Hi Joe:

 

Electric shock requires both voltage and current.  If the voltage exceeds
the specified limit, the current must not exceed its specified limit.  

 

The 60335 standard as well as the 60950 standard concentrated on voltage.
But, there was some recognition that if the voltage was too high but if the
current was low, the construction was acceptable, hence the requirements for
limited current circuits.  See attached discussion of how some standards
addressed this reality.  

 

As I mentioned, I am guessing that your 60-volts is a limited current
circuit.  You can easily test this with a 1500-ohm resistor across the 60
volts and measure the voltage.  My guess is that it will be near zero.

 

More later,

Rich

 

 

From: Joe Randolph <[email protected]> 
Sent: Friday, January 10, 2020 10:07 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [PSES] Touch current in IEC 60335-1 for Household Appliances

 

I agree that there are several opportunities to add some interlocks
(physical or electrical) that would power down the high voltage circuit
under certain conditions.  If that were all that is necessary to comply with
60335-1, it would probably be quite manageable.

i

The main problem I'm concerned about is the apparent requirement in a Class
2 appliance to provide double insulation between the high voltage circuit
and accessible parts.  In particular, the creepage and clearance distances
required for the double insulation would be a challenge to achieve without
major changes to the physical design.

 

Presumably, with a sufficient number of interlocks, it would be possible to
ensure that the high voltage circuit is disabled under certain
circumstances, and this might possibly help to avoid double insulation in
certain areas.

 

However, the fact remains that when this handheld product is actually in use
(no battery charger connected, battery compartment closed, and
user-replaceable module installed), there is a non-SELV voltage being
generated within the device, and 60335-1 seems determined to require a
double-insulation barrier around that circuit.

 

In other standards such as 60950-1 and 62368-1, circuits with non-SELV
voltage but limited current can be classified as a "limited-current circuit"
(60950-1) or "ES2 circuit" (62368-1).  Circuits that qualify have no
accessibility restrictions whatsoever.  In terms of accessibility, they are
treated like SELV.

 

For the product in question, this would be a much easier way to demonstrate
compliance.  I think that clause 8.1.4 in 60335-1 is intended to provide
this option, but the unusual wording of clause 3.3.12 appears to prevent
this option.

 

I agree that it can take a very long time to get an official interpretation
issued or, worse yet, get a standard changed.  Fortunately for me, the
product in question is not my product and I was not involved in designing
it.  I've simply been asked to evaluate the product for compliance with
60335-1.  

 

When I made my initial post on this topic, I was just trying to find out if
clause 3.3.12 had been (or might soon be) revised to remove the apparent
contradiction in the 2009 edition.  From some preliminary feedback I have
received, it sounds like the answer is "no."

 

In the meantime, the responses I have received here have identified some
useful approaches for trying to demonstrate compliance as a Class 2
appliance per 60335-1, and I plan to think carefully about those approaches.
Right now, the main sticking point is the apparent requirement to provide
double insulation, with its attendant creepage and clearance distances.

 

 

Joe Randolph

Telecom Design Consultant

Randolph Telecom, Inc.

781-721-2848 (USA)

[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> 

http://www.randolph-telecom.com <http://www.randolph-telecom.com/> 

 

From: John Woodgate [ <mailto:[email protected]> mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: Friday, January 10, 2020 11:43 AM
To: Joe Randolph < <mailto:[email protected]>
[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [PSES] Touch current in IEC 60335-1 for Household Appliances

 

Can that be done while the product is powered-up? If not, how long does it
take after power-down for the 60 V to disappear from the accessible poles? 

Can you cover up the accessible poles? Basic insulation might be enough, but
reinforced insulation might not be too bulky.

It would almost certainly take years to get 60335-1 modified. There is a
very small chance of an Interpretation Sheet being agreed, but even that
takes about 18 months minimum. I suppose you are in USA. If so, go to this
page on the IEC web site and send an email explaining your problem to Ms R K
Myers and ask for advice how to try to get a clarification:

 
<https://www.iec.ch/dyn/www/f?p=103:29:13970009729823::::FSP_ORG_ID,FSP_LANG
_ID:1236,25#3>
https://www.iec.ch/dyn/www/f?p=103:29:13970009729823::::FSP_ORG_ID,FSP_LANG_
ID:1236,25#3

You will probably be referred to the chair of the ANSI committee.

You can still do that if you are not in the USA. but there is a different
path if you are not.

On 2020-01-10 16:03, Joe Randolph wrote:

 

4)      Lastly, there is a user-replaceable module that, when removed,
allows both poles of the high voltage supply to be accessible.

 

 

-
----------------------------------------------------------------

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) <http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html> 
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]> > 


-
----------------------------------------------------------------
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]>

Attachment: elv-selv-es1-es2_rev-b.docx
Description: MS-Word 2007 document

Reply via email to