Replacment for solder
For those interested there is an article (page 26) in the January 2000 issue of Electronic Packaging and Production (EPP) that discusses the new lead free requirements and alternatives for lead free solder. - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
Re: Harmonics Testing
Gert, Is 3-2 applicable to power supplies of 50W in Jan 1, 2001 ? Or is it still 75W in Jan 1, 2001, then 4 years later changed to 50W ? thanks Bruce cetest wrote: I suppose Randy you are concerned about the EN-61000-3-2 instead of the EN 61000-3-3 which is concerned with Flicker testing. Please Note that the 3-2 is currently under revision and prone to change very soon ! I would select Scenario #1 The 50 watt limit is meant to be used for all equipment, and the current document TC210-169 (in voting right now) has it's clause modified as such. Strictly read you are right about the application of scenario #2. The current 3-2 is a very bad document, f.a. nothing is said about test times and transitory effects. This will all or partly be covered in the new version. BTW Using scenario #2 it will be hard to exceed any limit at all with an active input power 50 watt !!! Gert Gremmen ce-test qualified testing == http://www.cetest.nl Do you know our CE/E mark True type Font ? http://www.cetest.nl/cettf.htm == -Original Message- From: owner-emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@ieee.org] Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2000 7:12 PM To: 'emc-pstc' Subject: Harmonics Testing Greetings EMC Professionals! I have a quick question regarding Harmonics testing to EN61000-3-3. We have an ITE product with a switching power supply. The product uses about 38 watts input power. According to the standard, which scenario applies? Scenario #1 The unit does not need to be tested, because it falls below the Class D Input power range of 75(50)W to 600W. Section 7.4 of the standard states that ...No limits apply for equipment with an active input power up to and including 75W Scenario #2 Since the unit does not use more than 75W (or more than 50W for that matter), the unit then defaults to the Class A requirements and therefor must meet the less stringent Class A limits. Section 5 of EN61000-3-3 states: Class A: Balanced 3-phase equipment AND ALL OTHER EQUIPMENT, except that stated [in Classes B-D]... So I guess my question is this: when an ITE product with a switching power supply uses less than 50W (75w), does it become an exempt Class D Device, or doe sit become a Class A device? Your insights would be appreciated. Regards, Randy Flinders Chairman Orange County Chapter IEEE EMC Society r.flind...@ieee.org (714) 513-8012 (714) 513-8265 Fax Note: The opinions expressed herein are personal and in no way represent the position of the IEEE, The EMC Society, or my employer. Name: winmail.dat winmail.datType: DAT File (application/x-unknown-content-type-dat_auto_file) Encoding: base64 - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
RE: IEC Symbol
Try . . . http://w3.hike.te.chiba-u.ac.jp/iec417/ver2.0/html/index.html John Juhasz Fiber Options Bohemia, NY -Original Message- From: wo...@sensormatic.com [mailto:wo...@sensormatic.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2000 1:55 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: IEC Symbol Is there an IEC 417 or other standard caution symbol for a sharp edge? I can't seem to locate one, but I believe I have seen a symbol containing a cut and bleeding finger. Richard Woods - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
RE: Re[2]: Proper Protective Earth Ground Symbol
Back in the old days when you had to get UL and CSA certification, UL required the ground to be at the bottom of the stack. CSA would require the ground to be at the top of the stack. What a mess those good old days were. Scott Barrows -Original Message- From: Eric Petitpierre [SMTP:eric.petitpie...@pulse.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2000 12:28 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org; rbus...@es.com Subject: Re[2]: Proper Protective Earth Ground Symbol the ground wire must now be on top of the stack-up. Never, from what I've ever heard. Ground connection should be the first one on, last one to come off. Eric Petitpierre Pulsecom Herndon, VA eric.petitpie...@pulse.com __ Reply Separator _ Subject: RE: Proper Protective Earth Ground Symbol Author: rbus...@es.com at smtp Date:1/18/00 11:00 AM I agree with Kurt's summary of the ground marking and stack-up requirements, but there is a point of clarification I would like to have. Years past, it was explained to me that an appliance inlet ground must be first on the stack-up against the chassis. The point was to ensure that any maintenance action did not compromise the grounding of the enclosure. In the case of a power cord, the opposite was true however. Since a power cord is by definition frequently replaceable (hence the specific requirements for strain relief's and terminal blocks) the ground wire must now be on top of the stack-up. This facilitates easy replacement without jeopardizing the ground. What is the consensus on this? Rick Busche Evans Sutherland rbus...@es.com -Original Message- From: Andrews, Kurt [mailto:kandr...@tracewell.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2000 8:26 AM To: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com; Jackson; William; 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org' Subject: RE: Proper Protective Earth Ground Symbol Jim, For the Protective Earth Terminal, that is the ground from the power cord or IEC Inlet that should be located just inside the equipment needs to be IEC 417, No. 5019, the circle upside down tree. Also the incoming ground MUST be the first on a stud and secured by its own lockwasher and nut. You may then stack other grounds to other parts of the equipment on top of this ground. You may use a separate lockwasher and nut for each additional ground or one for all of the additional grounds. There may also be other ground studs in the unit if you don't want to run wires to the Protective Earth Terminal. This assumes an all metal construction, which is what we use. We have used both the upside down tree symbol, IEC 417 No. 5017, and the Equipotentiality symbol, IEC 417 No. 5021 for these additional grounds with no problems. For an additional ground on the outside of the equipment we have used the same symbol as for the Protective Earth Terminal. When we sent a unit in once for safety testing to UL we had the upside down tree without the circle next to an outside ground terminal and they told us it has to be the one with the circle around it. I would think that the frame ground symbol, IEC 417 No. 5020 (pitchfork) would also be acceptable although we haven't used it. Hope this helps, Kurt Andrews Compliance Engineer Tracewell Systems, Inc. 567 Enterprise Dr. Westerville, OH 43081 Ph. 614-846-6175 Fax 614-846-7791 Email: kandr...@tracewell.com - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
FW: Proper Protective Earth Ground Symbol
Kurt Andrews Compliance Engineer Tracewell Systems, Inc. 567 Enterprise Dr. Westerville, OH 43081 Ph. 614-846-6175 Fax 614-846-7791 Email: kandr...@tracewell.com -Original Message- From: Andrews, Kurt Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2000 3:23 PM To: 'John Allen'; 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org' Subject:RE: Proper Protective Earth Ground Symbol John, I have substantial reservations about Jim's first comment:- to put the external protective earth on as the first item on the stud. This is likely to cause a particular problem if the supply cable has to be replaced due to damage etc., as you will have to remove/replace all the connected internal earthing wires to do it! I agree with you in this case it would be better to have it on top. However according to the UL 1950 Seminar that I took at UL Northbrook in 1998 they say it is supposed to be on the bottom. Although it looks like it should be on top for non-detachable cords (see my message to Rick Busche). I believe that you should always use at least TWO studs/terminals for this type of thing, and dedicate one solely to the earth of the external supply connection. Then the whole issue becomes much simpler in both theory and practice - both for the manufacturer and the installation/service engineer. I also agree with this statement. This is how we do it most of the time. Although since we use IEC Inlets this is not really an issue as replacing the cord is done simply by plugging in a new one. As regards UL's comment on the need to put the circle on the earth symbol on external earth terminal - I think they were VERY wrong unless that was the terminal for connection of the PRIMARY MEANS of earthing (which it rarely is) ! I was a little wrong here it was Intertek (ETL) that said we had the wrong symbol. Here is what they said: If the grounding terminal on the outside of the unit functions as a protective earth terminal, it shall be labeled with Symbol 6 of Table 1. If it functions as a functional earth terminal, then it is labeled correctly. The protective earth terminal internal to the power supply shall be labeled with Symbol 6 of Table 1. (Symbol 6 is the one with the circle around it). This is a piece of test equipment certified to the 1010 standards. Also in this particular case (as in my original message to Jim Bacher) on our equipment this external terminal is designed to be used when you are using an ungrounded outlet. I also looked at some equipment we have here by various manufacturers that have these extra ground terminals on them. On an Associated Research Hipot Tester that is UL Listed it has the one with the circle around it. On a piece of I.T.E. equipment that we had certified to EN 60950 by TÜV, the one without the circle. On an Associated Research Hipot Tester with no NRTL Markings, the one with the circle. On an Associated Research Ground Bond Tester with CE Mark but no NRTL Mark, the one without the circle. On a Fluke Multi-product Calibrator with CSA Listing and CE Mark, the one without the symbol. So I would say that which symbol that is used is mostly up to the NRTL that certifies the product. It may also differ somewhat by the standard used. The whole idea of the circle is to designate the terminal for that purpose ALONE; using it anywhere else is going to re-introduce the confusion that the circle was designed to eliminate, as stated in (for example) the first two sentences of IEC/EN 60950 Clause 1.7.7.1: The wiring terminal intended for connection of the protective earthing conductor associated with the supply wiring shall be indicated by the symbol (IEC 417 No. 5019). This symbol shall not be used for other earthing terminals I agree that for I.T.E. according to 1.7.7.1 you should not use 5019 for the terminal on the outside of the equipment. However the 1010 standards appear to differ on this. According to IEC 1010-1: 3.2.2 FUNCTIONAL EARTH TERMINAL: A TERMINAL by which electrical connection is made directly to a point of a measuring or control circuit or to a screening part and which is intended to be earthed for any functional purpose other than safety. 3.2.3 PROTECTIVE CONDUCTOR TERMINAL : A TERMINAL which is bonded to conductive parts of an equipment for safety purposes and is intended to be connected to an external protective earthing system. This would seem to imply (at least to me) that the one with the circle would be the correct on for an outside terminal that is to be used when a grounded outlet is not available as in my original message to Jim Bacher. Kurt Andrews Compliance Engineer Tracewell Systems, Inc. 567 Enterprise Dr. Westerville, OH 43081 Ph. 614-846-6175 Fax 614-846-7791 Email: kandr...@tracewell.com
RE: Harmonics Testing
Randall, First, the standard is IEC (or EN) 61000-3-2, not -3. Article 5 defines Class D products as those Equipment having an input current with a special wave shape as defined in figure 1 and an active input power, P= 600 W, measured under the test conditions given in the relevant clause of annex C. Question #1 - does your product produce a wave shape that meets this requirement? If yes, your product is Class D. If no, your product is Class A. Question #2 - What Class are you? If Class A, you must test as there is no relaxation based on power draw (assuming you draw less than 1 kW). If Class D, what is the active input power? If greater than 75 watts, test. If less than or equal to 75 watts, relax and ignore the whole thing. The definition of Class D doesn't address the active input power level. Only the limits for Class D address this issue. Ghery S. Pettit Intel Corporation -Original Message- From: Flinders, Randall [mailto:randall.flind...@emulex.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2000 10:12 AM To: 'emc-pstc' Subject: Harmonics Testing Greetings EMC Professionals! I have a quick question regarding Harmonics testing to EN61000-3-3. We have an ITE product with a switching power supply. The product uses about 38 watts input power. According to the standard, which scenario applies? Scenario #1 The unit does not need to be tested, because it falls below the Class D Input power range of 75(50)W to 600W. Section 7.4 of the standard states that ...No limits apply for equipment with an active input power up to and including 75W Scenario #2 Since the unit does not use more than 75W (or more than 50W for that matter), the unit then defaults to the Class A requirements and therefor must meet the less stringent Class A limits. Section 5 of EN61000-3-3 states: Class A: Balanced 3-phase equipment AND ALL OTHER EQUIPMENT, except that stated [in Classes B-D]... So I guess my question is this: when an ITE product with a switching power supply uses less than 50W (75w), does it become an exempt Class D Device, or doe sit become a Class A device? Your insights would be appreciated. Regards, Randy Flinders Chairman Orange County Chapter IEEE EMC Society r.flind...@ieee.org (714) 513-8012 (714) 513-8265 Fax Note: The opinions expressed herein are personal and in no way represent the position of the IEEE, The EMC Society, or my employer. - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
RE: Lead Banned in Europe Japan?
What about car batteries and for that matter, other types of lead/acid storage batteries. As far as I know they haven't come up with a tin battery. I know thay have some rather exotic types out there, but until now, they are cost prohibitive. Dan Mitchell Condor DC Power Supplies LaceyScott sla...@foxboro.com on 01/18/2000 08:44:04 AM To: 'simon_...@emc.com'simon_...@emc.com cc: 'emc-p...@ieee.org'emc-p...@ieee.org (bcc: Dan Mitchell/CondorDC) Subject: RE: Lead Banned in Europe Japan? My, how public spirited of them. Scott -Original Message- From: simon_...@emc.com [SMTP:simon_...@emc.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2000 10:24 AM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RE: Lead Banned in Europe Japan? A little research on the Internet showed that the proposal comes from a tin manufacturers association. I cannot give you a direct sourse at the moment, but it was not difficult to find. The association's goal is to replace lead with tin. Leo Simon -Original Message- From: ron_well...@agilent.com [mailto:ron_well...@agilent.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2000 9:39 AM To: emc-p...@ieee.org; mpeder...@midcom-inc.com Subject: RE: Lead Banned in Europe Japan? Mel, It would be interesting to know who your Customer is that is making this request. We have had similar requests for material content, including lead, specifically in the components we manufacture. You have already heard from people concerning the WEEE Directive in Europe. As for Japan, there is no ban on lead but a law regarding disposal of waste into landfills. Some Japanese manufacturers are imposing lead elimination requirements on their suppliers, mostly component suppliers, to comply with this landfill law. Regards, +=+ |Ronald R. Wellman|Voice : 408-345-8229 | |Agilent Technologies |FAX : 408-345-8630 | |5301 Stevens Creek Blvd.,|E-Mail: ron_well...@agilent.com| |Mailstop 51L-SQ |WWW : http://www.agilent.com | |Santa Clara, California 95052 USA| | +=+ | Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age | | eighteen. - Albert Einstein | +=+ -Original Message- From: mpeder...@midcom-inc.com [mailto:mpeder...@midcom-inc.com] Sent: Monday, January 17, 2000 3:46 PM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: FW: Lead Banned in Europe Japan? Hello: I periodically recieve inquiries on the quanitity of various materials (including Lead) in our product. A customer of ours recently claimed that Lead has been banned in electronics in Europe Japan. They are asking what we are doing about this. Is there any basis in truth for this? Thanks Mel Pedersen Midcom, Inc. Homologations Engineer Phone: (605) 882-8535 mpeder...@midcom-inc.com Fax: (605) 882-8633 - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
IEC Symbol
Is there an IEC 417 or other standard caution symbol for a sharp edge? I can't seem to locate one, but I believe I have seen a symbol containing a cut and bleeding finger. Richard Woods - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
RE: Proper Protective Earth Ground Symbol
Rick, I think you may be right when it comes to non-detachable power cords (hard wired into unit, no IEC Inlet). We always use the IEC Inlet so it can go to different countries so have not had to get a product through safety testing with a non-detachable cord. Here is what UL 1950 section 2.5.9 says: Protective earthing terminals for fixed supply conductors or for Non-Detachable Power Supply Cords shall comply with the requirements of 3.3. 3.3 Screws and nuts which clamp external power supply conductors shall have a thread conforming with ISO 261 or ISO 262, or a thread comparable in pitch and mechanical strength. The screws and nuts shall not serve to fix any other component, except that they are permitted also to clamp internal conductors provided that the internal conductors are so arranged that they are unlikely to be displaced when fitting the supply conductors. This last sentence does appear to indicate that it should be on top of the stack. Any thoughts from anyone else out there? Kurt Andrews Compliance Engineer Tracewell Systems, Inc. 567 Enterprise Dr. Westerville, OH 43081 Ph. 614-846-6175 Fax 614-846-7791 Email: kandr...@tracewell.com -Original Message- From: rbus...@es.com [SMTP:rbus...@es.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2000 11:01 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject:RE: Proper Protective Earth Ground Symbol I agree with Kurt's summary of the ground marking and stack-up requirements, but there is a point of clarification I would like to have. Years past, it was explained to me that an appliance inlet ground must be first on the stack-up against the chassis. The point was to ensure that any maintenance action did not compromise the grounding of the enclosure. In the case of a power cord, the opposite was true however. Since a power cord is by definition frequently replaceable (hence the specific requirements for strain relief's and terminal blocks) the ground wire must now be on top of the stack-up. This facilitates easy replacement without jeopardizing the ground. What is the consensus on this? Rick Busche Evans Sutherland rbus...@es.com -Original Message- From: Andrews, Kurt [mailto:kandr...@tracewell.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2000 8:26 AM To: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com; Jackson; William; 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org' Subject:RE: Proper Protective Earth Ground Symbol Jim, For the Protective Earth Terminal, that is the ground from the power cord or IEC Inlet that should be located just inside the equipment needs to be IEC 417, No. 5019, the circle upside down tree. Also the incoming ground MUST be the first on a stud and secured by its own lockwasher and nut. You may then stack other grounds to other parts of the equipment on top of this ground. You may use a separate lockwasher and nut for each additional ground or one for all of the additional grounds. There may also be other ground studs in the unit if you don't want to run wires to the Protective Earth Terminal. This assumes an all metal construction, which is what we use. We have used both the upside down tree symbol, IEC 417 No. 5017, and the Equipotentiality symbol, IEC 417 No. 5021 for these additional grounds with no problems. For an additional ground on the outside of the equipment we have used the same symbol as for the Protective Earth Terminal. When we sent a unit in once for safety testing to UL we had the upside down tree without the circle next to an outside ground terminal and they told us it has to be the one with the circle around it. I would think that the frame ground symbol, IEC 417 No. 5020 (pitchfork) would also be acceptable although we haven't used it. Hope this helps, Kurt Andrews Compliance Engineer Tracewell Systems, Inc. 567 Enterprise Dr. Westerville, OH 43081 Ph. 614-846-6175 Fax 614-846-7791 Email: kandr...@tracewell.com
Re[2]: Proper Protective Earth Ground Symbol
the ground wire must now be on top of the stack-up. Never, from what I've ever heard. Ground connection should be the first one on, last one to come off. Eric Petitpierre Pulsecom Herndon, VA eric.petitpie...@pulse.com __ Reply Separator _ Subject: RE: Proper Protective Earth Ground Symbol Author: rbus...@es.com at smtp List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date:1/18/00 11:00 AM I agree with Kurt's summary of the ground marking and stack-up requirements, but there is a point of clarification I would like to have. Years past, it was explained to me that an appliance inlet ground must be first on the stack-up against the chassis. The point was to ensure that any maintenance action did not compromise the grounding of the enclosure. In the case of a power cord, the opposite was true however. Since a power cord is by definition frequently replaceable (hence the specific requirements for strain relief's and terminal blocks) the ground wire must now be on top of the stack-up. This facilitates easy replacement without jeopardizing the ground. What is the consensus on this? Rick Busche Evans Sutherland rbus...@es.com -Original Message- From: Andrews, Kurt [mailto:kandr...@tracewell.