Re: EN61000-3-2 repeatability test

[owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]

Hi Ken,

I'd be interested. We have been working on an EMI proficiency testing program
for some time, that is one area we still don't have covered.

Cheers,

Derek Walton
L F Research

RE: beryllium disease

[owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]

Doug,

Here are some links:

http://www.healthatoz.com/healthatoz/Atoz/ency/berylliosis.html

http://www.emedicine.com/med/topic222.htm

The reports seem to say that inhalation is the only hazard. I used to
use beryllium TO-3 insulators and was told they were safe as long as we
didn't grind or sand it to a powder. 

Here is the OSHA webpage:

http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/beryllium/index.html

   Dave Cuthbert




From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
[mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org] On Behalf Of POWELL, DOUG
Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2004 9:08 AM
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: beryllium disease


Hello all,

Normally I spend all of my time on Electrical Safety and EMC issues.
Still there is a perception that since I work in the area of regulatory
compliance I should also know about workplace EHS.  My application is
BeO on hybrid substrates.  I hope there is someone in the group that can
answer some questions.

1) Is there any risk of beryllium disease through ingestion, cuts, etc.
or is it only by inhalation of dust and fumes?

2) Is there a standardized warning label for products that contain
beryllium?

3) Where can I find requirements?

Thank you so much for your help,

-doug


end

Douglas E. Powell
Staff Engineer
Corporate Compliance Dept.
Advanced Energy Industries, Inc.
Fort Collins, CO 80525 USA




This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/

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:   emc_p...@symbol.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://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

RE: EN61000-3-2 repeatability test

[owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]

Hello,

We just purchased the York HFG01, http:
/www.yorkemc.co.uk/instrumentation/hfg01/,  for Site
reproducibility/RoundRobin testing and use the HPET (the for A2LA verification
checks) . The HPET consists of:·
Eagle Electric cleat receptacle, medium, keyless, plastic, 660W, 250V, 
screw
terminals (part number S752W-SP),  quantity 5
·   Eagle Electric cone glocoil, 660W, 120V, (part number 415A), quantity 
5. 
These screw into the above receptacles.
·   Light Dimmer, S300, Bright Image 
·   Solid State Relay, Dayton 5Z948
Bypass switch
Note:59510A switch box is replaced by a solid state relay the load 
resistors
are glowcoils.

If interested, I would send the HPET schamatic when I return 5 May.

Regards,

Ken Hall





From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org on behalf of Kurt Fischer
Sent: Mon 4/19/2004 7:42 PM
To: 'Pat Lawler'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: EN61000-3-2 repeatability test




You should use the same EUT (which must be stable and repeatable). If you
are obtaining drastically different results then you do not know if it is
the EUT or the test setup/instrumentation that is effecting the results.

I would suggest using something like an incandescent light bulb to run the
test and check the repeatability of the instrumentation and test setup.

Just my 2 cents.

Good Luck,

Kurt


From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
[mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Pat Lawler
Sent: Monday, April 19, 2004 5:36 PM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: EN61000-3-2 repeatability test



When the 'Repeatability' clause in EN61000-3-2:2000 (clause 6.3.2.1) is
applied, is the comparison value (reference value) the result from another
test run, or is it the test limit?

For example, the harmonic test limit is 300mA, and the values from two test
runs are 7.4mA and 13mA.

1) If the comparision value is from the other test run:
13mA-7.49mA
---*100=42.4%  (failing the test)
  13mA

2) If the comparison value is the test limit:
13mA-7.49mA
---*100=1.8%  (passing the test)
   300mA

Method 1 seems overly stringent, but I can't find anything in the standard
covering the method. Is this detail covered in another standard (like
61000-4-7?)
---
Pat Lawler
pat dot lawler at verizon dot net



This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/

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:   emc_p...@symbol.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://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc



This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/

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:   emc_p...@symbol.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://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc



This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/

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:   emc_p...@symbol.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://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

RE: measurement repeatability

[owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]

There seems to be something wrong with this standard or the interpretation of
it. The repeatability test should be to ensure that there is a high
probability that the units are really under the limit. Say the limit is 300
mA. And say we test ten units and get 10,10,20,20,30,30,40,40,50, and 50 mA.
The MEAN is 30 while the standard deviation is 15. Not much chance that these
units are above the 300 mA spec.
 
