Re: [PSES] EMC requirements for developer/evaluation boards

[Ted Eckert]

RoHS II (2011/65/EC) Article 2, Section 4 (j) specifically exempts "equipment 
specifically designed solely for the purposes of research and development only 
made available on a business-to-business basis." Anything fitting within this 
exemption would then not fall under the RoHS Directive and would not likely 
need CE marking for RoHS purposes. Intel's development kit would appear to fit 
this clause.

I wish the other Directives has exemptions that were as clear as the RoHS 
exemption.

Ted Eckert
Compliance Engineer
Microsoft Corporation
ted.eck...@microsoft.com<mailto:ted.eck...@microsoft.com>

The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my 
employer.

From: EMC Guy [mailto:emc.guy@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, October 28, 2013 2:20 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] EMC requirements for developer/evaluation boards

Thanks to all for the reminder on the RoHS II part of the CE-marking.  It is 
still not burned in my head that they are now combined.
I've looked at that Intel webpage disclaimer, and it really looks like 
something invented by their legal department to get out of EMC-testing their 
eval boards.
Still not sure what decision to make on this one.  Designing a board to pass 
EMC tests (yes, including ESD!) without a metal enclosure might not be easy or 
even possible in some cases, so we might just take our chances and do what 
Intel and others do: mark it CE for RoHS II, and include a big disclaimer that 
the board is intended for engineers who will use their own judgment to mitigate 
possible EMC issues.
With my background, I'm not proud of that choice, but it's starting to look 
like the only realistic approach.
Thanks for your help with this one, it is really appreciated.
John B.

On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 1:07 PM, CR 
mailto:k...@earthlink.net>> wrote:
On 10/28/2013 1247, John Cotman wrote:
Even if the EMC Directive is not applicable by virtue of the "end user" 
definition, the item looks as if it could well be in RoHS scope, RoHS also now 
being a CE-marking directive.  If that is the case, it would at least need CE 
marking under that directive.

John C


And then we use lead-bearing solder on it. Sweet!


Cortland Richmond
-


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

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.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)<http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html>
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

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

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

-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
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)<http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.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/
In

Re: [PSES] Standards copyright lawsuit

[Ted Eckert]

Actually, Waynesboro Virginia does still have the red flag law, but it is 
stranger than you might think. The city still has a law that prohibits women 
from driving on main street unless their husband is walking in front of the car 
waving a red flag. I would also recommend that you stock up on rockets before 
any night driving on any rural roads in Pennsylvania.
http://jalopnik.com/the-ten-most-obscure-car-laws-in-the-us-1441966655


This email message and attachments may contain confidential and proprietary 
information.  Any unauthorized use is prohibited.  If you are not the intended 
recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of 
the original message and attachments.

From: Pettit, Ghery [mailto:ghery.pet...@intel.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 8, 2013 8:53 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Standards copyright lawsuit

I think he was referring to laws that anyone would think stupid, like the old 
classic one requiring someone with a red flag to talk in front of a motor 
vehicle to warn people riding horses.  Not that we still have that one, but you 
get the idea of what he was talking about.  Given that this particular 
legislator and I are on opposite ends of the political spectrum and about the 
only thing we seem to agree on is our love for Washington State University I 
thought it was a good opportunity to jab him for a number of what I would 
consider “stupid laws” when he was complaining about the existence of them.  Oh 
well…

Ghery S. Pettit

From: McInturff, Gary [mailto:gary.mcintu...@esterline.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2013 8:43 AM
To: Pettit, Ghery; 'EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG'
Subject: RE: [PSES] Standards copyright lawsuit

Conceptually I agree but I can’t see how it could ever be solved. “Stupid” is 
pretty relative. We have environmental laws which many see as “stupid”. 
Unrestricted coal burning for example. Some countries have no such laws –or 
don’t enforce them - and you can’t see the horizon because it’s “foggy”. The 
shear plethora of laws occurs because as soon as a law is published somebody 
looks for a way to circumvent the intent of the law (probably because it was 
stupid), then another law is made or amended to address the circumvention. Ad 
nauseaium (Homemade Latin phrase)

Certainly my opinion only.
Gary

From: Pettit, Ghery [mailto:ghery.pet...@intel.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2013 8:03 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Standards copyright lawsuit

I suggested that to one of our state legislators a few years ago when he was 
complaining about a number of “stupid laws”.  If looks could kill I would have 
been 6 feet under several years ago.

Ghery S. Pettit

From: Derek Walton [mailto:lfresea...@aol.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2013 4:32 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Standards copyright lawsuit

Doug has a point, the laws are available, and we can get access for free. The 
problem is we spend our lives trying to find which laws we have to comply with, 
then more than likely have lawyers try to agree what they really meant when it 
was written!  Time we reduced the number of laws

Derek.

Sent from my iPad

On Oct 7, 2013, at 16:41, Doug Powell 
mailto:doug...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Cortland

I am not certain you speed limit example explains the point you are trying to 
make.

Here in Colorado we have the Colorado Revised Statutes, or CRS. In these laws 
are all the requirements for citizens to follow so they are in compliance with 
the law.  In practice posted speed limits are akin to the warning labels we put 
on products like: Danger High Voltage or Speed Limit 65.

In my state we can go to the government website and read any portion of the CRS 
for free. Same with the US Code of Federal Regulations.  Now, if this were 
available only by paid subscription, then your point would be made. Of course, 
how many citizens actually read the law in its entirety? I suspect it is less 
than even 1%. Hence the need for posted cautionary and warning statements.

Doug


From: Cortland Richmond
Sent: Monday, October 7, 2013 12:32 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Reply To: k...@earthlink.net
Subject: Re: [PSES] Standards copyright lawsuit


The problem is, of course, that by incorporating copyrighted documents into the 
Code of Federal Regulations "by reference," various agencies render invisible 
laws we are all required to obey -- unless we go to their reading rooms (I 
think) to find out.

In practice?  We on this list work or have worked for firms who could afford to 
buy copies of their own.  But imagine one day finding that one has been 
convicted in absentia of speeding through a town without speed limit signs,  
limits available only by subscription.


Cortland Richmond

On 10/7/2013 1135, Peter Tarver wrote:

There is occasionally much ha

Re: [PSES] China Lithium battery regulations

[Ted Eckert]

Some locations in China, particularly those near Shanghai, require 
certification from the Shanghai Research Institute of Chemical Industry 
(SRICI).<http://www.msds.gov.cn/index.aspx?menuid=19&type=introduct&lanmuid=98&language=en>
 I can’t point to a specific regulation. As far as I know, this requirement is 
a regional and not a national requirement.

Ted Eckert
Compliance Engineer
Microsoft Corporation
ted.eck...@microsoft.com<mailto:ted.eck...@microsoft.com>

The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my 
employer.

From: Gartman, W. Richard [mailto:rgart...@ti.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2013 11:06 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] China Lithium battery regulations

Esteemed body of knowledge,

Today I learned about a China customs regulations requiring UN38.3 T1-T8 
certification for all lithium batteries: Lithium-ion, Lithium-polymer, and 
lithium-metal. This is applicable to single use as well as rechargeable 
batteries. The certifications cannot be manufactures self-declarations, they 
need to be a third party certificates.

IATA/ICAO have the UN38.3 requirements for air shipments of rechargeable 
lithium batteries and they accept manufactures self-declarations.

Has anyone seen this requirement, know of the regulation that generated this 
requirement, have a source of this requirement? Any information is helpful.

W. Richard Gartman, MS, CSP
Product Stewardship Manager
Texas Instruments, Education Technology
13532 N Central Expressway, Dallas, TX 75243
Office: 214-567-7927   Email: 
rgart...@ti.com<mailto:rgart...@ti.com>
www.education.ti.com/us/productstewardship<http://education.ti.com/us/productstewardship>
www.ti.com/ccr<http://www.ti.com/ccr>
Please consider the environment before printing this email. There is only one 
earth - don't waste it.<http://education.ti.com/us/productstewardship>
Car racing also prepares you for and expects you to live in the moment – 
perspective comes before and after the race. Preparation equals 
success.<http://education.ti.com/us/productstewardship>



-


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)<http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.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://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] Wire ampacities -

[Ted Eckert]

A few of the wire vendors have reference charts that may be of use. The link to 
one example is below.
http://www.alphawire.com/en/EngineersRoom/ReferenceTables/CurrentRatings
This chart should give a rough idea of the temperature change of wires at 
different ampacities. This table makes general assumptions about wire 
resistance and insulation thickness, so assume that the actual temperature rise 
will vary a bit more.

Ted Eckert
Compliance Engineer
Microsoft Corporation
ted.eck...@microsoft.com<mailto:ted.eck...@microsoft.com>

The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my 
employer.

From: IBM Ken [mailto:ibm...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 4, 2013 2:22 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: Wire ampacities -

Ampacity charts (particularly in the NEC) may assume wire pulled in conduit, 
more than one current-carrying conductor, etc.  You may be better off using a 
chart from your product Standard (60950 has something to say on this topic but 
it's a bit conservative).In your case, I would approach the agency with 
some thermal testing showing that you haven't exceeeded the insulation's 
temperature rating (assuming it has one) in the application and you continue to 
pass all the other requirements of your product standard.  If it's not a ground 
wire I think they would be OK with this approach and some limited testing.

-Ken
On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 3:15 PM, McInturff, Gary 
mailto:gary.mcintu...@esterline.com>> wrote:
I was just discussing the current handling capabilities of appliance wiring 
material and while I have a chart it is of unknown heritage and differs from 
some other reference material. For example the chart I have says 26AWG wire can 
handle about 0.25 amps, but when I look at the connector it says about 1 amp 
with a 26 AWG wire. I made a search for the NEC amperages but they I could find 
anything smaller (larger?) about 18 guage and it was primarily for power wiring.
Can anybody give me a good reference for AWM current handling capabilities? The 
UL web-site seems pretty useless as well. Heck I think I talked one of their 
engineers out of the chart I have. My original supposition was that the wire 
insulation rating would be exceeded if X amps were run through Y gauge wire, 
and that was from a safety perspective the upper limit of current. I realized 
that impedance per/foot has implications on voltage drop etc, but in this case 
those things are moot. I just want to run 0.5 amps down a 26 AWG wire for about 
3 inches at  low frequency without overheating the insulation. Again one 
reference holds about ¼ amp, while another says 1 amp.



.
Gary McInturff
Reliability/Compliance Engineer











Esterline Interface Technologies

Featuring
ADVANCED INPUT, GAMESMAN, LRE MEDICAL, and MEMTRON  products

600 W. Wilbur Avenue
Coeur d'Alene, ID  83815-9496
Toll Free: 800-444-5923 X1XXX
Tel:  (208) 635-8
Fax: (208) 635-8

www.esterline.com/interfacetechnologies<http://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."

Click 
here<http://www.esterline.com/governance/email_disclaimer/tabid/1532/Default.aspx>
 to read disclaimer




-


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

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.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 <emcp...@radiusnorth.net<mailto:emcp...@radiusnorth.net>>
Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org<mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org>>

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

-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Soc

Re: [PSES] Standards Dates

[Ted Eckert]

UL will also post the information for some of the more common standards on 
their web site, including UL 
60950-1<http://www.ul.com/global/eng/pages/offerings/industries/hightech/informationtechnology/dates/609501b/>
 and UL 
60065<http://www.ul.com/global/eng/pages/offerings/industries/hightech/consumerelectronics/standards/>.

Ted Eckert
Compliance Engineer
Microsoft Corporation
ted.eck...@microsoft.com<mailto:ted.eck...@microsoft.com>

The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my 
employer.

From: Doug Powell [mailto:doug...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 8, 2013 7:50 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: Standards Dates

Once you purchase the standard, all information about this current edition is 
included in the front matter including effect effective dates.  That is, dates 
when it becomes mandatory.

Thanks -doug



From: Scott Douglas
Sent: Wednesday, August 7, 2013 10:09 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Reply To: Scott Douglas
Subject: [PSES] Standards Dates


For Harmonized standards in the EU, you can get a list of the standards,
their various versions, and which expires when.

For UL or CSA standards, how does one tell or determine when a
particular version of a standard is no longer usable to show compliance?

Example - I have legacy product approved to UL 60065, 7th Edition but
the approval was in 2004 or 2005. Then I have new products approved in
2012. I have seen various ways of listing the standard in different reports.

Typical is this: UL 60065:2003 R04.04 or UL 60065:2003 R11.06

I have tried to get a straight answer from UL but so far not much help.

Can anyone explain, does UL have expiration dates on standards or a
point where they are n o longer usable? I know they send out letters
about changes and updates and such, but those never seem to help much
and often come at the cost of a file review.

Likewise for CSA. Take CAN/CSA-C22.2 NO. 60065-03 (R2012). Just on their
web site and see they show it as: CAN/CSA-C22.2 NO. 60065A-03 (R2012) -
Amendment 1:2006 to CAN/CSA-C22.2 NO. 60065-03.

But I don't find anyway to know when my legacy products to older
versions of the standards need to be submitted for update.

Kevlar on - I suppose you will tell me I need to review each change and
determine it's impact on my product to see if it needs submitted to the
agency again. I try to do that, but when you inherit dozens and dozens
of legacy products all at once, it can be daunting at the least.

I'm just hoping someone can put a simple explanation to this or that
there is an easier way.

All input appreciated and thank you.
Scott

-

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

Re: [PSES] USB output limitation

[Ted Eckert]

Hello Gary,

You are correct. I reviewed the USB 3.0 specification again and found that 
Section 11.4.1.1.1 requires overcurrent protection with a rating of 5.0A 
maximum. The specification requires the host to detect an overcurrent condition 
and report it to the software. The specification does not state how that 
protection is to be implemented. The specification does state that the value of 
the overcurrent protector is to be no more than 5A, not that it must cut off 
before 5A. Many 5A overcurrent protectors will hold at higher currents, 
particularly at cooler ambient temperatures. I wouldn't put much faith in the 
5A limit imposed by the USB specification.

Bostjan's original question was in regards to a USB output on a power supply. 
Maybe I have missed it, but I haven't seen the USB output on any power supplies 
that carry the USB logo. I doubt they could since the power supply typically 
won't handle the data aspects required for USB certification. However, in my 
opinion, other considerations would make it prudent to consider current limits 
well below 5A, including connector and cable ratings.

Ted Eckert
Compliance Engineer
Microsoft Corporation
ted.eck...@microsoft.com

The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my 
employer.

-Original Message-
From: Gary Tornquist 
Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 10:18 PM
To: Ted Eckert; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: [PSES] USB output limitation

I've understood from the USB 2.0 spec quoted below the maximum current provided 
should be no more than 5A.  Has this changed?  

I've also noted that it isn't hard to find hubs that allow more than 5A to 
individual ports.

Gary Tornquist
Director of Product Safety
MICROSOFT CONFIDENTIAL: This email message may contain confidential and 
proprietary information. Any unauthorized use is prohibited. If you are not the 
intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all 
copies of the original message.

***

7.2.1.2.1 Over-current Protection
The host and all self-powered hubs must implement over-current protection for 
safety reasons, and the hub must have a way to detect the over-current 
condition and report it to the USB software. Should the aggregate current drawn 
by a gang of downstream facing ports exceed a preset value, the over-current 
protection circuit removes or reduces power from all affected downstream facing 
ports. The over-current condition is reported through the hub to Host 
Controller, as described in Section 11.12.5. The preset value cannot exceed 5.0 
A and must be sufficiently above the maximum allowable port current such that 
transient currents (e.g., during power up or dynamic attach or reconfiguration) 
do not trip the over-current protector. If an over-current condition occurs on 
any port, subsequent operation of the USB is not guaranteed, and once the 
condition is removed, it may be necessary to reinitialize the bus as would be 
done upon power-up. The over-current limiting mechanism must be !
 resettable without user mechanical intervention. Polymeric PTCs and 
solid-state switches are examples of methods, which can be used for 
over-current limiting.

-----Original Message-
From: Ted Eckert [mailto:ted.eck...@microsoft.com]
Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 4:43 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] USB output limitation

The USB specification gives a lower limit, defining the minimum current that 
must be available. However, it has no upper limit. In addition, the USB 
specification is written to ensure minimum functionality and interoperability. 
It does not directly address safety issues. Compliance with the specification 
means that you will have a product that can be eligible for the USB logo; it 
does not mean you will comply with IEC 60950-1. Conversely, it is quite 
possible to have a product that violates the USB specification yet meets all of 
the IEC 60950-1 requirements.

Ted Eckert
Compliance Engineer
Microsoft Corporation
ted.eck...@microsoft.com

The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my 
employer.

-Original Message-
From: doug...@gmail.com [mailto:doug...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 9:58 AM
To: Ted Eckert; EMC-PSTC
Subject: Re: [PSES] USB output limitation

All,

Regardless of a connector's ampacity, you should always refer to the USB 
specification and its limits.  I cannot vouch for how much current a 
manufacturer may decide to put on the port, but if they exceed the USB 
standard, they are outside the spec.  Conversely manufacturers sometimes 
provide dual USB ports, with the available current split between the two.  
http://www.usb.org/developers/docs/

On a side note, I have seen a number of manufactures "push" the specs, 
especially when used as cell phone chargers.  They will push the upper 
tolerance of the voltage spec and make a claim of fast charging.


Doug

D

Re: [PSES] USB output limitation

[Ted Eckert]

The USB specification gives a lower limit, defining the minimum current that 
must be available. However, it has no upper limit. In addition, the USB 
specification is written to ensure minimum functionality and interoperability. 
It does not directly address safety issues. Compliance with the specification 
means that you will have a product that can be eligible for the USB logo; it 
does not mean you will comply with IEC 60950-1. Conversely, it is quite 
possible to have a product that violates the USB specification yet meets all of 
the IEC 60950-1 requirements.

Ted Eckert
Compliance Engineer
Microsoft Corporation
ted.eck...@microsoft.com

The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my 
employer.

-Original Message-
From: doug...@gmail.com [mailto:doug...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 9:58 AM
To: Ted Eckert; EMC-PSTC
Subject: Re: [PSES] USB output limitation

All,

Regardless of a connector's ampacity, you should always refer to the USB 
specification and its limits.  I cannot vouch for how much current a 
manufacturer may decide to put on the port, but if they exceed the USB 
standard, they are outside the spec.  Conversely manufacturers sometimes 
provide dual USB ports, with the available current split between the two.  
http://www.usb.org/developers/docs/

On a side note, I have seen a number of manufactures "push" the specs, 
especially when used as cell phone chargers.  They will push the upper 
tolerance of the voltage spec and make a claim of fast charging.


Doug

Douglas E Powell
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01



-Original Message-
From: Ted Eckert 
Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 14:59:41 
To: 
Reply-To: Ted Eckert 
Subject: Re: [PSES] USB output limitation

Hello Bostjan,

There are a number of considerations regarding power from standard USB ports. 
There are USB ports designed to supply power over an additional set of 
contacts. I would recommend using one of these connector types where you intend 
to deliver more power than normally supplied by a USB port. The powered USB 
ports are designed for up to 30W at 5V.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powered_USB

The standard USB connector will typically be designed for a maximum continuous 
current of 1.5A. Drawing more current through a standard connector may raise 
temperatures beyond what IEC 60950-1 would allow. The temperatures of the 
plastics of the connector body may exceed their RTI, or the temperatures of the 
circuit board supporting the connector might exceed the board's maximum rating.

Although the USB standard doesn't limit the size of conductors in USB cables, 
the specification recommends making cable conductors as small as possible to 
enhance the flexibility of the cable. If you have a standard USB port, you have 
no control of what the user connects beyond instructional safeguards. The 
designers of many USB devices presume a limited current from USB ports. Their 
designs assume that under fault conditions, the USB port will limit the current 
enough that a short circuit in their device will not result in overheating or 
other issues. This could be a problem if such a device experiences a fault when 
connected to the USB port you propose.

Ted Eckert
Compliance Engineer
Microsoft Corporation
ted.eck...@microsoft.com

The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my 
employer.

-Original Message-
From: Boštjan Glavič [mailto:bostjan.gla...@siq.si] 
Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 5:30 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: USB output limitation

Dear experts,

What would be the limit of USB output?  I know IEC 60950-1 requires only that 
it complies with limited power source, but there might be some other 
requirements to limit power from USB?

In particular, I am talking about power supply with USB connector. Can it go up 
to 5Vd.c./3A?

Best regards,
Bostjan Glavic
SIQ

-

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 searc

Re: [PSES] USB output limitation

[Ted Eckert]

Hello Bostjan,

There are a number of considerations regarding power from standard USB ports. 
There are USB ports designed to supply power over an additional set of 
contacts. I would recommend using one of these connector types where you intend 
to deliver more power than normally supplied by a USB port. The powered USB 
ports are designed for up to 30W at 5V.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powered_USB

The standard USB connector will typically be designed for a maximum continuous 
current of 1.5A. Drawing more current through a standard connector may raise 
temperatures beyond what IEC 60950-1 would allow. The temperatures of the 
plastics of the connector body may exceed their RTI, or the temperatures of the 
circuit board supporting the connector might exceed the board's maximum rating.

Although the USB standard doesn't limit the size of conductors in USB cables, 
the specification recommends making cable conductors as small as possible to 
enhance the flexibility of the cable. If you have a standard USB port, you have 
no control of what the user connects beyond instructional safeguards. The 
designers of many USB devices presume a limited current from USB ports. Their 
designs assume that under fault conditions, the USB port will limit the current 
enough that a short circuit in their device will not result in overheating or 
other issues. This could be a problem if such a device experiences a fault when 
connected to the USB port you propose.

Ted Eckert
Compliance Engineer
Microsoft Corporation
ted.eck...@microsoft.com

The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my 
employer.

-Original Message-
From: Boštjan Glavič [mailto:bostjan.gla...@siq.si] 
Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 5:30 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: USB output limitation

Dear experts,

What would be the limit of USB output?  I know IEC 60950-1 requires only that 
it complies with limited power source, but there might be some other 
requirements to limit power from USB?

In particular, I am talking about power supply with USB connector. Can it go up 
to 5Vd.c./3A?

Best regards,
Bostjan Glavic
SIQ

-

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] new EMC Directive

[Ted Eckert]

You will find information on the New Legislative Framework (NLF) alignment for 
the EMC Directive at the following link.

http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/electrical/emc/index_en.htm



If your e-mail accepts embedded links, you can find the draft 
here<http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2011:0765:FIN:EN:PDF>.
 This draft has the changes marked.


Regards,
Ted Eckert
Compliance Engineer
Microsoft Corporation
ted.eck...@microsoft.com<mailto:ted.eck...@microsoft.com>

The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my 
employer.








-Original Message-
From: Brian Oconnell [mailto:oconne...@tamuracorp.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2013 10:24 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: new EMC Directive



They, a grouping of 'them', met in December. Here is a synopsis:

<http://www.metlabs.com/blog/emc/proposed-emc-directive-revision-has-new-not

ified-body-requirements/>



Perhaps the EMC experts of this august body can expound for the corps of 
unwashed compliance engineers.



In a similar conspiracy, the FCC published a NPRM (FCC 13-39) for human 
exposure requirements.



Brian

-Original Message-

From: emc-p...@ieee.org<mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org> [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org]On 
Behalf Of Knighten, Jim L

Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2013 9:17 AM

To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>

Subject: new EMC Directive





I hear that there is a new EMC Directive being put forward.  (The current 
directive is Directive EMC 2004/108/EC.)



Does anyone know what changes this proposed new EMC Directive implements.



Jim



__



James L. Knighten, Ph.D.

EMC Engineer

Teradata Corporation

17095 Via Del Campo

San Diego, CA 92127



858-485-2537 - phone

858-485-3788 - fax (unattended)













-





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 
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] laptop -> house fire

[Ted Eckert]

Take the optimistic view of the choice of demonstration laptops. Maybe they 
chose a Lenovo because they wanted something that they though would be safe 
enough to use for a demonstration of blocked ventilation openings.

There is little information available at this time. Mr. Woodgate is correct 
that fire inspectors can misdiagnose the ignition source. I doubt the P.E.I. 
fire marshal will be able to determine the exact ignition source from a mass of 
molten plastic and charred metal. If the batteries ignited, the heat generated 
would likely destroy the best evidence.

The incident was less than a week ago and the investigation is likely not 
complete. The manufacturer of the laptop will likely want to get involved to 
determine if aftermarket power supplies or  batteries were used. Aftermarket or 
counterfeit batteries could be an issue here. Aftermarket batteries do not 
always fit properly. If the connector doesn't match correctly, arcing between 
the battery and computer could have occurred leading to the ignition of 
adjacent fabrics.

Regards,
Ted Eckert
Compliance Engineer
Microsoft Corporation
ted.eck...@microsoft.com<mailto:ted.eck...@microsoft.com>

The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my 
employer.



From: IBM Ken [mailto:ibm...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 12:13 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: laptop -> house fire

"P.E.I. deputy fire marshal Robert Arsenault demonstrates how vents on a laptop 
computer can be blocked when it is sitting on a pile of clothes. (CBC)"
Why did he pick that brand of laptop to demonstrate with?  XD

Does anyone have more information on this incident?

On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 2:49 PM, Brian Oconnell 
mailto:oconne...@tamuracorp.com>> wrote:
Blocked vent test anyone? Forseeable misuse? I like my computers well done.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/prince-edward-island/story/2013/03/06/pei-laptop-house-fire-computer-584.html>>

-

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 
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] Immunity and emissions below 150 kHz and lithium batteries

[Ted Eckert]

The applicable standards for lithium batteries depend on the application. I'm 
not that familiar with requirements for lithium batteries for aircraft systems, 
but that seems to be a new area. Apparently, the FAA wasn't aware enough of the 
issues when certifying the battery system for the 787 Dreamliner.

For commercial products, you have IEEE 1625, IEEE 1725, UL 1642, UL 2054, IEC 
62133 and UN 38.3 which all require multiple redundant protective circuits. The 
protective circuit module (PCM) needs to use fuses, thermistors and other basic 
measures to provide the necessary protection. The purpose of the PCM is to 
protect the cells from faults in the charging circuit as well as from other 
potential hazards, such as short circuits, overloads and charging at high 
ambient temperatures. I can't state with certainty that immunity isn't an 
issue, but it isn't the likely issue. When testing PCMs, the assumption is that 
the charging circuit is one of the more likely places for faults to occur and 
the charging circuit is assumed to be unreliable. The effort is placed on 
designing the PCM to protect against such faults, and designing the cells to be 
robust enough to survive the faults.

The problems with lithium cells are based on the efforts to get the maximum 
energy density. The insulators and separators within the cells are made as thin 
as possible. Manufacturing defects and contaminants can result in a puncture in 
a separator leading to an internal short circuit. This leads to a thermal event 
which can degrade other separators until they fail, cascading into a runaway 
event. If you look through the NTSB's preliminary reports, you will see that 
they are looking at such a fault as a likely cause of the event at Boston's 
Logan airport.
http://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/2013/boeing_787/docket_documents.html

Most designers of systems with lithium cells have no control over the power 
supply. The vast majority of devices with lithium cells are laptop computers, 
MP3 players, cell phone and such. The manufacturer may provide a power supply, 
but the manufacturer is also well aware that the customer may use an 
aftermarket supply. For USB charged devices, you have no idea what is providing 
the 5 VDC power. If low frequency noise from the switch-mode supply was an 
issue, I expect we would have seen more events during charging.

Regards,
Ted Eckert
Compliance Engineer
Microsoft Corporation
ted.eck...@microsoft.com<mailto:ted.eck...@microsoft.com>

The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my 
employer.



From: Ed Price [mailto:edpr...@cox.net]
Sent: Saturday, March 09, 2013 5:24 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: Immunity and emissions below 150 kHz and lithium batteries

Another thing to remember is that the equipment in an aircraft isn't just 
randomly dumped into a compartment. Although 461 & 160 offer you a way to 
reasonably guarantee compatibility, it is with the assumption of good aircraft 
engineering practices. If you want to be able to mount the battery right on top 
of the charger, it is incumbent on YOU to verify that this is electronically, 
physically, thermally, chemically and magnetically safe.

As to whether we should test anything for conducted susceptibility, well, both 
461 and 160 already do that; Methods CS101 and CS114 are examples. And 9 kHz is 
just another arbitrary point, Method RE101 has you measuring magnetic field 
emissions starting at 30 Hz.

To get a bit philosophical, the purpose of 461 and 160 was never to evaluate a 
device's compliance with those standards, but to ensure compatibility in 
real-life applications. So, if you are confronted with a gadget that just might 
do weird and nasty things when exposed to something not quite covered in the 
standard test suite, then it's your job to create an extension or customization 
of the testing program that will document (and regulate, mitigate or eliminate) 
those conditions.

Ed Price
WB6WSN
Chula Vista, CA  USA

From: Ken Javor [mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com]
Sent: Friday, March 08, 2013 7:43 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Subject: Re: [PSES] Immunity and emissions below 150 kHz and lithium batteries

One thing that needs to be considered is RTCA/DO-160 section 20 conducted 
susceptibility requirements.  I don't know into what category these lithium ion 
batteries fall, but given the consequences of failure, the military hits them 
with 200 V/m.  I would be surprised if the commercial air community treated 
them significantly differently.

The point being, there would be significant levels of conducted rf injected 
into the battery input terminals.  At 200 V/m, the injected level would be 6 
mA, 60 mA at 100 Hz, and 300 mA at 500 kHz and above.

Ken Javor
Phone: (256) 650-5261

From: Bill Owsley mailto:wdows...@yahoo.com>>

Re: [PSES] NRTL North of the 40th parallel - Off Topic

[Ted Eckert]

Let me clarify that my response is intended only in jest and is not intended as 
a critical response. (I don't know how well emoticons work on this list-server.)

