Nose Spread To Eyes Herpes

the IEC standards and the safety of persons and things

are alike in IEC requirements for safety of persons together with those relating to heritage, performance and functionality of electrical installations and electrical components.
Failure to comply with the content of the IEC is subject therefore, very different assessments depending on the willing not observed. Non-compliance of the IEC would thus not always What to do with the presence of inadequate defense of human health, as is often more or less consciously suggests. This aspect is not taken into account whenever you examine / check an electrical installation or electrical equipment. For such behavior may bring about substantial errors of assessment in terms of allocation of responsibilities and obligations, as it can assign value to aspects of security that instead it is not directly linked, but instead relate to the performance, functionality, convenience , ie characteristics related to the contractual maximum of reports.
is therefore requested the relevant organs of state to invite the Italian Electrotechnical Committee to distinguish in published and which articles to be published / prepared regarding the safety and how many other aspects.

Meaning To The Song Killing Me Softly With

CEI CEI 17-97/1 81-10/2 INADMISSIBLE

In this same "BLOG Eng. GIANCARLO GERMAN" post in the December 9, 2008, 1 and 20 November 2008, we stated that the verification system proposed by CEI 81-10/2 on the need the lightning rod is inconsistent.
inform those interested in a possible investigation / verification that a detailed article on this subject was published in issue 14 of this year's rivista Il Giornale dell'Installatore Elettrico ( Reed Business InfomationEditore - MI ). A distanza di più di un anno dalla sua stesura l'articolo forse meriterebbe da parte nostra qualche dovuto ritocco, ma la sostanza dell'approccio e i risultati sono inconfutabili !
Sollecitiamo un dibattito di approfondimento.

Full Episodes Of Operation Repo Online

GUIDE - Selective protections. What consensus? Comments

GUIDA CEI 17-97/1 – Selettività delle protezioni. Quale consenso ?
Già nel 2008 è avvenuta la pubblicazione della Guida CEI 17-97/1 per la scelta delle protezioni contro il cortocircuito negli impianti industriali a bassa tensione a partire dalle caratteristiche nominali di cortocircuito. Oggi viene posto in inchiesta pubblica il testo originale inglese della parte seconda, che This selectivity 'in the conditions of overcurrent devices in switchgear and low voltage control. Like the first part, the second part incorporates the definitions of terms apply. This also gives examples of verification of selectivity 'in order to: a) avoid the detachment of power is not due to bad design costs with improper; solutions indicate more' economical with low selectivity ', when justified.
We read with great interest the step taken by the CEI intends to propose a public inquiry into the new document is not for a month, as you may have, but for two months. In fact, so I read:
"Given the interest with which the project was accepted in Inquiry Part of the public who had received interesting comments later incorporated in the official CEI, this second part is available at CEI for a period of two months, so that it can be read by as many stakeholders as possible. "
While we congratulate the IEC for the successful initiative, we can not really remember that if the CEI had a heart, or rather wanted to demonstrate that it cares about the contribution of a comment by as many stakeholders as possible to a dismissal of part of the final text guide, the same efforts should be made: a) to submit to the national public the text translated into Italian, b) to enable interested parties to comment print documents, as everyone surely can not escape the difficulties encountered to intervene with marginal notes on documents available only in video.
Only such an attitude of its CEI witness a real openness to the consensus and transparency in conducting the synthesis of the regulatory process, thus meeting the nature of the Establishment.

Deep Clean Facial Cleanser

the CEI 0-15

I supported with good arguments on several occasions that there is a feeling, almost a certainty that some expensive documents published by the CEI are drawn from a single person and not subject to any review by other experts before publication.
I had to get me to work and read the expensive CEI 0-15, Manutenzione delle cabine elettriche MT/BT dei clienti finali/utenti. Nella prefazione ho notato due errori. Si sa che gli errori possono sfuggire a tutti e siamo i primi a commetterli. Per questo nel mio studio i documenti da licenziare vengono di solito sempre letti da una seconda persona, proprio per evitare che errori banali possano sfuggire. Sembra però di notare, e non è come ho già detto la prima volta, che documenti del CEI siano pubblicati senza che una seconda persona li legga e li corregga. Non può essere infatti che un tecnico di normali capacità e competenze non si avveda che nelle prime sei righe della prefazione sono presenti ben due errori.
Ecco il testo della prefazione: " La presente Norma è stata preparata per prevenire faults in the MV / LV customer / end-users that may have determined, for failure or lack of proper maintenance, equipment and components for electrical installations and buildings that house them. It is assumed also that the electrical boxes covered in this standard are those built according to the rule of art, or in the relevant IEC standards and in force at the time of their construction. "
's mistakes. The 'consecutio temporum' the first sentence is wrong, if not inappropriate. The second serious error, in which regulators in the drafting of other documents have already incurred is to confuse or better to consider the equivalent of the art CEI, when you know, because the law expressly so declares 186/68, that the rule of art is much larger than the technical standards of the IEC.
A third mistake would be to confer an aura of divinity with technical standards, so as to write the name with a capital letter. I do not think anything like that is made abroad and that it contributes to sharpen the critical spirit of the technicians, however desirable.
If there is time to comment in the future even more steps of the standard.

