Bootlace Ferrules

[Engineer54]

Well, ...if all your panels go into Ex Zone 1 hazardous areas, then all terminations should be of the enhanced Ex spring loaded variety, where ferrules/flat spade crimp terminations are as far as i know, compulsory. I don't tend to work with the European EX systems, i am far more conversant with the American hazardous systems, which i use quite regularly...

No-ones having cheap digs, you're the one that wrote the aforementioned post, no-one else, we can only go by what you write/post, we're not mind readers either!! Don't blame me for not assuming you meant to insert an IF, as the rest of your post clearly sounded as if you considered ferrules and the like, as not being necessary and didn't enhance connection security.

 

[44ALLAN]

"No-ones having cheap digs, you're the one that wrote the aforementioned post, no-one else, we can only go by what you write/post, we're not mind readers either!! Don't blame me for not assuming you meant to insert an IF, as the rest of your post clearly sounded as if you considered ferrules and the like, as not being necessary and didn't enhance connection security".

Well try reading all of my posts next time instead of jumping to conclusions mate...........post 32 onwards made it clear what I was talking about .........or did you not read the rest ?

I've been doing installs on Hazardous area stuff for nigh on 40 year and am well aware of the requirements thank you very much.........................still a bloody minefield mind you when your kit is going to different countries with different regs etc!
I tried for 2 hours to explain the concept of 'Increased safety' to a Korean client the other week............nightmare !

 

[Engineer54]

I'm not getting into one here, but you only cleared things up After my comments, (Post 32 clears nothing up) so it's nothing to do with reading all your posts as you put it, as i can't read what hasn't been posted up to that time!! Oh and if you look again at my post 41, you'll see a lol!! and a :smiley2: at the end of the post!!!


As for Korean's, been working with them for more years (off & on) than i care to remember. The only time you ''Know'' that they have understood something you are telling them, is when you see a big smile (or frown) and a long Ahhhhhhhh, that sounds more like a Orrrrrrrrrrr!!. That's when you know the penny has finally dropped!!

 

[44ALLAN]

Fair enough no probs here.

Must admit when trying to explain stuff to Korean/foreign clients I shouldn't complain when they can't grasp what I'm telling them.

I mean.........explaining the difference between EXd and EXe to a Korean in a broad Geordie accent lol.
Poor guy has no chance :confused5:

 

[Engineer54]

Fair enough no probs here.

Must admit when trying to explain stuff to Korean/foreign clients I shouldn't complain when they can't grasp what I'm telling them.

I mean.........explaining the difference between EXd and EXe to a Korean in a broad Geordie accent lol.
Poor guy has no chance :confused5:

I'm pretty sure the Koreans will be using the Americain NFPA 70 (NEC Code) etc, which categorize hazardous areas into Class/Divisions/Groups, and can be quite different to the European Ex system, as in what measures of protection etc is required. Not sure if you have worked to the Yank system or not, but have included a rough guide as to how such areas would be categorized...

North American hazardous locations classification in classes, divisions and groups

In general hazardous locations in North America are separated by classes, divisions, and groups to define the level of safety required for equipment installed in these locations.

Classes

The classes defines the general nature of hazardous material in the surrounding atmosphere.

Class	Hazardous Material in Surrounding Atmosphere
Class I	Hazardous because flammable gases or vapors are present in the air in quantities sufficient to produce explosive or ignitable mixtures.
Class II	Hazardous because combustible or conductive dusts are present.
Class III	Hazardous because ignitable fibers or flyings are present, but not likely to be in suspension in sufficient quantities to produce ignitable mixtures. Typical wood chips, cotton, flax and nylon. Group classifications are not applied to this class.

Divisions

The division defines the probability of hazardous material being present in an ignitable concentration in the surrounding atmosphere.

Division	Presence of Hazardous Material
Division 1	The substance referred to by class is present during normal conditions.
Division 2	The substance referred to by class is present only in abnormal conditions, such as a container failure or system breakdown.