-Original Message-
From: Ted Eckert [mailto:ted.eck...@microsoft.com] 
Sent: Saturday, March 02, 2013 8:29 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: NRTL North of the 40th parallel - Off Topic

I know I'm getting pedantic here. The 40th parallel runs across the middle of 
the United States. U.S. Cities north of the 40th parallel include Northbrook 
Illinois, Newtown Connecticut, Peabody Massachusetts, Courtland New York and a 
few other headquarter cities of test laboratories on OSHA's NRTL list. A quick 
check shows that MET Labs in Blaltimore (at 39 degrees north) is just about the 
only NRTL with headquarters south of the 40th parallel. 

Ted Eckert
Compliance Engineer
Microsoft Corporation
47° 40'  10"N 
122°   7'26"W
ted.eck...@microsoft.com

The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my 
employer.


-Original Message-
From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk]
Sent: Saturday, March 02, 2013 12:24 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: NRTL North of the 40th parallel

In message <4aa1e777dc25b7e531c0880286d62...@mail.gmail.com>, dated Fri,
1 Mar 2013, Peter Tarver  writes:

>In case you haven't seen it yet, an NRTL/SCC lab has instituted 
>invoicing practices where factory product audits will be billed 
>separately for every global region from a financial entity in that 
>region.  Your companies will be burdened with having to add additional 
>suppliers to your financial systems in order to pay invoices 
>originating from these international subsidiaries in the local currencies.

I suspect that this practice will become very common, as governments try to 
prevent tax avoidance. It is currently common practice to invoice everything 
from a subsidiary in a low-tax country and balance the P/Ls of the other 
subsidiaries by internal accounting means that do not attract tax.
--
OOO - Own Opinions Only. See www.jmwa.demon.co.uk SHOCK HORROR! Dinosaur-like 
DNA found in chicken and turkey meals John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and 
Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK

-

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] NRTL North of the 40th parallel - Off Topic

[Ted Eckert]

I know I'm getting pedantic here. The 40th parallel runs across the middle of 
the United States. U.S. Cities north of the 40th parallel include Northbrook 
Illinois, Newtown Connecticut, Peabody Massachusetts, Courtland New York and a 
few other headquarter cities of test laboratories on OSHA's NRTL list. A quick 
check shows that MET Labs in Blaltimore (at 39 degrees north) is just about the 
only NRTL with headquarters south of the 40th parallel. 

Ted Eckert
Compliance Engineer
Microsoft Corporation
47° 40'  10"N 
122°   7'26"W
ted.eck...@microsoft.com

The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my 
employer.


-Original Message-
From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk] 
Sent: Saturday, March 02, 2013 12:24 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: NRTL North of the 40th parallel

In message <4aa1e777dc25b7e531c0880286d62...@mail.gmail.com>, dated Fri,
1 Mar 2013, Peter Tarver  writes:

>In case you haven't seen it yet, an NRTL/SCC lab has instituted 
>invoicing practices where factory product audits will be billed 
>separately for every global region from a financial entity in that 
>region.  Your companies will be burdened with having to add additional 
>suppliers to your financial systems in order to pay invoices 
>originating from these international subsidiaries in the local currencies.

I suspect that this practice will become very common, as governments try to 
prevent tax avoidance. It is currently common practice to invoice everything 
from a subsidiary in a low-tax country and balance the P/Ls of the other 
subsidiaries by internal accounting means that do not attract tax.
--
OOO - Own Opinions Only. See www.jmwa.demon.co.uk SHOCK HORROR! Dinosaur-like 
DNA found in chicken and turkey meals John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and 
Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK

-

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] EN 60065 A12 - Sound Pressure Restriction

[Ted Eckert]

Hi Scott,

The people who sit on CENELEC committees are humans and they are prone to human 
errors. They write standards in plain language that is easy to understand. The 
problem comes when these standards are adopted into law. Laws that are very 
precise are easy to interpret, but are very complicated. Take the Low Voltage 
Directive as an example. It tells us that products must be safe, but doesn't 
give much more detail. If that were the only regulation in place, we would need 
armies of lawyers to argue whether specific products are acceptably safe or 
have unreasonable hazards. We are given the option of complying with standards 
that give us more detail on one route to compliance. If you have an IT product 
that meets EN 60950-1, you have met one legal interpretation of acceptably safe.

In addition, standards are written by committee. The words need to be 
acceptable to a specified majority of the committee before the standard can be 
adopted. Precise language can be harder to pass sometimes because some 
committee members may object to one particular item. The whole committee may 
agree on the general intent of the standard but not every specific item. A more 
general wording can be easier to pass.

The CENELEC audio requirements have three tests to determine if a product is 
within the scope. The product is within the scope if:
− is designed to allow the user to listen to recorded or broadcast sound or 
video; and
− primarily uses headphones or earphones that can be worn in or on or around 
the ears; and
− allows the user to walk around while in use.

Let's take the example of a portable DVD player. It meets the first clause as 
playing recorded video is its primary function. Many meet the second clause 
having headphone jacks, and often multiple headphone jacks. The third test is 
the one that I would consider to broadly written. A portable DVD player allows 
the user to walk around while in use. It is light enough to hold in your hands 
and it is battery powered. However, that isn't the intended use nor is it a 
likely use. It is difficult to walk any distance while concentrating on the 
screen to watch a movie.

Good legal council will be able to help you determine what the intent of the 
standard is. This may require figuring out what the intent of the standards 
committee was. This may require research into CENELEC OSM decision, committee 
notes and such. A lawyer knows how the law is applied and the lawyer can best 
determine how to use that application of the law to see if your product is 
within the scope of the standard. When a standard is written with broad text, 
different courts may interpret it different ways. A lawyer may be better suited 
to telling you how a court will interpret the standard. The standard writers 
may not have intended to write clauses that require interpretation, but the law 
is enforced by courts, not engineers.

IEC 62368-1 addresses this issue by changing the third test of the requirement. 
It states that the product is within the scope if it "is body worn (of a size 
suitable to be carried in a clothing pocket) and is intended for the user to 
walk around with while in use." The size of a clothing pocket is still up to 
interpretation, but this clause is a bit more specific than the text written by 
CENELEC. It's easier for me to argue that a portable DVD player is too large to 
fit into a typical clothing pocket and it certainly can't be used for its 
primary function while in a pocket. There is still reason to consult an 
attorney for some products, but not as many. In this case, the ambiguity 
largely comes down to what is pocket sized. A tablet computer with a 10 inch 
screen might not be, and a cell phone with a 4 inch screen likely is within the 
scope. But we have devices with 5, 6, 7 and 8 inch screens. Where is the line 
where something is too big to fit in a pocket? TC108 was well m!
 eaning in trying to craft the scope, but you still have a standard that may be 
adopted into national law in various countries. If so, courts, regulators and 
lawyers will be called on to determine what is pocket sized.

Regards,
Ted Eckert
Compliance Engineer
Microsoft Corporation
ted.eck...@microsoft.com

The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my 
employer.



-Original Message-
From: Scott Xe [mailto:scott...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2013 6:19 AM
To: Ted Eckert; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: EN 60065 A12 - Sound Pressure Restriction

Hi Ted,

Thanks for your opinion.  The excessive sound pressure issue occurred since 
Sony Walkman era and taken up by Apple iPods in last few years.  The issue was 
discussed/debated many years ago and concluded a standard for compliance.  Both 
will harm our human ears at high sound level regardless of analogue devices or 
digital devices.

In the past, Apple iPods could not run 10 hours per single charge of battery 
pack using mic

Re: [PSES] EN 60065 A12 - Sound Pressure Restriction

[Ted Eckert]

Hello Scott,

I believe that there are at least two reasons analog music players are 
exempted. The first is that the instructional safeguard in the standard is to 
provide a specific notification to the user when they exceed 85 dBA. This is 
not practical on a purely analog device. The instructional safeguard must be 
repeated  for every 20 hours cumulative listening above 85 dB, and an analog 
device cannot easily make this measurement. Second, analog devices such as a 
portable cassette tape player are not practical to use for extended periods. A 
user who wanted to listen to 10 hours of continuous music would need to carry 
around quite a few cassette tapes or would have to listen to the same tape over 
and over. 

I believe that portable CD players are within the scope of the requirement. 
However, a portable DVD player that includes a screen is different from a CD 
play.  Although it is technically possible to walk around with a DVD player 
while watching a movie, it is neither practical nor a normal use. However, I am 
not qualified to say with certainty whether a portable DVD player is exempted. 
It is possible that you can make a reasonable argument that a portable DVD 
player would not fit within the scope. However, that will depend on the design 
and features of the DVD player. 

It may be best to consult an attorney who is familiar with the regulations to 
determine if a particular product is within or outside of the scope.

Regards,
Ted Eckert
Compliance Engineer
Microsoft Corporation
ted.eck...@microsoft.com

The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my 
employer.



-Original Message-
From: Scott Xe [mailto:scott...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, February 04, 2013 8:15 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: EN 60065 A12 - Sound Pressure Restriction

Dear Sir/Madam,

In this requirement, there is a following exemption.

€analogue personal music players (personal music players without any
kind of digital processing of the sound signal) that are brought to the market 
before the end of 2015.

NOTE 4

This exemption has been allowed because this technology is falling out of use 
and it is expected that within a few years it will no longer exist. This 
exemption will not be extended to other technologies.

I believe the old design portable DVD players with a pair of earphones and 
operated on batteries or rechargeable batteries are qualified for such 
exemption.  I am seeking advice why the digital processing of sound signal is 
so critical to this sound pressure restriction and how to identify if the 
digital processing is built in the unit or not.

Thanks and regards,

Scott

-

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


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] Safety standards (UL, ...) in railway applications

[Ted Eckert]

Hello Michael,

I believe that the U.S. requirements for railroad safety are written as Federal 
Regulations, Title 49, Subtitle B, Chapter II, Parts 200 - 269.
http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=b2a64dafd5d937af27f919b36bb433d0&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title49/49cfrv4_02.tpl


Another version of the regulations can be found at the Federal Railroad 
Administration's web site.
http://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/Find#p1_z10_lCM

Best regards,
Ted Eckert
Compliance Engineer
Microsoft Corporation
ted.eck...@microsoft.com<mailto:ted.eck...@microsoft.com>

The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my 
employer.



From: Michael Loerzer [mailto:loerzer_mob...@globalnorm.de]
Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 11:46 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Safety standards (UL, ...) in railway applications

Hello,

does in the US specific or complemtary standards exists similar to EN 50126, EN 
50128 or EN 50129?

Product scope:

Instrumentation and control systems for rail vehicles like air conditioning, 
ventilation, door control, traction and safety applications.


Best regards

Dipl.-Ing. Michael Loerzer
Managing Director
Regulatory Affairs Specialist

Globalnorm GmbH
Kurfürstenstr. 112
10787 Berlin

Phone +49 30 3229027-51
Cell +49 170 3229027
Fax +49 30 3229027-59
Mailmichael.loer...@globalnorm.de<mailto:michael.loer...@globalnorm.de>

» globalnorm.de<http://www.globalnorm.de/>

Globalnorm GmbH, Sitz der Gesellschaft: Kurfürstenstr. 112, 10787 Berlin
Geschäftsführer: Dipl.-Ing. Michael Loerzer
Amtsgericht Berlin-Charlottenburg HRB 105204 B, USt-ID-Nummer: DE251654448

-


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] IEC 60320 C13/C14 Connector 10A vs 15A

[Ted Eckert]

Hello Brian,

Whether or not there is a requirements for supplementary overcurrent protection 
depends on the product classification and applicable safety standard. In 
general, supplementary overcurrent protection is not required. For example, in 
IEC 60950-1, the product still needs to pass abnormal condition and component 
fault tests. However, if it can do so while depending only on the branch 
circuit protection, it is considered to meet the requirements. 

In practice, supplementary overcurrent protection is often one of the easiest 
ways to meet the compliance requirements. Without the supplementary protection, 
other components in the circuit may need to be oversized to handle the large 
available fault currents off of a branch circuit. 

Ted Eckert
Compliance Engineer
Microsoft Corporation
ted.eck...@microsoft.com

The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my 
employer.
-Original Message-
From: Kunde, Brian [mailto:brian_ku...@lecotc.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2012 9:28 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: IEC 60320 C13/C14 Connector 10A vs 15A

Even though these connectors are rated less than the branch circuit they are 
powered by, don't you have to have supplemental over current protection within 
the device rated at or below the rating of the connector to protect the 
connector?

I'll explain my case again.

Device operating at 115VAC in North America using an IEC connector rated 15 
amps, powered by a 15 amp branch circuit, drawing and rated 12 amps with a 12 
amp over current protection device.

But, when this product is used in Europe, it operates at 230VAC, now the same 
IEC connector is rated 10 amps, powered by a 16 amp branch circuit, it draws 
and is rated only 6 amps, but still has the 12 amp over current protection 
device.

Logic dictates that this would be a problem and that the over current 
protection device would have to be changed to a lower value (something below 10 
amps).

Am I thinking right or is there some exclusion where IEC C13/C14 connectors can 
handle the fault current from a 16 amps branch circuit in Europe?

Thanks,
Brian

-Original Message-
From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Peter Tarver
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2012 12:13 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: [PSES] IEC 60320 C13/C14 Connector 10A vs 15A

Brian -

I've seen IEC 60320 C13/C14 appliance couplers/inlets marked as rated for less 
than 10 A for use in N.A.  I have also seen N.A. cordsets using the
C14 coupler rated as low as 7 A.  Caveat emptor.

I have also owned small appliances using the IEC 60320 C1/C2 couplers/inlets 
(0.2 A) coupler with a 1-15P attachment plug.

The C5/C6 couplers/inlets are very common for use with laptop computers having 
5-15P attachment plug.

Ted's comments apply.


Peter Tarver


This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may 
contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not an intended 
recipient, you may not review, use, copy, disclose or distribute this message. 
If you received this message in error, please contact the sender by reply email 
and destroy all copies of the original message.

-

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: 


LECO Corporation Notice: This communication may contain confidential 
information intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you received this by 
mistake, please destroy it and notify us of the error. Thank you.

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. 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 a

Re: [PSES] IEC 60320 C13/C14 Connector 10A vs 15A

[Ted Eckert]

Hello Brian,

1) You are mostly correct. In North America, the C13/C14 can be rated up to 15 
A. However, I have seen some manufacturers who only have obtained UL/CSA 
approval up to 10 A. The maximum rating for Europe is 10 A.

2) The connectors do not need to be tested up to 20 A in North America. If you 
are using the branch circuit breaker/fuse as the overcurrent protection for 
your device, the connector and device need to handle the fault current from a 
20 A circuit. As Mr. Woodgate noted, the fault current from a circuit can be 
far greater than the rated current. However, that fault current only needs to 
be withstood until the branch overcurrent protector opens. A C13/C14 can handle 
a 1000 A for a few hundred milliseconds and will tolerate a short circuit on a 
20 A circuit. In some installations, the fault current available may be over 10 
kA. You can put a NEMA 1-15 plug on a 18 AWG (0.75 mm2) cord with an 
IEC-60320-C3 connector rated 2.5 A. That connector and cord will still be 
subject to fault testing off of a 20 A circuit for the United States if there 
is no current limiting in the load device.

3) As noted in item 2, the fault current will be far higher than the rated 
current of the circuit. The analogous situation would be having a cord with a 
CEE 7/16 plug and 0.75 mm2 cable. It would be rated for only 2.5 A, but it 
could be plugged into a 16 A outlet. The device either needs to have integrated 
current limiting or it needs to be able to handle the fault current from a 16 A 
circuit until that circuit's overcurrent protection opens.

My description of how faults must be handled is very simplified, but it gives 
the general idea of what is expected.

As a side note, Canada does not allow 15 A outlets on a 20 A circuit. They now 
allow the combination 15/20 A "T-Slot" type outlets on a 20 A circuit, but they 
are not common. The issue of 15 A outlets on 20 A circuits is typically 
primarily in United States commercial installations.

Regards,
Ted Eckert
Compliance Engineer
Microsoft Corporation
ted.eck...@microsoft.com

The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my 
employer.
-Original Message-
From: Kunde, Brian [mailto:brian_ku...@lecotc.com] 
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2012 11:21 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: IEC 60320 C13/C14 Connector 10A vs 15A

This email is regarding the proper and/or allowed use of the IEC 60320 C13/C14 
connector (typical Inlet connector used on PCs and IT equipment).


1. If I am understanding the rating correctly, it appears as if this connector 
is rated 15 amps in North America (NA) (UL/CSA) but only 10 amps in Europe 
(EU). Is that correct?

2. In NA a standard 115VAC receptacle is rated 15 amps, however, the Electric 
Code allows a 15 amps receptacle to sit on a 20 amp circuit. Also, a 15 amp 
plug will plug into a 20 amp receptacle. So I assume that the IEC Connector can 
handle 20 amps or protection of the IEC connector is assumed to be downstream 
by the Overcurrent Protection Device (OPD) inside the device. Is that correct?

3. In EU a standard 230VAC receptacle is rated 16 amps yet the IEC connector is 
rated only 10 amps. So can the IEC connector handle 16 amps (fault current from 
a 16 amp circuit) or is it assumed the downstream overcurrent protection device 
inside the device will protect the IEC connector?


Hypothetical Case: A device that draws a max 15 amps at 115VAC and 8 amps at 
230VAC,  can this IEC connector be used when the only OPD inside the EUT is 
rated 15 amps. (lets assume this is the max stead state current and the average 
current is only a few amps).


I know the IEC 60320 C19/C20 connector is rated 16A/20A but I would have the 
same questions on a device that draws between 16A and 20A.

I hope I explained this well enough.

The Other Brian


LECO Corporation Notice: This communication may contain confidential 
information intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you received this by 
mistake, please destroy it and notify us of the error. Thank you.

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. 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 t

Re: [PSES] Manufactures Icon - Does CE Marking cite a requirement for the mark

[Ted Eckert]

Hello Gary,
CE Marking Directive 768/2008/EC Chapter R2, Article R2 section 6 states the 
following.

"Manufacturers shall indicate their name, registered trade name or registered 
trade mark and the address at which they can be contacted on the product or, 
where that is not possible, on its packaging or in a document accompanying the 
product. The address must indicate a single point at which the manufacturer can 
be contacted."

Is this the requirement you are looking for?

Regards,
Ted Eckert
Compliance Engineer
Microsoft Corporation
ted.eck...@microsoft.com<mailto:ted.eck...@microsoft.com>

The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my 
employer.

From: McInturff, Gary [mailto:gary.mcintu...@esterline.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2012 12:14 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Manufactures Icon - Does CE Marking cite a requirement for the mark

I have been unable to find it - can someone give me a pointer to the 
requirement please?

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<mailto:brian.s...@esterline.com>


www.esterline.com/interfacetechnologies<http://www.esterline.com/advancedinput>

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 
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] Are Product Safety Certifications Mandatory in Canada?

[Ted Eckert]

I believe that this is the relevant portion of the Ontario regulations.
http://www.esasafe.com/pdf/Ontario_Regulation_438_07.pdf

Ted Eckert
Compliance Engineer
Microsoft Corporation
ted.eck...@microsoft.com<mailto:ted.eck...@microsoft.com>

The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my 
employer.

From: McInturff, Gary [mailto:gary.mcintu...@esterline.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2012 2:19 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: Are Product Safety Certifications Mandatory in Canada?

Hydro - inspections I believe they are called. It's been awhile, but commercial 
businesses etc were awfully careful about making certain there were 
certifications marks on equipment before they were turned on. I had to make a 
few trips into Canada for trade shows on equipment that had complete the 
process. The hotel's that trade shows were being held at would not allow us to 
even move the equipment to the show floor without the hydro authority 
inspections, and paperwork. It wasn't a very detailed inspection, about I all I 
can remember is making sure there was a ground connection and that the power 
switch was on the hot side of the outlet. It only took about an hour and I 
don't really know what the inspector did other than those two tests. This was 
many years ago so maybe they've changed except I still see references to Hydro 
Authority inspections. Last point the inspection was provincial only, move the 
same equipment with the hydro sticker on it to another province and it required 
a new inspection.

Was all that bad. Lots of slack time and I still wish I could get some Ontario 
Smoke meat - it was pretty tasty

Gary

From: Wiseman, Joshua E [mailto:joshua.e.wise...@carrier.utc.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2012 1:46 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Subject: Re: [PSES] Are Product Safety Certifications Mandatory in Canada?

Jim,

Yes, I don't remember what code or regulation this is stated in, but when I was 
working at an NRTL occasionally we would have a customer asking how to get 
items through customs because it was not approved.  Canada has a Special 
Inspection program that is similar to field evaluations in the US and it is 
fairly well regulated by the SCC.  There are many manufacturers who ship 
products in to the country and get away with it, but occasionally customs will 
stop shipments until you can provide evidence of compliance or have a special 
inspection performed.

Josh

From: Jim Hulbert [mailto:jim.hulb...@pb.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2012 3:35 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Subject: [PSES] Are Product Safety Certifications Mandatory in Canada?

In the U.S., there are OSHA regulations that require electrical apparatus used 
in the workplace be certified to U.S. standards by one of OSHA's Nationally 
Recognized Test Laboratories (NRTL's).  Is there a similar regulation in Canada 
that requires electrical apparatus used in the workplace be certified by one of 
the Standards Council of Canada approved test laboratories to Canadian 
standards?
Jim Hulbert
Pitney Bowes



-


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 
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.n

Re: [PSES] Listing or Classification in the field?

[Ted Eckert]

Hello Carl,

Some inspectors may not know the difference between Classified and Listed 
marks, and they may accept Classified equipment. However, you may run into 
problems in some jurisdictions without Listing for electrical products. The 
National Electrical Code says "Listed" and that is what some inspectors look 
for. Some NRTLs may not be willing to issue a classified mark where an 
appropriate UL standard exists. Others can correct me if I am wrong, but I 
believe that UL uses the Classified mark for products where a UL standard does 
not exist, yet UL has verified that the product meets the requirements of a 
non-UL standard. UL would not likely allow the use of their Classified mark to 
show that a product has been tested to only a portion of a UL standard.

An example is cable trays. UL will verify that cable trays meet the grounding 
and bonding requirements of the National Electrical Code. Classified cable 
trays<http://database.ul.com/cgi-bin/XYV/template/LISEXT/1FRAME/showpage.html?&name=CYNW.GuideInfo&ccnshorttitle=Cable+Trays&objid=1074080954&cfgid=1073741824&version=versionless&parent_id=1073985303&sequence=1>
 are only tested to the NEC requirement and not a UL standard. Other NRTLs may 
use different terms for the same idea.

If a product isn't Listed and an appropriate UL standard exists, the question 
will always arise of why the product doesn't comply with all the Listing 
requirements. I would recommend Listing where Listing standard exists.

Ted Eckert
Compliance Engineer
Microsoft Corporation
ted.eck...@microsoft.com<mailto:ted.eck...@microsoft.com>

The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my 
employer.

From: Carl Newton [mailto:emcl...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2012 6:42 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Listing or Classification in the field?

Group,

I'm working with a company that manufactures high-end exercise equipment that 
is used in both therapeutic and general fitness applications.  They want to 
consider NRTL Classification in lieu of Listing in order to reduce cost and 
complexity of compliance.  My primary concern is acceptance of Classified 
devices by local inspectors in USA and Canada.  Can any of you on the list 
speak to this question?  I've not been able to get what I consider to be solid 
evidence from one NRTL that there won't be  acceptance issues by local 
inspectors if the device is Classified.

Thanks in advance,

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] Standard for water hoses

[Ted Eckert]

I spent a lot more time with water cooling in the data center at my former 
employer, APC/Schneider Electric. Most cooling water in data centers is either 
in metallic pipes or cross-linked polyethylene (PEX). PEX is also the material 
used for applications such as radiant under-floor heating and plastic water 
supply lines in houses. For data centers, the PEX had to meet the mechanical 
code which called for ASTM F876.  The PEX piping will also typically carry ASTM 
E84 flame ratings of better than 25/50.

Ted Eckert
Compliance Engineer
Microsoft Corporation
ted.eck...@microsoft.com

The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my 
employer.

-Original Message-
From: Brian Oconnell [mailto:oconne...@tamuracorp.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2012 6:53 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: Standard for water hoses

Ken,
Short time back, did a small power converter for customer's mobile server box 
using water cooling to processors. May take a while, but will request 
permission from big boss to excerpt some of the construction docs and 
references from the reports.

Ted,
Thought there was an article in an IT rag about one of your employer's server 
farms using water cooling. Any advice from that?

Brian

-Original Message-
From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org]On Behalf Of Ted Eckert
Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2012 6:34 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: Standard for water hoses

Hi Ken,
 
I recommend you look for an ASTM standard. There are plenty of standards 
covering hoses for specific uses. ASTM D380 covers the basic test methods for 
rubber hoses. There are likely additional standards, but I just don't know what 
they are.
 
The building codes will give additional requirements for water lines. Don't use 
the plumbing code unless your water line is carrying potable water. If the 
water is for other uses, look at hydronics in the mechanical code. It's likely 
that the mechanical code is just going to call out the ASTM performance 
standard for any given type of hose or pipe, but it at least gives 
justification for choosing a particular standard to use.
 
Ted Eckert
Compliance Engineer
Microsoft Corporation
ted.eck...@microsoft.com
 
The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my 
employer.
 
From: IBM Ken [mailto:ibm...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2012 5:35 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: Standard for water hoses
 
Hi Brian!
I had a sneaking suspicion that article from the Dell guy would pop up.  I was 
more hoping to find a UL standard for water hoses.  UL and CSA don't seem to 
have any standards that cover just plain water hose.  I thought something might 
turn up in the plumbing department, but no such luck.  They have standards for 
LP gas hoses, hard-use firefighting hoses, high pressure air hose, flexible 
metal hose, etc.  All of these have requirements way too strict to allow 
passage of a simple water hose operating at relatively low pressures.  I was 
hoping they would have a basic hose standard just simply covering working 
pressure, construction, and maybe a flammability test.  I am currently trying 
to talk UL into agreeing to write a construction report and doing a flame test. 
 Part of my problem is that the hose is a non-homogeneous product, so we're 
trying to apply VW-1 from UL 1581, which all agencies are heistant to apply to 
a non-cabling product.
 
Thanks,
-Ken
 
 
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 3:57 PM, Brian Oconnell 
wrote:
PSEN Vol3 No4, Dec 2007
Check PAGs and CTL notices.

And your corporate name-sake should have some internal docs on this 
construction.

Brian

-Original Message-
From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org]On Behalf Of IBM Ken
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2012 12:32 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Standard for water hoses

Hello!

Are there any standards (I'm interested in Product Safety Standards from UL, 
CSA, the IEC, or EN standards) covering water-carrying hoses?  I am looking for 
something that covers flammability, construction, pressure rating, etc.

The end product is a piece of ITE certified to 60950-1, if that matters.

Thanks!
-Ken
-

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 

Re: [PSES] Standard for water hoses

[Ted Eckert]

Hi Ken,

I recommend you look for an ASTM standard. There are plenty of standards 
covering hoses for specific uses. ASTM 
D380<http://www.astm.org/Standards/D380.htm> covers the basic test methods for 
rubber hoses. There are likely additional standards, but I just don't know what 
they are.

The building codes will give additional requirements for water lines. Don't use 
the plumbing code unless your water line is carrying potable water. If the 
water is for other uses, look at hydronics in the mechanical code. It's likely 
that the mechanical code is just going to call out the ASTM performance 
standard for any given type of hose or pipe, but it at least gives 
justification for choosing a particular standard to use.

Ted Eckert
Compliance Engineer
Microsoft Corporation
ted.eck...@microsoft.com<mailto:ted.eck...@microsoft.com>

The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my 
employer.

From: IBM Ken [mailto:ibm...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2012 5:35 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: Standard for water hoses

Hi Brian!
I had a sneaking suspicion that article from the Dell guy would pop up.  I was 
more hoping to find a UL standard for water hoses.  UL and CSA don't seem to 
have any standards that cover just plain water hose.  I thought something might 
turn up in the plumbing department, but no such luck.  They have standards for 
LP gas hoses, hard-use firefighting hoses, high pressure air hose, flexible 
metal hose, etc.  All of these have requirements way too strict to allow 
passage of a simple water hose operating at relatively low pressures.  I was 
hoping they would have a basic hose standard just simply covering working 
pressure, construction, and maybe a flammability test.  I am currently trying 
to talk UL into agreeing to write a construction report and doing a flame test. 
 Part of my problem is that the hose is a non-homogeneous product, so we're 
trying to apply VW-1 from UL 1581, which all agencies are heistant to apply to 
a non-cabling product.

Thanks,
-Ken


On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 3:57 PM, Brian Oconnell 
mailto:oconne...@tamuracorp.com>> wrote:
PSEN Vol3 No4, Dec 2007
Check PAGs and CTL notices.

And your corporate name-sake should have some internal docs on this
construction.

Brian

-Original Message-
From: emc-p...@ieee.org<mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org> 
[mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org<mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org>]On Behalf Of IBM Ken
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2012 12:32 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Subject: Standard for water hoses

Hello!

Are there any standards (I'm interested in Product Safety Standards from UL,
CSA, the IEC, or EN standards) covering water-carrying hoses?  I am looking
for something that covers flammability, construction, pressure rating, etc.

The end product is a piece of ITE certified to 60950-1, if that matters.

Thanks!
-Ken
-

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 
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 

Re: [PSES] Gaming equipment Slot machines - Standard?

[Ted Eckert]

Take a look at IEC 
60335-2-82<http://webstore.iec.ch/preview/info_iec60335-2-82%7Bed2.0%7Den.pdf> 
to see if the scope covers the product in question.

Ted Eckert
Compliance Engineer
Microsoft Corporation
ted.eck...@microsoft.com<mailto:ted.eck...@microsoft.com>

The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my 
employer.

From: McInturff, Gary [mailto:gary.mcintu...@esterline.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2012 10:01 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Gaming equipment Slot machines - Standard?

