Re: Surge testing Questions
In message de87437fe365cb458c265ea3d73b6f1d04677...@xbc-mail1.xantrex.com, dated Mon, 9 Mar 2009, Ralph McDiarmid ralph.mcdiar...@xantrex.com writes: Most scopes I've used earth the probe ground-lead through their mains power cord, so likely no need to attach the ground clip to anything when probing mains voltage. This can be checked by attaching the ground clip and noting whether there is any change in the display. Then leave it attached! -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk Things can always get better. But that's not the only option. John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com
AW: dated standards
Hi, the European EMC ADCO group has decided that in the EC declaration of conformity the dated references of harmonized standards shall be included. The European EMC guidelines describes the “presumption of conformity” as followed (chapter 3.2.2, 3rd paragraph): “The EMC Directive refers to the moment of placing on the market for each individual apparatus. This means that for apparatus which is continuously produced over a long period, the applicable standards may change in the course of time. In this case the provisions explained at 3.2.2.3 concerning the date of cessation of Presumption of Conformity should be taken into account. The Date of Cessation ensures that a transition period (usually three years) is foreseen during which the old and new standards are both valid. After this time if the manufacturer wishes to continue to benefit from the Presumption of Conformity a new Declaration of Conformity is required to the later valid edition of the harmonised standard. This will require an EMC evaluation to the later version of the published harmonised standard and may require re-testing. However, it may be that the manufacturer wishes to continue to meet the essential requirements by continuing use of the “old” edition (that has ceased to be harmonised) plus other technical solutions if necessary. As harmonised standards are voluntary this is of course an acceptable solution but would not give the presumption of conformity that application of the later edition would confer. In addition, it will require amendment to the text of the Declaration given that the method of conformity assessment has now changed. Where new editions become available and are to be applied it does not necessarily mean that a complete EMC re-assessment of an existing product is necessary. The evaluation may be restricted to those modifications directly affecting the apparatus concerned. For example, the change may only relate to a small range in scope, or one particular clause or phenomenon.“ Therefore our German Market Surveillance Authority (Bundesnetzagentur) evaluates the “EC-DoCs” in the first step (at the second step “tests”) in regard to the applied standards. Mit freundlichen Grüßen Yours sincerely Dipl.-Ing. Michael Loerzer Managing Director Regulatory Affairs Specialist michael.loer...@globalnorm.de mailto:michael.loer...@globalnorm.de Fon: +49 30 3229027-50, Direct Call: -51 Mobile: +49 170 3229027 Fax: +49 30 3229027-59 www.Globalnorm.de http://www.globalnorm.de/ Globalnorm GmbH, Sitz der Gesellschaft: Alt-Moabit 94, 10559 Berlin Geschaeftsfuehrer/Managing Director: Dipl.-Ing. Michael Loerzer Amtsgericht Berlin-Charlottenburg HRB 105204 B, USt-ID-Nummer: DE251654448 Von: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] Im Auftrag von Mark Gandler Gesendet: Freitag, 6. März 2009 20:09 An: tim.hay...@selexgalileo.com; j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk; emc-p...@ieee.org Betreff: RE: dated standards Tim and All, one of our products end up audited in Germany by Bundes... They claim what our standards were outdated in DoC and they said as long as our product in on the market we must comply with new versions and it should be mentioned in DoC. The product is under RTTE. I have prepeared a letter describing what product did not change and in fact will comply with new versions of the standards by the virtue what physical requirements of the new standard did not change as well. I am not sure how it is going to end up and the product is already EOL anyway. Could you please comment and to share if anyone else had similar requests from auditors? Thanks, mark Subject: RE: dated standards Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2009 11:24:49 + From: tim.hay...@selexgalileo.com To: j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk; emc-p...@ieee.org Hi John, All, Don't forget that under the new EMC Directive you can sign off a DoC on the basis that the equipment has been assessed against the essential requirements. The fact that you use standard that are out of date is immaterial - it is still a valid DoC. People who are getting ready to spend money re-certifying because the standards (or indeed the Directive) have passed their sell-by date need only satisfy themselves that the product has not changed and then write a new DoC against the existing evidence and declare under the full EMC assessment route. A bit of paperwork instead of a lot of testing. Still I don't expect the test houses to go broke. Regards Tim SELEX Sensors and Airborne Systems Limited Registered Office: Sigma House, Christopher Martin Road, Basildon, Essex SS14 3EL A company registered in England Wales. Company no. 02426132 This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender. You should not copy it or use it for any
AW: Prototypes and the EMC Directive
Hello, in Germany we have a special paragraph in our new EMC act for the design and testing of equipment: § 11 Besondere Regelungen (1) Während der Entwicklung und Erprobung von Betriebsmitteln hat der Hersteller Vorkehrungen zu treffen, um elektromagnetische Störungen von Betriebsmitteln zu vermeiden, die von Dritten betrieben werden. English (inofficial translation): (1) During the design and test of equipment the manufacturer shall be arrange precautions to avoid disturbances of equipment which are in operation of others. No CE marking and no EC declaration of conformity is required. Mit freundlichen Grüßen Yours sincerely Dipl.-Ing. Michael Loerzer Managing Director Regulatory Affairs Specialist michael.loer...@globalnorm.de Fon: +49 30 3229027-50, Direct Call: -51 Mobile: +49 170 3229027 Fax: +49 30 3229027-59 www.Globalnorm.de Globalnorm GmbH, Sitz der Gesellschaft: Alt-Moabit 94, 10559 Berlin Geschaeftsfuehrer/Managing Director: Dipl.-Ing. Michael Loerzer Amtsgericht Berlin-Charlottenburg HRB 105204 B, USt-ID-Nummer: DE251654448 Von: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] Im Auftrag von Charles Blackham Gesendet: Freitag, 27. Februar 2009 11:46 An: White, Ian Cc: IEEE Forum Betreff: Re: Prototypes and the EMC Directive Ian compliance whilst still in development and not commercially available is not required. the EU Blue Book guide to New Approach Directives states that: A product must comply with the applicable New Approach directives when it is placed on the Community market for the first time and put into service. Placing on the market is the initial action of making a product available for the first time on the Community market, with a view to distribution or use in the Community. Making available can be either for payment or free of charge. Putting into service takes place at the moment of first use within the Community by the end user. However, the need to ensure, in the framework of market surveillance, that products are in compliance with the provisions of the directives when being put into service is limited. Specifically the EMC Directive only applies to Equipment, where Equipment is defined as Apparatus or fixed installation and apparatus means any finished appliance or combination thereof made commercially available as a single functional unit, intended for the end user That said, in the unlikely event that your product generates so much EMI that is causes other people problems, you expect a knock on the door from someone asking you to fix it sharpish. You still need to ensure that it is safe to be used by the people who are working on it. regards Charlie Could members please advise me on the legal position of fully working prototypes of electronics equipment. We need them fully working and in Service to test that they meet all design requirements. Do they have to comply with all aspects of the EMC Directive before we put them into service - when it is still a development item. Of course they are not commercially available and operate with in the confines of the workplace. Thanks Ian - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website:
RE: Surge testing Questions
Most scopes I've used earth the probe ground-lead through their mains power cord, so likely no need to attach the ground clip to anything when probing mains voltage. Ralph McDiarmid, AScT Compliance Engineering Group Xantrex Technology Inc From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of John Woodgate Sent: Monday, March 09, 2009 2:00 PM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Re: Surge testing Questions In message 0ed66cd2c9bd0a459d54fb9119a60567e0b...@mailserver.lecotc.com, dated Mon, 9 Mar 2009, Kunde, Brian brian_ku...@lecotc.com writes: With a grounded Neutral, 0º and 180º is not the zero crossing point (zero voltage potential to earth ground) but the 270º angle. Worst case would be the 90º angle which would be Peak-Peak plus the Positive Surge pulse. Would you like to re-consider that. The 0 V line on the scope IS 0 V, between the hot tip and whatever the ground clip is connected to. If the neutral is earthed, it doesn't matter which one the ground clip is connected to; 0 V is 0 V. -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk Things can always get better. But that's not the only option. John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com
RE: EISA 2007
