RE>>Routine Hipot testing 5/6/96
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: [email protected] 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 ----- RE>>Routine 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 [email protected] -------------------------------------- List-Post: [email protected] 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 +0000 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: <[email protected]> List-Post: [email protected] Date: 6 May 1996 13:12:41 -0400 From: Kazimier Gawrzyjal <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Routine Hipot testing To: "Egon H. Varju" <[email protected]> Cc: IEEE <[email protected]> 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: [email protected] Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Kazimier Gawrzyjal <[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]
