on "browse" and then "emc-pstc mailing list"

RE: [Fwd: User Warning Signal Words]

[Momcilovic, Nick]

The standard which defines these signal words in the US is ANSI Z535.4
(1998) - Product safety signs and labels.  Here is the excerpt from that
part of the standard:

"4.13.1  DANGER:  Indicates an imminently hazardous situation which, if not
avoided, will result in death or serious injury.  This signal word is to be
limited to the most extreme situations."

"4.13.2  WARNING:  Indicates a potentially hazardous situation which, if not
avoided, could result in death or serious injury."

"4.13.3  CAUTION:  Indicates a potentially hazardous situation which, if not
avoided, may result in minor or moderate injury.  It may also be used to
alert against unsafe practices."

"NOTE - DANGER or WARNING should not be considered for property damage
accidents unless personal injury risk appropriate to these levels is also
involved.  CAUTION is permitted for property-damage-only accidents.  The
safety alert symbol should not be used to alert persons to
property-damage-only accidents."

As far as international goes (IEC), it is my experience and after looking
through the IEC dictionary, that only the term Warning is used.  Keep in
mind that there is a major push in many non-US countries (i.e., EU) to use
symbology instead of text.

If I can be of any further assistance, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Nick Momcilovic
Product Safety Coordinator

QTI
N64W23110 Main Street
Sussex, WI 53089-5301
USA

Phone:  +1-414-566-7915
Fax:  +1-414-566-9576
mailto:nick.momcilo...@qtiworld.com
http://www.qtiworld.com


-Original Message-
From: David Heald [mailto:davehe...@mediaone.net]
Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2001 12:02 PM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Cc: ni...@tsd.serco.com
Subject: [Fwd: User Warning Signal Words]



Forwarded for Nick Martin.  Please 'Reply All' and/or CC:
ni...@tsd.serco.com when replying.
Dave Heald
EMC-PSTC Admin

 Original Message 
Subject: User Warning Signal Words
List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org
Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2001 13:33:48 +
From: "Nick Martin" 
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org

Hi List

Can anyone help with the following regarding warnings to users and
signal words

User warnings normally use one of three signal words CAUTION, WARNING,
DANGER. I believe that each of these increases the severity of the
warning. Can anyone define any specific criteria for when a "caution"
becomes a "warning" and ideally point to an IEC or other specification
that provides guidelines on the use of these words? Or is my belief
incorrect and the words are inter-changeable?

thanks in advance for any answers

Nick Martin
Serco Test Systems

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

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

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

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org
 Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old
messages are imported into the new server.

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

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

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

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org
 Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old 
messages are imported into the new server.

RE: IEC 60950-1 released

[Momcilovic, Nick]

This is all I could find on the IEC website:

"This first edition of IEC 60950-1 (10-01) cancels and replaces the third
edition of IEC 60950, issued in 1999, and constitutes a technical revision"

Sincerely,

Nick Momcilovic
Product Safety Coordinator
Engineering Technical Services

QTI
N64W23110 Main Street
Sussex, WI 53089-5301
USA

Phone:  +1-414-566-7915
Fax:  +1-414-566-9576
mailto:nick.momcilo...@qtiworld.com
http://www.qtiworld.com


-Original Message-
From: am...@westin-emission.no [mailto:am...@westin-emission.no]
Sent: Friday, October 26, 2001 8:25 AM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: IEC 60950-1 released



Safety folks,

The safety standard IEC 60950-1 (Information technology equipment - Safety -
Part 1: General requirements) was released by IEC on October 25th 2001.

Is this a new version of the existing IEC60950:1999 ?

Best regards
Amund Westin, Oslo/Norway



-Opprinnelig melding-
Fra: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
[mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]På vegne av Dan Kwok
Sendt: 14. oktober 2001 20:35
Til: Andrea Bishop; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Emne: Re: 2 GHz Amplifiers



Does anyone have an idea on when the cessation date for EN 300-339 will be
once EN 301-498 V1.3.1 becomes harmonized?


- Original Message -
From: "Andrea Bishop" 
To: 
Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2001 12:22 AM
Subject: FW: 2 GHz Amplifiers


>
> ETSI EN 301 489-1 V 1.3.1 was formally published by ETSI on 26 September
> 2001 and is therefore no longer Final Draft.
>
> According the the ETSI work programme, it was delivered to the Commission
on
> 27 September and is due to be cited in the Official Journal on 31 October.
> It will then be a harmonised standard.
>
> regards
>
> Andrea Bishop
> TUV Product Service Ltd
> Fareham, Hants



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

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

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

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org
 Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old
messages are imported into the new server.



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

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

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

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org
 Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old
messages are imported into the new server.

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

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

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

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org
 Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old 
messages are imported into the new server.

RE: 60601-1-2

[Momcilovic, Nick]

For the latest developments on CENELEC (EN) standards you can go directly to
their website search and just type in the standard number in the "Standard
reference" field (http://www.cenelec.org/BASIS/celis/free/project/SF).

