Thread: chassis isolation, contrary to UL1740?
View Single Post
  #2   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 16-10-2008, 11:55
Manoel's Avatar
Manoel Manoel is offline
Registered User
FRC #0383 (Brazilian Machine)
Team Role: Mentor
  
Join Date: Jun 2001
Rookie Year: 2000
Location: Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil
Posts: 608
Manoel has a reputation beyond reputeManoel has a reputation beyond reputeManoel has a reputation beyond reputeManoel has a reputation beyond reputeManoel has a reputation beyond reputeManoel has a reputation beyond reputeManoel has a reputation beyond reputeManoel has a reputation beyond reputeManoel has a reputation beyond reputeManoel has a reputation beyond reputeManoel has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via ICQ to Manoel Send a message via MSN to Manoel
Re: chassis isolation, contrary to UL1740?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Russ Beavis View Post
On the Power Distribution module (aka PD), there is a 1.1A (hold), 2.2A (trip) PTC (Positive Temperature Coefficient) "breaker" in the return path for the 24V supply for cRIO. That device will limit current "through" the cRIO chassis to only a few Amps.

How will we inspect for chassis isolation since every team that mounts a cRIO to a metal chassis will have an intentional low impedance connection to ground? We haven't figured out the details yet but we'll probably need to unplug the cRIO from its power supply when performing the standard chassis isolation test.

Russ
Mounting your electrical system to a non-conductive surface has always been encouraged, could it be made mandatory for next year?
__________________
Manoel Flores da Cunha
Mentor
Brazilian Machine
Team # 383