Re: EMC compliance question

Liste des GroupesRevenir à se design 
Sujet : Re: EMC compliance question
De : blockedofcourse (at) *nospam* foo.invalid (Don Y)
Groupes : sci.electronics.design
Date : 13. Oct 2024, 00:33:11
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <vef106$bqqe$1@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
User-Agent : Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.2.2
On 10/12/2024 4:02 PM, Klaus Vestergaard Kragelund wrote:
On 12-10-2024 12:00, Don Y wrote:
On 10/12/2024 2:38 AM, Klaus Vestergaard Kragelund wrote:
Somebody was talking about 48V warts. Some standards only allow 24V (for wet environments), and 32V for certain parts of the world
>
48V wall-warts/bricks are typically used in midspan PoE
injectors (and as standalone power supplies for PDs
without PSEs).  As such, almost always in dry locations.
>
Can those "certain parts of the world" use PoE products
with nominal 48VDC delivered over the twisted pairs?
Is the limit on the "packaging" or on the potential?
 In IEC60730 (safety for household products), 2.1.5 SELV is defined as maximum 42V. Note states that for the US and Canada the SELV voltage is max 30VRMS (which equates to 42.4Vpeak). Those numbers are when dry, when wet it reduces to 15V/21.2V peak.
 Normally things are dry, so US is 30V. I do not know how it is possible to allow 48V warts.
 Searching a little, it seems the 48V systems are approved against telecommunication standards which may not use the SELV nomenclature
 NEC has higher voltages, up to 60VDC, but matters little since most product needs to comply to 60730/60950, and now 62368 has replaced 60950.
 The touch voltages are defined in yet another standard, IEC61201. I do not have access to that one.
 The 48V warts are also strange in that when the product is tested for peak SELV voltage a single fault must be introduced. So if you mess with the feedback of the SMPS, the trip voltage determines the maximum voltage, and that is most likely significantly higher than 48V.
But, is the constraint on the "wall wart package"?  Or, on the presence
of ~48V on conductors that are accessible to the user?
E.g., an N-port PoE switch looks like the (output) power cords from
N 48V wall warts.  (technically, this is only the case while the
cables are physically connected to their PDs as the PSE should
power down the unconnected port).
Because the switch "isn't a wall wart", is it exempt?
Or, is all this moot because PoE switches aren't "household kit"?

Date Sujet#  Auteur
10 Oct 24 * EMC compliance question54bitrex
10 Oct 24 +* Re: EMC compliance question13john larkin
10 Oct 24 i`* Re: EMC compliance question12bitrex
10 Oct 24 i +* Re: EMC compliance question10john larkin
10 Oct 24 i i`* Re: EMC compliance question9Clive Arthur
10 Oct 24 i i +* Re: EMC compliance question4John R Walliker
10 Oct 24 i i i+- Re: EMC compliance question1bitrex
10 Oct 24 i i i+- Re: EMC compliance question1bitrex
10 Oct 24 i i i`- Re: EMC compliance question1john larkin
10 Oct 24 i i `* Re: EMC compliance question4john larkin
10 Oct 24 i i  +- Re: EMC compliance question1Clive Arthur
10 Oct 24 i i  +- Re: EMC compliance question1Klaus Vestergaard Kragelund
11 Oct 24 i i  `- Re: EMC compliance question1Bill Sloman
10 Oct 24 i `- Re: EMC compliance question1legg
10 Oct 24 `* Re: EMC compliance question40Don Y
10 Oct 24  `* Re: EMC compliance question39john larkin
11 Oct 24   +* Re: EMC compliance question12Klaus Vestergaard Kragelund
11 Oct 24   i`* Re: EMC compliance question11john larkin
11 Oct 24   i +- Re: EMC compliance question1Phil Hobbs
12 Oct 24   i +- Re: EMC compliance question1Bill Sloman
12 Oct 24   i +- Re: EMC compliance question1Klaus Vestergaard Kragelund
12 Oct 24   i +* Re: EMC compliance question2Don Y
13 Oct 24   i i`- Re: EMC compliance question1Bill Sloman
13 Oct 24   i `* Re: EMC compliance question5legg
13 Oct 24   i  `* Re: EMC compliance question4Bill Sloman
14 Oct 24   i   `* Re: EMC compliance question3legg
14 Oct 24   i    `* Re: EMC compliance question2Klaus Vestergaard Kragelund
14 Oct 24   i     `- Re: EMC compliance question1Don Y
12 Oct 24   `* Re: EMC compliance question26legg
12 Oct 24    +- Re: EMC compliance question1Don Y
12 Oct 24    `* Re: EMC compliance question24Klaus Vestergaard Kragelund
12 Oct 24     +* Re: EMC compliance question8Don Y
13 Oct 24     i`* Re: EMC compliance question7Klaus Vestergaard Kragelund
13 Oct 24     i +* Re: EMC compliance question3Don Y
13 Oct 24     i i`* Re: EMC compliance question2Klaus Vestergaard Kragelund
13 Oct 24     i i `- Re: EMC compliance question1Don Y
13 Oct 24     i +- Re: EMC compliance question1john larkin
15 Oct 24     i +- Re: EMC compliance question1legg
15 Oct 24     i `- Re: EMC compliance question1legg
12 Oct 24     +* Re: EMC compliance question8john larkin
12 Oct 24     i+* Re: EMC compliance question6bitrex
12 Oct 24     ii`* Re: EMC compliance question5john larkin
13 Oct 24     ii `* Re: EMC compliance question4John R Walliker
13 Oct 24     ii  +- Re: EMC compliance question1Klaus Vestergaard Kragelund
13 Oct 24     ii  `* Re: EMC compliance question2john larkin
13 Oct 24     ii   `- Re: EMC compliance question1Bill Sloman
13 Oct 24     i`- Re: EMC compliance question1Bill Sloman
12 Oct 24     `* Re: EMC compliance question7Joe Gwinn
12 Oct 24      +* Re: EMC compliance question3john larkin
13 Oct 24      i`* Re: EMC compliance question2Joe Gwinn
13 Oct 24      i `- Re: EMC compliance question1Jan Panteltje
13 Oct 24      `* Re: EMC compliance question3legg
13 Oct 24       `* Re: EMC compliance question2Klaus Vestergaard Kragelund
13 Oct 24        `- Re: EMC compliance question1Don Y

Haut de la page

Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.

NewsPortal