[PSES] Test lab for testing power equipment at high altitude
Hi everyone: We are investigating the availability of a facility in which we can qualify some higher power (500-1000kW) inverters for operation at altitudes above their 2000m design value - the higher the better but at least 3000m, preferably 4000m or 5000m. We would consider labs that are located at high elevation, or labs that have altitude chambers large enough for an approx. 9'W x 2'D x 7'H product.. Investigation of the effects on thermal performance is the main focus, so we need to be able to run the products at full output, which requires high power AC to be available (I won't go into details on that - there are many options). Does anyone know of such a lab? Thanks in advance for your help. Regards, Jim _ Jim Eichner | Schneider Electric Solar Business | Compliance Engineering Manager Phone: +1-604-422-2546 | Mobile: +1-604-418-8472 Email: jim.eich...@schneider-electric.com | Site: www.schneider-electric.com | Address: 3700 Gilmore Way, Burnaby, BC, V5G 4M1, Canada *** 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 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://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com
[PSES] Vacation
SET EMC-PSTC NOMAIL _ Jim Eichner | Schneider Electric | Renewable Energies Business | CANADA | Compliance Engineering Manager Phone: +1-604-422-2546 ext. 62546 | Mobile: +1-604-418-8472 Email: jim.eich...@schneider-electric.com | Site: www.schneider-electric.com/renewable-energies | Address: 3700 Gilmore Way, Burnaby, B.C., V5G 4M1 *** 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 emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com
RE: Cigarette socket in vehicles
Exactly. Products designed to SAE standards and OEM standards will be hardened against all sorts of things, including 24V applied to 12V products, reverse DC polarity, alternator load-dump transients, etc. Products generally available to consumers will generally not be designed to those requirements as it adds significant cost. The general answer to the sine wave vs square wave question is that the square wave (the inverter industry calls it “modified sine wave”) is generally compatible with most loads. There are a few types of loads that get a bit hotter due to the steep rising edges of the waveform, and years ago there used to be some types of transformerless battery chargers (for portable tools, phones, and the like) that would actually fail, but we haven’t seen anything like that in a long long time. Jim Eichner, P.Eng. Compliance Engineering Manager Xantrex Technology Inc. e-mail: jim.eich...@xantrex.com web: www.xantrex.com http://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: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Doug Smith Sent: Monday, January 19, 2009 12:40 PM To: Price, Edward Cc: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Re: Cigarette socket in vehicles Hi Ed and the group, In addition to the 12/14 Volt question there are a few other points to consider. 1) pretty big fast transients from loads like the starter motor 2) load dump conditions (battery becomes disconnected when engine is running) where the alternator drives the voltage way above the normal ~14 Volts for a time. This is more common that you might think, these days caused by lead-free battery clamps failing. (Lead free battery clamps strikes me as a very bad idea and does not accomplish anything compared to the battery itself and the real source of lead from cars, the wheel weights flinging off wheels.) I have observed first hand one of these clamps failing during use and immediately replaced both clamps with nice lead ones. Automotive electronics are designed to withstand load dump conditions but your electronics may not be. Doug Price, Edward wrote: From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of rk...@chrysler.com Sent: Monday, January 19, 2009 6:37 AM To: Scott Xe Cc: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Re: Cigarette socket in vehicles Hello Scott, In the case of 12V accessories to plug in normally they have a regulator installed to prevent the overvoltage. Thank you. Rob Kado EMC Engineer - Module Laboratory Operations Chrysler Initial assumptions can be deceiving. I recently bought a Magellan GPS. It operates on 5 VDC, and came equipped with an external cigarette socket adapter. I assumed the cheapest, that there was a little resistor inside the adapter, or just possibly a cheap linear regulator. On taking the adapter apart (yes, I tend to do things like that), I was quite surprised to find a little 2 custom IC switching converter, with input inductors, filter capacitors and a hefty input overvoltage clamp. The input voltage range was not specified, but it seems likely to be capable of 24 VDC operation. Ed Price ed.pr...@cubic.com blocked::mailto:ed.pr...@cubic.com WB6WSN NARTE Certified EMC Engineer Electromagnetic Compatibility Lab Cubic Defense Applications San Diego, CA USA 858-505-2780 Military Avionics EMC Is Our Specialty - 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.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald dhe...@gmail.com -- ___ _ Doug Smith \ / ) P.O. Box 1457 = Los Gatos, CA 95031-1457 _ / \ / \ _ TEL/FAX: 408-356-4186/358-3799 / /\ \ ] / /\ \ Mobile: 408-858-4528 | q-( ) | o |Email: d...@dsmith.org \ _ /]\ _ / Website: http://www.dsmith.org - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety
RE: Sanity check on AC motors for boat use
Last time I checked, the Recreational Craft Directive and EMC Directive do not help much re this question. There is the EN 60945 standard which includes sections on EMC for marine navigation and radio systems, and I've seen some non-navigation equipment approved to that standard, but it sounds like your equipment is out of scope of that standard. That means you're left with the normal non-marine EMC regime. Jim Eichner, P.Eng. Compliance Engineering Manager Xantrex Technology Inc. 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: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Doug Kramer Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2009 8:19 AM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RE: Sanity check on AC motors for boat use Good point, however these will be on recreational craft in most cases. I'm told US, Canada, Australia and then EU are the markets. -Doug From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of john.merr...@us.schneider-electric.com Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2009 10:16 AM To: Doug Kramer Cc: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Re: Sanity check on AC motors for boat use Depends upon what is meant by a Boat A Recreational Vessel or a Commercial Vessel? I would think the later needs to conform to requirements of the International Association of Class Societies E10 standard. Or more particularly perhaps to the standards of the actual Class Society (Lloyds Register, American Bureau of Shipping, etc.) who is approving the design and construction of the vessel. YMMV John Merrill Square D Automation Doug Kramer dkramer@nceelabsTo: emc-p...@ieee.org .comcc: Sent by: Subject: Sanity check on AC motors for boat use emc-p...@ieee.org 01/08/2009 10:48 AM In reviewing standards as applicable to DC powered (battery) motors for use on boats, as I’m seeing it that applicable EMC directive standards to apply would be EN55012 and EN55014-2. EN55014-1 excludes devices used exclusively in vehicles. Another route to go would be in looking at EN61000-6 series for immunity. I think the emissions requirement is very straight forward. A long I/O or control line in addition to the DC power cables causes a pause for thought, but is easily tested and addressed in EN55014-2. Thoughts? Thanks, Doug Kramer Lab Manager NCEE Labs Product Compliance Solutions Phone: 402.472.5880 Toll Free: 1.888.567.6860 Fax: 402.472.5881 Email: dkra...@nceelabs.com www.nceelabs.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail 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. P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. This email has been scanned for SPAM content and Viruses by the MessageL abs Email Security System. - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message
RE: IEC 60950-1 section 4.7.3.2 regarding openings in fire enclosures
If an opening fully complies with 4.6.1 or 4.6.2 then it doesn't need to be filled with anything, and there's no reason for a V-1 requirement. I believe the '950 authors meant to address openings that would not comply with 4.6.1 or 4.6.2 if the component involved was not installed in the hole. Since they say components and have the note NOTE Examples of these components are fuseholders, switches, pilot lights, connectors and appliance inlets, I guess they figured that they didn't need to put any size limits in. However what if the component in question is a 4 diameter panel-mounted instrument? Or a blanking plate covering an unused 2 knockout. Or... Jim Eichner, P.Eng. Compliance Engineering Manager Xantrex Technology Inc. phone: (604) 422-2546 mobile: (604) 418-8472 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: Bolintineanu, Constantin [mailto:cbolintine...@tycoint.com] Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2009 6:01 AM To: Jim Eichner Subject: RE: IEC 60950-1 section 4.7.3.2 regarding openings in fire enclosures Hi Jim, Your question is a very USEFUL one, I did not know who may clarify it?!? In my engineering judgement the decision shall be considered in conjunction with the Clause 4.6. Openings in enclosures; My personal interpretation was (and still is until somebody else will provide a rationale OR as you specified a CTL decision will be available - I did not find anything related to it-but it does not mean that there is nothing...), that they are talking about the OPENINGS that fully meet 4.6.1 and /or 4.6.2ONLY; OTHER OPENINGS are (as per 4.6 not allowed EXCEPT if Method 2 of 4.7.1 is used and complies with it) exempted and can not filled with anything worst than 5VB (e.g.: stationary equipment)... Respectfully yours, Constantin Constantin Bolintineanu P.Eng. TYCO SAFETY PRODUCTS CANADA 3301 LANGSTAFF Road, L4K 4L2 CONCORD, ONTARIO, CANADA e-mail: cbolintine...@tycoint.com Tel: 905 760 3000 ext 2568 Fax: 905 760 3020 Before printing this e-mail think if it is necessary DISCLAIMER: This e-mail message may contain privileged or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not disclose, use, disseminate, distribute, copy or rely upon this message or attachment in any way. If you received this e-mail message in error, please return the message and its attachments to the sender, and then please delete from your system without copying or forwarding it or call TSPC at 905 760 3000 extension 2568 so that the sender's address records can be corrected. From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Jim Eichner Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2009 3:08 PM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: IEC 60950-1 section 4.7.3.2 regarding openings in fire enclosures IEC 60950-1 section 4.7.3.2 contains the following paragraph: Materials for components that fill an opening in a FIRE ENCLOSURE, and that are intended to be mounted in this opening shall: − be of V-1 CLASS MATERIAL; or − pass the tests of Clause A.2; or − comply with the flammability requirements of the relevant IEC component standard. Seems ok to require most of the fire enclosure to be 5V with small sections of V1 allowed, but the above has no size restriction, which seems odd to me. Does anyone know if this is the subject of a CTL decision or any other “official†interpretation? I’ve seen UL and CSA standards with similar easements but there’s a dimensional cap (for example openings no more than 1†(25.4mm) in any dimension). Thanks, Jim Eichner, P.Eng. Compliance Engineering Manager Xantrex Technology Inc. e-mail: jim.eich...@xantrex.com web: www.xantrex.com Any opinions expressed are those of my invisible friend. 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. - 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.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules
IEC 60950-1 section 4.7.3.2 regarding openings in fire enclosures
IEC 60950-1 section 4.7.3.2 contains the following paragraph: Materials for components that fill an opening in a FIRE ENCLOSURE, and that are intended to be mounted in this opening shall: − be of V-1 CLASS MATERIAL; or − pass the tests of Clause A.2; or − comply with the flammability requirements of the relevant IEC component standard. Seems ok to require most of the fire enclosure to be 5V with small sections of V1 allowed, but the above has no size restriction, which seems odd to me. Does anyone know if this is the subject of a CTL decision or any other “official†interpretation? I’ve seen UL and CSA standards with similar easements but there’s a dimensional cap (for example openings no more than 1†(25.4mm) in any dimension). Thanks, Jim Eichner, P.Eng. Compliance Engineering Manager Xantrex Technology Inc. e-mail: jim.eich...@xantrex.com web: www.xantrex.com Any opinions expressed are those of my invisible friend. 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. - 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.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com
RE: Common-mode emissions from SMPS
SMPS without PFC front ends can cause high common-mode and differential mode conducted emissions, and significant radiated emissions due to common-mode cable currents. PFC is not a necessary element to this problem, although it does introduce additional challenges. The basic mechanism that was described - dV/dt coupling into parasitic (and/or intentional) capacitances - is valid, but so is it's corollary - dI/dt coupling into loops. This dI/dt is often left out of SMPS EMI discussions, but I've seen it be the more predominant source and a hard one to mitigate, especially where the source is not the grid but a low voltage DC source from which you demand and hard-switch high currents (ie high dI/dt). Another piece of the SMPS EMI puzzle that I focus on is the rather nice radiated emissions generator set up when you take a device switching in the 10's or 100's of kHz and put a set of cables on each end of it = dipole antenna with an RF source in the middle. Jim Eichner, P.Eng. Compliance Engineering Manager Xantrex Technology Inc. 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: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Fred Townsend Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2008 3:20 PM To: John Woodgate Cc: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Re: Common-mode emissions from SMPS First you seem to condemn all SMPS to common mode emissions. Far from true. Most switching power supplies (at least the smaller ones) rectify the line and then use higher frequency DC to DC converters. It saves iron and with modern fast components you don't lose much in efficiency due to using higher frequencies (20 to 500KHz). The converter frequencies don't propagate much because they have to go through the big rectifier filer first. The problem occurs when we add power factor correction (PFC). Instead of straight rectification the AC current is taken out of the line in chunks. This produces lots of harmonics. Symmetry tends to cancel out the even harmonics but the odd ones propagate, particularly along the neutral in three phase systems. Since 3 phase neutrals are not expected to carry much current they are sometimes built smaller than the line circuits. It's all the perfect formula for emissions. Lack of symmetry and the UNCOMMON mode means they are very hard to filter. So it's not the SMPS and it's not common mode, it's the PFC. No good deed goes unpunished. Fred Townsend DC to Light John Woodgate wrote: SMPS seem to be very good at producing common-mode emissions on all the cables attached to them and the products they power. Would someone please give me a simple explanation of how these common-mode emissions are generated? I don't get involved with the internals of SMPS, and I've been given some explanations that are both contradictory and, taken one at a time, not terribly credible. - 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.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com
FW: When UL component recognition is not enough.
This is a subset of a bigger problem: the meaningless nature of the UR mark. Since UL allows itself to issue this mark with less than full evaluation or testing to the standard, or with less than full compliance, anybody using a UR part needs to take that approval with a bucket (not a grain) of salt. Then to further frustrate attempts by component users do things right, UL does not publish the Conditions of Acceptability, and you have to go to the part mfr to try to get them to show the list with you. It's an appalling situation where an accredited certification body can do less than a complete job, the mfr gets to use their mark anyway, and the public is not given access to the information as to what areas are lacking from the approval. Having said all that, in some cases nothing is lacking, it's simply a properly and fully approved component. I have no problem with that. And yes, I realize we are free to walk away from any part mfr that won't give us the Conditions of Acceptability. Jim Eichner, P.Eng. Compliance Engineering Manager Xantrex Technology Inc. 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: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Kunde, Brian Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2008 6:26 AM To: ieee Subject: RE: When UL component recognition is not enough. The Company has the right to accept or not any component for any reason even though in this case the reason they give seems unreasonable. I expect there are other reasons they do not want to use this component and they are just using this as the excuse. If the Company is trying to get NRTL approval on their product and their non-UL NRTL has a problem with this component, then their NRTL needs to contact UL and get things straitened out. I have seen competing NRTLs nit-pick over such things in the past and I think it shows a lack of professionalism. If they do not get resolve, I would contact OSHA and complain. The Components Manufacturer will have to decide if they are willing to lose such business over something so small. I think it would be a very simple paperwork process to re-list and document their components under the new standard with UL. In most cases, UL would not require additional evaluation or testing. The two standards are very similar. The Other Brian From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Robert Johnson Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2008 4:20 PM To: ieee Subject: When UL component recognition is not enough. I have a complaint about a certification process where agencies are providing approvals of little value. There are products for sale which have been reviewed (for example) to UL 1950, and are currently being manufactured and UL recognized. UL 1950 is a withdrawn standard, replaced by UL 60950. I have no problem with that since UL has conducted an IEC Sector Review Process which assures the product has no safety shortcomings with regard to the current standards. For standard changes affecting safety, a requirement effective date - RED is established and applied to the product. However a company wishing to use this product has a problem with the component recognition since it is to a withdrawn standard as is stated in the Certification Directory. The company using the component must either have the component manufacturer resubmit, or have the component reassessed as part of the end product evaluation. The result is, the component recognition is of no value to the new customer even though UL has gone through the work of assuring the component has no shortcomings with regard to the current standard. Apparently UL is reserving the step of updating the paperwork as an income source. - 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.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com LECO Corporation Notice: This communication may contain confidential information intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you received this by mistake, please destroy
RE: EMI Receiver
Indeed, however while I too may be losing the will to live, I still have the will to search out a new spectrum analyzer (note I learn from my experiences and have dropped the term-that-shall-remain-unspoken from this posting). So dare I repeat my question and that of Tim's original posting: does anyone care to sing the praises of any particular make/model for pre-compliance radiated and conducted emissions testing? Jim Eichner, P.Eng. Compliance Engineering Manager Xantrex Technology Inc. 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: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Julian Jones Sent: Monday, December 01, 2008 8:49 AM To: Untitled Subject: RE: EMI Receiver Can we please drop this topic now..I am beginning to lose the will to live. From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Price, Edward Sent: 01 December 2008 16:53 To: Untitled Subject: RE: EMI Receiver -Original Message- From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Ken Javor Sent: Monday, December 01, 2008 8:47 AM To: Untitled Subject: Re: EMI Receiver This may be one of those usage differences that occur on opposite sides of the Pond. After all, what we in the USA call a billion, you call a milliard, and what you mean by a billion is what we call one trillion. Ken Javor So USA 2 billion is a UK billiard? Ed Price ed.pr...@cubic.com WB6WSN NARTE Certified EMC Engineer Technician Electromagnetic Compatibility Lab Cubic Defense Applications San Diego, CA USA 858-505-2780 (Voice) 858-505-1583 (FAX) Military Avionics EMC Is Our Specialty - 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.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com
RE: EMI Receiver
As we often test immature prototypes with high emissions, I am quite concerned about out-of-band emissions-related effects, and consider a real preselector to be a mandatory part of any system we switch over to. The manufacturers may be able to tell me that they solve the same problem a different way, but I know what my starting position is. In fact we currently use 3 protective elements: a 100kHz high-pass filter, a transient limiter, and a pre-selector (moving from the EUT end of the chain towards the SA) and have found we need all three. Amazing the spectrum you get when a really large 50kHz switching fundamental slams into the transient limiter. Jim Eichner, P.Eng. Compliance Engineering Manager Xantrex Technology Inc. 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: John McAuley [mailto:john.mcau...@cei.ie] Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2008 9:46 AM To: Jim Eichner; emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RE: EMI Receiver I notice Rohde and Schwarz have a new low cost ESL receiver. Unlike previous pre compliance receivers it appears to be compliant to CISPR 16 even for the 1 Hz QP prf. However, it has no pre selection. I note the recent comments about modern receivers having less sophisticated pre selection. This one has none. Probably uses clever digital filters to perform bandwidth, QP and Average functions based on a basic spectrum analyzer front end. I presume that this instrument can be used for full compliance testing, however, one needs to be very careful about the accuracy of the measurement. By careful use of input attenuation and observing the results, a traditional skill used by users of spectrum analysers may help? BR John McAuley From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Jim Eichner Sent: 02 December 2008 08:03 To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RE: EMI Receiver Indeed, however while I too may be losing the will to live, I still have the will to search out a new spectrum analyzer (note I learn from my experiences and have dropped the term-that-shall-remain-unspoken from this posting). So dare I repeat my question and that of Tim's original posting: does anyone care to sing the praises of any particular make/model for pre-compliance radiated and conducted emissions testing? Jim Eichner, P.Eng. Compliance Engineering Manager Xantrex Technology Inc. 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: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Julian Jones Sent: Monday, December 01, 2008 8:49 AM To: Untitled Subject: RE: EMI Receiver Can we please drop this topic now..I am beginning to lose the will to live. From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Price, Edward Sent: 01 December 2008 16:53 To: Untitled Subject: RE: EMI Receiver -Original Message- From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Ken Javor Sent: Monday, December 01, 2008 8:47 AM To: Untitled Subject: Re: EMI Receiver This may be one of those usage differences that occur on opposite sides of the Pond. After all, what we in the USA call a billion, you call a milliard, and what you mean by a billion is what we call one trillion. Ken Javor So USA 2 billion is a UK billiard? Ed Price ed.pr...@cubic.com WB6WSN NARTE Certified EMC Engineer Technician Electromagnetic Compatibility Lab Cubic Defense Applications San Diego, CA USA 858-505-2780 (Voice) 858-505-1583 (FAX) Military Avionics EMC Is Our Specialty - 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.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com - This message is from
RE: EMI Receivers
Many posts have addressed the calibration part of this question, but not the make and model part. We have an aging HP rack that we are considering relegating to spare status by purchasing a new or nearly new spectrum analyzer or EMC receiver (I think the line there is blurring a bit these days but we want/need a preselector if that affects the semantics at all). I don’t think we need 18GHz for our applications, so if you have a favourite that tops out at a lower frequency please include it. I don’t want to hijack Tim’s originally 18GHz enquiry though. Thanks, Jim Eichner, P.Eng. Compliance Engineering Manager Xantrex Technology Inc. e-mail: jim.eich...@xantrex.com web: www.xantrex.com http://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: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of emcp...@aol.com Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2008 11:39 AM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: EMI Receivers Hello, I'm looking to purchase an EMI receiver for use in a 5 meter chamber. Does anyone recommend a certain model? I would want one that has at least a frequency range from 150kHz to 18GHz so one unit can be used for radiated and conducted emission measurements. I'm looking for a unit that can be calibrated by a local accredited calibration lab. I believe all RS receivers need to be sent to them for calibration, which there would be risk and time involved in shipping. Thanks, Tim Pierce One site has it all. Your email accounts, your social networks, and the things you love. Try the new AOL.com http://p .atwola.com/promoclk/10075x12129629 9x1200825291/aol?redir=http://www.aol.c m/?optin=new-dp%26icid=aolcom40vanity%26ncid=emlcntaolcom0001 today! - 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.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald dhe...@gmail.com - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald dhe...@gmail.com
RE: What's the deal with Wire Nuts?
Flexible cord is not to be used where a permanent wiring system is required, except under certain exceptions. The concern is that flexible cord is not as robust as wiring in conduit or wiring in walls, and over the long-term exposure that permanent installation implies, a flexible cord could become damaged and hazardous. Canada: CEC part 1 2006 rule 4-010 US: NEC 2008 rule 400.7 Jim Eichner, P.Eng. Compliance Engineering Manager Xantrex Technology Inc. e-mail: jim.eich...@xantrex.com web: www.xantrex.com http://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: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Haynes, Tim (SELEX GALILEO, UK) Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2008 1:03 AM To: Don Gies; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: RE: What's the deal with Wire Nuts? Don, Hi. In your response to Brian you said... However, written into the body of the IEC 60950-1 and EN 60950-1 (and other national derivative standards) is a wiring method for permanent connection to the mains not acceptable in the US and Canada – the use of a non-detachable power supply cord for permanent connection. Can you please supply to me the reference that prohibits that wiring method in US and Canada? Regards Tim Tim Haynes A1N10 Electromagnetic Engineering Specialist SELEX Sensors and Airborne Systems 300 Capability Green Luton LU1 3PG ( Tel : +44 (0)1582 886239 7 Fax : +44 (0)1582 795863 ) Mob: +44 (0)7703 559 310 * E-mail : tim.hay...@selexgalileo.com P Please consider the environment before printing this email. There are 10 types of people in the world-those who understand binary and those who don't. J. Paxman SELEX Sensors and Airborne Systems Limited Registered Office: Sigma House, Christopher Martin Road, Basildon, Essex SS14 3EL A company registered in England Wales. Company no. 02426132 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 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.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald dhe...@gmail.com - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald dhe...@gmail.com
RE: Functional Safety and the LVD
What if the safety function of the product was related to electrical safety? Again I’ll go to my RCD example. Suppose you have a product that contains multiple subsystems, one of which is an RCD circuit that keeps the overall product/system safe under fault conditions. Is that RCD not providing a safety function and could it not be considered a requirement to evaluate it to 61508? Certainly UL has gone this route in their interpretation of the applicability of UL1998 and UL991, which makes me question how certain we can be that 61508 won’t start to be used for these sorts of product evaluations too. Jim Eichner, P.Eng. Compliance Engineering Manager Xantrex Technology Inc. phone: (604) 422-2546 mobile: (604) 418-8472 e-mail: jim.eich...@xantrex.com web: www.xantrex.com http://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: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Amund Westin Sent: Monday, October 27, 2008 9:07 AM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RE: Functional Safety and the LVD If a standard shall be listed under LVD, it must be electrical safety related. I can’t see that 61508 should be LVD listed, since it deals with HW / SW functional safety. So you can sell a functional safety related product, CE mark it and not make any references to LVD. An example is a flame detector driven by 24VDC. But as an end user in offshore / marine market, it would have been a requirement that the flame detector was tested and verified according to 61508. Regards Amund Westin Oslo, Norway Fra: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] På vegne av Jim Eichner Sendt: 27. oktober 2008 16:14 Til: emc-p...@ieee.org Emne: RE: Functional Safety and the LVD Those systems are covered, but there’s nothing that excludes products. Take for example an RCD device. Clearly its function is safety-related. Why wouldn’t the 61508 series be relevant? Jim Eichner, P.Eng. Compliance Engineering Manager Xantrex Technology Inc. e-mail: jim.eich...@xantrex.com web: www.xantrex.com http://www.xantrex.com/ Any opinions expressed are those of my invisible friend. 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: David Clement [mailto:david.clem...@verizon.net] Sent: Saturday, October 25, 2008 2:12 PM To: Jim Eichner; emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Re: Functional Safety and the LVD 61508 deals with electrical, electronic and program devices and systems that provide safety such as rail road signaling, safety shut down systems in power plants, machinery interlocks. It has several in depth sections on software that is used in systems that provide functional safety. I don't see it being called out as part of a product safety directive. Dave Clement From: Jim Eichner jim.eich...@xantrex.com To: emc-p...@ieee.org Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 1:44:53 PM Subject: Functional Safety and the LVD A search of the latest list of standards under the LVD does not turn up any hits on EN61508, yet it would seem natural for this standard to be considered relevant under the LVD. I'm not looking for the added work that would imply, but I do need to know if it's coming. Any thoughts or inside knowledge if this is coming our way? Thanks, Jim Eichner, P.Eng. Compliance Engineering Manager Xantrex Technology Inc. e-mail: jim.eich...@xantrex.com web: www.xantrex.com Any opinions expressed are those of my invisible friend. 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. - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim
RE: Functional Safety and the LVD
Ok but does that mean it won’t ever get published under the LVD? Maybe the only answer is “never say never”. Jim Eichner, P.Eng. Compliance Engineering Manager Xantrex Technology Inc. phone: (604) 422-2546 mobile: (604) 418-8472 e-mail: jim.eich...@xantrex.com web: www.xantrex.com http://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: David Clement [mailto:david.clem...@verizon.net] Sent: Monday, October 27, 2008 4:03 PM To: Jim Eichner; emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Re: Functional Safety and the LVD 61508 is not a product standard. It relates to systems that provide System Safety where a portion of the system is electrical, electronic, or programmable. System Safety as a discipline looks at the severity of hazards that are present if something fails to perform as designed, the likely hood of it occurring, assessing if the risk is acceptable and if its not take mitigation steps to reduce the risk. 61508 provides special considerations when the mitigation is provided by Electrical, Electronic or Programmable. For example; It has guidance on the software development rigor necessary for the different Safety Integrity Levels. An RCD device provides a safety function for sure but a single device is explicitly not covered. Below is an excerpt from the standard scope. does not cover E/E/PE systems where – a single E/E/PE system is capable of providing the necessary risk reduction, Dave Clement From: Jim Eichner jim.eich...@xantrex.com To: emc-p...@ieee.org Sent: Monday, October 27, 2008 11:14:06 AM Subject: RE: Functional Safety and the LVD Those systems are covered, but there’s nothing that excludes products. Take for example an RCD device. Clearly its function is safety-related. Why wouldn’t the 61508 series be relevant? Jim Eichner, P.Eng. Compliance Engineering Manager Xantrex Technology Inc. e-mail: jim.eich...@xantrex.com web: www.xantrex.com http://www.xantrex.com/ Any opinions expressed are those of my invisible friend. 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: David Clement [mailto:david.clem...@verizon.net] Sent: Saturday, October 25, 2008 2:12 PM To: Jim Eichner; emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Re: Functional Safety and the LVD 61508 deals with electrical, electronic and program devices and systems that provide safety such as rail road signaling, safety shut down systems in power plants, machinery interlocks. It has several in depth sections on software that is used in systems that provide functional safety. I don't see it being called out as part of a product safety directive. Dave Clement From: Jim Eichner jim.eich...@xantrex.com To: emc-p...@ieee.org Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 1:44:53 PM Subject: Functional Safety and the LVD A search of the latest list of standards under the LVD does not turn up any hits on EN61508, yet it would seem natural for this standard to be considered relevant under the LVD. I'm not looking for the added work that would imply, but I do need to know if it's coming. Any thoughts or inside knowledge if this is coming our way? Thanks, Jim Eichner, P.Eng. Compliance Engineering Manager Xantrex Technology Inc. e-mail: jim.eich...@xantrex.com web: www.xantrex.com Any opinions expressed are those of my invisible friend. 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. - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher:j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com All emc-pstc postings are archived
RE: Functional Safety and the LVD
Those systems are covered, but there’s nothing that excludes products. Take for example an RCD device. Clearly its function is safety-related. Why wouldn’t the 61508 series be relevant? Jim Eichner, P.Eng. Compliance Engineering Manager Xantrex Technology Inc. e-mail: jim.eich...@xantrex.com web: www.xantrex.com http://www.xantrex.com/ Any opinions expressed are those of my invisible friend. 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: David Clement [mailto:david.clem...@verizon.net] Sent: Saturday, October 25, 2008 2:12 PM To: Jim Eichner; emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Re: Functional Safety and the LVD 61508 deals with electrical, electronic and program devices and systems that provide safety such as rail road signaling, safety shut down systems in power plants, machinery interlocks. It has several in depth sections on software that is used in systems that provide functional safety. I don't see it being called out as part of a product safety directive. Dave Clement From: Jim Eichner jim.eich...@xantrex.com To: emc-p...@ieee.org Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 1:44:53 PM Subject: Functional Safety and the LVD A search of the latest list of standards under the LVD does not turn up any hits on EN61508, yet it would seem natural for this standard to be considered relevant under the LVD. I'm not looking for the added work that would imply, but I do need to know if it's coming. Any thoughts or inside knowledge if this is coming our way? Thanks, Jim Eichner, P.Eng. Compliance Engineering Manager Xantrex Technology Inc. e-mail: jim.eich...@xantrex.com web: www.xantrex.com Any opinions expressed are those of my invisible friend. 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. - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher:j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
Functional Safety and the LVD
A search of the latest list of standards under the LVD does not turn up any hits on EN61508, yet it would seem natural for this standard to be considered relevant under the LVD. I'm not looking for the added work that would imply, but I do need to know if it's coming. Any thoughts or inside knowledge if this is coming our way? Thanks, Jim Eichner, P.Eng. Compliance Engineering Manager Xantrex Technology Inc. e-mail: jim.eich...@xantrex.com web: www.xantrex.com Any opinions expressed are those of my invisible friend. 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. - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
IEC60225-5 surge test impedance?
We are being asked to run this test and don't have the standard. The voltage is 5kV and the energy is 0.5J but rather than do the calculus involved I thought I'd just ask for the specified source impedance. Thanks in advance Jim Eichner Sent from Blackberry Wireless - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
RE: IEC60225-5 surge test impedance?
Thanks Don. Too bad our generator/CDN only has 2 or 12 ohms! Jim Eichner, P.Eng. Compliance Engineering Manager Xantrex Technology Inc. phone: (604) 422-2546 mobile: (604) 418-8472 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: MacArthur, Don [mailto:don.macart...@gd-itronix.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2008 7:54 AM To: Jim Eichner; emc-p...@ieee.org Cc: Fred Kracke Subject: RE: IEC60225-5 surge test impedance? 500 Ohms Don MacArthur Compliance Engineer General Dynamics Itronix Corporation 12825 E. Mirabeau Parkway Spokane Valley, WA 99216 ph: 509-742-1342 fax: 509-742-1672 email address: don.macart...@gd-itronix.com This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipients and may contain GDC4S confidential or privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not an intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Jim Eichner Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2008 7:41 AM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Cc: Fred Kracke; Jim Eichner Subject: IEC60225-5 surge test impedance? We are being asked to run this test and don't have the standard. The voltage is 5kV and the energy is 0.5J but rather than do the calculus involved I thought I'd just ask for the specified source impedance. Thanks in advance Jim Eichner Sent from Blackberry Wireless - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
RE: EN 50178 scope
My understanding is that there will not be any more work on EN50178 / IEC 62103 as TC22 has decided that it is not a very good standard and other standards and standards development efforts have already moved past it. The intent of the scope was always vague, perhaps intentionally so, but I can tell you it is in widespread use for motor drives and solar inverters, and is likely being used for other power conversion equipment without an obvious product standard, and for non-power-conversion electronics equipment that is related to electrical installations (for example current sensors). For drives, EN 50178 / IEC 62103 has already been replaced by IEC 61800-5. For solar inverters, EN 50178 / IEC 62103 will be replaced by IEC 62109-1 and -2 when they get published, assuming CENELEC adopts them and they get published by reference in the OJ under the LVD, which is certainly the intent of the IEC TC82 WG6 authors. For other power conversion products and other electronics currently being done to EN 50178 / IEC 62103, there are other product standards that can be used, but some products will naturally fit the scope of EN 50178 / IEC 62103 or will have no other home, so it will continue to be used until it gets withdrawn. In the long run, TC22 is developing IEC 62477 which will be a group safety standard for power conversion equipment, and will have product standards published under it. Jim Eichner, P.Eng. Compliance Engineering Manager Xantrex Technology Inc. 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: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Brian O'Connell Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2008 11:48 AM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RE: EN 50178 scope John, Thanks much. I note that there is no EN62103 on the Low Voltage Directive list of harmonised standards, but that EN50178 is still listed. Anyone care to comment if there will be a transition ? luck, Brian From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org]On Behalf Of John McAuley Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2008 11:29 AM To: 'Brian O'Connell'; emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RE: EN 50178 scope Brian It was transferred to IEC TC22 and published as IEC 62103. It is available for preview on the IEC website. International Standard IEC 62103 has been prepared by IEC technical committee 22: Power electronic systems and equipment. The text of this standard is based on the European Standard EN 50178, prepared by the CENELEC Task Force BTTF 60-1: Assembly of electronic equipment. John McAuley - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
Compliance Position at Xantrex in Burnaby (Vancouver) BC
We are looking to hire a full-time compliance engineer for our Burnaby BC (Canada) product development operation. We develop a wide variety of power conversion products for renewable energy, mobile power, and consumer electronics applications, ranging from 10W to 10kW. The position deals with product safety, utility interconnection, EMC, and environmental compliance, with significant product safety compliance experience a mandatory pre-requisite. The full job description is under my signoff below and on our website, where you can also apply. http://www.xantrex.com/corporate/careers/index.asp Thanks, Jim Eichner, P.Eng. Compliance Engineering Manager Xantrex Technology Inc. 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. Title: Compliance Engineer (Burnaby) Xantrex Technology Inc. is a world leader in advanced power electronics headquartered near Vancouver, Canada. We are a fast-paced, dynamic, cross-functional team-based company. Xantrex makes a positive difference in the lives of people around the world by combining proven technology with unparalleled market understanding to bring our customers products that enable the delivery of electricity anytime, anywhere. Position Summary: Responsible for ensuring and maintaining product compliance with worldwide regulatory requirements for product safety, Electromagnetic Compatibility (EMC), hazardous substance restrictions, utility interconnection, etc. for power conversion products and accessories in Xantrex's renewable energy, mobile power, and portable power markets. Works with design teams to provide guidance, evaluate and improve designs, and test for compliance. Works with regulatory agencies and standards to obtain and maintain certifications. Responsibilities: Plan and manage all compliance tasks for assigned programs Perform product safety, EMC, and utility interconnection testing and produce formal test reports for agencies and internal and external customers Evaluate product designs to ensure and document compliance in the final design: o Provide interpretations of requirements to design teams o Provide ongoing feedback and data to design teams Write and maintain the reports required to document regulatory compliance Work with agencies and 3rd party test laboratories for the purposes of: o Obtaining testing and evaluation services o Obtaining and maintaining product approvals o Obtaining interpretations of requirements Perform as a cross-functional team member to achieve the technical, schedule and budget objectives of development programs Stay current with applicable standards, skills, and trends in regulatory compliance Participate in standards development committees relevant to Xantrex products Requirements: Electrical Engineering degree preferred, will consider technologist with appropriate experience At least 5 years experience in product safety compliance testing and evaluation, preferably in the power electronics industry Extensive knowledge of worldwide product safety regulations, standards, and test methods Preference given to candidates with one or more of the following: experience with EMC regulations, standards, and testing; working knowledge of power conversion technology (motor drives, inverters, power supplies); experience in renewable energy systems; experience in marine or RV electrical systems; Enjoys hands-on work - testing, troubleshooting, prototyping, etc. Detail oriented and thorough Ability to read schematics and specifications, perform circuit analysis Strong written and oral communication skills, with emphasis on the ability to create quality technical reports, test reports, and test procedures Ability to work effectively with multi-disciplined design teams Strong organizational and time-management skills Ability to multi-task and to adapt to changing priorities Proficiency in MS Office (Excel, Powerpoint, Word the internet) - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc
RE: UL 2054 testing for lithium batteries
Does anybody have any insight into the changes that those standards are going to make in light of the incidents and recalls? If we can't rely on UL2054's requirements, and want to apply additional testing or requirements to UL2054 battery packs, then it would be helpful to know where that standard is headed. Jim Eichner, P.Eng. Compliance Engineering Manager Xantrex Technology Inc. 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: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Scott Xe Sent: Monday, July 07, 2008 7:30 AM To: kazimier_gawrzy...@dell.com; rpick...@rpqconsulting.com; oconne...@tamuracorp.com; emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RE: UL 2054 testing for lithium batteries Richard, If you want to prevent the battery pack from explosion/fire, compliance of those standards might not accomplish it for the time being. UL 2054, UL 1642 and UL 60950-1 were prepared and published before Sony's battery recall. All the standards are being revised to address the issue. After a large scale of Sony's battery recall, the Li-ion battery pack continues to explode and catch fire in a smaller scale. The users are awaiting the new replacement of battery pack or a firm solution to the probable explosion of existing Li-ion battery pack. Regards. Scott From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of kazimier_gawrzy...@dell.com Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2008 12:24 AM To: rpick...@rpqconsulting.com; oconne...@tamuracorp.com; emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RE: UL 2054 testing for lithium batteries Also.For end use systems seeking compliance with UL 60950-1, see Annex P.1 with reference to cl. 4.3.8 Kaz kazimier_gawrzy...@dell.com From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Ron Pickard, RPQ Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2008 11:07 AM To: 'Brian O'Connell'; 'emc-p...@ieee.org' Subject: RE: UL 2054 testing for lithium batteries Richard, IMHO, if the lithium batteries are user replaceable (such as a removable battery pack), then they would need to be separately approved to UL 2054. I say that because in my experience, UL has required it in past Listing efforts of products with them. And, if this is a cell phone application, please note that the CTIA has recently imposed requirements for lithium batteries. Supporting this, from UL2054's scope: - These requirements cover portable primary (nonrechargeable) and secondary (rechargeable) batteries for use as power sources in products. These batteries consist of either a single electrochemical cell or two or more cells connected in series, parallel, or both, that convert chemical energy into electrical energy by chemical reaction. - These requirements are intended to reduce the risk of fire or explosion when batteries are used in a product. The proper use of these batteries in a particular application is dependent on their use in a complete product that complies with the requirements applicable to such a product. - These requirements are intended to cover batteries for general use and do not include the combination of the battery and the host product which are covered by requirements in the host product standard. - These requirements are also intended to reduce the risk of injury to persons due to fire or explosion when batteries are removed from a product to be transported, stored, or discarded. - These requirements do not cover the toxicity risk that results from the ingestion of a battery or its contents, nor the risk of injury to persons that occurs if a battery is cut open to provide access to its contents. The battery manufacturer would quite likely be already aware of all of this. They would be the one to approach for getting this work done. Also, in addition to what Brian stated about shipping, the US and international shipping authorities have specific testing and labeling requirements for lithium batteries or products containing lithium batteries. Testing involves the UN T1-T8 tests. IHTH. Best regards, Ron Pickard RPQ Consulting 7372 West Luke Avenue Glendale, AZ 85303 +623.512-3451 tel, +623.848-9033 fax rpick...@rpqconsulting.com www.rpqconsulting.com http://www.rpqconsulting.com/ From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Brian O'Connell Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2008 7:21 AM To: 'emc-p...@ieee.org' Subject: RE: UL 2054 testing for lithium batteries The following are personal opinions only. In general, conformity to the applicable standard is always necessary; but not always 'required'. In any case, note that UL 1642 is scoped specifically for Li
RE: FW: 60950-1:2006 clause 2.5 - Limited power sources
That's my feeling - it's an illogical exclusion. At most the standard should disallow the use of any (ie technology neutral) device that has not been tested to a relevant standard that takes cycle life into account, but to pick on auto-reset electromechanical devices while allowing auto-reset solid state devices seems very odd, especially since the latter are more likely to be damaged by surges and the like. Any '950 authors lurking who haven't commented yet? Jim Eichner, P.Eng. Compliance Engineering Manager Xantrex Technology Inc. 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: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of John Woodgate Sent: Friday, June 20, 2008 5:15 AM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Re: FW: 60950-1:2006 clause 2.5 - Limited power sources In message de87437fe365cb458c265ea3d73b6f1d039ad...@xbc-mail1.xantrex.com, dated Fri, 20 Jun 2008, Jim Eichner jim.eich...@xantrex.com writes: To be clear, the LPS application would not be a circuit breaker as the term is commonly used. The language from '950 that I objected to was regarding automatically resetting overcurrent protective devices, so rather than a circuit breaker it would be something like a thermal auto-reset device that I would call a current limiter or a circuit protector not a breaker. Semantics to some extent, but auto-reset was the main attribute for this discussion. Well, if it's not a circuit-breaker (electromechanical, and therefore reliability is an issue), it makes even less sense to allow PTCs. I suspect that the ban on auto-reset was lifted for PTCs because if not it would be an absolute ban on their use. But it's not logical. -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk Either we are causing global warming, in which case we may be able to stop it, or natural variation is causing it, and we probably can't stop it. You choose! John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
Compliance position at Xantrex in Livermore, CA
We are looking to hire a full-time compliance engineer for our Livermore operation, which focuses on 3-phase solar and wind power products from 30kW into the low megawatts. The position deals mostly with product safety and utility interconnection compliance, with any EMC or other product regulatory knowledge being an asset but not essential. The job description is under my signoff below. If you are interested please apply through our website at http://www.xantrex.com/corporate/careers/index.asp , but if you are serious and have specific questions first, you can contact me directly, off-line. Thanks, Jim Eichner, P.Eng. Compliance Engineering Manager Xantrex Technology Inc. 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. Job Description: Xantrex Technology Inc. is a world leader in advanced power electronics headquartered near Vancouver, Canada. We are a fast-paced, dynamic, cross-functional team-based company. Xantrex makes a positive difference in the lives of people around the world by combining proven technology with unparalleled market understanding to bring our customers products that enable the delivery of electricity anytime, anywhere. Position Summary: Responsible for ensuring and maintaining product compliance with regulatory requirements for product safety, utility interconnection and Electromagnetic Compatibility (EMC) of solar and wind power conversion products and accessories. Work with design teams to provide guidance, evaluate designs and test for compliance. Work with regulatory agencies and their standards to obtain and maintain certifications. Responsibilities: * Plan and manage all compliance tasks for assigned programs * Perform product safety, utility interconnection and EMC testing and produce formal test reports for agencies, electric utilities and design teams * Evaluate product designs to ensure compliance in the final design: * Provide interpretations of requirements to design teams * Provide ongoing feedback and data to design teams * Write and maintain the reports required to document regulatory compliance * Work with utilities, agencies and 3rd party test laboratories for the purposes of: * Obtaining testing and evaluation services * Obtaining and maintaining product approvals * Obtaining interpretations of requirements * Perform as a cross-functional team member to achieve the technical, schedule and budget objectives of the program * Stay current with applicable skills and trends in regulatory compliance * Participate in standard development committees relevant to Xantrex products Requirements: * Electrical Engineering degree preferred, will consider technologist with appropriate experience * At least 5 years experience in product safety standards compliance, preferably in the power electronics industry * Preference given to candidates with one or more of the following: experience in solar or wind power, experience working with utilities and commissioning high power systems, working knowledge of power conversion technology (motor drives, inverters, power supplies) preferably at high power levels (10kW - 2.5MW), experience in both low- and medium voltage (up to 20kV) beneficial, experience with water-cooled systems * Extensive knowledge of current worldwide regulations, standards, and test methodology applicable to product safety, and ideally also utility interconnection and EMC * Hands-on skills - testing, troubleshooting, prototyping, etc. * Detail oriented and thorough * Ability to design and test compliance solutions, perform circuit analysis * Strong written and oral communication skills, with emphasis on the ability to create quality technical reports, test reports, and test procedures * Ability to work effectively with multi-disciplined design teams * Strong organizational and time-management skills * Ability to multi-task and to adapt to changing priorities * Proficiency in MS Office (Excel, Powerpoint, Word the internet) ** - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org
FW: 60950-1:2006 clause 2.5 - Limited power sources
To be clear, the LPS application would not be a circuit breaker as the term is commonly used. The language from '950 that I objected to was regarding automatically resetting overcurrent protective devices, so rather than a circuit breaker it would be something like a thermal auto-reset device that I would call a current limiter or a circuit protector not a breaker. Semantics to some extent, but auto-reset was the main attribute for this discussion. Jim Eichner, P.Eng. Compliance Engineering Manager Xantrex Technology Inc. phone: (604) 422-2546 mobile: (604) 418-8472 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: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of John Woodgate Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2008 12:25 PM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Re: 60950-1:2006 clause 2.5 - Limited power sources In message 002201c8d233$ee8de1e0$d600a...@tamuracorp.com, dated Thu, 19 Jun 2008, Brian O'Connell oconne...@tamuracorp.com writes: As for 'reliability', can we assume that safety standards such as 60730, 61058, 61015, 60384, etc address the issue of reliability through a min number of cycles, or am I making an invalid comparison of apples to oranges ? Well, they are all, as far as I know, based on experience rather than formal analysis, and consider 'known UNreliability' rather than 'tested reliability'. In other words, something is not allowed because experience has shown that it should not be allowed. But when that was applied to circuit-breakers in LPS circuits, and what the evidence was, who knows? While 60950 is not a very old standard, it has ancestors. LPS is actually a concept from UL standards rather than European, which may give a clue. -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk Either we are causing global warming, in which case we may be able to stop it, or natural variation is causing it, and we probably can't stop it. You choose! John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
RE: 60950-1:2006 clause 2.5 - Limited power sources
I don't understand why electromechanical devices cannot be proven to have reliable cycle life. There are electromechanical devices tested for 6,000 cycles and 100,000 cycles commonly available, and there may be other classes with even higher cycle life. The standards all require that holding the breaker handle/button down after it has tripped must NOT allow the contacts to be held closed (so-called trip-free operation). The environmental and other stresses listed in your items a) to g) all seem to me to be something that a thermal breaker designer could design for. Take for example a simple bimetallic circuit protector. I can't imagine such a device having a problem with any of this, except perhaps if the thermal expansion properties of either of the two metals changes too much during the cycling required by the standard. Is that the issue? The reason for my enquiry is standards committee work. We are importing this Limited Power Sources section, and it doesn't seem right to not allow auto-reset electro-mechanical devices. At the very least, we should allow them with a condition that they comply with a relevant standard that tests them for adequate cycle life (perhaps one of the 60730 series, but I'm sure there are more relevant standards for breakers and protectors that are electro-mechanical). Comments? Thanks as always for the forum's help. Jim Eichner, P.Eng. Compliance Engineering Manager Xantrex Technology Inc. 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: Brian O'Connell [mailto:oconne...@tamuracorp.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2008 7:08 AM To: Jim Eichner; emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RE: 60950-1:2006 clause 2.5 - Limited power sources Ok, brain damaged after several long nights as a code monkey - did not finish my answer. as you know, the last choice is delimited by Where an overcurrent protective device is used, it shall be a fuse or a non-adjustable, non-autoreset, electromechanical device. Because electromechanical devices cannot meet the cycle (reliability) requirments of IEC60730, they are not allowed. As breakers age, there trip level and time-to trip may not always age gracefully. Also, there is the risk that an operator may attempt to hold the breaker closed during overload. In any case, UL60730-1A states DVD.4.1 A power limiting component - resistor, positive temperature coefficient THERMISTOR, diode, or the like - employed to limit the output of a power source to within the required current or power levels, or otherwise relied upon to comply with the performance requirements in Sub-clause DVD.6 shall have permanence and stability so as not to decrease its limiting capabilities. Among the factors considered when determining the acceptability of a power limiting component are: a) Effect of operating temperature, b) Electrical stress level, c) Effect of transient surges, d) Resistance to moisture, e) Endurance, f) Temperature change shock, and g) If appropriate, thermal runaway. R/S, Brian From: Brian O'Connell [mailto:oconne...@tamuracorp.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2008 6:50 AM To: 'Jim Eichner'; 'emc-p...@ieee.org' Subject: RE: 60950-1:2006 clause 2.5 - Limited power sources Logic error - the requirements of cl 2.5 are connected by 'OR' logic. Note that one of the choices is b) a linear or non-linear impedance limits the output in compliance with Table 2B. If a positive temperature coefficient device is used, it shall pass the tests specified in IEC60730-1, Clauses 15, 17, J.15 and J.17; or Assuming that this is for a mains-isolated LPS output, we can say that this is not related to overcurrent protection for branch circuits, and will also assume that another overcurrent protective device is being used to satisfy NEC 240.10. If the above is true, then a PTC, that is certified as a current interrupt where the end-use meets its conditions of acceptability, should be acceptable if a short or overload meets the limits of table 2C. I have used 'auto-resetting' PTCs to meet the requirements of both UL60950-1 and UL1012, their use IS, in fact, allowed. But I have also 'encouraged' the designers to include other series impedances that will also provide ultimate current limits not dependent on the PTC. luck, Brian From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org]On Behalf Of Jim Eichner Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2008 2:24 AM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Cc: Jim Eichner Subject: 60950-1:2006 clause 2.5 - Limited power sources If an overcurrent protective device is used, it is not allowed to be auto-resetting. Why? Just above this requirement is an allowance to use PTC's
60950-1:2006 clause 2.5 - Limited power sources
If an overcurrent protective device is used, it is not allowed to be auto-resetting. Why? Just above this requirement is an allowance to use PTC's and they auto-reset, so why the bias against auto-reset breakers? Thanks, Jim Eichner, P.Eng. Compliance Engineering Manager Xantrex Technology Inc. e-mail: jim.eich...@xantrex.com web: www.xantrex.com Any opinions expressed are those of my invisible friend. 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. - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
RE: IEC/EN 60664-4 - Insulation Coordination for frequencies over 30kHz
If anyone has posted a reply to this without copying me, I may have missed it, since I had vacation mode turned on to avoid sending Out of Office messages to everyone. I have now turned vacation mode off again, but please re-send to me off-line if indeed you had replied without copying my personal e-mail address. Thanks, Jim Eichner, P.Eng. Compliance Engineering Manager Xantrex Technology Inc. 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: Jim Eichner Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008 5:48 AM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Cc: Jim Eichner Subject: IEC/EN 60664-4 - Insulation Coordination for frequencies over 30kHz Does anybody have any background on what drove the writing of 60664-4? I am on TC22 PT5 writing a safety standard for power electronics, and we are wondering if the -4 requirements were driven by real-life issues (breakdown of clearances, tracking across creepage distances, etc.) with application of existing (ie 60664-1 based) requirements on higher frequency circuits? Or did this standard get written out of a theoretical basis, in the absence of real-life issues? If there is a track record of real-life issues, the follow-on question is whether those issues manifest in the lower frequencies of the broad range of 60664-4 (which goes from 30kHz to 10MHz), since power electronics would typically use only the low end of that range, up to perhaps 1MHz. Thanks in advance, Jim Eichner, P.Eng. Compliance Engineering Manager Xantrex Technology Inc. e-mail: jim.eich...@xantrex.com web: www.xantrex.com Any opinions expressed are those of my invisible friend, who looks just the same at 29kHz has he does at 31kHz. 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. - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
IEC/EN 60664-4 - Insulation Coordination for frequencies over 30kHz
Does anybody have any background on what drove the writing of 60664-4? I am on TC22 PT5 writing a safety standard for power electronics, and we are wondering if the -4 requirements were driven by real-life issues (breakdown of clearances, tracking across creepage distances, etc.) with application of existing (ie 60664-1 based) requirements on higher frequency circuits? Or did this standard get written out of a theoretical basis, in the absence of real-life issues? If there is a track record of real-life issues, the follow-on question is whether those issues manifest in the lower frequencies of the broad range of 60664-4 (which goes from 30kHz to 10MHz), since power electronics would typically use only the low end of that range, up to perhaps 1MHz. Thanks in advance, Jim Eichner, P.Eng. Compliance Engineering Manager Xantrex Technology Inc. e-mail: jim.eich...@xantrex.com web: www.xantrex.com Any opinions expressed are those of my invisible friend, who looks just the same at 29kHz has he does at 31kHz. 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. - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
FW: European Equivalent for: National Fire Code, National Electric Code, Uniform Building Code, and OSHA
So how do I buy what I need? I guess I have to go to some webstore that sells the IEC or EN version of the 60364 series, read the scope of each of the many subsections, decide which ones I need, and buy them one at a time at a cost of $100+ each? I suppose that’s a rhetorical question. Argh. Jim Eichner, P.Eng. Compliance Engineering Manager Xantrex Technology Inc. e-mail: jim.eich...@xantrex.com web: www.xantrex.com http://www.xantrex.com/ Any opinions expressed are those of my invisible friend, who sells dictionaries one letter at a time - buy only what you need! 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: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Ted Eckert Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2008 5:19 AM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RE: European Equivalent for: National Fire Code, National Electric Code, Uniform Building Code, and OSHA I am unaware of a consolidated version of IEC 60364. Any national adoption will have national deviations which will likely not be marked. BS 7671 may be a place to start. Much of it aligns closely with IEC 60364 and there is even correspondence between the clause numbers. However, without the two side by side, you won't be able to tell where BS 7671 is different from the IEC standard. Ted Eckert The opinions expressed are strictly my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my employer. Jim Eichner jim.eich...@xantrex.com wrote: Has the EU, or any member states or standards bodies, published a consolidated package yet, that would allow me to be buy all of IEC 60364 at once? Jim Eichner, P.Eng. Compliance Engineering Manager Xantrex Technology Inc. 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. -Original Message- From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Brian O'Connell Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2008 8:25 AM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RE: European Equivalent for: National Fire Code, National Electric Code, Uniform Building Code, and OSHA BS7671 IEC60364 of course, my favorite fire-code directive is provide by the 'Talking Heads' luck, Brian -Original Message- From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org]On Behalf Of Christine Rodham Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2008 8:06 AM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Re: European Equivalent for: National Fire Code, National Electric Code, Uniform Building Code, and OSHA Dear List Members, Are there European equivalent codes/directives for the: National Fire Code: National Electric Code: Uniform Building Code: OSHA: Thank you! Christine Rodham - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc
RE: European Equivalent for: National Fire Code, National Electric Code, Uniform Building Code, and OSHA
Has the EU, or any member states or standards bodies, published a consolidated package yet, that would allow me to be buy all of IEC 60364 at once? Jim Eichner, P.Eng. Compliance Engineering Manager Xantrex Technology Inc. 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: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Brian O'Connell Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2008 8:25 AM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RE: European Equivalent for: National Fire Code, National Electric Code, Uniform Building Code, and OSHA BS7671 IEC60364 of course, my favorite fire-code directive is provide by the 'Talking Heads' luck, Brian From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org]On Behalf Of Christine Rodham Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2008 8:06 AM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Re: European Equivalent for: National Fire Code, National Electric Code, Uniform Building Code, and OSHA Dear List Members, Are there European equivalent codes/directives for the: National Fire Code: National Electric Code: Uniform Building Code: OSHA: Thank you! Christine Rodham - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
German regulation relating to equipment built into vans, trucks, etc.
We have had an enquiry whether or not our products comply with a German regulation. Here's the information we were given... Nutzfahrzeugeverordnungen = a law that regulates what you built into vans, trucks and caravans A Google search on the term came up empty, but the translation is Commercial motor vehicle regulations. Sounds like the FMVSS. Does anybody know what this is, and/or have any links to useful internet sites on the topic? Thanks, Jim Eichner, P.Eng. Compliance Engineering Manager Xantrex Technology Inc. e-mail: jim.eich...@xantrex.com web: www.xantrex.com Any opinions expressed are those of my invisible friend. 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. This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/listserv/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html 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
EN62040-1-1 and wiring compartments
In revising and renumbering EN50091-1-1 to EN62040-1-1, a change seems to have occurred that may not have been intentional. If anyone can shed any light on this I'd appreciate it! EN50091-1-1: Refers to EN60950:1992 +A1+A2 for most of its requirements. In particular, for wiring compartments, EN50091-1-1 calls out EN60950 clauses 3.2.2 through 3.2.8, the last of which contains requirements for wiring space for permanent connections (sufficient space to allow conductors to be introduced, designed to permit inspection of wiring, etc.). EN62040-1-1: Refers to EN60950-1 (latest and greatest), in particular clauses 3.2.2 through 3.2.8. However in EN60950-1 there is a clause 3.2.9 (lines up with the old 3.2.8 discussed above) which is NOT called out as a requirement by EN62040-1-1. Is this intentional, or an error of omission? Here's the real question: Does an EN62040-1-1 product require a wiring compartment at all? With 3.2.9 omitted, there is nothing referenced that requires a wiring space with a cover. You could (why you would is a different matter, but you could...) interpret the standard as allowing wiring to come up to the product, be secured in a cable clamp (or conduit secured in a knockout) and then the final connections made outside the main enclosure. As long as connector types met all the requirements for prevention of access to live parts (etc) such a scheme would seem to be acceptable. Or 3.2.9 was meant to be included and was left out by mistake. Thanks in advance for any light anyone can shed on this. Jim Eichner, P.Eng. Compliance Engineering 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. 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: emc_p...@symbol.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
RE: fan question
Interesting story. I wonder though if the result of the risk assessment would have been It takes 2 faults for this to be hazardous, so probability of occurrence is low, and we don't need to act on it. Since most product safety standards consider safety to be adequate with only single fault scenarios applied, some may feel justified making the above assessment. I'm not sure I like the idea that what's good enough for a published and adopted standard is not good enough for the courts. It seems to me, if that's the case, that the standards writing bodies had better raise the bar a notch. If safety approvals are to add value beyond mere market access, ie liability reduction, then they need to be considered adequate by the courts. Of course the courts are always going to find someone to blame, regardless of safety standards, fault assessments, warnings and instructions, etc. There is no such thing as oh well, shxx happens in liability court. Jim Eichner, P.Eng. Compliance Engineering 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: Duncan Hobbs [mailto:duncan_ho...@xyratex.com] Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 1:43 AM To: marko.radoji...@nokia.com; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: fan question Marko and group, There was an interesting liability case in the UK in the late eighties involving a certain brand and model of washer/drier. The situation was that the machine had an aluminum heater box with the drying element and a fan to blow air over it. The heater box was provided with an over-temperature trip as a safety feature. The problem was that in some cases the over-temperature trip was failing. The result of failure of this part was not apparent to the user and the machine continued to apparently function normally with this fault. This fault only became apparent when the absence of the safety function provided by this device was highlighted by another fault (fan failure). There were several fires reported (including one fatality) and the case went to court where the manufacturer was found to be at fault. The appliance had been approved by an approvals agency and met the required standard. I guess this illustrates the difference between compliance and safety. Safety = Freedom from unacceptable risk Compliance = Acting in accordance with a request or command It was interesting to note that it was argued, that had an adequate risk based assessment have been conducted on the appliance then such a hazard would have been identified. Regards, Duncan. Duncan Hobbs, Senior Compliance Engineer Xyratex Product Compliance Lab. Havant, Hants, U.K. tel: 02392 496444 fax: 02392 496014 duncan_ho...@xyratex.com From: marko.radoji...@nokia.com [mailto:marko.radoji...@nokia.com] Sent: 18 September 2003 15:53 To: peter.tar...@sanmina-sci.com; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: fan question Back at a former employer, we were fond of saying that there was a difference between Safe and Compliant. These scenarios are perfect illustrations. If there is a dormant fault in your equipment which could mask a safety hazard, that is Compliant but not Safe. I personally would try and reduce the exposure to a minimum using whatever means possible and then document this situation to executive management for their express approval. Consider yourself on the witness stand with a lawyer asking you if you were aware of the situation which caused their client to have come to harm. What would you say? How would you feel? Cheers, Marko From: ext Peter L. Tarver [mailto:peter.tar...@sanmina-sci.com] Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2003 6:39 AM To: PSTC Subject: RE: fan question Amen. The test house might attempt to invoke the forward to a standard, if it contains text that provides them an out, where there is clear engineering rationale and a very specific risk of a hazard being evaluated not anticipated by the standard. Even so, the sand beneath their feet would be shifting. For instance (not a directly related one), during previous test house employment, I stopped an evaluation and refused a certification for a coffee percolator, because it barely warmed water. OTOH, if a double fault scenario seems plausible, you may wish to perform the testing for your own edification, irrespective of the content of the safety standard. I might be inclined to do such a thing on equipment intended for installation in a hazardous location. This is more a matter
RE: earthline choke
For emissions reduction, the usefulness of a ground-wire choke is dependent on the relative magnitudes of the 2 types of common-mode noise your product emits. I refer to them as 2-wire and 3-wire common-mode noise: 2-wire: Noise common to L and N, returning to the product on the G 3-wire: Noise common to L, N, and G, returning to the product through other parts of the system or the system's parasitic capacitance to ground Of course there are more combinations in 3-phase systems. It is easy with a clamp-on RF current probe to determine the types of noise present on the conductors in a cable, by selecting which conductors go through the probe, and in which direction. For example: - putting the L and N through and leaving out the G gives the 2-wire common-mode noise - putting all 3 conductors through gives the 3-wire common-mode noise - putting the L through one way, and N the other way gives 2 x differential mode noise (so take off 6dB) By the way, you can apply the measurement idea to chokes: a 2-wire common-mode choke or a 3-wire common-mode choke are both helpful in some circumstances. Note that in a jacketed cable, where the L, N, and G are all held tightly together and therefore have limited loop area between L/N and G, a 3-wire common-mode choke is often more helpful than 2-wire. Hope this is some help. Jim Eichner, P.Eng. Compliance Engineering 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: Morse, Earl (E.A.) [mailto:emo...@ford.com] Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2003 7:06 AM To: 'Muriel Bittencourt de Liz'; Ken Javor; Paolo Peruzzi; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: earthline choke In the computer world of switch mode power supplies this choke is usually used as a means to control common mode radiation from the 1.5-2 meter line cord in the 30-100 MHz range. Typically consisting of a ferrite (850mu) with several turns of the green/yellow safety ground through it. If a real inductor were used here then it would be required to meet a minimum resistance to keep from being a safety issue. This configuration may have an effect on the higher frequencies in line conducted measurements but most conducted emissions are controlled by the X and Y caps along with the CM choke on the line and neutral in the AC input. Earl From: Muriel Bittencourt de Liz [mailto:mur...@eel.ufsc.br] Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2003 8:41 AM To: Ken Javor; Paolo Peruzzi; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: earthline choke I have got some good results using a choke in the safety ground (or protective earth-PE, as you wish) for reducing conducted emissions in switched mode power supplies. I also remember that I read somewhere (i think it was Clayton Paul's book) that the use of this choke on safety wire is a problem for conformity with the safety standards, so its use it is not recommended from this viewpoint. I'd like to know if someone could give some additional details about using this kind of solution for reducing conducted EMI, and if it is possible to use it or not, depending on the safety standards. Another issue would be: what is the effect of using this solution in terms of radiated emissions?? They are increased or not?? Thanks in advance, and best regards, Muriel - Original Message - From: Ken Javor ken.ja...@emccompliance.com To: Paolo Peruzzi paolo.peru...@esaote.com; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2003 9:11 AM Subject: Re: earthline choke A choke in the safety ground could replace a common mode choke in the mains lines, but only if the enclosure of the filtered device is isolated from trolley structure completely, and the capacitance between equipment enclosure and trolley structure is controlled to provide a higher impedance than through the filtered safety ground wire (over the frequency range of interest). If there is a short and the ground wire performs its function the choke will saturate and become ineffective but that is a moot point under short circuit conditions. During the time it takes the choke to saturate it will buck the increase in current and keep the shorting potential on the equipment enclosure; I expect this will be on the order of a millisecond or less and shouldn't be a safety issue, but there are lots of product safety people on the list who can weigh in on that subject more authoritatively than I do. on 9/11/03 4:03 AM, Paolo Peruzzi at paolo.peru...@esaote.com wrote: Dear all, I'm
RE: Software and Safety
Seminars or short courses that people have taken and found useful would be of interest too, please. Thanks, Jim Eichner, P.Eng. Compliance Engineering 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. -Original Message- From: peter merguerian [mailto:pmerguerian2...@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2003 8:54 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Software and Safety Dear All, Many of today's equipment utilizes software which is also relied for safety. This is true in Machinery, NEBS, Alarm Systems, Medical Systems and CPU cooling in many computers, etc. I am interested in articles and links discussing software and safety in all of the above and additional product categories. Peter Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software 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: emc_p...@symbol.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
RE: e-mark labeling
There are no standards under the Automotive EMC Directive: it contains its own requirements. All you should list is the Directive number itself. Jim Eichner, P.Eng. Compliance Engineering 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: Binnom, Cyril A [mailto:binno...@ems-t.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2003 8:35 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: e-mark labeling Forum: I have an aftermarket product that has been approved under 95/54/EC. For specification literature purposes, (product or user's manual) I am not sure what compliance standards should be listed for reference. I do have a Type Approval # and a e-mark # required for the product. An example would be 89/336/EEC. I currently list EN55022:1998 and EN55024:1998 as the ITE product specific standards under the directive on the DoC and any literature. For 95/54/EC is there a standard that falls under the directive that I should list. As I am not familiar with the directive, I am not sure. Regards, Cyril A. Binnom Jr. EMI/EMC Approvals Engineer LXE, Inc. (770) 447-4224 Ext. 3240 (770) 447-6928 Fax binno...@lxe.com 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: emc_p...@symbol.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. 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.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: emc_p...@symbol.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
RE: EN50091-1 question
The answer from EN50091-1-1 is... Worst case voltage within the range specified by the manufacturer. If a range is not specified, it's +6%, -10%. Note that this over-rules the '950 bit about increasing that range to +10% for 230Vac single-phase or 400Vac 3-phase. This version of the UPS standard uses the old EN60950 +A1 +A2 as a reference. From EN62040-1-1, the answer is slightly different. This version of the UPS standard uses the new EN60950-1 as a reference, and accepts its requirements of 1.4.1, 1.4.2, 1.4.3, 1.4.6, 1.4.7, 1.4.8, 1.4.10, 1.4.11, 1.4.12, 1.4.13, and 1.4.14 as is (but not the missing subclauses) and then adds a note saying only the heating and leakage tests are done with voltage tolerances, all the rest being done at nominal voltage. Hope this helps, Jim Eichner, P.Eng. Compliance Engineering 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: Nick Williams [mailto:nick.willi...@conformance.co.uk] Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 1:29 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: EN50091-1 question I have a need to know a detail of the above standard more quickly than I can obtain a copy, if someone would be so good as to help me. What is the voltage range (percentage of rated voltage) defined for heating and other tests in the above standard for normal and abnormal operation? Any help in this regard appreciated. Nick. 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: emc_p...@symbol.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. 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.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: emc_p...@symbol.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
RE: Surge Suppressors on a UPS
Ed - You were asking about output power quality standards for UPS, and while I don't know the current correct answer (maybe someone from a UPS company can help us), here are 3 standards that all cover UPS performance: 1. EN50091-3 2. IEC62040-3 3. IEC 146-4 I suspect all 3 are the same document in different stages of life, or at least have the same basis. Hope this helps, Jim Eichner, P.Eng. Compliance Engineering 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: David Heald [mailto:hea...@symbol.com] Sent: Monday, June 02, 2003 11:52 AM To: ed.pr...@cubic.com; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: Surge Suppressors on a UPS Most UPS's use a stepped approximation of a sine wave when in battery mode. While most switching supplies don't care (and are the intended loads for these UPS's), surge suppressors can cause real issues - It has something to do with capacitive overload of the output circuits. And for the second question - there are huge variances in the output wave quality. The brand I am familiar with has both stepped approximation and true sine wave output models - the sine models being the expensive ones. The stepped approximation models are ideal for switching supplies, while the sine output models can handle all kinds of loads including motors (but a quick check says that they still can't use surge supressors - this one has me puzzled!) The UPS EMC standard is 50091-2 (or was it 92-1?), but I'm not sure how much help it may offer. Best Regards, Dave Heald Price, Ed ed.pr...@cubic.com 06/02/03 11:18AM Hi Group! Last Friday, I got ambushed in a meeting. I hate it when that happens! A question was asked about whether it's OK to put a surge suppressor on the output of a UPS that is supplying power to some expensive equipment. I opined that I didn't think it should be necessary, but that it also shouldn't hurt anything either. So then somebody asks me why all the UPS manufacturer's sites say not to use a surge suppressor. I expertly reply that gosh, I don't know, but I'll take a look. The next question nails me again. Are there any standards for UPS output power quality? Uh, well, I'll look into that too. Now, the market is light industrial, USA, but are there any applicable EN standards also? Just for some background, here's a typical entry from Tripp-Lite's FAQ list for UPS's (not to pick on Tripp-Lite; they just said it most succinctly of several sites I looked at): http://www.tripplite.com/support/faq/tech_ups.cfm Can I plug a surge suppressor or extension cord into my UPS? No. Using an extension cord will void your equipment coverage warranty, as all equipment must be plugged directly into the UPS. Tripp Lite does not recommend plugging a surge protector into a battery backup outlet of a UPS either as this can overload it. Also, when some UPS systems switch to battery power they will output a waveform that a surge suppressor may see as a surge and short-circuit the UPS. Again, this setup will void the equipment coverage warranty. Now this is getting to be a big can of worms! What do they mean by some UPS? Is there one kind that does, and another kind that doesn't; and how do you know which is which? And if some UPS will create a voltage transient (is that what they mean?) sufficient to trigger a surge suppressor, then why is it OK to let the UPS apply that transient to my protected equipment? All this talk about uninterrupted power isn't worth anything if the UPS kills my equipment when it switches to battery power mode. And who's fault is this? I mean, a surge suppressor is pretty dumb; it just sits there waiting for the voltage to go over a certain level and then it conducts. What's this about the surge suppressor may see something as a surge? That's saying the surge suppressor could mis-interpret the waveform it sees. If the surge suppressor is conducting, then I think the UPS has just done something very naughty. I also don't understand the prohibition of an extension cord. Maybe this is a legal issue, as I can't see any valid safety or regulation issues here. We regularly put a UPS in the bottom of a rack system, and then wire a stripline outlet set for the height of the rack. Isn't that the electrical equivalent of an extension cord? What am I missing? Thanks in advance! Ed Ed Price ed.pr...@cubic.com NARTE Certified EMC Engineer Technician Electromagnetic Compatibility Lab Cubic Defense Systems San Diego, CA USA 858-505-2780 (Voice) 858-505-1583 (Fax) Military Avionics EMC Is Our
RE: Altitude specifications
Thanks Rich and everyone else who has responded. I now have the basics I
need.
By the way my rule of thumb exists. It turns out that IEC 76 and ANSIC
57.12 both let you go to 3300ft without applying correction factors.
Jim Eichner, P.Eng.
Compliance Engineering 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: Rich Nute [mailto:ri...@sdd.hp.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2003 4:34 PM
To: jim.eich...@xantrex.com
Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Re: Altitude specifications
Hi Jim:
My understanding is that the main 2 effects of increased altitude on
electronics are reduced effectiveness of forced-air and convection
cooling
methods and reduced dielectric strength of air-gaps (clearances).
I concur.
I believe the effects are linear with altitude, from sea level up,
however
it occurred to me that there may be a simple rule of thumb along the
lines
of up to approx. feet, you can expect very little effect. I
realize
that rules of thumb like this need to be treated with scepticism (hence
my
intent to test anyway), but I'm interested in peoples opinions and
experiences.
The electric strength of air is a function of the air
pressure. The more air you can pack between the two
electrodes (the higher the pressure), the higher the
electric strength.
As you go up in altitude, you need to reduce the hi-pot
test voltage or risk a breakdown (if the distance is
marginal at sea level).
Conversely, when you are at a low altitude, you can
simulate a high altitude by increasing the hi-pot test
voltage.
The breakdown of air as a function of pressure (altitude)
is nicely described in:
http://home.earthlink.net/~jimlux/hv/paschen.htm
From a more practical sense, here are the altitude
correction factors for distance from IEC 664 (the factors
are normalized for 2000 m altitude) for voltage breakdown:
ALTITUDE PRESSURE FACTOR
m kPa (for distance)
--
0 101.30.79
50095.00.84
100090.00.89
200080.01.00
300070.01.14
400062.01.29
500054.01.48
600047.01.70
700041.01.95
800035.52.25
900030.52.62
126.53.02
1500012.06.67
2 5.5 14.5
If you accept that the hi-pot test is based on normal
and expected mains overvoltages, then a reduction in
hi-pot test voltage as a function of altitude is not
warranted. Mains overvoltages are normally-occurring
voltages due to switching of inductive loads. These
overvoltages are NOT a function of altitude.
Consequently as one moves the equipment to a higher
altitude, the same hi-pot test voltage must be used.
To withstand the same hi-pot test voltage at the
higher altitude, the distances must be increased
according to the IEC 664 table.
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: emc_p...@symbol.com
For policy questions, send mail to:
Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org
Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line.
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
RE: Altitude specifications
Thanks Ken. A quick search uncovered the following website showing the curve, which is indeed non-linear. http://www.reynoldsindustries.com/product/2multipin/page17.asp It appears, however, that the curve is close to linear in the limited altitude range experienced by our products which typically are used in RV's, boats, and buildings. For the product in question, there are no aerospace applications, so my gut feel is that we top out around 10,000 feet. Anyone responding to my initial enquiry please keep that estimate in mind. Thanks, Jim Eichner, P.Eng. Compliance Engineering 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: Ken Javor [mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com] Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2003 11:56 AM To: Jim Eichner; 'EMC-PSTC - forum' Subject: Re: Altitude specifications The Paschen curve that describes air dielectric breakdown vs. pressure is not linear. I think you can find it in the Reference Handbook for Radio Engineers. From: Jim Eichner jim.eich...@xantrex.com Reply-To: Jim Eichner jim.eich...@xantrex.com Date: Thu, 22 May 2003 10:47:36 -0700 To: 'EMC-PSTC - forum' emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Altitude specifications My understanding is that the main 2 effects of increased altitude on electronics are reduced effectiveness of forced-air and convection cooling methods and reduced dielectric strength of air-gaps (clearances). We are looking into this to determine an altitude specification for a new product under development, and we intend to use a 3rd party lab to do hipot and temperature testing in an altitude chamber to determine our specs. I believe the effects are linear with altitude, from sea level up, however it occurred to me that there may be a simple rule of thumb along the lines of up to approx. feet, you can expect very little effect. I realize that rules of thumb like this need to be treated with scepticism (hence my intent to test anyway), but I'm interested in peoples opinions and experiences. Thanks, Jim Eichner, P.Eng. Compliance Engineering 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. --- 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: emc_p...@symbol.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. 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.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: emc_p...@symbol.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
Altitude specifications
My understanding is that the main 2 effects of increased altitude on electronics are reduced effectiveness of forced-air and convection cooling methods and reduced dielectric strength of air-gaps (clearances). We are looking into this to determine an altitude specification for a new product under development, and we intend to use a 3rd party lab to do hipot and temperature testing in an altitude chamber to determine our specs. I believe the effects are linear with altitude, from sea level up, however it occurred to me that there may be a simple rule of thumb along the lines of up to approx. feet, you can expect very little effect. I realize that rules of thumb like this need to be treated with scepticism (hence my intent to test anyway), but I'm interested in peoples opinions and experiences. Thanks, Jim Eichner, P.Eng. Compliance Engineering 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. 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: emc_p...@symbol.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
EFT and surge immunity test equipment brands
So far, we have quotes on 2 manufacturer's units for the above tests. I'm looking for more sources. My general impression so far is no surprise - this is an exercise in trade-offs. EMC-Partner TRA-2000: This unit is an all-in-one product with a decent price and has had favourable reviews in this forum. The drawback with an all-in-one is that you can't have one project doing EFT while another project is working on surge, and you lose both capabilities if the unit is out for maintenance or calibration. Also we already have ESD equipment, so we don't need this unit's capabilities in that area. Haefely: Have quotes on the PEFT4010 and the PSURGE4010 with necessary accessories. The total cost of the two units is far higher (+60%), but having separate units mitigates the objections above. So... 1. What other companies should I look at? 2. Anybody want to share any experiences / opinions on the Haefely equipment? Does the extra $$ get us extra performance and reliability? Thanks in advance for your help, Jim Eichner, P.Eng. Compliance Engineering 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. 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 Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
Anyone know when EN62040-1-1 will be published in the OJ?
This standard covers safety of UPS systems, and I guess it replaces EN50091-1-1 at some point. I need to know when EN62040-1-1 will be published in the OJ (if anyone knows), when EN50091-1-1 ceases to be useful for new approvals, and when products approved to it have to be updated to the new standard. I'd also appreciate any information anyone has as to whether there are any substantial differences between the two standards or is it simply re-numbered and re-confirmed? Does it still, as EN50091-1-1 did, rely on frozen-in-time references to the EN60950:1992+A1+A2 or has it moved to the current '950? Thanks, Jim Eichner, P.Eng. Compliance Engineering 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. 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 Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
RE: Compliance Technologist Position - Livermore, CA
I accidentally sent an old revision of the position summary earlier. Here's the updated one, below the e-mail below this one! Thanks, Jim Eichner, P.Eng. Compliance Engineering Manager Xantrex Technology Inc. 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. -Original Message- From: Jim Eichner Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2003 4:20 PM To: 'EMC-PSTC - forum' Subject: Compliance Technologist Position - Livermore, CA Xantrex Technology is hiring a Regulatory Technologist (product safety and EMC) for our Livermore, CA facility. For general information about Xantrex, go to www.xantrex.com and have a look. Our Livermore operation is primarily working on high power inverter systems for commercial and utility scale distributed generation applications, with specific information available at http://www.xantrex.com/applications/index.asp?did=321. Please see the position summary below for details, and e-mail me directly with a resume and cover letter if you are interested in applying for the position. Note that the position is not restricted to technologists: a suitably qualified engineer would be considered. Thanks, Jim Eichner, P.Eng. Compliance Engineering Manager Xantrex Technology Inc. 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. *** Xantrex Technology Regulatory Technologist Livermore, California Xantrex Technology Inc. develops, manufactures and markets leading advanced power electronic and control products for a variety of distributed, mobile and programmable power markets. The company's enabling technology converts raw electrical power from any central, distributed, or backup power source into high-quality power required by electronic and electrical equipment. Xantrex products are used for various applications: for renewable and distributed power solutions such as solar, wind, microturbines and fuel cells; to supply backup power for homes, small businesses and traffic lights during electric grid disruptions; to provide auxiliary electricity in boats, recreational vehicles, cars, work vehicles, and heavy duty trucks; and to develop, test, and power precision equipment such as semi-conductor manufacturing and medical equipment. A privately owned company with 550 employees, Xantrex is headquartered in Vancouver, British Columbia with additional facilities in Arlington, Washington, Livermore, California, and Miami, Florida. We are currently seeking a Regulatory Technologist to join our team in Livermore. This individual will be responsible for ensuring and maintaining product compliance with regulatory requirements for product safety and Electromagnetic Compatibility (EMC). Works with design teams to provide guidance, evaluate designs, and test for compliance. Works with regulatory agencies to obtain and maintain certifications. Specific duties include: * Performs and supervises product safety and EMC testing, and produces formal test reports for agencies, electric utilities, and design teams * Evaluates product designs to help ensure compliance in the final design: * Provides interpretations of requirements to design teams * Provides ongoing feedback and data to design teams * Writes and maintains the reports required to document regulatory compliance * Works with utilities, agencies and 3rd party test labs for the purposes of: * Obtaining testing and evaluation services * Obtaining and maintaining product approvals * Obtaining interpretations of requirements * Obtaining and maintaining a collection of current standards * Performs as a project team member to achieve the technical, schedule, and budget objectives of the team Candidates must meet the following minimum qualifications: * Requires a 2-or 3-year technical degree or equivalent * Requires at least 5 years experience in regulatory compliance in the power electronics industry, preferably in both the product safety and EMC fields * Requires ability to design and test
Compliance Technologist Position - Livermore, CA
Xantrex Technology is hiring a Regulatory Technologist (product safety and EMC) for our Livermore, CA facility. For general information about Xantrex, go to www.xantrex.com and have a look. Our Livermore operation is primarily working on high power inverter systems for commercial and utility scale distributed generation applications, with specific information available at http://www.xantrex.com/applications/index.asp?did=321. Please see the position summary below for details, and e-mail me directly with a resume and cover letter if you are interested in applying for the position. Note that the position is not restricted to technologists: a suitably qualified engineer would be considered. Thanks, Jim Eichner, P.Eng. Compliance Engineering Manager Xantrex Technology Inc. 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. * Position Summary: Responsible for ensuring and maintaining product compliance with regulatory requirements for product safety and Electromagnetic Compatibility (EMC). Works with design teams to provide guidance, evaluate designs, and test for compliance. Works with regulatory agencies to obtain and maintain certifications. Responsibilities: * Provides and supervises product safety and EMC testing, and produces formal test reports for agencies and design teams * Evaluates product designs to help ensure compliance in the final design: * - Provides interpretations of requirements to design teams * - Provides ongoing feedback and data to design teams * Writes and maintains the reports required to document regulatory compliance * Works with agencies and 3rd party test labs for the purposes of: * - Obtaining testing and evaluation services * - Obtaining and maintaining product approvals * - Obtaining interpretations of requirements * - Obtaining and maintaining a collection of current standards * Performs as a project team member to achieve the technical, schedule, and budget objectives of the team * * Qualifications: * * Requires at least a two year technical degree or equivalent * Requires at least 5 years experience in regulatory compliance in the power electronics industry, preferably in both the product safety and EMC fields * Requires ability to design and test compliance solutions, perform circuit analysis, breadboard solutions * Experience working with utilities and commissioning high power systems * Extensive knowledge of current regulations applicable to product safety and EMC (UL, CSA, CE, FCC, IEC, etc.) * Extensive hands-on experience with and knowledge of product safety test methodology * Working knowledge of EMC pre-compliance test methodology * Working knowledge of power conversion technology, particularly at high power levels (10kW - 2.5MW) * Strong written and oral communication skills, with emphasis on the ability to create quality technical reports, test reports, and test procedures, and to interact effectively with design teams * Strong organizational and time-management skills * Ability to adapt to changing priorities Xantrex Technology Inc. is an equal opportunity employer. We provide equal employment opportunity to all applicants and employees without regard to gender, national origin, religion, race, colour, sexual orientation, physical or mental disability, or any other criterion that contravenes legislated requirements. * 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 Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
RE: Circuit Breaker Tripping Dring Fault Tests
The approach that CSA takes is sensible in that it includes both the long duration overload and high-current short circuit capabilities of the source. Depending on your situation you can end up needing to do one or both of the following: 1. Bond Impedance - run a current equal to 200% of the branch circuit breaker rating through the bonding path for 2 minutes (derived from the I vs. t curves allowed by CSA breaker standards). 2. Bond Limited short-circuit withstand - done at up to 5000A depending on the supply circuit the product will be connected to; this test is performed only when the capacity of the bonding path is in doubt (e.g. pcb traces). 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: Peter L. Tarver [mailto:peter.tar...@sanmina-sci.com] Sent: Friday, January 31, 2003 9:23 AM To: John Woodgate; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: Circuit Breaker Tripping Dring Fault Tests John - This proposal is based on a North American D1 Deviation to IEC60950, Subclause 2.6.3.3, and is derived from CSA 22.2 No 0.4. I have a product in my lab that this applies to and two more products coming in to which it will also apply. Regards, Peter L. Tarver, PE Product Safety Manager Sanmina-SCI Homologation Services San Jose, CA peter.tar...@sanmina-sci.com From: John Woodgate There is a proposed amendment to IEC/EN 60950-1 requiring a test of the protective conductor network at *prospective short-circuit current* for the time it takes for the mains circuit protective device to operate. The details are controversial at present, because the test currents appear not to have taken into account the differences between prospective short-circuit currents in different wiring systems and supply voltages. Given that reservation, the lowest test current is 200 A. The amendment is aimed at protective conductors which are surface or internal traces of multi-layer printed boards. It is said that such traces have failed in the field under high-current fault conditions. 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 Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. 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.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 Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
RE: Automotive v. EMC Directives
You're right that the link I gave only gets you a copy of the Directive without the figures. The only downloadable versions I've found that do have the figures are the .tif format ones available if you search on the document from the following location: http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/search/search_lif.html The search results will offer you the option of having a .tif file e-mailed to you. There are drawbacks to this - slow fuzzy viewing and large file size which resulted in them breaking the directive into 2 parts when they sent it to me. Does anyone know another way to get directives on-line complete with the figures, without resorting to .tif files? Thanks, 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: KC CHAN [PDD] [mailto:kcc...@hkpc.org] Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2003 7:40 PM To: alan.hud...@amsjv.com; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org; jim.eich...@xantrex.com Subject: RE: Automotive v. EMC Directives Where can I have the figures referenced in the link? Jim Eichner jim.eich...@xantrex.com 01/29/03 03:46am 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=ENnumdoc=31995L0054model=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
RE: Circuit Breaker Tripping Dring Fault Tests
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 http://rd.yahoo.com/mail/mailsig/*http://mailplus.yahoo.com Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up ttp://rd.yahoo.com/mail/mailsig/*http://mailplus.yahoo.com now
RE: Automotive v. EMC Directives
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=ENnumdoc=31995L0054model=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: Ferrite clamps
Isn't that the basis for measuring conducted emissions below 30MHz rather than radiated, since you reach the limits of practical antenna size? 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. -Original Message- From: Ken Javor [mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com] Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2002 12:20 PM To: don_borow...@selinc.com; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: Ferrite clamps There was/is a very smart engineer named Balint Szentkuti (a good Hungarian name, just like Javor) who about twenty years ago proposed replacing radiated measurements of cable-sourced emissions with measurement of cable common mode conducted emissions. This seems an eminently sensible idea to me. You base the conducted current emission limits on a reasonable worst case radiating efficiency of a cable of a certain length a certain distance above ground. Mr. Szentkuti wrote several papers on this subject, to my recollection. Here is one reference: Szentkuti, B., Give Up Radiation Testing In Favour Of Conduction Testing, Proceedings, EMC Zurich 1989. -- From: don_borow...@selinc.com To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: Ferrite clamps Date: Thu, Nov 21, 2002, 12:59 PM David- I agree with what you say, but it is even more complicated than that. As you say, ferrite clamps can be ineffective. Their effectiveness all depends on the wave impedance at the point where they are attached. Due to standing waves, the wave impedance varies greatly. If a ferrite clamp is attached at a high wave impedance point (current minimum point), there will be minimal effect. A ferrite clamp tries to insert a high series impedance in the cable. There are several problems: 1. It is difficult to obtain a high series impedance over a broad range of frequencies. 2. If all you have is a series impedance, the S21 is highly dependant on the system impedance. In the limit where the series impedance Z is much greater than the system impedance Zs, |S21| = |2Zs/Z|. The system impedance is the wave impedance (which varies greatly) at the clamp. One could use clamps that measure a consistent, small value of S21 measured in a 50 ohm system and still have a quite a bit of variation during application. On the other hand, if S21 is very small (series impedance is very high), it probably doesn't make much difference that it varies, since the signal passed though would always be rather small. Unfortunately, making such a high impedance over a broad range of frequencies is very difficult. The only way I see to get really good repeatability would be to have devices with high impedance series element(s) and low impedance shunt element(s). But then we are talking coupling-decoupling networks (CDNs), and need to connect them to the ground plane. This is possible to do, more more costly and complex. Just controlling insertion loss (unless it is very large) will not do the trick. Having said all that, while ferrite clamps are not the be-all and end-all, they certainly do improve the test to some degree, since they do indeed isolate the EUT from the cable beyond the clamp when the wave impedance is moderately low (which it is at least some of the time). Don Borowski Schweitzer Engineering Labs (Ex-HP/Agilent) Pommerenke, David davi...@umr.edu@majordomo.ieee.org on 11/21/2002 07:54:34 AM Please respond to Pommerenke, David davi...@umr.edu Sent by:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org To:Pettit, Ghery ghery.pet...@intel.com, Conway, Patrick R conw...@louisville.stortek.com, emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org cc: Subject:RE: Ferrite clamps Dear Patrick, The aim of the standard was to avoid having standing current waves on cables between the EUT and the point at which they leave the chamber. Those resonances will cause highly setup and termination impedance dependent radiation measurements leading to large site-to-site correlation problems. The ferrite clamps have been added for absorbing the current wave in a defined fashion. The problem is that the standard is fundamentally wrong! Why ? The ferrite clamps are only specified by their insertion loss. Insertion loss says NOTHING about the reflection. So the ferrite clamps may not absorb at all, they may just reflect the current wave worsening the resonance problem or shifting it to a different frequency. The overall uncertainty is not a bit reduced by inserting the clamps due to false
Harmonics - IEC/EN 61000-3-4 for equipment 16A
I have not been able to find any info on an EN version of the above, but there is a published IEC version. The Europa site does not list -3-4 as having been published in the OJ for the EMC directive. The IEC site contains the scope of the standard, including the following: These recommendations specify the information required to enable a supply authority to assess equipment regarding harmonic disturbance and to decide wether or not the equipment is acceptable for connection with regard to the harmonic distortion aspect. This document is not to be regarded as an International Standard. Questions: 1. This quote leaves me a bit puzzled. Does this standard contain test methods and pass/fail criteria, or is it somewhat less concrete than that? 2. Is anyone aware of a published or draft EN version? 3. Is there an upper limit to the current (e.g. EN61000-3-11 goes from 16A to 75A)? Thanks, 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. --- 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: Twisting the LVD (was: RE: CE Mark vs. e-Mark)
Thanks everyone. We do indeed want to use the LVD anyway, and have adopted the interpretation for years that has now been made official by the guideline quoted below. 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. -Original Message- From: John Allen [mailto:john.al...@era.co.uk] Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2002 10:25 AM To: 'Peter L. Tarver'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: Twisting the LVD (was: RE: CE Mark vs. e-Mark) Peter I think that your question is answered quite clearly in the second paragraph that I quoted from the guidelines, where it states: 'Following discussions with Member States the Commission has taken the position that the term designed for use with a voltage range shall be understood at equipment having either a rated input voltage or a rated output voltage inside this voltage range.' Therefore the 12V to 120V (or 230V for Europe) device described in your example is quite clearly within the scope of the LVD - and, Yes, similar devices are available in Europe. For example, see the illustration of a similar device for sale on the RS Components Website in the UK at http://rswww.com/cgi-bin/bv/browse/Module.jsp?BV_SessionID=1646810601.10 34183756BV_EngineID=ccchadcghdjlhhmcfngcfkmdgkldfhk.0stockNo=597475lo gText=uk520logType=103prmstocknum=597475logText=uk520logType=103 This has a UK BS1363 13A socket and carries a CE Mark - but under what Directive, or Directives, I do not know as I do not have the DoC. In fact it might well include the EMC Directive as it could be used outside of a vehicle and directly from a 12V automobile battery (a good way to run your central heating timer and boiler controls when there is a mains power cut!) The aim of the LVD is to ensure protection of persons (and domestic animals!), and the shock and fire hazards from such a device are just at least as high as a unit where the equipment is supplied at 230V and has a 230V convenience outlet - so application of the LVD (and possibly the EMCD) is entirely appropriate. Regards John Allen Technical Consultant Electromagnetics, Safety and Reliability Group ERA Technology Ltd Cleeve Rd Leatherhead Surrey KT22 7SA Tel:+44 (0) 1372-367025 (Direct) +44 (0) 1372-367000 (Switchboard) Fax:+44 (0) 1372-367102 (Fax) -Original Message- From: Peter L. Tarver [mailto:peter.tar...@sanmina-sci.com] Sent: 09 October 2002 15:50 To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Twisting the LVD (was: RE: CE Mark vs. e-Mark) John - The case of internal use of elevated voltages (as in a lap top computer screen backlight) is clearly addressed by the interpretation. To test the consistency of the interpretation, imagine a product with a supply voltage below the limits in the LVD, where the LVD would not apply to that product. That product then performs power transformation (or conversion) and, in turn, supplies other equipment (whether ancillary to the equipment performing the conversion or not) at voltages within the scope of the LVD, making the LVD applicable to the latter product. Does the term supply in reference to the aforementioned interpretation apply only to the energy sinking port of equipment or to all equipment ports, whether sinking or sourcing electrical energy? Example: A product available in the US (and possibly in Europe) is a power inverter that can supply household appliances using an automobile battery as its source. Handy for weekend campers that prefer to bring a few conveniences along with them. Regards, Peter L. Tarver, PE Product Safety Manager Sanmina-SCI Homologation Services San Jose, CA peter.tar...@sanmina-sci.com -Original Message- From: John Woodgate Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2002 12:37 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: CE Mark vs. e-Mark Although the wording of the LVD implies that the voltage limits apply to internally-generated voltages, there is now an official 'interpretation' that they apply only to supply voltages. -- Regards, John Woodgate --- 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
RE: CE Mark vs. e-Mark
Thanks everyone - I have my answer. By the way, the LVD is in fact applicable, because the product in question creates 120Vac from the 12Vdc it gets from the car. So the answer is that since the EMCD is not applicable where the AEMCD is applicable, there is nothing wrong with a CE Mark and a Declaration only to the LVD. We should do the CE Mark for LVD only, and e-Mark for AEMCD. Thanks as always for the invaluable sounding board that this forum provides. 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. -Original Message- From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk] Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2002 3:38 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: CE Mark vs. e-Mark I read in !emc-pstc that Jim Eichner jim.eich...@xantrex.com wrote (in 67C475A5ECE7D4118AEC0002B325CAB603510F7E@BCMAIL1) about 'CE Mark vs. e-Mark' on Mon, 7 Oct 2002: However using the CE Mark requires using all applicable directives, True, but, as you just said, the EMCD is NOT applicable. -- 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 --- 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
Newcomer to NEBS
I'm starting up the learning curve on NEBS compliance, and am looking for any web resources or articles that would have a management-level primer on the requirements. All I know is that it covers EMC, safety, and environmental, there are different levels (1, 2, and 3?), and different potential customers disagree on what level we need to have. We need to understand the basic differences between these levels, how much testing is involved for each level, and what the cost might be. Of course we are going to get our hands on the standard(s) and study them, but in the meantime a primer would be very useful. We would also consider seminars if there's something close by the Pacific northwest. Thanks, 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. --- 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
CE Mark vs. e-Mark
Let's suppose you have a product that is bound only for automotive aftermarket applications, and while it complies with the LVD and the Automotive EMC Directive (AEMCD), it fails to pass the EMC Directive (EMCD). For EMC purposes, the directives are very clear: you do not need to meet the EMCD if your product is solely automotive, only the AEMCD. However for safety purposes the LVD still seems to apply, suggesting you need to have the CE Mark. However using the CE Mark requires using all applicable directives, therefore necessitating compliance with the EMCD, which our theoretical product does not comply with. Is there any way to do a safety only CE Mark accompanied by the e-Mark for EMC, thus covering both required bases in the automotive world? Am I missing a more obvious solution? Thanks, 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. --- 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
FW: EMC Prosecution in UK
I read this article with some consternation, since in my mind it challenges not the manufacturer or importer, but the concept of Presumption of Conformity (I'll use PofC...). Quote: If the standard in question only covers some of the EM phenomena, or is limited in its scope, then full compliance cannot be guaranteed. The products thus failed the essential protection requirements and were incorrectly CE marked. I am in strong disagreement with that statement. If the standard in question only covers some of the EM phenomena, then the standard in question does NOT provide PofC and should NOT have been published in the OJ or on the Europa site as a harmonized standard under the EMC Directive. It is not the manufacturer's fault if the EU incorrectly publishes references in the OJ implying PofC where there are essential requirements not covered. In my mind, the CE Mark was correctly applied by the mfr, and the fault lies with EN55014 (which I have always thought is flawed) and with the EU/CEN for issuing a standard that fails to provide PofC. Am I right or am I delusional, naive, misinformed, an idealist, or all of the above?!?!? At the very least, it seems to me that the EU has an obligation to provide more information. If a standard is listed as applicable to the EMC Directive and does not provide PofC, then the standard's preamble and the Europa listing should say so, and should point out which essential requirements are not addressed, and which standards should be used to cover the missing requirements. I am getting extremely tired of the let the mfr figure it out approach used by the EU. Ok, I'll stop whining now. Jim Eichner, P.Eng. Regulatory Compliance Manager Xantrex Technology Inc. e-mail: jim.eich...@xantrex.com web: www.xantrex.com http://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. -Original Message- From: Alan E Hutley [mailto:nutwoo...@nutwood.eu.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2002 11:43 PM To: Emc-Pstc Discussion Group Subject: EMC Prosecution in UK EMC Prosecution, the company mentioned in the report Hot UK Ltd is owned by Helen of Troy based in El Paso Texas. For full story go click below http://www.compliance-club.com/TS%20Prosecution.doc http://www.compliance-club.com/TS%20Prosecution.doc Alan E Hutley EMC Compliance Journal www.compliance-club.com http://www.compliance-club.com
RE: EN61000-3-2
This harmonics thing is still, after all these years, annoyingly slippery. I have a very basic question, that until yesterday and today I thought I knew the answer to: What harmonic current limits standard should I tell designers to design to today? I thought the answer was EN61000-3-2:2000, on the understanding that it was the same as, but clearer than, the A14 version, and that it was the final foreseeable version. Now I hear that no, there are actually differences that make the 2000 version tougher to meet, and I hear that the 2000 edition will be superceded (yet again) by an updated IEC version that has so far not been voted on and could therefore incorporate further changes. How is a manufacturer supposed to design products, with 3-10 year expected lifetimes and long development cycle times, in the face of constantly changing requirements and effectivity dates? At present, it seems the only thing I can do is to tell designers to work to A14, even though it will be superceded, since the 2000 edition is also going to be superceded. Comments? Thanks, 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. -Original Message- From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk] Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2002 4:10 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: EN61000-3-2 I read in !emc-pstc that Frazee, Douglas (Douglas) dfra...@lucent.com wrote (in b5113b318d44bbe87dc50092eda96c6...@nj7460exch006u.ho.luce nt.com) about 'EN61000-3-2' on Tue, 24 Sep 2002: Note that A14 is essentially optional as it expires on the same date at which it becomes mandatory. This apparently nonsensical situation persists because of a problem raised about the IEC edition including the same provisions as A14. For formal reasons, this problem can only be resolved by National Committees voting on an amendment, which has still to be drafted, AFAIK (and I should K, being a member of the IEC WG concerned)! When the IEC standard is finally published, it will be adopted by CENELEC in place of the 2000 edition. -- 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 --- 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: Surge and EFT test equipment for AC, DC, and signal ports
Thanks to all who have responded so far. One note of clarification: we are already set up for doing ESD testing in-house, and I agree that's where most of our failures will happen. I also agree that much of the immunity suite will take care of itself on a well designed unit that has low emissions, but I don't think that's true with surge. Maybe EFT, but not surge. Note: please refrain from replying both to me and to the forum - you only need to reply to the forum. I suspect some, but by no means all, of our double-posting complaints stem from people sending 2 replies. Having said that, I am getting 3 of everything this morning! Thanks, 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. -Original Message- From: Jim Eichner [mailto:jim.eich...@xantrex.com] Sent: Monday, September 23, 2002 2:45 PM To: 'EMC-PSTC - forum' Subject: Surge and EFT test equipment for AC, DC, and signal ports We are starting to look into the costs and issues around gearing up for some immunity testing, with the intent of determining whether or not it is too hard or too expensive to gear up to do some of it at home. We are not looking for final formal compliance results here, only for pre-compliance peace of mind. In particular, I need to consider the following: 1. EFT (EN61000-4-4) - AC input, output, and ground lines, DC input and output lines, signal/control lines 2. Surges (EN 61000-4-5) - AC input, output, and ground lines, DC input and output lines, signal/control lines 3. Surges (SAE J1113/11) on DC power leads 4. Fast transients (SAE J1113/12) on other than power leads The products which we hope to be able to test in-house are power conversion and control products, and have a wide range of input/output voltages and power: - AC inputs up to 120V, 60A, or 230Vac, 30A single-phase, 120/240V, 50A, split-phase, and 120/208V, 30A, 3-phase - AC outputs up to 120Vac, 60A, 230Vac, 30A, 120/240V, 50A split-phase - DC inputs up to 12V, 500A; 24V, 300A; 48V, 200A - DC outputs up to 12kW at 10 - 600Vdc (1200A - 20A) Questions: 1. Is there any single piece of equipment (with accessories/modules/etc.) available that can do both Surge and EFT tests on equipment, or are these tests just too different? 2. Surge - Is there any single piece of equipment (with accessories/modules/etc.) available that can do surges on all these types of ports: AC and DC and signal/control? Any info re mfr, cat. no., price, etc. would be appreciated. 3. EFT - Is there any single piece of equipment (with accessories/modules/etc.) available that can do EFT on all these types of ports: AC and DC and signal/control? Any info re mfr, cat. no., price, etc. would be appreciated. 4. Do these tests have to be run at full output (which may limit my ability to find 3rd party labs with suitable equipment, let alone gear up in-house) or can they be run with a light load on the equipment and then test full output after each test to confirm return to normal operation? Thanks in advance for your help, 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. --- 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
Surge and EFT test equipment for AC, DC, and signal ports
We are starting to look into the costs and issues around gearing up for some immunity testing, with the intent of determining whether or not it is too hard or too expensive to gear up to do some of it at home. We are not looking for final formal compliance results here, only for pre-compliance peace of mind. In particular, I need to consider the following: 1. EFT (EN61000-4-4) - AC input, output, and ground lines, DC input and output lines, signal/control lines 2. Surges (EN 61000-4-5) - AC input, output, and ground lines, DC input and output lines, signal/control lines 3. Surges (SAE J1113/11) on DC power leads 4. Fast transients (SAE J1113/12) on other than power leads The products which we hope to be able to test in-house are power conversion and control products, and have a wide range of input/output voltages and power: - AC inputs up to 120V, 60A, or 230Vac, 30A single-phase, 120/240V, 50A, split-phase, and 120/208V, 30A, 3-phase - AC outputs up to 120Vac, 60A, 230Vac, 30A, 120/240V, 50A split-phase - DC inputs up to 12V, 500A; 24V, 300A; 48V, 200A - DC outputs up to 12kW at 10 - 600Vdc (1200A - 20A) Questions: 1. Is there any single piece of equipment (with accessories/modules/etc.) available that can do both Surge and EFT tests on equipment, or are these tests just too different? 2. Surge - Is there any single piece of equipment (with accessories/modules/etc.) available that can do surges on all these types of ports: AC and DC and signal/control? Any info re mfr, cat. no., price, etc. would be appreciated. 3. EFT - Is there any single piece of equipment (with accessories/modules/etc.) available that can do EFT on all these types of ports: AC and DC and signal/control? Any info re mfr, cat. no., price, etc. would be appreciated. 4. Do these tests have to be run at full output (which may limit my ability to find 3rd party labs with suitable equipment, let alone gear up in-house) or can they be run with a light load on the equipment and then test full output after each test to confirm return to normal operation? Thanks in advance for your help, 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. --- 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: Current from Car 12V cigarette lighter socket / 42 VDC
Well that's the $1M question, isn't it! My involvement is tangential at best, but my understanding is that the effort is not going to be coordinated as a grand simultaneous roll-out. Rather each mfr of cars, trucks, boats, etc, will get around to it based on their own needs. The drivers for this effort vary widely - vehicle emissions, increased electrical loads, drive-by-wire technology, etc. - and the 42Vdc agenda for a given mfr is to some extent determined by the agenda for those features or regulations. There is much technology still to be developed and much standardization work still to be done, but the work is well in progress. Is there anyone on the forum who has a more inside view of this and can share some information with us? In the meantime, have a look at the web. Searching on 42V can yield a lot of hits. Here's one I found that summarizes things a bit: http://www.sae.org/42volt/dual_higher_sum.pdf Jim Eichner, P.Eng. Manager, Engineering Services 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. -Original Message- From: Price, Ed [mailto:ed.pr...@cubic.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2002 6:42 PM To: 'EMC-PSTC - forum' Subject: RE: Current from Car 12V cigarette lighter socket / 42 VDC Pardon the slight topic shift, but when will we be seeing 42 VDC automotive systems? I understand that there has already been some fleet vehicle production with the 42 VDC standard, but when will it be introduced to the consumer market? Regards, Ed Ed Price ed.pr...@cubic.com Electromagnetic Compatibility Lab Cubic Defense Systems San Diego, CA USA 858-505-2780 (Voice) 858-505-1583 (Fax) Military Avionics EMC Is Our Specialty Shake-Bake-Shock - Metrology - Reliability Analysis --- --- 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: Current from Car 12V cigarette lighter socket
Thanks. The solution you propose is in the works. The SAE is working on a completely different style connector for power connections to 12Vdc, and 2 other styles for 42Vdc and 120Vac connectors. This effort is just getting off the ground however. Jim Eichner, P.Eng. Manager, Engineering Services 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. -Original Message- From: Ken Javor [mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2002 1:14 PM To: Jim Eichner; 'EMC-PSTC - forum' Subject: Re: Current from Car 12V cigarette lighter socket An excellent post. Seems like a solution here would be for the newer electrical outlet to be designed differently and not mate with the older male cigarette lighter insert, and then provide an adapter that would take the cigarette lighter insert to the new electrical outlet. Then the 8 Amp limit could be relaxed for appliances with the new plug, and any old devices would still be taken care of. -- From: Jim Eichner jim.eich...@xantrex.com To: 'EMC-PSTC - forum' emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: Current from Car 12V cigarette lighter socket Date: Wed, Sep 18, 2002, 1:47 PM UL2089 covers appliance using the socket. There is no UL or CSA standard covering the socket itself, but there is SAE J563, which provided dimensions and limits the continuous current drawn through lighter sockets by appliances to 8Adc. The intent is to protect the wiring in behind the lighter socket, because that wiring is based on an intermittent 10-15A load (how often do you light a cigarette?) and is therefore undersized for its overcurrent protection. In a sample of 7 or 8 cigarette lighter sockets and wiring harnesses that I pulled out of different makes of car in the mid 90's, I found wire sizes ranging from No. 16AWG to 22AWG, being protected by fuses ranging from 15 to 30A! In the world of continuous 12Vdc loads - aftermarket accessories like chargers for cell phones and laptops, in-your-car coffee makers and vacuum cleaners, etc - we need to know what continuous load the lighter socket and its harness can sustain. The SAE pegs this at 8A and UL and CSA are enforcing that limit, both in what they will allow a 12Vdc appliance to draw, and in requiring a max. 8A fuse in the lighter plug. Recognizing the limitations on lighter sockets, the automotive industry has come up with the power point: a cylindrical connector based on the cigarette lighter socket but designed, fused, wired, and rated for continuous loads and lacking the bimetal fingers that release the lighter plug when it's hot. These are usually rated for 15-20Adc continuous, allowing designers to be free of the 8A limit. In theory. However, since the male plugs on 12Vdc automotive appliances will fit both the true lighter socket and these newer power points, UL and CSA will not back down (nor should they) from the 8A limit for a 12Vdc appliance equipped with a male plug that fits a lighter socket. They also will not accept a marking such as Use only with power points, not with lighter sockets because too many cars only have lighter sockets. Not sure you're trying to do anything with that kind of power level, but you should be aware of the limitations. Regards, Jim Eichner, P.Eng. Manager, Engineering Services 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. -Original Message- From: Ron Baugh [mailto:ron...@verifone.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2002 3:41 AM To: 'Charles Blackham'; 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org' Subject: RE: Current from Car 12V cigarette lighter socket Yes Charles it's UL 2089 Vehicle Battery Adapters. I also have a unit (ITE Listed) that will operate from a auto battery and I have to make sure that all my 12V devices meets this standard. Ron Baugh VeriFone, Inc. -Original Message- From: Charles Blackham [SMTP:cblac...@airspan.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2002 2:07 AM
RE: Current from Car 12V cigarette lighter socket
UL2089 covers appliance using the socket. There is no UL or CSA standard covering the socket itself, but there is SAE J563, which provided dimensions and limits the continuous current drawn through lighter sockets by appliances to 8Adc. The intent is to protect the wiring in behind the lighter socket, because that wiring is based on an intermittent 10-15A load (how often do you light a cigarette?) and is therefore undersized for its overcurrent protection. In a sample of 7 or 8 cigarette lighter sockets and wiring harnesses that I pulled out of different makes of car in the mid 90's, I found wire sizes ranging from No. 16AWG to 22AWG, being protected by fuses ranging from 15 to 30A! In the world of continuous 12Vdc loads - aftermarket accessories like chargers for cell phones and laptops, in-your-car coffee makers and vacuum cleaners, etc - we need to know what continuous load the lighter socket and its harness can sustain. The SAE pegs this at 8A and UL and CSA are enforcing that limit, both in what they will allow a 12Vdc appliance to draw, and in requiring a max. 8A fuse in the lighter plug. Recognizing the limitations on lighter sockets, the automotive industry has come up with the power point: a cylindrical connector based on the cigarette lighter socket but designed, fused, wired, and rated for continuous loads and lacking the bimetal fingers that release the lighter plug when it's hot. These are usually rated for 15-20Adc continuous, allowing designers to be free of the 8A limit. In theory. However, since the male plugs on 12Vdc automotive appliances will fit both the true lighter socket and these newer power points, UL and CSA will not back down (nor should they) from the 8A limit for a 12Vdc appliance equipped with a male plug that fits a lighter socket. They also will not accept a marking such as Use only with power points, not with lighter sockets because too many cars only have lighter sockets. Not sure you're trying to do anything with that kind of power level, but you should be aware of the limitations. Regards, Jim Eichner, P.Eng. Manager, Engineering Services 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. -Original Message- From: Ron Baugh [mailto:ron...@verifone.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2002 3:41 AM To: 'Charles Blackham'; 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org' Subject: RE: Current from Car 12V cigarette lighter socket Yes Charles it's UL 2089 Vehicle Battery Adapters. I also have a unit (ITE Listed) that will operate from a auto battery and I have to make sure that all my 12V devices meets this standard. Ron Baugh VeriFone, Inc. -Original Message- From: Charles Blackham [SMTP:cblac...@airspan.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2002 2:07 AM To: 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org' Subject:Current from Car 12V cigarette lighter socket Some of our equipment runs off 12Vdc. Typically this is provided by a UL Listed ac/dc power supply that meets the Limited Power Source requirement of IEC60950. We wish to be able to power this from the 12V cigarette lighter socket in a car: Is there a standard that covers the output of 12V sockets in cars? Do they have to meet something similar to the Limited Power Source requirements of IEC60950? regards Charlie Blackham Senior Approvals Engineer Airspan Communications Ltd. --- 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
RE: harmonic current on inverters for industrial uses in Japan
Sorry - industrial motor drives, frequency converters, or other AC-AC converters didn't occur to me as the source of the question, since I don't consider them inverters. They are AC-AC converters containing DC-AC inverters. (IMHO). Ahh the joys of semantics. Jim Eichner, P.Eng. 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. -Original Message- From: gunter_j_ma...@embraco.com.br [mailto:gunter_j_ma...@embraco.com.br] Sent: Friday, September 13, 2002 3:36 AM To: Jim Eichner; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: harmonic current on inverters for industrial uses in Japan Most of the industrial inverters draw harmonics current from the AC power supply, and this input current is independent of the inverter current. The input stage (that converts AC to DC) is usually a diode bridge rectifier. Günter J. Maass Researcher - Power Electronics Development EMBRACO S.A. Jim Eichner Jim.eichner@Xantrex.cTo: EMC-PSTC (E-mail) emc-p...@ieee.org om cc: Sent by: Subject: RE: harmonic current on inverters for industrial uses in Japan owner-emc-pstc@majordo mo.ieee.org 12/09/2002 22:45 Please respond to Jim Eichner Minor correction of myself. Of course inverters draw harmonic current, from their DC source: harmonics of the inverter's internal switching frequency. What I meant was inverters don't draw the type of harmonic currents that have been the subject of new regulations over the past few years (EN61000-3-2 etc). Jim Eichner, P.Eng. Manager, Engineering Services 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. -Original Message- From: Jim Eichner [mailto:jim.eich...@xantrex.com] Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2002 10:43 AM To: 'POWELL, DOUG'; EMC-PSTC (E-mail) Subject: RE: harmonic current on inverters for industrial uses in Japan Hi Doug: Please let me know what you find out on this. I recently came across a reference to inverters, in searching the JEITA site for harmonic current limitation standards. That didn't make sense to me: an inverter is a DC-AC converter that has no connection to an AC source and draws no harmonic current. The only thing I could think of is that maybe they were on about harmonic content of the output, not the input. If so, I hope they are talking about voltage, because the harmonic content in the output current will depend upon the nature of the load. Jim Eichner, P.Eng. Manager, Engineering Services 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. -Original Message- From: POWELL, DOUG [mailto:doug.pow...@aei.com] Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2002 7:58 AM To: EMC-PSTC (E-mail) Subject: harmonic current on inverters for industrial uses in Japan Hello esteemed colleagues, I am searching for an English language version of a report writtne in Japanese, I already have the title translated: Calculation methods of harmonic current on inverters for industrial uses. JEM- TR 201 Can enayone help with location of this report in English? thank you so much, -doug --- Douglas E. Powell, Compliance Engineer Advanced Energy Industries, Inc. Mail stop: 203024 1626 Sharp Point Drive Ft. Collins, CO 80525 970.407.6410 (phone) 970-407.5410 (fax) mailto:doug.pow...@aei.com
RE: harmonic current on inverters for industrial uses in Japan
Minor correction of myself. Of course inverters draw harmonic current, from their DC source: harmonics of the inverter's internal switching frequency. What I meant was inverters don't draw the type of harmonic currents that have been the subject of new regulations over the past few years (EN61000-3-2 etc). Jim Eichner, P.Eng. Manager, Engineering Services 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. -Original Message- From: Jim Eichner [mailto:jim.eich...@xantrex.com] Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2002 10:43 AM To: 'POWELL, DOUG'; EMC-PSTC (E-mail) Subject: RE: harmonic current on inverters for industrial uses in Japan Hi Doug: Please let me know what you find out on this. I recently came across a reference to inverters, in searching the JEITA site for harmonic current limitation standards. That didn't make sense to me: an inverter is a DC-AC converter that has no connection to an AC source and draws no harmonic current. The only thing I could think of is that maybe they were on about harmonic content of the output, not the input. If so, I hope they are talking about voltage, because the harmonic content in the output current will depend upon the nature of the load. Jim Eichner, P.Eng. Manager, Engineering Services 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. -Original Message- From: POWELL, DOUG [mailto:doug.pow...@aei.com] Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2002 7:58 AM To: EMC-PSTC (E-mail) Subject: harmonic current on inverters for industrial uses in Japan Hello esteemed colleagues, I am searching for an English language version of a report writtne in Japanese, I already have the title translated: Calculation methods of harmonic current on inverters for industrial uses. JEM- TR 201 Can enayone help with location of this report in English? thank you so much, -doug --- Douglas E. Powell, Compliance Engineer Advanced Energy Industries, Inc. Mail stop: 203024 1626 Sharp Point Drive Ft. Collins, CO 80525 970.407.6410 (phone) 970-407.5410 (fax) mailto:doug.pow...@aei.com --- ___ This message, including any attachments, may contain information that is confidential and proprietary information of Advanced Energy Industries, Inc. The dissemination, distribution, use or copying of this message or any of its attachments is strictly prohibited without the express written consent of Advanced Energy Industries, Inc. --- 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 --- This message is from the IEEE EMC
RE: harmonic current on inverters for industrial uses in Japan
Hi Doug: Please let me know what you find out on this. I recently came across a reference to inverters, in searching the JEITA site for harmonic current limitation standards. That didn't make sense to me: an inverter is a DC-AC converter that has no connection to an AC source and draws no harmonic current. The only thing I could think of is that maybe they were on about harmonic content of the output, not the input. If so, I hope they are talking about voltage, because the harmonic content in the output current will depend upon the nature of the load. Jim Eichner, P.Eng. Manager, Engineering Services 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. -Original Message- From: POWELL, DOUG [mailto:doug.pow...@aei.com] Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2002 7:58 AM To: EMC-PSTC (E-mail) Subject: harmonic current on inverters for industrial uses in Japan Hello esteemed colleagues, I am searching for an English language version of a report writtne in Japanese, I already have the title translated: Calculation methods of harmonic current on inverters for industrial uses. JEM- TR 201 Can enayone help with location of this report in English? thank you so much, -doug --- Douglas E. Powell, Compliance Engineer Advanced Energy Industries, Inc. Mail stop: 203024 1626 Sharp Point Drive Ft. Collins, CO 80525 970.407.6410 (phone) 970-407.5410 (fax) mailto:doug.pow...@aei.com --- ___ This message, including any attachments, may contain information that is confidential and proprietary information of Advanced Energy Industries, Inc. The dissemination, distribution, use or copying of this message or any of its attachments is strictly prohibited without the express written consent of Advanced Energy Industries, Inc. --- 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
WAS......RE: Inrush and EN61000-3-3
Could we change the name of this thread please? I'm not sure I'm done getting responses on my EN61000-3-3 question and suddenly it's turned into a thread on NEBS stuff! Thanks, Jim Eichner, P.Eng. Manager, Engineering Services 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. -Original Message- From: Gary McInturff [mailto:gary.mcintu...@worldwidepackets.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2002 11:22 AM To: Joe Finlayson; John Juhasz; Dorin Cc: EMC-PSTC - forum Subject: RE: Inrush and EN61000-3-3 Check out section 9.10 Compatibility with former IBN Equipment with CBN Currents. I think this more directly relates to the signal connections, whether or not, they have to be isolated from the equipment chassis until grounded at the Isolated bonding point. I don't think(?) isolated bonding is much used these days. I know we used to make equipment that keep signals from chassis (grounding the chassis to the rack) but most of the RBOC's also wanted the ability to make a signal to chassis ground, and most seemed to be using that connection. This is one of the more confusing issues, at least to me on the NEBS specifications. Still not sure I know what it says. Gary -Original Message- From: Joe Finlayson [mailto:jfinlay...@telica.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2002 9:03 AM To: 'John Juhasz'; 'Dorin' Cc: 'EMC-PSTC - forum' Subject: RE: Inrush and EN61000-3-3 John Dorin, Please clarify as I am not aware of a requirement to isolate Signal Ground from Frame Ground. Please reference GR-1089-CORE, Section 9.6.2 as well. Thx, Joe -Original Message- From: John Juhasz [mailto:john.juh...@ge-interlogix.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2002 11:12 AM To: 'Dorin' Cc: 'EMC-PSTC - forum' Subject: RE: Inrush and EN61000-3-3 Be careful Dorin. For Central Offices, they need to be isolated. John A. Juhasz GE Interlogix Fiber Options Div. Bohemia, NY -Original Message- From: Dorin [mailto:dorin.op...@alcatel.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2002 9:12 AM Cc: 'EMC-PSTC - forum' Subject: Re: Inrush and EN61000-3-3 Hi, I am looking for a comparison, pros and cons, on the signal ground connected versus not connected to the chassis in a telecom system. Any help is appreciated. Thanks, Dorin --- 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 --- 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
Inrush and EN61000-3-3
Does the flicker standard have requirements that limit one-time events like inrush current when first powering up a product, or does it just focus on repetitive events? In short, do we have to limit our inrush current? Thanks, Jim Eichner, P.Eng. Manager, Engineering Services 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. --- 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: PFC or Harmonic Current Limitations outside Europe
Quite right John - thanks for catching the slip. Here's my amended running compilation: - Japan - Has requirements based on the previous rev. of 61000-3-2 (still has the special waveshape in it) that appear to be guidelines only (ie voluntary) unless you are a member of JEITA. - China - standard is GB17625.1, presently aligned to IEC61000-3-2:1995, amendment 1 (reflecting EN61000-3-2:A14) is in the works. - USA - IEEE 519 covers distortion, which is related to harmonic content. It is a utility standard that doesn't seem likely to get applied to product approvals. I was also told that it seems exceedingly unlikely...that the present edition of IEC 61000-3-2 will get adopted in the US. - Australia / New Zealand - I'm told the current edition of IEC 61000-3-2 is being studied, but the level of controversy over it makes adoption unlikely. - Korea - moving in this direction For the forum, here's my amended running compilation. If anyone has anything more to add, I'll keep this going for a while. Jim Eichner, P.Eng. Manager, Engineering Services 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. -Original Message- From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk] Sent: Friday, September 06, 2002 6:41 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: PFC or Harmonic Current Limitations outside Europe I read in !emc-pstc that Jim Eichner jim.eich...@xantrex.com wrote (in 67C475A5ECE7D4118AEC0002B325CAB60176826D@BCMAIL1) about 'PFC or Harmonic Current Limitations outside Europe' on Fri, 6 Sep 2002: - China - standard is GB17625.1, presently aligned to IEC61000-3-2:1995, amendment 1 (EN60950:A14) is in the works. No, that 'amendment 1' is EN61000-3-2:A14. EN 60950 has nothing to do with it. -- 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 --- 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: PFC or Harmonic Current Limitations outside Europe
John: Re the US: Is IEEE519 given force in any way? Is there any agency, body, or utility that is requiring IEEE519 compliance? Re Japan: Do you know the name/number of the trial standard and where I can find a list of what types of products it applies to? Thanks, Jim Eichner, P.Eng. Manager, Engineering Services 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. -Original Message- From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk] Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2002 11:54 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: PFC or Harmonic Current Limitations outside Europe I read in !emc-pstc that Jim Eichner jim.eich...@xantrex.com wrote (in 67C475A5ECE7D4118AEC0002B325CAB6017681D7@BCMAIL1) about 'PFC or Harmonic Current Limitations outside Europe' on Mon, 26 Aug 2002: Can anyone provide any information on the requirements for (or lack of) PFC or harmonic current limitation now or in the future, in the following areas: 1. Japan Japan has had a 'trial standard' for some years. It is not the same as IEC/EN 61000-3-2, but is based on it. It does not apply to everything, as the EN does. 2. North America (I think I've heard rumours) There is already IEEE 519. I think it is exceedingly unlikely that USA will adopt the present edition of IEC 61000-3-2, particularly since it doesn't claim to apply to 120V 60 Hz systems. 3. Australia / New Zealand I understand that the current edition of IEC 61000-3-2 is being studied, but the level of controversy over it makes adoption unlikely. -- 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 --- 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: PFC or Harmonic Current Limitations outside Europe
Joshua: Re Japan, I didn't have much luck on the JEITA website. Can you give me a specific reference (standard name/number, URL, etc.)? Also, is there a list of what types of products this requirement applies to? Thanks, Jim Eichner, P.Eng. Manager, Engineering Services 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. -Original Message- From: Joshua Wiseman [mailto:jwise...@printronix.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2002 8:34 AM To: 'Jim Eichner'; 'EMC-PSTC - forum' Subject: RE: PFC or Harmonic Current Limitations outside Europe Jim, When China converted to the CCC approval scheme they adopted the Chinese version of EN 61000-3-2. Japan has a requirement under JEITA to test harmonics at 120V while using an impedance in line. I have heard that Australia and Korea are also moving in this direction. Taiwan follows the US for the most part and I have not heard anything in this arena. I am curious to hear the responses you get on this one. Good luck. Regards, Josh Josh Wiseman EMC/Product Safety (714) 368-2737 [ mailto:jwise...@printronix.com mailto:jwise...@printronix.com ] -Original Message- From: Jim Eichner [ mailto:jim.eich...@xantrex.com mailto:jim.eich...@xantrex.com ] Sent: Monday, August 26, 2002 12:33 PM To: 'EMC-PSTC - forum' Subject: PFC or Harmonic Current Limitations outside Europe Can anyone provide any information on the requirements for (or lack of) PFC or harmonic current limitation now or in the future, in the following areas: 1. Japan 2. North America (I think I've heard rumours) 3. Australia / New Zealand 4. Any other location you are aware of where it definitely IS a requirement Thanks as always for the group's input. Regards, Jim Eichner, P.Eng. Manager, Engineering Services Xantrex Technology Inc. Mobile Power web: www.xantrex.com http://www.xantrex.com http://www.xantrex.com Any opinions expressed are those of my invisible friend, who really exists. Honest. 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. --- 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/ 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/ http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
PFC or Harmonic Current Limitations outside Europe
Can anyone provide any information on the requirements for (or lack of) PFC or harmonic current limitation now or in the future, in the following areas: 1. Japan 2. North America (I think I've heard rumours) 3. Australia / New Zealand 4. Any other location you are aware of where it definitely IS a requirement Thanks as always for the group's input. Regards, Jim Eichner, P.Eng. Manager, Engineering Services Xantrex Technology Inc. Mobile Power web: www.xantrex.com http://www.xantrex.com Any opinions expressed are those of my invisible friend, who really exists. Honest. 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. --- 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
CISPR 16 compliant voltage probe
We bought ours from Solar Electronics, and it was quite cheap if I recall. Came with insertion loss curves and has worked well. Their info is attached. Jim Eichner, P.Eng. Manager, Engineering Services Xantrex Technology Inc. Mobile Power 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. -Original Message- From: Tony [mailto:raym...@bellsouth.net] Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2002 7:43 AM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Hello Group, I am researching building a CISPR 16 compliant voltage probe as shown in CISPR 16-1.12.2. The Insertion loss is mentioned. I have looked into how to measure it and everything I have found so far uses two power meters. I have one. Is there an alternative measurement technique that I could employ? I am researching building it because I have not had any success in finding one I can rent. If anyone could point me in the direction of a rental source I would appreciate that also. Tony Rayman Compliance Engineer Advanced Compliance Solutions 5015 B.U. Bowman DR Buford, GA 30518 Tele (770) 831 8048 FAX (770) 831 5898 ---BeginMessage--- ---End Message---
Banned Substances in Sweden
We have had a request from a customer to verify a lack of certain substances in one of our products. Rather than provide us with a regulatory-based list of substances, they have provided us with a particular company's proprietary list of substances it bans (and that company is in no way involved in the dealings between us and our customer). Does anyone know where I can get an official list of what substances Sweden bans in electronic products? Thanks as always, Jim Eichner, P.Eng. Manager, Engineering Services Xantrex Technology Inc. Mobile Power web: www.xantrex.com http://www.xantrex.com Any opinions expressed are those of my invisible friend, who really exists and contains reams and reams of brominated flame retardants. 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. --- 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: Changes to FCC Conducted Limits for Part 15 18
A philosophical .vs practical question: Why is the FCC doing this? Is it harmonization for the sake of harmonization, or are there real-life issues driving it? If it's the latter, what sorts of products have susceptibility issues between 150kHz and 450kHz? Thanks, Jim Eichner, P.Eng. Manager, Engineering Services Xantrex Technology Inc. Mobile Power web: www.xantrex.com http://www.xantrex.com Any opinions expressed are those of my invisible friend, who really exists but only in the far field. 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. -Original Message- From: Price, Ed [mailto:ed.pr...@cubic.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2002 10:28 AM To: 'John Barnes'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: Changes to FCC Conducted Limits for Part 15 18 Also notice, in the same directory, a newer version from July 7, 2002, at: http://www.fcc.gov/oet/info/rules/part15/part15_7_22_02.pdf Ed Price ed.pr...@cubic.com Electromagnetic Compatibility Lab Cubic Defense Systems San Diego, CA USA 858-505-2780 (Voice) 858-505-1583 (Fax) Military Avionics EMC Is Our Specialty Shake-Bake-Shock - Metrology - Reliability Analysis -Original Message- From: John Barnes [mailto:jrbar...@iglou.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2002 8:15 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Changes to FCC Conducted Limits for Part 15 18 EMC-PSTC'ers, There has been talk for several months about the FCC changing the conducted emission limits for Part 15 and Part 18 devices. Well, it is official. FCC docket 98-80 was published in the Federal Register on July 10, 2002- volume 67, number 132, pages 45666-45671, see (all one URL): http://frwebgate1.access.gpo.gov/ cgi-bin/waisgate.cgi?WAISdocID=38880224794+0+0+0WAISaction=retrieve FCC Part 15, incorporating the new Section 15.107, may be downloaded from http://www.fcc.gov/oet/info/rules/part15/part15_5_30_02.pdf This will not be printed in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), downloadable from the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) at: http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/cfr-table-search.html until spring 2003. This change probably will not affect products that have been marketed in Taiwan and Japan, because they have already had to meet the CISPR limits for those markets. But products that are sold only in the US/Canada may be affected, because conducted emissions are now to be tested clear down to 150kHz, versus the former 450kHz lower limit. The new conducted emission limits are: * Mains port on Class B devices: - 66dB(uV) quasi-peak and 56dB(uV) average at 0.15MHz, to 56dB(uV) quasi-peak and 46dB(uV) average at 0.50MHz, decreasing linearly with the logarithm of the frequency. - 56dB(uV) quasi-peak and 46dB(uV) average from 0.50MHz to 5MHz. - 60dB(uV) quasi-peak and 50dB(uV) average from 5MHz to 30MHz. * Mains port on Class A devices: - 79dB(uV) quasi-peak and 66dB(uV) average from 0.15MHz to 0.50MHz. - 73dB(uV) quasi-peak and 60dB(uV) average from 0.50MHz to 30MHz. Paragraph 15 of FCC Docket 98-80, Transition Provisions, says that FCC part 15/18 products may be authorized using the old or the new FCC limits for two years (until July 10, 2004). After July 10, 2004, FCC part 15/18 products must be authorized using the new FCC limits. Furthermore, the new limits will apply to all FCC part 15/18 products that are manufactured or imported after three years (after July 10, 2005). So for the next two or three years you have a third option for meeting FCC Part 15/18 requirements: 1. Meet the old FCC conducted-emission and radiated-emission limits. 2. Meet CISPR conducted-emission and radiated-emission limits. 3. Meet CISPR conducted-emission limits and the old FCC radiated- emission limits. John Barnes dBi Corporation http://www.dbicorporation.com/ --- 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
RE: Nema 5-15R sockets
Wow - so it is, and I now have my free copy! Thanks, Jim Eichner, P.Eng. Manager, Engineering Services Xantrex Technology Inc. Mobile Power 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. -Original Message- From: Robert Johnson [mailto:john...@itesafety.com] Sent: Monday, July 22, 2002 9:41 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: Nema 5-15R sockets In fact, soft copy of NEMA WD-6 from www.nema.org is free!! If only IEC ... Bob Johnson ITE Safety -Original Message- From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org] On Behalf Of ron_well...@agilent.com Sent: Monday, July 22, 2002 9:02 AM To: jim.eich...@xantrex.com; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: Nema 5-15R sockets Hello Jim, By now you have received many replies to your message. However, since your orientation question has been asked many, many times before in my neck of the woods, here is what I know regarding your two questions: 1) Not specified in the NEC or the CEC. However, receptacle orientation is usually determined by either: a) the electrician who installs the receptacle, by their preference, or b) a localized code or practice. In some cases, various hospitals have their own requirements for receptacle installation. 2) Get a copy of NEMA WD-6. It's available electronically (www.nema.org) and doesn't cost big bucks. Besides, it's a good reference to have for all North American plug and receptacle configurations. Regards, +=+ |Ronald R. Wellman|Voice : 408-345-8229 | |Agilent Technologies |FAX : 408-553-2412 | |5301 Stevens Creek Blvd.,|E-Mail: ron_well...@agilent.com| |Mailstop 54L-BB |WWW : http://www.agilent.com | |Santa Clara, California 95052 USA| | +=+ --- 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: Nema 5-15R sockets
Well, I certainly seemed to have launched a popular thread! Thanks everyone for your input and anecdotes. I have my answers... - no regulatory requirement for up or down - dimensions being faxed to me Once again, the forum is invaluable! Jim Eichner, P.Eng. Manager, Engineering Services Xantrex Technology Inc. Mobile Power 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. -Original Message- From: Scott Lacey [mailto:sco...@world.std.com] Sent: Friday, July 19, 2002 2:22 PM To: Art Michael Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: Nema 5-15R sockets Art and JIm, One other thing to note: All of the flat (air conditioner type) heavy- duty cords and extensions I've seen that fit this type socket seem to be designed for use with the ground pin at the bottom. Also, although there is some shock hazard from the partially retracted Hot lead with the ground at bottom, when an outlet is installed with the ground pin up it is possible to have the ground lead disconnect first. If this happens with a product with high (but acceptable) leakage a potentially lethal situation exists. Scott Lacey On 19 Jul 2002 at 13:59, Art Michael wrote: Hello Jim, I don't believe the orientation of the U-ground pin is declared anyplace in the NEC. When I recently approached my local AHJ with this question he related that it is a matter of custom (locality dependent). In this area, central Connecticut, the custom is: For commercial/industrial applications, U-Ground topmost For household wiring, U-Ground towards the bottom The rationale offered for the U-Ground topmost; if the plug partially separates from the outlet, anything falling into the opening between the plug and the outlet will first encounter the grounding pin. (seems to me that argument holds whether the use is commercial/industrial or household). Re dimensions of the outlet; send me your fax # and I'll fax you the dimensions. Regards, Art Michael -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- |http://www.safetylink.com | | | | The Safety Link is the most comprehensive collection | |of product safety and standards links on the WEB| |Check our latest offer. | | | | | | Int'l Product Safety News | | Founded in 1988 | | | | P.O.Box 1561 - WWW | |Middletown CT 06457-8061 U.S.A. | | Phone: (860) 344-1651 Fax: (860) 346-9066 | | email: i...@safetylink.com | -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --- On Fri, 19 Jul 2002, Jim Eichner wrote: A couple of questions about our standard North American 120Vac socket: 1. Orientation: We have lots of people in the office here on both sides of this one, and I can't find a normative reference in the CEC or the NEC. Which is the correct way up when installing a socket on a wall - ground pin above the L and N blades, or L and N above the ground? What is the code reference for this requirement, or is there none? 2. Dimensions: Can anybody share the spec's for the dimensions, with tolerances, of the line, neutral, and ground blades for this configuration? I'm sure it's in the UL and CSA standards but I don't want to spend hundreds of $ for a one-time question. We have no on-going need for these standards! Thanks in advance for your help, Regards, Jim Eichner, P.Eng. Manager, Engineering Services Xantrex Technology Inc. Mobile Power web: www.xantrex.com http://www.xantrex.com Any opinions expressed are accidental. I have none. 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. --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical
RE: Nema 5-15R sockets
Thanks Bob. I've also had it pointed out to me that the writing on the sockets themselves is usually oriented ground-up, and some are even marked TOP with ground-up orientation. Seems to be a preference but not a requirement. Jim Eichner, P.Eng. Manager, Engineering Services Xantrex Technology Inc. Mobile Power 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. -Original Message- From: Robert Johnson [mailto:john...@itesafety.com] Sent: Friday, July 19, 2002 3:13 PM To: 'Jim Eichner' Subject: RE: Nema 5-15R sockets The NEC does not establish an orientation. Proposals to establish an orientation have been proposed to the code panel and rejected. See http://electrical-contractor.net/ubb/Forum2/HTML/000553.html for a discussion. You will find ground up preferred by some to provide protection as mentioned by Art Michaels. However, you will find many direct plug in products configured with ground down. Dimensions for these and twist lock plugs are in NEMA standard WD6-88. Sorry, I don't have a copy. Bob Johnson ITE Safety -Original Message- From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org] On Behalf Of Jim Eichner Sent: Friday, July 19, 2002 1:40 PM To: 'EMC-PSTC - forum' Subject: Nema 5-15R sockets A couple of questions about our standard North American 120Vac socket: 1. Orientation: We have lots of people in the office here on both sides of this one, and I can't find a normative reference in the CEC or the NEC. Which is the correct way up when installing a socket on a wall - ground pin above the L and N blades, or L and N above the ground? What is the code reference for this requirement, or is there none? 2. Dimensions: Can anybody share the spec's for the dimensions, with tolerances, of the line, neutral, and ground blades for this configuration? I'm sure it's in the UL and CSA standards but I don't want to spend hundreds of $ for a one-time question. We have no on-going need for these standards! Thanks in advance for your help, Regards, Jim Eichner, P.Eng. Manager, Engineering Services Xantrex Technology Inc. Mobile Power web: www.xantrex.com http://www.xantrex.com Any opinions expressed are accidental. I have none. 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. --- 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: Nema 5-15R sockets
Thanks for the reply Art. I was starting to convince myself that it was indeed local custom, not code, that determined the orientation. I heard another explanation that I find amusing and perhaps practical: that with the ground at the bottom it looks too much like a face and children will be more tempted to play with it, so it should be mounted ground-up! My fax number is below, and I really appreciate you providing whatever dimensions you can. Note that I am interested in the blade and ground pin dimensions of the male plug, not the female socket, please. Thanks, Jim Eichner, P.Eng. Manager, Engineering Services Xantrex Technology Inc. Mobile Power 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. -Original Message- From: Art Michael [mailto:amich...@connix.com] Sent: Friday, July 19, 2002 10:59 AM To: Jim Eichner Cc: 'EMC-PSTC - forum' Subject: Re: Nema 5-15R sockets Hello Jim, I don't believe the orientation of the U-ground pin is declared anyplace in the NEC. When I recently approached my local AHJ with this question he related that it is a matter of custom (locality dependent). In this area, central Connecticut, the custom is: For commercial/industrial applications, U-Ground topmost For household wiring, U-Ground towards the bottom The rationale offered for the U-Ground topmost; if the plug partially separates from the outlet, anything falling into the opening between the plug and the outlet will first encounter the grounding pin. (seems to me that argument holds whether the use is commercial/industrial or household). Re dimensions of the outlet; send me your fax # and I'll fax you the dimensions. Regards, Art Michael -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- |http://www.safetylink.com | || | The Safety Link is the most comprehensive collection | |of product safety and standards links on the WEB| |Check our latest offer. | || || | Int'l Product Safety News | | Founded in 1988 | || | P.O.Box 1561 - WWW | |Middletown CT 06457-8061 U.S.A. | | Phone: (860) 344-1651 Fax: (860) 346-9066 | | email: i...@safetylink.com | -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --- On Fri, 19 Jul 2002, Jim Eichner wrote: A couple of questions about our standard North American 120Vac socket: 1. Orientation: We have lots of people in the office here on both sides of this one, and I can't find a normative reference in the CEC or the NEC. Which is the correct way up when installing a socket on a wall - ground pin above the L and N blades, or L and N above the ground? What is the code reference for this requirement, or is there none? 2. Dimensions: Can anybody share the spec's for the dimensions, with tolerances, of the line, neutral, and ground blades for this configuration? I'm sure it's in the UL and CSA standards but I don't want to spend hundreds of $ for a one-time question. We have no on-going need for these standards! Thanks in advance for your help, Regards, Jim Eichner, P.Eng. Manager, Engineering Services Xantrex Technology Inc. Mobile Power web: www.xantrex.com http://www.xantrex.com Any opinions expressed are accidental. I have none. 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. --- 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
Nema 5-15R sockets
A couple of questions about our standard North American 120Vac socket: 1. Orientation: We have lots of people in the office here on both sides of this one, and I can't find a normative reference in the CEC or the NEC. Which is the correct way up when installing a socket on a wall - ground pin above the L and N blades, or L and N above the ground? What is the code reference for this requirement, or is there none? 2. Dimensions: Can anybody share the spec's for the dimensions, with tolerances, of the line, neutral, and ground blades for this configuration? I'm sure it's in the UL and CSA standards but I don't want to spend hundreds of $ for a one-time question. We have no on-going need for these standards! Thanks in advance for your help, Regards, Jim Eichner, P.Eng. Manager, Engineering Services Xantrex Technology Inc. Mobile Power web: www.xantrex.com http://www.xantrex.com Any opinions expressed are accidental. I have none. 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. --- 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: Conductive Conformal Coatings for reducing PCB Emissions
Has anyone ever used this technology on a pcb that was required to pass agency creepage and clearance requirements? Which agency was involved, and how did they handle it? Jim Eichner, P.Eng. Manager, Engineering Services Xantrex Technology Inc. Mobile Power 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. -Original Message- From: Aschenberg, Mat [mailto:matt.aschenb...@echostar.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2002 9:45 AM To: 'Chris Chileshe'; emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RE: Conductive Conformal Coatings for reducing PCB Emissions Chris, They way it was described to me... The conformal coating would encase the board, creating a sort of shield. Understandably, care is taken to prevent shorting of circuits. Whoever designed the technology has certainly dealt with those concerns. Mat -Original Message- From: Chris Chileshe [SMTP:chris.chile...@ultronics.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2002 9:22 AM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RE: Conductive Conformal Coatings for reducing PCB Emissions Mat, Can we assume you mean conductive spray coatings for plastic caseworks? Wouldn't a conductive conformal coating would short out all the components on the PCB? Or is a two-pass technology with the ordinary insulating coating over the components and a conductive layer on the outside? Awaiting your clarification. - Regards - Chris -Original Message- From: Aschenberg, Mat [SMTP:matt.aschenb...@echostar.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2002 3:36 PM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Conductive Conformal Coatings for reducing PCB Emissions Hi All, A while back there was a push to use conductive conformal coatings for PCB emissions. Does anyone know if the technology still exists and if so who makes it?? Thanks --- 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 e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star Internet. The service is powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit: http://www.star.net.uk This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star Internet. The service is powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit: http://www.star.net.uk --- 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
RE: ESAs certification to 95/54/EC
We have been talking to the UK's Vehicle Certification Agency regarding the Automotive EMC Directive (AEMCD). Their US office website is attached, and the contact I've got is Mark Rushton. There are labs in the US with accreditation to do this testing. We're going to use Acme Testing in Acme Washington (website also attached). Jim Eichner, P.Eng. Manager, Engineering Services Xantrex Technology Inc. Mobile Power 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. -Original Message- From: Fang Han [mailto:f...@qualcomm.com] Sent: Monday, June 24, 2002 10:45 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: ESAs certification to 95/54/EC Hi Colleagues, It looks like all products for vehicle application, even they have been certified to EMC Directive or RTTE Directive, must be certified to 95/54/EC (vehicle EMC directive) before Oct 1, 2002. It seems to me that the certification route for vehicle EMC directive is different with EMC directive or RTTE directive certification. I am looking for an accredited lab/body that is authorized to certify ESAs products to 95/54/EC. I wonder if all these labs/bodies are located in Europe or there are some in USA. I understand that these labs/bodies should be authorized by the Ministry of Transportation of a EU member state. A certification done by such a lab will be accepted by all other EU member states. I appreciate it very much if someone familiar with this can shed some light. Thanks a lot, Fang Vehicle Certification Agency.zlt Description: Binary data Acme Testing.zlt Description: Binary data
RE: Coaxial Switches - use with spectrum analyzer and gear?
Actually we use the clamp-on RF probes up to a few hundred MHz (we don't manufacture anything requiring compliance above 1GHz), but since it's only a trouble-shooting precompliance setup, I tend to agree that we can stay with moderate quality and price and parts. I love the idea of using an IEEE488 driver and automating the testing, and certainly the periodic maintenance check is good advice. Thanks everyone, Jim Eichner, P.Eng. Manager, Engineering Services Xantrex Technology Inc. Mobile Power web: www.xantrex.com http://www.xantrex.com Any opinions expressed are those of my invisible friend, who really exists. Honest. 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. -Original Message- From: Ken Javor [mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com] Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2002 12:54 PM To: Price, Ed; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: Coaxial Switches - use with spectrum analyzer and gear? I agree with Ed that there is no problem using switches, but I don't see the need for 18 GHz, all the measurements you describe stop at 30 MHz. I don't see why Mini-Circuits would be out-of-line here, and you can check losses by using a tracking generator or known signal sources. -- From: Price, Ed ed.pr...@cubic.com To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: Coaxial Switches - use with spectrum analyzer and gear? Date: Thu, May 23, 2002, 11:53 AM -Original Message- From: Jim Eichner [mailto:jim.eich...@xantrex.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2002 12:55 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: Coaxial Switches - use with spectrum analyzer and gear? In our pre-compliance lab, we've got a pair of LISN's, a LISN-mate type thing that I'll call a DMRN (DM rejection network), a transient limiter, some clamp-on RF current probes, an amplifier, the front end of the analyzer, and a 50 ohm terminator. All this gear is connected and unconnected a hundred times a day when we're deep into trouble-shooting, and I'm sick of doing up and undoing coax connectors. I don't trust push-on coax connectors. What I envision is a system with a few of these coax switches in it. The analyzer input would go to a switch that selected either the amp (used only with the clamp-on probes) or the transient limiter (used with the LISN's). The limiter input would go to a switch that selected between the output of the DMRN or the Line LISN or the Neutral LISN. Etc. You get the idea. Is there anything to stop me from using coax switches with suitable CW power, insertion loss, and frequency spec's? Am I headed for trouble if I have 2 or 3 of these switches in the signal path, due to cumulative insertion loss? Thanks for your feedback, Regards, Jim Eichner, P.Eng. Manager, Engineering Services Xantrex Technology Inc. Mobile Power web: www.xantrex.com http://www.xantrex.com Any opinions expressed are those of my invisible friend, who really exists. Honest. Jim: There's no reason why you can't implement the switching system you described. The only concern is that you use really good parts. (Your spectrum analyzer likely has a couple of internal relays in its signal path.) Since you likely need to measure up to about 5 GHz, I would use components rated for up to 18 GHz. This is not the place to skimp on cost. Don't use Dow-Key relays with SO239 UHF connectors; go with something like Agilent relays with SMA connectors. Connect the internal paths with semi-rigid solid-wall coax, and use a good grade of flexible external coax cabling too. If your system is computer-controlled, you can use something like an IEEE488 Relay Driver interface to automate the switching functions. Your lab procedures should be amended to include some type of periodic verification of the loss along all signal paths. Regards, Ed Ed Price ed.pr...@cubic.com Electromagnetic Compatibility Lab Cubic Defense Systems San Diego, CA USA 858-505-2780 (Voice) 858-505-1583 (Fax) Military Avionics EMC Services Is Our Specialty Shake-Bake-Shock - Metrology - Reliability Analysis --- 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
RE: Coaxial Switches - use with spectrum analyzer and gear?
In our pre-compliance lab, we've got a pair of LISN's, a LISN-mate type thing that I'll call a DMRN (DM rejection network), a transient limiter, some clamp-on RF current probes, an amplifier, the front end of the analyzer, and a 50 ohm terminator. All this gear is connected and unconnected a hundred times a day when we're deep into trouble-shooting, and I'm sick of doing up and undoing coax connectors. I don't trust push-on coax connectors. What I envision is a system with a few of these coax switches in it. The analyzer input would go to a switch that selected either the amp (used only with the clamp-on probes) or the transient limiter (used with the LISN's). The limiter input would go to a switch that selected between the output of the DMRN or the Line LISN or the Neutral LISN. Etc. You get the idea. Is there anything to stop me from using coax switches with suitable CW power, insertion loss, and frequency spec's? Am I headed for trouble if I have 2 or 3 of these switches in the signal path, due to cumulative insertion loss? Thanks for your feedback, Regards, Jim Eichner, P.Eng. Manager, Engineering Services Xantrex Technology Inc. Mobile Power web: www.xantrex.com http://www.xantrex.com Any opinions expressed are those of my invisible friend, who really exists. Honest. 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. -Original Message- From: richwo...@tycoint.com [mailto:richwo...@tycoint.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2002 7:45 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Coaxial Switches Other than Adilent, what are some other sources for low power (1W) and high power (100W) coaxial switches for frequencies up to 2 GHz? 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: Let's change the topic to something more descriptive Re: stun guns onaircraft
Let's just return to the main subject matter of this forum, and ban further discussion of firearm philosophy. This is an un-moderated forum, so it is up to us to be respectful of the rules and intent of the forum, and of each other's time. These long off-topic threads are a major disappointment. Regards, Jim Eichner, P.Eng. Manager, Engineering Services Xantrex Technology Inc. Mobile Power web: www.xantrex.com http://www.xantrex.com Any opinions expressed are those of my invisible friend, who really exists. Honest. -Original Message- From: Gary McInturff [mailto:gary.mcintu...@worldwidepackets.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2002 1:55 PM To: Penny D. Robbins; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: Let's change the topic to something more descriptive Re: stun guns onaircraft I also find it very easy to set up a rule that throws e-mail from specific names/destinations straight into the electronic trashcan. Put it to good use on this once promising but now useless thread. Gary -Original Message- From: Penny D. Robbins [mailto:probb...@telcordia.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2002 10:26 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Let's change the topic to something more descriptive Re: stun guns onaircraft Folks- For those of us who care to know the real info about the original topic - stun guns and the RF problems they cause on aircraft, how about changing your subject line. Let's have everyone who wants to give their opinions about who should and shouldn't own guns and what the real problem is with society change the subject line to something more reflective of the topic at hand. How about: Guns - Pro or Con? It certainly would make reading though and filtering out the information we want to see easier. Penny - Forwarded by Penny D. Robbins/Telcordia on 05/07/02 01:20 PM - Robert Wilson robert_wilson@tTo: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org irsys.com cc: (bcc: Penny D. Robbins/Telcordia) Subject: RE: stun guns on aircraft 05/07/02 12:41 PM Please respond to Robert Wilson Crime rates drop drastically in nations where guns are freely owned by the PUBLIC?? I suppose this explains why the US has a murder rate some 10 to 20 times that of western Europe, and whose extreme violent crime rates make it a pariah in the eyes of so many other nations? And where do you think the criminal approaching your wife with a gun managed to get a gun in the first place? Could it be because he lives in a country that believes owning a gun should be a citizen's right? Nah! Couldn't possibly be a connection! Reminds me of a cartoon I once saw, where Uncle Sam is pointing a gun at himself and has just managed to shoot another hole through his head. The caption is Damn! It did it again! I wonder what causes that? Ah, well, what else can one expect from yet another proud member of the NRA. Certainly not rational thinking when it comes to playing with toys that go bang. I'll get off my soap box now. Bob Wilson TIR Systems Ltd. Vancouver. -Original Message- From: Sam Davis [mailto:sda...@ptitest.com] Sent: May 7, 2002 6:51 AM To: Gert Gremmen; Pettit, Ghery; 'Ted Rook'; Subject: RE: stun guns on aircraft This has nothing to do with EMC or Product safety, but with personal and public safety. I'm with Ghery. Gert, your misrepresentation of his statement is ludicrous. Statistics bear this out. Crime rates drop drastically in nations where guns are freely owned by the PUBLIC. Look at Australia. The gov't took the gun ownership rights away, and violent crime rose horribly. Guns are not only offensive weapons, but defensive weapons as well. If some criminal approaches your wife with a gun, would you prefer her to have a pistol, or a whistle? What do you want your cops to defend your streets with? What about your military, to guard your ability to go to work, make a living, support your family, without having to worry if you'll be a captive prisoner of war, or worse? What about the security force at your airport? Guns even the playing field. When you outlaw guns, only outlaws have guns. Law abiding citizens turn them in, and can no longer defend their homes with the NECESSARY force. Fortunately, I live in a locale where gun ownership is not only allowed, but almost expected. Statistically, there are more guns than people per household. There is also a very low rate of home invasion. Since concealed carry permits have been issued, all violent crimes have dropped. Hijackers take planes because law-abiding travelers are not packing heat. I own multiple guns, legally, and I pray I never have to fire them in self defense
RE: Using PCB traces as transient voltage suppressor
Isn't the other issue here that creepage and clearance are normally required between live parts and from live parts to ground? If you buy components, you can go get approved components. If you do it yourself on the board, you're going to invoke all kinds of extra approvals work - evaluating your home-made spark gap to the standard for transient voltage suppressors, or your home made fuse to the standard for supplemental fuses, or... Regards, Jim Eichner, P.Eng. Manager, Engineering Services Xantrex Technology Inc. Mobile Power web: www.xantrex.com http://www.xantrex.com Any opinions expressed are those of my invisible friend, who really exists. Honest. -Original Message- From: Rich Nute [mailto:ri...@sdd.hp.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2002 11:16 AM To: chris.maxw...@nettest.com Cc: gab...@simex.ca; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: Using PCB traces as transient voltage suppressor Hi Chris: 1. Can anyone else verify the breakdown voltage of 1Megavolt/meter for air? Seems different than what I can remember; but I don't have a reference handy. It also seems to me that this would be very dependent upon humidity and pollution degree? In a separate message, I will send you the air breakdown voltage curves from IEC 664. Humid air has a very slightly higher electric strength than dry air. (Water vapor, a gas, has quite different properties than water as a liquid.) I believe air temperature has more effect on electric strength than does humidity. Pollution affects the electric strength of the scheme because it is deposited on the electrodes. This tends to reduce the electric strength between the two electrodes. This is a larger effect than humidity. The biggest factor affecting the electric strength of air is air pressure. Pollution, temperature, and humidity have relatively low effects. 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...@mediaone.net 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...@mediaone.net 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: SV: Generic emissions - EN 61000-6-3
Thanks to Enci, and the link he provided, I have my answer, and perhaps it will cut through some of the semantics discussion, by introducing the one term that seems to really count in discussing the standards route: presumption of conformity. The New Approach guideline seems pretty clear: a standard is NOT considered to provide a presumption of conformity until it has been published in the OJ. That tells us 2 things: 1. Until it is published in the OJ it does not satisfy the standards route to compliance. You can use it but you're not within the bounds of the standards route. 2. If a single standard applicable to your equipment is published in the OJ without limitations, it provides presumption of conformity for your equipment. You do not need to use any other standard, even if others that appear also to cover your equipment have been published in the OJ. Comments? Jim Eichner, P.Eng. Manager, Engineering Services Xantrex Technology Inc. Mobile Power phone: (604) 422-2546 fax: (604) 420-1591 e-mail: jim.eich...@xantrex.com web: www.xantrex.com -Original Message- From: Brian Jones [mailto:e...@brianjones.co.uk] Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 1:01 AM To: John Woodgate; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: SV: Generic emissions - EN 61000-6-3 John We will have to agree to disagree on the semantic issues BUT I will not accept your putting words in my mouth on interpretations of the current and draft EMC Directives. For the record, I deliberately used the word apply which is the wording of the current Directive. Apply does not necessarily mean test. I did not mention the draft revision. Brian Jones EMC Consultant and Competent Body Signatory --- 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: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net 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: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server. --- 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: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net 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: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
RE: SV: Generic emissions - EN 61000-6-3
My question should have been stated more clearly - my apologies. If you are using the standards route to compliance, what determines which standards you MUST use? Are we obligated to apply all applicable EN's that are published, regardless of whether or not they have appeared in the OJ, or are we only obligated to apply all EN's that have been published in the OJ? Related questions: - If more than one standard seems to apply, do you have to use all of them in order to satisfy the standards route, or is one sufficient? - If we are obligated to apply all applicable EN's that are published, regardless of whether or not they have appeared in the OJ, how the hell are we supposed to know those standards even exist?!?! The Europa site's lists of standards that are published in the OJ as pertaining to the various New Approach directives are the tool I count on as coming from an official source and being accurate and up to date. If we have to apply EN's that haven't been published in the OJ, where is an equivalent exhaustive list, how official is it, and how up to date is it? Thanks, Jim Eichner, P.Eng. Manager, Engineering Services Xantrex Technology Inc. Mobile Power phone: (604) 422-2546 fax: (604) 420-1591 e-mail: jim.eich...@xantrex.com web: www.xantrex.com -Original Message- From: Allen, John [mailto:john.al...@uk.thalesgroup.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 12:59 AM To: 'Jim Eichner'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: SV: Generic emissions - EN 61000-6-3 Hi Folks To answer Jim's point: LVD Annex IV Internal Production Control states: 1) Internal production control is the procedure whereby the manufacturer or his authorized representative established within the Community, who carries out the obligations laid down in point 2, ensures and declares that the electrical equipment satisfies the requirements of this Directive that apply to it. The manufacturer or his authorized representative established within the Community must affix the CE marking to each product and draw up a written declaration of conformity. 2) The manufacturer must establish the technical documentation described in point 3 and he or his authorized representative established within the Community must keep it on Community territory at the disposal of the relevant national authorities for inspection purposes for a period ending at least 10 years after the last product has been manufactured. 3) Technical documentation must enable the conformity of the electrical equipment to the requirements of this Directive to be assessed. It must, as far as relevant for such assessment, cover the design, manufacture and operation of the electrical equipment. It must include: a general description of the electrical equipment, - conceptual design and manufacturing drawings and schemes of components, sub-assemblies, circuits, etc., - descriptions and explanations necessary for the understanding of said drawings and schemes and the operation of the electrical equipment, - a list of the standards applied in full or in part, and descriptions of the solutions adopted to satisfy the safety aspects of this Directive where standards have not been applied, (and so on) The last item clearly allows a solution that does not involve full - or even partial compliance - with standards may be acceptable provided that it satisfies the essential safety aspects of the Directive. Thus strict compliance with harmonised standards is not obligatory under an LVD self-declaration process. However, bear in mind that compliance with harmonised standards does bring a presumption of conformity - and most people would thus not stray far from the standards route. John Allen Thales Bracknell, UK -Original Message- From: Jim Eichner [mailto:jim.eich...@xantrex.com] Sent: 29 January 2002 20:11 To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: SV: Generic emissions - EN 61000-6-3 It may be applied, but MUST it be applied? Does the OJ not still provide force to the use of the standard, or is that only in the EMC Directive? Jim Eichner, P.Eng. Manager, Engineering Services Xantrex Technology Inc. Mobile Power phone: (604) 422-2546 fax: (604) 420-1591 e-mail: jim.eich...@xantrex.com web: www.xantrex.com -Original Message- From: richwo...@tycoint.com [mailto:richwo...@tycoint.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2002 9:49 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: SV: Generic emissions - EN 61000-6-3 As long as we are getting picky, let's don't forget that the Directives don't have a harmonized definition of what harmonized means. The defintion in the LVD does not include the need to be referenced in the OJ. Publication is for information only. Thus, a CENELEC safety standard may be applied as soon as it is ratified and presuption of conformity to the essential requirements is provided. Richard Woods Sensormatic Electronics Tyco International -Original Message- From: Brian Jones [mailto:e
RE: SV: Generic emissions - EN 61000-6-3
It may be applied, but MUST it be applied? Does the OJ not still provide force to the use of the standard, or is that only in the EMC Directive? Jim Eichner, P.Eng. Manager, Engineering Services Xantrex Technology Inc. Mobile Power phone: (604) 422-2546 fax: (604) 420-1591 e-mail: jim.eich...@xantrex.com web: www.xantrex.com -Original Message- From: richwo...@tycoint.com [mailto:richwo...@tycoint.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2002 9:49 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: SV: Generic emissions - EN 61000-6-3 As long as we are getting picky, let's don't forget that the Directives don't have a harmonized definition of what harmonized means. The defintion in the LVD does not include the need to be referenced in the OJ. Publication is for information only. Thus, a CENELEC safety standard may be applied as soon as it is ratified and presuption of conformity to the essential requirements is provided. Richard Woods Sensormatic Electronics Tyco International -Original Message- From: Brian Jones [mailto:e...@brianjones.co.uk] Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2002 9:23 AM To: John Woodgate; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: SV: Generic emissions - EN 61000-6-3 John, and everyone It is not true that all ENs are harmonised. The term, in this context, means specifically ENs which have been selected as relevant standards under one or more directives, and listed as such in the Official Journal. Thus, for example, basic standards are not harmonised. EN 61000-6-3, as a generic standard, will be listed in the OJ, but it is not in the current list published on 5 April 2001 as amended on 26 July 2001. It was published in October 2001 and will supersede EN 50081-1 on a date (the doc) which will be published when it is listed in the OJ. This may be the dow published in the front of the EN (1 July 2004) or may be a different date decided by the Commission. Note that there are differences between the IEC and EN versions. The following is an extract from the Commission's website http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/newapproach/standardization/harmstds/vo rwort.html which explains in detail the extra requirements for harmonised standards. --- The New Approach directives are supported by harmonised standards which play a significant role in ensuring their application. Such standards have first the characteristics inherent to European Standards : The standards (typically EN, ETSs) are drafted by one of three European Standard Organisations (CEN,CENELEC, ETSI) The work is based on consensus Standards are adopted after a public inquiry with the national votes based on corresponding weighting features Standards remain voluntary but their transposition into national standards and the withdrawal of diverging national standards is mandatory according to the internal rules of the European Standards Organisations. Within the context of the New Approach additional conditions are superposed to the European Standards to cover the specific role of harmonised standards : The Commission issues a standardisation mandate according to the procedure of Directive 98/34/EC (consolidating Directive 83/189/EEC) The standards are developed in taking due account of the essential requirements The reference of the standard is published in the Official Journal with the indication of the Directive for which the presumption of conformity should apply Best wishes Brian Jones EMC Consultant and Competent Body Signatory - Original Message - From: John Woodgate j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2002 10:46 AM Subject: Re: SV: Generic emissions - EN 61000-6-3 I read in !emc-pstc that am...@westin-emission.no wrote (in LFENJLPMMJB mhpeibnilaehgccaa.am...@westin-emission.no) about 'SV: Generic emissions - EN 61000-6-3', on Tue, 29 Jan 2002: AFAIK EN61000-6-3 is not harmonized yet. ALL ENs are AUTOMATICALLY harmonized. I expect you mean that it may not have been 'notified' in the OJEC. I think it has. I have a problem to access the CENELEC web in order to check the current status of this standards. I have a copy of CISPR/CEI-IEC 1000-6-3:1996, Really? Then why have you not given the reference as '61000-6-3'? but I don't know if this issue is the latest version because the IEC site is also down for the moment. In this version they still describe 30-1000MHz radiated emission (same limits as in 81-1) and 0.15-30MHz conducted emission (same limits as in 81-1). That IS the latest (and only) issue. -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk After swimming across the Hellespont, I felt like a Hero. PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL
RE: CSA labeling requirements to EN61010-1 (deviation)
My understanding is that CSA is content with a date, a date-code, or a date-traceable serial number. The traceability of the serial number IS allowed, unlike UL, to rely on the manufacturer's records. Does anyone disagree? Thanks, Jim Eichner, P.Eng. Manager, Engineering Services Xantrex Technology Inc. Mobile Power phone: (604) 422-2546 fax: (604) 420-1591 e-mail: jim.eich...@xantrex.com web: www.xantrex.com -Original Message- From: jsarell...@tuvam.com [mailto:jsarell...@tuvam.com] Sent: Friday, January 25, 2002 11:46 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: CSA labeling requirements to EN61010-1 (deviation) Hello Group, Does anyone know if the date of manufacturing is required to be in the label of the equipment? I remember having seen this before but I don't know if this is still the case. Asking a colleage, he said that it is not neccesary? Any feedback is appriciated. Thank you in advance, Regards, Jorge Sarellano TUV PRODUCT SERVICE Compliance Engineer Phone 408-919-3744 Fax 408-919-0585 Have you visited http://www.tuvam.com http://www.tuvam.com --- 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: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net 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: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
RE: marine equipment
Quite right - it works well and I now have the text including the tables! Thanks, Jim Eichner, P.Eng. Manager, Engineering Services Xantrex Technology Inc. Mobile Power web: www.xantrex.com http://www.xantrex.com Any opinions expressed are those of my invisible friend, who really exists. Honest. -Original Message- From: h.knud...@niros.com [mailto:h.knud...@niros.com] Sent: Friday, January 18, 2002 1:06 AM To: jim.eich...@xantrex.com; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: SV: marine equipment Hello Jim, Since 01/01/2002 it is possible to receive copies of old OJ in TIFF format at no cost - I think back to 1989 and from 1998 also in PDF format. Try it! http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/search/search_lif.html Best regards Helge Knudsen Test Approval manager Niros Telecommunication Hirsemarken 5 DK-3520 Farum Denmark Tel +45 44 34 22 51 Fax +45 44 99 28 08 email h.knud...@niros.com -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Jim Eichner [mailto:jim.eich...@xantrex.com] Sendt: 18. januar 2002 01:04 Til: 'Kim Boll Jensen'; EMC-PSTC Emne: RE: marine equipment I believe the answer is that the Marine Equipment Directive (96/98/EC) is not a New Approach directive. Rather than the mechanism you're used to, the directive and its amendment(s) contain direct references to standards. Have a look at http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/lif/dat/1998/en_398L0085.html and you'll see Appendix A1 that would list standards if it weren't for the fact that the Europa site seems to always blank out tables. I'm not sure if it's possible to get a free copy of the full text, including the tables, on the internet. Does anyone know? For more info on this directive, go to the Europa site and search on 96/98/EC. Thanks, Jim Eichner, P.Eng. Manager, Engineering Services Xantrex Technology Inc. Mobile Power web: www.xantrex.com http://www.xantrex.com Any opinions expressed are those of my invisible friend, who really exists. Honest. -Original Message- From: Kim Boll Jensen [mailto:kimb...@post7.tele.dk] Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 1:54 PM To: EMC-PSTC Subject: marine equipment Hi all Why doesn't marine equipment under 96/98/EC have a page on: http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/newapproach/standardization/harmstds/re flist.html with more details as the other directives. Is there another place on the Web where I can get more details about this directive ? Best regards, Kim Boll Jensen --- 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: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net 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: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server. --- 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: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net 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: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
RE: marine equipment
I believe the answer is that the Marine Equipment Directive (96/98/EC) is not a New Approach directive. Rather than the mechanism you're used to, the directive and its amendment(s) contain direct references to standards. Have a look at http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/lif/dat/1998/en_398L0085.html and you'll see Appendix A1 that would list standards if it weren't for the fact that the Europa site seems to always blank out tables. I'm not sure if it's possible to get a free copy of the full text, including the tables, on the internet. Does anyone know? For more info on this directive, go to the Europa site and search on 96/98/EC. Thanks, Jim Eichner, P.Eng. Manager, Engineering Services Xantrex Technology Inc. Mobile Power web: www.xantrex.com http://www.xantrex.com Any opinions expressed are those of my invisible friend, who really exists. Honest. -Original Message- From: Kim Boll Jensen [mailto:kimb...@post7.tele.dk] Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 1:54 PM To: EMC-PSTC Subject: marine equipment Hi all Why doesn't marine equipment under 96/98/EC have a page on: http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/newapproach/standardization/harmstds/re flist.html with more details as the other directives. Is there another place on the Web where I can get more details about this directive ? Best regards, Kim Boll Jensen EUR-Lex Community legislation in force - Document 398L0085.url Description: Binary data
RE: EN50091-2:1995
That is the correct version of the standard as far as I know, and I agree it does not require application of the 801-5 surge immunity requirements. I too find that surprising, since surge is one of the most basic and longest-standing immunity considerations, and real life problems occur if it's ignored. Regardless of the standard's content, however, the customer can of course demand whatever they want, and you can voluntarily do surge testing too. It may cover you if and when EN50091-2 is reissued, at which time it will likely add the surge requirement, along with 316 other immunity tests you and I have never even heard of. Regards, Jim Eichner, P.Eng. Manager, Engineering Services Xantrex Technology Inc. Mobile Power web: www.xantrex.com http://www.xantrex.com http://www.xantrex.com/ Any opinions expressed are those of my invisible friend, who really exists. Honest. -Original Message- From: Sam Wismer [mailto:swis...@bellsouth.net] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 7:06 AM To: EMC Forum Subject: EN50091-2:1995 Hi all, I am reviewing EN50091-2:1995 to determine the immunity requirements for UPS systems. According to the harmonized list, this is the correct version of the standard under the EMCD. It calls for radiated emissions, IEC 801-2, -3 and -4. It then says 801-5 is under consideration. Our customer is requesting 801-5, but based on how I read the standard, it is not required at this time. Could that be true? Kind Regards, Sam Wismer Engineering Manager ACS, Inc. Phone: (770) 831-8048 Fax: (770) 831-8598 Web: www.acstestlab.com --- 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: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net 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: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
RE: Thermal effects on EMC and Earth Leakage
Have a look at the manufacturer's data sheets for the capacitors, and you'll see spec's or graphs indicating the % capacitance change vs. temperature. This can be substantial for ceramic cap's in particular. I don't know how much of an effect it is for the typical film-type X and Y cap's, but that is likely the source of the change in leakage current. Keep in mind that the EMC performance of a SMPS may be related to many factors, not just X or Y capacitor performance. There are often capacitors located further inside the product that are not X or Y types (and aren't required to be) yet serve an EMC-reduction function, that could be ceramic types with significant value change vs. temperature. There will also be temperature-related changes in electrolytic filter cap's, magnetic components, snubbers, the power semiconductors themselves, etc. Many of these changes may seem subtle in absolute value, but given the impact that parasitics have on EMC, the change could make a big difference. Jim Eichner, P.Eng. Manager, Engineering Services Xantrex Technology Inc. Mobile Power phone: (604) 422-2546 fax: (604) 420-1591 e-mail: jim.eich...@xantrex.com web: www.xantrex.com -Original Message- From: duncan.ho...@snellwilcox.com [mailto:duncan.ho...@snellwilcox.com] Sent: Monday, December 17, 2001 7:59 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Thermal effects on EMC and Earth Leakage Group. I am interested to find out peoples opinions on a particular trend we've seen time and time again on most switch mode PSU's. It seems that once a PSU is warm its earth leakage decreases and its EMC emission performance decreases (i.e. it gets noisier). This would suggest that there is some sort of thermal effect, probabaly in the Y caps, that reduces their capacitance. Has anyone done any work in this area or can anyone explain the physics of this change. Is it as simple as expansion of the dielectric or is it more complicated than this? Any thoughts or opinions would be greatly recieved. Many thanks in advance, Duncan Hobbs -- The contents of this communication are confidential to the normal user of the email address to which it was sent. If you have received this email in error, any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this email is strictly prohibited. If this is the case, please notify the sender and delete this message. -- --- 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: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net 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: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server. --- 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: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net 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: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
RE: ULC vs. CUL
Perhaps they can reply if they are monitoring this forum, but I'll give it a shot... ULC is Underwriters Laboratories of Canada, and while they do product approvals, they generally in the past have not done the sort of product safety work that UL does. ULC has focussed more on building products for fire safety - things like fire doors, fire extinguishers, gas burning appliances, etc. Their approval mark looks much like the UL listing mark, but it's ULC, with the C inside the circle. The CUL mark has the C outside the circle, with the normal UL listing mark inside the circle, and maybe a US outside the circle as well. This mark is used by UL for product safety approvals where it needs to be made clear whether the requirements used were only US ones (read UL standards), only Canadian ones (CSA standards), or both. Normally where it is only the UL standards, they will just use the normal UL mark without either the C or the US. When CSA requirements are included, the C(UL)US mark is used to make it clear that both country's requirements were met. If they truly are approving only to the CSA requirements, the C(UL) mark would be used without the US. Regards, Jim Eichner, P.Eng. Manager, Engineering Services Xantrex Technology Inc. Mobile Power web: www.xantrex.com http://www.xantrex.com Any opinions expressed are those of my invisible friend, who really exists. Honest. Jim Eichner, P.Eng. Manager, Engineering Services Xantrex Technology Inc. Mobile Power phone: (604) 422-2546 fax: (604) 420-1591 e-mail: jim.eich...@xantrex.com web: www.xantrex.com -Original Message- From: geor...@lexmark.com [mailto:geor...@lexmark.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2001 12:47 PM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Re: ULC vs. CUL There is a UL mark acceptable for the U.S. There was a c-UL mark, acceptable to both Canada and the U.S. The more correct mark from UL for the c-UL mark is now the c-UL-us mark, i.e. circled UL with small c outside lower left of circle and small us outside lower right of circle. I have never heard any of these referred to as a ULC mark. George Alspaugh burchj%andovercontrols@interlock.lexmark.com on 11/13/2001 03:18:12 PM Please respond to burchj%andovercontrols@interlock.lexmark.com To: emc-pstc%majordomo.ieee@interlock.lexmark.com cc:(bcc: George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark) Subject: ULC vs. CUL Someone from our UK office is asking if ULC is the same as CUL. Does anyone know the difference between these two marks? Your help is always appreciated. Thanks, Joe Josiah P. Burch Compliance Engineer II Andover Controls Corporation 300 Brickstone Square Andover,Ma 01810 (978)-470-0555 x335 (978)-470-3615 Fax --- 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: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net 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: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server. --- 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: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net 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: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
RE: skinny power cords.
Got it - thanks for the explanation. Jim -Original Message- From: Rich Nute [mailto:ri...@sdd.hp.com] Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2001 1:58 PM To: jim.eich...@xantrex.com Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: skinny power cords. Hi Jim: Thanks Rich: I suspect you're right. Isn't that mechanism exactly what the tracking index tests are meant to address? I thought that any UL-approved wiring device like this would have a material that is designed to resist tracking, hence my speculation that contamination might be involved. No, I believe the UL tracking index tests do not address the scenario I described. My scenario starts with heating the insulating material to the point where it begins to pyrolyze, i.e., decompose by heat alone. The UL tracking index test starts with a drop of saline solution to provide a resistive path on the surface of the plastic insulator. The micro-arcs occur in the saline solution. In my scenario, pyrolysis, not pollution, leads to the micro-arcs. So, I don't believe the tracking index is necessarily a predictor of tracking due to pyrolysis. I could be wrong... 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: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net 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: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
RE: skinny power cords.
Thanks Rich: I suspect you're right. Isn't that mechanism exactly what the tracking index tests are meant to address? I thought that any UL-approved wiring device like this would have a material that is designed to resist tracking, hence my speculation that contamination might be involved. I guess there are a few more comments to be made here... 1. From what I know, the tracking index tests are horribly non-repeatable and are therefore somewhat meaningless. 2. The standards for plug caps and for multi-taps may not refer to UL746 and may not have any of their own requirements for tracking index of insulation. 3. We could take this as evidence that even compliance with the tracking index requirements doesn't prevent carbonization of the material where there's a high temperature heat source involved. There are lots of people who unplug anything they are not actively using. I guess it's not such a paranoid practice! Regards, Jim Eichner, P.Eng. Manager, Engineering Services Xantrex Technology Inc. Mobile Power web: www.xantrex.com http://www.xantrex.com Any opinions expressed are those of my invisible friend, who really exists. Honest. -Original Message- From: Rich Nute [mailto:ri...@sdd.hp.com] Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2001 12:14 PM To: jim.eich...@xantrex.com Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: skinny power cords. Hi Jim: I'm curious: given that North American plug blades are 1/2 apart, there must have been substantial contamination to aid in 120Vac jumping that far (arcing). Did you identify any sort of contamination or moisture? I don't believe contamination is a significant factor in events such as this one. I believe such events start with a loose connection between the plug and the socket (or between the wire and the socket parts). A loose connection means that the contact area is relatively small. In turn, this means high current density at the point of contact. The smaller the contact area, the greater the resistance of the contact. The smaller the contact area, the greater the current density at the point of contact. These two factors contribute to heating of the two parts, the plug blade and the socket. Heating tends to reduce the springiness of the socket part, and of the connection between the supply wire and the socket (because they are thermally connected). The heating also tends to degrade the surface of the insulating material in which the conductors are mounted. Heating also enhances oxidation of the plating on the parts, which further increases the resistance of the connections. If the plug-connected appliance is ON, arcing can occur as the parts expand due to heating and make various intermittant connections. Arc temperatures are very high, and can burn the surface of nearby insulating materials via radiation. As the surface degrades, leakages occur across the surfaces. At this point, whether or not the appliance is on or even connected is not a factor. There is a current path between the two poles along the surface of the insulator. This can either be between the socket parts, or between the wired parts. The leakage current causes further heating and micro-arcs where the leakage path opens due to current density. The micro-arcs further damage the insulator until there is nearly continuous micro-arcing. I suggest this is the source of the noise. The heat from the micro- arcing and the resistance of the carbonized surface of the insulator eventually lead to ignition and flames. I admit that this is a hypothesis. I believe that the process is more-or-less correct, but the details may not be correct. 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: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net 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: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
RE: skinny power cords.
I'm curious: given that North American plug blades are 1/2 apart, there must have been substantial contamination to aid in 120Vac jumping that far (arcing). Did you identify any sort of contamination or moisture? Jim Eichner, P.Eng. Manager, Engineering Services Xantrex Technology Inc. Mobile Power phone: (604) 422-2546 fax: (604) 420-1591 e-mail: jim.eich...@xantrex.com web: www.xantrex.com -Original Message- From: Robert Macy [mailto:m...@california.com] Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2001 8:50 AM To: Roman, Dan; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: skinny power cords. Just have to jump in here with personal experience: In our bedroom we have a deLonghi radiator heater which uses an extension cord (high cost UL approved) heavy guage #12 wire to power it - when it's used. This extension cord plugs into a multi outlet adapter, also heavy duty UL approved. At the time of the incident there was no power being used from this outlet. I was in another room, my wife was sitting on the edge of the bed watching a news blurb on TV when she heard a funny sound, a scritch, scritch. She called to me to come listen. Scritch, scritch, scritch got louder. As I arrived, flames started lapping up the wall from the outlet while still making arcing sounds. The flames were less than 6 inches from curtains. I reached into all this and unplugged the extension cord which luckily stopped the fireworks display. Imagine, if we had not been there. Upon examination, it appeared that an arc had formed between the blades of the extension cord (remember no power at the time). That arc was not sufficient to drop the 15A breaker to the outlet, yet was sufficient to carbonize the UL approved material which further sustained the arc. I posted this to the newsgroup alt.home.repair where a fireman jumped in describing how this exact mechanism is what starts most home fires! Isn't that an encouraging thought! Anyway, a little damn fuse in the plug would not have helped in this circumstance, complete waste of time, much like the main breaker was. - Robert - Robert A. Macy, PEm...@california.com 408 286 3985 fx 408 297 9121 AJM International Electronics Consultants 619 North First St, San Jose, CA 95112 -Original Message- From: Roman, Dan dan.ro...@intel.com To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: Thursday, October 25, 2001 7:41 AM Subject: RE: skinny power cords. I agreed completely with Scott. A 6 to 9 foot 18AWG cord will handle well in excess of 20A for a short period of time without starting to smoke (heck, it'll handle close to in excess of 60A for a very very short time without bursting into flames--not that it was a good experience finding this out). Point is, the cordage will handle a fault either indefinitely or long enough for the branch circuit breaker to trip provided you are connected to a 15A or 20A branch circuit. Another data point, you routinely pass more current through the cord when doing the earthing test and that uses more current than the cord is rated. Leave the tester on for awhile and the cord does not really heat up either. What this list needs is a power cord manufacturer or agency safety engineer that does power cords to settle this once and for all! Dan -Original Message- From: Scott Lacey [mailto:sco...@world.std.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2001 7:43 PM To: Gary McInturff Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: skinny power cords. Gary, I believe the answer is that the power cord rating of 6 or 10 amps is the operating current, at which it will have minimum temperature rise. Under fault conditions it will experience a rather dramatic temperature rise that is still well below the melting temperature of the insulation. The breaker or fuse should clear well before the cord is cooked to the point of failure. Scott Lacey --- 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: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net 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: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server. --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http
RE: skinny power cords.
I'll join the speculation... I think it is also based on the likelihood of undetected damage to the cord leading to a situation. The cord lengths are limited by standards, they are jacketed with materials designed to withstand some abuse, the condition is easily (albeit rarely) inspected by the user, they are not supposed to be physically attached to the wall (so no fear of damage by a metal cable clamp for example), and so on. The wiring in your walls, by comparison, may be more at risk, since it can't be inspected, it is stapled to the studs, and you're always drilling or pounding nails into walls having no idea whether or not there is wiring behind the drywall. Regards, Jim Eichner, P.Eng. Manager, Engineering Services Xantrex Technology Inc. Mobile Power web: www.xantrex.com http://www.xantrex.com Any opinions expressed are those of my invisible friend, who really exists, and frequently has gas. Honest. -Original Message- From: Rich Nute [mailto:ri...@sdd.hp.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2001 12:21 PM To: gary.mcintu...@worldwidepackets.com Cc: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Re: skinny power cords. Hi Gary: Somewhere in my past, I've heard the rationale for this conundrum. I'm just guessing here. Power cords and similar mains devices are sized based on rated load, and are not sized based on fault-condition load. The requirement should be that, under fault conditions, the device is capable of withstanding the fault until the overcurrent device operates without igniting or otherwise causing a hazard. It can get hot; indeed, it can exceed rated temperature under the fault, and it can fail, but it should not ignite or otherwise cause a hazardous condition. A power cord is supposed to be sufficiently robust as to withstand the rigors of use. There are different degrees of robustness according to use. In other words, the power cord itself is not expected to fail under normal conditions of use. So, the power cord should only be subject to load faults. Since the load is protected against faults, the fault-protection in the load also provides fault-protection for the power cord. 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: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net 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: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server. --- 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: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net 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: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
RE: Shrunk-die power MOSFET's and compliance
Well for example, I have just finished specifying what compliance re-testing I am going to need to do on 4 different products whose power conversion stages use IRF630's, IRF740's, IRF840's, and RFP50N06's, but the list goes on and on. If you are using power FET's in power electronics, chances are they have changed or will soon. The main manufacturers that come to mind are IR, Fairchild/Harris, Philips, and STM-Thomson. Not all have forced changes to the shrunk-die version - some have agreed to keep the old style available - and all have at least added a suffix to their markings on the devices so you can tell if it's the new revision die or old. In one case, however, we received modified parts with no markings differentiating them from the old rev parts, for almost a year with no communication from the mfr telling us about the change. We found out through other channels and then contacted them. They seem to be behaving as if fundamental changes to the performance and specifications of the part are none of our business. I am re-doing radiated and conducted emissions, some thermal testing, and a bunch of functional testing and looking at waveforms on 4 different products affected by this change. Those are only the products I am responsible for - as a company we're doing functional testing and possibly compliance re-testing on many more products. This is not a simple component substitution exercise, if your products are or use power electronics! I would advise everyone potentially affected to have your procurement department look into this. Regards, Jim Eichner, P.Eng. Manager, Engineering Services Xantrex Technology Inc. Mobile Power web: www.xantrex.com http://www.xantrex.com Any opinions expressed are those of my invisible friend, who really exists. Honest. -Original Message- From: Michael Mertinooke [mailto:mertino...@skyskan.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2001 6:45 AM To: 'Jim Eichner' Subject: RE: Shrunk-die power MOSFET's and compliance Jim; I suspect that a lot of us just don't have time to investigate the latest subtleties involved in producing a new chip design sold under an old component part number. We order by manufacturer part number and when the order comes in we count the pieces and throw it in the stockroom. If there are reliability problems, most companies take a month or so for the news to get back from Field Service. Then the issue goes to Manufacturing because we know the design worked perfectly for X years, so Manufacturing must have built 'em wrong, or the PC house had a bad batch of boards or somebody screwed up the wave solder machine again or the stockroom was sweeping parts off the floor and dumping them back in the bins ... or a hundred other cockups that happen every day. By the time somebody finally figures out that the FETs are not performing as they should, it could be a year after the parts first hit the receiving dock. Instead of a general reference, perhaps you can provide a few part numbers? If I see such a list and my FETs are on it, then I sure as hell am going to look into it immediately! Thanks. Mike Mertinooke --- 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: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net 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: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
RE: Insulated Electrolytic Capacitors
I asked a similar question a couple of years ago, and was told that the bodies of plastic encapsulated Y1 capacitors are considered by CENELEC to be reinforced insulation, except in the vicinity of the leads. I don't know if this extends to types of X and Y caps other than Y1. Hope this is some help, Regards, Jim Eichner, P.Eng. Manager, Engineering Services Xantrex Technology Inc. Mobile Power web: www.xantrex.com http://www.xantrex.com Any opinions expressed are those of my invisible friend, who really exists. I know because he talks to me. Honest. -Original Message- From: Peter Merguerian [mailto:pmerguer...@itl.co.il] Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2001 6:38 AM To: EMC-PSTC (E-mail) Subject: Insulated Electrolytic Capacitors Dear All, I have submitted an ac input to dc output switching power supply for NRTL approval. One deviation is that the primary ac insulated capacitor is too close to the earthed chassis and that the insulation cannot be relied to provide the required basic insulation. 1. What is the group's opinion regarding this point? I have personally seen many Listed/Recognized units with clearance distance less than 2.0 mm to the earthed chassis without any additional insulation to provide the required insulation. In fact, I am holding a switching power supply by a reputable manufacturer with only approx. 0.7 mm between the primary and earthed chassis. This power supply is UL Recognized and TUV approved. 2. There is a UL Pag 156002 regarding this issue, but it seems that some NRTL engineers are using their own judgement and approving units at their own discretion. This e-mail message may contain privileged or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not disclose, use, disseminate, distribute, copy or rely upon this message or attachment in any way. If you received this e-mail message in error, please return by forwarding the message and its attachments to the sender. PETER S. MERGUERIAN Technical Director I.T.L. (Product Testing) Ltd. 26 Hacharoshet St., POB 211 Or Yehuda 60251, Israel Tel: + 972-(0)3-5339022 Fax: + 972-(0)3-5339019 Mobile: + 972-(0)54-838175 --- 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: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net 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: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server. --- 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: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net 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: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