EISA 2007 amended EPAct 2005, therefore you must read them together to obtain the scope. See especially 42 USCS 6291, 6293, 6295. Scope applies to ac-ac and ac-dc external power supplies and applies to battery chargers except the standard for battery charges has not been finalized. A timeline has been established to review and update standards for external power supplies and battery chargers. According to DOE, the Act applies specifically to consumer products, and until Congress changes the statute, the upcoming review of the standards is just that – clarifying the requirements, not changing the scope. EISA preempted state law for power supplies within its scope (consumer external power supplies and battery chargers). California addressed those power supplies that were not in EISA’s scope; its Code applies to commercial as well as consumer power supplies. Don Umbdenstock Manager Compliance Engineering Tyco Safety Products / Sensormatic 6600 Congress Avenue Boca Raton, FL 33487 USA Phone: 561.912.6440 djumbdenst...@tycoint.com mailto:djumbdenst...@tycoint.com From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Jim Robson Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2009 11:27 AM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: EISA 2007 Is anyone familiar with EISA 2007. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-6 The U.S. Congress has passed a law effective July 1, 2008 called the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. Section 301 of the new law is dedicated to the efficiency standards for AC or DC output external power supplies 250 watts and under. The law states that any Class A external power supply manufactured on or after July 1, 2008, must meet new, higher efficiency and standby levels based on the output watts. TITLE III- ENERGY SAVINGS THROUGH IMPROVED STANDARDS FOR APPLIANCE AND LIGHTING Subtitle A-- Appliance Energy Efficiency Sec. 301 External power supply efficiency standards. Sect. 301 requires external power supplies (up to 250W) must meet certain efficiency and no load current requirements. My first interpretation of the law was the it applied to external power supplies for residential and consumer appliances. A fellow colleague disagrees and says if applies to all external power supplies for all equipment. Any input on the intended scope would be greatly appreciated. Regards, Jim Robson - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald dhe...@gmail.com - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald dhe...@gmail.com
Re: Surge testing Questions
In message 0ed66cd2c9bd0a459d54fb9119a60567e0b...@mailserver.lecotc.com, dated Mon, 9 Mar 2009, Kunde, Brian brian_ku...@lecotc.com writes: With a grounded Neutral, 0º and 180º is not the zero crossing point (zero voltage potential to earth ground) but the 270º angle. Worst case would be the 90º angle which would be Peak-Peak plus the Positive Surge pulse. Would you like to re-consider that. The 0 V line on the scope IS 0 V, between the hot tip and whatever the ground clip is connected to. If the neutral is earthed, it doesn't matter which one the ground clip is connected to; 0 V is 0 V. -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk Things can always get better. But that's not the only option. John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com
RE: Australia C-Tick and safety requirements
Hi Pat - You had a good question on the IEC equivalent to UL1449. Do you get any replies? If so - could you forward tem to me? Thanks!! From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of pat.law...@slpower.com Sent: Friday, February 20, 2009 10:50 AM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Re: Australia C-Tick and safety requirements Hi Dan: As far as question 2 is concerned (line frequency devices CISPR 22), CISPR 22 does address it. The Introduction says: The scope is extended to the whole radio-frequency range from 9 kHz to 400 GHz, . . . . 50Hz is below the range. It also says in the Scope: Procedures are given for the measurement of the levels of spurious signals generated by the ITE and limits are specified for the frequency range 9 kHz to 400 GHz for both class A and class B equipment. No measurements need be performed at frequencies where no limits are specified. Hopefully, a passive surge suppressor is not generating spurious high frequency signals during normal operation! By the way, UL standard 1449 covers testing of 'Surge Protective Devices'. Is there a similar product standard from the IEC (not basic test standards)? Pat Lawler EMC Engineer SL Power Electronics Corp. Dan Roman dan.ro...@dialogic.com wrote on 02/20/2009 07:23:33 AM: I'm passing along two questions for a friend that I cannot answer because they are outside of my product area of expertise. The product in question is a passive line filter for use with a PC. It contains overvoltage and line filtering components (some coils, caps, and MOVs). 