Rich, I have a few more questions about the standard I would like you to consider;
There are four observation periods listed in para 6.2.4 of A14 (table Z1), I assume that I only have to pick the one that suitably qualifies my equipment's operation, or must I apply each one to determine the best period of observation? The equipment in question is bench/portable test equipment with and internal switching power supply (approx 150W) whose represented load does not change after initial turn on. Our internal Quality Assurance believes we should be testing a minimum of 2.5 minutes to satisfy all four equipment behaviors or possibly that we need to do testing to all four prescribed observation periods. Question #2, Repeatablity per para 6.2.3.1, can you verify repeatablity by evaluating the individual 1.5 second smoothed rms values over your test observation period or must we repeat the entire test at a later time to prove repeatablity? -Doug Best Compliance Technician > -----Original Message----- > From: Rich Nute [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 10:31 > To: [email protected] > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: EN61000-3-2 / EN61000-3-3 (Again) > > > > > > > Hi Craig: > > > Be careful: > > > EN61000-3-2 - Applies only to products with input power higher than > > 75W. Per paragraph 7.4 of the standard, "no limits apply for equipment > > with an active input power up to and including 75W". > > No. The standard does NOT say that it applies only > to products with input power higher than 75 watts. > > The standard says that no *limits* apply to products > with input power less than 75 watts. The standard > still applies! Your equipment is NOT exempt from the > standard. > > Read the standard carefully. The scope statement > tells what equipment the standard applies to: All > equipment. Then, the standard says there are no > *limits* for products with input power less than 75 > watts. This means that you need not measure your > product since the results would be meaningless. > > Your equipment *complies* with the standard. Since > there are no limits, you need not make a measurement > for proof of compliance. > > > If a product does not fall under the applicability of EN61000-3-2 or > > EN61000-3-3 per the above explanations, what is the consensus regarding > > referencing these standards on the DoC? > > *All* products fall under EN 61000-3-2. If your > product is rated less than 75 watts, then there > are no limits, and a measurement is not required > for determining conformance. > > Because the product is subject to EN 61000-3-2, > you must reference the standard -- and indicate > compliance -- on your DoC. > > > If a product does not fall under the applicability of EN61000-3-2 or > > EN61000-3-3 per the above explanations, what is the consensus regarding > > referencing these standards on the DoC? > > *All* products fall under EN 61000-3-2. You *must* > claim compliance on your DoC. Your documentation > back-up to your claim need only say that the unit > is rated less than 75 watts, for which there are no > applicable limits. > > > Recently I have been asked to sign a document from one of our > > distributors that states all product provided after 01/01/01 will comply > > with EN61000-3-2 and EN61000-3-3. However, my products fall outside the > > scope of these standards (per above explanations), so what I am > > wondering is can I say I comply because I have evaluated the standards > > and found they are not applicable. I face the same dilemma on the > > DoC's. Is it reasonable to claim compliance via non-applicability? > > No products are outside the scope of EN 61000-3-2. > Some products, e.g., those rated less than 75 watts, > have no limits applicable to them. Therefore, > without measurement, such products *do* comply with > the requirements of the standard! > > You cannot claim compliance by claiming the standard > is not applicable. It *is* applicable. Your product > (if less than 75 watts) complies with the standard > (without measurement since there are no limits). > > > Best regards, > Rich > > > > > > ------------------------------------------- > 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]
