Anyone out there that my shine some light on dielectrical withstand tests for squirrelmotors ?
as a component ?? Motor 1 kW 400 Vac 3-phase CSA 22.2 Class 4211 01 / 4211 81 There is some problems here with a manufacturer claiming its product was type tested with 600 Vac and 1 second. Regards, Ing. Gert Gremmen [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> www.cetest.nl Kiotoweg 363 3047 BG Rotterdam T 31(0)104152426 F 31(0)104154953 Before printing, think about the environment. Van: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Namens Haynes, Tim (SELEX GALILEO, UK) Verzonden: Thursday, November 19, 2009 11:27 AM Aan: [email protected]; Amund Westin; [email protected] Onderwerp: RE: IP test - pass or fail? Hi All, I might have too much sawdust between the ears but Armud said, in the original e-mail, that the test is IPx6 and then mentioned drain holes. Would drain holes be expected in an IPx6 (waterproof) enclosure? I would have thought that the “waterproof” requirement was incompatible with the fitting of drain holes !? Is this the problem? Regards Tim ************************ Tim Haynes A1N10 Electromagnetic Engineering Specialist SELEX Sensors and Airborne Systems 300 Capability Green Luton LU1 3PG ( Tel : +44 (0)1582 886239 7 Fax : +44 (0)1582 795863 ) Mob : +44 (0)7703 559 310 * E-mail : [email protected] P Please consider the environment before printing this email. There are 10 types of people in the world-those who understand binary and those who don't. J. Paxman ________________________________ From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Don Gies Sent: 18 November 2009 21:45 To: 'Amund Westin'; [email protected] Subject: RE: IP test - pass or fail? Hello Amund, Generally, if you have chosen to make an enclosure IPX6 for whatever reason, you probably have a robust system of gaskets and enclosure, and truly expect no water inside the enclosure. The fact that you had a little bit of water penetrating an IPX6 enclosure is normally an indication that that robust system of gaskets and enclosure suffered a near-miss failure. At this point, you would either have the mechanical designers make re-adjustments (adjust the torque values of fasteners, bring in the paw latches on doors, use a thicker gasket, etc.), or you would re-test at a less-severe enclosure value such as IPX5, if that is an option. Another concern is whether the water came in to a “wet area”, one equipped with drains that you expect to get wet, or did it penetrate the enclosure in a random manner and get on top of electronic parts that expect to be in a dry location. If it came in randomly, say in the middle of a gasketed-door interface, then you probably want to reject these results, modify and retest. I have in-house capability to test for IPX6 as well as NEMA 4, and I get designers to send me test samples early. This is because, from a probability standpoint, I expect them to fail more times than not the first time through. There is a normal test-mitigate-retest progression that goes on. Water ingress failures tend to be chaotic in nature, and are often difficult to fix. So, early testing allows the designer time to make changes. One last point—the “garden-hose test” that you might have conducted on your sample before subjecting it to the IPX6 test is fine to weed out obvious problems, but it is not in the class of water impact that the IPX6 test delivers at 100 liters per minute through a 12.5 mm diameter nozzle. It is closer to pre-compliance for an IPX5 test of 12.5 liters per minute through a 6.3 mm diameter nozzle. Best regards, Don Gies Senior Product Compliance Engineer Alcatel-Lucent Murray Hill, NJ 07974-0636 USA ________________________________ From: Amund Westin [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2009 11:37 AM To: [email protected] Subject: IP test - pass or fail? We’re doing an IPX6 test (high pressure water jet) according to IEC60529. Some water enter the unit, but drain holes make their job. Only plastic enclose in that area anyway. But, a few drops are discovered on a plastic material switch inside the unit and also some drops on two connection poles on the swicth. We have failed on this test because (according to the test lab) in the long term, creepage currents can cause the two poles to be shorted and thereafter a incorrect function will appear. Is it likely to believe that such creepage currents can occur, when the two poles are placed 10mm from each other and the voltage supply is 3.3VDC? b.r. Amund SELEX Sensors and Airborne Systems Limited Registered Office: Sigma House, Christopher Martin Road, Basildon, Essex SS14 3EL A company registered in England & Wales. Company no. 02426132 ******************************************************************** This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender. You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or distribute its contents to any other person. ******************************************************************** - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to <[email protected]> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas <[email protected]> Mike Cantwell <[email protected]> For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher <[email protected]> David Heald <[email protected]> - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to <[email protected]> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas <[email protected]> Mike Cantwell <[email protected]> For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher <[email protected]> David Heald <[email protected]> - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to <[email protected]> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas <[email protected]> Mike Cantwell <[email protected]> For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher <[email protected]> David Heald <[email protected]> - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to <[email protected]> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas <[email protected]> Mike Cantwell <[email protected]> For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher <[email protected]> David Heald <[email protected]>
