On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 10:50:38 -0700,
Aldous, Scott scott.ald...@aei.com wrote:
I've come across specs referencing grounding classes from Japanese
customers, i.e A class grounding, D class grounding.
Googling doesn't turn up much - it appears that this class is related to
the allowable
Hello Scott,
See Article 20 in the link below.
http://www.eac.gov.kh/pdf/press-release/Final%20SREPTS%20TD%20July%2021%20_Final_%20rev01.pdf
Ted Eckert
American Power Conversion/MGE
http://www.apc.com/
The items contained in this e-mail reflect the personal opinions of the
writer and are only
...@ieee.org
Subject: Re: Grounding Classes in Japan
In message 7995b996909d2a40b3cb7d0db4cceaa97e3...@aedcexcvs1.aei.com,
dated Thu, 10 Jan 2008, Aldous, Scott scott.ald...@aei.com writes:
Googling doesn?t turn up much ? it appears that this class is related
to the allowable impedance
In message 7995b996909d2a40b3cb7d0db4cceaa97e3...@aedcexcvs1.aei.com,
dated Thu, 10 Jan 2008, Aldous, Scott scott.ald...@aei.com writes:
Googling doesn?t turn up much ? it appears that this class is related
to the allowable impedance in the ground path (10 Ohms or less for
class A or C, 100
Pierre,
Out of over 2,800 electronics books in my personal library,
Grounding and Noise Reduction Practices, published by SDS Data
Systems in Pomona, California
immediately comes to mind. This book was sponsored by the Air Force
Rocket Propulsion Laboratory. I can't find a copyright date
This (telecoms) isn't my field, so forgive me if I'm barking up
completely the wrong tree but is the following of any use?
BS EN 50310:2000
Application of equipotential bonding and earthing in buildings with
information technology equipment
Regards
Nick.
At 10:25 am + 15/3/05, John Allen
In article 001901c52949$4d6a7120$0301a8c0@johnallen, John Allen
ja014d7...@blueyonder.co.uk writes
There used to be an ECMA standard or Technical Report on
interconnections between buildings etc., which did address earthing
of cables in such circumstances but it no longer seems to be
Pierre Friends
There used to be an ECMA standard or Technical Report on interconnections
between buildings etc., which did address earthing of cables in such
circumstances but it no longer seems to be available!
Can anyone identify which one that was?
John Allen
(from home - as I have now
In article 656be56e7d48f6419054cc1c8111492704609...@exch01.corp.xl.com
, Stone, Richard rst...@excelswitching.com writes
and also, for the EU, in terms of signal cable, for ethernet or
interface cables (E1/T1) will need to meet the 61000-suite of tests
most notibly surge and conducted
Pierre,
There are grounding rules for some LANs, such as Ethernet 10Base2, 10BaseT and
others. See the LAN standards for these.
Jim
_
James L. Knighten, Ph.D.
Teradata, a division of NCR http://www.ncr.com
17095 Via del Campo
San Diego, CA 92127
Richard,
From: owner-emc-p...@listserv.ieee.org
mailto:owner-emc-p...@listserv.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Don Gies
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2005 10:38 AM
To: Pierre Selva; 'Forum Safety-emc'
Subject: RE: Grounding, Earthing of long cables
Pierre,
For North America, you will need to consider
Pierre,
For North America, you will need to consider the applicability of the
following, particularly the long (signal) cable that may go from inside to
outside plant:
1. (US) - National Electrical Code - NFPA 70 - Article 800 - Communications
Circuits
a. Flammability of cable - after 3
In article 007101c5289b$3ffaa540$0c1ea...@erant.msft, Pierre Selva
e.l...@wanadoo.fr writes
I know that in UK the BS7671 applies.
Not really. BS 7671 applies to electric power distribution inside and
outside buildings. It says almost nothing about signal or data cables.
