Re: [PSES] Fuse in device is mandatory or not?

2019-11-01 Thread Pete Perkins
Amed, As John mentions the standard addresses this in 2.7.1. The wording in the statement ‘In the equipment or in the installation’ means. In my opinion, that the fusing is required in the equipment except as described in the next paragraph for Type B or permanently wired equipment where the

Re: [PSES] Japan PSE Mfg Testing

2019-11-01 Thread John Woodgate
Probably not ground bond, because most  products used in Japan are Class 2. Best wishes John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk Rayleigh, Essex UK On 2019-11-01 13:34, Stultz, Mark wrote: Japan’s PSE marking regulations require product testing on the ma

[PSES] Japan PSE Mfg Testing

2019-11-01 Thread Stultz, Mark
Japan's PSE marking regulations require product testing on the manufacturing line. For generic appliances, the test requirements are "Appearance, Dielectric strength, and Energization". Anyone know what they mean by "Energization"? Is this just a functional operation test? Is it ground/bond

Re: [PSES] Fuse in device is mandatory or not?

2019-11-01 Thread John Woodgate
You only need to look at 2.7.1 in the standard to see what needs to be done. Best wishes John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk Rayleigh, Essex UK On 2019-11-01 11:39, Matthew Wilson | GBE wrote: If you are considering a fuse you may need to consider us

Re: [PSES] Fuse in device is mandatory or not?

2019-11-01 Thread Matthew Wilson | GBE
If you are considering a fuse you may need to consider using two on both 'live' and 'neutral' with a suitable warning. This is due to 'EU' mains plug connectors being un-polarised. So the mains plug can be inserted either way around, allowing the live and neutral to the appliance to be reverse

Re: [PSES] [EXTERNAL] [PSES] FCC regulatory statements

2019-11-01 Thread John Woodgate
Agreed, but the real issue is the ambiguity of 'may not'.  It can be interpreted as anything from 'shall not' or 'must not' to 'might not (but might)'. It really should be clarified. Best wishes John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk Rayleigh, Essex UK

Re: [PSES] [EXTERNAL] [PSES] FCC regulatory statements

2019-11-01 Thread Sykes, Bob
The devil is in the details (FCC Rules Part 15.5). Comments below in [square brackets] are mine. (1)This device may not cause harmful interference…. [to licensed devices. Licensed devices are protected by the FCC Rules. The other less obvious meaning of this part of the label statement