1. Does the C-Tick mark for non-telecom equipment require both EMC and safety declarations? I know that for the telecom equipment my company produces, the ACA requires telecom, safety, and EMC (A- tick and C-tick) but I don't know if the safety portion is a telecom specific requirement or not. If the answer is the C-Tick is for EMC only, are there other requirements for safety or other marks that would apply to this product in Australia? I am sure there must be. 2. Does a passive device like this fall under EMC requirements? CISPR 22/EN55022 don't specify a lower frequency limit exempting products, so this passive line filter connected to a 50 Hz supply would appear to need testing. Everything I deal with has clocks in excess of 1 GHz these days so this question never came up where I work! It is always interesting getting questions outside of your normal day to day experience. -- Dan Roman, N.C.E. Product Regulatory Engineer Dialogic Research Inc. 1515 State Rt. 10 Parsippany, NJ 07054-4538 *mailto:dan.ro...@dialogic.com (Voice: +1 973-967-6485 Fax: +1 973-967-6262 Intranet: http://compliance.eicon.com/ Internet: http://www.dialogic.com - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com
RE: Surge testing Questions
I’ve seen products pass at 0 deg and fail at 180deg. Perhaps it’s more to do with current than voltage, or with the sign of the voltage slope. Ralph McDiarmid, AScT Compliance Engineering Group Xantrex Technology Inc From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Mike Hopkins Sent: Monday, March 09, 2009 11:33 AM To: 'Kunde, Brian'; 'Derek Walton'; 'IEEE EMC Discussion Group' Subject: RE: Surge testing Questions Well, 61000-4-5 does specify testing at both 0 and 180 degrees. That said, the only difference I can see between the two conditions is that at zero, the line voltage is increasing and at 180, it’s decreasing…. When the document was re-issued, there was considerable discussion about the length of the test, so words were added to allow testing at rates faster than one surge/minute. Removing some tests was discussed, but for every test to be removed, someone had a good reason for keeping it in…… Best Regards, Michael Hopkins Amber Precision Instruments Office: +1 603 595 6420 Mobile: +1 603 765 3736 m...@amberpi.com From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Kunde, Brian Sent: Monday, March 09, 2009 2:06 PM To: Mike Hopkins; Derek Walton; IEEE EMC Discussion Group Subject: RE: Surge testing Questions Our tester won't do Line and Neutral to Ground so we couldn't test that condition even if we waned to. In Europe, it is common to have 230VAC with a grounded neutral, so to properly perform the Surge Test you have to test both Line to Ground and Neutral to Ground. Some labs even test worst case and perform the Surge test at 264VAC. With a grounded Neutral, 0º and 180º is not the zero crossing point (zero voltage potential to earth ground) but the 270º angle. Worst case would be the 90º angle which would be Peak-Peak plus the Positive Surge pulse. If you are not using a grounded Neutral or center-tap power system, the true zero crossing can float around so you have to test both line to ground and neutral to ground to make sure you are testing the worst case voltage potential. I would think that the 0º angle point and the 180º angle point would be exactly the same so I do not think you have to do both. If someone disagrees, please let me know and why. Testing both the 0º and 180º angles during a 2KV test will turn a 4 hour test into a 5 ½ hour test which is more money for the test lab to “follow the standard”. The Other Brian From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Mike Hopkins Sent: Friday, March 06, 2009 5:51 PM To: 'Derek Walton'; 'IEEE EMC Discussion Group' Subject: RE: Surge testing Questions I believe the intention has always been to test line-to-ground (normal mode) and then neutral-ground (common mode). It's been a few years since I was convenor of that group and don't recall all the discussions. I believe coupling multiple lines may have been discussed, but there are real problems producing the proper waveforms for all conditions == especially for 3-phase systems where multiple lines can be involved in a common mode test. Of course, a product standard could require the line + neutral to ground tests, but I'm not aware of any that do. If they did, I wouldn't guarantee the waveforms to be correct from all generators under this condition. I believe that the single line to ground common mode test has been around since the old 801-5. In the US, ANSI/IEEE and many companies take the position that the transient can come in any way it wants to, so line + neutral to ground is commonly (excuse the PUN) done. In section 8 of Edition 2 it's stated that for a.c. power ports five positive and five negative pulses each at 0º, 90º, 180º and at 270º shall be done So I'd say 180 IS a test as is 0 degrees... Note 2 of that section also states that, Product committees may select different phase angles and either increase or reduce the number of surges per phase... Hope this is helpful Michael Hopkins Amber Precision Instruments Office: +1 603 595 6420 Mobile: +1 603 765 3736 m...