John,
Have you noticed that in the most recent version of UL 61010-1 (July 2004),
that they have added a deviation to table 9 of the IEC 61010-1 standard. It
states:
Table 9 D2 Modification
Add the following new row of values for a clearance of "1.5 mm."
1.5mm 2560V-pk (impulse) 1390V-rms 1970V-pk
Note that the voltages have been adjusted up from the Table 9 values stated
for 1.4 mm clearance, which states:
1.4mm 2440V-pk (impulse) 1330V-rms 1880V-pk
Regards,
Gail Birdsall
Hach Co.
_____
From: owner-emc-p...@listserv.ieee.org
mailto:owner-emc-p...@listserv.ieee.org] On Behalf Of John Allen
Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2004 3:13 AM
To: 'Gordon,Ian'; John Allen; 'IEEE EMC-PSTC GROUP'
Subject: RE: IEC/EN 61010-1, 2001 'Circuits derived from Mains Circuits'
Ian et al
These are the ones I identified a couple of years ago, copied from text I sent
to the (UK) chairman of the IEC Committee
1) Clause 6.8.4 "Voltage tests" & Table 9 "Test voltages for BASIC INSULATION"
(Page 52).
We are reasonably sure that there is a misprint in Column 1 "Clearance" of
Table 9 , as follows: The line entry between "1.0" and "2.0" is "1.4" but it
should be "1.5" (mm).
We believe that this is obvious from Table 8 "Clearance for measurement
categories II, III and IV" where "1.5" (mm) is mentioned in numerous places
but "1.4" is not mentioned at all.
Apart from anything else, 1.5mm is the category II minimum value for nominal
line voltages of >150V<=300V - which will be the mimimum value for a very
large amount of equipment.
Therefore the majority of users of the standard will have to start out by
interpolating in Table 9 - and may result in many mistakes in test voltages -
in fact interpolating from the existing values may result directly in test
errors.
Nevertheless, even if we are wrong about the need for the "1.4" entry, we
think that the test voltages for 1.5mm should be given as well.
Also. assuming that we are correct we do need the correct values for 1.5mm,
please could you find a way of making this information available in advance of
the long process of issuing an amendment to the standards
We also recommend that a critical review be made of all the values stated in
Table 9 as the existance of the above probable error brings in to doubt the
rest.
2) Clause 8.1.2 and Figure 4 (Page 63)
According to Clause 8.1.2, Figure 4 consists of two drawings called "Figure 4"
and "Figure 4a)" - but neither is actually labelled in the Figure to show
which is which!
3) Clause 9 and Figure 5 (Page 66)
There are several misprints in Fig 5 "Flow chart to explain the requirements
for protection against the spread of fire".
On the right hand side of the diagram there appear to be arrows missing
between the boxes for:
i) "Construction requirements for components 9.2.1 a)" and "ENCLOSURE
requirements 9.2.1 b)"
and
(ii) between "ENCLOSURE requirements 9.2.1 b)" and "Requirements for flammable
liquids 9.4 c), d) or e)".
Additionally, the Flow chart symbols in this diagram do not appear to conform
to some generally accepted principles, i.e should there not be "decision
("OR")" box symbols where alternative
routes are available (e.g. as in Fig 10).
4) Clause 9.3 and Tables 13 & 14 (Page 69)
In 9.3 b) 2) the reference should be to Table 14 rather than Table 13.
5) Clause 10.5.3 and Figure 8 (Page 75)
The Ball Pressure Test equipment is illustrated and referred to, but all the
dimensions for the equipment have been omitted.
Either these dimensions shall be placed on the diagram, or reference shall be
made to the appropriate IEC/ISO test standard (as is done for the Vicat test)."
If anyone else has any more, then please let ME know!
Regards
John Allen
ERA Technology Ltd
-----Original Message-----
From: Gordon,Ian [ mailto:ian.gor...@bocedwards.com]
Sent: 01 December 2004 09:58
To: 'John Allen'; 'IEEE EMC-PSTC GROUP'
Subject: RE: IEC/EN 61010-1, 2001 'Circuits derived from Mains Circuits'
John et al
Does anyone have a list of "errors" in the document which they would share
with the group?
Ian Gordon
BOC Edwards
***********************************************************************
This email is confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual
to whom it is addressed. Any views or opinions presented are solely those of
the author and do not necessarily represent those of the BOC Group plc or any
of its affiliates. If you are not the intended recipient, be advised that you
have received this email in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding,
printing, or copying of this email is strictly prohibited. If you have
received this email in error please return the message to the sender by
replying to it and then delete the message from your computer.
This footnote also confirms that this email message has been checked by
anti-virus software for the presence of computer viruses. However, the BOC
Group plc or any of its affiliates accepts no responsibility for any virus or
defect that might arise from opening this e-mail or attachments.
_____________________________________________________________________
This e-mail has been scanned for viruses by MCI's Internet Managed Scanning
Services - powered by MessageLabs. For further information visit
http://www.mci.com
**********************************************************************
Copyright ERA Technology Ltd. 2004. (www.era.co.uk). All rights reserved. The
information supplied in this Commercial Communication should be treated in
confidence.
No liability whatsoever is accepted for any loss or damage
suffered as a result of accessing this message or any attachments.
**********************************************************************
_____________________________________________________________________
This e-mail has been scanned for viruses by MCI's Internet Managed Scanning
Services - powered by MessageLabs. For further information visit
http://www.mci.com
---------------------------------------------------------------- This message
is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.
Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org
Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/listserv/request/user-guide.html
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.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:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
---------------------------------------------------------------- This message
is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.
Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org
Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/listserv/request/user-guide.html
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.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:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
