IBM Ken, My main interest at this time is with the fire enclosure. Our products fall under the 61010-1, and it’s been years since I have read 60950, but I can see where improvements in the constructional requirements in a fire enclosure could be made. It seems our mechanical engineers sometimes struggle to understand the requirements of Fire Enclosure, RF Enclosure, Limit Access for electric shock, etc.. 61010-1 always seems to be lagging so I was hoping to learn as much about future improvements as I can to give more time to train our engineers.
Thanks, The Other Brian From: IBM Ken [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2016 11:32 AM To: Kunde, Brian Cc: [email protected] Subject: [BULK] Re: [PSES] Fire requirements in standards Importance: Low Hi Brian; Do you mean specifically the changes to the fire enclosure requirements or the overall differences between 60950 and 62368? If it's the latter, ECMA TR/106 might be helpful (but be forewarned, this document compares 60950 to the 1st edition of 62368). The best part is that it's free! http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/files/ECMA-TR/ECMA%20TR-106.pdf On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 8:53 AM, Kunde, Brian <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: This subject is very interesting to me. If I wanted to know more, is getting a copy of 62368-1 worth reading or will I have to wait for the proposed changes to 60950-1 to come out, or what do you recommend? Are the proposed changes quite large or can they be summarized? What are the weak areas of the current construction requirements? I would like to inform our mechanical people as soon as possible of changes like these. Regards, The Other Brian -----Original Message----- From: Richard Nute [mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>] Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2016 3:23 PM To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: [PSES] Fire requirements in standards > During last TC 108 meeting there was no real consensus > about this topic. Also there was an issue raised that fire > enclosure of some product will fail requirement of new > standard while it was OK for IEC 60950-1 and they will > make a proposal to change the requirement in the standard. This is true. A new standard implies that some aspects of the old standard are inadequate. 62368-1 is better at preventing fires and preventing escape of fires than 60950-1. Changing back to 60950-1 means continued fire incidents. I have said many times that fire is our biggest problem. See the weekly recall list from In Compliance magazine. Best regards, 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]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[email protected]>> Mike Cantwell <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> David Heald: <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> ________________________________ LECO Corporation Notice: This communication may contain confidential information intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you received this by mistake, please destroy it and notify us of the error. Thank you. - ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[email protected]>> Mike Cantwell <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> David Heald: <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> ________________________________ LECO Corporation Notice: This communication may contain confidential information intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you received this by mistake, please destroy it and notify us of the error. Thank you. - ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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]>
