All This suggestion may be viable - the criteria that is generally considered to define the difference between the LVD and the MD is whether the major hazard is electrical or mechanical. Many items of electrical equipment has a cooling fan - the hazard of the rotating blades is insufficient to cause the MD to apply. My PS colleague says - look at the prime function - if it is to print then it is a printer and IT standards should be applied. If it stamps steel plate in a steel mill, then it is probably a machine. I hope this helps you decide. Regards Tim
_____ From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected] Sent: 19 October 2006 11:16 To: [email protected] Subject: RE: classification of a (very) large industrial printer *** WARNING *** This mail has originated outside your organization, either from an external partner or the Global Internet. Keep this in mind if you answer this message. hi have you investigated application of the Machinery Directive 98/37/EC to this 'product' ? definition of what constitutes a machine is given in Article 1 as: "(a) ‘machinery’ means: — an assembly of linked parts or components, at least one of which moves, with the appropriate actuators, control and power circuits, etc., joined together for a specific application, in particular for the processing, treatment, moving or packaging of a material, ....... " This route may allow you to apply other EMC standards more suitable to the application of your 'product'. Brian McAuliffe My own opionions only. _____ From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected] Sent: 16 October 2006 10:08 To: [email protected] Subject: classification of a (very) large industrial printer hello EMC group, last week we performed EMI measurements on an industrial printer. The printer is a very large device, about the size of a volleyball field. It has two mains inputs (400V, 3 phases + neutral) rated at 125Amps and 200Amps, respectively. There are a large number of industrial cabinets with high-speed digital electronics, PLC circuits, inverters, fuzes, sensors, pneumatic circuits, ... and motors to (1) pickup paper, (2) transport/feed it into the imaging section, (3) deposit ink using a one-axis movement robot with over 50 printing heads, (4) partial curing using UV-light (5) pickup and move it to the final drier section using - once again, UV - and (6) move it to an output/stacking unit. If we consult CISPR11:2003 we have to classify this equipment into a class and group. The class is the easy part: class A. Wrt the group definition it seems that we are group 1, that is, we do not generate (intentionally) electromagnetic radiation for the treatment of materials. Actually, we use electromagnetic energy to generate heat, UV light and motion (and power digital circuits). In standby the printer is on or slightly above the class A, group 1 conductive limit(for both QP and average emissions). In printing mode the conducted emssions rise by about 20dB in the frequency range of 150kHz to 2MHz. We do not understand this behavior, but this is currently not the concern. One last piece of information: the conducted emissions were measured using a voltage probe as described in CISPR11. Here are my questions: -1- is there a voltage probe limit for class A group 1 devices? It is not in the standard, that is for sure! So can I add 30dB to both QP and average limits? (To derive a class A group 1a limit, as a manner of speaking?) -2- Why not classify the device as a group 2a device? It seems this is also a possibility as there are no other limits in CISPR11 for equipment rated over 100Amps. If you look at annex A of CISPR11:2003 then I have the impression that the scope of group 2 is wider and could include equipment that does not require intentional generated electromagnetic radiation for its operation (e.g. thyristor-controlled equipment --> transistor inverters which we use) It seems not unfair to use similar limits (that is, use group 2a) for equally current-rated (over 100 Amps) group 1 equipment measured with the CISPR11 voltage probe. Any suggestions, an opinion?? Thank you, Jan Vercammen - ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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 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 ______________________________________________________________________ ******************************************************************** This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender. You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or distribute its contents to any other person. ******************************************************************** - ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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
