Re: [PSES] CAN/CSA C22.2 No. 62133-2:20 for CR 2032 Batteries?

[MIKE SHERMAN]

My professional experience with Amazon product safety people, maybe 5 years ago 
and before I retired, was frustrating.
 
One angle you might try: treat them like another product safety professional 
with whom you are networking. In this case, you might provide a link to the 
CAN/CSA C22.2 No. 62133-2:20 website and point out that the standard only 
applies to secondary cells. You might also provide a link to a site explaining 
what secondary cells are.
 
We all have helped educate one another over the years; we can continue that 
courtesy with our Amazon colleagues.
 
Mike Sherman
Sherman PSC LLC

> On 07/22/2024 1:58 PM CDT Ralph McDiarmid  wrote:
>  
>  
> 
> Unless Amazon has a regulatory department that has access to national 
> standards, this may be a simple checkbox for in-coming inspection.  In that 
> case, you might be stuck with the requirement regardless of CR2032 cell type. 
> 
>  
> 
> CAN/CSA C22.2 are part 2 national standards for Canada, not applicable in 
> other countries unless adopted.
> 
>  
> 
> Ralph
> 
>  
> 
> From: Ted Eckert <07cf6ebeab9d-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org>
> Sent: Monday, July 22, 2024 11:21 AM
> To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: Re: [PSES] CAN/CSA C22.2 No. 62133-2:20 for CR 2032 Batteries?
> 
>  
> 
> Hello John,
> 
>  
> 
> I believe that IEC 60086-4 is the applicable standard for primary 
> (non-rechargeable) lithium batteries, including coin cells. As others have 
> noted, IEC 62133-2 is for secondary (rechargeable) batteries.
> 
>  
> 
> Ted Eckert
> 
> The opinions expressed in this message are my own and do not necessarily 
> reflect those of my employer.
> 
> 
> -
> 
> From: John Riutta mailto:jriu...@celestron.com>
> Sent: Monday, July 22, 2024 10:31 AM
> To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG 
> mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [PSES] CAN/CSA C22.2 No. 62133-2:20 for CR 2032 Batteries?
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> You don't often get email from jriu...@celestron.com 
> mailto:jriu...@celestron.com. Learn why this is important 
> https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification
> 
>  
> 
> Hello all,
> 
>  
> 
> We’ve been seeing Amazon requiring CAN/CSA C22.2 No. 62133-2:20 for all 
> products that use or contain at time of sale a CR 2032 coin cell battery. I 
> was of the understanding that this standard did not apply to this battery. 
> Unfortunately, I do not possess a copy of the standard so I cannot verify 
> this myself. MayI ask if anyone here can offer verification or rebuttal 
> please?
> 
>  
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> John
> 
>  
> 
> John E. Riutta, MA, MBA, FLS I Product Development and Product Compliance 
> Manager I jriu...@celestron.com mailto:jriu...@celestron.com I 323.446.1076
> 
> CELESTRON, LLC. I 2835 Columbia Street I Torrance, CA 90503
> 
>  
> 
> [Logo  Description automatically generated] http://www.celestron.com/  [Icon  
> Description automatically generated] 
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.instagram.com_celestronuniverse=DwMFaQ=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM=x40qV4DM3u4JrqHl_FVpxdOqkHDBo3f6BvwvAwIWGH8=B6fIOBUaG50CeATRoPrGe3aQoHBGiKZFSBIu-ovu97c5RZhLW5JAVauCDQwYc3UQ=mp6OgNq_McWjXY2YQYjZ9Dk6_XzP1VPvIEe8C8zj56A=
>   [A close-up of a fire  Description automatically generated with low 
> confidence] 
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_Celestron=DwMFaQ=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM=x40qV4DM3u4JrqHl_FVpxdOqkHDBo3f6BvwvAwIWGH8=B6fIOBUaG50CeATRoPrGe3aQoHBGiKZFSBIu-ovu97c5RZhLW5JAVauCDQwYc3UQ=VPySibohtehHWHpC8d5rHDIovgyX-KLLxjtWSiblJGI=
>   [A picture containing text, clipart  Description automatically generated] 
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.facebook.com_celestron=DwMFaQ=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM=x40qV4DM3u4JrqHl_FVpxdOqkHDBo3f6BvwvAwIWGH8=B6fIOBUaG50CeATRoPrGe3aQoHBGiKZFSBIu-ovu97c5RZhLW5JAVauCDQwYc3UQ=mFMWx391BWGOZRSQd2VOWpQ8frezSjy2nYeDDPQcxtg=
>   [Icon  Description automatically generated] 
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.youtube.com_user_CelestronDotCom=DwMFaQ=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM=x40qV4DM3u4JrqHl_FVpxdOqkHDBo3f6BvwvAwIWGH8=B6fIOBUaG50CeATRoPrGe3aQoHBGiKZFSBIu-ovu97c5RZhLW5JAVauCDQwYc3UQ=ziJj_dfd_78luGSUUH4AfwmPyhD40fdDd46c8oL7bcc=
>   [Icon  Description automatically generated] 
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.linkedin.com_company_celestron-2Dllc-2D=DwMFaQ=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM=x40qV4DM3u4JrqHl_FVpxdOqkHDBo3f6BvwvAwIWGH8=B6fIOBUaG50CeATRoPrGe3aQoHBGiKZFSBIu-ovu97c5RZhLW5JAVauCDQwYc3UQ=dXknLUOcxSuYfVZ

Re: [PSES] CAN/CSA C22.2 No. 62133-2:20 for CR 2032 Batteries?

[Ralph McDiarmid]

Unless Amazon has a regulatory department that has access to national
standards, this may be a simple checkbox for in-coming inspection.  In that
case, you might be stuck with the requirement regardless of CR2032 cell
type.  

 

CAN/CSA C22.2 are part 2 national standards for Canada, not applicable in
other countries unless adopted.

 

Ralph

 

From: Ted Eckert <07cf6ebeab9d-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org> 
Sent: Monday, July 22, 2024 11:21 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] CAN/CSA C22.2 No. 62133-2:20 for CR 2032 Batteries?

 

Hello John,

 

I believe that IEC 60086-4 is the applicable standard for primary
(non-rechargeable) lithium batteries, including coin cells. As others have
noted, IEC 62133-2 is for secondary (rechargeable) batteries.

 

Ted Eckert

The opinions expressed in this message are my own and do not necessarily
reflect those of my employer.

  _  

From: John Riutta mailto:jriu...@celestron.com> >
Sent: Monday, July 22, 2024 10:31 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> >
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [PSES] CAN/CSA C22.2 No. 62133-2:20 for CR 2032
Batteries? 

 


You don't often get email from jriu...@celestron.com
<mailto:jriu...@celestron.com> . Learn why this is important
<https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification> 



Hello all,

 

We've been seeing Amazon requiring CAN/CSA C22.2 No. 62133-2:20 for all
products that use or contain at time of sale a CR 2032 coin cell battery. I
was of the understanding that this standard did not apply to this battery.
Unfortunately, I do not possess a copy of the standard so I cannot verify
this myself. MayI ask if anyone here can offer verification or rebuttal
please?

 

Best regards,

John

 

John E. Riutta, MA, MBA, FLS I Product Development and Product Compliance
Manager I  <mailto:jriu...@celestron.com> jriu...@celestron.com I
323.446.1076 

CELESTRON, LLC. I 2835 Columbia Street I Torrance, CA 90503

 

 <http://www.celestron.com/>
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.instagram.com_cele
stronuniverse=DwMFaQ=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM=x40qV
4DM3u4JrqHl_FVpxdOqkHDBo3f6BvwvAwIWGH8=B6fIOBUaG50CeATRoPrGe3aQoHBGiKZFSBI
u-ovu97c5RZhLW5JAVauCDQwYc3UQ=mp6OgNq_McWjXY2YQYjZ9Dk6_XzP1VPvIEe8C8zj56A&
e=>
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_Celestron;
d=DwMFaQ=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM=x40qV4DM3u4JrqHl_FV
pxdOqkHDBo3f6BvwvAwIWGH8=B6fIOBUaG50CeATRoPrGe3aQoHBGiKZFSBIu-ovu97c5RZhLW
5JAVauCDQwYc3UQ=VPySibohtehHWHpC8d5rHDIovgyX-KLLxjtWSiblJGI=>
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.facebook.com_celes
tron=DwMFaQ=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM=x40qV4DM3u4Jrq
Hl_FVpxdOqkHDBo3f6BvwvAwIWGH8=B6fIOBUaG50CeATRoPrGe3aQoHBGiKZFSBIu-ovu97c5
RZhLW5JAVauCDQwYc3UQ=mFMWx391BWGOZRSQd2VOWpQ8frezSjy2nYeDDPQcxtg=>
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.youtube.com_user_C
elestronDotCom=DwMFaQ=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM=x40q
V4DM3u4JrqHl_FVpxdOqkHDBo3f6BvwvAwIWGH8=B6fIOBUaG50CeATRoPrGe3aQoHBGiKZFSB
Iu-ovu97c5RZhLW5JAVauCDQwYc3UQ=ziJj_dfd_78luGSUUH4AfwmPyhD40fdDd46c8oL7bcc
=>
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.linkedin.com_compa
ny_celestron-2Dllc-2D=DwMFaQ=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM
=x40qV4DM3u4JrqHl_FVpxdOqkHDBo3f6BvwvAwIWGH8=B6fIOBUaG50CeATRoPrGe3aQoHB
GiKZFSBIu-ovu97c5RZhLW5JAVauCDQwYc3UQ=dXknLUOcxSuYfVZ7A71XexAkwNhfOYqmzp9H
ADpQfIk=> 

 

From: Ralph McDiarmid mailto:rmm.priv...@gmail.com>
> 
Sent: Friday, July 19, 2024 10:40 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> 
Subject: Re: [PSES] "Intelligent" Power Modules?

 

I stopped reading at the word "performances".  

 

 

Ralph

 

From: Douglas Powell mailto:doug...@gmail.com> > 
Sent: Friday, July 19, 2024 9:27 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> 
Subject: [PSES] "Intelligent" Power Modules?

 

So I just finished reading "1.2 kV/400 A SiC Source Turn-Off MOSFET
Intelligent Power Module" (https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/10574416
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__ieeexplore.ieee.org_do
cument_10574416=DwMFaQ=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM=x40
qV4DM3u4JrqHl_FVpxdOqkHDBo3f6BvwvAwIWGH8=a2CCo_J4V1NasdwIBe0EeqpUJTYCY_V6T
mg345FDzau0JquoopInoKrPLEhikCaN=_UxHI-pyQoHSCbqUQCVFvIEGK_7RUdJisvq72DPJL8
w=> )

 

The word "intelligent" in the title of the article piqued my interest.  So,
what's with the overuse of the term "intelligent" nowadays?  When I read the
article, I noticed that the word appeared only three times: once in the
title, once in the abstract, and once in the opening paragraph. The acronym
"IPM" appeared 31 times throughout.  I saw no ment

Re: [PSES] CAN/CSA C22.2 No. 62133-2:20 for CR 2032 Batteries?

[Ted Eckert]

Hello John,

I believe that IEC 60086-4 is the applicable standard for primary 
(non-rechargeable) lithium batteries, including coin cells. As others have 
noted, IEC 62133-2 is for secondary (rechargeable) batteries.

Ted Eckert
The opinions expressed in this message are my own and do not necessarily 
reflect those of my employer.

From: John Riutta 
Sent: Monday, July 22, 2024 10:31 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG 
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [PSES] CAN/CSA C22.2 No. 62133-2:20 for CR 2032 Batteries?

You don't often get email from jriu...@celestron.com. Learn why this is 
important<https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification>

Hello all,



We’ve been seeing Amazon requiring CAN/CSA C22.2 No. 62133-2:20 for all 
products that use or contain at time of sale a CR 2032 coin cell battery. I was 
of the understanding that this standard did not apply to this battery. 
Unfortunately, I do not possess a copy of the standard so I cannot verify this 
myself. MayI ask if anyone here can offer verification or rebuttal please?



Best regards,

John



John E. Riutta, MA, MBA, FLS I Product Development and Product Compliance 
Manager I jriu...@celestron.com<mailto:jriu...@celestron.com> I 323.446.1076

CELESTRON, LLC. I 2835 Columbia Street I Torrance, CA 90503



[Logo  Description automatically generated]<http://www.celestron.com/>  [Icon  
Description automatically generated] 
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.instagram.com_celestronuniverse=DwMFaQ=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM=x40qV4DM3u4JrqHl_FVpxdOqkHDBo3f6BvwvAwIWGH8=B6fIOBUaG50CeATRoPrGe3aQoHBGiKZFSBIu-ovu97c5RZhLW5JAVauCDQwYc3UQ=mp6OgNq_McWjXY2YQYjZ9Dk6_XzP1VPvIEe8C8zj56A=>
   [A close-up of a fire  Description automatically generated with low 
confidence] 
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_Celestron=DwMFaQ=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM=x40qV4DM3u4JrqHl_FVpxdOqkHDBo3f6BvwvAwIWGH8=B6fIOBUaG50CeATRoPrGe3aQoHBGiKZFSBIu-ovu97c5RZhLW5JAVauCDQwYc3UQ=VPySibohtehHWHpC8d5rHDIovgyX-KLLxjtWSiblJGI=>
   [A picture containing text, clipart  Description automatically generated] 
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.facebook.com_celestron=DwMFaQ=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM=x40qV4DM3u4JrqHl_FVpxdOqkHDBo3f6BvwvAwIWGH8=B6fIOBUaG50CeATRoPrGe3aQoHBGiKZFSBIu-ovu97c5RZhLW5JAVauCDQwYc3UQ=mFMWx391BWGOZRSQd2VOWpQ8frezSjy2nYeDDPQcxtg=>
   [Icon  Description automatically generated] 
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.youtube.com_user_CelestronDotCom=DwMFaQ=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM=x40qV4DM3u4JrqHl_FVpxdOqkHDBo3f6BvwvAwIWGH8=B6fIOBUaG50CeATRoPrGe3aQoHBGiKZFSBIu-ovu97c5RZhLW5JAVauCDQwYc3UQ=ziJj_dfd_78luGSUUH4AfwmPyhD40fdDd46c8oL7bcc=>
   [Icon  Description automatically generated] 
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.linkedin.com_company_celestron-2Dllc-2D=DwMFaQ=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM=x40qV4DM3u4JrqHl_FVpxdOqkHDBo3f6BvwvAwIWGH8=B6fIOBUaG50CeATRoPrGe3aQoHBGiKZFSBIu-ovu97c5RZhLW5JAVauCDQwYc3UQ=dXknLUOcxSuYfVZ7A71XexAkwNhfOYqmzp9HADpQfIk=>



From: Ralph McDiarmid 
Sent: Friday, July 19, 2024 10:40 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] "Intelligent" Power Modules?



I stopped reading at the word “performances”.





Ralph



From: Douglas Powell mailto:doug...@gmail.com>>
Sent: Friday, July 19, 2024 9:27 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Subject: [PSES] "Intelligent" Power Modules?



So I just finished reading "1.2 kV/400 A SiC Source Turn-Off MOSFET Intelligent 
Power Module" 
(https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/10574416<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__ieeexplore.ieee.org_document_10574416=DwMFaQ=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM=x40qV4DM3u4JrqHl_FVpxdOqkHDBo3f6BvwvAwIWGH8=a2CCo_J4V1NasdwIBe0EeqpUJTYCY_V6Tmg345FDzau0JquoopInoKrPLEhikCaN=_UxHI-pyQoHSCbqUQCVFvIEGK_7RUdJisvq72DPJL8w=>)



The word "intelligent" in the title of the article piqued my interest.  So, 
what's with the overuse of the term "intelligent" nowadays?  When I read the 
article, I noticed that the word appeared only three times: once in the title, 
once in the abstract, and once in the opening paragraph. The acronym "IPM" 
appeared 31 times throughout.  I saw no mention of any aspects of operational 
intelligence used in the design of this power module.  Is there something I 
missed, or is the term "Intelligence" being used as marketing hype?

I'm seriously experiencing some fatigue over all this talk of Intelligence, 
Machine Intelligence, and Artificial Intelligence.



Thanks for letting me air out a little,  ~Doug







This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a mes

Re: [PSES] CAN/CSA C22.2 No. 62133-2:20 for CR 2032 Batteries?

[John Woodgate]

OOPS! I missed that about 'rechargeable'. CR2032 cells are not normally 
rechargeable, so the standard doesn't apply.


On 2024-07-22 18:57, John Woodgate wrote:


I don't know the meaning of the final '20' in the reference to the 
standard; it may be that it should be a date, like 2021. There appears 
to be nothing in the underlying IEC 62133-2: 2017 + AMD1:2021 that 
would exclude any coin cell.


On 2024-07-22 18:31, John Riutta wrote:


Hello all,

We’ve been seeing Amazon requiring CAN/CSA C22.2 No. 62133-2:20 for 
all products that use or contain at time of sale a CR 2032 coin cell 
battery. I was of the understanding that this standard did not apply 
to this battery. Unfortunately, I do not possess a copy of the 
standard so I cannot verify this myself. MayI ask if anyone here can 
offer verification or rebuttal please?


Best regards,

John

John E. Riutta, MA, MBA, FLSI Product Development and Product 
Compliance Manager I jriu...@celestron.com 
<mailto:jriu...@celestron.com> I 323.446.1076


CELESTRON, LLC.I 2835 Columbia Street ITorrance, CA 90503

Logo Description automatically generated 
<http://www.celestron.com/>Icon Description automatically generated 
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.instagram.com_celestronuniverse=DwMFaQ=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM=x40qV4DM3u4JrqHl_FVpxdOqkHDBo3f6BvwvAwIWGH8=B6fIOBUaG50CeATRoPrGe3aQoHBGiKZFSBIu-ovu97c5RZhLW5JAVauCDQwYc3UQ=mp6OgNq_McWjXY2YQYjZ9Dk6_XzP1VPvIEe8C8zj56A=>A 
close-up of a fire Description automatically generated with low 
confidence 
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_Celestron=DwMFaQ=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM=x40qV4DM3u4JrqHl_FVpxdOqkHDBo3f6BvwvAwIWGH8=B6fIOBUaG50CeATRoPrGe3aQoHBGiKZFSBIu-ovu97c5RZhLW5JAVauCDQwYc3UQ=VPySibohtehHWHpC8d5rHDIovgyX-KLLxjtWSiblJGI=>A 
picture containing text, clipart Description automatically generated 
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.facebook.com_celestron=DwMFaQ=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM=x40qV4DM3u4JrqHl_FVpxdOqkHDBo3f6BvwvAwIWGH8=B6fIOBUaG50CeATRoPrGe3aQoHBGiKZFSBIu-ovu97c5RZhLW5JAVauCDQwYc3UQ=mFMWx391BWGOZRSQd2VOWpQ8frezSjy2nYeDDPQcxtg=>Icon 
Description automatically generated 
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.youtube.com_user_CelestronDotCom=DwMFaQ=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM=x40qV4DM3u4JrqHl_FVpxdOqkHDBo3f6BvwvAwIWGH8=B6fIOBUaG50CeATRoPrGe3aQoHBGiKZFSBIu-ovu97c5RZhLW5JAVauCDQwYc3UQ=ziJj_dfd_78luGSUUH4AfwmPyhD40fdDd46c8oL7bcc=>Icon 
Description automatically generated 
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.linkedin.com_company_celestron-2Dllc-2D=DwMFaQ=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM=x40qV4DM3u4JrqHl_FVpxdOqkHDBo3f6BvwvAwIWGH8=B6fIOBUaG50CeATRoPrGe3aQoHBGiKZFSBIu-ovu97c5RZhLW5JAVauCDQwYc3UQ=dXknLUOcxSuYfVZ7A71XexAkwNhfOYqmzp9HADpQfIk=>


*From:*Ralph McDiarmid 
*Sent:* Friday, July 19, 2024 10:40 AM
*To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
*Subject:* Re: [PSES] "Intelligent" Power Modules?

I stopped reading at the word “performances”.

Ralph

*From:*Douglas Powell 
*Sent:* Friday, July 19, 2024 9:27 AM
*To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
*Subject:* [PSES] "Intelligent" Power Modules?

So I just finished reading "1.2 kV/400 A SiC Source Turn-Off MOSFET 
Intelligent Power Module" 
(https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/10574416 
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__ieeexplore.ieee.org_document_10574416=DwMFaQ=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM=x40qV4DM3u4JrqHl_FVpxdOqkHDBo3f6BvwvAwIWGH8=a2CCo_J4V1NasdwIBe0EeqpUJTYCY_V6Tmg345FDzau0JquoopInoKrPLEhikCaN=_UxHI-pyQoHSCbqUQCVFvIEGK_7RUdJisvq72DPJL8w=>)


The word "intelligent" in the title of the article piqued my 
interest.  So, what's with the overuse of the term "intelligent" 
nowadays?  When I read the article, I noticed that the word appeared 
only three times: once in the title, once in the abstract, and once 
in the opening paragraph. The acronym "IPM" appeared 31 times 
throughout.  I saw no mention of any aspects of operational 
intelligence used in the design of this power module.  Is there 
something I missed, or is the term "Intelligence" being used as 
marketing hype?


I'm seriously experiencing some fatigue over all this talk of 
Intelligence, Machine Intelligence, and Artificial Intelligence.


Thanks for letting me air out a little,  ~Doug



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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/ 
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.mail-2Darchive.com_emc-2Dpstc

Re: [PSES] CAN/CSA C22.2 No. 62133-2:20 for CR 2032 Batteries?

[John Woodgate]

I don't know the meaning of the final '20' in the reference to the 
standard; it may be that it should be a date, like 2021. There appears 
to be nothing in the underlying IEC 62133-2: 2017 + AMD1:2021 that would 
exclude any coin cell.


On 2024-07-22 18:31, John Riutta wrote:


Hello all,

We’ve been seeing Amazon requiring CAN/CSA C22.2 No. 62133-2:20 for 
all products that use or contain at time of sale a CR 2032 coin cell 
battery. I was of the understanding that this standard did not apply 
to this battery. Unfortunately, I do not possess a copy of the 
standard so I cannot verify this myself. MayI ask if anyone here can 
offer verification or rebuttal please?


Best regards,

John

John E. Riutta, MA, MBA, FLSI Product Development and Product 
Compliance Manager I jriu...@celestron.com 
<mailto:jriu...@celestron.com> I 323.446.1076


CELESTRON, LLC.I 2835 Columbia Street ITorrance, CA 90503

Logo Description automatically generated 
<http://www.celestron.com/>Icon Description automatically generated 
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.instagram.com_celestronuniverse=DwMFaQ=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM=x40qV4DM3u4JrqHl_FVpxdOqkHDBo3f6BvwvAwIWGH8=B6fIOBUaG50CeATRoPrGe3aQoHBGiKZFSBIu-ovu97c5RZhLW5JAVauCDQwYc3UQ=mp6OgNq_McWjXY2YQYjZ9Dk6_XzP1VPvIEe8C8zj56A=>A 
close-up of a fire Description automatically generated with low 
confidence 
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_Celestron=DwMFaQ=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM=x40qV4DM3u4JrqHl_FVpxdOqkHDBo3f6BvwvAwIWGH8=B6fIOBUaG50CeATRoPrGe3aQoHBGiKZFSBIu-ovu97c5RZhLW5JAVauCDQwYc3UQ=VPySibohtehHWHpC8d5rHDIovgyX-KLLxjtWSiblJGI=>A 
picture containing text, clipart Description automatically generated 
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.facebook.com_celestron=DwMFaQ=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM=x40qV4DM3u4JrqHl_FVpxdOqkHDBo3f6BvwvAwIWGH8=B6fIOBUaG50CeATRoPrGe3aQoHBGiKZFSBIu-ovu97c5RZhLW5JAVauCDQwYc3UQ=mFMWx391BWGOZRSQd2VOWpQ8frezSjy2nYeDDPQcxtg=>Icon 
Description automatically generated 
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.youtube.com_user_CelestronDotCom=DwMFaQ=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM=x40qV4DM3u4JrqHl_FVpxdOqkHDBo3f6BvwvAwIWGH8=B6fIOBUaG50CeATRoPrGe3aQoHBGiKZFSBIu-ovu97c5RZhLW5JAVauCDQwYc3UQ=ziJj_dfd_78luGSUUH4AfwmPyhD40fdDd46c8oL7bcc=>Icon 
Description automatically generated 
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.linkedin.com_company_celestron-2Dllc-2D=DwMFaQ=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM=x40qV4DM3u4JrqHl_FVpxdOqkHDBo3f6BvwvAwIWGH8=B6fIOBUaG50CeATRoPrGe3aQoHBGiKZFSBIu-ovu97c5RZhLW5JAVauCDQwYc3UQ=dXknLUOcxSuYfVZ7A71XexAkwNhfOYqmzp9HADpQfIk=>


*From:*Ralph McDiarmid 
*Sent:* Friday, July 19, 2024 10:40 AM
*To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
*Subject:* Re: [PSES] "Intelligent" Power Modules?

I stopped reading at the word “performances”.

Ralph

*From:*Douglas Powell 
*Sent:* Friday, July 19, 2024 9:27 AM
*To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
*Subject:* [PSES] "Intelligent" Power Modules?

So I just finished reading "1.2 kV/400 A SiC Source Turn-Off MOSFET 
Intelligent Power Module" 
(https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/10574416 
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__ieeexplore.ieee.org_document_10574416=DwMFaQ=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM=x40qV4DM3u4JrqHl_FVpxdOqkHDBo3f6BvwvAwIWGH8=a2CCo_J4V1NasdwIBe0EeqpUJTYCY_V6Tmg345FDzau0JquoopInoKrPLEhikCaN=_UxHI-pyQoHSCbqUQCVFvIEGK_7RUdJisvq72DPJL8w=>)


The word "intelligent" in the title of the article piqued my 
interest.  So, what's with the overuse of the term "intelligent" 
nowadays?  When I read the article, I noticed that the word appeared 
only three times: once in the title, once in the abstract, and once in 
the opening paragraph. The acronym "IPM" appeared 31 times 
throughout.  I saw no mention of any aspects of operational 
intelligence used in the design of this power module.  Is there 
something I missed, or is the term "Intelligence" being used as 
marketing hype?


I'm seriously experiencing some fatigue over all this talk of 
Intelligence, Machine Intelligence, and Artificial Intelligence.


Thanks for letting me air out a little,  ~Doug



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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/ 
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.mail-2Darchive.com_emc-2Dpstc-40listserv.ieee.org_-2520=DwMFaQ=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM=x40qV4DM3u4JrqHl_FVpxdOqkHDBo3f6BvwvAwIWGH8=a2CCo_J4V1NasdwIBe0EeqpUJTYCY_V6Tmg345FDz

Re: [PSES] CAN/CSA C22.2 No. 62133-2:20 for CR 2032 Batteries?

[James Pawson (U3C)]

Hi John,

 

IEC 62133-2 covers Secondary cells (rechargeable). Unless your coin cell is 
rechargeable then it will not be covered by this standard.

 

All the best

James

 

James Pawson

Managing Director & EMC Problem Solver

 

Unit 3 Compliance Ltd

EMC : Environmental & Vibration : Electrical Safety : CE & UKCA : Consultancy

 

 <http://www.unit3compliance.co.uk/> www.unit3compliance.co.uk |  
<mailto:ja...@unit3compliance.co.uk> ja...@unit3compliance.co.uk 

+44(0)1274 911747  |  +44(0)7811 139957

2 Wellington Business Park, New Lane, Bradford, BD4 8AL

Registered in England and Wales # 10574298

 

Office hours:

Every morning my full attention is on consultancy, testing, and troubleshooting 
activities for our customers’ projects. I’m available/contactable between 1300h 
to 1730h Mon/Tue/Thurs/Fri.

For inquiries, bookings, and testing updates please send us an email on 
he...@unit3compliance.co.uk <mailto:he...@unit3compliance.co.uk>  or call 01274 
911747. Our lead times for testing and consultancy are typically 4-5 weeks.

 

 

 

 

From: John Riutta  
Sent: Monday, July 22, 2024 6:32 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] CAN/CSA C22.2 No. 62133-2:20 for CR 2032 Batteries?

 

Hello all,

 

We’ve been seeing Amazon requiring CAN/CSA C22.2 No. 62133-2:20 for all 
products that use or contain at time of sale a CR 2032 coin cell battery. I was 
of the understanding that this standard did not apply to this battery. 
Unfortunately, I do not possess a copy of the standard so I cannot verify this 
myself. MayI ask if anyone here can offer verification or rebuttal please?

 

Best regards,

John

 

John E. Riutta, MA, MBA, FLS I Product Development and Product Compliance 
Manager I  <mailto:jriu...@celestron.com> jriu...@celestron.com I 323.446.1076 

CELESTRON, LLC. I 2835 Columbia Street I Torrance, CA 90503

 

 <http://www.celestron.com/>
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.instagram.com_celestronuniverse=DwMFaQ=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM=x40qV4DM3u4JrqHl_FVpxdOqkHDBo3f6BvwvAwIWGH8=B6fIOBUaG50CeATRoPrGe3aQoHBGiKZFSBIu-ovu97c5RZhLW5JAVauCDQwYc3UQ=mp6OgNq_McWjXY2YQYjZ9Dk6_XzP1VPvIEe8C8zj56A=>

<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_Celestron=DwMFaQ=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM=x40qV4DM3u4JrqHl_FVpxdOqkHDBo3f6BvwvAwIWGH8=B6fIOBUaG50CeATRoPrGe3aQoHBGiKZFSBIu-ovu97c5RZhLW5JAVauCDQwYc3UQ=VPySibohtehHWHpC8d5rHDIovgyX-KLLxjtWSiblJGI=>

<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.facebook.com_celestron=DwMFaQ=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM=x40qV4DM3u4JrqHl_FVpxdOqkHDBo3f6BvwvAwIWGH8=B6fIOBUaG50CeATRoPrGe3aQoHBGiKZFSBIu-ovu97c5RZhLW5JAVauCDQwYc3UQ=mFMWx391BWGOZRSQd2VOWpQ8frezSjy2nYeDDPQcxtg=>

<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.youtube.com_user_CelestronDotCom=DwMFaQ=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM=x40qV4DM3u4JrqHl_FVpxdOqkHDBo3f6BvwvAwIWGH8=B6fIOBUaG50CeATRoPrGe3aQoHBGiKZFSBIu-ovu97c5RZhLW5JAVauCDQwYc3UQ=ziJj_dfd_78luGSUUH4AfwmPyhD40fdDd46c8oL7bcc=>

<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.linkedin.com_company_celestron-2Dllc-2D=DwMFaQ=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM=x40qV4DM3u4JrqHl_FVpxdOqkHDBo3f6BvwvAwIWGH8=B6fIOBUaG50CeATRoPrGe3aQoHBGiKZFSBIu-ovu97c5RZhLW5JAVauCDQwYc3UQ=dXknLUOcxSuYfVZ7A71XexAkwNhfOYqmzp9HADpQfIk=>
 

 

From: Ralph McDiarmid mailto:rmm.priv...@gmail.com> > 
Sent: Friday, July 19, 2024 10:40 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> 
Subject: Re: [PSES] "Intelligent" Power Modules?

 

I stopped reading at the word “performances”.  

 

 

Ralph

 

From: Douglas Powell mailto:doug...@gmail.com> > 
Sent: Friday, July 19, 2024 9:27 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> 
Subject: [PSES] "Intelligent" Power Modules?

 

So I just finished reading "1.2 kV/400 A SiC Source Turn-Off MOSFET Intelligent 
Power Module" (https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/10574416 
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__ieeexplore.ieee.org_document_10574416=DwMFaQ=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM=x40qV4DM3u4JrqHl_FVpxdOqkHDBo3f6BvwvAwIWGH8=a2CCo_J4V1NasdwIBe0EeqpUJTYCY_V6Tmg345FDzau0JquoopInoKrPLEhikCaN=_UxHI-pyQoHSCbqUQCVFvIEGK_7RUdJisvq72DPJL8w=>
 )

 

The word "intelligent" in the title of the article piqued my interest.  So, 
what's with the overuse of the term "intelligent" nowadays?  When I read the 
article, I noticed that the word appeared only three times: once in the title, 
once in the abstract, and once in the opening paragraph. The acronym "IPM" 
appeared 31 times throughout.  I saw no mention of any aspects of operational 
intelligence used in the design of this power module.  Is there something I 
missed, or is the term "Inte

Re: [PSES] "Intelligent" Power Modules?

[Ralph McDiarmid]

I stopped reading at the word “performances”.  

 

 

Ralph

 

From: Douglas Powell  
Sent: Friday, July 19, 2024 9:27 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] "Intelligent" Power Modules?

 

So I just finished reading "1.2 kV/400 A SiC Source Turn-Off MOSFET Intelligent 
Power Module" (https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/10574416)

 

The word "intelligent" in the title of the article piqued my interest.  So, 
what's with the overuse of the term "intelligent" nowadays?  When I read the 
article, I noticed that the word appeared only three times: once in the title, 
once in the abstract, and once in the opening paragraph. The acronym "IPM" 
appeared 31 times throughout.  I saw no mention of any aspects of operational 
intelligence used in the design of this power module.  Is there something I 
missed, or is the term "Intelligence" being used as marketing hype?

I'm seriously experiencing some fatigue over all this talk of Intelligence, 
Machine Intelligence, and Artificial Intelligence.  

