> John, > I've just looked through my notes to see if there is anything extra since we compiled that list a while ago. > > On page 108 figure G.1. Text at the bottom "Key: see page 215". There is no page 215. I think it should probably read see page 107 where it defines tests A-F. > > Andy > > > Andrew Wood MInstP > Engineer - Special Products > Land Instruments International > Dronfield S18 1 DJ > England > > > -----Original Message----- > From: John Allen [SMTP:[email protected]] > Sent: 01 December 2004 10:13 AM > To: 'Gordon,Ian'; John Allen; 'IEEE EMC-PSTC GROUP' > Subject: RE: IEC/EN 61010-1, 2001 'Circuits derived from Mains Circuits' > > Ian et al > > These are the ones I identified a couple of years ago, copied from text I sent to the (UK) chairman of the IEC Committee > > 1) Clause 6.8.4 "Voltage tests" & Table 9 "Test voltages for BASIC INSULATION" (Page 52). > > We are reasonably sure that there is a misprint in Column 1 "Clearance" of Table 9 , as follows: The line entry between "1.0" and "2.0" is "1.4" but it should be "1.5" (mm). > > We believe that this is obvious from Table 8 "Clearance for measurement categories II, III and IV" where "1.5" (mm) is mentioned in numerous places but "1.4" is not mentioned at all. > > Apart from anything else, 1.5mm is the category II minimum value for nominal line voltages of >150V<=300V - which will be the mimimum value for a very large amount of equipment. > > Therefore the majority of users of the standard will have to start out by interpolating in Table 9 - and may result in many mistakes in test voltages - in fact interpolating from the existing values may result directly in test errors. > > > Nevertheless, even if we are wrong about the need for the "1.4" entry, we think that the test voltages for 1.5mm should be given as well. > > > Also. assuming that we are correct we do need the correct values for 1.5mm, please could you find a way of making this information available in advance of the long process of issuing an amendment to the standards > > > We also recommend that a critical review be made of all the values stated in Table 9 as the existance of the above probable error brings in to doubt the rest. > > > 2) Clause 8.1.2 and Figure 4 (Page 63) > > According to Clause 8.1.2, Figure 4 consists of two drawings called "Figure 4" and "Figure 4a)" - but neither is actually labelled in the Figure to show which is which! > > > > 3) Clause 9 and Figure 5 (Page 66) > There are several misprints in Fig 5 "Flow chart to explain the requirements for protection against the spread of fire". > > > On the right hand side of the diagram there appear to be arrows missing between the boxes for: > > i) "Construction requirements for components 9.2.1 a)" and "ENCLOSURE requirements 9.2.1 b)" > and > (ii) between "ENCLOSURE requirements 9.2.1 b)" and "Requirements for flammable liquids 9.4 c), d) or e)". > Additionally, the Flow chart symbols in this diagram do not appear to conform to some generally accepted principles, i.e should there not be "decision ("OR")" box symbols where alternative > > routes are available (e.g. as in Fig 10). > > > 4) Clause 9.3 and Tables 13 & 14 (Page 69) > In 9.3 b) 2) the reference should be to Table 14 rather than Table 13. > > > 5) Clause 10.5.3 and Figure 8 (Page 75) > The Ball Pressure Test equipment is illustrated and referred to, but all the dimensions for the equipment have been omitted. > > > Either these dimensions shall be placed on the diagram, or reference shall be made to the appropriate IEC/ISO test standard (as is done for the Vicat test)." > > If anyone else has any more, then please let ME know! > > Regards > > John Allen > ERA Technology Ltd > > -----Original Message----- > From: Gordon,Ian [ <mailto:[email protected]>] > Sent: 01 December 2004 09:58 > To: 'John Allen'; 'IEEE EMC-PSTC GROUP'> > Subject: RE: IEC/EN 61010-1, 2001 'Circuits derived from Mains Circuits' > > > John et al > Does anyone have a list of "errors" in the document which they would share > with the group? > > Ian Gordon > BOC Edwards > > *********************************************************************** > This email is confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the BOC Group plc or any of its affiliates. If you are not the intended recipient, be advised that you have received this email in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying of this email is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error please return the message to the sender by replying to it and then delete the message from your computer. > > This footnote also confirms that this email message has been checked by anti-virus software for the presence of computer viruses. However, the BOC Group plc or any of its affiliates accepts no responsibility for any virus or defect that might arise from opening this e-mail or attachments. > > _____________________________________________________________________ > This e-mail has been scanned for viruses by MCI's Internet Managed Scanning Services - powered by MessageLabs. For further information visit <http://www.mci.com> > > > > ********************************************************************** > Copyright ERA Technology Ltd. 2004. (www.era.co.uk). All rights reserved. The information supplied in this Commercial Communication should be treated in confidence. > No liability whatsoever is accepted for any loss or damage > suffered as a result of accessing this message or any attachments. > ********************************************************************** > > _____________________________________________________________________ > This e-mail has been scanned for viruses by MCI's Internet Managed Scanning Services - powered by MessageLabs. For further information visit http://www.mci.com > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ > > To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to [email protected] > > Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/listserv/request/user-guide.html > > List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html > > For help, send mail to the list administrators: > > Ron Pickard: [email protected] Scott Douglas [email protected] > > For policy questions, send mail to: > > Richard Nute: [email protected] Jim Bacher: [email protected] > > All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: > > http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc > > For information relating to our products and services please visit www.landinst.com
This e-mail and its contents may be confidential, privileged and protected by law. Access is only authorised by the intended recipient. The contents of this e-mail may not be disclosed to, or used by, anyone other than the intended recipient, or stored or copied in any medium. If you are not the intended recipient, please advise the sender immediately. This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to [email protected] Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/listserv/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: [email protected] Scott Douglas [email protected] For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: [email protected] Jim Bacher: [email protected] All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
