Ken: I had some experience with using multiple EESeal connector EMI filters on a complicated Navy data telemetry system. One interesting thing about using these EESeals was that they made contact to each pin within a connector by having one or two tiny, thin gold leaf tabs extend from the EESeal silicon rubber "sandwich." When all the connector pins were in perfect alignment, and the EESeal was installed perfectly into a connector shell, the connector pins would firmly press those little gold leaf contacts against the EESeal's hole ID. This made a good, low-impedance connection between the connector pin and the EESeal's capacitor chips. IIRC, the EESeal body also had several little gold leaf tabs on its OD, in order to make a ground connection to the connector shell.
I mention this in some detail because I found that when the connector pin alignment wasn't perfect, or the EESeal wasn't inserted nice and flat, it was possible to stress the little gold tabs. If you got an EESeal in place and then removed it (using Quell's approved method), you might (due to cost) be tempted to reinstall it later. I found that a microscopic examination of the EESeals sometimes disclosed missing gold tabs, or sometimes they had been "balled up" against the hole ID wall. My point is that these are fragile components, and there is a possibility of misaligned gold tabs or even broken tabs being trapped between the connector insulation face and the EESeal silcon rubber body. This certainly frightens me from a reliability standpoint, as you can't see this from any visual examination of an installed EESeal. The installation of EESeals (the tiny ones were more troublesome than the big, multi-pin ones) must be done by tech's who understand the weaknesses of these marvelous gadgets, and who are willing to reject an assembly rather than "make it fit." And from an engineering viewpoint, your quality assuarance should cover the possibility of degradation arising from installing this type of device. Ed Price WB6WSN Chula Vista, CA USA -----Original Message----- From: Ken Javor [mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2018 7:37 AM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] X & Y Cap rating due to hipot test No one knows about the eeseal. It's a possible EMI fix. I don't know were the 1000 V hipot test came from; I supposed it was insulation resistance/creepage-based. The point is, it is a dc requirement and the device will never see 1000 Vdc elsewhere, therefore it seems like an inappropriate requirement to place on a cap as a WVDC rating, and I don't see why it should be placed on an EMI filter external to the EUT. Ken Javor Phone: (256) 650-5261 - ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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 <sdoug...@ieee.org> Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org> For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: <j.bac...@ieee.org> David Heald: <dhe...@gmail.com>
