No-one will try to write a standard for a product that does not yet
exist, so standards development must always lag innovation.
The question I ask is: Can you make a safe product without a safety
standard?
If the principles of product safety are known, they can be applied to
an innovative
In message
!!AAAYAEGjmYsMtGZAuvo7rFLQ++figAAAEDf9dud5KeJHuCKyK
rUnaccBAA==@blueyonder.co.uk, dated Sat, 21 Feb 2015, John Allen
john_e_al...@blueyonder.co.uk writes:
OTOH, the EU approach is more encompassing because the prime
requirement is to comply with the
Good point - didn't know that (:-)), but it's another example of where the EU
approach is more pragmatic.
-Original Message-
From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk]
Sent: 21 February 2015 22:01
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Is NRTL listing mandatory for
In message
cadyqxldy7tejcbl-vv+_m2zgdippqtn2nfamxol-7nogmi0...@mail.gmail.com,
dated Fri, 20 Feb 2015, Kevin Robinson kevinrobinso...@gmail.com
writes:
OSHA Conducted a Request for Information (RFI) back in 2008 that
compared the effectiveness and overall costs of SDoC vs 3rd Party
In message 54e8950b.6050...@earthlink.net, dated Sat, 21 Feb 2015, CR
k...@earthlink.net writes:
It seems (from the *long* discussion) that some vendors are under the
impression accessible metal parts outside double insulation - wood
screws, perhaps, floating, with no connection inside it
In message f39b6dc9-c7c1-4e43-a42e-14fdf0f7d...@gmail.com, dated Sat,
21 Feb 2015, Scott Xe scott...@gmail.com writes:
I believe the products are actually constructed as class II apparatus
but with additional earth wire in mains cord.
That is OK as long as they really do meet the Class II
Many thanks for all advice from responders.
I believe the products are actually constructed as class II apparatus but with
additional earth wire in mains cord. I attempt to check with the
suppliers/test houses for their contentions.
Scott
On 21 Feb, 2015, at 9:30 pm, John Woodgate
On 2/21/2015 9:57 AM, John Woodgate wrote:
connection is not necessary for those ACCESSIBLE conductive parts
which are insulated from HAZARDOUS LIVE parts by DOUBLE or REINFORCED
INSULATION (CLASS II construction) or those which are protected from
becoming HAZARDOUS LIVE by a conductive part
Good morning (London time!)
W.r.t. the OSHA survey – things have changed a bit in the EU since 2008 – for
both good and bad!
I think there is more general awareness of the hazards of electrical and other
goods – and certainly there are more product recalls than there ever were in
In message
OFE8B273B2.B20F6D17-ON88257DF2.007B9EF8-88257DF2.007C2C17@US.Schneider-E
lectric.com, dated Fri, 20 Feb 2015, McDiarmid, Ralph
ralph.mcdiar...@schneider-electric.com writes:
Do we really need 3rd party certification in USA, Canada, Australia,
etc? I think the new approach
Hi Rich,
If the product is constructed as per sub-clause 7.3.2.2 (I have observed a few
cases on audio or video products), can the whole product be correctly
classified as class I apparatus as it requires earth connection?
If it has to be classified as Class I, the source of issue if whether
In message adfb19ef-0a25-4aa1-8ec1-fb1528ff7...@gmail.com, dated Sat,
21 Feb 2015, Scott Xe scott...@gmail.com writes:
It seems the class I is determined by the mains connection to the
mains cord otherwise I cannot consider how the product is classified as
class I.
As I wrote before, the
Hi Rich Brian,
Although we talked a lot of safety insulation construction of each class, the
class I product can have class II insulation construction. I notice the
sub-clause 3.2 of EN 60065 as below:-
Apparatus designed to be fed from the mains shall be constructed according to
the
On 2/21/2015 8:30 AM, John Woodgate wrote:
... 8.5 of IEC/EN 60065:
CLASS I apparatus shall be provided with a PROTECTIVE EARTHING
TERMINAL or contact to which the protective earthing contacts of
socket-outlets, if any, and ACCESSIBLE conductive parts shall be
reliably connected.
No test
Brian
Not arguing at all with your comments - generally I think I generally agree
with them in the specific issue of strict compliance with the standards.
But why do I think that that the standards are not the whole answer?
Why? Because the burden on small (and even on bigger) companies of
Non sequitur? The survey indicated injury rates, not recalled products
(actually preferable to injuries).
A small example from my edge of the desert. With exception of the U.K. and
Germany, all of the PV stuff that has been reviewed by self that was built in
the EU required some significant
16 matches
Mail list logo
