RE>>Routine Hipot testing 5/8/96
Kaz-ESN 765-4805
Agreed.
Cheers,
Kaz Gawrzyjal
Nortel-Safety Eng.
[email protected]
--------------------------------------
List-Post: [email protected]
Date: 5/6/96 10:38 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 -----
Hi Kaz,
You wrote:
>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.
Yes, I agree with you that the requirement may be viewed as implied, rather than
stated. The way I read it personally is that this is more in the nature of a
fait accompli. Since, historically, all safety agencies have always required a
production test, I assume that the 950 subcommittee decided that there is no
need to get too verbose about this. As you point out, it's going to be in the
Certification Report, or other document, anyway.
But the nice thing about this paragraph is that it defines both the voltage and
the duration, thus ensuring that there is only one test requirement. This used
to be a bit of a manufacturing nightmare in the past, when each agency in each
country required different test parameters.
By the way, it is also interesting to note that the most frequent complaints
about Std 950 are to the effect that it's TOO verbose. I don't think we should
encourage them to add another 5 pages, just to explain the factory hipot.
:-)
Cheers,
Egon
------------------ RFC822 Header Follows ------------------
Received: by nmisq2.miss.nt.com with SMTP;6 May 1996 22:33:52 -0400
Received: from mail.ieee.org (actually rab.ieee.org) by ntigate.rich.nt.com
with SMTP (PP); Tue, 7 May 1996 02:32:42 +0000
Received: by mail.ieee.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id TAA22000 for emc-pstc-list;
Mon, 6 May 1996 19:16:26 -0400 (EDT)
List-Post: [email protected]
Date: 06 May 96 19:12:17 EDT
From: "Egon H. Varju" <[email protected]>
To: Kazimier Gawrzyjal <[email protected]>
Cc: IEEE <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Routine Hipot testing
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Sender: [email protected]
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Egon H. Varju" <[email protected]>
X-Resent-To: Multiple Recipients <[email protected]>
X-Listname: emc-pstc
X-List-Description: Product Safety Tech. Committee, EMC Society
X-Info: Help requests to [email protected]
X-Info: [Un]Subscribe requests to [email protected]
X-Moderator-Address: [email protected]
