>>>Going through 60601 would help to show that the device won't harm or disturb the mouse, which may be important to the user. After all, the user would want to know that the mouse's heart rate was going up because he saw a female mouse or a piece of cheese...not because the heart rate monitor is giving him the juice. <<<<
I don't think it would show that. The leakage current limits in any UL or IEC standard were arrived at based on the effects of electric current on humans, and at best could be extrapolated to an animal that is roughly analagous to a small human in size and weight. (Research by Dalziel on the thresholds of fibrillation due to external electrical excitement were actually done using dog hearts, which are not too far off in size from the heart of a human child.) So the application of 60601 would not convince me that the device would be benign when used on a 5 ounce rodent. However, I also support the use of 60601 due to the fact that medical/laboratory personnel will be handling the device, and if they have any experience with heart monitors used for humans, they will naturally be expecting the *patient* contact leads to be safe to the touch, even under conditions of enhanced conductivity. I believe 60601 addresses this aspect most appropriately. Just my opinion. Greg Galluccio www.productapprovals.com 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: [email protected] with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: [email protected] Dave Heald: [email protected] For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: [email protected] Jim Bacher: [email protected] Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
