Re: [PSES] ANSI C63.4 Courses

[Jim Bacher]

The IEEE Standards Society along with ANSI have done a few in the USA in
the past.

Currently ANSI does not have any listed, but their webpage lists a contact
to check with. You might check with them to see if they are starting to
plan any.

The web page is:
http://www.c63.org/documents/c63/c63_workshops.htm


Jim Bacher
JB Consulting
Regulatory Compliance Consultant
https://trc.guru/
IEEE Life Senior Member

On Apr 11, 2017 10:49 AM, "Grasso, Charles"  wrote:

> Hello – Other than the workshop provided during the EMC Symposium,
> does anyone know of an ANSI C63.4 workshop in the US?
>
>
>
> Best Regards
>
> Charles Grasso
>
> Compliance Engineer
>
> Dish Technologies
>
> (w) 303-706-5467 <(303)%20706-5467>
>
> (c) 303-204-2974 <(303)%20204-2974>
>
> (t) 3032042...@vtext.com
>
> (e ) *charles.gra...@dish.com *
>
> (e2) chasgra...@gmail.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-p...@ieee.org
>
> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
> http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
>
> Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at
> http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in
> well-used formats), large files, etc.
>
> Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
> Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to
> unsubscribe) 
> List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
>
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
> Scott Douglas sdoug...@ieee.org
> Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org
>
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.org
> David Heald dhe...@gmail.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 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] Voltage Rating vs Voltage Specification

[John Woodgate]

Yes, it is redundant, but it could eliminate enquiries from buyers.
 
With best wishes DESIGN IT IN! OOO – Own Opinions Only
  www.jmwa.demon.co.uk J M Woodgate and 
Associates Rayleigh England
 
Sylvae in aeternum manent.
 
From: Doug Powell [mailto:doug...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2017 7:10 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Voltage Rating vs Voltage Specification
 
Actually this looks redundant to me. The 100-115-120/208-220-230-240 can be 
expressed as 100-120/208-240.  This is because the dash character indicates a 
range and the slash character indicates a selectable value.  In quasi boolean 
fashion, this could be explained as (from 100 to 120) OR (from 208 to 240).
 
One more point for the sake of clarity, the ±10% tolerance for a range is based 
on the end limits or a range.  In your example above, -10% of 100V thru +10% of 
120V and -10% of 208V thru +10% of 240V which translates into 90 thru 132 an 
187.2 thru 264. This would not be included on a rating label however.
 
In my experience ±10% is standard operating conditions (SOC) when not otherwise 
specified.  This has been expanded on occasion in product design proposals 
where the customer has specified +10% / -15% as a preliminary step toward 
mitigating voltage dips and sags.
 
All the best, doug
 
 
 
 
On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 9:24 AM, Kunde, Brian  > wrote:
Is something like this allowed?

100-115-120/208-220-230-240

Will a ±10% tolerance always be assumed? If your tolerance was something 
different, such as -15%/+10%, does this information have to be on the device or 
is the manual good enough?

The Other Brian

-Original Message-
From: John Woodgate [mailto:jmw1...@btinternet.com 
 ]
Sent: Friday, April 07, 2017 5:01 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG  
Subject: Re: [PSES] Voltage Rating vs Voltage Specification

These runes differ in meaning:

I have seen products rated 85-264V and others rated 100/120/208/230/240.

85-264 means any voltage within that range. You could put in 165 V and expect 
no problem.

100/120/208/230/240 means only those voltages, with whatever the relevant 
standard says about tolerances. 165 V would not work for this product.

With best wishes DESIGN IT IN! OOO – Own Opinions Only www.jmwa.demon.co.uk 
  J M Woodgate and Associates Rayleigh England

Sylvae in aeternum manent.


-Original Message-
From: Ralph McDiarmid [mailto:ralph.mcdiar...@schneider-electric.com 
 ]
Sent: Friday, April 7, 2017 8:29 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG  
Subject: Re: [PSES] Voltage Rating vs Voltage Specification

I don't know, but I suppose it could be addressed by an "abnormal test" to see 
if UUT fails in a way which then renders it potentially unsafe by way of 
non-compliance with a criterion in the standard.

