I think we are all agreed that if the non-SELV circuit does not qualify as a
limited current circuit, 60335-1 requires double insulation.
The question is, "double insulation from what?" My understanding is that
the answer to this question is "from any user-accessible parts." If the USB
port
I think you are vulnerable using the procedure you describe. I think the
expectation of the Directive is that a test house receives a complete
product from the manufacturer and test it 'as is'. The test house should
not assemble parts (such as a selection of plug-in modules) to an
incomplete
Don't you say below that one end of the 60 V is connected to the cold
end of the low-voltage and the shell of the USB, i.e. 'circuit ground'?
If so, only the other end of the 60 V needs double insulation, which can
be functional insulation plus an air-gap. You may indeed have a problem
if the
Perfect. Exactly what I was looking for. I guess I fell asleep again
reading this directive before I reached this clauselol
Thanks everyone for replying. Very good feedback/input from all of you.
Cheers!
Regan
On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 12:04 AM Charlie Blackham <
char...@sulisconsultants.com>
Greetings.
I know this email is similar to Ragan's recent email, but I just had a
similar encounter. I could really use your help and wisdom.
Our company self declares to the CE requirements in Europe. We also sell
products in the United States without NRLT certification but will obtain an
NRLT
Sorry for being slow to understand this, but I can't quite see the rationale
for exempting the USB port from having double insulation between the USB
port and the 60V circuit.
For discussion purposes, imagine a single circuit board with the following
characteristics:
1) The board
Double insulation applies only to one pole of the supply, except the
mains supply, where both poles are regarded as live. If one pole is
double insulated, clearly no shock hazard can occur due to both poles
being touched, because one can't be touched.
On 2020-01-15 19:49, Joe Randolph wrote:
Hi Rich:
Thanks for the feedback. Right now it appears that my Option 3 would be the
simplest approach because it does not require double insulation anywhere. I
don't presently have a working sample of the product, but I plan to perform
the "protective impedance" tests after I obtain a
I have noted what you say about copying to the list address. I normally
send ONLY to the list address.
On 2020-01-15 19:02, Joe Randolph wrote:
Hi John:
Yes, solid insulation can be provided using thin sheets to solve
certain problems in confined spaces.. For the product in question,
the
These are phrases with a high degree of conformal viability, but most
companies using this Route A (SME's) do not have the slightest idea how
to start "a quality system that entails"
In practice this can be done by :
* Have the product be approved according to one or more harmonised
Look at
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:218:0082:0128:en:PDF
This is, “DECISION No 768/2008/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL
of 9 July 2008 on a common framework for the marketing of products”
See Annex II Module A1 and Module A2 in that
Good morningRegan
I agree with you that most manufacturers don’t conduct audits
In my opinion I recommend the following actions
1. Implement safety test in the production. For example Annex F of EN
61010-1:2010 indicate some routine test
2. Spot check. Select a sample of a batch and
Regan
CE marking of course applies to all products manufactured on an ongoing basis,
and the requirement you refer to is in the Directives
Quoting from the LVD as an example (Annex III, Module A)
3. Manufacturing
The manufacturer shall take all measures necessary so that the manufacturing
13 matches
Mail list logo