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2000 8:26 AM To: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com; Jackson; William; 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org' Subject: RE: Proper Protective Earth Ground Symbol Jim, For the Protective Earth Terminal, that is the ground from the power cord or IEC Inlet that should be located just inside the equipment needs to be IEC 417, No. 5019, the circle upside down tree. Also the incoming ground MUST be the first on a stud and secured by its own lockwasher and nut. You may then stack other grounds to other parts of the equipment on top of this ground. You may use a separate lockwasher and nut for each additional ground or one for all of the additional grounds. There may also be other ground studs in the unit if you don't want to run wires to the Protective Earth Terminal. This assumes an all metal construction, which is what we use. We have used both the upside down tree symbol, IEC 417 No. 5017, and the Equipotentiality symbol, IEC 417 No. 5021 for these additional grounds with no problems. For an additional ground on the outside of the equipment we have used the same symbol as for the Protective Earth Terminal. When we sent a unit in once for safety testing to UL we had the upside down tree without the circle next to an outside ground terminal and they told us it has to be the one with the circle around it. I would think that the frame ground symbol, IEC 417 No. 5020 (pitchfork) would also be acceptable although we haven't used it. Hope this helps, Kurt Andrews Compliance Engineer Tracewell Systems, Inc. 567 Enterprise Dr. Westerville, OH 43081 Ph. 614-846-6175 Fax 614-846-7791 Email: kandr...@tracewell.com - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
RE: Proper Protective Earth Ground Symbol
Hi Folks My apologies to Jim Bacher - I was actually refering to the comment made by Kurt! Sorry! -- From: Andrews, Kurt[SMTP:kandr...@tracewell.com] Sent: 18 January 2000 15:26 To: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com; Jackson; William; 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org' Subject:RE: Proper Protective Earth Ground Symbol Jim, For the Protective Earth Terminal, that is the ground from the power cord or IEC Inlet that should be located just inside the equipment needs to be IEC 417, No. 5019, the circle upside down tree. Also the incoming ground MUST be the first on a stud and secured by its own lockwasher and nut. You may then stack other grounds to other parts of the equipment on top of this ground. You may use a separate lockwasher and nut for each additional ground or one for all of the additional grounds. There may also be other ground studs in the unit if you don't want to run wires to the Protective Earth Terminal. This assumes an all metal construction, which is what we use. We have used both the upside down tree symbol, IEC 417 No. 5017, and the Equipotentiality symbol, IEC 417 No. 5021 for these additional grounds with no problems. For an additional ground on the outside of the equipment we have used the same symbol as for the Protective Earth Terminal. When we sent a unit in once for safety testing to UL we had the upside down tree without the circle next to an outside ground terminal and they told us it has to be the one with the circle around it. I would think that the frame ground symbol, IEC 417 No. 5020 (pitchfork) would also be acceptable although we haven't used it. Hope this helps, Kurt Andrews Compliance Engineer Tracewell Systems, Inc. 567 Enterprise Dr. Westerville, OH 43081 Ph. 614-846-6175 Fax 614-846-7791 Email: kandr...@tracewell.com -Original Message- From: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com [SMTP:jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2000 8:18 AM To: Jackson; William; 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org' Subject:Re:Proper Protective Earth Ground Symbol forwarded for William Jim Reply Separator Subject:Proper Protective Earth Ground Symbol Author: Jackson; William wjack...@harris.com Date: 01/14/00 4:59 PM Greetings all, I have a request for interpretation of requirement. Which symbol is correct for use on a chassis for protective earthing - the upside down tree or the circle upside down tree or the pitchfork?? (Note:- the ground on the back of the box is generally marked GND and is screw and locking washer configuration). What is the correct marking to satisfy a NRTL for a marking? Thanks, Bill Bill Jackson, CQE QA PrgmsEng/Product Safety Harris RF Communications Division (RCD) (716)-242-3897 wjack...@harris.com - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
RE: Proper Protective Earth Ground Symbol
Hi folks I have not been following all this thread, but I have the following comments: I have substantial reservations about Jim's first comment:- to put the external protective earth on as the first item on the stud. This is likely to cause a particular problem if the supply cable has to be replaced due to damage etc., as you will have to remove/replace all the connected internal earthing wires to do it! I believe that you should always use at least TWO studs/terminals for this type of thing, and dedicate one solely to the earth of the external supply connection. Then the whole issue becomes much simpler in both theory and practice - both for the manufacturer and the installation/service engineer. The above may not be mandated by most standards but I believe it is both common sense and good practice. As regards UL's comment on the need to put the circle on the earth symbol on external earth terminal - I think they were VERY wrong unless that was the terminal for connection of the PRIMARY MEANS of earthing (which it rarely is) ! The whole idea of the circle is to designate the terminal for that purpose ALONE; using it anywhere else is going to re-introduce the confusion that the circle was designed to eliminate, as stated in (for example) the first two sentences of IEC/EN 60950 Clause 1.7.7.1: The wiring terminal intended for connection of the protective earthing conductor associated with the supply wiring shall be indicated by the symbol (IEC 417 No. 5019). This symbol shall not be used for other earthing terminals Regards John Allen. Racal Defence Electronics Ltd. John Allen -- From: Andrews, Kurt[SMTP:kandr...@tracewell.com] Sent: 18 January 2000 15:26 To: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com; Jackson; William; 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org' Subject:RE: Proper Protective Earth Ground Symbol Jim, For the Protective Earth Terminal, that is the ground from the power cord or IEC Inlet that should be located just inside the equipment needs to be IEC 417, No. 5019, the circle upside down tree. Also the incoming ground MUST be the first on a stud and secured by its own lockwasher and nut. You may then stack other grounds to other parts of the equipment on top of this ground. You may use a separate lockwasher and nut for each additional ground or one for all of the additional grounds. There may also be other ground studs in the unit if you don't want to run wires to the Protective Earth Terminal. This assumes an all metal construction, which is what we use. We have used both the upside down tree symbol, IEC 417 No. 5017, and the Equipotentiality symbol, IEC 417 No. 5021 for these additional grounds with no problems. For an additional ground on the outside of the equipment we have used the same symbol as for the Protective Earth Terminal. When we sent a unit in once for safety testing to UL we had the upside down tree without the circle next to an outside ground terminal and they told us it has to be the one with the circle around it. I would think that the frame ground symbol, IEC 417 No. 5020 (pitchfork) would also be acceptable although we haven't used it. Hope this helps, Kurt Andrews Compliance Engineer Tracewell Systems, Inc. 567 Enterprise Dr. Westerville, OH 43081 Ph. 614-846-6175 Fax 614-846-7791 Email: kandr...@tracewell.com -Original Message- From: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com [SMTP:jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2000 8:18 AM To: Jackson; William; 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org' Subject:Re:Proper Protective Earth Ground Symbol forwarded for William Jim Reply Separator Subject:Proper Protective Earth Ground Symbol Author: Jackson; William wjack...@harris.com Date: 01/14/00 4:59 PM Greetings all, I have a request for interpretation of requirement. Which symbol is correct for use on a chassis for protective earthing - the upside down tree or the circle upside down tree or the pitchfork?? (Note:- the ground on the back of the box is generally marked GND and is screw and locking washer configuration). What is the correct marking to satisfy a NRTL for a marking? Thanks, Bill Bill Jackson, CQE QA PrgmsEng/Product Safety Harris RF Communications Division (RCD) (716)-242-3897 wjack...@harris.com - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). - This message is coming from
Harmonics Testing
Greetings EMC Professionals! I have a quick question regarding Harmonics testing to EN61000-3-3. We have an ITE product with a switching power supply. The product uses about 38 watts input power. According to the standard, which scenario applies? Scenario #1 The unit does not need to be tested, because it falls below the Class D Input power range of 75(50)W to 600W. Section 7.4 of the standard states that ...No limits apply for equipment with an active input power up to and including 75W Scenario #2 Since the unit does not use more than 75W (or more than 50W for that matter), the unit then defaults to the Class A requirements and therefor must meet the less stringent Class A limits. Section 5 of EN61000-3-3 states: Class A: Balanced 3-phase equipment AND ALL OTHER EQUIPMENT, except that stated [in Classes B-D]... So I guess my question is this: when an ITE product with a switching power supply uses less than 50W (75w), does it become an exempt Class D Device, or doe sit become a Class A device? Your insights would be appreciated. Regards, Randy Flinders Chairman Orange County Chapter IEEE EMC Society r.flind...@ieee.org (714) 513-8012 (714) 513-8265 Fax Note: The opinions expressed herein are personal and in no way represent the position of the IEEE, The EMC Society, or my employer.attachment: winmail.dat
RE: Proper Protective Earth Ground Symbol
That's news to me (ground from NON-DETACHABLE line cord on top). . . can you quote from a standard? Clause 2.5.8 in UL 1950 3rd Ed/CSA 22.2 No. 950 and EN 60950 state: Protective earthing connections shall be so designed that they do not have to be disconnected for servicing other than for the removal of the part which they protect unless HAZARDOUS VOLTAGE is removed from the part at the same time. John A. Juhasz Fiber Options, Inc. Bohemia, NY -Original Message- From: rbus...@es.com [mailto:rbus...@es.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2000 11:01 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: Proper Protective Earth Ground Symbol I agree with Kurt's summary of the ground marking and stack-up requirements, but there is a point of clarification I would like to have. Years past, it was explained to me that an appliance inlet ground must be first on the stack-up against the chassis. The point was to ensure that any maintenance action did not compromise the grounding of the enclosure. In the case of a power cord, the opposite was true however. Since a power cord is by definition frequently replaceable (hence the specific requirements for strain relief's and terminal blocks) the ground wire must now be on top of the stack-up. This facilitates easy replacement without jeopardizing the ground. What is the consensus on this? Rick Busche Evans Sutherland rbus...@es.com -Original Message- From: Andrews, Kurt [mailto:kandr...@tracewell.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2000 8:26 AM To: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com; Jackson; William; 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org' Subject:RE: Proper Protective Earth Ground Symbol Jim, For the Protective Earth Terminal, that is the ground from the power cord or IEC Inlet that should be located just inside the equipment needs to be IEC 417, No. 5019, the circle upside down tree. Also the incoming ground MUST be the first on a stud and secured by its own lockwasher and nut. You may then stack other grounds to other parts of the equipment on top of this ground. You may use a separate lockwasher and nut for each additional ground or one for all of the additional grounds. There may also be other ground studs in the unit if you don't want to run wires to the Protective Earth Terminal. This assumes an all metal construction, which is what we use. We have used both the upside down tree symbol, IEC 417 No. 5017, and the Equipotentiality symbol, IEC 417 No. 5021 for these additional grounds with no problems. For an additional ground on the outside of the equipment we have used the same symbol as for the Protective Earth Terminal. When we sent a unit in once for safety testing to UL we had the upside down tree without the circle next to an outside ground terminal and they told us it has to be the one with the circle around it. I would think that the frame ground symbol, IEC 417 No. 5020 (pitchfork) would also be acceptable although we haven't used it. Hope this helps, Kurt Andrews Compliance Engineer Tracewell Systems, Inc. 567 Enterprise Dr. Westerville, OH 43081 Ph. 614-846-6175 Fax 614-846-7791 Email: kandr...@tracewell.com - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
Re:Proper Protective Earth Ground Symbol
Hi Bill: I have a request for interpretation of requirement. Which symbol is correct for use on a chassis for protective earthing - the upside down tree or the circle upside down tree or the pitchfork?? (Note:- the ground on the back of the box is generally marked GND and is screw and locking washer configuration). What is the correct marking to satisfy a NRTL for a marking? You have asked about four different symbols: 1) Circle. 2) Protective earthing (upside-down tree) 3) Chassis common (pitchfork) 4) GND The circle is a symbol for imperative. This means that something MUST be done or is permitted to be done. (The circle with a diagonal line is a negative imperative -- some action which must not be done or is not permitted to be done.) (Unfortunately, there is ambiguity in the circle symbol between must and permitted.) The protective earthing symbol (upside-down tree) means that this terminal is connected to earth. The circle combined with the protective earthing symbol means that this connection point (terminal) MUST be connected to earth. Therefore, this terminal MUST be used for the wire which connects the equipment to the earth. The chassis common (pitchfork) means that this terminal is connected to the chassis or common point (or functional earth) of the circuit. The chassis may also be connected to earth. The correct marking which will satisfy an NRTL depends on the standard being applied to the product. The symbols you mentioned are IEC symbols and are not necessarily required by the standard which will be applied by the NRTL. Some USA standards allow the use of GND or the color GREEN for terminal identification instead of the IEC symbols. Best regards, Rich - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
RE: Proper Protective Earth Ground Symbol
This may help; We have successfully used the upside down tree within the circle. Our NRTL has accepted this. They are available for $120 in pkg. of 1000 from EuroPort 508-526-1687. -Original Message- From: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com [mailto:jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2000 7:18 AM To: Jackson; William; 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org' Subject: Re:Proper Protective Earth Ground Symbol forwarded for William Jim Reply Separator Subject:Proper Protective Earth Ground Symbol Author: Jackson; William wjack...@harris.com List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: 01/14/00 4:59 PM Greetings all, I have a request for interpretation of requirement. Which symbol is correct for use on a chassis for protective earthing - the upside down tree or the circle upside down tree or the pitchfork?? (Note:- the ground on the back of the box is generally marked GND and is screw and locking washer configuration). What is the correct marking to satisfy a NRTL for a marking? Thanks, Bill Bill Jackson, CQE QA PrgmsEng/Product Safety Harris RF Communications Division (RCD) (716)-242-3897 wjack...@harris.com - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
RE: Lead Banned in Europe Japan?
My, how public spirited of them. Scott -Original Message- From: simon_...@emc.com [SMTP:simon_...@emc.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2000 10:24 AM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RE: Lead Banned in Europe Japan? A little research on the Internet showed that the proposal comes from a tin manufacturers association. I cannot give you a direct sourse at the moment, but it was not difficult to find. The association's goal is to replace lead with tin. Leo Simon -Original Message- From: ron_well...@agilent.com [mailto:ron_well...@agilent.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2000 9:39 AM To: emc-p...@ieee.org; mpeder...@midcom-inc.com Subject: RE: Lead Banned in Europe Japan? Mel, It would be interesting to know who your Customer is that is making this request. We have had similar requests for material content, including lead, specifically in the components we manufacture. You have already heard from people concerning the WEEE Directive in Europe. As for Japan, there is no ban on lead but a law regarding disposal of waste into landfills. Some Japanese manufacturers are imposing lead elimination requirements on their suppliers, mostly component suppliers, to comply with this landfill law. Regards, +=+ |Ronald R. Wellman|Voice : 408-345-8229 | |Agilent Technologies |FAX : 408-345-8630 | |5301 Stevens Creek Blvd.,|E-Mail: ron_well...@agilent.com| |Mailstop 51L-SQ |WWW : http://www.agilent.com | |Santa Clara, California 95052 USA| | +=+ | Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age | | eighteen. - Albert Einstein | +=+ -Original Message- From: mpeder...@midcom-inc.com [mailto:mpeder...@midcom-inc.com] Sent: Monday, January 17, 2000 3:46 PM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: FW: Lead Banned in Europe Japan? Hello: I periodically recieve inquiries on the quanitity of various materials (including Lead) in our product. A customer of ours recently claimed that Lead has been banned in electronics in Europe Japan. They are asking what we are doing about this. Is there any basis in truth for this? Thanks Mel Pedersen Midcom, Inc. Homologations Engineer Phone: (605) 882-8535 mpeder...@midcom-inc.com Fax: (605) 882-8633 - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
Re: EN 61000-4-2
Yes, we were applying the discharges too rapidly. Faster than 1 per 10 seconds did not allow adequate discharge. faster than 1 per 60 seconds still did not allow adequate discharge. So that's 10 minutes a discharge pointand still the test was not adequate for the intent of the test. - Robert - -Original Message- From: rehel...@mmm.com rehel...@mmm.com To: carlos.perk...@eu.effem.com carlos.perk...@eu.effem.com; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: Tuesday, January 18, 2000 6:16 AM Subject: RE: EN 61000-4-2 You are perhaps applying the discharges too fast in sequence. It is quite appropriate to wait for the unit to drain the previously applied charge before applying the next. === carlos.perk...@eu.effem.com on 01/18/2000 01:14:12 AM Please respond to carlos.perk...@eu.effem.com To: Jacowleff, Bill bjacowl...@vdo.com cc: 'kim.boll.jen...@lasat.com' kim.boll.jen...@lasat.com emc-p...@ieee.org (bcc: Robert E. Heller/US-Corporate/3M/US) Subject: RE: EN 61000-4-2 Bill, We have found that stepping up through the test voltages can give misleading results. Our products are plastic cased, and they appear to 'charge' as the test voltages are applied. The result is a pass if 10kv (for example) is applied by stepping in 2kv steps, but a fail if 10kv is applied directly. Perhaps both methods should be used? Cheers, Carlos. - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
Re: EN 61000-4-2
True. Same experience. To legitimize the test we had to discharge the case/structure between discharges. Or, to really aggravate the test, we went from - to + to - to + which often caused a failure. But the point to test at all voltage levels is well made. The discharge wavefront (and attending spectrum) varies so much as a function of voltage level, it is best to not skip any levels if you're trying to rigorously evaluate the EUT. - Robert - -Original Message- From: carlos.perk...@eu.effem.com carlos.perk...@eu.effem.com To: Jacowleff, Bill bjacowl...@vdo.com Cc: 'kim.boll.jen...@lasat.com' kim.boll.jen...@lasat.com; emc-p...@ieee.org emc-p...@ieee.org List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: Tuesday, January 18, 2000 12:55 AM Subject: RE: EN 61000-4-2 Bill, We have found that stepping up through the test voltages can give misleading results. Our products are plastic cased, and they appear to 'charge' as the test voltages are applied. The result is a pass if 10kv (for example) is applied by stepping in 2kv steps, but a fail if 10kv is applied directly. Perhaps both methods should be used? Cheers, Carlos. - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
RE: Proper Protective Earth Ground Symbol
I agree with Kurt's summary of the ground marking and stack-up requirements, but there is a point of clarification I would like to have. Years past, it was explained to me that an appliance inlet ground must be first on the stack-up against the chassis. The point was to ensure that any maintenance action did not compromise the grounding of the enclosure. In the case of a power cord, the opposite was true however. Since a power cord is by definition frequently replaceable (hence the specific requirements for strain relief's and terminal blocks) the ground wire must now be on top of the stack-up. This facilitates easy replacement without jeopardizing the ground. What is the consensus on this? Rick Busche Evans Sutherland rbus...@es.com -Original Message- From: Andrews, Kurt [mailto:kandr...@tracewell.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2000 8:26 AM To: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com; Jackson; William; 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org' Subject:RE: Proper Protective Earth Ground Symbol Jim, For the Protective Earth Terminal, that is the ground from the power cord or IEC Inlet that should be located just inside the equipment needs to be IEC 417, No. 5019, the circle upside down tree. Also the incoming ground MUST be the first on a stud and secured by its own lockwasher and nut. You may then stack other grounds to other parts of the equipment on top of this ground. You may use a separate lockwasher and nut for each additional ground or one for all of the additional grounds. There may also be other ground studs in the unit if you don't want to run wires to the Protective Earth Terminal. This assumes an all metal construction, which is what we use. We have used both the upside down tree symbol, IEC 417 No. 5017, and the Equipotentiality symbol, IEC 417 No. 5021 for these additional grounds with no problems. For an additional ground on the outside of the equipment we have used the same symbol as for the Protective Earth Terminal. When we sent a unit in once for safety testing to UL we had the upside down tree without the circle next to an outside ground terminal and they told us it has to be the one with the circle around it. I would think that the frame ground symbol, IEC 417 No. 5020 (pitchfork) would also be acceptable although we haven't used it. Hope this helps, Kurt Andrews Compliance Engineer Tracewell Systems, Inc. 567 Enterprise Dr. Westerville, OH 43081 Ph. 614-846-6175 Fax 614-846-7791 Email: kandr...@tracewell.com - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
RE: Proper Protective Earth Ground Symbol
For CE LVD: The main earth point should be marked with the circled upside down tree. Only one such symbol should appear on your product. This is your main earth bond point. Any other points you wish to mark as earth should be marked with the uncircled variety of the upside down tree. Refer EN 60065 for symbol - tree is not solid but formed with horizontal lines of decreasing length. Regards, Chris -Original Message- From: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com [mailto:jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2000 1:18 PM To: Jackson; William; 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org' Subject: Re:Proper Protective Earth Ground Symbol forwarded for William Jim Reply Separator Subject:Proper Protective Earth Ground Symbol Author: Jackson; William wjack...@harris.com List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: 01/14/00 4:59 PM Greetings all, I have a request for interpretation of requirement. Which symbol is correct for use on a chassis for protective earthing - the upside down tree or the circle upside down tree or the pitchfork?? (Note:- the ground on the back of the box is generally marked GND and is screw and locking washer configuration). What is the correct marking to satisfy a NRTL for a marking? Thanks, Bill Bill Jackson, CQE QA PrgmsEng/Product Safety Harris RF Communications Division (RCD) (716)-242-3897 wjack...@harris.com - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
RE: Proper Protective Earth Ground Symbol
