UL安全标准--UL 1283 BUL LETINS-2005 Standards Technical Panel (STP) for Electromagnetic Interference Filters, STP 1283 Subscribers to UL’s Standards Service for.pdf

Subject 12831285 Walt Whitman Road Melville, L.I., NY 11747 October 3, 2005 TO:Standards Technical Panel (STP) for Electromagnetic Interference Filters, STP 1283 Subscribers to ULs Standards Service for Electromagnetic Interference Filters Public Review Participant SUBJECT:Comments and Substantive Changes received on the ANSI Ballot of the Proposed Fifth Edition of the Standard for Electromagnetic Interference Filters, UL 1283; SUMMARY OF TOPICS This bulletin circulates comments received in response to ULs Subject 1283 proposal bulletin dated October 19, 2004, and provides responses to those comments. In addition, this bulletin proposes the following changes in requirements to the proposed Fifth Edition of the Standard for Safety for Electromagnetic Interference Filters, UL 1283 (Please note that items 1, 3, 4, 8, and 9 noted below refer to corresponding item numbers in ULs Subject 1283 bulletin dated October 19, 2004): 1) Clarifi cation of the Scope, 3) Section 22 - Spacings - relaxation of the requirements, 4) Section 24 - Capacitors - minimum requirements for use of capacitors within EMI fi lters, 7) Section 31 - Endurance, 8) Section 37.1 - Capacitor Discharge - revision to reduce time to discharge to safe levels, 9) Section 37.2 - Capacitance Measurement - new requirements to determine if capacitance values change subsequent to the endurance test. COMMENTS DUE: November 3, 2005 The attached comment matrix provides the proposed comment dispositions from the ballot of the proposal bulletin dated October 19, 2004. The ballots were due to the Project Manager by November 19, 2004. The matrix contains all of the comments that were received. The effective dates have been revised from that stated in the proposal bulletin dated October 19, 2004, and are noted under the heading,Impact and Effective Dates, below. UL has determined that consensus has been achieved regarding the ANSI approval of the proposed revisions to UL 1283. The initial consensus count is 6 yes, 3 no, and 0 abstain. If you wish to change your vote in light of the dispositions/actions or the proposed changes, please respond to us in writing by November 3. 2005. If we do not hear from you by this date, your original vote will be maintained. If the STP concurs with the dispositions/actions, UL plans to adopt the revised version of UL 1283 as an ANSI standard. Anyone who has submitted an objection has the right to appeal this action on a procedural basis through ULs Appeals Process. If you wish to appeal, please respond by November 3, 2005. Please note only appeals based on a procedural issue will be heard, technical issues should be resolved at the consensus body level. Guidelines on how to register an appeal can be obtained on http:/ ulstandardsinfonet.ul.com or by contacting the STP Project Manager. 免费标准网( w w w . f r e e b z . n e t ) 免费标准网( w w w . f r e e b z . n e t ) 无需注册 即可下载 UL appreciates the time and effort you have put forth to review this standard, and look forward to your continued participation in this UL/ANSI standard activity. IMPACT AND EFFECTIVE DATES The following revised impact and effective date information applies: Adoption of the Fifth Edition of the Standard for Electromagnetic Interference Filters, UL 1283, will require a review and retest of presently Listed EMI fi lters to determine if they comply with the new and revised requirements in the Fifth Edition of the Standard. Therefore UL proposes that the Fifth Edition of the Standard for Electromagnetic Interference Filters, UL 1283, become effective 24 months after date of publication. UNDERWRITERS LABORATORIES INC. EDWARD MINASIAN (Ext. 23305) Project Manager for STP 1283 Standards Department Phone: (631) 271-6200 Fax: (631) 439-6021 E-mail: Edward.D.Minasianus.ul.com http:/ulstandardsinfonet.ul.com REVIEWED BY: BRADLEY J. SCHMIDT Chair for STP 1283 Corporate Standards Phone: (847) 664-3064 Fax: (847) 313-3064 E-mail: Bradley.J.Schmidtus.ul.com http:/ulstandardsinfonet.ul.com Copyright © 2005 Underwriters Laboratories Inc. SR:CAA bul-1283.5_20050701;EM OCTOBER 3, 2005SUBJECT 1283-2- This PDF Standard downloaded from www.bzfxw.com 免费标准网( w w w . f r e e b z . n e t ) 免费标准网( w w w . f r e e b z . n e t ) 无需注册 即可下载 APPENDIX A COMMENTS MATRIX The Table below provides the comment dispositions from the Ballot of BSR/UL 1283, proposal bulletin dated October 19, 2004. The Standard for Safety for Electromagnetic Interference Filters STP Project Manager: Edward Minasian, Ext. 23305, Edward.D.Minasianus.ul.com STP Chair: Bradley J. Schmidt, Ext. 43064 The columns in the comment resolution matrix can be defi ned as follows: Comment SubmitterName of person who submitted comment. Para. # / Text Ref. Indicates the specifi c reference for the comment CommentThis comment matrix presents a summary of the comment and the suggested wording of proposals. Action The action, such as accepted or disagree, and the justifi cation for the action, if needed. DispositionThe proposed disposition such as resolved or unresolved. Subject: Proposed Fifth Edition of the Standard for Safety for Electromagnetic Interference Filters, UL 1283 (For your convenience the topics listed below, except that listed as General, refer to the corresponding topics listed in the Summary of Topics in ULs Subject 1283 bulletin, issued October 19, 2004. Please note that all comments accompanied negative ballots unless otherwise indicated.) General Comments OCTOBER 3, 2005SUBJECT 1283-A1- 免费标准网( w w w . f r e e b z . n e t ) 免费标准网( w w w . f r e e b z . n e t ) 无需注册 即可下载 No. Comment SubmitterParagraph / Text ReferenceComment or Comment Summary 1.John F. DudekGeneral SummationIn summation, what improvements does the proposed Fifth Edition of the Standard for Electromagnetic Interference Filters, UL 1283 provide to the safety community and fi lter manufacturers? These proposed changes represent the addition of minor clarifi cation verbiage to some of the Standards clauses and test measurement techniques. The proposal also represents a movement to duplicate the CSA Standard for EMI Filters, C22.2 No. 8 for appliance fi lters. This is not necessary. The all inclusive test program established by CSA supports their Certifi cation of components program. However, UL has two categories of fi lter evaluations, Recognized Components and Listed Components. These proposed changes will, in effect, obsolete the UL Recognized Component program for appliance fi lters. The level of testing for Recognized Component and Listed fi lters will be identical. What benefi t does this provide to the end-product user of appliance fi lters? Appliance fi lter reports will still have “Conditions of Acceptability” and will still contain the statement “The components covered by this Report are appliance fi lters intended to be used in end-use products where the acceptability of the combination has been determined by Underwriters Laboratories, Inc.” What benefi t is gained by subjecting an appliance fi lter to an insulation resistance after humidity conditioning test when the end-product must be subjected to a rain test or humidity conditioning test? Are switches, motors, blower fans, etc., that are components of an end-product, subjected to insulation after humidity conditioning tests? How many ITE end-products (the stated product for which many of these proposed clauses are compatible) must be subjected to a humidity conditioning test as part of their evaluation? Why impose these requirements on appliance fi lters? What benefi t is gained by revising the capacitor discharge requirement for appliance fi lters when the end-product must be subjected to a capacitor discharge test? What benefi t is gained by conducting a normal temperature test at the extreme rated voltage when temperatures on the fi lter are monitored ( or should be, as instructed in the “Conditions of Acceptability” ) during the end-product evaluation at extreme voltage ratings? The proposed changes add very little intrinsic value to the appliance fi lter Recognition program, it still remains a component whose suitability must be judged in the end- product. It is because of these reasons and the above identifi ed details that Corcom cannot vote in favor of the Proposed Fifth Edition of the Standard for Electromagnetic Interference Filters, UL1283 and cannot support the proposal that the proposed Standard be recognized for ANSI approval. Action/Disposition: Not accepted. With these proposed revisions it is not intended to delete the UL Recognized Component Filter, but to establish minimum Component requirements for these fi lters, more than just temperature and dielectric tests. CSA C22.2 No. 8 also covers Appliance Filters intended for use within end products and applies most tests from this standard except those tests that should only be performed in the end use application, for example where the ultimate enclosure is provided in the end use application. OCTOBER 3, 2005SUBJECT 1283-A2- Table Continued on Next Page This PDF Standard downloaded from www.bzfxw.com 免费标准网( w w w . f r e e b z . n e t ) 免费标准网( w w w . f r e e b z . n e t ) 无需注册 即可下载 Table Continued No. Comment SubmitterParagraph / Text ReferenceComment or Comment Summary 2.William Kimmel, Kimmell Gerke Associates, Ltd. GeneralSTP Project Managers Note: Mr. Kimmels comments accompanied an affirmative ballot. I did not fi nd any reference to inductor characteristics. By default, then, inductor wiring requirements would necessarily be that of internal wiring, a requirement that may not be feasible - you would usually use magnet wire, and wont have any clearances or insulation thickness to speak of. Action/Disposition: Accepted. We believe that the text in footnote a of Table 22.2, stated below, will respond to your concern. a Film-coated magnet wire is to be considered an uninsulated live part except that spacings do not apply between conductors comprising turns of a coil. However, between dead metal parts and fi lm-coated magnet wire the indicated spacings apply, except that 3/32 inch (2.4 mm) is acceptable over surface and through air between dead metal parts and fi lm-coated magnet wire that is rigidly supported and held in place on a coil. 3.William Picatti, Ultrasound Group 30.2STP Project Managers Note: Mr. Picattis comments accompanied an affirmative ballot. I did not fi nd anything that I could not live with - mainly just a few grammar related things. One question that I did have was in clause 30.2 in discussing the 135% overload for testing. Many overcurrent devices have different time/trip curves that are different than this rating at 1 hour. Suggest that the test be conducted at this setting, or if protection is provided by a dedicated current limiting device, then to the 1 hour overcurrent trip limit of that specifi c device. Action/Disposition: Accepted. For an appliance fi lter without integral overcurrent protection (OCP) the test is conducted at 135% of the fi lter current rating. If it has integral OCP then its done at 135% of the OCP. For other than appliance fi lters without OCP, where we dont know the type of OCP, the test is conducted at 135% of the maximum branch circuit protection used in the fi eld. 4.Timothy Owens, City of Santa Clara 10.2.1STP Project Managers Note: Mr. Owens comments accompanied an affirmative ballot. I believe that the proper term for the male attachment plug attached to the fi lter, as used in 10.2.1, is male fl anged surface inlet. 10.2 Cord-connected fi lters 10.2.1 A supply cord either shall be permanently attached to the fi lter, or shall be a detachable power-supply cord having a cord connector for connection to a mating male attachment plug attached to the fi lter. Action/Disposition: Accept in principle. Actually the correct terminology for the attachment plug, according to the Standard for Attachment Plugs and Receptacles, UL 498, isinlet. UL, therefore, suggests, attachment pluginlet, as follows for connection to a mating male attachment plug inlet attached to the fi lter, and reproposes the requirements accordingly. OCTOBER 3, 2005SUBJECT 1283-A3- Table Continued on Next Page 免费标准网( w w w . f r e e b z . n e t ) 免费标准网( w w w . f r e e b z . n e t ) 无需注册 即可下载 Table Continued No. Comment SubmitterParagraph / Text ReferenceComment or Comment Summary 5.Timothy Owens, City of Santa Clara Section 13STP Project Managers Note: Mr. Owens comments accompanied an affirmative ballot. If Section 13 is discussing the attachment of the supply cord to the fi lter, then the proper term to use is fl anged surface inlet. 13 Receptacles 13.1 A receptacle provided as part of a fi lter shall have a marked current rating, see 44.8, not more than the current rating of the fi lter, and a voltage rating consistent with the voltage rating of the fi lter. 13.2 A receptacle shall be of the grounding type if, and only if, the fi lter is provided with a grounding- type attachment plug or other means for grounding. See Grounding, Section 23. Action/Disposition: Accept in principle. Actually the correct terminology for the attachment plug, according to the Standard for Attachment Plugs and Receptacles, UL 498, isinlet. UL, therefore, suggests, attachment pluginlet, as follows: provided with a grounding-type attachment plug inlet, and reproposes the requirements accordingly. 1) Clarifi cation of the Scope No. Comment SubmitterParagraph / Text ReferenceComment or Comment Summary 1.John Dudek, Tyco Electronics Corporation Scope, 1.4Clause 1.4 is updated to include the single sentence “Transient Voltage Surge Suppressors are investigated under the Standard for Transient Voltage Surge Suppressors, UL 1449.” This is a statement of fact regarding ULs categorization of the devices. The preceding sentence in Clause 1.4 already makes the statement that TVSS and TVSS related devices are not to be evaluated to the requirements of UL1283. The existing clause already defi nes the products covered and not covered by the Standard. The added sentence just specifi es which Standard to use, information that can be obtained from other sources within UL. Action/Disposition: Not accepted. This is only a clarifi cation, wherein the old terminology of thyrector was changed to silicone avalanche diode and a direct reference to UL 1449 was added. 2.John Dudek, Tyco Electronics Corporation Scope, 1.5The changes to clause 1.5 amend the word “Temporary “ to “Relocatable”, refl ecting a change in the title of the UL 1363 Standard. Also, “UL 1363” is added to the sentence, identifying the Standard number of the already identifi ed Standard. Action/Disposition: Accept. This is a clarifi cation to specify the correct UL Standard name, Relocatable Power Taps. 3.John Dudek, Tyco Electronics Corporation Scope, 1.6Clause 1.6 is a general statement of instruction. Its placement in the Standard does not cause any confusion warranting the immediate removal. Action/Disposition: Accept in principle. The content of p