This standard has been adopted by China and Japan. Japan has added a source impedance for the test setup, but it implies to me that this is a world-wide issue.
Josh From: Rich Nute [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, November 10, 2003 3:09 PM To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: EN 61000-3-2:2000 Hi John: > >Some have questioned whether 61000-3-2 is even an EMC standard! > > If not, what do you think it is? I fall into the group that question whether 61000-3-2 is an EMC -- Electo-Magnetic Compatibility -- standard. The objective is to prevent reduction of peak voltage on the public supply mains (in Europe) due to rectifier and similar non-linear loads. The method chosen is to require all loads to be near- linear. I suppose this is a compatibility issue -- a compatibility between the source and the load. And, it is electrical. And, one can consider the harmonic content of the current waveform as being an emission from the product. But, this is purely a current emission. It is not measured with a receiver as are the other 61000-series emissions. Unlike radio-frequency emissions, incompatiblity affects no one but the electricity supplier. (Don't argue that other users on the public supply are affected; this is only true if the electricity supplier does nothing at his end.) Non-linear current is not at all similar to the electo- magnetic emissions issue addressed by the other standards in the 61000-series. If harmonic currents are an EMC issue, then so, too, is x-radiation from cathode-ray tubes -- which is a MUCH closer fit. Why isn't x-radiation emission included in the 61000-series? Or laser emissions? Both of these are much better fits to the 61000-series than is a non-linear current. Lastly, this is a Euro-centric issue, not a world-wide issue. It shouldn't be in the IEC scheme. Next thing that will happen is that the 61000-series will include requirements against voltage emission (voltage on accessible parts) to achieve compatiblity with people to prevent electric shock! EMC!!! :-) 61000-3-2 should be a stand-alone standard. But, if it was a stand-alone standard, there would be no Directive behind it to enforce it. So, in a self-indulging mode, and by stretching the definition of EMC, 61000-3-2 is enforced by the EMC Directive. That is why it is an EMC standard. Best regards, Rich 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: Ron Pickard: [email protected] Dave Heald: [email protected] For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: [email protected] Jim Bacher: [email protected] Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc 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: Ron Pickard: [email protected] Dave Heald: [email protected] For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: [email protected] Jim Bacher: [email protected] Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
