RE: Red Indicators and EN60950
In keeping with my practice of making things simple here are my thoughts: The presence of mains voltage at an approved mains socket outlet should not involve a safety consideration - so the red led does NOT violate EN 60950. If you are challenged, continue to argue that what the end user will connect to this socket outlet is not specified. Some things left powered on could involve safety. Therefore, the red led is required. Best Regards, Lou < Begin Forwarded Message > From: Jim Eichner To: "'EMC-PSTC - forum'" Subject: RE: Red Indicators and EN60950 List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 12:11:50 -0800 Reply-To: Jim Eichner Sorry - I didn't intend to be mysterious. The US standard causing the conflict is the standard for "Star-of-Life" approval on emergency vehicles (ambulances), which includes safety and EMC requirements for on-board equipment. The standard is published by the General Services Administration, is called "Federal Specification for the Star-of-Life Ambulance KKK-A-1822D", and requires a red LED on the dashboard indicating that a DC-to-AC inverter (our product) on board is turned on. The conflict with EN60950 arises because the European standard applicable to inverters (EN50091) calls out EN60950 for most of its requirements. The red LED requirement is specific to inverters, and won't be an issue for ITE manufacturers. Regards, Jim Eichner Statpower Technologies Corporation jeich...@statpower.com http://www.statpower.com Any opinions expressed are those of my invisible friend, who really exists. Honest. > -Original Message- > From: tania.gr...@octel.com [SMTP:tania.gr...@octel.com] > Sent: Monday, January 26, 1998 11:14 AM > To: 'EMC-PSTC - forum'; Jim Eichner > Cc: Rob Cameron; Jim Eichner > Subject: Re: Red Indicators and EN60950 > > > Jim, > > Can you identify the U.S. standard that insists on a red LED > indicator? > > Thank you, > > Tania Grant, Lucent Technologies, Octel Messaging > Division > tgr...@lucent.com > > __ Reply Separator > _ > Subject: Red Indicators and EN60950 > Author: Jim Eichner at P_Internet_Mail > Date:1/26/98 10:05 AM > > > Clause 1.7.8.2 of EN60950 says: > > "Where safety is involved, colours of controls and indicators shall > comply with IEC73. Where colours are used for functional controls or > indicators, any colour, including red, is permitted provided that it > is > clear that safety is not involved". > > There has been a thread on this in the past so I looked it up at RCIC > and found that we never really talked about what exactly 950 means > when > it says "Where safety is involved" and "provided that it is clear that > safety is not involved". > > The situation I am considering is an LED used in conjunction with a > user-operable switch that is located in a control circuit (not a true > on-off switch) and controls the output of a DC-to-AC inverter. When > the > switch is "on" the output of the inverter is enabled and 230Vac is > present on the output receptacle of the inverter. Allowing the user > to > know at a glance whether or not there is 230Vac present on the output > could be construed as a safety function. On the other hand, the user > has no access to the 230Vac in terms of shock hazard (standard Schuko > outlet for example), so one could argue that safety is not a function > of > this indicator. > > Q: What are your opinions? Can this LED be red and still satisfy the > intent of EN60950? > > The problem is a conflicting U.S. standard that insists on a red > indicator. We don't want to have to have a second version of the > control panel to cover both standards. > > Thanks for your help. > > Regards, > > Jim Eichner > Statpower Technologies Corporation > jeich...@statpower.com > http://www.statpower.com > Any opinions expressed are those of my invisible friend, who really > exists. Honest. << File: cc:Mail note part >> < End Forwarded Message > Best Regards, Lou Aiken 27106 Palmetto Drive Orange Beach, AL 36561 USA tel 1 334 981 6786 fax 1 334 981 3054
Re: Red Indicators and EN60950
FWIW ... About 10 years ago, I hired a lawyer who specialized in product liability for a 2 day seminar for engineers and marketing types. After alot of nit-picking, it was concluded that RED lamps or indicators weren't to be used for things that had anything to do with power. At the bottom of the argument was an ON/OFF switch which used a red lamp to indicate 'ON". His literal interpretation of the color RED be it in a lamp or even on a label was "Hands off", "Danger", etc ... An indication of something bad. We changed over to a power switch with a Green lamp to indicate "ON". Since then, I have imposed green LEDs for switches, power modules, etc ... to indicate "ON", "Everything's OK", etc ... An indication of something good. Red LEDs are used ONLY for alarm indicators (telco).