  Dave Cuthbert
 
 

When the 'Repeatability' clause in EN61000-3-2:2000 (clause 6.3.2.1) is
applied, is the comparison value (reference value) the result from another
test run, or is it the test limit?

For example, the harmonic test limit is 300mA, and the values from two test
runs are 7.4mA and 13mA.

1) If the comparision value is from the other test run:
13mA-7.49mA
---*100=42.4%  (failing the test)
  13mA

2) If the comparison value is the test limit:
13mA-7.49mA
---*100=1.8%  (passing the test)
   300mA


From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
[mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org] On Behalf Of Ralph McDiarmid
Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2004 11:16 AM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: measurement repeatability 


Why is there a repeatibility requirement for this standard, when there is not
one for the other EMC standards?
 
Ralph McDiarmid, AScT 
Compliance Engineering Group 

Xantrex Technology Inc.

 


From: Kurt Fischer [mailto:kurt.fisc...@hyperinterop.com] 
Sent: April 20, 2004 7:43 AM
To: 'Hall, Ken'; 'Pat Lawler'
Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: EN61000-3-2 repeatability test


Hello,
 
I do not have a copy of the standard so I am relying on memory:
 
1. The 5% repeatability requirement stated in the standard refers to
Instrumentation repeatability and validation (as Ken referred to in his email).
 
2. The problem stated in Pat's email is that the EUT has different measurement
results when measured at different times.
 
It seems that the solution path is to determine why the EUT generates
different LF emissions profiles and determine if these profiles meet the
limits in a reasonable number of cases or trials per the standard. To the best
of my memory, there is no requirement that the repeatability measurements of
the EUT itself be +/- 5%.
 
Regards,
 
Kurt Fischer 


From: Hall, Ken [mailto:ken_h...@hp.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2004 5:53 AM
To: Kurt Fischer; Pat Lawler; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: EN61000-3-2 repeatability test


Hello,
 
We just purchased the York HFG01for Site reproducibility/RoundRobin testing
and use the HPET ( the for cyclic checks. The HP59510A switch box is replaced
by a solid state relay the load resistors are glowcoils.
 
Regards,
 
Ken Hall
 
 

  _  

From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org on behalf of Kurt Fischer
Sent: Mon 4/19/2004 7:42 PM
To: 'Pat Lawler'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: EN61000-3-2 repeatability test




You should use the same EUT (which must be stable and repeatable). If you
are obtaining drastically different results then you do not know if it is
the EUT or the test setup/instrumentation that is effecting the results.

I would suggest using something like an incandescent light bulb to run the
test and check the repeatability of the instrumentation and test setup.

Just my 2 cents.

Good Luck,

Kurt


From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
[ mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Pat Lawler
Sent: Monday, April 19, 2004 5:36 PM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: EN61000-3-2 repeatability test



When the 'Repeatability' clause in EN61000-3-2:2000 (clause 6.3.2.1) is
applied, is the comparison value (reference value) the result from another
test run, or is it the test limit?

For example, the harmonic test limit is 300mA, and the values from two test
runs are 7.4mA and 13mA.

1) If the comparision value is from the other test run:
13mA-7.49mA
---*100=42.4%  (failing the test)
  13mA

2) If the comparison value is the test limit:
13mA-7.49mA
---*100=1.8%  (passing the test)
   300mA

Method 1 seems overly stringent, but I can't find anything in the standard
covering the method. Is this detail covered in another standard (like
61000-4-7?)
---
Pat Lawler
pat dot lawler at verizon dot net



This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/

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:   emc_p...@symbol.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://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc



This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discuss

RE: measurement repeatability

[owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]

Why is there a repeatibility requirement for this standard, when there is not
one for the other EMC standards?
 
