Group,
Thanks for the responses I got to my inquiry regarding 'e-labeling' - using
the product itself to display regulatory information. I got fewer responses
than I had hoped. One responder mentioned that as an OEM, he had a lot of
headaches from a large PC manufacturer who used an 'e-labeling'
Hi Chris,
Classified area = hazardous location = an area where the atmosphere may be
easily ignitable
Class = type of hazard; Class 1 = gas vapours; 2 = combustible dust, 3 =
ignitable fibers
Zone = Frequency of the hazard; Zone 1 means hazard present frequently or
for long periods; Zone 2 mean
Hi Greg,
I guess it seems to me that if the device is non-functional, then none of
the regulatory information applies.
As to the other point about the warning being visible constantly, I agree -
careful consideration must be given before using the display to present a
warning. I'm more thinking
Hello Group;
Today's regulatory labeling requirements in a global marketplace can get
quite cumbersome, while devices such as handheld PDA-types tend to get
smaller, with fewer flat surfaces available for product labeling. One of my
company's objectives towards product labeling is that the system
Try BAPCO for test equipment - http://www.bapcoinfo.com/
Doug Massey
LXE, Inc.
-Original Message-
From: Brian McAuliffe [mailto:i...@mcac.ie]
Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2002 5:48 AM
To: Emc-Pstc Post
Subject: 60601-1 leakage current testers
any recommendations for sources of hire (prefe
I would add these links to Fred's very thorough reply:
TELEC: http://www.telec.or.jp/eng/index_e.htm
IDA : http://www.ida.gov.sg/Website/IDAhome.nsf/Home?OpenForm
I've found both to be very informative, including procedures and application
forms on both sites.
Doug Massey
LXE, Inc.
-Origi
Hi Gary,
The FDA makes it clear that they DO NOT assess conformity of laser products;
the letter of accession is merely an acknowledgement that a product report
or supplemental report has been received and filed. I'm not sure what you're
hoping for, but perhaps you should ask the vendor for the ac
Hi gang:
I have seen this thread more than once on this forum, regarding the fabled
OSHA rule, CFR29 sec. 1910.399 as a basis to propose that ITE product safety
in the US is a matter of legislation rather than litigation. It sounds great
on the surface, but let's dig a little deeper.
29CFR sec. 1
asers than with
low-power, visible laser devices.
Regards,
Doug Massey
Lead Regulatory Engineer
LXE, Inc.
-Original Message-
From: Peter Tarver [mailto:peter.tar...@sanmina-sci.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 11:52 AM
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Cc: Massey, Doug C.
Subject: RE: ( More) Laser S
Hi Rich -
Annex T of EN60950 refers to EN60529. Dust ingress is not considered.
EN60950 clause 1.1.2 refers to Annex T.
One thing to note - if you're designing for global use, UL60950 does not
accept EN60529 testing - it must be UL50 tested. Which is, IMHO, overkill in
many cases since UL50 is fo
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
Gary,
This is the symbol of compliance to the EX Directive, and applies to
products for use in potentially explosive atmospheres. On the same label you
will find an Ex rating, that goes something like this: EEx ia IIb T4. The
rating tells one what type of hazardous location the product is safe to
nk it also depends on how one defines 'beta test'.
I'd like to hear how others interpret the RTTED on this point. It's a grey
area, for sure.
Doug Massey
Lead Regulatory Engineer
LXE, Inc.
-Original Message-
From: Robert Macy [mailto:m...@california.com]
Sent: Thurs
Article 8.2 of the RTTED (1999/5/EC) allows exemptions for ".. trade fairs,
exhibitions, demonstrations, etc.". It also requires that a "visible sign
clearly indicates that such apparatus may not be marketed or put into
service until it has been made to comply."
Beta testing at a customer site do
Hello Alex & group;
For classification of hazardous areas, the definitive references are IEC
79-10 (EN60079-10)in the EU and in the US, it is NFPA no. HLH-97. However,
you won't find a picture of a filling station here, with specific zone
classifications. You will find the criteria and methods for
Sandy,
It depends on the particular device. You can get the full details at this
website : http://www.anfr.fr/gb/ This is the site for the French Frequency
Agency. You'll have to click on the NEWS button to see the new rules
regarding 2.4 Ghz. In a nutshell, there are still power limitations for t
Hello folks -
Can anyone tell me if an ITE device that does not connect to AC Mains must
be NOM certified in order to market the device in Mexico?
