As I outlined in a PM to John Woodgate, I'm not able to do that for various
reasons ATM, but it basically involves a (long, tedious, and oft-times
repetitive!) process of dissecting and analysing each section/clause,
paragraph, sentence and phrase of a standard to the level that one can give
one of the following responses regarding the "compliance" of the product to
each one of those:
1. "Not applicable" - with very good reason(s)!
2. "Compliant" - with the reference to the evidence as necessary (e.g.
test reports, drawings of the compliant parts/labels/etc., materials specs,
compliance reports, etc.)
3. "Not Compliant" - with the reasons - in which case the "problem"
must be "fixed"! Of course, in the final version of such a product
compliance report then there will be NO statements to this effect because
everything WILL have been "fixed" and thus the response will be either "1"
or "2" above!
4. "Not established" because "we don't know" - meaning that further
work is required to establish what then needs to be done to work out what
needs to be checked out in detail and then "fixed, and will result the
response being either "1" or "2" above!
Thus, only when all the responses are either "1" or "2" above can the
product be declared compliant to the standard in question.
"Simples" in theory, but very difficult/time-consuming in practice - thus it
would be far better for everyone, everywhere, if the IEC committees made
sure that checklists were prepared for each standard in a form that "your
("average" in safety compliance issues but otherwise very competent!)
development engineer" can understand and then meet!
In other words: The IEC committees should make sure this is done it right
first time, so that multiple "interpretations" of the standards - and thus
multiple "controversies" are avoided - and thus that compliance verification
process will become more straightforward.
PS: it might hopefully then also result in the standards being far more
clearly and explicitly worded as the committees realise the "errors of their
ways"
John E Allen
W.London, UK
From: John Woodgate <[email protected]>
Sent: 06 May 2020 23:06
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [PSES] 62368-1 Section 6.4.8 Flammability Confusion
Can you please share the format of your 'document and worded' exercise? I
might be able to get at lease a small part of IEC interested in it.
Best wishes John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only www.woodjohn.uk
<http://www.woodjohn.uk> Rayleigh, Essex UK MAY THE VIRUS NOT BE WITH YOU
On 2020-05-06 20:40, John E Allen wrote:
IMHO & TBH. I encountered such inconsistencies in IEC standards too many
times - which was why I "dissected" several standards (notably 60950, 60204
and 61010-1), rigourously followed the various cross-references, and then
documented and worded them in a form that would allow your ("average" in
safety compliance issues but otherwise very competent!) development
engineers to understand and then meet the requirements of the standards in
question.
Great pity that the IEC tech committees never seem to do the thing - but, if
they did then their standards and Technical Report formats would be far more
easily and clearly understood by everyone!
John E Allen
W.London, UK.
From: John Woodgate <mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]>
Sent: 06 May 2020 19:45
To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [PSES] 62368-1 Section 6.4.8 Flammability Confusion
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
<http://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) <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] <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] <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] <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]>
