safety playground

[Fulvio Romano]

Mah... below has brushes. if the brushes are thin and at a distance just above the width of the plates, the probability that they are on different plates is very high.
also between two contigue plates there is an insulating strip. if the brush is wide less than this insulating strip, the short circuit is not possible.

probably the brushes are more than two, otherwise if the sniper flows in the longitudinal sense of the plates, it stops and cannot restart.

 

[Er Presidente]

on the second statement we agree (as I had previously written).
on the first... I'm not an expert on cc, I could say you're right, but the lvd law says something different. I don't know.
http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/bassissima_tensioneseee.... it is expected that the eight Moroccans absorb up to a maximum of 100a (63th of average, I read the manuals), and the positive plates, as well as the negative ones, are all connected together. with so high currents (necessary due to low voltages) it is practically impossible for a security system to understand what is happening. Think of the transient of an electric motor cc in acceleration, how do you distinguish it from the 30th downloaded to the ground from a malcapitato?
Moreover in the specific case the current has been taken between the positive and the negative plate, therefore indistinguishable from the absorption of the macchini itself.

So I say, but why not use the classic flags and report the floor to the ground? ? ?

on the trolleybuses we do it with amperage of 600a and tensions of 600/750v, it's not impossible, it's expensive.

 

[Er Presidente]

on the second statement we agree (as I had previously written).
on the first... I'm not an expert on cc, I could say you're right, but the lvd law says something different. I don't know.
http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/bassissima_tensione

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/extra-low_voltagethe English version inserts some important considerations, jumped to pie' pari from the Italian version.

the basic concept is that of the "unreported" voltage, isolated from the ground circuit and therefore safe by definition.
in case a human body enters accidental contact with a conductor, no power passage would be possible. notice the limit of 60v for each conductor, considered subject to danger.

in case the contact occurred directly between two conductors, which must be prevented in every condition.

In the specific case, in my opinion, safety is not insured, and the entire philosophy of the plant (exposed conductors) must be revised. minimum by reducing the voltage to the "total" limit of 60v (personally I prefer 50) by not being able to apply the rule of the individual conductor exposed.

even safer would have been a ground-reported circuit with life-saving.

Unfortunately we are in the typical "gray" area where the norms are not "intensive" for the purpose for which they were born, but interpreted to own advantage and then become "usual".

 

[Er Presidente]

I correct myself, in the specific case neither the life saver, or any other system of "balance", would have solved the problem, being involved both conductors without possibility of distinction regarding the load.

 

[Fulvio Romano]

on the trolleybuses we do it with amperage of 600a and tensions of 600/750v, it's not impossible, it's expensive.

not only on the trolleybuses. also on self-containers. It's the first time I've ever seen a solution like that. I've always seen the figure. floor and trolley that takes tension from the grid on the ceiling. I don't understand why it should be more expensive.

 

[Fulvio Romano]

the basic concept is that of the "unreported" voltage, isolated from the ground circuit and therefore safe by definition.
in case a human body enters accidental contact with a conductor, no power passage would be possible. notice the limit of 60v for each conductor, considered subject to danger.

in case the contact occurred directly between two conductors, which must be prevented in every condition.

you are talking about selv systems (the safest category of three in very low voltage). in these systems the tensions are not reported, so that an external closure of the circuits is not possible resulting in lightning (the tensions remain floating). However (according to quoted phrase) a selv system only works if the guy in question does not voluntarily or involuntarily touch two points to different tensions, although not mutually reported. this is done by physically preventing it from being possible to touch two points at different tensions. The classic example is the underwater lighting of a swimming pool. If there's a failure, the whole pool goes to potential, but it can't switch current, in the meantime jump the protections and nobody gets hurt.

a solution like this is physically impossible in the case of the car crash. you should have two meters wide vetturine and put the insulating bands one and a half meter wide, so if you fall on it, at the most touch a plate with potential and an insulator. something obviously not feasible geometrically. So I ask myself: why does the norm on the rides foresee this configuration of self-awakening?
What norm? Well, now I'm not in my hand, a friend sent it to me... when I find the place.

 

[Oldwarper]

I'm sorry that even at fulvio a disadventure happened with a ride.

Clearly, the control bodies that care for safety are more concerned with jobs than leisure, in particular where children and boys are (they are on the agenda schools that collapse countertops, injured children while playing or car because they lack retention systems).

in my "little" I see that for the works of the earthquake you are already doing everything, all the projects have already been operational, except those of the schools, for which you expect a "rectop" of those existing in short time, too short regarding the damage, with the promise of a respect of the anti-sismic norms of 60%, "because they are old and historical". the municipality refused to consider the project of new schools presented by architects and a parent committee, with a budget of expenditure less than the one anticipated for the safety (to 60%, remember it...) of the old and inadequate existing schools and their reassignment to other functions (house, museum, municipal offices, library, social spaces...). "officially" because the contract had already been assigned and the works would leave shortly and so it was impossible to rediscuss everything.

was September/October 2012. a single transenna from schools has not been moved to this day. In the meantime, they have deteriorated and damaged, not even being touched (while town hall and theatre have been "covered" with so much wood that they have destroyed the fiemme valley).

I have the vague impression that the boss doesn't care about the children.
the unions break the maxons and bring money, the children have no union that supports them or represents them.
Children do not strike or block railways or public services for better living and safety in schools.
The children don't vote, the criminals do.
you could say "the parents vote". But many look more if you cut the imu or detach the suv.

And yet they are our future. but like all managers (or who believes that) we have such a limited time vision that already programming what they want for dinner becomes an almost impossible "mission". . .
:angry:

 

[Oldwarper]

Meanwhile I wanted to reassure everyone that elena started last week moving the first steps without chalk and guardian. We started rehab and it's finally free to walk and move as you want. He's trying to run, but he's not doing it yet. Anyway, it was really moving to see her play with her friends without having to drag her or not be able to follow them because it prevented her from chalking.

thanks to all for the closeness and comfort!

 

[gerod]

Good for the baby.
I'd say you're right.
a catastrophic event, do the laws back (obviously) but then are disrespected. the union of children is the strength of parents to break the balls, especially when you are right!
Hi.

 

[Cristallo]

with the promise of 60% anti-sismic norms

and what does it mean to comply with 60% anti-seismic norms? a building or respects the anti-seismic norms or does not respect them.
and we keep in mind that respecting (at 100%) anti-seismic norms does not ensure indestructibility, but only that to a expected intensity of x seismic energy, the building saves the life of occupants even destroying itself.
What makes a 60% comparison? which holds with a 60% lower energy? that 60% of occupants are saved and 40% are not? Mah!

Meanwhile I wanted to reassure everyone that elena started last week moving the first steps without chalk and guardian. [CUT]

a hug to elena. another little patience, and only the memory of this bad adventure will remain.

 

[Fulvio Romano]

Meanwhile I wanted to reassure everyone that elena started last week moving the first steps without chalk and guardian. We started rehab and it's finally free to walk and move as you want. He's trying to run, but he's not doing it yet. Anyway, it was really moving to see her play with her friends without having to drag her or not be able to follow them because it prevented her from chalking.

thanks to all for the closeness and comfort!

very good and good wishes!

 

[MBT]

Meanwhile I wanted to reassure everyone that elena started last week moving the first steps without chalk and guardian. We started rehab and it's finally free to walk and move as you want. He's trying to run, but he's not doing it yet. Anyway, it was really moving to see her play with her friends without having to drag her or not be able to follow them because it prevented her from chalking.

thanks to all for the closeness and comfort!

Well... you'll see that soon it'll only be a faded memory!
and the new arrival? ? ?

 

[Oldwarper]

Well... you'll see that soon it'll only be a faded memory!
and the new arrival? ? ?

We're waiting practically with the suitcase in the car and the motor on... every moment is good!!! we hope you decide!!!:smile: