Re: [PSES] Japanese manis leads

[John Woodgate]

Yes, it helps. Arigato.

Best wishes
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2018-12-07 22:50, John Allen wrote:

Tom

Thanks,  and so not what I had thought - however, that does clarify the
situation and hopefully has answered John W's question.

John E Allen
West London, UK

-Original Message-
From: T.Sato [mailto:vef00...@nifty.com]
Sent: 07 December 2018 22:35
To: john_e_al...@blueyonder.co.uk
Cc: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Japanese manis leads

John,

On Fri, 7 Dec 2018 14:40:26 -,
   "John Allen"  wrote:


Ref those 200V products: are they single phase 2-wire (Neutral + Live) +
Ground, OR split-phase (100V on each of 2 Live legs) + Neutral return?
(IIRC, it is the latter - probably introduced as a result of North

American

influence where that configuration is common for high consumption
appliances).

200 V rated products and 200 V outlets usually use 2-wires (L + L) + PE,
although 200 V distributions have 3-wires (L + N + L) + PE so that both
200 V and 100 V equipment can be powered.

Regards,
Tom



-

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] TRF Verdicts

[John Woodgate]

You appear to have uncovered a significantly unsatisfactory situation, 
where essential terminology is lacking formal definitions.  TRFs are the 
responsibility of a branch of IEC, called IECEE 
(https://www.iecee.org/). I think that representations have to be made 
to IECEE to remedy this situation, as a matter of urgency.


Best wishes
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2018-12-14 21:03, Doug Powell wrote:
I downloaded and searched for this terminology in all the OD documents 
available as well as "AD" documents, including all past revisions I 
could locate.  Some 300+ documents. To set the stage, I always think 
of type testing as being an exercise in  "cause and effect". That is, 
some defect (cause) potentially results in a hazard (effect).  Saying 
there is a deficiency, fault or even failure has not identified a 
hazard.  Here is what I found (or didn't find).


"Fault" generally occurs in context of a device failure, fault
condition or control fault. This seems to me like a condition of
the equipment, not a verdict as such.  Not a very satisfactory usage.

"Deficiency" or "Deficient" do not occur anywhere.  Also
unsatisfactory...


I also searched the IEC Electrotechnical Dictionary:

"Fault" appears several times in Area 192 "Dependability", none of
which are specifically referre3d to as a verdict or outcome of
type testing.



-

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] File Attachments and the emc-pstc email list

[John Woodgate]

A welcome development. Please be sure not to abuse it - no 50 MB files.

Best wishes
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2018-12-17 16:55, Jim Bacher wrote:
Back on December 1, 1994 the emc-p...@ieee.org 
<mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org> email list went into service to discuss 
regulatory issues (this email list). When the list was first setup, a 
lot of the members even companies were on 14.4 dial up modems for 
email/Internet access. Some members were traveling to countries where 
dial up internet was not very fast. So the list members ask that 
sending files to the list be blocked. So the list admins at that time 
blocked sending of files.


Awhile ago a community site was setup to place files instead of 
sending to the list, however no one has really made use of it. So it 
is time to move on.


Now days with wifi and cell coverage along with email programs capable 
of selectively downloading attached files, there is no longer a need 
to block files. So the current list admins have enabled file attachments.


I had been trying to look for an appropriate file to test with and 
decided on a PDF file announcing the formation of the email list in 
the Product Safety Newsletter published by the Product Safety 
Technical Committee (TC-8) under the IEEE EMC society was the one to 
send. TC-8 was the predecessor to the IEEE Product Safety Engineering 
Society.


We did set a max size of 10 Meg for the files. That is sufficient for 
asking what a logo is.


This is a test email to confirm the setting change worked and to 
announce the change.


Jim

-


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


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


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


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

List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

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

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



-

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

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

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

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 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] MD clarification of the DoC

[John Woodgate]

I think it's because the compiler must be subject to EU law, or that of 
a Member State, but the digital document can be stored anywhere as long 
as it is reasonably accessible.


Best wishes
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2018-12-18 18:43, Regan Arndt wrote:

Hello folks. Hope you are all enjoying the festive season thus far!

I was wondering if any of you knew the rationale behind requirement #2 
in the Machinery Directive and why the other directives do not have 
this? (as you can see, this is over & above the authorized rep (#10) 
signing the DoC).


Excerpt below:

/A. EC DECLARATION OF CONFORMITY OF THE MACHINERY
/
/
/
/*_2. name and address of the person authorised to compile the 
technical file, who must be established in the Community;_*

/
/
/
/10. the identity and signature of the person empowered to draw up the 
declaration on behalf of the manufacturer or his authorised 
representativ/e.


It's odd because in Annex VII, in section 2, it states:

/_The technical file does not have to be located in the territory of 
the Community, nor does it have to be permanently available in 
material form. However, it must be capable of being assembled and made 
available within a period of time commensurate with its complexity by 
the person designated in the EC declaration of conformity._/


So, a European must compile it but he can store it somewhere in i.e. 
Timbuktu. strange.


-


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


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


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


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

List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

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

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



-

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

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

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

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 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] MD clarification of the DoC

[John Woodgate]

Perhaps because the authors of the other Directives did not consider 
that legal point. It may be in the MD because someone specifically asked 
for it.


Best wishes
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2018-12-18 19:33, Regan Arndt wrote:

ok, but why for only the MD, and not the rest? - curious

On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 11:30 AM John Woodgate <mailto:j...@woodjohn.uk>> wrote:


I think it's because the compiler must be subject to EU law, or
that of a Member State, but the digital document can be stored
anywhere as long as it is reasonably accessible.

Best wishes
    John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associateswww.woodjohn.uk  <http://www.woodjohn.uk>
Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2018-12-18 18:43, Regan Arndt wrote:

Hello folks. Hope you are all enjoying the festive season thus far!

I was wondering if any of you knew the rationale behind
requirement #2 in the Machinery Directive and why the other
directives do not have this? (as you can see, this is over &
above the authorized rep (#10) signing the DoC).

Excerpt below:

/A. EC DECLARATION OF CONFORMITY OF THE MACHINERY
/
/
/
/*_2. name and address of the person authorised to compile the
technical file, who must be established in the Community;_*
/
/
/
/10. the identity and signature of the person empowered to draw
up the declaration on behalf of the manufacturer or his
authorised representativ/e.

It's odd because in Annex VII, in section 2, it states:

/_The technical file does not have to be located in the territory
of the Community, nor does it have to be permanently available in
material form. However, it must be capable of being assembled and
made available within a period of time commensurate with its
complexity by the person designated in the EC declaration of
conformity._/

So, a European must compile it but he can store it somewhere in
i.e. Timbuktu. strange.

-


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

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

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

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

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

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


-


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


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


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


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

List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

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

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



-

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

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

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

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

[John Woodgate]

Your seasonal felicitations are cordially reciprocated.

Best wishes
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2018-12-24 20:57, Richard Nute wrote:


Best wishes for the holiday season,

Rich



cid:5702FF8379F7435EBF941AB97CE0E3DD@OwnerPC


-


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


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


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


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

List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

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

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



-

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

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

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

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 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] NSG600 Manual

[John Woodgate]

A web search show that you can rent an NSG600, so the renters probably 
have all manuals. There is a PDF data sheet at:


http://www.testequipmenthq.com/datasheets/SCHAFFNER-NSG600-Datasheet.pdf, 
but it might not help you.


Best wishes
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2018-12-27 21:22, DEREK WALTON wrote:

Good day folks,

I was wondering if anyone has the user manual for the NSG600. I’ve tried 
Teseq/Schaffner but most people that might have one in a drawer have all 
retired :-)

Why I’m doing this is that the instrument has a peculiar way of hooking up the 
Capacitive clamp, ie, there are two Fischer connectors and I’m trying to figure 
the way it was intended to connect.

Anyone throw any light on this?

Thanks and Happy New Year!

Cheers,

Derek Walton.
L F Research.

-

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] NSG600 Manual

[John Woodgate]

Your seasonal felicitations are cordially reciprocated.

Best wishes
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2018-12-27 21:55, DEREK WALTON wrote:

Hi John,

thanks. Yep, I’ve seen this, it’s more of a spec sheet.

Happy New Year!!!

Cheers,

Derek.

On Dec 27, 2018, at 3:50 PM, John Woodgate <mailto:j...@woodjohn.uk>> wrote:


A web search show that you can rent an NSG600, so the renters 
probably have all manuals. There is a PDF data sheet at:


http://www.testequipmenthq.com/datasheets/SCHAFFNER-NSG600-Datasheet.pdf, 
but it might not help you.


Best wishes
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associateswww.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK



-

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] EN61000-4-6 adapters

[John Woodgate]

There is a 'reference ground plane' for the whole set-up and a local 
'reference plane' for the adapter. See for example, Figures A.3 and 
A.5.  For me, Fig. 8e is correct and Fig. 9c is not correct, probably 
just a drafting error. Clearly, the 100 ohm resistor sets up the '150 
ohm environment' for the EUT port, and the reference plane should be in 
the '50 ohm environment'  of the measuring instrument.


The IEC web site for SC77B lists a corrigendum but it doesn't show in 
the web store. The Convener of WG10  is John Maas of USNC, so someone 
here may know him.


Best wishes
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2018-12-29 23:12, DEREK WALTON wrote:

Hi Bart,

Thanks for the reply, but I think I have to disagree. The vertical bracket is the 
reference plane is it not?, as opposed to the ground plane under the set-up. And I 
interpret Figure 8e to clearly show the series element on the “ EUT " side of 
that bracket.

I think we agree, these are mainly used when level setting for the CDN’s, but 
also used when characterizing the EM Clamp too.

I‘m looking at the EN version issue in 2015, I’m sure they are the same.

Thanks,

Derek.


On Dec 29, 2018, at 2:41 PM, Bart De Geeter  wrote:

Hi Derek,

According to me Fig 8e is just a construction sample of a 150 Ohm to 50Ohm 
adapter.  (An L-shaped metallic bracket).  This bracket is put on top of the 
reference plane.  (But this reference plane is not drawn in this picture).
Typically this adapters are used when performing the 'reference calibrations' 
and they are always on top of the reference plane.

(P.S.  I looked to the pictures of the 2013 version of the standard)

Greetings,
Bart

-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: DEREK WALTON <00734758d943-dmarc-requ...@ieee.org>
Verzonden: zaterdag 29 december 2018 19:59
Aan: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Onderwerp: [PSES] EN61000-4-6 adapters

Good day folks,

I’m re-educating myself on EN61000-4-6 and looking at the section discussing 
150 Ohm to 50 Ohm adaptors I am curious why the series 100 Ohm resistor is 
added on the “Outside” of the reference plane for the EM Clamp and on the 
“Inside” of the reference plane for the CDN. For example, Figure 8e Vs Figure 
9c ( these two figures appear conflicting ) Vs Figures A 9/A 10

Can anyone enlighten me as to why this was done please.

A Happy New Year to all!

Cheers,

Derek.

-

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: 


-

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] Happy New Year 2019

[John Woodgate]

Your seasonal felicitations are cordially reciprocated.

Best wishes
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2018-12-30 16:01, Vincent Lee wrote:

*Hi all,*

I wish everyone @ this IEEE forum a *Happy Holiday & 2019*.

*Regards, Vincent*


Regards, Vincent


On Thursday, December 27, 2018, 11:18:15 AM GMT+8, lmerchell 
 wrote:



Ok, maybe my email will make more sense now (forgot no attachments!).

Come out to the coast, we’ll have a few laughs!

Larry

*From:*lmerchell [mailto:lmerch...@hotmail.com]
*Sent:* Monday, December 24, 2018 4:31 PM
*To:* 'n6...@comcast.net'; 'EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG'
*Subject:* RE: [PSES] holiday humor

Merry Christmas!

Come out to the coast, we’ll have a few laughs!

Larry

Note: Ornament not safety rated…

*From:*Ghery Pettit [mailto:n6...@comcast.net]
*Sent:* Monday, December 24, 2018 3:27 PM
*To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
*Subject:* Re: [PSES] holiday humor

The same to you! Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!

Ghery

*From:* Richard Nute 
*Sent:* Monday, December 24, 2018 12:58 PM
*To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
*Subject:* [PSES] holiday humor

Best wishes for the holiday season,

Rich



cid:5702FF8379F7435EBF941AB97CE0E3DD@OwnerPC


-


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


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


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


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

List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

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

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

-


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


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


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


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

List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

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

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

-


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


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


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


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

List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

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

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


<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> 
	Virus-free. www.avg.com 
<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> 



-


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


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


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

Re: [PSES] Japanese manis leads

[John Woodgate]

Hello, Sato-san.  Since mains outlets rarely have PE terminals, is the 
built-in wiring in homes also just 2-core (no PEC) for 100 V and 3-core 
(no PEC) for 200 V?


Best wishes for a happy and prosperous New Year.
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2018-12-07 14:04, T.Sato wrote:

John,

On Fri, 7 Dec 2018 10:54:18 +,
   John Woodgate  wrote:


In Japan, are 3-core (L, N, PE) mains leads widely used for
single-phase products or are the majority of products safety Class II,
with just L and N?

At least for household products, majority of products are Class 0
and some specific products such as cloth washers are Class 0I.

Here in Japan, mains outlets in homes rarely have PE terminals.

Some products such as air conditioners sometimes rated for 200 V,
in that case they often have 3-core mains cords.

Regards,
Tom



-

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] Japanese manis leads

[John Woodgate]

Thank you very much.

Best wishes
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2019-01-01 02:17, T.Sato wrote:

John,

On Mon, 31 Dec 2018 17:42:39 +,
   John Woodgate  wrote:


Hello, Sato-san.  Since mains outlets rarely have PE terminals, is the
built-in wiring in homes also just 2-core (no PEC) for 100 V and
3-core (no PEC) for 200 V?

These days,

   o 200 V outlets (typically used for high-power equipment such as
 air conditioners, cloth dryers and IH cookers) and those cables
 usually have PE conductors
 
   o some 100 V appliances such as air conditioners, cloth washers,

 refrigerator, shower toilets also require PE, and outlets for
 those places typically have PE terminals (2-core outlets with
 a separate earth terminal, or 3-core outlets) and wired with
 3-core cables

   o other most outlets usually have no PE, and those cables may
 or may not have PE conditioners

Regards,
Tom



-

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] Red phosphorus flame retartants

[John Woodgate]

I'm sure that Rin Kagaku Kogyo know what they are doing, but it worries 
me. What specifically worries me is that if you heat red phosphorus, not 
to a very high temperature, it turns into another allotrope, white 
phosphorus, which is not only highly toxic but spontaneously inflammable 
in air. Note that this is not oxidation, it works even in a vacuum. I 
suppose that some form of proprietary inhibitor is used.


But what the twitchy EU environmental people make of it seems 
uncertain.  It appears far more worrying, both in terms of mass used and 
potential hazard, than the minute amounts of cadmium sulfide in 
photoresistors, for example


Best wishes
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2019-01-01 15:03, Scott Xe wrote:


Happy New Year in 2019!

Although brominated flame retardants used in plastic are commonly 
replaced by red phosphorus flame retardants due to environmental 
saving, Red-P may result in possible reliability of overheating/catch 
fire under high humidity and temperature. It is learnt that lots of 
big corp in the consumer electronics industry have banned or regulated 
the use of red flame retardants after a large recall in 2014.  
However, there is no country so far to prohibit the red phosphorus.  
What are the barriers not to become restricted substance in RoHS, 
REACH or else one?


Thanks and regards,

Scott

-


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


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


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


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

List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

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

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



-

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

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

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

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 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] Red phosphorus flame retartants

[John Woodgate]

Well, there wouldn't be any mention of white phosphorus, of course, 
because that would indicate that the technique is not safe at all. I 
just wonder how they stop it happening; it appears to be just a 
mechanical envelopment by the polyamide (e.g. Nylon).  If so, prolonged 
moderate heating over several years might cause migration and subsequent 
conversion to the other allotrope at surfaces.


The BASF document is quite informative:

/In a report by the German Federal Environment Agency, it is stated that 
the red phosphorus used in polymers can only be released into the 
environment at the plastic interfaces, where it reacts with water to 
form phosphorus oxides and//phosphoric acids./

/
/
Actually, it's a two-step process; first we get oxidation: 4P +3O_2 
>2P_2 O_3 , then the trioxide dissolves in water to make 'phosphorous 
acid' (the quotes are because it exists in two forms with different 
formal chemical names).

/
/
I just hope that this isn't another case like CFCs, where a highly 
undesirable effect was not recognized until it became serious.  The 
Wikipedia article on allotropes of phosphorus says:


/However, for electronic/electrical systems, red phosphorus flame 
retardant has been effectively banned by major OEMs due to its tendency 
to induce premature failures. There have been two issues over the years: 
the first was red phosphorus in epoxy molding compounds inducing 
elevated leakage current in semiconductor devices[5] and the second was 
acceleration of hydrolysis reactions in PBT insulating material./

//

I think that's a wrap!

Best wishes
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2019-01-01 21:24, Richard Nute wrote:


If the hype is true, and my interpretation is correct, red phosphorous 
as a flame-retardant additive is much better than bromine-based 
additives.  I don’t know of cost differential.  (In the two websites I 
looked at, there was no mention of degradation to white phosphorus.)


BASF: 
https://www.plasticsportal.net/wa/plasticsEU~en_GB/function/conversions:/publish/common/upload/technical_journals/electronics_and_mechatronics/Umwuchtsensor.pdf


Rinka: http://www.rinka.co.jp/english/products/flame-retardant/index.html

Best wishes for the New Year,

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 mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org>>


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


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


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

List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

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

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



-

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

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

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

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 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] Red phosphorus flame retartants

[John Woodgate]

It is a good paper, but the sentence:

/The European Union's risk assessment of TBBPA is currently ongoing and 
will not be completed until 2003 [9]/


indicates that it is not exactly up-to-date./
/

Best wishes
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2019-01-02 00:16, Adam Dixon wrote:
Here's a good article focused on component reliability with some 
discussion of how red phosphorus is produced and comparison to several 
alternate fire retardant chemistries:


https://www.dfrsolutions.com/red-phosphorus-induced-failures-in-encapsulated-circuits


Cheers,
Adam in Atlanta
adam.di...@ieee.org <mailto:adam.di...@ieee.org>



On Tue, Jan 1, 2019 at 5:46 PM John Woodgate <mailto:j...@woodjohn.uk>> wrote:


Well, there wouldn't be any mention of white phosphorus, of
course, because that would indicate that the technique is not safe
at all. I just wonder how they stop it happening; it appears to be
just a mechanical envelopment by the polyamide (e.g. Nylon). If
so, prolonged moderate heating over several years might cause
migration and subsequent conversion to the other allotrope at
surfaces.

The BASF document is quite informative:

/In a report by the German Federal Environment Agency, it is
stated that the red phosphorus used in polymers can only be
released into the environment at the plastic interfaces, where it
reacts with water to form phosphorus oxides and//phosphoric acids./
/
/
Actually, it's a two-step process; first we get oxidation: 4P
+3O_2 >2P_2 O_3 , then the trioxide dissolves in water to make
'phosphorous acid' (the quotes are because it exists in two forms
with different formal chemical names).
/
/
I just hope that this isn't another case like CFCs, where a highly
undesirable effect was not recognized until it became serious. 
The Wikipedia article on allotropes of phosphorus says:

/However, for electronic/electrical systems, red phosphorus flame
retardant has been effectively banned by major OEMs due to its
tendency to induce premature failures. There have been two issues
over the years: the first was red phosphorus in epoxy molding
compounds inducing elevated leakage current in semiconductor
devices[5] and the second was acceleration of hydrolysis reactions
in PBT insulating material./

I think that's a wrap!

Best wishes
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associateswww.woodjohn.uk  <http://www.woodjohn.uk>
Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2019-01-01 21:24, Richard Nute wrote:


If the hype is true, and my interpretation is correct, red
phosphorous as a flame-retardant additive is much better than
bromine-based additives.  I don’t know of cost differential.  (In
the two websites I looked at, there was no mention of degradation
to white phosphorus.)

BASF:

https://www.plasticsportal.net/wa/plasticsEU~en_GB/function/conversions:/publish/common/upload/technical_journals/electronics_and_mechatronics/Umwuchtsensor.pdf

Rinka:
http://www.rinka.co.jp/english/products/flame-retardant/index.html

Best wishes for the New Year,

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 mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org>>

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

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

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

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

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


-


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

Re: [PSES] IEC 61000-4-5 Surge Testing Single plug vs. multiple plug system

[John Woodgate]

Should you be testing a 'system' as a whole anyway? My take on this is 
that if several pieces of equipment are invoiced together with a single 
price for the lot, that is a system and all must be tested together. But 
if the pieces are invoiced separately (so that other equipment might be 
substituted for some in another instance), that is not a system and the 
pieces should be tested separately.


The authors of 61000-4-5 and 61326-x might well not have addressed the 
case of multiple power cords. The test house 'advice' seems reasonable, 
but it is not official and another test house might offer other advice.


Best wishes
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2019-01-02 22:15, Larry K. Stillings wrote:


All,

I received the following email from a customer today via their 
customer addressing our application of surge testing. We are testing 
laboratory equipment per IEC/EN 61326-1 and IEC/EN 61326-2-6 and 
specifically are having failures with respect to surge on a system 
that has multiple power cords. We are testing one power cord at a 
time. Here are their comments


/we have never tested a system comprised of multiple instruments in 
this way before. i.e. applying surge to one unit at a time – we have 
always, with agreement from our customers, applied surge (and in fact 
all tests) to all of the units plugged into e.g. a mains distribution 
block all at the same time. Especially for surge, it seems unlikely 
that in the real world any real surge on the mains supply would not 
affect all things in a system as it is very likely they are all 
plugged into the same mains circuit in e.g a particular room. To 
further bolster this, we have made comment to customers in the past 
that it could be noted in the manual to ensure this is the case./


/ By applying surge to all units at the same time, we maintain all of 
their supply voltages at the same level. I can see how, by applying a 
surge to a single part of the wider system, communications issues 
could occur as suddenly the points of reference (i.e. reference 
voltages) for different parts of the system could be pulled away from 
each other by the surge./


/Testing a system by applying the tests to all at once, rather than a 
single item at a time, isn’t necessarily an “easy way out“ either. For 
other tests e.g. conducted emissions, where noise transmitted from the 
unit under test back onto the mains supply is measured, passing is 
made more difficult by measuring all units at once. Where in this case 
one at a time would be much more favourable. Our test house has always 
advised that we can choose, either all tests one at a time, or all 
tests applied to all through a mains block, but we cannot mix and 
match between different sections for the conducted EMC tests./


I know this brings up all sorts of questions, however I would like to 
focus on the surge testing at the moment. I am pretty sure at least 
one of the standards says conducted emissions shall be tested on each 
port individually, but we don’t need to go there right now ;-)


Thoughts when you get responses like this?

Larry K. Stillings
Compliance Worldwide, Inc.
*/Test Locally, Sell Globally and Launch Your Products Around the World!/*
*/FCC - Wireless - Telecom - CE Marking - International Approvals - 
Product Safety/*

357 Main Street
Sandown, NH 03873
(603) 887 3903 Fax 887-6445
www.complianceworldwide.com <http://www.complianceworldwide.com>

Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. 
If you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible 
for delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy or 
deliver this message to anyone. In such case, you should destroy this 
message and kindly notify the sender by reply email. Please advise 
immediately if you or your employer do not consent to Internet email 
for messages of this kind. Opinions, conclusions and other information 
in this message that do not relate to the official business of my firm 
shall be understood as neither given nor endorsed by it.




-


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


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


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


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

List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

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

Re: [PSES] IEC 61000-4-5 Surge Testing Single plug vs. multiple plug system

[John Woodgate]

I feel sure that

/"When testing line to ground, the lines are tested singly in sequence, 
if there is no other/

/specification."/

is about 3-phase supplies, not multiple mains leads.

Best wishes
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2019-01-03 01:15, John Howe wrote:
IEC 61000-4-5 (2005) does cover this and implies in section 8.3 (page 
38 in my copy):
"In the case of several identical circuits, representative 
measurements (plural) on a selected number

of circuits may be sufficient. "
and further down:
"When testing line to ground, the lines are tested singly in sequence, 
if there is no other

specification."

From testing experience the only out we had for a client to test them 
all together (usually because they did not want to pay for individual 
testing) was if they were designed to be plugged into the same circuit 
breaker - which kind of defeats the purpose of having multiple cords. 
If you think about it if the cords are plugged into different circuits 
then the surge path to the individual cords can be different and you 
should not model it as equal on all cords - it could be out of phase 
as much as 180 degrees giving twice the surge across 2 cords. So 
keeping the other plugs at normal while the one cord is tested seems 
to be good practice.


My opinions only and not necessarily those of the company I work for



On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 3:35 PM John Woodgate <mailto:j...@woodjohn.uk>> wrote:


Should you be testing a 'system' as a whole anyway? My take on
this is that if several pieces of equipment are invoiced together
with a single price for the lot, that is a system and all must be
tested together. But if the pieces are invoiced separately (so
that other equipment might be substituted for some in another
instance), that is not a system and the pieces should be tested
separately.

The authors of 61000-4-5 and 61326-x might well not have addressed
the case of multiple power cords. The test house 'advice' seems
reasonable, but it is not official and another test house might
offer other advice.

Best wishes
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associateswww.woodjohn.uk  <http://www.woodjohn.uk>
Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2019-01-02 22:15, Larry K. Stillings wrote:


All,

I received the following email from a customer today via their
customer addressing our application of surge testing. We are
testing laboratory equipment per IEC/EN 61326-1 and IEC/EN
61326-2-6 and specifically are having failures with respect to
surge on a system that has multiple power cords. We are testing
one power cord at a time. Here are their comments

/we have never tested a system comprised of multiple instruments
in this way before. i.e. applying surge to one unit at a time –
we have always, with agreement from our customers, applied surge
(and in fact all tests) to all of the units plugged into e.g. a
mains distribution block all at the same time. Especially for
surge, it seems unlikely that in the real world any real surge on
the mains supply would not affect all things in a system as it is
very likely they are all plugged into the same mains circuit in
e.g a particular room. To further bolster this, we have made
comment to customers in the past that it could be noted in the
manual to ensure this is the case./

/ By applying surge to all units at the same time, we maintain
all of their supply voltages at the same level. I can see how, by
applying a surge to a single part of the wider system,
communications issues could occur as suddenly the points of
reference (i.e. reference voltages) for different parts of the
system could be pulled away from each other by the surge./

/Testing a system by applying the tests to all at once, rather
than a single item at a time, isn’t necessarily an “easy way out“
either. For other tests e.g. conducted emissions, where noise
transmitted from the unit under test back onto the mains supply
is measured, passing is made more difficult by measuring all
units at once. Where in this case one at a time would be much
more favourable. Our test house has always advised that we can
choose, either all tests one at a time, or all tests applied to
all through a mains block, but we cannot mix and match between
different sections for the conducted EMC tests./

I know this brings up all sorts of questions, however I would
like to focus on the surge testing at the moment. I am pretty
sure at least one of the standards says conducted emissions shall
be tested on each port individually, but we don’t need to go
there right now ;-)

Thoughts when you get responses like this?

Larry K. Stillings
Compliance Worldwide, Inc.

Re: [PSES] IEC 61000-4-5 Surge Testing Single plug vs. multiple plug system

[John Woodgate]

In Europe, we only have 230V single phase and 3-phase (400V L-L). In 
Britain, only very large houses have 3-phase but in other countries 
3-phase is more common in homes. Most wall outlets are dual, and could 
be fed from different phases, but this is very unlikely. There used to 
be a minimum distance between outlets on different phases specified in 
the IEE Wiring Regulations (now BS 7671) but that was dropped some years 
ago.


Best wishes
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2019-01-03 13:59, Kunde, Brian wrote:


Group,

This topic has resurrected a question I have always had about AC Mains 
Power in Europe.  I have always believed that 230Vac in Europe is 
derived from 3-phase.  I could see where a home or small business 
might be powered only by a single phase, but wouldn’t a large company 
or factory be powered by 3-phase and to which a single room or lab 
would most likely have receptacles powered by different circuits on 
different phases of the 380V?


Also, surge pulses can be cause by many sources that do not make the 
surge common mode to an entire building, so it is most possible that a 
“System” can see a surge on one power cord and not on all power cords.


Here is the States, our homes are generally powered by Split Phase AC 
where the receptacles within the same room are on different circuits 
and different phases.  In Canada, it is common to have two phases of 
208 powering 115V receptacles within the same dual receptacle.


Here at work within our lab (in the States), our 230V high powered 
equipment is powered by its own dedicated 230V L-L circuit derived 
from a 230V 3-phase transformer. Each 230V receptacle has its own 
circuit and which could be on different L-L phases. Lower powered 230V 
equipment is powered off a different transformer and all of our 115V 
receptacles throughout the building is powered by one of 3-phases Line 
to Neutral circuits derived from 208V 3-phase.   It is common for 
adjacent 115V receptacles to be on different phases.   So a typical 
system setup in our work area is almost guaranteed to powered by 
different circuits, different phases, and  different transformers 
within our company’s multiple source power system. BTW, we also have 
lighting powered by 277V derived from L-N on our 480V 3-phase power 
which comes right off the pole.  This 480V 3-phase powers the entire 
building including all of our transformers.


Is this type of power distribution not common in larger facilities 
within Europe?


*The Other Brian*

*From:*Larry K. Stillings [mailto:la...@complianceworldwide.com]
*Sent:* Wednesday, January 02, 2019 5:16 PM
*To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
*Subject:* [PSES] IEC 61000-4-5 Surge Testing Single plug vs. multiple 
plug system


All,

I received the following email from a customer today via their 
customer addressing our application of surge testing. We are testing 
laboratory equipment per IEC/EN 61326-1 and IEC/EN 61326-2-6 and 
specifically are having failures with respect to surge on a system 
that has multiple power cords. We are testing one power cord at a 
time. Here are their comments


/we have never tested a system comprised of multiple instruments in 
this way before. i.e. applying surge to one unit at a time – we have 
always, with agreement from our customers, applied surge (and in fact 
all tests) to all of the units plugged into e.g. a mains distribution 
block all at the same time. Especially for surge, it seems unlikely 
that in the real world any real surge on the mains supply would not 
affect all things in a system as it is very likely they are all 
plugged into the same mains circuit in e.g a particular room. To 
further bolster this, we have made comment to customers in the past 
that it could be noted in the manual to ensure this is the case./


/ By applying surge to all units at the same time, we maintain all of 
their supply voltages at the same level. I can see how, by applying a 
surge to a single part of the wider system, communications issues 
could occur as suddenly the points of reference (i.e. reference 
voltages) for different parts of the system could be pulled away from 
each other by the surge./


/Testing a system by applying the tests to all at once, rather than a 
single item at a time, isn’t necessarily an “easy way out“ either. For 
other tests e.g. conducted emissions, where noise transmitted from the 
unit under test back onto the mains supply is measured, passing is 
made more difficult by measuring all units at once. Where in this case 
one at a time would be much more favourable. Our test house has always 
advised that we can choose, either all tests one at a time, or all 
tests applied to all through a mains block, but we cannot mix and 
match between different sections for the conducted EMC tests./


I know this brings up all sorts of questions, however I would like to 
focus on the surge testing at the moment. I am pretty sure

Re: [PSES] EU representative after Brexit

[John Woodgate]

I expect so. Due to the uncertainty, if possible move the representative 
now, regardless of the result of Brexit.


Best wishes
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2019-01-11 14:19, Scott Xe wrote:


Brexit is coming soon.  If the EU representative is now located in the 
UK, must it move to a EU member state after Brexit regardless of a 
deal or not to maintain the continued CE compliance?


Thanks and regards,

Scott

-


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


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


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


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

List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

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

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



-

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

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

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

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 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] Brexit requirements for UK manufacturers.

[John Woodgate]

We discussed this here only a few days ago. Yes, you need an authorized 
representative within the EU.


Best wishes
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2019-01-16 10:21, McBurney, Ian wrote:


Dear Colleagues.

I have been waiting for some firm guidelines as to what will be the 
requirements for UK manufacturers after 30^th March 2019


but so far nothing has been published by the relevant authorities.

From my understanding, if the UK leaves the EU without an agreement, 
the UK will be outside the EU and there are different requirements for 
UK based manufacturers.


I believe the existing manufacturers Declaration of conformity 
documents will still be valid but that a nominated representative in 
the EU will now be required. We plan to nominate our distributor in 
the EU (i.e. Germany) as the importer to satisfy this requirement.


Please can you let me know if my assumptions are correct?

Thanks in advance.

Ian McBurney

Lead Compliance Engineer

Allen & Heath Ltd.

Kernick Industrial estate,

Penryn,

Cornwall. TR10 9LU. UK.

Tel: 01326 372070

Email: ian.mcbur...@allen-heath.com

Allen & Heath Ltd is a registered business in England and Wales, 
Company number: 4163451. Any views expressed in this email are those 
of the individual and not necessarily those of the company. -



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


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


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


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

List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

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

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



-

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

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

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

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 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] Brexit requirements for UK manufacturers.

[John Woodgate]

I think 'no deal' is very unlikely. The trouble is, that so are all the 
other possibilities. ;-)


Best wishes
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2019-01-16 13:56, Scott Xe wrote:


Hi Ian,

Your assumption is correct but may have more than your thought.  You 
can read the following draft for greater detail.


http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2019/978076368/schedule/25

I have learnt that recently the UK government published draft 
Regulations of 619 pages in case of no deal Brexit.  Unfortunately, I 
could not locate it yet.  Hope other team mates can help to explore 
greater info.


Thanks and regards,

Scott

Sent from Mail <https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for 
Windows 10


*From: *McBurney, Ian <mailto:ian.mcbur...@allen-heath.com>
*Sent: *Wednesday, 16 January 2019 08:55 PM
*To: *EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
*Subject: *[PSES] Brexit requirements for UK manufacturers.

Dear Colleagues.

I have been waiting for some firm guidelines as to what will be the 
requirements for UK manufacturers after 30^th March 2019


but so far nothing has been published by the relevant authorities.

From my understanding, if the UK leaves the EU without an agreement, 
the UK will be outside the EU and there are different requirements for 
UK based manufacturers.


I believe the existing manufacturers Declaration of conformity 
documents will still be valid but that a nominated representative in 
the EU will now be required. We plan to nominate our distributor in 
the EU (i.e. Germany) as the importer to satisfy this requirement.


Please can you let me know if my assumptions are correct?

Thanks in advance.

Ian McBurney

Lead Compliance Engineer

Allen & Heath Ltd.

Kernick Industrial estate,

Penryn,

Cornwall. TR10 9LU. UK.

Tel: 01326 372070

Email: ian.mcbur...@allen-heath.com

Allen & Heath Ltd is a registered business in England and Wales, 
Company number: 4163451. Any views expressed in this email are those 
of the individual and not necessarily those of the company.


-


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


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


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


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

List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

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

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

-


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


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


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


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

List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

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

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



-

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

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

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

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 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] IEC 61000-4-8: Tolerance values for coil current values

[John Woodgate]

This applies to most standards - no tolerances. Instead, the measurement 
uncertainty has to be estimated, and in some cases it must not exceed a 
specified value.


Best wishes
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2019-01-17 17:21, Richard Georgerian wrote:


Greeting colleagues,

In IEC 61000-4-8, Table 4 (see below), are there any tolerance values 
specified for the Current values for coils to achieve the specific 
Level, for example, +/-30% of 1.15 or +/-3dB of 1.15? I did not see 
any guidance as to the tolerances that might be applied to Table 4.


Thank-you,

Richard Georgerian

Applications Engineer

-


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


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


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


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

List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

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

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



-

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

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

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

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 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] Brexit requirements for UK manufacturers.

[John Woodgate]

The UK can and will recognize the CE Mark after Brexit (if and when), 
but British manufactures will not be allowed to put it on their 
products, because it is 'Conformité Européen'.


Best wishes
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2019-01-17 18:50, Richard Nute wrote:


  * *CE mark*is replaced by *UK mark*.

Hmm.  I wonder why the UK or any country can’t recognize the CE mark 
as indicative of the relevant performance of the product?


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 mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org>>


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


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


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

List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

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

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



-

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

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

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

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 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] Brexit requirements for UK manufacturers.

[John Woodgate]

I suspect that only applies during the 'transition period', simply to 
avoid an instant change in the requirements. If it were a permanent 
arrangement, no 'UK Mark' would ever be required.


Best wishes
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2019-01-17 18:57, Richard Nute wrote:


Andy answered my question in posting the reference:

Products that have undergone the complete process of manufacturing and 
conformity assessment (i.e. which are ready for placing on the market) 
can still be placed on the UK market with a CE Marking after 29 March 
2019.


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 mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org>>


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


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


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

List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

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

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



-

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

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

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

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 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] Brexit requirements for UK manufacturers.

[John Woodgate]

This is an important issue. It's one thing for the UK to accept European 
standards (ENs) /*as standards*, /but the European Court decision that 
ENs are 'part of EU law' changes the picture considerably.  If UK 
continues to endorse ENs as BS ENs after the transition period, it is 
accepting EU laws without any means of contributing to, or challenging, 
them, because continued membership of CEN and CENELEC, where UK will 
continue to have voice and vote, is subservient to approved decisions of 
the 'HAS Consultants' and the Commissions lawyers, who now have a veto 
over the content and wording of EN standards that support Directives and 
Regulations.  That is a 'very soft Brexit' indeed; UK would be a 
semi-autonomous dependency.


Best wishes
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2019-01-17 19:44, Dennis Ward wrote:
When and if Brexit occurs, it may take a while for the UK to adjust 
what it sees as required conformity issues. So, it is understandable, 
since existing standards produced by the EU bodies are in their law, 
that they would still accept the mark for a while.  How long, who knows.


-

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] CISPR11 Rad Magnetic Field Emissions Limits

[John Woodgate]

To fill in, that 51.5 dB  = 375.84 numerically and comes from the 
impedance of free space, 120*π = 376.99 ohms. which is actually 51.5266 
expressed in 'decibels'. Actually, expressing an impedance in 'decibels' 
is a illegal operation 'but it works, so why bother?'.


Best wishes
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2019-01-17 21:57, Ken Javor wrote:
Re: [PSES] CISPR11 Rad Magnetic Field Emissions Limits You are making 
too much of it.  If the limit is in terms of dBuA/m, you use the loop 
magnetic field antenna factor, which is 51.5 dB less efficient than 
the loop electric field antenna factor.  Of course, this is based on a 
far field assumption, and that is all you have available.  But the 
magnetic field antenna factor is fundamental; it is the loop electric 
field antenna factor that is based on the FF assumption, so you need 
not worry at all.


No worries!

Ken Javor
Phone: (256) 650-5261



*From: *"Kunde, Brian" 
*Reply-To: *"Kunde, Brian" 
*Date: *Thu, 17 Jan 2019 21:27:15 +
*To: *
*Conversation: *CISPR11 Rad Magnetic Field Emissions Limits
*Subject: *[PSES] CISPR11 Rad Magnetic Field Emissions Limits

Reference CISPR11/EN55011:2016 version.

If you are an expert at the Radiated Emissions test from 150Khz -30Mhz 
for Class A Group 2 equipment, I could really use your help.


I haven’t done this test in over 25 years. I refurbished our Active 
Loop antenna and placed it 10 meters from the EUT.  I believe the data 
values read by our receiver is dBuV/m.  However, the limits as it 
appears in Table 10 are in dBuA/m.  How do I convert?


I have an old 1999 copy of this standard that shows the limits with 
the exact same frequency ranges but the limits are in dBuV/m.  Do I 
just use these limits or do I have to somehow convert the receiver 
data to dBuA/m.


I know a straight conversion between dBuV/m and dBuA/m can be 
difficult because above 4Mhz we are in the far-field, but below that 
we are getting into the near field. And the impedance calculation can 
be difficult to obtain.


Am I making too much of this or just take a simple conversion based on 
the differences between the two versions of the standard?


Thanks for the help.

The Other Brian

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

*-


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


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


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


Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe) <http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html> 
<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 
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 mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org>>


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


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


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

List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

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

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



-

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] CISPR11 Rad Magnetic Field Emissions Limits

[John Woodgate]

Well, no it isn't. The definition of the decibel is based on power, and 
is only extended to voltage and current by adding the assumption that 
the resistance is constant.  There is no formally-correct way of 
extending it to resistance and even less to impedance. There is a fatal 
flaw:  Consider 10*log(W) = 20*log(V) - 10*log(R), but 20*log(V) = 
20*log(I) + 20*log(R).  The multiplier is 10 sometimes and 20 at other 
times. It gets worse rapidly if you try to accommodate complex impedances.


You can calculate 20*log(Z1/Z2) but you shouldn't call it 'decibels', 
any more than if you calculated 20*log(your height/my height). Of 
course, if you did a similar calculation for your income/my income, it 
would have to be 10*log(yi/mi), because 'money is power'.


Best wishes
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2019-01-17 22:17, Ken Javor wrote:
Re: [PSES] CISPR11 Rad Magnetic Field Emissions Limits It would be 
completely correct to say that the 51.5 dB factor is dB above one ohm, 
which is the difference in magnetic and electric field units.


Ken Javor
Phone: (256) 650-5261


----
*From: *John Woodgate 
*Reply-To: *John Woodgate 
*Date: *Thu, 17 Jan 2019 22:11:50 +
*To: *
*Subject: *Re: [PSES] CISPR11 Rad Magnetic Field Emissions Limits



To fill in, that 51.5 dB  = 375.84 numerically and comes from the 
impedance of free space, 120*π = 376.99 ohms. which is actually 
51.5266 expressed in 'decibels'. Actually, expressing an impedance in 
'decibels' is a illegal operation 'but it works, so why bother?'.



Best wishes
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk <http://www.woodjohn.uk> 
<http://www.woodjohn.uk>

Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2019-01-17 21:57, Ken Javor wrote:


 Re: [PSES] CISPR11 Rad Magnetic Field Emissions Limits You are
making too much of it.  If the limit is in terms of dBuA/m, you
use the loop magnetic field antenna factor, which is 51.5 dB less
efficient than the loop electric field antenna factor.  Of course,
this is based on a far field assumption, and that is all you have
available.  But the magnetic field antenna factor is fundamental;
it is the loop electric field antenna factor that is based on the
FF assumption, so you need not worry at all.

 No worries!

 Ken Javor
 Phone: (256) 650-5261




*From: *"Kunde, Brian" 
<mailto:brian_ku...@lecotc.com> <mailto:brian_ku...@lecotc.com>
*Reply-To: *"Kunde, Brian" 
<mailto:brian_ku...@lecotc.com> <mailto:brian_ku...@lecotc.com>
*Date: *Thu, 17 Jan 2019 21:27:15 +
*To: *
<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
*Conversation: *CISPR11 Rad Magnetic Field Emissions Limits
*Subject: *[PSES] CISPR11 Rad Magnetic Field Emissions Limits

Reference CISPR11/EN55011:2016 version.

 If you are an expert at the Radiated Emissions test from 150Khz
-30Mhz for Class A Group 2 equipment, I could really use your help.

 I haven’t done this test in over 25 years. I refurbished our
Active Loop antenna and placed it 10 meters from the EUT.  I
believe the data values read by our receiver is dBuV/m.  However,
the limits as it appears in Table 10 are in dBuA/m.  How do I
convert?

 I have an old 1999 copy of this standard that shows the limits
with the exact same frequency ranges but the limits are in dBuV/m.
 Do I just use these limits or do I have to somehow convert the
receiver data to dBuA/m.

 I know a straight conversion between dBuV/m and dBuA/m can be
difficult because above 4Mhz we are in the far-field, but below
that we are getting into the near field. And the impedance
calculation can be difficult to obtain.

 Am I making too much of this or just take a simple conversion
based on the differences between the two versions of the standard?

 Thanks for the help.

 The Other Brian


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


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

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

Re: [PSES] Brexit requirements for UK manufacturers.

[John Woodgate]

That puts the responsibility for compliance on the laboratory. It seems 
logical that the manufacturer should be responsible. Also, the lab can 
obviously only be responsible for those sample products that it tests, 
initially and during production.  Then there is the matter of insurance, 
unless the labs are legally exempt in some way, but that counteracts 
'responsibility'. I suppose this has all been sorted out, but it was in 
place when the present European system was introduced, replacing a 
'third-party testing and certification' system, started in Sweden on the 
US model and spread across Europe nation-by-nation.


Best wishes
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2019-01-18 03:02, Nyffenegger, Dave wrote:


And another answer, North America doesn’t recognize the CE mark, not 
only because of standards differences but they don’t trust 
manufacturer self-certification.  They want certification by 
nationally recognized  independent labs, for US OSHA recognized.


-Dave

*From:*Dennis Ward [mailto:dennis.w...@pctest.com]
*Sent:* Thursday, January 17, 2019 3:01 PM
*To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
*Subject:* Re: [PSES] Brexit requirements for UK manufacturers.

Ops should be “…the requirements of the EU are NOT all necessarily….”

Dennis Ward

This communication and its attachements contain information from 
PCTEST Engineering Laboratory, Inc., and is intended for the exclusive 
use of the recipient(s) named above.  It may contain information that 
is confidential and/or legally privileged.  Any unauthorized use that 
may compromise that confidentiality via distribution or disclosure is 
prohibited.  Please notify the sender immediately if you receive this 
communication in error, and delete it from your computer system.  
Usage of PCTEST email addresses for non-business related activities is 
strictly prohibited.  No warranty is made that the e-mail or 
attachments(s) are free from computer virus or other defect.  Thank you.


*From:* Dennis Ward 
*Sent:* Thursday, January 17, 2019 11:45 AM
*To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
*Subject:* Re: [PSES] Brexit requirements for UK manufacturers.

Simple answer – because the requirements of the EU are all necessarily 
the requirements of other regimes. CE shows an assumption of 
compliance to EU, it does not show or assume compliance to any other 
regime unless that regime has identical requirements or unless that 
regime is willing to accept other than their own requirements to show 
compliance.


When and if Brexit occurs, it may take a while for the UK to adjust 
what it sees as required conformity issues. So, it is understandable, 
since existing standards produced by the EU bodies are in their law, 
that they would still accept the mark for a while.  How long, who knows.


Thanks

Dennis Ward

This communication and its attachements contain information from 
PCTEST Engineering Laboratory, Inc., and is intended for the exclusive 
use of the recipient(s) named above.  It may contain information that 
is confidential and/or legally privileged.  Any unauthorized use that 
may compromise that confidentiality via distribution or disclosure is 
prohibited.  Please notify the sender immediately if you receive this 
communication in error, and delete it from your computer system.  
Usage of PCTEST email addresses for non-business related activities is 
strictly prohibited.  No warranty is made that the e-mail or 
attachments(s) are free from computer virus or other defect.  Thank you.


*From:* Richard Nute mailto:ri...@ieee.org>>
*Sent:* Thursday, January 17, 2019 10:50 AM
*To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
*Subject:* Re: [PSES] Brexit requirements for UK manufacturers.

  * *CE mark*is replaced by *UK mark*.

Hmm.  I wonder why the UK or any country can’t recognize the CE mark 
as indicative of the relevant performance of the product?


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 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 
<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/ 
<http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/> can be used for graphics (in 
well-used formats), large files, etc.


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

List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

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

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher 

Re: [PSES] Spare parts requiring an EU declaration of Conformity.

[John Woodgate]

Your simplest course is not to argue but give them the DoC they want. As 
you say, Turkey is not in the EU, so it could, if it wanted, require a 
DoC written on parchment, with gold lettering.


Best wishes
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2019-01-18 09:50, McBurney, Ian wrote:


Dear Colleagues.

Can anyone point me to the relevant section in the EU directives 
regarding the shipping of spares into the EU?


We are shipping a spare PSU PCB assembly into Turkey and the Turkish 
customs want a Declaration of Conformity document. I know Turkey is 
not in the EU but they are demanding this documentation.


I thought that spare parts/assemblies did not require a Declaration of 
Conformity document if the part was an identical replacement and is 
being fitted into an already CE marked product.


Many thanks in advance.

Ian McBurney

Lead Compliance Engineer

Allen & Heath Ltd.

Kernick Industrial estate,

Penryn,

Cornwall. TR10 9LU. UK.

Tel: 01326 372070

Email: ian.mcbur...@allen-heath.com

Allen & Heath Ltd is a registered business in England and Wales, 
Company number: 4163451. Any views expressed in this email are those 
of the individual and not necessarily those of the company. -



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


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


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


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

List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

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

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



-

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

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

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

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 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] Brexit requirements for UK manufacturers.

[John Woodgate]

Yes, I know the whole story, and that the US/Canadian third-party 
testing and certification applies to safety and not EMC. It doesn't 
alter the fact that the EU replaced such a scheme in Europe 
(S/D/F/N/EMKO/BEAB etc.) by the present system for the reasons I outlined.


Best wishes
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2019-01-18 13:32, Nyffenegger, Dave wrote:


Of course the manufacturer is responsible for the design.  Likely the 
manufacturers are not trusted by the public.  There is a long history, 
some of the US nationally recognized certification labs have been 
around since 1800s.  One lab was founded by Thomas Edison.   
Accreditation of the labs requires the labs to perform quarterly 
production line inspections to ensure that certified products continue 
to be built as original constructed.  The certification lab requires 
not only product certification but manufacturing facility 
certification to ensure they have proper procedures and equipment in 
place to perform any production testing that is required as part of 
product certification.  Note that this only applies to certification 
to safety standards.  Manufacturers are solely responsible for 
compliance with EMC standards for NA.


-Dave

*From:*John Woodgate [mailto:j...@woodjohn.uk]
*Sent:* Friday, January 18, 2019 3:05 AM
*To:* Nyffenegger, Dave; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
*Subject:* Re: [PSES] Brexit requirements for UK manufacturers.

That puts the responsibility for compliance on the laboratory. It 
seems logical that the manufacturer should be responsible. Also, the 
lab can obviously only be responsible for those sample products that 
it tests, initially and during production.  Then there is the matter 
of insurance, unless the labs are legally exempt in some way, but that 
counteracts 'responsibility'. I suppose this has all been sorted out, 
but it was in place when the present European system was introduced, 
replacing a 'third-party testing and certification' system, started in 
Sweden on the US model and spread across Europe nation-by-nation.


Best wishes
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associateswww.woodjohn.uk  <http://www.woodjohn.uk>
Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2019-01-18 03:02, Nyffenegger, Dave wrote:

And another answer, North America doesn’t recognize the CE mark,
not only because of standards differences but they don’t trust
manufacturer self-certification.  They want certification by
nationally recognized  independent labs, for US OSHA recognized.

-Dave

*From:*Dennis Ward [mailto:dennis.w...@pctest.com]
*Sent:* Thursday, January 17, 2019 3:01 PM
*To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
*Subject:* Re: [PSES] Brexit requirements for UK manufacturers.

Ops should be “…the requirements of the EU are NOT all necessarily….”

Dennis Ward

This communication and its attachements contain information from
PCTEST Engineering Laboratory, Inc., and is intended for the
exclusive use of the recipient(s) named above.  It may contain
information that is confidential and/or legally privileged.  Any
unauthorized use that may compromise that confidentiality via
distribution or disclosure is prohibited.  Please notify the
sender immediately if you receive this communication in error, and
delete it from your computer system.  Usage of PCTEST email
addresses for non-business related activities is strictly
prohibited.  No warranty is made that the e-mail or attachments(s)
are free from computer virus or other defect.  Thank you.

