> No-one will try to write a standard for a product that does not yet
> exist, so standards development must always lag innovation.
The question I ask is: Can you make a safe product without a safety
standard?
If the principles of product safety are known, they can be applied to
an innovative p
Good point - didn't know that (:-)), but it's another example of where the EU
approach is more pragmatic.
-Original Message-
From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk]
Sent: 21 February 2015 22:01
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Is NRTL listing mandatory for co
In message
rUnaccBAA==@blueyonder.co.uk>, dated Sat, 21 Feb 2015, John Allen
writes:
OTOH, the EU approach is more encompassing because the prime
requirement is to comply with the essential protection requirements of
the relevant Directive(s). As such you do NOT need to comply with all
Brian
Not arguing at all with your comments - generally I think I generally agree
with them in the specific issue of strict compliance with the standards.
But why do I think that that the standards are not the whole answer?
Why? Because the burden on small (and even on bigger) companies of comp
Non sequitur? The survey indicated injury rates, not recalled products
(actually preferable to injuries).
A small example from my edge of the desert. With exception of the U.K. and
Germany, all of the PV stuff that has been reviewed by self that was built in
the EU required some significant fix
On 2/21/2015 9:57 AM, John Woodgate wrote:
connection is not necessary for those ACCESSIBLE conductive parts
which are insulated from HAZARDOUS LIVE parts by DOUBLE or REINFORCED
INSULATION (CLASS II construction) or those which are protected from
becoming HAZARDOUS LIVE by a conductive part re
In message , dated Sat,
21 Feb 2015, Scott Xe writes:
I believe the products are actually constructed as class II apparatus
but with additional earth wire in mains cord.
That is OK as long as they really do meet the Class II insulation
requirements.
--
OOO - Own Opinions Only. With best wi
In message <54e8950b.6050...@earthlink.net>, dated Sat, 21 Feb 2015, CR
writes:
It seems (from the *long* discussion) that some vendors are under the
impression accessible metal parts outside double insulation - wood
screws, perhaps, floating, with no connection inside it - also fall
outs
Many thanks for all advice from responders.
I believe the products are actually constructed as class II apparatus but with
additional earth wire in mains cord. I attempt to check with the
suppliers/test houses for their contentions.
Scott
> On 21 Feb, 2015, at 9:30 pm, John Woodgate wrote:
On 2/21/2015 8:30 AM, John Woodgate wrote:
... 8.5 of IEC/EN 60065:
CLASS I apparatus shall be provided with a PROTECTIVE EARTHING
TERMINAL or contact to which the protective earthing contacts of
socket-outlets, if any, and ACCESSIBLE conductive parts shall be
reliably connected.
No test ho
In message , dated Sat,
21 Feb 2015, Scott Xe writes:
It seems the class I is determined by the mains connection to the
mains cord otherwise I cannot consider how the product is classified as
class I.
As I wrote before, the Class is determined by the protection
requirements, not by the typ
Hi Rich & Brian,
Although we talked a lot of safety insulation construction of each class, the
class I product can have class II insulation construction. I notice the
sub-clause 3.2 of EN 60065 as below:-
Apparatus designed to be fed from the mains shall be constructed according to
the requir
Hi Rich,
If the product is constructed as per sub-clause 7.3.2.2 (I have observed a few
cases on audio or video products), can the whole product be correctly
classified as class I apparatus as it requires earth connection?
If it has to be classified as Class I, the source of issue if whether th
Good morning (London time!)
W.r.t. the OSHA survey – things have changed a bit in the EU since 2008 – for
both good and bad!
I think there is more general awareness of the hazards of electrical and other
goods – and certainly there are more product recalls than there ever were in
earlie
In message
,
dated Fri, 20 Feb 2015, Kevin Robinson
writes:
OSHA Conducted a Request for Information (RFI) back in 2008 that
compared the effectiveness and overall costs of SDoC vs 3rd Party
Conformity assessment, the full summary report can be found
here http://www.regulations.gov/#!docum
In message
lectric.com>, dated Fri, 20 Feb 2015, "McDiarmid, Ralph"
writes:
Do we really need 3rd party certification in USA, Canada, Australia,
etc? I think the new approach directives and CE mark in Europe is
working.
The European model would work better in those countries. We have had
16 matches
Mail list logo
