Does anybody here know where to purchase class 0 or 00 electrician's gloves for use in high voltage that are smaller than size 8?

Thank you!

Class 0 and 00 are correct for use, but I used the wrong terminology. In our business we class 500V+ as HV.

Honeywell do indeed make a size 7, but size 6 would be better. I'll get some in to try for our user.

Live working because it's batteries discharged to as low as reasonably practicable.

Originally Posted by: paul.skyrme

Originally Posted by: CdC

Class 0 and 00 are correct for use, but I used the wrong terminology. In our business we class 50V+ as HV.

Honeywell do indeed make a size 7, but size 6 would be better. I'll get some in to try for our user.

Live working because it's batteries discharged to as low as reasonably practicable.

So why don't you stick with the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) voltage definitions then instead of making your own up?

That confuses me somewhat as it makes no sense to make up your own voltage band definitions when there are already established internationally recognised voltage bands defined.

If the batteries are discharged, then they are probably at a very low terminal voltage, what is the actual handling voltage you are working with?

Insulating gauntlets remove a lot of dexterity and they are not very mechanically strong, so really need over gloves for mechanical protection, but these then remove even more dextority, which if the batteries are being carried, then increases the changes of them being dropped and damaged.

Are you looking for these for handling the batteries or disconnection/re-connection works?

More correctly this is hte High Voltage Classification in line with MBN LV123:

60 V d.c. < U ≤ 1500 V d.c. or 30 V a.c. (rms) < U ≤ 1000 V a.c. (rms).

Originally Posted by: paul.skyrme

I'll stick to the internationally recogniced IEC standard definitions thanks. I cannot find that one anywhere on the IEC website, so I'll leave you to that.

Companies making up definitions which are different to those set by the global standards bodies when these are already internationally recognised ones is simply crazy.

Hi Paul,

I don't really know why you are being on such an attacking mode. You won't find this standard on the IEC because it's an automotive standard that a number of car manufacturers have signed up for use in hybrid and electric vehicles:

https://www.volta.it/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/07-FN_LV-123_E_2017-06-06-Frank-Niechcial.pdf

My original post was to find electrician's gloves in small sizes, which surely must be a problem industry wide. Instead I feel quite disrespected by the way you wrote to me. Maybe this is because it was not face to face and I have misinterpreted. However, I would respectfully argue that you were neither constructively nor positively challenging our safe systems of work with cells and batteries nor that you were trying to further your own understanding in the subject matter.

Originally Posted by: CdC

Originally Posted by: paul.skyrme

I'll stick to the internationally recogniced IEC standard definitions thanks. I cannot find that one anywhere on the IEC website, so I'll leave you to that.

Companies making up definitions which are different to those set by the global standards bodies when these are already internationally recognised ones is simply crazy.

Hi Paul,

I don't really know why you are being on such an attacking mode. You won't find this standard on the IEC because it's an automotive standard that a number of car manufacturers have signed up for use in hybrid and electric vehicles:

https://www.volta.it/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/07-FN_LV-123_E_2017-06-06-Frank-Niechcial.pdf

My original post was to find electrician's gloves in small sizes, which surely must be a problem industry wide. Instead I feel quite disrespected by the way you wrote to me. Maybe this is because it was not face to face and I have misinterpreted. However, I would respectfully argue that you were neither constructively nor positively challenging our safe systems of work with cells and batteries nor that you were trying to further your own understanding in the subject matter.

I am sorry you feel like that, honestly, but, I have seen some absolutely shocking advice dished out on this forum over the years with regard to electrical systems and issues, which could easily result in serious injury or death if followed.

The next comments are not aimed at you, but, these issues must be considered by all those involved.

I stand by my comment with regard to companies going off and making up their own definitions, this nonsense of the voltages you refer to as High Voltage is going to kill someone one day because there is now an interface between the electrical industry as per the IEC definitions, and the automotive industry who have ignored the pre-existing defined voltage bands which were known globally and made up their own.

We have the interface in the way of charge points for these vehicles which are low voltage on the charge point side but high voltage on the car side, even though the actual voltage wrt true earth is the same!  CRAZY.

The voltages you refer to are LOW voltage when it comes to the people installing the charge points, and there is going to be confusion because of the cross over, and it will kill someone.  If it hasn't already.

The electrical generation, distribution and use industries are not going to be able to change their definitions  to placate the auto makers, who should have known better, and who will have the voltage bands defined in the IEC standard already in use and recognised as such in their own facilities,

It is just crazy, and it is going to be a lethal mix up of terms.

I cannot link to the IEC standards because they are chargeable, however, this Wikipedia article mimics the content of the relevant IEC standard, which I have verified.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEC_60038

These voltage level descriptions have been around for a very long time, the previous standards were very similar in their ranges.