Re: [PSES] fire safety test methods for different country standards

[Ralph McDiarmid]

Thanks for the explanation Brian; it makes things clearer.

Ralph McDiarmid
Product Compliance
Engineering
Solar Business
Schneider Electric




*Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail



-Original Message-
From: Kunde, Brian [mailto:brian_ku...@lecotc.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 09, 2016 6:00 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] fire safety test methods for different country standards

Ralph,

This might be true but that is not how we saw it way back when. The 240VA 
"Energy Hazard" was not a consideration for the protection against Fire but a 
limit value for accessible parts by the User. We still today consider 
accessible circuits, regardless of the voltage, to be "Hazardous Live" if the 
circuit exceeds 240VA. This requirement is not specifically called out in our 
working safety standard (IEC/EN 61010-1 for Laboratory Equipment) but we still 
take this condition under consideration especially with products that exposes 
the user to high currents at low voltages such as Electrode Furnaces (similar 
to a welder).

In Tempest Computers which fell under the IEC950, the hard drives had to be 
made removable so they could be easily taken with during an invasion or 
destroyed in a giant shredder machine. The opening in the front of the computer 
gave the User access to a small backplane card and the data and power 
connectors for the hard drive. The backplane had to be limited to less than 
240VA if the User could touch it.  Fire was a completely different evaluation.

My step dad was working on a car a got his metal watch band between the starter 
solenoid and the chassis. It instantly welded his watch to the car and turned 
the band into a glowing red hot heating element within a second. He was able to 
break it loose and get the watch off but not before he was badly burned. Almost 
required skin grafts. However, according to most safety standards, 12 volts at 
high current is NOT considered hazardous live and does not limit access to 
Users. Yes, it is a fire hazard but I don't think that is where the 240VA 
requirement comes from.

Like the watch band, I have heard where people have reached inside of a piece 
of electronic gear and shorted out a circuit with their wedding ring. If this 
condition is possible, I believe the circuit would have to be limited to 240VA.

This is my recollection of where 240VA came from and how it was used. I do not 
have any current documented support for it use today. But we still consider it 
for circuits accessible to the User to determine an Energy Hazard.

The Other Brian

-Original Message-
From: Ralph McDiarmid [mailto:ralph.mcdiar...@schneider-electric.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2016 4:31 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] fire safety test methods for different country standards

So, for the protection against FIRE, we have two energy rates, 100VA and 240VA, 
used across quite a number of standards, and the units are wrong.  Should be 
Watts.

Ralph McDiarmid
Product Compliance
Engineering
Solar Business
Schneider Electric




*Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail



-Original Message-
From: Nyffenegger, Dave [mailto:dave.nyffeneg...@bhemail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2016 1:27 PM
To: Ralph McDiarmid <ralph.mcdiar...@schneider-electric.com>; 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: [PSES] fire safety test methods for different country standards

EN 60950-1:2006  2.5  uses 100 VA for LPS and is also referenced for fire 
enclosure requirements in section 4.7.2.1.

-Dave

-Original Message-
From: Ralph McDiarmid [mailto:ralph.mcdiar...@schneider-electric.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2016 3:11 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] fire safety test methods for different country standards

Hi Chuck,

A poor choice of words on my part.  I should have written, "in most of the 
standards I have worked in".   Those include CSA107.1, UL1741, UL1012, and 
IEC62109-1

The 240VA (I think they meant 240W) must have come from some base standard as a 
normative reference.  I don't know what is special about that number, but some 
committee somewhere may have concluded that power (rate of energy) below that 
threshold was unlike to be a source of ignition.  I've seen 30V and 8A used to 
define an energy limited, extra-low voltage circuit. (UL calls that a Class 2 I 
think).   The product of 8A and 30V gives 240VA as a third criterion.   I'm not 
sure it's that simple though.

Regards,

Ralph McDiarmid
Product Compliance
Engineering
Solar Business
Schneider Electric





*Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail



-Original Message-
From: Chuck August-McDowell [mailto:chu...@meyersound.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2016 11:22 AM
To: Ralph McDiarmid <ralph.mcdiar...@schneider-electric.com>
Subject: RE: [PSES] fire safety test methods for different country standards

Hi Ralph,

I 

Re: [PSES] fire safety test methods for different country standards

[Richard Nute]

> This is my recollection of where 240VA came from and
> how it was used.

In a 1966 UL meeting with industry on the requirements in UL 478, the minutes 
report:

"Where high current is available at potentials down to about 2 volts, enough 
energy is available to melt and splatter metal from neck chains, eyeglass 
frames, watchbands, bracelets, rings, and other personal metal objects 
unintentionally out across hot bus or between such bus and ground by operators 
or servicemen, thereby giving rise to a severe burn hazard.  One of the 
industry representatives reported that his company reduces this hazard in such 
areas by limiting the apparent power available to 240 volt-amperes and the 
available energy to 10 Joules."

Given that 1 volt-ampere-second is 1 Joule.  If 10 Joules is the limit, 240 
volt-amperes cannot be available for longer than 0.04 milliseconds!  Because a 
Joule includes time, any source would eventually exceed 10 Joules!

To be fair, the final requirement did not include the 10-Joule limit, although 
it was applied to the energy stored in a capacitor.  

In IEC TC108, in 2003, the Japanese delegation reported that testing showed 
that 5 volts, 2 amperes (10 volt-amperes) is generally enough for necklaces to 
become hot (more than 100 degrees C) if they are slightly tensioned.

The 240 VA requirement did not do the job of protecting against a burn due to 
hot metal.  The standard was never tested to determine if the requirement was 
effective.


Rich

-

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] fire safety test methods for different country standards

[Richard Nute]

> The 240VA "Energy Hazard" was not a
> consideration for the protection against Fire but a limit
> value for accessible parts by the User.

The energy hazard requirement (in the 950-series standards) is that the 
conductors shall not be bridged by the test finger (which has a spherical tip). 
 If the conductors are on a planar circuit board, the conductors cannot be 
bridged by the spherical tip.

The requirement does not specify that the conductors must not be accessible, 
although this is the conventional interpretation of the requirement. 


Rich

-

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] fire safety test methods for different country standards

[Kunde, Brian]

Ralph,

This might be true but that is not how we saw it way back when. The 240VA 
"Energy Hazard" was not a consideration for the protection against Fire but a 
limit value for accessible parts by the User. We still today consider 
accessible circuits, regardless of the voltage, to be "Hazardous Live" if the 
circuit exceeds 240VA. This requirement is not specifically called out in our 
working safety standard (IEC/EN 61010-1 for Laboratory Equipment) but we still 
take this condition under consideration especially with products that exposes 
the user to high currents at low voltages such as Electrode Furnaces (similar 
to a welder).

In Tempest Computers which fell under the IEC950, the hard drives had to be 
made removable so they could be easily taken with during an invasion or 
destroyed in a giant shredder machine. The opening in the front of the computer 
gave the User access to a small backplane card and the data and power 
connectors for the hard drive. The backplane had to be limited to less than 
240VA if the User could touch it.  Fire was a completely different evaluation.

My step dad was working on a car a got his metal watch band between the starter 
solenoid and the chassis. It instantly welded his watch to the car and turned 
the band into a glowing red hot heating element within a second. He was able to 
break it loose and get the watch off but not before he was badly burned. Almost 
required skin grafts. However, according to most safety standards, 12 volts at 
high current is NOT considered hazardous live and does not limit access to 
Users. Yes, it is a fire hazard but I don't think that is where the 240VA 
requirement comes from.

Like the watch band, I have heard where people have reached inside of a piece 
of electronic gear and shorted out a circuit with their wedding ring. If this 
condition is possible, I believe the circuit would have to be limited to 240VA.

This is my recollection of where 240VA came from and how it was used. I do not 
have any current documented support for it use today. But we still consider it 
for circuits accessible to the User to determine an Energy Hazard.

The Other Brian

-Original Message-
From: Ralph McDiarmid [mailto:ralph.mcdiar...@schneider-electric.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2016 4:31 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] fire safety test methods for different country standards

So, for the protection against FIRE, we have two energy rates, 100VA and 240VA, 
used across quite a number of standards, and the units are wrong.  Should be 
Watts.

Ralph McDiarmid
Product Compliance
Engineering
Solar Business
Schneider Electric




*Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail



-Original Message-
From: Nyffenegger, Dave [mailto:dave.nyffeneg...@bhemail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2016 1:27 PM
To: Ralph McDiarmid <ralph.mcdiar...@schneider-electric.com>; 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: [PSES] fire safety test methods for different country standards

EN 60950-1:2006  2.5  uses 100 VA for LPS and is also referenced for fire 
enclosure requirements in section 4.7.2.1.

-Dave

-Original Message-
From: Ralph McDiarmid [mailto:ralph.mcdiar...@schneider-electric.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2016 3:11 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] fire safety test methods for different country standards

Hi Chuck,

A poor choice of words on my part.  I should have written, "in most of the 
standards I have worked in".   Those include CSA107.1, UL1741, UL1012, and 
IEC62109-1

The 240VA (I think they meant 240W) must have come from some base standard as a 
normative reference.  I don't know what is special about that number, but some 
committee somewhere may have concluded that power (rate of energy) below that 
threshold was unlike to be a source of ignition.  I've seen 30V and 8A used to 
define an energy limited, extra-low voltage circuit. (UL calls that a Class 2 I 
think).   The product of 8A and 30V gives 240VA as a third criterion.   I'm not 
sure it's that simple though.

Regards,

Ralph McDiarmid
Product Compliance
Engineering
Solar Business
Schneider Electric





*Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail



-Original Message-
From: Chuck August-McDowell [mailto:chu...@meyersound.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2016 11:22 AM
To: Ralph McDiarmid <ralph.mcdiar...@schneider-electric.com>
Subject: RE: [PSES] fire safety test methods for different country standards

Hi Ralph,

I live in the IEC/EN/UL 60065 standard world.

Could you point at "most standards appear to limit rate of energy transfer 
(e.g. 240W)" standard?
IEC/EN/UL 62368-1?
IEC/EN/UL 60950-1?

Thank you,

Chuck McDowell
Compliance Specialist
Meyer Sound Laboratories Inc.


-Original Message-
From: Ralph McDiarmid [mailto:ralph.mcdiar...@schneider-electric.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2016 9:27 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.I

Re: [PSES] fire safety test methods for different country standards

[Richard Nute]

> The 15W is the *dissipated* power level to determine if
> PIS. The standard is somewhat ambiguous because it uses
> the term 'location' in definition, but 'circuit' in 6.2.

Well... the intent was the maximum power available into a fault.


