Re: EN55022:1998 + A1:2000

2003-01-28 Thread lfresea...@aol.com 
In a message dated 1/28/03 6:32:49 PM Central Standard Time,
drcuthb...@micron.com writes:





A1 to EN55022:1998 requires the use of ferrite clamps on all cables leaving
the table-top EUT for a connection outside the test site. Are there any
other manufacturers of these clamps other than Fischer Custom
Communications?





Hi Richard,

thanks for the chance to say that Schaffner also markets this type of
decoupling clamp. It is different to the Clamp used for EN61000-4-6.

Talk to John Parnell at 1-800-367-5566. Ext 225

Best Regards,

Derek Walton

Re: Circuit Breaker Tripping Dring Fault Tests

2003-01-28 Thread Rich Nute 




Hi Peter:


>   For safety, it is not clear from the standards whether 
>   the main branch circuit breaker tripping during fault 
>   conditions is an acceptable result.
>   
>   I see no reason why this should not be acceptable. What 
>   is your view? Some third party labs find it acceptable 
>   and others do not.

Some products are provided with internal overcurrent
protection and some are not.  

Clearly, those that do not have internal overcurrent
protection rely on the branch circuit protection.

If a product has an internal overcurrent protective
device, and the fault is on the load side of that 
device, then the internal device should provide the
protection and not the branch circuit device.  
(Otherwise, the internal device provides no 
protection, and might as well be removed.)

If the fault is on the supply side of the internal
device, then clearly the internal device cannot 
provide protection, and the branch circuit must 
provide the protection.  

The real question is whether or not the product is
safe when the fault current is just below the
operating point of the branch circuit device.  
Examining this question requires an understanding
of the fault and whether its resistance can be high
enough to not trip the branch circuit yet not create
a hazardous condition (such as a fire).  If the 
fault resistance always is no more than 120/20 = 6 
ohms, then I would say that the branch circuit 
could be relied upon to provide protection against
the fault.

Note that in the USA, a 120-volt branch circuit can
be provided with either a 15-amp or a 20-amp
overcurrent device.  Therefore, the product must be
safe when the fault current is 20 amps, just below
the overcurrent device operating point.  That means
that the product must be capable of dissipating 
2400 watts without catching fire or destroying 
internal insulation that serves a safety purpose.


Best regards,
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:
 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Dave Heald:   davehe...@attbi.com

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://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/
Click on "browse" and then "emc-pstc mailing list"

RE: EN55022:1998 + A1:2000

2003-01-28 Thread drcuthbert 

I don't have a copy of EN55022 to look at so I'll ask a question: How many
ferrite clamps and what type are specified? And are they placed at various
places, at one location only, or placed as with a Bicon balun?

Dave Cuthbert
Micron Technology 


From: richwo...@tycoint.com [mailto:richwo...@tycoint.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2003 11:30 AM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: EN55022:1998 + A1:2000



A1 to EN55022:1998 requires the use of ferrite clamps on all cables leaving
the table-top EUT for a connection outside the test site. Are there any
other manufacturers of these clamps other than Fischer Custom
Communications?

Richard Woods
Sensormatic Electronics
Tyco International



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:
 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Dave Heald:   davehe...@attbi.com

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://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/
Click on "browse" and then "emc-pstc mailing list"


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:
 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Dave Heald:   davehe...@attbi.com

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://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/
Click on "browse" and then "emc-pstc mailing list"

RE: Circuit Breaker Tripping During Fault Tests

2003-01-28 Thread Richard Hughes 
Peter,
 
I do not find your question specific enough: which standards, what fault(s),
where in the world?  Are you considering equipment connected only by domestic
ac mains plugs or also hard-wired or connected using industrial plugs?
 
It is certainly common for product safety standards, such as IEC 60950-1, to
permit the branch protector to protect the power cord in the event of a phase
to earth fault in the equipment, for example.  The need to cater for a variety
of possible time-current characteristics that also vary with rated current is
why we have gone from a simple 1.5 times over-current protector (e.g. fuse or
circuit breaker) rating with no time specified but a maximum of 25A in the
first and second editions to the more complicated test conditions that we have
in the third edition of IEC 60950 and the first edition of IEC 60950-1.
 
Consider also that a building may be protected by fuses or circuit breakers. 
Both fuses and circuit breakers are typically available in a variety of
time-current characteristics.  The fuse standards in the USA are different
>from those used in Europe: ditto for circuit breakers.  At extremely high
overload conditions the mechanical inertia of circuit breakers means that
there is a minimum time below which they will not trip, irrespective of how
high the current goes - this is not true of fuses.  So what fuse or breaker
were you thinking of using to guarantee that a fault in the equipment will
always pull out the building over-current protective device ?
 
Note also that EN 60950-1 has a Common Modification as compared to IEC 60950-1
in this regard (see 2.7.1).
 
Richard Hughes
 


From: peter merguerian [mailto:pmerguerian2...@yahoo.com]
Sent: 28 January 2003 19:54
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Circuit Breaker Tripping Dring Fault Tests



Dear All,

For safety, it is not clear from the standards whether the main branch circuit
breaker tripping during fault conditions is an acceptable result.

I see no reason why this should not be acceptable. What is your view? Some
third party labs find it acceptable and others do not.

Anyone can lead me to some inernational decisions regarding this issue?

Thanks,

Peter

 

 




  _  

Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail  
Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up  <
ttp://rd.yahoo.com/mail/mailsig/*http://mailplus.yahoo.com> now

RE: Circuit Breaker Tripping Dring Fault Tests

2003-01-28 Thread gkt4s 
Like most regulatory issues the answer is YES and NO.
 
Therefore it is dangerous and extremely misleading (to many lurkers) to apply
a general answer to all conditions:
 
*   Generally the equipment is expected to protect itself with internal over
current and short-circuit protection. 
 
*   The equipment will be tested with the worst case fault condition – 60 
kAmp
or more is not uncommon
 
*   If the equipment is simple and cannot be protect itself (e.g. a table 
lamp)
then we rely upon the domestic breaker (hoping that the electrician follow
CODE and not his own initiative) that is why the cord will have minimum
x-sectional area and maximum length. (Expect where UK style plugs are used -
these carry an internal fuse from 1 Amp to 13 Amps). It is also why CODE
violations are prosecuted – we must guarantee that the correct type of
breaker is fitted in each domestic circuit.
 
*   Where we rely upon the ‘breaker’ for - non-domestic equipment - it is
ALWAYS mandatory (and common sense) to specify the characteristics of that
breaker in terms of  ‘tripping (operating) current’ – time
characteristics (Type I, II or III) and Breaking Current 2,500 Amps is low for
most domestic situations.
 
A failure to provide the necessary information WILL eventually result in a
fire or nuisance tripping.
 
 
You should fine that all test labs will have the same interpretation – I
suspect that submissions PASSED are correct – whilst those that were
REJECTED were not correct.
 
Best regards
 
Gregg
 
 
 
 
 

From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
[mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of peter merguerian
Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2003 2:54 PM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Circuit Breaker Tripping Dring Fault Tests
 
Dear All,
For safety, it is not clear from the standards whether the main branch circuit
breaker tripping during fault conditions is an acceptable result.
I see no reason why this should not be acceptable. What is your view? Some
third party labs find it acceptable and others do not.
Anyone can lead me to some inernational decisions regarding this issue?
Thanks,
Peter
 
 
 
  _  

Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo!   Mail
Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now

