Re: 230 Vac or 240 Vac?
George You are right that the UK still generates electricity to give single phase supplies centred at 240V. This is despite changing its nominal to 230V to harmonise with the EU. It is allowed a variation of +10% and -6%. of the nominal 230V (216 - 253) but unlike true 230V countries it is habitually at the top end of that range. I have frequently seen voltages at the socket of 245V to 247V As well the effect you mention of high voltage at times of low usage there is also the effect of neutral offset caused by unbalanced phase loads. UK supplies to domestic and commercial premises use a balanced three phase and neutral cable and connect premises to one of the phases and neutral. In a housing estate every third house is connected each phase.A large load on one phase will cause a voltage drop down the neutral. Neutral to earth voltages of 10 to 15 volts are not uncommon. Because this voltage is at 120° to the other phases a half its value will be added to the phase to neutral voltages of the other phases. It would not surprise me if occasionally the voltage exceeded 254V Another thing to remember about countries with a high supply voltage is that the voltage spikes are correspondingly higher as those generated on the high voltage transmission lines are transformed down by a lower ratio Nick Rouse - Original Message - From: To: Cc: Sent: Friday, February 02, 2001 7:30 PM Subject: Re: 230 Vac or 240 Vac? > > > David, > > Here is my understanding based on an earlier discussion on this forum > and some of our business experiences. The agreement amongst many high > volt countries was on a 220-240V range. This implies a 230V nominal. > The 240V countires agreed, but never changed their nominals, as this > would have involved serious changes to their power generation equipment. > > Their reasoning was that a product rated at 220-240V is required under > IEC 60950 and like standards to be tested up to 6% over rated voltage, > i.e. a max of 254V. They assumed they could deliver power to the end > users within this range without changing their nominals. > > I'm beginning to doubt this assumption as we have had numerous reports > of our direct plug-in external power supplies running "hot" in two > geographies only, viz. the U.K. and Australia/New Zealand. Since we > have specified and tested up to 254V without problems, it is my belief > that the end users may be seeing over 254V on low periods of the day. > High usage periods result in more IR drop along the transmission paths, > and reduce the end voltage. > > This is just my opinion based on my experiences. > > George Alspaugh > Lexmark International Inc. > > > > > gelfand%memotec@interlock.lexmark.com on 02/02/2001 10:56:22 AM > > Please respond to gelfand%memotec@interlock.lexmark.com > > To: emc-pstc%majordomo.ieee@interlock.lexmark.com > cc:(bcc: George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark) > Subject: 230 Vac or 240 Vac? > > > > > Group, > > I seem to remember that Australia was changing their nominal voltage from 240 to > 230 V. Is this true? Are there other countries that have nominal voltages of > 240 V? I want to determine the maximum voltage for leakage current tests. > > Best regards, > > David. > > David Gelfand > Regulatory Approvals > Memotec Communications Inc. > Montreal Canada > > > > > > --- > This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety > Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. > > 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: > Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com > Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org > > For policy questions, send mail to: > Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org > > --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. 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: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
Scope of EN 61000-4-11
I have ordered this standard, but I could use a little help while I wait for it to arrive. I have heard rumours that it applies only to single-phase equipment that draws 16A or less. Is this true? Thanks. Jeff Jenkins Advanced Energy Industries, Inc. Fort Collins, CO --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. 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: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
Re: 230 Vac or 240 Vac?
