Re: [PSES] E-Box Layout on Factory Machines

[Pete Perkins]

Brian, et al, 

Lots of good discussion on this topic; shows wide level of experience.  

Since you seem to be well organized on this one additional path you 
could use in NA is a NRTL (or not) Field Inspection.  

The best route is when you know ahead of time that a Labeled product is 
needed you arrange for an inspection at the factory to show the innards (and 
your competency) which provides a report for their inspector who reviews the 
installed product and puts a Field Label on the product (can't be labeled at 
the factory).  

When you get caught up at the installation the Field Inspection can be 
done there but best when supported with your data package with details to avoid 
questions.  

Some AHJs will also accept an independent Field Label from someone 
authorized to do so locally - usually a US state-by-state list you need to 
chase. 

As you have noted, lots of variability in results in the field.  

:>) 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

-Original Message-
From: Kunde, Brian [mailto:brian_ku...@lecotc.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 4, 2017 12:41 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] E-Box Layout on Factory Machines

Dave hit the nail on the head. In our type of products and market, we 
manufacturer many different products (50 or more families of products), but in 
very low quantity. Fifty of one model per year is a lot to us where some models 
we might not sell even one.  We build to order one unit at a time. And we have 
products that have been "in production" for over 30 years.

We have talked to many NRTL labs about a certification program but they all say 
the same thing; it makes no sense with the low quantity we produce. They 
consider our products "Custom" and we can provide a Test Report from our 
internal safety lab (we have a very nice facility). Some OSHA inspectors are OK 
with it, some are not. Same with AHJs. Some are ok, some require a label from 
an NRTL. Most government organizations, universities, and government 
contractors require NRTL marks on products these days. We do offer this through 
a local NRTL lab in the form of a Field Evaluation. No problem with these 
inspections.

Where we run into trouble is with products that are inspected in the field. 
Customers will hire NRTLs to do field evaluations on location on new products 
or sometimes on products that have been in service for years, and some 
inspectors, not knowing what it is they are looking at, will inspect it to some 
standard or set of rules they pulled out of a hat.  That is why I ask so many 
questions about Criteria.

Nine out of ten inspections go fine. And most of those who have issues are 
happy with an explanation or a little information from us. But it is those 
stubborn close minded inspectors who won't budge that will send me to an early 
grave.  These are the inspectors we are constantly trying to understand and 
design our products to satisfy to minimize the problems and costs.

I know we will never be able to make everyone happy. But the more information 
we have the better things get.

Thanks so much for your comments and advise. It is very helpful.
The Other Brian

-Original Message-
From: Nyffenegger, Dave [mailto:dave.nyffeneg...@bhemail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2017 3:09 PM
To: Kunde, Brian; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: [PSES] E-Box Layout on Factory Machines

The preceding may not have completely addressed the question.  You are probably 
looking to identify what standards to apply while designing the product before 
an NRTL has a chance to evaluate and determine what they think is the 
appropriate standard(s).   This is where experience and a working relationship 
with the NRTL comes in handy.  We often design to a few different standards 
when possible.  If there are conflicts, well then we have to make a judgment 
call.  With some prior history we know what standards the NRTL has used on 
similar product.  We can also get preliminary input from the NRTL on what 
standards they would apply.  In particular during a preliminary quote cycle 
with basic product description the standards to be used for certification will 
have been identified in the NRTL certification quotes.

-Dave

-Original Message-
From: Nyffenegger, Dave
Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2017 3:02 PM
To: 'Kunde, Brian'; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: [PSES] E-Box Layout on Factory Machines

Brian,

I assume you're asking about US requirements and the inspectors you are asking 
about are local AHJs or OSHA.  So OSHA and perhaps the AHJs have a basic rule 
that all equipment used in the workplace is NRTL approved/listed except for 
custom built equipment that can be certified as safe by the manufacturer on the 
basis of test data.   I don'

Re: [PSES] E-Box Layout on Factory Machines

[Douglas Nix]

All,

The “heavy locked boxes” came in as way to contain the occasionally 
catastrophic failures that occur with industrial controls. The huge old NEMA 
rated switchgear was designed to survive a bolted fault of many thousands of 
amps, which would shower the surrounding area with sparks if not contained.

New panels are typically fitted with IEC rated components which are much 
smaller and are not designed to take that kind of abuse. IF the overcorrect 
protection is done right (Type II), they will survive some but not all of 
life’s vagaries. They may still fail in a shower of sparks and flames.

The heavy steel enclosures are there to contain sparks, flames, and exploding 
components in the event of a contained arc flash.


Doug Nix
d...@ieee.org
+1 (519) 729-5704

> On 4-Apr-2017, at 12:24, Doug Powell  wrote:
> 
> Just my opinion but the use of heavy locked enclosures (pre-dating DIN Rail) 
> has been industry practice for many years.  I suspect that part of the reason 
> of enclosure similarity is from the desire to keep costs down by having a 
> minimum number of different boxes in inventory. In addition, NEMA has quite a 
> bit to say about design for enclosure strength, ingress, accessibility, etc. 
> 
> As for the harnesses I feel DIN Rail is a result of organized wiring layouts, 
> not a cause, I have worked with systems when everything was connected with 
> ring lugs and very long terminal blocks. It may not be so obvious on smaller 
> systems but larger systems are often very configurable and rather complex.  
> This made it much easier to manufacture harnesses in quantity on plywood 
> board and nail setups with each conductor is identified and tagged on both 
> ends. I learned my electronics on radar and countermeasures systems in the US 
> Navy and we had to have wires harnessed and secured cable in this way.  I 
> even learned to tie the standardized knots to use on harness lacing twine. I 
> haven't checked in a few years but this may still be a practice in military 
> equipment and I'm pretty sure in avionics too. In industry, the tywrap has 
> all but taken over. I suspect many of the MIL STD practices have made their 
> way into industry because they have been proven to work.  
> 
> In the early days of mainframe computers, there were attempts to dress out 
> wiring in a similar fashion and it was found that the cross-talk between 
> conductors could actually be detrimental.  This was likely one of the 
> contributing factors to the old "rats nest" and thick blankets of 30 AWG wire 
> used in wire-wrapped backplanes and main frames.  The more or less randomly 
> routed wires were less likely to cross talk when laid out in quasi-orthogonal 
> arrangements and when squeezing out every bit of speed was imperative, direct 
> point to point wiring was just a tad bit faster.  Just for fun, try a google 
> image search for Cray Computer Backplane.  It becomes very apparent why 
> technicians would pull out their hair.
> 
> -Doug
> 
> 
> Douglas E Powell
> Laporte, Colorado USA
> doug...@gmail.com 
> http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01
>  
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 6:54 AM, Kunde, Brian  > wrote:
> I notice that most industrial factory machinery is designed with a large 
> metal electronic box with a hinged door and some kind of keyed lock. Inside 
> the components are DIN mounted and the wiring is all dressed very neatly in 
> these gray plastic cable runs with snap-on lids. Every wire is labeled with a 
> small tag.
> 
>  
> 
> Why are these machines so similar in design?  Even among different 
> manufacturers, they look similar.  Is there a standard or standards that 
> dictate exactly how this is done?  What criteria is used to determine if your 
> product must follow these construction rules? 
> 
>  
> 
> Seems strange to me that they are so similar and if required to be that way, 
> then standards and/or governments are dictating design. Even if it was for 
> the “greater-good”, I thought that was a no-no.  Dictate design, stifle 
> creativity, invite those who would take advantage for financial gain.
> 
>  
> 
> Just curious.  I’m most interested in the criteria question, though.
> 
> The Other Brian
> 
>  
> 
> LECO Corporation Notice: This communication may contain confidential 
> information intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you received this by 
> mistake, please destroy it and notify us of the error. Thank you.
> 
> -
> 
> This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
> discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
> >
> 
> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
> http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html 
> 
> Attachments are not permitted but the IEE

Re: [PSES] E-Box Layout on Factory Machines

[Brian O'Connell]

The U.S. constitution (theoretically) offers only enumerated powers. All else 
are domain of the individual states. Note the Ninth and Tenth amendments, and 
other such stuff. But some stuff is slowly being changed via adjudicated 'law'.

Brian

-Original Message-
From: John Woodgate [mailto:jmw1...@btinternet.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2017 12:59 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] E-Box Layout on Factory Machines

Why do you continue to have a system like that? I know you can't alter it 
unilaterally, but perhaps the IEEE should consider advising the government to 
make approvals less of a lottery.

The situation you have is more or less that every AHJ is a unique foreign 
country, to which you are trying to export.

With best wishes DESIGN IT IN! OOO – Own Opinions Only
www.jmwa.demon.co.uk J M Woodgate and Associates Rayleigh England

Sylvae in aeternum manent.

-Original Message-
From: Kunde, Brian [mailto:brian_ku...@lecotc.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 4, 2017 8:41 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] E-Box Layout on Factory Machines

Dave hit the nail on the head. In our type of products and market, we 
manufacturer many different products (50 or more families of products), but in 
very low quantity. Fifty of one model per year is a lot to us where some models 
we might not sell even one.  We build to order one unit at a time. And we have 
products that have been "in production" for over 30 years.

We have talked to many NRTL labs about a certification program but they all say 
the same thing; it makes no sense with the low quantity we produce. They 
consider our products "Custom" and we can provide a Test Report from our 
internal safety lab (we have a very nice facility). Some OSHA inspectors are OK 
with it, some are not. Same with AHJs. Some are ok, some require a label from 
an NRTL. Most government organizations, universities, and government 
contractors require NRTL marks on products these days. We do offer this through 
a local NRTL lab in the form of a Field Evaluation. No problem with these 
inspections.

Where we run into trouble is with products that are inspected in the field. 
Customers will hire NRTLs to do field evaluations on location on new products 
or sometimes on products that have been in service for years, and some 
inspectors, not knowing what it is they are looking at, will inspect it to some 
standard or set of rules they pulled out of a hat.  That is why I ask so many 
questions about Criteria.

Nine out of ten inspections go fine. And most of those who have issues are 
happy with an explanation or a little information from us. But it is those 
stubborn close minded inspectors who won't budge that will send me to an early 
grave.  These are the inspectors we are constantly trying to understand and 
design our products to satisfy to minimize the problems and costs.

I know we will never be able to make everyone happy. But the more information 
we have the better things get.

Thanks so much for your comments and advise. It is very helpful.
The Other Brian

-Original Message-
From: Nyffenegger, Dave [mailto:dave.nyffeneg...@bhemail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2017 3:09 PM
To: Kunde, Brian; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: [PSES] E-Box Layout on Factory Machines

The preceding may not have completely addressed the question.  You are probably 
looking to identify what standards to apply while designing the product before 
an NRTL has a chance to evaluate and determine what they think is the 
appropriate standard(s).   This is where experience and a working relationship 
with the NRTL comes in handy.  We often design to a few different standards 
when possible.  If there are conflicts, well then we have to make a judgment 
call.  With some prior history we know what standards the NRTL has used on 
similar product.  We can also get preliminary input from the NRTL on what 
standards they would apply.  In particular during a preliminary quote cycle 
with basic product description the standards to be used for certification will 
have been identified in the NRTL certification quotes.

-Dave

-Original Message-
From: Nyffenegger, Dave
Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2017 3:02 PM
To: 'Kunde, Brian'; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: [PSES] E-Box Layout on Factory Machines

Brian,

I assume you're asking about US requirements and the inspectors you are asking 
about are local AHJs or OSHA.  So OSHA and perhaps the AHJs have a basic rule 
that all equipment used in the workplace is NRTL approved/listed except for 
custom built equipment that can be certified as safe by the manufacturer on the 
basis of test data.   I don't know if or how the exception may apply with local 
AHJs, no experience with that one.

The first thing the local electrical/building/OSHA inspector is going to look 
for is the NRTL mark.  They see that they are usually happy and d

Re: [PSES] E-Box Layout on Factory Machines

[John Woodgate]

Why do you continue to have a system like that? I know you can't alter it 
unilaterally, but perhaps the IEEE should consider advising the government to 
make approvals less of a lottery.

The situation you have is more or less that every AHJ is a unique foreign 
country, to which you are trying to export.

With best wishes DESIGN IT IN! OOO – Own Opinions Only
www.jmwa.demon.co.uk J M Woodgate and Associates Rayleigh England

Sylvae in aeternum manent.

-Original Message-
From: Kunde, Brian [mailto:brian_ku...@lecotc.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 4, 2017 8:41 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] E-Box Layout on Factory Machines

Dave hit the nail on the head. In our type of products and market, we 
manufacturer many different products (50 or more families of products), but in 
very low quantity. Fifty of one model per year is a lot to us where some models 
we might not sell even one.  We build to order one unit at a time. And we have 
products that have been "in production" for over 30 years.

We have talked to many NRTL labs about a certification program but they all say 
the same thing; it makes no sense with the low quantity we produce. They 
consider our products "Custom" and we can provide a Test Report from our 
internal safety lab (we have a very nice facility). Some OSHA inspectors are OK 
with it, some are not. Same with AHJs. Some are ok, some require a label from 
an NRTL. Most government organizations, universities, and government 
contractors require NRTL marks on products these days. We do offer this through 
a local NRTL lab in the form of a Field Evaluation. No problem with these 
inspections.

Where we run into trouble is with products that are inspected in the field. 
Customers will hire NRTLs to do field evaluations on location on new products 
or sometimes on products that have been in service for years, and some 
inspectors, not knowing what it is they are looking at, will inspect it to some 
standard or set of rules they pulled out of a hat.  That is why I ask so many 
questions about Criteria.

Nine out of ten inspections go fine. And most of those who have issues are 
happy with an explanation or a little information from us. But it is those 
stubborn close minded inspectors who won't budge that will send me to an early 
grave.  These are the inspectors we are constantly trying to understand and 
design our products to satisfy to minimize the problems and costs.

I know we will never be able to make everyone happy. But the more information 
we have the better things get.

Thanks so much for your comments and advise. It is very helpful.
The Other Brian

-Original Message-
From: Nyffenegger, Dave [mailto:dave.nyffeneg...@bhemail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2017 3:09 PM
To: Kunde, Brian; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: [PSES] E-Box Layout on Factory Machines

The preceding may not have completely addressed the question.  You are probably 
looking to identify what standards to apply while designing the product before 
an NRTL has a chance to evaluate and determine what they think is the 
appropriate standard(s).   This is where experience and a working relationship 
with the NRTL comes in handy.  We often design to a few different standards 
when possible.  If there are conflicts, well then we have to make a judgment 
call.  With some prior history we know what standards the NRTL has used on 
similar product.  We can also get preliminary input from the NRTL on what 
standards they would apply.  In particular during a preliminary quote cycle 
with basic product description the standards to be used for certification will 
have been identified in the NRTL certification quotes.

-Dave

-Original Message-
From: Nyffenegger, Dave
Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2017 3:02 PM
To: 'Kunde, Brian'; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: [PSES] E-Box Layout on Factory Machines

Brian,

I assume you're asking about US requirements and the inspectors you are asking 
about are local AHJs or OSHA.  So OSHA and perhaps the AHJs have a basic rule 
that all equipment used in the workplace is NRTL approved/listed except for 
custom built equipment that can be certified as safe by the manufacturer on the 
basis of test data.   I don't know if or how the exception may apply with local 
AHJs, no experience with that one.

The first thing the local electrical/building/OSHA inspector is going to look 
for is the NRTL mark.  They see that they are usually happy and done.  That 
pushes your question off to the NRTL who gets to evaluate the product and 
determine what standards to apply.  Basically the same procedure for a NRTL lab 
certified product or NRTL field inspected/marked product.  If you don't have a 
listing of field inspection mark, well then you're going to be up for 
challenges with the local inspectors.  The various standards have their own 
scope definitions and the NRTL is going to review to

Re: [PSES] E-Box Layout on Factory Machines

[Kunde, Brian]

Dave hit the nail on the head. In our type of products and market, we 
manufacturer many different products (50 or more families of products), but in 
very low quantity. Fifty of one model per year is a lot to us where some models 
we might not sell even one.  We build to order one unit at a time. And we have 
products that have been "in production" for over 30 years.

We have talked to many NRTL labs about a certification program but they all say 
the same thing; it makes no sense with the low quantity we produce. They 
consider our products "Custom" and we can provide a Test Report from our 
internal safety lab (we have a very nice facility). Some OSHA inspectors are OK 
with it, some are not. Same with AHJs. Some are ok, some require a label from 
an NRTL. Most government organizations, universities, and government 
contractors require NRTL marks on products these days. We do offer this through 
a local NRTL lab in the form of a Field Evaluation. No problem with these 
inspections.

Where we run into trouble is with products that are inspected in the field. 
Customers will hire NRTLs to do field evaluations on location on new products 
or sometimes on products that have been in service for years, and some 
inspectors, not knowing what it is they are looking at, will inspect it to some 
standard or set of rules they pulled out of a hat.  That is why I ask so many 
questions about Criteria.

Nine out of ten inspections go fine. And most of those who have issues are 
happy with an explanation or a little information from us. But it is those 
stubborn close minded inspectors who won't budge that will send me to an early 
grave.  These are the inspectors we are constantly trying to understand and 
design our products to satisfy to minimize the problems and costs.

I know we will never be able to make everyone happy. But the more information 
we have the better things get.

Thanks so much for your comments and advise. It is very helpful.
The Other Brian

-Original Message-
From: Nyffenegger, Dave [mailto:dave.nyffeneg...@bhemail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2017 3:09 PM
To: Kunde, Brian; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: [PSES] E-Box Layout on Factory Machines

The preceding may not have completely addressed the question.  You are probably 
looking to identify what standards to apply while designing the product before 
an NRTL has a chance to evaluate and determine what they think is the 
appropriate standard(s).   This is where experience and a working relationship 
with the NRTL comes in handy.  We often design to a few different standards 
when possible.  If there are conflicts, well then we have to make a judgment 
call.  With some prior history we know what standards the NRTL has used on 
similar product.  We can also get preliminary input from the NRTL on what 
standards they would apply.  In particular during a preliminary quote cycle 
with basic product description the standards to be used for certification will 
have been identified in the NRTL certification quotes.

-Dave

-Original Message-
From: Nyffenegger, Dave
Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2017 3:02 PM
To: 'Kunde, Brian'; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: [PSES] E-Box Layout on Factory Machines

Brian,

I assume you're asking about US requirements and the inspectors you are asking 
about are local AHJs or OSHA.  So OSHA and perhaps the AHJs have a basic rule 
that all equipment used in the workplace is NRTL approved/listed except for 
custom built equipment that can be certified as safe by the manufacturer on the 
basis of test data.   I don't know if or how the exception may apply with local 
AHJs, no experience with that one.

The first thing the local electrical/building/OSHA inspector is going to look 
for is the NRTL mark.  They see that they are usually happy and done.  That 
pushes your question off to the NRTL who gets to evaluate the product and 
determine what standards to apply.  Basically the same procedure for a NRTL lab 
certified product or NRTL field inspected/marked product.  If you don't have a 
listing of field inspection mark, well then you're going to be up for 
challenges with the local inspectors.  The various standards have their own 
scope definitions and the NRTL is going to review to determine which 
standard(s) are most appropriate.  In some cases it may not be simply black and 
white and it may be possible for the NRTL to choose between this standard or 
that standard.  I have run into this on several occasions.  The NRTLs cannot 
use NFPA 79 as a UL listing standard but they do use it as a reference standard 
alongside of a primary listing standard.  Typically they will refer to it for 
anything that qualifies as machinery.

For large industrial equipment  which has a "industrial control panel(s)" 
driving external motors and such, i.e. a system of multiple large components 
rather than a single self-contained product in a &q

Re: [PSES] E-Box Layout on Factory Machines

[Nyffenegger, Dave]

The preceding may not have completely addressed the question.  You are probably 
looking to identify what standards to apply while designing the product before 
an NRTL has a chance to evaluate and determine what they think is the 
appropriate standard(s).   This is where experience and a working relationship 
with the NRTL comes in handy.  We often design to a few different standards 
when possible.  If there are conflicts, well then we have to make a judgment 
call.  With some prior history we know what standards the NRTL has used on 
similar product.  We can also get preliminary input from the NRTL on what 
standards they would apply.  In particular during a preliminary quote cycle 
with basic product description the standards to be used for certification will 
have been identified in the NRTL certification quotes.

-Dave

-Original Message-
From: Nyffenegger, Dave 
Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2017 3:02 PM
To: 'Kunde, Brian'; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: [PSES] E-Box Layout on Factory Machines

Brian,

I assume you're asking about US requirements and the inspectors you are asking 
about are local AHJs or OSHA.  So OSHA and perhaps the AHJs have a basic rule 
that all equipment used in the workplace is NRTL approved/listed except for 
custom built equipment that can be certified as safe by the manufacturer on the 
basis of test data.   I don't know if or how the exception may apply with local 
AHJs, no experience with that one.

The first thing the local electrical/building/OSHA inspector is going to look 
for is the NRTL mark.  They see that they are usually happy and done.  That 
pushes your question off to the NRTL who gets to evaluate the product and 
determine what standards to apply.  Basically the same procedure for a NRTL lab 
certified product or NRTL field inspected/marked product.  If you don't have a 
listing of field inspection mark, well then you're going to be up for 
challenges with the local inspectors.  The various standards have their own 
scope definitions and the NRTL is going to review to determine which 
standard(s) are most appropriate.  In some cases it may not be simply black and 
white and it may be possible for the NRTL to choose between this standard or 
that standard.  I have run into this on several occasions.  The NRTLs cannot 
use NFPA 79 as a UL listing standard but they do use it as a reference standard 
alongside of a primary listing standard.  Typically they will refer to it for 
anything that qualifies as machinery.

For large industrial equipment  which has a "industrial control panel(s)" 
driving external motors and such, i.e. a system of multiple large components 
rather than a single self-contained product in a "box" , you may get away with 
an NRTL listing on the control panel assembly alone (i.e. UL 508A).   The 
control panel must be installed and used according to conditions specified in 
the NRTL report.Some of those larger systems may be the ones that fall into 
the category of custom built and certified by the manufacturer. 

-Dave


-Original Message-
From: Kunde, Brian [mailto:brian_ku...@lecotc.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2017 1:55 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] E-Box Layout on Factory Machines

I never studied the VSA, but ships built for the Federation had panels in 
hallways that could be removed without a tool with high voltage plasma coils 
and flux capacitors behind them. And kids lived aboard these ships. Open 
Jeffares tubes without locked doorways where common. Space stations appeared to 
have locks on grain storage bins, but it didn't keep out domesticated pets 
(Tribbles). And there was that "one room" aboard the submarine Sea View that 
when anyone entered, we all knew that someone was going to get electrocuted. I 
guess the future makes no more sense than the present.

I am interested in the criteria inspectors use to decide if a product should 
meet these requirements or not. Or is it completely voluntary. I would imagine 
if NECA, NEMA and NFPA 79 is involved then inspectors are going to require 
following what they say.



Here is an example of what I'm looking for. You have two cut-off saws; one is 
about the size of a lunchbox, sits on a table, has a 1/8hp motor, and cuts 1/8" 
steel rods into 1 gram samples to be analyzed for carbon/sulfur content. The 
other is huge, weighs 1000lbs, floor mounted, 3-phase power, has a 35hp motor, 
and can cut an engine block into slabs for hardness testing and metallurgical 
analysis. Technically both do the same function. Both are considered "prep 
machines for analytical analysis". So then both can be considered "laboratory 
equipment" even though the big one is more messy and makes a lot more noise.  
Neither is marketed or sold for any other purpose even though they could be 
used to cut many things for many reasons.

Now let's say there a

Re: [PSES] E-Box Layout on Factory Machines

[Nyffenegger, Dave]

Brian,

I assume you're asking about US requirements and the inspectors you are asking 
about are local AHJs or OSHA.  So OSHA and perhaps the AHJs have a basic rule 
that all equipment used in the workplace is NRTL approved/listed except for 
custom built equipment that can be certified as safe by the manufacturer on the 
basis of test data.   I don't know if or how the exception may apply with local 
AHJs, no experience with that one.

The first thing the local electrical/building/OSHA inspector is going to look 
for is the NRTL mark.  They see that they are usually happy and done.  That 
pushes your question off to the NRTL who gets to evaluate the product and 
determine what standards to apply.  Basically the same procedure for a NRTL lab 
certified product or NRTL field inspected/marked product.  If you don't have a 
listing of field inspection mark, well then you're going to be up for 
challenges with the local inspectors.  The various standards have their own 
scope definitions and the NRTL is going to review to determine which 
standard(s) are most appropriate.  In some cases it may not be simply black and 
white and it may be possible for the NRTL to choose between this standard or 
that standard.  I have run into this on several occasions.  The NRTLs cannot 
use NFPA 79 as a UL listing standard but they do use it as a reference standard 
alongside of a primary listing standard.  Typically they will refer to it for 
anything that qualifies as machinery.

For large industrial equipment  which has a "industrial control panel(s)" 
driving external motors and such, i.e. a system of multiple large components 
rather than a single self-contained product in a "box" , you may get away with 
an NRTL listing on the control panel assembly alone (i.e. UL 508A).   The 
control panel must be installed and used according to conditions specified in 
the NRTL report.Some of those larger systems may be the ones that fall into 
the category of custom built and certified by the manufacturer. 

-Dave


-Original Message-
From: Kunde, Brian [mailto:brian_ku...@lecotc.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2017 1:55 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] E-Box Layout on Factory Machines

I never studied the VSA, but ships built for the Federation had panels in 
hallways that could be removed without a tool with high voltage plasma coils 
and flux capacitors behind them. And kids lived aboard these ships. Open 
Jeffares tubes without locked doorways where common. Space stations appeared to 
have locks on grain storage bins, but it didn't keep out domesticated pets 
(Tribbles). And there was that "one room" aboard the submarine Sea View that 
when anyone entered, we all knew that someone was going to get electrocuted. I 
guess the future makes no more sense than the present.

I am interested in the criteria inspectors use to decide if a product should 
meet these requirements or not. Or is it completely voluntary. I would imagine 
if NECA, NEMA and NFPA 79 is involved then inspectors are going to require 
following what they say.


Here is an example of what I'm looking for. You have two cut-off saws; one is 
about the size of a lunchbox, sits on a table, has a 1/8hp motor, and cuts 1/8" 
steel rods into 1 gram samples to be analyzed for carbon/sulfur content. The 
other is huge, weighs 1000lbs, floor mounted, 3-phase power, has a 35hp motor, 
and can cut an engine block into slabs for hardness testing and metallurgical 
analysis. Technically both do the same function. Both are considered "prep 
machines for analytical analysis". So then both can be considered "laboratory 
equipment" even though the big one is more messy and makes a lot more noise.  
Neither is marketed or sold for any other purpose even though they could be 
used to cut many things for many reasons.

Now let's say there are 10 more saws of different sizes and hp that fit between 
the two I mentioned above. At what point (criteria) do we apply the NFPA 79 and 
the like? At what point will inspectors expect to see a different set of design 
rules applied, or again, is it all voluntary how you design a product?

Thanks for the help.
The Other Brian

-Original Message-
From: Brian O'Connell [mailto:oconne...@tamuracorp.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2017 12:01 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] E-Box Layout on Factory Machines

Agree vehemently, but also codified per NECA 1-2015, and the various 
workmanship standards of the Vulcan Science Academy. UL508A does not do much 
for 'workmanship', just materials and construction and performance. And do not 
want to see a safety standard that tells me stuff has to be built pretty.

Brian


From: IBM Ken [mailto:ibm...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2017 6:15 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] E-Box Layout on Factory Machines

I think those t

Re: [PSES] E-Box Layout on Factory Machines

[Kunde, Brian]

I never studied the VSA, but ships built for the Federation had panels in 
hallways that could be removed without a tool with high voltage plasma coils 
and flux capacitors behind them. And kids lived aboard these ships. Open 
Jeffares tubes without locked doorways where common. Space stations appeared to 
have locks on grain storage bins, but it didn't keep out domesticated pets 
(Tribbles). And there was that "one room" aboard the submarine Sea View that 
when anyone entered, we all knew that someone was going to get electrocuted. I 
guess the future makes no more sense than the present.

I am interested in the criteria inspectors use to decide if a product should 
meet these requirements or not. Or is it completely voluntary. I would imagine 
if NECA, NEMA and NFPA 79 is involved then inspectors are going to require 
following what they say.

Here is an example of what I'm looking for. You have two cut-off saws; one is 
about the size of a lunchbox, sits on a table, has a 1/8hp motor, and cuts 1/8" 
steel rods into 1 gram samples to be analyzed for carbon/sulfur content. The 
other is huge, weighs 1000lbs, floor mounted, 3-phase power, has a 35hp motor, 
and can cut an engine block into slabs for hardness testing and metallurgical 
analysis. Technically both do the same function. Both are considered "prep 
machines for analytical analysis". So then both can be considered "laboratory 
equipment" even though the big one is more messy and makes a lot more noise.  
Neither is marketed or sold for any other purpose even though they could be 
used to cut many things for many reasons.

Now let's say there are 10 more saws of different sizes and hp that fit between 
the two I mentioned above. At what point (criteria) do we apply the NFPA 79 and 
the like? At what point will inspectors expect to see a different set of design 
rules applied, or again, is it all voluntary how you design a product?

Thanks for the help.
The Other Brian

-Original Message-
From: Brian O'Connell [mailto:oconne...@tamuracorp.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2017 12:01 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] E-Box Layout on Factory Machines

Agree vehemently, but also codified per NECA 1-2015, and the various 
workmanship standards of the Vulcan Science Academy. UL508A does not do much 
for 'workmanship', just materials and construction and performance. And do not 
want to see a safety standard that tells me stuff has to be built pretty.

Brian


From: IBM Ken [mailto:ibm...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2017 6:15 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] E-Box Layout on Factory Machines

I think those types of products are engineered once, and then built and 
serviced for decades.  Overly neat designs lend themselves to less problems in 
production and service over the years, even when the original designers are no 
longer available to help.  I don't think there are any criteria which require 
that type of construction (aside from tradition).  It's like asking why every 
facilities engineer has a large keyring, a pocket protector containing no less 
than three writing instruments, and a AA mini Maglite on their belt.

On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 8:54 AM, Kunde, Brian  wrote:
I notice that most industrial factory machinery is designed with a large metal 
electronic box with a hinged door and some kind of keyed lock. Inside the 
components are DIN mounted and the wiring is all dressed very neatly in these 
gray plastic cable runs with snap-on lids. Every wire is labeled with a small 
tag.

Why are these machines so similar in design?  Even among different 
manufacturers, they look similar.  Is there a standard or standards that 
dictate exactly how this is done?  What criteria is used to determine if your 
product must follow these construction rules?

Seems strange to me that they are so similar and if required to be that way, 
then standards and/or governments are dictating design. Even if it was for the 
“greater-good”, I thought that was a no-no.  Dictate design, stifle creativity, 
invite those who would take advantage for financial gain.

Just curious.  I’m most interested in the criteria question, though.
The Other Brian


-

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


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://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 admini

Re: [PSES] E-Box Layout on Factory Machines

[Mike Sherman ----- Original Message -----]

Thank goodness for DIN rails! Had to drill and tap 2-4 holes per component into the panel before DIN rails, and it took forever. The Panduit grey wire duct seemed to be a natural companion to DIN rails. A well assembled box from a 508A panel shop is indeed a thing of beauty and a credit to the skill and pride of the assembler. Mike Sherman Graco Inc. Sent from Xfinity Connect Mobile App-- Original Message --From: Doug PowellTo: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORGSent: April 4, 2017 at 11:26 AMSubject: Re: [PSES] E-Box Layout on Factory MachinesJust my opinion but the use of heavy locked enclosures (pre-dating DIN Rail) has been industry practice for many years.  I suspect that part of the reason of enclosure similarity is from the desire to keep costs down by having a minimum number of different boxes in inventory. In addition, NEMA has quite a bit to say about design for enclosure strength, ingress, accessibility, etc. As for the harnesses I feel DIN Rail is a result of organized wiring layouts, not a cause, I have worked with systems when everything was connected with ring lugs and very long terminal blocks. It may not be so obvious on smaller systems but larger systems are often very configurable and rather complex.  This made it much easier to manufacture harnesses in quantity on plywood board and nail setups with each conductor is identified and tagged on both ends. I learned my electronics on radar and countermeasures systems in the US Navy and we had to have wires harnessed and secured cable in this way.  I even learned to tie the standardized knots to use on harness lacing twine. I haven't checked in a few years but this may still be a practice in military equipment and I'm pretty sure in avionics too. In industry, the tywrap has all but taken over. I suspect many of the MIL STD practices have made their way into industry because they have been proven to work.  In the early days of mainframe computers, there were attempts to dress out wiring in a similar fashion and it was found that the cross-talk between conductors could actually be detrimental.  This was likely one of the contributing factors to the old "rats nest" and thick blankets of 30 AWG wire used in wire-wrapped backplanes and main frames.  The more or less randomly routed wires were less likely to cross talk when laid out in quasi-orthogonal arrangements and when squeezing out every bit of speed was imperative, direct point to point wiring was just a tad bit faster.  Just for fun, try a google image search for Cray Computer Backplane.  It becomes very apparent why technicians would pull out their hair.-DougDouglas E PowellLaporte, Colorado USAdoug...@gmail.comhttp://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 6:54 AM, Kunde, Brian  wrote:







I notice that most industrial factory machinery is designed with a large metal electronic box with a hinged door and some kind of keyed lock. Inside the components
 are DIN mounted and the wiring is all dressed very neatly in these gray plastic cable runs with snap-on lids. Every wire is labeled with a small tag.

 
Why are these machines so similar in design?  Even among different manufacturers, they look similar.  Is there a standard or standards that dictate exactly
 how this is done?  What criteria is used to determine if your product must follow these construction rules? 

 
Seems strange to me that they are so similar and if required to be that way, then standards and/or governments are dictating design. Even if it was for the
 “greater-good”, I thought that was a no-no.  Dictate design, stifle creativity, invite those who would take advantage for financial gain.
 
Just curious.  I’m most interested in the criteria question, though.
The Other Brian
 


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



-

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

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc.


Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher  
David Heald 

-- Douglas E Powelldoug...@gmail.comhttp://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01

-
-

Re: [PSES] E-Box Layout on Factory Machines

[Brian O'Connell]

Agree vehemently, but also codified per NECA 1-2015, and the various 
workmanship standards of the Vulcan Science Academy. UL508A does not do much 
for 'workmanship', just materials and construction and performance. And do not 
want to see a safety standard that tells me stuff has to be built pretty.

Brian


From: IBM Ken [mailto:ibm...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2017 6:15 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] E-Box Layout on Factory Machines

I think those types of products are engineered once, and then built and 
serviced for decades.  Overly neat designs lend themselves to less problems in 
production and service over the years, even when the original designers are no 
longer available to help.  I don't think there are any criteria which require 
that type of construction (aside from tradition).  It's like asking why every 
facilities engineer has a large keyring, a pocket protector containing no less 
than three writing instruments, and a AA mini Maglite on their belt.

On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 8:54 AM, Kunde, Brian  wrote:
I notice that most industrial factory machinery is designed with a large metal 
electronic box with a hinged door and some kind of keyed lock. Inside the 
components are DIN mounted and the wiring is all dressed very neatly in these 
gray plastic cable runs with snap-on lids. Every wire is labeled with a small 
tag. 
 
Why are these machines so similar in design?  Even among different 
manufacturers, they look similar.  Is there a standard or standards that 
dictate exactly how this is done?  What criteria is used to determine if your 
product must follow these construction rules?  
 
Seems strange to me that they are so similar and if required to be that way, 
then standards and/or governments are dictating design. Even if it was for the 
“greater-good”, I thought that was a no-no.  Dictate design, stifle creativity, 
invite those who would take advantage for financial gain.
 
Just curious.  I’m most interested in the criteria question, though.
The Other Brian
 

-

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


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] E-Box Layout on Factory Machines

[Doug Powell]

Just my opinion but the use of heavy locked enclosures (pre-dating DIN
Rail) has been industry practice for many years.  I suspect that part of
the reason of enclosure similarity is from the desire to keep costs down by
having a minimum number of different boxes in inventory. In addition, NEMA
has quite a bit to say about design for enclosure strength, ingress,
accessibility, etc.

As for the harnesses I feel DIN Rail is a result of organized wiring
layouts, not a cause, I have worked with systems when everything was
connected with ring lugs and very long terminal blocks. It may not be so
obvious on smaller systems but larger systems are often very configurable
and rather complex.  This made it much easier to manufacture harnesses in
quantity on plywood board and nail setups with each conductor is identified
and tagged on both ends. I learned my electronics on radar and
countermeasures systems in the US Navy and we had to have wires harnessed
and secured cable in this way.  I even learned to tie the standardized
knots to use on harness lacing twine. I haven't checked in a few years but
this may still be a practice in military equipment and I'm pretty sure in
avionics too. In industry, the tywrap has all but taken over. I suspect
many of the MIL STD practices have made their way into industry because
they have been proven to work.

In the early days of mainframe computers, there were attempts to dress out
wiring in a similar fashion and it was found that the cross-talk between
conductors could actually be detrimental.  This was likely one of the
contributing factors to the old "rats nest" and thick blankets of 30 AWG
wire used in wire-wrapped backplanes and main frames.  The more or less
randomly routed wires were less likely to cross talk when laid out in
quasi-orthogonal arrangements and when squeezing out every bit of speed was
imperative, direct point to point wiring was just a tad bit faster.  Just
for fun, try a google image search for Cray Computer Backplane.  It becomes
very apparent why technicians would pull out their hair.

-Doug


Douglas E Powell
Laporte, Colorado USA
doug...@gmail.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01



On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 6:54 AM, Kunde, Brian  wrote:

> I notice that most industrial factory machinery is designed with a large
> metal electronic box with a hinged door and some kind of keyed lock. Inside
> the components are DIN mounted and the wiring is all dressed very neatly in
> these gray plastic cable runs with snap-on lids. Every wire is labeled with
> a small tag.
>
>
>
> Why are these machines so similar in design?  Even among different
> manufacturers, they look similar.  Is there a standard or standards that
> dictate exactly how this is done?  What criteria is used to determine if
> your product must follow these construction rules?
>
>
>
> Seems strange to me that they are so similar and if required to be that
> way, then standards and/or governments are dictating design. Even if it was
> for the “greater-good”, I thought that was a no-no.  Dictate design, stifle
> creativity, invite those who would take advantage for financial gain.
>
>
>
> Just curious.  I’m most interested in the criteria question, though.
>
> The Other Brian
>
>
> --
> *LECO Corporation Notice:* This communication may contain confidential
> information intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you received this
> by mistake, please destroy it and notify us of the error. Thank you.
> -
> 
>
> This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
> discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to <
> 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 
> Mike Cantwell 
>
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Jim Bacher 
> David Heald 
>



-- 

Douglas E Powell

doug...@gmail.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01

-

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


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be

Re: [PSES] E-Box Layout on Factory Machines

[Nyffenegger, Dave]

UL 508A covers industrial control panels and has something to do with the 
consistency.  Also, many manufacturers sub-out their control panel design and 
fabrication to assy shops that are approved to build panels to UL 508A so 
naturally the work done by these sub-contract shops is going to be similar.  
That should explain some of it.

-Dave

From: IBM Ken [mailto:ibm...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2017 9:15 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] E-Box Layout on Factory Machines

I think those types of products are engineered once, and then built and 
serviced for decades.  Overly neat designs lend themselves to less problems in 
production and service over the years, even when the original designers are no 
longer available to help.  I don't think there are any criteria which require 
that type of construction (aside from tradition).  It's like asking why every 
facilities engineer has a large keyring, a pocket protector containing no less 
than three writing instruments, and a AA mini Maglite on their belt.

On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 8:54 AM, Kunde, Brian 
mailto:brian_ku...@lecotc.com>> wrote:
I notice that most industrial factory machinery is designed with a large metal 
electronic box with a hinged door and some kind of keyed lock. Inside the 
components are DIN mounted and the wiring is all dressed very neatly in these 
gray plastic cable runs with snap-on lids. Every wire is labeled with a small 
tag.

Why are these machines so similar in design?  Even among different 
manufacturers, they look similar.  Is there a standard or standards that 
dictate exactly how this is done?  What criteria is used to determine if your 
product must follow these construction rules?

Seems strange to me that they are so similar and if required to be that way, 
then standards and/or governments are dictating design. Even if it was for the 
“greater-good”, I thought that was a no-no.  Dictate design, stifle creativity, 
invite those who would take advantage for financial gain.

Just curious.  I’m most interested in the criteria question, though.
The Other Brian


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


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

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)<http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html>
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

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

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

-

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


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-us

Re: [PSES] E-Box Layout on Factory Machines

[Nyffenegger, Dave]

UL 508A covers industrial control panels and has something to do with the 
consistency.  Also, many manufacturers sub-out their control panel design and 
fabrication to assy shops that are approved to build panels to UL 508A so 
naturally the work done by these sub-contract shops is going to be similar.  
That should explain some of it.

-Dave


From: IBM Ken [mailto:ibm...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2017 9:15 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] E-Box Layout on Factory Machines

I think those types of products are engineered once, and then built and 
serviced for decades.  Overly neat designs lend themselves to less problems in 
production and service over the years, even when the original designers are no 
longer available to help.  I don't think there are any criteria which require 
that type of construction (aside from tradition).  It's like asking why every 
facilities engineer has a large keyring, a pocket protector containing no less 
than three writing instruments, and a AA mini Maglite on their belt.

On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 8:54 AM, Kunde, Brian 
mailto:brian_ku...@lecotc.com>> wrote:
I notice that most industrial factory machinery is designed with a large metal 
electronic box with a hinged door and some kind of keyed lock. Inside the 
components are DIN mounted and the wiring is all dressed very neatly in these 
gray plastic cable runs with snap-on lids. Every wire is labeled with a small 
tag.

Why are these machines so similar in design?  Even among different 
manufacturers, they look similar.  Is there a standard or standards that 
dictate exactly how this is done?  What criteria is used to determine if your 
product must follow these construction rules?

Seems strange to me that they are so similar and if required to be that way, 
then standards and/or governments are dictating design. Even if it was for the 
“greater-good”, I thought that was a no-no.  Dictate design, stifle creativity, 
invite those who would take advantage for financial gain.

Just curious.  I’m most interested in the criteria question, though.
The Other Brian


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


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

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)<http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html>
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

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

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

-

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


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-us

Re: [PSES] E-Box Layout on Factory Machines

[Douglas Nix]

Brian,

There are a whole bunch of standards that cover this discussion. IEC 61082-1, 
Preparation of documents used in electrotechnology - Part 1: Rules 
 is the “gateway standard” into this 
discussion. IEC 6108-1 is referenced in IEC 60204-1, and the IEC 61439 family 
among others. There are a series of standards that then deal with how to 
identify and cross-reference devices, and how to lay out panels. There is a 
grid system described in the standard that allows a designer to locate devices 
in space, as well as by function and product characteristics.

On the North American side, the base standard is NFPA 79, which may be combined 
with other standards like UL 508A, CSA C22.2 #301, and others.

In addition, due to voltage separation requirements, EMC considerations and 
logical organization, panels are normally laid out with all the mains voltage 
components in one area, control voltage components in a separate area, hottest 
devices at the top of the panel, heaviest devices at the bottom, etc.

In North America, the NEC and the CEC require a mechanical interlock between 
the main disconnecting device and the access door. This is not mandatory 
internationally, as you can also use a tool operated fastener to secure the 
door, or use an electrically operated interlock to achieve the same conditions.

The use of  Panduit-style raceway in the panel is a longstanding method for 
routing and containing wiring inside the panel. Not all panels are done this 
way, as some simple panels may still use wire bundling, but these are few and 
far between these days.

The vast majority of industrial control components are designed for DIN-rail 
mounting, with heavy items like transformers and chokes, and high frequency 
components like EMI filters and motor drives mounted directly to the backplane.


Doug Nix
d...@ieee.org
+1 (519) 729-5704

> On 4-Apr-2017, at 08:54, Kunde, Brian  wrote:
> 
> I notice that most industrial factory machinery is designed with a large 
> metal electronic box with a hinged door and some kind of keyed lock. Inside 
> the components are DIN mounted and the wiring is all dressed very neatly in 
> these gray plastic cable runs with snap-on lids. Every wire is labeled with a 
> small tag.
>  
> Why are these machines so similar in design?  Even among different 
> manufacturers, they look similar.  Is there a standard or standards that 
> dictate exactly how this is done?  What criteria is used to determine if your 
> product must follow these construction rules? 
>  
> Seems strange to me that they are so similar and if required to be that way, 
> then standards and/or governments are dictating design. Even if it was for 
> the “greater-good”, I thought that was a no-no.  Dictate design, stifle 
> creativity, invite those who would take advantage for financial gain.
>  
> Just curious.  I’m most interested in the criteria question, though.
> The Other Brian
>  
> LECO Corporation Notice: This communication may contain confidential 
> information intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you received this by 
> mistake, please destroy it and notify us of the error. Thank you.
> 
> -
> 
> This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
> discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
> mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org>>
> 
> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
> http://www.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 mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org>>
> Mike Cantwell mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org>>
> 
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Jim Bacher mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org>>
> David Heald mailto:dhe...@gmail.com>>
> 


-

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


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsu

Re: [PSES] E-Box Layout on Factory Machines

[IBM Ken]

I think those types of products are engineered once, and then built and
serviced for decades.  Overly neat designs lend themselves to less problems
in production and service over the years, even when the original designers
are no longer available to help.  I don't think there are any criteria
which require that type of construction (aside from tradition).  It's like
asking why every facilities engineer has a large keyring, a pocket
protector containing no less than three writing instruments, and a AA mini
Maglite on their belt.

On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 8:54 AM, Kunde, Brian  wrote:

> I notice that most industrial factory machinery is designed with a large
> metal electronic box with a hinged door and some kind of keyed lock. Inside
> the components are DIN mounted and the wiring is all dressed very neatly in
> these gray plastic cable runs with snap-on lids. Every wire is labeled with
> a small tag.
>
>
>
> Why are these machines so similar in design?  Even among different
> manufacturers, they look similar.  Is there a standard or standards that
> dictate exactly how this is done?  What criteria is used to determine if
> your product must follow these construction rules?
>
>
>
> Seems strange to me that they are so similar and if required to be that
> way, then standards and/or governments are dictating design. Even if it was
> for the “greater-good”, I thought that was a no-no.  Dictate design, stifle
> creativity, invite those who would take advantage for financial gain.
>
>
>
> Just curious.  I’m most interested in the criteria question, though.
>
> The Other Brian
>
>
> --
> *LECO Corporation Notice:* This communication may contain confidential
> information intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you received this
> by mistake, please destroy it and notify us of the error. Thank you.
> -
> 
>
> This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
> discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to <
> 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 
> Mike Cantwell 
>
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Jim Bacher 
> David Heald 
>

-

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


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: