Holy Arc-Resistance - Is it TRUE?
We are extremely proud to be part of the Fluke family,” said Tony Holliday,
managing director of Hawk IR International Ltd. “As the world leader in thermal
imaging for industrial applications, Fluke Thermography gels perfectly with our
arc-resistant infrared sightglass products. With a global network of electrical
experts and distributors, the combination will bring safe and efficient
electrical thermography to users worldwide.”
Of particular interest is the claim 'Arc-Resistant infrared sightglass.' Could ANYONE out there show me where in ANY standard the definition of Arc-Resistant Infrared Sightglass? Please specify the standard and citation. I have not been able to find a SINGLE definition for such a thing, especially in the cited standards by the particular 'sightglass' manufacturer.
The result is a direct danger to our infrared thermographers and associated technicians.
Is this something real, or is it sales and marketing lies that put people at risk? (Reference Sales and Marketing Ethics post: http://www.motordoc.com/MDMHBlog/2009/03/sales-and-marketing-ethics-in-r-world.html)
Labels: arc-resistant, infrared, ir sightglass, ir window
posted by MotorDoc at
1:18 PM
2 Comments:
If a product can resist an electric-arc - and has been tested to do so - I would say it is true to use this term.
I have read their documentation and they say that their product has resisted an electric arc to a certain energy level and they have also defined the test standard used to strike the arc.
Whats wrong with this?
At least this manufacturer is trying to push the envelope and provide a product that can give a level of protection to the community.
Why dont you contact Hawk IR directly to discuss your concerns? They are the manufacturer, perhaps they know something we dont.
Hello Anonymous
Actually, I did contact the company is responsible for this product. The statement from one individual was that they were perfectly aware of the problem and were looking into it.
At this point, all of the manufacturers have gone through this type of testing, some at values much higher than this one claims. The standard, itself, specifically states that the components tested are NOT arc resistant.
If I were to give you a drug and I say that the drug has been tested and it will not cause cancer and you take it, but the test states that you must drink milk with it and you don't because it was not disclosed...
The manufacturer does know something that we don't. They know that most people in our industry do not question claims. In this case, they claim their product was tested to a standard and that makes it 'arc resistant,' that is not true. In fact, they use the statement to imply that if you were to place it on another arc resistant switchgear that already exists, that you would maintain your arc resistance... also not true.
In fact, if you open the cover of the window, for that period of time, you are exposed to a potential arc flash because none of the windows has been tested through an arc flash with the covers removed and passed.
The standard specifically calls for the components to be in their operational state - covers removed, buttons pressed, etc. for the test to simulate worst case conditions.
If you were made aware of that, would it change how you performed your inspection? Would you take extra care to make sure the cover was back in place after use? Would you perform an OSHA required risk assessment?
Yet, without being fully informed someone might assume that they don't need to make that risk assessment. That they don't need to take precautions when the cover is removed. That they might leave the cover off when they are done because it is convenient.
Post a Comment
<< Home