Re: Routine Hipot testing
Mr. Vajda, You wrote: >Could you please tell me which version of UL1950 did you refer to. In >a 1989 edition section 5.3.2 has no Note 1. Section 1.4.2 states >that all tests -unless otherwise stated, are type tests. Section >5.3.2 does not state otherwise. My message was a reply to a question regarding the 3rd Edition, bi-national standard. So the reference, of course, is to UL 1950 3rd Edition, bi-national standard. UL 1950-89 is neither 3rd Edition nor a bi-national standard. :-) By the way, the same wording (missing the words "Note 1" can also be found in the same sub-clause, in your copy of the U.S. 1989 edition: "For production test purposes ... " In fact, the same wording can be found in all editions of all nationalized versions of IEC 950. (Maybe I should put on my flack jacket; somebody is bound to correct me on this and tell us that there is a Country Deviation for Lower Slobovia) :-) Regards, Egon Varju
Re: EU Language update
Kontinuing zis proses yer after yer, ve vud eventuli hav a relisensibl riten styl. After tventi yers zer vud be no mor trubls, difikultis and evrivun vud fin it ezi tu understand ech ozer. Ze drems of the Guvermnt vud finali hav kum tru. Please don't let Clinton hear about this move, he'll have it in place in 6 months. Gabriel Roy Huys Ntvork Sistms
Re: Routine Hipot testing
Reply to: RE>>Routine Hipot testing Janos, Try using the BI-NATIONAL (CSA C22.2 No. 950/UL 1950) of July 28, 1995, page 124. Note 1 is below the 2nd paragraph, and is verbatim of IEC 950:1995, Amend. 3, page 207. Naftali Shani Nortel Technology naftali.sh...@nt.com -- List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: 5/6/96 2:10 PM To: Naftali Shani From: janos vajda - 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 - Dear Mr. Varju; Could you please tell me which version of UL1950 did you refer to. In a 1989 edition section 5.3.2 has no Note 1. Section 1.4.2 states that all tests -unless otherwise stated, are type tests. Section 5.3.2 does not state otherwise. Regards: janos vajda Reply-to: "Egon H. Varju" <73132.2...@compuserve.com> 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 14:07:19 -0400 Received: from mail.ieee.org (actually rab.ieee.org) by ntigate.rich.nt.com with SMTP (PP); Mon, 6 May 1996 18:06:05 + Received: by mail.ieee.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id NAA06870 for emc-pstc-list; Mon, 6 May 1996 13:46:59 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199605061746.naa16...@ds16.modicon.com> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: janos vajda Organization: ASA Modicon To: Kazimier Gawrzyjal , "Egon H. Varju" <73132.2...@compuserve.com> List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: Mon, 6 May 1996 13:45:58 +0500 Subject: Re: Routine Hipot testing CC: IEEE Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.01) Sender: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: janos vajda X-Resent-To: Multiple Recipients 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
Re: Routine Hipot testing
RE>>Routine Hipot testing5/6/96 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 + 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: List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: 6 May 1996 13:12:41 -0400 From: Kazimier Gawrzyjal Subject: Re: Routine Hipot testing To: "Egon H. Varju" <73132.2...@compuserve.com> Cc: IEEE 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 X-Resent-To: Multiple Recipients 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
Re[2]: Routine Hipot testing
Note 1 of section 5.3.2 is in the 3rd edition of UL1950, July 28, 1995. Tania Grant, Octel Communications Corporation __ Reply Separator _ Subject: Re: Routine Hipot testing Author: "janos vajda" at P_Internet_mail List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date:5/6/96 1:45 PM Dear Mr. Varju; Could you please tell me which version of UL1950 did you refer to. In a 1989 edition section 5.3.2 has no Note 1. Section 1.4.2 states that all tests -unless otherwise stated, are type tests. Section 5.3.2 does not state otherwise. Regards: janos vajda Reply-to: "Egon H. Varju" <73132.2...@compuserve.com> 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
Re: Routine Hipot testing
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
Re: Routine Hipot testing
Dear Mr. Varju; Could you please tell me which version of UL1950 did you refer to. In a 1989 edition section 5.3.2 has no Note 1. Section 1.4.2 states that all tests -unless otherwise stated, are type tests. Section 5.3.2 does not state otherwise. Regards: janos vajda Reply-to: "Egon H. Varju" <73132.2...@compuserve.com> 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
EU News Release
>Kontinuing zis proses yer after yer, ve vud eventuli hav a relisensibl >riten styl. After tventi yers zer vud be no mor trubls, difikultis and >evrivun vud fin it ezi tu understand ech ozer. Ze drems of the >Guvermnt vud finali hav kum tru. I always wanted to talk like Colonel Klink.; ) Erik Hening henn...@fp.com
Re: Routine Hipot testing
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
EU Language update
PSNet EU Press Release ~~ Having chosen English as the preferred language in the EEC (now officially the European Union, or EU), the European Parliament has commissioned a feasability study in ways of improving efficiency in communications between Government departments. European officials have often pointed out that English spelling is unnecessary difficult; for example: cough, plough, rough, through and thorough. What is clearly needed is a phased programme of changes to iron out these anomalies. The programme would, of course, be administered by a committee staff at top level by participating nations. In the first year, for example, the committee would suggest using 's' instead of the soft 'c'. Sertainly, sivil servants in all sities would resieve this news with joy. Then the hard 'c' could be replaced by 'k' sinse both letters are pronounsed alike. Not only would this klear up konfusion in the minds of klerikal workers, but typewriters kould be made with one less letter. There would be growing enthusiasm when in the sekond year, it was anounsed that the troublesome 'ph' would henseforth be written 'f'. This would make words like 'fotograf' twenty persent shorter in print. In the third year, publik akseptanse of the new spelling kan be expekted to reach the stage where more komplikated changes are possible. Governments would enkourage the removal of double letters which have always been a deterent to akurate speling. We would al agre that the horible mes of silent 'e's in the languag is disgrasful. Therefor we kould drop thes and kontinu to read and writ as though nothing had hapend. By this tim it would be four years sins the skem began and peopl would be reseptiv to steps sutsh as replasing 'th' by 'z'. Perhaps zen ze funktion of 'w' kould be taken on by 'v', vitsh is, after al, half a 'w'. Shortly after zis, ze unesesary 'o' kould be dropd from words kontaining 'ou'. Similar arguments vud of kors be aplid to ozer kombinations of leters. Kontinuing zis proses yer after yer, ve vud eventuli hav a relisensibl riten styl. After tventi yers zer vud be no mor trubls, difikultis and evrivun vud fin it ezi tu understand ech ozer. Ze drems of the Guvermnt vud finali hav kum tru.
