Okay, to stir up a little more confusion.
Eons ago, the GS mark could not be issued unless some very ugly ergonomics
standards were met. ZH/618 or something, along with the safety requirements for
an end use product.
But if you had an end use product that didn't meet the ergonomics
requirements - maybe the color contrast between the enclosure and the product
name was too great - but it met the safety standard of the time you could get a
Bauart mark. That was around 1975 or so.
Other than that, I believe that Bauart is component and GS is end product.
I have some laser transceivers on my desk that carry the Bauart mark at the
moment.
Keyboards are a nice little hole in the process. The enclosure material is
based on whether or not it has to be a fire enclosure or not. That
determination was based on the maximum current coming into the keyboard. There
was a time when keyboards had the fuse and could be Listed, it didn't matter
which computer you used because the keyboard had the current limiting device.
Well, a fuse cost money and so does fire suppressants in plastics, and
keyboards are being sold for $3.00 or so these days so cost reduction is a huge
issue. Cost reduction left the fuse out and dropped the plastic enclosure to HB
from V1 or V0. They computer guys were thinking about the keyboard changing
weren't putting any limiting on the motherboard, that saved them a few beer
tokens as well. So the keyboard is pretty much swinging in space as fare as a
fire enclosure goes. Theoretically, the keyboard should have to be recognized
and as a condition of acceptability would say that it must be used on a limited
power circuit or whatever. How does one control that in the replacement Radio
Shack type markets? A listed keyboard would have all the protection necessary
and could work with fuse and no fused computer outputs. Mice out to be the same
situation.
I suspect the problem is known and a blind eye turned that direction.
Gary
-----Original Message-----
From: soundsu...@aol.com [mailto:soundsu...@aol.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2002 1:46 PM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Re: Question regarding something slightly unusual ...
In a message dated 10/9/02 3:22:12 PM Eastern Daylight Time, john_t...@bose.com
writes:
Unless something has changed in the in the last two years, when I was
employed at TUV, this is actually not quite correct. The GS Mark is only
for finished ready to use products which do not require any special
installation considerations to make them safe. It cannot be issued for
incomplete unfinished products which require an enclosure, for instance, to
make them compliant with the standards.
I agree - you're right, John. I think my error lies in the fact that I have
seen GS Marks on things that many certifiers would consider to be components.
But the GS Mark itself is intended to be an end product mark. Sorry if I got
anyone else caught up in my own confusion.
Greg Galluccio
www.productapprovals.com