One internet link says all ITE, another says AC Mains connected equipment -
I'm confused. Does anyone have a link to or a list of regulated products?
Just to further confuscate the issue - I once built my own home PC. I bought
a box, motherboard, CPU, memory, variety of ISA cards, etc.
It worked so well, I built a couple or three more for family and friends,
and sold them to those family and friends at a good price.
I didn't check radiated e
The Battery Act regulates disposal of NiCd and SSLA (Small Sealed Lead Acid)
batteries in the US, and mandates that manufacturers provide consumers with
a means of safe disposal. Canada has a similar act. I'm unsure of the
details in the EU, but I'm sure similar acts exist. There are two harmful
e
Here's some -
N/A - Not Applicable
PCB - Printed Circuit Board
PCA - Printed Circuit Assembly
ASAP - As Soon As Possible
et al - "and others"
e.g. - "for example"
FUBAR - F*@#ed Up Beyond All Repair
LMAO - Laughed My A$$ Off
e.g, " My PM told my FM, et al, that we need the CPU PCA working ASAP,
Hello Group -
Can anyone direct me to an informative article, link, etc., that summarizes
the impact of Amendment 2 to IEC 60825-1, released in January of this year ?
I've reviewed the amendment and am aware of the basic differences it brings
in classification, but it sure would be nice to have a
Chris,
You can find the PLD via a link from the Safety Link website. It's great
lawyer fodder, or good reading if you're having trouble falling asleep.
Now, assume that you have a product that is a battery powered, portable
device, not sold to the general consumer market. It has been evaluated t
again, Mr. Woodgate has forced me to think...
So, as a general policy, would it be valid to be driven by an indvidual
standard's scope rather than the Directives?
Brian O'Connell
Taiyo Yuden (USA), Inc.
-Original Message-
From: John Woodgate [ mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.
lex McNeil [mailto:alex.mcn...@ingenicofortronic.com]
Sent: Monday, June 04, 2001 12:14 PM
To: 'Massey, Doug C.'
Cc: 'IEEE Forum'
Subject: RE: Product Safety: A Matter of Law or Litigation?
Doug,
As a general rule you should always have your products "Safety Approved"
Colleagues:
I have been tasked with justifying the need for independent, third party
evaluations of the safety of our company's products to applicable standards.
Our company manufactures various ITE equipment, either handheld, battery
powered devices, or ITE devices powered by vehicle batteries.
Hi John - check out http://www.ul.com/ite/60950Analysis_05_07_01.PDF for
UL's Certification Impact Analysis of the new standard.
Doug Massey
LXE, Inc.
-Original Message-
From: Allen, John [mailto:john.al...@uk.thalesgroup.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2001 6:12 AM
To: 'EMC-PSTC'
Subject:
Well, I haven't seen anybody weigh in on this yet, so here goes.
First of all, Li-Ion batteries have tremendous energy density. I recently
watched some videos of Li-Ion cells failing an overcharge test, and it was
really impressive. These things looked like a roman candle going off ! They
would m
I really didn't feel that I should pay for a subscription to the PAG's to
clarify points in the standard, until a situation arose where the UL
engineer on my project referred to a PAG note, and of course, I had to buy a
subscription to verify what I was being told. I still don't think it should
be
Hello Group -
In the UL IQ for Plastics database, the CTI values are given as a single
digit number, 0 thru 5. I know that the scale correlates to 100 V thru 600
V, but I forget which way it goes. Does CTI of 5 = 600 V, or is it the other
way around? Is this scale given in UL746A or IEC 60112 ?
;s advocate as
you did. I just wanted to hear a few opinions.
Doug
-Original Message-
From: John Juhasz [mailto:jjuh...@fiberoptions.com]
Sent: Monday, April 02, 2001 1:35 PM
To: Massey, Doug C.; 'IEEE Forum'
Subject: RE: 950 Pollution degree detirmination
Doug,
Whil
Hello group -
In the -950 series standards, three Pollution Degrees are defined for
detirming insulation coordination. For instance, in EN60950 3rd Ed., clause
2.10.1 defines Pollution Degree 1 " for components and subassemblies which
are sealed so as to exclude dust and moisture (see 2.10.7)." C
Hi Robert -
I would refer you to UL's HAZLOC web page to learn more about standards
requirements, and to NFPA No.: HLH-97, Electrical Installations in Hazardous
Locations, to learn more about how hazardous areas are classified.
>What is the difference between a product that is certified to Class
Rich suggested testing the standoff for flammability, then showing the
inspector that you are indeed using the same standoff as tested when a
factory inspection is performed. This route would make me uncomfortable for
a few reasons: 1. It may not pass, 2. Standoffs are a very cheap commodity,
and
>>We might be trying to make a mountain out of a molehill here.
I agree that a mountain is being made of a molehill - however, I think the
TC made the mountain, not those of us who have tried to interpret the
mountain.
For my part, I have posted this exact question in the past and found the
same
>As far as I know, EIAJ CP1104 is the only standard
>worldwide that has the dc polarity symbol for
>barrel connectors. (Likewise, as far as I know,
>Japan has the only standard for barrel connectors.)
This symbol is definitely NOT in IEC 417. I'm glad somebody asked that
question - I've wondere
Hello group -
I have another question about equipment for use in hazardous locations. I
find no requirements in any of the relevant standards regarding the proper
colors of indicators (LED's). For instance, a red LED on a standard-use
product could indicate something benign like "battery low" - b
at stake. Also, I'm not sure what
safety measures there may be that can reliably prevent ESD from occuring.
Doug
-Original Message-
From: Finn, Paul [mailto:fi...@pan0.panametrics.com]
Sent: Friday, November 17, 2000 6:56 AM
To: Massey, Doug C.
Subject: RE: Intrinsically safe equipment
r, it would meet all
requirements. Anybody got the nutty professor's number?
Doug
-Original Message-
From: Linstrom, John (IndSys, GEFanuc, CDI)
[mailto:john.linst...@cdynamics.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2000 5:07 PM
To: Massey, Doug C.
Subject: RE: Intrinsically safe equipment
Hello group -
I'm looking for help regarding the safety of equipment for use in hazardous
locations, especially intrisically safe systems.
Specifically, I have questions regarding clause 7.3.2 of standard EN
50014:1997, concerning electrostatic charges of enclosures of plastic
materials.
If anyo
Hi Jeffrey:
As far as the EPA is concerned, Li-ion batteries are not considered as
hazardous material. Remember, the EPA is NOT concerned with the safety of
your customer, only the effects on the environment. The Battery Management
Act is Public Law 104-142, 104th Congress, and there is an EPA pu
el system.
>
> In my experience I have found mineral spirit to be a more harsh chemical
> than Isopropyl Alcohol. The alcohol test is performed on labels that are
> used in medical environments per IEC 60601.
>
> Ed
>
> >From: "Massey, Doug C."
> >Reply-To:
Does anyone know what the trade name for the chemical used for the rub test
in 60950 clause 1.7.15 is ?
The standard calls it "petroleum spirit", then describes an aliphatic
solvent hexane, with several properties, none of which are a chemical
formula.
Is it common mineral spirits available at m
Thanks to all who responded to my UL1950 desparate cry for help regarding
interpretation of the clauses under 4.4.
To summarize :
(Rich) : Sub-clauses 4.4.3.2 through 4.4.3.6 are specific
requirements for parts inside a fire enclosure,
invoked by the compliance statement of 4.4.3.1.
(Sub-claus
Hello All -
I desperately need some opinions on an interpretation of a particular clause
in UL1950. The background: I have an investigation underway to UL1950 of a
portable handheld computer, powered by battery and other power options, all
of which meet the requirements for inherently LPS.
Claus
44 matches
Mail list logo
