Hi Folks One of my collegues in our Information section has contacted BSI to find out the current status of the CDV for the 3rd edition of 61010-1, and was told that it is only about 30% completed - and BSI will not be publishing a Draft for Public Comment until it is at least 50% complete. They think that will be sometime fairly early in 2005, but of course that is only a current estimate. I then took a look at the IEC site and found reference to the following TC 66 documents of particular interest which have been circulated in the last 12 months: <http://www.iec.ch/cgi-bin/procgi.pl/w w/iecwww.p?wwwlang=e&wwwprog=doc-det.p& rogdb=db1&wcom=66&wclass=&wdoc=341&wsup=> 66/341/INF Tracked changes version of 66/342/CDV - IEC 61010-1, ed.3 Safety requirements for electrical equipment for measurement, control, and laboraory use - Part 1: General requirements (circulated 15 July 2004) <http://www.iec.ch/cgi-bin/procgi.pl/w w/iecwww.p?wwwlang=e&wwwprog=doc-det.p& rogdb=db1&wcom=66&wclass=&wdoc=342&wsup=> 66/342/CDV IEC 61010-1, Ed.3. Safety requirements for electrical equipment for measurement, control, and laboratory use - Part 1: General requirements (circulated 23 July 2004)
<http://www.iec.ch/cgi-bin/procgi.pl/w w/iecwww.p?wwwlang=e&wwwprog=doc-det.p& rogdb=db1&wcom=66&wclass=&wdoc=342&wsup=A> 66/342A/CDV IEC 61010-1, Ed.3. Safety requirements for electrical equipment for measurement, control, and laboratory use - Part 1: General requirements (circulated 16 August 2004) There is also considerable work occurring on IEC 60664 (insulation coordination) and 60479 (shock currents), as well as on insulating materials assessment - so I assume that 61010-1 progress will depend a lot on that (especially 60664, since the current 61010-1 makes considerable reference to the current 60664 series). Of course, all these drafts are password-protected for download only by IEC committee members - but if anyone gets sight of them it would be useful if you could give us some idea of what is going on! Regards John Allen ERA Technology Ltd From: John Allen [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 05 December 2004 11:44 To: [email protected]; John Allen; 'Camille Good'; - EMC PSTC Posts (E-mail) Cc: Roger Mccoy Subject: Re: IEC/EN 61010-1, 2001 'Circuits derived from Mains Circuits' Ron We can but hope - but I am not overly optomistic!! John Allen (from home) ----- Original Message ----- From: Ronald R. <mailto:[email protected]> Wellman To: John Allen <mailto:[email protected]> ; 'Camille <mailto:[email protected]> Good' ; - EMC <mailto:[email protected]> PSTC Posts (E-mail) Cc: Roger Mccoy <mailto:[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, December 05, 2004 11:08 AM Subject: RE: IEC/EN 61010-1, 2001 'Circuits derived from Mains Circuits' Hello all, Just as an FYI, IEC 61010-1, third edition is at CDV status. I am hoping that the members of TC 66 are taking note of these issues and will take them under consideration so the standard is meaningful for those who use it. Best regards, Ron Wellman From: [email protected] mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of John Allen Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2004 1:40 AM To: 'Camille Good'; - EMC PSTC Posts (E-mail) Cc: Roger Mccoy Subject: RE: IEC/EN 61010-1, 2001 'Circuits derived from Mains Circuits' Camille In addition to the errors you mention, there are quite a large number of basic typographical errors - especially with respect to various figures/illustrations and the relevant cross-references in the text. Take a careful look at the document and you will gradually see this. IMHO (as an Ex-BSI standards project manager, and a drafter/reviewer of many in-company procedures and process documents), the range of definitions is woefully incomplete and confusing, the text is generally poorly drafted and quite ambiguous in many places, and together these lead to problems where there is no clear answer to some obvious questions with huge implications (like the ones I posed!) nor clear indication of where suitable answers could be found. Regards John Allen ERA Technology Ltd -----Original Message----- From: Camille Good [ mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 30 November 2004 20:03 To: - EMC PSTC Posts (E-mail) Cc: Roger Mccoy Subject: RE: IEC/EN 61010-1, 2001 'Circuits derived from Mains Circuits' I would definitely agree that 61010-1 is confusing! However, what are the errors in 6.7.3.2 and Table 9? I remember there was some discussion on this list a while back about errors in some example calculations, is that what you are referring to or is it something else? If it is something else, was it discussed in this group (and therefore I should be able to find it in the list archives) or was it discussed somewhere else? Thanks in advance! -Camille --- Brian O'Connell <[email protected]> wrote: > Mr. Allen, > > My "personal rule" is either the apparatus is > ultimately connected to mains, > or it is not; and various NCBs has supported that > analysis. > > For an apparatus connected to mains, refer to Annex > D to determine > insulation requirements. Also, see 3.5.5, 3.5.6, and > 4.3.2.4. > > Section 6.9 also indicates insulation types, > according to the shock hazard. > > For apparatus not connected to mains, you can > determine the over-voltage > that it may be subject to, and may decide to use the > formula in 6.7.3.2 . > > As you know, 6.7.3.2 and Table 9 have errors. > > IMO, IEC 61010-1 as a test standard for end-use > apparatus, is more confusing > than most LVD standards. I suspect that many answers > can only be found in > the standards listed in Annex ZA. > > luck, > Brian > > -----Original Message----- > From: John Allen [ mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2004 5:27 AM > To: - EMC PSTC Posts (E-mail) > Subject: IEC/EN 61010-1, 2001 'Circuits derived from > Mains Circuits' > > Hi Folks > Sub-Clause 6.7.3.1 "Clearance values - General" and > Table 5 of Clause 6.7.3. > "Circuits other than MAINS CIRCUITS" refers to the > term 'Circuits derived > from MAINS CIRCUITS'. > However, nowhere in the standard are there clear > definitions or ranges of > examples of what these circuits are, or of what they > are not! Neither are > there any references to other standards to provide > this distinction. > Therefore one cannot point clearly to a methodology > for deciding what is, or > is not, a 'Circuit derived from Mains Circuits' - > except possibly that a > totally battery powered unit with no charging > facilities probably is NOT a > 'Circuit derived from Mains Circuits' ! > This leads me to the following questions: > a) Where, if anywhere, is the dividing line between > the two? > b) If there is a dividing line, then how many layers > of definable compliant > insulation, isolation, barriering, transient > reduction measures, etc., do > you need to need between one and the other? > c) If there is not a dividing line, then how the > H*ll do you make the > distinction and so be able to apply the standard? > Thus, if anyone can shed some light on the unspoken > meanings of this part of > the standard, I would be most grateful! > Thanks in advance. > John Allen, > ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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] Scott Douglas [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 _____________________________________________________________________ This e-mail has been scanned for viruses by MCI's Internet Managed Scanning Services - powered by MessageLabs. For further information visit http://www.mci.com ********************************************************************** Copyright ERA Technology Ltd. 2004. (www.era.co.uk). All rights reserved. The information supplied in this Commercial Communication should be treated in confidence. No liability whatsoever is accepted for any loss or damage suffered as a result of accessing this message or any attachments. ********************************************************************** _____________________________________________________________________ This e-mail has been scanned for viruses by MCI's Internet Managed Scanning Services - powered by MessageLabs. For further information visit http://www.mci.com ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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] Scott Douglas [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 ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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] Scott Douglas [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 _____________________________________________________________________ This e-mail has been scanned for viruses by MCI's Internet Managed Scanning Services - powered by MessageLabs. For further information visit http://www.mci.com ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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] Scott Douglas [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 _____________________________________________________________________ This e-mail has been scanned for viruses by MCI's Internet Managed Scanning Services - powered by MessageLabs. For further information visit http://www.mci.com ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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] Scott Douglas [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