*From:* Dennis Ward 
<mailto:dennis.w...@pctest.com>
*Sent:* Thursday, January 17, 2019 11:45 AM
*To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
*Subject:* Re: [PSES] Brexit requirements for UK manufacturers.

Simple answer – because the requirements of the EU are all
necessarily the requirements of other regimes.  CE shows an
assumption of compliance to EU, it does not show or assume
compliance to any other regime unless that regime has identical
requirements or unless that regime is willing to accept other than
their own requirements to show compliance.

When and if Brexit occurs, it may take a while for the UK to
adjust what it sees as required conformity issues. So, it is
understandable, since existing standards produced by the EU bodies
are in their law, that they would still accept the mark for a
while.  How long, who knows.

Thanks

Dennis Ward

This communication and its attachements contain information from
PCTEST Engineering Laboratory, Inc., and is intended for the
exclusive use of the recipient(s) named above.  It may contain
information that is confidential and/or legally privileged.  Any
unauthorized use that may compromise that conf

Re: [PSES] Brexit requirements for UK manufacturers.

[John Woodgate]

So their certification is a sort of 'whitewash', nothing more, if, as 
you say, they bear no responsibility for the product actually being safe.


Best wishes
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2019-01-18 13:53, Schmidt, Mark wrote:


If you read in to the contractual agreements you sign for these OSHA 
NRTL’s they are responsible for basically nothing and most likely 
would not support you in a court of law. However, some reputable labs 
that I have worked with that are not recognized by OSHA I believe 
would. Bottom Line: the manufacturer is ultimately responsible for 
their product.


Mark




-

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] Spare parts requiring an EU declaration of Conformity.

[John Woodgate]

The fact remains that Turkey can demand anything it likes. Offer them a 
single DoC that lists all 7000 assemblies, but skip the parchment and 
gold lettering.


Best wishes
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2019-01-18 15:53, McBurney, Ian wrote:


Hello John.

The problem is we have over 7000 different spare assemblies and I 
don’t really want to issue a DoC for each one.


Previous product DoCs have had to list each model in the range rather 
than just specifying the product range series.


Regards;

Ian McBurney

Lead Compliance Engineer

Allen & Heath Ltd.

Kernick Industrial estate,

Penryn,

Cornwall. TR10 9LU. UK.

Tel: 01326 372070

Email: ian.mcbur...@allen-heath.com

*From:*John Woodgate 
*Sent:* 18 January 2019 15:39
*To:* McBurney, Ian ; 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
*Subject:* Re: [PSES] Spare parts requiring an EU declaration of 
Conformity.


Your simplest course is not to argue but give them the DoC they want. 
As you say, Turkey is not in the EU, so it could, if it wanted, 
require a DoC written on parchment, with gold lettering.


Best wishes
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associateswww.woodjohn.uk  <http://www.woodjohn.uk>
Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2019-01-18 09:50, McBurney, Ian wrote:

Dear Colleagues.

Can anyone point me to the relevant section in the EU directives
regarding the shipping of spares into the EU?

We are shipping a spare PSU PCB assembly into Turkey and the
Turkish customs want a Declaration of Conformity document. I know
Turkey is not in the EU but they are demanding this documentation.

I thought that spare parts/assemblies did not require a
Declaration of Conformity document if the part was an identical
replacement and is being fitted into an already CE marked product.

Many thanks in advance.

Ian McBurney

Lead Compliance Engineer

Allen & Heath Ltd.

Kernick Industrial estate,

Penryn,

Cornwall. TR10 9LU. UK.

Tel: 01326 372070

Email: ian.mcbur...@allen-heath.com
<mailto:ian.mcbur...@allen-heath.com>

Allen & Heath Ltd is a registered business in England and Wales,
Company number: 4163451. Any views expressed in this email are
those of the individual and not necessarily those of the company. -


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

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
<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/
<http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/> can be used for graphics
(in well-used formats), large files, etc.

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

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

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

Allen & Heath Ltd is a registered business in England and Wales, 
Company number: 4163451. Any views expressed in this email are those 
of the individual and not necessarily those of the company. 


-

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] Brexit requirements for UK manufacturers.

[John Woodgate]

From Wikipedia in 2008:

It [the EU] had initiated the procedure to register CE marking as a 
Community collective trademark 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark>, and was in discussion with 
Chinese authorities to ensure compliance with European legislation.^[21] 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CE_marking#cite_note-21>


Best wishes
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2019-01-23 19:43, Richard Nute wrote:


The CE mark is a first-party certification mark.  It means the 
manufacturer believes the product complies with all applicable EU 
directives and has documentation to prove compliance.  (The EU 
requires compliance to applicable directives.)


Manufacturers all over the world who do business in the EU apply the 
CE mark to all their products, not just those going to the EU.  Any 
entity, government or private, anywhere in the world, can accept or 
require the CE mark on products.  (Some countries do not accept 
first-party certification.)  For example, Iceland, Lichtenstein, and 
Norway are not in the EU but require the CE mark.


I was unable to find that the CE mark symbol has a copyright.

Best regards,

Rich

*From:* Michael Derby 
*Sent:* Monday, January 21, 2019 2:25 AM
*To:* ri...@ieee.org; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
*Subject:* RE: [PSES] Brexit requirements for UK manufacturers.

Regarding this:

  * *CE mark*is replaced by *UK mark*.

Hmm.  I wonder why the UK or any country can’t recognize the CE mark 
as indicative of the relevant performance of the product?


I’m sure the UK could choose to accept a compliance ‘effort’ of 
similar level to that needed to CE Mark (for the EU).


But, the UK cannot have the CE Mark as their own compliance mark.

To place products onto the market in the UK (from within the UK, or 
from elsewhere), the UK customs, consumers, surveillance, etc., would 
need to know if the device is safe and not likely to cause 
interference, so some sort of marking would be needed.   The UK cannot 
copy the CE Mark, because the CE Mark is copyrighted by the EU.


So also, the UK could not legally state “The CE Mark is also our own 
mark”, because non-EU regions cannot have compliance marks which could 
be confused with the CE Mark.


This becomes especially problematic if a product is only marketed in, 
or permitted in, the UK; not the EU.


Michael.

-


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


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


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


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

List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

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

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



-

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

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

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

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 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] EMC harmonised standards: EN 61000-3-3 & EN 61000-3-11

[John Woodgate]

Products for use in the home or similar places are expected to comply 
with 61000-3-3.  It is recognized that the general public mostly won't 
find the supply impedance easily (and it probably won't be low enough 
anyway).  Manufacturers are expected to sell non-compliant products as 
professional equipment only, and professional installers can find the 
supply impedance from the local network operator.


Your best course of action, if you expect it to be sold to the general 
public, is to modify the product so that it does comply with 61000-3-3. 
If you can say which requirement of the standard it failed to meet, 
together with its supply voltage and current ratings, people here may be 
able to help you with ways to make it comply.


Best wishes
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2019-01-28 14:50, Scott Xe wrote:
We have a portable air conditioner that failed to meet EN 61000-3-3 
but met with EN 61000-3-11 with conditional connection.  The 
compliance conclusion is included a statement that "The appliance can 
be connected only to a supply with system impedance no more than 0.4 
ohms.In case necessary, please consult your supply authority for 
system impedance information."


I have questions about this conclusion and looking for the advice from 
customer's perspective.  How can we expect the customers to 
ascertain their supply with system impedance?  Is it realistic to get 
this information from supply authority at each country since the 
products will go to a couple of EU member states?


Thanks and regards,

Scott
-


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


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


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


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

List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

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

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



-

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

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

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

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 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] Source for Nameplate Rating Nomenclature

[John Woodgate]

 IEC 61293:1994


   Marking of electrical equipment with ratings related to electrical
   supply - Safety requirements

 * TC 3
 *   Additional information
   <https://webstore.iec.ch/publication/5151#additionalinfo>

 * Download <https://webstore.iec.ch/publication/.paneE>
 * Hardcopy <https://webstore.iec.ch/publication/.paneP>

CHF 40.-

Do you need a multi-user copy? 
<https://webstore.iec.ch/webstore/webstore.nsf/xpFAQ.xsp?Open&id=GFOT-7NPP8H>




Preview <https://webstore.iec.ch/preview/info_iec61293%7Bed1.0%7Db.img.pdf>


 Abstract

Establishes minimum requirements and general rules on marking electrical 
equipment with ratings and other characteristics to enable the proper 
and safe selection and installation of electrical equipment related to 
any supply of electricity. Has the status of a basic safety publication 
in accordance with IEC Guide 104.


Best wishes
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2019-01-31 19:43, Kunde, Brian wrote:


What is the Source Document for the Nameplate Voltage, Current, etc. 
Rating Nomenclature (if there is one)?


Examples one might find on a typical electronic equipment;

115/230V~  50/60Hz  8/4A

100-120/220-240V~ 50/60Hz 8/4A

We try to match this information in our User’s Manual. However, our 
Technical Writers are telling me that according to International 
Writing blah blah blah, we can no longer use dashes (replace with the 
work “to”),  and that we have to have a space between numbers and the 
unit indicator.


So here is what they want in the manual;

100 to 120 / 220 to 240 V~  50 / 60 Hz  8 / 4 A

I have no objections to these new rules in the manual, but as far as 
the Nameplate label goes, we are always tighting for space and as you 
can see the “new way” uses up a lot more space than the old way.


So my question is, is there a document, standard, etc. that dictates 
exactly how the Rating should appear on a Nameplate Label/plate?   Is 
there anything wrong or confusing about the Old Way.


Thanks very much for any assistance.

The Other Brian (I hope I don’t get kicked off for spoof emails again).




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

-


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


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


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


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

List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

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

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



-

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

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

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

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 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] Source for Nameplate Rating Nomenclature

[John Woodgate]

That's the IEC 1994 edition, dated 2001 by CENELEC.

Best wishes
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2019-01-31 20:14, Kevin J Harris wrote:


There is a 2001 EN version is also available for purchase

https://www.evs.ee/products/evs-en-61293-2001

*From:*Lesmeister, Glenn [mailto:glenn.lesmeis...@hpe.com]
*Sent:* Thursday, January 31, 2019 3:02 PM
*To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
*Subject:* Re: [PSES] Source for Nameplate Rating Nomenclature

There is an IEC standard, IEC 61293 that covers this.

https://webstore.iec.ch/publication/5151 
<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwebstore.iec.ch%2Fpublication%2F5151&data=02%7C01%7Ckevin.3.harris%40jci.com%7C75d8587771554b504e9908d687b7394d%7Ca1f1e2147ded45b681a19e8ae3459641%7C0%7C0%7C636845618344967374&sdata=FXUVuqHPyhykQop0f8gZ8FqucoDukbNOBx7rB%2Fh6bNo%3D&reserved=0>


Regards,

Glenn Lesmeister
Product Regulatory Compliance

Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company
11445 Compaq Center Dr W
M/S 510101

Houston,  TX 77070
Tel: 1 (512) 319-0591
glenn.lesmeis...@hpe.com <mailto:glenn.lesmeis...@hpe.com>

*From:*IBM Ken [mailto:ibm...@gmail.com]
*Sent:* Thursday, January 31, 2019 1:54 PM
*To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
*Subject:* Re: [PSES] Source for Nameplate Rating Nomenclature

To pile on to Brian's question, is there guidance on how to indicate 
Delta or Wye connection types on a label (that are universally 
recognizable)?   I think using "3W +PE" or "4W +PE" might not be 
descriptive in all cases, especially if your equipment connects to 
fewer than three phases of a three-phase distribution system...


-Ken

On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 2:44 PM Kunde, Brian <mailto:brian_ku...@lecotc.com>> wrote:


What is the Source Document for the Nameplate Voltage, Current,
etc. Rating Nomenclature (if there is one)?

Examples one might find on a typical electronic equipment;

115/230V~  50/60Hz  8/4A

100-120/220-240V~ 50/60Hz 8/4A

We try to match this information in our User’s Manual. However,
our Technical Writers are telling me that according to
International Writing blah blah blah, we can no longer use dashes
(replace with the work “to”),  and that we have to have a space
between numbers and the unit indicator.

So here is what they want in the manual;

100 to 120 / 220 to 240 V~  50 / 60 Hz  8 / 4 A

I have no objections to these new rules in the manual, but as far
as the Nameplate label goes, we are always tighting for space and
as you can see the “new way” uses up a lot more space than the old
way.

So my question is, is there a document, standard, etc. that
dictates exactly how the Rating should appear on a Nameplate
Label/plate?   Is there anything wrong or confusing about the Old
Way.

Thanks very much for any assistance.

The Other Brian (I hope I don’t get kicked off for spoof emails
again).




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

-


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

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

<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ieee-pses.org%2Femc-pstc.html&data=02%7C01%7Ckevin.3.harris%40jci.com%7C75d8587771554b504e9908d687b7394d%7Ca1f1e2147ded45b681a19e8ae3459641%7C0%7C0%7C636845618344977382&sdata=Wa43zOaUmkMFk8zRKZqqVE0WnV8XA%2BF0L6PO%2FqeGDbM%3D&reserved=0>

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

<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fproduct-compliance.oc.ieee.org%2F&data=02%7C01%7Ckevin.3.harris%40jci.com%7C75d8587771554b504e9908d687b7394d%7Ca1f1e2147ded45b681a19e8ae3459641%7C0%7C0%7C636845618344977382&sdata=8WmUBfPk1RJYTWaCfi0uVsNcB2%2B5R1CD0w8iktj6JEs%3D&reserved=0>
can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc.

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

<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ieee-pses.org%2F&data=02%7C01%7Ckevin.3.harris%40jci.com%7C75d8587771554b504e9908d687b7394d%7Ca1f1e2147ded45b681a19e8ae3459641%7C0%7C0%7C636845618344987387&sdata=VXbt81FAC6dVpnZMUtujH

Re: [PSES] Source for Nameplate Rating Nomenclature

[John Woodgate]

Proceed with caution. The CDV attracted  very many comments from 
National Committees, and many were accepted, so the FDIS will not be the 
same as the CDV. The FDIS was registered yesterday (January 31), and 
should be available soon to members of those numerous committees listed.


Best wishes
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2019-01-31 23:42, Lesmeister, Glenn wrote:


There’s also a CDV for the second ed of the IEC version.  If you are a 
member of any of the following Technical Committees, you should be 
able to get it from the IEC website.


TC 3 TC 2,TC 14,TC 21,SC 21A,TC 22,SC 22E,SC 22F,SC 22G,SC 22H,TC 
23,SC 23B,SC 23E,SC 23G,SC 23H,SC 23J,SC 23K,TC 31,SC 31G,SC 31M,TC 
34,SC 34A,SC 34D,TC 37,SC 37A,SC 37B,TC 38,TC 44,TC 48,SC 48B,TC 61,SC 
61B,SC 61C,SC 61D,SC 61H,SC 61J,TC 62,SC 62A,SC 62B,SC 62C,SC 62D,TC 
64,TC 66,TC 69,TC 81,TC 82,TC 85,TC 94,TC 95,TC 96,TC 100,TC 108,TC 
110,TC 116,SC 121A,SC 121B


Regards,

Glenn Lesmeister
Product Regulatory Compliance

Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company
11445 Compaq Center Dr W
M/S 510101

Houston, TX 77070
Tel: 1 (512) 319-0591
glenn.lesmeis...@hpe.com <mailto:glenn.lesmeis...@hpe.com>

*From:*Kevin J Harris [mailto:kevin.3.har...@jci.com]
*Sent:* Thursday, January 31, 2019 2:15 PM
*To:* Lesmeister, Glenn ; 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

*Subject:* RE: [PSES] Source for Nameplate Rating Nomenclature

There is a 2001 EN version is also available for purchase

https://www.evs.ee/products/evs-en-61293-2001

*From:*Lesmeister, Glenn [mailto:glenn.lesmeis...@hpe.com]
*Sent:* Thursday, January 31, 2019 3:02 PM
*To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
*Subject:* Re: [PSES] Source for Nameplate Rating Nomenclature

There is an IEC standard, IEC 61293 that covers this.

https://webstore.iec.ch/publication/5151 
<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwebstore.iec.ch%2Fpublication%2F5151&data=02%7C01%7Ckevin.3.harris%40jci.com%7C75d8587771554b504e9908d687b7394d%7Ca1f1e2147ded45b681a19e8ae3459641%7C0%7C0%7C636845618344967374&sdata=FXUVuqHPyhykQop0f8gZ8FqucoDukbNOBx7rB%2Fh6bNo%3D&reserved=0>


Regards,

Glenn Lesmeister
Product Regulatory Compliance

Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company
11445 Compaq Center Dr W
M/S 510101

Houston, TX 77070
Tel: 1 (512) 319-0591
glenn.lesmeis...@hpe.com <mailto:glenn.lesmeis...@hpe.com>

*From:*IBM Ken [mailto:ibm...@gmail.com]
*Sent:* Thursday, January 31, 2019 1:54 PM
*To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
*Subject:* Re: [PSES] Source for Nameplate Rating Nomenclature

To pile on to Brian's question, is there guidance on how to indicate 
Delta or Wye connection types on a label (that are universally 
recognizable)?   I think using "3W +PE" or "4W +PE" might not be 
descriptive in all cases, especially if your equipment connects to 
fewer than three phases of a three-phase distribution system...


-Ken

On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 2:44 PM Kunde, Brian <mailto:brian_ku...@lecotc.com>> wrote:


What is the Source Document for the Nameplate Voltage, Current,
etc. Rating Nomenclature (if there is one)?

Examples one might find on a typical electronic equipment;

115/230V~ 50/60Hz  8/4A

100-120/220-240V~ 50/60Hz 8/4A

We try to match this information in our User’s Manual. However,
our Technical Writers are telling me that according to
International Writing blah blah blah, we can no longer use dashes
(replace with the work “to”),  and that we have to have a space
between numbers and the unit indicator.

So here is what they want in the manual;

100 to 120 / 220 to 240 V~  50 / 60 Hz  8 / 4 A

I have no objections to these new rules in the manual, but as far
as the Nameplate label goes, we are always tighting for space and
as you can see the “new way” uses up a lot more space than the old
way.

So my question is, is there a document, standard, etc. that
dictates exactly how the Rating should appear on a Nameplate
Label/plate?   Is there anything wrong or confusing about the Old
Way.

Thanks very much for any assistance.

The Other Brian (I hope I don’t get kicked off for spoof emails
again).




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

-


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

Re: [PSES] CISPR 11 microwave oven test procedure

[John Woodgate]

I think it's quite a complex issue. The high emissions may be confined 
to quite narrow lobes, in which case the directional response of the 
receiving antenna matters, as that produces a spatial weighted average 
of the emission levels.


There is, of course, nothing (technical, leaving economics aside) to 
stop you designing your product so that its emissions are  lower than 
the standard requires, i.e. the high levels you measure are reduced to 
below the levels specified in the standard.


Best wishes
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2019-02-01 09:39, Bill Stumpf wrote:


Dear esteemed colleagues,

CISPR 11 test procedures for making radiate emissions measurements at 
frequencies above 1GHz dictates that measurements are performed only 
at 30 degree intervals around the microwave appliance.  From my own 
experience, this does not capture the highest emissions from the 
microwave oven, and often will allow it to “pass” the emissions test 
when there are emissions that are higher than the specified limit at 
angles from the EUT that is not recorded using this methodology.


I expect the procedure was written to save time in testing, but how 
can I, in good conscience, write a passing test report when I know the 
EUT fails to meet the limit for radiated emissions at angles other 
than the 30 degree increments recorded?


Can anyone give me some background on why this test method was written 
into the standard?


Am I miss-interpreting the procedure?

Bill Stumpf

D.L.S. Electronic Systems, Inc.

-


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


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


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


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

List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

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

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



-

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

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

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

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 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] CISPR 11 microwave oven test procedure

[John Woodgate]

Second Response.

It was pointed out to me that I didn't notice 'write a passing test 
report'. Well, I did, but in the European context f manufacturer 
self-certification.  A consultant assessing a product for another market 
could report that the product meets the standard BUT has emissions above 
the limit when measured by a refined procedure (more directional 
receiving antenna?). This puts the onus where it belongs - on the 
manufacturer, either to rely on 'meeting the standard as written' or 
improving the product so as to bring the more carefully measured 
emissions below the limits.


9.2 of the standard is not really satisfactory: /The measurements shall 
be made with a directive antenna of small aperture/


Apart from 'directive' instead of 'directional', 'small' is an 
inadequate specification for the aperture if emissions can occur in 
narrow lobes of high maximum field strength. 7.3.4 of CISPR 16-2-3 
doesn't help; the only mention of aperture is in connection with 
measurement distance a bizarrely refers to the receiving antenna 
'illuminating' the EUT.


Best wishes
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2019-02-01 09:39, Bill Stumpf wrote:


Dear esteemed colleagues,

CISPR 11 test procedures for making radiate emissions measurements at 
frequencies above 1GHz dictates that measurements are performed only 
at 30 degree intervals around the microwave appliance.  From my own 
experience, this does not capture the highest emissions from the 
microwave oven, and often will allow it to “pass” the emissions test 
when there are emissions that are higher than the specified limit at 
angles from the EUT that is not recorded using this methodology.


I expect the procedure was written to save time in testing, but how 
can I, in good conscience, write a passing test report when I know the 
EUT fails to meet the limit for radiated emissions at angles other 
than the 30 degree increments recorded?


Can anyone give me some background on why this test method was written 
into the standard?


Am I miss-interpreting the procedure?

Bill Stumpf

D.L.S. Electronic Systems, Inc.

-


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


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


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


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

List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

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

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



-

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

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

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

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 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] AW: [PSES] Source for Nameplate Rating Nomenclature

[John Woodgate]

Historically, when the defunct SC60C (concerned with MME for education) 
attempted to produce such a marking standard for their equipment, they 
were jumped on by the (now defunct) TC16, who proceeded to write 61293, 
but didn't 'jump on' the bigger boys, TC61, TC74 and TC92 to 'invite' 
them to adopt (i.e. make normative reference to) 61293. In consequence, 
we have this divergence between standards, and if you think TC3 (owner 
now of 61293), will do anything about it, you are very likely to be 
disappointed.


The subject should be referred to ACOS, so as to keep it out of mischief.

Rich isn't cynical, he's realistic.

Best wishes
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2019-02-01 19:39, Richard Nute wrote:


Hi Brian:

We have three standards, one for the manual, and two for the product 
(the product standard and the general standard, IEC 61293).


The mains ratings display differ among the standards.

Your products must adhere to the product standard.  If no marking 
requirements are in the product standard, you must adhere to IEC 61293.


And the manual folks must adhere to their standard.

In my opinion, the committees that wrote these standards were rather 
presumptuous that they each know best how to describe the mains 
ratings of a product.  In practice, the user seldom refers to the 
ratings, either in the manual or on the product.  You buy a product 
and you plug it in.


Hard-wired is a different story.  Here, the installer must know the 
ratings to connect it to a compatible supply.  Most installers can 
interpret the many different displays of the ratings.


Good luck with your manual folks!

Cynical 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] UK Gov Using The UKCA Mark

[John Woodgate]

We need to get a Mutual Recognition Agreement as soon as possible. I'm 
surprised that the UK Gov document doesn't even mention the possibility. 
It ought to be very easy, because on March 28 the UK NBs were accredited 
to EU and they didn't suddenly become incompetent on March 29. The 
problem is pure petty bureaucracy (and spite!).


Best wishes
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2019-02-04 14:37, Mark Bailey wrote:


All,

Just received the following link from a colleague, using the UKCA 
marking if the UK leaves the EU without a deal. Links to part of the 
“[PSES] Brexit requirements for UK manufacturers” a couple of weeks ago.


https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/prepare-to-use-the-ukca-mark-after-brexit/using-the-ukca-marking-if-the-uk-leaves-the-eu-without-a-deal

BR

Mark Bailey

IMPORTANT NOTICE: This e-mail message is intended to be received only 
by persons entitled to receive the confidential information it may 
contain. E-mail messages to clients of Telensa may contain information 
that is confidential and legally privileged. Please do not read, copy, 
forward, or store this message unless you are an intended recipient of 
it. If you have received this message in error, please forward it to 
the sender and delete it completely from your computer system. -



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


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


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


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

List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

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

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



-

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

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

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

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 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] UK Gov Using The UKCA Mark

[John Woodgate]

I'm sorry, I can't answer your questions at all. I learned about this UK 
Gov statement today, and I don't have any access to the relevant 
government department.


Best wishes
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2019-02-04 17:50, Kapur, Ken wrote:


Hi John,

These new requirements with the UKCA mark will be a significant burden 
on industry, if a MRA can be established, it would help significantly. 
There are still lot’s of questions about the UKCA marking and how it 
gets implemented.  Considering a no-deal Brexit: getting any 
relabeling to happen will definitely take a lot of time.  Hopefully, 
there will be no new testing and existing standards would be accepted.


Will there be an 18 month transition? Will there be a different set of 
requirements for products shipping EU to UK versus from other countries?


Best Regards,

*Ken Kapur*

Director, Compliance

Thermo Fisher Scientific

Mobile: 408-685-1454

*From:*John Woodgate [mailto:j...@woodjohn.uk]
*Sent:* Monday, February 04, 2019 8:42 AM
*To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
*Subject:* Re: [PSES] UK Gov Using The UKCA Mark

*CAUTION:*This email originated from outside of the organization. Do 
not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender 
and know the content is safe.


We need to get a Mutual Recognition Agreement as soon as possible. I'm 
surprised that the UK Gov document doesn't even mention the 
possibility. It ought to be very easy, because on March 28 the UK NBs 
were accredited to EU and they didn't suddenly become incompetent on 
March 29. The problem is pure petty bureaucracy (and spite!).


