|
Posted by StickThatInYourPipeAndSmokeIt on July 5, 2009, 2:50 pm
Please log in for more thread options
On Sun, 5 Jul 2009 11:31:43 -0700 (PDT), rangerssuck
>Just to muddy it up even further, we recently put a medical device
>through CE approval and were advised by the examiner that our label
>should read "110/240", and that's the label we passed with.
CE? I am surprised that they did not want it to read "95 - 265 VAC"
That is what most CE equipment works at.
It makes a product that barely works in Japan's 90V realm, and then
only on some products.
I had to do a redesign to insure that a production printer (supply)would
be marketable/functional in Japanese geographical/voltage markets.
|
|
Posted by rangerssuck on July 5, 2009, 5:58 pm
Please log in for more thread options On Jul 5, 2:50=A0pm, StickThatInYourPipeAndSmokeIt
> On Sun, 5 Jul 2009 11:31:43 -0700 (PDT), rangerssuck
>
> >Just to muddy it up even further, we recently put a medical device
> >through CE approval and were advised by the examiner that our label
> >should read "110/240", and that's the label we passed with.
>
> =A0CE? =A0I am surprised that they did not want it to read "95 - 265 VAC"
>
> =A0 That is what most CE equipment works at.
>
> =A0 It makes a product that barely works in Japan's 90V realm, and then
> only on some products.
>
> =A0I had to do a redesign to insure that a production printer (supply)wou=
ld
> be marketable/functional in Japanese geographical/voltage markets.
Note: That was a slash, not a dash. This was not a "universal input",
it was a dual-voltage device, with a 2:1 switchable primary. I was
surprised that they didn't want 110/220 or 120/240 or 115/230. Nope,
they insisted on 110/240. Go figure.
|
|
Posted by Martin Riddle on July 5, 2009, 6:19 pm
Please log in for more thread options
> On Jul 5, 2:50 pm, StickThatInYourPipeAndSmokeIt
>> On Sun, 5 Jul 2009 11:31:43 -0700 (PDT), rangerssuck
>>
>> >Just to muddy it up even further, we recently put a medical device
>> >through CE approval and were advised by the examiner that our label
>> >should read "110/240", and that's the label we passed with.
>>
>> CE? I am surprised that they did not want it to read "95 - 265 VAC"
>>
>> That is what most CE equipment works at.
>>
>> It makes a product that barely works in Japan's 90V realm, and then
>> only on some products.
>>
>> I had to do a redesign to insure that a production printer
>> (supply)would
>> be marketable/functional in Japanese geographical/voltage markets.
>
> Note: That was a slash, not a dash. This was not a "universal input",
> it was a dual-voltage device, with a 2:1 switchable primary. I was
> surprised that they didn't want 110/220 or 120/240 or 115/230. Nope,
> they insisted on 110/240. Go figure.
Technically it should be 120/240, I think the examiner wasn’t awfully
intelligent.
Was this a UL CB ?
Cheers
|
|
Posted by rangerssuck on July 5, 2009, 10:51 pm
Please log in for more thread options >
>
>
>
> > On Jul 5, 2:50 pm, StickThatInYourPipeAndSmokeIt
> >> On Sun, 5 Jul 2009 11:31:43 -0700 (PDT), rangerssuck
>
> >> >Just to muddy it up even further, we recently put a medical device
> >> >through CE approval and were advised by the examiner that our label
> >> >should read "110/240", and that's the label we passed with.
>
> >> =A0CE? =A0I am surprised that they did not want it to read "95 - 265 V=
AC"
>
> >> =A0 That is what most CE equipment works at.
>
> >> =A0 It makes a product that barely works in Japan's 90V realm, and the=
n
> >> only on some products.
>
> >> =A0I had to do a redesign to insure that a production printer
> >> (supply)would
> >> be marketable/functional in Japanese geographical/voltage markets.
>
> > Note: That was a slash, not a dash. This was not a "universal input",
> > it was a dual-voltage device, with a 2:1 switchable primary. I was
> > surprised that they didn't want 110/220 or 120/240 or 115/230. Nope,
> > they insisted on 110/240. Go figure.
>
> Technically it should be 120/240, I think the examiner wasn=92t awfully
> intelligent.
You'd think so, wouldn't you.
> Was this a UL CB ?
This was an outfit from Canada that specialized in CE approvals.
>
> Cheers
|
|
Posted by StickThatInYourPipeAndSmokeIt on July 5, 2009, 6:30 pm
Please log in for more thread options On Sun, 5 Jul 2009 14:58:42 -0700 (PDT), rangerssuck
>On Jul 5, 2:50 pm, StickThatInYourPipeAndSmokeIt
>> On Sun, 5 Jul 2009 11:31:43 -0700 (PDT), rangerssuck
>>
>> >Just to muddy it up even further, we recently put a medical device
>> >through CE approval and were advised by the examiner that our label
>> >should read "110/240", and that's the label we passed with.
>>
>> CE? I am surprised that they did not want it to read "95 - 265 VAC"
>>
>> That is what most CE equipment works at.
>>
>> It makes a product that barely works in Japan's 90V realm, and then
>> only on some products.
>>
>> I had to do a redesign to insure that a production printer (supply)would
>> be marketable/functional in Japanese geographical/voltage markets.
>
>Note: That was a slash, not a dash. This was not a "universal input",
>it was a dual-voltage device, with a 2:1 switchable primary. I was
>surprised that they didn't want 110/220 or 120/240 or 115/230. Nope,
>they insisted on 110/240. Go figure.
You have a medical device that uses a linear front end?
|
| Similar Threads | Posted | | Re: Liability & responsibility of electrician? | July 5, 2009, 3:43 am |
| Re: Liability & responsibility of electrician? | July 5, 2009, 3:45 am |
| Re: Liability & responsibility of electrician? | July 5, 2009, 3:56 am |
| Re: Liability & responsibility of electrician? | July 5, 2009, 8:16 am |
| Re: Liability & responsibility of electrician? | July 5, 2009, 11:46 am |
| Re: Liability & responsibility of electrician? | July 5, 2009, 1:27 pm |
| Re: Liability & responsibility of electrician? | July 5, 2009, 1:29 pm |
| Re: Liability & responsibility of electrician? | July 5, 2009, 1:36 pm |
| Re: Liability & responsibility of electrician? | July 5, 2009, 1:52 pm |
| Re: Liability & responsibility of electrician? | July 5, 2009, 2:11 pm |
|
|
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML Sitemap
>through CE approval and were advised by the examiner that our label
>should read "110/240", and that's the label we passed with.