Hi Doug:
IEC 60950 differs from IEC 60664 in that the clearances
are for sea level, not 2000 meters. See Table 18, Note
2.
Since 664 is the reference standard, I suppose one can
ask whether the 950 authors correctly transposed the
2000-meter clearances from 664 to sea level clearances
for
Dear Antonio and group,
I am very insterested in your advice "limits are rarely exceeded". Could I know
where come from the limit (as well the document ) and how high is the limit? Is
there any existing standard test method to measure the safety magnetic field
strength of common household applian
Hi John:
> clause 5.3 allows for altitude correction, but the standards dont mention
> any
> correction factors with regard to clause 6.4.
Sub-clause 5.3 invokes electric strength testing.
Physics correctly predicts breakdown voltage for
a given clearance decreases with altitude. The
John,
According to IEC664 (and as a result, all derived standards), altitude
correction is normalized to 2000 meters (6562 feet) for a nominal barometric
pressure of 80 kPa. This calculation is based on Paschen's Law and covers
most of the populated areas of the world. This altitude correction
John,
I would ask your friendly UL engineer how they test this, especially in
Denver! Since UL/ANSI is a representative to the IEC 950 committee, they
might be interested whether this correction was inadvertently omitted from
Clause 6.4, or was intentionally left out! And yes, we'd all be int
All:
I work for a test lab located approximately one mile above sea-level, and
perform product safety testing on IT and telecommunications equipment (IEC 60950
and clones). I recently tested a telecom interface PWB that failed 6.4 HV
testing (case c, 1.0kv). The PWB failed at approximately 900 vo
Hi Angus,
Korea new label is not only for the EMC but also Telecom and Wireless Approval.
That means Korea now has only one label for the whole three Approvals.
Korea label is not fixed size. It can be increaded or decreased if it keeps
ratio.
If some hardware is too small or there is no ro
I'm curious if anyone on the list has ever successfully petitioned the FCC
for a waiver from a regulation or limit for a Part 15 piece of equipment.
If so, what approach did you take and what methods did you use?
Mike Morrow
Senior Compliance Engineer
Ucentric Systems
mi...@ucentric.com
www.uce
Sandy,
The only revision that I have seen was March 1995. -2 Standard was not
published in 1991.
Mark Kirincic
EMC Design - Portables
e-mail: mark.kirin...@compaq.com
Phone : (281) 927-3664
Fax: (281) 927-3654
Pager : (713) 765-1794
-Original Message-
From: Sandy Mazzola [mail
EN 50092-2 is not listed by CENELEC. Most likely, it is a typographical
error. The standard would either be:
EN 50082-2:1995, Electromagnetic compatibility, Generic immunity standard,
Part 2: Industrial environment
-or-
EN 50091-2:1995, Uninterruptible power systems (UPS), Part 2: EMC
requirem
Ron,
And all who replied. Thank You. I also thoiught that the EN 50092-2 was a
typo. Wanted to check if anyone knew of an EN 50092-2.
I also went to the CENELEC site and couldn't find any match.
I have since been told the requirement was EN 50092-2:1991. Does anyone
know if
Hello everybody. I have recently been given a set of new requirements for
Korean EMC mark. I'm interested in hearing people's interpretations and how
they are applying these requirements to specific ITE products of different
sizes. It looks like it could be a challenge for label artists working
A recent article in Business Week indicated a decline in accidents and
injuries was a substantial reason child mortality has fallen between
1960 and 1990 (by 57% for 1-4 year olds and 48% for 5-14). A report by
economist Sherry Glied of Columbia University cited by the article
http://ideas.uqam.c
Group,
I am currently surge testing a handheld product with a Class II (ungrounded)
"wall-wart" power supply. I have surge tested many class I (grounded)
products here (in-house) before. This is my first Class II product.
Most standards, including EN 61326-1, specify different Surge voltages f
Sandy,
I could not any reference to this standard. Even a search at Cenelec"
on-line catalog did not provide a match with EN 50092*. I'm wondering, is
this standard you're looking for actually EN 50082-2? If so, its a generic
immunity standard for the industrial environment.
To all,
My last visi
Hi everyone.
Don't know that my last mail went out, so I'm trying again. Below
is the link to the Handbook of which you speak. The new book (dec98) is
shorter than the original (apr97), as the original had more appendices and
details of the phase-in period. Also, the new book makes no r
Members,
Could someone please inform me of what EN 50092-2 stands for. I believe
it is an Immunity specification. Thank You
Sandy Mazzola
Regulatory Engineer
Symbol Technologies Inc
1 Symbol Plaza
Holtsville, N.Y. 11742-1300
Phone: (631) 738-5373
Fax: (631) 738-3915 or (631) 738-3318
Hi All,
Thanks Laura for excellent directions! To help the direction impaired, the
direct link is http://www.sma.gov.au/standards/emcbook/index.htm if you
don't want to make the journey on foot ;-)
Dave Spencer
Oresis Communications
-Original Message-
From: Laura Leyba-Newton [mailto:ln
Ok,
1. I could not find a current link to The SMA Handbook for Suppliers that I
originally downloaded in 1996. I explained in an earlier email that, since
that time, administration of the Australian Framework for EMC switched over
from the Australian Spectrum Management Agency (SMA) to the Aust
Thanks for the information Horst.
Regards,
Mark Gill, P.E.
EMC/Safety/NEBS Design
Nortel Networks - RTP, NC, USA
> -Original Message-
> From: innova...@t-online.de [SMTP:innova...@t-online.de]
> Sent: Friday, June 02, 2000 1:53 AM
> To: Gill, Mark [NCRTP:0S33:EXCH]
> Subject: Re:
20 matches
Mail list logo
