But what fool would open up an appliance that is still plugged in anyway??
I would
But only when working inside a PC using the earth as an ESD earth and with the power turned off and tested (with a multimeter).
Saves frying the silicon with ESD.
SP or DP sockets - Whats the difference?
- Thread starter toptec
- Start date
I would
But only when working inside a PC using the earth as an ESD earth and with the power turned off and tested (with a multimeter).
Saves frying the silicon with ESD.
Sponsored Links
So does proper antistatic equipment (mats, wrist straps etc).
That is the correct way to work, not by leaving the PC plugged in!
That is the correct way to work, not by leaving the PC plugged in!
And the connections on the rear of the switch on the front panel?
And the instructions to disconnect it before opening the case?
Sorry - leaving it plugged in because you can't be rsed to invest in or use proper antistatic precautions is unprofessional and incompetent.
And the instructions to disconnect it before opening the case?
Sorry - leaving it plugged in because you can't be rsed to invest in or use proper antistatic precautions is unprofessional and incompetent.
Sponsored Links
Sorry, the ones which have a potential of +5VDC to earth, or are there some others?
No such instructions for any modern machine..
At least I'm basing my statements on up to date knowledge.
Yes - I've worked on equipment where there's 230V at that switch.
If you say so.
And I'm basing mine on what I know to be safe working practices which comply with H&S regulations.
If you want to be an unprofessional cowboy because you're to lazy or too cheap to bother using or obtaining the correct equipment you carry on.
Old AT machines are a special case. ATX machines do not have any voltage higher than +12VDC outside the PSU. I haven't seen an AT machine still in use for some time, I might add.
I've not seen such a warning on any machine I've encountered in recent memory. And certainly none of mine have one.
I'll carry on building and servicing PCs in my free time, and doing a damned good job of it without having to tie myself to a socket outlet, yes. I do work on a suitable mat.
J
johnheritage
Safe working practices would be not touching the bare copper.
A large percentage, if not the majority, of scientific and industrial accidents come from relying on standardized testing and ways of working as a sole reference; e.g. doing your test, and then getting hold of the copper.
As I said in the post, which you deleted out of your quotes, I only do it on leads and where I can see the plug, that it's out of the wall and the socket is off.
I've watched people in laboratories, with PhD's, making mistakes due to their trust in whats on the piece of paper.
A large percentage, if not the majority, of scientific and industrial accidents come from relying on standardized testing and ways of working as a sole reference; e.g. doing your test, and then getting hold of the copper.
As I said in the post, which you deleted out of your quotes, I only do it on leads and where I can see the plug, that it's out of the wall and the socket is off.
I've watched people in laboratories, with PhD's, making mistakes due to their trust in whats on the piece of paper.
J
johnheritage
I've been messing around with PCs since I was about 10 and started building my own.
I was one of the first people to get a CD writer, for about £350 before the internet became popular (I have also spoken with Tim Burners who came up with HTTP at CERN), and worked in a computer store.
I've not once fried anything and don't use any anti-static gear. Turn it off, touch the casing to discharge yourself, unplug it.
A computer PSU needs to be signaled to start up, and the output is only a few volts. Unless you short it with jewelery, you could put your hand on the terminals and it won't do anything.
I have also had two Fluke 123 Scopemeters and have tens of thousands of pounds worth of semiconductor lab equipment at home. I think you need to calm down with all the cowboy accusations, as I'm guessing you don't have those things.
I was one of the first people to get a CD writer, for about £350 before the internet became popular (I have also spoken with Tim Burners who came up with HTTP at CERN), and worked in a computer store.
I've not once fried anything and don't use any anti-static gear. Turn it off, touch the casing to discharge yourself, unplug it.
A computer PSU needs to be signaled to start up, and the output is only a few volts. Unless you short it with jewelery, you could put your hand on the terminals and it won't do anything.
I have also had two Fluke 123 Scopemeters and have tens of thousands of pounds worth of semiconductor lab equipment at home. I think you need to calm down with all the cowboy accusations, as I'm guessing you don't have those things.
And what about situations where you have to?
Don't you find that a tad limiting, if you're not prepared to work on cables where you couldn't see the plug even if the cable was plugged in (which it isn't) because you're not prepared to follow safe isolation procedures?
What have pieces of paper got to do with safe isolation, testing for dead, verifying that your tester works etc?
J
johnheritage
As I also said, I don't do that with T&E. First of all, because it'll wreck my teeth, secondly, because I can't see the entire pathway. I would NEVER do that with a bit of T&E sticking out of a wall.
If it's T&E, I'll flick the breakers and then check it with the multimeter.
If I didn't install it, it's probably already stripped and ready for use, so I'll still only touch the insulation. You don't need to touch the copper to change sockets, ceiling roses or switches.
If I installed it, I'll know what it's connected to and whether or not it's entirely isolated. Then I'll use the strippers or, if I can't find them, a razor blade.
Can you tell me how unplugging something, checking the socket is off and then being able to see the plug is not checking something is isolated?
Pieces of paper are mentioned because it's you who's making the assumption. Firstly that we're all cowboys for not doing it the way you do it, and secondly for having such faith in your method of testing. I have seen journal entries using the same logic and then introducing failures, or people dying in industrial accidents, because they've been told to trust what the indicator says.
I stood in a lab with 60 other students and staff members at one point, and not a single person, bar me, bothered to check their pipettes against a reference prior to working with them. Neither did my tutor, the person with a PhD, who has a paper published with errors in it due to him trusting the standardized protocol for decontaminating a sample, and then applying it to a system he didn't design.
A worrying example if respirators. After the twin towers epic a55hole situation, shops where selling out of them. And people turned up dead because they'd put them on, then not realized they needed to remove the covers. One, very, very basic step in making it function. But caused by the assumption it'd protect them, because it looked like it would. They'd suffocated themselves, by mistake.
The safest way to work is to assume the safety gear isn't working. I see people going crazy over fume hoods, who don't realize that they can neutralize the toxic gases they're producing very easily and better with much cheaper methods, or that the fume hood doesn't capture certain gases that will kill them without them feeling it - like monoxide.
I'm not getting at you or looking to complain, I'm just trying to explain that, I get your point, but it's the internet getting in the way of explaining that I do only do that on very specific things.
If it's T&E, I'll flick the breakers and then check it with the multimeter.
If I didn't install it, it's probably already stripped and ready for use, so I'll still only touch the insulation. You don't need to touch the copper to change sockets, ceiling roses or switches.
If I installed it, I'll know what it's connected to and whether or not it's entirely isolated. Then I'll use the strippers or, if I can't find them, a razor blade.
Can you tell me how unplugging something, checking the socket is off and then being able to see the plug is not checking something is isolated?
Pieces of paper are mentioned because it's you who's making the assumption. Firstly that we're all cowboys for not doing it the way you do it, and secondly for having such faith in your method of testing. I have seen journal entries using the same logic and then introducing failures, or people dying in industrial accidents, because they've been told to trust what the indicator says.
I stood in a lab with 60 other students and staff members at one point, and not a single person, bar me, bothered to check their pipettes against a reference prior to working with them. Neither did my tutor, the person with a PhD, who has a paper published with errors in it due to him trusting the standardized protocol for decontaminating a sample, and then applying it to a system he didn't design.
A worrying example if respirators. After the twin towers epic a55hole situation, shops where selling out of them. And people turned up dead because they'd put them on, then not realized they needed to remove the covers. One, very, very basic step in making it function. But caused by the assumption it'd protect them, because it looked like it would. They'd suffocated themselves, by mistake.
The safest way to work is to assume the safety gear isn't working. I see people going crazy over fume hoods, who don't realize that they can neutralize the toxic gases they're producing very easily and better with much cheaper methods, or that the fume hood doesn't capture certain gases that will kill them without them feeling it - like monoxide.
I'm not getting at you or looking to complain, I'm just trying to explain that, I get your point, but it's the internet getting in the way of explaining that I do only do that on very specific things.
I could never have worn a seat belt and say, truthfully, that I'd never been injured in a car crash because of it.
No I don't.
But I'll tell you what I do have.
I have the knowledge that you don't work on equipment which is plugged in unless you need to for testing, and I have the absolutely unshakable conviction that anyone who does is an idiot and incompetent and a cowboy.
If you want, I'll come up with alternative ways to express how wrong you are, but I'm sure you've got the message, just as I'm sure I've got the message about how lackadaisical you are, a fact not changed by the value of your lab equipment or that you once spoke to Tim Burners (sic).
J
johnheritage
People who wear ESD gear are on factory lines producing huge quantities of it, or don't know what ESD and impedances are. And, judging by your last replies, you do wear your seat belt.
Do you also use the one hand method of working with electrics?
As you have such a problem with using my teeth and then had a go at the other guy for being a cowboy since he didn't buy ESD gear, gear obviously does matter to you. When my gear outranks yours, suddenly it doesn't matter. Do you think perhaps I could equally look down on you and say... well, you're not using a high end Fluke, so it's probably not standardized and it's probably not very good?
Do you know that a lot of silicon now has ESD diodes built into it? And what avalanche currents are?
Medical equipment is plugged in to the mains and then connected to patients with conductive leads.
Explain.
{edit}I bet you googled Tim Burners.
Do you also use the one hand method of working with electrics?
As you have such a problem with using my teeth and then had a go at the other guy for being a cowboy since he didn't buy ESD gear, gear obviously does matter to you. When my gear outranks yours, suddenly it doesn't matter. Do you think perhaps I could equally look down on you and say... well, you're not using a high end Fluke, so it's probably not standardized and it's probably not very good?
Do you know that a lot of silicon now has ESD diodes built into it? And what avalanche currents are?
Medical equipment is plugged in to the mains and then connected to patients with conductive leads.
Explain.
{edit}I bet you googled Tim Burners.
What ARE you on about?
{edit}I bet you googled Tim Burners.
He wouldn't have got far, because his name is Berners-Lee, not Burners. And you should address him as Sir Timothy.
DIYnot Local
Staff member
If you need to find a tradesperson to get your job done, please try our local search below, or if you are doing it yourself you can find suppliers local to you.
Select the supplier or trade you require, enter your location to begin your search.
Are you a trade or supplier? You can create your listing free at DIYnot Local
Sponsored Links
