| CANADA |
Regulatory Compliance Engineering
From:
Richard Nute ri...@ieee.org
To:
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Date:
05/12/2012 05:33 PM
Subject:
Re: [PSES] Hipot with in-circuit voltage limiting devices IEC 61010-1 3rd
Ed.
Hi Mick:
The problem is the one originally described
Richard,
To be clear, what problem and subject correctly are you referring to?
The IEC 61010-1 3rd Ed problem is specifying a test voltage of 0.9xclamping
voltage. From memory Edition 1 of IEC 62368-1 never specified a test voltage
of this level. Yes IEC 62368-1 had a twice AC mains
In message 018DCF4B527741149F102EFC42E21D42@RichardHPdv6, dated Fri,
11 May 2012, Richard Nute ri...@bendbroadband.com writes:
Would you like to check the latest draft of IEC 62368-1 to see if it
treats the subject correctly?
With respect to this problem, yes, IEC 62368-1 treats the
] Hipot with in-circuit voltage limiting
devices IEC 61010-1 3rd Ed.
Richard,
To be clear, what problem and subject correctly are
you referring to?
The IEC 61010-1 3rd Ed problem is specifying a test
voltage of 0.9xclamping voltage. From memory Edition 1 of
IEC 62368-1 never
Hello John:
With respect to this problem, yes, IEC 62368-1 treats the subject
correctly.
So it could be used as evidence to persuade TC66 to reconsider.
Yes.
The 2nd Edition of IEC 62368-1 refers to IEC 61051.
TC66 should first identify the safety issue associated
with varistors (fire)
Doug,
I have received a reply from TC 66 that they will consider the clause F.3.2
problem at their next meeting in October. They have acknowledge that the usage
of the term “clamping voltage” is imprecise. They would be receptive to any
further inputs on this matter.
I used the IEC system
In message 5168965687470166.wa.mjmaytumgmail@listserv.ieee.org,
dated Fri, 11 May 2012, Michael Maytum mjmay...@gmail.com writes:
I have received a reply from TC 66 that they will consider the
clause F.3.2 problem at their next meeting in October. They have
acknowledge that the usage of
John
I would be interested to see the latest draft of IEC 62368-1. I assume
this is Edition 2.
On surge protective components the original IEC 62368 introduced a safety
test run at twice the the nominal AC voltage with decreasing values of series
resistance. I would like to see a
Would you like to check the latest draft of IEC 62368-1 to see if it
treats the subject correctly?
With respect to this problem, yes, IEC 62368-1 treats
the subject correctly.
Best regards,
Richard Nute
Product Safety Consultant
Bend, Oregon, U.S.A.
-
Doug,
My previous message gave the IEC rulings - terms
clamping voltage and nominal varistor voltage - for two
specific points on the MOV clamping (clipping) characteristic.
For completeness IEC 61010-1, ed. 3.0 (2010-06) defines the
following:
*working voltage *
highest r.m.s. value
Mick,
Sorry I didn't review this email before I just sent my last. Clearly you
see the same problem as I. I have to wonder if the committee in reviewing
this clause only used data sheets and did not validate in the lab. Or is
it possibly the committee members just missed this?
I would like to
In message
CAByvTVN7XfQWJQQFE0hzQv7QfDpzN9G6ykcTQ1gr=2ofguf...@mail.gmail.com,
dated Thu, 10 May 2012, Doug Powell doug...@gmail.com writes:
I would put a graphical clip of the curves in this email with areas of
concern highlighted except I remember this is prohibited on the
listserv.
You
Doug,
I wouldn't credit the TC 66 has having MOV component
knowledge, just perceptions.
Since my last message I have sent messages to the Chair
and Secretary of TC 66 wearing my IEC SC 37B chair hat.
I was restrained for a change, merely stating they were
breaking the laws of
...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Mick Maytum
Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2012 12:00 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Cc: Doug Powell
Subject: Re: [PSES] Hipot with in-circuit voltage limiting devices IEC 61010-1
3rd Ed.
Doug,
I wouldn't credit the TC 66 has having MOV component knowledge, just
perceptions
In message
64D32EE8B9CBDD44963ACB076A5F6ABB0261DE06@Mailbox-Tech.lecotech.local,
dated Thu, 10 May 2012, Kunde, Brian brian_ku...@lecotc.com writes:
F.3.2 says, ...test of F.3.1 can be carried out.. Because it says
can and not shall does this make this test optional?
It seems, from the
, 2012 12:00 PM
*To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
*Cc:* Doug Powell
*Subject:* Re: [PSES] Hipot with in-circuit voltage limiting devices IEC
61010-1 3rd Ed.
Doug,
I wouldn't credit the TC 66 has having MOV component knowledge, just
perceptions.
Since my last message I have sent
The routine voltage test on mains is mandatory, but the method has options.
This is how I read the standard.
--
Thanks, -doug
Douglas E Powell
doug...@gmail.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 2:04 PM, John Woodgate j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk wrote:
In message
A change was made in 3rd Ed. for routine mains hipot tests while clamping
devices are still in the circuit; specifically clause F.3.2 (Ed. 3).
The standard states the test can be carried out at 0.9 times the
clamping voltage of the device and not less than twice the working
voltage. Edition 2
Clamping voltage is the MOV voltage under specified surge
conditions. Typically that will be an 8/20 impulse.
IEC 61643-331, ed. 1.0 (2003-05)
clamping voltage VC
peak voltage across the MOV measured under conditions of a
specified peak pulse current (IP) and specified waveform
Your 1 mA
19 matches
Mail list logo
