"Ian Jackson"


I don't think there's just a transformer in there.


** Wot - is there a fat lady in there trying to look slim too ??


Isn't there a switchmode voltage converter?


** ROTFLMAO !!

God there are some * ****ing morons * running about loose.


I recall a friend running an American vacuum cleaner from one of these
devices. I couldn't believe it worked.


** No way with this one - pal.

70 watts is a major stretch.




..... Phil

On Tue, 01 Jul 2008 00:38:01 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:



John Fields wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Tom Del Rosso wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote

I FULLY recommend the IEC standards. You have to get into a kind of
'mindset' to really understand them but I had a couple of excellent
tutors and when you do, they make great sense and provide excellent
advice.

That's probably similar to the mindset you need to be ruled from Brussels.

MORON.

Meet a few people who sit on IEC committees before babbling that claptrap.

Our very own John Woodgate is/was one of them. Sure, they don't always get it
100% right but by God they get it mostly right.
---
"Gott mit uns"?

Your point is ?

UL is ****. Stuff it.

---
Bend over.

Do you even know _what_ UL is?

JF

"John Fields" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 01 Jul 2008 00:38:01 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:



John Fields wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Tom Del Rosso wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote

I FULLY recommend the IEC standards. You have to get into a kind of
'mindset' to really understand them but I had a couple of excellent
tutors and when you do, they make great sense and provide excellent
advice.

That's probably similar to the mindset you need to be ruled from
Brussels.

MORON.

Meet a few people who sit on IEC committees before babbling that
claptrap.

Our very own John Woodgate is/was one of them. Sure, they don't always
get it
100% right but by God they get it mostly right.
---
"Gott mit uns"?

Your point is ?

UL is ****. Stuff it.

---
Bend over.

Do you even know _what_ UL is?

JF

Underwriters Laboratories?

ian field wrote:

Underwriters Laboratories?


Which logo are you seeing? A lot of crap has fake copies of the old
logo they haven't used for years. The UL rating is usually on the power
cord, not the device. http://www.bb-battery.com/UL-1logo.gif is the
current design.

BTW, I have repaired video monitors for over 35 yeas, and have never
seen one that caught fire. A few damaged flybacks, but no fire damage.


--
http://improve-usenet.org/index.html

If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in
your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm

Sporadic E is the Earth's aluminum foil beanie for the 'global warming'
sheep.

On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 21:35:31 +0100, the renowned "ian field"
wrote:


"John Fields" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 01 Jul 2008 00:38:01 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:



John Fields wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Tom Del Rosso wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote

I FULLY recommend the IEC standards. You have to get into a kind of
'mindset' to really understand them but I had a couple of excellent
tutors and when you do, they make great sense and provide excellent
advice.

That's probably similar to the mindset you need to be ruled from
Brussels.

MORON.

Meet a few people who sit on IEC committees before babbling that
claptrap.

Our very own John Woodgate is/was one of them. Sure, they don't always
get it
100% right but by God they get it mostly right.
---
"Gott mit uns"?

Your point is ?

UL is ****. Stuff it.

---
Bend over.

Do you even know _what_ UL is?

JF

Underwriters Laboratories?



Or, as Eyeore's ilk might say "A stinking flyblown symbol of erstwhile
American hegemony".


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

On Tue, 01 Jul 2008 18:22:55 -0400, the renowned "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


ian field wrote:

Underwriters Laboratories?


Which logo are you seeing? A lot of crap has fake copies of the old
logo they haven't used for years. The UL rating is usually on the power
cord, not the device. http://www.bb-battery.com/UL-1logo.gif is the
current design.

That's the *component* recognition mark.

For equipment it should look more like this:
http://www.ul.com/marks_labels/mark/..._US_listed.gif

Even if all the components are recognized, it does *not* mean that the
complete product is. A product can be listed with critical parts not
recognized, it just costs more for the testing.

BTW, I have repaired video monitors for over 35 yeas, and have never
seen one that caught fire. A few damaged flybacks, but no fire damage.

I wonder if this one was caused by a monitor:

http://www.channelregister.co.uk/200..._factory_fire/


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 21:35:31 +0100, "ian field"
wrote:


"John Fields" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 01 Jul 2008 00:38:01 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:



John Fields wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Tom Del Rosso wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote

I FULLY recommend the IEC standards. You have to get into a kind of
'mindset' to really understand them but I had a couple of excellent
tutors and when you do, they make great sense and provide excellent
advice.

That's probably similar to the mindset you need to be ruled from
Brussels.

MORON.

Meet a few people who sit on IEC committees before babbling that
claptrap.

Our very own John Woodgate is/was one of them. Sure, they don't always
get it
100% right but by God they get it mostly right.
---
"Gott mit uns"?

Your point is ?

UL is ****. Stuff it.

---
Bend over.

Do you even know _what_ UL is?

JF

Underwriters Laboratories?

---
Funny! G

JF

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
m...

ian field wrote:

Underwriters Laboratories?


Which logo are you seeing? A lot of crap has fake copies of the old
logo they haven't used for years. The UL rating is usually on the power
cord, not the device. http://www.bb-battery.com/UL-1logo.gif is the
current design.

BTW, I have repaired video monitors for over 35 yeas, and have never
seen one that caught fire. A few damaged flybacks, but no fire damage.

There was an obscure Chinese make that usually turned up under the Gateway
badge, it had huge 'precision' resistors in the PSU voltage sense circuit -
which regularly went high/OC, the voltage would rise and one by one the
power stages would fail SC, in each case the (presumably counterfeit)
secondary rectifiers would overheat and split in two instead of failing SC.
When this happened it was 50/50 whether the PSU would go bang or continue
rising until it arced between the transformer pins and set fire to the
board!

This monitor also suffered frequently from a dry joint in the line scan
circuit that arced and set fire to the board, very often I had to destroy
the case to get it open because the swivel base was welded to the bottom of
the case making the screws inaccessible - but there were always BER scrap
units to salvage a case from.

ian field wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
m...

ian field wrote:

Underwriters Laboratories?


Which logo are you seeing? A lot of crap has fake copies of the old
logo they haven't used for years. The UL rating is usually on the power
cord, not the device. http://www.bb-battery.com/UL-1logo.gif is the
current design.

BTW, I have repaired video monitors for over 35 yeas, and have never
seen one that caught fire. A few damaged flybacks, but no fire damage.

There was an obscure Chinese make that usually turned up under the Gateway
badge, it had huge 'precision' resistors in the PSU voltage sense circuit -
which regularly went high/OC, the voltage would rise and one by one the
power stages would fail SC, in each case the (presumably counterfeit)
secondary rectifiers would overheat and split in two instead of failing SC.
When this happened it was 50/50 whether the PSU would go bang or continue
rising until it arced between the transformer pins and set fire to the
board!

This monitor also suffered frequently from a dry joint in the line scan
circuit that arced and set fire to the board, very often I had to destroy
the case to get it open because the swivel base was welded to the bottom of
the case making the screws inaccessible - but there were always BER scrap
units to salvage a case from.


Glad I never saw any of those. The worst I ever saw was an early VGA
monitor that survived a fire in a restaurant. It was locked in the
office, but the heat and smoke from the kitchen warped the case so bad
that I had to drill out the screws ant pry the back off. After cleaning
the conductive soot from the inside it worked, but wasn't worth anything
better than using it for a test monitor. I got another monitor a few
days later while a friend was in the shop. He asked for the old monitor,
but I told him it wasn't safe to use, then asked him to toss it in the
dumpster. He grinned and picked it up, then headed for the door, because
he knew there was no dumpster. That way I didn't give it to him, but he
had a monitor that worked, till he could afford a new one. ;-)


--
http://improve-usenet.org/index.html

If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in
your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm

Sporadic E is the Earth's aluminum foil beanie for the 'global warming'
sheep.

ian field wrote:

The UL label was never missing from the ones that actually did catch fire.

When I was the company 'standard expert' at Neve I actually had some UL
standards.

The 'Hot Flaming Oil' test is highly impressive. Page 12. Sadly the wonderful
details are absent.
http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/Dow...rs/94v07n4.pdf

Graham

John Fields wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
John Fields wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
Tom Del Rosso wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote

I FULLY recommend the IEC standards. You have to get into a kind of
'mindset' to really understand them but I had a couple of excellent
tutors and when you do, they make great sense and provide excellent
advice.

That's probably similar to the mindset you need to be ruled from Brussels.

MORON.

Meet a few people who sit on IEC committees before babbling that claptrap.

Our very own John Woodgate is/was one of them. Sure, they don't always get it
100% right but by God they get it mostly right.
---
"Gott mit uns"?

Your point is ?

UL is ****. Stuff it.

---
Bend over.

Do you even know _what_ UL is?

I most certainly do.

They are wising up now and adopting IEC thinking.

Graham

ian field wrote:

"John Fields" wrote i
On Tue, 01 Jul 2008 00:38:01 +0100, Eeyore
John Fields wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
Tom Del Rosso wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote

I FULLY recommend the IEC standards. You have to get into a kind of
'mindset' to really understand them but I had a couple of excellent
tutors and when you do, they make great sense and provide excellent
advice.

That's probably similar to the mindset you need to be ruled from
Brussels.

MORON.

Meet a few people who sit on IEC committees before babbling that
claptrap.

Our very own John Woodgate is/was one of them. Sure, they don't always
get it
100% right but by God they get it mostly right.
---
"Gott mit uns"?

Your point is ?

UL is ****. Stuff it.

---
Bend over.

Do you even know _what_ UL is?

JF

Underwriters Laboratories?

Incorporated.

The first line on their website made me chuckle.
" UL is the trusted source across the globe for product compliance." Across
America maybe.

Graham

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote:

ian field wrote:

Underwriters Laboratories?

Which logo are you seeing? A lot of crap has fake copies of the old
logo they haven't used for years. The UL rating is usually on the power
cord, not the device. http://www.bb-battery.com/UL-1logo.gif is the
current design.

NO.

That's a UL recognised COMPONENT.

The UL in the circle hasn't changed for *products* AFAIK
http://www.ul.com/

Graham

Spehro Pefhany wrote:

the renowned "ian field" wrote:
"John Fields" wrote
Eeyore wrote:
John Fields wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
Tom Del Rosso wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote

I FULLY recommend the IEC standards. You have to get into a kind of
'mindset' to really understand them but I had a couple of excellent
tutors and when you do, they make great sense and provide excellent
advice.

That's probably similar to the mindset you need to be ruled from
Brussels.

MORON.

Meet a few people who sit on IEC committees before babbling that
claptrap.

Our very own John Woodgate is/was one of them. Sure, they don't always
get it
100% right but by God they get it mostly right.
---
"Gott mit uns"?

Your point is ?

UL is ****. Stuff it.

---
Bend over.

Do you even know _what_ UL is?

JF

Underwriters Laboratories?

Or, as Eyeore's ilk might say "A stinking flyblown symbol of erstwhile
American hegemony".

But the curious thing is that isn't (a hegemony). IEC rules. Even China's CCC
scheme is IEC based.

Graham

Spehro Pefhany wrote:

the renowned "Michael A. Terrell" wrote:
ian field wrote:

Underwriters Laboratories?

Which logo are you seeing? A lot of crap has fake copies of the old
logo they haven't used for years. The UL rating is usually on the power
cord, not the device. http://www.bb-battery.com/UL-1logo.gif is the
current design.

That's the *component* recognition mark.

Spot on that man.


For equipment it should look more like this:
http://www.ul.com/marks_labels/mark/..._US_listed.gif

Isn't that CUL ?

Graham

On Wed, 02 Jul 2008 18:12:10 +0100, the renowned Eeyore
wrote:



Spehro Pefhany wrote:

the renowned "Michael A. Terrell" wrote:
ian field wrote:

Underwriters Laboratories?

Which logo are you seeing? A lot of crap has fake copies of the old
logo they haven't used for years. The UL rating is usually on the power
cord, not the device. http://www.bb-battery.com/UL-1logo.gif is the
current design.

That's the *component* recognition mark.

Spot on that man.


For equipment it should look more like this:
http://www.ul.com/marks_labels/mark/..._US_listed.gif

Isn't that CUL ?

Graham

Listed by UL (testing lab); tested to meet both Canadian and US
standards. With just the C, it's tested to Canadian standards. The
default (no C or US) just US standards. Simple enough.



Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

On 01/07/08 13:07, Phil Allison wrote:
"Eeysore"
Phil Allison wrote:
** See pics of AC supply adaptor:

Something here is not kosher.

Aside from my other comments .....

I'd like to see the clearance / creepage distances for that switch. Can
they seriously meet Class II ?


** Not an issue, as input and output circuits are both at mains voltages.

There is a serious safety issue with this device.

I missed the photo, but get the impression that you could swtch it to
"115 to 230" and then plug it into 230V

could prove spectacular.

On Wed, 02 Jul 2008 18:00:56 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:



John Fields wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
John Fields wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
Tom Del Rosso wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote

I FULLY recommend the IEC standards. You have to get into a kind of
'mindset' to really understand them but I had a couple of excellent
tutors and when you do, they make great sense and provide excellent
advice.

That's probably similar to the mindset you need to be ruled from Brussels.

MORON.

Meet a few people who sit on IEC committees before babbling that claptrap.

Our very own John Woodgate is/was one of them. Sure, they don't always get it
100% right but by God they get it mostly right.
---
"Gott mit uns"?

Your point is ?

UL is ****. Stuff it.

---
Bend over.

Do you even know _what_ UL is?

I most certainly do.

---
Easy enough to say, but let's have a little more detail...

That is, what's their raison d'être and why do you think they're ****?
---

They are wising up now and adopting IEC thinking.

---
You don't mean IEC, you mean European and, particularly, British.

UL predates the IEC by about 10 years, and the IEC's original meeting
was held in the US, so UL's thinking is probably embodied in the IEC,
particularly with respect to product safety, which is what UL is all
about.

The clue is in "Underwriters", which refers to the people who
guarantee to pay claims on insurance policies they've issued, and UL
was founded with the purpose of minimizing their risk.

Something like your ship-building board certifying a vessel as being
seaworthy before Lloyd's would insure it.

JF

Spehro Pefhany wrote:

the renowned Eeyore wrote:
Spehro Pefhany wrote:
the renowned "Michael A. Terrell" wrote:
ian field wrote:

Underwriters Laboratories?

Which logo are you seeing? A lot of crap has fake copies of the old
logo they haven't used for years. The UL rating is usually on the power
cord, not the device. http://www.bb-battery.com/UL-1logo.gif is the
current design.

That's the *component* recognition mark.

Spot on that man.


For equipment it should look more like this:
http://www.ul.com/marks_labels/mark/..._US_listed.gif

Isn't that CUL ?

Graham

Listed by UL (testing lab); tested to meet both Canadian and US
standards. With just the C, it's tested to Canadian standards. The
default (no C or US) just US standards. Simple enough.

So that's a YES then ? I had a feeling 'full' CUL whatever that might be looked
a tad different.

When will UL and CSA accept IEC standards accredited testing I wonder ? The
standards are getting ever closer. UL1950 (IT) is very little different to
IEC60950 for example now.

Graham

John Fields wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
John Fields wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
John Fields wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
Tom Del Rosso wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote

I FULLY recommend the IEC standards. You have to get into a kind of
'mindset' to really understand them but I had a couple of excellent
tutors and when you do, they make great sense and provide excellent
advice.

That's probably similar to the mindset you need to be ruled from Brussels.

MORON.

Meet a few people who sit on IEC committees before babbling that claptrap.

Our very own John Woodgate is/was one of them. Sure, they don't always get
it100% right but by God they get it mostly right.
---
"Gott mit uns"?

Your point is ?

UL is ****. Stuff it.

---
Bend over.

Do you even know _what_ UL is?

I most certainly do.

---
Easy enough to say, but let's have a little more detail...

That is, what's their raison d'être and why do you think they're ****?

They are IIRC a not-for-profit Incorporated Business to provide certain safety standards
and testing to them for the benefit of the insurance industry and the end user. Hence
the name, Underwriter's Labs where underwriting refers to insurance. UL has typically
concentrated on fire hazard to the best of my knowledge. Whereas IEC has tended more
AIUI to concentrate on risk of electrocution hazard, since fire was never seemingly a
big problem in comparison in Europe (fewer wooden buildings - better codes etc perhaps
?).


They are wising up now and adopting IEC thinking.

---
You don't mean IEC, you mean European and, particularly, British.

No I don't. BSI standards in our field are most certainly merely national versions of
IEC standards. Or more accurately I think it goes IEC EN BSEN as they're called now.



UL predates the IEC by about 10 years, and the IEC's original meeting
was held in the US, so UL's thinking is probably embodied in the IEC,
particularly with respect to product safety, which is what UL is all
about.

See above about emphasis. IEC has never had a 'hot flaming oil test' AFAIK for example.


The clue is in "Underwriters", which refers to the people who
guarantee to pay claims on insurance policies they've issued, and UL
was founded with the purpose of minimizing their risk.

I know.


Something like your ship-building board certifying a vessel as being
seaworthy before Lloyd's would insure it.

Or DNV (Det Norske Veritas)
http://www.dnv.com/

Intruigingly IIRC, all Kwan Asia's BS/ISO/IEC 9000/9002 certificates were issued by DNV.

Graham

"Eeysore"

Easy enough to say, but let's have a little more detail...

That is, what's their raison d'être and why do you think they're ****?

They are IIRC a not-for-profit Incorporated Business


** Definitely wrong.

UL is a privately owned, for profit business.

" The UL Mark does not carry any legal weight beyond that of any other
trademark."

So it is quite different from CE marking or the legally compulsory
laboratory type approval and marking of electrical /electronic appliances
and devices on the " prescribed items " list.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underwriters_Laboratories



...... Phil

Phil Allison wrote:

"Eeysore"

Easy enough to say, but let's have a little more detail...

That is, what's their raison d'être and why do you think they're ****?

They are IIRC a not-for-profit Incorporated Business

** Definitely wrong.

UL is a privately owned, for profit business.

" The UL Mark does not carry any legal weight beyond that of any other
trademark."

So it is quite different from CE marking or the legally compulsory
laboratory type approval and marking of electrical /electronic appliances
and devices on the " prescribed items " list.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underwriters_Laboratories

Well, I'm surprised. I had it in my mind that it was 'not for profit'.

Has its status changed in recent times ?

Graham

AnimalMagic wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Phil Allison wrote:
"Eeysore"

Easy enough to say, but let's have a little more detail...

That is, what's their raison d'être and why do you think they're ****?

They are IIRC a not-for-profit Incorporated Business

** Definitely wrong.

UL is a privately owned, for profit business.

" The UL Mark does not carry any legal weight beyond that of any other
trademark."

So it is quite different from CE marking or the legally compulsory
laboratory type approval and marking of electrical /electronic appliances
and devices on the " prescribed items " list.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underwriters_Laboratories

Well, I'm surprised. I had it in my mind that it was 'not for profit'.

Has its status changed in recent times ?


If one wants the UL mark on one's product, one pay UL.

That sounds like a for profit enterprise to me.

That in itself does not make it a 'for profit' organisation.

Graham

"Eeysore is a criminal, autistic maniac called Graham Stevenson"


AnimalMagic wrote:
Phil Allison wrote:


They are IIRC a not-for-profit Incorporated Business

** Definitely wrong.

UL is a privately owned, for profit business.

" The UL Mark does not carry any legal weight beyond that of any other
trademark."

So it is quite different from CE marking or the legally compulsory
laboratory type approval and marking of electrical /electronic
appliances
and devices on the " prescribed items " list.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underwriters_Laboratories

Well, I'm surprised. I had it in my mind that it was 'not for profit'.

Has its status changed in recent times ?


If one wants the UL mark on one's product, one pay UL.

That sounds like a for profit enterprise to me.

That in itself does not make it a 'for profit' organisation.



** A drowning charlatan will clutch at any nonsense for help.

Gurgle, gurgle, gurgle .......

Here come the hungry sharks to rip him to pieces.

The ugly, fat, vile pommy pig will make a nice snack.




....... Phil

Phil Allison wrote:

"Spehro Pefhany"
"Phil Allison"

** See pics of AC supply adaptor:

Something here is not kosher.

Aside from my other comments .....

I'd like to see the clearance / creepage distances for that switch. Can
they seriously meet Class II ?

** Not an issue, as input and output circuits are both at mains voltages.

There is a serious safety issue with this device.


Only one issue?

Flammable plastic?

Non-FRP plastic melted through leaving a gaping hole and exposing
mains potential?

LED at mains potential without adequate insulation/creepage?

** I was not able to open the unit as it belonged to a customer.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

What is wrong is that it is * NOT * a safety isolation transformer.

It IS an AUTO-TRANSFORMER - falsely marked !!!!

------------------------------------------------------------------

The big clue is the power maker's rating of 70 watts - suspiciously high
for a unit so small.

The other clue is that a "safety isolation transformer " must not exceed 50
volts on the output side.

Similar size units which ARE mains isolation types have ratings of only 25
to 30 VA.

The 240 volt input measures 140 ohms ( room temp) and the output side 70
ohms and the neutral terminals are common.
So - at the rated 70 watt (should be VA ) load it will get very hot (
dissipation about 18 watts) and likely send the 105C thermal fuse open.

Wot a dangerous, horrible POS !!!!!!!!!!!!!

But easy to find on-line or eBay - I bet.

This the shonky maker's site:

http://www.goldenedge.com.hk/

..... Phil

Its not the only shonky thing one might buy, and
I bought a 500W rated variac from Jaycar last summer.
It wasn't a very nice POS, because it hummed badly, but
didn't get hot without a load, so I could live with the hum.
But after only a month's use, and while using it to control the speed
setting of an electric drill used as a motor for a lathe for very
easy work, there was a flash and spark and smoke, and I turned it off.
I had a look inside and boy what a mess.
Apart from melted wiring, the wiper for the output
had penetrated through the windings and against the toroidal core.

The fuse didn't blow though.
The fuse is on the input.
But it was rated for 500VA, you'd think that'd mean that for
50Vout, Iout could be up to 10A.
But I doubt the unit would withstand that, because the
winding wire was 1mm dia I guess, good for a continuous 2.5 amps maybe.
I wasn't overcurrenting the output afaik.


So I take it back to Jaycar and they sent it away to their tech.
After waiting a month they give me the refund I'd asked them for.
It must have been unrepairable.

The construction quality of that was very poor, typical
asian CRAP.

I figure jaycar would buy them for $5, and sell for nearly $200
which was what I paid.
Absolute junk though.

Now I don't have a variac, and have to use a couple
of step down trannies in series to get a low voltage to apply to a
suspicious
device under test.

Patrick Turner.

Patrick Turner wrote:

The construction quality of that was very poor, typical
asian CRAP.

Looks like CCC is going to take time to kick in.

I can safely say that some of both the very best and worst kit I've seen has come
out of China.

Jaycar need a serious boot up their arse. They need to look beyond 'certificates'
and check what the line actually MAKES.

Graham

flipper wrote:

Patrick Turner

The fuse didn't blow though.
The fuse is on the input.
But it was rated for 500VA, you'd think that'd mean that for
50Vout, Iout could be up to 10A.

I can see why you'd think so but they don't work that way. The VA
rating is at the nominal '100%' line voltage but many brands won't
even give you that VA number because the limiting factor is current.

Simple.

In that case it should be AMPERE rated NOT VA rated.

IEC basics.

Graham

StickThatInYourPipeAndSmokeIt wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
flipper wrote:
Patrick Turner

The fuse didn't blow though.
The fuse is on the input.
But it was rated for 500VA, you'd think that'd mean that for
50Vout, Iout could be up to 10A.

I can see why you'd think so but they don't work that way. The VA
rating is at the nominal '100%' line voltage but many brands won't
even give you that VA number because the limiting factor is current.

Simple.

In that case it should be AMPERE rated NOT VA rated.

IEC basics.

Graham

The amperage required to blow a fuse does not change because one
changed the operating voltage of a circuit. It is an inline fuse, it
does not care about a voltage ever, and the current required to blow it
is based on the type and construction of the fusing element it uses.

Fuses and breakers are two different animals.

I believe the correct response is 'whoooosh'.

Graham

"Patrick Turner"


Its not the only shonky thing one might buy,

** Got nothing to do with the device I pictured here which is an
electrocution hazard.



I bought a 500W rated variac from Jaycar last summer.
It wasn't a very nice POS, because it hummed badly, but
didn't get hot without a load, so I could live with the hum.
But after only a month's use, and while using it to control the speed
setting of an electric drill used as a motor for a lathe for very
easy work, there was a flash and spark and smoke, and I turned it off.
I had a look inside and boy what a mess.
Apart from melted wiring, the wiper for the output
had penetrated through the windings and against the toroidal core.

The fuse didn't blow though.
The fuse is on the input.
But it was rated for 500VA, you'd think that'd mean that for
50Vout, Iout could be up to 10A.


** Only a complete ****wit would think such a stupid thing.

And look who did.


So I take it back to Jaycar and they sent it away to their tech.
After waiting a month they give me the refund I'd asked them for.


** You abused that poor variac, destroyed it with a massive current overload
and cheated Jaycar out of money.

Wot a cretin.


...... Phil

flipper wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
flipper wrote:
Patrick Turner

The fuse didn't blow though.
The fuse is on the input.
But it was rated for 500VA, you'd think that'd mean that for
50Vout, Iout could be up to 10A.

I can see why you'd think so but they don't work that way. The VA
rating is at the nominal '100%' line voltage but many brands won't
even give you that VA number because the limiting factor is current.

Simple.

There was no question asked.

In that case it should be AMPERE rated NOT VA rated.

That's what I just said.

Your phrasing isn't AIUI in conformance with what an IEC rating plate
should so. e.g. 250VA max 1 A max (both required in the variac instance)
e.g. NOT 100V @ 2.5A !


IEC basics.

I doubt China cares.

China is beginning to care ( CCC ) . Plenty of Chinese companies don't.
There's a difference.

Graham

"Patrick Turner"


Its not the only shonky thing one might buy, and
I bought a 500W rated variac from Jaycar last summer.

The fuse is on the input.


** As the " Mythbusters " say

" well - there's your problem ..... "


The fuse protecting a variac ** MUST ** be in the secondary circuit !!!

It needs to be a delay or "slo-blo" type of the same nominal amp rating as
the variac.

Having the fuse on the input to the variac provides progressively less and
less protection as the voltage setting is reduced - finally providing none
at all.

Wot a blunder.



...... Phil

"flipper the steaming great turd"


Its not the only shonky thing one might buy, and
I bought a 500W rated variac from Jaycar last summer.

The fuse is on the input.


** As the " Mythbusters " say

" well - there's your problem ..... "


The fuse protecting a variac ** MUST ** be in the secondary circuit !!!

I don't think so,


** Asperser's ****ed morons like YOU have no rational thoughts.

otherwise you have no fault protection for like, say a shorted winding.


** That is not protection of the damn variac !!

Cos by then, it has already burned out.


It needs to be a delay or "slo-blo" type of the same nominal amp rating as
the variac.

Having the fuse on the input to the variac provides progressively less and
less protection as the voltage setting is reduced - finally providing none
at all.

Well, even an output fuse isn't 'perfect' because max current at mid
scale is less than at 1-1 so if you 'protect' mid scale you limit the
perfectly valid max VA at 100% Vo.


** Complete drivel.

A variac handles its * rated * current at any setting.

The output fuse is there to protect it from an inadvertent current overload.

It is a massive blunder to have the ONLY fuse on the input.

****WIT !!


...... Phil

"flipper the steaming great turd"


Its not the only shonky thing one might buy, and
I bought a 500W rated variac from Jaycar last summer.

The fuse is on the input.


** As the " Mythbusters " say

" well - there's your problem ..... "


The fuse protecting a variac ** MUST ** be in the secondary circuit !!!

I don't think so,


** Asperser's ****ed morons like YOU have no rational thoughts.

otherwise you have no fault protection for like, say a shorted winding.


** That is not protection of the damn variac !!

Cos by then, it has already burned out.

****WIT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



It needs to be a delay or "slo-blo" type of the same nominal amp rating as
the variac.

Having the fuse on the input to the variac provides progressively less and
less protection as the voltage setting is reduced - finally providing none
at all.

Well, even an output fuse isn't 'perfect' because max current at mid
scale is less than at 1-1 so if you 'protect' mid scale you limit the
perfectly valid max VA at 100% Vo.


** Wot complete ****ING drivel.


A variac handles its * rated * current at any setting !!!!!!

The output fuse is there to protect it from an inadvertent current overload.

It is a MASSIVE blunder to have the ONLY fuse on the input !!!!!


YOU STEAMING GREAT ****WIT !!





...... Phil

flipper wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
flipper wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
flipper wrote:
Patrick Turner

The fuse didn't blow though.
The fuse is on the input.
But it was rated for 500VA, you'd think that'd mean that for
50Vout, Iout could be up to 10A.

I can see why you'd think so but they don't work that way. The VA
rating is at the nominal '100%' line voltage but many brands won't
even give you that VA number because the limiting factor is current.

Simple.

There was no question asked.

In that case it should be AMPERE rated NOT VA rated.

That's what I just said.

Your phrasing isn't AIUI in conformance with what an IEC rating plate
should so. e.g. 250VA max 1 A max (both required in the variac instance)
e.g. NOT 100V @ 2.5A !

Besides my post having nothing to do with IEC 'rating plates', the
"phrasing," before your dishonest bull**** snip job,

No dishonesty. Snippings for elimination od dead content.


was, nevertheless, 100% correct for operation as well as 'rating plates'.

No it wasn't.


IEC basics.

I doubt China cares.

China is beginning to care ( CCC ) . Plenty of Chinese companies don't.
There's a difference.

I didn't say a damn thing about 'da guvmint'.

You also didn't say a damn thing about Chinese companies.

Graham

and testing to them for the benefit of the insurance industry and the end user. Hence
the name, Underwriter's Labs where underwriting refers to insurance. UL has typically
concentrated on fire hazard to the best of my knowledge. Whereas IEC has tended more
AIUI to concentrate on risk of electrocution hazard, since fire was never seemingly a
big problem in comparison in Europe (fewer wooden buildings - better codes etc perhaps
?).

Europe has higher domestic voltage, thefore higher risk of faults
causing electrocution, and because of the lower currents used lower
risk of faults causing fire

Bye.
Jasen

On 2008-07-06, flipper wrote:

Having the fuse on the input to the variac provides progressively less and
less protection as the voltage setting is reduced - finally providing none
at all.

Well, even an output fuse isn't 'perfect' because max current at mid
scale is less than at 1-1 so if you 'protect' mid scale you limit the

assuming the device is wound all the way with the same gauge of wire
max current output near mid scale is more than anywhere else (except at
exactly 100%, or 0% where the only limit is the current handling capacity of
the wiper!)

--

Bye.
Jasen

"Jasen Betts"

** Sheep shagger alert !


Europe has higher domestic voltage, thefore higher risk of faults
causing electrocution,

** True enough.


and because of the lower currents used lower
risk of faults causing fire

** Complete nonsense.




....... Phil

"Jasen Betts"


** Sheep shagger alert.


assuming the device is wound all the way with the same gauge of wire
max current output near mid scale is more than anywhere else (except at
exactly 100%, or 0% where the only limit is the current handling capacity
of
the wiper!)


** And the explanation is ???

Baaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh....



....... Phil

flipper wrote:

On 9 Jul 2008 09:41:29 GMT, Jasen Betts wrote:

On 2008-07-06, flipper wrote:

Having the fuse on the input to the variac provides progressively less and
less protection as the voltage setting is reduced - finally providing none
at all.

Well, even an output fuse isn't 'perfect' because max current at mid
scale is less than at 1-1 so if you 'protect' mid scale you limit the

assuming the device is wound all the way with the same gauge of wire
max current output near mid scale is more than anywhere else (except at
exactly 100%, or 0% where the only limit is the current handling capacity of
the wiper!)

You need to tell these folks about it, then.

http://www.ietlabs.com/Variac/Variac_How_To_Select.html

"An autotransformer cannot supply as much current at midrange settings
as it can at full-voltage setting without overheating. "


Think about it: When the output voltage matches the input voltage,
the transformer isn't even used. It is simply an unloaded transformer
primary connected to the AC line voltage. At any other voltage, the
current is determined by wire size. If the Variac is configured to put
out more than the line voltage, you have the same limit at the highest
voltage as you do at the midpoint.


--
http://improve-usenet.org/index.html

If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in
your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm

Sporadic E is the Earth's aluminum foil beanie for the 'global warming'
sheep.

In article ,
"Michael A. Terrell" wrote:

Think about it: When the output voltage matches the input voltage,
the transformer isn't even used. It is simply an unloaded transformer
primary connected to the AC line voltage. At any other voltage, the
current is determined by wire size. If the Variac is configured to put
out more than the line voltage, you have the same limit at the highest
voltage as you do at the midpoint.

Wrong, think again, at the midpoint the wiper is feed by two "wires"
carrying equal currents, while when set to boost the voltage, only a
single wire is feeding the wiper, so the current capacity at the
midpoint is twice the current capacity in the boost position.


Regards,

John Byrns

--
Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/