...@lucent.com
Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Re: Safety testing after equipment repair
Hi Richard:
is the below information true
for both the AC and DC hipot methods?
Some companies have contractors,subcontractors,
incoming and final hipot...
so it does and can occur
Hi Richard:
is the below information true
for both the AC and DC hipot methods?
Some companies have contractors,subcontractors,
incoming and final hipot...
so it does and can occur at least 4 times,
before its shipped to a customer.
The theory says that the onset of the
I read in !emc-pstc that Rich Nute ri...@sdd.hp.com wrote (in
200305231749.kaa15...@epgc264.sdd.hp.com) about 'Safety testing after
equipment repair' on Fri, 23 May 2003:
I stand by my statements.
You added a lot more information. In the light of that, I agree that
your results are likely
Hi John:
There is a justification for a high-current test **where it won't cause
any new damage**. The justification is that it will find bad joints in
the PEC path, and stranded PEC and bond wires that have only one or two
strands still intact.
The high-current test will NOT
All -
As a matter of curiosity, are there any records of drop-out
rates (for equipment that was required to be removed from
service)? Short of that, any anecdotes? Are the pass/fail
criteria identical to those during type testing?
Richard -
You say, former piece of UK legislation. As in,
I agree with Alice on the arrangement of Hi-Pot for new products, but I
think the question was returned products for repair, correct. I read John W's
note with interest, but I also remember a note from Rich Nute about a test he
ran that pretty much pointed out that a simple continuity test
Hi John:
I don't think you can draw universal conclusions from just one
experiment. In addition, the rate of increase of voltage is limited in
the test procedures. In your experiment, there was only one increase of
voltage, whereas in repeated testing, there are many. At best, we
min with no breakdown, but a lot of buzzing.
luck,
Brian
-Original Message-
From: Rich Nute [ mailto:ri...@sdd.hp.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2003 6:23 PM
To: j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk
Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Re: Safety testing after equipment repair
Hi John
-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: re: Safety testing after equipment repair
Rich, Gregg,
Gregg, your memory is slipping - clearly you have been away from the UK for
too long, or you're enjoying the American wine too much! The referenced
document is The Electricity at Work Regulations 1989
, May 22, 2003 9:23 PM
To: j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk
Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Re: Safety testing after equipment repair
Hi John:
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
I read in !emc-pstc that richhug...@aol.com wrote (in 014C7BA9.2FB45A16
.0ba45...@aol.com) about 'Safety testing after equipment repair' on
Thu, 22 May 2003:
For earth bond test we suggested that only a low
current would normally be required because the equipment would have been
type tested
I read in !emc-pstc that Rich Nute ri...@sdd.hp.com wrote (in
200305230123.saa09...@epgc264.sdd.hp.com) about 'Safety testing after
equipment repair' on Thu, 22 May 2003:
Some years ago, I undertook a test to determine when
an insulation would fail if subjected to a continuous
hi-pot voltage. I
Hi John:
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.
Safety Answers Ltd
From: ri...@sdd.hp.com [mailto:ri...@sdd.hp.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2003 7:07 PM
To: gr...@test4safety.com
Cc: bar...@melbpc.org.au; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Re: Safety testing after equipment repair
Hi Gregg and Barry:
Australia has an actual
I read in !emc-pstc that Peter L. Tarver peter.tar...@sanmina-sci.com
wrote (in nebbkemlgllmjofmoplekemhegaa.peter.tar...@sanmina-sci.com)
about 'Safety testing after equipment repair' on Thu, 22 May 2003:
Or a lower potential test for mains connected equipment,
such as insulation resistance
John -
Or a lower potential test for mains connected equipment,
such as insulation resistance.
More complicated, but less deleterious, tests could include
an earth leakage current test or a touch current test.
From: John Woodgate
Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2003 12:19 PM
Repeated hi-pot
Hi Gregg and Barry:
Australia has an actual standard which lists the tests and procedures for
the regular testing of equipment in use, and equipment that has been
So has the UK. it was called (something like) The Electricity at Work
Act generally a good thing put a dangerously
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
Ph: 61 3 9886 1345
Fax: 61 3 9884 7272
- Original Message -
From: richwo...@tycoint.com
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2003 6:46 AM
Subject: Safety testing after equipment repair
Management is asking me if we really need to perform certain safety
inspections
Management is asking me if we really need to perform certain safety
inspections and tests after the equipment is repaired. Of course, the answer
is that the inspections and/or tests are a prudent action to ensure
continued safety of the product. Then they ask Does anyone else do it?
Good
20 matches
Mail list logo