I think UL 22 covers it in the US but does anybody have a clue for EU?
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<mailto:brian.s...@esterline.com>


www.esterline.com/interfacetechnologies<http://www.esterline.com/advancedinput>

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 
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] Enamel layer of windings in primary of mains transformer or AC motor

[Ted Eckert]

Hello Scott,

Others will correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that the enamel on windings 
is considered functional insulation only.

Regards,
Ted Eckert
Compliance Engineer
Microsoft Corporation
ted.eck...@microsoft.com<mailto:ted.eck...@microsoft.com>

The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my 
employer.

From: Scott Xe [mailto:scott...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2012 10:01 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Enamel layer of windings in primary of mains transformer or AC motor

Is the enamel layer of windings of mains transformer or motor considered as a 
basic insulation?  Lots of people point out that the primary windings or motor 
windings are live part and requires double or reinforced insulation if the user 
accessible object could be touch the windings.  If the enamel layer is 
considered a basic insulation, a supplementary insulation of the a user 
accessible object is required.

Thanks and regards,

Scott
-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
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] What's the deal with Wire Nuts?

[Ted Eckert]

I've worked with plenty of products where wire nuts were the intended 
connection method. I've purchased fluorescent light fixtures that include wire 
nuts in the package for the installer to use. The wire nuts are not necessarily 
used for product modifications; they can be for their intended purpose. I've 
worked on some larger types of equipment where wire nuts were used. In those 
cases, they were in the proper electrical enclosure or junction box within the 
equipment. Interchange of options could be done by wiring with the wire nuts. I 
don't see this as an issue as long as the wire nuts are used within their 
limitations and in the proper environment. I am not aware of field failures on 
these products related to the wire nuts.

There are plenty of foreseeable misuses for wire nuts, but all the manufacturer 
can do is describe the acceptable uses and warn the purchaser against misuse. 
Redesigning wire nuts to prevent misuse would make them far too expensive to be 
practical and could lead to more problems. I've seen plenty of wires twisted 
together and covered in electrical tape because somebody couldn't find a wire 
nut (or was too lazy to use one.)  I'm sure that with plenty of searching you 
can find photographs and stories of failed wire nuts, but I would venture to 
guess that successful applications outnumber failed wire nuts by a huge number. 

Ted Eckert
Compliance Engineer
Microsoft Corporation
ted.eck...@microsoft.com

The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my 
employer.

-Original Message-
From: Bender, Curtis [mailto:curtis.ben...@tennantco.com] 
Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2012 2:05 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: What's the deal with Wire Nuts?

Ted,
 If the rewiring or wire splicing is done on a product wouldn't this "simply" 
be a foreseeable misuse of the product? Product modifications are usually 
stated as a no-no in the user manual and there are many other methods to misuse 
a product including the use of wire nuts, ferrules, rewireable plugs and 
connectors. 

Or are your referring to building wiring?

Curt


Curtis Bender | curtis.ben...@tennantco.com my opinion does not reflect the 
views of my employeer

-Original Message-
From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of 
kazimier_gawrzy...@dell.com
Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2012 12:16 PM
To: ted.eck...@microsoft.com; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: What's the deal with Wire Nuts?

Ferrules might present an equally interesting topic for discussion.
Kaz Gawrzyjal

-Original Message-
From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Ted Eckert
Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2012 11:07 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: What's the deal with Wire Nuts?

I know I'm wading into a sea of troubles by commenting, but here is my opinion. 
(And yes, it is just an opinion.)

Twist-on wire connectors have become ubiquitous in North America. (I believe 
that "Wire Nut" is a registered trademark of one of the suppliers.) They end up 
in everybody's toolbox and they are seen as an easy way to splice wires 
together. The problem is that they are so easy to use that they are often 
misused.

UL 486C covers these types of connectors and UL Recognized connectors can be 
reliable and durable if used correctly. However, that means reading the 
instructions and following the local electrical code. There are many easy ways 
to misuse the products.
* Using the wrong connector for the size wires you have.
* Stuffing too many wires into one connector.
* Tightly twisting the wires before applying the connectors. (Many types 
specify that the only twisting of the stripped wire ends is done by the 
application of the connector itself. The wire ends are placed into the 
connector running parallel and not pre-twisted.)
* Overstuffing a junction box placing excessive external force on the 
connectors.
* Overstuffing a junction box resulting in temperatures above the rating of the 
connector.
* Using the connector in environments above their rated temperature.
* Using the connectors where subject to excessive vibration.
* Using connectors designed only for solid conductors on stranded conductors.

Ted Eckert
Compliance Engineer
Microsoft Corporation
ted.eck...@microsoft.com

The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my 
employer.



-Original Message-
From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk]
Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2012 11:34 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: What's the deal with Wire Nuts?

In message
<945417426-1349830649-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-548732016-
@b13.c21.bise6.blackberry>, dated Wed, 10 Oct 2012, doug...@gmail.com
writes:

> And I really dislike the 100% non-metallic types.
>
The origi

Re: [PSES] What's the deal with Wire Nuts?

[Ted Eckert]

I know I'm wading into a sea of troubles by commenting, but here is my opinion. 
(And yes, it is just an opinion.)

Twist-on wire connectors have become ubiquitous in North America. (I believe 
that "Wire Nut" is a registered trademark of one of the suppliers.) They end up 
in everybody's toolbox and they are seen as an easy way to splice wires 
together. The problem is that they are so easy to use that they are often 
misused.

UL 486C covers these types of connectors and UL Recognized connectors can be 
reliable and durable if used correctly. However, that means reading the 
instructions and following the local electrical code. There are many easy ways 
to misuse the products.
* Using the wrong connector for the size wires you have.
* Stuffing too many wires into one connector.
* Tightly twisting the wires before applying the connectors. (Many types 
specify that the only twisting of the stripped wire ends is done by the 
application of the connector itself. The wire ends are placed into the 
connector running parallel and not pre-twisted.)
* Overstuffing a junction box placing excessive external force on the 
connectors.
* Overstuffing a junction box resulting in temperatures above the rating of the 
connector.
* Using the connector in environments above their rated temperature.
* Using the connectors where subject to excessive vibration.
* Using connectors designed only for solid conductors on stranded conductors.

Ted Eckert
Compliance Engineer
Microsoft Corporation
ted.eck...@microsoft.com

The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my 
employer.



-Original Message-
From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2012 11:34 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: What's the deal with Wire Nuts?

In message
<945417426-1349830649-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-548732016-
@b13.c21.bise6.blackberry>, dated Wed, 10 Oct 2012, doug...@gmail.com
writes:

> And I really dislike the 100% non-metallic types.
>
The original British product was called 'Scruit' and was ceramic. 
Extremely strong, too. Would resist a hammer.
--
OOO - Own Opinions Only. See www.jmwa.demon.co.uk The longer it takes to make a 
point, the more obtuse it proves to be.
John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK

-

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] cable designation question

[Ted Eckert]

Scott is correct that the first number is the conductor to ground rating and 
the second is the conductor to conductor rating. Here is the information on the 
voltage rating from Lapp Group.
http://content.lappgroup.com/fileadmin/DAM/Lapp_USA/Technical_Documentation/Cables/Cable_Voltage_Designations.pdf

There is some more information on Harmonized coding system at this link, but it 
doesn't cover the "G" insulation.
http://content.lappgroup.com/fileadmin/DAM/Lapp_USA/Technical_Documentation/Cables/Cables_HAR_Conforms_CE.pdf


Ted Eckert
Compliance Engineer
Microsoft Corporation
ted.eck...@microsoft.com

The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my 
employer.

-Original Message-
From: Aldous, Scott [mailto:scott.ald...@aei.com] 
Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2012 8:41 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re:  cable designation question

I did find a reference to this, though not from an "official" source:

http://www.muellergroup.net/faq.html#10

Scott Aldous
Compliance Engineer
AE Solar Energy

  +1.970.492.2065 Direct
  +1.970.407.5872 Fax
  +1.541.312.3832 Main
scott.ald...@aei.com


1625 Sharp Point Drive
Fort Collins, CO 80525

www.advanced-energy.com/solarenergy



-Original Message-
From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Aldous, Scott
Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2012 9:33 AM
To: Peter Tarver; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE:  cable designation question

Hi Peter,

Regarding the voltage ratings, according to a handwritten note I made on a 
printout from Oflex on my cube wall, the first number refers to the conductor 
to ground voltage rating and the second number refers to the conductor to 
conductor voltage rating for multiconductor cable. I don't remember where I got 
this from, but it seems to make sense since there are 2 layers of insulation 
between conductors.

Scott Aldous
Compliance Engineer
AE Solar Energy

  +1.970.492.2065 Direct
  +1.970.407.5872 Fax
  +1.541.312.3832 Main
scott.ald...@aei.com


1625 Sharp Point Drive
Fort Collins, CO 80525

www.advanced-energy.com/solarenergy


-Original Message-
From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Peter Tarver
Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2012 9:26 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject:  cable designation question

Hello from overcast Northern California.

I recently purchased a copy of HD 361 to decode  cable designations.

An example is:

H05GG-F

H = harmonized cable
05 = 300/500 V
G = ethylene vinyl acetate conductor insulation G = ethylene vinyl acetate 
jacket F = flexible conductors (Class 5)

My interpretation of the two G characters is based on reading catalogs that 
indicate an inside to outside approach to designating the cable materials.

Does the same inside to outside approach also apply to the voltage rating, as I 
expect that it does?

300 V insulation on the individual conductors and 500 V on the jacket?


Regards,

Peter L. Tarver


This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may 
contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not an intended 
recipient, you may not review, use, copy, disclose or distribute this message. 
If you received this message in error, please contact the sender by reply email 
and destroy all copies of the original message. 

-

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, including any attachments, may contain information that is 
confidential and proprietary information of Advanced Energy Industries, Inc.  
The dissemination, distribution, use or copying of this message or any of its 
attachments is strictly prohibited without the express written consent of 
Advanced Energy Industries, Inc.

-

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 
format

Re: [PSES] thermal resistance - K versus C

[Ted Eckert]

Hi Gary,

Theta JA is a differential, not an absolute temperature. Many manufacturers use 
Kelvin when describing temperature differentials and Celsius when describing 
actual temperatures. However, for Theta JA, it doesn't matter whether the 
vendor talks about Kelvin or Celsius; they are only talking about the 
temperature change and the two can be treated the same. In either case, there 
will be a 400 degree rise per watt between the junction and ambient.

Ted Eckert
Compliance Engineer
Microsoft Corporation
ted.eck...@microsoft.com<mailto:ted.eck...@microsoft.com>

The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my 
employer.

From: McInturff, Gary [mailto:gary.mcintu...@esterline.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 1:29 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: thermal resistance - K versus C

Thought I knew what I was doing, obviously I don't
I have a device with a thermal resistance ThetaJA (J-P in this documentation). 
It's for SMT CHIP LED the specified value is 400C/W. for a plastic package that 
seems about right.  I am looking at another LED but it lists ThetaJA  as 
400K/W. (Kelvin/Watt) Seems pretty good as it would convert to 126C/W - the 
lower the better. But then I converted the ThetaJS (I think its junction - 
solder point), and that value was 180K/W. When converted its -93C. Does the 
change in sign just indicate the direction heat is flowing? ThetaJA is positive 
since the heat is leaving the die through the package, and the ThetaJS is 
negative because it is heating entering the die through the solder process?


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<mailto:brian.s...@esterline.com>


www.esterline.com/interfacetechnologies<http://www.esterline.com/advancedinput>

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 
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] Calling all old-timers

[Ted Eckert]

Here is a specification sheet for the Empire Devices AT-60. I can't state 
whether it would have similar ratings to the AT-58, but it may provide some 
guidance.
http://www.aef.se/Mat-Testteknik/Typkatalog/M2433/M2433-103010.pdf

Ted Eckert
Compliance Engineer
Microsoft Corporation
ted.eck...@microsoft.com

The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my 
employer.

-Original Message-
From: Ken Javor [mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com] 
Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2012 5:38 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: Calling all old-timers

I may have posed my question unclearly.

What is the power handling capability of an Empire Devices AT-58 6 dB 
attenuator, properly inserted in a circuit?

The balance of the discussion was just there to pique any old memories.
  
Ken Javor
Phone: (256) 650-5261


> From: Derek Walton 
> Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 18:23:26 -0500
> To: "don_borow...@selinc.com" 
> Cc: Ken Javor , "emc-p...@ieee.org"
> 
> Subject: Re: Calling all old-timers
> 
> Perhaps. To help isolation It has several sections.  Only the output 
> end has lower power parts
> 
> Derek
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> On Sep 27, 2012, at 6:12 PM, don_borow...@selinc.com wrote:
> 
>> While the schematic may be a pi or T network, internally it may be a 
>> series of pi or T networks, each section of which dissipates a given 
>> amount of wattage. This means the input pi/T might attenuate say only 
>> a few tenths of a dB, while the last pi/T also dissipates about the 
>> same amount of power, but does so by having a much larger 
>> attenuation. Turn things around, and this power distribution plan is totally 
>> shot.
>> 
>> Alternatively, it is a single pi or T network, with a high power 
>> resistor on the input side, and a lower power resistor on the output side.
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> 
>> Donald Borowski
>> EMC Compliance Engineer
>> Schweitzer Engineering Labs
>> Pullman, WA, USA
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> From:   Ken Javor 
>> To: "EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG" 
>> Date:   09/27/2012 03:25 PM
>> Subject:Calling all old-timers
>> Sent by:emc-p...@ieee.org
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Make that "older-timers."
>> 
>> Just purchased an Empire Devices AT-58 6 dB attenuator. It's big - 
>> looks like it ought to handle 100 Watts, but there is no indication 
>> of the power handling capability.
>> 
>> Input and output are marked, and only the input side is supposed to 
>> face the high power source, so the rating of internal resistors is 
>> based on individual power dissipation - schematically these things 
>> are symmetrical so the power rating is the only reason for marking 
>> input and output.
>> 
>> Any leads on this?
>> 
>> Ken Javor
>> Phone: (256) 650-5261
>> 
>> -
>> 
>> 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] CE Marking Provoqium

[Ted Eckert]

Canada excels at domestic ice and snow production and doesn't need to import 
them. Domestic prices are already so low that Canada doesn't have to impose 
excessive tariffs or regulations on imported ice and snow.

Ted Eckert
Compliance Engineer
Microsoft Corporation
ted.eck...@microsoft.com

The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my 
employer.

-Original Message-
From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk] 
Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2012 2:16 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: CE Marking Provoqium

In message <4532b7d6b39370164f98f16a9a6a3...@mail.gmail.com>, dated Tue,
21 Aug 2012, Peter Tarver  writes:

>When ice storms took out the power lines in the Montreal metro area, a 
>number of US generator manufacturers donated use of truck scale 
>generators to get locals up on at least a subsistence level of power.
>These trucks were denied entry into Canada because they didn't bear CSA 
>marks, though they did bear an NRTL mark.

The ice and snow didn't have a CSA mark, I suppose. Why weren't they denied 
entry?
--
OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk Instead 
of saying that the government is doing too little, too late or too much, too 
early, say they've got is exactly right, thus throwing them into total 
confusion.
John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK

-

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] CE Marking Provoqium

[Ted Eckert]

There are many classes of products that are under a self-declaration system in 
the United States. This includes products such as toys and clothing. For some 
textile products, the manufacturer or importer must register with some states, 
but the products do not need to be third-party reviewed.

Other areas are the complete opposite. In some areas of food production, USDA 
inspectors are present during operations at food processing plants. Third-party 
inspections are not seen as sufficient under the current regulations.

Ted Eckert
Compliance Engineer
Microsoft Corporation
ted.eck...@microsoft.com

The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my 
employer.

-Original Message-
From: Brian Oconnell [mailto:oconne...@tamuracorp.com] 
Sent: Sunday, August 19, 2012 1:03 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: CE Marking Provoqium

Significance of CE mark to EU customs/surveillance is obvious and not point 
(other than my head). Need to understand why there are different or no 
surveillance systems in place in North America, and if product compliance 
regulations are different because of regional market demands or political 
control issues or cultural philosophies.

Could a self-declaration 'system' function well in North America without public 
safety reduction? For just discrete, narrow classes of goods?

Brian

-Original Message-
From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org]On Behalf Of John Woodgate
Sent: Saturday, August 18, 2012 10:43 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] CE Marking Provoqium

In message <1284c8ec9fbe4d24b6397106a3caa...@tamuracorp.com>, dated Sat,
18 Aug 2012, Brian Oconnell  writes:

> Note that the U.S. OSHA has (figuratively) declared war on the 
>self-declaration process, and has specifically published stuff saying 
>that the 'CE' does not indicate the any specific safety compliance.

Well, it doesn't; it's not intended to. Nor did any of the former national 
safety marks, such as SEMKO. The Declaration of Conformity indicates the 
specific safety compliance.

The CE mark is an indication to customs officers and market surveillance 
officers that a DoC exists and the product should be admitted to the EU, cross 
national borders within it and can be offered for sale.
--
OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk

-

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] CE Marking Provoqium

[Ted Eckert]

The NRTLs have responsibility. OSHA regularly each NRTLs to determine if the 
NRTL is properly capable of assessing products to the standards for which OSHA 
has authorized the NRTL. If the NRTL fails the audit, it loses its standing as 
an NRTL. It will then lose customers and revenue. If the NRTL is found to be 
willingly issuing improper approvals, it can face criminal charges. The NRTL is 
subject to criminal law, not tort law. I have seen a number of cases where OSHA 
has sanctioned an NRTL because the NRTL has not adequately demonstrated that it 
could test to the standards it claimed it could.

There also isn't a significant amount an NRTL could say in court. The NRTL can 
state that the samples they originally tested were compliant and that the 
samples reviewed during an inspection were compliant, but the NRTL cannot make 
any statement about the particular item that caused the problem. Unless the 
plaintiff's lawyer can show that his client's product had a serial number 
showing it was the exact sample specifically reviewed by an NRTL inspector 
during an audit, the NRTL cannot state that this particular sample was built 
correctly. The NRTL can state that the manufacturer has the capability to 
produce a compliant sample, but not that the manufacturer makes every sample 
properly.

I would also state that just because the NRTL doesn't send their employees to 
testify in product liability suits doesn't absolve them of responsibility under 
tort law. An NRTL could be sued directly. If the NRTL were to recklessly issue 
approvals, and products with its approval were implicated in safety incidents, 
U.S. law would allow law suits directly against that NRTL. I don't think any 
NRTL wants to face a class action lawsuit in a U.S. court. 

Ted Eckert
Compliance Engineer
Microsoft Corporation
ted.eck...@microsoft.com

The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my 
employer.

-Original Message-
From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk] 
Sent: Saturday, August 18, 2012 10:48 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: CE Marking Provoqium

In message
, dated Sat, 18 Aug 2012, Ted Eckert  
writes:

>First, none of them will stand behind a customer in court. If you have 
>an NRTL Listed system, and it fails, it is fully your responsibility.

So the NRTLs have power without responsibility.
--
OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk Instead 
of saying that the government is doing too little, too late or too much, too 
early, say they've got is exactly right, thus throwing them into total 
confusion.
John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK

-

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] CE Marking Provoqium

[Ted Eckert]

ections. If the problems are not resolved in a satisfactory timeframe, the 
NRTL may withdraw their approval for the product. The NRTLs will also perform 
more frequent inspections on products that have a greater safety impact, such 
as circuit breakers. If something goes wrong with a circuit breaker, a house 
could burn down. The NRTLs typically will inspect far more frequently than once 
every three months.

I have worked for a small company where the cost of NRTL approval was very high 
compared to the revenue derived from a product. However, the cost did not 
significantly restrict the company's ability to innovate or reach the market. 
As a small company, there were few employees with the knowledge or experience 
to truly understand safe product design and the NRTL oversight ended up being 
beneficial. 

Personally, I would prefer a self-declaration system with a reasonable amount 
of market surveillance and oversight. However, with the current political 
climate, I don't see the U.S. implementing permanent system that provides the 
increased surveillance. 

Ted Eckert
Compliance Engineer
Microsoft Corporation
ted.eck...@microsoft.com

The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my 
employer.

-Original Message-
From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk] 
Sent: Saturday, August 18, 2012 9:07 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: CE Marking Provoqium

In message <502fb647.26423.642b...@ptarver.ieee.org>, dated Sat, 18 Aug 2012, 
Peter Tarver  writes:

>100% to 400% more often.  How often would give you confidence?

Actually it's 100% to 300%, but never mind. It's not about confidence, it's 
whether another approach is better.
>
>As a former NRTL (noninspecting) employee, I was subjected to noise 
>from some manufacturer's about how intrusive quarterly inspections 
>were.

Yes, they are; my point is that they aren't a good way to control conformity 
either.
>
>I suspect there's no system that will satisfy all players.

I'm sure we can agree on that!
>
>> With self-certification, the appropriate action is to determine 
>> whether the product is still compliant when the XY23C is introduced, 
>> or when the substitution is discovered, with tests if necessary, and 
>> if it is, no further action is necessary.
>
>At another former employer, I heard a story of a moderately large piece 
>of rack mountable equipment designed by an European subsidiary intended 
>for the European market that could not be brought into compliance with 
>radiated emissions limits using standardized test methods without 
>significant revisit to the drawing board.  Their solution?
>Place the unit on its back.  Et voila! A self certification was 
>emitted.

If the product was going to Germany or Austria, there is a risk that the 
product would be rejected by active surveillance. In other countries, it would 
only be rejected if it actually caused interference. Autre pays, autre moeurs.
--
OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk Instead 
of saying that the government is doing too little, too late or too much, too 
early, say they've got is exactly right, thus throwing them into total 
confusion.
John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK

-

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] Packaging requirements

[Ted Eckert]

The requirements for bags for children's products are far from harmonized. 
Canada has requirements different from EN 71, and a number of U.S. Sates each 
have their own requirements. However, I have yet to find anything applicable 
for anything other than children's products.

Ted Eckert
Compliance Engineer
Microsoft Corporation
ted.eck...@microsoft.com

The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my 
employer.
-Original Message-
From: Scott Xe [mailto:scott...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 9:46 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: Packaging requirements

EN71 has the requirement for polybag but is for toys industry. Is there any std 
below applicable to electronics & electrical appliances?

Regards,

Scott

On 17/7/12 12:38 AM, "Brian Oconnell"  wrote:

> WEEE, RoHS, 66/2010/EC, 2009/48/EC, EN 71-1, etc U.S. FDA & FTC ASTM 
> D5445 ISO 780 WTO
> 
> google/bing/yahoo is your friend, and your 60 seconds have expired.
> 
> Brian
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org]On Behalf Of 
> jacob.glee...@eu.panasonic.com
> Sent: Monday, July 16, 2012 6:41 AM
> To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: Packaging requirements
> 
> Hello all,
> 
> Could someone out there enlighten me on packaging requirements, 
> specifically plastic bags used as part of packaging for appliances used in 
> the home?
> 
> Kind regards
> 
> Jacob
> 
> -
> 
> 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] Electrical Code in India and Thailand?

[Ted Eckert]

Hi Doug,

The Bureau of Indian Standards covers the electrical requirements for India.  
See Part 8, Section 2.
http://www.bis.org.in/sf/nbc.htm
I believe it has some similarity to older IEE Wiring Regulations from the UK. 
As such, there is some similarity to BS 7671. However, I can't say how much 
they have diverged since BS 7671 has incorporated more of IEC 60364.

I can't comment on Thailand electrical codes.

Regards,
Ted Eckert
Compliance Engineer
Microsoft Corporation
ted.eck...@microsoft.com<mailto:ted.eck...@microsoft.com>

The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my 
employer.

From: Doug Nix [mailto:d...@mac.com]<mailto:[mailto:d...@mac.com]>
Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2012 1:59 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Subject: Electrical Code in India and Thailand?

Colleagues,

I am looking for information on the electrical codes in force in India and 
Thailand. If anyone can point me to the sources for these codes, or can provide 
consulting services in these jurisdictions, please contact me off-list at 
d...@complianceinsight.ca<mailto:d...@complianceinsight.ca>, +1 (519) 729-5704.

--
Doug Nix

"The first step to being creative is to get rid of your own unwritten rules." 
-- Mary M. Byers



-


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] NOM approval for ITE equipment

[Ted Eckert]

Hello Gary,

NOM is only mandatory above 24 Volts, so you likely don't need it for a 
keyboard. You don't need a specific EMC approval for Mexico. (FCC should cover 
you there.) However, you will need COFETEL if you have any radios.

NOM is quite a bit different than most other safety approvals. The certificates 
are issued in the name of the importer. If you have three importers, you will 
end up needing three NOM approvals. I thought that in theory, there is an 
Memorandum of Understanding in place such that Mexico will accept U.S. NRTL 
approvals, but NOM approval seems to be the most common route used. If you do 
need NOM approvals, you may want to consider an agent that works through ANCE 
or NYCE instead of UL or ETL. There will be fewer hassles for your importers if 
you use the Mexican agencies through a lab.

I believe the COFETEL does require in-country testing, and there are some 
requirements that differ from the U.S. I've seen cases where a WiFi or 
Bluetooth radio meets FCC requirements but fails COFETEL. I'm not a radio 
expert, but I thought the biggest differences were in the band-edge testing.

Regards,
Ted Eckert
Compliance Engineer
Microsoft Corporation
ted.eck...@microsoft.com<mailto:ted.eck...@microsoft.com>

The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my 
employer.

From: McInturff, Gary [mailto:gary.mcintu...@esterline.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2012 4:11 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: NOM approval for ITE equipment

I see that NOM requires in country testing - I assume that means that a CB 
report isn't sufficient, is that correct? Do they require EMC in country as 
well?
Is this rationally done with using a second party certifier such as UL, 
interteck, ETL and the whole raft of certifiers. It's a small project and would 
just as soon skip the middleman costs - if possible. I see Spanish translation 
required etc so it may not be possible.
I do have a certifier that can do it, again I just prefer not writing another 
check if I could do it myself. No disrespect meant to certification bodies. I 
was just hoping that with the CB and EMC reports it might be more similar to 
Australia than to a complete rework of the approvals.
Has anyone approached them directly and can advise about their experience with 
it.
Does anyone have an approximate cost?
It's a straight forward QWERTY keyboard, with US and EU approvals.

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<mailto:brian.s...@esterline.com>


www.esterline.com/interfacetechnologies<http://www.esterline.com/advancedinput>

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 
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] Interview Questions

[Ted Eckert]

I think Ken is on the right track. Railroad signally and portable equipment 
both represent areas where there is a higher risk of exposed connections. 
Receiving a shock from 110V is unpleasant, but it is less likely to lead to 
significant harm than a 240 V shock. I've contacted 110V a number of times and 
it seems to have had no ill effects other than starting e-mail messages with 
bad puns.

Ted Eckert
Compliance Engineer
Microsoft Corporation
ted.eck...@microsoft.com<mailto:ted.eck...@microsoft.com>

The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my 
employer.

From: IBM Ken [mailto:ibm...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2012 1:50 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: Interview Questions

It's safer! :-P  :-D
On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 12:28 PM, Scott Xe 
mailto:scott...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi Andy,

Is there any particular reasons to have 110 Vac for railway signalling
system in a 230/240 Vac country?

Scott


On 4/7/12 3:10 PM, "Andrew McCallum" 
mailto:andrew.mccal...@deltarail.com>> wrote:

> The UK railway signalling system all runs at 110 V AC 50 HZ
> Andy
>
> -Original Message-
> From: John Woodgate 
> [mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk<mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk>]
> Sent: 03 July 2012 21:17
> To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
> Subject: Re: Interview Questions
>
> In message
> mailto:iqyzpyjzmb5tjdewp%2beowdq40fu9dh88oah6a1...@mail.gmail.com>>,
> dated Tue, 3 Jul 2012, IBM Ken mailto:ibm...@gmail.com>> 
> writes:
>
>> PS: Who operates at 110VAC 50Hz?
>
> Portable equipment used on construction sites; it's actually 55-0-55, with the
> centre grounded.
> --
> OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try 
> www.jmwa.demon.co.uk<http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk/> and 
> www.isce.org.uk<http://www.isce.org.uk/> Instead
> of saying that the government is doing too little, too late or too much, too
> early, say they've got is exactly right, thus throwing them into total
> confusion.
> John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK
>
> -
> 
> 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>>
>
>
> Confidentiality: This e-mail and its attachments are intended for the
> addressees only (or people authorised to receive them on their behalf) and may
> be confidential or privileged. If they have come to you in error you must take
> no action based on them, nor must you copy or show them to anyone; please
> delete them from your system and reply to this e mail highlighting the error.
>
> Security: Please note that this e-mail has been created in the knowledge that
> internet e-mail is not 100% secure. Anyone who communicates with us by e-mail
> is taken to accept this.
>
> Viruses: We have taken steps to ensure that this e-mail and attachments are
> virus free, but we advise that in keeping with good computing practice you
> should ensure that they are actually virus free.
>
> DeltaRail Group Limited registered office Hudson House, 2 Hudson Way, Pride
> Park, Derby, DE24 8HS. Registered in England and Wales, number 5839985. Please
> refer to www.deltarail.com<http://www.deltarail.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
> 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

Re: [PSES] New type of GFI?

[Ted Eckert]

The 2008 National Electrical Code (NFPA 70) added a requirement for tamper 
resistant receptacles. Article 210.52 covers "dwelling unit receptacles" and 
specifies general provisions for outlets used in residential installations. 
Article 406.11 is a new section that specifies that all 125 V, 15 or 20 A 
receptacles covered under 210.52 must be tamper resistant.
http://www.nfpa.org/assets/files//PDF/Fact%20sheets/TamperResistant.pdf<http://www.nfpa.org/assets/files/PDF/Fact%20sheets/TamperResistant.pdf>

The result has been that ground fault circuit interrupters (GFCIs) have been 
introduced with shutters. However, all of the major manufacturers that I 
reviewed only have the shutters on line and neutral. The shutters open only 
when plug blades are inserted in both openings simultaneously. The intention is 
to prevent young children from getting a shock by inserting a foreign object 
into the outlet.

The National Electrical Code (NEC) does not require GFCIs to have a ground 
connection. In fact, the NEC specifies that GFCIs be used for protection is 
certain situations where no grounding conductor is available. (See NEC article 
406(D)(3).) GFCIs are required in kitchens near sources of water, and most 
kitchen appliances are double-insulated without a ground pin. The same is true 
for many items plugged into bathroom outlets, such as electric razors and 
electric toothbrush charging bases. A GFCI requiring a three-prong plug would 
likely pose a problem in these areas.

I would be a bit suspicious of GFCI receptacles that require the insertion of a 
grounded plug. I can imagine a scenario where somebody determined that it would 
be acceptable to force people to use grounded plugs instead of providing GFCIs. 
Did the builder consider having a wired path to earth sufficient to meet the 
intent of the GFCI requirements? I recommend pulling the cover plate for one of 
the outlets to try to find the manufacturer's name and part number. Look up the 
specifications on the outlet to see if is even a GFCI. Also, if this is a UL 
Listed tamper resistant outlet, the words "Tamper Resistant" or the letters 
"TR" must be visible on the device even with the cover plate installed and at 
least 4.8 mm high. (See UL 498 Table 164.4, Reference 15.)

Note 1: The addition of the tamper resistant receptacle requirement along with 
the new Arc Fault Circuit Interrupter (AFCI) requirement have caused concern 
due to the increased cost and perceived reliability issues. A number of states 
and jurisdictions have not adopted either the 2008 or 2011 codes, or have 
adopted the codes while striking out these two requirements. It is possible 
that the tamper resistant requirement doesn't exist where you live and that 
this outlet was used for some other reason.

Note 2: AFCIs are relatively expensive. Shuttered GFCIs are not too expensive, 
but still cost more to make than a standard outlet. There has been a 
proliferation of counterfeit electrical devices including receptacles in the 
past decade. The counterfeiters will copy the manufacturer's marking and even 
the UL mark but there are usually ways to see if the outlet is fake.

Ted Eckert
Compliance Engineer
Microsoft Corporation
ted.eck...@microsoft.com<mailto:ted.eck...@microsoft.com>

The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my 
employer.

From: Ken Javor [mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com]
Sent: Friday, June 29, 2012 7:31 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: New type of GFI?

All,

In a brand new building in the USA using a type of GFI in wet areas 
(kitchen/bath) with which I am unfamiliar.  These GFIs require a three prong 
plug in order to be able to insert. The ground pin pushes back a plastic 
blocking sheath which otherwise blocks the insertion of any two prong plug.

Question:  Does this type of GFI require a three prong device in order for the 
device to be able to detect a fault condition (i.e., does it only sense current 
in the safety wire conductor, or is it some sort of belts and suspenders design 
that works like GFIs which accept two wire plugs)?

Another way to phrase the question is whether or not it is safe to plug in a 
two prong device using a cheater plug.  For example, a DEI (doubly electrically 
isolated) electric razor with a two prong plug cannot be plugged into the 
electrical outlet near the bathroom sink without the cheater plug.

Not looking for a sermon on safety here, just a definitive answer on the design 
of this type of GFI, and the impact of using the cheater.  Common sense would 
indicate that this new device would have to work the same as older devices else 
people using cheaters to bypass them would be incurring a risk that didn't use 
to exist with previous generations of GFI.  Wishing to confirm that.

Thank you,

Ken Javor
Phone: (256) 650-5261
-


This messag

Re: [PSES] When Did FCC Start Regulating FCC Part 15

[Ted Eckert]

The origins go back to 1938 when Ewell Jett, the chief engineer for the FCC, 
argued that some RF emissions were too weak to have any effect beyond a short 
range. The initial rules were enacted going up to 30 MHz. In 1955, the rules 
were modified with an upper limit of 890 MHz. The changes in the regulations 
started occurring faster (by government standards) in the 1960s as technology 
moved forward quickly.

Ted Eckert
Compliance Engineer
Microsoft Corporation
ted.eck...@microsoft.com<mailto:ted.eck...@microsoft.com>

The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my 
employer.

From: N.Shani [mailto:nshani...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2012 6:43 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: When Did FCC Start Regulating FCC Part 15

Early 1980s.
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 9:32 AM, Grace Lin 
mailto:graceli...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Dear Members,

I am asked to find out when FCC started regulating FCC Part 15 devices, such as 
a garage door opener.  Can anyone help me with the answer?

Thank you very much.

Best regards,
Grace Lin
-


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

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.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 <emcp...@radiusnorth.net<mailto:emcp...@radiusnorth.net>>
Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org<mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org>>

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

-


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

[Ted Eckert]

The new RoHS Directive, 2011/65/ED, requires CE marking. Could this be why 
there is a CE mark on the battery? Section 14 of the preamble indicates that 
the Directive does apply to batteries if I'm reading it correctly.

Ted Eckert
Compliance Engineer
Microsoft Corporation
ted.eck...@microsoft.com

The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my 
employer.
-Original Message-
From: Pettit, Ghery [mailto:ghery.pet...@intel.com] 
Sent: Friday, June 08, 2012 9:34 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: Lithium Batteries and EMC

The CE Marking just means that a product meets all applicable new approach 
directives.  I've seen it on inflatable toys, and I'll bet my next paycheck 
that the EMC Directive was not considered.  There is, however, a toy directive 
and they met the essential requirements for that one.

Ghery S. Pettit

-Original Message-
From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Brian Oconnell
Sent: Friday, June 08, 2012 9:19 AM
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: RE: Lithium Batteries and EMC

There are several directives where the CE mark would be required - depends on 
end-use equipment/environment and battery capacity.

Apply EMC directive to the battery itself where uControllers is embedded, 
otherwise, the EMCD/tests are applied to the charger where specific battery 
models are specified in the report and D of C.

Is what I do correct for all possible combinations of 
batteries/chargers/equipment?
  No
Is what I do required by the customer?
 Yes

Brian

-Original Message-
From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org]On Behalf Of rehel...@mmm.com
Sent: Friday, June 08, 2012 9:00 AM
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: Lithium Batteries and EMC

I noticed a lithium battery with a CE marking on it.

Is EMC part of that CE Mark? Are there any EMC standards/requirements for smart 
batteries?

Thanks,
Bob Heller
St. Paul, MN 55107-1208
Tel: 651-778-6336
Fax: 651-778-6252

-

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] Statute of limitations

[Ted Eckert]

I've had a number of cases where an IC vendor did a die shrink on an IC without 
rescaling the pin drivers. Even though the IC ran at the same speeds, the edges 
were much sharper leading to problems at higher harmonics. I would suspect that 
a number of ICs in your system have undergone die shrinks. The IC vendors are 
always looking for ways to get more chips out of a single wafer.

Ted Eckert
Compliance Engineer
Microsoft Corporation
ted.eck...@microsoft.com<mailto:ted.eck...@microsoft.com>

The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my 
employer.

From: McInturff, Gary [mailto:gary.mcintu...@esterline.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 10:16 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Statute of limitations

Is there any time limit on how long a test result is valid for an EMC test - if 
the product hasn't changed. CB reports have a 3 year shelf life, after which 
the various CB participants are obligated to take the reports on face value and 
could require inspection or retest, but I don't know if the same is true for 
EMC test when meeting the EU directives. Actually I guess the requirement for a 
CB update every three years isn't truly a requirement for meeting the 
directives either. The CB report is a tool to help show conformity.

Bottom line the last EMC test was in 2004, and the clock speeds are pretty low 
- 12 MHz, so I don't think even the new upper frequency test range requirements 
of EN55022 affect the results.
I'm inclined to test, the customer is not.

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<mailto:brian.s...@esterline.com>


www.esterline.com/interfacetechnologies<http://www.esterline.com/advancedinput>

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 
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] Circuit breakers in Europe

[Ted Eckert]

The 80% rule is not specific to plug connections. The excerpt below shows the 
rule applying to all branch circuits. However, if you search through the code, 
you will find similar clauses for feeders and services.



NFPA 70



210.19 Conductors - Minimum Ampacity and Size.



(A) Branch Circuits Not More Than 600 Volts



(1) General. Branch-circuit conductors shall have an ampacity not less than the 
maximum load to be served. Where a branch circuit supplies continuous loads or 
any combination of continuous and noncontinuous loads, the minimum 
branch-circuit conductor sized, before the application of any adjustment or 
correction factors, shall have an allowabvle ampacity not less than the 
noncontinuous load plus 125 percent of the continuous load.



Exception No. 1: Where the assembly, including overcurrent devices protecting 
the branch circuit(s), is listed for operation at 100 percent of its rating, 
the allowable ampacity of the branch circuit conductors shall be permitted to 
be not less than the sum of the continuous load plus the noncontinuous load.



If you ask 10 code experts about the origin of this requirement, you will 
likely get 11 answers. Exception 1 seems to indicate that ratings for circuit 
breakers are part of the issue. However, my NEC Code Handbook indicates that 
the rule is designed to prevent overheating of conductors.



One explanation of the difference between North America and European 
requirements goes back to voltage, construction methods and history. The higher 
voltages of Europe lead to lower currents for a given power consumption. Brick 
and stone construction is more common in Europe, particularly in the cities 
where electrification started. As a result, there was a lower fire risk due to 
high currents heating conductors. Electric shock remained the focus of codes 
and fire risk was a lesser concern. The United States and Canada run off of a 
lower voltage and there is a greater prevalence of wood-frame construction. The 
quick adoption of high-current appliances such as air conditioners and kitchen 
appliances resulted in a much higher demand for power and higher currents. The 
resulting fire risk from overheated conductors would have been higher making it 
a stronger focus of North American codes.



The amount of power available in even a small American home is fairly large. 
It's rare to see even small homes built with less than a 150 A service with 
large homes sometimes having a 400 A service. That gives plenty of power to 
overheat wires with.


Ted Eckert
Compliance Engineer
Microsoft Corporation
ted.eck...@microsoft.com<mailto:ted.eck...@microsoft.com>

The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my 
employer.


-Original Message-
From: Kunde, Brian [mailto:brian_ku...@lecotc.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2012 7:45 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: Circuit breakers in Europe



Since this topic has been brought up, I'm hoping you experts could clarify the 
80% rule for me for North America (don't forget Canada).



I was given the impression that the 80% rule (as we call it) applies to the 
maximum continuous current of the plug rating regardless of whether there is 
one receptacle or multiple receptacles on that circuit. A product can draw 100% 
the current rating of the plug for periods of time but not more than 80% 
average current or continuous current.



The reason for the rule is to avoid overheating in the plug/receptacle 
connection.



Is this right or wrong?



So say I have a 30 amp plug on my product and it is wired into a dedicated 
receptacle and circuit. My product can be rated and draw up to 30 amps but it 
cannot draw more than 24 amps continuous. Correct?



If the product is wired direct without the plug/receptacle it can draw up to 
100% of the circuit rating continuously. Correct?



Please confirm or clarify.



We gathered this information from CSA who inspects our products in Canada and 
if we rate a product over 80% of the plug rating they require we also provide 
an average current and/or continuous current rating for that product.



Thank you.



The Other Brian



-Original Message-

From: emc-p...@ieee.org<mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org> 
[mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org]<mailto:[mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org]> On Behalf Of Pete 
Perkins

Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2012 6:07 PM

To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>

Subject: RE: [PSES] Circuit breakers in Europe



PSNet,



One issue that I'm not sure has been reflected in this thread is that 
the NA 80% restriction for utilization circuits is that it is assumed that 
there will be a number of duplex plugs wired into each circuit, as allowed by 
the NA code.  Therefore, any single product may not use the entire rated 
current from the circuit (20A, for instance) but is limited (80% = 16A) so that 
other products may be plugged into the sam

Re: [PSES] Machinery Directive silly question?

[Ted Eckert]

Thank you Nick for your comments and expertise. I'll ask that my original 
comments be disregarded. One of the things that I like about this list server 
is that it helps me fill in gaps in my knowledge and I apologize if my original 
response led anybody astray.

Best regards,
Ted Eckert
Compliance Engineer
Microsoft Corporation
ted.eck...@microsoft.com

The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my 
employer.
-Original Message-
From: Nick Williams [mailto:nick.willi...@conformance.co.uk] 
Sent: Monday, April 30, 2012 1:23 PM
To: Ted Eckert; Carl Newton
Cc: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: Machinery Directive silly question?

Ted,

I understand where you are coming from, but I am still of the view that your 
approach (as described in your e-mail) is fundamentally flawed since it implies 
that the scope of the directive is determined by the applicability or otherwise 
of one or more standards, and this is never the case. Yes, you can use the 
existence of a standard as an indicator as to what constitutes a domestic 
appliance, but it is never a conclusive factor on its own. 

It is also important to realise that there are many 'domestic appliance' 
standards (e.g. parts of the EN 60335-1 series) which are harmonised under the 
Machinery Directive instead of or as well as the LVD. Annex ZF in EN 60335-1 
attempts to address this point, but I'm far from convinced that it is 
completely successful. 

Your point about toys is valid in the context of my reply - I was in a bit of a 
hurry earlier and overlooked the fact that (as correctly pointed out by Carl 
Newton) it is article 3 of 2006/42/EC which deals with more specific 
directives, this is not part of Article 1. However, if I were to change my 
phrase to:

"To put it in its simplest terms, if a product has powered moving parts then, 
irrespective of the status or otherwise of any standards, it is within the 
scope of the Machinery Directive unless it is excluded by one of the clauses in 
Article 1 or by Article 3. That's all there is to it."

I would be correct since both the Toy Safety Directive and the Medical Devices 
Directive are more specific. (As it happens, the Medical Devices Directive 
actually says that for products which are machines, you also have to apply the 
EHSRs of the Machinery Directive alongside those of the Medical Devices 
Directive, but that's a topic for another day!)

Regards

Nick. 






On 30 Apr 2012, at 18:13, Ted Eckert wrote:

> I am proposing using the harmonized standards as guidance, not as an absolute 
> determination. Article 1, Clause 2(k) gives specific exemptions including 
> "household appliances intended for domestic use". How can you be sure your 
> product is a household appliance reasonably covered by the LVD? If there is a 
> harmonized standard under the LVD, then you at least have a good argument to 
> make for declaring under the LVD. Without the narrow scope of the standard, 
> you are left to argue the overly broad scope of the LVD versus the overly 
> broad scope of the Machinery Directive.
>  
> I would also state that your simplest terms are a little too simple. There 
> are plenty of electrical children's toys that could fit within your 
> description. Lego Technic provides motors, transmissions, gears and other 
> parts for a child to make something quite resembling a machine. The Machinery 
> Directive does not exclude toys, but I have yet to see any of these toys 
> declared under anything but the Toy Directive. The Machinery Directive does 
> not exclude medical equipment, yet those products often have complex moving 
> assemblies.
>  
> However, let me state that I am far from an expert in the Machinery Directive 
> and I encourage all with contrary opinions to respond to set me straight. I 
> am just another person trying to deal with the broad scopes and limited 
> guidance available.
>  
> Ted Eckert
> Compliance Engineer
> Microsoft Corporation
> ted.eck...@microsoft.com
>  
> The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my 
> employer.
>  
> From: Nick Williams [mailto:nick.willi...@conformance.co.uk]
> Sent: Monday, April 30, 2012 9:21 AM
> To: Ted Eckert
> Cc: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: Re: Machinery Directive silly question?
>  
> I've said this before. The status of standard DOES NOT determine whether 
> product is within the scope of a particular Directive or not. 
>  
> To put it in its simplest terms, if a product has powered moving parts then, 
> irrespective of the status or otherwise of any standards, it is within the 
> scope of the Machinery Directive unless it is excluded by one of the clauses 
> in Article 1. That's all there is to it. 
>  
> Nick. 
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  

Re: [PSES] Machinery Directive silly question?

[Ted Eckert]

I am proposing using the harmonized standards as guidance, not as an absolute 
determination. Article 1, Clause 2(k) gives specific exemptions including 
"household appliances intended for domestic use". How can you be sure your 
product is a household appliance reasonably covered by the LVD? If there is a 
harmonized standard under the LVD, then you at least have a good argument to 
make for declaring under the LVD. Without the narrow scope of the standard, you 
are left to argue the overly broad scope of the LVD versus the overly broad 
scope of the Machinery Directive.

I would also state that your simplest terms are a little too simple. There are 
plenty of electrical children's toys that could fit within your description. 
Lego Technic provides motors, transmissions, gears and other parts for a child 
to make something quite resembling a machine. The Machinery Directive does not 
exclude toys, but I have yet to see any of these toys declared under anything 
but the Toy Directive. The Machinery Directive does not exclude medical 
equipment, yet those products often have complex moving assemblies.

However, let me state that I am far from an expert in the Machinery Directive 
and I encourage all with contrary opinions to respond to set me straight. I am 
just another person trying to deal with the broad scopes and limited guidance 
available.

Ted Eckert
Compliance Engineer
Microsoft Corporation
ted.eck...@microsoft.com<mailto:ted.eck...@microsoft.com>

The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my 
employer.

From: Nick Williams [mailto:nick.willi...@conformance.co.uk]
Sent: Monday, April 30, 2012 9:21 AM
To: Ted Eckert
Cc: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: Machinery Directive silly question?

I've said this before. The status of standard DOES NOT determine whether 
product is within the scope of a particular Directive or not.

To put it in its simplest terms, if a product has powered moving parts then, 
irrespective of the status or otherwise of any standards, it is within the 
scope of the Machinery Directive unless it is excluded by one of the clauses in 
Article 1. That's all there is to it.

Nick.






On 30 Apr 2012, at 17:00, Ted Eckert wrote:


The first question I would ask is whether there is a product specific standard 
that covers your product. If so, then determine if that product specific 
standard is a harmonized standard under one of the other directives. In that 
case, the machinery directive would not apply.

For example, an air conditioner has plenty of moving parts. However, a small 
portable air conditioner intended to be installed and used by general users is 
covered by EN 60335-2-40, which is a harmonized standard under the Low Voltage 
Directive. This air conditioner would not fall under the Machinery Directive.

On the other hand, a large commercial air conditioner designed to be installed 
on the roof of a building is not within the scope of EN 60335-2-40. There are 
general standards covering the mechanical safety and the safety of the 
pressurized system, but not an overarching product standard for this type of 
product. As such, it falls under the Machinery Directive.

You may need to do some research to see if your product is within the scope of 
a product specific standard. However, if it is and if that standard is a 
harmonized standard under the Low Voltage Directive, the LVD would likely 
apply. These standards are designed to cover potential mechanical hazards 
specific to certain product types, but they are recognized as covering product 
where electrical hazards predominate.

This is not just the case for the LVD. There are medical products with moving 
parts and toys with moving parts and those are each covered under their own 
directives. If your product has a radio, and it is covered by a standard 
harmonized under the R&TTE Directive, that Directive may be the one that 
applies.

Ted Eckert
Compliance Engineer
Microsoft Corporation
ted.eck...@microsoft.com<mailto:ted.eck...@microsoft.com>

The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my 
employer.

-Original Message-
From: Mark Hone 
[mailto:mh...@wellmandefence.co.uk]<mailto:[mailto:mh...@wellmandefence.co.uk]>
Sent: 30 April 2012 14:12
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Subject: [PSES] Machinery Directive silly question?

Dear Colleagues,

I know that you are all patient with what might seem silly questions, so I hope 
you'll be patient with mine.

I have not had to consider the Machinery Directive before, but a new electrical 
product has a moving part in it.  It's a wholly enclosed (inaccessible in the 
middle of the equipment) fan that blows air through the equipment (not a 
cooling fan).

The MD defines machinery: " an assembly, fitted with or intended to be fitted 
with a drive system... consisting of... components, at lea

Re: [PSES] Machinery Directive silly question?

[Ted Eckert]

The first question I would ask is whether there is a product specific standard 
that covers your product. If so, then determine if that product specific 
standard is a harmonized standard under one of the other directives. In that 
case, the machinery directive would not apply.  

For example, an air conditioner has plenty of moving parts. However, a small 
portable air conditioner intended to be installed and used by general users is 
covered by EN 60335-2-40, which is a harmonized standard under the Low Voltage 
Directive. This air conditioner would not fall under the Machinery Directive. 

On the other hand, a large commercial air conditioner designed to be installed 
on the roof of a building is not within the scope of EN 60335-2-40. There are 
general standards covering the mechanical safety and the safety of the 
pressurized system, but not an overarching product standard for this type of 
product. As such, it falls under the Machinery Directive.

You may need to do some research to see if your product is within the scope of 
a product specific standard. However, if it is and if that standard is a 
harmonized standard under the Low Voltage Directive, the LVD would likely 
apply. These standards are designed to cover potential mechanical hazards 
specific to certain product types, but they are recognized as covering product 
where electrical hazards predominate.

This is not just the case for the LVD. There are medical products with moving 
parts and toys with moving parts and those are each covered under their own 
directives. If your product has a radio, and it is covered by a standard 
harmonized under the R&TTE Directive, that Directive may be the one that 
applies.

Ted Eckert
Compliance Engineer
Microsoft Corporation
ted.eck...@microsoft.com

The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my 
employer.

-Original Message-
From: Mark Hone [mailto:mh...@wellmandefence.co.uk]
Sent: 30 April 2012 14:12
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Machinery Directive silly question?

Dear Colleagues,

I know that you are all patient with what might seem silly questions, so I hope 
you'll be patient with mine.

I have not had to consider the Machinery Directive before, but a new electrical 
product has a moving part in it.  It's a wholly enclosed (inaccessible in the 
middle of the equipment) fan that blows air through the equipment (not a 
cooling fan).

The MD defines machinery: " an assembly, fitted with or intended to be fitted 
with a drive system... consisting of... components, at least one of which 
moves, and which are joined together for a specific application".

So the silly question is, if the moving part is wholly contained within the 
equipment and is inaccessible, does the MD apply or do I apply the LVD?

I have Googled this question and have found references that say the MD does 
apply (it's the enclosure that makes the moving part safe), and references that 
say the MD does not apply (as the moving part is wholly internal, one doesn't 
need to even consider it).  I strongly suspect the former statement is the 
correct one.

Your authoritative opinions are sought!

With thanks in anticipation,

Mark


--
Mark Hone
HESS Manager

Wellman Defence Limited
Dolphin House
Williams Road
Portsmouth
Hampshire
PO3 5FP

T: +44 (0)23 9262 9239
F: +44 (0)23 9269 7864
E: mh...@wellmandefence.co.uk
W: www.wellmandefence.co.uk


Wellman Defence is a limited company registered in England and Wales.

Company Registration No. 953609

Registered Offices: Wellman International Ltd., Newfield Road, Oldbury, West 
Midlands, B69 3ET, England.

The contents and any attachments to this email include information that is 
private and confidential and should only be read by those persons to whom they 
are addressed. Wellman Defence Limited accepts no liability for any loss or 
damage suffered by any person arising from the use of this email.

Neither Wellman Defence Limited nor the sender accepts any responsibility for 
viruses and it is your responsibility to check the email and attachments (if 
any). If you received this mail in error, please destroy and delete the message 
from your computer.

-

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

Re: [PSES] GFCI for 230VAC Products

[Ted Eckert]

GFCIs are fairly simple devices. They have a current transformer with both line 
and neutral windings on the primary side. The secondary goes to the GFCI's trip 
circuit. As long as line and neutral balance, the output of the transformer is 
zero. If line and neutral don't balance, the output triggers the trip circuit. 
The GFCI doesn't directly measure leakage current and doesn't even require a 
ground connection to work. It works under the assumption that if line and 
neutral don't balance, the missing current must be leakage current.

The devices typically don't have a low-pass filter in them. They are designed 
to be simple and cheap. UL 943 is the safety standard for GFCIs, and it uses 
the human body model for leakage current. However, the tests are done with a 60 
Hz sinusoidal current. There is nothing in the standard that prohibits GFCIs 
from detecting higher frequency currents. The transformer used only has a few 
windings on the primary, so it is probably efficient at high frequency current 
than low frequencies. As such, it may cause the GFCI to trip at lower levels of 
high-frequency leakage current than 60 Hz current. UL 943 does include tests 
for resistance to environmental noise using a 10 - 450 MHz signal source. 
However, if you have significant leakage current at high frequencies, it will 
still cause a trip.

As bad as the technical issues are, they are more straight forward than dealing 
with the AHJ. A damp location is defied in the code as "locations protected 
from weather and not subject to saturation with water or other liquids but 
subject to moderate degrees of moisture." This gives a lot of leeway to the AHJ 
in how they determine what constitutes a damp location. I wouldn't suggest 
arguing whether or not this is a damp location. Instead, stress that the 
equipment has a reliable ground. Your plug and cord provides a reliable, 
low-impedance ground connection. Any leakage current will reliably be carried 
away in the equipment's ground. GFCIs are generally required in residential 
installations due to the possibility of faulty grounds or the use of pluggable 
equipment without a ground. GFCIs are generally not required in industrial 
locations where equipment is reliably grounded.

Ted Eckert
Compliance Engineer
Microsoft Corporation
ted.eck...@microsoft.com<mailto:ted.eck...@microsoft.com>

The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my 
employer.

From: Kunde, Brian [mailto:brian_ku...@lecotc.com]
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2012 7:06 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: GFCI for 230VAC Products

We provide a 30 amp twistlock plug with the product and specify to use a 
dedicated circuit.

What is the definition of an "Indoor Wet Location"? Our equipment is 
categorized as "laboratory equipment" which most labs have sinks in the area.

We had this same problem a few years back with a 115VAC version of this same 
product. Our customers would plug our product into a standard GFCI receptacle 
but it would trip as soon as the frequency drive started up the motor. But then 
we found out that in 2006 the requirements for GFCI changed. We went to Lowes 
and purchased a new GFCI that said (UL 2006) right on the box. This GFCI worked 
fine and did not trip. We assume the 2006 version is less susceptible to high 
frequency currents.

Whatever requirements changed in the 115VAC GFCI receptacles in 2006 did this 
also change for 230VAC GFCI breakers? Maybe not? Is anyone familiar with this 
change? I went to Lowes yesterday and looked at the GFCI breakers they had for 
sale. None of them referenced UL 2006, or any date of any kind.

I just received an email from Square D/ Schneider Electric. They said they are 
familiar with the problem and believe it is caused by high frequency leakage 
current in the KHz frequency range from the frequency drive. They are probably 
correct, but why does GFCIs sense high frequency current? They said their GFCI 
breakers meet the requirements.

We are trying to work the our customer and their AHJ to see if there is an 
alternative to using a GFCI.

Thanks for the replies. They have been most helpful.

The Other Brian



From: emc-p...@ieee.org<mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org> 
[mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org]<mailto:[mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org]> On Behalf Of Ted 
Eckert
Sent: Saturday, April 14, 2012 11:28 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Subject: RE: GFCI for 230VAC Products

Hello Brian,

The likely clause is NFPA 70 210.8(B)(6). This clause requires GFCI protection 
in indoor wet locations for buildings that are not dwelling units. It is likely 
that the AHJ is applying their own interpretation to this clause to require a 
GFCI for equipment with a fixed water connection. The concern of the NEC is 
that if equipment has a faulty ground connection, a nearby sink other water 
source could provide an 

Re: [PSES] GFCI for 230VAC Products

[Ted Eckert]

Hello Brian,

The likely clause is NFPA 70 210.8(B)(6). This clause requires GFCI protection 
in indoor wet locations for buildings that are not dwelling units. It is likely 
that the AHJ is applying their own interpretation to this clause to require a 
GFCI for equipment with a fixed water connection. The concern of the NEC is 
that if equipment has a faulty ground connection, a nearby sink other water 
source could provide an alternate ground return path. A person could touch both 
the equipment and the sink completing the loop. However, this doesn't make as 
much sense for equipment with a fixed water connection. You might be able to 
convince the AHJ that there isn't an alternate ground close by even with the 
water connection. If you require a copper water line, that may convince the AHJ 
that the equipment has a reliable alternate ground.

EMI may not be the issue causing GFCIs to trip. I've run into this problem when 
using electronically speed controlled motors. Leakage current for safety is 
measured using the human body model, which measures AC current in the 50 - 60 
Hz range. The circuit of IEC 60990 Figure 4 has a low pass filter formed by R1 
and C1. Equipment may have higher frequency leakage current that is blocked by 
the test circuit but is high enough to trip a GFCI. I once had an air 
conditioner with an electronically speed controlled motor. A standard meter 
read a leakage current of 9 mA while the IEC 60990 Figure 4 circuit read about 
2 mA. The equipment was safe, since the higher frequency currents were too high 
of frequency to interfere with the human heart rhythms. (The IEC 60990 circuit 
is designed to detect only the current that is harmful to people.) However, the 
GFCI looks at current of any frequency. If the problem is high-frequency 
leakage current, additional EMI suppression may not help.

One option is to consider a locking plug for your product. If you supply your 
product with a NEMA L6-20 for example, it won't plug into a standard outlet. 
The NEC has a number of exemptions for equipment plugged into a circuit with a 
single outlet or to industrial locking outlets. The AHJ may consider the outlet 
as providing a reliable ground connection if it is a purpose installed outlet 
not serving any other equipment. Consult with the AHJ to see if there are 
conditions under which the GFCI will not be required.

Ted Eckert
Compliance Engineer
Microsoft Corporation
ted.eck...@microsoft.com<mailto:ted.eck...@microsoft.com>

The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my 
employer.

From: Bob Johnson [mailto:john...@itesafety.com]
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2012 8:34 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: GFCI for 230VAC Products


You need to determine more carefully what requirements must be met. There are 
two different ground fault concerns in the code. Ground Fault Circuit 
Interrupters (GFCIs) are used for protection of personnel from electrical shock 
and are needed in wet areas. Ground fault protection of equipment is required 
for motor circuits but this protection is for the wiring and motor, not 
protection against electric shock. GFCIs are not necessarily required simply by 
the presence of plumbing.

GFCIs are for protection of personnel from electric shock due to wet 
conditions. GFCI protection is generally required for receptacles due to the 
poor dependability of portable circuits and grounding. Only in some areas like 
pools are additional permanently installed equipments required to provide 
protection from shock.

The NEC (NFPA 70-2012) requires GFCIs in the locations below. The code in 
effect is the one adopted by Tennessee which may be this or an earlier version 
of NFPA 70 and may have modifications.

The GFCI and/or motor ground fault protection is usually part of the site 
installation done by the local electrician. That generally makes it a burden on 
the owner, not the product manufacturer unless the product codes require it to 
be built in. Which GFCI or motor protectors to choose would often depend on the 
brand of electrical panel involved.

The following locations require GFCIs to some extent. There are exceptions and 
limitations. Sometimes 120V receptacles are required. Sometimes circuits must 
be protected.
Bathrooms
Garages
Crawl spaces
Unfinished Basements
Kitchens
Sinks
Boathouses
Boat Hoists
Indoor wet locations
Showers
Garages
Rooftops
Outdoors
Drinking Fountains
Spray Washers
Vending Machines
Hydromassage Units
Pools, Spas, Hot Tubs
Fountains
Marinas
Bodies of Water
Electric Signs
Electrified parking spaces
Elevators and lifts
Space Heating Cables
Construction Sites -
Health Care Facilities
Mobile Homes
Recreational Vehicles
Pipeline Heating
Aircraft Hangers

Bob Johnson
ITE Safety



On 04/13/2012 10:22 AM, Kunde, Brian wrote:
Our company makes a 230VAC product (laboratory/light industrial) that has a 
water connection. We received word from a customer in Tennessee, USA, wh

Re: [PSES] Color of Mains Wiring

[Ted Eckert]

I believe that Switzerland used to use yellow for protective earth/ground, but 
that was long ago. Off hand, I am unaware of any other country in Europe that 
used yellow. 

Ted Eckert
Compliance Engineer
Microsoft Corporation
ted.eck...@microsoft.com

The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my 
employer.

-Original Message-
From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk] 
Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2012 8:00 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: Color of Mains Wiring

In message , dated Sun, 8 Apr 
2012, Pete Perkins  writes:

> in Europe the ground was
>yellow.

In which country? I have never heard of yellow being used in Europe. 
Black, brown, green and even red, but not yellow.
--
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: 

Re: [PSES] power plugs

[Ted Eckert]

Hello Scott,

It's up to the individual regulatory authorities as to which approvals they 
will accept or require. Having multiple approvals reduces the risk of a problem 
in any one country. However, it's unlikely that you will find a plug with 
approvals from all 27 members of the EU, the 4 EFTA members and the multiple 
other countries that will accept the Europlug. I've not had issues with plugs 
that have had approvals from just a few of the Western European countries.

That being said, I've seen plenty of direct plug-in power supplies with a 
Europlug configuration that have nothing more than a CE mark and possibly an 
approval from TÜV.

Ted Eckert
Compliance Engineer
Microsoft Corporation
ted.eck...@microsoft.com<mailto:ted.eck...@microsoft.com>

The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my 
employer.

From: Scott Xe [mailto:scott...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 8:09 AM
To: Ted Eckert; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: power plugs

Hi Ted,

Thanks for info.  Did you mean the Europlug needs to have all countries 
approval or to have any one approval only before legally used in all European 
countries.

Scott


On 25/1/12 2:33 AM, "Ted Eckert"  wrote:
Hello Scott,

The Europlug is commonly accepted across Europe with the exception of the 
countries that use the BS 1363 plug. You will find that a Europlug complying 
with EN 50075 and IEC 60884-1 can get approvals from all of the major European 
approvers. Here is one example 
<http://www.volexpowerproducts.com/index.php?option=com_ecatalog&task=plugdetails&classid=1&countryid=1&plugid=178&Itemid=31>
  that has CEBEC, Demko, Fimko, IMQ, KEMA KEUR, Nemko, ÖVE, Semko, ESTI and 
VDE. (I am referencing this one vendor only because I know they clearly list 
the approvals on their web site. There are plenty of other cord vendors with 
similar products.)

The restrictions to the use of the Europlug are that the equipment must be 
Class II and rated no more than 2.5 A. If you meet these requirements, you will 
find that there are generally no regulatory barriers to including this plug 
with your product.

Ted Eckert
Compliance Engineer
Microsoft Corporation
1 Microsoft Way
Redmond, WA 98052
(425) 707-9205
ted.eck...@microsoft.com <mailto:ted.eck...@microsoft.com>

This email message may contain confidential and proprietary information.  Any 
unauthorized use is prohibited.  If you are not the intended recipient, please 
contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original 
message.

-Original Message-
From: Scott Xe [mailto:scott...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 9:12 AM
To: Ted Eckert; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: power plugs

In Europe, Euro plug is widely used and accepted although each country may have 
their own plug.  As in EN standard, the product must be fitted with the plug in 
the country where the product is sold.  Is Euro plug legally correct in those 
countries?  I have learnt that it is allowed as the population of some European 
countries is relatively small.  Otherwise, the product may be higher in price 
and they get less choice from the suppliers.  Anyone knows about this practice?

Thanks and regards,

Scott

On 24/1/12 10:18 AM, "Ted Eckert" mailto:ted.eck...@microsoft.com> > wrote:

> Hi Brian,
>
> You will want the CEE 7/7 for most of Europe. It works in almost any
> European outlet that doesn't accept one of the three that you
> mentioned. The BS 1363 covers the UK, Ireland and Malta. The SEV 1011
> only covers Switzerland. Make sure your supplier conforms to the new
> SEV 1011:2009 since Switzerland will require partially insulated pins
> next year. The CEI 23-16 will work only in Italy.
>
> Ted Eckert
> Compliance Engineer
> Microsoft Corporation
> ted.eck...@microsoft.com <mailto:ted.eck...@microsoft.com>
>
> The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those
> of my employer.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Brian Oconnell [mailto:oconne...@tamuracorp.com] 
> <mailto:[mailto:oconne...@tamuracorp.com]>
> Sent: Monday, January 23, 2012 3:43 PM
> To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
> Subject: power plugs
>
> Want to reduce number of plug types on pwr cords. Where I need ground
> pin, was thinking of reducing types to CEI23-16, SEV1011, and BS1363A.
>
> Is this a stupid idea? Am I missing a major European plug type?
>
> thanks,
> Brian
>
> -
> 
> 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 w

Re: [PSES] power plugs

[Ted Eckert]

Hello Scott,



The Europlug is commonly accepted across Europe with the exception of the 
countries that use the BS 1363 plug. You will find that a Europlug complying 
with EN 50075 and IEC 60884-1 can get approvals from all of the major European 
approvers. Here is one 
example<http://www.volexpowerproducts.com/index.php?option=com_ecatalog&task=plugdetails&classid=1&countryid=1&plugid=178&Itemid=31>
 that has CEBEC, Demko, Fimko, IMQ, KEMA KEUR, Nemko, ÖVE, Semko, ESTI and VDE. 
(I am referencing this one vendor only because I know they clearly list the 
approvals on their web site. There are plenty of other cord vendors with 
similar products.)



The restrictions to the use of the Europlug are that the equipment must be 
Class II and rated no more than 2.5 A. If you meet these requirements, you will 
find that there are generally no regulatory barriers to including this plug 
with your product.


Ted Eckert
Compliance Engineer
Microsoft Corporation
1 Microsoft Way
Redmond, WA 98052
(425) 707-9205
ted.eck...@microsoft.com<mailto:ted.eck...@microsoft.com>

This email message may contain confidential and proprietary information.  Any 
unauthorized use is prohibited.  If you are not the intended recipient, please 
contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original 
message.



-Original Message-
From: Scott Xe [mailto:scott...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 9:12 AM
To: Ted Eckert; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: power plugs



In Europe, Euro plug is widely used and accepted although each country may have 
their own plug.  As in EN standard, the product must be fitted with the plug in 
the country where the product is sold.  Is Euro plug legally correct in those 
countries?  I have learnt that it is allowed as the population of some European 
countries is relatively small.  Otherwise, the product may be higher in price 
and they get less choice from the suppliers.  Anyone knows about this practice?



Thanks and regards,



Scott



On 24/1/12 10:18 AM, "Ted Eckert" 
mailto:ted.eck...@microsoft.com>> wrote:



> Hi Brian,

>

> You will want the CEE 7/7 for most of Europe. It works in almost any

> European outlet that doesn't accept one of the three that you

> mentioned. The BS 1363 covers the UK, Ireland and Malta. The SEV 1011

> only covers Switzerland. Make sure your supplier conforms to the new

> SEV 1011:2009 since Switzerland will require partially insulated pins

> next year. The CEI 23-16 will work only in Italy.

>

> Ted Eckert

> Compliance Engineer

> Microsoft Corporation

> ted.eck...@microsoft.com<mailto:ted.eck...@microsoft.com>

>

> The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those

> of my employer.

>

> -Original Message-

> From: Brian Oconnell 
> [mailto:oconne...@tamuracorp.com]<mailto:[mailto:oconne...@tamuracorp.com]>

> Sent: Monday, January 23, 2012 3:43 PM

> To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>

> Subject: power plugs

>

> Want to reduce number of plug types on pwr cords. Where I need ground

> pin, was thinking of reducing types to CEI23-16, SEV1011, and BS1363A.

>

> Is this a stupid idea? Am I missing a major European plug type?

>

> thanks,

> Brian

>

> -

> 

> 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 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

Re: [PSES] power plugs

[Ted Eckert]

Hello Brian,

You can ship Class I devices with a fuse only on one side and with a 
non-polarized plug as long as the plug is a grounding plug. Mr. Woodgate is 
correct in his analysis. I have had VDE specifically require the marking of IEC 
60950-1 section 2.7.6 for this situation. That clause is intended for when 
there is a fuse in the neutral and you have a non-reversible plug. However, VDE 
interprets the clause to be appropriate for whenever you have a risk of 
portions of the equipment remaining energized after a fuse opens. 

Let me state that I've only heard this as an interpretation from VDE and I 
don't have anything in writing. I am unaware of either a CB Scheme CTL Decision 
Sheet or UL PAG on this specific clause regarding the use of non-polarized 
Class I plugs.

Ted Eckert
Compliance Engineer
Microsoft Corporation
ted.eck...@microsoft.com

The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my 
employer.

-Original Message-
From: Brian Oconnell [mailto:oconne...@tamuracorp.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 8:34 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: power plugs

Hello Ted,

Thought about this plug, but CEE77 fits German CEE74, so could be polarity 
reversal? Some of my custom products only have line fused (customer's 
requirements), so cannot allow my factory to ship affected Class I stuff with 
this cord. 

So when will EU/EFTA code get these plugs and sockets on the same sheet of 
heavy metal music? This seems to be a good excuse as any for another war...

Any other ideas? 

thanks,
Brian

-Original Message-
From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org]On Behalf Of Ted Eckert
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2012 6:18 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: power plugs

Hi Brian,

You will want the CEE 7/7 for most of Europe. It works in almost any European 
outlet that doesn't accept one of the three that you mentioned. The BS 1363 
covers the UK, Ireland and Malta. The SEV 1011 only covers Switzerland. Make 
sure your supplier conforms to the new SEV 1011:2009 since Switzerland will 
require partially insulated pins next year. The CEI 23-16 will work only in 
Italy.

Ted Eckert
Compliance Engineer
Microsoft Corporation
ted.eck...@microsoft.com

The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my 
employer.

-Original Message-
From: Brian Oconnell [mailto:oconne...@tamuracorp.com]
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2012 3:43 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: power plugs

Want to reduce number of plug types on pwr cords. Where I need ground pin, was 
thinking of reducing types to CEI23-16, SEV1011, and BS1363A.

Is this a stupid idea? Am I missing a major European plug type?

thanks,
Brian

-

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] power plugs

[Ted Eckert]

Hi Brian,

You will want the CEE 7/7 for most of Europe. It works in almost any European 
outlet that doesn't accept one of the three that you mentioned. The BS 1363 
covers the UK, Ireland and Malta. The SEV 1011 only covers Switzerland. Make 
sure your supplier conforms to the new SEV 1011:2009 since Switzerland will 
require partially insulated pins next year. The CEI 23-16 will work only in 
Italy.

Ted Eckert
Compliance Engineer
Microsoft Corporation
ted.eck...@microsoft.com

The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my 
employer.

-Original Message-
From: Brian Oconnell [mailto:oconne...@tamuracorp.com] 
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2012 3:43 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: power plugs

Want to reduce number of plug types on pwr cords. Where I need ground pin, was 
thinking of reducing types to CEI23-16, SEV1011, and BS1363A.

Is this a stupid idea? Am I missing a major European plug type?

thanks,
Brian

-

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] Lithium-Ion Battery Cells Japan Requirement

[Ted Eckert]

METI DENAN approval is required for some batteries. You can find Japanese 
regulations for lithium-ion batteries on the METI web site.
http://www.meti.go.jp/english/policy/economy/consumer/pse/
Scroll down towards the bottom of the page to find information on the 
regulations, enforcement and technical specifications. The document titled 
"Cabinet 
Order...<http://www.meti.go.jp/english/policy/economy/consumer/pse/CabinetOrder.pdf>"
 specifies which batteries are exempt from Japanese certification.

Ted Eckert
Compliance Engineer
Microsoft Corporation
ted.eck...@microsoft.com<mailto:ted.eck...@microsoft.com>

The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my 
employer.

From: E M [mailto:wax...@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2012 9:02 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Lithium-Ion Battery Cells Japan Requirement

Hello All,

What is the requirement/certification needed for cells to ship to Japan.

Thank you.

-Ebenezer
-


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] Steady State Conditions

[Ted Eckert]

Long ago, when I worked with heating and cooling equipment, Underwriters 
Laboratories defined temperature stability as follows.

"A temperature was considered to be constant when three successive readings 
taken at 10-min intervals indicated that stabilized temperatures were 
established (no more than a 1- percent net increase between the last two 
readings).  If the temperatures measured were within 5 percent of the 
[temperature limits defined within the standard] the test was continued until 
two successive 10-min readings indicated constant temperatures."

There was further clarification that if a temperature reading was cycling 
between two different points, the maximum temperature of each cycle was to be 
used. If the cycle time was less than 10 minutes, the peaks of cycles greater 
than 10 minutes apart were to be used for comparison. For cycles lasting longer 
than 10 minutes, the peaks of three consecutive cycles were to be used.

Unfortunately, UL talks in terms of percentages for temperatures. I always hate 
when UL does this, but I believe that their intention is to indicate percentage 
in terms of the temperature in degrees Celsius.

Ted Eckert
Compliance Engineer
Microsoft Corporation
ted.eck...@microsoft.com<mailto:ted.eck...@microsoft.com>

The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my 
employer.

From: Steli Loznen [mailto:st...@itl.co.il]
Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2012 4:33 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: Steady State Conditions

Hi Jacob,
In some testing procedures, the temperature steady state is defined as the 
status when the variation of the temperature, measured with thermocouple, was 
less than 1 K/s.
Maybe this can help.
Best Regards,
Steli

Steli Loznen, M.Sc., SM-IEEE
I.T.L (Product Testing) Ltd.
Q.A & Certification Manager
Convener IEC/TC62/SC62A/MT29
Member of IEEE-PSES BoD
1, Bat Sheva St., P.O.Box 87
LOD 71100, ISRAEL
Phone:+972-8-9186100 int.203
Fax:+972-8-9153101
Mobile:+972-54-7245794
e-mail: st...@itl.co.il<mailto:st...@itl.co.il>
www.itl.co.il<http://www.itl.co.il>



From: Jacob Gleeson 
[mailto:jacob.glee...@eu.panasonic.com]<mailto:[mailto:jacob.glee...@eu.panasonic.com]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2012 12:32 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Subject: Re: [PSES] Steady State Conditions

Unfortunately not.

From:

John Woodgate mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk>>

To:

mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>>

Date:

11/01/2012 09:51

Subject:

Re: [PSES] Steady State Conditions






In message
mailto:of830d029f.67d294e3-on80257982.0032cbc6-80257982.00341...@meluk.co.uk>>,
dated Wed, 11 Jan 2012, 
jacob.glee...@eu.panasonic.com<mailto:jacob.glee...@eu.panasonic.com> writes:

>Does anyone know of a clear definition of steady state conditions when
>conducting heating tests? I have checked a number of 60335 series part
>2 standards and came up blank for a definition:-(

It's probably in Part 1.
--
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
Some people who are peeling the finch of the financial crisis are thinking of
biting a rook.

-

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 
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 administ

Re: [PSES] Mandatory NRTL Certification

[Ted Eckert]

UL has two different services.

Field 
Inspection<http://www.ul.com/global/eng/pages/offerings/services/globalfieldservices/fieldservices/fieldinspections/>
 is to look at equipment that has a Listing report, but left the factory 
without being UL marked. Field Inspection is done by an inspector who would 
normally do factory inspection, but does not have the engineering background to 
do a full evaluation. The inspector is only there to verify that the product 
matches an existing UL report. I used this service once when a number of air 
conditioners had to be shipped and installed while the UL Listing process was 
still in progress. The air conditioners had to go into the building on a 
certain schedule, and they were a new model still undergoing Listing. Once the 
Listing was done, the Field Inspection was done, the UL mark was applied and 
the AHJ was happy.

Field 
Evaluation<http://www.ul.com/global/eng/pages/offerings/services/globalfieldservices/fieldservices/fieldevaluationservices/>
 is done by a UL engineer who is evaluating a product to an existing UL 
standard. This is more common for equipment that is highly customized to an 
installation such as control panels, motor control centers, robotics and some 
heating and cooling equipment. There may be a limit on how long the equipment 
can be in place before the inspection, but it is typically done before the 
equipment is first used by the customer and would be done relatively soon after 
installation.

UL, being the bureaucracy that they are, might steer you to the wrong program 
if you aren't careful in describing your needs. However, they do have both 
programs. It is likely the other NRTLs have similar programs with separate 
inspection/evaluation programs.

Ted Eckert
Compliance Engineer
Microsoft Corporation
ted.eck...@microsoft.com<mailto:ted.eck...@microsoft.com>

The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my 
employer.

From: Richard Pittenger 
[mailto:richard.pitten...@hobartcorp.com]<mailto:[mailto:richard.pitten...@hobartcorp.com]>
Sent: Friday, January 06, 2012 11:46 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Subject: Mandatory NRTL Certification

Ted,

In an unrelated instance, one of my colleagues just had an occasion today to 
discuss field evaluations with UL and was informed that they won't perform 
field evaluations on equipment older than one year nor if the equipment does 
not have a UL report.

Good day,
Richard Pittenger
Agency Approval Engineer
Food Machines Engineering
Hobart/Berkel


Disclaimer - This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and 
contain privileged or copyrighted information. You must not present this 
message to another party without first gaining permission from the sender. If 
you are not the intended recipient, you must not copy, print, distribute or use 
this email or the information contained in it for any purpose other than to 
notify us.

If you received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and 
delete this email from your system. We do not guarantee that this email is free 
from viruses or any other defects although due care has been taken to minimize 
the risk.
-


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] Japan's PSE Safety Requirements

[Ted Eckert]

I apologize for the double message, but I took a look at METI's site and found 
that their English translation is much better than the last time I looked. You 
can find the translated law itself which may give more information than UL's 
simple presentation.
http://www.meti.go.jp/english/policy/denan/procedure/index.htm

Ted Eckert
Compliance Engineer
Microsoft Corporation
ted.eck...@microsoft.com

The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my 
employer.


-Original Message-----
From: Ted Eckert [mailto:ted.eck...@microsoft.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2011 4:00 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: Japan's PSE Safety Requirements

Hello Don,

A/V equipment falls under the category "Non-Specified Products" which required 
the circled PSE mark. You can find more information here.
http://data.ul.com/denan/EDocs/scheme.html

Filing the Business Commencement Report with METI is probably the most 
complicated part of the work. 


Ted Eckert
Compliance Engineer
Microsoft Corporation
ted.eck...@microsoft.com

The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my 
employer.

-Original Message-
From: Peter Merguerian [mailto:pmerguerian2...@yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2011 3:54 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: Japan's PSE Safety Requirements

Don

You probably fall under PSE circle Mark depending on the exact nature of your 
product. Under PSE circle, there is no certification requirements. You will 
need to assemble a technical file to show compliance with the safety/emc 
requirements to Japanese standards harmonized with IEC standards. Let me know 
if you have additional questions

Peter Merguerian
pe...@goglobalcompliance.com
Go Global Compliance Inc.
www.goglobalcompliance.com
(408) 931-3303


Sent from my iPhone

On Dec 13, 2011, at 6:36 PM, "DG Clayton"  wrote:

> Wondering if there are any exemptions to the PSE certification process 
> namely for professional-use video/audio equipment sold for studio or 
> broadcast applications.
> 
> Thanks in advance and Best Regards,
> 
> Don Clayton
> 
> -
> 
> 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: 

-

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 we

Re: [PSES] Japan's PSE Safety Requirements

[Ted Eckert]

Hello Don,

A/V equipment falls under the category "Non-Specified Products" which required 
the circled PSE mark. You can find more information here.
http://data.ul.com/denan/EDocs/scheme.html

Filing the Business Commencement Report with METI is probably the most 
complicated part of the work. 


Ted Eckert
Compliance Engineer
Microsoft Corporation
ted.eck...@microsoft.com

The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my 
employer.

-Original Message-
From: Peter Merguerian [mailto:pmerguerian2...@yahoo.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2011 3:54 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: Japan's PSE Safety Requirements

Don

You probably fall under PSE circle Mark depending on the exact nature of your 
product. Under PSE circle, there is no certification requirements. You will 
need to assemble a technical file to show compliance with the safety/emc 
requirements to Japanese standards harmonized with IEC standards. Let me know 
if you have additional questions

Peter Merguerian
pe...@goglobalcompliance.com
Go Global Compliance Inc.
www.goglobalcompliance.com
(408) 931-3303


Sent from my iPhone

On Dec 13, 2011, at 6:36 PM, "DG Clayton"  wrote:

> Wondering if there are any exemptions to the PSE certification process 
> namely for professional-use video/audio equipment sold for studio or 
> broadcast applications.
> 
> Thanks in advance and Best Regards,
> 
> Don Clayton
> 
> -
> 
> 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] DC Supply

[Ted Eckert]

If you can't find anything, look at application notes for the LM317 adjustable 
regulator. There are plenty of designs out there for adjustable linear power 
supplies. It will be quite inefficient, but you don't need to meet energy 
efficiency regulations if you are just building something for in-house testing.

You might consider looking at electronics surplus stores. They may have some 
old linear adjustable supplies available.

Ted Eckert
Compliance Engineer
Microsoft Corporation
ted.eck...@microsoft.com<mailto:ted.eck...@microsoft.com>

The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my 
employer.

From: ralph.mcdiar...@schneider-electric.com 
[mailto:ralph.mcdiar...@schneider-electric.com]
Sent: Friday, November 18, 2011 9:42 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: DC Supply


How about four 12V car batteries in series with a fuse and battery charger 
handy.
_

Ralph McDiarmid  |   Schneider Electric   |  Renewable Energies Business  |   
CANADA  |   Regulatory Compliance Engineering


From:

Robert Heller mailto:rehel...@mmm.com>>

To:

EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>

Date:

11/18/2011 09:12 AM

Subject:

[PSES] DC Supply






Anybody using/knowing of a clean DC power supply (up to 50 volts, 5 amps)? 
Something that won't show up in radiated or conducted scans. We have one on a 
LISN but would prefer not to do that.

Bob Heller
Tel: 651-778-6336
Fax: 651-778-6252

-

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://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 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 email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
__

-

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://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 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://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] CE marking of deep-fat fryer

[Ted Eckert]

If the fryer is used by laymen, IEC 60335-2-13 is likely the correct standard.  
Its scope includes the following text.

"Appliances intended for normal household and similar use and that may also be 
used by laymen in shops, in light industry and on farms are within the scope of 
this standard. However, if the appliance is intended to be used professionally 
to process food for commercial consumption, the appliance is not considered to 
be for household and similar use only."

This would appear to cover deep-fat fryers used in restaurants and shops, but 
not food processing plants.

Ted Eckert
Compliance Engineer
Microsoft Corporation
ted.eck...@microsoft.com

The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my 
employer.

-Original Message-
From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk] 
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2011 2:15 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: CE marking of deep-fat fryer

In message , dated Mon, 14 
Nov 2011, Pete Perkins  writes:

>   Looking for input on requirements for CE marking of a commercial 
>deep-fat fryer.
>
>   What's the latest?

IEC 60335-2-13
Edition 6.0 (2009-12-14)
Household and similar electrical appliances - Safety - Part 2-13: 
Particular requirements for deep fat fryers, frying pans and similar appliances

This is mainly aimed at household appliances, but SC61E hasn't got round to 
making a separate standard for commercial appliances.
--
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 Some people who are 
peeling the finch of the financial crisis are thinking of biting a rook.

-

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: Standards for Motors and Wire in an outdoor environment

[Ted Eckert]

Hello Jeffrey,

For motors, start with UL 1004 and the IEC 60034 series.  You will likely find 
requirements for outdoor motors.  I don't have anything to offer on the wire 
evaluation.

http://www.ul.com/motor/safety.html

http://webstore.iec.ch/webstore/webstore.nsf/mysearchajax?Openform&key=60034&sorting=&start=1


Ted Eckert
Compliance Engineer
Microsoft Corporation
ted.eck...@microsoft.com

The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my 
employer.




From: Jeff Collins [mailto:jeffcollin...@yahoo.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 1:28 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: Standards for Motors and Wire in an outdoor environment

 
Group,

I have two questions.
 
Can anyone recommend any standards ( Safety and Environmental) used to evaluate 
/ qualify DC motors which reside in an outdoor environment? 

Can anyone advise on how you would evaluate/test copper wire after it has been 
exposed in a harsh outdoor environment? (Resistance, Continuity, Visual, etc 
?)


 
Thanks,
 
Jeffrey Collins

Compliance & Reliability Engineering

-

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: 

-

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: 

RE: CSA_CUS, UL_CUS

[Ted Eckert]

As long as UL tests a product within its accredited scope, then it should be
accepted in Canada.  UL has a fairly extensive scope.

http://www.scc.ca/certifiers/cb_uli_e.pdf

 

Historically, the United States’ economic dominance in North America and
UL’s dominance of the U.S. certification market has given Canadian
authorities a lot of exposure to the UL marks.  Products approved with the
certification marks show in the above link will most likely be accepted
without question.

 

Ted Eckert

Compliance Engineer

Microsoft Corporation

ted.eck...@microsoft.com

 

The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my
employer.

 

 

 

From: Michael Loerzer [mailto:loerzer_mob...@globalnorm.de] 
Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2009 2:06 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: AW: CSA_CUS, UL_CUS

 

Okay, but…

 

my understanding was if I go to UL and send an application form to certify a
product as a “listed product” or a component as a “recognized
component” for the US and Canada I can use the UL-Label with “C” and
“US” which is also accepted by CSA.

 

If I understand the different mails correctly than you mean, that the Canadian
“AHJ” don´t accept the UL-mark (with the “C”) automatically?!  

 

Mit freundlichen Grüßen
Yours sincerely

 

Dipl.-Ing. Michael Loerzer
Managing Director
Regulatory Affairs Specialist

 

michael.loer...@globalnorm.de <mailto:michael.loer...@globalnorm.de>  

Fon: +49 30 3229027-50, Direct Call: -51
Mobile: +49 170 3229027
Fax: +49 30 3229027-59

 

www.Globalnorm.de <http://www.globalnorm.de/>  


Globalnorm GmbH, Sitz der Gesellschaft: Alt-Moabit 94, 10559 Berlin
Geschaeftsfuehrer/Managing Director: Dipl.-Ing. Michael Loerzer
Amtsgericht Berlin-Charlottenburg HRB 105204 B, USt-ID-Nummer: DE251654448

 

Von: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] Im Auftrag von Michael
Loerzer
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 19. Februar 2009 20:50
An: emc-p...@ieee.org
Betreff: CSA_CUS, UL_CUS

 

+++ Globalnorm-Conference „Product Compliance“, 09. and 10.06.2009 in
Berlin, www.globalnorm.de <http://www.globalnorm.de>  +++

 

Hello,

 

some of my German machinery safety customers have asked me if CSA and UL have
cancelled the agreement of mutual acceptance of CSA_CUS and UL_CUS marks?

 

Is that true?

 

Mit freundlichen Grüßen
Yours sincerely

 

Dipl.-Ing. Michael Loerzer
Managing Director
Regulatory Affairs Specialist

 

michael.loer...@globalnorm.de <mailto:michael.loer...@globalnorm.de>  

Fon: +49 30 3229027-50, Direct Call: -51
Mobile: +49 170 3229027
Fax: +49 30 3229027-59

 

www.Globalnorm.de <http://www.globalnorm.de/>  


Globalnorm GmbH, Sitz der Gesellschaft: Alt-Moabit 94, 10559 Berlin
Geschaeftsfuehrer/Managing Director: Dipl.-Ing. Michael Loerzer
Amtsgericht Berlin-Charlottenburg HRB 105204 B, USt-ID-Nummer: DE251654448

 

-

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  

-

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  

-

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  

RE: CSA_CUS, UL_CUS

[Ted Eckert]

Maybe I am getting too far into the details, but let me add a few items.

In the United States, local, state and federal agencies must accept NRTL 
approvals as long as the specific approval is within the OSHA scope of the 
NRTL.  Whereas UL is approved to test to a large number of standards, other 
NRTLs are very limited in their scope of approvals under OSHA's NRTL program.

