This is a photographic template – your
photograph should fit precisely within this rectangle.
Interplay between electromechanical and
solid state switching technologies
for meeting cost, sustainability, and safety
demands of various applications
Thomas J. Schoepf, Eaton Innovation Center, Milwaukee (WI), U.S.A.
© 2008 Eaton Corporation. All rights reserved.
Thanks to the IEEE
Holm
This is a photographic
templateoperating
– your
photograph should fit precisely
within this rectangle.
committee
for the
invitation!
Special Thanks Is Due To
(In alphabetical order) Vijay Bhavaraju, Henry Czajkowski, Yakov Familiant,
Werner Johler, Bin Lu, Charles Luebke, Peter Meckler, John Merrison,
Peter Theisen, Ian Wallace, Gerald Witter, Peter Zeller, Xin Zhou
© 2008 Eaton Corporation. All rights reserved.
Basic requirements for switching devices
Closed state:
connection of two conductors with least
possible losses, i.e. smallest resistance
possible
Open state:
best isolation of both conductors possible,
i.e. highest resistance and dielectric
strength possible
switching state:
quick and reversible transfer from one
state to the other without generating too
high over voltages (not to exceed the
insulation limits)
3
3
Switching Principles
electromechanical
Solid state
Change conductivity of switching
device by replacing of a very well
conducting medium with a very
well isolating one, and vice versa:
Metal contact – arc plasma –
isolating medium (e.g. gas, air)
Change conductivity of switching
device by controlled change of the
conductivity of a medium remaining
in the current path
Ω-1m-1)
σ (Ω
Electrical conductivity of
nitrogen at atmospheric
pressure
T (1000 K)
MOSFET transfer characteristic
4
4
Electromechanics vs. Solid-State Classics
- prejudices
electromechanical
Solid-state
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Electromechanics is dying out
Too slow interruption
Too sensitive (vibrations)
Too old-fashioned
Too noisy
Not precise enough
Standards are electromechanic
centric
• …
Too expensive
Too hot
Too big
No proper isolation – leakage
current
• No auxiliary contacts
• Doesn’t meet the standards
• Promises are not being kept –
technology development not fast
enough (SiC)
• …
To overcome these prejudices:
Do not expect the solid-state solutions to behave like
traditional electromechanical ones and vice versa.
5
5
Electromechanics vs. Solid-State
Characteristic
Life
Power loss
Size
Electromechanical
switches
0
Semiconductor
switches
++
+
+
----
Cost
Safe interruption
+
++
Visible open position
Frequency of operation
+
0
++
Freedom from maintenance
0
++
Reliability
Breaking capacity
0
+
+
Susceptibility to overvoltage
+
Voltage drop
Logic Connection
+
--
-
+
Multiplicity of functions
0
+
Electromagnetic compatibility
Interference
++
+
Effects on environment
Sensitivity to vibrations
Power amplification
+
+
++
0
Key to ratings
0 = satisfactgory
+ = good
+ + = very good
- = unfavorable
- - = very unfavorable
Are characteristics
measured in same units
(e.g. life)?
Rating depends on
specific technology
and application!
Source: Proc. ICEC1988
6
6
Applications - there are many
7
7
One Example - Comparison RF Characteristics
FET
G
D
On State
Metal contacts
2-D conduction channel
R = 5Ω
Insulator
R = 0.5Ω
Insertion loss ~ 0.43dB
G
Metal contacts
Insulator
Semiconductor
S
EMR
R = 0.05Ω
Insertion loss ~ 0.043dB
Insertion loss ~ 0.0043dB
D
OFF State
Small air gap
S-D capacitive coupled
Large air gap
Insulator
Semiconductor
Insulator
C = 45fF
C = 0.23fF
Isolation ~ 17dB @ 6GHz
Isolation ~ 60dB @ 6GHz
Characteristic
Ids
Icontact
Vds
Poor Linearity
C = 0.015fF
Isolation ~ 84dB @ 6GHz
Johler W., IEEE Holm Conf. on EC, 2003
S
MEMS
Icontact
Vcontact
Good Linearity
Vcontact
Excellent
Linearity
8
8
Outline
Let’s discuss electromechanical and solid state
switching technologies in the light of the
rapidly growing dependency on electricity.
! Global Energy Situation and
GHG
! Efficiency
! Impact of Soft Grids
(Safety and Power Quality)
9
9
World Energy-Related CO2-Emissions
(Billion Metric Tons)
50
History
Projections
This
40 is a photographic template – your
photograph
30 should fit precisely within this rectangle.
20
10
0
2005
1990
2000
2010
2020
Energy Outlook
Sources: EIA - Energy Information Administration / Annual
Energy Outlook 2008, and International Energy Outlook 2008
(http://www.eia.doe.gov)
© 2008 Eaton Corporation. All rights reserved.
2030
World Marketed Energy Consumption
Take-away
The total world consumption
of marketed energy is
projected to increase by
50% from 2005 to 2030.
The largest projected
increase in energy demand
is for the non-OECD
economies.
11
11
U.S. Primary Energy Consumption by
Source and Sector, 2007
Sources: Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Review 2007, Tables 1.3, 2.1b-2.1f and 10.3.
Take-away
72% of total U.S. energy consumed by Residential,
Commercial, and Industrial Sectors in 2007.
12
12
Growth of World Electricity
Take-away
Over the next 25 years,
the world will become
increasingly
dependent on electricity to
meet its energy needs.
13
13
World Electricity Generation 2005-2030
Take-away
Net electricity generation
worldwide is projected to
total
33.3 trillion kilowatt-hours
in 2030, nearly double the
2005 total of 17.3 trillion
kilowatt-hours.
15
7
8
3
3
3
5
4
0.8
1
14
14
Increase of U.S. Renewable Generation
2006
Source: http://www.eia.doe.gov
Take-away
Renewables to increase by
70% from 2006 to 2030.
Wind and biomass expected
to be biggest nonhydroelectric renewable
electricity generators.
15
15
World Energy-Related CO2 Emissions
s
as u
ess
n
i
s
Bu
ual
Take-away
World energy-related CO2
emissions projected to
double from 1990 to 2030.
In 2030, CO2 emissions
from the non-OECD
countries are projected to
exceed those from the
OECD countries by 72 %.
16
16
Technologies that can reduce global CO2 emissions from energy
combustion
Reduce
45000
•Fossil Fuel
Energy
40000
Consumption
Efficiency
•CO2 and
35000
al
usu
GHG
s
a
s
ines
Bus
Mt CO 2
30000
25000
20000
Renewable
Energies
Energy savings
15000
10000
Fossil fuel switch
HEV/PHEV/EV
Renewable energies
Fuel Cells
Nuclear energy
5000
0
1990
avoided emissions
Potential To Reduce World CO2 Emissions
Carbon sequestration
H2 combustion
Emission of reduction case
2000
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
Source: The Institute for Prospective Technological Studies (IPTS) one of the 7 scientific institutes of the European
Commission's Joint Research Centre
17
17
Technical Potential for U.S. CO2 Reductions
3500
Achieving all targets is very aggressive, but potentially feasible.
AEO2008*(Ref)
Energy
Efficiency
2500
ine
Bus
ua
s us
a
s
s
l
Renewable
Energies
2000
Technology
1500
Revis James, National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners
2008 Summer Meeting, Portland, OR
U.S. Electric Sector
CO2 Emissions (million metric tons)
3000
EIA 2008 Reference
Target
Load Growth ~ +1.05%/yr
Load Growth ~ +0.75%/yr
Renewables
55 GWe by 2030
100 GWe by 2030
Nuclear Generation
15 GWe by 2030
64 GWe by 2030
No Heat Rate Improvement for
Existing Plants
1-3% Heat Rate Improvement for
130 GWe Existing Plants
40% New Plant Efficiency
by 2020–2030
46% New Plant Efficiency
by 2020; 49% in 2030
CCS
None
Widely Deployed After 2020
PHEV
None
Efficiency
1000
Advanced Coal
Generation
500
0
1990
1995
DER
2000
2005
2010
< 0.1% of Base Load in 2030
10% of New Light-Duty Vehicle
Sales by 2017; 33% by 2030
2015
2020
2025
5% of Base Load in 2030
*Energy Information Administration (EIA) Annual Energy Outlook (AEO)
18
2030
18
This is a photographic template – your
photograph should fit precisely within this rectangle.
Efficiency
© 2008 Eaton Corporation. All rights reserved.
U.S. Annual Electricity Sales per Sector
Take-away
Commercial Sector
(service industries
continue to drive growth)
and Residential Sector
(population growth
andshift to warmer regions)
dominate Electricity
Demand Growth.
Source: Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 2008
Slow growth in industrial
production, particularly in
the energy-intensive
industries, limits demand.
20
20
Projected Efficiency Gains – U.S. Residential
Source: http://www.eia.doe.gov
Take-away
New energy-efficient appliances and products, especially
compact fluorescent and solid-state lighting
(lighting efficiency standards in EISA2007)
reduce energy use without lowering service levels.
21
21
Projected Efficiency Gains – U.S. Commercial
Take-away
The long service lives of
many kinds of energy-using
equipment limit the pace of
efficiency improvements.
Higher efficiency by:
• improved heat exchangers
for space heating and
cooling equipment
• solid-state lighting
• more efficient compressors
for commercial refrigeration
Source: http://www.eia.doe.gov
22
22
Save
Energy
Pow-R-Command™
Lighting and Load Control
Pow-R-Command
Lighting Controls
According to the New Buildings
Institute, lighting controls can
reduce lighting energy
consumption by 50% in existing
buildings and by at least 35% in
new construction.
• Program locally to switch loads
based on automatic time
schedules, analog inputs or digital
inputs
• Analog outputs allow for
fluorescent dimming and
daylight harvesting
23
23
Save
Energy
Pow-R-Command™
Lighting and Load Control
Typical Office Building Application
Past Consumption:
250 fixtures × 2 lamps × 32 watts × 16 hrs 256 kwh
=
1 day
day
New Consumption:
250 fixtures × 2 lamps × 32 watts × (11 hrs × 0.6 + 5 hrs × 0.3) 129.6 kwh
=
1 day
day
Percent Savings: 49.375%
Greenhouse Gases Averted:
40,826 lbs. CO2
(based on eGRID 915 lbs. / MWh)
24
24
Industrial/Commercial - Motor facts
0.7%
1.8%
2.9%
Take-away
9.1%
6-20
21-50
51-100
101-200
201-500
501-1000
1000+
21-50 hp
In the U.S. motors use
70% of the electrical
energy (679 TWh/yr) in a
typical industrial facility
(≈ 23% of total U.S.
electricity sold).
6-20 hp
1-5 hp
58.8%
26.4%
100
More than 98% of all
motors are < 500 hp and
they consume 15% of
total U.S. electricity sold.
0.2% Industrial Motor Populations
0.1%
1-5
13 Million motors > 1hp
Motor System Energy Use by Application and Horsepower
(overall Manufacturing)
TWh/yr
90
Other Energy
80
Air Compressor
Pump Energy
70
Fan Energy
60
50
40
30
< 500 hp
20
10
0
1 - 5 hp
6 - 20 hp
21 - 50 hp
51 - 100 hp
101 - 200 hp
201 - 500 hp 501 - 1000 hp
Sources: DOE 2002 Industrial Electric Motor Systems Market Opportunity Assessment, US Dept
25 of
Commerce 2002 Census, Team analysis
1000+ hp
25
Energy Saving with Solid-State Motor Control
160
• Motors consume energy
100X their cost over
the lifetime; $100B annual
spend in U.S. alone1
Electro-mechanical
Control
140
Power (%)
120
Motor Losses
100
Pump Losses
80
Valve Losses
60
Useful Work
40
20
• Energy efficiency
standards already in
progress in most U.S.
States
0
0
10
20
30 40
50
60 70
80
90 100
Flow (%)
Adjustable Frequency Drive
Control
160
• 70% of industrial energy is
used by electric motors –
18-25%
greatest efficiency
opportunity after lighting efficiency
Power (%)
140
120
100
savings with
AC Drive2
Saved Power
80
Losses
60
Useful Work
40
20
**No Flow
Valve needed
0
0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Flow (%)
Many motors still run at fixed speeds, power-electronics drives can control the
speed of the motor to match output with the needs
Sources:
1 Electrical
Information Administration, U.S. Government
for Energy Efficiency
2 Consortium
Charts: Energy Efficiency-The Role
Of Power 26
Electronics, ABB
26
Motor market perspective – many critical and
power-intensive opportunities
Motor System Energy Use (GWh/YR)
Drives Employments
million motors
70,000
60,000
50,000
Compressor
40,000
Pump
30,000
Fan
20,000
10,000
1-5
6-20
21-50
51-100
101-200
201-500
501-1000
1000+
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
11.4%
Total
# drives
% with Drives
12%
10%
8%
7.3%
6%
4%
3.2%
2%
1.7%
0%
HP Ratings
Pump
Fan
Compressor
Other
Low Employments
Critical Motor Count
End Users Themes
40,000
35,000
30,000
1.
Minimize Energy Costs
2.
Availability & Uptime
25,000
Fan
20,000
Pump
•
Ensure equipment productivity
15,000
Compressor
•
Optimal function with system
3.
10,000
5,000
1-5
6-20
21-50
Minimize maintenance costs
•
Preventative maintenance & Troubleshooting
•
Declining Pool of Skilled Labor
51-100 101-200 201-500 501-1000 1000+
HP Ratings
Motor energy savings and diagnostics present a large growth potential
Sources: DOE 2002 Industrial Electric Motor Systems Market Opportunity Assessment, US Dept of
27
Commerce 2002 Census, Team analysis
27
Solid-state control growth will continue to outpace
electro-mechanical
B USD
Global Market Size (2007 Est)
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Electro-Mech = $4.4B
Solid-State = $6.7B
9%
7.
C
6.7%
2003
2007
GR
A
C
R
AG
2011
2003
2007
2011
Speed control and energy savings lead the Solid-State Control and AF Drive
markets to grow faster than Electro-Mechanical
Sources: Nema Reports, Market Studies & Product Line Estimates
28
28
Data Center Energy Usage
Total U.S. and world server electricity use
(including cooling and auxiliary)
Total electricity (billion kWh/year)
U.S. Data Centers
0.8 % of estimated
2005 world
electricity sales,
U$7.3 B/year
• 1.2% of U.S. Electricity
• 40-76% server growth
2005-2010
1.2 % of 2005 U.S.
electricity sales,
U$2.7 B/year
20061
• ≈ 50% energy goes to
cooling
• 2011 goal of 10%
Cooling and auxiliary
equipment
overall U.S. data center
energy savings1 by
High-end servers
Mid-range servers
Volume servers
U.S.
2000
2005
world
2000
10.7 billion kWh
2005
Source – Koomey Report Feb 15th, 2007, Presented at EPA Workshop Feb16th, 2007
1DOE—The
Green Grid Goal for Energy Savings, 2008
29
29
DOE—The Green Grid Goal for Energy Savings
• Goal is 10% overall U.S. data center energy savings by 2011
• 10.7 billion kWh
• Equivalent to electricity consumed by 1 million typical U.S. homes
• Reduces GHG emissions by 6.5 million metrics tons of CO2 per year
Green Grid - DOE
Energy Savings
Goal; 10.7 billion
kWh/yr by 2011
30
30
Intel High Performance Data Center Airflow
1.2 % of 2005 U.S.
electricity sales,
U$2.7 B/year
0.8 % of estimated
2005 world
electricity sales,
U$7.3 B/year
Source: Intel
31
31
Source – Ken Baker, “HP Energy Aware Provisioning - Bridging the gap between Facilities and IT with Dynamic Smart Cooling”,
Datacenter Dynamics Conference and Expo - New York, New York , March 23rd 2007
Energy Aware Provisioning - HP
32
32
Energy Aware Provisioning - HP
Reducing the
energy required
to cool a
datacenter can
result in
significant cost
savings (and
reduction in CO2
emissions) or the
ability to deploy
more IT
equipment in the
same space -- or
a mixture of the
two.
(X 1000 USD)
Source – Ken Baker, “HP Energy Aware Provisioning - Bridging the gap between Facilities
and IT with Dynamic
33
Smart Cooling”, Datacenter Dynamics Conference and Expo - New York, New York , March 23rd 2007
33
Electro-Mechanic – Motor Starting
AC Contactors
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Magnetic Full Voltage Motor
Starters
Magnetic Full Voltage
Reversing Motor Starters
AC Automatic Transfer
Switches
Part Winding Starters
Wye-Delta Starters
Reduced Voltage Starters
Multi Speed Starters
Combination Starters
Combination Multi Speed
Starters
Maximum HORSEPOWER 3 PHASE MOTORS
Full Voltage
Auto Transformer
Part Winding
WYE - Delta
Starting
Starting
Starting
Starting
NEM
A
Size
200
V
230
V
460
V
200
V
230
V
460
V
200
V
230
V
460
V
200
V
230
V
460
V
0
1.5
1.5
2
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
0
3
3
5
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
1
7.5
7.5
10
7.5
7.5
10
10
10
15
10
10
15
2
10
15
25
10
15
25
20
25
40
20
25
40
3
25
30
50
25
30
50
40
50
75
40
50
75
4
40
50
100
40
50
100
75
75
150
60
75
150
5
75
100
200
75
100
120
150
150
350
150
150
300
6
150
200
400
150
200
400
--
300
600
300
350
700
Take-away
Maximum horsepower of 3 phase motors to be
started/operated with AC contactors in different
configurations is limited by code. Higher powers
require soft-start or drive.
34
34
Starting Motors “Across the Line”
2000
800
Current (A)
400
Starting Current
1500
Torque (Nm)
600
Potential voltage
sag during a motor
start, e.g. ≈20%
Electromagnetic Torque
Three-Phase Motor Currents
200
0
-200
Starting Torque
1000
500
0
-400
-500
-600
-800
0
0.5
1
1.5
Time (sec)
2
2.5
-1000
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
Time (sec)
Take-away
Induction Motors can have starting
inrush currents of 10-12 times full
load amps (12xFLA). These inrush
currents can cause significant
voltage distortions, which may
require soft-starter or motor drives.
Voltage Distortion Tolerance of Electronic Loads
35
35
Soft Starter
Starting at 50% load
Up-stream Breaker
L1
Line Voltage
L2
L3
Motor Voltage
Motor Current
Motor Torque
Soft Starter
SCR’s
A typical soft-starter combines
electro-mechanics and solid state technologies.
Inrush current limit is adjustable,
e.g. 3.5 - 4.5 x (Full Load Amps).
Bypass
Contactor
M
36
36
This is a photographic template – your
photograph should fit precisely within this rectangle.
X
House, facility, hospital
Soft Grids
- Impact of Inverter Fed Power Systems
© 2008 Eaton Corporation. All rights reserved.
Electrical Safety and Protection
- Soft Grids
Inverterfed power
systems
X
House, facility, hospital
fuse
Stand-by
generator
Applications:
• PV arrays
• DC Data Center
• Hybrid Vehicles
• Ship Power Systems
Grid-tied
Power
Systems
• Fuel Cells
• Telecom
• Soft grids
38
38
Circuit Breaker Technologies for Advanced
Ship Power Systems
Conventional power systems
New power systems
use electromechanical circuit
breakers for AC and limited DC
applications
feature DC and power converters
–High fault current is available
(e.g. 85kArms)
–DC applications generally
use de-rated AC circuit
breakers or fuses
Source: Slobodan Krstic, Edward Wellner, Ashish Bendre, Boris Semenov,
“Circuit Breaker Technologies for Advanced Ship Power Systems”, Electric
Ship Technologies Symposium, 2007. ESTS apos;07. IEEE Volume , Issue ,
21-23 May 2007 Page(s):201 - 208
–1000Vdc for distribution,
2000Vdc for propulsion
–High fault current is not
available
•Supplies current limit (e.g 2 x rated)
•Long fault clearing time for
conventional circuit breakers
•Loads can see long outages – UPS,
ABT (automatic bus transfer)
⇒ Fast acting solid state
breakers offer a solution
–Current limiting and energy
limiting
39
39
Circuit Breaker Technologies for Advanced
Ship Power Systems
electromechanical breakers
Solid state breakers
Arc management is a key feature
of electromechanical breakers
–High energy absorption
capability
–Limited HVDC capability (e.g.
6kV for future ships)
–Overall response time of 10
to 100 ms
–Current limiting is slow
relative to power converters
Solid state breakers offer fast
response
–But energy absorption and
voltage clamping are vital
–Thermal losses are always
higher
•Load center outages can be
“long”
Source: Slobodan Krstic, Edward Wellner, Ashish Bendre, Boris Semenov,
“Circuit Breaker Technologies for Advanced Ship Power Systems”, Electric
Ship Technologies Symposium, 2007. ESTS apos;07. IEEE Volume , Issue ,
21-23 May 2007 Page(s):201 - 208
40
40
Current Limiting
Military AC Solid State Interrupter
Different types of Electromechanical
current limiting breakers
SS Breaker
B
A
i
C
D
EM Breaker
Snubber
A
Line
Load
Snubber
B
Snubber
41
mp
Cla
mp
Cla
Clamp
Cla
mp
C
Cla
mp
i
Clamp
41
Circuit Breaker Technologies for Advanced
Ship Power Systems
electromechanical breaker
Solid state breakers
2000Vdc, 800A rated
42 x 16.5 x 7.5 inches, 250 lbs
Water cooled drawer type enclosure
1800Vdc,
2300A rated
35 x 25 x 10
inches, 200 lbs
High-Speed DC Circuit-Breakers
for Rolling Stock
Type UR26, UR36 & UR40
Source: Slobodan Krstic, Edward Wellner, Ashish Bendre, Boris Semenov,
Electric Ship Technologies Symposium, 2007. ESTS apos;07. IEEE
Volume , Issue , 21-23 May 2007 Page(s):201 - 208
42
42
Impact of trip current on clamp energy
• Series circuit with clamp
across a fast switch
Clamp Energy vs Available Current
• 1000 Vdc source
1 .10
5
1 .10
4
1 .10
3
• 1 ms time constant (L/R)
Energy (Joules)
• 1350 Vdc clamp
Interruption Time vs Available
Current
100
10
0.01
Interruption Time (sec.)
1
1 .10
1 .10
3
Trip at 100A
200A
500A
1kA
2kA
5kA
10kA
20kA
50kA
100kA
4
1 .10
5
1 .10
6
0.1
100
Trip at 100A
200A
500A
1kA
2kA
5kA
10kA
20kA
50kA
100kA
1 .10
1 .10
3
4
1 .10
5
Available Current (Amps)
Clamp
Source: Slobodan Krstic, Edward Wellner, Ashish Bendre, Boris Semenov,
100
1 .10
3
1 .10
4
Available Current (Amps)
1 .10
5
Electric Ship Technologies Symposium, 2007. ESTS apos;07. IEEE
Volume , Issue , 21-23 May 2007 Page(s):201 - 208
43
43
Electronic DC Circuit Breaker.
Physical Isolation at OFF-State
MOSFET Technology
Source: Meckler, P.; Ho, W.: “Does an electronic circuit breaker need electrical contacts?”,
Electrical Contacts, 2004. Proceedings of the 50th IEEE Holm Conference on Electrical Contacts and the
22nd International Conference on Electrical Contacts, Volume , Issue , 20-23 Sept. 2004 Page(s): 480 - 487
44
44
Electronic Switching in a 24V DC Power
Distribution System
Mechanical Circuit Breaker
High short circuit current
Electronic Circuit Breaker
current limited by electronics
High i2t-values
Small current peak, small i2t-values
Significant voltage sag
No voltage sag
Source: Meckler,45
P.; Ho, W., ICEC2004
45
Electromechanics vs. Solid-State Trends
- conclusions
electromechanical
Solid-state
! Focus on total cost of ownership
! Think system – A components play is no
longer good enough
! Higher integration, closed loop controls
! Increasing number of hybrid solutions
46
46
Electromechanics vs. Solid-State Trends
- conclusions
electromechanical
Solid-state
! EM and SS technologies should not be
treated as competitors
! Both have there strengths and weaknesses
! Electromechanics is far from extinction
47
47
Electromechanics vs. Solid-State Trends
- the good news
electromechanical
Solid-state
Over the next 25 years, the world will become
increasingly dependent on electricity to meet
its energy needs –
We need more of Electromechanics,
Solid-State-Technologies and combinations
of both for new innovative solutions to meet
energy efficiency, economics, sustainability
and safety challenges.
48
48
This is a photographic template – your
photograph should fit precisely within this rectangle.
Thank you very much for your kind
attention
Thomas J. Schoepf
ThomasJSchoepf@eaton.com
© 2008 Eaton Corporation. All rights reserved.