In message f6d1e59f218e.540c8...@bendbroadband.com, dated Sun, 7 Sep
2014, Rich Nute ri...@bendbroadband.com writes:
I believe the authors of 60950-22 expected that user-accessible parts
would comprise SELV circuits rather than grounded parts. See 2.1.1 and
2.2 in 60950-1.
Grounded parts
Since it is the ferrite that is the ‘special accessory’, the company would not
necessarily need to provide the cable, they would only have to provide the
special accessory ferrite that would fit on the cable. Or they would provide a
means of obtaining the ferrite at the time of purchase for
It appears that I can only meet this requirement for outdoor enclosures by
either using a Class 2 power supply, or require the installer to use the
external ground connection in addition to the internal PE ground. The system
is safe under normal conditions, but only has hazardous voltages on
In message
b87b3216c599564e9071daf63e06e7491eab4b8...@exchange.wonderwarene.com,
dated Mon, 8 Sep 2014, John Cochran jcoch...@strongarm.com writes:
require the installer to use the external ground connection in addition
to the internal PE ground. The system is safe under normal conditions,
John,
Not wishing to throw a spanner in the works - l have to mention different
earths can be at different potentials. Strange but true!
Regards
Ian White
Compliance and Reliability.
-Original Message-
From: John Cochran [mailto:jcoch...@strongarm.com]
Sent: 08 September 2014 16:04
In message
ea4ca5c9ced91040aa61aacf92458866a42...@ukldexm02.global.spiraxsarco.com
, dated Mon, 8 Sep 2014, Ian White (SXS UK)
ian.wh...@uk.spiraxsarco.com writes:
Not wishing to throw a spanner in the works - l have to mention
different earths can be at different potentials. Strange but
Hi Dennis,
If the manufacturer choose to to use ferrites to solves the emissions
problem, the implementation seems clear. Inconvenient, but clear.
What if the company found HDMI cables without ferrites that solved the
emissions problem, like cables from vendors that properly terminate the
I recently received notice that a new version of EN IEC 61000-4-5:2014 (based
on IEC ed. 3) is released.
I see that this standard does not (directly) give presumption of conformance to
the EMC directive (i.e., it is 'unlisted'), but a standard that *is* listed
(61000-6-2) references it as an
I received an offline reply (thanks) that pointed me to the Cenelec site and
particularly expansion of the 'dop' acronym as date of publication, and the
concept of 'dav' (date of availability)
So it looks like means that they are playing a little semantic game, in that
even though the
Not to mention, what does the product family standard referencing it say? For
example, EN 55024:2010 has dated references to the 61000-4-x series. Just
because a newer version is published doesn't mean that you can start using it.
You must use the version called out in the product family
In message
4549afb45ed147fbaa0be15a57b4b...@blupr03mb119.namprd03.prod.outlook.com
, dated Mon, 8 Sep 2014, Crane, Lauren lauren.cr...@kla-tencor.com
writes:
I received an offline reply (thanks) that pointed me to the Cenelec
site and particularly expansion of the ?dop? acronym as ?date of
I have a situation where I am trying to determine what is the necessary level
of product testing/certification is necessary for a product.
We have a 2HP electric motor, listed by the manufacture for sale in US and
Canada.
This motor is directly connected to an air pump. The pump slides over
I re-read the Annex ZA of EN 61000-6-2:2005, and things became complicated
again.
This EN does not normatively reference other ENs, rather it references IEC
documents (except for one case (regarding CISPR 22). Therefore, the tricks
related to CENELEC's statements of dates do not apply.
HI John:
As mentioned in my first response, you will have the same
problem (half the mains on the enclosure) if you use a
Class II power supply.
If you talk with your NRTL, I'm sure he will accept your
construction based on 60950-1, 5.1 rather than 60950-22.
Your equipment is not unsafe
In message
a0454f8a72d94cf2a0e4fca9a863a...@blupr03mb119.namprd03.prod.outlook.com
, dated Mon, 8 Sep 2014, Crane, Lauren lauren.cr...@kla-tencor.com
writes:
And then cites IEC 61000-4-5 as an undated reference (which indeed has
a new ?published? edition available), it seems I must use that
Thanks, John,
What fun additional tanglesoh what fun the 'string theory' of standards.
I guess the sensible approach is to consider the CENLEC's dop to dow dates as a
defacto transition period.
Regards,
Lauren
-Original Message-
From: John Woodgate
In message
a79213fd871f4f47900f8ffaa5b5c...@blupr03mb119.namprd03.prod.outlook.com
, dated Mon, 8 Sep 2014, Crane, Lauren lauren.cr...@kla-tencor.com
writes:
I guess the sensible approach is to consider the CENLEC's dop to dow
dates as a defacto transition period.
They are as far as CENELEC
Around1991 I was able to demonstrate that a computer that must be shipped with a really well shielded printer cable must also be shipped with really well shielded PRINTER. Luckily, I caught it before we sent it out for an FCC ID, and minor rework made the the poorly placed bypass capacitors
Dear experts,
Does anyone know where I can find spacing requirement for anti-islanding relay?
I need to know required distance when contact is open. UL1741 does not include
such requirement.
Do I need to simulate short accross the relay's contact during fault condition
testing?
Best regards,
I come up against this problem all the time.
Some of our customers are aware of what the product family standard says
regarding the basic standards.
It would be useful if all the product family standards used the identical dated
references of the basic standards but I guess that it's too much to
20 matches
Mail list logo