 

Thanks for letting me air out a little,  ~Doug

 

 

  _  

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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG   

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/ 
  

Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/   
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)  
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html 

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net  
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org   

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org   

  _  

To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC 
 =1 


-

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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

Re: [PSES] Using Red Phosphorous ferrite core on a 48VDC motor

[Willard, Bradley]

Hi Christopher.

It may not specifically apply to a ferrite core, but here is another thing to 
watch out for with Red Phosphorous:  
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=1598224

Best regards,
Brad

From: Richard Nute 
Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2024 6:07 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG 
Subject: Re: [PSES] Using Red Phosphorous ferrite core on a 48VDC motor

~ Hi Christopher: To put your mind at ease regarding the flammability of the 
Red Phosphorus, I suggest you test it.   Suspend the core by a wire.   Apply a 
small flame (1 inch max) from a barbecue starter to the bottom of the core, and 
see whatZjQcmQRYFpfptPreheaderEnd
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart
External Sender
This message came from outside our organization. Please use caution before 
acting on the message.

ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd



Hi Christopher:



To put your mind at ease regarding the flammability of the Red Phosphorus, I 
suggest you test it.  Suspend the core by a wire.  Apply a small flame (1 inch 
max) from a barbecue starter to the bottom of the core, and see what happens.



The core should provide a heat sink for the red phosphorus such that it cannot 
reach ignition temperature, or exceed the burn time of  94V-0.



I agree with Ted and Ralph.



Good luck, and best regards,

Rich





From: Chris <0133def26cf0-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org>
Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2024 10:40 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Using Red Phosphorous ferrite core on a 48VDC motor



Folks,



I need some help to answer this product safety question.



We are using ferrite core T60006-L2025-W380 to supress radiated emissions on 
the 48VDC motor cable.



I am concerned about the flamilibility of the Red Phosphorus which is contained 
in the Ferrite core.



Any help is appreceiated





Christopher

Nextracker LLC.



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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.mail-2Darchive.com_emc-2Dpstc-40listserv.ieee.org_=DwMFaQ=Qwsh1H-X9ypOoLLEcAIltRyC0Dw0FG3Mmyd56ahml5w=5ZHWVDzrGbU3ySN96a0gomOtFxh8qabNblooc4DXss4=onV-uuy__PhBoIvHpmThzdRv0Bo2KNmMBxfQ9jrmKq4zDsmUAG9XQp8XB95xYek4=APbSsp4g0zEPp-K6CDPnIHfUUsoghSOZkvqH4yiDzLM=>

Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/ 
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__ewh.ieee.org_soc_pses_=DwMFaQ=Qwsh1H-X9ypOoLLEcAIltRyC0Dw0FG3Mmyd56ahml5w=5ZHWVDzrGbU3ySN96a0gomOtFxh8qabNblooc4DXss4=onV-uuy__PhBoIvHpmThzdRv0Bo2KNmMBxfQ9jrmKq4zDsmUAG9XQp8XB95xYek4=rURdpY__ftv728vlyP8Shz9AwymXwyAThYI-4GxwIv8=>
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__ewh.ieee.org_soc_pses_list.html=DwMFaQ=Qwsh1H-X9ypOoLLEcAIltRyC0Dw0FG3Mmyd56ahml5w=5ZHWVDzrGbU3ySN96a0gomOtFxh8qabNblooc4DXss4=onV-uuy__PhBoIvHpmThzdRv0Bo2KNmMBxfQ9jrmKq4zDsmUAG9XQp8XB95xYek4=O5eZjJLELN8t6_jYYTYwfoaJMKn8lpu9ofbQr5NWnBQ=>
List rules: 
https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__ewh.ieee.org_soc_pses_listrules.html=DwMFaQ=Qwsh1H-X9ypOoLLEcAIltRyC0Dw0FG3Mmyd56ahml5w=5ZHWVDzrGbU3ySN96a0gomOtFxh8qabNblooc4DXss4=onV-uuy__PhBoIvHpmThzdRv0Bo2KNmMBxfQ9jrmKq4zDsmUAG9XQp8XB95xYek4=X4BBpv5T0AU-endATEGu7bWRSHaYML7Baxet-WDOA5A=>

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net<mailto:msherma...@comcast.net>
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org<mailto:linf...@ieee.org>

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org<mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org>



To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__listserv.ieee.org_cgi-2Dbin_wa-3FSUBED1-3DEMC-2DPSTC-26A-3D1=DwQFaQ=Qwsh1H-X9ypOoLLEcAIltRyC0Dw0FG3Mmyd56ahml5w=5ZHWVDzrGbU3ySN96a0gomOtFxh8qabNblooc4DXss4=onV-uuy__PhBoIvHpmThzdRv0Bo2KNmMBxfQ9jrmKq4zDsmUAG9XQp8XB95xYek4=-2CGfPVG0zfUhEJhuHJm_KwrDb3BZcogBAnXoz_L9b8=>



- CONFIDENTIAL-

This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential, and may also be 
legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not review, 
use, copy, or distribute this message. If you receive this email in error, 
please notify the sender immediately by reply email and then delete this email.

-

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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

All emc-pstc pos

Re: [PSES] Using Red Phosphorous ferrite core on a 48VDC motor

[Brent DeWitt]

This seems all a bit weird.  Unless the Phosphorus is used in a coating, 
it can have no relation to the ferrite.  As many here know, ferrite 
"beads" are formed by a sintering process where the powdered metalic 
oxide components are subjected to very high pressure and temperatures 
that fuse the glassy structure, creating what is essentially a ceramic.  
Phosphorus would be vaporized in the mold preheat, much less the actual 
sintering process.

If it is a coating, that's another discussion.

- Brent

On 7/10/2024 6:49 PM, John Woodgate wrote:


That would cause the emission of white phosphorus vapour, which burns 
in air spontaneously even at room temperature, and is highly toxic. 
That is, if there is any red phosphorus there, which I very much doubt.


On 2024-07-10 23:07, Richard Nute wrote:


Hi Christopher:

To put your mind at ease regarding the flammability of the Red 
Phosphorus, I suggest you test it.  Suspend the core by a wire.  
Apply a small flame (1 inch max) from a barbecue starter to the 
bottom of the core, and see what happens.


The core should provide a heat sink for the red phosphorus such that 
it cannot reach ignition temperature, or exceed the burn time of  94V-0.


I agree with Ted and Ralph.

Good luck, and best regards,

Rich

*From:* Chris <0133def26cf0-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org>
*Sent:* Wednesday, July 10, 2024 10:40 AM
*To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
*Subject:* [PSES] Using Red Phosphorous ferrite core on a 48VDC motor

Folks,

I need some help to answer this product safety question.

We are using ferrite core T60006-L2025-W380 to supress radiated 
emissions on the 48VDC motor cable.


I am concerned about the flamilibility of the Red Phosphorus which is 
contained in the Ferrite core.


Any help is appreceiated

Christopher

Nextracker LLC.



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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how 
to unsubscribe) 

List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org



To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1



--
OOO - Own Opinions Only
Best Wishes
John Woodgate
Keep trying

 
	Virus-free.www.avg.com 
 



<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>


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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how 
to unsubscribe) 

List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org



To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1




-

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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 

Re: [PSES] Using Red Phosphorous ferrite core on a 48VDC motor

[John Woodgate]

I have sent an email to Vaccumschmeltze asking whether there is any red 
phosphorus in their products. Their website offers an ROHs and REACH 
declaration at:


https://www.vacuumschmelze.com/03_Documents/Certificates/Certificate%20of%20Compliance%20REACH_RoHS.pdf

that does not mention phosphorus.

On 2024-07-10 23:49, John Woodgate wrote:


That would cause the emission of white phosphorus vapour, which burns 
in air spontaneously even at room temperature, and is highly toxic. 
That is, if there is any red phosphorus there, which I very much doubt.


On 2024-07-10 23:07, Richard Nute wrote:


Hi Christopher:

To put your mind at ease regarding the flammability of the Red 
Phosphorus, I suggest you test it.  Suspend the core by a wire.  
Apply a small flame (1 inch max) from a barbecue starter to the 
bottom of the core, and see what happens.


The core should provide a heat sink for the red phosphorus such that 
it cannot reach ignition temperature, or exceed the burn time of  94V-0.


I agree with Ted and Ralph.

Good luck, and best regards,

Rich

*From:* Chris <0133def26cf0-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org>
*Sent:* Wednesday, July 10, 2024 10:40 AM
*To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
*Subject:* [PSES] Using Red Phosphorous ferrite core on a 48VDC motor

Folks,

I need some help to answer this product safety question.

We are using ferrite core T60006-L2025-W380 to supress radiated 
emissions on the 48VDC motor cable.


I am concerned about the flamilibility of the Red Phosphorus which is 
contained in the Ferrite core.


Any help is appreceiated

Christopher

Nextracker LLC.



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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how 
to unsubscribe) 

List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org



To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1



--
OOO - Own Opinions Only
Best Wishes
John Woodgate
Keep trying

 
	Virus-free.www.avg.com 
 



<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>


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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how 
to unsubscribe) 

List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org



To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1



--
OOO - Own Opinions Only
Best Wishes
John Woodgate
Keep trying


--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

Re: [PSES] Using Red Phosphorous ferrite core on a 48VDC motor

[John Woodgate]

That would cause the emission of white phosphorus vapour, which burns in 
air spontaneously even at room temperature, and is highly toxic. That 
is, if there is any red phosphorus there, which I very much doubt.


On 2024-07-10 23:07, Richard Nute wrote:


Hi Christopher:

To put your mind at ease regarding the flammability of the Red 
Phosphorus, I suggest you test it.  Suspend the core by a wire.  Apply 
a small flame (1 inch max) from a barbecue starter to the bottom of 
the core, and see what happens.


The core should provide a heat sink for the red phosphorus such that 
it cannot reach ignition temperature, or exceed the burn time of  94V-0.


I agree with Ted and Ralph.

Good luck, and best regards,

Rich

*From:* Chris <0133def26cf0-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org>
*Sent:* Wednesday, July 10, 2024 10:40 AM
*To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
*Subject:* [PSES] Using Red Phosphorous ferrite core on a 48VDC motor

Folks,

I need some help to answer this product safety question.

We are using ferrite core T60006-L2025-W380 to supress radiated 
emissions on the 48VDC motor cable.


I am concerned about the flamilibility of the Red Phosphorus which is 
contained in the Ferrite core.


Any help is appreceiated

Christopher

Nextracker LLC.



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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how 
to unsubscribe) 

List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org



To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1



--
OOO - Own Opinions Only
Best Wishes
John Woodgate
Keep trying


--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

Re: [PSES] Using Red Phosphorous ferrite core on a 48VDC motor

[Richard Nute]

 

Hi Christopher:

 

To put your mind at ease regarding the flammability of the Red Phosphorus, I 
suggest you test it.  Suspend the core by a wire.  Apply a small flame (1 inch 
max) from a barbecue starter to the bottom of the core, and see what happens.  

 

The core should provide a heat sink for the red phosphorus such that it cannot 
reach ignition temperature, or exceed the burn time of  94V-0.  

 

I agree with Ted and Ralph.

 

Good luck, and best regards,

Rich

 

 

From: Chris <0133def26cf0-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org> 
Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2024 10:40 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Using Red Phosphorous ferrite core on a 48VDC motor

 

Folks,

 

I need some help to answer this product safety question.

 

We are using ferrite core T60006-L2025-W380 to supress radiated emissions on 
the 48VDC motor cable.

 

I am concerned about the flamilibility of the Red Phosphorus which is contained 
in the Ferrite core.

 

Any help is appreceiated 

 

 

Christopher

Nextracker LLC.


-

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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

Re: [PSES] Fwd: [PSES] [EXTERNAL] [PSES] Using Red Phosphorous ferrite core on a 48VDC motor

[Brent DeWitt]

Maybe I'm missing something.  Is the Red Phosphorus used in a coating 
for the ferrite?


On 7/10/2024 3:48 PM, John Woodgate wrote:





 Forwarded Message 
Subject: 	Re: [PSES] [EXTERNAL] [PSES] Using Red Phosphorous ferrite 
core on a 48VDC motor

Date:   Wed, 10 Jul 2024 20:46:17 +0100
From:   John Woodgate 
To: Ted Eckert 



But surely not in a ferrite core?


On 2024-07-10 19:36, Ted Eckert wrote:

Hi Christopher,

Phosphorus is commonly used for flame retardants. Many V-1 and V-0 
rated plastics use such flame retardants, and phosphorus is used for 
flame retardants for fabrics. As such, I don't think you should have 
an issue.


Ted Eckert
/The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect 
those of my employer./


*From:* Chris <0133def26cf0-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org>
*Sent:* Wednesday, July 10, 2024 10:39 AM
*To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG 
*Subject:* [EXTERNAL] [PSES] Using Red Phosphorous ferrite core on a 
48VDC motor



You don't often get email from 
0133def26cf0-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org. Learn why this is 
important <https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification>



Folks,

I need some help to answer this product safety question.

We are using ferrite core T60006-L2025-W380 to supress radiated 
emissions on the 48VDC motor cable.


I am concerned about the flamilibility of the Red Phosphorus which is 
contained in the Ferrite core.


Any help is appreceiated


Christopher
Nextracker LLC.


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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how 
to unsubscribe) <https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html>

List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org



To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1




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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how 
to unsubscribe) <https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html>

List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org



To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1



--
OOO - Own Opinions Only
Best Wishes
John Woodgate
Keep trying

<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email_source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=emailclient> 
	Virus-free.www.avg.com 
<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email_source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=emailclient> 



<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>


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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how 
to unsubscribe) <https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html>

List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org



To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1




-
-

Re: [PSES] Using Red Phosphorous ferrite core on a 48VDC motor

[Ralph McDiarmid]

I doubt ferrite cores are flammable, but if they are, I’m sure they are 
superior to the rating UL94V-0.  

 

 

From: Chris <0133def26cf0-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org> 
Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2024 10:40 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Using Red Phosphorous ferrite core on a 48VDC motor

 

Folks,

 

I need some help to answer this product safety question.

 

We are using ferrite core T60006-L2025-W380 to supress radiated emissions on 
the 48VDC motor cable.

 

I am concerned about the flamilibility of the Red Phosphorus which is contained 
in the Ferrite core.

 

Any help is appreceiated 

 

 

Christopher

Nextracker LLC.

  _  

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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG   

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/ 
  

Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/   
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)  
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html 

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net  
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org   

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org   

  _  

To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC 
 =1 


-

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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

Re: [PSES] [EXTERNAL] [PSES] Using Red Phosphorous ferrite core on a 48VDC motor

[Chris]

 Thanks Ted.
Christopher

On Wednesday, July 10, 2024 at 11:37:06 AM PDT, Ted Eckert 
 wrote:  
 
 Hi Christopher,
Phosphorus is commonly used for flame retardants. Many V-1 and V-0 rated 
plastics use such flame retardants, and phosphorus is used for flame retardants 
for fabrics. As such, I don't think you should have an issue.
Ted EckertThe opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect 
those of my employer.From: Chris 
<0133def26cf0-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org>
Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2024 10:39 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG 
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [PSES] Using Red Phosphorous ferrite core on a 48VDC motor 
|  | You don't often get email from 
0133def26cf0-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org.Learn why this is important |  
|

Folks,
I need some help to answer this product safety question.
We are using ferrite core T60006-L2025-W380 to supress radiated emissions on 
the 48VDC motor cable.

I am concerned about the flamilibility of the Red Phosphorus which is contained 
in the Ferrite core.
Any help is appreceiated 

ChristopherNextracker LLC.


  

-

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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

Re: [PSES] [EXTERNAL] [PSES] Using Red Phosphorous ferrite core on a 48VDC motor

[Ted Eckert]

Hi Christopher,

Phosphorus is commonly used for flame retardants. Many V-1 and V-0 rated 
plastics use such flame retardants, and phosphorus is used for flame retardants 
for fabrics. As such, I don't think you should have an issue.

Ted Eckert
The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my 
employer.

From: Chris <0133def26cf0-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org>
Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2024 10:39 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG 
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [PSES] Using Red Phosphorous ferrite core on a 48VDC motor

You don't often get email from 
0133def26cf0-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org. Learn why this is 
important
Folks,

I need some help to answer this product safety question.

We are using ferrite core T60006-L2025-W380 to supress radiated emissions on 
the 48VDC motor cable.

I am concerned about the flamilibility of the Red Phosphorus which is contained 
in the Ferrite core.

Any help is appreceiated


Christopher
Nextracker LLC.


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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org



To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

-

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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

Re: [PSES] Switching power supplies continued

[Ralph McDiarmid]

RF radiated emission measurements are not precious and it’s not unusual to find 
a +/- 5dB variation between two certified open-area test sites.  (a combination 
of equipment calibration variance and test site tolerances)

 

It is possible then to find a pass when testing at one site and receive a 
failure when testing at another.  I think this has been the experience for some 
and likely something that has existed for decades in the industry and is 
accepted as the “norm”.

 

Ralph

 

From: Elliott Martinson <33e8876b9475-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org> 
Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2024 7:56 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Switching power supplies continued

 

On one hand, it’s odd they can even claim “compliance”, when their SMPS module 
will interact with customer design so much.

 

On the other hand, I have experience with a supply like this, where I had to 
prove it still failed class B emissions with literally nothing on its output 
but a purely resistive load (small loop area, conductive surface area – other 
than pseudo-“cables”)

 

From: Matthew Wilson | GBE mailto:matthew.wil...@gbelectronics.com> > 
Sent: Monday, July 8, 2024 11:28 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> 
Subject: Re: [PSES] Switching power supplies continued

 


You don't often get email from matthew.wil...@gbelectronics.com 
<mailto:matthew.wil...@gbelectronics.com> . Learn why this is important 
<https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification> 



That is an interesting consideration regards the beat frequency, thanks for the 
post.  Something we have noticed several times with third-party ‘bought in’ 
mains-DC SMPSU (most people do that rather than design a bespoke one because 
the third-party has gained the necessary re safety compliance) is that people 
may specify the SMPSU for the maximum load out of their power budget for the 
apparatus to be driven by the SMPSU. 

 

This usually is a sum/concatenation of all the highest current draw 
circuits/parts e.g. all LEDs on, activating sounder transducer, maybe driving a 
printer (usually thermal), radio module (Wi-Fi say) active, etc, etc.

 

In fact the equipment does not do this ‘maximum draw’ too often and so the 
majority of the time the SMPSU is usually operating at lower capacity (a few 
LEDs on, idle printer, not actively TX/RX data packets).  And it is then that 
EMC emissions created by the SMPSU (radiated and conducted) are actually at 
their worse.  In some (probably more extreme) cases this can upset performance 
of the apparatus, or even co-located equipment, but also it can annoy when at 
the EMC test chamber with breaches of the emissions limit line.

 

The downside of third-party power supplies is although they will have a nice 
declaration of conformity (for us in the EU (OK I know UK isn’t any more but 
we’ve decided to carry on with it behind the scenes!) and claims for EMC 
compliance, never is any precise detail of how and the environment in which 
these tests were performed provided.  A resistive load on the shortest possible 
DC output leads, with short mains input leads too I’m sure is the setup – happy 
to be proved wrong!

 

Nearest I’ve found to such is this from Meanwell but it has some assumptions – 
large metal plates for one (but which one did they use for a particular 
model?!):

 

https://www.meanwell.co.uk/knowledge-base/how-do-mean-well-test-for-electro-magnetic-interference-emi

 

Anyway, as is probably known in this audience, but is a constant reminder to 
clients and so forth, you can’t expect not to test a third party SMPSU even 
when it is ‘compliant’.

 

Thanks for giving me an excuse to ramble on :-)

 

Kind regards,

 

Matthew Wilson,

GB Electronics (UK) Ltd.

 







Disclaimer: This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential 
and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are 
addressed.
​If you have received this email in error please delete it from your system, do 
not use or disclose the information in any way and notify the sender 
immediately.
​The contents of this message may contain personal views which are not the 
views of the company, unless specifically stated.
​
​GB Electronics (UK) Ltd is a company registered in England and Wales under 
number 06210991.
​Registered office: Ascot House Mulberry Close, Woods Way, Goring By Sea, West 
Sussex, BN12 4QY.

From: doug emcesd.com mailto:d...@emcesd.com> > 
Sent: Wednesday, July 3, 2024 10:55 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> 
Subject: [PSES] Switching power supplies continued

 

Hi All,

 

When thinking about power supplies, one would think that they either work or 
not. But this is not the case.

 

Switching power supply frequencies are usually much lower that today’s system 
frequencies. This leads to a situation where it can take an hour or much more 

Re: [PSES] [External] [PSES] EMC Job Opening in Ottawa

[Jones, Richard]

For those interested the job opportunity with Honeywell in Ottawa, Canada has 
been updated in the hope of catching more applicants:

careers.honeywell.com

Search for: REQ453055

Goodluck

Rich

From: Jones, Richard <158e9dcd0d5e-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org>
Sent: Wednesday, July 3, 2024 2:05 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [External] [PSES] EMC Job Opening in Ottawa

You don't often get email from 
158e9dcd0d5e-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org.
 Learn why this is important
WARNING: This message has originated from an External Source. This may be a 
phishing email that can result in unauthorized access to Honeywell systems. 
Please use proper judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking 
links, scanning QR codes, or responding.
We have a job opening for an EMC Test Engineer in our Ottawa location, they 
would be running the lab, maintaining equipment and performing test with the 
support of our team in Mississauga. Looking for someone preferably with 
previous test experience, but will consider each applicant on merit.
If interested or know of someone looking for an opportunity in Ottawa it can be 
found at:

Careers.honeywell.com

Search for "HRD228742"

Goodluck

Rich


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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org



To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

-

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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

Re: [PSES] Switching power supplies continued

[Ralph McDiarmid]

Further to John’s comment, here is an extract from EMC standard CISPR 22:

 

“The operational conditions of the EUT shall be determined by the manufacturer 
according to

the typical use of the EUT with respect to the expected highest level of 
emission. The

determined operational mode and the rationale for the conditions shall be 
stated in the test

report.”

 

The operating condition producing the highest level of emission may not be the 
rated output power of the EUT.  The manufacturer is expected to investigate.

 

Ralph

 

From: John Woodgate  
Sent: Monday, July 8, 2024 9:42 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Switching power supplies continued

 

The DoC states the standards applied, and those standards (CISPR-originated) 
give very precise details of the test set-up.

On 2024-07-08 17:27, Matthew Wilson | GBE wrote:

The downside of third-party power supplies is although they will have a nice 
declaration of conformity (for us in the EU (OK I know UK isn’t any more but 
we’ve decided to carry on with it behind the scenes!) and claims for EMC 
compliance, never is any precise detail of how and the environment in which 
these tests were performed provided.  A resistive load on the shortest possible 
DC output leads, with short mains input leads too I’m sure is the setup – happy 
to be proved wrong!

-- 
OOO - Own Opinions Only
Best Wishes
John Woodgate
Keep trying

 


 
<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email_source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=emailclient>
 

Virus-free. 
<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email_source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=emailclient>
 www.avg.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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>  

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/ 
<https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/%20>  

Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/  <https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/> 
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe) <https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html> 
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html 

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net <mailto:msherma...@comcast.net> 
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org <mailto:linf...@ieee.org>  

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org <mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org>  

  _  

To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC 
<https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1> =1 


-

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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

Re: [PSES] Switching power supplies continued

[John Woodgate]

The DoC states the standards applied, and those standards 
(CISPR-originated) give very precise details of the test set-up.


On 2024-07-08 17:27, Matthew Wilson | GBE wrote:
The downside of third-party power supplies is although they will have 
a nice declaration of conformity (for us in the EU (OK I know UK isn’t 
any more but we’ve decided to carry on with it behind the scenes!) and 
claims for EMC compliance, never is any precise detail of how and the 
environment in which these tests were performed provided.  A resistive 
load on the shortest possible DC output leads, with short mains input 
leads too I’m sure is the setup – happy to be proved wrong!


--
OOO - Own Opinions Only
Best Wishes
John Woodgate
Keep trying


--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

Re: [PSES] Switching power supplies continued

[Matthew Wilson | GBE]

That is an interesting consideration regards the beat frequency, thanks for the 
post.  Something we have noticed several times with third-party 'bought in' 
mains-DC SMPSU (most people do that rather than design a bespoke one because 
the third-party has gained the necessary re safety compliance) is that people 
may specify the SMPSU for the maximum load out of their power budget for the 
apparatus to be driven by the SMPSU.

This usually is a sum/concatenation of all the highest current draw 
circuits/parts e.g. all LEDs on, activating sounder transducer, maybe driving a 
printer (usually thermal), radio module (Wi-Fi say) active, etc, etc.

In fact the equipment does not do this 'maximum draw' too often and so the 
majority of the time the SMPSU is usually operating at lower capacity (a few 
LEDs on, idle printer, not actively TX/RX data packets).  And it is then that 
EMC emissions created by the SMPSU (radiated and conducted) are actually at 
their worse.  In some (probably more extreme) cases this can upset performance 
of the apparatus, or even co-located equipment, but also it can annoy when at 
the EMC test chamber with breaches of the emissions limit line.

The downside of third-party power supplies is although they will have a nice 
declaration of conformity (for us in the EU (OK I know UK isn't any more but 
we've decided to carry on with it behind the scenes!) and claims for EMC 
compliance, never is any precise detail of how and the environment in which 
these tests were performed provided.  A resistive load on the shortest possible 
DC output leads, with short mains input leads too I'm sure is the setup - happy 
to be proved wrong!

Nearest I've found to such is this from Meanwell but it has some assumptions - 
large metal plates for one (but which one did they use for a particular 
model?!):

https://www.meanwell.co.uk/knowledge-base/how-do-mean-well-test-for-electro-magnetic-interference-emi

Anyway, as is probably known in this audience, but is a constant reminder to 
clients and so forth, you can't expect not to test a third party SMPSU even 
when it is 'compliant'.

Thanks for giving me an excuse to ramble on :-)

Kind regards,

Matthew Wilson,
GB Electronics (UK) Ltd.


Matthew WilsonMIET
Technical Director
GB Electronics (UK) Ltd
matthew.wil...@gbelectronics.com
www.gbelectronics.com
+44 (0) 1903 244 500
Ascot House|Mulberry Close|Woods Way
Goring-by-Sea|West Sussex|BN12 4QY|UK
Certificate Number 10455
​ISO 9001, ISO 14001
Disclaimer: This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and 
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are 
addressed.
​If you have received this email in error please delete it from your system, do 
not use or disclose the information in any way and notify the sender 
immediately.
​The contents of this message may contain personal views which are not the 
views of the company, unless specifically stated.
​
​GB Electronics (UK) Ltd is a company registered in England and Wales under 
number 06210991.
​Registered office: Ascot House Mulberry Close, Woods Way, Goring By Sea, West 
Sussex, BN12 4QY.
From: doug emcesd.com 
Sent: Wednesday, July 3, 2024 10:55 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Switching power supplies continued

Hi All,

When thinking about power supplies, one would think that they either work or 
not. But this is not the case.

Switching power supply frequencies are usually much lower that today's system 
frequencies. This leads to a situation where it can take an hour or much more 
for an edge to hit a circuit in the system at a critical time and cause a 
problem. The problem looks like an intermittent one, but it is not 
intermittent! It is sort of like a beat frequency between a system signal and 
the power supply switching.

This class of problems is very interesting. I have been tracking them down for 
about 40 years now and have developed some techniques for doing this.

Tracking down what seem like intermittent problems can take a lot of time, but 
power supply interaction with a system is not an intermittent problem but 
sometimes takes a bit to track down a fix. I have seen these kinds of problems 
where a switching supply, not even connected to that part of the system, cause 
this kind of problem in a circuit a meter or more away from the supply.

This is the kind of problem I love! Like a cat and mouse game, often requiring 
unconventional troubleshooting methods.

Doug
[https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/_HuR3Ky2TF_XhFHyxnYRmiq7nHQldnMsPNYFaLG6kb5T4y8MeCe-BDC_BscJtSFgszSSjssihHS-pjM3-jwNP8S0CwE-gN8fsRsPkojiAlmpBwb20vIVizS-siCUywW_jqrefbVr]


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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/em

Re: [PSES] power supplies - standardized performance tests

[Ralph McDiarmid]

IEC 61204-6 does look promising, but it does have a limit on output voltage of 
200 volts d.c.   I’ll assume like its power limit of 2,500 watts, its voltage 
limit can be extended by applying good engineering principles.

 

And it seems reasonably priced.

 

Thanks for finding this John.

 

Ralph

 

 

From: John Woodgate  
Sent: Tuesday, July 2, 2024 2:17 PM
To: rmm.priv...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PSES] power lsupply musings #1

 

IEC doesn't look too promising. These are not exactly on stone tablets, but 
they are old: IEC61204:1993 + AMD1:2001, IEC 61204-6: 2000. You can preview 
them. go to www.iec.ch <http://www.iec.ch> , then go to Web store and search.

On 2024-07-02 20:01, Ralph McDiarmid wrote:

Oh boy, have I seen this, in the distant past.  Today, there is likely an IEC 
standard which defines how this measurement should be performed.

 

When I was a development engineer at a small d.c. power supply company in the 
1990s we grappled with this same issue.  We eventually designed a custom 
voltage probe which measured differential ripple & noise into 50 ohms with a 20 
MHz bandwidth.  It provided a repeatable measurement of output noise into a 
stabilized impedance while rejecting common-mode contribution.  Its 
implementation settled most arguments on how this measurement was done since 
some customers at the time were challenging our results when we were merely 
using an unbalanced 10X scope probe with any convenient oscilloscope on hand.  

 

Any, well considered, implementation for a noise probe is probably just as good 
so long as it is used consistently, and the method disclosed to those who need 
to know.  

 

Ralph

 

From: doug emcesd.com  <mailto:d...@emcesd.com>  
Sent: Monday, July 1, 2024 4:18 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> 
Subject: [PSES] power lsupply musings #1

 

Hi Everyone,

 

I thought I would post a bit about power supplies. Something as simple as 
trying to measure ripple on the output can be very inaccurate, overstating 
ripple amplitude by a lot, 100% over stated is not all that unusual.

 

One problem arises from common mode noise on the output that gets into the 
structure of the probe used for the measurement. Most probes have modes 
resulting in display of voltages that are not actually present. If you doubt 
this, just connect both terminals of a scope probe to the low end, say ground, 
of a power supply output and you will often see a significant signal that is 
not actually there. Whatever one measures with a shorted probe on the ground 
side of the supply output is the error in the measurement and can easily exceed 
the actual ripple voltage present on the output.

 

Have you seen this? I cover this in detail in my presentations.

 

Doug

  
<https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/_HuR3Ky2TF_XhFHyxnYRmiq7nHQldnMsPNYFaLG6kb5T4y8MeCe-BDC_BscJtSFgszSSjssihHS-pjM3-jwNP8S0CwE-gN8fsRsPkojiAlmpBwb20vIVizS-siCUywW_jqrefbVr>
 


  _  


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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>  

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/ 
<https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/%20>  

Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/  <https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/> 
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe) <https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html> 
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html 

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net <mailto:msherma...@comcast.net> 
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org <mailto:linf...@ieee.org>  

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org <mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org>  


  _  


To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC 
<https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1> =1 


  _  


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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>  

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/ 
<https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/%20>  

Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/  <https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/> 
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe) <https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html> 
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html 

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net <mailto:msher

Re: [PSES] dielectric strength question -- update

[John Woodgate]

Indeed, but the crunch question is where did that data come from. We can 
tell by the number 60664 that it originated probably in the 1970s.


On 2024-07-02 20:21, Ralph McDiarmid wrote:


I’m aware of IEC 60664-1 (insulation coordination) and I’ve referenced 
it many times over the years.  You’ll find its normative reference in 
several IEC and CSA standards and UL840 seems to rely on its 
database.  IEC 60664 has been around a long time and has several parts.


Ralph

*From:*Richard Nute 
*Sent:* Friday, June 28, 2024 3:31 PM
*To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
*Subject:* [PSES] dielectric strength question -- update

Since my 23 June message, I may have found the answer to my quest as 
to where the air insulation (clearances) distances came from: IEC 664, 
Edition 1, 1980,  Appendix Table AI, withstand voltages, and Table 
AII, breakdown voltages.


According to IEC 664, Table AII is “experimental data” by

Prof. Dr. Ing. W. Pfeiffer, convenor of IEC TC109/MT3, 
elektrotechnische zeitschriftAusg.B, 1976.


Dr. Hermstein, elektrotechnische zeitschrift Ausg. A, 1969.

These are Germanelectrotechnical journals issue A, 1969, and issue B, 
1976.  I could not find copies of these.  Perhaps our German 
subscribers can find these.


I surmise from the tables that these two people tested air breakdown 
voltage as a function of distance.  I did find that Dr. Hermstein did 
some experimental work on electrical performance of gasses that has 
been discredited.


Table AI (IEC 664) is withstand voltages based on the breakdown 
voltages in Table AII (IEC 664). This is the source of IEC 60664-1 
clearance distance tables which have been used by a number of IEC 
standards committees.


I’ve attached a plot of both the breakdown voltage per distance and 
the withstand voltage per distance through air.  These are linear axes 
while the IEC 664 and IEC 60664-1 plots are logarithmic axes.I’ve 
included trend lines (dotted) and their equations.(The 
voltage-distance tables are not in IEC 60664-1.)


