Re: Safety testing after equipment repair

Hi John: My last (3) employers have required all repaired or modified units to be hi-potted. If a unit has been repaired, then the cover was removed, and the unit is no longer controlled by the oroginal production hi-pot. I think this is too stringent.

re: Safety testing after equipment repair

Rich, Gregg, Gregg, your memory is slipping - clearly you have been away from the UK for too long, or you're enjoying the American wine too much! The referenced document is The Electricity at Work Regulations 1989 and they were implemented as a Statutory Instrument under the Health and Safety

RE: Altitude specifications

Thanks Rich and everyone else who has responded. I now have the basics I need. By the way my rule of thumb exists. It turns out that IEC 76 and ANSIC 57.12 both let you go to 3300ft without applying correction factors. Jim Eichner, P.Eng. Compliance Engineering Manager Xantrex Technology

harmonics testing

We make a product that has several components that plug into the power mains including a computer, two monitors, and two units that we manufacture ourselves. When all these components are tested for power current harmonic emissions together, they fail. When tested separately, they pass. Is it

Re: Safety testing after equipment repair

I read in !emc-pstc that Peter L. Tarver peter.tar...@sanmina-sci.com wrote (in nebbkemlgllmjofmoplekemhegaa.peter.tar...@sanmina-sci.com) about 'Safety testing after equipment repair' on Thu, 22 May 2003: Or a lower potential test for mains connected equipment, such as insulation resistance.

IEEESymposium 2003 Boston, MA - Call for Experiments and Demos

Greetings IEEE Experiment and Computer Simulation enthusiasts! This is a special invitation for you to consider contributing to the 2003 IEEE EMC Symposium by presenting an experiment or computer simulation demonstration. Please forward this email to other people that you know and may possibly

RE: Safety testing after equipment repair

John - Or a lower potential test for mains connected equipment, such as insulation resistance. More complicated, but less deleterious, tests could include an earth leakage current test or a touch current test. From: John Woodgate Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2003 12:19 PM Repeated hi-pot

Re: Altitude specifications

Jim, From a standards standpoint, altitude adjustments for dielectric values and creepage and clearance distances are outlined in IEC 61010-1:1993, clauses D.7.4 and D.9. These requirements probably come from IEC 60664-1 for Insulation Coordination in low voltage equipment, Annex A. The

Re: Safety testing after equipment repair

Hi Gregg and Barry: Australia has an actual standard which lists the tests and procedures for the regular testing of equipment in use, and equipment that has been So has the UK. it was called (something like) The Electricity at Work Act generally a good thing put a dangerously

RE: Altitude specifications

Thanks Ken. A quick search uncovered the following website showing the curve, which is indeed non-linear. http://www.reynoldsindustries.com/product/2multipin/page17.asp It appears, however, that the curve is close to linear in the limited altitude range experienced by our products which

Re: Altitude specifications

The Paschen curve that describes air dielectric breakdown vs. pressure is not linear. I think you can find it in the Reference Handbook for Radio Engineers. From: Jim Eichner jim.eich...@xantrex.com Reply-To: Jim Eichner jim.eich...@xantrex.com Date: Thu, 22 May 2003 10:47:36 -0700 To:

Re: Safety testing after equipment repair

I read in !emc-pstc that Brian O'Connell boconn...@t-yuden.com wrote (in f7e9180f6f7f5840858d3db815e4f7ad1f2...@cms21.t-yuden.com) about 'Safety testing after equipment repair' on Thu, 22 May 2003: My last (3) employers have required all repaired or modified units to be hi-potted. If a

Altitude specifications

My understanding is that the main 2 effects of increased altitude on electronics are reduced effectiveness of forced-air and convection cooling methods and reduced dielectric strength of air-gaps (clearances). We are looking into this to determine an altitude specification for a new product

Re: ENV 50204

I read in !emc-pstc that Carpentier Kristiaan Kristiaan.Carpentier@thom son.net wrote (in 421CB3B9B2D2F645B548D213C0A90E550159FB84@edgmsmsg01. eu.thmulti.com) about 'ENV 50204' on Thu, 22 May 2003: Some small remark on your statement: EN 50082-1:1997 is being replaced by EN 61000-6-1:2001. EN

RE: ENV 50204

John, Some small remark on your statement: EN 50082-1:1997 is being replaced by EN 61000-6-1:2001. EN 50082-1:1997 can still be used as harmonised standard up to July 1rst, 2004. Regards, Kris From: John Barnes [mailto:jrbar...@iglou.com] Sent: woensdag 21 mei 2003 16:44 To: Joe P Martin;