Reference IEC/EN 61000-3-3:2013 section 6.5 regarding Observation Period.
The Electrical Equipment (EE) under test is NOT listed in Annex A.

We are trying to make sure we are testing a product correctly. Your help
would be greatly appreciated.

The EE has a cycle time of about 15 to 20 minutes.  Since the cycle time is
greater than 10 minutes, it is my understanding that the cycle is NOT
repeated to determine the Plt.  So would it be correct to start up a 2-hour
test, run the EE through a single cycle and then just let the EE run in
standby mode for the remainder of the 2-hour test?



Here is our situation.  We have an EE under test that passes the 10 minute
Pst limit with a value around 0.8 (1 is the limit).  If we repeat the
operational cycle over and over again during the 2-hour test, we again will
get a Plt value of about 0.8 (limit is 0.65) and Fail.  But if we run the
cycle only once and then let the EE sit in standby mode for the remainder
of the 2-hour test, the Plt will creep down below 0.65 and pass the test.

Again, we want to make sure we are performing the test correctly according
to the standard.

Thanks to all for help on this.

The Other Brian

-
----------------------------------------------------------------
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