RE: SMPS test according to IEC 60601-1
Mr. Peruzzi, With the exception of certain ECMA safety standards and the IEC safety standard for power supplies (61204), I am not aware of any IEC/harmonized safety standards that contain special clauses for the consideration of the power supply's performance and construction as a special type of component; i.e., there are no a component power supply shall ... statements. In fact, most safety standards will have a statement in the scope that says that if the power supply is not installed within the end-use system, it is not covered; e.g., power supply systems which are not an integral part of the equipment AND Where a separate power supply (such as those containing transformer and dc conversion in a separate package and feeding dc directly into the equipment) is required, the supply shall be identified in the instructions for use as: 1) part of the equipment (the requirements of this standard apply to it also) OR 2) part of an ME System (meaning the supply can comply to another IEC standard but with appropriate isolation in the ME equipment). The supply must be specified in adequate detail to assure continuing compliance to this standard. The 3d ed of 60601-1 says this about power supplies: 4.8 *Power supply 4.8.1 Source of power for ME EQUIPMENT ME EQUIPMENT shall either be powered by an INTERNAL ELECTRICAL POWER SOURCE, be specified for connection to a separate power supply, or be suitable for connection to a SUPPLY MAINS. 5.5 Supply voltages, type of current, nature of supply, frequency a) Where test results are influenced by deviations of the supply voltage from its RATED value, the effect of such deviations shall be taken into account. The supply voltage during tests shall be according to 4.8 or according to that specified by the MANUFACTURER, whichever is least favourable. b) ME EQUIPMENT for a.c. only shall be tested with a.c. at RATED frequency (if marked) ± 1 Hz between 0 and 100 Hz and ± 1 % above 100 Hz. ME EQUIPMENT marked with a RATED frequency range shall be tested at the least favourable frequency within that range. c) ME EQUIPMENT designed for more than one RATED voltage, or for both a.c. and d.c., shall be tested in conditions (described in 5.4) related to the least favourable voltage and nature of supply, for example, number of phases (except for single-phase supply) and type of current. It may be necessary to perform some tests more than once in order to establish which supply configuration is least favourable. 16.3 *Power supply If ME EQUIPMENT is intended to receive its power from other equipment in an ME SYSTEM, the instructions for use shall specify such other equipment sufficiently to ensure compliance with the requirements of this standard (see 4.8.1, 5.5 g) and 7.10.2.3). Most SMPS are certified as 'components', so you will probably be limited to applying the requirements for components of the end-use standard. And this is why the conditions of acceptability and the Type Test conditions for the SMPS are so very very important. As the regulatory honcho for your company, you must insist the the vendor provide a CB test report for the unit. And you must study and understand whether the vendor's type test conditions can apply to both normal and abnormal operating conditions of your end-use box. Because the new IEC medical standard has complex risk-analysis requirements, you will need a direct safety contact at your power supply vendor. No one can hand this to you in neatly packaged standard that also has the added bonus of an additional clause explaining the meaning of life (this was, in fact, clearly defined by Douglas Adams...). Ultimately, I can only offer this advise - Root Beer and Cheetos are very effective compliance-requirement analysis tools. luck, Brian -Original Message- From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org]On Behalf Of Paolo Peruzzi Sent: Friday, March 23, 2007 1:32 AM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RE: SMPS test according to IEC 60601-1 Brian, Could you please give me ONE example of a specific requirement on a POWER SUPPLY (not on a single component) in IEC 60601-1? Thanks, Paolo Peruzzi -- Original Message --- From: Brian O'Connell oconne...@tamuracorp.com To: emc-p...@ieee.org Sent: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 08:10:13 -0800 Subject: RE: SMPS test according to IEC 60601-1 Although, the 3d edition of IEC 60601-1 'appears' to relax test requirements for a component P.S. (and explicityly allows the use of I.T. approved units), and I recommend that you avoid the temptation to reduce these tests to that of 'transformer'. My employer makes many custom and off-the-shelf power supply models that are certified to medical standards, and we encourage our customers to repeat certain SFC tests and abnormal operating conditions in the end-use installation. Also, try to get a copy of the CB Test Report. Carefully review the tests, test conditions, and what failed as a result of the test
Job opening
Blackwood Compliance Laboratories (formerly Blackwood EMC) are looking for a product electrical safety test engineer with experience in testing a variety of products to the IEC/EN 60335 series of electrical safety standards. Experience in other electrical safety standards, such as IEC/EN 60065 and IEC/EN 60950, as well as experience in working in a UKAS accredited test laboratory or within the CB scheme, would be a distinct advantage. If interested or know somebody who might be then please contact me off-line. Regards, Steve Richardson _ Steve Richardson Blackwood Compliance Laboratories Unit 8 Woodfieldside Business Park Pontllanfraith Blackwood NP12 2DG tel: +44 (0) 1495 229219 fax: +44 (0) 1495 228331 www.blackwood-labs.co.uk __ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email __ - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
New Safety Guy Podcast Episode
I just posted a new episode of the Safety Guy PodCast. If you are interested in industrial machinery safety, have ever had to fight with a guard design, develop a risk assessment or had questions about these subjects, tune in! You can find the latest show at http://www.machinerysafety101.com/ or by linking to the iTunes store at http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?id=204831497 http://tinyurl.com/25lb7m -- Doug Nix, A.Sc.T. IEEE PSES Waterloo Region, Canada d...@ieee.org Find me LinkedIn at http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougnix __ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email __ - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
EMC Chapter meeting, London, 28 March
Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
Re: Immunity testing alarm equipment
Dear all, Just to inform you with the answer from Jonathan Steward. It seems that he didn’t succeed in sending his message to the group. I am intended to support his answer. It is a good balance of arguments. Thanks Jonathan! Kind regards Theo Hildering Consultant E-mail: theo.hilder...@planet.nl On 23-03-2007 01:27, jstew...@curtis-straus.com jstew...@curtis-straus.com wrote: Hi Theo, Interpretation #1 is completely wrong. It is a common mistake to make because the radiated and conducted immunity tests themselves are transient in nature; a frequency range is stepped or swept through incrementally, with discrete frequencies. Regardless, these tests are meant to simulate a condition that might always be present within the environment where the alarm system is installed. For instance, a field that is present due to a wireless internet installation in the house. The intruder alarm is a transient event (we hope) and so it would follow that if it occurred at all it could realistically occur at the same time as the radiated/conducted phenomenon. Interpretation #2 is pretty much correct, though I think the world would be a much safer place if intruders were just armed with portable radiators. EN 50130-4 is not actually all that vague about the criteria for compliance for radiated immunity (section 10.4). There shall be no damage, malfunction or change of status due to the conditioning...no residual change in the EUT or any change in outputs, which could be interpreted by associated equipment as a change... It is the same for the conducted disturbances. Interpretation #3 is correct in that the Telecom equipment within this system should meet the requirements specific to ITE equipment, probably EN 55024. But this would be IN ADDITION TO these alarm standards. Kind Regards, Jonathan Stewart EMC Manager Curtis-Straus, a Bureau Veritas Company Theo Hildering theo.hilder...@planet.nl Sent by: emc-p...@ieee.org 03/21/2007 06:34 PM To emc-p...@ieee.org cc Subject Immunity testing alarm equipment Dear all, I have observed that there are different interpretations about testing radiated immunity (for example with 10 V/m, up to 2 GHz) for alarm equipment. Applicable standards are for Europe EN 50130-4 and EN 50136. The main difference in the interpretations is with regard to the functionality of the alarm equipment, especially when an (intruder) alarm is generated and the equipment is designed to transfer this information to an Alarm Receiving Center (e.g. By dialling a telephone number) and this should (?) work as well during conducted and or radiated immunity stress. Interpretations: 1.During the immunity stress testing, some malfunction can be accepted (depending upon equipment class), but afterwards it should work properly. It is not realistic to consider 2 phenomena (radiation stress 10 V/m at critical frequencies and an intruder alarm) at the same time. 2.It is essential that during these circumstances the equipment shall continue to work reliably and is capable to transfer the alarm message. Every intruder who knows the trick, can deal wit the situation with a portable radiator, something we should avoid. 3.Formally speaking: telecom equipment responsible for message transfer is not part of the alarm equipment and should be considered / tested separately. I would appreciate your comments on these interpretations. With kind regards Theo Hildering - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc Mozartlaan 4 45 6865GB Doorwerth, The Netherlands E-mail: theo.hilder...@planet.nl Tel. +31 263790590 __ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email __ - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http
RE: SMPS test according to IEC 60601-1
Brian, Could you please give me ONE example of a specific requirement on a POWER SUPPLY (not on a single component) in IEC 60601-1? Thanks, Paolo Peruzzi From: Brian O'Connell oconne...@tamuracorp.com To: emc-p...@ieee.org Sent: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 08:10:13 -0800 Subject: RE: SMPS test according to IEC 60601-1 Although, the 3d edition of IEC 60601-1 'appears' to relax test requirements for a component P.S. (and explicityly allows the use of I.T. approved units), and I recommend that you avoid the temptation to reduce these tests to that of 'transformer'. My employer makes many custom and off-the-shelf power supply models that are certified to medical standards, and we encourage our customers to repeat certain SFC tests and abnormal operating conditions in the end-use installation. Also, try to get a copy of the CB Test Report. Carefully review the tests, test conditions, and what failed as a result of the test. The performance of the P.S. during abnormal operating conditions should drive the conditions of acceptability for the end-use installation. Requirements for SFC test and abnormal operating conditions will be dependent on the affect of the end-unit installation has on the component power supply. And yes there are, in fact, specific requirements in 601-1 that would apply to a component power supply. Read the standard again. No, again. luck, Brian -Original Message- From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org]On Behalf Of Paolo Peruzzi Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 7:25 AM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: SMPS test according to IEC 60601-1 Dear group, I would like to gather some opinions about safety tests on switch mode power supplies within medical devices, according to IEC 60601-1. My question arises because a test house technician told me he used to test power supplies as they were transformers, for what concerns short circuit and overload tests, on each dc output. I couldn't find such requirements for power supplies in the standard (I couldn't find any!!!), but I think it would be at least wise to do these tests. Do you think they should be included as single fault condition tests, even if not mentioned? Any other thoughts? Thanks, Paolo Peruzzi Regulatory Medical RD El.En. S.p.A. Via Baldanzese, 17 50041 Calenzano (FI) Italy - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc __ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email __
RE: IP testing per EN60529
You are interpreting the standard the way I've always interpreted it. Regards, Brian Epstein ENT Consulting bepst...@entconsulting.net 805.591.9587-Original Message- From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Jim Eichner Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 5:07 PM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: IP testing per EN60529 This has to do with the IP 3X, and 4X ratings and tests. The testing is by way of 2.5mm rod or 1.0mm wire probes, which seems quite straight forward at first. But the probes are not meant to be used the way I'm used to. It's not about whether they can touch anything, it's about whether they can enter at all. This is pretty clear in the text and tables giving pass pass/fail criteria, and is made really obvious if you read the note under 13.3. That note says that for IP3X and 4X the requirements are meant to prevent spherical objects of 2.5mm or 1.0mm diameter that are capable of motion from entering the enclosure. So basically an indirect or tortuous entry path doesn't do the job and you have to limit the size of an opening somewhere along the path to less than the diameter of the probe. It's easy to get misled on that point, for a variety of reasons: - the probes have a defined length and a stop, neither of which comes into play with the shall not enter criteria, but their presence suggest the more typical ok to enter but not to touch hazardous parts criteria - some of the examples in Annex A can easily be misinterpreted - safety compliance people are used to criteria that allows the probe to enter but not touch things - the standard touches on pass/fail in several places and the additional letters and first numeral have requirements that overlap but are different I have seen products on the market and results from certification bodies that make it clear this is being misinterpreted. People are assuming it's ok for the probe to enter as long as adequate clearance is maintained to live parts, whirling blades, etc, when in fact it is not acceptable for the IP3X and 4X probes to enter the enclosure. So given what I am seeing as widespread mis-interpretation my question is, am I wrong? Are the labs and other products on the market right, and I'm misinterpreting the requirements? Thanks, Jim Eichner, P.Eng. Manager - Compliance Engineering Xantrex Technology Inc. e-mail: jim.eich...@xantrex.com web: www.xantrex.com Confidentiality Notice: This email message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc __ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email __
Re: Radiated Emissions pre-scans for Aerospace / Military / AutomotiveStandards.
In message 380-220073422104439...@earthlink.net, dated Thu, 22 Mar 2007, Cortland Richmond k...@earthlink.net writes: This borders on an ethical question, not a technical one. What due diligence are we required to exercise? My answer as always been: enough. Pretesting is SMART. Yes, but with INSIGHT. It isn't smart just to do an arbitrary pre-test that the standard doesn't require. You should consider what potential emissions might not be observed by the test in the standard but could get up and bite you later. When you've identified those potential emissions, go looking for them with a specifically-designed test that will find them if they exist -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk There are benefits from being irrational - just ask the square root of 2. John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc __ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email __
Re: Solid State Relay Standard
In message e377b7618d73a94caf4553fd217b3b1c0b599...@sgbred231.corp.ncr.com, dated Thu, 22 Mar 2007, Petrie, Craig D cp185...@ncr.com writes: We use 240V solid state relays in some of our products, certified to IEC60950-1 and UL508. I don't see how a solid-state relay could be certified to IEC 60950-1. It is not a component safety standard, with a few specific exceptions, and solid-state relays don't seem to be one of those special cases. I have heard however that there is a new IEC standard being released for solid state relays and therefore we should request these relays to be certified against the new standard rather than IEC60950-1 in the future. Can anyone enlighten me with details of this new standard please? What is the standard number, when is it to be published, and when will relays certified against IEC60950-1 no longer be accepted by test houses? From the public part of the IEC web site: IEC 62314 Ed.1.0 Title: Solid-state relays Publication date: 2006-05-11 TC: 94 - ALL-OR-NOTHING ELECTRICAL RELAYS (search for other TC 94 publications) Media type price: 444KB CHF 155 38 pages CHF 141 + PP . Abstract: States the characteristics of solid-state relays; the requirements with respect to their operation and behaviour; their dielectric properties; the degrees of protection provided by their enclosures; the tests verifying that the requirements have been met, and the test methods to be adopted. -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk There are benefits from being irrational - just ask the square root of 2. John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc __ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email __
Nichrome wire NCHW1 for glow-wire testing
Can someone advise where I can buy the captioned wire on internet. Thanks, Scott - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc __ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email __
RE: Immunity testing alarm equipment
Not to comment on the standard itself, but 10 V/M for a commercial environment is not much of a safety margin. You can get 10 V/M moderately close to a number of common sources (cell phone, CB, Ham). Considering the value of what an alarm system might be protecting, I would hope that a manufacturer would voluntarily verify proper performance to something a bit higher (if asked, I would suggest 50 V/M). Ed Price mailto:ed.pr...@cubic.com ed.pr...@cubic.com NARTE Certified EMC Engineer Technician Electromagnetic Compatibility Lab Cubic Defense Applications San Diego, CA USA 858-505-2780 (Voice) 858-505-1583 (FAX) Military Avionics EMC Is Our Specialty _ From: Amund Westin [mailto:am...@westin-emission.no] Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 12:06 AM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: SV: Immunity testing alarm equipment Theo, I do not recall EN50103-4 EN50136 in detail, but usually both radiated and conducted immunity tests are classified as Performance criteria A. That means that the EUT shall work as intended during the test and no damages or malfunctions are allowed. An alarm product shall be able to in alarm mode and exposed to 10V/m, without any malfunctions. That's the case for fire alam systems. Only my opinion. #Amund Fra: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org]På vegne av Theo Hildering Sendt: 21. mars 2007 23:34 Til: emc-p...@ieee.org Emne: Immunity testing alarm equipment Dear all, I have observed that there are different interpretations about testing radiated immunity (for example with 10 V/m, up to 2 GHz) for alarm equipment. Applicable standards are for Europe EN 50130-4 and EN 50136. The main difference in the interpretations is with regard to the functionality of the alarm equipment, especially when an (intruder) alarm is generated and the equipment is designed to transfer this information to an Alarm Receiving Center (e.g. By dialling a telephone number) and this should (?) work as well during conducted and or radiated immunity stress. Interpretations: 1. During the immunity stress testing, some malfunction can be accepted (depending upon equipment class), but afterwards it should work properly. It is not realistic to consider 2 phenomena (radiation stress 10 V/m at critical frequencies and an intruder alarm) at the same time. 2. It is essential that during these circumstances the equipment shall continue to work reliably and is capable to transfer the alarm message. Every intruder who knows the trick, can deal wit the situation with a portable radiator, something we should avoid. 3. Formally speaking: telecom equipment responsible for message transfer is not part of the alarm equipment and should be considered / tested separately. I would appreciate your comments on these interpretations. With kind regards Theo Hildering Consultant __ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email __ - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
RE: SMPS test according to IEC 60601-1
Although, the 3d edition of IEC 60601-1 'appears' to relax test requirements for a component P.S. (and explicityly allows the use of I.T. approved units), and I recommend that you avoid the temptation to reduce these tests to that of 'transformer'. My employer makes many custom and off-the-shelf power supply models that are certified to medical standards, and we encourage our customers to repeat certain SFC tests and abnormal operating conditions in the end-use installation. Also, try to get a copy of the CB Test Report. Carefully review the tests, test conditions, and what failed as a result of the test. The performance of the P.S. during abnormal operating conditions should drive the conditions of acceptability for the end-use installation. Requirements for SFC test and abnormal operating conditions will be dependent on the affect of the end-unit installation has on the component power supply. And yes there are, in fact, specific requirements in 601-1 that would apply to a component power supply. Read the standard again. No, again. luck, Brian -Original Message- From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org]On Behalf Of Paolo Peruzzi Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 7:25 AM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: SMPS test according to IEC 60601-1 Dear group, I would like to gather some opinions about safety tests on switch mode power supplies within medical devices, according to IEC 60601-1. My question arises because a test house technician told me he used to test power supplies as they were transformers, for what concerns short circuit and overload tests, on each dc output. I couldn't find such requirements for power supplies in the standard (I couldn't find any!!!), but I think it would be at least wise to do these tests. Do you think they should be included as single fault condition tests, even if not mentioned? Any other thoughts? Thanks, Paolo Peruzzi Regulatory Medical RD El.En. S.p.A. Via Baldanzese, 17 50041 Calenzano (FI) Italy - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc __ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email __
SMPS test according to IEC 60601-1
Dear group, I would like to gather some opinions about safety tests on switch mode power supplies within medical devices, according to IEC 60601-1. My question arises because a test house technician told me he used to test power supplies as they were transformers, for what concerns short circuit and overload tests, on each dc output. I couldn't find such requirements for power supplies in the standard (I couldn't find any!!!), but I think it would be at least wise to do these tests. Do you think they should be included as single fault condition tests, even if not mentioned? Any other thoughts? Thanks, Paolo Peruzzi Regulatory Medical RD El.En. S.p.A. Via Baldanzese, 17 50041 Calenzano (FI) Italy - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc __ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email __
Re: Solid State Relay Standard
Hello Craig, I believe the new standard is IEC 62314 published last year. http://webstore.iec.ch/preview/info_iec62314%7Bed1.0%7Den.pdf The information I have from CENLEC on EN 62314:2006 is that the date of announcement was October 1, 2006. The proposed date of publication is April 1, 2007 and the proposed date of withdrawal is July 1, 2009. Ted Eckert American Power Conversion/MGE http://www.apc.com/ The items contained in this e-mail reflect the personal opinions of the writer and are only provided for the assistance of the reader. The writer is not speaking in an official capacity for APC, MGE or Schneider Electric. The speaker does not represent APC's, MGE's or Schneider Electric's official position on any matter. Petrie, Craig D cp185...@ncr.com To Sent by: emc-p...@ieee.org emc-p...@ieee.org cc Subject 03/22/2007 05:35 Solid State Relay Standard AM Good morning all, We use 240V solid state relays in some of our products, certified to IEC60950-1 and UL508. I have heard however that there is a new IEC standard being released for solid state relays and therefore we should request these relays to be certified against the new standard rather than IEC60950-1 in the future. Can anyone enlighten me with details of this new standard please? What is the standard number, when is it to be published, and when will relays certified against IEC60950-1 no longer be accepted by test houses? Thanks and regards, Craig - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc __ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email __
cloth enclosure cover
Hello emc-pstc group, I have a question involving flammability requirements and 60950-1. The product itself uses HB plastics. There is no external surface of combustible material having an exposed area of greater than 0,9 m2 (10 sq ft) or a single dimension greater than 1,80 m (6ft) in compliance with Annex NAE 4.7.3.1 It is being proposed that cloth be added onto or over the exterior surface to address some marketing needs. Is anyone aware of flammability or other conditions put on cloth coverings for products? Thank you James Goedderz Product Safety Engineer Tyco/Sensormatic __ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email __ - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
RE: Radiated Emissions pre-scans for Aerospace / Military / AutomotiveStandards.
This borders on an ethical question, not a technical one. What due diligence are we required to exercise? My answer as always been: enough. Pretesting is SMART. Something that a few standard rate scans might miss, might instead be found in the field by a customer, or (God forbid) by way of an incident. It might better be found by thorough internal testing, and fixed. Not that there's an excuse for missing something; we know what the emitters are, do we not? I think its not a good idea, it's a GREAT idea. Cortland KA5S - Original Message - From: Luke Turnbull mailto:luke.turnb...@trw.com To: emc-p...@ieee.org Sent: 3/21/2007 10:57:41 AM Subject: Radiated Emissions pre-scans for Aerospace / Military / AutomotiveStandards. Hello emc-pstc'ers, I have an EMC question about military / aerospace / automotive emissions standards. I hope I can get a wide / global answer to how standards 1. should be interpreted and 2. are interpreted when performing a test. It has been suggested that we as a test lab should perform pre-scans when making emissions measurements of a product. The purpose is to ensure that any intermittent emissions will be captured and that it should involve the use of max hold on a spectrum analyser with fast sweeps to ensure all frequencies are revisited many times a second for at least 20 seconds in each span. For each of: DO-160, MIL STD 461, CISPR 25 1. Do people believe the standard requires such a pre-scan? 2. Are test labs worldwide actually performing such a pre-scan? Thanks for your help, Luke Turnbull - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc __ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email __ - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
Solid State Relay Standard
Good morning all, We use 240V solid state relays in some of our products, certified to IEC60950-1 and UL508. I have heard however that there is a new IEC standard being released for solid state relays and therefore we should request these relays to be certified against the new standard rather than IEC60950-1 in the future. Can anyone enlighten me with details of this new standard please? What is the standard number, when is it to be published, and when will relays certified against IEC60950-1 no longer be accepted by test houses? Thanks and regards, Craig __ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email __ - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
SV: Immunity testing alarm equipment
Theo, I do not recall EN50103-4 EN50136 in detail, but usually both radiated and conducted immunity tests are classified as Performance criteria A. That means that the EUT shall work as intended during the test and no damages or malfunctions are allowed. An alarm product shall be able to in alarm mode and exposed to 10V/m, without any malfunctions. That's the case for fire alam systems. Only my opinion. #Amund Fra: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org]På vegne av Theo Hildering Sendt: 21. mars 2007 23:34 Til: emc-p...@ieee.org Emne: Immunity testing alarm equipment Dear all, I have observed that there are different interpretations about testing radiated immunity (for example with 10 V/m, up to 2 GHz) for alarm equipment. Applicable standards are for Europe EN 50130-4 and EN 50136. The main difference in the interpretations is with regard to the functionality of the alarm equipment, especially when an (intruder) alarm is generated and the equipment is designed to transfer this information to an Alarm Receiving Center (e.g. By dialling a telephone number) and this should (?) work as well during conducted and or radiated immunity stress. Interpretations: 1. During the immunity stress testing, some malfunction can be accepted (depending upon equipment class), but afterwards it should work properly. It is not realistic to consider 2 phenomena (radiation stress 10 V/m at critical frequencies and an intruder alarm) at the same time. 2. It is essential that during these circumstances the equipment shall continue to work reliably and is capable to transfer the alarm message. Every intruder who knows the trick, can deal wit the situation with a portable radiator, something we should avoid. 3. Formally speaking: telecom equipment responsible for message transfer is not part of the alarm equipment and should be considered / tested separately. I would appreciate your comments on these interpretations. With kind regards Theo Hildering Consultant E-mail: theo.hilder...@planet.nl - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc __ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email __ - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
Immunity testing alarm equipment
Dear all, I have observed that there are different interpretations about testing radiated immunity (for example with 10 V/m, up to 2 GHz) for alarm equipment. Applicable standards are for Europe EN 50130-4 and EN 50136. The main difference in the interpretations is with regard to the functionality of the alarm equipment, especially when an (intruder) alarm is generated and the equipment is designed to transfer this information to an Alarm Receiving Center (e.g. By dialling a telephone number) and this should (?) work as well during conducted and or radiated immunity stress. Interpretations: 1. During the immunity stress testing, some malfunction can be accepted (depending upon equipment class), but afterwards it should work properly. It is not realistic to consider 2 phenomena (radiation stress 10 V/m at critical frequencies and an intruder alarm) at the same time. 2. It is essential that during these circumstances the equipment shall continue to work reliably and is capable to transfer the alarm message. Every intruder who knows the trick, can deal wit the situation with a portable radiator, something we should avoid. 3. Formally speaking: telecom equipment responsible for message transfer is not part of the alarm equipment and should be considered / tested separately. I would appreciate your comments on these interpretations. With kind regards Theo Hildering Consultant E-mail: theo.hilder...@planet.nl __ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email __ - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
Re: Energy Efficiency for Europe
In message b11802460b4f4b4e963b51adf2fae08b04c4a...@usmafrexmb02.bose.com, dated Wed, 21 Mar 2007, Tyra, John john_t...@bose.com writes: Thanks John I did do a Google before I e-mailed the group but thought people like yourself and others who are involved in the committees could save me the time of sifting through chaff to get to the good stuff. Well, the first page of my search showed many of the 'good stuff' sites. And what you regard as 'good stuff' depends on what you are really looking for, in detail. One major difficulty, in my opinion, is the EC practice of assigning totally non-intuitive URLs, mostly over 100 characters long, to almost every web page. They are difficult to copy and even more difficult to transmit intact to others. In practice, you really need to go through the 'Tiny URL' process, but you might well have to do that for five or six addresses that are, in fact, of no interest to the enquirer. -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk There are benefits from being irrational - just ask the square root of 2. John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc __ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email __
RE: Energy Efficiency for Europe
Thanks John I did do a Google before I e-mailed the group but thought people like yourself and others who are involved in the committees could save me the time of sifting through chaff to get to the good stuff. Thanks to those who took the time to send me excellent leads helping me to find the good stuff From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of John Woodgate Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 5:24 PM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Re: Energy Efficiency for Europe In message b11802460b4f4b4e963b51adf2fae08b04c4a...@usmafrexmb02.bose.com, dated Tue, 20 Mar 2007, Tyra, John john_t...@bose.com writes: With the current requirements in place for California and phased regulations coming into affect in Australia can anyone tell me or point to a website which tracks the European Union efforts in Energy Efficiency regulations?? Any information is appreciated A Google search for 'energy efficiency Europe' provided a very large amount of information. -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk There are benefits from being irrational - just ask the square root of 2. John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc __ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email __
Re: Radiated Emissions pre-scans for Aerospace / Military / Autom otive Standards.
In message e6acec5be8405b4e936c9e9bccac10241b6...@bb-corp-be1.corp.cubic.cub, dated Wed, 21 Mar 2007, Price, Ed ed.pr...@cubic.com writes: I am biased toward finding out all I can about the EUT. I agree; it's much more sensible to find out, with mind fully engaged and insight operating at 20/20, that slavishly carry out a procedure that is not required by the relevant standard. -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk There are benefits from being irrational - just ask the square root of 2. John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc __ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email __
Re: Radiated Emissions pre-scans for Aerospace / Military / Automotive Standards.
In message 460145b502518...@shirley-uk-ms8.shrluk.trw.com, dated Wed, 21 Mar 2007, Luke Turnbull luke.turnb...@trw.com writes: 1. Do people believe the standard requires such a pre-scan? If it doesn't say so in the standard, or in any **official** interpretation... 2. Are test labs worldwide actually performing such a pre-scan? Maybe some are; it can be difficult to control zeal, especially when it increases cash flow... -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk There are benefits from being irrational - just ask the square root of 2. John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc __ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email __
Re: UL 94 class fire retardant materials
In message 000501c76b18$f109d8d0$d600a...@tamuracorp.com, dated Tue, 20 Mar 2007, Brian O'Connell oconne...@tamuracorp.com writes: At one time, CSA had published an equivalency table for flame ratings. 'At one time' suggests that it's a table of old flame ratings. -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk There are benefits from being irrational - just ask the square root of 2. John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc __ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email __
Radiated Emissions pre-scans for Aerospace / Military / Automotive Standards.
Hello emc-pstc'ers, I have an EMC question about military / aerospace / automotive emissions standards. I hope I can get a wide / global answer to how standards 1. should be interpreted and 2. are interpreted when performing a test. It has been suggested that we as a test lab should perform pre-scans when making emissions measurements of a product. The purpose is to ensure that any intermittent emissions will be captured and that it should involve the use of max hold on a spectrum analyser with fast sweeps to ensure all frequencies are revisited many times a second for at least 20 seconds in each span. For each of: DO-160, MIL STD 461, CISPR 25 1. Do people believe the standard requires such a pre-scan? 2. Are test labs worldwide actually performing such a pre-scan? Thanks for your help, Luke Turnbull __ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email __ - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
RE: UL 94 class fire retardant materials
Brian, Thanks for your information. Do you have the name or the number of said document? Ragards, Scott From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Brian O'Connell Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 1:55 AM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RE: UL 94 class fire retardant materials Perhaps you meant Yarruup ?? At one time, CSA had published an equivalency table for flame ratings. luck, Brian -Original Message- From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org]On Behalf Of John Woodgate Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 9:32 AM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Re: UL 94 class fire retardant materials In message 460005e6.07b861c6.4e23.3...@mx.google.com, dated Wed, 21 Mar 2007, Scott Xe scott...@gmail.com writes: In the market, lots of UL 94 approved materials are readily available. Is there any way to find out if they meet the requirements of EN 60065/60950/60335 with such components? Ask the manufacturers? But my experience is that once they have UL94, they often don't bother about Yoorup. -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk There are benefits from being irrational - just ask the square root of 2. John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc __ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email __
RE: EMC Directive requirements for LINEAR power adapter
Hi Mark, If you ship the adapter (deemed active or not) with your device then the accountability of shipping a compliant device is your responsibility and will require you to test at system level to meet the requirements of 89/336. It goes back to the ole CE + CE = ??? Regards, Mark Schmidt _ From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Mark Gandler Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 8:45 PM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: EMC Directive requirements for LINEAR power adapter Group, I am not sure how I ended up caring so much for power adapters recently, but they just will not go away. Would you consider linear power adapter : 240V to 12V/1.5A consists of the transformer, bridge rectifier and capacitor to be EM active device? If it is not active, will it be safe to assume what it will be excluded from 89/336 directive based on EU guidelines? See http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/electr_equipment/emc/guides/chapfive.htm Thanks, Mark Gandler _ Watch http://g.msn.com/8HMBENUS/2746??PS=47575 free concerts with Pink, Rod Stewart, Oasis and more. Visit MSN Presents today. __ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email __ - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
Re: IP testing per EN60529
In message p06240812c226d8d0cad0@[192.168.1.60], dated Wed, 21 Mar 2007, Nick Williams nick.willi...@conformance.co.uk writes: It is wrong to think of the results of testing to EN 60529 in terms of 'pass' or 'fail'. It is there to assign a code number to a given enclosure and whether this is adequate for the intended application is (in most cases) the subject of other standards. Indeed. Part of the confusion is down to the European Commission, in notifying EN 60529 under the LVD as if it were a safety standard. It isn't: it's a classification standard. -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk There are benefits from being irrational - just ask the square root of 2. John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc __ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email __
Re: IP testing per EN60529
I agree with Ted that you are correct, Jim. The IP code is widely misunderstood as being the same as a pass/fail requirement in one of the product safety standards. In fact it is not, it is standardised method of making measurements of the performance of a product with regard to ingress protection, and whether or not a product is acceptable for any given application is not the purpose of the code. It is wrong to think of the results of testing to EN 60529 in terms of 'pass' or 'fail'. It is there to assign a code number to a given enclosure and whether this is adequate for the intended application is (in most cases) the subject of other standards. Nick. At 07:24 -0500 21/3/07, ted.eck...@apcc.com wrote: Your understanding is correct. It doesn't matter whether the probe reaches the stop before hitting anything. If the probe tip enters the enclosure, the enclosure fails the test. - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc __ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email __
Re: IP testing per EN60529
Your understanding is correct. It doesn't matter whether the probe reaches the stop before hitting anything. If the probe tip enters the enclosure, the enclosure fails the test. IEC 529 IP ratings, and NEMA enclosure ratings, are intended determine the level of protection from environmental contamination. The pass/fail criteria for IP2X, 3X and 4X are whether the probe can enter any distance into the enclosure. The test is to determine is environmental contaminants can enter the enclosure, get into the electronics or mechanics and cause the product to fail. It is not necessarily related to human safety. For example, if the equipment has a rating of IP32, no object greater than 2.5 mm can enter the enclosure. It doesn't matter if the electronics are two meters from a grill with 3 mm holes. That would still fail the IP32 requirement. Contaminants between 2.5 mm and 3 mm could enter the enclosure and work their way to the sensitive parts, causing a failure. As a side note, even I get a little careless with the nomenclature. There is a NEMA enclosure rating of 4X which roughly correlates to an IEC 529 rating of IP66 - IP68. There is a rough correlation between NEMA/UL enclosure ratings and the IEC classification, but it is not exact. The test criteria are different. Ted Eckert American Power Conversion/MGE http://www.apc.com/ The items contained in this e-mail reflect the personal opinions of the writer and are only provided for the assistance of the reader. The writer is not speaking in an official capacity for APC, MGE or Schneider Electric. The speaker does not represent APC's, MGE's or Schneider Electric's official position on any matter. Jim Eichner Jim.eichner@Xant rex.com To Sent by: emc-p...@ieee.org emc-p...@ieee.org cc Subject 03/20/2007 07:07 IP testing per EN60529 PM This has to do with the IP 3X, and 4X ratings and tests. The testing is by way of 2.5mm rod or 1.0mm wire probes, which seems quite straight forward at first. But the probes are not meant to be used the way I'm used to. It's not about whether they can touch anything, it's about whether they can enter at all. This is pretty clear in the text and tables giving pass pass/fail criteria, and is made really obvious if you read the note under 13.3. That note says that for IP3X and 4X the requirements are meant to prevent spherical objects of 2.5mm or 1.0mm diameter that are capable of motion from entering the enclosure. So basically an indirect or tortuous entry path doesn't do the job and you have to limit the size of an opening somewhere along the path to less than the diameter of the probe. It's easy to get misled on that point, for a variety of reasons: - the probes have a defined length and a stop, neither of which comes into play with the shall not enter criteria, but their presence suggest the more typical ok to enter but not to touch hazardous parts criteria - some of the examples in Annex A can easily be misinterpreted - safety compliance people are used to criteria that allows the probe to enter but not touch things - the standard touches on pass/fail in several places and the additional letters and first numeral have requirements that overlap but are different I have seen products on the market and results from certification bodies that make it clear this is being misinterpreted. People are assuming it's ok for the probe to enter as long as adequate clearance is maintained to live parts, whirling blades, etc, when in fact it is not acceptable for the IP3X and 4X probes to enter the enclosure. So given what I am seeing as widespread mis-interpretation my question is, am I wrong? Are the labs and other products on the market right, and I'm misinterpreting the requirements? Thanks, Jim Eichner, P.Eng. Manager - Compliance Engineering Xantrex Technology Inc. e-mail: jim.eich...@xantrex.com web: www.xantrex.com Confidentiality Notice: This email message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended
Re: Reference bandwidth and measurement bandwidth.
