RE: NEC Questions

[Peter Tarver]

Richard -

Bob Johnson's response on your Q1 is on the money.

wrt your Q2 and outlet strips, there may be the additional
consideration that you may impinge on the scope of UL1363,
Relocatable Power Taps (formerly a desk standard for
Temporary Power Taps), Listed under the CCN XBYS.  Point
being, the final assembled product may have to comply with
UL1363, with the internal measurement device having
requirements from UL3111-1.  [This was the case for
relocatable power taps that incorporated secondary
protection for telecommunications circuits, where the
latter, internal components were required to comply with
UL497A.]


Regards,

Peter L. Tarver, PE
Product Safety Manager
Sanmina-SCI Homologation Services
San Jose, CA
peter.tar...@sanmina-sci.com


 -Original Message-
 From: Richard Meyette
 Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2002 10:05 AM

 I have a couple of questions regrading the
 National Electrical Code:

 2) Consider the same power measuring circuit
 installed into a direct
 plug-in (NEMA 5-15P) with a single outlet
 receptacle (NEMA 5-15R) or into
 an outlet strip with a 16 AWG power cord with
 several outlet
 receptacles.  Assuming that the measuring circuit
 is provided with a
 suitable fuse for overcurrent protection, are the
 outlet receptacles
 required to be protected by a 15 A fuse or
 circuit breaker in the device or
 can they rely on the circuit breaker for the
 branch circuit for overcurrent
 protection?

 The UL product standard for this device is UL
 3111-1 (Electrical Measuring
 and Test Equipment), which is harmonized with IEC
 61010-1, requires an
 overcurrent protector to be fitted within the
 equipment for all devices
 connected to the mains supply (9.6.2). There are
 no US deviations in this
 standard that would allow the circuit breaker to
 provide this protection,
 so based on this I would assume that a 15 A
 circuit breaker of fuse would
 be required for the NEMA 5-15R receptacles.  I
 would also assume that a 20
 A overcurrent protector would be required for a
 NEMA 5-20R outlet receptacle.

 However, the UL product standard for household
 appliances (UL 60335-1) does
 have a US deviation to a similar requirement for
 overcurrent devices (19.1,
 Note 2) that states the The PROTECTIVE DEVICE in
 the fixed wiring does not
 provide the necessary protection.  However, the
 US deviation states The
 circuit protection device is permitted to provide
 necessary
 protection.  If I am interpreting this
 correctly, a household appliance in
 the USA could rely on the panel breaker for
 overcurrent protection.  Any
 comments?

 Thanks in advance for anyone willing to wade
 through this and send me a
 response.

 Richard A. Meyette. PE
 meye...@pacbell.net




 ---
 This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
 Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

 Visit our web site at:
 http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

 To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
  majord...@ieee.org
 with the single line:
  unsubscribe emc-pstc

 For help, send mail to the list administrators:
  Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
  Dave Heald:   davehe...@attbi.com

 For policy questions, send mail to:
  Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
  Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

 All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable
 on the web at:
 http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/
 Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list


---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Dave Heald:   davehe...@attbi.com

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/
Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list

RE: Switch Inrush Ratings

[Peter Tarver]

I haven't followed the Woodgate approach :), hopefully the
information Rich discovered also includes such relevant
concerns as:

power factor for general use

power factor for inductive/motor loads

power factor for pilot duty loads

heavy power factor (perhaps as low as 0.10)

incandescent

There also used to be things called TV rated switches (UL
had TV-1 through TV-5, IIRC)


Further to the Woodgate approach, if it's not on the
internet now, wait a few weeks and try again.  Stuff and
junk is added daily.  This is no magic bullet; there're
things I've been searching for for years that haven't shown
up yet.

Regards,

Peter L. Tarver, PE
Product Safety Manager
Sanmina-SCI Homologation Services
peter.tar...@sanmina-sci.com


 From: Rich Nute
 Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 12:27 PM

 Taking John Woodgate's usual response to such
 an inquiry, I did a Google search on inrush.

 Surprisingly (to me), there is a wealth of
 reasonably good info on the web under the subject
 of inrush, including switches rated for inrush
 current.


 Best regards,
 Rich


---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org
 Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old 
messages are imported into the new server.

RE: Banned Substances in Sweden

[Peter Tarver]

Jim -

Try the Swedish EPA at

http://www.internat.environ.se/



Regards,

Peter L. Tarver, PE
Product Safety Manager
Sanmina-SCI Homologation Services
San Jose, CA
peter.tar...@sanmina-sci.com

 -Original Message-
 From: Jim Eichner
 Sent: Friday, August 09, 2002 11:51 AM
 
 We have had a request from a customer to verify a 
 lack of certain substances
 in one of our products.  Rather than provide us 
 with a regulatory-based list
 of substances, they have provided us with a 
 particular company's proprietary
 list of substances it bans (and that company is 
 in no way involved in the
 dealings between us and our customer).  
 
 Does anyone know where I can get an official list 
 of what substances Sweden
 bans in electronic products?
 
 Thanks as always,
 
 Jim Eichner, P.Eng. 
 Manager, Engineering Services 
 Xantrex Technology Inc. 
 Mobile Power

---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Dave Heald:   davehe...@attbi.com

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/
Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list

IEC 60417 symbol library

[Peter Tarver]

All interested -

The IEC has just announced an upcoming on-line IEC 60417
symbol library will be made available soon (I checked and
it's not yet available through the IEC Web Store).  Don't
expect to access them gratis, as they once were on the Chiba
University, Ikeda Lab web site (even though fee based, this
could be very handy).  Pricing was not announced.

Access to the databases is by subscription: clients can
purchase a subscription for a 3, 6, 12 or 24-month period
giving them access to the full collection of graphical
symbols.


Refer to

http://www.iec.ch/online_news/etech/prodserv.htm


For further reading on the concept of database standards
from the IEC, browse to

http://www.iec.ch/online_news/etech/arch_2002/etech_0702/foc
us.htm



Regards,

Peter L. Tarver, PE
Product Safety Manager
Sanmina-SCI Homologation Services
San Jose, CA
peter.tar...@sanmina-sci.com


---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Dave Heald:   davehe...@attbi.com

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/
Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list

RE: NRTL/UL Safety Approval in California

[Peter Tarver]

Greg -

In point of fact, no NFPA standards are addressed by federal
law (keep in mind, regulation is not law, even if given the
power of law).  Even 29CFR, as far I have seen, doesn't
outright adopt the Code in toto, but references portions of
it variously as mandatory or recommended.

NFPA 70 is an model/adoption code and no AHJ is under any
obligation to use any version, save as required by
municipal, county or state laws.  Even so, there are some
jurisdictions using NFPA 70-1984 (I don't recall which),
rather than the latest (2002).  Also, AHJs, at their
discretion, may adopt only portions of NFPA 70, mix and
match bits and pieces from various editions, or not use it
at all.


Regards,

Peter L. Tarver, PE
Product Safety Manager
Sanmina-SCI Homologation Services
San Jose, CA
peter.tar...@sanmina-sci.com


 -Original Message-
 From: Greg Galluccio
 Sent: Friday, August 02, 2002 9:07 AM

 My understanding is that the federal law (NFPA
 Code) is the minimum
 requirement and that state and local authorities
 can and do apply additional
 requirements as they deem appropriate.

 Greg Galluccio


---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Dave Heald:   davehe...@attbi.com

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/
Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list

RE: Marking Languages for Canada

[Peter Tarver]

I must throw in with Rich Nute on this topic.  The need for
a marking in this instance is very context sensitive: if the
marking is required by the US standard, but not by the
Canadian standard, the marking does not need to be
translated into French.  Otherwise, there is no legal
requirement.


Regards,

Peter L. Tarver, PE
Product Safety Manager
Sanmina-SCI Homologation Services
San Jose, CA
peter.tar...@sanmina-sci.com


---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Dave Heald:   davehe...@attbi.com

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/
Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list

RE: Nema 5-15R sockets

[Peter Tarver]

Jim -

There are no orientation requirements in the NEC or CEC,
except as required by product marking, such as for some GFCI
receptacles.

Dimension requirements are secret, donchaknow.


Regards,

Peter L. Tarver, PE
Product Safety Manager
Sanmina-SCI Homologation Services
San Jose, CA
peter.tar...@sanmina-sci.com

 -Original Message-
 From: Jim Eichner
 Sent: Friday, July 19, 2002 10:40 AM

 A couple of questions about our standard North
 American 120Vac socket:

 1. Orientation:  We have lots of people in the
 office here on both sides of
 this one, and I can't find a normative reference
 in the CEC or the NEC.
 Which is the correct way up when installing a
 socket on a wall - ground
 pin above the L and N blades, or L and N above
 the ground?  What is the code
 reference for this requirement, or is there none?

 2. Dimensions:  Can anybody share the spec's for
 the dimensions, with
 tolerances, of the line, neutral, and ground
 blades for this configuration?
 I'm sure it's in the UL and CSA standards but I
 don't want to spend hundreds
 of $ for a one-time question.  We have no
 on-going need for these standards!

 Thanks in advance for your help,

 Regards,
 Jim Eichner, P.Eng.



---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Dave Heald:   davehe...@attbi.com

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/
Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list

RE: Shock and Vibration

[Peter Tarver]

Bill -

Go to the IEC web site (http://www.iec.ch/index.html).  From
Search, select Information on a TC/SC under Technical
Work, then enter 48D when the page loads.  You'll see the
chair and secretary names and a link to a list of links to
member states that then link to contacts from whom you might
obtain a copy of the secretariat paper you need.

Also, if you go to the IEC web store and search by
committee, you'll find a host of standards created by TC48.


Regards,

Peter L. Tarver, PE
Product Safety Manager
Sanmina-SCI Homologation Services
San Jose, CA
peter.tar...@sanmina-sci.com

 -Original Message-
 From: Fleury, Bill
 Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2002 8:06 AM

 Hi All,

 Does anyone know what IEC 48D (Secretariat) 76
 would be? It is called out
 in the IEEE 1386:2001 standard for CMC cards as
 shock and vibration
 requirements. I assumed that IEC 48D was a
 standard but apparently that is
 not the case. SC 48D is a Subcommittee dealing
 with Mechanical Structures
 for Electronic Equipment; so I'm thinking that
 IEC 48D (Secretariat) 76 is
 the proceedings from one of their meetings but I
 have had no luck in
 locating any information about it.
 My Marketing gurus are asking me if we meet these
 requirements but I don't
 know what the requirements are; so its kind of
 hard to give them an answer.
 :-)

 Thanks for your help.
   Bill



---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Dave Heald:   davehe...@attbi.com

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/
Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list

the experts (was: RE: Multiple Product Variants under EN60439)

[Peter Tarver]

This reaches back a bit and I hope you'll forgive my tardy
entrance.  I come from a test house background and would
like to shed some light on certain assertions made in this
thread.


Scott Douglas tells us, In my years of being a compliance
type, I have found many cases where I could not get an
agency or test house to make a bold statement about this or
that. Often one can accept that and understand why they will
not commit. For one reason, they do not want to be the one
sued by some disgruntled customer because something happened
(or didn't happen). But just as often, I have found it
extremely frustrating that I cannot get a straight answer
from the same people.

It's also important to keep in mind that anything said by
the engineer might be contradicted, when presented to their
reviewing engineer, leading to personal embarrassment.  A
bad decision could also lead to a precedent that is
difficult to be rid of.  Mulling things over is good for all
concerned, especially the public's safety.

I do agree, though, with Scott's advice to question anything
that doesn't make sense.  Insisting on clear engineering
rationale is good practice and will even help the test house
engineer maintain clarity.  Sometimes the (unsatisfying)
answer might only be it's a compliance issue, implying a
standards revision is called for.


Chris Maxwell advises, Personnel at a lab may deal with the
same standard everyday.  They should know the standard like
the back of their hand.

This is sometimes true and sometimes not true.  In one
department, I recall handling an average of 15-25 and as
many as 40 projects at any given time, usually with little
customer or technology overlap, often with only a little
overlap in product standard.  [In the case of industrial
control equipment, the range covered products are so broad
that it can be daunting to know even half of what an
expert might need to know; a good understanding may be
more difficult to muster (thank goodness for dash
standards - a relatively recent innovation).]  At any given
time, for example: relays, branch circuit breakers,
cartridge fuses, Class 2 transformers, unit substations,
pool and spa equipment, panelboards, energy management
equipment, printed wiring boards, general purpose
transformers...the list goes on.  It can be a juggling act
to keep the requirements clearly in mind for any particular
product and standard, especially in busy times.

There are also relatively new employees that are still
cutting their teeth on a standard, those that transfer
between departments that handle different products and have
to learn new standards, almost anything of the ilk.

Nevertheless, there are some groups within these
organizations that deal with relatively few standards and
perhaps the back of the hand idea applies (for instance, ITE
and telecom equipment, polymeric materials), but it depends
sharply on the internal structure of the test house and how
they run their businesses.


The odds are great that we'll all act the teacher to test
house engineers in our careers.  Many serving on standards
making panels on this forum fulfill this function regularly.
Chris is right, though, that it can make a big difference if
the test house engineer is familiar with a customers
products and design philosophy.


Regards,

Peter L. Tarver, PE
Product Safety Manager
Sanmina-SCI Homologation Services
San Jose, CA
peter.tar...@sanmina-sci.com



---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Dave Heald:   davehe...@attbi.com

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/
Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list

RE: Unit and prefix capitalization

[Peter Tarver]

While this is belaboring the issue and, other than if I
happen to run across any relevant standards references, it
should be noted that most new and many updated standards we
have to deal with are written using SI as the primary and
sometimes only units.

Also, in most scientific and engineering circles, SI units
have been in use for decades, including NASA, medicine,
general research, and the like.  The few hold outs are
business interests and general populations (particularly in
the US).

An anecdote: my dad worked in heavy construction and was an
ardent objector to adoption of SI units in the US.  As a
creature set in his ways, it was just so much rigmarole and
he didn't want to take the time to understand a linear
measurement system that wasn't divided as he was inured.
Yet for many years, he'd been setting grade using tenths of
feet.


Regards,

Peter L. Tarver, PE
Product Safety Manager
Sanmina-SCI Homologation Services
San Jose, CA
peter.tar...@sanmina-sci.com

-Original Message-
From: Vit Gorod
Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2002 12:07 PM


 Dear Chuck and Peter,
When there's no enforcement, ther's no will.  Correct me if
I am wrong.  You may not get many enthusiastic responses
because since 1997 the US governement gave up on all
decades-long efforts to introduce metric system.  Whether we
like it or not, the SI comes into play only under customer
pressure (EU requirements, etc.- let's not forget that only
3 countries in the world do not use SI).


---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Dave Heald:   davehe...@attbi.com

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/
Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list

unit and prefix capitalization

[Peter Tarver]

RE, our recent discussions on unit prefixes: I ran across a
standard in my stash, IEC60027-1, Letter Symbols to be Used
in Electrical Technology is another reference for this
topic.  The base standard is dated 1992, with Amendment 1
dated 1997.  The IEC web site identifies four dash
standards, the others being:


Letter symbols to be used in electrical technology - Part 2:
Telecommunications and electronics

Letter symbols to be used in electrical technology. Part 3:
Logarithmic quantities and units

Letter symbols to be used in electrical technology. Part 4:
Symbols for quantities to be used for rotating electrical
machines


Regards,

Peter L. Tarver, PE
Product Safety Manager
Sanmina-SCI Homologation Services
San Jose, CA
peter.tar...@sanmina-sci.com


---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Dave Heald:   davehe...@attbi.com

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/
Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list

RE: EN60950 3rd vs EN60950-1

[Peter Tarver]

Ron -

I do not have a view on publication of EN60950-1 in the OJ,
but the IEC Web Store indicates a Technical Report Form was
created in APR2002 and is available.


Regards,

Peter L. Tarver, PE
Product Safety Manager
Sanmina-SCI Homologation Services
San Jose, CA
peter.tar...@sanmina-sci.com

 -Original Message-
 From: Ron Pickard
 Sent: Friday, July 12, 2002 9:30 AM

 To all,

 I am trying to decide, not if, but to which of
 the above standards must be complied with on a
 logistics basis.

 Does anyone have any knowledge as to when
 EN60950-1 harmonization will get published in the OJ? When
 is it expected? I know that EN60950-1 is not yet
 officially harmonized under the LVD yet, but
 EN69050 3rd Edition is.

 I do not want to go through the time and expense
 (not insignificant) to acquire CB certs/reports to
 IEC/EN60950 3rd to only find out that I have to
 go through it all over again for conformance to
 IEC/EN60950-1 shortly thereafter. Management will
 not find it palatable going through this twice
 when only once would have sufficed.

 Best regards,

 Ron Pickard
 rpick...@hypercom.com


---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Dave Heald:   davehe...@attbi.com

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/
Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list

RE: Telecomm Safety clearance

[Peter Tarver]

Joe -

I don't have a copy of EN60950-1, however IEC60950-1
includes a note to Subclause 6.1.2.1 that reads, In
Finland, Norway and Sweden, there are additional
requirements for the insulation.  In the EN version, what
is difference from the base standard this note refers to, if
the Supplementary insulation requirement no longer exists?