Best wishes
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associateswww.woodjohn.uk  
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.woodjohn.uk&d=DwMD-g&c=q6k2DsTcEGCcCb_WtVSz6hhIl8hvYssy7sH8ZwfbbKU&r=ceEGfRfAATRLvrDpw-fh33haojLMnxrxQT1JC9iGxE0&m=hVktUUt1U8CsKszyFHFBIEja8xbn-HQ9G9Rz7WpP_xM&s=8_tiH1iTW2cHAy2l5CyW_ij_WM6U5wSf2lOHCIK2Pq4&e=>
Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2019-02-04 14:37, Mark Bailey wrote:

All,

Just received the following link from a colleague, using the UKCA
marking if the UK leaves the EU without a deal. Links to part of
the “[PSES] Brexit requirements for UK manufacturers” a couple of
weeks ago.


https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/prepare-to-use-the-ukca-mark-after-brexit/using-the-ukca-marking-if-the-uk-leaves-the-eu-without-a-deal

<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.gov.uk_government_publications_prepare-2Dto-2Duse-2Dthe-2Dukca-2Dmark-2Dafter-2Dbrexit_using-2Dthe-2Dukca-2Dmarking-2Dif-2Dthe-2Duk-2Dleaves-2Dthe-2Deu-2Dwithout-2Da-2Ddeal&d=DwMD-g&c=q6k2DsTcEGCcCb_WtVSz6hhIl8hvYssy7sH8ZwfbbKU&r=ceEGfRfAATRLvrDpw-fh33haojLMnxrxQT1JC9iGxE0&m=hVktUUt1U8CsKszyFHFBIEja8xbn-HQ9G9Rz7WpP_xM&s=i0ZXkM9Zmf_uujamKeIAx-RjkvLqyIk-_gK7VzLTpqw&e=>

BR

Mark Bailey

IMPORTANT NOTICE: This e-mail message is intended to be received
only by persons entitled to receive the confidential information
it may contain. E-mail messages to clients of Telensa may contain
information that is confidential and legally privileged. Please do
not read, copy, forward, or store this message unless you are an
intended recipient of it. If you have received this message in
error, please forward it to the sender and delete it completely
from your computer system. -


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

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

<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ieee-2Dpses.org_emc-2Dpstc.html&d=DwMD-g&c=q6k2DsTcEGCcCb_WtVSz6hhIl8hvYssy7sH8ZwfbbKU&r=ceEGfRfAATRLvrDpw-fh33haojLMnxrxQT1JC9iGxE0&m=hVktUUt1U8CsKszyFHFBIEja8xbn-HQ9G9Rz7WpP_xM&s=lyHQtGZtx-DPWUgZnkLTRdEThyhUfO0E21vLQycICeI&e=>

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

<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__product-2Dcompliance.oc.ieee.org_&d=DwMD-g&c=q6k2DsTcEGCcCb_WtVSz6hhIl8hvYssy7sH8ZwfbbKU&r=ceEGfRfAATRLvrDpw-fh33haojLMnxrxQT1JC9iGxE0&m=hVktUUt1U8CsKszyFHFBIEja8xbn-HQ9G9Rz7WpP_xM&s=f8iEw1AFPKkOdZJ6Ok317Yf3Og3TjDA8h8H4Fw_-d_4&e=>
can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc.

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

<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ieee-2Dpses.org_&d=DwMD-g&c=q6k2DsTcEGCcCb_WtVSz6hhIl8hvYssy7sH8ZwfbbKU&r=ceEGfRfAATRLvrDpw-fh33haojLMnxrxQT1JC9iGxE0&m=hVktU

Re: [PSES] UK Gov Using The UKCA Mark

[John Woodgate]

It would be logical that MRAs could not be concluded until exit, but 
that doesn't stop the groundwork being laid. It should be part of 
planning for a no-deal exit. If there is a deal, there will be a 
transition period; in that case there may be no need for an immediate 
introduction of UKCA.


Best wishes
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2019-02-04 19:32, Charlie Blackham wrote:


My understanding is that the UK can’t start negotiating many MRAs 
until they have left the EU


A number of UK regulations have been published including

  * The Product Safety and Metrology etc. (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit)
Regulations 2019
<https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2019/978076368/contents>
  * The Electronic Communications and Wireless Telegraphy (Amendment
etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
<https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2019/978075613/contents>
  * SI 2018 No. 1385.
<http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2018/1385/made> Exiting the
European Union: Electronic Communications - The Radio Spectrum (EU
Exit) Regulations 2018

Most of these are related to section 2 of the European Union 
(withdrawl) act 2018 
 
and allow existing UK implementations of EU Directives (which are 
secondary legislation) to remain on the statute books following the 
Repeal of the European Communities Act 1972 (the Primary legislation) 
which would be repealed on exit day


Regards

Charlie

*Charlie Blackham*

*Sulis Consultants Ltd*

*Tel: +44 (0)7946 624317*

*Web: **www.sulisconsultants.com* 
<https://outlook.hslive.net/owa/redir.aspx?C=02be3bf3e3a544d1bdf7b6c99fbd12f5&URL=http%3a%2f%2fwww.sulisconsultants.com%2f>


Registered in England and Wales, number 05466247

*From:*Kapur, Ken 
*Sent:* 04 February 2019 17:51
*To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
*Subject:* Re: [PSES] UK Gov Using The UKCA Mark

Hi John,

These new requirements with the UKCA mark will be a significant burden 
on industry, if a MRA can be established, it would help significantly. 
There are still lot’s of questions about the UKCA marking and how it 
gets implemented.  Considering a no-deal Brexit: getting any 
relabeling to happen will definitely take a lot of time.  Hopefully, 
there will be no new testing and existing standards would be accepted.


Will there be an 18 month transition? Will there be a different set of 
requirements for products shipping EU to UK versus from other countries?


Best Regards,

*Ken Kapur*

Director, Compliance

Thermo Fisher Scientific

Mobile: 408-685-1454

*From:*John Woodgate [mailto:j...@woodjohn.uk]
*Sent:* Monday, February 04, 2019 8:42 AM
*To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
*Subject:* Re: [PSES] UK Gov Using The UKCA Mark

*CAUTION:*This email originated from outside of the organization. Do 
not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender 
and know the content is safe.


We need to get a Mutual Recognition Agreement as soon as possible. I'm 
surprised that the UK Gov document doesn't even mention the 
possibility. It ought to be very easy, because on March 28 the UK NBs 
were accredited to EU and they didn't suddenly become incompetent on 
March 29. The problem is pure petty bureaucracy (and spite!).


Best wishes
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk 
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.woodjohn.uk&d=DwMD-g&c=q6k2DsTcEGCcCb_WtVSz6hhIl8hvYssy7sH8ZwfbbKU&r=ceEGfRfAATRLvrDpw-fh33haojLMnxrxQT1JC9iGxE0&m=hVktUUt1U8CsKszyFHFBIEja8xbn-HQ9G9Rz7WpP_xM&s=8_tiH1iTW2cHAy2l5CyW_ij_WM6U5wSf2lOHCIK2Pq4&e=>

Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2019-02-04 14:37, Mark Bailey wrote:

All,

Just received the following link from a colleague, using the UKCA
marking if the UK leaves the EU without a deal. Links to part of
the “[PSES] Brexit requirements for UK manufacturers” a couple of
weeks ago.


https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/prepare-to-use-the-ukca-mark-after-brexit/using-the-ukca-marking-if-the-uk-leaves-the-eu-without-a-deal

<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.gov.uk_government_publications_prepare-2Dto-2Duse-2Dthe-2Dukca-2Dmark-2Dafter-2Dbrexit_using-2Dthe-2Dukca-2Dmarking-2Dif-2Dthe-2Duk-2Dleaves-2Dthe-2Deu-2Dwithout-2Da-2Ddeal&d=DwMD-g&c=q6k2DsTcEGCcCb_WtVSz6hhIl8hvYssy7sH8ZwfbbKU&r=ceEGfRfAATRLvrDpw-fh33haojLMnxrxQT1JC9iGxE0&m=hVktUUt1U8CsKszyFHFBIEja8xbn-HQ9G9Rz7WpP_xM&s=i0ZXkM9Zmf_uujamKeIAx-RjkvLqyIk-_gK7VzLTpqw&e=>

BR

Mark Bailey

IMPORTANT NOTICE: This e-mail message is intended to be received
only by persons entitled to receive the confidential information
it may contain. E-mail messages to clients of Telensa may contain
information that is confidential and legally privileged. Please do
not read, copy, forward, or store t

Re: [PSES] [BULK] [PSES] Economical operator name & postal address on EEEproducts

[John Woodgate]

The responsibilities of importers and authorized representative 
specified in Directives and Regulations are insufficient to qualify as 
'responsible person', because the 'responsible person' has to know that 
no changes have been made to the product that would affect its 
compliance. In other words, that person must have access to all the 
manufacturing data for the product.


Best wishes
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2019-02-05 09:44, Scott Xe wrote:


Dear Brian,

Thanks for your useful info!  Must the responsible person be in EU/EEA 
countries?  Otherwise the responsible person will fall into the 
importers or authorized resprentatives who is in EU/EEA countries?


Regards,

Scott

Scott,

The short answer to your question is, the name and address of the 
responsible party for placing a product on the EU market is required 
to be on the products.  EU documents often refer to the responsible 
party as the “Manufacturer” even though the responsible party may not 
have manufactured the product.


Read the “Blue Guide” on the implementation of the EU products rules 
2016/C 272/01 (unless there is a newer version).  It does a good job 
explaining the many possible roles and players under the New 
Legislative Form.


The Other Brian

*From:*Scott Xe [mailto:scott...@gmail.com]
*Sent:* Saturday, February 02, 2019 3:19 AM
*To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
*Subject:* [BULK] [PSES] Economical operator name & postal address on 
EEE products

*Importance:* Low

Regarding the name & address on EEE products in EU market, should they 
be the manufacturers, importers or authorized representatives and 
which regulation does call for it?


Thanks and regards,

Scott

-


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


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


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


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

List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

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

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


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

**

-


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


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


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


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

List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

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

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



-

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

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

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

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 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] UK Gov Using The UKCA Mark

[John Woodgate]

Goods arriving in the UK should not be in trouble. UK recognizes the CE 
Mark on March 29 and there is no reason to stop recognizing it on March 
30.  Goods leaving the UK for the EU are in a different position IF a 
UK-only Notified Body is involved in determining compliance. For many 
products, there is no need for Notified Body involvement, and many 
Notified Bodies are not UK-only but widely-based in the western world.


This scenario applies only if there is a 'no-deal' Brexit, and in that 
case it is up to the UK and EU to decide /independently/ what marking to 
accept and for how long.  We can hope that common sense will prevail, 
but it might not.


Best wishes
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2019-02-05 09:59, Scott Xe wrote:
I fully agree on the Ken's concern.  How can the manufactures change 
the logos and relevant documents of the goods arrive in the UK post 
Brexit of 30/03/2019?  UK will suffer short of goods in next few 
months.  Does UK plan to cope with it?


Regards,

Scott


On Tue, 5 Feb 2019 at 01:51, Kapur, Ken <mailto:ken.ka...@thermofisher.com>> wrote:


Hi John,

These new requirements with the UKCA mark will be a significant
burden on industry, if a MRA can be established, it would help
significantly. There are still lot’s of questions about the UKCA
marking and how it gets implemented.  Considering a no-deal
Brexit: getting any relabeling to happen will definitely take a
lot of time.  Hopefully, there will be no new testing and existing
standards would be accepted.

Will there be an 18 month transition? Will there be a different
set of requirements for products shipping EU to UK versus from
other countries?

Best Regards,

*Ken Kapur*

Director, Compliance

Thermo Fisher Scientific

Mobile: 408-685-1454

*From:*John Woodgate [mailto:j...@woodjohn.uk
<mailto:j...@woodjohn.uk>]
*Sent:* Monday, February 04, 2019 8:42 AM
*To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
*Subject:* Re: [PSES] UK Gov Using The UKCA Mark

*CAUTION:*This email originated from outside of the organization.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.

We need to get a Mutual Recognition Agreement as soon as possible.
I'm surprised that the UK Gov document doesn't even mention the
possibility. It ought to be very easy, because on March 28 the UK
NBs were accredited to EU and they didn't suddenly become
incompetent on March 29. The problem is pure petty bureaucracy
    (and spite!).

Best wishes

John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only

J M Woodgate and Associateswww.woodjohn.uk  
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.woodjohn.uk&d=DwMD-g&c=q6k2DsTcEGCcCb_WtVSz6hhIl8hvYssy7sH8ZwfbbKU&r=ceEGfRfAATRLvrDpw-fh33haojLMnxrxQT1JC9iGxE0&m=hVktUUt1U8CsKszyFHFBIEja8xbn-HQ9G9Rz7WpP_xM&s=8_tiH1iTW2cHAy2l5CyW_ij_WM6U5wSf2lOHCIK2Pq4&e=>

Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2019-02-04 14:37, Mark Bailey wrote:

All,

Just received the following link from a colleague, using the
UKCA marking if the UK leaves the EU without a deal. Links to
part of the “[PSES] Brexit requirements for UK manufacturers”
a couple of weeks ago.


https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/prepare-to-use-the-ukca-mark-after-brexit/using-the-ukca-marking-if-the-uk-leaves-the-eu-without-a-deal

<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.gov.uk_government_publications_prepare-2Dto-2Duse-2Dthe-2Dukca-2Dmark-2Dafter-2Dbrexit_using-2Dthe-2Dukca-2Dmarking-2Dif-2Dthe-2Duk-2Dleaves-2Dthe-2Deu-2Dwithout-2Da-2Ddeal&d=DwMD-g&c=q6k2DsTcEGCcCb_WtVSz6hhIl8hvYssy7sH8ZwfbbKU&r=ceEGfRfAATRLvrDpw-fh33haojLMnxrxQT1JC9iGxE0&m=hVktUUt1U8CsKszyFHFBIEja8xbn-HQ9G9Rz7WpP_xM&s=i0ZXkM9Zmf_uujamKeIAx-RjkvLqyIk-_gK7VzLTpqw&e=>

BR

Mark Bailey

IMPORTANT NOTICE: This e-mail message is intended to be
received only by persons entitled to receive the confidential
information it may contain. E-mail messages to clients of
Telensa may contain information that is confidential and
legally privileged. Please do not read, copy, forward, or
store this message unless you are an intended recipient of it.
If you have received this message in error, please forward it
to the sender and delete it completely from your computer
system. -


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

All emc-pstc postings are archived and

Re: [PSES] UK Gov Using The UKCA Mark

[John Woodgate]

I don't know. Maybe the UK has an MRA with the US, independent of any 
EU-US MRA.


Best wishes
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2019-02-05 10:40, Payne, Glyn wrote:


Hi John,

Won’t the lack of a MRA with the US effect the FCC SDoC route when 
getting emission scans done in labs that are accredited by UKAS?


Regards,

Glyn Payne

Validation and Compliance Engineer

**

*Solid State Logic - UK Headquarters*

www.solidstatelogic.com <http://www.solidstatelogic.com/>

Facebook <https://www.facebook.com/SolidStateLogic.SSL/> : Twitter 
<https://twitter.com/solidstatelogic> : Youtube 
<https://www.youtube.com/user/SSLvideos>


25 Spring Hill Road | Begbroke | Oxfordshire | OX5 1RU | UK

t: +44 1865 664894 | m: +44 7989 163937

*From: *John Woodgate 
*Reply-To: *John Woodgate 
*Date: *Tuesday, 5 February 2019 at 10:23
*To: *
*Subject: *Re: [PSES] UK Gov Using The UKCA Mark

Goods arriving in the UK should not be in trouble. UK recognizes the 
CE Mark on March 29 and there is no reason to stop recognizing it on 
March 30.  Goods leaving the UK for the EU are in a different position 
IF a UK-only Notified Body is involved in determining compliance. For 
many products, there is no need for Notified Body involvement, and 
many Notified Bodies are not UK-only but widely-based in the western 
world.


This scenario applies only if there is a 'no-deal' Brexit, and in that 
case it is up to the UK and EU to decide /independently/ what marking 
to accept and for how long.  We can hope that common sense will 
prevail, but it might not.


Best wishes
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associateswww.woodjohn.uk  <http://www.woodjohn.uk>
Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2019-02-05 09:59, Scott Xe wrote:

I fully agree on the Ken's concern. How can the manufactures
change the logos and relevant documents of the goods arrive in the
UK post Brexit of 30/03/2019?  UK will suffer short of goods in
next few months.  Does UK plan to cope with it?

Regards,

Scott

On Tue, 5 Feb 2019 at 01:51, Kapur, Ken
mailto:ken.ka...@thermofisher.com>>
wrote:

Hi John,

These new requirements with the UKCA mark will be a
significant burden on industry, if a MRA can be established,
it would help significantly. There are still lot’s of
questions about the UKCA marking and how it gets implemented. 
Considering a no-deal Brexit: getting any relabeling to happen
will definitely take a lot of time.  Hopefully, there will be
no new testing and existing standards would be accepted.

Will there be an 18 month transition? Will there be a
different set of requirements for products shipping EU to UK
versus from other countries?

Best Regards,

*Ken Kapur*

Director, Compliance

Thermo Fisher Scientific

    Mobile: 408-685-1454

*From:*John Woodgate [mailto:j...@woodjohn.uk
<mailto:j...@woodjohn.uk>]
*Sent:* Monday, February 04, 2019 8:42 AM
*To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
*Subject:* Re: [PSES] UK Gov Using The UKCA Mark

*CAUTION:*This email originated from outside of the
organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless
you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

We need to get a Mutual Recognition Agreement as soon as
possible. I'm surprised that the UK Gov document doesn't even
mention the possibility. It ought to be very easy, because on
March 28 the UK NBs were accredited to EU and they didn't
suddenly become incompetent on March 29. The problem is pure
petty bureaucracy (and spite!).

Best wishes

John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only

J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk

<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.woodjohn.uk&d=DwMD-g&c=q6k2DsTcEGCcCb_WtVSz6hhIl8hvYssy7sH8ZwfbbKU&r=ceEGfRfAATRLvrDpw-fh33haojLMnxrxQT1JC9iGxE0&m=hVktUUt1U8CsKszyFHFBIEja8xbn-HQ9G9Rz7WpP_xM&s=8_tiH1iTW2cHAy2l5CyW_ij_WM6U5wSf2lOHCIK2Pq4&e=>

Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2019-02-04 14:37, Mark Bailey wrote:

All,

Just received the following link from a colleague, using
the UKCA marking if the UK leaves the EU without a deal.
Links to part of the “[PSES] Brexit requirements for UK
manufacturers” a couple of weeks ago.


https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/prepare-to-use-the-ukca-mark-after-brexit/using-the-ukca-marking-if-the-uk-leaves-the-eu-without-a-deal

<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.gov.uk_government_publications_prepare-2Dto-2Duse-2Dthe-2Dukca-2Dma

Re: [PSES] Johnson City NY - crazy street lights

[John Woodgate]

This is true, but I don't see it as cynical 'planned obsolescence'; it's 
a two-edged sword: 'We want to give the public all the benefits of 
advancing technology, so there is no point in designing for a life of 
even 10 years'. Like my grandfather's garden fork, which is about 100 
years old and still fully functional. Printers and copiers are 
mechanical, so wear out,  but we throw away millions of perfectly good 
computers because they won't run a supported OS any more. The same 
applies to cellphones.


Actually, the new update system for Windows 10 tends to combat the waste 
of computers, but I have one which is half-dead because the manufacturer 
refuses to update a driver that Windows 10 now needs.


Best wishes
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2019-02-06 04:19, Doug Powell wrote:

Interesting indeed,

The thing that probably should surprise me and does not is that as we 
get more sophisticated in our technology the more ways that technology 
can fail.


I can't help but remember the old copy machine in our offices that had 
nothing more a zoom control, number of copies and a big green button 
to make the copies happen.  That machine outlasted the next three 
generations of copiers containing all the features you could ever 
imagine. All the features except longevity.


Best,

Doug in Colorado

*From:* lanterna.viri...@gmail.com
*Sent:* February 4, 2019 5:54 PM
*To:* doug...@gmail.com
*Cc:* EMC-PSTC@listserv.ieee.org
*Subject:* Re: [PSES] Johnson City NY - crazy street lights


These are LED technology from a 2015-2016 vintage conversion.

It could be any number of possible causes.  Based on the power outage, 
it could be a low voltage startup behavior of the LED driver.  Could 
also be comms-related as you describe.  Would be interesting if anyone 
has a reference related to voltage fluctuation during various power 
outages/grid designs.


In my locale, brightness sensors are not per luminaire. They are 
ganged/controlled in larger groups.  I was curious about the type 
installed in my neighborhood and got the datasheet from the electrical 
utility.  It appears to be a common supplier/type from reading 
articles about street light LED conversions and health/environmental 
concerns.  I inquired w/the supplier about in-rush performance of 
their driver having seen a few descriptions of hundreds of amps 
depending on the driver design.


I've seen similar frequency pulsing behaviors with individual LED 
lights during an early morning commute as well as a couple of bulbs in 
my home.  The in-home case, along with a couple of other electronics 
failures were due to failed electrolytic caps on the primary side.


Regards,
Adam in Atlanta
adam.di...@ieee.org <mailto:adam.di...@ieee.org>



On Mon, Feb 4, 2019 at 5:58 PM Doug Powell <mailto:doug...@gmail.com>> wrote:


I tend to agree with your statements.

I have worked in a volunteer capacity in TV production studios and
doing stage design using LED lighting.  I am familiar with the
stroboscopic effects the more economical (Alibaba) multiplexed LED
drivers have on TV camera sensors and I believe this flashing is
far too low frequency,  This was part of the reason I suggested
communications issues.  Since street lighting falls under a public
safety category, many of the companies who produce these products
are exempt from EMC considerations and the equipment is made as
cheaply as possible. I believe this is why years ago, we often
heard a lot of interference on AM radio when stopped near traffic
lights.  Nowadays it is likely these fixtures are on a DMX512
universe and individually controlled by digital address.  But now
that I think it over, DMX512 is not two-way communications as such
and would not be able to report a defective fixture needing
maintenance, the next level protocol they may be used is called
"RDS" which does have two-way data communications.  If the main
controller were damaged in some way or if there is intermittent
loss of communication, the lights may behave in a wonky manner by
starting and stopping each time their digital address is polled.

Of course this is all speculation on my part.  I hope to finally
learn what is found in the investigation.

All the best, Doug

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

On Mon, Feb 4, 2019 at 3:03 PM Richard Nute mailto:ri...@ieee.org>> wrote:

Hi Doug:

Each individual light is blinking at its own pace. You can see
this by pausing the video; at each pause, some lights are on,
while some are off.  (At first, I thought they were blinking
in sequence, but you can see that this is not the case by
pausing th

Re: [PSES] [BULK] [PSES] Economical operator name & postal address onEEEproducts

[John Woodgate]

I think the setting up of EU 'presences' is contingency planning. There 
will be uncertainties about empowerment and responsibility even if there 
is a Brexit 'deal', spread out during and after the transition period. 
Relations with Brussels are bound to be better if there is an EU 
presence, whether it's absolutely necessary or not. You are right about 
the Blue Guide in English, but will it be interpreted in exactly the 
same way in every EU language? Then there is 'subsidiarity'; member 
states have some freedom to make local laws. You may remember that 
imported VCRs had to clear customs in Poitiers (in the middle of France) 
at one time. Similar situations could occur, and an EU presence would 
then be invaluable. It doesn't have to have a staff of 100.


Best wishes
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2019-02-06 04:37, Scott Xe wrote:


Dear Brian & Scott,

Thanks for your excellent guides for this matter!!

Currently we act as a manufacturer because the product has our own 
brand although the products are manufactured in China or other third 
countries outside EU. The technical files are located at our branch 
offices outside EU but can be retrieved electronically within a short 
notice. According to the Blue Guide, we do not need to change the name 
and postal address on the products even thought UK exits EU. However, 
lots of UK companies are setting up another offices or EU headquarters 
within EU/EEA such as Sony, Panasonic, Dyson, etc. and leave their UK 
office for UK market.  Is this action of a finance consideration 
rather than regulation compliance?


Regards,

Scott

*From: *Scott Aldous 
<mailto:0220f70c299a-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org>

*Sent: *Wednesday, 6 February 2019 12:41 AM
*To: *EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
*Subject: *Re: [PSES] [BULK] [PSES] Economical operator name & postal 
address onEEEproducts


Hi Scott,

I echo Brian's recommendation to read the relevant sections of the 
Blue Guide (2016 version is the latest I believe). You can download it 
here 
<https://ec.europa.eu/growth/content/%E2%80%98blue-guide%E2%80%99-implementation-eu-product-rules-0_en>. 
See section 4.2 on Traceability. It has a detailed description of 
obligations of different economic operators with regard to 
identification for market surveillance authorities. This section 
references 768/2008/EC 
<https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32008D0768>, 
which outlines obligations (see Articles R2, R3 and R4 in Annex I).


On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 2:15 AM John Woodgate <mailto:j...@woodjohn.uk>> wrote:


The responsibilities of importers and authorized representative
specified in Directives and Regulations are insufficient to
qualify as 'responsible person', because the 'responsible person'
has to know that no changes have been made to the product that
would affect its compliance. In other words, that person must have
access to all the manufacturing data for the product.

Best wishes

John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only

J M Woodgate and Associateswww.woodjohn.uk  <http://www.woodjohn.uk>

Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2019-02-05 09:44, Scott Xe wrote:

Dear Brian,

Thanks for your useful info!  Must the responsible person be
in EU/EEA countries?  Otherwise the responsible person will
fall into the importers or authorized resprentatives who is in
EU/EEA countries?

