On Tue, 6 Feb 2007 11:25:38 -0500, "Hopkins, Michael J." <[email protected]> wrote:
> There is currently a corrigendum circulating to clarify this issue, but > the way it's currently written, it probably won't survive..... I found that the issue is now clarified in IEC 61000-4-4 Corr.2 ed. 2.0 (2007-06), as it now says: The waveform shall be verified at the common mode output of the coupling/decoupling network with ***all outputs tied together*** ... and the figure in the corrigendum tells us the same thing. It is exactly what I thought first, but I'm afraid that many of the old equipment will not pass this verification. Regards, Tom Tomonori Sato <[email protected]> URL: http://homepage3.nifty.com/tsato/ > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of T.Sato > Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 9:17 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: IEC 61000-4-4 ed.2, verification of CDNs > > Hello, > > Now, I have a question about interpretation of IEC 61000-4-4 ed.2 clause > 6.2.2 about verification of CDNs. > > I believed that waveform at output of the CDNs must be verified for the > requirements in clause 6.2.2 of the standard, by applying the pulse to > all the lines simultaneously (e.g., L+N+PE), because IEC 61000-4-4 ed.2 > clause 6.2.2 says > > The waveform shall be verified at the ***common mode output*** > of the coupling/decoupling network with a single 50 ohm terminator. > ... > The functionality verification of each single coupling/decoupling > path is recommended. > > and it is also the injection mode to be used for tests. > > However, a test equipment manufacturer told us that they verify their > test generators / CDNs by applying the pulse to each of the lines one by > one (i.e., L only, N only, ...) and output voltage at output of their > CDNs may dropped significantly when pulse is applied to multiple lines > simultaneously, and the generators / CDNs are IEC 61000-4-4 ed.2 > compliant, even if the voltage at output of the CDNs are out of > tolerance when applied to multiple lines. > > My question is, is the manufacturer's interpretation correct? > > Does anyone here have information related to this issue? > > Regards, > Tom > > -------------------------------------------------- > Tomonori Sato <[email protected]> > URL: http://homepage3.nifty.com/tsato/ > > - > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > 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 ______________________________________________________________________
