Home > Technology Center > Engineering Committees > JT-32 Committee > Minutes

Minutes of JT-32 Committee on Electron Tube Safety
September 6, 2002
Radisson Hotel, Corning, NY

1.0 COMMITTEE ORGANIZATION AND MEMBERSHIP

1.1 Agenda Additions, Changes and Priorities
No changes were made to the proposed agenda.

1.2 Membership Changes
Phil Goldman announced that he would be retiring from Corning by the end of the year. He has been actively involved in the committee work for over 7 years. The committee wished him well in his retirement and thanked him for his service. Steve Milillo will be the designated representative for Corning at future meetings.

1.3 Approval of Meeting No. 78 Minutes
Daniel stamp asked that the reference, "for Michael D. Milostan" be removed from the table of attendees. The committee agreed. It was also pointed out that there was a typo in Paragraph 1.2 Change, "of Philips our of Ann Arbor…" to, "of Philips of Ann Arbor…". Thus, the committee approved the minutes as amended.

1.4 Correspondence
Chairman Tolliver stated that he had received notification that Mr. Gregor Grosse would not be able to attend this meeting. Mr. Mel Grossman of UL notified the Chair that he would not be able to attend the meeting to discuss the IEC 61965 Impact Testing Standard. The Chair announced, however, that Mr. Timo Venalainen or CSA International was at the meeting to discuss the document.

1.5 EDSC
The Chair announced that there had been no meeting of the Electronic Display Standards Council in several years, primarily because the activities of each of the JT committees have not been directly related. It was noted that JT-6 and JT-32 do meet together because of the related subject matter. It might be desirable to work a joint meeting at some point in the next year to discuss potential issues such as packaging and drop test requirements.

1.6 Other Committee Coordination
Bill Rowe stated that there is coordination between IEC TC 39 and TC 47 on issues. Mr. Tolliver interfaces with TC39 and is receiving flat panel notifications from SC47C. TC 104 Environmental Testing is going through the revision process of some of their documents, and the group should be aware of this.

2.0 International Safety Standards

2.1 IEC 61965 Impact Testing Standard
IEC 61965 Impact Testing Standard version 2 has been approved, but some editorials require correction by the IEC Central Office prior to publication. VDE will apparently test according to the old version of IEC 60065. IEC 60065, "Audio, Video and Similar Apparatus - Safety Requirements" has been revised to remove non-intrinsically safe CRTs and 61965 does not include them. Version 7 of 60065 has been published. Europe has adopted it. UL and CSA are working on adoption. The following is a table that the committee constructed during the meeting to clear up some of the confusion in the adoption and usage of several standards.

The committee decided to draft a letter with concerns and consequently send it to UL, CSA, and VDE to begin a dialog as to how to transfer previously listed tubes to the new standard.

A discussion of the current policy of CSA regarding this subject was delivered by Timo Venalainen. He stated that the CB scheme rules had changed this year for different test programs based upon manufacturer laboratory locations.

The TMP and SMT are two of the official programs in the CB Scheme. The TMP is the Testing at Manufacturer's Premises Program. The SMT is the Supervised Manufacturers Testing Program. The SMT requires test spot-checked by the agency engineer that will provide the certificate. The lab must be qualified to ISO 17025. Conceptually this is similar to an ISO 9000 audit with additional documents covering calibration details to get the lab certified.

It is believed that the rules are not exactly followed by many of the inspection agencies. There is a draft update of the TMP program called the witness program which is in development. This would allow a witnessing rather than having the agency engineer running the equipment.

CSA is scheduled to be subjected to a reassessment audit early in December for compliance to the SMT procedures.

Mr. Venalainen then distributed a set of questions that had been circulated to the TC 39 WG. Some questions on interpretation of the IEC 61965 have come up. The subject items included Multiple Major Changes in Construction/New Design, Multiple Alternative Constructions (Plan IV), and regarding a new CRT factory scenario. In Table 1, Plan II, it says that "New construction with previously tested tape or resin" requires 12 unconditioned samples. The standard is written to address only one change at a time. If you change more than one thing at a time, one can not apparently use an alternative plan. This needs to be addressed.

The committee also accepted the comment that new construction considerations are clear but the situation "under previous construction" should be considered for revision to test new tape to the smallest and largest size of the tubes using the same tape width. How soon would something like this get into a revision? It would likely take another 5 years.

The committee discussed how a clarification such as this could take effect sooner. One option would be to have the Working Group make an interpretation of the standard. Another route to consider would be to have the Committee of Testing Labs (CTL) render a decision. The issue would be circulated to the member labs. If it passes (at least 51%) the decision could be posted on the IECEE website.

Based upon the discussion, the group voted unanimously to submit the request to David Simmons of WG2 and ask them to get any additional comments and forward a request to CTL. The committee then agreed that it needed to draft a statement of the situation and interpretation. Dan Stamp agreed to use this tape situation as a vehicle to explain the generic situation. The goal would be to address these changes to the standard and get them adopted in industry before the next review cycle of the standard.

A motion was made and seconded to have Dan Stamp draft an interpretation using the tape in an alternate construction scenario. He is to submit the draft to the Chair of JT-32 to get it reviewed with others and consequently submit it to IEC TC 39 WG and request the WG 2 Chair to refer to CTL for a published decision. Motion was unanimously approved.
Discussion pursued concerning the New CRT Factory scenario. The question was asked if the issue should be taken to the CTL similar to the tape issue. The question was raised as to whether this was and interpretation or a change in certification requirements. That would make a difference as to whether CTL could address it or not. The group decided that Timo would take this to the CTL convenor to see if it should be submitted to them or not.

2.1.1 Tolerances on Doming (Recovery)
It was agreed that the doming tolerances are too tight on flat screens and some non-flat. The requirements evidently were develop without consideration of flat screen technology. There are multiple variables (e.g., Thickness, contour changes, or strength of band) that affect this so there is no way to hold a 15% tolerance. Also, how soon after the exhaust stage does one take the measurement? This requirement is in the UL version of IEC 61965. The group needs to collect data and ask UL to change the tolerances in the standard. The tolerance appears to be an indirect measurement of the tension on the band, but it does not take into account the other variables. This is a problem in interpreting the standard. Harry Swank agreed to draft up a document on this doming issue and then get with Phil Goldman. Harry Swank agreed to chair a Task Force on Doming to deal with this issue and also how it affects the WTDS registration requirements.

2.2 IEC/TC39/WG2 X-Radiation Standard
A document was put together in January by Mike Chenoweth and he has communicated it with others. The document did not progress to a committee draft and was not officially issued for comments, but some were received and the group is deciding how to address them. There are basically three versions (Japan, US, and Europe). The three documents can be unified in theory. The scope statement did not cover regulatory requirements. Differences in the three documents will be explained in annexes. A draft of the document should be ready fy the end of the 1st Quarter 2003. Bob Tolliver will advise Paul Friedrich that there has been progress made on the document behind the scenes.

3.0 Standards and Document Review
Phil Goldman reported on his action item from the previous minutes. (Item 3.0 Standards and Document Review re:Draft IEC 62299-2: The group felt that there must be a JEITA test procedure that covers this subject.) He reported that JEITA has no published standard.

4.0 Environmental Issues
Ed Mikoski briefly summarized activities that have transpired in the EIA EIC, particularly the recent meeting of EICTA, JGPSSI and EIA on developing a joint standard for a materials and substances declaration guide. This would affect the members of the JT committees.

5.0 New Business
There was no new business

6.0 Next Meeting
The next meeting is normally held in January, but the group felt that it would be too soon, and the JT-6 Chair would likely not be available. The preferred dates will be 3 & 4 February 2003 with a backup or 17 & 18 February 2003. Note was also made that the Annual Gem & Mineral Show in the Phoenix area is that period of time so accommodations need to be carefully checked for availability.
Also, the suggestion was made to consider flip-flopping the JT-6 and JT-32 meetings to have JT-32 go first so that there would be a full day for JT-32, since that is where there is considerable activity at this point in time.

7.0 Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at approximately 1:00 pm

This meeting was conducted in accordance with the EIA legal guidelines and the manual of organization and procedures.

Robert D. Tolliver, Chairperson
Signature on file

Edward F. Mikoski, Jr., Acting Secretary
Signature on file

Return to JT-32 Main