In message 860315.37819...@web36112.mail.mud.yahoo.com, dated Wed, 21 Mar 2007, Daniel Liang daniel_liang_...@yahoo.com writes: Does anyone know about the what is the difference between reference bandwidth and measurement bandwidth for a transmitter spectrum mask measurement by a spectrum analyzer ? I read the standard which mentioned the reference bandwidth referred to CISPR 16-1 but I cannot find it. CISPR 16-1 has been split up into sections. The definition is there somewhere. For broadband emissions, it's obvious that any limit value has to be associated with a specified bandwidth, because the measured level increases as the bandwidth increases. So 'reference bandwidths' (for different frequency ranges) are specified in CISPR 16-1-1: 9kHz to 150 kHz - 200Hz 150 kHz to 30 MHz - 9 kHz 30 MHz to 1 GHz - 120 kHz Above 1 GHz - 1 MHz The 'measurement bandwidth' is the bandwidth you actually use for the measurement. Usually, it's the same as the reference bandwidth, but in the case you cite, and some others, you have to use a different bandwidth to get a meaningful result. -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk There are benefits from being irrational - just ask the square root of 2. John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc __ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email __
Reference bandwidth and measurement bandwidth.
Dear all experts, Does anyone know about the what is the difference between reference bandwidth and measurement bandwidth for a transmitter spectrum mask measurement by a spectrum analyzer ? I read the standard which mentioned the reference bandwidth referred to CISPR 16-1 but I cannot find it. Below is the description from the standard. Regards, Daniel Liang Annex C (informative): Determination and use of the measurement bandwidth CISPR 16-1 [3] specifies a reference bandwidth for the measurement of unwanted emissions by measurement receivers and spectrum analysers. The reference bandwidth (BWREFERENCE) cannot always be used as the measurement bandwidth (BWMEASUREMENT). This is particularly the case if the measurement is to be made for example on the slope of a spectrum mask or a receiver selectivity curve. In such situations the measurement shall be made with a sufficiently low bandwidth in order not to distort the reading. The actual measured value, A, shall be referred back to the reference bandwidth by either: Correcting the measured value, A, for any signal having a flat level spectrum with the following formula: B= A + 10* log ( REFERENCE BW / MEASURED BW) Where: - B is the measured level, A, transferred to the reference bandwidth; or - Use the measured value, A, directly if the measured spectrum is a discrete spectral line. A discrete spectrum line is defined as a narrow peak with a level of at least 6 dB above the average level inside the measurement bandwidth. http://cn.mail.yahoo.com/?id=77072 _ Do You Yahoo!? 捇誥轎煤G蚘眊ㄜ笢弊菴珨橈拸嶼僵蚘璃玊閉湮蚘眊 http://cn.mail.yahoo.com/?id=77071 - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc __ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email __
Re: EMC Directive requirements for LINEAR power adapter
In message 90511c6e9d0a89419745854eace4c7a8036b5...@whl46.e2v.com, dated Wed, 21 Mar 2007, Barker, Neil neil.bar...@e2v.com writes: As a technicality, forget 89/336/EC. It was repealed and replaced by 2004/108/EC. Not yet, but on 20 July 2007 (for some purposes) and 20 July 2009 (for everything else). -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk There are benefits from being irrational - just ask the square root of 2. John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc __ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email __
RE: EMC Directive requirements for LINEAR power adapter
Mark, The switching spikes of a full wave bridge / capacitor arrangement can be found to extend above 1GHz if the design is poor. In no way is it a passive device! Regards Tim 6239 desk A1S77 P Please consider the environment before printing this email. From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Mark Gandler Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 12:45 AM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: EMC Directive requirements for LINEAR power adapter *** WARNING *** This mail has originated outside your organization, either from an external partner or the Global Internet. Keep this in mind if you answer this message. SELEX Sensors and Airborne Systems Limited Registered Office: Sigma House, Christopher Martin Road, Basildon, Essex SS14 3EL A company registered in England Wales. Company no. 02426132 This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender. You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or distribute its contents to any other person. - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc __ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email __
RE: EMC Directive requirements for LINEAR power adapter
Mark, I would say not. Your adapter includes diodes, which are a form of switching device and will cause interference of some description to an extent that depends on the speed of the diodes. An EM passive device would be something like a filament lamp or an electric heater (providing it doesn't have a thermostat); i.e. items that draw a constant current at supply frequency. You are fortunate that you are considering a low power device, otherwise you would definitely be having to consider harmonic emissions; a simple rectifier/capacitor configuration generates those very well. As a technicality, forget 89/336/EC. It was repealed and replaced by 2004/108/EC. Best regards Neil R. Barker CEng MIET FSEE MIEEE Manager Quality Engineering e2v technologies (uk) ltd 106 Waterhouse Lane Chelmsford Essex CM1 2QU UK Tel: (+44) 1245 453616 Fax: (+44) 1245 453571 Mob: (+44) 7801 723735 P Please consider the environment before printing this email. From: Mark Gandler [mailto:markgand...@hotmail.com] Sent: 21 March 2007 00:45 To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: EMC Directive requirements for LINEAR power adapter Group, I am not sure how I ended up caring so much for power adapters recently, but they just will not go away. Would you consider linear power adapter : 240V to 12V/1.5A consists of the transformer, bridge rectifier and capacitor to be EM active device? If it is not active, will it be safe to assume what it will be excluded from 89/336 directive based on EU guidelines? See http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/electr_equipment/emc/guides/chapfive.htm Thanks, Mark Gandler __ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email __ Sent by E2V TECHNOLOGIES PLC or a member of the E2V group of companies. A company registered in England and Wales. Company number: 04439718. Registered address: 106 Waterhouse Lane, Chelmsford, Essex, CM1 2QU, UK. - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
Re: EMC Directive requirements for LINEAR power adapter
In message bay142-f29fcc5f0e9f0e511886e27ad...@phx.gbl, dated Tue, 20 Mar 2007, Mark Gandler markgand...@hotmail.com writes: Would you consider linear power adapter : 240V to 12V/1.5A consists of the transformer, bridge rectifier and capacitor to be EM active device? If it is not active, will it be safe to assume what it will be excluded from 89/336 directive based on EU guidelines? No, because it emits mains harmonic currents and, depending on the type of diode in the rectifier, perhaps emits conducted noise above 150 kHz. However, it's certain that its mains harmonic emissions are subject to no limits according to IEC/EN 61000-3-2 (lower bound for the application of limits is 75 W active input power), and 99.99% certain that it meets the limits for conducted emissions above 150 kHz. So, although it's not *excluded*, it can safely be claimed to meet the essential requirements of the EMC Directive without testing. Note that 89/336 is the old Directive, to be superseded for some purposes on 20 July this year and wholly on 20 July 2009 by the new Directive. -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk There are benefits from being irrational - just ask the square root of 2. John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc __ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email __
EMC Directive requirements for LINEAR power adapter
Group, I am not sure how I ended up caring so much for power adapters recently, but they just will not go away. Would you consider linear power adapter : 240V to 12V/1.5A consists of the transformer, bridge rectifier and capacitor to be EM active device? If it is not active, will it be safe to assume what it will be excluded from 89/336 directive based on EU guidelines? See http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/electr_equipment/emc/guides/chapfive.htm Thanks, Mark Gandler _ Watch free concerts with Pink, Rod Stewart, Oasis and more. Visit MSN Presents today. http://g.msn.com/8HMBENUS/2746??PS=47575 __ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email __ - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
IP testing per EN60529
This has to do with the IP 3X, and 4X ratings and tests. The testing is by way of 2.5mm rod or 1.0mm wire probes, which seems quite straight forward at first. But the probes are not meant to be used the way I'm used to. It's not about whether they can touch anything, it's about whether they can enter at all. This is pretty clear in the text and tables giving pass pass/fail criteria, and is made really obvious if you read the note under 13.3. That note says that for IP3X and 4X the requirements are meant to prevent spherical objects of 2.5mm or 1.0mm diameter that are capable of motion from entering the enclosure. So basically an indirect or tortuous entry path doesn't do the job and you have to limit the size of an opening somewhere along the path to less than the diameter of the probe. It's easy to get misled on that point, for a variety of reasons: - the probes have a defined length and a stop, neither of which comes into play with the shall not enter criteria, but their presence suggest the more typical ok to enter but not to touch hazardous parts criteria - some of the examples in Annex A can easily be misinterpreted - safety compliance people are used to criteria that allows the probe to enter but not touch things - the standard touches on pass/fail in several places and the additional letters and first numeral have requirements that overlap but are different I have seen products on the market and results from certification bodies that make it clear this is being misinterpreted. People are assuming it's ok for the probe to enter as long as adequate clearance is maintained to live parts, whirling blades, etc, when in fact it is not acceptable for the IP3X and 4X probes to enter the enclosure. So given what I am seeing as widespread mis-interpretation my question is, am I wrong? Are the labs and other products on the market right, and I'm misinterpreting the requirements? Thanks, Jim Eichner, P.Eng. Manager - Compliance Engineering Xantrex Technology Inc. e-mail: jim.eich...@xantrex.com web: www.xantrex.com Confidentiality Notice: This email message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc __ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email __
RE: Energy Efficiency for Europe
John, The home page for EU End-use energy efficiency is here: http://re.jrc.ec.europa.eu/energyefficiency/index.htm and the EU Stand-by Initiative is here: http://re.jrc.ec.europa.eu/energyefficiency/index.htm EU Code of Conduct on Efficiency of External Power Supplies: http://re.jrc.ec.europa.eu/energyefficiency/index.htm Participating power supply manufacturers: http://re.jrc.ec.europa.eu/energyefficiency/html/s_b-ParticipantsCoC.htm have signed a voluntary code of conduct: http://re.jrc.ec.europa.eu/energyeffici ncy/pdf/Workshop_Nov.2004/PS%20meeting/ ode%20of%20Conduct%20for%20PS%20Version%202%2024%20November%202004.pdf In the audio/video area, EACEM (now EICTA) in 2000 executed a voluntary agreement to limit standby consumption. Their page on Sustainable Energy Europe is here: http://eicta.ntc.be/index.php?id=169 I will send you the document offline, as I can’t find a current weblink for it. Best regards, David David K. Bell Senior Compliance Engineer Boston Acoustics Inc. 300 Jubilee Drive Peabody, MA 01960-4030 Tel: 978-538-5177 Fax: 978-538-6226 Email: mailto:db...@bostona.com db...@bostona.com _ From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Tyra, John Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 5:06 PM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Energy Efficiency for Europe Hello everyone, With the current requirements in place for California and phased regulations coming into affect in Australia can anyone tell me or point to a website which tracks the European Union efforts in Energy Efficiency regulations?? Any information is appreciated Regards, John Tyra Manager Product Safety Bose Corporation The Mountain, MS-450 Framingham, MA 01701-9168 Phone: 508-766-1502 Fax: 508-766-1145 __ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email __ - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
Re: Energy Efficiency for Europe
In message b11802460b4f4b4e963b51adf2fae08b04c4a...@usmafrexmb02.bose.com, dated Tue, 20 Mar 2007, Tyra, John john_t...@bose.com writes: With the current requirements in place for California and phased regulations coming into affect in Australia can anyone tell me or point to a website which tracks the European Union efforts in Energy Efficiency regulations?? Any information is appreciated A Google search for 'energy efficiency Europe' provided a very large amount of information. -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk There are benefits from being irrational - just ask the square root of 2. John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc __ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email __
Energy Efficiency for Europe
Hello everyone, With the current requirements in place for California and phased regulations coming into affect in Australia can anyone tell me or point to a website which tracks the European Union efforts in Energy Efficiency regulations?? Any information is appreciated Regards, John Tyra Manager Product Safety Bose Corporation The Mountain, MS-450 Framingham, MA 01701-9168 Phone: 508-766-1502 Fax: 508-766-1145 __ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email __ - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
RE: UL 94 class fire retardant materials
Perhaps you meant Yarruup ?? At one time, CSA had published an equivalency table for flame ratings. luck, Brian -Original Message- From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org]On Behalf Of John Woodgate Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 9:32 AM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Re: UL 94 class fire retardant materials In message 460005e6.07b861c6.4e23.3...@mx.google.com, dated Wed, 21 Mar 2007, Scott Xe scott...@gmail.com writes: In the market, lots of UL 94 approved materials are readily available. Is there any way to find out if they meet the requirements of EN 60065/60950/60335 with such components? Ask the manufacturers? But my experience is that once they have UL94, they often don't bother about Yoorup. -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk There are benefits from being irrational - just ask the square root of 2. John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc __ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email __
Re: UL 94 class fire retardant materials
In message 460005e6.07b861c6.4e23.3...@mx.google.com, dated Wed, 21 Mar 2007, Scott Xe scott...@gmail.com writes: In the market, lots of UL 94 approved materials are readily available. Is there any way to find out if they meet the requirements of EN 60065/60950/60335 with such components? Ask the manufacturers? But my experience is that once they have UL94, they often don't bother about Yoorup. -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk There are benefits from being irrational - just ask the square root of 2. John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc __ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email __
Re: UL 94 class fire retardant materials
IEC 60950 references classifications that are basically identical to the UL 94 ratings. IEC 60335 allows you to either go off of the results of the glow wire test of IEC 60695-2-11 or the UL 94 flammability ratings. IEC 60695 includes tests and ratings almost identical to the UL tests of UL 94 and UL 746, but there are some differences. The Glow Wire Test is not the same as UL's Hot Wire Ignition (HWI) test. The results can't easily be correlated. Also, there are differences in the HB ratings. UL has a single rating for HB; either a material passes at a specified thickness or it does not. IEC 60695 has two tests. Materials thinner than 3 mm have a maximum burn rate of 75 mm/minute and they get an HB75 rating. Materials 3 mm or thicker are only allowed to burn at a rate of 40 mm/minute and get an HB40 rating. I regularly specify materials, but I have not done many flammability tests. I will leave it to the experts on this list to amend or correct my information. Ted Eckert American Power Conversion/MGE http://www.apc.com/ The items contained in this e-mail reflect the personal opinions of the writer and are only provided for the assistance of the reader. The writer is not speaking in an official capacity for APC, MGE or Schneider Electric. The speaker does not represent APC's, MGE's or Schneider Electric's official position on any matter. Scott Xe scott.xe@gmail.c omTo Sent by: emc-p...@ieee.org emc-p...@ieee.org cc Subject 03/20/2007 11:03 UL 94 class fire retardant AMmaterials In the market, lots of UL 94 approved materials are readily available. Is there any way to find out if they meet the requirements of EN 60065/60950/60335 with such components? Thanks and regards, Scott - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc __ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email __
RE: UL 94 class fire retardant materials
Ted, The new UL standards have both the HB 75 and HB 40 ratings. From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of ted.eck...@apcc.com Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 9:20 AM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Re: UL 94 class fire retardant materials IEC 60950 references classifications that are basically identical to the UL 94 ratings. IEC 60335 allows you to either go off of the results of the glow wire test of IEC 60695-2-11 or the UL 94 flammability ratings. IEC 60695 includes tests and ratings almost identical to the UL tests of UL 94 and UL 746, but there are some differences. The Glow Wire Test is not the same as UL's Hot Wire Ignition (HWI) test. The results can't easily be correlated. Also, there are differences in the HB ratings. UL has a single rating for HB; either a material passes at a specified thickness or it does not. IEC 60695 has two tests. Materials thinner than 3 mm have a maximum burn rate of 75 mm/minute and they get an HB75 rating. Materials 3 mm or thicker are only allowed to burn at a rate of 40 mm/minute and get an HB40 rating. I regularly specify materials, but I have not done many flammability tests. I will leave it to the experts on this list to amend or correct my information. Ted Eckert American Power Conversion/MGE http://www.apc.com/ The items contained in this e-mail reflect the personal opinions of the writer and are only provided for the assistance of the reader. The writer is not speaking in an official capacity for APC, MGE or Schneider Electric. The speaker does not represent APC's, MGE's or Schneider Electric's official position on any matter. Scott Xe scott.xe@gmail.c om To Sent by: emc-p...@ieee.org emc-p...@ieee.org cc Subject 03/20/2007 11:03 UL 94 class fire retardant AMmaterials In the market, lots of UL 94 approved materials are readily available. Is there any way to find out if they meet the requirements of EN 60065/60950/60335 with such components? Thanks and regards, Scott - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc __ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email __
