客户发给我不符合的报告，说中介报价750英镑修改！ 我大概看了一下，根本不用去现场，一堆毛病，改个der啊，直接回邮件过去，不认可，绝对是套路。 付了750就成冤大头了。让客户先让这个公司修改，毕竟改了就不用重新做了。
邮件回复如下：
报告第二页 3-7的5个C2问题如下,
第3条，4.17: RCD(s) provided for fault protection 应该是NA，因为主开关是EN60947-3断路器，所以有ADS保护。
第4条，4.18: RCD(s) provided for additional protection 从DB箱子的图片看，有RCD保护了3个电路，应该pass
第5-7条，这3种情况标准要求有RCD保护，先不说实际情况怎样，就算没有，这个也是C3.
其他问题，报告第6页，电路1和8明显不是final circuit
总结一下，以上5个C2都是错误。
The five C2 issues listed as items 3–7 on page 2 of the report are as follows:
Item 3, section 4.17: “RCD(s) provided for fault protection” should be marked as N/A, because the main switch is a circuit breaker compliant with EN60947-3, which already provides ADS protection.
Item 4, section 4.18: “RCD(s) provided for additional protection” — according to the photo of the DB panel, there are RCDs protecting three circuits, so this item should pass.
In summary, all five of the above C2 issues are incorrect.#电工 #安全员 #检测报告 #检测认证
邮件回复如下：
报告第二页 3-7的5个C2问题如下,
第3条，4.17: RCD(s) provided for fault protection 应该是NA，因为主开关是EN60947-3断路器，所以有ADS保护。
第4条，4.18: RCD(s) provided for additional protection 从DB箱子的图片看，有RCD保护了3个电路，应该pass
第5-7条，这3种情况标准要求有RCD保护，先不说实际情况怎样，就算没有，这个也是C3.
其他问题，报告第6页，电路1和8明显不是final circuit
总结一下，以上5个C2都是错误。
The five C2 issues listed as items 3–7 on page 2 of the report are as follows:
Item 3, section 4.17: “RCD(s) provided for fault protection” should be marked as N/A, because the main switch is a circuit breaker compliant with EN60947-3, which already provides ADS protection.
Item 4, section 4.18: “RCD(s) provided for additional protection” — according to the photo of the DB panel, there are RCDs protecting three circuits, so this item should pass.
In summary, all five of the above C2 issues are incorrect.#电工 #安全员 #检测报告 #检测认证
