Hello Group, Although EN 61326-1 excludes harmonics for class A, and that is a product standard having a narrower scope then EN 61000-3-2, I still believe the en 61000-3-2 , or at least the harmonics issue should be considered for laboratory equipment.
At first: The European commission has expressed there concern about standards deviating from the framework of generic standards, leaving out or invalidating certain aspects that were brought in cover a set of minimum requirements equipment in Europe should be tested against. In their opinion the requirements of EN 50081/2-1/2 should be the minimum requirements. I remember that, just because of this and other product committees trying tricks to escape the EMC testing framework, a guideline to the product committees (TC210 Sec 133 / 001 /008) was issued stating the above. (there may be newer versions available) The report mentioned that any phenomena deviating from the generic framework should be rationalized and argumented. Too much of these standards could jeopardize the situation that CENELEC has, being a private organization having the confidence of the EC for creating standards with almost legal power. Second: Any notified body could consider a piece of equipment without harmonics current testing and complying as being not in compliance with the Essential Requirements, and as one should know Ess. Req. have preference to product standards (giving presumption of compliance only). There motives would be the statement and report above. Too many product committees and standard writing individuals (read: companies) deliberately overlook the ER's, trying to escape from costly requirements. They risk severe measures against there equipment, possibly by competing companies that take the EMC directive serious. Regards, Gert Gremmen, (Ing) ce-test, qualified testing =============================================== Web presence http://www.cetest.nl CE-shop http://www.cetest.nl/ce_shop.htm /-/ Compliance testing is our core business /-/ =============================================== >>-----Original Message----- >>From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf >>Of Provost,Norm >>Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2000 5:39 PM >>To: [email protected] >>Cc: Maxwell, Chris; 'Barry Ma'; [email protected] >>Subject: RE: EN61326-1 Harmonics >> >> >> >> >>Unfortunately I don't get to post to this list very often, but now find >>myself posting twice the same week! I simply want to emphasize the >>intentions of EN 61326-1 relative to harmonics. The standard was >>written in >>IEC of course, but many of the same participants are involved in >>the sister >>CENELEC committee. I participated directly in the writing of >>this standard >>(in IEC) and still participate in the ongoing maintenance. I can >>assure you >>with the highest confidence possible that the harmonics requirements were >>not overlooked. As you might imagine, there was a considerable and hot >>debate on the subject at the committee level, but the conclusions >>are indeed >>reflected accurately in the standard. The standard was also voted on and >>accepted by both the international IEC community and the European >>(CENELEC) >>community by a wide margin. >> >>The words of EN 61326-1 speak for themselves. The underlying reasons for >>the decisions are partly and correctly described in Chris >>Maxwell's posting. >>The question of "hierarchical authority" is perhaps not fully solved, so >>user beware. If put to the test today, users of EN 61326 have firm ground >>to stand on in my opinion. >> >>Best Regards, >>Norm Provost >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Maxwell, Chris [SMTP:[email protected]] >>> Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2000 8:48 AM >>> To: 'Barry Ma'; [email protected]; [email protected] >>> Cc: [email protected] >>> Subject: RE: EN61326-1 Harmonics >>> >>> >>> I'd like to present a dissenting opinion on this one. >>> >>> I feel that, as the standard is written now, Class A test and >>measurement >>> equipment complying to EN 61326-1 is exempt from the harmonics >>and flicker >>> standards of EN 61000-3-2 and EN 61000-3-3. >>> >>> I don't feel as if it was overlooked by EN 61326-1. How could that be? >>> It >>> was specifically listed for Class B equipment (see Table 4, Page 14). I >>> then assume that it was explicitly omitted for Class A equipment (see >>> Table >>> 3, Page 14). I just can't believe that the commitee working on the >>> standard >>> just plain forgot to include it in the Class A emissions >>requirements. My >>> assumption is that they know the scope of EN 61000-3-2 and EN 61000-3-3 >>> better than I. My understanding of the scope of EN 61000-3-2 and EN >>> 61000-3-3 is that it is targeting Information Technology >>Equipment (ITE). >>> Much of the equipment under EN 61326-1 is not ITE. >>> >>> I believe that there is a solid foundation for this reasoning. Harmonic >>> and >>> Flicker standards were written because equipment with poor power factors >>> and >>> or large in-rush currents were drawing disproportionately large peak >>> currents. These fast moving, high amplitude current peaks can cause >>> voltage >>> dips in the power grid and can cause harmonic currents (currents whose >>> fundamental frequency is a multple of the power grid frequency) in >>> capacitors of other devices connected to the same power grid. It's >>> physical >>> fact that these voltage dips and harmonic currents can hurt >>other devices >>> connected to the power grid. The initial Harmonic and Flicker standards >>> set >>> by IEC (IEC 555-2 and 555-3) included equipment drawing more than 16A of >>> current per phase because IEC thought that it took at least 16A of >>> un-powerfactor-corrected (my own word) nominal current draw, >>per phase, to >>> have a detrimental effect. >>> >>> It's my belief that the new standards (EN 61000-3-2 and EN 61000-3-3) >>> lowered the current draw limitation because of the cumulative effect of >>> numerous pieces of ITE equipment connected to the same grid. For >>> instance, >>> in my office, we have 100 computers (ITE equipment). If all of these >>> computers did not have power factor correction, we could have >>some serious >>> harmonic current draw. >>> >>> EN 61326-1 covers a great deal of equipment that is not ITE >>equipment. As >>> such, I don't think that the scope of EN 61000-3-2 and EN 61000-3-3 >>> supercedes or overlaps the scope of EN 61326-1. >>> >>> The great thing about this forum is that, if I'm wrong in this, I hope >>> that >>> someone can point out my error and back it up with some >>tangible evidence. >>> If I'm wrong, I'd really like to know. I don't want cause my company to >>> be >>> seduced by the "dark side" of non-compliance. >>> >>> 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: Monday, March 27, 2000 12:10 PM >>> > To: [email protected]; [email protected] >>> > Cc: [email protected] >>> > Subject: RE: EN61326-1 Harmonics >>> > >>> > >>> > Hi Brian, >>> > >>> > Here is my $0.02. >>> > (1) As far as EN61326-1 is concerned, Class A is not required to pass >>> > EN61000-3-2 and EN61000-3-3. Because EN61326 committee >>treated these two >>> > standards as basic standards. >>> > (2) However, they are not basic standards. They are product standards. >>> If >>> > your product falls under their definition the product MUST comply with >>> > them no matter whether EN61326 calls for them. >>> > (3) Therefore, we found a conflict between 61326 and 61000-3-2/3 >>> (although >>> > they are all listed in harmonized standards). How to solve >>the conflict? >>> > There might be two options. >>> > (A) Change 61326: Class A is also required to pass EN61000-3-2 and >>> > -3. >>> > (B) Change 61000-3-2/3: They are basic standards. (the same as >>> > 61000-4-X series). >>> > >>> > Best Regards, >>> > Barry Ma >>> > [email protected] >>> > -------------- >>> > On Fri, 24 March 2000, "Provost,Norm" wrote: >>> > >>> > > The exclusion of harmonic test requirements in EN 61326 for >>equipment >>> > which >>> > > need only meet Class A emission limits was a deliberate decision by >>> the >>> > > authors. It was not an omission by error. Many outside >>the committee >>> > now >>> > > view this decision as a "mistake". >>> > > >>> > > There is no revision in progress. >>> > > >>> > > Best Regards, >>> > > Norm Provost >>> > > > -----Original Message----- >>> > > > From: Brian Kunde [SMTP:[email protected]] >>> > > > Sent: Friday, March 24, 2000 12:16 PM >>> > > > To: 'IEEE EMC/PS Group' >>> > > > Subject: EMC: EN61326-1 Harmonics >>> > > > >>> > > > The EN 61326-1 family standard for laboratory equipment only lists >>> > Harmonic >>> > > > testing as a requirement for Class B environments. So Class A >>> products >>> > are >>> > > > not required to pass the harmonics tests (flicker too). >>> > > > >>> > > > Is this going to continue as the rule in the future? Will >>this rule >>> > carry >>> > > > over to other family and generic standards? >>> > > > >>> > > > I had heard that omitting harmonic testing in a class A >>environment >>> > was a >>> > > > mistake and that it will be corrected on future versions of the >>> > standard. >>> > > > Can anyone validate or invalidate this statement. >>> > > > >>> > > > Thanks, >>> > > > Brian >>> > >>> > >>> > ____________________________________________________________________ >>> > >>> > 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] >>> > >>> >>> ------------------------------------------- >>> 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] >> >> >>
<<attachment: Gert Gremmen.vcf>>
