Transformer insulateing tape?
in [Design]
|
Prev: Capacitor discharge probes
Next: makes no sense to me
From: Archimedes' Lever on 20 Jun 2010 12:53 On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 08:25:33 -0700, Fred Abse <excretatauris(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 20:08:16 -0700, Bill Sloman wrote: > >> The electronics industry is infested with dimensions expressed in >> bizarre fractions of an inch > >Commonly: >0.1 >0.05 >0.001 > "bizarre"? You're nuts (he is). Two are simple order of magnitude values, and one is one half (nothing bizarre about that fraction) of the order of magnitude above it. >This must be a usage of the word "bizarre" with which I am as yet >unfamiliar. Yeah. Sloman fits OUR definition of it.
From: Archimedes' Lever on 20 Jun 2010 13:06 On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 08:28:23 -0700, <jetodd(a)bc-mung-supernet.com> wrote: >In article <mrsp16186ug87255qercqsp34jm20hr0a0(a)4ax.com>, spam(a)spam.com >says... >> >> What kind of tape can you use for insulation between primary to >> secondary of flyback transformer. I know mass produced professional >> designs use a 3M specialty tape. What I'm looking for is a tape I >> could pick up at Staples or some office supply store or hardware >> store. >> >> The vinyl electrical tape I can find is only rated for 600V and 80C >> MAX TEMP. >> >> Is there a commonly available tape that is good for higher temp and >> offers higher insulation? I've read of people using a mylar tape is >> there a brand name ,type anyone could recommend? >> >> This is for a 90 - 140Vac input flyback. >> > We used to use "friction" tape for that kind of thing, haven't seen >any for a while. Anyone have electrical data for "hockey" tape? > >--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news(a)netfront.net --- Mostly for sealing up cable ends. Not so much for attaining reliable electrical isolation. Likely depends on the tape, the maker, and the way it is made. I have seen it actually be an impregnated fabric type tape.
From: Archimedes' Lever on 20 Jun 2010 13:09 On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 08:43:34 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman <bill.sloman(a)ieee.org> wrote: > Decimal divisions of the inch strike me as odd I can *merely look* at a gap or the width of a solid, and guess the gap pretty close under an inch, and even fairly close up to about 8 inches. I even guess larger spans pretty well, but the resolve switches to whole inches. I can *see* nearly the entire range under 50 mils though. I get DAMN CLOSE nearly every time.
From: Archimedes' Lever on 20 Jun 2010 13:12 On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 08:43:34 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman <bill.sloman(a)ieee.org> wrote: > if you >want to use decimal arithmetic, metric units make a lot more sense. Only AFTER one familiarizes the observer with the standards. 1mm 1cm 1Dm etc. Numbers below 1mm get easier too. No different than thousandth inch numbers under say 0.1"
From: Jamie on 20 Jun 2010 13:22
Jan Panteltje wrote: > On a sunny day (Sun, 20 Jun 2010 07:43:29 -0700 (PDT)) it happened Proteus IIV > <proteusiiv(a)gmail.com> wrote in > <8316ba75-68e0-4f76-96fd-04cbc92ddbb8(a)u26g2000yqu.googlegroups.com>: > > >>I AM PROTEUS > > > An other Apple user flips out. > > FYI Steve Jobs wil die one day. No.... |