I thought it was 15% duty cycle.
Ralph McDiarmid
Product Compliance
Engineering
Solar Business
Schneider Electric
From: James Pawson (U3C) [mailto:ja...@unit3compliance.co.uk]
Sent: Monday, October 16, 2017 7:31 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] IEC 61000-3-2 Confusion
Hi
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Subject: Re: [PSES] IEC 61000-3-2 Confusion
I agree that there appears to be a need for clarification, and I will take
that up with the committee responsible. But for your particular case, what
is critical is the nature of
* is that should be classified as professional equipment
and exempted under Clause 7 but the IEV has 0 search for feelings.
Thanks for your help
James
*From:*John Woodgate [mailto:j...@woodjohn.uk]
*Sent:* 11 October 2017 16:49
*To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
*Subject:* Re: [PSES] IEC 61000-3-2 Confusion
I
October 2017 16:49
*To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
*Subject:* Re: [PSES] IEC 61000-3-2 Confusion
I agree that there appears to be a need for clarification, and I will
take that up with the committee responsible. But for your particular
case, what is critical is the nature of the 'triac control
wind turbine, since there
is no physical wind on the Moon.
I'll try to keep you informed on progress.
James
*From:*John Woodgate [mailto:j...@woodjohn.uk]
*Sent:* 11 October 2017 22:21
*To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
*Subject:* Re: [PSES] IEC 61000-3-2 Confusion
That isn't a 'condition
...@woodjohn.uk]
Sent: 11 October 2017 22:21
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] IEC 61000-3-2 Confusion
That isn't a 'condition'. The conditions are the items in the a-b-c list in 6.1.
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk <http://www.woodjohn
y *feeling* is that should be classified as professional equipment
and exempted under Clause 7 but the IEV has 0 search for feelings.
Thanks for your help
James
*From:*John Woodgate [mailto:j...@woodjohn.uk]
*Sent:* 11 October 2017 16:49
*To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
*Subject:* Re: [PSES] IEC
d exempted under Clause 7 but the IEV has 0 search for feelings.
>>
>> Thanks for your help
>>
>> James
>>
>> *From:*John Woodgate [mailto:j...@woodjohn.uk]
>> *Sent:* 11 October 2017 16:49
>> *To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
>> *Subject:* Re: [PSE
s 0 search for feelings.
Thanks for your help
James
*From:*John Woodgate [mailto:j...@woodjohn.uk]
*Sent:* 11 October 2017 16:49
*To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
*Subject:* Re: [PSES] IEC 61000-3-2 Confusion
I agree that there appears to be a need for clarification, and I will
take that up with the
<ralph.mcdiar...@schneider-electric.com>;
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] IEC 61000-3-2 Confusion
61000-3-2, -3, -11 and -12 do not have to be cited in the Generics; they apply
independently. 61000-3-4 assumes a dedicated MV/LV transformer, but the product
is only 3 kW, so one
Schneider Electric
From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@woodjohn.uk]
Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2017 10:10 AM
To: Ralph McDiarmid <ralph.mcdiar...@schneider-electric.com>;
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] IEC 61000-3-2 Confusion
61000-3-2, -3, -11 and -12 do not have to be
Business
Schneider Electric
From: James Pawson (U3C) [mailto:ja...@unit3compliance.co.uk]
Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2017 9:08 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] IEC 61000-3-2 Confusion
Hello John,
It uses phase angle control hence the concern about the harmonics generated
) [mailto:ja...@unit3compliance.co.uk]
Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2017 9:08 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] IEC 61000-3-2 Confusion
Hello John,
It uses phase angle control hence the concern about the harmonics generated.
Manufacturer specs are single phase, 230V nominal, 3kW
as professional equipment
and exempted under Clause 7 but the IEV has 0 search for feelings.
Thanks for your help
James
*From:*John Woodgate [mailto:j...@woodjohn.uk]
*Sent:* 11 October 2017 16:49
*To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
*Subject:* Re: [PSES] IEC 61000-3-2 Confusion
I agree
be classified as professional equipment and
exempted under Clause 7 but the IEV has 0 search for feelings.
Thanks for your help
James
From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@woodjohn.uk]
Sent: 11 October 2017 16:49
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] IEC 61000-3-2 Confusion
I should also have asked what the rated power actually is, and whether
it's 1-phase or 3-phase?
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK
On 2017-10-11 16:54, John Woodgate wrote:
True, but it's a cumbersome procedure and is not
True, but it's a cumbersome procedure and is not clearly enough
indicated. I will try to get an improvement.
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK
On 2017-10-11 15:59, Scott Aldous wrote:
Hi James,
The flowchart in Clause 7 in the
I agree that there appears to be a need for clarification, and I will
take that up with the committee responsible. But for your particular
case, what is critical is the nature of the 'triac control'. Is it
phase-angle control, or 'burst firing' or something else?
John Woodgate OOO-Own
: [PSES] IEC 61000-3-2 Confusion
Hi James,
The flowchart in Clause 7 in the version of the standard that I have access to
sends you to Clause 4 for professional equipment that uses techniques not
allowed by 6.1. The second paragraph of Clause 4 addresses professional
equipment that does
Hi James,
The flowchart in Clause 7 in the version of the standard that I have access
to sends you to Clause 4 for professional equipment that uses techniques
not allowed by 6.1. The second paragraph of Clause 4 addresses professional
equipment that does not comply with the requirements of the
Hi folks,
I apologise as I seem to be all take and not much give on this forum at the
moment; I'm trying to do a lot of learning very quickly. Someone ask a
question about HDMI so that I can feel useful!
Today's question is what appears to be a contradiction in IEC
61000-3-2:2014.
*
21 matches
Mail list logo
