Re: [PSES] Carbon Monoxide - Death Value

[ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen]

Ted, (and all other safety friends)

IMHO older cars detoriating to the level of CO coming in, will also let the 
driving wind
leak in to an amount  that CO is not a real problem anymore. ;<))

Highest risk is where ventilation is modified to recirculating, (to prevent 
pollution coming in (!!) or to boost the airco) and a small leak -whatever the 
reason- of CO happens. 

I think we should not interfere with intentional poisoning ; candidates might 
otherwise choose much dangerous alternatives to CO (dangerous to others of 
course !).

Current common CO detectors for home use  need replacement every 7 years, so 
the risk that a detector does not detect what it is intended for is not 
imaginary.

Maybe you US citizen can get Trump to write a presidential Order to stop CO ? 
And the Europeans might create a CO-directive ?


Regards,

Ing. Gert Gremmen
Approvals manager



+ ce marking of electrical/electronic equipment
+ Independent Consultancy Services
+ Compliance Testing and Design for CE marking according to EC-directives:
  - Electro Magnetic Compatibility 2014/30/EC
- Electrical Safety 2014/35/EC
- Radio & Telecommunication Terminal Equipment 99/5/EC

Web:    www.cetest.nl  (English) www.ce-test.nl (Dutch) www.cetest.fr (under 
construction)
Phone :  +31 10 415 24 26
---
This e-mail and any attachments thereto may contain information 
that is confidential and/or protected by intellectual property rights 
and are intended for the sole use of the recipient(s) named above. 
Any use of the information contained herein (including, but not 
limited to, total or partial reproduction, communication or 
distribution in any form) by persons other than the designated 
recipient(s) is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, 
please notify the sender either by telephone or by e-mail and 
delete the material from any computer. 
Thank you for your co-operation.


-Original Message-
From: Ted Eckert [mailto:07cf6ebeab9d-dmarc-requ...@ieee.org] 
Sent: Thursday 16 February 2017 21:49
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Carbon Monoxide - Death Value

I see two problems with the proposed alarm system.

First, the most common reason for accidental carbon monoxide intrusion into the 
passenger compartment is poor maintenance on an older vehicle. The exhaust 
system needs to be compromised somewhere under the vehicle and there typically 
need to be holes in the floor boards letting the carbon monoxide enter. Rust is 
the most common culprit, but it can also be other types of damage. If a car has 
been allowed to deteriorate to this point, would a carbon monoxide alarm system 
still be functioning properly? The sensors would likely need regular 
maintenance or replacement. It seems possible that many of the detection 
systems would no longer be operating properly by the time a vehicle is old 
enough for the risk to have increased.

Second, the number of vehicles on the road is high enough that even a small 
number of false-positives would completely outweigh the number of real alarms. 
There are 300,000,000 vehicles in the United States. If only 0.01% experience a 
false failure, that is still 30,000 false failures. What happens if a driver is 
going down the highway when the alarm goes off? It wouldn't take many drivers 
panicking before accidental deaths due to reactions to false failures exceeded 
the number of potential lives saved from real alarms. Even if the system just 
automatically rolls down a window, some drivers may not recognize that this is 
the alarm response. They may become fixated on trying to get the window to 
close again without noticing that traffic ahead of them has stopped. 

In some locations in the United States, there is a mandatory safety inspection 
to renew your car's registration. I'm not stating one way or another whether 
this is a good option. However, these inspections do look for exhaust leaks, 
faulty brakes and other safety issues. I lived in Missouri for 20 years and I 
found the inspections to be a hassle. At the time, I saw a lot of cars on the 
road that didn't look safe to me and I thought that the inspections were 
probably ineffective. I moved to Washington 9 years ago and I quickly learned I 
was mistaken. In Washington, I am amazed by the number of cars I see on the 
road with faulty headlights, broken taillights and even no brake lights. Those 
are just the visible safety issues. I can't tell how many have faulty exhaust 
systems that leak carbon monoxide into the passenger cabin.

Ted Eckert
Microsoft Corporation

The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my 
employer.

-Original Message-
From: Brian O'Connell [mailto:oconne...@tamuracorp.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2017 12:07 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Carbon Monoxid

Re: [PSES] Questions on RCB, RCCB and ELCBs and GFCI protection devices

[Scott Aldous]

Thanks, Pete, for the detail!

