Thread: chassis isolation, contrary to UL1740?
View Single Post
  #3   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 15-10-2008, 19:25
EricVanWyk EricVanWyk is offline
Registered User
no team
  
Join Date: Jan 2007
Rookie Year: 2000
Location: Boston
Posts: 1,597
EricVanWyk has a reputation beyond reputeEricVanWyk has a reputation beyond reputeEricVanWyk has a reputation beyond reputeEricVanWyk has a reputation beyond reputeEricVanWyk has a reputation beyond reputeEricVanWyk has a reputation beyond reputeEricVanWyk has a reputation beyond reputeEricVanWyk has a reputation beyond reputeEricVanWyk has a reputation beyond reputeEricVanWyk has a reputation beyond reputeEricVanWyk has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via AIM to EricVanWyk
Re: chassis isolation, contrary to UL1740?
Ahhhhh Chassis Faults...

Without the actual text of the requirement, I can't comment on it. However, I would bet that Mike AA nailed it.

In FIRST, we isolate the chassis to protect us from shorting the battery through the chassis. If it is normally attached, then we only need a single fault (positive wire hits it) to ruin our day. If it is normally isolated, we need two faults (positive and return wire).