RE: CE test suite for computers
John: After all your years on the committee and having heard all the technical arguments, I am surprised the committee is still trying to justify the additional costs on each product? If the power system is so bad it can be fixed cheaply for the consumer once and for 30+ years by changing the infrastructure. No electronic product lasts 30 years and the cost is multiplied each time it is replaced. The bottom line is data now proves the European power system is very good and these two standards are unnecessary but the standards makers (power utility people) still insist in spite of proof, their systems are not so good. In their view this is why we need limits on products and the power distribution system need not be fixed. Dave George, Former WG1 member Unisys Standards Management Malvern, PA Net: 385-3653 Fax: 610-695-4700 -Original Message- From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk] Sent: Saturday, August 18, 2001 1:55 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: CE test suite for computers I read in !emc-pstc that Tania Grant taniagr...@msn.com wrote (in oe127msph2q6dqajy4k4...@hotmail.com) about 'CE test suite for computers', on Sat, 18 Aug 2001: Most people will never understand anything unless it is explained to them. Merely stating that the power distribution in Europe and America is not the same, is not an explanation but could even be construed as a lofty put-down. I think one would have to be touchy to regard it as a put-down. I admit to some exasperation, in that members of IEC SC77A/WG1 and WG2, especially the US and Canadian experts, have been working hard to convince their professional colleagues that the European requirements on harmonic current and voltage-change emissions are *fairly* soundly- based, not inventions of the Devil. Had the European electricity supply industry been a little less secretive, and offered more comprehensive explanations for the need for emission control, much of the controversy of the last 10 years might have been avoided. If anyone out there can explain the difference between American and European power distribution, and why harmonics are not such a big problem in the U.S., I am sure that many of us will be extremely grateful. Well, it isn't a big secret but it isn't common knowledge in the Americas. I feel sure that much more exhaustive explanations than that offered below can be found by a web search. Several US and Canada-based academics have written on the subject. Briefly, in the Americas, power is distributed at Medium Voltage to points very close to where it is used, and transformers of no more than a few tens of kVA rating deliver Low Voltage, 220 V centre-grounded, to residential and light industrial users. The transformer impedances are lower than is usual in Europe, even allowing for the voltage differences. The MV network impedances are also lower than in Europe. Because the supply impedances are lower, a given amount of harmonic current produces less voltage distortion, and that is what tends to cause adverse effects, except 'hot neutrals' due to triplen harmonic addition in the neutral conductors of 3-phase 4-wire systems. Because the supply impedances are lower, and fewer users are fed from each transformer, voltage-changes due to rapidly-varying load currents are smaller and affect fewer users. 120 V lamps have thicker filaments and flicker less for a given transient voltage change. All this is being studied and documented by the above-mentioned IEC WGs, and improved standards, and other types of publication, will result in due course. In Europe, up to typically 500 residential and light industrial users are supplied from one 500 kVA or larger transformer, so the LV cable runs are much longer than in the American system, and deliver nominally 230 V single- or 3-phase (230 V phase voltage), with wired neutral. The way that the neutral is grounded differs between European countries: France, UK and Norway use systems that are not like the US system, whereas other countries' systems are more similar. The MV network impedance is quite high (maybe over 15%), necessitated, AIUI, by fault- level requirements which I personally have not studied in detail. And can someone explain to me why the European Community is adopting the American Energy Star Program? -- Albeit rendered in their own language! No-one knows why the EC does anything. (;-) -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co..uk Eat mink and be dreary! --- 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
RE: Dithering
What is Dithering? The dictionary defines dithering as agitating or in a state of indecision. Dithering is a method for distributing energy across a wider spectrum. Another and more accurate term for dithering is spread spectrum. In a spread spectrum application the clock frequency or carrier is not fixed. It varies according to a pseudorandom sequence. Various modulation schemes are possible. There are many uses for this technology. One application is the intentional radiation for communication purposes. It was first used in the military for highly confidential applications. Thanks to the development of inexpensive, reliable semiconductors, this technology has spread to commercial applications such as cordless telephones, burglar alarms and wireless networks (WLL and WLANS). The second use of this technology is in digital equipment as a clock. In this application, the radiation is unintentional and of much lower in intensity. There is really nothing wrong with using this technology since it is already used by other industries without interference problems. For example, many people have said CISPR22 already has very stringent limits. Complaints of interference from IT equipment are almost non-existent. This spread spectrum method of clock distribution was not developed to reduce the amount of apparent radiation. It was deliberately chosen because it increases the signal to noise ratio allowing greater processing speeds. We can take a lesson from technology in present use. Spread spectrum intentional radiators produce far greater field strengths (orders of magnitude) than unintentional radiators such as IT equipment. More importantly the FCC in USA, the DoC in Canada, ETSI and other national authorities all developed procedures and legislation to allow its use in portions of the spectrum. In most countries the regulations allow unlicensed operation of spread spectrum at far greater magnitudes than unintentional radiators. Since this technology has been in use for some time and since there have been almost no reports of interference from these and higher magnitudes, it is very likely the very low levels from IT equipment will not increase the number of interference complaints. The technology can be used with confidence and many computer manufactures are already using it. David George, PE Unisys Corp. 2476 Swedesford Road Malvern, PA 19355 Tel: 610-648-3653 Fax: 610-695-4700 Email: george.da...@unisys.com -Original Message- From: Ken Javor [mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com] Sent: Sunday, June 17, 2001 1:30 PM To: Rich Nute Cc: Product Safety Technical Committee Subject: Re: Dithering All I know about others' experience is that I have heard there were problems on this forum. But this is extremely easy to check out. I used to teach EMI testing seminars. In order to minimize test equipment needs, I would use a small TV receiver as an EUT, and feed it a signal on channel 3 or 4 from a VCR. I used a bulk current injection clamp to drive currents onto the interconnect coax. All it takes is an rf signal generator, especially if you use an in-line attenuator out of the VCR to reduce the TV's incoming signal to an MDS type level. Anyway, I would show that cw didn't affect much, but AM tore up reception. I also mapped the IF filter pass band by sweeping the signals source and recording the TOS level (threshold of susceptibility). You could do exactly the same, but investigating the effects of FM rather than AM. on 6/15/01 12:54 PM, Rich Nute at ri...@sdd.hp.com wrote: Hi Ken: In conclusion, dithering will help you meet a test requirement, but it might not actually reduce potential interferences. I have come to the same qualitative conclusion, and the EMC experts with whom I have discussed this concept agree. But, is there any evidence, anecdotal, qualitative, or quantitative, that interference is not reduced? In my home, AM radio, even for local stations, is useless due to interference (or is it due to poor AM receiver design?). 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: http://www.rcic.com/ click on Virtual Conference Hall, --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.
RE: Is 61000-3-2 compulsory?
Jon: 150 watts under the old revisions was borderline compliance without and PFC. The old requirements were either not applicable to some products or they were for home use. Home us was and still is a flat line. The limits for home products are the same for 75 watts (300ma) as for 16 amperes. The new revisions effective on 1 Jan 2001 added new products to the list. Al other revisions became obsolete as of i/1/2001. I would check to see if the product you mention continues to meet the latest mandatory revisions. David George, PE Unisys Corp. 2476 Swedesford Road Malvern, PA 19355 Tel: 610-648-3653 Fax: 610-695-4700 Email: george.da...@unisys.com -Original Message- From: Jon Keeble [mailto:j.kee...@fairlightesp.com.au] Sent: Monday, March 05, 2001 11:27 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Is 61000-3-2 compulsory? I've been told by my (Australian) power supply distributor that - 61000-3-2 compliance requires that a SMPS have PFC - 61000-3-2 compliance in Europe and elsewhere is optional (i.e. not required by law) The distributor is proposing a 150w SMPS that - has a CE mark - doesn't have either active or passive PFC circuitry Clarification, anybody? Jon Keeble --- 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: http://www.rcic.com/ click on Virtual Conference Hall, --- 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: http://www.rcic.com/ click on Virtual Conference Hall, --- 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: http://www.rcic.com/ click on Virtual Conference Hall, --- 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: http://www.rcic.com/ click on Virtual Conference Hall, --- 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: http://www.rcic.com/ click on Virtual Conference Hall,
RE: Standards hierarchy
Jim: There are conflicts between product standards and product family standards. Your opinion is as accurate as the next guy except for your remark concerning the system is out of control. This is a as accurate an one can get. As for standing too close to the microwave, this to will stop after the pending EMF requirements are imposed. Enjoy the wonderful world of standards conformance. Dave George Unisys Corp. 2476 Swedesford Road Malvern, PA 19355 Tel: 1-610-648-3653 Fax: 1-610-695-4700 -Original Message- From: Jim Eichner [mailto:jim.eich...@xantrex.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2000 8:39 PM To: 'EMC-PSTC - forum' Subject: RE: Standards hierarchy OK now I'm really confused. It suddenly hit me that I thought publication in the OJ conferred presumption of conformity with the essential requirements!!! End of sentence, full stop. Silly me, I must stop standing so close to the microwave. Are we really in a situation where there are standards being published in the OJ that do NOT address all of the essential requirements and are therefore not sufficient on their own? This seems to be what Gert's Mr. DeVre is saying, and if so the system is downright out of control. I assert that despite Mr. DeVre's comments, a standard that has been published in the OJ as applicable under the EMC Directive gives presumption of conformity with the essential requirements of that directive, and is therefore, by definition, sufficient without the use of further standards. Am I wrong!? Further comments please! Thanks, Jim Suddenly flipping burgers for $5/hr doesn't sound so bad. -Original Message- From: eric.lif...@ni.com [mailto:eric.lif...@ni.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2000 11:49 AM To: CE-test - Gert Gremmen Ing. - CE-mark more ... Cc: Maxwell, Chris; 'Jim Eichner'; 'EMC-PSTC - forum' Subject: RE: Standards hierarchy Gert et al, [Critical comments re CEN removed in an attempt to maintain a professional attitude.] Can't we just recind all of these silly redundant product family standards if they are truely just informative supplements to the Generics? I'm getting tired of retesting and then rewriting hundreds of DoCs. Regards, Eric Lifsey Compliance Manager (And a miserable author of about 400 DoCs.) National Instruments Please respond to CE-test - Gert Gremmen Ing. - CE-mark more ... cet...@cetest.nl To: Maxwell, Chris chr...@gnlp.com, 'Jim Eichner' jim.eich...@xantrex.com, 'EMC-PSTC - forum' emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org cc:(bcc: Eric Lifsey/AUS/NIC) Subject: RE: Standards hierarchy I remember to have contributed to this discussion before, and I have asked this question at the time to Robert DeVre, who is actually the EMC-consultant of the European Committee. His opinion -close to European law- (abbreviated) : == Any product or product family standard that tries to exclude any category of tests (f or categories see f.a. the generic) is actually creating a non-compliance situation for the equipment in question, as it does not comply to the essential requirements of the EMC-directive. == Do not forget that complying to a standard creates only presumption of conformity to the essential requirements. The standard writing committee did bad service to the market creating a standard trying to create an escape route. The EC ( by voice of Mr. DeVre) has contacted CENELEC to make this standard comply with the Essential requirements of the EMC-directive. Please note that there is a report available to all national committees that are charged with standards writing, that explains to what requirements future harmonized standards should comply to be acceptable to the EC and create (true) presumption of compliance for users actually using them. This technical report is numbered R210-001 (at least the version I have in front of me) and is issued by the CENELEC. It's purpose is to advise standard writing committees in: - advice on the application of generic and basic emc standards - advise on the preparation of product family or dedicated product emc standards. Please note that the compliance for product standards to this report is part of the agreement that CENELEC will prepare standards for the EC to comply with EMCD. (as CENELEC is private and EMCD is law) This report has a summary of phenomena that product and product family standards should cover: creating limits, or create a decent rationale why not. In addition: for assessment of compliance with the EMC -directive, the product family standards take precedence over the generic standards partially or totally according to the EMC domains covered. Uncovered or excluded phenomena are thus still susceptible to generic standard test requirements !!! 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 /-/
RE: EN 61000-3-3
One could follow the guidelines in the standard but the alternatives are sometimes as costly as buying the test equipment that does this automatically. The alternatives are labor intensive except in the simplest of products. Look at the web site www.ergonomicsusa.com for test equipment. They also rent equipment for the occasional user. Dave George Unisys Corp. 2476 Swedesford Road Malvern, PA 19355 Tel: 1-610-648-3653 Fax: 1-610-695-4700 -Original Message- From: Brooks, Barbara [mailto:bbro...@hnt.wylelabs.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2000 10:10 AM To: EMC Post Cc: joe.ross...@avocent.com Subject: EN 61000-3-3 Does any one have any information regarding how you determine if equipment will not product significant voltage fluctuations or flicker with out performing the tests of EN 61000-3-3 per Paragraph 6.1? EN 61000-3-3 Paragraph 6.1 states Test shall not be made on equipment which is unlikely to product significant voltage fluctuations or flicker. Barbara Brooks Wyle Laboratories 7800 Highway 20 West Huntsville, AL 35807- (256) 837-4411 ext 595 (253) 721-0144 Fax bbro...@hnt.wylelabs.com --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
RE: EN 61000-3-2 (Harmonics standard)
There was a meeting between the US Trade, the Low Frequency Emissions Coalition and CENELEC on Wednesday. The purpose of the meeting was to postpone the implementation of EN61000-3-2 and -3 until 2004. By then the standards will have had a complete revision. The news is not out yet but many believe there is little chance for a delay of this length. Where did you get your information? Dave George Unisys Corp. 2476 Swedesford Road Malvern, PA 19355 Tel: 1-610-648-3653 Fax: 1-610-695-4700 . -Original Message- From: Paolo Roncone [mailto:paolo.ronc...@compuprint.it] Sent: Friday, July 14, 2000 1:18 PM To: 'emc-p...@ieee.org' Subject: EN 61000-3-2 (Harmonics standard) Folks: I got the news that CENELEC is considering to enforce the new revision of the subject standard by mid-2001. The present version should be mandatoy from January 1, 2001. The most important amendment is the definition of class D devices (that would affect a great number of products). My understanding is that the new standard would greatly restrict the range of class D products (it should cover only TV sets and personal computers + PC monitors). The present standard will be in force for 6 months, then the new one will kick in. So a lot of companies (including the one I work for) have developed new products , or have modified existing ones, to meet the present class D more stringent criteria (all devices with switching power supplies are class D if not modified properly) but just for 6 months !! I honestly have serious problems believing it 's true. Anyone can give additional inputs? Thanks, Paolo --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
RE: Looking for Inrush Current Standard
Mark; There are several standards. One was mentioned before (IEC61000-3-3). This standard is vague on its application to inrush currents but most people consider it also applies to inrush. Committee work in process clarifies this in the latest draft now out for vote. Maybe the vote is complete by now. This draft leaves no doubt about its application to inrush current. Another standard is IEC61000-3-5 titled: Limitation of voltage fluctuations and flicker in low-voltage power supply systems for equipment rated current greater than 16 A. Another standard is IEC61000-3-11 titled: Limitations of voltage changes, voltage fluctuations and flicker in public low-voltage supply systems - Equipment with rated current less than or equal to 75A and subject to conditional connection. This standard is in the FDIS stage and the voting period ends early July. Apparently this standard covers the entire range up to 75A and includes the ranges of 61000-3-3 and 61000-3-5. The above are so called emission standards and there in addition there are immunity standards.If you need information on immunity -please let me know. Dave George Unisys Corp. 2476 Swedesford Road Malvern, PA 19355 Tel: 1-610-648-3653 Fax: 1-610-695-4700 -Original Message- From: Mark Gill [mailto:gil...@nortelnetworks.com] Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2000 1:56 PM To: 'don_macart...@selinc.com'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: Looking for Inrush Current Standard Don - I have not heard of such a standard. Somewhat obvious, but general product safety requirements state that the inrush current must be limited such that overcurrent protection devices (either supplemental or branch circuit) are not opened in the course of normal operation of the product. This would be the upper limit for inrush, and depends upon the characteristics of the particular protector. Normally this is an end-product requirement, as compliance is affected by all passives and the particular supplemental protection (if any) in front of the supply in the final product. Unusually large decoupling capacitors (bulk) can sometimes require special circuits to limit the size of the inrush current. I am a bit unsure about the limits you mention below, specifically for t500 ms, as normal operation of all products falls within this range and can well exceed this limit (infinite time implies steady state)! I hope this helps. Regards, Mark Gill, P.E. EMC/Safety/NEBS Design Nortel Networks - RTP, NC, USA -Original Message- From: don_macart...@selinc.com [SMTP:don_macart...@selinc.com] Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2000 9:03 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject:Looking for Inrush Current Standard I am looking for a standard or standards (IEC, EN or similar) which contain inrush current requirements for power supplies. The standard might require the inrush to be: 20A for 50 ust1.5ms, 10A for 1.5mst500ms, 0.6A for t500ms. Do any good standards exist on inrush current? Thanks, Don MacArthur --- 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: Measurement Uncertainty for product safety tests
If A2LA wants something they should be able to define it and tell their customer (you laboratory) what it is they want. Some things are not definable. How do you put an uncertainty on insulation thickness measurements when the value is given by a vendor to your specifications? Put the shoe on A2LA's foot. Did they walk the walk or are they just asking with the hope you will solve it for them? How does one know what is acceptable if it is not defined? Unless they define what is acceptable up front you could make a lifetime carrier of mathematical assumptions and computations. Sometimes a little push back on unreasonable requests is in order. Best treatment of the subject is given by EA-4/02 written first by ECMA then improved by EA (The European Co-operation for Accreditation) but it doesn't really solve your problem since uncertainty of most safety requirements are either unsolvable or so many assumptions are required the results of the computations are meaningless. Se if A2LA knows how to do it first before they require their customer to try to explain the uncertainty of a product safety test. Dave George Unisys -Original Message- From: Ned Devine [mailto:ndev...@entela.com] Sent: Friday, April 28, 2000 2:38 PM To: IEEE EMC/Product Safety (E-mail) Subject: Measurement Uncertainty for product safety tests Hi, One of the accreditations our lab has, is from the American Association for Laboratory Accreditation (A2LA). A2LA has recently mandated that we determine the measurement uncertainty for all of the tests we do. I have been assigned the task of determining the measurement uncertainty for the normal product safety tests. I have talked to a number of people, but all I get are different answers. Some say to just pick an uncertainty based on your judgment. Others say it is a mathematical derived number based on the accuracy of the equipment used. Still others say it is a combination of the first two. Has any one done this or knows how to do it? Thanks Ned Devine Entela, Inc. Program Manager III Phone 616 248 9671 Fax 616 574 9752 e-mail ndev...@entela.com --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
RE: EMC/PSTC/NEBS/TREG
Average number of messages is now between 30 and 50 a day. And people want more! I wish I had enough free company time to participate in this mountain of mail. We need to increase the quality and substance of the messages rather than to increase the amount. Dave George Unisys -Original Message- From: pmerguer...@itl.co.il [mailto:pmerguer...@itl.co.il] Sent: 17 March, 2000 4:04 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: EMC/PSTC/NEBS/TREG Dear All, DO NOT SPLIT! I AM ALSO IN FAVOR OF MIGRATING TREG AND NEBS GROUPS INTO TO THE EMC/PSTC LIST. ARE YOU ALL IN FAVOR? Peter Merguerian Managing Director Product Testing Division I.T.L. (Product Testing) Ltd. Hacharoshet 26, POB 211 Or Yehuda 60251, Israel Tel: 972-3-5339022 Fax: 972-3-5339019 e-mail: pmerguer...@itl.co.il website: http://www.itl.co.il --- 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: EMC and product safety split?