Nick Momcilovic
Product Safety Coordinator

QTI
N64W23110 Main Street
Sussex, WI 53089-5301
USA

Phone:  +1-414-566-7915
Fax:  +1-262-246-5376
mailto:nick.momcilo...@qtiworld.com
http://www.qtiworld.com


-Original Message-
From: rehel...@mmm.com [mailto:rehel...@mmm.com]
Sent: Friday, October 19, 2001 9:31 AM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: 60601-1-2



I heard that the IEC has issued the new 60601-1-2 EMC standard for medical
equipment on the 30th of September.

Does anyone know when the EN will follow and when its DOW will be?

Thanks,
Bob Heller
3M Product Safety, 76-1-01
St. Paul, MN 55107-1208
Tel:  651- 778-6336
Fax:  651-778-6252


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

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

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

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org
 Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old
messages are imported into the new server.

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

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

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

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org
 Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old 
messages are imported into the new server.

RE: NEMA versus UL type - environmental ratings

[Momcilovic, Nick]

Chris,

The requirements given in NEMA 250 versus UL 50 are virtually the same
(although both are different than IEC 60529).  The definitions and test
requirements are very similar for all types (1, 2, 3, 3R, 3S, 4, 4X, 5, 6,
6P, 12, 12K, 13).  The big difference comes in the process of using the
standards.  NEMA is a standard that a manufacture can use to self declare
against and does not require the test data to be verified by a 3rd party
before the NEMA Type can be applied.  Whereas, UL requires that the test
data be verified prior to claiming a certain UL Type.  Verified here may
mean anything from full blown testing at UL to witness testing at a
manufacturer's site.  It all depends what the manufacturers capabilities are
for testing.

As far as asking if anyone cares about the UL types, my answer would be yes.
Being in UL's Industrial Control Panel Program (UL 508A), it is very
important that any component that penetrates an enclosure be a minimum of
that what the enclosure Type is.  For example, most enclosures we buy from
Hoffman are a minimum of Type 12.  Therefore all the components that
penetrate the enclosure must be a minimum of Type 12 (verified by UL) in
order to keep the original type rating.  If they are not a minimum of Type
12, or the Type rating can not be verified, then we would have to derate the
enclosure accordingly.  You could have 50 components penetrating an
enclosure and if just one component had a Type rating less than the
enclosure Type rating, the whole enclosure would have to be derated to that
Type or Type 1 if it can not be verified.

Since many of your products are used in industrial control enclosures, I
would highly recommend obtaining the UL Type rating versus self declaring
the NEMA Type.  As an end user of your equipment and other equipment with
same issue, this is one criteria we use when selecting components.

Sincerely,

Nick Momcilovic
Product Safety Coordinator
Engineering Technical Services

QTI
N64W23110 Main Street
Sussex, WI 53089-5301
USA

Phone:  +1-414-566-7915
Fax:  +1-262-246-5376
mailto:nick.momcilo...@qtiworld.com
http://www.qtiworld.com

-Original Message-
From: Chris Wells [mailto:cdwe...@stargate.net]
Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2001 9:53 PM
To: 'emc-pstc'
Subject: NEMA versus UL type - environmental ratings


I'm looking for some feedback on NEMA versus UL type - environmental ratings
for faceplates of panel mounted components.

*   First reality check - Are NEMA housing ratings = UL type, number by
number? 
*   Second - Can one self certify compliance to NEMA ratings?  
*   Third - What is the difference between NEMA and UL type? I think of
the NEMA rating as a proof of design test = rating while the UL type wants
design verification at a deeper level? 
*   Forth - Do any of you care about UL types?  Our sister divisions
design assemblies that use our components and use UL to inspect the design.
That is where the pressure is coming from over NEMA.

Our product line consists of components mounted to the door of an industrial
type enclosure.
A polycarbonate faceplate frames an overlay that contains membrane
pushbuttons, embedded LEDs and a window to see our alpha numeric or graphic
display.  Between the faceplate and the enclosure panel is a gasket to help
keep out moisture, dust etc.
We can meet NEMA 1, 12, 3, 3R and for some designs 4 as long as the user
installs the component in an enclosure of equal protection.  We have tested
our design at environmental extremes and it works well.

Where it gets difficult is when UL wants an adhesive for the overlay that is
specifically qualified to our particular plastic over the range of specified
environmental withstand.  They want more than a type test and follow up
construction inspection but a rather lengthy performance test that goes
beyond what we are prepared to do - as if we were the overlay manufactures.
Part of the problem is that we have a special additive to the PC plastic -
stainless steel fibers for ESD control.  This is making for special
combinations.

So what do others do?
Do you have overlay vendors that have coordinated recipe of
components/adhesive etc. that works with  polycarbonate from -40 to 60C and
comply to UL types (NEMA) types 1, 12, 3, 3R, or 4?

Thanks for any FB you can give !

Chris Wells
Sen. Des Eng.
Cutler-Hammer
Pittsburgh Pa
well...@ch.etn.com

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

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

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

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org
 Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

All