For IEC60065 Appendix N2.1 (informative) specifies a maximum production line dielectric trip current limit of 100mA. This is considered a dielectric failure and looked at as the same as breakdown or flashover.
-----Original Message----- From: Brian Oconnell [mailto:oconne...@tamuracorp.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2014 12:45 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] UL61010-1 CSDS Proposal for 6.5.2.4 No. Nicht. Aon. It does NOT matter that current flows through the 'filters' and other stuff during AC hi-pot and 'trips' the instrument. This is a good thing - set limit levels on your test equipment to verify cap values and leakage paths. There is no inherent current limit for this test in the affected standards for di-electric withstand. You do control the ramp and current levels in your factory hi-pot? No? Sit in the corner. Brian -----Original Message----- From: Brian Oconnell Sent: Monday, June 23, 2014 5:30 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: UL61010-1 CSDS Proposal for 6.5.2.4 This is excerpted from the latest UL61010-1 CSDS Proposal for 6.5.2.4 Impedance of PROTECTIVE BONDING of plug-connected equipment: "It was proposed that all hi-pot tests should be permitted to be performed with either ac or dc, particularly because OEM power supplies often fail when tested with ac, but pass when tested with dc. This seems to be because IEC 60601-1 3rd edition, IEC 60950, and IEC 62368-1, to which most of these power supplies are tested, permit either ac or dc testing. The consensus of ISA 82 is that this change is appropriate. It is also recommended that this change be reflected in the US comments on Part 1 by the USTAG." Ok, why are component power supplies failing AC, but passing the equivalent DC withstand test levels? If from reactance, just control dv/dt (many standards provide a min rate). And what does the protective bond test have to do with the test conditions for di-electric withstand? Or am I missing something obvious? Brian - ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to <emc-p...@ieee.org> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas <emcp...@radiusnorth.net> Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org> For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: <j.bac...@ieee.org> David Heald: <dhe...@gmail.com> - ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to <emc-p...@ieee.org> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas <emcp...@radiusnorth.net> Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org> For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: <j.bac...@ieee.org> David Heald: <dhe...@gmail.com>