I suspect the non-linearity of the breakdown (red) line is due to 
measurement problems. I would expect the line to be straight except 
for the small dimensions that approach the Paschen voltage limit for 
air, 327 volts peak.  (Paschen studied gas breakdowns at very small 
gaps and found that various gasses do not break down at very small gap 
dimensions.)


Best regards,

Rich



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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/ 



Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how 
to unsubscribe) 

List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org



To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1 





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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how 
to unsubscribe) 

List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org



To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1



--
Signature OOO - Own Opinions Only
Best wishes
John Woodgate, Rayleigh, Essex UK
Keep trying

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:

Re: [PSES] dielectric strength question -- update

[Ralph McDiarmid]

I'm aware of IEC 60664-1 (insulation coordination) and I've referenced it
many times over the years.  You'll find its normative reference in several
IEC and CSA standards and UL840 seems to rely on its database.  IEC 60664
has been around a long time and has several parts.

 

Ralph

 

From: Richard Nute  
Sent: Friday, June 28, 2024 3:31 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] dielectric strength question -- update

 

 

Since my 23 June message, I may have found the answer to my quest as to
where the air insulation (clearances) distances came from: IEC 664, Edition
1, 1980,  Appendix Table AI, withstand voltages, and Table AII, breakdown
voltages. 

According to IEC 664, Table AII is "experimental data" by 

Prof. Dr. Ing. W. Pfeiffer, convenor of IEC TC109/MT3, elektrotechnische
zeitschrift  Ausg. B, 1976. 

Dr. Hermstein, elektrotechnische zeitschrift  Ausg. A, 1969.  

These are German electrotechnical journals issue A, 1969, and issue B, 1976.
I could not find copies of these.  Perhaps our German subscribers can find
these.

I surmise from the tables that these two people tested air breakdown voltage
as a function of distance.  I did find that Dr. Hermstein did some
experimental work on electrical performance of gasses that has been
discredited. 

Table AI (IEC 664) is withstand voltages based on the breakdown voltages in
Table AII (IEC 664).  This is the source of IEC 60664-1 clearance distance
tables which have been used by a number of IEC standards committees.  

I've attached a plot of both the breakdown voltage per distance and the
withstand voltage per distance through air.  These are linear axes while the
IEC 664 and IEC 60664-1 plots are logarithmic axes.  I've included trend
lines (dotted) and their equations.  (The voltage-distance tables are not in
IEC 60664-1.)  

I suspect the non-linearity of the breakdown (red) line is due to
measurement problems. I would expect the line to be straight except for the
small dimensions that approach the Paschen voltage limit for air, 327 volts
peak.  (Paschen studied gas breakdowns at very small gaps and found that
various gasses do not break down at very small gap dimensions.) 

Best regards,

Rich

  _  

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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG   

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/
  

Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/   
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to
unsubscribe)  
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html 

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net  
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org   

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org   

  _  

To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC
 =1 


-

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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

Re: [PSES] power lsupply musings #1

[Ralph McDiarmid]

Oh boy, have I seen this, in the distant past.  Today, there is likely an
IEC standard which defines how this measurement should be performed.

 

When I was a development engineer at a small d.c. power supply company in
the 1990s we grappled with this same issue.  We eventually designed a custom
voltage probe which measured differential ripple & noise into 50 ohms with a
20 MHz bandwidth.  It provided a repeatable measurement of output noise into
a stabilized impedance while rejecting common-mode contribution.  Its
implementation settled most arguments on how this measurement was done since
some customers at the time were challenging our results when we were merely
using an unbalanced 10X scope probe with any convenient oscilloscope on
hand.  

 

Any, well considered, implementation for a noise probe is probably just as
good so long as it is used consistently, and the method disclosed to those
who need to know.  

 

Ralph

 

From: doug emcesd.com  
Sent: Monday, July 1, 2024 4:18 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] power lsupply musings #1

 

Hi Everyone,

 

I thought I would post a bit about power supplies. Something as simple as
trying to measure ripple on the output can be very inaccurate, overstating
ripple amplitude by a lot, 100% over stated is not all that unusual.

 

One problem arises from common mode noise on the output that gets into the
structure of the probe used for the measurement. Most probes have modes
resulting in display of voltages that are not actually present. If you doubt
this, just connect both terminals of a scope probe to the low end, say
ground, of a power supply output and you will often see a significant signal
that is not actually there. Whatever one measures with a shorted probe on
the ground side of the supply output is the error in the measurement and can
easily exceed the actual ripple voltage present on the output.

 

Have you seen this? I cover this in detail in my presentations.

 

Doug

 
 

  _  

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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG   

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/
  

Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/   
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to
unsubscribe)  
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html 

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net  
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org   

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org   

  _  

To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC
 =1 


-

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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

Re: [PSES] "Significant Thickness"

[John Woodgate]

Thanks, Gert, but I don't think that's enough to satisfy the legal 
people. The rationale does not say what 'significant' means, and the 
meaning can't be determined from the rationale text. the best solution, 
I think, is to delete 'significant' from 6.4.8.2.3, as it adds nothing 
to meaning but a lot to confusion. It's then consistent with the rationale.


On 2024-07-01 11:35, Gert Gremmen F4LDP wrote:

TR 62368-2:2019:
Part 2: Explanatory information related to IEC 62368-1:2018

6.4.8.2.3 Compliance criteria
Rationale:
In each case there is a performance test, and construction (pre-selection)
criteria given. For material flammability, compliance of the material is
checked at the minimum thickness used as a fire enclosure or fire 
barrier.


Gert Gremmen

On 1-7-2024 11:02, James Pawson (U3C) wrote:


Hello again,

IEC 62368-1

/6.4.8 Fire Enclosures/

/6.4.8.2.3 Compliance criteria/

/Compliance is checked by inspection of applicable data sheets or test.
The material flammability class is checked for the *thinnest 
significant thickness* used./


There’s not a definition of “significant thickness” in the standard. 
Given that openings in a fire enclosure have controlled maximum 
dimensions I’m going to read “significant thickness” as “thickness of 
an area of material that is larger than the maximum permitted opening 
in that face of the fire enclosure”


Thoughts welcomed!

All the best

James

James Pawson

Managing Director & EMC Problem Solver

*Unit 3 Compliance Ltd*

*EMC : Environmental & Vibration : Electrical Safety : CE & UKCA : 
Consultancy*


www.unit3compliance.co.uk  | 
ja...@unit3compliance.co.uk 


+44(0)1274 911747  |  +44(0)7811 139957

2 Wellington Business Park, New Lane, Bradford, BD4 8AL

Registered in England and Wales # 10574298

/Office hours:/

/Every morning my full attention is on consultancy, testing, and 
troubleshooting activities for our customers’ projects. I’m 
available/contactable between 1300h to 1730h Mon/Tue/Thurs/Fri./


/For inquiries, bookings, and testing updates please send us an email 
on he...@unit3compliance.co.uk  
or call 01274 911747. Our lead times for testing and consultancy are 
typically 4-5 weeks./




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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how 
to unsubscribe) 

List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org



To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1




--
Independent Expert on CE marking
EMC Consultant
Electrical Safety Consultant


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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how 
to unsubscribe) 

List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org



To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1



--
Signature OOO - Own Opinions Only
Best wishes
John Woodgate, Rayleigh, Essex UK
Keep trying

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html 

Re: [PSES] "Significant Thickness"

[Gert Gremmen F4LDP]

TR 62368-2:2019:
Part 2: Explanatory information related to IEC 62368-1:2018

6.4.8.2.3 Compliance criteria
Rationale:
In each case there is a performance test, and construction (pre-selection)
criteria given. For material flammability, compliance of the material is
checked at the minimum thickness used as a fire enclosure or fire barrier.

Gert Gremmen

On 1-7-2024 11:02, James Pawson (U3C) wrote:


Hello again,

IEC 62368-1

/6.4.8 Fire Enclosures/

/6.4.8.2.3 Compliance criteria/

/Compliance is checked by inspection of applicable data sheets or test.
The material flammability class is checked for the *thinnest 
significant thickness* used./


There’s not a definition of “significant thickness” in the standard. 
Given that openings in a fire enclosure have controlled maximum 
dimensions I’m going to read “significant thickness” as “thickness of 
an area of material that is larger than the maximum permitted opening 
in that face of the fire enclosure”


Thoughts welcomed!

All the best

James

James Pawson

Managing Director & EMC Problem Solver

*Unit 3 Compliance Ltd*

*EMC : Environmental & Vibration : Electrical Safety : CE & UKCA : 
Consultancy*


www.unit3compliance.co.uk  | 
ja...@unit3compliance.co.uk 


+44(0)1274 911747  |  +44(0)7811 139957

2 Wellington Business Park, New Lane, Bradford, BD4 8AL

Registered in England and Wales # 10574298

/Office hours:/

/Every morning my full attention is on consultancy, testing, and 
troubleshooting activities for our customers’ projects. I’m 
available/contactable between 1300h to 1730h Mon/Tue/Thurs/Fri./


/For inquiries, bookings, and testing updates please send us an email 
on he...@unit3compliance.co.uk  or 
call 01274 911747. Our lead times for testing and consultancy are 
typically 4-5 weeks./




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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how 
to unsubscribe) 

List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org



To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1




--
Independent Expert on CE marking
EMC Consultant
Electrical Safety Consultant

-

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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1
BEGIN:VCARD
FN:Gert Gremmen
N:Gremmen;Gert;;;
ADR:;;1261 Route de Pirot;Chauffailles;;71170;France
EMAIL;PREF=1:g.grem...@cetest.nl
TEL;TYPE=cell:+33 7 84507010
NOTE:Independent Expert on CE marking 	\n	Harmonised Standards (HAS-) Consu
 ltant @ European Commission for RED\, LVD	 and EMC\n	EMC Consultant\n	Elect
 rical Safety Consultant\n	
X-MOZILLA-HTML:TRUE
END:VCARD

Re: [PSES] "Significant Thickness"

[Charlie Blackham]

James

My understanding off this phrase is "The material flammability class is checked 
at the thinnest part of the material that is relied upon as a Fire Enclosure"

62368-1 allows different methods of compliance with clause 6.4 within the same 
product - for example, parts of the product that are PS1 or PS2 don't need a 
Fire Enclosure but might share an outer enclosure with parts that are PS3 and 
require a Fire Enclosure for that portion of the product.

Best regards
Charlie

Charlie Blackham
Sulis Consultants Ltd
Tel: +44 (0)7946 624317
Web: https://sulisconsultants.com/
Registered in England and Wales, number 05466247

From: James Pawson (U3C) 
Sent: Monday, July 1, 2024 10:02 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] "Significant Thickness"

Hello again,

IEC 62368-1
6.4.8 Fire Enclosures
6.4.8.2.3 Compliance criteria
Compliance is checked by inspection of applicable data sheets or test.
The material flammability class is checked for the thinnest significant 
thickness used.

There's not a definition of "significant thickness" in the standard. Given that 
openings in a fire enclosure have controlled maximum dimensions I'm going to 
read "significant thickness" as "thickness of an area of material that is 
larger than the maximum permitted opening in that face of the fire enclosure"

Thoughts welcomed!

All the best
James

James Pawson
Managing Director & EMC Problem Solver

Unit 3 Compliance Ltd
EMC : Environmental & Vibration : Electrical Safety : CE & UKCA : Consultancy

www.unit3compliance.co.uk | 
ja...@unit3compliance.co.uk
+44(0)1274 911747  |  +44(0)7811 139957
2 Wellington Business Park, New Lane, Bradford, BD4 8AL
Registered in England and Wales # 10574298

Office hours:
Every morning my full attention is on consultancy, testing, and troubleshooting 
activities for our customers' projects. I'm available/contactable between 1300h 
to 1730h Mon/Tue/Thurs/Fri.
For inquiries, bookings, and testing updates please send us an email on 
he...@unit3compliance.co.uk or call 01274 
911747. Our lead times for testing and consultancy are typically 4-5 weeks.






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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org



To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

-

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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

Re: [PSES] Polyimide film/tape for fire enclosure (UL 94 V-0 rating)

[Ralph McDiarmid]

Generally, adhesive tape cannot be relied on for a safety feature, like forming 
part of a fire enclosure.  Standards typically require mechanical securement.

 

Ralph

 

From: James Pawson (U3C)  
Sent: Sunday, June 30, 2024 9:51 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Polyimide film/tape for fire enclosure (UL 94 V-0 rating)

 

Hello safety experts,

 

In relation to my post a month or so ago about battery fire enclosures w.r.t. 
EN 62368-1 I wondered about using polyimide tape to provide a fire enclosure 
for a battery. The idea being to wrap the tape around the battery, at least 
once, probably twice.

 

Suitable materials could include:

 

*   DuPont Kapton 

  (UL file E39505) states V-0 for 25um thick
*   Muller Alhorn Norton TH 

  (UL file E231847  ) states 
V-0 for 25um thick

 

Tapes vs film

 

Plastic material is tested to UL 94 but tapes are tested to UL 510. Therefore, 
as soon as you put a self adhesive backing on a UL 94 V-0 rated film, even if 
the material doesn’t change, the material now needs testing to UL 510. As far 
as I can tell, the test methodology between the two standards are not 
comparable.

 

I feel like there is no reason that adding a small amount of adhesive on the 
back would significantly change the flammability characteristics.

 

The alternative “by the book” method would be to wrap the battery in the 
polyimide film and secure with some regular polyimide tape on the outside 

 

Vertical Burning vs Thin Material Vertical Burning

 

The tests appear to be fundamentally similar in terms of sample size and flame 
power, just the wrapping of the thin material sample around a supporting 
mandrel.

 

It looks like V-0 and VTM-0 ratings are comparable in this respect.

 

As always, I would appreciate your thoughts on the matter, particularly in 
pointing out any problems in logic or understanding on my part.

 

References

UL 94

UL 510

This link also discusses some of the same  

 

 

(If only we had a vertical burning test rig and we could try out some of these 
ideas…)

 

All the best

James

 

James Pawson

Managing Director & EMC Problem Solver

 

Unit 3 Compliance Ltd

EMC : Environmental & Vibration : Electrical Safety : CE & UKCA : Consultancy

 

  www.unit3compliance.co.uk |  
 ja...@unit3compliance.co.uk 

+44(0)1274 911747  |  +44(0)7811 139957

2 Wellington Business Park, New Lane, Bradford, BD4 8AL

Registered in England and Wales # 10574298

 

Office hours:

Every morning my full attention is on consultancy, testing, and troubleshooting 
activities for our customers’ projects. I’m contactable between 1300h to 1730h 
from Monday to Friday.

For inquiries, bookings, and testing updates please send us an email on  
 he...@unit3compliance.co.uk or call 01274 
911747. Our lead times for testing and consultancy are typically 4-5 weeks.

 

  _  

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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG   

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/ 
  

Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/   
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)  
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html 

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net  
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org   

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org   

  _  

To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC 
 =1 


-

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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail 

Re: [PSES] dielectric strength question

[Richard Nute]

Hi Ralph: 

"My understanding that “clearance” is distance through air (the insulating 
medium for clearance), not through solid or liquid insulation." 
True. 

"Clearance distance is a function of peak voltage and air pressure." 
True. 

"The testing of solid insulation is generally done using an impulse withstand 
voltage test." 
Depends on the standard. Its the first option in IEC 60664-1. 

"Clearance is tested using steady-state d.c. or the rms equivalent of an a.c. 
test voltage." 

In IEC 60664-1, the first option is an impulse withstand test, followed by peak 
sinusoid and DC. 

IEC 60664-1, 6.1.2.1, Note 1 says "The electric testing of clearances will also 
stress the associated solid insulation." Solid, air (clearance), and surface 
(creepage) distance are always in parallel. They cannot be tested separately. 
See attached illustration. 

Best regards, 

Rich 

-

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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

Re: [PSES] dielectric strength question -- update

[John Woodgate]

Hi, Rich. I thought you were writing about solid dielectrics. I did a 
Google search for the German journal and it seems that its issues may be 
available up to 1995. The organization VDE should be able to help you: 
https://www.vde.com/en. Also, the search turned up a book that seems to 
have relevant information, at 
https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Electrical_Properties_of_Solid_Insulatin/c9qgPOK7eNwC?hl=en=1=elektrotechnische+zeitschrift=PA220=frontcover


On 2024-06-28 23:31, Richard Nute wrote:


Since my 23 June message, I may have found the answer to my quest as 
to where the air insulation (clearances) distances came from: IEC 664, 
Edition 1, 1980,  Appendix Table AI, withstand voltages, and Table 
AII, breakdown voltages.


According to IEC 664, Table AII is “experimental data” by

Prof. Dr. Ing. W. Pfeiffer, convenor of IEC TC109/MT3,
elektrotechnische zeitschriftAusg.B, 1976.

Dr. Hermstein, elektrotechnische zeitschrift  Ausg. A, 1969.

These are Germanelectrotechnical journalsissue A, 1969, and issue B, 
1976.  I could not find copies of these.  Perhaps our German 
subscribers can find these.


I surmise from the tables that these two people tested air breakdown 
voltage as a function of distance.  I did find that Dr. Hermstein did 
some experimental work on electrical performance of gasses that has 
been discredited.


Table AI (IEC 664) is withstand voltages based on the breakdown 
voltages in Table AII (IEC 664).  This is the source of IEC 60664-1 
clearance distance tables which have been used by a number of IEC 
standards committees.


I’ve attached a plot of both the breakdown voltage per distance and 
the withstand voltage per distance through air.  These are linear axes 
while the IEC 664 and IEC 60664-1 plots are logarithmic axes.I’ve 
included trend lines (dotted)and their equations.(The voltage-distance 
tables are not in IEC 60664-1.)


I suspect the non-linearity of the breakdown (red) line is due to 
measurement problems. I would expect the line to be straight except 
for the small dimensions that approach the Paschen voltage limit for 
air, 327 volts peak.  (Paschen studied gas breakdowns at very small 
gaps and found that various gasses do not break down at very small gap 
dimensions.)


Best regards,

Rich



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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how 
to unsubscribe) 

List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org



To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1



--
Signature OOO - Own Opinions Only
Best wishes
John Woodgate, Rayleigh, Essex UK
Keep trying

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

Re: [PSES] dielectric strength question

[Ralph McDiarmid]

My understanding that “clearance” is distance through air (the insulating 
medium for clearance), not through solid or liquid insulation.  Clearance 
distance is a function of peak voltage and air pressure.  The testing of solid 
insulation is generally done using an impulse withstand voltage test.  
Clearance is tested using steady-state d.c. or the rms equivalent of an a.c. 
test voltage.

 

The tables for clearance and creepage along with the requirements for solid 
insulation appear to have served the industry well over the past few decades 
and there seems no compelling reason to scrutinize their origin, unless it can 
be shown that those requirements are generally inadequate or draconian.  I 
suspect there is a decent safety margin built-in to those numbers, maybe a 2:1 
factor.

 

Ralph

 

From: Richard Nute  
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2024 4:34 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] dielectric strength question

 

 

Hi John:

 

My concern is an engineering-based prediction of clearances (air insulation) as 
a function of voltage.  What is the basis for the clearance tables in the 
standards?  I have never seen anything that allows me to independently verify 
the clearance dimensions as a function of voltage.  My assumption was that the 
volts per unit distance through the insulating medium was an insulator 
constant.  Not true.  The volts per unit distance is a variable and depends on 
the distance.  So, how do I generate a table of distance for each voltage?  As 
near as I know, the tables are empirical.  

 

Your hypothesis is that the V/d curves are due to non-uniformity of the 
insulator is sort-of verified by the papers listed by Adam Dixon.  However, the 
incident you describe seems to me to be due to partial discharge.  Any V/d 
non-uniformity area of the insulating medium is a candidate for partial 
discharge.  Air, because its V/d is very much less than a solid insulator V/d, 
is likely to have sufficient voltage across the void and can lead to a partial 
breakdown of the solid insulator.  In the 1950s, I doubt that we knew much of 
the theory of partial discharge.

 

Best regards,

Rich

 

 

From: John Woodgate mailto:j...@woodjohn.uk> > 
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2024 1:26 PM
To: ri...@ieee.org <mailto:ri...@ieee.org> ; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG 
<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> 
Subject: Re: [PSES] dielectric strength question

 

I feel that those curves support the hypothesis that the variation is due to 
non-uniformity in the material. I first suggested voids (because I recall a 
spectacular failure of a line output transformer design  in the late 1950s 
whose HV winding was encapsulated in polythene. Air in the voids ionized and 
the ions gobbled up the polythene. Attempt to eliminate the voids in viscous 
molten polythene under vacuum were partly successful, but did not survive the 
moulding process. Voids are only one possibility; simple variations in density 
may be sufficient to concentrate the electric field just where it will do the 
most damage.

Can some tests be done on a solid material that has been certified to be highly 
uniform? What happens with liquids, which should be orders of magnitude more 
uniform than the average solid?

On 2024-06-25 20:35, Richard Nute wrote:

 

Thanks to Adam for all the references.  They address very thin solid 
insulations.  But they confirm that dielectric strength is not a constant for 
very small distances, and they do not have an answer as to why.  

 

My concern is verifying clearances in safety standards.  I’ve attached curves 
of three standards clearance requirements (logarithmic scale for volts per 
millimeter).  The solid curves represent the clearances in standards and are 
close to power curves (dotted lines).  The equations are for a best-fit power 
curve.

 

The solid green curve is from an old standard and depicts actual withstand 
measurements.  

 

I suspect the electric strength curves are related to the reason for Paschen’s 
finding that gases do not break down at low voltages.  

 

My objective is to predict clearance dimensions without tables.

 

Best regards,

Rich

 

 


  _  


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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>  

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/ 
<https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/%20>  

Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/  <https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/> 
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe) <https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html> 
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html 

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net <mailto:msherma...@co

Re: [PSES] dielectric strength question

[Richard Nute]

 

Hi John:

 

My concern is an engineering-based prediction of clearances (air insulation) as 
a function of voltage.  What is the basis for the clearance tables in the 
standards?  I have never seen anything that allows me to independently verify 
the clearance dimensions as a function of voltage.  My assumption was that the 
volts per unit distance through the insulating medium was an insulator 
constant.  Not true.  The volts per unit distance is a variable and depends on 
the distance.  So, how do I generate a table of distance for each voltage?  As 
near as I know, the tables are empirical.  

 

Your hypothesis is that the V/d curves are due to non-uniformity of the 
insulator is sort-of verified by the papers listed by Adam Dixon.  However, the 
incident you describe seems to me to be due to partial discharge.  Any V/d 
non-uniformity area of the insulating medium is a candidate for partial 
discharge.  Air, because its V/d is very much less than a solid insulator V/d, 
is likely to have sufficient voltage across the void and can lead to a partial 
breakdown of the solid insulator.  In the 1950s, I doubt that we knew much of 
the theory of partial discharge.

 

Best regards,

Rich

 

 

From: John Woodgate  
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2024 1:26 PM
To: ri...@ieee.org; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] dielectric strength question

 

I feel that those curves support the hypothesis that the variation is due to 
non-uniformity in the material. I first suggested voids (because I recall a 
spectacular failure of a line output transformer design  in the late 1950s 
whose HV winding was encapsulated in polythene. Air in the voids ionized and 
the ions gobbled up the polythene. Attempt to eliminate the voids in viscous 
molten polythene under vacuum were partly successful, but did not survive the 
moulding process. Voids are only one possibility; simple variations in density 
may be sufficient to concentrate the electric field just where it will do the 
most damage.

Can some tests be done on a solid material that has been certified to be highly 
uniform? What happens with liquids, which should be orders of magnitude more 
uniform than the average solid?

On 2024-06-25 20:35, Richard Nute wrote:

 

Thanks to Adam for all the references.  They address very thin solid 
insulations.  But they confirm that dielectric strength is not a constant for 
very small distances, and they do not have an answer as to why.  

 

My concern is verifying clearances in safety standards.  I’ve attached curves 
of three standards clearance requirements (logarithmic scale for volts per 
millimeter).  The solid curves represent the clearances in standards and are 
close to power curves (dotted lines).  The equations are for a best-fit power 
curve.

 

The solid green curve is from an old standard and depicts actual withstand 
measurements.  

 

I suspect the electric strength curves are related to the reason for Paschen’s 
finding that gases do not break down at low voltages.  

 

My objective is to predict clearance dimensions without tables.

 

Best regards,

Rich

 

 

  _  

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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>  

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/ 
<https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/%20>  

Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/  <https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/> 
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe) <https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html> 
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html 

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net <mailto:msherma...@comcast.net> 
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org <mailto:linf...@ieee.org>  

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org <mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org>  

  _  

To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC 
<https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1> =1 

-- 
OOO - Own Opinions Only
Best wishes
John Woodgate, Rayleigh, Essex UK
Keep trying

 


 
<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email_source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=emailclient>
 

Virus-free. 
<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email_source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=emailclient>
 www.avg.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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.m

Re: [PSES] HiPot Testing of 3-Phase PSU Question

[Brian Gregory]

 L-G failure sounds like the Y-caps conducting. I made a special input 
connector for my unit that connected to traces that went around the Y-caps 
and/or the GDTs on the input (single phase 120V) that was used during FAT.IIRC, 
we also had to pull pins b/c we had faults from a UL-rated Phoenix connector.   
It wasn't the connector, it was the solder bumps under the board that were 
arc'ing.  So, we had a customer connector made that only used 3 of the 5 
sockets. Amongst the tricks I've had to employ  Colorado Brian   
-- Original Message --
From: Doug Nix 
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] HiPot Testing of 3-Phase PSU Question
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2024 15:31:19 -0400


Hi Brian,
 This is my bailiwick. If you are talking about semiconductor manufacturing 
equipment, the correct standard is IEC 60204-33. If its standard 
manufacturing machinery, then its IEC 60204-1. Clause 18 calls out 1 kV 
or 2x nominal mains voltage, whichever is more for the voltage 
test (read hipot) for machinery designed for connection to a TN supply. 
The standard permits you to disconnect any equipment that is either 
pre-certified (as most industrial PSUs are) or that might be damaged by the 
test. Any industrial PSU built today will have surge suppressors on the primary 
side. Also, mains filters used in these machines will have Y-caps that will 
conduct significant current between the mains conductors and PE during a hipot 
test. So, the answer is to disconnect these devices and test the mains voltage 
wiring upstream and downstream of them separately. If the PSU is downstream of 
a control transformer, you need only test up to the primary of the control 
transformer. All industrial equipment is supposed to be hipot tested at the 
factory; however, just because its supposed to be done doesn't make it 
so.Best regards, Doug nixd...@ieee.org+1 (519) 729-5704 
On Jun 24, 2024, at 08:19, Brian Kunde  wrote:I 
understand that commercial products are %100 HiPot tested at the factory.  Does 
this rule hold true for 3-phase industrial machinery?
 Here is why I am asking.  I just pre-tested a German build 400-480Vac to 24Vdc 
power supply (DIN Rail Mount). It passed all the tests, except it failed the 
Phase-to-PE HiPot test at around 1000V. I tried both AC and DC voltage and 
tried connecting it from a single phase to PE and tried all phases connected 
together to PE.  I tested a second power supply of the same model and it did 
the same exact thing. So I am thinking that it is supposed to perform this way. 
My concern is that in our factory, they will not be able to HiPot the final 
product when the power supply is installed.   I assume the power supply has 
some kind of built in surge suppression. So how am I to use this PSU in my 
final product? Thoughts and comments would be appreciated. Best regards to all. 
The Other BrianThis 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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/ Website:  
https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/ 
 Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
 List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html
For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
 Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org
For policy questions, send mail to:
 Jim Bacher at:  j.bac...@ieee.org
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1
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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/
Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/ 
 Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
 List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html
For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
 Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org
For policy questions, send mail to:
 Jim Bacher at:  j.bac...@ieee.org
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

-

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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https

Re: [PSES] dielectric strength question

[John Woodgate]

I feel that those curves support the hypothesis that the variation is 
due to non-uniformity in the material. I first suggested voids (because 
I recall a spectacular failure of a line output transformer design  in 
the late 1950s whose HV winding was encapsulated in polythene. Air in 
the voids ionized and the ions gobbled up the polythene. Attempt to 
eliminate the voids in viscous molten polythene under vacuum were partly 
successful, but did not survive the moulding process. Voids are only one 
possibility; simple variations in density may be sufficient to 
concentrate the electric field just where it will do the most damage.


Can some tests be done on a solid material that has been certified to be 
highly uniform? What happens with liquids, which should be orders of 
magnitude more uniform than the average solid?


On 2024-06-25 20:35, Richard Nute wrote:


Thanks to Adam for all the references.  They address very thin solid 
insulations.  But they confirm that dielectric strength is not a 
constant for very small distances, and they do not have an answer as 
to why.


My concern is verifying clearances in safety standards.  I’ve attached 
curves of three standards clearance requirements (logarithmic scale 
for volts per millimeter).  The solid curves represent the clearances 
in standards and are close to power curves (dotted lines).  The 
equations are for a best-fit power curve.


The solid green curve is from an old standard and depicts actual 
withstand measurements.


I suspect the electric strength curves are related to the reason for 
Paschen’s finding that gases do not break down at low voltages.


My objective is to predict clearance dimensions without tables.

Best regards,

Rich



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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how 
to unsubscribe) 

List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org



To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1



--
Signature OOO - Own Opinions Only
Best wishes
John Woodgate, Rayleigh, Essex UK
Keep trying

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

Re: [PSES] dielectric strength question

[Richard Nute]

 

Thanks to Adam for all the references.  They address very thin solid 
insulations.  But they confirm that dielectric strength is not a constant for 
very small distances, and they do not have an answer as to why.  

 

My concern is verifying clearances in safety standards.  I’ve attached curves 
of three standards clearance requirements (logarithmic scale for volts per 
millimeter).  The solid curves represent the clearances in standards and are 
close to power curves (dotted lines).  The equations are for a best-fit power 
curve.

 

The solid green curve is from an old standard and depicts actual withstand 
measurements.  

 

I suspect the electric strength curves are related to the reason for Paschen’s 
finding that gases do not break down at low voltages.  

 

My objective is to predict clearance dimensions without tables.

 

Best regards,

Rich

 

 


-

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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

Re: [PSES] HiPot Testing of 3-Phase PSU Question

[Doug Nix]

Hi Brian,

This is my bailiwick. If you are talking about semiconductor manufacturing 
equipment, the correct standard is IEC 60204-33. If it’s standard manufacturing 
machinery, then it’s IEC 60204-1. Clause 18 calls out 1 kV or 2x nominal mains 
voltage, whichever is more for the “voltage test” (read hipot) for machinery 
designed for connection to a TN supply. The standard permits you to disconnect 
any equipment that is either pre-certified (as most industrial PSUs are) or 
that might be damaged by the test. Any industrial PSU built today will have 
surge suppressors on the primary side. Also, mains filters used in these 
machines will have Y-caps that will conduct significant current between the 
mains conductors and PE during a hipot test. So, the answer is to disconnect 
these devices and test the mains voltage wiring upstream and downstream of them 
separately. If the PSU is downstream of a control transformer, you need only 
test up to the primary of the control transformer.

All industrial equipment is supposed to be hipot tested at the factory; 
however, just because it’s supposed to be done doesn't make it so.
Best regards,

Doug Nix
d...@ieee.org
+1 (519) 729-5704



> On Jun 24, 2024, at 08:19, Brian Kunde  wrote:
> 
> I understand that commercial products are %100 HiPot tested at the factory.  
> Does this rule hold true for 3-phase industrial machinery?
> 
> Here is why I am asking.  I just pre-tested a German build 400-480Vac to 
> 24Vdc power supply (DIN Rail Mount). It passed all the tests, except it 
> failed the Phase-to-PE HiPot test at around 1000V. I tried both AC and DC 
> voltage and tried connecting it from a single phase to PE and tried all 
> phases connected together to PE.  I tested a second power supply of the same 
> model and it did the same exact thing. So I am thinking that it is supposed 
> to perform this way.
> 
> My concern is that in our factory, they will not be able to HiPot the final 
> product when the power supply is installed.  
> 
> I assume the power supply has some kind of built in surge suppression. So how 
> am I to use this PSU in my final product?
> 
> Thoughts and comments would be appreciated.
> 
> Best regards to all.
> 
> The Other Brian
> 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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> 
> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
> https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/
> 
> Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/  
> Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
> unsubscribe) 
> List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html
> 
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
> Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net 
> Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org 
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org 
> To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
> https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1
> 


-

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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

Re: [PSES] dielectric strength question

[Ken Javor]

Totally of the original topic, but I have used “swag” uncapitalized in several 
papers on the topic of electromagnetic coupling to and from cables over a 
ground plane. In that context, “swag” means single-wire-above-ground.

 

 

-- 

 

Ken Javor

Ph: (256) 650-5261

 

 

From: Ken Javor 
Reply-To: Ken Javor 
Date: Tuesday, June 25, 2024 at 8:15 AM
To: 
Subject: Re: [PSES] dielectric strength question

 

Silly wild ass guess is what I mean when I use that acronym.

 

-- 

 

Ken Javor

Ph: (256) 650-5261

 

 

From: "James Pawson (U3C)" 
Reply-To: "James Pawson (U3C)" 
Date: Tuesday, June 25, 2024 at 7:29 AM
To: 
Subject: Re: [PSES] dielectric strength question

 

Could someone define the acronym SWAG in this context please?

 

Something With Air Gap?

