I agree with Doug, but the dow for the 61000-3-2/3 is June 98 if the equipment did not fall within the scope of the old (EN60555) standard. That seems to be the case for your product. Matthias r. heinze tuv rheinland
---------- From: Frazee, Doug[SMTP:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, May 19, 1997 3:07 PM To: '[email protected]'; 'Guy Benjamin' Subject: RE: Benchtop power supply Guy, EMC testing of a power supply may give you a warm and fuzzy feeling, but unfortunately it is no guarantee of EMC compliance when configured with your portable computer. I recommend the computer/power supply combination be evaluated to the following EMC standards for usage in environments ranging from residential to light industrial: EN 55022:1994, class B EN 50082-1:1994 Applicability of EN 61000-3-2/3, is in question insofar as the date of mandatory implementation. The implementation will likely be pushed back to 2001-01-01 (see Paul Wilson's May 6 EMC-PSTC posting "EN-61000-3-2 update?" , included below). Therefore, harmonics and flicker testing may be delayed, at least until 1998-06-01, if not 'til 2001. Equipment "targeted" by 61000-3-2/3 is all mains powered equipment connected directly to the >220 volt 50 Hz. public low voltage distribution system drawing less than or equal to 16A per phase. EN 55014 is for motor operated and thermal appiances for home or similar use, such as tools, thermostats, regulating controls, electrical heating appliances, toy trains, etc. Conducted emissions is evaluated in two frequency ranges, 150 kHz-30 MHz and 30-300 MHz. Procedures are also provided for evaluation of discontinuous or switching disturbances. Discontinuous disturbances are girin a limit relaxation inversely proportional to their repetition rate. Hope this helps. Doug Frazee EMC Compliance Engineer Alliant Techsystems, Inc. Advanced Technology Applications 401 Defense Highway Annapolis, Maryland 21401 USA Tel: (410) 266-1793 FAX: (410) 266-1853 [email protected] >---------- >From: Paul M. Wilson (543-0066 (T/L 441-))[SMTP:[email protected]] >Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 1997 3:32 PM >To: [email protected] >Subject: EN 61000-3-2 update? > >A few weeks ago I posted a question regarding the stability of the >compliance date for EN 61000-3-2/3 as it pertains to equipment not >falling within the scope of the earlier EN 60555. Although I do not >recall there being a publicly posted answer, I received a number of >e-mails indicating that the 6/1/98 effective date for EN 61000 and >the Rock of Gibraltar are one and the same. > >Then I noticed the attached posting to the sci.engr.electrical.compliance >newsgroup, which seems to indicate that the effective date may change >to 1/1/2001. (My thanks to the author, incidentally.) > >Any comment or independent verification of this information? Any >clue as to when this issue is likely to be settled? > >-Paul Wilson >========================================================================= >From [email protected] Tue Apr 22 14:35:01 1997 >Newsgroups: sci.engr.electrical.compliance >Subject: EN61000-3-2 and -3: interesting development >From: John Woodgate <[email protected]> >Date: Tue, 22 Apr 1997 19:35:01 +0100 > > >As a consequence of the uncertainty caused by the legal dispute between >the Commission and CENELEC over certification clauses in standards, >which is now largely resolved, and the recent acknowledgement that both >standards need at least clarification of their texts, CENELEC BT >(Technical Board) at their recent 91st meeting, decided to ****delete >the 1998-06-01 introduction date for the above-mentioned standards in >respect of products which were outside the scopes of the earlier >EN60555-2 and -3****. Both standards would therefore come into effect >for *all* products on 2001-01-01. > >According to BT procedures, such decisions have to be subject to a delay >of one month, during which time any national standards committee of a >member state may enter an objection. At least one such objection has >been received. > >While it can be argued that the deletion of the 1998 date must cause >harmonic pollution levels in the public mains supply to persist, many >people consider that the effect of the 1998 introduction would have been >very small. Reasons for supporting the deletion include: > >* Both standards have been found to have interpretation and >implementation problems, which are being considered in CENELEC and IEC >at present. The results of these studies, which may not be completed >until quite late in 1997, may well alter many decisions on whether >equipment does or does not meet the requirements. (It is to be proposed >to CENELEC that no existing certifications should be invalidated as a >result of the review processes.) > >* For products which cannot meet these standards, it was always intended >that IEC1000-3-4 and -5 would give alternative routes to conformity, but >as Reports they cannot do this. IEC1000-3-5 has been converted into a >standard, IEC61000-3-11, but this has not yet even reached 1CD >circulation, so it cannot be ready by the middle of 1998. IEC1000-3-4 >itself is at the CDV stage, but is still controversial and cannot >possibly be converted into a standard and published by mid-1998. Non- >conforming equipment would thus be forced to be modified to conform (if >possible) from 1 June 1998 until IEC61000-3-11 and the converted >IEC1000-3-4 standard are published as ENs, when it would be permitted to >meet relaxed requirements! In fact, the alternative routes to >conformity were originated *precisely because* it was recognized that >some product types cannot economically be modified so as to meet >IEC1000-3-2 and/or -3: extremely costly new technology would have to be >introduced. > >* For products rated at over 16 A per phase, there will, in the absence >of the 'missing' standards, be controversy among regulatory authorities >as to whether this means that no limits apply or that the limits in the >Reports apply and the costly and time-consuming Technical Construction >File route to compliance has to be followed, simply because they are >'Reports' and not 'standards'. Effectively, the TCF route would be a >mere formality for'promoting' them from Reports to standards, at very >considerable cost. > >* The main sources of harmonics are television sets and desktop >computers, perhaps together with some other domestic appliances, which >are already exempt until 2001. > > >The UK Permanent Delegate to CENELEC BT will be very fully briefed on >the UK position for the next BT meeting, in July. It is suggested that >industry representatives in all CENELEC countries should try to ensure >that their Permanent Delegates to CENELEC BT are equally fully briefed >on industry views on this matter. >-- >Regards, John Woodgate Tel. +44 (0)1268 747839 >Fax +44 (0)1268 777124. OOO - Own Opinions Only >Alternative e-mail address: [email protected] >That means I get double spam with everything (;-( > > ---------- >From: Guy Benjamin[SMTP:[email protected]] >Sent: Monday, May 19, 1997 1:09 PM >To: '[email protected]' >Subject: Benchtop power supply > >Hello everyone, > >We are buying a benchtop power supply off the shelve and it goes with our >portable computer. The power supply is rated: >Input: 110/240v, 50/60 Hz, 1.6 amps. AC >Output: 12v, 4.2amps. DC. > >The power supply manufacturer is UL recognized, CSA approved, bare the >GS-mark and he self-declare to CE mark. His CE DoC states that the following >standards were applied to evaluate the product: > >EMC Directive >EN 50082-1 :1992 >EN 55022 B : > >LVD > EN60950 A3 : 1995 > > > >The questions are: > >1. Should we be reading any reference to EN61000-3-X series (especially >flicker and harmonics)? > >2. If yes, what would be the correct standards number, amendments and dates? > >3. If no, what are the equipment targeted by the EN61000-3-2 and EN61000-3-3 >standards? > >4. Would you please give me some information on EN55014? > >Thank you. > >Regards > >Usual disclaimer apply. > > >Guy Benjamin >XL Computing (Canada) Inc. > >