@amberpi.com From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Derek Walton Sent: Friday, March 06, 2009 11:22 AM To: IEEE EMC Discussion Group Subject: Surge testing Questions Good day folks, I have a question or two concerning the latest surge test document EN61000-4-5: 1) when the pulse is applied on a power lead between line and ground, is it done Line to ground, then Neutral to Ground OR, is it Line and Neutral to Ground. One would think if this were a common mode test ( since it's referenced to Ground ) that the pulse be applied Line and Neutral to ground simultaneously. However, the wording in -5 clause 8.2 states *successively *implying Line to ground then Neutral to ground. This implies separate tests. 2) On an AC waveform, is the 180 degree position a test condition? I
RE: Surge testing Questions
Well, 61000-4-5 does specify testing at both 0 and 180 degrees. That said, the only difference I can see between the two conditions is that at zero, the line voltage is increasing and at 180, it’s decreasing…. When the document was re-issued, there was considerable discussion about the length of the test, so words were added to allow testing at rates faster than one surge/minute. Removing some tests was discussed, but for every test to be removed, someone had a good reason for keeping it in…… Best Regards, Michael Hopkins Amber Precision Instruments Office: +1 603 595 6420 Mobile: +1 603 765 3736 m...@amberpi.com From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Kunde, Brian Sent: Monday, March 09, 2009 2:06 PM To: Mike Hopkins; Derek Walton; IEEE EMC Discussion Group Subject: RE: Surge testing Questions Our tester won't do Line and Neutral to Ground so we couldn't test that condition even if we waned to. In Europe, it is common to have 230VAC with a grounded neutral, so to properly perform the Surge Test you have to test both Line to Ground and Neutral to Ground. Some labs even test worst case and perform the Surge test at 264VAC. With a grounded Neutral, 0º and 180º is not the zero crossing point (zero voltage potential to earth ground) but the 270º angle. Worst case would be the 90º angle which would be Peak-Peak plus the Positive Surge pulse. If you are not using a grounded Neutral or center-tap power system, the true zero crossing can float around so you have to test both line to ground and neutral to ground to make sure you are testing the worst case voltage potential. I would think that the 0º angle point and the 180º angle point would be exactly the same so I do not think you have to do both. If someone disagrees, please let me know and why. Testing both the 0º and 180º angles during a 2KV test will turn a 4 hour test into a 5 ½ hour test which is more money for the test lab to “follow the standard”. The Other Brian From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Mike Hopkins Sent: Friday, March 06, 2009 5:51 PM To: 'Derek Walton'; 'IEEE EMC Discussion Group' Subject: RE: Surge testing Questions I believe the intention has always been to test line-to-ground (normal mode) and then neutral-ground (common mode). It's been a few years since I was convenor of that group and don't recall all the discussions. I believe coupling multiple lines may have been discussed, but there are real problems producing the proper waveforms for all conditions == especially for 3-phase systems where multiple lines can be involved in a common mode test. Of course, a product standard could require the line + neutral to ground tests, but I'm not aware of any that do. If they did, I wouldn't guarantee the waveforms to be correct from all generators under this condition. I believe that the single line to ground common mode test has been around since the old 801-5. In the US, ANSI/IEEE and many companies take the position that the transient can come in any way it wants to, so line + neutral to ground is commonly (excuse the PUN) done. In section 8 of Edition 2 it's stated that for a.c. power ports five positive and five negative pulses each at 0º, 90º, 180º and at 270º shall be done So I'd say 180 IS a test as is 0 degrees... Note 2 of that section also states that, Product committees may select different phase angles and either increase or reduce the number of surges per phase... Hope this is helpful Michael Hopkins Amber Precision Instruments Office: +1 603 595 6420 Mobile: +1 603 765 3736 m...@amberpi.com From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Derek Walton Sent: Friday, March 06, 2009 11:22 AM To: IEEE EMC Discussion Group Subject: Surge testing Questions Good day folks, I have a question or two concerning the latest surge test document EN61000-4-5: 1) when the pulse is applied on a power lead between line and ground, is it done Line to ground, then Neutral to Ground OR, is it Line and Neutral to Ground. One would think if this were a common mode test ( since it's referenced to Ground ) that the pulse be applied Line and Neutral to ground simultaneously. However, the wording in -5 clause 8.2 states *successively *implying Line to ground then Neutral to ground. This implies separate tests. 2) On an AC waveform, is the 180 degree position a test condition? I ask because it states Zero crossing point. If this is NOT where is the exemption? Many thanks in advance. Derek Walton L F Research - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc Graphics (in
RE: Surge testing Questions
Our tester won't do Line and Neutral to Ground so we couldn't test that condition even if we waned to. In Europe, it is common to have 230VAC with a grounded neutral, so to properly perform the Surge Test you have to test both Line to Ground and Neutral to Ground. Some labs even test worst case and perform the Surge test at 264VAC. With a grounded Neutral, 0º and 180º is not the zero crossing point (zero voltage potential to earth ground) but the 270º angle. Worst case would be the 90º angle which would be Peak-Peak plus the Positive Surge pulse. If you are not using a grounded Neutral or center-tap power system, the true zero crossing can float around so you have to test both line to ground and neutral to ground to make sure you are testing the worst case voltage potential. I would think that the 0º angle point and the 180º angle point would be exactly the same so I do not think you have to do both. If someone disagrees, please let me know and why. Testing both the 0º and 180º angles during a 2KV test will turn a 4 hour test into a 5 ½ hour test which is more money for the test lab to “follow the standard”. The Other Brian From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Mike Hopkins Sent: Friday, March 06, 2009 5:51 PM To: 'Derek Walton'; 'IEEE EMC Discussion Group' Subject: RE: Surge testing Questions I believe the intention has always been to test line-to-ground (normal mode) and then neutral-ground (common mode). It's been a few years since I was convenor of that group and don't recall all the discussions. I believe coupling multiple lines may have been discussed, but there are real problems producing the proper waveforms for all conditions == especially for 3-phase systems where multiple lines can be involved in a common mode test. Of course, a product standard could require the line + neutral to ground tests, but I'm not aware of any that do. If they did, I wouldn't guarantee the waveforms to be correct from all generators under this condition. I believe that the single line to ground common mode test has been around since the old 801-5. In the US, ANSI/IEEE and many companies take the position that the transient can come in any way it wants to, so line + neutral to ground is commonly (excuse the PUN) done. In section 8 of Edition 2 it's stated that for a.c. power ports five positive and five negative pulses each at 0º, 90º, 180º and at 270º shall be done So I'd say 180 IS a test as is 0 degrees... Note 2 of that section also states that, Product committees may select different phase angles and either increase or reduce the number of surges per phase... Hope this is helpful Michael Hopkins Amber Precision Instruments Office: +1 603 595 6420 Mobile: +1 603 765 3736 m...@amberpi.com From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Derek Walton Sent: Friday, March 06, 2009 11:22 AM To: IEEE EMC Discussion Group Subject: Surge testing Questions Good day folks, I have a question or two concerning the latest surge test document EN61000-4-5: 1) when the pulse is applied on a power lead between line and ground, is it done Line to ground, then Neutral to Ground OR, is it Line and Neutral to Ground. One would think if this were a common mode test ( since it's referenced to Ground ) that the pulse be applied Line and Neutral to ground simultaneously. However, the wording in -5 clause 8.2 states *successively *implying Line to ground then Neutral to ground. This implies separate tests. 2) On an AC waveform, is the 180 degree position a test condition? I ask because it states Zero crossing point. If this is NOT where is the exemption? Many thanks in advance. Derek Walton L F Research - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions:
RE: De-Rating internal Connectors for Temperature
I appreciate the replies and the debating was very interesting. To re-cap, we are trying to see if we can come up with a simple way to calculate the temperature rise in a connector at different current levels if we already know that the temperature rise is 30ºC at the rated current (which is how most connectors are rated). We know the calculated results would be just an estimate and we are making the assumption that the power dissipation and thermal resistance would stay fairly constant in the temperature range that we want to calculate. I took John's advice and decided to do some measurements just to see if the results would track our I^2 presumption. I took a standard Molex connector (single) pin and socket rated 19 amps (this is NOT the 50 amp connector from my original email) and soldered them onto 16 AWG wire and mounted them in free space and connected the wires to my Ground Bond Tester (constant current source). I stuck a thermocouple with thermal paste into the connector pin as close to the junction as possible. Passing current through the connector pins gave me the following results: 5A = 2.5ºC rise over ambient 10A = 11ºC rise 15A = 22ºC rise 20A = 44ºC rise So it would seem that in this case our assumption was pretty close if not right on. Doubling the current gave us approximately a 4X change in our temperature rise. We'll have to do more real world measurements to see if the results are similar with other connectors. Thanks for everyone's help. The Other Brian From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of John Woodgate Sent: Sunday, March 08, 2009 5:21 PM To: john...@itesafety.com Cc: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Re: De-Rating internal Connectors for Temperature In message 49b42f6e.3030...@itesafety.com, dated Sun, 8 Mar 2009, Robert Johnson john...@itesafety.com writes: Temperature is not proportional to current or current squared or power.. Temperature rise is not proportional to current or current squared or power. These formulas were all pure guesses. Not in my case: I explained its approximate nature. Temperature is proportional to kinetic energy (more or less). Power is energy per unit time. If power is constant, whatever is proportional to energy is proportional to power. You need to go back to the physics and figure out where the energy is going and how the energy relates to the temperature of a substance. It turns out to be a very complicated subject (eg). You can make anything complicated. The genius is in making it simple. A second major flaw here is a misunderstanding about temperature manipulation. You can double the temperature of a product from 1°C to 2°C. You can also double the temperature of a product from 50°C to 100°C. You can increase the temperature of a product a million fold to 1°C (from .01°C). You have to be really careful if you are manipulating temperatures without using an absolute scale. If you are trying to relate something to a fraction of the temperature scale (like Celsius or Fahrenheit) you can quickly get into trouble. I made it clear that the connector problem is a matter of temperature RISE, not temperature on a scale. Others may have considered temperatures on a scale; that is indeed very liable to cause errors. -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk Things can always get better. But that's not the only option. John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com LECO Corporation Notice: This communication may contain confidential information intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you received this by mistake, please destroy it and notify us of the error. Thank you. - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net
Re: China WEEE
The regulation takes effect January 1, 2011. China will establich a WEEE processing fund. Manufacturers, importers, or agents have obligation to pay into the fund. (Article 7) On 3/9/09, James, Chris c...@dolby.co.uk wrote: If anyone is looking at this then here are some possibly useful links: Info http://www.chinaenvironmentallaw.com/2009/03/06/china-weee-finally-did- it/ Regulation (Chinese only) http://www.gov.cn/zwgk/2009-03/04/content_1250419.htm Google page translation http://translate.google.com/translate?prev=hphl=enu=http%3A%2F%2Fwww. gov.cn%2Fzwgk%2F2009-03%2F04%2Fcontent_1250419.htmsl=zh-CNtl=en - This message (including any attachments) may contain confidential information intended for a specific individual and purpose. If you are not the intended recipient, delete this message. If you are not the intended recipient, disclosing, copying, distributing, or taking any action based on this message is strictly prohibited. - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald dhe...@gmail.com
China WEEE
If anyone is looking at this then here are some possibly useful links: Info http://www.chinaenvironmentallaw.com/2009/03/06/china-weee-finally-did- it/ Regulation (Chinese only) http://www.gov.cn/zwgk/2009-03/04/content_1250419.htm Google page translation http://translate.google.com/translate?prev=hphl=enu=http%3A%2F%2Fwww. gov.cn%2Fzwgk%2F2009-03%2F04%2Fcontent_1250419.htmsl=zh-CNtl=en This message (including any attachments) may contain confidential information intended for a specific individual and purpose. If you are not the intended recipient, delete this message. If you are not the intended recipient, disclosing, copying, distributing, or taking any action based on this message is strictly prohibited. - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com
Preamplifier
Dear Members, Could you please recommend a preamplifier to cover frequency range 26.5GHz - 40GHz? It would be of great help if you know the price. You may wish to reply offline. Thank you. Best regards, Grace - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald dhe...@gmail.com
