Products > Test Equipment

Multimeter CAT II Rating Discontinuation

<< < (18/20) > >>

bdunham7:

--- Quote from: Someone on July 28, 2023, 12:51:29 am ---Those are word for word quotes [editor rewording in bracket] from AS61010-1:2003

--- End quote ---

OK, then I'll just go back to what I said earlier which was essentially that if you are correct as to the applicability of the quoted language, then the standard itself is flawed could use some very simple reworking to avoid the situation I described earlier.  A non-binding 'explanation' is one thing, but a bright-line rule should be better IMO.  It appears they've started in that direction, perhaps they'll take up my suggestions next.

And since you pointed out that Fluke is referencing a different standard, I now have noticed that you are referencing an Australian standard from 2003?  Is that updated and harmonized to the current or near-current EN61010-(1 or 2)? I don't know how that works, but Dave's reference appears to be showing updates to EN61010-12:2019 that will appear in EN61010-12:2023.

Someone:

--- Quote from: bdunham7 on July 28, 2023, 01:08:30 am ---And since you pointed out that Fluke is referencing a different standard, I now have noticed that you are referencing an Australian standard from 2003?  Is that updated and harmonized to the current or near-current EN61010-(1 or 2)? I don't know how that works, but Dave's reference appears to be showing updates to EN61010-12:2019 that will appear in EN61010-12:2023.
--- End quote ---
This is the point, you're all shouting from the hills about you know best and my contributions are questionable. Yet there is no basis for that as the evidence you rely on it actually something other than you claimed it to be. Keep coming back with more shade throwing and "questions" that you can't be bothered to check or answer and that's not disproving what I'm saying, that's being dick and just creating massed insinuations to try and flood out any possible replies. When you're the one who's been continually failing to substantiate your points or even produce a coherent argument, this is descending into stupidity.

IEC 61010-2-033 is scoped to hand-held multimeters, but that sits under the larger 61010 umbrella.

AS61010 is typically harmonised against European IEC standards, there may be slight differences between the various international versions but I don't have them to hand to verify that. Pulled up a BS EN61010-1:2010 of unknown providence. The (sub) standards refer to each other, BS EN61010 in a normative Annex:
"The concept of OVERVOLTAGE CATEGORIES is elaborated in IEC 60364 and in IEC 60664-1."
and has no definitions of Measurement Categories, where as IEC 61010 has Measurement Category used extensively.

You care about EN61010? Buy yourself a copy. Engage in the standards process. Stop posting crap here. Go out and learn about the standards that you claim to care so much about.

Fungus:

--- Quote from: Someone on July 28, 2023, 12:51:29 am ---To make this blindingly obvious I'll keep quoting in context:

--- Quote from: Someone on April 26, 2023, 11:03:53 am ---Fluke isn't following the standard from which those categories are defined (61010) and would be misleading in typical installs in Australia and the UK (and probably other countries that I am less familiar with).

61010 measurement categories are really simple:
"CAT III is for measurements performed in the building installation"
"CAT II is for measurements performed on circuits directly connected to the [mains] voltage installation"

As mentioned in the other thread(s), its very very simple: something that plugs into a socket outlet is immediately CAT II, unless you are on the other side of safety isolation/insulation and then its up to you to know what the range of voltages/currents could be (perhaps use a more modern standard to help) and check that the multimeter/measurement tool has suitable withstand and/or breaking capacity.
--- End quote ---

--- End quote ---

And to make it blindingly obvious why we don't bow down to that, 61010 also mentions source impedance:


I don't agree that source impedance is exactly 2 ohms at the back of all sockets and I don't agree that it changes by exactly 10 ohms across the socket.

The "source impedance" definition of CAT II and III agrees more with what Fluke is saying and it makes more sense from a theoretical viewpoint, ie. a gradual increase in source impedance as you move away from the distribution panel, not some arbitrary (and large!) steps.

Fungus:

--- Quote from: Someone on July 28, 2023, 02:41:23 am ---You care about EN61010? Buy yourself a copy. Engage in the standards process. Stop posting crap here. Go out and learn about the standards that you claim to care so much about.

--- End quote ---

I simply don't believe there's a huge step in danger from the front to the back of a socket.

If that's what the standard says then the standard needs revising.

Someone:

--- Quote from: Fungus on July 28, 2023, 01:38:55 pm ---
--- Quote from: Someone on July 28, 2023, 02:41:23 am ---You care about EN61010? Buy yourself a copy. Engage in the standards process. Stop posting crap here. Go out and learn about the standards that you claim to care so much about.
--- End quote ---
I simply don't believe there's a huge step in danger from the front to the back of a socket.

If that's what the standard says then the standard needs revising.

--- End quote ---
Because you keep insisting that is what the standard says... when it does not. Obvious troll is now obvious.

The 61010 standard provides a series of categories that model the real world. You can do with that information what you like. But so far all you seem to do with that is say you dont like their model. WHICH IS FINE. The standard is not wrong, it does not say either side of a socket outlet is magically radically different electrical characteristics. What is conveyed is that the faults/voltages/currents expected to be seen in the real world can be speaparted at that point for most practical purposes.

Do you go to the zoo and step over the fence to demonstrate there are (almost) never tigers behind the first layer? Your choice. Are there never tigers in the public walkways? less often but non-zero. The delineation is made somewhere, additional safety is made somewhere (61010 definitions of CAT II vs CAT III is the delineation between single insulation and double insulation in many regions).

As you quoted, if this is such a big issue for you go and buy the standard and engage in their process. Dont shoot the messenger.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

There was an error while thanking
Thanking...
Go to full version
Powered by SMFPacks Advanced Attachments Uploader Mod