Re: [PSES] Fwd: [PSES] GFCI vs GFPE

[John Woodgate]

Another case of the IEV having a different definition from that used in 
the industry!


John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2018-02-01 02:10, Mike Sherman wrote:

A copy of what I inadvertently only sent to Brian earlier...


*From: *msherma...@comcast.net
*To: *"Brian Kunde" 
*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" 
*To: *"EMC-PSTC" 
*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:j...@woodjohn.uk]
*Sent:* Wednesday, January 31, 2018 2:37 PM
*To:* Kunde, Brian; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
*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 *

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 Associateswww.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 Associateswww.woodjohn.uk 

Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2018-01-31 18:38, Kunde, Brian wrote:

Most interesting.  Thanks.

*From:*msherma...@comcast.net 
[mailto:msherma...@comcast.net]
*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=103:30:13397277133783FSP_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 

Re: [PSES] GFCI vs GFPE discussion

[Pete Perkins]

Ralph, et al,

So I won't take the time to fully defend the requirements but will 
point out that it is difficult to get good data on VF in humans. The data is 
reported in IEC 60479 series 'Effects of current on human beings...'.   In 
spite of these difficulties, the result is inferred from a number of animal 
experiments as well as reviewing accident data etc; and the results are 
astoundingly good in the overall sense.  There are complexities in application 
of the data which cannot be totally discussed in the short context we have 
here.  Nor will we deal with the ramifications of the application of the data 
in any specific instance.  

The American system focuses on keeping folks from getting hung-up on 
equipment under normal and fault conditions.  The Euro system focuses more on 
not killing folks - in spite of the discussion here.  I would never 
characterize them as 'same level of protection' except in the most general 
sense.  

Having worked with this collection of medical Dr researchers and 
engineers for more than 25 years I have the greatest respect for them and their 
work.

:>) br,  Pete

Peter E Perkins, PE
Principal Product Safety & Regulatory Affairs Consultant
PO Box 23427
Tigard, ORe  97281-3427

503/452-1201

IEEE Life Fellow
p.perk...@ieee.org

-Original Message-
From: Ralph McDiarmid [mailto:ralph.mcdiar...@schneider-electric.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2018 10:03 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] GFCI vs GFPE discussion

“current limit of 30mA protects 95 % of the population”

They didn’t want to try for 100%  ? I'm no expert and I don't know if we 
have one on this forum for this complex topic, but  ask how can one limit be 5X 
the other and still afford the same level of protection?  Perhaps not intended 
to, as in shock versus electrocution protection. 

Is 6mA enough for strong muscle reaction or a startle reaction sufficient to 
cause someone to loose balance for instance?

Still, some protection better than none at all. 

Ralph McDiarmid
Product Compliance Specialist
Solar Business
Schneider Electric


From: Pete Perkins [mailto:0061f3f32d0c-dmarc-requ...@ieee.org]
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2018 10:06 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] GFCI vs GFPE discussion

Brian, et al
   
   Low current protection devices are intended to protect people.  

   The long term letgo-immobilization current of 5mA covers the 
full population and opens any circuit which exceeds this level (ok, the UL 
limit for GFCIs is 4mA  to 6 mA),  But you get the idea.  

   The long term Ventricular Fibrillation current limit of 30mA 
protects 95 % of the population on the face of the earth.  The Euro systems use 
of RCDs require this protection in many installations (but I’m not familiar 
with the installation code details).  

   Here in the US we are developing protection devices that will 
work at 15 mA and 25 mA.  These are intended for use with charging electric 
vehicles.  The 15 mA device will be used in residential installations and the 
25 mA device will be used in commercial installations (haven’t followed the 
code development but believe that this is how it is going).  
 
   All  of these devices have been designed for sinusoidal AC 
systems and they all have false tripping issues when used with equipment with 
line switching.  SMPS and VSD units are a problem today in that they trip a 
small number of protection devices; their use is spreading into many more types 
of products.  From my perspective the units each have a statistical range of 
protection  or operation and they seem to overlap a small percentage of the 
time; this gives rise to ‘nuisance tripping’ (meaning undiagnosed tripping).  
This is an issue both in North America (GFCI & AFCI country) as well as the 
EuroZone (RCD devices).  

   I worked with a student project last year which published a 
paper for the 2017 IEEE PSES ISPCE Symposium; Yuen et al, ‘Why do GFCIs keep 
tripping’.  This paper show that some GFCIs can be tricked into operating when 
they shouldn’t.  

   The non-sinusoidal nature of the earth/ground current as well as 
the CM/DM signals have not been fully understood nor taken care of in a 
harmonized way between the protection device and the load.  

   Lot’s of opportunity here for investigation and recommendation 
of mitigation techniques.  

:>) br,  Pete

Peter E Perkins, PE
Principal Product Safety & Regulatory Affairs Consultant PO Box 23427 Tigard, 
ORe  97281-3427

503/452-1201

IEEE Life Fellow
mailto:p.perk...@ieee.org

From: Kunde, Brian [mailto:brian_ku...@lecotc.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2018 2:04 PM
To: mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] GFCI vs GFPE

I’ve recently come to understand that the 30mA Ground-Fault protectors, often 
built into a circuit breaker, is 

[PSES] Fwd: [PSES] GFCI vs GFPE

[Mike Sherman]

A copy of what I inadvertently only sent to Brian earlier... 

