> From: John Woodgate > Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2004 3:18 PM > > Peter L. Tarver <[email protected]> writes > > Clearly, on the basis of the account you have > given, the test houses > were at fault. But the manufacturer's > responsibility for due diligence > is absolute; he can't devolve it to any test-house.
And in the end, did not and the issue was thoroughly resolved. Although, this experience has marred my trust in the test houses my customer relied upon. One would have expected the issuance of a Bauart License for the power supply and a GS License for the end-product to address such national issues. > >Not so extreme. > > The situation you described in your anecdote IS > remediable. It was, but in the meantime, my customer's reputation was sullied with it's primary customer. It also cost them plenty big bucks to put a fix in place for all of the deployed systems, additionally costing both my customer and theirs a significant amount portion of their revenue streams for sales that were already lined up, but had to be delayed. > >Examples of OSM Decisions with limited nation > applicable (emphasis added): > > > >2. 7. 1 The maximum rated current in different > CENELEC countries for > >fuse-links inside the equipment are as > >follows: Pluggable Equipment Type A > >Denmark 16 A > >Finland 16 A > >Norway 16 A > >Sweden 16 A > >***Switzerland 10 A*** > >United Kingdom 16 A > > > >(This one might not count, per se, within the > specifics of my > >proposition, since Switzerland isn't a member of > the EU, though they are > >members of CENELEC.) > > Well, I suppose this is an 'OSM decision', but it > isn't really; it's > bases on Swiss national legal requirements, AIUI. > It should have been an > A-deviation, perhaps, but the Swiss National > Committee may not have > noticed the need. The dicing never ends 8< It's published with the rest of them, so it must be. And if that one isn't, one is left to ponder the others, since there's no clear safety rationale offered in the OSM Decision document. Perhaps other installation code issues in those specific nations that aren't really OSM Decisions either? ;> But then, if that same mode of logic can be used widely, most of the items in the Canadian/US versions of the 60950 standards are installation code and legislatively based and, therefore aren't National Deviations either. Hmmmmm. Perhaps I should pass this gem along to the US TAG and Canadian National Committee; John Woodgate has single-handedly saved them from the heaps of criticism they've received on this very issue. <|8b But, the emphasis I placed on the Swiss National Deviation, unfortunately took away from the remaining *five* National Deviations in that particular OSM Decision. Regards, Peter L. Tarver, PE [email protected] This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to [email protected] Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/listserv/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html 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
