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> List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.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 >
