Hi John:
> >> But whichever method is adopted, the customer pays the bill eventually
> and I
> >> have more confidence in the highly competitive world of electronic
> products
> >> to come up with a cost-effective solution in a timely manner.
> >
> >One of the USA's major objections to EN61003-2 is
> >that remedying the load repeats with each new product
> >that is introduced, while remedying the source is a
> >one-time remedy. EN61000-3-2 requires continous
> >cost to the consumer with each product. (The cost
> >is NOT trivial -- nearly double the cost of the power
> >supply.)
>
> No, that's certainly an exaggeration. We have been told various sums
> from USD1 to USD5, and I suspect that the lower value is nearer the
> truth.
The additional cost for a PF-corrected SMPS is
not a constant adder; it is proportional to
power output. One must use higher power PF
components for higher power output.
Having actually purchased production quantities
(1995) of the same SMPS in both non-PF-corrected
and PF- corrected schemes, the additional cost
for PF-corrected ranged from 50% to 75% higher
than the non-PF-corrected supply.
More recently (2001), the cost difference was
indeed lower -- only about 25-30% premium.
I suspect your sources wanted to sell PF-corrected
SMPS's and exaggerated on the low side.
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.
