> -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf > Of McInturff > Gary > Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2006 2:46 PM > To: Brian O'Connell; [email protected] > Subject: RE: SMPS power supply type test and manufacturing test > dielectric values > > More relevant, 3k vs 4.2K, heck I don't know. I'm just trying to find > the correct values. Again the test house gave me 4242 but the > largest I > can see for reinforced insulation is from Table 5b for > 60950-1 specifies > the 3k test voltage for reinforced insulation and 1500 for basic > insulation - bot AC values. Certainly, an overtest resulting in a
The test level and the basis of the test level should be clearly indicated in the CB Test Report. Of course the TRF should be based on the relavent standard. > failure is invalid and there is there is no need to pester the power > supply manufacturer over it. But if the value is correct then > then I do > pester them. But again I can't find the basis for the level in the ITE hmmm... well my employer is a power supply mfr, and we do, in fact, want to be "pestered" by our customers when it comes to compliance issues. Find the (non-design) engineer that did the product safety for that unit, as the typical designer will only know what requirements that his compliance guy told him to incorporate, but will not necessarily know the basis of any particular requirement. > standard - which is different than the power supply standard - so I'm > just checking with you folks power supply folks about the normal test > levels during both Type and production tests. "normal" test levels for in-house tests will be specified in the Section General of the (old-style) UL file and various agency agreements. Type Test levels must not be driven by any particular safety agency, but, again, shall have a clear basis in accordance with the applicable safety standard(s). > > For the record the power supply vendor has always been a > good supplier > and now that I've finally been able to penetrate their > structure to find > the right guy they are being co-operative. But occassionaly things go > amok after safety approvals are complete and I need to address that > issue along with the proper test values. If your P.S. mfr got a bad batch of safety-critical components, they need to know as soon as possible. > I'm just trying to align my own ducks and firm up my understanding > before I proceed to far in either direction. Since the safety > house gave > me what I think are bad numbers its no sense going back to them and > asking again without confirmation that the numbers are bad. Again, the "safety house" must be able to supply the basis of the test level, that is, the empirical working voltage, ratings, and installation requirements/conditions of acceptability that would affect the test level and spacings in accordance with the safety standard. > > I appreciate all your help so far. > Gary returning many a favor this listserv has granted me... > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Brian > O'Connell > Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2006 2:14 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: SMPS power supply type test and manufacturing test > dielectric values > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of > > [email protected] > > Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2006 1:50 PM > > To: McInturff Gary > > Cc: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: SMPS power supply type test and manufacturing test > > dielectric values > > > > Gary, > > > > Check the line to ground caps. We always insist on Y1 caps under IEC > > 60384-14 in this position or 2 each Y2 caps in series. We > > always type test > > our power supplies and machines at 3000 volts AC. Some will > > insist they > > Why are you performing Type Tests on a component power supply if it is > an > approved unit with a valid CB Test report ? > > > want to use DC for these tests but we have not had a problem > > as long as the > > Y-caps are good quality. > > This would depend on the cap value and the trip current setting. > > Why would a test level of 3000Vac be more "relevant" than 4245Vdc ? > > > > > You should not be seeing capacitor failures in those > > positions at those > > voltages. > > I agree > > Brian - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to [email protected] Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas [email protected] Mike Cantwell [email protected] For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: [email protected] David Heald: [email protected] All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc ______________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email ______________________________________________________________________
