Hello, Juan!
Unfortunately, problems such as this are inevitable, unless we have
enough product-specific standards to cover all possible products and
variants (and circumstances of use). This will never happen!
However, the New Approach Directives (Low Voltage, EMC, Machinery,
etc) recognise this difficulty and deal with it by removing the need
for conformity with standards, and replacing it with the requirement
for compliance with the "essential protection requirements" of each
Directive. The question "which Directive applies to my products?"
still remains, of course, but it should be easier to answer!
In the case you bring up, the requirements of the LVD are simply that
the equipment is "safe". Meeting a suitable standard is an indication
that the requirements are satisfied, but other methods are,
theoretically, possible. Also, there could well be circumstances
where conformity with a standard is not enough to demonstrate safety,
and additional precautions may be necessary. The manufacturer is thus
free to choose the basis for the Declaration of Conformity, and the
choice may be tested in the courts if the product proves to be unsafe.
Best wishes
Jon Duerr, European Standards Co-ordinator
Mitsubishi Electric Europe
e-mail: [email protected]
The opinions expressed are my own, and are not necessarily those of my
company.
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: EN 60065 and other electronic safety standards
Author: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Juan_Pedro_Pe=F1a?= <[email protected]> at INTERNET
List-Post: [email protected]
Date: 24/09/96 11:17
Hello!
I apologize for the extension of this message.
The discussion about EN 60065/EN 60950 (IEC 65/IEC 950) has brought to me an old
question I could not
find a good answer. Mainly, we have three standards for electronic equipment: IE
C 65, IEC 950 and IEC
1010-1. Each one has a different scope but, very frequently, you can find equipm
ent on the border.
For example, is an specific computer for measurement, processing and edition of
sound or video signals, a
measurement instrument (IEC 1010-1), a computer (IEC 950) or and audio and video
equipment (IEC 65)?
Somebody can refuse the IEC 65 because that equipment is not a household or simi
lar, but it is possible to
buy such equipment for your house if you wish (and you have money). Nowadays, it
is very easy to find
many other cases in which you are on the border.
I had no problem if those standards were very similar, but it is not true. For e
xample, IEC 950 has a very
hard restriction about flammability of any isolation material inside the equipme
nt, IEC 1010-1 only requires
the VICAT test in a few cases and IEC 65 has no concrete requirement. Another ex
ample: IEC 950 has no
humidity treatment before the electric strength test (except for hygroscope mate
rials) and the other standards
yes. And also ....
Results and cost for manufacturers could be very different. I can understand tha
t particular hazards of an
antenna input is only covered by IEC 65, but it is not enough to justify many ot
her differences.
It looks like standards redactors are different people with no or very reduced h
armonization between them.
In my opinion, it should be only one standard with several "parts-two" for parti
cular requirement in
different cases. The system we have now reduces the reliance of manufacturers in
the goodness of
standards, and I understand them.
I'd like very much to know your opinion. Maybe, some one knows the answer to my
old questions.
Thank you very much for your attention and for your comments.
========================================================
Juan P. Pena / Electrical Safety Area
Company: CETECOM, S.A. (http://www.pta.es/ing/empresas/cetecom.html)
e-mail: [email protected]
The opinions expressed are personal, not necessarily of my company.
========================================================
