Don et al, First thanks to everyone that provided comments. Pretty much confirms what I expected.
I will say that Don's comments below about the fire enclosure did come up in a different conversation a few months back on a different product with a different agency. So I get that part. But I would have expected this agency to have simply evaluated that point and let me know I had a problem or not. I had already pushed back and asked for the contact name at the agency to press the point. Now I wait for that to come from the across the waters. Once again, thanks to all. Regards, Scott Umbdenstock, Don wrote: > Although they both address the same hazard, they do so differently. As > I recall from an issue I had a couple of years ago from a similar > situation, 60950 allowed a product to be built without a fire enclosure > if it was powered by a Class II or certified LPS power supply along with > certain other conditions, whereas 60065 mandated that the power input > was no greater than 15W. Thus there were 2 different approaches to > controlling the same hazard. This might be part of why your agency is > hedging a bit. On the other hand, a more reasonable agency sounds more > logical... > > Don Umbdenstock > > My own opinion. > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of James, > Chris > Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2009 5:10 AM > To: Scott Douglas; EMC PSTC > Subject: RE: IEC 60065 vs IEC 60950-1 > > Scott - I would agree with John - press your case with them or take the > business elsewhere. There's nothing to say they HAVE to be tested to the > same standard, bottom line is you (the customer) are seeking to prove > presumption of conformity to a suitable safety standard applicable to > the item. If having them tested to different standards satisfies your > needs then they should comply. > > If the speaker system is powered by an EPS does it require testing at > all? > > Chris > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Scott > Douglas > Sent: 03 December 2009 05:43 > To: 'EMC PSTC' > Subject: IEC 60065 vs IEC 60950-1 > > There is a product that is a speaker system. It could be connected to a > computer and be considered ITE. It can also connect to other audio > sources that are not computers and so could be considered AV. The > primary market target is not computers, but other devices. The product > is powered by an External Power Supply (EPS). > > The EPS is already approved to IEC/EN/UL 60950-1 (ITE). A safety agency > was asked to test the product to IEC/EN/UL 60065 (AV). The agency said > the EPS and product should be tested to the same standards in order to > be consistent. If they test the product to the AV standard, they say > they will treat the EPS as an unapproved component, implying they will > do all the extra testing normally done for an EPS. But if they test the > product to the ITE standard, then they do not need to test the EPS at > all. > > UL 60065 makes allowances to accept a power supply tested under UL > 60950-1. I do not find these same allowances directly within IEC/EN > 60065. > > My comment was that the product should be tested without regard for the > EPS provided the EPS is a Class II LPS supply (it is). And the test > reports for the product should just say that the product is required to > be provided with or to use a Class II LPS supply. > > Is there anything in IEC/EN 60065 that permits or prevents using a > IEC/EN/UL 60950-1 EPS with the product? Or that would require such an > EPS to be treated as an unapproved component? Any suggestions on what to > > tell the safety agency? > > Thank you for your comments. > > Scott Douglas > > - > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society > emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your > e-mail to <[email protected]> > > All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: > http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc > Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that > URL. > > Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ > Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html > List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html > > For help, send mail to the list administrators: > Scott Douglas <[email protected]> > Mike Cantwell <[email protected]> > > For policy questions, send mail to: > Jim Bacher: <[email protected]> > David Heald: <[email protected]> > > - > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society > emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your > e-mail to <[email protected]> > > All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: > http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc > Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that > URL. > > Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ > Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html > List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html > > For help, send mail to the list administrators: > Scott Douglas <[email protected]> > Mike Cantwell <[email protected]> > > For policy questions, send mail to: > Jim Bacher: <[email protected]> > David Heald: <[email protected]> > > - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to <[email protected]> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas <[email protected]> Mike Cantwell <[email protected]> For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: <[email protected]> David Heald: <[email protected]>
