Re: China approvals - CCC
Hi Mr. leslie Bai you can visit web page http://www.cqc.com.cn/index-e.htm for details Regards Xing weibing 2002-07-15 - Original Message - From: Leslie Bai To: Scott Douglas ; Emc-Pstc Group (E-mail) Sent: Saturday, July 13, 2002 7:23 AM Subject: RE: China approvals - CCC Scott, Go to www.siemic.com , click ccc to download a 10-page complete introduction of CCC mark. Leslie Scott Douglas dougl...@naradnetworks.com wrote: Can anyone provide web links to look at these catalogues? I am interested to see if our products are on the list. Thanks, Scott At 08:02 AM 7/12/02 -0700, Joshua Wiseman wrote: Amund, I think you should also take a look at the old CCIB scheme. The CCC is still developing standards at this time. I believe it is safe to say that if your product was in the catalog for CCIB it will be for CCC as well. I also understand that CCC will cover more products than CCIB did as well. If nothing else keep your ear to the door you may find yourself working toward CCC approval in the future. Good Luck, Josh Josh Wiseman EMC/Product Safety (714) 368-2737 [mailto:jwise...@printronix.com] -Original Message- From: am...@westin-emission.no [mailto:am...@westin-emission.no] Sent: Friday, July 12, 2002 1:39 AM To: Emc-Pstc Group (E-mail) Subject: China approvals - CCC Hi all, Rules and Procedures for Compulsory Product Certification were implemented on May 1, 2002. The certification mark is referred to as China Compulsory Certification (CCC). The first Catalogue of Products Subject to Compulsory Certification is now released. Question: If my product is not listed in the catalogue, does it mean what I do not have to document compliance to the EMC or electrical safety requirements ? no need for Chinese certification ? I have be told so via competent sources. I would like to check the discus! sion form for other views. Best regards Amund Westin, Oslo/Norway --- 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com 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://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list -- Do You Yahoo!? New! SBC Yahoo! Dial - 1st Month Free unlimited access
Re: TOUCH CURRENT LIMIT
Hi Mr. Ron Pickard: According to IEC60950:1999,Go to 1.5.7 accessible parts of the equipment having bridging capacitor are subject to the limited current test of 2.4. If it is ok for 2.4 (0.7mA peak), not ok for 0.25mA(0.25mA and 0.7mA) EUT is Class II equipment, output pins are qualified as accessible parts not connected to the earth IEC60950 imply different requiremnts for accessible parts(sub1.5.7,sub. 2.4, sub. 5.2) Whether we can judge the equipment is OK for IEC60950 my opinion is OK any comments are appreciated Xing weibing 2002-06-26 - Original Message - From: Ron Pickard rpiclek...@hypercom.com To: xin...@cesi.ac.cn Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 11:50 PM Subject: Re: TOUCH CURRENT LIMIT Hi Xing, Find my comments below marked with ***. Your email stated: Our test lab receive a CB TEST REPORT FOR NATIONAL RECOGNIZATION, the EUT is a class II ac adapter having a bridging capacitor (4700pF)across the reinforced insulation The touch current measured by CB is 0.17mA(4700pF declared) but the value we measure is 0.28mA(4700pF) which one is correct ? *** To answer your question, you/we will need to know the applied voltage and frequency across that capacitor. On the surface, it does appear that the CB and your lab measured this parameter under different conditions. Also, was this single capacitor the only component that was bridging the reinforced barrier during the CB's test? it depend on test equipment? *** Possibly. How to judge *** This can easily be calculated. The measured results should be very close to the calculated results. For instance: @120V 60Hz, I = 0.213 mA @220V 50Hz, I = 0.325 mA @240V 50Hz, I = 0.354 mA @264V 50Hz, I = 0.390 mA How to obtain accurate result? *** Use good quality instruments (I'm sure that you are) with suitable measurement resolution. I hope this will assist you in approaching a satisfactory resolution to your problem. Comments anyone? Best regards, Ron Pickard rpick...@hypercom.com --- 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com 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://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list --- 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com 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://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
Re: TOUCH CURRENT LIMIT
Hi Mr. Peter: Our test lab receive a CB TEST REPORT FOR NATIONAL RECOGNIZATION, the EUT is a class II ac adapter having a bridging capacitor (4700pF)across the reinforced insulation The touch current measured by CB is 0.17mA(4700pF declared) but the value we measure is 0.28mA(4700pF) which one is correct ? it depend on test equipment? How to judge How to obtain accurate result? any comments are appreciated Xing weibing 2002-06-25 17:56 - Original Message - From: Peter Merguerian To: 'xingwb' ; Robert Johnson ; Peter Merguerian Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 6:38 PM Subject: RE: TOUCH CURRENT LIMIT Xing, Yes, 0.25mA is very strict for 950. However, I can assure you that depeding on the test lab and uncertainty of the test equipment, you will obtain slightly different results. This e-mail message may contain privileged or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not disclose, use, disseminate, distribute, copy or rely upon this message or attachment in any way. If you received this e-mail message in error, please return by forwarding the message and its attachments to the sender. PETER S. MERGUERIAN Technical Director I.T.L. (Product Testing) Ltd. 26 Hacharoshet St., POB 211 Or Yehuda 60251, Israel Tel: + 972-(0)3-5339022 Fax: + 972-(0)3-5339019 Mobile: + 972-(0)54-838175 http://www.itl.co.il http://www.i-spec.com -Original Message- From: xingwb [mailto:xin...@cesi.ac.cn] Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 11:13 AM To: Robert Johnson; Peter Merguerian Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: TOUCH CURRENT LIMIT Dear SIRS: Thanks for your e-mail A further question for touch current: Is it (0.25mA) strict for Class II equipment ? 0.28mA rms is OK FOR IEC60065 0.28mA rms is not OK for IEC60950 Any comments are appreciated Best Regards XING WEIBING 2002-06-25 - Original Message - From: Peter Merguerian To: 'xingwb' ; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Cc: Ilan Cohen ; Michael G ; Shmuel Gnatt ; Sima Beloborodov ; Valery Rodionov Sent: Monday, June 24, 2002 9:00 PM Subject: RE: TOUCH CURRENT LIMIT Xing Hello! ake a look at IEC 60990, Methods of measurement of touch current and protective conductor current. The limits in IEC 60 950 are based on this particular standard. Best Regards This e-mail message may contain privileged or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not disclose, use, disseminate, distribute, copy or rely upon this message or attachment in any way. If you received this e-mail message in error, please return by forwarding the message and its attachments to the sender. PETER S. MERGUERIAN Technical Director I.T.L. (Product Testing) Ltd. 26 Hacharoshet St., POB 211 Or Yehuda 60251, Israel Tel: + 972-(0)3-5339022 Fax: + 972-(0)3-5339019 Mobile: + 972-(0)54-838175 http://www.itl.co.il http://www.i-spec.com -Original Message- From: xingwb [mailto:xin...@cesi.ac.cn] Sent: Monday, June 24, 2002 1:57 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Cc: Rich Nute Subject: TOUCH CURRENT LIMIT Dear colleagues I have a question regarding touch current limit of IEC 60950? We can read from table 5A of IEC60950:1999: Touch current limit for accessible parts and circuits not connected to protective earth: 0.25 mA question 1 : How does it (0.25mA) come from and what it is based on? based on IEC479? OR other source why it is not 0.5mA(based on IEC60479) question 2 :for hand-held equipment it is 0.75mA why ? Please shed some light for above questions Any comments are appreciated Best Regards Xing weibing 2002-06-24
Re: TOUCH CURRENT LIMIT
Dear SIRS: Thanks for your e-mail A further question for touch current: Is it (0.25mA) strict for Class II equipment ? 0.28mA rms is OK FOR IEC60065 0.28mA rms is not OK for IEC60950 Any comments are appreciated Best Regards XING WEIBING 2002-06-25 - Original Message - From: Peter Merguerian To: 'xingwb' ; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Cc: Ilan Cohen ; Michael G ; Shmuel Gnatt ; Sima Beloborodov ; Valery Rodionov Sent: Monday, June 24, 2002 9:00 PM Subject: RE: TOUCH CURRENT LIMIT Xing Hello! ake a look at IEC 60990, Methods of measurement of touch current and protective conductor current. The limits in IEC 60 950 are based on this particular standard. Best Regards This e-mail message may contain privileged or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not disclose, use, disseminate, distribute, copy or rely upon this message or attachment in any way. If you received this e-mail message in error, please return by forwarding the message and its attachments to the sender. PETER S. MERGUERIAN Technical Director I.T.L. (Product Testing) Ltd. 26 Hacharoshet St., POB 211 Or Yehuda 60251, Israel Tel: + 972-(0)3-5339022 Fax: + 972-(0)3-5339019 Mobile: + 972-(0)54-838175 http://www.itl.co.il http://www.i-spec.com -Original Message- From: xingwb [mailto:xin...@cesi.ac.cn] Sent: Monday, June 24, 2002 1:57 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Cc: Rich Nute Subject: TOUCH CURRENT LIMIT Dear colleagues I have a question regarding touch current limit of IEC 60950? We can read from table 5A of IEC60950:1999: Touch current limit for accessible parts and circuits not connected to protective earth: 0.25 mA question 1 : How does it (0.25mA) come from and what it is based on? based on IEC479? OR other source why it is not 0.5mA(based on IEC60479) question 2 :for hand-held equipment it is 0.75mA why ? Please shed some light for above questions Any comments are appreciated Best Regards Xing weibing 2002-06-24
TOUCH CURRENT LIMIT
Dear colleagues I have a question regarding touch current limit of IEC 60950? We can read from table 5A of IEC60950:1999: Touch current limit for accessible parts and circuits not connected to protective earth: 0.25 mA question 1 : How does it (0.25mA) come from and what it is based on? based on IEC479? OR other source why it is not 0.5mA(based on IEC60479) question 2 :for hand-held equipment it is 0.75mA why ? Please shed some light for above questions Any comments are appreciated Best Regards Xing weibing 2002-06-24
EN61558 SERIES REPORT FORMS
Dear Colleagues: We have a client requiring Pretesting of transformer according to EN60558. Where can I obtain REPORT FORMS OF EN61558 SERIES STANDARD FREELY? Thanks in advance Best Regards Xing weibing 2002-01-14
Merry christmas
Hi Group colleagues Merry Christmas and have a new year! Best Regards Xing weibing 2001-12-25
Re: Fw: working voltage measurement
Dear Mr. Rich Nute: Thanks for your e-mail we have made measurements of primary voltages with respect to secondary circuits as follows:: 1. using a mains-operated scope, 2. supply the SMPS from an isolating transformer where both supply conductors are isolated from ground. 3. connect secondary's ground and primary 's ground (neutral and ground are connected together) 4. we adjust trigger level and time base to obtain the full waveform we are interested in What I mean originally is what waveform of primary and secondary for SMPS should be : Switching waveform , sin waveform moduated by high-frenquency switching waveform or other . Best Regards Xing Weibing - Original Message - From: Rich Nute ri...@sdd.hp.com To: xin...@cesi.ac.cn Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.ogo Sent: Saturday, December 22, 2001 1:33 AM Subject: Re: Fw: working voltage maeasurement y d Hi Xing Weibing: One of the problems of making oscilloscope measurementsg within switching-mode power supply circuits is that the common side of the oscilloscope *MAY* change the waveform. There are two ways to minimize the effect of the common side of the scope from affecting the waveform: 1) If you are using a mains-operated scope, supply the SMPS from an isolating transformer where both supply conductors are isolated from ground. In this way, you can connect the scope common lead to any point in the SMPS with minimum effect on the waveform. 2) Use a battery-operated scope such as the Fluke Scopemeter. You can connect the scope common to any point in the SMPS with minimum effect on the wavefrom When a scope measures the RMS value of a waveform, it does so over the time displayed on the screen. If the time base is changed, then the RMS value *WILL* change because the displayed waveform is changed. Likewise, when the trigger level is changed, the display changes the starting point for RMS calculation, and the RMS value may change if the waveform is not repetitive for the duration of the time base. An accurate RMS value is obtained when the scope measures complete, full cycles of the waveform. If the number of cycles is not full, then the RMS value is the value for the number of full cycles plus the partial cycle, and will not represent the RMS value of interest. To get a useful RMS value of a complex waveform, use a very long time base, such as 0.1 second/division or longer. You can verify that this is a useful RMS value if the RMS value does not change significantly with trigger level or time base setting. If you are making measurements of primary voltages with respect to secondary circuits, then you must ground the secondary circuits, and operate the SMPS from a grounded- neutral supply. (If you use an isolating transformer for primary-secondary voltage measurements, there is no reference for the primary circuit, and all measured voltages are incorrect.) Good luck! Best wishes for the holiday season, Rich Hi Group I have a question regarding working voltage measurement of IEC 60950 we have a E.U.T.(switching power supply) I want to clarify the measurement of working voltage 1. Using an oscilloscope having an adequate bandwith and using a high impedance probe (100Mohm), and adequate integration time to measure working voltage. The load on the secondary circuits is to be varied in order to find highest voltage across the insulation. Floating secondary outputs (capacitively connected to earth) are earthed. 2. don't make connection between primary winding and secondary winding. 3. we will get a stable waveform on the oscilloscope. working voltage we measure are as follows: The waveform we get by the above method is a kind of waveform modulated by high-frequency switching waveform. MEASURED voltage: 246V(rms),576V(peak) When we change trigger level and time base to obtain stable switching waveform, we get different rms voltage with different trigger level. the highest rms voltage we get is 380V. My question 1. the above steps are correct or not? 2. For switching power supply, what waveform of working voltage is correct for primary and secondary How to obtain? 3. Which one(246V, 380V) is correct for working voltage measurement? or other methods? Thank you for any comments in advance Best Regards Xing weibing 2001-12-17 --- 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
Fw: working voltage measurement
Hi Group I have a question regarding working voltage measurement of IEC 60950 we have a E.U.T.(switching power supply) I want to clarify the measurement of working voltage 1. Using an oscilloscope having an adequate bandwith and using a high impedance probe (100Mohm), and adequate integration time to measure working voltage. The load on the secondary circuits is to be varied in order to find highest voltage across the insulation. Floating secondary outputs (capacitively connected to earth) are earthed. 2. don't make connection between primary winding and secondary winding. 3. we will get a stable waveform on the oscilloscope. working voltage we measure are as follows: The waveform we get by the above method is a kind of waveform modulated by high-frequency switching waveform. MEASURED voltage: 246V(rms),576V(peak) When we change trigger level and time base to obtain stable switching waveform, we get different rms voltage with different trigger level. the highest rms voltage we get is 380V. My question 1. the above steps are correct or not? 2. For switching power supply, what waveform of working voltage is correct for primary and secondary How to obtain? 3. Which one(246V, 380V) is correct for working voltage measurement? or other methods? Thank you for any comments in advance Best Regards Xing weibing 2001-12-17
working voltage measurement
Hi Group I have a question regarding working voltage measurement of IEC 60950 we have a E.U.T.(switching power supply) I want to clarify the measurement of working voltage 1. Using an oscilloscope having an adequate bandwith and using a high impedance probe (100Mohm), and adequate integration time to measure working voltage. The load on the secondary circuits is to be varied in order to find highest voltage across the insulation. Floating secondary outputs (capacitively connected to earth) are earthed. 2. don't make connection between primary winding and secondary winding. 3. we will get a stable waveform on the oscilloscope. working voltage we measure are as follows: The waveform we get by the above method is a kind of waveform modulated by high-frequency switching waveform. MEASURED voltage: 246V(rms),576V(peak) When we change trigger level and time base to obtain stable switching waveform, we get different rms voltage with different trigger level. the highest rms voltage we get is 380V. My question 1. the above steps are correct or not? 2. For switching power supply, what waveform of working voltage is correct for primary and secondary How to obtain? 3. Which one(246V, 380V) is correct for working voltage measurement? or other methods? Thank you for any comments in advance Best Regards Xing weibing 2001-12-17
stability
Hi Group I HAVE A QUSETION REGARDING STABILITY QUESTION In IEC60065 5TH EDITION+A1+A2+A3 Subclause 19 Appartus designed to stand on the floor and having a mass exceeding 20 kg shall have adequate stability. How to understand this clause? one understand this subclause applies to the appartus which is a standing-floor and its mass exceed 20kg. another understand this subclause applies to standing-floor equipment and the equipment having a mass exceeding 20kg. whis is correct? regards xingwb 2001-12-14
iec60950 CB TEST REPORT FORM
Dear sirs and Colleagues: Our client request iec950 test report (including a1+a2+a3+a4), can you provide me a copy of cb test report form of iec950(including a1+a2+a3+a4) Thank you in advance My e-mail: xin...@cesi.ac.cn Xing weibing BTIEP 2000-08-01 --- 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
