Fires started by an electrical source, including A/V equipment, used to be more common in North America before the North American product standards had the stricter flammability requirements. The UL standards are designed for a region with lower voltages, higher currents and a lot of wood-frame construction. This is my basic premise; the physical infrastructure in different regions leads to the predominance of different hazards. Just because there are few electrical fires in Europe doesn't mean that the United States and Canada should adopt standards that don't address the risk of electrical fires.
We could simplify the situation by not harmonizing standards. We could go back to having each region specifying requirements based on their own histories of past problems. However, I don't see how this makes it easier for a company to sell products globally. We have to figure out what provides the best benefit for the consumer and the manufacturer regardless of their country. Ted Eckert Compliance Engineer Microsoft Corporation [email protected] The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my employer. -----Original Message----- From: John Woodgate [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, March 21, 2011 9:17 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Lamp dimmer interference In message <5ee25f4c3567f748871d74829b84dd9d80f4f...@tk5ex14mbxc141.redmond.corp.mic rosoft.com>, dated Mon, 21 Mar 2011, Ted Eckert <[email protected]> writes: >Why should the U.S. adopt an IEC standard that required additional >design features (and cost) that are not necessary for North America >while not requiring design features that do provide a safety benefit? Naturally, common sense should be applied. But you mentioned 60950: the reason why the IEC and UL standards are very similar is that the IEC standard is *based* on the UL one, and majors on fire resistance. IEC 60065 has had the UL-type fire resistance requirements added to it, even though their absence from earlier editions did not result in many fires. IEC 62368 is very deeply UL-influenced and is a vastly more complex standard that 60950-1 and 60065 which it is destined to replace. -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK Plural: data, criteria, phenomena. Singular: datum (different meaning: use 'data element' for a single item), criterion, phenomenon. 'Effect' is a noun, 'affect' is a verb (except in psychiatry). - ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to <[email protected]> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas <[email protected]> Mike Cantwell <[email protected]> For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: <[email protected]> David Heald: <[email protected]> - ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to <[email protected]> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas <[email protected]> Mike Cantwell <[email protected]> For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: <[email protected]> David Heald: <[email protected]>
