Referring to the 2nd last column ("between independent secondary
circuits", working voltage U< 42.4Vpk), why would Functional insulation
require a 500V test but Basic/Supplemental/Reinforced have no test? Is
this table wrong?
For components (optocoupler, SMT transformer) crossing a Functional
iso
Hi All,
I have posted the first real "Doug Unplugged" informal podcast on
digilog design and a story about my Tesla coil. Looks like I will be
posting new shows on Wednesday and on the weekend to start. Maybe
daily at some point.
The URL for this show is:
4 1/2 minute mp3 file:
http://emcesd
In message , dated Tue, 13 Jun
2006, Nick Williams writes
>The last list of machinery standards to be published in the OJ was
>dated 31 December 2005 and I wouldn't be surprised if there was a 12
>month gap before the next one. Likewise, the last LVD list was 16
>Novermber 2005 and I'd expect
In message
,
dated Tue, 13 Jun 2006, pat.law...@slpower.com writes
>I need to order the current issue of EN 60204-1 ("Safety of machinery –
> Electrical equipment of machines"). When I went to the EUR-Lex
>website at
>http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/newapproach/standardization/harmstds/refl
>is
In message , dated Tue, 13
Jun 2006, Ken Javor writes
>A quick calculation will show that if an immunity requirement of 10 V/m
>is imposed at 105 MHz on a 420 MHz tuned receiver with a sensitivity of
>100 dBm, the harmonic content at 420 MHz needs to be on the order of
>100 dB down from the ca
That is definitely the way to deal with the issue. The receiver IF filter
will definitely reject energy 500 kHz off the tuned frequency in a traditional
superheterodyne receiver. I could still see the front end being desensitized,
but it will take more harmonic energy to do that.
From: Bob Ri
Unless the information on the CENELEC web site is out of date, there
isn't an EN 60204-1:2006 yet. There _is_ an IEC 60204-1:2005 but the
CENELEC site indicates that there will be modifications (differences)
between the IEC and EN versions.
The 1997/1998 confusion probably arises because the o
I'm not familiar with the specific test requirements for receivers, but the
1000-4-3 spec allows step sizes of 1% of the fundamental. If not required to
do otherwise, I would arrange the test frequencies so the subharmonic
frequencies are avoided, IOW, instead of testing at 105 MHz, test at 104.5 a
Hi all:
I need to order the current issue of EN 60204-1 ("Safety of machinery –
Electrical equipment of machines"). When I went to the EUR-Lex website at
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/newapproach/standardization/harmstds/reflist/machines.html
it lists EN 60204-1:1997 as the current editio
A quick calculation will show that if an immunity requirement of 10 V/m is
imposed at 105 MHz on a 420 MHz tuned receiver with a sensitivity of -100 dBm,
the harmonic content at 420 MHz needs to be on the order of 100 dB down from
the carrier. That is quite unrealistic even for a VHF source for wh
The harmonic content mentioned adds quite a bit to the measured field strength.
As the harmonics are filtered out (a lower level), the field strength drops,
so the drive and/or output power is boosted to get the field strength back up,
and the harmonic content rises faster than the fundamental, so
Everyone
Here is an updated programme for the next meeting of the IEEE UK and Republic
of Ireland EMC Chapter. The event is free to all, but please note the
requirement to register in advance.
The paper by Angela Nothofer will be particularly interesting for those who
have been following t
Scott
To presume compliance by applying the harmonised standard, the
manufacturer need to "place the product on the market" before the
DOCOPOCOSS.
Have a look at section 2.3 of Guide to the implementation of directives
based on the New Approach and the Global Approach (the "blue
book")http://ec.e
In message <448e2655.3000...@ptcnh.net>, dated Mon, 12 Jun 2006, Scott
Douglas writes
>If a product is tested to (and the CB Report indicates) EN 60065 :
>1998, when is the last time that product can be sold to a customer?
>More specifically, if a product is near it's end of life by that date,
In message
, dated Tue, 13 Jun 2006, kbalasubraman...@scmmicro.co.in writes
>For an expert like John if things are appearing as "complete mess",
>what will be the fate of others. I am not able to sleep peacefully
>while thinking "1st July 2006". What kind of penalties can be expected,
>any ide
A question about the Date of Cessation of Presumption of Conformity of
the Superseded Standard.
If a product is tested to (and the CB Report indicates) EN 60065 : 1998,
when is the last time that product can be sold to a customer? More
specifically, if a product is near it's end of life by that
Dear John & other experts,
For an expert like John if things are appearing as "complete mess",
what will be the fate of others. I am not able to sleep peacefully while
thinking "1st July 2006". What kind of penalties can be expected, any idea?
I have been told that while EMC directive was int
17 matches
Mail list logo
