RE: EN60529-ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA Clause 14.3
Hello Constantin, CTL Decision Sheets: http://www.iecee.org/ctl/decisions.htm I do not know off hand if this is addressed in CTL or OSM decisions. The answer to your question specific to 60950 equipment might be contained in 60950-22 Information technology equipment - Safety - Part 22: Equipment to be installed outdoors cl. 9 Cheers, Kaz Gawrzyjal Dell Inc. -Original Message- From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Bolintineanu, Constantin Sent: Monday, October 18, 2010 2:19 PM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: EN60529-ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA Clause 14.3 Dear Colleagues, It came to my attention the text of the subject Clause. 1. It is the responsibility of the relevant technical committee to specify the amount of water which may be allowed to enter the enclosure and the details of a dielectric strength test, if any QUESTION: is anybody aware about any such specifications made by a TC in charge with the EN (IEC)60950 Standard? 2. Within the next paragraph is specified: In general, if any water..., it shall not: Be sufficient to interfere with the correctOR impair safety, followed by: Deposit on insulation parts where it COULD lead to tracking along the creepage distance... QUESTIONS: 2.1. Do you think that tracking along the creepage distance may impair safety OR may disturb the correct operation? and 2.2. Does the word COULD offers an open door for INTERPRETATION of the test result ?, OR there is a clear way to consider a decision ? (in my opinion, the second paragraph is redundant, and gives the degree of freedom for an arbitrary interpretation, and that line shall be removed). 3. Does anyone knows the TC in charge with this document where I may ask for an opinion regarding Question 2.1 ? 4. Are there any CTL decisions regarding this Clause, and if the answer is yes, where those may be accessed? (I was not able to find the former link related to the CTL decisions). Please accept in advance my many thanks for your assistance regarding this subject and have a very good week! Respectfully yours, Constantin Constantin Bolintineanu P.Eng. Digital Security Controls (DSC) a Division of Tyco Safety Products Canada 3301 LANGSTAFF Road, L4K 4L2 CONCORD, ONTARIO, CANADA e-mail: cbolintine...@dsc.com Tel: 905 760 3000 ext 2568 Fax: 905 760 3020 Before printing this e-mail think if it is necessary DISCLAIMER: This e-mail message may contain privileged or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not disclose, use, disseminate, distribute, copy or rely upon this message or attachment in any way. If you received this e-mail message in error, please return the message and its attachments to the sender, and then please delete from your system without copying or forwarding it or call TSPC at 905 760 3000 extension 2568 so that the sender's address records can be corrected. - 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.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com - 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.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com
EN60529-ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA Clause 14.3
Dear Colleagues, It came to my attention the text of the subject Clause. 1. It is the responsibility of the relevant technical committee to specify the amount of water which may be allowed to enter the enclosure and the details of a dielectric strength test, if any QUESTION: is anybody aware about any such specifications made by a TC in charge with the EN (IEC)60950 Standard? 2. Within the next paragraph is specified: In general, if any water..., it shall not: Be sufficient to interfere with the correctOR impair safety, followed by: Deposit on insulation parts where it COULD lead to tracking along the creepage distance... QUESTIONS: 2.1. Do you think that tracking along the creepage distance may impair safety OR may disturb the correct operation? and 2.2. Does the word COULD offers an open door for INTERPRETATION of the test result ?, OR there is a clear way to consider a decision ? (in my opinion, the second paragraph is redundant, and gives the degree of freedom for an arbitrary interpretation, and that line shall be removed). 3. Does anyone knows the TC in charge with this document where I may ask for an opinion regarding Question 2.1 ? 4. Are there any CTL decisions regarding this Clause, and if the answer is yes, where those may be accessed? (I was not able to find the former link related to the CTL decisions). Please accept in advance my many thanks for your assistance regarding this subject and have a very good week! Respectfully yours, Constantin Constantin Bolintineanu P.Eng. Digital Security Controls (DSC) a Division of Tyco Safety Products Canada 3301 LANGSTAFF Road, L4K 4L2 CONCORD, ONTARIO, CANADA e-mail: cbolintine...@dsc.com Tel: 905 760 3000 ext 2568 Fax: 905 760 3020 Before printing this e-mail think if it is necessary DISCLAIMER: This e-mail message may contain privileged or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not disclose, use, disseminate, distribute, copy or rely upon this message or attachment in any way. If you received this e-mail message in error, please return the message and its attachments to the sender, and then please delete from your system without copying or forwarding it or call TSPC at 905 760 3000 extension 2568 so that the sender's address records can be corrected. - 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.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com
Re: IP testing per EN60529
In message de87437fe365cb458c265ea3d73b6f1d02673...@xbc-mail1.xantrex.com, dated Mon, 26 Mar 2007, Jim Eichner jim.eich...@xantrex.com writes: It seems I am interpreting it correctly, and some other mfr's and competent bodies are not. None of us is perfect, but careful reading does give you the correct answer in this case so it's a bit frustrating. The trouble is that many standards don't actually say clearly what they mean, which leads to 'interpretations', some official but many unofficial, which come in three kinds, 'true', 'perhaps' and 'false'. When you are told of an 'interpretation', it may be very difficult to find out which kind you have! -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk There are benefits from being irrational - just ask the square root of 2. John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc __ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email __
RE: IP testing per EN60529
Thanks everyone. It seems I am interpreting it correctly, and some other mfr's and competent bodies are not. None of us is perfect, but careful reading does give you the correct answer in this case so it's a bit frustrating. Jim Eichner, P.Eng. Manager - Compliance Engineering and SW Test Xantrex Technology Inc. phone: (604) 422-2546 fax: (604) 420-1591 e-mail: jim.eich...@xantrex.com web: www.xantrex.com Confidentiality Notice: This email message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. From: emc-p...@ieee.org Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 5:07 PM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: IP testing per EN60529 This has to do with the IP 3X, and 4X ratings and tests. The testing is by way of 2.5mm rod or 1.0mm wire probes, which seems quite straight forward at first. But the probes are not meant to be used the way I'm used to. It's not about whether they can touch anything, it's about whether they can enter at all. This is pretty clear in the text and tables giving pass pass/fail criteria, and is made really obvious if you read the note under 13.3. That note says that for IP3X and 4X the requirements are meant to prevent spherical objects of 2.5mm or 1.0mm diameter that are capable of motion from entering the enclosure. So basically an indirect or tortuous entry path doesn't do the job and you have to limit the size of an opening somewhere along the path to less than the diameter of the probe. It's easy to get misled on that point, for a variety of reasons: - the probes have a defined length and a stop, neither of which comes into play with the shall not enter criteria, but their presence suggest the more typical ok to enter but not to touch hazardous parts criteria - some of the examples in Annex A can easily be misinterpreted - safety compliance people are used to criteria that allows the probe to enter but not touch things - the standard touches on pass/fail in several places and the additional letters and first numeral have requirements that overlap but are different I have seen products on the market and results from certification bodies that make it clear this is being misinterpreted. People are assuming it's ok for the probe to enter as long as adequate clearance is maintained to live parts, whirling blades, etc, when in fact it is not acceptable for the IP3X and 4X probes to enter the enclosure. So given what I am seeing as widespread mis-interpretation my question is, am I wrong? Are the labs and other products on the market right, and I'm misinterpreting the requirements? Thanks, Jim Eichner, P.Eng. Manager - Compliance Engineering Xantrex Technology Inc. e-mail: jim.eich...@xantrex.com web: www.xantrex.com Confidentiality Notice: This email message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc __ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email __
RE: IP testing per EN60529
You are interpreting the standard the way I've always interpreted it. Regards, Brian Epstein ENT Consulting bepst...@entconsulting.net 805.591.9587-Original Message- From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Jim Eichner Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 5:07 PM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: IP testing per EN60529 This has to do with the IP 3X, and 4X ratings and tests. The testing is by way of 2.5mm rod or 1.0mm wire probes, which seems quite straight forward at first. But the probes are not meant to be used the way I'm used to. It's not about whether they can touch anything, it's about whether they can enter at all. This is pretty clear in the text and tables giving pass pass/fail criteria, and is made really obvious if you read the note under 13.3. That note says that for IP3X and 4X the requirements are meant to prevent spherical objects of 2.5mm or 1.0mm diameter that are capable of motion from entering the enclosure. So basically an indirect or tortuous entry path doesn't do the job and you have to limit the size of an opening somewhere along the path to less than the diameter of the probe. It's easy to get misled on that point, for a variety of reasons: - the probes have a defined length and a stop, neither of which comes into play with the shall not enter criteria, but their presence suggest the more typical ok to enter but not to touch hazardous parts criteria - some of the examples in Annex A can easily be misinterpreted - safety compliance people are used to criteria that allows the probe to enter but not touch things - the standard touches on pass/fail in several places and the additional letters and first numeral have requirements that overlap but are different I have seen products on the market and results from certification bodies that make it clear this is being misinterpreted. People are assuming it's ok for the probe to enter as long as adequate clearance is maintained to live parts, whirling blades, etc, when in fact it is not acceptable for the IP3X and 4X probes to enter the enclosure. So given what I am seeing as widespread mis-interpretation my question is, am I wrong? Are the labs and other products on the market right, and I'm misinterpreting the requirements? Thanks, Jim Eichner, P.Eng. Manager - Compliance Engineering Xantrex Technology Inc. e-mail: jim.eich...@xantrex.com web: www.xantrex.com Confidentiality Notice: This email message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc __ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email __
Re: IP testing per EN60529
In message p06240812c226d8d0cad0@[192.168.1.60], dated Wed, 21 Mar 2007, Nick Williams nick.willi...@conformance.co.uk writes: It is wrong to think of the results of testing to EN 60529 in terms of 'pass' or 'fail'. It is there to assign a code number to a given enclosure and whether this is adequate for the intended application is (in most cases) the subject of other standards. Indeed. Part of the confusion is down to the European Commission, in notifying EN 60529 under the LVD as if it were a safety standard. It isn't: it's a classification standard. -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk There are benefits from being irrational - just ask the square root of 2. John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc __ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email __
Re: IP testing per EN60529
I agree with Ted that you are correct, Jim. The IP code is widely misunderstood as being the same as a pass/fail requirement in one of the product safety standards. In fact it is not, it is standardised method of making measurements of the performance of a product with regard to ingress protection, and whether or not a product is acceptable for any given application is not the purpose of the code. It is wrong to think of the results of testing to EN 60529 in terms of 'pass' or 'fail'. It is there to assign a code number to a given enclosure and whether this is adequate for the intended application is (in most cases) the subject of other standards. Nick. At 07:24 -0500 21/3/07, ted.eck...@apcc.com wrote: Your understanding is correct. It doesn't matter whether the probe reaches the stop before hitting anything. If the probe tip enters the enclosure, the enclosure fails the test. - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc __ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email __
Re: IP testing per EN60529
Your understanding is correct. It doesn't matter whether the probe reaches the stop before hitting anything. If the probe tip enters the enclosure, the enclosure fails the test. IEC 529 IP ratings, and NEMA enclosure ratings, are intended determine the level of protection from environmental contamination. The pass/fail criteria for IP2X, 3X and 4X are whether the probe can enter any distance into the enclosure. The test is to determine is environmental contaminants can enter the enclosure, get into the electronics or mechanics and cause the product to fail. It is not necessarily related to human safety. For example, if the equipment has a rating of IP32, no object greater than 2.5 mm can enter the enclosure. It doesn't matter if the electronics are two meters from a grill with 3 mm holes. That would still fail the IP32 requirement. Contaminants between 2.5 mm and 3 mm could enter the enclosure and work their way to the sensitive parts, causing a failure. As a side note, even I get a little careless with the nomenclature. There is a NEMA enclosure rating of 4X which roughly correlates to an IEC 529 rating of IP66 - IP68. There is a rough correlation between NEMA/UL enclosure ratings and the IEC classification, but it is not exact. The test criteria are different. Ted Eckert American Power Conversion/MGE http://www.apc.com/ The items contained in this e-mail reflect the personal opinions of the writer and are only provided for the assistance of the reader. The writer is not speaking in an official capacity for APC, MGE or Schneider Electric. The speaker does not represent APC's, MGE's or Schneider Electric's official position on any matter. Jim Eichner Jim.eichner@Xant rex.com To Sent by: emc-p...@ieee.org emc-p...@ieee.org cc Subject 03/20/2007 07:07 IP testing per EN60529 PM This has to do with the IP 3X, and 4X ratings and tests. The testing is by way of 2.5mm rod or 1.0mm wire probes, which seems quite straight forward at first. But the probes are not meant to be used the way I'm used to. It's not about whether they can touch anything, it's about whether they can enter at all. This is pretty clear in the text and tables giving pass pass/fail criteria, and is made really obvious if you read the note under 13.3. That note says that for IP3X and 4X the requirements are meant to prevent spherical objects of 2.5mm or 1.0mm diameter that are capable of motion from entering the enclosure. So basically an indirect or tortuous entry path doesn't do the job and you have to limit the size of an opening somewhere along the path to less than the diameter of the probe. It's easy to get misled on that point, for a variety of reasons: - the probes have a defined length and a stop, neither of which comes into play with the shall not enter criteria, but their presence suggest the more typical ok to enter but not to touch hazardous parts criteria - some of the examples in Annex A can easily be misinterpreted - safety compliance people are used to criteria that allows the probe to enter but not touch things - the standard touches on pass/fail in several places and the additional letters and first numeral have requirements that overlap but are different I have seen products on the market and results from certification bodies that make it clear this is being misinterpreted. People are assuming it's ok for the probe to enter as long as adequate clearance is maintained to live parts, whirling blades, etc, when in fact it is not acceptable for the IP3X and 4X probes to enter the enclosure. So given what I am seeing as widespread mis-interpretation my question is, am I wrong? Are the labs and other products on the market right, and I'm misinterpreting the requirements? Thanks, Jim Eichner, P.Eng. Manager - Compliance Engineering Xantrex Technology Inc. e-mail: jim.eich...@xantrex.com web: www.xantrex.com Confidentiality Notice: This email message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended
IP testing per EN60529
This has to do with the IP 3X, and 4X ratings and tests. The testing is by way of 2.5mm rod or 1.0mm wire probes, which seems quite straight forward at first. But the probes are not meant to be used the way I'm used to. It's not about whether they can touch anything, it's about whether they can enter at all. This is pretty clear in the text and tables giving pass pass/fail criteria, and is made really obvious if you read the note under 13.3. That note says that for IP3X and 4X the requirements are meant to prevent spherical objects of 2.5mm or 1.0mm diameter that are capable of motion from entering the enclosure. So basically an indirect or tortuous entry path doesn't do the job and you have to limit the size of an opening somewhere along the path to less than the diameter of the probe. It's easy to get misled on that point, for a variety of reasons: - the probes have a defined length and a stop, neither of which comes into play with the shall not enter criteria, but their presence suggest the more typical ok to enter but not to touch hazardous parts criteria - some of the examples in Annex A can easily be misinterpreted - safety compliance people are used to criteria that allows the probe to enter but not touch things - the standard touches on pass/fail in several places and the additional letters and first numeral have requirements that overlap but are different I have seen products on the market and results from certification bodies that make it clear this is being misinterpreted. People are assuming it's ok for the probe to enter as long as adequate clearance is maintained to live parts, whirling blades, etc, when in fact it is not acceptable for the IP3X and 4X probes to enter the enclosure. So given what I am seeing as widespread mis-interpretation my question is, am I wrong? Are the labs and other products on the market right, and I'm misinterpreting the requirements? Thanks, Jim Eichner, P.Eng. Manager - Compliance Engineering Xantrex Technology Inc. e-mail: jim.eich...@xantrex.com web: www.xantrex.com Confidentiality Notice: This email message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc __ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email __
Re: EN60529
I read in !emc-pstc that John Woodgate j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk wrote (in
R6gx4$aiyin8e...@jmwa.demon.co.uk) about 'EN60529', on Thu, 3 Jan
2002:
I read in !emc-pstc that Crabb, John jo...@exchange.scotland.ncr.com
wrote (in B6CD5947CF30D411A1350050DA4B75FF03C23387@sgbdun200.scotland.n
cr.com) about 'EN60529', on Thu, 3 Jan 2002:
John, I have forwarded this information to the chairman of
BSI committee EPL/74 (which deals with EN60950), with the
suggestion that CENELEC be asked to get EN60529 removed
from the list of LVD notified standards. We'll see what
happens.
Good. I will do the same in EPL/92. A double-whammy, indeed.
On the same subject, TC74 is working on requirements for
outdoor IT equipment, (in which I am involved). I believe
that while IEC 60529 may well be used to prove that a
sealed box is watertight, a prolonged rain test, such
as the UL one hour rain test, is more relevant to real IT
equipment (such as my ATMs) which interact with the public,
and which will have openings which have to be designed to
eliminate ingress of water, or which have water management
systems to divert water away from areas where a hazard could
otherwise be introduced.
EN60529 is very old; you should propose a full revision of the IEC
standard, to align more closely with the UL!
NEW TEXT:
I have done some more searching through reference documents and now
think that there is a confusion of terminology.
QUOTES
IEC Guide 104:
2.1 basic safety publication
Publication on a specific safety-related matter, applicable to many
electrotechnical products.
CENELEC Guide 25:
2.1. Basic [EMC] standards
Two types of basic [EMC] standards have been identified:
- those for tests and measurements
- those related to other aspects.
Basic standards for test and measurement are of particular importance in
connection with generic and product standards for conformity assessment
purposes.
a) Basic standards for emission and immunity tests and measurements
Contents
These standards give (often separately for each disturbing phenomenon) a
definition and description of the phenomenon, detailed test and
measurement methods, test instrumentation and basic test set up.
Ranges of test levels (immunity) may be given with respect to the
characteristics of measuring equipment or measuring methods.
These standards shall not include prescribed limits and shall not
contain performance criteria (not even general-purpose performance
criteria).
Aims and use
These standards constitute the foundation of EMC-standardisation by
defining the detailed test and measurement methods.
It is intended that generic and product (-family) standards should make
reference to the basic standards without repeating their detailed
contents. As such, a declaration of conformity of products with the
basic standards has no significance and therefore ***basic standards
will not be included in the list of harmonised standards published in
the Official Journal of the European Communities (OJEC)***. This OJEC
list will indeed include only those standards permitting the direct
presumption of conformity of products with the Directive, using article
10.1 [of the EMC Directive].
[rest snipped]
UNQUOTES
This confusion of terminology is but one aspect of a larger problem -
that there are unnecessary and confusing differences of terminology,
procedures and guidance within both IEC and CENELEC but particularly in
CENELEC, between electrical safety documents and EMC documents. While
the two subjects have important differences, they also have similarities
which should be recognized, and unnecessary differences (of all kinds)
should be eliminated.
In the particular case of IEC/EN60529, it includes not only a
classification scheme but also detailed test methods **and conformity
with it can be demonstrated**. It is a Basic Safety Publication, but it
is NOT a Basic Standard.
However, the original problem arose because a test-house required
EN60529 to be cited in a Declaration of Conformity for a product to
which IEC/EN60950 applied. It seems clear that, even though a reading of
clause 27 of the Guidelines on the application of the LVD (February
2001) might suggest that this citation (of 'harmonized standards' -
plural) is indeed required, the same would apply to a large number of
the other standards to which IEC/EN60950 makes reference, and this seems
impracticable and unnecessary.