In message <010001c08d30$b0f70820$38581...@memotec.com> "David Gelfand" writes: > I seem to remember that Australia was changing their nominal voltage > from 240 to 230 V. Is this true? Are there other countries that have > nominal voltages of 240 V? I want to determine the maximum voltage for > leakage current tests. David, you are correct about Australia. Following is a copy of a posting to sci.engr.electrical.compliance last December which may be helpful. Bill -- Bill Lyons - b...@lyons.demon.co.uk / w.ly...@ieee.org Maintainer of the sci.engr.electrical.compliance (s.e.e.c) FAQ Posted to s.e.e.c approx 15th of each month (d.v.), archived at:- HTML: http://world.std.com/~techbook/compliance_faq.html http://member.nifty.ne.jp/tsato/seec-faq/ (Japanese) ASCII: http://www.lyons.demon.co.uk/seecfaq1.txt, seecfaq2.txt From: b...@lyons.demon.co.uk (Bill Lyons) Newsgroups: sci.engr.electrical.compliance Subject: Australian Mains Voltage List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 09:57:33 + (GMT) In response to a query by a reader, Loc Vuong of the Office of the Chief Electrical Inspector, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia (http://www.ocei.vic.gov.au), has very kindly provided the following information on mains voltage harmonization in Australia. -- Bill Lyons - b...@lyons.demon.co.uk / w.ly...@ieee.org STANDARDS FOR PUBLIC ELECTRICITY SUPPLY The Australian Standard AS60038: 2000 - 'Standard Voltages' superseded AS 2926: 1987 - 'Standard Voltages - Alternating (50Hz) and direct'. The Victorian Electricity Safety (Network Assets) Regulations 1999 refer to AS 2926: 1987 as this was the current standard at the time of formulation of these regulations. The OCEI, in conjunction with other regulators, plan to adopt AS 60038: 2000 in the year 2003 via an amendment of the Electrical Safety (Network Assets) Regulations. Section two, Table 1 of AS 60038: 2000 states: for 'nominal systems voltage' the frequency is 50Hz with a voltage of 230/400V. The table also recommends that the voltage at the point of supply should not differ from the nominal voltage of the system by more than +10%, -6%. The above standards are available from Standards Australia, which can be contacted via their website www.standards.com.au or on telephone +61 2 8206 6010. The Victorian Electricity Safety (Network Assets) Regulations 1999 are available from the Office of the Chief Electrical Inspector's website, www.ocei.vic.gov.au. I trust that this information satisfactorily addresses your queries, however should you require further information please do not hesitate in contacting me on 61 03 9203 97. Loc Vuong SUPPLY SAFETY ENGINEER --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. 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: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
RE: UL standards for Automotive ESAs
Chris, Welcome. Try this UL Standards link. You can search there. http://www.ul.com/info/standard.htm John Juhasz Fiber Options Bohemia, NY -Original Message- From: Chris Chileshe [mailto:chris.chile...@ultronics.co.uk] Sent: Friday, February 02, 2001 11:36 AM To: EMC-PSTC Subject: UL standards for Automotive ESAs Hi all, New subscriber here. I have recently moved from designing variable speed drives to automotive electronics and hence aiming for the 'e' as opposed to the CE mark. As part of our drives release procedure, we were required to meet UL standards and used to test to UL 508C. I have clearly established the other standards I need to be designing to such as ISO-7637, ISO 10605, ISO-11452, CISPR-25, CISPR-12 and CISPR-16, but I have been rather hard pushed to find a UL equivalent for automotive electronics i.e. is there a UL safety standard for vehicle Electronic Sub-assemblies (ESA), the likes of engine management units etc? Would appreciate some advice. Regards Chris Chileshe Ultronics Ltd Cheltenham, Glos. UK This message has been checked for all known viruses, by Star Internet, delivered through the MessageLabs Virus Control Centre. For further information visit: http://www.star.net.uk/stats.asp --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. 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: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
Re: LV Directive
Sorry about that. I forgot to identify the device.
The device is a detector for leaking
refrigerant in a commercial environment.
- Original Message -
From: Pryor McGinnis
To:
Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2001 2:48 PM
Subject: LV Directive
Hello All,
A client has a device that operates at 20 Vac, >1 A and is supplied by a CE
Marked "Wall Plug In" transformer. His question:
Does the Low Voltage Directive apply to his device or just the plug-in
transformer?
If Low Voltage Directive does not apply to his device, what safety
regulations do apply directly to the device?
Thanks in advance.
- Original Message -
From:
To:
Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2001 8:31 AM
Subject: RE: RTTE & Placing in Service
The Commission's guide to the implementation of directives ("blue book")
indicates that a device placed into service for the manufacturer's own use
is not placed on the market. In the link below, see section 2.3.1 for
Placing on the Market and 2.3.2 for placing in service. Specifically note
the third bullet in section 2.3.2.
http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/newapproach/legislation/guide/document/
chap02.pdf
Richard Woods
--
From: Kevin Harris [SMTP:harr...@dscltd.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2001 3:58 PM
To: 'wo...@sensormatic.com'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: RTTE & Placing in Service
You are right Richard.
More directly to your point here is a quote taken from
http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/rtte/interp.htm
and then click on question 12
In the context of the new approach "placing on the market" is defined as: «
A product is placed on the Community market when it is made available for
the first time. This is considered to take place when a product is
transferred from the stage of manufacture with the intention of distribution
and/or use on the Community market . Moreover, the concept of placing on the
market refers to each individual product, not to a type of product, and
whether it was manufactured as an individual unit or in series".
Now the quote is in the middle of a fairly muddled analysis and perhaps
should be taken with a grain of salt but what I get from that is it seems
like a sale need not take place to be taken into service and therefor you
would have to notify.
Best Regards,
Kevin Harris
Manager, Approval Services
Digital Security Controls
3301 Langstaff Road
Concord, Ontario
CANADA
L4K 4L2
Tel: +1 905 760 3000 Ext. 2378
Fax +1 905 760 3020
Email: harr...@dscltd.com
-Original Message-
From: wo...@sensormatic.com [mailto:wo...@sensormatic.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2001 2:04 PM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: RTTE & Placing in Service
Thanks for that info Kevin. I think that publication only
affects needing a
Notified Body per Annex III. The -3 lists the essential
test suites, so it
is no longer necessary to ask a Notified Body to identify
them.
Richard Woods
--
From: Kevin Harris [SMTP:harr...@dscltd.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2001 2:07 PM
To: 'wo...@sensormatic.com'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: RTTE & Placing in Service
Hi Richard,
I think it all becomes a moot point on Feb 7. I was looking
at the ETSI site
yesterday and they indicate there that EN 300-220-3 will be
published in the
OJ for the R&TTE directive on that date. EN 300-220-3 is
the harmonised EN
covering the essential requirements under Article 3.2 of the
directive
Best Regards,
Kevin Harris
Manager, Approval Services
Digital Security Controls
3301 Langstaff Road
Concord, Ontario
CANADA
L4K 4L2
Tel: +1 905 760 3000 Ext. 2378
Fax +1 905 760 3020
Email: harr...@dscltd.com
-Original Message-
From: wo...@sensormatic.com
[mailto:wo...@sensormatic.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2001 12:43 PM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RTTE & Placing in Service
Consider a low power radio transmitter
subject to EN 300 220
that is to be
used only by the manufacturer's service
organization and
will not be placed
on the market for sale. EN 300 220 is a
harmonized standard,
but the
operating frequency is not harmonized.
It appears that the provisions in Article 6
do not apply
since the product
will not be placed on the market. Article 7
contains the
provisions for
putting into service. Notification to the
spectrum
authorities (from Article
6) does not appear to be a requirement even
though the
frequency is not
harmonized. It appears that it is sufficient
to comply with
the essential
requirements and apply the CE marking which
must include the
alert symbol
per Annex VII since the frequency is not
harmonized.
A member state may restrict the placing in
service, but only
for the three
reasons specified in Article 7.2: efficient
use of the
spectrum,
interference and public health. It appears
there is no
legal requirement to
notify the state pr
RE: FCC for PCs
I think you might still be able to make a cost argument, but it gets much more difficult now for the reason you state, but still most folks are buying much cheaper systems for home usage. The other item to look at when making the case for class A is the applications that you are selling with this thing. If you gut the O/S and have some application that doesn't lend its self to home users you could be okay. I seem to remember an automatic meter reading system that was allowed class A, even though used on a mobile basis in residential neighbor hoods, and I used to work for some folks that built automating banking equipment that was, for all practical purposes IBM compatible (the old standard for whether or not it was a computer - glad to see that has changed). It could have been used for a personal computer as it ran under MSDOS (okay so I'm old) However, we marketed only in industry rags, and unless you were a bank or savings company then the loaded applications were of no interest, and back then the cost was fairly prohibitive. I even bothered to get a confirmation from the feds before we started and they had no problems with the classification. Other than price, I'm not sure that anything has really changed. But if the PC started out as class B, and you add a card to it, I don't think your task or cost is all that great in maintaining the class B performance, and you avoid the hassle of arguing the point. Unless you own your own lab, then the testing process, cost and time frame are all going to be the same between class A and B anyway. The only disadvantage is that most of us have discovered that because a computer was once class B doesn't mean it stays that way, most often simply because shipping has loosened up stuff. However, even those computers that I have seen that did fail class B still met Class A. Just an opinion Gary -Original Message- From: geor...@lexmark.com [mailto:geor...@lexmark.com] Sent: Friday, February 02, 2001 5:37 AM To: p...@tennyson.com.au Cc: wo...@sensormatic.com; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: FCC for PCs I recall from my days of managing EMC that the FCC does not allow a manufacturer to "declare" if an ITE product is Class A or B. They look at the price, and where the product is advertised and sold as well. If the product is within the price range consumers are willing to pay, advertised in consumer publications, and sold through routine consumer outlets, then it is Class B. Note that consumers are far more familiar with PCs now, and many are willing to pay up to $3K or more for a home PC. George prao%tennyson.com...@interlock.lexmark.com on 02/01/2001 07:04:50 PM Please respond to prao%tennyson.com...@interlock.lexmark.com To: woods%sensormatic@interlock.lexmark.com, emc-pstc%majordomo.ieee@interlock.lexmark.com cc:(bcc: George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark) Subject: RE: FCC for PCs You are right, they should be Class B unless they excusively specify that the PC is not for home use. You will need them to be Class B to start with and when you load them with custom option cards there is a high chance that the EMI characteristics will worsen and you'll at least meet Class A. Praveen -Original Message- From: wo...@sensormatic.com [mailto:wo...@sensormatic.com] Sent: Friday, 2 February 2001 2:08 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: FCC for PCs We are purchasing a PC loaded with custom option cards from a supplier that obtains the PC from a third party. The end unit as sold to us and resold by us is not intended for home use. However, the base PC initially sold by the third party is sized and priced such that it could potentially be used in the home. The computer does not display the FCC mark, but is marked according to Class A requirements. I am concerned that the computer may not be in compliance with FCC marking requirements. What are the current rules that would apply in this case? Richard Woods --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. 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: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. 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: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to:
CB Scheme Participating Countries
Hello group, I don't know about you, but I've often struggled with finding a central location that displays a large number of safety agency logos and markings. This page on the IEC CB Scheme web site has a very comprehensive list with links to individual pages with information, addresses, logos and links back to the agency web site. http://www.iecee.org/cbscheme/cbcntris.htm I thought others might be interested in this as well. -doug = Douglas E. Powell Regulatory Compliance Engineer Advanced Energy Industries, Inc. 1625 Sharp Point Dr. Ft. Collins, Co 80525 mailto:doug.pow...@aei.com www.advanced-energy.com = --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. 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: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
EMI ruggedization of USB ports
Can anyone point me to guidelines for ruggedizing USB interfaces for harsh EMI environments (100 V/m, IEC 1000-4-4 category 3, etc.)? Thanks, Susan H. Beard 321-435-7762 Fax 321-435-7957 susan.be...@gehh.ge.com --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. 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: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
