Brent DeWitt wrote: >> that in the CDV (not law yet) of 1st amendment to 60601-1-2 we have changed essential performance from a defined term to an undefined term due to the instability of IEC 60601-1 , which is still at the CDV stage.
My _personal_ opinion as a representative (and only that), is that: "Thou shall not fool the customer". The 1st Amendment states quite clearly that the manufacturer will list which functions are "essential functions" in the user documentation. << This is a "hot potato," indeed. However, whenever a standard is made stricter, complaints may be expected based on the idea that equipment which has worked well enough for some considerable time is now judged unworthy of approval, and the expense incurred complying with new requirements. No one minds a new standard if all the old equipment passes! The question which provoked this thread related to power quality. UPS's and batteries ARE one answer to that question. But those in the business of writing standards might bear in mind the old adage: "Be careful what you ask for; you might get it." I'll shut up now. Disclaimer: My opinions, NOT those of my agency or where I work. Cortland Richmond This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ 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] All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