I therefore suggest that this point ('Does the DOC have to cite some or
all of the standards that are referred to in the applicable product
safety standard, as well as that standard itself?') needs clarification
in the 'Guidelines'. I am also posting a similar message to the
secretary of the BSI committee responsible for UK input to IEC/EN60529,
and to the secretary of BSI EPL/92.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk
After swimming across the Hellespont, I felt like a Hero
Re: EN60529
I read in !emc-pstc that Crabb, John jo...@exchange.scotland.ncr.com wrote (in B6CD5947CF30D411A1350050DA4B75FF03C23387@sgbdun200.scotland.n cr.com) about 'EN60529', on Thu, 3 Jan 2002: John, I have forwarded this information to the chairman of BSI committee EPL/74 (which deals with EN60950), with the suggestion that CENELEC be asked to get EN60529 removed from the list of LVD notified standards. We'll see what happens. Good. I will do the same in EPL/92. A double-whammy, indeed. On the same subject, TC74 is working on requirements for outdoor IT equipment, (in which I am involved). I believe that while IEC 60529 may well be used to prove that a sealed box is watertight, a prolonged rain test, such as the UL one hour rain test, is more relevant to real IT equipment (such as my ATMs) which interact with the public, and which will have openings which have to be designed to eliminate ingress of water, or which have water management systems to divert water away from areas where a hazard could otherwise be introduced. EN60529 is very old; you should propose a full revision of the IEC standard, to align more closely with the UL! -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk After swimming across the Hellespont, I felt like a Hero. --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
RE: EN60529
John, I have forwarded this information to the chairman of BSI committee EPL/74 (which deals with EN60950), with the suggestion that CENELEC be asked to get EN60529 removed from the list of LVD notified standards. We'll see what happens. On the same subject, TC74 is working on requirements for outdoor IT equipment, (in which I am involved). I believe that while IEC 60529 may well be used to prove that a sealed box is watertight, a prolonged rain test, such as the UL one hour rain test, is more relevant to real IT equipment (such as my ATMs) which interact with the public, and which will have openings which have to be designed to eliminate ingress of water, or which have water management systems to divert water away from areas where a hazard could otherwise be introduced. Regards, John Crabb, Development Excellence (Product Safety) , NCR Financial Solutions Group Ltd., Kingsway West, Dundee, Scotland. DD2 3XX E-Mail :john.cr...@scotland.ncr.com Tel: +44 (0)1382-592289 (direct ). Fax +44 (0)1382-622243. VoicePlus 6-341-2289. -Original Message- From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk] Sent: 02 January 2002 21:30 To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: EN60529 I read in !emc-pstc that richwo...@tycoint.com wrote (in 846BF526A205F8 4BA2B6045BBF7E9A6ABC4FD0@flbocexu05) about 'EN60529', on Wed, 2 Jan 2002: It is referenced in the OJ under the LVD, yet a reading of the standard indicates that it is a basic standard intended to be referenced in product standards. It appears to be a mistake, because, as you say, it is a Basic Standard. Astonishing as it must seem to mere mortals, the CENELEC Technical Board is not utterly infallible. -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
Re: EN60529
I read in !emc-pstc that richwo...@tycoint.com wrote (in 846BF526A205F8 4BA2B6045BBF7E9A6ABC4FD0@flbocexu05) about 'EN60529', on Wed, 2 Jan 2002: It is referenced in the OJ under the LVD, yet a reading of the standard indicates that it is a basic standard intended to be referenced in product standards. It appears to be a mistake, because, as you say, it is a Basic Standard. Astonishing as it must seem to mere mortals, the CENELEC Technical Board is not utterly infallible. -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk After swimming across the Hellespont, I felt like a Hero. --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
EN60529
Perhaps someone can clear up my confusion. EN60529 covers degrees of protection (water, dust, etc.) provided by enclosures. It is referenced in the OJ under the LVD, yet a reading of the standard indicates that it is a basic standard intended to be referenced in product standards. However, EN60950 provides only an informative reference to the standard and a set of should statements are listed in Annex T. It appears that an analysis is required for a particular outdoor ITE to determine which parts of EN60529 are to be applied. Unlike many other directives, the LVD does not mandate the intervention of a Notified Body when a harmonized standard is applied in part. However, if challenged, the manufacturer may submit a report from a Notified Body (Article 8). Since neither EN60950 nor EN60529 is clear as to which sections of EN60529 must be applied to a particular ITE intended for outdoor use, I understand the manufacture must determine how to apply EN60529 (with or without the assistance of a Notified Body), and the Declaration of Conformity must list both EN60950 and EN60529. It is insufficient to list just EN60950. Is my understanding correct? Richard Woods Sensormatic Electronics Tyco International --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
