RE: EMC software for pcb layout
Try http://www.pads.com/SI_intro.htm Hyperlynx (Now Owned & Distributed by PADS). Paul O'Shaughnessy Affymetrix, Inc. -Original Message- From: umbdenst...@sensormatic.com [mailto:umbdenst...@sensormatic.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2001 11:20 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Cc: l...@sensormatic.com Subject: EMC software for pcb layout Hello friends, Our PCB staff is looking for layout tools to enhance EMC compliance. Any suggestions? Best regards, Don Umbdenstock Sensormatic --- 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: voltage dip requirements
I did not check in this specific standard (yet) but normally both tests have different criteria for the EUT passing. The earlier has a B-type criterion and the latter (more severe has a C-type criterion. B means: continue to work after the dip (interference during may happen) C means: continue to function after the dip possibly after user intervenence (reset, reprogram, on/off etc); this is basically a no defect test. The standards that appeal to this test have the liberty to select B and C as well as a specific detailed view on how an equipment EXACTLY should behave for both B and C. As the 61000-6-2 is the new generic Standard for heavy industrial equipment, I doubt if these requirements are filled in detail. Let me show an example for some equipment: Take a Power supply for your electronics Lab. Criterion B means that after stopping somehow to function, it should come up with the same voltage set as before ! (this criterion is hypothetical and only as example). Criterion C would say here: after the test it is allowed that the on/off button be executed for the output to come back again. Regards, Gert Gremmen, (Ing) ce-test, qualified testing === Web presence http://www.cetest.nl CE-shop http://www.cetest.nl/ce_shop.htm /-/ Compliance testing is our core business /-/ === >>-Original Message- >>From: owner-emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@ieee.org]On Behalf >>Of JENKINS, JEFF >>Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2001 6:42 PM >>To: emc-p...@ieee.org >>Subject: voltage dip requirements >> >> >> >>Hello Group, >> >>I just received a brand new, shiny copy of EN 61000-6-2. The >>voltage dip / >>interruption requirements are not clear to me. Table 4 quantifies dip and >>interruption levels as "% reduction." So, when they say a "30% >>reduction," >>I assume they mean that the voltage is reduced to 70% of its >>nominal value, >>e.g. 120 Vac is reduced to 84 Vac. This is well and good, but it seems >>illogical to me that the duration of the dip should increase with its >>severity. For instance, while they specify a 30% reduction for one-half >>cycle, they specify a 60% reduction for 50 cycles and a 95% reduction for >>250 cycles! Say it isn't so! I'm clinging to a desperate hope that they >>don't mean "x," but rather "1-x." >> >>Regards, >> >>Jeff Jenkins >>Advanced Energy Industries, Inc. >>Fort Collins, CO USA >> >> >> >>--- >>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: EMC software for pcb layout
Don, I'd recommend that you use a rules-based checker rather than a simulator. Cadence has a module, entitled "EMControl" which has a wide variety of rules already built-in. Note that most of them will probably not be applicable to your design and that you'll have to pick and choose judiciously. This tool is a good choice if the board designers are already using Cadence but I don't know if it will accept design files from other tools. Also note that you can't get anything for free. There is a lot of input that has to made for some of the rules to run. Good luck, Marko Radojicic Hardware Design Assurance, Maple Optical Systems ma...@mapleoptical.com Phone: 408/545-1263 FAX: 408/434-9209 -Original Message- From: owner-emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@ieee.org]On Behalf Of umbdenst...@sensormatic.com Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2001 8:20 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Cc: l...@sensormatic.com Subject: EMC software for pcb layout Hello friends, Our PCB staff is looking for layout tools to enhance EMC compliance. Any suggestions? Best regards, Don Umbdenstock Sensormatic --- 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: IEC60825
Mark, Welcome to the group. There are a few of us here who work with "combination" electrical and laser systems such as yourself. I didn't see any replies from any of the other usual suspects, so I'll jump in. Laser safety and power supply safety are USUALLY two separate issues. Most power supplies must meet EN 60950 or a similar safety standard for Europe. My experience is that most power supply manufacturers use EN 60950 as it covers most typical environments where a power supply could be used. If you have a power supply vendor chosen. Get a European Declaration of Conformity from them and get a copy of their safety test report up to and including the "Conditions of Acceptability". What you then need to do is design your system so that the Conditions of Acceptability aren't violated. Essentially, you will need use the supply in its intended usage environment, you will need to ground (or not ground) it as specified and you will need to ensure that your enclosure works in conjunction with the power supply enclosure to protect users from getting harmed. This will be the heart of your product electrical safety design. If your system is designed to meet a different standard (i.e. EN 61010-1 for test and measurement). You can still use a EN 60950 compliant power supply, as long as you don't violate its Conditions of Acceptability. EN 60825-1 applies to accessible emissions from lasers and LED's. Power supply manufacturers do not design or test their power supplies to this standard. As an example, I'll use one of our typical "combination" products. 