Dane Elec Flash Drive Driver

Have your say:

What Seasonings Can You Use With Gallstones

NEW CEI EN61439, IEC 17-13, WHICH CONSENT?

Bticino We thank you for having organized a major technical update meeting in Padua on 29 September '09. We listened with great interest the report of the engineer. Constantine Passera, SC17D Chairman of the IEC, the content of the new (forthcoming) EN 61439 (IEC 17-13), which is of low voltage switchboards.
To our direct question, the rapporteur has kindly confirmed that the official publication of the new standard EN 61439 will be preceded by the publication of the text on the website of the CEI in public inquiry, as is the rule for the standards and the guides are not harmonized, ie the type of documents destined to disappear with time.
Cade, in our opinion, therefore, for all regulatory documents, whose implementation is done by a European (CENELEC) or global (IEC), at least for us users the option of standard, already in itself very compromised, to intervene with comments, where appropriate, the drafting of the final text.
While realizing the difficulties which may be encountered in managing the practice in a different way, we can not conclude that the rules take on more international significance, the more you lose the general indifference of the requirements of transparency and consensus, on which the authority and the authority of the CEI.
Everyone is aware of the danger that the normative substance in their more hidden will in future more and more to the interests of multinational companies in the real users.
I to conclude that it is appropriate to intervene promptly, asking that the procedures in force at the CEI are modified to ensure compliance with the rules.

Advance Congratulate For Coming Married

AN ERROR IN THE CEI 11-35? CEI and workmanlike

CEI 11-35 AN ERROR IN THE GUIDE?

If I am correct identification of a section of 28 sq. mm, the guide CEI 11-35, Guide for the execution of the electrical boxes user page. 52 of the first edition, it offers enough to withstand the short circuit of the power cable of a transformer downstream of the main switch of a MV / LV, but may be inappropriate, so in a workmanlike manner and also dangerous.
We face a example of a system designed according to a rule derived from a standard IEC force, but not in a workmanlike manner. In fact it is not enough to design according to IEC, to define this activity in a workmanlike, if a trivial and almost due consideration of the working hypothesis does not permit application of the proposed rule, even though from an authoritative source.
The audit by the CEI 11-35 does not take into account the fact that energy dissipation should be calculated taking into account the transient fault current, whose contribution due to the small time to consider (100 ms) and the low value of power factor (0.1) of the network, which feeds the fault, is not negligible.
One wonders how it is possible that serious errors can find space in important legal documents. The answer is simple, but do not know why, all are afraid to give it.

Kates Playground Rbbit

SURGE PROTECTION IN ABOUT THE COST? CEI 64-8

in the draft rules of the Italian Electrotechnical Committee C 999 (IEC 64-8) will guide the market on users to download the costs of protecting against electrical surges caused by lightning (Appendix A, first paragraph). A few years ago
Enel was ordered by a court of our republic for not adequately protected against lightning power supply line of a user, for this reason that he was the victim of a fire.
Question: Who makes the technical standards, perhaps the Enel?

Watch South Park Online Free On Iphone

TECHNICAL MEETING WITH THE CONTRIBUTION OF DEHN ITALY CEI 81-10 and CEI 64-8

will take place in the afternoon May 21, 2009 at the headquarters of the Order of Engineers of the province of Padua, organized by the Group of the College of Electrical Engineering of Padova a technical meeting on the CEI 81-10 a few years after its publication, the corresponding important variant V1 (2008 ) and on the draft standard IEC 64-8 on the protection against voltage surges weather currently in public inquiry.

Difference Between Hep A, Hep B And Hep C

Varant V1, SURGE PROTECTION, No 2

The project C 999 relating to the Italian standard CEI 64-8 presented at public inquiry ending September 30, 2008 in Part 4, which deals with the requirements of safety, it gives body to the Chamber, 443, dedicated to the protection electrical installations against overvoltages of atmospheric origin or due to maneuvers. "It follows the publication of a document CENELEC HD 60364-4-443.
The new provisions dealing with practically all of the transient overvoltages transmitted by the power supply system.
The first reading is known by a some dismay that, while the standard CEI 81-10 deemed useful for the purpose of transferring the plant dangerous surge in the examination section of the dial up "to the first node that meets the new standard (IEC 64-8) did not draws this distinction and refers more to a new policy determination of the need to ensure whether or not the installation of security, that of SPD. The new policy is called "conventional" e relativo "al caso peggiore".
La situazione a nostro avviso si sta complicando moltissimo e comincia a sfuggire di mano il senso di quanto si va a prescrivere, che già con la norma vigente CEI 81-10 appariva spesso poco chiaro. Certamente tanti sono i dubbi e le domande che il nuovo testo suggerisce. Nell’immediato si chiede come mai è sparito il richiamo alla presenza del "primo nodo" della linea di alimentazione a limitare la valutazione del rischio?

Axotic Pets Moncky For Sale

CEI 64-8, SURGE PROTECTION, No 1

Con il progetto C 999 relativo alla norma italiana CEI 64-8 presentato in inchiesta pubblica con scadenza 30 settembre 2008 nella parte 4, che tratta le prescrizioni della sicurezza, si dà corpo alla sezione, la 443, dedicata alla protezione degli impianti elettrici contro le sovratensioni di origine atmosferica o dovute a manovre, prima solo "allo studio". Esso segue la pubblicazione di un documento CENELEC. Il documento per la parte che tratta l’argomento delle sovratensioni sembra occuparsi solo di quelle trasmesse da un sistema di alimentazione elettrica e di quelle di manovra e non di quelle dovute a fulminazioni dirette o che accadono nelle vicinanze.
Abbiamo scorso le 25 pagine del progetto che trattano l’argomento e abbiamo ricavato l’impressione che si prospetti una netta sovrapposizione tra i suoi contenuti e quelli già presenti nella norma CEI 81-10, che ci prefiggiamo di verificare in un prossimo futuro con attenzione.
La non stampabilità del documento presentato nel sito del CEI e il breve intervallo di tempo, nel quale esso rimane a disposizione degli utenti per un eventuale esame, non promuovono certo la raccolta di commenti e di osservazioni, che a parole ci si prefigge di favorire.

How Many Panadol Can Kill You

GUIDE CEI 31-35, application of new variant of the standard IEC 60079-10, as you search for consensus?

Non pare proprio che il CEI, Comitato Elettrtecnico Italiano, voglia facilitare il compito dei volenterosi interessati ad esprimere il proprio parere sui contenuti delle modifiche che si intende apportare al documento già in vigore: Guida all'applicazione della norma CEI EN 60079-10 ( CEI 31-30 ). Classificazione dei luoghi con pericolo di esplosione per la presenza di gas, vapori e nebbie infiammabili.
Possibile che non ci si renda conto che le scritte a caratteri cubitali "Progetto in inchiesta public "included in the number of three per page, overlapping the text of the document, making it not easy to read, if not sometimes of dubious reading, and do not help the student or the curious, however, to focus on the precise meaning of what law and how to judge.
not just enter the word only once, without limiting the ability to easily read the text to be studied?
As I look at the CEI shows that the consent does not matter which loves to boast.
I hope for a speedy repentance.

Some Good Online Games

SPD, hazardous installations? The CEI 81-10 does not exhaust il problema, n.2

Follow-POST "SPD, hazardous installations? The CEI 81-10 does not exhaust the problem, 1.
not only the rules of installation of the SPD are complicated and poorly understood, but the indications we received from authoritative sources can be in contradiction with each other.
For example in the manual of a major company, we prefer not to mention, just a little 'dated, we read: " Surge protection devices must be appropriate to repeat the paintings derivatives, especially away from the first protection more than 30-40 m . In
a valuable text signed by GB and G. The Piparo Carrescia, titled Over voltage protection (ed. Tuttonormel - TO) we read "The low voltage equipment are always subjected to a voltage at least double the level of effective protection Up / f from which the SPD should be protected, unless the SPD is not installed within a few meters from the terminals of the equipment .
Are we not to have understood the problem?
How can we reconcile the two statements so different?
How can we defend ourselves from these events?
What do the CEI? We will try to respond when we find a little 'time to do so.

Online Streaming Yaoi

SPD, INSTALLAZIONE PERICOLOSA ? LA Norma CEI 81-10 non esaurisce il problema, n.1

When assessing the risk of a structure due to surges from lightning strikes, to decide whether or not the installation LPS and SPD to protect it, do not take into account the risk to the difficulties encountered in proper planning of the defense system, given the complexity of matter and the low prevalence of the many principles / concepts / definitions on which it is based.
In practical terms, that the results, this may not be neglected. Today
about installation requirements of "overvoltage pull" in a manual of a major company (which I will not mention), a little 'dated but certainly still valid and interesting, it reads: "... .. They can also be installed in areas where the risk of fire or explosion. ... . Such a statement
comforted my thoughts, for which the assessments are made and the actions that follow in this regard can be obtained in misura significativamente, dal punto di vista probabilistico, non trascurabile effetti contrari a quelli desiderati : più insicurezza e meno sicurezza.
Vale cioè il principio che la regola d’arte è altra cosa dalla pedissequa applicazione di regole codificate nelle norme tecniche ( CEI ), che pur sono necessarie.
Restiamo in attesa del significato vero di quella che ci sembra una grave affermazione, che abbiamo letto con sconcerto nel manuale e che abbiamo riportato più sopra in grassetto.
Se gli scaricatori di sovratensione possono innescare incendi al punto di doverlo chiaramente denunciare, perché non se tiene debito conto nella valutazione del rischio che andiamo a fare?
Perché di un tale important issue not talked about at all?