I read in !emc-pstc that [email protected] wrote (in <85.167c950b.298 [email protected]>) about 'EN 61000-3-2 applicability and let-outs', on Sat, 26 Jan 2002: > Dear John > People put all sorts of things in contracts, some more crazy than others. > > I wanted to establish the fact that there is nothing to stop a purchaser > placing a requirement on a supplier to apply the limits in IEC 61000-3-2 > for > equipment that consumes >16A/phase, and you have confirmed that this is > so. > > But I don't agree with you that such a contract requirement would > necessarily be "crazy". > > The Class A and Class B limits in IEC 61000-3-2 set absolute values of > current, but the Class C limits are expressed as a percentage of the input > current and so permit proportionally greater emissions for equipment with > greater consumption. My view is that applying EN 61000-3-2 (especially > its > Class C) to equipment with current demand >16A/phase is quite feasible and > far from being "hardly more realistic than a requirement for no emissions > at > all" as you put it.
You are entitled to you opinion. Maybe we shall oppose each other in a court one day on this issue. Class C is for lighting equipment. Any lighting equipment consuming even 16 A per phase is 'professional' and 'above 1 kW', and thus subject to no limits. > > Perhaps my example might have been more palatable if I had used the > example > of equipment consuming 16.5A/phase. No, hair-splitting makes the meal much less palatable, as you know if you have ever ingested food with a hair in it. > > Of course, a better standard to call up in a purchasing contract would be > IEC 61000-3-4, which sets limits for harmonic emissions for equipment > consuming >16A/phase from the public LV supply. > I note that its "Stage 1 current emission values" are very similar to the > Class C limits in IEC 61000-3-2 helping to show that the idea of > applying > IEC 61000-3-2 to >16A equipment is not as crazy as it might at first > appear. IEC61000-3-4 is an IEC Report. It is being replaced by IEC61000-3-12, which IS a standard and the EN version of which is intended for notification under the EMC Directive. Its draft requirements for Stage 1 connection are not those in the Report. > You are clearly at liberty to advise your clients to attempt to impose very stringent contractual limits on any EMC phenomenon, beyond those in the international or European standards, but for whose benefit is this? -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk After swimming across the Hellespont, I felt like a Hero. PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL! ------------------------------------------- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: [email protected] with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson: [email protected] Dave Heald [email protected] For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: [email protected] Jim Bacher: [email protected] All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
