|
|
本帖最后由 ylgc123 于 2018-7-28 10:53 编辑 1 x! z% O( j* n# h& G1 Y! M
# X" u0 ^, r7 U, ]5 h今年提了24.101的问题，去年会议，还要今年的会议，都提到了这个问题。
8 h5 T1 c0 {& H/ Q4 a去年的时候拿了一个养生壶做案例，文件里面 L端自复位+非自复位、N端非自复位（3个保护装置）。
1 j2 z9 O* h, [6 U, a# p6 u1 [当时回来后大家就又开始争论，因为很多产品是L端自复位、N端非自复位（2个保护装置）；3 O9 [4 Z! z3 T3 C5 R5 Q; E2 m
今年会议讨论后的结果是带有自复位的，自复位失效的情况下进行19.4吧，3 A+ l8 X% ^2 R9 m
7 ?$ ]$ c& k/ |- ]) `; J4 QSo instead of the Note proposed by China we propose that the following text be added to the test specification of 24.101. " H; x, L" w4 ^# U7 ^
If appliances, other than fixed water boilers incorporating self-resetting thermal cut-outs that have been subjected to 10 000 cycles of operation and kettles, incorporate self-resetting thermal cut-outs these shall be short-circuited or rendered inoperative for the test of 19.4.
# W+ B/ I) N; ~/ k7 Q3 ^5 R9 O9 A+ b# q# @1 P M# o/ K
另外还提到满足19.5的PEC不认为是保护电子电路，ed2.0中的24.11中所谓加热管两端需要有保护装置被认为是太有针对性，在ed3.0的时候已经被19.5的测试所取代。
5 H/ B( U5 ]3 }6 UIn Part 1 Ed 3 published in 1991 19.5 was introduced to replace 24.11 inPart 1 Ed 2. This second edition clause required to have the protective devicein the opposite leg to the thermostat. It was considered that this was tooprescriptive and hence the test of 19.5 was devised to ensure the sameoutcome. So in our opinion it should bemade clear that for the purposes of 19.5 if the clause 11 control is anelectronic type it is not considered a PEC when it operates to fulfil the 19.5test requirement. If agreed some text should be added to 19.5 of Part 1 statingthe substance of If the clause 11 temperature control is an electronic type itis not considered to be a PEC for the purposes of this test E" S3 O! a' W5 \
|
|
/1 
|关于安规|小黑屋|安规QQ群|Archiver|手机版|安规网
( 粤ICP13023453-10 ) 
窥视卡
雷达卡
发表于 2017-11-18 09:13
显身卡