Rich. Could it be that the scenarios which the standards committees envisage are not "the real deal", OR that the products which cause the fires just don't comply with the standards?
IMO (not IMHO on this occasion !) the latter may well be the actual case, because, in opinion, the number of counterfeit products on the market worldwide is so great that they are the cause (they minimise the production costs by "deleting" the safety features (i.e. the features that ensure that fires don't occur) . The EU RAPEX system identifies thousands of such products, and I saw good examples of those products at the Nov 2015 UK Electrical Safety First conference in London. FWIW, that's why I did not agree with Gert G's comment about the lack of fires in his experience (which I do not doubt) from 61010 products. But, then there is the problem that most people don't read the product instructions - mea culpa, as that could be said of me on many occasions. In which case then it has to go back to the argument that the requirements in the standards are "not the real deal". (Have I ever set off an argument like this in real life? Almost certainly YES, and it did not "help" my career - but "that's life") and "if you don't feel the bumps, you're not moving" [and I have certainly felt the bumps]) John E Allen W. London, UK -----Original Message----- From: Richard Nute [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 22 May 2016 22:39 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [PSES] fire safety test methods for different country standards Our most common and serious safety issue is that of product electrically-caused fire. I subscribe to "In Compliance" weekly recall notices; most are fire. As Gert Gremmen has stated, no fault-testing has resulted in a product fire in the test lab, yet product fires continue to occur in the field. Clearly, 60950, 61010, and others are not adequate in testing for fire and in specifying fire safeguards. We are doing something wrong. Safety standards are not tested to see if they accomplish the objective. Instead, they are promulgated and use the field as the test bed. Maybe 62368 will improve the product fire situation. Rich - ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) 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.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://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) 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]>
