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 jva...@modicon.com 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
RERoutine 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 - RERoutine 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: 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
Re: Routine Hipot testing
Reply to: RERoutine 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 jvajda@ds16 From: janos vajda jva...@modicon.com Organization: ASA Modicon To: Kazimier Gawrzyjal kazimier_gawrzy...@nmisq2.miss.nt.com, 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 emc-p...@ieee.org Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.01) Sender: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: janos vajda jva...@modicon.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
Re: Routine Hipot testing
RERoutine 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
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
