Doug,
Have you reached out to C63? This information could be included in the next
edition of IEEE C63.16 -->
“American National Standard Guide for Electrostatic Discharge Test
Methodologies and Acceptance Criteria for Electronic Equipment”
Thanks,
[cid:image075342.jpg@52D522C7.F6E00B9E]
We have an answer from UL508A for industrial panels but the question was, “
SCCR ratings on industrial machinery”
Perhaps it is the question that is the difficulty here.
Ralph
From: Bill Lawrence
Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2024 2:50 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES
Assume UL 508A
Marking is:
-Original Message-
From: MIKE SHERMAN
Sent: May 15, 2024 10:38 PM
To:
Subject: Re: [PSES] SCCR Rating Question
Brian
I am equally mystified by qualifying an SCCR with a voltage. Perhaps you could
network into a friendly UL 408a panel shop and see what
I suggest that John has “nailed it”, as he often does.
Ralph
From: John Woodgate
Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2024 7:26 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] SCCR Rating Question
I cant help you with a reference to a standard, but there is a language problem
and I think
Best regards,
Rich
From: Ralph McDiarmid <rmm.priv...@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2024 11:41 AMTo: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORGSubject: Re: [PSES] SCCR Rating Question
Could this number to used to select a suitable
ote:
Hi Brian:
See the very last line of:
https://www.mouser.com/pdfDocs/littelfuse_industrial_whitepaper_increase_sccr.pdf
Best regards,
Rich
*From:*Ralph McDiarmid
*Sent:* Tuesday, May 14, 2024 11:41 AM
*To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.I
>
>>
>> https://www.mouser.com/pdfDocs/littelfuse_industrial_whitepaper_increase_sccr.pdf
>>
>>
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Rich
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Ralph McDiarmid
>> *Se
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Ralph McDiarmid
> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 14, 2024 11:41 AM
> *To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> *Subject:* Re: [PSES] SCCR Rating Question
>
>
>
> Could this number to used to select a suitable circuit breaker and s
Hi Brian:
See the very last line of:
https://www.mouser.com/pdfDocs/littelfuse_industrial_whitepaper_increase_sccr.pdf
Best regards,
Rich
From: Ralph McDiarmid
Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2024 11:41 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] SCCR Rating
Could this number to used to select a suitable circuit breaker and so the
interrupting voltage is an important parameter?
The nameplate rating on the machine should be the information an electrician
needs during installation and selection of wire size and type.
Ralph
From: Brian
,
Glyn Payne
*From:*Piotr Galka
*Sent:* Wednesday, May 8, 2024 9:28 PM
*To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
*Subject:* Re: [PSES] IEC 62368-1: To understand chapter 5.4.11
You don't often get email from piotr.ga...@micromade.pl. Learn why
this is important <https://aka
Sent: Wednesday, May 8, 2024 9:28 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] IEC 62368-1: To understand chapter 5.4.11
You don't often get email from
piotr.ga...@micromade.pl<mailto:piotr.ga...@micromade.pl>. Learn why this is
important<https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentific
re typically 4-5 weeks.
From: Piotr Galka
Sent: Wednesday, May 8, 2024 9:28 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] IEC 62368-1: To understand chapter 5.4.11
Hi Bostjan,
I know that if circuit is not going out of building it is considered being
without transien
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:*Piotr Galka
*Sent:* Wednesday, May 8, 2024 9:28 PM
*To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
*Subject:* Re: [PSES] IEC 62368-1: To understand chapter 5.4.11
Hi Bostjan,
3compliance.co.uk> or call 01274
911747. Our lead times for testing and consultancy are typically 4-5 weeks.
From: Piotr Galka
Sent: Wednesday, May 8, 2024 9:28 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] IEC 62368-1: To understand chapter 5.4.11
Hi Bostjan,
I know th
iotr Galka
W dniu 2024-05-08 o 23:07, Ralph McDiarmid pisze:
Signature
The IEC store has IEC TR 62368-2:2019 RLV for 553 Swiss Francs. Ouch.
*From:*John Woodgate
*Sent:* Wednesday, May 8, 2024 1:37 PM
*To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
*Subject:* Re: [PSES] IEC 62368-1: To understand chapter 5
The IEC store has IEC TR 62368-2:2019 RLV for 553 Swiss Francs. Ouch.
