Also, here is something else I thought of that might impact your original question and reinforces Rich’s response as well. (even if you are not RFT.)
In the scope of 62368-3 there is a really ambiguous and strange sentence that exempts some DC power transfer equipment completely from 62368-3. So any current limits or power limits or other things you are concerned about might be a moot point. (but remember things are subject to change!) Let me explain briefly (also my comments that were submitted to the US TAG are below at the bottom on this subject, but due to time constraints they were not looked at, but there was a brief discussion of this problem. 1.) Line 78 uses an undefined term “Industry Standard connectors”, this really should be defined and the first comment I had below on this was an attempt to do that. 2.) Then in line 81-82 you have a complete exemption from 62368-3 altogether 81 This part of IEC 62368 does not apply to equipment used as PSE or PD with proprietary 82 connectors for the power transfer. 3.) Line 78 mentions “industry standard connector”, then 81/82 conversely sounds like you would be a “Proprietary Connector” if not an “industry standard connector”. 4.) There is no definition in 62368-x or in the IEC for this. A trusted and respected colleague on this forum from England has pointed out that when there is no definition you fall back to the Queens English dictionary. I doubt most people (labs or manufacturers) would do that, and would try to rationalize or interpret this. The only term in the dictionary is “proprietary”, not “proprietary connector” Connectors have lots of properties ranging from the mechanicals to the connection means to how wires and circuits are connected. 5.) Would we really want tests labs and manufacturers to decide or have to know what “connectors” may be trade-marked, patented, or wired a certain way etc. So how would this be applied consistently or fairly based on real hazards in 62368-3??? 6.) Seems to me if you want to avoid 62368-3, just use a non industry standard connector???? That seems to defeat the purpose of a safety standard? 7.) The story I heard was that this text was really to appease a particular manufacturer who had an interface that was not industry standardized, who didn’t want to have his equipment evaluated to section 5 (and he also wasn’t RFT), so basically he got an exemption from all of 62368-3 as written or interpreted. Not sure it is true but several people have told me this story. 8.) The point is this little innocuous sentence wreaks all kinds of havoc on this standard and what is included and what is exempted. Below are several examples of issues. The US Tag suggested moving the sentence to section 5, but that only moves the problem, not solves it. So I really don’t see that as a solution. a. Without a definition or explanation of “proprietary” almost anything could be included or exempted. b. What do you do when one or both ends have no connectors. Maybe for speakers, or lots of stuff in telecom stuff especially on the service providers side of the demarcation point. In many cases all you have is a cut off cable you spice or crimp to something else. That would seem proprietary to me??? But should it be exempt equipment based on that?. c. In telecom (other on the phone side) virtually no connectorization is “industry standard” and thus I would interpret it such that most telecom stuff would be exempt from section 5, and also including section 6 for RFT which rarely uses industry standard connectors or connectorization. The US tag is suggesting moving the statement to section 5 which brings RFT back in to play on section 6, but still does not solve ES1 and ES2 for most telecom which may or may not be in section 5? (another quandary being argued, and why have it there anyway when it was fine in 62368-1)?. Or things like the cut off cables in b above, would section 5 apply or not. d. What justification is there to exempt equipment from safety standard requirements simply based on whether the connector they use is industry standard or not???? I could maybe see exempting section 5 if you have an industry defined standard interface that meets the Industry standards safety criteria, but I am hard pressed to exempt section 5 because you don’t meet some industry standard???? I am still trying to grasp this one. e. This also plays into this new term they introduced in the definition called an ICT network (it is a morphed version of telecommunications network in 60950-1). But it seems to work now for anything discussed in 62368-3. In fact if ES1 ES2 telecom is to be covered in 62368-3 as stated, ICT has to apply to section 5 and section 6! It implies that everything covered in 62368-3 makes up an ICT network. And the only place it is really used is to say in section 6 that you can connect RFT to an ICT network under certain condition. The same way 60950-21 allowed RFT to be connected to a telecommunications network when it exceed TNV limits. However section 5 never allows you to connect anything to an ICT network, so all of section 5 must by default be a ICT network? This just seems logical! The ICT network includes all the equipment and cables and splices, and jack panels, and everything between the PSE and the PD. So does everything in the network have to have industry standard connectors (nonproprietary connectors) for 62368-3 to apply???? 