bruary 16, 2017 4:51 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Test voltage for electric strength test in EN 60335-1
In clause 13.3 and 16.3 electric strength tests, there are two columns of test
voltages: rated voltage and working voltage. What are the differences?
Thanks,
In clause 13.3 and 16.3 electric strength tests, there are two columns of test
voltages: rated voltage and working voltage. What are the differences?
Thanks,
Scott
-
This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering
test would be incomplete.
Gert Gremmen
-Original Message-
From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk]
Sent: Thursday 6 August 2015 06:42
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Dual polarity DC electric strength test
In message <20150805142422.uhqgeaxlc8
In message <20150805142422.uhqgeaxlc8sk8...@hostingemail.xo.com>, dated
Wed, 5 Aug 2015, Doug Smith writes:
I set up an experiment in the lab and true enough, the discharge
current onto an insulator (amps for ns or so) is quite different for -
and + discharges, much greater for -.
If he dis
Hi John and the group,
Thanks! The data I saw is in a paper that was submitted to the EMC
Symposium in Dresden and left me with the impression it was new. Having
read the paper, I set up an experiment in the lab and true enough, the
discharge current onto an insulator (amps for ns or so) is qu
In message <20150805123657.7o15cirvwgwkw...@hostingemail.xo.com>, dated
Wed, 5 Aug 2015, Doug Smith writes:
Actually, discharges involving insulators appear to be polarity
senstive from recently published data. I have confirmed this with lab
measurements. Not sure how this effects safety.
I
Actually, discharges involving insulators appear to be polarity
senstive from recently published data. I have confirmed this with lab
measurements. Not sure how this effects safety.
Doug
On Wed, 5 Aug 2015 11:52:06 -0700, Richard Nute wrote:
Hi Charlie:
The standard is incorr
Hi Charlie:
> The standard is incorrect in requiring tests of both polarity d.c. There is
> no physical rationale for both polarities.
Go on, I’ll bite :)
What’s this requirement doing in the standard then?
Because it appears in IEC 60664-1, sub-clause 6.1.2.2.2.3.
B
electric strength test
The IEC 62368-2 Rationale document (under 5.4.9) states::
"The dc voltage test with a test voltage equal to the peak value of the ac
voltage is not fully equivalent to the ac voltage test due to different
withstand characteristics of solid insulation for these typ
doing in the standard then? Regards Charlie From: Richard Nute
[mailto:ri...@ieee.org]
Sent: 04 August 2015 19:09
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Dual polarity DC electric strength test Hi Greg:
The standard is incorrect in requiring tests of both polarity d.c
: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORGReply To: Charlie BlackhamSubject: Re: [PSES] Dual polarity DC electric strength test
Rich
>
The standard is incorrect in requiring tests of both polarity d.c. There is no physical rationale for both polarities.
Go on, I’ll bite
J
What’s this requirem
:09
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Dual polarity DC electric strength test
Hi Greg:
The standard is incorrect in requiring tests of both polarity d.c. There is no
physical rationale for both polarities. But, at this time, if you opt for d.c.
testing, you must test wit
Rich,
We have always preferred the AC test in manufacturing, as we felt it was a
better test. However some technical issues, not safety related, have come
up that caused one of the development teams to request investigating using
the DC test for the routine manufacturing test.
Thanks,
Gregory H
Hi Greg:
The standard is incorrect in requiring tests of both polarity d.c. There is no
physical rationale for both polarities. But, at this time, if you opt for d.c.
testing, you must test with both polarities. I would advise testing with a.c.
to avoid capital expense of a new d
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Dual polarity DC electric strength test
It would seem that you need a piece of test gear with a floating output that
can have either end referenced. Not sure I have seen anything like this.
Best, Doug.
From: Greg McClure
Sent: Tuesday, August
It would seem that you need a piece of test gear with a floating output that can have either end referenced. Not sure I have seen anything like this.Best, Doug.
Doug, John,
We have discussed these options with our test equipment group and could
build the test fixtures as suggested. However, we hesitate to use a
reversing scheme with a switch or high voltage relay in manufacturing
because it would require making the chassis of the product hot for one
polar
In message
,
dated Tue, 4 Aug 2015, Greg McClure writes:
The equipment we have in our lab only provides a single polarity,
positive with respect to ground when in DC mode, which requires us to
manually reverse the leads to perform the test. We would like to
automate this without requiring t
All,
In reviewing IEC 62368-1 Clause 5.4.9.1 the test procedure states about
halfway down the page:
"The insulation is subjected to the highest test voltage as follows:
- by applying an a.c. voltage of substantially sine-wave form having a
frequency of 50 Hz or 60 Hz; or
- by applying a d.c. vo
Abrahams [mailto:migu...@cae.com]
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 12. Juni 2003 18:01
An: 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org'
Betreff: Electric strength test
I am looking for any technical information relating the voltage level and
the applied time of the test signal in an electric strenght test.
I wa
: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
[mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Miguel Abrahams
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 9:01 AM
To: 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org'
Subject: Electric strength test
I am looking for any technical information relating the voltage level and
t
I am looking for any technical information relating the voltage level and
the applied time of the test signal in an electric strenght test.
I want to find out how a dielectric test carried out at 2500Vac applied for
5 minutes compares to one carried out at 3000Vac applied for 1 minute.
Thanks,
M
I read in !emc-pstc that Gregg Kervill wrote (in
<002b01c25428$4985b680$7100a8c0@MENHADEN>) about 'electric strength
test' on Wed, 4 Sep 2002:
>This would suggest that it would be better to
>double/reinforce insulate the mains against
>earth, in which case SELV could b
-Original Message-
From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
[mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Rich Nute
Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2002 7:31 PM
To: soundsu...@aol.com
Cc: Product Safety Technical Committee
Subject: Re: electric strength test
Hi Greg
Hi Greg:
> > >Why does "True SELV" require basic insulation
> > >between SELV and earth?
> > >
> > >What is the hazardous voltage source, and what
> > >is the current path through the body if that
> > >basic insulation should fail?
> > >
> > >
>
> I believe (and I could
On Sat, 24 Aug 2002 12:43:43 EDT,
soundsu...@aol.com wrote:
> > Why does "True SELV" require basic insulation
> > >between SELV and earth?
> > >
> > >What is the hazardous voltage source, and what
> > >is the current path through the body if that
> > >basic insulation should fail?
>
> I belie
In a message dated 8/24/02 2:08:10 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk writes:
> Why does "True SELV" require basic insulation
> >between SELV and earth?
> >
> >What is the hazardous voltage source, and what
> >is the current path through the body if that
> >basic insulation should
I read in !emc-pstc that Rich Nute wrote (in
<200208232012.naa27...@epgc264.sdd.hp.com>) about 'electric strength
test' on Fri, 23 Aug 2002:
>
>
>
>Hi John:
>
>
>> True SELV . requires double or reinforced insulation from hazardous
>> liv
Hi John:
> True SELV . requires double or reinforced insulation from hazardous
> live parts/parts at hazardous voltages [different expressions used for
> the same things] and basic insulation from earth. '950 SELV' allows SELV
> circuits to be earthed (see 2.2.3.3 of IEC60950:1999
required to be marked on the equipment.
Regards,
Richard A Meyette, PE
meye...@pacbell.net
At 09:37 PM 8/22/02 +0100, you wrote:
I read in !emc-pstc that Tyra, John wrote (in
<418fbd441c22d5118d860003470d43160543e...@cupid.bose.com>) about
'electric strength test' on
I read in !emc-pstc that Rich Nute wrote (in
<200208222310.qaa20...@epgc264.sdd.hp.com>) about 'electric strength
test' on Thu, 22 Aug 2002:
>> That depends on which variety of SELV you mean. True SELV, as opposed to
>> '950 SELV', requires double or r
On Thu, 22 Aug 2002 21:42:34 +0100,
John Woodgate wrote:
> Pri to true SELV secondary doesn't pose a problem. The chassis is
> irrelevant. For '950 SELV', there is no requirement for a pri-sec test
> at any voltage above that for pri-chassis.
Really?
I thought primary - earthed chassis (Brian
Hi John:
> >You may come across some distributors in Norway asking for DI or RI
> >between PRI-EARTH, even for Class 1 power supplies.
>
> That's because Norway uses the 'IT' power distribution system, where
> neither mains conductor is earthed directly, but one is earthed through
Hi John:
> That depends on which variety of SELV you mean. True SELV, as opposed to
> '950 SELV', requires double or reinforced insulation from earth
Why?
Best regards,
Rich
---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technic
Hi John:
> >Y-caps have enough margin to easily withstand
> >the 4300 V dc without damage.
>
> Without immediate failure, no doubt. But such a huge overstress may
> cause latent damage that later results in failure, and, since IEC 60384
> doesn't call for such an over-voltage
Hi Brian:
> What I've always wondered about, at least for class 1 construction, is just
> what is really being tested by the pri/sec hi-pot, when the customer chooses
> to ground the power supply's return.
(These comments presume the secondary is SELV.)
When you use a ground for safe
I read in !emc-pstc that Rich Nute wrote (in
<200208221745.kaa19...@epgc264.sdd.hp.com>) about 'electric strength
test' on Thu, 22 Aug 2002:
>Y-caps have enough margin to easily withstand
>the 4300 V dc without damage.
Without immediate failure, no doubt. But such
I read in !emc-pstc that Brian O'Connell wrote
(in ) about
'electric strength test' on Thu, 22 Aug 2002:
>Also,as some of our output-to-chassis "Y" caps are just 100V decouple caps,
Y-caps are specifically for connection between mains conductors and
earth/ground. N
I read in !emc-pstc that Tyra, John wrote (in
<418fbd441c22d5118d860003470d43160543e...@cupid.bose.com>) about
'electric strength test' on Thu, 22 Aug 2002:
>If you plan on selling in
>this region you should check all of the National deviations and maybe
>contact DEMKO (
I read in !emc-pstc that Peter Merguerian wrote
(in <2D1037012914D4118DB8204C4F4F50203DD9CC@ITLLTD01>) about 'electric
strength test' on Thu, 22 Aug 2002:
>You may come across some distributors in Norway asking for DI or RI
>between PRI-EARTH, even for Class 1 power sup
San Jose, CA
peter.tar...@sanmina-sci.com
> -Original Message-
> From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
> [mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On
> Behalf Of Brian O'Connell
> Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2002 6:57 AM
> To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
> Su
John [mailto:john_t...@bose.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2002 12:02 PM
To: 'Peter Merguerian'; 'Brian O'Connell'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: electric strength test
I agree with Peter, per the standard, and most IEC product standards, you
need two levels of pro
ll'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: electric strength test
Brian,
Your interpretation of the standard and application of the test between
pri-sec is acceptable. You need to speak to a higher level person in the
agency who is an expert!
Please be advised that some countries do not have a re
riginal Message-
From: Brian O'Connell [mailto:boconn...@t-yuden.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2002 3:57 PM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: electric strength test
Good People of PSTC:
I am attempting to comply with both the letter and spirit of 60950:2000,
cl
5.2. Note that 5.2.2
Hi Brian:
> I am attempting to comply with both the letter and spirit of 60950:2000, cl
> 5.2. Note that 5.2.2 allows for separate testing, according the type of
> insulation required. When testing a (class 1) power supply, the withstand
> level for primary to chassis is Basic; and f
I read in !emc-pstc that Brian O'Connell wrote
(in ) about
'electric strength test' on Thu, 22 Aug 2002:
>A (new) agency engineer says that inserting a piece of insulator defeats the
>purpose of the test.
I don't see how.
>For class 1 construction, it is just
: Brian O'Connell [mailto:boconn...@t-yuden.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2002 3:57 PM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: electric strength test
Good People of PSTC:
I am attempting to comply with both the letter and spirit of 60950:2000, cl
5.2. Note that 5.2.2 allows for sep
Good People of PSTC:
I am attempting to comply with both the letter and spirit of 60950:2000, cl
5.2. Note that 5.2.2 allows for separate testing, according the type of
insulation required. When testing a (class 1) power supply, the withstand
level for primary to chassis is Basic; and for primary
48 matches
Mail list logo
