Re: [PSES] power converters onboard yachts

[Larry K. Stillings]

Hello Ralph,

Has anybody mentioned the EN 60945 standard to you? Clauses 9 & 10 are for EMC, 
however it covers a lot of other things in that standard for electrical 
equipment on ships.

Larry K. Stillings
Compliance Worldwide, Inc.
Test Locally, Sell Globally and Launch Your Products Around the World!
FCC - Wireless - Telecom - CE Marking - International Approvals - Product Safety
357 Main Street
Sandown, NH 03873
(603) 887 3903 Fax 887-6445
complianceworldwide.com


Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. If you 
are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery of 
the message to such person), you may not copy or deliver this message to 
anyone. In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the 
sender by reply email. Please advise immediately if you or your employer do not 
consent to Internet email for messages of this kind. Opinions, conclusions and 
other information in this message that do not relate to the official business 
of my firm shall be understood as neither given nor endorsed by it.

From: Ralph McDiarmid
Sent: Monday, September 16, 2024 12:34 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] power converters onboard yachts

If a yacht is manufactured in the USA and then sails aboard to eventually dock 
at a port somewhere in the EU, does its onboard electronics require CE mark ?   
 I'm thinking specifically of power converters connecting to shore power.

Ralph


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org



To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1

Re: [PSES] power converters onboard yachts

[Richard Nute]

 

Hmm.  Assume a USA to Europe trans-ocean cruise ship.  When it docks in
Europe, do the onboard electronics need to have a CE mark?

 

If I travel (business or pleasure) from the USA to Europe, must my phone,
laptop, and other electronic products that travel with me need to have the
CE mark?  Are they inspected upon arrival?  Are they confiscated or whatever
if they don't have the CE mark?

 

Likewise, if someone travels from Europe to the USA, must electrical
products travelling with him bear a NRTL mark?

 

I lived in Spain with some USA NRTL electrical products, but no mandate for
the CE mark on them.

 

Rich

Bend, Oregon, USA

 

 

From: James Pawson (U3C)  
Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2024 12:14 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] power converters onboard yachts

 

Hi Ralph

 

>From "The Blue Guide"

 

2.2.   Making available on the market

A product is made available on the market when supplied for distribution,
consumption or use on the Union market in the course of a commercial
activity

 

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=OJ:C:2022:247:FULL#
:~:text=2.2.%C2%A0%C2%A0%C2%A0Making,a%20commercial%20activity

 

My reading would be: if it can, is likely, or is intended to be used in the
EU then the CE mark would apply.

 

One of our clients manufactures equipment for commercial yachts and his
assessment on the general quality of electronic equipment, and its
installation and wiring, on such vessels was less than complementary!

 

All the best

James

 

James Pawson

Managing Director & EMC Problem Solver

 

Unit 3 Compliance Ltd

EMC : Environmental & Vibration : Electrical Safety : CE & UKCA :
Consultancy

 

 <http://www.unit3compliance.co.uk/> www.unit3compliance.co.uk |
<mailto:ja...@unit3compliance.co.uk> ja...@unit3compliance.co.uk 

+44(0)1274 911747  |  +44(0)7811 139957

2 Wellington Business Park, New Lane, Bradford, BD4 8AL

Registered in England and Wales # 10574298

 

Office hours:

Every morning my full attention is on consultancy, testing, and
troubleshooting activities for our customers' projects. I'm
available/contactable between 1300h to 1730h Mon/Tue/Thurs/Fri.

For inquiries, bookings, and testing updates please send us an email on
he...@unit3compliance.co.uk <mailto:he...@unit3compliance.co.uk>  or call
01274 911747. Our lead times for testing and consultancy are typically 4-5
weeks.

 

 

 

 

From: Dan Roman <0d75e04ed751-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org
<mailto:0d75e04ed751-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org> > 
Sent: 16 September 2024 21:32
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> 
Subject: Re: [PSES] power converters onboard yachts

 

Hmmm, I don't know for sure, but it is not placed on the market in the EU,
it is just visiting.  So no CE Marking for safety and EMC or whatever
Directives and Regulations that apply to boats.  Now, if it is eventually
sold there, that is probably a different story.

 

Not being familiar in the least with boating regulations, my "placed on the
market" theory may not hold seawater.

 

Dan

 

 

 

From: Ralph McDiarmid [mailto:rmm.priv...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, September 16, 2024 12:34 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> 
Subject: [PSES] power converters onboard yachts

 

If a yacht is manufactured in the USA and then sails aboard to eventually
dock at a port somewhere in the EU, does its onboard electronics require CE
mark ?I'm thinking specifically of power converters connecting to shore
power.

 

Ralph


-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1

Re: [PSES] power converters onboard yachts

[James Pawson (U3C)]

Hi Ralph

 

>From "The Blue Guide"

 

2.2.   Making available on the market

A product is made available on the market when supplied for distribution,
consumption or use on the Union market in the course of a commercial
activity

 

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=OJ:C:2022:247:FULL#
:~:text=2.2.%C2%A0%C2%A0%C2%A0Making,a%20commercial%20activity

 

My reading would be: if it can, is likely, or is intended to be used in the
EU then the CE mark would apply.

 

One of our clients manufactures equipment for commercial yachts and his
assessment on the general quality of electronic equipment, and its
installation and wiring, on such vessels was less than complementary!

 

All the best

James

 

James Pawson

Managing Director & EMC Problem Solver

 

Unit 3 Compliance Ltd

EMC : Environmental & Vibration : Electrical Safety : CE & UKCA :
Consultancy

 

 <http://www.unit3compliance.co.uk/> www.unit3compliance.co.uk |
<mailto:ja...@unit3compliance.co.uk> ja...@unit3compliance.co.uk 

+44(0)1274 911747  |  +44(0)7811 139957

2 Wellington Business Park, New Lane, Bradford, BD4 8AL

Registered in England and Wales # 10574298

 

Office hours:

Every morning my full attention is on consultancy, testing, and
troubleshooting activities for our customers' projects. I'm
available/contactable between 1300h to 1730h Mon/Tue/Thurs/Fri.

For inquiries, bookings, and testing updates please send us an email on
he...@unit3compliance.co.uk <mailto:he...@unit3compliance.co.uk>  or call
01274 911747. Our lead times for testing and consultancy are typically 4-5
weeks.

 

 

 

 

From: Dan Roman <0d75e04ed751-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org> 
Sent: 16 September 2024 21:32
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] power converters onboard yachts

 

Hmmm, I don't know for sure, but it is not placed on the market in the EU,
it is just visiting.  So no CE Marking for safety and EMC or whatever
Directives and Regulations that apply to boats.  Now, if it is eventually
sold there, that is probably a different story.

 

Not being familiar in the least with boating regulations, my "placed on the
market" theory may not hold seawater.

 

Dan

 

 

 

From: Ralph McDiarmid [mailto:rmm.priv...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, September 16, 2024 12:34 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> 
Subject: [PSES] power converters onboard yachts

 

If a yacht is manufactured in the USA and then sails aboard to eventually
dock at a port somewhere in the EU, does its onboard electronics require CE
mark ?I'm thinking specifically of power converters connecting to shore
power.

 

Ralph

  _  

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>  

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/
<https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/%20>  

Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/  <https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/> 
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to
unsubscribe) <https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html> 
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html 

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net <mailto:msherma...@comcast.net> 
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org <mailto:linf...@ieee.org>  

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org <mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org>  

  _  

To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC
<https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1> &A=1 

  _  

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>  

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/
<https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/%20>  

Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/  <https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/> 
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to
unsubscribe) <https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html> 
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html 

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net <mailto:msherma...@comcast.net> 
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org <mailto:linf...@ieee.org>  

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org <mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org>  

  _  

To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list,

Re: [PSES] power converters onboard yachts

[Dan Roman]

Hmmm, I don't know for sure, but it is not placed on the market in the EU,
it is just visiting.  So no CE Marking for safety and EMC or whatever
Directives and Regulations that apply to boats.  Now, if it is eventually
sold there, that is probably a different story.

 

Not being familiar in the least with boating regulations, my "placed on the
market" theory may not hold seawater.

 

Dan

 

 

 

From: Ralph McDiarmid [mailto:rmm.priv...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, September 16, 2024 12:34 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] power converters onboard yachts

 

If a yacht is manufactured in the USA and then sails aboard to eventually
dock at a port somewhere in the EU, does its onboard electronics require CE
mark ?I'm thinking specifically of power converters connecting to shore
power.

 

Ralph

  _  

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG   

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/
  

Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/   
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to
unsubscribe)  
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html 

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net  
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org   

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org   

  _  

To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC
 &A=1 


-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1

Re: [PSES] [EXTERNAL] [PSES] UL 38.3 and Li-On batteries

[Ted Eckert]

Hi Brian,

UN 38.3 applies to batteries shipped in products, shipped with products, and 
shipped alone. In other words, all batteries. There aren't size exceptions that 
I am aware of with the exception of button/coin cells shipped installed in 
equipment. IATA has a good summary of air shipping requirements.
lithium-battery-guidance-document.pdf 
(iata.org)

Best regards,
Ted Eckert
The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my 
employer, IATA, or the UN.

From: Brian Gregory 
Sent: Friday, September 13, 2024 11:00 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG 
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [PSES] UL 38.3 and Li-On batteries

You don't often get email from brian_greg...@netzero.net. Learn why this is 
important
 Hello fellow compliance colleagues,

Holy smokes but UL 38.3 is poorly written.

Can someone confirm that the scope only applies to batteries sold and shipped 
separately, and do not apply to those installed in an appliance-product?
Secondly, I can't find a size limit in the scope.  For instance, I can't 
believe it applies to lozenge batteries, but I cannot confirm that either.

Lastly, has anyone on this list heard of a "cold start battery" in the context 
of an residential or industrial appliance?
I'm familiar with automotive batteries that have cold-start or cranking 
ratings, and of utility-scale "grid" battery plants that can be black start 
qualified.  This is clearly different, yet I can't find bupkiss on it apart 
from mention by a buzzword-bombast who likes to throw fancy terms around, and 
now I'm stuck trying to justify or qualify the two 3V, 5 A-hr cells in our 
latest charger against this "cold start" metric.

thanks all,

Colorado Brian



This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org



To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1

Re: [PSES] Challenge a Notified Body decision

[Charlie Blackham]

Amund

There are methods under the Directive for The Commission to have the status of 
a Notified Body revoked, but there's not a higher authority to go to on 
technical matters and I would suggest it is better to confirm your approach is 
technically correct.

You don't mention the standard, or the mask, but the methods in ETSI standards 
are typically clear.

Since you're using a NB, you're not obliged to use a published standard and may 
wish to refer to ERC Recommendation 74-01

Best regards
Charlie

Charlie Blackham
Sulis Consultants Ltd
Tel: +44 (0)7946 624317
Web: https://sulisconsultants.com/
Registered in England and Wales, number 05466247

From: Amund Westin 
Sent: 13 September 2024 14:26
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Challenge a Notified Body decision

Is it possible to challenge a EU Notified Body decision ? Bringing the case to 
a superior body that can decide as a independent third party?

There is disagreement about how to design a spectrum mask, in connection with 
radio spur testing according to a non-harmonized standard. The test itself is 
either passed or failed, depending on how the mask is designed.


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org



To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1

Re: [PSES] CE marking for avionic in-flight entertainment equipment

[Karen Burnham]

Would the component requirements of RTCA DO160 apply here?

Best,

-=-Karen Burnham
President and Chief EMC Engineer, NCE
EMC United, Inc.
www.emcunited.com


On Wed, Sep 11, 2024 at 1:18 PM Charlie Blackham <
char...@sulisconsultants.com> wrote:

> David
>
>
>
> Given that you can only CE Mark a product when it is in the scope of, and
> compliant with, one or more Directives that require/allow for CE Marking,
> you need to explain to your customers why your products are out of scope –
> I would recommend citing the applicable Articles and Annexes in the
> Directives that would otherwise be applicable.
>
>
>
> There may well be other requirements that you need to comply with that are
> outside the scope of these Directives.
>
>
>
> If you sell these items for use other than on aircraft, they would of
> course need to be CE marked
>
>
>
> Best regards
>
> Charlie
>
>
>
> *Charlie Blackham*
>
> *Sulis Consultants Ltd*
>
> *Tel: +44 (0)7946 624317*
>
> *Web: https://sulisconsultants.com/  *
>
> Registered in England and Wales, number 05466247
>
>
>
> *From:* David Gelfand 
> *Sent:* 11 September 2024 16:40
> *To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> *Subject:* [PSES] CE marking for avionic in-flight entertainment equipment
>
>
>
> Hello to all,
>
>
>
> What CE directives and which standards would apply to electronic equipment
> to be installed in an aircraft?  LVD, EMCD and RED do not seem to apply.
>
>
>
> We design and manufacture servers with satellite and LTE modems, for
> in-flight wifi access and entertainment.  Some of our clients are asking
> for CE marking.  Any guidance would be most appreciated.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> David
>
>
>
> *David Gelfand, Ing. P.Eng.*
>
> Spécialiste en conformité / Conformity Specialist
>
>
>
> [image: A blue text on a black background Description automatically
> generated] 
>
> [image: signature_811446924]
>
> *Kontron Canada Inc.  *4555 Ambroise-Lafortune | Boisbriand (Québec) J7H
> 0A4 | Canada   •   Privacy Statement
>  |Legal Statement
>  |Communications
> Électroniques
> 
>
>
>
> [image: A blue and black logo Description automatically generated]
>  [image: A black and green
> play button Description automatically generated]
>   [image: A black bird in a blue
> square Description automatically generated] 
>   [image: A white letter in a green square Description automatically
> generated] 
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
> discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to
> EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
>
> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
> https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/
> 
>
> Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
> Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to
> unsubscribe) 
> List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html
>
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
> Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
> Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org
>
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org
> --
>
> To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link:
> https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1
> --
>
> This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
> discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to
> EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
> https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/
>
> Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
> Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to
> unsubscribe) 
> List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html
>
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
> Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
> Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org
>
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org
> --
>
> To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link:
> https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1
>

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
ht

Re: [PSES] CE marking for avionic in-flight entertainment equipment

[Charlie Blackham]

David

Given that you can only CE Mark a product when it is in the scope of, and 
compliant with, one or more Directives that require/allow for CE Marking, you 
need to explain to your customers why your products are out of scope - I would 
recommend citing the applicable Articles and Annexes in the Directives that 
would otherwise be applicable.

There may well be other requirements that you need to comply with that are 
outside the scope of these Directives.

If you sell these items for use other than on aircraft, they would of course 
need to be CE marked

Best regards
Charlie

Charlie Blackham
Sulis Consultants Ltd
Tel: +44 (0)7946 624317
Web: https://sulisconsultants.com/
Registered in England and Wales, number 05466247

From: David Gelfand 
Sent: 11 September 2024 16:40
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] CE marking for avionic in-flight entertainment equipment

Hello to all,

What CE directives and which standards would apply to electronic equipment to 
be installed in an aircraft?  LVD, EMCD and RED do not seem to apply.

We design and manufacture servers with satellite and LTE modems, for in-flight 
wifi access and entertainment.  Some of our clients are asking for CE marking.  
Any guidance would be most appreciated.

Thanks,

David

David Gelfand, Ing. P.Eng.
Spécialiste en conformité / Conformity Specialist

[A blue text on a black background  Description automatically 
generated]

Kontron Canada Inc.  4555 Ambroise-Lafortune | Boisbriand (Québec) J7H 0A4 | 
Canada   *   Privacy Statement 
|Legal Statement 
|Communications 
Électroniques

[A blue and black logo  Description automatically 
generated] [A black and green 
play button  Description automatically generated] 
   [A black bird in a blue square  
Description automatically generated]    [A 
white letter in a green square  Description automatically generated] 





This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org



To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1

Re: [PSES] USB-C cables

[Scott Aldous]

You may want to check the consolidated version of the Radio Equipment
Directive
,
particularly Annex Ia, Part I. It doesn't mandate USB-IF certification, but
requires compliance with specific EN IEC standards.

On Tue, Sep 10, 2024 at 3:39 AM Ari Honkala  wrote:

> Not regulatory, but please see:
> https://www.usb.org/logo-license
> "To qualify for the right to display the certified USB logo in conjunction
> with a product, the product must pass USB-IF compliance testing for product
> quality."
>
>
> regards,
>
>
>
> Ari Honkala
>
>
>
> --
> *From:* peterh...@aol.com <
> 06cee064502d-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org>
> *Sent:* Monday, September 9, 2024 22:14
> *To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG 
> *Subject:* [PSES] USB-C cables
>
> You don't often get email from
> 06cee064502d-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org. Learn why this is
> important 
> Hello group,
>
> Is there a mandatory requirements that all USB-C type cables have to be
> tested and certified and carry USB-IF logo for sale in Europe? If so, where
> would I find the link to this requirements please? I am told by a colleague
> that this is mandatory requirements in EU from next year.
>
> Thank you
> Peter
> --
>
> This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
> discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to
> EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
> https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/
>
> Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
> Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to
> unsubscribe) 
> List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html
>
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
> Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
> Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org
>
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org
> --
>
> To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link:
> https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1
> --
>
> This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
> discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to
> EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
> https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/
>
> Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
> Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to
> unsubscribe) 
> List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html
>
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
> Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
> Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org
>
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org
> --
>
> To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link:
> https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1
>


-- 
Scott Aldous | Regulatory Compliance Manager | scottald...@google.com |
 650-253-1994

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1

Re: [PSES] USB-C cables

[Ari Honkala]

Not regulatory, but please see:
https://www.usb.org/logo-license
"To qualify for the right to display the certified USB logo in conjunction with 
a product, the product must pass USB-IF compliance testing for product quality."



regards,



Ari Honkala





From: peterh...@aol.com <06cee064502d-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org>
Sent: Monday, September 9, 2024 22:14
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG 
Subject: [PSES] USB-C cables

You don't often get email from 
06cee064502d-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org. Learn why this is 
important
Hello group,

Is there a mandatory requirements that all USB-C type cables have to be tested 
and certified and carry USB-IF logo for sale in Europe? If so, where would I 
find the link to this requirements please? I am told by a colleague that this 
is mandatory requirements in EU from next year.

Thank you
Peter


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org



To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1

Re: [PSES] USB-C cables

[Remy, Jos]

Hi Peter,

Lots of people make statements about mandatory requirements. If they cannot 
tell you where this is written down, you have to question the correctness of 
the claim.
I am not aware of any regulatory requirements for use of USB logo's in Europe. 
The regulations require products to comply, but not to have a mandatory 
certification by a consortium. That being said, the manufacturer need to be 
able to prove compliance (so USB certification may be helpful, but not 
required).

Best regards,

Jos

From: peterh...@aol.com <06cee064502d-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org>
Sent: Monday, September 9, 2024 9:15 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] USB-C cables

Caution: This e-mail originated from outside of Philips, be careful for 
phishing.

Hello group,

Is there a mandatory requirements that all USB-C type cables have to be tested 
and certified and carry USB-IF logo for sale in Europe? If so, where would I 
find the link to this requirements please? I am told by a colleague that this 
is mandatory requirements in EU from next year.

Thank you
Peter


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org



To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1

Re: [PSES] SV: [PSES] SV: [PSES] SV: [PSES] IEC62368-1 - Abnormal condition - Fail

[Ralph McDiarmid]

I concur with the suggestions James has made on this topic.

Ralph

-Original Message-
From: James Pawson (U3C)  
Sent: September 9, 2024 12:21 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] SV: [PSES] SV: [PSES] SV: [PSES] IEC62368-1 - Abnormal 
condition - Fail

Hi Amund,

Throwing in another $0.02...

For CB scheme reports, my experience is that the lab will take a very "black or 
white" approach to the standard. There is often no room for the manufacturer to 
risk assess or carry out additional testing for edge cases. In this case it 
sounds like the lab are taking the "we are not sure what is going on therefore 
fail" even though it might meet the requirements.

To assess the risk, if you have access to a thermal chamber and a hipot tester, 
why not carry out your own measurements of dielectric strength at temperature? 
You could use this to help justify your position? Although the lab is just as 
likely to say no as you are not the manufacturer of the component! 

All the best
James

James Pawson
Managing Director & EMC Problem Solver

Unit 3 Compliance Ltd
EMC : Environmental & Vibration : Electrical Safety : CE & UKCA : Consultancy

www.unit3compliance.co.uk | ja...@unit3compliance.co.uk 
+44(0)1274 911747  |  +44(0)7811 139957
2 Wellington Business Park, New Lane, Bradford, BD4 8AL
Registered in England and Wales # 10574298

Office hours:
Every morning my full attention is on consultancy, testing, and troubleshooting 
activities for our customers’ projects. I’m contactable between 1300h to 1730h 
from Monday to Friday.
For inquiries, bookings, and testing updates please send us an email on 
he...@unit3compliance.co.uk or call 01274 911747. Our lead times for testing 
and consultancy are typically 4-5 weeks.

-Original Message-
From: Ralph McDiarmid  
Sent: Wednesday, September 4, 2024 5:39 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] SV: [PSES] SV: [PSES] SV: [PSES] IEC62368-1 - Abnormal 
condition - Fail

Hi Amund,

The standard I have access to, IEC 62368-1:2018 RLV © IEC 2018, has clause 
4.1.2 Use of Components.  Nowhere in that clause could I find a statement 
supporting what the lab thinks is needed.  The noun "critical component" does 
not appear anywhere in the 2018 version, but I suggest it is a synonym for the 
term "safeguard" defined and used throughout IEC 62368-1.  The lab really 
should be using language and terminology aligned with the standard being 
applied.

In other standards that do include Abnormal Condition tests, component 
temperatures are not a pass/fail criterion in that operating condition.  It 
appears to be so with IEC 62368, but it's not explicit and seems open to 
interpretation.

However, in Normal Condition at +55C ambient it looks like you've got an issue 
with at least one component.   You might need to change the upper end of your 
operating temperature range.  (55C is very high for outdoor equipment.)

Ralph

-Original Message-
From: Amund Westin 
Sent: September 4, 2024 2:56 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] SV: [PSES] SV: [PSES] SV: [PSES] IEC62368-1 - Abnormal 
condition - Fail

Ralph,

“The standard also does not accept that critical components get a temperature 
above what is specified in the test report for that component»“

The lab refer to Clause 4.1.2.
Right now, I don't have access to the standard, so I cant check the text.

Best ragards Amund




On 2024-09-04 09:15, Amund Westin wrote:
> Thanks all for good comments!
> 
> Ralph:
> I'm still waiting for lab feedback on this one :“ The standard also 
> does not accept that critical components get a temperature above what 
> is specified in the test report for that component». “ I have a 
> feeling they will reply : Annex G.5.3.3.2, even though it is not a 
> transformer, but a DC/DC module.
> I'll post the lab feedback when it comes in.
> 
> 
> John W:
> Improvement of ventilation is an option that is under discussion in 
> the R&D now. Trick to do, because of current design.
> 
> 
> We got new information yesterday and I summarize the current situation:
> 1) Abnormal condition: DCDCmodule spec +85C, measured under to be 91C 
> under abnormal condition
> 2) Normal condition: DCDCmodule spec +85C, measured to be 83C under 
> normal condition (+25C ambient)
> 3) Normal condition: DCDCmodule spec +85C, measured to be 88C under 
> normal condition (+55C ambient, spec final product is -40C to +55C))
> 
> 
> Facts:
> DCDCmodule is CB certified (-40C to +85C) DCDCmodule is places inside 
> a fire enclosure DCDCmodule is not accessable / touchable Final 
> product with DCDCmodule have been running in the field +20 years 
> without failure.
> 
> 
> I'll return with more information.
> 
> 
> Best regards Amund
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 2024-09-03 16:52,

Re: [PSES] : IEC 61000-2-4 scope

[James Pawson (U3C)]

Whoops wrong standard!

My brain went into autocorrect.

Thanks to John W for the catch



From: James Pawson (U3C) 
Sent: Monday, September 9, 2024 9:33 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] : IEC 61000-2-4 scope



Hi Ralph



ISO 10605 tends to be used for ESD in automotive. It is still based on the HMM 
generator used in IEC 61000-4-2 but with four different discharge networks and 
slightly different test methods.



You might be able to find an older edition via Google for research purposes.



If the client’s customer has it in their (commercial not legal) procurement 
specification then I wish you luck in trying to argue about applicability!  😊



All the best

James



James Pawson

Managing Director & EMC Problem Solver



Unit 3 Compliance Ltd

EMC : Environmental & Vibration : Electrical Safety : CE & UKCA : Consultancy



 <http://www.unit3compliance.co.uk/> www.unit3compliance.co.uk |  
<mailto:ja...@unit3compliance.co.uk> ja...@unit3compliance.co.uk

+44(0)1274 911747  |  +44(0)7811 139957

2 Wellington Business Park, New Lane, Bradford, BD4 8AL

Registered in England and Wales # 10574298



Office hours:

Every morning my full attention is on consultancy, testing, and troubleshooting 
activities for our customers’ projects. I’m contactable between 1300h to 1730h 
from Monday to Friday.

For inquiries, bookings, and testing updates please send us an email on 
he...@unit3compliance.co.uk <mailto:he...@unit3compliance.co.uk>  or call 01274 
911747. Our lead times for testing and consultancy are typically 4-5 weeks.



From: Charlie Blackham 
Sent: Saturday, September 7, 2024 9:02 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] : IEC 61000-2-4 scope



This standard has nothing to do with generating AC power from an isolated 
source on a vehicle as that is not an “Industrial Location”



Some more information in the preview, 
webstore.iec.ch/en/iec_catalog/product/preview/?id=L3B1Yi9wZGYvcHJldmlldy9pbmZvX2llYzYxMDAwLTItNHtlZDMuMC5STFZ9ZW4ucGRm
 
<https://webstore.iec.ch/en/iec_catalog/product/preview/?id=L3B1Yi9wZGYvcHJldmlldy9pbmZvX2llYzYxMDAwLTItNHtlZDMuMC5STFZ9ZW4ucGRm>

And in this article 
https://comsys.se/our-adf-technology/power-quality-iec-61000/



Best regards

Charlie



Charlie Blackham

Sulis Consultants Ltd

Tel: +44 (0)7946 624317

Web: https://sulisconsultants.com/

Registered in England and Wales, number 05466247



From: Ken Javor mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com> >
Sent: 06 September 2024 22:47
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Subject: Re: [PSES] : IEC 61000-2-4 scope



Don’t have the standard but excerpted the following off a site describing the 
standard.  Pertinent portion underlined.





IEC 61000-2-4:2024

Electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) - Part 2-4: Environment - Compatibility 
levels in power distribution systems in industrial locations for low-frequency 
conducted disturbances



Standard Details

IEC 61000-2-4:2024 is available as IEC 61000-2-4:2024 RLV which contains the 
International Standard and its Redline version, showing all changes of the 
technical content compared to the previous edition.

IEC 61000-2-4:2024 is related to conducted disturbances in the frequency range 
from 0 kHz to 150 kHz. It gives compatibility levels in differential mode (L-L 
and L-N) for industrial locations, with a nominal voltage up to 35 kV and a 
nominal frequency of 50 Hz or 60 Hz.
NOTE 1 Industrial locations are defined in 3.1.8.
Power distribution systems on ships, aircraft, offshore platforms and railways 
are not included.





--



Ken Javor

Ph: (256) 650-5261





From: Ralph McDiarmid mailto:rmm.priv...@gmail.com> >
Reply-To: mailto:rmm.priv...@gmail.com> >
Date: Friday, September 6, 2024 at 1:15 PM
To: mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> >
Subject: Re: [PSES] : IEC 61000-2-4 scope



My turn to ask a question to the group of experts.



Reference:

IEC 61000-2-4:2024

Electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) - Part 2-4: Environment - Compatibility 
levels in power distribution systems in industrial locations for low-frequency 
conducted disturbances



My client would like to know if standard IEC 61000-2-4 is applicable to an 
inverter that is intended for permanent installation in a motor vehicle.  The 
inverter has no connection to a.c. mains and does not have an a.c. input power 
port.  It’s merely a 24Vdc to 230Vac/50Hz inverter.



I think this IEC standard is clearly out of scope for this class of equipment, 
but if client’s customer insists (a big automotive manufacturer) I’d like to be 
able craft a technical justification to waive application of the standard.



The standard appears only to address conducted disturbances which may be 
present on non-public (industrial) a.c. power networks and the EMC immunity of 
equipment connected to those networks.



Thank you,





Ralph



  _

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engin

Re: [PSES] : IEC 61000-2-4 scope

[James Pawson (U3C)]

Hi Ralph



ISO 10605 tends to be used for ESD in automotive. It is still based on the HMM 
generator used in IEC 61000-4-2 but with four different discharge networks and 
slightly different test methods.



You might be able to find an older edition via Google for research purposes.



If the client’s customer has it in their (commercial not legal) procurement 
specification then I wish you luck in trying to argue about applicability!  😊



All the best

James



James Pawson

Managing Director & EMC Problem Solver



Unit 3 Compliance Ltd

EMC : Environmental & Vibration : Electrical Safety : CE & UKCA : Consultancy



 <http://www.unit3compliance.co.uk/> www.unit3compliance.co.uk |  
<mailto:ja...@unit3compliance.co.uk> ja...@unit3compliance.co.uk

+44(0)1274 911747  |  +44(0)7811 139957

2 Wellington Business Park, New Lane, Bradford, BD4 8AL

Registered in England and Wales # 10574298



Office hours:

Every morning my full attention is on consultancy, testing, and troubleshooting 
activities for our customers’ projects. I’m contactable between 1300h to 1730h 
from Monday to Friday.

For inquiries, bookings, and testing updates please send us an email on 
he...@unit3compliance.co.uk <mailto:he...@unit3compliance.co.uk>  or call 01274 
911747. Our lead times for testing and consultancy are typically 4-5 weeks.



From: Charlie Blackham 
Sent: Saturday, September 7, 2024 9:02 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] : IEC 61000-2-4 scope



This standard has nothing to do with generating AC power from an isolated 
source on a vehicle as that is not an “Industrial Location”



Some more information in the preview, 
webstore.iec.ch/en/iec_catalog/product/preview/?id=L3B1Yi9wZGYvcHJldmlldy9pbmZvX2llYzYxMDAwLTItNHtlZDMuMC5STFZ9ZW4ucGRm
 
<https://webstore.iec.ch/en/iec_catalog/product/preview/?id=L3B1Yi9wZGYvcHJldmlldy9pbmZvX2llYzYxMDAwLTItNHtlZDMuMC5STFZ9ZW4ucGRm>

And in this article 
https://comsys.se/our-adf-technology/power-quality-iec-61000/



Best regards

Charlie



Charlie Blackham

Sulis Consultants Ltd

Tel: +44 (0)7946 624317

Web: https://sulisconsultants.com/

Registered in England and Wales, number 05466247



From: Ken Javor mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com> >
Sent: 06 September 2024 22:47
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Subject: Re: [PSES] : IEC 61000-2-4 scope



Don’t have the standard but excerpted the following off a site describing the 
standard.  Pertinent portion underlined.





IEC 61000-2-4:2024

Electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) - Part 2-4: Environment - Compatibility 
levels in power distribution systems in industrial locations for low-frequency 
conducted disturbances



Standard Details

IEC 61000-2-4:2024 is available as IEC 61000-2-4:2024 RLV which contains the 
International Standard and its Redline version, showing all changes of the 
technical content compared to the previous edition.

IEC 61000-2-4:2024 is related to conducted disturbances in the frequency range 
from 0 kHz to 150 kHz. It gives compatibility levels in differential mode (L-L 
and L-N) for industrial locations, with a nominal voltage up to 35 kV and a 
nominal frequency of 50 Hz or 60 Hz.
NOTE 1 Industrial locations are defined in 3.1.8.
Power distribution systems on ships, aircraft, offshore platforms and railways 
are not included.





--



Ken Javor

Ph: (256) 650-5261





From: Ralph McDiarmid mailto:rmm.priv...@gmail.com> >
Reply-To: mailto:rmm.priv...@gmail.com> >
Date: Friday, September 6, 2024 at 1:15 PM
To: mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> >
Subject: Re: [PSES] : IEC 61000-2-4 scope



My turn to ask a question to the group of experts.



Reference:

IEC 61000-2-4:2024

Electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) - Part 2-4: Environment - Compatibility 
levels in power distribution systems in industrial locations for low-frequency 
conducted disturbances



My client would like to know if standard IEC 61000-2-4 is applicable to an 
inverter that is intended for permanent installation in a motor vehicle.  The 
inverter has no connection to a.c. mains and does not have an a.c. input power 
port.  It’s merely a 24Vdc to 230Vac/50Hz inverter.



I think this IEC standard is clearly out of scope for this class of equipment, 
but if client’s customer insists (a big automotive manufacturer) I’d like to be 
able craft a technical justification to waive application of the standard.



The standard appears only to address conducted disturbances which may be 
present on non-public (industrial) a.c. power networks and the EMC immunity of 
equipment connected to those networks.



Thank you,





Ralph



  _

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
htt

Re: [PSES] SV: [PSES] SV: [PSES] SV: [PSES] IEC62368-1 - Abnormal condition - Fail

[James Pawson (U3C)]

Hi Amund,

Throwing in another $0.02...

For CB scheme reports, my experience is that the lab will take a very "black or 
white" approach to the standard. There is often no room for the manufacturer to 
risk assess or carry out additional testing for edge cases. In this case it 
sounds like the lab are taking the "we are not sure what is going on therefore 
fail" even though it might meet the requirements.

To assess the risk, if you have access to a thermal chamber and a hipot tester, 
why not carry out your own measurements of dielectric strength at temperature? 
You could use this to help justify your position? Although the lab is just as 
likely to say no as you are not the manufacturer of the component!

All the best
James

James Pawson
Managing Director & EMC Problem Solver

Unit 3 Compliance Ltd
EMC : Environmental & Vibration : Electrical Safety : CE & UKCA : Consultancy

www.unit3compliance.co.uk | ja...@unit3compliance.co.uk
+44(0)1274 911747  |  +44(0)7811 139957
2 Wellington Business Park, New Lane, Bradford, BD4 8AL
Registered in England and Wales # 10574298

Office hours:
Every morning my full attention is on consultancy, testing, and troubleshooting 
activities for our customers’ projects. I’m contactable between 1300h to 1730h 
from Monday to Friday.
For inquiries, bookings, and testing updates please send us an email on 
he...@unit3compliance.co.uk or call 01274 911747. Our lead times for testing 
and consultancy are typically 4-5 weeks.