Regards,

Scott

Scott,

The short answer to your question is, the name and address of
the responsible party for placing a product on the EU market
is required to be on the products. EU documents often refer to
the responsible party as the “Manufacturer” even though the
responsible party may not have manufactured the product.

Read the “Blue Guide” on the implementation of the EU products
rules 2016/C 272/01 (unless there is a newer version).  It
does a good job explaining the many possible roles and players
under the New Legislative Form.

The Other Brian

*From:*Scott Xe [mailto:scott...@gmail.com]
*Sent:* Saturday, February 02, 2019 3:19 AM
*To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
*Subject:* [BULK] [PSES] Economical operator name & postal
address on EEE products
*Importance:* Low

Regarding the name & address on EEE products in EU market,
should they be the manufacturers, importers or authorized
representatives and which regulation does call for it?

Thanks and regards,

Scott

-


This message is from the IEE

[PSES] Magnetic field emissions below 150 kHz, especially 0 Hz to 9 kHz

[John Woodgate]

CISPR standards do not cover the above, but I suppose military and 
aviation standards may do.  Is there anything available free of charge?


--
Best wishes
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK


-

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] Testing a product with that uses a solar panel

[John Woodgate]

CISPR 11:2015 CSV covers radiation. IEC 62920:2017  is also needed.

Best wishes
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2019-02-14 03:36, Ken Javor wrote:
Re: [PSES] Testing a product with that uses a solar panel Waited to 
see if anyone would answer and didn’t see any answers, so what about a 
500 W work light? They are incandescent.


Ken Javor
Phone: (256) 650-5261



*From: *"Grasso, Charles" 
*Reply-To: *"Grasso, Charles" 
*Date: *Wed, 13 Feb 2019 21:29:42 +
*To: *
*Conversation: *Testing a product with that uses a solar panel
*Subject: *[PSES] Testing a product with that uses a solar panel

Hello,

I need to test a solar panel powered product for Radiated Emissions. 
 The solar panel
is integrated with the electronics.  Does anyone have any ideas on how 
to have the panel

function when testing in a chamber?

I am looking at you test labs!!

Thanks!

Charles Grasso
W: 303-706-5467

-


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) <http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html> 
<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 
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 mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org>>


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


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


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

List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

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

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



-

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

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

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

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 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] New EU enforcement regulations touches on all? product regulations/directives.

[John Woodgate]

It looks like a move to regulate Amazon and similar sources. At present, 
in the UK at least, there is little surveillance of goods ordered in 
small quantities by members of the public, with the exception of 
medication and some medical products.


Best wishes
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2019-02-14 17:42, Lauren Crane wrote:


Hello Compliance Friends,

Just stumbled across this while reviewing various newsletters in my 
in-box. Seems like it might impose some significant changes in EU 
compliance management. Haven’t found an OJ printed version yet. 
Attached are news release and the text linked in the release.


‘Hatched dragon’ is an internal joke.

Regards,

Lauren Crane

Tokyo Electron

-


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


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


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


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

List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

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

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



-

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

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

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

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 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] Rating & WEEE markings on lithium-ion rechargeable battery

[John Woodgate]

I agree; even internal fixed batteries should be marked. The markings 
are for service technicians and recycling people, not just users.


But 60065 and 60950-1 are nearly dead. You should look at 62368-1.

Best wishes
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2019-02-20 17:06, Scott Xe wrote:
The end product safety standards EN 60065 & EN 60950-1 consider the 
compliance if lithium-ion rechargeable battery meets EN 62133.  EN 
62133 asks for some rating markings and WEEE and battery Directives 
also ask for recycle symbols.  For individual selling on battery cells 
and packs, they must comply with all markings.  The users can 
reference to those markings for safe use of those components.  For end 
products such as clock radios, wireless headphones, etc., the battery 
is bulit into the unit and not allowed to be replaced or repaired by 
the customers.  The markings are not useful for the customers so those 
components are often NOT included all the markings.  Is it considered 
not to fully comply with EN 62133?  Should the end product be 
sufficient to comply with the markings specified by EN 60065 or EN 
60950-1 only?


Since the end products have to be separated from household waste and 
the rechargeable battery are required to be separated from household 
waste and normal EEE waste, how can it be presented to the customers 
without leading the confusion?


Thanks and regards,

Scott
-


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


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


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


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

List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

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

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



-

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

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

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

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 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] FCC Part 15 Testing in Situ

[John Woodgate]

Such very large equipment tends to be custom-designed, so three 
identical installations never exist. Even if there are three identical 
installations, they are unlikely to be completed simultaneously, so how 
can the first two be legally operated before the third is installed and 
tested?


I wonder if FCC needs to look again at this requirement.

Best wishes
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2019-02-21 20:48, Jim Hulbert wrote:


Equipment that is covered under FCC Rules Part 15, but which is too 
large to test on an open area test site, can alternatively been tested 
in situ.  However, the rules state that the test should be performed 
at 3 different representative installations of the equipment.  Does 
anyone on this forum have experience doing this?  I would expect 
conducted emissions to be reasonably similar, but I can see how 
environmental influences could result in 3 different sets of radiated 
emissions data.  How do you make sense of the data?


Jim Hulbert


This email message may contain confidential, proprietary and/or 
privileged information. It is intended only for the use of the 
intended recipient(s). If you have received it in error, please 
immediately advise the sender by reply email and then delete this 
message. No one other than the intended recipient may disclose, copy, 
distribute or use the information contained in this message.





-


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


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


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


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

List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

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

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



-

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

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

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

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 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] Identifying a Product of Multiple Components

[John Woodgate]

Comments inserted below.

Best wishes
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2019-02-22 16:59, Kunde, Brian wrote:


Please help me to understand the “Marking” of equipment requirements 
for systems made up of multiple components. I’m going to cross 
categories for the purpose of the examples, so don’t get confused by that.


Example 1:  I buy a PC. It comes in a large box. Inside I get a PC 
tower, mouse, keyboard, speakers with power cube, and maybe a printer 
with external power supply.   Each of the individual pieces I listed 
has its own Nameplate Label with Manufacturer’s name, model, serial, a 
CE marking, blah blah blah.  The manual has a page that looks like a 
Declaration of Conformity and it identifies the PC.  The DoC may also 
have a statement that says something like, “includes all options and 
configurations”.


Questions: Since each component has its own CE marking, shouldn’t each 
component have its own DOC?  If the model number on the PC and on the 
provided DoC only covers the PC, how are products made up of many EE 
identified and documented for CE? Should there be another label added 
with a Model Number that encompasses the entire system and that number 
be listed on the DoC?  And if so, how do you know what components are 
included with that model?


/JMW: PC, mouse and keyboard could be covered by one DoC. But the others 
should have their own DoCs because they are testable separately, unless 
the manufacturer claims that the package is a 'system', i.e. all parts 
tested together, in which case the DoC must list the specific parts, not 
just the PC or a general 'inclusion' statement./



Example 2:  Laboratory equipment system made up many components such 
as analyzers, heaters, sample loaders, ovens, external vacuum pumps, 
power supplies, PCs, monitors, keyboards, mouse, robot arm, 
measurement equipment, all interconnected and sold as a System with 
integrated software.  Each major component has its own Rating Label 
(Nameplate Label). The manufacturer of the System sells it as a Model 
SuperXYZ. Though this number is advertised and used to sell/order the 
system, the number does not appear anywhere on the product. Should it 
appear on the product? If so, where do you put it? What do you put on 
your DoC? Does the manufacturer of the system have to provide DoCs for 
every component?


/JMW: Again, it's a 'system', so the requirements are the same as above. 
The system name 'Model XYZ'  probably only need be on the packaging and 
the documentation./


Example Last:  In the above example, a USA company designs a builds a 
small box that gets mounted on the back of one of the components 
purchased from another company.  A nameplate label is added to the box 
with all the normal information including “Made in USA”.  However, 
when the combined product was shipped to another country, they were 
told they couldn’t list the “Made in USA” because the larger component 
it was attached to is made in a different country.   I do not 
understand the issue because the two are separate assemblies; each 
having their own Nameplate label and power cord.


/JMW: 'Country of Origin' rules differ between countries, but I think 
that in most countries the labelling you describe is correct, unless the 
USA box is hard-wired into the larger unit. That is a 'manufacturing 
operation' and that means that the whole thing has to be treated as 
originating in the country where that happens./


Help me to understand.

Thanks,

The Other Brian




-

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] Type F receptacle wiring

[John Woodgate]

The plug is not reversible in France and Belgium.

Best wishes
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2019-02-22 18:13, John Allen wrote:


Doug

As I am sure that many others will confirm, that CEE 7 socket does NOT 
have any defined polarity for the Live/Line and Neutral contact tubes, 
and thus the Line/Live and Neutral wires to those contact tubes can & 
are connected either way around according to the “wim” of the 
installer – unlike N.America and the UK (for example) which do have 
defined polarities for some sockets .


PS: researched this in detail about 20 yrs ago and I am quite sure 
that the situation has not changed since (as it had not changed in the 
decades before that).


John E Allen

W. London, UK

*From:*Doug Powell [mailto:doug...@gmail.com]
*Sent:* 22 February 2019 17:48
*To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
*Subject:* [PSES] Type F receptacle wiring

All,

I am searching for wiring information for the TYPE E CEE7/5, 250 Volt, 
16 Amp receptacle for France and Belgium.  The earth pin is obvious 
and for some reason, I am unable to find information on the correct 
pins for Line and Neutral.  The receptacle has no makings to this 
effect.  One resource even says the left/right orientation is 
interchangeable since neutral is considered as live. The best I can 
find indicates neutral is on the left when viewing the reception from 
the front.  True?


Thanks!  -- Doug

Douglas E Powell

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

-


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


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


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


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

List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

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

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

-


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


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


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


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

List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

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

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



-

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

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

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

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 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] Type F receptacle wiring

[John Woodgate]

This variant of the CEE7 is not reversible in FR or BE wall sockets, 
because of the earth pin. I measured a moulded-on lead, and looking at 
the pins, with the hole for the earth pin at the bottom, the N pin is on 
the right.  I don't guarantee that all leads are like that, though.


Best wishes
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2019-02-22 17:48, Doug Powell wrote:

All,

I am searching for wiring information for the TYPE E CEE7/5, 250 Volt, 
16 Amp receptacle for France and Belgium.  The earth pin is obvious 
and for some reason, I am unable to find information on the correct 
pins for Line and Neutral.  The receptacle has no makings to this 
effect.  One resource even says the left/right orientation is 
interchangeable since neutral is considered as live. The best I can 
find indicates neutral is on the left when viewing the reception from 
the front.  True?


Thanks!  -- Doug


Douglas E Powell

doug...@gmail.com <mailto:doug...@gmail.com>
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01
-


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


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


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


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

List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

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

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



-

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

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

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

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 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] Type F receptacle wiring

[John Woodgate]

I am not so sure. The French/Belgian version *may* have been invented 
just to be different from the German, but it certainly *allows* a 
standardized wiring of the wall socket (neutral on the left with the 
earth pin at the bottom). I suppose the subject would be addressed in 
the French and Belgian national versions of IEC 60364.  Does anyone here 
know?


Best wishes
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2019-02-22 20:23, John Allen wrote:


John

Regardless of whether or not a CEE 7 plug is (and, /apart from that 
particular version of the CEE 7 plug/, almost, if not all of them, 
are), or is not, reversible in a CEE 7 socket, the polarity of the 
socket contact tubes is indeterminable for the reasons I outlined 
earlier.


Therefore, as far as a supplier of pluggable equipment is concerned, 
he cannot rely on socket + plug polarity being determinable and 
stable, and thus the Live/Neutral conductors entering the equipment 
can, and often are, “reversed” arbitrarily – that is one of the 
reasons why double-pole switching, & sometimes fusing, of such 
equipment is deemed necessary for safety reasons.


John E Allen

W. London, UK.

*From:*John Woodgate [mailto:j...@woodjohn.uk]
*Sent:* 22 February 2019 18:28
*To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
*Subject:* Re: [PSES] Type F receptacle wiring

The plug is not reversible in France and Belgium.

Best wishes
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associateswww.woodjohn.uk  <http://www.woodjohn.uk>
Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2019-02-22 18:13, John Allen wrote:

Doug

As I am sure that many others will confirm, that CEE 7 socket does
NOT have any defined polarity for the Live/Line and Neutral
contact tubes, and thus the Line/Live and Neutral wires to those
contact tubes can & are connected either way around according to
the “wim” of the installer – unlike N.America and the UK (for
example) which do have defined polarities for some sockets .

PS: researched this in detail about 20 yrs ago and I am quite sure
that the situation has not changed since (as it had not changed in
the decades before that).

John E Allen

W. London, UK

*From:*Doug Powell [mailto:doug...@gmail.com]
*Sent:* 22 February 2019 17:48
*To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
*Subject:* [PSES] Type F receptacle wiring

All,

I am searching for wiring information for the TYPE E CEE7/5, 250
Volt, 16 Amp receptacle for France and Belgium.  The earth pin is
obvious and for some reason, I am unable to find information on
the correct pins for Line and Neutral. The receptacle has no
makings to this effect.  One resource even says the left/right
orientation is interchangeable since neutral is considered as
live. The best I can find indicates neutral is on the left when
viewing the reception from the front.  True?

Thanks!  -- Doug

Douglas E Powell

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

-


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

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

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

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

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

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

-


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

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

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

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

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Doug

Re: [PSES] Standards

[John Woodgate]

/EC 61010-1:2010/AMD1:2016 /is just the amendment

/IEC 61010-1:2010+AMD1:2016 CSV //Consolidated version/ is the full 
standard with the amendment integrated into the text.


The 2016 edition has not yet been adopted by CENELEC, so you can't get 
it as an EN at a low price from Estonian Standards.


Best wishes
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2019-02-22 21:37, Frank Tang wrote:

Hi PSTC community,
Looking to purchase a copy of IEC 61010-1:2010 standard and saw there 
are many revisions.

Products will be utilized in a laboratory environment.

Before purchasing a copy, would like to know the difference between 
/IEC 61010-1:2010/AMD1:2016 /and

/IEC 61010-1:2010+AMD1:2016 CSV //Consolidated version/?
Because there is quite a price difference,CHF 170 and CHF 700 
respectively.


--
Thank you and best regards.
- Frank
-


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


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


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


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

List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

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

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



-

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

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

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

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 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] Type F receptacle wiring

[John Woodgate]

Look at the text in the Wikipedia link you gave us, under the heading:


   CEE 7/5 socket and CEE 7/6 plug (French; Type E)

and the next :


   CEE 7/7 plug (compatible with E and F)

Polarization rules!

Best wishes
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2019-02-22 23:14, Richard Nute wrote:


Hi Doug:

The French, Belgian, and Schuko domestic connectors are non-polarized.

The British, North American, South Africa, some Japan domestic 
connectors are polarized.


Some domestic connectors in Norway and many in Japan have no PE.

Wikipedia discusses the various plugs and sockets, polarization, and 
earthing:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AC_power_plugs_and_sockets

See the table near the end for both polarization and earthing.

Appliance couplers are polarized in North America, but not elsewhere.

Best regards,

Rich

*F*



-

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] **External**Re: [PSES] FCC Part 15 Testing in Situ

[John Woodgate]

Do a 'pre-test'. Run the machine and walk round it with a wide-band 
receiver in ever-increasing circles. Note what you pick up and where. 
That gives a guide as to what might need to be measured more accurately 
and/or suppressed.


Best wishes
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2019-02-25 12:56, Jim Hulbert wrote:

Hi Tom,

The exemption in (b) is for electronic control or power system utilized by a 
public utility or in an industrial plant.  I don't believe the exemption 
extends to machinery operated in those environments.   And the exemption for 
(c) is for test equipment used in industrial, commercial or medical 
applications.

I agreein-situ testing can be very difficult.

Jim H.

-Original Message-
From: T.Sato [mailto:vef00...@nifty.com]
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2019 8:20 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] **External**Re: [PSES] FCC Part 15 Testing in Situ

CAUTION: THIS EMAIL IS FROM AN EXTERNAL SOURCE. Internet links, office 
documents or other attachments may contain viruses. Do not click on a link, 
open or enable any file unless you trust the sender.


On Fri, 22 Feb 2019 14:39:46 +,
   Jim Hulbert  wrote:


Yes, FCC requirements for this type of equipment are not very practical.As 
a side note, such large equipment is industrial in nature, which may lead one 
to believe they would fall under FCC Part 18 for ISM instead of Part 15.   
However, Part 18 only covers industrial equipment that generates and locally 
uses RF energy for the production of physical, biological, or chemical effects. 
 An industrial machine that does not utilize RF energy for these purposes is 
not within scope of Part 18, and so Part 15 applies.

I guess large industrial machines which will not fall under Part 18 may often 
be exempted from Part 15 (except for general conditions of operation), 
especially due to 47 CFR 15.103 (b) or (c).

If the machine can't be exempted, although in-situ radiated emission 
measurement can be very difficult, I think we need to measure them in-situ 
individually at least for first three installations.

Regards,
Tom

--
Tomonori Sato  


From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@woodjohn.uk]
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2019 3:05 AM
To: Jim Hulbert ;
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: **External**Re: [PSES] FCC Part 15 Testing in Situ


Such very large equipment tends to be custom-designed, so three identical 
installations never exist. Even if there are three identical installations, 
they are unlikely to be completed simultaneously, so how can the first two be 
legally operated before the third is installed and tested?

I wonder if FCC needs to look again at this requirement.

Best wishes

John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only

J M Woodgate and Associates
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.woodjohn.uk&
;data=02%7C01%7CJim.Hulbert%40pb.com%7Ceaf18be7160c4e075aaa08d6992ddb1
7%7C8a4925a9fd8e4866b31cf719fb05dce6%7C1%7C0%7C636864819567427224&
sdata=cJrnUUssyZT9dbdtTFnOWSMtsxyGA1B%2F3TyV5NxG9co%3D&reserved=0<
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wo
odjohn.uk&data=02%7C01%7CJim.Hulbert%40pb.com%7Ceaf18be7160c4e075a
aa08d6992ddb17%7C8a4925a9fd8e4866b31cf719fb05dce6%7C1%7C0%7C6368648195
67427224&sdata=iMWfZ8B%2FpVrgg1C3AO3ViGDBvwSZJAapCx2XHpt8%2B60%3D&
amp;reserved=0>

Rayleigh, Essex UK
On 2019-02-21 20:48, Jim Hulbert wrote:
Equipment that is covered under FCC Rules Part 15, but which is too large to 
test on an open area test site, can alternatively been tested in situ.  
However, the rules state that the test should be performed at 3 different 
representative installations of the equipment.  Does anyone on this forum have 
experience doing this?  I would expect conducted emissions to be reasonably 
similar, but I can see how environmental influences could result in 3 different 
sets of radiated emissions data.  How do you make sense of the data?

Jim Hulbert



This email message may contain confidential, proprietary and/or privileged 
information. It is intended only for the use of the intended recipient(s). If 
you have received it in error, please immediately advise the sender by reply 
email and then delete this message. No one other than the intended recipient 
may disclose, copy, distribute or use the information contained in this message.




-


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

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ie
ee-pses.org%2Femc-pstc.html&data=02%7C01%7CJim.Hulbert%40pb.com%7C
eaf18be7160c4e075aaa08d6992ddb17%7C8a4925a9fd8e4866b31cf719fb05dce6%7C
1%7C0%7C636864819567427224&

Re: [PSES] Standards

[John Woodgate]

I'm not involved in IEC TC66, but from the IEC web store, the amendment 
is 54 pages and 1.5 MB. So not exactly trivial. I would therefore 
recommend obtaining the consolidated version. Unfortunately, it isn't 
yet adopted as an EN, so you can't get it at a special price from 
Estonian Standards.


Best wishes
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2019-02-25 14:44, Kunde, Brian wrote:


John,

Do you, or anyone, know if this amendment to IEC 61010-1 is much to be 
concerned about?  Is this a major amendment that actually changes the 
requirements or just a few corrections or clarifications in areas that 
wouldn’t really affect the product in any way?


Thanks,

The Other Brian

*From:*John Woodgate [mailto:j...@woodjohn.uk]
*Sent:* Friday, February 22, 2019 5:18 PM
*To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
*Subject:* Re: [PSES] Standards

/EC 61010-1:2010/AMD1:2016 /is just the amendment

/IEC 61010-1:2010+AMD1:2016 CSV Consolidated version/ is the full 
standard with the amendment integrated into the text.


The 2016 edition has not yet been adopted by CENELEC, so you can't get 
it as an EN at a low price from Estonian Standards.


Best wishes
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associateswww.woodjohn.uk  <http://www.woodjohn.uk>
Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2019-02-22 21:37, Frank Tang wrote:

Hi PSTC community,

Looking to purchase a copy of IEC 61010-1:2010 standard and saw
there are many revisions.

Products will be utilized in a laboratory environment.

Before purchasing a copy, would like to know the
difference between /IEC 61010-1:2010/AMD1:2016 /and

/IEC 61010-1:2010+AMD1:2016 CSV Consolidated version/?

Because there is quite a price difference,CHF 170 and CHF 700
respectively.

--
Thank you and best regards.
- Frank

-


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

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
<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/
<http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/> can be used for graphics
(in well-used formats), large files, etc.

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

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

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

-


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


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


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


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

List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

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

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




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



-

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] Work Equipment Directive 2009/104/EC

[John Woodgate]

If it's 'customer designed' and not sold to anyone else, it's probably 
not 'placed on the market' anyway.


Best wishes
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2019-02-25 16:59, Doug Powell wrote:
Use of the Work Equipment Directive 2009/104/EC does not fall under CE 
marking per se.  It does however, mention the use of "...any relevant 
Community directive which is applicable" as applied to work equipment.
My question relates to customer designed equipment used only during 
commissioning of machinery and only by trained workers.  Is my 
assumption correct, that CE marking is not required for equipment to 
be used only temporary and to be removed after work is complete?


Thanks all!

Doug

--

Douglas E Powell

doug...@gmail.com <mailto:doug...@gmail.com>
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01
-


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


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


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


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

List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

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

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



-

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

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

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

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 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] RoHS standard change...

[John Woodgate]

The site you mention has the answer:

/In setting the necessary technical documentation requirements, EN IEC 
63000 is *almost identical *to the text of EN 50581, even if any wording 
specific to the EU RoHS Directive has been removed: it aims at 
addressing different substance regulations worldwide while ensuring the 
same approach from manufacturers everywhere. The normative references of 
EN 50581:2012 were updated in EN IEC 63000 in order to reflect the 
latest international development of analytical test methods and material 
declaration.


EN 50581:2012 is a harmonised standard meaning that its application 
gives presumption of conformity with the requirements of the RoHS 
Directive. Considering that a large number of products on market are 
referring to it in their Declaration of Conformity,*a transition period 
of 5 years (60 months) *has been granted for manufacturers to adapt 
before EN IEC 63000:2018 supersedes EN 50581:2012. In practice this 
means that during this transition period both standards will coexist, 
allowing the manufacturers to smoothly migrate to EN IEC 63000:2018.

/

Transition periods run from the date of publication of the new standard, 
so 50581 is presumably usable until 2023. But you would be well advised 
to look at the new standard well before then, maybe in 2021, in case the 
first edition has acquired any amendment or corrigendum.


Best wishes
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2019-02-27 16:59, Matthew Wilson wrote:
I see that BSI now state that EN 50581:2012 is marked as Status : 
Superseded, Withdrawn

https://shop.bsigroup.com/ProductDetail?pid=0030261478
and states it is replaced by: BS EN IEC 63000:2018, Technical 
documentation for the assessment of electrical and electronic products 
with respect to the restriction of hazardous substances


The harmonised list on the EU website still states 'EN 50581:2012 
Technical documentation for the assessment of electrical and 
electronic products with respect to the restriction of hazardous 
substances'


https://ec.europa.eu/growth/single-market/european-standards/harmonised-standards/restriction-of-hazardous-substances_en

What one should I put in a declaration of conformity to be issued this 
week?  The product in question has been assessed for RoHS compliance 
using the principles and our copy of EN 50581:2012.


It appears the two are probably identical according to the link below 
and we've just missed there's going to be a change (it's hard for SME 
like us to keep abreast of all the changes and that before any Brexit 
implications! Anyone any hints on that?) although the article talks 
about 60 month transition period but not actually what the actual 
timescale is!


https://www.cencenelec.eu/news/brief_news/Pages/TN-2019-009.aspx

Thanks for any pointers.

Regards,




Matthew Wilson
Technical Director



GBE <https://gbelectronics.uk>
https://gbelectronics.uk

T:  +44 (0)1903 244500
F:  +44 (0)1903 700715



Ascot House // Mulberry Close // Woods Way
Goring-by-Sea // West Sussex // BN12 4QY // UK




Electronics Design // Manufacturing // Component Distribution

ISO 9001 | ISO 14001 <https://gbelectronics.uk/quality/standards>

Want to send us a file? https://www.mailbigfile.com/gbelectronics



GB Electronics (UK) Limited is a company registered in England and Wales
Company Registration No: 06210991
VAT Registration No: GB 925 1744 25



Registered Office:
Ascot House, Mulberry Close, Woods Way
Goring by Sea, West Sussex, BN12 4QY

Disclaimer: This email and any files transmitted with it are 
confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or 
entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in 
error please delete it from your system, do not use or disclose the 
information in any way and notify the sender immediately.


The contents of this message may contain personal views which are not 
the views of the company, unless specifically stated.


-


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


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


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


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

List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list

Re: [PSES] Mexico compliance approval for IT equipment

[John Woodgate]

To be fair, Mexico is a full member of IEC and is a P-member (i.e. 
actively contributing ) on 32 Technical Committees. There are nearly 200 
committees, so it does take a long time to catch up with the countries 
that have been members since 1910, even if we consider only EMC and safety.


Best wishes
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2019-02-27 21:03, Pete Perkins wrote:


My experience is that they are way behind on harmonization of 
requirements with the EN/IEC technical requirements.  They are working 
to come into the 21^st century but will, in the end, require national 
NOM certification even if it is to the EN/IEC requirements; they have 
allowed some simpler paths in the past but these seem to be phasing 
out and replaced by NOM.  Unfortunately, the NOM certification is only 
a 1 year certification and it has to be renewed each year (maybe even 
retesting); presumably this is in lieu of factory follow-up to 
maintain the certification. Further, if your product has a radio 
(wireless, Bluetooth, etc) it requires Mexican testing, approvals and 
registration.


From what I see, every (developing) country wants to get into the cert 
& registration game.  This has all been made easier by the development 
of IEC standards which are being harmonized for the major markets and 
all are easily adopted by additional countries (very little 
requirements development cost, all borne by the big boys in the IEC 
committees).  However, in order to have some control it is 
straightforward to develop a bureaucracy to administer local 
certification and registration to use their mark.  If the country 
doesn’t have local qualified folks to deal with this, just implement 
internal test houses for safety , EMC and everything else then require 
that all product be tested in country to get their mark (until the lab 
staff is fully qualified) after which MRAs can be developed to accept 
outside work to get local acceptance. The power supply for your laptop 
shows the path that everything is on.


:>) br,  Pete

Peter E Perkins, PE

Principal Product Safety & Regulatory Affairs Consultant

PO Box 23427

Tigard, ORe  97281-3427

503/452-1201

IEEE Life Fellow

p.perk...@ieee.org <mailto:p.perk...@ieee.org>

*From:* Koester, Helmut 
*Sent:* Wednesday, February 27, 2019 4:53 AM
*To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
*Subject:* [PSES] Mexico compliance approval for IT equipment

Hello group,

does anybody know if it there is any way to bring IT Equipment into 
the Mexican market without NOM certificate only based on CE marking 
and CE test documentation?


Regards

Helmut

PSi Laser GmbH
Helmut Koester
mailto:h.koes...@psi-laser.de

-


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


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


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


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

List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

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

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

-


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


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


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


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

List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

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

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



-

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

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

Re: [PSES] RoHS standard change...

[John Woodgate]

Strictly speaking, transition periods are not specified in CENELEC 
standards, Instead, the mythical animal Docopocoss is specified (Date Of 
Cessation Of Presumption Of Conformity Of the Superseded Standard) is 
specified. Even more strictly, CENELEC specifies that, but the 
Commission can overrule it.


IEC standards sometimes include a recommended transition period in the 
Foreword (which no-one ever reads), but it's purely advisory.


Best wishes
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2019-02-28 13:35, Matthew Wilson wrote:


Thank you John, that is most helpful to know that transition periods 
run from the date of publication of the new standard.  Don’t know why 
I didn’t actually have concrete knowledge of that but it makes sense.


Matthew Wilson,

Technical Director,

GB Electronics (UK) Ltd.

*From:*John Woodgate 
*Sent:* 27 February 2019 17:36
*To:* Matthew Wilson ; 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

*Subject:* Re: [PSES] RoHS standard change...

The site you mention has the answer:

/In setting the necessary technical documentation requirements, EN IEC 
63000 is *almost identical *to the text of EN 50581, even if any 
wording specific to the EU RoHS Directive has been removed: it aims at 
addressing different substance regulations worldwide while ensuring 
the same approach from manufacturers everywhere. The normative 
references of EN 50581:2012 were updated in EN IEC 63000 in order to 
reflect the latest international development of analytical test 
methods and material declaration.


EN 50581:2012 is a harmonised standard meaning that its application 
gives presumption of conformity with the requirements of the RoHS 
Directive. Considering that a large number of products on market are 
referring to it in their Declaration of Conformity,*a transition 
period of 5 years (60 months) *has been granted for manufacturers to 
adapt before EN IEC 63000:2018 supersedes EN 50581:2012. In practice 
this means that during this transition period both standards will 
coexist, allowing the manufacturers to smoothly migrate to EN IEC 
63000:2018. /


Transition periods run from the date of publication of the new 
standard, so 50581 is presumably usable until 2023. But you would be 
well advised to look at the new standard well before then, maybe in 
2021, in case the first edition has acquired any amendment or corrigendum.


Best wishes
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associateswww.woodjohn.uk  <http://www.woodjohn.uk>
Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2019-02-27 16:59, Matthew Wilson wrote:

I see that BSI now state that EN 50581:2012 is marked as Status :
Superseded, Withdrawn
https://shop.bsigroup.com/ProductDetail?pid=0030261478
and states it is replaced by: BS EN IEC 63000:2018, Technical
documentation for the assessment of electrical and electronic
products with respect to the restriction of hazardous substances

The harmonised list on the EU website still states 'EN 50581:2012
Technical documentation for the assessment of electrical and
electronic products with respect to the restriction of hazardous
substances'


https://ec.europa.eu/growth/single-market/european-standards/harmonised-standards/restriction-of-hazardous-substances_en

What one should I put in a declaration of conformity to be issued
this week?  The product in question has been assessed for RoHS
compliance using the principles and our copy of EN 50581:2012.

It appears the two are probably identical according to the link
below and we've just missed there's going to be a change (it's
hard for SME like us to keep abreast of all the changes and that
before any Brexit implications! Anyone any hints on that?)
although the article talks about 60 month transition period but
not actually what the actual timescale is!

https://www.cencenelec.eu/news/brief_news/Pages/TN-2019-009.aspx

Thanks for any pointers.

Regards,



*Matthew**Wilson*
Technical Director



GBE <https://gbelectronics.uk>
https://gbelectronics.uk

T:



+44 (0)1903 244500

F:



+44 (0)1903 700715



Ascot House // Mulberry Close // Woods Way
Goring-by-Sea // West Sussex // BN12 4QY // UK




*Electronics Design // Manufacturing // Component Distribution*



ISO 9001 | ISO 14001 <https://gbelectronics.uk/quality/standards>

Want to send us a file? https://www.mailbigfile.com/gbelectronics



GB Electronics (UK) Limited is a company registered in England and
Wales
Company Registration No: 06210991
VAT Registration No: GB 925 1744 25



Registered Office:
Ascot House, Mulberry Close, Wo

Re: [PSES] RoHS standard change...

[John Woodgate]

Maybe my explanation was a bit too brief. CENELEC specifies the dow, but 
the Commission can assert a different date - the docoposs - which is 
what matters for establishing conformity.


If a standard has not been notified in the OJ, and therefore does not 
support regulation, the dow is just an instruction to national standards 
committees to withdraw any conflicting national standard. Manufacturers 
can, perhaps unwisely, continue to apply a standard beyond the dow date 
in the superseding standard.


Best wishes
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2019-03-04 12:51, Scott Xe wrote:


Hi John,

Thanks for your clarification!  A lot of people will take the dow in 
EN standard as the deadline, especially the standard has not been put 
in OJEU or conflicts with OJEU.  EN standard is EN Norm.  What is 
wrong to take this approach?  Is there any official guidance to 
clarify it?


Regards,

Scott

*From:*John Woodgate 
*Sent:* Friday, 1 March 2019 12:43 AM
*To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
*Subject:* Re: [PSES] RoHS standard change...

Strictly speaking, transition periods are not specified in CENELEC 
standards, Instead, the mythical animal Docopocoss is specified (Date 
Of Cessation Of Presumption Of Conformity Of the Superseded Standard) 
is specified. Even more strictly, CENELEC specifies that, but the 
Commission can overrule it.


IEC standards sometimes include a recommended transition period in the 
Foreword (which no-one ever reads), but it's purely advisory.


Best wishes
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associateswww.woodjohn.uk  <http://www.woodjohn.uk>
Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2019-02-28 13:35, Matthew Wilson wrote:

Thank you John, that is most helpful to know that transition
periods run from the date of publication of the new standard.
Don’t know why I didn’t actually have concrete knowledge of that
but it makes sense.

Matthew Wilson,

Technical Director,

GB Electronics (UK) Ltd.

*From:*John Woodgate  <mailto:j...@woodjohn.uk>
*Sent:* 27 February 2019 17:36
*To:* Matthew Wilson 
<mailto:matthew.wil...@gbelectronics.com>;
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
*Subject:* Re: [PSES] RoHS standard change...

The site you mention has the answer:

/In setting the necessary technical documentation requirements, EN
IEC 63000 is *almost identical *to the text of EN 50581, even if
any wording specific to the EU RoHS Directive has been removed: it
aims at addressing different substance regulations worldwide while
ensuring the same approach from manufacturers everywhere. The
normative references of EN 50581:2012 were updated in EN IEC 63000
in order to reflect the latest international development of
analytical test methods and material declaration.

EN 50581:2012 is a harmonised standard meaning that its
application gives presumption of conformity with the requirements
of the RoHS Directive. Considering that a large number of products
on market are referring to it in their Declaration of
Conformity,*a transition period of 5 years (60 months) *has been
granted for manufacturers to adapt before EN IEC 63000:2018
supersedes EN 50581:2012. In practice this means that during this
transition period both standards will coexist, allowing the
manufacturers to smoothly migrate to EN IEC 63000:2018. /

Transition periods run from the date of publication of the new
standard, so 50581 is presumably usable until 2023. But you would
be well advised to look at the new standard well before then,
maybe in 2021, in case the first edition has acquired any
amendment or corrigendum.

Best wishes

John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only

J M Woodgate and Associateswww.woodjohn.uk  <http://www.woodjohn.uk>

Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2019-02-27 16:59, Matthew Wilson wrote:

I see that BSI now state that EN 50581:2012 is marked as
Status : Superseded, Withdrawn
https://shop.bsigroup.com/ProductDetail?pid=0030261478
and states it is replaced by: BS EN IEC 63000:2018, Technical
documentation for the assessment of electrical and electronic
products with respect to the restriction of hazardous substances

The harmonised list on the EU website still states 'EN
50581:2012 Technical documentation for the assessment of
electrical and electronic products with respect to the
restriction of hazardous substances'


https://ec.europa.eu/growth/single-market/european-standards/harmonised-standards/restriction-of-hazardous-substances_en

What one should I put in a declaration of conformity to be
issued this week?  The product in question has been assessed
for RoHS compliance using the principles and our copy of EN
  

Re: [PSES] CCC on Cooling Fans?

[John Woodgate]

Probably a keen new officer with insufficient training.

Best wishes
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2019-03-05 16:43, Brian Kunde wrote:
We received a strange request today from Hong Kong 
supposedly initiated from Customs.


We were asked to provide CCC supporting documents for about a dozen 
cooling fans used in some of our instruments (laboratory equipment).  
I knew CCC is required on household electrical fans but not small 
internal cooling fans.  The list of fans is a mixture of 230Vac fans 
and 24Vdc fans.


Some of these fans were used in products that went obsolete 10 years 
ago or longer.  We may still ship them as repair replacement parts, 
but I thought service parts were exempt.


Is this a new requirement or do you think there is some kind of 
confusion going on?


Regards,

The Other Brian

PS: How many active EMC-PSTC members do you think there are?
-


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


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


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


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

List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

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

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



-

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

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

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

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 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] CEE standards?

[John Woodgate]

Have you asked IEC? I expect so. They might have the catalog, or even 
catalogue.:-)


Best wishes
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2019-03-07 17:38, Richard Nute wrote:


I’m looking for CEE standards, or a catalog of CEE standards.  CEE is 
"Commission for Conformity Testing of Electrical Equipment."  CEE was 
superseded by IECEE, IEC System of Conformity Assessment Schemes for 
Electrotechnical Equipment and Components.  The standards are no 
longer available, but maybe someone has an archive.  I did at one 
time, but my copies remained with my former employer who I’m sure has 
thrown them out as they were no longer useful (and my former employer 
has gone through many management and ownership changes.)


What years were CEE standards in effect?

Thanks, and best regards,

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 mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org>>


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


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


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

List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

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

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



-

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

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

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

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 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] Brexit and impact on offical langugages

[John Woodgate]

I should think there would be consternation and monkeyhouse if English 
were not retained. My guess is that almost all multi-state communication 
is in English, verbal and written.


Best wishes
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2019-03-07 17:56, Doug Powell wrote:

All,

With March 29 approaching, I've seen plenty of discussion on the 
impact of Brexit.  However, I've seen virtually nothing on official 
languages of the EEC.  And in particular how this might affect 
Declarations of Conformity/Incorporation as well as labeling and user 
documentation.  In the past, my advice has always been to start with 
one of the official languages and if requested by the end user to 
provide in another language this then becomes mandatory.  With 
implementation of Brexit is English no longer an official language of 
the community?


This seems an interesting question to me because it seems that English 
/ French will remain intact for the IEC in Brussels.  I suppose we can 
continue to watch the O.J. after the withdrawal of Britain.


Best to all,  Doug

--
Douglas E Powell
doug...@gmail.com <mailto:doug...@gmail.com>
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01
-


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


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


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


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

List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

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

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



-

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

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

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

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 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] CEE standards?

[John Woodgate]

IECEE has its own web site. This URL might help: 
https://www.iecee.org/documents/refdocs/


Best wishes
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2019-03-07 19:18, Richard Nute wrote:


Hi John:

I asked IEC.  No response.

Best regards,

Rich

*From:*John Woodgate 
*Sent:* Thursday, March 7, 2019 10:39 AM
*To:* ri...@ieee.org; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
*Subject:* Re: [PSES] CEE standards?

Have you asked IEC? I expect so. They might have the catalog, or even 
catalogue.:-)


Best wishes
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associateswww.woodjohn.uk  <http://www.woodjohn.uk>
Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2019-03-07 17:38, Richard Nute wrote:

I’m looking for CEE standards, or a catalog of CEE standards.  CEE
is "Commission for Conformity Testing of Electrical Equipment."
 CEE was superseded by IECEE, IEC System of Conformity Assessment
Schemes for Electrotechnical Equipment and Components.  The
standards are no longer available, but maybe someone has an
archive. I did at one time, but my copies remained with my former
employer who I’m sure has thrown them out as they were no longer
useful (and my former employer has gone through many management
and ownership changes.)

What years were CEE standards in effect?

Thanks, and best regards,

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 mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org>>

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

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

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

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

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



-

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

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

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

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 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] Brexit and impact on official languages

[John Woodgate]

I edit IEC documents; I very rarely edit CENELEC documents except via 
comments submitted through BSI. That won't change after Brexit; at least 
no change is intended. But the volume of editorial correction needed is 
such that for many years I have been urging others to share the burden 
and it is beginning to happen.


There is no chance of French becoming dominant again; Germany will see 
to that!


Many Americans write excellent English, naturally with a detectable 
flavour/flavor sometimes. Many Brits can't write their native language 
for toffee, and that's not just a matter of education. Some academics 
write totally impenetrable prose.


Best wishes
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2019-03-08 01:06, Pete Perkins wrote:


Doug et al,   A sigh of relief knowing that Ireland will 
champion the English language within the EU, unless the Francophiles 
push to return French to its former prominence in official 
communication.  However, Ireland may not continue to pursue the 
virginity of the English language within the EU communications in the 
same way the British have done.  John Woodgate, unfortunately, will 
not carry the same weight in all of this as in former days. Americans 
will remain indifferent to the subtleties of the English language and 
continue in our slovenly ways.


:>) br,  Pete

Peter E Perkins, PE

Principal Product Safety & Regulatory Affairs Consultant

PO Box 23427

Tigard, ORe  97281-3427

503/452-1201

IEEE Life Fellow

p.perk...@ieee.org <mailto:p.perk...@ieee.org>

Entropy ain’t what it used to be

*From:* Doug Powell 
*Sent:* Thursday, March 7, 2019 9:57 AM
*To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
*Subject:* [PSES] Brexit and impact on offical langugages

All,

With March 29 approaching, I've seen plenty of discussion on the 
impact of Brexit.  However, I've seen virtually nothing on official 
languages of the EEC.  And in particular how this might affect 
Declarations of Conformity/Incorporation as well as labeling and user 
documentation.  In the past, my advice has always been to start with 
one of the official languages and if requested by the end user to 
provide in another language this then becomes mandatory.  With 
implementation of Brexit is English no longer an official language of 
the community?


This seems an interesting question to me because it seems that English 
/ French will remain intact for the IEC in Brussels.  I suppose we can 
continue to watch the O.J. after the withdrawal of Britain.


Best to all,  Doug

--

Douglas E Powell
doug...@gmail.com <mailto:doug...@gmail.com>
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01

-


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


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


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


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

List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

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

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

-


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


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


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


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

List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

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

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



-

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

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

Re: [PSES] classification of the output

[John Woodgate]

Trouble is, you can never be sure . It might be Air Force 1 that gets 
the EMI!


On 2019-03-08 15:56, Ken Javor wrote:
Re: [PSES] classification of the output Unless the output overload 
test modeled something that occurred fairly often in practice, it 
seems to me that EMI caused during such an event would not be a 
serious issue.


Ken Javor
Phone: (256) 650-5261



*From: *John Woodgate 
*Reply-To: *John Woodgate 
*Date: *Fri, 8 Mar 2019 09:41:41 +
*To: *
*Subject: *Re: [PSES] classification of the output



There are serious EMC implications as well. Since most EMC testing 
doesn't cover overload conditions, the effect you describe could 
result in many complaints of EMI  in the field.



Best wishes
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk <http://www.woodjohn.uk> 
<http://www.woodjohn.uk>

Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2019-03-08 09:24, Boštjan Glavič wrote:





Dear all,



I would need your advice about classification of the output of
power supply during abnormal operation. I know that quite many
discussions were already done, but this was with regard of touch
current.



During output overload test unit goes in hiccup mode. There are
more than 3s between main pulses. Pulse voltage does not exceed
60V (see picture 1). The problem is that each pulse (hiccup) is
composed of small pulses (see second picture). How to treat this
output?



Customer is not happy with ES2 classification.



Can we each pulse separate to AC and DC part and try with limit
for Combined AC and DC?



Thank you for your support.



Best regards,

Bostjan















Picture 1 – output hiccup.





Picture 2 – zoom of individual pulse





 -
 

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) <http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html>
<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 
 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) <http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html> 
<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 
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 mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org>>


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


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


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

List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

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

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



---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

-

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

Re: [PSES] Brexit and impact on official languages

[John Woodgate]

All languages should be preserved if possible, but everyone should be 
able to speak the majority language in the region where they live. If 
that means learning more than one, so be it; that is known to convey 
mental advantages as well, often, as social advantages. It's no hardship 
for most young children (three to nine, or thereabouts) to learn more 
than two.


Best wishes
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2019-03-08 19:27, Richard Nute wrote:


Note that the U.S.A. does not have an “official” language, but English 
is predominant and is used for most government and other documents.  
Occasionally, someone will get a burr and propose that we adopt 
English as our “official” language and stop catering to 
non-English-language folks.


Because we have a lot of Spanish-speaking citizens, a lot of written 
material includes Spanish.  We have two Spanish nation-wide broadcast 
TV networks.


Best regards,

Rich

*From:* Andrew Wood 
*Sent:* Friday, March 8, 2019 2:13 AM
*To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
*Subject:* Re: [PSES] Brexit and impact on official languages

Other national authorities can chose to accept English if they wish, 
but to answer your specific question the following countries have 
English as an official language (according to ATEX Blue guide – other 
Directives are available 😉). There are CURRENTLY 28 EU member States 
and 24 official EU languages.


Ireland – Irish (Gaelic) and English

Malta – Maltese and English

United Kingdom – English

This note follows the full list:

“Certain of the Member States with two or more official languages 
(Belgium, Finland) accept the use of one language only in areas where 
only that language is spoken; other Member States with two official 
languages (Malta and Ireland) accept the sole use of English. 
Manufacturers are advised to check this with the national authorities 
concerned.”


Andy

-


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


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


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


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

List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

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

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



-

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

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

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

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 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] Sheet resistor material

[John Woodgate]

Do a web search for 'teledeltos paper'. I am astonished that a) I 
remembered the name and b) it it still available.


Best wishes
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2019-03-10 03:42, DEREK WALTON wrote:

Hi All,

I’m looking for a source for Sheet resistor material. So far my internet 
searching has pulled up nothing, can anyone give me some pointers?

Thanks,

Derek.

-

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] human skin resistance

[John Woodgate]

I don't know of any that Pete Perkins wouldn't know about.

Best wishes
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2019-03-13 19:06, Richard Nute wrote:


John referenced “skin resistance.”

To my knowledge, there is no research that shows skin resistance and 
body resistance as separate parameters.  We only know total body 
resistance, and that it is a variable that changes – lowers -- with 
applied voltage and time.


Having said that, a good guess that skin resistance is the predominant 
parameter at low voltages.  The “body” is comprised of 
water-predominate organs, so is likely to be a lower resistance than 
skin resistance and relatively constant with voltage.


We also know that capacitance parallels the total body resistance.  
But, as with resistance, we don’t know how to apportion the 
capacitance to the skin and to the body.


If you know of any such research, please let me know.

Best regards,

Rich

*From:*John Woodgate 
*Sent:* Wednesday, March 13, 2019 1:30 AM
*To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
*Subject:* Re: [PSES] classification of the output

We found very great differences in human  'skin resistance' at 
effectively zero voltage when designing TV tuners with touch-contact 
channel selection. We had to make the sensitivity so high that there 
was a risk that houseflies would change the channel.


Best wishes
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associateswww.woodjohn.uk  <http://www.woodjohn.uk>
Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2019-03-13 05:22, Pete Perkins wrote:

-


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


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


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


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

List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

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

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



-

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

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

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

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 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] classification of the output

[John Woodgate]

Is it not possible to refer such a divergence to TC108 for a ruling on 
interpretation? Maybe even an Interpretation Sheet would be generated if 
the 'ES2' test house has misunderstood the standard.


Best wishes
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2019-03-13 21:21, Richard Nute wrote:


Hi Boštjan:

If you say ES1 and another certification body says ES2, then a 
negotiation must take place.


To avoid negotiation, you must change your verdict to ES2.

However, the manufacturer wants ES1, which is determined by the 
voltage. I agree that the voltage waveform is ES1 value, and the 
current is not.  But only one parameter, voltage or current, is needed 
to determine ES1.


Good luck, and best regards,

Rich

*From:*Glavič 
*Sent:* Tuesday, March 12, 2019 10:34 PM
*To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
*Subject:* Re: [PSES] classification of the output

Hi Pete,

What manufacturer is expecting is the exact answer. Does this output 
complies with ES1 or it is ES2? And of course justification for this 
decision. If I accept it as ES1 and then later the other certification 
body says it is ES2 it is a big problem for the manufacturer.


If you see below my understanding how can we interpret the standard 
then separation to AC and DC part for the single pulse is not required 
and limit is always 60Vpk. Do you agree?


There is no limitation for maximum duration of the single pulse in the 
standard. Also pulse off time is not clear (is it time when pulse 
voltage is at zero or the time when pulse voltage is below certain 
voltage).


I know that as a member of HBSDT and OSM I have  tools in my hands 
however I do not see a quick solution. So some experiences and 
opinions from members of  this group are appreciated.


The question that was previously raised at TC was a bit different, it 
was not a pulsing waveform.


Best regards,

Bostjan

-


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


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


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


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

List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

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

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



-

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

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

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

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 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] Safety & EMC during Proof of concept

[John Woodgate]

It depends on what happens to the product. If it leaves the laboratory, 
such as to go to an exhibition, then all the requirements apply, in 
principle, but there are concessions in some countries on EMC but 
obviously not on safety. If the product stays in 'technical areas' and 
the radiated and conducted emissions are not too horrendous, then 
probably no-one outside the company will know it exists.


Best wishes
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2019-03-14 01:48, Frank Tang wrote:

Hi Everyone,
This is my first time regarding prototype/proof of concept products, 
is it subjected to the same safety and emc guidelines?


--
Thank you and best regards.
- Frank
-


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


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


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


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

List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

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

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



-

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

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

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

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 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] classification of the output - SawStop

[John Woodgate]

Hi, Ed. I expect it senses current, whether that's through a resistance 
or a capacitance.


Best wishes
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2019-03-15 04:19, Edward Price wrote:


*Pete:*

**

*Does the SawStop operate by sensing leakage current through the human 
finger to ground, or does it sense the human body’s capacitance (like 
those touch sensors that control small table lamps)?*


**

*Also, I read their literature, but I didn’t see any mention of 
false-positive actions. Is there some white-paper that SawStop has 
which might have some better technical details?*


**

*/Ed Price
/**WB6WSN**/
/**Chula Vista, CA USA*

**

*From:*Pete Perkins 
[mailto:0061f3f32d0c-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org]

*Sent:* Thursday, March 14, 2019 5:26 PM
*To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
*Subject:* Re: [PSES] classification of the output

Joe,

I am familiar with this product that stops the saw blade and protects 
fingers.  I talked with them during development; their primary problem 
was that the product wasn’t explicitly covered under the standards for 
the product they were intending this for.  We discussed paths to 
changing the standard (which takes years, too long) or convincing 
major customers that the product was acceptable even without the 3^rd 
party approval.  It all seemed too long range so they proceeded on 
their own and were eventually successful.


I’ve seen the demo video but don’t have it or know where it might 
reside; the demo was amazing and convincing.  Has there been a search 
on You-tube yet?


Maybe Rich Nute knows where such might be hidden.

:>) br,  Pete

Peter E Perkins, PE

Principal Product Safety & Regulatory Affairs Consultant

PO Box 23427

Tigard, ORe  97281-3427

503/452-1201

IEEE Life Fellow

p.perk...@ieee.org <mailto:p.perk...@ieee.org>

Entropy ain’t what it used to be

-


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


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


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


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

List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

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

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



-

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

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

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

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 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] Postal address on product labelling...

[John Woodgate]

For lawyers, everything is either impossible or eminently possible, 
sometimes for the same issue and the same lawyer.


