Re: [PSES] Carbon Monoxide - Death Value

Ted, (and all other safety friends) IMHO older cars detoriating to the level of CO coming in, will also let the driving wind leak in to an amount that CO is not a real problem anymore. ;<)) Highest risk is where ventilation is modified to recirculating, (to prevent pollution coming in (!!) or

Re: [PSES] Questions on RCB, RCCB and ELCBs and GFCI protection devices

Thanks, Pete, for the detail! On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 1:22 PM, Pete Perkins wrote: > Vincent et al, > > > >There have been several really good responses to your > question on this listserv; it’s great to see everyone chime in and provide > their info. > > > >

Re: [PSES] Questions on RCB, RCCB and ELCBs and GFCI protection devices

Vincent et al, There have been several really good responses to your question on this listserv; it’s great to see everyone chime in and provide their info. I’d like to add a bit of background and detail to all of this. Scott pointed out

Re: [PSES] Carbon Monoxide - Death Value

Hi Bob; In perspective (40,000 Americans died on the road in crashes last year) it sounds like engineering efforts might be better spent making vehicular traffic safer. Driving while interacting with technology seems to be an increasing problem that could be addressed with some effort (and

Re: [PSES] Carbon Monoxide - Death Value

I see two problems with the proposed alarm system. First, the most common reason for accidental carbon monoxide intrusion into the passenger compartment is poor maintenance on an older vehicle. The exhaust system needs to be compromised somewhere under the vehicle and there typically need to

Re: [PSES] Carbon Monoxide - Death Value

I would think very few of the 300 deaths claimed would be while the car is in motion. The system could be disabled when the vehicle is moving. Further to my point, someone attempting to commit suicide by car in a garage already has all the windows lowered. On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 2:49 PM,

Re: [PSES] Carbon Monoxide - Death Value

Autonomously-controlled windows could be a significant hazard for some of the ‘normal’ operating conditions per NHTSA. A guestimate based on two previous submittals to VCA and other such bodies exceeds $80 USD per vehicle. Brian From: Nyffenegger, Dave [mailto:dave.nyffeneg...@bhemail.com]

Re: [PSES] Carbon Monoxide - Death Value

Ken, If the horn is continuously blowing in triplets, it is likely to prevent even intentional CO poisoning. There is no need to disable the car and risk traffic dangers. Time is not crucial, just blowing the horn is enough and may notify people at a distance like in a house. The numbers

Re: [PSES] Carbon Monoxide - Death Value

Lowering all windows could distract the driver, especially in bad weather. Sound the horn and lower one window should be enough. With best wishes DESIGN IT IN! OOO – Own Opinions Only www.jmwa.demon.co.uk J M Woodgate and Associates Rayleigh England Sylvae in

Re: [PSES] Carbon Monoxide - Death Value

Shutting down automatically while driving would not be good. Just lower all the windows automatically. From: IBM Ken [mailto:ibm...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2017 2:38 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] Carbon Monoxide - Death Value Hi Bob- do you know what

Re: [PSES] Carbon Monoxide - Death Value

Hi Bob- do you know what percentage of the 300 are accidental vs intentional? Maybe instead of just alerting, the car should shut down upon reaching some measured CO limit. On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 2:29 PM, Robert Johnson wrote: > In the US we sell about 15 million

[PSES] Carbon Monoxide - Death Value

In the US we sell about 15 million cars/yr and have about 300 deaths/yr from automotive carbon monoxide. Since DC power is available, the horn is available, packaging is not needed, installation can be integrated in the auto manufacturing, I estimate an auto CO detector would cost below

Re: [PSES] Questions on GFCI & GFEP

The current GFCI standards now require automatic built in self-test since it’s likely the majority of the older ones were not being manually tested. I don’t know about GFEP. From: Mike Sherman - Original Message - [mailto:msherma...@comcast.net] Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2017 11:09

Re: [PSES] Test voltage for electric strength test in EN 60335-1

Are they not defined clearly in Clause 3? With best wishes DESIGN IT IN! OOO – Own Opinions Only www.jmwa.demon.co.uk J M Woodgate and Associates Rayleigh England Sylvae in aeternum manent. From: Scott Xe [mailto:scott...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, February

[PSES] Test voltage for electric strength test in EN 60335-1

In clause 13.3 and 16.3 electric strength tests, there are two columns of test voltages: rated voltage and working voltage.  What are the differences? Thanks, Scott - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety

Re: [PSES] Questions on RCB, RCCB and ELCBs

Hi Vincent, Here is a technical guide from ABB that you may find helpful. With regard to the 30mA trip level for an RCD, the paper refers to IEC 60479-1 and reproduces a Figure from that standard on

Re: [PSES] Questions on GFCI & GFEP

Another thing: these are typically "shunt trip" products, which leads to periodic testing to verify that they are still functional. Sent from Xfinity Connect Mobile App-- Original Message --From: Vincent LeeTo: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORGSent: February 15, 2017 at 8:49 PMSubject: [PSES]

Re: [PSES] Questions on GFCI & GFEP

In North America, UL 943 covers GFCIs, which trip somewhere in the 4-6 mA range. UL 1053 covers GFEPs, which are not for personnel protection and can have much higher trip settings. Mike ShermanGraco Inc. Sent from Xfinity Connect Mobile App-- Original Message --From: Vincent LeeTo:

Re: [PSES] Questions on RCB, RCCB and ELCBs

1. That's a really big question and the really big answer is too big for a mailing list. Search on the web for descriptions and/or comparisons. 2. The IEC standard is an international agreement. I suppose the GFCI is a US-only (or NA-only) specification. Fault currents are obviously half with