Hi All,
I'm forwarding this from good friend, Gary Breed, past editor of RF Design
Magazine and several others. He's starting a new one called RF Technology
International. There's a brief description below, as well as a link to the Web
site so you can sign up, if interested.
Cheers, Ken
Received a newsletter from UL. Said that they are looking into updating
standards to account for DC di-electric withstand vs AC. I can understand
that the physics of dc arcing and tracking could be different from ac, but
why would the dc di-electric withstand be more onerous than ac?
Perhaps they
Possibly because standards provide an RMS level for AC dielectric and that
never seems to be as high as
the 'equivalent' DC dielectric test. Since dielectric strength test
checks for sufficient clearances, the DC test would be tougher on solid
insulation. Many standards say to us 1.41xAC
Brian,
To be honest, who knows why UL does what they do? It appears that for years
they have arranged test levels just to be different from IEC or whatever
entity.
Just my two cents,
Michael Sundstrom
OHD / TREQ Dallas
Electronic Lab Analyst, EMC Lead
2170 French Settlement Rd, Suite B
I tried to find some information on how the Quasi-Peak detetor works.
How long time does it measure at each frequency, why does a spread spectrum
clock solve emission problem, etc
Anybody who knows where I can find it?
B.r
Amund
-
Hi Brian:
Hmm. I wonder if UL knows what UL knows. Mr. Flore
Chiang of UL's Taiwan office has given several papers
at the PSES Symposia on the physics of clearance,
creepage, and solid insulation breakdown.
These are classic papers and should be studied by all
product safety professionals.
In message CEBCB02AF4974380921E3EC70FF83CBC@RichardHPdv6, dated Wed,
30 Nov 2011, Richard Nute ri...@ieee.org writes:
Mr. Chiang has presented his papers to the IEC TC108 committee so that
the committee can prepare insulation requirements that are in concert
with the physics of
Hi John:
Mr. Chiang drew his material from a number of sources,
especially IEC sources, with attributions. Take a
look at his bibliography.
Best regards,
Rich
-Original Message-
From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf
Of John Woodgate
Sent: Wednesday,
With regard to the discussion on d.c. versus a.c.
for dielectric withstand testing, I thought I
would share this book review. The book appears
to cover the issues raised in the emc-pstc
discussion.
Mr. Shea, the reviewer, is with Eaton Corporation,
Moon Township, Pennsylvania, U.S.A.
Amund:
Start by looking at Ed Bronaugh's paper:
http://www.ieee.org/organizations/pubs/newsletters/emcs/summer01/pp.bron
augh.htm
I might get an argument on this, but it's my opinion that a
spread-spectrum clock does not solve any emission problems, other than
providing easier
The spread spectrum clock is about a 20 year old solution. It is better
described as a frequency modulated clock, FM!
Depending in the irrational fears and myths that implementing engineers hold,
it comes with all sorts of variations on a theme.
But the basic principle that make the general
Well, a few quibbles...
Nothing charges faster than a peak detector, or holds the charge longer.
That¹s what a peak detector does. The QP detectors output is proportional
not to the peak of the signal, but to its peak and what fraction of the
detector¹s time constant the signal is actually
12 matches
Mail list logo