UL 94 class fire retardant materials
In the market, lots of UL 94 approved materials are readily available. Is there any way to find out if they meet the requirements of EN 60065/60950/60335 with such components? Thanks and regards, Scott - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc __ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email __
RE: Ethernet emission - isolated metallic plate
What is the frequency at which the emissions are maximum? And how long is the cable? Dave Cuthbert Linear Technology NARTE Certified EMC Engineer From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Barker, Neil Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 1:51 AM To: 'kbalasubraman...@scmmicro.co.in'; emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RE: Ethernet emission - isolated metallic plate I am interested in your posting because I am in the middle of my first experience with Ethernet as well, so could very well be interested in your solution. However, I do not think that the effect of the isolated piece of metal is a mystery. Consider what is happening here; your cable is coupling into the plate, both inductively and capacitively, and different potentials will be established at different parts of the plate resulting in currents flowing within the plate. The energy that is circulating in this manner will be absorbed in the plate. I don't expect that it is significant enough to measure the temperature rise in the plate, but that is where it will finally end up. If you had access to one of those scanning measurement tables that are sometimes used for assessing printed wiring board emissions, you could probably plot the currents in the plate. This is similar to the way that a metal box will act as a shield without being grounded; absorption into the metal is retained within the metal by virtue of the impedance mismatch at the surfaces causing reflection within the metal rather than radiated emission from the surface. Best regards Neil R. Barker CEng MIET FSEE MIEEE Manager Quality Engineering e2v technologies (uk) ltd 106 Waterhouse Lane Chelmsford Essex CM1 2QU UK Tel: (+44) 1245 453616 Fax: (+44) 1245 453571 Mob: (+44) 7801 723735 P Please consider the environment before printing this email. From: kbalasubraman...@scmmicro.co.in [mailto:kbalasubraman...@scmmicro.co.in] Sent: 20 March 2007 04:40 To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Ethernet emission - isolated metallic plate Dear Experts, The emission from our ethernet device :- 1. Without the ethernet cable connected to our device the emission is well below the limit line. 2. With the ethernet cable just plugged into our device ethernet port (other end of the cable is left unconnected) emission is above the limits. 3. With the one end of the ethernet cable connected to our device and the other end connected to the laptop computer and 'ping' is continuously active the emission slightly increases. 4. Emission with UTP cable is higher than emission with STP cable. Most interestingly when we place a metallic plate (an MS plate of about 6 inches wide and 2 foot long) on the test table and the ethernet cable is placed on this metal plate, the emission got reduced drastically and now it is well within the limits. The metal plate is not having any connection with ground plane, it is just kept on the wooden test table. How this isolated metal piece is reducing the emission is really a mystery. Sincerely K.Balasubramanian Project Leader - Hardware. Sent by E2V TECHNOLOGIES PLC or a member of the E2V group of companies. A company registered in England and Wales. Company number: 04439718. Registered address: 106 Waterhouse Lane, Chelmsford, Essex, CM1 2QU, UK. - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc __ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email __
RE: over-voltage (installation) category assignments
Permanently-connected equipment is automatically OVIII regardless of how far away from the service entrance? Seems odd to broad-stroke that categorization. How about a duplex outlet located adjacent to the service panel; is that OVII or OVIII? Should connections to roof-mounted PV panels be OVIII or OV IV? One standard assumes OV IV for that type of circuit; but I doubt that's fair. If it is fair, then shouldn't a television antenna connection also be treated as an OV IV circuit. Ralph McDiarmid, AScT Compliance Engineering Group Xantrex Technology Inc. From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Tyra, John Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 7:36 AM To: John Woodgate; emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RE: Electrolytic Capacitors in Primary Circuits Here is what the last OSM decisions I have state for both 60950 and 60065 for caps after a rectifier: Capacitors which are connected after a rectifier in a primary circuit of a switch mode power supply unit need not be separately approved. In a primary circuit before a rectifier there is installation category III for Permanently Connected equipment, therefore class X1 capacitors must be used. In a primary circuit before a rectifier there is installation category II for Pluggable equipment Type A and Pluggable equipment Type B, therefore minimum class X2 capacitors must be used. The use of a mains fuse, a mains filter or a varistor cannot be a method to reduce installation category. Secondary circuits are normally in installation category I when the primary is in installation category II. However, a floating secondary shall be subject to the requirements for primary circuit in table III unless separated from primary circuits by an earthed metal screen. Seems pretty clear to me but, since these are not legal modifications to the standard(s) in questions, it depends on the Agency you are dealing with as to whether they are willing to accept these decisions. I agree it would be better to have the standard amended for clarification or an official interpretation from TC108 but when you are in the middle of an Agency submittal there is not usually time for this so hopefully the Agency in question will consider the OSM decision and change their interpretation favorably... - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc __ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email __
RE: Legal requirements for selling ac/dc power adapter in EU
When on a recent trip to the US I hired a car that had a 115V dashboard-mounted outlet. Not sure if any cars on the EU market offer a similar 230V outlet, but if they do you may also want to look at the Automotive EMC Directive, if you do not want to limit target market. This Directive has some additional tests and a requirement to use the services of a 'Technical Service' for a decision on whether or not the adapter performs an 'immunity related function'. For an ESA (electronic sub-assembly) such as a power adapter the answer should be no. In this case the LVD/EMCD conformity assessment procedures apply but a reference to Automotive EMC Directive and the standards applied should be referenced on the DoC. Brian McAuliffe From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Mark Schmidt Sent: 15 March 2007 13:31 To: Nick Williams; Mark Gandler Cc: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RE: Legal requirements for selling ac/dc power adapter in EU In addition to Nick's input you will soon need to consider Directive 2005/32/EC on the Eco-design Requirements for Energy-using Products (EuPs. Regards, Mark Schmidt From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Nick Williams Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 4:34 AM To: Mark Gandler Cc: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Re: Legal requirements for selling ac/dc power adapter in EU Neil Barker's reply is spot-on, but overlooks one specific aspect which is now also a legal requirement for any such product in the EU - it will also need to comply with the Restriction of Hazardous Substances (RoHS) and WEEE requirements. The WEEE requirements include a specific label. I would also observe that for a voltage adapter sold on its own, parts of EN 61558 may well be the most appropriate standard. As Neil has already said, the choice of standards is dependent on what the unit is used for. You should not automatically assume that EN 60950 is the correct standard just because that's what lots of other people do. Nick. At 22:05 -0600 14/3/07, Mark Gandler wrote: Dear Group, Legally speaking ONLY, is there any other LEGAL requirement, besides CE Mark, to sell power adapter (240AC/12VDC) in EU? Follow-up question: is where any part in LVD, which will require to obtain any type of certification for power adapter, such as TUV/GS Mark? Is where any other directive/standard, besides LVD/EN60950, required for power adapters, in order to get CE? Thanks, Mark Gandler - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc __ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email __
RE: Ethernet emission - isolated metallic plate
Mr. Balasubramanian, Is it 10BaseT or 100BaseTX? Which emissions test is it failing? Radiated? I/O conducted? Ethernet TP is a 100-ohm transmission line. For a valid emissions test, each end of the cable should be terminated at 100 ohms per ANSI/IEEE 802.3n (ISO 8802). Cables radiate if unterminated (there is no transmission line without the termination). Obviously unterminated STP radiates less than unterminated UTP because of the shield. You can plug the other end of the cable into an Ethernet switch. I prefer to test emissions with the SWITCH turned on (to establish a 'link'), but CISPR 22 permits testing with a 'terminated cable', i.e. with SWITCH on or off. David From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of kbalasubraman...@scmmicro.co.in Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 12:40 AM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Ethernet emission - isolated metallic plate Dear Experts, The emission from our ethernet device :- 1. Without the ethernet cable connected to our device the emission is well below the limit line. 2. With the ethernet cable just plugged into our device ethernet port (other end of the cable is left unconnected) emission is above the limits. 3. With the one end of the ethernet cable connected to our device and the other end connected to the laptop computer and 'ping' is continuously active the emission slightly increases. 4. Emission with UTP cable is higher than emission with STP cable. Most interestingly when we place a metallic plate (an MS plate of about 6 inches wide and 2 foot long) on the test table and the ethernet cable is placed on this metal plate, the emission got reduced drastically and now it is well within the limits. The metal plate is not having any connection with ground plane, it is just kept on the wooden test table. How this isolated metal piece is reducing the emission is really a mystery. Sincerely K.Balasubramanian Project Leader - Hardware. - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc __ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email __
Re: Ethernet emission - isolated metallic plate
In message of133fb7be.3bf2ff51-on652572a4.00152301-652572a4.0019b...@scmmicro.co.in , dated Tue, 20 Mar 2007, kbalasubraman...@scmmicro.co.in writes: The emission from our ethernet device :- 1. Without the ethernet cable connected to our device the emission is well below the limit line. 2. With the ethernet cable just plugged into our device ethernet port (other end of the cable is left unconnected) emission is above the limits. 3. With the one end of the ethernet cable connected to our device and the other end connected to the laptop computer and 'ping' is continuously active the emission slightly increases. 4. Emission with UTP cable is higher than emission with STP cable. All this seems quite normal for common-mode emission, where the source of emission is not a very low-impedance source. The shield of the STP probably has more capacitance to the surroundings, acting as 'ground' (strictly, the surrounding form paths back to the other terminal of the emission source; 'ground' is actually irrelevant), which is reducing the common-mode voltage. Most interestingly when we place a metallic plate (an MS plate of about 6 inches wide and 2 foot long) on the test table and the ethernet cable is placed on this metal plate, the emission got reduced drastically and now it is well within the limits. The metal plate is not having any connection with ground plane, it is just kept on the wooden test table. How this isolated metal piece is reducing the emission is really a mystery. The plate increases the capacitance to the surroundings. Putting the three wires to the Ethernet connector inside your device together through a big ferrite bead may cure the problem. -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk There are benefits from being irrational - just ask the square root of 2. John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc __ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email __
RE: Ethernet emission - isolated metallic plate
I am interested in your posting because I am in the middle of my first experience with Ethernet as well, so could very well be interested in your solution. However, I do not think that the effect of the isolated piece of metal is a mystery. Consider what is happening here; your cable is coupling into the plate, both inductively and capacitively, and different potentials will be established at different parts of the plate resulting in currents flowing within the plate. The energy that is circulating in this manner will be absorbed in the plate. I don't expect that it is significant enough to measure the temperature rise in the plate, but that is where it will finally end up. If you had access to one of those scanning measurement tables that are sometimes used for assessing printed wiring board emissions, you could probably plot the currents in the plate. This is similar to the way that a metal box will act as a shield without being grounded; absorption into the metal is retained within the metal by virtue of the impedance mismatch at the surfaces causing reflection within the metal rather than radiated emission from the surface. Best regards Neil R. Barker CEng MIET FSEE MIEEE Manager Quality Engineering e2v technologies (uk) ltd 106 Waterhouse Lane Chelmsford Essex CM1 2QU UK Tel: (+44) 1245 453616 Fax: (+44) 1245 453571 Mob: (+44) 7801 723735 P Please consider the environment before printing this email. From: kbalasubraman...@scmmicro.co.in [mailto:kbalasubraman...@scmmicro.co.in] Sent: 20 March 2007 04:40 To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Ethernet emission - isolated metallic plate Dear Experts, The emission from our ethernet device :- 1. Without the ethernet cable connected to our device the emission is well below the limit line. 2. With the ethernet cable just plugged into our device ethernet port (other end of the cable is left unconnected) emission is above the limits. 3. With the one end of the ethernet cable connected to our device and the other end connected to the laptop computer and 'ping' is continuously active the emission slightly increases. 4. Emission with UTP cable is higher than emission with STP cable. Most interestingly when we place a metallic plate (an MS plate of about 6 inches wide and 2 foot long) on the test table and the ethernet cable is placed on this metal plate, the emission got reduced drastically and now it is well within the limits. The metal plate is not having any connection with ground plane, it is just kept on the wooden test table. How this isolated metal piece is reducing the emission is really a mystery. Sincerely K.Balasubramanian Project Leader - Hardware. Sent by E2V TECHNOLOGIES PLC or a member of the E2V group of companies. A company registered in England and Wales. Company number: 04439718. Registered address: 106 Waterhouse Lane, Chelmsford, Essex, CM1 2QU, UK. - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc __ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email __
Re: Electrolytic Capacitors in Primary Circuits
In message web-141102...@california.com, dated Mon, 19 Mar 2007, Robert A. Macy m...@california.com writes: This question is not meant to sound argumentative, but really is a sincere question. Your other two points are spot on, therefore I assume this point is also. but I did not understand it. What do you mean ...failure of industry to support standards terminology...? IEC has a terminology committee, TC1, which shows how important the founders of IEC rated the subject. But over the last two decades, as the 'old timers' who were members of the supporting Working Groups affiliated to the product committees retired (some well into their eighties) to the Great Plenary Meeting in the Sky, they have not been replaced, in spite of repeated pleas. As a result, many of these WGs have had to be disbanded, and TC1 is thus deprived of a large amount of input from specialists in particular subjects. and what would it take to change that? A miracle? Well, making available people who are allowed to devote enough time to the job, who are good at precise language without being overly pedantic, preferably know English and French (German, Spanish and/or Russian would be bonuses) and, above all, are not assigned the task because they are too unpredictable to be allowed anywhere near product development. -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk There are benefits from being irrational - just ask the square root of 2. John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc __ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email __
Re: Electrolytic Capacitors in Primary Circuits
This question is not meant to sound argumentative, but really is a sincere question. Your other two points are spot on, therefore I assume this point is also. but I did not understand it. What do you mean ...failure of industry to support standards terminology...? and what would it take to change that? Robert On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 16:51:31 + John Woodgate j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk wrote: In message Not by any means, and the time pressure now applied by the top managements of standard bodies, the failure of industry to support standards terminology and editorial work and the increasing number of standards writers who were never taught English properly are combining to make the situation rapidly deteriorate. - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc __ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email __
