Chris, I am impressed by your gentleman discussion manner.
We all agree that the committee of EN 61326-1 has very solid reason to exclude 3-2 & 3-3 for Class A equipment. If we had had the vote right we might have done the same thing. Unfortunately 3-2 & 3-3 became Product Standards with very broad definition. The rumor I heard is that these two standards were originally drafted as Basic Standards. ... (There must be some esteemed members in the EMC-PSTC group able to tell us what really happened.) If I have a piece of Class A lab equipment (referenced to EN 61326-1) with current < 16A, I would rather test it for 3-2 & 3-3. Because I want to be prudent and conservative for the best interest of my company, the same attitude as you said: I don't want cause my company to be seduced by the "dark side" of non-compliance. Thank you very much. Best Regards, Barry Ma [email protected] ----------- On Tue, 28 March 2000, "Maxwell, Chris" wrote: > Barry, > > You have a great point. It doesn't just apply to Information Technology > Equipment. I apologize for using the term "ITE" loosely. > > I feel (don't know) that the lowering of the current limit from 16A per > phase (one of the main differences between IEC 555-2, 3 and IEC 1000-3-2,3) > was aimed at the proliferation of ITE and consumer products. Someone at IEC > realized that there could be a cumulative effect of harmonic currents. > However, the scope of the standards is very broad. It can be interpreted to > include anything that uses an electron :-) > > I felt that the commitee that wrote EN 61326-1 actually looked at the > difference between Class A and Class B equipment within EN 61326-1 and > consciously left the harmonics and flicker limits out of the Class A > requirements. This was confirmed by Norm Provost's reply to the thread. He > participated in the writing and development of the standard. > > I think that you have a valid point in that EN 61326-1 treated EN 61000-3-2 > and 61000-3-3 as "Basic Standards" as opposed to "Product Standards". I > never considered that point of view before your email. But I want to know > more. > > Now that I have conceded that I used "ITE" incorrectly, could I get an > explanation of what makes IEC 1000-3-2 and IEC 1000-3-3 a "Product Standard" > as opposed to a "Basic Standard"? > > Thanks, > > Chris Maxwell, Design Engineer > GN Nettest Optical Division > 109 N. Genesee St. > Utica, NY 13502 > PH: 315-797-4449 > FAX: 315-797-8024 > EMAIL: [email protected] > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Barry Ma [SMTP:[email protected]] > > Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2000 12:40 PM > > To: [email protected] > > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] > > Subject: RE: EN61326-1 Harmonics > > > > Hi Chris, > > > > Would you please prove that two product family standards 3-2 and 3-3 are > > only applicable to ITE? > > > > Thanks. > > Barry Ma > > [email protected] ____________________________________________________________________ For the largest MP3 index on the Web, go to http://mp3.altavista.com ____________________________________________________________________ ------------------------------------------- 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]
