In the introduction to IEC60950 it says:
"It is essential that designers understand the underlying principles of safety
requirements in order that they can engineer safe equipment.
The following is not an alternative to the detailed requirements of this
standard, but is intended to provide designers with an appreciation of the
principles on which these requirements are based. . . .
Application of this standard is intended to prevent injury or damage due to the
following hazards:
Electric shock
Energy hazards
Fire
Mechanical and heat hazards
Radiation hazards
Chemical Hazards . . .
It is assumed that service personnel will be reasonably careful in dealing with
obvious hazards, but the design should protect against mishap . . . . More
important, service personnel should be protected against unexpected hazards.
Mechanical and heat hazards . . . and to avoid the presence of sharp edges and
points; . . . "
What we decide, individually, is based on two factors.
1. Does it meet the standard? (Will a CB or third party approve it?)
2. Is it safe anyway? (Would I be willing to let my best friend use it? Can I
sleep at night?)
Do we want to produce products that are equivalent to what we see in the market
place (What can I get away with?), that meet the standard, or are as safe as we
can economically make them?
I believe that the standards are only mandatory MINIMUM guidelines based on
experience (Oops, we shouldn't let that happen again!).
The real safety comes by actually looking at our products and taking the
necessary design actions to prevent injury or damage regardless of what the
standards say. That comes from company standards and policies. These are the
companies that design safe products as compared to compliant products.
The difficulty comes with what you are struggling to find out. How do we
objectively state to an unknown vendor what we are looking to achieve?
Standards are the best way, but what about those times where a standard doesn't
really exist? (Like in your case.)
I guess that is why they pay us the big bucks ; )
Please excuse the preaching but I come from a background where we had more
hazards than standards to deal with them.
Oscar
.
---------------------- Forwarded by Oscar Overton/Lex/Lexmark on 03/21/2000
10:37 AM ---------------------------
pmerguerian%itl.co...@interlock.lexmark.com on 03/21/2000 03:17:33 AM
Please respond to pmerguerian%itl.co...@interlock.lexmark.com
To: emc-pstc%majordomo.ieee....@interlock.lexmark.com
cc: (bcc: Oscar Overton/Lex/Lexmark)
Subject: SEMI and SHARP EDGES
Dear All,
Has anyone heard of a requirement in SEMI-S2 which requires all edges to be
rounded to 2.5 inches? I wasn't able to find such a criteria (which was
requested from a SEMI Test House from one of our customers) in any SEMI
standard.
I am recomemnd my customer and their SEMI Test House to meet the UL1439
standard in regards to Sharpness of Edges. Does this seem to be a fair
recommendation?
Peter Merguerian
Managing Director
Product Testing Division
I.T.L. (Product Testing) Ltd.
Hacharoshet 26, POB 211
Or Yehuda 60251, Israel
Tel: 972-3-5339022 Fax: 972-3-5339019
e-mail: pmerguer...@itl.co.il
website: http://www.itl.co.il
-------------------------------------------
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
unsubscribe emc-pstc
For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
Michael Garretson: pstc_ad...@garretson.org
For policy questions, send mail to:
Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
-------------------------------------------
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
unsubscribe emc-pstc
For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
Michael Garretson: pstc_ad...@garretson.org
For policy questions, send mail to:
Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