Rich

-

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] fire safety test methods for different country standards

[Brian O'Connell]

The 15W is the *dissipated* power level to determine if PIS. The standard is 
somewhat ambiguous because it uses the term 'location' in definition, but 
'circuit' in 6.2.

Brian


-Original Message-
From: Richard Nute [mailto:ri...@ieee.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2016 4:58 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] fire safety test methods for different country standards

> Example:  I measure and determine that an electrolytic
> capacitor temperature is compliant with the standard, but
> what happens when that capacitor eventually fails due to
> large ripple current and then overheats and catches fire.
> That's a single fault condition (a component fault), but it's
> a scenario the standards today do not address, at least not
> the standards I've worked with.  Shorting that capacitor
> during type testing does not simulate that condition.

In IEC 62368-1, if the capacitor is in a circuit where the available power 
exceeds 15 watts, it would be deemed a "potential ignition source."  This would 
require spacing the capacitor away from flammable materials such that the fire 
would not spread from the capacitor.  

If the capacitor is in a circuit that exceeds 100 watts, the capacitor would be 
in a fire enclosure that prevents spread of fire from the equipment.  

The philosophy is that components (unless they are safeguards) are susceptible 
to overheating and catching fire, so mitigation of the flaming component is a 
requirement.  


Rich

-

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] fire safety test methods for different country standards

[Richard Nute]

> Example:  I measure and determine that an electrolytic
> capacitor temperature is compliant with the standard, but
> what happens when that capacitor eventually fails due to
> large ripple current and then overheats and catches fire.
> That's a single fault condition (a component fault), but it's
> a scenario the standards today do not address, at least not
> the standards I've worked with.  Shorting that capacitor
> during type testing does not simulate that condition.

In IEC 62368-1, if the capacitor is in a circuit where the available power 
exceeds 15 watts, it would be deemed a "potential ignition source."  This would 
require spacing the capacitor away from flammable materials such that the fire 
would not spread from the capacitor.  

If the capacitor is in a circuit that exceeds 100 watts, the capacitor would be 
in a fire enclosure that prevents spread of fire from the equipment.  

The philosophy is that components (unless they are safeguards) are susceptible 
to overheating and catching fire, so mitigation of the flaming component is a 
requirement.  


Rich

-

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] fire safety test methods for different country standards

[Ralph McDiarmid]

The replies so far seem to suggest that a VA rating is almost meaningless.  
Rich says 15W will do it, and John quite rightly points out that a small spark 
will do it too.

I don't think product standards assure a safe device, only that it complies 
with a set of requirements arrived at by consensus by a few participants on a 
committee.  Is that set of requirements sufficient?   I think that depends on 
what is deemed as sufficient protection from hazards arising from a product 
used as intended over its service lifetime.

Example:  I measure and determine that an electrolytic capacitor temperature is 
compliant with the standard, but what happens when that capacitor eventually 
fails due to large ripple current and then overheats and catches fire.  That's 
a single fault condition (a component fault), but it's a scenario the standards 
today do not address, at least not the standards I've worked with.  Shorting 
that capacitor during type testing does not simulate that condition.

Ralph McDiarmid
Product Compliance
Engineering
Solar Business
Schneider Electric


-Original Message-
From: John Woodgate [mailto:jmw1...@btinternet.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2016 1:38 PM
To: Ralph McDiarmid <ralph.mcdiar...@schneider-electric.com>
Cc: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: [PSES] fire safety test methods for different country standards

Tried a flint and steel recently? Lots of history!

>-Original Message-
>From: Ralph McDiarmid [mailto:ralph.mcdiar...@schneider-electric.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, June 8, 2016 5:27 PM
>To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
>Subject: Re: [PSES] fire safety test methods for different country standards
>
   The expectation is, I think, that a power-limited
>device cannot ignite something.  I assume there is lots of history that 
>assumption.
>
>Ralph McDiarmid

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

 This message was scanned by Exchange Online Protection Services.


-

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] fire safety test methods for different country standards

[Brian O'Connell]

Moi hath misspoke, as 240 VA is part of SELV requirements (Canada national dif) 
and the limit for a 60Vdc mains, and definition for hazardous energy level for 
ITE.

Brian

-Original Message-
From: Richard Nute [mailto:ri...@ieee.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2016 2:21 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] fire safety test methods for different country standards

> So, for the protection against FIRE, we have two energy
> rates, 100VA and 240VA, used across quite a number of
> standards, and the units are wrong.  Should be Watts.

Agree.  But, for pessimism, use VA.  

My experience and tests show that a product fire can be started by 15 watts!  
The standards use 100 watts, and we have product fires (as shown in recall 
notices).  (I'm not familiar with standards that specify 240 VA.)


Rich

-

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

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

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

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

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

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

-

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] fire safety test methods for different country standards

[Richard Nute]

> So, for the protection against FIRE, we have two energy
> rates, 100VA and 240VA, used across quite a number of
> standards, and the units are wrong.  Should be Watts.

Agree.  But, for pessimism, use VA.  

My experience and tests show that a product fire can be started by 15 watts!  
The standards use 100 watts, and we have product fires (as shown in recall 
notices).  (I'm not familiar with standards that specify 240 VA.)


Rich

-

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] fire safety test methods for different country standards

[Richard Nute]

> " Safety standards are not tested to see if they accomplish
> the objective"
> 
> I'm not sure how one would go about doing that, other
> than gathering data from customer returns and from
> product recalls.  

All safety standards include means to determine if the product complies with 
the requirements.  These means are not tested before the standard is published.

Whether the requirements produce a safe product is another issue.  Clearly, 
from recall notices, requirements do not prevent product fires.  


Rich

-

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] fire safety test methods for different country standards

[Brian O'Connell]

Different things. 100VA for Class 2 and 3 stuff (see UL1310/CSA223 and 
UL5085-3), and 240VA is for LPS (see 2.5 in 60950-1). There are other numbers 
for some industrial stuff.

The energy limit for a good burrito, based on empirical data, is approximately 
400VA

Brian

-Original Message-
From: Ralph McDiarmid [mailto:ralph.mcdiar...@schneider-electric.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2016 1:31 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] fire safety test methods for different country standards

So, for the protection against FIRE, we have two energy rates, 100VA and 240VA, 
used across quite a number of standards, and the units are wrong.  Should be 
Watts.

Ralph McDiarmid
Product Compliance
Engineering
Solar Business
Schneider Electric




*Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail



-Original Message-
From: Nyffenegger, Dave [mailto:dave.nyffeneg...@bhemail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2016 1:27 PM
To: Ralph McDiarmid <ralph.mcdiar...@schneider-electric.com>; 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: [PSES] fire safety test methods for different country standards

EN 60950-1:2006  2.5  uses 100 VA for LPS and is also referenced for fire 
enclosure requirements in section 4.7.2.1.

-Dave

-Original Message-
From: Ralph McDiarmid [mailto:ralph.mcdiar...@schneider-electric.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2016 3:11 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] fire safety test methods for different country standards

Hi Chuck,

A poor choice of words on my part.  I should have written, "in most of the 
standards I have worked in".   Those include CSA107.1, UL1741, UL1012, and 
IEC62109-1

The 240VA (I think they meant 240W) must have come from some base standard as a 
normative reference.  I don't know what is special about that number, but some 
committee somewhere may have concluded that power (rate of energy) below that 
threshold was unlike to be a source of ignition.  I've seen 30V and 8A used to 
define an energy limited, extra-low voltage circuit. (UL calls that a Class 2 I 
think).   The product of 8A and 30V gives 240VA as a third criterion.   I'm not 
sure it's that simple though.

Regards,

Ralph McDiarmid
Product Compliance
Engineering
Solar Business
Schneider Electric





*Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail



-Original Message-
From: Chuck August-McDowell [mailto:chu...@meyersound.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2016 11:22 AM
To: Ralph McDiarmid <ralph.mcdiar...@schneider-electric.com>
Subject: RE: [PSES] fire safety test methods for different country standards

Hi Ralph,

I live in the IEC/EN/UL 60065 standard world.

Could you point at "most standards appear to limit rate of energy transfer 
(e.g. 240W)" standard?
IEC/EN/UL 62368-1?
IEC/EN/UL 60950-1?

Thank you,

Chuck McDowell
Compliance Specialist
Meyer Sound Laboratories Inc.


-Original Message-
From: Ralph McDiarmid [mailto:ralph.mcdiar...@schneider-electric.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2016 9:27 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] fire safety test methods for different country standards

Not following instructions is foreseeable misuse and needs a FMEA and maybe a 
Fault Tree analysis too, if a hazard is the anticipated result.

Getting back to this HB enclosure discussion earlier in this discussion thread, 
I see that most standards appear to limit rate of energy transfer (e.g. 240W) 
and may also place limit on available current.   The expectation is, I think, 
that a power-limited device cannot ignite something.  I assume there is lots of 
history that assumption.

Ralph McDiarmid
Product Compliance
Engineering
Solar Business
Schneider Electric



-Original Message-
From: Richard Nute [mailto:ri...@ieee.org]
Sent: Sunday, May 22, 2016 5:40 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] fire safety test methods for different country standards

Hi John:


Thanks for your additional comments.

> Could it be that the scenarios which the standards committees envisage
> are not "the real deal"

In my opinion, this is the case.

> OR that the
> products which cause the fires just don't comply with the standards?

Of course, counterfeit and non-complying products are in the marketplace.  Some 
of these do catch fire.

My interest is the cause of fires in products which comply with the standards.  
The "In Compliance" reports do identify the counterfeit products, but these 
seem to be in the minority.

Fires occur under fault conditions.  Not following instructions is a sort-of 
fault condition, but rarely the cause of a fire.


Rich

-

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:

Re: [PSES] fire safety test methods for different country standards

[John Woodgate]

The requirements in the standards include 'safety factors' intended to allow 
for unquantified variations between samples. 

>-Original Message-
>From: Ralph McDiarmid [mailto:ralph.mcdiar...@schneider-electric.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, June 8, 2016 9:22 PM
>To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
>Subject: Re: [PSES] fire safety test methods for different country standards
>
To
>assume a prototype or two accurately represents a field population of say 
>10,000
>units is an act of faith, and hoping that the odds are with you.
>
>Ralph McDiarmid
>Product Compliance
>Engineering
>Solar Business
>Schneider Electric
>

-

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] fire safety test methods for different country standards

[John Woodgate]

Tried a flint and steel recently? Lots of history!

>-Original Message-
>From: Ralph McDiarmid [mailto:ralph.mcdiar...@schneider-electric.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, June 8, 2016 5:27 PM
>To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
>Subject: Re: [PSES] fire safety test methods for different country standards
>
   The expectation is, I think, that a power-limited
>device cannot ignite something.  I assume there is lots of history that 
>assumption.
>
>Ralph McDiarmid

-

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] fire safety test methods for different country standards

[Ralph McDiarmid]

So, for the protection against FIRE, we have two energy rates, 100VA and 240VA, 
used across quite a number of standards, and the units are wrong.  Should be 
Watts.

Ralph McDiarmid
Product Compliance
Engineering
Solar Business
Schneider Electric




*Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail



-Original Message-
From: Nyffenegger, Dave [mailto:dave.nyffeneg...@bhemail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2016 1:27 PM
To: Ralph McDiarmid <ralph.mcdiar...@schneider-electric.com>; 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: [PSES] fire safety test methods for different country standards

EN 60950-1:2006  2.5  uses 100 VA for LPS and is also referenced for fire 
enclosure requirements in section 4.7.2.1.

-Dave

-Original Message-
From: Ralph McDiarmid [mailto:ralph.mcdiar...@schneider-electric.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2016 3:11 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] fire safety test methods for different country standards

Hi Chuck,

A poor choice of words on my part.  I should have written, "in most of the 
standards I have worked in".   Those include CSA107.1, UL1741, UL1012, and 
IEC62109-1

The 240VA (I think they meant 240W) must have come from some base standard as a 
normative reference.  I don't know what is special about that number, but some 
committee somewhere may have concluded that power (rate of energy) below that 
threshold was unlike to be a source of ignition.  I've seen 30V and 8A used to 
define an energy limited, extra-low voltage circuit. (UL calls that a Class 2 I 
think).   The product of 8A and 30V gives 240VA as a third criterion.   I'm not 
sure it's that simple though.

Regards,

Ralph McDiarmid
Product Compliance
Engineering
Solar Business
Schneider Electric





*Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail



-Original Message-
From: Chuck August-McDowell [mailto:chu...@meyersound.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2016 11:22 AM
To: Ralph McDiarmid <ralph.mcdiar...@schneider-electric.com>
Subject: RE: [PSES] fire safety test methods for different country standards

Hi Ralph,

I live in the IEC/EN/UL 60065 standard world.

Could you point at "most standards appear to limit rate of energy transfer 
(e.g. 240W)" standard?
IEC/EN/UL 62368-1?
IEC/EN/UL 60950-1?

Thank you,

Chuck McDowell
Compliance Specialist
Meyer Sound Laboratories Inc.


-Original Message-
From: Ralph McDiarmid [mailto:ralph.mcdiar...@schneider-electric.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2016 9:27 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] fire safety test methods for different country standards

Not following instructions is foreseeable misuse and needs a FMEA and maybe a 
Fault Tree analysis too, if a hazard is the anticipated result.

Getting back to this HB enclosure discussion earlier in this discussion thread, 
I see that most standards appear to limit rate of energy transfer (e.g. 240W) 
and may also place limit on available current.   The expectation is, I think, 
that a power-limited device cannot ignite something.  I assume there is lots of 
history that assumption.

Ralph McDiarmid
Product Compliance
Engineering
Solar Business
Schneider Electric



-Original Message-
From: Richard Nute [mailto:ri...@ieee.org]
Sent: Sunday, May 22, 2016 5:40 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] fire safety test methods for different country standards

Hi John:


Thanks for your additional comments.

> Could it be that the scenarios which the standards committees envisage
> are not "the real deal"

In my opinion, this is the case.

> OR that the
> products which cause the fires just don't comply with the standards?

Of course, counterfeit and non-complying products are in the marketplace.  Some 
of these do catch fire.

My interest is the cause of fires in products which comply with the standards.  
The "In Compliance" reports do identify the counterfeit products, but these 
seem to be in the minority.

Fires occur under fault conditions.  Not following instructions is a sort-of 
fault condition, but rarely the cause of a fire.


Rich

-

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>

Re: [PSES] fire safety test methods for different country standards

[Nyffenegger, Dave]

Maybe we better tighten our belts and get ready for a new round of public 
misuse.   There's going to be a new MacGyver series on TV this fall:)

-Original Message-
From: Richard Nute [mailto:ri...@ieee.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2016 3:15 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] fire safety test methods for different country standards

> Not following instructions is foreseeable misuse...

Depends.

I define "misuse" as using the product for some use other than its intended 
use. Standing on a chair is misuse of the chair.  

Misuse (my definition) cannot be foreseeable because it depends on what the 
user needs to do (and has decided that the product will do what he wants to 
do).  Think McGyver, the TV show.  McGyver found imaginative "mis"uses of 
ordinary items to help him get out of various situations.  
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacGyver

"Not following instructions" is a fault condition: a fault of a behavior that 
is specified in the instruction.  As a fault, it can be included in a fault 
tree.  

A fault tree can only be made for a single top event.  Misuse (my definition) 
and "not following instructions" are not likely to have the same top event and 
so would have separate fault trees. 

If you define "misuse" as "not following instructions," then one top event and 
one fault tree.


Rich 
 

-

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

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

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

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

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

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

-

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] fire safety test methods for different country standards

[Nyffenegger, Dave]

EN 60950-1:2006  2.5  uses 100 VA for LPS and is also referenced for fire 
enclosure requirements in section 4.7.2.1.

-Dave

-Original Message-
From: Ralph McDiarmid [mailto:ralph.mcdiar...@schneider-electric.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2016 3:11 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] fire safety test methods for different country standards

Hi Chuck,

A poor choice of words on my part.  I should have written, "in most of the 
standards I have worked in".   Those include CSA107.1, UL1741, UL1012, and 
IEC62109-1

The 240VA (I think they meant 240W) must have come from some base standard as a 
normative reference.  I don't know what is special about that number, but some 
committee somewhere may have concluded that power (rate of energy) below that 
threshold was unlike to be a source of ignition.  I've seen 30V and 8A used to 
define an energy limited, extra-low voltage circuit. (UL calls that a Class 2 I 
think).   The product of 8A and 30V gives 240VA as a third criterion.   I'm not 
sure it's that simple though.

Regards,

Ralph McDiarmid
Product Compliance
Engineering
Solar Business
Schneider Electric





*Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail



-Original Message-
From: Chuck August-McDowell [mailto:chu...@meyersound.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2016 11:22 AM
To: Ralph McDiarmid <ralph.mcdiar...@schneider-electric.com>
Subject: RE: [PSES] fire safety test methods for different country standards

Hi Ralph,

I live in the IEC/EN/UL 60065 standard world.

Could you point at "most standards appear to limit rate of energy transfer 
(e.g. 240W)" standard?
IEC/EN/UL 62368-1?
IEC/EN/UL 60950-1?

Thank you,

Chuck McDowell
Compliance Specialist
Meyer Sound Laboratories Inc.


-Original Message-
From: Ralph McDiarmid [mailto:ralph.mcdiar...@schneider-electric.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2016 9:27 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] fire safety test methods for different country standards

Not following instructions is foreseeable misuse and needs a FMEA and maybe a 
Fault Tree analysis too, if a hazard is the anticipated result.

Getting back to this HB enclosure discussion earlier in this discussion thread, 
I see that most standards appear to limit rate of energy transfer (e.g. 240W) 
and may also place limit on available current.   The expectation is, I think, 
that a power-limited device cannot ignite something.  I assume there is lots of 
history that assumption.

Ralph McDiarmid
Product Compliance
Engineering
Solar Business
Schneider Electric



-Original Message-
From: Richard Nute [mailto:ri...@ieee.org]
Sent: Sunday, May 22, 2016 5:40 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] fire safety test methods for different country standards

Hi John:


Thanks for your additional comments.

> Could it be that the scenarios which the standards committees envisage 
> are not "the real deal"

In my opinion, this is the case.

> OR that the
> products which cause the fires just don't comply with the standards?

Of course, counterfeit and non-complying products are in the marketplace.  Some 
of these do catch fire.

My interest is the cause of fires in products which comply with the standards.  
The "In Compliance" reports do identify the counterfeit products, but these 
seem to be in the minority.

Fires occur under fault conditions.  Not following instructions is a sort-of 
fault condition, but rarely the cause of a fire.


Rich

-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 This message was scanned by Exchange Online Protection Services.


-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion lis

Re: [PSES] fire safety test methods for different country standards

[Ralph McDiarmid]

" Safety standards are not tested to see if they accomplish the objective"

I'm not sure how one would go about doing that, other than gathering data from 
customer returns and from product recalls.  It may not be only a problem with 
standards, but also with how the standards are applied (training at NRTLs), and 
what follow-up service really provides.  For example, if some fires are caused 
by internal arcing,  then does follow-up service inspect spacings in detail 
during a factory visit?  NO.  Do routine dielectric tests catch in-circuit 
spacing issues.  Again, I think the answer is NO.   There will always exist 
unit-to-unit variation and if spacings are right at the minimum and tolerance 
stack is not carefully accounted for in the design, you probably cannot assume 
NRTL test & inspection will catch it.  To assume a prototype or two accurately 
represents a field population of say 10,000 units is an act of faith, and 
hoping that the odds are with you.

Ralph McDiarmid
Product Compliance
Engineering
Solar Business
Schneider Electric




*Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail



-Original Message-
From: Richard Nute [mailto:ri...@ieee.org]
Sent: Sunday, May 22, 2016 2:39 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] fire safety test methods for different country standards

Our most common and serious safety issue is that of product electrically-caused 
fire.  I subscribe to "In Compliance" weekly recall notices; most are fire.

As Gert Gremmen has stated, no fault-testing has resulted in a product fire in 
the test lab, yet product fires continue to occur in the field.  Clearly, 
60950, 61010, and others are not adequate in testing for fire and in specifying 
fire safeguards.  We are doing something wrong.

Safety standards are not tested to see if they accomplish the objective.  
Instead, they are promulgated and use the field as the test bed.  Maybe 62368 
will improve the product fire situation.


Rich

-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 This message was scanned by Exchange Online Protection Services.


-

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] fire safety test methods for different country standards

[Richard Nute]

240 VA (not W) is defined as "energy hazard" in UL/IEC 60950 and its 
predecessors, UL 950 and UL 478.  "Energy hazard" only applies if the potential 
is 2 V or more.

(The dimension for energy is the Joule, not the volt-ampere.) 

The standards state: 

"A risk of injury due to an energy hazard exists if it is likely that 
two or more bare parts
between which a HAZARDOUS ENERGY LEVEL exists, will be
bridged by a metallic object."

The standards do not state what the injury is.

The 8 A, 30 V, 100 VA (not 240 VA) is the limit for an "inherently limited 
power source."  


Rich

-

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] fire safety test methods for different country standards

[Kunde, Brian]

Back in my computer days, IEC 950 clause 1.2.8.7 defined a "Hazardous Energy 
Level" as "A stored energy level of 20 J or more, or an available continuous 
power level of 240 VA or more, at a potential of 2 V or more."

Ever since, we refer to 240VA or more as an "Energy Hazard" and take that into 
consideration as part of our Risk Assessment even though it is not called out 
specifically in the IEC/EN 61010-1 (the safety standard we use at my present 
place of employment).

The Other Brian

-Original Message-
From: Ralph McDiarmid [mailto:ralph.mcdiar...@schneider-electric.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2016 3:11 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] fire safety test methods for different country standards

Hi Chuck,

A poor choice of words on my part.  I should have written, "in most of the 
standards I have worked in".   Those include CSA107.1, UL1741, UL1012, and 
IEC62109-1

The 240VA (I think they meant 240W) must have come from some base standard as a 
normative reference.  I don't know what is special about that number, but some 
committee somewhere may have concluded that power (rate of energy) below that 
threshold was unlike to be a source of ignition.  I've seen 30V and 8A used to 
define an energy limited, extra-low voltage circuit. (UL calls that a Class 2 I 
think).   The product of 8A and 30V gives 240VA as a third criterion.   I'm not 
sure it's that simple though.

Regards,

Ralph McDiarmid
Product Compliance
Engineering
Solar Business
Schneider Electric





*Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail



-Original Message-
From: Chuck August-McDowell [mailto:chu...@meyersound.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2016 11:22 AM
To: Ralph McDiarmid <ralph.mcdiar...@schneider-electric.com>
Subject: RE: [PSES] fire safety test methods for different country standards

Hi Ralph,

I live in the IEC/EN/UL 60065 standard world.

Could you point at "most standards appear to limit rate of energy transfer 
(e.g. 240W)" standard?
IEC/EN/UL 62368-1?
IEC/EN/UL 60950-1?

Thank you,

Chuck McDowell
Compliance Specialist
Meyer Sound Laboratories Inc.


-Original Message-
From: Ralph McDiarmid [mailto:ralph.mcdiar...@schneider-electric.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2016 9:27 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] fire safety test methods for different country standards

Not following instructions is foreseeable misuse and needs a FMEA and maybe a 
Fault Tree analysis too, if a hazard is the anticipated result.

Getting back to this HB enclosure discussion earlier in this discussion thread, 
I see that most standards appear to limit rate of energy transfer (e.g. 240W) 
and may also place limit on available current.   The expectation is, I think, 
that a power-limited device cannot ignite something.  I assume there is lots of 
history that assumption.

Ralph McDiarmid
Product Compliance
Engineering
Solar Business
Schneider Electric



-Original Message-
From: Richard Nute [mailto:ri...@ieee.org]
Sent: Sunday, May 22, 2016 5:40 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] fire safety test methods for different country standards

Hi John:


Thanks for your additional comments.

> Could it be that the scenarios which the standards committees envisage
> are not "the real deal"

In my opinion, this is the case.

> OR that the
> products which cause the fires just don't comply with the standards?

Of course, counterfeit and non-complying products are in the marketplace.  Some 
of these do catch fire.

My interest is the cause of fires in products which comply with the standards.  
The "In Compliance" reports do identify the counterfeit products, but these 
seem to be in the minority.

Fires occur under fault conditions.  Not following instructions is a sort-of 
fault condition, but rarely the cause of a fire.


Rich

-

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] fire safety test methods for different country standards

[Ralph McDiarmid]

Hi Chuck,

A poor choice of words on my part.  I should have written, "in most of the 
standards I have worked in".   Those include CSA107.1, UL1741, UL1012, and 
IEC62109-1

The 240VA (I think they meant 240W) must have come from some base standard as a 
normative reference.  I don't know what is special about that number, but some 
committee somewhere may have concluded that power (rate of energy) below that 
threshold was unlike to be a source of ignition.  I've seen 30V and 8A used to 
define an energy limited, extra-low voltage circuit. (UL calls that a Class 2 I 
think).   The product of 8A and 30V gives 240VA as a third criterion.   I'm not 
sure it's that simple though.

Regards,

Ralph McDiarmid
Product Compliance
Engineering
Solar Business
Schneider Electric





*Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail



-Original Message-
From: Chuck August-McDowell [mailto:chu...@meyersound.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2016 11:22 AM
To: Ralph McDiarmid <ralph.mcdiar...@schneider-electric.com>
Subject: RE: [PSES] fire safety test methods for different country standards

Hi Ralph,

I live in the IEC/EN/UL 60065 standard world.

Could you point at "most standards appear to limit rate of energy transfer 
(e.g. 240W)" standard?
IEC/EN/UL 62368-1?
IEC/EN/UL 60950-1?

Thank you,

Chuck McDowell
Compliance Specialist
Meyer Sound Laboratories Inc.


-Original Message-
From: Ralph McDiarmid [mailto:ralph.mcdiar...@schneider-electric.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2016 9:27 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] fire safety test methods for different country standards

Not following instructions is foreseeable misuse and needs a FMEA and maybe a 
Fault Tree analysis too, if a hazard is the anticipated result.

Getting back to this HB enclosure discussion earlier in this discussion thread, 
I see that most standards appear to limit rate of energy transfer (e.g. 240W) 
and may also place limit on available current.   The expectation is, I think, 
that a power-limited device cannot ignite something.  I assume there is lots of 
history that assumption.

Ralph McDiarmid
Product Compliance
Engineering
Solar Business
Schneider Electric



-Original Message-
From: Richard Nute [mailto:ri...@ieee.org]
Sent: Sunday, May 22, 2016 5:40 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] fire safety test methods for different country standards

Hi John:


Thanks for your additional comments.

> Could it be that the scenarios which the standards committees envisage
> are not "the real deal"

In my opinion, this is the case.

> OR that the
> products which cause the fires just don't comply with the standards?

Of course, counterfeit and non-complying products are in the marketplace.  Some 
of these do catch fire.

My interest is the cause of fires in products which comply with the standards.  
The "In Compliance" reports do identify the counterfeit products, but these 
seem to be in the minority.

Fires occur under fault conditions.  Not following instructions is a sort-of 
fault condition, but rarely the cause of a fire.


Rich

-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 This message was scanned by Exchange Online Protection Services.


-

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.

We

Re: [PSES] fire safety test methods for different country standards

[Richard Nute]

> Not following instructions is foreseeable misuse...

Depends.

I define "misuse" as using the product for some use other than its intended 
use. Standing on a chair is misuse of the chair.  

Misuse (my definition) cannot be foreseeable because it depends on what the 
user needs to do (and has decided that the product will do what he wants to 
do).  Think McGyver, the TV show.  McGyver found imaginative "mis"uses of 
ordinary items to help him get out of various situations.  
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacGyver

"Not following instructions" is a fault condition: a fault of a behavior that 
is specified in the instruction.  As a fault, it can be included in a fault 
tree.  

A fault tree can only be made for a single top event.  Misuse (my definition) 
and "not following instructions" are not likely to have the same top event and 
so would have separate fault trees. 

If you define "misuse" as "not following instructions," then one top event and 
one fault tree.


Rich 
 

-

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] fire safety test methods for different country standards

[Ralph McDiarmid]

Not following instructions is foreseeable misuse and needs a FMEA and maybe a 
Fault Tree analysis too, if a hazard is the anticipated result.

Getting back to this HB enclosure discussion earlier in this discussion thread, 
I see that most standards appear to limit rate of energy transfer (e.g. 240W) 
and may also place limit on available current.   The expectation is, I think, 
that a power-limited device cannot ignite something.  I assume there is lots of 
history that assumption.

Ralph McDiarmid
Product Compliance
Engineering
Solar Business
Schneider Electric



-Original Message-
From: Richard Nute [mailto:ri...@ieee.org]
Sent: Sunday, May 22, 2016 5:40 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] fire safety test methods for different country standards

Hi John:


Thanks for your additional comments.

> Could it be that the scenarios which the standards committees envisage
> are not "the real deal"

In my opinion, this is the case.

> OR that the
> products which cause the fires just don't comply with the standards?

Of course, counterfeit and non-complying products are in the marketplace.  Some 
of these do catch fire.

My interest is the cause of fires in products which comply with the standards.  
The "In Compliance" reports do identify the counterfeit products, but these 
seem to be in the minority.

Fires occur under fault conditions.  Not following instructions is a sort-of 
fault condition, but rarely the cause of a fire.


Rich

-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 This message was scanned by Exchange Online Protection Services.


-

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] fire safety test methods for different country standards

[John Woodgate]

There isn't, almost certainly, a single reason, and we must take care that 
evidence that standards need to change isn't swamped by a greater body of 
evidence of non-compliance.

For example, we recently had, in Britain, many tumble-dryer fires. The standard 
may allow a warning in the instructions to 'clean the filter regularly' but the 
filter should really not clog or there should be a warning light if it clogs 
*and* the machine should not run with it on.

> -Original Message-
> From: John Allen [mailto:john_e_al...@blueyonder.co.uk]
> Sent: Sunday, May 22, 2016 11:11 PM
> To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: Re: [PSES] fire safety test methods for different country standards
> 
> Rich.
> 
> Could it be that the scenarios which the standards committees envisage are not
> "the real deal", OR that the products which cause the fires just don't comply 
> with
> the standards?
> 
> IMO (not IMHO on this occasion !)  the latter may well be the actual case,
> because, in opinion,  the number of counterfeit products on the market 
> worldwide is
> so great that they are the cause (they minimise the production costs by 
> "deleting"
> the safety features (i.e. the features that ensure that fires don't occur) .
> 
> The EU RAPEX system identifies thousands of such products, and I saw good
> examples of those products at the Nov 2015  UK Electrical Safety First 
> conference
> in London.
> 
> FWIW, that's why I did not agree with Gert G's comment about the lack of 
> fires in
> his experience (which I do not doubt) from 61010 products.
> 
> But, then there is the problem that most people don't read the product 
> instructions
> - mea culpa,  as that could be said of me on many occasions. In which case 
> then it
> has to go back to the argument that the requirements in the standards are 
> "not the
> real deal".
> 
> (Have I ever set off an argument like this in real life?  Almost certainly 
> YES, and it
> did not "help" my career - but "that's life") and "if you don't feel the 
> bumps, you're
> not moving" [and I have certainly  felt the bumps])
> 
> John E Allen
> W. London, UK
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Richard Nute [mailto:ri...@ieee.org]
> Sent: 22 May 2016 22:39
> To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: Re: [PSES] fire safety test methods for different country standards
> 
> Our most common and serious safety issue is that of product 
> electrically-caused
> fire.  I subscribe to "In Compliance" weekly recall notices; most are fire.
> 
> As Gert Gremmen has stated, no fault-testing has resulted in a product fire 
> in the
> test lab, yet product fires continue to occur in the field.  Clearly, 60950, 
> 61010, and
> others are not adequate in testing for fire and in specifying fire 
> safeguards.  We are
> doing something wrong.
> 
> Safety standards are not tested to see if they accomplish the objective.  
> Instead,
> they are promulgated and use the field as the test bed.  Maybe 62368 will 
> improve
> the product fire situation.
> 
> 
> Rich
> 
> -
> 
> 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  p...@ieee.org>
> 
> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
> http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
> 
> Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at
> http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used
> formats), large files, etc.
> 
> Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
> Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 
> unsubscribe) List
> rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
> 
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
> Scott Douglas <sdoug...@ieee.org>
> Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org>
> 
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Jim Bacher:  <j.bac...@ieee.org>
> David Heald: <dhe...@gmail.com>
> 
> -
> 
> This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
> discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to  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), lar

Re: [PSES] fire safety test methods for different country standards

[Richard Nute]

Hi John:


Thanks for your additional comments.

> Could it be that the scenarios which the standards
> committees envisage are not "the real deal"

In my opinion, this is the case.

> OR that the
> products which cause the fires just don't comply with the
> standards?

Of course, counterfeit and non-complying products are in the marketplace.  Some 
of these do catch fire.

My interest is the cause of fires in products which comply with the standards.  
The "In Compliance" reports do identify the counterfeit products, but these 
seem to be in the minority.  

Fires occur under fault conditions.  Not following instructions is a sort-of 
fault condition, but rarely the cause of a fire.


Rich

-

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] fire safety test methods for different country standards

[John Allen]

Rich.

Could it be that the scenarios which the standards committees envisage are not 
"the real deal", OR that the products which cause the fires just don't comply 
with the standards?

IMO (not IMHO on this occasion !)  the latter may well be the actual case, 
because, in opinion,  the number of counterfeit products on the market 
worldwide is so great that they are the cause (they minimise the production 
costs by "deleting" the safety features (i.e. the features that ensure that 
fires don't occur) .

The EU RAPEX system identifies thousands of such products, and I saw good 
examples of those products at the Nov 2015  UK Electrical Safety First 
conference in London.

FWIW, that's why I did not agree with Gert G's comment about the lack of fires 
in his experience (which I do not doubt) from 61010 products.

But, then there is the problem that most people don't read the product 
instructions - mea culpa,  as that could be said of me on many occasions. In 
which case then it has to go back to the argument that the requirements in the 
standards are "not the real deal".

(Have I ever set off an argument like this in real life?  Almost certainly YES, 
and it did not "help" my career - but "that's life") and "if you don't feel the 
bumps, you're not moving" [and I have certainly  felt the bumps])

John E Allen
W. London, UK


-Original Message-
From: Richard Nute [mailto:ri...@ieee.org] 
Sent: 22 May 2016 22:39
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] fire safety test methods for different country standards

Our most common and serious safety issue is that of product electrically-caused 
fire.  I subscribe to "In Compliance" weekly recall notices; most are fire.

As Gert Gremmen has stated, no fault-testing has resulted in a product fire in 
the test lab, yet product fires continue to occur in the field.  Clearly, 
60950, 61010, and others are not adequate in testing for fire and in specifying 
fire safeguards.  We are doing something wrong.

Safety standards are not tested to see if they accomplish the objective.  
Instead, they are promulgated and use the field as the test bed.  Maybe 62368 
will improve the product fire situation.  


Rich

-

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

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

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

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

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

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

-

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] fire safety test methods for different country standards

[Richard Nute]

Our most common and serious safety issue is that of product electrically-caused 
fire.  I subscribe to "In Compliance" weekly recall notices; most are fire.

As Gert Gremmen has stated, no fault-testing has resulted in a product fire in 
the test lab, yet product fires continue to occur in the field.  Clearly, 
60950, 61010, and others are not adequate in testing for fire and in specifying 
fire safeguards.  We are doing something wrong.

Safety standards are not tested to see if they accomplish the objective.  
Instead, they are promulgated and use the field as the test bed.  Maybe 62368 
will improve the product fire situation.  


Rich

-

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] fire safety test methods for different country standards

[Ted Eckert]

My response will be in regards to Information Technology Equipment (ITE) 
specifically, but it may have some applicability to other product types.

IEC 62368-1 has a significantly different approach to fire enclosures than IEC 
60950-1 has. IEC 62368-1 allows the designer much more flexibility in fire 
enclosure design based on a better understanding of how fires start and how 
they spread within equipment. For many product types, the designer won't need 
all of the expensive precautions required by the older standard.

On the other hand, new technology brings new hazards. Lithium-ion batteries 
tend to fail rather dramatically. The design and manufacturing of the batteries 
are getting better, but we are not yet at a point where we can declare these 
batteries as benign as older battery technologies.

New developments may continue to necessitate flame rated enclosures. ITE 
products are starting to use USB C ports for power and charging. The USB C 
standard includes adaptive charging where the power supply can switch from 5 V 
at lower currents all the way to 20 V at 5 A. A properly designed USB C power 
supply won't change voltage without proper digital negotiation with its host. 
However, power supplies of dubious origin show up on the market commonly. Since 
this is a standard connector design, we cannot guarantee what power supply our 
customers will use for charging their devices. A device that may not appear to 
have any risk of ignition may behave differently when you put 100 W of power 
into it. Voltage and current limiting on the input, along with flame rated 
material around the input connector, may become necessary to avoid the risk of 
problems from aftermarket power supplies.

There may be other new technologies that we have not foreseen that could result 
in energy densities high enough to create an ignition risk. I think IEC 62368-1 
reasonably covers the risk. I've only covered low-voltage DC powered equipment 
in my discussion. There is still plenty of ITE that have open frame switch-mode 
power supplies that present their own ignition risks. 

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

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

-Original Message-
From: John Allen [mailto:john_e_al...@blueyonder.co.uk] 
Sent: Sunday, May 22, 2016 3:30 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] fire safety test methods for different country standards

Gert

In many instances I think you are probably on the right track - but mainly 
w.r.t. to 61010 kit for professional / semi-professional use, as opposed to 
60950 where a lot of the kit certified (?) is low cost consumer kit of 
potentially "dubious" origin. So, maybe, the latter group deserves a higher 
level of scrutiny than the former group, including more rigorous 
fire-protection testing.

John E Allen
W. London, UK

-Original Message-
From: ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen [mailto:g.grem...@cetest.nl]
Sent: 22 May 2016 09:59
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] fire safety test methods for different country standards

I was wondering if these type of fire propagation tests are still of any 
relevance.

Nowadays most electronic designs have been built with compliant (be it UL or 
VDE or any other reputable test house) and wiring is HAR or better. Enclosures 
are most standard -off-the-shelf- types with a decent flammability marking.
Isolating material is purchased for the purpose and decently marked. 

I must add that my experience is mostly in professional (low power <1500 VA)  
equipment (60950 / 61010), so I may be biased, but in 20 years of testing I 
still have to find an example where a fire could be started in a "fire 
enclosure" (or outside)
using a single fault simulation, or a situation where a fire could propagate. 
Any overheated component/wiring/pcb  produced (toxic?)   smell/smoke
only.  I had some exploding capacitors, and semiconductors (DIL packages), and 
that was it.

I'd like to hear any decent argument or example  (yes!) on when a fire test had 
(recently) shown to be necessary ( had a fail result) where this was not 
expected based on the applied components ratings.  I do not think that many 
wood enclosures are used, and paper has long been ruled out in electronics. 

Is this flammability issue (at least the equipment test) not something slowly 
becoming obsolete ?

Regards,

Ing. Gert Gremmen
Approvals manager



+ ce marking of electrical/electronic equipment Independent Consultancy 
+ Services Compliance Testing and Design for CE marking
 according to EC-directives:
- Electro Magnetic Compatibility 2004/108/EC
- Electrical Safety 2006/95/EC
- Medical Devices 93/42/EC
- Radio & Telecommunication Terminal Equipment 99/5/EC
+ Improvement of Prod

Re: [PSES] fire safety test methods for different country standards

[John Allen]

Gert

In many instances I think you are probably on the right track - but mainly 
w.r.t. to 61010 kit for professional / semi-professional use, as opposed to 
60950 where a lot of the kit certified (?) is low cost consumer kit of 
potentially "dubious" origin. So, maybe, the latter group deserves a higher 
level of scrutiny than the former group, including more rigorous 
fire-protection testing.

John E Allen
W. London, UK

-Original Message-
From: ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen [mailto:g.grem...@cetest.nl] 
Sent: 22 May 2016 09:59
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] fire safety test methods for different country standards

I was wondering if these type of fire propagation tests are still of any 
relevance.

Nowadays most electronic designs have been built with compliant (be it UL or 
VDE or any other reputable test house) and wiring is HAR or better. Enclosures 
are most standard -off-the-shelf- types with a decent flammability marking.
Isolating material is purchased for the purpose and decently marked. 

I must add that my experience is mostly in professional (low power <1500 VA)  
equipment (60950 / 61010), so I may be biased, but in 20 years of testing I 
still have to find an example where a fire could be started in a "fire 
enclosure" (or outside)
using a single fault simulation, or a situation where a fire could propagate. 
Any overheated component/wiring/pcb  produced (toxic?)   smell/smoke
only.  I had some exploding capacitors, and semiconductors (DIL packages), and 
that was it.

I'd like to hear any decent argument or example  (yes!) on when a fire test had 
(recently) shown to be necessary ( had a fail result) where this was not 
expected based on the applied components ratings.  I do not think that many 
wood enclosures are used, and paper has long been ruled out in electronics. 

Is this flammability issue (at least the equipment test) not something slowly 
becoming obsolete ?