Regards,

Peter L. Tarver, PE
Product Safety Manager
Sanmina-SCI Homologation Services
San Jose, CA
peter.tar...@sanmina-sci.com


-Original Message-
From: Joe Randolph
Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 9:23 AM

Hi Alex:

1) In the Third Edition of EN 60950, Annex ZB no longer
requires supplementary insulation for Norway and Sweden.
Only the 0.4 mm distance through insulation requirement has
been retained, along with the stipulation that capacitors
bridging the isolation must be Y2 caps.  The
creepage/clearance requirement now reverts to the
requirement called out in the main body of the standard
(typically 1.6 mm and 1.0 mm).  That being said, I continue
to use the supplementary values of 2.5 mm and 2.0 mm in
designs where the room is available in the layout.

Joe Randolph


---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Dave Heald:   davehe...@attbi.com

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/
Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list

RE: 21 CFR part 11 certified FDA

[Peter Tarver]

Terry -

Part 11 of 21CFR is related to electronic reporting and
electronic signatures for submittals to the FDA; I don't
believe there's any certification program for Part 11,
just a process/procedure to follow.  Refer to

http://www.fda.gov/ora/compliance_ref/part11/


for details.


Regards,

Peter L. Tarver, PE
Product Safety Manager
Sanmina-SCI Homologation Services
San Jose, CA
peter.tar...@sanmina-sci.com


-Original Message-
From: Terry Meck
Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2002 11:22 AM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: 21 CFR part 11 certified FDA


Hello again,

Does anyone in this forum have any knowledge about United
States FDA 21 CFR part 11 certification.
What is the process?
Are there independent labs that test or witness test
software?

I have been asked these questions and have no experience in
this direction.   This may not be the forum to ask.  If so
please ignore this message.

Thanks!


Best regards,
Terry J. Meck
Senior Compliance Engineer





---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Dave Heald:   davehe...@attbi.com

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/
Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list

RE: Question: Discharge capacitance 0.1 uF

[Peter Tarver]

John -

I respectfully disagree that the standards bodies need to do
anything.  It is the designers that must be aware of the
advancements of technology (such as described by Gert) and
update their practices accordingly.  [Low ESR / High Q caps
are a good thing.] While I have no doubt about the potential
effects of reaction hazards (I've put two fingers across a
circuit calibrated to deliver 3.5 mA at 120V line potential;
the infamous Walter Skuggevig apparatus), the safety
standards should not be prescriptive.

Regards,

Peter L. Tarver, PE
Product Safety Manager
Sanmina-SCI Homologation Services
San Jose, CA
peter.tar...@sanmina-sci.com


-Original Message-
From: John Allen
Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2002 4:13 AM

Gert

Thanks for that investigation that I have not had the time
for recently!

Now, maybe, the standards writing committees will begin to
take this issue on board and do something about it as the
problem is generally technically trivial to solve - the
major issue then being to ensure that the bleeder device is
always across the capacitor, and is not isolated from it by
a switch or contactor that the operator can put in the
open position before disconnecting the supply.


John Allen


---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Dave Heald:   davehe...@attbi.com

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/
Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list

RE: Safety of Indicating LEDs

[Peter Tarver]

Rich and Scott -

Irrespective of how any test house decides to address
indicator LEDs, my discussions with TC76 members and
contributing experts, including Bob Weiner and Jerome
Dennis, as well as the remainder of the members at a panel
discussion at the 1997 Laser Institute of America
International Laser Safety Conference, it was not the intent
of IEC60825-1 to apply to faceplate indicator LEDs of
electrical equipment.  Rather, the concern was for higher
powered LEDs of up and coming technologies.

It was the consensus of the aforementioned panel that the
LED manufacturer's data sheets should be considered to
provide adequate evidence of compliance, should the question
arise.  (One industry representative to the Infrared Data
Association in attendance was particularly vociferous at his
perception of injustice doled out to the lowly LED by
IEC60825-1 and welcomed this as a step in the right
direction.)

It was further discussed that most LED data sheets use units
of Lumens and Candela more often than W, Wcm-2, J, Jcm-2, or
any other set of units found in IEC60825-1.  The conversion
is not always straight forward, since the measurements on
data sheets aren't necessarily at the 20cm accommodation
distance or using the measuring system in IEC60825-1, but if
analysis supports compliance without extraordinary dalliance
with the data, that the data sheets can and should be
considered good enough.  (Can and should are
understood to not imply will or shall.)

Far be it from certification houses to either be privy or
care about the standards committee intent, when they are
applying what amounts to a problematic standard (one hears
how problems certainly didn't end with A11 to EN60825-1).
There are also some certification houses that place so
little faith in manufacturer's data sheets for either LEDs
of diode lasers that they insist on performing wavelength
measurements, in addition to power and energy measurements,
with only the justification of needing to be certain,
yielding uncertain value with respect to safety.

I haven't heard from any TC76 member in many months, so if
any members of this list are TC76 members or contributing
experts, please add to this discussion.



Regards,

Peter L. Tarver, PE
Product Safety Manager
Sanmina-SCI Homologation Services
peter.tar...@sanmina-sci.com


 -Original Message-
 From: Rich Nute
 Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2002 10:25 AM

 Hi Scott:

The scope of EN 60825-1 says LEDs are
 included whenever the word laser
is used, meaning they are to be evaluated the
 same way lasers are.  Does
this apply to status indicating LEDs
 (non-lasing)?  If so, are
manufacturers expected to test every
 status-indicating LED on the
product as if it were a laser?

 Yes.

 At least one certification house demands measurement
 data for each indicator LED.  Emission class must be
 identified on the product or in the manual.  (Note
 that emission class is determined under single-fault
 conditions in the driving circuit.)

 However, in practice, other certification houses use
 a get-out for indicator LEDs.  Usually this is in the
 form of a not tested, but may be required by some
 authorities statement in the report.

 Most indicator LED manufacturers do not know of EN
 60825-1, and have no idea how to test.

 Measurement is not easy, especially the determination
 of the aperture.

 Most indicator LEDs will open before achieving Class
 2 emission levels.

 The above does not apply to automotive LEDs or to
 traffic signal LEDs.


 Best regards,
 Rich


---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Dave Heald:   davehe...@mediaone.net

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/
Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list

RE: Japan mains voltage

[Peter Tarver]

Darren -

the Japan mains voltage in the range you request is 100V.
As I understand it, though this is open to correction, Japan
has both 50Hz and 60Hz distribution systems, depending upon
where you are located, even on the large island.  I do note,
however, that the US Dept. of Commerce's publication,
Electric Current Abroad, indicates only 50Hz.  I have
other sources that indicate both 50Hz and 60Hz.


Regards,

Peter L. Tarver, PE
Product Safety Manager
Sanmina-SCI Homologation Services
peter.tar...@sanmina-sci.com

-Original Message-
From: Darren Pearson
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2002 4:46 AM

Can anyone tell me what the mains voltage is in Japan,

I  think it is 110V but I do not know the frequency.

apart from this, does any one know of a web site  that gives
information about the mains voltage and frequency of various
countries ?

  Regards Darren.


Darren Pearson
Radio  Telecom Approval Services
Genesys
Singleton Court, Wonastow Road
Monmouth, NP25 5JA
UK
Tel: +44 1600 710300
Fax: +44 1600 710301
email: dar...@genesysibs.com
web: www.genesysibs.com


---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Dave Heald:   davehe...@mediaone.net

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/
Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list

RE: [URGENT] Need some information about NEBS..

[Peter Tarver]

Joe -

Your statement is not in all cases.

Please refer to GR1089, 4.5.3, R4-3, -4, -5, 4.6.1, and
CR4-29

Although not a requirement, refer also to 4.5.13, Item 10,
related to R4-18.

Regards,

Peter L. Tarver, PE
Product Safety Manager
Sanmina-SCI Homologation Services
peter.tar...@sanmina-sci.com


-Original Message-
From: Joe Finlayson

Peter,

NRTL Listing is not a requirement for CO equipment per
GR-1089 although every one of our customers (CO's) requires
it.  You'd meet the requirements of the standards but you'd
have a tough time selling it.

Thx,


Joe
-Original Message-
From: Peter Merguerian

Tania,

Your state that NEBS requires UL1950 safety testing. This
may be true for CPE but not equipment sitting at the CO.
Please correct if I am mistaken.

This e-mail message may contain privileged or confidential
information. If you are not the intended recipient, you may
not disclose, use, disseminate, distribute, copy or rely
upon this message or attachment in any way. If you received
this e-mail message in error, please return by forwarding
the message and its attachments to the sender.

PETER S. MERGUERIAN

-Original Message-
From: Tania Grant

Michelle,

I am providing you with a generic test matrix of several
years back of an actual product that underwent NEBS
compliance testing.  I have stripped out any product
references.  Please note that test duration and cost will
differ depending upon your particular product, and does not
include any safety testing to UL 60950 even though this is
also a NEBS requirement.  Thus, the time and cost will
increase.   Also note that, depending upon your location,
not all of these tests can be performed by a single test
laboratory;--  you get to ship your product around.   Be
also aware that the same can happen even though the lab
states that they will take care of everything (then they
sub-contract it to other labs!).   You will also need to
have one or more of your people at the labs to assist in EMC
immunity testing  ESD testing, to package and unpackage
units/modules/equipment.   Packaged tests require that
certain parameters are tested prior to packaging (you need a
viable product), then come the packaging stress tests, then
you unpackage the equipment and repeat tests to see which
parameters failed.   Brutal it is, as Mike stated.   The
test duration increases as you find that certain parts of
your product need to be redesigned.   As was also previously
stated, you need to make sure that the whole engineering
team reads the GR-63 and GR-1089 standards and understands
the requirements.   No sense spending money on lab tests for
obvious failures.

Tania Grant
taniagr...@msn.com
- Original Message -
From: Michelle Cho

Dear all,

I need some help about something called NEBS(Network
Equipment Building System). The whole procedure...
What exactly the NEBS is and where can I do the testing? How
much? How long does it take?

Thanks in advance!

Michelle




---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Dave Heald:   davehe...@mediaone.net

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/
Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list

RE: Flammabilty requirement for cloth used on loudspeaker / UL6500

[Peter Tarver]

Pierre  Rich -

At one time, I had to perform such testing, but it's too
long ago and was so infrequently necessary that I've lost
all details.  However, I did save one of the tablets in a
35mm film canister.  My note on the outside says
hexamethylene tetramine C16H12N4, that last bit being the
precise chemical composition.

Regards,

Peter L. Tarver, PE
Product Safety Manager
Sanmina-SCI Homologation Services
peter.tar...@sanmina-sci.com

 -Original Message-
 From: Rich Nute
 Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2002 11:07 AM

 Hi Pierre:


Reading the standard, I understand that the
 cloth used on the front of the
loudspeaker (external to fire enclosure) has
 to be tested according the
tablet test (see Table 13).

 As I recall (from the UL standard), the tablet is
 hexamine.


---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Dave Heald:   davehe...@mediaone.net

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/
Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list

RE: UL1492

[Peter Tarver]

Richard -

If the monitor contains a CRT, the requirement in question
may arise from 21CFR, rather than UL.  The responsible
company needs their name and address marked on products.


Regards,

Peter L. Tarver, PE
Product Safety Manager
Sanmina-SCI Homologation Services
peter.tar...@sanmina-sci.com

 -Original Message-
 From: Andrew Carson
 Sent: Monday, February 11, 2002 2:41 AM

 Richard

 The only people for certain who know what should
 be on a label are UL, so a
 quick phone call to your local office should
 help. But we OEM manufacture raid
 systems and have never had a problem with only
 placing the File number on the
 label. The file numbers are public domain
 information and anyone can obtain a
 manufacturers name and address from it. Also I
 have evaluated many products
 badged by one company, but the file number tells
 me they were made by someone
 else. So does not seem right from my past experience.

 richwo...@tycoint.com wrote:

  An OEM of video monitors has obtained UL
 Listing under UL 1492. They tell us
  that the address of our company must appear on
 the rating label. Is that
  correct?
 
  Richard Woods
  Sensormatic Electronics
  Tyco International


---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Dave Heald:   davehe...@mediaone.net

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/
Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list

RE: Product Safety Consultants in Bay area, California.

[Peter Tarver]

Tajudeen -

Sanmina-SCI can provide these consulting services.

Please refer to my contact information, below.


Regards,

Peter L. Tarver, PE
Product Safety Manager
Sanmina-SCI Homologation Services
355 E. Trimble Rd.
San Jose, CA 95131-1218
V: 408-474-1322
F: 408-474-1318
M: 408-234-3529
peter.tar...@sanmina-sci.com

 -Original Message-
 From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
 [mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On 
 Behalf Of Tajudeen Oladele
 Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 10:18 AM
 To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
 Subject: Product Safety Consultants in Bay area, 
 California. 
 
 
 
 Tajudeen Oladele wrote:
 
 
 A friend of mine   need  a product safety 
 consulting  service of someone
 living in Bay area whose background is
 in telecommunication equipment installed in  
 central offices and remote
 locations on issues
 concerning UL60950/CSA requirements.
 
 My number is 707-792-7145.
 
 Thank you in anticipation.
 
 Tajudeen Oladele.
 
 
 ---
 This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
 Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.
 
 Visit our web site at:  
 http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/
 
 To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
  majord...@ieee.org
 with the single line:
  unsubscribe emc-pstc
 
 For help, send mail to the list administrators:
  Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org
  Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net
 
 For policy questions, send mail to:
  Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
  Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org
 
 All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable 
 on the web at:
 No longer online until our new server is 
 brought online and the old messages are imported 
 into the new server.

---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org
 Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old 
messages are imported into the new server.

RE: Medical devices in Asia

[Peter Tarver]

An excellent resource, John.  Thank you.

Regards,

Peter L. Tarver, PE
Product Safety Manager
Sanmina-SCI Homologation Services
peter.tar...@sanmina-sci.com

 -Original Message-
 From: Jon Griver
 Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2002 9:59 PM

 Peter,

 An excellent place to start your search is:
 http://www.ita.doc.gov/td/mdequip/regulations.html

 which is the US Department of Commerce site,
 giving information on the
 medical device requirements for many countries.

 Good Luck

 Jon Griver
 www.601help.com
 The Medical Device Developer's Guide to IEC 60601-1
 
  All -
 
  I have been asked to look into medical device
 requirements
  in Asia.  This would include Pacific Rim and other Asian
  countries (the request was not specific,
 despite a little
  prodding).  I am only beginning my research and would
  appreciate any pointers you might be able to
 provide that
  will shorten the time it takes me in discovery.
 
  Thank you.
 
 
  Regards,
 
  Peter L. Tarver, PE
  Product Safety Manager
  Sanmina-SCI Homologation Services
  peter.tar...@sanmina-sci.com


---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org
 Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old 
messages are imported into the new server.

Medical devices in Asia

[Peter Tarver]

All -

I have been asked to look into medical device requirements
in Asia.  This would include Pacific Rim and other Asian
countries (the request was not specific, despite a little
prodding).  I am only beginning my research and would
appreciate any pointers you might be able to provide that
will shorten the time it takes me in discovery.

Thank you.


Regards,

Peter L. Tarver, PE
Product Safety Manager
Sanmina-SCI Homologation Services
peter.tar...@sanmina-sci.com


---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org
 Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old 
messages are imported into the new server.

RE: ul 60950-1

[Peter Tarver]

Brian and others interested -

CSA/UL90950-1 will be discussed in a tentatively scheduled
meeting in April at the UL60950 Standards Technical Panel,
followed by a meeting that includes the UL60950 Industry
Advisory Conference, Canadian Technical Standards Committee
and the Bi-National Working Group.

As to your specific questions:

1) the draft presently includes Clause 7 as is, with a
pointer to Annex NAE, where the Canadian Electrical Code,
Section 57 and portions of the US National Electrical Code
(Articles 810, 820 and 830) are referenced.

2) the DOP is tentatively set for sometime in 2003

3) as to DOW, I quote from the 28DEC2001 UL60950 STP meeting
announcement, new product submittals through April 1, 2005
will be evaluated using all the requirements in this
standard, or if requested in writing, evaluated using the
requirements in UL60950, Third Edition.  After April 1,
2005, all new product submittals are required to use this
standard.

Products that were previously certified by Underwriters
Laboratories Inc. to requirements in other existing
applicable standards, such as UL114, UL478, UL1459 or
UL1950, First, Second or Third Editions, may continue to be
certified without further reinvestigation.   However, after
April 1, 2005 any significant changes or revisions made to
such products will be evaluated to this standard.

It is probable that CSA will make similar statements, in the
interest of harmonization.


Item 3 is both beneficial to mature/static designs and
requires an additional bit of caveat emptor.  If components
are allowed to continue certification under older standards,
use in a new product submittals may cause additional grief
of reviewing components' suitability to a greater degree.
Good product specifications can offer relief on this issue,
both for the immediate need and to hopefully lead to
attrition of components not clearly compliant with the
latest applicable standard.


Regards,

Peter L. Tarver, PE
Product Safety Manager
Sanmina-SCI Homologation Services
peter.tar...@sanmina-sci.com

 -Original Message-
 From: Brian McAuliffe

 Can aybody advise on the status of UL 60950-1 ?
 In particular, will claue 7
 of the IEC on CATV requirements remain unchanged
 and what are the DOP and
 DOW ?

 Brian McAuliffe

 MCA


---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org
 Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old 
messages are imported into the new server.

RE: What about 480 VAC in Europe? RE: 2 Phases in North America

[Peter Tarver]

Andrew -

Please clarify something for me.  Is the utility
distribution star configured (WYE connected), rather than
DELTA?  Or are you speaking only wrt typical distribution
within a building?  (In the US, distribution is generally
used to reference utility power distribution, for instance,
distribution transformer, as opposed to facility
transformer.)

I ask because DELTA is used by utilities in the US and
Canada to simplify connections save the unnecessary cost of
running a Neutral (star reference point conductor) between
distribution transformers (or so it was 'splained to me,
Lucy).


Regards,

Peter L. Tarver, PE
Product Safety Manager
Sanmina-SCI Homologation Services
peter.tar...@sanmina-sci.com


 From: Andrew Carson

 Terry

 Then nominal EU phase to phase voltage is 400VAC
 with a +6/-10% Tolerance. Distribution is Three
 Phase Star, Earthed Neutral.

 Snip 

 Andrew Carson - Senior Compliance Engineer, Xyratex, UK
 Phone: +44 (0)23 9249 6855 Fax: +44 (0)23 9249 6014


---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org
 Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old 
messages are imported into the new server.

RE: electric strength test

[Peter Tarver]

Brian -

From what I can glean from your message, the equipment is
Class 1, but the secondaries do not rely on earthing for
SELV reliability (hence, the Reinforced Insulation EST
value). However, there appears to be some functional
earthing of secondary circuits or there would be no problems
for your Y caps.

If the above is true, the Y caps must provide Reinforced
insulation.  Alternatively, there are allowances for two Y
caps in series you might be able to exploit (see 1.5.7.1).

If the above is not true, in that earthing of secondary
circuits is necessary to maintain compliance with SELV
requirements, you should not need to perform an EST at
Reinforced values.  Basic Insulation will do, eliminating
issue for the Y caps.

Irrespective of these alternatives, the implication of only
needing Basic Insulation for the Y cap and Reinforced
Insulation for the purposes of your primary to secondary EST
is that you should be able to completely disconnect the Y
cap and leave it dangling, without connecting the Y cap at
all.

Challenge the test house engineer for a solid engineering
rationale.


Regards,

Peter L. Tarver, PE
Product Safety Manager
Sanmina-SCI Homologation Services
San Jose, CA
peter.tar...@sanmina-sci.com


 -Original Message-
 From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
 [mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On
 Behalf Of Brian O'Connell
 Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2002 6:57 AM
 To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
 Subject: electric strength test



 Good People of PSTC:

 I am attempting to comply with both the letter
 and spirit of 60950:2000, cl
 5.2. Note that 5.2.2 allows for separate testing,
 according the type of
 insulation required. When testing a (class 1)
 power supply, the withstand
 level for primary to chassis is Basic; and for
 primary to secondary is
 Reinforced. Typically, I will apply approx
 2500vdc for Basic and 4300vdc for
 reinforced. But to pass primary to secondary
 test, 60950 says that I can
 allow for following:

 care is taken that the voltage applied to the
 reinforced insulation does
 not overstress basic

 Also

 to avoid damage to components or insulation
 which are not involved in the
 test, disconnection of ICs or the like and the
 use of equipotential bonding
 are permitted.

 For Pri/Sec testing, the screw connecting the
 Y-caps to the chassis is
 removed, insulation is inserted between the screw
 insert and chassis.

 A (new) agency engineer says that inserting a
 piece of insulator defeats the
 purpose of the test. For class 1 construction, it
 is just not possible for
 me to pass 4300vdc test levels without inserting
 my little piece of valox,
 unless I physically remove all Y-caps (and the
 unit will not operate
 reliably with y-caps). I have inspected units
 from several other companies
 and have determined that it was not possible to
 have ever passed pri-sec
 test levels without isolating these circuits.

 What test technique generally accepted by your
 agency engineers? TIA.

 R/S,
 Brian O'Connell
 Taiyo Yuden (USA), Inc.


 ---
 This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
 Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

 Visit our web site at:
http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Dave Heald:   davehe...@attbi.com

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web
at:
http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/
Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list


---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Dave Heald:   davehe...@attbi.com

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/
Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list

RE: ( More) Laser Safety Questions

[Peter Tarver]

Doug -

I was in no way implying the flaw was yours.  The flaw lies
in the practical implementation of the system.

Peter

 -Original Message-
 From: Massey, Doug C. [mailto:masse...@ems-t.com]
 Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2002 10:40 AM

 Peter - I humbly submit that there is no 'flaw'
 in reminding folks that
 audits do happen and that they may be subject to
 one, however rare they may
 be.

 Doug Massey


---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Dave Heald:   davehe...@mediaone.net

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/
Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list

RE: ( More) Laser Safety Questions

[Peter Tarver]

All -

The only flaw with this is that, based on my previous
discussions with CDRH folks, they have very few auditors and
no budget to hire more (this was a few years ago).
Therefore, by their admission, the primary methods of
keeping manufacturers and importers honest is

1) trust in the manufacturer's basic honesty

2) complaints from competitors, customers, etc.

3) field incidents

Their primary concern was keeping up with the laser light
shows, which they said they could not set aside auditing on
(and for good reason).

As a test of the presumption, has anyone on this list ever
had a CDRH auditor in their facility, other than related to
a laser light show?


Regards,

Peter L. Tarver, PE
Product Safety Manager
Sanmina-SCI Homologation Services
peter.tar...@sanmina-sci.com

 -Original Message-
 From: Massey, Doug C.
 Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 6:51 AM

 Hi Jeffrey,
 I've seen answers to this post regarding
 enforcement of the IEC standard, as
 well as to the CDRH rules. However, no one has
 mentioned FDA audits.

 The FDA does conduct periodic audits at the
 manufacturer's location as
 reported in the Product Reports and Annual
 Reports submitted to them. The
 auditor will check record keeping, quality
 control, and product design
 aspects such as proper labeling. My company has
 been producing laser
 products for many years, and only one audit has
 been conducted, that anyone
 can remember. I was the representative during
 that audit, and I commend the
 auditor on his professionalism and thoroughness.
 The auditor was a pleasure
 to work with, but he was very thorough. Rather
 than a 'let me see what I can
 nail you on' attitude, the auditor I dealt with
 had a 'let me see if I can
 help you improve your compliance process'
 attitude. The auditor will call
 ahead and let you know the date for the audit -
 an appreciated courtesy, but
 the date is not negotiable.

 Note that the FDA only has jurisdiction over
 manufacturing locations within
 the US. That's why it falls largely to customs to
 enforce imported goods, I
 presume. It is also noteworthy that the FDA has a
 very broad scope and
 generally has much bigger fish to fry than a
 manufacturer of low-power laser
 devices - I think that's why the frequency of
 audits for manufacturers like
 us is so low. You may never have the pleasure.

 For complete information about penalties and
 other administrative topics,
 check
 http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/radhlth/fdcact5c.html ,
 the Electronic Product
 Radiation Control section of the Federal Food,
 Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
 Section 360pp covers Enforcement and Penalties.

 Hope this helps.

 Doug Massey
 Lead Regulatory Engineer
 LXE, Inc.


---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Dave Heald:   davehe...@mediaone.net

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/
Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list

RE: CSA Mark

[Peter Tarver]

Peter -

Browse to

http://www.csa-international.org/certmarks/

At the bottom of the page is a notation to contact CSA
customer service for artwork and a link to contact
information.

Regards,

Peter L. Tarver, PE
Product Safety Manager
Sanmina-SCI Homologation Services
peter.tar...@sanmina-sci.com

 -Original Message-
 From: Peter Merguerian
 Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 4:52 AM

 Dear All,

 Does anyone know where I can download the CSA Mark?


 PETER S. MERGUERIAN


---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Dave Heald:   davehe...@mediaone.net

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/
Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list

RE: ( More) Laser Safety Questions

[Peter Tarver]

Jeffery -

I have no answer to the enforcement question for the US, but
I suspect it's complaint and incident driven, as the EMC
regulations historically have been.

For NRTLs, the acceptance of previously certified Class I
lasers incorporated into other equipment is based on CDRH
Laser Notice 42, available as a part of all Laser Notices at

http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/radhlth/pdf/laspol01.pdf

Links to other useful information is available at

http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/radhlth/index.html


Regards,

Peter L. Tarver, PE
Product Safety Manager
Sanmina-SCI Homologation Services
peter.tar...@sanmina-sci.com

 -Original Message-
 From: Collins, Jeffrey
 Sent: Monday, March 11, 2002 7:32 PM

 Hello Group,

 There was a lot of good dialog recently regarding
 laser safety. Thanks to
 all that participated

 Questions:

 Who enforces the FDA CDRH 1040.1 laser safety
 standards in the US?

 How is it enforced?

 What are the penalties for noncompliance?

 Who enforces the IEC or EN 60825 laser safety
 standards in Europe /
 Globally?

 How is it enforced?

 What are the penalties for noncompliance?


 My questions are stemming from the Class 1 or 1M
 laser safety requirements
 particularly in Telecom networks.
 Some NRTL's and CAB's do not require or do not
 enforce their clients doing a
 submittal ( To the FDA ) for installing these
 types of laser products in
 your equipment. Their decision was based on your
 company using a class 1
 laser that carries a current NRTL / CAB safety
 certification which was not
 modified from it's original design when installed
 into your products.

 Thanks in advance,

 Jeffrey Collins


---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Dave Heald:   davehe...@mediaone.net

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/
Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list

RE: Flammability rating question

[Peter Tarver]

David and Gary -

Gary has the name correct, but the difference in rating is
derived due to complications related to the test method.
VTM materials tend to curl up, wilt or shrink away from a
flame when cut into test blanks normally used for the V-x
small scale material testing.  To overcome this, the test
samples are formed into cylinders by wrapping them around a
mandrel, to stiffen them.  The samples are oriented the same
as for the V-x testing and the mandrel is removed prior to
applying a flame.

Since the test methods are different and not directly
comparable, the VTM rating scheme was devised.  In VTM-x,
the -x part of the rating is roughly comparable to V-x
ratings and are generally treated as equivalent.


Regards,

Peter L. Tarver, PE
Product Safety Manager
Sanmina-SCI Homologation Services
peter.tar...@sanmina-sci.com

 -Original Message-
 From: Gary McInturff
 Sent: Friday, March 08, 2002 6:52 AM

 Vertical thin material. The first part is the
 orientation of the test sample just as is 94 VX
 and the second part TM identifies thin material.
 Its thin enough that if used on its own it to
 would burn, but when used attached to someother
 surface it will not burn. Mostly I've sen it in
 tapes etc. If I remember correctly it has to be
 tested mounted to a madril of some sort to
 determine is ratings.
   Gary
 -Original Message-
 From: Gelfand, David [mailto:david.gelf...@ca.kontron.com]
 Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2002 2:06 PM

 What does UL 94 VTM-0 mean?  I saw it in a spec
 for thin insulating plastic.


 Thanks,

 David.

 David Gelfand
 Regulatory Approvals
 Kontron Canada Inc.


---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Dave Heald:   davehe...@mediaone.net

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/
Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list

RE: Laser Safety

[Peter Tarver]

All -

ANSI standards are not free, but some may be purchased in
soft copy form and those standards are downloadable.

If IEC60825-1 requirements are used for a product, you must
review CDRH Laser Notice 50 to see how you are effected.
This can't be a markings only type of thing; you have to
use the whole standard.  The certification marking mentioned
in Laser Notice 50 is more verbose than the plain old 21CFR
marking.  Other marking differences exist for higher laser
classes where the ANSI based logotype is replaced by
IEC60825-1 markings.

The harmonization project between IEC TC76 and 21CFR is
ongoing.  I don't know the status, but it's not completed.


Regards,

Peter L. Tarver, PE
Product Safety Manager
Sanmina-SCI Homologation Services
peter.tar...@sanmina-sci.com

 -Original Message-
 From: John Juhasz
 Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2002 6:47 AM

 I tried looking real hard for free downloadable ANSI specs
 and couldn't find them - I had to buy them.

 Regarding labelling, there have been efforts (not sure
 of the status at this time - is there anyone out
 there who knows?) to harmonize the EN 60825 and
 21CFR1040 to make it easier on manufacturers.
 As the final laser classifications are parallel
 (it's the methodology that has differences)
 the FDA, in the interest of manufacturer satisfaction(?)
 has been allowing the use of the Classification/Warning
 labels as described in EN 60825. But you still have to
 add the FDA-CDRH label This product complies with FDA
 Radiation Performance Standard 21 CFR Subpart J

 Hope this helps.

 John Juhasz
 Fiber Options
 Bohemia, NY


---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Dave Heald:   davehe...@mediaone.net

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/
Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list

RE: Laser Safety

[Peter Tarver]

Mark -

My first inclination is to ask: do you need Class I?  In the
US, the higher classes of laser products primarily require
labeling and additional information in instruction manuals.
As stated by Doug McKean, 21CFR allows the fiber optic
system connections to provide a level of safety, in the
sense that an open or broken fiber is not considered.

If the product will be marketing internationally,
IEC60825-1, Class 3B does have some potential design
requirements, but is otherwise significantly similar to
21CFR.  For IEC60825-1, fiber disconnection (as a
maintenance/service activity) and breakage (as a fault
condition) is considered in determination of laser class.


Regards,

Peter L. Tarver, PE
Product Safety Manager
Sanmina-SCI Homologation Services
peter.tar...@sanmina-sci.com


 -Original Message-
 From: Mark Schmidt
 Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 11:17 AM

 I am trying to gain a better understanding of
 lasers and I have had some
 discussion and been told some things that don’t
 make much sense to me so
 I am asking the group for some guidance. Here is
 my question.

 If the unexpanded raw beam of a Class III b laser
 was incorporated into
 a larger system, is then expanded and used in
 this same system reducing
 the beam intensity to Class I levels. Would the
 overall system be
 classified as Class I ?

 Thanks.

 Mark Schmidt
 Regulatory Compliance
 X-Rite Incorporated
 U.S.A.
 (616) 257 2469
 mschm...@xrite.com mailto:mschm...@xrite.com


---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Dave Heald:   davehe...@mediaone.net

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/
Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list

RE: Laser Safety

[Peter Tarver]

Mark  John -

Since 21CFR is based on ANSI Z136.1, it seems the best of
references.  However, 21CFR is the ultimate judge for the
US.

ANSI Z136.2 is for fiber optic systems, rather than
products, but is still a good reference.

Regards,

Peter L. Tarver, PE
Product Safety Manager
Sanmina-SCI Homologation Services
peter.tar...@sanmina-sci.com

 -Original Message-
 From: John Juhasz
 Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 12:28 PM

 Your best bet in classifying your 'system' is to
 look at ANSI Z136.1 and .2 specs. In my opinion
 (some may disagree)
 it's a good guide.

 John Juhasz
 Fiber Options
 Bohemia, NY


---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Dave Heald:   davehe...@mediaone.net

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/
Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list

RE: ventilation holes

[Peter Tarver]

George -

Please keep in mind that SELV alone, while addressing
electric shock, does not address risks of fire.  If,
however, the external power supply complies with the
requirements of a Limited Power Source, then you're home
free, in terms of complying with the safety standard(s) (the
enclosure becomes purely decorative).

If the power supply in combination with the first circuit
element or so in the power input circuitry inside the box
cause the power source to comply with the requirements of a
LPS, you'll need to have an electrical enclosure around the
nonLPS supplied portions of the interior.

You may want to further consider the long term effects on
reliability and returns due to ingress of liquids, dust or
other solid matter into the box.

Oh, and thar's that EMC thangy I keep a-hearing 'bout.  ;)


Regards,

Peter L. Tarver, PE
Product Safety Manager
Sanmina-SCI Homologation Services
peter.tar...@sanmina-sci.com

 -Original Message-
 From: George Stults
 Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 10:24 AM

 Hi Folks,

 I have a safety question for the group.   I  have
 a small  (about 8 x 10 x 2
 inch)  piece of ITE equipment, SELV, enclosed in
 a plastic case,  powered by
 an external 12 volt brick from AC mains.

 The problem is, the device tends to run a little
 hotter than desired.   One
 proposed solution is to cut some vent holes in
 the top.   These would be
 roughly (1/2) inch long by  (1/6) inch wide,
 spaced (1/4) inch apart,
 running across the top near the front of the device.

 I haven't seen many (any?) devices with vent
 holes in the top, so I'm
 wondering if there is a basic reason why not,
 such as the cover must shed
 water, etc.
 My questions are,  what considerations arise and
 what sections of EN 60950
 apply to this, either to allow it or to exclude it.

 Thanks in advance

 George S.


---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Dave Heald:   davehe...@mediaone.net

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/
Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list

RE: Lasers in Fiber Optic Comm Networks

[Peter Tarver]

The scenario you describe is specifically addressed by the
standard, IEC60825-1.


Regards,

Peter L. Tarver, PE
Product Safety Manager
Sanmina-SCI Homologation Services
San Jose, CA
peter.tar...@sanmina-sci.com

 -Original Message-
 From: Collins, Jeffrey
 Sent: Friday, June 28, 2002 1:45 AM

 Group,

 And yet another laser question. How would one
 certify/classify Optical Gear
 in Europe Only where the transceiver may very
 well be a class 1 laser, but
 because you multiplex multiple channels before
 launching on the line coming
 out of the CO, your aggregate power can be
 significantly higher than class
 1?


 Jeffrey Collins


---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Dave Heald:   davehe...@attbi.com

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/
Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list

RE: Units, symbols

[Peter Tarver]

I don't have a copy, but if we were to refer to ISO
31-0:1992, I'm certain answers to these questions would be
revealed.

Abstract from the ISO web site:

Gives general information about principles concerning
physical quantities, equations, quantity and unit symbols,
and coherent unit systems, especially the International
System of Units, SI, including recommendations for printing
symbols and numbers. Annex A includes a guide to terms used
in names for physical quantities, Annex B a guide to the
rounding of numbers, Annex C international organizations in
the field of quantities and units.


Regards,

Peter L. Tarver, PE
Product Safety Manager
Sanmina-SCI Homologation Services
San Jose, CA
peter.tar...@sanmina-sci.com


---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Dave Heald:   davehe...@attbi.com

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/
Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list

RE: Hipot test at production - requirements for tester

[Peter Tarver]

All -

From UL's NWGQ Standardized Appendix Pages (these are for
ITE products)

2.1.2.2If the output of the test-equipment transformer is
less than 500 volt-amperes, the equipment shall include a
voltmeter in the output circuit to indicate the test
potential directly.

It's impossible to say that this applies across the board
for all product categories and for all third party safety
certifiers.

I generally recommend a 500VA transformer for production
line EST equipment, to avoid unexpected issues with factory
auditors and feel confident that the production line staff
have as little to monitor as possible; in my experience, the
more they have to monitor, the less likely they are to
monitor any given thing, especially if disgruntled.  I also
recommend, As Greg mentioned, that the trip current be set
as low as practical for the product under test.


Regards,

Peter L. Tarver, PE
Product Safety Manager
Sanmina-SCI Homologation Services
San Jose, CA
peter.tar...@sanmina-sci.com

 -Original Message-
 From: Gregg Kervill
 Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2002 1:02 PM

 500 VA (and greater) is used for TYPE TESTING only.

 Any kind of breakdown that pulls more than 5 mA
 is potentially lethal and
 non-compliant.

  There is good reason for limiting the EOL
 hot-pot current (dynamically - or
 even with a trip) as low as possible.

 Best regards

 Gregg


---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Dave Heald:   davehe...@attbi.com

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/
Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list

RE: Two Questions concerning the subject of Laser Safety

[Peter Tarver]

Mike -

See below.


Regards,

Peter L. Tarver, PE
Product Safety Manager
Sanmina-SCI Homologation Services
San Jose, CA
peter.tar...@sanmina-sci.com

  -Original Message-
 From: Davis, Mike
 Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2002 6:59 AM

 1.Are manufacturers required by the FDA to record serial
numbers of Laser modules.  Where is this requirement
located? Does this apply to photodiodes also?

A)  Not in so few words.  The requirements imply the need
for a tracking method by way of a QC program, but nothing is
specifically identified.  Also, if there's a field incident,
traceability to a manufacturing lot would likely become an
issue, especially if the field incident is serious enough to
warrant a recall (you would, no doubt, prefer to recall only
some modules from the field, rather than all of them).  S/Ns
are the most common method I've seen used for this.

B) photodiodes are not controlled by the FDA; neither are
noncoherent LED sources



 2.I have a concern of what I need to know about Laser
safety but was afraid to ask (because it would cost more
than my compliance budget ($0) would allow without manager
approval). In other words (what is the second question?... I
am getting there.) I am looking to hire a consultant or take
a course. My supervisor wants me to create for him a
proposal answering the type of questions that support the
need to either attend a course or have a consultant educate
me or our professionals here so that he can decide whether
or not we need to hire a consultant, etc, etc. To keep this
short, I will paraphrase by saying that the type of
questions he would like to have answered is it worth the
expense to getting smart, as engineers and a manufacturer of
ITE, in the manufacturing of laser systems?

I believe it's worth getting smart.  I recommend (you just
missed the last one):

International Laser Safety Conference
March 10-13, 2003
Jacksonville, FL
http://www.laserinstitute.org/conferences/ilsc2003/index2003
.htm


 Here is my question...
 Is there information available that summarizes the
responsibilities to Laser Safety of Compliance, Design,
Manufacturing, and Test Engineers that manufacture laser
systems?

Refer to 21CFR and the CDRH web site for all of this.
You'll find copies of the initial and annual reports and
links to 21CFR.  Some of the information you want is in
early sections of Section 1040 (1040.01, .02) so don't
ignore them and only review 1040.10.


http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/



---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Dave Heald:   davehe...@attbi.com

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/
Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list

Re: [PSES] Public Service: Opt Out From Online Behavioural Advertising

[Peter Tarver]

 From: N. Shani [mailto:nshani...@gmail.com]
 Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2013 18:28

 This may apply to Canadian on-line advertising only,
 but I'm sure other jurisdictions around the globe have
 similar sites/tools available.
 To see more, and opt-out, see
 http://youradchoices.ca/choices

I went to that site out of curiosity and it told me that to use the site to
look at its content, I had to allow setting cookies in my browser (I have my
browser to not allow third-party site cookies, but otherwise they're
allowed).

Must be Canadian humor.☺


Peter Tarver


This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may 
contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not an intended 
recipient, you may not review, use, copy, disclose or distribute this message. 
If you received this message in error, please contact the sender by reply email 
and destroy all copies of the original message. 


-

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

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

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

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

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org

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

[PSES] Standards copyright lawsuit

[Peter Tarver]

There is occasionally much haranguing regarding how standards should be
free.



The NFPA has joined ASHRAE and
ASTMhttp://www.nfpa.org/newsandpublications/nfpa-journal/2013/september-october-2013/pov/first-word?order_src=C247to
claim otherwise.





Regards,



Peter L. Tarver



This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may 
contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not an intended 
recipient, you may not review, use, copy, disclose or distribute this message. 
If you received this message in error, please contact the sender by reply email 
and destroy all copies of the original message. 

-

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

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

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

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

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org

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

Re: [PSES] standards update and legal madness

[Peter Tarver]

Brian -

Threats of tort is commonly used to try to get someone else to absorb the
types of costs described below.  Depending on the actual cost of the
required product fixes, one side or the other may decide to eat the costs,
simply based on the typically exorbitant legal costs for pursuing a tort
and the potential for losing.

The contracted company's legal dweebs need to review the contract to see
if professional incompetence is on their side or on the part of the
contracting company.  Meaning, how specific was the contract in specifying
the applicable standards and was there any presumption of continuing
compliance over time.  This ties into John Shinn's question about, build
to print, which is a contract manufacturer's backup Plan A.

As far as the who's who, simply direct them to the committee responsible
for the standard and let them tease out its membership.  It should not be
the contracted company's responsibility to take action beyond this minimal
level, unless there's a desire to play extra nice until it's time to not
play nice.

If the contracted company's legal dweebs are on the ball, they're most
likely already on these issues.


Regards,

Peter Tarver

 -Original Message-
 From: Brian Oconnell [mailto:oconne...@tamuracorp.com]
 Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 10:46
 To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
 Subject: [PSES] standards update and legal madness

 None of this is a representation of my employer.

 A company makes a component for North American market
 designed for the needs of a single customer. The
 company received notices from CSA and UL with
 tabulation of standards corrections. The company
 informed affected customer of time and cost to update.

 The company then receives letter from the customer's
 legal dweebs - they want to see complete list of
 organizations and individuals that contributed to the
 errors that caused a mandatory update to the standard.

 The company's customer is considering pursuing a tort
 for lost opportunity and professional incompetence. Has
 this ever been done? Has a member of a TC/WG ever been
 served with a subpoena for this stuff? Is this stupid
 or just insane?

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

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

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

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

 For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net
 Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org

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


This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may 
contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not an intended 
recipient, you may not review, use, copy, disclose or distribute this message. 
If you received this message in error, please contact the sender by reply email 
and destroy all copies of the original message. 

-

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

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

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

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

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org

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

[PSES] CPSC product recall

[Peter Tarver]

For those who don't subscribe to InCompliance magazine or track recalls
through other methods, the below link is related to a US product recall of
a relocateable power tap with surge protection.

http://www.cpsc.gov/en/Recalls/2014/Schneider-Electric-Recalls-APC-Surge-P
rotectors/


Regards,

Peter L. Tarver


This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may 
contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not an intended 
recipient, you may not review, use, copy, disclose or distribute this message. 
If you received this message in error, please contact the sender by reply email 
and destroy all copies of the original message. 

-

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

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

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

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

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org

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

Re: [PSES] EN 50581 part/range of parts

[Peter Tarver]

 From: Piotr Galka
 Sent: Friday, November 22, 2013 05:15

 The fourth side: We (I hope I will not be alone) think
 point 1 is an error - it should call for No... (unique
 identification of document):

I will propose yet another position.  This position appears to me to
logically suit the intent of the RoHS Dir.

For a product with a given model designation, there may be multiple product
revisions that don't affect the overarching model designation.  I've worked
at companies that had three levels of product identification (others may
have more), each of which was marked on the product for traceability
purposes that aided in customer support and failure analyses.

Level 1: A model designation that is generally unvarying, but may have a
revision code that changes only for large changes in functionality that
marketing wants to make customers aware of.

Level 2: A part number for the product that is used coincident with the
model designation that contains a suffix that is allowed to change more
frequently than the model designation.

Level 3: A lower level part no. that changes frequently (even with every
minor ECO or MCO addressing minor cosmetic issues as well as with more
substantive changes) and may or may not change a suffix only.

To address the RoHS Dir. for a product following the above (or a similar
scenario), each level of product identification that can be or is RoHS
compliance affecting must be identified in the DoC.  This might include only
the first two levels in the above example.  As the revision levels roll up,
a new DoC should be issued that covers the relevant product identifier
levels.

It is completely illogical that every S/N should be identified.  For
products that have high production rates, this is ridiculously onerous.  Not
that politicians are immune to being illogical or ridiculous, either by
design or through ignorance or negligence. ☺


Regards,

Peter Tarver


This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may 
contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not an intended 
recipient, you may not review, use, copy, disclose or distribute this message. 
If you received this message in error, please contact the sender by reply email 
and destroy all copies of the original message. 


-

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

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

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

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

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org

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

Re: [PSES] Categorizing a new product

[Peter Tarver]

TO,OB (did you really mean that?) –



There are a number of devices designed for similar uses, but that are for
wiring in.



Example manufacturers include TeleHaase (http://www.tele-online.com),
Lovato Electric (http://www.lovato.co.uk/) , ABB (http://www.abb.com/) and
others.  You can peruse their web sites for these devices and get the
flavor of their certifications.  Fair warning, many specs. are not
available in English.





Regards,



Peter Tarver



*From:* Brian Ceresney [mailto:bceres...@delta-q.com]
*Sent:* Thursday, November 21, 2013 15:52
*To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
*Subject:* [PSES] Categorizing a new product





Dear Regulatory Wizards,

I’ve been asked to provide the regulatory scope for a product type which is
new to me, and I’d appreciate if you could provide me with a sanity check.
We are considering Safety and EMC for Europe only here, of course other
Directives(RoHS 2, REACH, WEEE, etc.) will apply. A CB report may be
considered for additional countries, as required.



The product is a small device which is intended to plug into the mains via
a supply cord, and, in turn, provides a socket for another piece of mains
operated equipment.

The function of the device is to pass mains power through, and provide
under- and over-Voltage protection by disconnecting the mains under extreme
conditions(using a relay). It automatically re-connects the mains when
Voltage returns to the normal range. It may also provide some surge
protection. This device will be intended for use with small industrial
appliances with input ratings of 100-250V, 50/60Hz, drawing maximum normal
currents of less than 12A.

This device is designed to prevent damage to the attached product only, the
product itself is compliant with current standards for Europe and North
America.



Using my friend Google(thanks Brian O.), I’ve arrived at two European
safety standards which seem applicable:



EN 60255-27 :2005 Measuring relays and protection equipment - Part 27:
Product safety requirements

EN 50550-2011 Power frequency overvoltage protective device for household
and similar applications (POP)

Additionally,

-  plugs and sockets will comply with EN 60320-1.

-  if not specified within these standards, spacings will comply
with EN60664-1.



For EMC immunity and emissions:

EN 61326-1:2006 Electrical equipment for measurement, control and
laboratory use - EMC requirements - Part 1: General requirements



Please provide your comments. Am I missing anything? If not, I’ll purchase
my standards, and begin the process.

Thanks for your help.

Best Regards,

Brian C.

(The *other*, other Brian)



This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may 
contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not an intended 
recipient, you may not review, use, copy, disclose or distribute this message. 
If you received this message in error, please contact the sender by reply email 
and destroy all copies of the original message. 


-

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

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

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

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

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org

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

Re: [PSES] Circuit Breakers - Branch Circuit Protection vs Supplementary

[Peter Tarver]

John -

The simplest method is whether or not the breaker is Listed or Recognized.
If it's Listed, it's suitable for branch circuit protection, within the
caveats of the product category (some exceptions may exist, but should be
detailed in the Listing). Recognized breakers are never suitable for branch
circuit protection and are only suitable for supplementary protection
applications, unless it's used as a part of a Listed assembly identified
for use as branch circuit protection.

QVNU2 breakers are not suitable for branch circuit protection.

Regards,

Peter Tarver



This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may 
contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not an intended 
recipient, you may not review, use, copy, disclose or distribute this message. 
If you received this message in error, please contact the sender by reply email 
and destroy all copies of the original message. 

-

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

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

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

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

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org

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

Re: [PSES] Circuit Breakers - Branch Circuit Protection vs Supplementary

[Peter Tarver]

 From: Brian Oconnell
 Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2013 12:31
 To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

 But there are, in fact, listed CBs intended for supp
 interrupt protect.

I'm aware of UL Listed supplementary overcurrent protection fuses, but not
CBs.  What's the product category?


Peter Tarver


This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may 
contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not an intended 
recipient, you may not review, use, copy, disclose or distribute this message. 
If you received this message in error, please contact the sender by reply email 
and destroy all copies of the original message. 

-

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

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

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

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

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org

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

Re: [PSES] Cooling fan safety query

[Peter Tarver]

Ian -

Another consideration, since you have more than one fan, is that you can
disable *all* fans simultaneously to demonstrate that no cooling is
necessary for safety reasons.  This is a multiple fault scenario, but it's
at your discretion to do so to prove your case and eliminates the need for
cfm ratings.

Stalled rotor testing should not be needed in the end product unless:
1) the test was not done on the fan when it was safety certified
(very common, even among UL Recognized fans)
2) the fan if it is not safety certified at all (you state the
fans you're using are UL Listed, but I think you mean UL Recognized)
3) the fan is a type whose motor current under stalled conditions
can overload another component of the power supply (the impulse start dc
motors I've tested can go an interminably long time without getting more
than a smidgeon above the local ambient temperature)

Disabling (removing power) serves most of the thermal concerns.

There are flammability issues that may need to be met, as mentioned by
another poster, and providing the manufacturer and model can provide a
level of traceability to the relevant materials.

If you can successfully eliminate the need for cfm ratings and stalled
rotor testing, your only concerns are reduced to flammability and loading
of the power supply.  In some cases, you can use the fan ratings alone to
meet the standard's and certifier's requirements.

As a final word, alternate or substitution of components is an ongoing
issue for everyone involved in product safety certifications.  You can try
to have a handful of alternates ready when the certification evaluation is
performed and still have this concern because there's always a less
expensive alternative available.


Peter Tarver


This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may 
contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not an intended 
recipient, you may not review, use, copy, disclose or distribute this message. 
If you received this message in error, please contact the sender by reply email 
and destroy all copies of the original message. 

-

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

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

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

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

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org

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

Re: [PSES] Cooling fan safety query

[Peter Tarver]

 From: Richard Nute
 Sent: Monday, December 16, 2013 11:03

 Stalling the fan would be the better course of action
 as this would require the fan motor to dissipate some
 power as well as the series resistor, thus causing
 more heat -- but not much -- in the equipment.

My experience with small impulse start fans is that that generate
negligible heat when stalled, but this method would remove all doubt.


Peter Tarver


This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may 
contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not an intended 
recipient, you may not review, use, copy, disclose or distribute this message. 
If you received this message in error, please contact the sender by reply email 
and destroy all copies of the original message. 

