This discussion is locked.
You cannot post a reply to this discussion. If you have a question start a new discussion

EV CHARGING EQUIPMENT

I am hearing from my network of contractors, that have actually read the new 722, that they have been asking charging equipment manufactures for documentary proof to comply with Note 5 of 722.411.4.


They are getting knocked back for asking or in one case a Declaration that says the particular device complies with BS 7671. I think that is wrong to declare that as BS 7671 is an installation safety standard and not a product standard. I believe that as a minimum the equipment must comply with the Low Voltage Directive and be CE marked. I also believe that manufacturers have to issue a Declaration of Conformity. 


BS 7671 722 has numerous references to the various standards required such as BS EN 61851 that the equipment must comply with. I am thinking it may be illegal to offer the sale of equipment that does not comply with the Low Voltage Directive and is not CE marked?


I am hoping the countries top man of equipment safety standards, Paul Skyrme , sees this post and will come on and give us his expert view?


Has any forum member asked for a Declaration of Conformity from EV charging equipment manufacturers and received one?
Parents
  • I really don't see how these control signals in any reasonable system could cause additional risk Andy. The usual stated reason for type B RCDs is that they detect DC current as faults, rather than preventing AC fault detection by saturating the transformer. That was the reason for my post above, because it suggests that any equipment using a SMPS should have a type B RCD, which is of course foolish, or possibly necessary to comply with the latest regulations.


    I note that Graham K pointed out that changing the design of electric car chargers in the future to class 2 is essentially impossible. Why? I see very little difficulty with most SMPS designs to make them class 2, with the possible exception of EMC, which is somewhat more difficult. All we need is an edict that all cars must be class 2 from next year, and no manufacturer will have any great difficulty complying if they wish to sell any cars. After all these are expensive high tech products with massive development teams available, so adding a bit of insulation cannot be that difficult. In all designs the battery is completely isolated from the mains supply, so the basic separation of systems is already present. Thus the risk becomes very small and car charging very straightforward wherever one plugs in.
Reply
  • I really don't see how these control signals in any reasonable system could cause additional risk Andy. The usual stated reason for type B RCDs is that they detect DC current as faults, rather than preventing AC fault detection by saturating the transformer. That was the reason for my post above, because it suggests that any equipment using a SMPS should have a type B RCD, which is of course foolish, or possibly necessary to comply with the latest regulations.


    I note that Graham K pointed out that changing the design of electric car chargers in the future to class 2 is essentially impossible. Why? I see very little difficulty with most SMPS designs to make them class 2, with the possible exception of EMC, which is somewhat more difficult. All we need is an edict that all cars must be class 2 from next year, and no manufacturer will have any great difficulty complying if they wish to sell any cars. After all these are expensive high tech products with massive development teams available, so adding a bit of insulation cannot be that difficult. In all designs the battery is completely isolated from the mains supply, so the basic separation of systems is already present. Thus the risk becomes very small and car charging very straightforward wherever one plugs in.
Children
No Data