Regards,

Ing. Gert Gremmen
Approvals manager



+ ce marking of electrical/electronic equipment Independent Consultancy 
+ Services Compliance Testing and Design for CE marking
 according to EC-directives:
- Electro Magnetic Compatibility 2004/108/EC
- Electrical Safety 2006/95/EC
- Medical Devices 93/42/EC
- Radio & Telecommunication Terminal Equipment 99/5/EC
+ Improvement of Product Quality and Reliability testing Education

Web:www.cetest.nl (English) 
Phone :  +31 10 415 24 26
---
This e-mail and any attachments thereto may contain information that is 
confidential and/or protected by intellectual property rights and are intended 
for the sole use of the recipient(s) named above. 
Any use of the information contained herein (including, but not limited to, 
total or partial reproduction, communication or distribution in any form) by 
persons other than the designated
recipient(s) is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please 
notify the sender either by telephone or by e-mail and delete the material from 
any computer. 
Thank you for your co-operation.

From: Richard Nute [mailto:ri...@ieee.org]
Sent: Saturday 21 May 2016 19:16
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] fire safety test methods for different country standards



Hi Scott:


“In general, the users and testing houses are referring to the rating of UL 
yellow card rather than the actual test on individual final designed pcb.  
Should we use it to object their normal practice.  How often is it successful?”

Testing in place is a once-per-product-model (and board design) test.  Passing 
the test will depend on how much copper clads the epoxy versus exposed epoxy.  
Only boards with lots of copper are likely to pass.  So, it is an “iffy” test 
and the outcome cannot be predicted with certainty.  

As a general rule, use a board with ratings prescribed by the standard.  Where 
you must use a rating not prescribed by the standard, or you are using a 
non-rated board, and if the board design uses lots of copper, then testing the 
completed board in its end-product orientation may pass the flammability test.


Rich 


-

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.o

Re: [PSES] fire safety test methods for different country standards

[ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen]

I was wondering if these type of fire propagation tests are still of any 
relevance.

Nowadays most electronic designs have been built with compliant (be it UL or 
VDE or any other reputable test house)
and wiring is HAR or better. Enclosures are most standard -off-the-shelf- types 
with a decent flammability marking.
Isolating material is purchased for the purpose and decently marked. 

I must add that my experience is mostly in professional (low power <1500 VA)  
equipment (60950 / 61010), so I may be biased, but
in 20 years of testing I still have to find an example where a fire could be 
started in a "fire enclosure" (or outside)
using a single fault simulation, or a situation where a fire could propagate. 
Any overheated component/wiring/pcb  produced (toxic?)   smell/smoke
only.  I had some exploding capacitors, and semiconductors (DIL packages), and 
that was it.

I'd like to hear any decent argument or example  (yes!) on when a fire test had 
(recently) shown to be necessary ( had a fail result)
where this was not expected based on the applied components ratings.  I do not 
think that many wood enclosures are used,
and paper has long been ruled out in electronics. 

Is this flammability issue (at least the equipment test) not something slowly 
becoming obsolete ?

Regards,

Ing. Gert Gremmen
Approvals manager



+ ce marking of electrical/electronic equipment
+ Independent Consultancy Services
+ Compliance Testing and Design for CE marking
 according to EC-directives:
    - Electro Magnetic Compatibility 2004/108/EC
    - Electrical Safety 2006/95/EC
    - Medical Devices 93/42/EC
    - Radio & Telecommunication Terminal Equipment 99/5/EC
+ Improvement of Product Quality and Reliability testing
+ Education

Web:    www.cetest.nl (English) 
Phone :  +31 10 415 24 26
---
This e-mail and any attachments thereto may contain information 
that is confidential and/or protected by intellectual property rights 
and are intended for the sole use of the recipient(s) named above. 
Any use of the information contained herein (including, but not 
limited to, total or partial reproduction, communication or 
distribution in any form) by persons other than the designated 
recipient(s) is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, 
please notify the sender either by telephone or by e-mail and 
delete the material from any computer. 
Thank you for your co-operation.

From: Richard Nute [mailto:ri...@ieee.org] 
Sent: Saturday 21 May 2016 19:16
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] fire safety test methods for different country standards



Hi Scott:


“In general, the users and testing houses are referring to the rating of UL 
yellow card rather than the actual test on individual final designed pcb.  
Should we use it to object their normal practice.  How often is it successful?”

Testing in place is a once-per-product-model (and board design) test.  Passing 
the test will depend on how much copper clads the epoxy versus exposed epoxy.  
Only boards with lots of copper are likely to pass.  So, it is an “iffy” test 
and the outcome cannot be predicted with certainty.  

As a general rule, use a board with ratings prescribed by the standard.  Where 
you must use a rating not prescribed by the standard, or you are using a 
non-rated board, and if the board design uses lots of copper, then testing the 
completed board in its end-product orientation may pass the flammability test.


Rich 


-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
<emc-p...@ieee.org>
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.
Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html 
For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas <sdoug...@ieee.org>
Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org> 
For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher <j.bac...@ieee.org>
David Heald <dhe...@gmail.com> 

-

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

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

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site a

Re: [PSES] fire safety test methods for different country standards

[Richard Nute]

  

 

Hmm.  Thanks to Ted Eckert, the small tablet may have been methenamine.

 

 

Rich

 

 


-

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] fire safety test methods for different country standards

[Richard Nute]

 

Thanks, Brian.

 

I recall now.  I used hexamine tablets.  I used two sizes, one about ½ inch 
diameter and ¼ inch thick, and the other about the size of an aspirin tablet.  
I placed the hexamine on top of the component I expected to catch fire, ignite 
the pellet, put the enclosure back on, and film the results.  

 

We were using HB enclosure material for a product using an external power 
supply (limited-power, low-voltage).  The standards say this construction is 
acceptable.  Nevertheless, a component could overheat and burst into flames.  
So, we tested for spread of fire through the use of the hexamine tablet.  

 

Where the tablet caused the HB enclosure to burn, we used NOMEX sheet 
insulating paper to prevent the flames from touching the HB plastic.  

 

 

Rich

 

 

 

 


-

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] fire safety test methods for different country standards

[Ted Eckert]

The fuel used now is a methenamine tablet. The following is one example, but I 
am not specifically recommending them as a supplier. I am only using them as a 
reference.
http://www.ergonomicsusa.com/product/methenamine-tablet-for-timed-burning/

These are a mixture of 1,3,5-trioxane and hexamethylenetetramine. As such, they 
are either the trioxane tablets Mr. O’Connell references or a more modern 
replacement. These tablets are commonly used for flammability testing of 
fabrics, rugs and textiles.

Ted Eckert
Microsoft Corporation
The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my 
employer.

From: Brian O'Connell [mailto:oconne...@tamuracorp.com]
Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2016 3:51 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] fire safety test methods for different country standards

Rich,

Congratulations on your IEEE Fellow appointment. Do we address you as ‘Sir 
Richard’ ?

The tablet was probably trioxane solid fuel; typically in a tablet or bar 
from-factor. See Mil-F-10805. In addition to being used for heating C-rats and 
MREs, were also used for gas mask training by igniting several bars in sealed 
chamber, then marching the troops in to subsequently remove their masks to sing 
our ‘tribal song’.

Brian

From: Richard Nute [mailto:ri...@ieee.org]
Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2016 10:32 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Subject: Re: [PSES] fire safety test methods for different country standards

Hi John:

Thanks for your comments.

In the end, the “solution” was a different sort of pragmatic approach because 
the boards were always enclosed in hermetically sealed high pressure (10,000 
psi+) / temperature (180C+) -resistant stainless steel tubes which have very 
little free air volume inside them.

That means that there is very little free oxygen for component fires to use, 
and calculations proved that ignitions involving all the flammable material 
within the enclosures would exhaust that oxygen well before fires could 
develop, and also the way the enclosures are built and sealed means that flames 
or flammable material could not escape unless there had first also been very 
substantial external physical damage.

This is another option.  Build a fire inside the equipment and see what 
happens.  I use a fire-starting tablet or pellet (I’ve forgotten the name).  An 
enclosure with minimum openings that would allow replenishment of oxygen will 
suffocate the fire once the internal oxygen is used up by the fire.  The 
enclosure does not need to be sealed.  Usually, such construction will not have 
very much empty space and therefore relatively little initial oxygen to feed 
the fire.  (I used such testing to prove that a circuit fire would not ignite 
an HB enclosure.)

This is another situation where one can show that a fire will not spread very 
far beyond the initial fuel.

Whether or not this is accepted as compliance with the standard will depend on 
the certification engineer and the policies of the certification house (and 
your ability to convince them that the construction is adequate).


Rich
-


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 ma

Re: [PSES] fire safety test methods for different country standards

[Brian O'Connell]

Rich,

Congratulations on your IEEE Fellow appointment. Do we address you as ‘Sir 
Richard’ ?

The tablet was probably trioxane solid fuel; typically in a tablet or bar 
from-factor. See Mil-F-10805. In addition to being used for heating C-rats and 
MREs, were also used for gas mask training by igniting several bars in sealed 
chamber, then marching the troops in to subsequently remove their masks to sing 
our ‘tribal song’.

Brian

From: Richard Nute [mailto:ri...@ieee.org]
Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2016 10:32 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] fire safety test methods for different country standards

Hi John:

Thanks for your comments.

In the end, the “solution” was a different sort of pragmatic approach because 
the boards were always enclosed in hermetically sealed high pressure (10,000 
psi+) / temperature (180C+) -resistant stainless steel tubes which have very 
little free air volume inside them.

That means that there is very little free oxygen for component fires to use, 
and calculations proved that ignitions involving all the flammable material 
within the enclosures would exhaust that oxygen well before fires could 
develop, and also the way the enclosures are built and sealed means that flames 
or flammable material could not escape unless there had first also been very 
substantial external physical damage.

This is another option.  Build a fire inside the equipment and see what 
happens.  I use a fire-starting tablet or pellet (I’ve forgotten the name).  An 
enclosure with minimum openings that would allow replenishment of oxygen will 
suffocate the fire once the internal oxygen is used up by the fire.  The 
enclosure does not need to be sealed.  Usually, such construction will not have 
very much empty space and therefore relatively little initial oxygen to feed 
the fire.  (I used such testing to prove that a circuit fire would not ignite 
an HB enclosure.)

This is another situation where one can show that a fire will not spread very 
far beyond the initial fuel.

Whether or not this is accepted as compliance with the standard will depend on 
the certification engineer and the policies of the certification house (and 
your ability to convince them that the construction is adequate).


Rich

-

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] fire safety test methods for different country standards

[John Woodgate]

You are right.
 
With best wishes DESIGN IT IN! OOO – Own Opinions Only
 <http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk/> www.jmwa.demon.co.uk J M Woodgate and 
Associates Rayleigh England
 
From: John Allen [mailto:john_e_al...@blueyonder.co.uk] 
Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2016 9:36 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG; 'John Woodgate' <jmw1...@btinternet.com>
Subject: RE: [PSES] fire safety test methods for different country standards
 
BTW: if that “safety expert” had looked closer, I think he would have found 
that something like 60065 would have been far more difficult with which to 
comply than the correct standard (which was presumably probably some Part 2 of 
60335?).
 