Re: Electrolytic Capacitors in Primary Circuits
In message be3336be85968d49be01e66d6e365b1e01b5a...@sjc1amfpew01.am.sanm.corp, dated Mon, 19 Mar 2007, Tarver, Peter peter.tar...@sanmina-sci.com writes: We've been on the same page all along, John. My approach to Jody's post has been to look at what the standard says and let any failure of logic or design sense fall out from the readers' thoughts. Indeed. I just wanted to spell it out in all its horror for those not easily convinced! That's the way the standard is written. Having been involved in standards writing as long as you have, I'm sure this isn't the first failure of logic you've seen in the process. Not by any means, and the time pressure now applied by the top managements of standard bodies, the failure of industry to support standards terminology and editorial work and the increasing number of standards writers who were never taught English properly are combining to make the situation rapidly deteriorate. -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk There are benefits from being irrational - just ask the square root of 2. John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc __ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email __
corrigenda to the new machinery directive 2006/42/EC
Hi All, please note the corrigenda to the new machinery directive 2006/42/EC regarding repeal of the old machinery directive 98/37/EC: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/Lex riServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2007:076:0035:0035:EN:PDF Mit freundlichen Grüßen Yours sincerely Dipl.-Ing. Michael Loerzer Managing Director Regulatory Affairs Specialist Fon: +49 30 3229027-50, Direct Call: -51 Fax: +49 30 3229027-59 www.Globalnorm.de Globalnorm GmbH, Sitz der Gesellschaft: Alt-Moabit 94, 10559 Berlin Geschaeftsfuehrer: Dipl.-Ing. Michael Loerzer Amtsgericht Berlin-Charlottenburg HRB 105204 B, USt-ID-Nummer: DE251654448 __ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email __ - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
RE: Electrolytic Capacitors in Primary Circuits
From: don_borow...@selinc.com Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 9:02 AM If the power supply in question has a bridge rectifier connected to the mains of a power system with hot and neutral conductors, neither side of the capacitor on the DC side of the bridge can be connected to earth -- there would be a connection from hot to earth every half-cycle through the bridge rectifier. As stated moments ago in another post, my approach to Jody's post has been to look at what the standard says and let any failure of logic or design sense fall out from the readers' thoughts. Regards, Peter L. Tarver, PE ptar...@ieee.org CONFIDENTIALITY This e-mail message and any attachments thereto, is intended only for use by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail message, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail message, and any attachments thereto, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail message in error, please immediately notify the sender and permanently delete the original and any copies of this email and any prints thereof. ABSENT AN EXPRESS STATEMENT TO THE CONTRARY HEREINABOVE, THIS E-MAIL IS NOT INTENDED AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR A WRITING. Notwithstanding the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act or the applicability of any other law of similar substance and effect, absent an express statement to the contrary hereinabove, this e-mail message its contents, and any attachments hereto are not intended to represent an offer or acceptance to enter into a contract and are not otherwise intended to bind the sender, Sanmina-SCI Corporation (or any of its subsidiaries), or any other person or entity. _ Scanned by Sanmina-SCI eShield ___ _ - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc __ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email __
Re: Electrolytic Capacitors in Primary Circuits
In message be3336be85968d49be01e66d6e365b1e01b5a...@sjc1amfpew01.am.sanm.corp, dated Mon, 19 Mar 2007, Tarver, Peter peter.tar...@sanmina-sci.com writes: If the post-rectifier filter capacitor had one terminal tied to earth, it would need to comply with Y1, Y2 or Y4 requirements, regardless of surges being impedance limited. In that case, it could not be an electrolytic capacitor. A 470 uF 375 V Y-class capacitor would be very large and costly. In THAT case, I don't suppose anyone would ever do it! -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk There are benefits from being irrational - just ask the square root of 2. John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc __ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email __
RE: Electrolytic Capacitors in Primary Circuits
From: John Woodgate Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 1:23 PM Tarver, Peter writes: §1.5.6 looks at X and Y capacitors, and those connected between the primary circuit and earth. The cathode of the electrolytic capacitor might not connect to earth, unless the bottom end of the rectifier is earthed. If it doesn't connect to earth, no exception is needed. I thin a little clarification is necessary. Between the mains conductors and the filter capacitor are, typically, a fuse, a common-mode choke, a rectifier diode or a bridge rectifier and a resistor to limit inrush current. In no case that I can envisage is the filter capacitor connected to both mains conductors. In fact, that would probably cause it to explode. If the post-rectifier filter capacitor had one terminal tied to earth, it would need to comply with Y1, Y2 or Y4 requirements, regardless of surges being impedance limited. In 60950-1, §1.5.6, the term, primary, is used throughout. Mains, is not used. The concept of, direct connection, though not explicitly stated, is found in the use of the term, line conductor. Line conductor, is not defined in 60950-1 (though it's used in more than just §1.5.6) and it may be a failing in the standard to not define that term or to not include the term, direct connection. (Inference of the meaning of line conductor might be taken from §1.2.1.1, but that's not very rigorous.) All that aside, Jody's concern that someone was misreading the requirements in §1.5.6 for the post-rectifier filter capacitor is well founded, unless one side of the capacitor is earthed (I've never seen this in an SMPS, but that doesn't mean someone hasn't designed one that way). I suspect the experience level of the engineer Jody's working with is on the low end of the scale. I have seen post-rectifier primary circuits in SMPSs connected to earth by small disk capacitors that I doubt were Y capacitors and the voltages across them were only a few Volts. Moving further and further away from the ac mains in the primary circuit would limit surges currents to almost negligible levels, but §1.5.6 still requires such capacitors meet Y capacitor requirements. Maybe the SMPS manufacturers should lobby TC108, MT2, to make more than one clarification. Regards, Peter L. Tarver, PE ptar...@ieee.org CONFIDENTIALITY This e-mail message and any attachments thereto, is intended only for use by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail message, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail message, and any attachments thereto, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail message in error, please immediately notify the sender and permanently delete the original and any copies of this email and any prints thereof. ABSENT AN EXPRESS STATEMENT TO THE CONTRARY HEREINABOVE, THIS E-MAIL IS NOT INTENDED AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR A WRITING. Notwithstanding the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act or the applicability of any other law of similar substance and effect, absent an express statement to the contrary hereinabove, this e-mail message its contents, and any attachments hereto are not intended to represent an offer or acceptance to enter into a contract and are not otherwise intended to bind the sender, Sanmina-SCI Corporation (or any of its subsidiaries), or any other person or entity. _ Scanned by Sanmina-SCI eShield ___ _ - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc __ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email __
Re: Electrolytic Capacitors in Primary Circuits
In message b11802460b4f4b4e963b51adf2fae08b04c4a...@usmafrexmb02.bose.com, dated Mon, 19 Mar 2007, Tyra, John john_t...@bose.com writes: Seems pretty clear to me but, since these are not legal modifications to the standard(s) in questions, it depends on the Agency you are dealing with as to whether they are willing to accept these decisions. OSM interpretations are valid in Europe unless, in a particular case, a test house can give valid reason(s) to reject it. And many are adopted by CENELEC as official interpretations by CENELEC TC108. However, this particular interpretation can be a bit misleading insofar as it concentrates on reasoning related to overvoltage (installation categories) rather than to single-fault input current, which is what the agency may have in mind. The agency in question should take into account that every power supply made has an electrolytic capacitor after the rectifier and there are no safety-related 'approvals' for these capacitors when subjected to alternating supply. -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk There are benefits from being irrational - just ask the square root of 2. John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc __ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email __
RE: Electrolytic Capacitors in Primary Circuits
Here is what the last OSM decisions I have state for both 60950 and 60065 for caps after a rectifier: Capacitors which are connected after a rectifier in a primary circuit of a switch mode power supply unit need not be separately approved. In a primary circuit before a rectifier there is installation category III for Permanently Connected equipment, therefore class X1 capacitors must be used. In a primary circuit before a rectifier there is installation category II for Pluggable equipment Type A and Pluggable equipment Type B, therefore minimum class X2 capacitors must be used. The use of a mains fuse, a mains filter or a varistor cannot be a method to reduce installation category. Secondary circuits are normally in installation category I when the primary is in installation category II. However, a floating secondary shall be subject to the requirements for primary circuit in table III unless separated from primary circuits by an earthed metal screen. Seems pretty clear to me but, since these are not legal modifications to the standard(s) in questions, it depends on the Agency you are dealing with as to whether they are willing to accept these decisions. I agree it would be better to have the standard amended for clarification or an official interpretation from TC108 but when you are in the middle of an Agency submittal there is not usually time for this so hopefully the Agency in question will consider the OSM decision and change their interpretation favorably... From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of John Woodgate Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 9:35 AM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Re: Electrolytic Capacitors in Primary Circuits In message b11802460b4f4b4e963b51adf2fae08b04c4a...@usmafrexmb02.bose.com, dated Mon, 19 Mar 2007, Tyra, John john_t...@bose.com writes: I have a copy of the CENELEC Committee OSM decisions for the IEC60065 standard 6th/ 7th editions where the various CENELEC member Agencies agreed that capacitors after a bridge rectifier in a SMPS do not need to be approved. This would be in clause 14.2. I have a meeting in a few minutes but will e-mail you a copy after the meeting. Even so, I think that this matter is formally unclear in the context of IEC/EN 60950 and action is needed to either amend the standard or have an official interpretation issued by IEC TC108, not CENELEC. -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk There are benefits from being irrational - just ask the square root of 2. John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc __ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email __
Re: Electrolytic Capacitors in Primary Circuits
In message b11802460b4f4b4e963b51adf2fae08b04c4a...@usmafrexmb02.bose.com, dated Mon, 19 Mar 2007, Tyra, John john_t...@bose.com writes: I have a copy of the CENELEC Committee OSM decisions for the IEC60065 standard 6th/ 7th editions where the various CENELEC member Agencies agreed that capacitors after a bridge rectifier in a SMPS do not need to be approved. This would be in clause 14.2. I have a meeting in a few minutes but will e-mail you a copy after the meeting. Even so, I think that this matter is formally unclear in the context of IEC/EN 60950 and action is needed to either amend the standard or have an official interpretation issued by IEC TC108, not CENELEC. -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk There are benefits from being irrational - just ask the square root of 2. John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc __ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email __
Re: Electrolytic Capacitors in Primary Circuits
In message 768ee6ab7d56d54bb5000ec2dd113e71016be...@de01exm61.ds.mot.com, dated Mon, 19 Mar 2007, Leber Jody-G19980 jody.le...@motorola.com writes: I am having trouble convincing an agency that the other side of the rectifier is not between line conductors. Are you or is anyone else on the list aware of any actual documents that state this more explicitly, provided everyone else agrees with this analysis. Look at definition 1.2.8.3. Unfortunately, IEC 60950-1 doesn't define 'directly connected', but the examples indicate what is meant. IEC 60065 does define 'directly connected', in 2.4.3. -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk There are benefits from being irrational - just ask the square root of 2. John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc __ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email __
RE: Electrolytic Capacitors in Primary Circuits
Hello Jody,
I have a copy of the CENELEC Committee OSM decisions for the IEC60065
standard 6th/ 7th editions where the various CENELEC member Agencies
agreed that capacitors after a bridge rectifier in a SMPS do not need to
be approved. This would be in clause 14.2. I have a meeting in a few
minutes but will e-mail you a copy after the meeting.
Regards,
John
From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Leber
Jody-G19980
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 8:48 AM
To: pat.law...@slpower.com
Cc: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: RE: Electrolytic Capacitors in Primary Circuits
Pat,
I am having trouble convincing an agency that the other side of the
rectifier is not between line conductors. Are you or is anyone else
on the list aware of any actual documents that state this more
explicitly, provided everyone else agrees with this analysis.
Jody
From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of
pat.law...@slpower.com
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 4:29 PM
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: Re: Electrolytic Capacitors in Primary Circuits
Hi Jody:
UL 60950-1 1st Ed., clause 1.5.6 ('Capacitors in primary circuits')
says:
'A capacitor connected between two line conductors of the PRIMARY
CIRCUIT, or between one line conductor and the neutral conductor, shall
comply with IEC 60384-14:1993, subclass X1 or X2.'
The electrolytic capacitor you mentioned is connected between the
rectifier '+' and '-', not between line conductors.
I always though it interesting that a 0.1uF film cap connected across
the line conductors going into a rectifier had to be safety-rated. But
if you move it to the output side of the rectifier, there's no safety
rating required.
Pat Lawler
SL Power Electronics Corp.
emc-p...@ieee.org wrote on 03/16/2007 11:38:25 AM:
The electrolytic capacitor that sits between the rectifier and
transformer in SMPS is typically not an agency approved component.
Where is this exemption documented in 60950-1, Clause 1.5.6?
Best Regards,
Jody Leber
Senior Regulatory Engineer
jody.le...@motorola.com http://www.motorola.com/producttesting
Motorola Product Testing Services
1700 Belle Meade Court
Lawrenceville, GA 30043
770.338.3581 P
404.387.1224 C
847.761.3145 F
-
This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society
emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org
Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org
For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org
David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
-
This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society
emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org
Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org
For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org
David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
-
This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society
emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org
Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org
For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org
David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
-
This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society
emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org
Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org
For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org
RE: Electrolytic Capacitors in Primary Circuits
Pat,
I am having trouble convincing an agency that the other side of the
rectifier is not between line conductors. Are you or is anyone else
on the list aware of any actual documents that state this more
explicitly, provided everyone else agrees with this analysis.
Jody
From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of
pat.law...@slpower.com
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 4:29 PM
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: Re: Electrolytic Capacitors in Primary Circuits
Hi Jody:
UL 60950-1 1st Ed., clause 1.5.6 ('Capacitors in primary circuits')
says:
'A capacitor connected between two line conductors of the PRIMARY
CIRCUIT, or between one line conductor and the neutral conductor, shall
comply with IEC 60384-14:1993, subclass X1 or X2.'
The electrolytic capacitor you mentioned is connected between the
rectifier '+' and '-', not between line conductors.
I always though it interesting that a 0.1uF film cap connected across
the line conductors going into a rectifier had to be safety-rated. But
if you move it to the output side of the rectifier, there's no safety
rating required.
Pat Lawler
SL Power Electronics Corp.
emc-p...@ieee.org wrote on 03/16/2007 11:38:25 AM:
The electrolytic capacitor that sits between the rectifier and
transformer in SMPS is typically not an agency approved component.
Where is this exemption documented in 60950-1, Clause 1.5.6?
Best Regards,
Jody Leber
Senior Regulatory Engineer
jody.le...@motorola.com
http://www.motorola.com/producttesting
Motorola Product Testing Services
1700 Belle Meade Court
Lawrenceville, GA 30043
770.338.3581 P
404.387.1224 C
847.761.3145 F
-
This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society
emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org
Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org
For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org
David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
-
This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society
emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org
Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org
For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org
David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
-
This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society
emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org
Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org
For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org
David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
__
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email
__
Re: Electrolytic Capacitors in Primary Circuits
A few clarifications: 1. I will agree with Ted that many diode packages will fuse (sometimes explosively... I once had a diode embed itself in my safety glasses) but always as a secondary failure. In other words the diode shorted first and started passing AC. Then the electrolytic looked like a short and then things start popping. 2. In any switching power circuit the EMI filter will be the controlling current limiter. The inductance in the filter reacts to the leading edge of any surge, limiting current and in many cases opening up before the fuse, or any other component, can react. Fred Townsend DC to Light ted.eck...@apcc.com wrote: In regard to Fred Townsend's comment: I am aware that diodes will normally fail shorted. However, even in this state, they provide some current limiting. The internal construction can only pass a given amount of current before the diode will open. I have, however, seen a few poorly designed circuits where there was no fuse on the input. The available fault current was high enough that after the diode shorted out from the overcurrent, it suffered from thermal damage and became an open circuit. Even when the diode fails shorted, there is some resistance as noted which will provide at least some current limiting. In regards to Robert Johnson's comments: I work in an industry where we have numerous field wired ITE products. I have products that are on a 50 A branch circuit. The available fault current can be very high. The selection of fuse for the switch-mode power supply is critical. Even with a common mode choke providing some protection, I have seen fault currents over 200 A when there is a component short after the diode bridge. Some of the small, circuit board mounted fuses have an AIC rating of only 50 A and they do not fail gracefully under worse conditions. I agree that most ITE will not be exposed to high fault currents, but this is not always the case. Ted Eckert American Power Conversion/MGE http://www.apc.com/ The items contained in this e-mail reflect the personal opinions of the writer and are only provided for the assistance of the reader. The writer is not speaking in an official capacity for APC, MGE or Schneider Electric. The speaker does not represent APC's, MGE's or Schneider Electric's official position on any matter. Fred Townsend mailto:f...@dctolight.net fred@dctolight.n etTo Sent by: ted.eck...@apcc.com emc-p...@ieee.org cc emc-p...@ieee.org Subject 03/17/2007 01:55 Re: Electrolytic Capacitors in AMPrimary Circuits See comments below. ted.eck...@apcc.com wrote: I have to agree with Mr. Woodgate that the components between the capacitor and the AC mains make a difference. The available fault current on the AC mains can be very high. It may be 1 kA, 10 kA or even more. A component failure due to a short circuit can be very dramatic. The rectifier alone will likely limit the fault current. If nothing else, the diodes will act as fuses. You could design a rectifier circuit that would allow a high fault current, but you would have to set out to do so and you would spend a lot of money in the process. Ted: I have seen literally thousands of diode failures, mostly from lightning damage. I have never seen a silicon power diode fuse (open). They always fail shorted at about two ohms. When they fail the surge limiting resistor becomes very important. That's where they sometimes use 'fusible resistors'. Shorted diodes often cause secondary failures instead of protecting anything. Fred Townsend DC to Light Besides, proper abnormal condition testing will involve simulating a short circuit on the electrolytic capacitor. The purpose of the test is to verify that the system fails gracefully when
Re: Electrolytic Capacitors in Primary Circuits
In regard to Fred Townsend's comment: I am aware that diodes will normally fail shorted. However, even in this state, they provide some current limiting. The internal construction can only pass a given amount of current before the diode will open. I have, however, seen a few poorly designed circuits where there was no fuse on the input. The available fault current was high enough that after the diode shorted out from the overcurrent, it suffered from thermal damage and became an open circuit. Even when the diode fails shorted, there is some resistance as noted which will provide at least some current limiting. In regards to Robert Johnson's comments: I work in an industry where we have numerous field wired ITE products. I have products that are on a 50 A branch circuit. The available fault current can be very high. The selection of fuse for the switch-mode power supply is critical. Even with a common mode choke providing some protection, I have seen fault currents over 200 A when there is a component short after the diode bridge. Some of the small, circuit board mounted fuses have an AIC rating of only 50 A and they do not fail gracefully under worse conditions. I agree that most ITE will not be exposed to high fault currents, but this is not always the case. Ted Eckert American Power Conversion/MGE http://www.apc.com/ The items contained in this e-mail reflect the personal opinions of the writer and are only provided for the assistance of the reader. The writer is not speaking in an official capacity for APC, MGE or Schneider Electric. The speaker does not represent APC's, MGE's or Schneider Electric's official position on any matter. Fred Townsend fred@dctolight.n etTo Sent by: ted.eck...@apcc.com emc-p...@ieee.org cc emc-p...@ieee.org Subject 03/17/2007 01:55 Re: Electrolytic Capacitors in AMPrimary Circuits See comments below. ted.eck...@apcc.com wrote: I have to agree with Mr. Woodgate that the components between the capacitor and the AC mains make a difference. The available fault current on the AC mains can be very high. It may be 1 kA, 10 kA or even more. A component failure due to a short circuit can be very dramatic. The rectifier alone will likely limit the fault current. If nothing else, the diodes will act as fuses. You could design a rectifier circuit that would allow a high fault current, but you would have to set out to do so and you would spend a lot of money in the process. Ted: I have seen literally thousands of diode failures, mostly from lightning damage. I have never seen a silicon power diode fuse (open). They always fail shorted at about two ohms. When they fail the surge limiting resistor becomes very important. That's where they sometimes use 'fusible resistors'. Shorted diodes often cause secondary failures instead of protecting anything. Fred Townsend DC to Light Besides, proper abnormal condition testing will involve simulating a short circuit on the electrolytic capacitor. The purpose of the test is to verify that the system fails gracefully when the capacitor shorts out. You can't easily do this test on a capacitor directly across the line. The results of shorting out the X-capacitor are heavily dependent on the supply circuit. Ted Eckert American Power Conversion/MGE http://www.apc.com/ The items contained in this e-mail reflect the personal opinions of the writer and are only provided for the assistance of the reader. The writer is not speaking in an official capacity for APC, MGE or Schneider Electric. The speaker does not represent APC's, MGE's or Schneider Electric's official position on any matter. John Woodgate jmw@jmwa.demon.c o.uk
Re: Electrolytic Capacitors in Primary Circuits
The most dependable limiting factor in short circuit currents is usually the power cord. A six foot 16 AWG cord on a 120 volt source will only allow 2500 amps and most branch circuit impedances will lower that further to 1000 amps. Not that these are small numbers. They can cause a lot of damage, but they are nowhere near the 10 kA the branch circuit breakers are expected to limit to. Bob Johnson ITE Safety http://www.itesafety.com ted.eck...@apcc.com wrote: I have to agree with Mr. Woodgate that the components between the capacitor and the AC mains make a difference. The available fault current on the AC mains can be very high. It may be 1 kA, 10 kA or even more. A component failure due to a short circuit can be very dramatic. The rectifier alone will likely limit the fault current. If nothing else, the diodes will act as fuses. You could design a rectifier circuit that would allow a high fault current, but you would have to set out to do so and you would spend a lot of money in the process. Besides, proper abnormal condition testing will involve simulating a short circuit on the electrolytic capacitor. The purpose of the test is to verify that the system fails gracefully when the capacitor shorts out. You can't easily do this test on a capacitor directly across the line. The results of shorting out the X-capacitor are heavily dependent on the supply circuit. Ted Eckert American Power Conversion/MGE http://www.apc.com/ The items contained in this e-mail reflect the personal opinions of the writer and are only provided for the assistance of the reader. The writer is not speaking in an official capacity for APC, MGE or Schneider Electric. The speaker does not represent APC's, MGE's or Schneider Electric's official position on any matter. John Woodgate mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk jmw@jmwa.demon.c o.uk To Sent by: emc-p...@ieee.org emc-p...@ieee.org cc Subject 03/16/2007 03:23 Re: Electrolytic Capacitors in PMPrimary Circuits In message mailto:be3336be85968d49be01e66d6e365b1e01b5a...@sjc1amfpew01.am.sanm.corp be3336be85968d49be01e66d6e365b1e01b5a...@sjc1amfpew01.am.sanm.corp, dated Fri, 16 Mar 2007, Tarver, Peter mailto:peter.tar...@sanmina-sci.com peter.tar...@sanmina-sci.com writes: §1.5.6 looks at X and Y capacitors, and those connected between the primary circuit and earth. The cathode of the electrolytic capacitor might not connect to earth, unless the bottom end of the rectifier is earthed. If it doesn't connect to earth, no exception is needed. I thin a little clarification is necessary. Between the mains conductors and the filter capacitor are, typically, a fuse, a common-mode choke, a rectifier diode or a bridge rectifier and a resistor to limit inrush current. In no case that I can envisage is the filter capacitor connected to both mains conductors. In fact, that would probably cause it to explode. -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk There are benefits from being irrational - just ask the square root of 2. John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc - This message is from
Re: Electrolytic Capacitors in Primary Circuits
See comments below. ted.eck...@apcc.com wrote: I have to agree with Mr. Woodgate that the components between the capacitor and the AC mains make a difference. The available fault current on the AC mains can be very high. It may be 1 kA, 10 kA or even more. A component failure due to a short circuit can be very dramatic. The rectifier alone will likely limit the fault current. If nothing else, the diodes will act as fuses. You could design a rectifier circuit that would allow a high fault current, but you would have to set out to do so and you would spend a lot of money in the process. Ted: I have seen literally thousands of diode failures, mostly from lightning damage. I have never seen a silicon power diode fuse (open). They always fail shorted at about two ohms. When they fail the surge limiting resistor becomes very important. That's where they sometimes use 'fusible resistors'. Shorted diodes often cause secondary failures instead of protecting anything. Fred Townsend DC to Light Besides, proper abnormal condition testing will involve simulating a short circuit on the electrolytic capacitor. The purpose of the test is to verify that the system fails gracefully when the capacitor shorts out. You can't easily do this test on a capacitor directly across the line. The results of shorting out the X-capacitor are heavily dependent on the supply circuit. Ted Eckert American Power Conversion/MGE http://www.apc.com/ The items contained in this e-mail reflect the personal opinions of the writer and are only provided for the assistance of the reader. The writer is not speaking in an official capacity for APC, MGE or Schneider Electric. The speaker does not represent APC's, MGE's or Schneider Electric's official position on any matter. John Woodgate mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk jmw@jmwa.demon.c o.uk To Sent by: emc-p...@ieee.org emc-p...@ieee.org cc Subject 03/16/2007 03:23 Re: Electrolytic Capacitors in PMPrimary Circuits In message mailto:be3336be85968d49be01e66d6e365b1e01b5a...@sjc1amfpew01.am.sanm.corp be3336be85968d49be01e66d6e365b1e01b5a...@sjc1amfpew01.am.sanm.corp, dated Fri, 16 Mar 2007, Tarver, Peter mailto:peter.tar...@sanmina-sci.com peter.tar...@sanmina-sci.com writes: §1.5.6 looks at X and Y capacitors, and those connected between the primary circuit and earth. The cathode of the electrolytic capacitor might not connect to earth, unless the bottom end of the rectifier is earthed. If it doesn't connect to earth, no exception is needed. I thin a little clarification is necessary. Between the mains conductors and the filter capacitor are, typically, a fuse, a common-mode choke, a rectifier diode or a bridge rectifier and a resistor to limit inrush current. In no case that I can envisage is the filter capacitor connected to both mains conductors. In fact, that would probably cause it to explode. -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk There are benefits from being irrational - just ask the square root of 2. John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc - This message is from
Re: Electrolytic Capacitors in Primary Circuits
I have to agree with Mr. Woodgate that the components between the capacitor and the AC mains make a difference. The available fault current on the AC mains can be very high. It may be 1 kA, 10 kA or even more. A component failure due to a short circuit can be very dramatic. The rectifier alone will likely limit the fault current. If nothing else, the diodes will act as fuses. You could design a rectifier circuit that would allow a high fault current, but you would have to set out to do so and you would spend a lot of money in the process. Besides, proper abnormal condition testing will involve simulating a short circuit on the electrolytic capacitor. The purpose of the test is to verify that the system fails gracefully when the capacitor shorts out. You can't easily do this test on a capacitor directly across the line. The results of shorting out the X-capacitor are heavily dependent on the supply circuit. Ted Eckert American Power Conversion/MGE http://www.apc.com/ The items contained in this e-mail reflect the personal opinions of the writer and are only provided for the assistance of the reader. The writer is not speaking in an official capacity for APC, MGE or Schneider Electric. The speaker does not represent APC's, MGE's or Schneider Electric's official position on any matter. John Woodgate jmw@jmwa.demon.c o.uk To Sent by: emc-p...@ieee.org emc-p...@ieee.org cc Subject 03/16/2007 03:23 Re: Electrolytic Capacitors in PMPrimary Circuits In message be3336be85968d49be01e66d6e365b1e01b5a...@sjc1amfpew01.am.sanm.corp, dated Fri, 16 Mar 2007, Tarver, Peter peter.tar...@sanmina-sci.com writes: §1.5.6 looks at X and Y capacitors, and those connected between the primary circuit and earth. The cathode of the electrolytic capacitor might not connect to earth, unless the bottom end of the rectifier is earthed. If it doesn't connect to earth, no exception is needed. I thin a little clarification is necessary. Between the mains conductors and the filter capacitor are, typically, a fuse, a common-mode choke, a rectifier diode or a bridge rectifier and a resistor to limit inrush current. In no case that I can envisage is the filter capacitor connected to both mains conductors. In fact, that would probably cause it to explode. -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk There are benefits from being irrational - just ask the square root of 2. John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
Re: Electrolytic Capacitors in Primary Circuits
Hi Jody:
UL 60950-1 1st Ed., clause 1.5.6 ('Capacitors in primary circuits') says:
'A capacitor connected between two line conductors of the PRIMARY CIRCUIT,
or between one line
conductor and the neutral conductor, shall comply with IEC 60384-14:1993,
subclass X1 or X2.'
The electrolytic capacitor you mentioned is connected between the
rectifier '+' and '-', not between line conductors.
I always though it interesting that a 0.1uF film cap connected across the
line conductors going into a rectifier had to be safety-rated. But if you
move it to the output side of the rectifier, there's no safety rating
required.
Pat Lawler
SL Power Electronics Corp.
emc-p...@ieee.org wrote on 03/16/2007 11:38:25 AM:
The electrolytic capacitor that sits between the rectifier and
transformer in SMPS is typically not an agency approved component.
Where is this exemption documented in 60950-1, Clause 1.5.6?
Best Regards,
Jody Leber
Senior Regulatory Engineer
jody.le...@motorola.com
http://www.motorola.com/producttesting
Motorola Product Testing Services
1700 Belle Meade Court
Lawrenceville, GA 30043
770.338.3581 P
404.387.1224 C
847.761.3145 F
-
This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society
emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org
Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org
For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org
David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
-
This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society
emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org
Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org
For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org
David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
__
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email
__
Re: Electrolytic Capacitors in Primary Circuits
In message be3336be85968d49be01e66d6e365b1e01b5a...@sjc1amfpew01.am.sanm.corp, dated Fri, 16 Mar 2007, Tarver, Peter peter.tar...@sanmina-sci.com writes: §1.5.6 looks at X and Y capacitors, and those connected between the primary circuit and earth. The cathode of the electrolytic capacitor might not connect to earth, unless the bottom end of the rectifier is earthed. If it doesn't connect to earth, no exception is needed. I thin a little clarification is necessary. Between the mains conductors and the filter capacitor are, typically, a fuse, a common-mode choke, a rectifier diode or a bridge rectifier and a resistor to limit inrush current. In no case that I can envisage is the filter capacitor connected to both mains conductors. In fact, that would probably cause it to explode. -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk There are benefits from being irrational - just ask the square root of 2. John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc __ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email __
RE: Electrolytic Capacitors in Primary Circuits
From: Jody Leber Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 11:38 AM The electrolytic capacitor that sits between the rectifier and transformer in SMPS is typically not an agency approved component. Where is this exemption documented in 60950-1, Clause 1.5.6? Jody - Sorry about the earlier e-mail. Itchy trigger finger, I guess. §1.5.6 looks at X and Y capacitors, and those connected between the primary circuit and earth. The cathode of the electrolytic capacitor might not connect to earth, unless the bottom end of the rectifier is earthed. If it doesn't connect to earth, no exception is needed. Regards, Peter L. Tarver, PE ptar...@ieee.org CONFIDENTIALITY This e-mail message and any attachments thereto, is intended only for use by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail message, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail message, and any attachments thereto, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail message in error, please immediately notify the sender and permanently delete the original and any copies of this email and any prints thereof. ABSENT AN EXPRESS STATEMENT TO THE CONTRARY HEREINABOVE, THIS E-MAIL IS NOT INTENDED AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR A WRITING. Notwithstanding the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act or the applicability of any other law of similar substance and effect, absent an express statement to the contrary hereinabove, this e-mail message its contents, and any attachments hereto are not intended to represent an offer or acceptance to enter into a contract and are not otherwise intended to bind the sender, Sanmina-SCI Corporation (or any of its subsidiaries), or any other person or entity. _ Scanned by Sanmina-SCI eShield ___ _ - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc __ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email __
RE: Electrolytic Capacitors in Primary Circuits
Pardon me, my response to Jody was sent prematurely. Please disregard it. Peter CONFIDENTIALITY This e-mail message and any attachments thereto, is intended only for use by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail message, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail message, and any attachments thereto, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail message in error, please immediately notify the sender and permanently delete the original and any copies of this email and any prints thereof. ABSENT AN EXPRESS STATEMENT TO THE CONTRARY HEREINABOVE, THIS E-MAIL IS NOT INTENDED AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR A WRITING. Notwithstanding the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act or the applicability of any other law of similar substance and effect, absent an express statement to the contrary hereinabove, this e-mail message its contents, and any attachments hereto are not intended to represent an offer or acceptance to enter into a contract and are not otherwise intended to bind the sender, Sanmina-SCI Corporation (or any of its subsidiaries), or any other person or entity. _ Scanned by Sanmina-SCI eShield ___ _ - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc __ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email __
Looking for an old piece of instrumentation
Does anyone out there have or know of an available Ailtech 446 power oscillator mainframe? I bought a bunch of 190 series plug-ins, thinking they were 180s that were compatible with my Ailtech 445 mainframe, but I was wrong. Thank you! - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc __ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email __
RE: Electrolytic Capacitors in Primary Circuits
From: Leber Jody Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 11:38 AM The electrolytic capacitor that sits between the rectifier and transformer in SMPS is typically not an agency approved component. Where is this exemption documented in 60950-1, Clause 1.5.6? Which requirement were you referring to for which you think an exemption is needed? Regards, Peter L. Tarver, PE ptar...@ieee.org CONFIDENTIALITY This e-mail message and any attachments thereto, is intended only for use by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail message, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail message, and any attachments thereto, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail message in error, please immediately notify the sender and permanently delete the original and any copies of this email and any prints thereof. ABSENT AN EXPRESS STATEMENT TO THE CONTRARY HEREINABOVE, THIS E-MAIL IS NOT INTENDED AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR A WRITING. Notwithstanding the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act or the applicability of any other law of similar substance and effect, absent an express statement to the contrary hereinabove, this e-mail message its contents, and any attachments hereto are not intended to represent an offer or acceptance to enter into a contract and are not otherwise intended to bind the sender, Sanmina-SCI Corporation (or any of its subsidiaries), or any other person or entity. _ Scanned by Sanmina-SCI eShield ___ _ - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc __ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email __
RE: plenum ratings
From: John Woodgate Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 11:40 AM It may well need to maintain its shape as well as not burning. For example, PTFE won't burn, but melts. UL 2043 looks at heat release and smoke developed. Anything that can retain its shape after this testing provides a bonus feature. Regards, Peter L. Tarver, PE ptar...@ieee.org CONFIDENTIALITY This e-mail message and any attachments thereto, is intended only for use by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail message, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail message, and any attachments thereto, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail message in error, please immediately notify the sender and permanently delete the original and any copies of this email and any prints thereof. ABSENT AN EXPRESS STATEMENT TO THE CONTRARY HEREINABOVE, THIS E-MAIL IS NOT INTENDED AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR A WRITING. Notwithstanding the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act or the applicability of any other law of similar substance and effect, absent an express statement to the contrary hereinabove, this e-mail message its contents, and any attachments hereto are not intended to represent an offer or acceptance to enter into a contract and are not otherwise intended to bind the sender, Sanmina-SCI Corporation (or any of its subsidiaries), or any other person or entity. _ Scanned by Sanmina-SCI eShield ___ _ - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc __ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email __
RE: plenum ratings
Pete, To be clear, you are asking about the actual plenum, not an electrical component or wire installed in the plenum. Correct? If so, this would not even be an electrical or telecom question, but a question on the flammability of building construction materials. You would probably find this in catalogues such as UL's red book or Factory Mutual's directory. The same directory that gives you fire door fire ratings. I could be wrong. Regards, Don Gies, N.C.E Senior Product Compliance Engineer Alcatel-Lucent Holmdel, NJ 07733 USA From: Pete Perkins [mailto:peperkin...@cs.com] Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 11:43 AM To: EMC-PSTC@listserv.ieee.org Subject: plenum ratings PSNet, The briefest requests seem to generate the most questions. What do we collectively know about needed ratings for plastic plenums? I believe this is more for electrical than telecomm, but that's not clear yet. Load me up; your comments are appreciated. :) br, Pete Peter E Perkins, PE Principal Product Safety Engineer PO Box 23427 Tigard, ORe 97281-3427 503/452-1201 fone/fax p.perk...@ieee.org - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc __ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email __
Re: plenum ratings
In message daa7e0c23f285e409c808f9d497609ba0176a...@exch2.trpz.com, dated Fri, 16 Mar 2007, Marko Radojicic ma...@trapezenetworks.com writes: It would be great to save money and be compliant. I think I'll do an experiment or two in that direction. It may well need to maintain its shape as well as not burning. For example, PTFE won't burn, but melts. -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk There are benefits from being irrational - just ask the square root of 2. John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc __ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email __
Electrolytic Capacitors in Primary Circuits
The electrolytic capacitor that sits between the rectifier and transformer in SMPS is typically not an agency approved component. Where is this exemption documented in 60950-1, Clause 1.5.6? Best Regards, Jody Leber Senior Regulatory Engineer jody.le...@motorola.com http://www.motorola.com/producttesting Motorola Product Testing Services 1700 Belle Meade Court Lawrenceville, GA 30043 770.338.3581 P 404.387.1224 C 847.761.3145 F - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc __ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email __
RE: plenum ratings
Marko, Intertek Testing Services (Formerly Omega Point Laboratories) in Elmendorf (near San Antonio) Texas is A2LA accredited to UL2043. Best regards, David David K. Bell Senior Compliance Engineer Boston Acoustics Inc. 300 Jubilee Drive Peabody, MA 01960-4030 Tel: 978-538-5177 Fax: 978-538-6226 Email: db...@bostona.com From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Marko Radojicic Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 1:31 PM To: McInturff Gary; Tarver, Peter; emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RE: plenum ratings I'm not sure the correct question is being asked. There are no plastic ratings that allow you to declare your product to be Plenum Rated. The requirement is to pass the UL2043 standard. (UL Schaumburg (sp?) is the only lab that I've found who can perform this test. If your lab also has this capability, please contact me off-line.) This is analogous to the GR-63 fire spread requirements for those working in Telecom. There is a lot of value using the most fire retardant plastics available but that does *not* ensure you will pass the Verizon requirements. I'll share some painful development scars with the group - This is an incredibly difficult test to pass if you have plastic parts. We have found exactly *one* polymer that allows us to pass. Your results may vary based upon your product! Good luck, Marko From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of McInturff Gary Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 9:52 AM To: Tarver, Peter; emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RE: plenum ratings I don't have the NFPA reference at hand, but would it possible if using 94V5? It is intended for use, at least in 90650, is for a fire enclosure embedded into building structure and non-movable. Combustable seems pretty clear - although some metals burn under the right conditions and thicknesses. Gary From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Tarver, Peter Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 9:19 AM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RE: plenum ratings From: Pete Perkins Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 8:43 AM What do we collectively know about needed ratings for plastic plenums? I believe this is more for electrical than telecomm, but that's not clear yet. Pete - Considering that combustible materials are forbidden to be placed in most ducts and plenums in the CEC and US NEC, I would think the likelihood of a plastic plenum being safety certifiable is negligible. Refer to NFPA 70, Section 300.22. Regards, Peter L. Tarver, PE ptar...@ieee.org CONFIDENTIALITY This e-mail message and any attachments thereto, is intended only for use by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail message, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail message, and any attachments thereto, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail message in error, please immediately notify the sender and permanently delete the original and any copies of this email and any prints thereof. ABSENT AN EXPRESS STATEMENT TO THE CONTRARY HEREINABOVE, THIS E-MAIL IS NOT INTENDED AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR A WRITING. Notwithstanding the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act or the applicability of any other law of similar substance and effect, absent an express statement to the contrary hereinabove, this e-mail message its contents, and any attachments hereto are not intended to represent an offer or acceptance to enter into a contract and are not otherwise intended to bind the sender, Sanmina-SCI Corporation (or any of its subsidiaries), or any other person or entity. _ Scanned by Sanmina-SCI eShield _ - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp
Re: plenum ratings
In message be3336be85968d49be01e66d6e365b1e01b5a...@sjc1amfpew01.am.sanm.corp, dated Fri, 16 Mar 2007, Tarver, Peter peter.tar...@sanmina-sci.com writes: OK, four types of ducts and plenums. If it quacts like a duct... (;-) -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk There are benefits from being irrational - just ask the square root of 2. John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc __ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email __
Re: plenum ratings
In message be3336be85968d49be01e66d6e365b1e01b5a...@sjc1amfpew01.am.sanm.corp, dated Fri, 16 Mar 2007, Tarver, Peter peter.tar...@sanmina-sci.com writes: From: John Woodgate Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 10:14 AM McInturff Gary writes: Combustable seems pretty clear - although some metals burn under the right conditions and thicknesses. All bar eight, I think, given enough thermal encouragement. Ag, Au, Ru, Rh, Pd, Os, Ir, Pt. Or with very little encouragement if divided finely enough, as Al, or placement in a highly oxygenated environment (early Apollo mission disasters). The eight I nominated are those that don't burn. I think. -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk There are benefits from being irrational - just ask the square root of 2. John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc __ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email __
RE: plenum ratings
Peter, Very cool idea going in the opposite direction by using lowest flammability plastics! It would be great to save money and be compliant. I think I'll do an experiment or two in that direction. Thanks, Marko From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Tarver, Peter Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 10:44 AM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RE: plenum ratings Hi, Marko. From: Marko Radojicic Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 10:31 AM The requirement is to pass the UL2043 standard. (UL Schaumburg (sp?) is the only lab that I've found who can perform this test. We went to UL's Northbrook office for UL 2043 testing. Schaumburg may be where UL's NBK office hides their burning characteristics test facility. This is analogous to the GR-63 fire spread requirements for those working in Telecom. There is a lot of value using the most fire retardant plastics available but that does *not* ensure you will pass the Verizon requirements. In fact, the smoke developed ratings readily increase with more flame retardant. Similarly, the corrosive nature of the products of combustion are worsened by some flame retardants. I'll share some painful development scars with the group - This is an incredibly difficult test to pass if you have plastic parts. We have found exactly *one* polymer that allows us to pass. We tried several enclosure materials in our UL 2043 foray. Only one passed, it having the lowest flammability classification of the bunch. Regards, Peter L. Tarver, PE ptar...@ieee.org CONFIDENTIALITY This e-mail message and any attachments thereto, is intended only for use by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail message, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail message, and any attachments thereto, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail message in error, please immediately notify the sender and permanently delete the original and any copies of this email and any prints thereof. ABSENT AN EXPRESS STATEMENT TO THE CONTRARY HEREINABOVE, THIS E-MAIL IS NOT INTENDED AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR A WRITING. Notwithstanding the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act or the applicability of any other law of similar substance and effect, absent an express statement to the contrary hereinabove, this e-mail message its contents, and any attachments hereto are not intended to represent an offer or acceptance to enter into a contract and are not otherwise intended to bind the sender, Sanmina-SCI Corporation (or any of its subsidiaries), or any other person or entity. _ Scanned by Sanmina-SCI eShield _ - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc __ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email __
RE: plenum ratings
From: Tarver, Peter Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 10:25 AM NEC §300.22 is clear. It's divided into three types of ducts and plenums. OK, four types of ducts and plenums. Peter CONFIDENTIALITY This e-mail message and any attachments thereto, is intended only for use by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail message, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail message, and any attachments thereto, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail message in error, please immediately notify the sender and permanently delete the original and any copies of this email and any prints thereof. ABSENT AN EXPRESS STATEMENT TO THE CONTRARY HEREINABOVE, THIS E-MAIL IS NOT INTENDED AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR A WRITING. Notwithstanding the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act or the applicability of any other law of similar substance and effect, absent an express statement to the contrary hereinabove, this e-mail message its contents, and any attachments hereto are not intended to represent an offer or acceptance to enter into a contract and are not otherwise intended to bind the sender, Sanmina-SCI Corporation (or any of its subsidiaries), or any other person or entity. _ Scanned by Sanmina-SCI eShield ___ _ - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc __ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email __
RE: plenum ratings
Hi, Marko. From: Marko Radojicic Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 10:31 AM The requirement is to pass the UL2043 standard. (UL Schaumburg (sp?) is the only lab that I've found who can perform this test. We went to UL's Northbrook office for UL 2043 testing. Schaumburg may be where UL's NBK office hides their burning characteristics test facility. This is analogous to the GR-63 fire spread requirements for those working in Telecom. There is a lot of value using the most fire retardant plastics available but that does *not* ensure you will pass the Verizon requirements. In fact, the smoke developed ratings readily increase with more flame retardant. Similarly, the corrosive nature of the products of combustion are worsened by some flame retardants. I'll share some painful development scars with the group - This is an incredibly difficult test to pass if you have plastic parts. We have found exactly *one* polymer that allows us to pass. We tried several enclosure materials in our UL 2043 foray. Only one passed, it having the lowest flammability classification of the bunch. Regards, Peter L. Tarver, PE ptar...@ieee.org CONFIDENTIALITY This e-mail message and any attachments thereto, is intended only for use by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail message, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail message, and any attachments thereto, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail message in error, please immediately notify the sender and permanently delete the original and any copies of this email and any prints thereof. ABSENT AN EXPRESS STATEMENT TO THE CONTRARY HEREINABOVE, THIS E-MAIL IS NOT INTENDED AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR A WRITING. Notwithstanding the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act or the applicability of any other law of similar substance and effect, absent an express statement to the contrary hereinabove, this e-mail message its contents, and any attachments hereto are not intended to represent an offer or acceptance to enter into a contract and are not otherwise intended to bind the sender, Sanmina-SCI Corporation (or any of its subsidiaries), or any other person or entity. _ Scanned by Sanmina-SCI eShield ___ _ - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc __ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email __
RE: plenum ratings
From: John Woodgate Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 10:14 AM McInturff Gary writes: Combustable seems pretty clear - although some metals burn under the right conditions and thicknesses. All bar eight, I think, given enough thermal encouragement. Ag, Au, Ru, Rh, Pd, Os, Ir, Pt. Or with very little encouragement if divided finely enough, as Al, or placement in a highly oxygenated environment (early Apollo mission disasters). Regards, Peter L. Tarver, PE ptar...@ieee.org CONFIDENTIALITY This e-mail message and any attachments thereto, is intended only for use by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail message, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail message, and any attachments thereto, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail message in error, please immediately notify the sender and permanently delete the original and any copies of this email and any prints thereof. ABSENT AN EXPRESS STATEMENT TO THE CONTRARY HEREINABOVE, THIS E-MAIL IS NOT INTENDED AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR A WRITING. Notwithstanding the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act or the applicability of any other law of similar substance and effect, absent an express statement to the contrary hereinabove, this e-mail message its contents, and any attachments hereto are not intended to represent an offer or acceptance to enter into a contract and are not otherwise intended to bind the sender, Sanmina-SCI Corporation (or any of its subsidiaries), or any other person or entity. _ Scanned by Sanmina-SCI eShield ___ _ - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc __ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email __
RE: plenum ratings
Peter, The comment I made earlier dove-tails into 300.22(c) of the NEC. Thanks for looking up the exact references. Cheers, Marko From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Tarver, Peter Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 10:25 AM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RE: plenum ratings Gary - NEC §300.22 is clear. It's divided into three types of ducts and plenums. 300.22(a) covers ducts for dust and wood stock. Absolutely zero electrical items are allowed in these ducts. 300.22(b) covers duct and plenums for environmental air. A limited amount of electrical wiring methods are allowed and all must be inside metal. The only electrical devices allowed are those that directly sense or act on the air (temperature and flow rate transducers, automatic plenum gates, etc.) 300.22(c) covers other spaces for environmental air. These spaces are akin to the spaces above false ceilings that are used as return air ducts. Here is where electrical devices evaluated against UL 2043 can be placed, plenum rated power and signal cables evaluated against UL 910 can be run. 300.22(d) refers the reader to Article 645 for items placed under raised floors in data processing centers. The UL 94 test methods address only small scale properties. Large scale properties are addressed by flame spread and smoke developed testing associated with Steiner tunnel and radiant heat test methods. Regards, Peter L. Tarver, PE ptar...@ieee.org -Original Message- From: McInturff Gary [mailto:gmcintu...@spraycool.com] Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 9:52 AM To: Tarver, Peter; emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RE: plenum ratings I don't have the NFPA reference at hand, but would it possible if using 94V5? It is intended for use, at least in 90650, is for a fire enclosure embedded into building structure and non-movable. Combustable seems pretty clear - although some metals burn under the right conditions and thicknesses. Gary -Original Message- From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Tarver, Peter Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 9:19 AM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RE: plenum ratings From: Pete Perkins Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 8:43 AM What do we collectively know about needed ratings for plastic plenums? I believe this is more for electrical than telecomm, but that's not clear yet. Pete - Considering that combustible materials are forbidden to be placed in most ducts and plenums in the CEC and US NEC, I would think the likelihood of a plastic plenum being safety certifiable is negligible. Refer to NFPA 70, Section 300.22. Regards, Peter L. Tarver, PE ptar...@ieee.org CONFIDENTIALITY This e-mail message and any attachments thereto, is intended only for use by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail message, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail message, and any attachments thereto, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail message in error, please immediately notify the sender and permanently delete the original and any copies of this email and any prints thereof. ABSENT AN EXPRESS STATEMENT TO THE CONTRARY HEREINABOVE, THIS E-MAIL IS NOT INTENDED AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR A WRITING. Notwithstanding the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act or the applicability of any other law of similar substance and effect, absent an express statement to the contrary hereinabove, this e-mail message its contents, and any attachments hereto are not intended to represent an offer or acceptance to enter into a contract and are not otherwise intended to bind the sender, Sanmina-SCI Corporation (or any of its subsidiaries), or any other person or entity. _ Scanned by Sanmina-SCI eShield ___ _ - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions
RE: plenum ratings
I'm not sure the correct question is being asked. There are no plastic ratings that allow you to declare your product to be Plenum Rated. The requirement is to pass the UL2043 standard. (UL Schaumburg (sp?) is the only lab that I've found who can perform this test. If your lab also has this capability, please contact me off-line.) This is analogous to the GR-63 fire spread requirements for those working in Telecom. There is a lot of value using the most fire retardant plastics available but that does *not* ensure you will pass the Verizon requirements. I'll share some painful development scars with the group - This is an incredibly difficult test to pass if you have plastic parts. We have found exactly *one* polymer that allows us to pass. Your results may vary based upon your product! Good luck, Marko From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of McInturff Gary Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 9:52 AM To: Tarver, Peter; emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RE: plenum ratings I don't have the NFPA reference at hand, but would it possible if using 94V5? It is intended for use, at least in 90650, is for a fire enclosure embedded into building structure and non-movable. Combustable seems pretty clear - although some metals burn under the right conditions and thicknesses. Gary From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Tarver, Peter Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 9:19 AM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RE: plenum ratings From: Pete Perkins Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 8:43 AM What do we collectively know about needed ratings for plastic plenums? I believe this is more for electrical than telecomm, but that's not clear yet. Pete - Considering that combustible materials are forbidden to be placed in most ducts and plenums in the CEC and US NEC, I would think the likelihood of a plastic plenum being safety certifiable is negligible. Refer to NFPA 70, Section 300.22. Regards, Peter L. Tarver, PE ptar...@ieee.org CONFIDENTIALITY This e-mail message and any attachments thereto, is intended only for use by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail message, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail message, and any attachments thereto, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail message in error, please immediately notify the sender and permanently delete the original and any copies of this email and any prints thereof. ABSENT AN EXPRESS STATEMENT TO THE CONTRARY HEREINABOVE, THIS E-MAIL IS NOT INTENDED AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR A WRITING. Notwithstanding the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act or the applicability of any other law of similar substance and effect, absent an express statement to the contrary hereinabove, this e-mail message its contents, and any attachments hereto are not intended to represent an offer or acceptance to enter into a contract and are not otherwise intended to bind the sender, Sanmina-SCI Corporation (or any of its subsidiaries), or any other person or entity. _ Scanned by Sanmina-SCI eShield _ - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions
RE: UL924
From: Grace Lin Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 10:10 AM The spec says that the switch shall open all ungrounded conductors. What does that mean? Best regards, Grace In power systems, there are phase conductors (sometimes referred to as line), grounded supply conductors (usually referred to as neutral and equipment grounding conductors (the green wire). The ungrounded conductors are the phase conductors. Regards, Peter L. Tarver, PE ptar...@ieee.org CONFIDENTIALITY This e-mail message and any attachments thereto, is intended only for use by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail message, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail message, and any attachments thereto, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail message in error, please immediately notify the sender and permanently delete the original and any copies of this email and any prints thereof. ABSENT AN EXPRESS STATEMENT TO THE CONTRARY HEREINABOVE, THIS E-MAIL IS NOT INTENDED AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR A WRITING. Notwithstanding the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act or the applicability of any other law of similar substance and effect, absent an express statement to the contrary hereinabove, this e-mail message its contents, and any attachments hereto are not intended to represent an offer or acceptance to enter into a contract and are not otherwise intended to bind the sender, Sanmina-SCI Corporation (or any of its subsidiaries), or any other person or entity. _ Scanned by Sanmina-SCI eShield ___ _ - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc __ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email __
RE: plenum ratings
Gary - NEC §300.22 is clear. It's divided into three types of ducts and plenums. 300.22(a) covers ducts for dust and wood stock. Absolutely zero electrical items are allowed in these ducts. 300.22(b) covers duct and plenums for environmental air. A limited amount of electrical wiring methods are allowed and all must be inside metal. The only electrical devices allowed are those that directly sense or act on the air (temperature and flow rate transducers, automatic plenum gates, etc.) 300.22(c) covers other spaces for environmental air. These spaces are akin to the spaces above false ceilings that are used as return air ducts. Here is where electrical devices evaluated against UL 2043 can be placed, plenum rated power and signal cables evaluated against UL 910 can be run. 300.22(d) refers the reader to Article 645 for items placed under raised floors in data processing centers. The UL 94 test methods address only small scale properties. Large scale properties are addressed by flame spread and smoke developed testing associated with Steiner tunnel and radiant heat test methods. Regards, Peter L. Tarver, PE ptar...@ieee.org -Original Message- From: McInturff Gary [mailto:gmcintu...@spraycool.com] Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 9:52 AM To: Tarver, Peter; emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RE: plenum ratings I don't have the NFPA reference at hand, but would it possible if using 94V5? It is intended for use, at least in 90650, is for a fire enclosure embedded into building structure and non-movable. Combustable seems pretty clear - although some metals burn under the right conditions and thicknesses. Gary -Original Message- From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Tarver, Peter Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 9:19 AM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RE: plenum ratings From: Pete Perkins Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 8:43 AM What do we collectively know about needed ratings for plastic plenums? I believe this is more for electrical than telecomm, but that's not clear yet. Pete - Considering that combustible materials are forbidden to be placed in most ducts and plenums in the CEC and US NEC, I would think the likelihood of a plastic plenum being safety certifiable is negligible. Refer to NFPA 70, Section 300.22. Regards, Peter L. Tarver, PE ptar...@ieee.org CONFIDENTIALITY This e-mail message and any attachments thereto, is intended only for use by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail message, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail message, and any attachments thereto, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail message in error, please immediately notify the sender and permanently delete the original and any copies of this email and any prints thereof. ABSENT AN EXPRESS STATEMENT TO THE CONTRARY HEREINABOVE, THIS E-MAIL IS NOT INTENDED AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR A WRITING. Notwithstanding the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act or the applicability of any other law of similar substance and effect, absent an express statement to the contrary hereinabove, this e-mail message its contents, and any attachments hereto are not intended to represent an offer or acceptance to enter into a contract and are not otherwise intended to bind the sender, Sanmina-SCI Corporation (or any of its subsidiaries), or any other person or entity. _ Scanned by Sanmina-SCI eShield ___ _ - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc __ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email __
Re: plenum ratings
In message 51b0e17d0920404a967d381039139ad0015bc...@ds10965.spraycool.com, dated Fri, 16 Mar 2007, McInturff Gary gmcintu...@spraycool.com writes: Combustable seems pretty clear - although some metals burn under the right conditions and thicknesses. All bar eight, I think, given enough thermal encouragement. Ag, Au, Ru, Rh, Pd, Os, Ir, Pt. -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk There are benefits from being irrational - just ask the square root of 2. John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc __ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email __
Re: UL924
Hi Peter, Thank you very much for your explanation and John's correction. After forwarding your explanation to my colleage, he asked: The spec says that the switch shall open all ungrounded conductors. What does that mean? Could you please help? Best regards, Grace On 3/16/07, Tarver, Peter peter.tar...@sanmina-sci.com wrote: From: Grace Lin Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 3:55 AM Can someone explain what the meaning of A maintained-break type switch shall open all ungrounded conductors is? Grace - A maintained-break switch does remake the circuit when the actuation means is released, as would be the case for a momentary switch. Snap switches are examples of maintained-break switches (though I have seen maintained-break and momentary built into a single switch). Regards, Peter L. Tarver, PE mailto:ptar...@ieee.org ptar...@ieee.org CONFIDENTIALITY This e-mail message and any attachments thereto, is intended only for use by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail message, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail message, and any attachments thereto, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail message in error, please immediately notify the sender and permanently delete the original and any copies of this email and any prints thereof. ABSENT AN EXPRESS STATEMENT TO THE CONTRARY HEREINABOVE, THIS E-MAIL IS NOT INTENDED AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR A WRITING. Notwithstanding the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act or the applicability of any other law of similar substance and effect, absent an express statement to the contrary hereinabove, this e-mail message its contents, and any attachments hereto are not intended to represent an offer or acceptance to enter into a contract and are not otherwise intended to bind the sender, Sanmina-SCI Corporation (or any of its subsidiaries), or any other person or entity. _ Scanned by Sanmina-SCI eShield ___ _ - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc __ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email __
RE: plenum ratings
I don't have the NFPA reference at hand, but would it possible if using 94V5? It is intended for use, at least in 90650, is for a fire enclosure embedded into building structure and non-movable. Combustable seems pretty clear - although some metals burn under the right conditions and thicknesses. Gary From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Tarver, Peter Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 9:19 AM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RE: plenum ratings From: Pete Perkins Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 8:43 AM What do we collectively know about needed ratings for plastic plenums? I believe this is more for electrical than telecomm, but that's not clear yet. Pete - Considering that combustible materials are forbidden to be placed in most ducts and plenums in the CEC and US NEC, I would think the likelihood of a plastic plenum being safety certifiable is negligible. Refer to NFPA 70, Section 300.22. Regards, Peter L. Tarver, PE ptar...@ieee.org CONFIDENTIALITY This e-mail message and any attachments thereto, is intended only for use by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail message, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail message, and any attachments thereto, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail message in error, please immediately notify the sender and permanently delete the original and any copies of this email and any prints thereof. ABSENT AN EXPRESS STATEMENT TO THE CONTRARY HEREINABOVE, THIS E-MAIL IS NOT INTENDED AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR A WRITING. Notwithstanding the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act or the applicability of any other law of similar substance and effect, absent an express statement to the contrary hereinabove, this e-mail message its contents, and any attachments hereto are not intended to represent an offer or acceptance to enter into a contract and are not otherwise intended to bind the sender, Sanmina-SCI Corporation (or any of its subsidiaries), or any other person or entity. _ Scanned by Sanmina-SCI eShield _ - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc __ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email __
RE: plenum ratings
From: Pete Perkins Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 8:43 AM What do we collectively know about needed ratings for plastic plenums? I believe this is more for electrical than telecomm, but that's not clear yet. Pete - Considering that combustible materials are forbidden to be placed in most ducts and plenums in the CEC and US NEC, I would think the likelihood of a plastic plenum being safety certifiable is negligible. Refer to NFPA 70, Section 300.22. Regards, Peter L. Tarver, PE ptar...@ieee.org CONFIDENTIALITY This e-mail message and any attachments thereto, is intended only for use by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail message, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail message, and any attachments thereto, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail message in error, please immediately notify the sender and permanently delete the original and any copies of this email and any prints thereof. ABSENT AN EXPRESS STATEMENT TO THE CONTRARY HEREINABOVE, THIS E-MAIL IS NOT INTENDED AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR A WRITING. Notwithstanding the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act or the applicability of any other law of similar substance and effect, absent an express statement to the contrary hereinabove, this e-mail message its contents, and any attachments hereto are not intended to represent an offer or acceptance to enter into a contract and are not otherwise intended to bind the sender, Sanmina-SCI Corporation (or any of its subsidiaries), or any other person or entity. _ Scanned by Sanmina-SCI eShield ___ _ - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc __ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email __
RE: UL924
From: John Woodgate Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 8:25 AM Tarver, Peter writes: A maintained-break switch does remake the circuit when the actu I think the word 'not' is missing. Right you are. Peter CONFIDENTIALITY This e-mail message and any attachments thereto, is intended only for use by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail message, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail message, and any attachments thereto, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail message in error, please immediately notify the sender and permanently delete the original and any copies of this email and any prints thereof. ABSENT AN EXPRESS STATEMENT TO THE CONTRARY HEREINABOVE, THIS E-MAIL IS NOT INTENDED AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR A WRITING. Notwithstanding the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act or the applicability of any other law of similar substance and effect, absent an express statement to the contrary hereinabove, this e-mail message its contents, and any attachments hereto are not intended to represent an offer or acceptance to enter into a contract and are not otherwise intended to bind the sender, Sanmina-SCI Corporation (or any of its subsidiaries), or any other person or entity. _ Scanned by Sanmina-SCI eShield ___ _ - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc __ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email __
Re: plenum ratings
Hello Pete, There are different requirements depending on how the plastics are used. If the plastics are part of the structure of the plenum, insulation used in the plenum or a large surface area, they will need to pass a large scale burn test. The applicable test for the United States is ASTM E-84, also known as the Steiner Fire Tunnel test. The materials must have a flame spread index of no more than 25 and a smoke development index of no more than 50. The test is fairly harsh and uses samples of materials 8 meters long. The equivalent UL standard is UL 723. Plastics used for small items in a plenum, such as a speaker housing, must pass UL 2043. This is a heat and smoke test for discrete products. I am not as familiar with the tests for wires and cables, but there are separate tests used. The same Steiner Fire Tunnel is used for many of these tests, but the procedure for cables is slightly different than for large scale materials. UL 2257 also has some information on plenum cables. There is also information in UL 910. Ted Eckert American Power Conversion/MGE http://www.apc.com/ The items contained in this e-mail reflect the personal opinions of the writer and are only provided for the assistance of the reader. The writer is not speaking in an official capacity for APC, MGE or Schneider Electric. The speaker does not represent APC's, MGE's or Schneider Electric's official position on any matter. Pete Perkins peperkinspe@cs.c omTo Sent by: emc-p...@ieee.org emc-p...@ieee.org cc Subject 03/16/2007 10:43 plenum ratings AM PSNet, The briefest requests seem to generate the most questions. What do we collectively know about needed ratings for plastic plenums? I believe this is more for electrical than telecomm, but that's not clear yet. Load me up; your comments are appreciated. :) br, Pete Peter E Perkins, PE Principal Product Safety Engineer PO Box 23427 Tigard, ORe 97281-3427 503/452-1201 fone/fax p.perk...@ieee.org - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc __ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email __
plenum ratings
PSNet, The briefest requests seem to generate the most questions. What do we collectively know about needed ratings for plastic plenums? I believe this is more for electrical than telecomm, but that's not clear yet. Load me up; your comments are appreciated. :) br, Pete Peter E Perkins, PE Principal Product Safety Engineer PO Box 23427 Tigard, ORe 97281-3427 503/452-1201 fone/fax p.perk...@ieee.org - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc __ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email __
Re: UL924
In message be3336be85968d49be01e66d6e365b1e01b5a...@sjc1amfpew01.am.sanm.corp, dated Fri, 16 Mar 2007, Tarver, Peter peter.tar...@sanmina-sci.com writes: A maintained-break switch does remake the circuit when the actu I think the word 'not' is missing. -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk There are benefits from being irrational - just ask the square root of 2. John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc __ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email __
RE: UL924
From: Grace Lin Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 3:55 AM Can someone explain what the meaning of A maintained-break type switch shall open all ungrounded conductors is? Grace - A maintained-break switch does remake the circuit when the actuation means is released, as would be the case for a momentary switch. Snap switches are examples of maintained-break switches (though I have seen maintained-break and momentary built into a single switch). Regards, Peter L. Tarver, PE ptar...@ieee.org CONFIDENTIALITY This e-mail message and any attachments thereto, is intended only for use by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail message, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail message, and any attachments thereto, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail message in error, please immediately notify the sender and permanently delete the original and any copies of this email and any prints thereof. ABSENT AN EXPRESS STATEMENT TO THE CONTRARY HEREINABOVE, THIS E-MAIL IS NOT INTENDED AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR A WRITING. Notwithstanding the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act or the applicability of any other law of similar substance and effect, absent an express statement to the contrary hereinabove, this e-mail message its contents, and any attachments hereto are not intended to represent an offer or acceptance to enter into a contract and are not otherwise intended to bind the sender, Sanmina-SCI Corporation (or any of its subsidiaries), or any other person or entity. _ Scanned by Sanmina-SCI eShield ___ _ - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc __ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email __
