This is a another example of risks taken to limits beyond the
considerations in the standard tests. The standard is not intended to
contain design rules for every risk, but does a good job of addressing
the common ones. If you are using IEC 60950, then careful application of
chapter 0 is required. It explicitly says "Where the equipment involves
technologies and materials or methods of construction not specifically
covered, the design of the equipment should provide a level of safety
not less than those described in these principles of safety."
A more advanced means of addressing issues like this is found in the
hazard based standard IEC 62386.
This is why the safety of a product needs to be addressed by a product
safety engineer, not an auditor. After careful review of the hazards and
conditions of use, you may end up with a design with either tighter or
looser constraints than the standard, but you should have produced a
careful rationale you feel can stand up to the review of other product
safety engineers. Discussion forums like this are useful places to check
your evaluation.
Bob Johnson
ITE Safety
-
----------------------------------------------------------------
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.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used
formats), large files, etc.
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]>