I have seen products rated 85-264V and others rated 100/120/208/230/240.   I 
would expect the first one to pass thermal test criteria at 85V, at rated 
power, at highest rated ambient .  One corner of the "performance envelope" if 
you will.  And then, do I test the latter at 100V -10%   ?

And, I don't think that compliance with a standard proves a product safe; only 
that it complies with a specific set of criteria.  Product safety is hard to 
define, much harder to accurately assess, even with use of the AFMEA and FTA 
tools, which are subjective so it seems to me.

Ralph McDiarmid
Product Compliance
Engineering
Solar Business
Schneider Electric



-Original Message-
From: Richard Nute [mailto:ri...@ieee.org  ]
Sent: Friday, April 07, 2017 10:51 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG  
Subject: Re: [PSES] Voltage Rating vs Voltage Specification

Supposedly, since the ratings are specified in the standard, they must involve 
safety if not done according to the standard.  So, what is the safety issue if 
the ratings are not in accordance with the standard?  What is the injury?

What is the safety issue if the applied voltage is less than or more than the 
marked ratings but still within the nominal from the electric power utility?  
Again, what is the injury?

Rich


> -Original Message-
> From: John Woodgate
> [mailto:jmw1...@btinternet.com  ]
> Sent: Friday, April 07, 2017 9:11 AM
> To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG  
> Subject: Re: [PSES] Voltage Rating vs Voltage Specification
>
> There are in fact two IEC resources, Electropedia, which has all the
> formal definitions produced by TC1 and Glossary, which has a selection
> of terms, culled from many standards, that have not been adopted by
> TC1.
>
> http://www.electropedia.org/?ref=extfooter
>
> 

Re: [PSES] Voltage Rating vs Voltage Specification

[Doug Powell]

Dave,

You are correct about selectors.  This can mean a "selectable" voltage
whether accomplished by a switch a screw terminal, auto-select, transformer
tap or whatever.  The idea is the voltage range is no longer contiguous and
even if automatic there is a gap or a jump of some kind. Safety standards
such as IEC 61010-1 are concerned about this for a few reasons, not the
least of which is many products with a voltage selector switch also have a
different fuse value. As in the example of a fused IEC 320 inlet module.
One of the abnormal tests is to place the higher current fuse on the higher
voltage setting, when it is user serviceable.  Or to move a user selectable
voltage setting to one position and plug into the wrong voltage.  For
auto-selection, I have seen abnormal tests such as a failed voltage
detection circuit configured in such a way as to create worst case
condition high voltage connected to the low voltage selection.

Of course for these abnormals, the two possible failure modes are high
voltage breakdown in one case or high current heating/fire in the other
case.

Thanks,  Doug



On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 12:37 PM, Nyffenegger, Dave <
dave.nyffeneg...@bhemail.com> wrote:

> That’s how I would have interpreted as well.  Also, I don’t know that the
> / implies a selector switch as was mentioned earlier.  I’ve seen power
> supplies rated for two non-contiguous ranges for input voltage that still
> auto-adjust for the actual input voltage, no selector switch required.
>
>
>
> Some of the standards call for +-10%  minimum tolerance and some, the UL I
> think,  call for +6%-10% minimum.  As far as certification is concerned,
> all depends on what standards apply.
>
>
>
> -Dave
>
>
>
> *From:* Doug Powell [mailto:doug...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 11, 2017 2:10 PM
>
> *To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> *Subject:* Re: [PSES] Voltage Rating vs Voltage Specification
>
>
>
> Actually this looks redundant to me. The 100-115-120/208-220-230-240 can
> be expressed as 100-120/208-240.  This is because the dash character
> indicates a range and the slash character indicates a selectable value.  In
> quasi boolean fashion, this could be explained as (from 100 to 120) OR
> (from 208 to 240).
>
>
>
> One more point for the sake of clarity, the ±10% tolerance for a range is
> based on the end limits or a range.  In your example above, -10% of 100V
> thru +10% of 120V and -10% of 208V thru +10% of 240V which translates into
> 90 thru 132 an 187.2 thru 264. This would not be included on a rating
> label however.
>
>
>
> In my experience ±10% is standard operating conditions (SOC) when
> not otherwise specified.  This has been expanded on occasion in product
> design proposals where the customer has specified +10% / -15% as a
> preliminary step toward mitigating voltage dips and sags.
>
>
>
> All the best, doug
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 9:24 AM, Kunde, Brian 
> wrote:
>
> Is something like this allowed?
>
> 100-115-120/208-220-230-240
>
> Will a ±10% tolerance always be assumed? If your tolerance was something
> different, such as -15%/+10%, does this information have to be on the
> device or is the manual good enough?
>
> The Other Brian
>
> -Original Message-
> From: John Woodgate [mailto:jmw1...@btinternet.com]
> Sent: Friday, April 07, 2017 5:01 PM
> To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: Re: [PSES] Voltage Rating vs Voltage Specification
>
> These runes differ in meaning:
>
> I have seen products rated 85-264V and others rated 100/120/208/230/240.
>
> 85-264 means any voltage within that range. You could put in 165 V and
> expect no problem.
>
> 100/120/208/230/240 means only those voltages, with whatever the relevant
> standard says about tolerances. 165 V would not work for this product.
>
> With best wishes DESIGN IT IN! OOO – Own Opinions Only
> www.jmwa.demon.co.uk J M Woodgate and Associates Rayleigh England
>
> Sylvae in aeternum manent.
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Ralph McDiarmid [mailto:ralph.mcdiar...@schneider-electric.com]
> Sent: Friday, April 7, 2017 8:29 PM
> To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: Re: [PSES] Voltage Rating vs Voltage Specification
>
> I don't know, but I suppose it could be addressed by an "abnormal test" to
> see if UUT fails in a way which then renders it potentially unsafe by way
> of non-compliance with a criterion in the standard.
>
> I have seen products rated 85-264V and others rated 100/120/208/230/240.
>  I would expect the first one to pass thermal test criteria at 85V, at
> rated power, at highest rated ambient .  One corner of the "performance
> envelope" if you will.  And then, do I test the latter at 100V -10%   ?
>
> And, I don't think that compliance with a standard proves a product safe;
> only that it complies with a specific set of criteria.  Product safety is
> hard to define, much harder to accurately assess, even with use of the
> AFMEA and FTA tools, which are subjective so it 

Re: [PSES] Voltage Rating vs Voltage Specification

[Nyffenegger, Dave]

That’s how I would have interpreted as well.  Also, I don’t know that the / 
implies a selector switch as was mentioned earlier.  I’ve seen power supplies 
rated for two non-contiguous ranges for input voltage that still auto-adjust 
for the actual input voltage, no selector switch required.

Some of the standards call for +-10%  minimum tolerance and some, the UL I 
think,  call for +6%-10% minimum.  As far as certification is concerned, all 
depends on what standards apply.

-Dave

From: Doug Powell [mailto:doug...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2017 2:10 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Voltage Rating vs Voltage Specification

Actually this looks redundant to me. The 100-115-120/208-220-230-240 can be 
expressed as 100-120/208-240.  This is because the dash character indicates a 
range and the slash character indicates a selectable value.  In quasi boolean 
fashion, this could be explained as (from 100 to 120) OR (from 208 to 240).

One more point for the sake of clarity, the ±10% tolerance for a range is based 
on the end limits or a range.  In your example above, -10% of 100V thru +10% of 
120V and -10% of 208V thru +10% of 240V which translates into 90 thru 132 an 
187.2 thru 264. This would not be included on a rating label however.

In my experience ±10% is standard operating conditions (SOC) when not otherwise 
specified.  This has been expanded on occasion in product design proposals 
where the customer has specified +10% / -15% as a preliminary step toward 
mitigating voltage dips and sags.

All the best, doug




On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 9:24 AM, Kunde, Brian 
> wrote:
Is something like this allowed?

100-115-120/208-220-230-240

Will a ±10% tolerance always be assumed? If your tolerance was something 
different, such as -15%/+10%, does this information have to be on the device or 
is the manual good enough?

The Other Brian

-Original Message-
From: John Woodgate 
[mailto:jmw1...@btinternet.com]
Sent: Friday, April 07, 2017 5:01 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Voltage Rating vs Voltage Specification

These runes differ in meaning:

I have seen products rated 85-264V and others rated 100/120/208/230/240.

85-264 means any voltage within that range. You could put in 165 V and expect 
no problem.

100/120/208/230/240 means only those voltages, with whatever the relevant 
standard says about tolerances. 165 V would not work for this product.

With best wishes DESIGN IT IN! OOO – Own Opinions Only 
www.jmwa.demon.co.uk J M Woodgate and Associates 
Rayleigh England

Sylvae in aeternum manent.


-Original Message-
From: Ralph McDiarmid 
[mailto:ralph.mcdiar...@schneider-electric.com]
Sent: Friday, April 7, 2017 8:29 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Voltage Rating vs Voltage Specification

I don't know, but I suppose it could be addressed by an "abnormal test" to see 
if UUT fails in a way which then renders it potentially unsafe by way of 
non-compliance with a criterion in the standard.

I have seen products rated 85-264V and others rated 100/120/208/230/240.   I 
would expect the first one to pass thermal test criteria at 85V, at rated 
power, at highest rated ambient .  One corner of the "performance envelope" if 
you will.  And then, do I test the latter at 100V -10%   ?

And, I don't think that compliance with a standard proves a product safe; only 
that it complies with a specific set of criteria.  Product safety is hard to 
define, much harder to accurately assess, even with use of the AFMEA and FTA 
tools, which are subjective so it seems to me.

Ralph McDiarmid
Product Compliance
Engineering
Solar Business
Schneider Electric



-Original Message-
From: Richard Nute [mailto:ri...@ieee.org]
Sent: Friday, April 07, 2017 10:51 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Voltage Rating vs Voltage Specification

Supposedly, since the ratings are specified in the standard, they must involve 
safety if not done according to the standard.  So, what is the safety issue if 
the ratings are not in accordance with the standard?  What is the injury?

What is the safety issue if the applied voltage is less than or more than the 
marked ratings but still within the nominal from the electric power utility?  
Again, what is the injury?

Rich


> -Original Message-
> From: John Woodgate
> [mailto:jmw1...@btinternet.com]
> Sent: Friday, April 07, 2017 9:11 AM
> To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: Re: [PSES] Voltage Rating vs Voltage Specification
>
> There are in fact two IEC resources, Electropedia, which has all the
> formal definitions produced 

Re: [PSES] Voltage Rating vs Voltage Specification

[Doug Powell]

Actually this looks redundant to me. The 100-115-120/208-220-230-240 can be
expressed as 100-120/208-240.  This is because the dash character indicates
a range and the slash character indicates a selectable value.  In quasi
boolean fashion, this could be explained as (from 100 to 120) OR (from 208
to 240).

One more point for the sake of clarity, the ±10% tolerance for a range is
based on the end limits or a range.  In your example above, -10% of 100V
thru +10% of 120V and -10% of 208V thru +10% of 240V which translates into
90 thru 132 an 187.2 thru 264. This would not be included on a rating
label however.

In my experience ±10% is standard operating conditions (SOC) when not
otherwise specified.  This has been expanded on occasion in product design
proposals where the customer has specified +10% / -15% as a
preliminary step toward mitigating voltage dips and sags.

All the best, doug




On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 9:24 AM, Kunde, Brian 
wrote:

> Is something like this allowed?
>
> 100-115-120/208-220-230-240
>
> Will a ±10% tolerance always be assumed? If your tolerance was something
> different, such as -15%/+10%, does this information have to be on the
> device or is the manual good enough?
>
> The Other Brian
>
> -Original Message-
> From: John Woodgate [mailto:jmw1...@btinternet.com]
> Sent: Friday, April 07, 2017 5:01 PM
> To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: Re: [PSES] Voltage Rating vs Voltage Specification
>
> These runes differ in meaning:
>
> I have seen products rated 85-264V and others rated 100/120/208/230/240.
>
> 85-264 means any voltage within that range. You could put in 165 V and
> expect no problem.
>
> 100/120/208/230/240 means only those voltages, with whatever the relevant
> standard says about tolerances. 165 V would not work for this product.
>
> With best wishes DESIGN IT IN! OOO – Own Opinions Only
> www.jmwa.demon.co.uk J M Woodgate and Associates Rayleigh England
>
> Sylvae in aeternum manent.
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Ralph McDiarmid [mailto:ralph.mcdiar...@schneider-electric.com]
> Sent: Friday, April 7, 2017 8:29 PM
> To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: Re: [PSES] Voltage Rating vs Voltage Specification
>
> I don't know, but I suppose it could be addressed by an "abnormal test" to
> see if UUT fails in a way which then renders it potentially unsafe by way
> of non-compliance with a criterion in the standard.
>
> I have seen products rated 85-264V and others rated 100/120/208/230/240.
>  I would expect the first one to pass thermal test criteria at 85V, at
> rated power, at highest rated ambient .  One corner of the "performance
> envelope" if you will.  And then, do I test the latter at 100V -10%   ?
>
> And, I don't think that compliance with a standard proves a product safe;
> only that it complies with a specific set of criteria.  Product safety is
> hard to define, much harder to accurately assess, even with use of the
> AFMEA and FTA tools, which are subjective so it seems to me.
>
> Ralph McDiarmid
> Product Compliance
> Engineering
> Solar Business
> Schneider Electric
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Richard Nute [mailto:ri...@ieee.org]
> Sent: Friday, April 07, 2017 10:51 AM
> To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: Re: [PSES] Voltage Rating vs Voltage Specification
>
> Supposedly, since the ratings are specified in the standard, they must
> involve safety if not done according to the standard.  So, what is the
> safety issue if the ratings are not in accordance with the standard?  What
> is the injury?
>
> What is the safety issue if the applied voltage is less than or more than
> the marked ratings but still within the nominal from the electric power
> utility?  Again, what is the injury?
>
> Rich
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: John Woodgate
> > [mailto:jmw1...@btinternet.com]
> > Sent: Friday, April 07, 2017 9:11 AM
> > To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> > Subject: Re: [PSES] Voltage Rating vs Voltage Specification
> >
> > There are in fact two IEC resources, Electropedia, which has all the
> > formal definitions produced by TC1 and Glossary, which has a selection
> > of terms, culled from many standards, that have not been adopted by
> > TC1.
> >
> > http://www.electropedia.org/?ref=extfooter
> >
> > http://std.iec.ch/glossary?ref=extfooter
> >
> > Neither can be comprehensive at one instant, because new terms are
> > being added all the time.
> >
> > With best wishes DESIGN IT IN! OOO – Own Opinions Only
> > www.jmwa.demon.co.uk J M Woodgate and Associates Rayleigh England
> >
> > Sylvae in aeternum manent.
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Ralph McDiarmid
> > [mailto:Ralph.McDiarmid@SCHNEIDER-
> > ELECTRIC.COM]
> > Sent: Friday, April 7, 2017 4:42 PM
> > To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> > Subject: Re: [PSES] Voltage Rating vs Voltage Specification
> >
> > Pete, I wonder if the onus to define the terminology like “rated
> > voltage” should really be on the technical 

Re: [PSES] Voltage Rating vs Voltage Specification

[Scott Aldous]

More info from PG on US grid voltage ranges here

.

On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 4:32 AM, Pete Perkins <
0061f3f32d0c-dmarc-requ...@ieee.org> wrote:

> Brian, et al,
>
> I don't believe that anyone has pointed out that voltage
> tolerances are derived from the range that is assigned by the power
> utilities  - regulated in most developed countries - and needed so that the
> national power grid can be interconnected without additional trouble.
>
> In North America the usual Voltage tolerance is +6/-10% (why
> deliver a higher voltage so that the user gets more power for the same
> price, but regulate the lower limit so that the user gets a minimum amount
> of power for their money).
>
> Much of the rest of the world uses a Voltage tolerance of +10/-10%.
>
> So, test houses use these values in testing equipment to ensure
> that it will work properly over the usual range of Voltage.
>
> Designers need to understand this in designing the product but no
> need, as has been said, to put this on the product.  The nominal voltages
> or voltage ranges provided imply that the equipment will work at the
> Voltages shown including their tolerances.
>
> The advent of electronic power supplies on lots of equipment has
> simplified the designers life since, in a simple descriptive way, the power
> supply is current driven and works independent of the supply Voltage to
> provide the needed output.
>
> :>) br,  Pete
>
> Peter E Perkins, PE
> Principal Product Safety & Regulatory Affairs Consultant
> PO Box 23427
> Tigard, ORe  97281-3427
>
> 503/452-1201
>
> p.perk...@ieee.org
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Richard Nute [mailto:ri...@ieee.org]
> Sent: Monday, April 10, 2017 11:18 AM
> To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: Re: [PSES] Voltage Rating vs Voltage Specification
>
> Hi Brian:
>
> > Is something like this allowed?
> >
> > 100-115-120/208-220-230-240
>
> Unless the applicable standard says otherwise, yes.
>
> What is the safety issue (injury) that results from non-compliance with
> the standard's rules for marking configuration of the input rating?
>
> > Will a ±10% tolerance always be assumed?
>
> Usually, yes.
>
> > If your tolerance
> > was something different, such as -15%/+10%, does this information have
> > to be on the device or is the manual good enough?
>
> Your "tolerance" will be used by the certification house if it is greater
> than the standard's "tolerance."  However, you need not specify the
> tolerance.
>
> The "tolerance" need not be marked on the product; the standard does not
> require that you specify a tolerance.  So, it is your choice to specify a
> tolerance or not, and where to place a tolerance.
>
> 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-p...@ieee.org>
>
> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
> http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
>
> Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at
> http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in
> well-used formats), large files, etc.
>
> Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
> Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to
> unsubscribe) List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
>
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
> Scott Douglas 
> Mike Cantwell 
>
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Jim Bacher:  
> David Heald: 
>
> -
> 
> 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-p...@ieee.org>
>
> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
> http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
>
> Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at
> http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in
> well-used formats), large files, etc.
>
> Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
> Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to
> unsubscribe)
> List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
>
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
> Scott Douglas 
> Mike Cantwell 
>
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Jim Bacher:  
> David Heald: 
>



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

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety 

[PSES] ANSI C63.4 Courses

[Grasso, Charles]

Hello - Other than the workshop provided during the EMC Symposium,
does anyone know of an ANSI C63.4 workshop in the US?

Best Regards
Charles Grasso
Compliance Engineer
Dish Technologies
(w) 303-706-5467
(c) 303-204-2974
(t) 3032042...@vtext.com
(e ) charles.gra...@dish.com
(e2) chasgra...@gmail.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 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] Voltage Rating vs Voltage Specification

[Pete Perkins]

Brian, et al,  

I don't believe that anyone has pointed out that voltage tolerances are 
derived from the range that is assigned by the power utilities  - regulated in 
most developed countries - and needed so that the national power grid can be 
interconnected without additional trouble.   

In North America the usual Voltage tolerance is +6/-10% (why deliver a 
higher voltage so that the user gets more power for the same price, but 
regulate the lower limit so that the user gets a minimum amount of power for 
their money).  

Much of the rest of the world uses a Voltage tolerance of +10/-10%.  

So, test houses use these values in testing equipment to ensure that it 
will work properly over the usual range of Voltage.  

Designers need to understand this in designing the product but no need, 
as has been said, to put this on the product.  The nominal voltages or voltage 
ranges provided imply that the equipment will work at the Voltages shown 
including their tolerances.  

The advent of electronic power supplies on lots of equipment has 
simplified the designers life since, in a simple descriptive way, the power 
supply is current driven and works independent of the supply Voltage to provide 
the needed output.  

:>) br,  Pete

Peter E Perkins, PE
Principal Product Safety & Regulatory Affairs Consultant
PO Box 23427
Tigard, ORe  97281-3427

503/452-1201

p.perk...@ieee.org

-Original Message-
From: Richard Nute [mailto:ri...@ieee.org] 
Sent: Monday, April 10, 2017 11:18 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Voltage Rating vs Voltage Specification

Hi Brian:

> Is something like this allowed?
> 
> 100-115-120/208-220-230-240

Unless the applicable standard says otherwise, yes.  

What is the safety issue (injury) that results from non-compliance with the 
standard's rules for marking configuration of the input rating?

> Will a ±10% tolerance always be assumed? 

Usually, yes.  

> If your tolerance
> was something different, such as -15%/+10%, does this information have 
> to be on the device or is the manual good enough?

Your "tolerance" will be used by the certification house if it is greater than 
the standard's "tolerance."  However, you need not specify the tolerance.  

The "tolerance" need not be marked on the product; the standard does not 
require that you specify a tolerance.  So, it is your choice to specify a 
tolerance or not, and where to place a tolerance.

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 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe) List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

-

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 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: