RE: Color or marking of buttons - safety question
-Original Message- From: Rich Nute [mailto:ri...@sdd.hp.com] Sent: Friday, January 19, 2001 11:19 AM To: paul_oshaughne...@affymetrix.com Cc: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Re: Color or marking of buttons - safety question Hi Paul: However, to release the interlock, a PAUSE or STOP button is pressed which allows the instrument to stop in an orderly way and then release the cover. Best as I can tell, a red pushbutton, with PAUSE or STOP legend and the ! in a triangle (to refer the operator back to the manual) would do the trick. I To my knowledge, an interlock need not be classed as an emergency stop device (which would require the red color). Interlocks are found everywhere, yet they are not usually identified by the color red. For the sake of discussion, consider two controls. The first control is as you describe, and provides the orderly stop followed by release of the cover. This control is just a normal operation control and can be any color. The second control disconnects all power from the unit (i.e., a disorderly or dirty stop) and releases the cover. It would be labeled emergency stop or equivalent. This second control would be red. Neither or these controls would necessarily require the use of the ! in a triangle. In the case you describe, you simply have an interlock. The interlock itself is the device which provides the safety, i.e., the protection against the moving parts. There are no further safety requirements regarding operation of the interlock. De-actuation of the interlock by a manual control does not mean that the manual control is a safety device. I would not use red. To me, you have described a functional control, not a safety control. The interlock is the safety control. Best regards, Rich Rich, et al: Since the manufacturer is providing an official (or maybe authorized) path into the equipment for normal operator intervention, should the internal dangerous parts also be color-coded or otherwise flagged? Regards, Ed Ed Price ed.pr...@cubic.com Electromagnetic Compatibility Lab Cubic Defense Systems San Diego, CA. USA 858-505-2780 (Voice) 858-505-1583 (Fax) Military Avionics EMC Services Is Our Specialty Shake-Bake-Shock - Metrology - Reliability Analysis --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
RE: Power Transformers and the applicability of -3-2 and -3-3
I would say that unless isolation from the public power supply is somehow guaranteed as part of your installation procedures, you must assume that your equipment comes under -3-2 and -3-3. Basically, if it's got a plug and pulls less than 16 Amps at European mains voltages, you need to comply. What softens the blow here is amendment A14 to -3-2, which allows you to reclassify just about everything except PCs and TVs from Class D to Class A. This bypasses the harmonic current per Watt limits contained in Table 3 of -3-2 and makes things a bit easier. The logic here is whether something is LIKELY to be plugged directly into the public supply, and in what numbers. PCs and TVs are domestic and ubiquitous, so get take the rap as Class D. Paul O'Shaughnessy Affymetrix, Inc. --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
RE: Looking at leakage current specs
Gary, If this equipment has a chassis bonding connection like you find in telephone line up equipment, would then it fall under the class B pluggable. I can still remove power cords, but have a chassis to frame bonding wire in parallel to that. (Yes, I know most of that stuff is DC but there is a small number that is not). I hope to work with the power supply folks to reduce the problem through filter design if I can, but I think this is an interesting questions. What do you think? Pluggable Type B is a term which only refers to an industrial type power plug. Having a permanently connected earthing connection may provide the relief from the excessive leakage currents you're experiencing. Such a connection might be described in 6.3.3.2, 6.3.4.1 and 6.3.4.3.2 (yeah I know, these are telco references), but, they adequately describe the earthing conditions and requirements. As an aside (well, sort of) I could never understand why such a protective earthing connection is described for the protection of a telecom circuit, and not mentioned at all for the protection (leakage current, etc.) of an AC mains circuit. Maybe someone more knowledgeable than I can explain that. At any rate, pass this by your friendly NRTL for their interpretation of doing this. Also, an interesting paragraph exists in 5.2.2. It states Equipment designed for multiple (redundant) power supplies shall be tested with only one supply connected. How would one interpret this? Only one supply connected and then the other, and then add the currents? Again, maybe someone more knowledgeable than I can explain this. Just trying to stir the pot. Best regards, Ron Pickard rpick...@hypercom.com --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
RE: FCC Part 68 Continuing Compliance
Jim, The details and logistics of the FCC continuing compliance program and the next step in de-regulation process can be viewed or downloaded at: http://www.conformity-update.com/fcc-part68-010112.doc Regards, Bandele Jetstream Communications, Inc. badep...@jetstream.com -Original Message- From: Jim Hulbert [mailto:hulbe...@pb.com] Sent: Friday, January 19, 2001 5:52 AM To: j...@aol.com Cc: ctho...@patton.com; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: FCC Part 68 Continuing Compliance Under the latest Part 68 Rules, I believe you no longer submit an application to the FCC for Part 68 registration. This initial registration process is now handled in the private sector by Technical Conformance Bodies, or TCB's, that have been approved for that purpose. The manufacturer can do his own six month continuing compliance testing. The next revision of the Part 68 Rules further de-regulates the approval process and allows for a manufacturer's self-certification, provided the manufacturer tests his product to the appropriate technical standards -- similar to the present verification process for Part 15. The details and logistics of this next step in the de-regulation process are not yet worked out. Jim Hulbert j...@aol.com on 01/18/2001 03:56:52 PM Please respond to j...@aol.com To: ctho...