Chris,
Every set of existing rules has an "intent", to be achieved by
following the "letter" of the rules. Personally, I always consider
meeting the intent far superior to meeting the letter of rules.
Example, the letter of the law says we must stop at stop signs before
proceeding. The intent is to avoid "accidents". We all know that
sometimes we must exceed the rules, i.e. defensive driving, because
the situation demands it. We also know that if the stop sign is in
the middle of a desert, and we can see 5 miles in all directions,
one would be meeting the intent of the law if no other cars could be
seen, an we did not stop at the sign.
The intent of IEC 60950 and like standards is to avoid personal injury
and property damage. End users are generally considered "operators"
under the standard. As such, they are to be reasonably prevented
from access to hazards in the equipment. This does not mean that
the equipment must be in a welded steel box, but that tools are
required to enter hazardous areas, and the operator manual does not
direct the operator to access such areas.
The General Principles of 60950 (page 19) clearly states under
Electric Shock : "Prevent operator access to parts at hazardous voltage
by fixed or locked covers, interlocks, etc." Page 17 indicates that
"operators" are assumed to be oblivious to electrical hazards.
When all else fails in such situations as yours, I get something in
writing indicating that my team has explained the hazards and risks,
and the the Product Manager (or other responsible party) understands
and accepts these risks. This usually closes the issue.
George
"Colgan, Chris" <chris.colgan%tagmclaren....@interlock.lexmark.com> on
03/19/2002 07:36:09 AM
Please respond to "Colgan, Chris"
<chris.colgan%tagmclaren....@interlock.lexmark.com>
To: "'Emc-Pstc' (E-mail)" <emc-pstc%majordomo.ieee....@interlock.lexmark.com>
cc: (bcc: George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark)
Subject: product modifications by the end user
Hello good people
Just say someone in your marketing department came up with the bright idea
of selling upgrade kits to an unqualified, untrained end user that involved
removing the top cover of a product. In the process not only would the
victim be exposed to hazardous voltages (if the product was still connected
to the mains) but he/she would also have to wire up mains connections.
There would also be a possibility that critical insulation would be
disturbed.
Apart from telling them that they were mad and suggesting that someone could
be killed or seriously injured, would there be any black and white
legislation that you could use to help bin this idea? I can't find anything
specific in EN60065 or the LVD.
Thanks for any input
Chris Colgan
Compliance Engineer
TAG McLaren Audio Ltd
The Summit, Latham Road
Huntingdon, Cambs, PE29 6ZU
*Tel: +44 (0)1480 415 627
*Fax: +44 (0)1480 52159
* Mailto:chris.col...@tagmclaren.com
* http://www.tagmclaren.com
-------------------------------------------
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.
Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/
To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
unsubscribe emc-pstc
For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com
Dave Heald: davehe...@mediaone.net
For policy questions, send mail to:
Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/
Click on "browse" and then "emc-pstc mailing list"
