All,
It's important to note that the original posting was with regard to a laboratory instrument, not telecom, and not ITE. The applicable standard is EN 61326-1 (EMC for laboratory, measurement, and control equipment or LMC), which is significantly different than EN 55024. This is not unusual since for several years a different safety standard existed.. The ITE and Telecom have a close and very long relationship with the regulatory world, far more than some other eqiupment makers that only recently (circa 1996) found themselves merged, perhaps unwillingly (sarcasm), into the CE scheme. Personally, it created my present job, so it's cool with me. Like the -3-2 test, test -3-3 is listed for Class B CISPR equipment only, not for Class A, in EN 61326-1. But other caveats apply, such as the raging debate (from two people?) regarding 61326-1's treatment of EN 61000-3-2. Assuming this is resolved in favor of more testing for the LMC industry, then roughly a 3 year transition would follow. WRT CISPR Class A vs Class B and LMC equipment. Since 1 Jan 1996 we have sold into the EU LMC type products from our 2.5 mm thick catalog, tested to CISPR 11 Class A (a few Class B) and with light industrial immunity. (Many might pass B, we don't try it though.) DoCs, so far, ship with each product listing all tests and test levels. (We're going online a-la Allen Bradley in a few days.) I've seen on average one complaint per year from customers regarding Class A. vs Class B. I see the purist engineering and marketing value of reducing emissions 7 dB+ (especially in ITE) but apparently our customers (again, for LMC equipment) are unconcerned. Best Regards, Eric Lifsey Compliance Manager National Instruments Please respond to "Wagner, John P (John)" <[email protected]> Sent by: [email protected] To: [email protected], "'[email protected]'" <[email protected]> cc: Subject: RE: EN 61000-3-3 Flicker Tests Lame argument! Many of us make products designed exclusively for the Commercial/industrial market. Our products do not connect directly to the publlic low voltage distribution systems yet we meet the requirements because the intent is to protect the low voltage distribution system. In the case of flicker, this is mainly an ergonomic standard designed to limit flicker on the same or related branch circuit. It really has nothing to do with the publlic low voltage distribution system at this point. If the customer does not want to modify his system, there are plug-in filters (chokes) designed to limit flicker. If sold and specified with the product, this should satisfy any regulator. Might have to use the TCF route to compliance. John P. Wagner AVAYA Communication 11900 N. Pecos St, Room 2F58 Denver CO 80234 email: [email protected] phone: 303 538-4241 fax: 303 538-5211 > ---------- > From: [email protected][SMTP:[email protected]] > Reply To: [email protected] > Sent: Sunday, December 03, 2000 4:03 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: EN 61000-3-3 Flicker Tests > > > Hello group! > > I've got a customer in our EMC lab that makes a laboratory instrument > incorporating heaters with a typical 3-4 amp input current at 230vac. He > is failing the flicker test due to the design of the heater control. They > are undertaking a redesign but would like to keep selling product in the > interim. > > They have come up with an interesting interpretation of the scope of EN > 61000-3-3: the standard specifies that the tests are applicable to > products connected to the "public low voltage distribution systems" but > if > you take a typical industrial location or even a typical commercial > location, isn't it true that these locations are fed by a dedicated > transformer at the building that isolates them from the public network? I > guess the question becomes - what is considered the public network? What > if the marketing of the product was restricted to "industrial" locations? > > My initial reaction to the question was that anyplace you can plug or wire > into at typical 230vac is considered the "public network", especially > considering the mixed residential / commercial buildings common in Europe. > > Anyone care to comment? > > Bruce Fagley > Sr. Specialist, EMC > Industrial Products > TUV Rheinland > 12 Commerce Rd. > Newtown CT. 06470 > 203-426-0888 ext 119 > 203-426-4009 fax > > > ------------------------------------------- > This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety > Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. > > To cancel your subscription, send mail to: > [email protected] > with the single line: > unsubscribe emc-pstc > > For help, send mail to the list administrators: > Jim Bacher: [email protected] > Michael Garretson: [email protected] > > For policy questions, send mail to: > Richard Nute: [email protected] > > ------------------------------------------- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: [email protected] with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: [email protected] Michael Garretson: [email protected] For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: [email protected] ------------------------------------------- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: [email protected] with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: [email protected] Michael Garretson: [email protected] For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: [email protected]
