system remote controls, cell
phones, notebook or notepad computers, laptops, mp3 players ...
Peter Tarver
This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may
contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not an intended
recipient, you may not review
in my prior labs, I’ve seen the voltage drop
across the tested current path change with time, mostly due to heating
effects. Less heating necessarily leads to a lesser resistance value,
since resistance of any conductor is dependent on its temperature.
Peter Tarver
This email message
limit for safety.
I can say that it's much simpler to drive high current at low voltage for
the purposes of this test. For example, using a variable autotransformer
on the high voltage side of a step down transformer operated in
short-circuit mode.
Peter Tarver
This email message is for the sole
not
demand the full output of the device)
Thank you for your help.
Bin
Bin -
IEEE 1547 is the base line. As you enter a utility's area of operation,
you will need to contact them to discover if they have any unique
requirements for your company's technologies.
Peter Tarver
This email message
In case you haven't seen it yet, an NRTL/SCC lab has instituted invoicing
practices where factory product audits will be billed separately for every
global region from a financial entity in that region. Your companies will
be burdened with having to add additional suppliers to your financial
receivers will be subject only to the LVD and RTTE.
Brussels, 17.10.2012
COM(2012) 584 final
2012/0283 (COD)
Peter Tarver
*From:* Elliott Mac-FME001 [mailto:fme...@motorolasolutions.com]
*Sent:* Monday, October 22, 2012 10:41
*To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
*Subject:* Re: [PSES] Recast of RTTE
errr...yeah. Got interrupted by work that pays my salary.
From: John Woodgate
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 09:43
Fri,22 Feb 2013, Peter Tarver ptar...@enphaseenergy.com
writes:
I’m looking at the proposal now. What I gather from
the first 8
pages (of 77) is that it removes all
Systems.
Peter Tarver
-Original Message-
From: Nick Williams
[mailto:nick.willi...@conformance.co.uk]
Sent: Friday, November 23, 2012 06:13
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Telephone connection accessories
Esteemed colleagues,
What are the appropriate standards
with a 1-15P attachment plug.
The C5/C6 couplers/inlets are very common for use with laptop computers
having 5-15P attachment plug.
Ted's comments apply.
Peter Tarver
This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may
contain confidential and/or privileged
(or to even warm water). The customer was told that the
certification service would not be forthcoming, but I had to explain why.
Whether it's considered a matter of fairness or a response to contracted
services, some explanation is needed.
Peter Tarver
This email message is for the sole use
fly.
Peter Tarver
*From:* Richard Pittenger [mailto:richard.pitten...@hobartcorp.com]
*Sent:* Friday, November 02, 2012 11:21
Esteemed Colleagues,
I have a product submitted to NRTL “E” that uses a Mylar electrical barrier
between line-voltage (120 V ac), uninsulated live parts
No, John, it isn't.
From: John Woodgate
Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2012 08:59
In message
Peter Tarver, Thu,11 Oct 2012, writes:
Does the same inside to outside approach also apply to
the voltage rating, as I expect that it does?
Isn't that specified in HD 361?
This email message
Hello from overcast Northern California.
I recently purchased a copy of HD 361 to decode HAR cable designations.
An example is:
H05GG-F
H = harmonized cable
05 = 300/500 V
G = ethylene vinyl acetate conductor insulation
G = ethylene vinyl acetate jacket
F = flexible conductors (Class 5)
My
.
Regards,
Peter Tarver
-Original Message-
From: Aldous, Scott
I did find a reference to this, though not from an
official source:
http://www.muellergroup.net/faq.html#10
This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may
contain confidential and/or privileged
products are not, strictly speaking, required to comply with the RoHS
recast now, if they were out of scope previously. These products are
allowed to apply the CE mark until mid 2019.
Regards,
Peter Tarver
This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may
contain
been required at the
Federal level.
Peter Tarver
From: Brian Ceresney [mailto:bceres...@delta-q.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2012 12:25
To add to the discussion, I believe that in 2009, the
Province of Ontario, Canada intended to initiate a
program forcing manufacturing
this company small.
I could speculate as to what other special
considerations might have been found self
certifiable.
I'd like to hear other stories of the self
certification regime.
Peter Tarver
-
This message is from
There are several NRTLs in the US. Pick your poison.
With some, you pays yer money and you takes yer chances.
Peter Tarver
*From:* Brian Ceresney [mailto:bceres...@delta-q.com]
*Sent:* Friday, August 17, 2012 10:41
I agree with you Ralph. I’d like to see that type of approach here
which only applies to the work place.
From: Brian Oconnell [mailto:oconne...@tamuracorp.com]
Sent: Friday, August 17, 2012 16:09
29 CFR 1910
This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may
contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not an
at one another in front of
fawning/deriding press and enriching themselves and
their campaign donors.
Peter Tarver
-
This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
discussion list. To post a message
of meeting V-2? Or was it simply not tested for a vertical
flammability classification because there was no perceived market (HB is
good enough)?
Peter Tarver
This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may
contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you
I’ve watched BBC News rebroadcast in the US. One thing BBC absolutely is
not is politically unbiased.
Peter Tarver
*From:* Michael Derby [mailto:micha...@acbcert.com]
*Sent:* Thursday, August 09, 2012 00:45
*To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
*Subject:* Re: [PSES] FW: [PSES] EU sets EMC limits
I would also be very concerned about different coefficients of thermal
expansion for the two materials and whether or not you can make a sprayed
on ceramic coating hydrophobic.
Regards,
Peter L. Tarver
This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may
contain
Thank you all for your responses.
I’ll clarify:
The current being carried is close to 16 A. Wiring is appropriately sized
for this current and the length of the circuit conductors. Should the
“branch circuit” overcurrent protection be rated anything other than 16A
and why?
Some have
In Europe, Jim?
Regards,
Peter L. Tarver
*From:* Jim Morrison [mailto:jmorri...@qps.ca]
*Sent:* Wednesday, May 16, 2012 09:47
If the device is marked 16 amps on the nameplate, the branch circuit would
be 20 amps. A cord connected device marked 16 amps certified or listed
(Canada/US)
Not UL clients; UL clients with current/active safety certifications.
New clients must pay retail.
Regards,
Peter L. Tarver
-Original Message-
From: Brian Oconnell [mailto:oconne...@tamuracorp.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2012 14:23
The free stuff and this pricing is
available
From: Brian Oconnell [mailto:oconne...@tamuracorp.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2012 08:36
Not certain what OP is attempting, as wire gage is
dependent on the fault
calc found in electric code, and breaker rating is
related to the distribution.
In North America, barring circumstances
Good day to all.
We (on this list) have had discussions on the differences in the
calibration characteristics of fuses certified for use in Europe versus
North America.
We also discussed fuses sizing for what in North America is called a
branch circuit and that fuses in Europe are sized equal to
Combiner boxes are in the scope of 62109-4, but this is a potential new
work item on TC82's docket.
For now, the guts would be subjected to whatever the guts normally would
if the guts were components used elsewhere.
Regards,
Peter L. Tarver
From: Brian Oconnell Sent: Friday, April 20, 2012
From: John Woodgate
Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2012 23:58
In message
Peter Tarver writes:
The UK are cosigners to the HAR agreement. However,
BS 7671 calls out
a number of BS standards for cables, but does not
mention HAR cable.
Any such reference should be in the BS cable standards
Hi.
The UK are cosigners to the HAR agreement. However, BS 7671 calls out a
number of BS standards for cables, but does not mention HAR cable.
Can HAR cables be used in the UK and meet BS 7671? What sort of
limitations are there?
Regards,
Peter L. Tarver
This email message is for the sole
Make that BS 7671
-Original Message-
From: Peter Tarver
Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2012 15:00
Hi.
The UK are cosigners to the HAR agreement. However, BS
7671 calls out a number of BS standards for cables, but
does not mention HAR cable.
Can HAR cables be used in the UK and meet
ANSI/SPI B151.1-2007: Plastics Machinery -Horizontal Injection Molding
Machines -Safety Requirements for Manufacture, Care, and Use
I found it on ANSI's web site for $50
Regards,
Peter L. Tarver
-Original Message-
From: Doug Nix [mailto:d...@mac.com]
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2012
From: Brian Oconnell
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2012 14:49
And Peter Tarver would say to also look at TR62102.
I'm special that way.
Now if you'll excuse me, I have to put on my helmet (it has shiny new tin
foil today!) and ride the little yellow bus to where the nice lady gives
us cookies. I
Kim –
You can review these links as a starter.
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/construction/index_en.htm
http://www.exploreconstruction.eu/index.jspx
Peter Tarver
*From:* Kim Boll Jensen [mailto:k...@bolls.dk]
*Sent:* Tuesday, March 13, 2012 02:24
*To:* EMC-PSTC
Good morning.
In the US, low voltage is considered 600 Vac or less.
Medium voltage begins above 600 Vac.
In Canada, low voltage is considered 750 Vac or less.
Medium voltage begins above 750 Vac.
Is there a similar (harmonized or not) voltage level
transition in Europe? Is the LVD's 1000
From: Macy [mailto:m...@basicisp.net]
Sent: Friday, February 10, 2012 07:32
Next you'll tell us the component was radioactive, made
of some 'surplus' material. Like all that gold jewelry
that found itself on the market way back when.
or the cheese graters from not so very long ago.
This
Howdy all.
Contact Shannon regarding this position.
See below.
Doesn't say, but probably in San Jose, CA.
Peter Tarver
ptar...@ieee.org
--- Forwarded message follows ---
From:Schlothauer, Shannon
sschl...@aerotek.com
To:ptar...@ieee.org ptar...@ieee.org
Date
Brian -
The UL molder's program is a paper chase for traceability. That cost
seems unlikely to be directly attributable to charges they pay to UL,
unless something has drastically changed under the latest management.
The only way this could cost a company $10E6 is very high volume and the
time
From: Brian Oconnell
Sent: Friday, January 13, 2012 10:23
Inspector shows up, unannounced, and walks into the
engineering lab.
AHJ (municipal) auditor - ...can't have exposed
hazardous electrical on the
benches. And these sprinklers do not seem correct...
me - only experienced engineers
From: John Woodgate
Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2012 00:58
10 Jan 2012, Peter Tarver ptar...@enphaseenergy.com
writes:
snip
At present there are no harmonized standards
applicable to 305/2011/EU
snip
Where does one find a list of harmonized standards
associated
The Construction Product Regulation (305/2011/EU) is replacing the
Construction Product Directive (89/106/EEC).
Is there a palpable difference between an EU Directive and a Regulation?
Some fewer whereases, but the look and feel is the same.
Regards,
Peter L. Tarver
This email message is for
Thank you for the responses.
305/2011/EU states 89/106/EEC is repealed upon publication of 305/2011/EU.
At present there are no harmonized standards applicable to 305/2011/EU
that I could locate, but
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/construction/legislation/index_en.h
tm
contains a link
From: Bill Owsley [mailto:wdows...@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, January 09, 2012 07:46
UL used to have to have a near monopoly and was a non-profit company to do
this.
Then the Federal law changed to implement the NRTL program so that there
are a number of
competitors
This misses the mark.
Microsoft Word - 13608_48002
Adding more fuel to the fire, some AHJs demonstrate a preference for
certain NRTLs, meaning they place more credence in some NRTLs
certifications over others. This will not necessarily be found in writing.
If a product is a relatively new technology in a field,
I was unaware that UL certifications had a 1 year shelf life. That
statement from UL devalues UL certification in a big way.
At a previous employer, we had an environmental chamber moved to a building
that had been renovated before we moved in. The AHJ red tagged the
chamber, because it
This echoes the hue and cry based on ISO 9000 registration requirements in
the early '90s. These requirements were placed on the purchasing side of
businesses. There was quite a bit of noise emanating from the US and
Canada that this was a de facto nontariff trade barrier erected by
I've received feedback that NF C 100-15 (France wiring rules) requires
testing against either NF C 32-070 (France) with resulting ratings of C1
or C2, or against EN 60332-1-2, for all nonresidential locations.
The scope of the EN 60332-1-2 indicates vertical flame spread testing is
performed (I
From: ralph.mcdiar...@schneider-electric.com
[mailto:ralph.mcdiar...@schneider-electric.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2011 08:51
I don't think UL would be sued; the manufacturer is ultimately liable.
The is little or no
benefit of 3rd party certification of a product under Tort law.
The
-bang and poorly formatted and nonstandard html mail.
If such tings are important to a post, a reference to a web
page should be sufficient (people have had web browsers
from the ancient days *before* 1999).
Peter Tarver, PE
ptar...@ieee.org
the curmudgeonly Luddite and technological apostate
This could be an excellent application for a poll on the
EMC-PSTC Community web site.
Peter Tarver, PE
ptar...@ieee.org
-
This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society
emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
To post a message to the list, send your e
in the
Telecommunication Carrier Group from draft standards into
which, I've heard, Verizon did not direct significant
energy.
Peter Tarver
ptar...@ieee.org
On 17 Oct 2008 at 9:48, Marko Radojicic wrote:
Hello group,
I could not attend the NEBS conference this year and was
hoping to get some input
Can anyone comment on the periods of real world exposure
the tests (30 days or 60 days) the test is intended to
represent? One reference I found points to ASTM B117, but
I don't have access to that standard to see if it's
contained in there.
Peter Tarver
ptar...@ieee.org
-
This message
coordination.
For component manufacturers that are not specifically
targetting the telecom market, it's highly unlikely you'll
find satisfaction.
Beware the specter of 'designed to meet.'
Peter Tarver, PE
ptar...@ieee.org
-
This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society
emc-pstc
John -
I respectfully disagree that the standards bodies need to do
anything. It is the designers that must be aware of the
advancements of technology (such as described by Gert) and
update their practices accordingly. [Low ESR / High Q caps
are a good thing.] While I have no doubt about the
Brian -
From what I can glean from your message, the equipment is
Class 1, but the secondaries do not rely on earthing for
SELV reliability (hence, the Reinforced Insulation EST
value). However, there appears to be some functional
earthing of secondary circuits or there would be no problems
for
Jim -
Try the Swedish EPA at
http://www.internat.environ.se/
Regards,
Peter L. Tarver, PE
Product Safety Manager
Sanmina-SCI Homologation Services
San Jose, CA
peter.tar...@sanmina-sci.com
-Original Message-
From: Jim Eichner
Sent: Friday, August 09, 2002 11:51 AM
We have had
All interested -
The IEC has just announced an upcoming on-line IEC 60417
symbol library will be made available soon (I checked and
it's not yet available through the IEC Web Store). Don't
expect to access them gratis, as they once were on the Chiba
University, Ikeda Lab web site (even though
Greg -
In point of fact, no NFPA standards are addressed by federal
law (keep in mind, regulation is not law, even if given the
power of law). Even 29CFR, as far I have seen, doesn't
outright adopt the Code in toto, but references portions of
it variously as mandatory or recommended.
NFPA 70
I must throw in with Rich Nute on this topic. The need for
a marking in this instance is very context sensitive: if the
marking is required by the US standard, but not by the
Canadian standard, the marking does not need to be
translated into French. Otherwise, there is no legal
requirement.
Jim -
There are no orientation requirements in the NEC or CEC,
except as required by product marking, such as for some GFCI
receptacles.
Dimension requirements are secret, donchaknow.
Regards,
Peter L. Tarver, PE
Product Safety Manager
Sanmina-SCI Homologation Services
San Jose, CA
Bill -
Go to the IEC web site (http://www.iec.ch/index.html). From
Search, select Information on a TC/SC under Technical
Work, then enter 48D when the page loads. You'll see the
chair and secretary names and a link to a list of links to
member states that then link to contacts from whom you
This reaches back a bit and I hope you'll forgive my tardy
entrance. I come from a test house background and would
like to shed some light on certain assertions made in this
thread.
Scott Douglas tells us, In my years of being a compliance
type, I have found many cases where I could not get an
While this is belaboring the issue and, other than if I
happen to run across any relevant standards references, it
should be noted that most new and many updated standards we
have to deal with are written using SI as the primary and
sometimes only units.
Also, in most scientific and engineering
RE, our recent discussions on unit prefixes: I ran across a
standard in my stash, IEC60027-1, Letter Symbols to be Used
in Electrical Technology is another reference for this
topic. The base standard is dated 1992, with Amendment 1
dated 1997. The IEC web site identifies four dash
standards,
Ron -
I do not have a view on publication of EN60950-1 in the OJ,
but the IEC Web Store indicates a Technical Report Form was
created in APR2002 and is available.
Regards,
Peter L. Tarver, PE
Product Safety Manager
Sanmina-SCI Homologation Services
San Jose, CA
peter.tar...@sanmina-sci.com
Joe -
I don't have a copy of EN60950-1, however IEC60950-1
includes a note to Subclause 6.1.2.1 that reads, In
Finland, Norway and Sweden, there are additional
requirements for the insulation. In the EN version, what
is difference from the base standard this note refers to, if
the Supplementary
Terry -
Part 11 of 21CFR is related to electronic reporting and
electronic signatures for submittals to the FDA; I don't
believe there's any certification program for Part 11,
just a process/procedure to follow. Refer to
http://www.fda.gov/ora/compliance_ref/part11/
for details.
Regards,
The scenario you describe is specifically addressed by the
standard, IEC60825-1.
Regards,
Peter L. Tarver, PE
Product Safety Manager
Sanmina-SCI Homologation Services
San Jose, CA
peter.tar...@sanmina-sci.com
-Original Message-
From: Collins, Jeffrey
Sent: Friday, June 28, 2002
I don't have a copy, but if we were to refer to ISO
31-0:1992, I'm certain answers to these questions would be
revealed.
Abstract from the ISO web site:
Gives general information about principles concerning
physical quantities, equations, quantity and unit symbols,
and coherent unit systems,
All -
From UL's NWGQ Standardized Appendix Pages (these are for
ITE products)
2.1.2.2If the output of the test-equipment transformer is
less than 500 volt-amperes, the equipment shall include a
voltmeter in the output circuit to indicate the test
potential directly.
It's impossible to
Mike -
See below.
Regards,
Peter L. Tarver, PE
Product Safety Manager
Sanmina-SCI Homologation Services
San Jose, CA
peter.tar...@sanmina-sci.com
-Original Message-
From: Davis, Mike
Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2002 6:59 AM
1.Are manufacturers required by the FDA to
Brian -
The MW represents an NEMA/ANSI magnet wire type. As I'm
sure you're aware, there are a number of constructional
variations for magnet wire coatings with regard to costing
materials and thickness. Those meeting some minimum
specifications associated with an MW type will advertise the
Also FYI:
Domain Name: I-SPEC.COM
Registrar: NETWORK SOLUTIONS, INC.
Whois Server: whois.networksolutions.com
ITL (Product Testing) Ltd.
POB 211
Or Yehuda
60251
IL
Administrative Contact, Technical Contact: Griver, Jon
Perhaps the same Jon Griver of 601help.com:
Powerful Connections Ltd.
We are in the process of performing evaluations to ITUT
K.45, which references K.44 for test circuits and methods.
In K.44, there are both couplers and decouplers referenced,
when connecting the surge generator to an EUT and between
the EUT/generator and adjunct equipment. These devices are
not
Alex -
No, TS001-1997 is called up by the Telecommunications
Labeling Notice 2001, and so is still required. TS001-1997,
in turn, calls up AS3260 (TS001 has still not been updated
from the 1997 edition, even though AS/NZS 90950 has been in
publication for almost two years). I note that neither
John Gary -
In point of fact, the Accession letters are *only*
acknowledgement of receipt of report materials. The do not,
nor are they intended to convey anything about compliance.
In light of their intended function, it is reasonable to
expect they are sent automagically. Compliance is not
Richard -
Bob Johnson's response on your Q1 is on the money.
wrt your Q2 and outlet strips, there may be the additional
consideration that you may impinge on the scope of UL1363,
Relocatable Power Taps (formerly a desk standard for
Temporary Power Taps), Listed under the CCN XBYS. Point
being,
Doug -
I was in no way implying the flaw was yours. The flaw lies
in the practical implementation of the system.
Peter
-Original Message-
From: Massey, Doug C. [mailto:masse...@ems-t.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2002 10:40 AM
Peter - I humbly submit that there is no 'flaw'
in
All -
The only flaw with this is that, based on my previous
discussions with CDRH folks, they have very few auditors and
no budget to hire more (this was a few years ago).
Therefore, by their admission, the primary methods of
keeping manufacturers and importers honest is
1) trust in the
Peter -
Browse to
http://www.csa-international.org/certmarks/
At the bottom of the page is a notation to contact CSA
customer service for artwork and a link to contact
information.
Regards,
Peter L. Tarver, PE
Product Safety Manager
Sanmina-SCI Homologation Services
Jeffery -
I have no answer to the enforcement question for the US, but
I suspect it's complaint and incident driven, as the EMC
regulations historically have been.
For NRTLs, the acceptance of previously certified Class I
lasers incorporated into other equipment is based on CDRH
Laser Notice
David and Gary -
Gary has the name correct, but the difference in rating is
derived due to complications related to the test method.
VTM materials tend to curl up, wilt or shrink away from a
flame when cut into test blanks normally used for the V-x
small scale material testing. To overcome
Mark -
My first inclination is to ask: do you need Class I? In the
US, the higher classes of laser products primarily require
labeling and additional information in instruction manuals.
As stated by Doug McKean, 21CFR allows the fiber optic
system connections to provide a level of safety, in
Mark John -
Since 21CFR is based on ANSI Z136.1, it seems the best of
references. However, 21CFR is the ultimate judge for the
US.
ANSI Z136.2 is for fiber optic systems, rather than
products, but is still a good reference.
Regards,
Peter L. Tarver, PE
Product Safety Manager
Sanmina-SCI
All -
ANSI standards are not free, but some may be purchased in
soft copy form and those standards are downloadable.
If IEC60825-1 requirements are used for a product, you must
review CDRH Laser Notice 50 to see how you are effected.
This can't be a markings only type of thing; you have to
use
George -
Please keep in mind that SELV alone, while addressing
electric shock, does not address risks of fire. If,
however, the external power supply complies with the
requirements of a Limited Power Source, then you're home
free, in terms of complying with the safety standard(s) (the
enclosure
Rich and Scott -
Irrespective of how any test house decides to address
indicator LEDs, my discussions with TC76 members and
contributing experts, including Bob Weiner and Jerome
Dennis, as well as the remainder of the members at a panel
discussion at the 1997 Laser Institute of America
Darren -
the Japan mains voltage in the range you request is 100V.
As I understand it, though this is open to correction, Japan
has both 50Hz and 60Hz distribution systems, depending upon
where you are located, even on the large island. I do note,
however, that the US Dept. of Commerce's
Joe -
Your statement is not in all cases.
Please refer to GR1089, 4.5.3, R4-3, -4, -5, 4.6.1, and
CR4-29
Although not a requirement, refer also to 4.5.13, Item 10,
related to R4-18.
Regards,
Peter L. Tarver, PE
Product Safety Manager
Sanmina-SCI Homologation Services
Pierre Rich -
At one time, I had to perform such testing, but it's too
long ago and was so infrequently necessary that I've lost
all details. However, I did save one of the tablets in a
35mm film canister. My note on the outside says
hexamethylene tetramine C16H12N4, that last bit being the
Richard -
If the monitor contains a CRT, the requirement in question
may arise from 21CFR, rather than UL. The responsible
company needs their name and address marked on products.
Regards,
Peter L. Tarver, PE
Product Safety Manager
Sanmina-SCI Homologation Services
Tajudeen -
Sanmina-SCI can provide these consulting services.
Please refer to my contact information, below.
Regards,
Peter L. Tarver, PE
Product Safety Manager
Sanmina-SCI Homologation Services
355 E. Trimble Rd.
San Jose, CA 95131-1218
V: 408-474-1322
F: 408-474-1318
M: 408-234-3529
An excellent resource, John. Thank you.
Regards,
Peter L. Tarver, PE
Product Safety Manager
Sanmina-SCI Homologation Services
peter.tar...@sanmina-sci.com
-Original Message-
From: Jon Griver
Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2002 9:59 PM
Peter,
An excellent place to start your search
All -
I have been asked to look into medical device requirements
in Asia. This would include Pacific Rim and other Asian
countries (the request was not specific, despite a little
prodding). I am only beginning my research and would
appreciate any pointers you might be able to provide that
will
Brian and others interested -
CSA/UL90950-1 will be discussed in a tentatively scheduled
meeting in April at the UL60950 Standards Technical Panel,
followed by a meeting that includes the UL60950 Industry
Advisory Conference, Canadian Technical Standards Committee
and the Bi-National Working
Andrew -
Please clarify something for me. Is the utility
distribution star configured (WYE connected), rather than
DELTA? Or are you speaking only wrt typical distribution
within a building? (In the US, distribution is generally
used to reference utility power distribution, for instance,
I haven't followed the Woodgate approach :), hopefully the
information Rich discovered also includes such relevant
concerns as:
power factor for general use
power factor for inductive/motor loads
power factor for pilot duty loads
heavy power factor (perhaps as low as 0.10)
incandescent
Ghery -
He is correct. There are DELTA configured transformers with
one phase earthed in the US. This is referred to as corner
grounded.
Refer to
http://saskpower.apogee.net/foe/ftdttd.asp
for a brief on the applications. The site is incomplete
(overall), but has some useful information.
The main page for the site is still up, just none of the
content we all seek.
http://w3.hike.te.chiba-u.ac.jp/iec417/ver2.0/html/index.htm
l
Regards,
Peter L. Tarver, PE
Product Safety Manager
Sanmina Homologation Services
peter.tar...@sanmina.com
---
101 - 200 of 328 matches
Mail list logo
