Re: Harmonics -- WSJ opinion.

[John Woodgate]

<4203d61676d0ae468aa5cea90a891c13235...@cof110avexu4.global.avaya.com>,
Wagner, John P  inimitably wrote:
>The European harmonics standard IEC 61000-3-2, and I call it European 
>because that is exactly what it is,

Indeed, that's because (and it is a matter of record) that the US
experts appointed to IEC SC77A/WG1 were conspicuous by their absence
from most of the WG meetings.

But WHY rake up these old issues? It's quite different now. WG1 has
active members from USA, Canada and Mexico, and Japan, and a *majority*
of equipment manufacturer experts, not supply industry experts.

> is directed at protecting the public low 
>voltage distribution system.  All of these problems we have heard cited 
> are 
>those situations arising within facilities, NOT on the public distribution 
>system.
>
>It is the power generating and transmission folks who drove this standard 
>and largely ignored input of others.  I make this comment based on 
>considerable personal involvement since TC77A(Secr)36. 

Well, that would really be 'SC77A(Sec)36', a document about 20 years
old? I don't find your name on SC77A WG membership lists. No doubt you
are active at national level.
>
We now KNOW why your experience in USA is different from that in Europe.
There's no mystery about it: it's inherent in the differences in the
distribution systems. It's a pity we didn't have that data 20 years ago.

SC77A/WG1 is working on a complete revision of IEC61000-3-2, which will
take into account the effects of different distribution systems, now
that relevant data is available. It is likely that the standard will
have several different sets of requirements, according to where
equipment will be used. While that doesn't necessarily allow 'one
product for all the world', at least the requirements will be
technically justified.  Cars, after all, are not the same every where.
-- 
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. Phone +44 (0)1268 747839
Fax +44 (0)1268 777124. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Foxhunters suffer from 
tallyhosis. PLEASE do not mail copies of newsgroup posts to me.

---
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:
http://www.rcic.com/  click on "Virtual Conference Hall,"

RE: Harmonics -- WSJ opinion.

[Wagner, John P]

I have been watching and reading this thread -- having spent nearly 15
years dealing with the harminics issue in ITE and in general.

There are many anecdotes out there about hte effect of harmonic currents
on the electric supply.  The on you cite is common.  Distribution to
cubicle areas was typically 3 phase with a common neutral.  Triplen
harmonics created high neutral current which overheated the electric
connectors in the cubicle which led to the fires.

As this developed, office partition manufacturers consulted with the
Power Interface subcommittee of ITI, then CBEMA and shortly thereafter
the problem was solved with larger neutrals or double neutrals and more
robust connectors.

Problems concerning harmonic currents in this country were solved by
education.  CBEMA wrote articles which wer picked up by trade
publlications, sponsored, supported nd contributed to educational
seminars such as those at the University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee.  Most
of the issues concerning harmonics are no longer issues, now that we
understand harmonics are present, how to measure them and how to manage
installations in their presence.

The European harmonics standard IEC 61000-3-2, and I call it European
because that is exactly what it is, is directed at protecting the public
low voltage distribution system.  All of these problems we have heard
cited are those situations arising within facilities, NOT on the public
distribution system.

It is the power generating and transmission folks who drove this
standard and largely ignored input of others.  I make this comment based
on considerable personal involvement since TC77A(Secr)36. 
John P. Wagner
AVAYA Communication
1300 W. 120th Ave, Room B3-D16
Phone/Fax: (303) 538-4241
johnwag...@avaya.com