Jim, For the Protective Earth Terminal, that is the ground from the power cord or IEC Inlet that should be located just inside the equipment needs to be IEC 417, No. 5019, the circle upside down tree. Also the incoming ground MUST be the first on a stud and secured by its own lockwasher and nut. You may then stack other grounds to other parts of the equipment on top of this ground. You may use a separate lockwasher and nut for each additional ground or one for all of the additional grounds. There may also be other ground studs in the unit if you don't want to run wires to the Protective Earth Terminal. This assumes an all metal construction, which is what we use. We have used both the upside down tree symbol, IEC 417 No. 5017, and the Equipotentiality symbol, IEC 417 No. 5021 for these additional grounds with no problems. For an additional ground on the outside of the equipment we have used the same symbol as for the Protective Earth Terminal. When we sent a unit in once for safety testing to UL we had the upside down tree without the circle next to an outside ground terminal and they told us it has to be the one with the circle around it. I would think that the frame ground symbol, IEC 417 No. 5020 (pitchfork) would also be acceptable although we haven't used it. Hope this helps, Kurt Andrews Compliance Engineer Tracewell Systems, Inc. 567 Enterprise Dr. Westerville, OH 43081 Ph. 614-846-6175 Fax 614-846-7791 Email: kandr...@tracewell.com -Original Message- From: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com [SMTP:jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2000 8:18 AM To: Jackson; William; 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org' Subject:Re:Proper Protective Earth Ground Symbol forwarded for William Jim Reply Separator Subject:Proper Protective Earth Ground Symbol Author: Jackson; William wjack...@harris.com Date: 01/14/00 4:59 PM Greetings all, I have a request for interpretation of requirement. Which symbol is correct for use on a chassis for protective earthing - the upside down tree or the circle upside down tree or the pitchfork?? (Note:- the ground on the back of the box is generally marked GND and is screw and locking washer configuration). What is the correct marking to satisfy a NRTL for a marking? Thanks, Bill Bill Jackson, CQE QA PrgmsEng/Product Safety Harris RF Communications Division (RCD) (716)-242-3897 wjack...@harris.com - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
RE: Lead Banned in Europe Japan?
A little research on the Internet showed that the proposal comes from a tin manufacturers association. I cannot give you a direct sourse at the moment, but it was not difficult to find. The association's goal is to replace lead with tin. Leo Simon -Original Message- From: ron_well...@agilent.com [mailto:ron_well...@agilent.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2000 9:39 AM To: emc-p...@ieee.org; mpeder...@midcom-inc.com Subject: RE: Lead Banned in Europe Japan? Mel, It would be interesting to know who your Customer is that is making this request. We have had similar requests for material content, including lead, specifically in the components we manufacture. You have already heard from people concerning the WEEE Directive in Europe. As for Japan, there is no ban on lead but a law regarding disposal of waste into landfills. Some Japanese manufacturers are imposing lead elimination requirements on their suppliers, mostly component suppliers, to comply with this landfill law. Regards, +=+ |Ronald R. Wellman|Voice : 408-345-8229 | |Agilent Technologies |FAX : 408-345-8630 | |5301 Stevens Creek Blvd.,|E-Mail: ron_well...@agilent.com| |Mailstop 51L-SQ |WWW : http://www.agilent.com | |Santa Clara, California 95052 USA| | +=+ | Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age | | eighteen. - Albert Einstein | +=+ -Original Message- From: mpeder...@midcom-inc.com [mailto:mpeder...@midcom-inc.com] Sent: Monday, January 17, 2000 3:46 PM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: FW: Lead Banned in Europe Japan? Hello: I periodically recieve inquiries on the quanitity of various materials (including Lead) in our product. A customer of ours recently claimed that Lead has been banned in electronics in Europe Japan. They are asking what we are doing about this. Is there any basis in truth for this? Thanks Mel Pedersen Midcom, Inc. Homologations Engineer Phone: (605) 882-8535 mpeder...@midcom-inc.com Fax: (605) 882-8633 - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
Re:Surge testing to UL244A
forwarding for Ronald. Jim Reply Separator Subject:Surge testing to UL244A Author: Ronald Higdon rhig...@spectrumprod.com List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: 01/14/00 1:34 PM Hi Everyone, I am investigating different standards for an electronic timer that my company is having designed for use in tanning beds. I noticed that the surge testing for UL244A requires 500 hits of a 6KV waveform. Isn't 500 hits of a 6KV waveform rather excessive or is this a normal number of repetitions for this type of testing? Is UL244A the correct standard for an electronic timer for this type of product or should is another standard more appropriate? Thanks for any help that you can supply. Ronald L. Higdon Senior Electrical Engineer Spectrum Products, Inc. 7445 Company Drive Indianapolis, IN 46237-9296 (317) 554-3535 - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
Re:Proper Protective Earth Ground Symbol
forwarded for William Jim Reply Separator Subject:Proper Protective Earth Ground Symbol Author: Jackson; William wjack...@harris.com List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: 01/14/00 4:59 PM Greetings all, I have a request for interpretation of requirement. Which symbol is correct for use on a chassis for protective earthing - the upside down tree or the circle upside down tree or the pitchfork?? (Note:- the ground on the back of the box is generally marked GND and is screw and locking washer configuration). What is the correct marking to satisfy a NRTL for a marking? Thanks, Bill Bill Jackson, CQE QA PrgmsEng/Product Safety Harris RF Communications Division (RCD) (716)-242-3897 wjack...@harris.com - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
Re: Y3K
Derek Walton wrote: Gary, as a European school kid, we had it driven into us that: K is for the binary world, i.e. 1K=1024 k is the metric symbol for 1000 The trouble comes in when folks get sloppy and substitute willy nilly. Perhaps we should measure current in volts...;-))) Someone on this thread mentioned the new IEC units for binary numbers 1024=killi (ki) etc. The following posting is from the T11 reflector. The website refered to is www.t11.org try the DOCS link on the left. When downloading documents click on the file desription PDF TXT etc on the right of the file name to download. __start of posting_ * * From the fc reflector, posted by: * Ed Grivna e...@cypress.com * Hi Gang, it took a while, but I was able to track down the IEC reference that documents usage of extensions to the SI system of units for binary-weighted numbers. The IEC standard is: IEC 60027-2. Letter symbols to be used in electrical technology. Part-2: Telecommunications and electronics. Amendment 2, 1999-01. I have also found out that the IEEE has a draft standard in place (P1541/D2) documenting the usage of these same units. I will post a copy of the IEEE draft, and a couple pages of the IEC standard to the t11 web site. With this information in hand, I will be making a formal request for adoption of same at the next T11.2 and T11 plenaries. end of posting___ Regards, -- Regards Dave Instone. Compliance Engineer Test Systems, MP24/22 Xyratex, Langstone Rd., Havant, Hampshire, P09 1SA, UK. Tel: +44 (0)23-92-496862 (direct line) Fax: +44 (0)23-92-496014 http://www.xyratex.com Tel: +44 (0)23-92-486363 - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
RE: EN 61000-4-2
Hi Kim EN61000-4-2 requires at least 10 discharges, so if you want your product to conform to this standard, a minimum of 10 discharges should be performed...you can do more if you want to, I guess. There may be some standard for some product type somewhere that calls up the test procedure of EN61000-4-2 and requires 50 discharges but I don't know of it. Regards Chris Colgan EMC Safety TAG McLaren Audio Ltd mailto:chris.col...@tagmclarenaudio.com -Original Message- From: kim.boll.jen...@lasat.com [SMTP:kim.boll.jen...@lasat.com] Sent: 17 January 2000 10:41 To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: EN 61000-4-2 Dear all I'm writing on a internal testprocedure for our products, and have now come to EN 61000-4-2 ESD. What confuse me is that the standard (as I read it) only refere to 10 discharges at each point (and each polarity), but I have been told from several different persons that the right number is 50 at each points (but without any reference to any standard). Do anynoe know what the right number is and where I can find it Best regards, Mr. Kim Boll Jensen i-data international Denmark - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). = Authorised on 01/18/00 at 09:22:47; code 37f48bf39A98B9CD. The contents of this E-mail are confidential and for the exclusive use of the intended recipient. If you receive this E-mail in error, please delete it from your system immediately and notify us either by E-mail, telephone or fax. You should not copy, forward or otherwise disclose the content of the E-mail. TAG McLaren Audio Ltd, The Summit, 11 Latham Road Huntingdon, Cambs, PE18 6ZU Telephone : 01480 415600 (+44 1480 415600) Facsimile : 01480 52159 (+44 1480 52159) - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
Re: Lead Banned in Europe Japan?
As far as I know, in Europe, the WEEE directive is still in draft stage and will include recommendations on bannissment of lead. We expect the fourth draft to come out in feb 2000. But it is only a draft for the moment ! One main issue : if lead is banned then what is the best choice to replace it ? I have no information on Japan. Mel Pedersen wrote: Hello: I periodically recieve inquiries on the quanitity of various materials (including Lead) in our product. A customer of ours recently claimed that Lead has been banned in electronics in Europe Japan. They are asking what we are doing about this. Is there any basis in truth for this? Thanks Mel Pedersen Midcom, Inc. Homologations Engineer Phone: (605) 882-8535 mpeder...@midcom-inc.com Fax: (605) 882-8633 - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). attachment: vcard.vcf
RE: EN 61000-4-2
-- Forwarded by Kim Boll Jensen/INT on 2000-01-18 08:28 --- Helge Knudsen hknud...@image.dk on 2000-01-17 19:11:53 Please respond to hknud...@image.dk hknud...@image.dk To: Kim Boll Jensen/INT cc: Subject: RE: EN 61000-4-2 I will just forward this answer since this is the right one for me and I don't think it was send to the group. Thank you for all the other answers which have been very informative too, and shows that there are more to this EMC matter than just complying to the standards. First of all this is a quality matter and not just a stupid requirement from some old dusty government officers, and some of the requirement is not even good enough for the real world. Hello Kim, The number 50 at each point comes from EN 55024/CISPR 24: quote 4.2.1 Electrostatic discharges Static electricity discharges shall be applied only to those points and surfaces of the EUT which are expected to be touched during usual operation, including user access, as specified in the user manual, for example for ribbon and paper roll changes. The discharges shall be applied in two ways: a) contact discharges to the conductive surfaces and to coupling planes: The EUT shall be exposed to at least 200 discharges, 100 each at negative and positive polarity, at a minimum of four test points (a minimum of 50 discharges at each point). One of the test points shall be subjected to at least 50 indirect discharges (contact) to the centre of the front edge of the horizontal coupling plane.The remaining three test points shall each receive at least 50 direct contact discharges. If no direct contact test points are available, then at least 200 indirect discharges shall be applied in the indirect mode (see IEC 61000-4-2 for use of the Vertical Conducting Plane (VCP). Tests shall be performed at a maximum repetition rate of one discharge per second. b) air discharge at slots and apertures, and insulating surfaces: On those parts of the EUT where it is not possible to perform contact discharge testing, the equipment should be investigated to identify user accessible points where breakdown may occur; examples are openings at edges of keys, or in the covers of keyboards and telephone handsets. Such points are tested using the air discharge method. See also IEC 61000-4-2 regarding painted surfaces. This investigation should be restricted to those areas normally handled by the user. A minimum of 10 single air discharges shall be applied to the selected test point for each such area. The application of electrostatic discharges to the contacts of open connectors is not required by this publication. unquote Best regards Helge Knudsen Jyske EMC - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
RE: EN 61000-4-2
Bill, We have found that stepping up through the test voltages can give misleading results. Our products are plastic cased, and they appear to 'charge' as the test voltages are applied. The result is a pass if 10kv (for example) is applied by stepping in 2kv steps, but a fail if 10kv is applied directly. Perhaps both methods should be used? Cheers, Carlos. Please respond to Jacowleff, Bill bjacowl...@vdo.com To: 'kim.boll.jen...@lasat.com' kim.boll.jen...@lasat.com, emc-p...@ieee.org cc: (bcc: Carlos A. Perkins/WIN/Effem) From: Jacowleff, Bill bjacowl...@vdo.com on 17/01/2000 13:42 Subject: RE: EN 61000-4-2 Dear Mr. Kim Boll Jensen: Well the answer to your question is 10 discharges to each point per polarity. A few other things to consider. It is also important to step through the voltages and not skip any. Is your internal test procedure going to be used as a supporting test for a DOC or is it for a DV or PV? If it is a Design validation it is quite possible to want to exceed the specs per the standard, it all depends on what you expect to learn from this type of testing. The Design Validations I have composed for ESD have exceeded the standard specifications. Best Regards, Bill Jacowleff VDO Control Systems Airpax Instruments 150 Knotter Drive Cheshire, CT 06410 Phone: 203 271-6394 FAX:203 271-6200 bjacowl...@vdo.com -Original Message- From: kim.boll.jen...@lasat.com [mailto:kim.boll.jen...@lasat.com] Sent: Monday, January 17, 2000 5:41 AM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: EN 61000-4-2 Dear all I'm writing on a internal testprocedure for our products, and have now come to EN 61000-4-2 ESD. What confuse me is that the standard (as I read it) only refere to 10 discharges at each point (and each polarity), but I have been told from several different persons that the right number is 50 at each points (but without any reference to any standard). Do anynoe know what the right number is and where I can find it Best regards, Mr. Kim Boll Jensen i-data international Denmark - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