@patton.com, emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org cc:(bcc: Jim Hulbert/MSD/US/PBI) Subject: Re: FCC Part 68 Continuing Compliance In a message dated 1/17/01, Courtland Thomas write: I have a question concerning coninuing compliance for Part 68. I believe that we are required to submit units for testing every six months. If the FCC audits and finds that the test reports aren't up to date, then there can be problems. This testing costs around $1500.00 for our ITE products. This becomes a very expensive process. Is there anything that can be done to eliminate this cost. I would like to test the units in house and log the results and use that info as my continuing compliance data. Any thoughts on this? Hi Courtland: To the best of my knowledge, there is no reason why you can't do the continuing compliance testing yourself. In fact, you can even do the initial testing yourself if you are equipped to do so. For the initial testing you would have to submit a written report to the FCC, but there is no filing requirement for continuing compliance. You simply have to keep the test data on file. If you have a lot of different products in production, the economics favor in-house testing. A few years ago one of my clients who had about 30 different products decided to do their continuing compliance testing in-house. They figured the savings of at least $60,000 per year would easily justify the cost of the test equipment and a part time technician. They purchased the FCC Part 68 test equipment from Compliance Design, but never actually used it. I guess they just got too busy with other priorities to set up the in-house capability. Recently they told me they would like to unload the equipment, so if you are interested I will put you in touch with them. I wouldn't necessarily recommend the Compliance Design equipment for a new purchase, but if the price is right on the used equipment, it might be an attractive option. Joe Randolph Telecom Design Consultant Randolph Telecom, Inc. 781-721-2848 http://www.randolph-telecom.com --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
RE: Need a CDN-T2 for 61000-4-6 conducted immunity test
The only company I know selling these special CDN is RodheSchwarz http://www.rsd.de http://www.rsd.de Best Regards Lothar Schmidt Technical Manager EMC/Bluetooth, BQB, Competent Body Cetecom Inc. 411 Dixon Landing Road Milpitas, CA 95035 Phone: +1 (408) 586 6214 Fax: +1 (408) 586 6299 -Original Message- From: j...@aol.com [mailto:j...@aol.com] Sent: Friday, January 19, 2001 7:02 AM To: t...@world.std.com; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Need a CDN-T2 for 61000-4-6 conducted immunity test Dear Listmembers: I would like to purchase a CDN (coupling-decoupling network) for performing the conducted RF immunity test called out in EN 55024. The specific CDN that I am interested in is the CDN-T2 for 2-wire unshielded twisted pair, as shown in Figure D.4 of 61000-4-6. Can any of you recommend some suppliers who sell this device? So far I have identified only one small company in California. When I called to get more information I had a most unpleasant experience, so I would prefer to spend my money elsewhere if possible. I also have a couple of questions that I'm hoping you can help me with: 1) What specific performance parameters should I should be looking for in this CDN? 2) I note that the ISN (impedance stabilization network) in Figure D.1 of EN 55022 has a similar schematic to the CDN-T2. Is it possible to use the CDN-T2 for the EN 55022 conducted emissions test as well? My primary interest is in being able to perform the conducted immunity test per EN 55024, but it might be nice to be able to perform the conducted emissions test per EN 55022 as well. Any suggestions for recommended vendors would be welcome. Joe Randolph Telecom Design Consultant Randolph Telecom, Inc. 781-721-2848 http://www.randolph-telecom.com
RE: Power Transformers-Question Re-stated
In Europe the power distribution is done i=on different levels or grids. The industrial environment is normally supplied with a 20 KV or similar high voltage line an has his own transformer for 240/415 V The residential and commercial environment is supplied via 240/415 V grid. Best Regards Lothar Schmidt Technical Manager EMC/Bluetooth, BQB, Competent Body Cetecom Inc. 411 Dixon Landing Road Milpitas, CA 95035 Phone: +1 (408) 586 6214 Fax: +1 (408) 586 6299 -Original Message- From: Chris Maxwell [mailto:chris.maxw...@gnnettest.com] Sent: Friday, January 19, 2001 9:24 AM To: 'Wagner, John P (John)'; Chris Maxwell; 'EMC-PSTC Internet Forum' Subject: Power Transformers-Question Re-stated John, thanks for the reply. I think you pointed out a mistake in my original question. I should not have used side when talking about transformers. I know that we don't have products running from the high or medium voltage sides of the transformers. I'll re-state the question using the word partition as opposed to side. I was reading an article in conformity-update at the following URL: http://www.conformity-update.com/iec-61000-000908.htm In this article, the author mentions the following terms, and I quote: an industrial MV or HV/LV transformer I assume that these MV or HV/LV transformers are used to partition the power distrubution grid into industrial and residential partitions. What I'm looking for are some ways to determine which partition of the grid a product is used in. I'm also trying to find out how dependable this partitioning is. For instance, is it common to find residences in the same partition as a factory with 100 workers? If not, how small of a factory could be included in a residential partition? 10 workers? 50 workers? For instance, we have some products that are used in huge fiber optic cable manufacturing plants. We also have some products which could be used in a small communications maintenance sheds. Could these two environments be in different partitions of the power grid? As always, the time and consideration of the group is appreciated. Chris Maxwell Design Engineer GN Nettest 6 Rhoads Drive, Building 4 Utica,NY 13502 email: chris.maxw...@gnnettest.com phone: 315-266-5128 fax: 315-797-8024 -Original Message- From: Wagner, John P (John) [SMTP:johnwag...@avaya.com] Sent: Friday, January 19, 2001 12:03 PM To: 'Chris Maxwell' Subject: RE: Power Transformers I don't think so Chris. The standards are applicable to 230V, 50 Hz systems. Therefore , the standards would not apply to equipment on the higer voltage side of the transformer. Typically residential distribution is from a MV/LV transformer say 1MVA size with a large loop of low voltage customers. (In the US MV (medium voltage) is typicallly distributed to pole mounted transformers which serve fewer than 10 customers. Commercial distribution is similar to the US -- 3 phase into the facility at 415Y/230V, 50Hz. John P. Wagner AVAYA Communication (303) 538-4241 johnwag...@avaya.com --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
Re: Color or marking of buttons - safety question
Hi Paul: However, to release the interlock, a PAUSE or STOP button is pressed which allows the instrument to stop in an orderly way and then release the cover. Best as I can tell, a red pushbutton, with PAUSE or STOP legend and the ! in a triangle (to refer the operator back to the manual) would do the trick. I To my knowledge, an interlock need not be classed as an emergency stop device (which would require the red color). Interlocks are found everywhere, yet they are not usually identified by the color red. For the sake of discussion, consider two controls. The first control is as you describe, and provides the orderly stop followed by release of the cover. This control is just a normal operation control and can be any color. The second control disconnects all power from the unit (i.e., a disorderly or dirty stop) and releases the cover. It would be labeled emergency stop or equivalent. This second control would be red. Neither or these controls would necessarily require the use of the ! in a triangle. In the case you describe, you simply have an interlock. The interlock itself is the device which provides the safety, i.e., the protection against the moving parts. There are no further safety requirements regarding operation of the interlock. De-actuation of the interlock by a manual control does not mean that the manual control is a safety device. I would not use red. To me, you have described a functional control, not a safety control. The interlock is the safety control. Best regards, Rich --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
Re: Need a CDN-T2 for 61000-4-6 conducted immunity test
Joe, you can found a CDN-T2 and T4 at Rohde Schwarz. You can use these CDNs also to measure noise instead inject noise. Haefely sells these type of CDNs too, but their CDNs are made by Lüthi. Sérgio Rocha Loures Siemens Ltda. - Brazil ICN FL QEL Tel: +55 41 341-5755 Fax: +55 41 341-5058 E-mail: sergioro...@siemens.com.br j...@aol.com 19/01/01 12:01 Dear Listmembers: I would like to purchase a CDN (coupling-decoupling network) for performing the conducted RF immunity test called out in EN 55024. The specific CDN that I am interested in is the CDN-T2 for 2-wire unshielded twisted pair, as shown in Figure D.4 of 61000-4-6. Can any of you recommend some suppliers who sell this device? So far I have identified only one small company in California. When I called to get more information I had a most unpleasant experience, so I would prefer to spend my money elsewhere if possible. I also have a couple of questions that I'm hoping you can help me with: 1) What specific performance parameters should I should be looking for in this CDN? 2) I note that the ISN (impedance stabilization network) in Figure D.1 of EN 55022 has a similar schematic to the CDN-T2. Is it possible to use the CDN-T2 for the EN 55022 conducted emissions test as well? My primary interest is in being able to perform the conducted immunity test per EN 55024, but it might be nice to be able to perform the conducted emissions test per EN 55022 as well. Any suggestions for recommended vendors would be welcome. Joe Randolph Telecom Design Consultant Randolph Telecom, Inc. 781-721-2848 http://www.randolph-telecom.com --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
Color or marking of buttons - safety question
We have an instrument with moving parts protected by an interlocked cover. The moving parts are accessible to the operator once the cover is opened. However, to release the interlock, a PAUSE or STOP button is pressed which allows the instrument to stop in an orderly way and then release the cover. Best as I can tell, a red pushbutton, with PAUSE or STOP legend and the ! in a triangle (to refer the operator back to the manual) would do the trick. I want to avoid, however, any implication of other functions due to the red color. Are people on the list aware of regulatory problems brought on by the use of red pushbuttons? Are there some good publications on the subject? Many thanks, Paul O'Shaughnessy Affymetrix, Inc. --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
Power Transformers and the applicability of -3-2 and -3-3
Chris, Sorry to keep -3-2 in the conversation, but hopefully you'll get the point. I still have questions pertaining to it, so I've couched my answer in this context. I'll take a swing at this with the caveat that I don't pretend to be the world's expert on this subject, but I'm running into it a great deal with -3-2 and have spent a lot of time trying to make sure I'm aware of the requirements and potential exceptions. I'm also not on the committee that wrote the standard, as Mr. Woodgate, the author of the excellent article you reference, is. And my third strike is that I'm an American, so my interpretations of European requirements are, by default, to be considered to be questionable at best. Now, on with the countdown... For most residential customers (Bill Gates and Larry Ellison excluded), power enters your premises at 120/240 volts (230 volts in the EU). This is the low-voltage electricity supply referred to in the -3-2 and -3-3 standards and, thus, any electrical equipment in this setting falls within the scope. For some commercial customers, they have the same situation - low voltage (230 in the EU) enters your facility and, as such, applications in this setting would also be considered to fall within the scope of the standard, since the potential exists that harmonics they generate would be present on the power system accessible by others on the same low voltage transformer. For larger commercial customers (and Bill and Larry), power is delivered to the campus at medium or high voltages. In North America, this would be 2300 volts, 4160 volts, 15kV, 69kV, 115kV, 230kV, etc. It is generally more efficient for them to buy things like this and easier for the utility company, as well. Think of the aluminum smelter plugged into a 120v wall outlet... For these last customers, the case can be made that the 120 volt wall outlets (230 in the EU) that exist on their campus (e.g. in offices, kitchens, etc.) are not part of the PUBLIC low-voltage electricity supply (i.e. their neighbor company isn't running off the same low voltage transformers in the same way your neighbor at home likely is). These applications are connected to the public power distribution system at medium or high voltages and harmonics and flicker exposure from equiment are mitigated by that transformer. They have their own PRIVATE low voltage electricity supply system, and, thus, the provisions of -3-2 and -3-3 do not apply to this application. (Obviously, owners of these private distribution systems should be mindful of the issues covered in the standards, but will likely tolerate more than you might tolerate of your neighbor). The difficulty that I have is that my company needs to assume conservatively that all applications of our product fall within the settings that would require the PFC-compliant supplies to be used. (1) Is there a satisfactory way to identify those customers who fall into the latter category and be able to ship equipment that do not meet the new requirements if they make the argument that they don't apply to their application - either via waiver or similar means? (2) Am I correct in reading between the lines of Mr. Woodhouse's article that since my product can conceivably be connected to the public system, it must comply, despite the end-use. Or am I reading too much into these requirements? It will be interesting to see how this will be enforced by customs officials and dealt with by members of this list. Regards, Michael Garretson Sr. Compliance Engineer RadiSys Corporation +1 503 615-1227 Chris Maxwell chris.maxwell@gnneTo: 'EMC-PSTC Internet Forum' emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org ttest.com cc: Sent by: Subject: Power Transformers owner-emc-pstc@ieee .org 01/19/01 07:57 AM Please respond to Chris Maxwell
Re: Copper Thieving
Hi! Michael: Thank you for your suggestion. It seems that copper fill that you and several other guys mentioned does not applied in my board. For external layers, you can implement the copper ring or, as other people suggested, using copper fill but grounded it. In my case, I have a high-layer count (20), big board (about 40x60 cm) and also thin dielectrics. The main problem is that certain area on internal layers (e.g., under DC converter) is void of copper and that cause lamination voids and warpage. Any suggestions on this ? Regards Perry Michael Mertinooke wrote: The question is, where do we find a compromised solution that makes everyone happy ? The thieving areas are normally very rough, very wide (3/4 inch) borders around the boards, and are completely trimmed off when the bare boards are separated from the plating frames. Mike --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
Need a CDN-T2 for 61000-4-6 conducted immunity test
Hi Joe Schaffner makes a wide range of CDN's including a CDN-T2. I do not know if it' s also useable for EN 55024 but it does have a higher frequency performance IE to 230MHz. I would suggest you contact John Parnell at Schaffner 800-367-5566, or e-mail him at jparn...@schaffner.com Tony Colorado --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
RE: Looking at leakage current specs
Thanks Allen, I would agree with the pluggable A and B issue. Because of the concern with the leakage I indeed read this section as I knew there was some sort of exception. In reading it, I'm out of the office and doing this from very recent memory, the information you present is correct. This buy the way was the UL60950 standard, so as up to date as I can get. The issue of the ground pin is very interesting, I wasn't aware of what the real concern was between these two types. So now another question. If this equipment has a chassis bonding connection like you find in telephone line up equipment, would then it fall under the class B pluggable. I can still remove power cords, but have a chassis to frame bonding wire in parallel to that. (Yes, I know most of that stuff is DC but there is a small number that is not). I hope to work with the power supply folks to reduce the problem through filter design if I can, but I think this is an interesting questions. What do you think? Gary -Original Message- From: Allen, John [mailto:john.al...@rdel.co.uk] Sent: Friday, January 19, 2001 12:41 AM To: 'David Gelfand'; EMC-PSTC (E-mail) Subject: RE: Looking at leakage current specs Hi folks I (and I believe, a number of other people) disagree with the last sentence of David's message - in so far as it is NOT merely a question of having a longer grounding pin. IEC and EN60950 - and I think also the common UL/CSA standard (but not having seen the latest edition) - allow high leakage equipment to be connected by a mains plug ONLY if it can be classified as Pluggable Type B, and NOT Pluggable Type A. If you then refer to the definitions of these two types of equipment (in those standards) you will see that Pluggable Type A uses a domestic grounding plug, whilst Pluggable Type B uses an industrial plug , e.g. IEC/EN60309 (but I would also personally class many of the North American NEMA 6P-XX Twistlock plugs as being in this category). The significant point about the latter types of plugs is that they have some mechanism to positively lock the plug into the socket and thus ensure the grounding continuity - whereas domestic plugs generally do not and can rock badly in the socket - thus compromising the grounding of the equipment. There are also minimum conductor size requirements for the grounding conductor, and an overall 5% limit on the leakage current (although I doubt that this will affect much pluggable equipment!!) John Allen THALES Defence Ltd, Bracknell, UK -Original Message- From: David Gelfand [ mailto:gelf...@memotec.com mailto:gelf...@memotec.com ] Sent: 18 January 2001 21:30 To: EMC-PSTC (E-mail) Subject: Re: Looking at leakage current specs Gary, The measurement is made with all power supplies in parallel, but you can exceed the 3.5 mA limit if you provide a warning to ground equipment before connecting. With standard power cords this is done by having the ground pin slightly longer than the line and neutral. David David Gelfand Regulatory Approvals Memotec Communications Inc. Montreal Canada - Original Message - From: Gary McInturff gary.mcintu...@worldwidepackets.com To: EMC-PSTC (E-mail) emc-p...@ieee.org Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2001 10:44 AM Subject: Looking at leakage current specs Was reviewing a number of power supply specifications and would like to parallel a couple, but the leakage/touch current on them is in the 2 mA range. Isn't most of the leakage current produced (produced might not be the word I want) in the upfront filter caps - W and Y capacitors and such? If I parallel these aren't I likely to see a significant increase in the leakage current, and probably blow by the 3.5 mm requirement for ITE? Would the measurement be made twice, once for each supply or would I have to provide a common input to both supplies and then measure between chassis and this common point's protective earth terminal? Gary --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
RE: Copper Thieving
Capacitively. If your floating structure ends up being resonate at a fundamental or one of the harmonics it will become a very effective unintentional radiator. Dan -Original Message- From: David Gelfand [mailto:gelf...@memotec.com] Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2001 2:34 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: Copper Thieving How does electrically floating copper interact with electromagnetic fields? David --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
