I read in !emc-pstc that Peter Merguerian pmerguer...@itl.co.il wrote
(in 2D1037012914D4118DB8204C4F4F50202D5CE9@ITLLTD01) about 'CB
Certificates for Apple Macintosh Computers', on Tue, 21 Aug 2001:
I am hopeful that one of you holds the CB Test Certificates and/or reports
for the following Apple
I read in !emc-pstc that Doug McKean dmck...@corp.auspex.com wrote (in
001001c12a54$2b315f80$3e3e3...@corp.auspex.com) about 'Manufacturing
Hipot Testing', on Tue, 21 Aug 2001:
IMHO, if I were to address the initial question regarding
manufactoring
testing of a product bound for Europe - unless
Peter,
Try UL's Certifications Directory. You can search by
Company Location or File Number . . .
http://database.ul.com/cgi-bin/XYV/template/LISEXT/1FRAME/index.htm
John Juhasz
Fiber Options
Bohemia, NY
-Original Message-
From: Peter Tarver [mailto:peter.tar...@sanmina.com]
Sent:
Hello,
I am very pleased advise you of a new Technical
Committee that has been formed within the
EMC Society. The Committee is:
TC-10 Signal Integrity.
The Mission Statement as approved by the BoD is
as follows: This committee is concerned with the
design, analysis, simulation, modeling,
Hello Group,
I am hopeful that one of you holds the CB Test Certificates and/or reports
for the following Apple Macintosh computers:
1. 733 Mhz Power Mac G4
2. 867 Mhz Power Mac G4
3. Dual 800 MHz Power Mac G4
If you do, please fax or e-mail a copy.
Thanks you in advance,
PETER S.
The following is strictly opinion ...
I may be sticking my neck way out here, but it is my understanding
that any required manufacturing hi-pot test, with regard to UL-1950,
is contractual between the mfr of said device and the testing NRTL.
To my knowledge, there is no *requirement* within the
CORRECTION: ... we do use EN 61010-1 almost ...
eric.lif...@ni.com
Sent by:
Hi John,
Read through some other responses. I have had similar experiences to
those already mentioned. One thing that I didn't see mentioned was the
alternative of electroless plating. Electroless plating consists of
three major processes.
1. The plastic parts are cleaned and etched by a
Must worry about fire and electrical
enclosure requirments as well.
Depending on levels and components
inside these 94v rating will vary.
Richard,
-Original Message-
From: Doug McKean [mailto:dmck...@corp.auspex.com]
Sent: Monday, August 20, 2001 7:22 PM
To: EMC-PSTC Discussion Group
The CENELEC web site indicates that ratification is targeted for September
and the date of availability is targeted for 2002-01-08.
Richard Woods
--
From: j...@aol.com [SMTP:j...@aol.com]
Sent: Monday, August 20, 2001 8:47 PM
To: gelf...@memotec.com;
Also see Telcordia GR-1089.
Cortland
---
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:
In a message dated 8/20/01, David Gelfand writes:
Having had much difficulty meeting these limits, could you briefly
summarize
the changes in Am1? Do they apply also to PSTN lines also?
Hi David:
I'm out of the office this week, so I don't have the amendment handy.
However, as I recall
Hi Kaz,
Both IEC60950 3rd Ed UL60950 3rd Ed define the ROUTINE TEST as you describe,
however, in note 1,
the key phrase is specified elsewhere in this standard. In fact, the only
references for ROUTINE
TEST and Electric Strength put together (REST = Routine Electric Strength Test)
in this
John,
Yes. I've done it. But the info is dated a little.
First, the plastic has to have it's own UL rating.
For SELV this might involve V2 min.
Not sure about that.
Then, the mold house has to have it's own UL
approval to do the molding.
Then, the conductive coating must have it's
Just a couple of quick things, and they are dated so maybe life has
changed for the better by now.
One of the problems with the coatings originally was that the
sprayed versions did not stay adhered to the base plastic. That lead to a
requirement to age the product during the
15 matches
Mail list logo
