I don't like F.2 wording. The note suggests that the same argument as
yours was put forward and there was no consensus about the current.
Bond testing ought not to be damaging; if it is, the boding is not
specified correctly. It should also not be dangerous; in fact, it is
difficult to see why it should be dangerous if proper provision is made
for connecting the test source, which has as low a compliance voltage as
possible (e.g. 12 V). Of course, if only test prods are provided and
the source has a compliance voltage of 200 V, then there will be
trouble, but that should be obvious.
I really do not want a piece of equipment that has a bond conductor
almost cut through during the assembly process. Still less than 0.1 ohm,
but won't carry 25 A.
Best wishes
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK
The UK is a sovereign state, not a Zollverein state
On 2019-05-17 20:08, Regan Arndt wrote:
Hello members,
I tried to search my EMC-PSTC archives (to no avail) regarding a
debate of using either ground bond (let's assume 25A for this
discussion) or ground continuity (resistance measured < 0.1 ohm for
this discussion) testing _during production_.
Therefore, I would like to bring the topic up (again?) and get your
professional opinion on these tests.
(Side note: Omnia has put out a brochure recently promoting the use of
ground bond test in addition to ground continuity during production,
but I am a little skeptical.)
I am a proponent for the ground continuity test during production for
several reasons:
1.It’s safe to conduct, especially for production staff
2.Less harmful to the equipment
3.Intent is to verify the ground path is ‘secure’.
And I am an opponent to the ground bond test during production for
several reasons:
1.Dangerous to conduct. Need astute production personnel that know
what they are doing.
2.I consider this a type test and ‘somewhat’ damaging/stressful….(Yes,
can be debated)…
Yes, the ground bond test is useful and a good indicator for
determining the ampacity integrity of cables/connectors but, in my
opinion, it should be reserved for type testing only.
_I feel that there is no reason to do the ground bond test during
production if the manufacture controls their components in
purchasing/design via an ECO process, etc., thus the ground continuity
test is thereby sufficient_.
If one have no component control process, then, yes, GB is a good idea.
Note that IEC 61010-1 Annex F (Routine tests) also specifies the
ground continuity test (and not a ground bond test)....... but also
take note that it does say the value for current is not specified.
*/F.2 Protective earth/*
/A continuity test is made between the earth pin of the appliance
inlet or the //MAINS //plug of plug-connected equipment, or the
//PROTECTIVE CONDUCTOR TERMINAL //of //PERMANENTLY CONNECTED EQUIPMENT
//on the one side, and all //ACCESSIBLE //conductive parts which are
required by 6.5.2 to be connected to the //PROTECTIVE CONDUCTOR
TERMINAL //on the other side./
/NOTE No value is specified for the test current./
/
/
Your reply is greatly appreciated.
Thanks in advance.
Regan Arndt
-
----------------------------------------------------------------
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] <mailto:[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://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to
unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
Mike Cantwell <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
David Heald <[email protected] <mailto:[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.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://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
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]>
