[PSES] IEC 61010-1 (2010) Altitude Correction for Clearances
All, I am interested to hear views of this forum on the question of altitude correction and interpolation. For the record, the highest altitude I have ever evaluated for product safety is 3,500 meters. Using IEC 664 for altitude correction, it has always been my understanding that interpolation is allowed because it is simply a multiplying factor applied to existing spacings tables based on expected reduction in air pressure and the voltage breakdown of air (Paschen’s Law). Therefore any rules pertaining to “mains” non-interpolation and “secondary” interpolation would still be in effect. Simply take the spacings results for 2,000 meters and multiply by the altitude correction factor. However, IEC 61010-1 (2010) Table 3 has deviated from the guidance given in IEC 60664-1 (2007) Table A.2. For example, in IEC 61010-1 the first row of Table 3 for 0 to 2,000 meters is listed as a factor of 1.00 and the second row for 2,001 to 3,000 meters with a factor of 1.14. Apparently that small change to 2,001 has an added requirement of 1.14 over the 2,000 meter factor. I personally live at about 1,530 meters and routinely visit places from 2,300 (Estes Park, Co) to 3,500 meters (Trail Ridge Road). In my many visits to high altitude, I have never noticed an abrupt change in pressure from 80 kPa to 70 kPa at 2001 meters altitude. To my knowledge, this may be the first time non-interpolation is indicated for altitude correction. Any insights and/or recommended practice are appreciated, especially if any committee members were present during discussions on this particular point. thanks, –doug Douglas E Powell doug...@gmail.com 970-646-3732 http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01 - 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:
[PSES] EMI is a safety concern
Some years ago there was a discussion thread on this forum about safety implications of EMC. Plenty of member war stories were mentioned. Stories like the radio used by an EMT interfering with life support equipment and so on. In my view this really is about public safety. Non-interference with public communication and the operation of essential equipment like gas pedals in cars. Here is another story along that line, http://www.interferencetechnology.com/ferry-crash-emi/Thanks, - dougDouglas Powellhttp://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01 - 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.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 <emcp...@radiusnorth.net> Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org> For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher <j.bac...@ieee.org> David Heald <dhe...@gmail.com>
Re: [PSES] Schaffner net filter FN 2080
If you are trying to do an A-B comparison between two filters or simply characterize at different impedances, it is possible to use a 10:1 BALUN in line with your spectrum analyzer and tracking generator setup to intentionally introduce a mismatch in impedance. I recommend doing three measurements. 1) with no BALUN or a 50/50 Ohm balanced match. 2) with BALUN on the filter input in one direction or a 5/50 Ohm mismatch 3) with BALUN reversed giving a 500/50 Ohm mismatch. All this should be done with the test setup and the filter under test well bonded to a single ground plane. Obviously, this still does not emulate the "real world" but it may give you enough data to get a better understanding. As already mentioned, in situ is ultimately the best way to go. All the best, Doug Douglas Powell http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01 Original Message From: John Woodgate Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2015 7:59 AM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Reply To: John Woodgate Subject: Re: [PSES] Schaffner net filter FN 2080 In message <64D32EE8B9CBDD44963ACB076A5F6ABB026D936A@Mailbox-Tech.lecotech.local>, dated Wed, 15 Apr 2015, "Kunde, Brian" writes: >You may just want to characterize the line filter yourself. Then you >will know. You will need a receiver or spectrum analyzer with a >tracking generator, a network analyzer, or a sig gen and power meter >combination. Our lab uses a simple labview program for characterizing >amps, filters, cables, attenuators, LiSNs, etc.. Every lab should have >something setup to do this fairly quick and easy. Such systems do not normally model well the actual source and load impedances seen by the filter when in service. Some filters are less sensitive to these impedance effects than others, but above the specified bandwidth, that may not be so. Ideally, one would measure in situ in the product, feeding a current (through a high impedance) in and measuring the voltage (with a high-impedance device) out. But it may not be easy to do that now. In the old days, we would get high impedance RF probes with most RF instruments, but, while much easier to make now, they seem to be anomalously rare. 50 ohms rules - not OK. -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. With best wishes. See www.jmwa.demon.co.uk When I turn my back on the sun, it's to look for a rainbow 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://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: - 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] CB Philosophy Questions
Brian I suggest you reference the IECEE website and read through the component acceptance requirements for each target country, including the USA. I haven't checked but there may also be such a document for the -2-29 you mention. These can be found in the same general area as the national differences documents. Both are interesting reading. If you are not able to access these contact your certifying agency and they should be willing to supply copies. As for what is typical in each country, I have learned that this is variable. In general the office tasked with reviewing and accepting your CB report definitely feels they have the authority to do as they please. And to a large extent this is true. Having a CB report is not a foregone guarantee that it will always be accepted. Regards, - doug Douglas Powell http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01 Original Message From: Brian Oconnell Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2015 6:39 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Reply To: Brian Oconnell Subject: Re: [PSES] CB Philosophy Questions In both procedural controls and scoped test standards, North America (NRTL/SCC/NOM) reports and the IECEE CB scheme are becoming more similar where state-enforced codes do not contradict the scoped standard. It has been several years since the NRTLs and other test agencies have routinely accepted a blanket 'equivalent' in the C/C table of submitted reports for all components. Typically stuff such as components that not across mains, or are not bridging insulation or a safety boundary can be cited in general terms with no particular mfr name or part no. The issue is that the agency assessment engineer cannot be certain which characteristics of a component are important to something on the C/C table. So they test your box with the assumption that the design team has verified performance only for the particular combination of stuff on the BoM and the board layout that was submitted for assessment. The other issue is that there is no formal IEC or SCC or OSHA standard or regulation that defines how to assess an equivalent component, or whom in the company shall be the qualified signatory for equivalent item approval (exceptions for programs such as CSA cat cert and others). Do not agree with much of the shenanigans employed by the various agencies to effectively control market share through pseudo-engineering principles, but do agree in principle with the reductions in 'equivalent' components allowed on the critical component table. Brian From: Brian Ceresney [mailto:bceres...@delta-q.com] Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2015 4:09 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: [PSES] CB Philosophy Questions Greetings, Compliance Experts, I'm finding myself in a curious situation, and wondering if you have had similar experiences, and may have some advice to share. We are in the process of using a CB report for an industrial battery charger( to IEC60335-2-29) to obtain an in-country certification in an Asian country, and have run into an interesting difficulty. When our CB report was issued, the engineer was not willing to add wording to the Critical Components list to allow alternate components(X, Y caps, opto-isolators) with equivalent ratings and Regulatory Approvals to be added, with the implication being that this addition was not allowed by the authorities. As expected, two years later, we are going through one country's approval process, using our CB report, and the national regulatory organization has decided that the use of a different brand of opto-isolator and X/Y capacitor is a non-compliance, as they are not specifically in the CB report. (The electrical, environmental ratings, and the regulatory approvals are equivalent to the original components). a.) Are these attitudes typical in the CB "world"? b.) Can anybody explain the apparent reticence of CB testing labs to allow alternate components in a CB report? c.) Is it likely that a National Body will eventually compromise, and use engineering judgement in accepting alternate components? Or is this usually a firm "no"? The North American NRTL organizations are proactive in allowing equivalently rated and approved components to be sourced in a product, and frequently state this in their reports. IMHO, it seems a bit archaic to not account for second-sourcing of common off-the-shelf critical components such as these. d.) Is there a philosophical or historical difference between the two systems(CB and NRTL) that accounts for this difference in approaches? Thanks in advance for your attention- your response is appreciated. Brian Ceresney Regulatory Lead Delta-Q Technologies Corp. - 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 e
Re: [PSES] CB Philosophy Questions
Brian, Rules for component acceptance are submitted by each country to the IEC, archived in the IECEE website and posted in the same general area as national differences. You could simply try a Google search. These documents are supposed to be "official" but I have found your mileage may vary. For example, both the national differences and component acceptance documents for some Arab nations are fairly incomplete and you have to go to that authority to learn what's actually needed. I am not accusing them of any under the table stuff, it's just that they don't always have clear definitions and one CB reviewer may have preferences over another. That said, having a CB report is still a viable option, if only to get you started in the process. Definitely ask your CB third party agency for assistance in this. Try to get the original documents and not just the summarized ones they may try to give you. Best, Doug Original Message From: Brian Oconnell Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2015 7:22 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Reply To: Brian Oconnell Subject: Re: [PSES] CB Philosophy Questions Doug, Thanks, will look for this stuff. The only stuff seen to date for component evaluation is in UL PAGs, CSA informs, and the IECEE CTL stuff. Are these component acceptance 'guides' part of the National Differences in a TRF, or regulatory law administered by the state? According to the OSHA guy that is the NRTL program director, they are in process of removing component standards from their official listing (do a search on the EMC-PSTC listserv archives for his comments). Do not understand "Having a CB report is not a foregone guarantee that it will always be accepted". Do you mean that the TRF was rejected because of poor component descriptions, or that changes to the C/C table in the TRF was rejected, or something else? Brian -Original Message- From: dougp01 [mailto:doug...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2015 5:53 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] CB Philosophy Questions Brian I suggest you reference the IECEE website and read through the component acceptance requirements for each target country, including the USA. I haven't checked but there may also be such a document for the -2-29 you mention. These can be found in the same general area as the national differences documents. Both are interesting reading. If you are not able to access these contact your certifying agency and they should be willing to supply copies. As for what is typical in each country, I have learned that this is variable. In general the office tasked with reviewing and accepting your CB report definitely feels they have the authority to do as they please. And to a large extent this is true. Having a CB report is not a foregone guarantee that it will always be accepted. Regards, - doug Douglas Powell http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01 Original Message From: Brian Oconnell Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2015 6:39 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Reply To: Brian Oconnell Subject: Re: [PSES] CB Philosophy Questions In both procedural controls and scoped test standards, North America (NRTL/SCC/NOM) reports and the IECEE CB scheme are becoming more similar where state-enforced codes do not contradict the scoped standard. It has been several years since the NRTLs and other test agencies have routinely accepted a blanket 'equivalent' in the C/C table of submitted reports for all components. Typically stuff such as components that not across mains, or are not bridging insulation or a safety boundary can be cited in general terms with no particular mfr name or part no. The issue is that the agency assessment engineer cannot be certain which characteristics of a component are important to something on the C/C table. So they test your box with the assumption that the design team has verified performance only for the particular combination of stuff on the BoM and the board layout that was submitted for assessment. The other issue is that there is no formal IEC or SCC or OSHA standard or regulation that defines how to assess an equivalent component, or whom in the company shall be the qualified signatory for equivalent item approval (exceptions for programs such as CSA cat cert and others). Do not agree with much of the shenanigans employed by the various agencies to effectively control market share through pseudo-engineering principles, but do agree in principle with the reductions in 'equivalent' components allowed on the critical component table. Brian From: Brian Ceresney [mailto:bceres...@delta-q.com] Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2015 4:09 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: [PSES] CB Philosophy Questions Greetings, Compliance Experts, I'm finding myself in a curious situation, and wondering if you have had similar experiences, and may have some ad
Re: [PSES] CB Philosophy Questions
Try this link http://members.iecee.org/iecee/ieceemembers.nsf/ACRFList?readform Doug. Original Message From: dougp01 Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2015 7:50 PM To: oconne...@tamuracorp.com; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] CB Philosophy Questions Brian, Rules for component acceptance are submitted by each country to the IEC, archived in the IECEE website and posted in the same general area as national differences. You could simply try a Google search. These documents are supposed to be "official" but I have found your mileage may vary. For example, both the national differences and component acceptance documents for some Arab nations are fairly incomplete and you have to go to that authority to learn what's actually needed. I am not accusing them of any under the table stuff, it's just that they don't always have clear definitions and one CB reviewer may have preferences over another. That said, having a CB report is still a viable option, if only to get you started in the process. Definitely ask your CB third party agency for assistance in this. Try to get the original documents and not just the summarized ones they may try to give you. Best, Doug Original Message From: Brian Oconnell Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2015 7:22 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Reply To: Brian Oconnell Subject: Re: [PSES] CB Philosophy Questions Doug, Thanks, will look for this stuff. The only stuff seen to date for component evaluation is in UL PAGs, CSA informs, and the IECEE CTL stuff. Are these component acceptance 'guides' part of the National Differences in a TRF, or regulatory law administered by the state? According to the OSHA guy that is the NRTL program director, they are in process of removing component standards from their official listing (do a search on the EMC-PSTC listserv archives for his comments). Do not understand "Having a CB report is not a foregone guarantee that it will always be accepted". Do you mean that the TRF was rejected because of poor component descriptions, or that changes to the C/C table in the TRF was rejected, or something else? Brian -Original Message- From: dougp01 [mailto:doug...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2015 5:53 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] CB Philosophy Questions Brian I suggest you reference the IECEE website and read through the component acceptance requirements for each target country, including the USA. I haven't checked but there may also be such a document for the -2-29 you mention. These can be found in the same general area as the national differences documents. Both are interesting reading. If you are not able to access these contact your certifying agency and they should be willing to supply copies. As for what is typical in each country, I have learned that this is variable. In general the office tasked with reviewing and accepting your CB report definitely feels they have the authority to do as they please. And to a large extent this is true. Having a CB report is not a foregone guarantee that it will always be accepted. Regards, - doug Douglas Powell http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01 Original Message From: Brian Oconnell Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2015 6:39 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Reply To: Brian Oconnell Subject: Re: [PSES] CB Philosophy Questions In both procedural controls and scoped test standards, North America (NRTL/SCC/NOM) reports and the IECEE CB scheme are becoming more similar where state-enforced codes do not contradict the scoped standard. It has been several years since the NRTLs and other test agencies have routinely accepted a blanket 'equivalent' in the C/C table of submitted reports for all components. Typically stuff such as components that not across mains, or are not bridging insulation or a safety boundary can be cited in general terms with no particular mfr name or part no. The issue is that the agency assessment engineer cannot be certain which characteristics of a component are important to something on the C/C table. So they test your box with the assumption that the design team has verified performance only for the particular combination of stuff on the BoM and the board layout that was submitted for assessment. The other issue is that there is no formal IEC or SCC or OSHA standard or regulation that defines how to assess an equivalent component, or whom in the company shall be the qualified signatory for equivalent item approval (exceptions for programs such as CSA cat cert and others). Do not agree with much of the shenanigans employed by the various agencies to effectively control market share through pseudo-engineering principles, but do agree in principle with the reductions in 'equivalent' components allowed on the critical component table. Brian From: Brian Ceresney [mailto:bceres...@delta-q.com]
Re: [PSES] Warning Label: Disconnect from Mains
I agree with Colorado Brian. It seems that more and more, IEC-based standards are requiring a full explanation of symbols and warnings in the user documentation. As it turns out, many clients of mine leave the user manuals to the very last and they are usually very lacking. Where possible using symbols only is an economical option. One exception to using just symbols might be in certain industries where using an ANSI/IEC compliant labeling system is required. In this case some verbiage is required. The text should simply describe the problem and how to avoid it. Nothing more. Proper use of the keywords Danger, Warning, and Caution are also essential. Since overstating the hazard is not advisable.All the best, Doug From: Brian GregorySent: Friday, May 1, 2015 11:31 AMTo: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORGReply To: Brian GregorySubject: Re: [PSES] Warning Label: Disconnect from Mains -- Original Message --From: "Kunde, Brian" Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2015 18:54:17 + Brian, thanks for your input. Can the potential hazard be addresses without English Text which may be misunderstood by those unfamiliar with the language? Wouldn’t Symbols Only be better? [Colorado Brian here] Symbols ON the equipment are sufficient, and often preferred. John's answer is also correct, that the symbols (even fully JIT-compliant ones) need explained, in all the appropriate languages (as defined by ND's), in the supplied documentation. Any additional needed information can be added at this point by the manufacturer. So if AHJs, NRTLs, etc. like to see some kind of warning on the outside of electrical equipment, then won’t the Hazardous Voltage Warning symbol alone meet this requirement WITHOUT any Text? As the Machinery Directive states, “Information and warnings on the machinery should preferably be provided in the form of readily understandable symbols or pictograms.” Bingo; warnings on the machinery And in the case given in the 61010-1 standards, it doesn’t say that you have to use Text, but what the warning marking should state. A symbol or symbols can “state” or have the same meaning as text without the concern of the User needing to be able to understand the language of the text. I advise being verbose as possible in the documentation; this can be in digital format, so needn't incur much additional expense. You, as the manufacturer, are now officially on record as directing the end user: DO this, NOT that... etc. Wordy labels can be expensive, and possibly confusing (esp. when many languages get involved); I was always perfectly happy with symbols. CYA, baby The Colorado Brian From: Nyffenegger, Dave [mailto:dave.nyffeneg...@bhemail.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2015 10:39 AM To: Kunde, Brian Cc: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: RE: Warning Label: Disconnect from Mains Our NRTL asks for the warning “No User Serviceable Parts Inside” when that is the case but that is relative to products complying with UL/EN 60950-1 and EN 60204-1. Of course that needs to be translated into all appropriate languages too. -Dave From: Kunde, Brian [mailto:brian_ku...@lecotc.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2015 10:21 AM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: [PSES] Warning Label: Disconnect from Mains Greetings. We make laboratory equipment designed to the requirements of the IEC/EN/UL/CSA 61010-1 Ed. 3 standard. Most electrical equipment has at least one warning somewhere visible on the outside of the equipment that states something like, “Disconnect Power Before Servicing”. Where does this requirement come from? I see no such requirement in the 61010-1 standard. The 61010-1 does say, “If the instructions for use state that an OPERATOR is permitted to gain access, using a TOOL, to a part which in NORMAL USE may be HAZARDOUS LIVE, there shall be a warning marking which states that the equipment must be isolated or disconnected from the HAZARDOUS LIVE voltage before access.” However, if our users do not need to gain access inside our equipment, then I assume such warning is unnecessary. We used to have a warning label on any tool assessable panel that has hazardous voltages behind it. However, I do not see this as a requirement in the 61010-1. In the past, we have had inspectors write us up for not having such labels on all panels with hazardous voltage behind it. Does this requirement come from somewhere else? Are the inspectors wrong? The label we commonly use has the Symbol 12 (hazardous voltage warning) and English Text that states something like, “Disconnect Power Before Servicing”
Re: [PSES] Warning Label: Disconnect from Mains
One that can help with translation costs is to keep the user documents only to the essential information. This is generally outlined in the safety standard. In addition, any conditions of use for safety and EMC. Instruments destined for the scientific community often have tutorial information included in the user manuals. But this is generqlly not information required for safe installation, operation, cleaning, etc. At better than $5,000 per language this can result in significant savings. Doug From: Kunde, BrianSent: Friday, May 1, 2015 12:15 PMTo: dougp01; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORGSubject: RE: [PSES] Warning Label: Disconnect from Mains Thanks Doug and Colorado Brian. We liked the look of the new ANSI labels so we switch over all the warning labels on our products to this style a few years ago. But now we are getting dinged in Europe and have to replace the labels with symbols only or with the text in the language of the country we sold in. This is difficult to do because sometime we ship instruments to our sales offices in Europe but we don’t know what country it might be sold in until it is purchased. Why don’t the EU just decide on one language like the Chinese did? (Those are fighting words). We do explain the meaning of our warning symbols in the User’s Manual and the manuals are translated into different languages depending on the country it is sold and what our customers want. The users of our type of instruments are generally well educated (scientists, chemists, engineers, technicians, etc.) and most of the time they are happy with English only. But when other languages are requested we try to provide them translated copies fairly quickly. It’s very costly , too. Most of our customers send their Users for training at our facility in the US. Classes are in English Only. The other Brian From: dougp01 [mailto:doug...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, May 01, 2015 1:48 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] Warning Label: Disconnect from Mains I agree with Colorado Brian. It seems that more and more, IEC-based standards are requiring a full explanation of symbols and warnings in the user documentation. As it turns out, many clients of mine leave the user manuals to the very last and they are usually very lacking. Where possible using symbols only is an economical option. One exception to using just symbols might be in certain industries where using an ANSI/IEC compliant labeling system is required. In this case some verbiage is required. The text should simply describe the problem and how to avoid it. Nothing more. Proper use of the keywords Danger, Warning, and Caution are also essential. Since overstating the hazard is not advisable. All the best, Doug From: Brian Gregory Sent: Friday, May 1, 2015 11:31 AM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Reply To: Brian Gregory Subject: Re: [PSES] Warning Label: Disconnect from Mains -- Original Message -- From: "Kunde, Brian" <brian_ku...@lecotc.com> Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2015 18:54:17 + Brian, thanks for your input. Can the potential hazard be addresses without English Text which may be misunderstood by those unfamiliar with the language? Wouldn’t Symbols Only be better? [Colorado Brian here] Symbols ON the equipment are sufficient, and often preferred. John's answer is also correct, that the symbols (even fully JIT-compliant ones) need explained, in all the appropriate languages (as defined by ND's), in the supplied documentation. Any additional needed information can be added at this point by the manufacturer. So if AHJs, NRTLs, etc. like to see some kind of warning on the outside of electrical equipment, then won’t the Hazardous Voltage Warning symbol alone meet this requirement WITHOUT any Text? As the Machinery Directive states, “Information and warnings on the machinery should preferably be provided in the form of readily understandable symbols or pictograms.” Bingo; warnings on the machinery And in the case given in the 61010-1 standards, it doesn’t say that you have to use Text, but what the warning marking should state. A symbol or symbols can “state” or have the same meaning as text without the concern of the User needing to be able to understand the language of the text. I advise being verbose as possible in the documentation; this can be in digital format, so needn't incur much a
Re: [PSES] Warning Label: Disconnect from Mains
I have frequently worked with 3rd party test labs and certifiers on behalf of my clients. Occasionally, because of propriety or non-disclosure concerns, they want to see an agent agreement or release form, but this is rare. About half the time, when working with a client, my client's I.T. department will set up a temporary email account for my use which allows me to communicate with other vendors on the company's behalf. This puts all email conversations on their servers and works very well. In any case, I always copy the responsible engineer at the client company to keep them in the loop. Thanks, - doug Douglas Powell http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01 Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the Verizon Wireless 4G LTE network. Original Message From: John Woodgate Sent: Tuesday, May 5, 2015 11:04 AM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Reply To: John Woodgate Subject: Re: [PSES] Warning Label: Disconnect from Mains In message <64D32EE8B9CBDD44963ACB076A5F6ABB026DA221@Mailbox-Tech.lecotech.local>, dated Tue, 5 May 2015, "Kunde, Brian" writes: >Since the 3rd party lab is not our customer, we cannot communicate with >them directly. Plus, all communications has to be translated into their >language (French in our most recent case). Is there a law against tripartite meetings? -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. With best wishes. See www.jmwa.demon.co.uk When I turn my back on the sun, it's to look for a rainbow 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://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: - 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] Toy Directive
Ed,I have not personally beeân through âa Toy Directive review but I have been involved with consumer products which have hazards and may exhibit "child appealing" attributes. In short, these product were listed on a red list which means they cannot be approved, or possibly they can be approved when used only under adult supervision. A classic example was a steam vaporizer with a shape resembling a cute animal. Choking hazards aside for the moment, in the case of this toy being fashioned into a sling shot, I have to wonder if there would be enough projectile energy to cause injury. âBest, - dougDouglas Powellhttp://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01 Original Message From: Ed PriceSent: Tuesday, May 5, 2015 11:58 AMTo: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORGReply To: Ed PriceSubject: [PSES] Toy DirectiveI was at a symposium recently where hundreds of (strictly non-electrical or otherwise powered) puzzles and games were being rated (for aesthetics such as age level, fun and intellectual challenge). However, nobody at this event gave any consideration to the familiar regulatory compliance issues such as choke hazard, biological safety, stored energy or âunintentional uses.â I began thinking about this when I examined a very simple toy consisting of 16 equal ¼â diameter, 4â long polystyrene tubes strung in series on a thin bungee cord. The string of tubes can be torqued into forming many (over 200 claimed) stable âwire frameâ three dimensional objects. I was sitting there, twisting this thing into cubes and polyhedrons, when I realized that it could also form a very credible slingshot! I then noticed a very prominent âCEâ on the box. I wonder if anyone in our group has ever done a product compliance with the Toy Directive. Maybe my background in defense is showing, but it seems to me that only a great toy can stimulate, amuse, educate and also be converted to a weapon. Ed PriceWB6WSNChula Vista, CA USA - 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.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 <sdoug...@ieee.org> Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org> For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher <j.bac...@ieee.org> David Heald <dhe...@gmail.com> - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to <emc-p...@ieee.org> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.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 <sdoug...@ieee.org> Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org> For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher <j.bac...@ieee.org> David Heald <dhe...@gmail.com>
Re: [PSES] CE marking of deep-fat fryer
Never heard of this in Europe, for N.A. look at this video. http://www.ul.com/global/eng/pages/offerings/perspectives/consumer/productsafety/turkeys/ doug powell -Original Message- From: Pete Perkins Sent: Monday, November 14, 2011 2:00 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: [PSES] CE marking of deep-fat fryer PSNet, Looking for input on requirements for CE marking of a commercial deep-fat fryer. What's the latest? :>) br, Pete Peter E Perkins, PE Principal Product Safety Engineer PO Box 23427 Tigard, ORe 97281-3427 503/452-1201 fone/fax p.perk...@ieee.org - 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:
