Hello, Something to consider. I have no clue as to whether this fits the original question, but it may be of interest anyway.
We had a situation arise where a two wire(Class II) AC adapter and a portable PC met the leakage requirements(allegedly). The adapter and PC were Listed. There was always a question as to whether the company manufacturing the products for us tested the devices properly. Anyway, it was discovered through customer complaints that with the adapter and PC connected the leakage current exceed the requirements at line voltages above 200V. Customers connecting products to the network or printer ports(touching accessible metal parts) were receiving mild electrical shocks. Needless to say, we had some unhappy customers. Bob Brister(formally of DIGITAL) -----Original Message----- From: Rich Nute <[email protected]> To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]> List-Post: [email protected] Date: Monday, December 21, 1998 6:48 PM Subject: Re: Wall adapters & EN60065 > > > >Hello Maria: > > >Assuming you are seeking to use the CE mark (indicating >compliance to the Low Voltage Directive) on your >product... > >Assuming the output of the wall adapter is SELV and >Limited Power (EN 60950)... > >Assuming the wall adapter bears the CE mark... > >Assuming your product operates from a SELV source... > >For the purposes of the LVD, I suggest you consider >that your product and the wall adapter are two, >independent products, an electronic keyboard, and a >wall adapter. > >Your electronic keyboard product is exempt from the LVD >because it operates from a source less than 50 V. >However, it is probably beneficial to use the CE mark >for the purposes of not having to justify why your >keyboard product product does not need the CE mark. > >You may use any means to demonstrate your electronic >keyboard product is safe. One way is to test it to >an EN safety standard, in which case you would choose >EN 60065. > >Likewise, you may use any means to demonstrate the >wall adapter is safe. Since you are buying this adapter, >and since it bears the CE mark, it is deemed safe. Note >that the wall adapter itself does not mention the standard >by which it has been deemed safe. The wall adapter will >have its own Declaration of Conformity, which will >indicate EN 60950. > >This SHOULD be the end of the story. You have two >products, each bearing the CE mark. > >However, someone MAY question whether the safety of an >EN 60950 adapter is compatible with a Class III (exempt) >EN 60065 product. (This question would not arise if the >electronic keyboard product did not have a CE mark on >it!) > >So, it would be appropriate to be prepared to answer >this question. This could be done by showing that the >EN 60950 adapter also complies with EN 60065. You can >obtain a copy of the safety report for the adapter, >prepare a report comparing all of the construction and >tests with those of EN 60065, and deem the adapter to >comply with EN 60065. You would then state this in your >DoC. > >This is not as onerous as it may sound. There are really >quite few requirements that apply to an adapter, assuming >it to be a linear power supply. I believe you will find >that the EN 60950 requirements are more severe than those >of EN 60065. > >This question raises the issue of "compatibility" of the >different safety standards, in this case EN 60065 and >EN 60950. There SHOULD be NO DIFFERENCES. There SHOULD >BE ONE STANDARD for power supplies, regardless whether >the supply is for home appliances or for IT equipment, or >any other equipment! > >As the distinction between various kinds of equipment >gets blurrier and blurrier with the advent of >microprocessors in almost every electronic equipment, we >need a single, generic safety standard for ALL equipment. > >ECMA has started such work, and has a draft standard >available. However, this is seen as "impossible" by >many standards experts. I suspect it is seen as a >threat to the work of many standards committees, who >choose not to admit that safety requirements are universal, >and who choose not to want to work together. > > >Best wishes for the holiday season, >Rich > > > >------------------------------------------------------------- > Richard Nute Product Safety Engineer > Hewlett-Packard Company Product Regulations Group > AiO Division Tel : +1 619 655 3329 > 16399 West Bernardo Drive FAX : +1 619 655 4979 > San Diego, California 92127 e-mail: [email protected] >------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > >--------- >This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. >To cancel your subscription, send mail to [email protected] >with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the >quotes). For help, send mail to [email protected], >[email protected], [email protected], or >[email protected] (the list administrators). > --------- This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to [email protected] with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the quotes). For help, send mail to [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], or [email protected] (the list administrators).
