Mike, Thanks. This is good information. And it makes sense when you consider the definition of Transportable Tool. If a tool is moved around from job to job and plugged in and out there is an increased risk that the PE connection could become compromised without the user knowing. I see this as a similar use of a tool as construction use.
In our case, an inspector would not know how the User is going to use a small cut-off saw and may classify it as “transportable tool”. This might be where the GFCI requirement came from in the say I’m evaluation. Thanks so much for the help. The Other Brian From: Mike Sherman [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2018 9:11 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [PSES] Fwd: [PSES] GFCI vs GFPE A copy of what I inadvertently only sent to Brian earlier... ________________________________ From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> To: "Brian Kunde" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2018 7:58:40 PM Subject: Re: [PSES] GFCI vs GFPE I found a copy of 62841-1:2015. In its definition section: "3.58 transportable tool tool that has the following characteristics: a) intended to be taken to various designated working areas. The tool performs work on the material that is either brought to the tool, the tool is mounted to the workpiece or the tool is placed in proximity of the workpiece; b) intended to be moved by one or two people, with or without simple devices to facilitate transportation, e.g. handles, wheels and the like; c) used in a stationary position set up on a bench, table, floor or incorporating a device that performs the function of a bench or table, with or without fixing, e.g. fast clamping devices, bolting and the like, or mounted to the workpiece; d) used under the control of an operator; e) either the workpiece or the tool is fed or introduced manually; f) not intended for continuous production or production line use; g) if mains operated, supplied with a flexible supply cord and plug" and I also found this "21.15 Tools employing liquid systems shall protect the user against the increased risk of shock due to the presence of liquid under faults of the liquid system. Tools employing liquid systems shall be either: – of class III construction; or – of class I or class II construction and be provided with a residual current device and comply with 14.3, 14.4 and 14.5; or – of class I or class II construction and be designed for use in combination with an isolating transformer and comply with 14.3 and 14.4." ________________________________ From: "Brian Kunde" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> To: "EMC-PSTC" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2018 1:51:07 PM Subject: Re: [PSES] GFCI vs GFPE So in this context, what does “transportable” mean? I always thought it meant tools that are used on the move, but I cannot image using a table saw while it is moving. Thanks, The Other Brian From: John Woodgate [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2018 2:37 PM To: Kunde, Brian; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [PSES] GFCI vs GFPE No, It isn't all about hand-held. The list of Sections dropped below my screen. The relevant standard is probably: IEC 62841-3-1:2014<https://webstore.iec.ch/publication/7454> Edition 1.0 (2014-06-04) Electric motor-operated hand-held tools, transportable tools and lawn and garden machinery - Safety - Part 3-1: Particular requirements for transportable table saws John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk<http://www.woodjohn.uk> Rayleigh, Essex UK On 2018-01-31 18:57, John Woodgate wrote: IEC 62841 is a multi-part standard with 23 documents. But it's all about 'hand-held', so unless the 300 lb product is intended for Superman or King Kong. they don't apply. Wiring codes do not specify requirements for load products, except in very general terms. Safety requirements for products are in product safety standards. In Europe, a cut-off saw is a 'machine', so the Machinery Directive applies. This influences which safety standard is permitted to be applied to the product. John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk<http://www.woodjohn.uk> Rayleigh, Essex UK On 2018-01-31 18:38, Kunde, Brian wrote: Most interesting. Thanks. From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2018 1:27 PM To: Kunde, Brian Cc: EMC-PSTC Subject: [BULK] Re: [PSES] GFCI vs GFPE Importance: Low IEC TC 116 in in the process of folding the 60745-1 (hand held motor operated tool) standards into the 62841 series (Electric motor-operated hand-held tools, transportable tools and lawn and garden machinery). See their dashboard at: http://www.iec.ch/dyn/www/f?p=103:30:13397277133783::::FSP_ORG_ID,FSP_LANG_ID:4112,25 My reference was not from a part 2, but actually from section 21.16 of 60745-1: " Tools employing liquid systems shall protect the user against the increased risk of shock due to the presence of liquid under conditions of normal use and the faults of the liquid system. Tools employing liquid systems shall be either: • of class III construction; • of class I or class II construction and be provided with a residual current device and comply with 14.4, 14.5 and 14.6; or • of class I or class II construction and be designed for use in combination with an isolating transformer and comply with 14.4 and 14.5. " Section 14.4 describes using a salt water mix to simulate overfilling or misassembling and then testing for leakage. I do not know whether your product falls within scope of 62841; perhaps your favorite NRTL could help. Your favorite NRTL might even have someone on the committee who could help with a question. Mike ________________________________ From: "Brian Kunde" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Cc: "EMC-PSTC" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2018 11:58:25 AM Subject: RE: [PSES] GFCI vs GFPE Mike, Thanks for your offer. I assume the requirement for RCD is limited to hand-held or portable power tools that uses water. This is interesting because I didn’t know this was a requirement. In our case, the cut-off saw we are looking at weighs over 300 lbs. Defiantly not hand-held any probably not considered portable (depending on your definition). Do you know if there are similar requirements for non-hand-held electric saws/tools? Thanks, The Other Brian From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2018 12:29 PM To: Kunde, Brian Cc: EMC-PSTC Subject: Re: [PSES] GFCI vs GFPE Brian -- I think I've seen a Part 2 standard for 60745-1, as I recall, that required a RCD if the tool used water and the water ended up in the wrong place electrically. If you'd like a screen shot of the section, I can probably find it for you. Mike Sherman Graco Inc. ________________________________ From: "Brian Kunde" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> To: "EMC-PSTC" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2018 11:06:36 AM Subject: Re: [PSES] GFCI vs GFPE Where Pete stated, “The Euro systems use of RCDs require this protection in many installations (but I’m not familiar with the installation code details)”. This “Code” is probably what I am seeking. Has anyone run across a Code rule that requires the Product to employ a RCCB within the product? If the local electrical code requires a RCCB, cannot this protection be provided as part of the site protection? Why burden the cost of a product where such a requirement may only be necessary in a small percentage of installations? The main purpose of my question on this topic is cost. Here in the USA, a GFCI receptacle is very inexpensive; costing around $10 at most home stores. But a 3-phase RCD Circuit Breaker can cost $300-$400. On some products, such as a tile saw that uses water, this can more than double the cost of the entire product. So knowing when and where they are required is very important. Thanks again to everyone for your consideration. From what I have read so far on this topic, it is a moving target as electric codes from different states and countries are always evolving and the code governing the requirements of RCDs and GFCIs are common to change. Thanks, Brian From: John Woodgate [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2018 11:13 AM To: Kunde, Brian; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [PSES] GFCI vs GFPE You can rely on the recent post in this thread by Pete Perkins. John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk<http://www.woodjohn.uk> Rayleigh, Essex UK On 2018-01-31 15:52, Kunde, Brian wrote: Thanks for the input everyone. I know that GFCI protectors in North America will trip between 4-6mA. Do other countries, such as Europe, have the same requirements? Or are 30mA protectors used in Europe? If so, does Europe use 30mA ground fault protectors because of nuisance tripping even though the studies have shown that 30mA can be fatal? These 3-phase cut-off saws that I’m evaluating comes with a power cord, but no plug. They can be field wired or a plug could be added and plugged it into a receptacle. The choice is left up to the customer. The saw uses water but the work environment would not normally be considered a “wet location”. It would not be used in a construction location. So again, I’m trying to figure out why the saw manufacturer used the expensive 30mA ground fault breakers in their product. Thanks, The Other Brian ________________________________ 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]<mailto:[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://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)<http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html> List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Mike Cantwell <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> David Heald <[email protected]<mailto:[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. ________________________________ 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]<mailto:[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://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)<http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html> List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Mike Cantwell <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> David Heald <[email protected]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[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://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)<http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html> List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Mike Cantwell <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> David Heald <[email protected]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[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://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)<http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html> List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Mike Cantwell <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> David Heald <[email protected]<mailto:[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://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) 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]>
