CHANGE REQUEST |
Request identity number: |
C00071 |
Applies to: |
S00819, S00840, S00852, S00853, S00854, S00855, S00860, S00861, S00884, S00885, S00897, S00899 |
Type of request: |
Editorial |
Request status level: |
Resolved |
Proposal: |
S00819/A00191: Change "non-rotary" to "static".
S00840: Delete the arrow from the symbol.
S00852 and S00853: Delete "Single-phase" from the name.
S00854, S00855, S00860, S00861, S00884 and S00885: Change "tapping" to "tap" in the name.
S00897: Move the arrows to the top side of the square.
S00899: The task II proposal is to delete "general symbol" from the title, and to change "rotary converter" to "static converter". The latter change refers to the note pointing at the symbol for a rotating machine, used as generator. The term "rotary converter" appears also in the heading of the section. This is confusing, but considered together with the proposal for symbol S00819 above, my conclusion is that the WG1 wanted to replace the term "non-rotary" (which is a negative name) with static and to introduce this change consistenly. Therefore, the proposal is to:
Change the name of S00899 to "Static generator, general symbol" (If the name is changed, it makes sense to keep "general symbol.)
Delete "non-rotary generator" from the keywords and use "static" instead.
Keep the application note A00131 as it is.
|
Reason: |
This is part of the TaskII proposals for IEC 60617 Part 6. For reference purposes, see the attached document TaskII-Part6(commented).pdf
|
Requested by: |
TC3 Secretary
per-ake.svensson@se.abb.com
TC3 |
General comments: |
|
Comments at evaluation: |
Submitted for evaluation 2001-10-25. Closing for evaluation 2001-11-23.
AT(WGAS): I agree to the proposal.
DE(RESC): I agree for normal data base procedure.
DK(KATH): S00819/A00191: Disagree because we can say static = nonrotary, but we cannot say nonrotary = static (normally electronic). (Secretary's note: Correct, but I am quite convinced that nobody was thinking of linear generators as a possibility when the name "non-rotary" was invented, and it was in reality static ones that was intended by the block symbol. In the case of a linear generator I guess that it would be most appropriate to use symbol S00840 with a G instead of an M inside.)
S00840: Agree but remember remarks.
S00852+53: Disagree.
S00854 ... S00885: Agree.
S00897: Why this move ?? (There are no strong arguments, as far as I can see. Other block symbols with indication of direction usually have it on the bottom edge. Let us keep it.)
S00899: Disagree - see comments to S00819/A00191.
NO(ES): S00819/A00191: Agree
S00840: Agree
S00852, S00853: Agree
S00854, S00855, S00860, S00861, S00884: Agree
S00897: Agree, but do we really need the arrows here. Wouldn't the direction be read from the diagram? (Secretary's note: In this case yes, since arrows are normally shown when the signal flow is not from left to right. In this case it is bidirectional.)
S00899: Agree
Conclusion by the Secretary: The change request is submitted for validation with the change that S00897 is kept as it is. |
Comments at validation: |
Submitted for validation 2001-12-05. Closing date for validation 2002-01-18. |
Voting at validation: |
FI(TAVI): YES
AT(WGAS): Yes
DE(RESC): YES
DK(KATH): S00819/A00291, S00840, S00854...S00885 and S00899 YES, but NO change to S00852+53
CN(GUTI): YES
Conclusion by the Secretary: All votes are positive except for S00852+53, for which there is one negative vote. According to the normal voting rules for an FDIS the proposed changes are approved and will be implemented. |
Requested on: |
2001-10-23 |
Evaluated on: |
2001-12-05 |
Resolved on: |
2002-02-12 |
Withdrawn on: |
|
Evaluation closing on: |
|
Validation closing on: |
|