• Re: EMC compliance question

    From john larkin@21:1/5 to bitrex on Wed Oct 9 16:18:26 2024
    On Wed, 9 Oct 2024 19:03:28 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

    What's the deal with the "CPU board" exemption?

    Where is there such an exemption?



    "CPU board. A circuit board that contains a microprocessor, or frequency >determining circuitry for the microprocessor, the primary function of
    which is to execute user-provided programming, but not including:
    A circuit board that contains only a microprocessor intended to operate
    under the primary control or instruction of a microprocessor external to
    such a circuit board; or
    A circuit board that is a dedicated controller for a storage or
    input/output device."

    So if one sells a board that has say a PIC on it and some support logic,
    and the 9kHz+ signals are all internal to the uP (self-clock), but it's >otherwise a functionally complete design other than it's not in a
    housing, is that an exempt product?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From bitrex@21:1/5 to john larkin on Wed Oct 9 21:29:09 2024
    On 10/9/2024 7:18 PM, john larkin wrote:
    On Wed, 9 Oct 2024 19:03:28 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

    What's the deal with the "CPU board" exemption?

    Where is there such an exemption?

    It's under the section on sub-assemblies:

    <https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-47/part-15/subpart-B#p-15.101(e)>

    A "CPU board" as defined previously is considered a type of sub-assembly.

    As a hypothetical say someone sells a product that's a PCB with a PIC on
    it and some relays that has e.g. RS-232 port and terminal blocks to
    connect to other stuff. It's in some sense a functional product, but the
    user must at least connect it to some load of their choosing for it to
    actually do anything. And they can put it in a housing if they wish, or
    not, whatever.

    Is this still a "sub-assembly"?


    "CPU board. A circuit board that contains a microprocessor, or frequency
    determining circuitry for the microprocessor, the primary function of
    which is to execute user-provided programming, but not including:
    A circuit board that contains only a microprocessor intended to operate
    under the primary control or instruction of a microprocessor external to
    such a circuit board; or
    A circuit board that is a dedicated controller for a storage or
    input/output device."

    So if one sells a board that has say a PIC on it and some support logic,
    and the 9kHz+ signals are all internal to the uP (self-clock), but it's
    otherwise a functionally complete design other than it's not in a
    housing, is that an exempt product?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From john larkin@21:1/5 to bitrex on Wed Oct 9 19:21:54 2024
    On Wed, 9 Oct 2024 21:29:09 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

    On 10/9/2024 7:18 PM, john larkin wrote:
    On Wed, 9 Oct 2024 19:03:28 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

    What's the deal with the "CPU board" exemption?

    Where is there such an exemption?

    It's under the section on sub-assemblies:

    <https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-47/part-15/subpart-B#p-15.101(e)>

    A "CPU board" as defined previously is considered a type of sub-assembly.

    As a hypothetical say someone sells a product that's a PCB with a PIC on
    it and some relays that has e.g. RS-232 port and terminal blocks to
    connect to other stuff. It's in some sense a functional product, but the
    user must at least connect it to some load of their choosing for it to >actually do anything. And they can put it in a housing if they wish, or
    not, whatever.

    Is this still a "sub-assembly"?


    "CPU board. A circuit board that contains a microprocessor, or frequency >>> determining circuitry for the microprocessor, the primary function of
    which is to execute user-provided programming, but not including:
    A circuit board that contains only a microprocessor intended to operate
    under the primary control or instruction of a microprocessor external to >>> such a circuit board; or
    A circuit board that is a dedicated controller for a storage or
    input/output device."

    So if one sells a board that has say a PIC on it and some support logic, >>> and the 9kHz+ signals are all internal to the uP (self-clock), but it's
    otherwise a functionally complete design other than it's not in a
    housing, is that an exempt product?

    Do you really care?

    My Brit friends say that CE means Can't Enforce.

    It's been a long time since I saw an FCC truck bristling with antennas
    snooping around.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From bitrex@21:1/5 to john larkin on Wed Oct 9 23:48:47 2024
    On 10/9/2024 10:21 PM, john larkin wrote:
    On Wed, 9 Oct 2024 21:29:09 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

    On 10/9/2024 7:18 PM, john larkin wrote:
    On Wed, 9 Oct 2024 19:03:28 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

    What's the deal with the "CPU board" exemption?

    Where is there such an exemption?

    It's under the section on sub-assemblies:

    <https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-47/part-15/subpart-B#p-15.101(e)>

    A "CPU board" as defined previously is considered a type of sub-assembly.

    As a hypothetical say someone sells a product that's a PCB with a PIC on
    it and some relays that has e.g. RS-232 port and terminal blocks to
    connect to other stuff. It's in some sense a functional product, but the
    user must at least connect it to some load of their choosing for it to
    actually do anything. And they can put it in a housing if they wish, or
    not, whatever.

    Is this still a "sub-assembly"?


    "CPU board. A circuit board that contains a microprocessor, or frequency >>>> determining circuitry for the microprocessor, the primary function of
    which is to execute user-provided programming, but not including:
    A circuit board that contains only a microprocessor intended to operate >>>> under the primary control or instruction of a microprocessor external to >>>> such a circuit board; or
    A circuit board that is a dedicated controller for a storage or
    input/output device."

    So if one sells a board that has say a PIC on it and some support logic, >>>> and the 9kHz+ signals are all internal to the uP (self-clock), but it's >>>> otherwise a functionally complete design other than it's not in a
    housing, is that an exempt product?

    Do you really care?

    My Brit friends say that CE means Can't Enforce.

    It's been a long time since I saw an FCC truck bristling with antennas snooping around.


    One of those: "I'll tell the client 'if it sells then pay to get it
    tested and if it don't sell then its compliance is kind of a moot
    point'" kind of questions..

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From legg@21:1/5 to bitrex on Wed Oct 9 23:45:27 2024
    On Wed, 9 Oct 2024 21:29:09 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

    On 10/9/2024 7:18 PM, john larkin wrote:
    On Wed, 9 Oct 2024 19:03:28 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

    What's the deal with the "CPU board" exemption?

    Where is there such an exemption?

    It's under the section on sub-assemblies:

    <https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-47/part-15/subpart-B#p-15.101(e)>

    A "CPU board" as defined previously is considered a type of sub-assembly.

    As a hypothetical say someone sells a product that's a PCB with a PIC on
    it and some relays that has e.g. RS-232 port and terminal blocks to
    connect to other stuff. It's in some sense a functional product, but the
    user must at least connect it to some load of their choosing for it to >actually do anything. And they can put it in a housing if they wish, or
    not, whatever.

    Is this still a "sub-assembly"?


    "CPU board. A circuit board that contains a microprocessor, or frequency >>> determining circuitry for the microprocessor, the primary function of
    which is to execute user-provided programming, but not including:
    A circuit board that contains only a microprocessor intended to operate
    under the primary control or instruction of a microprocessor external to >>> such a circuit board; or
    A circuit board that is a dedicated controller for a storage or
    input/output device."

    So if one sells a board that has say a PIC on it and some support logic, >>> and the 9kHz+ signals are all internal to the uP (self-clock), but it's
    otherwise a functionally complete design other than it's not in a
    housing, is that an exempt product?

    A sub-assembly is employed inside a listed device - the final device
    requiring compliance.

    A subassembly is not a stand-alone product and cannot/neednot
    demonstrate compliance or even full functionality on its own,
    as the housing,interconnection and operational environment is
    not present.

    If it functions stand-alone, it CAN be tested for compliance, is
    self contained and has well-defined IO sources/targets.

    Products may contain parts that are self-compliant and list them
    as subassemblies, but the final product inherits and is stuck with
    that subassembly's red tape.

    RL

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Clive Arthur@21:1/5 to john larkin on Thu Oct 10 13:25:04 2024
    On 10/10/2024 03:21, john larkin wrote:

    <snip CE chat>

    Do you really care?

    My Brit friends say that CE means Can't Enforce.

    Or Chinese Export.

    They may say that, but I bet they comply - it means if your competitor
    finds out that you don't comply you have problems. I've never worked
    anywhere where it's not taken seriously.

    --
    Cheers
    Clive

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From bitrex@21:1/5 to John R Walliker on Thu Oct 10 11:27:05 2024
    On 10/10/2024 11:21 AM, John R Walliker wrote:
    On 10/10/2024 13:25, Clive Arthur wrote:
    On 10/10/2024 03:21, john larkin wrote:

    <snip CE chat>

    Do you really care?

    My Brit friends say that CE means Can't Enforce.

    Or Chinese Export.

    They may say that, but I bet they comply - it means if your competitor
    finds out that you don't comply you have problems.  I've never worked
    anywhere where it's not taken seriously.

    Same here.  I've nursed many products through the EMC and
    safety compliance processes over the years.  There have
    been few changes to EMC, but the safety regulations for
    audio and IT products and for test equipment have seen
    some radical changes - mostly for the better.

    John


    I've gotten by on the sub-assembly exemption for some things I've sold
    myself over the past couple years but I'm stating to do designs that
    probably can't get by on that exemption no mo, le sigh.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From john larkin@21:1/5 to clive@nowaytoday.co.uk on Thu Oct 10 08:58:24 2024
    On Thu, 10 Oct 2024 13:25:04 +0100, Clive Arthur
    <clive@nowaytoday.co.uk> wrote:

    On 10/10/2024 03:21, john larkin wrote:

    <snip CE chat>

    Do you really care?

    My Brit friends say that CE means Can't Enforce.

    Or Chinese Export.

    They may say that, but I bet they comply - it means if your competitor
    finds out that you don't comply you have problems. I've never worked >anywhere where it's not taken seriously.

    In europe, "taking seriously" often means buying a reel of CE stickers
    and slapping them on everything.

    Did you EMI lab test everything that you sold?

    We mostly sell things that go onto bigger systems, and our customer
    worries about certifications. So we only need to not make them fail.
    Our box could be buried deep inside their system.

    We only once were blamed for an important EMI failure, and that turned
    out to be our customers fault.

    There must be ballpark a million shops in the USA that assemble PCs
    from parts, mostley Chinese parts, the other CE kind, and I doubt if
    1% of those assemblers do any EMI testing.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From bitrex@21:1/5 to John R Walliker on Thu Oct 10 11:32:58 2024
    On 10/10/2024 11:21 AM, John R Walliker wrote:
    On 10/10/2024 13:25, Clive Arthur wrote:
    On 10/10/2024 03:21, john larkin wrote:

    <snip CE chat>

    Do you really care?

    My Brit friends say that CE means Can't Enforce.

    Or Chinese Export.

    They may say that, but I bet they comply - it means if your competitor
    finds out that you don't comply you have problems.  I've never worked
    anywhere where it's not taken seriously.

    Same here.  I've nursed many products through the EMC and
    safety compliance processes over the years.  There have
    been few changes to EMC, but the safety regulations for
    audio and IT products and for test equipment have seen
    some radical changes - mostly for the better.

    John


    My thinking is that I should at least do some fashion of pre-compliance
    testing and then if the design sells go all in.

    And if it don't sell then compliance is somewhat of a moot point, anyway.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Clive Arthur@21:1/5 to john larkin on Thu Oct 10 18:43:03 2024
    On 10/10/2024 16:58, john larkin wrote:
    On Thu, 10 Oct 2024 13:25:04 +0100, Clive Arthur
    <clive@nowaytoday.co.uk> wrote:

    On 10/10/2024 03:21, john larkin wrote:

    <snip CE chat>

    Do you really care?

    My Brit friends say that CE means Can't Enforce.

    Or Chinese Export.

    They may say that, but I bet they comply - it means if your competitor
    finds out that you don't comply you have problems. I've never worked
    anywhere where it's not taken seriously.

    In europe, "taking seriously" often means buying a reel of CE stickers
    and slapping them on everything.

    Yeah, riiight.

    Did you EMI lab test everything that you sold?

    Every individual unit? No, neither is it necessary. Generally, you
    design a product with EMC in mind, and an independent lab/consultant
    tests and certifies. Iterate if needed.

    <snip>

    --
    Cheers
    Clive

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Klaus Vestergaard Kragelund@21:1/5 to john larkin on Thu Oct 10 21:47:02 2024
    On 10-10-2024 17:58, john larkin wrote:
    On Thu, 10 Oct 2024 13:25:04 +0100, Clive Arthur
    <clive@nowaytoday.co.uk> wrote:

    On 10/10/2024 03:21, john larkin wrote:

    <snip CE chat>

    Do you really care?

    My Brit friends say that CE means Can't Enforce.

    Or Chinese Export.

    They may say that, but I bet they comply - it means if your competitor
    finds out that you don't comply you have problems. I've never worked
    anywhere where it's not taken seriously.

    In europe, "taking seriously" often means buying a reel of CE stickers
    and slapping them on everything.

    Did you EMI lab test everything that you sold?


    I have never seen any developers in Europe sell products that are not
    tested and compliant.

    I have seen many Chinese products that fails testing, but also seen
    Chinese products that comply with very ingenious solutions.


    We mostly sell things that go onto bigger systems, and our customer
    worries about certifications. So we only need to not make them fail.
    Our box could be buried deep inside their system.


    Right, that's the differentiation. You do not need to test products that
    go into a system, just as long as the complete unit complies.

    But, if it fails, it can be hard to find out which one of the sub
    assemblies are the root cause, and time is money

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From john larkin@21:1/5 to blockedofcourse@foo.invalid on Thu Oct 10 14:11:35 2024
    On Thu, 10 Oct 2024 13:41:07 -0700, Don Y
    <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:

    On 10/9/2024 4:03 PM, bitrex wrote:
    What's the deal with the "CPU board" exemption?

    "CPU board. A circuit board that contains a microprocessor, or frequency
    determining circuitry for the microprocessor, the primary function of which is
    to execute user-provided programming, but not including:
    A circuit board that contains only a microprocessor intended to operate under
    the primary control or instruction of a microprocessor external to such a
    circuit board; or
    A circuit board that is a dedicated controller for a storage or input/output >> device."

    So if one sells a board that has say a PIC on it and some support logic, and >> the 9kHz+ signals are all internal to the uP (self-clock), but it's otherwise a
    functionally complete design other than it's not in a housing, is that an
    exempt product?

    Who is your customer? If you are selling it as a *product*,
    it is not a *compliant* product so your customer inherits
    no certifications (because there are none).

    If your customer integrates it into *his* product, then
    the responsibility for "product certification" falls on him
    (so, you have saved *yourself* a few pennies on the certification
    process and left him with any "problems" that your board may
    pose to *his* certification).

    A few pennies for a certified test lab to do full certs?


    If you are selling to hobbyists, you *may* be able to get by
    as a noncompliant product (the first case, above) -- so long
    as none of your (few?) customers finds themselves drawing
    the ire of neighbors, etc. when your device interferes with
    their pursuit of life, liberty and happiness.

    But, you are still exposed as the seller of that noncompliant
    product. How likely will your customers "have your back"
    if things get sticky?

    In the latter case, your customer (integrator) will *likely*
    be thankful for any steps you have taken to certify your
    "component" as he goes about looking for certification on
    *his* composite system.

    Why do you think so many products are sold with El Cheapo,
    off-brand wall warts instead of taking the power supply
    design *into* the overall product?

    A wart relieves one of all the AC-line safety certifications. There
    are some big warts these days, including 48v ones.

    One can resell a cheap wart with the usual molded-in (usually fake)
    UN/CE/CSA markings, or let the customer buy their own wart.



    Lastly, it's just "good engineering" -- and great experience -- to
    go through the process so you know what to *avoid* in your
    future designs. (ditto for safety requirements)

    Increasingly, I am seeing extra scrutiny on devices that CAN "talk"
    to ensure they aren't talking to anyone that they can't *justify*.
    "Why are you phoning home?" "Why are you initiating HTTP requests?"
    "Why are you trying to resolve some oddball domain name?"

    [These, of course, are a lot harder to "guarantee" without (and
    even *despite*!) releasing full sources. Especially for OTS/FOSS
    OSs that may have been preconfigured (for your convenience) to
    support services having communications requirements that you
    of which you may be ignorant!]

    Software certs on top of hardware certs?


    Assume your customer is going to need/want to certify his
    use of your device and give him a leg up in that process,
    pre-sale.

    For a small company making a modest number of some test instrument,
    full certs will multiply development cost. That may be why I don't see
    a lot of small instrument companies in europe.

    The guys I was working with in Oxford laughed at me when I asked if
    our atom probe system would need to be CE tested. "CE means Cant
    Enforce."

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Don Y@21:1/5 to bitrex on Thu Oct 10 13:41:07 2024
    On 10/9/2024 4:03 PM, bitrex wrote:
    What's the deal with the "CPU board" exemption?

    "CPU board. A circuit board that contains a microprocessor, or frequency determining circuitry for the microprocessor, the primary function of which is
    to execute user-provided programming, but not including:
    A circuit board that contains only a microprocessor intended to operate under the primary control or instruction of a microprocessor external to such a circuit board; or
    A circuit board that is a dedicated controller for a storage or input/output device."

    So if one sells a board that has say a PIC on it and some support logic, and the 9kHz+ signals are all internal to the uP (self-clock), but it's otherwise a
    functionally complete design other than it's not in a housing, is that an exempt product?

    Who is your customer? If you are selling it as a *product*,
    it is not a *compliant* product so your customer inherits
    no certifications (because there are none).

    If your customer integrates it into *his* product, then
    the responsibility for "product certification" falls on him
    (so, you have saved *yourself* a few pennies on the certification
    process and left him with any "problems" that your board may
    pose to *his* certification).

    If you are selling to hobbyists, you *may* be able to get by
    as a noncompliant product (the first case, above) -- so long
    as none of your (few?) customers finds themselves drawing
    the ire of neighbors, etc. when your device interferes with
    their pursuit of life, liberty and happiness.

    But, you are still exposed as the seller of that noncompliant
    product. How likely will your customers "have your back"
    if things get sticky?

    In the latter case, your customer (integrator) will *likely*
    be thankful for any steps you have taken to certify your
    "component" as he goes about looking for certification on
    *his* composite system.

    Why do you think so many products are sold with El Cheapo,
    off-brand wall warts instead of taking the power supply
    design *into* the overall product?

    Lastly, it's just "good engineering" -- and great experience -- to
    go through the process so you know what to *avoid* in your
    future designs. (ditto for safety requirements)

    Increasingly, I am seeing extra scrutiny on devices that CAN "talk"
    to ensure they aren't talking to anyone that they can't *justify*.
    "Why are you phoning home?" "Why are you initiating HTTP requests?"
    "Why are you trying to resolve some oddball domain name?"

    [These, of course, are a lot harder to "guarantee" without (and
    even *despite*!) releasing full sources. Especially for OTS/FOSS
    OSs that may have been preconfigured (for your convenience) to
    support services having communications requirements that you
    of which you may be ignorant!]

    Assume your customer is going to need/want to certify his
    use of your device and give him a leg up in that process,
    pre-sale.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From john larkin@21:1/5 to jrwalliker@gmail.com on Thu Oct 10 14:16:34 2024
    On Thu, 10 Oct 2024 16:21:28 +0100, John R Walliker
    <jrwalliker@gmail.com> wrote:

    On 10/10/2024 13:25, Clive Arthur wrote:
    On 10/10/2024 03:21, john larkin wrote:

    <snip CE chat>

    Do you really care?

    My Brit friends say that CE means Can't Enforce.

    Or Chinese Export.

    They may say that, but I bet they comply - it means if your competitor
    finds out that you don't comply you have problems.  I've never worked
    anywhere where it's not taken seriously.

    Same here. I've nursed many products through the EMC and
    safety compliance processes over the years. There have
    been few changes to EMC, but the safety regulations for
    audio and IT products and for test equipment have seen
    some radical changes - mostly for the better.

    John

    When the regulations change, do you have to recertify?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Sloman@21:1/5 to john larkin on Fri Oct 11 11:52:38 2024
    On 11/10/2024 2:58 am, john larkin wrote:
    On Thu, 10 Oct 2024 13:25:04 +0100, Clive Arthur
    <clive@nowaytoday.co.uk> wrote:

    On 10/10/2024 03:21, john larkin wrote:

    <snip CE chat>

    Do you really care?

    My Brit friends say that CE means Can't Enforce.

    Or Chinese Export.

    They may say that, but I bet they comply - it means if your competitor
    finds out that you don't comply you have problems. I've never worked
    anywhere where it's not taken seriously.

    In europe, "taking seriously" often means buying a reel of CE stickers
    and slapping them on everything.

    Did you EMI lab test everything that you sold?

    We mostly sell things that go onto bigger systems, and our customer
    worries about certifications. So we only need to not make them fail.
    Our box could be buried deep inside their system.

    We only once were blamed for an important EMI failure, and that turned
    out to be our customers fault.

    There must be ballpark a million shops in the USA that assemble PCs
    from parts, mostly Chinese parts, the other CE kind, and I doubt if
    1% of those assemblers do any EMI testing.

    Just a little mindless optimism there.

    I did get on product started on CE testing, and the mains connector was
    the weak point. I think the final solution was to buy a better one.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Klaus Vestergaard Kragelund@21:1/5 to john larkin on Fri Oct 11 20:59:09 2024
    On 10-10-2024 23:11, john larkin wrote:
    On Thu, 10 Oct 2024 13:41:07 -0700, Don Y
    <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:

    On 10/9/2024 4:03 PM, bitrex wrote:
    What's the deal with the "CPU board" exemption?

    "CPU board. A circuit board that contains a microprocessor, or frequency >>> determining circuitry for the microprocessor, the primary function of which is
    to execute user-provided programming, but not including:
    A circuit board that contains only a microprocessor intended to operate under
    the primary control or instruction of a microprocessor external to such a >>> circuit board; or
    A circuit board that is a dedicated controller for a storage or input/output
    device."

    So if one sells a board that has say a PIC on it and some support logic, and
    the 9kHz+ signals are all internal to the uP (self-clock), but it's otherwise a
    functionally complete design other than it's not in a housing, is that an >>> exempt product?

    Who is your customer? If you are selling it as a *product*,
    it is not a *compliant* product so your customer inherits
    no certifications (because there are none).

    If your customer integrates it into *his* product, then
    the responsibility for "product certification" falls on him
    (so, you have saved *yourself* a few pennies on the certification
    process and left him with any "problems" that your board may
    pose to *his* certification).

    A few pennies for a certified test lab to do full certs?


    If you are selling to hobbyists, you *may* be able to get by
    as a noncompliant product (the first case, above) -- so long
    as none of your (few?) customers finds themselves drawing
    the ire of neighbors, etc. when your device interferes with
    their pursuit of life, liberty and happiness.

    But, you are still exposed as the seller of that noncompliant
    product. How likely will your customers "have your back"
    if things get sticky?

    In the latter case, your customer (integrator) will *likely*
    be thankful for any steps you have taken to certify your
    "component" as he goes about looking for certification on
    *his* composite system.

    Why do you think so many products are sold with El Cheapo,
    off-brand wall warts instead of taking the power supply
    design *into* the overall product?

    A wart relieves one of all the AC-line safety certifications. There
    are some big warts these days, including 48v ones.


    If your product can power usage is larger than 15W, then you get close
    to nothing by using external SELV supply, because then a lot of the
    demands on safety are back in play

    One can resell a cheap wart with the usual molded-in (usually fake)
    UN/CE/CSA markings, or let the customer buy their own wart.



    Lastly, it's just "good engineering" -- and great experience -- to
    go through the process so you know what to *avoid* in your
    future designs. (ditto for safety requirements)

    Increasingly, I am seeing extra scrutiny on devices that CAN "talk"
    to ensure they aren't talking to anyone that they can't *justify*.
    "Why are you phoning home?" "Why are you initiating HTTP requests?"
    "Why are you trying to resolve some oddball domain name?"

    [These, of course, are a lot harder to "guarantee" without (and
    even *despite*!) releasing full sources. Especially for OTS/FOSS
    OSs that may have been preconfigured (for your convenience) to
    support services having communications requirements that you
    of which you may be ignorant!]

    Software certs on top of hardware certs?


    Assume your customer is going to need/want to certify his
    use of your device and give him a leg up in that process,
    pre-sale.

    For a small company making a modest number of some test instrument,
    full certs will multiply development cost. That may be why I don't see
    a lot of small instrument companies in europe.

    The guys I was working with in Oxford laughed at me when I asked if
    our atom probe system would need to be CE tested. "CE means Cant
    Enforce."


    Some just takes the risks. If you are caught it can be an expensive
    risk. On the other hand, I have never heard of a case where the company
    went bankrupt. Have heard of large fines, but nothing that killed the
    company

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From john larkin@21:1/5 to klauskvik@hotmail.com on Fri Oct 11 12:20:09 2024
    On Fri, 11 Oct 2024 20:59:09 +0200, Klaus Vestergaard Kragelund <klauskvik@hotmail.com> wrote:

    On 10-10-2024 23:11, john larkin wrote:
    On Thu, 10 Oct 2024 13:41:07 -0700, Don Y
    <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:

    On 10/9/2024 4:03 PM, bitrex wrote:
    What's the deal with the "CPU board" exemption?

    "CPU board. A circuit board that contains a microprocessor, or frequency >>>> determining circuitry for the microprocessor, the primary function of which is
    to execute user-provided programming, but not including:
    A circuit board that contains only a microprocessor intended to operate under
    the primary control or instruction of a microprocessor external to such a >>>> circuit board; or
    A circuit board that is a dedicated controller for a storage or input/output
    device."

    So if one sells a board that has say a PIC on it and some support logic, and
    the 9kHz+ signals are all internal to the uP (self-clock), but it's otherwise a
    functionally complete design other than it's not in a housing, is that an >>>> exempt product?

    Who is your customer? If you are selling it as a *product*,
    it is not a *compliant* product so your customer inherits
    no certifications (because there are none).

    If your customer integrates it into *his* product, then
    the responsibility for "product certification" falls on him
    (so, you have saved *yourself* a few pennies on the certification
    process and left him with any "problems" that your board may
    pose to *his* certification).

    A few pennies for a certified test lab to do full certs?


    If you are selling to hobbyists, you *may* be able to get by
    as a noncompliant product (the first case, above) -- so long
    as none of your (few?) customers finds themselves drawing
    the ire of neighbors, etc. when your device interferes with
    their pursuit of life, liberty and happiness.

    But, you are still exposed as the seller of that noncompliant
    product. How likely will your customers "have your back"
    if things get sticky?

    In the latter case, your customer (integrator) will *likely*
    be thankful for any steps you have taken to certify your
    "component" as he goes about looking for certification on
    *his* composite system.

    Why do you think so many products are sold with El Cheapo,
    off-brand wall warts instead of taking the power supply
    design *into* the overall product?

    A wart relieves one of all the AC-line safety certifications. There
    are some big warts these days, including 48v ones.


    If your product can power usage is larger than 15W, then you get close
    to nothing by using external SELV supply, because then a lot of the
    demands on safety are back in play

    One can resell a cheap wart with the usual molded-in (usually fake)
    UN/CE/CSA markings, or let the customer buy their own wart.



    Lastly, it's just "good engineering" -- and great experience -- to
    go through the process so you know what to *avoid* in your
    future designs. (ditto for safety requirements)

    Increasingly, I am seeing extra scrutiny on devices that CAN "talk"
    to ensure they aren't talking to anyone that they can't *justify*.
    "Why are you phoning home?" "Why are you initiating HTTP requests?"
    "Why are you trying to resolve some oddball domain name?"

    [These, of course, are a lot harder to "guarantee" without (and
    even *despite*!) releasing full sources. Especially for OTS/FOSS
    OSs that may have been preconfigured (for your convenience) to
    support services having communications requirements that you
    of which you may be ignorant!]

    Software certs on top of hardware certs?


    Assume your customer is going to need/want to certify his
    use of your device and give him a leg up in that process,
    pre-sale.

    For a small company making a modest number of some test instrument,
    full certs will multiply development cost. That may be why I don't see
    a lot of small instrument companies in europe.

    The guys I was working with in Oxford laughed at me when I asked if
    our atom probe system would need to be CE tested. "CE means Cant
    Enforce."


    Some just takes the risks. If you are caught it can be an expensive
    risk. On the other hand, I have never heard of a case where the company
    went bankrupt. Have heard of large fines, but nothing that killed the
    company

    What's crazy is how expensive the CE specs are. I can buy one PDF for
    $600, and it will reference a bunch of others. Recursively.

    These specs have the force of law. It's like being forced to pay to
    know what's legal or not.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Phil Hobbs@21:1/5 to john larkin on Fri Oct 11 19:51:00 2024
    john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote:
    On Fri, 11 Oct 2024 20:59:09 +0200, Klaus Vestergaard Kragelund <klauskvik@hotmail.com> wrote:

    On 10-10-2024 23:11, john larkin wrote:
    On Thu, 10 Oct 2024 13:41:07 -0700, Don Y
    <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:

    On 10/9/2024 4:03 PM, bitrex wrote:
    What's the deal with the "CPU board" exemption?

    "CPU board. A circuit board that contains a microprocessor, or frequency >>>>> determining circuitry for the microprocessor, the primary function of which is
    to execute user-provided programming, but not including:
    A circuit board that contains only a microprocessor intended to operate under
    the primary control or instruction of a microprocessor external to such a >>>>> circuit board; or
    A circuit board that is a dedicated controller for a storage or input/output
    device."

    So if one sells a board that has say a PIC on it and some support logic, and
    the 9kHz+ signals are all internal to the uP (self-clock), but it's otherwise a
    functionally complete design other than it's not in a housing, is that an >>>>> exempt product?

    Who is your customer? If you are selling it as a *product*,
    it is not a *compliant* product so your customer inherits
    no certifications (because there are none).

    If your customer integrates it into *his* product, then
    the responsibility for "product certification" falls on him
    (so, you have saved *yourself* a few pennies on the certification
    process and left him with any "problems" that your board may
    pose to *his* certification).

    A few pennies for a certified test lab to do full certs?


    If you are selling to hobbyists, you *may* be able to get by
    as a noncompliant product (the first case, above) -- so long
    as none of your (few?) customers finds themselves drawing
    the ire of neighbors, etc. when your device interferes with
    their pursuit of life, liberty and happiness.

    But, you are still exposed as the seller of that noncompliant
    product. How likely will your customers "have your back"
    if things get sticky?

    In the latter case, your customer (integrator) will *likely*
    be thankful for any steps you have taken to certify your
    "component" as he goes about looking for certification on
    *his* composite system.

    Why do you think so many products are sold with El Cheapo,
    off-brand wall warts instead of taking the power supply
    design *into* the overall product?

    A wart relieves one of all the AC-line safety certifications. There
    are some big warts these days, including 48v ones.


    If your product can power usage is larger than 15W, then you get close
    to nothing by using external SELV supply, because then a lot of the
    demands on safety are back in play

    One can resell a cheap wart with the usual molded-in (usually fake)
    UN/CE/CSA markings, or let the customer buy their own wart.



    Lastly, it's just "good engineering" -- and great experience -- to
    go through the process so you know what to *avoid* in your
    future designs. (ditto for safety requirements)

    Increasingly, I am seeing extra scrutiny on devices that CAN "talk"
    to ensure they aren't talking to anyone that they can't *justify*.
    "Why are you phoning home?" "Why are you initiating HTTP requests?"
    "Why are you trying to resolve some oddball domain name?"

    [These, of course, are a lot harder to "guarantee" without (and
    even *despite*!) releasing full sources. Especially for OTS/FOSS
    OSs that may have been preconfigured (for your convenience) to
    support services having communications requirements that you
    of which you may be ignorant!]

    Software certs on top of hardware certs?


    Assume your customer is going to need/want to certify his
    use of your device and give him a leg up in that process,
    pre-sale.

    For a small company making a modest number of some test instrument,
    full certs will multiply development cost. That may be why I don't see
    a lot of small instrument companies in europe.

    The guys I was working with in Oxford laughed at me when I asked if
    our atom probe system would need to be CE tested. "CE means Cant
    Enforce."


    Some just takes the risks. If you are caught it can be an expensive
    risk. On the other hand, I have never heard of a case where the company
    went bankrupt. Have heard of large fines, but nothing that killed the
    company

    What's crazy is how expensive the CE specs are. I can buy one PDF for
    $600, and it will reference a bunch of others. Recursively.

    These specs have the force of law. It's like being forced to pay to
    know what's legal or not.



    With the vast accretion of laws and regulations we’ve seen in the past 30 years or so, we’re all breaking several every day.

    That’s why the rate of guilty pleas is over 98%—they can always get you for something, and a plea bargain at least shortens the ordeal.

    Phil Hobbs

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Don Y@21:1/5 to legg on Fri Oct 11 16:46:00 2024
    On 10/11/2024 4:31 PM, legg wrote:
    A wart used in an EMC certification becomes part of it. Hence
    mrfs listing and retailing part numbers for suitable use.

    But that's true of anything that you end up putting "in the box".
    Worth considering if you let folks open your device and
    replace things that *they* think are FRUs (memory, CPU, etc.)

    If one of your customers makes such an (inobvious?) modification
    and pisses off a local Ham who then files an informal complaint,
    etc. It's relatively easy to piss through the monies you would
    have spent on "certification" trying to diagnose and defend
    *your* product.

    [I had a neighbor visit me one evening because of all of the
    hash coming from my office, close to the street. "Nothing funny,
    here... everything is listed -- just noisey!"]

    Warts can be (and are) listed independently, to reduce
    potential testing and deployment gliches. A listed
    wart doesn't guarantee radiated compliance, only facilitates
    conducted performance on that one, main, port.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From legg@21:1/5 to All on Fri Oct 11 19:31:09 2024
    On Thu, 10 Oct 2024 14:11:35 -0700, john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com>
    wrote:

    On Thu, 10 Oct 2024 13:41:07 -0700, Don Y
    <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:

    On 10/9/2024 4:03 PM, bitrex wrote:
    What's the deal with the "CPU board" exemption?

    "CPU board. A circuit board that contains a microprocessor, or frequency >>> determining circuitry for the microprocessor, the primary function of which is
    to execute user-provided programming, but not including:
    A circuit board that contains only a microprocessor intended to operate under
    the primary control or instruction of a microprocessor external to such a >>> circuit board; or
    A circuit board that is a dedicated controller for a storage or input/output
    device."

    So if one sells a board that has say a PIC on it and some support logic, and
    the 9kHz+ signals are all internal to the uP (self-clock), but it's otherwise a
    functionally complete design other than it's not in a housing, is that an >>> exempt product?

    Who is your customer? If you are selling it as a *product*,
    it is not a *compliant* product so your customer inherits
    no certifications (because there are none).

    If your customer integrates it into *his* product, then
    the responsibility for "product certification" falls on him
    (so, you have saved *yourself* a few pennies on the certification
    process and left him with any "problems" that your board may
    pose to *his* certification).

    A few pennies for a certified test lab to do full certs?


    If you are selling to hobbyists, you *may* be able to get by
    as a noncompliant product (the first case, above) -- so long
    as none of your (few?) customers finds themselves drawing
    the ire of neighbors, etc. when your device interferes with
    their pursuit of life, liberty and happiness.

    But, you are still exposed as the seller of that noncompliant
    product. How likely will your customers "have your back"
    if things get sticky?

    In the latter case, your customer (integrator) will *likely*
    be thankful for any steps you have taken to certify your
    "component" as he goes about looking for certification on
    *his* composite system.

    Why do you think so many products are sold with El Cheapo,
    off-brand wall warts instead of taking the power supply
    design *into* the overall product?

    A wart relieves one of all the AC-line safety certifications. There
    are some big warts these days, including 48v ones.

    One can resell a cheap wart with the usual molded-in (usually fake)
    UN/CE/CSA markings, or let the customer buy their own wart.


    A wart used in an EMC certification becomes part of it. Hence
    mrfs listing and retailing part numbers for suitable use.

    Warts can be (and are) listed independently, to reduce
    potential testing and deployment gliches. A listed
    wart doesn't guarantee radiated compliance, only facilitates
    conducted performance on that one, main, port.

    RL

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Sloman@21:1/5 to john larkin on Sat Oct 12 14:27:40 2024
    On 12/10/2024 6:20 am, john larkin wrote:
    On Fri, 11 Oct 2024 20:59:09 +0200, Klaus Vestergaard Kragelund <klauskvik@hotmail.com> wrote:
    On 10-10-2024 23:11, john larkin wrote:
    On Thu, 10 Oct 2024 13:41:07 -0700, Don Y
    <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:
    On 10/9/2024 4:03 PM, bitrex wrote:

    <snip>

    The guys I was working with in Oxford laughed at me when I asked if
    our atom probe system would need to be CE tested. "CE means Cant
    Enforce."


    Some just takes the risks. If you are caught it can be an expensive
    risk. On the other hand, I have never heard of a case where the company
    went bankrupt. Have heard of large fines, but nothing that killed the
    company

    What's crazy is how expensive the CE specs are. I can buy one PDF for
    $600, and it will reference a bunch of others. Recursively.

    These specs have the force of law. It's like being forced to pay to
    know what's legal or not.

    That's what keeps lawyers in business. If you think about it, that's
    also what keeps up in business - most of us have learned which
    elelctronic circuits will work in a particular context, and we can give
    good advice - for a fee - to anybody who asks.

    If we also build the circuit, we sell it for more than what it cost to
    put it together, which includes the fee for knowing what would work.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Klaus Vestergaard Kragelund@21:1/5 to john larkin on Sat Oct 12 11:35:03 2024
    On 11-10-2024 21:20, john larkin wrote:
    On Fri, 11 Oct 2024 20:59:09 +0200, Klaus Vestergaard Kragelund <klauskvik@hotmail.com> wrote:

    On 10-10-2024 23:11, john larkin wrote:
    On Thu, 10 Oct 2024 13:41:07 -0700, Don Y
    <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:

    On 10/9/2024 4:03 PM, bitrex wrote:
    What's the deal with the "CPU board" exemption?

    "CPU board. A circuit board that contains a microprocessor, or frequency >>>>> determining circuitry for the microprocessor, the primary function of which is
    to execute user-provided programming, but not including:
    A circuit board that contains only a microprocessor intended to operate under
    the primary control or instruction of a microprocessor external to such a >>>>> circuit board; or
    A circuit board that is a dedicated controller for a storage or input/output
    device."

    So if one sells a board that has say a PIC on it and some support logic, and
    the 9kHz+ signals are all internal to the uP (self-clock), but it's otherwise a
    functionally complete design other than it's not in a housing, is that an >>>>> exempt product?

    Who is your customer? If you are selling it as a *product*,
    it is not a *compliant* product so your customer inherits
    no certifications (because there are none).

    If your customer integrates it into *his* product, then
    the responsibility for "product certification" falls on him
    (so, you have saved *yourself* a few pennies on the certification
    process and left him with any "problems" that your board may
    pose to *his* certification).

    A few pennies for a certified test lab to do full certs?


    If you are selling to hobbyists, you *may* be able to get by
    as a noncompliant product (the first case, above) -- so long
    as none of your (few?) customers finds themselves drawing
    the ire of neighbors, etc. when your device interferes with
    their pursuit of life, liberty and happiness.

    But, you are still exposed as the seller of that noncompliant
    product. How likely will your customers "have your back"
    if things get sticky?

    In the latter case, your customer (integrator) will *likely*
    be thankful for any steps you have taken to certify your
    "component" as he goes about looking for certification on
    *his* composite system.

    Why do you think so many products are sold with El Cheapo,
    off-brand wall warts instead of taking the power supply
    design *into* the overall product?

    A wart relieves one of all the AC-line safety certifications. There
    are some big warts these days, including 48v ones.


    If your product can power usage is larger than 15W, then you get close
    to nothing by using external SELV supply, because then a lot of the
    demands on safety are back in play

    One can resell a cheap wart with the usual molded-in (usually fake)
    UN/CE/CSA markings, or let the customer buy their own wart.



    Lastly, it's just "good engineering" -- and great experience -- to
    go through the process so you know what to *avoid* in your
    future designs. (ditto for safety requirements)

    Increasingly, I am seeing extra scrutiny on devices that CAN "talk"
    to ensure they aren't talking to anyone that they can't *justify*.
    "Why are you phoning home?" "Why are you initiating HTTP requests?"
    "Why are you trying to resolve some oddball domain name?"

    [These, of course, are a lot harder to "guarantee" without (and
    even *despite*!) releasing full sources. Especially for OTS/FOSS
    OSs that may have been preconfigured (for your convenience) to
    support services having communications requirements that you
    of which you may be ignorant!]

    Software certs on top of hardware certs?


    Assume your customer is going to need/want to certify his
    use of your device and give him a leg up in that process,
    pre-sale.

    For a small company making a modest number of some test instrument,
    full certs will multiply development cost. That may be why I don't see
    a lot of small instrument companies in europe.

    The guys I was working with in Oxford laughed at me when I asked if
    our atom probe system would need to be CE tested. "CE means Cant
    Enforce."


    Some just takes the risks. If you are caught it can be an expensive
    risk. On the other hand, I have never heard of a case where the company
    went bankrupt. Have heard of large fines, but nothing that killed the
    company

    What's crazy is how expensive the CE specs are. I can buy one PDF for
    $600, and it will reference a bunch of others. Recursively.

    These specs have the force of law. It's like being forced to pay to
    know what's legal or not.

    Yes, I don't understand that either. I have found some standards
    "online", if I just need to look. If I need it professionally, I need to
    buy it of course

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Don Y@21:1/5 to Klaus Vestergaard Kragelund on Sat Oct 12 03:00:22 2024
    On 10/12/2024 2:38 AM, Klaus Vestergaard Kragelund wrote:
    Somebody was talking about 48V warts. Some standards only allow 24V (for wet environments), and 32V for certain parts of the world

    48V wall-warts/bricks are typically used in midspan PoE
    injectors (and as standalone power supplies for PDs
    without PSEs). As such, almost always in dry locations.

    Can those "certain parts of the world" use PoE products
    with nominal 48VDC delivered over the twisted pairs?
    Is the limit on the "packaging" or on the potential?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Klaus Vestergaard Kragelund@21:1/5 to legg on Sat Oct 12 11:38:30 2024
    On 12-10-2024 01:31, legg wrote:
    On Thu, 10 Oct 2024 14:11:35 -0700, john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com>
    wrote:

    On Thu, 10 Oct 2024 13:41:07 -0700, Don Y
    <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:

    On 10/9/2024 4:03 PM, bitrex wrote:
    What's the deal with the "CPU board" exemption?

    "CPU board. A circuit board that contains a microprocessor, or frequency >>>> determining circuitry for the microprocessor, the primary function of which is
    to execute user-provided programming, but not including:
    A circuit board that contains only a microprocessor intended to operate under
    the primary control or instruction of a microprocessor external to such a >>>> circuit board; or
    A circuit board that is a dedicated controller for a storage or input/output
    device."

    So if one sells a board that has say a PIC on it and some support logic, and
    the 9kHz+ signals are all internal to the uP (self-clock), but it's otherwise a
    functionally complete design other than it's not in a housing, is that an >>>> exempt product?

    Who is your customer? If you are selling it as a *product*,
    it is not a *compliant* product so your customer inherits
    no certifications (because there are none).

    If your customer integrates it into *his* product, then
    the responsibility for "product certification" falls on him
    (so, you have saved *yourself* a few pennies on the certification
    process and left him with any "problems" that your board may
    pose to *his* certification).

    A few pennies for a certified test lab to do full certs?


    If you are selling to hobbyists, you *may* be able to get by
    as a noncompliant product (the first case, above) -- so long
    as none of your (few?) customers finds themselves drawing
    the ire of neighbors, etc. when your device interferes with
    their pursuit of life, liberty and happiness.

    But, you are still exposed as the seller of that noncompliant
    product. How likely will your customers "have your back"
    if things get sticky?

    In the latter case, your customer (integrator) will *likely*
    be thankful for any steps you have taken to certify your
    "component" as he goes about looking for certification on
    *his* composite system.

    Why do you think so many products are sold with El Cheapo,
    off-brand wall warts instead of taking the power supply
    design *into* the overall product?

    A wart relieves one of all the AC-line safety certifications. There
    are some big warts these days, including 48v ones.

    One can resell a cheap wart with the usual molded-in (usually fake)
    UN/CE/CSA markings, or let the customer buy their own wart.


    A wart used in an EMC certification becomes part of it. Hence
    mrfs listing and retailing part numbers for suitable use.

    Warts can be (and are) listed independently, to reduce
    potential testing and deployment gliches. A listed
    wart doesn't guarantee radiated compliance, only facilitates
    conducted performance on that one, main, port.

    All of the EMC tests still needs to be done even if you use a wart.
    But LVD (safety) becomes a lot easier, if it's below 15W consumption (no glow-wire test etc)

    Somebody was talking about 48V warts. Some standards only allow 24V (for
    wet environments), and 32V for certain parts of the world

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Chris Jones@21:1/5 to john larkin on Sat Oct 12 21:06:32 2024
    On 12/10/2024 6:20 am, john larkin wrote:
    On Fri, 11 Oct 2024 20:59:09 +0200, Klaus Vestergaard Kragelund <klauskvik@hotmail.com> wrote:

    On 10-10-2024 23:11, john larkin wrote:
    On Thu, 10 Oct 2024 13:41:07 -0700, Don Y
    <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:

    On 10/9/2024 4:03 PM, bitrex wrote:
    What's the deal with the "CPU board" exemption?

    "CPU board. A circuit board that contains a microprocessor, or frequency >>>>> determining circuitry for the microprocessor, the primary function of which is
    to execute user-provided programming, but not including:
    A circuit board that contains only a microprocessor intended to operate under
    the primary control or instruction of a microprocessor external to such a >>>>> circuit board; or
    A circuit board that is a dedicated controller for a storage or input/output
    device."

    So if one sells a board that has say a PIC on it and some support logic, and
    the 9kHz+ signals are all internal to the uP (self-clock), but it's otherwise a
    functionally complete design other than it's not in a housing, is that an >>>>> exempt product?

    Who is your customer? If you are selling it as a *product*,
    it is not a *compliant* product so your customer inherits
    no certifications (because there are none).

    If your customer integrates it into *his* product, then
    the responsibility for "product certification" falls on him
    (so, you have saved *yourself* a few pennies on the certification
    process and left him with any "problems" that your board may
    pose to *his* certification).

    A few pennies for a certified test lab to do full certs?


    If you are selling to hobbyists, you *may* be able to get by
    as a noncompliant product (the first case, above) -- so long
    as none of your (few?) customers finds themselves drawing
    the ire of neighbors, etc. when your device interferes with
    their pursuit of life, liberty and happiness.

    But, you are still exposed as the seller of that noncompliant
    product. How likely will your customers "have your back"
    if things get sticky?

    In the latter case, your customer (integrator) will *likely*
    be thankful for any steps you have taken to certify your
    "component" as he goes about looking for certification on
    *his* composite system.

    Why do you think so many products are sold with El Cheapo,
    off-brand wall warts instead of taking the power supply
    design *into* the overall product?

    A wart relieves one of all the AC-line safety certifications. There
    are some big warts these days, including 48v ones.


    If your product can power usage is larger than 15W, then you get close
    to nothing by using external SELV supply, because then a lot of the
    demands on safety are back in play

    One can resell a cheap wart with the usual molded-in (usually fake)
    UN/CE/CSA markings, or let the customer buy their own wart.



    Lastly, it's just "good engineering" -- and great experience -- to
    go through the process so you know what to *avoid* in your
    future designs. (ditto for safety requirements)

    Increasingly, I am seeing extra scrutiny on devices that CAN "talk"
    to ensure they aren't talking to anyone that they can't *justify*.
    "Why are you phoning home?" "Why are you initiating HTTP requests?"
    "Why are you trying to resolve some oddball domain name?"

    [These, of course, are a lot harder to "guarantee" without (and
    even *despite*!) releasing full sources. Especially for OTS/FOSS
    OSs that may have been preconfigured (for your convenience) to
    support services having communications requirements that you
    of which you may be ignorant!]

    Software certs on top of hardware certs?


    Assume your customer is going to need/want to certify his
    use of your device and give him a leg up in that process,
    pre-sale.

    For a small company making a modest number of some test instrument,
    full certs will multiply development cost. That may be why I don't see
    a lot of small instrument companies in europe.

    The guys I was working with in Oxford laughed at me when I asked if
    our atom probe system would need to be CE tested. "CE means Cant
    Enforce."


    Some just takes the risks. If you are caught it can be an expensive
    risk. On the other hand, I have never heard of a case where the company
    went bankrupt. Have heard of large fines, but nothing that killed the
    company

    What's crazy is how expensive the CE specs are. I can buy one PDF for
    $600, and it will reference a bunch of others. Recursively.

    These specs have the force of law. It's like being forced to pay to
    know what's legal or not.



    The standards bodies are parasites on society, as bad as the worst
    academic publishers. The standards committees are composed of
    volunteers, often working for universities or companies who pay their
    salaries, but never paid by the standards body for their free labour.
    Then the standards are copyrighted and sold at a huge profit, often to
    the same organisations whose experts contributed all of the value
    incorporated in the standards. The standards bodies are generally
    non-profit organisations, and they ensure this non-profit characteristic
    by increasing the pay of their directors until they run out of profit.

    The standards become referenced in laws, and thereby have the force of
    law, but are copyrighted by a private entity, and not even the
    politicians writing the laws incorporating these standards can read them without paying.

    Do not ever volunteer your time to work on a proprietary standard.

    Here is a nice video by Carl Malamud (of https://public.resource.org/ ): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tOJdGaMvVw

    He had a legal victory: There has been some European court decision that
    in future they will have to allow public access to standards written
    into law:

    https://www.heise.de/news/EuGH-Entscheid-Europaeische-Normen-muessen-gratis-zugaenglich-sein-9646757.html

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From john larkin@21:1/5 to klauskvik@hotmail.com on Sat Oct 12 08:22:51 2024
    On Sat, 12 Oct 2024 11:38:30 +0200, Klaus Vestergaard Kragelund <klauskvik@hotmail.com> wrote:

    On 12-10-2024 01:31, legg wrote:
    On Thu, 10 Oct 2024 14:11:35 -0700, john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com>
    wrote:

    On Thu, 10 Oct 2024 13:41:07 -0700, Don Y
    <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:

    On 10/9/2024 4:03 PM, bitrex wrote:
    What's the deal with the "CPU board" exemption?

    "CPU board. A circuit board that contains a microprocessor, or frequency >>>>> determining circuitry for the microprocessor, the primary function of which is
    to execute user-provided programming, but not including:
    A circuit board that contains only a microprocessor intended to operate under
    the primary control or instruction of a microprocessor external to such a >>>>> circuit board; or
    A circuit board that is a dedicated controller for a storage or input/output
    device."

    So if one sells a board that has say a PIC on it and some support logic, and
    the 9kHz+ signals are all internal to the uP (self-clock), but it's otherwise a
    functionally complete design other than it's not in a housing, is that an >>>>> exempt product?

    Who is your customer? If you are selling it as a *product*,
    it is not a *compliant* product so your customer inherits
    no certifications (because there are none).

    If your customer integrates it into *his* product, then
    the responsibility for "product certification" falls on him
    (so, you have saved *yourself* a few pennies on the certification
    process and left him with any "problems" that your board may
    pose to *his* certification).

    A few pennies for a certified test lab to do full certs?


    If you are selling to hobbyists, you *may* be able to get by
    as a noncompliant product (the first case, above) -- so long
    as none of your (few?) customers finds themselves drawing
    the ire of neighbors, etc. when your device interferes with
    their pursuit of life, liberty and happiness.

    But, you are still exposed as the seller of that noncompliant
    product. How likely will your customers "have your back"
    if things get sticky?

    In the latter case, your customer (integrator) will *likely*
    be thankful for any steps you have taken to certify your
    "component" as he goes about looking for certification on
    *his* composite system.

    Why do you think so many products are sold with El Cheapo,
    off-brand wall warts instead of taking the power supply
    design *into* the overall product?

    A wart relieves one of all the AC-line safety certifications. There
    are some big warts these days, including 48v ones.

    One can resell a cheap wart with the usual molded-in (usually fake)
    UN/CE/CSA markings, or let the customer buy their own wart.


    A wart used in an EMC certification becomes part of it. Hence
    mrfs listing and retailing part numbers for suitable use.

    Warts can be (and are) listed independently, to reduce
    potential testing and deployment gliches. A listed
    wart doesn't guarantee radiated compliance, only facilitates
    conducted performance on that one, main, port.

    All of the EMC tests still needs to be done even if you use a wart.
    But LVD (safety) becomes a lot easier, if it's below 15W consumption (no >glow-wire test etc)

    Somebody was talking about 48V warts. Some standards only allow 24V (for
    wet environments), and 32V for certain parts of the world


    48 is super common now. All our phones are PoE powered, which is
    typically about 54 volts. Digikey sells warts up to 65.

    The phones are cool. I can take one to Hawaii and plug it in and it
    works just like it does here.

    I imagine that europe has tens, maybe hundreds of millions of PoE
    devices with the chinese version of the CE mark molded into the case.

    So if european manufacturers realy have to do all the CE certs and
    testing, they have one more reason that they can't compete with
    imports.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From bitrex@21:1/5 to john larkin on Sat Oct 12 12:25:27 2024
    On 10/12/2024 11:22 AM, john larkin wrote:

    48 is super common now. All our phones are PoE powered, which is
    typically about 54 volts. Digikey sells warts up to 65.

    The phones are cool. I can take one to Hawaii and plug it in and it
    works just like it does here.

    I imagine that europe has tens, maybe hundreds of millions of PoE
    devices with the chinese version of the CE mark molded into the case.

    So if european manufacturers realy have to do all the CE certs and
    testing, they have one more reason that they can't compete with
    imports.


    So as of 2019 it looks like the US rules are similar to the European
    "can't enforce" rules in that the manufacturer takes responsibility for everything and it's up to the mfgr how and what tests they perform to
    determine compliance:

    <https://www.electronicdesign.com/technologies/test-measurement/article/21209868/recent-developments-in-emc-legislation>

    This makes it sound like it's not too expensive to do some basic
    compliance tests on a small-volume product in house:

    <https://incompliancemag.com/emc-bench-notes-how-to-use-spectrum-analyzers-for-emc/>

    Need a 1 GHz-ish spectrum analyzer at least as the main tool which
    aren't exorbitantly expensive nowadays.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From john larkin@21:1/5 to bitrex on Sat Oct 12 10:07:18 2024
    On Sat, 12 Oct 2024 12:25:27 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

    On 10/12/2024 11:22 AM, john larkin wrote:

    48 is super common now. All our phones are PoE powered, which is
    typically about 54 volts. Digikey sells warts up to 65.

    The phones are cool. I can take one to Hawaii and plug it in and it
    works just like it does here.

    I imagine that europe has tens, maybe hundreds of millions of PoE
    devices with the chinese version of the CE mark molded into the case.

    So if european manufacturers realy have to do all the CE certs and
    testing, they have one more reason that they can't compete with
    imports.


    So as of 2019 it looks like the US rules are similar to the European
    "can't enforce" rules in that the manufacturer takes responsibility for >everything and it's up to the mfgr how and what tests they perform to >determine compliance:

    <https://www.electronicdesign.com/technologies/test-measurement/article/21209868/recent-developments-in-emc-legislation>

    This makes it sound like it's not too expensive to do some basic
    compliance tests on a small-volume product in house:

    <https://incompliancemag.com/emc-bench-notes-how-to-use-spectrum-analyzers-for-emc/>

    Need a 1 GHz-ish spectrum analyzer at least as the main tool which
    aren't exorbitantly expensive nowadays.

    I can buy a spectrum analyzer and a surfboard antenna for under $1000,
    and can take a product out in the country and do an open-field test
    and crudely ballpark its EMI signature.

    CE requires screen room testing and more quantitative measurement.

    The reality today is that few products are honestly certified for EMI
    or safety, and life goes on pretty well. If a product causes massive
    EMI problems or hurts people, civil and criminal liabilities apply.

    It's impressive how few EMI problems there are in real life.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Joe Gwinn@21:1/5 to klauskvik@hotmail.com on Sat Oct 12 13:11:02 2024
    On Sat, 12 Oct 2024 11:38:30 +0200, Klaus Vestergaard Kragelund <klauskvik@hotmail.com> wrote:

    On 12-10-2024 01:31, legg wrote:
    On Thu, 10 Oct 2024 14:11:35 -0700, john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com>
    wrote:

    On Thu, 10 Oct 2024 13:41:07 -0700, Don Y
    <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:

    On 10/9/2024 4:03 PM, bitrex wrote:
    What's the deal with the "CPU board" exemption?

    "CPU board. A circuit board that contains a microprocessor, or frequency >>>>> determining circuitry for the microprocessor, the primary function of which is
    to execute user-provided programming, but not including:
    A circuit board that contains only a microprocessor intended to operate under
    the primary control or instruction of a microprocessor external to such a >>>>> circuit board; or
    A circuit board that is a dedicated controller for a storage or input/output
    device."

    So if one sells a board that has say a PIC on it and some support logic, and
    the 9kHz+ signals are all internal to the uP (self-clock), but it's otherwise a
    functionally complete design other than it's not in a housing, is that an >>>>> exempt product?

    Who is your customer? If you are selling it as a *product*,
    it is not a *compliant* product so your customer inherits
    no certifications (because there are none).

    If your customer integrates it into *his* product, then
    the responsibility for "product certification" falls on him
    (so, you have saved *yourself* a few pennies on the certification
    process and left him with any "problems" that your board may
    pose to *his* certification).

    A few pennies for a certified test lab to do full certs?


    If you are selling to hobbyists, you *may* be able to get by
    as a noncompliant product (the first case, above) -- so long
    as none of your (few?) customers finds themselves drawing
    the ire of neighbors, etc. when your device interferes with
    their pursuit of life, liberty and happiness.

    But, you are still exposed as the seller of that noncompliant
    product. How likely will your customers "have your back"
    if things get sticky?

    In the latter case, your customer (integrator) will *likely*
    be thankful for any steps you have taken to certify your
    "component" as he goes about looking for certification on
    *his* composite system.

    Why do you think so many products are sold with El Cheapo,
    off-brand wall warts instead of taking the power supply
    design *into* the overall product?

    A wart relieves one of all the AC-line safety certifications. There
    are some big warts these days, including 48v ones.

    One can resell a cheap wart with the usual molded-in (usually fake)
    UN/CE/CSA markings, or let the customer buy their own wart.


    A wart used in an EMC certification becomes part of it. Hence
    mrfs listing and retailing part numbers for suitable use.

    Warts can be (and are) listed independently, to reduce
    potential testing and deployment gliches. A listed
    wart doesn't guarantee radiated compliance, only facilitates
    conducted performance on that one, main, port.

    All of the EMC tests still needs to be done even if you use a wart.
    But LVD (safety) becomes a lot easier, if it's below 15W consumption (no >glow-wire test etc)

    Somebody was talking about 48V warts. Some standards only allow 24V (for
    wet environments), and 32V for certain parts of the world

    In these certain parts of the world, what do they use for telephones?
    The standard central office batteries were and still are 48 Vdc. Which
    is why the electrical codes in the US and EU ignore anything below 50
    Volts or so.

    Only very recently are cellphones taking over.

    Joe Gwinn

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From john larkin@21:1/5 to All on Sat Oct 12 10:47:24 2024
    On Sat, 12 Oct 2024 13:11:02 -0400, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net>
    wrote:

    On Sat, 12 Oct 2024 11:38:30 +0200, Klaus Vestergaard Kragelund ><klauskvik@hotmail.com> wrote:

    On 12-10-2024 01:31, legg wrote:
    On Thu, 10 Oct 2024 14:11:35 -0700, john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com>
    wrote:

    On Thu, 10 Oct 2024 13:41:07 -0700, Don Y
    <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:

    On 10/9/2024 4:03 PM, bitrex wrote:
    What's the deal with the "CPU board" exemption?

    "CPU board. A circuit board that contains a microprocessor, or frequency >>>>>> determining circuitry for the microprocessor, the primary function of which is
    to execute user-provided programming, but not including:
    A circuit board that contains only a microprocessor intended to operate under
    the primary control or instruction of a microprocessor external to such a
    circuit board; or
    A circuit board that is a dedicated controller for a storage or input/output
    device."

    So if one sells a board that has say a PIC on it and some support logic, and
    the 9kHz+ signals are all internal to the uP (self-clock), but it's otherwise a
    functionally complete design other than it's not in a housing, is that an
    exempt product?

    Who is your customer? If you are selling it as a *product*,
    it is not a *compliant* product so your customer inherits
    no certifications (because there are none).

    If your customer integrates it into *his* product, then
    the responsibility for "product certification" falls on him
    (so, you have saved *yourself* a few pennies on the certification
    process and left him with any "problems" that your board may
    pose to *his* certification).

    A few pennies for a certified test lab to do full certs?


    If you are selling to hobbyists, you *may* be able to get by
    as a noncompliant product (the first case, above) -- so long
    as none of your (few?) customers finds themselves drawing
    the ire of neighbors, etc. when your device interferes with
    their pursuit of life, liberty and happiness.

    But, you are still exposed as the seller of that noncompliant
    product. How likely will your customers "have your back"
    if things get sticky?

    In the latter case, your customer (integrator) will *likely*
    be thankful for any steps you have taken to certify your
    "component" as he goes about looking for certification on
    *his* composite system.

    Why do you think so many products are sold with El Cheapo,
    off-brand wall warts instead of taking the power supply
    design *into* the overall product?

    A wart relieves one of all the AC-line safety certifications. There
    are some big warts these days, including 48v ones.

    One can resell a cheap wart with the usual molded-in (usually fake)
    UN/CE/CSA markings, or let the customer buy their own wart.


    A wart used in an EMC certification becomes part of it. Hence
    mrfs listing and retailing part numbers for suitable use.

    Warts can be (and are) listed independently, to reduce
    potential testing and deployment gliches. A listed
    wart doesn't guarantee radiated compliance, only facilitates
    conducted performance on that one, main, port.

    All of the EMC tests still needs to be done even if you use a wart.
    But LVD (safety) becomes a lot easier, if it's below 15W consumption (no >>glow-wire test etc)

    Somebody was talking about 48V warts. Some standards only allow 24V (for >>wet environments), and 32V for certain parts of the world

    In these certain parts of the world, what do they use for telephones?
    The standard central office batteries were and still are 48 Vdc. Which
    is why the electrical codes in the US and EU ignore anything below 50
    Volts or so.

    Only very recently are cellphones taking over.

    Joe Gwinn

    At work, we use PoE phones, through the internet. The PoE switches
    typically supply about 54 volts. (I've recently been testing PoE power
    pickoff bricks.)

    At home, we use cell phones. Our old Bell System phone number was
    converted to free service over our cable modem, and probably still
    works, but we unplugged the phones because it was mostly spam calls.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Don Y@21:1/5 to Chris Jones on Sat Oct 12 13:38:50 2024
    On 10/12/2024 3:06 AM, Chris Jones wrote:
    The standards bodies are parasites on society, as bad as the worst academic publishers.

    To be fair, one typically has a financial interest (e.g., product
    development) that merits access to a "Standard". And, an organization
    really only needs *one* copy thereof.

    What I don't fathom is why academics would want to (tolerate) insert
    some "impediment" to access for their publications who adds no real
    value. There, one would think you would want as widespread distribution
    as possible (as "publication" is a metric for academics; if no one
    is *consuming* your research, what value that?). I.e., one could
    expect many individuals at a single organization to have copies of
    specific papers without even being aware of their presence in other
    cubicles.

    The standards committees are composed of volunteers, often working
    for universities or companies who pay their salaries, but never paid by the standards body for their free labour. Then the standards are copyrighted and sold at a huge profit, often to the same organisations whose experts contributed all of the value incorporated in the standards. The standards bodies are generally non-profit organisations, and they ensure this non-profit
    characteristic by increasing the pay of their directors until they run out of profit.

    In the days of dead tree publication, one could understand the need
    for someone to undertake this activity. Just typesetting a document
    can be a significant task.

    But, given the prevalence of DTP tools and the ease of self-publishing,
    this activity seems to be obsolescent -- in THAT form.

    The standards become referenced in laws, and thereby have the force of law, but
    are copyrighted by a private entity, and not even the politicians writing the laws incorporating these standards can read them without paying.

    Do not ever volunteer your time to work on a proprietary standard.

    Here is a nice video by Carl Malamud (of https://public.resource.org/ ): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tOJdGaMvVw

    He had a legal victory: There has been some European court decision that in future they will have to allow public access to standards written into law:

    https://www.heise.de/news/EuGH-Entscheid-Europaeische-Normen-muessen-gratis-zugaenglich-sein-9646757.html

    That doesn't really help folks who are *not* in europe.

    And, legislation with similar goals has often been subverted, stateside.
    The folks victimized don't seem to have a loud enough voice to make
    a difference. (witness the right-to-repair movement)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Joe Gwinn@21:1/5 to john larkin on Sat Oct 12 18:30:10 2024
    On Sat, 12 Oct 2024 10:47:24 -0700, john larkin <JL@gct.com> wrote:

    On Sat, 12 Oct 2024 13:11:02 -0400, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net>
    wrote:

    On Sat, 12 Oct 2024 11:38:30 +0200, Klaus Vestergaard Kragelund >><klauskvik@hotmail.com> wrote:

    On 12-10-2024 01:31, legg wrote:
    On Thu, 10 Oct 2024 14:11:35 -0700, john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com>
    wrote:

    On Thu, 10 Oct 2024 13:41:07 -0700, Don Y
    <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:

    On 10/9/2024 4:03 PM, bitrex wrote:
    What's the deal with the "CPU board" exemption?

    "CPU board. A circuit board that contains a microprocessor, or frequency
    determining circuitry for the microprocessor, the primary function of which is
    to execute user-provided programming, but not including:
    A circuit board that contains only a microprocessor intended to operate under
    the primary control or instruction of a microprocessor external to such a
    circuit board; or
    A circuit board that is a dedicated controller for a storage or input/output
    device."

    So if one sells a board that has say a PIC on it and some support logic, and
    the 9kHz+ signals are all internal to the uP (self-clock), but it's otherwise a
    functionally complete design other than it's not in a housing, is that an
    exempt product?

    Who is your customer? If you are selling it as a *product*,
    it is not a *compliant* product so your customer inherits
    no certifications (because there are none).

    If your customer integrates it into *his* product, then
    the responsibility for "product certification" falls on him
    (so, you have saved *yourself* a few pennies on the certification
    process and left him with any "problems" that your board may
    pose to *his* certification).

    A few pennies for a certified test lab to do full certs?


    If you are selling to hobbyists, you *may* be able to get by
    as a noncompliant product (the first case, above) -- so long
    as none of your (few?) customers finds themselves drawing
    the ire of neighbors, etc. when your device interferes with
    their pursuit of life, liberty and happiness.

    But, you are still exposed as the seller of that noncompliant
    product. How likely will your customers "have your back"
    if things get sticky?

    In the latter case, your customer (integrator) will *likely*
    be thankful for any steps you have taken to certify your
    "component" as he goes about looking for certification on
    *his* composite system.

    Why do you think so many products are sold with El Cheapo,
    off-brand wall warts instead of taking the power supply
    design *into* the overall product?

    A wart relieves one of all the AC-line safety certifications. There
    are some big warts these days, including 48v ones.

    One can resell a cheap wart with the usual molded-in (usually fake)
    UN/CE/CSA markings, or let the customer buy their own wart.


    A wart used in an EMC certification becomes part of it. Hence
    mrfs listing and retailing part numbers for suitable use.

    Warts can be (and are) listed independently, to reduce
    potential testing and deployment gliches. A listed
    wart doesn't guarantee radiated compliance, only facilitates
    conducted performance on that one, main, port.

    All of the EMC tests still needs to be done even if you use a wart.
    But LVD (safety) becomes a lot easier, if it's below 15W consumption (no >>>glow-wire test etc)

    Somebody was talking about 48V warts. Some standards only allow 24V (for >>>wet environments), and 32V for certain parts of the world

    In these certain parts of the world, what do they use for telephones?
    The standard central office batteries were and still are 48 Vdc. Which
    is why the electrical codes in the US and EU ignore anything below 50
    Volts or so.

    Only very recently are cellphones taking over.

    Joe Gwinn

    At work, we use PoE phones, through the internet. The PoE switches
    typically supply about 54 volts. (I've recently been testing PoE power >pickoff bricks.)

    Maybe someday.


    At home, we use cell phones. Our old Bell System phone number was
    converted to free service over our cable modem, and probably still
    works, but we unplugged the phones because it was mostly spam calls.

    Yeah, although I still keep the landline, even though it is now via
    fiber. I get at least as much spam and malware from iphone and
    computer.

    Joe Gwinn

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Klaus Vestergaard Kragelund@21:1/5 to Don Y on Sun Oct 13 01:02:13 2024
    On 12-10-2024 12:00, Don Y wrote:
    On 10/12/2024 2:38 AM, Klaus Vestergaard Kragelund wrote:
    Somebody was talking about 48V warts. Some standards only allow 24V
    (for wet environments), and 32V for certain parts of the world

    48V wall-warts/bricks are typically used in midspan PoE
    injectors (and as standalone power supplies for PDs
    without PSEs).  As such, almost always in dry locations.

    Can those "certain parts of the world" use PoE products
    with nominal 48VDC delivered over the twisted pairs?
    Is the limit on the "packaging" or on the potential?


    In IEC60730 (safety for household products), 2.1.5 SELV is defined as
    maximum 42V. Note states that for the US and Canada the SELV voltage is
    max 30VRMS (which equates to 42.4Vpeak). Those numbers are when dry,
    when wet it reduces to 15V/21.2V peak.

    Normally things are dry, so US is 30V. I do not know how it is possible
    to allow 48V warts.

    Searching a little, it seems the 48V systems are approved against telecommunication standards which may not use the SELV nomenclature

    NEC has higher voltages, up to 60VDC, but matters little since most
    product needs to comply to 60730/60950, and now 62368 has replaced 60950.

    The touch voltages are defined in yet another standard, IEC61201. I do
    not have access to that one.

    The 48V warts are also strange in that when the product is tested for
    peak SELV voltage a single fault must be introduced. So if you mess with
    the feedback of the SMPS, the trip voltage determines the maximum
    voltage, and that is most likely significantly higher than 48V.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Klaus Vestergaard Kragelund@21:1/5 to John R Walliker on Sun Oct 13 01:11:50 2024
    On 13-10-2024 00:30, John R Walliker wrote:
    On 12/10/2024 18:07, john larkin wrote:
    On Sat, 12 Oct 2024 12:25:27 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

    On 10/12/2024 11:22 AM, john larkin wrote:

    48 is super common now. All our phones are PoE powered, which is
    typically about 54 volts. Digikey sells warts up to 65.

    The phones are cool. I can take one to Hawaii and plug it in and it
    works just like it does here.

    I imagine that europe has tens, maybe hundreds of millions of PoE
    devices with the chinese version of the CE mark molded into the case.

    So if european manufacturers realy have to do all the CE certs and
    testing, they have one more reason that they can't compete with
    imports.


    So as of 2019 it looks like the US rules are similar to the European
    "can't enforce" rules in that the manufacturer takes responsibility for
    everything and it's up to the mfgr how and what tests they perform to
    determine compliance:

    <https://www.electronicdesign.com/technologies/test-measurement/
    article/21209868/recent-developments-in-emc-legislation>

    This makes it sound like it's not too expensive to do some basic
    compliance tests on a small-volume product in house:

    <https://incompliancemag.com/emc-bench-notes-how-to-use-spectrum-
    analyzers-for-emc/>

    Need a 1 GHz-ish spectrum analyzer at least as the main tool which
    aren't exorbitantly expensive nowadays.

    I can buy a spectrum analyzer and a surfboard antenna for under $1000,
    and can take a product out in the country and do an open-field test
    and crudely ballpark its EMI signature.

    CE requires screen room testing and more quantitative measurement.

    The reality today is that few products are honestly certified for EMI
    or safety, and life goes on pretty well. If a product causes massive
    EMI problems or hurts people, civil and criminal liabilities apply.

    My experience differs.  Every product that I have been involved
    with has been independently tested by Intertek or a test lab of
    similar status.

    I have the same experience. I have never worked on a product, or heard/experienced other fellow engineers designed products that did not
    comply to all LVD standards and EMC regulatory required tests

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From john larkin@21:1/5 to jrwalliker@gmail.com on Sat Oct 12 16:30:26 2024
    On Sat, 12 Oct 2024 23:30:46 +0100, John R Walliker
    <jrwalliker@gmail.com> wrote:

    On 12/10/2024 18:07, john larkin wrote:
    On Sat, 12 Oct 2024 12:25:27 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

    On 10/12/2024 11:22 AM, john larkin wrote:

    48 is super common now. All our phones are PoE powered, which is
    typically about 54 volts. Digikey sells warts up to 65.

    The phones are cool. I can take one to Hawaii and plug it in and it
    works just like it does here.

    I imagine that europe has tens, maybe hundreds of millions of PoE
    devices with the chinese version of the CE mark molded into the case.

    So if european manufacturers realy have to do all the CE certs and
    testing, they have one more reason that they can't compete with
    imports.


    So as of 2019 it looks like the US rules are similar to the European
    "can't enforce" rules in that the manufacturer takes responsibility for
    everything and it's up to the mfgr how and what tests they perform to
    determine compliance:

    <https://www.electronicdesign.com/technologies/test-measurement/article/21209868/recent-developments-in-emc-legislation>

    This makes it sound like it's not too expensive to do some basic
    compliance tests on a small-volume product in house:

    <https://incompliancemag.com/emc-bench-notes-how-to-use-spectrum-analyzers-for-emc/>

    Need a 1 GHz-ish spectrum analyzer at least as the main tool which
    aren't exorbitantly expensive nowadays.

    I can buy a spectrum analyzer and a surfboard antenna for under $1000,
    and can take a product out in the country and do an open-field test
    and crudely ballpark its EMI signature.

    CE requires screen room testing and more quantitative measurement.

    The reality today is that few products are honestly certified for EMI
    or safety, and life goes on pretty well. If a product causes massive
    EMI problems or hurts people, civil and criminal liabilities apply.

    My experience differs. Every product that I have been involved
    with has been independently tested by Intertek or a test lab of
    similar status.
    It's impressive how few EMI problems there are in real life.

    Maybe that is because many products are actually tested and compliant.
    I can remember when audio equipment was very susceptible to
    interference from many sources. Those days are mostly gone.
    I have come across exceptions of course.

    John

    Most audio equipment is digital now.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Don Y@21:1/5 to Klaus Vestergaard Kragelund on Sat Oct 12 16:33:11 2024
    On 10/12/2024 4:02 PM, Klaus Vestergaard Kragelund wrote:
    On 12-10-2024 12:00, Don Y wrote:
    On 10/12/2024 2:38 AM, Klaus Vestergaard Kragelund wrote:
    Somebody was talking about 48V warts. Some standards only allow 24V (for wet
    environments), and 32V for certain parts of the world

    48V wall-warts/bricks are typically used in midspan PoE
    injectors (and as standalone power supplies for PDs
    without PSEs).  As such, almost always in dry locations.

    Can those "certain parts of the world" use PoE products
    with nominal 48VDC delivered over the twisted pairs?
    Is the limit on the "packaging" or on the potential?

    In IEC60730 (safety for household products), 2.1.5 SELV is defined as maximum 42V. Note states that for the US and Canada the SELV voltage is max 30VRMS (which equates to 42.4Vpeak). Those numbers are when dry, when wet it reduces to 15V/21.2V peak.

    Normally things are dry, so US is 30V. I do not know how it is possible to allow 48V warts.

    Searching a little, it seems the 48V systems are approved against telecommunication standards which may not use the SELV nomenclature

    NEC has higher voltages, up to 60VDC, but matters little since most product needs to comply to 60730/60950, and now 62368 has replaced 60950.

    The touch voltages are defined in yet another standard, IEC61201. I do not have
    access to that one.

    The 48V warts are also strange in that when the product is tested for peak SELV
    voltage a single fault must be introduced. So if you mess with the feedback of
    the SMPS, the trip voltage determines the maximum voltage, and that is most likely significantly higher than 48V.

    But, is the constraint on the "wall wart package"? Or, on the presence
    of ~48V on conductors that are accessible to the user?

    E.g., an N-port PoE switch looks like the (output) power cords from
    N 48V wall warts. (technically, this is only the case while the
    cables are physically connected to their PDs as the PSE should
    power down the unconnected port).

    Because the switch "isn't a wall wart", is it exempt?

    Or, is all this moot because PoE switches aren't "household kit"?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Sloman@21:1/5 to john larkin on Sun Oct 13 12:36:22 2024
    On 13/10/2024 10:30 am, john larkin wrote:
    On Sat, 12 Oct 2024 23:30:46 +0100, John R Walliker
    <jrwalliker@gmail.com> wrote:

    On 12/10/2024 18:07, john larkin wrote:
    On Sat, 12 Oct 2024 12:25:27 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

    On 10/12/2024 11:22 AM, john larkin wrote:

    48 is super common now. All our phones are PoE powered, which is
    typically about 54 volts. Digikey sells warts up to 65.

    The phones are cool. I can take one to Hawaii and plug it in and it
    works just like it does here.

    I imagine that europe has tens, maybe hundreds of millions of PoE
    devices with the chinese version of the CE mark molded into the case. >>>>>
    So if european manufacturers realy have to do all the CE certs and
    testing, they have one more reason that they can't compete with
    imports.


    So as of 2019 it looks like the US rules are similar to the European
    "can't enforce" rules in that the manufacturer takes responsibility for >>>> everything and it's up to the mfgr how and what tests they perform to
    determine compliance:

    <https://www.electronicdesign.com/technologies/test-measurement/article/21209868/recent-developments-in-emc-legislation>

    This makes it sound like it's not too expensive to do some basic
    compliance tests on a small-volume product in house:

    <https://incompliancemag.com/emc-bench-notes-how-to-use-spectrum-analyzers-for-emc/>

    Need a 1 GHz-ish spectrum analyzer at least as the main tool which
    aren't exorbitantly expensive nowadays.

    I can buy a spectrum analyzer and a surfboard antenna for under $1000,
    and can take a product out in the country and do an open-field test
    and crudely ballpark its EMI signature.

    CE requires screen room testing and more quantitative measurement.

    The reality today is that few products are honestly certified for EMI
    or safety, and life goes on pretty well. If a product causes massive
    EMI problems or hurts people, civil and criminal liabilities apply.

    My experience differs. Every product that I have been involved
    with has been independently tested by Intertek or a test lab of
    similar status.
    > It's impressive how few EMI problems there are in real life.

    Maybe that is because many products are actually tested and compliant.
    I can remember when audio equipment was very susceptible to
    interference from many sources. Those days are mostly gone.
    I have come across exceptions of course.

    John

    Most audio equipment is digital now.

    Most of most audio equipment is digital nowadays. The inputs aren't, and neither are the outputs. Domestic audio equipment usually gets it's
    input as a digital data stream - FM radio is an exception - but creating
    that input depends on analog microphones.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Sloman@21:1/5 to john larkin on Sun Oct 13 12:29:17 2024
    On 13/10/2024 2:22 am, john larkin wrote:
    On Sat, 12 Oct 2024 11:38:30 +0200, Klaus Vestergaard Kragelund <klauskvik@hotmail.com> wrote:

    On 12-10-2024 01:31, legg wrote:
    On Thu, 10 Oct 2024 14:11:35 -0700, john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com>
    wrote:

    On Thu, 10 Oct 2024 13:41:07 -0700, Don Y
    <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:

    On 10/9/2024 4:03 PM, bitrex wrote:
    What's the deal with the "CPU board" exemption?

    "CPU board. A circuit board that contains a microprocessor, or frequency >>>>>> determining circuitry for the microprocessor, the primary function of which is
    to execute user-provided programming, but not including:
    A circuit board that contains only a microprocessor intended to operate under
    the primary control or instruction of a microprocessor external to such a
    circuit board; or
    A circuit board that is a dedicated controller for a storage or input/output
    device."

    So if one sells a board that has say a PIC on it and some support logic, and
    the 9kHz+ signals are all internal to the uP (self-clock), but it's otherwise a
    functionally complete design other than it's not in a housing, is that an
    exempt product?

    Who is your customer? If you are selling it as a *product*,
    it is not a *compliant* product so your customer inherits
    no certifications (because there are none).

    If your customer integrates it into *his* product, then
    the responsibility for "product certification" falls on him
    (so, you have saved *yourself* a few pennies on the certification
    process and left him with any "problems" that your board may
    pose to *his* certification).

    A few pennies for a certified test lab to do full certs?


    If you are selling to hobbyists, you *may* be able to get by
    as a noncompliant product (the first case, above) -- so long
    as none of your (few?) customers finds themselves drawing
    the ire of neighbors, etc. when your device interferes with
    their pursuit of life, liberty and happiness.

    But, you are still exposed as the seller of that noncompliant
    product. How likely will your customers "have your back"
    if things get sticky?

    In the latter case, your customer (integrator) will *likely*
    be thankful for any steps you have taken to certify your
    "component" as he goes about looking for certification on
    *his* composite system.

    Why do you think so many products are sold with El Cheapo,
    off-brand wall warts instead of taking the power supply
    design *into* the overall product?

    A wart relieves one of all the AC-line safety certifications. There
    are some big warts these days, including 48v ones.

    One can resell a cheap wart with the usual molded-in (usually fake)
    UN/CE/CSA markings, or let the customer buy their own wart.


    A wart used in an EMC certification becomes part of it. Hence
    mrfs listing and retailing part numbers for suitable use.

    Warts can be (and are) listed independently, to reduce
    potential testing and deployment gliches. A listed
    wart doesn't guarantee radiated compliance, only facilitates
    conducted performance on that one, main, port.

    All of the EMC tests still needs to be done even if you use a wart.
    But LVD (safety) becomes a lot easier, if it's below 15W consumption (no
    glow-wire test etc)

    Somebody was talking about 48V warts. Some standards only allow 24V (for
    wet environments), and 32V for certain parts of the world


    48 is super common now. All our phones are PoE powered, which is
    typically about 54 volts. Digikey sells warts up to 65.

    The phones are cool. I can take one to Hawaii and plug it in and it
    works just like it does here.

    I imagine that Europe has tens, maybe hundreds of millions of PoE
    devices with the Chinese version of the CE mark molded into the case.

    So if European manufacturers really have to do all the CE certs and
    testing, they have one more reason that they can't compete with
    imports.

    Certification costs are trivial for mass market products. China has two advantages over Europe - the real one is that it pays it's workers less,
    and the other is that it notionally has a even bigger internal market -
    and the rule of thumb is that manufacturing at ten times the volume lets
    you halve the price. The European internal market is about 500 million
    people, and because Europeans are better paid than Chinese it would
    probably be effectively bigger if the Chinese played fair - which they
    don't.

    China does seem to go in for predatory marketing, where they subsidise a product for long enough to bankrupt foreign competition. Selective
    tariffs are an effective weapon against this tactic, but they do have to
    be used selectively, which Trump couldn't manage.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From legg@21:1/5 to lugnut808@spam.yahoo.com on Sat Oct 12 22:21:03 2024
    On Sat, 12 Oct 2024 21:06:32 +1100, Chris Jones
    <lugnut808@spam.yahoo.com> wrote:

    On 12/10/2024 6:20 am, john larkin wrote:
    On Fri, 11 Oct 2024 20:59:09 +0200, Klaus Vestergaard Kragelund
    <klauskvik@hotmail.com> wrote:

    On 10-10-2024 23:11, john larkin wrote:
    On Thu, 10 Oct 2024 13:41:07 -0700, Don Y
    <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:

    On 10/9/2024 4:03 PM, bitrex wrote:
    What's the deal with the "CPU board" exemption?

    "CPU board. A circuit board that contains a microprocessor, or frequency >>>>>> determining circuitry for the microprocessor, the primary function of which is
    to execute user-provided programming, but not including:
    A circuit board that contains only a microprocessor intended to operate under
    the primary control or instruction of a microprocessor external to such a
    circuit board; or
    A circuit board that is a dedicated controller for a storage or input/output
    device."

    So if one sells a board that has say a PIC on it and some support logic, and
    the 9kHz+ signals are all internal to the uP (self-clock), but it's otherwise a
    functionally complete design other than it's not in a housing, is that an
    exempt product?

    Who is your customer? If you are selling it as a *product*,
    it is not a *compliant* product so your customer inherits
    no certifications (because there are none).

    If your customer integrates it into *his* product, then
    the responsibility for "product certification" falls on him
    (so, you have saved *yourself* a few pennies on the certification
    process and left him with any "problems" that your board may
    pose to *his* certification).

    A few pennies for a certified test lab to do full certs?


    If you are selling to hobbyists, you *may* be able to get by
    as a noncompliant product (the first case, above) -- so long
    as none of your (few?) customers finds themselves drawing
    the ire of neighbors, etc. when your device interferes with
    their pursuit of life, liberty and happiness.

    But, you are still exposed as the seller of that noncompliant
    product. How likely will your customers "have your back"
    if things get sticky?

    In the latter case, your customer (integrator) will *likely*
    be thankful for any steps you have taken to certify your
    "component" as he goes about looking for certification on
    *his* composite system.

    Why do you think so many products are sold with El Cheapo,
    off-brand wall warts instead of taking the power supply
    design *into* the overall product?

    A wart relieves one of all the AC-line safety certifications. There
    are some big warts these days, including 48v ones.


    If your product can power usage is larger than 15W, then you get close
    to nothing by using external SELV supply, because then a lot of the
    demands on safety are back in play

    One can resell a cheap wart with the usual molded-in (usually fake)
    UN/CE/CSA markings, or let the customer buy their own wart.



    Lastly, it's just "good engineering" -- and great experience -- to
    go through the process so you know what to *avoid* in your
    future designs. (ditto for safety requirements)

    Increasingly, I am seeing extra scrutiny on devices that CAN "talk"
    to ensure they aren't talking to anyone that they can't *justify*.
    "Why are you phoning home?" "Why are you initiating HTTP requests?" >>>>> "Why are you trying to resolve some oddball domain name?"

    [These, of course, are a lot harder to "guarantee" without (and
    even *despite*!) releasing full sources. Especially for OTS/FOSS
    OSs that may have been preconfigured (for your convenience) to
    support services having communications requirements that you
    of which you may be ignorant!]

    Software certs on top of hardware certs?


    Assume your customer is going to need/want to certify his
    use of your device and give him a leg up in that process,
    pre-sale.

    For a small company making a modest number of some test instrument,
    full certs will multiply development cost. That may be why I don't see >>>> a lot of small instrument companies in europe.

    The guys I was working with in Oxford laughed at me when I asked if
    our atom probe system would need to be CE tested. "CE means Cant
    Enforce."


    Some just takes the risks. If you are caught it can be an expensive
    risk. On the other hand, I have never heard of a case where the company
    went bankrupt. Have heard of large fines, but nothing that killed the
    company

    What's crazy is how expensive the CE specs are. I can buy one PDF for
    $600, and it will reference a bunch of others. Recursively.

    These specs have the force of law. It's like being forced to pay to
    know what's legal or not.



    The standards bodies are parasites on society, as bad as the worst
    academic publishers. The standards committees are composed of
    volunteers, often working for universities or companies who pay their >salaries, but never paid by the standards body for their free labour.
    Then the standards are copyrighted and sold at a huge profit, often to
    the same organisations whose experts contributed all of the value >incorporated in the standards. The standards bodies are generally
    non-profit organisations, and they ensure this non-profit characteristic
    by increasing the pay of their directors until they run out of profit.

    Standards have become an established method of protecting local
    industry from lower cost imported goods from less socially
    responsible sources.

    It's one way of encouraging social responsibility and raising
    technical awareness abroad, if you are an important market for
    the products of secondary industry.

    They try to do this with tertiary industries (financial and
    service), but the weasels generally tap dance faster than
    the regulators, have more money and less conscience.

    Hence CE.

    RL

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jan Panteltje@21:1/5 to joegwinn@comcast.net on Sun Oct 13 05:33:59 2024
    On a sunny day (Sat, 12 Oct 2024 18:30:10 -0400) it happened Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net> wrote in <uvtlgj5q29egafrdq6ir6u3dvv07ovk1c2@4ax.com>:

    On Sat, 12 Oct 2024 10:47:24 -0700, john larkin <JL@gct.com> wrote:

    On Sat, 12 Oct 2024 13:11:02 -0400, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net>
    wrote:

    On Sat, 12 Oct 2024 11:38:30 +0200, Klaus Vestergaard Kragelund >>><klauskvik@hotmail.com> wrote:

    On 12-10-2024 01:31, legg wrote:
    On Thu, 10 Oct 2024 14:11:35 -0700, john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> >>>>> wrote:

    On Thu, 10 Oct 2024 13:41:07 -0700, Don Y
    <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:

    On 10/9/2024 4:03 PM, bitrex wrote:
    What's the deal with the "CPU board" exemption?

    "CPU board. A circuit board that contains a microprocessor, or frequency
    determining circuitry for the microprocessor, the primary function of which is
    to execute user-provided programming, but not including:
    A circuit board that contains only a microprocessor intended to operate under
    the primary control or instruction of a microprocessor external to such a
    circuit board; or
    A circuit board that is a dedicated controller for a storage or input/output
    device."

    So if one sells a board that has say a PIC on it and some support logic, and
    the 9kHz+ signals are all internal to the uP (self-clock), but it's otherwise a
    functionally complete design other than it's not in a housing, is that an
    exempt product?

    Who is your customer? If you are selling it as a *product*,
    it is not a *compliant* product so your customer inherits
    no certifications (because there are none).

    If your customer integrates it into *his* product, then
    the responsibility for "product certification" falls on him
    (so, you have saved *yourself* a few pennies on the certification >>>>>>> process and left him with any "problems" that your board may
    pose to *his* certification).

    A few pennies for a certified test lab to do full certs?


    If you are selling to hobbyists, you *may* be able to get by
    as a noncompliant product (the first case, above) -- so long
    as none of your (few?) customers finds themselves drawing
    the ire of neighbors, etc. when your device interferes with
    their pursuit of life, liberty and happiness.

    But, you are still exposed as the seller of that noncompliant
    product. How likely will your customers "have your back"
    if things get sticky?

    In the latter case, your customer (integrator) will *likely*
    be thankful for any steps you have taken to certify your
    "component" as he goes about looking for certification on
    *his* composite system.

    Why do you think so many products are sold with El Cheapo,
    off-brand wall warts instead of taking the power supply
    design *into* the overall product?

    A wart relieves one of all the AC-line safety certifications. There >>>>>> are some big warts these days, including 48v ones.

    One can resell a cheap wart with the usual molded-in (usually fake) >>>>>> UN/CE/CSA markings, or let the customer buy their own wart.


    A wart used in an EMC certification becomes part of it. Hence
    mrfs listing and retailing part numbers for suitable use.

    Warts can be (and are) listed independently, to reduce
    potential testing and deployment gliches. A listed
    wart doesn't guarantee radiated compliance, only facilitates
    conducted performance on that one, main, port.

    All of the EMC tests still needs to be done even if you use a wart.
    But LVD (safety) becomes a lot easier, if it's below 15W consumption (no >>>>glow-wire test etc)

    Somebody was talking about 48V warts. Some standards only allow 24V (for >>>>wet environments), and 32V for certain parts of the world

    In these certain parts of the world, what do they use for telephones?
    The standard central office batteries were and still are 48 Vdc. Which
    is why the electrical codes in the US and EU ignore anything below 50 >>>Volts or so.

    Only very recently are cellphones taking over.

    Joe Gwinn

    At work, we use PoE phones, through the internet. The PoE switches >>typically supply about 54 volts. (I've recently been testing PoE power >>pickoff bricks.)

    Maybe someday.


    At home, we use cell phones. Our old Bell System phone number was
    converted to free service over our cable modem, and probably still
    works, but we unplugged the phones because it was mostly spam calls.

    Yeah, although I still keep the landline, even though it is now via
    fiber. I get at least as much spam and malware from iphone and
    computer.

    I left the landline many years ago
    Several phones and 4G USB sticks for internet here.
    Works everywhere, put USB stick in laptop and you are online almost everywhere in Europe in seconds.
    No need for WiFi access points, those are not secure anyways.
    https://www.mobielverbinden.nl/p/huawei-e3372h-325-4g-lte-usb-dongle-79328

    Not much spam on the phone, just that detonation message few days ago
    but that did not work with this phone.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Klaus Vestergaard Kragelund@21:1/5 to Don Y on Sun Oct 13 13:15:00 2024
    On 13-10-2024 01:33, Don Y wrote:
    On 10/12/2024 4:02 PM, Klaus Vestergaard Kragelund wrote:
    On 12-10-2024 12:00, Don Y wrote:
    On 10/12/2024 2:38 AM, Klaus Vestergaard Kragelund wrote:
    Somebody was talking about 48V warts. Some standards only allow 24V
    (for wet environments), and 32V for certain parts of the world

    48V wall-warts/bricks are typically used in midspan PoE
    injectors (and as standalone power supplies for PDs
    without PSEs).  As such, almost always in dry locations.

    Can those "certain parts of the world" use PoE products
    with nominal 48VDC delivered over the twisted pairs?
    Is the limit on the "packaging" or on the potential?

    In IEC60730 (safety for household products), 2.1.5 SELV is defined as
    maximum 42V. Note states that for the US and Canada the SELV voltage
    is max 30VRMS (which equates to 42.4Vpeak). Those numbers are when
    dry, when wet it reduces to 15V/21.2V peak.

    Normally things are dry, so US is 30V. I do not know how it is
    possible to allow 48V warts.

    Searching a little, it seems the 48V systems are approved against
    telecommunication standards which may not use the SELV nomenclature

    NEC has higher voltages, up to 60VDC, but matters little since most
    product needs to comply to 60730/60950, and now 62368 has replaced 60950.

    The touch voltages are defined in yet another standard, IEC61201. I do
    not have access to that one.

    The 48V warts are also strange in that when the product is tested for
    peak SELV voltage a single fault must be introduced. So if you mess
    with the feedback of the SMPS, the trip voltage determines the maximum
    voltage, and that is most likely significantly higher than 48V.

    But, is the constraint on the "wall wart package"?  Or, on the presence
    of ~48V on conductors that are accessible to the user?

    POE voltage is directly on the pins of the ethernet interface. The
    designer insources the external wart with 48V nominal voltage (which can
    be more under single fault)

    There may be a loop hole

    If you ship the adapter/wart with the product you should test as a
    system, right?

    But if you just state it needs 48V in, you can blame the wart
    manufacturer if it puts out more voltage.


    E.g., an N-port PoE switch looks like the (output) power cords from
    N 48V wall warts.  (technically, this is only the case while the
    cables are physically connected to their PDs as the PSE should
    power down the unconnected port).

    Because the switch "isn't a wall wart", is it exempt?

    Or, is all this moot because PoE switches aren't "household kit"?


    I just took a random POE ethernet switch which uses a 54V external adapter:

    https://www.proshop.dk/Switch/Netgear-GS110TPv3-8-Port-Gigabit-PoE-Ethernet-Smart-Switch-with-2-SFP-Ports-and-Cloud-Management/2871263

    No mention of standards in the datasheet. But found a reference in the
    hardware manual:

    https://www.downloads.netgear.com/files/GDC/GS108Tv3/GS108Tv3_GS110TPv3_GS110TPP_HIG_EN.pdf

    Page 2, link to netgears compliance document:

    https://www.netgear.com/about/regulatory/

    Then searched for the model no in the Declaration of conformance:

    https://kb.netgear.com/11621/EU-Declarations-of-Conformity?article=11621

    Finally here:

    https://www.downloads.netgear.com/files/DoC/204-11529-04_CE_GS110TPv3_EN-EP-FR-IT-GR-SP_19SEP22.pdf?_ga=2.171448224.1872638720.1728816211-1033670545.1728816210

    Mentions use of 60950 and 62368

    I am doing EMC tests tomorrow at a test-house, so will ask them whats
    the deal ;-)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Don Y@21:1/5 to Klaus Vestergaard Kragelund on Sun Oct 13 06:34:27 2024
    On 10/13/2024 4:15 AM, Klaus Vestergaard Kragelund wrote:
    In IEC60730 (safety for household products), 2.1.5 SELV is defined as
    maximum 42V. Note states that for the US and Canada the SELV voltage is max >>> 30VRMS (which equates to 42.4Vpeak). Those numbers are when dry, when wet it
    reduces to 15V/21.2V peak.

    Normally things are dry, so US is 30V. I do not know how it is possible to >>> allow 48V warts.

    Searching a little, it seems the 48V systems are approved against
    telecommunication standards which may not use the SELV nomenclature

    NEC has higher voltages, up to 60VDC, but matters little since most product >>> needs to comply to 60730/60950, and now 62368 has replaced 60950.

    The touch voltages are defined in yet another standard, IEC61201. I do not >>> have access to that one.

    The 48V warts are also strange in that when the product is tested for peak >>> SELV voltage a single fault must be introduced. So if you mess with the
    feedback of the SMPS, the trip voltage determines the maximum voltage, and >>> that is most likely significantly higher than 48V.

    But, is the constraint on the "wall wart package"?  Or, on the presence
    of ~48V on conductors that are accessible to the user?

    POE voltage is directly on the pins of the ethernet interface.

    Yes. And those pins are physically accessible on the exposed 8P8C
    on the end of the patch cord that connects to the PD. (though power
    /should/ be switched off by the PSE when the load "disappears")
    Imagine a pet chewing a flimsy patch cord (or child putting a faulted
    end in its mouth!)

    The designer
    insources the external wart with 48V nominal voltage (which can be more under single fault)

    There may be a loop hole

    If you ship the adapter/wart with the product you should test as a system, right?

    A PoE *switch* can have the power supply built in -- no wall wart. Yet,
    the same potential fault conditions at the end of that patch cord.

    But if you just state it needs 48V in, you can blame the wart manufacturer if it puts out more voltage.

    E.g., an N-port PoE switch looks like the (output) power cords from
    N 48V wall warts.  (technically, this is only the case while the
    cables are physically connected to their PDs as the PSE should
    power down the unconnected port).

    Because the switch "isn't a wall wart", is it exempt?

    Or, is all this moot because PoE switches aren't "household kit"?

    I just took a random POE ethernet switch which uses a 54V external adapter: https://www.proshop.dk/Switch/Netgear-GS110TPv3-8-Port-Gigabit-PoE-Ethernet-Smart-Switch-with-2-SFP-Ports-and-Cloud-Management/2871263

    No mention of standards in the datasheet. But found a reference in the hardware
    manual: https://www.downloads.netgear.com/files/GDC/GS108Tv3/GS108Tv3_GS110TPv3_GS110TPP_HIG_EN.pdf

    Page 2, link to netgears compliance document: https://www.netgear.com/about/regulatory/

    Then searched for the model no in the Declaration of conformance: https://kb.netgear.com/11621/EU-Declarations-of-Conformity?article=11621

    Finally here:

    (sheesh!)

    https://www.downloads.netgear.com/files/DoC/204-11529-04_CE_GS110TPv3_EN-EP-FR-IT-GR-SP_19SEP22.pdf?_ga=2.171448224.1872638720.1728816211-1033670545.1728816210

    Mentions use of 60950 and 62368

    I am doing EMC tests tomorrow at a test-house, so will ask them whats the deal ;-)

    It will be amusing if they've *not* thought about it!

    Be sure to ask what *they* think PoE (and PoE+ and PoDL) "means" as there
    are multiple standards as well as legacy implementations.

    I think it is still relatively rare in "homes" (our modem is PoE
    powered) but likely to become increasingly so as it makes
    powering devices less annoying than having wall warts *at* each
    such powered device. Likely for new construction as running cable
    is too costly after-the-fact in most homes.

    [Good luck with your testing!]

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From john larkin@21:1/5 to klauskvik@hotmail.com on Sun Oct 13 08:34:07 2024
    On Sun, 13 Oct 2024 01:02:13 +0200, Klaus Vestergaard Kragelund <klauskvik@hotmail.com> wrote:

    On 12-10-2024 12:00, Don Y wrote:
    On 10/12/2024 2:38 AM, Klaus Vestergaard Kragelund wrote:
    Somebody was talking about 48V warts. Some standards only allow 24V
    (for wet environments), and 32V for certain parts of the world

    48V wall-warts/bricks are typically used in midspan PoE
    injectors (and as standalone power supplies for PDs
    without PSEs).  As such, almost always in dry locations.

    Can those "certain parts of the world" use PoE products
    with nominal 48VDC delivered over the twisted pairs?
    Is the limit on the "packaging" or on the potential?


    In IEC60730 (safety for household products), 2.1.5 SELV is defined as
    maximum 42V. Note states that for the US and Canada the SELV voltage is
    max 30VRMS (which equates to 42.4Vpeak). Those numbers are when dry,
    when wet it reduces to 15V/21.2V peak.

    Normally things are dry, so US is 30V. I do not know how it is possible
    to allow 48V warts.

    Searching a little, it seems the 48V systems are approved against >telecommunication standards which may not use the SELV nomenclature

    NEC has higher voltages, up to 60VDC, but matters little since most
    product needs to comply to 60730/60950, and now 62368 has replaced 60950.

    The touch voltages are defined in yet another standard, IEC61201. I do
    not have access to that one.

    Just buy and read all the standards.


    The 48V warts are also strange in that when the product is tested for
    peak SELV voltage a single fault must be introduced. So if you mess with
    the feedback of the SMPS, the trip voltage determines the maximum
    voltage, and that is most likely significantly higher than 48V.

    I tried wet fingers of two hands grabbing leads from a DC power
    supply. That was unbearable at 90 volts.

    I'm designing some boxes that will run from 10 to 60 volts, with a
    note that europeans should stay below 12 to be safe and legal.

    My Pockels Cell driver goes directly from a 48 volt wart to 1400v, MHz
    pulses in a sort of flyback circuit, with SiC semiconductors.

    https://www.highlandtechnology.com/Product/T850

    48 is cool, and there are a lot of nice high-voltage buck switcher
    chips around lately. TI has some SOT-23s, like LMR51610.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Sloman@21:1/5 to Don Y on Mon Oct 14 02:56:18 2024
    On 13/10/2024 7:38 am, Don Y wrote:
    On 10/12/2024 3:06 AM, Chris Jones wrote:
    The standards bodies are parasites on society, as bad as the worst
    academic publishers.

    To be fair, one typically has a financial interest (e.g., product development) that merits access to a "Standard".  And, an organization really only needs *one* copy thereof.

    What I don't fathom is why academics would want to (tolerate) insert
    some "impediment" to access for their publications who adds no real
    value.  There, one would think you would want as widespread distribution
    as possible (as "publication" is a metric for academics; if no one
    is *consuming* your research, what value that?).  I.e., one could
    expect many individuals at a single organization to have copies of
    specific papers without even being aware of their presence in other
    cubicles.

    The standards committees are composed of volunteers, often working for
    universities or companies who pay their salaries, but never paid by
    the standards body for their free labour. Then the standards are
    copyrighted and sold at a huge profit, often to the same organisations
    whose experts contributed all of the value incorporated in the
    standards. The standards bodies are generally non-profit
    organisations, and they ensure this non-profit characteristic by
    increasing the pay of their directors until they run out of profit.

    In the days of dead tree publication, one could understand the need
    for someone to undertake this activity.  Just typesetting a document
    can be a significant task.

    Peer-reviewed publication depends of the editors of the journal finding reviewers (who don't get paid for the work, but do get early access to a
    random sample of the literature that might interest them).

    But, given the prevalence of DTP tools and the ease of self-publishing,
    this activity seems to be obsolescent -- in THAT form.

    Nobody wants to published papers in journals that don't get read, and
    the journals that have good reputations, so do get read, get the pick of
    the papers.

    The standards become referenced in laws, and thereby have the force of
    law, but are copyrighted by a private entity, and not even the
    politicians writing the laws incorporating these standards can read
    them without paying.

    Do not ever volunteer your time to work on a proprietary standard.

    Here is a nice video by Carl Malamud (of https://public.resource.org/ ):
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tOJdGaMvVw

    He had a legal victory: There has been some European court decision
    that in future they will have to allow public access to standards
    written into law:

    https://www.heise.de/news/EuGH-Entscheid-Europaeische-Normen-muessen-gratis-zugaenglich-sein-9646757.html

    That doesn't really help folks who are *not* in Europe.

    Actually, it does.

    And, legislation with similar goals has often been subverted, stateside.
    The folks victimized don't seem to have a loud enough voice to make
    a difference.  (witness the right-to-repair movement).

    The US political system is run on the basis that the people who own the country, run the country. More modern political systems do better,
    although not all that wonderfully well.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From legg@21:1/5 to All on Sun Oct 13 11:56:38 2024
    On Sat, 12 Oct 2024 13:11:02 -0400, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net>
    wrote:

    On Sat, 12 Oct 2024 11:38:30 +0200, Klaus Vestergaard Kragelund ><klauskvik@hotmail.com> wrote:

    On 12-10-2024 01:31, legg wrote:
    On Thu, 10 Oct 2024 14:11:35 -0700, john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com>
    wrote:

    On Thu, 10 Oct 2024 13:41:07 -0700, Don Y
    <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:

    On 10/9/2024 4:03 PM, bitrex wrote:
    What's the deal with the "CPU board" exemption?

    "CPU board. A circuit board that contains a microprocessor, or frequency >>>>>> determining circuitry for the microprocessor, the primary function of which is
    to execute user-provided programming, but not including:
    A circuit board that contains only a microprocessor intended to operate under
    the primary control or instruction of a microprocessor external to such a
    circuit board; or
    A circuit board that is a dedicated controller for a storage or input/output
    device."

    So if one sells a board that has say a PIC on it and some support logic, and
    the 9kHz+ signals are all internal to the uP (self-clock), but it's otherwise a
    functionally complete design other than it's not in a housing, is that an
    exempt product?

    Who is your customer? If you are selling it as a *product*,
    it is not a *compliant* product so your customer inherits
    no certifications (because there are none).

    If your customer integrates it into *his* product, then
    the responsibility for "product certification" falls on him
    (so, you have saved *yourself* a few pennies on the certification
    process and left him with any "problems" that your board may
    pose to *his* certification).

    A few pennies for a certified test lab to do full certs?


    If you are selling to hobbyists, you *may* be able to get by
    as a noncompliant product (the first case, above) -- so long
    as none of your (few?) customers finds themselves drawing
    the ire of neighbors, etc. when your device interferes with
    their pursuit of life, liberty and happiness.

    But, you are still exposed as the seller of that noncompliant
    product. How likely will your customers "have your back"
    if things get sticky?

    In the latter case, your customer (integrator) will *likely*
    be thankful for any steps you have taken to certify your
    "component" as he goes about looking for certification on
    *his* composite system.

    Why do you think so many products are sold with El Cheapo,
    off-brand wall warts instead of taking the power supply
    design *into* the overall product?

    A wart relieves one of all the AC-line safety certifications. There
    are some big warts these days, including 48v ones.

    One can resell a cheap wart with the usual molded-in (usually fake)
    UN/CE/CSA markings, or let the customer buy their own wart.


    A wart used in an EMC certification becomes part of it. Hence
    mrfs listing and retailing part numbers for suitable use.

    Warts can be (and are) listed independently, to reduce
    potential testing and deployment gliches. A listed
    wart doesn't guarantee radiated compliance, only facilitates
    conducted performance on that one, main, port.

    All of the EMC tests still needs to be done even if you use a wart.
    But LVD (safety) becomes a lot easier, if it's below 15W consumption (no >>glow-wire test etc)

    Somebody was talking about 48V warts. Some standards only allow 24V (for >>wet environments), and 32V for certain parts of the world

    In these certain parts of the world, what do they use for telephones?
    The standard central office batteries were and still are 48 Vdc. Which
    is why the electrical codes in the US and EU ignore anything below 50
    Volts or so.

    Only very recently are cellphones taking over.

    Joe Gwinn

    Telecom standards tend to mirror BellCore regs.

    RL

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Sloman@21:1/5 to legg on Mon Oct 14 03:03:48 2024
    On 13/10/2024 1:21 pm, legg wrote:
    On Sat, 12 Oct 2024 21:06:32 +1100, Chris Jones
    <lugnut808@spam.yahoo.com> wrote:

    On 12/10/2024 6:20 am, john larkin wrote:
    On Fri, 11 Oct 2024 20:59:09 +0200, Klaus Vestergaard Kragelund
    <klauskvik@hotmail.com> wrote:

    On 10-10-2024 23:11, john larkin wrote:
    On Thu, 10 Oct 2024 13:41:07 -0700, Don Y
    <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:

    On 10/9/2024 4:03 PM, bitrex wrote:

    <snip>

    Standards have become an established method of protecting local
    industry from lower cost imported goods from less socially
    responsible sources.

    Since they are published internationally, they don't protect the local
    industry all that well. When I was working in England we paid attention
    to the American Underwriter's Laboratory standards so we could sell our
    stuff in the US.

    It's one way of encouraging social responsibility and raising
    technical awareness abroad, if you are an important market for
    the products of secondary industry.

    They try to do this with tertiary industries (financial and
    service), but the weasels generally tap dance faster than
    the regulators, have more money and less conscience.

    Hence CE.

    Americans are cynical about CE. When I was designing stuff in Europe we
    did take it seriously - just as seriously as UL.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Klaus Vestergaard Kragelund@21:1/5 to legg on Sun Oct 13 21:34:46 2024
    On 13-10-2024 17:56, legg wrote:
    On Sat, 12 Oct 2024 13:11:02 -0400, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net>
    wrote:

    On Sat, 12 Oct 2024 11:38:30 +0200, Klaus Vestergaard Kragelund
    <klauskvik@hotmail.com> wrote:

    On 12-10-2024 01:31, legg wrote:
    On Thu, 10 Oct 2024 14:11:35 -0700, john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com>
    wrote:

    On Thu, 10 Oct 2024 13:41:07 -0700, Don Y
    <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:

    On 10/9/2024 4:03 PM, bitrex wrote:
    What's the deal with the "CPU board" exemption?

    "CPU board. A circuit board that contains a microprocessor, or frequency
    determining circuitry for the microprocessor, the primary function of which is
    to execute user-provided programming, but not including:
    A circuit board that contains only a microprocessor intended to operate under
    the primary control or instruction of a microprocessor external to such a
    circuit board; or
    A circuit board that is a dedicated controller for a storage or input/output
    device."

    So if one sells a board that has say a PIC on it and some support logic, and
    the 9kHz+ signals are all internal to the uP (self-clock), but it's otherwise a
    functionally complete design other than it's not in a housing, is that an
    exempt product?

    Who is your customer? If you are selling it as a *product*,
    it is not a *compliant* product so your customer inherits
    no certifications (because there are none).

    If your customer integrates it into *his* product, then
    the responsibility for "product certification" falls on him
    (so, you have saved *yourself* a few pennies on the certification
    process and left him with any "problems" that your board may
    pose to *his* certification).

    A few pennies for a certified test lab to do full certs?


    If you are selling to hobbyists, you *may* be able to get by
    as a noncompliant product (the first case, above) -- so long
    as none of your (few?) customers finds themselves drawing
    the ire of neighbors, etc. when your device interferes with
    their pursuit of life, liberty and happiness.

    But, you are still exposed as the seller of that noncompliant
    product. How likely will your customers "have your back"
    if things get sticky?

    In the latter case, your customer (integrator) will *likely*
    be thankful for any steps you have taken to certify your
    "component" as he goes about looking for certification on
    *his* composite system.

    Why do you think so many products are sold with El Cheapo,
    off-brand wall warts instead of taking the power supply
    design *into* the overall product?

    A wart relieves one of all the AC-line safety certifications. There
    are some big warts these days, including 48v ones.

    One can resell a cheap wart with the usual molded-in (usually fake)
    UN/CE/CSA markings, or let the customer buy their own wart.


    A wart used in an EMC certification becomes part of it. Hence
    mrfs listing and retailing part numbers for suitable use.

    Warts can be (and are) listed independently, to reduce
    potential testing and deployment gliches. A listed
    wart doesn't guarantee radiated compliance, only facilitates
    conducted performance on that one, main, port.

    All of the EMC tests still needs to be done even if you use a wart.
    But LVD (safety) becomes a lot easier, if it's below 15W consumption (no >>> glow-wire test etc)

    Somebody was talking about 48V warts. Some standards only allow 24V (for >>> wet environments), and 32V for certain parts of the world

    In these certain parts of the world, what do they use for telephones?
    The standard central office batteries were and still are 48 Vdc. Which
    is why the electrical codes in the US and EU ignore anything below 50
    Volts or so.

    Only very recently are cellphones taking over.

    Joe Gwinn

    Telecom standards tend to mirror BellCore regs.

    And thinking about that, the ringing voltage was close to 100Vrms, and
    using flimsy connectors. Amazing that was legal

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Don Y@21:1/5 to Klaus Vestergaard Kragelund on Sun Oct 13 12:42:37 2024
    On 10/13/2024 12:34 PM, Klaus Vestergaard Kragelund wrote:
    Telecom standards tend to mirror BellCore regs.

    And thinking about that, the ringing voltage was close to 100Vrms, and using flimsy connectors. Amazing that was legal

    90Vrms with ~48Vdc talking battery

    OTOH, there was a single manufacturer and provider, way back when.
    It was a big deal when you could do your own wiring, provide your
    own equipment, etc.

    But, even HVAC wiring is 24Vac -- as "were" doorbell annunciators.

    [I suspect the "wired pushbutton" for garage door openers is now
    < 12V]

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From legg@21:1/5 to All on Mon Oct 14 12:55:25 2024
    On Mon, 14 Oct 2024 03:03:48 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
    wrote:

    On 13/10/2024 1:21 pm, legg wrote:
    On Sat, 12 Oct 2024 21:06:32 +1100, Chris Jones
    <lugnut808@spam.yahoo.com> wrote:

    On 12/10/2024 6:20 am, john larkin wrote:
    On Fri, 11 Oct 2024 20:59:09 +0200, Klaus Vestergaard Kragelund
    <klauskvik@hotmail.com> wrote:

    On 10-10-2024 23:11, john larkin wrote:
    On Thu, 10 Oct 2024 13:41:07 -0700, Don Y
    <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:

    On 10/9/2024 4:03 PM, bitrex wrote:

    <snip>

    Standards have become an established method of protecting local
    industry from lower cost imported goods from less socially
    responsible sources.

    Since they are published internationally, they don't protect the local >industry all that well. When I was working in England we paid attention
    to the American Underwriter's Laboratory standards so we could sell our
    stuff in the US.

    It's one way of encouraging social responsibility and raising
    technical awareness abroad, if you are an important market for
    the products of secondary industry.

    They try to do this with tertiary industries (financial and
    service), but the weasels generally tap dance faster than
    the regulators, have more money and less conscience.

    Hence CE.

    Americans are cynical about CE. When I was designing stuff in Europe we
    did take it seriously - just as seriously as UL.

    If you have a European (or any international) market, you have to
    take the IEC regulations seriously - even UL's and CSA's later
    standards were/are coordinated with them . . . .with national
    exceptions.

    Their origins are found in the old GDR VDE standards that spawned them
    and the regular revisions to current IEC regs keep foreign designers
    hopping.

    The actual standards that CE implies are widespread, including
    such features as organizational (quality and recording),
    environmental (process and material) - not just safety and EMC.

    These are all apparently self-declared - compliance lists and proof
    being available 'on request'.for inspection. Any product that
    threatens markets seriously will be challenged - but a serious
    amount of capital is transgerred just through the distribution
    of consumer trash.

    Asian standards similarly mimic the IEC coat hangers, but their
    purpose can be almost decorative, until they are not.

    RL

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Klaus Vestergaard Kragelund@21:1/5 to legg on Mon Oct 14 23:02:51 2024
    On 14-10-2024 18:55, legg wrote:
    On Mon, 14 Oct 2024 03:03:48 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
    wrote:

    On 13/10/2024 1:21 pm, legg wrote:
    On Sat, 12 Oct 2024 21:06:32 +1100, Chris Jones
    <lugnut808@spam.yahoo.com> wrote:

    On 12/10/2024 6:20 am, john larkin wrote:
    On Fri, 11 Oct 2024 20:59:09 +0200, Klaus Vestergaard Kragelund
    <klauskvik@hotmail.com> wrote:

    On 10-10-2024 23:11, john larkin wrote:
    On Thu, 10 Oct 2024 13:41:07 -0700, Don Y
    <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:

    On 10/9/2024 4:03 PM, bitrex wrote:

    <snip>

    Standards have become an established method of protecting local
    industry from lower cost imported goods from less socially
    responsible sources.

    Since they are published internationally, they don't protect the local
    industry all that well. When I was working in England we paid attention
    to the American Underwriter's Laboratory standards so we could sell our
    stuff in the US.

    It's one way of encouraging social responsibility and raising
    technical awareness abroad, if you are an important market for
    the products of secondary industry.

    They try to do this with tertiary industries (financial and
    service), but the weasels generally tap dance faster than
    the regulators, have more money and less conscience.

    Hence CE.

    Americans are cynical about CE. When I was designing stuff in Europe we
    did take it seriously - just as seriously as UL.

    If you have a European (or any international) market, you have to
    take the IEC regulations seriously - even UL's and CSA's later
    standards were/are coordinated with them . . . .with national
    exceptions.


    [snip]

    A list of fines if you place products on the EU marked without CE or non-compliant CE:

    https://www.sicomtesting.com/en/blog/ce-marking-conformity-checks/

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Don Y@21:1/5 to Klaus Vestergaard Kragelund on Mon Oct 14 14:48:59 2024
    On 10/14/2024 2:02 PM, Klaus Vestergaard Kragelund wrote:
    A list of fines if you place products on the EU marked without CE or non-compliant CE:

    https://www.sicomtesting.com/en/blog/ce-marking-conformity-checks/

    Folks often think "no one will notice". But, a competitor
    might be highly motivated to report your noncompliant product...
    THEIR cost of ascertaining its noncompliance can likely easily
    be justified from the additional sales that will acrue as
    you leave "their" market.

    Also, "non-hostile" (innocent?) actors can look for explanations
    as to why they are unable to enjoy the life they led, previously
    (i.e., before a neighbor purchased one of your non-conforming devices
    without realizing the impact it would have on you -- your TV, comms,
    etc.)

    And, "do-gooders" can take up a crusade against any/all such
    offenders rationalizing that they have the law on their side
    (e.g., local Ham operators "noticing" your emissions and
    KNOWING how to deal with those violations)

    If your goal is just to get in and out of a market, quickly
    (garage shop -- here today, gone tomorrow), you might gamble.
    But, if someone can associate your person with the violation,
    you may discover the costs far outweigh the hoped-for benefits.

    Or, you can just accept that it's part of the job and plan for it!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From legg@21:1/5 to klauskvik@hotmail.com on Tue Oct 15 12:45:46 2024
    On Sun, 13 Oct 2024 01:02:13 +0200, Klaus Vestergaard Kragelund <klauskvik@hotmail.com> wrote:

    On 12-10-2024 12:00, Don Y wrote:
    On 10/12/2024 2:38 AM, Klaus Vestergaard Kragelund wrote:
    Somebody was talking about 48V warts. Some standards only allow 24V
    (for wet environments), and 32V for certain parts of the world

    48V wall-warts/bricks are typically used in midspan PoE
    injectors (and as standalone power supplies for PDs
    without PSEs).  As such, almost always in dry locations.

    Can those "certain parts of the world" use PoE products
    with nominal 48VDC delivered over the twisted pairs?
    Is the limit on the "packaging" or on the potential?


    In IEC60730 (safety for household products), 2.1.5 SELV is defined as
    maximum 42V. Note states that for the US and Canada the SELV voltage is
    max 30VRMS (which equates to 42.4Vpeak). Those numbers are when dry,
    when wet it reduces to 15V/21.2V peak.

    Normally things are dry, so US is 30V. I do not know how it is possible
    to allow 48V warts.

    Searching a little, it seems the 48V systems are approved against >telecommunication standards which may not use the SELV nomenclature

    NEC has higher voltages, up to 60VDC, but matters little since most
    product needs to comply to 60730/60950, and now 62368 has replaced 60950.

    The touch voltages are defined in yet another standard, IEC61201. I do
    not have access to that one.

    The 48V warts are also strange in that when the product is tested for
    peak SELV voltage a single fault must be introduced. So if you mess with
    the feedback of the SMPS, the trip voltage determines the maximum
    voltage, and that is most likely significantly higher than 48V.

    Single-fault abnormals look at steady state results - an overvoltage
    protection that prevents a continuous hazard (ie latching OVP) is
    sufficient.

    RL

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From legg@21:1/5 to All on Tue Oct 15 12:56:03 2024
    On Sun, 13 Oct 2024 01:02:13 +0200, Klaus Vestergaard Kragelund <klauskvik@hotmail.com> wrote:

    by steady-state the reference is to a chimpazeeish time
    constant - as I recall there's a chart or simple time
    statement. The single-fault stimulous is continuous.

    RL

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)