-Original Message-
From: Ralph McDiarmid 
Sent: Wednesday, September 4, 2024 5:39 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] SV: [PSES] SV: [PSES] SV: [PSES] IEC62368-1 - Abnormal 
condition - Fail

Hi Amund,

The standard I have access to, IEC 62368-1:2018 RLV © IEC 2018, has clause 
4.1.2 Use of Components.  Nowhere in that clause could I find a statement 
supporting what the lab thinks is needed.  The noun "critical component" does 
not appear anywhere in the 2018 version, but I suggest it is a synonym for the 
term "safeguard" defined and used throughout IEC 62368-1.  The lab really 
should be using language and terminology aligned with the standard being 
applied.

In other standards that do include Abnormal Condition tests, component 
temperatures are not a pass/fail criterion in that operating condition.  It 
appears to be so with IEC 62368, but it's not explicit and seems open to 
interpretation.

However, in Normal Condition at +55C ambient it looks like you've got an issue 
with at least one component.   You might need to change the upper end of your 
operating temperature range.  (55C is very high for outdoor equipment.)

Ralph

-Original Message-
From: Amund Westin 
Sent: September 4, 2024 2:56 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] SV: [PSES] SV: [PSES] SV: [PSES] IEC62368-1 - Abnormal 
condition - Fail

Ralph,

“The standard also does not accept that critical components get a temperature 
above what is specified in the test report for that component»“

The lab refer to Clause 4.1.2.
Right now, I don't have access to the standard, so I cant check the text.

Best ragards Amund




On 2024-09-04 09:15, Amund Westin wrote:
> Thanks all for good comments!
>
> Ralph:
> I'm still waiting for lab feedback on this one :“ The standard also
> does not accept that critical components get a temperature above what
> is specified in the test report for that component». “ I have a
> feeling they will reply : Annex G.5.3.3.2, even though it is not a
> transformer, but a DC/DC module.
> I'll post the lab feedback when it comes in.
>
>
> John W:
> Improvement of ventilation is an option that is under discussion in
> the R&D now. Trick to do, because of current design.
>
>
> We got new information yesterday and I summarize the current situation:
> 1) Abnormal condition: DCDCmodule spec +85C, measured under to be 91C
> under abnormal condition
> 2) Normal condition: DCDCmodule spec +85C, measured to be 83C under
> normal condition (+25C ambient)
> 3) Normal condition: DCDCmodule spec +85C, measured to be 88C under
> normal condition (+55C ambient, spec final product is -40C to +55C))
>
>
> Facts:
> DCDCmodule is CB certified (-40C to +85C) DCDCmodule is places inside
> a fire enclosure DCDCmodule is not accessable / touchable Final
> product with DCDCmodule have been running in the field +20 years
> without failure.
>
>
> I'll return with more information.
>
>
> Best regards Amund
>
>
>
>
> On 2024-09-03 16:52, Ralph McDiarmid wrote:
>> Perhaps Amund could ask the lab which clause in IEC 62368 supports
>> their statement, “ _The standard also does not accept that critical
>> components get a temperature above what is specified in the test
>> report for that component». “_
>>
>>

Re: [PSES] : IEC 61000-2-4 scope

[Charlie Blackham]

This standard has nothing to do with generating AC power from an isolated 
source on a vehicle as that is not an “Industrial Location”

Some more information in the preview, 
webstore.iec.ch/en/iec_catalog/product/preview/?id=L3B1Yi9wZGYvcHJldmlldy9pbmZvX2llYzYxMDAwLTItNHtlZDMuMC5STFZ9ZW4ucGRm<https://webstore.iec.ch/en/iec_catalog/product/preview/?id=L3B1Yi9wZGYvcHJldmlldy9pbmZvX2llYzYxMDAwLTItNHtlZDMuMC5STFZ9ZW4ucGRm>
And in this article 
https://comsys.se/our-adf-technology/power-quality-iec-61000/

Best regards
Charlie

Charlie Blackham
Sulis Consultants Ltd
Tel: +44 (0)7946 624317
Web: https://sulisconsultants.com/
Registered in England and Wales, number 05466247

From: Ken Javor 
Sent: 06 September 2024 22:47
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] : IEC 61000-2-4 scope

Don’t have the standard but excerpted the following off a site describing the 
standard.  Pertinent portion underlined.


IEC 61000-2-4:2024
Electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) - Part 2-4: Environment - Compatibility 
levels in power distribution systems in industrial locations for low-frequency 
conducted disturbances

Standard Details
IEC 61000-2-4:2024 is available as IEC 61000-2-4:2024 RLV which contains the 
International Standard and its Redline version, showing all changes of the 
technical content compared to the previous edition.

IEC 61000-2-4:2024 is related to conducted disturbances in the frequency range 
from 0 kHz to 150 kHz. It gives compatibility levels in differential mode (L-L 
and L-N) for industrial locations, with a nominal voltage up to 35 kV and a 
nominal frequency of 50 Hz or 60 Hz.
NOTE 1 Industrial locations are defined in 3.1.8.
Power distribution systems on ships, aircraft, offshore platforms and railways 
are not included.


--

Ken Javor
Ph: (256) 650-5261


From: Ralph McDiarmid mailto:rmm.priv...@gmail.com>>
Reply-To: mailto:rmm.priv...@gmail.com>>
Date: Friday, September 6, 2024 at 1:15 PM
To: mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>>
Subject: Re: [PSES] : IEC 61000-2-4 scope

My turn to ask a question to the group of experts.

Reference:
IEC 61000-2-4:2024
Electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) - Part 2-4: Environment - Compatibility 
levels in power distribution systems in industrial locations for low-frequency 
conducted disturbances

My client would like to know if standard IEC 61000-2-4 is applicable to an 
inverter that is intended for permanent installation in a motor vehicle.  The 
inverter has no connection to a.c. mains and does not have an a.c. input power 
port.  It’s merely a 24Vdc to 230Vac/50Hz inverter.

I think this IEC standard is clearly out of scope for this class of equipment, 
but if client’s customer insists (a big automotive manufacturer) I’d like to be 
able craft a technical justification to waive application of the standard.

The standard appears only to address conducted disturbances which may be 
present on non-public (industrial) a.c. power networks and the EMC immunity of 
equipment connected to those networks.

Thank you,


Ralph



This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/<https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/%20>

Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)<https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html>
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net<mailto:msherma...@comcast.net>
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org<mailto:linf...@ieee.org>

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org<mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org>



To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1



This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/<https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/%20>

Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)<https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html>
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net<mailto:msherma...@comcast.net>
Rick Linford at: linf...@iee

Re: [PSES] : IEC 61000-2-4 scope

[Ken Javor]

Don’t have the standard but excerpted the following off a site describing the 
standard.  Pertinent portion underlined.

 

 

IEC 61000-2-4:2024

Electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) - Part 2-4: Environment - Compatibility 
levels in power distribution systems in industrial locations for low-frequency 
conducted disturbances

 

Standard Details

IEC 61000-2-4:2024 is available as IEC 61000-2-4:2024 RLV which contains the 
International Standard and its Redline version, showing all changes of the 
technical content compared to the previous edition.

IEC 61000-2-4:2024 is related to conducted disturbances in the frequency range 
from 0 kHz to 150 kHz. It gives compatibility levels in differential mode (L-L 
and L-N) for industrial locations, with a nominal voltage up to 35 kV and a 
nominal frequency of 50 Hz or 60 Hz.
NOTE 1 Industrial locations are defined in 3.1.8.
Power distribution systems on ships, aircraft, offshore platforms and railways 
are not included.

 

 

-- 

 

Ken Javor

Ph: (256) 650-5261

 

 

From: Ralph McDiarmid 
Reply-To: 
Date: Friday, September 6, 2024 at 1:15 PM
To: 
Subject: Re: [PSES] : IEC 61000-2-4 scope

 

My turn to ask a question to the group of experts.

 

Reference:

IEC 61000-2-4:2024

Electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) - Part 2-4: Environment - Compatibility 
levels in power distribution systems in industrial locations for low-frequency 
conducted disturbances

 

My client would like to know if standard IEC 61000-2-4 is applicable to an 
inverter that is intended for permanent installation in a motor vehicle.  The 
inverter has no connection to a.c. mains and does not have an a.c. input power 
port.  It’s merely a 24Vdc to 230Vac/50Hz inverter.

 

I think this IEC standard is clearly out of scope for this class of equipment, 
but if client’s customer insists (a big automotive manufacturer) I’d like to be 
able craft a technical justification to waive application of the standard.

 

The standard appears only to address conducted disturbances which may be 
present on non-public (industrial) a.c. power networks and the EMC immunity of 
equipment connected to those networks.

 

Thank you,

 

 

Ralph

 

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG 

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/ 

Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/ 
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html 

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org 

To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1 


-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1

Re: [PSES] : IEC 61000-2-4 scope

[Ralph McDiarmid]

Thanks Karen.  Your list of general requirements is very close to what I 
suggested to my client some time ago, but their customer ( a large automotive 
manufacturer) seems to have other ideas.  They are currently negotiating a list 
of EMC requirements for the inverter.

 

Ralph

 

From: Karen Burnham  
Sent: September 6, 2024 11:19 AM
To: rmm.priv...@gmail.com
Cc: EMC-PSTC@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: Re: [PSES] : IEC 61000-2-4 scope

 

Usually a component going onto a vehicle would meet automotive standards: CISPR 
25, ISO 11452, ECE Reg 10, depending on customer, market, etc. 


Best,

-=-Karen Burnham

President and Chief EMC Engineer, NCE

EMC United, Inc.

www.emcunited.com <http://www.emcunited.com> 

 

 

On Fri, Sep 6, 2024 at 12:15 PM Ralph McDiarmid mailto:rmm.priv...@gmail.com> > wrote:

My turn to ask a question to the group of experts.

 

Reference:

IEC 61000-2-4:2024

Electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) - Part 2-4: Environment - Compatibility 
levels in power distribution systems in industrial locations for low-frequency 
conducted disturbances

 

My client would like to know if standard IEC 61000-2-4 is applicable to an 
inverter that is intended for permanent installation in a motor vehicle.  The 
inverter has no connection to a.c. mains and does not have an a.c. input power 
port.  It’s merely a 24Vdc to 230Vac/50Hz inverter.

 

I think this IEC standard is clearly out of scope for this class of equipment, 
but if client’s customer insists (a big automotive manufacturer) I’d like to be 
able craft a technical justification to waive application of the standard.

 

The standard appears only to address conducted disturbances which may be 
present on non-public (industrial) a.c. power networks and the EMC immunity of 
equipment connected to those networks.

 

Thank you,

 

 

Ralph

 


  _  


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>  

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/ 

Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/  <https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/> 
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe) <https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html> 
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html 

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net <mailto:msherma...@comcast.net> 
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org <mailto:linf...@ieee.org>  

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org <mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org>  


  _  


To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC 
<https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1> &A=1 


-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1

Re: [PSES] : IEC 61000-2-4 scope

[Karen Burnham]

Usually a component going onto a vehicle would meet automotive standards:
CISPR 25, ISO 11452, ECE Reg 10, depending on customer, market, etc.

Best,

-=-Karen Burnham
President and Chief EMC Engineer, NCE
EMC United, Inc.
www.emcunited.com


On Fri, Sep 6, 2024 at 12:15 PM Ralph McDiarmid 
wrote:

> My turn to ask a question to the group of experts.
>
>
>
> Reference:
>
> *IEC 61000-2-4:2024*
>
> *Electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) - Part 2-4: Environment -
> Compatibility levels in power distribution systems in industrial locations
> for low-frequency conducted disturbances*
>
>
>
> My client would like to know if standard IEC 61000-2-4 is applicable to an
> inverter that is intended for permanent installation in a motor vehicle.
> The inverter has no connection to a.c. mains and does not have an a.c.
> input power port.  It’s merely a 24Vdc to 230Vac/50Hz inverter.
>
>
>
> I think this IEC standard is clearly out of scope for this class of
> equipment, but if client’s customer insists (a big automotive manufacturer)
> I’d like to be able craft a technical justification to waive application of
> the standard.
>
>
>
> The standard appears only to address conducted disturbances which may be
> present on non-public (industrial) a.c. power networks and the EMC immunity
> of equipment connected to those networks.
>
>
>
> Thank you,
>
>
>
>
>
> Ralph
>
>
> --
>
> This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
> discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to
> EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
> https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/
>
> Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
> Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to
> unsubscribe) 
> List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html
>
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
> Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
> Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org
>
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org
> --
>
> To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link:
> https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1
>

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1

Re: [PSES] : IEC 61000-2-4 scope

[Ralph McDiarmid]

My turn to ask a question to the group of experts.

 

Reference:

IEC 61000-2-4:2024

Electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) - Part 2-4: Environment - Compatibility 
levels in power distribution systems in industrial locations for low-frequency 
conducted disturbances

 

My client would like to know if standard IEC 61000-2-4 is applicable to an 
inverter that is intended for permanent installation in a motor vehicle.  The 
inverter has no connection to a.c. mains and does not have an a.c. input power 
port.  It’s merely a 24Vdc to 230Vac/50Hz inverter.

 

I think this IEC standard is clearly out of scope for this class of equipment, 
but if client’s customer insists (a big automotive manufacturer) I’d like to be 
able craft a technical justification to waive application of the standard.

 

The standard appears only to address conducted disturbances which may be 
present on non-public (industrial) a.c. power networks and the EMC immunity of 
equipment connected to those networks.

 

Thank you,

 

 

Ralph

 


-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1

Re: [PSES] [PSES] SV: [PSES] SV: [PSES] IEC62368-1 - Abnormal condition - Fail

[sudhakar wasnik]

In this cacophony of opinions and interpretations , didn’t see any NRTL (like 
UL, TUV, CSA etc)  experts statements on the rational of test and compliance 
criteria … 


> On Sep 4, 2024, at 9:38 AM, Ralph McDiarmid  wrote:
> 
> Hi Amund,
> 
> The standard I have access to, IEC 62368-1:2018 RLV © IEC 2018, has clause 
> 4.1.2 Use of Components.  Nowhere in that clause could I find a statement 
> supporting what the lab thinks is needed.  The noun "critical component" does 
> not appear anywhere in the 2018 version, but I suggest it is a synonym for 
> the term "safeguard" defined and used throughout IEC 62368-1.  The lab really 
> should be using language and terminology aligned with the standard being 
> applied.
> 
> In other standards that do include Abnormal Condition tests, component 
> temperatures are not a pass/fail criterion in that operating condition.  It 
> appears to be so with IEC 62368, but it's not explicit and seems open to 
> interpretation.
> 
> However, in Normal Condition at +55C ambient it looks like you've got an 
> issue with at least one component.   You might need to change the upper end 
> of your operating temperature range.  (55C is very high for outdoor 
> equipment.)
> 
> Ralph
> 
> -Original Message-----
> From: Amund Westin  
> Sent: September 4, 2024 2:56 AM
> To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: Re: [PSES] SV: [PSES] SV: [PSES] SV: [PSES] IEC62368-1 - Abnormal 
> condition - Fail
> 
> Ralph,
> 
> “The standard also does not accept that critical components get a 
> temperature above what is specified in the test report for that 
> component»“
> 
> The lab refer to Clause 4.1.2.
> Right now, I don't have access to the standard, so I cant check the 
> text.
> 
> Best ragards Amund
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 2024-09-04 09:15, Amund Westin wrote:
>> Thanks all for good comments!
>> 
>> Ralph:
>> I'm still waiting for lab feedback on this one :“ The standard also 
>> does not accept that critical components get a temperature above what 
>> is specified in the test report for that component». “
>> I have a feeling they will reply : Annex G.5.3.3.2, even though it is 
>> not a transformer, but a DC/DC module.
>> I'll post the lab feedback when it comes in.
>> 
>> 
>> John W:
>> Improvement of ventilation is an option that is under discussion in the 
>> R&D now. Trick to do, because of current design.
>> 
>> 
>> We got new information yesterday and I summarize the current situation:
>> 1) Abnormal condition: DCDCmodule spec +85C, measured under to be 91C 
>> under abnormal condition
>> 2) Normal condition: DCDCmodule spec +85C, measured to be 83C under 
>> normal condition (+25C ambient)
>> 3) Normal condition: DCDCmodule spec +85C, measured to be 88C under 
>> normal condition (+55C ambient, spec final product is -40C to +55C))
>> 
>> 
>> Facts:
>> DCDCmodule is CB certified (-40C to +85C)
>> DCDCmodule is places inside a fire enclosure
>> DCDCmodule is not accessable / touchable
>> Final product with DCDCmodule have been running in the field +20 years 
>> without failure.
>> 
>> 
>> I'll return with more information.
>> 
>> 
>> Best regards Amund
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 2024-09-03 16:52, Ralph McDiarmid wrote:
>>> Perhaps Amund could ask the lab which clause in IEC 62368 supports
>>> their statement, “ _The standard also does not accept that critical
>>> components get a temperature above what is specified in the test
>>> report for that component». “_
>>> 
>>> _ _
>>> 
>>> This is an Abnormal Condition and safeguard parameters, which include
>>> rated temperature, are not subject to the same constraints imposed
>>> during Normal Condition.
>>> 
>>> _ _
>>> 
>>> I suggest there are two problems here. One is that the lab seems to
>>> misunderstand Abnormal Condition and the other is terminology like
>>> _Basic Safeguard Parameters_ and _Supplementary Safeguard Parameters_
>>> used in Figure 45 do not seem to be defined anywhere.
>>> 
>>> _ _
>>> 
>>> _Ralph_
>>> 
>>> From: Richard Nute 
>>> Sent: Monday, September 2, 2024 12:54 PM
>>> To: rmm.priv...@gmail.com; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
>>> Subject: RE: [PSES] SV: [PSES] SV: [PSES] SV: [PSES] IEC62368-1 -
>>> Abnormal condition - Fail
>>> 
>>> Further to Ralph’s comments… and with thanks to Amund…
>>> 
>>> Sinc

Re: [PSES] SV: [PSES] SV: [PSES] SV: [PSES] IEC62368-1 - Abnormal condition - Fail

[Ralph McDiarmid]

Hi Amund,

The standard I have access to, IEC 62368-1:2018 RLV © IEC 2018, has clause 
4.1.2 Use of Components.  Nowhere in that clause could I find a statement 
supporting what the lab thinks is needed.  The noun "critical component" does 
not appear anywhere in the 2018 version, but I suggest it is a synonym for the 
term "safeguard" defined and used throughout IEC 62368-1.  The lab really 
should be using language and terminology aligned with the standard being 
applied.

In other standards that do include Abnormal Condition tests, component 
temperatures are not a pass/fail criterion in that operating condition.  It 
appears to be so with IEC 62368, but it's not explicit and seems open to 
interpretation.

However, in Normal Condition at +55C ambient it looks like you've got an issue 
with at least one component.   You might need to change the upper end of your 
operating temperature range.  (55C is very high for outdoor equipment.)

Ralph

-Original Message-
From: Amund Westin  
Sent: September 4, 2024 2:56 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] SV: [PSES] SV: [PSES] SV: [PSES] IEC62368-1 - Abnormal 
condition - Fail

Ralph,

“The standard also does not accept that critical components get a 
temperature above what is specified in the test report for that 
component»“

The lab refer to Clause 4.1.2.
Right now, I don't have access to the standard, so I cant check the 
text.

Best ragards Amund




On 2024-09-04 09:15, Amund Westin wrote:
> Thanks all for good comments!
> 
> Ralph:
> I'm still waiting for lab feedback on this one :“ The standard also 
> does not accept that critical components get a temperature above what 
> is specified in the test report for that component». “
> I have a feeling they will reply : Annex G.5.3.3.2, even though it is 
> not a transformer, but a DC/DC module.
> I'll post the lab feedback when it comes in.
> 
> 
> John W:
> Improvement of ventilation is an option that is under discussion in the 
> R&D now. Trick to do, because of current design.
> 
> 
> We got new information yesterday and I summarize the current situation:
> 1) Abnormal condition: DCDCmodule spec +85C, measured under to be 91C 
> under abnormal condition
> 2) Normal condition: DCDCmodule spec +85C, measured to be 83C under 
> normal condition (+25C ambient)
> 3) Normal condition: DCDCmodule spec +85C, measured to be 88C under 
> normal condition (+55C ambient, spec final product is -40C to +55C))
> 
> 
> Facts:
> DCDCmodule is CB certified (-40C to +85C)
> DCDCmodule is places inside a fire enclosure
> DCDCmodule is not accessable / touchable
> Final product with DCDCmodule have been running in the field +20 years 
> without failure.
> 
> 
> I'll return with more information.
> 
> 
> Best regards Amund
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 2024-09-03 16:52, Ralph McDiarmid wrote:
>> Perhaps Amund could ask the lab which clause in IEC 62368 supports
>> their statement, “ _The standard also does not accept that critical
>> components get a temperature above what is specified in the test
>> report for that component». “_
>> 
>> _ _
>> 
>> This is an Abnormal Condition and safeguard parameters, which include
>> rated temperature, are not subject to the same constraints imposed
>> during Normal Condition.
>> 
>> _ _
>> 
>> I suggest there are two problems here. One is that the lab seems to
>> misunderstand Abnormal Condition and the other is terminology like
>> _Basic Safeguard Parameters_ and _Supplementary Safeguard Parameters_
>> used in Figure 45 do not seem to be defined anywhere.
>> 
>> _ _
>> 
>> _Ralph_
>> 
>> From: Richard Nute 
>> Sent: Monday, September 2, 2024 12:54 PM
>> To: rmm.priv...@gmail.com; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
>> Subject: RE: [PSES] SV: [PSES] SV: [PSES] SV: [PSES] IEC62368-1 -
>> Abnormal condition - Fail
>> 
>> Further to Ralph’s comments… and with thanks to Amund…
>> 
>> Since the lab has its own interpretation of “abnormal” different
>> than that of 62368-2, the lab needs to make its position on
>> “abnormal” conditions known and apply to TC108 for consideration
>> of a change to 62368-2.
>> 
>> Or, Amund can forward the lab’s interpretation directly to TC108,
>> although this will probably go to the interpretation panel.
>> 
>> Rich
>> 
>> ps:  The lab’s response does make sense – sort of.  It is filled
>> with “what ifs” that I have some doubt that the assertions are
>> from the lab’s experience.  For example, for the exterior of the
>> module to reach 85 C, the interior has to be hotter (maybe much
>> hotter) and may exceed solid i

Re: [PSES] SV: [PSES] SV: [PSES] SV: [PSES] IEC62368-1 - Abnormal condition - Fail

[Amund Westin]

Ralph,

“The standard also does not accept that critical components get a 
temperature above what is specified in the test report for that 
component»“


The lab refer to Clause 4.1.2.
Right now, I don't have access to the standard, so I cant check the 
text.


Best ragards Amund




On 2024-09-04 09:15, Amund Westin wrote:

Thanks all for good comments!

Ralph:
I'm still waiting for lab feedback on this one :“ The standard also 
does not accept that critical components get a temperature above what 
is specified in the test report for that component». “
I have a feeling they will reply : Annex G.5.3.3.2, even though it is 
not a transformer, but a DC/DC module.

I'll post the lab feedback when it comes in.


John W:
Improvement of ventilation is an option that is under discussion in the 
R&D now. Trick to do, because of current design.



We got new information yesterday and I summarize the current situation:
1) Abnormal condition: DCDCmodule spec +85C, measured under to be 91C 
under abnormal condition
2) Normal condition: DCDCmodule spec +85C, measured to be 83C under 
normal condition (+25C ambient)
3) Normal condition: DCDCmodule spec +85C, measured to be 88C under 
normal condition (+55C ambient, spec final product is -40C to +55C))



Facts:
DCDCmodule is CB certified (-40C to +85C)
DCDCmodule is places inside a fire enclosure
DCDCmodule is not accessable / touchable
Final product with DCDCmodule have been running in the field +20 years 
without failure.



I'll return with more information.


Best regards Amund




On 2024-09-03 16:52, Ralph McDiarmid wrote:

Perhaps Amund could ask the lab which clause in IEC 62368 supports
their statement, “ _The standard also does not accept that critical
components get a temperature above what is specified in the test
report for that component». “_

_ _

This is an Abnormal Condition and safeguard parameters, which include
rated temperature, are not subject to the same constraints imposed
during Normal Condition.

_ _

I suggest there are two problems here. One is that the lab seems to
misunderstand Abnormal Condition and the other is terminology like
_Basic Safeguard Parameters_ and _Supplementary Safeguard Parameters_
used in Figure 45 do not seem to be defined anywhere.

_ _

_Ralph_

From: Richard Nute 
Sent: Monday, September 2, 2024 12:54 PM
To: rmm.priv...@gmail.com; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: [PSES] SV: [PSES] SV: [PSES] SV: [PSES] IEC62368-1 -
Abnormal condition - Fail

Further to Ralph’s comments… and with thanks to Amund…

Since the lab has its own interpretation of “abnormal” different
than that of 62368-2, the lab needs to make its position on
“abnormal” conditions known and apply to TC108 for consideration
of a change to 62368-2.

Or, Amund can forward the lab’s interpretation directly to TC108,
although this will probably go to the interpretation panel.

Rich

ps:  The lab’s response does make sense – sort of.  It is filled
with “what ifs” that I have some doubt that the assertions are
from the lab’s experience.  For example, for the exterior of the
module to reach 85 C, the interior has to be hotter (maybe much
hotter) and may exceed solid insulation rated temperature. We and the
lab don’t know, but at  85 C, we (us) assume the interior solid
insulation (and other safeguards) does not exceed its rating (which
must be greater than 85 C).

Another statement that creates doubt for me is that “_also lead to
other dangers such as mains voltage being absorbed_.”  The lab does
not know what the “_other dangers_” are, and leaves us up in the
air about what is “_mains voltage being absorbed_…”  Absorbed by
what?

rn

From: Ralph McDiarmid 
Sent: Monday, September 2, 2024 9:52 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] SV: [PSES] SV: [PSES] SV: [PSES] IEC62368-1 -
Abnormal condition - Fail

To add to what Charlie has mentioned, the integrity of a _safeguard_,
like protective separation, can be verified at the end of the Abnormal
with a dielectric test.  A satisfactory result would indicate that the
_safeguard_ remains effective.  The standard states that _safeguard_
parameters, like rated temperature, can be exceeded during an abnormal
test.

If your lab doesn’t agree with any of this, I suggest you check to
see if they are accredited to perform test and evaluation for IEC
62368.   The lab may not be able to comprehend and interpret a complex
standard like 62368.

Ralph

From: Charlie Blackham 
Sent: Monday, September 2, 2024 1:28 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] SV: [PSES] SV: [PSES] SV: [PSES] IEC62368-1 -
Abnormal condition - Fail

Amund

A safety critical component rated at 85C is rated to run safely at
that temperature for the life of the product.

The temperature is only exceeded under an abnormal condition, which by
definition is not a normal operating condition:

3.3.7.1

abnormal operating condition

temporary operating condition that is not a normal operating condition
a

Re: [PSES] SV: [PSES] SV: [PSES] SV: [PSES] IEC62368-1 - Abnormal condition - Fail

[Amund Westin]

Thanks all for good comments!

Ralph:
I'm still waiting for lab feedback on this one :“ The standard also does 
not accept that critical components get a temperature above what is 
specified in the test report for that component». “
I have a feeling they will reply : Annex G.5.3.3.2, even though it is 
not a transformer, but a DC/DC module.

I'll post the lab feedback when it comes in.


John W:
Improvement of ventilation is an option that is under discussion in the 
R&D now. Trick to do, because of current design.



We got new information yesterday and I summarize the current situation:
1) Abnormal condition: DCDCmodule spec +85C, measured under to be 91C 
under abnormal condition
2) Normal condition: DCDCmodule spec +85C, measured to be 83C under 
normal condition (+25C ambient)
3) Normal condition: DCDCmodule spec +85C, measured to be 88C under 
normal condition (+55C ambient, spec final product is -40C to +55C))



Facts:
DCDCmodule is CB certified (-40C to +85C)
DCDCmodule is places inside a fire enclosure
DCDCmodule is not accessable / touchable
Final product with DCDCmodule have been running in the field +20 years 
without failure.



I'll return with more information.


Best regards Amund




On 2024-09-03 16:52, Ralph McDiarmid wrote:

Perhaps Amund could ask the lab which clause in IEC 62368 supports
their statement, “ _The standard also does not accept that critical
components get a temperature above what is specified in the test
report for that component». “_

_ _

This is an Abnormal Condition and safeguard parameters, which include
rated temperature, are not subject to the same constraints imposed
during Normal Condition.

_ _

I suggest there are two problems here. One is that the lab seems to
misunderstand Abnormal Condition and the other is terminology like
_Basic Safeguard Parameters_ and _Supplementary Safeguard Parameters_
used in Figure 45 do not seem to be defined anywhere.

_ _

_Ralph_

From: Richard Nute 
Sent: Monday, September 2, 2024 12:54 PM
To: rmm.priv...@gmail.com; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: [PSES] SV: [PSES] SV: [PSES] SV: [PSES] IEC62368-1 -
Abnormal condition - Fail

Further to Ralph’s comments… and with thanks to Amund…

Since the lab has its own interpretation of “abnormal” different
than that of 62368-2, the lab needs to make its position on
“abnormal” conditions known and apply to TC108 for consideration
of a change to 62368-2.

Or, Amund can forward the lab’s interpretation directly to TC108,
although this will probably go to the interpretation panel.

Rich

ps:  The lab’s response does make sense – sort of.  It is filled
with “what ifs” that I have some doubt that the assertions are
from the lab’s experience.  For example, for the exterior of the
module to reach 85 C, the interior has to be hotter (maybe much
hotter) and may exceed solid insulation rated temperature. We and the
lab don’t know, but at  85 C, we (us) assume the interior solid
insulation (and other safeguards) does not exceed its rating (which
must be greater than 85 C).

Another statement that creates doubt for me is that “_also lead to
other dangers such as mains voltage being absorbed_.”  The lab does
not know what the “_other dangers_” are, and leaves us up in the
air about what is “_mains voltage being absorbed_…”  Absorbed by
what?

rn

From: Ralph McDiarmid 
Sent: Monday, September 2, 2024 9:52 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] SV: [PSES] SV: [PSES] SV: [PSES] IEC62368-1 -
Abnormal condition - Fail

To add to what Charlie has mentioned, the integrity of a _safeguard_,
like protective separation, can be verified at the end of the Abnormal
with a dielectric test.  A satisfactory result would indicate that the
_safeguard_ remains effective.  The standard states that _safeguard_
parameters, like rated temperature, can be exceeded during an abnormal
test.

If your lab doesn’t agree with any of this, I suggest you check to
see if they are accredited to perform test and evaluation for IEC
62368.   The lab may not be able to comprehend and interpret a complex
standard like 62368.

Ralph

From: Charlie Blackham 
Sent: Monday, September 2, 2024 1:28 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] SV: [PSES] SV: [PSES] SV: [PSES] IEC62368-1 -
Abnormal condition - Fail

Amund

A safety critical component rated at 85C is rated to run safely at
that temperature for the life of the product.

The temperature is only exceeded under an abnormal condition, which by
definition is not a normal operating condition:

3.3.7.1

abnormal operating condition

temporary operating condition that is not a normal operating condition
and is not a single fault condition of the equipment itself

a component providing ES3 to ES1 isolation has double or reinforced
insulation, so remains safe even in a single fault condition, which
we’re not assessing here.

It looks like the lab doesn’t properly understand clauses B.3 and
B.4 and I’ve never seen a competent lab use “ba

Re: [PSES] SV: [PSES] SV: [PSES] SV: [PSES] IEC62368-1 - Abnormal condition - Fail

[Ralph McDiarmid]

 

From: John Woodgate  
Sent: Monday, September 2, 2024 1:10 PM
To: rmm.priv...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PSES] SV: [PSES] SV: [PSES] SV: [PSES] IEC62368-1 - Abnormal 
condition - Fail

 

You may well be right, but others can reject, or fail to see, an implication. 
Maybe Rich Nute knows what the authors meant in this context.

On 2024-09-02 20:42, rmm.priv...@gmail.com <mailto:rmm.priv...@gmail.com>  
wrote:

Sloppy wording on my part. I should have written, “The standard implies that 
safeguard parameters, like rated temperature, can be exceeded during an 
Abnormal Condition because no temperature limits are provided other than those 
in Table 38 for accessible parts.”   B.3.2  Ventilation Openings refers only to 
Table 38.

 

Ralph

 

 

From: John Woodgate  <mailto:j...@woodjohn.uk>  
Sent: Monday, September 2, 2024 12:17 PM
To: rmm.priv...@gmail.com <mailto:rmm.priv...@gmail.com> 
Subject: Re: [PSES] SV: [PSES] SV: [PSES] SV: [PSES] IEC62368-1 - Abnormal 
condition - Fail

 

The 2024 edition of B.3.8 is the same, but the words below do not appear and It 
does not see easy to deduce that statement from the standard's words.

On 2024-09-02 20:04, rmm.priv...@gmail.com <mailto:rmm.priv...@gmail.com>  
wrote:

The standard states that safeguard parameters, like rated temperature, can be 
exceeded during an abnormal test.

-- 
OOO - Own Opinions Only
Best Wishes
John Woodgate
Keep trying

 


 
<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
 

Virus-free. 
<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
 www.avg.com

 

-- 
OOO - Own Opinions Only
Best Wishes
John Woodgate
Keep trying

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1

Re: [PSES] [PSES] IEC62368-1 - Abnormal condition - Fail

[Ralph McDiarmid]

Yes, of course, but the SOD (standards development organizations) like UL, 
ANSI, CSA, and IEC, work closely with the manufacturer of those components to 
establish useful limits.  As John points out, a temperature limit to the 
closest 5 Celsius degrees is likely the smallest, practicable step-size and fit 
for purpose.