- Forwarded Message -

From: msherma...@comcast.net 
To: "Brian Kunde"  
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. " 

- Forwarded Message -

From: "Brian Kunde"  
To: "EMC-PSTC"  
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:j...@woodjohn.uk] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2018 2:37 PM 
To: Kunde, Brian; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG 
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 

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 
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 
Rayleigh, Essex UK 


On 2018-01-31 18:38, Kunde, Brian wrote: 




Most interesting. Thanks. 




From: msherma...@comcast.net [ mailto:msherma...@comcast.net ] 
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=103:30:13397277133783FSP_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 Ku

Re: [PSES] GFCI vs GFPE

[Nyffenegger, Dave]

The pivoting arm operated by human effort would be out of scope of machinery 
definition.  Which leaves just the motor with no real linkage to the blade 
since the blade is screwed directly to the end of the motor shaft.  A 
sophisticated saw perhaps for commercial/industrial use may have a driven arm 
and may use belts/pulleys/gears to drive the blade, would easily fit the 
machinery description.  The same question applies to an inexpensive direct 
drive table saw with no driven parts other than the motor with a blade mounted 
to the end of the shaft vs. a professional grade table saw with a pulleys and 
belt driven blade.

-Dave

From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@woodjohn.uk]
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2018 5:23 PM
To: Nyffenegger, Dave; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] GFCI vs GFPE


There is a motor and a blade, which both move and are linked. In a cut-off saw, 
If I have the term right, the whole motor and blade housing swings on a pivot 
at the back of the baseplate.

John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only

J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk

Rayleigh, Essex UK
On 2018-01-31 21:33, Nyffenegger, Dave wrote:
I am surprised a basic cut-off saw would fit the definition of ‘machine’ for 
the MD since cut-off  saws (the one’s I’m thinking of) are basically just a 
motor with a blade mounted directly to the armature and I don’t know that the 
blade is even considered part of the product.  Not really an assembly of linked 
parts at least one of which moves, and which are joined together for a specific 
application.

-Dave

From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@woodjohn.uk]
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2018 1:58 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] GFCI vs GFPE


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

Rayleigh, Essex UK
On 2018-01-31 18:38, Kunde, Brian wrote:
Most interesting.  Thanks.

From: msherma...@comcast.net 
[mailto:msherma...@comcast.net]
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=103:30:13397277133783FSP_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" mailto:brian_ku...@lecotc.com>>
To: msherma...@comcast.net
Cc: "EMC-PSTC" mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>>
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: msherma...@comcast.net 
[mailto:msherma...@comcast.net]
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 

Re: [PSES] GFCI vs GFPE

[John Woodgate]

There is a motor and a blade, which both move and are linked. In a 
cut-off saw, If I have the term right, the whole motor and blade housing 
swings on a pivot at the back of the baseplate.


John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2018-01-31 21:33, Nyffenegger, Dave wrote:


I am surprised a basic cut-off saw would fit the definition of 
‘machine’ for the MD since cut-off  saws (the one’s I’m thinking of) 
are basically just a motor with a blade mounted directly to the 
armature and I don’t know that the blade is even considered part of 
the product.  Not really an assembly of linked parts at least one of 
which moves, and which are joined together for a specific application.


-Dave

*From:*John Woodgate [mailto:j...@woodjohn.uk]
*Sent:* Wednesday, January 31, 2018 1:58 PM
*To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
*Subject:* Re: [PSES] GFCI vs GFPE

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 Associateswww.woodjohn.uk 
Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2018-01-31 18:38, Kunde, Brian wrote:

Most interesting.  Thanks.

*From:*msherma...@comcast.net 
[mailto:msherma...@comcast.net]
*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=103:30:13397277133783FSP_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" mailto:brian_ku...@lecotc.com>>
*To: *msherma...@comcast.net 
*Cc: *"EMC-PSTC" mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>>
*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:*msherma...@comcast.net 
[mailto:msherma...@comcast.net]
*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" mailto:brian_ku...@lecotc.com>>
*To: *"EMC-PSTC" mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>>
*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

Re: [PSES] GFCI vs GFPE

[Nyffenegger, Dave]

I am surprised a basic cut-off saw would fit the definition of ‘machine’ for 
the MD since cut-off  saws (the one’s I’m thinking of) are basically just a 
motor with a blade mounted directly to the armature and I don’t know that the 
blade is even considered part of the product.  Not really an assembly of linked 
parts at least one of which moves, and which are joined together for a specific 
application.

-Dave

From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@woodjohn.uk]
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2018 1:58 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] GFCI vs GFPE


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

Rayleigh, Essex UK
On 2018-01-31 18:38, Kunde, Brian wrote:
Most interesting.  Thanks.