In practice, many AHJs (Authorities Having Jurisdiction, i.e. electrical or 
building inspectors) are not going to check OSHA's web site for accredited 
NRTLs or the scope of accreditation for an NRTL.  The AHJ may accept products 
approved by an NRTL even though the NRTL tested outside of their approved 
scope.  The AHJ may also reject a product properly approved by an NRTL.  You 
may need to educate the AHJ if they don't properly handle product acceptance 
because they don't understand the finer points of OSHA's NRTL program.  This 
won't be a fun task.

I have also run into a few cases where a large customer (typically a large 
retailer) will only accept products approved by one or only a few NRTLs.  
Again, you may have an education effort if your product is approved by one of 
the lesser known NRTLs.

Ted Eckert
Compliance Engineer
Microsoft Corporation
ted.eck...@microsoft.com

The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my 
employer.




From: Brian O'Connell [mailto:oconne...@tamuracorp.com] 
Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2009 1:29 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: CSA_CUS, UL_CUS

OSHA's NRTL program specifically does not address "acceptance of
marks" between accredited NRTLs, and mutual acceptance is not
determined by the US federal government.

NRTLs are not necessarily required to accept the other's test
report, nor are they required to accept another's FUS audit
report.

Local governments in Canada seem to be allowed to specify certain
'agency' marks. US Federal courts and US Federal executive
policies have said that local US governments shall accept the
mark of any accredited NRTL.


From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org]On Behalf Of
John J Radomski
Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2009 1:06 PM
To: Michael Loerzer
Cc: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: Re: CSA_CUS, UL_CUS

Do you mean mutual acceptance of test data? UL and CSA are
testing/certification organizations authorized by governments in
the US and Canada to conduct tests and issue approval marks.
Acceptance of marks is determined by governments. ULc mark does
not guarantee automatic accepted in all jurisdictions in Canada.
Same applies to US, CSAus mark does not guarantee automatic
accepted in all jurisdictions in the US. Local governments
sometimes have their own preferences.

Best Regards,

John Radomski
Rockwell Automation


"Michael Loerzer" 
Sent by: emc-p...@ieee.org
02/19/2009 02:49 PM To
cc
SubjectCSA_CUS, UL_CUS


+++ Globalnorm-Conference "Product Compliance", 09. and
10.06.2009 in Berlin, www.globalnorm.de +++

Hello,

some of my German machinery safety customers have asked me if CSA
and UL have cancelled the agreement of mutual acceptance of
CSA_CUS and UL_CUS marks?

Is that true?

Mit freundlichen Grüßen
Yours sincerely

Dipl.-Ing. Michael Loerzer
Managing Director
Regulatory Affairs Specialist

michael.loer...@globalnorm.de
Fon: +49 30 3229027-50, Direct Call: -51
Mobile: +49 170 3229027
Fax: +49 30 3229027-59

-

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: 

-

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: 

RE: EN61000-4-6 test equipment

[Ted Eckert]

Another option is the Schaffner NSG 2070.  I don’t think Schaffner still
makes it, but there are used units available.

http://www.atecorp.com/equipment/schaffner/nsg2070.asp

 

I have mostly the same disclaimers as Ken.  I have seen one built into a
larger rack of EMC test equipment, but I never saw it used and I can’t tell
you how good it is.  This is also not a specific recommendation for Advanced
Test Equipment Corporation.  I only linked to their web site because it has a
reasonable description of the NSG 2070.  There are plenty of other places to
find a used unit.

 

Ted Eckert

Compliance Engineer

Microsoft Corporation

ted.eck...@microsoft.com

 

The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my
employer.

 

 

 

From: Ken Javor [mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2009 6:02 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: EN61000-4-6 test equipment

 

Sorry; inadvertently hit send before I was ready.

Amplifier Research makes a test set.

http://www.arww-rfmicro.com/html/11100_conducted_immunity_systems.asp

Haven’t used it, haven’t seen it used, no recommendation, but they are
advertising it all over (“nothing else even comes close”).
 
Ken Javor

Phone: (256) 650-5261





From: 
List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org
List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org
List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 20:43:02 -0500
To: 
Subject: EN61000-4-6 test equipment

Hello group,

I am looking to purchase a single box solution for the above standard
(Conducted immunity) to do some ITE products. Can someone recommend me a
manufacturer? You can do that off line if you do not wish to copy the group.

thanks
Peter
 



A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above.  See yours in just 2 easy steps!
<http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/1007
x1218694775x1201253752/aol?redir=http:/
www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.asp
?sc=668072%26hmpgID=62%26bcd=febemailfooterNO62>
<http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/1007
x1218694775x1201253752/aol?redir=http:/
www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.asp
?sc=668072%26hmpgID=62%26bcd=febemailfooterNO62>  
-

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  

-

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  

-

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  

RE: New Product Proposal

[Ted Eckert]

Hello Derek,

First, we can make reasonable judgments on what is reasonably safe and what is 
potentially dangerous.  Almost anything can be made unsafe in one way or 
another.  I consider my home to be safe, but it is made of wood, nails, bricks, 
electric wiring, etc  I can easily use any of these materials for harm as 
well as for shelter and convenience.  My job as a safety engineer is to take 
things that have known hazards and to mitigate those hazards to the best of my 
ability.

If you want to discuss overregulation, where do you want to stop?  Worldwide, 
there are regulations regarding almost everything.  We don't discuss Chinese 
politics on this list even though the Chinese government has imposed many 
regulations that citizens of western nations would find to be unacceptable.  We 
discuss Chinese safety and EMC regulations, but not regulations regarding 
religion, media or other subjects.

In order to have a productive discussion, you need to have representatives, and 
preferably experts, covering multiple sides of the issue.  I believe that this 
list is limited in the issues for which we have a reasonable quorum.

And yes, I knew what to expect when I sent my previous message.  If anything, I 
am surprised by how limited the response has been.  I expected that I was 
opening myself up to a contentious response.  I know that in the end, it is up 
to the list administrators to determine which messages go over the line.  I can 
only provide my opinion.  This discussion that I have started must follow my 
own policies, so I am willing to read the views of others who disagree.

Ted Eckert
Compliance Engineer
Microsoft Corporation
ted.eck...@microsoft.com

The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my 
employer.





From: Derek Walton [mailto:lfresea...@aol.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2009 8:40 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: New Product Proposal

Hi Ted,

now you knew this was coming

We discuss regulation, that INCLUDES OVER REGULATION. List server
members contribute to committees that determine regulations and hearing
too many Nanny state opinions sways the regulation process. Thats what I
meant when I stated you repeat it until you believe it.

Your statement about "potentially unsafe product" is loaded. Water is
potentially unsafe, but we would die without it.

I'd further like to point out that uncomfortable topics need as much
discussion as comfortable ones... Those that don't like can always hit
delete.

Sincerely,

Derek Walton.

Ted Eckert wrote:
> This list is to address regulations regarding EMC and product safety.  I 
> agree with Lee that the topic is straying too far from the central purpose of 
> the list.
>
> I have no objection to the free discussion of various topics.  Personally, I 
> rather be exposed to as many views and as much information as possible to 
> allow me to make an informed view.  However, there are members of this list 
> who may feel uncomfortable when some topics unrelated to EMC or product 
> safety are discussed.  The list is best served by maintaining a larger 
> membership that is willing to contribute.
>
> Even the original post in this series may be considered outside of the core 
> intent of the list.  The laser in question is clearly being abused.  Somebody 
> went through some work to create a potentially dangerous product.  There are 
> regulations regarding the use of Class 3 lasers and the product for sale is 
> sold without the approvals, documentation and warnings to the user.  I rather 
> see people discuss what regulations apply to such a product and how to sell 
> it appropriately, if at all.
>
> Ted Eckert
> Compliance Engineer
> Microsoft Corporation
> ted.eck...@microsoft.com
>
> The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my 
> employer.
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Derek Walton [mailto:lfresea...@aol.com]
> Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2009 7:57 AM
> To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: Re: New Product Proposal
>
> Hi Lee,
>
> I disagree: this list addresses regulations, and discussing excessive
> regulation is totally appropriate. You cant say things are bad without
> hearing the opposite side of the argument.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Derek.
>
> PS, see you in Austin?
>
> Lee Hill wrote:
>
>> I feel this topic is getting outside of the intended purpose of the
>> list-server
>>
>> Lee
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Derek Walton
>> Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2009 10:33 AM
>> To: James, Chris
>> Cc: Taylor, Michael; Oscar Overton; emc-p...@ieee.org
>> Subject: Re: New Product Proposal
>>
>> Hi Chris,
>>
>&g

RE: New Product Proposal

[Ted Eckert]

This list is to address regulations regarding EMC and product safety.  I agree 
with Lee that the topic is straying too far from the central purpose of the 
list.

I have no objection to the free discussion of various topics.  Personally, I 
rather be exposed to as many views and as much information as possible to allow 
me to make an informed view.  However, there are members of this list who may 
feel uncomfortable when some topics unrelated to EMC or product safety are 
discussed.  The list is best served by maintaining a larger membership that is 
willing to contribute.  

Even the original post in this series may be considered outside of the core 
intent of the list.  The laser in question is clearly being abused.  Somebody 
went through some work to create a potentially dangerous product.  There are 
regulations regarding the use of Class 3 lasers and the product for sale is 
sold without the approvals, documentation and warnings to the user.  I rather 
see people discuss what regulations apply to such a product and how to sell it 
appropriately, if at all.

Ted Eckert
Compliance Engineer
Microsoft Corporation
ted.eck...@microsoft.com

The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my 
employer.




From: Derek Walton [mailto:lfresea...@aol.com] 
Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2009 7:57 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: New Product Proposal

Hi Lee,

I disagree: this list addresses regulations, and discussing excessive 
regulation is totally appropriate. You cant say things are bad without 
hearing the opposite side of the argument.

Sincerely,

Derek.

PS, see you in Austin?

Lee Hill wrote:
> I feel this topic is getting outside of the intended purpose of the
> list-server
>
> Lee
>
> -Original Message-
> From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Derek Walton
> Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2009 10:33 AM
> To: James, Chris
> Cc: Taylor, Michael; Oscar Overton; emc-p...@ieee.org
> Subject: Re: New Product Proposal
>
> Hi Chris,
>
> We all know banning doesn't work, history has shown that: and the Darwin 
> awards showcase gene pool removal.  I feel safer in Texas, or 
> Arizona, where I know if someone tries a stunt with a weapon that 1/2 
> the resteraunt will stop him/her before a carnage will occur. I no 
> longer feel safe like that in Manchester or Warrington where I grew up. 
> I've lived in these places, so thats my experience.
>
> Not trying to advocate guns etc, just stress banning doesn't work. That 
> just means the bad guys/gals have the things being banned.
>
> So to answer your question, yes, I tolerate some idiots. Better one or 
> two crazys being dealt with than the rest of us becoming vanilla... Go 
> after the crazies.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Derek.
>
> James, Chris wrote:
>   
>> So you are happy to have zip guns, modified air weapons firing live
>> rounds and the like on the street too - seems like this device would be
>> equally good for mugging someone.
>>
>> As for the other - the rules are there to protect the majority,
>> hopefully preventing fires, explosions and electrocutions in domestic
>> situations - like you I personally find it an encroachment but unlike
>> many I understand the need for competency when undertaking such work and
>> knowing ones limitations.
>>
>> I have been in houses where mains cable has been nailed along the
>> skirting board and round door frames to feed wall additional sockets in
>> rooms, or in one case a power shower - that owner was actually proud of
>> such handi-work.
>>
>> C
>>
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Derek Walton [mailto:lfresea...@aol.com] 
>> Sent: 05 February 2009 15:00
>> To: James, Chris
>> Cc: Taylor, Michael; Oscar Overton; emc-p...@ieee.org
>> Subject: Re: New Product Proposal
>>
>> hi All,
>>
>> I guess I'm used to being Politically incorrect, it's what life's 
>> experiences teaches me to be.. So.
>>
>> I'm all in favor of devices like these. I DO NOT believe in baning 
>> things unless absolutely avoidable. I don't think that the majority 
>> should be punished for the stupidity of the few.
>>
>> My birth country was England, where it's absolutely incredible how such 
>> a country has been clamped down. You cant install your own gas, or by 
>> now electrical appliances by yourself without running legal risks. 
>> Actions like restricting experimenting tools totally kill the pioneering
>>
>> spirit!
>>
>> If it IS against the law to sell such devices, it won't be the first 
>> time that I've thought the law is an A$$.
>>
>>

RE: Instructions on CD

[Ted Eckert]

Hello Gordon,

There is no easy answer to your question.  Whether or not instructions must be 
printed depends on the product type, country of sale and applicable standards 
or directives.  It also can depend on the type of instructions.  Without 
knowing details of a product and its use, it is impossible to give specific 
requirements.

The following are general guidelines and are my opinion only.  

If the instructions are not related to safety, either for installation or use, 
you can generally provide them in a digital format.  Instructions related to 
safety are often required by safety standards to be in a printed form.  The 
standards typically require safety information to be available in the local 
language.  For equipment where the installer is different from the user, such 
as industrial equipment, there may be different requirements for the 
installation and user information.  Where there are greater safety risks, 
standards may require placing the information on the product, not just in a 
paper manual.

Ted Eckert
Compliance Engineer
Microsoft Corporation
ted.eck...@microsoft.com

The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my 
employer.




From: Gordon,Ian [mailto:ian.gor...@edwardsvacuum.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2009 3:27 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: 


All
Is there a legal requirement to provide a paper copy of product
instructions rather than supply these on CD?

Ian Gordon






The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and are 
provided solely for the use of the intended recipient(s). If you are not the 
intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any copying, disclosure, 
distribution, or use of this e-mail, its attachments or any information 
contained therein is unauthorised and strictly prohibited and you should please 
contact the sender immediately and delete this e-mail and any attachments from 
your system.
No responsibility is accepted for any virus or defect that might arise from 
opening this e-mail or attachments, whether or not it has been checked by 
anti-virus software.

-

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: 

-

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: 

RE: Switching Transformer Safety Standards

[Ted Eckert]

My apologies, but I meant 61010-1, the end product standard.  (My fingers can
sometimes type faster than my brain can work.)

 

Ted Eckert

Compliance Engineer

Microsoft Corporation

ted.eck...@microsoft.com

 

The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my
employer.

 

 

 

From: peter merguerian [mailto:pmerguerian2...@yahoo.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2009 8:47 PM
To: Kunde, Brian; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG; Ted Eckert
Subject: RE: Switching Transformer Safety Standards

 

Brian,

 

I agree with Ted, but replace the standard with IEC/EN/UL 61010-1 (your end
product standard). There is no reason to abide by other standards unless the
61010-1 standard refers to another standard.

 

Best Regards,

 

Peter

 



--- On Wed, 1/28/09, Ted Eckert  wrote:

From: Ted Eckert 
Subject: RE: Switching Transformer Safety Standards
To: "Kunde, Brian" , 
"EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG"

Date: Wednesday, January 28, 2009, 3:07 PM

Hello Brian,

 

These are some general guidelines and are not necessarily complete.  

 

You should be able to have the transformer evaluated under 60601 as part of
your product.  You will need to obey all of the creepage, clearance and
insulation thickness requirements of 60601.  You will also need to consider
any required electric strength test from primary to secondary.  Additionally, 
consider the maximum temperature expected when selecting your insulation
materials.

 

How you construct the transformer will depend on the type of bobbin you intend
to use.  I presume the bobbin selection will be based on a trade-off of cost,
size and efficiency.  If the transformer can be large an inefficient, the
safety will likely be easier to manage. 

 

I realize that a lot of what I stated may be obvious, but it covers a lot of
the basics of switch-mode transformer safety.  The devil is in the details. 
Verifying all of the required parameters on a small transformer can be
difficult as there can be many creepage paths.  With a 2 kW output power, I
presume that this wonʼt be a small transformer.

 

Ted Eckert

Compliance Engineer

Microsoft Corporation

ted.eck...@microsoft.com

 

The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my
employer.

 

From: Kunde, Brian [mailto:brian_ku...@lecotc.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2009 2:01 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Switching Transformer Safety Standards

 

Greetings Transformer Experts,

 

We need to design a custom switching transformer that runs at 25kHz, modulated
230VAC mains input and 4kVrms (.5A) output as part of a 4KV HV power supply.  

 

We want to design and test this transformer properly for safety so can anyone
give us a list of construction and/or safety standards to cover UL, CSA,
Europe and any international IEC requirements?

 

We are not experts in the world of specialty transformer safety and usually
rely on the manufacture for construction information but in this case we would
like to get more involved with the details and knowing what standards to
design to would be very helpful. 

 

The end product will be used in a piece of laboratory equipment.  (61010-1).   

 

Thank you and best regards,

 

The Other Brian

 

 

_ 

LECO Corporation Notice: This communication may contain confidential
information intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you received this by
mistake, please destroy it and notify us of the error. Thank you. 

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
discussion list. 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.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
<http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc> 
Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. 

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

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas mailto:emcp...@ptcnh.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
mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org> >

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
<http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc> 
Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. 

Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ <h

RE: Mains power cables with North American and European Approvals

[Ted Eckert]

Hello Brian,

 

There are cables with both UL and European approvals.  I don’t know if any
vendors have 1.5 mm2 cable, but they do have universal jumpers for lower
currents.  The list below represents what I know about.  This is not an
endorsement of any of these vendors.  There are also likely other vendors with
cables with both North American and European approvals.

http://www.volex.com/index.php?option=c
m_ecatalog&task=classlist&countryid=23&Itemid=31

http://www.alphawire.com/pages/302.cfm

http://www.qualtekusa.com/Catalog/Power%20Cords/PDF%20Files/319002t01.pdf

 

Ted Eckert

Compliance Engineer

Microsoft Corporation

ted.eck...@microsoft.com

 

The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my
employer.

 

From: Brian Ceresney [mailto:bceres...@delta-q.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2009 3:10 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Mains power cables with North American and European Approvals

 

Greetings All, 

After searching numerous websites, and enduring countless blank stares from
possible suppliers….

I am trying to find 3 conductor power cord that is rated 105C, 250V,
14Awg(1.5^2), SJ Type or equivalent, with UL/CSA Approvals as well as
approval(HAR?) by one of the European safety organizations, with little luck.
Are these approvals mutually exclusive? Or just rarely needed, because country
specific cords/connectors are required in the final application?

Your comments are much appreciated.

 

Best Regards, 

 

Brian Ceresney, CTech.

Test and Regulatory Team Lead,

Delta-Q Technologies Corp.

Unit 3 - 5250 Grimmer Street

Burnaby, BC  Canada  V5H 2H2

Tel: 604-327-8244 Ext.112

Fax: 604-327-8246

Cell:  778-839-9765

www.delta-q.com

bceres...@delta-q.com <mailto:bceres...@delta-q.com> 

 

 

Confidentiality Notice: This email message, including any attachments, is for
the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and
privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or
distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please
contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original
message.

 

 

-

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  

-

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  

RE: Switching Transformer Safety Standards

[Ted Eckert]

Hello Brian,

 

These are some general guidelines and are not necessarily complete.  

 

You should be able to have the transformer evaluated under 60601 as part of
your product.  You will need to obey all of the creepage, clearance and
insulation thickness requirements of 60601.  You will also need to consider
any required electric strength test from primary to secondary.  Additionally, 
consider the maximum temperature expected when selecting your insulation
materials.

 

How you construct the transformer will depend on the type of bobbin you intend
to use.  I presume the bobbin selection will be based on a trade-off of cost,
size and efficiency.  If the transformer can be large an inefficient, the
safety will likely be easier to manage. 

 

I realize that a lot of what I stated may be obvious, but it covers a lot of
the basics of switch-mode transformer safety.  The devil is in the details. 
Verifying all of the required parameters on a small transformer can be
difficult as there can be many creepage paths.  With a 2 kW output power, I
presume that this won’t be a small transformer.

 

Ted Eckert

Compliance Engineer

Microsoft Corporation

ted.eck...@microsoft.com

 

The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my
employer.

 

From: Kunde, Brian [mailto:brian_ku...@lecotc.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2009 2:01 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Switching Transformer Safety Standards

 

Greetings Transformer Experts,

 

We need to design a custom switching transformer that runs at 25kHz, modulated
230VAC mains input and 4kVrms (.5A) output as part of a 4KV HV power supply.  

 

We want to design and test this transformer properly for safety so can anyone
give us a list of construction and/or safety standards to cover UL, CSA,
Europe and any international IEC requirements?

 

We are not experts in the world of specialty transformer safety and usually
rely on the manufacture for construction information but in this case we would
like to get more involved with the details and knowing what standards to
design to would be very helpful. 

 

The end product will be used in a piece of laboratory equipment.  (61010-1).   

 

Thank you and best regards,

 

The Other Brian

 

 

_ 

LECO Corporation Notice: This communication may contain confidential
information intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you received this by
mistake, please destroy it and notify us of the error. Thank you. 

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
discussion list. 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  

-

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  

-

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  

RE: EN 60950-1 Safety Report Template

[Ted Eckert]

You can buy the test report form from the IEC directly if you are willing to
pay CHF 550.  The form is in Microsoft Word format. 

http://webstore.iec.ch/webstore/webstore.nsf/artnum/030412?opendocument

 

If you are a customer of a specific test agency, they may be willing to
provide you with a template.  

 

Ted Eckert

Compliance Engineer

Microsoft Corporation

ted.eck...@microsoft.com

 

The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my
employer.

 

 

From: Carl Newton [mailto:emcl...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2009 9:29 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: EN 60950-1 Safety Report Template

 

I seem to recall a few years ago there was a thread here in which a list
member was looking for a report template for EN 60950-1, similar to a CB
Scheme type of report.  The idea is simply to use that template to create a
safety report in support of an LVD self-declaration.  Does anybody out there
have such a thing that they are willing to share?  Or can you point me toward
such an item online somewhere? 

Thanks in advance, 

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


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  

-

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  

RE: Certification Standards for terminal block accessories?

[Ted Eckert]

Hello Lauren,

 

These are the likely standards.

 

ANSI/UL 1059 <http://ulstandardsinfonet.ul.com/scopes/scopes.asp?fn=1059.html>
, "Terminal Blocks"

http://ulstandardsinfonet.ul.com/scopes/scopes.asp?fn=1059.html

 

IEC 60947-7-1 <http://ulstandardsinfone
.ul.com/scopes/scopes.asp?fn=60947-7-1.html> , "Low-Voltage Switchgear and
Controlgear - Part 7-1: Ancillary Equipment - Terminal Blocks for Copper
Conductors"

IEC 60947-7-2 <http://ulstandardsinfone
.ul.com/scopes/scopes.asp?fn=60947-7-2.html> , "Low-Voltage Switchgear and
Controlgear - Part 7-2: Ancillary Equipment - Protective Conductor Terminal
Blocks for Copper Conductors"

 

The IEC  60947-7-x Standards are used in conjunction with IEC 60947-1
<http://ulstandardsinfonet.ul.com/scopes/scopes.asp?fn=60947-1.html> ,
"Low-Voltage Switchgear and Controlgear - Part 1: General Rules."

 

There are also ANSI/UL versions of the IEC 60497 standards listed above that
are options to UL 1059.

http://ulstandardsinfonet.ul.com/scopes/scopes.asp?fn=60947-1.html

http://ulstandardsinfonet.ul.com/scopes/scopes.asp?fn=60947-7-1.html

 

Ted Eckert

Compliance Engineer

Microsoft Corporation

ted.eck...@microsoft.com

 

The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my
employer.

 

 

 

From: Lauren Crane [mailto:lauren_cr...@amat.com] 
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2009 2:13 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Certification Standards for terminal block accessories?

 


All, 

Does anyone know of a certification standard (e.g., UL, EN) that may exist for
terminal block accessories. I am specifically curious about "jumper bars" used
to bridge the continuity of adjacent terminals. 

I've gotten a few hits on Google related to ATEX considerations, but my focus
is just on basic "shock and fire" issues. 

Regards, 
Lauren Crane 
Product Regulatory Analyst
Corporate Product EHS Lead
Applied Materials Inc.
Austin, TX 512 272-6540 [#922 26540]

- external use - 

Save paper and trees!  Please consider the environment before printing this
e-mail. -

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


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  

-

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  

RE: Electrical product recall

[Ted Eckert]

Hello Scott,

 

The US Consumer Product Safety Commission has guidance on recalls.  The
following link has the CPSC Recall Handbook, a Recall Checklist and a link to
assistance from non-CPSC sources.

http://www.cpsc.gov/businfo/corrective.html

 

I also recommend that compliance engineers have at least a basic understanding
of product liability law.  I recently participated in a workshop from Perkins
Coie that I highly recommend, although I am sure there are other very good
programs available.

http://www.perkinscoie.com/events/eventslist.aspx?Upcoming=true

 

In general, you need good legal advice and you should work with legal counsel
well versed in this area of practice.  

 

Ted Eckert

Compliance Engineer

Microsoft Corporation

ted.eck...@microsoft.com

 

The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my
employer.  I am an engineer and not an attourney; information provided is for
general reference only.

 

 

From: Scott Xe [mailto:scott...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2009 8:46 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Electrical product recall

 

It is a quite common terms in the industry and mostly related to safety
hazard.  We would like to establish a process for the product recall.  Is
there any important rules or guidance to follow for a meaningful and
absolutely necessary recall?

 

Thanks and regards,

 

Scott

-

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


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  

RE: iNARTE PS or IEEE

[Ted Eckert]

I am both an IEEE member and an iNARTE certified Product Safety Engineer.  For
both, I have found the value to be commensurate with the effort I have put
into my membership.  If you are an active member, attending chapter meetings
and writing papers or articles, you will probably find the membership much
more valuable.

 

I have been an IEEE member for about 20 years.  For much of that time, it was
nothing more than a very expensive magazine subscription for me.  Now that I
put some effort into my IEEE membership, I am getting a lot more back.  The
professional contacts alone have been quite valuable.  In addition, It has
also encouraged me to start writing papers, which requires me to research
subjects in far more detail that I would have considered before becoming an
active member.  I can’t claim to be an expert in these areas, but it has
given me enough knowledge to provide additional value to my employers.  I
became able to resolve problems that once seemed intractable, or that could
only be resolved with significant support from vendors.  

 

Many see IEEE as an academically oriented organization and that is what it has
become in recent years.  I remember seeing an IEEE Spectrum article from a
number of years ago showing that 35 years ago, the majority of papers
submitted for IEEE publication came from people in industry.  Now, the vast
majority come from academia.  I don’t know if American businesses allow or
encourage the type of work needed to regularly publish.  The advantages are
long term and not short term, and as such, are not reflected on the stock
market.  The publications and symposia of the IEEE in general have become less
valuable to industry professionals.  I do believe that more participate by
industry professionals could help swing IEEE back towards the middle.  I
encourage other industry personnel to join to help make the IEEE into a
society for us all.

 

There are exceptions to the academic slant.  I find that the IEEE Product
Safety Engineering Society is strongly industry oriented.  The EMC society has
a lot of industry participation, but the annual symposia are more split
between academia and industry.   The local EMC chapters do provide quite a bit
to industry professionals.  Outside of our profession, there are groups such
as the IEEE Power Engineering Society (PES) which are strongly industry
oriented.  

 

My iNARTE certification has provided less value to me, but I have yet to
become active.  The certification for product safety is relatively new and
currently seems to carry little value within the product safety community.  I
suspect that if I were to become more active with iNARTE, I would get more out
of it.  My impression of iNARTE EMC certification is more favorable.  In
general (and this is my perception only) the certified EMC engineers that I
know seem to be competent and knowledgeable.  If I were hiring, I would
definitely take iNARTE certification into consideration.  A person who was not
certified would not be excluded and I can’t off-hand state how much weight I
would give to certification.  

 

There are other options.  If you live in New England, the North East Product
Safety Society can provide a good opportunity for continuing education and
networking.

http://www.nepss.net/

 

Finally, I will state that the value could be great for your career in the
current economic climate.  A personal acquaintance with other compliance
engineers around the country could be your foot in the door if you need to
find a new job.  When a company is hiring, firsthand knowledge of a candidate
gives that person a significant advantage.

 

Ted Eckert

Compliance Engineer

One Microsoft Way

Redmond WA, 98052

(425) 707-9205

ted.eck...@microsoft.com

 

This email message may contain confidential and proprietary information.  Any
unauthorized use is prohibited.  If you are not the intended recipient, please
contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original
message.

 

 

 

 

From: Gert Gremmen [mailto:g.grem...@cetest.nl] 
Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2009 11:31 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: iNARTE PS or IEEE

 

>>I would not not do it. Join IEEE instead.

 

I have been member of this list for almost

10 years now, and have learned a lot.

What would be the real  advantage of becoming

a IEEE member ?

 

Or was it just a joke ???

 

 

Gert Gremmen

 

 

Van: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] Namens peterh...@aol.com
Verzonden: zaterdag 10 januari 2009 7:08
Aan: curtis.ben...@tennantco.com; emc-p...@ieee.org
Onderwerp: Re: iNARTE PS cert & books

 

Curtis,

I would not not do it. Join IEEE instead.

Pete


From: Bender, Curtis 
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Sent: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 8:58 am
Subject: iNARTE PS cert & books

Greetings colleagues.
 
To further my career "credentials" (and +20 year experience) as a
product safety engineer I plan on taking the iNARTE PS certification
test and thus have a cou

RE: CE-Standards method of Compliance for Battery Chargers

[Ted Eckert]

Have you considered EN 61851?  EN 60335-2-29 references this standard for 
electric vehicle charging systems.

Ted Eckert
Compliance Engineer
Microsoft Corporation
ted.eck...@microsoft.com

The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my 
employer.