 

Ralph

 

 

From: sudhakar wasnik  
Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2024 2:07 PM
To: rmm.priv...@gmail.com
Cc: EMC-PSTC 
Subject: Re: [PSES] [PSES] IEC62368-1 - Abnormal condition - Fail

 

Agencies like UL, CSA, TUV etc….  aren’t the agencies responsible for approving 
components like capacitors, switches, cables , transformers , fuses etc?

 

>From the component manufacturer’s point of view, parameters have tolerances 
>like temperature, If it’s data sheet has tolerance in terms of % or values , 
>It can be explained to certification agencies.

 

This is quite common usually with power supply manufacturers… .claims all 
certifications, however when it is installed in end products…   the same power 
supply may have different thermal outcome

And this will have to be resolved by end user under normal , abnormal, single 
fault conditions … 

 

Hope this helps, 

 

Sudhakar 





On Aug 29, 2024, at 1:24 PM, Ralph McDiarmid mailto:rmm.priv...@gmail.com> > wrote:

 

“approved” by whom, the manufacturer ?   They would be better able to determine 
that limit and it would be based on reliability analysis.

 

The 5-degree increment is an interesting point, whoever, just about any 
component you choose seems to have a temperature limit that is a multiple of 5 
degrees C.   (circuit boards, transistors, electrolytic capacitors, insulated 
wire, recognized insulation systems).  Everything rounded to the closest 5 
degrees perhaps.

 

Ralph

 

From: Richard Nute mailto:ri...@ieee.org> > 
Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2024 12:17 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> 
Subject: Re: [PSES] SV: [PSES] IEC62368-1 - Abnormal condition - Fail

 

 

 

Hi John:

 

I disagree.  We don’t know the temperature for failure.  We don’t know the 
difference between the “approved” temperature and the failure temperature.  
Indeed, we seldom test for failure temperature.  

 

All we can say is that at 85 C, the part should work for the product lifetime.  
Above this temperature, the part may work for the product lifetime, or it may 
fail before the product lifetime.  Ideally, the end product should be like the 
“one-hoss shay.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wiOHhhwnK6k

 

And, the “approved” temperature is 85 C, which is an arbitrary assignment.  If 
it was not arbitrary, I would have expected the “approved” temperature to be 
83, 84, or 86 or some number other than 5 degree increments. 

 

😊

 

Best regards,

Rich  

 

 

From: John Woodgate mailto:j...@woodjohn.uk> > 
Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2024 11:35 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> 
Subject: Re: [PSES] SV: [PSES] IEC62368-1 - Abnormal condition - Fail

 

But that component is not likely to be very reliable, if its temperature under 
normal conditions is close to the maximum permitted.

On 2024-08-29 19:04, Amund Westin wrote:

Thanks James,

 

No, the component that gets hot, but it is not accessible. It’s on a pcb inside 
the metal enclosure. The temperature was measures to 87C. The CB test report 
for the DC/DC component says it was tested and approved up to 85C.

No ignition. The FAIL statement was due to higher temperature than approved in 
CB report for the component.

 

Best regards Amund

 

 

Fra: James Pawson (U3C) 
Sendt: 29. august 2024 18:35
Til: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> 
Emne: Re: [PSES] IEC62368-1 - Abnormal condition - Fail

 

Amund,

 

Is the temperature accessible?

Is there any ignition caused?

 

If no then the requirements have likely been met.

 

All the best

James

 

James Pawson

Managing Director & EMC Problem Solver

 

Unit 3 Compliance Ltd

EMC : Environmental & Vibration : Electrical Safety : CE & UKCA : Consultancy

 

 <http://www.unit3compliance.co.uk/> www.unit3compliance.co.uk |  
<mailto:ja...@unit3compliance.co.uk> ja...@unit3compliance.co.uk

+44(0)1274 911747  |  +44(0)7811 139957

2 Wellington Business Park, New Lane, Bradford, BD4 8AL

Registered in England and Wales # 10574298

 

Office hours:

Every morning my full attention is on consultancy, testing, and troubleshooting 
activities for our customers’ projects. I’m available/contactable between 1300h 
to 1730h Mon/Tue/Thurs/Fri.

For inquiries, bookings, and testing updates please send us an email on 
he...@unit3compliance.co.uk <mailto:he...@unit3compliance.co.uk>  or call 01274 
911747. Our lead times for testing and consultancy are typically 4-5 weeks.

 

 

 

 

From: Charlie Blackham mailto:char...@sulisconsultants.com> > 
Sent: 29 August 2024 17:1

Re: [PSES] [PSES] IEC62368-1 - Abnormal condition - Fail

[sudhakar wasnik]

Agencies like UL, CSA, TUV etc….  aren’t the agencies responsible for approving 
components like capacitors, switches, cables , transformers , fuses etc?

From the component manufacturer’s point of view, parameters have tolerances 
like temperature, If it’s data sheet has tolerance in terms of % or values , It 
can be explained to certification agencies.

This is quite common usually with power supply manufacturers… .claims all 
certifications, however when it is installed in end products…   the same power 
supply may have different thermal outcome
And this will have to be resolved by end user under normal , abnormal, single 
fault conditions … 

Hope this helps, 

Sudhakar 

> On Aug 29, 2024, at 1:24 PM, Ralph McDiarmid  wrote:
> 
> “approved” by whom, the manufacturer ?   They would be better able to 
> determine that limit and it would be based on reliability analysis.
>  
> The 5-degree increment is an interesting point, whoever, just about any 
> component you choose seems to have a temperature limit that is a multiple of 
> 5 degrees C.   (circuit boards, transistors, electrolytic capacitors, 
> insulated wire, recognized insulation systems).  Everything rounded to the 
> closest 5 degrees perhaps.
>  
> Ralph
>  
> From: Richard Nute mailto:ri...@ieee.org>> 
> Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2024 12:17 PM
> To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
> Subject: Re: [PSES] SV: [PSES] IEC62368-1 - Abnormal condition - Fail
>  
>  
>  
> Hi John:
>  
> I disagree.  We don’t know the temperature for failure.  We don’t know the 
> difference between the “approved” temperature and the failure temperature.  
> Indeed, we seldom test for failure temperature.  
>  
> All we can say is that at 85 C, the part should work for the product 
> lifetime.  Above this temperature, the part may work for the product 
> lifetime, or it may fail before the product lifetime.  Ideally, the end 
> product should be like the “one-hoss shay.”
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wiOHhhwnK6k
>  
> And, the “approved” temperature is 85 C, which is an arbitrary assignment.  
> If it was not arbitrary, I would have expected the “approved” temperature to 
> be 83, 84, or 86 or some number other than 5 degree increments. 
>  
> 😊
>  
> Best regards,
> Rich  
>  
>  
> From: John Woodgate mailto:j...@woodjohn.uk>> 
> Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2024 11:35 AM
> To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
> Subject: Re: [PSES] SV: [PSES] IEC62368-1 - Abnormal condition - Fail
>  
> But that component is not likely to be very reliable, if its temperature 
> under normal conditions is close to the maximum permitted.
> On 2024-08-29 19:04, Amund Westin wrote:
>> Thanks James,
>>  
>> No, the component that gets hot, but it is not accessible. It’s on a pcb 
>> inside the metal enclosure. The temperature was measures to 87C. The CB test 
>> report for the DC/DC component says it was tested and approved up to 85C.
>> No ignition. The FAIL statement was due to higher temperature than approved 
>> in CB report for the component.
>>  
>> Best regards Amund
>>  
>>  
>> Fra: James Pawson (U3C) 
>> Sendt: 29. august 2024 18:35
>> Til: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
>> Emne: Re: [PSES] IEC62368-1 - Abnormal condition - Fail
>>  
>> Amund,
>>  
>> Is the temperature accessible?
>> Is there any ignition caused?
>>  
>> If no then the requirements have likely been met.
>>  
>> All the best
>> James
>>  
>> James Pawson
>> Managing Director & EMC Problem Solver
>>  
>> Unit 3 Compliance Ltd
>> EMC : Environmental & Vibration : Electrical Safety : CE & UKCA : Consultancy
>>  
>> www.unit3compliance.co.uk <http://www.unit3compliance.co.uk/> | 
>> ja...@unit3compliance.co.uk <mailto:ja...@unit3compliance.co.uk>
>> +44(0)1274 911747  |  +44(0)7811 139957
>> 2 Wellington Business Park, New Lane, Bradford, BD4 8AL
>> Registered in England and Wales # 10574298
>>  
>> Office hours:
>> Every morning my full attention is on consultancy, testing, and 
>> troubleshooting activities for our customers’ projects. I’m 
>> available/contactable between 1300h to 1730h Mon/Tue/Thurs/Fri.
>> For inquiries, bookings, and testing updates please send us an email on 
>> he...@unit3compliance.co.uk <mailto:he...@unit3compliance.co.uk> or call 
>> 01274 911747. Our lead times for testing and consultancy are typically 4-5 
>> weeks.
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> From: Charlie Blackham > <mailto:char.

Re: [PSES] NRTL partner lab program

[John Woodgate]

I don't see anything about it on the Web. I would expect that you would 
have been told directly about any such change by OSHA. Have you tried to 
ask OSHA itself?


On 2024-08-27 20:48, Boštjan Glavič wrote:

Dear experts

Is anyone informed that OSHA would recently changed rules about 
partner lab program?


We were operating under partner lab program for many years and now we 
got information that this program is not allowed anymore by OSHA.


Any thoughts?

Best regards
Bostjan
Poslano iz Outlook za Android 


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society 
emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your 
e-mail to EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how 
to unsubscribe) 

List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org



To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1



--
OOO - Own Opinions Only
Best Wishes
John Woodgate
Keep trying


--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1

Re: [PSES] NRTL partner lab program

[Kevin Robinson]

Bostjan,

I manage the NRTL program for OSHA, but I’m responding from my personal account 
and nothing I say here should be construed as an official statement on behalf 
of OSHA.   I’m simply a private citizen who is knowledgeable about the NRTL 
program.

With that disclaimer out of the way, OSHA has not changed, and I see no 
foreseeable change that would disallow a NRTL to accept evaluation or test data 
from an independent (test lab) or non-independent (equipment manufacturer).

OSHA did officially terminate its Satellite Notification and Acceptance Program 
(SNAP) in October 2023, but that only impacted testing and evaluation 
facilities owned by the NRTL.  The termination of SNAP was first announced in 
2019 and was delayed a couple years (largely due to the pandemic).

If you would like to move this conversation over to my “official channels”, 
feel free to contact me at robinson.ke...@dol.com or 202-693-1911.

Kevin Robinson

Get Outlook for iOS

From: Boštjan Glavič <2b8ba113ae76-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org>
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2024 3:48:12 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG 
Subject: [PSES] NRTL partner lab program

Dear experts

Is anyone informed that OSHA would recently changed rules about partner lab 
program?

We were operating under partner lab program for many years and now we got 
information that this program is not allowed anymore by OSHA.

Any thoughts?

Best regards
Bostjan
Poslano iz Outlook za Android


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org



To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1

Re: [PSES] IEC or EN Equivalent to NFPA 70E, "Standard for Electrical Safety in the Workplace"

[John Woodgate]

EU doesn't have local AHJs, below the Member State level. Of course, 
each Market Surveillance Authority has individual technical staff, but 
they are much more constrained in their freedom of opinion than US AHJs.



On 2024-08-26 20:49, Mark Gandler wrote:

Scott,
do you know at what circumstances EN50110-1 will be used? Is it 
similar to local EU AHJs' and the permitting process or anything else?
Generally speaking, do you or anyone else on this forum have an 
experience dealing with EU Local AHJs'?

Thank you,
Mark


*From:* Scott Aldous <0220f70c299a-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org>
*Sent:* Monday, August 26, 2024 9:02 AM
*To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG 
*Subject:* Re: [PSES] IEC or EN Equivalent to NFPA 70E, "Standard for 
Electrical Safety in the Workplace"

Hi Don,

You could check out EN 50110-1 
<https://knowledge.bsigroup.com/products/operation-of-electrical-installations-general-requirements-1?version=tracked&tab=overview>. 
Though it refers to a previous edition of EN 50110, here 
<https://www.creativesafetysupply.com/qa/regulations-compliance/what-is-the-difference-between-nfpa-70e-and-en-50110> is 
a brief discussion of differences between NFPA 70E and EN 50110, with 
a more detailed discussion here 
<https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/1468287> if you can access.


On Mon, Aug 26, 2024 at 7:01 AM Donald Gies 
<3617f14f4f59-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org 
<mailto:3617f14f4f59-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org>> wrote:


Greetings Experts:

Does anyone know if there is an IEC or EN equivalent document to
NFPA 70E, "Standard for Electrical Safety in the Workplace" (CSA
Z462, “Workplace Electrical Safety”)?

Thanks in advance,

DON GIES

Field Service Engineer

p+1 346 313 6216 

edonald.g...@gutor.com <mailto:donald.g...@gutor.com>

wgutor.com <http://gutor.com/>

17 Capitol Reef Road

Howell, NJ 07731

United States



This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society
emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your
e-mail to EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/
<https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/>

Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
<https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/>
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including
how to unsubscribe) <https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html>
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html
<https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html>

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
<mailto:msherma...@comcast.net>
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org <mailto:linf...@ieee.org>

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org <mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org>



To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1
<https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1>



--
Scott Aldous | Regulatory Compliance Manager | scottald...@google.com 
<mailto:scottald...@google.com> | 650-253-1994




This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society 
emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your 
e-mail to EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/ 
<https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/>


Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/ <https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/>
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how 
to unsubscribe) <https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html>
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html 
<https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html>


For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net <mailto:msherma...@comcast.net>
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org <mailto:linf...@ieee.org>

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org <mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org>



To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1


--

Re: [PSES] IEC or EN Equivalent to NFPA 70E, "Standard for Electrical Safety in the Workplace"

[Scott Aldous]

Hi Mark,

Apologies, but I don't know. I would imagine it would be subject to
national/regional workplace safety legislation, but that's just a guess.

On Mon, Aug 26, 2024 at 12:50 PM Mark Gandler 
wrote:

> Scott,
> do you know at what circumstances EN50110-1 will be used? Is it similar to
> local EU AHJs' and the permitting process or anything else?
> Generally speaking, do you or anyone else on this forum have an experience
> dealing with EU Local AHJs'?
> Thank you,
> Mark
>
> --
> *From:* Scott Aldous <0220f70c299a-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org>
> *Sent:* Monday, August 26, 2024 9:02 AM
> *To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG 
> *Subject:* Re: [PSES] IEC or EN Equivalent to NFPA 70E, "Standard for
> Electrical Safety in the Workplace"
>
> Hi Don,
>
> You could check out EN 50110-1
> <https://knowledge.bsigroup.com/products/operation-of-electrical-installations-general-requirements-1?version=tracked&tab=overview>.
> Though it refers to a previous edition of EN 50110, here
> <https://www.creativesafetysupply.com/qa/regulations-compliance/what-is-the-difference-between-nfpa-70e-and-en-50110>
>  is
> a brief discussion of differences between NFPA 70E and EN 50110, with a
> more detailed discussion here
> <https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/1468287> if you can access.
>
> On Mon, Aug 26, 2024 at 7:01 AM Donald Gies <
> 3617f14f4f59-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org> wrote:
>
> Greetings Experts:
>
>
>
> Does anyone know if there is an IEC or EN equivalent document to NFPA 70E,
> "Standard for Electrical Safety in the Workplace" (CSA Z462, “Workplace
> Electrical Safety”)?
>
>
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
>
>
>
>
> DON GIES
>
> Field Service Engineer
>
>
>
>
>
> p   +1 346 313 6216 <(346)%20313-6216>
>
> e   donald.g...@gutor.com
>
> w  gutor.com
>
>
>
> 17 Capitol Reef Road
>
> Howell, NJ 07731
>
> United States
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
> discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to
> EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
> https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/
>
> Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
> Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to
> unsubscribe) <https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html>
> List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html
>
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
> Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
> Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org
>
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org
> --
>
> To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link:
> https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1
>
>
>
> --
> Scott Aldous | Regulatory Compliance Manager | scottald...@google.com |
> 650-253-1994 <(650)%20253-1994>
>
> --
>
> This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
> discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to
> EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
> https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/
>
> Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
> Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to
> unsubscribe) <https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html>
> List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html
>
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
> Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
> Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org
>
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org
> --
>
> To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link:
> https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1
>


-- 
Scott Aldous | Regulatory Compliance Manager | scottald...@google.com |
 650-253-1994

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1

Re: [PSES] Machinery Regulation - safety components

[Doug Nix]

I sit on ISO/TC 199, and the committee is responsible for ISO 12100, 13849, 
14119, 14120, etc.

We are pushing to have all of our standards revised (where necessary) so that 
all of the type-C standards committees can have their standards revised in time 
for January 2027. It’s a huge job, as more than 500 standards depend on those 
written by TC 199. Just know that we are working hard to complete the job as 
fast as possible!

Best regards,

Doug Nix
d...@ieee.org
+1 (519) 729-5704



> On Aug 10, 2024, at 08:45, MIKE SHERMAN 
> <347e8d192c85-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org> wrote:
> 
> Peter --
>  
> All good questions!
> 
> 1.  Where there is similar language in the Machinery Directive, I look to the 
> "Guide to the application of the Machinery Directive" for help in 
> interpretation.
>  
> 2.  For questions on what "placed on the market" means, I scour the Blue 
> Guide. I seem to recall pages and pages of discussion about this topic there.
>  
> 3.  My observation is that the addition of the HAS consultant has gummed up 
> the release of harmonized standards, making it extremely difficult to predict 
> when updated standards will be released. Also recall that within those 
> harmonized standards there typically is a list of which essential heath and 
> safety requirements (of either a directive or regulation) are satisfied by 
> the standard.
>  
> So I think we will be on our own for a while dealing with standards 
> harmonized to the Machinery Directive and applying them to the Machinery 
> Regulation. And no, I don't think we can automatically assume that they will 
> satisfy the Regulation as-is. I believe that it will be up to us to 
> understand the new requirements of the Regulation and determine whether our 
> products meet them.
>  
> Mike Sherman
> Sherman PSC LLC
>> On 08/09/2024 6:05 PM CDT Peter Tarver  wrote:
>>  
>>  
>> In reviewing the Machinery Regulation, Article 3 defines a safety component 
>> as
>>  
>> "...means a physical or digital component, including software, of a product 
>> within the scope of this Regulation, which is designed or intended to fulfil 
>> (sic) a safety function and which is independently placed on the market, the 
>> failure or malfunction of which endanger the safety of persons, but which is 
>> not necessary in order for that product to function or for which normal 
>> components may be substituted in order for that product to function;
>> (emphasis added.)
>>  
>> The component falls under Annex I, Part, B but is only sold to OEMs
>> 1) whose equipment would clearly fall under the Regulation, and
>> 2) who integrate the component into other equipment before that other 
>> equipment is placed on the market, but
>> 3) is not "independently placed on the market," for general sale,
>> is there any reason to conclude that the Regulation does not apply to the 
>> component?
>>  
>> The product is sold into the EU for applications other than those that would 
>> be subject to the Regulation, so it seems that applicability could depend on 
>> the interpretation of "independently" in the context of the regulation. Or 
>> is the  use of "independently" intended to mean "not manufactured by the OEM 
>> for their own use?"
>>  
>> I note that similar language existed in the Machinery Directive.
>>  
>> My approach is to apply an abundance of caution and presume the Regulation 
>> applies, but I'd appreciate the input of the group.
>>  
>> A final couple of questions: should it be assumed that the same standards 
>> published in the EU OJ for the Machinery Directive will satisfy the 
>> Regulation until a separate list of standards is published and linked to the 
>> Regulation? Also, is there a view on when such a list will be published?
>>  
>> Regards,
>>  
>> Peter Tarver
>>  
>> This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
>> discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
>> EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
>> 
>> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
>> https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/
>>  
>> Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/  
>> Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
>> unsubscribe) 
>> List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html
>> 
>> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
>> Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net 
>> Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org 
>> For policy questions, send mail to:
>> Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org 
>> To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
>> https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1
>> 
> 
> This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
> discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
> EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> 
> 

Re: [PSES] IEC or EN Equivalent to NFPA 70E, "Standard for Electrical Safety in the Workplace"

[Mark Gandler]

Scott,
do you know at what circumstances EN50110-1 will be used? Is it similar to 
local EU AHJs' and the permitting process or anything else?
Generally speaking, do you or anyone else on this forum have an experience 
dealing with EU Local AHJs'?
Thank you,
Mark


From: Scott Aldous <0220f70c299a-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org>
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 9:02 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG 
Subject: Re: [PSES] IEC or EN Equivalent to NFPA 70E, "Standard for Electrical 
Safety in the Workplace"

Hi Don,

You could check out EN 
50110-1<https://knowledge.bsigroup.com/products/operation-of-electrical-installations-general-requirements-1?version=tracked&tab=overview>.
 Though it refers to a previous edition of EN 50110, 
here<https://www.creativesafetysupply.com/qa/regulations-compliance/what-is-the-difference-between-nfpa-70e-and-en-50110>
 is a brief discussion of differences between NFPA 70E and EN 50110, with a 
more detailed discussion here<https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/1468287> if 
you can access.

On Mon, Aug 26, 2024 at 7:01 AM Donald Gies 
<3617f14f4f59-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org<mailto:3617f14f4f59-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org>>
 wrote:

Greetings Experts:



Does anyone know if there is an IEC or EN equivalent document to NFPA 70E, 
"Standard for Electrical Safety in the Workplace" (CSA Z462, “Workplace 
Electrical Safety”)?



Thanks in advance,





DON GIES

Field Service Engineer



[cid:ii_1918f6692a04cff311]



p   +1 346 313 6216

e   donald.g...@gutor.com<mailto:donald.g...@gutor.com>

w  gutor.com<http://gutor.com/>



17 Capitol Reef Road

Howell, NJ 07731

United States



[cid:ii_1918f6692a15b16b22]













This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)<https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html>
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net<mailto:msherma...@comcast.net>
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org<mailto:linf...@ieee.org>

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org<mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org>



To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1


--
Scott Aldous | Regulatory Compliance Manager | 
scottald...@google.com<mailto:scottald...@google.com> | 650-253-1994



This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)<https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html>
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net<mailto:msherma...@comcast.net>
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org<mailto:linf...@ieee.org>

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org<mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org>



To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1

Re: [PSES] IEC or EN Equivalent to NFPA 70E, "Standard for Electrical Safety in the Workplace"

[Scott Aldous]

Hi Don,

You could check out EN 50110-1
.
Though it refers to a previous edition of EN 50110, here

is a brief discussion of differences between NFPA 70E and EN 50110, with a
more detailed discussion here 
if you can access.

On Mon, Aug 26, 2024 at 7:01 AM Donald Gies <
3617f14f4f59-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org> wrote:

> Greetings Experts:
>
>
>
> Does anyone know if there is an IEC or EN equivalent document to NFPA 70E,
> "Standard for Electrical Safety in the Workplace" (CSA Z462, “Workplace
> Electrical Safety”)?
>
>
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
>
>
>
>
> DON GIES
>
> Field Service Engineer
>
>
>
>
>
> p   +1 346 313 6216 <(346)%20313-6216>
>
> e   donald.g...@gutor.com
>
> w  gutor.com
>
>
>
> 17 Capitol Reef Road
>
> Howell, NJ 07731
>
> United States
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
> discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to
> EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
> https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/
>
> Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
> Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to
> unsubscribe) 
> List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html
>
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
> Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
> Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org
>
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org
> --
>
> To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link:
> https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1
>


-- 
Scott Aldous | Regulatory Compliance Manager | scottald...@google.com |
 650-253-1994

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1

Re: [PSES] NFPA cybersecurity "shall be permitted"?

[Ralph McDiarmid]

Quite so and thank you John.

 

The scope of this standard appears to be, “NFPA 79 provides safeguards for 
industrial machinery to protect operators, equipment, facilities, and 
work-in-progress from fire and electrical hazards.”   

 

Perhaps Cybersecurity belongs in a separate publication.

 

Ralph

 

From: John Woodgate  
Sent: Friday, August 23, 2024 2:53 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] NFPA cybersecurity "shall be permitted"?

 

'Shall' ought to have been changed to 'should'.

On 2024-08-23 22:45, Scott Aldous wrote:

Hi Lauren, 

 

Digging a bit, it looks like this was originally proposed as a hard 
requirement. See PI 22 in this doc 
<https://docinfofiles.nfpa.org/files/AboutTheCodes/79/79_F2023_EEI_AAA_FD_PIResponses.pdf>
  (you can search on "cybersecurity" to find it). This was proposed by Keith 
Waters from Schneider Electric, and at the time included "shall" rather than 
"shall be permitted".The committee statement was that "the proposed language is 
overly broad and restrictive."

 

If you search on "cybersecurity" in this doc 
<https://docinfofiles.nfpa.org/files/AboutTheCodes/79/79_F2023_EEI_AAA_SD_PCResponses.pdf>
 , you can find a subsequent public comment where the same submitter revised 
the proposal, this time modifying the language that would have made it 
mandatory. The submitter's comment there states:

 

"In reviewing the response to the original PI, I still feel that cybersecurity 
is essential to properly protecting industrial machinery and a consensus 
standard is the best way to protect these systems in lieu of 51 different 
requirements from the federal government and the individual states. However, I 
understand that we need to create a starting point to learn the best methods 
before setting full requirements. The change to the PI to make the requirement 
“shall be permitted” vs “shall” is a good first step into creating the safety 
and reliability protections."

 

Even though this second comment was rejected, it references a subsequent 
revision with much the same language that can be found here 
<https://docinfofiles.nfpa.org/files/AboutTheCodes/79/79_F2023_EEI_AAA_SD_SRStatements.pdf>
 .

 

On Fri, Aug 23, 2024 at 2:20 PM Ralph McDiarmid mailto:rmm.priv...@gmail.com> > wrote:

Sounds optional to me too.  You’re allowed to do it, but you’re not required to 
do it.

 

It’s Friday in Canada and Mexico too, but the way;>)

 

 

Ralph

 

 

From: Lauren Crane <1afd08519f18-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org 
<mailto:1afd08519f18-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org> > 
Sent: Friday, August 23, 2024 1:34 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> 
Subject: [PSES] NFPA cybersecurity "shall be permitted"?

 

Hello All, 

 

Happy Friday (US)….

 

There is a new section in NFPA 79 - 2024 edition – “4.10 Cybersecurity.  
Industrial machinery that is connected to a communication network and permitted 
to control any part of the machinery shall be permitted to comply with the 
following: (1) A cybersecurity assessment conducted on the connected system to 
determine vulnerabilities to cyberattacks; (2) A cybersecurity commissioning 
certification conducted on the connected system to ensure it is designed 
against cyberattacks and known vulnerabilities; (3) Documentation of the 
assessment and certification provided to those authorized to inspect, operate, 
and maintain the system”

 

My best take at this is the whole thing is optional given the underlined “shall 
be permitted”. That phrase seems to mean (as it is used throughout NFPA 79) “is 
allowed”.  But if I read it that way, it means the whole section 4.10 was added 
just to say one is allowed to do 3 things and it has no obligation to actually 
do anything, which seems off - because it is rather silly – Particularly since 
doing what is listed would not reasonably be questioned, so it doesn’t really 
need to be clarified that one is allowed to do it. 

 

Do any of you have a different take on this?

 

Best Regards, 

-Lauren

 


LAM RESEARCH CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail transmission, and any 
documents, files, or previous e-mail messages attached to it, (collectively, 
"E-mail Transmission") may be subject to one or more of the following based on 
the associated sensitivity level: E-mail Transmission (i) contains confidential 
information, (ii) is prohibited from distribution outside of Lam, and/or (iii) 
is intended solely for and restricted to the specified recipient(s). If you are 
not the intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivering it to the 
intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, 
distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this 
message is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you have received this transmission in

Re: [PSES] NFPA cybersecurity "shall be permitted"?

[John Woodgate]

'Shall' ought to have been changed to 'should'.

On 2024-08-23 22:45, Scott Aldous wrote:

Hi Lauren,

Digging a bit, it looks like this was originally proposed as a hard 
requirement. See PI 22 in this doc 
 
(you can search on "cybersecurity" to find it). This was proposed by 
Keith Waters from Schneider Electric, and at the time included "shall" 
rather than "shall be permitted".The committee statement was that "the 
proposed language is overly broad and restrictive."


If you search on "cybersecurity" in this doc 
, 
you can find a subsequent public comment where the same submitter 
revised the proposal, this time modifying the language that would have 
made it mandatory. The submitter's comment there states:


"In reviewing the response to the original PI, I still feel that 
cybersecurity is essential to properly protecting industrial machinery 
and a consensus standard is the best way to protect these systems in 
lieu of 51 different requirements from the federal government and the 
individual states. *However, I understand that we need to create a 
starting point to learn the best methods before setting full 
requirements. The change to the PI to make the requirement “shall be 
permitted” vs “shall” is a good first step into creating the safety 
and reliability protections*."


Even though this second comment was rejected, it references a 
subsequent revision with much the same language that can be found here 
.


On Fri, Aug 23, 2024 at 2:20 PM Ralph McDiarmid 
 wrote:


Sounds optional to me too.  You’re allowed to do it, but you’re
not required to do it.

It’s Friday in Canada and Mexico too, but the way   ;>)

Ralph

*From:*Lauren Crane
<1afd08519f18-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org>
*Sent:* Friday, August 23, 2024 1:34 PM
*To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
*Subject:* [PSES] NFPA cybersecurity "shall be permitted"?

Hello All,

Happy Friday (US)….

There is a new section in NFPA 79 - 2024 edition – “4.10
*Cybersecurity.* Industrial machinery that is connected to a
communication network and permitted to control any part of the
machinery _shall be permitted_ to comply with the following: (1) A
cybersecurity assessment conducted on the connected system to
determine vulnerabilities to cyberattacks; (2) A cybersecurity
commissioning certification conducted on the connected system to
ensure it is designed against cyberattacks and known
vulnerabilities; (3) Documentation of the assessment and
certification provided to those authorized to inspect, operate,
and maintain the system”

My best take at this is the whole thing is optional given the
underlined “shall be permitted”. That phrase seems to mean (as it
is used throughout NFPA 79) “is allowed”.  But if I read it that
way, it means the whole section 4.10 was added just to say one is
allowed to do 3 things and it has no obligation to actually do
anything, which seems off - because it is rather silly –
Particularly since doing what is listed would not reasonably be
questioned, so it doesn’t really need to be clarified that one is
allowed to do it.

Do any of you have a different take on this?

Best Regards,

-Lauren


LAM RESEARCH CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail transmission, and
any documents, files, or previous e-mail messages attached to it,
(collectively, "E-mail Transmission") may be subject to one or
more of the following based on the associated sensitivity level:
E-mail Transmission (i) contains confidential information, (ii) is
prohibited from distribution outside of Lam, and/or (iii) is
intended solely for and restricted to the specified recipient(s).
If you are not the intended recipient, or a person responsible for
delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified
that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the
information contained in or attached to this message is STRICTLY
PROHIBITED. If you have received this transmission in error,
please immediately notify the sender and destroy the original
transmission and its attachments without reading them or saving
them to disk. Thank you.

Confidential – Limited Access and Use



This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society
emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your
e-mail to EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Re: [PSES] NFPA cybersecurity "shall be permitted"?

[Lauren Crane]

Thanks Scott,

I just got finished reviewing data in the Google-verse and found the content 
you are referencing. It’s nice to have confirmation I was getting reliable hits.

In summary it seems the text that is now in 4.10 is indeed optional.

What is also frustrating is the guidance info in A.4.10 refers to “the 
assessment requirement” – which is not a statement of fact, there is no 
assessment requirement.

Best Regards,
-Lauren



Confidential – Limited Access and Use
From: Scott Aldous <0220f70c299a-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org>
Sent: Friday, August 23, 2024 4:45 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] NFPA cybersecurity "shall be permitted"?

You don't often get email from 
0220f70c299a-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org<mailto:0220f70c299a-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org>.
 Learn why this is important<https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification>



External Email: Do NOT reply, click on links, or open attachments unless you 
recognize the sender and know the content is safe. If you believe this email 
may be unsafe, please click on the “Report Phishing” button on the top right of 
Outlook.


Hi Lauren,

Digging a bit, it looks like this was originally proposed as a hard 
requirement. See PI 22 in this 
doc<https://docinfofiles.nfpa.org/files/AboutTheCodes/79/79_F2023_EEI_AAA_FD_PIResponses.pdf>
 (you can search on "cybersecurity" to find it). This was proposed by Keith 
Waters from Schneider Electric, and at the time included "shall" rather than 
"shall be permitted".The committee statement was that "the proposed language is 
overly broad and restrictive."

If you search on "cybersecurity" in this 
doc<https://docinfofiles.nfpa.org/files/AboutTheCodes/79/79_F2023_EEI_AAA_SD_PCResponses.pdf>,
 you can find a subsequent public comment where the same submitter revised the 
proposal, this time modifying the language that would have made it mandatory. 
The submitter's comment there states:

"In reviewing the response to the original PI, I still feel that cybersecurity 
is essential to properly protecting industrial machinery and a consensus 
standard is the best way to protect these systems in lieu of 51 different 
requirements from the federal government and the individual states. However, I 
understand that we need to create a starting point to learn the best methods 
before setting full requirements. The change to the PI to make the requirement 
“shall be permitted” vs “shall” is a good first step into creating the safety 
and reliability protections."

Even though this second comment was rejected, it references a subsequent 
revision with much the same language that can be found 
here<https://docinfofiles.nfpa.org/files/AboutTheCodes/79/79_F2023_EEI_AAA_SD_SRStatements.pdf>.

On Fri, Aug 23, 2024 at 2:20 PM Ralph McDiarmid 
mailto:rmm.priv...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Sounds optional to me too.  You’re allowed to do it, but you’re not required to 
do it.

It’s Friday in Canada and Mexico too, but the way;>)


Ralph


From: Lauren Crane 
<1afd08519f18-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org<mailto:1afd08519f18-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org>>
Sent: Friday, August 23, 2024 1:34 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Subject: [PSES] NFPA cybersecurity "shall be permitted"?

Hello All,

Happy Friday (US)….

There is a new section in NFPA 79 - 2024 edition – “4.10 Cybersecurity.  
Industrial machinery that is connected to a communication network and permitted 
to control any part of the machinery shall be permitted to comply with the 
following: (1) A cybersecurity assessment conducted on the connected system to 
determine vulnerabilities to cyberattacks; (2) A cybersecurity commissioning 
certification conducted on the connected system to ensure it is designed 
against cyberattacks and known vulnerabilities; (3) Documentation of the 
assessment and certification provided to those authorized to inspect, operate, 
and maintain the system”

My best take at this is the whole thing is optional given the underlined “shall 
be permitted”. That phrase seems to mean (as it is used throughout NFPA 79) “is 
allowed”.  But if I read it that way, it means the whole section 4.10 was added 
just to say one is allowed to do 3 things and it has no obligation to actually 
do anything, which seems off - because it is rather silly – Particularly since 
doing what is listed would not reasonably be questioned, so it doesn’t really 
need to be clarified that one is allowed to do it.

Do any of you have a different take on this?

Best Regards,
-Lauren


LAM RESEARCH CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail transmission, and any 
documents, files, or previous e-mail messages attached to it, (collectively, 
"E-mail Transmission") may be subject to one or more of the following based on 
the associated sensitivi

Re: [PSES] NFPA cybersecurity "shall be permitted"?

[Scott Aldous]

Hi Lauren,

Digging a bit, it looks like this was originally proposed as a hard
requirement. See PI 22 in this doc

(you can search on "cybersecurity" to find it). This was proposed by Keith
Waters from Schneider Electric, and at the time included "shall" rather
than "shall be permitted".The committee statement was that "the proposed
language is overly broad and restrictive."

If you search on "cybersecurity" in this doc
,
you can find a subsequent public comment where the same submitter revised
the proposal, this time modifying the language that would have made it
mandatory. The submitter's comment there states:

"In reviewing the response to the original PI, I still feel that
cybersecurity is essential to properly protecting industrial machinery and
a consensus standard is the best way to protect these systems in lieu of 51
different requirements from the federal government and the individual
states. *However, I understand that we need to create a starting point to
learn the best methods before setting full requirements. The change to the
PI to make the requirement “shall be permitted” vs “shall” is a good first
step into creating the safety and reliability protections*."

Even though this second comment was rejected, it references a subsequent
revision with much the same language that can be found here

.

On Fri, Aug 23, 2024 at 2:20 PM Ralph McDiarmid 
wrote:

> Sounds optional to me too.  You’re allowed to do it, but you’re not
> required to do it.
>
>
>
> It’s Friday in Canada and Mexico too, but the way;>)
>
>
>
>
>
> Ralph
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Lauren Crane <1afd08519f18-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org>
> *Sent:* Friday, August 23, 2024 1:34 PM
> *To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> *Subject:* [PSES] NFPA cybersecurity "shall be permitted"?
>
>
>
> Hello All,
>
>
>
> Happy Friday (US)….
>
>
>
> There is a new section in NFPA 79 - 2024 edition – “4.10 *Cybersecurity.*
> Industrial machinery that is connected to a communication network and
> permitted to control any part of the machinery *shall be permitted* to
> comply with the following: (1) A cybersecurity assessment conducted on the
> connected system to determine vulnerabilities to cyberattacks; (2) A
> cybersecurity commissioning certification conducted on the connected system
> to ensure it is designed against cyberattacks and known vulnerabilities;
> (3) Documentation of the assessment and certification provided to those
> authorized to inspect, operate, and maintain the system”
>
>
>
> My best take at this is the whole thing is optional given the underlined
> “shall be permitted”. That phrase seems to mean (as it is used throughout
> NFPA 79) “is allowed”.  But if I read it that way, it means the whole
> section 4.10 was added just to say one is allowed to do 3 things and it has
> no obligation to actually do anything, which seems off - because it is
> rather silly – Particularly since doing what is listed would not reasonably
> be questioned, so it doesn’t really need to be clarified that one is
> allowed to do it.
>
>
>
> Do any of you have a different take on this?
>
>
>
> Best Regards,
>
> -Lauren
>
>
>
>
> LAM RESEARCH CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail transmission, and any
> documents, files, or previous e-mail messages attached to it,
> (collectively, "E-mail Transmission") may be subject to one or more of the
> following based on the associated sensitivity level: E-mail Transmission
> (i) contains confidential information, (ii) is prohibited from distribution
> outside of Lam, and/or (iii) is intended solely for and restricted to the
> specified recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient, or a person
> responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby
> notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the
> information contained in or attached to this message is STRICTLY
> PROHIBITED. If you have received this transmission in error, please
> immediately notify the sender and destroy the original transmission and its
> attachments without reading them or saving them to disk. Thank you.
>
>
>
> Confidential – Limited Access and Use
> --
>
> This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
> discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to
> EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
>
> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
> https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/
> 
>
> Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
> Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to
> unsubscribe) 
> List rules: h

Re: [PSES] NFPA cybersecurity "shall be permitted"?

[Ralph McDiarmid]

Sounds optional to me too.  You're allowed to do it, but you're not required
to do it.

 

It's Friday in Canada and Mexico too, but the way;>)

 

 

Ralph

 

 

From: Lauren Crane <1afd08519f18-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org> 
Sent: Friday, August 23, 2024 1:34 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] NFPA cybersecurity "shall be permitted"?

 

Hello All, 

 

Happy Friday (US)..

 

There is a new section in NFPA 79 - 2024 edition - "4.10 Cybersecurity.
Industrial machinery that is connected to a communication network and
permitted to control any part of the machinery shall be permitted to comply
with the following: (1) A cybersecurity assessment conducted on the
connected system to determine vulnerabilities to cyberattacks; (2) A
cybersecurity commissioning certification conducted on the connected system
to ensure it is designed against cyberattacks and known vulnerabilities; (3)
Documentation of the assessment and certification provided to those
authorized to inspect, operate, and maintain the system"

 

My best take at this is the whole thing is optional given the underlined
"shall be permitted". That phrase seems to mean (as it is used throughout
NFPA 79) "is allowed".  But if I read it that way, it means the whole
section 4.10 was added just to say one is allowed to do 3 things and it has
no obligation to actually do anything, which seems off - because it is
rather silly - Particularly since doing what is listed would not reasonably
be questioned, so it doesn't really need to be clarified that one is allowed
to do it. 

 

Do any of you have a different take on this?

 

Best Regards, 

-Lauren

 


LAM RESEARCH CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail transmission, and any
documents, files, or previous e-mail messages attached to it, (collectively,
"E-mail Transmission") may be subject to one or more of the following based
on the associated sensitivity level: E-mail Transmission (i) contains
confidential information, (ii) is prohibited from distribution outside of
Lam, and/or (iii) is intended solely for and restricted to the specified
recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient, or a person responsible
for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that
any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information
contained in or attached to this message is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you have
received this transmission in error, please immediately notify the sender
and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading
them or saving them to disk. Thank you.

 

Confidential - Limited Access and Use

  _  

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG   

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/
  

Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/   
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to
unsubscribe)  
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html 

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net  
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org   

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org   

  _  

To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC
 &A=1 


-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1

Re: [PSES] Burden test

[Ralph McDiarmid]

Volt-amperes (VA) would be sufficient since active power (W) cannot be greater 
than VA.  (recall the power triangle)

I’d rather use “power” not “active power”, since “active” doesn’t add anything 
to the definition of that term.

 

I would avoid ambiguity such as, “…ports of significant burden  “

 

And, 125 V is a poor example because it is not a nominal voltage in North 
America.  It’s 120 V or 120/240 V or 120/208 V – those are common nominal 
values found in low-voltage distribution for residential and commercial 
buildings in North America.

 

 

Ralph

 

From: Boštjan Glavič  
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2024 9:51 PM
To: 'rmm.priv...@gmail.com' ; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: [PSES] Burden test

 

Thank you all. I decided to contact TC57 which prepared this standard and let’s 
see.

 

When I went once more through standard, I think it is really like apparent 
power. So it shall be equal to power consumption of power supply under normal 
load.

 

Below extract from standard – clauses with word Burden.

 

Best regards,

Boštjan

 

5.4 Rated burden

The burden for the power supply (a.c. including power factor/d.c.) at quiescent 
state and

maximum load.

The maximum start-up inrush current of the power supply circuits shall also be 
stated.

 

 

 

6.1.3 Auxiliary supplies, I/O

6.1.3.1 General requirements for marking

For marking the following should be taken into account:

• a.c. – with symbol 2 of Table 3 and rated frequency or frequency range;

• d.c. – with symbol 1 of Table 3;

• symbol 3 of Table 3 on equipment for a.c. and d.c. supply;

• a hyphen (-) shall be used to separate the lower and upper nominal voltages, 
for example,

125 V-230 V;

• the burden in watts (active power) or volt-amperes (apparent power) or the 
rated input

current, with all accessories or plug-in modules connected.

The documentation shall specify the burden of individual digital inputs, output 
relays and

other I/O ports of significant burden in order for the user to calculate the 
worst-case

burden for the equipment application.

The values shall be measured with the equipment powered at nominal voltage, but 
not be

operational.

The measured value shall not exceed the marked value by more than 10 %;

 

 

6.1.3.2 Auxiliary supply

The following information shall be provided on the equipment and in the 
documentation:

• a.c. and/or d.c. supply;

• the rated values.

• in the documentation:

• the burden.

6.1.3.3 Inputs

The following information shall be provided in the documentation:

• a.c. and/or d.c. supply;

• the rated values;

• burden on the supply input.

 

6.1.3.4 Outputs

The following information shall be provided in the documentation:

• the kind of output, for example, relay, optocoupler etc;

• burden on the supply input;

• the switching capability on/off;

• the switching voltage;

• the permissible current, continuous value and short time value for 1 s;

• withstand voltage across open contacts.

Compliance with 6.1.3.1 to 6.1.3.4 is checked by inspection or by measurement.

 

6.8 Burden test

Burden 6.8.1 for AC power supply

6.8.1.1 Typical load condition

The equipment is powered at rated auxiliary energizing voltage with typical 
load of all input

and outputs. The test shall be carried out by voltamperes (VA) measurement. The 
maximum

value of 5 consecutive tests shall be used for burden claim.

6.8.1.2 Inrush current and power-up duration

The equipment is switched on at rated auxiliary energizing voltage. The peak 
value of input

current during power-up, the duration from switching instant to the instant 
that input current

gets to within 10 % of quiescent state current shall be recorded. The maximum 
value of

5 consecutive tests shall be used for inrush current and power-up duration 
claim.

From: Ralph McDiarmid mailto:rmm.priv...@gmail.com> > 
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2024 9:23 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> 
Subject: Re: [PSES] Burden test

 


CAUTION: This email originated from outside of our organisation. Do not click 
links or open attachments unless you recognise the sender and know the content 
is safe.

 

I agree with John’s comment.  I will add that standard writing panels 
(committees) should use their vocabulary with intelligence.  Any ambiguous 
terms should be defined somewhere in part one of IEC 61850.  I don’t have a 
copy, and the IEC preview doesn’t help.

 

I will hazard a guess that in this context, the adjective “intelligent” means a 
power supply that is able to communication over a network for the exchange of 
data and for remote control or configuration.

 

Ralph

 

From: John Woodgate mailto:j...@woodjohn.uk> > 
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2024 10:41 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> 
Subject: Re: [PSES] Burden test

 

I think you are required to state the power consumption of every port that 
consumes power. If your 

Re: [PSES] Burden test

[Boštjan Glavič]

Thank you all. I decided to contact TC57 which prepared this standard and let’s 
see.

When I went once more through standard, I think it is really like apparent 
power. So it shall be equal to power consumption of power supply under normal 
load.

Below extract from standard – clauses with word Burden.

Best regards,
Boštjan

5.4 Rated burden
The burden for the power supply (a.c. including power factor/d.c.) at quiescent 
state and
maximum load.
The maximum start-up inrush current of the power supply circuits shall also be 
stated.



6.1.3 Auxiliary supplies, I/O
6.1.3.1 General requirements for marking
For marking the following should be taken into account:
• a.c. – with symbol 2 of Table 3 and rated frequency or frequency range;
• d.c. – with symbol 1 of Table 3;
• symbol 3 of Table 3 on equipment for a.c. and d.c. supply;
• a hyphen (-) shall be used to separate the lower and upper nominal voltages, 
for example,
125 V-230 V;
• the burden in watts (active power) or volt-amperes (apparent power) or the 
rated input
current, with all accessories or plug-in modules connected.
The documentation shall specify the burden of individual digital inputs, output 
relays and
other I/O ports of significant burden in order for the user to calculate the 
worst-case
burden for the equipment application.
The values shall be measured with the equipment powered at nominal voltage, but 
not be
operational.
The measured value shall not exceed the marked value by more than 10 %;


6.1.3.2 Auxiliary supply
The following information shall be provided on the equipment and in the 
documentation:
• a.c. and/or d.c. supply;
• the rated values.
• in the documentation:
• the burden.
6.1.3.3 Inputs
The following information shall be provided in the documentation:
• a.c. and/or d.c. supply;
• the rated values;
• burden on the supply input.

6.1.3.4 Outputs
The following information shall be provided in the documentation:
• the kind of output, for example, relay, optocoupler etc;
• burden on the supply input;
• the switching capability on/off;
• the switching voltage;
• the permissible current, continuous value and short time value for 1 s;
• withstand voltage across open contacts.
Compliance with 6.1.3.1 to 6.1.3.4 is checked by inspection or by measurement.

6.8 Burden test
Burden 6.8.1 for AC power supply
6.8.1.1 Typical load condition
The equipment is powered at rated auxiliary energizing voltage with typical 
load of all input
and outputs. The test shall be carried out by voltamperes (VA) measurement. The 
maximum
value of 5 consecutive tests shall be used for burden claim.
6.8.1.2 Inrush current and power-up duration
The equipment is switched on at rated auxiliary energizing voltage. The peak 
value of input
current during power-up, the duration from switching instant to the instant 
that input current
gets to within 10 % of quiescent state current shall be recorded. The maximum 
value of
5 consecutive tests shall be used for inrush current and power-up duration 
claim.
From: Ralph McDiarmid 
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2024 9:23 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Burden test

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of our organisation. Do not click 
links or open attachments unless you recognise the sender and know the content 
is safe.

I agree with John’s comment.  I will add that standard writing panels 
(committees) should use their vocabulary with intelligence.  Any ambiguous 
terms should be defined somewhere in part one of IEC 61850.  I don’t have a 
copy, and the IEC preview doesn’t help.

I will hazard a guess that in this context, the adjective “intelligent” means a 
power supply that is able to communication over a network for the exchange of 
data and for remote control or configuration.

Ralph

From: John Woodgate 
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2024 10:41 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Burden test


I think you are required to state the power consumption of every port that 
consumes power. If your SMPS really is 'intelligent', then the standard 
applies. But I wonder what the relevant definition of 'intelligent' is. There 
appears to be no method of measurement for IQ!
On 2024-08-22 17:53, Richard Nute wrote:

Hi Bostjan:

While this does not answer your specific questions, it may be helpful:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEC_61850

Good luck, and best regards,
Rich


From: Boštjan Glavič 
<2b8ba113ae76-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org><mailto:2b8ba113ae76-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org>
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2024 4:32 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Subject: [PSES] Burden test

Dear all,

Is anyone familiar with burden test according IEC 61850-3 standard? Is this 
test applicable for switch mode  power supply with AC input and DC output?

How to conduct the test? What is the idea of the test?

Standard is not really clear.

Thank you for your support.

Best regards,
Bostjan

Re: [PSES] Burden test

[John Woodgate]

The standard is 11 years old and certainly wouldn't pass the IEC head 
office editors now. 'Burden' is in Electropedia only in the context of 
instrument transformers:


321-01-25

/burden (of an instrument transformer)
    the impedance of the secondary circuit

Note – The burden is usually expressed as the apparent power absorbed by 
the secondary circuit at a specified power factor at the rated secondary 
current (or voltage).

/

The Note explains what the authors of 61850-3 did, stretching the 
definition wildly out of shape. Why didn't they just write 'power input'?


On 2024-08-22 20:23, rmm.priv...@gmail.com wrote:


I agree with John’s comment.  I will add that standard writing panels 
(committees) should use their vocabulary with intelligence.  Any 
ambiguous terms should be defined somewhere in part one of IEC 61850.  
I don’t have a copy, and the IEC preview doesn’t help.


I will hazard a guess that in this context, the adjective 
“intelligent” means a power supply that is able to communication over 
a network for the exchange of data and for remote control or 
configuration.


Ralph

*From:*John Woodgate 
*Sent:* Thursday, August 22, 2024 10:41 AM
*To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
*Subject:* Re: [PSES] Burden test

I think you are required to state the power consumption of every port 
that consumes power. If your SMPS really is 'intelligent', then the 
standard applies. But I wonder what the relevant definition of 
'intelligent' is. There appears to be no method of measurement for IQ!


On 2024-08-22 17:53, Richard Nute wrote:

Hi Bostjan:

While this does not answer your specific questions, it may be helpful:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEC_61850

Good luck, and best regards,

Rich

*From:*Boštjan Glavič
<2b8ba113ae76-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org>
<mailto:2b8ba113ae76-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org>
*Sent:* Thursday, August 22, 2024 4:32 AM
*To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
*Subject:* [PSES] Burden test

Dear all,

Is anyone familiar with burden test according IEC 61850-3
standard? Is this test applicable for switch mode  power supply
with AC input and DC output?

How to conduct the test? What is the idea of the test?

Standard is not really clear.

Thank you for your support.

Best regards,

Bostjan



This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society
emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your
e-mail to EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/
<https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/%20>

Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including
how to unsubscribe) <https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html>
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org



To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1
<https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1>

--
OOO - Own Opinions Only
Best Wishes
John Woodgate
Keep trying

<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>



Virus-free.www.avg.com 
<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>




This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society 
emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your 
e-mail to EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/ 
<https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/%20>


Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how 
to unsubscribe) <https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html>

List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org



To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the followi

Re: [PSES] Burden test

[Ralph McDiarmid]

I agree with John’s comment.  I will add that standard writing panels 
(committees) should use their vocabulary with intelligence.  Any ambiguous 
terms should be defined somewhere in part one of IEC 61850.  I don’t have a 
copy, and the IEC preview doesn’t help.

 

I will hazard a guess that in this context, the adjective “intelligent” means a 
power supply that is able to communication over a network for the exchange of 
data and for remote control or configuration.

 

Ralph

 

From: John Woodgate  
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2024 10:41 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Burden test

 

I think you are required to state the power consumption of every port that 
consumes power. If your SMPS really is 'intelligent', then the standard 
applies. But I wonder what the relevant definition of 'intelligent' is. There 
appears to be no method of measurement for IQ!

On 2024-08-22 17:53, Richard Nute wrote:

 

Hi Bostjan:

 

While this does not answer your specific questions, it may be helpful:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEC_61850

 

Good luck, and best regards,

Rich

 

 

From: Boštjan Glavič  <mailto:2b8ba113ae76-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org> 
<2b8ba113ae76-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org> 
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2024 4:32 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> 
Subject: [PSES] Burden test

 

Dear all,

 

Is anyone familiar with burden test according IEC 61850-3 standard? Is this 
test applicable for switch mode  power supply with AC input and DC output?

 

How to conduct the test? What is the idea of the test?

 

Standard is not really clear.

 

Thank you for your support.

 

Best regards,

Bostjan

 

 


  _  


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>  

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/ 
<https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/%20>  

Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/  <https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/> 
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe) <https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html> 
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html 

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net <mailto:msherma...@comcast.net> 
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org <mailto:linf...@ieee.org>  

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org <mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org>  


  _  


To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC 
<https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1> &A=1 

-- 
OOO - Own Opinions Only
Best Wishes
John Woodgate
Keep trying

 


 
<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
 

Virus-free. 
<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
 www.avg.com

  _  

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>  

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/ 
<https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/%20>  

Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/  <https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/> 
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe) <https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html> 
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html 

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net <mailto:msherma...@comcast.net> 
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org <mailto:linf...@ieee.org>  

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org <mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org>  

  _  

To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC 
<https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1> &A=1 


-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/l

Re: [PSES] Burden test

[John Woodgate]

I think you are required to state the power consumption of every port 
that consumes power. If your SMPS really is 'intelligent', then the 
standard applies. But I wonder what the relevant definition of 
'intelligent' is. There appears to be no method of measurement for IQ!


On 2024-08-22 17:53, Richard Nute wrote:


Hi Bostjan:

While this does not answer your specific questions, it may be helpful:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEC_61850

Good luck, and best regards,

Rich

*From:*Boštjan Glavič <2b8ba113ae76-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org>
*Sent:* Thursday, August 22, 2024 4:32 AM
*To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
*Subject:* [PSES] Burden test

Dear all,

Is anyone familiar with burden test according IEC 61850-3 standard? Is 
this test applicable for switch mode  power supply with AC input and 
DC output?


How to conduct the test? What is the idea of the test?

Standard is not really clear.

Thank you for your support.

Best regards,

Bostjan



This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society 
emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your 
e-mail to EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how 
to unsubscribe) 

List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org



To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1



--
OOO - Own Opinions Only
Best Wishes
John Woodgate
Keep trying


--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1

Re: [PSES] Burden test

[Richard Nute]

 

Hi Bostjan:

 

While this does not answer your specific questions, it may be helpful:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEC_61850

 

Good luck, and best regards,

Rich

 

 

From: Boštjan Glavič <2b8ba113ae76-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org> 
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2024 4:32 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Burden test

 

Dear all,

 

Is anyone familiar with burden test according IEC 61850-3 standard? Is this
test applicable for switch mode  power supply with AC input and DC output?

 

How to conduct the test? What is the idea of the test?

 

Standard is not really clear.

 

Thank you for your support.

 

Best regards,

Bostjan

 

 


-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1

Re: [PSES] Motor Locked Rotor and Overload Testing

[doug emcesd.com]

I think when you short a transformer, what you see looking into the primary is 
the primary winding resistance plus the secondary winding resistance reflected 
back into the primary in series with the leakage inductance of the transformer. 
I suspect this holds for motors as well.

Doug Smith
Sent from my iPhone
IPhone: 408-858-4528
Office: 702-570-6108
Email: d...@dsmith.org
Website: http://dsmith.org

From: Ralph McDiarmid 
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2024 7:48:34 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG 
Subject: Re: [PSES] Motor Locked Rotor and Overload Testing


That’s the only non-linear effect I can envision, however, all the models I’ve 
seen using a Google search suggest an RL network only.  I don’t think the 
stator laminations would saturate during locked rotor for the same reason a 
transformer core doesn’t saturation when its secondary winding is shorted.



Ralph



From: James Pawson (U3C) 
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2024 4:53 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Motor Locked Rotor and Overload Testing



Hi John,



Thanks for the reply. Non linear response because of saturation of the magnetic 
material?



All the best

James



James Pawson

Managing Director & EMC Problem Solver



Unit 3 Compliance Ltd

EMC : Environmental & Vibration : Electrical Safety : CE & UKCA : Consultancy



www.unit3compliance.co.uk<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.unit3compliance.co.uk_&d=DwMFaQ&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=c9NR2mGfldry-2pM9Bbuww&m=GqvAT31xXIVtvlxPsq1UlKlNtA8n7LOnmW8O-n2C-DfLdQWbgkT34x3D8kzfoA1w&s=NiJf6pX0ilU6resJtYq55vrPaC8c6VrSZLqfXxRUyyQ&e=>
 | ja...@unit3compliance.co.uk<mailto:ja...@unit3compliance.co.uk>

+44(0)1274 911747  |  +44(0)7811 139957

2 Wellington Business Park, New Lane, Bradford, BD4 8AL

Registered in England and Wales # 10574298



Office hours:

Every morning my full attention is on consultancy, testing, and troubleshooting 
activities for our customers’ projects. I’m available/contactable between 1300h 
to 1730h Mon/Tue/Thurs/Fri.

For inquiries, bookings, and testing updates please send us an email on 
he...@unit3compliance.co.uk<mailto:he...@unit3compliance.co.uk> or call 01274 
911747. Our lead times for testing and consultancy are typically 4-5 weeks.









From: John Woodgate mailto:j...@woodjohn.uk>>
Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2024 5:46 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Subject: Re: [PSES] Motor Locked Rotor and Overload Testing



The stalled motor is a non-linear load, so an RL circuit might not be 
representative. For overload testing, we used a band-brake, but I suppose a 
disc brake would be used now. You would need to plot the torque versus 
hydraulic pressure curve to calibrate it.

On 2024-08-14 17:36, James Pawson (U3C) wrote:

Hi all,



We’ve had a few things in the lab recently requiring motor locked rotor and 
motor overload testing.



Working on the principle that a locked rotor motor looks like a short circuit 
(inductance and DC resistance of winding) would it be reasonable to just 
substitute the motor with the equivalent circuit?



For an overload testing (steadily increasing the load on the motor drive until 
failure or trip) I’m not sure how best to practically do this. How do people 
achieve these tests practically in the lab? What equipment is used?



Any recommendations gratefully received.



All the best

James



James Pawson

Managing Director & EMC Problem Solver



Unit 3 Compliance Ltd

EMC : Environmental & Vibration : Electrical Safety : CE & UKCA : Consultancy



www.unit3compliance.co.uk<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.unit3compliance.co.uk_&d=DwMFaQ&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=c9NR2mGfldry-2pM9Bbuww&m=GqvAT31xXIVtvlxPsq1UlKlNtA8n7LOnmW8O-n2C-DfLdQWbgkT34x3D8kzfoA1w&s=NiJf6pX0ilU6resJtYq55vrPaC8c6VrSZLqfXxRUyyQ&e=>
 | ja...@unit3compliance.co.uk<mailto:ja...@unit3compliance.co.uk>

+44(0)1274 911747  |  +44(0)7811 139957

2 Wellington Business Park, New Lane, Bradford, BD4 8AL

Registered in England and Wales # 10574298



Office hours:

Every morning my full attention is on consultancy, testing, and troubleshooting 
activities for our customers’ projects. I’m available/contactable between 1300h 
to 1730h Mon/Tue/Thurs/Fri.

For inquiries, bookings, and testing updates please send us an email on 
he...@unit3compliance.co.uk<mailto:he...@unit3compliance.co.uk> or call 01274 
911747. Our lead times for testing and consultancy are typically 4-5 weeks.











[https://s-install.avcdn.net/ipm/preview/icons/icon-envelope-tick-green-avg-v1.png]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.avg.com_email-2Dsignature-3Futm-5Fmedium-3Demail-26utm-5Fsource-3Dlink-26utm-5Fcampaign-3Dsig-2Demail-26utm-5Fcontent-3Demailclient

Re: [PSES] Motor Locked Rotor and Overload Testing

[Ralph McDiarmid]

That’s the only non-linear effect I can envision, however, all the models I’ve 
seen using a Google search suggest an RL network only.  I don’t think the 
stator laminations would saturate during locked rotor for the same reason a 
transformer core doesn’t saturation when its secondary winding is shorted.

 

Ralph

 

From: James Pawson (U3C)  
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2024 4:53 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Motor Locked Rotor and Overload Testing

 

Hi John,

 

Thanks for the reply. Non linear response because of saturation of the magnetic 
material?

 

All the best

James

 

James Pawson

Managing Director & EMC Problem Solver

 

Unit 3 Compliance Ltd

EMC : Environmental & Vibration : Electrical Safety : CE & UKCA : Consultancy

 

 <http://www.unit3compliance.co.uk/> www.unit3compliance.co.uk |  
<mailto:ja...@unit3compliance.co.uk> ja...@unit3compliance.co.uk 

+44(0)1274 911747  |  +44(0)7811 139957

2 Wellington Business Park, New Lane, Bradford, BD4 8AL

Registered in England and Wales # 10574298

 

Office hours:

Every morning my full attention is on consultancy, testing, and troubleshooting 
activities for our customers’ projects. I’m available/contactable between 1300h 
to 1730h Mon/Tue/Thurs/Fri.

For inquiries, bookings, and testing updates please send us an email on 
he...@unit3compliance.co.uk <mailto:he...@unit3compliance.co.uk>  or call 01274 
911747. Our lead times for testing and consultancy are typically 4-5 weeks.

 

 

 

 

From: John Woodgate mailto:j...@woodjohn.uk> > 
Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2024 5:46 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> 
Subject: Re: [PSES] Motor Locked Rotor and Overload Testing

 

The stalled motor is a non-linear load, so an RL circuit might not be 
representative. For overload testing, we used a band-brake, but I suppose a 
disc brake would be used now. You would need to plot the torque versus 
hydraulic pressure curve to calibrate it.

On 2024-08-14 17:36, James Pawson (U3C) wrote:

Hi all,

 

We’ve had a few things in the lab recently requiring motor locked rotor and 
motor overload testing.

 

Working on the principle that a locked rotor motor looks like a short circuit 
(inductance and DC resistance of winding) would it be reasonable to just 
substitute the motor with the equivalent circuit?

 

For an overload testing (steadily increasing the load on the motor drive until 
failure or trip) I’m not sure how best to practically do this. How do people 
achieve these tests practically in the lab? What equipment is used?

 

Any recommendations gratefully received.

 

All the best

James

 

James Pawson

Managing Director & EMC Problem Solver

 

Unit 3 Compliance Ltd

EMC : Environmental & Vibration : Electrical Safety : CE & UKCA : Consultancy

 

 <http://www.unit3compliance.co.uk/> www.unit3compliance.co.uk |  
<mailto:ja...@unit3compliance.co.uk> ja...@unit3compliance.co.uk 

+44(0)1274 911747  |  +44(0)7811 139957

2 Wellington Business Park, New Lane, Bradford, BD4 8AL

Registered in England and Wales # 10574298

 

Office hours:

Every morning my full attention is on consultancy, testing, and troubleshooting 
activities for our customers’ projects. I’m available/contactable between 1300h 
to 1730h Mon/Tue/Thurs/Fri.

For inquiries, bookings, and testing updates please send us an email on 
he...@unit3compliance.co.uk <mailto:he...@unit3compliance.co.uk>  or call 01274 
911747. Our lead times for testing and consultancy are typically 4-5 weeks.

 

 

 

 

 


 
<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
 

Virus-free. 
<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
 www.avg.com


  _  


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>  

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/ 
<https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/%20>  

Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/  <https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/> 
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe) <https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html> 
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html 

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net <mailto:msherma...@comcast.net> 
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org <mailto:linf...@ieee.org>  

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org <mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org>  


  _  


To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the 

Re: [PSES] Motor Locked Rotor and Overload Testing

[John Woodgate]

Also increase of resistance as the wire gets hot.

On 2024-08-15 12:53, James Pawson (U3C) wrote:


Hi John,

Thanks for the reply. Non linear response because of saturation of the 
magnetic material?


All the best

James

James Pawson

Managing Director & EMC Problem Solver

*Unit 3 Compliance Ltd*

*EMC : Environmental & Vibration : Electrical Safety : CE & UKCA : 
Consultancy*


www.unit3compliance.co.uk <http://www.unit3compliance.co.uk/> | 
ja...@unit3compliance.co.uk <mailto:ja...@unit3compliance.co.uk>


+44(0)1274 911747  |  +44(0)7811 139957

2 Wellington Business Park, New Lane, Bradford, BD4 8AL

Registered in England and Wales # 10574298

/Office hours:/

/Every morning my full attention is on consultancy, testing, and 
troubleshooting activities for our customers’ projects. I’m 
available/contactable between 1300h to 1730h Mon/Tue/Thurs/Fri./


/For inquiries, bookings, and testing updates please send us an email 
on he...@unit3compliance.co.uk or call 01274 911747. Our lead times 
for testing and consultancy are typically 4-5 weeks./


*From:*John Woodgate 
*Sent:* Wednesday, August 14, 2024 5:46 PM
*To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
*Subject:* Re: [PSES] Motor Locked Rotor and Overload Testing

The stalled motor is a non-linear load, so an RL circuit might not be 
representative. For overload testing, we used a band-brake, but I 
suppose a disc brake would be used now. You would need to plot the 
torque versus hydraulic pressure curve to calibrate it.


On 2024-08-14 17:36, James Pawson (U3C) wrote:

Hi all,

We’ve had a few things in the lab recently requiring motor locked
rotor and motor overload testing.

Working on the principle that a locked rotor motor looks like a
short circuit (inductance and DC resistance of winding) would it
be reasonable to just substitute the motor with the equivalent
circuit?

For an overload testing (steadily increasing the load on the motor
drive until failure or trip) I’m not sure how best to practically
do this. How do people achieve these tests practically in the lab?
What equipment is used?

Any recommendations gratefully received.

All the best

James

James Pawson

Managing Director & EMC Problem Solver

*Unit 3 Compliance Ltd*

*EMC : Environmental & Vibration : Electrical Safety : CE & UKCA :
Consultancy*

www.unit3compliance.co.uk <http://www.unit3compliance.co.uk/> |
ja...@unit3compliance.co.uk <mailto:ja...@unit3compliance.co.uk>

+44(0)1274 911747  |  +44(0)7811 139957

2 Wellington Business Park, New Lane, Bradford, BD4 8AL

Registered in England and Wales # 10574298

/Office hours:/

/Every morning my full attention is on consultancy, testing, and
troubleshooting activities for our customers’ projects. I’m
available/contactable between 1300h to 1730h Mon/Tue/Thurs/Fri./

/For inquiries, bookings, and testing updates please send us an
email on he...@unit3compliance.co.uk or call 01274 911747. Our
lead times for testing and consultancy are typically 4-5 weeks./


<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>



Virus-free.www.avg.com

<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>



This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society
emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your
e-mail to EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/
<https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/%20>

Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including
how to unsubscribe) <https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html>
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org



To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1
<https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1>

--
OOO - Own Opinions Only
Best Wishes
John Woodgate
Keep trying


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society 
emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your 
e-mail to EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG


All emc-ps

Re: [PSES] Motor Locked Rotor and Overload Testing

[James Pawson (U3C)]

Hi John,



Thanks for the reply. Non linear response because of saturation of the magnetic 
material?



All the best

James



James Pawson

Managing Director & EMC Problem Solver



Unit 3 Compliance Ltd

EMC : Environmental & Vibration : Electrical Safety : CE & UKCA : Consultancy



 <http://www.unit3compliance.co.uk/> www.unit3compliance.co.uk |  
<mailto:ja...@unit3compliance.co.uk> ja...@unit3compliance.co.uk

+44(0)1274 911747  |  +44(0)7811 139957

2 Wellington Business Park, New Lane, Bradford, BD4 8AL

Registered in England and Wales # 10574298



Office hours:

Every morning my full attention is on consultancy, testing, and troubleshooting 
activities for our customers’ projects. I’m available/contactable between 1300h 
to 1730h Mon/Tue/Thurs/Fri.

For inquiries, bookings, and testing updates please send us an email on 
he...@unit3compliance.co.uk <mailto:he...@unit3compliance.co.uk>  or call 01274 
911747. Our lead times for testing and consultancy are typically 4-5 weeks.









From: John Woodgate 
Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2024 5:46 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Motor Locked Rotor and Overload Testing



The stalled motor is a non-linear load, so an RL circuit might not be 
representative. For overload testing, we used a band-brake, but I suppose a 
disc brake would be used now. You would need to plot the torque versus 
hydraulic pressure curve to calibrate it.

On 2024-08-14 17:36, James Pawson (U3C) wrote:

Hi all,



We’ve had a few things in the lab recently requiring motor locked rotor and 
motor overload testing.



Working on the principle that a locked rotor motor looks like a short circuit 
(inductance and DC resistance of winding) would it be reasonable to just 
substitute the motor with the equivalent circuit?



For an overload testing (steadily increasing the load on the motor drive until 
failure or trip) I’m not sure how best to practically do this. How do people 
achieve these tests practically in the lab? What equipment is used?



Any recommendations gratefully received.



All the best

James



James Pawson

Managing Director & EMC Problem Solver



Unit 3 Compliance Ltd

EMC : Environmental & Vibration : Electrical Safety : CE & UKCA : Consultancy



 <http://www.unit3compliance.co.uk/> www.unit3compliance.co.uk |  
<mailto:ja...@unit3compliance.co.uk> ja...@unit3compliance.co.uk

+44(0)1274 911747  |  +44(0)7811 139957

2 Wellington Business Park, New Lane, Bradford, BD4 8AL

Registered in England and Wales # 10574298



Office hours:

Every morning my full attention is on consultancy, testing, and troubleshooting 
activities for our customers’ projects. I’m available/contactable between 1300h 
to 1730h Mon/Tue/Thurs/Fri.

For inquiries, bookings, and testing updates please send us an email on 
he...@unit3compliance.co.uk <mailto:he...@unit3compliance.co.uk>  or call 01274 
911747. Our lead times for testing and consultancy are typically 4-5 weeks.












 
<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>

Virus-free. 
<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
 www.avg.com


  _


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/ 
<https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/%20>

Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/  <https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/>
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe) <https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html>
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net <mailto:msherma...@comcast.net>
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org <mailto:linf...@ieee.org>

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org <mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org>


  _


To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC 
<https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1> &A=1

--
OOO - Own Opinions Only
Best Wishes
John Woodgate
Keep trying
  _


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/ 
<https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv

Re: [PSES] Motor Locked Rotor and Overload Testing

[MIKE SHERMAN]

Note that securing the motor and rotor for a locked rotor test must be done 
very carefully. The motors generate an amazing amount of torque, and flying 
wrenches, for example, can be hazardous.
 
Mike Sherman
Sherman PSC LLC

> On 08/14/2024 11:36 AM CDT James Pawson (U3C)  
> wrote:
>  
>  
> 
> Hi all,
> 
>  
> 
> We’ve had a few things in the lab recently requiring motor locked rotor and 
> motor overload testing.
> 
>  
> 
> Working on the principle that a locked rotor motor looks like a short circuit 
> (inductance and DC resistance of winding) would it be reasonable to just 
> substitute the motor with the equivalent circuit?
> 
>  
> 
> For an overload testing (steadily increasing the load on the motor drive 
> until failure or trip) I’m not sure how best to practically do this. How do 
> people achieve these tests practically in the lab? What equipment is used?
> 
>  
> 
> Any recommendations gratefully received.
> 
>  
> 
> All the best
> 
> James
> 
>  
> 
> James Pawson
> 
> Managing Director & EMC Problem Solver
> 
>  
> 
> Unit 3 Compliance Ltd
> 
> EMC : Environmental & Vibration : Electrical Safety : CE & UKCA : Consultancy
> 
>  
> 
> www.unit3compliance.co.uk http://www.unit3compliance.co.uk/ | 
> ja...@unit3compliance.co.uk mailto:ja...@unit3compliance.co.uk
> 
> +44(0)1274 911747  |  +44(0)7811 139957
> 
> 2 Wellington Business Park, New Lane, Bradford, BD4 8AL
> 
> Registered in England and Wales # 10574298
> 
>  
> 
> Office hours:
> 
> Every morning my full attention is on consultancy, testing, and 
> troubleshooting activities for our customers’ projects. I’m 
> available/contactable between 1300h to 1730h Mon/Tue/Thurs/Fri.
> 
> For inquiries, bookings, and testing updates please send us an email on 
> he...@unit3compliance.co.uk mailto:he...@unit3compliance.co.uk or call 01274 
> 911747. Our lead times for testing and consultancy are typically 4-5 weeks.
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient
> 
> Virus-free.www.avg.com 
> http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient
> 
> -
> 
> This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
> discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
> EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> 
> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
> https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/
> 
>  
> 
> Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/ https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
> Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
> unsubscribe) https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html
> List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html
> 
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
> Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net mailto:msherma...@comcast.net
> Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org mailto:linf...@ieee.org
> 
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org
> 
> 
> -
> 
> To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
> https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1
> 

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1

Re: [PSES] Motor Locked Rotor and Overload Testing

[John Woodgate]

The stalled motor is a non-linear load, so an RL circuit might not be 
representative. For overload testing, we used a band-brake, but I 
suppose a disc brake would be used now. You would need to plot the 
torque versus hydraulic pressure curve to calibrate it.


On 2024-08-14 17:36, James Pawson (U3C) wrote:


Hi all,

We’ve had a few things in the lab recently requiring motor locked 
rotor and motor overload testing.


Working on the principle that a locked rotor motor looks like a short 
circuit (inductance and DC resistance of winding) would it be 
reasonable to just substitute the motor with the equivalent circuit?


For an overload testing (steadily increasing the load on the motor 
drive until failure or trip) I’m not sure how best to practically do 
this. How do people achieve these tests practically in the lab? What 
equipment is used?


Any recommendations gratefully received.

All the best

James

James Pawson

Managing Director & EMC Problem Solver

*Unit 3 Compliance Ltd*

*EMC : Environmental & Vibration : Electrical Safety : CE & UKCA : 
Consultancy*


www.unit3compliance.co.uk  | 
ja...@unit3compliance.co.uk 


+44(0)1274 911747  |  +44(0)7811 139957

2 Wellington Business Park, New Lane, Bradford, BD4 8AL

Registered in England and Wales # 10574298

/Office hours:/

/Every morning my full attention is on consultancy, testing, and 
troubleshooting activities for our customers’ projects. I’m 
available/contactable between 1300h to 1730h Mon/Tue/Thurs/Fri./


/For inquiries, bookings, and testing updates please send us an email 
on he...@unit3compliance.co.uk  or 
call 01274 911747. Our lead times for testing and consultancy are 
typically 4-5 weeks./



 
	Virus-free.www.avg.com 
 



<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society 
emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your 
e-mail to EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how 
to unsubscribe) 

List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org



To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1



--
OOO - Own Opinions Only
Best Wishes
John Woodgate
Keep trying


--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1

Re: [PSES] Motor Locked Rotor and Overload Testing

[MIKE SHERMAN]

Regarding locked rotor testing: what are the criteria for passing? If it's 
associated with, for example, the motor (as in not catching fire, or passing a 
dielectric test afterwards), then I think you have your answer.
 
Mike Sherman
Sherman PSC LLC

> On 08/14/2024 11:36 AM CDT James Pawson (U3C)  
> wrote:
>  
>  
> 
> Hi all,
> 
>  
> 
> We’ve had a few things in the lab recently requiring motor locked rotor and 
> motor overload testing.
> 
>  
> 
> Working on the principle that a locked rotor motor looks like a short circuit 
> (inductance and DC resistance of winding) would it be reasonable to just 
> substitute the motor with the equivalent circuit?
> 
>  
> 
> For an overload testing (steadily increasing the load on the motor drive 
> until failure or trip) I’m not sure how best to practically do this. How do 
> people achieve these tests practically in the lab? What equipment is used?
> 
>  
> 
> Any recommendations gratefully received.
> 
>  
> 
> All the best
> 
> James
> 
>  
> 
> James Pawson
> 
> Managing Director & EMC Problem Solver
> 
>  
> 
> Unit 3 Compliance Ltd
> 
> EMC : Environmental & Vibration : Electrical Safety : CE & UKCA : Consultancy
> 
>  
> 
> www.unit3compliance.co.uk http://www.unit3compliance.co.uk/ | 
> ja...@unit3compliance.co.uk mailto:ja...@unit3compliance.co.uk
> 
> +44(0)1274 911747  |  +44(0)7811 139957
> 
> 2 Wellington Business Park, New Lane, Bradford, BD4 8AL
> 
> Registered in England and Wales # 10574298
> 
>  
> 
> Office hours:
> 
> Every morning my full attention is on consultancy, testing, and 
> troubleshooting activities for our customers’ projects. I’m 
> available/contactable between 1300h to 1730h Mon/Tue/Thurs/Fri.
> 
> For inquiries, bookings, and testing updates please send us an email on 
> he...@unit3compliance.co.uk mailto:he...@unit3compliance.co.uk or call 01274 
> 911747. Our lead times for testing and consultancy are typically 4-5 weeks.
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient
> 
> Virus-free.www.avg.com 
> http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient
> 
> -
> 
> This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
> discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
> EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> 
> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
> https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/
> 
>  
> 
> Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/ https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
> Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
> unsubscribe) https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html
> List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html
> 
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
> Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net mailto:msherma...@comcast.net
> Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org mailto:linf...@ieee.org
> 
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org
> 
> 
> -
> 
> To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
> https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1
> 

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1

Re: [PSES] Machinery Regulation - safety components

[John Woodgate]

And hope that the HAS consultant and market surveillance agree with our 
interpretation and with that of the authors of the Regulation. Not a 
good situation.


On 2024-08-10 13:45, MIKE SHERMAN wrote:
I believe that it will be up to us to understand the new requirements 
of the Regulation and determine whether our products meet them.


--
OOO - Own Opinions Only
Best Wishes
John Woodgate
Keep trying


--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1

Re: [PSES] Machinery Regulation - safety components

[MIKE SHERMAN]

Peter --
 
All good questions!

1.  Where there is similar language in the Machinery Directive, I look to the 
"Guide to the application of the Machinery Directive" for help in 
interpretation.
 
2.  For questions on what "placed on the market" means, I scour the Blue Guide. 
I seem to recall pages and pages of discussion about this topic there.
 
3.  My observation is that the addition of the HAS consultant has gummed up the 
release of harmonized standards, making it extremely difficult to predict when 
updated standards will be released. Also recall that within those harmonized 
standards there typically is a list of which essential heath and safety 
requirements (of either a directive or regulation) are satisfied by the 
standard.
 
So I think we will be on our own for a while dealing with standards harmonized 
to the Machinery Directive and applying them to the Machinery Regulation. And 
no, I don't think we can automatically assume that they will satisfy the 
Regulation as-is. I believe that it will be up to us to understand the new 
requirements of the Regulation and determine whether our products meet them.
 
Mike Sherman
Sherman PSC LLC

> On 08/09/2024 6:05 PM CDT Peter Tarver  wrote:
>  
>  
> In reviewing the Machinery Regulation, Article 3 defines a safety component as
>  
> 
> "...means a physical or digital component, including software, of a product 
> within the scope of this Regulation, which is designed or intended to fulfil 
> (sic) a safety function and which is independently placed on the market, the 
> failure or malfunction of which endanger the safety of persons, but which is 
> not necessary in order for that product to function or for which normal 
> components may be substituted in order for that product to function;
> 
> (emphasis added.)
>  
> The component falls under Annex I, Part, B but is only sold to OEMs
> 1) whose equipment would clearly fall under the Regulation, and
> 2) who integrate the component into other equipment before that other 
> equipment is placed on the market, but
> 3) is not "independently placed on the market," for general sale,
> is there any reason to conclude that the Regulation does not apply to the 
> component?
>  
> The product is sold into the EU for applications other than those that would 
> be subject to the Regulation, so it seems that applicability could depend on 
> the interpretation of "independently" in the context of the regulation. Or is 
> the  use of "independently" intended to mean "not manufactured by the OEM for 
> their own use?"
>  
> I note that similar language existed in the Machinery Directive.
>  
> My approach is to apply an abundance of caution and presume the Regulation 
> applies, but I'd appreciate the input of the group.
>  
> A final couple of questions: should it be assumed that the same standards 
> published in the EU OJ for the Machinery Directive will satisfy the 
> Regulation until a separate list of standards is published and linked to the 
> Regulation? Also, is there a view on when such a list will be published?
>  
> Regards,
>  
> Peter Tarver
>  
> 
> -
> 
> This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
> discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
> EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> 
> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
> https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/
> 
>  
> 
> Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/ https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
> Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
> unsubscribe) https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html
> List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html
> 
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
> Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net mailto:msherma...@comcast.net
> Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org mailto:linf...@ieee.org
> 
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org
> 
> 
> -
> 
> To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
> https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1
> 

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe f

Re: [PSES] Machinery Regulation - safety components

[Charlie Blackham]

Peter

As you note, the term "independently placed on the market" is in the Machinery 
Directive, so appears unchanged in concept in the MR
At the moment I think Machinery Guide §42 Safety components is still the most 
useful guidance, along

At the beginning of July, The EU Commission has issued Draft standardisation 
request to CENELEC and CEN support of Regulation (EU) 2023/1230
- 5 new standards
- updates to a number of other standards
- To be completed within 18 months !!

https://ec.europa.eu/docsroom/documents/60695?locale=en


Best regards
Charlie

Charlie Blackham
Sulis Consultants Ltd
Tel: +44 (0)7946 624317
Web: https://sulisconsultants.com/
Registered in England and Wales, number 05466247

From: Peter Tarver 
Sent: Saturday, August 10, 2024 12:06 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Machinery Regulation - safety components

In reviewing the Machinery Regulation, Article 3 defines a safety component as

"...means a physical or digital component, including software, of a product 
within the scope of this Regulation, which is designed or intended to fulfil 
(sic) a safety function and which is independently placed on the market, the 
failure or malfunction of which endanger the safety of persons, but which is 
not necessary in order for that product to function or for which normal 
components may be substituted in order for that product to function;
(emphasis added.)
The component falls under Annex I, Part, B but is only sold to OEMs
1) whose equipment would clearly fall under the Regulation, and
2) who integrate the component into other equipment before that other equipment 
is placed on the market, but
3) is not "independently placed on the market," for general sale,
is there any reason to conclude that the Regulation does not apply to the 
component?
The product is sold into the EU for applications other than those that would be 
subject to the Regulation, so it seems that applicability could depend on the 
interpretation of "independently" in the context of the regulation. Or is the  
use of "independently" intended to mean "not manufactured by the OEM for their 
own use?"
I note that similar language existed in the Machinery Directive.
My approach is to apply an abundance of caution and presume the Regulation 
applies, but I'd appreciate the input of the group.
A final couple of questions: should it be assumed that the same standards 
published in the EU OJ for the Machinery Directive will satisfy the Regulation 
until a separate list of standards is published and linked to the Regulation? 
Also, is there a view on when such a list will be published?
Regards,
Peter Tarver


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org



To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1

Re: [PSES] Machinery Regulation - safety components

[John Woodgate]

It's bad wording; I think it means 'placed on the market as a single 
item of commerce', i.e. you can buy one or more for a stated list price. 
I don't think it means 'made available to the general public'. Maybe 
someone knows what the authors of the document actually meant by those 
words.


On 2024-08-10 00:05, Peter Tarver wrote:
In reviewing the Machinery Regulation, Article 3 defines a safety 
component as


"...means a physical or digital component, including software, of a 
product within the scope of this Regulation, which is designed or 
intended to fulfil (sic) a safety function and */_which is 
independently placed on the market_/*, the failure or malfunction of 
which endanger the safety of persons, but which is not necessary in 
order for that product to function or for which normal components may 
be substituted in order for that product to function;


(emphasis added.)
The component falls under Annex I, Part, B but is only sold to OEMs
1) whose equipment would clearly fall under the Regulation, and
2) who integrate the component into other equipment before that other 
equipment is placed on the market, but

3) is not "independently placed on the market," for general sale,
is there any reason to conclude that the Regulation does not apply to 
the component?
The product is sold into the EU for applications other than those that 
would be subject to the Regulation, so it seems that applicability 
could depend on the interpretation of "independently" in the context 
of the regulation. Or is the  use of "independently" intended to mean 
"not manufactured by the OEM for their own use?"

I note that similar language existed in the Machinery Directive.
My approach is to apply an abundance of caution and presume the 
Regulation applies, but I'd appreciate the input of the group.
A final couple of questions: should it be assumed that the same 
standards published in the EU OJ for the Machinery Directive will 
satisfy the Regulation until a separate list of standards is published 
and linked to the Regulation? Also, is there a view on when such a 
list will be published?

Regards,
Peter Tarver


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society 
emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your 
e-mail to EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how 
to unsubscribe) 

List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org



To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1



--
OOO - Own Opinions Only
Best Wishes
John Woodgate
Keep trying


--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1

Re: [PSES] Fault Exclusion

[John Woodgate]

This is required in auditoria in Britain (not earthquake country as far 
as you'd notice). Auditoria include quite small spaces.


On 2024-08-08 20:24, Richard Nute wrote:
For example, hanging a product from the ceiling typically doesn’t 
require a second and independent ceiling attachment except in 
California (earthquake country). 


--
OOO - Own Opinions Only
Best Wishes
John Woodgate
Keep trying


--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1

Re: [PSES] Fault Exclusion

[Richard Nute]

 

Hello from Bend, Oregon:

 

“To determine if the loss of two independent safety functions in your equipment 
results in a hazard, then you likely need to do an FMEA (Failure Mode & Effects 
Analysis).”

 

Customarily, the product must be safe under normal conditions and single fault 
conditions.  This is accomplished with two independent safeguards against the 
same hazard.  If one of the safeguards should fail, the second safeguard 
provides the protection against the hazard.  

 

For example, consider a passenger in a car.  The first safeguard against an 
inertia energy hazard is behavior of the driver (or the driver of another car). 
 The second safeguard is a seat belt.  Both prevent or reduce the magnitude of 
body inertia energy expended against a part of the car.  The driver controls 
the car in such a manner as to avoid a crash.  In the event of failure of the 
driver (a crash), then the seat belt prevents or reduces the effect of the body 
“crashing” into a car part.  

 

Consider double insulation, where if one insulation fails, the second 
insulation is effective.  If both insulations fail, then an injury is likely.

 

While some safety standards require two safeguards against a single hazard, 
some safety standards may not.  For example, hanging a product from the ceiling 
typically doesn’t require a second and independent ceiling attachment except in 
California (earthquake country).  

 

Rich

 

 


-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1

Re: [PSES] Fault Exclusion

[Ralph McDiarmid]

If I understand your question correctly, then a failure of a control wire would 
result in the loss of two, independent safety functions, each function being 
provided by a separate component.  That would result in a loss of single-fault 
tolerance, a central principle of product safety.  IEC62368-1 is a good, modern 
reference.  The principles of product safety described in the old IEC60950-1 is 
another.

 

To determine if the loss of two independent safety functions in your equipment 
results in a hazard, then you likely need to do an FMEA (Failure Mode & Effects 
Analysis).

 

Ralph

 

From: Steve Brody <355150a0f9b9-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org> 
Sent: Thursday, August 8, 2024 8:58 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Fault Exclusion

 

Experts: 

  

I have been told that: 

  

'if you have two safety components in the same electrical cabinet you can 
connect them with a single control wire, you can exclude faults against that 
wire as a fault that needs to be considered for safety calculations.' 

  

It is logical if the two safety components' are redundant.  But if they have 
different functions? 

  

I have not been able to confirm that in any standard. 

  

If you agree that this statement is correct, then I would appreciate your 
rationale and if possible a reference to chapter and verse in a standard or 
risk assessment document. 

  

Thanks, 

  

Steve Brody 

sgbr...@comcast.net   

C - 603 617 9116 

  _  

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG   

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/ 
  

Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/   
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)  
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html 

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net  
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org   

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org   

  _  

To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC 
 &A=1 


-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1

Re: [PSES] Touch/Leakage Current Test Equipment

[Boštjan Glavič]

Hi Brian,


We used hioki in the past. The problem is how to calibrate internal circuit up 
to 1MHz. You can calibrate voltage up to 1MHz, however instrument shows current 
and this is not an easy task. Many labs have the same issue.

Calibration up to 1MHz is required by IEC 60990 standard and by CB scheme. See 
OD-5013.

Instrument shall allow rms and peak measurements.

One customer was using in production Chroma. They were not very happy with it 
since they could not integrate it into their system.

We prefer now to use normal network circuit. Our metrology department built 
different networks for different applications and  made ISO 17025 calibration 
up to 1MHz. You need to use osc with the network. This is good since you can 
see the signal on osc. It is not so good for medical measurement since you need 
to do a lot of measurements manually. Therefore we built a second switch box, 
which makes measurement easier.

Of course, such method is not useful if you are doing routine tests in 
production.

Best regards,
Boštjan


Boštjan Glavič
Vodja laboratorija za elektroniko / Head of Laboratory
Varnost in elektromagnetika / Safety and Electromagnetics

SIQ Ljubljana, Mašera-Spasićeva ulica 10,
SI-1000 Ljubljana, Slovenija
T: +386 1 4778 265
M: +386 41 391 283
bostjan.gla...@siq.si; 
www.siq.si

[SIQ]
To elektronsko sporočilo je namenjeno izključno naslovniku. Pravno 
obvestilo.
The information transmitted by this email is intended only for the person or 
entity to which it is addressed. 
Disclaimer.

[SIQ Facebook]  [SIQ LinkedIn] 
   [SIQ YouTube] 









From: Brian Kunde 
Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2024 2:51 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Touch/Leakage Current Test Equipment

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of our organisation. Do not click 
links or open attachments unless you recognise the sender and know the content 
is safe.

Greetings to all.

I would like to hear your recommendations for test equipment for performing 
Touch/Leakage Current.  If it is ok to say, we currently have an ED&D LT-952 
with the 30A option and it has been great. However, we would like to get a 
second tester that has a LAN interface so we can automate the testing and data 
collection.

We like the Meter Reference feature so the measurement is not only referenced 
to ground, but also to Line 1 or Line 2.  We also like the 30 amp ability since 
we do test products that are rated between 20A and 30A.  Even higher current 
rating would be nice.

I would love to hear your recommendations for a good Leakage Current Tester.  
If it is not ok to post here, please send it directly to me.

Validation and Calibration:  On another related topic,  how do you all Validate 
your Leakage Current Tester?  Does anyone self calibrate their own Tester?  How 
hard can this be?  The company we use for calibration says they cannot 
calibrate it so they send it to another company, resulting in my tester being 
gone for a long period of time. So I am trying to find an acceptable solution.

I also have the Human Body Model circuit as a separate box that I connect to a 
calibrated DMM to make measurements. This box is easy to validate just with a 
meter.  Our NRTL Inspector says we can just measure the resistance and 
capacitance of the Box ourselves and do not have to send it out for calibration 
(that is what they do). So can I use this Box to compare the results I get with 
my ED&D Leakage Current Tester and call it good?

Thank you very much.
The Other Brian


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org



To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1

-
---

Re: [PSES] CAN/CSA C22.2 No. 62133-2:20 for CR 2032 Batteries?

[MIKE SHERMAN]

My professional experience with Amazon product safety people, maybe 5 years ago 
and before I retired, was frustrating.
 
One angle you might try: treat them like another product safety professional 
with whom you are networking. In this case, you might provide a link to the 
CAN/CSA C22.2 No. 62133-2:20 website and point out that the standard only 
applies to secondary cells. You might also provide a link to a site explaining 
what secondary cells are.
 
We all have helped educate one another over the years; we can continue that 
courtesy with our Amazon colleagues.
 
Mike Sherman
Sherman PSC LLC

> On 07/22/2024 1:58 PM CDT Ralph McDiarmid  wrote:
>  
>  
> 
> Unless Amazon has a regulatory department that has access to national 
> standards, this may be a simple checkbox for in-coming inspection.  In that 
> case, you might be stuck with the requirement regardless of CR2032 cell type. 
> 
>  
> 
> CAN/CSA C22.2 are part 2 national standards for Canada, not applicable in 
> other countries unless adopted.
> 
>  
> 
> Ralph
> 
>  
> 
> From: Ted Eckert <07cf6ebeab9d-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org>
> Sent: Monday, July 22, 2024 11:21 AM
> To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: Re: [PSES] CAN/CSA C22.2 No. 62133-2:20 for CR 2032 Batteries?
> 
>  
> 
> Hello John,
> 
>  
> 
> I believe that IEC 60086-4 is the applicable standard for primary 
> (non-rechargeable) lithium batteries, including coin cells. As others have 
> noted, IEC 62133-2 is for secondary (rechargeable) batteries.
> 
>  
> 
> Ted Eckert
> 
> The opinions expressed in this message are my own and do not necessarily 
> reflect those of my employer.
> 
> 
> -
> 
> From: John Riutta mailto:jriu...@celestron.com>
> Sent: Monday, July 22, 2024 10:31 AM
> To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG 
> mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [PSES] CAN/CSA C22.2 No. 62133-2:20 for CR 2032 Batteries?
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> You don't often get email from jriu...@celestron.com 
> mailto:jriu...@celestron.com. Learn why this is important 
> https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification
> 
>  
> 
> Hello all,
> 
>  
> 
> We’ve been seeing Amazon requiring CAN/CSA C22.2 No. 62133-2:20 for all 
> products that use or contain at time of sale a CR 2032 coin cell battery. I 
> was of the understanding that this standard did not apply to this battery. 
> Unfortunately, I do not possess a copy of the standard so I cannot verify 
> this myself. MayI ask if anyone here can offer verification or rebuttal 
> please?
> 
>  
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> John
> 
>  
> 
> John E. Riutta, MA, MBA, FLS I Product Development and Product Compliance 
> Manager I jriu...@celestron.com mailto:jriu...@celestron.com I 323.446.1076
> 
> CELESTRON, LLC. I 2835 Columbia Street I Torrance, CA 90503
> 
>  
> 
> [Logo  Description automatically generated] http://www.celestron.com/  [Icon  
> Description automatically generated] 
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.instagram.com_celestronuniverse&d=DwMFaQ&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=x40qV4DM3u4JrqHl_FVpxdOqkHDBo3f6BvwvAwIWGH8&m=B6fIOBUaG50CeATRoPrGe3aQoHBGiKZFSBIu-ovu97c5RZhLW5JAVauCDQwYc3UQ&s=mp6OgNq_McWjXY2YQYjZ9Dk6_XzP1VPvIEe8C8zj56A&e=
>   [A close-up of a fire  Description automatically generated with low 
> confidence] 
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_Celestron&d=DwMFaQ&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=x40qV4DM3u4JrqHl_FVpxdOqkHDBo3f6BvwvAwIWGH8&m=B6fIOBUaG50CeATRoPrGe3aQoHBGiKZFSBIu-ovu97c5RZhLW5JAVauCDQwYc3UQ&s=VPySibohtehHWHpC8d5rHDIovgyX-KLLxjtWSiblJGI&e=
>   [A picture containing text, clipart  Description automatically generated] 
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.facebook.com_celestron&d=DwMFaQ&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=x40qV4DM3u4JrqHl_FVpxdOqkHDBo3f6BvwvAwIWGH8&m=B6fIOBUaG50CeATRoPrGe3aQoHBGiKZFSBIu-ovu97c5RZhLW5JAVauCDQwYc3UQ&s=mFMWx391BWGOZRSQd2VOWpQ8frezSjy2nYeDDPQcxtg&e=
>   [Icon  Description automatically generated] 
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.youtube.com_user_CelestronDotCom&d=DwMFaQ&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=x40qV4DM3u4JrqHl_FVpxdOqkHDBo3f6BvwvAwIWGH8&m=B6fIOBUaG50CeATRoPrGe3aQoHBGiKZFSBIu-ovu97c5RZhLW5JAVauCDQwYc3UQ&s=ziJj_dfd_78luGSUUH4AfwmPyhD40fdDd46c8oL7bcc&e=
>   [Icon  Description automatically generated] 
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.linkedin.com_company_celestron-2Dllc-2D&d=DwMFaQ&c=euGZstcaTD

Re: [PSES] CAN/CSA C22.2 No. 62133-2:20 for CR 2032 Batteries?

[Ralph McDiarmid]

Unless Amazon has a regulatory department that has access to national
standards, this may be a simple checkbox for in-coming inspection.  In that
case, you might be stuck with the requirement regardless of CR2032 cell
type.  

 

CAN/CSA C22.2 are part 2 national standards for Canada, not applicable in
other countries unless adopted.

 

Ralph

 

From: Ted Eckert <07cf6ebeab9d-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org> 
Sent: Monday, July 22, 2024 11:21 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] CAN/CSA C22.2 No. 62133-2:20 for CR 2032 Batteries?

 

Hello John,

 

I believe that IEC 60086-4 is the applicable standard for primary
(non-rechargeable) lithium batteries, including coin cells. As others have
noted, IEC 62133-2 is for secondary (rechargeable) batteries.

 

Ted Eckert

The opinions expressed in this message are my own and do not necessarily
reflect those of my employer.

  _  

From: John Riutta mailto:jriu...@celestron.com> >
Sent: Monday, July 22, 2024 10:31 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> >
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [PSES] CAN/CSA C22.2 No. 62133-2:20 for CR 2032
Batteries? 

 


You don't often get email from jriu...@celestron.com
<mailto:jriu...@celestron.com> . Learn why this is important
<https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification> 



Hello all,

 

We've been seeing Amazon requiring CAN/CSA C22.2 No. 62133-2:20 for all
products that use or contain at time of sale a CR 2032 coin cell battery. I
was of the understanding that this standard did not apply to this battery.
Unfortunately, I do not possess a copy of the standard so I cannot verify
this myself. MayI ask if anyone here can offer verification or rebuttal
please?

 

Best regards,

John

 

John E. Riutta, MA, MBA, FLS I Product Development and Product Compliance
Manager I  <mailto:jriu...@celestron.com> jriu...@celestron.com I
323.446.1076 

CELESTRON, LLC. I 2835 Columbia Street I Torrance, CA 90503

 

 <http://www.celestron.com/>
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.instagram.com_cele
stronuniverse&d=DwMFaQ&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=x40qV
4DM3u4JrqHl_FVpxdOqkHDBo3f6BvwvAwIWGH8&m=B6fIOBUaG50CeATRoPrGe3aQoHBGiKZFSBI
u-ovu97c5RZhLW5JAVauCDQwYc3UQ&s=mp6OgNq_McWjXY2YQYjZ9Dk6_XzP1VPvIEe8C8zj56A&
e=>
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_Celestron&;
d=DwMFaQ&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=x40qV4DM3u4JrqHl_FV
pxdOqkHDBo3f6BvwvAwIWGH8&m=B6fIOBUaG50CeATRoPrGe3aQoHBGiKZFSBIu-ovu97c5RZhLW
5JAVauCDQwYc3UQ&s=VPySibohtehHWHpC8d5rHDIovgyX-KLLxjtWSiblJGI&e=>
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.facebook.com_celes
tron&d=DwMFaQ&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=x40qV4DM3u4Jrq
Hl_FVpxdOqkHDBo3f6BvwvAwIWGH8&m=B6fIOBUaG50CeATRoPrGe3aQoHBGiKZFSBIu-ovu97c5
RZhLW5JAVauCDQwYc3UQ&s=mFMWx391BWGOZRSQd2VOWpQ8frezSjy2nYeDDPQcxtg&e=>
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.youtube.com_user_C
elestronDotCom&d=DwMFaQ&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=x40q
V4DM3u4JrqHl_FVpxdOqkHDBo3f6BvwvAwIWGH8&m=B6fIOBUaG50CeATRoPrGe3aQoHBGiKZFSB
Iu-ovu97c5RZhLW5JAVauCDQwYc3UQ&s=ziJj_dfd_78luGSUUH4AfwmPyhD40fdDd46c8oL7bcc
&e=>
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.linkedin.com_compa
ny_celestron-2Dllc-2D&d=DwMFaQ&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM
&r=x40qV4DM3u4JrqHl_FVpxdOqkHDBo3f6BvwvAwIWGH8&m=B6fIOBUaG50CeATRoPrGe3aQoHB
GiKZFSBIu-ovu97c5RZhLW5JAVauCDQwYc3UQ&s=dXknLUOcxSuYfVZ7A71XexAkwNhfOYqmzp9H
ADpQfIk&e=> 

 

From: Ralph McDiarmid mailto:rmm.priv...@gmail.com>
> 
Sent: Friday, July 19, 2024 10:40 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> 
Subject: Re: [PSES] "Intelligent" Power Modules?

 

I stopped reading at the word "performances".  

 

 

Ralph

 

From: Douglas Powell mailto:doug...@gmail.com> > 
Sent: Friday, July 19, 2024 9:27 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> 
Subject: [PSES] "Intelligent" Power Modules?

 

So I just finished reading "1.2 kV/400 A SiC Source Turn-Off MOSFET
Intelligent Power Module" (https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/10574416
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__ieeexplore.ieee.org_do
cument_10574416&d=DwMFaQ&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=x40
qV4DM3u4JrqHl_FVpxdOqkHDBo3f6BvwvAwIWGH8&m=a2CCo_J4V1NasdwIBe0EeqpUJTYCY_V6T
mg345FDzau0JquoopInoKrPLEhikCaN&s=_UxHI-pyQoHSCbqUQCVFvIEGK_7RUdJisvq72DPJL8
w&e=> )

 

The word "intelligent" in the title of the article piqued my interest.  So,
what's with the overuse of the term "intelligent" nowadays?  Whe

Re: [PSES] CAN/CSA C22.2 No. 62133-2:20 for CR 2032 Batteries?

[Ted Eckert]

Hello John,

I believe that IEC 60086-4 is the applicable standard for primary 
(non-rechargeable) lithium batteries, including coin cells. As others have 
noted, IEC 62133-2 is for secondary (rechargeable) batteries.

Ted Eckert
The opinions expressed in this message are my own and do not necessarily 
reflect those of my employer.

From: John Riutta 
Sent: Monday, July 22, 2024 10:31 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG 
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [PSES] CAN/CSA C22.2 No. 62133-2:20 for CR 2032 Batteries?

You don't often get email from jriu...@celestron.com. Learn why this is 
important<https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification>

Hello all,



We’ve been seeing Amazon requiring CAN/CSA C22.2 No. 62133-2:20 for all 
products that use or contain at time of sale a CR 2032 coin cell battery. I was 
of the understanding that this standard did not apply to this battery. 
Unfortunately, I do not possess a copy of the standard so I cannot verify this 
myself. MayI ask if anyone here can offer verification or rebuttal please?



Best regards,

John



John E. Riutta, MA, MBA, FLS I Product Development and Product Compliance 
Manager I jriu...@celestron.com<mailto:jriu...@celestron.com> I 323.446.1076

CELESTRON, LLC. I 2835 Columbia Street I Torrance, CA 90503



[Logo  Description automatically generated]<http://www.celestron.com/>  [Icon  
Description automatically generated] 
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.instagram.com_celestronuniverse&d=DwMFaQ&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=x40qV4DM3u4JrqHl_FVpxdOqkHDBo3f6BvwvAwIWGH8&m=B6fIOBUaG50CeATRoPrGe3aQoHBGiKZFSBIu-ovu97c5RZhLW5JAVauCDQwYc3UQ&s=mp6OgNq_McWjXY2YQYjZ9Dk6_XzP1VPvIEe8C8zj56A&e=>
   [A close-up of a fire  Description automatically generated with low 
confidence] 
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_Celestron&d=DwMFaQ&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=x40qV4DM3u4JrqHl_FVpxdOqkHDBo3f6BvwvAwIWGH8&m=B6fIOBUaG50CeATRoPrGe3aQoHBGiKZFSBIu-ovu97c5RZhLW5JAVauCDQwYc3UQ&s=VPySibohtehHWHpC8d5rHDIovgyX-KLLxjtWSiblJGI&e=>
   [A picture containing text, clipart  Description automatically generated] 
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.facebook.com_celestron&d=DwMFaQ&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=x40qV4DM3u4JrqHl_FVpxdOqkHDBo3f6BvwvAwIWGH8&m=B6fIOBUaG50CeATRoPrGe3aQoHBGiKZFSBIu-ovu97c5RZhLW5JAVauCDQwYc3UQ&s=mFMWx391BWGOZRSQd2VOWpQ8frezSjy2nYeDDPQcxtg&e=>
   [Icon  Description automatically generated] 
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.youtube.com_user_CelestronDotCom&d=DwMFaQ&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=x40qV4DM3u4JrqHl_FVpxdOqkHDBo3f6BvwvAwIWGH8&m=B6fIOBUaG50CeATRoPrGe3aQoHBGiKZFSBIu-ovu97c5RZhLW5JAVauCDQwYc3UQ&s=ziJj_dfd_78luGSUUH4AfwmPyhD40fdDd46c8oL7bcc&e=>
   [Icon  Description automatically generated] 
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.linkedin.com_company_celestron-2Dllc-2D&d=DwMFaQ&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=x40qV4DM3u4JrqHl_FVpxdOqkHDBo3f6BvwvAwIWGH8&m=B6fIOBUaG50CeATRoPrGe3aQoHBGiKZFSBIu-ovu97c5RZhLW5JAVauCDQwYc3UQ&s=dXknLUOcxSuYfVZ7A71XexAkwNhfOYqmzp9HADpQfIk&e=>



From: Ralph McDiarmid 
Sent: Friday, July 19, 2024 10:40 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] "Intelligent" Power Modules?



I stopped reading at the word “performances”.





Ralph



From: Douglas Powell mailto:doug...@gmail.com>>
Sent: Friday, July 19, 2024 9:27 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Subject: [PSES] "Intelligent" Power Modules?



So I just finished reading "1.2 kV/400 A SiC Source Turn-Off MOSFET Intelligent 
Power Module" 
(https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/10574416<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__ieeexplore.ieee.org_document_10574416&d=DwMFaQ&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=x40qV4DM3u4JrqHl_FVpxdOqkHDBo3f6BvwvAwIWGH8&m=a2CCo_J4V1NasdwIBe0EeqpUJTYCY_V6Tmg345FDzau0JquoopInoKrPLEhikCaN&s=_UxHI-pyQoHSCbqUQCVFvIEGK_7RUdJisvq72DPJL8w&e=>)



The word "intelligent" in the title of the article piqued my interest.  So, 
what's with the overuse of the term "intelligent" nowadays?  When I read the 
article, I noticed that the word appeared only three times: once in the title, 
once in the abstract, and once in the opening paragraph. The acronym "IPM" 
appeared 31 times throughout.  I saw no mention of any aspects of operational 
intelligence used in the design of this power module.  Is there something I 
missed, or is the term "Intelligence" being used as marketing hype?

I'm seriously experiencing some fatigue over all this talk of Intelligence, 
Machine Intelli

Re: [PSES] CAN/CSA C22.2 No. 62133-2:20 for CR 2032 Batteries?

[John Woodgate]

OOPS! I missed that about 'rechargeable'. CR2032 cells are not normally 
rechargeable, so the standard doesn't apply.


On 2024-07-22 18:57, John Woodgate wrote:


I don't know the meaning of the final '20' in the reference to the 
standard; it may be that it should be a date, like 2021. There appears 
to be nothing in the underlying IEC 62133-2: 2017 + AMD1:2021 that 
would exclude any coin cell.


On 2024-07-22 18:31, John Riutta wrote:


Hello all,

We’ve been seeing Amazon requiring CAN/CSA C22.2 No. 62133-2:20 for 
all products that use or contain at time of sale a CR 2032 coin cell 
battery. I was of the understanding that this standard did not apply 
to this battery. Unfortunately, I do not possess a copy of the 
standard so I cannot verify this myself. MayI ask if anyone here can 
offer verification or rebuttal please?


Best regards,

John

John E. Riutta, MA, MBA, FLSI Product Development and Product 
Compliance Manager I jriu...@celestron.com 
<mailto:jriu...@celestron.com> I 323.446.1076


CELESTRON, LLC.I 2835 Columbia Street ITorrance, CA 90503

Logo Description automatically generated 
<http://www.celestron.com/>Icon Description automatically generated 
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.instagram.com_celestronuniverse&d=DwMFaQ&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=x40qV4DM3u4JrqHl_FVpxdOqkHDBo3f6BvwvAwIWGH8&m=B6fIOBUaG50CeATRoPrGe3aQoHBGiKZFSBIu-ovu97c5RZhLW5JAVauCDQwYc3UQ&s=mp6OgNq_McWjXY2YQYjZ9Dk6_XzP1VPvIEe8C8zj56A&e=>A 
close-up of a fire Description automatically generated with low 
confidence 
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_Celestron&d=DwMFaQ&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=x40qV4DM3u4JrqHl_FVpxdOqkHDBo3f6BvwvAwIWGH8&m=B6fIOBUaG50CeATRoPrGe3aQoHBGiKZFSBIu-ovu97c5RZhLW5JAVauCDQwYc3UQ&s=VPySibohtehHWHpC8d5rHDIovgyX-KLLxjtWSiblJGI&e=>A 
picture containing text, clipart Description automatically generated 
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.facebook.com_celestron&d=DwMFaQ&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=x40qV4DM3u4JrqHl_FVpxdOqkHDBo3f6BvwvAwIWGH8&m=B6fIOBUaG50CeATRoPrGe3aQoHBGiKZFSBIu-ovu97c5RZhLW5JAVauCDQwYc3UQ&s=mFMWx391BWGOZRSQd2VOWpQ8frezSjy2nYeDDPQcxtg&e=>Icon 
Description automatically generated 
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.youtube.com_user_CelestronDotCom&d=DwMFaQ&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=x40qV4DM3u4JrqHl_FVpxdOqkHDBo3f6BvwvAwIWGH8&m=B6fIOBUaG50CeATRoPrGe3aQoHBGiKZFSBIu-ovu97c5RZhLW5JAVauCDQwYc3UQ&s=ziJj_dfd_78luGSUUH4AfwmPyhD40fdDd46c8oL7bcc&e=>Icon 
Description automatically generated 
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.linkedin.com_company_celestron-2Dllc-2D&d=DwMFaQ&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=x40qV4DM3u4JrqHl_FVpxdOqkHDBo3f6BvwvAwIWGH8&m=B6fIOBUaG50CeATRoPrGe3aQoHBGiKZFSBIu-ovu97c5RZhLW5JAVauCDQwYc3UQ&s=dXknLUOcxSuYfVZ7A71XexAkwNhfOYqmzp9HADpQfIk&e=>


*From:*Ralph McDiarmid 
*Sent:* Friday, July 19, 2024 10:40 AM
*To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
*Subject:* Re: [PSES] "Intelligent" Power Modules?

I stopped reading at the word “performances”.

Ralph

*From:*Douglas Powell 
*Sent:* Friday, July 19, 2024 9:27 AM
*To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
*Subject:* [PSES] "Intelligent" Power Modules?

So I just finished reading "1.2 kV/400 A SiC Source Turn-Off MOSFET 
Intelligent Power Module" 
(https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/10574416 
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__ieeexplore.ieee.org_document_10574416&d=DwMFaQ&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=x40qV4DM3u4JrqHl_FVpxdOqkHDBo3f6BvwvAwIWGH8&m=a2CCo_J4V1NasdwIBe0EeqpUJTYCY_V6Tmg345FDzau0JquoopInoKrPLEhikCaN&s=_UxHI-pyQoHSCbqUQCVFvIEGK_7RUdJisvq72DPJL8w&e=>)


The word "intelligent" in the title of the article piqued my 
interest.  So, what's with the overuse of the term "intelligent" 
nowadays?  When I read the article, I noticed that the word appeared 
only three times: once in the title, once in the abstract, and once 
in the opening paragraph. The acronym "IPM" appeared 31 times 
throughout.  I saw no mention of any aspects of operational 
intelligence used in the design of this power module.  Is there 
something I missed, or is the term "Intelligence" being used as 
marketing hype?


I'm seriously experiencing some fatigue over all this talk of 
Intelligence, Machine Intelligence, and Artificial Intelligence.


Thanks for letting me air out a little,  ~Doug



This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society 
emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your 
e-mail to EM

Re: [PSES] CAN/CSA C22.2 No. 62133-2:20 for CR 2032 Batteries?

[John Woodgate]

I don't know the meaning of the final '20' in the reference to the 
standard; it may be that it should be a date, like 2021. There appears 
to be nothing in the underlying IEC 62133-2: 2017 + AMD1:2021 that would 
exclude any coin cell.


On 2024-07-22 18:31, John Riutta wrote:


Hello all,

We’ve been seeing Amazon requiring CAN/CSA C22.2 No. 62133-2:20 for 
all products that use or contain at time of sale a CR 2032 coin cell 
battery. I was of the understanding that this standard did not apply 
to this battery. Unfortunately, I do not possess a copy of the 
standard so I cannot verify this myself. MayI ask if anyone here can 
offer verification or rebuttal please?


Best regards,

John

John E. Riutta, MA, MBA, FLSI Product Development and Product 
Compliance Manager I jriu...@celestron.com 
<mailto:jriu...@celestron.com> I 323.446.1076


CELESTRON, LLC.I 2835 Columbia Street ITorrance, CA 90503

Logo Description automatically generated 
<http://www.celestron.com/>Icon Description automatically generated 
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.instagram.com_celestronuniverse&d=DwMFaQ&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=x40qV4DM3u4JrqHl_FVpxdOqkHDBo3f6BvwvAwIWGH8&m=B6fIOBUaG50CeATRoPrGe3aQoHBGiKZFSBIu-ovu97c5RZhLW5JAVauCDQwYc3UQ&s=mp6OgNq_McWjXY2YQYjZ9Dk6_XzP1VPvIEe8C8zj56A&e=>A 
close-up of a fire Description automatically generated with low 
confidence 
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_Celestron&d=DwMFaQ&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=x40qV4DM3u4JrqHl_FVpxdOqkHDBo3f6BvwvAwIWGH8&m=B6fIOBUaG50CeATRoPrGe3aQoHBGiKZFSBIu-ovu97c5RZhLW5JAVauCDQwYc3UQ&s=VPySibohtehHWHpC8d5rHDIovgyX-KLLxjtWSiblJGI&e=>A 
picture containing text, clipart Description automatically generated 
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.facebook.com_celestron&d=DwMFaQ&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=x40qV4DM3u4JrqHl_FVpxdOqkHDBo3f6BvwvAwIWGH8&m=B6fIOBUaG50CeATRoPrGe3aQoHBGiKZFSBIu-ovu97c5RZhLW5JAVauCDQwYc3UQ&s=mFMWx391BWGOZRSQd2VOWpQ8frezSjy2nYeDDPQcxtg&e=>Icon 
Description automatically generated 
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.youtube.com_user_CelestronDotCom&d=DwMFaQ&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=x40qV4DM3u4JrqHl_FVpxdOqkHDBo3f6BvwvAwIWGH8&m=B6fIOBUaG50CeATRoPrGe3aQoHBGiKZFSBIu-ovu97c5RZhLW5JAVauCDQwYc3UQ&s=ziJj_dfd_78luGSUUH4AfwmPyhD40fdDd46c8oL7bcc&e=>Icon 
Description automatically generated 
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.linkedin.com_company_celestron-2Dllc-2D&d=DwMFaQ&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=x40qV4DM3u4JrqHl_FVpxdOqkHDBo3f6BvwvAwIWGH8&m=B6fIOBUaG50CeATRoPrGe3aQoHBGiKZFSBIu-ovu97c5RZhLW5JAVauCDQwYc3UQ&s=dXknLUOcxSuYfVZ7A71XexAkwNhfOYqmzp9HADpQfIk&e=>


*From:*Ralph McDiarmid 
*Sent:* Friday, July 19, 2024 10:40 AM
*To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
*Subject:* Re: [PSES] "Intelligent" Power Modules?

I stopped reading at the word “performances”.

Ralph

*From:*Douglas Powell 
*Sent:* Friday, July 19, 2024 9:27 AM
*To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
*Subject:* [PSES] "Intelligent" Power Modules?

So I just finished reading "1.2 kV/400 A SiC Source Turn-Off MOSFET 
Intelligent Power Module" 
(https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/10574416 
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__ieeexplore.ieee.org_document_10574416&d=DwMFaQ&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=x40qV4DM3u4JrqHl_FVpxdOqkHDBo3f6BvwvAwIWGH8&m=a2CCo_J4V1NasdwIBe0EeqpUJTYCY_V6Tmg345FDzau0JquoopInoKrPLEhikCaN&s=_UxHI-pyQoHSCbqUQCVFvIEGK_7RUdJisvq72DPJL8w&e=>)


The word "intelligent" in the title of the article piqued my 
interest.  So, what's with the overuse of the term "intelligent" 
nowadays?  When I read the article, I noticed that the word appeared 
only three times: once in the title, once in the abstract, and once in 
the opening paragraph. The acronym "IPM" appeared 31 times 
throughout.  I saw no mention of any aspects of operational 
intelligence used in the design of this power module.  Is there 
something I missed, or is the term "Intelligence" being used as 
marketing hype?


I'm seriously experiencing some fatigue over all this talk of 
Intelligence, Machine Intelligence, and Artificial Intelligence.


Thanks for letting me air out a little,  ~Doug



This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society 
emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your 
e-mail to EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/ 
<https://url

Re: [PSES] CAN/CSA C22.2 No. 62133-2:20 for CR 2032 Batteries?

[James Pawson (U3C)]

Hi John,

 

IEC 62133-2 covers Secondary cells (rechargeable). Unless your coin cell is 
rechargeable then it will not be covered by this standard.

 

All the best

James

 

James Pawson

Managing Director & EMC Problem Solver

 

Unit 3 Compliance Ltd

EMC : Environmental & Vibration : Electrical Safety : CE & UKCA : Consultancy

 

 <http://www.unit3compliance.co.uk/> www.unit3compliance.co.uk |  
<mailto:ja...@unit3compliance.co.uk> ja...@unit3compliance.co.uk 

+44(0)1274 911747  |  +44(0)7811 139957

2 Wellington Business Park, New Lane, Bradford, BD4 8AL

Registered in England and Wales # 10574298

 

Office hours:

Every morning my full attention is on consultancy, testing, and troubleshooting 
activities for our customers’ projects. I’m available/contactable between 1300h 
to 1730h Mon/Tue/Thurs/Fri.

For inquiries, bookings, and testing updates please send us an email on 
he...@unit3compliance.co.uk <mailto:he...@unit3compliance.co.uk>  or call 01274 
911747. Our lead times for testing and consultancy are typically 4-5 weeks.

 

 

 

 

From: John Riutta  
Sent: Monday, July 22, 2024 6:32 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] CAN/CSA C22.2 No. 62133-2:20 for CR 2032 Batteries?

 

Hello all,

 

We’ve been seeing Amazon requiring CAN/CSA C22.2 No. 62133-2:20 for all 
products that use or contain at time of sale a CR 2032 coin cell battery. I was 
of the understanding that this standard did not apply to this battery. 
Unfortunately, I do not possess a copy of the standard so I cannot verify this 
myself. MayI ask if anyone here can offer verification or rebuttal please?

 

Best regards,

John

 

John E. Riutta, MA, MBA, FLS I Product Development and Product Compliance 
Manager I  <mailto:jriu...@celestron.com> jriu...@celestron.com I 323.446.1076 

CELESTRON, LLC. I 2835 Columbia Street I Torrance, CA 90503

 

 <http://www.celestron.com/>
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.instagram.com_celestronuniverse&d=DwMFaQ&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=x40qV4DM3u4JrqHl_FVpxdOqkHDBo3f6BvwvAwIWGH8&m=B6fIOBUaG50CeATRoPrGe3aQoHBGiKZFSBIu-ovu97c5RZhLW5JAVauCDQwYc3UQ&s=mp6OgNq_McWjXY2YQYjZ9Dk6_XzP1VPvIEe8C8zj56A&e=>

<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_Celestron&d=DwMFaQ&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=x40qV4DM3u4JrqHl_FVpxdOqkHDBo3f6BvwvAwIWGH8&m=B6fIOBUaG50CeATRoPrGe3aQoHBGiKZFSBIu-ovu97c5RZhLW5JAVauCDQwYc3UQ&s=VPySibohtehHWHpC8d5rHDIovgyX-KLLxjtWSiblJGI&e=>

<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.facebook.com_celestron&d=DwMFaQ&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=x40qV4DM3u4JrqHl_FVpxdOqkHDBo3f6BvwvAwIWGH8&m=B6fIOBUaG50CeATRoPrGe3aQoHBGiKZFSBIu-ovu97c5RZhLW5JAVauCDQwYc3UQ&s=mFMWx391BWGOZRSQd2VOWpQ8frezSjy2nYeDDPQcxtg&e=>

<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.youtube.com_user_CelestronDotCom&d=DwMFaQ&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=x40qV4DM3u4JrqHl_FVpxdOqkHDBo3f6BvwvAwIWGH8&m=B6fIOBUaG50CeATRoPrGe3aQoHBGiKZFSBIu-ovu97c5RZhLW5JAVauCDQwYc3UQ&s=ziJj_dfd_78luGSUUH4AfwmPyhD40fdDd46c8oL7bcc&e=>

<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.linkedin.com_company_celestron-2Dllc-2D&d=DwMFaQ&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=x40qV4DM3u4JrqHl_FVpxdOqkHDBo3f6BvwvAwIWGH8&m=B6fIOBUaG50CeATRoPrGe3aQoHBGiKZFSBIu-ovu97c5RZhLW5JAVauCDQwYc3UQ&s=dXknLUOcxSuYfVZ7A71XexAkwNhfOYqmzp9HADpQfIk&e=>
 

 

From: Ralph McDiarmid mailto:rmm.priv...@gmail.com> > 
Sent: Friday, July 19, 2024 10:40 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> 
Subject: Re: [PSES] "Intelligent" Power Modules?

 

I stopped reading at the word “performances”.  

 

 

Ralph

 

From: Douglas Powell mailto:doug...@gmail.com> > 
Sent: Friday, July 19, 2024 9:27 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> 
Subject: [PSES] "Intelligent" Power Modules?

 

So I just finished reading "1.2 kV/400 A SiC Source Turn-Off MOSFET Intelligent 
Power Module" (https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/10574416 
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__ieeexplore.ieee.org_document_10574416&d=DwMFaQ&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=x40qV4DM3u4JrqHl_FVpxdOqkHDBo3f6BvwvAwIWGH8&m=a2CCo_J4V1NasdwIBe0EeqpUJTYCY_V6Tmg345FDzau0JquoopInoKrPLEhikCaN&s=_UxHI-pyQoHSCbqUQCVFvIEGK_7RUdJisvq72DPJL8w&e=>
 )

 

The word "intelligent" in the title of the article piqued my interest.  So, 
what's with the overuse of the term "intelligent" nowadays?  When I read the 
article, I noticed that the word appeared only three times: once in the title, 
once in the abstract, and once in the opening paragraph. The 

Re: [PSES] "Intelligent" Power Modules?

[Ralph McDiarmid]

I stopped reading at the word “performances”.  

 

 

Ralph

 

From: Douglas Powell  
Sent: Friday, July 19, 2024 9:27 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] "Intelligent" Power Modules?

 

So I just finished reading "1.2 kV/400 A SiC Source Turn-Off MOSFET Intelligent 
Power Module" (https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/10574416)

 

The word "intelligent" in the title of the article piqued my interest.  So, 
what's with the overuse of the term "intelligent" nowadays?  When I read the 
article, I noticed that the word appeared only three times: once in the title, 
once in the abstract, and once in the opening paragraph. The acronym "IPM" 
appeared 31 times throughout.  I saw no mention of any aspects of operational 
intelligence used in the design of this power module.  Is there something I 
missed, or is the term "Intelligence" being used as marketing hype?

I'm seriously experiencing some fatigue over all this talk of Intelligence, 
Machine Intelligence, and Artificial Intelligence.  

 

Thanks for letting me air out a little,  ~Doug

 

 

  _  

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG   

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/ 
  

Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/   
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)  
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html 

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net  
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org   

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org   

  _  

To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC 
 &A=1 


-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1

Re: [PSES] Using Red Phosphorous ferrite core on a 48VDC motor

[Willard, Bradley]

Hi Christopher.

It may not specifically apply to a ferrite core, but here is another thing to 
watch out for with Red Phosphorous:  
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=1598224

Best regards,
Brad

From: Richard Nute 
Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2024 6:07 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG 
Subject: Re: [PSES] Using Red Phosphorous ferrite core on a 48VDC motor

~ Hi Christopher: To put your mind at ease regarding the flammability of the 
Red Phosphorus, I suggest you test it.   Suspend the core by a wire.   Apply a 
small flame (1 inch max) from a barbecue starter to the bottom of the core, and 
see whatZjQcmQRYFpfptPreheaderEnd
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart
External Sender
This message came from outside our organization. Please use caution before 
acting on the message.

ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd



Hi Christopher:



To put your mind at ease regarding the flammability of the Red Phosphorus, I 
suggest you test it.  Suspend the core by a wire.  Apply a small flame (1 inch 
max) from a barbecue starter to the bottom of the core, and see what happens.



The core should provide a heat sink for the red phosphorus such that it cannot 
reach ignition temperature, or exceed the burn time of  94V-0.



I agree with Ted and Ralph.



Good luck, and best regards,

Rich





From: Chris <0133def26cf0-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org>
Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2024 10:40 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Using Red Phosphorous ferrite core on a 48VDC motor



Folks,



I need some help to answer this product safety question.



We are using ferrite core T60006-L2025-W380 to supress radiated emissions on 
the 48VDC motor cable.



I am concerned about the flamilibility of the Red Phosphorus which is contained 
in the Ferrite core.



Any help is appreceiated





Christopher

Nextracker LLC.



This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.mail-2Darchive.com_emc-2Dpstc-40listserv.ieee.org_&d=DwMFaQ&c=Qwsh1H-X9ypOoLLEcAIltRyC0Dw0FG3Mmyd56ahml5w&r=5ZHWVDzrGbU3ySN96a0gomOtFxh8qabNblooc4DXss4&m=onV-uuy__PhBoIvHpmThzdRv0Bo2KNmMBxfQ9jrmKq4zDsmUAG9XQp8XB95xYek4&s=APbSsp4g0zEPp-K6CDPnIHfUUsoghSOZkvqH4yiDzLM&e=>

Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/ 
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__ewh.ieee.org_soc_pses_&d=DwMFaQ&c=Qwsh1H-X9ypOoLLEcAIltRyC0Dw0FG3Mmyd56ahml5w&r=5ZHWVDzrGbU3ySN96a0gomOtFxh8qabNblooc4DXss4&m=onV-uuy__PhBoIvHpmThzdRv0Bo2KNmMBxfQ9jrmKq4zDsmUAG9XQp8XB95xYek4&s=rURdpY__ftv728vlyP8Shz9AwymXwyAThYI-4GxwIv8&e=>
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__ewh.ieee.org_soc_pses_list.html&d=DwMFaQ&c=Qwsh1H-X9ypOoLLEcAIltRyC0Dw0FG3Mmyd56ahml5w&r=5ZHWVDzrGbU3ySN96a0gomOtFxh8qabNblooc4DXss4&m=onV-uuy__PhBoIvHpmThzdRv0Bo2KNmMBxfQ9jrmKq4zDsmUAG9XQp8XB95xYek4&s=O5eZjJLELN8t6_jYYTYwfoaJMKn8lpu9ofbQr5NWnBQ&e=>
List rules: 
https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__ewh.ieee.org_soc_pses_listrules.html&d=DwMFaQ&c=Qwsh1H-X9ypOoLLEcAIltRyC0Dw0FG3Mmyd56ahml5w&r=5ZHWVDzrGbU3ySN96a0gomOtFxh8qabNblooc4DXss4&m=onV-uuy__PhBoIvHpmThzdRv0Bo2KNmMBxfQ9jrmKq4zDsmUAG9XQp8XB95xYek4&s=X4BBpv5T0AU-endATEGu7bWRSHaYML7Baxet-WDOA5A&e=>

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net<mailto:msherma...@comcast.net>
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org<mailto:linf...@ieee.org>

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org<mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org>



To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__listserv.ieee.org_cgi-2Dbin_wa-3FSUBED1-3DEMC-2DPSTC-26A-3D1&d=DwQFaQ&c=Qwsh1H-X9ypOoLLEcAIltRyC0Dw0FG3Mmyd56ahml5w&r=5ZHWVDzrGbU3ySN96a0gomOtFxh8qabNblooc4DXss4&m=onV-uuy__PhBoIvHpmThzdRv0Bo2KNmMBxfQ9jrmKq4zDsmUAG9XQp8XB95xYek4&s=-2CGfPVG0zfUhEJhuHJm_KwrDb3BZcogBAnXoz_L9b8&e=>



- CONFIDENTIAL-

This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential, and may also be 
legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not review, 
use, copy, or distribute this message. If you receive this email in error, 
please notify the sender immediately by reply email and then delete this email.

-

T

Re: [PSES] Using Red Phosphorous ferrite core on a 48VDC motor

[Brent DeWitt]

This seems all a bit weird.  Unless the Phosphorus is used in a coating, 
it can have no relation to the ferrite.  As many here know, ferrite 
"beads" are formed by a sintering process where the powdered metalic 
oxide components are subjected to very high pressure and temperatures 
that fuse the glassy structure, creating what is essentially a ceramic.  
Phosphorus would be vaporized in the mold preheat, much less the actual 
sintering process.

If it is a coating, that's another discussion.

- Brent

On 7/10/2024 6:49 PM, John Woodgate wrote:


That would cause the emission of white phosphorus vapour, which burns 
in air spontaneously even at room temperature, and is highly toxic. 
That is, if there is any red phosphorus there, which I very much doubt.


On 2024-07-10 23:07, Richard Nute wrote:


Hi Christopher:

To put your mind at ease regarding the flammability of the Red 
Phosphorus, I suggest you test it.  Suspend the core by a wire.  
Apply a small flame (1 inch max) from a barbecue starter to the 
bottom of the core, and see what happens.


The core should provide a heat sink for the red phosphorus such that 
it cannot reach ignition temperature, or exceed the burn time of  94V-0.


I agree with Ted and Ralph.

Good luck, and best regards,

Rich

*From:* Chris <0133def26cf0-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org>
*Sent:* Wednesday, July 10, 2024 10:40 AM
*To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
*Subject:* [PSES] Using Red Phosphorous ferrite core on a 48VDC motor

Folks,

I need some help to answer this product safety question.

We are using ferrite core T60006-L2025-W380 to supress radiated 
emissions on the 48VDC motor cable.


I am concerned about the flamilibility of the Red Phosphorus which is 
contained in the Ferrite core.


Any help is appreceiated

Christopher

Nextracker LLC.



This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society 
emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your 
e-mail to EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how 
to unsubscribe) 

List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org



To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1



--
OOO - Own Opinions Only
Best Wishes
John Woodgate
Keep trying

 
	Virus-free.www.avg.com 
 



<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society 
emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your 
e-mail to EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how 
to unsubscribe) 

List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org



To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1




-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following li

Re: [PSES] Using Red Phosphorous ferrite core on a 48VDC motor

[John Woodgate]

I have sent an email to Vaccumschmeltze asking whether there is any red 
phosphorus in their products. Their website offers an ROHs and REACH 
declaration at:


https://www.vacuumschmelze.com/03_Documents/Certificates/Certificate%20of%20Compliance%20REACH_RoHS.pdf

that does not mention phosphorus.

On 2024-07-10 23:49, John Woodgate wrote:


That would cause the emission of white phosphorus vapour, which burns 
in air spontaneously even at room temperature, and is highly toxic. 
That is, if there is any red phosphorus there, which I very much doubt.


On 2024-07-10 23:07, Richard Nute wrote:


Hi Christopher:

To put your mind at ease regarding the flammability of the Red 
Phosphorus, I suggest you test it.  Suspend the core by a wire.  
Apply a small flame (1 inch max) from a barbecue starter to the 
bottom of the core, and see what happens.


The core should provide a heat sink for the red phosphorus such that 
it cannot reach ignition temperature, or exceed the burn time of  94V-0.


I agree with Ted and Ralph.

Good luck, and best regards,

Rich

*From:* Chris <0133def26cf0-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org>
*Sent:* Wednesday, July 10, 2024 10:40 AM
*To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
*Subject:* [PSES] Using Red Phosphorous ferrite core on a 48VDC motor

Folks,

I need some help to answer this product safety question.

We are using ferrite core T60006-L2025-W380 to supress radiated 
emissions on the 48VDC motor cable.


I am concerned about the flamilibility of the Red Phosphorus which is 
contained in the Ferrite core.


Any help is appreceiated

Christopher

Nextracker LLC.



This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society 
emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your 
e-mail to EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how 
to unsubscribe) 

List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org



To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1



--
OOO - Own Opinions Only
Best Wishes
John Woodgate
Keep trying

 
	Virus-free.www.avg.com 
 



<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society 
emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your 
e-mail to EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how 
to unsubscribe) 

List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org



To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1



--
OOO - Own Opinions Only
Best Wishes
John Woodgate
Keep trying


--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A

Re: [PSES] Using Red Phosphorous ferrite core on a 48VDC motor

[John Woodgate]

That would cause the emission of white phosphorus vapour, which burns in 
air spontaneously even at room temperature, and is highly toxic. That 
is, if there is any red phosphorus there, which I very much doubt.


On 2024-07-10 23:07, Richard Nute wrote:


Hi Christopher:

To put your mind at ease regarding the flammability of the Red 
Phosphorus, I suggest you test it.  Suspend the core by a wire.  Apply 
a small flame (1 inch max) from a barbecue starter to the bottom of 
the core, and see what happens.


The core should provide a heat sink for the red phosphorus such that 
it cannot reach ignition temperature, or exceed the burn time of  94V-0.


I agree with Ted and Ralph.

Good luck, and best regards,

Rich

*From:* Chris <0133def26cf0-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org>
*Sent:* Wednesday, July 10, 2024 10:40 AM
*To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
*Subject:* [PSES] Using Red Phosphorous ferrite core on a 48VDC motor

Folks,

I need some help to answer this product safety question.

We are using ferrite core T60006-L2025-W380 to supress radiated 
emissions on the 48VDC motor cable.


I am concerned about the flamilibility of the Red Phosphorus which is 
contained in the Ferrite core.


Any help is appreceiated

Christopher

Nextracker LLC.



This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society 
emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your 
e-mail to EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how 
to unsubscribe) 

List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org



To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1



--
OOO - Own Opinions Only
Best Wishes
John Woodgate
Keep trying


--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1

Re: [PSES] Using Red Phosphorous ferrite core on a 48VDC motor

[Richard Nute]

 

Hi Christopher:

 

To put your mind at ease regarding the flammability of the Red Phosphorus, I 
suggest you test it.  Suspend the core by a wire.  Apply a small flame (1 inch 
max) from a barbecue starter to the bottom of the core, and see what happens.  

 

The core should provide a heat sink for the red phosphorus such that it cannot 
reach ignition temperature, or exceed the burn time of  94V-0.  

 

I agree with Ted and Ralph.

 

Good luck, and best regards,

Rich

 

 

From: Chris <0133def26cf0-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org> 
Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2024 10:40 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Using Red Phosphorous ferrite core on a 48VDC motor

 

Folks,

 

I need some help to answer this product safety question.

 

We are using ferrite core T60006-L2025-W380 to supress radiated emissions on 
the 48VDC motor cable.

 

I am concerned about the flamilibility of the Red Phosphorus which is contained 
in the Ferrite core.

 

Any help is appreceiated 

 

 

Christopher

Nextracker LLC.


-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1

Re: [PSES] Fwd: [PSES] [EXTERNAL] [PSES] Using Red Phosphorous ferrite core on a 48VDC motor

[Brent DeWitt]

Maybe I'm missing something.  Is the Red Phosphorus used in a coating 
for the ferrite?


On 7/10/2024 3:48 PM, John Woodgate wrote:





 Forwarded Message 
Subject: 	Re: [PSES] [EXTERNAL] [PSES] Using Red Phosphorous ferrite 
core on a 48VDC motor

Date:   Wed, 10 Jul 2024 20:46:17 +0100
From:   John Woodgate 
To: Ted Eckert 



But surely not in a ferrite core?


On 2024-07-10 19:36, Ted Eckert wrote:

Hi Christopher,

Phosphorus is commonly used for flame retardants. Many V-1 and V-0 
rated plastics use such flame retardants, and phosphorus is used for 
flame retardants for fabrics. As such, I don't think you should have 
an issue.


Ted Eckert
/The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect 
those of my employer./


*From:* Chris <0133def26cf0-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org>
*Sent:* Wednesday, July 10, 2024 10:39 AM
*To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG 
*Subject:* [EXTERNAL] [PSES] Using Red Phosphorous ferrite core on a 
48VDC motor



You don't often get email from 
0133def26cf0-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org. Learn why this is 
important <https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification>



Folks,

I need some help to answer this product safety question.

We are using ferrite core T60006-L2025-W380 to supress radiated 
emissions on the 48VDC motor cable.


I am concerned about the flamilibility of the Red Phosphorus which is 
contained in the Ferrite core.


Any help is appreceiated


Christopher
Nextracker LLC.


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society 
emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your 
e-mail to EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how 
to unsubscribe) <https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html>

List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org



To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1




This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society 
emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your 
e-mail to EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how 
to unsubscribe) <https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html>

List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org



To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1



--
OOO - Own Opinions Only
Best Wishes
John Woodgate
Keep trying

<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> 
	Virus-free.www.avg.com 
<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> 



<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society 
emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your 
e-mail to EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how 
to unsubscribe) <https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html>

List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org



To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-

Re: [PSES] Using Red Phosphorous ferrite core on a 48VDC motor

[Ralph McDiarmid]

I doubt ferrite cores are flammable, but if they are, I’m sure they are 
superior to the rating UL94V-0.  

 

 

From: Chris <0133def26cf0-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org> 
Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2024 10:40 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Using Red Phosphorous ferrite core on a 48VDC motor

 

Folks,

 

I need some help to answer this product safety question.

 

We are using ferrite core T60006-L2025-W380 to supress radiated emissions on 
the 48VDC motor cable.

 

I am concerned about the flamilibility of the Red Phosphorus which is contained 
in the Ferrite core.

 

Any help is appreceiated 

 

 

Christopher

Nextracker LLC.

  _  

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG   

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/ 
  

Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/   
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)  
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html 

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net  
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org   

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org   

  _  

To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC 
 &A=1 


-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1

Re: [PSES] [EXTERNAL] [PSES] Using Red Phosphorous ferrite core on a 48VDC motor

[Chris]

 Thanks Ted.
Christopher

On Wednesday, July 10, 2024 at 11:37:06 AM PDT, Ted Eckert 
 wrote:  
 
 Hi Christopher,
Phosphorus is commonly used for flame retardants. Many V-1 and V-0 rated 
plastics use such flame retardants, and phosphorus is used for flame retardants 
for fabrics. As such, I don't think you should have an issue.
Ted EckertThe opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect 
those of my employer.From: Chris 
<0133def26cf0-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org>
Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2024 10:39 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG 
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [PSES] Using Red Phosphorous ferrite core on a 48VDC motor 
|  | You don't often get email from 
0133def26cf0-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org.Learn why this is important |  
|

Folks,
I need some help to answer this product safety question.
We are using ferrite core T60006-L2025-W380 to supress radiated emissions on 
the 48VDC motor cable.

I am concerned about the flamilibility of the Red Phosphorus which is contained 
in the Ferrite core.
Any help is appreceiated 

ChristopherNextracker LLC.


  

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1

Re: [PSES] [EXTERNAL] [PSES] Using Red Phosphorous ferrite core on a 48VDC motor

[Ted Eckert]

Hi Christopher,

Phosphorus is commonly used for flame retardants. Many V-1 and V-0 rated 
plastics use such flame retardants, and phosphorus is used for flame retardants 
for fabrics. As such, I don't think you should have an issue.

Ted Eckert
The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my 
employer.

From: Chris <0133def26cf0-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org>
Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2024 10:39 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG 
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [PSES] Using Red Phosphorous ferrite core on a 48VDC motor

You don't often get email from 
0133def26cf0-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org. Learn why this is 
important
Folks,

I need some help to answer this product safety question.

We are using ferrite core T60006-L2025-W380 to supress radiated emissions on 
the 48VDC motor cable.

I am concerned about the flamilibility of the Red Phosphorus which is contained 
in the Ferrite core.

Any help is appreceiated


Christopher
Nextracker LLC.


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org



To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1

Re: [PSES] Switching power supplies continued

[Ralph McDiarmid]

RF radiated emission measurements are not precious and it’s not unusual to find 
a +/- 5dB variation between two certified open-area test sites.  (a combination 
of equipment calibration variance and test site tolerances)

 

It is possible then to find a pass when testing at one site and receive a 
failure when testing at another.  I think this has been the experience for some 
and likely something that has existed for decades in the industry and is 
accepted as the “norm”.

 

Ralph

 

From: Elliott Martinson <33e8876b9475-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org> 
Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2024 7:56 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Switching power supplies continued

 

On one hand, it’s odd they can even claim “compliance”, when their SMPS module 
will interact with customer design so much.

 

On the other hand, I have experience with a supply like this, where I had to 
prove it still failed class B emissions with literally nothing on its output 
but a purely resistive load (small loop area, conductive surface area – other 
than pseudo-“cables”)

 

From: Matthew Wilson | GBE mailto:matthew.wil...@gbelectronics.com> > 
Sent: Monday, July 8, 2024 11:28 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> 
Subject: Re: [PSES] Switching power supplies continued

 


You don't often get email from matthew.wil...@gbelectronics.com 
<mailto:matthew.wil...@gbelectronics.com> . Learn why this is important 
<https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification> 



That is an interesting consideration regards the beat frequency, thanks for the 
post.  Something we have noticed several times with third-party ‘bought in’ 
mains-DC SMPSU (most people do that rather than design a bespoke one because 
the third-party has gained the necessary re safety compliance) is that people 
may specify the SMPSU for the maximum load out of their power budget for the 
apparatus to be driven by the SMPSU. 

 

This usually is a sum/concatenation of all the highest current draw 
circuits/parts e.g. all LEDs on, activating sounder transducer, maybe driving a 
printer (usually thermal), radio module (Wi-Fi say) active, etc, etc.

 

In fact the equipment does not do this ‘maximum draw’ too often and so the 
majority of the time the SMPSU is usually operating at lower capacity (a few 
LEDs on, idle printer, not actively TX/RX data packets).  And it is then that 
EMC emissions created by the SMPSU (radiated and conducted) are actually at 
their worse.  In some (probably more extreme) cases this can upset performance 
of the apparatus, or even co-located equipment, but also it can annoy when at 
the EMC test chamber with breaches of the emissions limit line.

 

The downside of third-party power supplies is although they will have a nice 
declaration of conformity (for us in the EU (OK I know UK isn’t any more but 
we’ve decided to carry on with it behind the scenes!) and claims for EMC 
compliance, never is any precise detail of how and the environment in which 
these tests were performed provided.  A resistive load on the shortest possible 
DC output leads, with short mains input leads too I’m sure is the setup – happy 
to be proved wrong!

 

Nearest I’ve found to such is this from Meanwell but it has some assumptions – 
large metal plates for one (but which one did they use for a particular 
model?!):

 

https://www.meanwell.co.uk/knowledge-base/how-do-mean-well-test-for-electro-magnetic-interference-emi

 

Anyway, as is probably known in this audience, but is a constant reminder to 
clients and so forth, you can’t expect not to test a third party SMPSU even 
when it is ‘compliant’.

 

Thanks for giving me an excuse to ramble on :-)

 

Kind regards,

 

Matthew Wilson,

GB Electronics (UK) Ltd.

 







Disclaimer: This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential 
and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are 
addressed.
​If you have received this email in error please delete it from your system, do 
not use or disclose the information in any way and notify the sender 
immediately.
​The contents of this message may contain personal views which are not the 
views of the company, unless specifically stated.
​
​GB Electronics (UK) Ltd is a company registered in England and Wales under 
number 06210991.
​Registered office: Ascot House Mulberry Close, Woods Way, Goring By Sea, West 
Sussex, BN12 4QY.

From: doug emcesd.com mailto:d...@emcesd.com> > 
Sent: Wednesday, July 3, 2024 10:55 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> 
Subject: [PSES] Switching power supplies continued

 

Hi All,

 

When thinking about power supplies, one would think that they either work or 
not. But this is not the case.

 

Switching power supply frequencies are usually much lower that today’s system 
frequencies. This leads to a situation where it can take an hour or much more 

Re: [PSES] [External] [PSES] EMC Job Opening in Ottawa

[Jones, Richard]

For those interested the job opportunity with Honeywell in Ottawa, Canada has 
been updated in the hope of catching more applicants:

careers.honeywell.com

Search for: REQ453055

Goodluck

Rich

From: Jones, Richard <158e9dcd0d5e-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org>
Sent: Wednesday, July 3, 2024 2:05 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [External] [PSES] EMC Job Opening in Ottawa

You don't often get email from 
158e9dcd0d5e-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org.
 Learn why this is important
WARNING: This message has originated from an External Source. This may be a 
phishing email that can result in unauthorized access to Honeywell systems. 
Please use proper judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking 
links, scanning QR codes, or responding.
We have a job opening for an EMC Test Engineer in our Ottawa location, they 
would be running the lab, maintaining equipment and performing test with the 
support of our team in Mississauga. Looking for someone preferably with 
previous test experience, but will consider each applicant on merit.
If interested or know of someone looking for an opportunity in Ottawa it can be 
found at:

Careers.honeywell.com

Search for "HRD228742"

Goodluck

Rich


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org



To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1

Re: [PSES] Switching power supplies continued

[Ralph McDiarmid]

Further to John’s comment, here is an extract from EMC standard CISPR 22:

 

“The operational conditions of the EUT shall be determined by the manufacturer 
according to

the typical use of the EUT with respect to the expected highest level of 
emission. The

determined operational mode and the rationale for the conditions shall be 
stated in the test

report.”

 

The operating condition producing the highest level of emission may not be the 
rated output power of the EUT.  The manufacturer is expected to investigate.

 

Ralph

 

From: John Woodgate  
Sent: Monday, July 8, 2024 9:42 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Switching power supplies continued

 

The DoC states the standards applied, and those standards (CISPR-originated) 
give very precise details of the test set-up.

On 2024-07-08 17:27, Matthew Wilson | GBE wrote:

The downside of third-party power supplies is although they will have a nice 
declaration of conformity (for us in the EU (OK I know UK isn’t any more but 
we’ve decided to carry on with it behind the scenes!) and claims for EMC 
compliance, never is any precise detail of how and the environment in which 
these tests were performed provided.  A resistive load on the shortest possible 
DC output leads, with short mains input leads too I’m sure is the setup – happy 
to be proved wrong!

-- 
OOO - Own Opinions Only
Best Wishes
John Woodgate
Keep trying

 


 
<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
 

Virus-free. 
<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
 www.avg.com

  _  

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>  

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/ 
<https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/%20>  

Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/  <https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/> 
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe) <https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html> 
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html 

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net <mailto:msherma...@comcast.net> 
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org <mailto:linf...@ieee.org>  

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org <mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org>  

  _  

To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC 
<https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1> &A=1 


-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1

Re: [PSES] Switching power supplies continued

[John Woodgate]

The DoC states the standards applied, and those standards 
(CISPR-originated) give very precise details of the test set-up.


On 2024-07-08 17:27, Matthew Wilson | GBE wrote:
The downside of third-party power supplies is although they will have 
a nice declaration of conformity (for us in the EU (OK I know UK isn’t 
any more but we’ve decided to carry on with it behind the scenes!) and 
claims for EMC compliance, never is any precise detail of how and the 
environment in which these tests were performed provided.  A resistive 
load on the shortest possible DC output leads, with short mains input 
leads too I’m sure is the setup – happy to be proved wrong!


--
OOO - Own Opinions Only
Best Wishes
John Woodgate
Keep trying


--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1

Re: [PSES] Switching power supplies continued

[Matthew Wilson | GBE]

That is an interesting consideration regards the beat frequency, thanks for the 
post.  Something we have noticed several times with third-party 'bought in' 
mains-DC SMPSU (most people do that rather than design a bespoke one because 
the third-party has gained the necessary re safety compliance) is that people 
may specify the SMPSU for the maximum load out of their power budget for the 
apparatus to be driven by the SMPSU.

This usually is a sum/concatenation of all the highest current draw 
circuits/parts e.g. all LEDs on, activating sounder transducer, maybe driving a 
printer (usually thermal), radio module (Wi-Fi say) active, etc, etc.

In fact the equipment does not do this 'maximum draw' too often and so the 
majority of the time the SMPSU is usually operating at lower capacity (a few 
LEDs on, idle printer, not actively TX/RX data packets).  And it is then that 
EMC emissions created by the SMPSU (radiated and conducted) are actually at 
their worse.  In some (probably more extreme) cases this can upset performance 
of the apparatus, or even co-located equipment, but also it can annoy when at 
the EMC test chamber with breaches of the emissions limit line.

The downside of third-party power supplies is although they will have a nice 
declaration of conformity (for us in the EU (OK I know UK isn't any more but 
we've decided to carry on with it behind the scenes!) and claims for EMC 
compliance, never is any precise detail of how and the environment in which 
these tests were performed provided.  A resistive load on the shortest possible 
DC output leads, with short mains input leads too I'm sure is the setup - happy 
to be proved wrong!

Nearest I've found to such is this from Meanwell but it has some assumptions - 
large metal plates for one (but which one did they use for a particular 
model?!):

https://www.meanwell.co.uk/knowledge-base/how-do-mean-well-test-for-electro-magnetic-interference-emi

Anyway, as is probably known in this audience, but is a constant reminder to 
clients and so forth, you can't expect not to test a third party SMPSU even 
when it is 'compliant'.

Thanks for giving me an excuse to ramble on :-)

Kind regards,

Matthew Wilson,
GB Electronics (UK) Ltd.


Matthew WilsonMIET
Technical Director
GB Electronics (UK) Ltd
matthew.wil...@gbelectronics.com
www.gbelectronics.com
+44 (0) 1903 244 500
Ascot House|Mulberry Close|Woods Way
Goring-by-Sea|West Sussex|BN12 4QY|UK
Certificate Number 10455
​ISO 9001, ISO 14001
Disclaimer: This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and 
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are 
addressed.
​If you have received this email in error please delete it from your system, do 
not use or disclose the information in any way and notify the sender 
immediately.
​The contents of this message may contain personal views which are not the 
views of the company, unless specifically stated.
​
​GB Electronics (UK) Ltd is a company registered in England and Wales under 
number 06210991.
​Registered office: Ascot House Mulberry Close, Woods Way, Goring By Sea, West 
Sussex, BN12 4QY.
From: doug emcesd.com 
Sent: Wednesday, July 3, 2024 10:55 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Switching power supplies continued

Hi All,

When thinking about power supplies, one would think that they either work or 
not. But this is not the case.

Switching power supply frequencies are usually much lower that today's system 
frequencies. This leads to a situation where it can take an hour or much more 
for an edge to hit a circuit in the system at a critical time and cause a 
problem. The problem looks like an intermittent one, but it is not 
intermittent! It is sort of like a beat frequency between a system signal and 
the power supply switching.

This class of problems is very interesting. I have been tracking them down for 
about 40 years now and have developed some techniques for doing this.

Tracking down what seem like intermittent problems can take a lot of time, but 
power supply interaction with a system is not an intermittent problem but 
sometimes takes a bit to track down a fix. I have seen these kinds of problems 
where a switching supply, not even connected to that part of the system, cause 
this kind of problem in a circuit a meter or more away from the supply.

This is the kind of problem I love! Like a cat and mouse game, often requiring 
unconventional troubleshooting methods.

Doug
[https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/_HuR3Ky2TF_XhFHyxnYRmiq7nHQldnMsPNYFaLG6kb5T4y8MeCe-BDC_BscJtSFgszSSjssihHS-pjM3-jwNP8S0CwE-gN8fsRsPkojiAlmpBwb20vIVizS-siCUywW_jqrefbVr]


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
All emc-pstc postings are archived a

Re: [PSES] power supplies - standardized performance tests

[Ralph McDiarmid]

IEC 61204-6 does look promising, but it does have a limit on output voltage of 
200 volts d.c.   I’ll assume like its power limit of 2,500 watts, its voltage 
limit can be extended by applying good engineering principles.

 

And it seems reasonably priced.

 

Thanks for finding this John.

 

Ralph

 

 

From: John Woodgate  
Sent: Tuesday, July 2, 2024 2:17 PM
To: rmm.priv...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PSES] power lsupply musings #1

 

IEC doesn't look too promising. These are not exactly on stone tablets, but 
they are old: IEC61204:1993 + AMD1:2001, IEC 61204-6: 2000. You can preview 
them. go to www.iec.ch <http://www.iec.ch> , then go to Web store and search.

On 2024-07-02 20:01, Ralph McDiarmid wrote:

Oh boy, have I seen this, in the distant past.  Today, there is likely an IEC 
standard which defines how this measurement should be performed.

 

When I was a development engineer at a small d.c. power supply company in the 
1990s we grappled with this same issue.  We eventually designed a custom 
voltage probe which measured differential ripple & noise into 50 ohms with a 20 
MHz bandwidth.  It provided a repeatable measurement of output noise into a 
stabilized impedance while rejecting common-mode contribution.  Its 
implementation settled most arguments on how this measurement was done since 
some customers at the time were challenging our results when we were merely 
using an unbalanced 10X scope probe with any convenient oscilloscope on hand.  

 

Any, well considered, implementation for a noise probe is probably just as good 
so long as it is used consistently, and the method disclosed to those who need 
to know.  

 

Ralph

 

From: doug emcesd.com  <mailto:d...@emcesd.com>  
Sent: Monday, July 1, 2024 4:18 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> 
Subject: [PSES] power lsupply musings #1

 

Hi Everyone,

 

I thought I would post a bit about power supplies. Something as simple as 
trying to measure ripple on the output can be very inaccurate, overstating 
ripple amplitude by a lot, 100% over stated is not all that unusual.

 

One problem arises from common mode noise on the output that gets into the 
structure of the probe used for the measurement. Most probes have modes 
resulting in display of voltages that are not actually present. If you doubt 
this, just connect both terminals of a scope probe to the low end, say ground, 
of a power supply output and you will often see a significant signal that is 
not actually there. Whatever one measures with a shorted probe on the ground 
side of the supply output is the error in the measurement and can easily exceed 
the actual ripple voltage present on the output.

 

Have you seen this? I cover this in detail in my presentations.

 

Doug

  
<https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/_HuR3Ky2TF_XhFHyxnYRmiq7nHQldnMsPNYFaLG6kb5T4y8MeCe-BDC_BscJtSFgszSSjssihHS-pjM3-jwNP8S0CwE-gN8fsRsPkojiAlmpBwb20vIVizS-siCUywW_jqrefbVr>
 


  _  


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>  

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/ 
<https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/%20>  

Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/  <https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/> 
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe) <https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html> 
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html 

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net <mailto:msherma...@comcast.net> 
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org <mailto:linf...@ieee.org>  

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org <mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org>  


  _  


To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC 
<https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1> &A=1 


  _  


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>  

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/ 
<https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/%20>  

Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/  <https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/> 
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe) <https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html> 
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html 

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net <

Re: [PSES] dielectric strength question -- update

[John Woodgate]

Indeed, but the crunch question is where did that data come from. We can 
tell by the number 60664 that it originated probably in the 1970s.


On 2024-07-02 20:21, Ralph McDiarmid wrote:


I’m aware of IEC 60664-1 (insulation coordination) and I’ve referenced 
it many times over the years.  You’ll find its normative reference in 
several IEC and CSA standards and UL840 seems to rely on its 
database.  IEC 60664 has been around a long time and has several parts.


Ralph

*From:*Richard Nute 
*Sent:* Friday, June 28, 2024 3:31 PM
*To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
*Subject:* [PSES] dielectric strength question -- update

Since my 23 June message, I may have found the answer to my quest as 
to where the air insulation (clearances) distances came from: IEC 664, 
Edition 1, 1980,  Appendix Table AI, withstand voltages, and Table 
AII, breakdown voltages.


According to IEC 664, Table AII is “experimental data” by

Prof. Dr. Ing. W. Pfeiffer, convenor of IEC TC109/MT3, 
elektrotechnische zeitschriftAusg.B, 1976.


Dr. Hermstein, elektrotechnische zeitschrift Ausg. A, 1969.

These are Germanelectrotechnical journals issue A, 1969, and issue B, 
1976.  I could not find copies of these.  Perhaps our German 
subscribers can find these.


I surmise from the tables that these two people tested air breakdown 
voltage as a function of distance.  I did find that Dr. Hermstein did 
some experimental work on electrical performance of gasses that has 
been discredited.


Table AI (IEC 664) is withstand voltages based on the breakdown 
voltages in Table AII (IEC 664). This is the source of IEC 60664-1 
clearance distance tables which have been used by a number of IEC 
standards committees.


I’ve attached a plot of both the breakdown voltage per distance and 
the withstand voltage per distance through air.  These are linear axes 
while the IEC 664 and IEC 60664-1 plots are logarithmic axes.I’ve 
included trend lines (dotted) and their equations.(The 
voltage-distance tables are not in IEC 60664-1.)


I suspect the non-linearity of the breakdown (red) line is due to 
measurement problems. I would expect the line to be straight except 
for the small dimensions that approach the Paschen voltage limit for 
air, 327 volts peak.  (Paschen studied gas breakdowns at very small 
gaps and found that various gasses do not break down at very small gap 
dimensions.)


Best regards,

Rich



This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society 
emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your 
e-mail to EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/ 



Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how 
to unsubscribe) 

List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org



To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1 





This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society 
emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your 
e-mail to EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how 
to unsubscribe) 

List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org



To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1



--
Signature OOO - Own Opinions Only
Best wishes
John Woodgate, Rayleigh, Essex UK
Keep trying

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mai

Re: [PSES] dielectric strength question -- update

[Ralph McDiarmid]

I'm aware of IEC 60664-1 (insulation coordination) and I've referenced it
many times over the years.  You'll find its normative reference in several
IEC and CSA standards and UL840 seems to rely on its database.  IEC 60664
has been around a long time and has several parts.

 

Ralph

 

From: Richard Nute  
Sent: Friday, June 28, 2024 3:31 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] dielectric strength question -- update

 

 

Since my 23 June message, I may have found the answer to my quest as to
where the air insulation (clearances) distances came from: IEC 664, Edition
1, 1980,  Appendix Table AI, withstand voltages, and Table AII, breakdown
voltages. 

According to IEC 664, Table AII is "experimental data" by 

Prof. Dr. Ing. W. Pfeiffer, convenor of IEC TC109/MT3, elektrotechnische
zeitschrift  Ausg. B, 1976. 

Dr. Hermstein, elektrotechnische zeitschrift  Ausg. A, 1969.  

These are German electrotechnical journals issue A, 1969, and issue B, 1976.
I could not find copies of these.  Perhaps our German subscribers can find
these.

I surmise from the tables that these two people tested air breakdown voltage
as a function of distance.  I did find that Dr. Hermstein did some
experimental work on electrical performance of gasses that has been
discredited. 

Table AI (IEC 664) is withstand voltages based on the breakdown voltages in
Table AII (IEC 664).  This is the source of IEC 60664-1 clearance distance
tables which have been used by a number of IEC standards committees.  

I've attached a plot of both the breakdown voltage per distance and the
withstand voltage per distance through air.  These are linear axes while the
IEC 664 and IEC 60664-1 plots are logarithmic axes.  I've included trend
lines (dotted) and their equations.  (The voltage-distance tables are not in
IEC 60664-1.)  

I suspect the non-linearity of the breakdown (red) line is due to
measurement problems. I would expect the line to be straight except for the
small dimensions that approach the Paschen voltage limit for air, 327 volts
peak.  (Paschen studied gas breakdowns at very small gaps and found that
various gasses do not break down at very small gap dimensions.) 

Best regards,

Rich

  _  

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG   

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/
  

Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/   
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to
unsubscribe)  
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html 

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net  
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org   

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org   

  _  

To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC
 &A=1 


-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1

Re: [PSES] power lsupply musings #1

[Ralph McDiarmid]

Oh boy, have I seen this, in the distant past.  Today, there is likely an
IEC standard which defines how this measurement should be performed.

 

When I was a development engineer at a small d.c. power supply company in
the 1990s we grappled with this same issue.  We eventually designed a custom
voltage probe which measured differential ripple & noise into 50 ohms with a
20 MHz bandwidth.  It provided a repeatable measurement of output noise into
a stabilized impedance while rejecting common-mode contribution.  Its
implementation settled most arguments on how this measurement was done since
some customers at the time were challenging our results when we were merely
using an unbalanced 10X scope probe with any convenient oscilloscope on
hand.  

 

Any, well considered, implementation for a noise probe is probably just as
good so long as it is used consistently, and the method disclosed to those
who need to know.  

 

Ralph

 

From: doug emcesd.com  
Sent: Monday, July 1, 2024 4:18 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] power lsupply musings #1

 

Hi Everyone,

 

I thought I would post a bit about power supplies. Something as simple as
trying to measure ripple on the output can be very inaccurate, overstating
ripple amplitude by a lot, 100% over stated is not all that unusual.

 

One problem arises from common mode noise on the output that gets into the
structure of the probe used for the measurement. Most probes have modes
resulting in display of voltages that are not actually present. If you doubt
this, just connect both terminals of a scope probe to the low end, say
ground, of a power supply output and you will often see a significant signal
that is not actually there. Whatever one measures with a shorted probe on
the ground side of the supply output is the error in the measurement and can
easily exceed the actual ripple voltage present on the output.

 

Have you seen this? I cover this in detail in my presentations.

 

Doug

 
 

  _  

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG   

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/
  

Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/   
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to
unsubscribe)  
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html 

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net  
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org   

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org   

  _  

To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC
 &A=1 


-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1

Re: [PSES] "Significant Thickness"

[John Woodgate]

Thanks, Gert, but I don't think that's enough to satisfy the legal 
people. The rationale does not say what 'significant' means, and the 
meaning can't be determined from the rationale text. the best solution, 
I think, is to delete 'significant' from 6.4.8.2.3, as it adds nothing 
to meaning but a lot to confusion. It's then consistent with the rationale.


On 2024-07-01 11:35, Gert Gremmen F4LDP wrote:

TR 62368-2:2019:
Part 2: Explanatory information related to IEC 62368-1:2018

6.4.8.2.3 Compliance criteria
Rationale:
In each case there is a performance test, and construction (pre-selection)
criteria given. For material flammability, compliance of the material is
checked at the minimum thickness used as a fire enclosure or fire 
barrier.


Gert Gremmen

On 1-7-2024 11:02, James Pawson (U3C) wrote:


Hello again,

IEC 62368-1

/6.4.8 Fire Enclosures/

/6.4.8.2.3 Compliance criteria/

/Compliance is checked by inspection of applicable data sheets or test.
The material flammability class is checked for the *thinnest 
significant thickness* used./


There’s not a definition of “significant thickness” in the standard. 
Given that openings in a fire enclosure have controlled maximum 
dimensions I’m going to read “significant thickness” as “thickness of 
an area of material that is larger than the maximum permitted opening 
in that face of the fire enclosure”


Thoughts welcomed!

All the best

James

James Pawson

Managing Director & EMC Problem Solver

*Unit 3 Compliance Ltd*

*EMC : Environmental & Vibration : Electrical Safety : CE & UKCA : 
Consultancy*


www.unit3compliance.co.uk  | 
ja...@unit3compliance.co.uk 


+44(0)1274 911747  |  +44(0)7811 139957

2 Wellington Business Park, New Lane, Bradford, BD4 8AL

Registered in England and Wales # 10574298

/Office hours:/

/Every morning my full attention is on consultancy, testing, and 
troubleshooting activities for our customers’ projects. I’m 
available/contactable between 1300h to 1730h Mon/Tue/Thurs/Fri./


/For inquiries, bookings, and testing updates please send us an email 
on he...@unit3compliance.co.uk  
or call 01274 911747. Our lead times for testing and consultancy are 
typically 4-5 weeks./




This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society 
emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your 
e-mail to EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how 
to unsubscribe) 

List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org



To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1




--
Independent Expert on CE marking
EMC Consultant
Electrical Safety Consultant


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society 
emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your 
e-mail to EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how 
to unsubscribe) 

List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org



To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1



--
Signature OOO - Own Opinions Only
Best wishes
John Woodgate, Rayleigh, Essex UK
Keep trying

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.htm

Re: [PSES] "Significant Thickness"

[Gert Gremmen F4LDP]

TR 62368-2:2019:
Part 2: Explanatory information related to IEC 62368-1:2018

6.4.8.2.3 Compliance criteria
Rationale:
In each case there is a performance test, and construction (pre-selection)
criteria given. For material flammability, compliance of the material is
checked at the minimum thickness used as a fire enclosure or fire barrier.

Gert Gremmen

On 1-7-2024 11:02, James Pawson (U3C) wrote:


Hello again,

IEC 62368-1

/6.4.8 Fire Enclosures/

/6.4.8.2.3 Compliance criteria/

/Compliance is checked by inspection of applicable data sheets or test.
The material flammability class is checked for the *thinnest 
significant thickness* used./


There’s not a definition of “significant thickness” in the standard. 
Given that openings in a fire enclosure have controlled maximum 
dimensions I’m going to read “significant thickness” as “thickness of 
an area of material that is larger than the maximum permitted opening 
in that face of the fire enclosure”


Thoughts welcomed!

All the best

James

James Pawson

Managing Director & EMC Problem Solver

*Unit 3 Compliance Ltd*

*EMC : Environmental & Vibration : Electrical Safety : CE & UKCA : 
Consultancy*


www.unit3compliance.co.uk  | 
ja...@unit3compliance.co.uk 


+44(0)1274 911747  |  +44(0)7811 139957

2 Wellington Business Park, New Lane, Bradford, BD4 8AL

Registered in England and Wales # 10574298

/Office hours:/

/Every morning my full attention is on consultancy, testing, and 
troubleshooting activities for our customers’ projects. I’m 
available/contactable between 1300h to 1730h Mon/Tue/Thurs/Fri./


/For inquiries, bookings, and testing updates please send us an email 
on he...@unit3compliance.co.uk  or 
call 01274 911747. Our lead times for testing and consultancy are 
typically 4-5 weeks./




This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society 
emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your 
e-mail to EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how 
to unsubscribe) 

List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org



To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1




--
Independent Expert on CE marking
EMC Consultant
Electrical Safety Consultant

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1
BEGIN:VCARD
FN:Gert Gremmen
N:Gremmen;Gert;;;
ADR:;;1261 Route de Pirot;Chauffailles;;71170;France
EMAIL;PREF=1:g.grem...@cetest.nl
TEL;TYPE=cell:+33 7 84507010
NOTE:Independent Expert on CE marking 	\n	Harmonised Standards (HAS-) Consu
 ltant @ European Commission for RED\, LVD	 and EMC\n	EMC Consultant\n	Elect
 rical Safety Consultant\n	
X-MOZILLA-HTML:TRUE
END:VCARD

Re: [PSES] "Significant Thickness"

[Charlie Blackham]

James

My understanding off this phrase is "The material flammability class is checked 
at the thinnest part of the material that is relied upon as a Fire Enclosure"

62368-1 allows different methods of compliance with clause 6.4 within the same 
product - for example, parts of the product that are PS1 or PS2 don't need a 
Fire Enclosure but might share an outer enclosure with parts that are PS3 and 
require a Fire Enclosure for that portion of the product.

Best regards
Charlie

Charlie Blackham
Sulis Consultants Ltd
Tel: +44 (0)7946 624317
Web: https://sulisconsultants.com/
Registered in England and Wales, number 05466247

From: James Pawson (U3C) 
Sent: Monday, July 1, 2024 10:02 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] "Significant Thickness"

Hello again,

IEC 62368-1
6.4.8 Fire Enclosures
6.4.8.2.3 Compliance criteria
Compliance is checked by inspection of applicable data sheets or test.
The material flammability class is checked for the thinnest significant 
thickness used.

There's not a definition of "significant thickness" in the standard. Given that 
openings in a fire enclosure have controlled maximum dimensions I'm going to 
read "significant thickness" as "thickness of an area of material that is 
larger than the maximum permitted opening in that face of the fire enclosure"

Thoughts welcomed!

All the best
James

James Pawson
Managing Director & EMC Problem Solver

Unit 3 Compliance Ltd
EMC : Environmental & Vibration : Electrical Safety : CE & UKCA : Consultancy

www.unit3compliance.co.uk | 
ja...@unit3compliance.co.uk
+44(0)1274 911747  |  +44(0)7811 139957
2 Wellington Business Park, New Lane, Bradford, BD4 8AL
Registered in England and Wales # 10574298

Office hours:
Every morning my full attention is on consultancy, testing, and troubleshooting 
activities for our customers' projects. I'm available/contactable between 1300h 
to 1730h Mon/Tue/Thurs/Fri.
For inquiries, bookings, and testing updates please send us an email on 
he...@unit3compliance.co.uk or call 01274 
911747. Our lead times for testing and consultancy are typically 4-5 weeks.






This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org



To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1

Re: [PSES] Polyimide film/tape for fire enclosure (UL 94 V-0 rating)

[Ralph McDiarmid]

Generally, adhesive tape cannot be relied on for a safety feature, like forming 
part of a fire enclosure.  Standards typically require mechanical securement.

 

Ralph

 

From: James Pawson (U3C)  
Sent: Sunday, June 30, 2024 9:51 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Polyimide film/tape for fire enclosure (UL 94 V-0 rating)

 

Hello safety experts,

 

In relation to my post a month or so ago about battery fire enclosures w.r.t. 
EN 62368-1 I wondered about using polyimide tape to provide a fire enclosure 
for a battery. The idea being to wrap the tape around the battery, at least 
once, probably twice.

 

Suitable materials could include:

 

*   DuPont Kapton 

  (UL file E39505) states V-0 for 25um thick
*   Muller Alhorn Norton TH 

  (UL file E231847  ) states 
V-0 for 25um thick

 

Tapes vs film

 

Plastic material is tested to UL 94 but tapes are tested to UL 510. Therefore, 
as soon as you put a self adhesive backing on a UL 94 V-0 rated film, even if 
the material doesn’t change, the material now needs testing to UL 510. As far 
as I can tell, the test methodology between the two standards are not 
comparable.

 

I feel like there is no reason that adding a small amount of adhesive on the 
back would significantly change the flammability characteristics.

 

The alternative “by the book” method would be to wrap the battery in the 
polyimide film and secure with some regular polyimide tape on the outside 😊

 

Vertical Burning vs Thin Material Vertical Burning

 

The tests appear to be fundamentally similar in terms of sample size and flame 
power, just the wrapping of the thin material sample around a supporting 
mandrel.

 

It looks like V-0 and VTM-0 ratings are comparable in this respect.

 

As always, I would appreciate your thoughts on the matter, particularly in 
pointing out any problems in logic or understanding on my part.

 

References

UL 94

UL 510

This link also discusses some of the same  

 

 

(If only we had a vertical burning test rig and we could try out some of these 
ideas…)

 

All the best

James

 

James Pawson

Managing Director & EMC Problem Solver

 

Unit 3 Compliance Ltd

EMC : Environmental & Vibration : Electrical Safety : CE & UKCA : Consultancy

 

  www.unit3compliance.co.uk |  
 ja...@unit3compliance.co.uk 

+44(0)1274 911747  |  +44(0)7811 139957

2 Wellington Business Park, New Lane, Bradford, BD4 8AL

Registered in England and Wales # 10574298

 

Office hours:

Every morning my full attention is on consultancy, testing, and troubleshooting 
activities for our customers’ projects. I’m contactable between 1300h to 1730h 
from Monday to Friday.

For inquiries, bookings, and testing updates please send us an email on  
 he...@unit3compliance.co.uk or call 01274 
911747. Our lead times for testing and consultancy are typically 4-5 weeks.

 

  _  

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG   

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/ 
  

Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/   
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)  
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html 

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net  
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org   

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org   

  _  

To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC 
 &A=1 


-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send m

Re: [PSES] dielectric strength question

[Richard Nute]

Hi Ralph: 

"My understanding that “clearance” is distance through air (the insulating 
medium for clearance), not through solid or liquid insulation." 
True. 

"Clearance distance is a function of peak voltage and air pressure." 
True. 

"The testing of solid insulation is generally done using an impulse withstand 
voltage test." 
Depends on the standard. Its the first option in IEC 60664-1. 

"Clearance is tested using steady-state d.c. or the rms equivalent of an a.c. 
test voltage." 

In IEC 60664-1, the first option is an impulse withstand test, followed by peak 
sinusoid and DC. 

IEC 60664-1, 6.1.2.1, Note 1 says "The electric testing of clearances will also 
stress the associated solid insulation." Solid, air (clearance), and surface 
(creepage) distance are always in parallel. They cannot be tested separately. 
See attached illustration. 

Best regards, 

Rich 

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1

Re: [PSES] dielectric strength question -- update

[John Woodgate]

Hi, Rich. I thought you were writing about solid dielectrics. I did a 
Google search for the German journal and it seems that its issues may be 
available up to 1995. The organization VDE should be able to help you: 
https://www.vde.com/en. Also, the search turned up a book that seems to 
have relevant information, at 
https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Electrical_Properties_of_Solid_Insulatin/c9qgPOK7eNwC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=elektrotechnische+zeitschrift&pg=PA220&printsec=frontcover


On 2024-06-28 23:31, Richard Nute wrote:


Since my 23 June message, I may have found the answer to my quest as 
to where the air insulation (clearances) distances came from: IEC 664, 
Edition 1, 1980,  Appendix Table AI, withstand voltages, and Table 
AII, breakdown voltages.


According to IEC 664, Table AII is “experimental data” by

Prof. Dr. Ing. W. Pfeiffer, convenor of IEC TC109/MT3,
elektrotechnische zeitschriftAusg.B, 1976.

Dr. Hermstein, elektrotechnische zeitschrift  Ausg. A, 1969.

These are Germanelectrotechnical journalsissue A, 1969, and issue B, 
1976.  I could not find copies of these.  Perhaps our German 
subscribers can find these.


I surmise from the tables that these two people tested air breakdown 
voltage as a function of distance.  I did find that Dr. Hermstein did 
some experimental work on electrical performance of gasses that has 
been discredited.


Table AI (IEC 664) is withstand voltages based on the breakdown 
voltages in Table AII (IEC 664).  This is the source of IEC 60664-1 
clearance distance tables which have been used by a number of IEC 
standards committees.


I’ve attached a plot of both the breakdown voltage per distance and 
the withstand voltage per distance through air.  These are linear axes 
while the IEC 664 and IEC 60664-1 plots are logarithmic axes.I’ve 
included trend lines (dotted)and their equations.(The voltage-distance 
tables are not in IEC 60664-1.)


I suspect the non-linearity of the breakdown (red) line is due to 
measurement problems. I would expect the line to be straight except 
for the small dimensions that approach the Paschen voltage limit for 
air, 327 volts peak.  (Paschen studied gas breakdowns at very small 
gaps and found that various gasses do not break down at very small gap 
dimensions.)


Best regards,

Rich



This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society 
emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your 
e-mail to EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how 
to unsubscribe) 

List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org



To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1



--
Signature OOO - Own Opinions Only
Best wishes
John Woodgate, Rayleigh, Essex UK
Keep trying

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1

Re: [PSES] dielectric strength question

[Ralph McDiarmid]

My understanding that “clearance” is distance through air (the insulating 
medium for clearance), not through solid or liquid insulation.  Clearance 
distance is a function of peak voltage and air pressure.  The testing of solid 
insulation is generally done using an impulse withstand voltage test.  
Clearance is tested using steady-state d.c. or the rms equivalent of an a.c. 
test voltage.

 

The tables for clearance and creepage along with the requirements for solid 
insulation appear to have served the industry well over the past few decades 
and there seems no compelling reason to scrutinize their origin, unless it can 
be shown that those requirements are generally inadequate or draconian.  I 
suspect there is a decent safety margin built-in to those numbers, maybe a 2:1 
factor.

 

Ralph

 

From: Richard Nute  
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2024 4:34 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] dielectric strength question

 

 

Hi John:

 

My concern is an engineering-based prediction of clearances (air insulation) as 
a function of voltage.  What is the basis for the clearance tables in the 
standards?  I have never seen anything that allows me to independently verify 
the clearance dimensions as a function of voltage.  My assumption was that the 
volts per unit distance through the insulating medium was an insulator 
constant.  Not true.  The volts per unit distance is a variable and depends on 
the distance.  So, how do I generate a table of distance for each voltage?  As 
near as I know, the tables are empirical.  

 

Your hypothesis is that the V/d curves are due to non-uniformity of the 
insulator is sort-of verified by the papers listed by Adam Dixon.  However, the 
incident you describe seems to me to be due to partial discharge.  Any V/d 
non-uniformity area of the insulating medium is a candidate for partial 
discharge.  Air, because its V/d is very much less than a solid insulator V/d, 
is likely to have sufficient voltage across the void and can lead to a partial 
breakdown of the solid insulator.  In the 1950s, I doubt that we knew much of 
the theory of partial discharge.

 

Best regards,

Rich

 

 

From: John Woodgate mailto:j...@woodjohn.uk> > 
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2024 1:26 PM
To: ri...@ieee.org <mailto:ri...@ieee.org> ; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG 
<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> 
Subject: Re: [PSES] dielectric strength question

 

I feel that those curves support the hypothesis that the variation is due to 
non-uniformity in the material. I first suggested voids (because I recall a 
spectacular failure of a line output transformer design  in the late 1950s 
whose HV winding was encapsulated in polythene. Air in the voids ionized and 
the ions gobbled up the polythene. Attempt to eliminate the voids in viscous 
molten polythene under vacuum were partly successful, but did not survive the 
moulding process. Voids are only one possibility; simple variations in density 
may be sufficient to concentrate the electric field just where it will do the 
most damage.

Can some tests be done on a solid material that has been certified to be highly 
uniform? What happens with liquids, which should be orders of magnitude more 
uniform than the average solid?

On 2024-06-25 20:35, Richard Nute wrote:

 

Thanks to Adam for all the references.  They address very thin solid 
insulations.  But they confirm that dielectric strength is not a constant for 
very small distances, and they do not have an answer as to why.  

 

My concern is verifying clearances in safety standards.  I’ve attached curves 
of three standards clearance requirements (logarithmic scale for volts per 
millimeter).  The solid curves represent the clearances in standards and are 
close to power curves (dotted lines).  The equations are for a best-fit power 
curve.

 

The solid green curve is from an old standard and depicts actual withstand 
measurements.  

 

I suspect the electric strength curves are related to the reason for Paschen’s 
finding that gases do not break down at low voltages.  

 

My objective is to predict clearance dimensions without tables.

 

Best regards,

Rich

 

 


  _  


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>  

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/ 
<https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/%20>  

Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/  <https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/> 
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe) <https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html> 
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html 

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net <mailto:msherma...@co

Re: [PSES] dielectric strength question

[Richard Nute]

 

Hi John:

 

My concern is an engineering-based prediction of clearances (air insulation) as 
a function of voltage.  What is the basis for the clearance tables in the 
standards?  I have never seen anything that allows me to independently verify 
the clearance dimensions as a function of voltage.  My assumption was that the 
volts per unit distance through the insulating medium was an insulator 
constant.  Not true.  The volts per unit distance is a variable and depends on 
the distance.  So, how do I generate a table of distance for each voltage?  As 
near as I know, the tables are empirical.  

 

Your hypothesis is that the V/d curves are due to non-uniformity of the 
insulator is sort-of verified by the papers listed by Adam Dixon.  However, the 
incident you describe seems to me to be due to partial discharge.  Any V/d 
non-uniformity area of the insulating medium is a candidate for partial 
discharge.  Air, because its V/d is very much less than a solid insulator V/d, 
is likely to have sufficient voltage across the void and can lead to a partial 
breakdown of the solid insulator.  In the 1950s, I doubt that we knew much of 
the theory of partial discharge.

 

Best regards,

Rich

 

 

From: John Woodgate  
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2024 1:26 PM
To: ri...@ieee.org; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] dielectric strength question

 

I feel that those curves support the hypothesis that the variation is due to 
non-uniformity in the material. I first suggested voids (because I recall a 
spectacular failure of a line output transformer design  in the late 1950s 
whose HV winding was encapsulated in polythene. Air in the voids ionized and 
the ions gobbled up the polythene. Attempt to eliminate the voids in viscous 
molten polythene under vacuum were partly successful, but did not survive the 
moulding process. Voids are only one possibility; simple variations in density 
may be sufficient to concentrate the electric field just where it will do the 
most damage.

Can some tests be done on a solid material that has been certified to be highly 
uniform? What happens with liquids, which should be orders of magnitude more 
uniform than the average solid?

On 2024-06-25 20:35, Richard Nute wrote:

 

Thanks to Adam for all the references.  They address very thin solid 
insulations.  But they confirm that dielectric strength is not a constant for 
very small distances, and they do not have an answer as to why.  

 

My concern is verifying clearances in safety standards.  I’ve attached curves 
of three standards clearance requirements (logarithmic scale for volts per 
millimeter).  The solid curves represent the clearances in standards and are 
close to power curves (dotted lines).  The equations are for a best-fit power 
curve.

 

The solid green curve is from an old standard and depicts actual withstand 
measurements.  

 

I suspect the electric strength curves are related to the reason for Paschen’s 
finding that gases do not break down at low voltages.  

 

My objective is to predict clearance dimensions without tables.

 

Best regards,

Rich

 

 

  _  

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>  

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/ 
<https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/%20>  

Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/  <https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/> 
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe) <https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html> 
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html 

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net <mailto:msherma...@comcast.net> 
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org <mailto:linf...@ieee.org>  

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org <mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org>  

  _  

To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC 
<https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1> &A=1 

-- 
OOO - Own Opinions Only
Best wishes
John Woodgate, Rayleigh, Essex UK
Keep trying

 


 
<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
 

Virus-free. 
<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
 www.avg.com

 


-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

All emc-pstc postings are ar

Re: [PSES] HiPot Testing of 3-Phase PSU Question

[Brian Gregory]

 L-G failure sounds like the Y-caps conducting. I made a special input 
connector for my unit that connected to traces that went around the Y-caps 
and/or the GDTs on the input (single phase 120V) that was used during FAT.IIRC, 
we also had to pull pins b/c we had faults from a UL-rated Phoenix connector.   
It wasn't the connector, it was the solder bumps under the board that were 
arc'ing.  So, we had a customer connector made that only used 3 of the 5 
sockets. Amongst the tricks I've had to employ  Colorado Brian   
-- Original Message --
From: Doug Nix 
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] HiPot Testing of 3-Phase PSU Question
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2024 15:31:19 -0400


Hi Brian,
 This is my bailiwick. If you are talking about semiconductor manufacturing 
equipment, the correct standard is IEC 60204-33. If it’s standard 
manufacturing machinery, then it’s IEC 60204-1. Clause 18 calls out 1 kV 
or 2x nominal mains voltage, whichever is more for the “voltage 
test” (read hipot) for machinery designed for connection to a TN supply. 
The standard permits you to disconnect any equipment that is either 
pre-certified (as most industrial PSUs are) or that might be damaged by the 
test. Any industrial PSU built today will have surge suppressors on the primary 
side. Also, mains filters used in these machines will have Y-caps that will 
conduct significant current between the mains conductors and PE during a hipot 
test. So, the answer is to disconnect these devices and test the mains voltage 
wiring upstream and downstream of them separately. If the PSU is downstream of 
a control transformer, you need only test up to the primary of the control 
transformer. All industrial equipment is supposed to be hipot tested at the 
factory; however, just because it’s supposed to be done doesn't make it 
so.Best regards, Doug nixd...@ieee.org+1 (519) 729-5704 
On Jun 24, 2024, at 08:19, Brian Kunde  wrote:I 
understand that commercial products are %100 HiPot tested at the factory.  Does 
this rule hold true for 3-phase industrial machinery?
 Here is why I am asking.  I just pre-tested a German build 400-480Vac to 24Vdc 
power supply (DIN Rail Mount). It passed all the tests, except it failed the 
Phase-to-PE HiPot test at around 1000V. I tried both AC and DC voltage and 
tried connecting it from a single phase to PE and tried all phases connected 
together to PE.  I tested a second power supply of the same model and it did 
the same exact thing. So I am thinking that it is supposed to perform this way. 
My concern is that in our factory, they will not be able to HiPot the final 
product when the power supply is installed.   I assume the power supply has 
some kind of built in surge suppression. So how am I to use this PSU in my 
final product? Thoughts and comments would be appreciated. Best regards to all. 
The Other BrianThis message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society 
emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/ Website:  
https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/ 
 Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
 List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html
For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
 Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org
For policy questions, send mail to:
 Jim Bacher at:  j.bac...@ieee.org
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1
This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/
Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/ 
 Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
 List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html
For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
 Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org
For policy questions, send mail to:
 Jim Bacher at:  j.bac...@ieee.org
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
un

Re: [PSES] dielectric strength question

[John Woodgate]

I feel that those curves support the hypothesis that the variation is 
due to non-uniformity in the material. I first suggested voids (because 
I recall a spectacular failure of a line output transformer design  in 
the late 1950s whose HV winding was encapsulated in polythene. Air in 
the voids ionized and the ions gobbled up the polythene. Attempt to 
eliminate the voids in viscous molten polythene under vacuum were partly 
successful, but did not survive the moulding process. Voids are only one 
possibility; simple variations in density may be sufficient to 
concentrate the electric field just where it will do the most damage.


Can some tests be done on a solid material that has been certified to be 
highly uniform? What happens with liquids, which should be orders of 
magnitude more uniform than the average solid?


On 2024-06-25 20:35, Richard Nute wrote:


Thanks to Adam for all the references.  They address very thin solid 
insulations.  But they confirm that dielectric strength is not a 
constant for very small distances, and they do not have an answer as 
to why.


My concern is verifying clearances in safety standards.  I’ve attached 
curves of three standards clearance requirements (logarithmic scale 
for volts per millimeter).  The solid curves represent the clearances 
in standards and are close to power curves (dotted lines).  The 
equations are for a best-fit power curve.


The solid green curve is from an old standard and depicts actual 
withstand measurements.


I suspect the electric strength curves are related to the reason for 
Paschen’s finding that gases do not break down at low voltages.


My objective is to predict clearance dimensions without tables.

Best regards,

Rich



This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society 
emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your 
e-mail to EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how 
to unsubscribe) 

List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org



To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1



--
Signature OOO - Own Opinions Only
Best wishes
John Woodgate, Rayleigh, Essex UK
Keep trying

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1

Re: [PSES] dielectric strength question

[Richard Nute]

 

Thanks to Adam for all the references.  They address very thin solid 
insulations.  But they confirm that dielectric strength is not a constant for 
very small distances, and they do not have an answer as to why.  

 

My concern is verifying clearances in safety standards.  I’ve attached curves 
of three standards clearance requirements (logarithmic scale for volts per 
millimeter).  The solid curves represent the clearances in standards and are 
close to power curves (dotted lines).  The equations are for a best-fit power 
curve.

 

The solid green curve is from an old standard and depicts actual withstand 
measurements.  

 

I suspect the electric strength curves are related to the reason for Paschen’s 
finding that gases do not break down at low voltages.  

 

My objective is to predict clearance dimensions without tables.

 

Best regards,

Rich

 

 


-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1

Re: [PSES] HiPot Testing of 3-Phase PSU Question

[Doug Nix]

Hi Brian,

This is my bailiwick. If you are talking about semiconductor manufacturing 
equipment, the correct standard is IEC 60204-33. If it’s standard manufacturing 
machinery, then it’s IEC 60204-1. Clause 18 calls out 1 kV or 2x nominal mains 
voltage, whichever is more for the “voltage test” (read hipot) for machinery 
designed for connection to a TN supply. The standard permits you to disconnect 
any equipment that is either pre-certified (as most industrial PSUs are) or 
that might be damaged by the test. Any industrial PSU built today will have 
surge suppressors on the primary side. Also, mains filters used in these 
machines will have Y-caps that will conduct significant current between the 
mains conductors and PE during a hipot test. So, the answer is to disconnect 
these devices and test the mains voltage wiring upstream and downstream of them 
separately. If the PSU is downstream of a control transformer, you need only 
test up to the primary of the control transformer.

All industrial equipment is supposed to be hipot tested at the factory; 
however, just because it’s supposed to be done doesn't make it so.
Best regards,

Doug Nix
d...@ieee.org
+1 (519) 729-5704



> On Jun 24, 2024, at 08:19, Brian Kunde  wrote:
> 
> I understand that commercial products are %100 HiPot tested at the factory.  
> Does this rule hold true for 3-phase industrial machinery?
> 
> Here is why I am asking.  I just pre-tested a German build 400-480Vac to 
> 24Vdc power supply (DIN Rail Mount). It passed all the tests, except it 
> failed the Phase-to-PE HiPot test at around 1000V. I tried both AC and DC 
> voltage and tried connecting it from a single phase to PE and tried all 
> phases connected together to PE.  I tested a second power supply of the same 
> model and it did the same exact thing. So I am thinking that it is supposed 
> to perform this way.
> 
> My concern is that in our factory, they will not be able to HiPot the final 
> product when the power supply is installed.  
> 
> I assume the power supply has some kind of built in surge suppression. So how 
> am I to use this PSU in my final product?
> 
> Thoughts and comments would be appreciated.
> 
> Best regards to all.
> 
> The Other Brian
> This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
> discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
> EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> 
> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
> https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/
> 
> Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/  
> Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
> unsubscribe) 
> List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html
> 
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
> Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net 
> Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org 
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org 
> To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
> https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1
> 


-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1

Re: [PSES] dielectric strength question

[Ken Javor]

Totally of the original topic, but I have used “swag” uncapitalized in several 
papers on the topic of electromagnetic coupling to and from cables over a 
ground plane. In that context, “swag” means single-wire-above-ground.

 

 

-- 

 

Ken Javor

Ph: (256) 650-5261

 

 

From: Ken Javor 
Reply-To: Ken Javor 
Date: Tuesday, June 25, 2024 at 8:15 AM
To: 
Subject: Re: [PSES] dielectric strength question

 

Silly wild ass guess is what I mean when I use that acronym.

 

-- 

 

Ken Javor

Ph: (256) 650-5261

 

 

From: "James Pawson (U3C)" 
Reply-To: "James Pawson (U3C)" 
Date: Tuesday, June 25, 2024 at 7:29 AM
To: 
Subject: Re: [PSES] dielectric strength question

 

Could someone define the acronym SWAG in this context please?

 

Something With Air Gap?

 

All the best

James

 

James Pawson

Managing Director & EMC Problem Solver

 

Unit 3 Compliance Ltd

EMC : Environmental & Vibration : Electrical Safety : CE & UKCA : Consultancy

 

www.unit3compliance.co.uk | ja...@unit3compliance.co.uk 

+44(0)1274 911747  |  +44(0)7811 139957

2 Wellington Business Park, New Lane, Bradford, BD4 8AL

Registered in England and Wales # 10574298

 

Office hours:

Every morning my full attention is on consultancy, testing, and troubleshooting 
activities for our customers’ projects. I’m available/contactable between 1300h 
to 1730h Mon/Tue/Thurs/Fri.

For inquiries, bookings, and testing updates please send us an email on 
he...@unit3compliance.co.uk or call 01274 911747. Our lead times for testing 
and consultancy are typically 4-5 weeks.

 

 

 

 

From: Adam Dixon  
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2024 1:24 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] dielectric strength question

 

SWAG #2:  non-uniformities in materials + multiple breakdown mechanisms make it 
difficult to model.  Mica shows up in 1940's vintage literature.  Here are some 
interesting papers that I perused after Rich posed the question:

 

https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=9079498
Space change behavior in cross-linked polymers

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/app.49379
Touches on different breakdown mechanisms (see Figure 3; also the Figure 2 
reference may be worthwhile but I haven't tried accessing it)

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7764431/
electron injection and avalanche breakdown process

https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=65f577afe99e3253e7e3f38054ce9ea49b16a636
Electromechanical breakdown mechanism but also states "The exact cause for the 
observed behavior remains to be investigated" 

https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA635433.pdf
Paschen Curve anomalies (for consideration of gas dielectrics)

https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1656858

Describes influence of polymer chain ends (Figure 1 is a good illustration)

 

 

Cheers,

Adam in Atlanta

adam.di...@ieee.org 

 

On Mon, Jun 24, 2024 at 11:00 PM Patrick  wrote:

just a SWAG...  perhaps dielectric strength is dependent on volume, and the 
increased 'thickness' is assumed to be thickness-for-a-constant-surface-area.  
If that's the case then an increasing thickness is also an increased volume 
which also increases available charge carriers, reducing breakdown voltage.

A test of my SWAG would be to incrementally increase dielectric thickness and 
determine if breakdown voltage eventually finds a minimum and then begins to 
increase with thickness.

interesting question.

 

On Sun, Jun 23, 2024, 13:32 Richard Nute  wrote:

 

Why does air (or any insulating material) have decreasing dielectric strength, 
kV/mm, with increasing distance through the dielectric substance?  Assume 
homogenous field.  (I have assumed the dielectric strength was constant for the 
material.)   In other words, what is the physical basis for the non-constant 
dielectric strength clearance tables in various safety standards?  (I have yet 
to find the answer from the web.)  How can I predict the dielectric constant 
for a given distance through air (or any insulation)?

Charles J. Fraser, in Mechanical Engineer's Reference Book (Twelfth Edition), 
1994:

If the potential difference across opposite faces of a dielectric material is 
increased above a particular value, the material breaks down. The failure of 
the material takes the form of a small puncture, which renders the material 
useless as an insulator. The potential gradient necessary to cause break down 
is normally expressed in kilovolts/millimetre and is termed the ‘dielectric 
strength’. The dielectric strength of a given material decreases with increases 
in the thickness. Table 2.2 gives approximate values for some of the more 
common dielectric materials.

Table 2.2. Dielectric strength of some common insulators

MaterialThickness (mm)  Dielectric strength (kV/mm)
Air 0.2 5.75   
0.6 4.92   
1.0 4.36   
10.02.98   
Mica0

Re: [PSES] dielectric strength question

[Heckrotte, Michael]

My understanding is Scientific Wild Ass Guess


Best Regards,
Mike

From: Patrick 
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2024 6:51 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] dielectric strength question

Silly WildAss Guess.
A precursor to a hypothesis.  Plus easier to say and spell.

On Tue, Jun 25, 2024 at 6:15 AM Ken Javor 
mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com>> wrote:
Silly wild ass guess is what I mean when I use that acronym.

--

Ken Javor
Ph: (256) 650-5261


From: "James Pawson (U3C)" 
mailto:ja...@unit3compliance.co.uk>>
Reply-To: "James Pawson (U3C)" 
mailto:ja...@unit3compliance.co.uk>>
Date: Tuesday, June 25, 2024 at 7:29 AM
To: mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>>
Subject: Re: [PSES] dielectric strength question

Could someone define the acronym SWAG in this context please?

Something With Air Gap?

All the best
James

James Pawson
Managing Director & EMC Problem Solver

Unit 3 Compliance Ltd
EMC : Environmental & Vibration : Electrical Safety : CE & UKCA : Consultancy

www.unit3compliance.co.uk<http://www.unit3compliance.co.uk/> | 
ja...@unit3compliance.co.uk<mailto:ja...@unit3compliance.co.uk>
+44(0)1274 911747  |  +44(0)7811 139957
2 Wellington Business Park, New Lane, Bradford, BD4 8AL
Registered in England and Wales # 10574298

Office hours:
Every morning my full attention is on consultancy, testing, and troubleshooting 
activities for our customers’ projects. I’m available/contactable between 1300h 
to 1730h Mon/Tue/Thurs/Fri.
For inquiries, bookings, and testing updates please send us an email on 
he...@unit3compliance.co.uk<mailto:he...@unit3compliance.co.uk> or call 01274 
911747. Our lead times for testing and consultancy are typically 4-5 weeks.




From: Adam Dixon mailto:lanterna.viri...@gmail.com>>
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2024 1:24 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Subject: Re: [PSES] dielectric strength question

SWAG #2:  non-uniformities in materials + multiple breakdown mechanisms make it 
difficult to model.  Mica shows up in 1940's vintage literature.  Here are some 
interesting papers that I perused after Rich posed the question:

https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=9079498
Space change behavior in cross-linked polymers

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/app.49379
Touches on different breakdown mechanisms (see Figure 3; also the Figure 2 
reference may be worthwhile but I haven't tried accessing it)

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7764431/
electron injection and avalanche breakdown process

https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=65f577afe99e3253e7e3f38054ce9ea49b16a636
Electromechanical breakdown mechanism but also states "The exact cause for the 
observed behavior remains to be investigated"

https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA635433.pdf
Paschen Curve anomalies (for consideration of gas dielectrics)

https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1656858
Describes influence of polymer chain ends (Figure 1 is a good illustration)


Cheers,
Adam in Atlanta
adam.di...@ieee.org<mailto:adam.di...@ieee.org>

On Mon, Jun 24, 2024 at 11:00 PM Patrick 
mailto:conwa...@gmail.com>> wrote:

just a SWAG...  perhaps dielectric strength is dependent on volume, and the 
increased 'thickness' is assumed to be thickness-for-a-constant-surface-area.  
If that's the case then an increasing thickness is also an increased volume 
which also increases available charge carriers, reducing breakdown voltage.

A test of my SWAG would be to incrementally increase dielectric thickness and 
determine if breakdown voltage eventually finds a minimum and then begins to 
increase with thickness.

interesting question.

On Sun, Jun 23, 2024, 13:32 Richard Nute 
mailto:ri...@ieee.org>> wrote:


Why does air (or any insulating material) have decreasing dielectric strength, 
kV/mm, with increasing distance through the dielectric substance?  Assume 
homogenous field.  (I have assumed the dielectric strength was constant for the 
material.)   In other words, what is the physical basis for the non-constant 
dielectric strength clearance tables in various safety standards?  (I have yet 
to find the answer from the web.)  How can I predict the dielectric constant 
for a given distance through air (or any insulation)?

Charles J. Fraser, in Mechanical Engineer's Reference Book (Twelfth 
Edition)<https://www.sciencedirect.com/book/9780750611954/mechanical-engineers-reference-book>,
 1994:

If the potential difference across opposite faces of a dielectric material is 
increased above a particular value, the material breaks down. The failure of 
the material takes the form of a small puncture, which renders the material 
useless as an insulator. The potential 
gradient<https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/potential-gradient> 
necessary to cause break down 

Re: [PSES] dielectric strength question

[Patrick]

Silly WildAss Guess.
A precursor to a hypothesis.  Plus easier to say and spell.

On Tue, Jun 25, 2024 at 6:15 AM Ken Javor 
wrote:

> Silly wild ass guess is what I mean when I use that acronym.
>
>
>
> --
>
>
>
> Ken Javor
>
> Ph: (256) 650-5261
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *"James Pawson (U3C)" 
> *Reply-To: *"James Pawson (U3C)" 
> *Date: *Tuesday, June 25, 2024 at 7:29 AM
> *To: *
> *Subject: *Re: [PSES] dielectric strength question
>
>
>
> Could someone define the acronym SWAG in this context please?
>
>
>
> Something With Air Gap?
>
>
>
> All the best
>
> James
>
>
>
> James Pawson
>
> Managing Director & EMC Problem Solver
>
>
>
> *Unit 3 Compliance Ltd*
>
> *EMC : Environmental & Vibration : Electrical Safety : CE & UKCA :
> Consultancy*
>
>
>
> www.unit3compliance.co.uk | ja...@unit3compliance.co.uk
>
> +44(0)1274 911747  |  +44(0)7811 139957
>
> 2 Wellington Business Park, New Lane, Bradford, BD4 8AL
>
> Registered in England and Wales # 10574298
>
>
>
> *Office hours:*
>
> *Every morning my full attention is on consultancy, testing, and
> troubleshooting activities for our customers’ projects. I’m
> available/contactable between 1300h to 1730h Mon/Tue/Thurs/Fri.*
>
> *For inquiries, bookings, and testing updates please send us an email on
> he...@unit3compliance.co.uk  or call 01274
> 911747. Our lead times for testing and consultancy are typically 4-5 weeks.*
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Adam Dixon 
> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 25, 2024 1:24 PM
> *To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> *Subject:* Re: [PSES] dielectric strength question
>
>
>
> SWAG #2:  non-uniformities in materials + multiple breakdown mechanisms
> make it difficult to model.  Mica shows up in 1940's vintage literature.
> Here are some interesting papers that I perused after Rich posed the
> question:
>
>
>
> https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=9079498
> Space change behavior in cross-linked polymers
>
> https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/app.49379
> Touches on different breakdown mechanisms (see Figure 3; also the Figure 2
> reference may be worthwhile but I haven't tried accessing it)
>
> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7764431/
> electron injection and avalanche breakdown process
>
>
> https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=65f577afe99e3253e7e3f38054ce9ea49b16a636
> Electromechanical breakdown mechanism but also states "The exact cause for
> the observed behavior remains to be investigated"
>
> https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA635433.pdf
> Paschen Curve anomalies (for consideration of gas dielectrics)
>
> https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1656858
>
> Describes influence of polymer chain ends (Figure 1 is a good illustration)
>
>
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Adam in Atlanta
>
> adam.di...@ieee.org
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 24, 2024 at 11:00 PM Patrick  wrote:
>
> just a SWAG...  perhaps dielectric strength is dependent on volume, and
> the increased 'thickness' is assumed to be
> thickness-for-a-constant-surface-area.  If that's the case then an
> increasing thickness is also an increased volume which also increases
> available charge carriers, reducing breakdown voltage.
>
> A test of my SWAG would be to incrementally increase dielectric thickness
> and determine if breakdown voltage eventually finds a minimum and then
> begins to increase with thickness.
>
> interesting question.
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jun 23, 2024, 13:32 Richard Nute  wrote:
>
>
>
> Why does air (or any insulating material) have decreasing dielectric
> strength, kV/mm, with increasing distance through the dielectric
> substance?  Assume homogenous field.  (I have assumed the dielectric
> strength was constant for the material.)   In other words, what is the
> physical basis for the non-constant dielectric strength clearance tables
> in various safety standards?  (I have yet to find the answer from the web.)
>   How can I predict the dielectric constant for a given distance through
> air (or any insulation)?
>
> Charles J. Fraser, in Mechanical Engineer's Reference Book (Twelfth
> Edition)
> <https://www.sciencedirect.com/book/9780750611954/mechanical-engineers-reference-book>,
> 1994:
>
> If the potential difference across opposite faces of a dielectric material
> is increased above a particular value, the material breaks down. The
> failure of the material takes the form of a small puncture, which renders
> the material useless as an insulator. The pote