John E Allen
W. London, UK
 
From: John Allen [mailto:john_e_al...@blueyonder.co.uk] 
Sent: 21 May 2016 20:44
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> 
Subject: Re: [PSES] fire safety test methods for different country standards
 
John
 
Re
“I had an enquiry once as to whether IEC 60065 could be applied to a 10 kW 
industrial fan heater, because that was the only standard their safety expert 
knew about.”
 
He was a “safety expert”?  I’m not, but at least I know more than that :(!
 
John E Allen
W. London, UK
 
From: John Allen [mailto:john_e_al...@blueyonder.co.uk] 
Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2016 7:47 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> 
Subject: Re: [PSES] fire safety test methods for different country standards
 
Rich
 
With respect to actual testing of the materials in the enclosure, that was also 
impractical because there was (still is) a wide range of lengths and diameters, 
which were always very well populated because they were (are) made as compact 
as possible for the intended applications. Therefore we were pretty happy that 
the same principles as outlined in my previous email did apply across the range.
 
-

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.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] fire safety test methods for different country standards

[John Allen]

BTW: if that “safety expert” had looked closer, I think he would have found 
that something like 60065 would have been far more difficult with which to 
comply than the correct standard (which was presumably probably some Part 2 of 
60335?).

 

John E Allen

W. London, UK

 

From: John Allen [mailto:john_e_al...@blueyonder.co.uk] 
Sent: 21 May 2016 20:44
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] fire safety test methods for different country standards

 

John

 

Re

“I had an enquiry once as to whether IEC 60065 could be applied to a 10 kW 
industrial fan heater, because that was the only standard their safety expert 
knew about.”

 

He was a “safety expert”?  I’m not, but at least I know more than that L!

 

John E Allen

W. London, UK

 

From: John Allen [mailto:john_e_al...@blueyonder.co.uk] 
Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2016 7:47 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] fire safety test methods for different country standards

 

Rich

 

With respect to actual testing of the materials in the enclosure, that was also 
impractical because there was (still is) a wide range of lengths and diameters, 
which were always very well populated because they were (are) made as compact 
as possible for the intended applications. Therefore we were pretty happy that 
the same principles as outlined in my previous email did apply across the range.

 

-


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) 
<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>
Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org> 

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

-


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

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

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

Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) 
<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>
Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org> 

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


-

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] fire safety test methods for different country standards

[John Allen]

John

 

Re

“I had an enquiry once as to whether IEC 60065 could be applied to a 10 kW 
industrial fan heater, because that was the only standard their safety expert 
knew about.”

 

He was a “safety expert”?  I’m not, but at least I know more than that L!

 

John E Allen

W. London, UK

 

From: John Allen [mailto:john_e_al...@blueyonder.co.uk] 
Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2016 7:47 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] fire safety test methods for different country standards

 

Rich

 

With respect to actual testing of the materials in the enclosure, that was also 
impractical because there was (still is) a wide range of lengths and diameters, 
which were always very well populated because they were (are) made as compact 
as possible for the intended applications. Therefore we were pretty happy that 
the same principles as outlined in my previous email did apply across the range.

 

-


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) 
<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>
Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org> 

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


-

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] fire safety test methods for different country standards

[John Woodgate]

RE:
The odd thing that I noted very clearly at the time was that the standard did 
not include any concept of a real partially- or fully-sealed enclosure where 
any internal fires could be contained within the enclosure without external 
flame spread or other related hazards.  That, I thought (still do) was a major 
oversight by the standard developers who had adopted the 60950 enclosure 
requirements almost verbatim and without full consideration of the very wide 
range of equipment to which the standard might then be applied.
 
Unfortunately, this often happens, and if you draw attention in the committee 
to the fact that all the necessary work hasn't in fact been done by another 
committee, you may not be overly popular.
 
I had an enquiry once as to whether IEC 60065 could be applied to a 10 kW 
industrial fan heater, because that was the only standard their safety expert 
knew about.
 
With best wishes DESIGN IT IN! OOO – Own Opinions Only
 <http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk/> www.jmwa.demon.co.uk J M Woodgate and 
Associates Rayleigh England
 
From: John Allen [mailto:john_e_al...@blueyonder.co.uk] 
Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2016 7:47 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] fire safety test methods for different country standards
 
Rich
 
With respect to actual testing of the materials in the enclosure, that was also 
impractical because there was (still is) a wide range of lengths and diameters, 
which were always very well populated because they were (are) made as compact 
as possible for the intended applications. Therefore we were pretty happy that 
the same principles as outlined in my previous email did apply across the range.
 

-

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] fire safety test methods for different country standards

[John Allen]

Rich

 

With respect to actual testing of the materials in the enclosure, that was also 
impractical because there was (still is) a wide range of lengths and diameters, 
which were always very well populated because they were (are) made as compact 
as possible for the intended applications. Therefore we were pretty happy that 
the same principles as outlined in my previous email did apply across the range.

 

Also, something not mentioned in that email was that the calculated typical 
worst-case case outer shell temperature rise due to internal ignitions was less 
than 1C – which meant that there was no risk of that rise causing ignition of 
any surrounding material.

 

The odd thing that I noted very clearly at the time was that the standard did 
not include any concept of a real partially- or fully-sealed enclosure where 
any internal fires could be contained within the enclosure without external 
flame spread or other related hazards.  That, I thought (still do) was a major 
oversight by the standard developers who had adopted the 60950 enclosure 
requirements almost verbatim and without full consideration of the very wide 
range of equipment to which the standard might then be applied.

 

In response to your last para, those were self-certification jobs to EN 
61010-1:2010 – which, fortunately, allows the risk assessment approach to 
issues where you can’t comply with chapter and verse of the standard! So it was 
down to us to decide whether the construction was adequate – and we were!

 

John E Allen

W. London, UK

 

 

From: Richard Nute [mailto:ri...@ieee.org] 
Sent: 21 May 2016 18:32
To: 'John Allen'; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: [PSES] fire safety test methods for different country standards

 

 

 

Hi John:

 

 

Thanks for your comments.  

 

In the end, the “solution” was a different sort of pragmatic approach because 
the boards were always enclosed in hermetically sealed high pressure (10,000 
psi+) / temperature (180C+) -resistant stainless steel tubes which have very 
little free air volume inside them. 

 

That means that there is very little free oxygen for component fires to use, 
and calculations proved that ignitions involving all the flammable material 
within the enclosures would exhaust that oxygen well before fires could 
develop, and also the way the enclosures are built and sealed means that flames 
or flammable material could not escape unless there had first also been very 
substantial external physical damage.

 

This is another option.  Build a fire inside the equipment and see what 
happens.  I use a fire-starting tablet or pellet (I’ve forgotten the name).  An 
enclosure with minimum openings that would allow replenishment of oxygen will 
suffocate the fire once the internal oxygen is used up by the fire.  The 
enclosure does not need to be sealed.  Usually, such construction will not have 
very much empty space and therefore relatively little initial oxygen to feed 
the fire.  (I used such testing to prove that a circuit fire would not ignite 
an HB enclosure.)

 

This is another situation where one can show that a fire will not spread very 
far beyond the initial fuel.

 

Whether or not this is accepted as compliance with the standard will depend on 
the certification engineer and the policies of the certification house (and 
your ability to convince them that the construction is adequate).  

 

 

Rich

 

 


-

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] fire safety test methods for different country standards

[Richard Nute]

 

 

Hi John:

 

 

Thanks for your comments.  

 

In the end, the “solution” was a different sort of pragmatic approach because 
the boards were always enclosed in hermetically sealed high pressure (10,000 
psi+) / temperature (180C+) -resistant stainless steel tubes which have very 
little free air volume inside them. 

 

That means that there is very little free oxygen for component fires to use, 
and calculations proved that ignitions involving all the flammable material 
within the enclosures would exhaust that oxygen well before fires could 
develop, and also the way the enclosures are built and sealed means that flames 
or flammable material could not escape unless there had first also been very 
substantial external physical damage.

 

This is another option.  Build a fire inside the equipment and see what 
happens.  I use a fire-starting tablet or pellet (I’ve forgotten the name).  An 
enclosure with minimum openings that would allow replenishment of oxygen will 
suffocate the fire once the internal oxygen is used up by the fire.  The 
enclosure does not need to be sealed.  Usually, such construction will not have 
very much empty space and therefore relatively little initial oxygen to feed 
the fire.  (I used such testing to prove that a circuit fire would not ignite 
an HB enclosure.)

 

This is another situation where one can show that a fire will not spread very 
far beyond the initial fuel.

 

Whether or not this is accepted as compliance with the standard will depend on 
the certification engineer and the policies of the certification house (and 
your ability to convince them that the construction is adequate).  

 

 

Rich

 

 


-

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] fire safety test methods for different country standards

[Richard Nute]

 

 

Hi Scott:

 

 

“In general, the users and testing houses are referring to the rating of UL 
yellow card rather than the actual test on individual final designed pcb.  
Should we use it to object their normal practice.  How often is it successful?”

 

Testing in place is a once-per-product-model (and board design) test.  Passing 
the test will depend on how much copper clads the epoxy versus exposed epoxy.  
Only boards with lots of copper are likely to pass.  So, it is an “iffy” test 
and the outcome cannot be predicted with certainty.  

 

As a general rule, use a board with ratings prescribed by the standard.  Where 
you must use a rating not prescribed by the standard, or you are using a 
non-rated board, and if the board design uses lots of copper, then testing the 
completed board in its end-product orientation may pass the flammability test.

 

 

Rich 

 

 


-

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] fire safety test methods for different country standards

[John Allen]

Rich

 

Thanks for the info – which I had not realised before.

 

However, even if I had known, I don’t think it would have helped much in that 
particular situation which involved a wide range of board designs and layouts 
produced in very small quantities of each – so we could not have tested every 
one even if we had had the right test facilities, which we did not.

 

In the end, the “solution” was a different sort of pragmatic approach because 
the boards were always enclosed in hermetically sealed high pressure (10,000 
psi+) / temperature (180C+) -resistant stainless steel tubes which have very 
little free air volume inside them. 

 

That means that there is very little free oxygen for component fires to use, 
and calculations proved that ignitions involving all the flammable material 
within the enclosures would exhaust that oxygen well before fires could 
develop, and also the way the enclosures are built and sealed means that flames 
or flammable material could not escape unless there had first also been very 
substantial external physical damage.

