安规网

标题: 关于TOASTER的结构疑问， [打印本页]
作者: fytang    时间: 2010-9-1 10:30
标题: 关于TOASTER的结构疑问，
TUV 认为这两个触点是当加强绝缘来考虑，理由是其中一触点连到发热丝，而发热丝是可触及的， 我们的解释是：
4 V; f" ]1 \( i1 j目前现有的触点架结构还不能满足3.0mm的电气间隙，工艺部已经在安排新开了1套触点架的模具，将触点架凸轮加胶，改善间隙问题，现开模正在进行中，计划在XX月XX日可以完成。电源板铜铂之间的爬电距离在开关标准EN 61058部份要求及参考Annex H,对触头间距离,需按”功能绝缘”考虑,爬电距离≥3.2mm.即可，因此3.5mm是符合要求的，因此暂不作更改。 而且这个结构是过了LVD的，我们都有TUV的证书，另一间TUV。
/ |' u, q/ U  c+ E/ W至于报告，请看附件，希望高手指点，到底哪个观点对？
作者: fytang    时间: 2010-9-1 10:39
自己顶一下，问题的关键是这两点之间是按功能绝缘还是按加强绝缘来考虑呢，两间TUV的看法不一样。
作者: clj513    时间: 2010-9-1 12:17
很明显这是一个“功能绝缘”。不知道你说的另一家‘TUV“是哪一家？你找到原来的TUV跟那家去说去。我认为这是一个明显的误判，常规测试的手指是不适用于多士炉的发热丝的，发热丝需要用测试栓（很大的那种）来考量是否可触及,而且标准里已经明确说明发热线是带电体：8.1.3，“......to live parts of visibly glowing heating elemetns”
作者: fytang    时间: 2010-9-1 13:15
做8.1.3时的确是用大测试栓做的，而且是PASS，而回到这点时又说发热丝可触及，是自相矛盾啊。
作者: ahead    时间: 2010-9-1 13:58
按照功能绝缘判定
作者: SMHF    时间: 2010-9-1 16:14
不熟悉这类产品进来学习学习
作者: leoliang    时间: 2010-9-1 16:16
普遍是按功能绝缘来判,但我也觉得TUV按加强绝缘也有道理..
作者: 阿达    时间: 2010-9-1 21:21
学习学习
作者: fytang    时间: 2010-9-2 11:04
道理是有点的，就是关机时手如果碰到发热丝会不安全的。 但标准好像找不出支持这点的吧，必竞8.1.3才是判定是否可接触的依据。
作者: nellhu    时间: 2010-9-2 14:13
1。 正常来说，发热丝应当不属于可碰到部件（用test probe 41).
. i' s3 J5 I2 F2.    如果满足1），则只需要满足function insulation的要求即可。
" w$ ~+ C% d. m" i; W) q3。如果test probe 41可以接触到发热丝, 那就带电部件是可以触及，当然不可以。但是绝缘的要求还是按照function insulation考虑。2 o; _+ i9 o8 R' [6 q6 @& H6 {* z
% I! \! {  u# y0 l0 B1 r
    至于这样的报告，你完全可以质疑！
作者: fytang    时间: 2010-9-2 15:48
这是最新的TUV回复，+ h/ k) y' W% u# h. r( i+ O$ D
Reinforced insulation was required when switch was at OFF position. 8 K- N2 e  z3 d/ W
Although the test finger is not applicable for visibly glowing heating element according to clause 8.1.3, but when the switch was placed at OFF position, the end user is possible to touch bare heating element due to heating element not glowing and heating, so the bare heating element should be considered as accessible parts and must satisfy with requirements of reinforced insulation of clause 29. The test finger is applicable in clause 29.
  o9 E) t7 {0 p! M4 }我的理由是，
2 Q1 [- C  k) c% T3 z; rBut I think whether this sample can pass Cl. 29 or not depends on how you define the creepage requirement.  If we judge it as functional insulation then it will pass Cl. 29   .   and 8.1.3 give us a reference regarding how to judge those heating element whether accessible or not .  hence according to 8.1.3 , we should judge this part is inaccessible not matter it’s in the on-mode or off mode .
作者: leoliang    时间: 2010-9-2 16:43
引用第10楼fytang于2010-09-02 15:48发表的  :
5 \* t  i* x! M; j$ W4 |这是最新的TUV回复，7 B7 v) k! s- J) E2 J" Y" C
Reinforced insulation was required when switch was at OFF position. + T# m5 S2 e6 I* K
Although the test finger is not applicable for visibly glowing heating element according to clause 8.1.3, but when the switch was placed at OFF position, the end user is possible to touch bare heating element due to heating element not glowing and heating, so the bare heating element should be considered as accessible parts and must satisfy with requirements of reinforced insulation of clause 29. The test finger is applicable in clause 29.* l3 o2 }5 ?( d% D3 W$ r
我的理由是，0 M& `3 b2 F1 x/ S
But I think whether this sample can pass Cl. 29 or not depends on how you define the creepage requirement.  If we judge it as functional insulation then it will pass Cl. 29   .   and 8.1.3 give us a reference regarding how to judge those heating element whether accessible or not .  hence according to 8.1.3 , we should judge this part is inaccessible not matter it’s in the on-mode or off mode .
我完全支持TUV 的观点, 我的理解也跟他一样,这也是我前面说他有道理的原因.
作者: nellhu    时间: 2010-9-2 16:44
引用第10楼fytang于2010-09-02 15:48发表的  :; A2 Z2 Z( S6 R% _  i# ?/ @1 E
这是最新的TUV回复，
; D5 I$ l% d! k" ?6 a: T/ ~ Reinforced insulation was required when switch was at OFF position.
) ^; Y" T5 N" A$ F+ y7 s# v1 P6 G7 [. ~Although the test finger is not applicable for visibly glowing heating element according to clause 8.1.3, but when the switch was placed at OFF position, the end user is possible to touch bare heating element due to heating element not glowing and heating, so the bare heating element should be considered as accessible parts and must satisfy with requirements of reinforced insulation of clause 29. The test finger is applicable in clause 29.
; P& Q) f+ c. z5 P( l- Q我的理由是，
+ x8 }/ x2 l) B/ N) d+ C+ D2 `But I think whether this sample can pass Cl. 29 or not depends on how you define the creepage requirement.  If we judge it as functional insulation then it will pass Cl. 29   .   and 8.1.3 give us a reference regarding how to judge those heating element whether accessible or not .  hence according to 8.1.3 , we should judge this part is inaccessible not matter it’s in the on-mode or off mode .
  t( }+ F4 i4 [' ~" d/ j7 C& T" F1 `
1。The heating element is not live parts at off mode, even the user may touch the heating wire, it is no danagerous2 ~: q2 i; E0 i: ?3 X

% A5 w6 i( V+ y  @% a# k2. . second, from the std, it never require to use finger to replace test probe 41 at any condition.- D, V% k5 ~6 F' x2 p! N+ \
$ h) f8 `( |! z2 z7 _& _1 V
3. another possible solution to you: Find a report which is issued by them, I believe they will hit their face themselves as far as I know, al switch in Toaster like yours.
作者: GloriaFeng    时间: 2010-9-2 17:15
Agree with the upstair. Whether the switch is "ON"or"OFF", the heating element need not test by 1 d9 |: t1 [! R4 e
probe 41.
作者: 上水白龙    时间: 2010-9-2 17:26
我也碰到过类似同一间机构的不同分支（如GZ的SZ）的判定标准不一致，最后都是按后面这一家要求整改的。因为标准其实很笼统，不同的工程师可以有不同的解读。但对于这些安全性问题，到了客人那里往往都是认同认证机构的意见的。很无奈！
作者: hmangel26    时间: 2010-9-2 21:45
这是最新的TUV回复，
3 Z9 @8 ^* V. \6 {2 Z3 F! P( UReinforced insulation was required when switch was at OFF position.
/ J3 c- n( p0 A0 s: b: yAlthough the test finger is not applicable for visibly glowing heating element according to clause 8.1.3, but when the switch was placed at OFF position, the end user is possible to touch bare heating element due to heating element not glowing and heating, so the bare heating element should be considered as accessible parts and must satisfy with requirements of reinforced insulation of clause 29. The test finger is applicable in clause 29.8 B3 R" H3 p2 ^0 W

0 e( j9 y% L/ ?8 x( o) a0 @3 y首先，按照功能绝缘的定义335－1中3.3.5 insulation between conductive parts of different potential which is necessary only for the proper functioning of the appliance，判断，两触点之间并没有电势差，所以这不是功能绝缘，按加强绝缘判是没有疑问的。
/ w( }# t7 A# m6 U. g5 V9 o3 _1 Z其次，发热丝如果不是visibly glowing heating element 而且可以碰到的话，那么需要用测试指来考核它的防触电，这样的话，防触电是肯定过不了的，所以只有两个结果：
0 u" y" S# t% V' d2 _1: 防触电过不了
7 I8 }! o6 C% T8 x$ R% @( \2: 工程师误判（原因：完全可以把触点看作是导通的，但是正常和非正常测试都已经pass了，也就证明了该产品符合温升及防触电等要求，而且这个只是电子控制的开关，应该还有机械开关控制着主电路吧）
作者: ahead    时间: 2010-9-3 10:29
其实换个角度想下, 如果不是这种开关, 换成普通的有认证的开关呢?是不是也不可以用?这似乎没有道理吧, 但是有认证的开关也就满足61058的标准, 并不满足加强绝缘的说法啊
' H" d8 U2 ~5 S9 p+ P当然了 这个是GS, 发证机构是可以有解释的, 毕竟GS的判定不单单是标准 还有那个GPSG也是要考虑的
作者: nellhu    时间: 2010-9-3 10:45
Pls check definition of "visibly glowing heating element ", we cna not define it as "visibly glowing heating element"when it is operated, but define it is not when it is off.
) Z  x9 n* a% c4 q. H1 E- ]; Z5 I0 T6 N) J& \4 c
visibly glowing heating element
9 z; f& L' k, ]( Z) iheating element that is partly or completely visible from the outside of the appliance and has, P" {( m1 y8 |' g# P/ I" K7 p8 V- @
a temperature of at least 650 °C when the appliance has been operated under normal
; d8 u: [7 y& xoperation at rated power input until steady conditions have been established.
作者: fytang    时间: 2010-9-3 15:42
我的回复，' {/ H& D6 H9 P5 O6 G5 P  u4 f
However , I checked clause 29 ,in clause 29  no explanation is given regarding how to define accessible part .  there is no sentence to say use test finger to replace test probe 41 to define the accessible part . test finger in clause 29 only used for reduce the clearance on accessible part. ! {# r2 s2 Z, _' _
Can we think this through on this way .  we premise reinforced insulation on here have to be followed .    if I only use some standard switch certified by EN61058 instead of current mechanical switch plus PCB To operate this machine , that means it violate standard .   I　don’t think so .  
. N( L1 \. a% RTUV 的回复
& |0 ]( M0 j) w0 v, _  I think our bifurcation is whether the heating element is live part or not.4 @) r; q! _: |# b; ]5 m
According to Cl.3.6.3:" H: {3 q& F6 F9 V% m& p) Y. z4 _
accessible part
& f; o  Q# w" D  Ppart or surface that can be touched by means of test probe B of IEC 61032, and if the part or
& @/ _  n% j7 Ksurface is metal, any conductive part connected to it
& q% M5 r& v3 n$ ]; w4 ?2 s3 l' Maccessible part should be defined by “test probe B”. Therefore, the heating element is accessible part
作者: nellhu    时间: 2010-9-6 10:17
我始终觉得TUV在不停的偷换概念。) ^, ^. [; l% }  k7 t$ \# Z5 S
1。 测试手指：probe B or Probe 41:' Y5 }- Y. _& D$ P

" r2 ?/ d2 ]: ?according to -2-9:$ |. G# f6 r1 Y, Z
8.1.1 Addition:% \& L2 s; Z6 x( \8 ?
For toasters having a crumb tray, the test finger is not applied through the crumb-tray  X+ L  w' D, n' _0 V8 L
opening to live parts that are disconnected by the operation of a double pole switch.
6 a+ O* b7 T, ~5 a+ N: C# u) UHowever, it shall not be possible to touch these parts with test probe 41 of IEC 61032.% K# Q2 u. q8 w: p  W2 J' O

  X3 t8 P9 Q% d( [3 d- d% m- k* ]so we shall use test probe 41 to see if it can touch live parts(i.e. heating element)
* _: `6 ?/ ?4 m) C& J3 O/ H0 s, T. F- r) S. |; ]
2. live parts/accessible parts:( w; x  g* u3 J: }

& @! Z0 H9 w; h/ e; ]7 YHeating element is live part  parts, and it can not be considered as "accessible parts" as we don't use probe B in 8.1.3. i.e. the definition of "accessible part" is no applicable for Toaster.+ p$ c$ Q9 m  a4 d2 O0 s3 f

, Q4 q1 g* l- C3 x3. visibly glowing heating element:. W- ?+ h* L  n4 K1 t. x
1 K, z5 U% j! b$ v, E3 h! K
as I said before, heating element is "visibly glowing heating element"  whether the toaster is on or off. and it never require to use test probe B to verify.
# P4 E* g$ l! ~  N/ h0 g  {. [. s9 Y* N; J

' Q; o$ {, \+ w! x& P" c. zI think the key point is: TUV use test probe B, however it is not allowed for Toaster in this construction.
作者: lsysz    时间: 2011-9-1 17:58
这个帖子太好了，学习了很多。楼主，最后的结果怎么样？
作者: ahead    时间: 2011-9-1 20:42
貌似这个问题之前也有提到, 是有1家TUV将off position的时候不将和heating element 不作为可见灼热进行判定, L/N之间似乎是应该满足加强绝缘的要求, 但是按照这个去考核的机构据我所知是很少的, 一般都只要求满足功能绝缘即可
0 V# L* K2 v$ K. K" p4 J但是从安全角度和安规角度出发 我还是支持这一条的 因为标准要求吐司机一般开关都是全级断开的 所以应该也是从这个角度进行考虑的
作者: naja    时间: 2011-9-2 10:39
看了大家的讨论，经过思量，觉得这里面有些意思的地方。! z/ @6 a+ {$ M. h2 Z7 N( q& v

6 v* W6 J& k- s8 r4 V) A4 q1.  是否visibly glowing heating element?
4 Z( G7 L7 y0 u( z! s; o! f% ]2 yA:  “是不是element” 与 ”通电否” 无关！“通电时”或”不通电时”是状态，”是不是element” 是定义。
8 B2 G& E7 Y. M3 r" a1 N    如果我说一个翅膀展开长度超过2米的人是鸟人，那么是不是说这个鸟人收起翅膀时就不是鸟人了呢？! B; h4 L: }: ~
    因此，问题中，工程师不该用test probe B。
9 t0 ^& C9 I' Q: b  i+ p4 _/ c" ?) L" K4 `. Y* a  \. u
2.  两个触点间的绝缘要满足？
$ B- ]6 O, i: C4 C1 SA：从开关结构来说，是功能绝缘。但从产品防触电要求来说，是基本绝缘！
% h( N3 M: K' N8 _2 A因此, 断电时, 该触点到发热丝的整个部分，与test probe B能触及的地方(发热丝除外)要求是附加绝缘。, P& D6 |7 C! _9 X6 o, b
（PS：报告说要求5mm, 莫非是Pollution degree 2?, 因为按3的话,该基本绝缘还是达不到4mm的要求）
作者: lsysz    时间: 2011-9-2 13:25
楼上到底是同意楼主的功能绝缘，还是TUV的加强绝缘？看的有点糊涂。
作者: 山炮    时间: 2011-9-3 19:28
先顶起来，有趣，这开关成了加强绝缘。不知开关的认证报告中怎么显示出来其触点分开后符合加强绝缘要求。我相信标准中只会要求不得使用小间隙或微间隙触点开距的要求。
作者: lsysz    时间: 2011-9-5 18:08
有意思，再顶一下！
作者: seekyou    时间: 2011-9-5 21:31
我同意这家TUV的判定。
5 }) O( b# i. H' {' N$ r5 t对于Toaster来说，发热丝既是 visibly glowing heating element ，又是accessible part。当做visibly glowing heating element来看的时候需要满足8.1.3，当做accessible part的时候需要满足29章的要求，这两者之间并没有冲突。6 P# t. N* q4 }1 s% V3 x4 }6 w! x

; I3 J$ \/ T# e' Y+ [
, h* v4 H* A$ ]3 j- l所以，触头间的距离要以加强绝缘来判断，而不是功能绝缘。
作者: nellhu    时间: 2011-9-14 18:06
其实我也很想知道最后的结果是怎样的。# E6 n$ F! |. _
还有一点关于visibly glowing heating element的定义要求温度在650deg,C上，但是目前我调查的很多很多toaster的发热线根本远远低于这个温度--
作者: 往事如烟    时间: 2011-9-14 21:07
用全极开关来控制是没有问题，用电子开关会考虑上述的绝缘等级。具体要看周围的防触电保护。
作者: alvistan    时间: 2011-9-14 22:33
应该注意可见灼热发热丝的定义中有两个关键词: VISIBLY和GLOWING, 只有当HEATING ELEMENT具备这两个必要条件的时候,7 }2 q8 q! b  m/ N( R# H1 m0 F2 v! z) K
PROBE41才适用, 但是如果HEATING ELEMENT 失去这两个条件后, 就不再叫可见灼热发热丝, 因此这时候PROBE41不再适用,因该用PROBE B, 所以我认为TOASTER的发热丝在SWITCH ON的时候可叫visibly glowing heating element , 但在SWITCH OFF的时候, 就只能叫 heating element .
: x- P* Q" O; V4 t& b& \所以我比较赞同TUV的要求.
作者: lsysz    时间: 2011-9-15 09:07
查了一下标准，关于可见发光电热元件，只要满足“可见”和“在器具运行时温度至少650度”即可。
0 `' K# ?' D; }* `3.8.3 visibly glowing heating element+ J  [: k' q  \$ f
heating element that is partly or completely visible from the outside of the appliance and has a temperature of at least 650 C when the appliance has been operated under normal operation at rated power input until steady conditions have been established.; R4 x- W6 I8 {/ i2 N1 a! }

1 S$ e. Y7 ]: @( ?不知哪位大侠有实际测试过toaster的heating element的温度？是否超过650度？如果是，那么即可判定为visibly glowing heating element.
作者: naja    时间: 2011-9-16 10:25
引用第23楼lsysz于2011-09-02 13:25发表的  :
3 B5 \. G3 J0 E2 A; f楼上到底是同意楼主的功能绝缘，还是TUV的加强绝缘？看的有点糊涂。
) B5 |! B5 W6 Y" ~
楼主好像还没公告最终结果哦，估计可能是妥协了。! C" ~5 l# k. x

6 e+ p3 E( a& L2 X( Z% c7 ~总结一下：楼主的问题首先是 "visibly glowing heating element"
  d5 z" o$ a- C" w: e" n8 i' W大部分朋友的意见是认同，估计除非TUV出杀手锏，测试出发热丝没有 650C，否则一定要力拼到底，从而要求不能使用 Probe B.
; P/ X$ G0 f  ~" k) P7 u3 f% p! C; y5 I/ k9 O
然后，是我的观点：8 z/ T' J+ C+ t$ e1 O- V  ]3 z# z2 s
在发热丝不能用 Probe 41 触及的情况下，开关触点位置可以用基本绝缘判定，然后发热丝与可触及地方用附加绝缘判定。



欢迎光临 安规网 (http://bbs.angui.org/) Powered by Discuz! X3.2