1. We specifiy a power supply compliant to EN 60950 (Safety of Information Technology Equipment). 2. We design our enclosure, circuitboards ... to meet EN 61010-1 (Safety of Test and Measurement Equipment) and we don't violate the power supply's Conditions of Acceptability. 3. We then go through the calculations for accessible laser radiation in accordance with EN 60825-1. (The power supply may factor into this, because we need to determine the worst case conditions which means that we have to know the power supply's regulation specification so that we can determine a worst case voltage/current output to the laser). 4 We then submit all of this information to a third party lab along with the required test samples for evaluation to EN 61010-1. 5. Once the test report is back and any required changes have been made, we write a Declaration of Conformity to EN 61010-1and EN 60825-1. Again, without knowing what types of products your company makes, I can't suggest the actual standards that you will need to use. I have given the above as an example. If you have a good relationship with a test lab, a talk with one of the safety engineers there may help you out. My guess is that some of the other guys in the group will offer some other goodies that will help you complete your puzzle. Best regards, Chris Maxwell Design Engineer 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: Mark Schmidt [SMTP:mschm...@xrite.com] > Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2001 9:22 AM > To: emc-p...@ieee.org > Subject: IEC60825 > > > Hello everyone, > > I am new to laser regulation and was wondering if there is such a thing as > your basic open frame power supply meeting the requirements of IEC60825? I > need a + 15 Vdc output at approximately 100 Watts. I have not read the > standard yet and don't know how it compares with IEC60950. Does such a > thing > exist or do I just qualify a supply that meets 60950 and then submit the > system to 60825 or does 60825 apply to the laser only and not the system. > The laser is a Class 3A Device. All advice is welcome. > > Thanks > > Mark > > --- > 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
Reminder, Today's talk, Santa Clara Valley EMC Society
SCV EMC Society Meeting "Emerging standards for Europe" Tuesday, February 13, 2001 The February meeting of the Santa Clara Valley EMC Society will be held at SGI in Mountain View, 1600 Amphitheatre Pkwy., building 40, in the Presentation Center above the lobby. The social gathering will start at 5:30 PM, and food and drinks will be available. The technical presentation will start at 7:00 PM. The speaker is Jerry Ramie of ARC Technical Resources, Inc., a 20-year veteran of Regulatory Compliance, EMC, and RF/Microwave measurement instrumentation. The presentation concerns the marketing of consumer, commercial, medical, or light industrial products in the European Union. Please visit our website for more complete details. Our monthly Spectral Lines is also on-line. www.scvemc.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
voltage dip requirements
Hello Group, I just received a brand new, shiny copy of EN 61000-6-2. The voltage dip / interruption requirements are not clear to me. Table 4 quantifies dip and interruption levels as "% reduction." So, when they say a "30% reduction," I assume they mean that the voltage is reduced to 70% of its nominal value, e.g. 120 Vac is reduced to 84 Vac. This is well and good, but it seems illogical to me that the duration of the dip should increase with its severity. For instance, while they specify a 30% reduction for one-half cycle, they specify a 60% reduction for 50 cycles and a 95% reduction for 250 cycles! Say it isn't so! I'm clinging to a desperate hope that they don't mean "x," but rather "1-x." Regards, Jeff Jenkins Advanced Energy Industries, Inc. Fort Collins, CO USA --- 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: Surge to 4Kv
ETS 300 386-2 requires a performance criteria R surge of 4kv Line-Ground for "other than telecommuncations centres, ac power ports" (Section 5.2.4.8). Keep in mind this standard only applies to Telecommunication Network Equipment, so depending on what you make, this may be irrelevant. Dave Heald Andrew Carson wrote: > > Gary > > EN55024:1998 , well at least my copy, also gives 2kV line to ground as the > surge voltages. Your persistent buzzing may be coming form the reference test > standard EN61000-4-5. It gives various surge voltages depending on the > Installation Class of the equipment. > > Class 3 - Electrical Environments where cables run in parallel ( The one > generally used for IT equipment installations) requires the 2kV surge. > > but > > Class 4 - Electrical environments where the interconnections are running as > outdoor cables along with power cables, and cables are used for both > electronic > and electric circuits. Requires a 4kV surge. > > Both classes have a fully explanation in the body of the text, so you may want > to check the full definitions. Personally I have not seen many pieces of ITE > or > component power supplies that can take a 4 kV surge and remain functional. > > Gary McInturff wrote: > > > The last information I have is that EN55024:1998, which becomes > > effective very soon still only identifies surge test of 2Kv line to ground, > > but I have a persistant buzzing in my ear from a single source that is > > claiming it actually requires 4Kv for the surge test. > > Has anyone else heard of a change to 4 Kv, - maybe ETSI? > > Except for the Generic heavy industrial 50081-2 - which doesn't > > apply to ITE equipment very often, I have not seen this 4 Kv level. I would > > appreciate a sanity check. > > Thanks > > 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 > > -- > > Andrew Carson - Product Safety Engineer > Xyratex Engineering Laboratory > Tele 023 92496855 Fax 023 92496014 > > --- > 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: IEC60825