From: msherma...@comcast.net 
[mailto:msherma...@comcast.net]
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=103:30:13397277133783FSP_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" mailto:brian_ku...@lecotc.com>>
To: msherma...@comcast.net
Cc: "EMC-PSTC" mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>>
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: msherma...@comcast.net 
[mailto:msherma...@comcast.net]
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" mailto:brian_ku...@lecotc.com>>
To: "EMC-PSTC" mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>>
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 th

Re: [PSES] GFCI vs GFPE

[Richard Nute]

 

Hi Brian:

 

The answers to your questions can be found here:

 

https://www.ecmag.com/section/codes-standards/requirements-gfpe

 

A GFPE is not to protect the PE conductor.  Neither is it equivalent to a GFCI 
or ELCB.

 

The requirements of when a GPFE is to be installed are spelled out in the 
National Electrical Code.

 

“A ground fault is typically not a solid or “bolted fault” condition, so 
dynamic arcing impedance is introduced in the circuit. This reduces the fault 
current seen by a standard overcurrent device and increases the time the fault 
can exist, which allows arcing faults to manifest into destructive events. 
During an arc event, ionized gas is dispersed, creating a conductive gas or 
plasma in the atmosphere surrounding the busbars within the equipment. This 
condition often rapidly escalates from an initial phase-to-ground fault event 
to a phase-to-phase short-circuit condition. This is why the NEC requires GFPE. 
Sections 210.13, 215.10, 230.95, 240.13, 517.17 and others provide GFPE 
requirements.”

 

>From this article, a GFPE is required on 277 volts and higher, 3-phase wye, 
>4-wire, rated 1000 amps or more.  

 

Best regards,

Rich

 

 

From: Kunde, Brian [mailto:brian_ku...@lecotc.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2018 2:04 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] GFCI vs GFPE

 

I’ve recently come to understand that the 30mA Ground-Fault protectors, often 
built into a circuit breaker, is intended to protect the Protective Earth 
(Safety Ground) circuit in the case of a short circuit (opening the circuit 
before the safety ground could be damaged.  It this correct?

 

Here is my question. I’m evaluating a cut-off saw (5hp) which uses water to 
keep the blade and material cool.  The manufacturer uses a 3-phase 
supplementary circuit breaker which includes the 30mA GFPE option.  This is a 
very expensive part.  When I asked them why they use the GFPE part, they 
couldn’t give me a good answer.  

 

Would such a part be required on a 3-phase motor driven cutoff saw in either 
North America or Europe?  What standard would dictate this?  

 

If the only purpose of a GFPE is to protect the Ground Circuit, on products 
that can handle shorts without damaging the ground circuit, would a GFPE still 
be necessary?

 

Where are GFPE typically used? What industry?  

 

Please educate me.  This is a new one on me.

 

Thanks,

Brian


-

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 


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 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] GFCI vs GFPE

[John Woodgate]

It must mean that the tool can be moved about because it is not attached 
to the building. From the IEV (not an infallible source):


 IEV ref        151-16-45

        transportable, adj
        capable of being moved from one location to another, generally 
by using vehicles



John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2018-01-31 19:51, Kunde, Brian wrote:


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:j...@woodjohn.uk]
*Sent:* Wednesday, January 31, 2018 2:37 PM
*To:* Kunde, Brian; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
*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 *

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 Associateswww.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 Associateswww.woodjohn.uk 

Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2018-01-31 18:38, Kunde, Brian wrote:

Most interesting.  Thanks.

*From:*msherma...@comcast.net 
[mailto:msherma...@comcast.net]
*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=103:30:13397277133783FSP_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" mailto:brian_ku...@lecotc.com>>
*To: *msherma...@comcast.net 
*Cc: *"EMC-PSTC" mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>>
*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:*msherma...@comcast.net 
[mailto:msherma...@comcast.net]
*Sent:* Wednesday, January 31, 2018 12:29 PM
*To:* Kunde, Brian
*Cc

Re: [PSES] GFCI vs GFPE

[Kunde, Brian]

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:j...@woodjohn.uk]
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2018 2:37 PM
To: Kunde, Brian; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
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

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

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

Rayleigh, Essex UK
On 2018-01-31 18:38, Kunde, Brian wrote:
Most interesting.  Thanks.

From: msherma...@comcast.net 
[mailto:msherma...@comcast.net]
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=103:30:13397277133783FSP_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" mailto:brian_ku...@lecotc.com>>
To: msherma...@comcast.net
Cc: "EMC-PSTC" mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>>
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: msherma...@comcast.net 
[mailto:msherma...@comcast.net]
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" mailto:brian_ku...@lecotc.com>>
To: "EMC-PSTC" mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>>
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 

Re: [PSES] GFCI vs GFPE

[John Woodgate]

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 *

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
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 Associateswww.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK
On 2018-01-31 18:38, Kunde, Brian wrote:


Most interesting.  Thanks.

*From:*msherma...@comcast.net [mailto:msherma...@comcast.net]
*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=103:30:13397277133783FSP_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" >

*To: *msherma...@comcast.net 
*Cc: *"EMC-PSTC" >

*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:*msherma...@comcast.net  
[mailto:msherma...@comcast.net]

*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" >
*To: *"EMC-PSTC" >

*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, 

Re: [PSES] GFCI vs GFPE

[John Woodgate]

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
Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2018-01-31 18:38, Kunde, Brian wrote:


Most interesting.  Thanks.

*From:*msherma...@comcast.net [mailto:msherma...@comcast.net]
*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=103:30:13397277133783FSP_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" >

*To: *msherma...@comcast.net 
*Cc: *"EMC-PSTC" >

*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:*msherma...@comcast.net  
[mailto:msherma...@comcast.net]

*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" >
*To: *"EMC-PSTC" >

*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:j...@woodjohn.uk]
*Sent:* Wednesday, J

Re: [PSES] GFCI vs GFPE

[Kunde, Brian]

Most interesting.  Thanks.

From: msherma...@comcast.net [mailto:msherma...@comcast.net]
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=103:30:13397277133783FSP_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" mailto:brian_ku...@lecotc.com>>
To: msherma...@comcast.net
Cc: "EMC-PSTC" mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>>
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: msherma...@comcast.net 
[mailto:msherma...@comcast.net]
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" mailto:brian_ku...@lecotc.com>>
To: "EMC-PSTC" mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>>
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:j...@woodjohn.uk]
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2018 11:13 AM
To: Kunde, Brian; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
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

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 

Re: [PSES] GFCI vs GFPE discussion

[John Woodgate]

Pete Perkins IS the expert.

John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2018-01-31 18:02, Ralph McDiarmid wrote:

“current limit of 30mA protects 95 % of the population”

They didn’t want to try for 100%  ? I'm no expert and I don't know if we 
have one on this forum for this complex topic, but  ask how can one limit be 5X 
the other and still afford the same level of protection?  Perhaps not intended 
to, as in shock versus electrocution protection.

Is 6mA enough for strong muscle reaction or a startle reaction sufficient to 
cause someone to loose balance for instance?

Still, some protection better than none at all.

Ralph McDiarmid
Product Compliance Specialist
Solar Business
Schneider Electric


From: Pete Perkins [mailto:0061f3f32d0c-dmarc-requ...@ieee.org]
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2018 10:06 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] GFCI vs GFPE discussion

Brian, et al

    Low current protection devices are intended to protect people.


    The long term letgo-immobilization current of 5mA covers the 
full population and opens any circuit which exceeds this level (ok, the UL 
limit for GFCIs is 4mA  to 6 mA),  But you get the idea.

    The long term Ventricular Fibrillation current limit of 30mA 
protects 95 % of the population on the face of the earth.  The Euro systems use 
of RCDs require this protection in many installations (but I’m not familiar 
with the installation code details).

    Here in the US we are developing protection devices that will 
work at 15 mA and 25 mA.  These are intended for use with charging electric 
vehicles.  The 15 mA device will be used in residential installations and the 
25 mA device will be used in commercial installations (haven’t followed the 
code development but believe that this is how it is going).
  
    All  of these devices have been designed for sinusoidal AC systems and they all have false tripping issues when used with equipment with line switching.  SMPS and VSD units are a problem today in that they trip a small number of protection devices; their use is spreading into many more types of products.  From my perspective the units each have a statistical range of protection  or operation and they seem to overlap a small percentage of the time; this gives rise to ‘nuisance tripping’ (meaning undiagnosed tripping).  This is an issue both in North America (GFCI & AFCI country) as well as the EuroZone (RCD devices).


    I worked with a student project last year which published a 
paper for the 2017 IEEE PSES ISPCE Symposium; Yuen et al, ‘Why do GFCIs keep 
tripping’.  This paper show that some GFCIs can be tricked into operating when 
they shouldn’t.

    The non-sinusoidal nature of the earth/ground current as well 
as the CM/DM signals have not been fully understood nor taken care of in a 
harmonized way between the protection device and the load.

    Lot’s of opportunity here for investigation and recommendation 
of mitigation techniques.

:>) br,  Pete

Peter E Perkins, PE
Principal Product Safety & Regulatory Affairs Consultant
PO Box 23427
Tigard, ORe  97281-3427

503/452-1201

IEEE Life Fellow
mailto:p.perk...@ieee.org

From: Kunde, Brian [mailto:brian_ku...@lecotc.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2018 2:04 PM
To: mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] GFCI vs GFPE

I’ve recently come to understand that the 30mA Ground-Fault protectors, often 
built into a circuit breaker, is intended to protect the Protective Earth 
(Safety Ground) circuit in the case of a short circuit (opening the circuit 
before the safety ground could be damaged.  It this correct?

Here is my question. I’m evaluating a cut-off saw (5hp) which uses water to 
keep the blade and material cool.  The manufacturer uses a 3-phase 
supplementary circuit breaker which includes the 30mA GFPE option.  This is a 
very expensive part.  When I asked them why they use the GFPE part, they 
couldn’t give me a good answer.

Would such a part be required on a 3-phase motor driven cutoff saw in either 
North America or Europe?  What standard would dictate this?

If the only purpose of a GFPE is to protect the Ground Circuit, on products 
that can handle shorts without damaging the ground circuit, would a GFPE still 
be necessary?

Where are GFPE typically used? What industry?

Please educate me.  This is a new one on me.

Thanks,
Brian

From: Doug Nix [mailto:d...@ieee.org]
Sent: Friday, January 26, 2018 2:48 PM
To: mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] JOB POSTING - ONTARIO, CANADA

PLEASE CONTACT TED TYCZKA DIRECTLY

A very notable, “high-profile” client who is seeking a Safety & Services 
Sales/Business Development Professional - to join their Machine Services Division - 
the focus of the role is to spearhead/lead the sale of Engineering Services related 
to “functi

Re: [PSES] GFCI vs GFPE discussion

[Mike Sherman]

Ralph -- 

Pete Perkins is the expert. 

0.5 mA is the "reaction/startle" threshold. 

6 mA gets you into where some of the population experiences muscle contraction 
("letgo-immobilization"). 

I don't know the risk trade-offs various committees made to get from 5 mA to 
15, 25, or 30. 

Mike 

- Original Message -

From: "Ralph McDiarmid"  
To: "EMC-PSTC"  
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2018 12:02:37 PM 
Subject: Re: [PSES] GFCI vs GFPE discussion 

“current limit of 30mA protects 95 % of the population” 

They didn’t want to try for 100% ? I'm no expert and I don't know if we have 
one on this forum for this complex topic, but ask how can one limit be 5X the 
other and still afford the same level of protection? Perhaps not intended to, 
as in shock versus electrocution protection. 

Is 6mA enough for strong muscle reaction or a startle reaction sufficient to 
cause someone to loose balance for instance? 

Still, some protection better than none at all. 

Ralph McDiarmid 
Product Compliance Specialist 
Solar Business 
Schneider Electric 


From: Pete Perkins [mailto:0061f3f32d0c-dmarc-requ...@ieee.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2018 10:06 PM 
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG 
Subject: Re: [PSES] GFCI vs GFPE discussion 

Brian, et al 

Low current protection devices are intended to protect people. 

The long term letgo-immobilization current of 5mA covers the full population 
and opens any circuit which exceeds this level (ok, the UL limit for GFCIs is 
4mA to 6 mA), But you get the idea. 

The long term Ventricular Fibrillation current limit of 30mA protects 95 % of 
the population on the face of the earth. The Euro systems use of RCDs require 
this protection in many installations (but I’m not familiar with the 
installation code details). 

Here in the US we are developing protection devices that will work at 15 mA and 
25 mA. These are intended for use with charging electric vehicles. The 15 mA 
device will be used in residential installations and the 25 mA device will be 
used in commercial installations (haven’t followed the code development but 
believe that this is how it is going). 

All of these devices have been designed for sinusoidal AC systems and they all 
have false tripping issues when used with equipment with line switching. SMPS 
and VSD units are a problem today in that they trip a small number of 
protection devices; their use is spreading into many more types of products. 
From my perspective the units each have a statistical range of protection or 
operation and they seem to overlap a small percentage of the time; this gives 
rise to ‘nuisance tripping’ (meaning undiagnosed tripping). This is an issue 
both in North America (GFCI & AFCI country) as well as the EuroZone (RCD 
devices). 

I worked with a student project last year which published a paper for the 2017 
IEEE PSES ISPCE Symposium; Yuen et al, ‘Why do GFCIs keep tripping’. This paper 
show that some GFCIs can be tricked into operating when they shouldn’t. 

The non-sinusoidal nature of the earth/ground current as well as the CM/DM 
signals have not been fully understood nor taken care of in a harmonized way 
between the protection device and the load. 

Lot’s of opportunity here for investigation and recommendation of mitigation 
techniques. 

:>) br, Pete 

Peter E Perkins, PE 
Principal Product Safety & Regulatory Affairs Consultant 
PO Box 23427 
Tigard, ORe 97281-3427 

503/452-1201 

IEEE Life Fellow 
mailto:p.perk...@ieee.org 

From: Kunde, Brian [mailto:brian_ku...@lecotc.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2018 2:04 PM 
To: mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG 
Subject: [PSES] GFCI vs GFPE 

I’ve recently come to understand that the 30mA Ground-Fault protectors, often 
built into a circuit breaker, is intended to protect the Protective Earth 
(Safety Ground) circuit in the case of a short circuit (opening the circuit 
before the safety ground could be damaged. It this correct? 

Here is my question. I’m evaluating a cut-off saw (5hp) which uses water to 
keep the blade and material cool. The manufacturer uses a 3-phase supplementary 
circuit breaker which includes the 30mA GFPE option. This is a very expensive 
part. When I asked them why they use the GFPE part, they couldn’t give me a 
good answer. 

Would such a part be required on a 3-phase motor driven cutoff saw in either 
North America or Europe? What standard would dictate this? 

If the only purpose of a GFPE is to protect the Ground Circuit, on products 
that can handle shorts without damaging the ground circuit, would a GFPE still 
be necessary? 

Where are GFPE typically used? What industry? 

Please educate me. This is a new one on me. 

Thanks, 
Brian 

From: Doug Nix [mailto:d...@ieee.org] 
Sent: Friday, January 26, 2018 2:48 PM 
To: mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG 
Subject: [PSES] JOB POSTING - ONTARIO, CANADA 

PLEASE CONTACT TED TYCZKA DIRECTLY 

A very notable, “high-profile” client who is seeking a Safety & Services 
Sales/Business Develo

Re: [PSES] GFCI vs GFPE

[Mike Sherman]

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=103:30:13397277133783FSP_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 

- Original Message -

From: "Brian Kunde"  
To: msherma...@comcast.net 
Cc: "EMC-PSTC"  
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: msherma...@comcast.net [mailto:msherma...@comcast.net] 
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. 



- Original Message -



From: "Brian Kunde" < brian_ku...@lecotc.com > 
To: "EMC-PSTC" < EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG > 
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:j...@woodjohn.uk ] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2018 11:13 AM 
To: Kunde, Brian; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG 
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 
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 fig

Re: [PSES] GFCI vs GFPE

[Ted Eckert]

Hello Brian,

According to New South Wales, RCDs are required for many products in 
Australia.
 However, I checked a major supplier of Australian electrical devices, and they 
show RDCs that look more like the U.S. 
GFCI.
 The cost for the type of RCD required in Australia may  not be as cost 
prohibitive as what you are finding. I will admit that these are single-phase 
devices. (Disclosure notice: Clipsal is a division of Schneider Electric, my 
previous employer. My reference to Clipsal products is just for reference 
purposes and is not necessarily intended to be an endorsement of their product 
line.)

As Mr. Woodgate noted, the differing wiring practices and regulations may make 
it more difficult come up with a common practice for RCDs in products, although 
Mr. Sherman’s suggestion may be a good starting place.

Does this list have a member of TC 23/SC 23E who may be more familiar with IEC 
standards in regards to RCDs?

Ted Eckert
Microsoft Corporation

The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my 
employer.

From: Mike Sherman [mailto:msherma...@comcast.net]
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2018 9:29 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
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" mailto:brian_ku...@lecotc.com>>
To: "EMC-PSTC" mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>>
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:j...@woodjohn.uk]
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2018 11:13 AM
To: Kunde, Brian; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
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

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.
-
--

Re: [PSES] GFCI vs GFPE discussion

[Ralph McDiarmid]

“current limit of 30mA protects 95 % of the population”

They didn’t want to try for 100%  ? I'm no expert and I don't know if we 
have one on this forum for this complex topic, but  ask how can one limit be 5X 
the other and still afford the same level of protection?  Perhaps not intended 
to, as in shock versus electrocution protection. 

Is 6mA enough for strong muscle reaction or a startle reaction sufficient to 
cause someone to loose balance for instance?

Still, some protection better than none at all. 

Ralph McDiarmid
Product Compliance Specialist
Solar Business
Schneider Electric


From: Pete Perkins [mailto:0061f3f32d0c-dmarc-requ...@ieee.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2018 10:06 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] GFCI vs GFPE discussion

Brian, et al
   
   Low current protection devices are intended to protect people.  

   The long term letgo-immobilization current of 5mA covers the 
full population and opens any circuit which exceeds this level (ok, the UL 
limit for GFCIs is 4mA  to 6 mA),  But you get the idea.  

   The long term Ventricular Fibrillation current limit of 30mA 
protects 95 % of the population on the face of the earth.  The Euro systems use 
of RCDs require this protection in many installations (but I’m not familiar 
with the installation code details).  

   Here in the US we are developing protection devices that will 
work at 15 mA and 25 mA.  These are intended for use with charging electric 
vehicles.  The 15 mA device will be used in residential installations and the 
25 mA device will be used in commercial installations (haven’t followed the 
code development but believe that this is how it is going).  
 
   All  of these devices have been designed for sinusoidal AC 
systems and they all have false tripping issues when used with equipment with 
line switching.  SMPS and VSD units are a problem today in that they trip a 
small number of protection devices; their use is spreading into many more types 
of products.  From my perspective the units each have a statistical range of 
protection  or operation and they seem to overlap a small percentage of the 
time; this gives rise to ‘nuisance tripping’ (meaning undiagnosed tripping).  
This is an issue both in North America (GFCI & AFCI country) as well as the 
EuroZone (RCD devices).  

   I worked with a student project last year which published a 
paper for the 2017 IEEE PSES ISPCE Symposium; Yuen et al, ‘Why do GFCIs keep 
tripping’.  This paper show that some GFCIs can be tricked into operating when 
they shouldn’t.  

   The non-sinusoidal nature of the earth/ground current as well as 
the CM/DM signals have not been fully understood nor taken care of in a 
harmonized way between the protection device and the load.  

   Lot’s of opportunity here for investigation and recommendation 
of mitigation techniques.  

:>) br,  Pete

Peter E Perkins, PE
Principal Product Safety & Regulatory Affairs Consultant
PO Box 23427
Tigard, ORe  97281-3427

503/452-1201

IEEE Life Fellow
mailto:p.perk...@ieee.org

From: Kunde, Brian [mailto:brian_ku...@lecotc.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2018 2:04 PM
To: mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] GFCI vs GFPE

I’ve recently come to understand that the 30mA Ground-Fault protectors, often 
built into a circuit breaker, is intended to protect the Protective Earth 
(Safety Ground) circuit in the case of a short circuit (opening the circuit 
before the safety ground could be damaged.  It this correct?

Here is my question. I’m evaluating a cut-off saw (5hp) which uses water to 
keep the blade and material cool.  The manufacturer uses a 3-phase 
supplementary circuit breaker which includes the 30mA GFPE option.  This is a 
very expensive part.  When I asked them why they use the GFPE part, they 
couldn’t give me a good answer.  

Would such a part be required on a 3-phase motor driven cutoff saw in either 
North America or Europe?  What standard would dictate this?  

If the only purpose of a GFPE is to protect the Ground Circuit, on products 
that can handle shorts without damaging the ground circuit, would a GFPE still 
be necessary?

Where are GFPE typically used? What industry?  

Please educate me.  This is a new one on me.

Thanks,
Brian

From: Doug Nix [mailto:d...@ieee.org] 
Sent: Friday, January 26, 2018 2:48 PM
To: mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] JOB POSTING - ONTARIO, CANADA

PLEASE CONTACT TED TYCZKA DIRECTLY

A very notable, “high-profile” client who is seeking a Safety & Services 
Sales/Business Development Professional - to join their Machine Services 
Division - the focus of the role is to spearhead/lead the sale of Engineering 
Services related to “functional safety.” 
 
The company sells safety training (workshops), machine assessment/audits, 
engineering design per CSA and/or TUV Safety requirements (“

Re: [PSES] GFCI vs GFPE

[Kunde, Brian]

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: msherma...@comcast.net [mailto:msherma...@comcast.net]
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" mailto:brian_ku...@lecotc.com>>
To: "EMC-PSTC" mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>>
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:j...@woodjohn.uk]
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2018 11:13 AM
To: Kunde, Brian; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
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

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 
>

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 >
Mike Cantwell >

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher >
David Heald >

__

Re: [PSES] GFCI vs GFPE

[Mike Sherman]

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. 

- Original Message -

From: "Brian Kunde"  
To: "EMC-PSTC"  
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:j...@woodjohn.uk] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2018 11:13 AM 
To: Kunde, Brian; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG 
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 
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 < 
emc-p...@ieee.org > 

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 < sdoug...@ieee.org > 
Mike Cantwell < mcantw...@ieee.org > 

For policy questions, send mail to: 
Jim Bacher < j.bac...@ieee.org > 
David Heald < dhe...@gmail.com > 


-

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 


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 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] GFCI vs GFPE

[John Woodgate]

In Europe, the installation codes differ by country. Because the UK uses 
different wiring techniques (ring-mains) and different wall-sockets (13 
A, three rectangular pins) and plugs with in-built fuses, the UK Code, 
BS 7671, differs more than some of the others do. BS 7671 requires some 
wall-sockets to include RCDs, and an RCD at the distribution panel. I 
don't know of any requirement in any British Standard for an RCD inside 
load equipment.


John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2018-01-31 17:06, Kunde, Brian wrote:


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:j...@woodjohn.uk]
*Sent:* Wednesday, January 31, 2018 11:13 AM
*To:* Kunde, Brian; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
*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 Associateswww.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 

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 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] GFCI vs GFPE

[Kunde, Brian]

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:j...@woodjohn.uk]
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2018 11:13 AM
To: Kunde, Brian; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
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

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 


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 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] GFCI vs GFPE

[John Woodgate]

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
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





-

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 

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 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] GFCI vs GFPE

[Kunde, Brian]

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



From: Ted Eckert [mailto:07cf6ebeab9d-dmarc-requ...@ieee.org]
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2018 6:24 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] GFCI vs GFPE


My understanding isn’t as clear as I would like it to be, so the information I 
am providing is suspect.



I believe that the difference in trip points between North America and Europe 
is due to grounding, wiring and power distribution practices. The power 
distribution systems used in North America allow a trip point of nominally 5 mA 
(4 – 6 mA) without a significant risk of nuisance tripping. However, European 
wiring practices are such that nuisance tripping would be more likely at 5 mA 
and, as such, 30 mA is used as the limit.



Is the 3-phase saw plug connected or field wired? Is it used in a potentially 
wet environment? In North America, portable power distribution units, typically 
used at construction sites, must have protection because it is expected that 
the user will connect power tools that will be used in wet environments. 
However, for a field wired saw installed in a workshop would likely not require 
a GFCI. Much of this comes from the electrical code. Any standards that specify 
the additional protection do so because the code requires it.


Ted Eckert
Microsoft Corporation

The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my 
employer.



-Original Message-
From: Ralph McDiarmid [mailto:ralph.mcdiar...@schneider-electric.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2018 2:43 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] GFCI vs GFPE



Agreed, and current carry-carrying of PE and bonding of internal parts must 
meet stringent UL/CSA requirements. (not mA!)  It seems to me that 30mA is 
close to lethal, and the GFCI outlets Listed over here are 6mA trip.  (still a 
painful shock)



Ralph McDiarmid

Product Compliance Specialist

Solar Business

Schneider Electric





From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@woodjohn.uk]

Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2018 2:30 PM

To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

Subject: Re: [PSES] GFCI vs GFPE



I don't think that is the reason recognized in Europe. The PE circuit has the 
same (or similar) current-carrying capacity as the line circuit(s), so its 
fault-current capacity for 30 s is very large even for a household supply. I 
think the protector is there to prevent fire and to give some protection 
against electric shock, although the latter is compromised so as to prevent 
nuisance-tripping, which would occur if the trip were set at say 5 mA to give 
much better protection.

John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only

J M Woodgate and Associates 
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.woodjohn.uk&data=02%7C01%7Cted.eckert%40microsoft.com%7C332841906ad44ef66eaa08d5683526de%7Cee3303d7fb734b0c8589bcd847f1c277%7C1%7C0%7C636529499853637893&sdata=hM9ZJbor9gxzRIIwUYV0KkogbsHqlWIDv%2BCi2VRAr5I%3D&reserved=0

Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2018-01-30 22:03, Kunde, Brian wrote:

I’ve recently come to understand that the 30mA Ground-Fault protectors, often 
built into a circuit breaker, is intended to protect the Protective Earth 
(Safety Ground) circuit in the case of a short circuit (opening the circuit 
before the safety ground could be damaged.  It this correct?



Here is my question. I’m evaluating a cut-off saw (5hp) which uses water to 
keep the blade and material cool.  The manufacturer uses a 3-phase 
supplementary circuit breaker which includes the 30mA GFPE option.  This is a 
very expensive part.  When I asked them why they use the GFPE part, they 
couldn’t give me a good answer.



Would such a part be required on a 3-phase motor driven cutoff saw in either 
North America or Europe?  What standard would dictate this?



If the only purpose of a GFPE is to protect the Ground Circuit, on products 
that can handle shorts without damaging the ground circuit, would a GFPE still 
be necessary?



Where are GFPE typically used? What industry?



Please educate me.  This is a new one on me.



Thanks,

Brian



From: Doug Nix [mailto:d...@

Re: [PSES] UK BS 1363: 2016 Plugs, Sockets and adapters - what has changed? Free Intertek "White Paper"

[Scott Xe]

Hi John,

It is a very useful document and thanks for your sharing!  It gives a good
summary and remind the last implementation date of 31 Aug 2019.

Thanks and regards,

Scott

On 30 January 2018 at 20:42, John Allen <
09cc677f395b-dmarc-requ...@ieee.org> wrote:

> Good afternoon.
>
>
>
> Just received this info email from Intertek in the UK, followed the link
> and downloaded the White Paper – it should be of interest to anyone who
> wants to know the changes and additions.
>
>
>
> Adds quite a number of requirements, such as for socket-outlets with
> built-in USB power socket, and briefly discusses the new BS 8546: 2016 for
> travel plug adapters with pins or socket-outlets compatible with BS1363
> sockets & plugs.
>
>
>
> John E Allen
>
> W. London, UK
>
>
>
> *From:* Intertek [mailto:nore...@e.intertek.com]
> *Sent:* 30 January 2018 10:01
> *To:* john_e_al...@blueyonder.co.uk
> *Subject:* BS 1363: 2016 what has changed? Download our new free
> whitepaper!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 
>
>
> 
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 
>
>
>
> All five parts of BS 1363 were reissued in 2016. The new standards include
> some significant changes, particularly for plugs and socket-outlets.
> Previous editions of the standards will be withdrawn in 2019, by which time
> all products should conform to the new standards.
>
> For information about these changes and related topics, please download
> our whitepaper.
>
> For more information call us on +44 116 296 2901 <+44%20116%20296%202901>
> or email us at a...@intertek.com
> 
>
>
>
> DOWNLOAD WHITEPAPER
> 
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *Intertek is at Middle East Electricity*
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> For more than 130 years, companies around the world have depended on
> Intertek to help ensure the quality and safety of their products, processes
> and systems. We go beyond testing, inspecting and certifying products; we
> are a Total Quality Assurance provider to industries worldwide.
>
> Intertek, a leading Total Quality Assurance provider, will be exhibiting
> at the upcoming Middle East Electricity from 06-08 March, 2018 at Dubai
> World Trade Centre, UAE. MEE is the region’s leading international trade
> event for the power industry, with dedicated product sectors for power
> generation, transmission & distribution, lighting, solar and brand new in
> 2018 - Energy Storage & Management Solutions.
>
> Intertek colleagues will be available on stand *E70* in the *Z3 hall* to
> answer any questions and discuss your testing and certification
> requirements.
>
> Request a Meeting: Arrange an appointment now to discuss your accredited
> testing, certification and Notified Body services requirements.
>
>
>
> BOOK A MEETING 
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [image: Intertek. Total Quality. Assured.]
> 
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *Intertek* | Intertek, Davy Avenue, Knowlhill, Milton Keynes, MK5 8NL
> www.intertek.com
> 
>
> This email was sent to john_e_al...@blueyonder.co.uk.
> Unsubscribe
> 
>  | Send to a Colleague
> 
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -
> 
>
> 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 <
> emc-p...@ieee.org>
>
> 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 
> Mike Cantwell 
>
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Jim Bacher 
> David Heald 
>

-

This