Creepage and Clearance
Dear Group, I have to compare the CC distances between EN 60950 and EN 60335. Not being one who likes re-inventing the wheel, I would like to ask if anyone has already done this work, and is willing to share the results with me? Many thanks in advance, Carlos A J Perkins Compliance Manager MEI Eskdale Rd. Winnersh Triangle Wokingham, Berks, RG41 5AQ UK Mobile: 07818 456961 Tel : +44 (0) 118-944-6461 Fax : +44 (0) 118-944-6412 Email : carlos.perk...@eu.effem.com www.meiglobal.com - --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
Re: Technical Construction File
A small addition to Nick's excellent summary of the Routes to Compliance: The TCF route can also be used when Harmonised Standards exist, but the manufacturer chooses not to (or can't) use all (or any) of them. Cheers, Carlos A J Perkins Compliance Manager MEI Eskdale Rd. Winnersh Triangle Wokingham, Berks, RG41 5AQ UK Mobile: 07818 456961 Tel : +44 (0) 118-944-6461 Fax : +44 (0) 118-944-6412 Email : carlos.perk...@eu.effem.com www.meiglobal.com - Please respond to Nick Williams n...@conformance.co.uk To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org cc: (bcc: Carlos A. Perkins/WIN/Effem) From: Nick Williams n...@conformance.co.uk on 02/03/2000 11:58 Subject: Re: Technical Construction File There seems to be come confusion on the matter of technical files and technical construction files, and referring to the text of the CE mark directives, it's not difficult to see why since there is no consistency in the way in which the terms are used. My understanding is as follows. 1.With the exception of the EMC Directive, all CE mark directives require the Responsible Person to compile a file of documentation which demonstrates how the manufacturer justifies their claim of compliance with the requirements of the relevant directive. 2. This collection of documentation is known variously as a Technical File or a Technical Construction File. Except in the EMC Directive, these terms seem to be used interchangeably to mean the same thing. 3. There is no provision in any directive to require that the information relevant to compliance with one directive need be kept separate from that for any other and therefore in most cases a combined technical file which covers compliance with all directives (and lots of other information) makes sense from an organisational point of view. 4. Under the EMC Directive, a manufacturer has three options for compliance. These are the Standards route, the Technical Construction File route and the Type Approval route. 5. Under the Standards route, the manufacturer simply claims compliance with the requirements of the relevant harmonised standards, and thus with the requirements of the directives. While he would, in most cases, be foolish to do this without having some documentary evidence that tests have been completed and passed, this is not mandated under the Directive. 6. Under the Type Approval route, the manufacturer gives the product to a suitably qualified test house who test it and issue a certificate of compliance. This method of complying with the directive is primarily intended for communications (transmitting) apparatus and therefore the new RTTE Directive will have a major bearing on much equipment which has formerly followed this route. 7. The Technical Construction File (TCF) route to compliance with the EMC Directive is intended for use in those situations where the other two routes do not apply. This will be either because the apparatus is not transmitting apparatus, or because there are no appropriate harmonised standards. 8. Under the TCF route, the manufacturer creates a justification for a claim of compliance with the requirements of the EMC Directive based on such factors as the location and use of the equipment, the results of any tests which have been done and the requirements of any standards which are relevant, if only in part. 9. The key point about the EMC directive's TCF is that for it to be used as the basis of CE marking a product, the file must be submitted to a Competent Body (a term defined in the directive and distinct from a Notified Body) who must examine it and agree to the logic used to justify the claim of compliance. Thus, the TCF route to complying with the EMC directive is NOT a self-certification process. 10. To cloud the matter even further, there is a (complicated) provision within the Machinery Directive which allows for a manufacturer to involve a notified body in the creation and storage of the Technical File for certain machinery. This really only has relevance in the context of annex IV machines which require type approval (etc.). I don't know of any situation where such a provision has been applied, and it's a mystery to me and to several other people I have spoken to about this subject as to quite what the Commssion was thinking when it drafted this section of the directive. As I mentioned at the beginning, the EC have done us no favours in being muddled about the terminology they apply in the different directives, but it is important to understand that the TCF specified under the EMC Directive has a quite distinct and different legal status to the technical documentation requirements of the other directives. Hope that helps! Nick. --- This message
RE: EN 61000-4-2
Bill, We have found that stepping up through the test voltages can give misleading results. Our products are plastic cased, and they appear to 'charge' as the test voltages are applied. The result is a pass if 10kv (for example) is applied by stepping in 2kv steps, but a fail if 10kv is applied directly. Perhaps both methods should be used? Cheers, Carlos. Please respond to Jacowleff, Bill bjacowl...@vdo.com To: 'kim.boll.jen...@lasat.com' kim.boll.jen...@lasat.com, emc-p...@ieee.org cc: (bcc: Carlos A. Perkins/WIN/Effem) From: Jacowleff, Bill bjacowl...@vdo.com on 17/01/2000 13:42 Subject: RE: EN 61000-4-2 Dear Mr. Kim Boll Jensen: Well the answer to your question is 10 discharges to each point per polarity. A few other things to consider. It is also important to step through the voltages and not skip any. Is your internal test procedure going to be used as a supporting test for a DOC or is it for a DV or PV? If it is a Design validation it is quite possible to want to exceed the specs per the standard, it all depends on what you expect to learn from this type of testing. The Design Validations I have composed for ESD have exceeded the standard specifications. Best Regards, Bill Jacowleff VDO Control Systems Airpax Instruments 150 Knotter Drive Cheshire, CT 06410 Phone: 203 271-6394 FAX:203 271-6200 bjacowl...@vdo.com -Original Message- From: kim.boll.jen...@lasat.com [mailto:kim.boll.jen...@lasat.com] Sent: Monday, January 17, 2000 5:41 AM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: EN 61000-4-2 Dear all I'm writing on a internal testprocedure for our products, and have now come to EN 61000-4-2 ESD. What confuse me is that the standard (as I read it) only refere to 10 discharges at each point (and each polarity), but I have been told from several different persons that the right number is 50 at each points (but without any reference to any standard). Do anynoe know what the right number is and where I can find it Best regards, Mr. Kim Boll Jensen i-data international Denmark - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
Re: Surge Test Performance Criterion
Jim, I agree with you, on the basis that in this case, a complete shut-down is a designed-in function of the product, and the standard says No degradation of performance or loss of function is allowed below a performance level specified by the manfucturer. You, as the manufacturer, are specifying this 'loss of function'. In my mind, all you have to do is make the end user aware that a shut-down will occur when a surge is detected, and you should be OK. Cheers, Carlos. Please respond to Jim Hulbert hulbe...@pb.com To: emc-p...@ieee.org cc: (bcc: Carlos A. Perkins/WIN/Effem) From: Jim Hulbert hulbe...@pb.com on 12/01/2000 20:08 Subject: Surge Test Performance Criterion A product has a switched mode power supply with a current sensing circuit that causes the supply to shut down when a surge pulse is applied to the AC mains in accordance with EN61000-4-5/IEC1000-4-5. After about 10 minutes, the supply can be turned back on and normal operation of the product can be resumed by the operator. Does this product conform to criterion B of the EN 50082-1 or EN 55024 standards? I believe it does because the sensing circuit is specifically designed to protect the product against this kind of voltage/current surge and the product operation is fully recoverable by the operator afterward. However, I would like to hear how others who do this testing would interpret this. Jim Hulbert Senior Engineer - EMC Pitney Bowes - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
Piezo lighters
Dear All, Does anyone out there know what the peak voltage of a handheld piezo gas lighter is? Or how to measure it? Any tips would be very welcome. Many thanks, Carlos. - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
Mexican Question
Hello Chaps, We are making a batch of test boxes that will be used during the development of our main products. They will be CE marked (of course). Some will be sent to our factory in Mexico. Now, the question is, do these test boxes need to go through the NOM approvals process? They will only be used at our factory, they will not be sold or supplied to customers. Please let me have your views. Carlos Perkins MEI - UK - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
80/80 rule
C'mon Group, There must be more than one of you doing series production testing? I am struggling to find hard data relating to the percentage of products tested per batch, and the frequency of testing in accordance with Section 7 of EN 55022. Is there anyone out there with a Gameplan? Cheers, Carlos. - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
EMC and Safety Requirements for Mexico
Hello Group, Can anyone tell me if CE marking of electrical and electronic products is acceptable to the Mexican authorities? What tests in addition to the ENs would be necessary? Many thanks. Carlos Perkins. - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
80/80 - Doing the Work!
Dear All, I would like to hear from anyone who is carrying out production line EMC testing. I am particulary interested in your experiences with 1. Results spread, ie how many dBs variation between one sample and the next, 2. Number of samples tested as a percentage of total production volume, 3. Frequency (number of times per year, not MHz) of testing, 4. Which tests you have decided to do, 5. Investment in test equipment and manpower necessary to do this testing, 6. What is done if you cannot meet the 80/80 criteria. I have knowledge of what some large manufacturers do for production testing, but I would like to poll the list members to get a concensus view across industry. I feel it is important to establish a kind of 'industry standard' for production testing, to bolster the 'Due Dilligence' defence. Please let me have your thoughts. Many thanks, Carlos Perkins Compliance Manager - MEI - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
GeldKarte Approval
Hello everyone, Does anyone out there have any experience with cashless approvals in Germany? We have a product that may (or may not) need GeldKarte approval for use in the German market. All the specifications I have been able to get are in German, and the translations do not make it clear if we need approval or not. Help! Many thanks, Carlos Perkins Compliance Manager - MEI - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
Equipment designed and manufactured for use in-house
Dear All, A question from UK: Does anyone have a strategy for handling the Low Voltage and EMC Directive requirements relating to equipment made for use in-house? By this, I mean test boxes, power supplies, break-out boxes, etc. These products are not meant to be offered for sale (ie not 'placed on the market'), but have been 'taken into service' by being switched on and used. I think, therefore, that the protection requirements of the Directives must be met, but CE marking is not necessary. In terms of Safety, I think EN 60950 and EN 61010-1 are relevant. Does anyone have a view on this? Cheers, Carlos Perkins - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
