Hi Rich, Thanks for your reply. Very interesting. And, haven't as yet been able to fully download that app note (source may be dial up?).
Best regards, Ron Pickard Regulatory Compliance Engineer Compound Photonics D | +1 (602) 883-8039 From: Richard Nute [mailto:ri...@ieee.org] Sent: Monday, November 02, 2015 12:31 PM To: Ronald Pickard <ronald.pick...@compoundphotonics.com> Cc: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: RE: [PSES] IEC 62911? Hi Ron: 5.4.9.2, IEC 62368-1, is for routine electric strength testing of solid insulation (there is no routine electric strength test for clearances or creepage distances - as if they can be separated). The routine test voltage is 10% less than the type test voltage. For 250-volt rated equipment, the type test voltage is 2500 volts peak, so the routine test voltage is 2250 volts peak (1591 volts r.m.s.). The test time at 2250 volts peak is 1-4 seconds. In the forthcoming IEC 62911, for 250-volt rated equipment, the electric strength test is 2120 volts peak (1500 volts r.m.s.), minimum. The test time at 2120 volts peak is 1-4 seconds. Which standard prevails? Routine testing at the IEC 62368-1 voltage fulfills both standards, although IEC 62911 warns that testing at a higher voltage may deteriorate or partially damage the insulation. (This statement is bogus; check out Figure 1, Agilent application note 1074.) http://web.rfoe.net:8000/ZILIAOXIAZAI/HPB/Contents/7_Ap_Notes/5965-5977E.pdf The high-current test will not identify marginal construction. The test will only identify open circuits. See PSN Vol. 10, No. 1, January - March, 1997, and Vol. 10, No. 2 April - July, 1997. A simple low-current continuity test or an ohmmeter test is sufficient for routine testing of the protective bonding system. I've made this comment, formally, to the US TAG, who did not pass it on to TC108 (I don't know why). The record-keeping requirement has no expiration time; this implies records must be kept forever. Not a problem with today's electronic memory tools (except the programs for accessing the records may disappear). I'm not in favor of IEC 62911 as written. But, I'm only one voice; majority vote prevails, not engineering or science. Best regards, Rich - ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to <emc-p...@ieee.org> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas <sdoug...@ieee.org> Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org> For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: <j.bac...@ieee.org> David Heald: <dhe...@gmail.com>
