Isolation xformer question (again)

On Tuesday, February 23, 2016 at 2:48:06 PM UTC-5, Cursitor Doom wrote:

On Tue, 23 Feb 2016 11:07:14 -0800, jurb6006 wrote:

I think if they outlawed airbags in cars and mandated spikes in the
dashboard, people would use following distance more than one inch per
hundred miles per hour.

Absolutely. I remember when crash helmets became compulsory for
motorbikes here in 1973, the number of serious accidents instantly went
through the roof because it gave riders who'd previously been very
cautious in their approach to roadcraft the false sense that suddenly
they were somehow invincible. And of course we see the same effect at
work in countless other areas where governments around the world try to
"improve" safety.

I am not sure I completely believe that, though it may have been true in some areas. However, what lies at the bottom of this is that when the insurance companies lobbied for seat belts laws, they knew there would be more accidents. Accidents they have paid off make them look good and important, possibly even necessary.

Like the ACA AKA as Obamacare or Romneycare, The insurance companies can ONLY make 20 %. Oil companies, I mean the dirtiest nastiest motherfuckers in the world who start wars for money, burn Women children and all this shit for the quarterly report, they would suck a mile of donkey dick to make 20 %.. Bigtime. Taxes are orders of magnitude over their profits on any given gallon of gasoline.

Working without a net. I have floated test equipment, and I mean let it float itself. In fact I have an old Tek 561A in the garage that has an arcing filament transformer. Actually I want to fix that because I like the way the delayed sweep works on it. But I already installed a separate filament transformer. Apparently now it is bad like 25 years later after having been in a wet basement for half that time.

Now THAT, for that particular problem I would probably not want to use an isolation transformer. When plugged in to a non grounded outlet it will shock you. It arcs about once every three seconds. the display halates and if you are touching the equipment, you will notice.

In fact I wonder if it is really that transformer, or some other insulation breaking down. I'll get round to it.

But the main thing is, if you got isolation use it. Always safer for all of the equipment, and you.

 

" find a battery operating scope is much better, even if its on a
UPS unplugged.

Jamie "

That sounds cumbersome.

 

[Cursitor Doom]

On Wed, 24 Feb 2016 13:49:50 -0800, jurb6006 wrote:

But the main thing is, if you got isolation use it. Always safer for all
of the equipment, and you.

Yes, but there's another hidden danger with the careless use of ITs that
comes from over-familiar use I should mention and that is plugging test
equipment into one because it makes a convenient "extension lead" if the
cable on your say signal generator isn't long enough to make it to the
socket. Been there, done that! It's so easy to slip into bad habits.

 

[M Philbrook]

In article <f257923c-c6c0-4bd1-ab66-5b6526695fc3@googlegroups.com>,
jurb6006@gmail.com says...

" find a battery operating scope is much better, even if its on a
UPS unplugged.

Jamie "

That sounds cumbersome.

of course it is..

My low budget owen tool box hand scope claims
to have both inputs isolated, including the commons.

Jamie

 

On Tue, 23 Feb 2016 19:45:03 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
<curd@notformail.com> wrote:

On Tue, 23 Feb 2016 11:07:14 -0800, jurb6006 wrote:

I think if they outlawed airbags in cars and mandated spikes in the
dashboard, people would use following distance more than one inch per
hundred miles per hour.

Absolutely. I remember when crash helmets became compulsory for
motorbikes here in 1973, the number of serious accidents instantly went
through the roof because it gave riders who'd previously been very
cautious in their approach to roadcraft the false sense that suddenly
they were somehow invincible. And of course we see the same effect at
work in countless other areas where governments around the world try to
"improve" safety.

I think your story is apocryphal. I started riding in 1971 and almost
always wore a helmet, even though it was not required. I wasn't really
more careful when riding without one, didn't go any slower. However, I
started rock climbing seriously when I was about 14. All free
climbing. No protection. At first because I couldn't afford ropes and
all the other hardware. Then later because it was challenging. A
friend of mine with wealthy folks got all the ropes and other gear and
we went out climbing. I amazed myself at the risks I was now willing
to take when I had some protection. Then I got a little scared when I
realized that even with protection used properly I was risking falls
that would still have broken many bones. I went back to free climbing.
I had a friend who was taller than I and had about four inches longer
reach with his hands and maybe 10 inches longer with his feet. When he
lead on a climb he would look for spots that were just at his limit so
that I would have to jump a little because I couldn't reach. That sure
was fun and risky.
Eric

 

[Bob Masta]

On Wed, 24 Feb 2016 17:02:33 -0800, etpm@whidbey.com wrote:

On Tue, 23 Feb 2016 19:45:03 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
curd@notformail.com> wrote:

On Tue, 23 Feb 2016 11:07:14 -0800, jurb6006 wrote:

I think if they outlawed airbags in cars and mandated spikes in the
dashboard, people would use following distance more than one inch per
hundred miles per hour.

Absolutely. I remember when crash helmets became compulsory for
motorbikes here in 1973, the number of serious accidents instantly went
through the roof because it gave riders who'd previously been very
cautious in their approach to roadcraft the false sense that suddenly
they were somehow invincible. And of course we see the same effect at
work in countless other areas where governments around the world try to
"improve" safety.
I think your story is apocryphal. I started riding in 1971 and almost
always wore a helmet, even though it was not required. I wasn't really
more careful when riding without one, didn't go any slower. However, I
started rock climbing seriously when I was about 14. All free
climbing. No protection. At first because I couldn't afford ropes and
all the other hardware. Then later because it was challenging. A
friend of mine with wealthy folks got all the ropes and other gear and
we went out climbing. I amazed myself at the risks I was now willing
to take when I had some protection. Then I got a little scared when I
realized that even with protection used properly I was risking falls
that would still have broken many bones. I went back to free climbing.
I had a friend who was taller than I and had about four inches longer
reach with his hands and maybe 10 inches longer with his feet. When he
lead on a climb he would look for spots that were just at his limit so
that I would have to jump a little because I couldn't reach. That sure
was fun and risky.
Eric

On the subject of rock climbing (bot NOT electronics!), I
recall that top-roping was a wonderful way to learn and
practice risky moves. For those who've never done this, you
usually have a smallish cliff with the rope going from the
climber's harness, up through a carabiner at the top and
back down to a spotter / belayer on the ground who has a
braking device and an anchor (especially if he's lighter
than the climber).

The belayer is ready to "catch" the climber if he falls.
(That's why you don't want a tall cliff... you want the
belayer to be able to see what's going on.) The climber,
when attempting a particularly risky move, can call out
"watch me!" for added assurance.

This allows you to try things beyond your comfort zone.
There's also an elated feeling of having cheated death when
you miss, and only fall a couple of feet before finding
yourself magically suspended in space like an angel in the
Christmas play!

Best regards,

Bob Masta

DAQARTA v9.00
Data AcQuisition And Real-Time Analysis
www.daqarta.com
Scope, Spectrum, Spectrogram, Sound Level Meter
Frequency Counter, Pitch Track, Pitch-to-MIDI
FREE 8-channel Signal Generator, DaqMusiq generator
Science with your sound card!

 

On Thu, 25 Feb 2016 13:54:04 GMT, N0Spam@daqarta.com (Bob Masta)
wrote:

On Wed, 24 Feb 2016 17:02:33 -0800, etpm@whidbey.com wrote:

On Tue, 23 Feb 2016 19:45:03 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
curd@notformail.com> wrote:

On Tue, 23 Feb 2016 11:07:14 -0800, jurb6006 wrote:

I think if they outlawed airbags in cars and mandated spikes in the
dashboard, people would use following distance more than one inch per
hundred miles per hour.

Absolutely. I remember when crash helmets became compulsory for
motorbikes here in 1973, the number of serious accidents instantly went
through the roof because it gave riders who'd previously been very
cautious in their approach to roadcraft the false sense that suddenly
they were somehow invincible. And of course we see the same effect at
work in countless other areas where governments around the world try to
"improve" safety.
I think your story is apocryphal. I started riding in 1971 and almost
always wore a helmet, even though it was not required. I wasn't really
more careful when riding without one, didn't go any slower. However, I
started rock climbing seriously when I was about 14. All free
climbing. No protection. At first because I couldn't afford ropes and
all the other hardware. Then later because it was challenging. A
friend of mine with wealthy folks got all the ropes and other gear and
we went out climbing. I amazed myself at the risks I was now willing
to take when I had some protection. Then I got a little scared when I
realized that even with protection used properly I was risking falls
that would still have broken many bones. I went back to free climbing.
I had a friend who was taller than I and had about four inches longer
reach with his hands and maybe 10 inches longer with his feet. When he
lead on a climb he would look for spots that were just at his limit so
that I would have to jump a little because I couldn't reach. That sure
was fun and risky.
Eric

On the subject of rock climbing (bot NOT electronics!), I
recall that top-roping was a wonderful way to learn and
practice risky moves. For those who've never done this, you
usually have a smallish cliff with the rope going from the
climber's harness, up through a carabiner at the top and
back down to a spotter / belayer on the ground who has a
braking device and an anchor (especially if he's lighter
than the climber).

The belayer is ready to "catch" the climber if he falls.
(That's why you don't want a tall cliff... you want the
belayer to be able to see what's going on.) The climber,
when attempting a particularly risky move, can call out
"watch me!" for added assurance.

This allows you to try things beyond your comfort zone.
There's also an elated feeling of having cheated death when
you miss, and only fall a couple of feet before finding
yourself magically suspended in space like an angel in the
Christmas play!

Best regards,

Bob Masta

DAQARTA v9.00
Data AcQuisition And Real-Time Analysis
www.daqarta.com
Scope, Spectrum, Spectrogram, Sound Level Meter
Frequency Counter, Pitch Track, Pitch-to-MIDI
FREE 8-channel Signal Generator, DaqMusiq generator
Science with your sound card!

I tended towards risky behavior when I was young and I was glad I
realized that rock climbing with protection was for me something that
would have led to a bad fall. I was climbing over 40 years ago and
protection systems were not as near as sophisticated as they are
today. I still miss the exhilaration of standing on the small area at
the top of a high rock and looking all around.
Eric

 

[Cydrome Leader]

Cursitor Doom <curd@notformail.com> wrote:

On Tue, 23 Feb 2016 18:02:15 +0000, Cydrome Leader wrote:

There's plenty of hot electrical work that goes on all the time with no
problems.

Yeah, by experienced and qualified people who follow laid down procedures
and have the relevant safety equipment, not some noob seeking advice on
the subject from a bunch of strangers! (no offence to the OP, we were all
noobs once).

While this is true, it's also correct to state that most folks don't get
their fatal electic shock at the test bench within minutes of fussing with
an isolation transformer.