Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList
Thread
'[EE] UL question - required for under 24V?'
2008\04\07@083637
by
alan smith
It was mentioned to be by another engineer that UL testing isn't required for those devices that are 24V based systems...and essentially 30V falls within that spec as well, and the those devices running 48V (such as telcom) are under the same guidelines as 120VAC..aka..creepage and clearance. Any truth to what he is saying? So what it comes down to is if you have a set of devices that are using designed to use PoE (48VDC) they are under a different, more stringent testing standard than if I stuck with 24VDC?
I'd like to have a NRTL reference if possible as well.
Thanks in advance
---------------------------------
You rock. That's why Blockbuster's offering you one month of Blockbuster Total Access, No Cost.
2008\04\07@093416
by
Spehro Pefhany
|
Quoting alan smith <spam_OUTmicro_eng2TakeThisOuT
yahoo.com>:
> It was mentioned to be by another engineer that UL testing isn't
> required for those devices that are 24V based systems...and
> essentially 30V falls within that spec as well, and the those
> devices running 48V (such as telcom) are under the same guidelines
> as 120VAC..aka..creepage and clearance. Any truth to what he is
> saying? So what it comes down to is if you have a set of devices
> that are using designed to use PoE (48VDC) they are under a
> different, more stringent testing standard than if I stuck with 24VDC?
>
> I'd like to have a NRTL reference if possible as well.
>
> Thanks in advance
"Required" by who, exactly? You'll see UL/CSA testing on disk drives,
for example, which are 5V/12V, so the premise is not a reliable one.
Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
.....s...KILLspam
@spam@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com
2008\04\07@100506
by
alan smith
|
my point exactly. I just wanted some background info before I confronted this engineer to tell him...he isn't quite right.
Spehro Pefhany <speff
KILLspaminterlog.com> wrote: Quoting alan smith :
{Quote hidden}> It was mentioned to be by another engineer that UL testing isn't
> required for those devices that are 24V based systems...and
> essentially 30V falls within that spec as well, and the those
> devices running 48V (such as telcom) are under the same guidelines
> as 120VAC..aka..creepage and clearance. Any truth to what he is
> saying? So what it comes down to is if you have a set of devices
> that are using designed to use PoE (48VDC) they are under a
> different, more stringent testing standard than if I stuck with 24VDC?
>
> I'd like to have a NRTL reference if possible as well.
>
> Thanks in advance
"Required" by who, exactly? You'll see UL/CSA testing on disk drives,
for example, which are 5V/12V, so the premise is not a reliable one.
Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
.....s...KILLspam
.....interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com
2008\04\07@103555
by
Alan B. Pearce
>my point exactly. I just wanted some background info before I
>confronted this engineer to tell him...he isn't quite right.
Are you using materials that have a UL fire rating? What happens if
something shorts, a transistor decides to spit out flame (as some power
devices can do if badly treated), and the power supply says 'how much
current would you like to draw now you have gone short circuit?'
I had exactly this situation on a midi computer, where a supply bypass
capacitor decided to become a resistor. The 5V 300A supply figured this was
just a touch more load (it was running pretty lightly loaded anyway) and
provided all the current asked for. The PCB had a hole about 1.5" diameter
before someone discovered the machine was sending out smoke signals and
kicked the emergency off button.
2008\04\07@104946
by
David VanHorn
> I had exactly this situation on a midi computer, where a supply bypass
> capacitor decided to become a resistor. The 5V 300A supply figured this was
300A for midi? What is this, a pipe organ? :)
2008\04\07@110221
by
alan smith
|
As part of the design criteria, I would put in something like a poly fuse to protect the power delivery system, but we are only talking maybe a few amps over this supply link. Don't take me wrong, I am not trying to circumvent the system, I am simply questioning his rational that if he uses a 24V or less supply, he doesn't have to design to UL standards. As mentioned, 5 or 12V can do some damage if left unchecked. I can understand different rules that need to be followed, but last time I was involved with UL certs, anything that could come into contact with a user needed to be made sure they couldnt be hurt by it, either by it dripping onto you (hot plastic) or sticking objects inside to get damaged. Sure, 48V isn't considered lethal but its not the voltage...its the current.
"Alan B. Pearce" <EraseMEA.B.Pearcespam_OUT
TakeThisOuTrl.ac.uk> wrote: >my point exactly. I just wanted some background info before I
>confronted this engineer to tell him...he isn't quite right.
Are you using materials that have a UL fire rating? What happens if
something shorts, a transistor decides to spit out flame (as some power
devices can do if badly treated), and the power supply says 'how much
current would you like to draw now you have gone short circuit?'
I had exactly this situation on a midi computer, where a supply bypass
capacitor decided to become a resistor. The 5V 300A supply figured this was
just a touch more load (it was running pretty lightly loaded anyway) and
provided all the current asked for. The PCB had a hole about 1.5" diameter
before someone discovered the machine was sending out smoke signals and
kicked the emergency off button.
2008\04\07@111453
by
Xiaofan Chen
On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 8:36 PM, alan smith <micro_eng2
spam_OUTyahoo.com> wrote:
> It was mentioned to be by another engineer that UL testing isn't required for
> those devices that are 24V based systems...and essentially 30V falls within
> that spec as well, and the those devices running 48V (such as telcom) are
> under the same guidelines as 120VAC..aka..creepage and clearance.
> Any truth to what he is saying? So what it comes down to is if you have a set
> of devices that are using designed to use PoE (48VDC) they are under a different,
> more stringent testing standard than if I stuck with 24VDC?
There is a bit of truth here. I do not have the standard here but I remember
for UL508 (for industrial control equipment) and UL840 (evaluation of creepage
distance and clearance), there is quite a bit of difference below 30V and over
30V. Similar for the Europe side (EN50178 last time). I think UL will normally
not look at secondary side below 30V (Class 2 circuit, Limit Voltage/
Current circuit, Limited Voltage circuit, etc).
But anyway, you need to check the standards which apply to your product.
Xiaofan
2008\04\07@111529
by
Derward
Alan, I recently got approval, for a device, by an agency that requires UL.
I used a 12 Volt UL approved wall transformer and the device did hot need
UL because all voltages were less than the required buy UL.
Derward
{Original Message removed}
2008\04\07@111804
by
Xiaofan Chen
On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 11:01 PM, alan smith <@spam@micro_eng2KILLspam
yahoo.com> wrote:
> I am simply questioning his rational that if he uses a 24V or less supply,
> he doesn't have to design to UL standards.
Whatever you do you need to follow the UL Standards at least for US. But
if you specifies that your power supply need to be a Class 2 power supply,
then the requirement is much lower.
Xiaofan
2008\04\07@113433
by
alan smith
OK...so this agrees with the other engineer I'm dealing with....the voltage was less than what UL requires for certification. Does anyone have a reference to what that voltage is?
Derward <KILLspamwdmyrickKILLspam
earthlink.net> wrote: Alan, I recently got approval, for a device, by an agency that requires UL.
I used a 12 Volt UL approved wall transformer and the device did hot need
UL because all voltages were less than the required buy UL.
Derward
{Original Message removed}
2008\04\07@113541
by
Harold Hallikainen
> Whatever you do you need to follow the UL Standards at least for US. But
> if you specifies that your power supply need to be a Class 2 power supply,
> then the requirement is much lower.
>
What exactly is class 2? I think it MAY include the following, but don't
know for sure:
1. Low output voltage for electrical shock protection.
2. Low leakage current for electrical shock protection.
3. Double insulation for electrical shock protection.
4. Higher than normal hipot test requirement for electrical shock protection.
5. Overtemperature protection to prevent fire in the power supply.
6. Power output limitation to reduce possibility of fire in the equipment
driven by the supply.
So... what makes a power supply a class 2 supply?
THANKS!
Harold
--
FCC Rules Updated Daily at http://www.hallikainen.com - Advertising
opportunities available!
2008\04\07@115508
by
Bob Axtell
Spehro Pefhany wrote:
{Quote hidden}> Quoting alan smith <
RemoveMEmicro_eng2TakeThisOuT
yahoo.com>:
>
>
>> It was mentioned to be by another engineer that UL testing isn't
>> required for those devices that are 24V based systems...and
>> essentially 30V falls within that spec as well, and the those
>> devices running 48V (such as telcom) are under the same guidelines
>> as 120VAC..aka..creepage and clearance. Any truth to what he is
>> saying? So what it comes down to is if you have a set of devices
>> that are using designed to use PoE (48VDC) they are under a
>> different, more stringent testing standard than if I stuck with 24VDC?
>>
>> I'd like to have a NRTL reference if possible as well.
>>
>> Thanks in advance
>>
>
> "Required" by who, exactly? You'll see UL/CSA testing on disk drives,
> for example, which are 5V/12V, so the premise is not a reliable one.
>
>
> Best regards,
> Spehro Pefhany
>
The last info I had was that UL cert was required if less than 24V AND
the max possible current was
less than 8 Amps. But my client is exempt now because of the nature of
the product being designed,
so I haven't kept up.
--Bob A
2008\04\07@132326
by
Apptech
> The last info I had was that UL cert was required if less
> than 24V AND
> the max possible current was
> less than 8 Amps. But my client is exempt now because of
> the nature of
> the product being designed,
> so I haven't kept up.
Only capable of producing about 200 Watts. These are not the
ones you want. Move along. Flames ... .
Russell
2008\04\07@132326
by
Apptech
The original comments were quite possibly related to the
voltages being above or below the "Extra Low Voltage" / ELV
limit. The actual voltage varies with administrations but is
typically 50 VDC or about 33 VAC. Below this level the
voltage is deemed non lethal in typical situations, even
though in fact voltages at this level OF COURSE, and AS WE
ALL KNOW, (don't we?) can kill. I am only on nodding
acquaintance with UL specs but I would be surprised if UL
were not interested in voltages at levels where very very
serious energies can be conveyed with ease.
Thought experiment: Hold auto starter motor shaft
tightly. Energise. QED. A 12V car battery will happily
enough deliver several kiloWatts for long enough to do
immense damage.
SO
I'm sure that UL will be interested while wearing one of
their hats. BUT the ELV restrictions will probably reduce
the danger to human life aspects.
Russell
2008\04\07@140228
by
Spehro Pefhany
|
Quoting Harold Hallikainen <spamBeGoneharoldspamBeGone
hallikainen.org>:
{Quote hidden}>
>> Whatever you do you need to follow the UL Standards at least for US. But
>> if you specifies that your power supply need to be a Class 2 power supply,
>> then the requirement is much lower.
>>
>
> What exactly is class 2? I think it MAY include the following, but don't
> know for sure:
>
> 1. Low output voltage for electrical shock protection.
> 2. Low leakage current for electrical shock protection.
> 3. Double insulation for electrical shock protection.
> 4. Higher than normal hipot test requirement for electrical shock protection.
> 5. Overtemperature protection to prevent fire in the power supply.
> 6. Power output limitation to reduce possibility of fire in the equipment
> driven by the supply.
>
> So... what makes a power supply a class 2 supply?
>
> THANKS!
>
> Harold
http://engineers.ihs.com/document/abstract/HEGVIBAAAAAAAAAA
Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
TakeThisOuTs...EraseME
spam_OUTinterlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com
2008\04\07@141337
by
Spehro Pefhany
Quoting alan smith <RemoveMEmicro_eng2
TakeThisOuTyahoo.com>:
> my point exactly. I just wanted some background info before I
> confronted this engineer to tell him...he isn't quite right.
If you want that kind of information, simply pick up the phone and
call UL and ask them if testing is not required under the stated
conditions. That will be a conservative answer.
Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
s...EraseME
.....interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com
2008\04\07@170426
by
Harold Hallikainen
|
{Quote hidden}> Quoting Harold Hallikainen <
EraseMEharold
hallikainen.org>:
>
>>
>>> Whatever you do you need to follow the UL Standards at least for US.
>>> But
>>> if you specifies that your power supply need to be a Class 2 power
>>> supply,
>>> then the requirement is much lower.
>>>
>>
>> What exactly is class 2? I think it MAY include the following, but don't
>> know for sure:
>>
>> 1. Low output voltage for electrical shock protection.
>> 2. Low leakage current for electrical shock protection.
>> 3. Double insulation for electrical shock protection.
>> 4. Higher than normal hipot test requirement for electrical shock
>> protection.
>> 5. Overtemperature protection to prevent fire in the power supply.
>> 6. Power output limitation to reduce possibility of fire in the
>> equipment
>> driven by the supply.
>>
>> So... what makes a power supply a class 2 supply?
>>
>> THANKS!
>>
>> Harold
>
>
http://engineers.ihs.com/document/abstract/HEGVIBAAAAAAAAAA
>
>
>
> Best regards,
> Spehro Pefhany
Thanks!
The scope says "for use on alternating current branch circuits with a
maximum potential of 150 V to ground." Paragraph A allows use on 240V
branch circuits, but in the US, these are "center tap grounded," so the
RMS voltage on each line is 120V. For Europe and other 230V areas, is
there a class 2 equivalent?
So, it looks like the output must be limited to 42.4Vp for AC and 60V for DC.
They can provide up to 660W (that's a BIG wall wart!).
I see nothing here regarding hipot, but this IS just the scope, not the
standard.
I'd still like to find a way of going through UL testing with an internal
power supply by having them just look at the power supply label and saying
"OK, you pass." That power supply would include the inlet, be enclosed,
etc., and we'd just bolt it in our cabinet.
Harold
--
FCC Rules Updated Daily at http://www.hallikainen.com - Advertising
opportunities available!
2008\04\07@172748
by
Ed Browne
Buying a UL and CE listed power supply goes a long way towards meeting that goal. Anymore when an input voltage is high enough to cause expensive testing, I'll slap down an approved supply and deal with the much less stringent low voltage requirements.
{Original Message removed}
2008\04\07@174356
by
Stephen R Phillips
|
--- alan smith <RemoveMEmicro_eng2EraseME
EraseMEyahoo.com> wrote:
> It was mentioned to be by another engineer that UL testing isn't
> required for those devices that are 24V based systems...and
> essentially 30V falls within that spec as well, and the those devices
> running 48V (such as telcom) are under the same guidelines as
> 120VAC..aka..creepage and clearance. Any truth to what he is
> saying? So what it comes down to is if you have a set of devices
> that are using designed to use PoE (48VDC) they are under a
> different, more stringent testing standard than if I stuck with
> 24VDC?
>
> I'd like to have a NRTL reference if possible as well.
>
> Thanks in advance
It depends. You require UL approval on battery powered instruments.
Basically UL approval means it meets certain specifications. If you
don't meet them then you don't have them. UL approval is optional
really, however if you wish to SELL something that is a different
matter . You should check with the customer what they want before
making such a decision. 24V system may or may not require it. It
depends on what the customer wants.
Stephen
____________________________________________________________________________________
You rock. That's why Blockbuster's offering you one month of Blockbuster Total Access, No Cost.
tc.deals.yahoo.com/tc/blockbuster/text5.com
2008\04\07@191606
by
Richard Prosser
|
On 08/04/2008, Stephen R Phillips <RemoveMEcyberman_phillipsspam_OUT
KILLspamyahoo.com> wrote:
{Quote hidden}>
> --- alan smith <
RemoveMEmicro_eng2TakeThisOuT
spamyahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > It was mentioned to be by another engineer that UL testing isn't
> > required for those devices that are 24V based systems...and
> > essentially 30V falls within that spec as well, and the those devices
> > running 48V (such as telcom) are under the same guidelines as
> > 120VAC..aka..creepage and clearance. Any truth to what he is
> > saying? So what it comes down to is if you have a set of devices
> > that are using designed to use PoE (48VDC) they are under a
> > different, more stringent testing standard than if I stuck with
> > 24VDC?
> >
> > I'd like to have a NRTL reference if possible as well.
> >
> > Thanks in advance
>
> It depends. You require UL approval on battery powered instruments.
> Basically UL approval means it meets certain specifications. If you
> don't meet them then you don't have them. UL approval is optional
> really, however if you wish to SELL something that is a different
> matter . You should check with the customer what they want before
> making such a decision. 24V system may or may not require it. It
> depends on what the customer wants.
>
> Stephen
>
IIRC it depends more on what the customers insurace company wants.
RP
2008\04\07@192544
by
Harold Hallikainen
> Buying a UL and CE listed power supply goes a long way towards meeting
> that goal. Anymore when an input voltage is high enough to cause
> expensive testing, I'll slap down an approved supply and deal with the
> much less stringent low voltage requirements.
Thanks! Our customers want the supply in the box instead of an external
supply. I understand we were charged $16k to safety test a product that
had, as its line connected components, a UL listed filter/inlet, a UL
listed power supply, a UL listed switch, a few wires, and a ground lug.
That's about $4k to $5k to look at each component that was already UL
listed...
Harold
--
FCC Rules Updated Daily at http://www.hallikainen.com - Advertising
opportunities available!
2008\04\07@194915
by
Xiaofan Chen
On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 11:34 PM, alan smith <EraseMEmicro_eng2spam
spamBeGoneyahoo.com> wrote:
> OK...so this agrees with the other engineer I'm dealing with....the voltage was less
> than what UL requires for certification. Does anyone have a reference to what that
> voltage is?
I do not think that no UL required for certification is the correct
way. It all depends
on your product. Last time for sensors (UL508 applies), we still need to get
UL certification even when we specify to use Class 2 power supply. It is just
the evaluation becomes easier. UL is more than power supply.
If you are dealing with UL so often, maybe it is good idea to buy the
UL standards
relevant for you. We always have UL508 and some other UL standards and I have
read UL508 over and over.
Xiaofan
2008\04\07@205831
by
Kenneth Lumia
Probably different for various applications, but IIRC,
UL60950 (actually several variants on xx60950 for
various coutries) tells quite a bit about temperatures,
fire enclosures requirements, etc. Total wattage of
the supply comes into play here (both internal and
external supplies). The purpose of UL approval is for
the safety of the SYSTEM, not just the supply.
Ken
{Original Message removed}
2008\04\07@230333
by
Xiaofan Chen
On 4/8/08, Kenneth Lumia <RemoveMEkenneth_lumiaKILLspam
comcast.net> wrote:
> Probably different for various applications, but IIRC,
> UL60950 (actually several variants on xx60950 for
> various coutries) tells quite a bit about temperatures,
> fire enclosures requirements, etc. Total wattage of
> the supply comes into play here (both internal and
> external supplies). The purpose of UL approval is for
> the safety of the SYSTEM, not just the supply.
>
Exactly.
UL60950 comes from (adapts or adopts) IEC60950,
which covers IT equipment.
Xiaofan
More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2008
, 2009 only
- Today
- New search...