Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 18 of 18

Thread: Ploystyrene Extrusion Die's

  1. #11

    Ploystyrene Extrusion Die's

    Quote Originally Posted by WMBELEDES View Post
    Bob,
    If I were to use the definition of a C1D1 or D2 500.5(1&2) it might fall under D1 due to rare occurrence where an operator could inject a bubble of gas into the extruder that is released. If I read 500.5(2)(2), "Concentrations are prevented by positive mechanical ventilation". The plant has wall fans with ceiling louvers that replace quite a large volume of air, might this drop the Zone from D1 to D2? How might this be decided? Is there a more detailed article for testing to determine a zone? If so, is this a self test or a test of a certified mature?

    Bill
    Bill,

    If your plant layout representing the equipment markings found on nameplate's coincide with NEC 505.9(C)(2). Below is the Title of the information included.

    "Guidelines for the safe use of flammable blowing agents in the production of extruded polystyrene boards (XPS)"


    Tag this link:

    https://www.giz.de/expertise/downloa...safety-xps.pdf

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Mission Viejo, CA
    Posts
    5,160
    Quote Originally Posted by nec_addicted View Post
    Bill,

    If your plant layout representing the equipment markings found on nameplate's coincide with NEC 505.9(C)(2). Below is the Title of the information included.

    "Guidelines for the safe use of flammable blowing agents in the production of extruded polystyrene boards (XPS)"


    Tag this link:

    https://www.giz.de/expertise/downloa...safety-xps.pdf
    Do you actually read (or understand) the stuff you google? You're addicted to google, not the NEC. And you still keep misapplying what you find. This paper is a great example of how IEC Zone 1 is often closer to NEC Division 2 than Division 1.
    "Bob"
    Robert B. Alexander, P.E.
    Answers based on 2014 NEC unless otherwise noted.

  3. #13
    Successfully the attempt to put things in perspective 505.9(A)(3) reiertrate exactly what you taught us in this thread pertaining to "owners engineering judgment".

    Of course if you do not feel that was the idea then have it your way.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Northern illinois
    Posts
    16,659
    Quote Originally Posted by nec_addicted View Post
    Successfully the attempt to put things in perspective 505.9(A)(3) reiertrate exactly what you taught us in this thread pertaining to "owners engineering judgment".

    Of course if you do not feel that was the idea then have it your way.
    505 has nothing to do with classification according to the class and division system. It is for the zone system which is completely different and requires a PE to sign off on it. and while it is somewhat similar to the IEC zone system, it is not the same.

    once again, whatever language you are translating what you are trying to say to english is not making all that much sense.
    Bob

  5. #15

    Polysterene Dies

    Quote Originally Posted by rbalex View Post
    Do you actually read (or understand) the stuff you google? You're addicted to google, not the NEC. And you still keep misapplying what you find. This paper is a great example of how IEC Zone 1 is often closer to NEC Division 2 than Division 1.
    Thank you :Anyone with as much experience with this portion of the code to simply dismiss NEC 501.5 and respond in such a manner should just allow an interrogative stated in the code and move on. It is plain to me.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Mission Viejo, CA
    Posts
    5,160
    Quote Originally Posted by nec_addicted View Post
    Thank you :Anyone with as much experience with this portion of the code to simply dismiss NEC 501.5 and respond in such a manner should just allow an interrogative stated in the code and move on. It is plain to me.
    Obviously you don't know how to properly apply Section 501.5 either. It has nothing to do with how to classify a location.

    BTW I suggested 501.5 to it's original proposer back in the 2005 NEC.
    "Bob"
    Robert B. Alexander, P.E.
    Answers based on 2014 NEC unless otherwise noted.

  7. #17
    The attempt was to follow any testing to nameplate marking for electrical apparatus and motors for fans might fit either since post #3 had division/ zone wording in his reply for testing.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Northern illinois
    Posts
    16,659
    Quote Originally Posted by nec_addicted View Post
    The attempt was to follow any testing to nameplate marking for electrical apparatus and motors for fans might fit either since post #3 had division/ zone wording in his reply for testing.
    I think there is another translation error here. When he used the word zone in post #3 he was not referring to the zone classification system. Sometimes English as a second language is tough because context matters. But I am told other languages have idiosyncrasies as well.
    Bob

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •