To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] EN 61010-1 under LVD and Functional safety
Caution: This email message originated from outside of the organization. DO NOT
CLICK on links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe. If you think it is suspicious
From: Rodriguez, Daniel (ESP) <123de38bd494-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org>
Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2021 10:16 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] EN 61010-1 under LVD and Functional safety
Thank you all!!
Any other recommendations how to justify functional safety c
ay, 16 June 2021 00:10
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] EN 61010-1 under LVD and Functional safety
Caution: This email message originated from outside of the organization. DO NOT
CLICK on links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
. London, UK.
From: Brian Kunde
Sent: 15 June 2021 21:10
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] EN 61010-1 under LVD and Functional safety
IEC/EN/UL 61010-1 standard in section 17 states that if there is a hazard not
addressed by the standard that you must perform a risk
o valves as moving part. The system has been checked for EN 61010-1
>
> There is a risk that an hazardous gas release can happen and we have a gas
> detector for that.
>
> The question is that as it is not a Machinery (no moving part) , don’t we
> need to apply functional
Good morning all
We have a system that generates a chemical but without pumps and only electro
valves as moving part. The system has been checked for EN 61010-1
There is a risk that an hazardous gas release can happen and we have a gas
detector for that.
The question
https://www.evs.ee/en/evs-en-61010-1-2010-a1-2019 gives clause by clause changes
Unfortunately you will need to review it against your product with existing
report to see which clauses are applicable and what changes any applicable
clauses would require
Best regards
Charlie
Charlie Blackham
needed for EN 61010-1:2010/A1:2019??
EXTERNAL SENDER: Verify links, attachments and sender before taking action
Good morning all
I have just reviewed the EN 61010-1:2010/A1:2019 and there a lot of changes.
Most of them seems clarifications but I am not sure if we need to retest
equipment c
Good morning all
I have just reviewed the EN 61010-1:2010/A1:2019 and there a lot of changes.
Most of them seems clarifications but I am not sure if we need to retest
equipment checked for EN 61010-1:2010 to add A1:2029
Does anyone have a clear picture:
1.if retesting is required
2.if yes
Good morning everybody
There is a table E.2 related to Reduction of Pollution Degrees in EN 61010-1.
I am a little confuse how to use ☹
For example: If we have equipment in Pollution Degree 3 environment and we want
test internally for Pollution Degree 2, we need to use an enclosure IPx7
I recommend covering anything that would cause sparks if shorted.
Best wishes
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK
On 2019-10-17 19:05, Richard Nute wrote:
Hi Charlie:
Is there a clause/requirement in 61010-1 similar to 60950-1
Hi Charlie:
Is there a clause/requirement in 61010-1 similar to 60950-1 clause 2.1.1.5
where a SELV source >240 VA is not permitted to be accessible in an Operator
Area
I could not find this requirement in 61010-1, 3rd edition.
The 240 VA requirement does not insure safety due
All
Is there a clause/requirement in 61010-1 similar to 60950-1 clause 2.1.1.5
where a SELV source >240 VA is not permitted to be accessible in an Operator
Area
The specific example I'm looking at is a pair of rack mounted units where the
10V/40A output has been paralleled with a 2nd unit in
C-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] US EMC req. for EN 61010-1/EN 61326-1 equipment
Take a look at 15.103b). There is an exemption for electronic control
equipment used within an industrial plant:
(b) A digital device used exclusively as an electronic control or power system
utilized by a
the
product is not industrial test equipment, it is not exempt from FCC
authorization (Verification) procedures.
Bill
*From:*Michael Loerzer [mailto:loerzer_mob...@globalnorm.de]
*Sent:* Sunday, November 27, 2016 4:45 AM
*To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
*Subject:* [PSES] US EMC req. for EN 61010-1/EN
-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] US EMC req. for EN 61010-1/EN 61326-1 equipment
Hi,
is for a modular 19'' draw-out unit system with a power supply and control unit
to control LED modules for industrial application in the laboratory environment
(EU: EN 61010-1, EN 61326-1 for LVD and EMCD
Von: Ghery S. Pettit [mailto:n6...@comcast.net]
Gesendet: Sonntag, 27. November 2016 17:56
An: loerzer_mob...@globalnorm.de; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Betreff: RE: [PSES] US EMC req. for EN 61010-1/EN 61326-1 equipment
If this is commercial equipment, then the Class A limits would be appro
-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Betreff: RE: [PSES] US EMC req. for EN 61010-1/EN 61326-1 equipment
Take a look at 47 CFR 15.103 to see if your device is exempt first.
Best regards,
Ron Wellman
From: Michael Loerzer [mailto:loerzer_mob...@globalnorm.de]
Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2016 2:45 AM
with a power supply and
control unit to control LED modules for industrial application in the
laboratory environment (EU: EN 61010-1, EN 61326-1 for LVD and EMCD)
the FCC requirements mandatory?
In my point of view the answer is “yes”.
And I have recommended my customer to apply the FCC Part
method for Class A
products.
Ghery S. Pettit, NCE
Pettit EMC Consulting LLC
gh...@pettitemcconsulting.com
From: Michael Loerzer [mailto:loerzer_mob...@globalnorm.de]
Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2016 2:45 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] US EMC req. for EN 61010-1/EN 61326-1
Take a look at 47 CFR 15.103 to see if your device is exempt first.
Best regards,
Ron Wellman
From: Michael Loerzer [mailto:loerzer_mob...@globalnorm.de]
Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2016 2:45 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] US EMC req. for EN 61010-1/EN 61326-1 equipment
Hi,
is for a modular 19'' draw-out unit system with a power supply and control unit
to control LED modules for industrial application in the laboratory environment
(EU: EN 61010-1, EN 61326-1 for LVD and EMCD) the FCC requirements mandatory?
In my point of view the answer is “yes”.
And I have
to comply with the ATEX
directive. (the LVD excludes ATEX ).
EN 61010-1 allows for the use of “untested” components
if they show up to comply with the equipment standards EN 61010.
Now I am curious to what extent, and what method you
are using to show their safe use –tested to EN 61010
, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen [mailto:g.grem...@cetest.nl]
Sent: Monday, January 13, 2014 7:32 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] EN 61010 and (un) safe components
Best friends and collegues
I have always carried out Electrical Safety tests as
evaluating and testing
In message
31634bef4bce4fd3a71ef2d007459...@blupr02mb116.namprd02.prod.outlook.com
, dated Mon, 13 Jan 2014, Brian Oconnell oconne...@tamuracorp.com
writes:
3. Do not ignore ratings or warnings on equipment labels. Do not
re-test to assume a 'reasonable' rating because you know better; you do
Hello Collegues,
Best wishes from Rotterdam for the year to come to all of you !
Am I right in concluding that EN 61010 does not allow a Class I
instrument
to have a basic insulation between mains and secondary , but actually
requires a reinforced (3500 Vac HiPot) insulation in all
] EN 61010
Hello Collegues,
Best wishes from Rotterdam for the year to come to all of you !
Am I right in concluding that EN 61010 does not allow a Class I instrument
to have a basic insulation between mains and secondary , but actually
requires a reinforced (3500 Vac HiPot) insulation in all
: [PSES] EN 61010
That is basically correct if the secondary is accessible to the
operator. If the secondary circuit is not accessible to the operator
then Basic is allowed. Refer to Annex D for all the different
combinations and situations.
The Test Voltages for solid insulation is found
An answer from the Danish authority in the field of EN 61010-1 says:
As the product is connected to mains by means of a plug it is falling under
9.6.1 and shall be provided with an overcurrent protection.
Section 9.6.3 - Other equipment cover only products that are not connected
to mains
Dear list members,
EN 61010-1:2010 §9.6 is concerning Overcurrent protection. All equipment
supplied from mains must be protected by some sort of overcurrent protection
device.
§9.6.3 for non-permanently connected equipment says If an overcurrent
protection device is provided, it shall
In message 003701ced6e7$18e84df0$4ab8e9d0$@dk, dated Fri, 1 Nov 2013,
Niels Hougaard n...@bolls.dk writes:
EN 61010-1:2010 §9.6 is concerning Overcurrent protection. All
equipment supplied from mains must be protected by some sort of
overcurrent protection device.
