Re: EN 61000-3-2:2000
I read in !emc-pstc that lfresea...@aol.com wrote (in <112.2b04c6d2.2ce2 6...@aol.com>) about 'EN 61000-3-2:2000' on Tue, 11 Nov 2003: >EMC does not have a defined frequency range. > Well, there is a general upper bound of 400 GHz, but it's just conventional. When terahertz technology becomes more widespread, the upper bound will probably be increased. -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Interested in professional sound reinforcement and distribution? Then go to http://www.isce.org.uk PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL! This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: emc_p...@symbol.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
Re: EN 61000-3-2:2000
In a message dated 11/10/2003 2:34:28 PM Central Standard Time, ralph.mcdiar...@xantrex.com writes: Some have questioned whether 61000-3-2 is even an EMC standard! Why would it not be. In 25 years of working in EMC, I've seen EMC issues from DC to daylight... Just because PC's are clocking 3 GHz and above, it doesn't remove the low frequency problems for the rest of the industry EMC does not have a defined frequency range. Again, another 2 cents worth. Derek N. Walton Owner, L F Research EMI Design and Test Facility Poplar Grove, IL 61065
Re: EN 61000-3-2:2000
I read in !emc-pstc that Colgan Christopher [Soundcraft UK] wrote (in <8B639EA607AFD311901D00062938706307102 782@SCFTUKX1>) about 'EN 61000-3-2:2000' on Tue, 11 Nov 2003: >I think we are in agreement that conformity to EN61000-3-2 is required >for a mains powered product to comply with the EMC Directive (using the >standards route). > >What puzzles me is, why does EN55103-1 (pro audio emissions) call up >EN61000-3-2? Surely there is no need for the standard to do this? Yes, that is the rule. The Generic standards also call it up. You might say that because it is a product-family standard it applies anyway, whether EN 55103-1 calls it up or not, and you would be correct, but CLC/TC210 has decided otherwise. -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Interested in professional sound reinforcement and distribution? Then go to http://www.isce.org.uk PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL! This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: emc_p...@symbol.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
Re: EN 61000-3-2:2000
I read in !emc-pstc that Rich Nute wrote (in <20030043.qaa01...@epgc264.sdd.hp.com>) about 'EN 61000-3-2:2000' on Mon, 10 Nov 2003: >The standard was written and promulgated to the IEC by a European >committee No, it was developed in IEC SC77A/WG1, which had experts from all over the world. It's true that some were not as diligent in attending to the work as they might have been, but that is hardly the fault of the diligent members. >to solve an >anticipated European voltage distortion >problem. At that stage (around 1989) it was not known whether the anticipated problem was confined to Europe or not. We now know that Japan also has a problem, but the main problem in USA is hot neutrals rather than voltage distortion. There are problems with harmonics in Canada, but it isn't clear that they are mainly due to low-power equipment, AIUI. -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Interested in professional sound reinforcement and distribution? Then go to http://www.isce.org.uk PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL! This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: emc_p...@symbol.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
Re: EN 61000-3-2:2000
I read in !emc-pstc that Rich Nute wrote (in <200311102309.paa01...@epgc264.sdd.hp.com>) about 'EN 61000-3-2:2000' on Mon, 10 Nov 2003: > > > >Hi John: > > >> >Some have questioned whether 61000-3-2 is even an EMC standard! >> >> If not, what do you think it is? > >I fall into the group that question whether 61000-3-2 >is an EMC -- Electo-Magnetic Compatibility -- standard. > >The objective is to prevent reduction of peak voltage >on the public supply mains (in Europe) due to rectifier >and similar non-linear loads. No, it isn't. Limits are applied to things such as dimmers and CFLs, which specifically do not flatten the peaks. > >The method chosen is to require all loads to be near- >linear. Not at all: the Class A limits allow substantial harmonic currents, and the Class B limits allow even more. > >I suppose this is a compatibility issue -- a compatibility >between the source and the load. > >And, it is electrical. So? > >And, one can consider the harmonic content of the current >waveform as being an emission from the product. Indeed. > >But, this is purely a current emission. It is not measured >with a receiver as are the other 61000-series emissions. The IEC/EN 61000-4-7 instrument can certainly be regarded as a receiver. There are receivers