Dear list members,
EN 61010-1:2010 §9.6 is concerning Overcurrent protection. All equipment
supplied from mains must be protected by some sort of overcurrent protection
device.
§9.6.3 for non-permanently connected equipment says If an overcurrent
protection device is provided, it shall be
In message 003701ced6e7$18e84df0$4ab8e9d0$@dk, dated Fri, 1 Nov 2013,
Niels Hougaard n...@bolls.dk writes:
EN 61010-1:2010 §9.6 is concerning Overcurrent protection. All
equipment supplied from mains must be protected by some sort of
overcurrent protection device.
§9.6.3 for
Thank you for the answer.
It is the word if in the beginning of the sentence that to me indicates
that there is the other possibility if not as well.
Edition 1 of 61010-1 (from 1993) had a somewhat clearer wording stating that
there must be an overcurrent protection device in the equipment, and
In message 004c01ced6f2$b8ebbd90$2ac338b0$@dk, dated Fri, 1 Nov 2013,
Niels Hougaard n...@bolls.dk writes:
Thank you for the answer.
It is the word if in the beginning of the sentence that to me
indicates that there is the other possibility if not as well.
I understand your point, but I
Reading only the information in these messages. . . one really stupid
but *possible* interpretation of the wording “If an overcurrent
protection device is provided, it shall be within the equipment”, would
be that if an overcurrent protection device -- a mains circuit breaker,
say -- is
If you think of non-permanently connected equipment as cord-and-plug
connected equipment, it is not uncommon for cord-and-plug connected equipment
to rely upon the facility mains overcurrent protection (i.e., a circuit breaker
in a distribution panel).
Mike Sherman
Product Safety and
In message
435656780.4337510.1383321906804.javamail.r...@sz0110a.emeryville.ca.mail
.comcast.net, dated Fri, 1 Nov 2013, Mike Sherman - Original
Message - msherma...@comcast.net writes:
If you think of non-permanently connected equipment as cord-and-plug
connected equipment, it is not
In message wlkhjpive9csf...@jmwa.demon.co.uk, dated Fri, 1 Nov 2013,
John Woodgate j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk writes:
Sorry; a typo occurred. This is what I meant:
There is another discussion going on elsewhere about similar texts in
IEC/EN 60950-1 and IEC 62368-1. A general re-think about how to
In message
81c2032ccae04a448ae81107862dc...@blupr02mb116.namprd02.prod.outlook.com
, dated Fri, 1 Nov 2013, Brian Oconnell oconne...@tamuracorp.com
writes:
Cannot comment on BS7671 or IEC60364, but all North American building
codes (e.g., NEC article 240) have overcurrent protection
9.6 Overcurrent protection
(no text)
9.6.1 General
(uses the word shall; not the word must)
9.6.2 Permanently connected equipment
9.6.3 Other equipment
In context of the Clause, the requirement of 9.6.3 is to
require the overcurrent device, if provided, be a part of
the equipment.
(Once it had
In message 5273fde9.8050...@ieee.org, dated Fri, 1 Nov 2013, Richard
Nute ri...@ieee.org writes:
9.6 Overcurrent protection
(no text)
9.6.1 General
(uses the word shall; not the word must)
Ah, well, the information posted was incorrect but I assumed it was
correct.
--
OOO - Own Opinions
Hi All,
Here's an update on some blog postings and an EDN article from this past
October.
Review: Right the First Time, by Lee Ritchey:
http://www.edn.com/electronics-blogs/the-emc-blog/4421861/Review--Right-The-First-Time--by-Lee-Richey
Protect Circuits from ESD:
In dielectric strength test, normally the high voltage is required to apply
between live mains input and accessible parts. What are the exact meaning of
accessible parts? In general, we use test fingers and/or test pins to
determine an accessible parts. Is there any other requirement to
13 matches
Mail list logo
