I've been trying to gather the information I need to generate a plan
for international deployment of a CENTRAL OFFICE SWITCH powered by -48VDC
with E1, OC-3 and OC-12 interfaces. Many have responded and provided some
very useful information although there have been some
Hi Matt and Lauren:
Lockable breaker panels are de riguer in industrial
environments, for lighting and similar circuits. But I would
counsel against prescribing or approving a lockable panel cover
as a lockout device for any other apparatus, regardless of how
one might reasonably parse
Hi All,
Does anyone know what the equivalent standard is for UL1863 in Europe?
Regards
Doug Beckwith
---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.
Visit our web site at:
Dear All,
Thank you for your postings, it has given me enough ammunition to persuade the
supplier
to change their point of view, they have now agreed to test correctly.
Regards Rob
- ---
Visit our Internet site at
Hi Folks
The issue I raised - and as supported by Charles Grasso, etc - is not the
the shock is an unpleasant experience, but that the
secondary/consequential effects of the shock can be a dangerous
experience.
It must be realised that Joe Public cannot - and cannot be expected to -
really
I totally support Rich - time try your two finger test with a capacitor
charged to 20 Joules! It is NOT unpleasant - it Hurts like Hell.
In the 80's we had a 'strange' engineer in our lab that left 2.2 ?F
capacitors charges to 300V laying about - until someone grabbed him by the
throat!
The
I've had to do all of those, even acting as the agent for the
manufacturer to get the project off and running. But it was only done when
there were unique situations - such as a custom power supply or something of
that nature. If there was more than one choice it wasn't rocket science
Like so many view and opinions presented here you, John, are also right.
The standards are not intended to describe more than a FIRST ORDER level of
safety beneath with there may be a public danger.
Hence - enforcement agencies and consumer groups rightfully get agitated
when manufacturers do
I just ran the math on this. Assuming that you can only measure voltage
magnitude (not phase), you need to use a capacitor and an inductor as the loads.
Assume that the power source is a voltage with a series resistance R and series
reactance jX (where X can be positive or negative). If you do
Me too.
Mike Hopkins
Thermo KeyTek
- Original Message -
From: j...@aol.com
To: ken.ja...@emccompliance.com
Cc: emc-p...@ieee.org ; owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2002 6:59 PM
Subject: Re: Repeat postings
In a message dated
I just ran the math on this. Assuming that you can only measure voltage
magnitude (not phase), you need to use a capacitor and an inductor as the loads.
Assume that the power source is a voltage with a series resistance R and series
reactance jX (where X can be positive or negative). If you do
I totally support Rich - time try your two finger test with a capacitor
charged to 20 Joules! It is NOT unpleasant - it Hurts like Hell.
In the 80's we had a 'strange' engineer in our lab that left 2.2 ?F
capacitors charges to 300V laying about - until someone grabbed him by the
throat!
The
Me too.
Mike Hopkins
Thermo KeyTek
- Original Message -
From: j...@aol.com
To: ken.ja...@emccompliance.com
Cc: emc-p...@ieee.org ; owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2002 6:59 PM
Subject: Re: Repeat postings
In a message dated
Greg, OSHA regulations allow for an alternataive to Listing. The owner of
the equipment may create a construction file describing how safety is
accomplished and have the file available for OSHA review.
Richard Woods
Sensormatic Electronics
Tyco International
-Original Message-
From:
Hi Lauren,
You didn't provide sufficient information regarding the application so I can't
say much about tagout.
As for lockout:
29 CFR 1910.147 The control of hazardous energy (lockout/tagout) pretty clearly
rules out performing lockout by locking a cover.
Lockout is defined as
The placement
John,
You state:
the added cost in our case is the fact that we include a copy of the
DoC with every product. Not required I know but done here as a matter of
policy this adds a couple of pennies to each product which adds up in the
long run.
May I also recommend to the folks out there
Dear Friends,
Many times the vendor does not wish to obtain NRTL Listing because of the
investigation costs involved and the yearly follow-up costs.
One way that vendors might agree to submit their products for NRTL Listing
is to have the buyer pay for all the costs involved or even to share the
Hi Amund,
Products in Canada must conform to the following:
* ICES-003 for digital apparatus
* CAN/CSA - CISPR 22-96 for other devices
ICES-003 incorporates by reference CSA C108.8-M1983 or CAN/CSA-CISPR 22-96
as an alternative standard. The manufacturer can choose
I read in !emc-pstc that Kevin Richardson kevin.richard...@ieee.org
wrote (in nebbihdflagbliikmlbkeejadlaa.kevin.richard...@ieee.org)
about 'EN or IEC 61000-3-12' on Fri, 20 Sep 2002:
Can anyone shed any light on if this standard is usually used in association
with EN 61000-3-11 and indeed if
I read in !emc-pstc that John Allen john.al...@era.co.uk wrote (in
BFE68AB0084CD311B4FB00508B014C8703CF9BF4@MERCURY) about 'Changing our
safety standards (was 0.1 uF discharge)' on Fri, 20 Sep 2002:
The issue I raised - and as supported by Charles Grasso, etc - is not the
the shock is an
Jim,
Does equipment intended to be connected to the lighter have to conform
to the automotive transient immunity requirements (ISO 7637/ SAE J1113)
in its own right i.e. not assume the power to the lighter is a 'clean' supply?
Regards
- Chris
-Original Message-
From: Jim Eichner
John W
The simple answer is that in my personal opinion, the answer to your
question is (and has been for many years)- YES, for the reasons stated in
original posting and as expanded in my email sent a few minutes ago to Rich
Gert!
Regards
John Allen
-Original Message-
From: John
Hi Folks
The issue I raised - and as supported by Charles Grasso, etc - is not the
the shock is an unpleasant experience, but that the
secondary/consequential effects of the shock can be a dangerous
experience.
It must be realised that Joe Public cannot - and cannot be expected to -
really
Can anyone shed any light on if this standard is usually used in association
with EN 61000-3-11 and indeed if the -12 is even published. The IEC have it
listed as CDV. Thank you.
Best regards,
Kevin Richardson
Stanimore Pty Limited
Compliance Advice Solutions for Technology (including
Greetings,
I am looking for an EMC test lab in the state of Colorado or bordering
states. This lab must have the capability of performing tests to EN50081-2,
EN61000-6-2. This is for equipment that operates on 208/400/480V 3-phase
power at up to 100 Amps per phase. I cannot accept 4th party
I have seen motor controllers that are pluggable type 'A' and store a charge
of more than 5,000 Joules - if the inlet plug is pulled out of the wall
socket all that protect the Operator are the blocking diodes of the bridge
rectifier.
The standards already cover this - diodes do not meet
Dear members,
It seems some messages posted to emc-pstc as carbon copies (Cc:)
were re-posted by somebody's system after they were once delivered.
I already received 30+ re-posted messages.
I guess the list administrators may already have more information
and may already started something to
Hi Gert:
I also tried the discharge between two fingers, and found the result to
be unpleasant at least.
Time to change standards...
Now we must ask the question:
Is the purpose of the standard to prevent
injury or to prevent an unpleasant experience?
I presume that
Quite Right.
ALSO - there is the Reasonable Use - Forseeable Abuse consideration.
Remember why the industry standards 4mm Banana Plugs are banned. Because
they can be plugged into European 16A wall outlets.
Hence fire hazard from applied voltage - Energy Hazard under normal use AND
when
Hi Gert:
I also tried the discharge between two fingers, and found the result to
be unpleasant at least.
Time to change standards...
Now we must ask the question:
Is the purpose of the standard to prevent
injury or to prevent an unpleasant experience?
I presume that
In a message dated 9/19/2002, Ken Javor writes:
I am getting multiple postings, even I think into the next day.
Me too. I have even seen my own postings come back around with the CC
field populated with multiple copies of the listserver address, even though
that is not how the CC field
Thanks for identifying the States Rich - I have tried to get that list for
ages.
BUT - There is an IMPORTANT caveat - if the product is to used where OSHA
rules apply then it is mandatory that the product be 'approved' by a NRTL of
which UL is the most easily identified. So if the product is for
I have seen motor controllers that are pluggable type 'A' and store a charge
of more than 5,000 Joules - if the inlet plug is pulled out of the wall
socket all that protect the Operator are the blocking diodes of the bridge
rectifier.
The standards already cover this - diodes do not meet
Hi Tom:
So, for voltage up to 450V d.c. (i.e. up to 318V a.c.), capacitor
up to 0.1uF will become a Limited Current Circuit, hence the voltage
is not Hazardous Voltage (1.2.8.4) - no additional condition would
be required for the capacitor connected to the primary circuit.
Hi Rob:
I am in discussions with a potential supplier of IT equipment, Its our
usual policy to request testing to a listed standard
such as UL 60950 for safety in North America.
The supplier has replied that this is not mandatory.
Is he correct? what compels safety
35 matches
Mail list logo
