k...@ieee.org
From: Nyffenegger, Dave [mailto:dave.nyffeneg...@bhemail.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 1, 2018 11:13 AM
To: Pete Perkins ; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: [PSES] GFCI vs GFPE
Pete, think you are referring to Annex IV?
-Dave
From: Pete Perkins [mailto:peperkin...@
Pete, think you are referring to Annex IV?
-Dave
From: Pete Perkins [mailto:peperkin...@cs.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2018 1:42 PM
To: Nyffenegger, Dave; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: [PSES] GFCI vs GFPE
Brian, et al,
My quick reading of the MD (again) leads me
.@ieee.org> p.perk...@ieee.org
From: Nyffenegger, Dave [mailto:dave.nyffeneg...@bhemail.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 1, 2018 10:32 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] GFCI vs GFPE
That’s what I was questioning. I’ve not had to certify anything like those
direct drive prod
, Brian [mailto:brian_ku...@lecotc.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2018 1:27 PM
To: Nyffenegger, Dave; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: [PSES] GFCI vs GFPE
Dave,
I’ve never heard this position taken on the machinery directive before. So are
you saying that anything “direct driven” or that
appreciate your comments.
The Other Brian
From: Nyffenegger, Dave [mailto:dave.nyffeneg...@bhemail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2018 5:38 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] GFCI vs GFPE
The pivoting arm operated by human effort would be out of scope of machinery
Other Brian
From: Mike Sherman [mailto:msherma...@comcast.net]
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2018 9:11 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Fwd: [PSES] GFCI vs GFPE
A copy of what I inadvertently only sent to Brian earlier...
From: msherma...@comcast.net
...
*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
M
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
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 sectio
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
: [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 g
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
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 Prot
.
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 rel
, 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<https://webstore.iec.ch/publication/7454>
Edition 1.0 (2014-06-04)
Electric motor-op
rote:
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
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
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
: 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 cir
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
r 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
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&#x
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 prot
: 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
- 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 inst
on 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 Onl
.
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
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 bet
: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
IEEE Life Fellow
<mailto:p.perk...@ieee.org> p.perk...@ieee.org
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
opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my
employer.
From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@woodjohn.uk]
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2018 3:28 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] GFCI vs GFPE
We have an expert on electric shock here, so I won't go fu
d 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
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
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-car
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 pro
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 i
36 matches
Mail list logo