Power Transformers-Question Re-stated
John, thanks for the reply. I think you pointed out a mistake in my original question. I should not have used side when talking about transformers. I know that we don't have products running from the high or medium voltage sides of the transformers. I'll re-state the question using the word partition as opposed to side. I was reading an article in conformity-update at the following URL: http://www.conformity-update.com/iec-61000-000908.htm In this article, the author mentions the following terms, and I quote: an industrial MV or HV/LV transformer I assume that these MV or HV/LV transformers are used to partition the power distrubution grid into industrial and residential partitions. What I'm looking for are some ways to determine which partition of the grid a product is used in. I'm also trying to find out how dependable this partitioning is. For instance, is it common to find residences in the same partition as a factory with 100 workers? If not, how small of a factory could be included in a residential partition? 10 workers? 50 workers? For instance, we have some products that are used in huge fiber optic cable manufacturing plants. We also have some products which could be used in a small communications maintenance sheds. Could these two environments be in different partitions of the power grid? As always, the time and consideration of the group is appreciated. Chris Maxwell Design Engineer GN Nettest 6 Rhoads Drive, Building 4 Utica,NY 13502 email: chris.maxw...@gnnettest.com phone: 315-266-5128 fax: 315-797-8024 -Original Message- From: Wagner, John P (John) [SMTP:johnwag...@avaya.com] Sent: Friday, January 19, 2001 12:03 PM To: 'Chris Maxwell' Subject: RE: Power Transformers I don't think so Chris. The standards are applicable to 230V, 50 Hz systems. Therefore , the standards would not apply to equipment on the higer voltage side of the transformer. Typically residential distribution is from a MV/LV transformer say 1MVA size with a large loop of low voltage customers. (In the US MV (medium voltage) is typicallly distributed to pole mounted transformers which serve fewer than 10 customers. Commercial distribution is similar to the US -- 3 phase into the facility at 415Y/230V, 50Hz. John P. Wagner AVAYA Communication (303) 538-4241 johnwag...@avaya.com --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
Re: Looking at leakage current specs
John, Ron, Thank you very much for clearing this up. I, the safety lab and CSA rep all missed that my equipment was not pluggable Class B. I am now in the dubious position of having to tell them that my equipment does not conform! Best regards, David. - Original Message - From: Allen, John john.al...@rdel.co.uk To: 'David Gelfand' gelf...@memotec.com; EMC-PSTC (E-mail) emc-p...@ieee.org Sent: Friday, January 19, 2001 3:40 AM Subject: RE: Looking at leakage current specs Hi folks I (and I believe, a number of other people) disagree with the last sentence of David's message - in so far as it is NOT merely a question of having a longer grounding pin. IEC and EN60950 - and I think also the common UL/CSA standard (but not having seen the latest edition) - allow high leakage equipment to be connected by a mains plug ONLY if it can be classified as Pluggable Type B, and NOT Pluggable Type A. If you then refer to the definitions of these two types of equipment (in those standards) you will see that Pluggable Type A uses a domestic grounding plug, whilst Pluggable Type B uses an industrial plug , e.g. IEC/EN60309 (but I would also personally class many of the North American NEMA 6P-XX Twistlock plugs as being in this category). The significant point about the latter types of plugs is that they have some mechanism to positively lock the plug into the socket and thus ensure the grounding continuity - whereas domestic plugs generally do not and can rock badly in the socket - thus compromising the grounding of the equipment. There are also minimum conductor size requirements for the grounding conductor, and an overall 5% limit on the leakage current (although I doubt that this will affect much pluggable equipment!!) John Allen THALES Defence Ltd, Bracknell, UK -Original Message- From: David Gelfand [ mailto:gelf...@memotec.com mailto:gelf...@memotec.com ] Sent: 18 January 2001 21:30 To: EMC-PSTC (E-mail) Subject: Re: Looking at leakage current specs Gary, The measurement is made with all power supplies in parallel, but you can exceed the 3.5 mA limit if you provide a warning to ground equipment before connecting. With standard power cords this is done by having the ground pin slightly longer than the line and neutral. David David Gelfand Regulatory Approvals Memotec Communications Inc. Montreal Canada - Original Message - From: Gary McInturff gary.mcintu...@worldwidepackets.com To: EMC-PSTC (E-mail) emc-p...@ieee.org Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2001 10:44 AM Subject: Looking at leakage current specs Was reviewing a number of power supply specifications and would like to parallel a couple, but the leakage/touch current on them is in the 2 mA range. Isn't most of the leakage current produced (produced might not be the word I want) in the upfront filter caps - W and Y capacitors and such? If I parallel these aren't I likely to see a significant increase in the leakage current, and probably blow by the 3.5 mm requirement for ITE? Would the measurement be made twice, once for each supply or would I have to provide a common input to both supplies and then measure between chassis and this common point's protective earth terminal? Gary --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single
RE: Power Transformers
I don't think you need to know anything about MV (medium voltage) and HV (high voltage) supplies. Low Voltage (LV) is less than 1000 VAC. That is where virtually all equipment will be - your equipment and the equipment that is being protected from your product's emissions. If both are sourced by the same LV transformer, conducted emissions are more of a concern than if they are on different transformers. Class B emissions are required if a residence is on the same source as your equipment even if the residence is more than 10 m away. Richard Woods -- From: Chris Maxwell [SMTP:chris.maxw...@gnnettest.com] Sent: Friday, January 19, 2001 10:57 AM To: 'EMC-PSTC Internet Forum' Subject: Power Transformers Guys, Before I even ask this question, I want to ask that we don't get back into the discussion of whether EN 61000-3-2 and EN 61000-3-3 applies or not. What I want to ask about is a specific term. I was reading an article in conformity-update at the following URL: http://www.conformity-update.com/iec-61000-000908.htm In this article, the author mentions the following terms, and I quote: an industrial MV or HV/LV transformer I am not an expert in how utility companies supply power, especially in Europe, so I am unsure of where these transformers would be located. I'm concerned that we may have some products that would be used on one side of these tranformers and other products that would be used on the other side. Are there any power distribution experts in the forum who could explain what the abbreviations mean and give some examples of where these transformers would be located in the European power distribution system? Thanks in advance for your time, Chris Maxwell Design Engineer GN Nettest 6 Rhoads Drive, Building 4 Utica,NY 13502 email: chris.maxw...@gnnettest.com phone: 315-266-5128 fax: 315-797-8024 --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
Re: FCC Part 68 Continuing Compliance
Jim, Under the latest Part 68 Rules, I believe you no longer submit an application to the FCC for Part 68 registration. As far as I know, the latest FCC Part 68 Rule gives manufacturers the CHOICE to choose a designated TCB or the FCC to have its products approved. John Radomski --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
Power Transformers
Guys, Before I even ask this question, I want to ask that we don't get back into the discussion of whether EN 61000-3-2 and EN 61000-3-3 applies or not. What I want to ask about is a specific term. I was reading an article in conformity-update at the following URL: http://www.conformity-update.com/iec-61000-000908.htm In this article, the author mentions the following terms, and I quote: an industrial MV or HV/LV transformer I am not an expert in how utility companies supply power, especially in Europe, so I am unsure of where these transformers would be located. I'm concerned that we may have some products that would be used on one side of these tranformers and other products that would be used on the other side. Are there any power distribution experts in the forum who could explain what the abbreviations mean and give some examples of where these transformers would be located in the European power distribution system? Thanks in advance for your time, Chris Maxwell Design Engineer GN Nettest 6 Rhoads Drive, Building 4 Utica,NY 13502 email: chris.maxw...@gnnettest.com phone: 315-266-5128 fax: 315-797-8024 --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
RE: Looking at leakage current specs
To all, In addition to John's excellent comments, I must add that the equipment must be classed as stationary (Table 17) according to the definitions found in 1.2.3.3 and 1.2.3.1 of IEC60950 or any of its clones. Also, the only description of allowable leakage current exceeding the 3.5 mA limit is found in 5.2.5 describing only Class I Stationary Equipment that is Permanently Connected Equipment or that is Pluggable Equipment Type B I hope this helps. Best regards, Ron Pickard rpick...@hypercom.com Allen, John john.allen@rTo: 'David Gelfand' gelf...@memotec.com, EMC-PSTC (E-mail) del.co.uk emc-p...@ieee.org Sent by: cc: owner-emc-pstSubject: RE: Looking at leakage current specs c...@ieee.org 01/19/01 01:40 AM Please respond to Allen, John Hi folks I (and I believe, a number of other people) disagree with the last sentence of David's message - in so far as it is NOT merely a question of having a longer grounding pin. IEC and EN60950 - and I think also the common UL/CSA standard (but not having seen the latest edition) - allow high leakage equipment to be connected by a mains plug ONLY if it can be classified as Pluggable Type B, and NOT Pluggable Type A. If you then refer to the definitions of these two types of equipment (in those standards) you will see that Pluggable Type A uses a domestic grounding plug, whilst Pluggable Type B uses an industrial plug , e.g. IEC/EN60309 (but I would also personally class many of the North American NEMA 6P-XX Twistlock plugs as being in this category). The significant point about the latter types of plugs is that they have some mechanism to positively lock the plug into the socket and thus ensure the grounding continuity - whereas domestic plugs generally do not and can rock badly in the socket - thus compromising the grounding of the equipment. There are also minimum conductor size requirements for the grounding conductor, and an overall 5% limit on the leakage current (although I doubt that this will affect much pluggable equipment!!) John Allen THALES Defence Ltd, Bracknell, UK -Original Message- From: David Gelfand [ mailto:gelf...@memotec.com mailto:gelf...@memotec.com ] Sent: 18 January 2001 21:30 To: EMC-PSTC (E-mail) Subject: Re: Looking at leakage current specs Gary, The measurement is made with all power supplies in parallel, but you can exceed the 3.5 mA limit if you provide a warning to ground equipment before connecting. With standard power cords this is done by having the ground pin slightly longer than the line and neutral. David David Gelfand Regulatory Approvals Memotec Communications Inc. Montreal Canada - Original Message - From: Gary McInturff gary.mcintu...@worldwidepackets.com To: EMC-PSTC (E-mail) emc-p...@ieee.org Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2001 10:44 AM Subject: Looking at leakage current specs Was reviewing a number of power supply specifications and would like to parallel a couple, but the leakage/touch current on them is in the 2 mA range. Isn't most of the leakage current produced (produced might not be the word I want) in the upfront filter caps - W and Y capacitors and such? If I parallel these aren't I likely to see a significant increase in the leakage current, and probably blow by the 3.5 mm requirement for ITE? Would the measurement be made twice, once for each supply or would I have to provide a common input to both
Need a CDN-T2 for 61000-4-6 conducted immunity test
Dear Listmembers: I would like to purchase a CDN (coupling-decoupling network) for performing the conducted RF immunity test called out in EN 55024. The specific CDN that I am interested in is the CDN-T2 for 2-wire unshielded twisted pair, as shown in Figure D.4 of 61000-4-6. Can any of you recommend some suppliers who sell this device? So far I have identified only one small company in California. When I called to get more information I had a most unpleasant experience, so I would prefer to spend my money elsewhere if possible. I also have a couple of questions that I'm hoping you can help me with: 1) What specific performance parameters should I should be looking for in this CDN? 2) I note that the ISN (impedance stabilization network) in Figure D.1 of EN 55022 has a similar schematic to the CDN-T2. Is it possible to use the CDN-T2 for the EN 55022 conducted emissions test as well? My primary interest is in being able to perform the conducted immunity test per EN 55024, but it might be nice to be able to perform the conducted emissions test per EN 55022 as well. Any suggestions for recommended vendors would be welcome. Joe Randolph Telecom Design Consultant Randolph Telecom, Inc. 781-721-2848 http://www.randolph-telecom.com
Re: FCC Part 68 Continuing Compliance
Under the latest Part 68 Rules, I believe you no longer submit an application to the FCC for Part 68 registration. This initial registration process is now handled in the private sector by Technical Conformance Bodies, or TCB's, that have been approved for that purpose. The manufacturer can do his own six month continuing compliance testing. The next revision of the Part 68 Rules further de-regulates the approval process and allows for a manufacturer's self-certification, provided the manufacturer tests his product to the appropriate technical standards -- similar to the present verification process for Part 15. The details and logistics of this next step in the de-regulation process are not yet worked out. Jim Hulbert j...@aol.com on 01/18/2001 03:56:52 PM Please respond to j...@aol.com To: ctho...@patton.com, emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org cc:(bcc: Jim Hulbert/MSD/US/PBI) Subject: Re: FCC Part 68 Continuing Compliance In a message dated 1/17/01, Courtland Thomas write: I have a question concerning coninuing compliance for Part 68. I believe that we are required to submit units for testing every six months. If the FCC audits and finds that the test reports aren't up to date, then there can be problems. This testing costs around $1500.00 for our ITE products. This becomes a very expensive process. Is there anything that can be done to eliminate this cost. I would like to test the units in house and log the results and use that info as my continuing compliance data. Any thoughts on this? Hi Courtland: To the best of my knowledge, there is no reason why you can't do the continuing compliance testing yourself. In fact, you can even do the initial testing yourself if you are equipped to do so. For the initial testing you would have to submit a written report to the FCC, but there is no filing requirement for continuing compliance. You simply have to keep the test data on file. If you have a lot of different products in production, the economics favor in-house testing. A few years ago one of my clients who had about 30 different products decided to do their continuing compliance testing in-house. They figured the savings of at least $60,000 per year would easily justify the cost of the test equipment and a part time technician. They purchased the FCC Part 68 test equipment from Compliance Design, but never actually used it. I guess they just got too busy with other priorities to set up the in-house capability. Recently they told me they would like to unload the equipment, so if you are interested I will put you in touch with them. I wouldn't necessarily recommend the Compliance Design equipment for a new purchase, but if the price is right on the used equipment, it might be an attractive option. Joe Randolph Telecom Design Consultant Randolph Telecom, Inc. 781-721-2848 http://www.randolph-telecom.com In a message dated 1/17/01, Courtland Thomas write: I have a question concerning coninuing compliance for Part 68. I believe that we are required to submit units for testing every six months. If the FCC audits and finds that the test reports aren't up to date, then there can be problems. This testing costs around $1500.00 for our ITE products. This becomes a very expensive process. Is there anything that can be done to eliminate this cost. I would like to test the units in house and log the results and use that info as my continuing compliance data. Any thoughts on this? Hi Courtland: To the best of my knowledge, there is no reason why you can't do the continuing compliance testing yourself. In fact, you can even do the initial testing yourself if you are equipped to do so. For the initial testing you would have to submit a written report to the FCC, but there is no filing requirement for continuing compliance. You simply have to keep the test data on file. If you have a lot of different products in production, the economics favor in-house testing. A few years ago one of my clients who had about 30 different products decided to do their continuing compliance testing in-house. They figured the savings of at least $60,000 per year would easily justify the cost of the test equipment and a part time technician. They purchased the FCC Part 68 test equipment from Compliance Design, but never actually used it. I guess they just got too busy with other priorities to set up the in-house capability. Recently they told me they would like to unload the equipment, so if you are interested I will put you in touch with them. I wouldn't necessarily recommend the Compliance Design equipment for a new purchase, but if the price is right on the used equipment, it might be an attractive option. Joe Randolph Telecom Design Consultant Randolph Telecom, Inc. 781-721-2848 http://www.randolph-telecom.com
RE: Testfacilities GR-1089-Core
Tania- That is not true- Telcordia can do all of the tests in house including the airborne contaminants that you speak of and has been doing them for a long time. Correct me if I'm wrong though, but I beleive the original question here was whether there were any labs in Europe or Asia that could do the tests, not who in the US can do them. Penny Grant, Tania (Tania) tgr...@lucent.com on 01/18/2001 03:53:53 PM Please respond to Grant, Tania (Tania) tgr...@lucent.com To: 'Naftali Shani' nsh...@catena.com, 'Chris Collin' globalass...@altavista.com cc: 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org' emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org (bcc: Penny D. Robbins/Telcordia) Subject: RE: Testfacilities GR-1089-Core Chris, Just be careful. Many labs say they will do it, but end up sub-contracting the various tests to other labs. Depending upon the nature of your equipment, not all labs will have the facilities to perform the fire tests, earthquake, vibration, etc.. Thus, you may find out that your equipment still will be shipped to various places to have these tests done. I don't know if things have changed, but very recently, for example, the air contaminants tests could only be performed at the Battelle Institute in the U.S. In my estimation, Underwriters Laboratories in Norhbrook, Illinois (U.S.) have the best facilities for fire tests.My position would be, if I have to ship product somewhere, I would like to ship to a lab that could perform most of the tests at their premises and reliably sub-contract out the rest. The key word here, is reliably. Tania Grant, tgr...@lucent.com Lucent Technologies, Switching Solutions Group Intelligent Network and Messaging Solutions -Original Message- From: Naftali Shani [mailto:nsh...@catena.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2001 11:56 AM To: 'Chris Collin' Cc: 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org' Subject: RE: Testfacilities GR-1089-Core Chris, I'm not so familiar in what the European labs can offer, but I believe that Hermon Labs in Israel can provide these services (and more). Feel free to contact her...@netvision.net.il and ask for Dr. Edward Usoskin or Gonen Usishkin. Feel free to post your findings. Regards, Naftali Shani, Catena Networks (www.catena.com) 307 Legget Drive, Kanata, Ontario, Canada K2K 3C8 Voice 613.599.6430 x.8277; Fax 613.599.6433 E-mail: nsh...@catena.com -Original Message- From: Chris Collin [mailto:globalass...@altavista.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2001 6:58 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Testfacilities GR-1089-Core Hi, I'm looking for test facilities in Europe or Asia that can perform tests for Bellcore (better now TelCordia) GR-1089-CORE? Thanks for any information. Chris Collin Find the best deals on the web at AltaVista Shopping! http://www.shopping.altavista.com --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
RE: Looking at leakage current specs
Hi folks I (and I believe, a number of other people) disagree with the last sentence of David's message - in so far as it is NOT merely a question of having a longer grounding pin. IEC and EN60950 - and I think also the common UL/CSA standard (but not having seen the latest edition) - allow high leakage equipment to be connected by a mains plug ONLY if it can be classified as Pluggable Type B, and NOT Pluggable Type A. If you then refer to the definitions of these two types of equipment (in those standards) you will see that Pluggable Type A uses a domestic grounding plug, whilst Pluggable Type B uses an industrial plug , e.g. IEC/EN60309 (but I would also personally class many of the North American NEMA 6P-XX Twistlock plugs as being in this category). The significant point about the latter types of plugs is that they have some mechanism to positively lock the plug into the socket and thus ensure the grounding continuity - whereas domestic plugs generally do not and can rock badly in the socket - thus compromising the grounding of the equipment. There are also minimum conductor size requirements for the grounding conductor, and an overall 5% limit on the leakage current (although I doubt that this will affect much pluggable equipment!!) John Allen THALES Defence Ltd, Bracknell, UK -Original Message- From: David Gelfand [ mailto:gelf...@memotec.com mailto:gelf...@memotec.com ] Sent: 18 January 2001 21:30 To: EMC-PSTC (E-mail) Subject: Re: Looking at leakage current specs Gary, The measurement is made with all power supplies in parallel, but you can exceed the 3.5 mA limit if you provide a warning to ground equipment before connecting. With standard power cords this is done by having the ground pin slightly longer than the line and neutral. David David Gelfand Regulatory Approvals Memotec Communications Inc. Montreal Canada - Original Message - From: Gary McInturff gary.mcintu...@worldwidepackets.com To: EMC-PSTC (E-mail) emc-p...@ieee.org Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2001 10:44 AM Subject: Looking at leakage current specs Was reviewing a number of power supply specifications and would like to parallel a couple, but the leakage/touch current on them is in the 2 mA range. Isn't most of the leakage current produced (produced might not be the word I want) in the upfront filter caps - W and Y capacitors and such? If I parallel these aren't I likely to see a significant increase in the leakage current, and probably blow by the 3.5 mm requirement for ITE? Would the measurement be made twice, once for each supply or would I have to provide a common input to both supplies and then measure between chassis and this common point's protective earth terminal? Gary --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
EN 55024 particular conditions
Dear Members, For immunity tests in accordance with EN 55024 : 1998, 'Telecommunications terminal equipment' (analogue and digital), have particulat test conditions in Annex A of the standard. It is highlighted in the standard (section 7.2) that the criteria given in Annex takes precedence over the general performance criteria. There are two methods of measurement in Annex A for radiated and conducted immunity tests. Anyone familiar with these measurements ? comments please. What will be criteria for other immunity tests like the ESD, EFT, etc. ? Criteria B and C are clear but criteria A is only for radiated and conducted immunity tests. Thanks for your responses. Praveen --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
Re: Impedance Shielding Eff.
Hi Captain, You will be able to when we finally document what we're up to. There is a potential patent in the way we do the testing. The bad side is not that we can't disclose it yet, but that we're not in a position to generate revenue from it...;- Maybe by the time we meet in CA this summer. Derek. --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
RE: Testfacilities GR-1089-Core
Hello Chris, Naftali and All, Do not get traped! There are no test labs in Israel who can perform full compliance to GR-1089 Core! Some labs can do partial testing but not full testing. Regards -Original Message- From: Naftali Shani [mailto:nsh...@catena.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2001 9:56 PM To: 'Chris Collin' Cc: 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org' Subject: RE: Testfacilities GR-1089-Core Chris, I'm not so familiar in what the European labs can offer, but I believe that Hermon Labs in Israel can provide these services (and more). Feel free to contact her...@netvision.net.il and ask for Dr. Edward Usoskin or Gonen Usishkin. Feel free to post your findings. Regards, Naftali Shani, Catena Networks (www.catena.com) 307 Legget Drive, Kanata, Ontario, Canada K2K 3C8 Voice 613.599.6430 x.8277; Fax 613.599.6433 E-mail: nsh...@catena.com -Original Message- From: Chris Collin [mailto:globalass...@altavista.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2001 6:58 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject:Testfacilities GR-1089-Core Hi, I'm looking for test facilities in Europe or Asia that can perform tests for Bellcore (better now TelCordia) GR-1089-CORE? Thanks for any information. Chris Collin Find the best deals on the web at AltaVista Shopping! http://www.shopping.altavista.com --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
