RE: CE Marking - Protoypes
Prototype, equipments for demostration aren't covered by the EMC or RTTE directive. This is article 8.2 of RTTE a similar article exist in the EMC directive 2. At trade fairs, exhibitions, demonstrations, etc., Member States shall not create any obstacles to the display of apparatus which does not comply with this Directive, provided that a visible sign clearly indicates that such apparatus may not be marketed or put into service until it has been made to comply. Ciao Paolo = Original Message From Enci e...@cinepower.com = I am trying to find official guidelines on the CE Marking of prototypes/samples, not available for sale, but used for demonstration at trade shows or other venues. Any help is appreciated. Thank you, Enci. --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ 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: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server. --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ 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: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
Re: EN 61000-3-2 applicability and let-outs
I read in !emc-pstc that cherryclo...@aol.com wrote (in 85.167c950b.298 3f...@aol.com) about 'EN 61000-3-2 applicability and let-outs', on Sat, 26 Jan 2002: Dear John People put all sorts of things in contracts, some more crazy than others. I wanted to establish the fact that there is nothing to stop a purchaser placing a requirement on a supplier to apply the limits in IEC 61000-3-2 for equipment that consumes 16A/phase, and you have confirmed that this is so. But I don't agree with you that such a contract requirement would necessarily be crazy. The Class A and Class B limits in IEC 61000-3-2 set absolute values of current, but the Class C limits are expressed as a percentage of the input current and so permit proportionally greater emissions for equipment with greater consumption. My view is that applying EN 61000-3-2 (especially its Class C) to equipment with current demand 16A/phase is quite feasible and far from being hardly more realistic than a requirement for no emissions at all as you put it. You are entitled to you opinion. Maybe we shall oppose each other in a court one day on this issue. Class C is for lighting equipment. Any lighting equipment consuming even 16 A per phase is 'professional' and 'above 1 kW', and thus subject to no limits. Perhaps my example might have been more palatable if I had used the example of equipment consuming 16.5A/phase. No, hair-splitting makes the meal much less palatable, as you know if you have ever ingested food with a hair in it. Of course, a better standard to call up in a purchasing contract would be IEC 61000-3-4, which sets limits for harmonic emissions for equipment consuming 16A/phase from the public LV supply. I note that its Stage 1 current emission values are very similar to the Class C limits in IEC 61000-3-2 helping to show that the idea of applying IEC 61000-3-2 to 16A equipment is not as crazy as it might at first appear. IEC61000-3-4 is an IEC Report. It is being replaced by IEC61000-3-12, which IS a standard and the EN version of which is intended for notification under the EMC Directive. Its draft requirements for Stage 1 connection are not those in the Report. You are clearly at liberty to advise your clients to attempt to impose very stringent contractual limits on any EMC phenomenon, beyond those in the international or European standards, but for whose benefit is this? -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk After swimming across the Hellespont, I felt like a Hero. PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL! --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ 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: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
Re: EN 61000-3-2 applicability and let-outs
I read in !emc-pstc that cherryclo...@aol.com wrote (in a5.21b2cf3e.298 3f...@aol.com) about 'EN 61000-3-2 applicability and let-outs', on Sat, 26 Jan 2002: I don't know enough about the process of creating IEC 61000-3-2 to comment on whether it is skewed, but I am led to believe that the convener of the WG that created it was for many years a senior person in the computer industry. Your information is not correct, or at best refers to a long time ago. The convener at the time that IEC61000-3-2 was first published was a European person from, AFAIK, the electricity supply industry. -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk After swimming across the Hellespont, I felt like a Hero. PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL! --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ 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: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
CE Marking - Protoypes
I am trying to find official guidelines on the CE Marking of prototypes/samples, not available for sale, but used for demonstration at trade shows or other venues. Any help is appreciated. Thank you, Enci. --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ 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: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
Re: EN 61000-3-2 applicability and let-outs
Dear John People put all sorts of things in contracts, some more crazy than others. I wanted to establish the fact that there is nothing to stop a purchaser placing a requirement on a supplier to apply the limits in IEC 61000-3-2 for equipment that consumes 16A/phase, and you have confirmed that this is so. But I don't agree with you that such a contract requirement would necessarily be crazy. The Class A and Class B limits in IEC 61000-3-2 set absolute values of current, but the Class C limits are expressed as a percentage of the input current and so permit proportionally greater emissions for equipment with greater consumption. My view is that applying EN 61000-3-2 (especially its Class C) to equipment with current demand 16A/phase is quite feasible and far from being hardly more realistic than a requirement for no emissions at all as you put it. Perhaps my example might have been more palatable if I had used the example of equipment consuming 16.5A/phase. Of course, a better standard to call up in a purchasing contract would be IEC 61000-3-4, which sets limits for harmonic emissions for equipment consuming 16A/phase from the public LV supply. I note that its Stage 1 current emission values are very similar to the Class C limits in IEC 61000-3-2 – helping to show that the idea of applying IEC 61000-3-2 to 16A equipment is not as crazy as it might at first appear. Thank you for the useful information about the differences between Cenelec and IEC versions of 61000-3-2. Regards, Keith Armstrong In a message dated 25/01/02 14:33:14 GMT Standard Time, j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk writes: Subj:Re: EN 61000-3-2 applicability and let-outs Date:25/01/02 14:33:14 GMT Standard Time From:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk (John Woodgate) Sender:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Reply-to: A HREF=mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk;j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk/A (John Woodgate) To:emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org I read in !emc-pstc that cherryclo...@aol.com wrote (in ad.1718da5d.298 29...@aol.com) about 'EN 61000-3-2 applicability and let-outs', on Fri, 25 Jan 2002: Dear John Thank you for your replies. A couple of points... Optional application of standards: I believe there is nothing to stop purchasers from using any IEC standards in their contracts with suppliers. So a purchaser of a 30A/phase equipment could specify that the equipment must meet the emissions limits set out in IEC 61000-3-2. Nothing to do with CE marking, of course, merely a private agreement. This was what I meant by 'optional' in the below. But that is crazy! Pardon my French, but *there are no emission limits for a 30 A equipment in the standard*. What you are saying is that a purchaser might impose contractually limits appropriate for, say, a 5 A equipment to a 30 A equipment, which is indeed true but hardly more realistic than a requirement for no emissions at all. It falls into the same category as the all too common 'contractual requirement', 'The equipment shall comply with all British, European and International Standards.'. Does that include the one for toilet paper? Do I understand from the following correspondence... QUOTE 4) My copy of EN 61000-3-2 has a paragraph at the end of its Scope section that says: Special equipment, which is not widely used and is designed in such a way that it is unable to comply with the requirements (limits), may be subject to installation restrictions. The supply authorities shall be notified as authorization may be required before connection. This gobbledegook was deleted by the Millennium Amendment (MA, aka A14 to EN61000-3-2). No-one could define 'special' and 'not widely used', when challenged to do so, so out it came! So custom-made or low-volume manufactured equipment (even if under 16A/phase) does not have to comply with EN 61000-3-2, as long as their users check with their power suppliers that they are OK to be connected. Yes, this is explained *properly* in clause 4 of the MA. UNQUOTE ... that although the 'gobbledygook' paragraph has been removed the option to not comply with EN 61000-3-2 still exists as long as users check with their power suppliers that they are permitted to connect the equipment concerned? Yes. I suggest you get the edition of the standard that is notified in the OJEC and see for yourself. Be careful! CENELEC in its 'wisdom' has got out of step with IEC, so there is an amended First Edition of the EN AND a 'Second Edition' which is actually 6 months out-of-date compared with the amended First Edition, unless you are into kitchen appliances. -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk After swimming across the Hellespont, I felt
Re: EN 61000-3-2 applicability and let-outs
Dear Bob I thought very large numbers of commercial computers these days went into 'server farms' (sometimes called 'Internet Hotels' or 'Cisco Hotels') and these will almost certainly have a non-public LV supply. I don't know enough about the process of creating IEC 61000-3-2 to comment on whether it is skewed, but I am led to believe that the convener of the WG that created it was for many years a senior person in the computer industry. Regards, Keith Armstrong In a message dated 25/01/02 12:16:15 GMT Standard Time, rehel...@mmm.com writes: Subj:Re: EN 61000-3-2 applicability and let-outs Date:25/01/02 12:16:15 GMT Standard Time From:rehel...@mmm.com Sender:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Reply-to: A HREF=mailto:rehel...@mmm.com;rehel...@mmm.com/A To:cherryclo...@aol.com, emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org I realise that none of the above give much comfort to manufacturers of domestic or consumer products, but maybe a computer manufacturer could offer a version without PFC only for use in installations that have a dedicated LV supply. No, the big problem is for manufacturers who make commercial and light industrial equipment that are under 16A and are connected to the public power mains. This is the majority of commercial equipment. As was mentioned previously, the harmonic and flicker standards are considered by many to be skewed standards because they were heavily influenced by the power industry virtually to the exclusion of all other data and input. The issue is not whether harmonics and line votage variations are a problem. The issue is to what extent they are a problem. And until these standards become unskewed and all data is weighed, these two tainted standards will not be believeable. Bob Heller 3M Product Safety, 76-1-01 St. Paul, MN 55107-1208 Tel: 651- 778-6336 Fax: 651-778-6252 CherryClough@ao l.comTo: j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org 01/24/2002 (bcc: Robert E. Heller/US-Corporate/3M/US) 11:58 AM Subject: EN 61000-3-2 applicability and let-outs Please respond to CherryClough Dear John I understand the following statements to be true. Please make corrections / comments where necessary. 1) EN 61000-3-2 only applies to equipment consuming up to 16A/phase, and there are no mandatory harmonic limits in the EU (yet) for higher-powered equipment, other than what the power supplier might impose. So EN 61000-3-2 is optional for equipment consuming 16A/phase. 2) EN 61000-3-2 currently has a let-out for professional equipment that consumes more than 1kW, so its application is optional for that category of equipment too. This could exclude many of the larger products sold solely for commercial and/or industrial use from EN 61000-3-2. (Maybe the combined air-conditioner / personal computer may not be such a bad idea if it gets consumption up above 1kW!). 3) The 'public low voltage supply' is a 4156/230V supply with more than one consumer connected. Large plants or office building often take their power at MV (11kV or more) and transform their own LV supply with their own distribution transformer - creating a 'private' low voltage supply dedicated for their own use. EN 61000-3-2 is optional for any equipment sold solely for use on such dedicated low voltage supplies. Privately-generated LV supplies ditto. 4) My copy of EN 61000-3-2 has a paragraph at the end of its Scope section that says: Special equipment, which is not widely used and is designed in such a way that it is unable to comply with the requirements (limits), may be subject to installation restrictions. The supply authorities shall be notified as authorization may be required before connection. So custom-made or low-volume manufactured equipment (even if under 16A/phase) does not have to comply with EN 61000-3-2, as long as their users check with their power suppliers that they are OK to be connected. Maybe they could agree to deal with any harmonic issues at site-level, by installing an active harmonic cancellation unit. Regards, Keith Armstrong
Re: Telecommunications Vs. ITE Product
Hi Gregg: Let me start by asking one simple question - WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF CERTIFICATION? 1- to meet the legal requirement 2- help market the product 3- do the 'right thing' 4- not to kill anyone 5- make sure that the product is nor recalled Most companies will answer (4) to make sure the product is not recalled. This is a GOOD answer - it may not optimized, in terms of immediate cost, but this is the one that I would opt for - particularly if I wanted to sleep at night. This is what the certification house would like you to believe. However, the process of certification is a simple matter of checking off requirements. (Have you looked at a CB Test Report lately?) There is very little further looking for hazards, (and there is a great deal of nit-picking for compliance). So, certification means compliance with the standard. To accomplish #4, the standard must be omniscient. Mere mortals put the standard together. We wouldn't certify products if there wasn't a legal requirement to do so. But, I agree that we expect a lot more from certification than meeting legal requirements. However, we don't get more than compliance to the standard. Best regards, Rich --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ 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: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
Re: broadband RE from AC induction motors
I read in !emc-pstc that Ken Javor ken.ja...@emccompliance.com wrote (in 20020125180848.LRWV20810.femail29.sdc1.sfba.home.com@[65.11.150.27] ) about 'broadband RE from AC induction motors', on Fri, 25 Jan 2002: Do any forum members have knowledge of a mechanism by which ac induction motors (two are fan motors, one a compressor motor) can generate broadband RE from 30 - 600 MHz? This is outside my experience. Are there perhaps degradation modes that result in arcing? The motors run off three phase 400 cycle power, 115 Volts rms phase to neutral. Yes, marginal breakdown of insulation, or loose connections, can generate broadband r.f. emission. To eliminate the control equipment, temporarily run one of the motors straight from the mains. Don't forget to *switch off* the control equipment and the other motors during this test -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk After swimming across the Hellespont, I felt like a Hero. PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL! --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ 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: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
