Re: Harmonics -- WSJ opinion.
4203d61676d0ae468aa5cea90a891c13235...@cof110avexu4.global.avaya.com, Wagner, John P johnwag...@avaya.com inimitably wrote: The European harmonics standard IEC 61000-3-2, and I call it European because that is exactly what it is, Indeed, that's because (and it is a matter of record) that the US experts appointed to IEC SC77A/WG1 were conspicuous by their absence from most of the WG meetings. But WHY rake up these old issues? It's quite different now. WG1 has active members from USA, Canada and Mexico, and Japan, and a *majority* of equipment manufacturer experts, not supply industry experts. is directed at protecting the public low voltage distribution system. All of these problems we have heard cited are those situations arising within facilities, NOT on the public distribution system. It is the power generating and transmission folks who drove this standard and largely ignored input of others. I make this comment based on considerable personal involvement since TC77A(Secr)36. Well, that would really be 'SC77A(Sec)36', a document about 20 years old? I don't find your name on SC77A WG membership lists. No doubt you are active at national level. We now KNOW why your experience in USA is different from that in Europe. There's no mystery about it: it's inherent in the differences in the distribution systems. It's a pity we didn't have that data 20 years ago. SC77A/WG1 is working on a complete revision of IEC61000-3-2, which will take into account the effects of different distribution systems, now that relevant data is available. It is likely that the standard will have several different sets of requirements, according to where equipment will be used. While that doesn't necessarily allow 'one product for all the world', at least the requirements will be technically justified. Cars, after all, are not the same every where. -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. Phone +44 (0)1268 747839 Fax +44 (0)1268 777124. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Foxhunters suffer from tallyhosis. PLEASE do not mail copies of newsgroup posts to me. --- 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: Harmonics -- WSJ opinion.
I have been watching and reading this thread -- having spent nearly 15 years dealing with the harminics issue in ITE and in general. There are many anecdotes out there about hte effect of harmonic currents on the electric supply. The on you cite is common. Distribution to cubicle areas was typically 3 phase with a common neutral. Triplen harmonics created high neutral current which overheated the electric connectors in the cubicle which led to the fires. As this developed, office partition manufacturers consulted with the Power Interface subcommittee of ITI, then CBEMA and shortly thereafter the problem was solved with larger neutrals or double neutrals and more robust connectors. Problems concerning harmonic currents in this country were solved by education. CBEMA wrote articles which wer picked up by trade publlications, sponsored, supported nd contributed to educational seminars such as those at the University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee. Most of the issues concerning harmonics are no longer issues, now that we understand harmonics are present, how to measure them and how to manage installations in their presence. The European harmonics standard IEC 61000-3-2, and I call it European because that is exactly what it is, is directed at protecting the public low voltage distribution system. All of these problems we have heard cited are those situations arising within facilities, NOT on the public distribution system. It is the power generating and transmission folks who drove this standard and largely ignored input of others. I make this comment based on considerable personal involvement since TC77A(Secr)36. John P. Wagner AVAYA Communication 1300 W. 120th Ave, Room B3-D16 Phone/Fax: (303) 538-4241 johnwag...@avaya.com -- From: Gary McInturff[SMTP:gary.mcintu...@worldwidepackets.com] Reply To: Gary McInturff Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2001 8:55 AM To: 'John Juhasz'; 'Rich Nute'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: Harmonics -- WSJ opinion. Years ago when switch mode power supplies were really first being introduced, we had a number of them installed in cubicles in a new building. We were the first occupants. We started having a rash of fires that were starting in the outlet receptacles in the cubicles. The building management teams went looking for the causes and we found no imbalance in the power distribution etc. The world looked good to them. Still the fires continued (quickly extinguished at the source mind you so they never spread) but it was observed that those offices that were have a problem all had the equipment with the switch mode supplies, and we quickly shuffled those around and the fires quit. Neither the building engineers or we EE's had any clue about harmonics on problems with these so that wasn't looked at and I can't say for certain that was the reason, but after shifting the load of the switch mode supplies around on different branch circuits the problem stopped. So I certainly have my suspicions. Gary -Original Message[Gary McInturff] ut - From: John Juhasz [mailto:jjuh...@fiberoptions.com] Sent: Monday, February 26, 2001 10:37 AM To: 'Rich Nute'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: Harmonics -- WSJ opinion. Rich, I would think that you knew that this would generate discussion? One comment of Mr Hunter's that stood out in particular was the very last . . . . . . the only ones who benefit from the harmonic current emission standard are the European electricity distributors. They avoid investments in bolstering their networks against the theoretical harmonics risk at the cost of manufacturers and consumers. I would say that this senitment has been echoed by many compliance engineers. But the comment is 'non-technical' . . . can anyone in this forum offer any 'technical' arguments that would a)Back-up such a statement as Mr. Hunter's or b) FAVOR the harmonic standard? I like to give the benefit of the doubt that the standard was created based on sound technical evidence. John Juhasz Fiber Options Bohemia, NY -Original Message- From: Rich Nute [ mailto:ri...@sdd.hp.com] Sent: Monday, February 26, 2001 12:11 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Harmonics -- WSJ opinion. With thanks to Ed Jones... On Thusday, February 22, The Wall Street Journal Europe published an interesting opinion on the harmonic current emissions standard. The opinion is by Rob Hunter, a lawyer and Chairman of the Centre for the New Europe, a Brussels-based think tank. Mr. Hunter is quite critical of the EU New Approach process. He says: In this procedure, the EU sets vague safety
Re: Harmonics -- WSJ opinion.
