day, May 23, 2003 10:01 PM
To: rsto...@lucent.com
Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Re: Safety testing after equipment repair
Hi Richard:
> is the below information true
> for both the AC and DC hipot methods?
> Some companies have contractors,subcontractors,
> inc
From: peter.tar...@sanmina-sci.com [mailto:peter.tar...@sanmina-sci.com]
Sent: Saturday, May 24, 2003 6:00 AM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: UK in-service continuing compliance testing (was: RE: Safety
testing after equipment repair)
All -
As a matter of curiosity, are there any
Hi Richard:
> is the below information true
> for both the AC and DC hipot methods?
> Some companies have contractors,subcontractors,
> incoming and final hipot...
> so it does and can occur at least 4 times,
> before its shipped to a customer.
The theory says that the onset of t
I read in !emc-pstc that Rich Nute wrote (in
<200305231749.kaa15...@epgc264.sdd.hp.com>) about 'Safety testing after
equipment repair' on Fri, 23 May 2003:
>I stand by my statements.
You added a lot more information. In the light of that, I agree that
your results ar
Hi John:
> There is a justification for a high-current test **where it won't cause
> any new damage**. The justification is that it will find bad joints in
> the PEC path, and stranded PEC and bond wires that have only one or two
> strands still intact.
The high-current test will NO
All -
As a matter of curiosity, are there any records of drop-out
rates (for equipment that was required to be removed from
service)? Short of that, any anecdotes? Are the pass/fail
criteria identical to those during type testing?
Richard -
You say, "former piece of UK legislation." As in,
I agree with Alice on the arrangement of Hi-Pot for new products, but I
think the question was returned products for repair, correct. I read John W's
note with interest, but I also remember a note from Rich Nute about a test he
ran that pretty much pointed out that a simple continuity test
Hi John:
> I don't think you can draw universal conclusions from just one
> experiment. In addition, the rate of increase of voltage is limited in
> the test procedures. In your experiment, there was only one increase of
> voltage, whereas in repeated testing, there are many. At best,
000Vac for > 20 min with no breakdown, but a lot of "buzzing."
luck,
Brian
-Original Message-
From: Rich Nute [ mailto:ri...@sdd.hp.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2003 6:23 PM
To: j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk
Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Re: Safety testing after equi
; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: 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 Regula
, May 22, 2003 9:23 PM
To: j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk
Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: 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 repair
I read in !emc-pstc that richhug...@aol.com wrote (in <014C7BA9.2FB45A16
.0ba45...@aol.com>) about 'Safety testing after equipment repair' on
Thu, 22 May 2003:
>For earth bond test we suggested that only a low
>current would normally be required because the equipment would
I read in !emc-pstc that Rich Nute wrote (in
<200305230123.saa09...@epgc264.sdd.hp.com>) about 'Safety testing after
equipment repair' on Thu, 22 May 2003:
>Some years ago, I undertook a test to determine when
>an insulation would fail if subjected to a continuous
>hi-
t;controlled" by the oroginal production hi-pot.
luck,
Brian
-Original Message-
From: richwo...@tycoint.com [ mailto:richwo...@tycoint.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2003 1:46 PM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Safety testing after equipment repair
Management is askin
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 str
are not likely to have such kit
sitting around.
Regards,
Richard Hughes
Safety Answers Ltd
From: ri...@sdd.hp.com [mailto:ri...@sdd.hp.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2003 7:07 PM
To: gr...@test4safety.com
Cc: bar...@melbpc.org.au; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Re: Safety testing after
I read in !emc-pstc that Peter L. Tarver
wrote (in )
about 'Safety testing after equipment repair' on Thu, 22 May 2003:
>Or a lower potential test for mains connected equipment,
>such as insulation resistance.
No, an IR test is not a substitute for a hi-pot test, and has a can
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
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 dangerousl
I read in !emc-pstc that Brian O'Connell wrote
(in ) 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 unit has been repaired, then the cover was
ichwo...@tycoint.com [ mailto:richwo...@tycoint.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2003 1:46 PM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Safety testing after equipment repair
Management is asking me if we really need to perform certain safety
inspections and tests after the equipment is repaired. Of co
alf Of Barry Esmore
Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2003 7:47 PM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Re: Safety testing after equipment repair
Australia has an actual standard which lists the tests and procedures for the
regular testing of equipment in use, and equipment that has been repaired. I
b
Ph: 61 3 9886 1345
Fax: 61 3 9884 7272
- Original Message -
From: richwo...@tycoint.com
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2003 6:46 AM
Subject: Safety testing after equipment repair
Management is asking me if we really need to perform certain safety
inspections and
I read in !emc-pstc that richwo...@tycoint.com wrote (in <846BF526A205F8
4BA2B6045BBF7E9A6A04675FBA@flbocexu05>) about 'Safety testing after
equipment repair' on Wed, 21 May 2003:
>Management is asking me if we really need to perform certain safety
>inspections and tests
Management is asking me if we really need to perform certain safety
inspections and tests after the equipment is repaired. Of course, the answer
is that the inspections and/or tests are a prudent action to ensure
continued safety of the product. Then they ask "Does anyone else do it?"
Good questio
25 matches
Mail list logo
