Hi Guys,
I've been in a lot of trouble this week and had a lot of questions.
But, my way of thinking is...if you're not in a little trouble, you're
not in the game.
Anyway...we want to purchase fiber optic switches for use with our OTDR
(Optical Time Domain Reflectometer) modules. The switches and OTDR
modules mount in a Compact PCI chassis as separate cards. We have
always labeled our OTDR modules with their respective laser
classification, submitted to the CDRH...
Our current modules are all "Class I" according to CDRH and EN 60825-1.
There may be some future modules with "Class III" power levels. From
this point, assume that the modules are labeled and compliant with CDRH
and EN 60825-1.
Now, what about the fiber optic switch cards that route the OTDR output?
My thinking is this... the cards should be labelled with a generic laser
radiation warning label without a specific classification. This warning
label would refer the user to the manual where verbage such as..."Treat
the all output ports of the switch with caution appropriate to the class
of the source fed to the input" (paraphrased)
Others have said that we should label the switches at the time of sale
with the laser classification of their accompanying module. I have two
problems with this...
1. The switch is not a laser device. It has no classification of its
own.
2. There is no guarantee in the field that the switch will always be
used to route radiation within the power levels of its marked
classification. For example, what if a user buys an OTDR and switch
combination both labeled "Class I". Then, later, they upgrade their
OTDR to a "Class III" module. In this case I believe that the "Class I"
label on the switch would be misleading and give a false sense of
security. Knowledgable users know that "Class I" is eye safe. I also
don't want to rely on us trying to track units and send new labels to
the user for their switch if they upgrade their OTDR. There is no
guarantee that they would get installed. There is no guarantee that we
could track units that well. I would rather have the switch give no
classification at all and force the user to find out what power levels
are routed through it.(by reading the laser class tags on the source
feeding it).
My other line of thinking is that all switches could be marked with the
worst case classification ("Class III"). But I still don't like that
because we don't have control at the user level. The worst case module
that WE would sell them with a switch is "Class III". But who knows
what other signals the user could route through? They could always
route a higher power through the switch and render our labeling
misleading and inappropriate. Again, I fall back to the generic label
and forcing the user to know what power levels they are dealing with.
As always, the advice and experience of my colleagues (comiserators) is
welcomed and appreciated.
Chris Maxwell | Design Engineer - Optical Division
email chris.maxw...@nettest.com | dir +1 315 266 5128 | fax +1 315 797
8024
NetTest | 6 Rhoads Drive, Utica, NY 13502 | USA
web www.nettest.com | tel +1 315 797 4449 |
-------------------------------------------
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.
Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/
To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
unsubscribe emc-pstc
For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Michael Garretson: pstc_ad...@garretson.org
Dave Heald davehe...@mediaone.net
For policy questions, send mail to:
Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old
messages are imported into the new server.
