Re: [PSES] List of Common Misuses

[Gert Gremmen]

'Misuse' is the negative of 'use', or as Mike correctly made a suggestion:

"We emphasized how to use our equipment correctly, and what the scope of 
its applications were."


The better you describe the positive, the easier it is to define the 
negative.


I have seen  many operating manuals (such  as garden equipment) even 
lacking the 'positive' ie the "intentional use" of equipment. How to 
define any misuse in such a case ?



In the standardization world 3 descriptions are used

 * Intended use - a decent description of this will automatically
   define all misuses, as not addressed in the intended use description
 * Foreseeable (mis)use
 * Unforeseeable (mis)use

The foreseeable category is the one the manufacturer shall be concerned 
with. Some equipment that is able to cut grass, can be foreseeably be 
misused in many cutting applications it was not meant for. The cutting 
can be applied to not suitable materials, the lawn mower may be misused 
to attack a meadow, or your dogs long hair. (not even suggesting your 
wife's hair). A risk analysis (risk = chance*severeness*avoid-ability) 
may help in ranking misuses and the manufacture shall define the 3 risk 
thresholds were 'physical measures' (annihilating the danger) are needed 
or "warning on the equipment" or just  "warnings in the manual"  may do 
in mitigating the hazard. Some standards have specific requirements on 
these. Risk analysis shall include as many parties as the manufacturer 
can contact, such as engineers, production workers, customers, laymen 
and others that can get in contact with your product. Do not only 
consider the operating state, but also transport, repair work, storage, 
loss of coordination between manual, product and software version 
(button changed color), or even batch or serial numbering.  No risk 
shall be considered to be too small not to be included in the analysis. 
The difference is in how the risks are addressed. This will avoid having 
a too extensive safety warning section, and at the same time the 
requirements of any auditor.


Just my 2 cents.

Gert Gremmen

On 5-10-2022 20:01, Brian Kunde wrote:
My company manufactures Laboratory Equipment such as analyzers and 
determinators. They are highly specialized equipment, yet have an 
infinite range of uses.


Even though all known residual risks are documented in the Safety 
Warning section of the manual, they will commonly request a list of 
Misuses.  There are no buttons, or settings that can be changed by the 
User that can cause a hazard.  The operational environment is clearly 
defined. So in most all cases, I am not aware of any "Misuse" that can 
cause a hazard. For some reason, this answer is not acceptable.  We 
are expected to come up with something.


Is there a standard or common list of MisUses that seem to satisfy 
this requirement?


How crazy are we to get with this?, e.g., don't use the 400lb analyzer 
while taking a bath?  Don't use it to mow your lawn?  Common


I used to work for a computer company and I couldn't believe the 
stupid warnings we had to put in the manual.


Thanks to all.

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=1



--
Independent Expert on CE marking
EMC Consultant
Electrical Safety Consultant

-

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=1
begin:vcard
fn:Gert Gremmen
n:Gremmen;Gert
adr:;;Lieu Dit Pirot;Chauffailles;;71170;France
email;internet:g.grem...@cetest.nl
tel;cell:+33 7 

Re: [PSES] List of Common Misuses

[David Nyffenegger]

Brian,

Sounds like a NRTL engineer is asking for possible misuses whether or not
they may result in a hazard.  And perhaps this is just to ensure that
misuses have been considered and can be included in the listing report, to
satisfy the internal report reviewers, or their certifying auditors, not
necessarily to be listed in the operating manual.  For example, it could be
a misuse to sit the 400lb analyzer precariously on top of a sawhorse where
it may fall over, or on a 25lb rated plastic table, or plugged into an
underrated extension cord run across the floor.

-Dave


On Wed, Oct 5, 2022 at 2:01 PM Brian Kunde  wrote:

> My company manufactures Laboratory Equipment such as analyzers and
> determinators. They are highly specialized equipment, yet have an infinite
> range of uses.
>
> Even though all known residual risks are documented in the Safety Warning
> section of the manual, they will commonly request a list of Misuses.  There
> are no buttons, or settings that can be changed by the User that can cause
> a hazard.  The operational environment is clearly defined. So in most all
> cases, I am not aware of any "Misuse" that can cause a hazard. For some
> reason, this answer is not acceptable.  We are expected to come up with
> something.
>
> Is there a standard or common list of MisUses that seem to satisfy this
> requirement?
>
> How crazy are we to get with this?, e.g., don't use the 400lb analyzer
> while taking a bath?  Don't use it to mow your lawn?  Common
>
> I used to work for a computer company and I couldn't believe the stupid
> warnings we had to put in the manual.
>
> Thanks to all.
>
> 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 
> 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=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=1

Re: [PSES] Wearables and UL 62368 vs UL 964 Electrically Heated Bedding

[Richard Nute]

 

 

Hi John:  

 

I assume the power is distributed more-or-less evenly throughout the garment.  
See:

 

https://learn.adafruit.com/experimenting-with-conductive-heater-fabric/what-is-it

 

(Be sure to click on the blue “placement” near the bottom of the page and the 
subsequent pages.)