> --
> From: Gary McInturff[SMTP:gary.mcintu...@worldwidepackets.com]
> Reply To: Gary McInturff
> Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2001 8:55 AM
> To:   'John Juhasz'; 'Rich Nute'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
> Subject:  RE: Harmonics -- WSJ opinion.
> 
> Years ago when switch mode power supplies were really first being
> introduced, we had a number of them installed in cubicles in a new
> building. We were the first occupants. We started having a rash of
> fires that were starting in the outlet receptacles in the cubicles.
> The building management teams went looking for the causes and we found
> no imbalance in the power distribution etc. The world looked good to
> them. Still the fires continued (quickly extinguished at the source
> mind you so they never spread) but it was observed that those offices
> that were have a problem all had the equipment with the switch mode
> supplies, and we quickly shuffled those around and the fires quit.
> Neither the building engineers or we  EE's had any clue about
> harmonics on problems with these so that wasn't looked at and I can't
> say for certain that was the reason, but after shifting the load of
> the switch mode supplies around on different branch circuits the
> problem stopped. So I certainly have my suspicions.
> Gary
> 
>   -Original Message[Gary McInturff] ut  -
>   From: John Juhasz [mailto:jjuh...@fiberoptions.com]
>       Sent: Monday, February 26, 2001 10:37 AM
>   To: 'Rich Nute'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
>   Subject: RE: Harmonics -- WSJ opinion.
> 
> 
> 
>   Rich, 
> 
>   I would think that you knew that this would generate discussion?
> 
> 
>   One comment of Mr Hunter's that stood out in particular was the
> very last . . . 
>   " . . . the only ones who benefit from the harmonic current
> emission standard 
>   are the European electricity distributors.  They "avoid 
>   investments in bolstering their networks against the 
>   theoretical harmonics risk" at the cost of manufacturers 
>   and consumers." 
> 
>   I would say that this senitment has been echoed by many
> compliance engineers. 
>   But the comment is 'non-technical' . . . can anyone in this
> forum offer 
>   any 'technical' arguments that would a)Back-up such a statement
> as 
>   Mr. Hunter's or b) FAVOR the harmonic standard? 
> 
>   I like to give the benefit of the doubt that the standard was
> created based 
>   on sound technical evidence. 
> 
>   John Juhasz 
>   Fiber Options 
>   Bohemia, NY 
> 
>   -Original Message- 
>   From: Rich Nute [ <mailto:ri...@sdd.hp.com>] 
>   Sent: Monday, February 26, 2001 12:11 PM 
>   To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org 
>   Subject: Harmonics -- WSJ opinion. 
> 
> 
>   With thanks to Ed Jones... 
> 
>   On Thusday, February 22, The Wall 

Re: Harmonics -- WSJ opinion.

[John Woodgate]

,
Edward Jones  inimitably wrote:
>
>John, in response to your attached thread you may want to review some of
>the field surveys that are available from the Low Frequency Emissions
>Industry Coalition (LFEIC) @
>http://www.eiafoundation.org/eng/lfeic/docpublic/default.htm.

I expect they refer to US conditions. We now know why harmonics create
far fewer problems in USA than in Europe. I mentioned some of them in
another message on this group.
-- 
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. Phone +44 (0)1268 747839
Fax +44 (0)1268 777124. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Foxhunters suffer from 
tallyhosis. PLEASE do not mail copies of newsgroup posts to me.

---
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:
http://www.rcic.com/  click on "Virtual Conference Hall,"

Re: Harmonics -- WSJ opinion.

[John Woodgate]

<200102271645.iaa00...@epgc196.sdd.hp.com>, Rich Nute 
inimitably wrote:

>>   >Of course, no one has shown that unacceptable
>>   >overheating will actually occur. 
>>   
>>   Do you have any more such gems to contribute? What do you think happens
>>   to the total current through a capacitor when the applied voltage
>>   contains harmonics? What happens to the I^2R loss and the dielectric
>>   loss? What happens to hysteresis loss in motors and transformers?
>
>My assertion is based on the original reason for the 
>harmonic current emission standard, not the general
>case for problems caused by harmonic currents.  I
>apologize for writing in such a way as to confuse the 
>general case of overheating due to harmonic currents
>with the specific case of overheating in distribution 
>transformers.
>
>My recollection of the original reason for the 
>harmonic current standard was to prevent overheating
>of distribution transformers on the public power
>network.

I have not heard that explanation put forward since 1991 by any
electricity supply industry (ESI) expert on the IEC or the BSI
committee. It is also not mentioned in the original rationale, Annex A
to IEC 77A/164/CD (committee document, not in the public domain). But
there must be increased hysteresis loss. 
>
>Perhaps you can correct this recollection.  If this
>is not correct, then kindly disregard the following
>remarks.  
>
>Based on my probably incorrect recollection, my 
>assertion is that no distribution transformer in the 
>public power network has failed due to harmonic 
>current.