From: John Woodgate
Sent: Wednesday, May 8, 2024 1:37 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] IEC 62368-1: To understand chapter 5.4.11
You can get 62368-2 from: https://www.evs.ee/en/iec-tr-62368-2
You can get 62368-2 from: https://www.evs.ee/en/iec-tr-62368-2-2019, but
it is rather costly.
On 2024-05-08 21:00, Piotr Galka wrote:
After reading your post my decision was to buy 62368-2 but I've just
checked that in PKN (Polish Standards Committee) I can buy 62368-1
what I have done long
ysg>
*Od:* Piotr Galka
*Poslano:* sreda, maj 8, 2024 5:21:33 PM
*Za:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
*Zadeva:* Re: [PSES] IEC 62368-1: To understand chapter 5.4.11
Hi Bostjan,
Thanks for your feedback, but...
I am slowly and carefully reading 62368-1 for the
Hi John,
I hoped you will answer my question and I got important information from
you. Thanks.
After reading your post my decision was to buy 62368-2 but I've just
checked that in PKN (Polish Standards Committee) I can buy 62368-1 what
I have done long ago but they don't have 62368-2 :( .
1:33 PM
Za: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Zadeva: Re: [PSES] IEC 62368-1: To understand chapter 5.4.11
Hi Bostjan,
Thanks for your feedback, but...
I am slowly and carefully reading 62368-1 for the first time.
It defines 'external circuit' in 3.3.1.1 as "electrical circuit that is
exter
To fully understand IEC 62368-1, you also need to read IEC 62368-2. It
includes a long explanatory text about 5.4.11. The committee realised
that it was not practicable to put all the explanations into the same
document as the requirements. The circuits feeding the USB connectors of
a device
Hi Bostjan,
Thanks for your feedback, but...
I am slowly and carefully reading 62368-1 for the first time.
It defines 'external circuit' in 3.3.1.1 as "electrical circuit that is
external to the equipment and is not mains".
I assumed one device = one equipment so I thought laptop is an
Thanks for sharing this, Charlie.
Best Regards,
-Lauren
From: Charlie Blackham
Sent: Friday, April 19, 2024 3:09 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] UK The Product Safety and Metrology etc. (Amendment)
Regulations 2024
External Email: Do NOT reply, click on links, or open
Hi Piotr
USB circuit is internal circuit. There are no transients expected on USB.
Clause 5.4.11 is not applicable for power supply with USB output.
Paired conductor is a telecommunication network that we had in old times
(analogue network, ISDN,...).
I hope this helps. If you need more info,
Dear Charlie,
Appreciate your updates!! What is the distance to become an official
legislation?
Currently, can we use the EU CE compliance DoC texts in UKCA DoC and bear
the UKCA mark on the product without re-test according to Designed
Standards and Approval Body cert?
Thanks and regards
Thank you.
On 2024-04-28 06:27, Boštjan Glavič wrote:
Hi John
After resistor you might have ES1 circuit and safety distances do not
apply. However resistor need to comply with special requirements of
Annex G.
See table 4 for ES1 limit for DC current. I think it is 2mA. You have
to
Hi John
After resistor you might have ES1 circuit and safety distances do not apply.
However resistor need to comply with special requirements of Annex G.
See table 4 for ES1 limit for DC current. I think it is 2mA. You have to
simulate short accross resistor unles resistor comply with searate
Brian, for a rigorous determination of creepage and of clearance you need to
also determine and assign:
1. Over-voltage Category ( affects Clearance )
2. Pollution Degree ( micro-environment affecting Creepage )
3. Basic (simple separation) or Reinforced (protective separation)
Hi Brian:
This does not answer your questions, but MAY give you an analysis tool:
CLEARANCE is standards name for AIR INSULATION.
CREEPAGE DISTANCE is standards name for DISTANCE ACROSS THE SURFACE OF SOLID
INSULATION.
Hope to meet you at the Symposium!
Best regards,
Friday, April 26, 2024 6:54 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Couple of loosely related safety questions
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
Hi Brian:
You should attend the IEEE PSES Symposium
Hi Brian:
You should attend the IEEE PSES Symposium in Chicago next week to get the
answers to these questions from experts. Lots of experts in clearance and
creepage will be there and will be happy to provide you with answers!
Best regards,
Rich
From: Brian Gregory
06210991.
Registered office: Ascot House Mulberry Close, Woods Way, Goring By Sea, West
Sussex, BN12 4QY.
From: Charlie Blackham
Sent: Monday, April 22, 2024 7:26 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] DoC - reference to ROHS directive
I wouldn’t say that it was “wrong” to add
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] DoC - reference to ROHS directive
What I've seen is language like
"2011/65/EU RoHS directive with amendment 2015/863/EU"
or
"2011/65/EU RoHS directive as amended by 2015/863/EU"
The 2015 amendment adds four substances to the
What I've seen is language like
"2011/65/EU RoHS directive with amendment 2015/863/EU"
or
"2011/65/EU RoHS directive as amended by 2015/863/EU"
The 2015 amendment adds four substances to the original six, so you should
mention both it and the 2011 directive.
Mike Sherman
Sherman PSC LLC
> On
Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2024 7:39 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] DoC - reference to ROHS directive
The proper directive reference remains 2011/65/EU. If you look at the current
version of that directive, it incorporates all of the modification, so there is
no need
The proper directive reference remains 2011/65/EU. If you look at the
current version of that directive, it incorporates all of the modification,
so there is no need to separately reference the amending documents.
Regards
Tom Smith, P.Eng
Principal Engineer
TJS Technical Services Inc.
Tel: +1
and function. If
the product has a protection function, then the 60255-1, 26 might be applicable
while protection communications might need 61850-3.
Bill
From: Charlie Blackham
Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2024 9:45 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] IEC 61000-6-5 vs. IEC 61000
Directive
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: bart.de.gee...@telenet.be
Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2024 6:06 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [
To: bart.de.gee...@telenet.be; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: [PSES] OJEC list of harmonised standards
Thank you, Bart. I'll try that link for EMC and LVD harmonized standards
listing.
Kind regards,
Ralph
From: bart.de.gee...@telenet.be <mailto:bart.de.gee...@telenet
Thank you, Bart. I'll try that link for EMC and LVD harmonized standards
listing.
Kind regards,
Ralph
From: bart.de.gee...@telenet.be
Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2024 10:06 AM
To: rmm.priv...@gmail.com; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: [PSES] OJEC list of harmonised standards
Hi Ralph,
Is this what you are looking for?
https://single-market-economy.ec.europa.eu/single-market/european-standards/
harmonised-standards_en
Greetings,
Bart
From: Ralph McDiarmid
Sent: woensdag 17 april 2024 19:04
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] OJEC list
Can someone provide a link to this list. I have searched eur-lex.europa.eu
website without success.
Ralph
-
This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
discussion list. To post a message to
Amund
There are a number of differences including:
* Zoning of different areas which then require different levels of tests
against 61000-4-4; 61000-4-16 and 61000-4-18
* 61000-4-8 Mag Field is 100 A/m continuous and 1000 A/m for 1 s (but only
for equipment containing magnetically
esting.
Best regards,
-Lauren
Confidential – Limited Access and Use
From: Bill Owsley <00f5a03f18eb-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org>
Sent: Friday, April 12, 2024 1:19 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] I would like to hear your thoughts please
|
arc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org>
Sent: Friday, April 12, 2024 1:19 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] I would like to hear your thoughts please
External Email: Do NOT reply, click on links, or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
The usual response is that it depends...
More 'light' reading ! To start !
https://www.fcc.gov/sites/default/files/32-KDB-996369-Modules-TCB_Oct_2023.pdf
On Wednesday, April 10, 2024, 5:22:12 PM EDT, Lfresearch
<00734758d943-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org> wrote:
Sorry for the
<00f5a03f18eb-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org>
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Radiated Emissions - How many points to QP?
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2024 06:19:10 +
It reads like there are two limits, peak and QP. Go over either one and by
how many and by how much over, does not
Sorry for the late reply, but I did feel the need to express strong disagreement with some statements here.Lets take there first one: how will you know which is worst case if you don’t test. Seriously? I would answer this by saying that an EMC engineer with any proficiency can make an educated
Try NTS Fremont or Intertek.
Doug Smith
Sent from my iPhone
IPhone: 408-858-4528
Office: 702-570-6108
Email: d...@dsmith.org
Website: http://dsmith.org
From: AOL MAIL
Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2024 7:57:03 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] RFID
Clause F.1 of 62368-1 says:
/Unless symbols are used, safety related equipment marking, instructions
and instructional
safeguards shall be in a language accepted in the respective countries./
No doubt Germany expects German.
On 2024-04-10 17:10, Charlie Blackham wrote:
Rick
I’m not expert
Rick
I’m not expert on GS certification but Low Voltage Directive Article 6 required
safety instructions to be in a suitable language
7. Manufacturers shall ensure that the electrical equipment is accompanied by
instructions and safety information in a language which can be easily
understood
Sent: Saturday, April 6, 2024 3:55 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] I would like to hear your thoughts please
Dear All,
Within the framework of the EMCD, all configurations shall be conform, so if
you choose to actually test,
all configurations shall be part of the t
It reads like there are two limits, peak and QP. Go over either one and by
how many and by how much over, does not matter. it is a fail and fix it.
Otherwise, the lab should be recording the 6 points of each P and QP for 12
points, well, let the slide if all points are below the QP limit and
Mark
From: Larry K. Stillings
Sent: Friday, April 5, 2024 3:46 PM
To: Stultz, Mark ; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: Radiated Emissions - How many points to QP?
| |
You don't often get email fromla...@complianceworldwide.com.Learn why this is
important
| |
CAUTION: This
ps. Old knowledge from old prior career experiences.
I use arc welding cables for connections, not 4 ga wire that takes a pipe
bender to work into place.
Welding cables, are multi wire, and that means "multi" with a capital.
Very flexible and capable of very high amps. It is for arc welding
Long ago, the company had the budget, so we bought single phase for each line.
Thinking that we did not want any cross talk interference, which we had already
experienced in the real world.
Then we also had built the various configurations for supply power that we
used.
In essence measuring
nt.com |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@woodjohn.uk]
Sent: Saturday, April 6, 2024 3:00 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] I would like to hear your thoughts please
CAUTION:This email originated from outside of Element Materials Technolo
s6cWRfNDuxBDBUR2lTIDk8bZjewd-rTD9-cdSCAc1nWwUE3VgJyDDavNRrHlfu6w7lAFI_ralJkrvlDa8pGw8MFsb9Jro551bcafyklUNZ2S7DJltelheAQ=1=eb2a865d-4e9b-467f-aafa-354533b06f38>
From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@woodjohn.uk]
Sent: Saturday, April 6, 2024 3:00 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] I wou
Dear All,
Within the framework of the EMCD, all configurations shall be conform,
so if you choose to actually test,
all configurations shall be part of the test. The subject of worse case
is a "miroir d'alouette"... how will you ever know which
is worst case without carrying out the test ? A
Hi Derek
It is common practice within the labs to find worse case configuration and test
it.
At least we are doing it in such a way.
You can find some guidlines how to form families on IECEE page, but I think
your case is different.
The best way is to test one fully populated product.
Best
, April 6, 2024 3:59:57 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] I would like to hear your thoughts please
[External email: Use caution with links and attachments]
I agree: pre-scan is the way to go. Document all of the steps so that you can
I agree: pre-scan is the way to go. Document all of the steps so that
you can produce your reasons for your decision if challenged.
On 2024-04-06 00:05, Brent DeWitt wrote:
Tough one! The problem lies in the determination of "worst case".
While it would be easy to presume that having all of
It may be worth noting at any LISN using magnetic cores/elements in the
50uH bit, must be calibrated at the maximum rated current to verify that
saturation isn't a problem.
On 4/5/2024 9:56 PM, Brent DeWitt wrote:
In my opinion, all of this is rather simple. Any LISN, ANSI or CISPR,
In my opinion, all of this is rather simple. Any LISN, ANSI or CISPR,
references the noise to "ground". Any conductor not being measured
should be terminated in 50 ohms. Whatever network used needs to make
that so. Take your pick.
On 4/5/2024 9:43 PM, T.Sato wrote:
On Fri, 5 Apr 2024
On Fri, 5 Apr 2024 22:01:29 GMT,
Brian Gregory wrote:
> Hello and Happy Friday, I've got a sales guy telling me our 120/240V EUT
> needs two pair of single-phase LISNs for our CE test bench.That's only
> slightly cheaper than a 3-phase unit at > 50A, but very bulky. Can someone
> remind me
The way I understand this is that if we are in the USA, then our 240 volts is
likely Bi-Phase, not like Europe which has the Line swinging about the neutral
by 240 volts. In that case you can use a V LISN, or two single phase LISN’s.
In the USA with a Bi-Phase you need 3 LISN’s. When I test
I may be missing something here, but you would need a pair of LISNs for a box
that runs off a single phase and neutral. Most equipments of which I am aware
use the same power connector pins whether 120 or 240 V. In that case, you just
need one pair of LISNs. If for some reason your box runs
...@gmail.com; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
*Subject:* Re: [PSES] Radiated Emissions - How many points to QP?
Could you clarify when you would choose to use an average detector
for radiated emissions between 30 and 1000 MHz?
On 4/5/2024 6:39 PM, Ralph McDiarmid wrote:
I’m having trouble
*Sent:* Friday, April 5, 2024 3:48 PM
*To:* rmm.priv...@gmail.com; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
*Subject:* Re: [PSES] Radiated Emissions - How many points to QP?
Could you clarify when you would choose to use an average detector for
radiated emissions between 30 and 1000 MHz?
On 4/5/2024 6:39 PM
I was thinking conducted emissions in the context of average detectors.
From: Brent DeWitt
Sent: Friday, April 5, 2024 3:48 PM
To: rmm.priv...@gmail.com; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Radiated Emissions - How many points to QP?
Could you clarify when you would choose
That has been my experience with CB Scheme, E-mark, and product safety in the
USA using an NRTL. Namely, pick worst-case with justifications, talk with your
certifier, and reach an understanding. If they won't budge and insist on full
testing of every variant, move to another certifier who is
Tough one! The problem lies in the determination of "worst case". While
it would be easy to presume that having all of the hardware populated is
worst case, it overlooks the effects of un-terminated stubs and other SI
related issues. In addition, with the world of firmware based PLL
clocks
Could you clarify when you would choose to use an average detector for
radiated emissions between 30 and 1000 MHz?
On 4/5/2024 6:39 PM, Ralph McDiarmid wrote:
I’m having trouble with /“Of those disturbances above (L-20dB), where
L is the limit level in logarithmic units, the disturbance
I'm having trouble with "Of those disturbances above (L-20dB), where L is
the limit level in logarithmic units, the disturbance levels and the
frequencies of at least the six highest disturbances shall be recorded."
Does this CISPR measurement methods standard expect you to record the six
Sent: Friday, April 5, 2024 3:46 PM
To: Stultz, Mark ; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: Radiated Emissions - How many points to QP?
You don't often get email from
la...@complianceworldwide.com<mailto:la...@complianceworldwide.com>. Learn why
this is important<https
Mark,
If the peak is above the limit (which most standards allow up to 20 dB), then
wouldn't you also need to know the quasi-peak of all the signals above the
limit so you could compare them to the limit? The limit is in QP not peak.
I guess failing is failing, but you really wouldn't know by
Mark, for the most part I always had 6 of the highest measured in each
polarization, for a total of 12. Depending on what we saw, we may have
measured more for curiosity's sake.
Jim Bacher, WB8VSU
From: Stultz, Mark <0f79f2e10e47-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org>
Sent: Friday, April 05,
NFPA can be viewed free online, however, CSA C22.1, C22.3, and C22.3 appear
to be by purchase only.
Ralph
From: Don Gies <2f2a08db2fba-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org>
Sent: Friday, April 5, 2024 11:20 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] GFCI Receptacles
And, NFPA provides free, online, read-only access to all their standards.
So does UL.
Ralph
From: Don Gies <2f2a08db2fba-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org>
Sent: Friday, April 5, 2024 11:02 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Fire codes related to batteries
H
Hi Steve,
Hope all is well with you.
See the National Electrical Code, NFPA 70, Article 210.8 for the list of
locations that require GFCI in the US.
In Canada, see Canadian Electrical Code, Part I, CSA C22.1, Rule 26-704 and
26-710, as well as other locations for GFCI requirements.
Best
Hi Gary,
NFPA 1, Section 52 is very comprehensive.
Also, see IEEE Std 1679.1, " IEEE Guide for the Characterization and Evaluation
of Lithium-Based Batteries in Stationary Applications."
Best regards,
DON GIES
Field Service Engineer
[cid:image001.png@01DA875E.3DAC0450]
p +1 346 313 6216
e
Amund,
I hit send too soon. Looks like ERC 70-03 dated March 8, 2024 does now include
862 - 863 MHz band for Occupied Bandwidths of less than 350 kHz, so technically
you could operate down to 862.11 MHz. Or basically the same information you
found in ETSI EN 300 220-2.
Here is the link to the
Amund,
I agree the 99% Occupied Bandwidth would need to reside within the band of
operation. You'd have to follow the procedure in ETSI EN 300 220-1 V3.1.1
Clause 5.6 to determine what the center frequency needs to be depending on your
modulation type.
If you're saying you already know the
Jeff, all of the power supply modules I have dealt with had EMC Reports.
Those modules went inside products. So I would have required the PSU to
have a vendors EMC report before accepting its use in one of our products.
The suppliers I dealt with used 3 different resistive loads, during their
Jeff,
I am having same issue with Turkey for even spare parts they need detail
information including EMC and UL reports. I having this issue for last 5 years
From: Jeffrey Gilbert
Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2024 11:00 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: EXTERNAL: [PSES] PSU cert
Formally they (customs) are right.
PSU's are equipment in their own right just as PC plug-in cards and need
EMC (CE) marking.
Testing in a full system does not guarantee that the result is the same
as in another system, especially not in PC world where parts change
quicker than transport time.
Dear Gilbert,
One Soulution could be:
You have to include the whole list of all separate orderable spare part
modules to your CE Declaration.
Of course the PSU is EMC LVD etc. tested in the overall system.
Also be aware that Turkey checks the Date of Issue of your CE Declaration
against the Date
Since the late 1980s I always recommend V-0 (or better) for battery packs.
What I found out years ago was V-0 was lower cost than V-1, (from the
vendors we were using at that time).
I remember having a battery pack vendor call me in a panic over the V-1
being added to the requirements. I
Ralph McDiarmid"
To EMC-PSTC@listserv.ieee.org
Date 3/21/2024 4:56:56 PM
Subject Re: [PSES] UL 62133-2 Battery Standard + V-1 plastic enclosure
Many product safety standards require vertical flame rating for
polymeric material forming part or all of the enclosure. I’m surprized
it doesn’t r
Many product safety standards require vertical flame rating for polymeric
material forming part or all of the enclosure. I’m surprized it doesn’t
require V-0 or 5VA. It’s seems to be about containing a fire inside the
enclosure.
Ralph
From: emcl...@gmail.com
Sent: Thursday, March
Hi Amund,
This might help
https://www.unit3compliance.co.uk/what-is-a-dc-power-port-emc-explained/
All the best
James
James Pawson
Managing Director & EMC Problem Solver
Unit 3 Compliance Ltd
EMC : Environmental & Vibration : Electrical Safety : CE & UKCA :
Consultancy
ndolph
Poslano: ponedeljek, marec 11, 2024 7:15:45 PM
Za: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Zadeva: Re: [PSES] Y-capacitor body material - considered to be insulating?
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of our organisation. Do not click
links or open attachments unless you recognise the
ay, March 11, 2024 1:36 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Y-capacitor body material - considered to be insulating?
I think you have to ask the manufacturer of the capacitors about the insulation
quality of the coating, and also test what happens if the insulation does
I think you have to ask the manufacturer of the capacitors about the
insulation quality of the coating, and also test what happens if the
insulation does break down; the result might be 'safe' but destructive.
At that point, high-voltage spikes on the AC input have to be taken into
account.
In addition to Mike Sherman’s comments, the selected colours are long
deprecated. Red and Green have not been supported in the standards for over
twenty years for these purposes.
The designers need to read NFPA 79 or IEC 60204-1 or EN 60204-1, focusing on
the tables that define suitable
In my opinion, this arrangement may likely confuse the user.
Reason: lights are typically used as status indicators---green for on, and red
for stopped. This reverses that logic and might well confuse the user.
See NFPA 79 or EN IEC 60204-1 for typical color codes for machinery.
In my
John, a question. What's the date on your test reports / files?
I don't remember the details any more, but I hit something similar many
years ago. So I paid to have the files refreshed to solve the issue. It was
a minimal cost.
Jim Bacher, WB8VSU
ja.bac...@outlook.com or j.bac...@ieee.org
1XexAkwNhfOYqmzp9HADpQfIk=>
From: John Woodgate
Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2024 11:19 AM
To: John Riutta ; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Validity Period of Battery Safety Test Reports
How 'long past'? Do any of these standards, or the test certificates associated
with them, specif
How 'long past'? Do any of these standards, or the test certificates
associated with them, specify a validity period or an expiry date? Did
Amazon cite an authority for their rejection?
On 2024-03-05 18:51, John Riutta wrote:
Hello all,
I’m having a bit of bother with Amazon.com at the
1 - 100 of 49121 matches
Mail list logo