RE: Red Indicators and EN60950
Over the years the use of a red LED has been discouraged for use on products because "Red" was reserved for situations "hazardous to an operator". This resulted in the elimination of Red LEDs from keyboards and other devices. Clause 1.7.8.2 of EN 60950 specifically allows Red LEDs in areas where safety is not involved. As such I see no problem using the device in conjunction with a user operated switch. I think that was the intent of "permitting" red LEDs. Another point is that a Red LED is much different than the use of a Red indicator light. Regarding my last posting on shielded cables not being allowed in Europe. I was misinformed. Apparently there are no longer any rules to this effect. The beauty of this discussion group is that I learn something every day. Rick rbus...@es.com -Original Message- From: Jim Eichner [SMTP:jeich...@statpower.com] Sent: Monday, January 26, 1998 11:06 AM To: 'EMC-PSTC - forum' Cc: Rob Cameron; Jim Eichner Subject:Red Indicators and EN60950 Clause 1.7.8.2 of EN60950 says: "Where safety is involved, colours of controls and indicators shall comply with IEC73. Where colours are used for functional controls or indicators, any colour, including red, is permitted provided that it is clear that safety is not involved". There has been a thread on this in the past so I looked it up at RCIC and found that we never really talked about what exactly 950 means when it says "Where safety is involved" and "provided that it is clear that safety is not involved". The situation I am considering is an LED used in conjunction with a user-operable switch that is located in a control circuit (not a true on-off switch) and controls the output of a DC-to-AC inverter. When the switch is "on" the output of the inverter is enabled and 230Vac is present on the output receptacle of the inverter. Allowing the user to know at a glance whether or not there is 230Vac present on the output could be construed as a safety function. On the other hand, the user has no access to the 230Vac in terms of shock hazard (standard Schuko outlet for example), so one could argue that safety is not a function of this indicator. Q: What are your opinions? Can this LED be red and still satisfy the intent of EN60950? The problem is a conflicting U.S. standard that insists on a red indicator. We don't want to have to have a second version of the control panel to cover both standards. Thanks for your help. Regards, Jim Eichner Statpower Technologies Corporation jeich...@statpower.com http://www.statpower.com Any opinions expressed are those of my invisible friend, who really exists. Honest.
RE: Red Indicators and EN60950
Sorry - I didn't intend to be mysterious. The US standard causing the conflict is the standard for "Star-of-Life" approval on emergency vehicles (ambulances), which includes safety and EMC requirements for on-board equipment. The standard is published by the General Services Administration, is called "Federal Specification for the Star-of-Life Ambulance KKK-A-1822D", and requires a red LED on the dashboard indicating that a DC-to-AC inverter (our product) on board is turned on. The conflict with EN60950 arises because the European standard applicable to inverters (EN50091) calls out EN60950 for most of its requirements. The red LED requirement is specific to inverters, and won't be an issue for ITE manufacturers. Regards, Jim Eichner Statpower Technologies Corporation jeich...@statpower.com http://www.statpower.com Any opinions expressed are those of my invisible friend, who really exists. Honest. > -Original Message- > From: tania.gr...@octel.com [SMTP:tania.gr...@octel.com] > Sent: Monday, January 26, 1998 11:14 AM > To: 'EMC-PSTC - forum'; Jim Eichner > Cc: Rob Cameron; Jim Eichner > Subject: Re: Red Indicators and EN60950 > > > Jim, > > Can you identify the U.S. standard that insists on a red LED > indicator? > > Thank you, > > Tania Grant, Lucent Technologies, Octel Messaging > Division > tgr...@lucent.com > > __ Reply Separator > _ > Subject: Red Indicators and EN60950 > Author: Jim Eichner at P_Internet_Mail > Date:1/26/98 10:05 AM > > > Clause 1.7.8.2 of EN60950 says: > > "Where safety is involved, colours of controls and indicators shall > comply with IEC73. Where colours are used for functional controls or > indicators, any colour, including red, is permitted provided that it > is > clear that safety is not involved". > > There has been a thread on this in the past so I looked it up at RCIC > and found that we never really talked about what exactly 950 means > when > it says "Where safety is involved" and "provided that it is clear that > safety is not involved". > > The situation I am considering is an LED used in conjunction with a > user-operable switch that is located in a control circuit (not a true > on-off switch) and controls the output of a DC-to-AC inverter. When > the > switch is "on" the output of the inverter is enabled and 230Vac is > present on the output receptacle of the inverter. Allowing the user > to > know at a glance whether or not there is 230Vac present on the output > could be construed as a safety function. On the other hand, the user > has no access to the 230Vac in terms of shock hazard (standard Schuko > outlet for example), so one could argue that safety is not a function > of > this indicator. > > Q: What are your opinions? Can this LED be red and still satisfy the > intent of EN60950? > > The problem is a conflicting U.S. standard that insists on a red > indicator. We don't want to have to have a second version of the > control panel to cover both standards. > > Thanks for your help. > > Regards, > > Jim Eichner > Statpower Technologies Corporation > jeich...@statpower.com > http://www.statpower.com > Any opinions expressed are those of my invisible friend, who really > exists. Honest. << File: cc:Mail note part >>
Re: Red Indicators and EN60950
Jim, Can you identify the U.S. standard that insists on a red LED indicator? Thank you, Tania Grant, Lucent Technologies, Octel Messaging Division tgr...@lucent.com __ Reply Separator _ Subject: Red Indicators and EN60950 Author: Jim Eichner at P_Internet_Mail List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date:1/26/98 10:05 AM Clause 1.7.8.2 of EN60950 says: "Where safety is involved, colours of controls and indicators shall comply with IEC73. Where colours are used for functional controls or indicators, any colour, including red, is permitted provided that it is clear that safety is not involved". There has been a thread on this in the past so I looked it up at RCIC and found that we never really talked about what exactly 950 means when it says "Where safety is involved" and "provided that it is clear that safety is not involved". The situation I am considering is an LED used in conjunction with a user-operable switch that is located in a control circuit (not a true on-off switch) and controls the output of a DC-to-AC inverter. When the switch is "on" the output of the inverter is enabled and 230Vac is present on the output receptacle of the inverter. Allowing the user to know at a glance whether or not there is 230Vac present on the output could be construed as a safety function. On the other hand, the user has no access to the 230Vac in terms of shock hazard (standard Schuko outlet for example), so one could argue that safety is not a function of this indicator. Q: What are your opinions? Can this LED be red and still satisfy the intent of EN60950? The problem is a conflicting U.S. standard that insists on a red indicator. We don't want to have to have a second version of the control panel to cover both standards. Thanks for your help. Regards, Jim Eichner Statpower Technologies Corporation jeich...@statpower.com http://www.statpower.com Any opinions expressed are those of my invisible friend, who really exists. Honest. Received: from curly.eng.octel.com (148.147.200.26) by m-internet.corp.octel.com with SMTP (IMA Internet Exchange 2.1 Enterprise) id 0001B0B7; Mon, 26 Jan 98 10:37:38 -0800 Received: from gw3.octel.com (gw3.octel.com [148.147.1.15]) by curly.eng.octel.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA03798; Mon, 26 Jan 1998 10:40:32 -0800 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by gw3.octel.com (8.6.10/8.6.12) id KAA07027; Mon, 26 Jan 1998 10:40:01 -0800 Received: from ruebert.ieee.org(199.172.136.3) by gw3.octel.com via smap (V1.3) id sma006648; Mon Jan 26 10:39:32 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by ruebert.ieee.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA12840 for emc-pstc-list; Mon, 26 Jan 1998 13:07:39 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <73245390544AD1119494F8D82F65152642@XG> From: Jim Eichner To: "'EMC-PSTC - forum'" Cc: Rob Cameron , Jim Eichner Subject: Red Indicators and EN60950 List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 10:05:41 -0800 X-Priority: 3 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1458.49) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Jim Eichner X-Resent-To: Multiple Recipients X-Listname: emc-pstc X-Info: Help requests to emc-pstc-requ...@majordomo.ieee.org X-Info: [Un]Subscribe requests to majord...@majordomo.ieee.org X-Moderator-Address: emc-pstc-appro...@majordomo.ieee.org
