*Hi Rich;* I agree that 62368 attempts to allow for more flexibility the process of designing a safe product, but in the specific case of fire enclosures there is in fact a considerable impact where some existing product can not be certified to the new standard without significant product redesign.
I don’t know why one would certify an existing product to a new standard. I suppose that depends on what the rules say (and I am not familiar with those rules). *>> **I don't have a choice; there are several products that are already on the market which Management would like to sell past 2019. I recognize that many ITE products are quite short-lived due to constant product improvements and Moore's Law and all that, but some 60950 products actually experience longevity measured in decades. In North America they could be grandfathered after 2019, but not in the EU.* *Also keep in mind that feature cards may not change as frequently as the processor/memory, and often the feature cards are hanging out at the front or back edge of a product. * Where 60950 only required compliance with clause 4.6.1's 5 degree projection rule, and allowed for as much as 5mm side openings, 62368 (where PIS's are within 15mm of ventilation openings in the fire enclosure) can require 3mm openings (depending on where in the expanded fire cone your openings fall). Flames can easily escape from 5 mm openings, while 3 mm openings act like flame arresters and prevent flame from escaping. This is but one facet where 63268-1 provides a better safeguard against spread of fire than 60950-1. (By the way, the flame cone came from 60065.) Don’t think of upgrading an existing product to 62368-1. Instead, think “design it in” as promoted by John Woodgate. *>>For completely new products, of course we will have the luxury of a ground-up redesign with an eye on the new requirements. For existing product, or products that will re-use existing components, and which will still be sold after 2019, there will be much gnashing of teeth.* *-Ken* On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 3:40 PM, Richard Nute <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I agree that 62368 attempts to allow for more flexibility the process of > designing a safe product, but in the specific case of fire enclosures there > is in fact a considerable impact where some existing product can not be > certified to the new standard without significant product redesign. > > > > I don’t know why one would certify an existing product to a new standard. > I suppose that depends on what the rules say (and I am not familiar with > those rules). > > > > Where 60950 only required compliance with clause 4.6.1's 5 degree > projection rule, and allowed for as much as 5mm side openings, 62368 (where > PIS's are within 15mm of ventilation openings in the fire enclosure) can > require 3mm openings (depending on where in the expanded fire cone your > openings fall). > > > > Flames can easily escape from 5 mm openings, while 3 mm openings act like > flame arresters and prevent flame from escaping. This is but one facet > where 63268-1 provides a better safeguard against spread of fire than > 60950-1. (By the way, the flame cone came from 60065.) > > > > Don’t think of upgrading an existing product to 62368-1. Instead, think > “design it in” as promoted by John Woodgate. > > > > > > 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]>