Still better, only important chatter should be posted. I have just violated my suggestion. Dave -Original Message- From: John Coyle [mailto:jco...@norsat.com] Sent: 10 March, 2000 5:15 PM To: 'Robert Legg'; 'IEEE EMC-PSTC Forum' Subject: RE: EMC and product safety split? A better solution, if possible would be a digest format sent on a daily basis. John Coyle Engineering Manager, Cable Products . Tel: 604-292-9161 fax: 604-292-9010 jco...@norsat.com -Original Message- From: owner-emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@ieee.org]On Behalf Of Robert Legg Sent: Friday, March 10, 2000 10:33 AM To: IEEE EMC-PSTC Forum Subject: EMC and product safety split? Is there any possibility of getting the EMC and product safety postings partitioned ~ to assist in cutting surplus mail traffic? Rob Legg rl...@tectrol.com --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
RE: Trying to understand the EN 61000-3-2
Gert: You are predicting the future. The committee drafts are the way you say but they have not been approved. Approval or rejection is anticipated sometime in the fourth quarter 2000. This a estimated schedule. If it is approved there is always a grand fathering period. This is helpful since the special list has been changed and major products that meet the present 61000-3-2 will not meet the amendment because the products are now in a different category. An overlap is needed. Also where will laboratories get the test equipment if the amendment is changed two or three months before the effective date? Also the last three categories are not excluding the professional versions. They all will now have to meet the same limits as professional equipment. Isn't that nice? Stay tuned for more changes. Dave George Unisys -Original Message- From: Gert Gremmen [mailto:cet...@cetest.nl] Sent: 18 February, 2000 9:38 AM To: Colgan, Chris; 'Emc-Pstc' (E-mail) Subject: RE: Trying to understand the EN 61000-3-2 It doesn't matter anymore. The special waveshape requirement has been removed. Class D will be defined to equipment on a specific list. This list is based on the charateristics of equipment type that due to their nature have great impact on the power supply network due to their harmonics current level. In essence all equipment having their supply bridge rectified and use a capacitor for smoothing are potential candidates. For now named equipent are: PC Printers elevison and viedocassette recorders Multimedia Fax machines Excluding professional versions of the last three categories. List subject to change in next revision. Date to be harmonized (if accepted) 1-1-2001. 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 /-/ === --- 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: impact /probes
You have already spent the difference jury rigging something and it is not a valid test when through. Where is the economy? Dave -Original Message- From: Gary McInturff [mailto:gmcintu...@telect.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 1999 6:03 PM To: Dwight Hunnicutt; EMC PSTC Subject: RE: impact /probes You can make it out of string and a trailor hitch ball. The diameter might be off just a little but get the weight and you can figure how far to swing it to get the 5 foot/pound force. The diameter difference, if any isn't worth $150.00, especially if you're doing this as a pre-test before sending things off to whom ever. Gary -Original Message- From: Dwight Hunnicutt [mailto:dwight.hunnic...@vina-tech.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 1999 10:20 AM To: EMC PSTC Subject: impact /probes Mech testers- Anyone know of sources for the UL1950 Impact Ball (500g, 50mm dia.)? (I know of one online source, but $150 for a ball?!? How about a ball-bearing shop?) Also, how about a source for the UL1950: Test Pin (Fig. 20) Telecom Test Probe (Fig. 16) thanks D -- _ DWIGHT HUNNICUTT Sr.Compliance Engineer _/_/ _/ _/_/ _/ _/_/ _/ _/_/ _/ _/ _/ _/_/ _/ _/ _/_/_/_/ _/ _/_/ _/_/_/_/_/_/ _/ _/ _/_/_/_/ T E C H N O L O G I E S 510-771-3349 520-244-2721 fax www.vina-tech.com _ - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
RE: impact /probes
Try Ergonomics, Inc at Ergonomicsusa.com or 215 357 5124 Dave George -Original Message- From: Dwight Hunnicutt [mailto:dwight.hunnic...@vina-tech.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 1999 1:20 PM To: EMC PSTC Subject: impact /probes Mech testers- Anyone know of sources for the UL1950 Impact Ball (500g, 50mm dia.)? (I know of one online source, but $150 for a ball?!? How about a ball-bearing shop?) Also, how about a source for the UL1950: Test Pin (Fig. 20) Telecom Test Probe (Fig. 16) thanks D -- _ DWIGHT HUNNICUTT Sr.Compliance Engineer _/_/ _/ _/_/ _/ _/_/ _/ _/_/ _/ _/ _/ _/_/ _/ _/ _/_/_/_/ _/ _/_/ _/_/_/_/_/_/ _/ _/ _/_/_/_/ T E C H N O L O G I E S 510-771-3349 520-244-2721 fax www.vina-tech.com _ - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
RE: Limits for Class D equipment in EN61000-3-2
Bob: The standard is not clear in this area just as it is nebulous in many other areas. Since IEC555 is in force now but it is a withdrawn standard. EN 61000-3-2 tales its place for home products. However EN61000-3-2 does not take effect until 2001. My guess is for home products either 555-2 or 61000-3-2 must be used. It does not matter because the same extra stringent limits and procedures are in both. If one takes the position the current standard takes precedent over the withdrawn standard we come back to 61000-3-2. Since the 75 Watt to 50 Watt waiting period is over for all products covered by 61000-3-2, one can deduce the 50 Watt lower limit now applies. One can also reason since 555 has been withdrawn and 61000 is not effective until 2001 there is no harmonic emissions standard. Your decision. Dave George Unisys -Original Message- From: rehel...@mmm.com [mailto:rehel...@mmm.com] Sent: Friday, September 10, 1999 5:08 PM To: George, David L; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: Limits for Class D equipment in EN61000-3-2 It is my understanding that the delay period is over for the IEC version. It is also my understanding that the 4 year period for the EN version does not start until 1 Jan. 2001. Bob Heller George, David L george.da...@unisys.com on 09/10/99 01:25:20 PM Please respond to George, David L george.da...@unisys.com To: Benoit Nadeau bnad...@matrox.com emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org cc:(bcc: Robert E. Heller/US-Corporate/3M/US) Subject: RE: Limits for Class D equipment in EN61000-3-2 Nadeau: The delay period is complete and the standard applies to products 50 Watts and above. However the actual application of the standard is up to the each country and how it is adopted. For example, in Europe the standard applies to only some products until 1 January 2001. On this date it will apply to all products covered by the standard. Dave George -Original Message- From: Benoit Nadeau [mailto:bnad...@matrox.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 07, 1999 10:31 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Limits for Class D equipment in EN61000-3-2 Bonjour de Montreal, Section 7.4 of the EN61000-3-2 Standards specifies that : The limits given in table 3 are valid for all applications having an active input power 75 W. No limit apply for equipment with an active input power up to and including 75 W. This lower limit of 75 W will be reduced to 50 W four year after the implementation date of this standard. Is this 4 year delay passed since the latest date by which the EN has to be implemented at national level (dop) was 1995-07-01 ? Please comment, -- Benoit Nadeau, ing. M.ing. (P.Eng., M.Eng) Gerant du Groupe Conformite (Conformity Group Manager) Matrox -- 1055, boul. St-Regis Dorval (Quebec) Canada H9P 2T4 Tel : (514) 822-6000 (x2475) FAX : (514) 822-6275 Internet : bnad...@matrox.com, - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
RE: Limits for Class D equipment in EN61000-3-2
Nadeau: The delay period is complete and the standard applies to products 50 Watts and above. However the actual application of the standard is up to the each country and how it is adopted. For example, in Europe the standard applies to only some products until 1 January 2001. On this date it will apply to all products covered by the standard. Dave George -Original Message- From: Benoit Nadeau [mailto:bnad...@matrox.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 07, 1999 10:31 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Limits for Class D equipment in EN61000-3-2 Bonjour de Montreal, Section 7.4 of the EN61000-3-2 Standards specifies that : The limits given in table 3 are valid for all applications having an active input power 75 W. No limit apply for equipment with an active input power up to and including 75 W. This lower limit of 75 W will be reduced to 50 W four year after the implementation date of this standard. Is this 4 year delay passed since the latest date by which the EN has to be implemented at national level (dop) was 1995-07-01 ? Please comment, -- Benoit Nadeau, ing. M.ing. (P.Eng., M.Eng) Gerant du Groupe Conformite (Conformity Group Manager) Matrox -- 1055, boul. St-Regis Dorval (Quebec) Canada H9P 2T4 Tel : (514) 822-6000 (x2475) FAX : (514) 822-6275 Internet : bnad...@matrox.com, - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
RE: Harmonics (EN 61000-3-2) testing of EUT's 1KW
Kyle: Lots of questions. First the ITE product is professional equipment and it draws more than 1 kW. Therefore there are no limits for professional products over 1 kW, even after 2001. Class E was a proposal by the IEC committee and it was not accepted and therefore not in the standard. I don't know how to answer the question about customer demand except the customer is always right. Usually the customer is more interested in power factor and does not care about meeting limits for each and every harmonic. As to certification with other than UL, I think your engineer worries too much. Dave George Unisys -Original Message- From: Ehler, Kyle [mailto:kyle.eh...@lsil.com] Sent: Monday, July 26, 1999 4:53 PM To: EMC and Safety list Subject: Harmonics (EN 61000-3-2) testing of EUT's 1KW Hello, I've just come across an ITE product that fails power line harmonics (EN 61000-3-2). Naturally, the engineer in charge is nervous about it and wants to know if there is any way around the requirement to pass. If memory serves, the standard does not actually go into effect until 1/1/2001 is this correct? What exposure remains? Given that, some of our more picky customers may demand it soon. At which time we will pursue a power supply with PFC. We already have identified a candidate, but it has UL certification and no other. We have learned that an off the shelf item without full global compliance is a direct invite for investigation and redesign to gain compliance -at our expense. Globally accepted supplies are a must in our business. I was reading in Compliance Engineering (March/April '98 pp. 33) that some discussion has been made concerning the operating class of EUT's to date. There are four classes (A through D) which categorize products as to power phases used, consumption character, and intended use. The limitations of Class D excludes EUT's with power ratings higher than 600 watts which would leave an undefined region for testing of such products exceeding this figure. The article mentions a Class E as professional equipment, but no limits were expressed but maybe I am confused. This product consumes in single phase 1.3KW or more depending on configuration. It is made up of a mix of smaller modules that independently meet all applicable standards including harmonics. The majority of the modules employ PFC and therefore are tolerant of stacking into a cabinet such as this and still comply. Then we add a couple non-PFC modules, that by themselves are compliant, and now the harmonics fail in two or three of the odds. Swapping of power supplies (cherry picking) shows a range of failures from 1 to 200 ma over the limit (in class D req'mts) depending on harmonic. The next question I would pose: Is this a non-issue because the EUT is unclassified (professional equipment) and therefore exempt? Thank-You, Kyle Ehler kyle.eh...@lsil.com mailto:kyle.eh...@lsil.com Assistant Design Engineer LSI Logic Storage Systems Division 3718 N. Rock Road U.S.A. Wichita, Kansas 67226 Ph. 316 636 8657 Fax 316 636 8889 Fax 316 636 8315 - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
RE: Australian Electrical Approvals Authority
Chris: I am not sure how to contact them but I know a good contact who can help manufacturers with the certification processes in Australia. His information is: Kevin Richardson Stanimore Pty Limited 8 Mindaree Ave. Wyoming NSW 2250 Australia Email: k...@compuserve.com Tel: (61) 2 43 29 4070 Fax: (61) 2 43 28 5639 I recommend him highly. We counted on his services for years. Dave George Unisys -Original Message- From: Chris Allen [mailto:chris_al...@eur.3com.com] Sent: Monday, June 28, 1999 3:05 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Australian Electrical Approvals Authority Good morning, Is there anybody who can provide me with the contact details for the Australian Electrical Approvals Authority ? Thanks for your help. Regards, Chris. - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
India
Has anyone heard of any regulatory requirements from India. My search has found nothing. Do they have a standards organization? Dave George Unisys - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
RE: EN 61000-3-2 and medical equipment
Jon: Please look at the title for the 601 standard. It is an EMC safety standard. Look at EN 55011 for emissions. Dave George Unisys -Original Message- From: jgri...@itl.co.il [mailto:jgri...@itl.co.il] Sent: Monday, June 21, 1999 3:48 PM To: George, David L; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: EN 61000-3-2 and medical equipment David, I would like to add one remark about some past messages on this discussion group. EN 61000-3-2 contains limits for professional equipment. This category applies to medical equipment and any other products used in the workplace or in manufacturing activities. I would like to clarify this point about EN 61000-3-2 and medical equipment. The scope of EN 61000-3-2 may include medical equipment. This is not the point. The regulatory requirement in the EU for medical equipment is the Medical Devices Directive. The only EMC standard which is harmonized for the MDD is EN 60601-1-2, which does not call out EN 61000-3-2. See http://europa.eu.int/comm/dg03/directs/dg3b/newapproa/eurstd/harmstds/reflis t/meddevic.html So, in order to fulfil the regulatory requirements of the EU, medical equipment does NOT have to comply with EN 61000-3-2. The inclusion of a product group within the scope of an EN standard does not necessarily imply that compliance with that standard is mandatory. Jon Griver ITL (Product Testing) Ltd http://www.itl.co.il - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
IEC 61000-3-2 USNC position
Bill and all who asked for copies of the US National Committee position paper: The paper is attached. The same paper is presented in Word and Adobe format. I would be happy to try and answer any questions. We would like to think we can get more company support and support from company associations for reasonable limits. Any help in this area would be appreciated. I would like to add one remark about some past messages on this discussion group. EN 61000-3-2 contains limits for professional equipment. This category applies to medical equipment and any other products used in the workplace or in manufacturing activities. One question came up about the possibility of more difficult limits to be issued in the future. Since the committee drafts with vote (CDV) were defeated there will be no additional limits for the near future. Professional equipment will have to meet the present limits. These limits apply for products utilizing 50 to 1000 Watts. It applies to all home products from 50 to 3680 Watts (16 Amperes). Limits for luminaries will go down to at least 25 Watts. Dave George Unisys Corp. -Original Message- From: b...@lyons.demon.co.uk [mailto:b...@lyons.demon.co.uk] Sent: Friday, June 18, 1999 7:48 PM To: george.da...@unisys.com; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: Medical Device Directive, IEC 601-1-2, and IEC 1000-3-2 In message 8E37550684B3D211A20B0090271EC59D01AF1427@tr-exchange- 1.tr.unisys.com George, David L writes: Industry has decided to fight 61000-3-2 in the IEC and try to achieve realistic requirements. The US national committee has just released a position paper on harmonics requirements. If anyone needs a copy I can post it on this net. Dave George Unisys Dave, I for one would be most interested to see this. Regards, Bill. -- Bill Lyons Claude Lyons Limited, Brook Road, Waltham Cross, Herts EN8 7LR, UK Tel: +44 1992 768 888 email: b...@lyons.demon.co.uk Fax: +44 1992 769 849 URL: http://www.claudelyons.co.uk USCCEMC 99-01.doc Description: MS-Word document USCCEMC 99-01.PDF Description: Binary data
RE: Medical Device Directive, IEC 601-1-2, and IEC 1000-3-2
Pat: 61000-3-2 is a horizontal standard and it applies to all products unless specifically excluded by 61000-3-2. The criteria is defined by CENELEC and it is not necessarily specified by the individual product standards. This is why it is so important to watch basic and horizontal standards even though they may not called out in the product standards. These cross-the-board standards are sleepers and can effect manufacturer's through the back door. Industry has decided to fight 61000-3-2 in the IEC and try to achieve realistic requirements. The US national committee has just released a position paper on harmonics requirements. If anyone needs a copy I can post it on this net. Dave George Unisys -Original Message- From: plaw...@west.net [mailto:plaw...@west.net] Sent: Thursday, June 17, 1999 7:55 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Medical Device Directive, IEC 601-1-2, and IEC 1000-3-2 I was asked the following question, and wasn't sure about the answer: 1) A manufacturer can claim his system complies with the Medical Device Directive by testing to EN 60601-1-2:1993. 2) EN 60601-1-2:1993 does not have any requirements to test to IEC 1000-3-2. 3) Does that mean that the harmonic standard does not apply to this system when it becomes mandatory in 2001? I realize the Second Edition of IEC60601-1-2 is just around the corner, and that edition _does_ call out the harmonic test. However, I've been told that it may not take effect until 2003. -- Patrick Lawler plaw...@west.net - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
RE: Power Factor
Russell: This is the right group. We have an opinion on everything. Power factor is tied up with the complex subject of power quality and low frequency emissions. The US controls this on a facility basis with IEEE 519 and in Europe it is controlled by the EMC Directive under EN 61000-3-2. This means it is on a product basis. In Europe the control is down to 25 Watts if a luminary and 50 Watts for all other products. There is an EMC workshop starting tomorrow at the Sheraton at the BWI airport where two days is going to be devoted to this subject. Dave George Unisys -Original Message- From: Russell Anderson [mailto:russ...@campbellsci.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 1999 4:33 PM To: 'emc-pstc' Subject: Power Factor I don't know if this is the right group. I know that with the increase in power supplies that convert the AC voltage to DC there has been an increase in concern for keeping the power factor of the instrument close to unity. Is this a power utility problem or does it also apply to the small electronic instrument? Are the standards the same in the US and Europe and other countries? What are the standards? Do they apply to all equipment? Thanks in advance for any information. Best Regards, -- Russell Anderson Campbell Scientific, Inc. (435) 750-9697 815 W. 1800 N. (435) 750-9639 FAX Logan, UT 84321 russ...@campbellsci.com KD7EOV -- Free Email by Pegasus Mail - http://www.pegasus.usa.com Thought for the day: Bagpipes (n): an octopus wearing a kilt. - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
IEC 61000-3-2 Update and EMC workshop
Since there is still some confusion of the subject of power EMC, the following workshop may be of interest to the members of this forum. Dave George Unisys ___ To All, The second USCCEMC Harmonics Workshop will be held May 6th and 7th at the BWI Sheraton Hotel. A draft agenda follows below. The general focus of the second workshop will be to fill any information gaps left at the end of the first workshop and to develop consensus on preferred US positions vis-a-vis 77A/242/NP which, as you will recall, enables work both to establish harmonic emission limits in North America and to revise European emission limits in the context of IEC 61000-3-2. Key to meeting this second objective is developing US positions on the various technical and economic issues as well as measurement methods, specification of limits, scope of applicability, etc. US positions will need to be firmly based on objective supporting documentation, the development of which will require active and ongoing participation by workshop attendees. To these ends, we expect to have some number of focused presentations interspersed with discussions and breakouts to assist in formulating US positions and for identifying and/or developing supporting documents. As with the first workshop, the agenda is tentative at this point in time and open to modification based on feedback from those of you on this distribution. Following the draft agenda, you will find the text of Don Heirman's report to the USNC Executive Committee on the outcome of the first workshop. Don plans to report to workshop attendees on the USNC Exco reaction to this report. A registration form is attached also. We strongly encourage you to register as soon as possible as this will greatly assist planning efforts. For Don Heirman, Ralph Showers, and the USCCEMC, Jim McKim *** HARMONICS WORKSHOP (Continuation) 6,7 May, 1999 SHERATON HOTEL, BWI 6 May Session 1 - Summary and update on Workshop 28, 29 January 8:00 - 8:15 1A Introduction - Heirman, Showers, McKim i) Background ii) Summary of 28, 29 January workshop iii) USNC Exco Reaction to Jan 28,29 Workshop - Heirman iv) Work in progress in SC77A/WG1 v) Current Objectives Session 2 - Power Harmonics Models 8:15 - 9:00 2A - General - Mansoor McKim 9:00 - 9:45 2B - Environmental considerations, total energy efficiency, costs - Conrad, Mansoor i) industrial environments 11) residential/rural environmants 9:45 - 10:15 Break 10:15 - 10:45 2C Summary of Economics of Competing Mitigation Techniques - TBD 10:45 - 12:00 2D Discussion 12:00 - 1:15 Lunch Session 3 - Application of Limits and Test Methodology 1:15 - 2:00 3A Application of Limits - Philips, Yandek, Conrad i) Significant contributors only? (to be identified) ii) control by class? iii) Equal Rights Philosophy? iv) 16A? 2:00 - 2:45 3B Testing Test Techniques - McKim, Soldner i) IEC Test Methods - McKim ii) Only at 100% of rated load iii) Control by PF measurement only? iv) Highest harmonic order to be protected 2:45 - 3:00 3C Discussion 3:00 - 3;30 Break 3:30 - 5:00 Discussion and task group break-out activities 7 May Session 4 - Integration and Implementation 8:00 - 8:45 4A Justification for Regional Differences - Conrad i) Power Quality, in general ii) 3rd harmonic issue in N.A. 8:45 - 9:00 4B Implementation - R. Gardinier i) Applicable to new designs only ii) Voluntary vs. regulatory approaches iii) Adequacy of IEEE 519 vs. IEC 61000-3-2 iv) Dependence on load power consumption 9:30 - 10:00 Discussion 10:00 - 10:30 Break 10:30 - 11:00 4C Status of Measurement program - Calcavecchio i) Implementation ii) Interpretation of data 11:00 - 12:00 Discussion 12:00 - 1:15 Lunch Session 5 Strategy and Tactics 1:15 - 1:45 5A Statement of Consolidated Objectives - G. Zeidensbergs 1:45 - 2:15 5B Organizing Support - J. Kinn 2:15 - 3:00 5C General discussion and conclusions * Summary of Actions at USCCEMC Harmonics Workshop BWI Airport Sheraton Hotel - Jan 28-29, 1999 Next Meeting: BWI Airport Sheraton Hotel - May 6-7, 1999 Total Attendees: 80 IEC/USNC Management: Don Heirman - USCCEMC Chairman Ralph Showers - Technical Advisor SC77A, ACEC Ralph Calcavecchio - CISPR G Chairman, ACEC Allen Ludbrook - IEEE 519A Co-Chairman Utility Representatives: Larry Conrad - Cinergy Corp. Frank Sinacola - ConED Arshad Mansoor - PEAC/EPRI Remaining 77 attendees: Centralized Mitigation Companies - 6 Test Houses - 3 Equipment Manufacturers - 68 Organizations
RE: Awards for Worst EMC/PS qualities
I would agree is the scope was narrowed to worst standards. Dave George -Original Message- From: b...@namg.us.anritsu.com [mailto:b...@namg.us.anritsu.com] Sent: Monday, March 08, 1999 11:04 AM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Awards for Worst EMC/PS qualities Hi Group, We have already seen awards for the most misleading ads, worst attire, worst films, . Why not awards for worst EMC and PS qualities? Barry Ma Morgan Hill, CA 95037 - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
RE: New EMC requirements proposed for IEC60335
Derek: It is not so much as being organized but to what extent. Except for a few critical applications there is no need for mandatory immunity requirements if there are emission requirements. Probably the reverse is also true but to my knowledge this has never been proven. Immunity is considered by most a quality issue and as such does not need to be a part of a certification process. Some say having immunity is like using a belt and suspender. There is a growing concern that EMC means Eliminate Minor Companies. The European SLIM group is and has been investigating the necessity for all the mandatory EMC standards. Even in Europe there is concern that too many tests are required before a product can be introduced into the market. One should ask if there is a justification for additional requirements. Being organized should have nothing to do with any certification process. Dave George Unisys -Original Message- From: lfresea...@aol.com [mailto:lfresea...@aol.com] Sent: Monday, March 01, 1999 1:12 PM To: rehel...@mmm.com; n...@conformance.co.uk Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: New EMC requirements proposed for IEC60335 Folks, I posed the question of Immunity standards being enforced in the USA to Art Whal(?) of the FCC. He did not see the need for immunity enforcement. After a lengthy discussion I formed the opinion that it is most likely the FCC will never press this issue, it will have to come from another STDs body. Pity the USA isn't as organized as Europe;-) Derek. - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
RE: C Tick..
Best person to consult with is Kevin Richardson in Australia. His address follows. He has helped us out and I highly recommend his services. His URL is: 100356@compuserve.com Dave George Unisys -Original Message- From: UMBDENSTOCK, DON [mailto:umbdenst...@sensormatic.com] Sent: Monday, March 01, 1999 8:13 AM To: emc-p...@ieee.org; 'Sparacino,George' Subject: RE: C Tick.. George, See Comments below. -- From: Sparacino,George[SMTP:sparaci...@andovercontrols.com] Reply To: Sparacino,George Sent: Friday, February 26, 1999 4:25 PM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: C Tick.. Good day, I was asked to investigate what is required to obtain the C tick for our products. Our products have been evaluated to the applicable stds as prescribed by the EMC directive for ITE equipment (emissions immunity). My Questions: I understand that the c tick marking is a required marking of EMC approval for electronic devices. Does this cover both emissions immunity ? or just emissions ? Just emissions. Can I request applications myself (I'm in the USA) or do I need an Australian rep to do this ? An Australian National must make the initial application that assigns a number to your products via the importer or the Australian branch of your company. This number is part of the C-tick mark logo placed on each product. Could I present my existing reports / certificates (created to satisfy EMC directive), or am I required to generate new ones in a specified (ACA) report format. Your existing reports are sufficient to be legal. However, in the case of conflict, the results of an Australian lab have the final say. Thanks for any help you can give me. George Good luck, Don Umbdenstock Sensormatic The comments above are my opinions and do not necessarily reflect that of my company. - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
Workshop on harmonic generation
To All: For your information, a workshop on harmonic generation. Since the copy function does not display the same format, you will find the formatted document in the attachment. Dave George Unisys Workshop A 2-day Workshop investigating issues concerning powerline harmonics generated by electrical and electronic products Recent standards and legislation have called for limits on powerline harmonic emissions from electrical and electronic equipment that could cause increased product costs measured in billions of dollars! This workshop will examine the bases used to determine the present limits and develop positions for the US to take in future developments. For effective answers we must have inputs from power utilities, manufactures and consumers. Thus we wish to: · Open a dialog on this subject between manufactures and electric supply utilities in North America · Develop a common understanding of the powerline mains environment and the economic implications of various strategies for managing harmonic emissions in public power distribution systems · Develop US proposals for the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) initiative revising the IEC harmonic emissions standard (Document IEC 61000-3-2) to cover electrical/electronic products connected to public powerline mains distribution systems in North America · Develop US proposals in the above IEC initiative to cover electrical/electronic products connected to mains distribution systems in the European Union and elsewhere throughout the world, which are as consistent as possible with the US requirements About half of the time will be devoted to prepared presentations with the remainder to informal discussions among the participants. Harmonics Workshop Agenda 1/28/98 A.M. 1. Power Quality Resulting Issues · EMC Compatibility · European Directives - EMC and LVD · Phenomena Harmonics Flicker Interharmonics Inrush · IEC 60555-2/3 · IEC 61000-3-2/3/4 · IEEE 519 · 77A/242/NP · Statement of Issues · Effected Parties Utilities Manufacturers Consumers · Brief Overview/Outline of Workshop Program 2. Manufacturer Perspective/Concerns/Issues · Costs · Impact on Products and Product Availability · Power Quality Issues (Immunity) · etc. 3. Utility Perspectives/Concerns/Issues · Costs · Impact on Network · Power Quality Issues (Emissions) · etc. 1/28/98 P.M. 1. Overview of System Models (Theoretical Environment) · Product Emissions Fundamental Current (Displacement PF) Harmonic Currents (Distortion Factor) Flicker (briefly only) Interharmonics (briefly only) · Mains Environment · System Impedance · ITHD VTHD (I*Z=V) 2. Typical Mains System Characteristics (Practical Environment) · Impedances · Critical Levels · Experienced Levels · IEC 61000-2-2 Compatibility Levels · IEEE 519 Planning Levels · Compatibility at What Points? (Duplex Outlets, Pcc, ??) 3. Typical Load Characteristics (What Lives in the Environment) · Emission Immunity · Lighting · Consumer Equipment · ITE Equipment · Air Conditioning · ASD's · etc. 1/29/98 A.M. 1. Mitigation Techniques · Overview · Passive versus Active Methods · Product Mitigation versus Centralized Mitigation · Lighting Case Study 2. Economic Issues/Tradeoffs 3. Regulatory Philosophies · Regulatory Philosophies Consequences · Equal Rights Philosophy · Cost Tradeoffs - Costs versus Obtained Benefits 4. Agree Upon a Statement of Design Objectives · Review Previous Material/Notes Develop Consensus · IEC 61000-2-2 and IEEE 519 - Are These Reasonable Design Goals (Planning Levels)? · Regional Differences Network Topologies Regulatory Philosophies etc. · Conclusions Agree to IEC 61000-2-2 and IEEE 519 levels? Propose Different Levels? 5. ACEC ad hoc Conclusions · Limits for Professional ITE · Japanese Situation - JEIDA · Unfinished Work Limits for non-ITE equipment Balanced Three Phase Equipment Low Volume Equipment 5. Acquisition of Relevant Survey Data · System Distortion Levels · Incidence of Power Quality Problems Related to Harmonics · System Impedances 6. Process for Developing US Position(s) 1/29/98 P.M. 1. Summary and Re-Statement of Design Objectives (Consensus Conclusions) 2. Reaction Discussion 3. Next Steps · Action Plan · Alternatives · ITIC Program · USTAG · Owners 4. Close of Meeting Meeting Times: January 28: 7:30 am Registration and continental Breakfast 8:00 am to 4:00 pm workshop with possible ad hoc meetings in the evening January 29: 8:00 am to 3:00 pm workshop with wrap-up and conclusions between 2:00 pm and 3:00 pm Lunch will be served both days. Harmonics Workshop Speakers 1. Welcome Overview Jim McKim - Hewlett-Packard Company 2. Manufacturer Perspectives/Concerns/Issues Girts Zeidenbergs - IBM 3. Utility Perspectives/Concerns/Issues Jean Bertin-Mahieux - Hydro-Quebec 4. Overview of System Models Arshad Mansoor - Power Electronics Applications Center Larry Conrad - Cinergy Corp. 5. Typical Mains System
RE: Noise Specifications
Paul: There are many standards with this unit of measurement. Usually it is best to hunt for a standard using the product or application nomenclature. I have a database of acoustic standards which we can search. Please give me some help and I will try to locate the standard or standards you might need. Dave George Unisys -Original Message- From: Paul Smith [mailto:smi...@stranduk.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 1998 12:02 PM To: Emc-Pstc (E-mail) Subject:Noise Specifications Has anybody come across a noise standard with the reference NR 20 or NR 25. Any ideas as to where I can get a copy? Thanks Paul - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
RE: question (re: 98/37/EC
Lisa: There seems to be one difference. Can anyone verify how the date code is to be displayed? As in the old directive, Directive 98/37/EC requires the use of the year of manufacture. The old Directive indicated the year of manufacture should be a part of the CE mark, The new Directive appears to specify the year of manufacture is to placed on the product label. Does anyone have information about where the year is to be indicated and what happened to the year with the CE mark? Dave George Unisys -Original Message- From: Art Michael [mailto:amich...@connix.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 1998 4:32 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Cc: lisa_cef...@mksinst.com Subject:question (re: 98/37/EC Hello Lisa, 98/37/EC is a re-issue of the original Machinery Directive (89/392/EEC) along with all of its amendments to that re-issue. 98/37/EC can be found in the EC's Official Journal (OJ, L 207, pages 1-46, dated 23 July 1998. Regards, Art Michael, Editor - Int'l Product Safety News * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * International Product Safety Bookshop * * Check out our current offerings! * * http://www.safetylink.com/bookshop.html * * A new service of the Safety Link * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * - On Tue, 24 Nov 1998 lisa_cef...@mksinst.com wrote: Can someone confirm for me that the machinery Directive is now 98/37/EC? ..or is this an ammendment to the original? - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
RE: Professional Equipment EN 61000-3-2
Doug: The change was an addition of a sentence to the existing definition. It is up to the manufacture to determine if the product is professional or not. You are on your own as far as the scope is concerned. The writers (SC77A/WG1) say it includes everything. When reading the document there are limitation based upon power requirements. Equipment below 50 Watts and professional equipment above 1000 Watts are not covered. But the standard is only mandatory on 1 Jan 2001 except for home use products. Home use product limits are mandatory now because this standard replaces IEC 555-2. Can't send you the electronic format because it is copyrighted. Dave George -- From: POWELL, DOUG [SMTP:do...@ftc2.aei.com] Sent: Monday, September 28, 1998 12:01 PM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RE: Professional Equipment EN 61000-3-2 Hello Group, I would like to expand on this request a little. Does someone have the entire scope and definition sections of the most recent version of this standard (61000-3-2) in electronic format? If possible I would like to review this before buying the document. Doug Powell Advanced Energy Industries, Inc. Fort Collins, Colorado USA -- From: MartinJP To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Professional Equipment EN 61000-3-2 Date: Wednesday, September 23, 1998 4:12PM Amendment 1 to EN 61000-3-2 includes a new definition of professional equipment. I have the new EN 61000-3-2 1998 on order, yet I need to get this new definition asap. Can someone please provide me with this definition. Thanks Joe Martin EMC/Product Safety Engineer P.E. Applied Biosystems marti...@perkin-elmer.com - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
RE: IEC 50 definition of professional
This is the same problem appearing in IEC 61000-3-2 and -3. They solved the problem by allowing the manufacturer to decide if the product falls into the professional category. Then the manufacturer can make the determination and plan accordingly. Dave George Unisys -- From: WOODS, RICHARD [SMTP:wo...@sensormatic.com] Sent: Monday, August 03, 1998 8:33 AM To: 'emc-pstc' Subject: IEC 50 definition of professional Can someone quote the definition of professional as listed in IEC 50. - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.com with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.co (the list administrators).
RE: EN61000-3-2 Harmonics testing 16 amps ITE equipment
Patrick: Perhaps the conflict of dates is in the source of the document. The IEC may say one date and the EU may adopt quite another. As an example: an EU parallel vote document is usually pretty much in sync with the IEC. IEC 60950 on the other hand was about 1 and a half years behind the IEC at one time. It is a lot better today. We must not confuse the IEC dates with the EU implementation dates. Having said that the 50 W implementation date is 1999 for the IEC and would also have been for the EU except for subsequent EU amendments. The EU extended the dow until 2001 because of the extreme controversy surrounding the standard from many sources. The same is true for the flicker standard. My view is the 50 Watt implementation date is 1999 for home products and because of the 2001 date for most other products, the 50 Watts means nothing until 2001. The EU dates always govern the regulatory requirements. Regards, Dave George -- From: plaw...@west.net [SMTP:plaw...@west.net] Sent: Thursday, July 02, 1998 4:57 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: EN61000-3-2 Harmonics testing 16 amps ITE equipment On Thu, 2 Jul 1998 13:53:45 -0400 , David George george.da...@unisys.com wrote: Gary: This standard is full of conflicts. Yes it is referenced by 50082-1 but EN50082-1 is the generic immunity standard. Harmonics are covered under the EN50081-1/-2 emissions standards. snip EN 61000-3-2 now applies to products intended to be used in the home because EC 555-2 has been withdrawn for new products. It applies to little else until 1 Jan 2001. Products utilizing power below 75 W are exempt but this changes in 1999 to 50 W. snip I was wondering about the 75W-50W change date. In IEC1000-3-2, paragraph 7.4, it says This lower limit of 75W will be reduced to 50W, four years after implementation date of this standard. Is the implementation date: Four years after the date on the cover (1995), or Four years after the DOW of the standard (now Jan 1 2001)? If the former is true, does this mean the standard would come into effect on the DOW with a 50W lower limit? -- Patrick Lawler plaw...@west.net
RE: EN61000-3-2 Harmonics testing 16 amps ITE equipment
Gary: This standard is full of conflicts. Yes it is referenced by 50082-1 but be careful. It is a product standard and therefore applies to all products but with varying degrees. Even though it is referenced by 50082 the dates and conditions in EN 61000-3-2 apply. A few broad statements can be made. EN 61000-3-2 now applies to products intended to be used in the home because EC 555-2 has been withdrawn for new products. It applies to little else until 1 Jan 2001. Products utilizing power below 75 W are exempt but this changes in 1999 to 50 W. Professional products and products with special wave shapes using more than 1000W are exempt while home products above 1000W are not. A proposal has been endorsed by the IEC Committee of Action which would allow higher limits for professional information technology equipment utilizing more than 600 W. A long article and a flow chart would be needed to cover all products. The flow chart in 61000-3-2 is pretty good. If anyone has a specific question on their product or the standard feel free to call me at 610 648 3653 or use my email address. Dave George Unisys Corp. -- From: Gary McInturff [SMTP:gmcintu...@packetengines.com] Sent: Thursday, July 02, 1998 11:18 AM To: 'emc-pstc list server' Subject: EN61000-3-2 Harmonics testing 16 amps ITE equipment I have conflicting information on the above requirement. It is my impression that this test has begun to be adopted as part of the EN50082-1 1997 with a requirement transition period of 2years. Anybody know the current status? Thanks Gary McInturff Packet Engines
RE: IEC601-1-2 and Voltage dip/interrupt testing
I have not seen many comments about the remarks of Mr. Lawler (remarks copied at the end of this note). He raises an important point about standards which have a major effect on product design and cost. We see a proliferation of EMC standards coming from the IEC and sometimes blindly adopted by CENELEC. For many reasons these new standards and requirements are not in the best interest of the consumer since they raise the cost of the product without really adding value. In other words adding some of the EMC requirements has not resulted in a better product. Some of the requirements have actually necessitated that more EMC standards be generated. Harmonic limit requirements have resulted in the generation of interharmonics so now we will have interharmonic requirements in the near future. It is time we pay attention to the standards makers and question why there is a need for the new standard (In this case the IEC and CENELEC in parallel.) We can comment on new standards to the US National Committee through the EMC Advisory Committee. If a standard has a problem we can report it to the advisory committee and if it has an impact in industry the committee can write a new work proposal to make it right. There are procedures in place to help industry to improve the standards. More activity and volunteers are needed to help in the standards process. Dave George Unisys -- From: plaw...@west.net [SMTP:plaw...@west.net] Sent: Monday, June 15, 1998 8:16 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org; Harald Buchwald Subject: IEC601-1-2 and Voltage dip/interrupt testing IEC601-1-2 (Medical EMC requirements) has a section discussing the voltage dip and interrupt requirements. In the Committee Draft dated 1998-03-06, it's section 36.202.5. It says the test method in IEC61000-4-11 shall apply with modifications, and goes on to detail them. What caught my eye was modification 2: For equipment and/or systems having multiple voltage settings for power input, the test shall be performed at EACH RATED INPUT VOLTAGE. For equipment and/or systems having, for power input, autoranging voltage capability, the test shall be performed at the MINIMUM RATED INPUT VOLTAGE. (emphasis added by me) Our power supply products are typical wide-range units, with AC input voltage specifications of 90-264VAC, and would have little problem meeting the requirements at 230VAC. However, meeting voltage dip and interrupt requirements at 90VAC would require a redesign. How did this 'all rated voltages' clause get in the spec? I was under the impression that all EMC testing was done at 230VAC, being the european norm? -- Patrick Lawler plaw...@west.net
RE: generating 50Hz power in the US
When selecting an AC source one should be concerned with the source impedance and inrush current capabilities for emission testing and inrush current measurements required for the CE mark. The power must also be clean enough to make higher frequency measurements. The AC source should also be programmable to be useful for generating the waveforms and dips and sags required by the 1000-4 series standards coming on line. A good AC source can be used as a power source for low frequency immunity testing. In other words to make maximum use of the AC source it should also be a piece of test equipment as well as a simple power source. Some users have their AC sources calibrated so they can be used for the EMC Directive. I can recommend the AC sources from a Swedish company named Combinova. The US distributor is Ergonomics, Inc. at 800-862-0102 or visit the WEB site at http://www.ergonomicsusa.com http://www.ergonomicsusa.com Dave George Unisys Corp. -- From: Richard Cass [SMTP:richard_c...@iris.scitex.com] Sent: Friday, June 12, 1998 9:37 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: generating 50Hz power in the US We want to do ongoing testing of an ITE product (here in the US) on 220 VAC 50Hz power to simulate the European environment to make sure our power supply vendor is doing his job. In this esteemed group's experience, what is best (i.e easiest, cheapest, most reliable) way to set this up. I have an electrician describing scenarios of a 60Hz electric motor mechanically driving a 50Hz generator. In this age of high power solid state electronics, I gotta believe there's a better way. Please keep answers simple as I am only a lowly mechanical engineer (analogies to water running through pipes always is always big help to me). At 120VAC our products pull 6 amps peak at start up and only 3 amps running. I would never test more than 4 products at a time. Thanks in advance for the usually invaluable help that I get from this group. Richard Cass Iris Graphics, Inc.
RE: Re[4]: Upcoming EMC Seminar
I would like to discuss the flip side as indicated below. Consultants and companies own what is called intellectual property. It is knowledge or processes gained through the sweat of costly investigations and trial and error. This is a possession with value. All too often I see company information freely given over this net. If this is OK with your company so be it. Consultants have only intellectual property to sell, information which is of value to other people or companies. If they give up too much information on this net what do they have left to sell? My point is no person has any obligation to give up intellectual property without due compensation. We are lucky to have such a forum and we should be thankful for the generous contributions. Dave George Unisys Corp. -- From: bogdan.mat...@fibre.com[SMTP:bogdan.mat...@fibre.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 1998 5:12 PM To: emc-p...@ieee.org; Max Kelson Subject: Re[4]: Upcoming EMC Seminar I second Max's presentation. Bogdan. bogdan.mat...@fibre.com __ Reply Separator _ Subject: RE: Re[2]: Upcoming EMC Seminar Author: Max Kelson mkel...@es.com at Internet Date:2/11/98 2:04 PM I would vote to allow a continuation of posting of EMC/safety seminars. This is valuable information and Henry Ott, for instance, is certainly a prestigious contributor to the field. On the flip side, though, I believe that EMC and safety consultants have some obligation to make contributions to this forum and it seems like they never do. In addition, the papers they submit to the journals seem to sometimes lack the detailed information that would make them useful in a practical sense. Even in their seminars some of these experts seem to prefer to simply grind out the same old basic and abstract stuff while saving the more useful information for some special or separate seminar costing still more money. The bottom line, I guess, is that we should start asking them to participate in this forum, when appropriate, in exchange for advertising privileges. I suggest members should also provide negative feedback on seminars that don't provide practical, useful information, substantiated by emissions tests. Max Kelson mkel...@es.com -Original Message- From: Jim Hulbert [SMTP:hulbe...@pb.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 1998 8:56 AM To: emc-p...@ieee.org; richard_c...@iris.scitex.com Subject: Re[2]: Upcoming EMC Seminar According to the Charter and Guidelines (10 March 1995) blatant or overt advertising of goods or services is not permitted. I think this is a good rule. This should not be a forum for free advertising. There are plenty of other appropriate avenues for people to advertise their goods and services. Jim Hulbert __ Reply Separator _ Subject: Re: Upcoming EMC Seminar Author: Richard Cass richard_c...@iris.scitex.com at SMTPGWY Date:2/10/98 8:21 AM I thought that blatant advertising of services, including FOR PROFIT seminars, was not allowed on EMC-PSTC forum. Am I wrong? Regards, Richard Cass __ Reply Separator _ Subject: Upcoming EMC Seminar Author: mlwald...@aol.com at INTERNET Date:2/10/98 4:29 AM We just wanted to take this opportunity to let every one know that there are still a few seats available to attend the EMC Seminar being presented by Mr. Henry Ott and hosted by RhienTexas, Inc. For further information check out the web page at www.rheintech.com/seminar.html. Those of you that wish to attend are urged to register by Febrauary 20, 1998. There is a correction that must be noted about the information provided on the above web page, the price for this two day seminar is not $750 it is $675 per participant. Thank you, Murrell Waldron RhienTexas, Inc. 1701 E Plano Pkwy, Suite 150 Plano, TX 75074 P: 972-509-2566 F: 972-509-0073 email: mlwald...@aol.com
RE: Upcoming EMC Seminar
Well said. Dave George Unisys (sorry for the plug) -- From: Rose, Manning I[SMTP:ros...@srdpost.daytonoh.ncr.com] Sent: Thursday, February 12, 1998 9:34 AM To: emc-p...@ieee.org; richard_c...@iris.scitex.com; Jim Hulbert Subject: Upcoming EMC Seminar Importance: High Frankly, I like to have information on EMC and Safety matters. I do believe that people have failed to recognize that there can be information on seminars. If they want the info supplied by an independent third party, sobeit. From looking at the informational memos, I fail to see the blatant advertising. I believe the networks refs should determine the info as to whether it is blatant. In the past, there have been individuals that have made summary book reports and the like. These could also be interpreted as support the sales of such books. The various chapters that advertise their up-coming meetings is also blatant advertising even though it may be a not- for-profit org or meeting. I would like to get off this kick of everyone tying up the lines to say what they don't like. If they do not want to see it, then just delete it and get on with business. Manning Rose, NCR, my opinions are fantastic and my own. Is that blatant? -- From: Jim Hulbert[SMTP:hulbe...@pb.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 1998 10:56 AM To: emc-p...@ieee.org; richard_c...@iris.scitex.com Subject:Re[2]: Upcoming EMC Seminar According to the Charter and Guidelines (10 March 1995) blatant or overt advertising of goods or services is not permitted. I think this is a good rule. This should not be a forum for free advertising. There are plenty of other appropriate avenues for people to advertise their goods and services. Jim Hulbert __ Reply Separator _ Subject: Re: Upcoming EMC Seminar Author: Richard Cass richard_c...@iris.scitex.com at SMTPGWY Date:2/10/98 8:21 AM I thought that blatant advertising of services, including FOR PROFIT seminars, was not allowed on EMC-PSTC forum. Am I wrong? Regards, Richard Cass __ Reply Separator _ Subject: Upcoming EMC Seminar Author: mlwald...@aol.com at INTERNET Date:2/10/98 4:29 AM We just wanted to take this opportunity to let every one know that there are still a few seats available to attend the EMC Seminar being presented by Mr. Henry Ott and hosted by RhienTexas, Inc. For further information check out the web page at www.rheintech.com/seminar.html. Those of you that wish to attend are urged to register by Febrauary 20, 1998. There is a correction that must be noted about the information provided on the above web page, the price for this two day seminar is not $750 it is $675 per participant. Thank you, Murrell Waldron RhienTexas, Inc. 1701 E Plano Pkwy, Suite 150 Plano, TX 75074 P: 972-509-2566 F: 972-509-0073 email: mlwald...@aol.com
who
who emc-pstc
EMC/Harmonics requirements
To All: For information. The European Union has put out a notice to all national committees aimed at clarifying the implementation dates for the harmonics and flicker standards. (Reference TC741 JPV/is/970722 dated 1997-07-10) They have also referenced the 555 series standards and in their minds clarified the relationship between the two harmonics standards. The notice is copied below for your information. Please note the IEC 555 -2 and 555-3 are withdrawn and obsolete. This means CENELEC is not using an international standard for those products covered. Dave George Taking into account the above, for products originally not falling within the scope of EN 60555-2/EN 60555-3 but covered by EN 61000-3-2/EN 61000-3-3, presumption of conformity to the ERs of the EMC Directive exists and is confirmed on the basis of a manufacturer's declaration based on the generic EMC standards up to 2001-01-01. In this context reference is made to Note 2 to Table I of EN 50021-1 (relating to emission in the a.c. mains supply and in particular harmonics) which reads: Note 2: Applicable to apparatus covered within the scope of EN 60555-2 and EN 60555-3. Limits for apparatus not currently covered by EN 60555-2 and EN 60555-3 are under consideration.' In consequence the levels given in these two standards applicable to the relevant phenomena can be used for conformity assessment purposes under the manufacturer's responsibility.
RE: IEC1000-3-2: proposal for Class E?
Pat: Class E limits would be for equipment greater than 1000 watts. Class E limits are contained in IEC document SC77A/164/CD. It has been commented on by national committees and the results will be discussed at the next WG1 meeting starting on 24 April 1997. A previous draft from SC77A/WG1 contained a definition for professional equipment for the first time. It is repeated in the above committee document. The definition is equipment for use in trades, professions, or industries and which is not intended for sale to the general public. The application shall be specified by the manufacturer. This definition was modified by the last sentence because of the TC74/WG9 negotiations with SC77A. As additional information, TC74 will make a presentation at that meeting for limits specific for Information technology equipment. We are proposing a Class F. The limits proposed are contained in TC74/436/CDV. If you need additional questions you can call me on 610 648 3653. Dave George Convenor TC74/WG9 -- From: Pat Lawler To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: IEC1000-3-2: proposal for Class E? Date: Tuesday, April 15, 1997 10:07PM From: Pat Lawler To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: IEC1000-3-2: proposal for Class E? Date: 1997-04-15 22:07 Priority: 3 --- --- In the current issue of 'Compliance Engineering' magazine, the Newswatch column mentions a proposal to ammend IEC1000-3-2, adding another class of harmonic current limits known as 'Class E'. Equipment described as professional equipment powered by less than 1000 watts would be covered by these new limits. Does anyone know what 'professional equipment' is, and what the Class E limits would be? Pat Lawler plaw...@west.net
RE: Accredited Calibration Labs
Obviously the different accreditation clubs are pressuring us into compliance with their wishes. This should be opposed. Who is to say one accreditation system is better than the other? If we ignore their requests rather than jump to comply we would be better off. What is so wrong about using our ISO 9000 or NARTE ? How many accreditation clubs do we have to join? Dave George -- From: John Fessler To: EMC-PSTC Subject: Accredited Calibration Labs Date: Friday, March 28, 1997 3:29PM From: John Fessler To: EMC-PSTC Subject: Accredited Calibration Labs Date: 1997-03-28 15:29 Priority: 3 Message ID: 5E323CFA88A7D01195CA008029E127AA Received: from bbmail1.unisys.com by ea_ihx101.ea.unisys.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63) id H14DJ8V9; Fri, 28 Mar 1997 17:01:29 - Received: from ruebert.ieee.org (ruebert.ieee.org [199.172.136.3]) by bbmail1.unisys.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with ESMTP id QAA22099; Fri, 28 Mar 1997 16:59:15 GMT Received: (from daemon@localhost) by ruebert.ieee.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id KAA21971 for emc-pstc-list; Fri, 28 Mar 1997 10:28:44 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: 199703281528.aa07...@interlock.lexmark.com To: EMC-PSTC emc-p...@ieee.org From: John Fessler fess...@lexmark.com Date: 28 Mar 97 10:29:14 EST Subject: Accredited Calibration Labs Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain Sender: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: John Fessler fess...@lexmark.com X-Resent-To: Multiple Recipients emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org X-Listname: emc-pstc X-List-Description: Product Safety Tech. Committee, EMC Society X-Info: Help requests to emc-pstc-requ...@majordomo.ieee.org X-Info: [Un]Subscribe requests to majord...@majordomo.ieee.org X-Moderator-Address: emc-pstc-appro...@majordomo.ieee.org --- --- Beginning in July, 1997, A2LA is requiring that accredited test labs must use an accredited calibration lab for instrumentation. I believe NVLAP has a similar requirement. Only labs accredited by A2LA, NVLAP, or A2LA MOU partners will be approved. We have spoken with several major equipment vendors and none of them are accredited and in fact have stated they have no plans to become accredited because no customers are asking for this. Can anyone provide me with any names of accredited equipment calibration labs in the US? Thanks, John Fessler EMC Lab Lexmark International, Inc.
Uncertainty
Rules are rules. Because we let NVLAP into the situation we now have a more ridged and rigorous certification system in the US than in Europe for some applications. If we are not careful how we implement the rules it will only get worse. There are many people in the government who have not been there and done that who want to design a system by which we all must live. Uncertainty is one of the issues. Michael Barge is on the ball and he has a good perspective. As I understand it most of you are applying Uncertainty too broadly. The rules should be applied only as they pertain to the certification requirements. For example, Europe has one application and the USA another. For minimum impact they should not be mixed. In the USA uncertainty only applies to calibration of test instruments and then only if you wish to become a NVLAP approved test lab. If we easily accept it for the entire EMC test protocol, NVLAP will gladly apply it to the entire certification procedure. Before we go off and rant an rave over this net, we should read the rules, understand what they say and know what the limitations are. Please read NIST Technical Note 1297 and note its applicability. It seems only the test labs are preaching accreditation, certification and Uncertainty while most of the producing companies just quietly integrate the testing into the quality process and leave it at that. I have news for the test labs. Trying to create a closed association with licensing and other impedances to block competition only raises the price of service. It does not improve quality of service and the competition will not be reduced. Why make it hard on yourselves? Dave George Unisys Regulatory Compliance
