ent: Thursday, April 6, 2023 12:19 PM
To: <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] WG: AW: [PSES] AW: [PSES] Safety: 60335-1 conflicting
clauses question - earthing (or not) of handles
Hi James,
Please find below some additional thoughts on the subject that
C-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Betreff: Re: [PSES] AW: [PSES] Safety: 60335-1 conflicting clauses question -
earthing (or not) of handles
[EXTERNAL E-MAIL] This email originated from outside of the organization. Do
not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.
For Australia and New Zealand;
AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] AW: [PSES] Safety: 60335-1 conflicting clauses question -
earthing (or not) of handles
Hello James,
Thank you for providing this additional information and the sketch. My
conclusion that the handles are a class II construction was based on your
s,
Bernd
Von: Dürrer Bernd
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 6. April 2023 11:36
An: John Woodgate mailto:j...@woodjohn.uk>>
Betreff: AW: AW: [PSES] AW: [PSES] Safety: 60335-1 conflicting clauses question
- earthing (or not) of handles
Agreed. The standard would be clearer if clauses 22.35 and 22.36 wou
e mailto:j...@woodjohn.uk>>
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 6. April 2023 11:14
An: Dürrer Bernd mailto:bernd.duer...@wilo.com>>
Betreff: Re: AW: [PSES] AW: [PSES] Safety: 60335-1 conflicting clauses question
- earthing (or not) of handles
[EXTERNAL E-MAIL] This email originated from outside o
Hi James,
actually, these two clauses address two different, but related risks: Clause
22.35 addresses the risk that the handle itself may become live. In any case, a
conductive surface (like the handle) has to be separated from live parts by
basic insulation. Due to the higher risk that
6 matches
Mail list logo
