《【UL标准】UL 1283 BUL LETINS-2005 Standards Technical Panel (STP) for Electromagnetic Interference Filters, STP 1283 Subscribers to UL’s Standards Service for.doc》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《【UL标准】UL 1283 BUL LETINS-2005 Standards Technical Panel (STP) for Electromagnetic Interference Filters, STP 1283 Subscribers to UL’s Standards Service for.doc（18页珍藏版）》请在三一文库上搜索。
1、Subject 12831285 Walt Whitman RoadMelville, L.I., NY 11747October 3, 2005TO:Standards Technical Panel (STP) for Electromagnetic Interference Filters, STP 1283Subscribers to ULs Standards Service forElectromagnetic Interference FiltersPublic Review ParticipantSUBJECT: Comments and Substantive Changes
2、 received on the ANSI Ballot of the ProposedFifth Edition of the Standard for Electromagnetic Interference Filters, UL 1283;SUMMARY OF TOPICSThis bulletin circulates comments received in response to ULs Subject 1283 proposal bulletin dated October 19, 2004, and provides responses to those comments.
3、In addition, this bulletin proposes the following changes in requirements to the proposed Fifth Edition of the Standardfor Safety for Electromagnetic Interference Filters, UL 1283 (Please note that items 1, 3, 4, 8, and9 noted below refer to corresponding item numbers in ULs Subject 1283 bulletin da
4、ted October19, 2004):1) Clarification of the Scope, 3) Section 22 - Spacings - relaxation of the requirements, 4) Section24 - Capacitors - minimum requirements for use of capacitors within EMI filters, 7) Section 31 - Endurance, 8) Section 37.1 - Capacitor Discharge - revision to reduce time to disc
5、harge 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, 2005The attached comment matrix provides the proposed comment dispositions from the ballot of the proposal bulletin
6、dated October 19, 2004. The ballots were due to the Project Manager by November19, 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 Eff
7、ective 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 res
8、pond 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 appe
9、al 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 ca
10、n be obtained on http:/ or by contacting the STP Project Manager.SUBJECT 1283-2-OCTOBER 3, 2005UL 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 DATESThe following re
11、vised 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 filters to determine if they comply with the new and revised requirements in the Fifth Edition
12、 of the Standard.Therefore UL proposes that the Fifth Edition of the Standard for Electromagnetic Interference Filters, UL1283, become effective 24 months after date of publication.UNDERWRITERS LABORATORIES INC.EDWARD MINASIAN (Ext. 23305) Project Manager for STP 1283Standards DepartmentPhone: (631)
13、 271-6200Fax: (631) 439-6021E-mail: Edward.D.M http:/REVIEWED BY:BRADLEY J. SCHMIDT Chair for STP 1283Corporate StandardsPhone: (847) 664-3064Fax: (847) 313-3064E-mail: Bradley.J.S http:/This PDF Standard downloaded from Copyright 2005 Underwriters Laboratories Inc. SR:CAAbul-1283.5_20050701;EMSUBJE
14、CT 1283-A4-OCTOBER 3, 2005APPENDIX ACOMMENTS MATRIXThe 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.M
15、STP Chair: Bradley J. Schmidt, Ext. 43064The columns in the comment resolution matrix can be defined as follows:Comment SubmitterName of person who submitted comment.Para. # / Text Ref.Indicates the specific reference for the commentCommentThis comment matrix presents a summary of the comment and th
16、e suggested wording of proposals.ActionThe action, such as accepted or disagree, and the justification 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, UL1
17、283(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 Com
18、mentsThis PDF Standard downloaded from No.Comment SubmitterParagraph / Text ReferenceComment or Comment Summary1.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 commu
19、nity and filter manufacturers? These proposed changes represent the addition of minor clarification 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 filters. Thi
20、s is not necessary. The all inclusive test program established by CSA supports their Certification of components program. However, UL has two categories of filter evaluations, Recognized Components and Listed Components. These proposed changes will, in effect, obsolete the UL Recognized Component pr
21、ogram for appliance filters. The level of testing for Recognized Component and Listed filters will be identical. What benefit does this provide to the end-product user of appliance filters? Appliance filter reports will still have “Conditions of Acceptability” and will still contain the statement “T
22、he components covered by this Report are appliance filters intended to be used in end-use products where the acceptability of the combination has been determined by Underwriters Laboratories, Inc.” What benefit is gained bysubjecting an appliance filter to an insulation resistance after humidity con
23、ditioning 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
24、of these proposed clauses arecompatible) must be subjected to a humidity conditioning test as part of their evaluation? Why impose these requirements on appliance filters? What benefit is gained by revising the capacitor discharge requirement for appliance filters whenthe end-product must be subject
25、ed to a capacitor discharge test? What benefit is gained by conducting a normal temperature test at the extreme rated voltage when temperatures on the filter are monitored ( or should be, as instructed in the “Conditions of Acceptability” ) during the end-product evaluation at extreme voltage rating
26、s? The proposed changes add very little intrinsic value to the appliance filter 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 identified details that Corcom cannot vote in favor of the ProposedFifth
27、 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
28、establish minimum Component requirements for these filters, 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 ap
29、plication, for example where the ultimate enclosure is provided in the end use application.Table Continued on Next PageTable ContinuedNo.Comment SubmitterParagraph / Text ReferenceComment or Comment Summary2.William Kimmel, KimmellGerke Associates, Ltd.GeneralSTP Project Managers Note: Mr. Kimmels c
30、omments accompanied an affirmative ballot.I did not find 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
31、 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
32、 of a coil. However, between dead metal parts and film-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 film-coated magnet wire that is rigidly supported and held in place on a coil.3.William Picat
33、ti, UltrasoundGroup30.2STP Project Managers Note: Mr. Picattis comments accompanied an affirmative ballot.I did not find anything that I could not live with - mainly just a few grammar related things. One question that I did havewas in clause 30.2 in discussing the 135% overload for testing. Many ov
34、ercurrent 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 specific device.Action/Dispositi
35、on:Accepted. For an appliance filter without integral overcurrent protection (OCP) the test is conducted at 135% of the filter current rating. If it has integral OCP then its done at 135% of the OCP. For other than appliance filters without OCP, where we dont know the type of OCP, the test is conduc
36、ted at 135% of the maximum branch circuit protection used in the field.4.Timothy Owens, City of SantaClara10.2.1STP Project Managers Note: Mr. Owens comments accompanied an affirmative ballot.I believe that the proper term for the male attachment plug attached to the filter , as used in 10.2.1, is m
37、ale flanged surface inlet.10.2 Cord-connected filters10.2.1 A supply cord either shall be permanently attached to the filter, or shall be a detachable power-supply cord having a cord connector for connection to a mating male attachment plug attached to the filter.Action/Disposition:Accept in princip
38、le. Actually the correct terminology for the attachment plug, according to the Standard for Attachment Plugs and Receptacles, UL 498, is inlet. UL, therefore, suggests, attachment plug inlet, as follows for connection to a mating male attachment plug inlet attached to the filter , and reproposes the
39、 requirements accordingly.This PDF Standard downloaded from Table ContinuedNo.Comment SubmitterParagraph / Text ReferenceComment or Comment Summary5.Timothy Owens, City of SantaClaraSection 13STP Project Managers Note: Mr. Owens comments accompanied an affirmative ballot.If Section 13 is discussing
40、the attachment of the supply cord to the filter, then the proper term to use is flanged surface inlet.13 Receptacles13.1 A receptacle provided as part of a filter shall have a marked current rating, see 44.8, not more than the current rating of the filter, and a voltage rating consistent with the vo
41、ltage rating of the filter.13.2 A receptacle shall be of the grounding type if, and only if, the filter is provided with a grounding- type attachment plug or other means forgrounding. See Grounding, Section 23.Action/Disposition:Accept in principle. Actually the correct terminology for the attachmen
42、t plug, according to the Standard for Attachment Plugs and Receptacles, UL 498, is inlet. UL, therefore, suggests, attachment plug inlet, as follows: provided with a grounding-type attachment plug inlet , and reproposes the requirements accordingly.1) Clarification of the ScopeNo.Comment SubmitterPa
43、ragraph / Text ReferenceComment or Comment Summary1.John Dudek, Tyco ElectronicsCorporationScope, 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, UL1449.” This is a statement of
44、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 defines the products covered and not covered by the Standard. The a
45、dded sentence just specifies which Standard to use, information that can be obtained from other sources within UL.Action/Disposition:Not accepted. This is only a clarification, wherein the old terminology of thyrector was changed to silicone avalanche diode and a direct reference to UL 1449 was adde
46、d.2.John Dudek, Tyco ElectronicsCorporationScope, 1.5The changes to clause 1.5 amend the word “Temporary “ to“Relocatable”, reflecting a change in the title of the UL 1363Standard. Also, “UL 1363” is added to the sentence, identifying the Standard number of the already identified Standard.Action/Dis
47、position:Accept. This is a clarification to specify the correct UL Standard name, Relocatable Power Taps.3.John Dudek, Tyco ElectronicsCorporationScope, 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 paragraph 1.6 became part of ULs Foreword, which, however, has since been removed from the Standard.SUBJECT 1283-A7-OCTOBER 3, 2005Table Continued