Kaz, The UK voted NO to the 2nd CDV, currently out for vote.
cheers Andy Mullan. -----Original Message----- From: <Kaz Gawrzyjal> <[email protected]> To: EMC-PSTC <[email protected]> Sent: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 19:47 Subject: Re: [PSES] Ecma TR-106 available Hi Brian, >From a cost perspective, it seems perhaps you are seeing the tip of an >iceberg. on-technical commentary floating in the ether, often points to predictions of ignificant cost increases and imminent chaos presented by early adopters and navoidable divergent interpretations of the requirements by various certifiers s they and their offices ramp in knowledge of applying the new standard to roducts. ..all with the question of whether there is safety related value add eyond what the existing standards present. "4. 62368-1 says components having 60950-1 reports/certs are acceptable" asically applies to subassemblies ( and those approved under 60065) as well but ill be nuked in the 3rd ed. Needless to say not all safety professionals agree with the merits of the new tandard that is currently out for vote within TC108...while the US has voted ffirmative, I believe other NC's may have begun to cast negative votes. egards, az Gawrzyjal ell Inc. ----Original Message----- rom: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Brian Oconnell ent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 12:07 PM o: 'EMC-PSTC' ubject: RE: Ecma TR-106 available More good stuff from Mr. Nute. And more questions from the peanut gallery. 1. Other than the SPD and flame test issues, what where the problems that the TC ad with the 1st edition? . Is TC108 still scheduled to vote in March? . Do organizations such as UL and CSA have the influence to get the next uilding code updated (NEC and CEC) to specify 62368-1? . 62368-1 says components having 60950-1 reports/certs are acceptable, and the L seminar said that no diff for component requirements. So why are agencies harging 25% more for a component report that contains only one additional rawing and two additional test pages compare to the ITE report? re we paying to train agency engineers? Brian -----Original Message----- rom: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of Richard Nute ent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 9:34 AM o: [email protected] c: 'Thomas M Burke'; 'EMC-PSTC'; Onno Elzinga ubject: Re: Ecma TR-106 available Hi Ron: IEC 62368-1 Edition 1 is an "approved" IEC standard. It was not voted down, but its adoption as a national or regional standard has een discouraged due to a number of problems in the standard. (This is what rompted the urgent work on a second edition.) (UL and maybe others have been accepting submittals to the first edition.) TC108 management expects the second edition to be accepted, and will supersede he first edition. The U.S.A. has voted for adoption of the second dition.) TC108 expects that the second edition will be adopted by national and egional regulatory bodies. Transition time from IEC 60950-1 and IEC 0065 is expected to be in the range of 5-8 years. Ecma TC12 has lost most of its membership. At the moment, it does not have ufficient staffing to produce a comparison document with the second edition or ith IEC 60065. We are seeking members; let me know if you would like to join Ecma TC12 and ontribute to the two comparison documents. We usually meet just before the C108 meetings so as to minimize travel costs. TC12 active members are from IBM (2), HP (1), and Intel (1). And me. est regards, ich 41-633-7252 On 2/26/2013 6:37 AM, Ron Pickard RPQ wrote: Hi Rich, Thank you and Tom getting this out to us. After reviewing this document, I noticed that it references IEC 62368 Edition 1. As this Edition 1 was oted down I believe by most NCBs causing Edition 2 to be created, will ECMA be updating this document to reflect a comparison to IEC 62368 Edition 2, hich is supposed to be published early next year? I look forward to your reply. Best regards, Ron Pickard -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Richard ute Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 12:45 PM To: EMC-PSTC Cc: Thomas M Burke Subject: Ecma TR-106 available Posted on behalf of Tom Burke, UL: More good news for those seeking to learn more about IEC 62368-1 as the CT Industry prepares for the eventual transition from IEC 60950-1 (and IEC 60065) to IEC 62368-1. ECMA International, previously known as the uropean Computer Manufacturers Association, has just published its Technical eport TR/106, which provides guidance and comparison between 60950-1 and 62368-1. The report was published by ECMA's TC12 on Product Safety, and the effort to develop and publish the TR was very capably led y Mr. Richard Nute. Thank you Rich and members of ECMA TC12! ECMA has a trong interest in IEC 62368-1 since its industry standard, ECMA-287 "Safety of electronic equipment," which was developed and ublished in the 1990s and which first introduced hazard-based concepts, was the ore material that IEC TC108 used when it began it project developing IEC 2368-1 in 2002. It is believed that the availability of comparison documents like TR/106 from a variety of sources helps industry prepare for the pending transition and also helps clear up some of the misconceptions about the ew standard. As has been discussed in this group previously, IEC 62368-1 has many familiar elements from 60950-1, including allowance for prescriptive constructions that have proven safe in 60950-1 and that may be used as an alternative to some of the performance based requirements in 2368-1. Provided below are links to information on ECMA TC12 and the TR/106 (available free of charge). http://www.ecma-international.org/memento/TC12.htm http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/techreports/E-TR-106.htm"; Best regards, Rich - --------------------------------------------------------------- his message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc iscussion 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: ttp://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at ttp://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used ormats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ nstructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html ist rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: cott Douglas <[email protected]> ike Cantwell <[email protected]> For policy questions, send mail to: im Bacher: <[email protected]> avid Heald: <[email protected]> - --------------------------------------------------------------- his message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc iscussion 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: ttp://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at ttp://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used ormats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ nstructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html ist rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: cott Douglas <[email protected]> ike Cantwell <[email protected]> For policy questions, send mail to: im Bacher: <[email protected]> avid 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.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]>
