Rich,
this is a very interesting discussion. I agree with most you are saying.
I like to add that there is some pressure from ACOS (IEC Advisory
Committee on Safety) to bring together IEC 65 and IEC 950 into one set
of requirements. The problem arises in residential areas where you have
cable-
Hello from San Diego:
Frank McCaughey asks how a generic standard will chose the
approach when multiple approaches exist. He cites the use
of wooden cabinets and plastic cabinets.
As Frank mentions, two or more approaches may be valid.
Safety standards are really of the form:
If ,
Hello from San Diego:
Pete Perkins cites IEC 335 and IEC 950 as (presumably unsatisfactory)
examples of combining standards into a single standard for multiple
products.
Neither of these standards was written to address generic hazards.
IEC 335 was purposefully written to cover a group of pro
You should know since phones are allowed to be HB material.
Manning
--
>From: Frank McCaughey
>To: EMC-PSTC
>Subject: Re: One safety standard?!
>Date: Monday, September 30, 1996 9:15AM
>
>One problem with setting up one safety standard is whose universal
>princ
One problem with setting up one safety standard is whose universal
principles will you follow?
Historically, the radio/TV people put out product in wooden
enclosures (I guess I am showing my age as well). So their principles
forbade sparks and things igniting inside the cabinet.
The IT industry
Hi Peter.
You wrote:
>
> I have had several arguments with safety examiners regarding
> compliance with EN61010 in cases where operational insulation is all
> that is required -- cases in which no human access is possible, where
> if insulation breakdown occurs, the
While the rollers on washing machines (how old are you Manny ?) and Printing
presses may
be the same, they are worked somewhat different by different types of people (or
were anyway) under different types of circumstances. Therefore, a one size fits
all approach,
might result in disasters.
Howeve
From: Bill Bryans
' IBM Canada Ltd., Program Manager, National Requirements
'
Subject: ONE Safety Standard
Ricahard Nute is correct with the basic principles approach... But so is
Manning Rose regarding knowledge of human interface with the hazards...
The crucial points bein
PSNet
We've had a healthy interchange here about the desirability and
possibility of having a single safety standard. there has also been some
controversy over specifics...
I think our set of exchanges exemplifies the real world - differences of
opinion over a significant issu
Hello from San Diego:
Jon Griver comments on the format of a generic standard.
A generic standard would not look like any standard we are currently
familiar with. Rather than think of a single standard, consider a
set of standards, each of which addresses a specific hazard. This
would not r
?
Well, yes; when _I_ was four I caught my hand in a washing machine wringer and
had the skin neatly removed from it.
__ Reply Separator _________
Subject: ONE Safety Standard
Author: "Rose, Manning I" at internet
List-Post: emc-pstc
PAG
______ Forward Header __
Subject: One safety standard?!
Author: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Juan_Pedro_Pe=F1a?= at Internet
List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org
Date:9/27/96 08:24
Hello everybody (from Malaga)
I agree with Rich Nute.
The safety principles can be
defined in generic engineering
terms, and only the test or performance
values need to be specified.
Gravity has not changed, so tipability
and the center of gravity is still the same.
How much force do you use to tip it over.
While there is gene
Rich Nute does not agree with my assertation that it is not be feasible to
include IEC 601 in a unified safety standard. This discussion is, of course,
dependent on how much of the structure of existing standards we discard.
I have no doubt that general principles for a unified safety standard c
Hello everybody (from Malaga)!
Thank you for your comments, particularly to Rich Nute for his clear
exposition.
I have seen the argumentation about IEC 601. I did not include IEC 601 because
it is the standard
in which, perhaps, I better understand the differences. But, of course, you can
wr
Hello from San Diego:
Jon Griver disagrees that IEC 601 can be included in a generic
safety standard. He makes this statement because he believes
that SELV is not applicable to medical equipment.
Let's take a look at a block diagram for the various isolation
systems required for protection f
Richard Nute writes
>Juan Pena wonders why we have multiple standards (i.e. IEC 65,
>IEC 950, and IEC 1010) when the products are very similar in
>construction.
>
>I would go further and include IEC 601 in the list.
>
>Let's look at the big picture, the construction of products
>for safety.
>
Hello from San Diego:
Juan Pena wonders why we have multiple standards (i.e. IEC 65,
IEC 950, and IEC 1010) when the products are very similar in
construction.
I would go further and include IEC 601 in the list.
Let's look at the big picture, the construction of products
for safety.
1. El
18 matches
Mail list logo