On 2019-03-20 13:27, Charlie Blackham wrote:


Matthew

“But Sir, they’re not doing it” isn’t a defence in court or when 
you’re equipment is stuck in customs, or a competitor has pointed 
market enforcement authorities in your direction


The key phrase is “…or, *_where that is not possible,_* on its 
packaging or in a document accompanying the apparatus…..”


To my knowledge there’s no guidance anywhere as to “what is possible”, 
so it’s probably up to you and your lawyers 😊


Regards

Charlie

*Charlie Blackham*

*Sulis Consultants Ltd*

*Tel: +44 (0)7946 624317*

*Web: **www.sulisconsultants.com* 



Registered in England and Wales, number 05466247

*From:*Matthew Wilson 
*Sent:* 20 March 2019 13:06
*To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
*Subject:* [PSES] Postal address on product labelling...

Does anyone else have endless arguments about the need to put a postal 
address on products as per the EMC and LVD requirements?  The EMC 
directive obliges the following (article 7.6 of 2014/30/EU).  The LVD 
also had the exact same obligation (article 6.6 of 2014/35/EU);


?Manufacturers shall indicate, on the apparatus, their name, 
registered trade name or registered trade mark and the postal address 
at which they can be contacted or, where that is not possible, on its 
packaging or in a document accompanying the apparatus. The address 
shall indicate a single point at which the manufacturer can be 
contacted. The contact details shall be in a language easily 
understood by end-users and market surveillance authorities.?


Manufacturer is, of course, meaning the entity responsible for the 
product denoted by the brand name present on the apparatus.


And every time I encounter this advice being questioned someone always 
says 'But [some large entities/corporations supplying consumer 
products - you can pick your own example] don't put their address on 
their products.'  Well they should!  Maybe those devices with screens 
allow you to look up the address somewhere in the operating system?


Humph!

Sorry just letting off steam :-)



*Matthew**Wilson*
Technical Director



GBE 
https://gbelectronics.uk

T:



+44 (0)1903 244500

F:



+44 (0)1903 700715



Ascot House // Mulberry Close // Woods Way
Goring-by-Sea // West Sussex // BN12 4QY // UK




*Electronics Design // Manufacturing // Component Distribution*



ISO 9001 | ISO 14001 

Want to send us a file? https://www.mailbigfile.com/gbelectronics



GB Electronics (UK) Limited is a company registered in England and Wales
Company Registration No: 06210991
VAT Registration No: GB 925 1744 25



Registered Office:
Ascot House, Mulberry Close, Woods Way
Goring by Sea, West Sussex, BN12 4QY

Disclaimer: This email and any files transmitted with it are 
confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or 
entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in 
error please delete it from your system, do not use or disclose the 
information in any way and notify the sender immediately.


The contents of this message may contain personal views which are not 
the views of the company, unless specifically stated.


-


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


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



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


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

List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

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

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

-


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


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

Re: [PSES] phishing e-mail from an old account of yours?

[John Woodgate]

Ther are press reports in England of a major email leak - up  to a 
billion addresses, it is alleged.


Best wishes
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2019-03-29 17:56, Peter Tarver wrote:

All -

I just received an unsolicited e-mail from the address of 
jrallen-at-productsafetyinc.com. Beware the probable phishing and malware link, 
if you receive the same.


Regards,

Peter L. Tarver

-

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] IEC 61000-4-5:2014/AMD1:2017 - Using the correct CDN for AC mains testing

[John Woodgate]

I think you did (answer your own question). The text you quote seems 
surprisingly (and gratifyingly) lucid. Under 16 A use a 16 A CDN. Over 
16 A up to 32 A, use a 32 A CDN.


Best wishes
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2019-04-02 19:14, Richard Georgerian wrote:


Greeting colleagues,

Hopefully, someone in the PSTC group can correct my rational below and 
enlighten me on the finer points of CDNs.


The discussion within our applications group is, shall the EUT current 
rating be correctly matched to the CDN current rating? For example, 
don’t use a CDN rated for 32 A for a EUT that is rated for 2 A, to 
ensure that the correct Surge waveform will be applied to the EUT. I 
cannot think of a good rational why a CDN rated for 32 A cannot be 
used for a EUT rated for 2 A. We do understand that for the different 
current ratings of CDNs, 16 A, 32 A, 63A and 125 A, the internal 
components must have different values to meet the Surge waveform, for 
Open circuit and Short circuit. However, testing Open circuit and 
Short circuit on a CDN is without applying any currrent through the 
CDN, so in effect, the Surge waveform for a 16 A CDN and a Surge 
waveform for a 32 A CDN should have the same effect on a EUT drawing 
only 2 A of current.


Probably two questions would help in trying to explain what our 
discussion is about.


Must we use a CDN rated for 32 A, for products with a current rating 
between 16 A and 32 A, to be considered being compliant to IEC 
61000-4-5, for AC mains surge testing?


Must we use a CDN rated for 16 A, for products with a current rating 
less than or equal to 16 A, to be considered being compliant to IEC 
61000-4-5, for AC mains surge testing?


In the IEC 61000-4-5:2014, Section 7.3 Test setup for surges applied 
to EUT power ports –


“The selection of the CDN specification from Table 4 shall be made to 
match the current rating of the EUT (for example: an EUT rated at 5 A 
shall be tested using a CDN complying with the


specifications of a 16 A rated CDN). Any higher current rated CDN can 
be used if it meets the specification requirements in Table 4 for the 
relevant lower current rating of the EUT (for


example: a CDN rated 64 A can be used for testing an EUT rated at 5 A, 
if it meets the specification requirements of a 16 A rated CDN).”


So maybe I answered my questions.

Thank-you,

Richard Georgerian

Applications Engineer

-


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


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


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


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

List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

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

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



-

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

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

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

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 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] Tamper-proof Hardware

[John Woodgate]

Clause 0 is special, It's the Introduction, which is not normally 
divided into sub-clauses:


The objective of the INTRODUCTION is to help designers to understand the 
underlying
principles of safety in order to design safe equipment. These principles 
are informative and

not an alternative to the detailed requirements of this standard.

The only t-p screw in your list is 'security Torx', which has a pin in 
the middle of the recess.  There are many more types, such as what looks 
like a Philips but has only 3 'wings'.  Driver kits are freely 
available, so the measure of security is doubtful.


Best wishes
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2019-04-06 21:27, Robert Johnson wrote:


I notice that IEC 62368 mentions tamper-proof screws in a couple 
places (articles 0.8, 0.11), although not explicitly requiring them. 
It describes tamper-proof screws as providing a supplemental safeguard 
against hazards. I would take that to mean for level 3 hazards, for 
example mains terminals, basic protection or other measures would ALSO 
be needed such as covers using regular screws. What are the 
implications for mains plugs assembled with slotted screws?


I have always assumed that requiring the use of a tool would provide 
protection against access to level 3 hazards. Access to mains terminal 
requirements seems to only require a tool per clause G.7.6.1. and V.1.1


The standard uses the term “tamper-proof screw” without definition. Is 
it slotted, Phillips, Torx, security Torx, Allen, hex, Robertson, or 
others <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_screw_drives> ?


Are there examples where ordinary fasteners must be replaced with 
tamper-proof ones?



Bob Johnson

-


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


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


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


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

List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

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

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



-

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

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

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

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 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] Tamper-proof Hardware

[John Woodgate]

I think that the major point is that Clause 0 is purely advisory. It 
seems reasonable in an advisory text to mention means to deter 
operations that might compromise safety, without going into exhaustive 
detail.  It would seem harmless, so not worthy of suppression.


I wouldn't have given the INTRODUCTION a clause number, because it 
creates an impression that it is normative. But then there are 10^6 
things in 62368-1 that I would have done differently.


Best wishes
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2019-04-09 09:11, John Allen wrote:


Rich

Thanks for laying out the main definitions of “tamperproof”, and for 
your view on why my “story” is not an example thereof (it was only the 
one that I had “to-hand” at the time, and there must be many others J) .


Maybe, therefore, similar definitions/explanations should have been 
included in IEC 62368, so as to make it (much!) clearer to designers 
and testing/certification personnel as to the intent of the 
requirement because (obviously) there can be a considerable spread of 
interpretations of the requirement - or else John Cochran  (and 
probably many others!) would not ask the question.


As it stands, that “requirement” must thus be considered to be 
“ambiguous” at best, and therefore _shouldn’t have been included in a 
standard in that form _/(I’m sure there must be a word to describe a 
definition with four different possible interpretations, but I’m 
afraid I don’t know it and thus “ambiguous” is the best that I can 
offer ATM!)./


//

In fact, given the definitions you quote, I would suggest that the 
term should NOT have been included in the standard _at all_ because 
they imply the likelihood of various levels of intentional 
interference/criminality on the parts of possible perpetrators. 
/However/, it should not have been the intent of the 62368 
standards-writing teams to address such issues - maybe YES if it were 
in a /theft/ building-intrusion/ forgery prevention (etc.) /standard, 
but*NO *in a broadly-targeted _product safety_ standard.


John E Allen

W. London, UK

*From:*Richard Nute [mailto:ri...@ieee.org]
*Sent:* 08 April 2019 23:40
*To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
*Subject:* Re: [PSES] Tamper-proof Hardware

From dictionary.com:

tamperproof

adjective

1 that cannot be tampered with; impervious to tampering

tamper

verb (used without object)

1 to meddle, especially for the purpose of altering, damaging, or 
misusing (usually followed by with )


2 to make changes in something, especially in order to falsify 
(usually followed by with )


3 to engage secretly or improperly in something.

4 to engage in underhand or corrupt dealings, especially in order to 
influence improperly (usually followed by with )


The example provided by John Allen (UK) is not tampering as he did not 
take the unit apart for any of the above reasons. Using the above 
definitions, the reasons for using any “tamperproof” construction 
assumes nefarious objectives on the part of the equipment users.


Best regards,

Rich

*From:*John Allen <09cc677f395b-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org>
*Sent:* Monday, April 8, 2019 2:29 PM
*To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
*Subject:* Re: [PSES] Tamper-proof Hardware

IMHO, the subject of “tamper-proofing devices” will be around for a 
“long time” because, once a “new” device is introduced, then “someone” 
will (pretty soon!) come up with a “workaround” – it’s just a case of 
*when *the workaround becomes available, and then *when* will someone 
find and use it, and NOT *if * they will! L


By way of example, today I finally looked to see if I could fix an old 
non-functional plug-in mains-supplied timer, but then found that the 2 
parts of the body were secured by “tamper-proof” screws, which were 
 roughly like a normal flat-blade screw head, but with a gap in the 
centre for a spigot on the end of the removal tool – /which I have had 
in the toolbox for, probably, nearly a decade! /Thus I had the timer 
apart in a few minutes (and then found the cause of the problem quite 
quickly).


Thus it’s a matter of “not if”, but “when”.

OTOH, to “come down to ground” - /in practice/, it all comes down to 
the question as to whether the “*intended users*” are *likely *to be 
able to find the workaround, /and would then want to/, bypass the 
safety measures ??


John E Allen

W. London, UK

-


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

Re: [PSES] Tamper-proof Hardware

[John Woodgate]

We are not so far apart. You say that the text should not have appeared 
in a numbered clause that might be assumed to be normative. I say that 
it would be better not to have a numbered clause because it might seem 
to be normative.


I think that few would assume that the normal INTRODUCTION text in an 
IEC standard is normative. See 13.2 of Directives Part 2.


Best wishes
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2019-04-09 10:28, John Allen wrote:


John W

When something that ambiguous, and which that /could/ be construed as 
being a requirement, is placed in a prominent position in a standard, 
regardless or not of whether the clause in question is numbered, then 
it is obvious that it will (as it has done) raise issues and questions 
as to the potential effects on many other parts of that standard .


BTW: it has been widely and authoritatively stated that 62368 is _not_ 
a “Risk Assessment” standard, and appropriate rationales and 
requirements are thus given therein  – but to then include an 
undefined term which /migh/t then be construed as a “requirement” is 
an open invitation for someone to decide that “he” has to risk assess 
how “tamper-proof” a particular design safety feature actually might be.


Those are some of the reasons why I consider that the term in question 
should never have been included in the first place.


John E Allen

W. London, UK

*From:*John Woodgate [mailto:j...@woodjohn.uk]
*Sent:* 09 April 2019 09:40
*To:* John Allen; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
*Subject:* Re: [PSES] Tamper-proof Hardware

I think that the major point is that Clause 0 is purely advisory. It 
seems reasonable in an advisory text to mention means to deter 
operations that might compromise safety, without going into exhaustive 
detail.  It would seem harmless, so not worthy of suppression.


I wouldn't have given the INTRODUCTION a clause number, because it 
creates an impression that it is normative. But then there are 10^6 
things in 62368-1 that I would have done differently.


Best wishes
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associateswww.woodjohn.uk  <http://www.woodjohn.uk>
Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2019-04-09 09:11, John Allen wrote:

Rich

Thanks for laying out the main definitions of “tamperproof”, and
for your view on why my “story” is not an example thereof (it was
only the one that I had “to-hand” at the time, and there must be
many others J) .

Maybe, therefore, similar definitions/explanations should have
been included in IEC 62368, so as to make it (much!) clearer to
designers and testing/certification personnel as to the intent of
the requirement because (obviously) there can be a considerable
spread of interpretations of the requirement - or else John
Cochran  (and probably many others!) would not ask the question.

As it stands, that “requirement” must thus be considered to be
“ambiguous” at best, and therefore _shouldn’t have been included
in a standard in that form _/(I’m sure there must be a word to
describe a definition with four different possible
interpretations, but I’m afraid I don’t know it and thus
“ambiguous” is the best that I can offer ATM!)./

//

In fact, given the definitions you quote, I would suggest that the
term should NOT have been included in the standard _at all_
because they imply the likelihood of various levels of intentional
interference/criminality on the parts of possible perpetrators.
/However/, it should not have been the intent of the 62368
standards-writing teams to address such issues - maybe YES if it
were in a /theft/ building-intrusion/ forgery prevention (etc.)
/standard, but*NO *in a broadly-targeted _product safety_ standard.

John E Allen

W. London, UK

*From:*Richard Nute [mailto:ri...@ieee.org]
*Sent:* 08 April 2019 23:40
*To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
*Subject:* Re: [PSES] Tamper-proof Hardware

From dictionary.com:

tamperproof

adjective

1 that cannot be tampered with; impervious to tampering

tamper

verb (used without object)

1 to meddle, especially for the purpose of altering, damaging, or
misusing (usually followed by with )

2 to make changes in something, especially in order to falsify
(usually followed by with )

3 to engage secretly or improperly in something.

4 to engage in underhand or corrupt dealings, especially in order
to influence improperly (usually followed by with )

The example provided by John Allen (UK) is not tampering as he did
not take the unit apart for any of the above reasons.  Using the
above definitions, the reasons for using any “tamperproof”
construction assumes nefarious objectives on the part of the
equipment users.

Best regards,

Rich

*From:*John Allen
<00

Re: [PSES] Tamper-proof Hardware

[John Woodgate]

Yes, that is clearly the point of fitting t-p screws.

Best wishes
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2019-04-09 15:56, Larry Merchell wrote:

Per: 3 to engage secretly or improperly in something.
Wouldn't improperly be the key word, as it may expose a hazard?
Larry Merchell

*From:* John Woodgate 
*Sent:* Tuesday, April 9, 2019 2:36:47 AM
*To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
*Subject:* Re: [PSES] Tamper-proof Hardware

We are not so far apart. You say that the text should not have 
appeared in a numbered clause that might be assumed to be normative. I 
say that it would be better not to have a numbered clause because it 
might seem to be normative.


I think that few would assume that the normal INTRODUCTION text in an 
IEC standard is normative. See 13.2 of Directives Part 2.


Best wishes
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associateswww.woodjohn.uk  <http://www.woodjohn.uk>
Rayleigh, Essex UK
On 2019-04-09 10:28, John Allen wrote:


John W

When something that ambiguous, and which that /could/ be construed as 
being a requirement, is placed in a prominent position in a standard, 
regardless or not of whether the clause in question is numbered, then 
it is obvious that it will (as it has done) raise issues and 
questions as to the potential effects on many other parts of that 
standard .


BTW: it has been widely and authoritatively stated that 62368 is 
_not_ a “Risk Assessment” standard, and appropriate rationales and 
requirements are thus given therein  – but to then include an 
undefined term which /migh/t then be construed as a “requirement” is 
an open invitation for someone to decide that “he” has to risk assess 
how “tamper-proof” a particular design safety feature actually might be.


Those are some of the reasons why I consider that the term in 
question should never have been included in the first place.


John E Allen

W. London, UK

*From:*John Woodgate [mailto:j...@woodjohn.uk]
*Sent:* 09 April 2019 09:40
*To:* John Allen; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG 
<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>

*Subject:* Re: [PSES] Tamper-proof Hardware

I think that the major point is that Clause 0 is purely advisory. It 
seems reasonable in an advisory text to mention means to deter 
operations that might compromise safety, without going into 
exhaustive detail.  It would seem harmless, so not worthy of suppression.


I wouldn't have given the INTRODUCTION a clause number, because it 
creates an impression that it is normative. But then there are 10^6 
things in 62368-1 that I would have done differently.


Best wishes
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associateswww.woodjohn.uk  <http://www.woodjohn.uk>
Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2019-04-09 09:11, John Allen wrote:

Rich

Thanks for laying out the main definitions of “tamperproof”, and
for your view on why my “story” is not an example thereof (it was
only the one that I had “to-hand” at the time, and there must be
many others J) .

Maybe, therefore, similar definitions/explanations should have
been included in IEC 62368, so as to make it (much!) clearer to
designers and testing/certification personnel as to the intent of
the requirement because (obviously) there can be a considerable
spread of interpretations of the requirement - or else John
Cochran  (and probably many others!) would not ask the question.

As it stands, that “requirement” must thus be considered to be
“ambiguous” at best, and therefore _shouldn’t have been included
in a standard in that form _/(I’m sure there must be a word to
describe a definition with four different possible
interpretations, but I’m afraid I don’t know it and thus
“ambiguous” is the best that I can offer ATM!)./

//

In fact, given the definitions you quote, I would suggest that
the term should NOT have been included in the standard _at all_
because they imply the likelihood of various levels of
intentional interference/criminality on the parts of possible
perpetrators. /However/, it should not have been the intent of
the 62368 standards-writing teams to address such issues - maybe
YES if it were in a /theft/ building-intrusion/ forgery
prevention (etc.) /standard, but*NO * in a broadly-targeted
_product safety_ standard.

John E Allen

W. London, UK

*From:*Richard Nute [mailto:ri...@ieee.org]
*Sent:* 08 April 2019 23:40
*To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
*Subject:* Re: [PSES] Tamper-proof Hardware

From dictionary.com:

tamperproof

adjective

1 that cannot be tampered with; impervious to tampering

tamper

verb (used without object)

1 to meddle, especially for the purpose of altering, damaging, or
misusing (usually followed b

Re: [PSES] Tamper-proof Hardware

[John Woodgate]

'Tamperproof' is like 'fireproof' or 'foolproof' - a pure illusion; 
misplaced human ingenuity knows no bounds. But measures against 
successful tampering are surely not outside the scope of safeguarding. 
For example, a soda-machine has parts designed so that they can be 
assembled together with a screw-thread, but an attempt to unscrew breaks 
the parts so that they can't be reassembled. This prevents the machine 
exploding under carbon dioxide pressure if the re-assembly was 
incorrectly carried out.


Best wishes
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2019-04-09 19:04, Richard Nute wrote:


Standards need not – indeed should not -- address nefarious activity 
on the part of the user.  And, standards need not address tampering 
(defined previously) as there can be no end to the extent of 
tampering.  The requirement for “tamperproof” is beyond the scope of 
safeguarding a user through applications of safeguards against energy 
sources.


Rich

*From:*John Allen 
*Sent:* Tuesday, April 9, 2019 1:11 AM
*To:* ri...@ieee.org
*Cc:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
*Subject:* RE: [PSES] Tamper-proof Hardware

Rich

Thanks for laying out the main definitions of “tamperproof”, and for 
your view on why my “story” is not an example thereof (it was only the 
one that I had “to-hand” at the time, and there must be many others J) .


Maybe, therefore, similar definitions/explanations should have been 
included in IEC 62368, so as to make it (much!) clearer to designers 
and testing/certification personnel as to the intent of the 
requirement because (obviously) there can be a considerable spread of 
interpretations of the requirement - or else John Cochran  (and 
probably many others!) would not ask the question.


As it stands, that “requirement” must thus be considered to be 
“ambiguous” at best, and therefore _shouldn’t have been included in a 
standard in that form _/(I’m sure there must be a word to describe a 
definition with four different possible interpretations, but I’m 
afraid I don’t know it and thus “ambiguous” is the best that I can 
offer ATM!)./


//

In fact, given the definitions you quote, I would suggest that the 
term should NOT have been included in the standard _at all_ because 
they imply the likelihood of various levels of intentional 
interference/criminality on the parts of possible perpetrators. 
/However/, it should not have been the intent of the 62368 
standards-writing teams to address such issues - maybe YES if it were 
in a /theft/ building-intrusion/ forgery prevention (etc.) /standard, 
but*NO *in a broadly-targeted _product safety_ standard.


John E Allen

W. London, UK

-


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


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


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


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

List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

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

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



-

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

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

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

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 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] Product Declaration of Conformity with external PSU...

[John Woodgate]

I think:

/Should the product's EU Declaration of Conformity list the LVD 
directive? If so is it acceptable to list 'LVD only with specific 
'manufacturer ABC' 'model XYZ' PSU as a clause in the DoC? I've not ever 
seen that done but don't see why that couldn't be the case./


The product is outside the LVD/.//
/

/Should the product's EU Declaration of Conformity also list the 
2009/125/EC Ecodesign directive in respect of the PSU implementing 
measures?/


The ECO Directive applies to the power supply, not the product.

/Maybe there should be two Declarations of Conformity in the box? One 
for the product and one for the PSU, where the latter is a copy of the 
PSU manufacturer's DoC?/


It seems a logical solution, and I doubt that it is explicitly prohibited.
//

Best wishes
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2019-04-10 16:51, Matthew Wilson | GBE wrote:
A consumer product is powered by AA cells but also can derive its 
power from a 'wall wart' mains-DC PSU via a DC jack input on the 
product. The client who is the manufacturer of the product (as per the 
EU directive) has decided to supply a third-party wall-wart PSU in the 
box with the product. The PSU does not carry the product 
manufacturer's logo but that of the PSU manufacturer (or possibly its 
importer/distributor assuming the responsibility of manufacturer 
because it will inevitably be made in Far East).


Should the product's EU Declaration of Conformity list the LVD 
directive? If so is it acceptable to list 'LVD only with specific 
'manufacturer ABC' 'model XYZ' PSU as a clause in the DoC? I've not 
ever seen that done but don't see why that couldn't be the case.


Should the product's EU Declaration of Conformity also list the 
2009/125/EC Ecodesign directive in respect of the PSU implementing 
measures?


Maybe there should be two Declarations of Conformity in the box? One 
for the product and one for the PSU, where the latter is a copy of the 
PSU manufacturer's DoC?


Any thoughts welcome thanks.

Regards all.


Disclaimer:​This email and any files transmitted with it are 
confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or 
entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in 
error please delete it from your system, do not use or disclose the 
information in any way and notify the sender immediately. The contents 
of this message may contain personal views which are not the views of 
the company, unless specifically stated.


​GB Electronics (UK) Ltd is a company registered in England and Wales 
under number 06210991.
​Registered office: Ascot House Mulberry Close, Woods Way, Goring By 
Sea, West Sussex, BN12 4QY.


-


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


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


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


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

List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

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

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



-

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

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

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

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 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] Product Declaration of Conformity with external PSU...

[John Woodgate]

I still don't see why having a power supply in the same box causes a 
battery-operated product to be subject to the LVD. It just doesn't seem 
sufficient reason to justify the cost of producing a test report form  
that has about 1000 'not applicable' entries.


I agree with you about having lower voltage limits in the LVD being 
inappropriate, but I think there is a case for retaining the limits that 
justify 'Low Voltage' being in the title. It was probably OK to have 
lower voltage limits when the first edition was being drafted but even 
at the time of first publication we had products with lead-acid 
batteries on board that could readily burn under fault conditions. Now 
we have Li-ion, and maybe even more energetic batteries soon.


Best wishes
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2019-04-10 20:15, Gert Gremmen wrote:


The message was also for the group, my mistake...

It depends,

If the product is sold with a manufacturer provided adapter, then the 
product has a mains connection. -> LVD


(it is not because there is a connector between power supply and 
equipment that it becomes safe)


If the product is sold without, it has only the ELV DC connection. -> 
No LVD


LVD is about more than just insulation from the mains.

The whole concept of voltage limits in the LVD is wrong, the idea that 
a device is inherently safe if supplied by 24 volts (for example)  is 
evidently wrong; this is also why those limits has been removed in the 
RED.


Gert

On 10-4-2019 19:32, John Woodgate wrote:


Hello, Gert. Did you mean to reply only to me or to the mailing list? 
I don't understand your reasoning. The product itself runs from ELV 
DC, so, even though there is a power supply next to it in the box, 
surely the LVD doesn't apply? It does, of course, apply to the power 
supply that is supplied with it.


Best wishes
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associateswww.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK
On 2019-04-10 17:51, Gert Gremmen / Ce-test wrote:

It depends..
If the power supply is an inherent part of the product as “put on 
the market” then the lvd should apply. If not, so the customer is 
supposed to buy an adapter himself , then the product is supposed to 
be a dc supplied product and if this supply voltage is outside the 
limits for the lvd, such as 5 or 12 voltDC , then the lvd does not apply


Gert
Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPhone

Op 10 apr. 2019 om 18:03 heeft John Woodgate <mailto:j...@woodjohn.uk>> het volgende geschreven:



I think:

/Should the product's EU Declaration of Conformity list the LVD 
directive? If so is it acceptable to list 'LVD only with specific 
'manufacturer ABC' 'model XYZ' PSU as a clause in the DoC? I've not 
ever seen that done but don't see why that couldn't be the case./


The product is outside the LVD/.//
/

/Should the product's EU Declaration of Conformity also list the 
2009/125/EC Ecodesign directive in respect of the PSU implementing 
measures?/


The ECO Directive applies to the power supply, not the product.

/Maybe there should be two Declarations of Conformity in the box? 
One for the product and one for the PSU, where the latter is a copy 
of the PSU manufacturer's DoC?/


It seems a logical solution, and I doubt that it is explicitly 
prohibited.


Best wishes
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associateswww.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK
On 2019-04-10 16:51, Matthew Wilson | GBE wrote:
A consumer product is powered by AA cells but also can derive its 
power from a 'wall wart' mains-DC PSU via a DC jack input on the 
product. The client who is the manufacturer of the product (as per 
the EU directive) has decided to supply a third-party wall-wart 
PSU in the box with the product. The PSU does not carry the 
product manufacturer's logo but that of the PSU manufacturer (or 
possibly its importer/distributor assuming the responsibility of 
manufacturer because it will inevitably be made in Far East).


Should the product's EU Declaration of Conformity list the LVD 
directive? If so is it acceptable to list 'LVD only with specific 
'manufacturer ABC' 'model XYZ' PSU as a clause in the DoC? I've 
not ever seen that done but don't see why that couldn't be the case.


Should the product's EU Declaration of Conformity also list the 
2009/125/EC Ecodesign directive in respect of the PSU implementing 
measures?


Maybe there should be two Declarations of Conformity in the box? 
One for the product and one for the PSU, where the latter is a 
copy of the PSU manufacturer's DoC?


Any thoughts welcome thanks.

Regards all.



Disclaimer:​This email and any files transmitted with it are 
confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or 
entity to whom they are addressed. If you have 

Re: [PSES] Standards for large vehicle chargers?

[John Woodgate]

For EU, EN 55011 applies, but any special issues with large vehicle 
chargers may not have been addressed yet. An amendment is being 
developed for Wireless Power Transfer.


Best wishes
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2019-04-11 02:50, EMC.Guru wrote:

Hi All,

What would be the appropriate EMC standards for large vehicle chargers 
(similar to the Tesla-type public units)? FCC and EU...


Thanks, Ken

___

I'm here to help you succeed! Feel free to call or email with any 
questions related to EMC or EMI troubleshooting - at no obligation. 
I'm always happy to help!


Kenneth Wyatt
Wyatt Technical Services LLC
56 Aspen Dr.
Woodland Park, CO 80863

Phone: (719) 310-5418

Web Site <http://www.emc-seminars.com> | Blog <https://design-4-emc.com>
The EMC Blog (EDN) 
<https://www.edn.com/electronics-blogs/4376432/The-EMC-Blog>
Subscribe to Newsletter 
<http://www.emc-seminars.com/Newsletter/Newsletter.html>

Connect with me on LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/kennethwyatt/>

-


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


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


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


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

List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

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

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



-

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

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

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

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 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] Exemptions from UK Plugs and Sockets Regulations

[John Woodgate]

Well, that's what it says, clearly. It obviously hasn't been updated to 
allow for things like wireless-controlled switching. Parliament has been 
too busy with Brexit (or perhaps the 'Marketing of Animal-derived 
Shoelaces Order (Wales) 1947'?)


The GPSD applies, I suppose, so any deviation from BS1363-1 that could 
compromise safety would be caught.


Best wishes
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2019-04-12 11:06, Charlie Blackham wrote:


Schedule 1 of The Plugs and Sockets etc. (Safety) Regulations 1994 
<http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1994/1768/schedule/1/paragraph/1/made> 
states


*1.*  Any plug, socket or adaptor which incorporates any other 
electrical device (other than a F fuse link, switch or indicator light).


Does that mean that “smart plugs” (such as 
https://www.amazon.co.uk/s?k=smart+plug&ref=bnav_search_go ) which 
have wireless controlled switching of the output are exempt from the 
UK Regulations?


Thanks

Charlie

*Charlie Blackham*

*Sulis Consultants Ltd*

*Mead House*

*Longwater Road*

*Eversley*

*RG27 0NW*

*UK*

*Tel: +44 (0)7946 624317*

*Email: char...@sulisconsultants.com 
<mailto:char...@sulisconsultants.com>*


*Web: **www.sulisconsultants.com* 
<https://outlook.hslive.net/owa/redir.aspx?C=02be3bf3e3a544d1bdf7b6c99fbd12f5&URL=http%3a%2f%2fwww.sulisconsultants.com%2f>


Registered in England and Wales, number 05466247

-


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


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


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


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

List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

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

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



-

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

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

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

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 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] ROHS for non-electrical components

[John Woodgate]

No, because the piping is not '/fully functional separate products'. 
/The enclosure might be considered as such, but an empty enclosure might 
not qualify as 'fully functional'.

//

Best wishes
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2019-04-16 14:21, Rodriguez, Daniel (ESP) wrote:


Good morning

I have an equipment that is an electrical cabinet with standard 
breakers, valves, PLC and pumps and non electrical components like 
piping and enclosure that it is placed in the market as an unit


Can be consider according to EU ROHS Q&A (see below) that the non 
metallic parts like piping is outside of scope as they are not EEE and 
integrated part of the electrical components like PLC?


/http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/rohs_eee/events_rohs3_en.htm/

/In order for a product to be EEE, its electricity dependent functions 
must in principle be integrated. /


/For the example of a wardrobe with lights, even if sold as a single 
unit, a distinction between the piece of furniture and the 
electric/electronic device the piece is or can be equipped with has to 
be drawn. If the lighting is EEE in itself and both the lighting and 
the wardrobe can be separated and used as fully functional separate 
products, only the electric/electronic equipment (the lighting) is in 
the RoHS 2 scope. The furniture itself would then be outside the scope./


//

Thank you for your answers!!

Kind Regards / Saludos cordiales / Mit freundlichen Grüßen

Daniel Rodríguez

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail communication and any attachments 
may contain proprietary and privileged information for the use of the 
designated recipients named above. Any unauthorized review, use, 
disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended 
recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all 
copies of the original message.

-


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


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


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


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

List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

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

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



-

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

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

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

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 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] Question re: Measuring a signal in a noisy environment

[John Woodgate]

I don't like the idea of 'sides'. The relationship between test house 
and client has to be interactive and mutually supportive. It's not that 
test houses are careless or that clients don't know their 
responsibilities; the true picture is that sometimes those defects 
occur, and if both occur together there may well be tears before bedtime.


A major factor in eliminating such troubles is for manufacturer 
managements to realise that their product design engineers must be 
responsible for achieving compliance, both EMC and safety, so that 
compliance is designed-in, not imposed either by in-house specialists or 
test houses.


Best wishes
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2019-04-18 09:50, Manny Barron wrote:


Hi Derek,

I read Ken Wyatt's e-mail plus Ghery Pettit's Blog link and find them 
very informative with insightful tidbits of knowledge that could be 
helpful to the reader who uses 3^rd party EMC test labs or even 
in-house original equipment manufacturer (OEM) test labs.


Years ago when I worked for a major OEM, an engineering director 
requested that I audit some of the EMC test labs being used by 3^rd 
party hardware firms from which we procured hardware that was 
integrated into a product system that the OEM marketed for sale.  The 
audits were initiated due to the quality of some of the test reports 
we reviewed. The hardware supplier remained on the list of approved 
hardware suppliers if the 3^rd party lab they used agreed to a 
requested audit and passed (or deleted from the list if they declined 
or failed).  So Ghery's blog is very useful for the things to be aware 
of when choosing a test lab or if you're a major OEM with clout, even 
requesting a lab audit.


And the statements in Ken's e-mail are very important points to be 
aware of for anyone using any EMC test lab or looking into choosing an 
EMC test lab.  Matter of fact, I personally have witnessed all of the 
deficiencies Ken points out in his e-mail.  I like what he wrote and 
agree with it because I have seen it in the various labs I've worked 
in or have visited over the years.  And if I had any authority or 
influence over the lab quality system of these labs, the deficiencies 
I saw were eventually resolved.  I believe most labs do a pretty good 
job, but statistically there will always be deficiencies until an 
auditor or a knowledgeable person speaks up.


You'll probably put me on the same side as Ken and Ghery.

But that's okay, I'll be glad to be there.

Manny Barron

*From:*DEREK WALTON 
[mailto:00734758d943-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org]

*Sent:* Wednesday, April 17, 2019 8:47 PM
*To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
*Subject:* Re: [PSES] Question re: Measuring a signal in a noisy 
environment


Whoah Ed,

you just landed along side Ken and Ghery!

I have to strongly oppose some of your views on what the test lab 
should or shouldn’t Know/do. Wow, have you any idea of the variety of 
equipment that roles in the lab door, and the complexity of it? NO, it 
is NOT the labs job to understand the EUT, other than how to interpret 
the standard so it can be tested. It is totally unreasonable to expect 
a test person to muse the subtleties of sub micron silicon one day 
then the ramifications of 10,000 psi hydraulic pumps the next. I doubt 
few could listening in.


Having had the luxury of “visiting" well over 350 labs around the 
globe over the last 23 years I’ve gathered quite a bit of insight on 
lab operations and their clients. I happen to have worked in one for 
40 years and owned one or two for 30+ years. So much of the email 
thread is huff and puff. IN the sales world it would be called FAD: 
fear and disillusionment.


Lets set some records straight:

The majority of labs do a superb job with all the constraints they are 
under.


An ISO 17025 assessment cannot prevent mistakes, but it does make 
provisions for just about all foreseeable, and quite a few 
unforeseeable problems.


Everyone can have a bad day: that includes test engineers/technicians.

Technology evolves, and what’s true at one point may not be true 
sometime later. Unless everything is checked to the nth degree, EVERY 
time, things will escape notice.


For all those calling out check after check, I bet under the same 
breath they are complaining about the cost of testing!


And for the record, those critical of overseas test labs should go and 
pay a visit: most times they are careful to incredible levels running 
tests.


If a manufacture brings a device in for testing, no-one, that’s NO-ONE 
knows it better than he does. He has a responsibility to understand 
the testing his device will be subjected to and its behavior, heck, 
he’s supposed to have designed the device to pass the test! That 
includes support equipment too!


A lab should help someone who’s a novice in the EMI field to avoid 
pit

Re: [PSES] Question re: Measuring a signal in a noisy environment

[John Woodgate]

Don't give up! I'm 81, and last year I tagged quite a nicely-funded task.

Best wishes
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2019-04-18 18:24, Cortland Richmond wrote:


Darn straight!   At 74, I may not get another contract, but I've had 
to correct outside lab practices -- certified test labs -- more than once.



Cortland Richmond

On 4/17/2019 19:21 PM, Edward Price wrote:
*However, it is not the “chamber” that delivers that assurance of 
quality workmanship, rather it is the EMC Engineer in charge of that 
facility. *

-


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


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


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


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

List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

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

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



-

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

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

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

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 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] Question re: Measuring a signal in a noisy environment

[John Woodgate]

Out of that long email, I selected the text below. I know Ed was writing 
about the past, but things have changed, not enough yet but quite a 
bit.  Compliance (EMC and safety) must be designed-in. Imposing 
compliance on a 'finished' design causes delay, maybe even fatal delay, 
and avoidable increased costs. This inevitably means that design 
engineers DO need to know the standards and the test process, 'well 
enough' at least. The test house would normally know more about both, 
due to more varied experience, much better than 'well enough'.


Best wishes
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2019-04-18 19:18, Edward Price wrote:
*I didn’t expect my customer to be an expert in either the standard or 
the test process.*


-

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] JDQ 202 Specification.

[John Woodgate]

The term is not in Electropedia, but that's IEC. I don't know if ISO 
co-operates with the IEC on Electropedia, but the ISO search engine is 
hopeless if you don't know the exact keyword to use. The Online Browsing 
Platform is no better; it finds individual words in the search phrase 
'pulse cycle time' so produces 715 hits, of which at least 714 are most 
probably irrelevant. Restricting the search to 'terms and definitions' 
produces no hits.


Best wishes
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2019-04-19 17:10, DEREK WALTON wrote:

Hi All,

I’m Running an ISO 7637-2 Pulse 2b test, but in accordance with 
Section 21 of JDQ202.


There are a few differences, and one that’s perplexing me is the term 
Pulse cycle time in the JDQ document.


Pulse 2b is rather a long pulse lasting about 2 1/2 seconds. It is 
simulating some of the after effects of turning off the ignition key. 
You would think that this is not a repetitive test, but, the term 
pulse cycle time could imply that this pulse should be repeated. My 
background would ave preferred the clearer term Pulse repetition rate, 
Pulse spacing or Pulse interval.


The standard requires 10 pulses, same as the ISO version, but then 
says a Pulse cycle time of 5 seconds: the ISO version makes no 
reference to this.


It doesn’t seem appropriate to apply the test 10 times with only 5 
seconds between initiations. I can see some EUT’s not even powering up 
in that time. It would make sense if the term meant allow a minimum of 
5 seconds to ensure a complete cycle. Repetition is then at the 
discretion of the tester, so different DUT behavior could be accomodated.


Any insight as to what JDQ 202 means by the Pulse Cycle Time term 
would be appreciated.


Thanks,

Derek.
-


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


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


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


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

List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

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

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



-

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

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

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

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 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] Question re: Measuring a signal in a noisy environment

[John Woodgate]

I doubt anyone would disagree with that. But if a company allows a test 
house to impose compliance, how can it know that the result is reliable?


Best wishes
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2019-04-19 21:09, Grasso, Charles wrote:


With all due respect I made a different text section:

*“Ultimately, I sold _reliable_ answers..” *(underline added by me)

That is all I am looking for as a customer.

Thanks!

Charles Grasso

W: 303-706-5467

*From:*John Woodgate [mailto:j...@woodjohn.uk]
*Sent:* Thursday, April 18, 2019 1:43 PM
*To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
*Subject:* Re: [PSES] Question re: Measuring a signal in a noisy 
environment


 This message originated outside of DISH and was sent by: 
owner-emc-p...@listserv.ieee.org 
<mailto:owner-emc-p...@listserv.ieee.org>


Out of that long email, I selected the text below. I know Ed was 
writing about the past, but things have changed, not enough yet but 
quite a bit.  Compliance (EMC and safety) must be designed-in. 
Imposing compliance on a 'finished' design causes delay, maybe even 
fatal delay, and avoidable increased costs. This inevitably means that 
design engineers DO need to know the standards and the test process, 
'well enough' at least. The test house would normally know more about 
both, due to more varied experience, much better than 'well enough'.


Best wishes
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associateswww.woodjohn.uk  <http://www.woodjohn.uk>
Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2019-04-18 19:18, Edward Price wrote:

*I didn’t expect my customer to be an expert in either the
standard or the test process.*

-


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


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


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


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

List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

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

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

-


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


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


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


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

List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

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

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



-

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

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

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

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

[PSES] Dated and undated references, was: Re: [PSES] Question re: Measuring a signal in a noisy environment

[John Woodgate]

I changed the Subject,  because my comments on the extract below are 
much more general.


The heading of Clause 2 (usually the Normative references clause in the 
past and now always so) in IEC/EN standards has changed over the years. 
and since I see IEC standards being cited without the 60 000 addition to 
the number that took place in 1998,  I guess that the changes haven't 
registered with some people.


This list isn't exhaustive but it illustrates the subject.

Long ago:  Mostly undated references with an invitation to 'explore the 
use of the latest edition'.


A few years ago: IEC restricted the use of dated references to cases 
where a particular clause was cited in the text. Although other dated 
references were allowed, IEC editors discouraged that.


Latest: As a result of a legal ruling in Europe, the Commission requires 
all references in ENs that are to be notified in the OJ under a 
Directive or Regulation to be dated, and IEC committees are mostly 
accepting that, as they want their standards to be adopted by CENELEC.


There always has been a lot of misunderstanding on this subject.

*Undated references:* The essential assumption is that all future 
editions will be as equally applicable as the current edition is. There 
can be *NO *guarantee of that, so the committee responsible for the 
standard that includes the reference should (but hardly ever does) 
review each new edition of undated standards to check that they are 
still applicable.


*Dated references: *In this case, the user of the referencing standard 
knows exactly which edition of the referred standard to apply, but can 
misguidedly assume that the latest edition should be applied. The 
committee responsible for the standard that includes the reference 
should (but hardly ever does) review each new edition of dated standards 
to check that they are still applicable, and if so, amend the 
referencing standard at the earliest reasonable opportunity. It's 
obviously unreasonable to issue an amendment when each new edition is 
published. Normal maintenance time-scales are sufficient, although there 
could be exceptions, e.g. in the rare case where a dated reference 
standard is found to be seriously defective.


Best wishes
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2019-04-19 23:42, Ghery Pettit wrote:


We had a problem in the past where CISPR 24 (Edition 1) called out 
(dated reference) an older version of IEC 61000-4-4 than the latest 
version.  No problem except that the test setup for table top 
equipment was different.  I audited a lab to put them on the Intel 
approved EMC lab list and caught the error.  And they had IEC 
61000-4-4 on their Scope of Accreditation.  Got that problem (now not 
a problem with CISPR 24 Edition 2 or CISPR 35) fixed.




-

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] Dated and undated references

[John Woodgate]

I think there is a fundamental trap that it is very easy to fall into, 
especially if the committee hasn't adopted (and enforced) a standardized 
format for filenames.


*If you change a document, you must change the filename, not only in 
itself but also if it appears (as it should) at the top of the page of 
the document.*


 Having said that, I am very surprised how difficult it is to persuade 
some exceedingly intelligent colleagues to adopt and stick to the agreed 
filename format.


The format that I like is illustrated by this (fictional) example: 
/SC199BWG27-190420Woodgate11/. No spaces, no underscores, no / or \, of 
course, because Windows doesn't allow them. The only separator is the 
simply hyphen, between adjacent fields of the same type. The number '11' 
is a continuous serial number, not re-starting at 1 every year, to 
eliminate the question, 'Which 'Woodgate4' of the three on file do you 
mean?'


Best wishes
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2019-04-20 16:21, Ghery Pettit wrote:


Mick,

I agree that a corrigendum would be the fastest way to fix this 
issue.  It wouldn’t be the first time it was necessary.  We had to 
issue one quickly after CISPR 32 Edition 1 was published as the IEC CO 
made some changes after the FDIS was voted that rendered the new 
standard useless. The corrigendum fixed their editing problem.


One must always check the new standards carefully to make sure that 
they are what was voted.  “Trust, but verify.”


Ghery S. Pettit

*From:* Mick Maytum 
*Sent:* Saturday, April 20, 2019 4:23 AM
*To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
*Subject:* Re: [PSES] Dated and undated references

John's comment "e.g. in the rare case where a dated reference standard 
is found to be seriously defective." reminded me of an IEC 
62368-1:2018 problem caused by a dated reference.


The current IEC 61643-331:2017 is wrong in that an earlier draft 
document, instead of the IEC Editors draft was sent for publication. 
Heads rolled in SC 37B as a result and SC 37B is working of a 
replacement IEC 61643-331. This mishap made the IEC 62368-1:2018 
reference "from 8.1.1 of IEC 61643-331, Figure 4." is a misdirection 
as 8.1.1 doesn't exist in IEC 61643-331:2017.  The correct reference 
for IEC 61643-331:2017 is "from 8.2.2 of IEC 61643-331, Figure 4." 
Thinking about what John said, it seems to me the quickest way of 
fixing the IEC 62368-1:2018 reference, without invoking TC 108, would 
be for SC 37B to issue a clause 8 corrigendum.


Regards

Mick Maytum.

-- Original Message --

From: "John Woodgate" mailto:j...@woodjohn.uk>>

To: EMC-PSTC@listserv.ieee.org <mailto:EMC-PSTC@listserv.ieee.org>

Sent: 20/04/2019 08:41:51

Subject: [PSES] Dated and undated references, was: Re: [PSES] Question 
re: Measuring a signal in a noisy environment


I changed the Subject,  because my comments on the extract below
are much more general.

The heading of Clause 2 (usually the Normative references clause
in the past and now always so) in IEC/EN standards has changed
over the years. and since I see IEC standards being cited without
the 60 000 addition to the number that took place in 1998,  I
guess that the changes haven't registered with some people.

This list isn't exhaustive but it illustrates the subject.

Long ago:  Mostly undated references with an invitation to
'explore the use of the latest edition'.

A few years ago: IEC restricted the use of dated references to
cases where a particular clause was cited in the text. Although
other dated references were allowed, IEC editors discouraged that.

Latest: As a result of a legal ruling in Europe, the Commission
requires all references in ENs that are to be notified in the OJ
under a Directive or Regulation to be dated, and IEC committees
are mostly accepting that, as they want their standards to be
adopted by CENELEC.

There always has been a lot of misunderstanding on this subject.

*Undated references:*The essential assumption is that all future
editions will be as equally applicable as the current edition is.
There can be *NO *guarantee of that, so the committee responsible
for the standard that includes the reference should (but hardly
ever does) review each new edition of undated standards to check
that they are still applicable.

*Dated references: *In this case, the user of the referencing
standard knows exactly which edition of the referred standard to
apply, but can misguidedly assume that the latest edition should
be applied. The committee responsible for the standard that
includes the reference should (but hardly ever does) review each
new edition of dated standards to check that they are still
applicable, and if so, amend the r

Re: [PSES] Question re: Measuring a signal in a noisy environment

[John Woodgate]

Hello, Ed. I've inserted responses below.

Best wishes
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2019-04-20 20:50, Edward Price wrote:


*John:*

**

**

*I don’t see how a test house can “impose” compliance.*

*I thought all they could do was perform testing, and by looking at 
the results of the testing, declare compliance.*


*JMW: People take or send an EUT to the test house, which finds that it 
fails. They descend on it with ferrites, copper tape, capacitors, 
unicorn poo (rarely) until it passes. That's what I mean by 'imposing'*


**

**

*You also ask “how can a company know that the result is reliable?”*

*Isn’t that the entire justification for accreditation of a test lab 
by a 3rd party? *


*JMW: Yes, but we are talking in the context of that process failing; 
test technicians who do not know, or do not apply, the procedures or the 
standards well enough. Accreditation cannot operate continuously*


*I have had “expert customers” where they were so involved in the 
compliance process that they had their own QA representative sit in my 
lab and check off each step of a detailed, written test procedure as 
each step was started and completed. *


*JMW: I guess they had bad experiences of the type we are discussing in 
the past.*


*OTOH, a majority of my customers would say something like “call us 
when you know if we have passed.” When a lab customer is not qualified 
to determine the experience and capabilities of a test lab, the 
customer can increase his chances of reliable results by using a test 
lab that has had their facilities, people, procedures and support 
processes reviewed by an organization that specializes in the review 
of test labs.*


*JMW: that is the intention, but we are talking about the breakdown of 
that process.*


**

**

*In the example that started all this, I assumed the test lab was an 
accredited facility. As the test lab’s product proved to be 
unreliable, there was a breakdown of the test lab’s operations. That 
breakdown was supposed to have been made vanishingly improbable by the 
blessing of that test lab by an accreditation authority. I suppose 
that would mean that the accreditation authority’s process thus also 
broke down. I guess we then have to question the accreditation 
accreditors who accredited the test lab accreditors.*


*JMW: The accreditation might have been defective (we have had reports 
of that). It could be perfect but the test house management allowed 
laxity to compromise the actual testing.*


**

**

*Sorry for making the chain of accreditation sound comical. I suppose 
you know a lot more than me about the efficacy of 3^rd party oversight 
in ensuring reliable results. Can you elaborate just a bit about the 
amount the reliability should increase when a customer chooses an 
accredited test lab over an unaccredited test lab (assuming that was 
possible if the standard didn’t make accredited test labs a 
pre-condition)? Does the additional oversight layer (the 
accreditation) increase performance reliability by perhaps 1 or 2 
Sigmas or some percentage?*


*JMW: I'm sure I don't know more than you! For me, there is no useful 
answer to your question. Less than perfect accredited labs have been 
shown to exist. Labs that are not accredited may be extremely reliable; 
for new technologies or new frequency ranges, the standards may be 
available but accreditation may not be available when the first products 
are submitted for testing.*


**

**

*Thanks!*

**

**

*/Ed Price
/**WB6WSN**/
/**Chula Vista, CA USA*

**

*From:*John Woodgate [mailto:j...@woodjohn.uk]
*Sent:* Friday, April 19, 2019 1:19 PM
*To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
*Subject:* Re: [PSES] Question re: Measuring a signal in a noisy 
environment


I doubt anyone would disagree with that. But if a company allows a 
test house to impose compliance, how can it know that the result is 
reliable?


Best wishes
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associateswww.woodjohn.uk  <http://www.woodjohn.uk>
Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2019-04-19 21:09, Grasso, Charles wrote:

With all due respect I made a different text section:

*“Ultimately, I sold _reliable_ answers..” *(underline added by me)

That is all I am looking for as a customer.

Thanks!

Charles Grasso

W: 303-706-5467

-


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


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


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


Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instru

Re: [PSES] Question re: Measuring a signal in a noisy environment

[John Woodgate]

By 'they' in the quote below, I mean test house personnel.

Best wishes
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2019-04-21 08:42, John Woodgate wrote:
*JMW: People take or send an EUT to the test house, which finds that 
it fails. They descend on it with ferrites, copper tape, capacitors, 
unicorn poo (rarely) until it passes. That's what I mean by 'imposing'*


-

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: