You are absolutely right. In my example, we have an instrument that has a multi-tap power stepdown transformer inside. The instrument will function at any voltage within the range but if you want the most power at your line voltage you will want to correctly set the taps on the transformer. But I can see that this fact does not necessarily need to be conveyed in the Rating of the device. We clearly describe this in our manuals.
We typically just use the nominal Voltage rating of 230V; however, in the States we often get customers who want to know if the device can be connected to 208V Line-Line derived from 3-phase. All of our newer instruments will but our older ones might not. So then our Engineering, Service and Marketing groups wants to somehow display this fact on the newer instruments. So recently, different design teams have used different methods to display the voltage rating and operational range. It is my goal to try and find some consistency in how our rating labels are printed. It’s is so funny to me how our company seems to spend more time on the simple issues. And we are not even talking about the Current rating, the 80% rule on pluggable equipment, how some inspectors want to see an “Average Current” or “Max. Continuous Current” rating on the instrument, or where some standards allow you to include an additional current rating in “brackets” that represent current levels higher than 10% of the rated current that occurs within the first minute of operation. Crazy man. Thanks for all the good information. Most helpful and informative discussion. The Other Brian From: Doug Powell [mailto:doug...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2017 2:10 PM To: Kunde, Brian Cc: EMC-PSTC Subject: Re: [PSES] Voltage Rating vs Voltage Specification Actually this looks redundant to me. The 100-115-120/208-220-230-240 can be expressed as 100-120/208-240. This is because the dash character indicates a range and the slash character indicates a selectable value. In quasi boolean fashion, this could be explained as (from 100 to 120) OR (from 208 to 240). One more point for the sake of clarity, the ±10% tolerance for a range is based on the end limits or a range. In your example above, -10% of 100V thru +10% of 120V and -10% of 208V thru +10% of 240V which translates into 90 thru 132 an 187.2 thru 264. This would not be included on a rating label however. In my experience ±10% is standard operating conditions (SOC) when not otherwise specified. This has been expanded on occasion in product design proposals where the customer has specified +10% / -15% as a preliminary step toward mitigating voltage dips and sags. All the best, doug On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 9:24 AM, Kunde, Brian <brian_ku...@lecotc.com<mailto:brian_ku...@lecotc.com>> wrote: Is something like this allowed? 100-115-120/208-220-230-240 Will a ±10% tolerance always be assumed? If your tolerance was something different, such as -15%/+10%, does this information have to be on the device or is the manual good enough? The Other Brian -----Original Message----- From: John Woodgate [mailto:jmw1...@btinternet.com<mailto:jmw1...@btinternet.com>] Sent: Friday, April 07, 2017 5:01 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> Subject: Re: [PSES] Voltage Rating vs Voltage Specification These runes differ in meaning: I have seen products rated 85-264V and others rated 100/120/208/230/240. 85-264 means any voltage within that range. You could put in 165 V and expect no problem. 100/120/208/230/240 means only those voltages, with whatever the relevant standard says about tolerances. 165 V would not work for this product. With best wishes DESIGN IT IN! OOO – Own Opinions Only www.jmwa.demon.co.uk<http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk> J M Woodgate and Associates Rayleigh England Sylvae in aeternum manent. -----Original Message----- From: Ralph McDiarmid [mailto:ralph.mcdiar...@schneider-electric.com<mailto:ralph.mcdiar...@schneider-electric.com>] Sent: Friday, April 7, 2017 8:29 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> Subject: Re: [PSES] Voltage Rating vs Voltage Specification I don't know, but I suppose it could be addressed by an "abnormal test" to see if UUT fails in a way which then renders it potentially unsafe by way of non-compliance with a criterion in the standard. I have seen products rated 85-264V and others rated 100/120/208/230/240. I would expect the first one to pass thermal test criteria at 85V, at rated power, at highest rated ambient . One corner of the "performance envelope" if you will. And then, do I test the latter at 100V -10% ? And, I don't think that compliance with a standard proves a product safe; only that it complies with a specific set of criteria. Product safety is hard to define, much harder to accurately assess, even with use of the AFMEA and FTA tools, which are subjective so it seems to me. Ralph McDiarmid Product Compliance Engineering Solar Business Schneider Electric -----Original Message----- From: Richard Nute [mailto:ri...@ieee.org<mailto:ri...@ieee.org>] Sent: Friday, April 07, 2017 10:51 AM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> Subject: Re: [PSES] Voltage Rating vs Voltage Specification Supposedly, since the ratings are specified in the standard, they must involve safety if not done according to the standard. So, what is the safety issue if the ratings are not in accordance with the standard? What is the injury? What is the safety issue if the applied voltage is less than or more than the marked ratings but still within the nominal from the electric power utility? Again, what is the injury? Rich > -----Original Message----- > From: John Woodgate > [mailto:jmw1...@btinternet.com<mailto:jmw1...@btinternet.com>] > Sent: Friday, April 07, 2017 9:11 AM > To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> > Subject: Re: [PSES] Voltage Rating vs Voltage Specification > > There are in fact two IEC resources, Electropedia, which has all the > formal definitions produced by TC1 and Glossary, which has a selection > of terms, culled from many standards, that have not been adopted by > TC1. > > http://www.electropedia.org/?ref=extfooter > > http://std.iec.ch/glossary?ref=extfooter > > Neither can be comprehensive at one instant, because new terms are > being added all the time. > > With best wishes DESIGN IT IN! OOO – Own Opinions Only > www.jmwa.demon.co.uk<http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk> J M Woodgate and Associates > Rayleigh England > > Sylvae in aeternum manent. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ralph McDiarmid > [mailto:Ralph.McDiarmid@SCHNEIDER-<mailto:Ralph.McDiarmid@SCHNEIDER-> > ELECTRIC.COM<http://ELECTRIC.COM>] > Sent: Friday, April 7, 2017 4:42 PM > To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> > Subject: Re: [PSES] Voltage Rating vs Voltage Specification > > Pete, I wonder if the onus to define the terminology like “rated > voltage” should really be on the technical committees, not academia. > I know that is some standards, terms like "disconnect" and "trip" are > loosely defined. I wonder if there should be one IEC document, which > could serve as a reference to all others for terminology. I think > there is one, but it is likely not comprehensive. > > Ralph McDiarmid > Product Compliance > Engineering > Solar Business > Schneider Electric > > > > From: Pete Perkins > [mailto:00000061f3f32d0c-dmarc-<mailto:00000061f3f32d0c-dmarc-> > requ...@ieee.org<mailto:requ...@ieee.org>] > Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2017 10:20 PM > To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> > Subject: Re: [PSES] Voltage Rating vs Voltage Specification > > All, > > Yes, the consultant or safety engineers > dream/nightmare. We have to realize that the glass is half empty for > most of the world and we have an ongoing opportunity to strike them > across the knuckles with a ruler (as the nuns did in primary school) > and begin the teaching mode. > > As PT Barnum (the American circus > entrepreneur) once said (and quoted often) ‘There is a fool born every > minute’. > > If the technical schools provided all of this detailed > training we wouldn’t have anything to do. > > So fill your peddler’s sack with all of these important > stories and smile, but not laugh out loud, when you run into the same > situation again (and again, and again). > > Every project and every design team is an opportunity > to straighten out the world. > > :>) br, Pete > > Peter E Perkins, PE > Principal Product Safety & Regulatory Affairs Consultant PO Box 23427 > Tigard, ORe 97281-3427 > > 503/452-1201<tel:503%2F452-1201> > > mailto:p.perk...@ieee.org<mailto:p.perk...@ieee.org> > > From: john Allen > [mailto:john_e_al...@blueyonder.co.uk<mailto:john_e_al...@blueyonder.co.uk>] > Sent: Thursday, April 6, 2017 12:57 AM > To: mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> > Subject: Re: [PSES] Voltage Rating vs Voltage Specification > > As Dave said, this is “age old problem” that we also faced at HP > Bristol in the 1980s when we built peripherals that had to operate > across the World – and that meant from 100V 50 & 60Hz in Japan and up > to 240V 50Hz for the UK and a few other places, AND +/- to cope with > the relevant required local tolerances (and so effectively meant +/- > 10% across the board). This meant careful selection and testing of > PSUs and of the ratings to be marked on the end-use products, but > fortunately most of our products did not have directly mains-powered > motors. > > In practice, if you have a product that does have such motors then it > may well mean that you need to produce separate models with different > motors for the geographical areas that operate at the extremes of the > voltage/frequency ranges – especially those at the lower end thereof > – or else change the designs to use DC motors supplied from full > voltage/frequency range- capable PSUs (or, possibly, use AC motors > rated for the lowest “worst case” voltage/ frequency / tolerance > combination, but with solid state control systems which ensure that > those motors are operated within that regime regardless of the actual > supplied mains voltages/ frequencies/ tolerances?). > > OTOH, the latter approaches are probably impracticable in most cases > for cost /space /weight / technology reasons , and so that means you > need a “horses for courses” approach. > > John E Allen > W. London, UK > > - > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > 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<mailto: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/<http://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<mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org>> > Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org<mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org>> > > For policy questions, send mail to: > Jim Bacher: <j.bac...@ieee.org<mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org>> > David Heald: <dhe...@gmail.com<mailto:dhe...@gmail.com>> > > - > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > 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<mailto: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/<http://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<mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org>> > Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org<mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org>> > > For policy questions, send mail to: > Jim Bacher: <j.bac...@ieee.org<mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org>> > David Heald: <dhe...@gmail.com<mailto:dhe...@gmail.com>> - ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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<mailto: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<mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org>> Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org<mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org>> For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: <j.bac...@ieee.org<mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org>> David Heald: <dhe...@gmail.com<mailto:dhe...@gmail.com>> ______________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. ______________________________________________________________________ - ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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<mailto: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<mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org>> Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org<mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org>> For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: <j.bac...@ieee.org<mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org>> David Heald: <dhe...@gmail.com<mailto:dhe...@gmail.com>> - ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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<mailto: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<mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org>> Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org<mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org>> For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: <j.bac...@ieee.org<mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org>> David Heald: <dhe...@gmail.com<mailto:dhe...@gmail.com>> ________________________________ LECO Corporation Notice: This communication may contain confidential information intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you received this by mistake, please destroy it and notify us of the error. Thank you. - ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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<mailto: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<mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org>> Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org<mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org>> For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: <j.bac...@ieee.org<mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org>> David Heald: <dhe...@gmail.com<mailto:dhe...@gmail.com>> -- Douglas E Powell doug...@gmail.com<mailto:doug...@gmail.com> http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01 ________________________________ LECO Corporation Notice: This communication may contain confidential information intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you received this by mistake, please destroy it and notify us of the error. Thank you. - ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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>
