[PSES] definitions of safety-related words and phrases
“…terminology like Basic Safeguard Parameters and Supplementary Safeguard Parameters used in Figure 45 do not seem to be defined anywhere.” I invite readers of this list to provide definitions of the words: basic: supplementary: safeguard: parameter: Once these are defined, provide definitions of the phrases: basic safeguard parameter: supplementary safeguard parameter: No right or wrong. These terms are used in 62368-1 and 62368-2, but seem not defined or not well-defined. I am trying to determine whether the words and phrases have a common meaning among standards users and product safety practitioners. Maybe the standards need a better and more complete set of defined terms. Thanks, Rich - 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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/ Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/ Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: _ To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1
Re: [PSES] IEC or EN Equivalent to NFPA 70E, "Standard for Electrical Safety in the Workplace"
EU doesn't have local AHJs, below the Member State level. Of course, each Market Surveillance Authority has individual technical staff, but they are much more constrained in their freedom of opinion than US AHJs. On 2024-08-26 20:49, Mark Gandler wrote: Scott, do you know at what circumstances EN50110-1 will be used? Is it similar to local EU AHJs' and the permitting process or anything else? Generally speaking, do you or anyone else on this forum have an experience dealing with EU Local AHJs'? Thank you, Mark *From:* Scott Aldous <0220f70c299a-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org> *Sent:* Monday, August 26, 2024 9:02 AM *To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG *Subject:* Re: [PSES] IEC or EN Equivalent to NFPA 70E, "Standard for Electrical Safety in the Workplace" Hi Don, You could check out EN 50110-1 <https://knowledge.bsigroup.com/products/operation-of-electrical-installations-general-requirements-1?version=tracked&tab=overview>. Though it refers to a previous edition of EN 50110, here <https://www.creativesafetysupply.com/qa/regulations-compliance/what-is-the-difference-between-nfpa-70e-and-en-50110> is a brief discussion of differences between NFPA 70E and EN 50110, with a more detailed discussion here <https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/1468287> if you can access. On Mon, Aug 26, 2024 at 7:01 AM Donald Gies <3617f14f4f59-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org <mailto:3617f14f4f59-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org>> wrote: Greetings Experts: Does anyone know if there is an IEC or EN equivalent document to NFPA 70E, "Standard for Electrical Safety in the Workplace" (CSA Z462, “Workplace Electrical Safety”)? Thanks in advance, DON GIES Field Service Engineer p+1 346 313 6216 edonald.g...@gutor.com <mailto:donald.g...@gutor.com> wgutor.com <http://gutor.com/> 17 Capitol Reef Road Howell, NJ 07731 United States ---- 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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/ <https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/> Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/ <https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/> Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) <https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html> List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html <https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html> For help, send mail to the list administrators: Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net <mailto:msherma...@comcast.net> Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org <mailto:linf...@ieee.org> For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org <mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org> To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1 <https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1> -- Scott Aldous | Regulatory Compliance Manager | scottald...@google.com <mailto:scottald...@google.com> | 650-253-1994 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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/ <https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/> Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/ <https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/> Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) <https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html> List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html <https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html> For help, send mail to the list administrators: Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net <mailto:msherma...@comcast.net> Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org <mailto:linf...@ieee.org> For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org <mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org> To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1 --
Re: [PSES] IEC or EN Equivalent to NFPA 70E, "Standard for Electrical Safety in the Workplace"
Hi Mark, Apologies, but I don't know. I would imagine it would be subject to national/regional workplace safety legislation, but that's just a guess. On Mon, Aug 26, 2024 at 12:50 PM Mark Gandler wrote: > Scott, > do you know at what circumstances EN50110-1 will be used? Is it similar to > local EU AHJs' and the permitting process or anything else? > Generally speaking, do you or anyone else on this forum have an experience > dealing with EU Local AHJs'? > Thank you, > Mark > > -- > *From:* Scott Aldous <0220f70c299a-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org> > *Sent:* Monday, August 26, 2024 9:02 AM > *To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG > *Subject:* Re: [PSES] IEC or EN Equivalent to NFPA 70E, "Standard for > Electrical Safety in the Workplace" > > Hi Don, > > You could check out EN 50110-1 > <https://knowledge.bsigroup.com/products/operation-of-electrical-installations-general-requirements-1?version=tracked&tab=overview>. > Though it refers to a previous edition of EN 50110, here > <https://www.creativesafetysupply.com/qa/regulations-compliance/what-is-the-difference-between-nfpa-70e-and-en-50110> > is > a brief discussion of differences between NFPA 70E and EN 50110, with a > more detailed discussion here > <https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/1468287> if you can access. > > On Mon, Aug 26, 2024 at 7:01 AM Donald Gies < > 3617f14f4f59-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org> wrote: > > Greetings Experts: > > > > Does anyone know if there is an IEC or EN equivalent document to NFPA 70E, > "Standard for Electrical Safety in the Workplace" (CSA Z462, “Workplace > Electrical Safety”)? > > > > Thanks in advance, > > > > > > DON GIES > > Field Service Engineer > > > > > > p +1 346 313 6216 <(346)%20313-6216> > > e donald.g...@gutor.com > > w gutor.com > > > > 17 Capitol Reef Road > > Howell, NJ 07731 > > United States > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > 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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG > All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: > https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/ > > Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/ > Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to > unsubscribe) <https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html> > List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html > > For help, send mail to the list administrators: > Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net > Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org > > For policy questions, send mail to: > Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org > -- > > To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: > https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1 > > > > -- > Scott Aldous | Regulatory Compliance Manager | scottald...@google.com | > 650-253-1994 <(650)%20253-1994> > > -- > > 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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG > All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: > https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/ > > Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/ > Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to > unsubscribe) <https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html> > List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html > > For help, send mail to the list administrators: > Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net > Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org > > For policy questions, send mail to: > Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org > -- > > To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: > https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1 > -- Scott Aldous | Regulatory Compliance Manager | scottald...@google.com | 650-253-1994 - 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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/ Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/ Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: _ To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1
Re: [PSES] Machinery Regulation - safety components
I sit on ISO/TC 199, and the committee is responsible for ISO 12100, 13849, 14119, 14120, etc. We are pushing to have all of our standards revised (where necessary) so that all of the type-C standards committees can have their standards revised in time for January 2027. It’s a huge job, as more than 500 standards depend on those written by TC 199. Just know that we are working hard to complete the job as fast as possible! Best regards, Doug Nix d...@ieee.org +1 (519) 729-5704 > On Aug 10, 2024, at 08:45, MIKE SHERMAN > <347e8d192c85-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org> wrote: > > Peter -- > > All good questions! > > 1. Where there is similar language in the Machinery Directive, I look to the > "Guide to the application of the Machinery Directive" for help in > interpretation. > > 2. For questions on what "placed on the market" means, I scour the Blue > Guide. I seem to recall pages and pages of discussion about this topic there. > > 3. My observation is that the addition of the HAS consultant has gummed up > the release of harmonized standards, making it extremely difficult to predict > when updated standards will be released. Also recall that within those > harmonized standards there typically is a list of which essential heath and > safety requirements (of either a directive or regulation) are satisfied by > the standard. > > So I think we will be on our own for a while dealing with standards > harmonized to the Machinery Directive and applying them to the Machinery > Regulation. And no, I don't think we can automatically assume that they will > satisfy the Regulation as-is. I believe that it will be up to us to > understand the new requirements of the Regulation and determine whether our > products meet them. > > Mike Sherman > Sherman PSC LLC >> On 08/09/2024 6:05 PM CDT Peter Tarver wrote: >> >> >> In reviewing the Machinery Regulation, Article 3 defines a safety component >> as >> >> "...means a physical or digital component, including software, of a product >> within the scope of this Regulation, which is designed or intended to fulfil >> (sic) a safety function and which is independently placed on the market, the >> failure or malfunction of which endanger the safety of persons, but which is >> not necessary in order for that product to function or for which normal >> components may be substituted in order for that product to function; >> (emphasis added.) >> >> The component falls under Annex I, Part, B but is only sold to OEMs >> 1) whose equipment would clearly fall under the Regulation, and >> 2) who integrate the component into other equipment before that other >> equipment is placed on the market, but >> 3) is not "independently placed on the market," for general sale, >> is there any reason to conclude that the Regulation does not apply to the >> component? >> >> The product is sold into the EU for applications other than those that would >> be subject to the Regulation, so it seems that applicability could depend on >> the interpretation of "independently" in the context of the regulation. Or >> is the use of "independently" intended to mean "not manufactured by the OEM >> for their own use?" >> >> I note that similar language existed in the Machinery Directive. >> >> My approach is to apply an abundance of caution and presume the Regulation >> applies, but I'd appreciate the input of the group. >> >> A final couple of questions: should it be assumed that the same standards >> published in the EU OJ for the Machinery Directive will satisfy the >> Regulation until a separate list of standards is published and linked to the >> Regulation? Also, is there a view on when such a list will be published? >> >> Regards, >> >> Peter Tarver >> >> 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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG >> >> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: >> https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/ >> >> Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/ <https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/> >> Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to >> unsubscribe) <https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html> >> List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html >> >> For help, send mail to the list administrators: >> Mike Sherman at: msherma...@co
Re: [PSES] IEC or EN Equivalent to NFPA 70E, "Standard for Electrical Safety in the Workplace"
Scott, do you know at what circumstances EN50110-1 will be used? Is it similar to local EU AHJs' and the permitting process or anything else? Generally speaking, do you or anyone else on this forum have an experience dealing with EU Local AHJs'? Thank you, Mark From: Scott Aldous <0220f70c299a-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org> Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 9:02 AM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] IEC or EN Equivalent to NFPA 70E, "Standard for Electrical Safety in the Workplace" Hi Don, You could check out EN 50110-1<https://knowledge.bsigroup.com/products/operation-of-electrical-installations-general-requirements-1?version=tracked&tab=overview>. Though it refers to a previous edition of EN 50110, here<https://www.creativesafetysupply.com/qa/regulations-compliance/what-is-the-difference-between-nfpa-70e-and-en-50110> is a brief discussion of differences between NFPA 70E and EN 50110, with a more detailed discussion here<https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/1468287> if you can access. On Mon, Aug 26, 2024 at 7:01 AM Donald Gies <3617f14f4f59-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org<mailto:3617f14f4f59-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org>> wrote: Greetings Experts: Does anyone know if there is an IEC or EN equivalent document to NFPA 70E, "Standard for Electrical Safety in the Workplace" (CSA Z462, “Workplace Electrical Safety”)? Thanks in advance, DON GIES Field Service Engineer [cid:ii_1918f6692a04cff311] p +1 346 313 6216 e donald.g...@gutor.com<mailto:donald.g...@gutor.com> w gutor.com<http://gutor.com/> 17 Capitol Reef Road Howell, NJ 07731 United States [cid:ii_1918f6692a15b16b22] 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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/ Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/ Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)<https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html> List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net<mailto:msherma...@comcast.net> Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org<mailto:linf...@ieee.org> For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org<mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org> To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1 -- Scott Aldous | Regulatory Compliance Manager | scottald...@google.com<mailto:scottald...@google.com> | 650-253-1994 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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/ Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/ Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)<https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html> List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net<mailto:msherma...@comcast.net> Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org<mailto:linf...@ieee.org> For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org<mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org> To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1 - 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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/ Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/ Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: _ To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1
Re: [PSES] IEC or EN Equivalent to NFPA 70E, "Standard for Electrical Safety in the Workplace"
Hi Don, You could check out EN 50110-1 <https://knowledge.bsigroup.com/products/operation-of-electrical-installations-general-requirements-1?version=tracked&tab=overview>. Though it refers to a previous edition of EN 50110, here <https://www.creativesafetysupply.com/qa/regulations-compliance/what-is-the-difference-between-nfpa-70e-and-en-50110> is a brief discussion of differences between NFPA 70E and EN 50110, with a more detailed discussion here <https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/1468287> if you can access. On Mon, Aug 26, 2024 at 7:01 AM Donald Gies < 3617f14f4f59-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org> wrote: > Greetings Experts: > > > > Does anyone know if there is an IEC or EN equivalent document to NFPA 70E, > "Standard for Electrical Safety in the Workplace" (CSA Z462, “Workplace > Electrical Safety”)? > > > > Thanks in advance, > > > > > > DON GIES > > Field Service Engineer > > > > > > p +1 346 313 6216 <(346)%20313-6216> > > e donald.g...@gutor.com > > w gutor.com > > > > 17 Capitol Reef Road > > Howell, NJ 07731 > > United States > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > 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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG > All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: > https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/ > > Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/ > Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to > unsubscribe) <https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html> > List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html > > For help, send mail to the list administrators: > Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net > Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org > > For policy questions, send mail to: > Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org > -- > > To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: > https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1 > -- Scott Aldous | Regulatory Compliance Manager | scottald...@google.com | 650-253-1994 - 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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/ Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/ Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: _ To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1
[PSES] IEC or EN Equivalent to NFPA 70E, "Standard for Electrical Safety in the Workplace"
Greetings Experts: Does anyone know if there is an IEC or EN equivalent document to NFPA 70E, "Standard for Electrical Safety in the Workplace" (CSA Z462, "Workplace Electrical Safety")? Thanks in advance, DON GIES Field Service Engineer [cid:image001.png@01DAF79E.D1A5D310] p +1 346 313 6216 e donald.g...@gutor.com w gutor.com 17 Capitol Reef Road Howell, NJ 07731 United States [cid:image002.png@01DAF79E.D1A5D310] - 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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/ Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/ Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: _ To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1
Re: [PSES] Machinery Regulation - safety components
And hope that the HAS consultant and market surveillance agree with our interpretation and with that of the authors of the Regulation. Not a good situation. On 2024-08-10 13:45, MIKE SHERMAN wrote: I believe that it will be up to us to understand the new requirements of the Regulation and determine whether our products meet them. -- OOO - Own Opinions Only Best Wishes John Woodgate Keep trying -- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software. www.avg.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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/ Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/ Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: _ To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1
Re: [PSES] Machinery Regulation - safety components
Peter -- All good questions! 1. Where there is similar language in the Machinery Directive, I look to the "Guide to the application of the Machinery Directive" for help in interpretation. 2. For questions on what "placed on the market" means, I scour the Blue Guide. I seem to recall pages and pages of discussion about this topic there. 3. My observation is that the addition of the HAS consultant has gummed up the release of harmonized standards, making it extremely difficult to predict when updated standards will be released. Also recall that within those harmonized standards there typically is a list of which essential heath and safety requirements (of either a directive or regulation) are satisfied by the standard. So I think we will be on our own for a while dealing with standards harmonized to the Machinery Directive and applying them to the Machinery Regulation. And no, I don't think we can automatically assume that they will satisfy the Regulation as-is. I believe that it will be up to us to understand the new requirements of the Regulation and determine whether our products meet them. Mike Sherman Sherman PSC LLC > On 08/09/2024 6:05 PM CDT Peter Tarver wrote: > > > In reviewing the Machinery Regulation, Article 3 defines a safety component as > > > "...means a physical or digital component, including software, of a product > within the scope of this Regulation, which is designed or intended to fulfil > (sic) a safety function and which is independently placed on the market, the > failure or malfunction of which endanger the safety of persons, but which is > not necessary in order for that product to function or for which normal > components may be substituted in order for that product to function; > > (emphasis added.) > > The component falls under Annex I, Part, B but is only sold to OEMs > 1) whose equipment would clearly fall under the Regulation, and > 2) who integrate the component into other equipment before that other > equipment is placed on the market, but > 3) is not "independently placed on the market," for general sale, > is there any reason to conclude that the Regulation does not apply to the > component? > > The product is sold into the EU for applications other than those that would > be subject to the Regulation, so it seems that applicability could depend on > the interpretation of "independently" in the context of the regulation. Or is > the use of "independently" intended to mean "not manufactured by the OEM for > their own use?" > > I note that similar language existed in the Machinery Directive. > > My approach is to apply an abundance of caution and presume the Regulation > applies, but I'd appreciate the input of the group. > > A final couple of questions: should it be assumed that the same standards > published in the EU OJ for the Machinery Directive will satisfy the > Regulation until a separate list of standards is published and linked to the > Regulation? Also, is there a view on when such a list will be published? > > Regards, > > Peter Tarver > > > - > > 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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG > > All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: > https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/ > > > > Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/ https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/ > Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to > unsubscribe) https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html > List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html > > For help, send mail to the list administrators: > Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net mailto:msherma...@comcast.net > Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org mailto:linf...@ieee.org > > For policy questions, send mail to: > Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org > > > ----- > > To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: > https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1 > - 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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/ Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/ Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to unsubscrib
Re: [PSES] Machinery Regulation - safety components
Peter As you note, the term "independently placed on the market" is in the Machinery Directive, so appears unchanged in concept in the MR At the moment I think Machinery Guide §42 Safety components is still the most useful guidance, along At the beginning of July, The EU Commission has issued Draft standardisation request to CENELEC and CEN support of Regulation (EU) 2023/1230 - 5 new standards - updates to a number of other standards - To be completed within 18 months !! https://ec.europa.eu/docsroom/documents/60695?locale=en Best regards Charlie Charlie Blackham Sulis Consultants Ltd Tel: +44 (0)7946 624317 Web: https://sulisconsultants.com/ Registered in England and Wales, number 05466247 From: Peter Tarver Sent: Saturday, August 10, 2024 12:06 AM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: [PSES] Machinery Regulation - safety components In reviewing the Machinery Regulation, Article 3 defines a safety component as "...means a physical or digital component, including software, of a product within the scope of this Regulation, which is designed or intended to fulfil (sic) a safety function and which is independently placed on the market, the failure or malfunction of which endanger the safety of persons, but which is not necessary in order for that product to function or for which normal components may be substituted in order for that product to function; (emphasis added.) The component falls under Annex I, Part, B but is only sold to OEMs 1) whose equipment would clearly fall under the Regulation, and 2) who integrate the component into other equipment before that other equipment is placed on the market, but 3) is not "independently placed on the market," for general sale, is there any reason to conclude that the Regulation does not apply to the component? The product is sold into the EU for applications other than those that would be subject to the Regulation, so it seems that applicability could depend on the interpretation of "independently" in the context of the regulation. Or is the use of "independently" intended to mean "not manufactured by the OEM for their own use?" I note that similar language existed in the Machinery Directive. My approach is to apply an abundance of caution and presume the Regulation applies, but I'd appreciate the input of the group. A final couple of questions: should it be assumed that the same standards published in the EU OJ for the Machinery Directive will satisfy the Regulation until a separate list of standards is published and linked to the Regulation? Also, is there a view on when such a list will be published? Regards, Peter Tarver ____ 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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/<https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/%20> Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/ Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)<https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html> List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net<mailto:msherma...@comcast.net> Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org<mailto:linf...@ieee.org> For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org<mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org> To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1 - -------- 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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/ Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/ Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: _ To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1
Re: [PSES] Machinery Regulation - safety components
It's bad wording; I think it means 'placed on the market as a single item of commerce', i.e. you can buy one or more for a stated list price. I don't think it means 'made available to the general public'. Maybe someone knows what the authors of the document actually meant by those words. On 2024-08-10 00:05, Peter Tarver wrote: In reviewing the Machinery Regulation, Article 3 defines a safety component as "...means a physical or digital component, including software, of a product within the scope of this Regulation, which is designed or intended to fulfil (sic) a safety function and */_which is independently placed on the market_/*, the failure or malfunction of which endanger the safety of persons, but which is not necessary in order for that product to function or for which normal components may be substituted in order for that product to function; (emphasis added.) The component falls under Annex I, Part, B but is only sold to OEMs 1) whose equipment would clearly fall under the Regulation, and 2) who integrate the component into other equipment before that other equipment is placed on the market, but 3) is not "independently placed on the market," for general sale, is there any reason to conclude that the Regulation does not apply to the component? The product is sold into the EU for applications other than those that would be subject to the Regulation, so it seems that applicability could depend on the interpretation of "independently" in the context of the regulation. Or is the use of "independently" intended to mean "not manufactured by the OEM for their own use?" I note that similar language existed in the Machinery Directive. My approach is to apply an abundance of caution and presume the Regulation applies, but I'd appreciate the input of the group. A final couple of questions: should it be assumed that the same standards published in the EU OJ for the Machinery Directive will satisfy the Regulation until a separate list of standards is published and linked to the Regulation? Also, is there a view on when such a list will be published? Regards, Peter Tarver ---- 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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/ Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/ Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) <https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html> List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1 -- OOO - Own Opinions Only Best Wishes John Woodgate Keep trying -- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software. www.avg.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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/ Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/ Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: _ To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1
[PSES] Machinery Regulation - safety components
In reviewing the Machinery Regulation, Article 3 defines a safety component as "...means a physical or digital component, including software, of a product within the scope of this Regulation, which is designed or intended to fulfil (sic) a safety function and which is independently placed on the market, the failure or malfunction of which endanger the safety of persons, but which is not necessary in order for that product to function or for which normal components may be substituted in order for that product to function; (emphasis added.) The component falls under Annex I, Part, B but is only sold to OEMs 1) whose equipment would clearly fall under the Regulation, and 2) who integrate the component into other equipment before that other equipment is placed on the market, but 3) is not "independently placed on the market," for general sale, is there any reason to conclude that the Regulation does not apply to the component? The product is sold into the EU for applications other than those that would be subject to the Regulation, so it seems that applicability could depend on the interpretation of "independently" in the context of the regulation. Or is the use of "independently" intended to mean "not manufactured by the OEM for their own use?" I note that similar language existed in the Machinery Directive. My approach is to apply an abundance of caution and presume the Regulation applies, but I'd appreciate the input of the group. A final couple of questions: should it be assumed that the same standards published in the EU OJ for the Machinery Directive will satisfy the Regulation until a separate list of standards is published and linked to the Regulation? Also, is there a view on when such a list will be published? Regards, Peter Tarver 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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/ Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/ Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1
[PSES] Safety question
Hi All, Last week a friend asked me a safety question, not being a safety expert I thought I would try the question on this group. The question has to do with EN 60204‑1:2018 relating to a piece of semiconductor processing equipment. The equipment has an EMO (emergency off button) that in an orderly fashion shuts the equipment down. The EMO control has duplicated signals with feedback to control the main contactor to shut down power. The contactor itself is not duplicated, however power can be shut down by the manual switch. If power is shut down this way there is no safety issue at all, but product in the machine (a wafer) may be damaged and restart may be complicated. Does this arrangement comply with EN 60204‑1:2018? Seems to me that it does but would appreciate input from others Doug Smith Sent from my iPhone IPhone: 408-858-4528 Office: 702-570-6108 Email: d...@dsmith.org Website: http://dsmith.org - 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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/ Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/ Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: _ To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1
Re: [PSES] UK The Product Safety and Metrology etc. (Amendment) Regulations 2024
Dear Charlie, The regulation has been published as SI 2024 No 696. The Product Safety and Metrology etc. (Amendment) Regulations 2024 (legislation.gov.uk) <https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2024/696/introduction/made> Regards, Scott On Fri, 19 Apr 2024 at 16:09, Charlie Blackham wrote: > UK has published draft legislation to allow continued acceptance of CE > Marking past the end of 2024 in the "The Product Safety and Metrology etc. > (Amendment) Regulations 2024" along with an explanatory memorandum. > The law is due to come into force on 1st October ahead of the current 31 > December deadline. > > > > The Product Safety and Metrology etc. (Amendment) Regulations 2024 > (legislation.gov.uk) > <https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2024/9780348260311/resources> > > > > Best regards > > Charlie > > > > *Charlie Blackham* > > *Sulis Consultants Ltd* > > *Mead House* > > *Longwater Road* > > *Eversley* > > *RG27 0NW* > > *UK* > > *Tel: +44 (0)7946 624317* > > *Email: **char...@sulisconsultants.com * > > *Web: https://sulisconsultants.com/ <https://sulisconsultants.com/> * > > Registered in England and Wales, number 05466247 > > > -- > > 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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG > All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: > https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/ > > Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/ > Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to > unsubscribe) <https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html> > List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html > > For help, send mail to the list administrators: > Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net > Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org > > For policy questions, send mail to: > Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org > -- > > To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: > https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1 > - 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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/ Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/ Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: _ To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1
Re: [PSES] UK The Product Safety and Metrology etc. (Amendment) Regulations 2024
Thanks for sharing this, Charlie. Best Regards, -Lauren From: Charlie Blackham Sent: Friday, April 19, 2024 3:09 AM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: [PSES] UK The Product Safety and Metrology etc. (Amendment) Regulations 2024 External Email: Do NOT reply, click on links, or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. If you believe this email may be unsafe, please click on the "Report Phishing" button on the top right of Outlook. UK has published draft legislation to allow continued acceptance of CE Marking past the end of 2024 in the "The Product Safety and Metrology etc. (Amendment) Regulations 2024" along with an explanatory memorandum. The law is due to come into force on 1st October ahead of the current 31 December deadline. The Product Safety and Metrology etc. (Amendment) Regulations 2024 (legislation.gov.uk)<https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2024/9780348260311/resources> Best regards Charlie Charlie Blackham Sulis Consultants Ltd Mead House Longwater Road Eversley RG27 0NW UK Tel: +44 (0)7946 624317 Email: char...@sulisconsultants.com<mailto:char...@sulisconsultants.com> Web: https://sulisconsultants.com/ Registered in England and Wales, number 05466247 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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/ Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/ Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)<https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html> List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net<mailto:msherma...@comcast.net> Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org<mailto:linf...@ieee.org> For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org<mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org> To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1 LAM RESEARCH CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail transmission, and any documents, files, or previous e-mail messages attached to it, (collectively, "E-mail Transmission") may be subject to one or more of the following based on the associated sensitivity level: E-mail Transmission (i) contains confidential information, (ii) is prohibited from distribution outside of Lam, and/or (iii) is intended solely for and restricted to the specified recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this message is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately notify the sender and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading them or saving them to disk. Thank you. Confidential - Limited Access and Use - -------- 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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/ Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/ Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: _ To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1
Re: [PSES] UK The Product Safety and Metrology etc. (Amendment) Regulations 2024
Dear Charlie, Appreciate your updates!! What is the distance to become an official legislation? Currently, can we use the EU CE compliance DoC texts in UKCA DoC and bear the UKCA mark on the product without re-test according to Designed Standards and Approval Body cert? Thanks and regards, Scott On Fri, 19 Apr 2024 at 16:09, Charlie Blackham wrote: > UK has published draft legislation to allow continued acceptance of CE > Marking past the end of 2024 in the "The Product Safety and Metrology etc. > (Amendment) Regulations 2024" along with an explanatory memorandum. > The law is due to come into force on 1st October ahead of the current 31 > December deadline. > > > > The Product Safety and Metrology etc. (Amendment) Regulations 2024 > (legislation.gov.uk) > <https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2024/9780348260311/resources> > > > > Best regards > > Charlie > > > > *Charlie Blackham* > > *Sulis Consultants Ltd* > > *Mead House* > > *Longwater Road* > > *Eversley* > > *RG27 0NW* > > *UK* > > *Tel: +44 (0)7946 624317* > > *Email: **char...@sulisconsultants.com * > > *Web: https://sulisconsultants.com/ <https://sulisconsultants.com/> * > > Registered in England and Wales, number 05466247 > > > -- > > 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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG > All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: > https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/ > > Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/ > Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to > unsubscribe) <https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html> > List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html > > For help, send mail to the list administrators: > Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net > Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org > > For policy questions, send mail to: > Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org > -- > > To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: > https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1 > - 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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/ Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/ Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: _ To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1
Re: [PSES] Couple of loosely related safety questions
Brian, for a rigorous determination of creepage and of clearance you need to also determine and assign: 1. Over-voltage Category ( affects Clearance ) 2. Pollution Degree ( micro-environment affecting Creepage ) 3. Basic (simple separation) or Reinforced (protective separation) boundaries (if the end-product standard distinguishes) If you can determine that slots are needed to increase a creepage path because of physical constraints, then the minimum allowable width of that slot needs to be determined. The application of std UL840 is permitted as an alternative for the determination of spacings, with some strings attached to the end-product standard ( e.g. UL1741 referencing UL840) Its a long and winding, foggy road to follow when determining minimum spacings for an electronic assembly. Isolation planning, assignment of working voltages (RMS and peak) across isolation boundaries is usually a good first step. Your MOSFET lead spacing doesnt need to follow PCB rules, but the PCB does. You may need to measure distance between PCB pads for the device and if then decide if those pads might need slots between them. Ralph From: Brian Gregory Sent: Friday, April 26, 2024 4:12 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: [PSES] Couple of loosely related safety questions 1. Clearances for US Safety: I'd cite the relevant standards, but they are so alike (identical Clearance tables), and so alike to UL 508, I'll defer. Here's the question: When citing clearance spacing from "uninsulated live components" does one measure from the edge of a PCB to the enclosure well, or only from the live components, like a pad, or the bottom pin of a thru-hole cap? 1a. what sort of passivation or RTV could make those live components not "uninsulated"? 2. Slots to increase creepage for high-voltage components A FET that's rated for say 600V does not have to follow PCB-creepage rules for 600V, is clearly stated places like UL 1741, §26.1.1 exception #8. For other components, like say 1000V caps in 0805 packages or FET driver chips the requirements aren't as clear. Is a slot needed to maintain creepage or not if the component is properly rated? It does appear from a TI support page for dual-bridge converters, that slots are recommended in order to prevent contamination that may compromise the components isolation performance. My gut says: no, slots are not needed between component terminals on a PCB, but could be recommended for sensitive parts, like FET drivers. Thoughts? Colorado Brian _____ 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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/ <https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/%20> Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/ <https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/> Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) <https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html> List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net <mailto:msherma...@comcast.net> Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org <mailto:linf...@ieee.org> For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org <mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org> _ To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC <https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1> &A=1 - ---- 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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/ Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/ Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: _ To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1
Re: [PSES] Couple of loosely related safety questions
Hi Brian: This does not answer your questions, but MAY give you an analysis tool: CLEARANCE is standards name for AIR INSULATION. CREEPAGE DISTANCE is standards name for DISTANCE ACROSS THE SURFACE OF SOLID INSULATION. Hope to meet you at the Symposium! Best regards, Rich From: Brian Gregory [mailto:brian_greg...@netzero.net] Sent: Friday, April 26, 2024 4:12 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: [PSES] Couple of loosely related safety questions 1. Clearances for US Safety: I'd cite the relevant standards, but they are so alike (identical Clearance tables), and so alike to UL 508, I'll defer. Here's the question: When citing clearance spacing from "uninsulated live components" does one measure from the edge of a PCB to the enclosure well, or only from the live components, like a pad, or the bottom pin of a thru-hole cap? 1a. what sort of passivation or RTV could make those live components not "uninsulated"? 2. Slots to increase creepage for high-voltage components A FET that's rated for say 600V does not have to follow PCB-creepage rules for 600V, is clearly stated places like UL 1741, §26.1.1 exception #8. For other components, like say 1000V caps in 0805 packages or FET driver chips the requirements aren't as clear. Is a slot needed to maintain creepage or not if the component is properly rated? It does appear from a TI support page for dual-bridge converters, that slots are recommended in order to prevent contamination that may compromise the components isolation performance. My gut says: no, slots are not needed between component terminals on a PCB, but could be recommended for sensitive parts, like FET drivers. Thoughts? Colorado Brian _____ 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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/ <https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/%20> Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/ <https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/> Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) <https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html> List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net <mailto:msherma...@comcast.net> Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org <mailto:linf...@ieee.org> For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org <mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org> _ To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC <https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1> &A=1 - ---- 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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/ Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/ Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: _ To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1
Re: [PSES] Couple of loosely related safety questions
Thank you, Rich! Over 240 have already registered for ISPCE 2024! This is the place to be for all Product Safety and Certifications knowledge transfer and networking - https://2024.psessymposium.org/. Best Regards and Be Safe, John John Allen | President & CEO | Product Safety Consulting, Inc. Your Outsourced Compliance Department® 630-238-0188, Cell: 630-330-3145 [cid:image001.jpg@01DA980D.AF7CCF00][social_facebook_box_blue for signature]<http://www.facebook.com/pages/Product-Safety-Consulting-Inc/97306850917>[social_twitter_box_blue for signature]<http://twitter.com/SafetyTesting>[social_linkedin_box_blue for signature]<http://www.linkedin.com/in/productsafetyconsultinginc> https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCVSzENmSoWeNFSBQcOYN7-A www.productsafetyinc.com<http://www.productsafetyinc.com/> IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society President 2024-2025 Compliance 101 Technical Committee Chairman IEEE Senior Member [cid:image005.png@01DA980D.AF7CCF00] Keeping our members informed and educated on Product Safety and Certifications https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/index.html Although PSC maintains the highest level of virus protection, this e-mail and any attachments should be scanned by your virus protection software. It is the responsibility of the recipient to check that it is virus free. PSC does not accept any responsibility for data loss or systems damage arising in any way from its use. This message is confidential and intended only for the individual to whom or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient or addressee, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the addressee, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying, in whole or part, of this message is strictly prohibited. If you believe that you have been sent this message in error, please do not read it. Please immediately reply to sender that you have received this message in error. Then permanently delete all copies of the message. Thank you From: Richard Nute Sent: Friday, April 26, 2024 6:54 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] Couple of loosely related safety questions [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi Brian: You should attend the IEEE PSES Symposium in Chicago next week to get the answers to these questions from experts. Lots of experts in clearance and creepage will be there and will be happy to provide you with answers! Best regards, Rich From: Brian Gregory [mailto:brian_greg...@netzero.net] Sent: Friday, April 26, 2024 4:12 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> Subject: [PSES] Couple of loosely related safety questions 1. Clearances for US Safety: I'd cite the relevant standards, but they are so alike (identical Clearance tables), and so alike to UL 508, I'll defer. Here's the question: When citing clearance spacing from "uninsulated live components" does one measure from the edge of a PCB to the enclosure well, or only from the live components, like a pad, or the bottom pin of a thru-hole cap? 1a. what sort of passivation or RTV could make those live components not "uninsulated"? 2. Slots to increase creepage for high-voltage components A FET that's rated for say 600V does not have to follow PCB-creepage rules for 600V, is clearly stated places like UL 1741, §26.1.1 exception #8. For other components, like say 1000V caps in 0805 packages or FET driver chips the requirements aren't as clear. Is a slot needed to maintain creepage or not if the component is properly rated? It does appear from a TI support page for dual-bridge converters, that slots are recommended in order to prevent contamination that may compromise the components isolation performance. My gut says: no, slots are not needed between component terminals on a PCB, but could be recommended for sensitive parts, like FET drivers. Thoughts? Colorado Brian 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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/<https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/%20> Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/ Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)<https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html> List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net<mailto:msherma...@comcast.net> Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org<mailto:linf...@ieee.org> For policy questions, s
Re: [PSES] Couple of loosely related safety questions
Hi Brian: You should attend the IEEE PSES Symposium in Chicago next week to get the answers to these questions from experts. Lots of experts in clearance and creepage will be there and will be happy to provide you with answers! Best regards, Rich From: Brian Gregory [mailto:brian_greg...@netzero.net] Sent: Friday, April 26, 2024 4:12 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: [PSES] Couple of loosely related safety questions 1. Clearances for US Safety: I'd cite the relevant standards, but they are so alike (identical Clearance tables), and so alike to UL 508, I'll defer. Here's the question: When citing clearance spacing from "uninsulated live components" does one measure from the edge of a PCB to the enclosure well, or only from the live components, like a pad, or the bottom pin of a thru-hole cap? 1a. what sort of passivation or RTV could make those live components not "uninsulated"? 2. Slots to increase creepage for high-voltage components A FET that's rated for say 600V does not have to follow PCB-creepage rules for 600V, is clearly stated places like UL 1741, §26.1.1 exception #8. For other components, like say 1000V caps in 0805 packages or FET driver chips the requirements aren't as clear. Is a slot needed to maintain creepage or not if the component is properly rated? It does appear from a TI support page for dual-bridge converters, that slots are recommended in order to prevent contamination that may compromise the components isolation performance. My gut says: no, slots are not needed between component terminals on a PCB, but could be recommended for sensitive parts, like FET drivers. Thoughts? Colorado Brian - ---- 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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/ Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/ Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: _ To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1
[PSES] Couple of loosely related safety questions
1. Clearances for US Safety: I'd cite the relevant standards, but they are so alike (identical Clearance tables), and so alike to UL 508, I'll defer. Here's the question: When citing clearance spacing from "uninsulated live components" does one measure from the edge of a PCB to the enclosure well, or only from the live components, like a pad, or the bottom pin of a thru-hole cap?1a. what sort of passivation or RTV could make those live components not "uninsulated"? 2. Slots to increase creepage for high-voltage components A FET that's rated for say 600V does not have to follow PCB-creepage rules for 600V, is clearly stated places like UL 1741, §26.1.1 exception #8. For other components, like say 1000V caps in 0805 packages or FET driver chips the requirements aren't as clear. Is a slot needed to maintain creepage or not if the component is properly rated? It does appear from a TI support page for dual-bridge converters, that slots are recommended in order to prevent contamination that may compromise the components isolation performance. My gut says: no, slots are not needed between component terminals on a PCB, but could be recommended for sensitive parts, like FET drivers. Thoughts? Colorado Brian - ---- 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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/ Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/ Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: _ To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1
[PSES] UK The Product Safety and Metrology etc. (Amendment) Regulations 2024
UK has published draft legislation to allow continued acceptance of CE Marking past the end of 2024 in the "The Product Safety and Metrology etc. (Amendment) Regulations 2024" along with an explanatory memorandum. The law is due to come into force on 1st October ahead of the current 31 December deadline. The Product Safety and Metrology etc. (Amendment) Regulations 2024 (legislation.gov.uk)<https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2024/9780348260311/resources> Best regards Charlie Charlie Blackham Sulis Consultants Ltd Mead House Longwater Road Eversley RG27 0NW UK Tel: +44 (0)7946 624317 Email: char...@sulisconsultants.com<mailto:char...@sulisconsultants.com> Web: https://sulisconsultants.com/ Registered in England and Wales, number 05466247 - 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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/ Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/ Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: _ To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1
Re: [PSES] Validity Period of Battery Safety Test Reports
John, a question. What's the date on your test reports / files? I don't remember the details any more, but I hit something similar many years ago. So I paid to have the files refreshed to solve the issue. It was a minimal cost. Jim Bacher, WB8VSU ja.bac...@outlook.com or j.bac...@ieee.org Jim Bacher, WB8VSU ja.bac...@outlook.com or j.bac...@ieee.org JBRC Consulting LLC Product EMC & Regulatory Consultant https:\\trc.guru IEEE Life Senior Member On March 5, 2024 1:52:21 PM John Riutta wrote: Hello all, I’m having a bit of bother with Amazon.com at the moment. For a small rechargeable battery-containing product they are requiring one of the following in order for them to sell the product on their Canadian platform: CAN/CSA C22.2 No. 62133-2:20; IEC 62133:2012 or IEC 62133-2:2017; UL 62133:2017 or UL 62133-2:2020. The challenge is that they rejected the one I sent as being long past the testing date. However I have not been able to find any citation as to how often testing under any of these standards must be repeated in order to be valid. I seek the collected wisdom of the group please. Best regards, John John E. Riutta, MA, MBA, FLSIProduct Development and Product Compliance Manager I jriutta@celestron.comI323.446.1076 CELESTRON, LLC.I2835 Columbia Street I Torrance, CA 90503 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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/ Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/ Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1 - 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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/ Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/ Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: _ To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1
Re: [PSES] Validity Period of Battery Safety Test Reports
Hello John. Amazon’s authority in rejecting the document was Amazon’s own rules; however their representatives (three so far) could not point to any published rule in their compliance portal that identified a duration of validity. Effectively, it was past date because they said so. It’s terribly frustrating. John John E. Riutta, MA, MBA, FLS I Product Development and Product Compliance Manager I jriu...@celestron.com<mailto:jriu...@celestron.com> I 323.446.1076 CELESTRON, LLC. I 2835 Columbia Street I Torrance, CA 90503 [Logo Description automatically generated]<http://www.celestron.com/> [Icon Description automatically generated] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.instagram.com_celestronuniverse&d=DwMFaQ&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=x40qV4DM3u4JrqHl_FVpxdOqkHDBo3f6BvwvAwIWGH8&m=B6fIOBUaG50CeATRoPrGe3aQoHBGiKZFSBIu-ovu97c5RZhLW5JAVauCDQwYc3UQ&s=mp6OgNq_McWjXY2YQYjZ9Dk6_XzP1VPvIEe8C8zj56A&e=> [A close-up of a fire Description automatically generated with low confidence] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_Celestron&d=DwMFaQ&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=x40qV4DM3u4JrqHl_FVpxdOqkHDBo3f6BvwvAwIWGH8&m=B6fIOBUaG50CeATRoPrGe3aQoHBGiKZFSBIu-ovu97c5RZhLW5JAVauCDQwYc3UQ&s=VPySibohtehHWHpC8d5rHDIovgyX-KLLxjtWSiblJGI&e=> [A picture containing text, clipart Description automatically generated] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.facebook.com_celestron&d=DwMFaQ&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=x40qV4DM3u4JrqHl_FVpxdOqkHDBo3f6BvwvAwIWGH8&m=B6fIOBUaG50CeATRoPrGe3aQoHBGiKZFSBIu-ovu97c5RZhLW5JAVauCDQwYc3UQ&s=mFMWx391BWGOZRSQd2VOWpQ8frezSjy2nYeDDPQcxtg&e=> [Icon Description automatically generated] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.youtube.com_user_CelestronDotCom&d=DwMFaQ&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=x40qV4DM3u4JrqHl_FVpxdOqkHDBo3f6BvwvAwIWGH8&m=B6fIOBUaG50CeATRoPrGe3aQoHBGiKZFSBIu-ovu97c5RZhLW5JAVauCDQwYc3UQ&s=ziJj_dfd_78luGSUUH4AfwmPyhD40fdDd46c8oL7bcc&e=> [Icon Description automatically generated] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.linkedin.com_company_celestron-2Dllc-2D&d=DwMFaQ&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=x40qV4DM3u4JrqHl_FVpxdOqkHDBo3f6BvwvAwIWGH8&m=B6fIOBUaG50CeATRoPrGe3aQoHBGiKZFSBIu-ovu97c5RZhLW5JAVauCDQwYc3UQ&s=dXknLUOcxSuYfVZ7A71XexAkwNhfOYqmzp9HADpQfIk&e=> From: John Woodgate Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2024 11:19 AM To: John Riutta ; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] Validity Period of Battery Safety Test Reports How 'long past'? Do any of these standards, or the test certificates associated with them, specify a validity period or an expiry date? Did Amazon cite an authority for their rejection? On 2024-03-05 18:51, John Riutta wrote: Hello all, I’m having a bit of bother with Amazon.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__Amazon.com&d=DwQDaQ&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=VCyn8WVANatxoVh6C1UViULPDA-EK_TwOt4iLIyJXt8&m=jHM3TRYMTSHK0XGvXlpHUIeS4qK3vfQH-H5luhaatXOUyE6HZ859hSKsk8tFdl39&s=uFb5gucGmEe-8-DeiNxFlCW2L8KvkcJY-iMkCelwtgk&e=> at the moment. For a small rechargeable battery-containing product they are requiring one of the following in order for them to sell the product on their Canadian platform: 1. CAN/CSA C22.2 No. 62133-2:20; 2. IEC 62133:2012 or IEC 62133-2:2017; 3. UL 62133:2017 or UL 62133-2:2020. The challenge is that they rejected the one I sent as being long past the testing date. However I have not been able to find any citation as to how often testing under any of these standards must be repeated in order to be valid. I seek the collected wisdom of the group please. Best regards, John John E. Riutta, MA, MBA, FLS I Product Development and Product Compliance Manager I jriu...@celestron.com<mailto:jriu...@celestron.com> I 323.446.1076 CELESTRON, LLC. I 2835 Columbia Street I Torrance, CA 90503 [Logo Description automatically generated]<http://www.celestron.com/> [Icon Description automatically generated] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.instagram.com_celestronuniverse&d=DwMFaQ&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=x40qV4DM3u4JrqHl_FVpxdOqkHDBo3f6BvwvAwIWGH8&m=B6fIOBUaG50CeATRoPrGe3aQoHBGiKZFSBIu-ovu97c5RZhLW5JAVauCDQwYc3UQ&s=mp6OgNq_McWjXY2YQYjZ9Dk6_XzP1VPvIEe8C8zj56A&e=> [A close-up of a fire Description automatically generated with low confidence] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_Celestron&d=DwMFaQ&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=x40qV4DM3u4JrqHl_FVpxdOqkHDBo3f6BvwvAwIWGH8&m=B6fIOBUaG50CeATRoPrGe3aQoHBGiKZFSBIu-ovu97c5RZhLW
Re: [PSES] Validity Period of Battery Safety Test Reports
How 'long past'? Do any of these standards, or the test certificates associated with them, specify a validity period or an expiry date? Did Amazon cite an authority for their rejection? On 2024-03-05 18:51, John Riutta wrote: Hello all, I’m having a bit of bother with Amazon.com at the moment. For a small rechargeable battery-containing product they are requiring one of the following in order for them to sell the product on their Canadian platform: * CAN/CSA C22.2 No. 62133-2:20; * IEC 62133:2012 or IEC 62133-2:2017; * UL 62133:2017 or UL 62133-2:2020. The challenge is that they rejected the one I sent as being long past the testing date. However I have not been able to find any citation as to how often testing under any of these standards must be repeated in order to be valid. I seek the collected wisdom of the group please. Best regards, John John E. Riutta, MA, MBA, FLSI Product Development and Product Compliance Manager I jriu...@celestron.com <mailto:jriu...@celestron.com> I 323.446.1076 CELESTRON, LLC.I 2835 Columbia Street ITorrance, CA 90503 Logo Description automatically generated <http://www.celestron.com/>Icon Description automatically generated <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.instagram.com_celestronuniverse&d=DwMFaQ&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=x40qV4DM3u4JrqHl_FVpxdOqkHDBo3f6BvwvAwIWGH8&m=B6fIOBUaG50CeATRoPrGe3aQoHBGiKZFSBIu-ovu97c5RZhLW5JAVauCDQwYc3UQ&s=mp6OgNq_McWjXY2YQYjZ9Dk6_XzP1VPvIEe8C8zj56A&e=>A close-up of a fire Description automatically generated with low confidence <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_Celestron&d=DwMFaQ&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=x40qV4DM3u4JrqHl_FVpxdOqkHDBo3f6BvwvAwIWGH8&m=B6fIOBUaG50CeATRoPrGe3aQoHBGiKZFSBIu-ovu97c5RZhLW5JAVauCDQwYc3UQ&s=VPySibohtehHWHpC8d5rHDIovgyX-KLLxjtWSiblJGI&e=>A picture containing text, clipart Description automatically generated <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.facebook.com_celestron&d=DwMFaQ&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=x40qV4DM3u4JrqHl_FVpxdOqkHDBo3f6BvwvAwIWGH8&m=B6fIOBUaG50CeATRoPrGe3aQoHBGiKZFSBIu-ovu97c5RZhLW5JAVauCDQwYc3UQ&s=mFMWx391BWGOZRSQd2VOWpQ8frezSjy2nYeDDPQcxtg&e=>Icon Description automatically generated <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.youtube.com_user_CelestronDotCom&d=DwMFaQ&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=x40qV4DM3u4JrqHl_FVpxdOqkHDBo3f6BvwvAwIWGH8&m=B6fIOBUaG50CeATRoPrGe3aQoHBGiKZFSBIu-ovu97c5RZhLW5JAVauCDQwYc3UQ&s=ziJj_dfd_78luGSUUH4AfwmPyhD40fdDd46c8oL7bcc&e=>Icon Description automatically generated <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.linkedin.com_company_celestron-2Dllc-2D&d=DwMFaQ&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=x40qV4DM3u4JrqHl_FVpxdOqkHDBo3f6BvwvAwIWGH8&m=B6fIOBUaG50CeATRoPrGe3aQoHBGiKZFSBIu-ovu97c5RZhLW5JAVauCDQwYc3UQ&s=dXknLUOcxSuYfVZ7A71XexAkwNhfOYqmzp9HADpQfIk&e=> 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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/ Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/ Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) <https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html> List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1 -- Signature OOO - Own Opinions Only Best wishes John Woodgate, Rayleigh, Essex UK Keep trying -- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software. www.avg.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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/ Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/ Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net Rick Linford at: linf...
[PSES] Validity Period of Battery Safety Test Reports
Hello all, I'm having a bit of bother with Amazon.com at the moment. For a small rechargeable battery-containing product they are requiring one of the following in order for them to sell the product on their Canadian platform: * CAN/CSA C22.2 No. 62133-2:20; * IEC 62133:2012 or IEC 62133-2:2017; * UL 62133:2017 or UL 62133-2:2020. The challenge is that they rejected the one I sent as being long past the testing date. However I have not been able to find any citation as to how often testing under any of these standards must be repeated in order to be valid. I seek the collected wisdom of the group please. Best regards, John John E. Riutta, MA, MBA, FLS I Product Development and Product Compliance Manager I jriu...@celestron.com<mailto:jriu...@celestron.com> I 323.446.1076 CELESTRON, LLC. I 2835 Columbia Street I Torrance, CA 90503 [Logo Description automatically generated]<http://www.celestron.com/> [Icon Description automatically generated] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.instagram.com_celestronuniverse&d=DwMFaQ&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=x40qV4DM3u4JrqHl_FVpxdOqkHDBo3f6BvwvAwIWGH8&m=B6fIOBUaG50CeATRoPrGe3aQoHBGiKZFSBIu-ovu97c5RZhLW5JAVauCDQwYc3UQ&s=mp6OgNq_McWjXY2YQYjZ9Dk6_XzP1VPvIEe8C8zj56A&e=> [A close-up of a fire Description automatically generated with low confidence] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_Celestron&d=DwMFaQ&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=x40qV4DM3u4JrqHl_FVpxdOqkHDBo3f6BvwvAwIWGH8&m=B6fIOBUaG50CeATRoPrGe3aQoHBGiKZFSBIu-ovu97c5RZhLW5JAVauCDQwYc3UQ&s=VPySibohtehHWHpC8d5rHDIovgyX-KLLxjtWSiblJGI&e=> [A picture containing text, clipart Description automatically generated] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.facebook.com_celestron&d=DwMFaQ&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=x40qV4DM3u4JrqHl_FVpxdOqkHDBo3f6BvwvAwIWGH8&m=B6fIOBUaG50CeATRoPrGe3aQoHBGiKZFSBIu-ovu97c5RZhLW5JAVauCDQwYc3UQ&s=mFMWx391BWGOZRSQd2VOWpQ8frezSjy2nYeDDPQcxtg&e=> [Icon Description automatically generated] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.youtube.com_user_CelestronDotCom&d=DwMFaQ&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=x40qV4DM3u4JrqHl_FVpxdOqkHDBo3f6BvwvAwIWGH8&m=B6fIOBUaG50CeATRoPrGe3aQoHBGiKZFSBIu-ovu97c5RZhLW5JAVauCDQwYc3UQ&s=ziJj_dfd_78luGSUUH4AfwmPyhD40fdDd46c8oL7bcc&e=> [Icon Description automatically generated] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.linkedin.com_company_celestron-2Dllc-2D&d=DwMFaQ&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=x40qV4DM3u4JrqHl_FVpxdOqkHDBo3f6BvwvAwIWGH8&m=B6fIOBUaG50CeATRoPrGe3aQoHBGiKZFSBIu-ovu97c5RZhLW5JAVauCDQwYc3UQ&s=dXknLUOcxSuYfVZ7A71XexAkwNhfOYqmzp9HADpQfIk&e=> - 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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/ Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/ Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: _ To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1
[PSES] Household safety in the Internet era
For those who use IEC 60335. here is a superficial (and non-technical) look. https://etech.iec.ch/issue/2024-01/household-safety-in-the-internet-era Richard Nute Bend, Oregon, USA - 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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/ Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/ Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: _ To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1
Re: [PSES] [EXTERNAL] [PSES] General Product Safety Directive (GPSD)
There is an article here on the new European safety law: https://digital.incompliancemag.com/issue/november-2023/ On 2023-11-02 10:24, Glyn Payne wrote: There is always the RoHS Directive that demands the CE Mark even if no other Directives apply. Glyn Payne *From:*John Woodgate *Sent:* 01 November 2023 20:20 *To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG *Subject:* Re: [PSES] [EXTERNAL] [PSES] General Product Safety Directive (GPSD) Somewhere in all the Byzantine rules, there is a ban on applying the CE mark if *no* Directive or Regulation that demands it applies to the product. On 2023-11-01 19:58, Ralph McDiarmid wrote: Furthermore, I have not found anything document which says that you cannot CE mark a product having a DofC listing the GPSR. The proviso that you can issue a DofC against Directive 2001/95/EC but cannot CE mark the product is not stated anywhere in the official website of the EU (Europa.eu) or in the GPSD. Perhaps it’s just well hidden. 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 All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/ <https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/%20> Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/ Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) <https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html> List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1 <https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1> - 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 All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/ Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/ Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: _ To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1
Re: [PSES] [EXTERNAL] [PSES] General Product Safety Directive (GPSD)
There is always the RoHS Directive that demands the CE Mark even if no other Directives apply. Glyn Payne From: John Woodgate Sent: 01 November 2023 20:20 To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] [EXTERNAL] [PSES] General Product Safety Directive (GPSD) Somewhere in all the Byzantine rules, there is a ban on applying the CE mark if no Directive or Regulation that demands it applies to the product. On 2023-11-01 19:58, Ralph McDiarmid wrote: Furthermore, I have not found anything document which says that you cannot CE mark a product having a DofC listing the GPSR. The proviso that you can issue a DofC against Directive 2001/95/EC but cannot CE mark the product is not stated anywhere in the official website of the EU (Europa.eu) or in the GPSD. Perhaps it’s just well hidden. 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 All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/<https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/%20> Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/ Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)<https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html> List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net<mailto:msherma...@comcast.net> Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org<mailto:linf...@ieee.org> For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org<mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org> To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1 - 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 All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/ Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/ Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: _ To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1
Re: [PSES] SV: [EXTERNAL] [PSES] General Product Safety Directive (GPSD)
Hi Amund, Apart from EMC, RoHS is likely to apply as well. If the product is out of scope of the LVD, that just means that you are out of the harmonized area but will still be in scope of the national safety regulations. In the end, your product will have to meet the corresponding product safety standards anyway. Andreas Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Best regards Andreas Graevinghoff XC-HWP/PJ-ESR Tel. +49 711 811-22343 | Mobile +49 174 6929311 From: Amund Westin Sent: Wednesday, November 1, 2023 08:41 To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: [PSES] SV: [EXTERNAL] [PSES] General Product Safety Directive (GPSD) Thanks Ted, As I read your comments and take they into an example - … consider a professional electronic product, which can’t be bought or even used by consumers, will not under any circumstances be covered by GPSD/GPSR. Right? And if product is low powered (not within LVD), then maybe only EMC apply. Then the product could be put on the market without any safety related tests …. Is that correct? BR Amund Fra: Ted Eckert Sendt: 31. oktober 2023 16:10 Til: Amund Westin mailto:am...@westin-emission.no>>; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> Emne: RE: [EXTERNAL] [PSES] General Product Safety Directive (GPSD) Hello Amund, The GPSR has these definitions. I recommend you use them as the basis to determine if you are providing “consumer products” as covered by the scope of the GPSR. “‘product’ means any item, whether or not it is interconnected to other items, supplied or made available, whether for consideration or not, including in the context of providing a service, which is intended for consumers or is likely, under reasonably foreseeable conditions, to be used by consumers even if not intended for them”. “’consumer’ means any natural person who acts for purposes which are outside that person’s trade, bushiness, craft or profession”. There is no clear line drawn between consumer and professional equipment, and the GPSR is intended to cover professional equipment that is likely to be purchased for personal use by some consumers. Products that fall into this grey area may need to be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. I would recommend that if you determine a product is not within the scope, your technical file include a clear explanation of why it is out of scope. Best regard, Ted Eckert The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my employer. -Original Message- From: Amund Westin mailto:am...@westin-emission.no>> Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2023 7:54 AM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [PSES] General Product Safety Directive (GPSD) General Product Safety Directive ... Do I interpret correct that GPSD only apply to consumer products? Not for any professional products? And the new General Product Safety Regulation (GPSR) do the same? BR Amund - 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 mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org>> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.mail-archive.com%2Femc-pstc%40listserv.ieee.org%2F&data=05%7C01%7Cted.eckert%40microsoft.com%7C82a5efa6086f42d6b47408dbda213cd3%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C638343608539495156%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=GuUoKfcLXvrJyMAlwC4ppBfGXqIA3K0rhanBtbC1XF4%3D&reserved=0<https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/> Website: https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fewh.ieee.org%2Fsoc%2Fpses%2F&data=05%7C01%7Cted.eckert%40microsoft.com%7C82a5efa6086f42d6b47408dbda213cd3%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C638343608539504370%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=M0KYrWP9A3foeuyjUE75DvRaVQURs4wWLqPTD%2FdbU4Q%3D&reserved=0<https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/> Instructions: https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fewh.ieee.org%2Fsoc%2Fpses%2Flist.html&data=05%7C01%7Cted.eckert%40microsoft.com%7C82a5efa6086f42d6b47408dbda213cd3%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C638343608539509465%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=ofGeD6XXKUVk7Hj4M9x2EGO9W1T%2FiDiuGRIDaRUidBg%3D&reserved=0<https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html> (including how to unsubscribe) List rules: https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fewh.ieee.org%2Fsoc%2Fpses%2Flistrules.html&data=05%7C01%7Cted.eckert%40mic
[PSES] SV: [PSES] [EXTERNAL] [PSES] General Product Safety Directive (GPSD)
Thanks, Ted, I fully support your comments. BR Amund Fra: John Woodgate Sendt: 1. november 2023 20:01 Til: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Emne: Re: [PSES] [EXTERNAL] [PSES] General Product Safety Directive (GPSD) Precisely. It's utter folly not to carry out, and document, appropriate safety tests. On 2023-11-01 18:35, Ted Eckert wrote: Hello Amund, The GPSR is not a CE-marking Directive, and products that fall under the GPSR can be placed on the market without safety information on the Declaration of Conformity if they do not fall under any other Directive that requires a declaration for safety. However, that is only related to what is on the Declaration of Conformity, affecting the ability to properly import a product into the EU. However, regulations on the import of products are not the only regulations affecting product safety requirements. Product liability law exists in the 27 EU member states. If you have a professional product meeting the requirements you propose, and there is some allegation of a safety issue, the customer can seek remedies from the importer, distributor, and/or manufacturer. Your ability to defend your company in court will be significantly diminished if you have no documentation showing that a safety analysis has been done. In general, all of the economic actors involved in selling products carry the responsibility of making sure the products they sell meet legal requirements. It will be up to your legal department to determine the risk of placing a product on the market without a safety evaluation. The need for producing safety documentation might not be limited only to the RED, LVD, or GPSR. Best regard, Ted Eckert The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my employer. From: Amund Westin <mailto:am...@westin-emission.no> Sent: Wednesday, November 1, 2023 12:41 AM To: Ted Eckert <mailto:ted.eck...@microsoft.com> ; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> Subject: SV: [EXTERNAL] [PSES] General Product Safety Directive (GPSD) Thanks Ted, As I read your comments and take they into an example - … consider a professional electronic product, which can’t be bought or even used by consumers, will not under any circumstances be covered by GPSD/GPSR. Right? And if product is low powered (not within LVD), then maybe only EMC apply. Then the product could be put on the market without any safety related tests …. Is that correct? BR Amund Fra: Ted Eckert Sendt: 31. oktober 2023 16:10 Til: Amund Westin < <mailto:am...@westin-emission.no> am...@westin-emission.no>; <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Emne: RE: [EXTERNAL] [PSES] General Product Safety Directive (GPSD) Hello Amund, The GPSR has these definitions. I recommend you use them as the basis to determine if you are providing “consumer products” as covered by the scope of the GPSR. “‘product’ means any item, whether or not it is interconnected to other items, supplied or made available, whether for consideration or not, including in the context of providing a service, which is intended for consumers or is likely, under reasonably foreseeable conditions, to be used by consumers even if not intended for them”. “’consumer’ means any natural person who acts for purposes which are outside that person’s trade, bushiness, craft or profession”. There is no clear line drawn between consumer and professional equipment, and the GPSR is intended to cover professional equipment that is likely to be purchased for personal use by some consumers. Products that fall into this grey area may need to be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. I would recommend that if you determine a product is not within the scope, your technical file include a clear explanation of why it is out of scope. Best regard, Ted Eckert The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my employer. -Original Message- From: Amund Westin mailto:am...@westin-emission.no> > Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2023 7:54 AM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [PSES] General Product Safety Directive (GPSD) General Product Safety Directive ... Do I interpret correct that GPSD only apply to consumer products? Not for any professional products? And the new General Product Safety Regulation (GPSR) do the same? BR Amund - -------- 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 < <mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org> emc-p...@ieee.org> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: <https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee
Re: [PSES] [EXTERNAL] [PSES] General Product Safety Directive (GPSD)
There are many directives that are not CE marking directives, including both the GPSD and GPSR. Other examples are WEEE and the energy/ecodesign requirements for products. For example, computers must comply with 617/2013, but the CE mark is not specified to show compliance. Many energy directives have the labels with the A-G ratings as proof of compliance. Energy label and ecodesign (europa.eu)<https://commission.europa.eu/energy-climate-change-environment/standards-tools-and-labels/products-labelling-rules-and-requirements/energy-label-and-ecodesign_en> Ted Eckert The opinions expressed in this message are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my employer. From: Ralph McDiarmid Sent: Wednesday, November 1, 2023 2:03 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] [EXTERNAL] [PSES] General Product Safety Directive (GPSD) I found that too, but isn’t the GPSD a “new approach” directive ? I am sure it must be; it was certainly published after 1985. By that criterion alone, it seems appropriate to apply the mark. From: John Mcbain mailto:johnmcb...@ieee.org>> Sent: Wednesday, November 1, 2023 1:49 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> Subject: Re: [PSES] [EXTERNAL] [PSES] General Product Safety Directive (GPSD) Correct. Or more specifically - https://single-market-economy.ec.europa.eu/single-market/ce-marking_en#:~:text=It%20is%20compulsory%20only%20for,origin%20of%20a%20product%20either. Best regards, John McBain On Wed, Nov 1, 2023 at 1:20 PM John Woodgate mailto:j...@woodjohn.uk>> wrote: Somewhere in all the Byzantine rules, there is a ban on applying the CE mark if no Directive or Regulation that demands it applies to the product. On 2023-11-01 19:58, Ralph McDiarmid wrote: Furthermore, I have not found anything document which says that you cannot CE mark a product having a DofC listing the GPSR. The proviso that you can issue a DofC against Directive 2001/95/EC but cannot CE mark the product is not stated anywhere in the official website of the EU (Europa.eu) or in the GPSD. Perhaps it’s just well hidden. 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 All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/ Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/ Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)<https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html> List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net<mailto:msherma...@comcast.net> Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org<mailto:linf...@ieee.org> For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org<mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org> To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1 ____ 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 All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/<https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/%20> Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/ Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)<https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html> List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net<mailto:msherma...@comcast.net> Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org<mailto:linf...@ieee.org> For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org<mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org> To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1 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 All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/ Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/ Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)<https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html> List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net<mailto:msherma...@comcast.net> Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org<mailto:linf...@ieee.org> For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org<mailto:j.bac...@i
Re: [PSES] [EXTERNAL] [PSES] General Product Safety Directive (GPSD)
I found that too, but isn’t the GPSD a “new approach” directive ? I am sure it must be; it was certainly published after 1985. By that criterion alone, it seems appropriate to apply the mark. From: John Mcbain Sent: Wednesday, November 1, 2023 1:49 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] [EXTERNAL] [PSES] General Product Safety Directive (GPSD) Correct. Or more specifically - https://single-market-economy.ec.europa.eu/single-market/ce-marking_en#:~:text=It%20is%20compulsory%20only%20for,origin%20of%20a%20product%20either. Best regards, John McBain On Wed, Nov 1, 2023 at 1:20 PM John Woodgate mailto:j...@woodjohn.uk> > wrote: Somewhere in all the Byzantine rules, there is a ban on applying the CE mark if no Directive or Regulation that demands it applies to the product. On 2023-11-01 19:58, Ralph McDiarmid wrote: Furthermore, I have not found anything document which says that you cannot CE mark a product having a DofC listing the GPSR. The proviso that you can issue a DofC against Directive 2001/95/EC but cannot CE mark the product is not stated anywhere in the official website of the EU (Europa.eu) or in the GPSD. Perhaps it’s just well hidden. _ 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 All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/ Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/ <https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/> Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) <https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html> List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net <mailto:msherma...@comcast.net> Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org <mailto:linf...@ieee.org> For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org <mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org> _ To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC <https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1> &A=1 _____ 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 All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/ <https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/%20> Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/ <https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/> Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) <https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html> List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net <mailto:msherma...@comcast.net> Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org <mailto:linf...@ieee.org> For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org <mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org> _ To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC <https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1> &A=1 - -------- 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 All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/ Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/ Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: _ To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1
Re: [PSES] [EXTERNAL] [PSES] General Product Safety Directive (GPSD)
Correct. Or more specifically - https://single-market-economy.ec.europa.eu/single-market/ce-marking_en#:~:text=It%20is%20compulsory%20only%20for,origin%20of%20a%20product%20either . Best regards, John McBain On Wed, Nov 1, 2023 at 1:20 PM John Woodgate wrote: > Somewhere in all the Byzantine rules, there is a ban on applying the CE > mark if *no* Directive or Regulation that demands it applies to the > product. > On 2023-11-01 19:58, Ralph McDiarmid wrote: > > Furthermore, I have not found anything document which says that you cannot > CE mark a product having a DofC listing the GPSR. The proviso that you can > issue a DofC against Directive 2001/95/EC but cannot CE mark the product is > not stated anywhere in the official website of the EU (Europa.eu) or in the > GPSD. Perhaps it’s just well hidden. > > -- > > 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 All > emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: > https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/ > > Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/ > Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to > unsubscribe) <https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html> > List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html > > For help, send mail to the list administrators: > Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net > Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org > > For policy questions, send mail to: > Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org > -- > > To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: > https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1 > - 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 All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/ Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/ Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: _ To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1
Re: [PSES] [EXTERNAL] [PSES] General Product Safety Directive (GPSD)
Somewhere in all the Byzantine rules, there is a ban on applying the CE mark if *no* Directive or Regulation that demands it applies to the product. On 2023-11-01 19:58, Ralph McDiarmid wrote: Furthermore, I have not found anything document which says that you cannot CE mark a product having a DofC listing the GPSR. The proviso that you can issue a DofC against Directive 2001/95/EC but cannot CE mark the product is not stated anywhere in the official website of the EU (Europa.eu) or in the GPSD. Perhaps it’s just well hidden. - 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 All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/ Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/ Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: _ To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1
Re: [PSES] [EXTERNAL] [PSES] General Product Safety Directive (GPSD)
What is meant by “safety information on the Declaration of Conformity”? A DofC contains a list of applicable EU directives and standards. I’ve never been asked to draft a DofC for signature with “safety information” in it. Furthermore, I have not found anything document which says that you cannot CE mark a product having a DofC listing the GPSR. The proviso that you can issue a DofC against Directive 2001/95/EC but cannot CE mark the product is not stated anywhere in the official website of the EU (Europa.eu) or in the GPSD. Perhaps it’s just well hidden. If you don’t CE mark, you’ll have trouble with a few countries in the EU. Customs people seem to look for that mark, even though it is not a formal condition of import. Ralph From: John Woodgate Sent: Wednesday, November 1, 2023 12:01 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] [EXTERNAL] [PSES] General Product Safety Directive (GPSD) Precisely. It's utter folly not to carry out, and document, appropriate safety tests. On 2023-11-01 18:35, Ted Eckert wrote: Hello Amund, The GPSR is not a CE-marking Directive, and products that fall under the GPSR can be placed on the market without safety information on the Declaration of Conformity if they do not fall under any other Directive that requires a declaration for safety. However, that is only related to what is on the Declaration of Conformity, affecting the ability to properly import a product into the EU. However, regulations on the import of products are not the only regulations affecting product safety requirements. Product liability law exists in the 27 EU member states. If you have a professional product meeting the requirements you propose, and there is some allegation of a safety issue, the customer can seek remedies from the importer, distributor, and/or manufacturer. Your ability to defend your company in court will be significantly diminished if you have no documentation showing that a safety analysis has been done. In general, all of the economic actors involved in selling products carry the responsibility of making sure the products they sell meet legal requirements. It will be up to your legal department to determine the risk of placing a product on the market without a safety evaluation. The need for producing safety documentation might not be limited only to the RED, LVD, or GPSR. Best regard, Ted Eckert The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my employer. From: Amund Westin <mailto:am...@westin-emission.no> Sent: Wednesday, November 1, 2023 12:41 AM To: Ted Eckert <mailto:ted.eck...@microsoft.com> ; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> Subject: SV: [EXTERNAL] [PSES] General Product Safety Directive (GPSD) Thanks Ted, As I read your comments and take they into an example - … consider a professional electronic product, which can’t be bought or even used by consumers, will not under any circumstances be covered by GPSD/GPSR. Right? And if product is low powered (not within LVD), then maybe only EMC apply. Then the product could be put on the market without any safety related tests …. Is that correct? BR Amund Fra: Ted Eckert Sendt: 31. oktober 2023 16:10 Til: Amund Westin < <mailto:am...@westin-emission.no> am...@westin-emission.no>; <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Emne: RE: [EXTERNAL] [PSES] General Product Safety Directive (GPSD) Hello Amund, The GPSR has these definitions. I recommend you use them as the basis to determine if you are providing “consumer products” as covered by the scope of the GPSR. “‘product’ means any item, whether or not it is interconnected to other items, supplied or made available, whether for consideration or not, including in the context of providing a service, which is intended for consumers or is likely, under reasonably foreseeable conditions, to be used by consumers even if not intended for them”. “’consumer’ means any natural person who acts for purposes which are outside that person’s trade, bushiness, craft or profession”. There is no clear line drawn between consumer and professional equipment, and the GPSR is intended to cover professional equipment that is likely to be purchased for personal use by some consumers. Products that fall into this grey area may need to be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. I would recommend that if you determine a product is not within the scope, your technical file include a clear explanation of why it is out of scope. Best regard, Ted Eckert The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my employer. -Original Message- From: Amund Westin mailto:am...@westin-emission.no> > Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2023 7:54 AM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-
Re: [PSES] [EXTERNAL] [PSES] General Product Safety Directive (GPSD)
Precisely. It's utter folly not to carry out, and document, appropriate safety tests. On 2023-11-01 18:35, Ted Eckert wrote: Hello Amund, The GPSR is not a CE-marking Directive, and products that fall under the GPSR can be placed on the market without safety information on the Declaration of Conformity if they do not fall under any other Directive that requires a declaration for safety. However, that is only related to what is on the Declaration of Conformity, affecting the ability to properly import a product into the EU. However, regulations on the import of products are not the only regulations affecting product safety requirements. Product liability law exists in the 27 EU member states. If you have a professional product meeting the requirements you propose, and there is some allegation of a safety issue, the customer can seek remedies from the importer, distributor, and/or manufacturer. Your ability to defend your company in court will be significantly diminished if you have no documentation showing that a safety analysis has been done. In general, all of the economic actors involved in selling products carry the responsibility of making sure the products they sell meet legal requirements. It will be up to your legal department to determine the risk of placing a product on the market without a safety evaluation. The need for producing safety documentation might not be limited only to the RED, LVD, or GPSR. Best regard, Ted Eckert /The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my employer./ *From:*Amund Westin *Sent:* Wednesday, November 1, 2023 12:41 AM *To:* Ted Eckert ; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG *Subject:* SV: [EXTERNAL] [PSES] General Product Safety Directive (GPSD) Thanks Ted, As I read your comments and take they into an example - … consider a professional electronic product, which can’t be bought or even used by consumers, will not under any circumstances be covered by GPSD/GPSR. Right? And if product is low powered (not within LVD), then maybe only EMC apply. Then the product could be put on the market without any safety related tests …. Is that correct? BR Amund *Fra:*Ted Eckert *Sendt:* 31. oktober 2023 16:10 *Til:* Amund Westin <mailto:am...@westin-emission.no>>; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> *Emne:* RE: [EXTERNAL] [PSES] General Product Safety Directive (GPSD) Hello Amund, The GPSR has these definitions. I recommend you use them as the basis to determine if you are providing “consumer products” as covered by the scope of the GPSR. “‘product’ means any item, whether or not it is interconnected to other items, supplied or made available, whether for consideration or not, including in the context of providing a service, which is intended for consumers or is likely, under reasonably foreseeable conditions, to be used by consumers even if not intended for them”. “’consumer’ means any natural person who acts for purposes which are outside that person’s trade, bushiness, craft or profession”. There is no clear line drawn between consumer and professional equipment, and the GPSR is intended to cover professional equipment that is likely to be purchased for personal use by some consumers. Products that fall into this grey area may need to be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. I would recommend that if you determine a product is not within the scope, your technical file include a clear explanation of why it is out of scope. Best regard, Ted Eckert /The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my employer./ -Original Message- From: Amund Westin Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2023 7:54 AM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: [EXTERNAL] [PSES] General Product Safety Directive (GPSD) General Product Safety Directive ... Do I interpret correct that GPSD only apply to consumer products? Not for any professional products? And the new General Product Safety Regulation (GPSR) do the same? BR Amund - 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 mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org>> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.mail-archive.com%2Femc-pstc%40listserv.ieee.org%2F&data=05%7C01%7Cted.eckert%40microsoft.com%7C82a5efa6086f42d6b47408dbda213cd3%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C638343608539495156%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=GuUoKfcLXvrJyMAlwC4ppBfGXqIA3K0rhanBtbC1XF4%3D&reserved=0 <https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/> Website: https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fewh.ieee.org%2Fsoc%2Fpses%
Re: [PSES] [EXTERNAL] [PSES] General Product Safety Directive (GPSD)
Hello Amund, The GPSR is not a CE-marking Directive, and products that fall under the GPSR can be placed on the market without safety information on the Declaration of Conformity if they do not fall under any other Directive that requires a declaration for safety. However, that is only related to what is on the Declaration of Conformity, affecting the ability to properly import a product into the EU. However, regulations on the import of products are not the only regulations affecting product safety requirements. Product liability law exists in the 27 EU member states. If you have a professional product meeting the requirements you propose, and there is some allegation of a safety issue, the customer can seek remedies from the importer, distributor, and/or manufacturer. Your ability to defend your company in court will be significantly diminished if you have no documentation showing that a safety analysis has been done. In general, all of the economic actors involved in selling products carry the responsibility of making sure the products they sell meet legal requirements. It will be up to your legal department to determine the risk of placing a product on the market without a safety evaluation. The need for producing safety documentation might not be limited only to the RED, LVD, or GPSR. Best regard, Ted Eckert The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my employer. From: Amund Westin Sent: Wednesday, November 1, 2023 12:41 AM To: Ted Eckert ; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: SV: [EXTERNAL] [PSES] General Product Safety Directive (GPSD) Thanks Ted, As I read your comments and take they into an example - ... consider a professional electronic product, which can't be bought or even used by consumers, will not under any circumstances be covered by GPSD/GPSR. Right? And if product is low powered (not within LVD), then maybe only EMC apply. Then the product could be put on the market without any safety related tests Is that correct? BR Amund Fra: Ted Eckert Sendt: 31. oktober 2023 16:10 Til: Amund Westin mailto:am...@westin-emission.no>>; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> Emne: RE: [EXTERNAL] [PSES] General Product Safety Directive (GPSD) Hello Amund, The GPSR has these definitions. I recommend you use them as the basis to determine if you are providing "consumer products" as covered by the scope of the GPSR. "'product' means any item, whether or not it is interconnected to other items, supplied or made available, whether for consideration or not, including in the context of providing a service, which is intended for consumers or is likely, under reasonably foreseeable conditions, to be used by consumers even if not intended for them". "'consumer' means any natural person who acts for purposes which are outside that person's trade, bushiness, craft or profession". There is no clear line drawn between consumer and professional equipment, and the GPSR is intended to cover professional equipment that is likely to be purchased for personal use by some consumers. Products that fall into this grey area may need to be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. I would recommend that if you determine a product is not within the scope, your technical file include a clear explanation of why it is out of scope. Best regard, Ted Eckert The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my employer. -Original Message- From: Amund Westin mailto:am...@westin-emission.no>> Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2023 7:54 AM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [PSES] General Product Safety Directive (GPSD) General Product Safety Directive ... Do I interpret correct that GPSD only apply to consumer products? Not for any professional products? And the new General Product Safety Regulation (GPSR) do the same? BR Amund - ---- 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 mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org>> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.mail-archive.com%2Femc-pstc%40listserv.ieee.org%2F&data=05%7C01%7Cted.eckert%40microsoft.com%7C82a5efa6086f42d6b47408dbda213cd3%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C638343608539495156%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=GuUoKfcLXvrJyMAlwC4ppBfGXqIA3K0rhanBtbC1XF4%3D&reserved=0<https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/> Website: https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fewh.ieee.org%2Fsoc%2Fpses%2F&
Re: [PSES] SV: [EXTERNAL] [PSES] General Product Safety Directive (GPSD)
Amund The difficult part is ensuring "which can't be bought or even used by consumers" - even if it is only sold or supplied on a B2B basis, is it the type of product and employee could take home with them for personal use or whilst "working from home". Most national legislation requires equipment used in the workplace to be safe, so whether you could sell B2B equipment without any safety related tests would need to be considered and in any case, reasons should be considered as part of product compliance risk assessment Best regards Charlie Charlie Blackham Sulis Consultants Ltd Tel: +44 (0)7946 624317 Web: https://sulisconsultants.com/ Registered in England and Wales, number 05466247 From: Amund Westin Sent: Wednesday, November 1, 2023 7:41 AM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: [PSES] SV: [EXTERNAL] [PSES] General Product Safety Directive (GPSD) Thanks Ted, As I read your comments and take they into an example - ... consider a professional electronic product, which can't be bought or even used by consumers, will not under any circumstances be covered by GPSD/GPSR. Right? And if product is low powered (not within LVD), then maybe only EMC apply. Then the product could be put on the market without any safety related tests Is that correct? BR Amund Fra: Ted Eckert Sendt: 31. oktober 2023 16:10 Til: Amund Westin mailto:am...@westin-emission.no>>; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> Emne: RE: [EXTERNAL] [PSES] General Product Safety Directive (GPSD) Hello Amund, The GPSR has these definitions. I recommend you use them as the basis to determine if you are providing "consumer products" as covered by the scope of the GPSR. "'product' means any item, whether or not it is interconnected to other items, supplied or made available, whether for consideration or not, including in the context of providing a service, which is intended for consumers or is likely, under reasonably foreseeable conditions, to be used by consumers even if not intended for them". "'consumer' means any natural person who acts for purposes which are outside that person's trade, bushiness, craft or profession". There is no clear line drawn between consumer and professional equipment, and the GPSR is intended to cover professional equipment that is likely to be purchased for personal use by some consumers. Products that fall into this grey area may need to be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. I would recommend that if you determine a product is not within the scope, your technical file include a clear explanation of why it is out of scope. Best regard, Ted Eckert The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my employer. -Original Message- From: Amund Westin mailto:am...@westin-emission.no>> Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2023 7:54 AM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [PSES] General Product Safety Directive (GPSD) General Product Safety Directive ... Do I interpret correct that GPSD only apply to consumer products? Not for any professional products? And the new General Product Safety Regulation (GPSR) do the same? BR Amund - ---- 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 mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org>> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.mail-archive.com%2Femc-pstc%40listserv.ieee.org%2F&data=05%7C01%7Cted.eckert%40microsoft.com%7C82a5efa6086f42d6b47408dbda213cd3%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C638343608539495156%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=GuUoKfcLXvrJyMAlwC4ppBfGXqIA3K0rhanBtbC1XF4%3D&reserved=0<https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/> Website: https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fewh.ieee.org%2Fsoc%2Fpses%2F&data=05%7C01%7Cted.eckert%40microsoft.com%7C82a5efa6086f42d6b47408dbda213cd3%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C638343608539504370%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=M0KYrWP9A3foeuyjUE75DvRaVQURs4wWLqPTD%2FdbU4Q%3D&reserved=0<https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/> Instructions: https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fewh.ieee.org%2Fsoc%2Fpses%2Flist.html&data=05%7C01%7Cted.eckert%40microsoft.com%7C82a5efa6086f42d6b47408dbda213cd3%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C638343608539509465%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C30
[PSES] SV: [EXTERNAL] [PSES] General Product Safety Directive (GPSD)
Thanks Ted, As I read your comments and take they into an example - . consider a professional electronic product, which can't be bought or even used by consumers, will not under any circumstances be covered by GPSD/GPSR. Right? And if product is low powered (not within LVD), then maybe only EMC apply. Then the product could be put on the market without any safety related tests .. Is that correct? BR Amund Fra: Ted Eckert Sendt: 31. oktober 2023 16:10 Til: Amund Westin ; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Emne: RE: [EXTERNAL] [PSES] General Product Safety Directive (GPSD) Hello Amund, The GPSR has these definitions. I recommend you use them as the basis to determine if you are providing "consumer products" as covered by the scope of the GPSR. "'product' means any item, whether or not it is interconnected to other items, supplied or made available, whether for consideration or not, including in the context of providing a service, which is intended for consumers or is likely, under reasonably foreseeable conditions, to be used by consumers even if not intended for them". "'consumer' means any natural person who acts for purposes which are outside that person's trade, bushiness, craft or profession". There is no clear line drawn between consumer and professional equipment, and the GPSR is intended to cover professional equipment that is likely to be purchased for personal use by some consumers. Products that fall into this grey area may need to be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. I would recommend that if you determine a product is not within the scope, your technical file include a clear explanation of why it is out of scope. Best regard, Ted Eckert The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my employer. -Original Message- From: Amund Westin < <mailto:am...@westin-emission.no> am...@westin-emission.no> Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2023 7:54 AM To: <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: [EXTERNAL] [PSES] General Product Safety Directive (GPSD) General Product Safety Directive ... Do I interpret correct that GPSD only apply to consumer products? Not for any professional products? And the new General Product Safety Regulation (GPSR) do the same? BR Amund - ---- 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 < <mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org> emc-p...@ieee.org> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: <https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/> https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.mail-a rchive.com%2Femc-pstc%40listserv.ieee.org%2F&data=05%7C01%7Cted.eckert%40mic rosoft.com%7C82a5efa6086f42d6b47408dbda213cd3%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011 db47%7C1%7C0%7C638343608539495156%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMD AiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=GuUoK fcLXvrJyMAlwC4ppBfGXqIA3K0rhanBtbC1XF4%3D&reserved=0 Website: <https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/> https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fewh.ieee.o rg%2Fsoc%2Fpses%2F&data=05%7C01%7Cted.eckert%40microsoft.com%7C82a5efa6086f4 2d6b47408dbda213cd3%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C63834360853 9504370%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6 Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=M0KYrWP9A3foeuyjUE75DvRaVQURs4w WLqPTD%2FdbU4Q%3D&reserved=0 Instructions: <https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html> https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fewh.ieee.o rg%2Fsoc%2Fpses%2Flist.html&data=05%7C01%7Cted.eckert%40microsoft.com%7C82a5 efa6086f42d6b47408dbda213cd3%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C63 8343608539509465%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzI iLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=ofGeD6XXKUVk7Hj4M9x2EG O9W1T%2FiDiuGRIDaRUidBg%3D&reserved=0 (including how to unsubscribe) List rules: <https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html> https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fewh.ieee.o rg%2Fsoc%2Fpses%2Flistrules.html&data=05%7C01%7Cted.eckert%40microsoft.com%7 C82a5efa6086f42d6b47408dbda213cd3%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0 %7C638343608539514405%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2 luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=qJHd1uu7%2BtudUEO Sck1GfiFZe23f4WUQPhqjhpKP2%2Fk%3D&reserved=0 For help, send mail to the list administrators: Mike Sherman at: <mailto:msherma...@comcast.net> msherma...@comcast.net Rick Linford at: <mailto:linf...@ieee.org> linf...@ieee.org
Re: [PSES] [EXTERNAL] [PSES] General Product Safety Directive (GPSD)
Hello Amund, The GPSR has these definitions. I recommend you use them as the basis to determine if you are providing "consumer products" as covered by the scope of the GPSR. "'product' means any item, whether or not it is interconnected to other items, supplied or made available, whether for consideration or not, including in the context of providing a service, which is intended for consumers or is likely, under reasonably foreseeable conditions, to be used by consumers even if not intended for them". "'consumer' means any natural person who acts for purposes which are outside that person's trade, bushiness, craft or profession". There is no clear line drawn between consumer and professional equipment, and the GPSR is intended to cover professional equipment that is likely to be purchased for personal use by some consumers. Products that fall into this grey area may need to be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. I would recommend that if you determine a product is not within the scope, your technical file include a clear explanation of why it is out of scope. Best regard, Ted Eckert The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my employer. -Original Message- From: Amund Westin Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2023 7:54 AM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: [EXTERNAL] [PSES] General Product Safety Directive (GPSD) General Product Safety Directive ... Do I interpret correct that GPSD only apply to consumer products? Not for any professional products? And the new General Product Safety Regulation (GPSR) do the same? BR Amund - ---- 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 mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org>> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.mail-archive.com%2Femc-pstc%40listserv.ieee.org%2F&data=05%7C01%7Cted.eckert%40microsoft.com%7C82a5efa6086f42d6b47408dbda213cd3%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C638343608539495156%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=GuUoKfcLXvrJyMAlwC4ppBfGXqIA3K0rhanBtbC1XF4%3D&reserved=0<https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/> Website: https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fewh.ieee.org%2Fsoc%2Fpses%2F&data=05%7C01%7Cted.eckert%40microsoft.com%7C82a5efa6086f42d6b47408dbda213cd3%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C638343608539504370%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=M0KYrWP9A3foeuyjUE75DvRaVQURs4wWLqPTD%2FdbU4Q%3D&reserved=0<https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/> Instructions: https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fewh.ieee.org%2Fsoc%2Fpses%2Flist.html&data=05%7C01%7Cted.eckert%40microsoft.com%7C82a5efa6086f42d6b47408dbda213cd3%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C638343608539509465%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=ofGeD6XXKUVk7Hj4M9x2EGO9W1T%2FiDiuGRIDaRUidBg%3D&reserved=0<https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html> (including how to unsubscribe) List rules: https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fewh.ieee.org%2Fsoc%2Fpses%2Flistrules.html&data=05%7C01%7Cted.eckert%40microsoft.com%7C82a5efa6086f42d6b47408dbda213cd3%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C638343608539514405%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=qJHd1uu7%2BtudUEOSck1GfiFZe23f4WUQPhqjhpKP2%2Fk%3D&reserved=0<https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html> For help, send mail to the list administrators: Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net<mailto:msherma...@comcast.net> Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org<mailto:linf...@ieee.org> For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org>> _ To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flistserv.ieee.org%2Fcgi-bin%2Fwa%3FSUBED1%3DEMC-PSTC%26A%3D1&data=05%7C01%7Cted.eckert%40microsoft.com%7C82a5efa6086f42d6b47408dbda213cd3%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C638343608539519315%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=KmMwZ64oW%2Bj8BtjkntPME3x5TMw%2BMhvuERUcVRMmC2w%3D&reserved=0<https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1> - ---
[PSES] General Product Safety Directive (GPSD)
General Product Safety Directive ... Do I interpret correct that GPSD only apply to consumer products? Not for any professional products? And the new General Product Safety Regulation (GPSR) do the same? BR Amund - 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 All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/ Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/ Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: _ To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1
Re: [PSES] safety under single fault
" This incident serves to remind us that in our field of product safety, we require the product to be safe even in the event of a failure of any single component. " Maybe better to claim "product safety compliant under any single-fault". It's quite a reach and perhaps not appropriate to claim something is safe, unless you accompany that claim with your definition of safe, which may differ from mine. Ralph -Original Message- From: Richard Nute Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2023 12:41 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: [PSES] safety under single fault Hello from Bend, Oregon: On September 4, 2022, a plane carrying 10 people crashed into Puget Sound's Mutiny Bay near Whidbey Island. The National Transportation Safety Board, which investigated the crash, said Thursday that a single component of a critical flight control system failed, causing an unrecoverable, near-vertical descent. "The Mutiny Bay accident is an incredibly painful reminder that a single point of failure can lead to catastrophe in our skies," NTSB Chair Jennifer Homendy said in a news release. Nate Bingham, who is representing the Ludwigs' families, said the plane crashed because of "an antiquated design with a single point of failure." Details: https://apnews.com/article/seaplane-crash-puget-sound-san-juan-island-10-kil led-531d4e5a2dfed65370294243b1a07157 This incident serves to remind us that in our field of product safety, we require the product to be safe even in the event of a failure of any single component. Best regards, Rich Boats from the U.S. Coast Guard and Kitsap County Sheriff's Office search the area off Whidbey Island north of Seattle on Sept. 5, 2022, where a chartered floatplane crashed the day before, killing 10 people. Stephen Brashear/AP file - -------- 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 All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/ Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/ Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: _ To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1 - -------- 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 All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/ Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/ Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: _ To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1
Re: [PSES] safety under single fault
I suppose same can be said for any Google search done on the job site. -Original Message- From: Mark Gandler Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2023 2:28 PM To: rmm.priv...@gmail.com; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: RE: [PSES] safety under single fault Just a simple reminder, especially if anyone uses their employer or private business devices to use AI tools: the information used for questions immediately and forever becomes public property. -Original Message- From: Ralph McDiarmid Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2023 2:08 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] safety under single fault Here's what ChatGPT 3.5 says about fault-tolerance and general aviation aircraft: Fault-tolerance systems in general aviation aircraft can enhance safety, but their inclusion is not mandatory for all such aircraft. The need for fault-tolerance systems depends on several factors, including the type of aircraft, its complexity, and its intended use. General aviation aircraft range from small, simple, single-engine planes to larger, more complex, and technologically advanced aircraft. The level of fault tolerance required often correlates with the complexity and mission profile of the aircraft. Here are some considerations: Simple Aircraft: Small, single-engine general aviation aircraft often have basic systems and controls. While they are not required to have elaborate fault-tolerance systems, safety measures such as redundant flight instruments and simple backup systems might be included. Advanced Aircraft: More complex general aviation aircraft, such as multi-engine planes or those equipped with advanced avionics, might incorporate redundant systems or fail-safe features to improve safety. For example, they might have redundant power sources, dual avionics systems, or backup instruments. Mission Profile: The intended use of the aircraft can also influence the need for fault-tolerance systems. Aircraft used for critical missions, like air ambulance or search and rescue, might have more robust safety features to ensure that they can operate in adverse conditions. Regulations: Aviation authorities like the FAA in the United States set safety standards for various aircraft categories. These standards may dictate the inclusion of certain safety features, depending on the aircraft's size and use. For example, Part 23 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) in the U.S. specifies the airworthiness standards for general aviation aircraft. In summary, while fault-tolerance systems can enhance the safety of general aviation aircraft, their inclusion is not a blanket requirement for all such aircraft. It depends on factors such as the aircraft's complexity, mission profile, and regulatory standards. Pilots and aircraft operators should adhere to relevant safety regulations and guidelines, which may vary from one country to another. Ralph -Original Message- From: Richard Nute Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2023 12:41 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: [PSES] safety under single fault Hello from Bend, Oregon: On September 4, 2022, a plane carrying 10 people crashed into Puget Sound's Mutiny Bay near Whidbey Island. The National Transportation Safety Board, which investigated the crash, said Thursday that a single component of a critical flight control system failed, causing an unrecoverable, near-vertical descent. "The Mutiny Bay accident is an incredibly painful reminder that a single point of failure can lead to catastrophe in our skies," NTSB Chair Jennifer Homendy said in a news release. Nate Bingham, who is representing the Ludwigs' families, said the plane crashed because of "an antiquated design with a single point of failure." Details: https://apnews.com/article/seaplane-crash-puget-sound-san-juan-island-10-kil led-531d4e5a2dfed65370294243b1a07157 This incident serves to remind us that in our field of product safety, we require the product to be safe even in the event of a failure of any single component. Best regards, Rich Boats from the U.S. Coast Guard and Kitsap County Sheriff's Office search the area off Whidbey Island north of Seattle on Sept. 5, 2022, where a chartered floatplane crashed the day before, killing 10 people. Stephen Brashear/AP file - ---- 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 mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org> > All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/ Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/ Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net <mailt
Re: [PSES] safety under single fault
Obviously, even an "antiquated design with a single point of failure", gets an air worthiness certificate by the FAA. However, LFP batteries need a fault-tolerant battery management system and tons of testing called out in UL1973 3rd edition. Not all aircraft need single-fault tolerance. I suspect that a large majority of aircraft incident reports are a result of pilot error, nothing to do with the aircraft its avionics. Ralph -Original Message- From: Richard Nute Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2023 12:41 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: [PSES] safety under single fault Hello from Bend, Oregon: On September 4, 2022, a plane carrying 10 people crashed into Puget Sound's Mutiny Bay near Whidbey Island. The National Transportation Safety Board, which investigated the crash, said Thursday that a single component of a critical flight control system failed, causing an unrecoverable, near-vertical descent. "The Mutiny Bay accident is an incredibly painful reminder that a single point of failure can lead to catastrophe in our skies," NTSB Chair Jennifer Homendy said in a news release. Nate Bingham, who is representing the Ludwigs' families, said the plane crashed because of "an antiquated design with a single point of failure." Details: https://apnews.com/article/seaplane-crash-puget-sound-san-juan-island-10-kil led-531d4e5a2dfed65370294243b1a07157 This incident serves to remind us that in our field of product safety, we require the product to be safe even in the event of a failure of any single component. Best regards, Rich Boats from the U.S. Coast Guard and Kitsap County Sheriff's Office search the area off Whidbey Island north of Seattle on Sept. 5, 2022, where a chartered floatplane crashed the day before, killing 10 people. Stephen Brashear/AP file - ---- 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 All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/ Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/ Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: _ To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1 - ---- 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 All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/ Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/ Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: _ To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1
Re: [PSES] safety under single fault
Just a simple reminder, especially if anyone uses their employer or private business devices to use AI tools: the information used for questions immediately and forever becomes public property. -Original Message- From: Ralph McDiarmid Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2023 2:08 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] safety under single fault Here's what ChatGPT 3.5 says about fault-tolerance and general aviation aircraft: Fault-tolerance systems in general aviation aircraft can enhance safety, but their inclusion is not mandatory for all such aircraft. The need for fault-tolerance systems depends on several factors, including the type of aircraft, its complexity, and its intended use. General aviation aircraft range from small, simple, single-engine planes to larger, more complex, and technologically advanced aircraft. The level of fault tolerance required often correlates with the complexity and mission profile of the aircraft. Here are some considerations: Simple Aircraft: Small, single-engine general aviation aircraft often have basic systems and controls. While they are not required to have elaborate fault-tolerance systems, safety measures such as redundant flight instruments and simple backup systems might be included. Advanced Aircraft: More complex general aviation aircraft, such as multi-engine planes or those equipped with advanced avionics, might incorporate redundant systems or fail-safe features to improve safety. For example, they might have redundant power sources, dual avionics systems, or backup instruments. Mission Profile: The intended use of the aircraft can also influence the need for fault-tolerance systems. Aircraft used for critical missions, like air ambulance or search and rescue, might have more robust safety features to ensure that they can operate in adverse conditions. Regulations: Aviation authorities like the FAA in the United States set safety standards for various aircraft categories. These standards may dictate the inclusion of certain safety features, depending on the aircraft's size and use. For example, Part 23 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) in the U.S. specifies the airworthiness standards for general aviation aircraft. In summary, while fault-tolerance systems can enhance the safety of general aviation aircraft, their inclusion is not a blanket requirement for all such aircraft. It depends on factors such as the aircraft's complexity, mission profile, and regulatory standards. Pilots and aircraft operators should adhere to relevant safety regulations and guidelines, which may vary from one country to another. Ralph -Original Message- From: Richard Nute Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2023 12:41 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: [PSES] safety under single fault Hello from Bend, Oregon: On September 4, 2022, a plane carrying 10 people crashed into Puget Sound's Mutiny Bay near Whidbey Island. The National Transportation Safety Board, which investigated the crash, said Thursday that a single component of a critical flight control system failed, causing an unrecoverable, near-vertical descent. "The Mutiny Bay accident is an incredibly painful reminder that a single point of failure can lead to catastrophe in our skies," NTSB Chair Jennifer Homendy said in a news release. Nate Bingham, who is representing the Ludwigs' families, said the plane crashed because of "an antiquated design with a single point of failure." Details: https://apnews.com/article/seaplane-crash-puget-sound-san-juan-island-10-kil led-531d4e5a2dfed65370294243b1a07157 This incident serves to remind us that in our field of product safety, we require the product to be safe even in the event of a failure of any single component. Best regards, Rich Boats from the U.S. Coast Guard and Kitsap County Sheriff's Office search the area off Whidbey Island north of Seattle on Sept. 5, 2022, where a chartered floatplane crashed the day before, killing 10 people. Stephen Brashear/AP file - ---- 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 mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org> > All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/ Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/ Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net <mailto:msherma...@comcast.net> Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org <mailto:linf...@ieee.org> For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org> > __
Re: [PSES] safety under single fault
Here's what ChatGPT 3.5 says about fault-tolerance and general aviation aircraft: Fault-tolerance systems in general aviation aircraft can enhance safety, but their inclusion is not mandatory for all such aircraft. The need for fault-tolerance systems depends on several factors, including the type of aircraft, its complexity, and its intended use. General aviation aircraft range from small, simple, single-engine planes to larger, more complex, and technologically advanced aircraft. The level of fault tolerance required often correlates with the complexity and mission profile of the aircraft. Here are some considerations: Simple Aircraft: Small, single-engine general aviation aircraft often have basic systems and controls. While they are not required to have elaborate fault-tolerance systems, safety measures such as redundant flight instruments and simple backup systems might be included. Advanced Aircraft: More complex general aviation aircraft, such as multi-engine planes or those equipped with advanced avionics, might incorporate redundant systems or fail-safe features to improve safety. For example, they might have redundant power sources, dual avionics systems, or backup instruments. Mission Profile: The intended use of the aircraft can also influence the need for fault-tolerance systems. Aircraft used for critical missions, like air ambulance or search and rescue, might have more robust safety features to ensure that they can operate in adverse conditions. Regulations: Aviation authorities like the FAA in the United States set safety standards for various aircraft categories. These standards may dictate the inclusion of certain safety features, depending on the aircraft's size and use. For example, Part 23 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) in the U.S. specifies the airworthiness standards for general aviation aircraft. In summary, while fault-tolerance systems can enhance the safety of general aviation aircraft, their inclusion is not a blanket requirement for all such aircraft. It depends on factors such as the aircraft's complexity, mission profile, and regulatory standards. Pilots and aircraft operators should adhere to relevant safety regulations and guidelines, which may vary from one country to another. Ralph -Original Message- From: Richard Nute Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2023 12:41 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: [PSES] safety under single fault Hello from Bend, Oregon: On September 4, 2022, a plane carrying 10 people crashed into Puget Sound's Mutiny Bay near Whidbey Island. The National Transportation Safety Board, which investigated the crash, said Thursday that a single component of a critical flight control system failed, causing an unrecoverable, near-vertical descent. "The Mutiny Bay accident is an incredibly painful reminder that a single point of failure can lead to catastrophe in our skies," NTSB Chair Jennifer Homendy said in a news release. Nate Bingham, who is representing the Ludwigs' families, said the plane crashed because of "an antiquated design with a single point of failure." Details: https://apnews.com/article/seaplane-crash-puget-sound-san-juan-island-10-kil led-531d4e5a2dfed65370294243b1a07157 This incident serves to remind us that in our field of product safety, we require the product to be safe even in the event of a failure of any single component. Best regards, Rich Boats from the U.S. Coast Guard and Kitsap County Sheriff's Office search the area off Whidbey Island north of Seattle on Sept. 5, 2022, where a chartered floatplane crashed the day before, killing 10 people. Stephen Brashear/AP file - ---- 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 mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org> > All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/ Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/ Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net <mailto:msherma...@comcast.net> Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org <mailto:linf...@ieee.org> For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org> > _ To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1 - ---- 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 All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web
[PSES] safety under single fault
Hello from Bend, Oregon: On September 4, 2022, a plane carrying 10 people crashed into Puget Sound's Mutiny Bay near Whidbey Island. The National Transportation Safety Board, which investigated the crash, said Thursday that a single component of a critical flight control system failed, causing an unrecoverable, near-vertical descent. "The Mutiny Bay accident is an incredibly painful reminder that a single point of failure can lead to catastrophe in our skies," NTSB Chair Jennifer Homendy said in a news release. Nate Bingham, who is representing the Ludwigs' families, said the plane crashed because of "an antiquated design with a single point of failure." Details: https://apnews.com/article/seaplane-crash-puget-sound-san-juan-island-10-kil led-531d4e5a2dfed65370294243b1a07157 This incident serves to remind us that in our field of product safety, we require the product to be safe even in the event of a failure of any single component. Best regards, Rich Boats from the U.S. Coast Guard and Kitsap County Sheriff's Office search the area off Whidbey Island north of Seattle on Sept. 5, 2022, where a chartered floatplane crashed the day before, killing 10 people. Stephen Brashear/AP file - 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 All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/ Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/ Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: _ To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1
[PSES] Looking for someone with EMC & Functional safety experience for IEC Standards development
Colleagues, As some of you may know, Keith Armstrong is preparing to retire. One of the important projects he has been leading, IEEE 1848 on EM resilience is entering revisions for the second edition. An important EM standard referenced in that document is IEC 61000-6-7:2014, Electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) - Part 6-7: Generic standards - Immunity requirements for equipment intended to perform functions in a safety-related system (functional safety) in industrial locations. That standard was developed by IEC/TC 77, and has never been revised. It is approaching systematic review, and needs revision. However, the working group that drafted the original document was disbanded after the 1st edition was published, so there is no TC 77 sub-group to handle revising the standard. Keith is looking for people to engage with IEC/TC 77/MT15 to revise the standard. If you have experience related to EM phenomena and reliability or functional safety, and you would like to get involved with standards development, this is your opportunity. Keith can give you more information, as I am only peripherally involved. Please reach out to Keith directly: keith.armstr...@cherryclough.com <mailto:keith.armstr...@cherryclough.com>. See you in the trenches, Doug Nix d...@ieee.org +1 (519) 729-5704 - 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 All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/ Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/ Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: _ To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1
Re: [PSES] Looking for AI or machine vision related ISO standards for safety
Of course, I think we all understand, or at least I hope so, that artificial intelligence cannot replace real humans in the world of product safety engineering. My previous email was intended to jokingly point out its shortcomings. And I had thought this would be obvious. As for the future of artificial intelligence, I personally think there is still a very long way to go. Keeping that in mind, all the different AIs, not just ChatGPT, Bard, AI Writer, and Perplexity, were trained on limited information, mostly from the WWW. A good friend of mine once described the WWW as the world's largest repository of unqualified information (thanks, Brian H). Last time I checked, ChatGPT-3 had a large training size of 570 GB. ChatGPT-4 is apparently trained on about five times more than that and is still ongoing. Although this is massive, it is certainly not all that is available on the Internet or in the rest of the world's libraries. The last time I checked, the available data on the WWW is measured in exabytes (EB), and the annual transfer of data is in the range of zettabytes (ZB), with much of this contained within daily email and streaming media. Even so, all this AI training is based on dated information, which means it has no capacity for innovation whatsoever. Even today, a close friend who is a professor of astrophysics is part of an effort to understand when students who may be taking tests or writing theses may be using AI to produce their answers. This is even making software-based plagiarism detection, currently used by our universities, very difficult. -Doug (Note: This email was written with the assistance of AI-based plagiarism detection, summarization, and authoring tools) Douglas E Powell Laporte, Colorado USA doug...@gmail.com LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/coloradocomplianceguy/> (UTC -06:00, US-MDT) On Mon, Jun 12, 2023 at 7:27 AM Elliott Martinson wrote: > ChatGPT is not “artificial intelligence”. It’s a “word calculator” IMO and > I have a strong CS background. > > > > *From:* Vincent Lee <08e6c8d35910-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org> > *Sent:* Saturday, June 10, 2023 8:45 AM > *To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG > *Subject:* [PSES] Looking for AI or machine vision related ISO standards > for safety > > > > Hi all, > > > > ChatGPT is NOT specifically designed for product safety purposes. > > It can only give very general results, then it is the job of product > safety professionals to add the missing details. > > > > In my work, I don't use ChatGPT, since it is not a tool designed for > product safety which is a highly specialized engineering field. > > In my view, ChatGPT is a toy to ask for very general questions. It cannot > replace product safety professionals. Moreover, who is going to be > responsible if a product fails and causes harms to users when one used the > test plan generated by ChatGPT ? > > > > Regards, Vincent > > > > > > On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 03:15:19 AM GMT+8, Douglas Powell < > doug...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > Aside from all the news articles about problems with ChatGPT, I've tried a > few things myself. For example, "*write a complete test protocol for IEC > 62368-1 for a desktop audio streaming amplifier weighing less than 7 kg.* > " > > > > Of course, gave me a fairtly detailed but generally incomplete responses > under these topic headings. > > > > 1. Objective: > > 2. Test Equipment: > > 3. Test Setup: > > 4. Test Procedures: > > 4.1.2. Lifting Test: > > 4.2.1. Ground Continuity Test: > > 4.2.2. Insulation Resistance Test: > > 4.2.3. Dielectric Voltage-Withstand Test: > > 4.3.1. Audio Performance Test: > > 4.3.2. Power Consumption Test: > > 4.4. Environmental Tests (if applicable): > > 5. Test Criteria: > > 6. ... *after this point it was left blank ...* > > > > In fun example is the 4.1.2 Lifting Test, it specified: "Apply a force of > 200 N in the upward direction" > > > > -Doug > > > > > > Douglas E Powell > > Laporte, Colorado USA > > LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/coloradocomplianceguy/> > > > > (UTC -06:00, US-MDT) > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 9, 2023 at 11:49 AM Chuck August-McDowell < > chu...@meyersound.com> wrote: > > Friday’s attempt at humor… > > So how about using the text generator ChatGPT to write the standard draft? > > > > > > Chuck in Berkeley > > > > *From:* Vincent Lee <08e6c8d35910-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org> > *Sent:* Thursday, June 8, 2023 7:05 PM > *To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG > *Subject:* Re: [PSES] Looking for AI or machine vision rela
Re: [PSES] Looking for AI or machine vision related ISO standards for safety
The fundamental problem with ChatGPT’s architecture is that it axiomatically CANNOT “know” what any words mean. Without there being a conscious observer to actually associate words with sensory experiences, it might as well be gibberish for all the algorithm cares. It doesn’t “know” anything. From: Elliott Martinson Sent: Monday, June 12, 2023 8:27 AM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] Looking for AI or machine vision related ISO standards for safety ChatGPT is not “artificial intelligence”. It’s a “word calculator” IMO and I have a strong CS background. From: Vincent Lee <08e6c8d35910-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org<mailto:08e6c8d35910-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org>> Sent: Saturday, June 10, 2023 8:45 AM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> Subject: [PSES] Looking for AI or machine vision related ISO standards for safety Hi all, ChatGPT is NOT specifically designed for product safety purposes. It can only give very general results, then it is the job of product safety professionals to add the missing details. In my work, I don't use ChatGPT, since it is not a tool designed for product safety which is a highly specialized engineering field. In my view, ChatGPT is a toy to ask for very general questions. It cannot replace product safety professionals. Moreover, who is going to be responsible if a product fails and causes harms to users when one used the test plan generated by ChatGPT ? Regards, Vincent On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 03:15:19 AM GMT+8, Douglas Powell mailto:doug...@gmail.com>> wrote: Aside from all the news articles about problems with ChatGPT, I've tried a few things myself. For example, "write a complete test protocol for IEC 62368-1 for a desktop audio streaming amplifier weighing less than 7 kg." Of course, gave me a fairtly detailed but generally incomplete responses under these topic headings. 1. Objective: 2. Test Equipment: 3. Test Setup: 4. Test Procedures: 4.1.2. Lifting Test: 4.2.1. Ground Continuity Test: 4.2.2. Insulation Resistance Test: 4.2.3. Dielectric Voltage-Withstand Test: 4.3.1. Audio Performance Test: 4.3.2. Power Consumption Test: 4.4. Environmental Tests (if applicable): 5. Test Criteria: 6. ... after this point it was left blank ... In fun example is the 4.1.2 Lifting Test, it specified: "Apply a force of 200 N in the upward direction" -Doug Douglas E Powell Laporte, Colorado USA LinkedIn<https://www.linkedin.com/in/coloradocomplianceguy/> (UTC -06:00, US-MDT) On Fri, Jun 9, 2023 at 11:49 AM Chuck August-McDowell mailto:chu...@meyersound.com>> wrote: Friday’s attempt at humor… So how about using the text generator ChatGPT to write the standard draft? Chuck in Berkeley From: Vincent Lee <08e6c8d35910-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org<mailto:08e6c8d35910-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org>> Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2023 7:05 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> Subject: Re: [PSES] Looking for AI or machine vision related ISO standards for safety [THIS EMAIL IS FROM AN EXTERNAL SENDER] Huff, No national nor international is available yet. AI is more closely related to computer science than product safety. And who knows AI may experience another winter, since there were AI winter in 1980s - 1990s. Regards, Vincent On Wednesday, June 7, 2023 at 10:37:35 PM GMT+8, David Huff mailto:dh...@vermeer.com>> wrote: All, I am working to guide a design that uses Artificial Intelligence and machine vision thru a certification type process (CE Mark) and I am looking for ISO or IEC standards or similar related guidance. My theory is that this is such new territory very little guidance exists yet. Are there any recommendations for international guidance. Thanks, David - ---- 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 mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org>> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html 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: Mike Cantwell mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org>> For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org>> David Heald mailto:dhe...@gmail.com>> To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1 - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineerin
Re: [PSES] Looking for AI or machine vision related ISO standards for safety
ChatGPT is not “artificial intelligence”. It’s a “word calculator” IMO and I have a strong CS background. From: Vincent Lee <08e6c8d35910-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org> Sent: Saturday, June 10, 2023 8:45 AM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: [PSES] Looking for AI or machine vision related ISO standards for safety Hi all, ChatGPT is NOT specifically designed for product safety purposes. It can only give very general results, then it is the job of product safety professionals to add the missing details. In my work, I don't use ChatGPT, since it is not a tool designed for product safety which is a highly specialized engineering field. In my view, ChatGPT is a toy to ask for very general questions. It cannot replace product safety professionals. Moreover, who is going to be responsible if a product fails and causes harms to users when one used the test plan generated by ChatGPT ? Regards, Vincent On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 03:15:19 AM GMT+8, Douglas Powell mailto:doug...@gmail.com>> wrote: Aside from all the news articles about problems with ChatGPT, I've tried a few things myself. For example, "write a complete test protocol for IEC 62368-1 for a desktop audio streaming amplifier weighing less than 7 kg." Of course, gave me a fairtly detailed but generally incomplete responses under these topic headings. 1. Objective: 2. Test Equipment: 3. Test Setup: 4. Test Procedures: 4.1.2. Lifting Test: 4.2.1. Ground Continuity Test: 4.2.2. Insulation Resistance Test: 4.2.3. Dielectric Voltage-Withstand Test: 4.3.1. Audio Performance Test: 4.3.2. Power Consumption Test: 4.4. Environmental Tests (if applicable): 5. Test Criteria: 6. ... after this point it was left blank ... In fun example is the 4.1.2 Lifting Test, it specified: "Apply a force of 200 N in the upward direction" -Doug Douglas E Powell Laporte, Colorado USA LinkedIn<https://www.linkedin.com/in/coloradocomplianceguy/> (UTC -06:00, US-MDT) On Fri, Jun 9, 2023 at 11:49 AM Chuck August-McDowell mailto:chu...@meyersound.com>> wrote: Friday’s attempt at humor… So how about using the text generator ChatGPT to write the standard draft? Chuck in Berkeley From: Vincent Lee <08e6c8d35910-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org<mailto:08e6c8d35910-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org>> Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2023 7:05 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> Subject: Re: [PSES] Looking for AI or machine vision related ISO standards for safety [THIS EMAIL IS FROM AN EXTERNAL SENDER] Huff, No national nor international is available yet. AI is more closely related to computer science than product safety. And who knows AI may experience another winter, since there were AI winter in 1980s - 1990s. Regards, Vincent On Wednesday, June 7, 2023 at 10:37:35 PM GMT+8, David Huff mailto:dh...@vermeer.com>> wrote: All, I am working to guide a design that uses Artificial Intelligence and machine vision thru a certification type process (CE Mark) and I am looking for ISO or IEC standards or similar related guidance. My theory is that this is such new territory very little guidance exists yet. Are there any recommendations for international guidance. Thanks, David - ---- 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 mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org>> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html 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: Mike Cantwell mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org>> For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org>> David Heald mailto:dhe...@gmail.com>> To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1 - 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 mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org>> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html 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: Mike Cantwell mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org>> For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bach
Re: [PSES] Looking for AI or machine vision related ISO standards for safety
I don't think that the original suggestion was serious. But a chatbot
trained only on standards from one SMB could probably do quite a good
job, apart from assigning numbers to specifications.
==
Best wishes John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK
I hear, and I forget. I see, and I remember. I do, and I understand.
Xunzi (340 - 245 BC)
On 2023-06-10 14:44, Vincent Lee wrote:
Hi all,
ChatGPT is NOT specifically designed for product safety purposes.
It can only give very general results, then it is the job of product
safety professionals to add the missing details.
In my work, I don't use ChatGPT, since it is not a tool designed for
product safety which is a highly specialized engineering field.
In my view, ChatGPT is a toy to ask for very general questions. It
cannot replace product safety professionals. Moreover, who is going to
be responsible if a product fails and causes harms to users when one
used the test plan generated by ChatGPT ?
Regards, Vincent
On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 03:15:19 AM GMT+8, Douglas Powell
wrote:
Aside from all the news articles about problems with ChatGPT, I've
tried a few things myself. For example, "/write a complete test
protocol for IEC 62368-1 for a desktop audio streaming amplifier
weighing less than 7 kg./"
Of course, gave me a fairtly detailed but generally incomplete
responses under these topic headings.
1. Objective:
2. Test Equipment:
3. Test Setup:
4. Test Procedures:
4.1.2. Lifting Test:
4.2.1. Ground Continuity Test:
4.2.2. Insulation Resistance Test:
4.2.3. Dielectric Voltage-Withstand Test:
4.3.1. Audio Performance Test:
4.3.2. Power Consumption Test:
4.4. Environmental Tests (if applicable):
5. Test Criteria:
6. ... /after this point it was left blank .../
In fun example is the 4.1.2 Lifting Test, it specified: "Apply a force
of 200 N in the upward direction"
-Doug
Douglas E Powell
Laporte, Colorado USA
LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/coloradocomplianceguy/>
(UTC -06:00, US-MDT)
On Fri, Jun 9, 2023 at 11:49 AM Chuck August-McDowell
wrote:
Friday’s attempt at humor…
So how about using the text generator ChatGPT to write the
standard draft?
Chuck in Berkeley
*From:*Vincent Lee <08e6c8d35910-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org>
*Sent:* Thursday, June 8, 2023 7:05 PM
*To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
*Subject:* Re: [PSES] Looking for AI or machine vision related ISO
standards for safety
[THIS EMAIL IS FROM AN EXTERNAL SENDER]
Huff,
No national nor international is available yet.
AI is more closely related to computer science than product safety.
And who knows AI may experience another winter, since there were
AI winter in 1980s - 1990s.
Regards, Vincent
On Wednesday, June 7, 2023 at 10:37:35 PM GMT+8, David Huff
wrote:
All,
I am working to guide a design that uses Artificial Intelligence
and machine vision thru a certification type process (CE Mark) and
I am looking for ISO or IEC standards or similar related
guidance. My theory is that this is such new territory very
little guidance exists yet. Are there any recommendations for
international guidance.
Thanks,
David
-
----
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
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
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:
Mike Cantwell
For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher
David Heald
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1
<https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1>
-
----
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
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
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: htt
[PSES] Looking for AI or machine vision related ISO standards for safety
Hi all, ChatGPT is NOT specifically designed for product safety purposes.It can only give very general results, then it is the job of product safety professionals to add the missing details. In my work, I don't use ChatGPT, since it is not a tool designed for product safety which is a highly specialized engineering field.In my view, ChatGPT is a toy to ask for very general questions. It cannot replace product safety professionals. Moreover, who is going to be responsible if a product fails and causes harms to users when one used the test plan generated by ChatGPT ? Regards, Vincent On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 03:15:19 AM GMT+8, Douglas Powell wrote: Aside from all the news articles about problems with ChatGPT, I've tried a few things myself. For example, "write a complete test protocol for IEC 62368-1 for a desktop audio streaming amplifier weighing less than 7 kg." Of course, gave me a fairtly detailed but generally incomplete responses under these topic headings. 1. Objective:2. Test Equipment:3. Test Setup:4. Test Procedures:4.1.2. Lifting Test:4.2.1. Ground Continuity Test:4.2.2. Insulation Resistance Test:4.2.3. Dielectric Voltage-Withstand Test:4.3.1. Audio Performance Test:4.3.2. Power Consumption Test:4.4. Environmental Tests (if applicable):5. Test Criteria:6. ... after this point it was left blank ... In fun example is the 4.1.2 Lifting Test, it specified: "Apply a force of 200 N in the upward direction" -Doug Douglas E PowellLaporte, Colorado USALinkedIn (UTC -06:00, US-MDT) On Fri, Jun 9, 2023 at 11:49 AM Chuck August-McDowell wrote: Friday’s attempt at humor… So how about using the text generator ChatGPT to write the standard draft? Chuck in Berkeley From: Vincent Lee <08e6c8d35910-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org> Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2023 7:05 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] Looking for AI or machine vision related ISO standards for safety [THIS EMAIL IS FROM AN EXTERNAL SENDER] Huff, No national nor international is available yet. AI is more closely related to computer science than product safety. And who knows AI may experience another winter, since there were AI winter in 1980s - 1990s. Regards, Vincent On Wednesday, June 7, 2023 at 10:37:35 PM GMT+8, David Huff wrote: All, I am working to guide a design that uses Artificial Intelligence and machine vision thru a certification type process (CE Mark) and I am looking for ISO or IEC standards or similar related guidance. My theory is that this is such new territory very little guidance exists yet. Are there any recommendations for international guidance. Thanks, David - 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 All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html 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: Mike Cantwell For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher David Heald To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link:https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1 - 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 All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html 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: Mike Cantwell For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher David Heald To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link:https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1 NOTICE: This email may contain confidential information. Please see https://meyersound.com/legal/#email-policy for our complete policy.- 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.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html 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: Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org> For policy questions, send
Re: [PSES] Looking for AI or machine vision related ISO standards for safety
Hi David, I don't know if this is what you are looking for, but you could check out ISO/IEC 23894 <https://www.iso.org/standard/77304.html>. On Fri, Jun 9, 2023 at 12:15 PM Douglas Powell wrote: > Aside from all the news articles about problems with ChatGPT, I've tried a > few things myself. For example, "*write a complete test protocol for IEC > 62368-1 for a desktop audio streaming amplifier weighing less than 7 kg.* > " > > Of course, gave me a fairtly detailed but generally incomplete responses > under these topic headings. > > 1. Objective: > 2. Test Equipment: > 3. Test Setup: > 4. Test Procedures: > 4.1.2. Lifting Test: > 4.2.1. Ground Continuity Test: > 4.2.2. Insulation Resistance Test: > 4.2.3. Dielectric Voltage-Withstand Test: > 4.3.1. Audio Performance Test: > 4.3.2. Power Consumption Test: > 4.4. Environmental Tests (if applicable): > 5. Test Criteria: > 6. ... *after this point it was left blank ...* > > > In fun example is the 4.1.2 Lifting Test, it specified: "Apply a force of > 200 N in the upward direction" > > -Doug > > > Douglas E Powell > Laporte, Colorado USA > LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/coloradocomplianceguy/> > > (UTC -06:00, US-MDT) > > > On Fri, Jun 9, 2023 at 11:49 AM Chuck August-McDowell < > chu...@meyersound.com> wrote: > >> Friday’s attempt at humor… >> >> So how about using the text generator ChatGPT to write the standard draft? >> >> >> >> >> >> Chuck in Berkeley >> >> >> >> *From:* Vincent Lee <08e6c8d35910-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org> >> *Sent:* Thursday, June 8, 2023 7:05 PM >> *To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG >> *Subject:* Re: [PSES] Looking for AI or machine vision related ISO >> standards for safety >> >> >> >> [THIS EMAIL IS FROM AN EXTERNAL SENDER] >> >> Huff, >> >> >> >> No national nor international is available yet. >> >> >> >> AI is more closely related to computer science than product safety. >> >> And who knows AI may experience another winter, since there were AI >> winter in 1980s - 1990s. >> >> >> >> Regards, Vincent >> >> >> >> >> >> On Wednesday, June 7, 2023 at 10:37:35 PM GMT+8, David Huff < >> dh...@vermeer.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> All, >> >> I am working to guide a design that uses Artificial Intelligence and >> machine vision thru a certification type process (CE Mark) and I am looking >> for ISO or IEC standards or similar related guidance. My theory is that >> this is such new territory very little guidance exists yet. Are there any >> recommendations for international guidance. >> >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> David >> >> >> >> - >> >> >> 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.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html >> >> 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: >> Mike Cantwell >> >> For policy questions, send mail to: >> Jim Bacher >> David Heald >> -- >> >> To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: >> https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1 >> >> - >> >> >> 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.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html >> >> 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: >> Mike Cantwell >> >> For policy quest
Re: [PSES] Looking for AI or machine vision related ISO standards for safety
Aside from all the news articles about problems with ChatGPT, I've tried a few things myself. For example, "*write a complete test protocol for IEC 62368-1 for a desktop audio streaming amplifier weighing less than 7 kg.*" Of course, gave me a fairtly detailed but generally incomplete responses under these topic headings. 1. Objective: 2. Test Equipment: 3. Test Setup: 4. Test Procedures: 4.1.2. Lifting Test: 4.2.1. Ground Continuity Test: 4.2.2. Insulation Resistance Test: 4.2.3. Dielectric Voltage-Withstand Test: 4.3.1. Audio Performance Test: 4.3.2. Power Consumption Test: 4.4. Environmental Tests (if applicable): 5. Test Criteria: 6. ... *after this point it was left blank ...* In fun example is the 4.1.2 Lifting Test, it specified: "Apply a force of 200 N in the upward direction" -Doug Douglas E Powell Laporte, Colorado USA LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/coloradocomplianceguy/> (UTC -06:00, US-MDT) On Fri, Jun 9, 2023 at 11:49 AM Chuck August-McDowell wrote: > Friday’s attempt at humor… > > So how about using the text generator ChatGPT to write the standard draft? > > > > > > Chuck in Berkeley > > > > *From:* Vincent Lee <08e6c8d35910-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org> > *Sent:* Thursday, June 8, 2023 7:05 PM > *To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG > *Subject:* Re: [PSES] Looking for AI or machine vision related ISO > standards for safety > > > > [THIS EMAIL IS FROM AN EXTERNAL SENDER] > > Huff, > > > > No national nor international is available yet. > > > > AI is more closely related to computer science than product safety. > > And who knows AI may experience another winter, since there were AI winter > in 1980s - 1990s. > > > > Regards, Vincent > > > > > > On Wednesday, June 7, 2023 at 10:37:35 PM GMT+8, David Huff < > dh...@vermeer.com> wrote: > > > > > > All, > > I am working to guide a design that uses Artificial Intelligence and > machine vision thru a certification type process (CE Mark) and I am looking > for ISO or IEC standards or similar related guidance. My theory is that > this is such new territory very little guidance exists yet. Are there any > recommendations for international guidance. > > > > Thanks, > > David > > > > - > > > 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.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html > > 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: > Mike Cantwell > > For policy questions, send mail to: > Jim Bacher > David Heald > -- > > To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: > https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1 > > - > > > 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.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html > > 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: > Mike Cantwell > > For policy questions, send mail to: > Jim Bacher > David Heald > -- > > To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: > https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1 > NOTICE: This email may contain confidential information. Please see > https://meyersound.com/legal/#email-policy for our complete policy. > - > > > 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.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html > > Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ > Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (incl
Re: [PSES] Looking for AI or machine vision related ISO standards for safety
Friday’s attempt at humor… So how about using the text generator ChatGPT to write the standard draft? Chuck in Berkeley From: Vincent Lee <08e6c8d35910-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org> Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2023 7:05 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] Looking for AI or machine vision related ISO standards for safety [THIS EMAIL IS FROM AN EXTERNAL SENDER] Huff, No national nor international is available yet. AI is more closely related to computer science than product safety. And who knows AI may experience another winter, since there were AI winter in 1980s - 1990s. Regards, Vincent On Wednesday, June 7, 2023 at 10:37:35 PM GMT+8, David Huff mailto:dh...@vermeer.com>> wrote: All, I am working to guide a design that uses Artificial Intelligence and machine vision thru a certification type process (CE Mark) and I am looking for ISO or IEC standards or similar related guidance. My theory is that this is such new territory very little guidance exists yet. Are there any recommendations for international guidance. Thanks, David - 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 mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org>> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html 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: Mike Cantwell mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org>> For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org>> David Heald mailto:dhe...@gmail.com>> To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1 - ---- 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 mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org>> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html 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: Mike Cantwell mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org>> For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org>> David Heald mailto:dhe...@gmail.com>> To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1 NOTICE: This email may contain confidential information. Please see https://meyersound.com/legal/#email-policy for our complete policy. - -------- 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 All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html 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: Mike Cantwell For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: David Heald: _ To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1
Re: [PSES] Looking for AI or machine vision related ISO standards for safety
Huff, No national nor international is available yet. AI is more closely related to computer science than product safety.And who knows AI may experience another winter, since there were AI winter in 1980s - 1990s. Regards, Vincent On Wednesday, June 7, 2023 at 10:37:35 PM GMT+8, David Huff wrote: All, I am working to guide a design that uses Artificial Intelligence and machine vision thru a certification type process (CE Mark) and I am looking for ISO or IEC standards or similar related guidance. My theory is that this is such new territory very little guidance exists yet. Are there any recommendations for international guidance. Thanks, David - 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 All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html 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: Mike Cantwell For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher David Heald To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1 - 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 All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html 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: Mike Cantwell For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: David Heald: _ To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1
Re: [PSES] Looking for AI or machine vision related ISO standards for safety
Hi David, At the moment, only one machinery related standard even opens the door for AI in functional safety systems: ISO 13849-1:2023. That standard only says that AI “can be used,” but immediately goes on to say that no information on how to do that or how to validate the results are given in the standard. ISO JTC 1/SC 42 and IEC/TC 65/SC 65A have been working on a document, ISO/IEC/DTR 5469, Artificial intelligence — Functional safety and AI systems <https://www.iso.org/standard/81283.html>, for some time now, and there is no available target date for publication. The automotive sector has made more progress in this direction. There was an IEEE SA webinar entitled "RISK-BASED METHODOLOGY FOR DERIVING SCENARIOS FOR TESTING ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE SYSTEMS <https://engagestandards.ieee.org/Risk-Based-Methodology-AI-Systems-Registration.html>” that discussed a risk assessment methodology that Barnaby Simkin from NVIDIA developed. It was good, but I think it’s very premature to be entrusting safety to AI systems. Doug Nix d...@ieee.org +1 (519) 729-5704 > On Jun 7, 2023, at 10:37, David Huff wrote: > > All, > I am working to guide a design that uses Artificial Intelligence and machine > vision thru a certification type process (CE Mark) and I am looking for ISO > or IEC standards or similar related guidance. My theory is that this is such > new territory very little guidance exists yet. Are there any recommendations > for international guidance. > > Thanks, > David > > - > ---- > 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 > mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org>> > > All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: > http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html > > 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: > Mike Cantwell mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org>> > > For policy questions, send mail to: > Jim Bacher mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org>> > David Heald mailto:dhe...@gmail.com>> > > To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: > https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1 > - 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 All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html 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: Mike Cantwell For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: David Heald: _ To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1
Re: [PSES] Looking for AI or machine vision related ISO standards for safety
Hi David: If you are looking for product safety, I would say that product safety should be independent of AI, or, indeed, of any software. However, some new power distribution schemes involve "handshaking" (which is software controlled) before power can be delivered. So, before power is delivered, the hardware and the controlling software must be safe. And, when power is delivered, the hardware (at both ends) must be safe. Good luck, and best regards, Rich From: David Huff Sent: Wednesday, June 7, 2023 7:37 AM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: [PSES] Looking for AI or machine vision related ISO standards for safety All, I am working to guide a design that uses Artificial Intelligence and machine vision thru a certification type process (CE Mark) and I am looking for ISO or IEC standards or similar related guidance. My theory is that this is such new territory very little guidance exists yet. Are there any recommendations for international guidance. Thanks, David - 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 All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html 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: Mike Cantwell For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: David Heald: _ To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1
[PSES] Looking for AI or machine vision related ISO standards for safety
All, I am working to guide a design that uses Artificial Intelligence and machine vision thru a certification type process (CE Mark) and I am looking for ISO or IEC standards or similar related guidance. My theory is that this is such new territory very little guidance exists yet. Are there any recommendations for international guidance. Thanks, David - 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 All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html 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: Mike Cantwell For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: David Heald: _ To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1
Re: [PSES] Safety shutters in BS 13A socket
I don’t have a copy of the standard, but I’m fairly sure this is all detailed in: BS 1363-2:2016+A1:2018 13 A plugs, socket-outlets, adaptors and connection units - Specification for 13 A switched and unswitched socket-outlets It’s a BSI standard, so it’s expensive ! Best regards Charlie Charlie Blackham Sulis Consultants Ltd Tel: +44 (0)7946 624317 Web: https://sulisconsultants.com/ Registered in England and Wales, number 05466247 From: Scott Xe Sent: Friday, April 21, 2023 3:09 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: [PSES] Safety shutters in BS 13A socket BS 13A sockets are designed with a safety shutter to prevent accidental contact with live electrical contacts. According to the BS standard, the shutters for the live (L) and neutral (N) apertures must block securely. Is there any verification test available to ensure that the shutters for the L and N apertures meet this required safety standard? Thanks and regards, Scott - 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 mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org>> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html 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: Mike Cantwell mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org>> For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org>> David Heald mailto:dhe...@gmail.com>> To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1 - 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 All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html 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: Mike Cantwell For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: David Heald: _ To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1
[PSES] Safety shutters in BS 13A socket
BS 13A sockets are designed with a safety shutter to prevent accidental contact with live electrical contacts. According to the BS standard, the shutters for the live (L) and neutral (N) apertures must block securely. Is there any verification test available to ensure that the shutters for the L and N apertures meet this required safety standard? Thanks and regards, Scott - 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 All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html 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: Mike Cantwell For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: David Heald: _ To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1
Re: [PSES] AW: [PSES] Safety: 60335-1 conflicting clauses question - earthing (or not) of handles
Hello Bernd, Thank you for the links to the additional material on the IEC website. I didnt realise there was such a wealth of material in the documents from the subcommittees. Also, thank you for taking the time to write a considered reply. I understand your interpretation and the notes from the committee. Reliable earthing of the handles appears to be the simplest way to comply with the requirements of the standard. I will advise the customer appropriately. Longer term Im going to do some more reading of the outputs from TC 61, TC 66 and TC 108. Good to know about this useful resource - https://www.iec.ch/technical-committees-and-subcommittees#tclist All the best James From: Dürrer Bernd Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2023 7:48 AM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: [PSES] AW: [PSES] Safety: 60335-1 conflicting clauses question - earthing (or not) of handles Hello James, Thank you for providing this additional information and the sketch. My conclusion that the handles are a class II construction was based on your statement in your original post that the handles are not reliably earthed. As I understand now from your additional information they are not earthed by a dedicated wiring to the protective earthing conductor, but incidentally the measured resistance complies with the requirements of IEC 60335-1, clause 27.5. Please remember that the protective earthing connection shall be reliable over the whole lifetime of the appliance. Apart from wear and grease build up that you already mentioned you should check whether the parts providing the connection comply with clauses 27.4 (corrosion) and 28 (screws and connections). With respect to the question whether the requirements of clauses 22.35 and 22.36 also apply to handles of a class I appliance that are reliably earthed (and therefore are not a class II construction), I recommend to check the decisions of TC 61 that are published at <https://www.iec.ch/dyn/www/f?p=103:227:100193794009456FSP_ORG_ID,FSP_LA NG_ID:1236,25> IEC - TC 61 Dashboard > Documents: Working Documents, Other Documents, Supporting Documents: I have found decisions on the interpretation of clause 22.35 in the archives TC 61 Inquiries 2011 and previous ( <https://assets.iec.ch/public/tc61/2011%20and%20previous%20Inquiries.zip?202 3041235> https://assets.iec.ch/public/tc61/2011%20and%20previous%20Inquiries.zip?2023 041235) and TC 61 Inquiries 2015 ( <https://assets.iec.ch/public/tc61/2015%20Inquiries.zip?2023041235> https://assets.iec.ch/public/tc61/2015%20Inquiries.zip?2023041235). It seems that the committees view is that these clauses are applicable to class I constructions. However, as defined in the second paragraph of clause 22.35, stationary appliances are exempt if their handles are reliably earthed. Kind regards, Bernd Von: James Pawson (U3C) < <mailto:ja...@unit3compliance.co.uk> ja...@unit3compliance.co.uk> Gesendet: Dienstag, 11. April 2023 12:22 An: <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Betreff: Re: [PSES] Safety: 60335-1 conflicting clauses question - earthing (or not) of handles [EXTERNAL E-MAIL] This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender. Thank you to everyone who has replied to this query so far, your thoughts were very helpful in refining my thinking. To give some further context (some of which I should have provided earlier) 1. The appliance is stationary and of class I construction 2. The handles are held continuously in normal operation 3. For a basic overview of construction please see the attached sketch (or this link <https://www.unit3compliance.co.uk/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/iec- 60335-clause-22.35-and-22.36-context.png> if the email reflector eats the attachment) 4. Whilst the grips are foam, it is light/porous in nature (not good enough for Supplementary insulation) and it would be very easy for the user to hold the metal instead 5. We made some earth bonding resistance measurements on the equipment. The handles are not explicitly earthed (via a Protective Bonding Conductor) but the contact to the metal frame through the bearings and shafts (not shown on sketch) gives a resistance of approx. 40mR @ 25A even under motion of all joints. We have not accounted for any wear, grease build up, etc) My views: a. I agree with the below discussions - it feels like the standard could benefit from a wording change for clause 22.35 and 22.36 with each clause starting For class II constructions, [ ] b. The construction of the appliance, and lengths of wiring involved, means that if the Basic insulation fails (see 60335-1 Class I definition below) then there is a very low likelihood of the handles becoming live. The wires will only contact the earthed frame instead.
[PSES] AW: [PSES] AW: [PSES] Safety: 60335-1 conflicting clauses question - earthing (or not) of handles
In my understanding this is just an informative note to the decision of the international IEC committee that the national committee of Australia and New Zealand has modified clause 22.35 in their nationally adopted version of 60335-1 (as can be seen on the Standards Australia website AS/NZS 60335.1:2020 - Standards Australia<https://www.standards.org.au/standards-catalogue/sa-snz/electrotechnology/el-002/as-slash-nzs--60335-dot-1-colon-2020>, AS/NZS 60335-1 is a modified adoption of IEC 60335-1). Von: Elliott Martinson Gesendet: Mittwoch, 12. April 2023 15:32 An: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Betreff: Re: [PSES] AW: [PSES] Safety: 60335-1 conflicting clauses question - earthing (or not) of handles [EXTERNAL E-MAIL] This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender. For Australia and New Zealand; which have a reliable earthing system; it was agreed at the EL-002 (TC61 national committee) meeting in Wellington, February 2009 that this requirement does not apply to handles, levers and knobs, other than those of electrical components, provided that they are reliably connected to an earthing terminal or earthing contact or separated from live parts by earthed metal. Found this in the TC 61 inquiries 2011 and previous Would it count as "separated from live parts by earthed metal"? From: Dürrer Bernd mailto:bernd.duer...@wilo.com>> Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2023 1:48 AM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> Subject: [PSES] AW: [PSES] Safety: 60335-1 conflicting clauses question - earthing (or not) of handles Hello James, Thank you for providing this additional information and the sketch. My conclusion that the handles are a class II construction was based on your statement in your original post that the handles are not "reliably earthed". As I understand now from your additional information they are not earthed by a dedicated wiring to the protective earthing conductor, but incidentally the measured resistance complies with the requirements of IEC 60335-1, clause 27.5. Please remember that the protective earthing connection shall be reliable over the whole lifetime of the appliance. Apart from wear and grease build up that you already mentioned you should check whether the parts providing the connection comply with clauses 27.4 (corrosion) and 28 (screws and connections). With respect to the question whether the requirements of clauses 22.35 and 22.36 also apply to handles of a class I appliance that are reliably earthed (and therefore are not a class II construction), I recommend to check the decisions of TC 61 that are published at IEC - TC 61 Dashboard > Documents: Working Documents, Other Documents, Supporting Documents<https://www.iec.ch/dyn/www/f?p=103:227:100193794009456FSP_ORG_ID,FSP_LANG_ID:1236,25>: I have found decisions on the interpretation of clause 22.35 in the archives "TC 61 Inquiries 2011 and previous" (https://assets.iec.ch/public/tc61/2011%20and%20previous%20Inquiries.zip?2023041235) and "TC 61 Inquiries 2015" (https://assets.iec.ch/public/tc61/2015%20Inquiries.zip?2023041235). It seems that the committee's view is that these clauses are applicable to class I constructions. However, as defined in the second paragraph of clause 22.35, stationary appliances are exempt if their handles are reliably earthed. Kind regards, Bernd Von: James Pawson (U3C) mailto:ja...@unit3compliance.co.uk>> Gesendet: Dienstag, 11. April 2023 12:22 An: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> Betreff: Re: [PSES] Safety: 60335-1 conflicting clauses question - earthing (or not) of handles [EXTERNAL E-MAIL] This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender. Thank you to everyone who has replied to this query so far, your thoughts were very helpful in refining my thinking. To give some further context (some of which I should have provided earlier) 1. The appliance is stationary and of class I construction 2. The handles are held continuously in normal operation 3. For a basic overview of construction please see the attached sketch (or this link<https://www.unit3compliance.co.uk/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/iec-60335-clause-22.35-and-22.36-context.png> if the email reflector eats the attachment) 4. Whilst the grips are foam, it is light/porous in nature (not good enough for Supplementary insulation) and it would be very easy for the user to hold the metal instead 5. We made some earth bonding resistance measurements on the equipment. The handles are not explicitly earthed (via a Protective Bonding Conductor) but the contact to the metal frame through the bearings and shafts (not shown on sketch) gives a resistance of approx. 40mR @ 25A even under
Re: [PSES] AW: [PSES] Safety: 60335-1 conflicting clauses question - earthing (or not) of handles
For Australia and New Zealand; which have a reliable earthing system; it was agreed at the EL-002 (TC61 national committee) meeting in Wellington, February 2009 that this requirement does not apply to handles, levers and knobs, other than those of electrical components, provided that they are reliably connected to an earthing terminal or earthing contact or separated from live parts by earthed metal. Found this in the TC 61 inquiries 2011 and previous Would it count as "separated from live parts by earthed metal"? From: Dürrer Bernd Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2023 1:48 AM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: [PSES] AW: [PSES] Safety: 60335-1 conflicting clauses question - earthing (or not) of handles Hello James, Thank you for providing this additional information and the sketch. My conclusion that the handles are a class II construction was based on your statement in your original post that the handles are not "reliably earthed". As I understand now from your additional information they are not earthed by a dedicated wiring to the protective earthing conductor, but incidentally the measured resistance complies with the requirements of IEC 60335-1, clause 27.5. Please remember that the protective earthing connection shall be reliable over the whole lifetime of the appliance. Apart from wear and grease build up that you already mentioned you should check whether the parts providing the connection comply with clauses 27.4 (corrosion) and 28 (screws and connections). With respect to the question whether the requirements of clauses 22.35 and 22.36 also apply to handles of a class I appliance that are reliably earthed (and therefore are not a class II construction), I recommend to check the decisions of TC 61 that are published at IEC - TC 61 Dashboard > Documents: Working Documents, Other Documents, Supporting Documents<https://www.iec.ch/dyn/www/f?p=103:227:100193794009456FSP_ORG_ID,FSP_LANG_ID:1236,25>: I have found decisions on the interpretation of clause 22.35 in the archives "TC 61 Inquiries 2011 and previous" (https://assets.iec.ch/public/tc61/2011%20and%20previous%20Inquiries.zip?2023041235) and "TC 61 Inquiries 2015" (https://assets.iec.ch/public/tc61/2015%20Inquiries.zip?2023041235). It seems that the committee's view is that these clauses are applicable to class I constructions. However, as defined in the second paragraph of clause 22.35, stationary appliances are exempt if their handles are reliably earthed. Kind regards, Bernd Von: James Pawson (U3C) mailto:ja...@unit3compliance.co.uk>> Gesendet: Dienstag, 11. April 2023 12:22 An: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> Betreff: Re: [PSES] Safety: 60335-1 conflicting clauses question - earthing (or not) of handles [EXTERNAL E-MAIL] This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender. Thank you to everyone who has replied to this query so far, your thoughts were very helpful in refining my thinking. To give some further context (some of which I should have provided earlier) 1. The appliance is stationary and of class I construction 2. The handles are held continuously in normal operation 3. For a basic overview of construction please see the attached sketch (or this link<https://www.unit3compliance.co.uk/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/iec-60335-clause-22.35-and-22.36-context.png> if the email reflector eats the attachment) 4. Whilst the grips are foam, it is light/porous in nature (not good enough for Supplementary insulation) and it would be very easy for the user to hold the metal instead 5. We made some earth bonding resistance measurements on the equipment. The handles are not explicitly earthed (via a Protective Bonding Conductor) but the contact to the metal frame through the bearings and shafts (not shown on sketch) gives a resistance of approx. 40mR @ 25A even under motion of all joints. We have not accounted for any wear, grease build up, etc) My views: 1. I agree with the below discussions - it feels like the standard could benefit from a wording change for clause 22.35 and 22.36 with each clause starting "For class II constructions, [...]" 2. The construction of the appliance, and lengths of wiring involved, means that if the Basic insulation fails (see 60335-1 Class I definition below) then there is a very low likelihood of the handles becoming live. The wires will only contact the earthed frame instead. At the moment, I don't agree that the handles would form a class II construction as protection is still provided by Basic + Earthing (but I'm willing to be persuaded by a convincing argument) 3.3.9 class I appliance (basic plus earthing) in such a way that conductive accessible parts cannot become live in the event of a failure of the basic insul
[PSES] AW: [PSES] Safety: 60335-1 conflicting clauses question - earthing (or not) of handles
Hello James, Thank you for providing this additional information and the sketch. My conclusion that the handles are a class II construction was based on your statement in your original post that the handles are not "reliably earthed". As I understand now from your additional information they are not earthed by a dedicated wiring to the protective earthing conductor, but incidentally the measured resistance complies with the requirements of IEC 60335-1, clause 27.5. Please remember that the protective earthing connection shall be reliable over the whole lifetime of the appliance. Apart from wear and grease build up that you already mentioned you should check whether the parts providing the connection comply with clauses 27.4 (corrosion) and 28 (screws and connections). With respect to the question whether the requirements of clauses 22.35 and 22.36 also apply to handles of a class I appliance that are reliably earthed (and therefore are not a class II construction), I recommend to check the decisions of TC 61 that are published at IEC - TC 61 Dashboard > Documents: Working Documents, Other Documents, Supporting Documents<https://www.iec.ch/dyn/www/f?p=103:227:100193794009456FSP_ORG_ID,FSP_LANG_ID:1236,25>: I have found decisions on the interpretation of clause 22.35 in the archives "TC 61 Inquiries 2011 and previous" (https://assets.iec.ch/public/tc61/2011%20and%20previous%20Inquiries.zip?2023041235) and "TC 61 Inquiries 2015" (https://assets.iec.ch/public/tc61/2015%20Inquiries.zip?2023041235). It seems that the committee's view is that these clauses are applicable to class I constructions. However, as defined in the second paragraph of clause 22.35, stationary appliances are exempt if their handles are reliably earthed. Kind regards, Bernd Von: James Pawson (U3C) Gesendet: Dienstag, 11. April 2023 12:22 An: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Betreff: Re: [PSES] Safety: 60335-1 conflicting clauses question - earthing (or not) of handles [EXTERNAL E-MAIL] This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender. Thank you to everyone who has replied to this query so far, your thoughts were very helpful in refining my thinking. To give some further context (some of which I should have provided earlier) 1. The appliance is stationary and of class I construction 2. The handles are held continuously in normal operation 3. For a basic overview of construction please see the attached sketch (or this link<https://www.unit3compliance.co.uk/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/iec-60335-clause-22.35-and-22.36-context.png> if the email reflector eats the attachment) 4. Whilst the grips are foam, it is light/porous in nature (not good enough for Supplementary insulation) and it would be very easy for the user to hold the metal instead 5. We made some earth bonding resistance measurements on the equipment. The handles are not explicitly earthed (via a Protective Bonding Conductor) but the contact to the metal frame through the bearings and shafts (not shown on sketch) gives a resistance of approx. 40mR @ 25A even under motion of all joints. We have not accounted for any wear, grease build up, etc) My views: 1. I agree with the below discussions - it feels like the standard could benefit from a wording change for clause 22.35 and 22.36 with each clause starting "For class II constructions, [...]" 2. The construction of the appliance, and lengths of wiring involved, means that if the Basic insulation fails (see 60335-1 Class I definition below) then there is a very low likelihood of the handles becoming live. The wires will only contact the earthed frame instead. At the moment, I don't agree that the handles would form a class II construction as protection is still provided by Basic + Earthing (but I'm willing to be persuaded by a convincing argument) 3.3.9 class I appliance (basic plus earthing) in such a way that conductive accessible parts cannot become live in the event of a failure of the basic insulation 1. The low resistance of the incidental bearing connection is further mitigation against having to explicitly earth the handles 2. If live wiring or basic insulated wiring is routed anywhere near the handles on different versions of the appliance then they will need an explicit earth connection 3. I'm sure the standards committee had a specific case in mind when they wrote these clauses, I just wish there was an explainer document like EN 62368-2! Again, with thanks. All the best James James Pawson Managing Director & EMC Problem Solver Office hours: My mornings are reserved for full attention on consultancy, testing, and troubleshooting activities for our customers' projects. I am otherwise contactable between 1300h to 1730h from Monday to Friday. For inquiries, b
[PSES] WG: AW: [PSES] AW: [PSES] Safety: 60335-1 conflicting clauses question - earthing (or not) of handles
Hi James, Please find below some additional thoughts on the subject that have accidentally been discussed off-list. Kind regards, Bernd Von: Dürrer Bernd Gesendet: Donnerstag, 6. April 2023 11:36 An: John Woodgate Betreff: AW: AW: [PSES] AW: [PSES] Safety: 60335-1 conflicting clauses question - earthing (or not) of handles Agreed. The standard would be clearer if clauses 22.35 and 22.36 would start with "For class II constructions, [...]". However, I am neither a member of the national nor international committee for IEC 60335-1. Kind regards, Bernd Von: John Woodgate mailto:j...@woodjohn.uk>> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 6. April 2023 11:14 An: Dürrer Bernd mailto:bernd.duer...@wilo.com>> Betreff: Re: AW: [PSES] AW: [PSES] Safety: 60335-1 conflicting clauses question - earthing (or not) of handles [EXTERNAL E-MAIL] This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender. Noted, but the standard doesn't explicitly address that situation, which is surely very rare, and I understand that the handles could be reliably earthed. I still recommend the simple solution of covering them with reinforced insulation, but the standard needs to be clarified. == Best wishes John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only www.woodjohn.uk<http://www.woodjohn.uk/> Rayleigh, Essex UK I hear, and I forget. I see, and I remember. I do, and I understand. Xunzi (340 - 245 BC) On 2023-04-06 10:00, Dürrer Bernd wrote: As I understand from James' explanations, the metal handles of the appliance in question are not reliably earthed. As such, these parts of the appliance do not comply with the requirements for a class I appliance (IEC 60335-1, 3.3.9) that all conductive accessible parts shall be connected to the protective earthing conductor in the fixed wiring of the installation. Therefore, these handles shall be assessed as class II construction (IEC 60335-1, 3.3.11 and 5.14) for which the requirements of clauses 22.35 and 22.36 are applicable. Kind regards, Bernd Von: John Woodgate <mailto:j...@woodjohn.uk> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 6. April 2023 10:46 An: Dürrer Bernd <mailto:bernd.duer...@wilo.com> Betreff: Re: [PSES] AW: [PSES] Safety: 60335-1 conflicting clauses question - earthing (or not) of handles [EXTERNAL E-MAIL] This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender. It still doesn't make sense to require double or reinforced insulation for a Class I product. Doing so, causes the safety of Class 1 construction to be questioned. == Best wishes John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only www.woodjohn.uk<http://www.woodjohn.uk/> Rayleigh, Essex UK I hear, and I forget. I see, and I remember. I do, and I understand. Xunzi (340 - 245 BC) On 2023-04-06 09:40, Dürrer Bernd wrote: Hi James, actually, these two clauses address two different, but related risks: Clause 22.35 addresses the risk that the handle itself may become live. In any case, a conductive surface (like the handle) has to be separated from live parts by basic insulation. Due to the higher risk that handles are actually touched in the event of failure of basic insulation, the standard requires additional precautions. Either the handles itself shall be covered by insulating material (i.e. supplementary insulation) or they shall be separated by supplementary insulation from their fixing. In both cases, the handle will be protected by double insulation from live parts. Clause 22.36 addresses the risk that other parts than the handle in the vicinity of the handle may become live. Again, there is a higher risk for the user in the event of failure of basic insulation that these surfaces may be actually touched, so also for these neighbouring conductive surfaces either double or reinforced insulation is required. Kind regards, Bernd Von: James Pawson (U3C) <mailto:ja...@unit3compliance.co.uk> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 5. April 2023 12:23 An: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> Betreff: [PSES] Safety: 60335-1 conflicting clauses question - earthing (or not) of handles [EXTERNAL E-MAIL] This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender. Hello experts, In running through some safety checks on a customer's product I've come across what appears to be a conflict between two clauses. This resulted in some head scratching! I'm sure it is my misunderstanding or misreading, but I could do with some pointers in how to unpick this. Context 1. Standard is IEC EN 60335-1:2012 (+amendments) 2. Context is an exercise machine (the appliance) 3. Supp
[PSES] AW: [PSES] Safety: 60335-1 conflicting clauses question - earthing (or not) of handles
Hi James, actually, these two clauses address two different, but related risks: Clause 22.35 addresses the risk that the handle itself may become live. In any case, a conductive surface (like the handle) has to be separated from live parts by basic insulation. Due to the higher risk that handles are actually touched in the event of failure of basic insulation, the standard requires additional precautions. Either the handles itself shall be covered by insulating material (i.e. supplementary insulation) or they shall be separated by supplementary insulation from their fixing. In both cases, the handle will be protected by double insulation from live parts. Clause 22.36 addresses the risk that other parts than the handle in the vicinity of the handle may become live. Again, there is a higher risk for the user in the event of failure of basic insulation that these surfaces may be actually touched, so also for these neighbouring conductive surfaces either double or reinforced insulation is required. Kind regards, Bernd Von: James Pawson (U3C) Gesendet: Mittwoch, 5. April 2023 12:23 An: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Betreff: [PSES] Safety: 60335-1 conflicting clauses question - earthing (or not) of handles [EXTERNAL E-MAIL] This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender. Hello experts, In running through some safety checks on a customer's product I've come across what appears to be a conflict between two clauses. This resulted in some head scratching! I'm sure it is my misunderstanding or misreading, but I could do with some pointers in how to unpick this. Context * Standard is IEC EN 60335-1:2012 (+amendments) * Context is an exercise machine (the appliance) * Supply is AC mains Class I * Appliance has metal handles that are held during normal use. These are connected through bearings to the metal frame but are not "reliably earthed" (no explicit wired connection) Earthing of metal parts is acceptable 22.35 For constructions other than those of class III, handles, levers and knobs that are held or actuated in normal use shall not become live in the event of a failure of basic insulation. If these handles, levers and knobs are of metal and if their shafts or fixings are likely to become live in the event of a failure of basic insulation, they shall be adequately covered by insulating material or their accessible parts shall be separated from their shafts or fixings by supplementary insulation. For stationary appliances and cordless appliances, this requirement does not apply to handles, levers and knobs, other than those of electrical components, provided that they are reliably connected to an earthing terminal or earthing contact or separated from live parts by earthed metal. * Class I appliance, with metal handles held during use so this requirement is applicable * Handles are not reliably earthed so we are advising manufacturer to make an explicit bond to PE * With Basic insulation and Earthing we have our two safeguards between live and user = reduced risk of shock * No complaints with this clause Earthing of metal parts is not accpetable Then the next clause seems to contradict this: 22.36 For appliances other than those of class III, handles which are continuously held in the hand in normal use shall be constructed so that when gripped in normal use, the operator's hand is not likely to touch metal parts unless they are separated from live parts by double insulation or reinforced insulation * This clause appears to not allow for earthing of the metal handles * Instead, only rouble or reinforced insulation are acceptable * Thoughts / speculation: * Would this clause make more sense if it read "For appliances other than those of class I..."? i.e. unearthed * Talks about "appliances" (whole product) rather than "constructions" (parts of appliance) Conclusion I'm happy that the approach of reliably earthing the metal handles will reduce the electric shock risk in the context of the equipment, this approach being consistent with other safety standards I know like 62368-1 and 61010-1. I just can't rationalise this with clause 22.36. As I say, I'm sure I've misread or misunderstood something so any help would be greatly appreciated. Otherwise, if anyone has a link to an explanatory document or contact for someone who could help at standards or committee level again that would help. All the best James James Pawson Managing Director & EMC Problem Solver Office hours: My mornings are reserved for full attention on consultancy, testing, and troubleshooting activities for our customers' projects. I am otherwise contactable between 1300h to 1730h from Monday to Friday. For inquiries, bookings, and testing updates please send us a
Re: [PSES] Safety: 60335-1 conflicting clauses question - earthing (or not) of handles
On Wed, 5 Apr 2023 11:23:03 +0100, "James Pawson (U3C)" wrote: > In running through some safety checks on a customer's product I've come > across what appears to be a conflict between two clauses. This resulted in > some head scratching! I'm sure it is my misunderstanding or misreading, but > I could do with some pointers in how to unpick this. ... > 22.35 For constructions other than those of class III, handles, levers and > knobs that are held or actuated in normal use shall not become live in the > event of a failure of basic insulation. If these handles, levers and knobs > are of metal and if their shafts or fixings are likely to become live in the > event of a failure of basic insulation, they shall be adequately covered by > insulating material or their accessible parts shall be separated from their > shafts or fixings by supplementary insulation. > > For stationary appliances and cordless appliances, this requirement does not > apply to handles, levers and knobs, other than those of electrical > components, provided that they are reliably connected to an earthing > terminal or earthing contact or separated from live parts by earthed metal. ... > 22.36 For appliances other than those of class III, handles which are > continuously held in the hand in normal use shall be constructed so that > when gripped in normal use, the operator's hand is not likely to touch metal > parts unless they are separated from live parts by double insulation or > reinforced insulation I don't know of the reason of the differences, but it appears clause 22.35 (including the last paragraph "For stationary appliances...") is for constructions, and clause 22.36 is for entier appliances. Regards, Tom On Wed, 5 Apr 2023 11:23:03 +0100, "James Pawson (U3C)" wrote: > Hello experts, > > In running through some safety checks on a customer's product I've come > across what appears to be a conflict between two clauses. This resulted in > some head scratching! I'm sure it is my misunderstanding or misreading, but > I could do with some pointers in how to unpick this. > > Context > > * Standard is IEC EN 60335-1:2012 (+amendments) > * Context is an exercise machine (the appliance) > * Supply is AC mains Class I > * Appliance has metal handles that are held during normal use. These > are connected through bearings to the metal frame but are not "reliably > earthed" (no explicit wired connection) > > Earthing of metal parts is acceptable > > 22.35 For constructions other than those of class III, handles, levers and > knobs that are held or actuated in normal use shall not become live in the > event of a failure of basic insulation. If these handles, levers and knobs > are of metal and if their shafts or fixings are likely to become live in the > event of a failure of basic insulation, they shall be adequately covered by > insulating material or their accessible parts shall be separated from their > shafts or fixings by supplementary insulation. > > For stationary appliances and cordless appliances, this requirement does not > apply to handles, levers and knobs, other than those of electrical > components, provided that they are reliably connected to an earthing > terminal or earthing contact or separated from live parts by earthed metal. > > * Class I appliance, with metal handles held during use so this > requirement is applicable > * Handles are not reliably earthed so we are advising manufacturer to > make an explicit bond to PE > * With Basic insulation and Earthing we have our two safeguards > between live and user = reduced risk of shock > * No complaints with this clause > > Earthing of metal parts is not accpetable > > Then the next clause seems to contradict this: > > 22.36 For appliances other than those of class III, handles which are > continuously held in the hand in normal use shall be constructed so that > when gripped in normal use, the operator's hand is not likely to touch metal > parts unless they are separated from live parts by double insulation or > reinforced insulation > > * This clause appears to not allow for earthing of the metal handles > * Instead, only rouble or reinforced insulation are acceptable > * Thoughts / speculation: > > o Would this clause make more sense if it read "For appliances other than > those of class I."? i.e. unearthed > > o Talks about "appliances" (whole product) rather than "constructions" > (parts of appliance) > > Conclusion > > I'm happy that the approach of reliably earthing the metal handles will > reduce the electric shock risk in the co
Re: [PSES] Safety: 60335-1 conflicting clauses question - earthing (or not) of handles
I'm not an expert in that standard, but at first glance it looks to me like it makes a distinction between handles that are held or actuated in normal use vs handles that are *continuously* held in the hand in normal use. Similar to distinction made for surface temp limits in standards like 60950. On Wed, Apr 5, 2023 at 6:52 AM Ken Javor wrote: > I may be missing something but the way I read it they provide you with two > different approaches to reducing the hazard of electric shock. One is > protective earth grounding, and the other is double insulation, or double > electrically isolated. These are mutually exclusive, being two different > approaches to achieving the same goal. > > Ken Javor > Phone: (256) 650-5261 > > > -- > *From: *"Grasso, Charles" > *Reply-To: *"Grasso, Charles" > *Date: *Wed, 5 Apr 2023 07:41:02 -0600 > *To: * > *Subject: *Re: [PSES] Safety: 60335-1 conflicting clauses question - > earthing (or not) of handles > > How exactly does one measure "likely" as in likely to touch? Is it a %age? > Of course my question is tongue in cheek... > > On Wed, Apr 5, 2023, 4:23 AM James Pawson (U3C) < > ja...@unit3compliance.co.uk> wrote: > > > * This message originated outside of DISH and was sent by: > ja...@unit3compliance.co.uk <http://ja...@unit3compliance.co.uk> * > -- > Hello experts, > > In running through some safety checks on a customer’s product I’ve come > across what appears to be a conflict between two clauses. This resulted in > some head scratching! I’m sure it is my misunderstanding or misreading, but > I could do with some pointers in how to unpick this. > > > *Context * > >- Standard is IEC EN 60335-1:2012 (+amendments) >- Context is an exercise machine (the appliance) >- Supply is AC mains Class I >- Appliance has metal handles that are held during normal use. These >are connected through bearings to the metal frame but are not “reliably >earthed” (no explicit wired connection) > > > > *Earthing of metal parts is acceptable * > > > *22.35 For constructions other than those of class III, handles, levers > and knobs that are held or actuated in normal use shall not become live in > the event of a failure of basic insulation. If these handles, levers and > knobs are of metal and if their shafts or fixings are likely to become live > in the event of a failure of basic insulation, they shall be adequately > covered by insulating material or their accessible parts shall be separated > from their shafts or fixings by supplementary insulation. For stationary > appliances and cordless appliances, this requirement does not apply to > handles, levers and knobs, other than those of electrical components, > provided that they are reliably connected to an earthing terminal or > earthing contact or separated from live parts by earthed metal. * > >- Class I appliance, with metal handles held during use so this >requirement is applicable >- Handles are not reliably earthed so we are advising manufacturer to >make an explicit bond to PE >- With Basic insulation and Earthing we have our two safeguards >between live and user = reduced risk of shock >- No complaints with this clause > > > > *Earthing of metal parts is not accpetable *Then the next clause seems to > contradict this: > > > *22.36 For appliances other than those of class III, handles which are > continuously held in the hand in normal use shall be constructed so that > when gripped in normal use, the operator's hand is not likely to touch > metal parts unless they are separated from live parts by double insulation > or reinforced insulation * > >- This clause appears to *not* allow for earthing of the metal handles >- Instead, only rouble or reinforced insulation are acceptable >- Thoughts / speculation: > > o Would this clause make more sense if it read “For appliances other > than those of class I…”? i.e. unearthed > > o Talks about “appliances” (whole product) rather than “constructions” > (parts of appliance) > > > > *Conclusion *I’m happy that the approach of reliably earthing the metal > handles will reduce the electric shock risk in the context of the > equipment, this approach being consistent with other safety standards I > know like 62368-1 and 61010-1. I just can’t rationalise this with clause > 22.36. As I say, I’m sure I’ve misread or misunderstood something so any > help would be greatly appreciated. > > Otherwise, if anyone has a link to an explanatory document or contact for > someone who could help at standards or committee level again
Re: [PSES] Safety: 60335-1 conflicting clauses question - earthing (or not) of handles
I may be missing something but the way I read it they provide you with two different approaches to reducing the hazard of electric shock. One is protective earth grounding, and the other is double insulation, or double electrically isolated. These are mutually exclusive, being two different approaches to achieving the same goal. Ken Javor Phone: (256) 650-5261 From: "Grasso, Charles" Reply-To: "Grasso, Charles" Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2023 07:41:02 -0600 To: Subject: Re: [PSES] Safety: 60335-1 conflicting clauses question - earthing (or not) of handles How exactly does one measure "likely" as in likely to touch? Is it a %age? Of course my question is tongue in cheek... On Wed, Apr 5, 2023, 4:23 AM James Pawson (U3C) wrote: > This message originated outside of DISH and was sent by: > ja...@unit3compliance.co.uk > > > Hello experts, > > In running through some safety checks on a customer¹s product I¹ve come across > what appears to be a conflict between two clauses. This resulted in some head > scratching! I¹m sure it is my misunderstanding or misreading, but I could do > with some pointers in how to unpick this. > > Context > * Standard is IEC EN 60335-1:2012 (+amendments) > * Context is an exercise machine (the appliance) > * Supply is AC mains Class I > * Appliance has metal handles that are held during normal use. These are > connected through bearings to the metal frame but are not ³reliably earthed² > (no explicit wired connection) > > Earthing of metal parts is acceptable > 22.35 For constructions other than those of class III, handles, levers and > knobs that are held or actuated in normal use shall not become live in the > event of a failure of basic insulation. If these handles, levers and knobs are > of metal and if their shafts or fixings are likely to become live in the event > of a failure of basic insulation, they shall be adequately covered by > insulating material or their accessible parts shall be separated from their > shafts or fixings by supplementary insulation. > > For stationary appliances and cordless appliances, this requirement does not > apply to handles, levers and knobs, other than those of electrical components, > provided that they are reliably connected to an earthing terminal or earthing > contact or separated from live parts by earthed metal. > > * Class I appliance, with metal handles held during use so this requirement is > applicable > * Handles are not reliably earthed so we are advising manufacturer to make an > explicit bond to PE > * With Basic insulation and Earthing we have our two safeguards between live > and user = reduced risk of shock > * No complaints with this clause > > Earthing of metal parts is not accpetable > Then the next clause seems to contradict this: > > 22.36 For appliances other than those of class III, handles which are > continuously held in the hand in normal use shall be constructed so that when > gripped in normal use, the operator's hand is not likely to touch metal parts > unless they are separated from live parts by double insulation or reinforced > insulation > > * This clause appears to not allow for earthing of the metal handles > * Instead, only rouble or reinforced insulation are acceptable > * Thoughts / speculation: > o Would this clause make more sense if it read ³For appliances other than > those of class I²? i.e. unearthed > > o Talks about ³appliances² (whole product) rather than ³constructions² > (parts of appliance) > > > Conclusion > I¹m happy that the approach of reliably earthing the metal handles will reduce > the electric shock risk in the context of the equipment, this approach being > consistent with other safety standards I know like 62368-1 and 61010-1. I just > can¹t rationalise this with clause 22.36. As I say, I¹m sure I¹ve misread or > misunderstood something so any help would be greatly appreciated. > > Otherwise, if anyone has a link to an explanatory document or contact for > someone who could help at standards or committee level again that would help. > > All the best > James > > James Pawson > Managing Director & EMC Problem Solver > > Office hours: > My mornings are reserved for full attention on consultancy, testing, and > troubleshooting activities for our customers¹ projects. I am otherwise > contactable between 1300h to 1730h from Monday to Friday. > For inquiries, bookings, and testing updates please send us an email on > he...@unit3compliance.co.uk <mailto:he...@unit3compliance.co.uk> or call > 01274 911747. Our lead times for testing and consultancy are typically 4-5 > weeks. > > Unit 3 Compliance Ltd > EMC : Environmental & Vibration : Electrical Safe
Re: [PSES] Safety: 60335-1 conflicting clauses question - earthing (or not) of handles
How exactly does one measure "likely" as in likely to touch? Is it a %age? Of course my question is tongue in cheek... On Wed, Apr 5, 2023, 4:23 AM James Pawson (U3C) wrote: > * This message originated outside of DISH and was sent by: > ja...@unit3compliance.co.uk * > -- > > Hello experts, > > > > In running through some safety checks on a customer’s product I’ve come > across what appears to be a conflict between two clauses. This resulted in > some head scratching! I’m sure it is my misunderstanding or misreading, but > I could do with some pointers in how to unpick this. > > > > *Context* > >- Standard is IEC EN 60335-1:2012 (+amendments) >- Context is an exercise machine (the appliance) >- Supply is AC mains Class I >- Appliance has metal handles that are held during normal use. These >are connected through bearings to the metal frame but are not “reliably >earthed” (no explicit wired connection) > > > > *Earthing of metal parts is acceptable* > > *22.35 For constructions other than those of class III, handles, levers > and knobs that are held or actuated in normal use shall not become live in > the event of a failure of basic insulation. If these handles, levers and > knobs are of metal and if their shafts or fixings are likely to become live > in the event of a failure of basic insulation, they shall be adequately > covered by insulating material or their accessible parts shall be separated > from their shafts or fixings by supplementary insulation.* > > > > *For stationary appliances and cordless appliances, this requirement does > not apply to handles, levers and knobs, other than those of electrical > components, provided that they are reliably connected to an earthing > terminal or earthing contact or separated from live parts by earthed metal.* > > > >- Class I appliance, with metal handles held during use so this >requirement is applicable >- Handles are not reliably earthed so we are advising manufacturer to >make an explicit bond to PE >- With Basic insulation and Earthing we have our two safeguards >between live and user = reduced risk of shock >- No complaints with this clause > > > > *Earthing of metal parts is not accpetable* > > Then the next clause seems to contradict this: > > > > *22.36 For appliances other than those of class III, handles which are > continuously held in the hand in normal use shall be constructed so that > when gripped in normal use, the operator's hand is not likely to touch > metal parts unless they are separated from live parts by double insulation > or reinforced insulation* > > > >- This clause appears to *not* allow for earthing of the metal handles >- Instead, only rouble or reinforced insulation are acceptable >- Thoughts / speculation: > > o Would this clause make more sense if it read “For appliances other > than those of class I…”? i.e. unearthed > > o Talks about “appliances” (whole product) rather than “constructions” > (parts of appliance) > > > > *Conclusion* > > I’m happy that the approach of reliably earthing the metal handles will > reduce the electric shock risk in the context of the equipment, this > approach being consistent with other safety standards I know like 62368-1 > and 61010-1. I just can’t rationalise this with clause 22.36. As I say, I’m > sure I’ve misread or misunderstood something so any help would be greatly > appreciated. > > > > Otherwise, if anyone has a link to an explanatory document or contact for > someone who could help at standards or committee level again that would > help. > > > > All the best > > James > > > > James Pawson > > Managing Director & EMC Problem Solver > > > > *Office hours:* > > *My mornings are reserved for full attention on consultancy, testing, and > troubleshooting activities for our customers’ projects. I am otherwise > contactable between 1300h to 1730h from Monday to Friday.* > > *For inquiries, bookings, and testing updates please send us an email on > he...@unit3compliance.co.uk or call 01274 > 911747. Our lead times for testing and consultancy are typically 4-5 weeks.* > > > > *Unit 3 Compliance Ltd* > > *EMC : Environmental & Vibration : Electrical Safety : CE & UKCA : > Consultancy* > > > > www.unit3compliance.co.uk > <http://www.unit3compliance.co.uk> > | ja...@unit3compliance.co.uk > > +44(0)1274 911747 | +44(0)7811 139957 > > 2 Wellington Business Park, New Lane, Bradford, BD4 8AL > > Registered in England and Wales # 10574298 > > > - &
[PSES] Safety: 60335-1 conflicting clauses question - earthing (or not) of handles
Hello experts, In running through some safety checks on a customer's product I've come across what appears to be a conflict between two clauses. This resulted in some head scratching! I'm sure it is my misunderstanding or misreading, but I could do with some pointers in how to unpick this. Context * Standard is IEC EN 60335-1:2012 (+amendments) * Context is an exercise machine (the appliance) * Supply is AC mains Class I * Appliance has metal handles that are held during normal use. These are connected through bearings to the metal frame but are not "reliably earthed" (no explicit wired connection) Earthing of metal parts is acceptable 22.35 For constructions other than those of class III, handles, levers and knobs that are held or actuated in normal use shall not become live in the event of a failure of basic insulation. If these handles, levers and knobs are of metal and if their shafts or fixings are likely to become live in the event of a failure of basic insulation, they shall be adequately covered by insulating material or their accessible parts shall be separated from their shafts or fixings by supplementary insulation. For stationary appliances and cordless appliances, this requirement does not apply to handles, levers and knobs, other than those of electrical components, provided that they are reliably connected to an earthing terminal or earthing contact or separated from live parts by earthed metal. * Class I appliance, with metal handles held during use so this requirement is applicable * Handles are not reliably earthed so we are advising manufacturer to make an explicit bond to PE * With Basic insulation and Earthing we have our two safeguards between live and user = reduced risk of shock * No complaints with this clause Earthing of metal parts is not accpetable Then the next clause seems to contradict this: 22.36 For appliances other than those of class III, handles which are continuously held in the hand in normal use shall be constructed so that when gripped in normal use, the operator's hand is not likely to touch metal parts unless they are separated from live parts by double insulation or reinforced insulation * This clause appears to not allow for earthing of the metal handles * Instead, only rouble or reinforced insulation are acceptable * Thoughts / speculation: o Would this clause make more sense if it read "For appliances other than those of class I."? i.e. unearthed o Talks about "appliances" (whole product) rather than "constructions" (parts of appliance) Conclusion I'm happy that the approach of reliably earthing the metal handles will reduce the electric shock risk in the context of the equipment, this approach being consistent with other safety standards I know like 62368-1 and 61010-1. I just can't rationalise this with clause 22.36. As I say, I'm sure I've misread or misunderstood something so any help would be greatly appreciated. Otherwise, if anyone has a link to an explanatory document or contact for someone who could help at standards or committee level again that would help. All the best James James Pawson Managing Director & EMC Problem Solver Office hours: My mornings are reserved for full attention on consultancy, testing, and troubleshooting activities for our customers' projects. I am otherwise contactable between 1300h to 1730h from Monday to Friday. For inquiries, bookings, and testing updates please send us an email on <mailto:he...@unit3compliance.co.uk> he...@unit3compliance.co.uk or call 01274 911747. Our lead times for testing and consultancy are typically 4-5 weeks. Unit 3 Compliance Ltd EMC : Environmental & Vibration : Electrical Safety : CE & UKCA : Consultancy <http://www.unit3compliance.co.uk> www.unit3compliance.co.uk | <mailto:ja...@unit3compliance.co.uk> ja...@unit3compliance.co.uk +44(0)1274 911747 | +44(0)7811 139957 2 Wellington Business Park, New Lane, Bradford, BD4 8AL Registered in England and Wales # 10574298 - 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 All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html 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: Mike Cantwell For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: David Heald: _ To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1
[PSES] Functional Safety
Hi everyone, We are in need of a Functional Safety consultant for contract work. Please reply as appropriate. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me. Best Regards and Be Safe, John John Allen | President & CEO | Product Safety Consulting, Inc. Your Outsourced Compliance Department(r) 630-238-0188, Cell: 630-330-3145 [cid:image001.jpg@01D9500C.E4F45DF0] [social_facebook_box_blue for signature] <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Product-Safety-Consulting-Inc/97306850917> [social_twitter_box_blue for signature] <http://twitter.com/SafetyTesting> [social_linkedin_box_blue for signature] <http://www.linkedin.com/in/productsafetyconsultinginc> https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCVSzENmSoWeNFSBQcOYN7-A www.productsafetyinc.com<http://www.productsafetyinc.com/> IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society President Elect 2023, President 2024-2025, Past President 2026 President 2016-2019 Compliance 101 Technical Committee Chairman IEEE Senior Member [cid:image005.png@01D9500C.E4F45DF0] Keeping our members informed and educated on Product Safety and Compliance https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/index.html Although PSC maintains the highest level of virus protection, this e-mail and any attachments should be scanned by your virus protection software. It is the responsibility of the recipient to check that it is virus free. PSC does not accept any responsibility for data loss or systems damage arising in any way from its use. This message is confidential and intended only for the individual to whom or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient or addressee, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the addressee, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying, in whole or part, of this message is strictly prohibited. If you believe that you have been sent this message in error, please do not read it. Please immediately reply to sender that you have received this message in error. Then permanently delete all copies of the message. Thank you. - 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 All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html 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: Mike Cantwell For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: David Heald: _ To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1
Re: [PSES] Electrical Safety - Fundamental Standards and Concepts
Hello Rich,
Thank you, I had hoped you would see this email :)
I've ordered the Electrical Product Compliance and Safety Engineering book
you recommended and will start looking into the other references.
Much appreciated.
All the best
James
James Pawson
Managing Director & EMC Problem Solver
Unit 3 Compliance Ltd
EMC : Environmental & Vibration : Electrical Safety : CE & UKCA :
Consultancy
www.unit3compliance.co.uk <http://www.unit3compliance.co.uk/> |
<mailto:ja...@unit3compliance.co.uk> ja...@unit3compliance.co.uk
+44(0)1274 911747 | +44(0)7811 139957
2 Wellington Business Park, New Lane, Bradford, BD4 8AL
Registered in England and Wales # 10574298
From: Richard Nute
Sent: 08 December 2022 01:17
To: 'James Pawson (U3C)' ;
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: [PSES] Electrical Safety - Fundamental Standards and Concepts
Hi James:
Understanding the basic physics and rationale of the safety standards
requires reverse engineering of the requirements. And an understanding of
the people (and their biases) that wrote the standard. Very difficult.
And, the safety standards are not necessarily in agreement with each other.
For example, one would think that electric shock requirements are
independent of the type of equipment, but they are not. (In my opinion, we
should have a safety standard that addresses electric shock rather than
equipment.)
60664-1 is largely based on research by Stimper. 60479 is largely based on
research by Biegelmeier. 60990 has a good bibliography, although some of
the references have been ignored.
I would recommend the following sources:
"Electrical Product Compliance and Safety Engineering," by Steli
Loznen, Constantin Bolintineau, and Jan Swart. ISBN 13: 978-1-63081-011-5.
Papers presented at the annual IEEE Product Safety Engineering
Society "International Symposium on Product Compliance Engineering," 2004 to
2022.
Join one or more national committees addressing product safety
standards.
IEC Technical Committee documents.
UL "Bulletins of Research." No longer available from UL, but
may be in some technical libraries.
Articles by Charles Dalziel.
Books by Dr. Vyto Babrauskas, Ph.D. (Dr. Fire.)
Product Safety Newsletter, Product Safety Engineering
Newsletter.
"Electrical Shock Safety Criteria," Proceedings of the First
International Symposium on Electrical Shock Safety Criteria
1st Edition - January 1, 1985. Editors: J.E. Bridges, G.L. Ford, I.A.
Sherman. eBook ISBN: 9781483162201
With regard to electrically-caused fire in 62368-1, the PIS requirements
come from 60065 and Ernst Storm (deceased). The 15-watt requirement came
from me based on ignition tests.
Thermal burns are not due to object temperature, but skin temperature.
Standards requirements are object temperature.
Have fun! Best wishes for the holiday season,
Rich
From: James Pawson (U3C) mailto:ja...@unit3compliance.co.uk> >
Sent: Wednesday, December 7, 2022 5:07 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Subject: [PSES] Electrical Safety - Fundamental Standards and Concepts
Hello experts,
My goal is to put together a reading and reference list of fundamental
standards that help me understand the basic physics and rationale behind the
requirements in safety standards (mainly EN 62368-1, EN 61010-1, EN
60335-1).
I've been finding a lot of useful references from the Normative References
sections of these standards and from the IEC TR 62368-2 explanatory notes.
In your opinion, what standards should I add to this list to expand my
knowledge of electrical safety?
Thanks in advance
James
General Terminology
<https://www.electropedia.org/> IEC 60050 IEV "Electropedia" although this
is sometimes lacking
Electric shock
IEC 60664-1 "Insulation coordination for equipment within low voltage supply
systems - Part 1: Principles, requirements and tests"
IEC 60990-1 "Methods of measurement of touch current and protective
conductor current"
IEC 60479 series shock current on humans and livestock
IEC 61201 Touch voltage limits
Electrically caused fire
Power source classification in 62368-1 references IEC 60065 and IEC 60950-1.
But where did they derive their information from? What are the power levels
based on?
UL 94 and UL 1581 for material and cable flammability
Thermal Burn
Basic standards detailing risks of touch temperatures ISO 13732-1 and IEC
Guide 117
Other?
Radiation
IEC 62471 "Photobiological safety of lamps and lamp systems"
IEC 60065 for audio levels
Other?
Mechanical hazards
???
James Pawson
Managing Director & EMC Problem Solv
Re: [PSES] Electrical Safety - Fundamental Standards and Concepts
Hi James:
Understanding the basic physics and rationale of the safety standards
requires reverse engineering of the requirements. And an understanding of
the people (and their biases) that wrote the standard. Very difficult.
And, the safety standards are not necessarily in agreement with each other.
For example, one would think that electric shock requirements are
independent of the type of equipment, but they are not. (In my opinion, we
should have a safety standard that addresses electric shock rather than
equipment.)
60664-1 is largely based on research by Stimper. 60479 is largely based on
research by Biegelmeier. 60990 has a good bibliography, although some of
the references have been ignored.
I would recommend the following sources:
"Electrical Product Compliance and Safety Engineering," by Steli
Loznen, Constantin Bolintineau, and Jan Swart. ISBN 13: 978-1-63081-011-5.
Papers presented at the annual IEEE Product Safety Engineering
Society "International Symposium on Product Compliance Engineering," 2004 to
2022.
Join one or more national committees addressing product safety
standards.
IEC Technical Committee documents.
UL "Bulletins of Research." No longer available from UL, but
may be in some technical libraries.
Articles by Charles Dalziel.
Books by Dr. Vyto Babrauskas, Ph.D. (Dr. Fire.)
Product Safety Newsletter, Product Safety Engineering
Newsletter.
"Electrical Shock Safety Criteria," Proceedings of the First
International Symposium on Electrical Shock Safety Criteria
1st Edition - January 1, 1985. Editors: J.E. Bridges, G.L. Ford, I.A.
Sherman. eBook ISBN: 9781483162201
With regard to electrically-caused fire in 62368-1, the PIS requirements
come from 60065 and Ernst Storm (deceased). The 15-watt requirement came
from me based on ignition tests.
Thermal burns are not due to object temperature, but skin temperature.
Standards requirements are object temperature.
Have fun! Best wishes for the holiday season,
Rich
From: James Pawson (U3C)
Sent: Wednesday, December 7, 2022 5:07 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Electrical Safety - Fundamental Standards and Concepts
Hello experts,
My goal is to put together a reading and reference list of fundamental
standards that help me understand the basic physics and rationale behind the
requirements in safety standards (mainly EN 62368-1, EN 61010-1, EN
60335-1).
I've been finding a lot of useful references from the Normative References
sections of these standards and from the IEC TR 62368-2 explanatory notes.
In your opinion, what standards should I add to this list to expand my
knowledge of electrical safety?
Thanks in advance
James
General Terminology
<https://www.electropedia.org/> IEC 60050 IEV "Electropedia" although this
is sometimes lacking
Electric shock
IEC 60664-1 "Insulation coordination for equipment within low voltage supply
systems - Part 1: Principles, requirements and tests"
IEC 60990-1 "Methods of measurement of touch current and protective
conductor current"
IEC 60479 series shock current on humans and livestock
IEC 61201 Touch voltage limits
Electrically caused fire
Power source classification in 62368-1 references IEC 60065 and IEC 60950-1.
But where did they derive their information from? What are the power levels
based on?
UL 94 and UL 1581 for material and cable flammability
Thermal Burn
Basic standards detailing risks of touch temperatures ISO 13732-1 and IEC
Guide 117
Other?
Radiation
IEC 62471 "Photobiological safety of lamps and lamp systems"
IEC 60065 for audio levels
Other?
Mechanical hazards
???
James Pawson
Managing Director & EMC Problem Solver
Unit 3 Compliance Ltd
EMC : Environmental & Vibration : Electrical Safety : CE & UKCA :
Consultancy
<http://www.unit3compliance.co.uk/> www.unit3compliance.co.uk |
<mailto:ja...@unit3compliance.co.uk> ja...@unit3compliance.co.uk
+44(0)1274 911747 | +44(0)7811 139957
2 Wellington Business Park, New Lane, Bradford, BD4 8AL
Registered in England and Wales # 10574298
-
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
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
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:
Mike Cantwell
For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:
David Heald:
[PSES] Electrical Safety - Fundamental Standards and Concepts
Hello experts, My goal is to put together a reading and reference list of fundamental standards that help me understand the basic physics and rationale behind the requirements in safety standards (mainly EN 62368-1, EN 61010-1, EN 60335-1). I've been finding a lot of useful references from the Normative References sections of these standards and from the IEC TR 62368-2 explanatory notes. In your opinion, what standards should I add to this list to expand my knowledge of electrical safety? Thanks in advance James General Terminology IEC 60050 IEV <https://www.electropedia.org/> "Electropedia" although this is sometimes lacking Electric shock IEC 60664-1 "Insulation coordination for equipment within low voltage supply systems - Part 1: Principles, requirements and tests" IEC 60990-1 "Methods of measurement of touch current and protective conductor current" IEC 60479 series shock current on humans and livestock IEC 61201 Touch voltage limits Electrically caused fire Power source classification in 62368-1 references IEC 60065 and IEC 60950-1. But where did they derive their information from? What are the power levels based on? UL 94 and UL 1581 for material and cable flammability Thermal Burn Basic standards detailing risks of touch temperatures ISO 13732-1 and IEC Guide 117 Other? Radiation IEC 62471 "Photobiological safety of lamps and lamp systems" IEC 60065 for audio levels Other? Mechanical hazards ??? James Pawson Managing Director & EMC Problem Solver Unit 3 Compliance Ltd EMC : Environmental & Vibration : Electrical Safety : CE & UKCA : Consultancy <http://www.unit3compliance.co.uk/> www.unit3compliance.co.uk | <mailto:ja...@unit3compliance.co.uk> ja...@unit3compliance.co.uk +44(0)1274 911747 | +44(0)7811 139957 2 Wellington Business Park, New Lane, Bradford, BD4 8AL Registered in England and Wales # 10574298 - ---- 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 All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html 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: Mike Cantwell For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: David Heald: _ To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1
Re: [PSES] EU harmonised standard of EN 62368-1 Ed3 : 2020 for General Product Safety Directive
Scott —
I am not aware of any policy or practice of eliminating transition periods.
My reference is the official list of harmonized standards for each directive on the EU website. I trust that more than the CENELEC dates in the beginning of the EN standards.
Mike
On 11/01/2022 9:50 PM Scott Xe wrote:
Dear Mike,
Appreciate your spotting out the essential part that was over-looked. As explained in above reply, it seems a full version of EN 62368-1 : 2020 is still applied. Did EU remove the transitional period for any updates/amendments recently? From now on, all listed standards take effect immediately.
Regarding the development of EN 62368-1, the 3rd edition likely skips in LVD and RED. We are awaiting further detail about the 4th edition in 2023.
Thanks and regards,
Scott
On Wed, 2 Nov 2022 at 00:56, MIKE SHERMAN <msherma...@comcast.net> wrote:
Scott --
Go to page 63 of the OJ from August 16
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ:L:2022:213:FULL&from=EN
and look at item 21
“However, the publication of those references should be limited to the clauses 3.3.19 ‘Sound exposure’ and 10.6 ‘Safeguard against acoustic energy sources’, given that the purpose of Commission Decision 2009/490/EC is limited to ensuring that exposure to sound from personal music players does not pose a risk to hearing.”
So it looks like this is a very limited adoption of only PART of the third edition for the sole purpose of personal music players.
Here also is some information about 62368-1 that I gleaned from the IEEE ISPCE Symposium in San Diego in September:
-2nd edition: has a "dow" Date of Withdrawal of January 2023; reportedly there is a CENELC vote going on right now to extend that (18 months?) so it can continue to be valid as we wait for the 4th edition
-3rd edition is still dead [as a harmonized standard for LVD]
-4th edition is being voted on, perhaps in January 2023, and so may soon be approved simultaneously by both IEC and CENELEC. Reportedly the committee has been working closely with the EU to avoid the problems that sunk the 3rd edition as a viable harmonized EN standard.
Mike Sherman
Sherman PSC LLC
On 11/01/2022 9:45 AM Scott Xe <scott...@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear All,
On 16 Aug 2022, OJEU listed EN 62368-1 2020 without a deadline of an enforcement date. Normally it will have a transitional period of 18 or 24 months. Does it mean to take effect immediately without a transitional period from EN 62368-1 Ed2 : 2014 to EN 62368-1 Ed 3 : 2020?
Thanks and regards,
Scott
-
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.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
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:Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org>
For policy questions, send mail to:Jim Bacher <j.bac...@ieee.org>David Heald <dhe...@gmail.com>
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1
-
----
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.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.htm
Re: [PSES] EU harmonised standard of EN 62368-1 Ed3 : 2020 for General Product Safety Directive
Dear Mike, Appreciate your spotting out the essential part that was over-looked. As explained in above reply, it seems a full version of EN 62368-1 : 2020 is still applied. Did EU remove the transitional period for any updates/amendments recently? From now on, all listed standards take effect immediately. Regarding the development of EN 62368-1, the 3rd edition likely skips in LVD and RED. We are awaiting further detail about the 4th edition in 2023. Thanks and regards, Scott On Wed, 2 Nov 2022 at 00:56, MIKE SHERMAN wrote: > Scott -- > > Go to page 63 of the OJ from August 16 > > https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ:L:2022:213:FULL&from=EN > and look at item 21 > “However, the publication of those references should be limited to the > clauses 3.3.19 ‘Sound exposure’ and 10.6 ‘Safeguard against acoustic energy > sources’, given that the purpose of Commission Decision 2009/490/EC is > limited to ensuring that exposure to sound from personal music players does > not pose a risk to hearing.” > So it looks like this is a very limited adoption of only PART of the third > edition for the sole purpose of personal music players. > > Here also is some information about 62368-1 that I gleaned from the IEEE > ISPCE Symposium in San Diego in September: > -2nd edition: has a "dow" Date of Withdrawal of January 2023; reportedly > there is a CENELC vote going on right now to extend that (18 months?) so it > can continue to be valid as we wait for the 4th edition > -3rd edition is still dead [as a harmonized standard for LVD] > -4th edition is being voted on, perhaps in January 2023, and so may soon > be approved simultaneously by both IEC and CENELEC. Reportedly the > committee has been working closely with the EU to avoid the problems that > sunk the 3rd edition as a viable harmonized EN standard. > > Mike Sherman > Sherman PSC LLC > > On 11/01/2022 9:45 AM Scott Xe wrote: > > > Dear All, > > On 16 Aug 2022, OJEU listed EN 62368-1 2020 without a deadline of an > enforcement date. Normally it will have a transitional period of 18 or 24 > months. Does it mean to take effect immediately without a transitional > period from EN 62368-1 Ed2 : 2014 to EN 62368-1 Ed 3 : 2020? > > > Thanks and regards, > > Scott > - > > > 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.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html > > 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: > Mike Cantwell > > For policy questions, send mail to: > Jim Bacher > David Heald > -- > > To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: > https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1 > > - > > > 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.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html > > 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: > Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org> > > For policy questions, send mail to: > Jim Bacher <j.bac...@ieee.org> > David Heald <dhe...@gmail.com> > -- > > To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: > https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1 > - 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 All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html 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: Mike Cantwell For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: David Heald: _ To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1
Re: [PSES] EU harmonised standard of EN 62368-1 Ed3 : 2020 for General Product Safety Directive
Hi Charlie, You are right the edition 2 has not been listed in GPSD. The 2022/1401 decision amending 2019/1698 decision states that row 66 and 67 are replaced by EN IEC 62368-1 : 2020 and EN IEC 62368-1 : 2020/A11 : 2020. The row 66 and 67 of 2019/1698 are referenced to EN 60065 and 60950-1. Thus they are repealed. I might over interpreted the decision to make the product in compliance with full EN 62368-1 Ed3 : 2020 standard. Thanks for your guidance! At least, it may meet EN 60065 or 60950-1 depending on product type plus clauses 3.3.19 ‘Sound exposure’ and 10.6 ‘Safeguard against acoustic energy sources’. Since both EN 60065 and 60950-1 have been replaced with EN 62368-1 : 2020, should the conformity test use a full version of EN 62368-1 : 2020 instead of 2 clauses only? Cheers! Scott On Wed, 2 Nov 2022 at 00:39, Charlie Blackham wrote: > Scott > > > > I’m fairly certain that EN 62368-1:2014 was never listed under the GPSD – > only the LVD – 60065 and 60950 remained listed. > > > > The listing of the 2020 version of 62368-1 is accompanied by the following > “whereas”: > > > By letter M/452 of 28 September 2009, the Commission made a request to the > European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardization (‘Cenelec’) to draw > up European standards for personal music players. On the basis of this > request, Cenelec adopted standard EN IEC 62368-1:2020 on ‘Audio/video, > information and communication technology equipment – Part 1: Safety > requirements’ and, further to that, the amendment EN IEC > 62368-1:2020/A11:2020. EN IEC 62368-1:2020 is proposed with its amendment > A11:2020, which complies with the general safety requirement set out in > Directive 2001/95/EC. Its reference should be published in the *Official > Journal of the European Union* replacing the references EN 60065:2002 > ‘Audio, video and similar electronic apparatus – Safety requirements’ and > EN 60950-1:2006 ‘Information technology equipment – Safety -- Part 1: > General requirements’. However, the publication of those references should > be limited to the clauses 3.3.19 ‘Sound exposure’ and 10.6 ‘Safeguard > against acoustic energy sources’, given that the purpose of Commission > Decision 2009/490/EC is limited to ensuring that exposure to sound from > personal music players does not pose a risk to hearing. > > > > And the listing states > > *Notice: this publication concerns only clauses 3.3.19 “Sound exposure” > and 10.6 “Safeguard against acoustic energy sources” of EN IEC > 62368-1:2020/A11:2020.* > > > > Best regards > > Charlie > > > > *Charlie Blackham* > > *Sulis Consultants Ltd* > > *Tel: +44 (0)7946 624317* > > *Web: https://sulisconsultants.com/ <https://sulisconsultants.com/> * > > Registered in England and Wales, number 05466247 > > > > *From:* Scott Xe > *Sent:* 01 November 2022 14:45 > *To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG > *Subject:* [PSES] EU harmonised standard of EN 62368-1 Ed3 : 2020 for > General Product Safety Directive > > > > Dear All, > > > > On 16 Aug 2022, OJEU listed EN 62368-1 2020 without a deadline of an > enforcement date. Normally it will have a transitional period of 18 or 24 > months. Does it mean to take effect immediately without a transitional > period from EN 62368-1 Ed2 : 2014 to EN 62368-1 Ed 3 : 2020? > > > > Thanks and regards, > > Scott > > - > > > 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.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html > > 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: > Mike Cantwell > > For policy questions, send mail to: > Jim Bacher > David Heald > -- > > To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: > https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1 > - 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 All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html 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: Mike Cantwell For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: David Heald: _ To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1
Re: [PSES] EU harmonised standard of EN 62368-1 Ed3 : 2020 for General Product Safety Directive
Scott -- Go to page 63 of the OJ from August 16 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ:L:2022:213:FULL&from=EN and look at item 21 “However, the publication of those references should be limited to the clauses 3.3.19 ‘Sound exposure’ and 10.6 ‘Safeguard against acoustic energy sources’, given that the purpose of Commission Decision 2009/490/EC is limited to ensuring that exposure to sound from personal music players does not pose a risk to hearing.” So it looks like this is a very limited adoption of only PART of the third edition for the sole purpose of personal music players. Here also is some information about 62368-1 that I gleaned from the IEEE ISPCE Symposium in San Diego in September: -2nd edition: has a "dow" Date of Withdrawal of January 2023; reportedly there is a CENELC vote going on right now to extend that (18 months?) so it can continue to be valid as we wait for the 4th edition -3rd edition is still dead [as a harmonized standard for LVD] -4th edition is being voted on, perhaps in January 2023, and so may soon be approved simultaneously by both IEC and CENELEC. Reportedly the committee has been working closely with the EU to avoid the problems that sunk the 3rd edition as a viable harmonized EN standard. Mike Sherman Sherman PSC LLC > On 11/01/2022 9:45 AM Scott Xe wrote: > > > Dear All, > > On 16 Aug 2022, OJEU listed EN 62368-1 2020 without a deadline of an > enforcement date. Normally it will have a transitional period of 18 or 24 > months. Does it mean to take effect immediately without a transitional > period from EN 62368-1 Ed2 : 2014 to EN 62368-1 Ed 3 : 2020? > > > Thanks and regards, > > Scott > > - > -------- > > 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 > mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org > > > All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: > http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html > > 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: > Mike Cantwell mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org > > > For policy questions, send mail to: > Jim Bacher mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org > > David Heald mailto:dhe...@gmail.com > > > > - > > To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: > https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1 > - 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 All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html 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: Mike Cantwell For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: David Heald: _ To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1
Re: [PSES] EU harmonised standard of EN 62368-1 Ed3 : 2020 for General Product Safety Directive
Scott I’m fairly certain that EN 62368-1:2014 was never listed under the GPSD – only the LVD – 60065 and 60950 remained listed. The listing of the 2020 version of 62368-1 is accompanied by the following “whereas”: By letter M/452 of 28 September 2009, the Commission made a request to the European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardization (‘Cenelec’) to draw up European standards for personal music players. On the basis of this request, Cenelec adopted standard EN IEC 62368-1:2020 on ‘Audio/video, information and communication technology equipment – Part 1: Safety requirements’ and, further to that, the amendment EN IEC 62368-1:2020/A11:2020. EN IEC 62368-1:2020 is proposed with its amendment A11:2020, which complies with the general safety requirement set out in Directive 2001/95/EC. Its reference should be published in the Official Journal of the European Union replacing the references EN 60065:2002 ‘Audio, video and similar electronic apparatus – Safety requirements’ and EN 60950-1:2006 ‘Information technology equipment – Safety -- Part 1: General requirements’. However, the publication of those references should be limited to the clauses 3.3.19 ‘Sound exposure’ and 10.6 ‘Safeguard against acoustic energy sources’, given that the purpose of Commission Decision 2009/490/EC is limited to ensuring that exposure to sound from personal music players does not pose a risk to hearing. And the listing states Notice: this publication concerns only clauses 3.3.19 “Sound exposure” and 10.6 “Safeguard against acoustic energy sources” of EN IEC 62368-1:2020/A11:2020. Best regards Charlie Charlie Blackham Sulis Consultants Ltd Tel: +44 (0)7946 624317 Web: https://sulisconsultants.com/ Registered in England and Wales, number 05466247 From: Scott Xe Sent: 01 November 2022 14:45 To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: [PSES] EU harmonised standard of EN 62368-1 Ed3 : 2020 for General Product Safety Directive Dear All, On 16 Aug 2022, OJEU listed EN 62368-1 2020 without a deadline of an enforcement date. Normally it will have a transitional period of 18 or 24 months. Does it mean to take effect immediately without a transitional period from EN 62368-1 Ed2 : 2014 to EN 62368-1 Ed 3 : 2020? Thanks and regards, Scott - 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 mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org>> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html 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: Mike Cantwell mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org>> For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org>> David Heald mailto:dhe...@gmail.com>> To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1 - 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 All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html 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: Mike Cantwell For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: David Heald: _ To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1
[PSES] EU harmonised standard of EN 62368-1 Ed3 : 2020 for General Product Safety Directive
Dear All, On 16 Aug 2022, OJEU listed EN 62368-1 2020 without a deadline of an enforcement date. Normally it will have a transitional period of 18 or 24 months. Does it mean to take effect immediately without a transitional period from EN 62368-1 Ed2 : 2014 to EN 62368-1 Ed 3 : 2020? Thanks and regards, Scott - 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 All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html 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: Mike Cantwell For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: David Heald: _ To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1
[PSES] Hazard-Based safety Engineering (HBSE) Principles
I see the new IEC 62368-1 standard is described as a HBSE standard. In your own words, in just a few sentences, and maybe with an example or two, can you explain how this HBSE standard differs from a non-HBSE standard? How does this change the way a conformity assessment is performed and documented? Thanks, The Other Brian - 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 All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html 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: Mike Cantwell For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: David Heald: _ To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1
Re: [PSES] Safety for e-scooters, e-bikes
Comments from purely subjective personal experience: * True for their “professional” grade power tools * Maybe less so for their “consumer/domestic” grade products (especially gardening power tools where I have had several failures)? * OTOH the resulting warrantee service has generally been very good. John E Allen W.London, UK From: Scott Xe Sent: 20 August 2022 16:51 To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] Safety for e-scooters, e-bikes Dan, It appears to me that Bosch's products are well designed and made in general and agree to have high confidence in their products. Rgds, Scott On Thu, 18 Aug 2022 at 21:30, Dan Roman <0d75e04ed751-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org <mailto:0d75e04ed751-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org> > wrote: Doug/Scott, My wife’s e-bike has a Bosch motor and battery and seems to be well made and certified so I am comfortable storing and charging it in my garage. Included a picture of the label with agency marks, sorry it is a little blurry. So I think there are definitely safety schemes available, but as with everything, quality may vary from vendor to vendor. I would trust Bosch over a vendor I never heard of and the Bosch motor and battery certainly played a large role in picking which e-bike to purchase. Dan From: Scott Xe [mailto:scott...@gmail.com <mailto:scott...@gmail.com> ] Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2022 10:54 AM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> Subject: Re: [PSES] Safety for e-scooters, e-bikes Dear Doug, I learned that China prohibits carrying e-scooters and e-bikes to their houses and even entering the lifts of the building for storage/charging. Since the battery capacity is much bigger than the li-ion battery using in normal portable devices, the battery and the charger must comply with rigid safety requirements. Do not recommend buying unknown brand products in this type of goods. Regards, Scott On Sat, 13 Aug 2022 at 05:27, Douglas E Powell mailto:doug...@gmail.com> > wrote: All, My Friday question is about storage/charging of e-scooters and e-bikes. It seems that these days more and more people are using these devices and fire safety is a growing concern. It seems my news feed has a new instance every few days. Some of these cases are very tragic outcomes, in that the owner brings these devices just inside the door to their apartment for overnight charging. Of course, if there is a lithium fire, it is rather violent and blocks the exit for the occupants. I am not very familiar with which safety standards are available in North America and Europe, and do they have requirements to address such concerns in the user documentation? I do know that some building owners are taking matters into their own hands and requiring these devices be charged outdoors; which may have varying success in mitigating building fires. In any case, many e-scooter owners are probably not very keen on leaving their property where it can be easily stolen. Thoughts? -Doug Laporte, Colorado USA <https://www.linkedin.com/in/coloradocomplianceguy/> LinkedIn (UTC -06:00) Mountain Time (US-MDT) - ---- 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 <mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org> > All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html 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: Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org <mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org> > For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher <j.bac...@ieee.org <mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org> > David Heald <dhe...@gmail.com <mailto:dhe...@gmail.com> > _ To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC <https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1> &A=1 - ---- 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 mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org> > All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html 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 he
Re: [PSES] [EXTERNAL] [PSES] Safety for e-scooters, e-bikes
That is very interesting, and there's something to be said about timing. -Doug Douglas E Powell Laporte, Colorado USA doug...@gmail.com LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/coloradocomplianceguy/> (UTC -06:00) Mountain Time (US-MDT) On Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 10:14 AM Ted Eckert wrote: > By coincidence, there was a notice in today’s Federal Register that OSHA > is extending UL’s scope of recognition to add two standards. > >- UL 2272: Standard for electrical systems and personal e-mobility >devices >- UL 2849: Standard for electrical systems for eBikes > > > > Ted Eckert > > The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of > my employer. > > > > *From:* Douglas E Powell > *Sent:* Friday, August 12, 2022 2:26 PM > *To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG > *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] [PSES] Safety for e-scooters, e-bikes > > > > All, > > > > My Friday question is about storage/charging of e-scooters and e-bikes. It > seems that these days more and more people are using these devices and fire > safety is a growing concern. It seems my news feed has a new instance > every few days. Some of these cases are very tragic outcomes, in that the > owner brings these devices just inside the door to their apartment for > overnight charging. Of course, if there is a lithium fire, it is rather > violent and blocks the exit for the occupants. > > > > I am not very familiar with which safety standards are available in > North America and Europe, and do they have requirements to address such > concerns in the user documentation? I do know that some building owners > are taking matters into their own hands and requiring these devices be > charged outdoors; which may have varying success in mitigating building > fires. In any case, many e-scooter owners are probably not very keen on > leaving their property where it can be easily stolen. > > > > Thoughts? > > > > -Doug > > > > Laporte, Colorado USA > > LinkedIn > <https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin.com%2Fin%2Fcoloradocomplianceguy%2F&data=05%7C01%7Cted.eckert%40microsoft.com%7Cc9e9a9f3e2954464402e08da7ca96ba4%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C0%7C0%7C637959364369664940%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=CDrDKIswhEfpV%2Fmm61vNnocmmFbLkH6I5WQ0QL%2BHmrk%3D&reserved=0> > > > > (UTC -06:00) Mountain Time (US-MDT) > > > > - > > > 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.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html > <https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ieee-pses.org%2Femc-pstc.html&data=05%7C01%7Cted.eckert%40microsoft.com%7Cc9e9a9f3e2954464402e08da7ca96ba4%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C0%7C0%7C637959364369664940%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=nserf1Q7zzpqgpUhWVn6OGEnzLuUQ4F6W1iFwJaft8Y%3D&reserved=0> > > Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ > <https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ieee-pses.org%2F&data=05%7C01%7Cted.eckert%40microsoft.com%7Cc9e9a9f3e2954464402e08da7ca96ba4%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C0%7C0%7C637959364369664940%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=eKruJaUYkunRpVkrEZ%2BgwRI4R5%2Fy5Vz5fvPZ1EbdNWE%3D&reserved=0> > Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to > unsubscribe) > <https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ieee-pses.org%2Flist.html&data=05%7C01%7Cted.eckert%40microsoft.com%7Cc9e9a9f3e2954464402e08da7ca96ba4%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C0%7C0%7C637959364369664940%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=39g2D9JBvayhDtjj4kQK4W0GAcVMDJwixHgM36rMGmQ%3D&reserved=0> > List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html > <https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ieee-pses.org%2Flistrules.html&data=05%7C01%7Cted.eckert%40microsoft.com%7Cc9e9a9f3e2954464402e08da7ca96ba4%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C0%7C0%7C637959364369664940%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=vbf0G9GTYYJuQv%2Bez5DImLOBFrq7ymdQ9lWu5KZO5yw%3D&reserved=0> > > For
Re: [PSES] Safety for e-scooters, e-bikes
Thank you Scott, -Doug Douglas E Powell Laporte, Colorado USA doug...@gmail.com LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/coloradocomplianceguy/> (UTC -06:00) Mountain Time (US-MDT) On Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 8:30 AM Scott Xe wrote: > Dear Doug, > > Panasonic, ATL/CATL, BYD, Samsung, LG are good batteries for this type of > product. > > Regards, > > Scott > > On Thu, 18 Aug 2022 at 22:37, Douglas E Powell wrote: > >> Thanks Dan, >> >> So I have to wonder what brand lithium battery Bosch is using. And this >> is a great starting point for me to dig in a little. >> >> -Doug >> >> >> Douglas E Powell >> Laporte, Colorado USA >> doug...@gmail.com >> LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/coloradocomplianceguy/> >> >> (UTC -06:00) Mountain Time (US-MDT) >> >> >> On Thu, Aug 18, 2022 at 7:30 AM Dan Roman < >> 0d75e04ed751-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org> wrote: >> >>> Doug/Scott, >>> >>> >>> >>> My wife’s e-bike has a Bosch motor and battery and seems to be well made >>> and certified so I am comfortable storing and charging it in my garage. >>> Included a picture of the label with agency marks, sorry it is a little >>> blurry. >>> >>> >>> >>> So I think there are definitely safety schemes available, but as with >>> everything, quality may vary from vendor to vendor. I would trust Bosch >>> over a vendor I never heard of and the Bosch motor and battery certainly >>> played a large role in picking which e-bike to purchase. >>> >>> >>> >>> Dan >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> *From:* Scott Xe [mailto:scott...@gmail.com] >>> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 17, 2022 10:54 AM >>> *To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG >>> *Subject:* Re: [PSES] Safety for e-scooters, e-bikes >>> >>> >>> >>> Dear Doug, >>> >>> >>> >>> I learned that China prohibits carrying e-scooters and e-bikes to their >>> houses and even entering the lifts of the building for storage/charging. >>> Since the battery capacity is much bigger than the li-ion battery using in >>> normal portable devices, the battery and the charger must comply with rigid >>> safety requirements. Do not recommend buying unknown brand products in >>> this type of goods. >>> >>> >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> >>> >>> Scott >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sat, 13 Aug 2022 at 05:27, Douglas E Powell >>> wrote: >>> >>> All, >>> >>> >>> >>> My Friday question is about storage/charging of e-scooters and e-bikes. >>> It seems that these days more and more people are using these devices and >>> fire safety is a growing concern. It seems my news feed has a new instance >>> every few days. Some of these cases are very tragic outcomes, in that the >>> owner brings these devices just inside the door to their apartment for >>> overnight charging. Of course, if there is a lithium fire, it is rather >>> violent and blocks the exit for the occupants. >>> >>> >>> >>> I am not very familiar with which safety standards are available in >>> North America and Europe, and do they have requirements to address such >>> concerns in the user documentation? I do know that some building owners >>> are taking matters into their own hands and requiring these devices be >>> charged outdoors; which may have varying success in mitigating building >>> fires. In any case, many e-scooter owners are probably not very keen on >>> leaving their property where it can be easily stolen. >>> >>> >>> >>> Thoughts? >>> >>> >>> >>> -Doug >>> >>> >>> >>> Laporte, Colorado USA >>> >>> LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/coloradocomplianceguy/> >>> >>> >>> >>> (UTC -06:00) Mountain Time (US-MDT) >>> >>> >>> >>> - >>> ---- >>> >>> 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
Re: [PSES] Safety for e-scooters, e-bikes
Dan, It appears to me that Bosch's products are well designed and made in general and agree to have high confidence in their products. Rgds, Scott On Thu, 18 Aug 2022 at 21:30, Dan Roman < 0d75e04ed751-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org> wrote: > Doug/Scott, > > > > My wife’s e-bike has a Bosch motor and battery and seems to be well made > and certified so I am comfortable storing and charging it in my garage. > Included a picture of the label with agency marks, sorry it is a little > blurry. > > > > So I think there are definitely safety schemes available, but as with > everything, quality may vary from vendor to vendor. I would trust Bosch > over a vendor I never heard of and the Bosch motor and battery certainly > played a large role in picking which e-bike to purchase. > > > > Dan > > > > > > *From:* Scott Xe [mailto:scott...@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Wednesday, August 17, 2022 10:54 AM > *To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG > *Subject:* Re: [PSES] Safety for e-scooters, e-bikes > > > > Dear Doug, > > > > I learned that China prohibits carrying e-scooters and e-bikes to their > houses and even entering the lifts of the building for storage/charging. > Since the battery capacity is much bigger than the li-ion battery using in > normal portable devices, the battery and the charger must comply with rigid > safety requirements. Do not recommend buying unknown brand products in > this type of goods. > > > > Regards, > > > > Scott > > > > > > On Sat, 13 Aug 2022 at 05:27, Douglas E Powell wrote: > > All, > > > > My Friday question is about storage/charging of e-scooters and e-bikes. It > seems that these days more and more people are using these devices and fire > safety is a growing concern. It seems my news feed has a new instance > every few days. Some of these cases are very tragic outcomes, in that the > owner brings these devices just inside the door to their apartment for > overnight charging. Of course, if there is a lithium fire, it is rather > violent and blocks the exit for the occupants. > > > > I am not very familiar with which safety standards are available in > North America and Europe, and do they have requirements to address such > concerns in the user documentation? I do know that some building owners > are taking matters into their own hands and requiring these devices be > charged outdoors; which may have varying success in mitigating building > fires. In any case, many e-scooter owners are probably not very keen on > leaving their property where it can be easily stolen. > > > > Thoughts? > > > > -Doug > > > > Laporte, Colorado USA > > LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/coloradocomplianceguy/> > > > > (UTC -06:00) Mountain Time (US-MDT) > > > > - > > > 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.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html > > 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: > Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org> > > For policy questions, send mail to: > Jim Bacher <j.bac...@ieee.org> > David Heald <dhe...@gmail.com> > -- > > To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: > https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1 > > - > > > 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.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html > > 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: > Mike Cantwell > > For policy questions, send mail to: > Jim Bacher > David Heald > -- > > To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: > https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?S
Re: [PSES] [EXTERNAL] [PSES] Safety for e-scooters, e-bikes
By coincidence, there was a notice in today's Federal Register that OSHA is extending UL's scope of recognition to add two standards. * UL 2272: Standard for electrical systems and personal e-mobility devices * UL 2849: Standard for electrical systems for eBikes Ted Eckert The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my employer. From: Douglas E Powell Sent: Friday, August 12, 2022 2:26 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: [EXTERNAL] [PSES] Safety for e-scooters, e-bikes All, My Friday question is about storage/charging of e-scooters and e-bikes. It seems that these days more and more people are using these devices and fire safety is a growing concern. It seems my news feed has a new instance every few days. Some of these cases are very tragic outcomes, in that the owner brings these devices just inside the door to their apartment for overnight charging. Of course, if there is a lithium fire, it is rather violent and blocks the exit for the occupants. I am not very familiar with which safety standards are available in North America and Europe, and do they have requirements to address such concerns in the user documentation? I do know that some building owners are taking matters into their own hands and requiring these devices be charged outdoors; which may have varying success in mitigating building fires. In any case, many e-scooter owners are probably not very keen on leaving their property where it can be easily stolen. Thoughts? -Doug Laporte, Colorado USA LinkedIn<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin.com%2Fin%2Fcoloradocomplianceguy%2F&data=05%7C01%7Cted.eckert%40microsoft.com%7Cc9e9a9f3e2954464402e08da7ca96ba4%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C0%7C0%7C637959364369664940%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=CDrDKIswhEfpV%2Fmm61vNnocmmFbLkH6I5WQ0QL%2BHmrk%3D&reserved=0> (UTC -06:00) Mountain Time (US-MDT) - 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 mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org>> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ieee-pses.org%2Femc-pstc.html&data=05%7C01%7Cted.eckert%40microsoft.com%7Cc9e9a9f3e2954464402e08da7ca96ba4%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C0%7C0%7C637959364369664940%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=nserf1Q7zzpqgpUhWVn6OGEnzLuUQ4F6W1iFwJaft8Y%3D&reserved=0> Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ieee-pses.org%2F&data=05%7C01%7Cted.eckert%40microsoft.com%7Cc9e9a9f3e2954464402e08da7ca96ba4%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C0%7C0%7C637959364369664940%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=eKruJaUYkunRpVkrEZ%2BgwRI4R5%2Fy5Vz5fvPZ1EbdNWE%3D&reserved=0> Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ieee-pses.org%2Flist.html&data=05%7C01%7Cted.eckert%40microsoft.com%7Cc9e9a9f3e2954464402e08da7ca96ba4%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C0%7C0%7C637959364369664940%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=39g2D9JBvayhDtjj4kQK4W0GAcVMDJwixHgM36rMGmQ%3D&reserved=0> List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ieee-pses.org%2Flistrules.html&data=05%7C01%7Cted.eckert%40microsoft.com%7Cc9e9a9f3e2954464402e08da7ca96ba4%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C0%7C0%7C637959364369664940%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=vbf0G9GTYYJuQv%2Bez5DImLOBFrq7ymdQ9lWu5KZO5yw%3D&reserved=0> For help, send mail to the list administrators: Mike Cantwell mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org>> For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org>> David Heald mailto:dhe...@gmail.com>> To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1 - 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 All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
Re: [PSES] Safety for e-scooters, e-bikes
Dear Doug, Panasonic, ATL/CATL, BYD, Samsung, LG are good batteries for this type of product. Regards, Scott On Thu, 18 Aug 2022 at 22:37, Douglas E Powell wrote: > Thanks Dan, > > So I have to wonder what brand lithium battery Bosch is using. And this > is a great starting point for me to dig in a little. > > -Doug > > > Douglas E Powell > Laporte, Colorado USA > doug...@gmail.com > LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/coloradocomplianceguy/> > > (UTC -06:00) Mountain Time (US-MDT) > > > On Thu, Aug 18, 2022 at 7:30 AM Dan Roman < > 0d75e04ed751-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org> wrote: > >> Doug/Scott, >> >> >> >> My wife’s e-bike has a Bosch motor and battery and seems to be well made >> and certified so I am comfortable storing and charging it in my garage. >> Included a picture of the label with agency marks, sorry it is a little >> blurry. >> >> >> >> So I think there are definitely safety schemes available, but as with >> everything, quality may vary from vendor to vendor. I would trust Bosch >> over a vendor I never heard of and the Bosch motor and battery certainly >> played a large role in picking which e-bike to purchase. >> >> >> >> Dan >> >> >> >> >> >> *From:* Scott Xe [mailto:scott...@gmail.com] >> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 17, 2022 10:54 AM >> *To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG >> *Subject:* Re: [PSES] Safety for e-scooters, e-bikes >> >> >> >> Dear Doug, >> >> >> >> I learned that China prohibits carrying e-scooters and e-bikes to their >> houses and even entering the lifts of the building for storage/charging. >> Since the battery capacity is much bigger than the li-ion battery using in >> normal portable devices, the battery and the charger must comply with rigid >> safety requirements. Do not recommend buying unknown brand products in >> this type of goods. >> >> >> >> Regards, >> >> >> >> Scott >> >> >> >> >> >> On Sat, 13 Aug 2022 at 05:27, Douglas E Powell wrote: >> >> All, >> >> >> >> My Friday question is about storage/charging of e-scooters and e-bikes. >> It seems that these days more and more people are using these devices and >> fire safety is a growing concern. It seems my news feed has a new instance >> every few days. Some of these cases are very tragic outcomes, in that the >> owner brings these devices just inside the door to their apartment for >> overnight charging. Of course, if there is a lithium fire, it is rather >> violent and blocks the exit for the occupants. >> >> >> >> I am not very familiar with which safety standards are available in >> North America and Europe, and do they have requirements to address such >> concerns in the user documentation? I do know that some building owners >> are taking matters into their own hands and requiring these devices be >> charged outdoors; which may have varying success in mitigating building >> fires. In any case, many e-scooter owners are probably not very keen on >> leaving their property where it can be easily stolen. >> >> >> >> Thoughts? >> >> >> >> -Doug >> >> >> >> Laporte, Colorado USA >> >> LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/coloradocomplianceguy/> >> >> >> >> (UTC -06:00) Mountain Time (US-MDT) >> >> >> >> - >> >> >> 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.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html >> >> 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: >> Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org> >> >> For policy questions, send mail to: >> Jim Bacher <j.bac...@ieee.org> >> David Heald <dhe...@gmail.com> >> -- >> >> To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: >> https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1 >> >> - >> ---
Re: [PSES] Safety for e-scooters, e-bikes
Dear Doug, For EU market, below safety regulations/standards are applicable to your products. · Toys Safety Directive 2009/48/EC o EN 14619 : 2019 o EN 71 · Machinery Directive 2006/42/EC o EN 12100-1 : 2010 · General Product Safety Directive 2001/95/EC / Low Voltage Directive 2014/35/EU / Radio Equipment Directive 2014/53/EU o EN 17128 : 2020 o EN 62133-2 : 2017 + A1 : 2021 o EN 60529 : 1992 + A2 : 2013 Ingress protection o ISO 6742-1 o ISO 14878 o ISO 6742-2 o EN 60335-1 : 2012 + A11 : 2014 + A13 : 2017 + A1 : 2019 + A2 : 2019 + A14 : 2019 + A15 : 2021 o EN 60335-2-114. Household and similar electrical appliances. Safety. Part 2-114. Particular requirements for self-balancing personal transport devices incorporating batteries containing alkaline or other non-acid electrolytes o EN 60335-2-29 : 2004 + A2 : 2010 or EN 61558-1 & EN 61558-2-16 o EN 15194 : 2017 Best regards, Scott On Thu, 18 Aug 2022 at 22:37, Douglas E Powell wrote: > Thanks Dan, > > So I have to wonder what brand lithium battery Bosch is using. And this > is a great starting point for me to dig in a little. > > -Doug > > > Douglas E Powell > Laporte, Colorado USA > doug...@gmail.com > LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/coloradocomplianceguy/> > > (UTC -06:00) Mountain Time (US-MDT) > > > On Thu, Aug 18, 2022 at 7:30 AM Dan Roman < > 0d75e04ed751-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org> wrote: > >> Doug/Scott, >> >> >> >> My wife’s e-bike has a Bosch motor and battery and seems to be well made >> and certified so I am comfortable storing and charging it in my garage. >> Included a picture of the label with agency marks, sorry it is a little >> blurry. >> >> >> >> So I think there are definitely safety schemes available, but as with >> everything, quality may vary from vendor to vendor. I would trust Bosch >> over a vendor I never heard of and the Bosch motor and battery certainly >> played a large role in picking which e-bike to purchase. >> >> >> >> Dan >> >> >> >> >> >> *From:* Scott Xe [mailto:scott...@gmail.com] >> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 17, 2022 10:54 AM >> *To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG >> *Subject:* Re: [PSES] Safety for e-scooters, e-bikes >> >> >> >> Dear Doug, >> >> >> >> I learned that China prohibits carrying e-scooters and e-bikes to their >> houses and even entering the lifts of the building for storage/charging. >> Since the battery capacity is much bigger than the li-ion battery using in >> normal portable devices, the battery and the charger must comply with rigid >> safety requirements. Do not recommend buying unknown brand products in >> this type of goods. >> >> >> >> Regards, >> >> >> >> Scott >> >> >> >> >> >> On Sat, 13 Aug 2022 at 05:27, Douglas E Powell wrote: >> >> All, >> >> >> >> My Friday question is about storage/charging of e-scooters and e-bikes. >> It seems that these days more and more people are using these devices and >> fire safety is a growing concern. It seems my news feed has a new instance >> every few days. Some of these cases are very tragic outcomes, in that the >> owner brings these devices just inside the door to their apartment for >> overnight charging. Of course, if there is a lithium fire, it is rather >> violent and blocks the exit for the occupants. >> >> >> >> I am not very familiar with which safety standards are available in >> North America and Europe, and do they have requirements to address such >> concerns in the user documentation? I do know that some building owners >> are taking matters into their own hands and requiring these devices be >> charged outdoors; which may have varying success in mitigating building >> fires. In any case, many e-scooter owners are probably not very keen on >> leaving their property where it can be easily stolen. >> >> >> >> Thoughts? >> >> >> >> -Doug >> >> >> >> Laporte, Colorado USA >> >> LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/coloradocomplianceguy/> >> >> >> >> (UTC -06:00) Mountain Time (US-MDT) >> >> >> >> - >> >> >> 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...@ie
Re: [PSES] Country Requirements -EMC Safety
Ryan / all Just to add to Brian's comments > One would think if manufacturers are required to meet country requirements it > would be public knowledge. In many cases it is - but information may be contained across more than one website and only in the language of the country. There are a number of companies, either independent Global Market Access consultancies or teams within international test labs who "do this for a living" and keep up to date. Best regards Charlie Charlie Blackham Sulis Consultants Ltd Tel: +44 (0)7946 624317 Web: https://sulisconsultants.com/ Registered in England and Wales, number 05466247 From: Brian Ceresney Sent: 19 August 2022 00:22 To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] Country Requirements -EMC Safety Hi Ryan, All. After years in this predicament, I've defaulted to using the agencies to research the requirements for me. I also list the countries needed and submit for a quote to an agency with an international GMAP group. For a reasonable fee, they will research and provide the information. This may take months to complete, however because it's not easy. In addition, the agencies often send out emails touting their appointment as the agency favoured to perform specific country approvals. I've found often that the agency personnel are not aware of how to perform this approval, and sometimes no one in the agency knows either - even in-country staff! Another good one I've found is that some of the requests from customers contain tiny jurisdictions where almost no one lives. Good times! Best Of Luck. Best Regards, Brian C. [https://connect.delta-q.com/hubfs/Logos%20(Delta-Q)/25-06-2012_Delta_Q_Corporate_Grey_Mango_Vertical.png] Brian Ceresney Regulatory Lead Delta-Q Technologies Corp. A Zapi Group Company 1-604-566-8827 bceres...@delta-q.com<mailto:bceres...@delta-q.com> delta-q.com<https://delta-q.com/> [https://connect.delta-q.com/hubfs/Email%20Signature%20Icons/3.png]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/delta-q-technologies> [https://connect.delta-q.com/hubfs/Email%20Signature%20Icons/1.png]<https://twitter.com/deltaqtech> [https://connect.delta-q.com/hubfs/Email%20Signature%20Icons/4.png]<https://www.instagram.com/deltaqtech/> [https://connect.delta-q.com/hubfs/Email%20Signature%20Icons/2.png]<https://www.youtube.com/c/Deltaqtechnologies> 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: Ryan Jazz mailto:rjayasin...@yamahaguitargroup.com>> Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2022 12:08 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> Subject: [PSES] Country Requirements -EMC Safety CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Members, I am trying to create a list of country requirement as it relates to EMC and Safety requirements. However I have not been successful-These requirements appear to be a mystery. One would think if manufacturers are required to meet country requirements it would be public knowledge. I have checked trade.gov and other searches with no luck. If anyone can please share this secret it would be much appreciated. Perhaps you can share how you go about finding these requirements. If one has to use a subscription service to get the answers I would like to hear any recommendations. Sincerely, Ryan Jazz Ryan Jayasinghe Regulatory Compliance Engineer rjayasin...@line6.com<mailto:rjayasin...@line6.com> "After silence, that which best expresses the inexpressible, is music" - Aldous Huxley LINE6 26580 Agoura Road Calabasas CA 91302 818.575.3711 line6.com ampeg.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 mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org>> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html 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: Mike Cantwell mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org>> For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org>> David Heald mailto:dhe...@gmail.com>> _
Re: [PSES] Country Requirements -EMC Safety
Hi Ryan, All. After years in this predicament, I've defaulted to using the agencies to research the requirements for me. I also list the countries needed and submit for a quote to an agency with an international GMAP group. For a reasonable fee, they will research and provide the information. This may take months to complete, however because it's not easy. In addition, the agencies often send out emails touting their appointment as the agency favoured to perform specific country approvals. I've found often that the agency personnel are not aware of how to perform this approval, and sometimes no one in the agency knows either - even in-country staff! Another good one I've found is that some of the requests from customers contain tiny jurisdictions where almost no one lives. Good times! Best Of Luck. Best Regards, Brian C. [https://connect.delta-q.com/hubfs/Logos%20(Delta-Q)/25-06-2012_Delta_Q_Corporate_Grey_Mango_Vertical.png] Brian Ceresney Regulatory Lead Delta-Q Technologies Corp. A Zapi Group Company 1-604-566-8827 bceres...@delta-q.com<mailto:bceres...@delta-q.com> delta-q.com<https://delta-q.com/> [https://connect.delta-q.com/hubfs/Email%20Signature%20Icons/3.png]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/delta-q-technologies> [https://connect.delta-q.com/hubfs/Email%20Signature%20Icons/1.png] <https://twitter.com/deltaqtech> [https://connect.delta-q.com/hubfs/Email%20Signature%20Icons/4.png] <https://www.instagram.com/deltaqtech/> [https://connect.delta-q.com/hubfs/Email%20Signature%20Icons/2.png] <https://www.youtube.com/c/Deltaqtechnologies> 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: Ryan Jazz Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2022 12:08 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: [PSES] Country Requirements -EMC Safety CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Members, I am trying to create a list of country requirement as it relates to EMC and Safety requirements. However I have not been successful-These requirements appear to be a mystery. One would think if manufacturers are required to meet country requirements it would be public knowledge. I have checked trade.gov and other searches with no luck. If anyone can please share this secret it would be much appreciated. Perhaps you can share how you go about finding these requirements. If one has to use a subscription service to get the answers I would like to hear any recommendations. Sincerely, Ryan Jazz Ryan Jayasinghe Regulatory Compliance Engineer rjayasin...@line6.com<mailto:rjayasin...@line6.com> "After silence, that which best expresses the inexpressible, is music" - Aldous Huxley LINE6 26580 Agoura Road Calabasas CA 91302 818.575.3711 line6.com ampeg.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 mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org>> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html 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: Mike Cantwell mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org>> For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org>> David Heald mailto:dhe...@gmail.com>> To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1 - ---- 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 All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html 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: Mike Cantwell For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: David Heald: _ To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1
Re: [PSES] Country Requirements -EMC Safety
Hi Ryan, The regulations are publicly available, but are not necessarily public knowledge -- in the sense that any country's regulatory requirements tend to be freely available to in a language their citizens can read, although they are not gathered together in one place with easy to understand explanations. Also, in most countries, the standards that can be used, or are required to be used, to demonstrate conformance to a particular regulation, are not free, and again it is not always explained in a centralized place which ones apply. One of the important aspects is knowing what features of your product *tend* to be regulated globally, such as * Restricted Materials of construction (RoHS-listed, biocidal, persitent organic polutant, other restricted substances - there can be scores of them) * Ionizing radiation generating * Radioactive materials * General EM radiaton * Intentional EM radiation * Laser radiation * Dangerous voltages * Battery containing * Green house gas containing * Ozone depleting substance containing * Made from substances the mining of which enriches certain armed conflicts. * Loud noise producing * Intended for fire protection or suppresion or containing such items * Cyber security concerns * True artificial intelligence related to safety systems * Materials of concern but not yet restricted * Product packaging * Certain mercury containing devices * Intended to be use in an explosive atmosphere * "general" product safety issues. * A substance that is a precursor to making certain drugs * And many more It takes a lot of experience to both identify relevant aspects in a product and to know whether relevant regulations exist in the regions you wish to sell to. Test labs and NRTL's may have awareness of some, but not all of these potential regulations, particularly if they are not in the business of doing the related tests. A yamaha guitar is likely to be out of scope of many production regulations. EMC and electrical safety are pretty clear "in scope" aspects, but be mindful of materials regulations. There are many and they don't all come in the same 'box'. Also keep in mind that the items sold to support the product in the field (e.g., guitar cleaning solution) might be regulated differently from the core product. Best Regards, -Lauren From: Ryan Jazz Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2022 2:08 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: [PSES] Country Requirements -EMC Safety External Email: Do NOT reply, click on links, or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. If you believe this email may be unsafe, please click on the "Report Phishing" button on the top right of Outlook. Dear Members, I am trying to create a list of country requirement as it relates to EMC and Safety requirements. However I have not been successful-These requirements appear to be a mystery. One would think if manufacturers are required to meet country requirements it would be public knowledge. I have checked trade.gov and other searches with no luck. If anyone can please share this secret it would be much appreciated. Perhaps you can share how you go about finding these requirements. If one has to use a subscription service to get the answers I would like to hear any recommendations. Sincerely, Ryan Jazz Ryan Jayasinghe Regulatory Compliance Engineer rjayasin...@line6.com<mailto:rjayasin...@line6.com> "After silence, that which best expresses the inexpressible, is music" - Aldous Huxley LINE6 26580 Agoura Road Calabasas CA 91302 818.575.3711 line6.com ampeg.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 mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org>> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html<https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ieee-pses.org%2Femc-pstc.html&data=05%7C01%7CLauren.Crane%40lamresearch.com%7C5eb7540e80284bcbd74008da814cfeb0%7C918079dbc9024e29b22c9764410d0375%7C0%7C0%7C637964464964643360%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=tremkbbsz72xKz5cw4ViShxOuM8qBGbMmKVHiHxETLc%3D&reserved=0> Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/<https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ieee-pses.org%2F&data=05%7C01%7CLauren.Crane%40lamresearch.com%7C5eb7540e80284bcbd74008da814cfeb0%7C918079dbc9024e29b22c9764410d0375%7C0%7C0%7C637964464964799584%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=doFs3aa8F7yOkUXAiNPQdyaOPkIcdOIvr32tkr2cTvQ%3D&
Re: [PSES] Country Requirements -EMC Safety
Hi Ryan, I recommend joining IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society. You can tap into a network of experienced compliance engineers (we cover more than just Safety). You may want to consider attending one or more IEEE symposium. This symposium is in San Diego and is coming up in September 20 - 22nd and covers market access, EMC and Safety https://2022.psessymposium.org/ NEMKO has a seminar in Oceanside CA, September 26th-27th https://www.nemko.com/nemko-usa-2022-certification-and-international-market-access-seminar Or get requirements info from your test labs. UL, TUV, and CSA also have market access info on their web sites. https://www.tuvsud.com/en-us/services/global-market-access https://www.ul.com/services/solutions/global-market-access https://www.csagroup.org/testing-certification/certification/certification-global-markets/ Good Luck Mike Anderson VP Communications IEEE PSES From: Ryan Jazz Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2022 3:08 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: [PSES] Country Requirements -EMC Safety CAUTION This email originated from outside of Casa Systems. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Members, I am trying to create a list of country requirement as it relates to EMC and Safety requirements. However I have not been successful-These requirements appear to be a mystery. One would think if manufacturers are required to meet country requirements it would be public knowledge. I have checked trade.gov and other searches with no luck. If anyone can please share this secret it would be much appreciated. Perhaps you can share how you go about finding these requirements. If one has to use a subscription service to get the answers I would like to hear any recommendations. Sincerely, Ryan Jazz Ryan Jayasinghe Regulatory Compliance Engineer rjayasin...@line6.com<mailto:rjayasin...@line6.com> "After silence, that which best expresses the inexpressible, is music" - Aldous Huxley LINE6 26580 Agoura Road Calabasas CA 91302 818.575.3711 line6.com ampeg.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 mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org>> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html 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: Mike Cantwell mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org>> For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org>> David Heald mailto:dhe...@gmail.com>> To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: https://avanan.url-protection.com/v1/url?o=https%3A//listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa%3FSUBED1%3DEMC-PSTC%26A%3D1&g=NjFkYmFkYjgwODE2MmJmMA==&h=MGM4ZTc3MTZmYjY2M2I2N2NiNjc1ZDNlMzJlODQ1NjkxOTkwMzVjOWZhZjM3NzU2MGQ4YWJmZmFhZmE3NTZjZg==&p=YXAzOmNhc2FzeXN0ZW1zOmE6bzo2OTM0NWNiZTlkZGRmZjE3MjM1YmMyMjE2ODEzNGVjNzp2MTp0OlQ= - ---- 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 All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html 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: Mike Cantwell For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: David Heald: _ To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1
Re: [PSES] Country Requirements -EMC Safety
Ryan, I suggest to list the countries that you need info about regulatory compliance and take that list to an NRTL test lab and open a PO for the work they will get the latest information. Working for a manufacturer I did this process a few years ago and need to do it again as rules keep changing and this critical info is not free. There some senior consultants on this forum who can also help you for a small fee. Good luck and the best. Christopher On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 12:08:10 PM PDT, Ryan Jazz wrote: Dear Members, I am trying to create a list of country requirement as it relates to EMC and Safety requirements. However I have not been successful-These requirements appear to be a mystery. One would think if manufacturers are required to meet country requirements it would be public knowledge. I have checked trade.gov and other searches with no luck. If anyone can please share this secret it would be much appreciated. Perhaps you can share how you go about finding these requirements. If one has to use a subscription service to get the answers I would like to hear any recommendations. Sincerely, Ryan Jazz Ryan Jayasinghe Regulatory Compliance Engineer rjayasin...@line6.com "After silence, that which best expresses the inexpressible, is music" - Aldous Huxley LINE6 26580 Agoura Road Calabasas CA 91302 818.575.3711 line6.com ampeg.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 All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html 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: Mike Cantwell For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher David Heald To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1 - 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 All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html 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: Mike Cantwell For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: David Heald: _ To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1
[PSES] Country Requirements -EMC Safety
Dear Members, I am trying to create a list of country requirement as it relates to EMC and Safety requirements. However I have not been successful-These requirements appear to be a mystery. One would think if manufacturers are required to meet country requirements it would be public knowledge. I have checked trade.gov and other searches with no luck. If anyone can please share this secret it would be much appreciated. Perhaps you can share how you go about finding these requirements. If one has to use a subscription service to get the answers I would like to hear any recommendations. Sincerely, Ryan Jazz Ryan Jayasinghe Regulatory Compliance Engineer rjayasin...@line6.com<mailto:rjayasin...@line6.com> "After silence, that which best expresses the inexpressible, is music" - Aldous Huxley LINE6 26580 Agoura Road Calabasas CA 91302 818.575.3711 line6.com ampeg.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 All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html 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: Mike Cantwell For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: David Heald: _ To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1
Re: [PSES] Safety for e-scooters, e-bikes
Thanks Dan, So I have to wonder what brand lithium battery Bosch is using. And this is a great starting point for me to dig in a little. -Doug Douglas E Powell Laporte, Colorado USA doug...@gmail.com LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/coloradocomplianceguy/> (UTC -06:00) Mountain Time (US-MDT) On Thu, Aug 18, 2022 at 7:30 AM Dan Roman < 0d75e04ed751-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org> wrote: > Doug/Scott, > > > > My wife’s e-bike has a Bosch motor and battery and seems to be well made > and certified so I am comfortable storing and charging it in my garage. > Included a picture of the label with agency marks, sorry it is a little > blurry. > > > > So I think there are definitely safety schemes available, but as with > everything, quality may vary from vendor to vendor. I would trust Bosch > over a vendor I never heard of and the Bosch motor and battery certainly > played a large role in picking which e-bike to purchase. > > > > Dan > > > > > > *From:* Scott Xe [mailto:scott...@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Wednesday, August 17, 2022 10:54 AM > *To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG > *Subject:* Re: [PSES] Safety for e-scooters, e-bikes > > > > Dear Doug, > > > > I learned that China prohibits carrying e-scooters and e-bikes to their > houses and even entering the lifts of the building for storage/charging. > Since the battery capacity is much bigger than the li-ion battery using in > normal portable devices, the battery and the charger must comply with rigid > safety requirements. Do not recommend buying unknown brand products in > this type of goods. > > > > Regards, > > > > Scott > > > > > > On Sat, 13 Aug 2022 at 05:27, Douglas E Powell wrote: > > All, > > > > My Friday question is about storage/charging of e-scooters and e-bikes. It > seems that these days more and more people are using these devices and fire > safety is a growing concern. It seems my news feed has a new instance > every few days. Some of these cases are very tragic outcomes, in that the > owner brings these devices just inside the door to their apartment for > overnight charging. Of course, if there is a lithium fire, it is rather > violent and blocks the exit for the occupants. > > > > I am not very familiar with which safety standards are available in > North America and Europe, and do they have requirements to address such > concerns in the user documentation? I do know that some building owners > are taking matters into their own hands and requiring these devices be > charged outdoors; which may have varying success in mitigating building > fires. In any case, many e-scooter owners are probably not very keen on > leaving their property where it can be easily stolen. > > > > Thoughts? > > > > -Doug > > > > Laporte, Colorado USA > > LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/coloradocomplianceguy/> > > > > (UTC -06:00) Mountain Time (US-MDT) > > > > - > > > 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.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html > > 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: > Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org> > > For policy questions, send mail to: > Jim Bacher <j.bac...@ieee.org> > David Heald <dhe...@gmail.com> > -- > > To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: > https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1 > > - > > > 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.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html > > 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: > Mike Cantwell > > For policy questions, send mail to: > Jim Bacher > Dav
Re: [PSES] Safety for e-scooters, e-bikes
For electric bikes there is EN 15194 which addresses safety including for battery short circuits. I don’t see it listed in the EMCD OJ though, so I don’t know if it has widespread use. Thanks, [cid:image976208.jpg@3976092F.7C633C81] David Schaefer Technical Manager Element Materials Technology 9349 W Broadway Ave Brooklyn Park , MN 55445 , United States O +1 612 638 5136 ext. 10461 david.schae...@element.com<mailto:david.schae...@element.com> www.element.com<http://www.element.com/> [cid:image810660.png@63EC8E12.1C2C7FF6]<https://www.linkedin.com/organization-guest/company/element-materials-technology?challengeId=AQFf9AemZ4SobwAAAXOQwivOsnkHiTt2ByoCkOxVQjOGOjRlivicVgYlN1dz5QXjId9bpa0keWzfVxhl8KPj78uD6-S6nfqRsg&submissionId=e49e0dc0-96a3-2516-27fa-ee2e8c42b177> [cid:image871429.png@73560747.3D8A8BD7]<https://twitter.com/ElementTesting/> [cid:image113397.png@45B27996.EE018906]<https://www.instagram.com/elementtesting/> [cid:image895532.png@E1F815B2.BA8AC96E]<https://www.youtube.com/c/ElementTesting> [cid:image564711.jpg@EEF03668.32E29DD0]<https://elementmaterials.eu.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_3xQqm84s6IydI5D> On Sat, 13 Aug 2022 at 05:27, Douglas E Powell mailto:doug...@gmail.com>> wrote: All, My Friday question is about storage/charging of e-scooters and e-bikes. It seems that these days more and more people are using these devices and fire safety is a growing concern. It seems my news feed has a new instance every few days. Some of these cases are very tragic outcomes, in that the owner brings these devices just inside the door to their apartment for overnight charging. Of course, if there is a lithium fire, it is rather violent and blocks the exit for the occupants. I am not very familiar with which safety standards are available in North America and Europe, and do they have requirements to address such concerns in the user documentation? I do know that some building owners are taking matters into their own hands and requiring these devices be charged outdoors; which may have varying success in mitigating building fires. In any case, many e-scooter owners are probably not very keen on leaving their property where it can be easily stolen. Thoughts? -Doug Laporte, Colorado USA LinkedIn<https://www.linkedin.com/in/coloradocomplianceguy/> (UTC -06:00) Mountain Time (US-MDT) - ---- 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<mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org>> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html<http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html> Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/<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<http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html> For help, send mail to the list administrators: Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org<mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org>> For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher <j.bac...@ieee.org<mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org>> David Heald <dhe...@gmail.com<mailto:dhe...@gmail.com>> To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1<https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1> - 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 mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org>> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html<http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html> Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/<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<http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html> For help, send mail to the list administrators: Mike Cantwell mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org>> For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org>> David Heald mailto:dhe...@gmail.com>> To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1<https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1> - 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 m
