by itself, let
alone finding a manufacturing error.
Eyeball inspection of the grounding circuit probably is sufficient.
Best regards,
Rich
*From:*John Woodgate
*Sent:* Wednesday, May 22, 2019 9:44 AM
*To:* ri...@ieee.org; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
*Subject:* Re: [PSES] GB or GC
circuit probably is sufficient.
Best regards,
Rich
From: John Woodgate
Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2019 9:44 AM
To: ri...@ieee.org; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] GB or GC?that is the question
Thanks, Richard, for the true facts. However, we can look
Thanks, Richard, for the true facts. However, we can look at the facts
another way. Since the test is passed, provided the fault does not get
worse, the product remains safe. It's not an ideal situation, but it
seems that something like a 100 A test would be required in order to
detect a fault
@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] GB or GC?that is the question
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 discuss
Normally the specs (mm2, mOhms, screw and/or weldings) of the GB path
is ensured by the type testing; the production ensures the reproduction
of the type tested by internal production control or better, so what
remains is to test for production ERRORS.
Assuming that no component specs in
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
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
7 matches
Mail list logo