and receivers: you wouldn't want to listen to the radio on a CISPR 16-1 instrument. >Unlike radio-frequency emissions, incompatiblity affects >no one but the electricity supplier. (Don't argue that >other users on the public supply are affected; this is >only true if the electricity supplier does nothing at >his end.) I'll argue how I choose. Network-level harmonic mitigation is an exceedingly difficult and costly technique. Harmonics DO affect load equipment such as motors. > >Non-linear current is not at all similar to the electo- >magnetic emissions issue addressed by the other standards >in the 61000-series. One can also argue that sinusoidal radiated emissions are different from broad-band emissions. So what? > >If harmonic currents are an EMC issue, then so, too, is >x-radiation from cathode-ray tubes -- which is a MUCH >closer fit. Why isn't x-radiation emission included in >the 61000-series? Because it's covered by other standards, such as 60065. > Or laser emissions? Covered by 60825. >Both of these are >much better fits to the 61000-series than is a non-linear >current. I don't see that they are. Although 'electromagnetic', the difference in frequencies demands totally different technologies, to deal with the totally different physical effects. > >Lastly, this is a Euro-centric issue, not a world-wide >issue. It shouldn't be in the IEC scheme. No, it isn't. Several countries, including Japan, are adopting harmonic emission controls, based on 61000-3-2. > >Next thing that will happen is that the 61000-series will >include requirements against voltage emission (voltage on >accessible parts) to achieve compatiblity with people to >prevent electric shock! EMC!!! No, that is covered by other standards. > >:-) > >61000-3-2 should be a stand-alone standard. But, if it >was a stand-alone standard, there would be no Directive >behind it to enforce it. It replaced IEC/EN 60555-2, which was notified under the EMC Directive before it was withdrawn. The '61000-' designation is quite irrelevant. > So, in a self-indulging mode, Who or what is 'self-indulging'? >and by stretching the definition of EMC, 61000-3-2 is >enforced by the EMC Directive. That is why it is an >EMC standard. > I don't think I understand that. And your arguments seem to stem from a lack of familiarity with the subject anyway. -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Interested in professional sound reinforcement and distribution? Then go to http://www.isce.org.uk PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL! This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: emc_p...@symbol.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
RE: EN 61000-3-2:2000 Correction
EN 61000-3-2 is not a basic standard. It is a product family standard (says so right in the standard plus it is listed in the OJ, basic standards do not show up in the OJ). Chris has a point, since 61000-3-2 is a stand-alone product family standard (all equipment 16A and under), it is not necessary for anything else to call it up. Bob Heller 3M EMC Laboratory, 76-1-01 St. Paul, MN 55107-1208 Tel: 651- 778-6336 Fax: 651-778-6252 === "Barker, Neil" logies.com> emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Sent by: cc: owner-emc-pstc@majordo Subject: RE: EN 61000-3-2:2000 mo.ieee.org 11/11/2003 05:37 AM Please respond to "Barker, Neil" Chris, EN55103-1 is a product family standard, which takes precedence over generic standards, and must therefore make reference to all Basic Standards that are applicable to equipment within its scope. You will also find that EN61000-3-2 is called up by the generic standards such as EN61000-6-3. Best regards, Neil R. Barker C.Eng. MIEE MIEEE MSEE Manager Compliance Engineering e2v technologies ltd 106 Waterhouse Lane Chelmsford Essex CM1 2QU UK Tel: +44 (0)1245 453616 Fax: +44 (0)1245 453410 e-mail: neil.bar...@e2vtechnologies.com Web: http://www.e2vtechnologies.com From: Colgan Christopher [Soundcraft UK] [mailto:christopher.col...@soundcraft.com] Sent: 11 November 2003 10:14 To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: EN 61000-3-2:2000 I think we are in agreement that conformity to EN61000-3-2 is required for a mains powered product to comply with the EMC Directive (using the standards route). What puzzles me is, why does EN55103-1 (pro audio emissions) call up EN61000-3-2? Surely there is no need for the standard to do this? Regards Chris Colgan This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: emc_p...@symbol.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: emc_p...@symbol.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
RE: EN 61000-3-2:2000
