I read in !emc-pstc that Brian O'Connell <boconn...@t-yuden.com> wrote (in <f7e9180f6f7f5840858d3db815e4f7ad1f2...@cms21.t-yuden.com>) 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 removed, and > the unit is no longer "controlled" by the oroginal production hi-pot. > I think this is too stringent. Repeated hi-pot tests must be *minimised*, because of the possibility of progressive degradation of insulation. A possible solution is to say that a hi-pot test is required if a visual inspection by a supervisor indicates that it is necessary. -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Interested in professional sound reinforcement and distribution? Then go to http://www.isce.org.uk PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL! 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: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: emc_p...@symbol.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
