Re: Cable lengths needed
I agree with your additons and remarks. Regards, Gert Gremmen -Oorspronkelijk bericht- Van: Robert F. Martin ITS/QS-Box r...@itsqs.com Aan: Ing. Gert Gremmen cet...@cetest.nl; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org; Francis L. Fiedler ffied...@granville.com Datum: vrijdag 17 april 1998 14:39 Onderwerp: Re: Cable lengths needed Gert; Certainly the coupling to a cable is dependent upon the frequency of the signal and the cable's length. In the case of a product whose cables may be 30-40 meters long, coupling may theoretically exist at frequencies down to ~2.5MHz. There are a few considerations: 1) the current radiated immunity standard (IEC 801-3:1984) tests down to 27MHz (quarter wavelength = ~2.8m) 2) the actual cable in Mr. Fielder's situation may be a quarter wavelength at ~2.5MHz 3) EN61000-4-3 tests radiated down to 80MHz (quarter wave= ~1m), with lower frequencies, as you mentioned, being tested using direct coupling (EN61000-4-6) 4) IMO, cables should be exposed to the uniform field area (1.5m) and then sufficient to exit the room 5) IEC 801-4/EN61000-4-4 require testing of cables that may exceed 3m in length (although this length during test is not specified) 6) as you say, the cable LENGTH is rarely varied (per 55022) to maximize emissions; 2.5 m is the practical limit on emission from a cable at 30MHz, with the real field variation coming from cable orientation/coupling 7) the reality of testing!!- while it may not make engineering sense to do emission testing with a cable longer than 2.5 meters, IMHO it doesn't make sense to have a separate cable made for each different test (801-3, 1000-4-3, 1000-4-4, 55022/11) It is in consideration of all of the above that I recommend a minimum 3m length for cables which may be significantly longer in production. As for the cable clamp in EFT, in a situation where a system includes 2 'black-boxes' connected by a cable 3m, the clamp has to be placed first at one end, and then at the other, which is why I generalized my statement earlier. Regards; Bob Martin Sr. Technical Manager ITS - Northeast (978)263-2662 r...@itsqs.com The opinions expressed are my own and not necessarily those of my employer. -- From: Ing. Gert Gremmen To: Robert F. Martin ITS/QS-Box; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org; Francis L. Fiedler Subject: Re: Cable lengths needed Date: Thursday, April 16, 1998 3:58PM Hello Robert, Martin, As during emission testing and immunity testing cables act like antennas, we should treat them like antennas. The efficiency of a wire antenna is a sine function of its frequency and length. Therefore at a quarter wavelength optimum emission/receiption takes place. For emission testing cables longer then 2m50 meters (lowest F= 30 Mhz :: 10 meters wavelength) don't make sense. In immunity testing the same reasoning is valid, but due to the limited uniform field area size only one meter or less of it is effectively participating in picking up signal. In TEM and GTEM cells this length is even shorter. EN 55022 requires you to vary the length of the cables to maximise emissions. This is most often not practically realised. Instead max length cables (3 meters ore more) are used. For this reason the IEC decided in their new standard (IEC 1000-4-3) to start immunity testing at 80 Mhz instead of 30. The frequency below 80 Mhz. is extended to 150 Khz and is current injected into the cables using coupling/decoupling devices. The philosophy is that at these lower frequencies the contribution of cables is much higher as the enclosure energy pickup.(IEC 1000-4-6) For EFT and the clamp, the end of the cable should be the end near the apparatus under test. I believe that is what you meant to write. For mains voltage the EFT pulses are galvanically coupled into the phase wires. Regards, Gert Gremmen Ing. BTW is it standard or norm ; standardization or standardisation or normalizing I am not nativety speaking/writing this language (as you may have remarked) so please group, can someone shine some light on these linguistical topics. ? == Ce-test, Qualified testing == Consultants in EMC, Electrical safety and Telecommunication Compliance tests for European standards and ce-marking Member of NEC/IEC voting committee for EMC. Our Web presence: http://www.cetest.nl List of current harmonized standards http://www.cetest.nl/emc-harm.htm 15 great tips for the EMC-designer http://www.cetest.nl/features01.htm -Oorspronkelijk bericht- Van: Robert F. Martin ITS/QS-Box r...@itsqs.com Aan: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org; Francis L. Fiedler ffied...@granville.com Datum: donderdag 16 april 1998 18:21 Onderwerp: RE: Cable lengths needed It has been my philosophy is such cases, that a 3 meter length should be provided. During radiated emissions and immunity tests, a minimum of 1 meter should be exposed. In the case of immunity, the 1 meter should be in the 'uniform' field area
LEDs and the Laser standard - question
This was discussed before, but I wasn't listening closely enough. What does it take to show that panel indicator LEDs meet applicable requirements of IEC 60825 (IEC 825)? __ Heber Farnsworth Physio-Control, Seattle, USA
Re: Fwd: Re: Testing of series produced machines
Scott, especially for ITE products there is EN 50116 which specifies the test which need to be performed during the production. It was intended to specify the minimum requirements and give some guidance to those companies not obtaining certificates. Read it carefully. Not all tests need to be done in one place. Some could be delegated to the suppliers. BTW EN 50116 was ratified by CENELEC in November 1995. Regards Werner Haab STG Safety Testhaus GmbH E-Mail: wbh...@safety-th.com
Fwd: Re: Testing of series produced machines
Keith asks an excellent question. We make ITE and therefore use EN 60950. We have always been required by TUV to do dielectric strength and ground continuity tests on 100% of production systems. I believe that was because we put GS marks on the systems. We do not GS mark anything any longer. Are we still required to do the tests in order to self-declare and apply the CE marking? Regards, Scott s_doug...@ecrm.com keith.nicho...@amp.com,Internet writes: Regarding the Machinery Directive. In series production of machines, must each unit be tested for continuity of the protective bonding circuit, insulation resistance test and High voltage test (these are in 60204 section 20) before the CE mark can be applied. OR Can one unit be tested with the information be placed in the Technical File. Thank you for your comments in advance. Keith L. Nicholas Manager, Electrical Controls AMP Incorporated, Automachine Systems Group Mail Stop: 161-39 * (717) 810-2601 * (717) 810-2443 * keith.nicho...@amp.com
RE: CEPT/ERC Recommmendation 70-03 (Tromso1997)
Kevin, it is my understanding that ETSI is to include CEPT recommendations in their standards. The forward to an ETSI standard contains references to the CEPT recommendations. -- From: Kevin Harris[SMTP:harr...@dscltd.com] Reply To: Kevin Harris Sent: Friday, April 17, 1998 8:21 AM To: EMC-PSTC (E-mail) Subject: CEPT/ERC Recommmendation 70-03 (Tromso1997) Hello , I have some questions related to the above CEPT/ERC recommendation related to the use of short range devices. 1.How do CEPT/ERC documents fit in the scheme of things for approvals in Europe. Do these documents get used as basis for a document that gets published in the OJ, or are they in fact just recommendations and national laws take precedence. 2. Has the remarks/restrictions area for Annex 7 (Alarms) changed at all since 1997 Thanks for you help Regards, Kevin Harris Manager, Compliance Engineering Digital Security Controls 1645 Flint Road Downsview, Ontario CANADA M3J 2J6 Tel +1 416 665 8460 Ext. 378 Fax +1 416 665 7753 email harr...@dscltd.com
RE: CEPT/ERC Recommmendation 70-03 (Tromso1997)
Kevin, CEPT/ERC publish different kinds of documents: Decisions, Recommendations and Reports. Reports are just that - reports. Decisions are essentially instructions to radio regulatory authorities around Europe (like the UK Radiocommunications Agency) to either adopt certain ETSI standards for type approval purposes or allocate certain frequency bands for particular applications. Recommendations are the same thing but, as the name implies, they are only recommendations to the regulatory authorities. It is often quite difficult to determine which regulatory authorities have adopted which decisions/recommendations but, as I understand it, ERC/REC/70-03 is being quite widely implemented. The current version can be downloaded (along with all decisions and recommendations) from the ERO website at www.ero.dk. I don't believe it has changed since 1997 but I'm not 100% certain. Regards, James IMPORTANT NOTICE The application of technical information varies depending on each user's particular circumstances. No representation is made or warranty given as to the accuracy of the information contained in this E-mail. RFI does not accept any liability arising from reliance on the information in this E-mail. - James Cunningham Manager, Regulatory and Technical Support Radio Frequency Investigation Ltd. Basingstoke, England Tel: +44 (0)1256 855429 (Direct Tel) E-mail: james_cunning...@rfi.co.uk mailto:james_cunning...@rfi.co.uk Web Site: http://www.rfi.co.uk http://www.rfi.co.uk - -Original Message- From: Kevin Harris [SMTP:harr...@dscltd.com] Sent: 17 April 1998 13:22 To: EMC-PSTC (E-mail) Subject:CEPT/ERC Recommmendation 70-03 (Tromso1997) Hello , I have some questions related to the above CEPT/ERC recommendation related to the use of short range devices. 1.How do CEPT/ERC documents fit in the scheme of things for approvals in Europe. Do these documents get used as basis for a document that gets published in the OJ, or are they in fact just recommendations and national laws take precedence. 2. Has the remarks/restrictions area for Annex 7 (Alarms) changed at all since 1997 Thanks for you help Regards, Kevin Harris Manager, Compliance Engineering Digital Security Controls 1645 Flint Road Downsview, Ontario CANADA M3J 2J6 Tel +1 416 665 8460 Ext. 378 Fax +1 416 665 7753 email harr...@dscltd.com
re: Testing of series produced machines
Keith: In regards to the Machinery Directive. According to Annex V, the TCF (Technical Construction File) must include, among a list of other items, for series manufacturing, the internal measures that will be implemented to ensure that the machinery remains in conformity with the provisions of this directive. The manufacture must carry out the necessary research and tests on commonest, fittings or the completed machine to determine whether by its design or construction, the machine is capable of being erected and put into service safely Therefore, if you have relevant documentation in place, via some documented quality system (ISO 9001, etc.), you must assess if this documentation is adequate enough to control the production and manufacturing of this piece of equipment to ensure that the essential Health and Safety Requirements (EHSR) of this Directive is met. So if you feel confident through your documentation, build and inspection procedures that for example, the ground continuity circuit is complete and the same as the type tested unit, then no production testing would be required. However, this inspection criteria would be used in place of the production tests in the TCF. As an EU third party certifer, we follow the CENELEC MC7 form for our Routine Factory Inspections, which includes Hipot and Ground Continuity testing for Class I (earth grounded) units. I hope this helps. Mark A. D'Agostino 978 739 7016 md'agost...@tuvps.com http://www.tuvps.com - Original Text From: Nicholas, Keith L keith.nicho...@amp.com, on 4/16/98 4:53 PM: Regarding the Machinery Directive. In series production of machines, must each unit be tested for continuity of the protective bonding circuit, insulation resistance test and High voltage test (these are in 60204 section 20) before the CE mark can be applied. OR Can one unit be tested with the information be placed in the Technical File. Thank you for your comments in advance. Keith L. Nicholas Manager, Electrical Controls AMP Incorporated, Automachine Systems Group Mail Stop: 161-39 * (717) 810-2601 * (717) 810-2443 * keith.nicho...@amp.com
CEPT/ERC Recommmendation 70-03 (Tromso1997)
Hello , I have some questions related to the above CEPT/ERC recommendation related to the use of short range devices. 1.How do CEPT/ERC documents fit in the scheme of things for approvals in Europe. Do these documents get used as basis for a document that gets published in the OJ, or are they in fact just recommendations and national laws take precedence. 2. Has the remarks/restrictions area for Annex 7 (Alarms) changed at all since 1997 Thanks for you help Regards, Kevin Harris Manager, Compliance Engineering Digital Security Controls 1645 Flint Road Downsview, Ontario CANADA M3J 2J6 Tel +1 416 665 8460 Ext. 378 Fax +1 416 665 7753 email harr...@dscltd.com
Re: Cordage
Hello Tin, The quotations you add to your mail exactly tell me that you should ce-mark the thing, but for electrical safety only. Very limited components qualify themselves for exclusion from the LVD. Especially components that are targetted to be used on the primary side of the internal/external circuit of the apparatus applied. QUOTE: Moreover, the scope of the exclusion of basic components must NOT be misunderstood and (must not be: gg) extended to items like lamps, starters, fuses, switches for household use, elements of electrical installations (power cords ?: gg), etc., which, even if they are often used in conjunction with other electrical equipment and have to be properly installed in order to deliver their useful function, are themselves to be considered electrical equipment in the sense of the Directive. Waiting for your opnion on this ! -Oorspronkelijk bericht- Van: Tin Bear tinb...@aol.com Aan: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Datum: vrijdag 17 april 1998 3:18 Onderwerp: Re: Cordage Gert Gremmen, Ing. H... your response of You better CE mark the cord. Passport to Europe doesn't sound right to me. Based on what little I know of CE marking requirements, if the cord/plug is integrated within a product, it would be considered a component and as such, I would have suggested that the agency approvals by the various testing laboratories would be sufficient. According to the European Commission's Guidelines for EMC and Low Voltage Directive (and I am assuming that the product in question falls under these two directives) a component which does not, in itself, perform an intrinsic function, would not need to, and in fact should not, be affixed with CE marking. * Source 1 * Guidelines on the Application of Council Directive 73/23/EEC (Electrical Equipment Designed for Use within Certain Voltage Limits) published by the European Commission dated July 1997: Are components included in the scope? 9. In general, the scope of the Directive includes both electrical equipment intended for incorporation into other equipment and equipment intended to be used directly without being incorporated. However, some type of electrical devices, designed and manufactured for being used as basic components to be incorporated into other electrical equipment, are such that their safety to a very large extent depends on how they are integrated into the final product and the overall characteristics of the final product. These basic components include electronic and certain other components10. Taking into account the objectives of the Low Voltage Directive, such basic components, the safety of which can only, to a very large extent, be assessed taking into account how they are incorporated, are not covered as such by the Directive. In particular, they must not be CE marked. However, other electrical components which are intended for being incorporated into other electrical equipment, but for which a safety assessment is feasible, like for example some types of transformers and electrical motors, are covered as such by the Directive and must be CE marked. Moreover, the scope of the exclusion of basic components must not be misunderstood and extended to items like lamps, starters, fuses, switches for household use, elements of electrical installations, etc., which, even if they are often used in conjunction with other electrical equipment and have to be properly installed in order to deliver their useful function, are themselves to be considered electrical equipment in the sense of the Directive. ** Source 2 *** Industry's Guide to the Application of Directive 89/336/EEC for Electromagnetic Compatibility (EMC) Directive: 6.2.2 Components performing no direct function Although components always fulfil a function within the apparatus in which they are incorporated, they do not always in themselves perform a direct function. For example, a transistor, mounted on a printed circuit board with the function of amplification fulfil a function but it is only the complete card which fulfils the expectations of the end-user, as specified by the manufacturer, for example the amplification of a given signal. Another example is a cathode-ray tube which performs a function within the visual display unit in which it is installed, but only the complete monitor supplies the user with the direct function sought, i.e. that of the visual display screen. The transistor and the cathode-ray tube perform no direct function and cannot, therefore, be regarded as 'apparatus' but are components, whereas the printed circuit board and the monitor are apparatus. Similar examples of components without a direct function are: (a) electrical or electronic components forming part of electrical or electronic circuits: resistors, capacitors, coils; diodes, transistors, thyristors, triacs, etc.; integrated circuits; (b)
RE: Testing of series produced machines
Hello Keith, Very good question as it the answer is not obvious, I am sure there is going to be more then one opinion. The directive itself does not require such tests, the usage of the standard itself is voluntary (by the way, why did you use EN 60204, there are others). There is an IEC standard for production testing (the number escapes me at this moment) but I do not believe it applies to machines. Although, for the purpose of compliance with the directive, each machine is introduced to the market -the condition requiring the CE marking- individually, the production testing such as high voltage or insulation resistance, is not required. Regardless of this, the third party may require you to perform these tests, if an agency marking was sought. Matthias R. Heinze TUV Rheinland mrh_...@msn.com -Original Message- From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org] On Behalf Of Nicholas, Keith L Sent: Thursday, April 16, 1998 1:53 PM To: Emc-Pstc (E-mail) Subject:Testing of series produced machines Regarding the Machinery Directive. In series production of machines, must each unit be tested for continuity of the protective bonding circuit, insulation resistance test and High voltage test (these are in 60204 section 20) before the CE mark can be applied. OR Can one unit be tested with the information be placed in the Technical File. Thank you for your comments in advance. Keith L. Nicholas Manager, Electrical Controls AMP Incorporated, Automachine Systems Group Mail Stop: 161-39 * (717) 810-2601 * (717) 810-2443 * keith.nicho...@amp.com
Positive Guided Relays
Hi Prior. You wrote: A client uses PONZ-1 relays in a safety circuit for packaging machinery. This circuit has been approved by US EU agencies. He would like to change to EE Controls positive guided relays. The circuit would be re-evaluated with the EE Controls type SH0! 4 positive guided relays. His questions is what are the chances of these EE Control relays being approved? He does not want to present the circuit to an agency for evaluation without some assurance that these relays are acceptable. US approval and EU approval may well be in relation to quite different things. PNOZ relays enable Guard and Emergency stop circuits to comply with the EU Machinery Directive safety requirements, but id they comply with a US agency, this is probably not related to the very high integrity guarding requirements of the EC, but more to do with UL approvals. (fire and electric shock protection) I don't know the EE Controls relay, but if you are evaluating these for interlocked guarding systems you should not only consider the 'guided contact' attribute, but also the 'dual redundency' attribute that will cause the system to be safe in the event of a single fault. PNOZ relays have a dual input which provides this level of protection, many simple guided contact relays do not. A two cents worth, maybe... Chris Dupres Surrey, UK.
Re: Cordage
Gert Gremmen, Ing. H... your response of You better CE mark the cord. Passport to Europe doesn't sound right to me. Based on what little I know of CE marking requirements, if the cord/plug is integrated within a product, it would be considered a component and as such, I would have suggested that the agency approvals by the various testing laboratories would be sufficient. According to the European Commission's Guidelines for EMC and Low Voltage Directive (and I am assuming that the product in question falls under these two directives) a component which does not, in itself, perform an intrinsic function, would not need to, and in fact should not, be affixed with CE marking. * Source 1 * Guidelines on the Application of Council Directive 73/23/EEC (Electrical Equipment Designed for Use within Certain Voltage Limits) published by the European Commission dated July 1997: Are components included in the scope? 9. In general, the scope of the Directive includes both electrical equipment intended for incorporation into other equipment and equipment intended to be used directly without being incorporated. However, some type of electrical devices, designed and manufactured for being used as basic components to be incorporated into other electrical equipment, are such that their safety to a very large extent depends on how they are integrated into the final product and the overall characteristics of the final product. These basic components include electronic and certain other components10. Taking into account the objectives of the Low Voltage Directive, such basic components, the safety of which can only, to a very large extent, be assessed taking into account how they are incorporated, are not covered as such by the Directive. In particular, they must not be CE marked. However, other electrical components which are intended for being incorporated into other electrical equipment, but for which a safety assessment is feasible, like for example some types of transformers and electrical motors, are covered as such by the Directive and must be CE marked. Moreover, the scope of the exclusion of basic components must not be misunderstood and extended to items like lamps, starters, fuses, switches for household use, elements of electrical installations, etc., which, even if they are often used in conjunction with other electrical equipment and have to be properly installed in order to deliver their useful function, are themselves to be considered electrical equipment in the sense of the Directive. ** Source 2 *** Industry's Guide to the Application of Directive 89/336/EEC for Electromagnetic Compatibility (EMC) Directive: 6.2.2 Components performing no direct function Although components always fulfil a function within the apparatus in which they are incorporated, they do not always in themselves perform a direct function. For example, a transistor, mounted on a printed circuit board with the function of amplification fulfil a function but it is only the complete card which fulfils the expectations of the end-user, as specified by the manufacturer, for example the amplification of a given signal. Another example is a cathode-ray tube which performs a function within the visual display unit in which it is installed, but only the complete monitor supplies the user with the direct function sought, i.e. that of the visual display screen. The transistor and the cathode-ray tube perform no direct function and cannot, therefore, be regarded as 'apparatus' but are components, whereas the printed circuit board and the monitor are apparatus. Similar examples of components without a direct function are: (a) electrical or electronic components forming part of electrical or electronic circuits: resistors, capacitors, coils; diodes, transistors, thyristors, triacs, etc.; integrated circuits; (b) cables and cabling accessories; (c) all or nothing relays; (d) plugs, sockets, terminal blocks, etc.; (e) light-emitting diodes (LED), liquid-crystal displays, etc.; (f) simple mechanical thermostats. Regards. Tin In a message dated 98-04-16 16:29:08 EDT, cet...@cetest.nl writes: You better CE-mark the cord . Passport to Europe. Gert Gremmen, Ing. == Ce-test, Qualified testing == Consultants in EMC, Electrical safety and Telecommunication Compliance tests for European standards and ce-marking Member of NEC/IEC voting committee for EMC. Our Web presence: http://www.cetest.nl List of current harmonized standards http://www.cetest.nl/emc-harm.htm 15 great tips for the EMC-designer http://www.cetest.nl/features01.htm -Oorspronkelijk bericht- Van: GOEDDERZ, JIM goedd...@sensormatic.com Aan: 'PSnetPost' emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Datum: donderdag 16 april 1998 21:38 Onderwerp: Cordage Hello group, I have a vendor that wants to sell us line cords for use in
