| Home | Terms of Use | Site Map | Contact Us |
IndustryCommunity.com > Electrical and Electronic Community > EMC and Safety Regulatory Expertise Forum > Message
Main Menu

[ List Subjects ][ Post Message ]
[ View Followups ][ Post Followup ]

Subject: Re: UL vs IEC Creepage requirements

Date: 03/03/02 at 6:01 PM
Posted by: Tracy Lentz
E-mail: tracy.lentz@honeywell.com
Message Posted:

In Reply to: Re: UL vs IEC Creepage requirements posted by John Dunn - Consultant on 02/28/02 at 9:07 PM:

Thank you for your feedback!
Mischief is my middle name!

We are missing some senior staff here due to lay-offs so I am left to make assumptions when looking at prior art -And need to know that my assumptions are correct!

I can't tell you much about the application as it is proprietary in nature however, I have been identified as the engineer who will make a new widget. (Frighten-ly high voltage widget -at that!)
And while investigating prior art, I couldn't see how the current got back up to the secondary -unless it literally "creeped" across the board back to its source from a spade terminal -which is hooked to another part of the widget -after the high voltage has gone through its load. Mmm Well, clearly, with your feedback, this IS what is happening. (Yeah!)

Now I just have to figure out how to deal with the super high frequency noise from the switching regulator. (I do have Y/X-Caps and inductors in the (120/240 rms) input lines for conducted emissions. (I assume these components work to block conducted emissions as they pass current directly to earth ground!) However, I am not entirely sure about how to pass the FCC radiated portion if I am not enclosed in a metal box. I have heard about sprays and the like...although I hadn't planned to pot the control to keep costs down...always open for ideas! J Perhaps I'll start a new string! Or do a search...)

Thanks again for your feedback!!!
I appreciate it!

Follow Ups:

Post a Follow-up:


Message to Post:


1999-2001 Sunlit Technology Co., Ltd. All rights reserved.