<36BDBCA75E0FD411A80100104B93ABF202C2C079@MGCMAIL>, Dick Grobner <[email protected]> inimitably wrote: >Why >wouldn't a simple continuity tests as defined by UL be appropriate from >equipment coming off of the production line (assuring that the protective >earth circuit in intake)?
Because continuity at low current does not ensure that the protective circuit will carry a large fault current - it might be 'hanging on by one strand'. -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. Phone +44 (0)1268 747839 Fax +44 (0)1268 777124. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Why not call a vertically- applied manulo-pedally-operated quasi-planar chernozem-penetrating and excavating implement a SPADE? ------------------------------------------- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: [email protected] with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson: [email protected] Dave Heald [email protected] For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: [email protected] Jim Bacher: [email protected] All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.rcic.com/ click on "Virtual Conference Hall,"