Ralph McDiarmid, AScT 
Compliance Engineering Group 

Xantrex Technology Inc.

 


From: Kurt Fischer [mailto:kurt.fisc...@hyperinterop.com] 
Sent: April 20, 2004 7:43 AM
To: 'Hall, Ken'; 'Pat Lawler'
Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: EN61000-3-2 repeatability test


Hello,
 
I do not have a copy of the standard so I am relying on memory:
 
1. The 5% repeatability requirement stated in the standard refers to
Instrumentation repeatability and validation (as Ken referred to in his email).
 
2. The problem stated in Pat's email is that the EUT has different measurement
results when measured at different times.
 
It seems that the solution path is to determine why the EUT generates
different LF emissions profiles and determine if these profiles meet the
limits in a reasonable number of cases or trials per the standard. To the best
of my memory, there is no requirement that the repeatability measurements of
the EUT itself be +/- 5%.
 
Regards,
 
Kurt Fischer 


From: Hall, Ken [mailto:ken_h...@hp.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2004 5:53 AM
To: Kurt Fischer; Pat Lawler; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: EN61000-3-2 repeatability test


Hello,
 
We just purchased the York HFG01for Site reproducibility/RoundRobin testing
and use the HPET ( the for cyclic checks. The HP59510A switch box is replaced
by a solid state relay the load resistors are glowcoils.
 
Regards,
 
Ken Hall
 
 

  _  

From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org on behalf of Kurt Fischer
Sent: Mon 4/19/2004 7:42 PM
To: 'Pat Lawler'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: EN61000-3-2 repeatability test




You should use the same EUT (which must be stable and repeatable). If you
are obtaining drastically different results then you do not know if it is
the EUT or the test setup/instrumentation that is effecting the results.

I would suggest using something like an incandescent light bulb to run the
test and check the repeatability of the instrumentation and test setup.

Just my 2 cents.

Good Luck,

Kurt


From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
[ mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Pat Lawler
Sent: Monday, April 19, 2004 5:36 PM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: EN61000-3-2 repeatability test



When the 'Repeatability' clause in EN61000-3-2:2000 (clause 6.3.2.1) is
applied, is the comparison value (reference value) the result from another
test run, or is it the test limit?

For example, the harmonic test limit is 300mA, and the values from two test
runs are 7.4mA and 13mA.

1) If the comparision value is from the other test run:
13mA-7.49mA
---*100=42.4%  (failing the test)
  13mA

2) If the comparison value is the test limit:
13mA-7.49mA
---*100=1.8%  (passing the test)
   300mA

Method 1 seems overly stringent, but I can't find anything in the standard
covering the method. Is this detail covered in another standard (like
61000-4-7?)
---
Pat Lawler
pat dot lawler at verizon dot net



This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/

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:   emc_p...@symbol.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://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc



This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/

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:   emc_p...@symbol.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://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

RE: EN61000-3-2 repeatability test

[owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]

If not a resistive load like a light-bulb, then why not a reference
non-linear load?  It seems to me that a diode, capacitor and resistor would
suffice.

I like the idea of checking the repeatibility of the instrumentation.

Ralph McDiarmid, AScT 
Compliance Engineering Group 
Xantrex Technology Inc.


> -Original Message-
> From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk] 
> Sent: April 19, 2004 11:12 PM
> To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
> Subject: Re: EN61000-3-2 repeatability test
> 
> 
> 
> I read in !emc-pstc that Kurt Fischer 
>  wrote (in 
> <039101c42681$2f9b2570$6400a8c0@HYPERC1033>) about 
> 'EN61000-3-2 repeatability test' on Mon, 19 Apr 2004:
> >I would suggest using something like an incandescent light 
> bulb to run 
> >the test and check the repeatability of the instrumentation and test 
> >setup.
> 
> That won't produce any harmonics other than those caused by 
> defects in the supply source. High-order harmonics will 
> measure as zero, which tells you nothing. 
> -- 
> Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. 
> The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
> The bad news is that everything is prohibited. 
> http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see > http://www.isce.org.uk 
> 
> 
> ---
> This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety 
> Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.
> 
> Visit our web site at:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
> 
> 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:   emc_p...@symbol.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://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
> 


This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/

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:   emc_p...@symbol.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://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

Job opening

[owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]

I ran across this compliance job opening while looking at the ENI website. I
don't have any connection to ENI. 

 http://www.mksinst.com/employ.html 

ENI homepage 

    http://www.mksinst.com/corpinfo.html 

   Dave Cuthbert 
   Micron Technology 

beryllium disease

[owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
Hello all,

Normally I spend all of my time on Electrical Safety and EMC issues.
Still there is a perception that since I work in the area of regulatory
compliance I should also know about workplace EHS.  My application is
BeO on hybrid substrates.  I hope there is someone in the group that can
answer some questions.

1) Is there any risk of beryllium disease through ingestion, cuts, etc.
or is it only by inhalation of dust and fumes?

2) Is there a standardized warning label for products that contain
beryllium?

3) Where can I find requirements?

Thank you so much for your help,

-doug


end

Douglas E. Powell
Staff Engineer
Corporate Compliance Dept.
Advanced Energy Industries, Inc.
Fort Collins, CO 80525 USA


Title: beryllium disease






Hello all,


Normally I spend all of my time on Electrical Safety and EMC issues.

Still there is a perception that since I work in the area of regulatory

compliance I should also know about workplace EHS.  My application is

BeO on hybrid substrates.  I hope there is someone in the group that can

answer some questions.


1) Is there any risk of beryllium disease through ingestion, cuts, etc.

or is it only by inhalation of dust and fumes?


2) Is there a standardized warning label for products that contain

beryllium?


3) Where can I find requirements?


Thank you so much for your help,


-doug



end

-

Douglas E. Powell

Staff Engineer

Corporate Compliance Dept.

Advanced Energy Industries, Inc.

Fort Collins, CO 80525 USA






ATT58874.txt
Description: Binary data

RE: EN61000-3-2 repeatability test

[owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]

Hello,
 
I do not have a copy of the standard so I am relying on memory:
 
1. The 5% repeatability requirement stated in the standard refers to
Instrumentation repeatability and validation (as Ken referred to in his email).
 
2. The problem stated in Pat's email is that the EUT has different measurement
results when measured at different times.
 
It seems that the solution path is to determine why the EUT generates
different LF emissions profiles and determine if these profiles meet the
limits in a reasonable number of cases or trials per the standard. To the best
of my memory, there is no requirement that the repeatability measurements of
the EUT itself be +/- 5%.
 
Regards,
 
Kurt Fischer 


From: Hall, Ken [mailto:ken_h...@hp.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2004 5:53 AM
To: Kurt Fischer; Pat Lawler; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: EN61000-3-2 repeatability test


Hello,
 
We just purchased the York HFG01for Site reproducibility/RoundRobin testing
and use the HPET ( the for cyclic checks. The HP59510A switch box is replaced
by a solid state relay the load resistors are glowcoils.
 
Regards,
 
Ken Hall
 
 

  _  

From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org on behalf of Kurt Fischer
Sent: Mon 4/19/2004 7:42 PM
To: 'Pat Lawler'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: EN61000-3-2 repeatability test




You should use the same EUT (which must be stable and repeatable). If you
are obtaining drastically different results then you do not know if it is
the EUT or the test setup/instrumentation that is effecting the results.

I would suggest using something like an incandescent light bulb to run the
test and check the repeatability of the instrumentation and test setup.

Just my 2 cents.

Good Luck,

Kurt


From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
[ mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Pat Lawler
Sent: Monday, April 19, 2004 5:36 PM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: EN61000-3-2 repeatability test



When the 'Repeatability' clause in EN61000-3-2:2000 (clause 6.3.2.1) is
applied, is the comparison value (reference value) the result from another
test run, or is it the test limit?

For example, the harmonic test limit is 300mA, and the values from two test
runs are 7.4mA and 13mA.

1) If the comparision value is from the other test run:
13mA-7.49mA
---*100=42.4%  (failing the test)
  13mA

2) If the comparison value is the test limit:
13mA-7.49mA
---*100=1.8%  (passing the test)
   300mA

Method 1 seems overly stringent, but I can't find anything in the standard
covering the method. Is this detail covered in another standard (like
61000-4-7?)
---
Pat Lawler
pat dot lawler at verizon dot net



This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/

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:   emc_p...@symbol.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://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc



This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/

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:   emc_p...@symbol.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://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

RE: RoHS impact on EMC & Safety

[owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]

Hello Marko,

Do you know what your production variance is?  You are actually comparing 2
things, the unit to unit variation, and the effects of the change of
components and solder.  Sounds like an interesting experiment.

Best regards,

Don 


From: marko.radoji...@nokia.com [mailto:marko.radoji...@nokia.com]
Sent: Monday, April 19, 2004 1:37 PM
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: RoHS impact on EMC & Safety



Greetings,

We are in the process of planning to evolve our product line to comply with
the upcoming EU directive on hazardous materials - RoHS (Restriction of the
use of certain Hazardous Substances in electrical and electronic equipment -
Directive 2002/95/EC). 

The questions we are facing now is how much testing, if any, is required to
requalify products against the EMC and LV Directives after the conversion.
Of particular interest are the following material conversions:

1. Change of solder materials - replace Lead (Pb) with a Silver-Copper
(Ag-Cu) mixture.
2. Replacement of the flame retardants in the FR-4 - UL94 V-0 rating remains
the unchanged.
3. Replacement of Hexavalent Chromium by Trivalent Chromium on metal
finishes - resistivity remains pretty well the same.

>From everything that I've researched to date, I am leaning towards doing a
single A/B comparison for radiated & conducted emissions with the first
RoHS-compliant product and then, based on the presumably good results, not
doing anymore requalifications. In conjunction, we'll do a full-blown
product requalification to ensure that the signal integrity is also
unchanged. This strategy will validate that no high-frequency electrical
properties have changed, as expected.

Does anyone else have thoughts on this matter?

Thanks,
Marko

marko.radoji...@nokia.com
650/625-2624




PS The full text of the RoHS directive can be found here:
http://europa.eu.int/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexapi!prod!CELEXnumdoc
&lg=EN&numdoc=32002L0095&model=guichett





This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/

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:   emc_p...@symbol.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://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc


This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/

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:   emc_p...@symbol.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://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

RE: AC Voltages in Europe

[owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
I think it is a bit "optimistic" to say that local distribution is at 240V -
that is still true in (most of) the UK but not elsewhere where there has
generally been a nominal 220V (+/- 10%) system for many years.

Under the Voltage Harmonisation scheme that should become "230V" everywhere,
but progress is slow as can be imagined. See previous posts as attached for
more information 

Regards 

John Allen 
ERA Technology Ltd 



-Original Message- 
From: Matthias Weingart [ mailto:i...@pentax.boerde.de] 
Sent: 20 April 2004 07:30 
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org 
Subject: Re: AC Voltages in Europe 



On Mon, Apr 19, 2004 at 06:55:05PM -0400, Kevin Keegan wrote: 

>·_What are the voltages a used in Europe?  I know that they 
>have 240VAC single phase, but what other voltages are used?_ 

240VAC single phase / 400VAC 3-phase 

This is what every house and company has at the incoming cable. In households 
only single phase sockets are used, but for the cooker often 3 phases are 
used. 

Matthias 

--- 
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety 
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. 

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/ 

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:   emc_p...@symbol.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://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc 

_ 
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



--- Begin Message ---
This attachment, originally named Message Text,
was removed because it is zero length.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
This attachment, originally named Message Text,
was removed because it is zero length.
--- End Message ---

RE: Calculating/predicting Quasi-peak of a single pulse

[owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]

Hi Drew,

The measurement procedure also includes a time constant of 250 mS for
simulation of the electromechanical analog indicator originally
used to read out the QP value. So your measurement result
will achieve 99% only after 1250 mS

For repeating pulses the calculation/readout will be correct.


Regards,

Gert Gremmen
Approvals manager
==
ce-test, qualified testing
Member of EMC committee CENELEC/IEC

+ Independent Consultancy Services
+ Compliance Testing and Design for CE
+ Improvement of product quality and reliability
+ Testing services according to:
  Electro magnetic Compatibility 89/336/EC
  Electrical Safety   73/23/EC
  Medical Devices 93/42/EC
  Radio & Telecommunication Terminal equipment 99/5/EC

Website:  www.cetest.nl (english)
  www.ce-test.nl (dutch)
Phone :  +31 10 415 24 26
Fax :+31 10 415 49 53
==




From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
[mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Rosenberg, Drew
Sent: Monday, April 19, 2004 11:00 PM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Calculating/predicting Quasi-peak of a single pulse



Hi EMC Gurus,
I have been struggling with something for a while and have decided that
this is the best place to send my question:

I would like to better understand how quasi-peak is determined on a 
single
pulse of specified duration.  From my understanding, Quasi-peak applies an
RC time constant to the pulse.  If the pulse length equals 5 times the RC
time constant, then the QP measurement will be roughly 99% of the peak
measurement.
According to CISPR-16-1 Table 1, the charging time constant specified 
is 1
ms.  Therefore, according to my understanding, QP should be 99% of peak
measurement at 5ms.

However, my experiments have given very different results.  I have an
HP8593E spectrum analyzer.  In an effort to prove my understanding of
CISPR-16-1's definition of Quasi-peak, I applied a 1 second 900 MHz pulse to
the spectrum analyzer with QP detection on.  This 1 second pulse was applied
using the pulse trigger of a Marconi 2024 sig gen.  To my surprise, QP did
not equal peak until about 500ms.

Does anyone know why I am getting such different results than what I had
predicted?

I have data and analyzer pics if anyone thinks that they would help.  I
have been told that attachments are not good for list servers, so please let
me know if you would like to see them.

Regards,

Drew Rosenberg
Regulatory Engineer
Itron, Inc.
2401 North State Street
PO Box 1735
Waseca, MN 56093
Tel 507-837-5264
Fax 507-837-5200
drew.rosenb...@itron.com





This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/

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:   emc_p...@symbol.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://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc




This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/

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:   emc_p...@symbol.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://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

Re: AC Voltages in Europe

[owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]

On Mon, Apr 19, 2004 at 06:55:05PM -0400, Kevin Keegan wrote:

>·_What are the voltages a used in Europe?  I know that they
>have 240VAC single phase, but what other voltages are used?_

240VAC single phase / 400VAC 3-phase

This is what every house and company has at the incoming cable. In households
only single phase sockets are used, but for the cooker often 3 phases are
used.

Matthias


This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/

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:   emc_p...@symbol.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://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

Re: EN61000-3-2 repeatability test

[owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]

I read in !emc-pstc that Kurt Fischer 
wrote (in <039101c42681$2f9b2570$6400a8c0@HYPERC1033>) about
'EN61000-3-2 repeatability test' on Mon, 19 Apr 2004:
>I would suggest using something like an incandescent light bulb to run the
>test and check the repeatability of the instrumentation and test setup.

That won't produce any harmonics other than those caused by defects in
the supply source. High-order harmonics will measure as zero, which
tells you nothing. 
-- 
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. 
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk 


This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/

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:   emc_p...@symbol.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://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc