Hello Brian, Whether or not there is a requirements for supplementary overcurrent protection depends on the product classification and applicable safety standard. In general, supplementary overcurrent protection is not required. For example, in IEC 60950-1, the product still needs to pass abnormal condition and component fault tests. However, if it can do so while depending only on the branch circuit protection, it is considered to meet the requirements.
In practice, supplementary overcurrent protection is often one of the easiest ways to meet the compliance requirements. Without the supplementary protection, other components in the circuit may need to be oversized to handle the large available fault currents off of a branch circuit. Ted Eckert Compliance Engineer Microsoft Corporation [email protected] The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my employer. -----Original Message----- From: Kunde, Brian [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2012 9:28 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: IEC 60320 C13/C14 Connector 10A vs 15A Even though these connectors are rated less than the branch circuit they are powered by, don't you have to have supplemental over current protection within the device rated at or below the rating of the connector to protect the connector? I'll explain my case again. Device operating at 115VAC in North America using an IEC connector rated 15 amps, powered by a 15 amp branch circuit, drawing and rated 12 amps with a 12 amp over current protection device. But, when this product is used in Europe, it operates at 230VAC, now the same IEC connector is rated 10 amps, powered by a 16 amp branch circuit, it draws and is rated only 6 amps, but still has the 12 amp over current protection device. Logic dictates that this would be a problem and that the over current protection device would have to be changed to a lower value (something below 10 amps). Am I thinking right or is there some exclusion where IEC C13/C14 connectors can handle the fault current from a 16 amps branch circuit in Europe? Thanks, Brian -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Peter Tarver Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2012 12:13 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: [PSES] IEC 60320 C13/C14 Connector 10A vs 15A Brian - I've seen IEC 60320 C13/C14 appliance couplers/inlets marked as rated for less than 10 A for use in N.A. I have also seen N.A. cordsets using the C14 coupler rated as low as 7 A. Caveat emptor. I have also owned small appliances using the IEC 60320 C1/C2 couplers/inlets (0.2 A) coupler with a 1-15P attachment plug. The C5/C6 couplers/inlets are very common for use with laptop computers having 5-15P attachment plug. Ted's comments apply. Peter Tarver This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not an intended recipient, you may not review, use, copy, disclose or distribute this message. If you received this message in error, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. - ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to <[email protected]> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas <[email protected]> Mike Cantwell <[email protected]> For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: <[email protected]> David Heald: <[email protected]> ________________________________ LECO Corporation Notice: This communication may contain confidential information intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you received this by mistake, please destroy it and notify us of the error. Thank you. - ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to <[email protected]> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas <[email protected]> Mike Cantwell <[email protected]> For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: <[email protected]> David Heald: <[email protected]> - ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to <[email protected]> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas <[email protected]> Mike Cantwell <[email protected]> For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: <[email protected]> David Heald: <[email protected]>
