---
From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk]
Sent: 19 September 2002 16:51
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Re: Question: Discharge capacitance 0.1 uF
I read in !emc-pstc that John Allen wrote (in
) about 'Question:
Discharge capacitance 0.1 uF' on Thu, 19 Sep
test.nl
Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org;
emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org;
emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org;
emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: Question: Discharge capacitance 0.1 uF
Gert
Hi Tom:
> So, for voltage up to 450V d.c. (i.e. up to 318V a.c.), capacitor
> up to 0.1uF will become a Limited Current Circuit, hence the voltage
> is not Hazardous Voltage (1.2.8.4) - no additional condition would
> be required for the capacitor connected to the primary circuit.
E
nl
Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org;
emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org;
emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org;
emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: Question: Discharge capacitance 0.1 uF
Gert
Hi Tom:
> So, for voltage up to 450V d.c. (i.e. up to 318V a.c.), capacitor
> up to 0.1uF will become a Limited Current Circuit, hence the voltage
> is not Hazardous Voltage (1.2.8.4) - no additional condition would
> be required for the capacitor connected to the primary circuit.
El
I read in !emc-pstc that John Allen wrote (in
) about 'Question:
Discharge capacitance 0.1 uF' on Thu, 19 Sep 2002:
>Now, maybe, the standards writing committees will begin to take this issue
>on board and do something about it
Are you saying that the present requirements (e.g. in EN60065) are
>> (the unplugging process may need to be repeated a few times until the
capacitor is disconnected when the mains is high at the time of
disconnection and so gets a "decent" charge!) <<
At a former employer, we monitored the wave form with a 'scope, and
repeatedly opened and closed the connectio
John -
I respectfully disagree that the standards bodies need to do
anything. It is the designers that must be aware of the
advancements of technology (such as described by Gert) and
update their practices accordingly. [Low ESR / High Q caps
are a good thing.] While I have no doubt about the po
4 (0) 1372-367102 (Fax)
-Original Message-
From: Gert Gremmen [mailto:g.grem...@cetest.nl]
Sent: 19 September 2002 11:57
To: John Allen
Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: Question: Discharge capacitance 0.1 uF
Hi John,
Even theory has to comply with practice, so i took my sold
p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: Question: Discharge capacitance 0.1 uF
Hi Charles, Warren
Seems that a few of us know what DOES happen and the longterm results, but
quite a few others don't believe that it does - and that even it does then
it is not very "important".
The
4 (0) 1372-367102 (Fax)
-Original Message-
From: Gert Gremmen [mailto:g.grem...@cetest.nl]
Sent: 19 September 2002 11:57
To: John Allen
Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: Question: Discharge capacitance 0.1 uF
Hi John,
Even theory has to comply with practice, so i took my sold
p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: Question: Discharge capacitance 0.1 uF
Hi Charles, Warren
Seems that a few of us know what DOES happen and the longterm results, but
quite a few others don't believe that it does - and that even it does then
it is not very "important".
The
Grasso, Charles [mailto:charles.gra...@echostar.com]
Sent: 18 September 2002 19:07
To: 'John Allen'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: Question: Discharge capacitance 0.1 uF
Hi All,
>From personal experience I can tell you that the involuntary reaction to a
shock can have serious con
Grasso, Charles [mailto:charles.gra...@echostar.com]
Sent: 18 September 2002 19:07
To: 'John Allen'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: Question: Discharge capacitance 0.1 uF
Hi All,
>From personal experience I can tell you that the involuntary reaction to a
shock can have serious con
Many line filters do indeed have a bleeder resistor built in. There
are a few which do not, and I am familiar with one Delta filter that
does not. We added the bleeder across the terminals of the filter and
it was approved by UL. It just has to be done in accordance with
accepted construc
On Fri, 6 Sep 2002 16:19:52 +0900,
"Michael Jang" wrote:
> I have a question for "Discharge of capacitors in the primary circuit'
> (Related to 60950 standard)
>
> Standard
> Equipment is considered to comply if any capacitor having a mark
Many line filters do indeed have a bleeder resistor built in. There
are a few which do not, and I am familiar with one Delta filter that
does not. We added the bleeder across the terminals of the filter and
it was approved by UL. It just has to be done in accordance with
accepted construct
Hi John,
Though you are fully right theoretically, i think parts of your story are a
bit overdone.
Most people do not make a habit-of-disconnecting-their-heavy-equipment-while
carrying-it-over-their-feet-at-the-mains-voltage-phase-point-of-90-degrees-w
hile-actively-seeking- both
points-of-the-po
Hi All,
>From personal experience I can tell you that the involuntary reaction to a
shock can have serious consequences to
the sales of a company. In a former life - a previous employer OEM'd a PC
from a Korean Company. The PC had all
the relevant marks but somehow the resistor that was suppose
On Wed, 18 Sep 2002 13:11:23 +0100,
"Barker, Neil" wrote:
> The answer to this one is simply that for capacitances up to 0.1 uF, and for
> voltages up to the maximum mains supply voltage covered by the standard, the
> stored energy is sufficiently low as to be considered not hazardous. Above
On Fri, 6 Sep 2002 16:19:52 +0900,
"Michael Jang" wrote:
> I have a question for "Discharge of capacitors in the primary circuit'
> (Related to 60950 standard)
>
> Standard
> Equipment is considered to comply if any capacitor having a marke
21 matches
Mail list logo