Groups

The group defines the hazardous material in the surrounding atmosphere.

Group	Hazardous Material in Surrounding Atmosphere.
Group A	Acetylene
Group B	Hydrogen, fuel and combustible process gases containing more than 30% hydrogen by volume or gases of equivalent hazard such as butadiene, ethylene, oxide, propylene oxide and acrolein.
Group C	Carbon monoxide, ether, hydrogen sulfide, morpholine, cyclopropane, ethyl and ethylene or gases of equivalent hazard.
Group D	Gasoline, acetone, ammonia, benzene, butane, cyclopropane, ethanol, hexane, methanol, methane, vinyl chloride, natural gas, naphtha, propane or gases of equivalent hazard.
Group E	Combustible metal dusts, including aluminum, magnesium and their commercial alloys or other combustible dusts whose particle size, abrasiveness and conductivity present similar hazards in connection with electrical equipment.
Group F	Carbonaceous dusts, carbon black, coal black, charcoal, coal or coke dusts that have more than 8% total entrapped volatiles or dusts that have been sensitized by other material so they present an explosion hazard.
Group G	Flour dust, grain dust, flour, starch, sugar, wood, plastic and chemicals.

The specific hazardous materials within each group and their automatic ignition temperatures can be found in Article 500 of the National Electric Code and NFPA 497/ NFPA 70E.
Group A, B, C and D apply to class I locations. Group E, F and G apply to class II locations.


Temperature Code


A mixture of hazardous gases and air may ignite in contact with a hot surface. The condition for ignition depends on several factors as surface area, temperature and concentration of gas.


Equipment approved, receives a temperature code indicating the maximum surface temperature of the equipment.

Temperature Code	Maximum Surface Temperature
[SUP]o[/SUP]F	[SUP]o[/SUP]C
T1	842	450
T2	572	300
T2A	536	280
T2B	500	260
T2C	446	230
T2D	419	215
T3	392	200
T3A	356	180
T3B	329	165
T3C	320	160
T4	275	135
T4A	248	120
T5	212	100
T6	185	85

Equipment that does not exceed a maximum surface temperature of 212 [SUP]o[/SUP]F (104 [SUP]o[/SUP]F ambient temperature) is not required to be marked with a temperature code (NEC).

 

[44ALLAN]

Yup have sent stuff all over the world at one time or another.

I seem to remember one job ( gulf of mexico I think) where they wouldn't accept Intrinsically
safe equipment as they didn't recognize the concept !

Twas a few year back so my memory might be fuddled a bit with the detail lol

 

[Engineer54]

Yup have sent stuff all over the world at one time or another.

I seem to remember one job ( gulf of mexico I think) where they wouldn't accept Intrinsically safe equipment as they didn't recognize the concept !

Twas a few year back so my memory might be fuddled a bit with the detail lol

That's strange, as Intrinsically safe equipment has a UL standard (UL 993) that certainly isn't a million miles away from that recognised in Europe!! Mind there has been revision to UL 993 very recently (2012), so there may have been a conflict, though i doubt it. Anyway as there has always been a Standard related to Intrinsically safe equipment, i can't see how they can state they don't recognise the ''concept''... lol!!

 

[telectrix]

gulf of mexico's the clue. a bunch of texans and wet-backs, collective intelligence below that of your average goldfish.

 

[44ALLAN]

That's strange, as Intrinsically safe equipment has a UL standard (UL 993) that certainly isn't a million miles away from that recognised in Europe!! Mind there has been revision to UL 993 very recently (2012), so there may have been a conflict, though i doubt it. Anyway as there has always been a Standard related to Intrinsically safe equipment, i can't see how they can state they don't recognise the ''concept''... lol!!

Well when saying they didn't recognize the concept it may well have been that their spec on that particular job just wouldn't allow it.................few year back now but can still vaguely remember the hassle it caused at the time.