Re: uv dangers from uncovered gap

["Tesla list" <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>]

Original poster: "tesla by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>" <tesla-at-paradise-dot-net.nz>


Subject: uv dangers from uncovered gap


> Original poster: "Robin Copini by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>"
<rcopini-at-merlin-dot-net.au>
>
Greeting Robin/List
This sounds to me like the biggest load of bollocks I've heard of in yrs.
The microwave power flux density and/or exposure time requred to damage the
eye is quite high and the brief arc created during operation of a switch
although it will create dangerous UV is just not going to create Mwave
energy sufficient to damage the body. Not to mention the fact that the eye
has tear ducts which repalce fluids onto the eye every second or so when we
blink.

Funny a report of an  industrial accident should end up in a computer mag
??. If the article did not mention names, places and dates it just increases
the likelhood that it was written by a first yr journo student paid $0.50
/hr who knows zip about anything technical. The danger of Mwave O/P from arc
transients was never mentioned in my technical training but UV and ejecta
from the arc was. Operating large uncovered switches is clearly a hazardous
activivty to the eyes but almost certainly from ejecta and UV. Not to
mention shock hazard.

No doubt about my views here, if I'm wrong and truth underlies the report
then I'm going to eat humble pie. I'd love to know the name and publication
issue of the mag involved so I can research further. Having put my views so
bluntly on the line I feel a certain responsibility to follow up also.

Ted L in NZ

> Hi all,
>
>  Just reading through another computer magazine, and found this very
> interesting article. I will copy here verbatim.
>
>  Electric Arcing.
>
> Best Regards
>
>  Robin Copini.