y, January 21, 2020 1:04 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Cable question, or 'foiled' again
I agree. Have found the assembly violated creepage and clearance requirements,
and other construction, setup issues.
On Tuesday, January 21, 2020, 01:49:46 PM EST, Ric
@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Cable question, or 'foiled' again
Experts,
I have always been one to tell others that to understand a requirement you need
to read the standard, directive, etc. However in this case I am trying not to
spend $505 for a PDF copy of UL 2238 which I may never use
at ISPCE!
From: Steve Brody
Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2020 7:47 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Cable question, or 'foiled' again
Experts,
I have always been one to tell others that to understand a requirement you need
to read the standard, directive, etc
Something is very odd. If the cable is rated for 300 V (DC), it
shouldn't fail at 250 V AC (354 V peak). Presumably those 'other
cables' did pass the 250 V test. There seems to be some confusion, too,
about the role of the connector shell. It is surely just an 'accessible
conducting part',
Experts,
I have always been one to tell others that to understand a requirement you need
to read the standard, directive, etc. However in this case I am trying not to
spend $505 for a PDF copy of UL 2238 which I may never use again.
I have a client whose customer is requiring a specific
5 matches
Mail list logo