EN 61000-3-2 is not a generic standard. It is a product family standard (says so right in the standard plus it is listed in the OJ, generic standards do not show up in the OJ). Chris has a point, since 61000-3-2 is a stand-alone product family standard (all equipment 16A and under), it is not necessary for anything else to call it up. Bob Heller 3M EMC Laboratory, 76-1-01 St. Paul, MN 55107-1208 Tel: 651- 778-6336 Fax: 651-778-6252 === "Barker, Neil" logies.com> emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Sent by: cc: owner-emc-pstc@majordo Subject: RE: EN 61000-3-2:2000 mo.ieee.org 11/11/2003 05:37 AM Please respond to "Barker, Neil" Chris, EN55103-1 is a product family standard, which takes precedence over generic standards, and must therefore make reference to all Basic Standards that are applicable to equipment within its scope. You will also find that EN61000-3-2 is called up by the generic standards such as EN61000-6-3. Best regards, Neil R. Barker C.Eng. MIEE MIEEE MSEE Manager Compliance Engineering e2v technologies ltd 106 Waterhouse Lane Chelmsford Essex CM1 2QU UK Tel: +44 (0)1245 453616 Fax: +44 (0)1245 453410 e-mail: neil.bar...@e2vtechnologies.com Web: http://www.e2vtechnologies.com From: Colgan Christopher [Soundcraft UK] [mailto:christopher.col...@soundcraft.com] Sent: 11 November 2003 10:14 To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: EN 61000-3-2:2000 I think we are in agreement that conformity to EN61000-3-2 is required for a mains powered product to comply with the EMC Directive (using the standards route). What puzzles me is, why does EN55103-1 (pro audio emissions) call up EN61000-3-2? Surely there is no need for the standard to do this? Regards Chris Colgan This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: emc_p...@symbol.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: emc_p...@symbol.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
RE: EN 61000-3-2:2000
Chris, EN55103-1 is a product family standard, which takes precedence over generic standards, and must therefore make reference to all Basic Standards that are applicable to equipment within its scope. You will also find that EN61000-3-2 is called up by the generic standards such as EN61000-6-3. Best regards, Neil R. Barker C.Eng. MIEE MIEEE MSEE Manager Compliance Engineering e2v technologies ltd 106 Waterhouse Lane Chelmsford Essex CM1 2QU UK Tel: +44 (0)1245 453616 Fax: +44 (0)1245 453410 e-mail: neil.bar...@e2vtechnologies.com Web: http://www.e2vtechnologies.com From: Colgan Christopher [Soundcraft UK] [mailto:christopher.col...@soundcraft.com] Sent: 11 November 2003 10:14 To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: EN 61000-3-2:2000 I think we are in agreement that conformity to EN61000-3-2 is required for a mains powered product to comply with the EMC Directive (using the standards route). What puzzles me is, why does EN55103-1 (pro audio emissions) call up EN61000-3-2? Surely there is no need for the standard to do this? Regards Chris Colgan This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: emc_p...@symbol.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
RE: EN 61000-3-2:2000
I wasn't suggesting that audio equipment should be exempt. What I was trying to say was if we need to test to EN61000-3-2 anyway, why does a product specific standard bother to call it up? It seems unnecessary duplication - to me anyway. Regards Chris From: Neil Helsby [mailto:nei...@solid-state-logic.com] Sent: 11 November 2003 11:13 To: Colgan Christopher "[Soundcraft UK]; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: EN 61000-3-2:2000 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Original Message <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< On 11/11/2003, 10:14:18, "Colgan Christopher [Soundcraft UK]" wrote regarding RE: EN 61000-3-2:2000: > I think we are in agreement that conformity to EN61000-3-2 is required for a > mains powered product to comply with the EMC Directive (using the standards > route). > What puzzles me is, why does EN55103-1 (pro audio emissions) call up > EN61000-3-2? Surely there is no need for the standard to do this? Why should the professional audio industry be exempt? An audio system without power factor correction is as likely to cause distortion as any other similarly loaded system in a different industry. Regards, Neil Helsby ** 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 notify the system manager. This footnote confirms that this email message has been swept for the presence of computer viruses and is believed to be clean. ** This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: emc_p...@symbol.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
RE: EN 61000-3-2:2000
