> -----Original Message----- > From: Victor L. Boersma [SMTP:[email protected]] > Sent: Friday, July 10, 1998 9:00 PM > > > > UL, CSA and TUV Rheinland NA have endorsed the 2A value. > > No disrespect meant, but since when does that make it right. > These good organizations have no business endorsing anything ??? > And none taken, Vic. However, in the absence of guidance directly from the standard, one is left to determine a reasonable value on one's own and seek validation from others.
> IEC TC74 has an interpretation panel that decides on what is and > what isn't the right value. That prerogative never was ceded to any test > and /or certification organization. The specific reason for that panel is > to ensure that you, the users, have input into the interpretation of the > standard, and ensure that this does not become the prerogative of a > couple of test houses. > Then let them do their job and publish their result. BTW, how are such decisions published? In the standard? If so, even 74/484/CDV provides no specific value for earthing of a TN circuit in Clause 6 or Subclause 2.6.3.3. Certainly, 16A is exceptionally onerous. Considering the guidance otherwise given in 74/484/CDV, Subclause 6.3, Note 2, and using the guidance in Subclause 2.6.3.3, (1.3A)X(1.5)=2.15A and is close enough to 2A for me. > I am not disputing the correectness of their interpretation but wouldn't > you be very unhappy if that interpretation by these good organizations > in North America would be unacceptable in China, India, Russia and > Swaziland ??? > > Ciao, > > > Vic > Indeed I would. But so far neither UL, CSA nor TUV service those markets directly (I've heard unconfirmed rumors about TUV and GOST). Hopefully, each of those countries will have a clear engineering rationale (what, am I dreaming again?) for any contrary decision. Peter L. Tarver Nortel [email protected]