Mark IEC60825 Part 1 deals solely with lasers. Inparticular the classification limits, labeling requirements, user guide requirements and most importantly, the safe operation procedures. I strongly recommend you read the standard before using a Class 3A Device. Your whole system should meet either IEC60950 or IEC 61010, depending on its use. Both these standards then call up IEC60825-1 in the relevant section on laser safety. One thing to double check, make sure your Class 3A is tested to IEC60825-1 by an external test house. Not a US produced unit stating it is Class 3A to comply with CFR21 Ch1, 1040.10 (f). Basically the US Class 3A limits are less stringent than the IEC limits Mark Schmidt wrote: > Hello everyone, > > I am new to laser regulation and was wondering if there is such a thing as > your basic open frame power supply meeting the requirements of IEC60825? I > need a + 15 Vdc output at approximately 100 Watts. I have not read the > standard yet and don't know how it compares with IEC60950. Does such a thing > exist or do I just qualify a supply that meets 60950 and then submit the > system to 60825 or does 60825 apply to the laser only and not the system. > The laser is a Class 3A Device. All advice is welcome. > > Thanks > > Mark > > --- > 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 -- Andrew Carson - Product Safety Engineer Xyratex Engineering Laboratory Tele 023 92496855 Fax 023 92496014 --- 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
EMC software for pcb layout
Hello friends, Our PCB staff is looking for layout tools to enhance EMC compliance. Any suggestions? Best regards, Don Umbdenstock Sensormatic --- 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: IEC60825
Hi Mark . . . I'll try to keep this brief, the EN 60825 Standard applies to the optical (laser or LED) portion of the product - AEL (Accessible Emission Level), wavelength, interlocks (if required), labelling, etc.. It does not address all the other 'product safety' parameters such as power supplies, hazardous voltages, insulation, etc . . . The product would still have to meet a product safety standard such as EN 60950. In fact, Clause 4.3.12 of EN 60950 references 60825 " . . . Equipment that can generate ionaizing radiation or ultraviolet light, or that uses a laser . . . " So if your product does fall under tthe scope of EN 60950, you would select a power supply accordingly. John Juhasz Fiber Options Bohemia, NY -Original Message- From: Mark Schmidt [mailto:mschm...@xrite.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2001 9:22 AM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: IEC60825 Hello everyone, I am new to laser regulation and was wondering if there is such a thing as your basic open frame power supply meeting the requirements of IEC60825? I need a + 15 Vdc output at approximately 100 Watts. I have not read the standard yet and don't know how it compares with IEC60950. Does such a thing exist or do I just qualify a supply that meets 60950 and then submit the system to 60825 or does 60825 apply to the laser only and not the system. The laser is a Class 3A Device. All advice is welcome. Thanks Mark --- 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: Hipot test AC v DC
I use AC when it's required by standard. I also have used it on simple devices such as transformers. However I have changed some large SMPS transformers back to DC testing due to the high capacitive current load on the tester. A number of years ago I changed the routine test from AC to DC on switch mode power supplies. The increased first pass yield demomonstrated that the 60Hz Dielectric test was causing failures in about 1-2% of the units tested. Your results will depend upon how well you can control the displacement currents during the test. John Merrill Schneider Automation --- 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:WVTA
forrwarding for paul_c...@hkstc.com Reply Separator Subject:WVTA Author: "Mr. Paul Chan" List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: 2/13/01 12:14 PM Dear Group, I have been asked about the EU 'WVTA' Whole Vehicle Type Approval. Have you got any information about this approval, such as web-site. Thanks Paul Chan HKSTC --- 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
IEC60825
Hello everyone, I am new to laser regulation and was wondering if there is such a thing as your basic open frame power supply meeting the requirements of IEC60825? I need a + 15 Vdc output at approximately 100 Watts. I have not read the standard yet and don't know how it compares with IEC60950. Does such a thing exist or do I just qualify a supply that meets 60950 and then submit the system to 60825 or does 60825 apply to the laser only and not the system. The laser is a Class 3A Device. All advice is welcome. Thanks Mark --- 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: 230 Vac or 240 Vac?
I cannot answer for all the countries involved, but I can quote the document which was delivered to my home address in 1995 from my electricity supplier (Scottish Hydro-Electric), and which, naturally, I brought into work and filed under "230V harmonization" : - DECLARED NOMINAL SUPPLY VOLTAGE in acordance with Electricity Supply Regulations 1988 (as amended, Regulation 30. Declared Nominal Supply Voltage (and permitted variation) from January 1995, Most domestic customers 230 volts (216.2V - 253V); Most commercial or industrial customers 400/230 volts (376.0V - 440V). So my supplier is categorically telling me that they are complying with the appropriate requirements, and I imagine the other UK suppliers would have made the same declaration. John Crabb, Development Excellence (Product Safety) , NCR Financial Solutions Group Ltd., Kingsway West, Dundee, Scotland. DD2 3XX E-Mail :john.cr...@scotland.ncr.com Tel: +44 (0)1382-592289 (direct ). Fax +44 (0)1382-622243. VoicePlus 6-341-2289. -Original Message- From: Canio Dichirico [mailto:cdich...@eso.org] Sent: 13 February 2001 12:55 To: geor...@lexmark.com Cc: IEEE EMC List Subject: Re: 230 Vac or 240 Vac? ... > The 240V countires agreed, but never changed their nominals, as this > would have involved serious changes to their power generation equipment. > ... Hi George and All! The statement quoted above raises some doubts in me. Since 1983 the nominal voltage of existing 220/380V and 240/415V systems (should) have been evolving towards the value of 230/400V recommended by IEC (600)38 "IEC standard voltages". The transition period will (should?) end by the year 2003. During this period, as a first step, the electricity supply authorities of countries with 220/380V systems (e.g., Germany, Italy, etc.) (should) have been bringing their voltages within the range 230/400V +6%, -10% and those of countries with 240/415V systems (e.g., UK) (should) have been bringing the voltage within the range 230/400V +10%,-6%. At the end of the transition period (2003), the tolerance of 230/400V ±10% (i.e., a range from 207V to 253V for the 230V value) should be achieved. A reduction of this range to 230/400V ±6% (i.e., a range from 216V to 243V for the 230V value) was (is?) under consideration. AFAIK the distribution transformers in countries with nominal voltage 380/220 VAC used to have 400 V as no-load secondary voltage. Analogously 433 VAC used to be the no-load secondary voltage of the distribution transformers in countries with nominal voltage 415/240 VAC. (Am I right?) The new nominal voltage of 400 VAC may be achieved by means of distribution transformers with a no-load secondary voltage of 410 VAC. (A distribution transformer with 410 VAC no-load secondary voltage provides about 400 VAC at full load with a lagging power factor between 0.85 and 0.90.) No-load 410 VAC may be well approximated also by "old" distribution transformers provided that they be provided with voltage taps +/- 2 x 2.5%. By adopting the +2.5% tap, the no-load secondary voltage of a "continental" transformer would increase from 400 VAC to 410 V. Analogously, by adopting the -2 x 2.5% (= -5%) tap, the no-load secondary voltage of a "UK" transformer would decrease from 433 VAC to about 411 V. Not by chance, CENELEC HD 538.1 S1/A1 - issued in March 1995 - states that "For the low-voltage winding" the "Rated voltage 410 V is suitable for new transformers in the intermediary steps of bringing low-voltage systems, originally at 380 V, within the range 400 V +6%/-10%". All this should have allowed all the European utilities to switch to the nominal 400 VAC standardized by IEC (600)38 either by adopting new distribution transformers conforming to CENELEC HD 538.1 S1/A1 or by adopting the above-mentioned voltage taps of their "old" transformers (provided the "old" transformers were provided with such taps). My doubts: 1. Why should the power generation equipment be affected by the adoption of 400 VAC? The change affects only the distribution transformers. Conversely the alternators are electrically very distant from the low-voltage customers and many voltage levels exist in between (generation, transmission, primary distribution, secondary distribution). 2. However why are the European utilities still so late in adopting 400 VAC? Who has any replies or comments? TIA Canio Dichirico European Southern Observatory Technical Division - Electronic Systems Department Karl-Schwarzschild-Str. 2 D-85748 Garching bei München Tel./Fax +49-89-3200 6500 Fax +49-89-3200 6694 email: cdich...@eso.org website: www.eso.org - Original Message - From: To: Cc: Sent: Friday, February 02, 2001 20:30 Subject: Re: 230 Vac or 240 Vac? > > David, > > Here is my understanding based on an earlier discussion on this forum > and some of our business experiences. The agreement amongst many high > volt countries was on a 220-240V range. This implies a 230V nominal. > The 240V
Re: 230 Vac or 240 Vac?
... > The 240V countires agreed, but never changed their nominals, as this > would have involved serious changes to their power generation equipment. > ... Hi George and All! The statement quoted above raises some doubts in me. Since 1983 the nominal voltage of existing 220/380V and 240/415V systems (should) have been evolving towards the value of 230/400V recommended by IEC (600)38 "IEC standard voltages". The transition period will (should?) end by the year 2003. During this period, as a first step, the electricity supply authorities of countries with 220/380V systems (e.g., Germany, Italy, etc.) (should) have been bringing their voltages within the range 230/400V +6%, -10% and those of countries with 240/415V systems (e.g., UK) (should) have been bringing the voltage within the range 230/400V +10%,-6%. At the end of the transition period (2003), the tolerance of 230/400V ±10% (i.e., a range from 207V to 253V for the 230V value) should be achieved. A reduction of this range to 230/400V ±6% (i.e., a range from 216V to 243V for the 230V value) was (is?) under consideration. AFAIK the distribution transformers in countries with nominal voltage 380/220 VAC used to have 400 V as no-load secondary voltage. Analogously 433 VAC used to be the no-load secondary voltage of the distribution transformers in countries with nominal voltage 415/240 VAC. (Am I right?) The new nominal voltage of 400 VAC may be achieved by means of distribution transformers with a no-load secondary voltage of 410 VAC. (A distribution transformer with 410 VAC no-load secondary voltage provides about 400 VAC at full load with a lagging power factor between 0.85 and 0.90.) No-load 410 VAC may be well approximated also by "old" distribution transformers provided that they be provided with voltage taps +/- 2 x 2.5%. By adopting the +2.5% tap, the no-load secondary voltage of a "continental" transformer would increase from 400 VAC to 410 V. Analogously, by adopting the -2 x 2.5% (= -5%) tap, the no-load secondary voltage of a "UK" transformer would decrease from 433 VAC to about 411 V. Not by chance, CENELEC HD 538.1 S1/A1 - issued in March 1995 - states that "For the low-voltage winding" the "Rated voltage 410 V is suitable for new transformers in the intermediary steps of bringing low-voltage systems, originally at 380 V, within the range 400 V +6%/-10%". All this should have allowed all the European utilities to switch to the nominal 400 VAC standardized by IEC (600)38 either by adopting new distribution transformers conforming to CENELEC HD 538.1 S1/A1 or by adopting the above-mentioned voltage taps of their "old" transformers (provided the "old" transformers were provided with such taps). My doubts: 1. Why should the power generation equipment be affected by the adoption of 400 VAC? The change affects only the distribution transformers. Conversely the alternators are electrically very distant from the low-voltage customers and many voltage levels exist in between (generation, transmission, primary distribution, secondary distribution). 2. However why are the European utilities still so late in adopting 400 VAC? Who has any replies or comments? TIA Canio Dichirico European Southern Observatory Technical Division - Electronic Systems Department Karl-Schwarzschild-Str. 2 D-85748 Garching bei München Tel./Fax +49-89-3200 6500 Fax +49-89-3200 6694 email: cdich...@eso.org website: www.eso.org - Original Message - From: To: Cc: Sent: Friday, February 02, 2001 20:30 Subject: Re: 230 Vac or 240 Vac? > > David, > > Here is my understanding based on an earlier discussion on this forum > and some of our business experiences. The agreement amongst many high > volt countries was on a 220-240V range. This implies a 230V nominal. > The 240V countires agreed, but never changed their nominals, as this > would have involved serious changes to their power generation equipment. > > Their reasoning was that a product rated at 220-240V is required under > IEC 60950 and like standards to be tested up to 6% over rated voltage, > i.e. a max of 254V. They assumed they could deliver power to the end > users within this range without changing their nominals. > > I'm beginning to doubt this assumption as we have had numerous reports > of our direct plug-in external power supplies running "hot" in two > geographies only, viz. the U.K. and Australia/New Zealand. Since we > have specified and tested up to 254V without problems, it is my belief > that the end users may be seeing over 254V on low periods of the day. > High usage periods result in more IR drop along the transmission paths, > and reduce the end voltage. > > This is just my opinion based on my experiences. > > George Alspaugh > Lexmark International Inc. > > > > > gelfand%memotec@interlock.lexmark.com on 02/02/2001 10:56:22 AM > > Please respond to gelfand%memotec@interlock.lexmark.com > > To: emc-pstc%majordomo.ieee@interlock.lexmark.com > cc:(bcc: George
Lithuanian emissions restrictions?
Is anyone familiar with limits to operating frequencies for ISM equipment in Lithuania? I've checked http://www.radio.lt/frequency_table.htm and I note several bands (>6MHz) _reserved_ for use by ISM, but are there any corresponding prohibitions for ISM operation? My induction heating equipment operates from 50 to 500 kHz. Links, speculations, anecdotes welcome... Thanks --- 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: Road sign
Kim, Take a look at EN60958-2-3: 1994 (LVD).For EMC I recall some discussion about make use of the new EN 50293:2000 or the generics EN 50 081-1 / EN 50 082-2. Best guess Amund Westin, Oslo, NORWAY Approval Consultant On Thu, 8 Feb 2001 09:51:08 +0100 k...@i-data.com wrote: > >Hi all > >I have been asked about approvals of electronic road signs and traffic >lights in EU. The system is mostly build of CE marked equipment, but I'm >not sure which standards to use for CE approval. Can some one help me ? > >Kim Jensen > > >--- >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 > > > -- Get your firstname@lastname email for FREE at http://Nameplanet.com/?su --- 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: Surge to 4Kv
Gary EN55024:1998 , well at least my copy, also gives 2kV line to ground as the surge voltages. Your persistent buzzing may be coming form the reference test standard EN61000-4-5. It gives various surge voltages depending on the Installation Class of the equipment. Class 3 - Electrical Environments where cables run in parallel ( The one generally used for IT equipment installations) requires the 2kV surge. but Class 4 - Electrical environments where the interconnections are running as outdoor cables along with power cables, and cables are used for both electronic and electric circuits. Requires a 4kV surge. Both classes have a fully explanation in the body of the text, so you may want to check the full definitions. Personally I have not seen many pieces of ITE or component power supplies that can take a 4 kV surge and remain functional. Gary McInturff wrote: > The last information I have is that EN55024:1998, which becomes > effective very soon still only identifies surge test of 2Kv line to ground, > but I have a persistant buzzing in my ear from a single source that is > claiming it actually requires 4Kv for the surge test. > Has anyone else heard of a change to 4 Kv, - maybe ETSI? > Except for the Generic heavy industrial 50081-2 - which doesn't > apply to ITE equipment very often, I have not seen this 4 Kv level. I would > appreciate a sanity check. > Thanks > 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 -- Andrew Carson - Product Safety Engineer Xyratex Engineering Laboratory Tele 023 92496855 Fax 023 92496014 --- 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
Virus and what we're doing.
It appears that one of our subscribers has been subjected to a virus. The IEEE listserver stripped the virus from the posted messages, so the virus was not passed on to you and our other subscribers. It appears that the worst that has happened is that duplicate messages were posted to the listserver. I have temporarily unsubscribed that address. This will prevent further multiple postings. When the virus is fixed, I'll re-subscribe him. If you have any questions, please contact me or Jim or Michael. Best regards, Rich Richard Nute ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson pstc_ad...@garretson.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
Equations for twisted-pair (was Re: Zo)
** Virus Warning Message (on gemini2.ieee.org) Found virus TROJ_NAVIDAD.E in file Emanuel.exe The file is deleted. If you have questions, contact virus-ad...@ieee.org * Hi! Robert: I'm very interested in the emperical equations that you have for twisted-pair. Do you mind sharing this with me ? Thanks in advance Perry Qu Robert Macy wrote: > Did you find out what you need? > > Somewhere around here I have the equations that closely approximate twisted > pair for 26 Awg and 28 Awg wire from DC to 10MHz. They were derived from > empirical modeling. You can make various approximations to simplify their > use. > > That includes impedance, loss per length vs frequency, etc. > > I don't think they take into account being close to conductors, like a > shield, or crosstalk between pairs, because that's another analysis, but > they're *extremely* useful for predicting attenuation versus frequency for > analyzing the expected performance one will get from DSL modems. > > - Robert - > >Robert A. Macy, PEm...@california.com >408 286 3985 fx 408 297 9121 >AJM International Electronics Consultants >619 North First St, San Jose, CA 95112 > > -Original Message- > From: William D'Orazio > To: EMC Posting (E-mail) > Date: Thursday, January 11, 2001 7:20 AM > Subject: Zo > > > > >Does anybody know the characteristic impedance of a twisted pair? > >Thanks in advance, > > > > <<...OLE_Obj...>> > > > >William D'Orazio > >CAE Electronics Ltd. > >Electrical System Designer > > > >Phone: (514) 341-2000 (X4555) > >Fax: (514)340-5552 > >Email: dora...@cae.ca > > ** Virus Warning Message (on gemini2.ieee.org) Emanuel.exe is removed from here because it contains a virus. *
New Guide on EMC and Functional Safety
** Virus Warning Message (on gemini2.ieee.org) Found virus TROJ_NAVIDAD.E in file Emanuel.exe The file is deleted. If you have questions, contact virus-ad...@ieee.org * Dear Group The Institution of Electrical Engineers (IEE, London, UK) have recently published a new professional guidance document on "EMC and Functional Safety", a much neglected and misunderstood area which is becoming very important as more and more safety-related functions are controlled by electronics or software. Their new Guide has a "Core", plus nine "Industry Annexes". You can download them all for free, in Word or PDF format, from http://www.iee.org.uk/PAB/EMC/core.htm. (Please note: this URL may be case-sensitive.) This new Guide makes the point that meeting EMC standards (e.g. under Europe's EMC directive) may well be inadequate for safety-related applications, and that these need a proper hazards and risk assessment using EMC and safety personnel who are competent to perform this task. (Engineers experienced only in safety or only in EMC will usually need more training if they are to deal with emc-related functional safety.) Everyone involved with EMC or safety should at least read the first few pages of the Core, and copy its Executive Summary widely to their colleagues and managers, so that even more people aren't put at risk by poor design or inadequate testing. If companies follow this new Guide it should help them show due diligence with European CE marking safety directives, and should also help them to achieve a 'state of the art' defence under European Product Liability and General Product Safety directives. (Many companies aren't aware of these latter two directives, because they don't require CE marking or declarations of conformity, but their possible penalties are very much higher than CE marking directives, and the defence they require is much more difficult to achieve.) Although this guide mentions European legislation on EMC and on Safety, it will be of relevance anywhere in the world where functional safety is an issue for electronic equipment or systems. Keith Armstrong Partner, Cherry Clough Consultants, www.cherryclough.com Cherry Clough House, Rochdale Road, Denshaw, OL3 5UE, Great Britain phone: +44 (0)1457 871 605, fax: +44 (0)1457 820 145 E-mail: keith.armstr...@cherryclough.com ** Virus Warning Message (on gemini2.ieee.org) Emanuel.exe is removed from here because it contains a virus. *
Equations for twisted-pair (was Re: Zo)
** Virus Warning Message (on gemini2.ieee.org) Found virus TROJ_NAVIDAD.E in file Emanuel.exe The file is deleted. If you have questions, contact virus-ad...@ieee.org * Hi! Robert: I'm very interested in the emperical equations that you have for twisted-pair. Do you mind sharing this with me ? Thanks in advance Perry Qu Robert Macy wrote: > Did you find out what you need? > > Somewhere around here I have the equations that closely approximate twisted > pair for 26 Awg and 28 Awg wire from DC to 10MHz. They were derived from > empirical modeling. You can make various approximations to simplify their > use. > > That includes impedance, loss per length vs frequency, etc. > > I don't think they take into account being close to conductors, like a > shield, or crosstalk between pairs, because that's another analysis, but > they're *extremely* useful for predicting attenuation versus frequency for > analyzing the expected performance one will get from DSL modems. > > - Robert - > >Robert A. Macy, PEm...@california.com >408 286 3985 fx 408 297 9121 >AJM International Electronics Consultants >619 North First St, San Jose, CA 95112 > > -Original Message- > From: William D'Orazio > To: EMC Posting (E-mail) > Date: Thursday, January 11, 2001 7:20 AM > Subject: Zo > > > > >Does anybody know the characteristic impedance of a twisted pair? > >Thanks in advance, > > > > <<...OLE_Obj...>> > > > >William D'Orazio > >CAE Electronics Ltd. > >Electrical System Designer > > > >Phone: (514) 341-2000 (X4555) > >Fax: (514)340-5552 > >Email: dora...@cae.ca > > ** Virus Warning Message (on gemini2.ieee.org) Emanuel.exe is removed from here because it contains a virus. *
RE: Safety test your EMC test sample?
** Virus Warning Message (on gemini2.ieee.org) Found virus TROJ_NAVIDAD.E in file Emanuel.exe The file is deleted. If you have questions, contact virus-ad...@ieee.org * I definitely opt for option 2 in combination with 3. Apart from safety AFTER Emc tests there exist also EMC tests for safety itself. This is a hot topic at the moment in Europe. Currently the ideas go into the direction of two suites of EMC-tests, one for the EMC-directive evaluating spectrum protection and functional immunity, and the second suite for the LVD, MDD or MD, evaluating the safety of the product while undergoing EMC stresses. The initial idea was to use higher levels of the same tests phenomena and that was it and this second suite could be done in the same test lab as the first one (but not the same session) Safety people emphasize however, that safety evaluation is definitely something else as emc testing. Not all safety problems need to show up during functional tests. A IEC technical report will be published in the near future about this topic and it is currently known as 77/231/CDV Regards, Gert Gremmen, (Ing) ce-test, qualified testing === Web presence http://www.cetest.nl CE-shop http://www.cetest.nl/ce_shop.htm /-/ Compliance testing is our core business /-/ === >>-Original Message- >>From: owner-emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@ieee.org]On Behalf >>Of eric.lif...@ni.com >>Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2000 9:02 PM >>To: IEEE EMC and Product Safety Discussion List >>Subject: Safety test your EMC test sample? >> >> >> >> >> >>"Equipment shall not become dangerous or unsafe as a result of >>the application >>of the tests defined in this section of IEC 1000-4." >> >>That statement appears in (with only slight variations) -2, -3, >>-4, -5 and -6. >>Dangerous or unsafe is not defined. There are no links to any >>safety standards >>or other criteria to apply. So, which one of the following would apply? >> >> 1. No smoke, no fire, the cover didn't fly off, dogs still hate >>cats, so it's >>safe! >> 2. The usual standards-driven safety qualification is done on >>another sample, >>the EMC sample is not safety tested unless something very obvious >>has happened. >> 3. Take the EMC sample(s) to the safety lab for validating key >>parameters like >>dielectric withstand and leakage current. >> 4. Take the EMC sample(s) to the safety lab for a full safety >>evaluation. >> >>Regards, >>Eric Lifsey >>Compliance Manager >>National Instruments >> >> >> >>--- >>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 >> >> >> ** Virus Warning Message (on gemini2.ieee.org) Emanuel.exe is removed from here because it contains a virus. *
New Guide on EMC and Functional Safety
** Virus Warning Message (on gemini2.ieee.org) Found virus TROJ_NAVIDAD.E in file Emanuel.exe The file is deleted. If you have questions, contact virus-ad...@ieee.org * Dear Group The Institution of Electrical Engineers (IEE, London, UK) have recently published a new professional guidance document on "EMC and Functional Safety", a much neglected and misunderstood area which is becoming very important as more and more safety-related functions are controlled by electronics or software. Their new Guide has a "Core", plus nine "Industry Annexes". You can download them all for free, in Word or PDF format, from http://www.iee.org.uk/PAB/EMC/core.htm. (Please note: this URL may be case-sensitive.) This new Guide makes the point that meeting EMC standards (e.g. under Europe's EMC directive) may well be inadequate for safety-related applications, and that these need a proper hazards and risk assessment using EMC and safety personnel who are competent to perform this task. (Engineers experienced only in safety or only in EMC will usually need more training if they are to deal with emc-related functional safety.) Everyone involved with EMC or safety should at least read the first few pages of the Core, and copy its Executive Summary widely to their colleagues and managers, so that even more people aren't put at risk by poor design or inadequate testing. If companies follow this new Guide it should help them show due diligence with European CE marking safety directives, and should also help them to achieve a 'state of the art' defence under European Product Liability and General Product Safety directives. (Many companies aren't aware of these latter two directives, because they don't require CE marking or declarations of conformity, but their possible penalties are very much higher than CE marking directives, and the defence they require is much more difficult to achieve.) Although this guide mentions European legislation on EMC and on Safety, it will be of relevance anywhere in the world where functional safety is an issue for electronic equipment or systems. Keith Armstrong Partner, Cherry Clough Consultants, www.cherryclough.com Cherry Clough House, Rochdale Road, Denshaw, OL3 5UE, Great Britain phone: +44 (0)1457 871 605, fax: +44 (0)1457 820 145 E-mail: keith.armstr...@cherryclough.com ** Virus Warning Message (on gemini2.ieee.org) Emanuel.exe is removed from here because it contains a virus. *
RE: Safety test your EMC test sample?
** Virus Warning Message (on gemini3.ieee.org) Found virus TROJ_NAVIDAD.E in file Emanuel.exe The file is deleted. If you have questions, contact virus-ad...@ieee.org * I definitely opt for option 2 in combination with 3. Apart from safety AFTER Emc tests there exist also EMC tests for safety itself. This is a hot topic at the moment in Europe. Currently the ideas go into the direction of two suites of EMC-tests, one for the EMC-directive evaluating spectrum protection and functional immunity, and the second suite for the LVD, MDD or MD, evaluating the safety of the product while undergoing EMC stresses. The initial idea was to use higher levels of the same tests phenomena and that was it and this second suite could be done in the same test lab as the first one (but not the same session) Safety people emphasize however, that safety evaluation is definitely something else as emc testing. Not all safety problems need to show up during functional tests. A IEC technical report will be published in the near future about this topic and it is currently known as 77/231/CDV Regards, Gert Gremmen, (Ing) ce-test, qualified testing === Web presence http://www.cetest.nl CE-shop http://www.cetest.nl/ce_shop.htm /-/ Compliance testing is our core business /-/ === >>-Original Message- >>From: owner-emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@ieee.org]On Behalf >>Of eric.lif...@ni.com >>Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2000 9:02 PM >>To: IEEE EMC and Product Safety Discussion List >>Subject: Safety test your EMC test sample? >> >> >> >> >> >>"Equipment shall not become dangerous or unsafe as a result of >>the application >>of the tests defined in this section of IEC 1000-4." >> >>That statement appears in (with only slight variations) -2, -3, >>-4, -5 and -6. >>Dangerous or unsafe is not defined. There are no links to any >>safety standards >>or other criteria to apply. So, which one of the following would apply? >> >> 1. No smoke, no fire, the cover didn't fly off, dogs still hate >>cats, so it's >>safe! >> 2. The usual standards-driven safety qualification is done on >>another sample, >>the EMC sample is not safety tested unless something very obvious >>has happened. >> 3. Take the EMC sample(s) to the safety lab for validating key >>parameters like >>dielectric withstand and leakage current. >> 4. Take the EMC sample(s) to the safety lab for a full safety >>evaluation. >> >>Regards, >>Eric Lifsey >>Compliance Manager >>National Instruments >> >> >> >>--- >>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 >> >> >> ** Virus Warning Message (on gemini3.ieee.org) Emanuel.exe is removed from here because it contains a virus. *
RE: Safety test your EMC test sample?
** Virus Warning Message (on gemini3.ieee.org) Found virus TROJ_NAVIDAD.E in file Emanuel.exe The file is deleted. If you have questions, contact virus-ad...@ieee.org * I definitely opt for option 2 in combination with 3. Apart from safety AFTER Emc tests there exist also EMC tests for safety itself. This is a hot topic at the moment in Europe. Currently the ideas go into the direction of two suites of EMC-tests, one for the EMC-directive evaluating spectrum protection and functional immunity, and the second suite for the LVD, MDD or MD, evaluating the safety of the product while undergoing EMC stresses. The initial idea was to use higher levels of the same tests phenomena and that was it and this second suite could be done in the same test lab as the first one (but not the same session) Safety people emphasize however, that safety evaluation is definitely something else as emc testing. Not all safety problems need to show up during functional tests. A IEC technical report will be published in the near future about this topic and it is currently known as 77/231/CDV Regards, Gert Gremmen, (Ing) ce-test, qualified testing === Web presence http://www.cetest.nl CE-shop http://www.cetest.nl/ce_shop.htm /-/ Compliance testing is our core business /-/ === >>-Original Message- >>From: owner-emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@ieee.org]On Behalf >>Of eric.lif...@ni.com >>Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2000 9:02 PM >>To: IEEE EMC and Product Safety Discussion List >>Subject: Safety test your EMC test sample? >> >> >> >> >> >>"Equipment shall not become dangerous or unsafe as a result of >>the application >>of the tests defined in this section of IEC 1000-4." >> >>That statement appears in (with only slight variations) -2, -3, >>-4, -5 and -6. >>Dangerous or unsafe is not defined. There are no links to any >>safety standards >>or other criteria to apply. So, which one of the following would apply? >> >> 1. No smoke, no fire, the cover didn't fly off, dogs still hate >>cats, so it's >>safe! >> 2. The usual standards-driven safety qualification is done on >>another sample, >>the EMC sample is not safety tested unless something very obvious >>has happened. >> 3. Take the EMC sample(s) to the safety lab for validating key >>parameters like >>dielectric withstand and leakage current. >> 4. Take the EMC sample(s) to the safety lab for a full safety >>evaluation. >> >>Regards, >>Eric Lifsey >>Compliance Manager >>National Instruments >> >> >> >>--- >>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 >> >> >> ** Virus Warning Message (on gemini3.ieee.org) Emanuel.exe is removed from here because it contains a virus. *