of318a279e.2188070d-on85256a00.006a3...@somers.hqregion.ibm.com, Edward Jones ejjo...@us.ibm.com inimitably wrote: John, in response to your attached thread you may want to review some of the field surveys that are available from the Low Frequency Emissions Industry Coalition (LFEIC) @ http://www.eiafoundation.org/eng/lfeic/docpublic/default.htm. I expect they refer to US conditions. We now know why harmonics create far fewer problems in USA than in Europe. I mentioned some of them in another message on this group. -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. Phone +44 (0)1268 747839 Fax +44 (0)1268 777124. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Foxhunters suffer from tallyhosis. PLEASE do not mail copies of newsgroup posts to me. --- 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: Harmonics -- WSJ opinion.
200102271645.iaa00...@epgc196.sdd.hp.com, Rich Nute ri...@sdd.hp.com inimitably wrote: Of course, no one has shown that unacceptable overheating will actually occur. Do you have any more such gems to contribute? What do you think happens to the total current through a capacitor when the applied voltage contains harmonics? What happens to the I^2R loss and the dielectric loss? What happens to hysteresis loss in motors and transformers? My assertion is based on the original reason for the harmonic current emission standard, not the general case for problems caused by harmonic currents. I apologize for writing in such a way as to confuse the general case of overheating due to harmonic currents with the specific case of overheating in distribution transformers. My recollection of the original reason for the harmonic current standard was to prevent overheating of distribution transformers on the public power network. I have not heard that explanation put forward since 1991 by any electricity supply industry (ESI) expert on the IEC or the BSI committee. It is also not mentioned in the original rationale, Annex A to IEC 77A/164/CD (committee document, not in the public domain). But there must be increased hysteresis loss. Perhaps you can correct this recollection. If this is not correct, then kindly disregard the following remarks. Based on my probably incorrect recollection, my assertion is that no distribution transformer in the public power network has failed due to harmonic current. I strongly suspect that that is not true in UK. There were many failures (some explosive) due to d.c. in the windings before we stopped using half-wave rectifiers in TV sets. I don't know about the situation from 1970 onwards: there have been failures but no specific cases undoubtedly due to harmonics have been cited by our ESI experts. I further recall that such failures were a prediction based on the expected proliferation of products with full-wave rectifiers, especially SMPS. The electric power distribution representatives to the committee predicted massive distribution transformer failures due to harmonic currents by the year 2000 or thereabouts. Therefore, the committee operated with a high sense of urgency. Perhaps you can correct me on this recollection. You are correct, I think, about that, and I have said previously that the early predictions were pessimistic. Nevertheless, here I have about 3.5% voltage waveform distortion, in a residential area, which is more than I would like. The ESI has also been working under a threat from the Commission to impose 'quality of supply' requirements on it, since electricity is a commodity that should have quality requirements (see EN50160). This has made the industry VERY fearful of draconian fines being imposed for outages, and harmonics can be one cause that is avoidable, unlike severe weather. Can you tell us whether, at the time the work on the standard was initiated, any such transformers had indeed failed due to harmonic current overheating? Or, have any such transformers failed due to harmonic current since the work has been undertaken? See above. But I don't think transformers are the big issue. In Europe, the MV network tends to be resonant at about 250 Hz - the fifth harmonic. The ESI has to be very careful that this does not result in over-voltage, because if an MV network fails, a large area is affected. The design of the European distribution networks makes them far less tolerant of harmonic currents that either the US or Japanese networks. This has only quite recently been demonstrated to the IEC committee: the evidence from outside Europe was not submitted previously. Capacitors and motors are the other things that are said to be particularly vulnerable. -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. Phone +44 (0)1268 747839 Fax +44 (0)1268 777124. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Foxhunters suffer from tallyhosis. PLEASE do not mail copies of newsgroup posts to me. --- 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: Harmonics -- WSJ opinion.
John, in response to your attached thread you may want to review some of the field surveys that are available from the Low Frequency Emissions Industry Coalition (LFEIC) @ http://www.eiafoundation.org/eng/lfeic/docpublic/default.htm. Regards. --- Ed Jones IBM Corporation Somers N.Y. -- Forwarded by Edward Jones/Somers/IBM on 02/27/2001 02:12 PM --- John Juhasz jjuh...@fiberoptions.com@ieee.org on 02/26/2001 01:36:30 PM Please respond to John Juhasz jjuh...@fiberoptions.com Sent by: owner-emc-p...@ieee.org To: 'Rich Nute' ri...@sdd.hp.com, emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org cc: Subject: RE: Harmonics -- WSJ opinion. Rich, I would think that you knew that this would generate discussion? One comment of Mr Hunter's that stood out in particular was the very last . . . . . . the only ones who benefit from the harmonic current emission standard are the European electricity distributors. They avoid investments in bolstering their networks against the theoretical harmonics risk at the cost of manufacturers and consumers. I would say that this senitment has been echoed by many compliance engineers. But the comment is 'non-technical' . . . can anyone in this forum offer any 'technical' arguments that would a)Back-up such a statement as Mr. Hunter's or b) FAVOR the harmonic standard? I like to give the benefit of the doubt that the standard was created based on sound technical evidence. John Juhasz Fiber Options Bohemia, NY -Original Message- From: Rich Nute [mailto:ri...@sdd.hp.com] Sent: Monday, February 26, 2001 12:11 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Harmonics -- WSJ opinion. With thanks to Ed Jones... On Thusday, February 22, The Wall Street Journal Europe published an interesting opinion on the harmonic current emissions standard. The opinion is by Rob Hunter, a lawyer and Chairman of the Centre for the New Europe, a Brussels-based think tank. Mr. Hunter is quite critical of the EU New Approach process. He says: In this procedure, the EU sets vague safety and technical rules for everything from toys to super- computers -- for example, toys shall be 'safe.' The EU then delegates to private standardization bodies the drafting of detailed requirements explaining what the delphic rules mean. The supposed advantage of this New Approach is twofold. For industry, it gets to write the detailed rules applying to it. For the Commission, the New Approach frees it from a burdenom task; it also allows the Commission to claim that it has nothing to do with writing the standards, and hence cannot be held responsible. All this sounds quite above-board. It isn't. For one thing, the standards are not merelay a means of proving compliance with the underlying legislation. They actually determine the meaning of the law itself. Mr. Hunter discusses ...the way these standard-setting bodies can be gamed by industry insiders for advantage. Mr. Hunter goes on to show how the New Approach process allows the Commission to sidestep ...WTO laws prohibiting 'mandatory' product measures that create 'unnecessary obstacles' to international trade. Mr. Hunter's opinion goes on to show that the only ones who benefit from the harmonic current emission standard are the European electricity distributors. They avoid investments in bolstering their networks against the theoretical harmonics risk at the cost of manufacturers and consumers. 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 Heald davehe...@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
Re: Harmonics -- WSJ opinion.
Hi John: Of course, no one has shown that unacceptable overheating will actually occur. Do you have any more such gems to contribute? What do you think happens to the total current through a capacitor when the applied voltage contains harmonics? What happens to the I^2R loss and the dielectric loss? What happens to hysteresis loss in motors and transformers? My assertion is based on the original reason for the harmonic current emission standard, not the general case for problems caused by harmonic currents. I apologize for writing in such a way as to confuse the general case of overheating due to harmonic currents with the specific case of overheating in distribution transformers. My recollection of the original reason for the harmonic current standard was to prevent overheating of distribution transformers on the public power network. Perhaps you can correct this recollection. If this is not correct, then kindly disregard the following remarks. Based on my probably incorrect recollection, my assertion is that no distribution transformer in the public power network has failed due to harmonic current. I further recall that such failures were a prediction based on the expected proliferation of products with full-wave rectifiers, especially SMPS. The electric power distribution representatives to the committee predicted massive distribution transformer failures due to harmonic currents by the year 2000 or thereabouts. Therefore, the committee operated with a high sense of urgency. Perhaps you can correct me on this recollection. Can you tell us whether, at the time the work on the standard was initiated, any such transformers had indeed failed due to harmonic current overheating? Or, have any such transformers failed due to harmonic current since the work has been undertaken? 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,
Re: Harmonics -- WSJ opinion.
Years ago Digital Equipment Corporation had problems with power distribution in office module systems. As I recall, it was a combination of phase balancing of loads and harmonic currents in the neutral. A module system which distributed three phase 5 wire power and indicated the phase connection with a number on each receptacle was designed specifically for DEC by the module manufacturer and later put on the general market. I don't know who made the system and couldn't tell you how to contact anyone involved. I was also aware of some transformers at DEC which were damaged by third harmonic currents. A periodic maintenance inspection program was put in place to monitor transformer delta and phase currents. They also did periodic thermal imaging of circuit breaker panels as part of this program, but I don't believe that was due to harmonic currents. My first experience with third harmonics was with mercury vapor lighting fixtures which were connected phase to phase. High currents circulating in the delta connected load overheated the ballast windings. One way of protecting transformers (and neutral wiring) from odd harmonic currents is to use four pole breakers, with the fourth pole in series with the delta, or in the neutral of the wye. Gary McInturff wrote: Years ago when switch mode power supplies were really first being introduced, we had a number of them installed in cubicles in a new building. We were the first occupants. We started having a rash of fires that were starting in the outlet receptacles in the cubicles. The building management teams went looking for the causes and we found no imbalance in the power distribution etc. The world looked good to them. Still the fires continued (quickly extinguished at the source mind you so they never spread) but it was observed that those offices that were have a problem all had the equipment with the switch mode supplies, and we quickly shuffled those around and the fires quit. Neither the building engineers or we EE's had any clue about harmonics on problems with these so that wasn't looked at and I can't say for certain that was the reason, but after shifting the load of the switch mode supplies around on different branch circuits the problem stopped. So I certainly have my suspicions. Gary -Original Message[Gary McInturff] ut - From: John Juhasz [mailto:jjuh...@fiberoptions.com] Sent: Monday, February 26, 2001 10:37 AM To: 'Rich Nute'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: Harmonics -- WSJ opinion. Rich, I would think that you knew that this would generate discussion? One comment of Mr Hunter's that stood out in particular was the very last . . . . . . the only ones who benefit from the harmonic current emission standard are the European electricity distributors. They avoid investments in bolstering their networks against the theoretical harmonics risk at the cost of manufacturers and consumers. I would say that this senitment has been echoed by many compliance engineers. But the comment is 'non-technical' . . . can anyone in this forum offer any 'technical' arguments that would a)Back-up such a statement as Mr. Hunter's or b) FAVOR the harmonic standard? I like to give the benefit of the doubt that the standard was created based on sound technical evidence. John Juhasz Fiber Options Bohemia, NY -Original Message- From: Rich Nute [mailto:ri...@sdd.hp.com] Sent: Monday, February 26, 2001 12:11 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Harmonics -- WSJ opinion. With thanks to Ed Jones... On Thusday, February 22, The Wall Street Journal Europe published an interesting opinion on the harmonic current emissions standard. The opinion is by Rob Hunter, a lawyer and Chairman of the Centre for the New Europe, a Brussels-based think tank. Mr. Hunter is quite critical of the EU New Approach process. He says: In this procedure, the EU sets vague safety and technical rules for everything from toys to super- computers -- for example, toys shall be 'safe.' The EU then delegates to private standardization bodies the drafting of detailed requirements explaining what the delphic rules mean. The supposed advantage of this New Approach is twofold. For industry, it gets to write the detailed rules applying to it. For the Commission, the New Approach frees it from a burdenom task; it also allows the Commission to claim that it has nothing to do with writing the standards, and hence cannot be held responsible. All this sounds quite above-board. It isn't. For one thing, the standards are not merelay a means of proving
RE: Harmonics -- WSJ opinion.
Years ago when switch mode power supplies were really first being introduced, we had a number of them installed in cubicles in a new building. We were the first occupants. We started having a rash of fires that were starting in the outlet receptacles in the cubicles. The building management teams went looking for the causes and we found no imbalance in the power distribution etc. The world looked good to them. Still the fires continued (quickly extinguished at the source mind you so they never spread) but it was observed that those offices that were have a problem all had the equipment with the switch mode supplies, and we quickly shuffled those around and the fires quit. Neither the building engineers or we EE's had any clue about harmonics on problems with these so that wasn't looked at and I can't say for certain that was the reason, but after shifting the load of the switch mode supplies around on different branch circuits the problem stopped. So I certainly have my suspicions. Gary -Original Message[Gary McInturff] ut - From: John Juhasz [mailto:jjuh...@fiberoptions.com] Sent: Monday, February 26, 2001 10:37 AM To: 'Rich Nute'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: Harmonics -- WSJ opinion. Rich, I would think that you knew that this would generate discussion? One comment of Mr Hunter's that stood out in particular was the very last . . . . . . the only ones who benefit from the harmonic current emission standard are the European electricity distributors. They avoid investments in bolstering their networks against the theoretical harmonics risk at the cost of manufacturers and consumers. I would say that this senitment has been echoed by many compliance engineers. But the comment is 'non-technical' . . . can anyone in this forum offer any 'technical' arguments that would a)Back-up such a statement as Mr. Hunter's or b) FAVOR the harmonic standard? I like to give the benefit of the doubt that the standard was created based on sound technical evidence. John Juhasz Fiber Options Bohemia, NY -Original Message- From: Rich Nute [ mailto:ri...@sdd.hp.com mailto:ri...@sdd.hp.com ] Sent: Monday, February 26, 2001 12:11 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Harmonics -- WSJ opinion. With thanks to Ed Jones... On Thusday, February 22, The Wall Street Journal Europe published an interesting opinion on the harmonic current emissions standard. The opinion is by Rob Hunter, a lawyer and Chairman of the Centre for the New Europe, a Brussels-based think tank. Mr. Hunter is quite critical of the EU New Approach process. He says: In this procedure, the EU sets vague safety and technical rules for everything from toys to super- computers -- for example, toys shall be 'safe.' The EU then delegates to private standardization bodies the drafting of detailed requirements explaining what the delphic rules mean. The supposed advantage of this New Approach is twofold. For industry, it gets to write the detailed rules applying to it. For the Commission, the New Approach frees it from a burdenom task; it also allows the Commission to claim that it has nothing to do with writing the standards, and hence cannot be held responsible. All this sounds quite above-board. It isn't. For one thing, the standards are not merelay a means of proving compliance with the underlying legislation. They actually determine the meaning of the law itself. Mr. Hunter discusses ...the way these standard-setting bodies can be gamed by industry insiders for advantage. Mr. Hunter goes on to show how the New Approach process allows the Commission to sidestep ...WTO laws prohibiting 'mandatory' product measures that create 'unnecessary obstacles' to international trade. Mr. Hunter's opinion goes on to show that the only ones who benefit from the harmonic current emission standard are the European electricity distributors. They avoid investments in bolstering their networks against the theoretical harmonics risk at the cost of manufacturers and consumers. 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/ 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/ http://www.rcic.com/ click on Virtual
Re: Harmonics -- WSJ opinion.
E15CFB09B1FAD311B74700D0B746BDC12CC814@EMAIL, John Juhasz jjuh...@fiberoptions.com wrote: I like to give the benefit of the doubt that the standard was created based on sound technical evidence. It was based on INADEQUATE technical evidence, but not on NO technical evidence. Also involved was a prediction of how the demonstrated rise in harmonics over the decade 1978-1988 would continue in the future. That prediction seems to have been pessimistic, not because the harmonics currents of distorting loads are less in proportion to the fundamental, but because the fundamental has decreased due to design improvements and 'green' pressures. I lead an IEC group which is producing an IEC Report on the subject (future IEC61000-1-4). -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. Phone +44 (0)1268 747839 Fax +44 (0)1268 777124. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Foxhunters suffer from tallyhosis. PLEASE do not mail copies of newsgroup posts to me. --- 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: Harmonics -- WSJ opinion.
200102262030.maa28...@epgc196.sdd.hp.com, Rich Nute ri...@sdd.hp.com wrote: Of course, no one has shown that unacceptable overheating will actually occur. Do you have any more such gems to contribute? What do you think happens to the total current through a capacitor when the applied voltage contains harmonics? What happens to the I^2R loss and the dielectric loss? What happens to hysteresis loss in motors and transformers? -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. Phone +44 (0)1268 747839 Fax +44 (0)1268 777124. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Foxhunters suffer from tallyhosis. PLEASE do not mail copies of newsgroup posts to me. --- 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: Harmonics -- WSJ opinion.
Hi John: I must admit to several motives for posting my message regarding the WSJ-E opinion article. 1. I wanted our subscribers to know that the issue rated comment in the WSJ-E, a high- level, respected newspaper. 2. I wanted our subscribers to know that the technical arguments are bolstered by some political arguments. As for knowing that my posting would generate further discussion... well, that is up to our subscribers and whether they want to move from the technical arena to the political arena! As for your request for comment... But the comment is 'non-technical' . . . can anyone in this forum offer any 'technical' arguments that would a)Back-up such a statement as Mr. Hunter's or b) FAVOR the harmonic standard? With respect to your first question (a) I believe you refer to Hunter's assertion that the European electricity distributors benefit from the standard. I don't know that this statement is subject to a technical argument. With respect to your second question (b), the technical argument in favor of the standard is that triplen harmonic currents cause overheating of the primary of a delta-wye distribution transformer. Therefore, some means must be provided to prevent such overheating. There are several mechanisms for preventing such overheating: 1. Use a distribution transformer with a k- factor rating. 2. Use a trap (zig-zag transformer) between the transformer and the load. 3. Require linear loads. There may be other mechanisms. There is no technical argument for any one of the several mechanisms that prevent distribution transformer overheating. Each works. Pick one. It is probably best to kill the problem at its source. On the other hand, it is likewise probably best if the electricity supplier can supply power to any load rather than restrict the loads to which he is willing to supply power. Because all work, the choice is subject to other criteria. One major criterion is that of cost: If you are an electricity supplier, you would not be in favor of choices 1 and 2. If you are a product manufacturer, you would not be in favor of choice 3. If you are a consumer, you will pay for choices 1 and 2 through higher electric bills, and you will pay for choice 3 through higher product cost. No matter the choice, you pay forever, either through higher electric bills or for higher product costs. If you buy lots of products on a continuing basis, your cost may be higher than your long-term electric bills. Of course, no one has shown that unacceptable overheating will actually occur. Hence, Hunter uses the phrase theoretical harmonics. 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,
Re: Harmonics -- WSJ opinion.
200102261711.jaa27...@epgc196.sdd.hp.com, Rich Nute ri...@sdd.hp.com wrote: With thanks to Ed Jones... On Thusday, February 22, The Wall Street Journal Europe published an interesting opinion on the harmonic current emissions standard. The opinion is by Rob Hunter, a lawyer and Chairman of the Centre for the New Europe, a Brussels-based think tank. I think I may know a bit about the harmonics emission standard, since I helped to write the latest big amendment, after ten years of agitating for the need for amendment, and I am helping to write the next complete revision. This amendment was developed *internationally*, with a US expert from the computer and measuring instrument manufacturing sector leading the work. For purely procedural reasons, it has been published in CENELEC before being published by the IEC. For the avoidance of doubt, I am sponsored for this work by a trade association of manufacturers of professional audio and lighting equipment. Mr. Hunter is quite critical of the EU New Approach process. He says: In this procedure, the EU sets vague safety and technical rules for everything from toys to super- computers -- for example, toys shall be 'safe.' The EU then delegates to private standardization bodies CEN and CENELEC are NOT 'private bodies'. ETSI is a private body. CEN and CENELEC adopt ISO and IEC International Standards unless special circumstances in Europe prevent that. If that is so, regional amendments, applying in all participating countries, are introduced. the drafting of detailed requirements explaining what the delphic rules mean. They NEED to be 'vague' (I prefer 'generic') so that the detailed technical requirements can be developed by people who understand the technical issues without unreasonable legal constraints. The supposed advantage of this New Approach is twofold. For industry, it gets to write the detailed rules applying to it. For the Commission, the New Approach frees it from a burdenom task; it also allows the Commission to claim that it has nothing to do with writing the standards, and hence cannot be held responsible. That is false. DGIII of the Commission decides which standards it will accept as providing prima facie evidence of conformity with Directives. It does NOT accept all the standards it's offered. The Commission DEMANDS responsibility for determining which standards are 'notified' in the OJEC as acceptable. All this sounds quite above-board. It isn't. For one thing, the standards are not merelay a means of proving compliance with the underlying legislation. They actually determine the meaning of the law itself. That is essentially true. The alternative is to include all the technical requirements in the Directives themselves. That was tried and proved impracticable. Any improvement or revision of the technical requirements, to relax unnecessary restraints or to allow for new technology, requires the LAW to be changed in 18 countries, which takes YEARS. Mr. Hunter discusses ...the way these standard-setting bodies can be gamed by industry insiders for advantage. This has happened, but it has been ALLOWED to happen through apathy by industry sectors that SHOULD have participated in the standards-making process. It can't happen if committees are properly representative. Mr. Hunter goes on to show how the New Approach process allows the Commission to sidestep ...WTO laws prohibiting 'mandatory' product measures that create 'unnecessary obstacles' to international trade. They may be 'unnecessary' in his opinion: the reality may be different. I don't think he is technically qualified to determine necessity. Mr. Hunter's opinion goes on to show that the only ones who benefit from the harmonic current emission standard are the European electricity distributors. They avoid investments in bolstering their networks against the theoretical harmonics risk at the cost of manufacturers and consumers. The risk is certainly NOT just theoretical. The failure mechanisms due to harmonic currents are very well-understood, and are quite easy to understand in most cases. Analysis of the economic issues, **internationally**, with full participation by American interests, indicates that the lowest-cost solution to the problems created by harmonic currents almost certainly comprises equipment-level mitigation (as required by the EMC Directive), site-level mitigation (as indicated in IEEE 519) and system-level mitigation (as practised by the supply industry for around 50 years). After several years of unproductive and very costly contention, the international work on this subject is now becoming consensual. It is very undesirable for old contentions to be dragged up by people who are apparently authoritative but are woefully ill-informed. We now KNOW why the major problem with harmonic currents in the Americas is 'hot neutrals', whereas in Europe there are several
RE: Harmonics -- WSJ opinion.
Rich, I would think that you knew that this would generate discussion? One comment of Mr Hunter's that stood out in particular was the very last . . . . . . the only ones who benefit from the harmonic current emission standard are the European electricity distributors. They avoid investments in bolstering their networks against the theoretical harmonics risk at the cost of manufacturers and consumers. I would say that this senitment has been echoed by many compliance engineers. But the comment is 'non-technical' . . . can anyone in this forum offer any 'technical' arguments that would a)Back-up such a statement as Mr. Hunter's or b) FAVOR the harmonic standard? I like to give the benefit of the doubt that the standard was created based on sound technical evidence. John Juhasz Fiber Options Bohemia, NY -Original Message- From: Rich Nute [ mailto:ri...@sdd.hp.com mailto:ri...@sdd.hp.com ] Sent: Monday, February 26, 2001 12:11 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Harmonics -- WSJ opinion. With thanks to Ed Jones... On Thusday, February 22, The Wall Street Journal Europe published an interesting opinion on the harmonic current emissions standard. The opinion is by Rob Hunter, a lawyer and Chairman of the Centre for the New Europe, a Brussels-based think tank. Mr. Hunter is quite critical of the EU New Approach process. He says: In this procedure, the EU sets vague safety and technical rules for everything from toys to super- computers -- for example, toys shall be 'safe.' The EU then delegates to private standardization bodies the drafting of detailed requirements explaining what the delphic rules mean. The supposed advantage of this New Approach is twofold. For industry, it gets to write the detailed rules applying to it. For the Commission, the New Approach frees it from a burdenom task; it also allows the Commission to claim that it has nothing to do with writing the standards, and hence cannot be held responsible. All this sounds quite above-board. It isn't. For one thing, the standards are not merelay a means of proving compliance with the underlying legislation. They actually determine the meaning of the law itself. Mr. Hunter discusses ...the way these standard-setting bodies can be gamed by industry insiders for advantage. Mr. Hunter goes on to show how the New Approach process allows the Commission to sidestep ...WTO laws prohibiting 'mandatory' product measures that create 'unnecessary obstacles' to international trade. Mr. Hunter's opinion goes on to show that the only ones who benefit from the harmonic current emission standard are the European electricity distributors. They avoid investments in bolstering their networks against the theoretical harmonics risk at the cost of manufacturers and consumers. 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/ 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/ http://www.rcic.com/ click on Virtual Conference Hall,
