Did anyone take a look at 61010 standard for measuring etc. equipment. This standard (if I read well) allows for 1.8 mm clearance and 0 creepage on PCB material (regardless CTI) between hazardous 230 V and ground if enclosed into a IPx5 or better enclosure (creating Pollution degree 2). This really surprises me, as no clause seems to be added for peak values and transients.Is there anyone out there.. that can shine more light on this ???
Gert Gremmen -----Original Message----- From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Ed Eszlari Sent: donderdag 29 november 2001 18:35 To: vit...@aol.com; ri...@sdd.hp.com; xin...@cesi.ac.cn Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: [Fwd: clearance and working voltage] I also agree with the 4.4mm reinforced and 2.2mm basic/supp. calculation. I will assume that there is a creepage requirement also and would use pollution 1 in this application as long as the enclosure does not have openings. Ed >From: vit...@aol.com >Reply-To: vit...@aol.com >To: , >CC: >Subject: Re: [Fwd: clearance and working voltage] >Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 21:51:04 EST > > >Rich and Xing, > >No arguments from me about the clearance of 4.4 mm for reinforced. The other 6.4 mm clearance requirement is probably a misapplication of the clarance rules using the 840 v peak row of Table 3H. > >I think the original question may also need to consider creepage requirements. Then again, maybe not. Can the inside of an ac adapter be considered a pollution degree 1 environment? If so, the creepages are determined using the clearance table. Has anyone taken this approach? I presume no ventillation openings are allowed? How good a seal is needed for the enclosure halves and connectors/output cables? > >vgl > >In a message dated Wed, 28 Nov 2001 7:50:37 PM Eastern Standard Time, Rich Nute writes: > > > Hi Xing Weibing: > > > > > > Here is my answer to the question. > > > > > Hi group I have a question regarding clearance and working voltage of > > > IEC60950. If I HAVE A AC ADAPTER(AC 100-240V 50/60Hz) ,THE WORKING > > > VOLTAGE MEASURED ARE AS FOLLOWS: Nominal supply voltage: AC240V PRIMARY > > > AND SECONDARY : 364V(RMS), 540V(PEAK) MEASURED clearance: 5.3mm I HAVE > > > READ SOME CB TEST REPORT FOR THIS THIS SITUATION: SOME REQUIRE: MINIMUM > > > CLEARANCE 4.0+0.4mmother require: minimium clearance 6.4mm which is > > > correct for this situation? regards Xingwbbtiep2001-11-28 > > > > Since the product is an adapter, I will assume that > > the question addresses clearance between the mains > > circuit and a SELV secondary circuit. > > > > I will also assume that the applicable standard is > > IEC 60950, either > > > > 2nd Ed (Tables 3 and 4) or > > 3rd Ed (Tables 2H and 2J). > > > > The parameters are: > > > > nominal mains voltage: 240 V rms > > 340 V peak > > working voltage: 364 V rms > > 540 V peak > > > > The problem is confused because there is > > > > a set of requirements for working voltage, > > in Table 3/H, and > > > > a set of requirements for peak working voltage, > > Table 4/2J. > > > > (The 2nd Ed. refers to "repetitive peak voltage;" > > the 3rd Ed refers to "peak working voltage.") > > > > According to the standard, if the peak value of the > > working voltage exceeds the peak value of the mains > > voltage, then the working voltage in Table 3/2H is > > taken as the mains voltage. Then, the peak working > > voltage (aka repetitive peak voltage) is used in > > Table 4/2J. > > > > In the example, the peak value of the working voltage > > exceeds the peak value of the mains voltage. > > > > The minimum clearance in Table 3/2H for 240 V mains > > and 240 V working is: > > > > 4.0 mm reinforced > > 2.0 mm basic/supplementary > > > > The additional clearance in Table 4/2J for 240 V mains > > and 540 V peak is: > > > > 0.4 mm reinforced (567 V peak) > > 0.2 mm basic/supplemenatry (567 V peak) > > > > So, the total clearance is: > > > > 4.4 mm reinforced > > 2.2 mm basic/supplementary. > > > > Arguments? Another view or interpretation? > > > > > > Best regards, > > Rich > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------- > > >------------------------------------------- >This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety >Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. > >Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ > >To cancel your subscription, send mail to: > majord...@ieee.org >with the single line: > unsubscribe emc-pstc > >For help, send mail to the list administrators: > Michael Garretson: pstc_ad...@garretson.org > Dave Heald davehe...@mediaone.net > >For policy questions, send mail to: > Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org > Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org > >All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: > No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com ------------------------------------------- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson: pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Heald davehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
