EN60204 and twin ferrules

I think that it's rather a shame that the standards organisations don't publish (as far as I know) official clarification documentation after the publication of a standard which is (perhaps inevitably) found to be ambiguous, unclear or otherwise in need of clarification. After all, with the best will in the world it's a pretty tall order to make a standards document absolutely bombproof and perfect. Some would argue that the notion of producing a standards document (particularly those of a relatively complex nature like 60204) which does not need any further clarification is a overly ambitious endeavour.

A somewhat different stance seems to be taken by the European Commission in respect of the various EU Directives. Some while ago I obtained a couple of publications published by them: "Useful facts in relation to the Machinery Directive 98/37/EC" (266 pages) and "Comments on Directives 98/37/EC" (269 pages). I know these now relate to a supersede Directive but I assume that updated versions of the documents still exist. Both documents are immensely useful and packed full of explanations, clarifications and lots stuff which assists a mere mortal to become confident that he's done his (or her) compliance job adequately well. Similar documents (which could perhaps grow as clarifications were made) for 60204 would be a immensely useful (especially if they mentioned twin ferrules).

Knowing that the EU documents existed was part of my reason for my original post here. I was hoping that an official standards clarification resource might be offered up by someone.

I think that it's rather a shame that the standards organisations don't publish (as far as I know) official clarification documentation after the publication of a standard which is (perhaps inevitably) found to be ambiguous, unclear or otherwise in need of clarification. After all, with the best will in the world it's a pretty tall order to make a standards document absolutely bombproof and perfect. Some would argue that the notion of producing a standards document (particularly those of a relatively complex nature like 60204) which does not need any further clarification is a overly ambitious endeavour.

A somewhat different stance seems to be taken by the European Commission in respect of the various EU Directives. Some while ago I obtained a couple of publications published by them: "Useful facts in relation to the Machinery Directive 98/37/EC" (266 pages) and "Comments on Directives 98/37/EC" (269 pages). I know these now relate to a supersede Directive but I assume that updated versions of the documents still exist. Both documents are immensely useful and packed full of explanations, clarifications and lots stuff which assists a mere mortal to become confident that he's done his (or her) compliance job adequately well. Similar documents (which could perhaps grow as clarifications were made) for 60204 would be a immensely useful (especially if they mentioned twin ferrules).

Knowing that the EU documents existed was part of my reason for my original post here. I was hoping that an official standards clarification resource might be offered up by someone.

Dave in the shed said:

I think that it's rather a shame that the standards organisations don't publish (as far as I know) official clarification documentation after the publication of a standard which is (perhaps inevitably) found to be ambiguous, unclear or otherwise in need of clarification.

Have a look in BS 0 - that situation would be an Amendment to the standard.

If we feel strongly about that, we can submit a comment to the relevant committee. It's more likely to have something done about it, if you suggest some alternative wording ... or perhaps in this case, two alternative suggestions for the wording, one if the interpretation is only a single wire to the terminal, another if two (or more, with appropriate conductor preparation products) are used.

Thanks for your input gkenyon,

Now the debate seems to be getting really interesting. I'm guessing from your words that you might know a thing or two about the mechanism of getting amendments made to standards, and also that you suspect that what we're discussing here might just be worthy of such an amendment.

It does appear from all the replies here that everybody who has contributed does indeed support the idea of using dual ferrules. Also nobody has expressed an opinion that the standard is already crystal clear in respect of the ferrule issue. It therefore appears to me that a submission for amendment might just be a good plan. This isn't something I've been involved with before. Are you able to assist in any way in doing this?

After careful consideration, I think that I do feel reasonably strongly about this. If a machine builder or panel builder were to make extensive use (or perhaps even modest use) of dual ferrules in a well-engineered, safe and robust  manner and was obliged to do so because of space constraints, only to have an end-user reject the work because of their internal policies relating to their interpretation of 60402; there could be a considerable cost implication for the builder in undertaking the appropriate remedial work. In some extreme cases I could conceive that rework of such a machine might be impossible without resorting to larger cabinets due to lack of DIN rail space.

Dave (not in the shed today).

Please connect and send me a private message. I can provide some guidance for you.

Glad you're not in the shed, it would be rather warm!