Re: [PSES] 208V/30A/3PH NEMA 3R power distribution question

[Peter Tarver]

Adam –



Brian’s suggestion I a good one.



Answer from electrician should include three 20 A, two-pole branch circuit
breakers for each single-phase load, possibly one main 45 A, three-pole
breaker (with dependencies), plus Neutral bar (if needed) and ground bar.
Miscellaneous assorted potpourri to fit the application.





Regards,



Peter Tarver



*From:* Adam Dixon [mailto:lanterna.viri...@gmail.com]
*Sent:* Thursday, August 20, 2015 13:36
*To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
*Subject:* Re: [PSES] 208V/30A/3PH NEMA 3R power distribution question



Thanks for the suggestion, Brian.  I just contacted the company that did
some of my office building's infrastructure, so will see how that goes.

Regards,

Adam



On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 4:16 PM, Brian Oconnell 
wrote:

Have you talked to a certified industrial electrician?

Had a customer that bought several 250kVA distribution transformers that
also wanted some custom wiring harness and downstream panel boxes. So hired
an industrial electrician to advise us on materials and build it up. Passed
on-site assessment with no problems. Probably saved hundreds of hours of
engineering time, and $ in wasted material costs.

Brian


From: Adam Dixon [mailto:lanterna.viri...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2015 12:39 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] 208V/30A/3PH NEMA 3R power distribution question

First-time post with an application question after getting guidance from
many of you earlier this year about how/where to learn more about safety.
So here goes.I would appreciate recommendations for either reference
materials I should read or hardware options to convert a 208V/30A/3PH
branch circuit to support qty. 6 of 208V/15A/1PH loads while trying to
minimize the hardware volume.

Loads do not have internal supplementary protection devices, so I cannot
rely on the 30A branch circuit protection w/simple disconnect switch for
service support, similar to my home 240V air conditioning compressor
circuit.

I've searched the PSES archives with a variety of terms (208V, 3 phase,
load center, molded case breaker, DIN rail, NEMA, etc.) and have been
looking at online (well-known load center/circuit breaker suppliers,
electrical supply companies, Mike Holt forums, etc.) and just started
calling/visiting local electrical supply companies and big box home
improvement stores.  Haven't landed on a clear option yet.  3PH load
centers all appear rated for 100A or larger capacity requiring larger AWG
supply conductors than what I am told the branch circuit will have (10AWG
or possibly 8AWG depending on final building construction plans).
Descriptions of DIN Rail circuit breakers/supplementary protection devices
sounded promising for the smaller form factors, but I haven't found a
source that puts all of the hardware pieces together (supplementary
protection devices, DIN rails, housing, etc.) into a system that meets NEC
requirements -- this doesn't look like a common configuration.
I also looked at suppliers of rack mount PDU gear and found one option that
is about the size of a 12 circuit load center, but doesn't have a NEMA 3R
requirement (surprise..) and would require a larger housing.  The 208V
PDU's that I have seen and in a couple of cases, peeked inside, have
double-pole breakers with C19 outlets rated for 12A continuous load.
Are there other options worth investigating or aspects of the power
distribution design that I likely am not understanding?

Kind regards,
Adam


-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to <
emc-p...@ieee.org>

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in
well-used formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to
unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 



-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to <
emc-p...@ieee.org>

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in
well-used formats), large files, etc.

Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to
unsubscribe) 
L

Re: [PSES] New EMC Directive 2014/30/EU & LV Directive 2014/35/EU

[Scott Xe]

Hi Charlie,

Thanks for sharing the temporary solution.  For the products that compliant 
with current directives, are they just updated the DoC to comply with the new 
ones?

What about the RED replacing R&TTE?  This one cannot be simply updated the DoC 
since all the receivers will fall into RED but not current R&TTE.  The 
receivers have to be re-tested to the new directive.  The new directive does 
not publish the homogenised standards yet for the 3rd party laboratories to 
follow.  Thus they cannot test to the new directive as of today.