I strongly suspect that that is not true in UK. There were many failures
(some explosive) due to d.c. in the windings before we stopped using
half-wave rectifiers in TV sets. I don't know about the situation from
1970 onwards: there have been failures but no specific cases undoubtedly
due to harmonics have been cited by our ESI experts.
>
>I further recall that such failures were a prediction
>based on the expected proliferation of products with 
>full-wave rectifiers, especially SMPS.  The electric 
>power distribution representatives to the committee 
>predicted massive distribution transformer failures 
>due to harmonic currents by the year 2000 or 
>thereabouts.  Therefore, the committee operated with 
>a high sense of urgency.
>
>Perhaps you can correct me on this recollection.

You are correct, I think, about that, and I have said previously that
the early predictions were pessimistic. Nevertheless, here I have about
3.5% voltage waveform distortion, in a residential area, which is more
than I would like. 

The ESI has also been working under a threat from the Commission to
impose 'quality of supply' requirements on it, since electricity is a
commodity that should have quality requirements (see EN50160). This has
made the industry VERY fearful of draconian fines being imposed for
outages, and harmonics can be one cause that is avoidable, unlike severe
weather.
>
>Can you tell us whether, at the time the work on the 
>standard was initiated, any such transformers had 
>indeed failed due to harmonic current overheating?
>Or, have any such transformers failed due to harmonic
>current since the work has been undertaken?
>
See above. But I don't think transformers are the big issue. In Europe,
the MV network tends to be resonant at about 250 Hz - the fifth
harmonic. The ESI has to be very careful that this does not result in
over-voltage, because if an MV network fails, a large area is affected.

The design of the European distribution networks makes them far less
tolerant of harmonic currents that either the US or Japanese networks.
This has only quite recently been demonstrated to the IEC committee: the
evidence from outside Europe was not submitted previously.

Capacitors and motors are the other things that are said to be
particularly vulnerable.
-- 
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. Phone +44 (0)1268 747839
Fax +44 (0)1268 777124. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Foxhunters suffer from 
tallyhosis. PLEASE do not mail copies of newsgroup posts to me.

---
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:
http://www.rcic.com/  click on "Virtual Conference Hall,"

RE: Harmonics -- WSJ opinion.

[Edward Jones]

John, in response to your attached thread you may want to review some of
the field surveys that are available from the Low Frequency Emissions
Industry Coalition (LFEIC) @
http://www.eiafoundation.org/eng/lfeic/docpublic/default.htm.

Regards.
---
 Ed Jones
 IBM Corporation
 Somers N.Y.
-- Forwarded by Edward Jones/Somers/IBM on 02/27/2001
02:12 PM ---

John Juhasz @ieee.org on 02/26/2001 01:36:30 PM

Please respond to John Juhasz 

Sent by:  owner-emc-p...@ieee.org


To:   "'Rich Nute'" , emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
cc:
Subject:  RE: Harmonics -- WSJ opinion.





Rich,

I would think that you knew that this would generate discussion?

One comment of Mr Hunter's that stood out in particular was the very last .
. .
" . . . the only ones who benefit from the harmonic current emission
standard
are the European electricity distributors.  They "avoid
investments in bolstering their networks against the
theoretical harmonics risk" at the cost of manufacturers
and consumers."

I would say that this senitment has been echoed by many compliance
engineers.
But the comment is 'non-technical' . . . can anyone in this forum offer
any 'technical' arguments that would a)Back-up such a statement as
Mr. Hunter's or b) FAVOR the harmonic standard?

I like to give the benefit of the doubt that the standard was created based
on sound technical evidence.

John Juhasz
Fiber Options
Bohemia, NY

-Original Message-
From: Rich Nute [mailto:ri...@sdd.hp.com]
Sent: Monday, February 26, 2001 12:11 PM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Harmonics -- WSJ opinion.

With thanks to Ed Jones...

On Thusday, February 22, The Wall Street Journal Europe
published an interesting opinion on the harmonic current
emissions standard.

The opinion is by Rob Hunter, a lawyer and Chairman of
the Centre for the New Europe, a Brussels-based think
tank.

Mr. Hunter is quite critical of the EU "New Approach"
process.  He says:

    "In this procedure, the EU sets vague safety and
    technical rules for everything from toys to super-
    computers -- for example, toys shall be 'safe.'  The
    EU then delegates to private standardization bodies
    the drafting of detailed requirements explaining
    what the delphic rules mean."

    "The supposed advantage of this New Approach is
    twofold.  For industry, it gets to write the detailed
    rules applying to it.  For the Commission, the New
    Approach frees it from a burdenom task; it also
    allows the Commission to claim that it has nothing to
    do with writing the standards, and hence cannot be
    held responsible."

    "All this sounds quite above-board.  It isn't."

    "For one thing, the standards are not merelay a means
    of proving compliance with the underlying legislation.
    They actually determine the meaning of the law itself."

Mr. Hunter discusses "...the way these standard-setting
bodies can be gamed by industry insiders for advantage."

Mr. Hunter goes on to show how the New Approach process
allows the Commission to sidestep "...WTO laws prohibiting
'mandatory' product measures that create 'unnecessary
obstacles' to international trade."

Mr. Hunter's opinion goes on to show that the only ones
who benefit from the harmonic current emission standard
are the European electricity distributors.  They "avoid
investments in bolstering their networks against the
theoretical harmonics risk" at the cost of manufacturers
and consumers.

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 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://www.rcic.com/  click on "Virtual Conference Hall,"





---
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 quest

Re: Harmonics -- WSJ opinion.

[Rich Nute]

Hi John:


>   >Of course, no one has shown that unacceptable
>   >overheating will actually occur. 
>   
>   Do you have any more such gems to contribute? What do you think happens
>   to the total current through a capacitor when the applied voltage
>   contains harmonics? What happens to the I^2R loss and the dielectric
>   loss? What happens to hysteresis loss in motors and transformers?

My assertion is based on the original reason for the 
harmonic current emission standard, not the general
case for problems caused by harmonic currents.  I
apologize for writing in such a way as to confuse the 
general case of overheating due to harmonic currents
with the specific case of overheating in distribution 
transformers.

My recollection of the original reason for the 
harmonic current standard was to prevent overheating
of distribution transformers on the public power
network.

Perhaps you can correct this recollection.  If this
is not correct, then kindly disregard the following
remarks.  

Based on my probably incorrect recollection, my 
assertion is that no distribution transformer in the 
public power network has failed due to harmonic 
current.

I further recall that such failures were a prediction
based on the expected proliferation of products with 
full-wave rectifiers, especially SMPS.  The electric 
power distribution representatives to the committee 
predicted massive distribution transformer failures 
due to harmonic currents by the year 2000 or 
thereabouts.  Therefore, the committee operated with 
a high sense of urgency.

Perhaps you can correct me on this recollection.

Can you tell us whether, at the time the work on the 
standard was initiated, any such transformers had 
indeed failed due to harmonic current overheating?
Or, have any such transformers failed due to harmonic
current since the work has been undertaken?


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:
http://www.rcic.com/  click on "Virtual Conference Hall,"

Re: Harmonics -- WSJ opinion.

[Robert Johnson]

Years ago Digital Equipment Corporation had problems with power 
distribution in office module systems. As I recall, it was a combination 
of phase balancing of loads and harmonic currents in the neutral. A 
module system which distributed three phase 5 wire power and indicated 
the phase connection with a number on each receptacle was designed 
specifically for DEC by the module manufacturer and later put on the 
general market. I don't know who made the system and couldn't tell you 
how to contact anyone involved.


I was also aware of  some transformers at DEC which were damaged by 
third harmonic currents. A periodic maintenance inspection program was 
put in place to monitor transformer delta and phase currents. They also 
did periodic thermal imaging of circuit breaker panels as part of this 
program, but I don't believe that was due to harmonic currents.
My first experience with third harmonics was with mercury vapor lighting 
fixtures which were connected phase to phase. High currents circulating 
in the delta connected load overheated the ballast windings.
One way of protecting transformers (and neutral wiring) from odd 
harmonic currents  is to use four pole breakers, with the fourth pole in 
series with the delta, or in the neutral of the wye.



Gary McInturff wrote:

Years ago when switch mode power supplies were really first being 
introduced, we had a number of them installed in cubicles in a new 
building. We were the first occupants. We started having a rash of 
fires that were starting in the outlet receptacles in the cubicles. 
The building management teams went looking for the causes and we found 
no imbalance in the power distribution etc. The world looked good to 
them. Still the fires continued (quickly extinguished at the source 
mind you so they never spread) but it was observed that those offices 
that were have a problem all had the equipment with the switch mode 
supplies, and we quickly shuffled those around and the fires 
quit. Neither the building engineers or we  EE's had any clue about 
harmonics on problems with these so that wasn't looked at and I can't 
say for certain that was the reason, but after shifting the load of 
the switch mode supplies around on different branch circuits the 
problem stopped. So I certainly have my suspicions.


Gary

-Original Message[Gary McInturff] ut  -
From: John Juhasz [mailto:jjuh...@fiberoptions.com]
Sent: Monday, February 26, 2001 10:37 AM
To: 'Rich Nute'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
    Subject: RE: Harmonics -- WSJ opinion.

Rich,

I would think that you knew that this would generate discussion?

One comment of Mr Hunter's that stood out in particular was the 
very last . . .
" . . . the only ones who benefit from the harmonic current 
emission standard

are the European electricity distributors.  They "avoid
investments in bolstering their networks against the
theoretical harmonics risk" at the cost of manufacturers
and consumers."

I would say that this senitment has been echoed by many compliance 
engineers.
But the comment is 'non-technical' . . . can anyone in this forum 
offer

any 'technical' arguments that would a)Back-up such a statement as
Mr. Hunter's or b) FAVOR the harmonic standard?

I like to give the benefit of the doubt that the standard was 
created based

on sound technical evidence.

John Juhasz

Fiber Options
Bohemia, NY

-Original Message-

From: Rich Nute [mailto:ri...@sdd.hp.com]
Sent: Monday, February 26, 2001 12:11 PM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Harmonics -- WSJ opinion.


With thanks to Ed Jones...

On Thusday, February 22, The Wall Street Journal Europe

published an interesting opinion on the harmonic current
emissions standard.

The opinion is by Rob Hunter, a lawyer and Chairman of

the Centre for the New Europe, a Brussels-based think
tank.

Mr. Hunter is quite critical of the EU "New Approach"

process.  He says:

"In this procedure, the EU sets vague safety and

technical rules for everything from toys to super-
computers -- for example, toys shall be 'safe.'  The
EU then delegates to private standardization bodies
the drafting of detailed requirements explaining
what the delphic rules mean."

"The supposed advantage of this New Approach is

twofold.  For industry, it gets to write the detailed
rules applying to it.  For the Commission, the New
Approach frees it from a burdenom task; it also
allows the Commission to claim that it has nothing to
do with writing the standards, and hence cannot be
held responsible."

RE: Harmonics -- WSJ opinion.

[Gary McInturff]

Years ago when switch mode power supplies were really first being
introduced, we had a number of them installed in cubicles in a new building.
We were the first occupants. We started having a rash of fires that were
starting in the outlet receptacles in the cubicles. The building management
teams went looking for the causes and we found no imbalance in the power
distribution etc. The world looked good to them. Still the fires continued
(quickly extinguished at the source mind you so they never spread) but it
was observed that those offices that were have a problem all had the
equipment with the switch mode supplies, and we quickly shuffled those
around and the fires quit. Neither the building engineers or we  EE's had
any clue about harmonics on problems with these so that wasn't looked at and
I can't say for certain that was the reason, but after shifting the load of
the switch mode supplies around on different branch circuits the problem
stopped. So I certainly have my suspicions.
Gary

-Original Message[Gary McInturff] ut  -
From: John Juhasz [mailto:jjuh...@fiberoptions.com]
Sent: Monday, February 26, 2001 10:37 AM
To: 'Rich Nute'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: Harmonics -- WSJ opinion.



Rich, 

I would think that you knew that this would generate discussion? 

One comment of Mr Hunter's that stood out in particular was the very last .
. . 
" . . . the only ones who benefit from the harmonic current emission
standard 
are the European electricity distributors.  They "avoid 
investments in bolstering their networks against the 
theoretical harmonics risk" at the cost of manufacturers 
and consumers." 

I would say that this senitment has been echoed by many compliance
engineers. 
But the comment is 'non-technical' . . . can anyone in this forum offer 
any 'technical' arguments that would a)Back-up such a statement as 
Mr. Hunter's or b) FAVOR the harmonic standard? 

I like to give the benefit of the doubt that the standard was created based 
on sound technical evidence. 

John Juhasz 
Fiber Options 
Bohemia, NY 

-Original Message- 
From: Rich Nute [ mailto:ri...@sdd.hp.com <mailto:ri...@sdd.hp.com> ] 
Sent: Monday, February 26, 2001 12:11 PM 
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org 
Subject: Harmonics -- WSJ opinion. 


With thanks to Ed Jones... 

On Thusday, February 22, The Wall Street Journal Europe 
published an interesting opinion on the harmonic current 
emissions standard. 

The opinion is by Rob Hunter, a lawyer and Chairman of 
the Centre for the New Europe, a Brussels-based think 
tank. 

Mr. Hunter is quite critical of the EU "New Approach" 
process.  He says: 

"In this procedure, the EU sets vague safety and 
technical rules for everything from toys to super- 
computers -- for example, toys shall be 'safe.'  The 
EU then delegates to private standardization bodies 
the drafting of detailed requirements explaining 
what the delphic rules mean." 

"The supposed advantage of this New Approach is 
twofold.  For industry, it gets to write the detailed 
rules applying to it.  For the Commission, the New 
Approach frees it from a burdenom task; it also 
allows the Commission to claim that it has nothing to 
do with writing the standards, and hence cannot be 
held responsible." 

"All this sounds quite above-board.  It isn't." 

"For one thing, the standards are not merelay a means 
of proving compliance with the underlying legislation. 
They actually determine the meaning of the law itself." 

Mr. Hunter discusses "...the way these standard-setting 
bodies can be gamed by industry insiders for advantage." 

Mr. Hunter goes on to show how the New Approach process 
allows the Commission to sidestep "...WTO laws prohibiting 
'mandatory' product measures that create 'unnecessary 
obstacles' to international trade." 

Mr. Hunter's opinion goes on to show that the only ones 
who benefit from the harmonic current emission standard 
are the European electricity distributors.  They "avoid 
investments in bolstering their networks against the 
theoretical harmonics risk" at the cost of manufacturers 
and consumers. 


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/
<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

Re: Harmonics -- WSJ opinion.

[John Woodgate]

<200102262030.maa28...@epgc196.sdd.hp.com>, Rich Nute 
wrote:
>Of course, no one has shown that unacceptable
>overheating will actually occur. 

Do you have any more such gems to contribute? What do you think happens
to the total current through a capacitor when the applied voltage
contains harmonics? What happens to the I^2R loss and the dielectric
loss? What happens to hysteresis loss in motors and transformers?
-- 
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. Phone +44 (0)1268 747839
Fax +44 (0)1268 777124. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Foxhunters suffer from 
tallyhosis. PLEASE do not mail copies of newsgroup posts to me.

---
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:
http://www.rcic.com/  click on "Virtual Conference Hall,"

Re: Harmonics -- WSJ opinion.

[John Woodgate]

, John Juhasz
 wrote:
>I like to give the benefit of the doubt that the standard was created 
> based 
>on sound technical evidence. 

It was based on INADEQUATE technical evidence, but not on NO technical
evidence. Also involved was a prediction of how the demonstrated rise in
harmonics over the decade 1978-1988 would continue in the future. That
prediction seems to have been pessimistic, not because the harmonics
currents of distorting loads are less in proportion to the fundamental,
but because the fundamental has decreased due to design improvements and
'green' pressures.

I lead an IEC group which is producing an IEC Report on the subject
(future IEC61000-1-4).
-- 
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. Phone +44 (0)1268 747839
Fax +44 (0)1268 777124. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Foxhunters suffer from 
tallyhosis. PLEASE do not mail copies of newsgroup posts to me.

---
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:
http://www.rcic.com/  click on "Virtual Conference Hall,"

Re: Harmonics -- WSJ opinion.

[John Woodgate]

<200102261711.jaa27...@epgc196.sdd.hp.com>, Rich Nute 
wrote:
>
>
>
>
>With thanks to Ed Jones...
>
>On Thusday, February 22, The Wall Street Journal Europe
>published an interesting opinion on the harmonic current
>emissions standard.
>
>The opinion is by Rob Hunter, a lawyer and Chairman of
>the Centre for the New Europe, a Brussels-based think 
>tank.

I think I may know a bit about the harmonics emission standard, since I
helped to write the latest big amendment, after ten years of agitating
for the need for amendment, and I am helping to write the next complete
revision. This amendment was developed *internationally*, with a US
expert from the computer and measuring instrument manufacturing sector
leading the work. For purely procedural reasons, it has been published
in CENELEC before being published by the IEC.

For the avoidance of doubt, I am sponsored for this work by a trade
association of manufacturers of professional audio and lighting
equipment.
>
>Mr. Hunter is quite critical of the EU "New Approach"
>process.  He says:
>
>"In this procedure, the EU sets vague safety and
>technical rules for everything from toys to super-
>computers -- for example, toys shall be 'safe.'  The
>EU then delegates to private standardization bodies

CEN and CENELEC are NOT 'private bodies'. ETSI is a private body.

CEN and CENELEC adopt ISO and IEC International Standards unless special
circumstances in Europe prevent that. If that is so, regional
amendments, applying in all participating countries, are introduced. 

>the drafting of detailed requirements explaining 
>what the delphic rules mean."

They NEED to be 'vague' (I prefer 'generic') so that the detailed
technical requirements can be developed by people who understand the
technical issues without unreasonable legal constraints.
>
>"The supposed advantage of this New Approach is 
>twofold.  For industry, it gets to write the detailed
>rules applying to it.  For the Commission, the New
>Approach frees it from a burdenom task; it also 
>allows the Commission to claim that it has nothing to 
>do with writing the standards, and hence cannot be 
>held responsible."

That is false. DGIII of the Commission decides which standards it will
accept as providing prima facie evidence of conformity with Directives.
It does NOT accept all the standards it's offered. The Commission
DEMANDS responsibility for determining which standards are 'notified' in
the OJEC as acceptable.
>
>"All this sounds quite above-board.  It isn't."
>
>"For one thing, the standards are not merelay a means
>of proving compliance with the underlying legislation.
>They actually determine the meaning of the law itself."

That is essentially true. The alternative is to include all the
technical requirements in the Directives themselves. That was tried and
proved impracticable. Any improvement or revision of the technical
requirements, to relax unnecessary restraints or to allow for new
technology, requires the LAW to be changed in 18 countries, which takes
YEARS.
>
>Mr. Hunter discusses "...the way these standard-setting
>bodies can be gamed by industry insiders for advantage."

This has happened, but it has been ALLOWED to happen through apathy by
industry sectors that SHOULD have participated in the standards-making
process. It can't happen if committees are properly representative.
>
>Mr. Hunter goes on to show how the New Approach process
>allows the Commission to sidestep "...WTO laws prohibiting
>'mandatory' product measures that create 'unnecessary 
>obstacles' to international trade."

They may be 'unnecessary' in his opinion: the reality may be different.
I don't think he is technically qualified to determine necessity.
>
>Mr. Hunter's opinion goes on to show that the only ones
>who benefit from the harmonic current emission standard
>are the European electricity distributors.  They "avoid
>investments in bolstering their networks against the
>theoretical harmonics risk" at the cost of manufacturers
>and consumers.
>
The risk is certainly NOT just theoretical. The failure mechanisms due
to harmonic currents are very well-understood, and are quite easy to
understand in most cases. 

Analysis of the economic issues, **internationally**, with full
participation by American interests, indicates that the lowest-cost
solution to the problems created by harmonic currents almost certainly
comprises equipment-level mitigation (as required by the EMC Directive),
site-level mitigation (as indicated in IEEE 519) and system-level
mitigation (as practised by the supply industry for around 50 years).

After several years of unproductive and very costly contention, the
international work on this subject is now becoming consensual. It is
very undesirable for old contentions to be dragged up by people who are
apparently authoritative but are woefully ill-informed.

We now KNOW why the major problem with harmonic currents in the Americas
is 

Re: Harmonics -- WSJ opinion.

[Rich Nute]

Hi John:


I must admit to several motives for posting my
message regarding the WSJ-E opinion article.

1.  I wanted our subscribers to know that the
issue rated comment in the WSJ-E, a high-
level, respected newspaper.

2.  I wanted our subscribers to know that the
technical arguments are bolstered by some
political arguments.

As for knowing that my posting would generate
further discussion... well, that is up to our
subscribers and whether they want to move from
the technical arena to the political arena!

As for your request for comment...

>   But the comment is 'non-technical' . . . can anyone in this forum offer 
>   any 'technical' arguments that would a)Back-up such a statement as 
>   Mr. Hunter's or b) FAVOR the harmonic standard? 

With respect to your first question (a) I 
believe you refer to Hunter's assertion that 
the European electricity distributors benefit
from the standard.  

I don't know that this statement is subject to
a technical argument.

With respect to your second question (b), the 
technical argument in favor of the standard is 
that triplen harmonic currents cause overheating 
of the primary of a delta-wye distribution 
transformer.  Therefore, some means must be 
provided to prevent such overheating.

There are several mechanisms for preventing such
overheating:

1.  Use a distribution transformer with a "k-
factor" rating.

2.  Use a trap (zig-zag transformer) between the
transformer and the load.

3.  Require linear loads.

There may be other mechanisms.  There is no 
technical argument for any one of the several 
mechanisms that prevent distribution
transformer overheating.  Each works.  

Pick one.  

It is probably best to "kill" the problem at
its source.  

On the other hand, it is likewise probably 
best if the electricity supplier can supply
power to any load rather than restrict the
loads to which he is willing to supply power.

Because all work, the choice is subject to
other criteria.  One major criterion is that 
of cost:  

   If you are an electricity supplier, you 
   would not be in favor of choices 1 and 2.

   If you are a product manufacturer, you
   would not be in favor of choice 3.

   If you are a consumer, you will pay for
   choices 1 and 2 through higher electric
   bills, and you will pay for choice 3
   through higher product cost.  No matter
   the choice, you pay forever, either 
   through higher electric bills or for 
   higher product costs.  If you buy lots
   of products on a continuing basis, your 
   cost may be higher than your long-term
   electric bills.  

Of course, no one has shown that unacceptable
overheating will actually occur.  Hence, 
Hunter uses the phrase "theoretical harmonics."


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:
http://www.rcic.com/  click on "Virtual Conference Hall,"

RE: Harmonics -- WSJ opinion.

[John Juhasz]

Rich, 

I would think that you knew that this would generate discussion? 

One comment of Mr Hunter's that stood out in particular was the very
last . . . 
" . . . the only ones who benefit from the harmonic current emission
standard 
are the European electricity distributors.  They "avoid 
investments in bolstering their networks against the 
theoretical harmonics risk" at the cost of manufacturers 
and consumers." 

I would say that this senitment has been echoed by many compliance
engineers. 
But the comment is 'non-technical' . . . can anyone in this forum offer 
any 'technical' arguments that would a)Back-up such a statement as 
Mr. Hunter's or b) FAVOR the harmonic standard? 

I like to give the benefit of the doubt that the standard was created
based 
on sound technical evidence. 

John Juhasz 
Fiber Options 
Bohemia, NY 

-Original Message- 
From: Rich Nute [ mailto:ri...@sdd.hp.com  ] 
Sent: Monday, February 26, 2001 12:11 PM 
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org 
Subject: Harmonics -- WSJ opinion. 


With thanks to Ed Jones... 

On Thusday, February 22, The Wall Street Journal Europe 
published an interesting opinion on the harmonic current 
emissions standard. 

The opinion is by Rob Hunter, a lawyer and Chairman of 
the Centre for the New Europe, a Brussels-based think 
tank. 

Mr. Hunter is quite critical of the EU "New Approach" 
process.  He says: 

"In this procedure, the EU sets vague safety and 
technical rules for everything from toys to super- 
computers -- for example, toys shall be 'safe.'  The 
EU then delegates to private standardization bodies 
the drafting of detailed requirements explaining 
what the delphic rules mean." 

"The supposed advantage of this New Approach is 
twofold.  For industry, it gets to write the detailed 
rules applying to it.  For the Commission, the New 
Approach frees it from a burdenom task; it also 
allows the Commission to claim that it has nothing to 
do with writing the standards, and hence cannot be 
held responsible." 

"All this sounds quite above-board.  It isn't." 

"For one thing, the standards are not merelay a means 
of proving compliance with the underlying legislation. 
They actually determine the meaning of the law itself." 

Mr. Hunter discusses "...the way these standard-setting 
bodies can be gamed by industry insiders for advantage." 

Mr. Hunter goes on to show how the New Approach process 
allows the Commission to sidestep "...WTO laws prohibiting 
'mandatory' product measures that create 'unnecessary 
obstacles' to international trade." 

Mr. Hunter's opinion goes on to show that the only ones 
who benefit from the harmonic current emission standard 
are the European electricity distributors.  They "avoid 
investments in bolstering their networks against the 
theoretical harmonics risk" at the cost of manufacturers 
and consumers. 


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: 
http://www.rcic.com/    click on "Virtual
Conference Hall,"