RE: Circuit Breaker Tripping During Fault Tests

2003-01-28 Thread Gary McInturff 
Peter,
   Well, you didn't tell us much about the device, but in general I would
say that if you are relying on the fault protection to be provided by someone
else that's not a good idea. Its not something in your control and if the
installation doesn't have the proper breakers you got problems. 
Off the top of my head I can come up with two scenarios:
Case 1 - A simple light fixture has no internal breaker and occasionally
when the filament burns out it can case a breaker to trip - so the fault is
protected outside of the equipment. This type of product doesn't have to be
held buy the user - so its really the wire that's being protected.
Case 2 - A hairdryer. If it is dropped into water - or whatever - it trips
its own internal GFCI. This type of product is typically being held by the
user during operation. So  it's the operator or user that is being protected.
I'm sure others can put some caveats to all of the above - e.g. what
happens in the first case if the user happens to be touching it when the short
occurs and that probably has some validity.
Just my two cents worth for the moment - interesting question.
Gary
 

From: peter merguerian [mailto:pmerguerian2...@yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2003 11:54 AM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Circuit Breaker Tripping Dring Fault Tests



Dear All,

For safety, it is not clear from the standards whether the main branch circuit
breaker tripping during fault conditions is an acceptable result.

I see no reason why this should not be acceptable. What is your view? Some
third party labs find it acceptable and others do not.

Anyone can lead me to some inernational decisions regarding this issue?

Thanks,

Peter

 

 




  _  

Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail  
Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up  <
ttp://rd.yahoo.com/mail/mailsig/*http://mailplus.yahoo.com> now

RE: Circuit Breaker Tripping Dring Fault Tests

2003-01-28 Thread Jim Eichner 
I've been trying to solve this one myself.  I work with one pair of standards
(UL458 / CSA107.1) where they specifically say that opening the branch circuit
protection is acceptable during component fault testing, but NOT during short
circuit tests done for the purposes of validating inadequate trace spacings
(an easement offered in the standards in some situations).  I've always been
puzzled why we can't rely on branch circuit protection for both situations,
but neither agency has been able to explain the difference to me.
 
Jim Eichner, P.Eng.
Regulatory Compliance Manager
Xantrex Technology Inc.
phone: (604) 422-2546
fax: (604) 420-1591
e-mail: jim.eich...@xantrex.com
web: www.xantrex.com 
Confidentiality Notice: This email message, including any attachments, is for
the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and
privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or
distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please
contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original
message.


From: peter merguerian [mailto:pmerguerian2...@yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2003 11:54 AM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Circuit Breaker Tripping Dring Fault Tests



Dear All,

For safety, it is not clear from the standards whether the main branch circuit
breaker tripping during fault conditions is an acceptable result.

I see no reason why this should not be acceptable. What is your view? Some
third party labs find it acceptable and others do not.

Anyone can lead me to some inernational decisions regarding this issue?

Thanks,

Peter

 

 




  _  

Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail  
Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up  <
ttp://rd.yahoo.com/mail/mailsig/*http://mailplus.yahoo.com> now

Re: Applicabilty of Flicker Standard

2003-01-28 Thread John Woodgate 

I read in !emc-pstc that don_borow...@selinc.com wrote (in
) about
'Applicabilty of Flicker Standard' on Tue, 28 Jan 2003:
>
>We are trying to figure out the applicability of 61000-3-3 Flicker Standard
>to the power supply in our product. We have a device that may be "hard
>wired" into the public low voltage (230 V) mains under certain
>circumstances, and has no mains switch. Given this, it appears that the
>maximum relative voltage change dmax shall not exceed 4% (61000-3-3,
>Section 5, Limits, condition a.) since it is "energized immediately on
>restoration of supply after a power supply interruption".
>
>Question 1: Does the 4% dmax include the inrush upon restoration of supply,
>or does it apply only to voltage changes caused by changes in current
>demand during operation (after inrush)?

It includes the inrush current. The standard is NOT only about flicker;
this impression is due to the less-than-generalized title. It is about
all sorts of **voltage changes** impressed on to the supply by loads.
See the Amendment for better information on inrush current.
>
>To make things even messier, the device in question is a control for a
>power distribution recloser (over 1 kV). During a fault, it might demand
>enough current to exceed 4% dmax when operating the recloser. The public
>low voltage powering the control would almost certainly be derived from the
>high voltage system being switched by the recloser.
>
>Question 2: Do we need to meet the 61000-3-3 limits during recloser
>operation (most likely fault conditions)?
>
Probably not if it is installed within a utility's site. AIUI, any low-
voltage supply there is not a 'public' supply. If it can be installed in
a user's premises, then the low-voltage supply might not be derived from
the MV supply being switched (in a big hospital, for example, which has
two separate HV or MV supplies for reliability). In that case, the
standard applies.
-- 
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk 
Interested in professional sound reinforcement and distribution? Then go to 
http://www.isce.org.uk
PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL!


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:
 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Dave Heald:   davehe...@attbi.com

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://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/
Click on "browse" and then "emc-pstc mailing list"

Re: EN61000-4-3:2002

2003-01-28 Thread John Woodgate 

I read in !emc-pstc that richwo...@tycoint.com wrote (in <846BF526A205F8
4BA2B6045BBF7E9A6A04675B9C@flbocexu05>) about 'EN61000-4-3:2002' on Tue,
28 Jan 2003:
>Can anyone verify that EN61000-4-3:2000 does not contain common
>modifications to the IEC document - i.e., they are identical?

I can't find an issue dated '2000'. The 2002 edition contains no Common
Modifications. The standard which it supersedes on 2005-04-01 is EN
61000-4-3:1996 + A1:1998 + A2:2001.
-- 
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk 
Interested in professional sound reinforcement and distribution? Then go to 
http://www.isce.org.uk
PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL!


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:
 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Dave Heald:   davehe...@attbi.com

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://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/
Click on "browse" and then "emc-pstc mailing list"

Circuit Breaker Tripping Dring Fault Tests

2003-01-28 Thread peter merguerian 
Dear All,

For safety, it is not clear from the standards whether the main branch circuit
breaker tripping during fault conditions is an acceptable result.

I see no reason why this should not be acceptable. What is your view? Some
third party labs find it acceptable and others do not.

Anyone can lead me to some inernational decisions regarding this issue?

Thanks,

Peter

 

 




  _  

Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus 
 - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now http://mailplus.yahoo.com>

Re: Automotive v. EMC Directives

2003-01-28 Thread Ken Javor 

Not an authoritative reply, just an opinion based on theoretical knowledge.
An automotive product operates from 12 Vdc, or perhaps some other dc
potential. In order for it to operate outside an auto, there must be an
external power supply involved.  Presumably that problem could be solved by
using an approved "wall-wart" type supply.  But a valid radiated emissions
or immunity test of an automotive product would likely have it bonded to a
metal ground plane, and any attached cable in close proximity to that ground
plane.  And the test antenna would be much closer than 3 meters from the
test sample.  This is all, for good reason, in marked contrast to the EN
55022 test set up.

I would think that if a product could be considered dual use, automotive or
household, two completely different set of EMI requirements would have to be
levied and verified separately.

>From: "Hudson, Alan" 
>To: "EMC-pstc (E-mail)" 
>Subject: Automotive v. EMC Directives
>Date: Tue, Jan 28, 2003, 11:34 AM
>

>
>
>
>
> G'Day!
>
> Is anyone familiar with the standards needed to comply with the Automotive
> *and* the EMC Directives? How do they compare? Or to put it another way, if
> an item of equipment was known to be compliant with the Automotive
> Directive, is it likely that it would therefore meet the requirements of the
> EMC Directive?
>
> Alan
> --
> Alenia Marconi Systems
> Scotland
>
> 
> This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
> recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
> recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
> You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or
> distribute its contents to any other person.
> 
>
> ---
> 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:
>  Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
>  Dave Heald:   davehe...@attbi.com
>
> 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://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/
> Click on "browse" and then "emc-pstc mailing list"
> 


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:
 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Dave Heald:   davehe...@attbi.com

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://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/
Click on "browse" and then "emc-pstc mailing list"

RE: Automotive v. EMC Directives

2003-01-28 Thread Jim Eichner 

The requirements are very different, especially in the test setup, and I
don't think you can make assumptions in either direction.  For an electronic
sub-assembly, for example, you do radiated emissions at a measurement
distance of 1m, which is very much in the near field.  You won't likely be
able to make any assumptions from that as to how you will fare in a 3m or
10m emissions test for the EMC Directive, which is arguably in the far
field.  There are lots of other significant differences, so I'm afraid
you'll need to do the reading and do some testing.  

One bit of good news:  the Automotive EMC Directive contains its own
requirements, so you don't need to buy standards to go along with it.
Here's a link:

http://europa.eu.int/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexapi!prod!CELEXnumdoc
&lg=EN&numdoc=31995L0054&model=guichett

Good luck,

Jim Eichner, P.Eng. 
Regulatory Compliance Manager  
Xantrex Technology Inc. 
e-mail: jim.eich...@xantrex.com 
web: www.xantrex.com 

Any opinions expressed are those of my invisible friend, who really exists.
Honest.  No really.

Confidentiality Notice: This email message, including any attachments, is
for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential
and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or
distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please
contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original
message.






From: Hudson, Alan [mailto:alan.hud...@amsjv.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2003 9:34 AM
To: EMC-pstc (E-mail)
Subject: Automotive v. EMC Directives






G'Day!

Is anyone familiar with the standards needed to comply with the Automotive
*and* the EMC Directives? How do they compare? Or to put it another way, if
an item of equipment was known to be compliant with the Automotive
Directive, is it likely that it would therefore meet the requirements of the
EMC Directive?

Alan
-- 
Alenia Marconi Systems
Scotland


This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or
distribute its contents to any other person.



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:
 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Dave Heald:   davehe...@attbi.com

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://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/
Click on "browse" and then "emc-pstc mailing list"


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:
 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Dave Heald:   davehe...@attbi.com

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://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/
Click on "browse" and then "emc-pstc mailing list"

RE: EN55022:1998 + A1:2000

2003-01-28 Thread Pettit, Ghery 

Without looking at their web pages, I would suspect that Schaffner and Rohde
& Schwarz might be places to look.  ETS-Lindgren, as well?

Ghery Pettit
Intel


From: richwo...@tycoint.com [mailto:richwo...@tycoint.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2003 10:30 AM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: EN55022:1998 + A1:2000



A1 to EN55022:1998 requires the use of ferrite clamps on all cables leaving
the table-top EUT for a connection outside the test site. Are there any
other manufacturers of these clamps other than Fischer Custom
Communications?

Richard Woods
Sensormatic Electronics
Tyco International



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:
 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Dave Heald:   davehe...@attbi.com

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://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/
Click on "browse" and then "emc-pstc mailing list"


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:
 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Dave Heald:   davehe...@attbi.com

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://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/
Click on "browse" and then "emc-pstc mailing list"

EN55022:1998 + A1:2000

2003-01-28 Thread richwo...@tycoint.com 

A1 to EN55022:1998 requires the use of ferrite clamps on all cables leaving
the table-top EUT for a connection outside the test site. Are there any
other manufacturers of these clamps other than Fischer Custom
Communications?

Richard Woods
Sensormatic Electronics
Tyco International



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:
 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Dave Heald:   davehe...@attbi.com

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://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/
Click on "browse" and then "emc-pstc mailing list"

Re: 'DOW' of standards

2003-01-28 Thread John Woodgate 

I read in !emc-pstc that iun...@servomex.com wrote (in ) about ''DOW' of standards' on
Tue, 28 Jan 2003:
>The  OJ for the LVD (page C317/73) gives 1.1.2004 as being the date beyond
> which   IEC   61010-1:1990/A2:1995  can  no  longer  be  used  to  presume
> conformance  with the requirements of this Directive. After this date, can
> equipment  previously  assessed to this standard still be marketed without
> reassessment to the new standard (IEC 61010-1:2001)? If so, until when?

No, that's what 'dow' means. After that date, it's the new standard or
nothing. You might find it helpful to search for my post on 'docopocoss'
(Date Of Cessation Of Presumption Of Conformity Of the Superseded
Standard). I'd put it on my web site if I could remember the URL. (;-)
>
> Between  1.4.2001  (the  'dow' of IEC 61010-1:1990+A1:1992 (Modified)) and
> 1.1.2004   (the   dow   of   IEC  61010-1:1990/A2:1995),  can  either  IEC
> 61010-1:1990/A2:1995  or  IEC  61010-1:2001 be used to presume conformance
> with the requirements of LVD?

Yes.
-- 
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk 
Interested in professional sound reinforcement and distribution? Then go to 
http://www.isce.org.uk
PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL!


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:
 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Dave Heald:   davehe...@attbi.com

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://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/
Click on "browse" and then "emc-pstc mailing list"

Re: Unity Power Factor

2003-01-28 Thread Rich Nute 




Hi John:


>   >No, this is not much of an issue for the U.S. (unless your facility
is 
>   >actually affecting the utility);
>   
>   ... or frying the neutral conductors with third-harmonic current.

In the USA, this has largely been fixed by a change in
the USA National Electrical Code.  

When the load is largely electronic (off-line rectifiers)
the Code now requires a larger neutral conductor in three-
phase distributions.

Many constructions, while supplied from a three-phase source,
are wired as single-phase.  So, in this case, the neutral
only carries the current of one phase, and we don't "fry"
the neutral.


Best regards,
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:
 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Dave Heald:   davehe...@attbi.com

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://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/
Click on "browse" and then "emc-pstc mailing list"

Automotive v. EMC Directives

2003-01-28 Thread Hudson, Alan 




G'Day!

Is anyone familiar with the standards needed to comply with the Automotive
*and* the EMC Directives? How do they compare? Or to put it another way, if
an item of equipment was known to be compliant with the Automotive
Directive, is it likely that it would therefore meet the requirements of the
EMC Directive?

Alan
-- 
Alenia Marconi Systems
Scotland


This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or
distribute its contents to any other person.



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:
 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Dave Heald:   davehe...@attbi.com

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://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/
Click on "browse" and then "emc-pstc mailing list"

Applicabilty of Flicker Standard

2003-01-28 Thread don_borow...@selinc.com 

We are trying to figure out the applicability of 61000-3-3 Flicker Standard
to the power supply in our product. We have a device that may be "hard
wired" into the public low voltage (230 V) mains under certain
circumstances, and has no mains switch. Given this, it appears that the
maximum relative voltage change dmax shall not exceed 4% (61000-3-3,
Section 5, Limits, condition a.) since it is "energized immediately on
restoration of supply after a power supply interruption".

Question 1: Does the 4% dmax include the inrush upon restoration of supply,
or does it apply only to voltage changes caused by changes in current
demand during operation (after inrush)?

To make things even messier, the device in question is a control for a
power distribution recloser (over 1 kV). During a fault, it might demand
enough current to exceed 4% dmax when operating the recloser. The public
low voltage powering the control would almost certainly be derived from the
high voltage system being switched by the recloser.

Question 2: Do we need to meet the 61000-3-3 limits during recloser
operation (most likely fault conditions)?

Don Borowski
Schweitzer Engineering Labs
Pullman, WA




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:
 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Dave Heald:   davehe...@attbi.com

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://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/
Click on "browse" and then "emc-pstc mailing list"

EN61000-4-3:2002

2003-01-28 Thread richwo...@tycoint.com 

Can anyone verify that EN61000-4-3:2000 does not contain common
modifications to the IEC document - i.e., they are identical?

Richard Woods
Sensormatic Electronics
Tyco International



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:
 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Dave Heald:   davehe...@attbi.com

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://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/
Click on "browse" and then "emc-pstc mailing list"

MRA US-EU: Sectoral Annex Safety suspended

2003-01-28 Thread Carpentier Kristiaan 

This seems to be the end of the Sectoral Annex Electrical Safety.

http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/dat/2003/l_023/l_02320030128en00240025.pdf

Regards,
Kris


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:
 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Dave Heald:   davehe...@attbi.com

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://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/
Click on "browse" and then "emc-pstc mailing list"

'DOW' of standards

2003-01-28 Thread iun...@servomex.com 

Dear Group,

 The  OJ for the LVD (page C317/73) gives 1.1.2004 as being the date beyond
 which   IEC   61010-1:1990/A2:1995  can  no  longer  be  used  to  presume
 conformance  with the requirements of this Directive. After this date, can
 equipment  previously  assessed to this standard still be marketed without
 reassessment to the new standard (IEC 61010-1:2001)? If so, until when?

 Between  1.4.2001  (the  'dow' of IEC 61010-1:1990+A1:1992 (Modified)) and
 1.1.2004   (the   dow   of   IEC  61010-1:1990/A2:1995),  can  either  IEC
 61010-1:1990/A2:1995  or  IEC  61010-1:2001 be used to presume conformance
 with the requirements of LVD?

 Apologies if the answers to the above have been covered before and are
   thus locked up in the group's archives.

 Ian Unwin

 Servomex Group Limited




This email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs SkyScan
service. 
This electronic message contains information from Servomex which may be
privileged or confidential. 
The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) or entity
named above. 
If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying,
distribution or use of the contents of this information is prohibited. 
If you have received this electronic message in error, please notify us
immediately.
Activity and use of the Servomex E-mail system is monitored to secure its
effective operation and for other lawful business purposes. Communications
using this system may also be monitored and may be
recorded to secure effective operation and for other lawful business
purposes.


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:
 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Dave Heald:   davehe...@attbi.com

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://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/
Click on "browse" and then "emc-pstc mailing list"

Re: Unity Power Factor

2003-01-28 Thread John Woodgate 

I read in !emc-pstc that boconn...@t-yuden.com wrote (in ) about 'Unity Power Factor'
on Mon, 27 Jan 2003:
>No, this is not much of an issue for the U.S. (unless your facility is 
>actually affecting the utility);

... or frying the neutral conductors with third-harmonic current.

> but I have read that the EC is currently 
>engaged is some interesting emission requirements discussions (Mr.
Woodgate 
>should probably jump in...).

There is nothing going on in Europe with regard to mains harmonic
current emissions. IEC/EN 61000-3-2 is in effect, as it has been for a
while now. 

There is new work going on in IEC, but don't hold your breath. The fully
revised IEC 61000-3-2 is expected to be published in 2006, and if so,
might become mandatory, as EN 61000-3-2, in 2010. No-one expects its
technical provisions to be startlingly different from those of the
current standard with the Millennium Amendment.
-- 
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk 
Interested in professional sound reinforcement and distribution? Then go to 
http://www.isce.org.uk
PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL!


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:
 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Dave Heald:   davehe...@attbi.com

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://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/
Click on "browse" and then "emc-pstc mailing list"

Re: Unity Power Factor

2003-01-28 Thread John Woodgate 

I read in !emc-pstc that don_macart...@selinc.com wrote (in ) about 'Unity Power Factor' on
Mon, 27 Jan 2003:
>Why are  so many U.S. manufacturers using Unity Power Factor correctors in
>low wattage power supplies?
>
>Are there any U.S. requirements for Harmonics or they just trying to meet
>CE mark requirements (devices rated > 75W)?

Well, there's IEEE519. But there's also 'hot neutrals', due to 3rd (9th,
15th...) harmonic currents adding in-phase in the neutral, which occurs
in USA whereas the other European problems with harmonics don't occur so
much, because the distribution system is different.

Countries outside Europe are gradually adopting IEC 61000-3-2 under
emission regulations.
-- 
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk 
Interested in professional sound reinforcement and distribution? Then go to 
http://www.isce.org.uk
PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL!


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:
 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Dave Heald:   davehe...@attbi.com

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://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/
Click on "browse" and then "emc-pstc mailing list"