Regards,

Scott

> On 22 Aug, 2015, at 1:12 am, Charlie Blackham  
> wrote:
> 
> Scott
> 
> Test labs should test to standards.
> Manufacturers declare to compliance to Directives.
> The two beams should not cross :)
> 
> You won't get anything officially, but unofficially the EU MSAs and 
> enforcement agencies should take a pragmatic stance regarding DoCs and not be 
> too concerned whether existing or new Directives are being referenced for 
> several months after the 20 April. *
> 
> (* This was stated verbally by a representative of the UK Department for 
> Business Innovation and Skills at UK seminar earlier this year)
> 
> Regards
> Charlie
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Scott Xe [mailto:scott...@gmail.com] 
> Sent: 21 August 2015 16:53
> To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: [PSES] New EMC Directive 2014/30/EU & LV Directive 2014/35/EU
> 
> Hi All,
> 
> The captioned directives will be enforced on 20 April 2016 with no transition 
> period.  As of today, no accredited laboratories accept the compliance 
> verification to those directive until 20 April 2016.  They claim they cannot 
> test to those directives until 20 April 2016 as per the directive.  It is 
> impossible in the industry to prepare for any compliant products to be put on 
> the market on 20 April 2016.  Since there is no any technical changes, can we 
> just update the DoC using the compliant report of old directives.  Or any 
> other idea/original idea of these new directives to allow the compliant 
> product putting on the market in good order.
> 
> Thanks and regards,
> 
> Scott
> 
> -
> 
> This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
> discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
> 
> 
> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
> http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
> 
> Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
> http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
> formats), large files, etc.
> 
> Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
> Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 
> unsubscribe) List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
> 
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
> Scott Douglas 
> Mike Cantwell 
> 
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Jim Bacher:  
> David Heald: 

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

[PSES] EMC test lab, New York

[Nick Williams]

I’m looking for recommendations for EMC testing services for a client in New 
York state. I need a well equipped lab which charges by the hour, properly 
understands the EMC Directive, has a good technical understanding of the EN 
standards and can recommend solutions in the case of minor compliance issues. I 
don’t want a lab who are only interested in maximising their income by 
performing unecessary tests.

Contact details gratefully received by direct message. 

Thanks

Nick. 

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] Different surge test equipment, different results

[McDiarmid, Ralph]

Thanks David for bringing that detail into focus. 

Edition 2 writes about "unwanted voltage drops from coupling/decoupling 
networks", while Table 6 allows for a shorter front time for higher line 
currents, presumably to reduces impedance required by the decoupling 
network ( a smaller inductance).   I think that's right because of the 10% 
voltage drop limit stipulated in clause 6.3.1.  At some point, the 
impedance of the decoupling network becomes so small, (Z=Vdrop/current),
it can no longer effectively decouple the surge wave front, and so less 
surge energy gets coupled into the EUT port. For line currents in excess 
of 100A, the standard goes all the way to allow testing a non-powered EUT, 
and so no decoupling network burden.

Perhaps large EUTs (those rated > 100A) can be left powered at 100A for a 
"live" test.  I don't know if that's better than a de-energized EUT with 
no decoupling load burden.  Partial testing of large EUT (e.g. testing the 
control circuits alone) seems inadequate, but a diligent discussion in a 
Technical File could accompany the test results.  Some assessors might 
have trouble with the arguments though.  There is lots of "grey".

___ 


Ralph McDiarmid  |   Schneider Electric   |  Solar Business  |   CANADA  | 
  Regulatory Compliance Engineering 




From:
"Schaefer, David" 
To:
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG, 
Date:
08/21/2015 12:30 PM
Subject:
Re: [PSES] Different surge test equipment, different results



Peter,

Are the open circuit waveforms identical out of the surge generator, or 
out of the coupling decoupling network? -4-5 relaxes the waveform limits 
for the rise time and duration at the output of a CDN, based on amperage. 
Check out tables 6 and 7 of the 2nd Edition for more information. Two 
generators should produce identical waveshapes out of the generator 
itself, but the CDNs could have drastically different durations. 

Thanks,

David Schaefer
EMC Chief Technical Advisor
TÜV SÜD America Inc
Office: 651 638 0251
Cell: 612 578 6038
Fax: 651 638 0285

-Original Message-
From: Peter Tarver [mailto:ptar...@enphaseenergy.com] 
Sent: Friday, August 21, 2015 1:51 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Different surge test equipment, different results

Good morning.

I'm wondering if others have experienced cases where different 
manufacturers' surge test equipment  (ANSI/IEEE C62.41 ring and 
combination waves) with nearly identical open-circuit voltage and 
short-circuit current calibrations have led to very different results.  In 
these cases, other than addressing the issue by using the surge generator 
that produces the worst-case result, what were thought to be the causes 
for the different results (ignoring the real possibility of a marginal 
design).


Regards,

Peter L. Tarver

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in 
well-used formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe) List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

The mail and/or attachments are confidential and may also be legally 
privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified 
that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this email 
and/or attachments is strictly prohibited. If you were not the intended 
recipient, please notify us immediately by email at helpd...@tuvam.com and 
delete this message and all its attachments.

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in 
well-used formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

__
This emai

Re: [PSES] Different surge test equipment, different results

[Peter Tarver]

David -

Thank you.

In one case, the output was after the CDN.  In the other, the CDN was not in
the circuit.  I will ask for calibration screen captures with and without
the CDN on both cases.  This could prove informative.


Regards,

Peter Tarver

> -Original Message-
> From: Schaefer, David
> Sent: Friday, August 21, 2015 12:11
>
> Peter,
>
> Are the open circuit waveforms identical out of the surge
> generator, or out of the coupling decoupling network? -4-5
> relaxes the waveform limits for the rise time and duration at
> the output of a CDN, based on amperage. Check out tables
> 6 and 7 of the 2nd Edition for more information. Two
> generators should produce identical waveshapes out of the
> generator itself, but the CDNs could have drastically
> different durations.
>

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] Different surge test equipment, different results

[John Woodgate]

In message , dated Fri, 
21 Aug 2015, Peter Tarver  writes:


I'm wondering if others have experienced cases where different 
manufacturers' surge test equipment  (ANSI/IEEE C62.41 ring and 
combination waves) with nearly identical open-circuit voltage and 
short-circuit current calibrations have led to very different results.


Not personally, but it is pretty obvious that these things are not 
classical Thévenin sources, so that the open-circuit voltage and the 
short-circuit current are *not* sufficient to characterize the source 
fully.

--
OOO - Own Opinions Only. With best wishes. See www.jmwa.demon.co.uk
When I turn my back on the sun, it's to look for a rainbow
John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion 
list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] Different surge test equipment, different results

[Schaefer, David]

Peter,

Are the open circuit waveforms identical out of the surge generator, or out of 
the coupling decoupling network? -4-5 relaxes the waveform limits for the rise 
time and duration at the output of a CDN, based on amperage. Check out tables 6 
and 7 of the 2nd Edition for more information. Two generators should produce 
identical waveshapes out of the generator itself, but the CDNs could have 
drastically different durations. 

Thanks,

David Schaefer
EMC Chief Technical Advisor
TÜV SÜD America Inc
Office: 651 638 0251
Cell: 612 578 6038
Fax: 651 638 0285

-Original Message-
From: Peter Tarver [mailto:ptar...@enphaseenergy.com] 
Sent: Friday, August 21, 2015 1:51 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Different surge test equipment, different results

Good morning.

I'm wondering if others have experienced cases where different manufacturers' 
surge test equipment  (ANSI/IEEE C62.41 ring and combination waves) with nearly 
identical open-circuit voltage and short-circuit current calibrations have led 
to very different results.  In these cases, other than addressing the issue by 
using the surge generator that produces the worst-case result, what were 
thought to be the causes for the different results (ignoring the real 
possibility of a marginal design).


Regards,

Peter L. Tarver

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe) List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

The mail and/or attachments are confidential and may also be legally 
privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that 
any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this email and/or 
attachments is strictly prohibited. If you were not the intended recipient, 
please notify us immediately by email at helpd...@tuvam.com and delete this 
message and all its attachments.

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

[PSES] Different surge test equipment, different results

[Peter Tarver]

Good morning.

I'm wondering if others have experienced cases where different
manufacturers' surge test equipment  (ANSI/IEEE C62.41 ring and
combination waves) with nearly identical open-circuit voltage and
short-circuit current calibrations have led to very different results.  In
these cases, other than addressing the issue by using the surge generator
that produces the worst-case result, what were thought to be the causes
for the different results (ignoring the real possibility of a marginal
design).


Regards,

Peter L. Tarver

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] New EMCD DoC Requirements

[Brian Oconnell]

Declarations, test reports, etc are part of a contractual law system, so this 
will reference the legal point of view, and as am not a solicitor or attorney, 
you should to talk to the one retained by your employer. 'for and behalf of' 
relates to the term 'procuration' - essentially a proxy by formal appointment.

In Europe, there are many similarities in corporate contract law, but there are 
significant differences. Reference the UK Companies Act 2006 (s. 43). The UK is 
weird in that the affixing of 'seals' remain in legal code, so the seal of the 
corp is binding, while the signatory may not necessarily be representative. 
Most EU countries also require 'on behalf of' signatory where the signature 
indicates a conglomerate of interests; that is, more than one legal body.

U.S. corporate law is bit messy because of state differences (the reason 
American contracts indicate which state's laws are applicable to the terms). 
For the U.S., the reference 'for and behalf of...' is to indicate that the 
signatory may not be a corporate officer that has the authority to legally bind 
the company. It does indicates that the signatory is cognizant and authorized. 
For example, my employer(the CEO) wrote a Letter of Appointment to make this 
peon the signatory for product regulatory issues. And because not an officer of 
the company, sign stuff 'for and behalf of...'. Whereas a corporate officer, 
that is empowered to legally bind the company, would just sign with title 
affixed, or apply a thumbprint using the blood fallen engineers.

Brian

-Original Message-
From: Kunde, Brian [mailto:brian_ku...@lecotc.com] 
Sent: Friday, August 21, 2015 9:56 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] New EMCD DoC Requirements

So let's tackle this one example, for now.

Annex IV point 8 says,

8. Additional information:
Signed for and on behalf of:
(place and date of issue):
(name, function) (signature):

So the text, "Signed for and on behalf of:" is required no matter who signs the 
DoC or is it only required if the signatory is the European Representative, 
importer, etc. (someone who does not directly work for the manufacturer)?  This 
only makes sense to me if it is only required if the signatory is not an direct 
employee of the manufacturer.

Since I work for the Manufacturer I should not need to prefix my signature with 
this statement?  Yes, or no?

If no, then who am I signing for; my company or an officer of my company 
(actual person)? Do I state, "Signed for and on behalf of " then insert my 
company's name, my boss' name, Director, VP, owner of the company, CEO, ??? 
Doesn't the fact that I am signing the DoC show that the company I work for has 
given me the authority to sign this document on their behalf? Am I not 
representing my company whether this is stated or not?

The Other Brian



-Original Message-
From: CR [mailto:k...@earthlink.net]
Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2015 6:10 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] New EMCD DoC Requirements

On 8/20/2015 5:20 PM, Gary McInturff wrote:
> Signed for and on behalf of - the CEO doesn't get to claim plausible
> deniability you are signing this for him.


How IS a CEO expected to know that what has been signed for is actually what 
was done EXCEPT by relying on other peoples' signatures?  Might we again see 
EMC audits on outside vendor sub-assemblies? Shades of 0871!

I once listened as a well-known EMC engineer told about a VP who'd contracted 
him to teach a class on EMC compliance, but only spent a few moments in the 
room before hurrying away.  The exec explained during a quick break that he'd 
wanted to avoid liability for nonconformity by remaining ignorant of what it 
required. Naughty of him -- and if I understand correctly, willful ignorance is 
never an acceptable defense.

Cortland Richmond
[mostly retired]

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] New EMC Directive 2014/30/EU & LV Directive 2014/35/EU

[Charlie Blackham]

Scott

Test labs should test to standards.
Manufacturers declare to compliance to Directives.
The two beams should not cross :)

You won't get anything officially, but unofficially the EU MSAs and enforcement 
agencies should take a pragmatic stance regarding DoCs and not be too concerned 
whether existing or new Directives are being referenced for several months 
after the 20 April. *

(* This was stated verbally by a representative of the UK Department for 
Business Innovation and Skills at UK seminar earlier this year)

Regards
Charlie

-Original Message-
From: Scott Xe [mailto:scott...@gmail.com] 
Sent: 21 August 2015 16:53
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] New EMC Directive 2014/30/EU & LV Directive 2014/35/EU

Hi All,

The captioned directives will be enforced on 20 April 2016 with no transition 
period.  As of today, no accredited laboratories accept the compliance 
verification to those directive until 20 April 2016.  They claim they cannot 
test to those directives until 20 April 2016 as per the directive.  It is 
impossible in the industry to prepare for any compliant products to be put on 
the market on 20 April 2016.  Since there is no any technical changes, can we 
just update the DoC using the compliant report of old directives.  Or any other 
idea/original idea of these new directives to allow the compliant product 
putting on the market in good order.

Thanks and regards,

Scott

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe) List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] New EMCD DoC Requirements

[Kunde, Brian]

So let's tackle this one example, for now.

Annex IV point 8 says,

8. Additional information:
Signed for and on behalf of:
(place and date of issue):
(name, function) (signature):

So the text, "Signed for and on behalf of:" is required no matter who signs the 
DoC or is it only required if the signatory is the European Representative, 
importer, etc. (someone who does not directly work for the manufacturer)?  This 
only makes sense to me if it is only required if the signatory is not an direct 
employee of the manufacturer.

Since I work for the Manufacturer I should not need to prefix my signature with 
this statement?  Yes, or no?

If no, then who am I signing for; my company or an officer of my company 
(actual person)? Do I state, "Signed for and on behalf of " then insert my 
company's name, my boss' name, Director, VP, owner of the company, CEO, ??? 
Doesn't the fact that I am signing the DoC show that the company I work for has 
given me the authority to sign this document on their behalf? Am I not 
representing my company whether this is stated or not?

The Other Brian



-Original Message-
From: CR [mailto:k...@earthlink.net]
Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2015 6:10 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] New EMCD DoC Requirements

On 8/20/2015 5:20 PM, Gary McInturff wrote:
> Signed for and on behalf of - the CEO doesn't get to claim plausible
> deniability you are signing this for him.


How IS a CEO expected to know that what has been signed for is actually what 
was done EXCEPT by relying on other peoples' signatures?  Might we again see 
EMC audits on outside vendor sub-assemblies? Shades of 0871!

I once listened as a well-known EMC engineer told about a VP who'd contracted 
him to teach a class on EMC compliance, but only spent a few moments in the 
room before hurrying away.  The exec explained during a quick break that he'd 
wanted to avoid liability for nonconformity by remaining ignorant of what it 
required. Naughty of him -- and if I understand correctly, willful ignorance is 
never an acceptable defense.

Cortland Richmond
[mostly retired]

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe) List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 


LECO Corporation Notice: This communication may contain confidential 
information intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you received this by 
mistake, please destroy it and notify us of the error. Thank you.

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

[PSES] New EMC Directive 2014/30/EU & LV Directive 2014/35/EU

[Scott Xe]

Hi All,

The captioned directives will be enforced on 20 April 2016 with no transition 
period.  As of today, no accredited laboratories accept the compliance 
verification to those directive until 20 April 2016.  They claim they cannot 
test to those directives until 20 April 2016 as per the directive.  It is 
impossible in the industry to prepare for any compliant products to be put on 
the market on 20 April 2016.  Since there is no any technical changes, can we 
just update the DoC using the compliant report of old directives.  Or any other 
idea/original idea of these new directives to allow the compliant product 
putting on the market in good order.

Thanks and regards,

Scott

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] 2014/35/EU Requirement for Postal Address

[Steven Brody]

A suggestion - if your company name, city and state, are already on the
label or nameplate, ask your local postal facility if that is sufficient for
mail to be delivered to your company.   This came up with a firm I used to
work for many years ago and when asked the local post office said that
information was sufficient and a street number/name was not required.  I
asked for a letter from the local postmaster to that effect and added it to
the TCF folder.

 

Steve Brody

Product EHS Consulting LLC

sgbr...@comcast.net

stev...@productehsconsulting.com

 

 

From: kevin.mccandl...@schneider-electric.com
[mailto:kevin.mccandl...@schneider-electric.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2015 6:27 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] 2014/35/EU Requirement for Postal Address

 

Hello Experts,

 

I am looking for some clarification/understanding of the new postal address
requirement in the LVD 2014/35/EU.

Article 6 section 6 states:  "Manufacturers shall indicate on the electrical
equipment their name, registered trade name or registered trade mark and the
postal address at which they can be contracted or, where that is not
possible, on its packaging or in a document accompanying the electrical
equipment." This is a new requirement and is causing a panic if we have to
change 100's of product labels and /or placards.

 

It has been my view that the postal address on the DoC is the "single point
at which the manufacturer can be contacted."

Also, the new LVD reads as if there may be multiple addresses required on
the product or packaging by the time the product gets to the end-user
(manufacturer, importer and possibly others).

 

Here's my shameless attempt to find a loop-hole.who determines what
satisfies the "or, where that is not possible," clause?

What if the current labeling cannot grow? Or our product management group
refuses to allow the aesthetics of the product to get cluttered with another
label (closer to the truth)?

If the postal address can be shipped with the product, either in an
installation instruction or on the DoC, this would be a much more palatable
option as opposed to label changes.

 

Any words of wisdom (relating to this topic) would be greatly appreciated.

 

Best regards,


___ 

Kevin McCandless   |   Schneider Electric   |   Partner Business   |
Regulatory Engineer - Hardware


*** Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail

 

-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in
well-used formats), large files, etc.

Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to
unsubscribe)  
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html 

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell  

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher 
David Heald  


-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] EMC requirements for Korea

[Gary McInturff]

You'll need translation of some documents, but the test house I use provides 
that as well.

From: Robert Dunkerley [mailto:robert.dunker...@snellgroup.com]
Sent: Friday, August 21, 2015 1:25 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] EMC requirements for Korea

Hi all,

Thanks for the info.

It would be ITE, so I guess KN22/KN24.  Under my understanding, these are 
almost identical to EN55022/EN55024, apart from:

-radiated emissions must be tested at 10m, not extrapolated data from 3m
- a mains supple of 220V/60Hz must be used
- emissions at least a 2dB margin under the limits

All the testing done at an accredited RRC test house, then I would imagine a 
fair bit of paperwork to complete to achieve a KCC mark?

Thanks again,

Rob.




From: Allen, Chris [mailto:chris.d.al...@hp.com]
Sent: 21 August 2015 08:02
To: Robert Dunkerley
Subject: RE: EMC requirements for Korea

Hi Rob,

Not sure what your equipment is, but for IT equipment, testing to S. Korean 
standards at a RRA accredited test house is mandatory. S. Korea does have a MRA 
in place with the US so there are accredited labs available.

Standards are based around CISPR / ETSI standards e.g. KN 22  (CISPR 22) / KN 
24 (CISPR 24).

Attached is a list of standards and they are all recognizable Nos. The last 
paragraph in this document does state that other internationally recognized 
standards can be used but I'm sure that the tests will have to be carried out 
an accredited test facility.

Cheers,
Chris.

From: Gary McInturff [mailto:gary.mcintu...@esterline.com]
Sent: 20 August 2015 18:22
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] EMC requirements for Korea

Brian
That has not been my experience in the past with Japan via VCCI. One joins with 
VCCI as an associate(?) or something and they will then take reports from you, 
but the labs VCCI registration numbers need to be included. I sent the data and 
really overnight I had notice that they received it and I was on my way. 
(presuming this was data within the last 6 months, nobody will take really old 
data of a year or more) While I found it annoying that I would have to pay to 
be part of a "voluntary" program I suppose they have to pay the data entry 
folks, I found the process smooth and seamless.
But it has been a few years, and we were talking about ITE equipment without 
intentional transmitters etc. So things may have morphed. Korean on the other 
hand - I just don't have anything nice to say about their process and test 
voltage restrictions.

From: Brian Ceresney [mailto:bceres...@delta-q.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2015 9:43 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] EMC requirements for Korea

Hi Rob,
With regards to your last statement - Japan also will retest EMC at their 
in-country lab, in spite of an accompanying EMC test report. I suspect that 
there are other such countries as well.

Also, be prepared for a long wait in Korea and Japan, while the testing is 
done, and results reported. It can take months, and the approvals are not 
inexpensive.

Best Regards,
Brian Ceresney



Brian Ceresney
Regulatory Lead
Delta-Q Technologies Corp.

My own opions are represented here, not those of Delta-Q Technologies.


Phone: +1.604.566.8827
E-mail: bceres...@delta-q.com
Website: 
www.delta-q.com





From: Robert Dunkerley [mailto:robert.dunker...@snellgroup.com]
Sent: August-20-15 8:19 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] EMC requirements for Korea

Hi,

Has anyone had experience of the EMC requirements for selling goods to South 
Korea?

There is conflicting information online on what is actually required.  I always 
thought if you had CE and FCC covered, that would pretty much cover you for 
most of the world?

Thanks

Rob.
-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org>>

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/

Re: [PSES] EMC requirements for Korea

[Robert Dunkerley]

Hi all,

 

Thanks for the info.

 

It would be ITE, so I guess KN22/KN24.  Under my understanding, these
are almost identical to EN55022/EN55024, apart from: 

 

-radiated emissions must be tested at 10m, not extrapolated data from 3m

- a mains supple of 220V/60Hz must be used

- emissions at least a 2dB margin under the limits

 

All the testing done at an accredited RRC test house, then I would
imagine a fair bit of paperwork to complete to achieve a KCC mark?

 

Thanks again,

 

Rob.

 

 

 

 

From: Allen, Chris [mailto:chris.d.al...@hp.com] 
Sent: 21 August 2015 08:02
To: Robert Dunkerley
Subject: RE: EMC requirements for Korea

 

Hi Rob,

 

Not sure what your equipment is, but for IT equipment, testing to S.
Korean standards at a RRA accredited test house is mandatory. S. Korea
does have a MRA in place with the US so there are accredited labs
available.

 

Standards are based around CISPR / ETSI standards e.g. KN 22  (CISPR 22)
/ KN 24 (CISPR 24).

 

Attached is a list of standards and they are all recognizable Nos. The
last paragraph in this document does state that other internationally
recognized standards can be used but I'm sure that the tests will have
to be carried out an accredited test facility.

 

Cheers,

Chris.

 

From: Gary McInturff [mailto:gary.mcintu...@esterline.com] 
Sent: 20 August 2015 18:22
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] EMC requirements for Korea

 

Brian

That has not been my experience in the past with Japan via VCCI. One
joins with VCCI as an associate(?) or something and they will then take
reports from you, but the labs VCCI registration numbers need to be
included. I sent the data and really overnight I had notice that they
received it and I was on my way. (presuming this was data within the
last 6 months, nobody will take really old data of a year or more) While
I found it annoying that I would have to pay to be part of a "voluntary"
program I suppose they have to pay the data entry folks, I found the
process smooth and seamless.

But it has been a few years, and we were talking about ITE equipment
without intentional transmitters etc. So things may have morphed. Korean
on the other hand - I just don't have anything nice to say about their
process and test voltage restrictions.

 

From: Brian Ceresney [mailto:bceres...@delta-q.com] 
Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2015 9:43 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] EMC requirements for Korea

 

Hi Rob, 

With regards to your last statement - Japan also will retest EMC at
their in-country lab, in spite of an accompanying EMC test report. I
suspect that there are other such countries as well. 

 

Also, be prepared for a long wait in Korea and Japan, while the testing
is done, and results reported. It can take months, and the approvals are
not inexpensive.

 

Best Regards, 

Brian Ceresney

 

 



Brian Ceresney

Regulatory Lead

Delta-Q Technologies Corp.

 

My own opions are represented here, not those of Delta-Q Technologies. 

 

 

Phone: +1.604.566.8827   

E-mail: bceres...@delta-q.com    

Website: www.delta-q.com
  

 

 

 

 

 

From: Robert Dunkerley [mailto:robert.dunker...@snellgroup.com] 
Sent: August-20-15 8:19 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] EMC requirements for Korea

 

Hi,

 

Has anyone had experience of the EMC requirements for selling goods to
South Korea?

 

There is conflicting information online on what is actually required.  I
always thought if you had CE and FCC covered, that would pretty much
cover you for most of the world?

 

Thanks

 

Rob.

-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society
emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your
e-mail to 

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
 

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site
at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/
  can be used for graphics
(in well-used formats), large files, etc.

Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/