Re: [PSES] US electrical safety standard for product tested to EN 60204?
Our NRTL would use an applicable UL standard perhaps UL 1647 in this case for the primary listing and use NFPA 79 (if applicable) as a supplemental standard as part of the assessment and report file. I’ve just had one done recently similar using UL 508A and NFPA 79. -Dave From: Pete Perkins [mailto:0061f3f32d0c-dmarc-requ...@ieee.org] Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2016 12:39 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] US electrical safety standard for product tested to EN 60204? Curt, NFPA 79 is harmonized with EN 60204. The US differences are clearly spelled out. Unfortunately, NFPA 79 is not a standard that is used for product certification like many others – it is primarily used in field inspections to satisfy local AHJ inspection requirements. However, if you can show bridging from 60204 to NFPA 79 your product should be in essential compliance with the key issues of the US NEC. This should go a long way in showing compliance to any product standard that would apply to the product. You will need to be prepared to show the connection thru this chain to the certifying lab folks. You need to be prepared, however, to deal with details not covered in this overall approach from 60204 and the product might have to be modified to show full compliance. We can explore this more offline if you wish. :>) br, Pete Peter E Perkins, PE Principal Product Safety & Regulatory Affairs Consultant PO Box 23427 Tigard, ORe 97281-3427 503/452-1201 p.perk...@ieee.org<mailto:p.perk...@ieee.org> From: Curtis McNamara [mailto:mcnam...@umn.edu] Sent: Saturday, December 3, 2016 9:40 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: [PSES] US electrical safety standard for product tested to EN 60204? Curious what list members would recommend. This is essentially and exercise machine, tested to a variety of NEN standards including 60204. I was asked to look at what might take for a US approval, and wondered what standard to start with. Thanks in advance! Curt - 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 <sdoug...@ieee.org<mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org>> 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 <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 <sdoug...@ieee.org<mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org>> 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 <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
Re: [PSES] US electrical safety standard for product tested to EN 60204?
Curt, NFPA 79 is harmonized with EN 60204. The US differences are clearly spelled out. Unfortunately, NFPA 79 is not a standard that is used for product certification like many others – it is primarily used in field inspections to satisfy local AHJ inspection requirements. However, if you can show bridging from 60204 to NFPA 79 your product should be in essential compliance with the key issues of the US NEC. This should go a long way in showing compliance to any product standard that would apply to the product. You will need to be prepared to show the connection thru this chain to the certifying lab folks. You need to be prepared, however, to deal with details not covered in this overall approach from 60204 and the product might have to be modified to show full compliance. We can explore this more offline if you wish. :>) br, Pete Peter E Perkins, PE Principal Product Safety & Regulatory Affairs Consultant PO Box 23427 Tigard, ORe 97281-3427 503/452-1201 <mailto:p.perk...@ieee.org> p.perk...@ieee.org From: Curtis McNamara [mailto:mcnam...@umn.edu] Sent: Saturday, December 3, 2016 9:40 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: [PSES] US electrical safety standard for product tested to EN 60204? Curious what list members would recommend. This is essentially and exercise machine, tested to a variety of NEN standards including 60204. I was asked to look at what might take for a US approval, and wondered what standard to start with. Thanks in advance! Curt - 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 <sdoug...@ieee.org <mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org> > 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 <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] US electrical safety standard for product tested to EN 60204?
Hi Curt, I believe UL1647 and CSA C22.2 No. 68 would be the Standards for USA and Canada. Best Regards, John John Allen | President Product Safety Consulting, Inc. Your Outsourced Compliance Department www.productsafetyinc.com<http://www.productsafetyinc.com> 630-238-0188 On Dec 3, 2016, at 11:48 PM, Curtis McNamara <mcnam...@umn.edu<mailto:mcnam...@umn.edu>> wrote: Curious what list members would recommend. This is essentially and exercise machine, tested to a variety of NEN standards including 60204. I was asked to look at what might take for a US approval, and wondered what standard to start with. Thanks in advance! Curt - 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 <sdoug...@ieee.org<mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org>> 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 <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>
[PSES] US electrical safety standard for product tested to EN 60204?
Curious what list members would recommend. This is essentially and exercise machine, tested to a variety of NEN standards including 60204. I was asked to look at what might take for a US approval, and wondered what standard to start with. Thanks in advance! Curt - 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>
[PSES] EN 60204-1 Degrees of Protection
Fellow safety experts, Machinery Electrical Safety Standard EN 60204-1, clause 11.3 provides guidance on degrees of protection for controlgear enclosures against ingress of solid objects and liquids. How do members of this forum, who are familiar with Machinery Safety standards, interpret that clause? How much leeway do manufacturers have in defining an appropriate degree of protection? There are phrases in the clause such as depending upon the conditions where installed, another degree of protection can be appropriate and the protection shall be adequate taking into account the external influences under which the machine is intended to operate (i.e. the location and physical environmental conditions). Do these phrases give the manufacturer the opportunity to define a degree of protection that may not follow the typical values provided in the NOTE 3 table if the installation environment is sufficiently controlled? Any thoughts on this are appreciated. 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 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] EN 60204-1 Degrees of Protection
Jim -- Yes, but surprises do happen. I once had some very expensive equipment in a top notch clean room that got thoroughly soaked when a pipe above the ceiling burst. Very expensive clean up. A guide to IP codes that I've found useful is: http://www.cameuk.com/camenew/tech-docs/08_Misc%20drawings%20and%20diagrams/IPCodes.pdf Mike Sherman Product Safety and Compliance Engineer Graco Inc. - Original Message - From: Jim Hulbert jim.hulb...@pb.com To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Sent: Monday, May 5, 2014 9:44:12 AM Subject: [PSES] EN 60204-1 Degrees of Protection Fellow safety experts, Machinery Electrical Safety Standard EN 60204-1, clause 11.3 provides guidance on degrees of protection for controlgear enclosures against ingress of solid objects and liquids. How do members of this forum, who are familiar with Machinery Safety standards, interpret that clause? How much leeway do manufacturers have in defining an appropriate degree of protection? There are phrases in the clause such as “depending upon the conditions where installed, another degree of protection can be appropriate” and the protection “shall be adequate taking into account the external influences under which the machine is intended to operate (i.e. the location and physical environmental conditions)”. Do these phrases give the manufacturer the opportunity to define a degree of protection that may not follow the typical values provided in the NOTE 3 table if the installation environment is sufficiently controlled? Any thoughts on this are appreciated. 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 LT; emc-p...@ieee.org GT; 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 LT; emcp...@radiusnorth.net GT; Mike Cantwell LT; mcantw...@ieee.org GT; For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher LT; j.bac...@ieee.org GT; David Heald LT; dhe...@gmail.com GT; - 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] EN 60204-1 Degrees of Protection
Thanks, Mike. Regards, Lauren From: Mike Sherman - Original Message - [mailto:msherma...@comcast.net] Sent: Monday, May 05, 2014 8:27 AM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] EN 60204-1 Degrees of Protection Jim -- Yes, but surprises do happen. I once had some very expensive equipment in a top notch clean room that got thoroughly soaked when a pipe above the ceiling burst. Very expensive clean up. A guide to IP codes that I've found useful is: http://www.cameuk.com/camenew/tech-docs/08_Misc%20drawings%20and%20diagrams/IPCodes.pdf Mike Sherman Product Safety and Compliance Engineer Graco Inc. From: Jim Hulbert jim.hulb...@pb.commailto:jim.hulb...@pb.com To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORGmailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Sent: Monday, May 5, 2014 9:44:12 AM Subject: [PSES] EN 60204-1 Degrees of Protection Fellow safety experts, Machinery Electrical Safety Standard EN 60204-1, clause 11.3 provides guidance on degrees of protection for controlgear enclosures against ingress of solid objects and liquids. How do members of this forum, who are familiar with Machinery Safety standards, interpret that clause? How much leeway do manufacturers have in defining an appropriate degree of protection? There are phrases in the clause such as “depending upon the conditions where installed, another degree of protection can be appropriate” and the protection “shall be adequate taking into account the external influences under which the machine is intended to operate (i.e. the location and physical environmental conditions)”. Do these phrases give the manufacturer the opportunity to define a degree of protection that may not follow the typical values provided in the NOTE 3 table if the installation environment is sufficiently controlled? Any thoughts on this are appreciated. 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 LT;emc-p...@ieee.orgmailto:emc-p...@ieee.orgGT; 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 LT;emcp...@radiusnorth.netmailto:emcp...@radiusnorth.netGT; Mike Cantwell LT;mcantw...@ieee.orgmailto:mcantw...@ieee.orgGT; For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher LT;j.bac...@ieee.orgmailto:j.bac...@ieee.orgGT; David Heald LT;dhe...@gmail.commailto:dhe...@gmail.comGT; - 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.orgmailto: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.netmailto:emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.orgmailto:mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.orgmailto:j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald dhe...@gmail.commailto: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 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] EN 60204-1 Degrees of Protection
In message 7B9D892F88F070469771832D78B3086E282A7681@013-BR1MPN1-013.MGDPBI.global.p vt, dated Mon, 5 May 2014, Jim Hulbert jim.hulb...@pb.com writes: . Do these phrases give the manufacturer the opportunity to define a degree of protection that may not follow the typical values provided in the NOTE 3 table if the installation environment is sufficiently controlled? Probably. The essence is that the manufacturer must document and be able to justify any such variation. But usually the first question is, 'Do we *really* need to have a variation?' -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. With best wishes. See www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Nondum ex silvis sumus 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 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] EN 60204
From: Ted Eckert [mailto:ted.eck...@microsoft.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2011 08:40 IEC 60950-1 does not have specific leakage current limits for products that are permanently connected or that have an industrial locking plug. This is not exactly the case, since the limit is tied to the input current. Regards, Peter L. Tarver, PE 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 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 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] EN 60204 - leakage crrrent for permanently wired equipment discussion
Kim et al, Leakage current discussion can go in a couple of directions. Ted E John W give a good, basic understanding as to the fundamental issues. Permanently wired equipment is set up from installation with a reliable earth/ground as that is what is required by the installation rules and competent electrical installers follow these rules to provide protection from current available on exposed conductive parts (code inspectors check on the mechanical installation but do not normally do any test for voltage or current from exposed conductive surfaces). Because of this practice the requirement for residual current in the earth/ground is quite often set at a fraction of the operating current of the equipment (e.g. 5%)in some standards; this current would be available as an electric shock issue if the earth/ground is not reliable. If there is a fault the bonding and earthing/grounding conductors carry the current to earth/ground until the fusing/breaker interrupts the power to the equipment. This system of protection has a good record of providing the needed protection for folks around the equipment while it is operating. As has been mentioned, the advent of electronic switching has confounded the currents in the earthing/grounding system for much equipment. SMPS typically shunt switching impulses to earth/ground; where there is an installation where the earth/ground is not reliably present (usually cord connected equipment) there is a specification for the maximum 'touch current' that is allowed. This limit comes from fundamental research as to the effects of current on the human body; product committees get this fundamental data from IEC 60479 series and adapt it to their application. It is clear that touch current from electronic based equipment is non-sinusoidal and that the peak value of the current must be used to determine acceptability for protection. Some product standards have invoked the measuring circuits and techniques from IEC 60990 to properly make these measurements for some time. These techniques must spread to more product standards as switching electronics are moving into more products. SMPS are being applied in lighting (LED CFL's); variable speed motors are being applied in many applications from industrial motors to household appliances. All of these products need to review their electric shock protection requirements in the light of these fundamental changes in the application of electronics in their equipment. Finally, there may be yet undetermined interaction consequences to using earth/ground as the dumping ground for these residual switching currents. This is not yet explored in any definitive way and the consequences are unknown. This is an opportunity for researchers; this is a warning to equipment manufacturers who may find unexplained operational changes in their equipment and may have to search outside their own equipment for the root cause. To finish up the original discussion, if equipment is installed in a region where more relaxed installation rules could give rise to earthing/grounding which is less reliable then the leakage current (touch current) should be measured and controlled in that installation to minimize the risk of electric shock from the normal operation of the machine. It is not clear to me that any product standards are yet ready to deal with some of these issues. In such cases the liability falls upon the equipment manufacturer and the installation professionals to provide a safe environment. :) br, Pete Peter E Perkins, PE Principal Product Safety Regulatory Consultant Tigard, ORe 97281-3427 503/452-1201fone/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 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 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: EN 60204
I agree that the issue still exists. As I indicated, there is less of a need to address leakage current. I didn't indicate that there was no issue. The world of machinery is full of large induction motors requiring power factor correction, and variable frequency drives requiring line filtering. There are requirements of industry that result in capacitors from line to ground, and therefore significant current shunted into the ground connection. The potential leakage currents are high and the consequences of contact with an improperly grounded system are severe. However, industry in general has a rather good track record of preventing this type of injury. I will grant that there are plenty of instances of faulty installations, and there are injuries and fatalities. But there is a difference between the industrial installations and residential installation. In industrial installations, grounded system are the rule and faulty grounds represent a fault that has occurred through improper installation or maintenance. At least in the United States, there are plenty of residential installation that were wired as two-wire ungrounded systems. The use of a high leakage current product on one of these systems can have disastrous consequences, and the LVD which covers products for this environment must address leakage current. The Machinery Directive addresses the risk of leakage current through installation requirements including instructional safeguards. It assumes that machinery will be installed by trained or instructed personnel. The LVD assumes laymen will be connecting the equipment and as such has the limits and testing requirements for leakage current. Even then, there are exceptions. IEC 60950-1 does not have specific leakage current limits for products that are permanently connected or that have an industrial locking plug. The connection type is such that the product will either be installed by trained personnel or connected to an outlet that, if installed properly, has a ground connection. For those interested in seeing how things can go wrong in commercial and industrial installation, I recommend Electrical Construction and Maintenance magazine's Illustrated Catastrophes column. http://ecmweb.com/nec/illustrated_catastrophes/ The magazine also has a forensic column where you can find specific cases of electrocutions, including details on the faults leading up to accidents. There isn't a specific menu option or link at the web site, but you can find the articles by typing case of the into the search box. 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. All information in this e-mail is open to debate and should not be used as guidance in matters of prodcuct testing or certification. Your mileage may vary. Results are not necessarily typical. Limit one coupon per customer. -Original Message- From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk] Sent: Monday, September 26, 2011 12:06 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: EN 60204 In message e9c52f9e77c43c49a56a22691b3680be117...@tk5ex14mbxc301.redmond.corp.micro soft.com, dated Mon, 26 Sep 2011, Ted Eckert ted.eck...@microsoft.com writes: As such, there may not be as much of a need to address leakage current under the Machinery Directive. I can understand your reasoning, but since excessive leakage is one of those faults that can persist undetected until someone gets a severe electric shock, I think it does need to be addressed. There is also an in-situ EMC issue: leakage current creates magnetic fields that are not often counteracted by those of an adjacent conductor carrying the same current in the opposite direction. I had experience of this in a graphics workshop where current in the armour of an under-floor cable caused CRT displays to jitter vertically by about 1 mm, causing sever eye-strain. -- 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 When I point to a star, please look at the star, not my finger. The star will be more interesting. - 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://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 emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe
Re: EN 60204
In message e9c52f9e77c43c49a56a22691b3680be117...@tk5ex14mbxc301.redmond.corp.micro soft.com, dated Mon, 26 Sep 2011, Ted Eckert ted.eck...@microsoft.com writes: As such, there may not be as much of a need to address leakage current under the Machinery Directive. I can understand your reasoning, but since excessive leakage is one of those faults that can persist undetected until someone gets a severe electric shock, I think it does need to be addressed. There is also an in-situ EMC issue: leakage current creates magnetic fields that are not often counteracted by those of an adjacent conductor carrying the same current in the opposite direction. I had experience of this in a graphics workshop where current in the armour of an under-floor cable caused CRT displays to jitter vertically by about 1 mm, causing sever eye-strain. -- 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 When I point to a star, please look at the star, not my finger. The star will be more interesting. - 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://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 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: EN 60204
Hello Kim, Let me address the leakage current issue. Many LVD standards do not have strict leakage current requirements for stationary products with an industrial locking plug or for permanently connected (field wired) equipment. In these cases, the standards assume that there will be a reliable earthing connection. These are the types of equipment that the Machinery Directive covers. Products with a non-locking plug are more commonly types covered under the LVD. I am not stating that this is always the case. However, the Machinery Directive primarily covers industrial equipment to be used by instructed personnel. Most products considered consumer products to be used by ordinary persons are covered under the LVD. As such, there may not be as much of a need to address leakage current under the Machinery Directive. I don’t have much background on the history of the Machinery Directive, and I am sure that there is a member of this list who can either provide more detail or describe if I am incorrect in my thinking. 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: Sunday, September 25, 2011 11:53 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: EN 60204 Hi The Machinery directive has EN 60204 as its main standard for electrical safety. In the latest version of the directive in Annex 1 §1.5.1 is stated that “The safety objectives set out in Directive 73/23/EEC shall apply to machinery”. Does this mean that we shall use EN 60204 and a LVD standard to prove compliance? I would like to, because EN 60204 is not very specific. Latest I have discovered that it does not describe how to measure leakage current, no reference to eg. IEC 60990. Best regards Mr. Kim Boll Jensen Bolls Aps Ved Gadekæret 11F DK-3660 Stenløse Phone: +45 48 18 35 66 k...@bolls.dk www.bolls.dk - 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://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ 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 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 - 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://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 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: EN 60204
I’m sorry but I don’t know what kind of product your company makes so it is hard to answer specifically. Does your product fall within the scope of the EN 60204? If so, you are stuck with it. If not, you can’t really use it, can you?. Is there another standard that is a better fit or more specific to your product? If so, is this standard harmonized to the MD? If so, use it. If not, is this standard harmonized under another directive, such as the LVD? If it is, and the directive covers all the hazards within your product, then you will have to decide if Article 3 of the MD applies to where you claim compliance to a different directive and not the MD even though your product can be defined as “machinery” according to the definition in the MD. I hope this was helpful to you. The Other Brian From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Kim Boll Jensen Sent: Monday, September 26, 2011 2:53 AM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: EN 60204 Hi The Machinery directive has EN 60204 as its main standard for electrical safety. In the latest version of the directive in Annex 1 §1.5.1 is stated that “The safety objectives set out in Directive 73/23/EEC shall apply to machinery”. Does this mean that we shall use EN 60204 and a LVD standard to prove compliance? I would like to, because EN 60204 is not very specific. Latest I have discovered that it does not describe how to measure leakage current, no reference to eg. IEC 60990. Best regards Mr. Kim Boll Jensen Bolls Aps Ved Gadekæret 11F DK-3660 Stenløse Phone: +45 48 18 35 66 k...@bolls.dk www.bolls.dk - 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://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ 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 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 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 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 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: EN 60204
Kim, The short answer to your question is 'yes'. I'm afraid I don't have time for the long answer this afternoon! Nick. On 26 Sep 2011, at 07:53, Kim Boll Jensen wrote: Hi The Machinery directive has EN 60204 as its main standard for electrical safety. In the latest version of the directive in Annex 1 §1.5.1 is stated that “The safety objectives set out in Directive 73/23/EEC shall apply to machinery”. Does this mean that we shall use EN 60204 and a LVD standard to prove compliance? I would like to, because EN 60204 is not very specific. Latest I have discovered that it does not describe how to measure leakage current, no reference to eg. IEC 60990. Nick Williams Director Direct line: +44 1298 873811 Mobile: +44 7702 995135 email: nick.willi...@conformance.co.uk - Conformance Ltd - Product safety, approvals and CE-marking consultants The Old Methodist Chapel, Great Hucklow, Buxton, SK17 8RG England Tel. +44 1298 873800, Fax. +44 1298 873801, www.conformance.co.uk Registered in England, Company No. 3478646 - 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://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 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
FW: EN 60204
“The safety objectives set out in Directive 73/23/EEC shall apply to machinery”. Key word is “objectives”… not to mean standards. The MDD is horizontal so standards are harmonized and the DoC should only reference the MDD, not the LVD. Best- Andrew Robbins 813-528-1261 cell From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] mailto:[mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Kim Boll Jensen Sent: Monday, September 26, 2011 1:53 AM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: EN 60204 Hi The Machinery directive has EN 60204 as its main standard for electrical safety. In the latest version of the directive in Annex 1 §1.5.1 is stated that “The safety objectives set out in Directive 73/23/EEC shall apply to machinery”. Does this mean that we shall use EN 60204 and a LVD standard to prove compliance? I would like to, because EN 60204 is not very specific. Latest I have discovered that it does not describe how to measure leakage current, no reference to eg. IEC 60990. Best regards Mr. Kim Boll Jensen Bolls Aps Ved Gadekæret 11F DK-3660 Stenløse Phone: +45 48 18 35 66 k...@bolls.dk www.bolls.dk - 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://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ 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 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 - 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://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ 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 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 - 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://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 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: EN 60204
Kim, The clause you cite concludes ”…the obligations concerning conformity assessment and the placing on the market and/or putting into service of machinery with regard to electrical hazards are governed solely by this [Machinery] Directive.” Therefore, if standards are used to demonstrate conformity, they should be those standards notified to the Machinery Directive. EN 60204-1 on its own should be acceptable. Further note that the Commission MD guide suggests the DoC for a Machine should not even reference the LVD. Regards, -- Lauren Crane (mr.) Product Regulatory Analyst | Corporate Product EHS | Applied Materials Office 512.272.6540 | Mobile 512.736.7201 | America - Europe - Asia - External Use – The opinions expressed here are my own opinions only and not necessarily those of my employer. ** Save paper and trees! Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Kim Boll Jensen Sent: Monday, September 26, 2011 1:53 AM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: EN 60204 Hi The Machinery directive has EN 60204 as its main standard for electrical safety. In the latest version of the directive in Annex 1 §1.5.1 is stated that “The safety objectives set out in Directive 73/23/EEC shall apply to machinery”. Does this mean that we shall use EN 60204 and a LVD standard to prove compliance? I would like to, because EN 60204 is not very specific. Latest I have discovered that it does not describe how to measure leakage current, no reference to eg. IEC 60990. Best regards Mr. Kim Boll Jensen Bolls Aps Ved Gadekæret 11F DK-3660 Stenløse Phone: +45 48 18 35 66 k...@bolls.dk www.bolls.dk - 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://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ 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 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 - 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://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 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
EN 60204
Hi The Machinery directive has EN 60204 as its main standard for electrical safety. In the latest version of the directive in Annex 1 §1.5.1 is stated that “The safety objectives set out in Directive 73/23/EEC shall apply to machinery”. Does this mean that we shall use EN 60204 and a LVD standard to prove compliance? I would like to, because EN 60204 is not very specific. Latest I have discovered that it does not describe how to measure leakage current, no reference to eg. IEC 60990. Best regards Mr. Kim Boll Jensen Bolls Aps Ved Gadekæret 11F DK-3660 Stenløse Phone: +45 48 18 35 66 k...@bolls.dk www.bolls.dk - 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://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 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
IEC 60204-33 and Semiconductor Manufacturing Equip.; SCV PSES Meeting, 23 March 2010
Forwarded message IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society Santa Clara Valley Chapter Meeting Date: Tuesday, March 23, 2010 Dinner: 5:30 – 6:45 p.m. Socialize with your colleagues and tonight’s speakers at: El Torito Mexican Restaurant, 2950 Lakeside Drive, Santa Clara, CA 95054 (408-727-4426) -- just two blocks north of the meeting site. No RSVP required. Program: 7:00 – 8:30 p.m. No admission charge. Open to the public. Topic: IEC 60204-33 and Semiconductor Manufacturing Equipment The validation of Semiconductor Fabrication Equipment product safety compliance has historically been mapped against generic National and International electrical standards. With the December 2009 publication of IEC 60204-33 a Semiconductor Fabrication Equipment Specific International standard now exists and it is predictable that it will soon become a harmonized standard under the Machinery Directive. In this discussion, the implications of a Type C standard for Semiconductor Fabrication Equipment will be covered as will similarities and differences between IEC-60204-33 and IEC 60204-1. The standards roots in SEMI S22 will also be discussed. Speaker: Mark A. Krauss, CLSO Mark Krauss, CLSO, is Principal Consultant for Environmental, Health and Safety Services, LLC, and has held this position focusing specifically on Semiconductor Manufacturing Equipment for over 13 years. He is a graduate of the USAF Leadership Academy and has been active in various roles and responsibilities for Semiconductor Equipment safety for over 30 years. Mark has served on numerous SEMI Environmental, Health and Safety Committees and continues to participate with their International Compliance and Regulatory Committee. Meeting Site: Applied Materials, Bowers Café, 3090 Bowers Ave, Santa Clara, CA 95054 (map: http://ewh.ieee.org/r6/scv/pses/directs.html) Visit our chapter website: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/r6/scv/pses/index.html Best Regards, Roberto Pasos Product Safety Engineer 684 West Maude Avenue Sunnyvale, CA 94085-3518 Ph: 408-245-7800 - 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 emcp...@socal.rr.com Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald dhe...@gmail.com
Effective dates for EN 60204-33 ?
Does anyone know when CENELEC will release EN 60204-33 to member states for publishing? When will the Dor, Dow, etc be set? See: http://tinyurl.com/FprEN60204-33-2009 Any help is appreciated. Thanks and best regards, Steve -- Steve Baldwin 408 838-2667 baldwin...@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.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 emcp...@socal.rr.com Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald dhe...@gmail.com
Re: Publication status of EN 60204-33?
In message 42d4eba91001271700j52a97fa9hf064d04b353f4...@mail.gmail.com, dated Wed, 27 Jan 2010, Steve Baldwin baldwin...@gmail.com writes: IEC 60204-33 was published last month. I had understood that EN 60204-33 would be published concurrently. This does not appear to be the case. When an EN is 'published' by CENELEC itself, it is only available to the CENELEC member national committees. They have to publish their implementations of it by the dop deadline. Some take longer than others. BSI is usually fairly quick, but BS EN 60204-33 is not yet available. -- 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 I should be disillusioned, but it's not worth the effort. - 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 emcp...@socal.rr.com Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com
Publication status of EN 60204-33?
IEC 60204-33 was published last month. I had understood that EN 60204-33 would be published concurrently. This does not appear to be the case. Does anyone know when EN 60204-33 will be published and available? Thanks, Steve -- Steve Baldwin 408 838-2667 baldwin...@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.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 emcp...@socal.rr.com Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald dhe...@gmail.com
Re: IEC 60204-33 status future possibilities.
In message ofb8b5a8b4.1ef76d4f-on862573b8.005aff4a-862573b8.005b9...@amat.com, dated Fri, 21 Dec 2007, lauren_cr...@amat.com writes: I have heard that a ballot for new document IEC 60204-33 (electrical design of semiconductor manufacturing equipment) recently failed. The first voting period, for document 44/558/CDV, appears to be just finished. I am not at all familiar with the IEC development process and I am hearing conflicting reports from my close-at-hand sources about what could happen with the document next (i.e., is it dead forever, is a single round of rework possible, a multiple rounds of rework possible?). You can download the IEC Directives free from the IEC web site. There are three documents, ISO/IEC Directives Parts 1 and 2 and IEC Supplement. You are not actually *required* to learn them by rote ...(;-) If the first stage vote (CDV - Committee Document for Vote) fails, a second CDV can be circulated if there is a good chance of a positive outcome, determined by an assessment of the comment accompanying negative votes by National Committees. If there is not a good chance, a modified CD (Committee Draft) has to be circulated for further comments, or the project abandoned (unlikely in this case, I guess). It is also possible to circulate an explanatory, or even exhortatory, document, a DC (Document for Comment), in an attempt to prevent misunderstanding or encourage a more conciliatory approach among dissenting National Committees. I understand there is a formal flow chart for what must happen, but my sources have also told me that is not necessarily how things are really done. The rules in the Directives are normally applied, but, although the IEC doesn't have pregnant chads, occasionally an unlikely situation arises, such as the late discovery of a serious error, or a serious misunderstanding by several National Committees, in a document that was voted positively. There are ad hoc recovery procedures for these cases, but they are not documented. -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk For very important information, please turn over. 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
IEC 60204-33 status future possibilities.
I have heard that a ballot for new document IEC 60204-33 (electrical design of semiconductor manufacturing equipment) recently failed. I am not at all familiar with the IEC development process and I am hearing conflicting reports from my close-at-hand sources about what could happen with the document next (i.e., is it dead forever, is a single round of rework possible, a multiple rounds of rework possible?). I understand there is a formal flow chart for what must happen, but my sources have also told me that is not necessarily how things are really done. Any enlightening perspective on this would be greatly appreciated. Regards, Lauren Crane Product Regulatory Analyst Corporate Product EHS Lead Applied Materials Inc. - External Use - - --- 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: Verification tests in IEC 60204-1:2006
In message 001501c7ea4e$2e2d0700$6601a8c0@develop, dated Wed, 29 Aug 2007, Peter reg...@electroware.dk writes: In 18.2.2 Test 1 is described as continuity test of protective bonding. By use of a 0.2 to 10A SELV supply. What is the direct difference between the not recomended PELV and the recomended SELV ? A PELV supply is earthed, and thus may give a wrong result. Can i use a 24V DC @ 10A bench power supply or is that not enough ? If the output is isolated from earth, it can be used. In 18.2.2 Test 2 is described as fault loop impedance verification. What exactly is this parameter and how does one measure it ? I previous 60204-1 standard i did not seem to find similar test ? But only a 10A continuity test with requirements for max. voltage drop. Well, if you measure the voltage drop with 10 A flowing, you HAVE measured the impedance. The difference may be that a 'continuity test' doesn't normally imply a precisely-defined current, but that is what you must have in order to calculate the impedance from the current and the voltage drop. -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk There are benefits from being irrational - just ask the square root of 2. 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 email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email __
Verification tests in IEC 60204-1:2006
Hi experts, I have a little difficulty decoding the meaning of verification tests for the Machinery LVD standard IEC 60204-1:2006. Can someone enlighten me about the following: It is stated in 18.1 that if no other product specific requirements exists the minimum tests to be done are: a) verification of technical documentation b) verification of protection by automatic disconection of supply f) functional tests In 18.2.2 Test 1 is described as continuity test of protective bonding. By use of a 0.2 to 10A SELV supply. What is the direct difference between the not recomended PELV and the recomended SELV ? Can i use a 24V DC @ 10A bench power supply or is that not enough ? In 18.2.2 Test 2 is described as fault loop impedance verification. What exactly is this parameter and how does one measure it ? I previous 60204-1 standard i did not seem to find similar test ? But only a 10A continuity test with requirements for max. voltage drop. Hope someone has more experience with theese tests and willing to help ;o) Have a nice day ! Best regards Peter __ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email __ - 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: EN 60204-1 current-carrying capacity derating
Doug and Rich - Thank you for responding. Rich seems to agree with my interpretation and, since Doug agrees with Rich... NFPA 79's conductor derating is much more straight forward than it is in EN 60204-1. NFPA 79 and 60204-1 approach the derating methods based on the wiring systems from the respective applicable installation codes. There are wiring methods allowed in the EU that would not be accepted in the US or Canada (and probably vice-versa). While the two standards are analogous and have large swaths of commonality, they do have differences. Regards, Peter L. Tarver, PE ptar...@ieee.org CONFIDENTIALITY This e-mail message and any attachments thereto, is intended only for use by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail message, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail message, and any attachments thereto, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail message in error, please immediately notify the sender and permanently delete the original and any copies of this email and any prints thereof. ABSENT AN EXPRESS STATEMENT TO THE CONTRARY HEREINABOVE, THIS E-MAIL IS NOT INTENDED AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR A WRITING. Notwithstanding the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act or the applicability of any other law of similar substance and effect, absent an express statement to the contrary hereinabove, this e-mail message its contents, and any attachments hereto are not intended to represent an offer or acceptance to enter into a contract and are not otherwise intended to bind the sender, Sanmina-SCI Corporation (or any of its subsidiaries), or any other person or entity. _ Scanned by Sanmina-SCI eShield ___ _ - 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 email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email __
Re: EN 60204-1 current-carrying capacity derating
Peter, I agree with Rich in hi interpretation of the derating factors. BTW, this standard is in common use with those of us working in the industrial sector, as is the US corollary standard NFPA 79. Since this is more of an industrial as opposed to consumer product standard, you might have found a quicker response in the Electrical Safety forum. JMHO. -- Doug Nix, A.Sc.T. IEEE PSES Waterloo Region Canada d...@ieee.org From: Tarver, Peter peter.tar...@sanmina-sci.com Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 15:00:40 -0800 To: PSTC 1 emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RE: EN 60204-1 current-carrying capacity derating Perhaps this question is too near the noise floor, considering some of the other posts recently. I'm resending to the list, hoping it will catch someone's eye. Regards, Peter L. Tarver, PE ptar...@ieee.org From: Tarver, Peter Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2007 2:27 PM I am looking at EN 60204-1, §C.1.3, and Table C.2. Am I correct in interpreting C.1.3, first dashed paragraph, the phrase one loaded three-phase a.c. cable system ... to mean all phase conductors of a three-phase system loaded simultaneously and equally (balanced load)? I note that the top-right-most column heading for derating factors in Table C.2 is labeled Number of loaded cables/conductors, which leads me to question my original interpretation. Regards, Peter L. Tarver, PE ptar...@ieee.org CONFIDENTIALITY This e-mail message and any attachments thereto, is intended only for use by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail message, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail message, and any attachments thereto, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail message in error, please immediately notify the sender and permanently delete the original and any copies of this email and any prints thereof. ABSENT AN EXPRESS STATEMENT TO THE CONTRARY HEREINABOVE, THIS E-MAIL IS NOT INTENDED AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR A WRITING. Notwithstanding the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act or the applicability of any other law of similar substance and effect, absent an express statement to the contrary hereinabove, this e-mail message its contents, and any attachments hereto are not intended to represent an offer or acceptance to enter into a contract and are not otherwise intended to bind the sender, Sanmina-SCI Corporation (or any of its subsidiaries), or any other person or entity. _ Scanned by Sanmina-SCI eShield _ - 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 email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email __
RE: EN 60204-1 current-carrying capacity derating
Hi Peter: I am looking at EN 60204-1, §C.1.3, and Table C.2. Am I correct in interpreting C.1.3, first dashed paragraph, the phrase one loaded three-phase a.c. cable system ... to mean all phase conductors of a three-phase system loaded simultaneously and equally (balanced load)? I note that the top-right-most column heading for derating factors in Table C.2 is labeled Number of loaded cables/conductors, which leads me to question my original interpretation. My interpretation is that C.1.3 has derating requirements for both three-phase power and single-phase (two-conductor) power. Figure C.1 shows various configurations of conductors for both three-phase and single-phase. The derating is based on one loaded three-phase cable, or one loaded single-phase (loaded pair) cable. Derating of a three-phase cable when only one phase is loaded doesn't make much sense. My conclusion is that all the phase conductors are loaded simultaneously and equally. The illustrations have only three wires, which means either a three-phase delta or a balanced three-phase wye with zero neutral current (in which case the neutral plays no part in the derating). Best regards, Rich ps: IEC 60204 is not a standard that is in common use by safety engineers. - 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 email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email __
RE: EN 60204-1 current-carrying capacity derating
Perhaps this question is too near the noise floor, considering some of the other posts recently. I'm resending to the list, hoping it will catch someone's eye. Regards, Peter L. Tarver, PE ptar...@ieee.org From: Tarver, Peter Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2007 2:27 PM I am looking at EN 60204-1, §C.1.3, and Table C.2. Am I correct in interpreting C.1.3, first dashed paragraph, the phrase one loaded three-phase a.c. cable system ... to mean all phase conductors of a three-phase system loaded simultaneously and equally (balanced load)? I note that the top-right-most column heading for derating factors in Table C.2 is labeled Number of loaded cables/conductors, which leads me to question my original interpretation. Regards, Peter L. Tarver, PE ptar...@ieee.org CONFIDENTIALITY This e-mail message and any attachments thereto, is intended only for use by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail message, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail message, and any attachments thereto, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail message in error, please immediately notify the sender and permanently delete the original and any copies of this email and any prints thereof. ABSENT AN EXPRESS STATEMENT TO THE CONTRARY HEREINABOVE, THIS E-MAIL IS NOT INTENDED AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR A WRITING. Notwithstanding the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act or the applicability of any other law of similar substance and effect, absent an express statement to the contrary hereinabove, this e-mail message its contents, and any attachments hereto are not intended to represent an offer or acceptance to enter into a contract and are not otherwise intended to bind the sender, Sanmina-SCI Corporation (or any of its subsidiaries), or any other person or entity. _ Scanned by Sanmina-SCI eShield ___ _ - 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 email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email __
Re: EN 60204-1: 1997 vs. 1998 vs. 2006
Interestingly, I have in the last hour had a marketing e-mail from BSI which is trying to sell me a copy of EN 60204-1:2006. I've spoken to them and they tell me that it is due for publication on 22 September 2006. There's some information on the BSI web site about the new standard at: www.bsi-global.com/BSEN60204 regards Nick. - 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: EN 60204-1: 1997 vs. 1998 vs. 2006
In message p0623090bc0b4a85899ce@[10.247.58.220], dated Tue, 13 Jun 2006, Nick Williams nick.willi...@conformance.co.uk writes The last list of machinery standards to be published in the OJ was dated 31 December 2005 and I wouldn't be surprised if there was a 12 month gap before the next one. Likewise, the last LVD list was 16 Novermber 2005 and I'd expect a 12 month gap for the next. People are complaining about this, because the standards process is continuous, and an 11 month delay in updating the OJ is causing problems, especially when a standard is amended to correct errors. Who mentioned EN 55022 then? I wouldn't do such a thing. (;-) -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk 2006 is YMMVI- Your mileage may vary immensely. 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
Re: EN 60204-1: 1997 vs. 1998 vs. 2006
In message ofbcc5ed40.67f57bbb-on8825718c.005ed5ef-8825718c.005f0...@teal.com, dated Tue, 13 Jun 2006, pat.law...@slpower.com writes I need to order the current issue of EN 60204-1 (Safety of machinery – Electrical equipment of machines). When I went to the EUR-Lex website at http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/newapproach/standardization/harmstds/refl ist/machines.html it lists EN 60204-1:1997 as the current edition, with no amendments. So far, so good. But when I look at websites that sell standards, I see listings for 1997, 1998, and 2006. - Should I simply buy the 1997 edition, or are there changes/corrections that forced the 1998 version to be published? The '1998' version is the national implementation of the formal 'publication' by CENELEC of the EN dated 1997, which was probably published in November or December 1997, so the national standards carry the 1998 date. - Is the 2006 version on the verge of announcement in the OJ? If so, it sounds like that should be used to evaluate my product. From the public part of the CENELEC web site, you can get: Standard reference EN 60204-1:200X Reference document IEC 60204-1:2005 (Modified) Technical body CLC/TC 44X IEC technical body IEC/TC 44 Dor 2006-06-01 Dav - Doa 2006-12-01 Dop 2007-06-01 Dow 2009-06-01 The doa (date of adoption) is not till December, so it would be a bit premature to use it as soon as it's published. -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk 2006 is YMMVI- Your mileage may vary immensely. 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
Re: EN 60204-1: 1997 vs. 1998 vs. 2006
Unless the information on the CENELEC web site is out of date, there isn't an EN 60204-1:2006 yet. There _is_ an IEC 60204-1:2005 but the CENELEC site indicates that there will be modifications (differences) between the IEC and EN versions. The 1997/1998 confusion probably arises because the original CENELEC version of the EN was dated 1997 but BSI did not get round to publishing it until 1998, so BS EN 60204-1:1998 is the same as EN 60204-1:1997. The last list of machinery standards to be published in the OJ was dated 31 December 2005 and I wouldn't be surprised if there was a 12 month gap before the next one. Likewise, the last LVD list was 16 Novermber 2005 and I'd expect a 12 month gap for the next. If the new version of EN 60204-1 is imminent then it will be published before this and will presumably appear in the next OJ list, but if you have a product which needs evaluation right now, I would not hesitate to use the 1997 version. Nick. At 10:17 am -0700 13/6/06, pat.law...@slpower.com wrote: Hi all: I need to order the current issue of EN 60204-1 (Safety of machinery - Electrical equipment of machines). When I went to the EUR-Lex website at http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/newappr ach/standardization/harmstds/reflist/machines.html it lists EN 60204-1:1997 as the current edition, with no amendments. So far, so good. But when I look at websites that sell standards, I see listings for 1997, 1998, and 2006. - Should I simply buy the 1997 edition, or are there changes/corrections that forced the 1998 version to be published? - Is the 2006 version on the verge of announcement in the OJ? If so, it sounds like that should be used to evaluate my product. Thanks, Pat Lawler Engineer SL Power Electronics Corp. - 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
EN 60204-1: 1997 vs. 1998 vs. 2006
Hi all: I need to order the current issue of EN 60204-1 (Safety of machinery – Electrical equipment of machines). When I went to the EUR-Lex website at http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/newapproach/standardization/harmstds/reflist/machines.html it lists EN 60204-1:1997 as the current edition, with no amendments. So far, so good. But when I look at websites that sell standards, I see listings for 1997, 1998, and 2006. - Should I simply buy the 1997 edition, or are there changes/corrections that forced the 1998 version to be published? - Is the 2006 version on the verge of announcement in the OJ? If so, it sounds like that should be used to evaluate my product. Thanks, Pat Lawler Engineer SL Power Electronics Corp.
RE: Machinery; EN 60204 hi-pot testing
In addition to all this, the hipot tester may not be capable of providing the current necessary to drive the voltage up to the test level. Example, I had a product with a power supply that required 54 mA to drive the test voltage to 1.5kV AC. The tester could only source 39 mA and so would cause a failure alarm. After I had the manufacturer modify his tester to deliver more current (60 mA) the tester would then pass the equipment at 1.5 kV AC. The problem in the power supply was the large caps that caused more leakage than I was accustomed to seeing (more than the tester could handle). Scott s_doug...@ecrm.com ECRM Incorporated Tewksbury, MA USA -Original Message- From: peperk...@compuserve.com [mailto:peperk...@compuserve.com] Sent: Thursday, November 04, 1999 10:38 AM To: pmerguer...@itl.co.il Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Machinery; EN 60204 hi-pot testing Importance: Low PSNet Peter, Well, you didn't define the failure mode when conducting this test, but I have run into cases where the hi-pot equipment did not have the capacity to charge the capacitance in the product and the failure mode activated on the hi-pot equipment (horn, lights and accompaning embarrasement, etc)... This is not a failure to a hazard for the user... So, the manufacturer (and their test lab) must have the option of using a DC test to demonstrate compliance... Once the equipment passes this reasonable, rational test the manufacturer (and test house) must be prepared to argue compliance with the requirements (including showing an example where it is specifically allowed in another standard), claim compliance (providing enough technical rationale in the Technical File to enable defending the decision in the future) and carry on in the usual manner. This is the test of reasonableness that always needs to be applied in the safety evaluation of equipment. - - - - - Peter E Perkins Principal Product Safety Consultant Tigard, ORe 97281-3427 +1/503/452-1201 phone/fax p.perk...@ieee.org email visit our website: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/peperkins - - - - - - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
Machinery; EN 60204
Hello from Tel Aviv Everyone! Well, simple question for those machinery experts out there. The standards requires a 1000 VAC Dielectric Strength Test between Live Hazardous Parts and Earth. Can a dc potential at 1.414 of this ac potential be applied instead (ie 1414 Vdc). There are many machines out there with Approved Line to Ground capacitors which would fail the AC Dielectric Strength Test. I believe that since EN 60 950 allows a dc in lieu of ac, the same could apply to machinery or other standards which require just ac (another standard requiring ac is the medical standard). +++ RTTE Directive Seminar Renaissance Hotel, Tel-Aviv 12th January 2000: CALL FOR DETAILS +++ Peter Merguerian Managing Director Product Testing Division I.T.L. (Product Testing) Ltd. Hacharoshet 26, POB 211 Or Yehuda 60251, Israel Tel: 972-3-5339022 Fax: 972-3-5339019 e-mail: pmerguer...@itl.co.il website: http://www.itl.co.il - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
Transformers for product meeting EN 50178/60204
Do power and isolation transformers placed in power supplies meeting EN 50178 have to meet EN 60076 and EN 60742 (respectively)? Does anybody have experience in this area? Will these transformers be accepted in a Europe-bound product if the transformers meet CSA and UL standards? Thanks, Arjen
60204
Keith PSNet, The approved standard to be used for approval under the EU Directives, including the placement of the CE marking on the equipment is still EN 60204-1;1992. There will be a new EN issued sometime this year (or early next year, according to my sources) which will incorporate the changes developed in IEC 60204-1;1997 - altho it is not yet known what Euro deviations will appear in the new EN document (one hopes that there are few). From this I hope that you can now easily distinguish the European (EN) standard from the international (IEC) version. So, don't despair... there will be a new EN, but it's not yet announced... (It will probably be announced yesterday since I seem to be so certain)... - - - - - Peter E Perkins Principal Product Safety Consultant Tigard, ORe 97281-3427 +1/503/452-1201 phone/fax p.perk...@ieee.org email visit our website: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/peperkins - - - - - - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
RE: 60204
Hello Keith, The new version must be transformed to a new EN - AND be published in O.J. (Harmonised in EU) before it supersedes the old EN. Best regards Helge Knudsen Jyske EMC hknud...@jyske-emc.com -- From: Nicholas, Keith L[SMTP:keith.nicho...@amp.com] Reply To: Nicholas, Keith L Sent: 1. oktober 1998 17:07 To: 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org' Subject:60204 Pertaining to the machinery directive: Is IEC 60204-1:1-1997 the appropriate standard to be using? I believe it supercedes EN 60204-11992. Keith L. Nicholas Manager, Electrical Controls AMP Incorporated, Automachine Systems Group Mail Stop: 161-39 * (717) 810-2601 * (717) 810-2443 * keith.nicho...@amp.com - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
60204
Pertaining to the machinery directive: Is IEC 60204-1:1-1997 the appropriate standard to be using? I believe it supercedes EN 60204-11992. Keith L. Nicholas Manager, Electrical Controls AMP Incorporated, Automachine Systems Group Mail Stop: 161-39 * (717) 810-2601 * (717) 810-2443 * keith.nicho...@amp.com - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
IEC 60204-1:1997 ve EN 60204-1:1992
IEC 60204-1:1997 is the latest update to the 204 standard by the IEC. The changes are not marked, but the testing requirements at the end of the standard are now in clause 19, rather than clause 20 in the 1992 edition. My understanding is that the EN version will be out sometime this year (1998). So, pick up the 97 edition if you want a preview of coming attractions... - - - - - Peter E Perkins Principal Product Safety Consultant Tigard, ORe 97281-3427 +1/503/452-1201 phone/fax p.perk...@ieee.org email visit our website: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/peperkins - - - - -
