The British code is BS 7671:1992, A1:1994 and A2 1997; also known as the IEE Wiring Regulations, 16th Edition. The best part about this code, over the CENELEC and IEC codes, is that it is available in one document.
Richard Woods Sensormatic Electronics wo...@sensormatic.com Views expressed by the author do not necessarily represent those of Sensormatic. > ---------- > From: Canio Dichirico[SMTP:cdich...@eso.org] > Reply To: Canio Dichirico > Sent: Friday, July 10, 1998 12:19 AM > To: Jim Eichner; 'IEEE PSTC' > Subject: Re: AC Mains Termination > > Dear Mr. Eichner, > > AFAIK, a "pan-European electrical code" similar to the NEC should exist. > > It is the CENELEC Harmonization Document HD 384 "Electrical Installations > of > Buildings" (which is available in the three "normal" languages of CENELEC, > namely, English, German and French). > > As an Italian electric power engineer I am aware of *at least* four > national > European "electrical codes" which are "harmonized" with the > above-mentioned > HD 384, namely, the Italian CEI 64-8, the German DIN VDE 0100, the French > NF > ... and the British BS ... (sorry for not remebering by heart the codes of > the last two). > > This not to mention the International Electrotechnical Committee (IEC) 364 > "Electrical installations of buildings" (on which the European HD 384 is > based). > > As a matter of fact, the NEC is much more detailed than the IEC 364, yet > the > US "standard-writers" care not to set in the NEC clauses which are in > conflict with IEC 364. (The National Committee of the USA in the IEC > commonly votes explictly in favour of the publication of the IEC 364 Parts > and Chapters ...) > > However I do not understand what an "electrical code" analogous to the NEC > (therefore dealing with electrical *installations*) may have to do with > rules that should apply to electrical *equipment*. > > Said in another way, I do not think you will find in HD 384 nor in IEC 364 > rules on wiring of "motor driven units". For pieces of equipment, > standards > exist like the IEC 950 viz., UL 1950 (for ITE), the IEC 204 and the > corresponding CENELEC EN for machines, etc., etc. > > or am I completely wrong because the NEC applies also to equipment? Should > this be the case, I would like to be confirmed. > > Finally is the "CEC", the Canadian Electrical Code? if yes, how much is it > "harmonized" with the NEC? does it deal only with *installations* or also > with *equipment*? (B.t.w., also the National Committee of Canada in the > IEC > commonly votes explictly in favour of the publication of the IEC 364 Parts > and Chapters ...) > > > My personal feeeling is that the differences are much smaller than one > would > think of (aren4t Ohm and Maxwell laws the same at both sides of the > Atlantic?). Only a bit of patience is needed to get used to the different > jargons ... > > Thank you from a "low frequency" member for any answer he would get! > > Canio Dichirico > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jim Eichner <jeich...@statpower.com> > To: 'IEEE PSTC' <emc-p...@ieee.org> > Date: Thursday, July 09, 1998 3:19 PM > Subject: RE: AC Mains Termination > > > >Ray: We have been told by several of our European distributors that the > >"pig-tail lead" approach (your "loose leads" method) is not allowed in > >Europe. I don't know what set of rules this is based on. As far as I > >know each country has their own electrical wiring rules. I would dearly > >love to see a pan-European electrical code book similar to the NEC or > >CEC to help us all get this sort of thing right! > > > >Regards, > > > >Jim Eichner > >Statpower Technologies Corporation > >jeich...@statpower.com > >http://www.statpower.com > >Any opinions expressed are those of my invisible friend, who really > >exists. Honest. > > > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Russell, Ray [SMTP:ray_russ...@gastmfg.com] > >> Sent: Thursday, July 09, 1998 12:44 PM > >> To: 'IEEE PSTC' > >> Subject: AC Mains Termination > >> > >> Greetings, > >> > >> We sell some larger motor driven units to Europe, and are evaluating > >> them to EN 60204. I believe that Sec 5.1 specifies that if a line cord > >> > >> is not included then a terminal block has to be provided. Although my > >> experience has seen several applications that have loose leads inside > >> of the junction box. Also, many motor vendors are claiming compliance > >> with the loose lead approach. My questions are: > >> > >> 1. Are there alternative acceptable practices? > >> > >> 2. If a line cord is supplied, are crimped on connectors > >> acceptable? > >> > >> > >> Thank you for your comments, > >> > >> Ray > >> > >> ray_russ...@gastmfg.com > > >
