Mike,This won't address you question directly - but this is often a problem
with SMPS folks for a couple of reasons. 1) Price competition can be pretty
cut throat so they are not wanting to do anything they don't have to. 2)The
results of the emissions tests are heavily dependant upon the
Hi Raymond:
1. Earth continuity test
As the class 1 is due to the additional earthing plate, how can I ignore
the earth continuity test?
Class I is due to the adapter having an appliance
coupler with a PE terminal.
Without this earthing plate, the unit is in fact a class 2
Hi Chengwee Lai:
2. Earth Continuity or ground bond testing with 25A or higher is not
applicable with plastic case and not applicable at the DC output side. It
was meant to check the earth protection continuity of a metal chassis.
Protective earthing is required for any conductive
Hi Raymond:
Any product with a PE (ground) connection is, by
definition, a Class I product. The common adapters
you describe, despite being encased in plastic, are
Class I products.
1. Function of the grounding plate
The primary and the secondary is reinforced insulation and
Has anyone tried to work through the two examples given in this section? In
trying to understand how to use the CLEARANCE = D1 + F(D2-D1) equation, I was
hoping to check my work with the examples that were given. Either I'm missing
something or these examples have some really fundamental
Not an area in which I am expert, but doesn't the low voltage directive
point you at EMC requirements?
From: Sosnoski, Michael gl...@wmsgaming.com
Reply-To: Sosnoski, Michael gl...@wmsgaming.com
Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2003 13:48:48 -0600
To: 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org'
If the SMPS is sold to a manufacturer as a component, the EMC Directive is
not applicable. However, if the SMPS is sold on the open market, the EMC
Directive does apply. See the commission's guidelines at
http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/electr_equipment/emc/guides/emcguide.ht
m
If the URL
The EMC directive cannot be cited on the Declaration of Conformity for a
component SMPS. Please review the EMCD on the EU web site.
If the mfr is competent, they will have pre-compliance test data and
conditions. It is not possible to apply an EMC certification to a component
SMPS; the mfr has no
Can anyone tell me what EU directives are required for a SMPS?
I have a supplier telling me only the LVD is required? I am shocked that
the EMC directive would not be required for a SMPS also.
I will look at their DOC, and see what the declared-just wondering.
Mike Sosnoski
This message is
Cyril,
The new publication stated that :
indoor use limitation of 100 mW EIRP for the 2.4-2.4835 Ghz band
outdoor use limitation of 100 mW EIRP for the 2.4-2.454 Ghz and 10 mW for
the 2.454-2.4835Ghz band
Find encloses a summary of the frequency allocation for the RLAN and the 5
Ghz.
You
The 8 October revision of ERC/REC 70-03 lists a French restriction of 10 mW
eirp indoor in Annex 1 (non-specific devices). Annex 3 (RLANs HyperLANs)
lists no restrictions for indoor use and 10 mW eirp for the 2454-2483.5 MHz
band.
Richard Woods
Sensormatic Electronics
Tyco International
On Mon, 3 Nov 2003 07:35:27 +0200, Jon Griver jgri...@601help.com
wrote:
Medical devices frequently include an equipotential terminal. It is used to
ensure that all devices connected simultaneously to a patient are referenced
to the same earth potential, otherwise any differences can cause a
All:
I have been given information that France has relaxed their once restricted
Frequency allocation to comply with the entire European Union per July 25,
2003.
This states that for indoor use the entire 2.4GHz band is available at a
power limit of 100mw.
My question is are there any
Hi Ian,
A little more info about the UL Medical Device Standards:
UL 2601-1 is IEC 60601-1 +A1..A2 + US Nat'l deviations. The US national
deviations and amendments are in separate places in the standard, so for
any one clause, one must look in three places in the standard, to be
sure to catch
Ian,
Almost certainly a typo. I am fairly certain that they mean IEC60601-1.
The IEC and UL versions are very similar, but the UL version includes
national variations for the USA so these will need to be taken into account.
You will find the requirements of this standard more demanding than most
Hello Ian,
It is IEC 60601-1 which also has many related collateral and particular parts,
i.e., 60601-1-xx and 60601-2-xx.
UL 2601-1 is IEC 60601-1 + UL (USA) deviations.
Best regards,
Dave Osborn
PM-CMS
Philips Medical Systems
+1 978 659 3178
fax +1 978 685 5624
d.g.osb...@ieee.org
All
Does anyone have information on these 2 standards: IEC 60101-1 and UL
60601-1? Are they equivalent? I am not certain that the IEC version actually
exists - it doesn't appear on the IEC website but a couple of other sites do
quote it. This may be a typo from a customer!
Any help would be
Hi Folks
I think the URL to which Chris refers is this
http://www.aca.gov.au/consumer_info/frequently_asked_questions/emc.htm#repla
ceparts
It is part of the FAQ on this page
http://www.aca.gov.au/consumer_info/frequently_asked_questions/emc.htm
Useful, but only up to a point!
Regards
John
The following link suggests an interesting approach based upon Risk
Assessment Techniques:
http://www.tridatacom.co.uk/Downloads/EDRA/EDRA_York2003.pdf
I don't believe that this metodology is considered in any standard (at
least so far ... )
Regards
ing. Francesco Campedelli
RD - HW Design
Dear Group,
Medical devices frequently include an equipotential terminal. It is used to
ensure that all devices connected simultaneously to a patient are referenced
to the same earth potential, otherwise any differences can cause a current
through the patient.
Does anyone know the standard
20 matches
Mail list logo
