I'm afraid that's not so. The short-circuit current of a 20 A circuit is
normally at least 500 A, maybe 1500 A.
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK
On 2017-11-18 03:49, Joe Randolph wrote:
Yes, that is a very good point. I may have misinterpreted what the
term “adequate breaking capacity” means. If all it means is that the
fuse must be able to safely break the short-circuit current, then a 20
Amp, 250 VRMS fuse would be fine for use on a 20 Amp, 240 VRMS circuit.
Of course, this would not provide much protection against overheating
of the MOV unless the MOV failed at an effective resistance of less
than 12 ohms. Anything higher than that would just keep producing heat.
Joe Randolph
Telecom Design Consultant
Randolph Telecom, Inc.
781-721-2848 (USA)
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
http://www.randolph-telecom.com
*From:*John Woodgate [mailto:[email protected]]
*Sent:* Friday, November 17, 2017 4:47 PM
*To:* Joe Randolph <[email protected]>; [email protected]
*Subject:* Re: [PSES] Regulatory requirements for MOVs placed
line-to-ground on AC mains ports?
I agree with this step-wise route to failure. But I wonder about the
intended meaning of 'adequate breaking capacity'. In the context of
the fuse standard IEC 60027 (multi-part), this means that the fuse
must not shatter or arc-over with the largest fault current that can
be applied to it. It's all about the fuse, not about what it is
supposed to protect.
I believe TVSs (BIG diodes with integral heat sink) are much nicer
devices to use than MOVs. They don't suffer from energetic disruption.
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associateswww.woodjohn.uk <http://www.woodjohn.uk>
Rayleigh, Essex UK
On 2017-11-17 21:39, Joe Randolph wrote:
I have not performed any actual testing, but I believe that the basic
problem is that MOV leakage current increases slightly each time the MOV
experiences a big surge. So, in the early stages of this mechanism, the
leakage current will increase step-wise each time the MOV experiences a big
surge.
In practice, these successive "big surges" could be spaced months or years
apart. Each successive surge will increase the leakage current, but if the current
remains well below the level that causes significant self-heating of the MOV, the
situation will remain stable.
After some number of big surges (which could take years to accumulate), the
leakage current will have increased enough that the self-heating process itself
leads to higher leakage current. This sets up a positive feedback loop that
causes the MOV to go into thermal runaway and self-destruct.
I'm not sure the thermal runaway could be described as an "avalanche,"
since the process might take considerable time to destroy the MOV, but the general
direction of the failure gets establishes as soon as the positive feedback mechanism gets
started.
If it could be shown that any dissipation level less than 240 W cannot cause ignition
of nearby materials, then a 1A fuse would appear to provide the "adequate breaking
capacity" called for in 60950-1.
Joe Randolph
Telecom Design Consultant
Randolph Telecom, Inc.
781-721-2848 (USA)
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
http://www.randolph-telecom.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Ralph McDiarmid [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, November 17, 2017 1:05 PM
To:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [PSES] Regulatory requirements for MOVs placed line-to-ground
on AC mains ports?
I wonder if a 1A fuse would protect against MOV flameout just as well as a
100mA, if these MOV fail as an avalanche. (get hotter = more leakage) I've
seen some standards use 240VA (assume 240W) as a power limit for protection
against fire. However, I wonder if a MOV could burn nicely at say 0.5A without
further increase in current.
Ralph McDiarmid
Product Compliance
Engineering
Solar Business
Schneider Electric
-----Original Message-----
From: Joe Randolph [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 7:56 PM
To:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [PSES] Regulatory requirements for MOVs placed line-to-ground
on AC mains ports?
Hi Mick:
Annex Q in 60950-1 shows that the authors were concerned about increased
leakage current in MOVs that are subjected to multiple surges. Perhaps the
authors assumed that if the equipment passed the earth leakage test with new
MOVs, allowing the MOVs to deteriorate by up to 10% after the Annex Q surges
would be acceptable.
Unfortunately, Annex Q does not help to define the term "adequate breaking
capacity" as called for in clause 1.5.9.2 for fuses required in series with the MOV.
As Rich Nute has pointed out, a fuse that will open when the leakage current exceeds 0.5
mA cannot be expected to survive a 3 kA surge.
So, the purpose of the fuse does not appear to be directed at the 0.5 mA
leakage current requirement. Rather, I think the authors were trying to use
the fuse to protect against the three conditions itemized in clause 1.5.9.2:
* Temporary overvoltages
* Thermal overload due to increased leakage current
* Burning and bursting of the MOV in the event of a short-circuit fault
The problem with this is that it takes very little leakage current to cause
thermal overload of the MOV. At 230 VRMS, and RMS leakage current of 100 mA
would dissipate 23 Watts in the MOV. A fuse that reliably opens at 100 mA will
not survive a 3 kA surge.
In general, MOVs subjected to thermal overload allow more leakage current
as they heat up. With a fixed voltage supply (such as 230 VRMS), this creates
a positive-feedback condition of ever-increasing power dissipation that
eventually drives the MOV to destruction.
So, perhaps the requirement for "adequate breaking capacity" was directed at trying to prevent burning
and busting of the MOV, rather than excessive earth leakage current. So far, it appears that the term "adequate
breaking capacity" is not actually defined in 60950-1. I suppose that the authors intended "adequate
breaking capacity" to mean "adequate to prevent burning and bursting" of the MOV.
I'm not sure that this is even possible if that same fuse has to survive a
3 kA combination wave surge. However, it is possible that 60950-1 does not
actually require the circuit to survive such surges. Perhaps all that 60950-1
requires is that the MOV itself tolerates such surges with no more than 10%
degradation. It would then be left to the product designer to select a
suitable fuse. Between the conflicting goals of preventing nuisance tripping
of the fuse and preventing overheating of the MOV, I'm not sure that an
ordinary fuse can be found that meets both goals.
This may be why 62368-1 seems to be steering us to using a thermal fuse
that senses overheating of the MOV, rather than a fuse that responds only to
current.
Joe Randolph
Telecom Design Consultant
Randolph Telecom, Inc.
781-721-2848 (USA)
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
http://www.randolph-telecom.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Mick Maytum [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2017 3:55 AM
To:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [PSES] Regulatory requirements for MOVs placed line-to-ground
on AC mains ports?
For my sins I am currently editing a 40 page MOV application guide. As the
guide was written by a Chinese expert I have the additional task of translating
the Chinlish to English. However this forces understanding and I found the
document contains many gems I did not appreciate. On degradation three areas
are mentioned:
1. Varistor voltage at 1mA has decreased by more than 10 % of the
initial value.
2. Surge limiting voltage at a specified impulse current has increased
by more than 10 % of the initial value.
3. Leakage current or watt-loss shows a steady increase.
Then the comment is made that generally if the Varistor voltage has
decreased by 10 %, the limiting voltage will have only increased by 3 %.
Thus the Annex Q limiting voltage change limit of 10 % would be better
replaced by a Varistor voltage change.
On fuses I did some calculations and found an anti-surge fuse in the 4 A
region was required to withstand the Annex Q MOV requirement of a 3 kA
8/20 surge. It should be remembered that most fuses will not interrupt an
8/20 surge as the fuse link plasma carries on conducing the 8/20 impulse
current. Ted makes the excellent point that in the equipment additional series
impedances will exist that reduce the peak the peak surge current from an
1.2/50-8/20 generator.
Tests are now appearing for thermally protected MOVs, which disconnect the
MOV in the event of exceeding a pre-set body temperature limit.
Thermal disconnect, rather than current disconnect, gets to the heart of
the matter. But, as far as I'm aware, none of these tests apply a surge voltage
to check for open thermal switch arc over.
Regards,
Mick Maytum
Safety and Telecom
Standards
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
https://ictsp-essays.info
-
----------------------------------------------------------------
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]>
<mailto:[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
athttp://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]> <mailto:[email protected]>
Mike Cantwell<[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]>
For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:<[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]>
David Heald:<[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]>
-
----------------------------------------------------------------
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]>
<mailto:[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
athttp://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]> <mailto:[email protected]>
Mike Cantwell<[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]>
For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:<[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]>
David Heald:<[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]>
______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
______________________________________________________________________
-
----------------------------------------------------------------
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]>
<mailto:[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
athttp://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]> <mailto:[email protected]>
Mike Cantwell<[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]>
For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:<[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]>
David Heald:<[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]>
-
----------------------------------------------------------------
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]>
<mailto:[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
athttp://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]> <mailto:[email protected]>
Mike Cantwell<[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]>
For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:<[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]>
David Heald:<[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]>
-
----------------------------------------------------------------
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]>
