Rich,
Dunno what 'class' a 5-15 receptacle would be considered, because could be used
with Class I or II equipment.
As newer 5-15R stuff is supposed to be 'polarized', the intention is for
connection to both classes of equipment, and to accommodate the idiots that
clip the ground pin, so
In message
blupr02mb116cce56b9c806d19385aafc1...@blupr02mb116.namprd02.prod.outlook
.com, dated Thu, 19 Feb 2015, Brian Oconnell oconne...@tamuracorp.com
writes:
Dunno what 'class' a 5-15 receptacle would be considered, because could
be used with Class I or II equipment.
Connectors in the
In message 002301d04c74$93ecc770$bbc65650$@ieee.org, dated Thu, 19 Feb
2015, Richard Nute ri...@ieee.org writes:
I said such designation is not a requirement in any safety standard
that I know of.
It isn't in IEC60065 60950-1 and 62384-1. But each Class has different
requirements for
Hi Brian:
See IEC 61140, Clause 7.3, Class II equipment and
Sub-clause 7.3.2.1.
Rich
-
This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail
In both EN 60065 and EN 60950-1, the earth continuity is unclear to be mandated
for class 1 appliances. If it is not connected, it cannot be expected to
comply with this test.
It seems there is no clear requirements to define the class 1 appliance as long
as there is wiring of earth in the
Joe,
With regard to this line,
The NEC code 800-4 additionally requires all equipment connected to a
telecommunications network to be listed
I am still at my temporary job 25 ½ years later, for which I was hired to
help get the legacy ATT/Western Electric telephones that were still
In message ce70d87f-e3f4-445a-ae92-cf136ea1f...@gmail.com, dated Thu,
19 Feb 2015, Scott Xe scott...@gmail.com writes:
In both EN 60065 and EN 60950-1, the earth continuity is unclear to be
mandated for class 1 appliances. If it is not connected, it cannot be
expected to comply with this
Hello Mr. Nute,
Not certain of your meaning for Designating a product as a Class I, Class II,
orClass III is not a requirement in any safety standard that I know of.
In all of the IEC-format TRFs issued as CB reports issued for my employer's
stuff, the first or second page has 'Class of
In message 001001d04c6e$ffd5a750$ff80f5f0$@ieee.org, dated Thu, 19 Feb
2015, Richard Nute ri...@ieee.org writes:
The argument as to the Class designation of a
product is futile and not useful (and unending
with no conclusion).
Tell that to market surveillance people in Europe. At your peril.
Tell that to market surveillance people in
Europe. At your peril.
Hmm. I wonder if that is the reason Mr. Scott
Xe's product is designated Class I.
-
This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
Those of you who muck around with REACH candidate list concern might be
interested in this
On February 12, 2015, the Advocate-General, an advisor to the court, issued an
opinion on this issue.
article from Hunton and Williams -
Hi Brian:
I said such designation is not a requirement in
any safety standard that I know of. I didn't say
that it was not a part of a TRF.
I am not familiar with NFPA 70, 70E, and 99. Hmm.
Are 5-15R Class II?
Best regards,
Rich
-
Designating a product as a Class I, Class II, or
Class III is not a requirement in any safety
standard that I know of.
We safety professionals use the Class designations
to evaluate the safeguards in the product.
We fool ourselves by designating the Class, and,
often, by ignoring other Class
In message 631609cb-36e8-4370-8fb5-e86d488a9...@gmail.com, dated Fri,
20 Feb 2015, Scott Xe scott...@gmail.com writes:
We received compliant test reports issued by accredited test houses
from the suppliers. Looking at the test results, the product actually
constructed as class II as the
Hi Joe:
The NEC is a model electrical code. The NFPA
intends the code to be adopted by local
jurisdictions.
Some jurisdictions, like the City of Los Angeles,
write their own codes.
Other jurisdictions adopt the NEC with changes,
some of which affect the certification of
This 'functional earth' is indeed a source of
total confusion. I don't see why anything would
need one.
One common use is to connect the Y1 capacitors to
earth.
But if it does, the point is that it can be
connected by thin wire that won't carry the PE
fault current. It seem silly to me; just use
In message 003d01d04c94$6fb52e40$4f1f8ac0$@ieee.org, dated Thu, 19 Feb
2015, Richard Nute ri...@ieee.org writes:
An easy way to obtain an FE is to connect it to the PE terminal in the
equipment which connects to the PE in the mains cord which connects to
the PE in the building.
Yes, but
In message 000901d04c98$05ac1cd0$11045670$@cs.com, dated Thu, 19 Feb
2015, Pete Perkins 0061f3f32d0c-dmarc-requ...@ieee.org writes:
You can't have it both ways, tho - declaring the earthing for
functional purposes then making it exposed to user. Not acceptable.
That, for me, is a new
I agree with Dave and I would add that the statement in the NEC probably should have said public telecommunications network. There is a lot of variability with AHJs around the country. Just because a code is national. It doesn't mean it has been equally adopted at all local jurisdictions. For
We received compliant test reports issued by accredited test houses from the
suppliers. Looking at the test results, the product actually constructed as
class II as the insulation resistance is greater than 4 M ohms, the dielectric
strength test at 3,000 Vac and no test for earth continuity.
See IEC 61140, sub-clause 7.3.2.2. Such a FE can
be accessible.
-Original Message-
From: Pete Perkins [mailto:peperkin...@cs.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2015 3:02 PM
To: ri...@ieee.org; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: [PSES] Class 1 appliances
PSNetters Rich,
I
Rich et al,
Yes, I understand that the situation is allowed, as you have noted.
In spite of that, I believe that it should not be used, or allowed
with any accesiblity to the earth/ground, because of the insidious hazard
that it can introduce.
:) br, Pete
Peter E
PSNetters Rich,
I agree that there has been a lot of discussion and a lot of
confusion over Functional Earth.
My ongoing contention is that it is acceptable to carry the earth
into the equipment for functional purposes and bury it there. The next
argument is that this
23 matches
Mail list logo
