This does seem like a misprint in EN 61000-6-2, especially when you compare
it with its predecessor, EN 50082-2. EN50082-2 requires two distinctly
different reductions and durations (and two levels of performance criteria),
whereas the newer generic standard requires only one level of reduction and
two durations (and no discrimination in performance).
Dan Kinney
Horner APG
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [SMTP:[email protected]]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2000 7:23 AM
> 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]
