Rules and Guidelines
Want to participate in the discussions? Please read our Community Rules and Guidelines. Need some help? Visit Support and Answers.

  • State Not Answered
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 185 replies
  • Subscribers 34 subscribers
  • Views 29331 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
You may also be interested in
This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

EV CHARGING EQUIPMENT

John Peckham
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
  • 0

    The separation has to be between the separate TT installation earth electrode, and any buried uninsulated metalwork connected to the PME earthing system.



    In the spirit of debate still, why does a TT system (or voltage monitoring electrode for a 'unicorn' device) have to be separate from the influence of a PME system? Someone touching the car isn't going to be standing on some theoretically perfect 0V plane, they're going to be stood on the same ground the car is standing on (or at least within a 1m or so of it). So if there are a few tens of volts from a PME system (or from any other source) under the car, surely it's better for the EVSE c.p.c. to be at that same voltage or at least as close as we can make - so we're minimising the voltage difference between the car and the ground it's stood on - rather than some perfect 0V which is only represetantive of the ground potential half a mile away. Isn't that the principle of equipotentiality?


    So bang in a rod as close as you can to the (centre of?) the parking space (not hitting buried services notwithstanding) and be done.


       - Andy.
Reply
  • 0

    The separation has to be between the separate TT installation earth electrode, and any buried uninsulated metalwork connected to the PME earthing system.



    In the spirit of debate still, why does a TT system (or voltage monitoring electrode for a 'unicorn' device) have to be separate from the influence of a PME system? Someone touching the car isn't going to be standing on some theoretically perfect 0V plane, they're going to be stood on the same ground the car is standing on (or at least within a 1m or so of it). So if there are a few tens of volts from a PME system (or from any other source) under the car, surely it's better for the EVSE c.p.c. to be at that same voltage or at least as close as we can make - so we're minimising the voltage difference between the car and the ground it's stood on - rather than some perfect 0V which is only represetantive of the ground potential half a mile away. Isn't that the principle of equipotentiality?


    So bang in a rod as close as you can to the (centre of?) the parking space (not hitting buried services notwithstanding) and be done.


       - Andy.
Children
No Data

Community Rules & Guidelines