On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 1:22 PM, Pete Perkins  wrote:

> Vincent et al,
>
>
>
>There have been several really good responses to your
> question on this listserv; it’s great to see everyone chime in and provide
> their info.
>
>
>
>I’d like to add a bit of background and detail to all of
> this.
>
>
>
>Scott pointed out the time vs current curve in the ABB
> paper.  This curve is from the original version of IEC 60479-1 ‘Effects of
> electric current  on humans …’ and has been slightly updated in the current
> version of the standard.  The small changes do not however affect the
> overall argument nor the application of this base data to the problem at
> hand.
>
>
>
>There are 3 electric shock levels stated in 60479-1.
> Perception of electric current is highly variable among persons and extends
> well into the low microamp range.  In 60479-1, the lowest level, the
> startle-reaction level (‘a’ line) is at 0.5mArms level; the next level, the
> letgo-immobilization level (‘b’ line) is 5mArms for times above one ac
> cycle (which provides protection for all individuals – men, women and
> children); the third level, the Ventricular Fibrillation level (‘c1, c2 and
> c3’ lines) is intended to illustrate a statistical distribution for VF and
> the lowest, ‘c1’ line is 30mArms for times above one ac cycle.
>
>The selection of 5mArms for the GFCI units is chosen to
> prevent immobilization if the earth/ground current goes above that value.
> These units are widely used in  North America especially in homes but also
> in commercial buildings anywhere there is ground present – bathrooms,
> kitchens, laundries, garage and outdoor outlets.
>
>The RCD units have been used in Europe for some time for
> industrial use intended to prevent serious hazard to workers.  The choice
> of the 30mArms limit has been considered adequate for that application.
>
>There is some question about the adequacy of the 30mArms
> limit in that the ‘c1’ line is not an absolute limit for persons.  It is a
> statistical limit, having been considered a 5% line in the past (but some
> folks today like to call it a 1% line).  In either case it is clear that
> there are humans who lie to the left of this line and will be subject to VF
> at lower currents. [When considered a 5% line it means that there are about
> 350 Million persons on planet earth to the left of the curve.]
>
>The US will introduce a higher current device for use in
> industrial and other high power uses (such as electric car chargers).  It
> looks like the devices will be 15mArms or 25mArms (and the limit prescribed
> for various installations).
>
>A further issue is that mains electronic switching devices
> are no longer sinusoidal and the circuits on which they work are subject to
> impulses which will push the current levels in the circuit being protected
> above the desired level (whether 5mArms, 15mArms, 25mArms or 30mArms).  The
> impulses are invading the space of the next higher protection level since
> it is the peak value of the impulse which causes the harm.  These impulse
> currents can be harmful to humans when accessible.
>
>Today there are issues using electronic switching units
> connected to GFCI and RCD units.  The feedback signals from the equipment
> will, in some cases, either falsely trip the protection device or not
> properly trip when the current exceeds the protection value.
>
>
>
>Obviously coordinated levels for outgoing emissions and
> incoming susceptibility  between equipments need to be fully worked out.
>
>
>
>Hopefully this further explanation is helpful to you and
> other on this network.
>
>
>
> :>) br,  Pete
>
>
>
> Peter E Perkins, PE
>
> Principal Product Safety & Regulatory Affairs Consultant
>
> PO Box 23427
>
> Tigard, ORe  97281-3427
>
>
>
> 503/452-1201 <(503)%20452-1201>
>
>
>
> p.perk...@ieee.org
>
>
>
> *From:* Scott Aldous [mailto:0220f70c299a-dmarc-requ...@ieee.org]
> *Sent:* Thursday, February 16, 2017 8:29 AM
> *To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> *Subject:* Re: [PSES] Questions on RCB, RCCB and ELCBs
>
>
>
> Hi Vincent,
>
>
>
> Here
> 
> is a technical guide from ABB that you may find helpful. With regard to the
> 30mA trip level for an RCD, the paper refers to IEC 60479-1 and reproduces
> a Figure from that standard on page 2 relating effects on the body from
> exposure to ac currents (15 Hz to 100 Hz) with different durations. I don't
> believe the paper explains this, but this graph is specific to a left hand
> to feet current path through the body. The version of the standard that I
> have actually has a figure that is slightly different from the ABB paper,
> FYI.
>
>
>
> The paper seems to indicate th

Re: [PSES] Questions on RCB, RCCB and ELCBs and GFCI protection devices

[Pete Perkins]

Vincent et al,

 

   There have been several really good responses to your question 
on this listserv; it’s great to see everyone chime in and provide their info.  

 

   I’d like to add a bit of background and detail to all of this.  

 

   Scott pointed out the time vs current curve in the ABB paper.  
This curve is from the original version of IEC 60479-1 ‘Effects of electric 
current  on humans …’ and has been slightly updated in the current version of 
the standard.  The small changes do not however affect the overall argument nor 
the application of this base data to the problem at hand.  

 

   There are 3 electric shock levels stated in 60479-1.  Perception 
of electric current is highly variable among persons and extends well into the 
low microamp range.  In 60479-1, the lowest level, the startle-reaction level 
(‘a’ line) is at 0.5mArms level; the next level, the letgo-immobilization level 
(‘b’ line) is 5mArms for times above one ac cycle (which provides protection 
for all individuals – men, women and children); the third level, the 
Ventricular Fibrillation level (‘c1, c2 and c3’ lines) is intended to 
illustrate a statistical distribution for VF and the lowest, ‘c1’ line is 
30mArms for times above one ac cycle.   

   The selection of 5mArms for the GFCI units is chosen to prevent 
immobilization if the earth/ground current goes above that value.  These units 
are widely used in  North America especially in homes but also in commercial 
buildings anywhere there is ground present – bathrooms, kitchens, laundries, 
garage and outdoor outlets.  

   The RCD units have been used in Europe for some time for 
industrial use intended to prevent serious hazard to workers.  The choice of 
the 30mArms limit has been considered adequate for that application.  

   There is some question about the adequacy of the 30mArms limit 
in that the ‘c1’ line is not an absolute limit for persons.  It is a 
statistical limit, having been considered a 5% line in the past (but some folks 
today like to call it a 1% line).  In either case it is clear that there are 
humans who lie to the left of this line and will be subject to VF at lower 
currents. [When considered a 5% line it means that there are about 350 Million 
persons on planet earth to the left of the curve.]

   The US will introduce a higher current device for use in 
industrial and other high power uses (such as electric car chargers).  It looks 
like the devices will be 15mArms or 25mArms (and the limit prescribed for 
various installations).  

   A further issue is that mains electronic switching devices are 
no longer sinusoidal and the circuits on which they work are subject to 
impulses which will push the current levels in the circuit being protected 
above the desired level (whether 5mArms, 15mArms, 25mArms or 30mArms).  The 
impulses are invading the space of the next higher protection level since it is 
the peak value of the impulse which causes the harm.  These impulse currents 
can be harmful to humans when accessible.  

   Today there are issues using electronic switching units 
connected to GFCI and RCD units.  The feedback signals from the equipment will, 
in some cases, either falsely trip the protection device or not properly trip 
when the current exceeds the protection value.  

 

   Obviously coordinated levels for outgoing emissions and incoming 
susceptibility  between equipments need to be fully worked out.  

 

   Hopefully this further explanation is helpful to you and other 
on this network.  

 

:>) br,  Pete

 

Peter E Perkins, PE

Principal Product Safety & Regulatory Affairs Consultant

PO Box 23427

Tigard, ORe  97281-3427

 

503/452-1201

 

  p.perk...@ieee.org

 

From: Scott Aldous [mailto:0220f70c299a-dmarc-requ...@ieee.org] 
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2017 8:29 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Questions on RCB, RCCB and ELCBs

 

Hi Vincent,

 

Here 

  is a technical guide from ABB that you may find helpful. With regard to the 
30mA trip level for an RCD, the paper refers to IEC 60479-1 and reproduces a 
Figure from that standard on page 2 relating effects on the body from exposure 
to ac currents (15 Hz to 100 Hz) with different durations. I don't believe the 
paper explains this, but this graph is specific to a left hand to feet current 
path through the body. The version of the standard that I have actually has a 
figure that is slightly different from the ABB paper, FYI.

 

The paper seems to indicate that the 30mA level was chosen since it marks the 
delineation between regions made by the c1 curve. Referring to the table on the 
next page (the table from the standard has more information), although be

Re: [PSES] Carbon Monoxide - Death Value

[IBM Ken]

Hi Bob;
In perspective (40,000 Americans died on the road in crashes last year) it
sounds like engineering efforts might be better spent making vehicular
traffic safer.

Driving while interacting with technology seems to be an increasing problem
that could be addressed with some effort (and legislation; only because
allowing personal choice does not seem to be working).

-Ken

On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 3:13 PM, Robert Johnson 
wrote:

