RE: Something a little different - Car Radio question
I think you are being blown off. If the antenna worked with AM before, and it is the SAME antenna, just a different receiver, then its the receiver, not the car... I would return that stereo immediately and have the guy who gave you that answer explain the phenomenon in detail to both you and his BestBuy manager... Happy New Year everyone, Robert Tims Engineering Project Leader Software Product Integration Ericsson Internet Applications, Inc. 145 Crossways Park Dr. W. Woodbury, NY 11797, USA Tel: 516-677-1138 Fax: 516-677- Pager: 516-891-8358 Email:robert.t...@ericsson.com -Original Message- From: Fred Townsend [mailto:f...@poasana.com] Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2002 6:35 PM To: Charles Grasso Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: Something a little different - Car Radio question This is not normal. I know of no normal situation where you would lose your AM reception. Sounds like the installer is tuned out. Complain to Best Buy management ASAP. Fred Townsend Charles Grasso wrote: Hello all, Well Xmas has come and gone and I got a nice new car stereo for Christmas. I dutifully went up to Best Buy - had it installed only to be informed that I can no longer receive AM. I happen to enjoy AM radio so this was a bit of a blow. I inquired as to what the possible cause might be and the answer I got was.. Some cars do this.. which is no answer at all. My car has an antenna in the windshield and the original radio worked just fine. I am a little confused soI thought I would ask the expert EMC community for ideas. ANyone want to hazard a guess as to what is going on?? Chas _ Join the world's largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server. --- 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: EMC/RFI Gaskets
Hi Peter, Gaket material are covered as Recognized Plastics material. They are in the yellow books, just like regular plastics material (QMFZ2). Some gasket material were Recognized under that QMFZ2 category, but there is also a special category (Q) that covers gaskets in particular. I cannot remember what that category code is, but the temp and flammability rating are similar to QMFZ2, either solid plastics or foam plastics (i.e. UL 94). I hope this helps. If you still have troubles searching them down, send me an email, and I'll shake out some cobwebs and help you out... BR, Bob Tims Engineering Project Leader Ericsson Internet Applications Inc. Woodbury, NY 11797 robert.t...@ericsson.com -Original Message- From: Peter Merguerian [mailto:pmerguer...@itl.co.il] Sent: Friday, June 01, 2001 9:03 AM To: EMC-PSTC (E-mail) Subject: EMC/RFI Gaskets Importance: High Dear All, While UL does its' own research, under what UL category one can find polymeric insulated RFI/EMI gaskets that have been previously evaluated for flammability and shielding effectiveness? 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 --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.rcic.com/ click on Virtual Conference Hall,
RE: UL certification and Underwriter Laboratory
Hi, Ok, not quite. All UL marked products have conditions of acceptability in some way, shape or form. 1. UL Listed mark goes on a product that is tested to a UL Safety Standard (or safety guidelines) for that product category and can be used as an entity unto itself (ie, a TV set). UL Listed products have conditions of acceptability defined by the product category (and written in conjunction with the product category Listing Cards and the standards/test guidelines tested against). 2. UL Recognition Mark goes on a product that is tested to a UL Safety Standard (or safety guidelines) for that product category and shall be used as a COMPONENT of a UL Listed product. An example of this is the plastics, tubes, internal wiring etc., of the TV set. UL Recognized products have conditions of acceptability tied into the exact component, based on the Listed product it will be placed in and its roll in the Listed product. The CofA's will be written on the Recognition Cards, or in some other manner (like Style Pages for AWM) for the specific product tested. 3. UL Classified Mark, in the past, could go only on previously UL Listed (and, possibly, on UL Recognized) products, and would cover classifications, ratings or conditions that the product was verified by UL above and/or beyond the safety issues of the product category. A product could be classified for non-safety performance, for instance (like Category 5 data cable is Classified for Cat 5 vs. IBM-initiated standards, and are also UL Listed as communications or power-limited data cable), or could be classiifed for additional safety standards for a specific use above and/or beyond the basic safety Listing. One should note that I believe UL has relaxed the past requirement that all Classified products must be Listed or Recognized first. I believe one could classify certain products without first testing for basic safety issues (perhaps product categories that do not have UL Standards for Safety testing but do have performance specifications to test and certify to). In summary, one could get a product that is UL Listed, Recognized and Classified, all at the same time. An example could be data cable. A cable could be UL Listed as Communications Plenum-rated Cable Type CMP (cable for communications run in air handling spaces in a building and sold as a building cabling solution), UL Recognized as AWM Style 2464 to interconnet between Listed Equipment (cable to interconnect UL Listed equipment, sold as a component to attach to a Listed product), and Classified as IBM Cat 5 cable for the computer industry (tested and certified by UL to meet all performance parameters specified by IBM for Category 5 cable). Where you use it and how you use determines what UL marks concern your inspector and installer. I hope this helps! Regards, Robert Tims Compliance/Test Engineer Ericsson Messaging Systems Inc. PH 516-677-1138 Fax 516-677- robert.t...@ericsson.com -Original Message- From: owner-emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@ieee.org]On Behalf Of Ned Devine Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2000 11:07 AM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RE: UL certification and Underwriter Laboratory Hi, OK, I wasn't going to say anything, but. 1. A UL Listed product complies with all of the applicable requirements. Usually from a standard. 2. A UL Recognized Component does not comply with all of the applicable requirements. That is why they have Conditions of Acceptability. Whether the product is a complete unit or a component is immaterial to whether it is UL Listed or Recognized Component. If it meets all of the applicable requirements, it is Listed. If not, it is a Recognized Component. Now, sometimes UL cheats on this and calls it Classified. Medical equipment is Classified to UL 2601-1. This is mostly because UL does not require you to meet all of the requirements. They say the FDA (US Government agency) covers them. Ned Devine Entela, Inc. Program Manager III Phone 616 248 9671 Fax 616 574 9752 e-mail ndev...@entela.com -Original Message- From: Peter Merguerian [mailto:pmerguer...@itl.co.il] Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2000 9:49 AM To: Grant, Tania (Tania); emc-p...@ieee.org; 'Jon Keeble' Subject: RE: UL certification and Underwriter Laboratory Hello Tania and All Members, Al is well said, but allow me to add one additional fact. UL also Lists COMPONENTS which an electrician might use in the field; for example closed-loop connectors, quick-disconnet connectors, splicing connectors, fixture wiring, circuit breakers, outlet boxes, etc. These components undergo more rigorous testing than normal components and are always provided with installation instructions limiting the usage; for example a splicing connector may specify the exact crimping tool and the # and size of all the combination of wires to be spliced by that connector. Best Regards At 18:50 10/05/2000 -0700, Grant, Tania (Tania) wrote: John, The 'UbackwardsR' mark
RE: Surge Test Performance Criterion
Hello All, My take on establishing whether a temporary shut down (loss of function) is acceptable is by knowing your customers' or potential customers' requirements, expectations, or at least tolerances. The trick is getting this information. It can be asked directly to customers, covered in requirement specifications from product groups who researched those issues, or may be inferred from specific product standards that are similar to or directly apply to your type of product. Many product standards have immunity requirements that give specific minimum performance criterion. Applying those criterion from similar product standards to your product can indirectly cover expectations of your customer. As for criterion B, I would say no, shut down for ten minutes and then recoverable is criterion C. Hope this helps. Regards, Robert Tims Compliance Engineer Ericsson Messaging Systems Inc. -Original Message- From: rehel...@mmm.com [SMTP:rehel...@mmm.com] Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2000 7:54 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: Surge Test Performance Criterion I agree with Carlos. The standard says, This clause gives you a guide for evaluation of the test results. It also says, The variety and diversity of equipment and systems to be tested makes the task of establishing the effects of surges on equipment and systems difficult. It also says, The test results shall be classified on the basis of the operating conditions and the functional specifications of the equipment under test... The standards committees are smart enough to know that they cannot possibly write descriptions of test evaluations that would cover every conceivable piece of equipment ever designed in the past or ever to be designed in the future, so they provided guidelines for evaluation. If product specifications provide different operating conditions and functional specifications than are provided in the guidelines then testing is evaluated to the product specifications. carlos.perk...@eu.effem.com on 01/13/2000 01:15:25 AM Please respond to carlos.perk...@eu.effem.com To: Jim Hulbert hulbe...@pb.com cc: emc-p...@ieee.org (bcc: Robert E. Heller/US-Corporate/3M/US) Subject: Re: Surge Test Performance Criterion Jim, I agree with you, on the basis that in this case, a complete shut-down is a designed-in function of the product, and the standard says No degradation of performance or loss of function is allowed below a performance level specified by the manfucturer. You, as the manufacturer, are specifying this 'loss of function'. In my mind, all you have to do is make the end user aware that a shut-down will occur when a surge is detected, and you should be OK. Cheers, Carlos. Please respond to Jim Hulbert hulbe...@pb.com To: emc-p...@ieee.org cc: (bcc: Carlos A. Perkins/WIN/Effem) From: Jim Hulbert hulbe...@pb.com on 12/01/2000 20:08 Subject: Surge Test Performance Criterion A product has a switched mode power supply with a current sensing circuit that causes the supply to shut down when a surge pulse is applied to the AC mains in accordance with EN61000-4-5/IEC1000-4-5. After about 10 minutes, the supply can be turned back on and normal operation of the product can be resumed by the operator. Does this product conform to criterion B of the EN 50082-1 or EN 55024 standards? I believe it does because the sensing circuit is specifically designed to protect the product against this kind of voltage/current surge and the product operation is fully recoverable by the operator afterward. However, I would like to hear how others who do this testing would interpret this. Jim Hulbert Senior Engineer - EMC Pitney Bowes - 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: WEEE Directive
Actually, Gentlemen, PVC compounds are doped with many different types of flame retardants. In fact, every plastic material must be doped with flame retardants to be flame retardant, because plastics are made from petroleum. However, there are PVC materials that that use flame retardants that when exposed to flame, produce water (steam) and CO2 as by-products, thus robbing the plastic of heat and oxygen. These hydroxy-doped PVC's are commercially available by all the big PVC manufacturers, and the cable manufacturers worth their salt all have product lines based on these PVC materials for insulation and jacket materials. All this aside, also remember that while these Hydroxy-retardant PVCs reduce greatly the halogenated by-products from combustion, PVC is still Poly-vinyl Chloride... Also look into Flame retardant Polyolefins (FRPE, FRPO) as basis for wires and cables, this is a good option for non-halogen applications, just more expensive with less applications than PVC. Good Luck. If you need any more info, you can contact me directly. Regards, Robert Tims Compliance Engineer Ericsson Messaging Systems Inc. -Original Message- From: Rich Nute [SMTP:ri...@sdd.hp.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 1999 11:04 AM To: wo...@sensormatic.com Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: WEEE Directive Hi Richard: Are there currently any alternative wire and cable constructions that comply with UL and NEC flame requirements without the use of halogenated flame retardants? I believe PVCs are naturally flame-retardant materials i.e., have no flame retardants added to them. Many commonly-used wire and cable insulations are PVC. Best regards, Rich - Richard Nute Product Safety Engineer Hewlett-Packard Company Product Regulations Group AiO Division Tel : +1 858 655 3329 16399 West Bernardo Drive FAX : +1 858 655 4979 San Diego, California 92127 e-mail: ri...@sdd.hp.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: Is there any correlation between VW-1 wire and UL 94 V-1 ?
Hi Terry, To answer your question bluntly, NO, there is no correlation between VW-1 and UL94V-1,HF-1, etc. The VW-1 rating is a flame test and rating performed on wire and cable constructions only. The combination of the wire, plus any insulstion, jacket, shielding, or taping, and coloring, is tested and given the rating. The UL94 tests, the same tests as the IEC V-0, V-1, V-2 tests, are tests performed on samples of insulation material. The test samples are bars of certain shape tested to a certain method. How the sample bars perform under controlled conditions determines whether they are rated V-0 (best), V-1, or V-2 (worst). Furthermore, insulation materials can be tested to various test methods to determine relative flammability. The rating hierarchy is as follows: UL94 5V-A (best) 5V-B V-0 V-1 V-2 HB (worst) Furthermore, some materials are unfairly biased against by the test methods for the above tests. These are Very Thin Materials (VTM) and Highly Foamed Materials (HF). They have special test methods, that correspond to flammability ratings above: UL94 VTM-0 = V-0 VTM-1 = V-1 VTM-2 = V-2 UL94 HF-0 = V-0 HF-1 = V-1 HF-2 = V-2 HBF = HB Note that all of these insulation (plastics) ratings are component (insulation) tests only, for use as relative data with conditions of acceptabilty, etc. The construction of the sample shapes are pre-defined specifically for the test. For the wire and cable tests, actual constructions are tested, ie number of conductors, insulation, jacket and shileds, tapes etc. are all tested as actually representative of the constructions being sold. Conditions of acceptability are determined based on this fact. What does this mean to 950/1950 examinations? Well, for one, the requirement V-1 or better flammabilty does not apply to the wires and cables in or connected to your unit. Second, it will be up to the organization who is performing the testing/giving the certification for your unit to determine what flame rating is needed for your wires and cables.You may only need a Horizontal flame test rating for some wires and cables in some areas in your unit, while other areas and wires and cables may need a VW-1 vertical rating. Some areas/constructions/testing agencies may actually not require any flame rating for the wires in certain constructions! Finally, you mentioned UL1581 as a wire class - it isn't. UL1581 is the standard that includes all the basic wire tests and requirements for wire and cable that are used in various UL wire standards - it is called the Test Reference Standard for wire and cable. The other numbers you mentioned are probably UL Style numbers, referencing various wire and cable construction Recognized by UL with restrictive conditions of acceptability. I recognize those numbers as some popular internal wiring Style numbers. I hope this helps. Regards, Robert Tims Compliance Engineer Ericsson Messaging Systems Inc. Terry Meck wrote: Hello: I have a question about the interpretation of UL 1950 / En 60950 sec 4.4.6 Fire enclosure construction. The following constructions are considered to satisfy the requirement without test: openings in the bottom, each not larger than 40 mm sq under: @ components of FLAMMABILITY CLASS V-1 or better, or FLAMMABILITY CLASS HF -1 or better, or @ parts made of material of FLAMMABILITY CLASS V-1 or better, or FLAMMABILITY CLASS HF -1 or better; Is there any correlation between VW-1 wire and UL 94 V-1 FLAMMABILITY CLASS ? That is to say if all parts are V-0 or V-1 and wires of VW-1 would this construction be considered to comply? What is the best way to get information on the various wire classes UL 1581, 1180, 3239 etc. Your input is appreciated! Terry J. Meck tjm...@accusort.com - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). attachment: rtims.vcf
Re: Network Equipment and UL 1459/1950
Hello All, I have to agree that there shouldn't be another US (UL) standard for network equipment when the equipment can be incorporated into UL1950. UL1950 can be revised to clarify the network equipment requirements, perhaps as a deviation or an appendix (annex), or just rewording the existing sections to make it easier to follow. I think the network equipment has proven its safety over time, and UL, by having a UL1459 standard implies they agree, along with Telcordia (Bellcore) (GR-1089). It shouldn't be much of an issue to clarify UL1950 to include network equipment constructions. Reviving UL1459 only opens the door to confusion, making it more difficult to achieve a worldwide certified piece of equipment. We want to move towards harmonization worldwide, we don't want to increase the gap. I'm also afraid we would wind up adding UL1459 Listed to our long list of certifications on the back of the equipment! I hope this helps. Regards, Bob Tims Compliance Engineer Ericsson Messaging Systems Inc. Peter Merguerian wrote: Jim, Your interpretaion is 100% correct. I have personally Listed many products with UL1950 Third Edition with a supplemental earthing terminal as you described below with no basic insulation between the TNV-2/TNV-3 circuits and SELV/Earth. The standard specifies that basic insulation is one way of complying with the requirements. Another way is as you describe in your e-mail and which I have used to Approve lots of equipment worldwide. However, the standard goes on to say other solutions are not excluded. My question to you all does anyone have a design or could give some examples using other solutions are not excluded? PS - The IEC 950 WG7 Committe (Telecoms) is currently working on Remote Power Feeding Requirements. Some members of the committe are also from the US and Canada. We are working together to come up with solutions. A lot of work still remains and I am hopeful that within 2 years we should have common requirements (of course as usual, with deviations for member countries). I strongly feel that there is really no need to come up with a new standard for network equipment since the UL1950 will eventually have the remote power feed requirements included. Best Regards, In a message dated 3/24/99, jim.wi...@adtran.com writes: The only design criteria with regard to insulation in Bellcore standards or UL 1459 is a hi-pots test. Creepage and clearance do not exist in traditional C.O. equipment (just look at wire wrapped backplanes). Dear Jim and others: Jim Wiese has raised several concerns regarding the transition from UL 1459 to UL 1950 (3rd Edition). One of these concerns relates to the new creepage and clearance requirements for separation of TNV circuits and ground/SELV. I would like to pick up on this one issue (I know that Jim has raised several other issues as well). In particular, I would like some feedback from others in the group regarding my interpretation of how the separation requirements in UL 1950 apply to certain types of equipment. Just this week I met with a PBX manufacturer who is in the process of re- designing the backplane and all of the line cards in their PBX to comply with UL 1950. The PBX is presently approved to UL 1459, but the manufacturer has its eye on the March 2000 date for new or modified products to comply with UL 1950. Needless to say, the redesign effort is an expensive one. The biggest headache in the redesign is complying with the creepage and clearance distances for separation of TNV and SELV circuits. The PBX manufacturer seemed incredulous when I stated that I did not think the creepage and clearance requirements applied to their product, since the PBX has a permanent (hardwired) connection to ground. My interpretation is based primarily on the following statement in clause 6.2.1.2 in UL 1950, paraphrased below: Basic insulation is not required provided that all of the following conditions are met: - the SELV circuit is connected to protective earth...in accordance with 2.5; and - the installation instructions specifya permanent connection to earth; and - the test of 6.2.1.3 is carried out... (where applicable) There are other clauses that call out isolation, such as 6.3.3.1 and 6.4.1, but the permanent ground exemption appears to apply here as well. In my view, these exemptions are specifically targeted at equipment such as PBXs and network equipment that are typically installed by service personnel and include hardwired grounding. Without these exemptions, it is almost impossible to separate certain types of TNV circuits from SELV and ground. For example, a feed circuit that provides 48V battery (SLIC, FXS, DID, etc.) is inherently referenced to ground. The situation with a ground-start FXO interface is not much better. Do others
Re: UL 1581
Hello Moshe, UL1581 is the UL standard that covers test methods for many of the most common wire and cable tests performed on a variety of Listed and Recognized wire and cable types. The standard includes test methods for many tests, including: Physical Properties tests on various insulation and jacket materials, flame tests, including the UL1581 Vertical Cable Tray Flame Test, Flexibility and Cold Bend tests, etc. The standard also includes requirements for the test methods applicable to various construction and material types. The UL1581 standard is generally referenced in all other UL wire and cable standards, rather than repeating the same test information in each and every test standard. For example, if you are testing Flexible Cord, you would need UL62, the flexible cord and fixture wire standard, as well as UL1581, because UL62 will reference UL1581 for many test methods and requirements. I hope I explained the standard clearly Regards, Bob Tims Compliance Engineer Ericsson Messaging Systems Inc. mvald...@netvision.net.il wrote: Hello everyone, Can someone enlighten me about this standard? Is it related to cables - flammability? How is it related to other standards? thanks, Moshe Name: moshe valdman E-mail: mvald...@netvision.net.il Phone: 972-52-941200 Telefax: 972-3-5496369 Date: 22/3/99 Time: 20:10:38 You are most welcome to visit my homepage at: http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/5233/ - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). attachment: rtims.vcf
Re: Signatory for US based Manufacturer
Hi all, I have a question to clarify.. Is it to be understood that the EC DofC can be signed by the US manufacturer, and authorized copy of said document just has to reside with the rep in the EC? This could save me a lot of time and bs. Regards, Bob Tims Mike Hopkins wrote: I'll quote from the directive, Article 10, 1st paragraph: 1. In the case of apparatus for which the manufacturer has applied the standards referred to in Article 7 (1), the conformity of apparatus with this Directive shall be certified by an EC declaration of conformity issued by the manufacturer or his authorized representative established within the Community.. Seems clear to me that either the manufacturer, ... or his authorized representative established within the Community can sign the Declaration. Mike Hopkins mhopk...@keytek.com -Original Message- From: bill.jacowl...@chr.carsys.philips.com [SMTP:bill.jacowl...@chr.carsys.philips.com] Sent: Monday, December 14, 1998 4:07 PM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Signatory for US based Manufacturer Greetings to all: I am interested in finding out who usually acts as the Signatory for a EC Declaration of Conformance for a US based manufacturer. Thanks in advance, Bill Jacowleff VDO Control Systems 150 Knotter Drive Cheshire, CT 06410 Phone: 203 271-6394 FAX : 203 271-6200 Email: bill.jacowl...@chr.carsys.philips.com - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
Re: EN 61000-4-4
Ray, I agree with your interpretation. Besides your good reasons, testing each port individually assures as much repeatability and uniformity of application of the transient field as possible... Regards, Bob Tims Compliance Engineer Ericsson Messaging Systems Inc. robert.t...@ericsson.com r...@isco.com wrote: Erik; I have used IEC 1000-4-4:1995. EN should be muich the same. In section 8.2 Execution of the test - The test plan shall specify - sequence of application of the test voltage to the EUT's ports, each one after the other or to cables belonging to more than one circuit, etc. I have understood this to mean that we test each port [generally one connector or cable] sepatately, [one at a time, one after the other]. Sometimes one port consists of one cable with connections going to more than one circuit, in this case we test that cable as a whole [cables belonging to more than one circuit, etc. ]. I would be interested how others do this. Ray Hulinsky RCIC - http://www.rcic.com Regulatory Compliance Information Center - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
Re: UL system for Microwave oven transformers
Robin, You do not scale the thickness as such when increasing the voltage rating. Insulation Thickness is directly related to the degree of Mechanical protection that needs to be achieved. Insulation thickness is only partially (brain stoppage for lack of a better word!) related to voltage rating. UL generally requires a higher degree of mechanical protection for insulation (and wire insulation) as the voltage rating increases. In addition, voltage tests (such as Dielectric strength, Insulation Resistance, and such) apply and require higher values as the desired voltage rating is increased. Typically, many Insulation materials will not be required to increase their minimum thickness requirements above 600 Volts values, as long as all test requirements are met. I recommend you discuss your nomex options and thickness limitations with your NRTL and/or your Nomex supplier. You can reach me directly if you wish, as well. Hope this helps, Regards, Bob Tims Compliance Engineer Ericsson Messaging Systems Inc. robert.t...@ericsson.com - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
Re: Ground Wire Markings
Hi Doug, Sounds, most likely like the old telephone game, ie, he heard that she said that he said that this is what we had to do. I've never heard of such a thing as you stated it. Most likely, the Dell group had to replace wire that was somehow unsuitable for whatever application they were applying for... It could be that the were applying for a Listing at UL and needed UL Recognized wiring, marked with a Style number suitable for the application, or the temp, voltage, flame rating etc... it could be a similar situation for CSA or BSI or VDE or whatever I doubt that resistance and current were marked or required to be marked. Resistance could be AWG size, and current depends totally on that size and the application... Hope this helps, Regards, Bob Tims Compliance Engineer Ericsson Messaging Systems Inc.
Re: any insight appreciated
Lisa, The 10 ohms per square seems high to be critically connected with EMC directly..(maybe ESD ONLY???). I would have to say that the move to 20 ohms won't have much of an effect Now, the retest debate is interesting... If you have a TCF, I would recommend submitting your changes to the outfit holding your TCF, and letting them determine the extent of testing If not, (not knowing much about your product), I would have to say you would have to seriously consider retesting a whole spectrum of tests. Furthermore, if you only tested to old versions of standards, other tests may have to be done anyways Hope this helps, Regards, Bob Tims Compliance Engineer Ericsson Messaging Systems Inc.
Re: CTI (Comparative Tracking Index)
Doug, You may already know the standards that cover the CTI test, but I thought I'd list them anyways: ASTM D3638, IEC 112, and UL746A Those sources will give you the test methods to help interpret any results, and also to compare IEC ratings with UL ratings. I believe that is what you are asking to do If you are asking for a list of IEC rated proprietary compounds, similar to the UL yellow book, then I can't help you if you are asking for an explanation of the test method, and impact that the test should have on design of an insulation system, try contacting Ken Vessey or Tom Cybula of UL plastics group. Their emails are vess...@ul.com and cybu...@ul.com. If you need some general information, feel free to contact me at robert.t...@ericsson.com Hope this helps, Regards, Bob Tims Compliance Engineer Ericsson Messaging Systems Inc.
Re: more Recognized Plastics Directory
Mel Pedersen wrote: Forgot to forward this to newsgroup. - Mel -- From: Mel Pedersen[SMTP:mpeder...@midcom.anza.com] Sent: Thursday, March 19, 1998 9:18 AM To: 'Peter E. Perkins' Subject:RE: more Recognized Plastics Directory Hello Peter, Your point is well taken, however, I am not interested in flammability data. I am curious about differences in the Thermal Index ratings given by European agencies versus UL. Also, when a manufacturer advertises a temperature rating in their catalog, they often don't specify at what thickness that rating is for, or other relevant information. That is why I am looking for a European recognized component directory. Thanks Peter. Any other thoughts would be appreciated. Mel PedersenMidcom, Inc. Homologations Engineer Phone: (605) 882-8535 mpeder...@midcom.anza.com Fax: (605) 886-6752 -- From: Peter E. Perkins[SMTP:peperk...@compuserve.com] Sent: Thursday, March 19, 1998 12:44 AM To: PSNetwork Subject:more Recognized Plastics Directory PSNet - including Mel Pedersen... Why would you, Mel, look any other place then to UL for a Plastics Recognized Component Directory? From the beginning of their history UL has focused on fire prevention in electrical installations and equipment. This focus has been reinforced because of the North American use of lower voltage for commercial and residential systems than those used in Europe and much of the rest of the world. This lower voltage (V/2) draws a higher current (2xI) which leads to 4x the heating effect (remember I**2 x R) and, historically, more fires in equipment and installations. This UL focus joined with the other forces at work within UL to develop methods for pre-qualification of plastic materials for use in installation components (wiring, switches, outlets etc) and equipment. Thus, the world's largest public database - the UL Plastics Recognized Component Directory. The European approach (until more recently) was not to qualify materials, but qualify parts and pieces of construction using tests such as the Oxygen Index test on finished pieces. This methodology meant that the same material used in another configuration would be tested again and again. So there is plenty of European data, but it doesn't seem to be published in any useable form available to worldwide users. With the ongoing harmonization of standards on a worldwide basis, even the Europeans recognize the benefit of pre-qualification of materials and have been accepting this approach in many standards... IEC 950 and IEC 1010 make heavy use of these prequalified materials to demonstrate adequacy in any application... Moreover, over the last 20 or more years, UL has been quietly moving their requirements into IEC (e.g. IEC 60674 -1, 2, 3-2,3-3, 3-4 to 6, 3-7 (and European standards)) so that the UL database is now more important than ever in showing compliance to the requirements stated in the standards... Further, plastics manufacturers worldwide submit their materials to UL for evaluation enlarging the usefulness of this database. There is some competition, CSA publishes a directory... CAN/CSA-C22.2 No. 0.17-92 (R1997) evaluation of Properties of Polymeric Materials. The Canadian requirements shadow the UL requirements. They have been accepting materials for evaluation for the last 10 years or so. The last CSA directory I used was quite a bit thinner than the UL directory... Well, I didn't intend for this to be a UL sales pitch, but do believe that their large database will be the basis of choice for selection of plastics materials for use in equipment meeting worldwide requirements. - - - - - Peter E Perkins Principal Product Safety Consultant Tigard, ORe 97281-3427 +1/503/452-1201 phone/fax p.perk...@ieee.org email visit our website: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/peperkins - - - - - Mel, You are on the right track... UL's RTIs are determined by many factors, including thickness, where the material will be used, how the material will be used, and how the material matches up to similar material used in a similar fashion (the control). These are just the basic factors. This is how the same material can get many different RTIs at different thicknesses, or even the same thickness. A manufacturer's temperature claim could be anything, possibly just the temperature where the material starts to physically degrade (whatever that means,ie starts to melt, flow, discolor, get brittle). I don't know personally of any European directories, but perhaps you may wish to email Larry Bruno or Steve Giannoni at UL's Plastics Group in NY. They have/had a hand in their plastics seminars and the development of UL's RTI
Re: Comparative Tracking Index
Rick, The Comparitive Tracking Index (CTI), ASTM D3638 and UL746A, is a test intended to show the susceptibility to surface tracking of solid electrical insulating materials when exposed under electrical stress, to a contaminant solution.This test applies to relatively low voltages under 600 volts. The CTI test attempts to cause a permanent electrically conductive carbon path along the surface of a material using an aluminum chloride electrolyte applied at the rate of 1 drop every 30 seconds to the test specimen. The surface of the specimen is subjected to an AC voltage, s.c. current limited to one amp. The current flow must exceed 100 mA for at least a half second to register as an established path. ANSWER TO 1) The CTI level (205 in your note) is the voltage level that corresponds to 50 drops on the tracking-voltage curve that is plotted as a result of testing multiple 3.0mm thick samples at various voltage levels, up to600 V. ANSWER to 2) UL has CTI index levels, while international standards call out the actual voltage levels. Either way 200 volts is an probably an OK level for the material and what you will be using it for. I believe levels anywhere from 100 to 250 volts are typically called out for that use. Just my humble opinion, though. Any other questions, I have a bit of experience on this subject, please do not hesitate to e-mail me. Regards, Bob Tims Standards and Compliance rt...@emx.ericsson.se
RE: Notified or Competent Body?
Bob, Thanks for the clarification. I got those notified and competent bodies confused, apparently. Regards, Bob
RE: Notified or Competent Body?
Mel, What you state I agree with you in Ed's case, but there are circumstances where he may want to set up a TCF with a notified bodyOne of the cases being if his unit is too large to test normally, and would need a field evaluation... In that case he would want a notified body report to back up his declaration of conformity. TCF's can come in handy when one expects to make regular modifications to the original unit. The notified body can help you determine what retesting would be necessary, and can add to the TCF, as necessary Regards, Bob Tims
Noise in Power Leads - Follow -Up
Hi Everyone, I have an update on that 500-900 mv spike at 50MHz that we encountered on our power lead. Attempts to alleviate the problem outside the power supply, by the use of torroids and adding ground connections did not help as much as needed, so we immediately turned our attention to the power supply itself, which was the suspicious source from day one with us, as well as most of the helpful comments I received from all of you. We eventually isolated a power supply from the unit, and performed many different measurements under different resistive loads, all with the same result.. the pulse remained at 500-900mv at approximately 50MHz. We are now working closely with the ps manufacturer to alleviate the problem. Many thanks for all the helpful comments and suggestions. It saved a lot of time for us to know that our suspicions that the ps was the main culprit was justified, even with the magnitude and frequency involved. Regards, Bob Tims Standards and Compliance rt...@emx.ericsson.se The opinions expressed in this correspondence in no way reflect the opinions of Ericsson Inc.
