I suspect that CSA or TUV would demand similar... It may be possible to generate a "generic" component spec on the Safety-Critical component list. Specify max V, I, P for the device, and specify the commutation device. This will probably require that you periodically dissect a HDD.
The fact that HDD mfrs frequently change components, without change in P/N, would tend to negate the examining engineer's requirement that the HDD be listed by model or P/N. It would seem (at least to me) that the safety-critical function would be the electromechanical component that could arc, and the input rating of the device. luck, Brian -----Original Message----- From: Sotherden, Jim (IndSys, GEFanuc, NA) [ mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, November 24, 2003 6:46 AM To: [email protected] Subject: UL and CTDP I have an on going debate with UL concerning HDD in hazardous locations. Their main concern is the motors used in the HDD and the fact that they must be brushless, I am not debating that fact, but I have been trying to prove to them that the motors used in the new HDDs are brushless and there is no need to keep testing everytime we want to use a different HDD. Has anyone had a similar experience with UL? Thanks, Jim Sotherden Agency Coordinator/Test Engineer
