Behalf Of John
Woodgate
Sent: Saturday, September 17, 2011 11:34 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: IEC 62368-1
In message <006501cc7561$a90c60e0$fb2522a0$@com>, dated Sat, 17 Sep
2011, Charlie Blackham writes:
>Has anyone had a product tested to IEC 62368-1 or know of a la
In message <006501cc7561$a90c60e0$fb2522a0$@com>, dated Sat, 17 Sep
2011, Charlie Blackham writes:
>Has anyone had a product tested to IEC 62368-1 or know of a lab who has
>tested against it?
I've no doubt that the team that wrote it have tried. I believe the
product passed but the standard f
In message , dated Fri, 12 Feb
2010, Nick Williams writes:
>Do you know if BS will publish the standard (presumably as a BS IEC if
>there is to be no EN version at this stage)?
I know of no plans to do so. I think it is very unlikely, but I will
ask. Actually, you might get a direct response
John,
Do you know if BS will publish the standard (presumably as a BS IEC
if there is to be no EN version at this stage)?
If they are not going to publish it then I will buy a copy from IEC
but if they are then I will wait until it appears in the BS Online
service.
Nick.
At 19:21 + 12/
In message <9360F1D2B3C045618D6F94F546142B75@OwnerPC>, dated Thu, 11 Feb
2010, "Ron Pickard, RPQ" writes:
>The IEC has just announced the publication (21-Jan-2010) of the safety
>standard IEC 62368-1:2010 ed1.0 (now encompassing audio/video,
>information and communication technology equipment)
PSNet'ers,
M Loerzner is correct IEC/TC 108 has approved 108/325/FDIS as IEC
62368-1. This is the long awaited Hazard Based Safety Standard, a
significant change in the approach to developing the safety requirements.
It will be a replacement for both IEC 60950 and IEC 60065 after the
tr
In message
<28aa7ba6b8bc04409c3272690562b639016b6...@ausx3mps308.aus.amer.dell.com>,
dated Thu, 19 Feb 2009, kazimier_gawrzy...@dell.com writes:
>From the voting results on the second CDV, I?d surmise there is a
>significant amount of controversy and expect the new standard will be
>interesti
Ron
According to the IEC website, it is approved for FDIS circulation, which
happened on 23rd January. The target date is 31st March.
I am not close enough to elaborate on this, but I'd guess that a published
standard is some way off yet.
Neil Barker
Manager
Central Quality
e2v
106 Wate
>From the voting results on the second CDV, I’d surmise there is a
significant amount of controversy and expect the new standard will be
interesting in it’s interpretations and implementation ….especially if
there are early adopters.
Regards,
kaz
From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p
In message <000e01c8eb7d$615b4570$7200a8c0@PC323541548743>, dated Mon,
21 Jul 2008, 'Rich Nute' writes:
>Once you understand the concepts, the new standard is not "radical."
I think the situation is far more complex than can be embraced in a
simple statement. There is a question about what
th the IEC TC and their CENELEC reps. Sorta hoping to toss
two stones at three birds.
luck,
Brian
From: Richard Nute [mailto:ri...@ieee.org]On Behalf Of 'Rich
Nute'
Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 3:02 PM
To: 'Brian O'Connell'; emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: RE: IEC 62368
Hi
Hi Brian:
> 1. What is the status of IEC62368 and the associated and
> infamous IEC62441 ? Ultimately, when are 60950-1 and 60065
> projected to be replaced by 62368 ?
CDV2 will be issued to National Committees for voting
this or next month. (You can get a copy from your National
Commit
In message <000f01c8eb75$d8adf800$d600a...@tamuracorp.com>, dated Mon,
21 Jul 2008, Brian O'Connell writes:
>1. What is the status of IEC62368 and the associated and infamous
>IEC62441 ?
Highly controversial. There are strong pressures on national committees
to approve the second version of
13 matches
Mail list logo
