RE>>Routine Hipot testing 5/6/96
Be aware that when doing manufacturing floor testing, the 1 second test is for
levels 20% higher (AC or DC). IEC 950 also states 3000VAC + 20% for
re-inforced. ( 1sec)
Regan Arndt
Safety Technologist
Nortel, Calgary
--------------------------------------
List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org
Date: 5/6/96 3:50 PM
To: Regan Arndt
From: Kazimier Gawrzyjal
----- E X T E R N A L L Y O R I G I N A T E D M E S S A G E -----
RE>>Routine Hipot testing 5/6/96
Kaz-ESN 765-4805
Egon,
You may have a point.
However, Note 1 of UL 1950 ed. 3, cl. 5.3.2 merely reads: "For production
test purposes, it is permitted to reduce the duration of the electric strength
test to 1 s. Alternative methods of production test are under consideration."
The above sub-clause note, in no way details manufacturing and production test
requirements, unlike UL 1459 (cl.6.3).
Hence, there is much implied in the above note while not much is stated
regarding production testing requirements. This is likely due to the complete
reliance of such requirements being stated in the report as opposed to being a
specified standard requirement.
Cheers,
Kaz Gawrzyjal
Safety Eng-Nortel
0307...@nt.com
--------------------------------------
List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org
Date: 5/6/96 12:12 PM
To: Kazimier Gawrzyjal
From: Egon H. Varju
----- E X T E R N A L L Y O R I G I N A T E D M E S S A G E -----
Kaz,
On 1996.5.5 you wrote:
>I believe that the harmonized, 3rd edition of UL 1950/ CSA C22.2 N0. 950
>has pulled the requirement for 100 % hi-pot testing out of the standard.
>Not to say that this is no longer a requirement. A comment from a UL
>rep. was that such factory testing is included in the Certification
>reports (or Follow Up Service Agreements) as a requirement and so the
>text has been removed from the bi-national standard. Nevertheless, it
>must still be performed.
Actually, the requirement has not been removed from the bi-national standard.
See Sub-Clause 5.3.2, Note 1.
:-)
Egon Varju
------------------ RFC822 Header Follows ------------------
Received: by nmisq2.miss.nt.com with SMTP;6 May 1996 15:48:53 -0400
Received: from mail.ieee.org (actually rab.ieee.org) by ntigate.rich.nt.com
with SMTP (PP); Mon, 6 May 1996 19:47:12 +0000
Received: by mail.ieee.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id PAA13035 for emc-pstc-list;
Mon, 6 May 1996 15:17:49 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <n1380726640.89...@nmisq2.miss.nt.com>
List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org
Date: 6 May 1996 13:12:41 -0400
From: Kazimier Gawrzyjal <kazimier_gawrzy...@nmisq2.miss.nt.com>
Subject: Re: Routine Hipot testing
To: "Egon H. Varju" <73132.2...@compuserve.com>
Cc: IEEE <emc-p...@ieee.org>
X-Mailer: Mail*Link SMTP-QM 3.0.2
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; Name="Message Body"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sender: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Kazimier Gawrzyjal <kazimier_gawrzy...@nmisq2.miss.nt.com>
X-Resent-To: Multiple Recipients <emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org>
X-Listname: emc-pstc
X-List-Description: Product Safety Tech. Committee, EMC Society
X-Info: Help requests to emc-pstc-requ...@majordomo.ieee.org
X-Info: [Un]Subscribe requests to majord...@majordomo.ieee.org
X-Moderator-Address: emc-pstc-appro...@majordomo.ieee.org