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Original Message <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< On 11/11/2003, 10:14:18, "Colgan Christopher [Soundcraft UK]" wrote regarding RE: EN 61000-3-2:2000: > I think we are in agreement that conformity to EN61000-3-2 is required for a > mains powered product to comply with the EMC Directive (using the standards > route). > What puzzles me is, why does EN55103-1 (pro audio emissions) call up > EN61000-3-2? Surely there is no need for the standard to do this? Why should the professional audio industry be exempt? An audio system without power factor correction is as likely to cause distortion as any other similarly loaded system in a different industry. Regards, Neil Helsby ** 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 notify the system manager. This footnote confirms that this email message has been swept for the presence of computer viruses and is believed to be clean. ** This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: emc_p...@symbol.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
RE: EN 61000-3-2:2000
I think we are in agreement that conformity to EN61000-3-2 is required for a mains powered product to comply with the EMC Directive (using the standards route). What puzzles me is, why does EN55103-1 (pro audio emissions) call up EN61000-3-2? Surely there is no need for the standard to do this? Regards Chris Colgan This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: emc_p...@symbol.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
Re: EN 61000-3-2:2000
Hi Josh: > This standard has been adopted by China and Japan. Japan has added a source impedance for the test setup, but it implies to me that this is a world-wide issue. The question I was attempting to answer was John's question if 61000-3-2 is not an EMC standard, then what kind of a standard is it? The standard was written and promulgated to the IEC by a European committee to solve an anticipated European voltage distortion problem. My contention is that the committee assigned the standard to EMC for the purpose of coming under a Euro Directive that would make the standard mandatory in Europe. I am not familiar with the motivation for other countries adopting the standard as a National standard. Best regards, Rich This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: emc_p...@symbol.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
RE: EN 61000-3-2:2000
This standard has been adopted by China and Japan. Japan has added a source impedance for the test setup, but it implies to me that this is a world-wide issue. Josh From: Rich Nute [mailto:ri...@sdd.hp.com] Sent: Monday, November 10, 2003 3:09 PM To: j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: EN 61000-3-2:2000 Hi John: > >Some have questioned whether 61000-3-2 is even an EMC standard! > > If not, what do you think it is? I fall into the group that question whether 61000-3-2 is an EMC -- Electo-Magnetic Compatibility -- standard. The objective is to prevent reduction of peak voltage on the public supply mains (in Europe) due to rectifier and similar non-linear loads. The method chosen is to require all loads to be near- linear. I suppose this is a compatibility issue -- a compatibility between the source and the load. And, it is electrical. And, one can consider the harmonic content of the current waveform as being an emission from the product. But, this is purely a current emission. It is not measured with a receiver as are the other 61000-series emissions. Unlike radio-frequency emissions, incompatiblity affects no one but the electricity supplier. (Don't argue that other users on the public supply are affected; this is only true if the electricity supplier does nothing at his end.) Non-linear current is not at all similar to the electo- magnetic emissions issue addressed by the other standards in the 61000-series. If harmonic currents are an EMC issue, then so, too, is x-radiation from cathode-ray tubes -- which is a MUCH closer fit. Why isn't x-radiation emission included in the 61000-series? Or laser emissions? Both of these are much better fits to the 61000-series than is a non-linear current. Lastly, this is a Euro-centric issue, not a world-wide issue. It shouldn't be in the IEC scheme. Next thing that will happen is that the 61000-series will include requirements against voltage emission (voltage on accessible parts) to achieve compatiblity with people to prevent electric shock! EMC!!! :-) 61000-3-2 should be a stand-alone standard. But, if it was a stand-alone standard, there would be no Directive behind it to enforce it. So, in a self-indulging mode, and by stretching the definition of EMC, 61000-3-2 is enforced by the EMC Directive. That is why it is an EMC standard. Best regards, Rich This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: emc_p...@symbol.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: emc_p...@symbol.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
Re: EN 61000-3-2:2000
Hi John: > >Some have questioned whether 61000-3-2 is even an EMC standard! > > If not, what do you think it is? I fall into the group that question whether 61000-3-2 is an EMC -- Electo-Magnetic Compatibility -- standard. The objective is to prevent reduction of peak voltage on the public supply mains (in Europe) due to rectifier and similar non-linear loads. The method chosen is to require all loads to be near- linear. I suppose this is a compatibility issue -- a compatibility between the source and the load. And, it is electrical. And, one can consider the harmonic content of the current waveform as being an emission from the product. But, this is purely a current emission. It is not measured with a receiver as are the other 61000-series emissions. Unlike radio-frequency emissions, incompatiblity affects no one but the electricity supplier. (Don't argue that other users on the public supply are affected; this is only true if the electricity supplier does nothing at his end.) Non-linear current is not at all similar to the electo- magnetic emissions issue addressed by the other standards in the 61000-series. If harmonic currents are an EMC issue, then so, too, is x-radiation from cathode-ray tubes -- which is a MUCH closer fit. Why isn't x-radiation emission included in the 61000-series? Or laser emissions? Both of these are much better fits to the 61000-series than is a non-linear current. Lastly, this is a Euro-centric issue, not a world-wide issue. It shouldn't be in the IEC scheme. Next thing that will happen is that the 61000-series will include requirements against voltage emission (voltage on accessible parts) to achieve compatiblity with people to prevent electric shock! EMC!!! :-) 61000-3-2 should be a stand-alone standard. But, if it was a stand-alone standard, there would be no Directive behind it to enforce it. So, in a self-indulging mode, and by stretching the definition of EMC, 61000-3-2 is enforced by the EMC Directive. That is why it is an EMC standard. Best regards, Rich This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: emc_p...@symbol.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
Re: EN 61000-3-2:2000
I read in !emc-pstc that Ralph McDiarmid wrote (in <67C475A5ECE7D4118AEC0002B325CAB60581A413@BCMAIL1>) about 'EN 61000-3-2:2000' on Mon, 10 Nov 2003: >IMO, if such an interpretation is not forthcoming then it shall be left >to the manufacturers to interprete it and state it in their >documentation, just as the Performance Criteria has been left. (see the >thread on that topic a few months ago!) Look, somebody has to ASK for an interpretation. If no-one asks, the committee doesn't know that some people have a problem with it. > >If standards like this one in question cannot be written sufficiently >clearly, then I suggest they be withdrawn and rewritten and then >carfully assessed. Over 30 years experience of writing standards, I have concluded that there is NO text that can't be misunderstood. Would you like to join in the work, so that you could help to write standards that are totally lucid? I expect the relevant TAG would welcome your input. > >Some have questioned whether 61000-3-2 is even an EMC standard! If not, what do you think it is? -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Interested in professional sound reinforcement and distribution? Then go to http://www.isce.org.uk PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL! This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: emc_p...@symbol.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
RE: EN 61000-3-2:2000
Jim raises an excellent point. IMO, if such an interpretation is not forthcoming then it shall be left to the manufacturers to interprete it and state it in their documentation, just as the Performance Criteria has been left. (see the thread on that topic a few months ago!) If standards like this one in question cannot be written sufficiently clearly, then I suggest they be withdrawn and rewritten and then carfully assessed. Some have questioned whether 61000-3-2 is even an EMC standard! Ralph McDiarmid, AScT Compliance Engineering Group Xantrex Technology Inc. From: Jim Ericson [mailto:jde...@nas.com] Sent: November 9, 2003 9:36 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org; John Woodgate Cc: Harry Hodes; j...@acmetesting.com; br...@acmetesting.com Subject: RE: EN 61000-3-2:2000 John: The question about whether the intent of the writers (of EN 61000-3-2:2000) was to require a double "repeatability" test for each EUT tested, or whether the intent was simply to demonstrate a "process qualification" has been touched on in this forum for over two years. It is now November 2003. The "presumption of conformity" on the old 1995 harmonic emissions standard ends on January 1, 2004. It is time to finally clarify this for laboratories and manufacturers. I will communicate with you later this week "off-line", because some of my examples of problem EUT's (and suggestions for clarifications) may breach confidentiality standards if shared with this forum. However, as a general question, if as you say, "..the committee has not received any request for an official interpretation", then where exactly can we go (as a laboratory) to request such an interpretation? A LITERAL interpretation of the "English" language text in the 2000 standard means that many of our customers will have a big, big problem on January first, 2004. I am requesting your personal involvement to assist in resolving this "repeatability" question. Thanks for your help! Jim Ericson Quality System Manager/Senior EMC Engineer Acme Testing Company 2002 Valley Highway Acme, WA 98220 work: (360) 595-2785 work: j...@acmetesting.com home: (360) 599-1095 home: jde...@nas.com From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of John Woodgate Sent: Saturday, November 08, 2003 12:12 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: EN 61000-3-2:2000 I read in !emc-pstc that Jon Francis wrote (in <5bc8a2628bc2eb4081ca71b2d6717d3a05e...@voltech-uk.voltech.co.uk>) about 'EN 61000-3-2:2000' on Fri, 7 Nov 2003: >Are there any official clarifications available concerning the >repeatability test? No, because the committee has not received any request for an official interpretation. -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Interested in professional sound reinforcement and distribution? Then go to http://www.isce.org.uk PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL! This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: emc_p...@symbol.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: emc_p...@symbol.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: emc_p...@symbol.com
Re: EN 61000-3-2:2000
I read in !emc-pstc that Jim Ericson wrote (in ) about 'EN 61000-3-2:2000' on Sun, 9 Nov 2003: >The question about whether the intent of the writers (of EN >61000-3-2:2000) was to require a double "repeatability" test for each >EUT tested, or whether the intent was simply to demonstrate a "process >qualification" has been touched on in this forum for over two years. I recall only one (your?) article on the subject. > >It is now November 2003. The "presumption of conformity" on the old >1995 harmonic emissions standard ends on January 1, 2004. It is time to >finally clarify this for laboratories and manufacturers. It's actually too late, but we will do our best. > >I will communicate with you later this week "off-line", because some of >my examples of problem EUT's (and suggestions for clarifications) may >breach confidentiality standards if shared with this forum. OK, feel free to do so. But while I will help as far as possible, YOU will probably have to do things as well. > >However, as a general question, if as you say, "..the committee has not >received any request for an official interpretation", then where exactly >can we go (as a laboratory) to request such an interpretation? You are in the USA, so you should go to the US National Committee. There is, I suppose, a TAG for IEC SC77A, and it seems to have been very active. But I don't know where or whether you (in USA) can find the membership list. I'm fairly sure that people outside USA can't find it. > A >LITERAL interpretation of the "English" language text in the 2000 >standard means that many of our customers will have a big, big problem >on January first, 2004. I don't agree. My 'literal' interpretation differs form yours, but I agree that a clarification is necessary. A clarification is almost always necessary when someone reports a problem of this nature. > >I am requesting your personal involvement to assist in resolving this >"repeatability" question. I will do what I can, but I cannot do everything. -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Interested in professional sound reinforcement and distribution? Then go to http://www.isce.org.uk PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL! This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: emc_p...@symbol.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
RE: EN 61000-3-2:2000
John: The question about whether the intent of the writers (of EN 61000-3-2:2000) was to require a double "repeatability" test for each EUT tested, or whether the intent was simply to demonstrate a "process qualification" has been touched on in this forum for over two years. It is now November 2003. The "presumption of conformity" on the old 1995 harmonic emissions standard ends on January 1, 2004. It is time to finally clarify this for laboratories and manufacturers. I will communicate with you later this week "off-line", because some of my examples of problem EUT's (and suggestions for clarifications) may breach confidentiality standards if shared with this forum. However, as a general question, if as you say, "..the committee has not received any request for an official interpretation", then where exactly can we go (as a laboratory) to request such an interpretation? A LITERAL interpretation of the "English" language text in the 2000 standard means that many of our customers will have a big, big problem on January first, 2004. I am requesting your personal involvement to assist in resolving this "repeatability" question. Thanks for your help! Jim Ericson Quality System Manager/Senior EMC Engineer Acme Testing Company 2002 Valley Highway Acme, WA 98220 work: (360) 595-2785 work: j...@acmetesting.com home: (360) 599-1095 home: jde...@nas.com From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of John Woodgate Sent: Saturday, November 08, 2003 12:12 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: EN 61000-3-2:2000 I read in !emc-pstc that Jon Francis wrote (in <5bc8a2628bc2eb4081ca71b2d6717d3a05e...@voltech-uk.voltech.co.uk>) about 'EN 61000-3-2:2000' on Fri, 7 Nov 2003: >Are there any official clarifications available concerning the >repeatability test? No, because the committee has not received any request for an official interpretation. -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Interested in professional sound reinforcement and distribution? Then go to http://www.isce.org.uk PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL! This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: emc_p...@symbol.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: emc_p...@symbol.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
Re: EN 61000-3-2:2000
I read in !emc-pstc that Jon Francis wrote (in <5bc8a2628bc2eb4081ca71b2d6717d3a05e...@voltech-uk.voltech.co.uk>) about 'EN 61000-3-2:2000' on Fri, 7 Nov 2003: >Are there any official clarifications available concerning the >repeatability test? No, because the committee has not received any request for an official interpretation. -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Interested in professional sound reinforcement and distribution? Then go to http://www.isce.org.uk PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL! This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: emc_p...@symbol.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
RE: EN 61000-3-2:2000
Are there any official clarifications available concerning the repeatability test? Regards, Jon Francis www.voltech.com From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk] Sent: 14 September, 2002 8:09 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: EN 61000-3-2:2000 I read in !emc-pstc that rehel...@mmm.com wrote (in ) about 'EN 61000-3-2:2000' on Thu, 12 Sep 2002: > >Clause 6.2.3.1 (page 13) of the above standard talks about "repeatability". >Does this mean that the harmonic tests must be repeated a certain numbers >of times or is repeatability used to determine or shorten the test >observation period? Repeatability is used to determine the length of the test observation period. There is NO need to repeat measurements. There may be a proposal to clarify this officially. > >Also in Table Z1 (clause 6.2.4, page 14), what is the type of equipment >behavior called out as "quasi-stationary"? > Equipment whose harmonic emissions vary with time only to an insignificant extent. The 'quasi-' recognizes that it is very unlikely that there would be absolutely no variation with time. -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Interested in professional sound reinforcement and distribution? Then go to http://www.isce.org.uk PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL! --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on "browse" and then "emc-pstc mailing list"
Re: EN 61000-3-2:2000
I read in !emc-pstc that rehel...@mmm.com wrote (in ) about 'EN 61000-3-2:2000' on Thu, 12 Sep 2002: > >Clause 6.2.3.1 (page 13) of the above standard talks about "repeatability". >Does this mean that the harmonic tests must be repeated a certain numbers >of times or is repeatability used to determine or shorten the test >observation period? Repeatability is used to determine the length of the test observation period. There is NO need to repeat measurements. There may be a proposal to clarify this officially. > >Also in Table Z1 (clause 6.2.4, page 14), what is the type of equipment >behavior called out as "quasi-stationary"? > Equipment whose harmonic emissions vary with time only to an insignificant extent. The 'quasi-' recognizes that it is very unlikely that there would be absolutely no variation with time. -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Interested in professional sound reinforcement and distribution? Then go to http://www.isce.org.uk PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL! --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on "browse" and then "emc-pstc mailing list"