 

All the best

James

 

James Pawson

Managing Director & EMC Problem Solver

 

Unit 3 Compliance Ltd

EMC : Environmental & Vibration : Electrical Safety : CE & UKCA : Consultancy

 

www.unit3compliance.co.uk | ja...@unit3compliance.co.uk 

+44(0)1274 911747  |  +44(0)7811 139957

2 Wellington Business Park, New Lane, Bradford, BD4 8AL

Registered in England and Wales # 10574298

 

Office hours:

Every morning my full attention is on consultancy, testing, and troubleshooting 
activities for our customers’ projects. I’m available/contactable between 1300h 
to 1730h Mon/Tue/Thurs/Fri.

For inquiries, bookings, and testing updates please send us an email on 
he...@unit3compliance.co.uk or call 01274 911747. Our lead times for testing 
and consultancy are typically 4-5 weeks.

 

 

 

 

From: Adam Dixon  
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2024 1:24 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] dielectric strength question

 

SWAG #2:  non-uniformities in materials + multiple breakdown mechanisms make it 
difficult to model.  Mica shows up in 1940's vintage literature.  Here are some 
interesting papers that I perused after Rich posed the question:

 

https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=9079498
Space change behavior in cross-linked polymers

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/app.49379
Touches on different breakdown mechanisms (see Figure 3; also the Figure 2 
reference may be worthwhile but I haven't tried accessing it)

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7764431/
electron injection and avalanche breakdown process

https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1=pdf=65f577afe99e3253e7e3f38054ce9ea49b16a636
Electromechanical breakdown mechanism but also states "The exact cause for the 
observed behavior remains to be investigated" 

https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA635433.pdf
Paschen Curve anomalies (for consideration of gas dielectrics)

https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1656858

Describes influence of polymer chain ends (Figure 1 is a good illustration)

 

 

Cheers,

Adam in Atlanta

adam.di...@ieee.org 

 

On Mon, Jun 24, 2024 at 11:00 PM Patrick  wrote:

just a SWAG...  perhaps dielectric strength is dependent on volume, and the 
increased 'thickness' is assumed to be thickness-for-a-constant-surface-area.  
If that's the case then an increasing thickness is also an increased volume 
which also increases available charge carriers, reducing breakdown voltage.

A test of my SWAG would be to incrementally increase dielectric thickness and 
determine if breakdown voltage eventually finds a minimum and then begins to 
increase with thickness.

interesting question.

 

On Sun, Jun 23, 2024, 13:32 Richard Nute  wrote:

 

Why does air (or any insulating material) have decreasing dielectric strength, 
kV/mm, with increasing distance through the dielectric substance?  Assume 
homogenous field.  (I have assumed the dielectric strength was constant for the 
material.)   In other words, what is the physical basis for the non-constant 
dielectric strength clearance tables in various safety standards?  (I have yet 
to find the answer from the web.)  How can I predict the dielectric constant 
for a given distance through air (or any insulation)?

Charles J. Fraser, in Mechanical Engineer's Reference Book (Twelfth Edition), 
1994:

If the potential difference across opposite faces of a dielectric material is 
increased above a particular value, the material breaks down. The failure of 
the material takes the form of a small puncture, which renders the material 
useless as an insulator. The potential gradient necessary to cause break down 
is normally expressed in kilovolts/millimetre and is termed the ‘dielectric 
strength’. The dielectric strength of a given material decreases with increases 
in the thickness. Table 2.2 gives approximate values for some of the more 
common dielectric materials.

Table 2.2. Dielectric strength of some common insulators

MaterialThickness (mm)  Dielectric strength (kV/mm)
Air 0.2 5.75   
0.6 4.92   
1.0 4.36   
10.02.98   
Mica0.01200
0.10115
1.00  

Re: [PSES] dielectric strength question

[Heckrotte, Michael]

My understanding is Scientific Wild Ass Guess


Best Regards,
Mike

From: Patrick 
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2024 6:51 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] dielectric strength question

Silly WildAss Guess.
A precursor to a hypothesis.  Plus easier to say and spell.

On Tue, Jun 25, 2024 at 6:15 AM Ken Javor 
mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com>> wrote:
Silly wild ass guess is what I mean when I use that acronym.

--

Ken Javor
Ph: (256) 650-5261


From: "James Pawson (U3C)" 
mailto:ja...@unit3compliance.co.uk>>
Reply-To: "James Pawson (U3C)" 
mailto:ja...@unit3compliance.co.uk>>
Date: Tuesday, June 25, 2024 at 7:29 AM
To: mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>>
Subject: Re: [PSES] dielectric strength question

Could someone define the acronym SWAG in this context please?

Something With Air Gap?

All the best
James

James Pawson
Managing Director & EMC Problem Solver

Unit 3 Compliance Ltd
EMC : Environmental & Vibration : Electrical Safety : CE & UKCA : Consultancy

www.unit3compliance.co.uk<http://www.unit3compliance.co.uk/> | 
ja...@unit3compliance.co.uk<mailto:ja...@unit3compliance.co.uk>
+44(0)1274 911747  |  +44(0)7811 139957
2 Wellington Business Park, New Lane, Bradford, BD4 8AL
Registered in England and Wales # 10574298

Office hours:
Every morning my full attention is on consultancy, testing, and troubleshooting 
activities for our customers’ projects. I’m available/contactable between 1300h 
to 1730h Mon/Tue/Thurs/Fri.
For inquiries, bookings, and testing updates please send us an email on 
he...@unit3compliance.co.uk<mailto:he...@unit3compliance.co.uk> or call 01274 
911747. Our lead times for testing and consultancy are typically 4-5 weeks.




From: Adam Dixon mailto:lanterna.viri...@gmail.com>>
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2024 1:24 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Subject: Re: [PSES] dielectric strength question

SWAG #2:  non-uniformities in materials + multiple breakdown mechanisms make it 
difficult to model.  Mica shows up in 1940's vintage literature.  Here are some 
interesting papers that I perused after Rich posed the question:

https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=9079498
Space change behavior in cross-linked polymers

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/app.49379
Touches on different breakdown mechanisms (see Figure 3; also the Figure 2 
reference may be worthwhile but I haven't tried accessing it)

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7764431/
electron injection and avalanche breakdown process

https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1=pdf=65f577afe99e3253e7e3f38054ce9ea49b16a636
Electromechanical breakdown mechanism but also states "The exact cause for the 
observed behavior remains to be investigated"

https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA635433.pdf
Paschen Curve anomalies (for consideration of gas dielectrics)

https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1656858
Describes influence of polymer chain ends (Figure 1 is a good illustration)


Cheers,
Adam in Atlanta
adam.di...@ieee.org<mailto:adam.di...@ieee.org>

On Mon, Jun 24, 2024 at 11:00 PM Patrick 
mailto:conwa...@gmail.com>> wrote:

just a SWAG...  perhaps dielectric strength is dependent on volume, and the 
increased 'thickness' is assumed to be thickness-for-a-constant-surface-area.  
If that's the case then an increasing thickness is also an increased volume 
which also increases available charge carriers, reducing breakdown voltage.

A test of my SWAG would be to incrementally increase dielectric thickness and 
determine if breakdown voltage eventually finds a minimum and then begins to 
increase with thickness.

interesting question.

On Sun, Jun 23, 2024, 13:32 Richard Nute 
mailto:ri...@ieee.org>> wrote:


Why does air (or any insulating material) have decreasing dielectric strength, 
kV/mm, with increasing distance through the dielectric substance?  Assume 
homogenous field.  (I have assumed the dielectric strength was constant for the 
material.)   In other words, what is the physical basis for the non-constant 
dielectric strength clearance tables in various safety standards?  (I have yet 
to find the answer from the web.)  How can I predict the dielectric constant 
for a given distance through air (or any insulation)?

Charles J. Fraser, in Mechanical Engineer's Reference Book (Twelfth 
Edition)<https://www.sciencedirect.com/book/9780750611954/mechanical-engineers-reference-book>,
 1994:

If the potential difference across opposite faces of a dielectric material is 
increased above a particular value, the material breaks down. The failure of 
the material takes the form of a small puncture, which renders the material 
useless as an insulator. The potential 
gradient<https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/potential-gradient> 
necessary to cause break down is normally expressed in kilovolts/millimetre and 
is t

Re: [PSES] dielectric strength question

[Patrick]

Silly WildAss Guess.
A precursor to a hypothesis.  Plus easier to say and spell.

On Tue, Jun 25, 2024 at 6:15 AM Ken Javor 
wrote:

> Silly wild ass guess is what I mean when I use that acronym.
>
>
>
> --
>
>
>
> Ken Javor
>
> Ph: (256) 650-5261
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *"James Pawson (U3C)" 
> *Reply-To: *"James Pawson (U3C)" 
> *Date: *Tuesday, June 25, 2024 at 7:29 AM
> *To: *
> *Subject: *Re: [PSES] dielectric strength question
>
>
>
> Could someone define the acronym SWAG in this context please?
>
>
>
> Something With Air Gap?
>
>
>
> All the best
>
> James
>
>
>
> James Pawson
>
> Managing Director & EMC Problem Solver
>
>
>
> *Unit 3 Compliance Ltd*
>
> *EMC : Environmental & Vibration : Electrical Safety : CE & UKCA :
> Consultancy*
>
>
>
> www.unit3compliance.co.uk | ja...@unit3compliance.co.uk
>
> +44(0)1274 911747  |  +44(0)7811 139957
>
> 2 Wellington Business Park, New Lane, Bradford, BD4 8AL
>
> Registered in England and Wales # 10574298
>
>
>
> *Office hours:*
>
> *Every morning my full attention is on consultancy, testing, and
> troubleshooting activities for our customers’ projects. I’m
> available/contactable between 1300h to 1730h Mon/Tue/Thurs/Fri.*
>
> *For inquiries, bookings, and testing updates please send us an email on
> he...@unit3compliance.co.uk  or call 01274
> 911747. Our lead times for testing and consultancy are typically 4-5 weeks.*
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Adam Dixon 
> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 25, 2024 1:24 PM
> *To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> *Subject:* Re: [PSES] dielectric strength question
>
>
>
> SWAG #2:  non-uniformities in materials + multiple breakdown mechanisms
> make it difficult to model.  Mica shows up in 1940's vintage literature.
> Here are some interesting papers that I perused after Rich posed the
> question:
>
>
>
> https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=9079498
> Space change behavior in cross-linked polymers
>
> https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/app.49379
> Touches on different breakdown mechanisms (see Figure 3; also the Figure 2
> reference may be worthwhile but I haven't tried accessing it)
>
> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7764431/
> electron injection and avalanche breakdown process
>
>
> https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1=pdf=65f577afe99e3253e7e3f38054ce9ea49b16a636
> Electromechanical breakdown mechanism but also states "The exact cause for
> the observed behavior remains to be investigated"
>
> https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA635433.pdf
> Paschen Curve anomalies (for consideration of gas dielectrics)
>
> https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1656858
>
> Describes influence of polymer chain ends (Figure 1 is a good illustration)
>
>
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Adam in Atlanta
>
> adam.di...@ieee.org
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 24, 2024 at 11:00 PM Patrick  wrote:
>
> just a SWAG...  perhaps dielectric strength is dependent on volume, and
> the increased 'thickness' is assumed to be
> thickness-for-a-constant-surface-area.  If that's the case then an
> increasing thickness is also an increased volume which also increases
> available charge carriers, reducing breakdown voltage.
>
> A test of my SWAG would be to incrementally increase dielectric thickness
> and determine if breakdown voltage eventually finds a minimum and then
> begins to increase with thickness.
>
> interesting question.
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jun 23, 2024, 13:32 Richard Nute  wrote:
>
>
>
> Why does air (or any insulating material) have decreasing dielectric
> strength, kV/mm, with increasing distance through the dielectric
> substance?  Assume homogenous field.  (I have assumed the dielectric
> strength was constant for the material.)   In other words, what is the
> physical basis for the non-constant dielectric strength clearance tables
> in various safety standards?  (I have yet to find the answer from the web.)
>   How can I predict the dielectric constant for a given distance through
> air (or any insulation)?
>
> Charles J. Fraser, in Mechanical Engineer's Reference Book (Twelfth
> Edition)
> <https://www.sciencedirect.com/book/9780750611954/mechanical-engineers-reference-book>,
> 1994:
>
> If the potential difference across opposite faces of a dielectric material
> is increased above a particular value, the material breaks down. The
> failure of the material takes the form of a small puncture, which renders
> the material useless as an insulator. The potential gradient
> <https://www.sciencedire

Re: [PSES] dielectric strength question

[Ken Javor]

Silly wild ass guess is what I mean when I use that acronym.

 

-- 

 

Ken Javor

Ph: (256) 650-5261

 

 

From: "James Pawson (U3C)" 
Reply-To: "James Pawson (U3C)" 
Date: Tuesday, June 25, 2024 at 7:29 AM
To: 
Subject: Re: [PSES] dielectric strength question

 

Could someone define the acronym SWAG in this context please?

 

Something With Air Gap?

 

All the best

James

 

James Pawson

Managing Director & EMC Problem Solver

 

Unit 3 Compliance Ltd

EMC : Environmental & Vibration : Electrical Safety : CE & UKCA : Consultancy

 

www.unit3compliance.co.uk | ja...@unit3compliance.co.uk 

+44(0)1274 911747  |  +44(0)7811 139957

2 Wellington Business Park, New Lane, Bradford, BD4 8AL

Registered in England and Wales # 10574298

 

Office hours:

Every morning my full attention is on consultancy, testing, and troubleshooting 
activities for our customers’ projects. I’m available/contactable between 1300h 
to 1730h Mon/Tue/Thurs/Fri.

For inquiries, bookings, and testing updates please send us an email on 
he...@unit3compliance.co.uk or call 01274 911747. Our lead times for testing 
and consultancy are typically 4-5 weeks.

 

 

 

 

From: Adam Dixon  
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2024 1:24 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] dielectric strength question

 

SWAG #2:  non-uniformities in materials + multiple breakdown mechanisms make it 
difficult to model.  Mica shows up in 1940's vintage literature.  Here are some 
interesting papers that I perused after Rich posed the question:

 

https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=9079498
Space change behavior in cross-linked polymers

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/app.49379
Touches on different breakdown mechanisms (see Figure 3; also the Figure 2 
reference may be worthwhile but I haven't tried accessing it)

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7764431/
electron injection and avalanche breakdown process

https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1=pdf=65f577afe99e3253e7e3f38054ce9ea49b16a636
Electromechanical breakdown mechanism but also states "The exact cause for the 
observed behavior remains to be investigated" 

https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA635433.pdf
Paschen Curve anomalies (for consideration of gas dielectrics)

https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1656858

Describes influence of polymer chain ends (Figure 1 is a good illustration)

 

 

Cheers,

Adam in Atlanta

adam.di...@ieee.org 

 

On Mon, Jun 24, 2024 at 11:00 PM Patrick  wrote:

just a SWAG...  perhaps dielectric strength is dependent on volume, and the 
increased 'thickness' is assumed to be thickness-for-a-constant-surface-area.  
If that's the case then an increasing thickness is also an increased volume 
which also increases available charge carriers, reducing breakdown voltage.

A test of my SWAG would be to incrementally increase dielectric thickness and 
determine if breakdown voltage eventually finds a minimum and then begins to 
increase with thickness.

interesting question.

 

On Sun, Jun 23, 2024, 13:32 Richard Nute  wrote:

 

Why does air (or any insulating material) have decreasing dielectric strength, 
kV/mm, with increasing distance through the dielectric substance?  Assume 
homogenous field.  (I have assumed the dielectric strength was constant for the 
material.)   In other words, what is the physical basis for the non-constant 
dielectric strength clearance tables in various safety standards?  (I have yet 
to find the answer from the web.)  How can I predict the dielectric constant 
for a given distance through air (or any insulation)?

Charles J. Fraser, in Mechanical Engineer's Reference Book (Twelfth Edition), 
1994:

If the potential difference across opposite faces of a dielectric material is 
increased above a particular value, the material breaks down. The failure of 
the material takes the form of a small puncture, which renders the material 
useless as an insulator. The potential gradient necessary to cause break down 
is normally expressed in kilovolts/millimetre and is termed the ‘dielectric 
strength’. The dielectric strength of a given material decreases with increases 
in the thickness. Table 2.2 gives approximate values for some of the more 
common dielectric materials.

Table 2.2. Dielectric strength of some common insulators

MaterialThickness (mm)  Dielectric strength (kV/mm)
Air 0.2 5.75   
0.6 4.92   
1.0 4.36   
10.02.98   
Mica0.01200
0.10115
1.0061 

Thanks, and best regards,

Rich

 

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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG 

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/ 

Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/ 
Instructions: https://ewh.

Re: [PSES] dielectric strength question

[Adam Dixon]

In my case, SWAG = best guess (how I heard it used growing up in small town
USA, along the lines of Wikipedia's entry).

Cheers,
Adam in Atlanta
adam.di...@ieee.org

On Tue, Jun 25, 2024 at 8:29 AM James Pawson (U3C) <
ja...@unit3compliance.co.uk> wrote:

> Could someone define the acronym SWAG in this context please?
>
>
>
> Something With Air Gap?
>
>
>
> All the best
>
> James
>
>
>
> James Pawson
>
> Managing Director & EMC Problem Solver
>
>
>
> *Unit 3 Compliance Ltd*
>
> *EMC : Environmental & Vibration : Electrical Safety : CE & UKCA :
> Consultancy*
>
>
>
> www.unit3compliance.co.uk | ja...@unit3compliance.co.uk
>
> +44(0)1274 911747  |  +44(0)7811 139957
>
> 2 Wellington Business Park, New Lane, Bradford, BD4 8AL
>
> Registered in England and Wales # 10574298
>
>
>
> *Office hours:*
>
> *Every morning my full attention is on consultancy, testing, and
> troubleshooting activities for our customers’ projects. I’m
> available/contactable between 1300h to 1730h Mon/Tue/Thurs/Fri.*
>
> *For inquiries, bookings, and testing updates please send us an email on
> he...@unit3compliance.co.uk  or call 01274
> 911747. Our lead times for testing and consultancy are typically 4-5 weeks.*
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Adam Dixon 
> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 25, 2024 1:24 PM
> *To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> *Subject:* Re: [PSES] dielectric strength question
>
>
>
> SWAG #2:  non-uniformities in materials + multiple breakdown mechanisms
> make it difficult to model.  Mica shows up in 1940's vintage literature.
> Here are some interesting papers that I perused after Rich posed the
> question:
>
>
>
> https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=9079498
> Space change behavior in cross-linked polymers
>
> https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/app.49379
> Touches on different breakdown mechanisms (see Figure 3; also the Figure 2
> reference may be worthwhile but I haven't tried accessing it)
>
> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7764431/
> electron injection and avalanche breakdown process
>
>
> https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1=pdf=65f577afe99e3253e7e3f38054ce9ea49b16a636
> Electromechanical breakdown mechanism but also states "The exact cause for
> the observed behavior remains to be investigated"
>
> https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA635433.pdf
> Paschen Curve anomalies (for consideration of gas dielectrics)
>
> https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1656858
>
> Describes influence of polymer chain ends (Figure 1 is a good illustration)
>
>
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Adam in Atlanta
>
> adam.di...@ieee.org
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 24, 2024 at 11:00 PM Patrick  wrote:
>
> just a SWAG...  perhaps dielectric strength is dependent on volume, and
> the increased 'thickness' is assumed to be
> thickness-for-a-constant-surface-area.  If that's the case then an
> increasing thickness is also an increased volume which also increases
> available charge carriers, reducing breakdown voltage.
>
> A test of my SWAG would be to incrementally increase dielectric thickness
> and determine if breakdown voltage eventually finds a minimum and then
> begins to increase with thickness.
>
> interesting question.
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jun 23, 2024, 13:32 Richard Nute  wrote:
>
>
>
> Why does air (or any insulating material) have decreasing dielectric
> strength, kV/mm, with increasing distance through the dielectric
> substance?  Assume homogenous field.  (I have assumed the dielectric
> strength was constant for the material.)   In other words, what is the
> physical basis for the non-constant dielectric strength clearance tables
> in various safety standards?  (I have yet to find the answer from the web.)
>   How can I predict the dielectric constant for a given distance through
> air (or any insulation)?
>
> Charles J. Fraser, in Mechanical Engineer's Reference Book (Twelfth
> Edition)
> <https://www.sciencedirect.com/book/9780750611954/mechanical-engineers-reference-book>,
> 1994:
>
> If the potential difference across opposite faces of a dielectric material
> is increased above a particular value, the material breaks down. The
> failure of the material takes the form of a small puncture, which renders
> the material useless as an insulator. The potential gradient
> <https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/potential-gradient> 
> necessary
> to cause break down is normally expressed in kilovolts/millimetre and is
> termed the ‘dielectric strength’. The dielectric strength of a given
> material decreases with increases in the thicknes

Re: [PSES] dielectric strength question

[James Pawson (U3C)]

Could someone define the acronym SWAG in this context please?

 

Something With Air Gap?

 

All the best

James

 

James Pawson

Managing Director & EMC Problem Solver

 

Unit 3 Compliance Ltd

EMC : Environmental & Vibration : Electrical Safety : CE & UKCA : Consultancy

 

 <http://www.unit3compliance.co.uk/> www.unit3compliance.co.uk |  
<mailto:ja...@unit3compliance.co.uk> ja...@unit3compliance.co.uk 

+44(0)1274 911747  |  +44(0)7811 139957

2 Wellington Business Park, New Lane, Bradford, BD4 8AL

Registered in England and Wales # 10574298

 

Office hours:

Every morning my full attention is on consultancy, testing, and troubleshooting 
activities for our customers’ projects. I’m available/contactable between 1300h 
to 1730h Mon/Tue/Thurs/Fri.

For inquiries, bookings, and testing updates please send us an email on 
he...@unit3compliance.co.uk <mailto:he...@unit3compliance.co.uk>  or call 01274 
911747. Our lead times for testing and consultancy are typically 4-5 weeks.

 

 

 

 

From: Adam Dixon  
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2024 1:24 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] dielectric strength question

 

SWAG #2:  non-uniformities in materials + multiple breakdown mechanisms make it 
difficult to model.  Mica shows up in 1940's vintage literature.  Here are some 
interesting papers that I perused after Rich posed the question:

 

https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=9079498
Space change behavior in cross-linked polymers

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/app.49379
Touches on different breakdown mechanisms (see Figure 3; also the Figure 2 
reference may be worthwhile but I haven't tried accessing it)

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7764431/
electron injection and avalanche breakdown process

https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1 
<https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1=pdf=65f577afe99e3253e7e3f38054ce9ea49b16a636>
 =pdf=65f577afe99e3253e7e3f38054ce9ea49b16a636
Electromechanical breakdown mechanism but also states "The exact cause for the 
observed behavior remains to be investigated" 

https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA635433.pdf
Paschen Curve anomalies (for consideration of gas dielectrics)

https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1656858

Describes influence of polymer chain ends (Figure 1 is a good illustration)

 

 

Cheers,

Adam in Atlanta

adam.di...@ieee.org <mailto:adam.di...@ieee.org>  

 

On Mon, Jun 24, 2024 at 11:00 PM Patrick mailto:conwa...@gmail.com> > wrote:

just a SWAG...  perhaps dielectric strength is dependent on volume, and the 
increased 'thickness' is assumed to be thickness-for-a-constant-surface-area.  
If that's the case then an increasing thickness is also an increased volume 
which also increases available charge carriers, reducing breakdown voltage.

A test of my SWAG would be to incrementally increase dielectric thickness and 
determine if breakdown voltage eventually finds a minimum and then begins to 
increase with thickness.

interesting question.

 

On Sun, Jun 23, 2024, 13:32 Richard Nute mailto:ri...@ieee.org> > wrote:

 

Why does air (or any insulating material) have decreasing dielectric strength, 
kV/mm, with increasing distance through the dielectric substance?  Assume 
homogenous field.  (I have assumed the dielectric strength was constant for the 
material.)   In other words, what is the physical basis for the non-constant 
dielectric strength clearance tables in various safety standards?  (I have yet 
to find the answer from the web.)  How can I predict the dielectric constant 
for a given distance through air (or any insulation)?

Charles J. Fraser, in  
<https://www.sciencedirect.com/book/9780750611954/mechanical-engineers-reference-book>
 Mechanical Engineer's Reference Book (Twelfth Edition), 1994:

If the potential difference across opposite faces of a dielectric material is 
increased above a particular value, the material breaks down. The failure of 
the material takes the form of a small puncture, which renders the material 
useless as an insulator. The  
<https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/potential-gradient> potential 
gradient necessary to cause break down is normally expressed in 
kilovolts/millimetre and is termed the ‘dielectric strength’. The dielectric 
strength of a given material decreases with increases in the thickness. Table 
2.2 gives approximate values for some of the more common dielectric materials.

Table 2.2. Dielectric strength of some common insulators

MaterialThickness (mm)  Dielectric strength (kV/mm)
Air 0.2 5.75   
0.6 4.92   
1.0 4.36   
10.02.98   
Mica0.01200
0.10115
1.0061 

Thanks, and best regards,

Rich

 

  _  

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

Re: [PSES] dielectric strength question

[Adam Dixon]

SWAG #2:  non-uniformities in materials + multiple breakdown mechanisms
make it difficult to model.  Mica shows up in 1940's vintage literature.
Here are some interesting papers that I perused after Rich posed the
question:

https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=9079498
Space change behavior in cross-linked polymers

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/app.49379
Touches on different breakdown mechanisms (see Figure 3; also the Figure 2
reference may be worthwhile but I haven't tried accessing it)

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7764431/
electron injection and avalanche breakdown process

https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1=pdf=65f577afe99e3253e7e3f38054ce9ea49b16a636
Electromechanical breakdown mechanism but also states "The exact cause for
the observed behavior remains to be investigated"

https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA635433.pdf
Paschen Curve anomalies (for consideration of gas dielectrics)

https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1656858
Describes influence of polymer chain ends (Figure 1 is a good illustration)


Cheers,
Adam in Atlanta
adam.di...@ieee.org

On Mon, Jun 24, 2024 at 11:00 PM Patrick  wrote:

> just a SWAG...  perhaps dielectric strength is dependent on volume, and
> the increased 'thickness' is assumed to be
> thickness-for-a-constant-surface-area.  If that's the case then an
> increasing thickness is also an increased volume which also increases
> available charge carriers, reducing breakdown voltage.
>
> A test of my SWAG would be to incrementally increase dielectric thickness
> and determine if breakdown voltage eventually finds a minimum and then
> begins to increase with thickness.
>
> interesting question.
>
> On Sun, Jun 23, 2024, 13:32 Richard Nute  wrote:
>
>>
>> Why does air (or any insulating material) have decreasing dielectric
>> strength, kV/mm, with increasing distance through the dielectric
>> substance?  Assume homogenous field.  (I have assumed the dielectric
>> strength was constant for the material.)   In other words, what is the
>> physical basis for the non-constant dielectric strength clearance tables
>> in various safety standards?  (I have yet to find the answer from the
>> web.)  How can I predict the dielectric constant for a given distance
>> through air (or any insulation)?
>>
>> Charles J. Fraser, in Mechanical Engineer's Reference Book (Twelfth
>> Edition)
>> ,
>> 1994:
>>
>> If the potential difference across opposite faces of a dielectric
>> material is increased above a particular value, the material breaks down.
>> The failure of the material takes the form of a small puncture, which
>> renders the material useless as an insulator. The *potential gradient*
>>  
>> necessary
>> to cause break down is normally expressed in kilovolts/millimetre and is
>> termed the ‘dielectric strength’. The dielectric strength of a given
>> material decreases with increases in the thickness. Table 2.2 gives
>> approximate values for some of the more common dielectric materials.
>>
>> Table 2.2. Dielectric strength of some common insulators
>>
>> *Material*   * Thickness (mm)* * Dielectric strength (kV/mm)*
>> Air 0.2 5.75
>> 0.6 4.92
>> 1.0 4.36
>> 10.02.98
>> Mica0.01200
>> 0.10115
>> 1.0061
>>
>> Thanks, and best regards,
>>
>> Rich
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> 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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
>> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
>> https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/
>>
>> Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
>> Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to
>> unsubscribe) 
>> List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html
>>
>> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
>> Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
>> Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org
>>
>> For policy questions, send mail to:
>> Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org
>> --
>>
>> To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link:
>> https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1
>>
> --
>
> 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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
> https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/
>
> Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
> Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to
> unsubscribe) 
> List 

Re: [PSES] HiPot Testing of 3-Phase PSU Question

[Boštjan Glavič]

There must be a metal clip to disconnect GDT during hipot. Normally it is 
closed to input connector.


Other option is that manufacturer performs hipot on PCB with full value and on 
complete unit (in enclosure) with reduced value.


Anyhow, I agree with Ralph. As PSU is tested separately, you can remove or 
disconnect it for routine testing on complete unit.

Best regards
Bostjan

Poslano iz Outlook za Android<https://aka.ms/AAb9ysg>


Od: Ralph McDiarmid 
Poslano: torek, junij 25, 2024 4:24:40 AM
Za: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG 
Zadeva: Re: [PSES] HiPot Testing of 3-Phase PSU Question

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of our organisation. Do not click 
links or open attachments unless you recognise the sender and know the content 
is safe.

Some PSUs may have a screw or a jumper to remove for hipot testing.  Or you can 
hipot test your machine without the PSU connected, assuming the PSU has a 3rd 
party certification for electrical safety.

Ralph

From: Brian Kunde 
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2024 5:20 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] HiPot Testing of 3-Phase PSU Question

I understand that commercial products are %100 HiPot tested at the factory.  
Does this rule hold true for 3-phase industrial machinery?

Here is why I am asking.  I just pre-tested a German build 400-480Vac to 24Vdc 
power supply (DIN Rail Mount). It passed all the tests, except it failed the 
Phase-to-PE HiPot test at around 1000V. I tried both AC and DC voltage and 
tried connecting it from a single phase to PE and tried all phases connected 
together to PE.  I tested a second power supply of the same model and it did 
the same exact thing. So I am thinking that it is supposed to perform this way.

My concern is that in our factory, they will not be able to HiPot the final 
product when the power supply is installed.

I assume the power supply has some kind of built in surge suppression. So how 
am I to use this PSU in my final product?

Thoughts and comments would be appreciated.

Best regards to all.

The Other Brian


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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/<https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/%20>

Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)<https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html>
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net<mailto:msherma...@comcast.net>
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org<mailto:linf...@ieee.org>

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org<mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org>



To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1



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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)<https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html>
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net<mailto:msherma...@comcast.net>
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org<mailto:linf...@ieee.org>

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org<mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org>



To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1


-

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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To un

Re: [PSES] dielectric strength question

[Patrick]

just a SWAG...  perhaps dielectric strength is dependent on volume, and the
increased 'thickness' is assumed to be
thickness-for-a-constant-surface-area.  If that's the case then an
increasing thickness is also an increased volume which also increases
available charge carriers, reducing breakdown voltage.

A test of my SWAG would be to incrementally increase dielectric thickness
and determine if breakdown voltage eventually finds a minimum and then
begins to increase with thickness.

interesting question.

On Sun, Jun 23, 2024, 13:32 Richard Nute  wrote:

>
> Why does air (or any insulating material) have decreasing dielectric
> strength, kV/mm, with increasing distance through the dielectric
> substance?  Assume homogenous field.  (I have assumed the dielectric
> strength was constant for the material.)   In other words, what is the
> physical basis for the non-constant dielectric strength clearance tables
> in various safety standards?  (I have yet to find the answer from the web.
> )  How can I predict the dielectric constant for a given distance through
> air (or any insulation)?
>
> Charles J. Fraser, in Mechanical Engineer's Reference Book (Twelfth
> Edition)
> ,
> 1994:
>
> If the potential difference across opposite faces of a dielectric material
> is increased above a particular value, the material breaks down. The
> failure of the material takes the form of a small puncture, which renders
> the material useless as an insulator. The *potential gradient*
>  
> necessary
> to cause break down is normally expressed in kilovolts/millimetre and is
> termed the ‘dielectric strength’. The dielectric strength of a given
> material decreases with increases in the thickness. Table 2.2 gives
> approximate values for some of the more common dielectric materials.
>
> Table 2.2. Dielectric strength of some common insulators
>
> *Material*   * Thickness (mm)* * Dielectric strength (kV/mm)*
> Air 0.2 5.75
> 0.6 4.92
> 1.0 4.36
> 10.02.98
> Mica0.01200
> 0.10115
> 1.0061
>
> Thanks, and best regards,
>
> Rich
>
>
> --
>
> 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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
> https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/
>
> Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
> Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to
> unsubscribe) 
> List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html
>
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
> Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
> Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org
>
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org
> --
>
> To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link:
> https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1
>

-

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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

Re: [PSES] HiPot Testing of 3-Phase PSU Question

[Ralph McDiarmid]

Some PSUs may have a screw or a jumper to remove for hipot testing.  Or you can 
hipot test your machine without the PSU connected, assuming the PSU has a 3rd 
party certification for electrical safety.

 

Ralph

 

From: Brian Kunde  
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2024 5:20 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] HiPot Testing of 3-Phase PSU Question

 

I understand that commercial products are %100 HiPot tested at the factory.  
Does this rule hold true for 3-phase industrial machinery?

 

Here is why I am asking.  I just pre-tested a German build 400-480Vac to 24Vdc 
power supply (DIN Rail Mount). It passed all the tests, except it failed the 
Phase-to-PE HiPot test at around 1000V. I tried both AC and DC voltage and 
tried connecting it from a single phase to PE and tried all phases connected 
together to PE.  I tested a second power supply of the same model and it did 
the same exact thing. So I am thinking that it is supposed to perform this way.

 

My concern is that in our factory, they will not be able to HiPot the final 
product when the power supply is installed.  

 

I assume the power supply has some kind of built in surge suppression. So how 
am I to use this PSU in my final product?

 

Thoughts and comments would be appreciated.

 

Best regards to all.

 

The Other Brian

  _  

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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG   

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/ 
  

Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/   
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)  
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html 

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net  
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org   

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org   

  _  

To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC 
 =1 


-

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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

Re: [PSES] HiPot Testing of 3-Phase PSU Question

[Brian Kunde]

Thanks to all who have replied so far.  Here are a few quick replies to
questions I am being asked.

The hipot tester is showing a "Breakdown".  It is not exceeding the
tester's current capability (though that was a good question).

I looked through all the information provided by the PSU manufacturer and
no mention of any special conditions involving the hipot testing. The PSU
does list a Phase to PE dielectric specification of 3500Vac.

The PSU does not appear to have any jumper or means to disconnect surge
suppression from outside the enclosure (it comes in a metal box).  The only
adjustment is a POT for adjusting the output voltage.

We have contacted the manufacturer's Tech Support here in the USA but they
have no idea what HiPot even is. They gave us an email address in Germany
to send our enquiry to.  It might take a few days, especially with the
soccer football going on over there right now.  Exciting ending during the
Swiss game last night.

We have a call in to our NRTL inspector to get his take on this topic.

Thanks again for all replies.

The Other Brian

On Mon, Jun 24, 2024 at 10:57 AM Dan Roman  wrote:

> Hi Brian,
>
>
>
> Is your hi-pot tester capable of delivering the current required to do the
> hi-pot test without tripping?  Are you experiencing a breakdown or maybe
> the current setting on the tester just doesn’t go high enough, in which
> case you’ll need a higher capacity hi-pot testing in production.  I am
> thinking this might be the most likely issue.
>
>
>
> Are there any conditions in the safety report for the power supply related
> to hi-pot that may be applicable?
>
>
>
> Are there jumpers or provisions to disconnect EMC components (caps or
> surge suppressors) for the purpose of doing a hi-pot test?  You may need to
> remove a jumper in the power supply to do the production hi-pot test and
> then reinstall the jumper afterwards.
>
>
>
> Just some random thoughts.
>
>
>
> Dan
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Brian Kunde [mailto:bkundew...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Monday, June 24, 2024 8:20 AM
> *To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> *Subject:* [PSES] HiPot Testing of 3-Phase PSU Question
>
>
>
> I understand that commercial products are %100 HiPot tested at the
> factory.  Does this rule hold true for 3-phase industrial machinery?
>
>
>
> Here is why I am asking.  I just pre-tested a German build 400-480Vac to
> 24Vdc power supply (DIN Rail Mount). It passed all the tests, except it
> failed the Phase-to-PE HiPot test at around 1000V. I tried both AC and DC
> voltage and tried connecting it from a single phase to PE and tried all
> phases connected together to PE.  I tested a second power supply of the
> same model and it did the same exact thing. So I am thinking that it is
> supposed to perform this way.
>
>
>
> My concern is that in our factory, they will not be able to HiPot the
> final product when the power supply is installed.
>
>
>
> I assume the power supply has some kind of built in surge suppression. So
> how am I to use this PSU in my final product?
>
>
>
> Thoughts and comments would be appreciated.
>
>
>
> Best regards to all.
>
>
>
> The Other Brian
> --
>
> 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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
>
> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
> https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/
> 
>
> Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
> Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to
> unsubscribe) 
> List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html
>
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
> Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
> Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org
>
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org
> --
>
> To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link:
> https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1
>

-

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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 

Re: [PSES] HiPot Testing of 3-Phase PSU Question

[Dan Roman]

Hi Brian,

 

Is your hi-pot tester capable of delivering the current required to do the 
hi-pot test without tripping?  Are you experiencing a breakdown or maybe the 
current setting on the tester just doesn’t go high enough, in which case you’ll 
need a higher capacity hi-pot testing in production.  I am thinking this might 
be the most likely issue.

 

Are there any conditions in the safety report for the power supply related to 
hi-pot that may be applicable?

 

Are there jumpers or provisions to disconnect EMC components (caps or surge 
suppressors) for the purpose of doing a hi-pot test?  You may need to remove a 
jumper in the power supply to do the production hi-pot test and then reinstall 
the jumper afterwards.

 

Just some random thoughts.

 

Dan

 

 

From: Brian Kunde [mailto:bkundew...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2024 8:20 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] HiPot Testing of 3-Phase PSU Question

 

I understand that commercial products are %100 HiPot tested at the factory.  
Does this rule hold true for 3-phase industrial machinery?

 

Here is why I am asking.  I just pre-tested a German build 400-480Vac to 24Vdc 
power supply (DIN Rail Mount). It passed all the tests, except it failed the 
Phase-to-PE HiPot test at around 1000V. I tried both AC and DC voltage and 
tried connecting it from a single phase to PE and tried all phases connected 
together to PE.  I tested a second power supply of the same model and it did 
the same exact thing. So I am thinking that it is supposed to perform this way.

 

My concern is that in our factory, they will not be able to HiPot the final 
product when the power supply is installed.  

 

I assume the power supply has some kind of built in surge suppression. So how 
am I to use this PSU in my final product?

 

Thoughts and comments would be appreciated.

 

Best regards to all.

 

The Other Brian

  _  

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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG   

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/ 
  

Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/   
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)  
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html 

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net  
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org   

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org   

  _  

To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC 
 =1 


-

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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

Re: [PSES] HiPot Testing of 3-Phase PSU Question

[Stephen Clarke [U3C]]

Hello Brian,

 

I Cannot comment on each and every factory, but in my previous employment(s) 
this was definitely the case.

 

Regards

 

Steve Clarke

Test Engineer

 

Unit 3 Compliance Ltd

EMC : Electrical Safety : Environmental & Vibration : CE & UKCA : Consultancy

 

  www.unit3compliance.co.uk |  
 step...@unit3compliance.co.uk | 
+44(0)1274 911747

2 Wellington Business Park, New Lane, Bradford, BD4 8AL

Registered in England and Wales # 10574298

 

From: Brian Kunde  
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2024 1:20 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] HiPot Testing of 3-Phase PSU Question

 

I understand that commercial products are %100 HiPot tested at the factory.  
Does this rule hold true for 3-phase industrial machinery?

 

Here is why I am asking.  I just pre-tested a German build 400-480Vac to 24Vdc 
power supply (DIN Rail Mount). It passed all the tests, except it failed the 
Phase-to-PE HiPot test at around 1000V. I tried both AC and DC voltage and 
tried connecting it from a single phase to PE and tried all phases connected 
together to PE.  I tested a second power supply of the same model and it did 
the same exact thing. So I am thinking that it is supposed to perform this way.

 

My concern is that in our factory, they will not be able to HiPot the final 
product when the power supply is installed.  

 

I assume the power supply has some kind of built in surge suppression. So how 
am I to use this PSU in my final product?

 

Thoughts and comments would be appreciated.

 

Best regards to all.

 

The Other Brian

  _  

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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG   

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/ 
  

Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/   
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)  
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html 

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net  
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org   

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org   

  _  

To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC 
 =1 


-

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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

Re: [PSES] MIL-HDBK-237B drastic changes

[Michael Viau]

I think we share sentiments here for the most part Mr. Javor.  I barely know any E3 engineers or Spectrum Managers who have even opened MIL-HDBK-237D, so there is no chance a PM is going to have read it. What surprised me is that it almost seemed like during the B to C transition the E3 part was totally dropped and the Spectrum part took over. And it seems like we really haven’t had much guidance on how to establish an E3 program since 237B. Handbooks actually seem like the appropriate place to walk people through a process in great detail. But… the process in question is program management and it seems like the more precise and detailed the guidance gets, the less accurate it is. For example, the Defense Acquisition Guidebook (DAG) is a beautiful 1,250 page masterpiece that is absolutely useless in practice because no one program seems to follow it. So in many ways I agree with you, but I think having, and updating, that guidance is still useful to early career engineers and anyone looking for a baseline interpretation on these deliverables. Even if no one followed it, I think it would be nice to have a better breakdown of these DIDs for teaching purposes, if nothing else. Thanks for your thoughts Ken! Always appreciated!Michael ViauOn Jun 22, 2024, at 1:39 PM, Ken Javor  wrote:I saw Mr. Viau’s post and purposely didn’t answer it for two reasons.  First and foremost, I don’t have a definitive answer to his question. But second, my reaction to all these revisions was somewhat opposite of his. That is, I recall the original 1973 release, which was current when I got started, and (if memory serves – unfortunately I don’t have a copy) it was 37 pages long.  That may be in error, but what is absolutely true is that the original was much shorter than any of the revisions. My assessment of the original was that it was perfect for some new program manager who may have previously been peripherally aware of the concept of EMC, but now needed a little more in-depth understanding of the EMC aspects of the product acquisition process.  When revision A came out, I was quite disappointed, because it had suffered “mission creep” and was never, ever, not ever, going to be read by anyone in a managerial position. It may well have been useful for someone who needed to learn the Navy EMC process in detail, but the “customer” for that handbook had completely changed. A guess as to the changes between the follow-on revisions, based purely on analogous experience, is that when personnel change, viewpoints change and even though the underlying technical or managerial issues have not changed, each contributor wants to put his stamp on things, so that handbook changes often arise from varying personalities, as opposed to purely factual matters. Sorry, that’s all I’ve got, which is why I didn’t originally respond.  Long shot, if anyone has a copy of the original 1973 release of MIL-HDBK-237, I would appreciate a copy, to complete my collection. Thank you, --  Ken JavorPh: (256) 650-5261  From: Ken Wyatt Reply-To: Ken Wyatt Date: Saturday, June 22, 2024 at 11:19 AMTo: Subject: Re: [PSES] MIL-HDBK-237B drastic changes You might check with Ken Javor (ken.ja...@emccompliance.com). He’s pretty savvy on MIL-STDs.___I'm here to help you succeed! Feel free to call or email with any questions related to EMC or EMI troubleshooting - at no obligation. I'm always happy to help!Kenneth WyattWyatt Technical Services LLC8201 Lighthouse Lane CtWindsor, CO 80528Contact Me!    New Books!  Web Site | BlogThe EMC Blog (EDN)Subscribe to NewsletterConnect with me on LinkedIn  On Jun 19, 2024, at 5:55 PM, Michael Viau <michael.t.v...@gmail.com> wrote: Does anyone have any documentation (or even a story) on why the changes between MIL-HDBK-237B (1997) and 237C (2001) were so drastic?237B filled a sorely missed gap in terms of how the DIDs were explained and described. It seems to be the most recent document to actually talk through the expectations for an E3IAR. And the last one to talk about EMC Control Plans in any detail. ADS-37A-PRF has a full appendix describing an E3IAR, but it was a year before 237B was released. Why did C drop all of this helpful context?237C genuinely seems like it could be an entirely separate document, and it seems odd that they went through the effort of deleting so much of rev B. Any suggestions for clues I could follow to paint the picture?Thanks everyone!Michael Viau-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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORGAll emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.htmlFo

Re: [PSES] MIL-HDBK-237B drastic changes

[Ken Javor]

I saw Mr. Viau’s post and purposely didn’t answer it for two reasons. 

 

First and foremost, I don’t have a definitive answer to his question.

 

But second, my reaction to all these revisions was somewhat opposite of his. 
That is, I recall the original 1973 release, which was current when I got 
started, and (if memory serves – unfortunately I don’t have a copy) it was 37 
pages long.  That may be in error, but what is absolutely true is that the 
original was much shorter than any of the revisions. My assessment of the 
original was that it was perfect for some new program manager who may have 
previously been peripherally aware of the concept of EMC, but now needed a 
little more in-depth understanding of the EMC aspects of the product 
acquisition process.  When revision A came out, I was quite disappointed, 
because it had suffered “mission creep” and was never, ever, not ever, going to 
be read by anyone in a managerial position. It may well have been useful for 
someone who needed to learn the Navy EMC process in detail, but the “customer” 
for that handbook had completely changed.

 

A guess as to the changes between the follow-on revisions, based purely on 
analogous experience, is that when personnel change, viewpoints change and even 
though the underlying technical or managerial issues have not changed, each 
contributor wants to put his stamp on things, so that handbook changes often 
arise from varying personalities, as opposed to purely factual matters.

 

Sorry, that’s all I’ve got, which is why I didn’t originally respond.  Long 
shot, if anyone has a copy of the original 1973 release of MIL-HDBK-237, I 
would appreciate a copy, to complete my collection.

 

Thank you,

 

-- 

 

Ken Javor

Ph: (256) 650-5261

 

 

From: Ken Wyatt 
Reply-To: Ken Wyatt 
Date: Saturday, June 22, 2024 at 11:19 AM
To: 
Subject: Re: [PSES] MIL-HDBK-237B drastic changes

 

You might check with Ken Javor (ken.ja...@emccompliance.com). He’s pretty savvy 
on MIL-STDs.


___

I'm here to help you succeed! Feel free to call or email with any questions 
related to EMC or EMI troubleshooting - at no obligation. I'm always happy to 
help!

Kenneth Wyatt
Wyatt Technical Services LLC
8201 Lighthouse Lane Ct

Windsor, CO 80528

Contact Me!New Books!




  

Web Site | Blog
The EMC Blog (EDN)
Subscribe to Newsletter
Connect with me on LinkedIn  



On Jun 19, 2024, at 5:55 PM, Michael Viau  wrote:

 

Does anyone have any documentation (or even a story) on why the changes between 
MIL-HDBK-237B (1997) and 237C (2001) were so drastic?
237B filled a sorely missed gap in terms of how the DIDs were explained and 
described. It seems to be the most recent document to actually talk through the 
expectations for an E3IAR. And the last one to talk about EMC Control Plans in 
any detail. 
ADS-37A-PRF has a full appendix describing an E3IAR, but it was a year before 
237B was released. 
Why did C drop all of this helpful context?
237C genuinely seems like it could be an entirely separate document, and it 
seems odd that they went through the effort of deleting so much of rev B. 

Any suggestions for clues I could follow to paint the picture?

Thanks everyone!
Michael Viau

-

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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1



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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG 

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/ 

Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/ 
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html 

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org 

To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

Re: [PSES] Fwd: Re: [PSES] Lasers

[Lauren Crane]

Adding an ‘amen’ to Regan’s response.

In most cases incorporating a laser product results in a new laser product that 
usually must be reported initially and annually. In situations of “bundling” 
such as including a barcode scanner product with a computer, might not result 
in a new laser product. But incorporating a laser sensor into industrial 
machinery usually does result in a new laser product.

Also keep in mind that any replacement parts put in commerce might need to be 
“registered”.

The US Federal laser regulations were recently amended to incorporate some of 
the concepts in a few Laser Notices (perhaps LN 54). I certainly recommend 
reading the reg’s directly to understand obligations.

Best Regards,
-Lauren



Confidential – Limited Access and Use
From: Regan Arndt 
Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2024 5:14 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Fwd: Re: [PSES] Lasers

You don't often get email from 
reganar...@gmail.com<mailto:reganar...@gmail.com>. Learn why this is 
important<https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification>



External Email: Do NOT reply, click on links, or open attachments unless you 
recognize the sender and know the content is safe. If you believe this email 
may be unsafe, please click on the “Report Phishing” button on the top right of 
Outlook.


Hello all,

The manufacturer of the end-use product must ALSO submit an application to the 
CDRH (as a LASER PRODUCT) when they are incorporating an existing OEM laser or 
laser system that has a CDRH accession # associated with it.
This manufacturer will then get a different accession # on this new submittal & 
must also do an annual report submission.

You can obtain a guidance document directly from the CDRH at: 
https://www.fda.gov/radiation-emitting-products/home-business-and-entertainment-products/laser-products-and-instruments

One of the definitions that are basic to the regulations are:
A LASER PRODUCT is any device that constitutes, incorporates, or is intended to 
incorporate a laser or laser system [CFR 1040.10 (b) (21)]

The accession # that is given to the manufacturer of the LASER PRODUCT system 
is merely just a tracking # (not a CDRH approval) for the end product model it 
is being sold into the USA.

Hope that helps.
Regan Arndt

On Tue, Jun 18, 2024 at 2:47 PM Jim Bacher, WB8VSU 
mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org>> wrote:
Steve, both. The client has to file a yearly report as well. The client just 
refers to the OEMs FDA Accession number along with detailing labeling, manuals, 
etc.


Jim Bacher, WB8VSU
j.bac...@ieee.org<mailto:j.bacher%40ieee.org> or 
ja.bac...@outlook.com<mailto:ja.bac...@outlook.com>
JBRC Consulting LLC
Product EMC & Regulatory Consultant
https://trc.guru/ email:j...@trc.guru<mailto:jim%40trc.guru>
IEEE Life Senior Member



On June 18, 2024 5:39:08 PM sgbrody 
mailto:sgbr...@comcast.net>> wrote:
I have a client with a product that has a 3rd party Class 3B laser embedded.

Who needs an FDA Accession number - laser manufacturer or my client as an end 
product containing an embedded laser?

Thanks,




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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)<https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html>
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net<mailto:msherma...@comcast.net>
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org<mailto:linf...@ieee.org>

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org<mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org>



To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1



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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)<https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html>
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net<mailto:msherma...@comcast.net>
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org<mailto:linf...@iee

Re: [PSES] [EXTERNAL] [PSES] Lasers

[Ted Eckert]

Hi Steve,

I apologize for the late response. I can only add one comment, and that is that 
you may want to review Laser Notice 
54
 to see if it applies to your client's device.

Best regards,
Ted Eckert

The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my 
employer.

From: sgbrody 
Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2024 5:16 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [PSES] Lasers

You don't often get email from sgbr...@comcast.net. 
Learn why this is important
Thanks to those who responded to my question.



Sent from my T-Mobile 5G Device



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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org



To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

-

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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

Re: [PSES] Fwd: Re: [PSES] Lasers

[Regan Arndt]

Hello all,

The manufacturer of the end-use product must ALSO submit an application to
the CDRH (as a LASER PRODUCT) when they are incorporating an existing OEM
laser or laser system that has a CDRH accession # associated with it.
This manufacturer will then get a different accession # on this new
submittal & must also do an annual report submission.

You can obtain a guidance document directly from the CDRH at:
https://www.fda.gov/radiation-emitting-products/home-business-and-entertainment-products/laser-products-and-instruments

One of the definitions that are basic to the regulations are:
A LASER PRODUCT is any device that constitutes, incorporates, or is
intended to incorporate a laser or laser system [CFR 1040.10 (b) (21)]

The accession # that is given to the manufacturer of the LASER PRODUCT
system is merely just a tracking # (not a CDRH approval) for the end
product model it is being sold into the USA.

Hope that helps.
Regan Arndt

On Tue, Jun 18, 2024 at 2:47 PM Jim Bacher, WB8VSU 
wrote:

> Steve, both. The client has to file a yearly report as well. The client
> just refers to the OEMs FDA Accession number along with detailing labeling,
> manuals, etc.
>
>
> Jim Bacher, WB8VSU
> j.bac...@ieee.org or ja.bac...@outlook.com
> JBRC Consulting LLC
> Product EMC & Regulatory Consultant
> https://trc.guru/ email:j...@trc.guru
> IEEE Life Senior Member
>
>
> On June 18, 2024 5:39:08 PM sgbrody  wrote:
>
>> I have a client with a product that has a 3rd party Class 3B laser
>> embedded.
>>
>> Who needs an FDA Accession number - laser manufacturer or my client as an
>> end product containing an embedded laser?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>>
> --
>
> 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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
> https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/
>
> Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
> Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to
> unsubscribe) 
> List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html
>
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
> Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
> Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org
>
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org
> --
>
> To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link:
> https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1
>

-

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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

[PSES] Fwd: Re: [PSES] Lasers

[Jim Bacher, WB8VSU]

Steve, both. The client has to file a yearly report as well. The client 
just refers to the OEMs FDA Accession number along with detailing labeling, 
manuals, etc.



Jim Bacher, WB8VSU
j.bac...@ieee.org or ja.bac...@outlook.com
JBRC Consulting LLC
Product EMC & Regulatory Consultant
https://trc.guru/ email:j...@trc.guru
IEEE Life Senior Member

On June 18, 2024 5:39:08 PM sgbrody  wrote:

I have a client with a product that has a 3rd party Class 3B laser embedded.

Who needs an FDA Accession number - laser manufacturer or my client as an 
end product containing an embedded laser?


Thanks,



-

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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

Re: [PSES] Lasers

[John Woodgate]

Have you asked the laser maker? Surely they know fur certain.

On 2024-06-18 22:38, sgbrody wrote:
I have a client with a product that has a 3rd party Class 3B laser 
embedded.


Who needs an FDA Accession number - laser manufacturer or my client as 
an end product containing an embedded laser?


Thanks,




Sent from my T-Mobile 5G Device



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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how 
to unsubscribe) 

List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org



To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1



--
Signature OOO - Own Opinions Only
Best wishes
John Woodgate, Rayleigh, Essex UK
Keep trying

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

Re: [PSES] EU DoC

[Charlie Blackham]

Amund

Generally yes - specific requirements contained in an Annex of the relevant 
Directive(s), for example  RED Annex VI

7. Where applicable, the notified body ... (name, number) ... performed ... 
(description of intervention) ... and issued the EU-type examination 
certificate: ...(certificate number)

Best regards
Charlie

Charlie Blackham
Sulis Consultants Ltd
Tel: +44 (0)7946 624317
Web: https://sulisconsultants.com/
Registered in England and Wales, number 05466247

From: Amund Westin 
Sent: Monday, June 10, 2024 5:53 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] EU DoC

If you have to consult an EU Notified Body for CE marking a product, must the 
EU DoC include information that Notified Body?

 Best regards
Amund


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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org



To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

-

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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

Re: [PSES] UK The Product Safety and Metrology etc. (Amendment) Regulations 2024

[Scott Xe]

Dear Charlie,

The regulation has been published as SI 2024 No 696.

The Product Safety and Metrology etc. (Amendment) Regulations 2024
(legislation.gov.uk)


Regards,

Scott


On Fri, 19 Apr 2024 at 16:09, Charlie Blackham 
wrote:

> UK has published draft legislation to allow continued acceptance of CE
> Marking past the end of 2024 in the "The Product Safety and Metrology etc.
> (Amendment) Regulations 2024" along with an explanatory memorandum.
> The law is due to come into force on 1st October ahead of the current 31
> December deadline.
>
>
>
> The Product Safety and Metrology etc. (Amendment) Regulations 2024
> (legislation.gov.uk)
> 
>
>
>
> Best regards
>
> Charlie
>
>
>
> *Charlie Blackham*
>
> *Sulis Consultants Ltd*
>
> *Mead House*
>
> *Longwater Road*
>
> *Eversley*
>
> *RG27 0NW*
>
> *UK*
>
> *Tel: +44 (0)7946 624317*
>
> *Email: **char...@sulisconsultants.com *
>
> *Web: https://sulisconsultants.com/  *
>
> Registered in England and Wales, number 05466247
>
>
> --
>
> 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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
> https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/
>
> Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
> Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to
> unsubscribe) 
> List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html
>
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
> Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
> Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org
>
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org
> --
>
> To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link:
> https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1
>

-

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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

Re: [PSES] seeking a consultant

[Ralph McDiarmid]

My client needs a consultant for automotive functional safety.   

 

For those interested, I can setup call to discuss the details of the 
requirement.

 

Thank you,

 

Ralph

 


-

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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

Re: [PSES] EU Energy Labeling Conformity

[John Woodgate]

Yes, it's similar to Energy Star.

On 2024-06-04 00:11, Brian Gregory wrote:

 This looks like an EU version of Energy Star;  am I reading this right?
I started to try to figure out the Energy Efficiency classes, 
but that appears to be even beyond Bing's AI ability

Brian Gregory
720-450-4933


-- Original Message --
From: Scott Xe 
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Declaration of Conformity
Date: Sat, 1 Jun 2024 09:32:53 +0800

Hello Experts,
According to the Ecodesign Directive (EU) 2009/125, manufacturers must 
draw up a declaration of conformity for covered products. However, the 
Energy Labelling Regulation (EU) 2017/1369 does not explicitly mention 
this requirement.
Is a declaration of conformity also mandatory for products covered 
under the Energy Labelling Regulation (EU) 2017/1369 as part of the 
compliance process?

Cheers,
Scott


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


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how 
to unsubscribe) 

List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org



To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1




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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how 
to unsubscribe) 

List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org



To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1



--
Signature OOO - Own Opinions Only
Best wishes
John Woodgate, Rayleigh, Essex UK
Keep trying

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

Re: [PSES] EU Energy Labeling Conformity

[Brian Gregory]

  This looks like an EU version of Energy Star;  am I reading this right? I 
started to try to figure out the Energy Efficiency classes, but that appears to 
be even beyond Bing's AI ability Brian Gregory
720-450-4933

-- Original Message --
From: Scott Xe 
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Declaration of Conformity
Date: Sat, 1 Jun 2024 09:32:53 +0800


Hello Experts, According to the Ecodesign Directive (EU) 2009/125, 
manufacturers must draw up a declaration of conformity for covered products. 
However, the Energy Labelling Regulation (EU) 2017/1369 does not explicitly 
mention this requirement.  Is a declaration of conformity also mandatory for 
products covered under the Energy Labelling Regulation (EU) 2017/1369 as part 
of the compliance process?
 Cheers, ScottThis 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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/
Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/ 
 Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
 List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html
For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
 Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org
For policy questions, send mail to:
 Jim Bacher at:  j.bac...@ieee.org
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

-

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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

Re: [PSES] Declaration of Conformity

[Scott Xe]

Dear Charlie,

Thanks for your reply.  As some of ecodesign regulations do not require
energy labelling, appreciate your useful link which gives clear indications
which ecodesign regulations do not require energy labelling.

Best regards,

Scott


On Sun, 2 Jun 2024 at 03:10, Charlie Blackham 
wrote:

> Scott
>
>
>
> The Ecodesign Directive applies to products within scope of a Commission
> Regulation implementing Directive 2009/125/EC
>
>
>
> These products must then be labelled in accordance with the relevant
> Commission Delegated Regulation on how to energy label that product.
>
>
>
> You don’t declare compliance with a labelling method, you just label in
> accordance with it.
>
>
>
> Lists of relevant Regulations at
>
>
> https://energy.ec.europa.eu/topics/energy-efficiency/energy-label-and-ecodesign/list-energy-efficient-products-regulations-product-group_en
>
>
>
> Best regards
>
> Charlie
>
>
>
> *Charlie Blackham*
>
> *Sulis Consultants Ltd*
>
> *Tel: +44 (0)7946 624317*
>
> *Web: https://sulisconsultants.com/  *
>
> Registered in England and Wales, number 05466247
>
>
>
> *From:* Scott Xe 
> *Sent:* Saturday, June 1, 2024 2:33 AM
> *To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> *Subject:* [PSES] Declaration of Conformity
>
>
>
> Hello Experts,
>
>
>
> According to the Ecodesign Directive (EU) 2009/125, manufacturers must
> draw up a declaration of conformity for covered products. However, the
> Energy Labelling Regulation (EU) 2017/1369 does not explicitly mention this
> requirement.
>
>
>
> Is a declaration of conformity also mandatory for products covered under
> the Energy Labelling Regulation (EU) 2017/1369 as part of the compliance
> process?
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
>
>
> Scott
> --
>
> This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
> discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to
> EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
>
> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
> https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/
> 
>
> Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
> Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to
> unsubscribe) 
> List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html
>
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
> Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
> Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org
>
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org
> --
>
> To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link:
> https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1
>

-

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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

Re: [PSES] Declaration of Conformity

[Charlie Blackham]

Scott

The Ecodesign Directive applies to products within scope of a Commission 
Regulation implementing Directive 2009/125/EC

These products must then be labelled in accordance with the relevant Commission 
Delegated Regulation on how to energy label that product.

You don’t declare compliance with a labelling method, you just label in 
accordance with it.

Lists of relevant Regulations at
https://energy.ec.europa.eu/topics/energy-efficiency/energy-label-and-ecodesign/list-energy-efficient-products-regulations-product-group_en

Best regards
Charlie

Charlie Blackham
Sulis Consultants Ltd
Tel: +44 (0)7946 624317
Web: https://sulisconsultants.com/
Registered in England and Wales, number 05466247

From: Scott Xe 
Sent: Saturday, June 1, 2024 2:33 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Declaration of Conformity

Hello Experts,

According to the Ecodesign Directive (EU) 2009/125, manufacturers must draw up 
a declaration of conformity for covered products. However, the Energy Labelling 
Regulation (EU) 2017/1369 does not explicitly mention this requirement.

Is a declaration of conformity also mandatory for products covered under the 
Energy Labelling Regulation (EU) 2017/1369 as part of the compliance process?

Cheers,

Scott


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org



To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

-

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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

Re: [PSES] Li-Ion Fire Enclosure (IEC 62368-1:2018 / EN 62368-1:2020) Concept

[Richard Nute]

 

Hi James:

 

The UL94 flammability ratings are based on standardized samples of the
plastic material.  The ratings may or may not be representative of the
results in the end-product.

 

My suggestion is to do the UL94 test on the whole end-product.  The
heat-sinking of the internal components may allow the enclosure to meet the
V-1 requirement.  (Many years ago, I did this (passed) on a populated PC
board, where the unpopulated board was rated HB.)   

 

A second suggestion:  Consider that the battery is the source of the flame.
Use a fire starter pill/tablet inside the device to ignite the enclosure
(you have to quickly put the enclosure back together).  The device probably
doesn't have enough oxygen inside to sustain flaming sufficient to ignite
the enclosure.  If you burn a hole in the enclosure (which allows the
flaming to attack the outside surface), you will likely fail the test.  

 

Good luck!

Rich

 

 

From: James Pawson (U3C)  
Sent: Friday, May 31, 2024 8:43 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Li-Ion Fire Enclosure (IEC 62368-1:2018 / EN 62368-1:2020)
Concept

 

Hi folks,

 

We are working with a client on a small wearable device with a PS2 Li-Ion
cell.

Annex M.4.3 requires a fire enclosure for the PS2 capable battery.

The plastic the client wants to use is not datasheet rated to UL 94 V-1 in
the thickness they are using (testing could be performed to establish this)

 

We are investigating the attached construction (also

here) and I was looking for a sanity check to see if I was missing anything.

 

*   Plastic case rated between HB40 and V-2 (6.3.1 for materials outside
a fire enclosure). Mechanically robust for drop test.
*   PS2 battery with metal foil wrap (e.g. thick aluminium self adhesive
tape with no gaps other than cable egress) meeting fire enclosure
requirements in 6.4.8.2.2 (no material thickness specified)
*   PS2 PCB circuit relies on reduce likelihood of ignition proved by
single fault testing
*   VW-1 rated cable

 

I feel like I'm missing something important.

 

Thoughts and comments appreciated.

 

All the best

James

 

James Pawson

Managing Director & EMC Problem Solver

 

Unit 3 Compliance Ltd

EMC : Environmental & Vibration : Electrical Safety : CE & UKCA :
Consultancy

 

  www.unit3compliance.co.uk |
 ja...@unit3compliance.co.uk 

+44(0)1274 911747  |  +44(0)7811 139957

2 Wellington Business Park, New Lane, Bradford, BD4 8AL

Registered in England and Wales # 10574298

 


-

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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

Re: [PSES] Li-Ion Fire Enclosure (IEC 62368-1:2018 / EN 62368-1:2020) Concept

[John Woodgate]

Re metal foil wrap, aluminium might burn at LI-ion fire temperature, but 
copper or brass would not.


On 2024-05-31 16:42, James Pawson (U3C) wrote:


Hi folks,

We are working with a client on a small wearable device with a PS2 
Li-Ion cell.


Annex M.4.3 requires a fire enclosure for the PS2 capable battery.

The plastic the client wants to use is not datasheet rated to UL 94 
V-1 in the thickness they are using (testing could be performed to 
establish this)


We are investigating the attached construction (also ​png icon here 
<https://unit3compliancecouk-my.sharepoint.com/:i:/g/personal/james_unit3compliance_co_uk/EYDdhd6tpK1InDtDFOTVb4UB_KRHzF9nFOhPlI-RX7TLgA?e=QfhWw0>) 
and I was looking for a sanity check to see if I was missing anything.


  * Plastic case rated between HB40 and V-2 (6.3.1 for materials
outside a fire enclosure). Mechanically robust for drop test.
  * PS2 battery with metal foil wrap (e.g. thick aluminium self
adhesive tape with no gaps other than cable egress) meeting fire
enclosure requirements in 6.4.8.2.2 (no material thickness specified)
  * PS2 PCB circuit relies on reduce likelihood of ignition proved by
single fault testing
  * VW-1 rated cable

I feel like I’m missing something important…

Thoughts and comments appreciated.

All the best

James

James Pawson

Managing Director & EMC Problem Solver

*Unit 3 Compliance Ltd*

*EMC : Environmental & Vibration : Electrical Safety : CE & UKCA : 
Consultancy*


www.unit3compliance.co.uk <http://www.unit3compliance.co.uk/> | 
ja...@unit3compliance.co.uk <mailto:ja...@unit3compliance.co.uk>


+44(0)1274 911747  |  +44(0)7811 139957

2 Wellington Business Park, New Lane, Bradford, BD4 8AL

Registered in England and Wales # 10574298

/Office hours:/

/Every morning my full attention is on consultancy, testing, and 
troubleshooting activities for our customers’ projects. I’m 
available/contactable between 1300h to 1730h Mon/Tue/Thurs/Fri./


/For inquiries, bookings, and testing updates please send us an email 
on he...@unit3compliance.co.uk <mailto:he...@unit3compliance.co.uk> or 
call 01274 911747. Our lead times for testing and consultancy are 
typically 4-5 weeks./




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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how 
to unsubscribe) <https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html>

List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org



To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1



--
Signature OOO - Own Opinions Only
Best wishes
John Woodgate, Rayleigh, Essex UK
Keep trying

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

Re: [PSES] Product reliability in the field relating to standards testing

[David Schaefer]

Doug,

Have you reached out to C63? This information could be included in the next 
edition of  IEEE C63.16 -->
“American National Standard Guide for Electrostatic Discharge Test 
Methodologies and Acceptance Criteria for Electronic Equipment”

Thanks,


[cid:image075342.jpg@52D522C7.F6E00B9E]
David Schaefer
Technical Manager
Element Materials Technology
9349 W Broadway Ave
Brooklyn Park
,
MN
55445
,
United States
O +1 612 638 5136
ext. 10461
david.schae...@element.com
www.element.com
[cid:image235527.png@41B30C45.F84BF390]
[cid:image768969.png@3A177FC0.38D1E813]
[cid:image898692.png@6AF7F372.16DA520C]
[cid:image698610.jpg@CEAF9888.336775E5]
From: doug emcesd.com [mailto:d...@emcesd.com]
Sent: Monday, May 27, 2024 9:10 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Product reliability in the field relating to standards testing


CAUTION:This email originated from outside of Element Materials Technology. DO 
NOT click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know 
the content is safe. Please contact the TOC if you are in any doubt about this 
email.
IEC61000-4-2 has been around for a long time. About 30 years ago myself and 
others presented to tc-77b improvements that were (and still are) needed.
Those concerns still need to be addressed.  Our current standard has us 
addressing ESD stresses that cannot happen and on the other hand ignoring 
stresses that do happen. I touch on these in detail in my classes to help my 
clients.

Layer on this trying to arrive at a good model for real world conditions, an 
issue in all EMC related standards. I would like to address the human body 
model for a small piece of metal in the hand. My personal discharge, as 
measured by the instrumentation at Barth Electronics (right here in Boulder 
City, Nevada) is completely different than the model in 61000-4-2. The Barth 
instrumentation is the best in the world and I feel fortunate to be near them, 
about a 15 minute run away.

My small metal discharge is very different in two ways. First, the body wave 
after the first peak has much less energy in it than in the standard. This most 
likely is easily explained because I 

Re: [PSES] SCCR Rating Question

[Ralph McDiarmid]

We have an answer from UL508A for industrial panels but the question was, “ 
SCCR ratings on industrial machinery”

 

Perhaps it is the question that is the difficulty here.

 

Ralph

 

From: Bill Lawrence  
Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2024 2:50 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] SCCR Rating Question

 

Assume UL 508A

 

Marking is:

 



-Original Message-
From: MIKE SHERMAN mailto:msherma...@comcast.net> >
Sent: May 15, 2024 10:38 PM
To: mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> >
Subject: Re: [PSES] SCCR Rating Question

 

Brian —

 

I am equally mystified by qualifying an SCCR with a voltage. Perhaps you could 
network into a friendly UL 408a panel shop and see what they say.  

Mike Sherman 

Sherman PSC LLC

On 05/15/2024 9:05 AM -05 Brian Kunde mailto:bkundew...@gmail.com> > wrote:

 

 

I appreciate the replies, but I am not getting the information I am seeking.  

 

Some machines have just the SCCR Rating, such as 

 

SCCR: 10kA

 

but a few machines we have looked at include a reference to the "Max Voltage", 
such as

 

SCCR: 10kA RMS Symmetrical, 480V Maximum

 

What is the source, code, standard, directive, etc. that calls out the Max 
Voltage as a requirement in the SCCR rating that is printed on the Nameplate 
label?  We cannot find such a source.  

 

In our case, we have a machine that can operate at 230V, 380V, or 480V 
depending on how the motor is wired. So on a machine rated 230V it has a SCCR 
rating that includes the Max Voltage of 480V.  We are getting push-back from 
the field saying that having the voltage on the SCCR rating is confusing. To 
resolve this, we want to remove the reference to the Max Voltage, but before we 
do that, we want to find out if it is mandated in the code or some standard.  

 

I can see where the max voltage might be required on some components. Maybe it 
is an old requirement that is no longer required.  I am just guessing.  

 

Thanks again for your help.

The Other Brian

 

 

On Tue, May 14, 2024 at 3:54 PM Scott Aldous 
<0220f70c299a-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org 
<mailto:0220f70c299a-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org> > wrote:

Starting on page 7, the white paper that Rich linked to also references UL 
508A, supplement SB, which is a method of determining SCCR for industrial 
control panels without test. The method at a high level involves carrying over 
the SCCR rating of the "weakest link in the chain" from a protective component 
standpoint to the overall panel. I wonder if that method may have been used for 
the machinery in question, with a component level voltage rating (improperly, 
in my opinion) shifted over to the end device. Note that UL 508A includes "at a 
nominal voltage" in its definition of SCCR.

 

On Tue, May 14, 2024 at 12:33 PM Richard Nute mailto:ri...@ieee.org> > wrote:

 

Hi Brian:

 

See the very last line of:

 

https://www.mouser.com/pdfDocs/littelfuse_industrial_whitepaper_increase_sccr.pdf

 

Best regards,

Rich

 

 

 

 

From: Ralph McDiarmid mailto:rmm.priv...@gmail.com> > 
Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2024 11:41 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> 
Subject: Re: [PSES] SCCR Rating Question

 

Could this number to used to select a suitable circuit breaker and so the 
interrupting voltage is an important parameter?

 

The nameplate rating on the machine should be the information an electrician 
needs during installation and selection of wire size and type.

 

Ralph

 

From: Brian Kunde mailto:bkundew...@gmail.com> > 
Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2024 11:29 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> 
Subject: [PSES] SCCR Rating Question

 

Greetings to all.  

 

I am new to SCCR ratings on industrial machinery.  The ratings I have seen 
sometimes has a "Maximum Voltage" included, such as;

 

SCCR: 22kA, 600V Maximum

 

Where does the voltage value come from?  In one case, the machine had a line 
voltage rating of "120/208 Vac", but the SCCR rating had a voltage rating of 
"Max 600V".

 

Can this be confusing? Might something think the machine can operate at 600Vac?

 

Thanks for any replies.

The Other Brian

 

 


  _  


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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>  

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/ 
<https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/%20>  

Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/  <https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/> 
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe) <https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html> 
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html 

Re: [PSES] SCCR Rating Question

[Bill Lawrence]

Assume UL 508A

Marking is:


-Original Message-
From: MIKE SHERMAN 
Sent: May 15, 2024 10:38 PM
To: 
Subject: Re: [PSES] SCCR Rating Question

Brian 
 
I am equally mystified by qualifying an SCCR with a voltage. Perhaps you could 
network into a friendly UL 408a panel shop and see what they say.  


Mike Sherman 
Sherman PSC LLC
On 05/15/2024 9:05 AM -05 Brian Kunde  wrote:
 
 
I appreciate the replies, but I am not getting the information I am seeking.  
Some machines have just the SCCR Rating, such as 
 
SCCR: 10kA
 
but a few machines we have looked at include a reference to the "Max Voltage", 
such as
 
SCCR: 10kA RMS Symmetrical, 480V Maximum
 
What is the source, code, standard, directive, etc. that calls out the Max 
Voltage as a requirement in the SCCR rating that is printed on the Nameplate 
label?  We cannot find such a source.  
 
In our case, we have a machine that can operate at 230V, 380V, or 480V 
depending on how the motor is wired. So on a machine rated 230V it has a SCCR 
rating that includes the Max Voltage of 480V.  We are getting push-back from 
the field saying that having the voltage on the SCCR rating is confusing. To 
resolve this, we want to remove the reference to the Max Voltage, but before we 
do that, we want to find out if it is mandated in the code or some standard.  
 
I can see where the max voltage might be required on some components. Maybe it 
is an old requirement that is no longer required.  I am just guessing.  
 
Thanks again for your help.
The Other Brian
 


On Tue, May 14, 2024 at 3:54 PM Scott Aldous 
<0220f70c299a-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org 
(mailto:0220f70c299a-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org)> wrote:
Starting on page 7, the white paper that Rich linked to also references UL 
508A, supplement SB, which is a method of determining SCCR for industrial 
control panels without test. The method at a high level involves carrying over 
the SCCR rating of the "weakest link in the chain" from a protective component 
standpoint to the overall panel. I wonder if that method may have been used for 
the machinery in question, with a component level voltage rating (improperly, 
in my opinion) shifted over to the end device. Note that UL 508A includes "at a 
nominal voltage" in its definition of SCCR.

On Tue, May 14, 2024 at 12:33 PM Richard Nute mailto:ri...@ieee.org)> wrote:
 
Hi Brian:
 
See the very last line of:
 
https://www.mouser.com/pdfDocs/littelfuse_industrial_whitepaper_increase_sccr.pdf
 
Best regards,
Rich
 
 
 
 
From: Ralph McDiarmid mailto:rmm.priv...@gmail.com)> 
Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2024 11:41 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG (mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG)
Subject: Re: [PSES] SCCR Rating Question


 
Could this number to used to select a suitable circuit breaker and so the 
interrupting voltage is an important parameter?
 
The nameplate rating on the machine should be the information an electrician 
needs during installation and selection of wire size and type.
 
Ralph
 
From: Brian Kunde mailto:bkundew...@gmail.com)> 
Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2024 11:29 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG (mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG)
Subject: [PSES] SCCR Rating Question

 
Greetings to all.  
 

I am new to SCCR ratings on industrial machinery.  The ratings I have seen 
sometimes has a "Maximum Voltage" included, such as;

 

SCCR: 22kA, 600V Maximum

 

Where does the voltage value come from?  In one case, the machine had a line 
voltage rating of "120/208 Vac", but the SCCR rating had a voltage rating of 
"Max 600V".

 

Can this be confusing? Might something think the machine can operate at 600Vac?

 

Thanks for any replies.

The Other Brian

 

 



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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG (mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG) 
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/ 
Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/ 
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html 
For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net (mailto:msherma...@comcast.net)
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org (mailto:linf...@ieee.org) 
For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org (mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org) 

To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTCA=1 

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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG (mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG) 
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pst

Re: [PSES] SCCR Rating Question

[Ralph McDiarmid]

I suggest that John has “nailed it”, as he often does.

 

Ralph

 

From: John Woodgate  
Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2024 7:26 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] SCCR Rating Question

 

I cant help you with a reference to a standard, but there is a language problem 
and I think I can help with that, in the context of 'confusion'. The 'SSCR 
voltage' on the nameplate  actually means  'Minimum permitted value of the 
Maximum voltage of the SSCR'. Obviously those words are too long to put on the 
nameplate. In your case, obviously, the Max voltage of the SSCR must be at 
least 480 V if the motor is wired for 480 V operation, but could be lower if 
it's wired for a lower voltage. To document this, you  would need a BIG 
nameplate. Some standards allow a sign, usually a '!', to mean 'Refer to 
manual' or words to that effect, where you can put a full explanation.

On 2024-05-15 15:05, Brian Kunde wrote:

I appreciate the replies, but I am not getting the information I am seeking.  

 

Some machines have just the SCCR Rating, such as 

 

SCCR: 10kA

 

but a few machines we have looked at include a reference to the "Max Voltage", 
such as

 

SCCR: 10kA RMS Symmetrical, 480V Maximum

 

What is the source, code, standard, directive, etc. that calls out the Max 
Voltage as a requirement in the SCCR rating that is printed on the Nameplate 
label?  We cannot find such a source.  

 

In our case, we have a machine that can operate at 230V, 380V, or 480V 
depending on how the motor is wired. So on a machine rated 230V it has a SCCR 
rating that includes the Max Voltage of 480V.  We are getting push-back from 
the field saying that having the voltage on the SCCR rating is confusing. To 
resolve this, we want to remove the reference to the Max Voltage, but before we 
do that, we want to find out if it is mandated in the code or some standard.  

 

I can see where the max voltage might be required on some components. Maybe it 
is an old requirement that is no longer required.  I am just guessing.  

 

Thanks again for your help.

The Other Brian

 

 

On Tue, May 14, 2024 at 3:54 PM Scott Aldous 
<0220f70c299a-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org 
<mailto:0220f70c299a-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org> > wrote:

Starting on page 7, the white paper that Rich linked to also references UL 
508A, supplement SB, which is a method of determining SCCR for industrial 
control panels without test. The method at a high level involves carrying over 
the SCCR rating of the "weakest link in the chain" from a protective component 
standpoint to the overall panel. I wonder if that method may have been used for 
the machinery in question, with a component level voltage rating (improperly, 
in my opinion) shifted over to the end device. Note that UL 508A includes "at a 
nominal voltage" in its definition of SCCR.

 

On Tue, May 14, 2024 at 12:33 PM Richard Nute mailto:ri...@ieee.org> > wrote:

 

Hi Brian:

 

See the very last line of:

 

https://www.mouser.com/pdfDocs/littelfuse_industrial_whitepaper_increase_sccr.pdf

 

Best regards,

Rich

 

 

 

 

From: Ralph McDiarmid mailto:rmm.priv...@gmail.com> > 
Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2024 11:41 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> 
Subject: Re: [PSES] SCCR Rating Question

 

Could this number to used to select a suitable circuit breaker and so the 
interrupting voltage is an important parameter?

 

The nameplate rating on the machine should be the information an electrician 
needs during installation and selection of wire size and type.

 

Ralph

 

From: Brian Kunde mailto:bkundew...@gmail.com> > 
Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2024 11:29 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> 
Subject: [PSES] SCCR Rating Question

 

Greetings to all.  

 

I am new to SCCR ratings on industrial machinery.  The ratings I have seen 
sometimes has a "Maximum Voltage" included, such as;

 

SCCR: 22kA, 600V Maximum

 

Where does the voltage value come from?  In one case, the machine had a line 
voltage rating of "120/208 Vac", but the SCCR rating had a voltage rating of 
"Max 600V".

 

Can this be confusing? Might something think the machine can operate at 600Vac?

 

Thanks for any replies.

The Other Brian

 

 


  _  


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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>  

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/ 
<https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/%20>  

Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/  <https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/> 
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe) <https://e

Re: [PSES] SCCR Rating Question

[MIKE SHERMAN]

 
 
  
   Brian —
   
  
    
   
  
   I am equally mystified by qualifying an SCCR with a voltage. Perhaps you could network into a friendly UL 408a panel shop and see what they say. 
   
   
   
  
   Mike Sherman 
   
  
   Sherman PSC LLC
   
   
   
On 05/15/2024 9:05 AM -05 Brian Kunde  wrote:

   
 

   
 

   
I appreciate the replies, but I am not getting the information I am seeking.  

  
 

 Some machines have just the SCCR Rating, such as 
 

  
 

 SCCR: 10kA
 

  
 

 but a few machines we have looked at include a reference to the "Max Voltage", such as
 

  
 

 SCCR: 10kA RMS Symmetrical, 480V Maximum
 

  
 

 What is the source, code, standard, directive, etc. that calls out the Max Voltage as a requirement in the SCCR rating that is printed on the Nameplate label?  We cannot find such a source.  
 

  
 

 In our case, we have a machine that can operate at 230V, 380V, or 480V depending on how the motor is wired. So on a machine rated 230V it has a SCCR rating that includes the Max Voltage of 480V.  We are getting push-back from the field saying that having the voltage on the SCCR rating is confusing. To resolve this, we want to remove the reference to the Max Voltage, but before we do that, we want to find out if it is mandated in the code or some standard.  
 

  
 

 I can see where the max voltage might be required on some components. Maybe it is an old requirement that is no longer required.  I am just guessing.  
 

  
 

 Thanks again for your help.
 

 The Other Brian
 

  
 




 On Tue, May 14, 2024 at 3:54 PM Scott Aldous <0220f70c299a-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org> wrote:
 
 
 
  Starting on page 7, the white paper that Rich linked to also references UL 508A, supplement SB, which is a method of determining SCCR for industrial control panels without test. The method at a high level involves carrying over the SCCR rating of the "weakest link in the chain" from a protective component standpoint to the overall panel. I wonder if that method may have been used for the machinery in question, with a component level voltage rating (improperly, in my opinion) shifted over to the end device. Note that UL 508A includes "at a nominal voltage" in its definition of SCCR.
  
  
  
  
   On Tue, May 14, 2024 at 12:33 PM Richard Nute <ri...@ieee.org> wrote:
   
   

 
  
    
  Hi Brian: 
    
  See the very last line of: 
    
  https://www.mouser.com/pdfDocs/littelfuse_industrial_whitepaper_increase_sccr.pdf 
    
  Best regards, 
  Rich 
    
    
    
    
   

From: Ralph McDiarmid <rmm.priv...@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2024 11:41 AMTo: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORGSubject: Re: [PSES] SCCR Rating Question 

   
    
  Could this number to used to select a suitable circuit breaker and so the interrupting voltage is an important parameter? 
    
  The nameplate rating on the machine should be the information an electrician needs during installation and selection of wire size and type. 
    
  Ralph 
    
   
   From: Brian Kunde <bkundew...@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2024 11:29 AMTo: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORGSubject: [PSES] SCCR Rating Question 
   
    
   
   Greetings to all.   

  


I am new to SCCR ratings on industrial machinery.  The ratings I have seen sometimes has a "Maximum Voltage" included, such as; 


  


SCCR: 22kA, 600V Maximum 


  


Where does the voltage value come from?  In one case, the machine had a line voltage rating of "120/208 Vac", but the SCCR rating had a voltage rating of "Max 600V". 


  


Can this be confusing? Might something think the machine can operate at 600Vac? 


  


Thanks for any replies. 


The Other Brian 


  


  

   
  
   
   
  This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the li

Re: [PSES] SCCR Rating Question

[John Woodgate]

I cant help you with a reference to a standard, but there is a language 
problem and I think I can help with that, in the context of 'confusion'. 
The 'SSCR voltage' on the nameplate  actually means  'Minimum permitted 
value of the Maximum voltage of the SSCR'. Obviously those words are too 
long to put on the nameplate. In your case, obviously, the Max voltage 
of the SSCR must be at least 480 V if the motor is wired for 480 V 
operation, but could be lower if it's wired for a lower voltage. To 
document this, you  would need a BIG nameplate. Some standards allow a 
sign, usually a '!', to mean 'Refer to manual' or words to that effect, 
where you can put a full explanation.


On 2024-05-15 15:05, Brian Kunde wrote:
I appreciate the replies, but I am not getting the information I am 
seeking.


Some machines have just the SCCR Rating, such as

*SCCR: 10kA*

but a few machines we have looked at include a reference to the "Max 
Voltage", such as


*SCCR: 10kA RMS Symmetrical, 480V Maximum*

What is the source, code, standard, directive, etc. that calls out the 
Max Voltage as a requirement in the SCCR rating that is printed on the 
Nameplate label?  We cannot find such a source.


In our case, we have a machine that can operate at 230V, 380V, or 480V 
depending on how the motor is wired. So on a machine rated 230V it has 
a SCCR rating that includes the Max Voltage of 480V.  We are getting 
push-back from the field saying that having the voltage on the SCCR 
rating is confusing. To resolve this, we want to remove the reference 
to the Max Voltage, but before we do that, we want to find out if it 
is mandated in the code or some standard.


I can see where the max voltage might be required on some components. 
Maybe it is an old requirement that is no longer required.  I am just 
guessing.


Thanks again for your help.
The Other Brian


On Tue, May 14, 2024 at 3:54 PM Scott Aldous 
<0220f70c299a-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org> wrote:


Starting on page 7, the white paper that Rich linked to also
references UL 508A, supplement SB, which is a method of
determining SCCR for industrial control panels without test. The
method at a high level involves carrying over the SCCR rating of
the "weakest link in the chain" from a protective component
standpoint to the overall panel. I wonder if that method may have
been used for the machinery in question, with a component level
voltage rating (improperly, in my opinion) shifted over to the end
device. Note that UL 508A includes "at a nominal voltage" in its
definition of SCCR.

On Tue, May 14, 2024 at 12:33 PM Richard Nute  wrote:

Hi Brian:

See the very last line of:


https://www.mouser.com/pdfDocs/littelfuse_industrial_whitepaper_increase_sccr.pdf

Best regards,

Rich

*From:*Ralph McDiarmid 
*Sent:* Tuesday, May 14, 2024 11:41 AM
*To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
*Subject:* Re: [PSES] SCCR Rating Question

Could this number to used to select a suitable circuit breaker
and so the interrupting voltage is an important parameter?

The nameplate rating on the machine should be the information
an electrician needs during installation and selection of wire
size and type.

Ralph

*From:*Brian Kunde 
*Sent:* Tuesday, May 14, 2024 11:29 AM
*To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
*Subject:* [PSES] SCCR Rating Question

Greetings to all.

I am new to SCCR ratings on industrial machinery. The ratings
I have seen sometimes has a "Maximum Voltage" included, such as;

SCCR: 22kA, 600V Maximum

Where does the voltage value come from?  In one case, the
machine had a line voltage rating of "120/208 Vac", but the
SCCR rating had a voltage rating of "Max 600V".

Can this be confusing? Might something think the machine can
operate at 600Vac?

Thanks for any replies.

The Other Brian



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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/
<https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/%20>

Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html
(including how to unsubscribe)
<https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html>
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net

Re: [PSES] SCCR Rating Question

[Brian Kunde]

I appreciate the replies, but I am not getting the information I am
seeking.

Some machines have just the SCCR Rating, such as

*SCCR: 10kA*

but a few machines we have looked at include a reference to the "Max
Voltage", such as

*SCCR: 10kA RMS Symmetrical, 480V Maximum*

What is the source, code, standard, directive, etc. that calls out the Max
Voltage as a requirement in the SCCR rating that is printed on the
Nameplate label?  We cannot find such a source.

In our case, we have a machine that can operate at 230V, 380V, or 480V
depending on how the motor is wired. So on a machine rated 230V it has a
SCCR rating that includes the Max Voltage of 480V.  We are getting
push-back from the field saying that having the voltage on the SCCR rating
is confusing. To resolve this, we want to remove the reference to the Max
Voltage, but before we do that, we want to find out if it is mandated in
the code or some standard.

I can see where the max voltage might be required on some components. Maybe
it is an old requirement that is no longer required.  I am just guessing.

Thanks again for your help.
The Other Brian


On Tue, May 14, 2024 at 3:54 PM Scott Aldous <
0220f70c299a-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org> wrote:

> Starting on page 7, the white paper that Rich linked to also references UL
> 508A, supplement SB, which is a method of determining SCCR for industrial
> control panels without test. The method at a high level involves carrying
> over the SCCR rating of the "weakest link in the chain" from a protective
> component standpoint to the overall panel. I wonder if that method may have
> been used for the machinery in question, with a component level voltage
> rating (improperly, in my opinion) shifted over to the end device. Note
> that UL 508A includes "at a nominal voltage" in its definition of SCCR.
>
> On Tue, May 14, 2024 at 12:33 PM Richard Nute  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Hi Brian:
>>
>>
>>
>> See the very last line of:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> https://www.mouser.com/pdfDocs/littelfuse_industrial_whitepaper_increase_sccr.pdf
>>
>>
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Rich
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Ralph McDiarmid 
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 14, 2024 11:41 AM
>> *To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
>> *Subject:* Re: [PSES] SCCR Rating Question
>>
>>
>>
>> Could this number to used to select a suitable circuit breaker and so the
>> interrupting voltage is an important parameter?
>>
>>
>>
>> The nameplate rating on the machine should be the information an
>> electrician needs during installation and selection of wire size and type.
>>
>>
>>
>> Ralph
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Brian Kunde 
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 14, 2024 11:29 AM
>> *To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
>> *Subject:* [PSES] SCCR Rating Question
>>
>>
>>
>> Greetings to all.
>>
>>
>>
>> I am new to SCCR ratings on industrial machinery.  The ratings I have
>> seen sometimes has a "Maximum Voltage" included, such as;
>>
>>
>>
>> SCCR: 22kA, 600V Maximum
>>
>>
>>
>> Where does the voltage value come from?  In one case, the machine had a
>> line voltage rating of "120/208 Vac", but the SCCR rating had a voltage
>> rating of "Max 600V".
>>
>>
>>
>> Can this be confusing? Might something think the machine can operate at
>> 600Vac?
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks for any replies.
>>
>> The Other Brian
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> 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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
>>
>> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
>> https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/
>> <https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/%20>
>>
>> Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
>> Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to
>> unsubscribe) <https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html>
>> List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html
>>
>> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
>> Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
>> Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org
>>
>> For policy questions, send mail to:
>> Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org
>> --
>>
>> To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, 

Re: [PSES] SCCR Rating Question

[Scott Aldous]

Starting on page 7, the white paper that Rich linked to also references UL
508A, supplement SB, which is a method of determining SCCR for industrial
control panels without test. The method at a high level involves carrying
over the SCCR rating of the "weakest link in the chain" from a protective
component standpoint to the overall panel. I wonder if that method may have
been used for the machinery in question, with a component level voltage
rating (improperly, in my opinion) shifted over to the end device. Note
that UL 508A includes "at a nominal voltage" in its definition of SCCR.

On Tue, May 14, 2024 at 12:33 PM Richard Nute  wrote:

>
>
> Hi Brian:
>
>
>
> See the very last line of:
>
>
>
>
> https://www.mouser.com/pdfDocs/littelfuse_industrial_whitepaper_increase_sccr.pdf
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Rich
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Ralph McDiarmid 
> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 14, 2024 11:41 AM
> *To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> *Subject:* Re: [PSES] SCCR Rating Question
>
>
>
> Could this number to used to select a suitable circuit breaker and so the
> interrupting voltage is an important parameter?
>
>
>
> The nameplate rating on the machine should be the information an
> electrician needs during installation and selection of wire size and type.
>
>
>
> Ralph
>
>
>
> *From:* Brian Kunde 
> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 14, 2024 11:29 AM
> *To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> *Subject:* [PSES] SCCR Rating Question
>
>
>
> Greetings to all.
>
>
>
> I am new to SCCR ratings on industrial machinery.  The ratings I have seen
> sometimes has a "Maximum Voltage" included, such as;
>
>
>
> SCCR: 22kA, 600V Maximum
>
>
>
> Where does the voltage value come from?  In one case, the machine had a
> line voltage rating of "120/208 Vac", but the SCCR rating had a voltage
> rating of "Max 600V".
>
>
>
> Can this be confusing? Might something think the machine can operate at
> 600Vac?
>
>
>
> Thanks for any replies.
>
> The Other Brian
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> 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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
>
> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
> https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/
> <https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/%20>
>
> Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
> Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to
> unsubscribe) <https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html>
> List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html
>
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
> Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
> Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org
>
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org
> --
>
> To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link:
> https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1
> --
>
> 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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
>
> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
> https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/
> <https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/%20>
>
> Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
> Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to
> unsubscribe) <https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html>
> List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html
>
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
> Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
> Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org
>
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org
> --
>
> To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link:
> https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1
> --
>
> 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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
> https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/
>
> Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
> Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to
> unsubscribe) <https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html>
> List ru

Re: [PSES] SCCR Rating Question

[Richard Nute]

 

Hi Brian:

 

See the very last line of:

 

https://www.mouser.com/pdfDocs/littelfuse_industrial_whitepaper_increase_sccr.pdf

 

Best regards,

Rich

 

 

 

 

From: Ralph McDiarmid  
Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2024 11:41 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] SCCR Rating Question

 

Could this number to used to select a suitable circuit breaker and so the 
interrupting voltage is an important parameter?

 

The nameplate rating on the machine should be the information an electrician 
needs during installation and selection of wire size and type.

 

Ralph

 

From: Brian Kunde mailto:bkundew...@gmail.com> > 
Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2024 11:29 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> 
Subject: [PSES] SCCR Rating Question

 

Greetings to all.  

 

I am new to SCCR ratings on industrial machinery.  The ratings I have seen 
sometimes has a "Maximum Voltage" included, such as;

 

SCCR: 22kA, 600V Maximum

 

Where does the voltage value come from?  In one case, the machine had a line 
voltage rating of "120/208 Vac", but the SCCR rating had a voltage rating of 
"Max 600V".

 

Can this be confusing? Might something think the machine can operate at 600Vac?

 

Thanks for any replies.

The Other Brian

 

 

  _  

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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>  

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/ 
<https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/%20>  

Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/  <https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/> 
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe) <https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html> 
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html 

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net <mailto:msherma...@comcast.net> 
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org <mailto:linf...@ieee.org>  

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org <mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org>  

  _  

To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC 
<https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1> =1 

  _  

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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>  

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/ 
<https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/%20>  

Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/  <https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/> 
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe) <https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html> 
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html 

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net <mailto:msherma...@comcast.net> 
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org <mailto:linf...@ieee.org>  

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org <mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org>  

  _  

To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC 
<https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1> =1 


-

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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

Re: [PSES] SCCR Rating Question

[Ralph McDiarmid]

Could this number to used to select a suitable circuit breaker and so the 
interrupting voltage is an important parameter?

 

The nameplate rating on the machine should be the information an electrician 
needs during installation and selection of wire size and type.

 

Ralph

 

From: Brian Kunde  
Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2024 11:29 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] SCCR Rating Question

 

Greetings to all.  

 

I am new to SCCR ratings on industrial machinery.  The ratings I have seen 
sometimes has a "Maximum Voltage" included, such as;

 

SCCR: 22kA, 600V Maximum

 

Where does the voltage value come from?  In one case, the machine had a line 
voltage rating of "120/208 Vac", but the SCCR rating had a voltage rating of 
"Max 600V".

 

Can this be confusing? Might something think the machine can operate at 600Vac?

 

Thanks for any replies.

The Other Brian

 

 

  _  

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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG   

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/ 
  

Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/   
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)  
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html 

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net  
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org   

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org   

  _  

To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC 
 =1 


-

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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

Re: [PSES] IEC 62368-1: To understand chapter 5.4.11

[Piotr Galka]

Hi Glyn,

I understand that there should not be hazard in all expected situations 
(normal / abnormal use and fault condition) and USB cable is too short 
to consider transients.
What I am trying to do is to understand 62368-1 and reading it I came to 
5.4.11 that was hard for me to understand what are exact listed there 
requirements and if they touch my devices.


That laptop I described is an example of device that looks as being not 
excluded from 5.4.11, and USB is looking (for me) as being external 
circuits according to 62368-1 definition of this therm and being 
indicated in table 14.
The only way to solve this laptop problem, I see, is if we have to 
assume that the note in table 14 of not considering transients (as USB 
is wholly in the same building) makes USB being not indicated in table. 
When first time writing my question I was not sure if I can assume this. 
Now I suppose that I have to assume this (if transients are not taken 
into account than cable is not indicated in table 14).


The device I have in mind is 12V powered access controller hawing RS485 
(not isolated) and because of this RS485 I am trying to understand 5.4.11.

Now I suppose that:
1. It is permanently connected equipment so 5.4.11 not apply, and even 
it is not permanently connected (as being isolated from Mains by 12V 
supply) then
2. RS485 as being whole in one building (transients are not taken into 
account) is not indicated in table 14 so 5.4.11 not apply.


The typical 12V supply used (MEAN WELL DRC-40A) specification says:
  SAFETY STANDARDS:   UL60950-1, TUV EN60950-1 approved
  WITHSTAND VOLTAGE:    I/P-O/P:3KVAC I/P-FG:2KVAC O/P-FG:0.5KVAC

I always assumed that it is better to not Earth DC12V (its negative pole).
Reading 62368-2 5.4.11 description I confirm myself in this belief. Not 
Earthing 12V we not provide (by RS485) Earth potential to a remote 
environment making it being still save even if by any other fault the 
Mains potential can be there.

Do you agree with me?

Best Regards
Piotr Galka


W dniu 2024-05-10 o 17:26, Glyn Payne pisze:


Hi Piotr,

Maximum USB cable lengths are quite short, a few meters, and they are 
not designed to be part of the ‘building or structure’, hence 
transients are not considered for these ports. If a USB extender or 
hub is used to extend the USB and this is wired through the building 
or structure then transients would be the problem of the hub 
manufacturer and not your product.



There was/is /IEC 62368-//3/: /Safety aspects for DC power
transfer through communication cables and ports/, which is
referenced by IEC 62368-1 however this being reworked by TC108 and
as far as I can tell few people are using it in it’s present form.


When testing your product under 62368-1 the test house will
determine the maximum voltage and current the USB (or serial) port
can provide, under normal, abnormal and fault conditions, to
ensure that there is no hazard.