120 3.2.3 121 information and communication technology (ICT) network 122 metallically terminated transmission medium and its associated equipment and 123 communication cables 124 NOTE 1 to entry: The cable consists of two or more conductors intended for communication and/or power transfer 125 between the various pieces of equipment. The equipment may be located within the same or separate structures, 126 buildings or locations, excluding: 127 - the mains system for supply, transmission and distribution of electrical power, if used as a communication 128 transmission medium; 129 - a dedicated HBES/BACS network. 130 NOTE 2 to entry: This may include twisted pairs, and may include circuits, that are subjected to transients as 131 indicated by ID1 in Table 14 of IEC 62368-1:2014 (assumed to be 1,5kV). 132 NOTE 3 to entry: An ICT network may be: 133 - publicly or privately owned; 134 - subject to longitudinal (common mode) voltages induced from nearby power lines or electric traction lines. 135 NOTE 4 to entry: Examples of ICT networks are: 136 - a public switched telephone network; 137 - a public data network; 138 - an Integrated Services Digital Network (ISDN); 139 - a private network with electrical interface characteristics similar to the above. 140 NOTE 5 to entry: For information about circuit voltages and signals, which may be present, see Annex B of 141 IEC 62949. “Industry standard” definition comment to TC108: “Industry Standard” is not defined anywhere nor is an “industry standard defined connector”. Can we please get these included to eliminate confusion. Proposed solution I provided to TC108 If no better definition exists and if this is the intent, the following is suggested: Industry Standard – A standard, practice, or document used and accepted widely by multiple customers, manufacturers, and observers within a given industry, or area of interest. Generally, but not always, produced and accredited by a recognized standards development body. Examples include IEC, IEEE, ANSI, etc Industry Standard Connector – A connector whose mechanical dimensions, form factor, electrical configuration/pinouts and properties are defined in an Industry Standard. “Proprietary Connector” comment to TC108: There is no definition of what a “Proprietary Connector” is!!! This revised sentence is creating all kinds of consternation in the telecom industry. It is widely being interpreted in a manner that excludes (removes from the scope of 62638-3) virtually all the equipment used in telecom RFT networks described in Section 6 as they typically have proprietary connectors, or no connectors at all when shipped. Confusion exists as many readers agree that line 78 is talking about “industry standard connectors”, and thus “proprietary connectors” would be the converse of “industry standard”. Other than the RJ connectors defined by the FCC in Part 68 such as RJ11, RJ45, RJ48, etc there are very few industry standard connectors used in the telecommunications industry. They range from scotch lock to punch down, to wire wrap, to amp champ, to 710, 310, high density 2mm, etc but are generally not defined in an industry standard, they are proprietary and there are no defined electrical pinouts or properties. Proposed Solution I provided to TC108 define “proprietary connector”, maybe just say a connector that is not an industry standard connector?? Jim Wiese Senior Compliance Engineer Office: 256.963.8431 Mobile: 256.714.5882 Email: jim.wi...@adtran.com<mailto:jim.wi...@adtran.com> Web: www.adtran.com<http://s.bl-1.com/h/CoY1mz9?url=http://www.adtran.com> ADTRAN 901 Explorer Boulevard Huntsville, AL 35806 - USA From: Richard Nute [mailto:ri...@ieee.org] Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2017 5:36 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> Subject: Re: [PSES] EN 62368-3:2017-02-15 power limits Hi Chuck: I have reviewed the IEC draft version of EN 62368-3, 108/639/CD. As near as I can tell, the power limits depend on the components of the system such as wire size and connector ratings. In some cases, the power can be as high as 100 watts. In other cases, the current is limited to 1.3 amperes. There is no one answer to your question. 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 <emc-p...@ieee.org> 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 <sdoug...@ieee.org> Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org> For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: <j.bac...@ieee.org> David Heald: <dhe...@gmail.com>
