Group,
I concur that 61000-6-2 is a generic standard and as such calls out
actual test requirements. The point that Mr. Sterner rightly made however
is that many of the product families call out for multiple test times at a
particular voltage reduction. While I can't say for certain why this is, I
can give a reasonable educated guess (at least it seems reasonable to me)
as to why the requirements exist.
One of the problems with power flucuations and temporary reductions,
especially in the age of the silicon brain, is that microcontrollers, logic
gates, etc. can be forced into configurations or modes of operation that
were never part of the design. Since most of these devices are low voltage
DC, and the rate and amount that the DC bus voltage falls on a failure of
the AC input will depend on the DC power supply (loading, size of output
capacitors, etc.), as well as the amount and duration of the AC input
failure.
If the original question was more concerned with why this would be a
big deal for a Criteria C test, where you are allowed to have a failure if
normal operation can be restored by operator action; since most latch up or
"altered states" problems can be solved by powering down and powering back
up again. I would remind you that Criteria C requires the EUT to fail in a
safe mode, which can be a problem.
A while back (mid - eighties) I knew of a microprocessor controlled
oven application that would fail under certain short term power faults by
continuously flashing 999 on the digital temperature display and turning
on the heating elements full blast, iregarless of actual temperature in the
oven. The unit had an external watch dog timer, but this particular failure
mode continued to keep it satisfied.
Paul McCoy
[email protected]@ieee.org on 09/20/2000 07:23:15 AM
Please respond to [email protected]
Sent by: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
cc: [email protected]
Subject: RE: EN61000-6-2: Voltage dip immunity testing
61000-6-2 is not a normative standard, It is a Generic Standard for the
industrial environment. I do not know of any reason why the two tests at
60% are
required.
==========================================================================
[email protected] on 09/19/2000 04:52:55 PM
Please respond to [email protected]
To: [email protected]
[email protected]
cc: (bcc: Robert E. Heller/US-Corporate/3M/US)
Subject: RE: EN61000-6-2: Voltage dip immunity testing
Requirements are product dependent. Check the governing document, either
generic or product-specific immunity requirements. EN61000-6-2 is a
normative reference, not a governing document, e.g.:
EN50130-4 Immunity requirements for Alarm systems calls out
.5, 1, 5, 10 periods @ 60% reduction and
0.5, 1, and 5 periods @ 100% reduction
David Sterner
Alarm Device Manufacturing Co.
Syosset NY
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2000 3:05 PM
To: EMC-PSTC
Subject: EN61000-6-2: Voltage dip immunity testing
I was reviewing the voltage dip/interrupt requirements of BS
EN61000-6-2:1999, and noticed that one test condition is a 60% dip for 5
periods (0.1s at 50 Hz), while another is 60% for 50 periods (1s at 50Hz).
Both tests require Performance Criteria C.
- Wouldn't a single test at 50 periods cover this requirement?
- Is there a special operating condition or situation intended for this
test that isn't mentioned in the standard?
-------------------------------------------
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]
-------------------------------------------
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]
