Like very low-drift analog circuits, high impedance circuits require 
attention to detail normally dismissed as negligible in 'everyday' circuit 
design.  
_______________________________________________________________________________ 


Ralph McDiarmid  |   Schneider Electric   |  Solar Business  |   CANADA  | 
  Regulatory Compliance Engineering 




From:
Ted Eckert <[email protected]>
To:
[email protected], 
Date:
06/29/2015 12:55 PM
Subject:
Re: [PSES] Optos for PELV isolation



I’ve designed systems where the optocouplers were required to have an 
unusually high insulation resistance. I worked for a company that designed 
industrial water treatment equipment. The pH probes we used act like a 
battery. The more current you draw out of them, the sooner they need to be 
replaced. If you wanted to get at least 6 months operation out of a pH 
probe, the current draw had to be limited to no more than a few 
picoamperes. 
 
DC-DC converters with a high level of insulation (and lousy efficiencies) 
were used to get power to the pH probe’s analog amplifier circuitry and 
optocouplers were used to get the data back to the digital electronics. 
The high insulation values were not for safety; they were just to limit 
current from the pH probe finding a lower impedance leakage path. I 
remember a case where a mishandled board failed because a fingerprint was 
left on the solder side of the board under the optocoupler. It got 
encapsulated by the conformal coating and the oil from the fingerprint 
provided enough of a current path that the system was depleting pH probes 
about once every two weeks.
 
Ted Eckert
Compliance Engineer
Microsoft Corporation
[email protected]
 
The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of 
my employer.
 
From: Nyffenegger, Dave [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2015 12:07 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [PSES] Optos for PELV isolation
 
HI Rich,
 
The standard also says 5 second interval between discharges.  And the test 
must be run on 20 samples.  We know UL likes to test.  First  edition of 
the standard is 1984, the test has probably been in there since the 
beginning.
 
-Dave
 
From: Richard Nute [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2015 1:51 PM
To: Nyffenegger, Dave; [email protected]
Subject: RE: [PSES] Optos for PELV isolation
 
 
Hi Dave:
 
 
“subjected to 50 discharges from a 0.0005 microfarad capacitor that has 
been charged to a potential of 20 kV between the short-circuited input and 
short circuited output terminals.” 
 
Okay, 500 pF charged to 20 kV then applied to the opto isolation.  The 
input-to-output capacitance is on the order of 1 pF.  That means nearly 
the full 20 kV is applied across the isolation barrier, and exponentially 
decays by the insulation resistance.  One opto specs the insulation 
resistance at 100 Gohms minimum!  Time constant is 500e-9 x 100e+9 or 
50000 seconds or 833 minutes or 13 hours!  Repeated 50 times!  50 days to 
do the test, at 5 days per week, 10 weeks, 2-1/2 months!
 
I must be missing something.  Test does not make much sense. 
 
 
Best regards,
Rich
 
 
 -
----------------------------------------------------------------



-
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
<[email protected]>

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
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]>

Reply via email to