§9.6.3 for non
[mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk]
Sendt: 1. november 2013 11:00
Til: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Emne: Re: [PSES] Concerning EN 61010-1, §9.6 Overcurrent protection
In message 003701ced6e7$18e84df0$4ab8e9d0$@dk, dated Fri, 1 Nov 2013,
Niels Hougaard n...@bolls.dk writes:
EN 61010-1:2010 §9.6 is concerning
In message 004c01ced6f2$b8ebbd90$2ac338b0$@dk, dated Fri, 1 Nov 2013,
Niels Hougaard n...@bolls.dk writes:
Thank you for the answer.
It is the word if in the beginning of the sentence that to me
indicates that there is the other possibility if not as well.
I understand your point, but I
Reading only the information in these messages. . . one really stupid
but *possible* interpretation of the wording “If an overcurrent
protection device is provided, it shall be within the equipment”, would
be that if an overcurrent protection device -- a mains circuit breaker,
say -- is
and Compliance Engineer
Graco Inc.
- Original Message -
From: Niels Hougaard n...@bolls.dk
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Sent: Friday, November 1, 2013 4:45:23 AM
Subject: [PSES] Concerning EN 61010-1, §9.6 Overcurrent protection
Dear list members,
EN 61010-1:2010 §9.6
In message
435656780.4337510.1383321906804.javamail.r...@sz0110a.emeryville.ca.mail
.comcast.net, dated Fri, 1 Nov 2013, Mike Sherman - Original
Message - msherma...@comcast.net writes:
If you think of non-permanently connected equipment as cord-and-plug
connected equipment, it is not
In message wlkhjpive9csf...@jmwa.demon.co.uk, dated Fri, 1 Nov 2013,
John Woodgate j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk writes:
Sorry; a typo occurred. This is what I meant:
There is another discussion going on elsewhere about similar texts in
IEC/EN 60950-1 and IEC 62368-1. A general re-think about how to
In message
81c2032ccae04a448ae81107862dc...@blupr02mb116.namprd02.prod.outlook.com
, dated Fri, 1 Nov 2013, Brian Oconnell oconne...@tamuracorp.com
writes:
Cannot comment on BS7671 or IEC60364, but all North American building
codes (e.g., NEC article 240) have overcurrent protection
9.6 Overcurrent protection
(no text)
9.6.1 General
(uses the word shall; not the word must)
9.6.2 Permanently connected equipment
9.6.3 Other equipment
In context of the Clause, the requirement of 9.6.3 is to
require the overcurrent device, if provided, be a part of
the equipment.
(Once it had
In message 5273fde9.8050...@ieee.org, dated Fri, 1 Nov 2013, Richard
Nute ri...@ieee.org writes:
9.6 Overcurrent protection
(no text)
9.6.1 General
(uses the word shall; not the word must)
Ah, well, the information posted was incorrect but I assumed it was
correct.
--
OOO - Own Opinions
'
Subject: FW: Test Voltages for secondary circuit creepage distances IEC/EN
61010:2010 section 6.7.3
Ray
You kindly helped me a few months ago on the changes between Ed 2 Ed 3 of
the standard, and we have been getting into it in quite a lot of detail in
my new contract job - but we have run
In message 000f01cdfe22$c5c88b50$5159a1f0$@blueyonder.co.uk, dated
Tue, 29 Jan 2013, John Allen john_e_al...@blueyonder.co.uk writes:
You kindly helped me a few months ago on the changes between Ed 2 Ed
3 of the standard, and we have been getting into it in quite a lot of
detail in my new
for secondary circuit creepage distances IEC/EN
61010:2010 section 6.7.3
In message 000f01cdfe22$c5c88b50$5159a1f0$@blueyonder.co.uk, dated Tue, 29
Jan 2013, John Allen john_e_al...@blueyonder.co.uk writes:
You kindly helped me a few months ago on the changes between Ed 2 Ed
3 of the standard, and we have
The in the acoustics section 12.5 of 61010-1 are the concepts of operator
and bystander positions. The standard clearly states dimensions for the
test room, yet it does not clearly state what distances are for
personnel. Let's assume a control panel is mounted in a rack system, at
eye-level, and
In message
cabyvtvnhzay5zhrf6b6zvgqbxhskbtnwkxbu2n59xq2dz0q...@mail.gmail.com,
dated Wed, 25 Apr 2012, Doug Powell doug...@gmail.com writes:
The in the acoustics section 12.5 of 61010-1 are the concepts of
operator and bystander positions. The standard clearly states
dimensions for the test
take measurements on all four sides at a 1 meter
distance and 1.6 meters off the floor.
The Other Brian
From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Doug Powell
Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2012 12:47 PM
To: emc-pstc
Subject: IEC/EN 61010-1
The in the acoustics section 12.5
the floor.
The Other Brian
*From:* emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] *On Behalf Of *Doug
Powell
*Sent:* Wednesday, April 25, 2012 12:47 PM
*To:* emc-pstc
*Subject:* IEC/EN 61010-1
The in the acoustics section 12.5 of 61010-1 are the concepts of operator
and bystander positions
with the product, for the equipment to be approved under IEC/EN
61010-1 Ed.3 are the requirements of Clause 6.10.2.2 Cord anchorage applicable?
Many thanks in anticipation of your
responses.
Ian Unwin
Servomex company information and outgoing e-mail advice.
Servomex Group Limited, Jarvis
the equipment in such a way that it might be
subject to pulling, and so needing an anchorage?
John C
_
From: iun...@servomex.com [mailto:iun...@servomex.com]
Sent: 15 February 2012 10:22
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] IEC/EN 61010-1, Ed.3 and non-detachable power cords
In message
of41dc1b7b.47d772a4-on802579a5.00361540-802579a5.0038f...@servomex.com,
dated Wed, 15 Feb 2012, iun...@servomex.com writes:
Given that no power cable or cable gland is shipped with the product,
for the equipment to be approved under IEC/EN 61010-1 Ed.3 are the
requirements
, 2012 5:22 AM
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: IEC/EN 61010-1, Ed.3 and non-detachable power cords
Dear Group,
Consider a product that is intended to be connected to mains power via a non-
detachable power cord that is fed into the equipment through a cable gland
(compression bushing) fitted
In message
64D32EE8B9CBDD44963ACB076A5F6ABB01C6BD31@Mailbox-Tech.lecotech.local,
dated Wed, 15 Feb 2012, Kunde, Brian brian_ku...@lecotc.com writes:
Many high current products are shipped without power cords mainly
because of the wide variety of plugs and local electric code
requirements for
Of John Woodgate
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2012 9:33 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: IEC/EN 61010-1, Ed.3 and non-detachable power cords
In message
64D32EE8B9CBDD44963ACB076A5F6ABB01C6BD31@Mailbox-Tech.lecotech.local,
dated Wed, 15 Feb 2012, Kunde, Brian brian_ku...@lecotc.com
In message
64D32EE8B9CBDD44963ACB076A5F6ABB01C6BDAA@Mailbox-Tech.lecotech.local,
dated Wed, 15 Feb 2012, Kunde, Brian brian_ku...@lecotc.com writes:
When you purchase an electric dryer or range in Europe, do they come
with a flexible power cord?
A dryer, normally yes, a range is permanently
and/or current protection used.
Brian
From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org]On Behalf Of
iun...@servomex.com
Sent: Monday, March 08, 2010 8:17 AM
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: EN 60950:2001 and EN 61010-1 Transformer tests
Dear Group,
Can anybody provide me details of the tests
with the requirements of EN 60950:2001
Do you really mean that old version?
and how they compare with the mains transformer compliance requirements
of EN 61010 Ed. 1, or EN 61010-1 Ed. 2?
You are asking for a substantial part of the standard, when the
cross-references and annexes are included. Some County
Dear Group,
Can anybody provide me details of the tests (overload, insulation, fire, etc,)
that would have been applied to a mains transformer in accordance with the
requirements of EN 60950:2001 and how they compare with the mains transformer
compliance requirements of EN 61010 Ed. 1, or EN
Hi
We need an old version of EN 61010-1 1ed. 1993 and A2 1995, but can’t find
a pdf to buy. Can someone help me with a pdf version or point me to a web from
where I can buy it.
Best regards,
Mr. Kim Boll Jensen
Bolls Rådgivning
Ved Gadekæret 11F
DK-3660 Stenløse
Phone: +45 48
...@servomex.com
Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2007 8:55 AM
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: Advice on IEC/EN 61010-1
Dear Group,
I'm looking for some assistance on the interpretation of IEC/EN 61010-1,
Clause 9.2.1 b) 3). This states that non-metallic materials used for
enclosures shall have
Dear Group,
I'm looking for some assistance on the interpretation of IEC/EN 61010-1,
Clause 9.2.1 b) 3). This states that non-metallic materials used for
enclosures shall have a flammability classification of F-V1, or better.
Does this requirement apply to plastics materials used to form small
-407-6872
Fax: 970-407-5872
From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Aldous,
Scott
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2007 8:52 AM
To: iun...@servomex.com; emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: RE: EN 61010-1 - Clearances
Regarding Case 1 (and any other where voltages do not exceed
...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of
iun...@servomex.com
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 3:49 AM
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: EN 61010-1 - Clearances
Dear All,
I have three questions regarding the calculation of clearances in
accordance with the requirements of EN 61010-1. Can
Dear All,
I have three questions regarding the calculation of clearances in
accordance with the requirements of EN 61010-1. Can anybody out there help
please?
Case 1 - Mains input transformer (230 Vac rms, Over-voltage category 2)
supplies an ac to dc converter providing +15 Vdc output
Nick Williams nick.willi...@conformance.co.uk wrote (in
p06210208bf4d87730265@[192.168.1.9]) about 'Touch temperature of parts
(UL/EN 61010)', on Wed, 14 Sep 2005:
EN 563:1994 Safety of machinery. Temperatures of touchable surfaces.
Ergonomics data to establish temperature limit values for hot
Duncan,
EN 563:1994 Safety of machinery. Temperatures of touchable surfaces.
Ergonomics data to establish temperature limit values for hot
surfaces should help you to identify whether the combination of
temperature and thermal conductivity represents a significant risk or
not in your
Duncan,
My opinion is that you have to comply with the maximum 55 C metallic
requirements unless the combination metal and polymeric coating is evaluated
for adhesion properties.How can one be assured that the polymeric coating is
not going to diminish after some time?
Peter Merguerian
Group,
UL61010B-1 and EN61010-1 define upper temperature limits for parts of
the equipment, specifically handles have a maximum limit of 55C if they
are metalic or 70C if they are non metalic. The standard also permits
handles that are non metalic and held only for short periods to a
maximum
be made of all the values stated in
Table 9 as the existance of the above probable error brings in to doubt the
rest.
Subject: RE: IEC/EN 61010-1, 2001 'Circuits derived from Mains Circuits'
(Gail Birdsall, Hach Co.)
Most recent version of UL 61010-1 (July 2004) - they have added a deviation
...@ieee.org
Subject: Re: IEC/EN 61010-1 Edition 2
In article bfe68ab0084cd311b4fb00508b014c8706063...@mercury.era.co.uk,
John Allen john.al...@era.co.uk writes
For the mutual benefit (and certainly for my own!) I am going to
try to put together a collated set of the comments on the above
In article bfe68ab0084cd311b4fb00508b014c8706063...@mercury.era.co.uk,
John Allen john.al...@era.co.uk writes
For the mutual benefit (and certainly for my own!) I am going to
try to put together a collated set of the comments on the above,
from what we already knew and what people have
Hi Folks
For the mutual benefit (and certainly for my own!) I am going to try to put
together a collated set of the comments on the above, from what we already
knew and what people have sent me in the last few days.
I will also include anything I can find publically on IEC and CENELEC CTL
...@ieee.org
Sent: Sunday, December 05, 2004 12:30 PM
Subject: Re: IEC/EN 61010-1, 2001 'Circuits derived from Mains Circuits'
In article faegibahkcpnhedmkkdfeejdcfaa.rwell...@wellman.com, Ronald
R. Wellman rwell...@wellman.com writes
Just as an FYI, IEC 61010-1, third edition is at CDV status. I am
In article faegibahkcpnhedmkkdfeejdcfaa.rwell...@wellman.com, Ronald
R. Wellman rwell...@wellman.com writes
Just as an FYI, IEC 61010-1, third edition is at CDV status. I am
hoping that the members of TC 66 are taking note of these issues
and will take them under consideration so the
Posts (E-mail)
Cc: Roger Mccoy mailto:roger.mc...@veris.com
Sent: Sunday, December 05, 2004 11:08 AM
Subject: RE: IEC/EN 61010-1, 2001 'Circuits derived from Mains Circuits'
Hello all,
Just as an FYI, IEC 61010-1, third edition is at CDV status. I am hoping that
the members of TC 66 are taking
...@listserv.ieee.org
mailto:owner-emc-p...@listserv.ieee.org]On Behalf Of John Allen
Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2004 1:40 AM
To: 'Camille Good'; - EMC PSTC Posts (E-mail)
Cc: Roger Mccoy
Subject: RE: IEC/EN 61010-1, 2001 'Circuits derived from Mains Circuits'
Camille
In addition to the errors you mention
accessibility and protective bonding.
Ralph McDiarmid, AScT
Compliance Engineering Group
Xantrex Technology Inc.
From: owner-emc-p...@listserv.ieee.org
mailto:owner-emc-p...@listserv.ieee.org] On Behalf Of John Allen
Sent: November 30, 2004 5:27 AM
To: - EMC PSTC Posts (E-mail)
Subject: IEC/EN 61010
]
Sent: 01 December 2004 15:02
To: John Allen; Gordon,Ian; IEEE EMC-PSTC GROUP
Subject: RE: IEC/EN 61010-1, 2001 'Circuits derived from Mains Circuits'
John,
Have you noticed that in the most recent version of UL 61010-1 (July 2004),
that they have added a deviation to table 9 of the IEC 61010-1
...@listserv.ieee.org] On Behalf Of John Allen
Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2004 3:13 AM
To: 'Gordon,Ian'; John Allen; 'IEEE EMC-PSTC GROUP'
Subject: RE: IEC/EN 61010-1, 2001 'Circuits derived from Mains Circuits'
Ian et al
These are the ones I identified a couple of years ago, copied from text I
In article bfe68ab0084cd311b4fb00508b014c8706063...@mercury.era.co.uk,
John Allen john.al...@era.co.uk writes
No, because previous experience in submitting lists of errors and
omissions jointly to the BSI Committe Secretary and the UK Chairman
of the IEC/EN committees for 61010 got
In article bfe68ab0084cd311b4fb00508b014c8706063...@mercury.era.co.uk,
John Allen john.al...@era.co.uk writes
IMHO (as an Ex-BSI standards project manager, and a
drafter/reviewer of many in-company procedures and process
documents), the range of definitions is woefully incomplete and
John
See response to your previous message!
John Allen
-Original Message-
From: John Woodgate [ mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk]
Sent: 01 December 2004 12:19
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: Re: IEC/EN 61010-1, 2001 'Circuits derived from Mains Circuits'
In article
In article bfe68ab0084cd311b4fb00508b014c8706063...@mercury.era.co.uk,
John Allen john.al...@era.co.uk writes
Also. assuming that we are correct we do need the correct values
for 1.5mm, please could you find a way of making this information
available in advance of the long process of
MInstP
Engineer - Special Products
Land Instruments International
Dronfield S18 1 DJ
England
-Original Message-
From: John Allen [SMTP:john.al...@era.co.uk]
Sent: 01 December 2004 10:13 AM
To: 'Gordon,Ian'; John Allen; 'IEEE EMC-PSTC GROUP'
Subject: RE: IEC/EN 61010-1, 2001
hello group!
there are also draft version as DIN IEC 61010-1 of march 2004 and a final
version for EN 61010-2-010 of june 2004 (IEC 2003)
sometimes it helps me to clarify some thoughts :-)
BTW. good to hear that I'm not the only one..as I'm new in the biz.
Best regards,
Michael Kern
[ mailto:ian.gor...@bocedwards.com]
Sent: 01 December 2004 09:58
To: 'John Allen'; 'IEEE EMC-PSTC GROUP'
Subject: RE: IEC/EN 61010-1, 2001 'Circuits derived from Mains Circuits'
John et al
Does anyone have a list of errors in the document which they would share
with the group?
Ian Gordon
BOC
John et al
Does anyone have a list of errors in the document which they would share
with the group?
Ian Gordon
BOC Edwards
***
This email is confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual
to whom it is addressed.
2004 20:03
To: - EMC PSTC Posts (E-mail)
Cc: Roger Mccoy
Subject: RE: IEC/EN 61010-1, 2001 'Circuits derived from Mains Circuits'
I would definitely agree that 61010-1 is confusing!
However, what are the errors in 6.7.3.2 and Table 9?
I remember there was some discussion on this list a
while
answers
can only be found in
the standards listed in Annex ZA.
luck,
Brian
-Original Message-
From: John Allen [mailto:john.al...@era.co.uk]
Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2004 5:27 AM
To: - EMC PSTC Posts (E-mail)
Subject: IEC/EN 61010-1, 2001 'Circuits derived from
Mains Circuits
Posts (E-mail)
Subject: RE: IEC/EN 61010-1, 2001 'Circuits derived from Mains Circuits'
Mr. Allen,
My personal rule is either the apparatus is ultimately connected to mains,
or it is not; and various NCBs has supported that analysis.
For an apparatus connected to mains, refer to Annex D
-mail)
Subject: IEC/EN 61010-1, 2001 'Circuits derived from Mains Circuits'
Hi Folks
Sub-Clause 6.7.3.1 Clearance values - General and Table 5 of Clause 6.7.3.
Circuits other than MAINS CIRCUITS refers to the term 'Circuits derived from
MAINS CIRCUITS'.
However, nowhere in the standard
Hi Folks
Sub-Clause 6.7.3.1 Clearance values - General and Table 5 of Clause 6.7.3.
Circuits other than MAINS CIRCUITS refers to the term 'Circuits derived from
MAINS CIRCUITS'.
However, nowhere in the standard are there clear definitions or ranges of
examples of what these circuits are, or of
Hi Group,
I have a question about determining clearance distance using EN 61010-1:2001
(the
Second Edition):
If I have the 230 VAC mains connected to the primary of an isolation
transformer and the
transformer steps the voltage down to 100 VAC on the secondary, is the 100 VAC
secondary
- Original Message -
From: Konrad mailto:kstef...@poczta.onet.pl Stefanski
To: EMC pstc mailto:emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 9:19 PM
Subject: EN 61010-2-101
Dear Group
Maybe one of You know standard EN 61010-2-101.
I would like to ask You
Dear Group
Maybe one of You know standard EN 61010-2-101.
I would like to ask You if this standard contains EMC requirements?
Thank You
On Fri, 10 May 2002 12:57:16 +0200,
Kim Boll Jensen kimb...@post7.tele.dk wrote:
I have problems concerning clearance and creepage values in EN61010-1.
I have a product with a 24 ac and a 230 relay. The 24ac can be used for
sensors and are regarded as double insulated in the 230 Vac
Hi all
I have problems concerning clearance and creepage values in EN61010-1.
I have a product with a 24 ac and a 230 relay. The 24ac can be used for
sensors and are regarded as double insulated in the 230 Vac transformer
for safe operation. But what are the clearance and creepage to the 230
.
Sound reasonable?
John Allen
- Original Message -
From: Andrew Wood andrew.w...@landinst.com
To: 'John Allen' ja014d7...@blueyonder.co.uk
Cc: 'emc-pstc' emc-p...@ieee.org
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2002 9:36 AM
Subject: RE: IEC/EN 61010-1:2001 - Dielectric Strength Testing Question (
another
-Original Message-
From: John Allen [SMTP:ja014d7...@blueyonder.co.uk]
Sent: 15 April 2002 20:44
To: EMC-PSTC
Subject: Re: IEC/EN 61010-1:2001 - Dielectric Strength Testing Question
( another)
Hi Folks
My turn to ask some questions as a newcomer to this version
I read in !emc-pstc that John Allen ja014d7...@blueyonder.co.uk wrote
(in 006a01c1e4b5$f4967880$0200a8c0@johnallen) about 'IEC/EN
61010-1:2001 - Dielectric Strength Testing Question ( another)', on
Mon, 15 Apr 2002:
My turn to ask some questions as a newcomer to this version
Hi Folks
My turn to ask some questions as a newcomer to this version of the standard:
1
Dielectric Strength Testing to Clause 6.8.4 Voltage tests Table 9 Test
voltages for BASIC INSULATION.
Can anyone confirm my suspicion that there may be a misprint in Column 1
Clearance of Table 9 , as
1 - 100 of 121 matches
Mail list logo