Best regards,


Glyn Payne

*From:*Piotr Galka 
*Sent:* Wednesday, May 8, 2024 9:28 PM
*To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
*Subject:* Re: [PSES] IEC 62368-1: To understand chapter 5.4.11




You don't often get email from piotr.ga...@micromade.pl. Learn why 
this is important <https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification>




Hi Bostjan,

I know that if circuit is not going out of building it is considered 
being without transients. My doubt is mainly because in 5.4.11 says 
about circuits being external and indicated in table 14 and according 
to my understanding 3.3.1.1 USB was external and note about transients 
in table 14 for me didn't make for me USB being not indicated in table.
In my RS485 design even it is in one building I assume during storm up 
to 50V temporary difference between several grounding points and I use 
2 steps protection. I know of two such incidents that after lightning 
struck directly into the building, many systems stopped working, but 
ours did.

I acknowledge that USB is not external circuit.
Thanks a lot.

I have never bought any standard abroad and as I have written 
answering to Johns post I see that 62368-2 is not in current Polish 
Standard Committee offer.


Best regards
Piotr Galka

W dniu 2024-05-08 o 18:45, Boštjan Glavič pisze:

Hi Piotr

If circuit does not go out of building it is not considered as
circuit with transients. I think you should check other standard
like IEC 62151 and IEC 62102 which clasify external circuits.

From my experiences, and I do have quite some, USB is not
considered as external circuit in the sense of clause, where
requirements between external circuit and PE are specified.

Did you also check 62368-2?

Best regards

Bostjan

Poslano iz Outlook za Android <https://aka.ms/AAb9ysg>



*Od:* Piotr Galka 
<mailto:piotr.ga...@micromade.pl>
*Poslano:* sreda, m

Re: [PSES] IEC 62368-1: To understand chapter 5.4.11

[Glyn Payne]

Hi Piotr,

Maximum USB cable lengths are quite short, a few meters, and they are not 
designed to be part of the ‘building or structure’, hence transients are not 
considered for these ports. If a USB extender or hub is used to extend the USB 
and this is wired through the building or structure then transients would be 
the problem of the hub manufacturer and not your product.

There was/is IEC 62368-3: Safety aspects for DC power transfer through 
communication cables and ports, which is referenced by IEC 62368-1 however this 
being reworked by TC108 and as far as I can tell few people are using it in 
it’s present form.
When testing your product under 62368-1 the test house will determine the 
maximum voltage and current the USB (or serial) port can provide, under normal, 
abnormal and fault conditions, to ensure that there is no hazard.

Best regards,
Glyn Payne

From: Piotr Galka 
Sent: Wednesday, May 8, 2024 9:28 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] IEC 62368-1: To understand chapter 5.4.11

You don't often get email from 
piotr.ga...@micromade.pl<mailto:piotr.ga...@micromade.pl>. Learn why this is 
important<https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification>
Hi Bostjan,

I know that if circuit is not going out of building it is considered being 
without transients. My doubt is mainly because in 5.4.11 says about circuits 
being external and indicated in table 14 and according to my understanding 
3.3.1.1 USB was external and note about transients in table 14 for me didn't 
make for me USB being not indicated in table.
In my RS485 design even it is in one building I assume during storm up to 50V 
temporary difference between several grounding points and I use 2 steps 
protection. I know of two such incidents that after lightning struck directly 
into the building, many systems stopped working, but ours did.
I acknowledge that USB is not external circuit.
Thanks a lot.

I have never bought any standard abroad and as I have written answering to 
Johns post I see that 62368-2 is not in current Polish Standard Committee offer.

Best regards
Piotr Galka

W dniu 2024-05-08 o 18:45, Boštjan Glavič pisze:
Hi Piotr

If circuit does not go out of building it is not considered as circuit with 
transients. I think you should check other standard like IEC 62151 and IEC 
62102 which clasify external circuits.

From my experiences, and I do have quite some, USB is not considered as 
external circuit in the sense of clause, where requirements between external 
circuit and PE are specified.

Did you also check 62368-2?

Best regards
Bostjan





Poslano iz Outlook za Android<https://aka.ms/AAb9ysg>


Od: Piotr Galka <mailto:piotr.ga...@micromade.pl>
Poslano: sreda, maj 8, 2024 5:21:33 PM
Za: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> 
<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Zadeva: Re: [PSES] IEC 62368-1: To understand chapter 5.4.11


Hi Bostjan,

Thanks for your feedback, but...

I am slowly and carefully reading 62368-1 for the first time.
It defines 'external circuit' in 3.3.1.1 as "electrical circuit that is
external to the equipment and is not mains".
I assumed one device = one equipment so I thought laptop is an
equipment. After your post I checked how equipment is defined in 62368-1
but in 3.3 there is no equipment definition so I don't know what is
equipment.
May be USB device (pendrive) connected without cable to laptop can be
assumed being its part, or even device powered by USB (mouse, keyboard)
can be assumed being its part, but USB can be used to connect other
equipment, I think. Do laser printer being powered separately from mains
connected to laptop is understood as being internal part of equipment?
Laptop is probably manufactured by someone else than laser printer. They
can't assume they manufacture single equipment, I think.
In past I have read about USB being used to connect active wifi antenna
located on the roof (with few hubs to extend connection length). Having
all that in mind it is hard for me to accept that for 62368-1 USB is
equipment internal circuit.

Now.
If we assume laptop with connected to it mouse, external keyboard and
printer is one equipment then going to my field: do the access control
controller with RFID readers connected to it by RS485 is also one
equipment (all powered from one 12V supply, and located in one building)
making RS485 connection being internal equipment circuit?
I don't think so.

And I repeat my main question regarding 5.4.11: Do the access controller
permanently connected to 12V supply that is permanently connected to
mains is permanently connected equipment? I think yes. Even 12V supply
has isolation in it.
If I change understanding of equipment and assume that controller + 12V
supply are one equipment than thinks get easier - such understood
equipment is permanently connected. But is it one equipment if
controller is manufactured by someone other then

Re: [PSES] IEC 62368-1: To understand chapter 5.4.11

[Bill Owsley]

 I have been watching this subject for a while.
i vaguely recall that in some front matter in some standards is a statement 
that indicates that this is the minimum requirements to go to market.
 So in the interests of the Corp/s that I worked for at the time, and any 
quality targets, that they may have, or not, regardless of their awareness of 
such targets...
I often figured out tests that were needed/useful ... but maybe not required in 
the strict minimum requirements.
And reported the results.  
And fixes to meet those "not strictly required" minimum standards.
And did this early in the development process, thus EMC First,
First off product could ship !!!
And then I/they could spend time and money on cost reducing at our leisure.
Cuz product was shipping and bringing in revenue.
On time, or even early before plans.






 

On Thursday, May 9, 2024, 7:44:05 AM EDT, James Pawson (U3C) 
 wrote:  
 
 
Hi Piotr,

  

Just to add to the debate:

  

“I know that if circuit is not going out of building it is considered being 
without transients”

  

If a cable is longer than 30m then most product EMC standards will call up a 
requirement for line-to-earth surge testing. Some do make it explicit that this 
should be only for cables leaving a building or site, some do not…

  

All the best

James

  

James Pawson

Managing Director & EMC Problem Solver

  

Unit 3 Compliance Ltd

EMC : Environmental & Vibration : Electrical Safety : CE & UKCA : Consultancy

  

www.unit3compliance.co.uk | ja...@unit3compliance.co.uk 

+44(0)1274 911747  |  +44(0)7811 139957

2 Wellington Business Park, New Lane, Bradford, BD4 8AL

Registered in England and Wales # 10574298

  

Office hours:

Every morning my full attention is on consultancy, testing, and troubleshooting 
activities for our customers’ projects. I’m available/contactable between 1300h 
to 1730h Mon/Tue/Thurs/Fri.

For inquiries, bookings, and testing updates please send us an email on 
he...@unit3compliance.co.uk or call 01274 911747. Our lead times for testing 
and consultancy are typically 4-5 weeks.

  

  

  

  

From: Piotr Galka  
Sent: Wednesday, May 8, 2024 9:28 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] IEC 62368-1: To understand chapter 5.4.11

  

Hi Bostjan,

I know that if circuit is not going out of building it is considered being 
without transients. My doubt is mainly because in 5.4.11 says about circuits 
being external and indicated in table 14 and according to my understanding 
3.3.1.1 USB was external and note about transients in table 14 for me didn't 
make for me USB being not indicated in table.
In my RS485 design even it is in one building I assume during storm up to 50V 
temporary difference between several grounding points and I use 2 steps 
protection. I know of two such incidents that after lightning struck directly 
into the building, many systems stopped working, but ours did.
I acknowledge that USB is not external circuit.
Thanks a lot.

I have never bought any standard abroad and as I have written answering to 
Johns post I see that 62368-2 is not in current Polish Standard Committee offer.

Best regards
Piotr Galka



W dniu 2024-05-08 o 18:45, Boštjan Glavič pisze:


Hi Piotr

  

If circuit does not go out of building it is not considered as circuit with 
transients. I think you should check other standard like IEC 62151 and IEC 
62102 which clasify external circuits.

  

>From my experiences, and I do have quite some, USB is not considered as 
>external circuit in the sense of clause, where requirements between external 
>circuit and PE are specified.

  

Did you also check 62368-2?

  

Best regards 

Bostjan

  

  

  

  

  

Poslano iz Outlook za Android

  

Od: Piotr Galka 
Poslano: sreda, maj 8, 2024 5:21:33 PM
Za: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG 
Zadeva: Re: [PSES] IEC 62368-1: To understand chapter 5.4.11





Hi Bostjan,

Thanks for your feedback, but...

I am slowly and carefully reading 62368-1 for the first time.
It defines 'external circuit' in 3.3.1.1 as "electrical circuit that is 
external to the equipment and is not mains".
I assumed one device = one equipment so I thought laptop is an 
equipment. After your post I checked how equipment is defined in 62368-1 
but in 3.3 there is no equipment definition so I don't know what is 
equipment.
May be USB device (pendrive) connected without cable to laptop can be 
assumed being its part, or even device powered by USB (mouse, keyboard) 
can be assumed being its part, but USB can be used to connect other 
equipment, I think. Do laser printer being powered separately from mains 
connected to laptop is understood as being internal part of equipment? 
Laptop is probably manufactured by someone else than laser printer. They 
can't assume they manufacture single equipment, I think.
In past I have read about USB being used to connect active wifi antenna 
located on the roof (with few hubs to extend con

Re: [PSES] IEC 62368-1: To understand chapter 5.4.11

[Piotr Galka]

Hi James,

Thank you for drawing attention to this but my sentence was in context 
of 62368-1 only.


When in 2004 (few days after we joined EU) I went with my devices for 
the first time to EMC lab (it was an internal company laboratory that 
also offered external services) they didn't had a capacitors needed in 
surge testing transmission lines. So we tested them using only 40 ohm 
resistor. Since then I design my not isolated RS485 to withstand 25A 
50us current pulse (Surge generator loaded with 40ohm gives current 
pulse of a shape rather like its voltage pulse then its current pulse).
As I have encountered EMC problems in 90s (devices with RS485 having 
only ICs ESD protection routed between buildings standing on the top of 
hill were hanging after every storm) I was well prepared in 2004 and 
they were surprised that all my devices passed all the tests for the 
first time.


Regards
Piotr

W dniu 2024-05-09 o 13:43, James Pawson (U3C) pisze:


Hi Piotr,

Just to add to the debate:

“I know that if circuit is not going out of building it is considered 
being without transients”


If a cable is longer than 30m then most product EMC standards will 
call up a requirement for line-to-earth surge testing. Some do make it 
explicit that this should be only for cables leaving a building or 
site, some do not…


All the best

James

James Pawson

Managing Director & EMC Problem Solver

*Unit 3 Compliance Ltd*

*EMC : Environmental & Vibration : Electrical Safety : CE & UKCA : 
Consultancy*


www.unit3compliance.co.uk <http://www.unit3compliance.co.uk/> | 
ja...@unit3compliance.co.uk <mailto:ja...@unit3compliance.co.uk>


+44(0)1274 911747  |  +44(0)7811 139957

2 Wellington Business Park, New Lane, Bradford, BD4 8AL

Registered in England and Wales # 10574298

/Office hours:/

/Every morning my full attention is on consultancy, testing, and 
troubleshooting activities for our customers’ projects. I’m 
available/contactable between 1300h to 1730h Mon/Tue/Thurs/Fri./


/For inquiries, bookings, and testing updates please send us an email 
on he...@unit3compliance.co.uk or call 01274 911747. Our lead times 
for testing and consultancy are typically 4-5 weeks./


*From:*Piotr Galka 
*Sent:* Wednesday, May 8, 2024 9:28 PM
*To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
*Subject:* Re: [PSES] IEC 62368-1: To understand chapter 5.4.11

Hi Bostjan,

I know that if circuit is not going out of building it is considered 
being without transients. My doubt is mainly because in 5.4.11 says 
about circuits being external and indicated in table 14 and according 
to my understanding 3.3.1.1 USB was external and note about transients 
in table 14 for me didn't make for me USB being not indicated in table.
In my RS485 design even it is in one building I assume during storm up 
to 50V temporary difference between several grounding points and I use 
2 steps protection. I know of two such incidents that after lightning 
struck directly into the building, many systems stopped working, but 
ours did.

I acknowledge that USB is not external circuit.
Thanks a lot.

I have never bought any standard abroad and as I have written 
answering to Johns post I see that 62368-2 is not in current Polish 
Standard Committee offer.


Best regards
Piotr Galka

W dniu 2024-05-08 o 18:45, Boštjan Glavič pisze:

Hi Piotr

If circuit does not go out of building it is not considered as
circuit with transients. I think you should check other standard
like IEC 62151 and IEC 62102 which clasify external circuits.

From my experiences, and I do have quite some, USB is not
considered as external circuit in the sense of clause, where
requirements between external circuit and PE are specified.

Did you also check 62368-2?

Best regards

Bostjan

Poslano iz Outlook za Android <https://aka.ms/AAb9ysg>



*Od:*Piotr Galka 
<mailto:piotr.ga...@micromade.pl>
*Poslano:* sreda, maj 8, 2024 5:21:33 PM
*Za:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG 
<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
*Zadeva:* Re: [PSES] IEC 62368-1: To understand chapter 5.4.11



Hi Bostjan,

Thanks for your feedback, but...

I am slowly and carefully reading 62368-1 for the first time.
It defines 'external circuit' in 3.3.1.1 as "electrical circuit
that is
external to the equipment and is not mains".
I assumed one device = one equipment so I thought laptop is an
equipment. After your post I checked how equipment is defined in
62368-1
but in 3.3 there is no equipment definition so I don't know what is
equipment.
May be USB device (pendrive) connected without cable to laptop can be
assumed being its part, or even device powered by USB (mouse,
keyboard)
can be assumed being its part, but USB can be used to connect other
equipment, I think. Do laser printer being power

Re: [PSES] IEC 62368-1: To understand chapter 5.4.11

[James Pawson (U3C)]

Hi Piotr,

 

Just to add to the debate:

 

“I know that if circuit is not going out of building it is considered being 
without transients”

 

If a cable is longer than 30m then most product EMC standards will call up a 
requirement for line-to-earth surge testing. Some do make it explicit that this 
should be only for cables leaving a building or site, some do not…

 

All the best

James

 

James Pawson

Managing Director & EMC Problem Solver

 

Unit 3 Compliance Ltd

EMC : Environmental & Vibration : Electrical Safety : CE & UKCA : Consultancy

 

 <http://www.unit3compliance.co.uk/> www.unit3compliance.co.uk |  
<mailto:ja...@unit3compliance.co.uk> ja...@unit3compliance.co.uk 

+44(0)1274 911747  |  +44(0)7811 139957

2 Wellington Business Park, New Lane, Bradford, BD4 8AL

Registered in England and Wales # 10574298

 

Office hours:

Every morning my full attention is on consultancy, testing, and troubleshooting 
activities for our customers’ projects. I’m available/contactable between 1300h 
to 1730h Mon/Tue/Thurs/Fri.

For inquiries, bookings, and testing updates please send us an email on 
he...@unit3compliance.co.uk <mailto:he...@unit3compliance.co.uk>  or call 01274 
911747. Our lead times for testing and consultancy are typically 4-5 weeks.

 

 

 

 

From: Piotr Galka  
Sent: Wednesday, May 8, 2024 9:28 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] IEC 62368-1: To understand chapter 5.4.11

 

Hi Bostjan,

I know that if circuit is not going out of building it is considered being 
without transients. My doubt is mainly because in 5.4.11 says about circuits 
being external and indicated in table 14 and according to my understanding 
3.3.1.1 USB was external and note about transients in table 14 for me didn't 
make for me USB being not indicated in table.
In my RS485 design even it is in one building I assume during storm up to 50V 
temporary difference between several grounding points and I use 2 steps 
protection. I know of two such incidents that after lightning struck directly 
into the building, many systems stopped working, but ours did.
I acknowledge that USB is not external circuit.
Thanks a lot.

I have never bought any standard abroad and as I have written answering to 
Johns post I see that 62368-2 is not in current Polish Standard Committee offer.

Best regards
Piotr Galka



W dniu 2024-05-08 o 18:45, Boštjan Glavič pisze:

Hi Piotr

 

If circuit does not go out of building it is not considered as circuit with 
transients. I think you should check other standard like IEC 62151 and IEC 
62102 which clasify external circuits.

 

>From my experiences, and I do have quite some, USB is not considered as 
>external circuit in the sense of clause, where requirements between external 
>circuit and PE are specified.

 

Did you also check 62368-2?

 

Best regards 

Bostjan

 

 

 

 

 

Poslano iz Outlook za Android <https://aka.ms/AAb9ysg> 

 

  _  

Od: Piotr Galka  <mailto:piotr.ga...@micromade.pl> 
Poslano: sreda, maj 8, 2024 5:21:33 PM
Za: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>   
<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> 
Zadeva: Re: [PSES] IEC 62368-1: To understand chapter 5.4.11





Hi Bostjan,

Thanks for your feedback, but...

I am slowly and carefully reading 62368-1 for the first time.
It defines 'external circuit' in 3.3.1.1 as "electrical circuit that is 
external to the equipment and is not mains".
I assumed one device = one equipment so I thought laptop is an 
equipment. After your post I checked how equipment is defined in 62368-1 
but in 3.3 there is no equipment definition so I don't know what is 
equipment.
May be USB device (pendrive) connected without cable to laptop can be 
assumed being its part, or even device powered by USB (mouse, keyboard) 
can be assumed being its part, but USB can be used to connect other 
equipment, I think. Do laser printer being powered separately from mains 
connected to laptop is understood as being internal part of equipment? 
Laptop is probably manufactured by someone else than laser printer. They 
can't assume they manufacture single equipment, I think.
In past I have read about USB being used to connect active wifi antenna 
located on the roof (with few hubs to extend connection length). Having 
all that in mind it is hard for me to accept that for 62368-1 USB is 
equipment internal circuit.

Now.
If we assume laptop with connected to it mouse, external keyboard and 
printer is one equipment then going to my field: do the access control 
controller with RFID readers connected to it by RS485 is also one 
equipment (all powered from one 12V supply, and located in one building) 
making RS485 connection being internal equipment circuit?
I don't think so.

And I repeat my main question regarding 5.4.11: Do the access controller 
permanently connected to 12V supply that is permanently connected to 
mains is permanently con

Re: [PSES] IEC 62368-1: To understand chapter 5.4.11

[Piotr Galka]

Hi Ralph and John,

62368-1 I have bought from PKN is in form "first and last page Polish 
and everything inside English".
I suppose they with pleasure will charge me for 62368-2 if I ask them 
for it. The only question is how much time is needed to prepare these 2 
pages.
As I remember from times when I was writing here from time to time - we 
came to conclusion that PKN prices were clearly lower then in other sources.


What I am surprised the most: Do really I (a guy from a company with 4 
employees) am the first one in Poland being interested in 62368-2 :)


Best Regards
Piotr Galka



W dniu 2024-05-08 o 23:07, Ralph McDiarmid pisze:

Signature

The IEC store has IEC TR 62368-2:2019 RLV for 553 Swiss Francs.   Ouch.

*From:*John Woodgate 
*Sent:* Wednesday, May 8, 2024 1:37 PM
*To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
*Subject:* Re: [PSES] IEC 62368-1: To understand chapter 5.4.11

You can get 62368-2 from: https://www.evs.ee/en/iec-tr-62368-2-2019, 
but it is rather costly.


On 2024-05-08 21:00, Piotr Galka wrote:

After reading your post my decision was to buy 62368-2 but I've
just checked that in PKN (Polish Standards Committee) I can buy
62368-1 what I have done long ago but they don't have 62368-2 :( .

--
OOO - Own Opinions Only
Best wishes
John Woodgate, Rayleigh, Essex UK
Keep trying

<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email_source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=emailclient>



Virus-free.www.avg.com 
<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email_source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=emailclient>




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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/ 
<https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/%20>


Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how 
to unsubscribe) <https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html>

List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org



To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1 
<https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1>




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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how 
to unsubscribe) <https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html>

List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org



To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1




-

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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

Re: [PSES] IEC 62368-1: To understand chapter 5.4.11

[Ralph McDiarmid]

The IEC store has IEC TR 62368-2:2019 RLV for 553 Swiss Francs.   Ouch.

 

From: John Woodgate  
Sent: Wednesday, May 8, 2024 1:37 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] IEC 62368-1: To understand chapter 5.4.11

 

You can get 62368-2 from: https://www.evs.ee/en/iec-tr-62368-2-2019, but it is 
rather costly.

On 2024-05-08 21:00, Piotr Galka wrote:

After reading your post my decision was to buy 62368-2 but I've just checked 
that in PKN (Polish Standards Committee) I can buy 62368-1 what I have done 
long ago but they don't have 62368-2 :( .

-- 
OOO - Own Opinions Only
Best wishes
John Woodgate, Rayleigh, Essex UK
Keep trying

 


 
<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email_source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=emailclient>
 

Virus-free. 
<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email_source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=emailclient>
 www.avg.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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>  

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/ 
<https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/%20>  

Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/  <https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/> 
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe) <https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html> 
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html 

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net <mailto:msherma...@comcast.net> 
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org <mailto:linf...@ieee.org>  

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org <mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org>  

  _  

To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC 
<https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1> =1 


-

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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

Re: [PSES] IEC 62368-1: To understand chapter 5.4.11

[John Woodgate]

You can get 62368-2 from: https://www.evs.ee/en/iec-tr-62368-2-2019, but 
it is rather costly.


On 2024-05-08 21:00, Piotr Galka wrote:
After reading your post my decision was to buy 62368-2 but I've just 
checked that in PKN (Polish Standards Committee) I can buy 62368-1 
what I have done long ago but they don't have 62368-2 :( .

--
Signature OOO - Own Opinions Only
Best wishes
John Woodgate, Rayleigh, Essex UK
Keep trying

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

Re: [PSES] IEC 62368-1: To understand chapter 5.4.11

[Piotr Galka]

Hi Bostjan,

I know that if circuit is not going out of building it is considered 
being without transients. My doubt is mainly because in 5.4.11 says 
about circuits being external and indicated in table 14 and according to 
my understanding 3.3.1.1 USB was external and note about transients in 
table 14 for me didn't make for me USB being not indicated in table.
In my RS485 design even it is in one building I assume during storm up 
to 50V temporary difference between several grounding points and I use 2 
steps protection. I know of two such incidents that after lightning 
struck directly into the building, many systems stopped working, but 
ours did.

I acknowledge that USB is not external circuit.
Thanks a lot.

I have never bought any standard abroad and as I have written answering 
to Johns post I see that 62368-2 is not in current Polish Standard 
Committee offer.


Best regards
Piotr Galka


W dniu 2024-05-08 o 18:45, Boštjan Glavič pisze:

Hi Piotr

If circuit does not go out of building it is not considered as circuit 
with transients. I think you should check other standard like IEC 
62151 and IEC 62102 which clasify external circuits.


From my experiences, and I do have quite some, USB is not considered 
as external circuit in the sense of clause, where requirements between 
external circuit and PE are specified.


Did you also check 62368-2?

Best regards
Bostjan





Poslano iz Outlook za Android <https://aka.ms/AAb9ysg>


*Od:* Piotr Galka 
*Poslano:* sreda, maj 8, 2024 5:21:33 PM
*Za:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG 
*Zadeva:* Re: [PSES] IEC 62368-1: To understand chapter 5.4.11

Hi Bostjan,

Thanks for your feedback, but...

I am slowly and carefully reading 62368-1 for the first time.
It defines 'external circuit' in 3.3.1.1 as "electrical circuit that is
external to the equipment and is not mains".
I assumed one device = one equipment so I thought laptop is an
equipment. After your post I checked how equipment is defined in 62368-1
but in 3.3 there is no equipment definition so I don't know what is
equipment.
May be USB device (pendrive) connected without cable to laptop can be
assumed being its part, or even device powered by USB (mouse, keyboard)
can be assumed being its part, but USB can be used to connect other
equipment, I think. Do laser printer being powered separately from mains
connected to laptop is understood as being internal part of equipment?
Laptop is probably manufactured by someone else than laser printer. They
can't assume they manufacture single equipment, I think.
In past I have read about USB being used to connect active wifi antenna
located on the roof (with few hubs to extend connection length). Having
all that in mind it is hard for me to accept that for 62368-1 USB is
equipment internal circuit.

Now.
If we assume laptop with connected to it mouse, external keyboard and
printer is one equipment then going to my field: do the access control
controller with RFID readers connected to it by RS485 is also one
equipment (all powered from one 12V supply, and located in one building)
making RS485 connection being internal equipment circuit?
I don't think so.

And I repeat my main question regarding 5.4.11: Do the access controller
permanently connected to 12V supply that is permanently connected to
mains is permanently connected equipment? I think yes. Even 12V supply
has isolation in it.
If I change understanding of equipment and assume that controller + 12V
supply are one equipment than thinks get easier - such understood
equipment is permanently connected. But is it one equipment if
controller is manufactured by someone other then 12V supply.

Best regards
Piotr Galka

W dniu 2024-05-07 o 19:49, Boštjan Glavič pisze:
> Hi Piotr
>
> USB circuit is internal circuit. There are no transients expected on 
USB. Clause 5.4.11 is not applicable for power supply with USB output.

>
> Paired conductor is a telecommunication network that we had in old 
times (analogue network, ISDN,...).

>
> I hope this helps. If you need more info, you can contact me.
>
> Best regards,
> Boštjan
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Piotr Galka 
> Sent: Tuesday, May 7, 2024 5:40 PM
> To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: [PSES] IEC 62368-1: To understand chapter 5.4.11
>
> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of our organisation. Do 
not click links or open attachments unless you recognise the sender 
and know the content is safe.

>
>
> Trying to understand 62368-1...
>
> I have got laptop with type A power supply so it looks being not 
excluded from 5.4.11 by rules in 5.4.11.1.

> For me USB are external circuits indicated in Table 14, ID numbers 1 and
> 2 (I think USB is 'Paired conductor', but even not it certainly is 
'Any other conductors').
> The note in Table 14 about not taking into account transi

Re: [PSES] IEC 62368-1: To understand chapter 5.4.11

[Piotr Galka]

Hi John,

I hoped you will answer my question and I got important information from 
you. Thanks.


After reading your post my decision was to buy 62368-2 but I've just 
checked that in PKN (Polish Standards Committee) I can buy 62368-1 what 
I have done long ago but they don't have 62368-2 :( .


Even not seeing explanations the requirements should be so written that 
there should be no doubts when reading them. I really don't know how to 
read 3.3.1.1 to understand USB as internal, but I accept to understand 
it as internal.


This laptop and USB is an example that should help me to understand the 
standard and I think I got pointing in the right direction (I am using 
USB (desktop RFID card readers/writers, pen-drive like devices 
implementing crypto functions)).


Our access control devices accept 12 or 24V supply (I think 99% 
installations use 12V because such supplies/batteries are more popular). 
We use RS485 that we require the whole bus being in one building. We use 
Ethernet but when connecting many controllers to it the routers/switches 
also are close to them so we also specify that this connection have to 
be in one building.


Since 2020 we had very hard time because ATXmega microcontrollers (and 
also other ICs) we used disappeared from marked and we had to redesign 
all our products to the other IC that happened to be able to buy. The 
side effect is that all our CE declarations are outdated. I want to 
issue new ones. And because of this I want to understand 62368-1.


Best regards
Piotr Galka
P.S.
Note out of EMC-PSTC subject but connected with standards...
Recently my heart has been hurting because while the whole world is 
trying to save energy, we have been forced to issue readers that have 40 
to 400 times more energy consumption for RS485 transmission than our 
previous ones. And to not be eliminated from market we seriously think 
about doing the same change in all our devices. Standards are not 
mandatory, but if they are issued than market forces to use them. When I 
imagine how many RS485 busses work all the time all over the world...




W dniu 2024-05-08 o 17:52, John Woodgate pisze:


To fully understand IEC 62368-1, you also need to read IEC 62368-2. It 
includes a long explanatory text about 5.4.11. The committee realised 
that it was not practicable to put all the explanations into the same 
document as the requirements. The circuits feeding the USB connectors 
of a device are internal circuits. But are you actually using USB or 
are you mentioning it as an example? For your access controller 
connected to a 12V supply that is permanently connected to mains, the 
isolated low-voltage circuits in the 12 V supply equipment are 
internal circuits and are not subject to transients. Anything 
connected to the 12 V DC supply is ES1.


On 2024-05-08 16:21, Piotr Galka wrote:

Hi Bostjan,

Thanks for your feedback, but...

I am slowly and carefully reading 62368-1 for the first time.
It defines 'external circuit' in 3.3.1.1 as "electrical circuit that 
is external to the equipment and is not mains".
I assumed one device = one equipment so I thought laptop is an 
equipment. After your post I checked how equipment is defined in 
62368-1 but in 3.3 there is no equipment definition so I don't know 
what is equipment.
May be USB device (pendrive) connected without cable to laptop can be 
assumed being its part, or even device powered by USB (mouse, 
keyboard) can be assumed being its part, but USB can be used to 
connect other equipment, I think. Do laser printer being powered 
separately from mains connected to laptop is understood as being 
internal part of equipment? Laptop is probably manufactured by 
someone else than laser printer. They can't assume they manufacture 
single equipment, I think.
In past I have read about USB being used to connect active wifi 
antenna located on the roof (with few hubs to extend connection 
length). Having all that in mind it is hard for me to accept that for 
62368-1 USB is equipment internal circuit.


Now.
If we assume laptop with connected to it mouse, external keyboard and 
printer is one equipment then going to my field: do the access 
control controller with RFID readers connected to it by RS485 is also 
one equipment (all powered from one 12V supply, and located in one 
building) making RS485 connection being internal equipment circuit?

I don't think so.

And I repeat my main question regarding 5.4.11: Do the access 
controller permanently connected to 12V supply that is permanently 
connected to mains is permanently connected equipment? I think yes. 
Even 12V supply has isolation in it.
If I change understanding of equipment and assume that controller + 
12V supply are one equipment than thinks get easier - such understood 
equipment is permanently connected. But is it one equipment if 
controller is manufactured by someone other then 12V supply.


Best regards
Piotr Galka

W dniu 2024-05-07 o 19:49, Boštjan Glavič pisze:

Hi Piotr

USB 

Re: [PSES] IEC 62368-1: To understand chapter 5.4.11

[Boštjan Glavič]

Hi Piotr

If circuit does not go out of building it is not considered as circuit with 
transients. I think you should check other standard like IEC 62151 and IEC 
62102 which clasify external circuits.

>From my experiences, and I do have quite some, USB is not considered as 
>external circuit in the sense of clause, where requirements between external 
>circuit and PE are specified.

Did you also check 62368-2?

Best regards
Bostjan





Poslano iz Outlook za Android<https://aka.ms/AAb9ysg>


Od: Piotr Galka 
Poslano: sreda, maj 8, 2024 5:21:33 PM
Za: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG 
Zadeva: Re: [PSES] IEC 62368-1: To understand chapter 5.4.11

Hi Bostjan,

Thanks for your feedback, but...

I am slowly and carefully reading 62368-1 for the first time.
It defines 'external circuit' in 3.3.1.1 as "electrical circuit that is
external to the equipment and is not mains".
I assumed one device = one equipment so I thought laptop is an
equipment. After your post I checked how equipment is defined in 62368-1
but in 3.3 there is no equipment definition so I don't know what is
equipment.
May be USB device (pendrive) connected without cable to laptop can be
assumed being its part, or even device powered by USB (mouse, keyboard)
can be assumed being its part, but USB can be used to connect other
equipment, I think. Do laser printer being powered separately from mains
connected to laptop is understood as being internal part of equipment?
Laptop is probably manufactured by someone else than laser printer. They
can't assume they manufacture single equipment, I think.
In past I have read about USB being used to connect active wifi antenna
located on the roof (with few hubs to extend connection length). Having
all that in mind it is hard for me to accept that for 62368-1 USB is
equipment internal circuit.

Now.
If we assume laptop with connected to it mouse, external keyboard and
printer is one equipment then going to my field: do the access control
controller with RFID readers connected to it by RS485 is also one
equipment (all powered from one 12V supply, and located in one building)
making RS485 connection being internal equipment circuit?
I don't think so.

And I repeat my main question regarding 5.4.11: Do the access controller
permanently connected to 12V supply that is permanently connected to
mains is permanently connected equipment? I think yes. Even 12V supply
has isolation in it.
If I change understanding of equipment and assume that controller + 12V
supply are one equipment than thinks get easier - such understood
equipment is permanently connected. But is it one equipment if
controller is manufactured by someone other then 12V supply.

Best regards
Piotr Galka

W dniu 2024-05-07 o 19:49, Boštjan Glavič pisze:
> Hi Piotr
>
> USB circuit is internal circuit. There are no transients expected on USB. 
> Clause 5.4.11 is not applicable for power supply with USB output.
>
> Paired conductor is a telecommunication network that we had in old times 
> (analogue network, ISDN,...).
>
> I hope this helps. If you need more info, you can contact me.
>
> Best regards,
> Boštjan
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Piotr Galka 
> Sent: Tuesday, May 7, 2024 5:40 PM
> To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: [PSES] IEC 62368-1: To understand chapter 5.4.11
>
> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of our organisation. Do not click 
> links or open attachments unless you recognise the sender and know the 
> content is safe.
>
>
> Trying to understand 62368-1...
>
> I have got laptop with type A power supply so it looks being not excluded 
> from 5.4.11 by rules in 5.4.11.1.
> For me USB are external circuits indicated in Table 14, ID numbers 1 and
> 2 (I think USB is 'Paired conductor', but even not it certainly is 'Any other 
> conductors').
> The note in Table 14 about not taking into account transients for external 
> circuits installed wholly within the same building is only about transients 
> so I think it doesn't make USB being not indicated in table.
> USB cable can be used to connect laptop to printer and in printer USB can be 
> earthed, I think.
> Dos this means that according to first sentence of 5.4.11.2 each USB port in 
> this laptop should be separated from its other USB ports?
> I don't believe there is such requirement.
>
> My real problem to understand is as follows:
> Typical access controller have several not separated from each other inputs 
> (several RFID reader inputs, door state control input, tamper inputs and 
> others).
> I need to understand if the access controller powered from (external to
> it) 12V DC buffered (= having accu in it) supply is permanently connected 
> equipment or not?
> To disconnect it from 12V supply you need tools, to disconnect 12V supply 
> from mains 

Re: [PSES] IEC 62368-1: To understand chapter 5.4.11

[John Woodgate]

To fully understand IEC 62368-1, you also need to read IEC 62368-2. It 
includes a long explanatory text about 5.4.11. The committee realised 
that it was not practicable to put all the explanations into the same 
document as the requirements. The circuits feeding the USB connectors of 
a device are internal circuits. But are you actually using USB or are 
you mentioning it as an example? For your access controller connected to 
a 12V supply that is permanently connected to mains, the isolated 
low-voltage circuits in the 12 V supply equipment are internal circuits 
and are not subject to transients. Anything connected to the 12 V DC 
supply is ES1.


On 2024-05-08 16:21, Piotr Galka wrote:

Hi Bostjan,

Thanks for your feedback, but...

I am slowly and carefully reading 62368-1 for the first time.
It defines 'external circuit' in 3.3.1.1 as "electrical circuit that 
is external to the equipment and is not mains".
I assumed one device = one equipment so I thought laptop is an 
equipment. After your post I checked how equipment is defined in 
62368-1 but in 3.3 there is no equipment definition so I don't know 
what is equipment.
May be USB device (pendrive) connected without cable to laptop can be 
assumed being its part, or even device powered by USB (mouse, 
keyboard) can be assumed being its part, but USB can be used to 
connect other equipment, I think. Do laser printer being powered 
separately from mains connected to laptop is understood as being 
internal part of equipment? Laptop is probably manufactured by someone 
else than laser printer. They can't assume they manufacture single 
equipment, I think.
In past I have read about USB being used to connect active wifi 
antenna located on the roof (with few hubs to extend connection 
length). Having all that in mind it is hard for me to accept that for 
62368-1 USB is equipment internal circuit.


Now.
If we assume laptop with connected to it mouse, external keyboard and 
printer is one equipment then going to my field: do the access control 
controller with RFID readers connected to it by RS485 is also one 
equipment (all powered from one 12V supply, and located in one 
building) making RS485 connection being internal equipment circuit?

I don't think so.

And I repeat my main question regarding 5.4.11: Do the access 
controller permanently connected to 12V supply that is permanently 
connected to mains is permanently connected equipment? I think yes. 
Even 12V supply has isolation in it.
If I change understanding of equipment and assume that controller + 
12V supply are one equipment than thinks get easier - such understood 
equipment is permanently connected. But is it one equipment if 
controller is manufactured by someone other then 12V supply.


Best regards
Piotr Galka

W dniu 2024-05-07 o 19:49, Boštjan Glavič pisze:

Hi Piotr

USB circuit is internal circuit. There are no transients expected on 
USB. Clause 5.4.11 is not applicable for power supply with USB output.


Paired conductor is a telecommunication network that we had in old 
times (analogue network, ISDN,...).


I hope this helps. If you need more info, you can contact me.

Best regards,
Boštjan



-Original Message-
From: Piotr Galka 
Sent: Tuesday, May 7, 2024 5:40 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] IEC 62368-1: To understand chapter 5.4.11

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of our organisation. Do 
not click links or open attachments unless you recognise the sender 
and know the content is safe.



Trying to understand 62368-1...

I have got laptop with type A power supply so it looks being not 
excluded from 5.4.11 by rules in 5.4.11.1.

For me USB are external circuits indicated in Table 14, ID numbers 1 and
2 (I think USB is 'Paired conductor', but even not it certainly is 
'Any other conductors').
The note in Table 14 about not taking into account transients for 
external circuits installed wholly within the same building is only 
about transients so I think it doesn't make USB being not indicated 
in table.
USB cable can be used to connect laptop to printer and in printer USB 
can be earthed, I think.
Dos this means that according to first sentence of 5.4.11.2 each USB 
port in this laptop should be separated from its other USB ports?

I don't believe there is such requirement.

My real problem to understand is as follows:
Typical access controller have several not separated from each other 
inputs (several RFID reader inputs, door state control input, tamper 
inputs and others).

I need to understand if the access controller powered from (external to
it) 12V DC buffered (= having accu in it) supply is permanently 
connected equipment or not?
To disconnect it from 12V supply you need tools, to disconnect 12V 
supply from mains you need tools, but 12V supply has isolation in it 
so access controller is not electrically connected to mains and 
3.3.3.4 says about needing tools to disconnect from mains (if 
something is not connected than tools are 

Re: [PSES] IEC 62368-1: To understand chapter 5.4.11

[Piotr Galka]

Hi Bostjan,

Thanks for your feedback, but...

I am slowly and carefully reading 62368-1 for the first time.
It defines 'external circuit' in 3.3.1.1 as "electrical circuit that is 
external to the equipment and is not mains".
I assumed one device = one equipment so I thought laptop is an 
equipment. After your post I checked how equipment is defined in 62368-1 
but in 3.3 there is no equipment definition so I don't know what is 
equipment.
May be USB device (pendrive) connected without cable to laptop can be 
assumed being its part, or even device powered by USB (mouse, keyboard) 
can be assumed being its part, but USB can be used to connect other 
equipment, I think. Do laser printer being powered separately from mains 
connected to laptop is understood as being internal part of equipment? 
Laptop is probably manufactured by someone else than laser printer. They 
can't assume they manufacture single equipment, I think.
In past I have read about USB being used to connect active wifi antenna 
located on the roof (with few hubs to extend connection length). Having 
all that in mind it is hard for me to accept that for 62368-1 USB is 
equipment internal circuit.


Now.
If we assume laptop with connected to it mouse, external keyboard and 
printer is one equipment then going to my field: do the access control 
controller with RFID readers connected to it by RS485 is also one 
equipment (all powered from one 12V supply, and located in one building) 
making RS485 connection being internal equipment circuit?

I don't think so.

And I repeat my main question regarding 5.4.11: Do the access controller 
permanently connected to 12V supply that is permanently connected to 
mains is permanently connected equipment? I think yes. Even 12V supply 
has isolation in it.
If I change understanding of equipment and assume that controller + 12V 
supply are one equipment than thinks get easier - such understood 
equipment is permanently connected. But is it one equipment if 
controller is manufactured by someone other then 12V supply.


Best regards
Piotr Galka

W dniu 2024-05-07 o 19:49, Boštjan Glavič pisze:

Hi Piotr

USB circuit is internal circuit. There are no transients expected on USB. 
Clause 5.4.11 is not applicable for power supply with USB output.

Paired conductor is a telecommunication network that we had in old times 
(analogue network, ISDN,...).

I hope this helps. If you need more info, you can contact me.

Best regards,
Boštjan



-Original Message-
From: Piotr Galka 
Sent: Tuesday, May 7, 2024 5:40 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] IEC 62368-1: To understand chapter 5.4.11

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of our organisation. Do not click 
links or open attachments unless you recognise the sender and know the content 
is safe.


Trying to understand 62368-1...

I have got laptop with type A power supply so it looks being not excluded from 
5.4.11 by rules in 5.4.11.1.
For me USB are external circuits indicated in Table 14, ID numbers 1 and
2 (I think USB is 'Paired conductor', but even not it certainly is 'Any other 
conductors').
The note in Table 14 about not taking into account transients for external 
circuits installed wholly within the same building is only about transients so 
I think it doesn't make USB being not indicated in table.
USB cable can be used to connect laptop to printer and in printer USB can be 
earthed, I think.
Dos this means that according to first sentence of 5.4.11.2 each USB port in 
this laptop should be separated from its other USB ports?
I don't believe there is such requirement.

My real problem to understand is as follows:
Typical access controller have several not separated from each other inputs 
(several RFID reader inputs, door state control input, tamper inputs and 
others).
I need to understand if the access controller powered from (external to
it) 12V DC buffered (= having accu in it) supply is permanently connected 
equipment or not?
To disconnect it from 12V supply you need tools, to disconnect 12V supply from 
mains you need tools, but 12V supply has isolation in it so access controller 
is not electrically connected to mains and 3.3.3.4 says about needing tools to 
disconnect from mains (if something is not connected than tools are not needed 
to make it being disconnected, I think).
Being permanently connected equipment is the easiest way for controller to be 
excluded from 5.4.11.
But if it is not permanently connected than its inputs are in the same 
situation as laptop USB ports I described first as more common to everyone.

What I miss or wrongly understand?

Regards
Piotr Galka

P.S.
Last month free time I spend browsing about 2800 EMC-PSTC posts collected by my 
mail program for few years.

-

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 

Re: [PSES] UK The Product Safety and Metrology etc. (Amendment) Regulations 2024

[Lauren Crane]

Thanks for sharing this, Charlie.

Best Regards,
-Lauren

From: Charlie Blackham 
Sent: Friday, April 19, 2024 3:09 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] UK The Product Safety and Metrology etc. (Amendment) 
Regulations 2024



External Email: Do NOT reply, click on links, or open attachments unless you 
recognize the sender and know the content is safe. If you believe this email 
may be unsafe, please click on the "Report Phishing" button on the top right of 
Outlook.


UK has published draft legislation to allow continued acceptance of CE Marking 
past the end of 2024 in the "The Product Safety and Metrology etc. (Amendment) 
Regulations 2024" along with an explanatory memorandum.
The law is due to come into force on 1st October ahead of the current 31 
December deadline.

The Product Safety and Metrology etc. (Amendment) Regulations 2024 
(legislation.gov.uk)

Best regards
Charlie

Charlie Blackham
Sulis Consultants Ltd
Mead House
Longwater Road
Eversley
RG27 0NW
UK
Tel: +44 (0)7946 624317
Email: char...@sulisconsultants.com
Web: https://sulisconsultants.com/
Registered in England and Wales, number 05466247



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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org



To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

LAM RESEARCH CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail transmission, and any 
documents, files, or previous e-mail messages attached to it, (collectively, 
"E-mail Transmission") may be subject to one or more of the following based on 
the associated sensitivity level: E-mail Transmission (i) contains confidential 
information, (ii) is prohibited from distribution outside of Lam, and/or (iii) 
is intended solely for and restricted to the specified recipient(s). If you are 
not the intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivering it to the 
intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, 
distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this 
message is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you have received this transmission in 
error, please immediately notify the sender and destroy the original 
transmission and its attachments without reading them or saving them to disk. 
Thank you.


Confidential - Limited Access and Use

-

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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

Re: [PSES] IEC 62368-1: To understand chapter 5.4.11

[Boštjan Glavič]

Hi Piotr

USB circuit is internal circuit. There are no transients expected on USB. 
Clause 5.4.11 is not applicable for power supply with USB output.

Paired conductor is a telecommunication network that we had in old times 
(analogue network, ISDN,...).

I hope this helps. If you need more info, you can contact me.

Best regards,
Boštjan



-Original Message-
From: Piotr Galka  
Sent: Tuesday, May 7, 2024 5:40 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] IEC 62368-1: To understand chapter 5.4.11

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of our organisation. Do not click 
links or open attachments unless you recognise the sender and know the content 
is safe.


Trying to understand 62368-1...

I have got laptop with type A power supply so it looks being not excluded from 
5.4.11 by rules in 5.4.11.1.
For me USB are external circuits indicated in Table 14, ID numbers 1 and
2 (I think USB is 'Paired conductor', but even not it certainly is 'Any other 
conductors').
The note in Table 14 about not taking into account transients for external 
circuits installed wholly within the same building is only about transients so 
I think it doesn't make USB being not indicated in table.
USB cable can be used to connect laptop to printer and in printer USB can be 
earthed, I think.
Dos this means that according to first sentence of 5.4.11.2 each USB port in 
this laptop should be separated from its other USB ports?
I don't believe there is such requirement.

My real problem to understand is as follows:
Typical access controller have several not separated from each other inputs 
(several RFID reader inputs, door state control input, tamper inputs and 
others).
I need to understand if the access controller powered from (external to
it) 12V DC buffered (= having accu in it) supply is permanently connected 
equipment or not?
To disconnect it from 12V supply you need tools, to disconnect 12V supply from 
mains you need tools, but 12V supply has isolation in it so access controller 
is not electrically connected to mains and 3.3.3.4 says about needing tools to 
disconnect from mains (if something is not connected than tools are not needed 
to make it being disconnected, I think).
Being permanently connected equipment is the easiest way for controller to be 
excluded from 5.4.11.
But if it is not permanently connected than its inputs are in the same 
situation as laptop USB ports I described first as more common to everyone.

What I miss or wrongly understand?

Regards
Piotr Galka

P.S.
Last month free time I spend browsing about 2800 EMC-PSTC posts collected by my 
mail program for few years.

-

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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe) List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

-

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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

Re: [PSES] UK The Product Safety and Metrology etc. (Amendment) Regulations 2024

[Scott Xe]

Dear Charlie,

Appreciate your updates!!  What is the distance to become an official
legislation?

Currently, can we use the EU CE compliance DoC texts in UKCA DoC and bear
the UKCA mark on the product without re-test according to Designed
Standards and Approval Body cert?

Thanks and regards,

Scott


On Fri, 19 Apr 2024 at 16:09, Charlie Blackham 
wrote:

> UK has published draft legislation to allow continued acceptance of CE
> Marking past the end of 2024 in the "The Product Safety and Metrology etc.
> (Amendment) Regulations 2024" along with an explanatory memorandum.
> The law is due to come into force on 1st October ahead of the current 31
> December deadline.
>
>
>
> The Product Safety and Metrology etc. (Amendment) Regulations 2024
> (legislation.gov.uk)
> <https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2024/9780348260311/resources>
>
>
>
> Best regards
>
> Charlie
>
>
>
> *Charlie Blackham*
>
> *Sulis Consultants Ltd*
>
> *Mead House*
>
> *Longwater Road*
>
> *Eversley*
>
> *RG27 0NW*
>
> *UK*
>
> *Tel: +44 (0)7946 624317*
>
> *Email: **char...@sulisconsultants.com *
>
> *Web: https://sulisconsultants.com/ <https://sulisconsultants.com/> *
>
> Registered in England and Wales, number 05466247
>
>
> --
>
> 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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
> https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/
>
> Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
> Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to
> unsubscribe) <https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html>
> List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html
>
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
> Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
> Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org
>
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org
> --
>
> To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link:
> https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1
>

-

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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

Re: [PSES] IEC 62368-1: clearance and creepage

[John Woodgate]

Thank you.

On 2024-04-28 06:27, Boštjan Glavič wrote:

Hi John

After resistor you might have ES1 circuit and safety distances do not 
apply. However resistor need to comply with special requirements of 
Annex G.


See table 4 for ES1 limit for DC current. I think it is 2mA. You have 
to simulate short accross resistor unles resistor comply with searate 
requirements



Similar as limited current circuit in 60950-1.


I hope this helps.

Best regards
Bostjan Glavic
SIQ Ljubljana


Poslano iz Outlook za Android 


*Od:* John Woodgate 
*Poslano:* sobota, april 27, 2024 4:18:41 PM
*Za:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG 
*Zadeva:* [PSES] IEC 62368-1: clearance and creepage

*CAUTION:*This email originated from outside of our organisation. Do 
not click links or open attachments unless you recognise the sender 
and know the content is safe.



It isn't clear to me whether the requirements of 5.4.2 and 5.4.3 
(Edition 4) apply if the product remains safe with relevant clearances 
and creepages short-circuited (one at a time). The specific case is at 
a point fed by a 1 kV DC source behind two 4.7 megohm resistors in 
series. Please advise.



--
OOO - Own Opinions Only
Best wishes
John Woodgate, Rayleigh, Essex UK
Keep trying

 
	Virus-free.www.avg.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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how 
to unsubscribe) 

List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org



To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1




--
Signature OOO - Own Opinions Only
Best wishes
John Woodgate, Rayleigh, Essex UK
Keep trying

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

Re: [PSES] IEC 62368-1: clearance and creepage

[Boštjan Glavič]

Hi John

After resistor you might have ES1 circuit and safety distances do not apply. 
However resistor need to comply with special requirements of Annex G.

See table 4 for ES1 limit for DC current. I think it is 2mA. You have to 
simulate short accross resistor unles resistor comply with searate requirements


Similar as limited current circuit in 60950-1.


I hope this helps.

Best regards
Bostjan Glavic
SIQ Ljubljana


Poslano iz Outlook za Android


Od: John Woodgate 
Poslano: sobota, april 27, 2024 4:18:41 PM
Za: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG 
Zadeva: [PSES] IEC 62368-1: clearance and creepage

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of our organisation. Do not click 
links or open attachments unless you recognise the sender and know the content 
is safe.


It isn't clear to me whether the requirements of 5.4.2 and 5.4.3 (Edition 4) 
apply if the product remains safe with relevant clearances and creepages 
short-circuited (one at a time). The specific case is at a point fed by a 1 kV 
DC source behind two 4.7 megohm resistors in series. Please advise.


--
OOO - Own Opinions Only
Best wishes
John Woodgate, Rayleigh, Essex UK
Keep trying

[https://s-install.avcdn.net/ipm/preview/icons/icon-envelope-tick-green-avg-v1.png]
 
Virus-free.www.avg.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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org



To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1


-

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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

Re: [PSES] Couple of loosely related safety questions

[Ralph McDiarmid]

Brian, for a rigorous determination of creepage and of clearance you need to
also determine and assign:

 

1.  Over-voltage Category ( affects Clearance )
2.  Pollution Degree  ( micro-environment affecting Creepage )
3.  Basic (simple separation) or Reinforced (protective separation)
boundaries (if the end-product standard distinguishes)

 

If you can determine that slots are needed to increase a creepage path
because of physical constraints, then the minimum allowable width of that
slot needs to be determined.  

 

The application of std UL840 is permitted as an alternative for the
determination of spacings, with some strings attached to the end-product
standard ( e.g. UL1741 referencing UL840)

 

It’s a long and winding, foggy road to follow when determining minimum
spacings for an electronic assembly.  Isolation planning, assignment of
working voltages (RMS and peak) across isolation boundaries is usually a
good first step.  

 

Your MOSFET lead spacing doesn’t need to follow PCB rules, but the PCB does.
You may need to measure distance between PCB pads for the device and if then
decide if those pads might need slots between them.

 

Ralph

 

From: Brian Gregory  
Sent: Friday, April 26, 2024 4:12 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Couple of loosely related safety questions

 

 

1.  Clearances for US Safety:  

 

I'd cite the relevant standards, but they are so alike (identical Clearance
tables), and so alike to UL 508, I'll defer.  Here's the question:

 

When citing clearance spacing from "uninsulated live components"  does one
measure from the edge of a PCB to the enclosure well, or only from the live
components, like a pad, or the bottom pin of a thru-hole cap?

1a.  what sort of passivation or RTV could make those live components not
"uninsulated"?

 

2.  Slots to increase creepage for high-voltage components

 

A FET that's rated for say 600V does not have to follow PCB-creepage rules
for 600V, is clearly stated places like UL 1741, §26.1.1 exception #8.  For
other components, like say 1000V caps in 0805 packages or FET driver chips
the requirements aren't as clear.  Is a slot needed to maintain creepage or
not if the component is properly rated?  It does appear from a TI support
page for dual-bridge converters, that slots are recommended in order to
prevent contamination that may compromise the components isolation
performance.

 

My gut says:  no, slots are not needed between component terminals on a PCB,
but could be recommended for sensitive parts, like FET drivers.

 

Thoughts? 

 

Colorado Brian 

 

  _  

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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG   

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/
  

Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/   
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to
unsubscribe)  
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html 

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net  
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org   

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org   

  _  

To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC
 =1 


-

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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

Re: [PSES] Couple of loosely related safety questions

[Richard Nute]

 

 

Hi Brian:

 

This does not answer your questions, but MAY give you an analysis tool:

 

CLEARANCE is standards name for AIR INSULATION.

 

CREEPAGE DISTANCE is standards name for DISTANCE ACROSS THE SURFACE OF SOLID
INSULATION.

 

Hope to meet you at the Symposium!

 

Best regards,

Rich

 

 

From: Brian Gregory [mailto:brian_greg...@netzero.net] 
Sent: Friday, April 26, 2024 4:12 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Couple of loosely related safety questions

 

 

1.  Clearances for US Safety:  

 

I'd cite the relevant standards, but they are so alike (identical Clearance
tables), and so alike to UL 508, I'll defer.  Here's the question:

 

When citing clearance spacing from "uninsulated live components"  does one
measure from the edge of a PCB to the enclosure well, or only from the live
components, like a pad, or the bottom pin of a thru-hole cap?

1a.  what sort of passivation or RTV could make those live components not
"uninsulated"?

 

2.  Slots to increase creepage for high-voltage components

 

A FET that's rated for say 600V does not have to follow PCB-creepage rules
for 600V, is clearly stated places like UL 1741, §26.1.1 exception #8.  For
other components, like say 1000V caps in 0805 packages or FET driver chips
the requirements aren't as clear.  Is a slot needed to maintain creepage or
not if the component is properly rated?  It does appear from a TI support
page for dual-bridge converters, that slots are recommended in order to
prevent contamination that may compromise the components isolation
performance.

 

My gut says:  no, slots are not needed between component terminals on a PCB,
but could be recommended for sensitive parts, like FET drivers.

 

Thoughts? 

 

Colorado Brian 

 

  _  

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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG   

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/
  

Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/   
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to
unsubscribe)  
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html 

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net  
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org   

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org   

  _  

To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC
 =1 


-

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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

Re: [PSES] Couple of loosely related safety questions

[John Allen]

Thank you, Rich!

Over 240 have already registered for ISPCE 2024!  This is the place to be for 
all Product Safety and Certifications knowledge transfer and networking - 
https://2024.psessymposium.org/.

Best Regards and Be Safe,

John

John Allen | President & CEO | Product Safety Consulting, Inc.
Your Outsourced Compliance Department®
630-238-0188, Cell: 630-330-3145
[cid:image001.jpg@01DA980D.AF7CCF00][social_facebook_box_blue for 
signature]<http://www.facebook.com/pages/Product-Safety-Consulting-Inc/97306850917>[social_twitter_box_blue
 for signature]<http://twitter.com/SafetyTesting>[social_linkedin_box_blue for 
signature]<http://www.linkedin.com/in/productsafetyconsultinginc> 
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCVSzENmSoWeNFSBQcOYN7-A
www.productsafetyinc.com<http://www.productsafetyinc.com/>

IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society
President 2024-2025
Compliance 101 Technical Committee Chairman
IEEE Senior Member

[cid:image005.png@01DA980D.AF7CCF00]
Keeping our members informed and educated on Product Safety and Certifications

https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/index.html

Although PSC maintains the highest level of virus protection, this e-mail and 
any attachments should be scanned by your virus protection software.  It is the 
responsibility of the recipient to check that it is virus free.  PSC does not 
accept any responsibility for data loss or systems damage arising in any way 
from its use.  This message is confidential and intended only for the 
individual to whom or entity to which it is addressed.  If you are not the 
intended recipient or addressee, or an employee or agent responsible for 
delivering this message to the addressee, you are hereby notified that any 
dissemination, distribution, or copying, in whole or part, of this message is 
strictly prohibited.  If you believe that you have been sent this message in 
error, please do not read it.  Please immediately reply to sender that you have 
received this message in error.  Then permanently delete all copies of the 
message.
Thank you

From: Richard Nute 
Sent: Friday, April 26, 2024 6:54 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Couple of loosely related safety questions


[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the 
sender and know the content is safe.

Hi Brian:

You should attend the IEEE PSES Symposium in Chicago next week to get the 
answers to these questions from experts.  Lots of experts in clearance and 
creepage will be there and will be happy to provide you with answers!

Best regards,
Rich


From: Brian Gregory [mailto:brian_greg...@netzero.net]
Sent: Friday, April 26, 2024 4:12 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Subject: [PSES] Couple of loosely related safety questions


1.  Clearances for US Safety:

I'd cite the relevant standards, but they are so alike (identical Clearance 
tables), and so alike to UL 508, I'll defer.  Here's the question:

When citing clearance spacing from "uninsulated live components"  does one 
measure from the edge of a PCB to the enclosure well, or only from the live 
components, like a pad, or the bottom pin of a thru-hole cap?
1a.  what sort of passivation or RTV could make those live components not 
"uninsulated"?

2.  Slots to increase creepage for high-voltage components

A FET that's rated for say 600V does not have to follow PCB-creepage rules for 
600V, is clearly stated places like UL 1741, §26.1.1 exception #8.  For other 
components, like say 1000V caps in 0805 packages or FET driver chips the 
requirements aren't as clear.  Is a slot needed to maintain creepage or not if 
the component is properly rated?  It does appear from a TI support page for 
dual-bridge converters, that slots are recommended in order to prevent 
contamination that may compromise the components isolation performance.

My gut says:  no, slots are not needed between component terminals on a PCB, 
but could be recommended for sensitive parts, like FET drivers.

Thoughts?

Colorado Brian



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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/<https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/%20>

Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)<https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html>
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net<mailto:msherma...@comcast.net>
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org<mailto:linf...@ieee.org>

For polic

Re: [PSES] Couple of loosely related safety questions

[Richard Nute]

 

Hi Brian:

 

You should attend the IEEE PSES Symposium in Chicago next week to get the
answers to these questions from experts.  Lots of experts in clearance and
creepage will be there and will be happy to provide you with answers!

 

Best regards,

Rich

 

 

From: Brian Gregory [mailto:brian_greg...@netzero.net] 
Sent: Friday, April 26, 2024 4:12 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Couple of loosely related safety questions

 

 

1.  Clearances for US Safety:  

 

I'd cite the relevant standards, but they are so alike (identical Clearance
tables), and so alike to UL 508, I'll defer.  Here's the question:

 

When citing clearance spacing from "uninsulated live components"  does one
measure from the edge of a PCB to the enclosure well, or only from the live
components, like a pad, or the bottom pin of a thru-hole cap?

1a.  what sort of passivation or RTV could make those live components not
"uninsulated"?

 

2.  Slots to increase creepage for high-voltage components

 

A FET that's rated for say 600V does not have to follow PCB-creepage rules
for 600V, is clearly stated places like UL 1741, §26.1.1 exception #8.  For
other components, like say 1000V caps in 0805 packages or FET driver chips
the requirements aren't as clear.  Is a slot needed to maintain creepage or
not if the component is properly rated?  It does appear from a TI support
page for dual-bridge converters, that slots are recommended in order to
prevent contamination that may compromise the components isolation
performance.

 

My gut says:  no, slots are not needed between component terminals on a PCB,
but could be recommended for sensitive parts, like FET drivers.

 

Thoughts? 

 

Colorado Brian 

 


-

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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

Re: [PSES] DoC - reference to ROHS directive

[Matthew Wilson | GBE]

In our experience purchasers/compliance officers in large retail organisations 
expect to explicitly see the RoHS amendment listed in the DoC text as per Mike 
writes below, because this ticks their box that the product has addressed the 
additional four substances the amendment was concerned with.  They may also 
want it to say ‘RoHS 3’ in the DoC and supporting documentation (technical 
file) too.

Hence a triumph of commercial requirements/persons with clipboards(!) to use 
colloquial terms and extra words over the actual obligation.  I gave up arguing 
and just did what they wanted, path of least resistance and all that!

Have had some other run ins with some retailers on some other things too that 
weren’t relevant to the product in question, but they wanted it declared none 
the less.  I won that one though   A story for my book for whenever I get to 
retirement age (probably never because the UK will be broke by then but I 
digress!)

Matthew Wilson,
GB Electronics (UK) Ltd.


Matthew WilsonMIET
Technical Director
GB Electronics (UK) Ltd
matthew.wil...@gbelectronics.com
www.gbelectronics.com
+44 (0) 1903 244 500
Ascot House|Mulberry Close|Woods Way
Goring-by-Sea|West Sussex|BN12 4QY|UK
Certificate Number 10455
​ISO 9001, ISO 14001
Disclaimer: This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and 
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are 
addressed.
​If you have received this email in error please delete it from your system, do 
not use or disclose the information in any way and notify the sender 
immediately.
​The contents of this message may contain personal views which are not the 
views of the company, unless specifically stated.
​
​GB Electronics (UK) Ltd is a company registered in England and Wales under 
number 06210991.
​Registered office: Ascot House Mulberry Close, Woods Way, Goring By Sea, West 
Sussex, BN12 4QY.
From: Charlie Blackham 
Sent: Monday, April 22, 2024 7:26 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] DoC - reference to ROHS directive

I wouldn’t say that it was “wrong” to add the amendment, though I don’t 
recommend adding it, but since the amendment applies whether you like it or 
not, you don’t need to declare that you have applied it as it’s inherent in a 
declaration to 2011/65/EU.

The same goes for any exemptions you may have applied, or indeed have 
previously applied but have now expired.

Best regards
Charlie

Charlie Blackham
Sulis Consultants Ltd
Tel: +44 (0)7946 624317
Web: https://sulisconsultants.com/
Registered in England and Wales, number 05466247

From: MIKE SHERMAN mailto:msherma...@comcast.net>>
Sent: Monday, April 22, 2024 2:43 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Subject: Re: [PSES] DoC - reference to ROHS directive

What I've seen is language like
"2011/65/EU RoHS directive with amendment 2015/863/EU"
or
"2011/65/EU RoHS directive as amended by 2015/863/EU"

The 2015 amendment adds four substances to the original six, so you should 
mention both it and the 2011 directive.

Mike Sherman
Sherman PSC LLC
On 04/21/2024 12:52 PM CDT Amund Westin 
mailto:am...@westin-emission.no>> wrote:


I have the last 10+ years made reference to ROHS directive 2011/65/EU in the 
DoC.
Now, I have been told to switch to 2015/863/EU? Is that correct?

>From what I see on the EU web site, 2015/863 is a Commission Delegated 
>Directive, amending Annex II to Directive 2011/65/EU
As I understand, 2011/65/EU is still in charge, and is the directive to be 
listed in the DoC.

Comments?

BR Amund




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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/



Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)<https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html>
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net<mailto:msherma...@comcast.net>
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org<mailto:linf...@ieee.org>

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org<mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org>



To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1



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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.ma

Re: [PSES] DoC - reference to ROHS directive

[Charlie Blackham]

I wouldn’t say that it was “wrong” to add the amendment, though I don’t 
recommend adding it, but since the amendment applies whether you like it or 
not, you don’t need to declare that you have applied it as it’s inherent in a 
declaration to 2011/65/EU.

The same goes for any exemptions you may have applied, or indeed have 
previously applied but have now expired.

Best regards
Charlie

Charlie Blackham
Sulis Consultants Ltd
Tel: +44 (0)7946 624317
Web: https://sulisconsultants.com/
Registered in England and Wales, number 05466247

From: MIKE SHERMAN 
Sent: Monday, April 22, 2024 2:43 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] DoC - reference to ROHS directive

What I've seen is language like
"2011/65/EU RoHS directive with amendment 2015/863/EU"
or
"2011/65/EU RoHS directive as amended by 2015/863/EU"

The 2015 amendment adds four substances to the original six, so you should 
mention both it and the 2011 directive.

Mike Sherman
Sherman PSC LLC
On 04/21/2024 12:52 PM CDT Amund Westin 
mailto:am...@westin-emission.no>> wrote:


I have the last 10+ years made reference to ROHS directive 2011/65/EU in the 
DoC.
Now, I have been told to switch to 2015/863/EU? Is that correct?

From what I see on the EU web site, 2015/863 is a Commission Delegated 
Directive, amending Annex II to Directive 2011/65/EU
As I understand, 2011/65/EU is still in charge, and is the directive to be 
listed in the DoC.

Comments?

BR Amund




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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/



Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)<https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html>
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net<mailto:msherma...@comcast.net>
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org<mailto:linf...@ieee.org>

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org<mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org>



To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1



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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/<https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/%20>

Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)<https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html>
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net<mailto:msherma...@comcast.net>
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org<mailto:linf...@ieee.org>

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org<mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org>



To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

-

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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1