> Ken,
>
> If the horn is continuously blowing in triplets, it is likely to prevent
> even intentional CO poisoning.
>
> There is no need to disable the car and risk traffic dangers. Time is not
> crucial, just blowing the horn is enough and may notify people at a
> distance like in a house.
>
> The numbers could use some fine tuning but close enough to make a point.
> For example the average CO deaths (439) are from 1999-2004 (Public Health
> Rep.  2012
> Sep-Oct;127(5):486-96) and percentage from automobiles 21-69% (Public
> Health Rep.  2011
> Mar-Apr;126(2):240-50). Maybe vehicle count should include trucks. I
> suspect manufacturers could make a dashboard mod for under $1.
>
> This really is introducing three questions:
> Should vehicles (or heating systems) have built in CO detectors?
> At what value/death should we introduce safety measures?
> Do we require such measures by law?
> Bob Johnson
>
>
> On 02/16/2017 02:38 PM, IBM Ken wrote:
>
> Hi Bob- do you know what percentage of the 300 are accidental vs
> intentional?
>
> Maybe instead of just alerting, the car should shut down upon reaching
> some measured CO limit.
>
> On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 2:29 PM, Robert Johnson 
> wrote:
>
>> In the US we sell about 15 million cars/yr and have about 300 deaths/yr
>> from automotive carbon monoxide. Since DC power is available, the horn is
>> available, packaging is not needed, installation can be integrated in the
>> auto manufacturing, I estimate an auto CO detector would cost below
>> $10/car, about what a household one does.
>>
>> It would cost $500,000/death to install CO detectors in cars. Is this a
>> reasonable expenditure to mandate?
>>
>> Bob Johnson
>> -
>> 
>>
>> 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 to <
>> emc-p...@ieee.org>
>>
>> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
>> http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
>>
>> Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site
>> at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in
>> well-used formats), large files, etc.
>>
>> Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
>> Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to
>> unsubscribe) 
>> List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
>>
>> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
>> Scott Douglas 
>> Mike Cantwell 
>>
>> For policy questions, send mail to:
>> Jim Bacher 
>> David Heald 
>>
>
> -
> 
>
> 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 to <
> emc-p...@ieee.org>
>
> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
> http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
>
> Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at
> http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in
> well-used formats), large files, etc.
>
> Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
> Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to
> unsubscribe) 
> List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
>
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
> Scott Douglas 
> Mike Cantwell 
>
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Jim Bacher 
> David Heald 
>
>
> --
> The PDP-11 is 45 years old.
>
>

-

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 to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heal

Re: [PSES] Carbon Monoxide - Death Value

[Ted Eckert]

I see two problems with the proposed alarm system.

First, the most common reason for accidental carbon monoxide intrusion into the 
passenger compartment is poor maintenance on an older vehicle. The exhaust 
system needs to be compromised somewhere under the vehicle and there typically 
need to be holes in the floor boards letting the carbon monoxide enter. Rust is 
the most common culprit, but it can also be other types of damage. If a car has 
been allowed to deteriorate to this point, would a carbon monoxide alarm system 
still be functioning properly? The sensors would likely need regular 
maintenance or replacement. It seems possible that many of the detection 
systems would no longer be operating properly by the time a vehicle is old 
enough for the risk to have increased.

Second, the number of vehicles on the road is high enough that even a small 
number of false-positives would completely outweigh the number of real alarms. 
There are 300,000,000 vehicles in the United States. If only 0.01% experience a 
false failure, that is still 30,000 false failures. What happens if a driver is 
going down the highway when the alarm goes off? It wouldn't take many drivers 
panicking before accidental deaths due to reactions to false failures exceeded 
the number of potential lives saved from real alarms. Even if the system just 
automatically rolls down a window, some drivers may not recognize that this is 
the alarm response. They may become fixated on trying to get the window to 
close again without noticing that traffic ahead of them has stopped. 

In some locations in the United States, there is a mandatory safety inspection 
to renew your car's registration. I'm not stating one way or another whether 
this is a good option. However, these inspections do look for exhaust leaks, 
faulty brakes and other safety issues. I lived in Missouri for 20 years and I 
found the inspections to be a hassle. At the time, I saw a lot of cars on the 
road that didn't look safe to me and I thought that the inspections were 
probably ineffective. I moved to Washington 9 years ago and I quickly learned I 
was mistaken. In Washington, I am amazed by the number of cars I see on the 
road with faulty headlights, broken taillights and even no brake lights. Those 
are just the visible safety issues. I can't tell how many have faulty exhaust 
systems that leak carbon monoxide into the passenger cabin.

Ted Eckert
Microsoft Corporation

The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my 
employer.

-Original Message-
From: Brian O'Connell [mailto:oconne...@tamuracorp.com] 
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2017 12:07 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Carbon Monoxide - Death Value

Autonomously-controlled windows could be a significant hazard for some of the 
‘normal’ operating conditions per NHTSA.

A guestimate based on two previous submittals to VCA and other such bodies 
exceeds $80 USD per vehicle.

Brian


From: Nyffenegger, Dave [mailto:dave.nyffeneg...@bhemail.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2017 11:50 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Carbon Monoxide - Death Value

Shutting down automatically while driving would not be good.  Just lower all 
the windows automatically.

From: IBM Ken [mailto:ibm...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2017 2:38 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Carbon Monoxide - Death Value

Hi Bob- do you know what percentage of the 300 are accidental vs intentional?   

Maybe instead of just alerting, the car should shut down upon reaching some 
measured CO limit.

On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 2:29 PM, Robert Johnson  wrote:
In the US we sell about 15 million cars/yr and have about 300 deaths/yr from 
automotive carbon monoxide. Since DC power is available, the horn is available, 
packaging is not needed, installation can be integrated in the auto 
manufacturing, I estimate an auto CO detector would cost below $10/car, about 
what a household one does. 
It would cost $500,000/death to install CO detectors in cars. Is this a 
reasonable expenditure to mandate?
Bob Johnson

-

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 to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe) List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

-
---

Re: [PSES] Carbon Monoxide - Death Value

[IBM Ken]

I would think very few of the 300 deaths claimed would be while the car is
in motion.  The system could be disabled when the vehicle is moving.
Further to my point, someone attempting to commit suicide by car in a
garage already has all the windows lowered.

On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 2:49 PM, Nyffenegger, Dave <
dave.nyffeneg...@bhemail.com> wrote:

> Shutting down automatically while driving would not be good.  Just lower
> all the windows automatically.
>
>
>
> *From:* IBM Ken [mailto:ibm...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Thursday, February 16, 2017 2:38 PM
> *To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> *Subject:* Re: [PSES] Carbon Monoxide - Death Value
>
>
>
> Hi Bob- do you know what percentage of the 300 are accidental vs
> intentional?
>
>
>
> Maybe instead of just alerting, the car should shut down upon reaching
> some measured CO limit.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 2:29 PM, Robert Johnson 
> wrote:
>
> In the US we sell about 15 million cars/yr and have about 300 deaths/yr
> from automotive carbon monoxide. Since DC power is available, the horn is
> available, packaging is not needed, installation can be integrated in the
> auto manufacturing, I estimate an auto CO detector would cost below
> $10/car, about what a household one does.
>
> It would cost $500,000/death to install CO detectors in cars. Is this a
> reasonable expenditure to mandate?
>
> Bob Johnson
>
> -
> 
>
> 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 to <
> emc-p...@ieee.org>
>
> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
> http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
>
> Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at
> http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in
> well-used formats), large files, etc.
>
> Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
> Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to
> unsubscribe) 
> List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
>
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
> Scott Douglas 
> Mike Cantwell 
>
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Jim Bacher 
> David Heald 
>
>
>
> -
> 
>
> 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 to <
> emc-p...@ieee.org>
>
> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
> http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
>
> Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at
> http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in
> well-used formats), large files, etc.
>
> Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
> Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to
> unsubscribe) 
> List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
>
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
> Scott Douglas 
> Mike Cantwell 
>
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Jim Bacher 
> David Heald 
>

-

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 to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] Carbon Monoxide - Death Value

[Brian O'Connell]

Autonomously-controlled windows could be a significant hazard for some of the 
‘normal’ operating conditions per NHTSA.

A guestimate based on two previous submittals to VCA and other such bodies 
exceeds $80 USD per vehicle.

Brian


From: Nyffenegger, Dave [mailto:dave.nyffeneg...@bhemail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2017 11:50 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Carbon Monoxide - Death Value

Shutting down automatically while driving would not be good.  Just lower all 
the windows automatically.

From: IBM Ken [mailto:ibm...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2017 2:38 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Carbon Monoxide - Death Value

Hi Bob- do you know what percentage of the 300 are accidental vs intentional?   

Maybe instead of just alerting, the car should shut down upon reaching some 
measured CO limit.

On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 2:29 PM, Robert Johnson  wrote:
In the US we sell about 15 million cars/yr and have about 300 deaths/yr from 
automotive carbon monoxide. Since DC power is available, the horn is available, 
packaging is not needed, installation can be integrated in the auto 
manufacturing, I estimate an auto CO detector would cost below $10/car, about 
what a household one does. 
It would cost $500,000/death to install CO detectors in cars. Is this a 
reasonable expenditure to mandate?
Bob Johnson

-

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 to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] Carbon Monoxide - Death Value

[Robert Johnson]

Ken,

If the horn is continuously blowing in triplets, it is likely to prevent 
even intentional CO poisoning.


There is no need to disable the car and risk traffic dangers. Time is 
not crucial, just blowing the horn is enough and may notify people at a 
distance like in a house.


The numbers could use some fine tuning but close enough to make a point. 
For example the average CO deaths (439) are from 1999-2004 (Public 
Health Rep.  2012 
Sep-Oct;127(5):486-96) and percentage from automobiles 21-69% (Public 
Health Rep.  2011 
Mar-Apr;126(2):240-50). Maybe vehicle count should include trucks. I 
suspect manufacturers could make a dashboard mod for under $1.


This really is introducing three questions:
Should vehicles (or heating systems) have built in CO detectors?
At what value/death should we introduce safety measures?
Do we require such measures by law?

Bob Johnson

On 02/16/2017 02:38 PM, IBM Ken wrote:
Hi Bob- do you know what percentage of the 300 are accidental vs 
intentional?


Maybe instead of just alerting, the car should shut down upon reaching 
some measured CO limit.


On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 2:29 PM, Robert Johnson > wrote:


In the US we sell about 15 million cars/yr and have about 300
deaths/yr from automotive carbon monoxide. Since DC power is
available, the horn is available, packaging is not needed,
installation can be integrated in the auto manufacturing, I
estimate an auto CO detector would cost below $10/car, about what
a household one does.

It would cost $500,000/death to install CO detectors in cars. Is
this a reasonable expenditure to mandate?

Bob Johnson

-


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 to >

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html


Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities
site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/
 can be used for graphics
(in well-used formats), large files, etc.

Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to
unsubscribe) 
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html


For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas >
Mike Cantwell >

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher >
David Heald >


-


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 to mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org>>


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html


Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities 
site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for 
graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc.


Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)

List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org>>
Mike Cantwell mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org>>

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org>>
David Heald mailto:dhe...@gmail.com>>



--
The PDP-11 is 45 years old.


-

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 to 

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] Carbon Monoxide - Death Value

[John Woodgate]

Lowering all windows could distract the driver, especially in bad weather. 
Sound the horn and lower one window should be enough.
 
With best wishes DESIGN IT IN! OOO – Own Opinions Only
  www.jmwa.demon.co.uk J M Woodgate and 
Associates Rayleigh England
 
Sylvae in aeternum manent.
 
From: Nyffenegger, Dave [mailto:dave.nyffeneg...@bhemail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2017 7:50 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Carbon Monoxide - Death Value
 
Shutting down automatically while driving would not be good.  Just lower all 
the windows automatically.
 

-

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 to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] Carbon Monoxide - Death Value

[Nyffenegger, Dave]

Shutting down automatically while driving would not be good.  Just lower all 
the windows automatically.

From: IBM Ken [mailto:ibm...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2017 2:38 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Carbon Monoxide - Death Value

Hi Bob- do you know what percentage of the 300 are accidental vs intentional?

Maybe instead of just alerting, the car should shut down upon reaching some 
measured CO limit.

On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 2:29 PM, Robert Johnson 
mailto:john...@itesafety.com>> wrote:

In the US we sell about 15 million cars/yr and have about 300 deaths/yr from 
automotive carbon monoxide. Since DC power is available, the horn is available, 
packaging is not needed, installation can be integrated in the auto 
manufacturing, I estimate an auto CO detector would cost below $10/car, about 
what a household one does.

It would cost $500,000/death to install CO detectors in cars. Is this a 
reasonable expenditure to mandate?

Bob Johnson
-


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 to 
>

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas >
Mike Cantwell >

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher >
David Heald >

-


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 to 
mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org>>

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org>>
Mike Cantwell mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org>>

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org>>
David Heald mailto:dhe...@gmail.com>>

-

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 to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] Carbon Monoxide - Death Value

[IBM Ken]

Hi Bob- do you know what percentage of the 300 are accidental vs
intentional?

Maybe instead of just alerting, the car should shut down upon reaching some
measured CO limit.

On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 2:29 PM, Robert Johnson 
wrote:

> In the US we sell about 15 million cars/yr and have about 300 deaths/yr
> from automotive carbon monoxide. Since DC power is available, the horn is
> available, packaging is not needed, installation can be integrated in the
> auto manufacturing, I estimate an auto CO detector would cost below
> $10/car, about what a household one does.
>
> It would cost $500,000/death to install CO detectors in cars. Is this a
> reasonable expenditure to mandate?
>
> Bob Johnson
> -
> 
>
> 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 to <
> emc-p...@ieee.org>
>
> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
> http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
>
> Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at
> http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in
> well-used formats), large files, etc.
>
> Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
> Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to
> unsubscribe) 
> List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
>
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
> Scott Douglas 
> Mike Cantwell 
>
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Jim Bacher 
> David Heald 
>

-

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 to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

[PSES] Carbon Monoxide - Death Value

[Robert Johnson]

In the US we sell about 15 million cars/yr and have about 300 deaths/yr 
from automotive carbon monoxide. Since DC power is available, the horn 
is available, packaging is not needed, installation can be integrated in 
the auto manufacturing, I estimate an auto CO detector would cost below 
$10/car, about what a household one does.


It would cost $500,000/death to install CO detectors in cars. Is this a 
reasonable expenditure to mandate?


Bob Johnson


-

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 to 

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] Questions on GFCI & GFEP

[Nyffenegger, Dave]

The current GFCI standards now require automatic built in self-test since it’s 
likely the majority of the older ones were not being manually tested.  I don’t 
know about GFEP.
From: Mike Sherman - Original Message - [mailto:msherma...@comcast.net]
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2017 11:09 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Questions on GFCI & GFEP

Another thing: these are typically "shunt trip" products, which leads to 
periodic testing to verify that they are still functional.

Sent from Xfinity Connect Mobile App

-- Original Message --

From: Vincent Lee
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Sent: February 15, 2017 at 8:49 PM
Subject: [PSES] Questions on GFCI & GFEP

Hi all,

Good evening,

May I know what are the difference between Ground Fault Current Interrupter 
(GFCI) and Ground Fault Equipment Protector (GFEP) in terms of safety features 
(e.g. response time, trip current), usage and operation principle?

What are the common industry standards for GFCI and GFEP ?

Is there any requirement to maintain, calibrate and check for operation for 
GFCI and GFEP?

Hope to hear from you soon. Thank you very much.

Vincent

-


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 to 
>

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas >
Mike Cantwell >

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher >
David Heald >
-


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 to 
mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org>>

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org>>
Mike Cantwell mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org>>

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org>>
David Heald mailto:dhe...@gmail.com>>

-

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 to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] Test voltage for electric strength test in EN 60335-1

[John Woodgate]

Are they not defined clearly in Clause 3?
 
With best wishes DESIGN IT IN! OOO – Own Opinions Only
  www.jmwa.demon.co.uk J M Woodgate and 
Associates Rayleigh England
 
Sylvae in aeternum manent.
 
From: Scott Xe [mailto:scott...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2017 4:51 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Test voltage for electric strength test in EN 60335-1
 
In clause 13.3 and 16.3 electric strength tests, there are two columns of test 
voltages: rated voltage and working voltage.  What are the differences?
 
Thanks,
 
Scott
-

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 to 
mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org> >
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.
Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) 
 
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html 
For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org> >
Mike Cantwell mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org> > 
For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org> >
David Heald mailto:dhe...@gmail.com> > 

-

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 to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

[PSES] Test voltage for electric strength test in EN 60335-1

[Scott Xe]

In clause 13.3 and 16.3 electric strength tests, there are two columns of test 
voltages: rated voltage and working voltage.  What are the differences?

 

Thanks,

 

Scott


-

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 to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] Questions on RCB, RCCB and ELCBs

[Scott Aldous]

Hi Vincent,

Here

is a technical guide from ABB that you may find helpful. With regard to the
30mA trip level for an RCD, the paper refers to IEC 60479-1 and reproduces
a Figure from that standard on page 2 relating effects on the body from
exposure to ac currents (15 Hz to 100 Hz) with different durations. I don't
believe the paper explains this, but this graph is specific to a left hand
to feet current path through the body. The version of the standard that I
have actually has a figure that is slightly different from the ABB paper,
FYI.

The paper seems to indicate that the 30mA level was chosen since it marks
the delineation between regions made by the c1 curve. Referring to the
table on the next page (the table from the standard has more information),
although below that current level let-go can occur it does not mention
danger of ventricular fibrillation. If the assumption regarding the reason
for this choice is correct, it appears that the IEC chose ventricular
fibrillation as the major consideration, likely also considering that 30mA
is still within zone 2 (AC-2 in the standard) for durations up to about
200ms and that people will generally react to move away from contact. As
John mentions, likelihood of nuisance tripping was also surely taken into
account when choosing this level. It appears that the UL standard focused
on prevention of effects at a less severe level. Note that 5mA is always
within zone 2 (AC-2) regardless of duration.

That being said, I am not familiar with the history of the development of
the relevant standards. If there are folks on this forum who are, I would
love to see a more accurate or more detailed explanation.

On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 12:49 AM, John Woodgate 
wrote:

> 1. That's a really big question and the really big answer is too big for a
> mailing list. Search on the web for descriptions and/or comparisons.
>
>
>
> 2. The IEC standard is an international agreement. I suppose the GFCI is a
> US-only (or NA-only) specification. Fault currents are obviously half with
> 120 V supplies versus 230 V supplies. At 230 V, 5 mA would cause nuisance
> tripping and problems with protective conductor currents due to capacitance
> from L to PEC.
>
>
>
> 3. ELCBs required a PEC connection, so if the PEC is broken, the
> protection does not work. RCCBs detect the difference between L and N
> currents and do not use a PEC connection.
>
>
>
> With best wishes DESIGN IT IN! OOO – Own Opinions Only
>
> www.jmwa.demon.co.uk J M Woodgate and Associates Rayleigh England
>
>
>
> Sylvae in aeternum manent.
>
>
>
> *From:* Vincent Lee [mailto:08e6c8d35910-dmarc-requ...@ieee.org]
> *Sent:* Thursday, February 16, 2017 3:04 AM
> *To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> *Subject:* [PSES] Questions on RCB, RCCB and ELCBs
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi all,
>
>
>
> I am Vincent, newbies in Product Safety. Hence, I sincerely hope to seek
> your professional answers to my following questions,
>
>
>
> 1) What are the major differences between RCB, RCCB, GFCI and GFEP ?
>
>
>
> 2) If the human-let-go-current-threshold is about 10mA, why does IEC 61008
> RCCBs used in Household being specified at 30mA trip current while GFCI
> used in Household are specified at 5mA (+/- 1mA) ?
>
>
>
> 3) I heard that Residual Current Circuit Breaker are replacing Electrical
> Leakage Circuit Breaker, in what ways are RCCB better than ELCB for
> electrical safety protection that causes ELCB being replaced?
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Vincent
>
> -
> 
>
> 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 to <
> emc-p...@ieee.org>
>
> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
> http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
>
> Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at
> http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in
> well-used formats), large files, etc.
>
> Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
> Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to
> unsubscribe) 
> List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
>
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
> Scott Douglas 
> Mike Cantwell 
>
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Jim Bacher 
> David Heald 
> -
> 
>
> 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 to <
> emc-p...@ieee.org>
>
> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
> http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
>
> Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at
> http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in
> well-used formats)

Re: [PSES] Questions on GFCI & GFEP

[Mike Sherman ----- Original Message -----]

Another thing: these are typically "shunt trip" products, which leads to periodic testing to verify that they are still functional. Sent from Xfinity Connect Mobile App-- Original Message --From: Vincent LeeTo: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORGSent: February 15, 2017 at 8:49 PMSubject: [PSES] Questions on GFCI & GFEPHi all,Good evening,May I know what are the difference between Ground Fault Current Interrupter (GFCI) and Ground Fault Equipment Protector (GFEP) in terms of safety features (e.g. response time, trip current), usage and operation principle?What are the common industry standards for GFCI and GFEP ?Is there any requirement to maintain, calibrate and check for operation for GFCI and GFEP?Hope to hear from you soon. Thank you very much.Vincent 
-

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 to 

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc.


Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher  
David Heald 

-

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 to 

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc.


Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher  
David Heald 

Re: [PSES] Questions on GFCI & GFEP

[Mike Sherman ----- Original Message -----]

In North America, UL 943 covers GFCIs, which trip somewhere in the 4-6 mA range. UL 1053 covers GFEPs, which are not for personnel protection and can have much higher trip settings. Mike ShermanGraco Inc. Sent from Xfinity Connect Mobile App-- Original Message --From: Vincent LeeTo: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORGSent: February 15, 2017 at 8:49 PMSubject: [PSES] Questions on GFCI & GFEPHi all,Good evening,May I know what are the difference between Ground Fault Current Interrupter (GFCI) and Ground Fault Equipment Protector (GFEP) in terms of safety features (e.g. response time, trip current), usage and operation principle?What are the common industry standards for GFCI and GFEP ?Is there any requirement to maintain, calibrate and check for operation for GFCI and GFEP?Hope to hear from you soon. Thank you very much.Vincent 
-

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 to 

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc.


Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher  
David Heald 

-

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 to 

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc.


Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher  
David Heald 

Re: [PSES] Questions on RCB, RCCB and ELCBs

[John Woodgate]

1. That's a really big question and the really big answer is too big for a 
mailing list. Search on the web for descriptions and/or comparisons.
 
2. The IEC standard is an international agreement. I suppose the GFCI is a 
US-only (or NA-only) specification. Fault currents are obviously half with 120 
V supplies versus 230 V supplies. At 230 V, 5 mA would cause nuisance tripping 
and problems with protective conductor currents due to capacitance from L to 
PEC.
 
3. ELCBs required a PEC connection, so if the PEC is broken, the protection 
does not work. RCCBs detect the difference between L and N currents and do not 
use a PEC connection.
 
With best wishes DESIGN IT IN! OOO – Own Opinions Only
  www.jmwa.demon.co.uk J M Woodgate and 
Associates Rayleigh England
 
Sylvae in aeternum manent.
 
From: Vincent Lee [mailto:08e6c8d35910-dmarc-requ...@ieee.org] 
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2017 3:04 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Questions on RCB, RCCB and ELCBs
 
 
Hi all,
 
I am Vincent, newbies in Product Safety. Hence, I sincerely hope to seek your 
professional answers to my following questions,
 
1) What are the major differences between RCB, RCCB, GFCI and GFEP ?
 
2) If the human-let-go-current-threshold is about 10mA, why does IEC 61008 
RCCBs used in Household being specified at 30mA trip current while GFCI used in 
Household are specified at 5mA (+/- 1mA) ? 
 
3) I heard that Residual Current Circuit Breaker are replacing Electrical 
Leakage Circuit Breaker, in what ways are RCCB better than ELCB for electrical 
safety protection that causes ELCB being replaced?
 
Regards, 
Vincent
-

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 to 
mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org> >
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.
Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) 
 
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html 
For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org> >
Mike Cantwell mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org> > 
For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org> >
David Heald mailto:dhe...@gmail.com> > 

-

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 to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: