New cable crossing existing gas pipe - pg18 of on site guide unhelpful

[JohnW2]

There is an IEC definition though: 581-25-02

cabinet free-standing and self-supporting enclosure for housing electrical and/or electronic equipment
Note – A cabinet is usually fitted with doors and/or side panels, which may or may not be removable.

So a brick-built structure with a suitable door would qualify?

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

581-25-02

cabinet

free-standing and self-supporting enclosure for housing electrical and/or electronic equipment
Note – A cabinet is usually fitted with doors and/or side panels, which may or may not be removable.

 

[mrstitt]

That sounds like UL508?

It was EN 60950. The UL standards are useful, and the american's tend to be more practical in their standards. However on this side of the pond its the EN standards that are listed in OJEU.

 

[stillp]

I once spent a fortune (IIRC, $80k) having a series of products tested by UL. Among other mistakes they performed that ball-drop test on small plastic items, 8mm diameter x 50 mm long. In one case they claimed the result was a 1/2" wide x 3" long crack in the product's casing! Almost every product either failed their tests, or they lost the test samples. They might be more practical in some ways, but they're not more intelligent!

Yes, I know about the OJEU. I used to be involved in the listing process.

 

[mrstitt]

I would never go though a formal test process at a notified body unless I'm reasonably satisfied that the product is going to pass. Pre-compliance is always the answer.

I tend to find the technicians at the test houses very useful, Its best to be all ears in those places as at the end of the day a notified body has to act according to their own interpretations of the standards. They will normally give you a few nudges and informal bits of advice that will help you to get through the test.

With regards to electrical safety, most of the tests can be improvised at your own facility for pre-compliance purposes. Hence dropping ball bearings - not rocket science to do the test yourself and re-book your test cell if you know that your going to fail.

 

[stillp]

The problem was that we had no idea which tests UL felt necessary, as they wouldn't tell us until after they'd closed the file. One of their field engineers visited my company (at our expense, plus £700 per part day) to discuss the test results, and agreed that they were wrong. They wouldn't retest though, unless we opened another file and shelled out another huge cheque. So, since UL advise users not to rely on the mark but to check the approval status of the product (online today, but then it was a card index and a catalogue of approved products), I just put the UL file number on a label on the products. Sales shot up, and UL wrote to complain. I replied that I was not using their logos, and by showing the file number, users could see that the product had failed their testing.

I agree about notified bodies, best avoided until absolutely necessary. As you say, the technicians are usually very helpful, but the organisations they work for are usually a bunch of shysters!

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Almost every product either failed their tests, or they lost the test samples.

Even the American ones?

 

[stillp]

Almost every product either failed their tests, or they lost the test samples.

Even the American ones?

That was several years before I started work for a US company BAS. Funnily enough, when I did, I found we had no problems with UL...

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Imagine my surprise.