-

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

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

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

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

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org

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

Re: [PSES] Meaning of regulating network in 61010-1

[Peter Tarver]

 From: Crane, Lauren
 Sent: Friday, January 31, 2014 12:27

 John,

 Your reply makes sense to me, but it also brings me to
 notice that circuit is used freely in the surrounding
 text, and yet the standard says regulating network
 rather than regulating circuit perhaps this implies
 network is a narrower concept?

In undergrad courses I attended, 'network' and 'circuit' were used
interchangeably.


Peter Tarver


This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may 
contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not an intended 
recipient, you may not review, use, copy, disclose or distribute this message. 
If you received this message in error, please contact the sender by reply email 
and destroy all copies of the original message. 

-

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

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

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

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

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org

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

Re: [PSES] Meaning of regulating network in 61010-1

[Peter Tarver]

 From: sudhakar wasnik
 Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2014 11:38

 So in short impedence single element/combination is a
 network and RLC single element/combination is circuit.

 Any takers

It's completely arbitrary whether or not a circuit is considered a
network.  A differentiation could be derived based on passive -v- active
components, number of nodes, or based on function.  Someone will always
have a different opinion.

In the standards world, they are used interchangeably.


Peter Tarver


This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may 
contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not an intended 
recipient, you may not review, use, copy, disclose or distribute this message. 
If you received this message in error, please contact the sender by reply email 
and destroy all copies of the original message. 

-

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

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

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

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

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org

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

Re: [PSES] Critical Components definitions

[Peter Tarver]

 From: Brian Oconnell
 Sent: Monday, February 24, 2014 10:38

 Concur with Mr. Nute.

Ditto.  To add by way of example, there was a recent thread on regulating
network.  Components without which or the failure of which the network
would lose it regulating function (within the context of the applicable
standard) would be deemed critical.


Regards,

Peter Tarver


This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may 
contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not an intended 
recipient, you may not review, use, copy, disclose or distribute this message. 
If you received this message in error, please contact the sender by reply email 
and destroy all copies of the original message. 

-

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

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

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

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

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org

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

Re: [PSES] use of AC contactor in PV application in US/CAN

[Peter Tarver]

 From: Boštjan Glavič
 Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2014 01:01

 Is anyone familiar if it is allowed to use a contactor
 instead of circuit breaker in PV application to disconnect
 inverter from the grid?

 NEC in Article 690 does not specify it precisely.

 What standard needs to comply this contactor?


A circuit breaker is not required to be used as the disconnect device for
the grid, but branch circuit overcurrent protection is required, so it's
convenient to use a circuit breaker.  Aldous gave you the relevant
standards for contactors.

Many fire marshals require a separate disconnect switch for inverter
output connections to the grid.  Whether or not this switch can operate
a contactor will depend on the jurisdiction involved.


Regards,

Peter Tarver


This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may 
contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not an intended 
recipient, you may not review, use, copy, disclose or distribute this message. 
If you received this message in error, please contact the sender by reply email 
and destroy all copies of the original message. 


-

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

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

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

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

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org

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

[PSES] Greece and HAR cable

[Peter Tarver]

Visiting the EEPCA web site to look up some ENEC certification
information, I did a little extra browsing and came across this statement:

Due to the recent changes that happened in Greece, ELOT is obliged to
abandon the maintenance of its issued HAR licences.

http://www.eepca.eu/page.php?p=6

Following the link on the page to a HAR member list shows Greece is
absent.

Does anyone know the back story?


Regards,

Peter Tarver


This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may 
contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not an intended 
recipient, you may not review, use, copy, disclose or distribute this message. 
If you received this message in error, please contact the sender by reply email 
and destroy all copies of the original message. 

-

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

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

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

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

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org

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

[PSES] Exhaust fume hood recommendations

[Peter Tarver]

Hi.

I'm doing some research and am looking for recommendations for fume hoods
for abnormal condition testing for my lab.  I have an opportunity to have
an exhaust to outside air system and am looking for your thoughts on what
has worked well for you in terms of cfm capacity and which manufacturers
you've used.

I'm thinking of a variable speed or at least multiple speed fan.  Product
types range from about the size of desktop feature phone to a large tower
computer.  I will likely also use the fume hood for flammability testing.

I'm not interested in recirculating air types, since the filters can be
expensive.

Any insights you can give are solicited, even modifications you've made to
improve performance or usability.


Regards,

Peter L. Tarver


This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may 
contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not an intended 
recipient, you may not review, use, copy, disclose or distribute this message. 
If you received this message in error, please contact the sender by reply email 
and destroy all copies of the original message. 

-

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

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

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

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

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org

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

Re: [PSES] Exhaust fume hood recommendations

[Peter Tarver]

Brian -

I'm looking to control smoke and fumes during component and other abnormal
conditions, as well as UL 94 testing.

Lots of food for thought.  Thanks.


Regards,

Peter Tarver

 -Original Message-
 From: Brian Oconnell [mailto:oconne...@tamuracorp.com]
 Sent: Friday, June 20, 2014 16:49
 To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
 Subject: Re: [PSES] Exhaust fume hood recommendations

 My boss immediately said that below was a Freudian slip.
 Should have been  You would probably not get this additional
 functionality on the stuff intended for chem or bio labs.

 Brian

 -Original Message-
 From: Brian Oconnell [mailto:oconne...@tamuracorp.com]
 Sent: Friday, June 20, 2014 4:37 PM
 To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
 Subject: Re: [PSES] Exhaust fume hood recommendations

 My current hood is stainless steel, with a large bubble in
 the exhaust tube just above the hood. The bubble has fans
 fore and aft. The bottom lip of the hood is used to hang
 Lexan 'shields' on three sides; this is because I wanted them
 removable so that I can also use the underlying bench as
 normal test area when not torturing stuff. The back wall
 surface is covered with a sheet of galvanized metal and has
 latches for the lexan shields.

 Unless you run a very well-sealed hood area, fans must have a
 high volumetric rating. In any case, doubt that even the fans
 for a large computer would suffice for any type of setup.
 Fans for my hood are rated 120V or 208V, direct drive, fused
 and rated at least 500 cfm, and not anything special and are
 mounted to be easily replaced (seem to be replacing them
 about one per year), so do nothing for filtration, just vent
 the smoke to the outside smog. If the vent stack is very
 short, there could be a possibility of the exhaust having
 burning embers. Most commercial hood setups use a venturi or
 are centrifugal so can be difficult to service and replace.
 Look at fans in the Dayton or Grainger catalogs for ideas -
 decent exhaust fan assemblies will be at least $250 USD. But
 the commercial lab stuff is an order of magnitude more
 expensive. My set up is also useful for the Type Test on end-
 use equipment that could cause smoke emissions. You would
 probably not get this additional fun!
  ctionality on the stuff intended for chem or bio labs.

 If you want a portable setup to exhaust a small area just for
 UL94 stuff, build a metal box, about 1 cubic meter with inlet
 louvers at bottom, and use a bathroom exhaust assembly on the
 top.

 Or you could just put a steel bench in the parking lot behind
 the building...

 Brian

 -Original Message-
 From: Peter Tarver [mailto:ptar...@enphaseenergy.com]
 Sent: Friday, June 20, 2014 3:45 PM
 To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
 Subject: [PSES] Exhaust fume hood recommendations

 Hi.

 I'm doing some research and am looking for recommendations
 for fume hoods
 for abnormal condition testing for my lab.  I have an
 opportunity to have
 an exhaust to outside air system and am looking for your
 thoughts on what
 has worked well for you in terms of cfm capacity and which
 manufacturers
 you've used.

 I'm thinking of a variable speed or at least multiple speed
 fan.  Product
 types range from about the size of desktop feature phone to a
 large tower
 computer.  I will likely also use the fume hood for
 flammability testing.

 I'm not interested in recirculating air types, since the
 filters can be
 expensive.

 Any insights you can give are solicited, even modifications
 you've made to
 improve performance or usability.


 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 emc-p...@ieee.org

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

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

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

 For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net
 Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] Exhaust fume hood recommendations

[Peter Tarver]

Doug –



I’m familiar with those fans.  They were used in a PBX system I was
associated with in an alternate universe.  Good variable speed control on
them.



I’m not sure I’ll need a spark arrestor, but I appreciate the reference.





Regards,



Peter Tarver



*From:* Douglas Nix [mailto:d...@mac.com]
*Sent:* Saturday, June 21, 2014 14:47



I’ve had excellent success with backward curved impellers for high-flow,
low noise applications. EBM makes some great ones
http://www.ebmpapst.com/en/products/centrifugal-fans/centrifugal_fans.html.




Also, if you’re concerned about burning embers, consider adding a spark
arrestor into the exhaust duct: http://www.qamanage.com/SparkArrestor



This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may 
contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not an intended 
recipient, you may not review, use, copy, disclose or distribute this message. 
If you received this message in error, please contact the sender by reply email 
and destroy all copies of the original message. 


-

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

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

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

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

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org

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

Re: [PSES] Exhaust fume hood recommendations

[Peter Tarver]

Good pointer, Rich.

UL 94, §5.1 seems oriented at improving observation of the test.  I had
originally thought I might make a box out of polycarbonate.  I either need
to rethink that or add curtains or some low transmittance window film.

I also need to consider a flame resistant table top surface.  A simple
stainless steel pan could transmit heat and create undesirable secondary
effects.☺  An air gap might fix that, but then I need to come up with a good
support system.

Details, details ...


Regards,


Peter Tarver

 -Original Message-
 From: Richard Nute [mailto:ri...@ieee.org]
 Sent: Friday, June 20, 2014 16:27

 Hi Peter:


 Since you will be doing flammability tests, see
 5.1 of UL94 which has specifications for the fume
 hood.  Note that during the flammability test,
 the hood is draft free while permitting normal
 thermal circulation of air past the specimen.


 Best regards,
 Rich


This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may 
contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not an intended 
recipient, you may not review, use, copy, disclose or distribute this message. 
If you received this message in error, please contact the sender by reply email 
and destroy all copies of the original message. 


-

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

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

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

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

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org

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

Re: [PSES] question with regard of inverter

[Peter Tarver]

IEC 62109-1 considers “PV circuits in general” to be OVCII.



Regards,



Peter Tarver



*From:* McDiarmid, Ralph [mailto:ralph.mcdiar...@schneider-electric.com]
*Sent:* Friday, August 08, 2014 13:57
*To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
*Subject:* Re: [PSES] question with regard of inverter



My understanding as well, namely, OV categorization in power distribution
is based on indirect (near-by) lightning strikes.

___

*Ralph McDiarmid*  |  * Schneider Electric   |  Solar Business*  |
*CANADA*  |   *Regulatory Compliance Engineering*

From:

John Woodgate j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk

To:

EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG,

Date:

08/06/2014 01:53 PM

Subject:

Re: [PSES] question with regard of inverter


--




In message 53e28a32.4020...@ieee.org, dated Wed, 6 Aug 2014, Richard
Nute ri...@ieee.org writes:

.  Your solar cell DC source is not
subject to load switching, but is subject to a direct lightning
strike.
Your DC OVC due to load switching is zero, and your OVC due to
lightning is beyond OVC IV.

Is resistance to a direct lighting strike required of civilian products?
I though that only 'indirect strike' was to be resisted, and OVC IV was
based on that.
-- 
OOO - Own Opinions Only. With best wishes. See www.jmwa.demon.co.uk
Quid faciamus nisi sit?
John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK

-

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

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

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

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

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org

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

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


-


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

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

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

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

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org

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



This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may 
contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not an intended 
recipient, you may not review, use, copy, disclose or distribute this message. 
If you received this message in error, please contact the sender by reply email 
and destroy all copies of the original message. 


-

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

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

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

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

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org

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

Re: [PSES] weird stuff in agency agreement form

[Peter Tarver]

Not related to the specific content of this thread, but on topic for the
Subject: A certain SCC/NRTL lab had asked last year for a newly signed
agreement.  The section on what constitutes confidential information in
the new agreement explicitly excludes the name, title, business address
or business phone number of employees of client.

This smacks of a revenue enhancement scheme for the lab when they sell my
contact information to third-parties wishing to spam me.

Said lab could not be swayed to change anything in the agreement, so I
didn't sign the new agreement and the lab still gladly accepts our
business.


Regards,


Peter Tarver


This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may 
contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not an intended 
recipient, you may not review, use, copy, disclose or distribute this message. 
If you received this message in error, please contact the sender by reply email 
and destroy all copies of the original message. 

-

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

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

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

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

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org

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

[PSES] Looking for Steven Holmes, formerly of UL

[Peter Tarver]

Anyone know how to contact him?  All contact information I have for Steven
is outdated.  E-mails bounce and the last telephone number I have for him
is kaput.


Regards,

Peter L. Tarver


This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may 
contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not an intended 
recipient, you may not review, use, copy, disclose or distribute this message. 
If you received this message in error, please contact the sender by reply email 
and destroy all copies of the original message. 

-

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

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

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

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

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org

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

Re: [PSES] Looking for Steven Holmes, formerly of UL

[Peter Tarver]

Ben der, dun dat

 -Original Message-
 From: Brian Oconnell [mailto:oconne...@tamuracorp.com]
 Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2014 15:34
 To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
 Subject: Re: [PSES] Looking for Steven Holmes, formerly of UL

 see his linkedin page.

 Brian

 -Original Message-
 From: Peter Tarver [mailto:ptar...@enphaseenergy.com]
 Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2014 3:11 PM
 To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
 Subject: [PSES] Looking for Steven Holmes, formerly of UL

 Anyone know how to contact him?  All contact information I
 have for Steven is outdated.  E-mails bounce and the last
 telephone number I have for him is kaput.


 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 emc-p...@ieee.org

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

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

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

 For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net
 Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org

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


This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may 
contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not an intended 
recipient, you may not review, use, copy, disclose or distribute this message. 
If you received this message in error, please contact the sender by reply email 
and destroy all copies of the original message. 

-

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

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

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

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

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org

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

[PSES] Serrated head screws for grounding/bonding

[Peter Tarver]

Good morning.

I am reviewing the suitability of serrated head screws in grounding and
bonding applications.  I am aware that these screws are good at resisting
vibration, but I've not seen them used for grounding and bonding purposes.

I question this application since, while the serrations oppose loosening
of the screw, they do not bite into the metal beneath the head and also
seem unlikely to form a gas-tight connection, allowing degradation of the
grounding/bonding interface over time.

What are your opinions?  Are you aware of any evidence of the reliability
of an grounding/bonding connection using such screws?

The screw will secure a wire, possibly with a crimp-on ring connector.  (I
also question the value of using a single toothed washer in these
applications.)


Regards,


Peter L. Tarver


This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may 
contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not an intended 
recipient, you may not review, use, copy, disclose or distribute this message. 
If you received this message in error, please contact the sender by reply email 
and destroy all copies of the original message. 

-

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] Accreditation for standard comprehension?

[Peter Tarver]

ISO 17025 (General requirements for the competence of testing and
calibration laboratories) has some requirements related to knowing what
you’re doing.





Regards,



Peter Tarver



*From:* Brian Gregory [mailto:brian_greg...@netzero.net]
*Sent:* Wednesday, May 13, 2015 11:30
*To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
*Subject:* Re: [PSES] Accreditation for standard comprehension?





 The only ones that come to mind are ISO audits, and the contractual
requirements between you entity and the NRTL/NB you engage to provide your
certifications.



These only require that you possess the standard in question and employees
can locate it when necessary, thereby establishing familiarity.  None
that I know require any demonstration of competence.  NRTL's must establish
competence, and adequacy of their facilities, to their auditors.



Colorado Brian



-- Original Message --
From: Crane, Lauren lauren.cr...@kla-tencor.com
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Accreditation for standard comprehension?
Date: Mon, 11 May 2015 23:15:53 +

Does anyone know of any conformance assessor certification schemes that
have provisions requiring the applicant to demonstrate familiarity with the
standards to which they will be assessing?



I am familiar with a couple lab certification schemes that appear to focus
on general business practices and professional qualifications and rigor of
assessment, but not necessarily needing to demonstrate the assessor knows
well what the standard requires.



Regards,

Lauren Crane

KLA-Tencor



-


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

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

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

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

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

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

-


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

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

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

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

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

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

-

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] UL HTTPS

[Peter Tarver]

UL recently changed a number of URLs and other items, probably as a matter
normal churn.  Several bookmarks no longer worked.

This is probably a related thing that they'll work through in time.


Regards,

Peter Tarver

 -Original Message-
 From: Brian Oconnell
 Sent: Friday, May 15, 2015 12:39

 Anyone know what is with UL's CDA site? Seems to have lost
 the secure connect for last several days. The pages seem
 only partially encrypted or perhaps mixed scripts, but cannot
 detect anything using inspect mode on browser. Hopefully
 they just need to renew cert.

 Sent email to them several days past - no response.

-

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] Different surge test equipment, different results

[Peter Tarver]

David -

Thank you.

In one case, the output was after the CDN.  In the other, the CDN was not in
the circuit.  I will ask for calibration screen captures with and without
the CDN on both cases.  This could prove informative.


Regards,

Peter Tarver

 -Original Message-
 From: Schaefer, David
 Sent: Friday, August 21, 2015 12:11

 Peter,

 Are the open circuit waveforms identical out of the surge
 generator, or out of the coupling decoupling network? -4-5
 relaxes the waveform limits for the rise time and duration at
 the output of a CDN, based on amperage. Check out tables
 6 and 7 of the 2nd Edition for more information. Two
 generators should produce identical waveshapes out of the
 generator itself, but the CDNs could have drastically
 different durations.


-

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

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

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

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

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

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

[PSES] Different surge test equipment, different results

[Peter Tarver]

Good morning.

I'm wondering if others have experienced cases where different
manufacturers' surge test equipment  (ANSI/IEEE C62.41 ring and
combination waves) with nearly identical open-circuit voltage and
short-circuit current calibrations have led to very different results.  In
these cases, other than addressing the issue by using the surge generator
that produces the worst-case result, what were thought to be the causes
for the different results (ignoring the real possibility of a marginal
design).


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 
emc-p...@ieee.org

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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] 208V/30A/3PH NEMA 3R power distribution question

[Peter Tarver]

Adam –



Brian’s suggestion I a good one.



Answer from electrician should include three 20 A, two-pole branch circuit
breakers for each single-phase load, possibly one main 45 A, three-pole
breaker (with dependencies), plus Neutral bar (if needed) and ground bar.
Miscellaneous assorted potpourri to fit the application.





Regards,



Peter Tarver



*From:* Adam Dixon [mailto:lanterna.viri...@gmail.com]
*Sent:* Thursday, August 20, 2015 13:36
*To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
*Subject:* Re: [PSES] 208V/30A/3PH NEMA 3R power distribution question



Thanks for the suggestion, Brian.  I just contacted the company that did
some of my office building's infrastructure, so will see how that goes.

Regards,

Adam



On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 4:16 PM, Brian Oconnell oconne...@tamuracorp.com
wrote:

Have you talked to a certified industrial electrician?

Had a customer that bought several 250kVA distribution transformers that
also wanted some custom wiring harness and downstream panel boxes. So hired
an industrial electrician to advise us on materials and build it up. Passed
on-site assessment with no problems. Probably saved hundreds of hours of
engineering time, and $ in wasted material costs.

Brian


From: Adam Dixon [mailto:lanterna.viri...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2015 12:39 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] 208V/30A/3PH NEMA 3R power distribution question

First-time post with an application question after getting guidance from
many of you earlier this year about how/where to learn more about safety.
So here goes.I would appreciate recommendations for either reference
materials I should read or hardware options to convert a 208V/30A/3PH
branch circuit to support qty. 6 of 208V/15A/1PH loads while trying to
minimize the hardware volume.

Loads do not have internal supplementary protection devices, so I cannot
rely on the 30A branch circuit protection w/simple disconnect switch for
service support, similar to my home 240V air conditioning compressor
circuit.

I've searched the PSES archives with a variety of terms (208V, 3 phase,
load center, molded case breaker, DIN rail, NEMA, etc.) and have been
looking at online (well-known load center/circuit breaker suppliers,
electrical supply companies, Mike Holt forums, etc.) and just started
calling/visiting local electrical supply companies and big box home
improvement stores.  Haven't landed on a clear option yet.  3PH load
centers all appear rated for 100A or larger capacity requiring larger AWG
supply conductors than what I am told the branch circuit will have (10AWG
or possibly 8AWG depending on final building construction plans).
Descriptions of DIN Rail circuit breakers/supplementary protection devices
sounded promising for the smaller form factors, but I haven't found a
source that puts all of the hardware pieces together (supplementary
protection devices, DIN rails, housing, etc.) into a system that meets NEC
requirements -- this doesn't look like a common configuration.
I also looked at suppliers of rack mount PDU gear and found one option that
is about the size of a 12 circuit load center, but doesn't have a NEMA 3R
requirement (surprise..) and would require a larger housing.  The 208V
PDU's that I have seen and in a couple of cases, peeked inside, have
double-pole breakers with C19 outlets rated for 12A continuous load.
Are there other options worth investigating or aspects of the power
distribution design that I likely am not understanding?

Kind regards,
Adam


-

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

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

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

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

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

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



-


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

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

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

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

[PSES] 208 split-phase?

[Peter Tarver]

Good morning.

There are oftensmall, legacy grids that you come across or hear 
about.

I was recently told that some areas of the Northeast US have a 208 
V, split-phase power system to some residences and small businesses.  
Still 180° phase-to-phase and presumably 104 V phase-to-Neutral.  A 
specific area cited was "around Boston."

Has anyone heard of or directly experienced this voltage system?
  Is it split-phase or was I misinformed and it's from a WYE 
connected transformer?

Peter Tarver
ptar...@ieee.org

-

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] 208 split-phase?

[Peter Tarver]

Ralph –



I’m less familiar with the CEC, but the NEC does not preclude 208/120 V WYE
to a single-family home (residence).  It all depends on how much one is
willing to pay the utility for the service and proper provisioning and
system design at the use location.





Peter Tarver



*From:* McDiarmid, Ralph [mailto:ralph.mcdiar...@schneider-electric.com]
*Sent:* Thursday, October 22, 2015 15:00
*To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
*Subject:* Re: [PSES] 208 split-phase?



NEC art 210.4 and 210.5 seem to allow it and the CEC here in Canada
certainly allows it. For large residential highrises, it's probably simpler
and cost effective to distribute 120/208 throughout the building (1/3 of
the suites on one 208 leg, and so on)  Phase balancing would be part of the
building electrical plan.  Sending a single-phase MV feeder to 1MVA,
120/240V transformer is likely a comprehmise

It's different for low density residential where stringing a mile or two of
single-phase MV to feed 120/240 pole transformers throughout the
neighborhood makes more sense.

-

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] 208 split-phase?

[Peter Tarver]

Doug –



I’m not certain what I’m referring to. Hence the question.  Since typical
120/240 V split-phase distribution in the US is from a center grounded
delta, my inclination is to believe this follows that same method.  Or the
original proposition I received is incorrect and a three-phase WYE is used
on the load side of the distribution transformer.



I think I prefer “bastard leg.”





Peter T



*From:* Doug Powell [mailto:doug...@gmail.com]
*Sent:* Wednesday, October 21, 2015 09:01
*To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
*Subject:* Re: [PSES] 208 split-phase?



Peter,

The idea of a 208 V split phase is unusual and probably not the case here.
The number 208 is obviously derived from a three phase system.

I believe the system you are talking about is a red-leg or high-leg three
phase system.  Wikipedia does have a good review in this case (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-leg_delta;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split-phase_electric_power).  In the figure
on Wikipedia this is a 240 VAC delta with the neutral applied between L1 &
L2, creating 120 V split-phases in 180 degree opposition.  The 208 is the
high leg, L3 in the figure.  You can verify the voltages using the bit of
trig further down the page. This voltage system is used in many parts of
the world but is no longer very common in the USA.

The alternative system this could be is a 416 V three phase, delta
configured with split phase secondaries at 208 V.  I have worked with this
configuration in the past.

All the best, Doug




doug...@gmail.com

http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01



‎



On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 8:21 AM, Peter Tarver <ptar...@ieee.org> wrote:

Good morning.

There are oftensmall, legacy grids that you come across or hear
about.

I was recently told that some areas of the Northeast US have a 208
V, split-phase power system to some residences and small businesses.
Still 180° phase-to-phase and presumably 104 V phase-to-Neutral.  A
specific area cited was "around Boston."

Has anyone heard of or directly experienced this voltage system?
  Is it split-phase or was I misinformed and it's from a WYE
connected transformer?

Peter Tarver
ptar...@ieee.org

-

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

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

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

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

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

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




-- 



Douglas E Powell

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

-


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

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

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

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

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

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

-

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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] 208 split-phase?

[Peter Tarver]

Brian of the nonburrito ilk -

This is usually called 208 V single-phase.

I'm still trying to clarify the specifics of the request.

Peter Tarver

> -Original Message-
> From: Kunde, Brian
> Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2015 12:34
>
> snip <
>
> I have heard the term "208 split-phase" many times from our
> customers who claim to have this but in reality what they have
> is 208 3-phase wired into a 230V split-phase receptacle but
> only using 208 Phase to Phase with the Grounded Neutral.
>
> snip <

-

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

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

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

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

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

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

[PSES] 802.11 built into a product for Australia

[Peter Tarver]

We are marking a product with the RCM and have done relevant emissions
testing for the complete product.  The intent from the start has been to
leverage the testing and certifications the supplier obtained to reduce
the amount of testing needed for the end product (a "modular approach" in
a global scale).

An IEEE 802.11 intentional radiator is incorporated into the product.  The
product incorporates a supplier's reference design that has been tested
against relevant ETSI standards for EU deployment.  These ETSI standards
are referenced  by AS 4268.  However, we do not have a test report that
explicitly mentions AS 4268 or a certificate indicating compliance with AS
4268 from the supplier.

In reading the Radiocommunications Labeling Notice, a 2014 revision adds
AS 4268 as a requirement.

I am asking the supplier to obtain at least a certificate showing
compliance with AS 4268, but they are pushing back, indicating they would
need to mark their chipset with the RCM.  This is an inappropriate use of
the RCM, since it apples to complete products.  The supplier has not been
able to identify the marking the claim is needed for their chipset.  The
802.11 intentional radiator is not being used for audio signals.

I am asking for the certificate or an amended report that explicitly
mentions AS 4268 to avoid having to go through unnecessary gyrations
should the compliance status of the intentional radiator come into
question.  My intent is also to no have to explain why the ETSI testing
covers the requirements in AS 4268 to a bureaucrat with limited technical
knowledge and to also satisfy customer requests for evidence of
compliance.

Am I asking too much of the supplier?


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: 

Re: [PSES] Cd exemption for art material

[Peter Tarver]

One hopes, then, that artists will not lick their brushes or hold them in
their mouths, the same way one hopes science academy janitors will not do
the same with their mops and brooms.


Peter Tarver

> -Original Message-
> From: Brian O'Connell
>
> The chemical principle of local concentration vs equilibria, and
> likelihood for direct exposure to users, seems to have been
> ignored.
>
> Brian
> Sr Janitorial Assistant For the Vulcan Science Academy
>

-

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

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

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

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

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

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

[PSES] IEC 61010-1 and VDRs in OVC III environments

[Peter Tarver]

Howdy, howdy, howdy.

Product incorporates Type 5 component VDRs and is installed in an OVC III
environment via field wiring connections. Evaluation for a CB Scheme
Certificate and Test Report.

In recent dealings with a CBTL, I was told that the VDRs in a product
needed to be Type 2. In referencing UL 1449 (for convenience), a Type 2
VDR has the assumption of fixed wiring for the VDR itself and mounting by
solder onto a board is not a consideration (except that a Type 2 VDR may
include a system of Type 4 and/or Type 5 VDRs and other components) .

Per the CBTL, the Type 5 VDR certifications used may or may not be
suitable for the application, depending on the level of testing performed
on the VDR during its component evaluation, primarily associated with the
combination wave open-circuit voltage amplitude related to the OVC.

I checked the CTL Decisions and OSM Decisions for 61010-1 for both the
third edition and fourth edition and found zero related decisions. The
CBTL was unmoved by my efforts, claiming this matter has been a long term
discussion in TC66 and imposed their will irrespective of a defined
requirement in the IEC.

Likewise, the CBTL was unmoved by the testing performed by another
division of the mothership that applied 6 kVpk surge testing to the
complete product as a part of another evaluation to type. This may be
because the staff and intent of the testing was not under the
accreditation of the CBTL/NCB, but I'm not certain.

In checking publicly available databases for components, the kind of
information needed to preselect an appropriate Type 5 VDR is not possible.
This ultimately boils down to evaluation of each Type 5 VDR by the CBTL
for each and every prospective alternate or substitute VDR.

Has anyone else encountered this sort of requirement? The CBTL either
could not or would not provide a written requirement, so this smells off.


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: 

Re: [PSES] Ambient temperature

[Peter Tarver]

Alternatively, assuming the typical wire rack shelving in the chamber and
a relatively small EUT, free air flow can be limited by placing three wire
rack shelves onto adjacent levels that are out of the main air circulation
pattern in the chamber and placing pieces of cardboard or corrugated
fiberboard onto the two outer shelves, with the EUT on the center of the
middle shelf. Place a thermocouple 25mm to 50 mm above the EUT to provide
an ambient temperature measurement.

Never rely on the environmental chamber's controls or internal
thermocouples for internal ambient air temperature measurement. They will
rarely give the temperature at the location the EUT is placed.

If the EUT is large the environmental chamber needs to be much larger than
the EUT, as indicated by others.


Peter 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 
<emc-p...@ieee.org>

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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] Ambient temperature

[Peter Tarver]

Date sent:  Wed, 2 Mar 2016 15:55:06 -0800
Send reply to:  ri...@ieee.org
> I've used a 5-sided cube inside the chamber to create a
> draft-free environment for performing flammability tests.


> Rich

This technique works well for heating tests on lab 
benches as well and quickens thermal equilibrium. Open 
face of the cube toward the benchtop. Especially nice 
in drafty or heavily air conditioned areas.

Peter 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 
<emc-p...@ieee.org>

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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] IEC 61010-1 and VDRs in OVC III environments

[Peter Tarver]

Fine and valuable responses. Thank you.

Can anyone respond to my question?


> Has anyone else encountered this sort of requirement? The CBTL 
either
> could not or would not provide a written requirement, so this 
smells off.


Peter Tarver


Date sent:  Fri, 26 Feb 2016 14:59:02 -0800
From:   Peter Tarver <ptar...@enphaseenergy.com>
> Howdy, howdy, howdy.
> 
> Product incorporates Type 5 component VDRs and is installed in an OVC III
> environment via field wiring connections. Evaluation for a CB Scheme
> Certificate and Test Report.
> 
> In recent dealings with a CBTL, I was told that the VDRs in a product
> needed to be Type 2. In referencing UL 1449 (for convenience), a Type 2
> VDR has the assumption of fixed wiring for the VDR itself and mounting by
> solder onto a board is not a consideration (except that a Type 2 VDR may
> include a system of Type 4 and/or Type 5 VDRs and other components) .
> 
> Per the CBTL, the Type 5 VDR certifications used may or may not be
> suitable for the application, depending on the level of testing performed
> on the VDR during its component evaluation, primarily associated with the
> combination wave open-circuit voltage amplitude related to the OVC.
> 
> I checked the CTL Decisions and OSM Decisions for 61010-1 for both the
> third edition and fourth edition and found zero related decisions. The
> CBTL was unmoved by my efforts, claiming this matter has been a long term
> discussion in TC66 and imposed their will irrespective of a defined
> requirement in the IEC.
> 
> Likewise, the CBTL was unmoved by the testing performed by another
> division of the mothership that applied 6 kVpk surge testing to the
> complete product as a part of another evaluation to type. This may be
> because the staff and intent of the testing was not under the
> accreditation of the CBTL/NCB, but I'm not certain.
> 
> In checking publicly available databases for components, the kind of
> information needed to preselect an appropriate Type 5 VDR is not possible.
> This ultimately boils down to evaluation of each Type 5 VDR by the CBTL
> for each and every prospective alternate or substitute VDR.
> 
> Has anyone else encountered this sort of requirement? The CBTL either
> could not or would not provide a written requirement, so this smells off.
> 
> 
> 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 
> <emc-p...@ieee.org>
> 
> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
> http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
> 
> Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
> http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
> formats), large files, etc.
> 
> Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
> Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 
> unsubscribe)
> List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
> 
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
> Scott Douglas <sdoug...@ieee.org>
> Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org>
> 
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Jim Bacher:  <j.bac...@ieee.org>
> David Heald: <dhe...@gmail.com>
> 

-

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] crimp hardware for multiple conductors?

[Peter Tarver]

In general, and for UL and CSA in particular, crimped terminals are evaluated 
for the number, size, stranding and types of wire under the crimp.

In most cases, only single wires are evaluated, unless the manufacturer 
specifies that they want additional testing.

Wire sizes are critical for any particular crimp design. Too large and all 
strands might not consolidate well under the crimp or might prevent adequate 
“squish” of the crimped joint and the crimp will fail. Too small and the crimp 
will never hold. Either case could serve sources of risk of fire and electric 
shock.

For UL standards, the default stranding is Class B. Other stranding counts 
require additional evaluation. I suspect, but have not confirmed, the same is 
true for CSA standards. It is not necessarily true that the more strands these 
better, since too many strands can form a poor crimp and the crimp tool or the 
crimp itself can cut or nick strands, which is not a good result. (I have asked 
both UL and CSA about decimating strands to get a wire size to fit into a 
connector crimp and was told this was unacceptable. An understandable response.)

Copper is the default wire type used for evaluation. Evaluations using aluminum 
conductors (or anything more exotic) must be done separately.

There is no magic method to find crimp terminals that are safety certified for 
multiple conductors under a crimp. They do exist, but it requires creative 
internet searches and contacting suppliers. Make certain you get copies of 
their certification test reports to verify any claims.


Regards,

Peter Tarver

The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential. 
It is intended to be read only by the individual or entity to whom it is 
addressed or by their designee. If the reader of this message is not the 
intended recipient, you are on notice that any distribution of this message, in 
any form, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, 
please immediately notify the sender and delete or destroy any copy of 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 
<emc-p...@ieee.org>

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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] PV Connectors: UL 6(9)703?

[Peter Tarver]

Brian -

6703 and 6703A are for PV connectors, as you stated. 9703 is for cable 
assemblies that have cable with connectors integrated into an assembly. The 
connectors used in a 9703 product means the connectors themselves would also 
have to undergo a 6703 evaluation.

"Upgrading to 9703," is not a consideration. These outlines are for different 
product types.

Peter Tarver

From: Brian Gregory [mailto:brian_greg...@netzero.net]
Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2016 14:33


I'm trying to find out if UL 6703 (connectors for PV systems) is being upgraded 
to UL 9703 or the other way around.   UL's site isn't helpful - it could be 
drawings I got are just misprinted, but there was a UL 9703, "Outline for 
Investigation"

thanks,

Colorado Brian
720-450-4933
The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential. 
It is intended to be read only by the individual or entity to whom it is 
addressed or by their designee. If the reader of this message is not the 
intended recipient, you are on notice that any distribution of this message, in 
any form, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, 
please immediately notify the sender and delete or destroy any copy of 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 
<emc-p...@ieee.org>

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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] Risk Assessment of Air Filter

[Peter Tarver]

Brian -

UL will generally accept a Class 1 air filter. These are evaluated against UL 
900.

Otherwise, it depends on the standard for the end product what requirement 
apply. I recall 60950-1 accepting HF-1.


Peter Tarver

From: Kunde, Brian [mailto:brian_ku...@lecotc.com]
Sent: Monday, September 19, 2016 09:43

But what type of Fault Testing or Risk assessment needs to be done regarding 
the filter?  With the filter removed, the instrument passes the construction 
requirements for a Fire Enclosure. But with the filter installed and because of 
its close proximity to the fan/blower;

1.does this filter have to meet Flammability requirements? Does the 
filters have to be certified (expensive)? UL 94 HF-1?, UL 94 HF-2?, UL 900?  
How are these ratings/certifications viewed outside of North America?  Will 
they have to meet local requirements??

2.   If the fan/blower is certified and limited energy circuit does the 
filter have to have any kind of rating or certification? In other words, with a 
certified fan/blower, do I have to consider the fault condition of the fan 
failing in a way where it could catch the filter on fire?

3.   How is a fault and/or risk assessment performed on an air filter?

4.   Are we responsible to consider the hazards from a burning filter when 
it is dirty? How would we know what type of contaminates might collect in a 
filter?

5.   If the filter we provide is UL 94 HF-1 and UL 900 rated/certified, 
what would stop our customer from replacing it with whatever filter they 
wanted? Are we responsible to include a warning label and statements in the 
manual regarding this?  Example, "Use only Air Filter part number XYZ".

6.   Any other suggestions or issues that we are not considering?

Thanks in advance. Have a nice day.

The Other Brian

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential. 
It is intended to be read only by the individual or entity to whom it is 
addressed or by their designee. If the reader of this message is not the 
intended recipient, you are on notice that any distribution of this message, in 
any form, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, 
please immediately notify the sender and delete or destroy any copy of 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 
<emc-p...@ieee.org>

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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] Fire ants

[Peter Tarver]

Reminds me of a movie, Them!

From: Ed Price [mailto:edpr...@cox.net]
Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2016 23:09

Plutonium is probably not a good answer;
The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential. 
It is intended to be read only by the individual or entity to whom it is 
addressed or by their designee. If the reader of this message is not the 
intended recipient, you are on notice that any distribution of this message, in 
any form, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, 
please immediately notify the sender and delete or destroy any copy of 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 


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] Fuses can affect performance other than safety!

[Peter Tarver]

Some of the articles I'd read in some magazine or other (copies available if 
you know Mr. Peabody and his boy Sherman), stated some equipment designers were 
paying extraordinarily close attention to maintaining the phase relationships 
between channels and between voltage and current, as signal passed through a 
system. Claims were made that doing so improved the accuracy of the reproduced 
sound.

I heard stories in the early 1980s of people standing around rooms, dropping a 
set of keys onto a glass coffee table and recording it, then everyone else 
closing their eyes while someone made them guess if the next sound they heard 
sound was recorded or live. Folklore to people like me, but gospel to some 
audiophiles.


Peter Tarver

> -Original Message-
> From: Ken Javor
> [mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com]
> Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2016 17:32
>
> A very simple and inexpensive means of arranging staging is
> to introduce
> delays between left and right channels such that the sound
> appears to be
> coming from a particular direction. This is much easier to
> accomplish with
> headphones than loudspeakers, but it's the same principle.
> I've seen a
> convincing demonstration at the US Army Aeromedical
> Research Lab (USAARL),
> where something like five different radios can be going at
> once and a
> helicopter crew have to be able to intelligently respond in a
> crisis
> situation, and what people normally do in a situation like
> that where they
> can't pay attention to everyone is they zero in on one
> conversation and
> ignore the others, and to do that we use directionality.
> Originally there
> was none and the headphones could be blaring all channels
> at once, and the
> crew would simply turn off he radios they didn't want to
> hear, which wasn't
> good. By introducing specific delays for each radio, the
> various radios
> could be made to sound as if one conversation was from
> 12:00, another at
> 3:00 another at 6:00 and so on. That allowed the crew to
> mentally focus in
> on the conversation of interest and tune out the others
> temporarily.  But
> that is all software and digital circuitry: no fancy audiophile
> equipment
> necessary.
>
> Ken Javor
> Phone: (256) 650-5261
>
>
> > From: Peter Tarver <ptar...@enphaseenergy.com>
> > Reply-To: Peter Tarver <ptar...@enphaseenergy.com>
> > Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2016 21:37:04 +
> > To: <EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
> > Conversation: [PSES] Fuses can affect performance other
> than safety!
> > Subject: Re: [PSES] Fuses can affect performance other
> than safety!
> >
> > I have heard of and known a few audiophiles that go to
> great lengths to have
> > sound reproduced as accurately as possible and spend
> enormous sums to
> > accomplish that.
> >
> > The term that was most silly in my view was holography;
> but I understood what
> > was meant. The aforementioned audiophiles claim to
> recreate the spatial
> > relationship between the physical locations musical
> instruments when recorded.
> > The needs for recording and reproduction are entirely
> impractical and don't
> > seem achievable for simple stereophonics, so it seems on
> the bovine
> > scatological side of the olfactory sense.
> >
> > BUT, I have stood in and moved about a room that was
> carefully put together.
> > In one part of the room one instrument (say clarinet)
> could be heard more
> > distinctly than in other areas, and so on for other
> instruments, giving the
> > impression that one was moving from musician to
> musician on a sound stage.
> >
> > Pretty clever, but outlandishly expensive.
> >
> >
> > Peter Tarver
> >
> >> -Original Message-
> >> From: Ken Javor
> >> [mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com]
> >> Sent: Monday, August 22, 2016 19:55
> >>
> >> Next, the terms are not entirely gibberish. They may be
> >> unfamiliar to those not in the hi-fi hobby, but I can make
> out
> >> all but one of these terms:
> >>
> >> Sound staging means stereo separation.  Or whatever
> >> passes fro that in the age of five and six different
> channels (I
> >> haven't kept up with this stuff since it departed from two
> >> channels).  I don't know how a fuse aids or degrades
> >> channel separation, but at least we can understand what
> is
> >> being claimed.
> >>
> >
> > The information contained in this message may be
> privileged and confidential.
> > It is intended to be read only by the individual or entity to
> whom it is
> > addres

Re: [PSES] Ball pressure test of thermoplastic parts

[Peter Tarver]

Kristiaan –

Most of the responses agree with my understanding.

I will add that my recollection of the origins of the test in 60950 was related 
to electrical connections under compressive loading where the compression is 
needed to establish and ensure an electrical connection. Some custom made 
terminal blocks were made using inexpensive materials, including polyamide 
without inorganic fillers (like glass). As time moved on, the application of 
the testing expanded to cover other design features.

http://www.ulttc.com/en/solutions/test-methods/physical/ball-pressure-test.html

It appears the testing was simplified to a single temperature with the 
pass/fail criterion simply being the 2.0 mm diameter dimple, rather than 
finding the temperature at which the 2.0 mm dimple forms.

Maybe Pete Perkins or Rich Knute recall further back than I do.


Peter Tarver

From: Carpentier Kristiaan [mailto:kristiaan.carpent...@technicolor.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2016 05:58

Hi group,

Does any-one know the reason/background of the ball pressure test of 
thermoplastic parts (IEC60950-1, clause 4.5.5) and the chosen temperature of 
125C.
This test is performed - for example – on the plastic parts of a direct plug-in 
power supply as these parts “carry” the mains power supply pins. I can’t 
imagine a situation there that requires such a test and certainly not at 125C.
Thanks for your feedback!

Best regards
Kris Carpentier
-

The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential. 
It is intended to be read only by the individual or entity to whom it is 
addressed or by their designee. If the reader of this message is not the 
intended recipient, you are on notice that any distribution of this message, in 
any form, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, 
please immediately notify the sender and delete or destroy any copy of 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 
<emc-p...@ieee.org>

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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] Fuses can affect performance other than safety!

[Peter Tarver]

I have heard of and known a few audiophiles that go to great lengths to have 
sound reproduced as accurately as possible and spend enormous sums to 
accomplish that.

The term that was most silly in my view was holography; but I understood what 
was meant. The aforementioned audiophiles claim to recreate the spatial 
relationship between the physical locations musical instruments when recorded. 
The needs for recording and reproduction are entirely impractical and don't 
seem achievable for simple stereophonics, so it seems on the bovine 
scatological side of the olfactory sense.

BUT, I have stood in and moved about a room that was carefully put together. In 
one part of the room one instrument (say clarinet) could be heard more 
distinctly than in other areas, and so on for other instruments, giving the 
impression that one was moving from musician to musician on a sound stage.

Pretty clever, but outlandishly expensive.


Peter Tarver

> -Original Message-
> From: Ken Javor
> [mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com]
> Sent: Monday, August 22, 2016 19:55
>
> Next, the terms are not entirely gibberish. They may be
> unfamiliar to those not in the hi-fi hobby, but I can make out
> all but one of these terms:
>
> Sound staging means stereo separation.  Or whatever
> passes fro that in the age of five and six different channels (I
> haven't kept up with this stuff since it departed from two
> channels).  I don't know how a fuse aids or degrades
> channel separation, but at least we can understand what is
> being claimed.
>

The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential. 
It is intended to be read only by the individual or entity to whom it is 
addressed or by their designee. If the reader of this message is not the 
intended recipient, you are on notice that any distribution of this message, in 
any form, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, 
please immediately notify the sender and delete or destroy any copy of 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 
<emc-p...@ieee.org>

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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] ETSI EN 302 195 V2.1.1

[Peter Tarver]

Charlie –

Article 49
Transposition 1.
Member States shall adopt and publish, by 12 June 2016, the laws, regulations 
and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive. They 
shall forthwith communicate the text of those measures to the Commission. They 
shall apply those measures from 13 June 2016.

Article 50
Repeal
Directive 1999/5/EC is repealed with effect from 13 June 2016.

RED is effective now. Unless I missed something deferring it’s adoption.


Peter Tarver

From: Charlie Blackham [mailto:char...@sulisconsultants.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2016 09:00

The RED doesn’t need to be used until next June, so I would wait as it may well 
be published in the next listing which is likely to be within next 2 months.

Regards
Charlie

The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential. 
It is intended to be read only by the individual or entity to whom it is 
addressed or by their designee. If the reader of this message is not the 
intended recipient, you are on notice that any distribution of this message, in 
any form, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, 
please immediately notify the sender and delete or destroy any copy of 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 
<emc-p...@ieee.org>

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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] UL Go?

[Peter Tarver]

My experience to date is that UL only has knowledge being advertised below for 
only specific product categories/countries/markets. I have witnessed/heard 
claims of expertise that when it comes time to take action, they know less than 
the client does.

When asked to provide a list of competencies relative to several countries' 
requirements for grid compliance of distributed generators, we received an 
exorbitant quote for UL to research their own capabilities.

I have been less than impressed so far with such claims of aid, so I'm 
reluctant to entertain a subscription service.


Peter Tarver

From: Kortas, Jamison [mailto:jamison.kor...@ecolab.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2016 09:04
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] UL Go?

Has anyone taken a look at this? It was just sent to me by my UL representative.

Here is the text, as I do not think I can send an attachment:

UL-Go
For more information, contact us today at g...@ul.com
What is UL-Go?
UL-Go is an online subscription service created to solve your problems for 
finding
current, correct and complete Global Market Access (GMA) regulatory requirements
that apply to your products for the countries you're selling or wish to sell to.
What GMA Information is provided in UL-Go?
In partnership with UL, UL-Go can be customized to meet your company's
specific needs.
* This means you tell us the products, countries and regulations you want access
to, and we'll provide you with in-effect regulations (updated quarterly) as 
well as
updates on developing requirements.*
* We provide you with the expertly organized information you'll need to 
understand
the impacts each regulation has on your product, country by country.
Is UL-Go a new Service Offering?
Yes, UL-Go is a pilot product launched with comprehensive regulatory 
information and great features and functionality. As a pilot
participant, you can help us develop UL-Go in a way that will deliver even more 
value to you!
Partner with UL
Identify your most important needs, and help validate our solutions.
* What's first on your list? Do you to know the GMA services UL provides or do 
you need mobile alerts or do you want collaborations
spaces that will help you get to your markets faster?
* We've got the basics right - now let's get the interactions right!
Are there additional benefits to subscribing to UL-Go?
* You can make side-by-side comparisons for up to three countries 
simultaneously.
* You can download, print or share results easily and bookmark your favorite 
searches.
* Your global staff can have unlimited access to GMA information they can have 
confidence in.
What does it cost to subscribe to UL-Go?
* Each subscription will be quoted separately based on your selections.
* UL-Go is a customizable subscription-you select the countries and products 
you want access to for the regulations you need most.
What if I want only a one-time delivery of the latest regulatory requirements?
We're happy to provide one-time GMA research to you at any time. Just select 
the products and countries you are interested in receiving
regulation information about, and we will provide you with a quote for services.
UL and the UL logo are trademarks of UL LLC (c) 2016

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

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

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

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

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

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

The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential. 
It is intended to be read only by the individual or entity to whom it is 
addressed or by their designee. If the reader of this message is not the 
intended recipient, you

Re: [PSES] UL Go?

[Peter Tarver]

It should be kept in mind that all of these so-called services are sales tools. 
My experience with all of the agencies discussed have been less than stellar on 
the delivery side, once a PO is placed.

Peter Tarver


The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential. 
It is intended to be read only by the individual or entity to whom it is 
addressed or by their designee. If the reader of this message is not the 
intended recipient, you are on notice that any distribution of this message, in 
any form, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, 
please immediately notify the sender and delete or destroy any copy of 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 
<emc-p...@ieee.org>

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

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

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

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

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

[PSES] Switchgear in Europe

[Peter Tarver]

Greetings.



I am researching requirements for switchgear in Europe and there are two 
prevailing series of standards: 60947-x and 61439-x. These series of standards 
are both produced by TC 121/SC 121A and there seems to have more than 
significant overlap in their scopes..



It does appear that 60947-x are for individual devices, while 61439-x appears 
to be for assemblages of devices, perhaps any number of 60947-x devices. I'm 
not certain I have that right.



I have seen products the identify compliance with 60947-x and don't mention 
61439-x.



Neither standard series is mentioned in the list of harmonized standards for 
the LVD and are not excluded in Annex II. The application is for less than 1 
kVac.



Some 60947-5-x are mentioned in the Mach Dir., but 61439-x are not. (For the 
end-product application, the MD does not apply, though low voltage switchgear 
is in scope of the MD.)



Interestingly, several 60947-x and 61439-x are mentioned in the list of 
harmonized standards for the EMCD.



I note that the CENELEC web site identifies these standards as intended for use 
to demonstrate conformity with the essential requirements of the:

  * LVD

  * EMCD

  * RED



and of these three, only the EMCD mentions any 60947-x or 61439-x standard. 
CENELC doesn't mention the MD at all, except for 60947-5-3 and 60947-5-5, which 
is at least consistent with the lists of harmonized standards for the MD.



How does one choose the correct standard(s) between the two series?



I am aware of 61439-0, but haven't yet purchased that document to discover what 
guidance it can give.





Peter Tarver



The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential. 
It is intended to be read only by the individual or entity to whom it is 
addressed or by their designee. If the reader of this message is not the 
intended recipient, you are on notice that any distribution of this message, in 
any form, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, 
please immediately notify the sender and delete or destroy any copy of 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 
<emc-p...@ieee.org>

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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] MD vs LVD for Laboratory Equipment

[Peter Tarver]

I’m with you here, Dave. Just because a product contains a cooling fan should 
not mean the MD applies. But then, the products you cite are explicitly 
excluded from the scope of the MD (I’m sure you know this, since it appears you 
took the text directly form the MD).

However, in Article 2 of the MD, where the text Doug mentions is located, goes 
on to say that they’re, “intended for lifting loads and whose only power source 
is directly applied human effort.” This encompasses:

• automotive lifts and jacks
• come-alongs
• block and tackle sets (if sold as a unit)


Peter Tarver

From: Nyffenegger, Dave
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 17:40

But there are products meeting that definition of machine that are covered by 
the LVD and specifically excluded from the  MD:

— household appliances intended for domestic use,
— information technology equipment,
— ordinary office machinery,

-Dave

From: Douglas Nix
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 5:20 PM

I concur with Michael Loerzer. IMO, the test labs didn’t feel comfortable doing 
MD evaluations, so they used the “out” that was in the text of the previous MD 
(98/37/EC) that said that if the hazards were ‘predominantly electrical in 
nature” then the MD needn’t apply. Many machines were “slid-past” based on this 
misuse of the text of the MD, which is why the text was changed in the 2006 
edition.

If the device is “an assembly of linked parts, at least one of which moves” 
it’s a machine.
--
Doug Nix
d...@mac.com<mailto:d...@mac.com>

The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential. 
It is intended to be read only by the individual or entity to whom it is 
addressed or by their designee. If the reader of this message is not the 
intended recipient, you are on notice that any distribution of this message, in 
any form, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, 
please immediately notify the sender and delete or destroy any copy of 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 
<emc-p...@ieee.org>

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

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

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

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

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

[PSES] Kikusui TOS3200 Leakage Current Meter

[Peter Tarver]

Hello.

I am using a Kikusui TOS3200 to measure touch current for a 61010-1 application.

The product is double-insulated and has accessible USB port connector shells 
connected to the secondary circuit reference.

When using the TOS3200 in meter mode (using the two external meter leads), I 
obtain different results than if I measure using the faceplate 5-15R outlet and 
one external meter lead. For each test, I'm using the same measurement networks 
when attempting to correlate the results.

When using the outlet, the meter lead connects to the USB shell.

When in meter mode, I am connecting one lead to the USB connector shell and one 
lead to the power conductor of interest.

Has anyone experienced this with either the TOS3200 or other leakage/touch 
current meters?

FWIW, the manual does not indicate any special considerations are needed when 
using meter mode.

The instrument is in good condition and went through a calibration verification 
in AUG2016.

The currents are within "Measurement range setting Range 1," but the meter is 
set in auto range mode. I plan some additional experiments using defined 
ranges, rather than auto in the next day or so.


Peter Tarver

The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential. 
It is intended to be read only by the individual or entity to whom it is 
addressed or by their designee. If the reader of this message is not the 
intended recipient, you are on notice that any distribution of this message, in 
any form, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, 
please immediately notify the sender and delete or destroy any copy of 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 
<emc-p...@ieee.org>

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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] Inrush Current

[Peter Tarver]

Customers sometimes want both the highest peak current and an rms over a 
defined number of line cycles. If the request is exclusively standards based, 
John's suggestion works well. You'll need to perform five to ten tests randomly 
closing on the supply cycle and pick the highest values.

If an rms value is also needed, you can capture the inrush on a scope and gate 
the measurement over the relevant number of line cycles.


Regards,

Peter Tarver

From: John Woodgate [mailto:jmw1...@btinternet.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2017 05:32

Well, no-one has challenged Annex B since it was first included in the 
standard. Note that the standard applies up to 16 A/phase, so no big motors, 
etc.

From: Nyffenegger, Dave [mailto:dave.nyffeneg...@bhemail.com]
Sent: 10 August 2017 13:15

I think it also depends on what your EUT is.   Machinery will typically be full 
of all sorts of loads, motors, transformers, power supplies, computers, 
inductive, capacitive, etc.   The inrush would still be the peak current when 
the mains is switched on or also when the machine is started as they are 
typically two separate events.  These could last several seconds depending on 
the machinery and the incoming power sine wave would probably have little 
effect on it.

-Dave

From: John Woodgate [mailto:jmw1...@btinternet.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2017 8:00 AM

Look at Annex B of IEC/EN 61000-3-3. I did a lot of work on this for that Annex 
and you will often get different results each time, because of differences in 
how the current is interrupted at the previous switch-off. You do not select a 
point on the voltage waveform for the switching instant; you can't, anyway, 
because you must use the product's own mains switch (unless it doesn't have 
one). You switch at random points, because that is what happens in practice.

For duration,  you leave the mains voltage applied until the inrush transient 
is over (look at the current waveform); this is usually after three or fewer 
cycles, but for some products it can be rather longer. Normally, the first 
current peak is the highest, but occasionally the second peak is higher.

From: Kim Boll Jensen [mailto:k...@bolls.dk]
Sent: 10 August 2017 12:30

Hi

We have several times been asked to test Inrush Current and have this function 
on our Harmonic tester, but it is not defined how it measure and we get very 
different measurements each time we switch ON the same EUT.

I can't find an IEC definition on the measurement other than "peak current".

I asume that it is most correctly to measure the current  by switching ON at 
the top of the sine (90 deg), but what about duration?

A peak current with a duration of 0.1 ms is not as interresting as the same 
current for 1 ms. And what if there are several current peaks after each other 
such as ringing wave form?

Best regards,

Kim Boll Jensen

-

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] Kikusui TOS3200 Leakage Current Meter

[Peter Tarver]

Thank you, John.

Agreed, but I have also moved the conductors around, used multiple wire 
routings, multiple power sources, power systems in two buildings, on a ground 
plane (this was happenstance in the second building)...

While the results have minor differences, the effects I'm seeing are always 
there.

I plan to try an isolation transformer, a la 60950-1 to see if there's a 
different response.

I have written to Kikusui and asked them a similar question. I'll report back


Peter Tarver

> -Original Message-
> From: John Woodgate
> Sent: Monday, April 24, 2017 23:30
>
> Stray capacitances are different in the two modes, but
> probably only affect
> measurements if there are relatively strong high-frequency
> components in the  current.

The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential. 
It is intended to be read only by the individual or entity to whom it is 
addressed or by their designee. If the reader of this message is not the 
intended recipient, you are on notice that any distribution of this message, in 
any form, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, 
please immediately notify the sender and delete or destroy any copy of 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 
<emc-p...@ieee.org>

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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] Kikusui TOS3200 Leakage Current Meter

[Peter Tarver]

Thank you, Nute.

Page 70 of the manual indicates the ability to select a measuring network. 
According to the first paragraph on this page, it's a meter only for voltage 
measurements. Page 71 shows how to select a measurement network when using 
meter mode.

FWIW, I used Networks A, B and G on Page 114 and can see the effects of 
frequency filtering between these networks.

Also FWIW, I have a Simpson 228 and see similar results to meter mode 
measurements, though the levels are below the resolution of the 228 to 
accurately read the result.

Because the EUT is double insulated, the PE is always "faulted." I can't use 
the faceplate outlet for PCC (Protective Conductor Current) measurements, but I 
can for touch current measurements.


Peter Tarver

> -Original Message-
> From: Richard
> Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2017 10:42
>
> Hello Peter:
>
> I downloaded the TOS3200 manual to better
> understand your problem.
>
> When the TOS3200 is in "meter mode," the terminals
> A-B comprise an ammeter (without the body
> impedance network).  This will yield a higher
> current than in the TC (touch current) mode.  I'm
> not sure if A-B can have the body impedance
> network switched in, although this is implied in
> Figure 4-11.
>
> For a two-wire (double-insulated) product, there
> is no earth wire so you cannot use the outlet for
> the measurement.  You must use the A-B terminals.
> The connections to a two-wire product are shown in
> "b" of Figure 4-7.

The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential. 
It is intended to be read only by the individual or entity to whom it is 
addressed or by their designee. If the reader of this message is not the 
intended recipient, you are on notice that any distribution of this message, in 
any form, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, 
please immediately notify the sender and delete or destroy any copy of 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 
<emc-p...@ieee.org>

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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] Kikusui TOS3200 Leakage Current Meter

[Peter Tarver]

Thank you, Pete.

I have received an initial response from Kikusui requesting additional 
information about the EUT and the test setup.

I haven't looked at the waveforms yet, other than voltage. That's on the docket.

Regarding the matter of scale, (as I'm sure you're aware) the Simpson 228 uses 
multiple measurement networks and was the first commercially available leakage 
current meter to address UL 1459 requirements. The Burn Hazard setting 
(corresponding to 61010-1, Figure A.3, and the Kikusui TOS3200, Network A) is 
100 mA full scale and I am trying to measure current below 1 mA.

For shock hazard (Let Go and Reaction), the scale is OK.


Peter Tarver

> -Original Message-
> From: Pete Perkins
> Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2017 23:17
>
> Peter,
>
> Altho I have no experience with the Kikusui meter, I
> believe that
> you are on the right track chasing these differences.
>
> Since you have a Simpson 228 are you using a scope
> to look at the
> waveforms and get the readings for the scope display?  In
> my work with that
> meter I always looked at the scope display because of the
> better numerical
> resolution from the scope display.  If you have looked at the
> collexion of
> scope pix provided on safetylink you will see these details in
> each scope
> display - the waveforms as well as the digital readout of rms
> and pk-pk
> values.
>
> Not sure what your measured touch current is when
> you say the 228
> doesn't have the sensitivity you need.  The 0.3mA scale
> should easily read
> down to <0.03mA (<30uA) or below.  Or is it you can't read
> the differences
> between two measurements on the meter face?  Use your
> scope reading to get
> the numerical values, as discussed above.
>
> Not sure whether or not you can get scope
> waveform pix from the
> Kikusui unit.
>
> Unfortunately, the use of complex equipment takes
> some training
> and/or experience to get the correct result each time.  The
> mfgr makes it
> sound so easy but the proof is in the use pudding.
>

The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential. 
It is intended to be read only by the individual or entity to whom it is 
addressed or by their designee. If the reader of this message is not the 
intended recipient, you are on notice that any distribution of this message, in 
any form, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, 
please immediately notify the sender and delete or destroy any copy of 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 
<emc-p...@ieee.org>

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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] Kikusui TOS3200 Leakage Current Meter

[Peter Tarver]

This afternoon's update: the resolution of the inductive current probes I have 
are limited to 10 Ma. All currents look like noise.


Peter Tarver

> -Original Message-
> From: Peter Tarver
> Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2017 09:29
>
> Thank you, Pete.
>
> I have received an initial response from Kikusui requesting
> additional information about the EUT and the test setup.
>
> I haven't looked at the waveforms yet, other than voltage.
> That's on the docket.
>
> Regarding the matter of scale, (as I'm sure you're aware) the
> Simpson 228 uses multiple measurement networks and was
> the first commercially available leakage current meter to
> address UL 1459 requirements. The Burn Hazard setting
> (corresponding to 61010-1, Figure A.3, and the Kikusui
> TOS3200, Network A) is 100 mA full scale and I am trying to
> measure current below 1 mA.
>
> For shock hazard (Let Go and Reaction), the scale is OK.
>
>
> Peter Tarver

The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential. 
It is intended to be read only by the individual or entity to whom it is 
addressed or by their designee. If the reader of this message is not the 
intended recipient, you are on notice that any distribution of this message, in 
any form, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, 
please immediately notify the sender and delete or destroy any copy of 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 
<emc-p...@ieee.org>

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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] Old editions of IEC 65

[Peter Tarver]

fifth edition, 1976 (original) has been spoken for.


Priority:   normal
Date sent:  Mon, 21 Aug 2017 06:31:55 -0700
Send reply to:  ptar...@ieee.org

> Hello, everyone.
> 
> I'm going through old papers and discarding items I'm no
> longer interested in keeping. I came across two old IEC 65
> editions. If anyone on the list has an historical (or other)
> interest in having these documents, I'm happy to save them
> from the bin.
> 
> fourth edition, 1972 (photocopied)
> fifth edition, 1976 (original)
> an erratum to the third edition (photocopied)
> 
> I'll hang onto these for a couple weeks, but they'll be in
> the recycling bin or donated to a library after that.
> 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Peter 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 
<emc-p...@ieee.org>

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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] -60Vdc Telecom supply voltage

[Peter Tarver]

This reaches back twenty years and things change whether you're looking or not, 
but:

DBP Telekom FTZ 19 Pfl 1 "Voltage Limits for 60 V Consumers in 
Telecommunication Installations of the Federal German Post Office" (no date):

Normal range:   -57.4 V to -67.7 V
Short duration: -50.0 V to -75.0 V

Austrian Telecommunications Authority Dbh VI 0128 "Requirements for Power 
Systems using Cell Switching for 48/60 V Telecommunication Installations" 
(1981):
60 V Normal range: 57.5 V to 63.0 V for 
switching installations
  51.0 V to 
65.0 V for microwave systems
   48 V Normal range: 44.0 V to 49.5 V


My recollection is that this existed mostly in the region along both sides of 
the border of Germany and Austria, rather than Germany as a whole.


Peter Tarver

From: Kannan Dhamodaran [mailto:kan...@india.tejasnetworks.com]
Sent: Monday, August 14, 2017 21:36
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] -60Vdc Telecom supply voltage

Thank you Joe Randolph and Bostjan for your information.

I'm surprised many have not answered. Or maybe that's all the info available.

Once again thanks to everyone in the group.

Best regards,
Kannan

From: Joe Randolph [mailto:j...@randolph-telecom.com]
Sent: Friday, August 11, 2017 9:22 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Subject: Re: [PSES] -60Vdc Telecom supply voltage

Germany has historically been 60V, and I believe they still are.

Joe Randolph
Telecom Design Consultant
Randolph Telecom, Inc.
781-721-2848 (USA)
j...@randolph-telecom.com<mailto:j...@randolph-telecom.com>
http://www.randolph-telecom.com

From: Boštjan Glavič [mailto:bostjan.gla...@siq.si]
Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2017 11:43 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Subject: Re: [PSES] -60Vdc Telecom supply voltage

Hello Kannan,

As far as I know it was used in Russia, however they switch now to 48VDC. In 
deed there are many different systems and somewhere they might still use 60VDC. 
Maybe also in some other ex-Soviet Union countries.


Best regards,
Bostjan

From: Kannan Dhamodaran [mailto:kan...@india.tejasnetworks.com]
Sent: Friday, August 11, 2017 5:10 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Subject: [PSES] -60Vdc Telecom supply voltage

Dear valued members,

can you guide me on nations that uses -60Vdc supply for telecom installations?

Appreciate your valued inputs in advance.

Best regards,
Kannan
-


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] IEEE1547 - Unintentional Islanding

[Peter Tarver]

Hi, Ralph (say hello to Sarah U also).

UL 1741, Supplement A has this as a requirement in Tables SA8.1 and SA8.2.


Peter Tarver

> -Original Message-
> From: Ralph McDiarmid
> Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2017 10:59
>
> Has anyone been asked to perform the Unintentional
> Islanding tests in IEEE1547.1 at different static PF settings?
>
>
> Ralph McDiarmid
> Product Compliance
> Solar Business
> Schneider Electric
>

The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential. 
It is intended to be read only by the individual or entity to whom it is 
addressed or by their designee. If the reader of this message is not the 
intended recipient, you are on notice that any distribution of this message, in 
any form, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, 
please immediately notify the sender and delete or destroy any copy of 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 
<emc-p...@ieee.org>

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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] Scientific principles behind Surface Creepage & Air Clearance

[Peter Tarver]

Hi, Vincent.

As Bernd pointed out, IEC 60664 gives the best information on the scientific 
basis for Clearance and Creepage distances.

Paschen’s Law will (theoretically) have no effect on Creepages. Theoretically, 
Creepages exists in two dimensions. Realistically, even the thinnest copper on 
a board has some height, so it’s possible that, under the right circumstances, 
Paschen’s could have an effect on Creepages as well as Clearances.


Peter Tarver


From: Vincent Lee
Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2017 21:00


Hi all,

Good day,

1) May I know what is the scientific relationship between Paschen's Law 
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paschen%27s_law) and surface creepage and air 
clearance distance ?

2) If there is a relationship, how can one calculate the surface creepage and 
air clearance distance (such as those in IEC 60601-1 3rd) based on Paschen's 
Law ?

3) If Paschen's Law is not applicable for such calculation, then how are the 
surface creepage and air clearance distance (such as those in IEC 60601-1 3rd) 
obtained ? On what scientific basis or principles ?

The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential. 
It is intended to be read only by the individual or entity to whom it is 
addressed or by their designee. If the reader of this message is not the 
intended recipient, you are on notice that any distribution of this message, in 
any form, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, 
please immediately notify the sender and delete or destroy any copy of 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 
<emc-p...@ieee.org>

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

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

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

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

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