 

PS: the problem with the V-1 boards was that the flame-retardants apparently 
break down over time at the high operating temperature in which the enclosures 
operate (down oil and gas drill holes), and the by-products then aggressively 
attack the components on the boards and cause them to fail.

 

John  E Allen

W.London, UK

 

From: Richard Nute [mailto:ri...@ieee.org] 
Sent: 21 May 2016 03:01
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] fire safety test methods for different country standards

 

 

 

In my last job I tried to do something similar w.r.t. PWB materials for 
applications where V-1 or better materials aren’t any good because the 
retardants result in reduced service lives in hostile equipment environments, 
whereas some specific (and very special!) HB materials last much longer.

 

A PWB with lots of copper will pass the 94V-1 or 94V-0 tests even if the base 
material is 94HB!  The copper acts as a heat-sink and prevents oxygen from 
mixing with evolved gasses from the epoxy.  Test in place (vertical or 
horizontal).  

 

 

Rich

 

 

 

 

-


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) 
<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>
Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org> 

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


-

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] fire safety test methods for different country standards

[Scott Xe]

Hi Rich,

Thanks for your sharing experience!  In general, the users and testing houses 
are referring to the rating of UL yellow card rather than the actual test on 
individual final designed pcb.  Should we use it to object their normal 
practice.  How often is it successful?

Regards,

Scott


> On 21 May 2016, at 10:01 AM, Richard Nute  wrote:
> 
>  
>  
> In my last job I tried to do something similar w.r.t. PWB materials for 
> applications where V-1 or better materials aren’t any good because the 
> retardants result in reduced service lives in hostile equipment environments, 
> whereas some specific (and very special!) HB materials last much longer.
>  
> A PWB with lots of copper will pass the 94V-1 or 94V-0 tests even if the base 
> material is 94HB!  The copper acts as a heat-sink and prevents oxygen from 
> mixing with evolved gasses from the epoxy.  Test in place (vertical or 
> horizontal).  
>  
>  
> Rich
>  
>  
>  
> -
> 
> This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
> discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
> >
> 
> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
> http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html 
> 
> Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
> http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ 
>  can be used for graphics (in 
> well-used formats), large files, etc.
> 
> Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/ 
> Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 
> unsubscribe) 
> List rules:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html 
> 
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
> Scott Douglas >
> Mike Cantwell >
> 
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Jim Bacher >
> David Heald >
> 


-

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


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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] fire safety test methods for different country standards

[Richard Nute]

 

 

In my last job I tried to do something similar w.r.t. PWB materials for 
applications where V-1 or better materials aren’t any good because the 
retardants result in reduced service lives in hostile equipment environments, 
whereas some specific (and very special!) HB materials last much longer.

 

A PWB with lots of copper will pass the 94V-1 or 94V-0 tests even if the base 
material is 94HB!  The copper acts as a heat-sink and prevents oxygen from 
mixing with evolved gasses from the epoxy.  Test in place (vertical or 
horizontal).  

 

 

Rich

 

 

 


-

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] fire safety test methods for different country standards

[Adam Dixon]

Thanks for the references and experience, John.  Bengtsson's work is
informative and I'll be looking at the UL standards tomorrow.

I did find another somewhat useful reference this evening on Google
books, "Polyurethane
and Fire: Fire Performance Testing" by Prager and was able to access the
ebook version of "Fire Retardancy of Polymeric Materials" by Grand and
Wilkie through my local library.  Lots to read


-Adam




On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 2:03 PM, John Allen <john_e_al...@blueyonder.co.uk>
wrote:

> Also do a search for “UL flame spread test” and it should lead you to UL
> 723 (ASTM E84) amongst other things
>
>
>
> John E Allen
>
>
>
> *From:* John Allen [mailto:john_e_al...@blueyonder.co.uk]
> *Sent:* 19 May 2016 18:31
> *To:* 'Adam Dixon'; 'EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG'
> *Subject:* RE: [PSES] fire safety test methods for different country
> standards
>
>
>
> Adam
>
>
>
> In my last job I tried to do something similar w.r.t. PWB materials for
> applications where V-1 or better materials aren’t any good because the
> retardants result in reduced service lives in hostile equipment
> environments, whereas some specific (and very special!) HB materials last
> much longer.
>
>
>
> Did a lot of searching and found various documents which unfortunately did
> not solve that particular problem.
>
>
>
> However, here are a few documents to search for:
>
>
>
> Lars-Goran Bengtsson, Swedish Rescue Services Agency “Enclosure Fires”,
> 2001 – that’s a long document and there are a lot more references at the
> back that you could follow up on.
>
>
>
> Also:
>
> UL746C “Polymeric Materials – “Use in Electrical Equipment Evaluations”
>
>
>
> The many parts of the IEC 60695 series, notably: Part 1-10 “Fire hazard
> testing – Part 1-10: Guidance for assessing the fire hazard of
> electrotechnical products –
>
> General guidelines”
>
>
>
> John E Allen.
>
>
>
> W.London, UK
>
>
>
> *From:* Adam Dixon [mailto:lanterna.viri...@gmail.com
> <lanterna.viri...@gmail.com>]
> *Sent:* 19 May 2016 13:44
> *To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> *Subject:* [PSES] fire safety test methods for different country standards
>
>
>
> Apart from purchasing multiple standards, are there reference materials
> that may guide preliminary in-house fire safety testing (flame spread) for
> materials categorized as building components?  I have come across summary
> descriptions of multiple test standards (BS476, ISO9705, ISO5660, DIN-4102,
> etc.) and some "comparison of standards" documents.  I would like to get an
> idea of the relative flame/temperature/time/energy parameters (i.e. may
> rudimentary testing be done with a candle, Bunsen burner or propane torch
> with appropriate precautions for fumes?).
>
> For example, DIN-4102 (Germany) references -15 and -16 standards for the
> test apparatus and method and I have seen multiple test reports and a few
> apparatus supplier catalogs, but haven't seen a good description of the
> burner used in the 'Brandschacht' (fire shaft).
>
> My only experience thus far is with UL94.  Pointers to reference materials
> or other feedback is appreciated.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Adam
>
> adam.di...@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://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>
> Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org>
>
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Jim Bacher <j.bac...@ieee.org>
> David Heald <dhe...@gmail.com>
>

-

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

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

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES O

Re: [PSES] fire safety test methods for different country standards

[John Allen]

Also do a search for “UL flame spread test” and it should lead you to UL 723 
(ASTM E84) amongst other things

 

John E Allen

 

From: John Allen [mailto:john_e_al...@blueyonder.co.uk] 
Sent: 19 May 2016 18:31
To: 'Adam Dixon'; 'EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG'
Subject: RE: [PSES] fire safety test methods for different country standards

 

Adam

 

In my last job I tried to do something similar w.r.t. PWB materials for 
applications where V-1 or better materials aren’t any good because the 
retardants result in reduced service lives in hostile equipment environments, 
whereas some specific (and very special!) HB materials last much longer.

 

Did a lot of searching and found various documents which unfortunately did not 
solve that particular problem.

 

However, here are a few documents to search for:

 

Lars-Goran Bengtsson, Swedish Rescue Services Agency “Enclosure Fires”, 2001 – 
that’s a long document and there are a lot more references at the back that you 
could follow up on.

 

Also: 

UL746C “Polymeric Materials – “Use in Electrical Equipment Evaluations”

 

The many parts of the IEC 60695 series, notably: Part 1-10 “Fire hazard testing 
– Part 1-10: Guidance for assessing the fire hazard of electrotechnical 
products –

General guidelines”

 

John E Allen.

 

W.London, UK

 

From: Adam Dixon [mailto:lanterna.viri...@gmail.com] 
Sent: 19 May 2016 13:44
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] fire safety test methods for different country standards

 

Apart from purchasing multiple standards, are there reference materials that 
may guide preliminary in-house fire safety testing (flame spread) for materials 
categorized as building components?  I have come across summary descriptions of 
multiple test standards (BS476, ISO9705, ISO5660, DIN-4102, etc.) and some 
"comparison of standards" documents.  I would like to get an idea of the 
relative flame/temperature/time/energy parameters (i.e. may rudimentary testing 
be done with a candle, Bunsen burner or propane torch with appropriate 
precautions for fumes?).

For example, DIN-4102 (Germany) references -15 and -16 standards for the test 
apparatus and method and I have seen multiple test reports and a few apparatus 
supplier catalogs, but haven't seen a good description of the burner used in 
the 'Brandschacht' (fire shaft).

My only experience thus far is with UL94.  Pointers to reference materials or 
other feedback is appreciated.

Cheers,

Adam

adam.di...@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://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>
Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org> 

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


-

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] fire safety test methods for different country standards

[John Allen]

Adam

 

In my last job I tried to do something similar w.r.t. PWB materials for 
applications where V-1 or better materials aren’t any good because the 
retardants result in reduced service lives in hostile equipment environments, 
whereas some specific (and very special!) HB materials last much longer.

 

Did a lot of searching and found various documents which unfortunately did not 
solve that particular problem.

 

However, here are a few documents to search for:

 

Lars-Goran Bengtsson, Swedish Rescue Services Agency “Enclosure Fires”, 2001 – 
that’s a long document and there are a lot more references at the back that you 
could follow up on.

 

Also: 

UL746C “Polymeric Materials – “Use in Electrical Equipment Evaluations”

 

The many parts of the IEC 60695 series, notably: Part 1-10 “Fire hazard testing 
– Part 1-10: Guidance for assessing the fire hazard of electrotechnical 
products –

General guidelines”

 

John E Allen.

 

W.London, UK

 

From: Adam Dixon [mailto:lanterna.viri...@gmail.com] 
Sent: 19 May 2016 13:44
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] fire safety test methods for different country standards

 

Apart from purchasing multiple standards, are there reference materials that 
may guide preliminary in-house fire safety testing (flame spread) for materials 
categorized as building components?  I have come across summary descriptions of 
multiple test standards (BS476, ISO9705, ISO5660, DIN-4102, etc.) and some 
"comparison of standards" documents.  I would like to get an idea of the 
relative flame/temperature/time/energy parameters (i.e. may rudimentary testing 
be done with a candle, Bunsen burner or propane torch with appropriate 
precautions for fumes?).

For example, DIN-4102 (Germany) references -15 and -16 standards for the test 
apparatus and method and I have seen multiple test reports and a few apparatus 
supplier catalogs, but haven't seen a good description of the burner used in 
the 'Brandschacht' (fire shaft).

My only experience thus far is with UL94.  Pointers to reference materials or 
other feedback is appreciated.



Cheers,

Adam

adam.di...@ieee.org

 

-


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


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://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: