> It is the primary end use of the product that dictates the standard(s)
> required.
Unfortunately, this archaic and provincial view on
the part of standards organizations that standards
should be per product has created problems that
most of us would like to avoid.
Consider product safety. The safeguards required
for protection against electric shock, for example,
are independent of the product. Although we have
product standards for hair dryers and for computers,
the requirements for safety are common.
Rather than address products, safety standards need
to address hazards.
While the products I deal with are computer
peripherals, I had the opportunity the other day to
attend a seminar on insulation diagrams used for
medical products. The interesting fact is that the
seminar did not address anything unique to medical
products. Rather, it addressed a tool --
insulation diagrams -- that is equally applicable
to my products and all other products where
protection against electric shock is required.
Indeed, the insulation diagrams of some of my
products are identical to the medical product
insulation diagrams presented in the seminar!
(For the purposes of electric shock, the only
differences between a computer peripheral and a
medical product are the limit values used for the
various parts of the equipment.)
I would like to see safety standards based on the
hazards. I would like to see separate, independent
safety standards for electric shock, electrically-
caused fire, thermal injury, moving parts (kinetic
energy), etc.
(Note that the USA and Canada already have
independent safety standards for x-radiation and
electromagnetic radiations. These standards are
based on the hazard, not on the product.)
Doing this job is not easy. If you compare
product safety standards, you will find much in
common, but you will also find differences. It
is these differences that cause difficulties in
writing a generic safety standard.
Committees are reluctant to discard any
requirement on the basis that products built to
the standard have a good record.
Likewise, committees are reluctant to introduce
a new requirement because it may cost
manufacturers more money in the product design,
and products built to existing requirements have
a good record.
Virtually no one is willing to invest in
research in product safety in order to make
decisions on whether or not a safety requirement
is an effective safety requirement.
There are a few -- very few -- exceptions. The
basis of IEC 664 (dimensioning of insulation) is
research. More recently, the CES has published
research data on TV fires.
Our EMC colleagues don't appear to be so hampered.
They have peer-reviewed journals, and annual
symposia reporting on the results of research.
A bunch of IEEE folks are doing their best to set
up an IEEE Product Safety Society. I would hope
that this society will serve to improve product
safety, to bring it to the same level as EMC.
Best regards,
Rich
-------------------------------------------
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.
Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/
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:
Michael Garretson: pstc_ad...@garretson.org
Dave Heald davehe...@mediaone.net
For policy questions, send mail to:
Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old
messages are imported into the new server.