 

If this describes the way the garment heater works, then the quoted standards 
don’t apply very well. I would need to know a bit more about how the heater 
heats the garment to give you advice.

 

Best regards,

Rich

 

ps:  Nice to see and talk with you at ISPCE!

 

 

From: John Allen  
Sent: Wednesday, October 5, 2022 8:18 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Wearables and UL 62368 vs UL 964 Electrically Heated Bedding

 

Hi,

 

I hope everyone is well and happy .

 

I’m hoping I can get some input on my thinking for a heated garment powered by 
a battery pack.

 

1.  The heater is insulated.
2.  The fabric it is in contact with is combustible.
3.  The circuit is PS2 – 16W
4.  I read UL 62368 Clause 6.4.5.2 as the fabric must not ignite under a 
single fault and it must be UL 94VTM.  Am I correct?

 

Also, in researching other “fabric” products, I found UL 964 Electrically 
Heated Bedding.  Following is a summary of how they manage fabric and heating 
elements – 

 

1.  Sec. 6 Covering of Electrical Parts – All electrical parts shall be 
covered (except the connector attached to the bedding) with a “shell” or other 
fabric with no openings.
2.  The heating element shall not be in direct contact with the shell.  It 
shall be insulated with UL AWM.
3.  There shall not be any sharp edges in contact with the shell.
4.  There is a very elaborate flammability test on the shell.  Wash it in 
special soap, let it dry then flame test it.  It does not seem equivalent to UL 
94 testing.
5.  There’s also an “Ease of Ignition” test with a hot plate.

 

Is UL 62368 missing some requirements in regard to Wearables that are made of 
fabric??

Wearable Technology Standards:

*   Wellness or Non-Medical Wearable: IEC/UL 62368-1

https://www.ul.com/services/wearable-technology-testing-and-certification

 

I would appreciate any input you can provide.

 

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



  www.productsafetyinc.com

 

 

John Allen | IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society

President 2016-2019, Past President 2020-2021, BoG Director at Large 2020-2023

Chairman – Compliance 101 Technical Committee

IEEE Senior Member

 

Keeping our members informed and educated on Product Safety and Certifications



 

  
https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/index.html

 


-

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=1

Re: [PSES] List of Common Misuses

[Richard Nute]

 

Misuse is using a product for a use which is not a normal use.  An example is 
using a chair (which is for sitting) as a stool.  Or, using a screwdriver for 
prying.  Or using a hammer for breaking concrete.  Each of these misuses can 
lead to injury.

 

Identifying misuse for a TV, a laptop, or a printer is much harder, if not 
impractical.  

 

Rich

 

 

From: Charlie Blackham  
Sent: Wednesday, October 5, 2022 1:18 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] List of Common Misuses

 

I’m not a lawyer, or from the USA, but in Europe the term “misuse” has been 
discussed in various REDCA (Radio Equipment Directive Compliance Association) 
Meetings with Notified Bodies and The EU Commission, and their view is that 
there’s no such thing as “misuse”, it’s just “use”.

 

Drawing up a list of possible “misuses” is ultimately futile, as where do you 
draw the line – user manuals instructions telling you not to use a telephone in 
the bath morph into statements telling you not to use a PBX in the bath.

 

My suspicion as an Engineer, is that some companies want great long lists of 
“do not do X” in the manual as some form of defence against mitigation by 
Darwin Awards nominees – but then you finish up with a manual so big that no 
one reads it anyway

 

Just my 2p / 2c

 

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: MIKE SHERMAN mailto:msherma...@comcast.net> > 
Sent: 05 October 2022 19:09
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG  
Subject: Re: [PSES] List of Common Misuses

 

Brian -- 

 

Good to hear from you! 

 

Re your question, it is not clear who the "they" is who is requesting a list of 
misuses. 

 

>From my working experience, we (on advice of Legal) usually did not try to 
>compile a list of misuses in the operating manual, on the theory that if a 
>creative user found another (dangerous) misuse that was not on our list, they 
>might conclude that it must be safe because it wasn't on our misuse list. We 
>emphasized how to use our equipment correctly, and what the scope of its 
>applications were. 

 

However, we would clearly identify in some warnings what not to do where we 
perceived that to be a foreseeable misuse. 

 

Hope this helps!

Mike Sherman 

Sherman PSC LLC 

On 10/05/2022 1:01 PM Brian Kunde mailto:bkundew...@gmail.com> > wrote: 

 

 

My company manufactures Laboratory Equipment such as analyzers and 
determinators. They are highly specialized equipment, yet have an infinite 
range of uses.   

 

Even though all known residual risks are documented in the Safety Warning 
section of the manual, they will commonly request a list of Misuses.  There are 
no buttons, or settings that can be changed by the User that can cause a 
hazard.  The operational environment is clearly defined. So in most all cases, 
I am not aware of any "Misuse" that can cause a hazard. For some reason, this 
answer is not acceptable.  We are expected to come up with something.   

 

Is there a standard or common list of MisUses that seem to satisfy this 
requirement? 

 

How crazy are we to get with this?, e.g., don't use the 400lb analyzer while 
taking a bath?  Don't use it to mow your lawn?  Common 

 

I used to work for a computer company and I couldn't believe the stupid 
warnings we had to put in the manual.   

 

Thanks to all. 

 

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 
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) 
 
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 
 =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) 
 
List rules: 

Re: [PSES] List of Common Misuses

[John Woodgate]

It's not being replaced, it has been replaced for more than 40 years, in 
the field of safety of electrical goods. Manufacturers have an 
'unassignable responsibility' to offer only safe products. But, as with 
many other things these days, the matter has been enlarged by relentless 
logic to embrace an infinity of philosophical issues, mostly 
unresolvable. The result is that it is no longer acceptable to say that 
nothing is foolproof because Nature keeps breeding more and more 
ingenious fools, even though it's true.



==
Best wishes John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK
It all depends



On 2022-10-05 21:52, Douglas E Powell wrote:
It may seem cynical but in my view "Caveat emptor" is becoming 
obsolete and it is being replaced by "Caveat-venditor".


-

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=1

Re: [PSES] List of Common Misuses

[Douglas E Powell]

You might put in a few obvious answers, like do not connect to power of the
incorrect voltage, not for household use, or some such thing.  I tend to
agree with you, I've had clients get a little crazy dreaming up "what if"
scenarios, like what if a forklift crashes into?  or a terrorist fires a 50
cal. at it?  Yes, those were real questions, I've been asked.

When I first started in safety engineering years ago, I was told that
equipment should be safe to use for anyone who comes in contact with it,
trained or untrained, normal operation or single fault, up to but not
incldueding people with suicidal intentions.

I have on occasion used the phrase "*no reasonably foreseeable hazards
identified"*, just to fill in the blank on the form.  And of course,
"reasonably foreseeable" is only defined in some standards I've worked
with, and even then the definition is rather vague, referring to other than
the supplier's intended use. It may seem cynical but in my view "Caveat
emptor" is becoming obsolete and it is being replaced by "Caveat-venditor".

-Doug

Douglas E Powell
Laporte, Colorado USA
doug...@gmail.com
LinkedIn 

(UTC -06:00) Mountain Time (US-MDT)




On Wed, Oct 5, 2022 at 12:01 PM Brian Kunde  wrote:

> My company manufactures Laboratory Equipment such as analyzers and
> determinators. They are highly specialized equipment, yet have an infinite
> range of uses.
>
> Even though all known residual risks are documented in the Safety Warning
> section of the manual, they will commonly request a list of Misuses.  There
> are no buttons, or settings that can be changed by the User that can cause
> a hazard.  The operational environment is clearly defined. So in most all
> cases, I am not aware of any "Misuse" that can cause a hazard. For some
> reason, this answer is not acceptable.  We are expected to come up with
> something.
>
> Is there a standard or common list of MisUses that seem to satisfy this
> requirement?
>
> How crazy are we to get with this?, e.g., don't use the 400lb analyzer
> while taking a bath?  Don't use it to mow your lawn?  Common
>
> I used to work for a computer company and I couldn't believe the stupid
> warnings we had to put in the manual.
>
> Thanks to all.
>
> 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 
> 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=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=1

Re: [PSES] List of Common Misuses

[Charlie Blackham]

I’m not a lawyer, or from the USA, but in Europe the term “misuse” has been 
discussed in various REDCA (Radio Equipment Directive Compliance Association) 
Meetings with Notified Bodies and The EU Commission, and their view is that 
there’s no such thing as “misuse”, it’s just “use”.

Drawing up a list of possible “misuses” is ultimately futile, as where do you 
draw the line – user manuals instructions telling you not to use a telephone in 
the bath morph into statements telling you not to use a PBX in the bath.

My suspicion as an Engineer, is that some companies want great long lists of 
“do not do X” in the manual as some form of defence against mitigation by 
Darwin Awards nominees – but then you finish up with a manual so big that no 
one reads it anyway

Just my 2p / 2c

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: MIKE SHERMAN 
Sent: 05 October 2022 19:09
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] List of Common Misuses

Brian --

Good to hear from you!

Re your question, it is not clear who the "they" is who is requesting a list of 
misuses.

From my working experience, we (on advice of Legal) usually did not try to 
compile a list of misuses in the operating manual, on the theory that if a 
creative user found another (dangerous) misuse that was not on our list, they 
might conclude that it must be safe because it wasn't on our misuse list. We 
emphasized how to use our equipment correctly, and what the scope of its 
applications were.

However, we would clearly identify in some warnings what not to do where we 
perceived that to be a foreseeable misuse.

Hope this helps!

Mike Sherman
Sherman PSC LLC
On 10/05/2022 1:01 PM Brian Kunde 
mailto:bkundew...@gmail.com>> wrote:


My company manufactures Laboratory Equipment such as analyzers and 
determinators. They are highly specialized equipment, yet have an infinite 
range of uses.

Even though all known residual risks are documented in the Safety Warning 
section of the manual, they will commonly request a list of Misuses.  There are 
no buttons, or settings that can be changed by the User that can cause a 
hazard.  The operational environment is clearly defined. So in most all cases, 
I am not aware of any "Misuse" that can cause a hazard. For some reason, this 
answer is not acceptable.  We are expected to come up with something.

Is there a standard or common list of MisUses that seem to satisfy this 
requirement?

How crazy are we to get with this?, e.g., don't use the 400lb analyzer while 
taking a bath?  Don't use it to mow your lawn?  Common

I used to work for a computer company and I couldn't believe the stupid 
warnings we had to put in the manual.

Thanks to all.

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 
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)
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=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)
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=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:  

Re: [PSES] List of Common Misuses

[MIKE SHERMAN]

Brian --

Good to hear from you!

Re your question, it is not clear who the "they" is who is requesting a list of 
misuses.

>From my working experience, we (on advice of Legal) usually did not try to 
>compile a list of misuses in the operating manual, on the theory that if a 
>creative user found another (dangerous) misuse that was not on our list, they 
>might conclude that it must be safe because it wasn't on our misuse list. We 
>emphasized how to use our equipment correctly, and what the scope of its 
>applications were.

However, we would clearly identify in some warnings what not to do where we 
perceived that to be a foreseeable misuse.

Hope this helps!

Mike Sherman
Sherman PSC LLC

> On 10/05/2022 1:01 PM Brian Kunde  wrote:
> 
> 
> My company manufactures Laboratory Equipment such as analyzers and 
> determinators. They are highly specialized equipment, yet have an infinite 
> range of uses.  
> 
> Even though all known residual risks are documented in the Safety Warning 
> section of the manual, they will commonly request a list of Misuses.  There 
> are no buttons, or settings that can be changed by the User that can cause a 
> hazard.  The operational environment is clearly defined. So in most all 
> cases, I am not aware of any "Misuse" that can cause a hazard. For some 
> reason, this answer is not acceptable.  We are expected to come up with 
> something.  
> 
> Is there a standard or common list of MisUses that seem to satisfy this 
> requirement?
> 
> How crazy are we to get with this?, e.g., don't use the 400lb analyzer 
> while taking a bath?  Don't use it to mow your lawn?  Common
> 
> I used to work for a computer company and I couldn't believe the stupid 
> warnings we had to put in the manual.  
> 
> Thanks to all.
> 
> 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 
> 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=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=1

[PSES] List of Common Misuses

[Brian Kunde]

My company manufactures Laboratory Equipment such as analyzers and
determinators. They are highly specialized equipment, yet have an infinite
range of uses.

Even though all known residual risks are documented in the Safety Warning
section of the manual, they will commonly request a list of Misuses.  There
are no buttons, or settings that can be changed by the User that can cause
a hazard.  The operational environment is clearly defined. So in most all
cases, I am not aware of any "Misuse" that can cause a hazard. For some
reason, this answer is not acceptable.  We are expected to come up with
something.

Is there a standard or common list of MisUses that seem to satisfy this
requirement?

How crazy are we to get with this?, e.g., don't use the 400lb analyzer
while taking a bath?  Don't use it to mow your lawn?  Common

I used to work for a computer company and I couldn't believe the stupid
warnings we had to put in the manual.

Thanks to all.

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=1

Re: [PSES] Wearables and UL 62368 vs UL 964 Electrically Heated Bedding

[Charlie Blackham]

John

The device might use a battery, but I would have thought that IEC 60335-1 and 
IEC 60335-2-17 would be better standards to apply considering their scope:

IEC 60335-2-17:2012+A1:2015+A2:2019 deals with the safety of electric blankets, 
pads, clothing and other flexible appliances that heat the bed or human body, 
for household and similar purposes, their rated voltage being not more than 250 
V. This standard also applies to control units supplied with the appliance. 
Appliances not intended for normal household use but which nevertheless may be 
a source of danger to the public, such as appliances intended to be used in 
beauty parlours or by persons in cold ambient temperatures, are within the 
scope of this standard…

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: John Allen 
Sent: 05 October 2022 16:18
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Wearables and UL 62368 vs UL 964 Electrically Heated Bedding

Hi,

I hope everyone is well and happy .

I’m hoping I can get some input on my thinking for a heated garment powered by 
a battery pack.


  1.  The heater is insulated.
  2.  The fabric it is in contact with is combustible.
  3.  The circuit is PS2 – 16W
  4.  I read UL 62368 Clause 6.4.5.2 as the fabric must not ignite under a 
single fault and it must be UL 94VTM.  Am I correct?

Also, in researching other “fabric” products, I found UL 964 Electrically 
Heated Bedding.  Following is a summary of how they manage fabric and heating 
elements –


  1.  Sec. 6 Covering of Electrical Parts – All electrical parts shall be 
covered (except the connector attached to the bedding) with a “shell” or other 
fabric with no openings.
  2.  The heating element shall not be in direct contact with the shell.  It 
shall be insulated with UL AWM.
  3.  There shall not be any sharp edges in contact with the shell.
  4.  There is a very elaborate flammability test on the shell.  Wash it in 
special soap, let it dry then flame test it.  It does not seem equivalent to UL 
94 testing.
  5.  There’s also an “Ease of Ignition” test with a hot plate.

Is UL 62368 missing some requirements in regard to Wearables that are made of 
fabric??
Wearable Technology Standards:

  *   Wellness or Non-Medical Wearable: IEC/UL 62368-1
https://www.ul.com/services/wearable-technology-testing-and-certification

I would appreciate any input you can provide.

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
[1496245974387_PSC]
www.productsafetyinc.com


John Allen | IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society
President 2016-2019, Past President 2020-2021, BoG Director at Large 2020-2023
Chairman – Compliance 101 Technical Committee
IEEE Senior Member

Keeping our members informed and educated on Product Safety and Certifications
[cid:image002.png@01D8D8E0.69CBAFA0]

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 
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)
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=1

-

[PSES] Wearables and UL 62368 vs UL 964 Electrically Heated Bedding

[John Allen]

Hi,

I hope everyone is well and happy .

I’m hoping I can get some input on my thinking for a heated garment powered by 
a battery pack.


  1.  The heater is insulated.
  2.  The fabric it is in contact with is combustible.
  3.  The circuit is PS2 – 16W
  4.  I read UL 62368 Clause 6.4.5.2 as the fabric must not ignite under a 
single fault and it must be UL 94VTM.  Am I correct?

Also, in researching other “fabric” products, I found UL 964 Electrically 
Heated Bedding.  Following is a summary of how they manage fabric and heating 
elements –


  1.  Sec. 6 Covering of Electrical Parts – All electrical parts shall be 
covered (except the connector attached to the bedding) with a “shell” or other 
fabric with no openings.
  2.  The heating element shall not be in direct contact with the shell.  It 
shall be insulated with UL AWM.
  3.  There shall not be any sharp edges in contact with the shell.
  4.  There is a very elaborate flammability test on the shell.  Wash it in 
special soap, let it dry then flame test it.  It does not seem equivalent to UL 
94 testing.
  5.  There’s also an “Ease of Ignition” test with a hot plate.

Is UL 62368 missing some requirements in regard to Wearables that are made of 
fabric??
Wearable Technology Standards:

  *   Wellness or Non-Medical Wearable: IEC/UL 62368-1
https://www.ul.com/services/wearable-technology-testing-and-certification

I would appreciate any input you can provide.

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
[1496245974387_PSC]
www.productsafetyinc.com


John Allen | IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society
President 2016-2019, Past President 2020-2021, BoG Director at Large 2020-2023
Chairman – Compliance 101 Technical Committee
IEEE Senior Member

Keeping our members informed and educated on Product Safety and Certifications
[cid:image002.png@01D8D8A3.C2A56E00]

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=1