The technical reports IEC
Gary,
Chapter 33 of my book Robust Electronic Design Reference Book, Volume 1,
discusses bonding. On page 33-2, for direct metal-to-metal bonds it
recommends:
* 8,300 kilopascals (1,200 pounds/square inch) pressure for soft
metals.
* Up to 10,300 kilopascals (1,500 pounds/square inch)
From: Gary McInturff [mailto:gmcintu...@spraycool.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2004 3:05 PM
To: EMC-PSTC (E-mail)
Subject: grounding and pressure contacts
Gentlemen,
I'm looking for some data on pressure versus resistance through
metal
My recollection is that a number of UL standards that
explicitly excluded reliance on hinges as bonding
conductors.
For instance, UL 1459, 3rd ed, explicitly states that hinges
and bearings can not be used as current carrying parts.
This was interpreted to apply under normal and fault
@listserv.ieee.org
List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org
List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 08:52:37 -0700
To: ed.pr...@cubic.com, emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: RE: Grounding
Perhaps if the added cost of a reliable ground connection is presented to
management as insurance from
home at http://www.acstestlab.com
From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
[mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org] On Behalf Of GARY MCINTURFF
Sent: Monday, November 17, 2003 11:06 AM
To: ed.pr...@cubic.com; emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: RE: Grounding
Morning Ed,
This is stated much better than
...@majordomo.ieee.org
[mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Crabb, John
Sent: Monday, November 17, 2003 2:20 AM
To: IEEE EMC/Product Safety (IEEE, EMC/Product Safety)
Subject: RE: Grounding
I might have expected that folk would look for a definition of reliably
grounded.
I would quote from
its a struggle to
accept.
Gary
From: Price, Ed ed.pr...@cubic.com
Reply-To: Price, Ed ed.pr...@cubic.com
To: 'emc-p...@ieee.org' emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: RE: Grounding
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 07:06:30 -0800
-Original Message-
From: Gary McInturff [mailto:gmcintu...@spraycool.com
Micron Technology
From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
[mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Price, Ed
Sent: Monday, November 17, 2003 8:07 AM
To: 'emc-p...@ieee.org'
Subject: RE: Grounding
-Original Message-
From: Gary McInturff [ mailto:gmcintu...@spraycool.com
-Original Message-
From: Gary McInturff [ mailto:gmcintu...@spraycool.com]
Sent: Friday, November 14, 2003 10:46 AM
To: 'Crabb, John'; Ned Devine; IEEE EMC/Product Safety (IEEE,
EMC/Product Safety)
Subject: RE: Grounding
John,
You are correct, but you have just
(IEEE, EMC/Product
Safety)
Subject: RE: Grounding
John,
You are correct, but you have just presented the conundrum of the
thread.
Reliably grounded can be determined through test - 25 or 30 amps
for a minute. A new hinge will likely pass that test. A used one may
likely fail because
Ned,
See EN61010-1:20001, 6.5.1.1.d...
Movable conductive connections, for example, hinges, slides, etc., shall not
be the sole PROTECTIVE BONDING path unless they are specifically designed
for electrical inter-connection and meet the requirements of blah...blahhh
There are similar provisions,
and
bean counters.
Gary
From: Crabb, John [mailto:jo...@exchange.scotland.ncr.com]
Sent: Friday, November 14, 2003 9:01 AM
To: Ned Devine; IEEE EMC/Product Safety (IEEE, EMC/Product Safety)
Subject: RE: Grounding
2.6.1 of IEC 60950-1 refers to parts of equipment shall be reliably
2.6.1 of IEC 60950-1 refers to parts of equipment shall be reliably
connected to the main protective earthing terminal.A hinge would
certainly not be regarded as a reliable connection.