From: Brian Ceresney [mailto:bceres...@delta-q.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2009 1:54 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: CE-Standards method of Compliance for Battery Chargers

Previously posted on the IEEE/PSTC Forum Board:

CE-Standards Compliance for Battery Chargers
Posted: Dec 30, 2008  2:53 PM 7 views

Season's Greetings to All,

Our company manufactures industrial battery chargers that are used for EVs, 
various types of mobile work platforms, golf carts, and personnel movers. They 
operate at universal ac input voltages, and charge batteries at output voltages 
that range from 24V to 96V, depending upon the final application. They can be 
"'built-in" to machines, or mounted to structures for "off-board use"( charged 
by plugging the dc output into the machine).  We currently have third party 
approvals to the US and Canadian standards for Industrial Battery chargers, and 
EV Battery Chargers on these products as components, and stand alone products, 
depending upon the output configuration.
We are in the process of being tested by a European CB Body to EN60335-2-29, 
(referencing  EN60335-1)with the intent of using the report to self-declare and 
CE mark the product for compliance with the LVD. Our CB Body informs us that we 
are not entitled to a CB Report, solely because our output voltages exceed the 
scope allowed by EN60335-2-29. They are only willing to provide a test and 
evaluation report, which may be of questionable value to us later when we 
intend to have further country specific approvals performed. Our CB Body has 
offered no alternative route to this, and argue against any alternate approach 
using the Standards Route.
Another CB Body has suggested that we declare the product to EN60335-1, using 
EN60335-2-29 as a guide for specific testing and evaluation, issuing a CB 
Report listing both standards, noting the exception in output voltages. I would 
appreciate the opinions of the group as to whether this approach is valid by 
the Standards Route to compliance, or whether it is only a loophole that 
circumvents the intent of the European compliance process. Can you direct me to 
the specific guidelines or legislation that contain chapter and verse about the 
process?
Is our only alternative to use a Notified Body for declaration to the Essential 
Requirements?
 Any comments you may have offering guidance are much appreciated.

Best Regards,

Brian Ceresney, CTech.
Test and Regulatory Lead,
Delta-Q Technologies Corp.
Unit 3 - 5250 Grimmer Street
Burnaby, BC  Canada  V5H 2H2
Tel: 604-327-8244 Ext.112
bceres...@delta-q.com



Confidentiality Notice: This email message, including any attachments, is for 
the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and 
privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or 
distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please 
contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original 
message.

-

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: 

-

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: 

RE: Environmental Tests

[Ted Eckert]

If your product is being transported in packaging or a transportation case,
you may consider ISTA standards.

http://www.ista.org/

 

For general testing, look at the IEC 60068 series.  There are standards for
individual environmental tests and some for combined testing.  Take a look at
IEC 60068-2-31 for a test procedure to simulate rough handling.

 

Ted Eckert

Compliance Engineer

Microsoft Corporation

ted.eck...@microsoft.com

 

The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my
employer.

 

 

From: John Harrington [mailto:jharring...@keithley.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2008 1:16 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: 

 

Hi Group

 

Does anyone have any recommendations for environmental test standards
(vibration,, shock, temp, humidity etc) for sensitive test and measurement
equipment that will be transported around a lot.

 

We normally use MIL-PRF-28800F but my manager has decided that this isn’t
severe enough and has sent me off to look for something else.  The only other
standard I have familiarity with is NEBS GR-63 and I don’t think he would
want to go that far!

 

Thanks

 

John Harrington

Compliance Engineer

Keithley Instruments, Inc.

jharring...@keithley.com

Tel: 440 498 2727

 


_
Scanned by IBM Email Security Management Services powered by MessageLabs. For
more information please visit http://www.ers.ibm.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.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  

-

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  

RE: EMC Education and Training

[Ted Eckert]

Electromagnetic Compliance will probably never get much attention in
education.  However, that isn’t necessarily due to a perceived lack of
importance.  A good program will provide classes based on the needs of the
industries that will hire the graduates.  The requirements of industry are
extremely broad and there is only so much that can be crammed into most four
year programs.  Specialty fields, such as EMC and product safety will get
little or no attention in most programs.  The typical baccalaureate program
(at least within the United States) is limited to four years and must cover
significant breadth of material.  Prospective engineers can learn the basics
needed, such as electromagnetic field theory, but the details of EMC typically
must be learned on the job.  I have worked for companies that specialize in a
number of areas not covered in a typical four year education.  I found that my
college education gave me a good basis on which to start my job, but there was
still a lot to learn.  

 

In my first job, I worked for a company that designed industrial electronics
and I had to learn the finer points of analog circuit design.  My education
covered the basics of operational amplifiers, but I never had formal training
on 4-20mA circuits, user interface design, worst case analysis or many other
topics necessary for industrial electronic design.  My first introduction into
susceptibility testing came in this job where poorly designed analog circuits
didn’t work in noisy industrial environments.  In this case, regulation
didn’t drive the need for good EMC design, market forced did.  In a recent
job, I had to learn a lot about power distribution methods and issues.  I had
one course in power distribution in college which taught me the basics of
three-phase circuit analysis, but I still had a lot to learn.  Knowledge of
electrical codes became essential for me to do the job, and these were never
mentioned in my basic education.

 

Most aspects of my career, including but not limited to EMC and product
safety, have required me to find experts and apprentice myself to them. 
Should we consider making graduate level education mandatory for engineers? 
Should engineers have to work in rotations in different specialties the way
prospective doctors do?  What percentage of engineers end up as EMC engineers?
 If it is less than 5%, would we even expect more than a few universities to
offer specialized programs in the field?  

 

One final thought is that a lot of people go into engineering to design
things.  In general, EMC engineers are not designing new products.  (Although
we find that we must know good design in order to fix or redesign products
that fail EMC testing.)  I would not have chosen to go into the field of
testing when I came out of high school and I doubt many prospective
engineering students would enter a full program on EMC.

 

Ted Eckert

Compliance Engineer

Microsoft Corporation

ted.eck...@microsoft.com

 

The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my
employer.

 

 

 

 

From: Price, Edward [mailto:ed.pr...@cubic.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2008 7:49 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: EMC Eduction and Training

 

 



From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Kunde, 
Brian
Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2008 6:52 AM
To: EMC-PSTC
Subject: RE: EMC Eduction and Training

Hey, lets think about this for a minute.  Do we really want this “black
magic” stuff we do for a living to be better taught in universities?  Lets
face it, we have a good thing going here and we don’t need some greenhorn
engineer thinking he knows more about it than we do.  As mentioned earlier,
this job is more experience and technique than science.

  

The best EMC engineers and technicians I know where not taught in 
school, but
had been mentored by an older experienced EMC engineer.  Like a magician
passing on his secretes to his apprentice. This is how it has been done and
the way it has to be done.  

 

 

The Other Brian 

 

 

The Other Brian touches on an interesting and salient feature of the happy EMC
Engineer. EMC demands a more "hands on" approach than most of the other
disciplines. Those students who are not already building their own circuits
and frying their own power supplies will not do well in EMC, or at minimum,
will try to stay toward the academic / computational edge of EMC. To the
rigidly academic, it must be terrifying to discover that EMC problems have so
many unknowns and (usually) more than one solution.

 

I'm not so sure that a mentoring / apprentice system HAS to be the only way to
assure continuity, but, from my observation, it has been an effective and
efficient method. Certainly, we could get into an endless discussion of
whether our educational system rationally as

RE: Outlet Connector 250VAC 2.5 amps

[Ted Eckert]

If you are looking for a panel mount outlet, try Schurter.

http://www.schurter.ch/pdf/english/typ_5088.pdf

http://www.schurter.ch/pdf/english/typ_5888.pdf

Ted Eckert

Compliance Engineer

Microsoft Corporation

ted.eck...@microsoft.com

 

The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my
employer.

 

From: Kunde, Brian [mailto:brian_ku...@lecotc.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2008 11:32 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Outlet Connector 250VAC 2.5 amps

 

I’m looking for an AC Outlet connector similar to the IEC 60320 C6 or C8,
but an outlet instead of an inlet.  I need to run AC power out of my product
to a small external device which mounts on the side (lab equipment) and will
only draw less than 2 amps at 230 Vrms. I do not want to use the large
Appliance outlet connector. Any suggestions?  I checked Interpower and Power
Dynamics but no luck.  Wouldn’t such an application require the ground pin
to mate first and break last?  If so then I would be able to use just any
connector. 

The Other Brian

 

_ 

LECO Corporation Notice: This communication may contain confidential
information intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you received this by
mistake, please destroy it and notify us of the error. Thank you. 

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
discussion list. 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  

-

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  

-

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  

-

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  

RE: USA EMC Universities

[Ted Eckert]

Dr. Todd Hubing runs an EMC program at Clemson.

http://www.cvel.clemson.edu/emc/

 

The University of Oklahoma’s School of Industrial Engineering runs a 
wireless EMC center.

http://www.ou.edu/engineering/emc/

 

Ted Eckert

Compliance Engineer

Microsoft Corporation

ted.eck...@microsoft.com

 

The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my
employer.

 

From: Alan E Hutley [mailto:a...@nutwooduk.co.uk] 
Sent: Friday, December 05, 2008 3:53 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: USA EMC Universities

 

Hello All

 

I am interested in Universities in the USA that are very prominent in EMC
activities. I am aware of Missouri and assume there are others.

URL's would be appreciated. I intend to run a feature in The EMC Journal on
available activities

 

Alan E Hutley

The EMC Journal

 

 

-

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  

-

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  

RE: Critical Components

[Ted Eckert]

Hello Doug,

 

It is nearly impossible to specify classes of components that are always
safety critical.  What makes a component critical is its purpose.  Is it part
of a safeguard that protects somebody from a hazard?

 

Take a look at Rich Nute’s column in the June 2007 newsletter for the
Product Safety Engineering Society.  It covers the subject quite well.

http://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/Downloads/newsletters/07V3N2.pdf

 

 

Ted Eckert

Compliance Engineer

Microsoft Corporation

ted.eck...@microsoft.com

 

The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my
employer.

 

 

 

 

From: Doug Kramer [mailto:dkra...@nceelabs.com] 
Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2008 6:43 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Critical Components

 

 

Are there any IEC (or other accepted references) documents that define what
constitutes “critical components” in terms of product safety?  What drives
calling out a part on a “critical components” list?  

 

I would contend that it is any component of a system where the removal or
substitution could change the compliance of the product relative to the
applicable safety standard.

 

Any thoughts?

 

Doug Kramer

 

P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.

 

-

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


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  

-

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  

RE: IECEE and CE

[Ted Eckert]

Click on any country in the list to see the NCBs that test to the CB scheme.  
These NCBs should also accept a CB report from another agency.
http://members.iecee.org/

Ted Eckert
Compliance Engineer
Microsoft Corporation
ted.eck...@microsoft.com

The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my 
employer.




From: Doug Kramer [mailto:dkra...@nceelabs.com]
Sent: Monday, November 17, 2008 8:32 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: IECEE and CE

Is there a listing anywhere of countries that officially accept
CB-scheme reports in lieu of local testing?  The key being "officially".

-Doug


From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Nick
Williams
Sent: Monday, November 17, 2008 10:16 AM
To: Doug Kramer
Cc: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: Re: IECEE and CE

Only the CE mark is mandatory in the EU. All other marks (for
equipment covered by the CE marking directives, at least) are
optional, but they can have market advantages and assist with product
liability insurance.

In the days before the CE mark, some EU countries required vendors of
electrical equipment to have their products tested by a state or
commercial test house before they could legally be sold in their
territory. The CB Scheme was partly invented as a means of helping to
sustain the business models of the organisations which previously
made a living from mandatory testing once self-certification was
introduced under the Low Voltage Directive.

The primary value of the CB scheme is that if you are of a mind to
obtain approvals in a number of different territories then it can
avoid the need for expensive testing to be repeated in every case.
Because the scheme extends worldwide, it has particular value to
vendors selling in multiple non-EU markets where third party testing
is still mandatory since it allows a manufacturer to get testing done
in their own territory (or another where they are already familiar
with the requirements, language etc.) and to a large extent avoid
having to working with unknown quantities on the other side of the
plant.

Nick.



At 09:46 -0600 17/11/08, Doug Kramer wrote:
>In looking over some information for a customer, I came back to the
>IEC's IECEE section of their website.
>"The fundamental principle of the CB Scheme is that a manufacturer
>can obtain a CB Test Certificate for a defined product, from a
>national certification body (NCB). The manufacturer can then present
>this certificate to the NCBs in other member countries whose
>certification marks he wants for his products.
>The CB Scheme is based on the principle of mutual recognition by its
>members of test certificates for the purpose of issuing third-party
>certification marks at national level. The members of the scheme
>commit themselves to recognize the CB Test Certificate issued by any
>Certification Body accepted by the CMC to operate within the scheme.
>An essential part of this is peer assessment. Experience shows that
>in addition to promoting confidence among the members of the CB
>Scheme, Peer Assessment, as a method to verify competence and build
>confidence is accepted by authorities and clients of testing and
>certification bodies as having at the least same value as
>accreditation."  (http://www.iec.ch/conformity/ab_iecee.htm)
>I thought that manufacturers testing using harmonized standards
>(when available) was a correct route to demonstrating compliance to
>the EU directives and that CE-marking was only mark needed.  Am I
>getting marking confused with national and international levels?
>And what would be an example of a difference?
>It also seems that the CB-scheme is promoting as an alternative to
>accreditation?
>
>Thoughts and comments?
>
>Thanks!
>
>Doug Kramer
>
>-

-

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

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that
URL

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

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
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 
emc-p...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL

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

RE: What's the deal with Wire Nuts?

[Ted Eckert]

Hello Brian,

 

Off hand, I am unaware of anything preventing the use of a twist-on wire
connector in portable equipment, but that doesn’t mean that the prohibition
doesn’t exist.  Other list members may know of specific cases where the
connectors are prohibited.  However, the description of the connector covered
in electrical tape indicates that the connector is likely used outside of its
UL Listing (if it is even a Listed connector.)

 

First, let me state that “Wire-Nut” is a registered trademark of Ideal
Industries.  If you are looking for information in standards, the term
“twist-on wire connector” will be used.

 

Vibration during use is probably not the main issue.  There are many types of
fixed equipment, such as an air conditioner or other motor driven appliance,
where twist-on connectors are used and they are subject to regular vibration. 
The connectors may see more vibration in these applications than they might
see in some portable appliances.

 

However, your description gives me cause to be concerned.  UL does List
twist-on connectors under category code ZMVV and they have been around for
quite a while.  (Ideal’s UL file number is E5238 and that should give you an
idea as to the age of the product.)  The connectors’ Listing does have some
very specific requirements.  Specific size connectors are Listed only for use
with specific wire sizes and types.  The installation instructions must be
followed closely.  Some of the wire connectors specify that you should not
twist the wires first.  The twisting of the wire connector will twist the
wires to make the proper connection.  If you see a connector covered with
black tape, there is likely a problem.  The tape is typically used when there
is a concern that the connector will come loose.  This is done based on the
installer’s experience.  If they have had connectors come loose, it is
because they are likely using them incorrectly.  The tape does not fix
anything.  Electrical tape will not likely withstand the test of time and the
adhesive will degrade.  Cheap electrical tape rarely lasts long at all.

 

There are numerous crimp connectors suitable for connecting wires.  There are
but splices and crimp connectors designed to perform the same purpose as a
twist-on connector.  The crimp connectors make a good, permanent splice.  The
twist-on connector is intended for use where connections are made in the
field, particularly where they may need to be undone for servicing.  Crimp
connections and terminal blocks are better options for factory connections.

 

Ted Eckert

Compliance Engineer

Microsoft Corporation

ted.eck...@microsoft.com

 

The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my
employer.

 

 

 

From: Kunde, Brian [mailto:brian_ku...@lecotc.com] 
Sent: Monday, November 17, 2008 6:18 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: What's the deal with Wire Nuts?

 

Greetings Experts.

 

This should be an easy one for those who know the answer.

 

What is the deal with Wire Nuts?  Where can be they be used, where can’t
they be used?  Are there different rules for permanently mounted equipment
verse portable equipment? Do you have to also use a mechanical device such are
a tie wrap? How about black tape?

 

Our company does not use wire nuts but we always had the impression that
safety inspectors do not like to see wire nuts in portable equipment.  We are
evaluating a product made by another company that uses wire nuts on primary
wiring with black tape wrapped around it.  Is this technique acceptable
internationally on portable equipment?

 

Thanks to all in advance for the education.  

 

The Other Brian

_ 

LECO Corporation Notice: This communication may contain confidential
information intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you received this by
mistake, please destroy it and notify us of the error. Thank you. 

-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ 

To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org 

Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html 

List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html 

For help, send mail to the list administrators:

Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org 

For policy questions, send mail to:

Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org
David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com 

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:

http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc 

-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ 

To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org 

Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html 

List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html 

For help, send mail to the list administrators:

Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@iee

RE: Current limit for Dielectric Test

[Ted Eckert]

Hello Rob,

 

There is no current limit specified, and there is no way a limit could be
specified.  Take a look at IEC 60950-1 section 5.1.7.  You will see that there
are types of equipment where the touch current is allowed to exceed 3.5 mA. 
This is typically equipment that is field wired or at least has an industrial
locking plug.  The high touch current is often due to a significant amount of
filtering in the power supply including Y-capacitors.  If these capacitors
(and other circuits bridging primary to ground) are allowing over 3.5 mA at
the normal operating voltage, they will pass far more current at the voltages
used for the electric strength test.  

 

I have worked with high power telecommunication rectifiers that have a lot of
filtering on their input.  They have a very high touch current, but they are
field wired and have a solid ground connection.  The risk to the user from the
touch current is quite low.  The amount of current that flows during the
electric strength test is quite high.

 

You should know what the expected current will be during the electric strength
test.  You can calculate it from the test voltage and the impedance of the
circuits between primary and ground.  Giving some safety margin to this value,
you can generally select a reasonable starting point for the upper limit on
your testing.  As the standard notes, a failure is a dramatic increase in
current, not a constant high current.  You need to know your equipment to
determine the proper test limits.

 

Many types of electric strength testers will also let you set a lower limit
for failure.  This too should be set properly.  If the current during the
electric strength test is too low, you may have a bad test setup or a bad
connection in your product.

 

Ted Eckert

Compliance Engineer

Microsoft Corporation

ted.eck...@microsoft.com

 

The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my
employer.

 

 

From: Robert F. Keller [mailto:r...@cclab.com] 
Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2008 8:36 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Current limit for Dielectric Test

 

Hello Group,

I have a question regarding the Electric Strength test in 60950-1 section 5.2.
 It says in that section that you have a failure or the insulation broke down
when the current which flows as a result of the application of the test
voltage rapidly increases in an uncontrolled manner.  So, is there an exact
current limit at which it is considered to have "shorted"?  And if so, is this
printed in any standard?  
Any insight in this would be greatly appreciated.

Best Regards, 
Rob Keller 
Senior Engineer 
Communication Certification Laboratory 
Ph.: 801.972.6146   Ext.237
Fax: 801-972-8432
r...@cclab.com

-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ 

To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org 

Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html 

List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html 

For help, send mail to the list administrators:

Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org 

For policy questions, send mail to:

Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org
David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com 

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:

http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc 

-



This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ 

To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org 

Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html 

List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html 

For help, send mail to the list administrators:

Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org 

For policy questions, send mail to:

Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org
David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com 

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:

http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc 

RE: UL flammability marking

[Ted Eckert]

Strictly speaking, the flame rating does not need to be marked on the circuit 
board.  The following is from the UL guide for category code ZPMV2 for Printed 
Wiring Boards.

"Printed wiring boards Recognized under UL's Component Recognition Program are 
identified by significant markings consisting of the Recognized company's 
identification, the factory identification (if the printed wiring board is 
produced at more than one location), and the Recognized type designation that 
correspond with the marking specified in UL's published records. Only those 
components that actually bear the "Marking" shown in the individual 
Recognitions should be considered as being covered under the Component 
Recognition Program."

As noted, the board must have the following items.
1. Company Identification; this can be a name or logo.
2. Recognized Type Identification; this is normally a code issued by the 
circuit board manufacturer.
3. Factory identification, if made at more than one factory.

You will need to go to UL's on-line certification database.
http://database.ul.com/cgi-bin/XYV/template/LISEXT/1FRAME/index.htm
If you enter the category code ZPMV2, many pages of manufacturers will show up. 
 I will take the first listing as an example, ZPMV2.E46545 for A & C 
Electronics.  (They are only first alphabetically and I am in no way endorsing 
them as a vendor.)  At the bottom of the page is listed the required marking 
for this vendor.  It is their name or logo (and a picture of the logo is 
shown), type designation corresponding to the table displayed and factory 
marking.  The flammability rating can only be determined from the table in the 
file.  The vendor may choose to mark the rating on the board, but it isn't 
required by UL.

Ted Eckert
Compliance Engineer
Microsoft Corporation
ted.eck...@microsoft.com

The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my 
employer.





From: Kim Boll Jensen [mailto:k...@bolls.dk]
Sent: Friday, November 07, 2008 6:14 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: UL flammability marking

Hi all

I have been told that the UL marking on PCB (UR 94V-0 etc.) can also be
something like E4. Does anyone know if the marking requirements have been
changed and if so where I can get more information.

Best regards,


Mr. Kim Boll Jensen
Bolls Rådgivning
Ved Gadekæret 11F
DK-3660 Stenløse
Denmark

T: +45 48 18 35 66
F: +45 48 18 35 30
k...@bolls.dk
www.bolls.dk

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society
emc-pstc discussion list.Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/

To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org

Instructions:  http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html

List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:

 Scott Douglas   emcp...@ptcnh.net
 Mike Cantwell   mcantw...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:

 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org
 David Heald:   dhe...@gmail.com

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:

http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society
emc-pstc discussion list.Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/

To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org

Instructions:  http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html

List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:

 Scott Douglas   emcp...@ptcnh.net
 Mike Cantwell   mcantw...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:

 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org
 David Heald:   dhe...@gmail.com

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:

http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

RE: Deviation of Performance Criteria

[Ted Eckert]

As I read EN 61326, it allows the manufacturer to specify the performance
criteria for each test.  The standard only requires that equipment shall not
become dangerous or unsafe as a result of the application of the tests.  Table
2 is only an example of evaluation of immunity test results.  The note states
“…performance criteria B and/or C may be accepted provided that both the
specification and the test report highlight such deviation(s) for the relevant
combination(s) of function and test.”

 

The standard does require that the deviations be listed in the specifications
in addition to the test report.  If the published specifications do not
describe the deviations, the manufacturer may be considered in noncompliance
with the standard.  If they have declared compliance via the standard, this
could be an issue.  If the manufacturer has chosen not to use the standards
route but claims compliance with the essential requirements of the directive,
you may have an argument if the peripheral is not suitable for its intended
use because of the deviation.

 

I agree with David Spencer; you are the customer and the vendor needs to meet
your requirements if they want you to buy their products.

 

Ted Eckert

Compliance Engineer

Microsoft Corporation

ted.eck...@microsoft.com

 

The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my
employer.

 

From: Kunde, Brian [mailto:brian_ku...@lecotc.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 9:59 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Deviation of Performance Criteria

 

Greetings Compliance Experts.

 

Something disturbing came across my desk today I thought I would get your
opinion on it.

 

On a CE marked peripheral we buy/sell as part of our laboratory equipment
system, failed several immunity tests when we tested it as part of our system.
 When we notified the peripheral's manufacturer of the problem (yes, I'm being
purposely vague) they said the failures were ok and sent us a "Certificate of
Compliance" by a very very well know compliance lab with the following
statement:

 

Snip

 

EMC Immunity:

EN 61326-1:1997/A1:1998/A2:2001 EMC requirements for Electrical equipment for
measurement, control, and laboratory use.

- General Use for the following test with deviation of performance criteria to
Criteria "C" instead of "B".

EN 61000-4-2

EN 61000-4-3

EN 61000-4-4

 

Unsnip

 

 

The peripheral manufacture said the EMC test lab told them they can put the CE
marking on their product as long as they included the above deviation
statement in their documentation and DOC.  

 

Is this true or was there some kind of miscommunication between the test lab
and the peripheral manufacturer?  

 

With this line of thinking, our test lab will not have to fail anything in the
future; just pass it with a deviation in the requirements. (just kidding).

 

Thanks to all for your opinion.

 

The Other Brian

 

_ 

LECO Corporation Notice: This communication may contain confidential
information intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you received this by
mistake, please destroy it and notify us of the error. Thank you. 

-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ 

To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org 

Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html 

List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html 

For help, send mail to the list administrators:

Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org 

For policy questions, send mail to:

Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org
David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com 

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:

http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc 

-



This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ 

To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org 

Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html 

List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html 

For help, send mail to the list administrators:

Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org 

For policy questions, send mail to:

Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org
David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com 

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:

http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc 

RE: Low Smoke Zero Halogen Cables

[Ted Eckert]

Hello Mr. Merrill,

Generally, halogen free electronics requirements are driven by industry and 
NGOs (Non-governmental organizations.)  You will be hard pressed to find 
governmental regulations requiring halogen free electronics.  Even the 
definition of halogen free is not firmly set.

Randall Flinders gave a presentation on halogen free electronics at the 2008 
IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society symposium.  If you or somebody within 
Schneider Electric have access to the symposium CB, pull up Mr. Flinders' 
presentation for more information.  The presentation gives a good overview.

I can also recommend checking with the APC division of Schneider Electric.  A 
lot of the concern over halogens in electronics comes from the resulting 
combustion products.  There is some push towards halogen free wiring in data 
centers because of the concern of the hydrochloric acid that could result from 
combustion.  This in turn can corrode electronics in areas of the data center 
unaffected by the fire.  There are likely groups within APC that have done 
research on this subject.

Ted Eckert
Compliance Engineer
Microsoft Corporation
ted.eck...@microsoft.com

The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my 
employer.


From: john.merr...@us.schneider-electric.com 
[mailto:john.merr...@us.schneider-electric.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 10:10 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Low Smoke Zero Halogen Cables

Hello

I am researching the actual requirements for Cables, power and communications.
Can anyone point me to Standards/Legislation as to when/where LSZH Cables are 
and are not
required?

Thanks in advance

John Merrill
Principal Product Safety Engineer
Schneider Electric

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society
emc-pstc discussion list.Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/

To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org

Instructions:  http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html

List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:

 Scott Douglas   emcp...@ptcnh.net
 Mike Cantwell   mcantw...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:

 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org
 David Heald:   dhe...@gmail.com

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:

http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society
emc-pstc discussion list.Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/

To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org

Instructions:  http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html

List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:

 Scott Douglas   emcp...@ptcnh.net
 Mike Cantwell   mcantw...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:

 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org
 David Heald:   dhe...@gmail.com

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:

http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

Re: Reliability: MTBFs and Probability of Failure

[Ted Eckert]

Predicting the reliability of mechanical systems is much more complicated than
for electrical systems.  Part of the trouble is that there are often more
uncontrolled variables in mechanical systems.  You may find some information
on mechanical predictions in the electrical reliability sources, but there
won't be much.  In addition to the previously mentioned documents, take a look
at MIL-HDBK-338 and Telcordia SR-332.
 
My best recommendation is to look for information from groups familiar with
mechanical systems.  SAE International (Society of Automotive Engineers) may
have information at their web site.
http://www.sae.org/
Use the "search" box at their web site with terms such as "reliability" or
"mtbf", and then narrow the search with terms specific to your system.  You
might find something helpful.
 
Ted Eckert
The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my
employer.

--- On Wed, 10/29/08, Mark Hone  wrote:


From: Mark Hone 
Subject: Reliability: MTBFs and Probability of Failure
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Date: Wednesday, October 29, 2008, 4:15 AM


Dear All,

I am most embarrassed to say that I can't find in my saved emails or in 
a
search of the EMC-PSTC archives or in Google search, a reference I 
think I
once
saw to a Mil Handbook that helps with calculations of MTBFs for 
mechanical
items.  I'm sure someone has mentioned it in the same breath as Mil Hdbk
217F.

Can someone help me with a reference, please?!

And any book recommendations on the subject (preferably titled "The
Idiot's Guide to...")?

For your interest, we're doing some safety assessments (to IEC 61508) 
of a
new piece of equipment with a view to achieving an appropriate SIL 
rating.

With hopeful regards,

Mark

--
Mark Hone, HESS Manager
  Wellman Defence Limited   
  Williams Road  
  Portsmouth, Hampshire  
  PO3 5FP, ENGLAND
  Tel: +44 (0)23 9266 4911
  Tel: +44 (0)23 9262 9239 (Direct)
  Fax: +44 (0)23 9269 7864
  Mobile: +44 (0)7919 047775

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society
emc-pstc discussion list.Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/

To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org

Instructions:  http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html

List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:

 Scott Douglas   emcp...@ptcnh.net
 Mike Cantwell   mcantw...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:

 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org
 David Heald:   dhe...@gmail.com

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:

http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc


-



This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ 

To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org 

Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html 

List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html 

For help, send mail to the list administrators:

Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org 

For policy questions, send mail to:

Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org
David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com 

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:

http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc 

Re: Economic RE Turntable

[Ted Eckert]

Building a turntable isn't a complicated project, but it will take a bit of
mechanical work.
 
You shouldn't need a large motor, but the motor size will determine how fast
you can spin the turntable.  You do need something such as a gearbox to
connect the motor to the turntable.  The motor will turn too fast and have too
little torque to move a turntable.  The gearbox will convert the motor's
higher rotational speed to a lower turntable speed with more torque.  The
gearbox will also allow you to more easily reverse direction of the turntable.
 You don't need anything complicated.  In its most basic form, you only need a
single gear ratio and you don't need to change gears.  This will require a
reversible motor.  If you don't have a reversible motor, you will need a gear
box that reverses the direction of the turntable.
 
If you build a system with good quality bearings and if you limit the weight,
you could get away with a belt drive system.  If you want a turntable for
heavy duty use, you probably want gears for a direct drive system.  The
advantage of the belt drive is that it makes it easier to locate the motor
outside of the turntable's surface.  This will make motor maintenance easier.
 
I also recommend a motor starter controller in the system.  The motor starter
will limit the current surge when the motor starts up and will help the motor
last longer.
 
Make sure you get good bearings for the axle of the turntable.  Look for
sealed bearings that will operate maintenance free for a long time.  You may
be able to get by with simple rollers around the periphery to support the edge
of the turntable.  
 
If the motor is located under the surface of the turntable, and if you don't
have access from below, plan to have an access panel in the turntable's
surface to allow maintenance to the motor.  This may require a manual device
in the gearbox to disengage the motor from the turntable so you can rotate the
hatch over the motor if the motor fails.  This may save some disassembly if
maintenance is required.  
 
I am sure that list members with more mechanical experience can either add or
correct my recommendations.  
 
Ted Eckert
The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my
employer.


--- On Wed, 9/17/08, Grace Lin  wrote:


From: Grace Lin 
Subject: Economic RE Turntable
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Date: Wednesday, September 17, 2008, 6:09 AM


Dear Members,
 
I may have to build a simple and economic turntable as an alternative 
choice.
 I believe many of you have this experience.  I sincerely appreciate your
advise.
 
I have seen several simple turntables.  It seems a motor and a switch 
are the
main parts.  I spoke to our mechanical guy.  He told me I might also need a
gearbox (have no idea about this).  He also told me I have to determine the
max load (500lb should be enough).
 
Could you please let me know the parts (manufacturer, model, etc.) 
needed to
build a turntable?
 
I lost control of the 2090 controller.  I don't know if the problem 
from the
controller or the turntable.  The vendor kept silent yesterday.  We have a
line of products waiting for tests.
 
FYI.  We have all kinds of nice tools and equipment in the building.  
Bending
metal, punching holes, etc. are not a problem.  We have several technicians in
the shop to help.  I don't need to build it by myself.
 
Thank you very much for your time and look for your help.
 
Best regards,
Grace Lin
-  This
message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ 
To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org 
Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html 
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html 
For help, send mail to the list administrators: 
Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org 
For policy questions, send mail to: 
Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: emc-p...@daveheald.com 
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc 

-  This
message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ 

To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org 

Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html 

List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html 

For help, send mail to the list administrators: 

Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell 

Re: Multiple listing

[Ted Eckert]

The multiple listing service works fairly simply at Underwriters Laboratories.
 The original equipment manufacturer (OEM) makes the product and holds the
primary UL file.  The OEM maintains control over that file.  
 
For the sake of this discussion, I will call the customer, who wants their
name on the product, "Company 2".
 
There are two options to place another company name or trademark on the
product.  
 
The first is to replace the OEM's name with the Company 2 name.  The OEM then
needs to update their UL file to show the alternate marking (Company 2 name or
logo and Company 2 model number) in the OEM's UL file.  The The code or file
number marked with the UL mark is still the OEM's identifier.  Only the OEM
needs a UL file and Company 2 doesn't have to work with UL or pay any UL fees.
 However, a savvy customer can use the code on the UL mark to track the
product back to the OEM.  
 
The second option is what is often called Multiple Listing.  The OEM and
Company 2 sign a multiple listing agreement with UL.  A second UL file is
created under the Company 2 name.  However, it is basically a place holder
with no constructional information.  It only points back to the OEM's UL file
and gives correlation data.  The advantage is that this method allows the use
of the Company 2 UL file coding.  A customer looking up the file at the UL
On-Line Certifications Database will find it linked only to Company 2 and
can't easily trace it to the OEM.
 
In both cases, the OEM handles the certification tasks.  Only the OEM can
manufacture the product and UL inspections are done at the OEM factory.  The
multiple listing only allows a different marking on the product.  Company 2
doesn't submit products for UL inspection.  They handle all of their work on
paper only.  The OEM has the responsibility to build the product correctly,
maintain the UL file and resolve variations.
 
Multiple Listing is designed to reduce the traceability from Company 2 to the
OEM from the eyes of customers.  Regulators can still trace the product back
to the OEM through UL's internal systems.
 
http://www.ul.com/multiplelisting/
 
Ted Eckert
The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my
employer.

--- On Wed, 9/10/08, Scott Xe  wrote:


From: Scott Xe 
Subject: Multiple listing
To: "'Grace Lin'" , emc-p...@ieee.org
Date: Wednesday, September 10, 2008, 7:28 AM



It said multiple listing is a terminology used in UL world long time 
ago.  It
does not exist in TUV laboratories and they have other complicated name.  That
is just a declaration of identical product with just different name and/or
cosmetics from the client, not from the test laboratory.  As the multiple
listing report issued by the test laboratory mis-leads the commercial sector
to believe that the testing laboratory has verified the sample they received
to be identical.  The laboratory just collects the DoI from the client and
issues certificate or covering with new model number.  Please correct me if
the understanding is inaccurate.

 

Regards,

 

Scott 

 

From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Grace 
Lin
Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 6:35 PM
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: Re: Labeling Requirements per Industry Canada

 

Dear Dennis and Others,

 

Thank you very much for your reply online and offline.  I contacted 
Industry
Canada as suggested.  IC refers to RSP-100 for an answer.  I excerpt a section
below for your reference.

 

Best regards,

Grace

 

"

5.3 Multiple Listing 

 

Multiple listing of a certified model is required when a manufacturer or
distributor wishes to list under its name and unique model number, certified
equipment of an original equipment manufacturer (OEM). 

 

A model of equipment may be multiple-listed to other manufacturers or
distributors based upon the approval granted to the original applicant and
certificate holder. 

 

In order to obtain a multiple-listing certification, the following
documentation must be submitted to the Bureau: 

 

(a) the model number and certification number of the approved 
equipment; 

 

(b) a signed letter from the original applicant and certificate holder
authorizing the Department to use information on file to grant a
multiple-listing certification. The name/model number and certification number
of the radio equipment must be shown. The letter must also declare that the
model to be multiple-listed is identical in design and construction to the
originally approved model; 

 

(c) a letter, from the applicant, requesting the certification; 

 

(d) completed and s

Re: IEC/EN standards for cables/cords

[Ted Eckert]

I haven't seen an answer yet so I will offer what I know.  I am unaware of IEC
pass/fail standards that allow certification of cables based on environmental
conditions.  However, there are a set of test methods available under the IEC
60811 series of standards.  This series gives standardized test methods that
can be used for comparing cables.  However, I don't know how many vendors
publish the results of testing to these standards for their cables.
 
Ted Eckert
The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my
employer.

--- On Mon, 9/8/08, Radomski, John  wrote:


From: Radomski, John 
Subject: IEC/EN standards for cables/cords
To: "emc-p...@ieee.org" 
Date: Monday, September 8, 2008, 9:52 AM


Group,

Which IEC/EN standard should be used to select outdoor (exposure to 
sunlight,
rain, etc.) cables/cords, for supplying SELV, limited power, to an 
outdoor
equipment?

Thank you and Regards.

John Radomski
Senior Compliance Engineer
Philips PSSL

The information contained in this message may be confidential and 
legally
protected under applicable law. The message is intended solely for the
addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby 
notified
that any use, forwarding, dissemination, or reproduction of this 
message is
strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended
recipient,
please contact the sender by return e-mail and destroy all copies of the
original message.

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society
emc-pstc discussion list.Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/

To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org

Instructions:  http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html

List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:

 Scott Douglas   emcp...@ptcnh.net
 Mike Cantwell   mcantw...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:

 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org
 David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:

http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc


-  This
message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ 

To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org 

Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html 

List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html 

For help, send mail to the list administrators: 

Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org 

For policy questions, send mail to: 

Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: emc-p...@daveheald.com 

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 

http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc 

Re: IEC 60529 IP54 with CB Scheme

[Ted Eckert]

The North American standard for rating enclosures, NEMA 250, is quite
different from IEC 60529.  The NEMA ratings are based on the penetration of
dust and water under different conditions and do not specify the maximum
opening as in the IEC 60529 IP rating.  UL 50 uses basically (although not
exactly) the same ratings as NEMA 250.
 
Ted Eckert
The opinions expressed are my own and are not necessarily those of my employer.

--- On Tue, 9/2/08, John Woodgate  wrote:


From: John Woodgate 
Subject: Re: IEC 60529 IP54 with CB Scheme
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Date: Tuesday, September 2, 2008, 12:42 PM


In message 
<768ee6ab7d56d54bb5000ec2dd113e710453a...@de01exm61.ds.mot.com>, dated 
Tue, 2 Sep 2008, Leber Jody-G19980  writes:


>Does anyone know of a lab that can produce a CB Scheme Report to IEC 
>60529 for IP54 rating?

Is there a US national or other standard that is similar, but not 
identical, to IEC 60529? If so, tests to that standard MIGHT be 
adequate 
for your purpose.
-- 
OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk
Either we are causing global warming, in which case we may be able to 
stop it,
or natural variation is causing it, and we probably can't stop it. You
choose!
John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society
emc-pstc discussion list.Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/

To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org

Instructions:  http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html

List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:

 Scott Douglas   emcp...@ptcnh.net
 Mike Cantwell   mcantw...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:

 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org
 David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:

http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc


-  This
message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ 

To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org 

Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html 

List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html 

For help, send mail to the list administrators: 

Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org 

For policy questions, send mail to: 

Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: emc-p...@daveheald.com 

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 

http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc 

Re: IEC 60529 IP54 with CB Scheme

[Ted Eckert]

I don't know if you will find any North American lab with IEC 60529 in their
scope under the CB Scheme.  I took a quick look at the CB Scheme web site and
the standard didn't show up under the scope for UL, CSA or Intertek.  
 
For Europe, I only looked at VDE, TÜV Rheinleand and TÜV SÜD, and IEC 50529
did show up under their scopes.  Other European labs can likely also test to
the standard.
 
You can perform a detailed search for laboratories from this link.
http://members.iecee.org/iecee/ieceemembers.nsf?Opendatabase
 
Ted Eckert
The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my
employer.

--- On Tue, 9/2/08, Leber Jody-G19980  wrote:


From: Leber Jody-G19980 
Subject: IEC 60529 IP54 with CB Scheme
To: "EMC-PSTC" 
Date: Tuesday, September 2, 2008, 11:17 AM


Does anyone know of a lab that can produce a CB Scheme Report to IEC
60529 for IP54 rating?
 
Best Regards, 

Jody Leber 
Program Manager 

jody.le...@motorola.com 
http://www.motorola.com/producttesting 

Motorola Product Testing Services 
1700 Belle Meade Court 
Lawrenceville, GA 30043 

770.338.3581  P 
404.387.1224  C 
847.761.3145  F 

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society
emc-pstc discussion list.Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/

To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org

Instructions:  http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html

List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:

 Scott Douglas   emcp...@ptcnh.net
 Mike Cantwell   mcantw...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:

 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org
 David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:

http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc


-  This
message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ 

To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org 

Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html 

List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html 

For help, send mail to the list administrators: 

Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org 

For policy questions, send mail to: 

Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: emc-p...@daveheald.com 

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 

http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc 

Re: Product versus generic EMC standards

[Ted Eckert]

The reason I feel that CISPR 22 and CISPR 24 may be applicable to a computer
room air conditioner is based on the design of some of these products.  I
should clarify my point that these standards may not be legally required, but
testing to them may represent a reasonable practice if the design and
environment for a product dictate such.
 
I previously worked at APC and I am aware of the construction of their
products.  The APC computer room air conditioners include fan coils that have
no large AC induction motors.  The ACRC101 for example serves the basic
purpose of cooling air.  It receives cold water from a chiller, pumps the
water through a coil and blows air over the coil to exchange heat from the air
to the water.  The pump that circulates the water is external to the unit, and
likely external to the computer room.  The only motors of any significance in
the unit are the eight 100 W fans, which run off of 48 VDC.  These receive
power from a pair of 500 W rectifiers.   A bit of additional power is consumed
by switch-mode supplies control the electronics.  The only AC motor is a very
small condensate pump drawing milliamps of current.
 
Based on its intended purpose, it does not fall under CISPR 22 or CISPR 24. 
It is not used for the entry, storage, display, retrieval, transmission,
processing, switching, or control, of data and of telecommunication messages. 
However, it has 900 watts of switch-mode supplies and a 2 watt AC induction
motor.  The appropriate EMC standard needs to be chosen to comply with the
law.  However, in my opinion, CISPR 22 has test methods and limits more
appropriate for the design and operating environment.  Although there may not
be a legal requirement to test to this standard, it does provide value to the
customer if only to convince them that the product is suitable to sit in the
computer room environment without either interfering with IT devices or being
susceptible to interference from IT devices.
 
Ted Eckert
The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my
employer.

--- On Thu, 8/28/08, John Woodgate  wrote:


From: John Woodgate 
Subject: Re: Product versus generic EMC standards
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Date: Thursday, August 28, 2008, 9:34 AM


In message <332370.49190...@web63605.mail.re1.yahoo.com>, dated Thu, 28 
Aug 2008, Ted Eckert  writes:


>A chiller intended to be installed on a roof or an equipment yard 
would 
>not
> fall under IEC 60335-2-40.  Such a device would need to meet the more 
>generic requirements of the Machinery and Pressure Equipment 
>directives.

I don't think everyone would agree with that interpretation of the 
scope 
of IEC 60335-2-40.
> 
>A specific example would be a computer room air conditioner, such as 
>the type made by Emerson Electric's Liebert division or Schneider 
>Electric's American Power Conversion division.  These products are 
>intended for use in large computer room.  However, they are used by 
the 
>IT workers who normally handle computers and networks.  The basic 
>controls are designed for use by people not trained in the details of 
>heating and cooling.  As such, they would likely fall under IEC
60335-2-40.
> 
>This will have some EMC impact.  I will continue to use the example 
>above.  If the product falls under IEC 60335-2-40 and the Low Voltage 
>Directive, it may then be subject to CISPR 14 for EMC. 

That's not a safe line of reasoning. The scope of CISPR 14 is not the 
same as that of IEC 60335-2-40, and even if it were, that would not be 
the case for other pairs of safety and EMC standards. But in this case, 
the scope of CISPR 14-1 is less restrictive that that of IEC 
60335-2-40, 
and it could be applied to all air conditioners.

>Because these products are intended to be used in a computer room, 
they 
>may also be subject to CISPR 22 and CISPR 24.

There is no requirement for that. See CENELEC Guide 24, for example 
(there is a corresponding IEC guide). A washing machine containing a 
microcontroller is a household appliance, not ITE.
>

-- 
OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk
Either we are causing global warming, in which case we may be able to 
stop it,
or natural variation is causing it, and we probably can't stop it. You
choose!
John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety 

Re: Product versus generic EMC standards

[Ted Eckert]

Since the selection of specific vs. generic EMC standards has been addressed,
let me give a view point based on safety standards.
 
For safety, it is quite important to look at the scopes of individual
standards.  There may be no question for a product such as a laptop computer. 
However, there are some products for which there may be confusion.
 
An example would be a commercial air conditioner.  Would such a product fall
under a product specific standard under the Low Voltage Directive or general
standards under the Machinery and Pressure Directives?  It may depend on the
design of the product.  At first glance, IEC 60335-2-40 would appear to only
cover household products.  However, the scope states "Appliances not intended
for normal household use but which nevertheless may be a source of danger to
the public, such as appliances intended to be used by laymen in shops, in
light industry an don farms, are within the scope of this standard."  The
scope also covers three phase equipment rated up to 600 V.  A commercial spot
cooler, intended to be used in shops or factories where accessible to people
not trained in heating and cooling equipment would fall under this standard,
and hence the Low Voltage Directive. A chiller intended to be installed on a
roof or an equipment yard would not fall under IEC 60335-2-40.  Such a device
would need to meet the more generic requirements of the Machinery and Pressure
Equipment directives.
 
A specific example would be a computer room air conditioner, such as the type
made by Emerson Electric's Liebert division or Schneider Electric's American
Power Conversion division.  These products are intended for use in large
computer room.  However, they are used by the IT workers who normally handle
computers and networks.  The basic controls are designed for use by people not
trained in the details of heating and cooling.  As such, they would likely
fall under IEC 60335-2-40.
 
This will have some EMC impact.  I will continue to use the example above.  If
the product falls under IEC 60335-2-40 and the Low Voltage Directive, it may
then be subject to CISPR 14 for EMC.  Because these products are intended to
be used in a computer room, they may also be subject to CISPR 22 and CISPR 24.
 
My background is stronger in safety than EMC and I encourage the experts on
this list to give their opinion and correct me if I am wrong.  The views above
for both safety and EMC are just my interpretation.
 
Ted Eckert
The opinions expressed are my own and are not necessarily those of my employer.

--- On Thu, 8/28/08, Gordon,Ian  wrote:


From: Gordon,Ian 
Subject: Product versus generic EMC standards
To: "'IEEE EMC & SAFETY PSTC'" 
Date: Thursday, August 28, 2008, 6:01 AM


There is a requirement that if a product standard exists than this 
should be
applied to relevant products rather than using a generic standard. 
Can anyone send me a link to where this principle is definitively stated
e.g. a governmental website etc.  
 
Ian Gordon 


The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and are
provided solely for the use of the intended recipient(s). If you are 
not the
intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any copying, 
disclosure,
distribution, or use of this e-mail, its attachments or any information
contained therein is unauthorised and strictly prohibited and you should
please
contact the sender immediately and delete this e-mail and any 
attachments from
your system. 
No responsibility is accepted for any virus or defect that might arise 
from
opening this e-mail or attachments, whether or not it has been checked 
by
anti-virus software.

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society
emc-pstc discussion list.Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/

To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org

Instructions:  http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html

List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:

 Scott Douglas   emcp...@ptcnh.net
 Mike Cantwell   mcantw...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:

 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org
 David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:

http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc


-  This
message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Soc

Re: EN 62133

[Ted Eckert]

Hello Grace,
 
I can elaborate a little on Mr. Woodgate's comments.  I did two quick checks. 
The CB Scheme web site shows no national deviations to IEC 62133.  Also, the
DKE web site indicates that DIN EN 62133 is just the German translation of IEC
62133 and indicates no national deviations other than referencing EN standards
instead of IEC standards.
 
These two checks alone may not be sufficient to guarantee that there are no
national differences, but it give a higher level of confidence that design
decisions based off of the IEC standard will be sufficient for products sold
in Europe.
 
Ted Eckert
The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my
employer.


--- On Tue, 8/26/08, Grace Lin  wrote:


From: Grace Lin 
Subject: EN 62133
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Date: Tuesday, August 26, 2008, 12:15 PM


Dear Members,
 
Is EN 62133: 2003 identical to IEC 62133: 2002?  Is it an EU harmonized
standard?  If yes, which directive is this standard being categorized to?
 
Thank you and look forward to your help.
 
Best regards,
Grace Lin
-  This
message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ 
To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org 
Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html 
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html 
For help, send mail to the list administrators: 
Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org 
For policy questions, send mail to: 
Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: emc-p...@daveheald.com 
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc 

-  This
message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ 

To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org 

Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html 

List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html 

For help, send mail to the list administrators: 

Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org 

For policy questions, send mail to: 

Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: emc-p...@daveheald.com 

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 

http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc 

Re: Testing EUT at 110V 60 Hz and 220V 50 Hz

[Ted Eckert]

As Mr. Woodgate noted, there are two choices; electronic variable
voltage/variable frequency power supplies and motor-generators.
 
The electronic supplies can get very expensive at higher power ratings, but
are more reasonably priced for output ratings under 500 W.  Be careful how you
use them.  They are switch-mode supplies, so there can be a lot of noise on
the output.  Depending on the testing, you may need output filtering or even
an isolation transformer.  Their advantage is that you can vary the frequency
quite easily.
 
Motor-generator sets are good for high-power testing.  Simple fixed-frequency
output versions are easy to get.  Variable frequency output requires some type
of internal transmission more sophisticated than belts and pulleys.
 
The following list is a subset of vendors for these products.  It is neither
an endorsement of these brands nor should it be seen as a rejection of any
vendor not listed.  It is only the existing list that I happened to have handy
on my computer.
 
http://www.absopulse.com/
http://www.behlman.com/
http://www.calinst.com/
http://www.chromausa.com/
http://www.elgar.com/
http://www.falconups.com/
http://www.kikusui.co.jp/
http://www.novaelectric.com/
http://www.pacificpower.com/
http://www.pacificpower.com/
http://www.50hz.com/
 
Ted Eckert
The opinions expressed my own and are not necessarily those of my employer.


--- On Wed, 8/20/08, codymil...@micron.com  wrote:


From: codymil...@micron.com 
Subject: Testing EUT at 110V 60 Hz and 220V 50 Hz
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Date: Wednesday, August 20, 2008, 1:10 PM


Hi all,
 
How and what do United States labs typically do (use) to power EUTs 
that run
at 110V 60 HZ and at 220V 50Hz. Also are there other power voltage/frequency
combinations I should be considering besides those two mentioned.
 
Thanks,
Cody Miller
 
 
 
-  This
message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ 
To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org 
Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html 
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html 
For help, send mail to the list administrators: 
Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org 
For policy questions, send mail to: 
Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: emc-p...@daveheald.com 
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc 

-  This
message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ 

To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org 

Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html 

List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html 

For help, send mail to the list administrators: 

Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org 

For policy questions, send mail to: 

Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: emc-p...@daveheald.com 

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 

http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc 

RE: RF What-if (was: RE: Another Cancer Scare?)

[Ted Eckert]

It is an interesting video, but it could easily have been staged.  The view
under the table was blocked and we are presented with only a narrow view of
events seen through the camera's lens.
 
It would be easy enough to run and document a scientific experiment.  I doubt
you will find any such experiment on the web or anywhere else.  The whole
concept seems a bit outlandish.  Put a few kernels of corn in a microwave oven
and you will find that it takes much longer.  Am I to believe that a 1000 watt
oven designed to contain the energy within a fixed space has more trouble
popping corn than a few low power cell phones can do in open space?  Am I to
believe that a cell phone can pop corn within seconds yet causes no noticeable
heating to my hand when I hold it when it rings?
 
The amount of energy required to raise the water in one kernel of corn to
boiling is very low.  It takes only 418 mW to raise one milligram of water 100
degrees Celsius.  However, the actual energy reaching a kernel of corn from
the cell phone is going to be far less than that.  The phone's energy is not
concentrated in one direction.  It is interesting to me that the cell phones'
antenna tips are pointed at the corn even though that is not the direction
that the most energy would be radiated.
 
This appears to be a well staged hoax but nothing more.
 
Ted Eckert
The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my
employer.

--- On Mon, 8/18/08, John Shinn  wrote:


From: John Shinn 
Subject: RE: RF What-if (was: RE: Another Cancer Scare?)
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Date: Monday, August 18, 2008, 8:32 PM


Sorry -- Something got lost in the translation.  Try again.  
It was not supposed to be a map. Apparently the "p" got lost. 

http://tinyurl.com/69na9p 


John

-Original Message-
From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of John 
Shinn
Sent: Sunday, August 17, 2008 5:35 PM
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: RE: RF What-if (was: RE: Another Cancer Scare?)

Take a look at this.

http://tinyurl.com/69na9

Regards, 

John Shinn, P.E.

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society
emc-pstc discussion list.Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/

To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org

Instructions:  http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html

List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:

 Scott Douglas   emcp...@ptcnh.net
 Mike Cantwell   mcantw...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:

 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org
 David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:

http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society
emc-pstc discussion list.Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/

To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org

Instructions:  http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html

List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:

 Scott Douglas   emcp...@ptcnh.net
 Mike Cantwell   mcantw...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:

 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org
 David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:

http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc


-  This
message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ 

To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org 

Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html 

List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html 

For help, send mail to the list administrators: 

Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org 

For policy questions, send mail to: 

Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: emc-p...@daveheald.com 

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 

http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc 

Re: Mains cord set

[Ted Eckert]

Hello Scott,
 
If you are using an NRTL approved cord, it should already have been properly
tested.  The standard used for the cord will depend on the connectors, cord
type and countries of use.
 
UL 817 is the standard for cord sets in the United States and it does not give
a specific maximum allowable impedance for the ground connection.  It only
requires that the ground continuity be verified.  It would be difficult for a
standard to specify the ground impedance.  UL 817 covers all cord sets and
power supply cords.  This includes extension cords that can be 30 meters or
more in length.
 
EN 50116 takes into account the fact that there could be a long cord with a
higher impedance for the ground connection.  It states that when performing
routine production testing on ITE, you can include the power cord in the test.
 If the result exceeds 0.1 Ohms, the impedance of the power cord can be
subtracted from the measured value.
 
You can specify a maximum allowable impedance of the ground connection when
specifying a power cord.  There are fixed minimum impedances driven by the
wire size and length, but the terminations can affect the impedance.  Improved
termination methods can reduce the impedance but can also cost more.
 
It may be worth noting that if the cord has a higher impedance on the ground
connection, it likely has higher impedance on the line connections.  This can
result in extra power dissipation in the cord.
 
Ted Eckert
The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my
employer.

--- On Fri, 8/15/08, Scott Xe  wrote:


From: Scott Xe 
Subject: Mains cord set
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Date: Friday, August 15, 2008, 8:42 AM



I have read the safety standards for the requirement about earth 
continuity
test on finished product without mains cord.  What about the earth continuity
test for mains cord set?  For example, IEC 320 C13 connector to UK main plug
or Schuko plug.  Is there any standard for this parameter?

 

Thanks,

 

Scott
-  This
message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ 
To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org 
Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html 
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html 
For help, send mail to the list administrators: 
Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org 
For policy questions, send mail to: 
Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: emc-p...@daveheald.com 
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc 

-  This
message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ 

To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org 

Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html 

List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html 

For help, send mail to the list administrators: 

Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org 

For policy questions, send mail to: 

Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: emc-p...@daveheald.com 

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 

http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc 

Re: Mains cord set

[Ted Eckert]

Hello Scott,
 
If you are using an NRTL approved cord, it should already have been properly
tested.  The standard used for the cord will depend on the connectrors, cord
type and countries of use.
 
UL 817 is the standard for cord sets in the United States and it does not give
a specific maximum allowable impedance for the ground connection.  It only
requires that the ground continuity be verified.  It would be difficult for a
standard to specify the ground impedance.  UL 817 covers all cord sets and
power supply cords.  This includes extension cords that can be 30 meters or
more in length.
 
EN 50116 takes into account the fact that there could be a long cord with a
higher impedance for the ground connection.  It states that when performing
routine production testing on ITE, you can inlcude the power cord in the test.
 If the result exceeds 0.1 Ohms, the impedance of the power cord can be
subtracted from the 

--- On Fri, 8/15/08, Scott Xe  wrote:


From: Scott Xe 
Subject: Mains cord set
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Date: Friday, August 15, 2008, 8:42 AM



I have read the safety standards for the requirement about earth 
continuity
test on finished product without mains cord.  What about the earth continuity
test for mains cord set?  For example, IEC 320 C13 connector to UK main plug
or Schuko plug.  Is there any standard for this parameter?

 

Thanks,

 

Scott
-  This
message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ 
To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org 
Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html 
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html 
For help, send mail to the list administrators: 
Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org 
For policy questions, send mail to: 
Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: emc-p...@daveheald.com 
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc 

-  This
message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ 

To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org 

Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html 

List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html 

For help, send mail to the list administrators: 

Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org 

For policy questions, send mail to: 

Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: emc-p...@daveheald.com 

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 

http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc 

RE: Copies of CNS standards

[Ted Eckert]

The GB standards are for mainland China.  The CNS standards are for Taiwan. 
ANSI does not have many Taiwanese standards.  BSMI is the best place to get
it, but their web site isn't working properly right now.  (At least the
English section is not.)  CE Magazine does have an old comparison between the
Taiwan standard and CISPR 22 that may help.
http://www.ce-mag.com/archive/1999/novdec/Lin.html
 
Ted Eckert
The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my
employer.

--- On Tue, 8/12/08, Knighten, Jim L  wrote:


From: Knighten, Jim L 
Subject: RE: Copies of CNS standards
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Date: Tuesday, August 12, 2008, 4:28 PM


I did a quick search on the ANSI web site for "Chinese GB", as
suggested.  I got 1500 hits, but could not find CNS 13438 and all
documents I browsed through (not all 1500) were in Chinese language,
which is of no help to me.

Jim

James L. Knighten, Ph.D.
EMC Engineer
Teradata Corporation
17095 Via Del Campo
San Diego, CA 92127

858-485-2537 - phone
213-337-5432 - fax




-Original Message-
From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Brian
O'Connell
Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 2:11 PM
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: RE: Copies of CNS standards

For the ANSI webstore, did you look under "Chinese GB"  ? 
About 15 months ago I bought a Chinese std from ANSI - so do not
know what changed.

I just visited the cnsonline and bsmi.gov.tw sites and got a
multitude of 404 errors, and a 301 (moved).

Also, perhaps Grace Lin could advise, as she once wrote an
article on comparing this std to CISPR.

-Original Message-
From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org]On Behalf Of
Knighten,
Jim L
Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 1:20 PM
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: RE: Copies of CNS standards

Charles,

I found acquisition of CNS 13438 to be difficult.  Couldn't find
it on
the ANSI site.  To purchase from cnsonline, you must purchase a
HiTech
prepaid card and that was the difficult part for us.  The web
site was
difficult.  We finally got our in-country rep. to get it for us.
They
said the website was too difficult and they went down to the BSMI
office, purchased a paper copy, scanned it and sent it by e-mail.

Good luck.

Jim

James L. Knighten, Ph.D.
EMC Engineer
Teradata Corporation
17095 Via Del Campo
San Diego, CA 92127

858-485-2537 - phone
213-337-5432 - fax

-Original Message-
From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of
Brian
O'Connell
Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 10:47 AM
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: RE: Copies of CNS standards

may not be safe for some browsers - www.cnsonline.com.tw/en/

also, ANSI has CNS - http://webstore.ansi.org

-Original Message-
From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org]On Behalf Of
Grasso, Charles
Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 10:25 AM
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: Copies of CNS standards

Hello list members,
 
Where can I buy copies of the CNS standards? 

Best Regards
Charles Grasso


-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society
emc-pstc discussion list.Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/

To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org

Instructions:  http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html

List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:

 Scott Douglas   emcp...@ptcnh.net
 Mike Cantwell   mcantw...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:

 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org
 David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:

http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering