Not MOV specific, but I've had to define and prescribe such tests. (It
would be nice if hard copy had hyperlinks.)
BIT for these voltages could be problematical ($ and board space,
clearance and creepage etc. ) , but a low current breakdown voltage test
during scheduled maintenance can indicate the presence of a voltage
limiting device, and warn of undesired change. Embedded protection is
more difficult; if we protect each stage at its own safe levels (quite
common) each will be isolated from this simple test by preceding stages.
*Is* there a BIT requirement?
DO254 can be your friend. Is such a requirement really needed? Folks
like us get paid for solving problems like that.
Cortland Richmond
ka5s
On 9/23/2012 1129, [email protected] wrote:
Aside from all the regulatory issues of leakage current and nasty failure modes
of MOVs. What methods have been used to detect a failed transient suppression
device in equipment? Or, is there some expectation the devices will survive a
warranty period and that alone is good enough?
Seems like any detection schemes would also have a series of regulatory issues
and be a significant cost adder to the product.
-
----------------------------------------------------------------
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.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used
formats), large files, etc.
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]>
