RE: Clause 2.10.3.3 of EN 60950-1:2006

All - Let no one feel they can not impact standards development, even without attending meetings. After a few e-mails and one telephone call, I submit the following. §2.10.3.3: A very simple edit to the text is being proposed to make the application of Table 2K and 2L clear. Specifically

RE: Clause 2.10.3.3 of EN 60950-1:2006

2.10.3.3 of EN 60950-1:2006 From: Tarver, Peter Sent: Friday, June 29, 2007 12:00 PM Man, did I mess this up. See my corrections, below. For an AC MAINS SUPPLY not exceeding 300 V r.m.s. (420 V peak): b) if the PEAK WORKING VOLTAGE exceeds the peak value of the AC MAINS SUPPLY voltage

RE: Clause 2.10.3.3 of EN 60950-1:2006

From: Tarver, Peter Sent: Friday, June 29, 2007 12:00 PM Man, did I mess this up. See my corrections, below. For an AC MAINS SUPPLY not exceeding 300 V r.m.s. (420 V peak): b) if the PEAK WORKING VOLTAGE exceeds the peak value of the AC MAINS SUPPLY voltage, ... If we have an ac

RE: Clause 2.10.3.3 of EN 60950-1:2006

From: Aldous, Scott Sent: Friday, June 29, 2007 9:48 AM Looking over the two versions of the standard, I can see that you're correctly interpreting the 1st ed., but the 2nd ed. text changed things all over the place in the insulation area. I don't know if that was MT2's intent, but that's

RE: Clause 2.10.3.3 of EN 60950-1:2006

Thanks Peter for your comments. Mine interspersed below. Scott Aldous Compliance Engineer Advanced Energy Tel: 970-407-6872 Fax: 970-407-5872 I wonder what peak working voltage should be used in table 2K - the actual peak voltage or the peak voltage based on the mains rms voltage?

RE: Clause 2.10.3.3 of EN 60950-1:2006

From: Aldous, Scott Sent: Friday, June 29, 2007 8:56 AM Bummer - I was referring to an older version of the IEC standard (60950-1:2001). I kinda thought something like that. With the 2nd ed of IEC 60950-1, the clearance and creepage distances went through a huge rewrite. I wonder what

RE: Clause 2.10.3.3 of EN 60950-1:2006

, June 29, 2007 9:36 AM To: srichard...@blackwood-labs.co.uk; emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RE: Clause 2.10.3.3 of EN 60950-1:2006 Good morning, Scott. From: Aldous, Scott Sent: Friday, June 29, 2007 8:18 AM Table 2L is for minimum creepage distances, not clearance. I don't know which version of EN

RE: Clause 2.10.3.3 of EN 60950-1:2006

Good morning, Scott. From: Aldous, Scott Sent: Friday, June 29, 2007 8:18 AM Table 2L is for minimum creepage distances, not clearance. I don't know which version of EN 60950-1 you're referring to, but in the 2006 version, Table 2L most certainly applies to clearances. I see nothing in

RE: Clause 2.10.3.3 of EN 60950-1:2006

From: Nick Williams Sent: Friday, June 29, 2007 5:21 AM Compare the two scenarios... 1. Say mains is 230V, i.e. below 300V so add clearances from Table 2K and 2L. Say peak working voltage is 840V. Clearance is 6.4+1.2=7.6mm From Table 2K, for a 840 Vpk working voltage across some bit

RE: Clause 2.10.3.3 of EN 60950-1:2006

...@ieee.org Subject: RE: Clause 2.10.3.3 of EN 60950-1:2006 Hi Nick, As I see it the clearance would be calculated as follows; Scenario 1 Mains voltage = 230V (mains transient voltage is 2500V) giving a clearance of 4.0 mm (table 2K) for reinforced, plus the additional clearance of table 2L

RE: Clause 2.10.3.3 of EN 60950-1:2006

Hi Nick, As I see it the clearance would be calculated as follows; Scenario 1 Mains voltage = 230V (mains transient voltage is 2500V) giving a clearance of 4.0 mm (table 2K) for reinforced, plus the additional clearance of table 2L for a PWV of 840V which would be 1.2 mm (ignoring