As far as your door is concerned, is there any single insulated hazardous
voltage wiring likely to contact
, November 14, 2003 8:13 AM
To: ndev...@entela.com; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: Grounding
Ned,
I know this isn't the standard you are using but I happen to have been using
it lately and quickly found a similar situation. EN61010-1:2001, 6.5.1.1
Integrity of protective bonding:
d) Movable
Ned,
You are right, I could not find anything in recent ITE standards specifically
stating that hinges are not allowed. Older standards like UL1459 did
specifically state that bearings and hinges can not be used. I believe
however that the onus would be on the manufacturer to prove that the
To: Ned Devine; Emc-Pstc
Subject: Re: Grounding
Ned,
I had this discussion with a TUV engineer way back in time. It is not in
the UL or IEC standards specifically AFAIK. What the TUV guy asked me to
do was consider the life of the product. The door hinge may have good
(low) resistance today
Ned,
I had this discussion with a TUV engineer way back in time. It is not in
the UL or IEC standards specifically AFAIK. What the TUV guy asked me to
do was consider the life of the product. The door hinge may have good
(low) resistance today, but what will it be like in a few years? Hinges
Ned,
I know this isn't the standard you are using but I happen to have been using
it lately and quickly found a similar situation. EN61010-1:2001, 6.5.1.1
Integrity of protective bonding:
d) Movable conductive connections, for example, hinges, slides, etc., shall
not the sole PROTECTIVE BONDING
Grounding and Shielding Techniques, 4th Edition
Ralph Morrison
ISBN: 0-471-24518-6
luck,
Brian
-Original Message-
From: am...@westin-emission.no [ mailto:am...@westin-emission.no]
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2003 2:58 PM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Grounding
Hi
Dan et al
I have a Word document which I believe gives guidance on this matter. If you
would like a copy please let me know.
Ian Gordon
_
This e-mail has been scanned for viruses by the WorldCom Internet Managed
Scanning
,
emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: Grounding of EUT in EN61000-4-6 conducted immunity test
Mr. Javor,
I guess I can't argue your points until I read your paper. Please send me a
Word copy. I assure you, I will respect the copyright and destroy the
article after I read it.
I think
, Oliver Betz list...@gmx.net,
emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: Grounding of EUT in EN61000-4-6 conducted immunity test
Thanks for the quick response. Please let me explore this further. I have
used the special case as the general case where the EUT has many signal
lines in which
Hi Dave,
I've had this type of discussion at a previous telco company and
the only explanation I ever received regarded ground potential
differences between equipment through the mains (as we have
discussed in a previous thread).
And I always seemed to win by saying that if everything was
Hi David (and the group),
Take a look at the Technical Tidbits section of my site at
http://emcesd.com where you will find some experimental evidence for
your viewpoint. This month's article (at the bottom of the main page)
presents some data and links to two other articles.
Doug
On
David,
Telecom (Bellcore) usage is to keep signal, surge and power currents off
chassis and safety grounds. This is understandable. It is due not only to
audio sensitivity, but to the need to protect equipment from substantial
peak (hundred of amps) surges at fairly high (thousands of volts)
A good way to think about this, especially on a larger size board, is to imagine
a transmission line resonator. Assume for the moment that the shielding
enclosure and the board ground are tied together at one point. In this case, the
board will go resonant when the length of the board ground
Marko Radojicic writes:
Battery Return is also problematic. In NA, it *must* be held isolated from
CG/FG. In the EU, it *must* be bonded to the CG/FG!
Hi Marko:
Thank you for your very informative response. I would just like to clarify
any possible distinction between battery return and
To: 'Marko Radojicic'; 'John Juhasz'; 'Dorin'
Cc: 'EMC-PSTC - forum'
Subject: RE: Grounding architectures for COs
Hi Marko,
I'm curious what measures you and others take to protect against
ESD, Lightning, etc when implementing a multi-point bonding scheme of signal
ground to frame/chassis
Hi Marko,
I'm curious what measures you and others take to protect against
ESD, Lightning, etc when implementing a multi-point bonding scheme of signal
ground to frame/chassis ground. I can definitely see the advantages for
EMI.
Thx,
Joe
-Original Message-
From: Marko
Doug,
You are really asking if the product is Type B (earthed applied part) or Type
BF (isolated ground part) according the the classification
of IEC 60601-1.
The answer is that some types of medical equipment must be Type BF or even Type
CF (direct cardiac contact) according to the
Silly Question really - but why are the
responses off line?? Would you consider
posting a summary, Doug?
-Original Message-
From: Doug McKean [mailto:dmck...@corp.auspex.com]
Sent: Monday, August 19, 2002 4:15 PM
To: EMC-PSTC Discussion Group
Subject: Re: Grounding in an operating room
Arc Welder works better.
John
-Original Message-
From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
[mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of John Woodgate
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2001 10:25 AM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Re: Grounding Continuity Testers for UL
I read in !emc-pstc that Loop, Robert rl...@hnt.wylelabs.com wrote (in
81a0ea0cd2a23f439f43a64d24db7d8d08f...@hnt.wylelabs.com) about
'Grounding Continuity Testers for UL 60950', on Wed, 14 Nov 2001:
Where in the world can
we get a tester that would go up to 200 amps with a 12 V output?
Vehicle
Compliance West USA makes high current continuity testers. I have a 200A
model. Their website is:
http://www.compwest.com/
Patty Knudsen
Ericsson Wireless Communications
patricia.knud...@ericsson.com
-Original Message-
From: Loop, Robert [mailto:rl...@hnt.wylelabs.com]
Sent:
Note that such a tester may be unnecessary. Note that 2.6.3.3 requires
testing only for PROTECTIVE BONDING CONDUCTORS that do not comply with
the minimum sizes in table 3B and for protective bonding terminals that
do not comply with table 3E.
You are unlikely to find a tester of this size on the
Robert,
We often do high current tests as a type test and on our production line
this is a routine test. Some people have used simple arc welders. They are
economical but you have to be careful of the strike voltage. Another
alternative is that most agencies allow you to do a DC test in which
damages.
- Robert -
-Original Message-
From: Crabb, John jo...@exchange.scotland.ncr.com
To: 'Price, Ed' ed.pr...@cubic.com; 'emc-p...@ieee.org'
emc-p...@ieee.org
Date: Tuesday, November 16, 1999 3:03 AM
Subject: RE: Grounding Questions
Ed, we do
.
- Robert -
-Original Message-
From: Crabb, John jo...@exchange.scotland.ncr.com
To: 'Price, Ed' ed.pr...@cubic.com; 'emc-p...@ieee.org'
emc-p...@ieee.org
Date: Tuesday, November 16, 1999 3:03 AM
Subject: RE: Grounding Questions
Ed, we do not find
...@sdd.hp.com
To: harr...@dscltd.com
cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org (bcc: Volker Gasse/Germany/IBM)
Subject: Re: Grounding Bond Test
Hi Kevin:
Interesting P.S. comment. Surely this can only be so if one is not
dealing
with a CE country. I don't see how a test agency can waive
The original post said :
EN 50116 for ITE specifies the earthing terminal or earthing contact may not
exceed 0.1 ohms when 1.5 times the current capacity of hazardous circuits is
applied, but not more than 25 A (ac or dc) for 60 seconds.
My copy of EN50116 specifies the time as being for the
The obvious question I would have is... why couldn't you test at a higher
current for longer time meeting both requirements? For example 30A for two
minutes. I know the document indicates a maximum current, but does this make
sense?
Works for me. I can't imagine any agency refusing to
Hi Kevin:
Interesting P.S. comment. Surely this can only be so if one is not dealing
with a CE country. I don't see how a test agency can waive the requirements
for meeting the LVD in Europe. If it is indeed as you say, then where does
it put those of us who have in house safety
: Wednesday, August 25, 1999 4:37 PM
To: carmen.fili...@leitch.com
Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org; fra...@csa.ca
Subject: Re: Grounding Bond Test
Hi Carmen:
You ask how to resolve the difference between two,
different production-line (routine) test standards.
If your
Hi Rick:
The obvious question I would have is... why couldn't you test at a higher
current for longer time meeting both requirements? For example 30A for two
minutes. I know the document indicates a maximum current, but does this make
sense?
The original question appeared to me
Cameron,
The grounding continuity test required by CSA 0.4 is normally intended only
for the initial prototype evaluation, to ensure that the basic design is
within acceptable parameters. It is not usually intended as a production
line test. There may be some exceptions, where non-standard
; fra...@csa.ca
Subject:Re: Grounding Bond Test
Hi Carmen:
You ask how to resolve the difference between two,
different production-line (routine) test standards.
If your product is certified by CSA
Hi Carmen:
You ask how to resolve the difference between two,
different production-line (routine) test standards.
If your product is certified by CSA, then you test
to the 30-ampere value.
If your product is certified by a CB Certificate
and Test Report, and the issuing body invokes
EN
For a screened room to function as a screened room, no earth is required.
It's the metal conduit of the shielding material that will be reference
potential
(if you insist : ground) for all measurements. All external cables (mains)
should
be filtered to this reference potential, preferably to the
,
Barry Ma
-
Original Text
From: ed.pr...@cubic.com, on 10/7/98 9:34 AM:
From: Bailin Ma b...@namg.us.anritsu.com
Subject: RE: Grounding of screen room
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 98 14:35:43 PDT
To: emc-p...@ieee.org, TREG t...@world.std.com
Cc: Mekonen Buzuayene
---
From: Bailin Ma b...@namg.us.anritsu.com
Subject: RE: Grounding of screen room
List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 98 9:18:11 PDT
To: emc-p...@ieee.org, emc-p...@ieee.org
Cc: Mekonen Buzuayene
From: Bailin Ma b...@namg.us.anritsu.com
Subject: RE: Grounding of screen room
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 98 14:35:43 PDT
To: emc-p...@ieee.org, TREG t...@world.std.com
Cc: Mekonen Buzuayene mbuzuay...@namg.us.anritsu.com
Hi Lauren,
It is my understanding
Our chamber is grounded via the electrical conduit used with the mains
power. Never had a problem.
--
From: peterh...@aol.com[SMTP:peterh...@aol.com]
Reply To: peterh...@aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 06, 1998 1:56 AM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject:
My guess for a first pass is empty it out, put a spectrum analyzer in
with a broadband antenna and see if you can 'hear' anything at a level
that is near what you are testing for.
Cheers,
Lauren Crane
-Original Message-
From: peterh...@aol.com [SMTP:peterh...@aol.com]
Sent: Tuesday,
Hi Peter.
I have always isolated my chambers from any sort of building ground and
used a separate grounding grid. The ground was measured using a 'ground
megger'.
Chuck Jackson
--
From: peterh...@aol.com[SMTP:peterh...@aol.com]
Reply To: peterh...@aol.com
Sent: Monday,
--
From: WOODS, RICHARD
Sent: Tuesday, October 06, 1998 5:28 AM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: Grounding of screen room
Our chamber is grounded via the electrical conduit used with the mains
power. Never had a problem.
--
From: peterh...@aol.com
Peter
If you can locate the facility electrical drawings, I would recommend
starting with those. It's considered good design practice if you have
isolated facility power (air handlers, lights, etc.) and technical power
(designated for exclusive use by instrumentation and other equipment
requiring
Hi Lauren,
It is my understanding that properly grounding the screen room is important
in Conducted emission test and have little effect on Radiated emission
test. The way you described is a very good and simple method for evaluating
the shielding effectiveness (SE) of the screen room. The
From: Arlen Olive arl...@futuretel.com
I've been working on a multimedia board in a standalone box
that connects to a PC parallel port. It also has an external
DC power supply, and connections for audio and video
input and output.
To pass FCC class B, I had to:
1. Shield the box
71 matches
Mail list logo
