Brian Your comments also make interesting reading.
Unfortunately I don't have time to comment in detail as I am finishing for XMAS in about 2 hrs! However, in respect of your issue about access of "untrained" people to potentially dangerous situation should be prevented by appropriate inter-locking, labelling and instructions. If EN61010 does not address the issue in sufficient detail then look at EN60950 "Safety of Information Technology Equipment" - especially Cl 2.8 "Safety Interlocks" - as this standard is aimed squarely at equipment for use by untrainned personnel. Additionally, you might want to look at the access and interlock requirements standards called up under the Machinery Directive 98/37/EC and the guidance information put out by authorities such as the UK Health & Safety Executive. Regards John Allen. ---------- From: Brian Harlowe[SMTP:[email protected]] Sent: 22 December 1999 11:54 To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected] Subject: Servicing and Repairs Hi Folks John Allen has opened my can of worms even further with his very useful comments to my e.mail. Obviously the military/defence situation is somewhat different as he states but maybe there is some guidance there. The answers to his comments are his follows:- Our products are large Scientific instruments and the EMC, LVD and Product liability directives apply The standards we have applied are EN 61326-1 and EN 61010-1 Servicing would be to a Minor level although in some instances access is required to units to carry out "conditioning procedures" The target customer is generally a qualified Scientist but not necessarily from an Electrical/Electronic Background. Manuals to an appropriate level could be produced but are currently only available to our service organisation. My main area of difficulty lies in that we rely on the fact that our electronic units are located behind locked doors or screwed panels to achieve our LVD compliance. It then seems at odds to encourage the user to undo these panels to carry out routine service or repair tasks. Also I am very uncomfortable on the product liability front if someone was hurt or killed because we had suggested he opened panels behind which were dangerous voltages. It has been suggested that we should obtain a declaration that the user has qualified trained staff who are capable of doing this work. Could staff be regarded as qualified if they had not been trained by us in the use of proprietry units? Many of our instruments go to academic users who usually consider themselves competant in every area. I would be interested in the groups comments in this area. Finally as John states very specific instructions would have to be given on reassembling units in order to maintain the units/systems emc signature These are the main reasons I feel these operations should only be carried out by our own Staff. Although I can understand a customers position when he has a piece of capital equipment worth up to stlg750k he is unable to use due to the failure of a simple component Regards Brian Harlowe * opinions expressed here are personal and in no way reflect the position of VG Scientific --------- 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).
