It was bureaucratic and inflexible, because unofficial, alarmist
interpretations spread like a Californian fire, opening up routes for
criminal exploitation. After a while it got so bad that senior people at
the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) had to step in and stop the rot.
Unfortunately, much of what was done was 'commercially sensitive', so
not disclosed, but there are HSE 'idiot's guides' on the web, and some
more detailed guidance that is not free of charge.
Abuses included 'testing' wood and plastic enclosures (for a fee, of
course), and damaging equipment with the hi-pot output and quoting huge
fees for repairing. In fact, legitimate repair was often totally
uneconomic.
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK
On 2018-08-15 20:22, Pete Perkins wrote:
John, thanx for your note on this. I’m not surprised that the WWW is
wooly on this subject. My sources for this are from my experience –
with my former employer who had two UK shops producing products and
had to deal with this issue as well as feedback from clients that I
have had along the way in my consultancy who were caught up in this
issue. In either case it all seemed to be quite bureaucratic and
inflexible when it got to the factory floor during HSW inspections.
:>) br, Pete
Peter E Perkins, PE
Principal Product Safety & Regulatory Affairs Consultant
PO Box 23427
Tigard, ORe 97281-3427
503/452-1201
IEEE Life Fellow
p.perk...@ieee.org <mailto:p.perk...@ieee.org>
*From:*John Woodgate <j...@woodjohn.uk>
*Sent:* Wednesday, August 15, 2018 12:14 PM
*To:* Pete Perkins <peperkin...@cs.com>; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
*Subject:* Re: [PSES] hipot test
in the UK, the requirements are in fact very woolly, and it's
difficult to find definitive information on the Web. But testing
doesn't have to be done annually, and hi-pot only in cases of repair
of hired-out equipment. Unfortunately, insulation resistance testing,
with PASS values even below 1 megohm in some cases, is included.
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associateswww.woodjohn.uk <http://www.woodjohn.uk>
Rayleigh, Essex UK
On 2018-08-15 17:03, Pete Perkins wrote:
All, This discussion goes around year after year.
The test results reported – especially Nute – show
that it takes dozens, maybe hundreds of hipot tests to damage
adequate insulation.
In the UK, so I hear, the gov’t safety folks expect
each piece of equipment to be hipot retested annually to
demonstrate adequate insulation. We don’t hear a large hue and
cry about failing equipment in that arena.
So from the experience and the data it is clear
that both the engineering type hipot testing and the factory
routine testing should not pose any problem to properly designed
and manufactured products.
For line connected products it is foolishness to
remove components for hipot testing. If that is being done the
product is not robust enough in the first place. This includes DC
line powered equipment since so much DC power is being installed
and used in places where it is subject to the same lighting and
starting impulses traditionally seen on AC line operated equipment.
:>) br, Pete
-
----------------------------------------------------------------
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>
