Ever since I saw this, I have been wondering what's going on in the mind
of this guy:
- doesn't have a clue
- can probably get away with this
- my tools are in good shape, everything's OK
Bob Johnson
ITE Safety
-Original Message-
From:
There are many such local services in the US. The only services you can
dependably expect are the
120/240 (center tapped) residential service
120Y208 three phase business/commercial service
277Y480 three phase light industrial service
There are many other conventions based on peculiar industries,
Its now available from IEC (at a price - copyrighted you know):
IEC 60617 Graphical Symbols database
The IEC 60617 Graphical Symbols for Diagrams database
(http://domino.iec.ch/symbols) has now been launched officially.
The database offers users a dynamic facility featuring some 1 400
symbols
Those removable links can be fuses, which are a good idea to use with
sidactors or MOVs anyway.
Bob
-Original Message-
From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
[mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org] On Behalf Of John Woodgate
Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2001 2:28 AM
To:
: Bill Owsley [mailto:ows...@cisco.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 12:53 PM
To: robertj; 'Bill Owsley'; 'Gary McInturff'; 'Gregg Kervill'; 'Rich
Nute'
Cc: jrbar...@lexmark.com; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: Define Continuous DC Voltage - defibrillation
excellent - now if you'll go
I also have not encountered the theory about chest compression
controlling fibrillation. Since defibrillation is also controlled during
open heart surgery by paddles directly applied to the heart and through
the use of wire catheters from implantable defibrillators, it is not the
only means.
I
Keep in mind that failure of the earthing can also be an undetected
fault.
The intent is to provide two levels of protection, two layers of
insulation or one layer of insulation plus earthing. In each case,
failure of one level may go undetected until failure of the second
produces a hazard.
Note that such a tester may be unnecessary. Note that 2.6.3.3 requires
testing only for PROTECTIVE BONDING CONDUCTORS that do not comply with
the minimum sizes in table 3B and for protective bonding terminals that
do not comply with table 3E.
You are unlikely to find a tester of this size on the
Obviously if you can define your voltage as DC, you can get away with a
much higher level (60 V) as SELV than if it is not (42.4 V peak).
The reasons for the different levels are the shock potential. A varying
voltage has a much greater potential to cause ventricular fibrillation
than a DC
A few comments in addition to the consideration of ground loops well
addressed by David Sterner. These wires are subject to the electrical
codes as well as the product standards. The risk of contact with
hazardous voltages is considered to be unlikely unless run outdoors, in
which case protectors
Elaborating a bit, both agencies deal with electromagnetic radiation,
which is where some confusion arises.
The Food and Drug Administration deals with the health aspects of
products. As a result they worry about
X-radiation from vacuum tubes and CRTs, diagnostic and therapeutic X-ray
This subject of reliance on branch circuit protection for loads has been
discussed for a long time and involves a lot of historical tradition
and code and standards activities. The following is my understanding
based on some code committee activities, but I have not researched this
historically.
12 matches
Mail list logo