This is the sort of thing that can easily happen in a huge document. It
is extremely difficult, especially where there is a chain of forward and
back cross references, and text pushed off from its primary context to
multiple annexes, to ensure internal consistency.
Best wishes John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK MAY THE VIRUS NOT BE WITH YOU
On 2020-05-06 18:35, Carl Newton wrote:
I'm wondering if any list members can explain the rationale behind
62368-1, in sections 6.4.8.2.2 and 6.8.8.4. I'm looking at the 2014
edition.
Clause 6.4.6, Control of fire spread in a PS3 circuit, states that,
"/Fire spread in PS3 circuits shall be controlled by applying all of
the following supplementary safeguards/:". In that clause it includes,
"/by providing a fire enclosure as specified in 6.4.8./"
Clause 6.4.8.2.2, /Requirements for a fire enclosure/, states "/For
circuits where the available power does not exceed 4 000 W (see
6.4.1), a fire enclosure shall comply with the requirements of Clause
S.1./" That clause then goes on to say that V-1 is acceptable....
Clause (6.4.8.4) is addressing "Separation of a PIS from a fire
enclosure and a fire barrier" and is only requiring the application of
the S.2 flame test, which I believe is less demanding in that only a
60 s flame is applied rather than three steps up to 120 s for the S.1
test method. Clause 6.4.8.4 then goes on to state that a V-0 material
is excluded from the requirement. So unless I'm mistaken, this clause
6.4.8.4 (which addresses separation) is requiring a lesser flame
requirement than S.1, yet goes on to exclude V-0, but not V-1.
I don't see the rationale. I must be missing something here. The most
fundamental question in my mind here is why does 6.8.8.4 allow the S.2
test method?
Thanks,
Carl
-
----------------------------------------------------------------
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]>>
-
----------------------------------------------------------------
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]>
