al Message-
From: Brian O'Connell [mailto:oconne...@tamuracorp.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2016 12:45 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Power Supply Safety approval
If your end-use box is considered Class III construction, and an EPS is Class
II and LPS, then the C/C ta
th Ltd.
Kernick Industrial Estate,
Penryn, Cornwall. TR10 9LU. UK
T: 01326 372070
E: ian.mcbur...@allen-heath.com
-Original Message-
From: Brian O'Connell [mailto:oconne...@tamuracorp.com]
Sent: 15 June 2016 18:25
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Power Supply Safety
Only
www.jmwa.demon.co.uk J M Woodgate and Associates Rayleigh England
-Original Message-
From: McBurney, Ian [mailto:ian.mcbur...@allen-heath.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2016 9:01 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Power Supply Safety approval
Hello Brian.
The wall wart psu is
---
From: Brian O'Connell [mailto:oconne...@tamuracorp.com]
Sent: 15 June 2016 18:25
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Power Supply Safety approval
Responses to various thread posts below. Assumption is that the wall wart is
not certified as a component, but as end-use item, an
> If it's not multimedia, why was 60065 applied?
Mr. McBurney "submitted a product for CB
certification to IEC/EN/UL 60065."
Rich
-
This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
discussion list. To pos
'John Woodgate' ; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: [PSES] Power Supply Safety approval
> There are differences, but I suppose citing
Guide 112
> would deal with that.
I don't believe that Guide 112 applies as this equipment was not designated
"multimedia"
equipment
> There are differences, but I suppose citing
Guide 112
> would deal with that.
I don't believe that Guide 112 applies as this
equipment was not designated "multimedia"
equipment.
If it was multimedia, Clause 3 of 60065 would
apply, which references 4.2 and 4.3 of 60065 which
is the meat of the s
I submitted the CB documentation for the power
supply along with the product to the safety
testing agency.
I am surprised that the testing agency decided to
dismantle the power supply and thoroughly evaluate
it even though it is already pre-approved.
While the power supply meets 60950 requirem
e Klingon national version (K60065-0.1) disallows other than functional
insulation.
Brian
From: McBurney, Ian [mailto:ian.mcbur...@allen-heath.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2016 4:29 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Power Supply Safety approval
Dear colleagues.
I have submitted a
tes Rayleigh England
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen
> [mailto:g.grem...@cetest.nl]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2016 12:47 PM
> To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: Re: [PSES] Power Supply Safety approval
>
>
...@cetest.nl]
Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2016 12:47 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Power Supply Safety approval
I think the answer to your question is the difference in product standards
between your product and the power supply.
A example: the 60950 power supply does not
.uk/> www.jmwa.demon.co.uk J M Woodgate and
Associates Rayleigh England
From: McBurney, Ian [mailto:ian.mcbur...@allen-heath.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2016 12:29 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Power Supply Safety approval
Dear colleagues.
I have submitted a product for CB certificat
.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Power Supply Safety approval
Dear colleagues.
I have submitted a product for CB certification to IEC/EN/UL 60065.
The product is powered from a 12V dc wall wart purchased from an external
supplier. The power supply is fully CB approved to IEC/EN/UL 60950 and operated
well within
Dear colleagues.
I have submitted a product for CB certification to IEC/EN/UL 60065.
The product is powered from a 12V dc wall wart purchased from an external
supplier. The power supply is fully CB approved to IEC/EN/UL 60950 and operated
well within its ratings.
I submitted the CB documentation
14 matches
Mail list logo
