RE: IEC 62368-1
thanks so very much - now the other engineers think that I am wacked - almost fell off chair LMAO. what was I working on? note that a certain NRTL/NB is pushing very hard on this standard to its customers. -Original Message- From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org]On Behalf Of John Woodgate Sent: Saturday, September 17, 2011 11:34 AM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: IEC 62368-1 In message 006501cc7561$a90c60e0$fb2522a0$@com, dated Sat, 17 Sep 2011, Charlie Blackham emcp...@sulisconsultants.com writes: Has anyone had a product tested to IEC 62368-1 or know of a lab who has tested against it? I've no doubt that the team that wrote it have tried. I believe the product passed but the standard failed. (;-) -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com
Re: IEC 62368-1
In message 006501cc7561$a90c60e0$fb2522a0$@com, dated Sat, 17 Sep 2011, Charlie Blackham emcp...@sulisconsultants.com writes: Has anyone had a product tested to IEC 62368-1 or know of a lab who has tested against it? I've no doubt that the team that wrote it have tried. I believe the product passed but the standard failed. (;-) -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK When I point to a star, please look at the star, not my finger. The star will be more interesting. - 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://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com
Re: IEC 62368-1:2010 query
In message p06240801c79b7539d046@[192.168.0.45], dated Fri, 12 Feb 2010, Nick Williams nick.willi...@conformance.co.uk writes: Do you know if BS will publish the standard (presumably as a BS IEC if there is to be no EN version at this stage)? I know of no plans to do so. I think it is very unlikely, but I will ask. Actually, you might get a direct response from the chairman of the BSI committee; I think he does occasionally look at this list. -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK I should be disillusioned, but it's not worth the effort. - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@socal.rr.com Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com
Re: IEC 62368-1:2010 query
John, Do you know if BS will publish the standard (presumably as a BS IEC if there is to be no EN version at this stage)? If they are not going to publish it then I will buy a copy from IEC but if they are then I will wait until it appears in the BS Online service. Nick. At 19:21 + 12/2/10, John Woodgate wrote: The development of this standard has been very difficult and highly controversial. While this First Edition gained enough positive votes for publication, the originating committee acknowledges that it needs substantial improvement. However, this won't happen to the extent necessary unless people who are not involved in the standards-making process but are potential users of the standard, buy and study it AND SUBMIT THEIR CRITIQUES THROUGH THE APPROPRIATE NATIONAL STANDARDS CHANNELS. If they don't do this, the planned Second Edition will still be unsatisfactory. - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@socal.rr.com Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com
Re: IEC 62368-1:2010 query
In message 9360F1D2B3C045618D6F94F546142B75@OwnerPC, dated Thu, 11 Feb 2010, Ron Pickard, RPQ rpick...@rpqconsulting.com writes: The IEC has just announced the publication (21-Jan-2010) of the safety standard IEC 62368-1:2010 ed1.0 (now encompassing audio/video, information and communication technology equipment), that?s intended to evolutionize safety analysis/evaluations thru HBSE. Now that this IEC base standard is published, does anyone have a feel for when the national derivation standards will be published and when the CB Scheme will adopt it? My guess is not anytime soon, but I could be wrong in this case. And, I?m wondering how significantly will the CB Bulletin need to be revised to accommodate this new standard? It may, however, be a bit early in the process for anyone to know, but I wanted to ask anyway. I need to know if and when I should be serious about advising the purchase of this standard. Any assistance will be most helpful and much appreciated by the group, I?m sure. The development of this standard has been very difficult and highly controversial. While this First Edition gained enough positive votes for publication, the originating committee acknowledges that it needs substantial improvement. However, this won't happen to the extent necessary unless people who are not involved in the standards-making process but are potential users of the standard, buy and study it AND SUBMIT THEIR CRITIQUES THROUGH THE APPROPRIATE NATIONAL STANDARDS CHANNELS. If they don't do this, the planned Second Edition will still be unsatisfactory. -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK I should be disillusioned, but it's not worth the effort. - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@socal.rr.com Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com
RE: IEC 62368-1 approved for publication
PSNet'ers, M Loerzner is correct IEC/TC 108 has approved 108/325/FDIS as IEC 62368-1. This is the long awaited Hazard Based Safety Standard, a significant change in the approach to developing the safety requirements. It will be a replacement for both IEC 60950 and IEC 60065 after the transition period. The transition period will be determined by the implementation process (within the IEC plus development of the EN for Europe and the NA CSA/UL document, etc) but it is the desire of TC 108 that it be a longer than normal period of time. The purpose of starting this project was to bring together the requirement for commercial and consumer electronic equipment which use the same technology. Note that some changes have already been implemented in both 60950 and 60065 to bring some of the requirements together but these standards are written in somewhat different ways and further integration is difficult. In my opinion, this standard more comprehensively covers the hazards that can be found in electronic equipment. Some have expressed that there is both opportunity and danger in this change. The same feelings were there when IEC 950 replaced the earlier requirements; everyone involved survived that change. TC108 has set out on a unique path to capture the rationale for much of the requirements to aid future members of the committee understand the details of the development of these requirements; this will be available from the IEC along with the standard and be useful to others in understanding some of the thinking. I have high regard for the chairman secretary Hazard Based TA, the team leaders and many others who worked thru the details to develop this new standard. I have found it a privilege to serve as part of the TC108 group writing this new standard and have high hopes for its success. br, Pete Peter E Perkins, PE Principal Product Safety Regulatory Consultant Tigard, ORe 97281-3427 503/452-1201fone/fax p.perk...@ieee.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-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@socal.rr.com Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com
Re: IEC 62368 status?
In message 28aa7ba6b8bc04409c3272690562b639016b6...@ausx3mps308.aus.amer.dell.com, dated Thu, 19 Feb 2009, kazimier_gawrzy...@dell.com writes: From the voting results on the second CDV, I?d surmise there is a significant amount of controversy and expect the new standard will be interesting in it?s interpretations and implementation .especially if there are early adopters. Since the accepted comments on the second CDV require changes, the FDIS may not pass its vote. In any case, in Europe there will be an extended transition period before the EN becomes the only available standard. Reading runes, there will be early adopters. Experts from Philips have been very positive about this standard, so we can predict that Philips will probably be an early adopter. Another may be HP. But don't tell anyone I said so. (;-) But this first edition is meant to be a sort of 'try out'. Why is it not a TS, then? Because it doesn't fit the rules for TS status. The intention is to start work immediately on a second edition, and it seems that it will have a great deal of new material in it, creating further controversy, unless prudence prevails. -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk Things can always get better. But that's not the only option. John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com
RE: IEC 62368 status?
Ron According to the IEC website, it is approved for FDIS circulation, which happened on 23rd January. The target date is 31st March. I am not close enough to elaborate on this, but I'd guess that a published standard is some way off yet. Neil Barker Manager Central Quality e2v 106 Waterhouse Lane, Chelmsford, Essex, CM1 2QU, England Tel: +44 (0)1245 453616 Mobile: +44 (0)7801 723735 Fax:+44 (0)1245 453571 www.e2v.com http://www.e2v.com/ P Consider the environment: do you really need to print this e mail? From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Pickard, Ron Sent: 19 February 2009 16:10 To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: IEC 62368 status? To all, What is the current status of IEC 62368? Is there an FDIS yet? How is the voting going? What issues are the voters having with it, other than the candle flame test? Is it still set to be published in early 2009 or is a delay likely? A general status update is requested and encouraged from those knowledgeable with this process is desired. Please advise. I look forward to your reply. Best regards, Ron Pickard ron.pick...@intermec.com mailto:ron.pick...@intermec.com __ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email __ - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald dhe...@gmail.com Sent by E2V TECHNOLOGIES PLC or a member of the E2V group of companies. A company registered in England and Wales. Company number; 04439718. Registered address; 106 Waterhouse Lane, Chelmsford, Essex, CM1 2QU, UK. __ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email __ - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald dhe...@gmail.com
RE: IEC 62368 status?
From the voting results on the second CDV, I’d surmise there is a significant amount of controversy and expect the new standard will be interesting in it’s interpretations and implementation ….especially if there are early adopters. Regards, kaz From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Pickard, Ron Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2009 10:10 AM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: IEC 62368 status? To all, What is the current status of IEC 62368? Is there an FDIS yet? How is the voting going? What issues are the voters having with it, other than the candle flame test? Is it still set to be published in early 2009 or is a delay likely? A general status update is requested and encouraged from those knowledgeable with this process is desired. Please advise. I look forward to your reply. Best regards, Ron Pickard ron.pick...@intermec.com mailto:ron.pick...@intermec.com - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald dhe...@gmail.com - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald dhe...@gmail.com
Re: IEC 62368
In message 000e01c8eb7d$615b4570$7200a8c0@PC323541548743, dated Mon, 21 Jul 2008, 'Rich Nute' rn...@san.rr.com writes: Once you understand the concepts, the new standard is not radical. I think the situation is far more complex than can be embraced in a simple statement. There is a question about what 'radical' means, anyway. It is a new and logical way of thinking about safety. Once this new way of thinking is mastered, safety becomes an engineering discipline, much less arbitrary, and not a standards check-off process. In my opinion, there is little 'wrong' and very much that is 'right' abut the hazard-based principle (HBP). But its adoption is only one aspect of the new standard. It would be misguided to criticize the standard just because it adopts the HBP. During the development of the standard, it has been opined by people not involved in the development of the standard who have spoken to me about it that: - the HBP is not applicable to every type of hazard, or not applicable in a simple way; - where it is applicable, the HBP does not, in all cases, give detailed guidance right down to detailed requirements, leaving an opening for arbitrary, or at least unjustified, requirements to be adopted; - where the application of the HBP to certain hazards has resulted in much controversy, those hazards have simply been eliminated from the current drafts, which is not a satisfactory solution; - the development of the standard has been severely compromised by the timetable imposed by the IEC management on standards development, which are probably valid for a 'normal' standard development, but for such a large and complex project should not have been applied (exemptions are allowed under IEC rules if applied for at the required stages in the development); - the requirements that have been chosen in order to respect the application of the HBP are not the only possible requirements that would respect it, others would be more appropriate and easier to implement; - the detailed implementation of the HBP to some hazards has led to different and far more stringent requirements than are in 60065 or 60950-1, whereas those standards are found by experience to ensure a satisfactory level of safety. -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk Either we are causing global warming, in which case we may be able to stop it, or natural variation is causing it, and we probably can't stop it. You choose! John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
Re: IEC 62368
In message 000f01c8eb75$d8adf800$d600a...@tamuracorp.com, dated Mon, 21 Jul 2008, Brian O'Connell oconne...@tamuracorp.com writes: 1. What is the status of IEC62368 and the associated and infamous IEC62441 ? Highly controversial. There are strong pressures on national committees to approve the second version of the first voting-stage draft. It remains to be seen whether the serious reservations about the previous draft have been dispelled. Pressures to add resistance to external ignition have not been accepted - yet. Ultimately, when are 60950-1 and 60065 projected to be replaced by 62368 ? No-one knows. In fact, it's worse that that. The current plan is to have those standards and 62368 in force simultaneously. No doubt some purchasers will insist on having 62368 applied. What the European Commission will do about the docopocosses of 60065 and 60950 is also unknown. 2. As there have been several industry groups that have stated that an 8 year transition period is not adequate, has there been any response from CENELEC or other national groups ? Yes: proposals from 3 to 5 years have been received. Presumably these come from another planet. (;-) 3. The oft-heard quote about HBSE is that it is a radical new approach. Other than a new way to draw hazard/protection/product dependency diagrams, what is so 'radical' about 62368 and HBSE ? The idea was to start with a blank sheet, not to try to meld together 60065 and 60950-1. That may be more radical than the hazard-based principle. It's up to everyone concerned to OBTAIN publicly-available drafts (I beieve each IEC member country HAS to release them) and make their views known to their relevant National Committee. If you don't, you will have to accept what others have decided for you, or, more probably, for themselves. Remember that those companies who have made people (many people, in some cases) available to work on 62368 will have had many years start in applying it to products, and very likely already have products that comply with the latest draft. -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk Either we are causing global warming, in which case we may be able to stop it, or natural variation is causing it, and we probably can't stop it. You choose! John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
RE: IEC 62368
Hi Brian: 1. What is the status of IEC62368 and the associated and infamous IEC62441 ? Ultimately, when are 60950-1 and 60065 projected to be replaced by 62368 ? CDV2 will be issued to National Committees for voting this or next month. (You can get a copy from your National Committee.) Voting will be complete in 5 months. If the vote is yes, then a FDIS will be issued. Regarding replacement of 60950-1 and 60065, the CDV2 states: The attention of National Committees and National bodies who prepare national standards is drawn to the fact that equipment manufacturers and testing organizations may need a transitional period following publication of a new, amended or revised IEC publication in which to make products in accordance with the new requirements and to equip themselves for conducting new or revised tests. It is the recommendation of TC108 that the content of this publication be adopted for mandatory implementation nationally not earlier than five years from the date of publication of this standard. 2. As there have been several industry groups that have stated that an 8 year transition period is not adequate, has there been any response from CENELEC or other national groups ? The transition period is the result of input from National Committees. (CENELEC is not a member of IEC TC 108 or any other IEC committee.) If you do not like the 5-year transition period, comment to your National Committee with both why you object and with your proposal. (I have not heard a National Committee state that an 8- year transition is not adequate. I have heard National Committees state that an 8-year transition is too long.) 3. The oft-heard quote about HBSE is that it is a radical new approach. Other than a new way to draw hazard/protection/product dependency diagrams, what is so 'radical' about 62368 and HBSE ? The new standard introduces models for injury and models for safety. The models allow for prediction of injury. No past standard has used models for its requirements. I suppose one could call this radical. (In the past, most requirements were based on preventing recurrence of a safety incident, i.e., the inversion of a bad experience.) The new standard introduces the concepts of safeguards as the means for protection against injury. If you are not being injured, then one or more safeguards are in place. For many, identification of safeguards is a difficult concept. All of the required safeguards and safeguard parameters are based on engineering analysis. The clauses are organized according to the type of injury. For example, openings for control of electric shock are specified in the electric shock clause. Openings for the control of spread of fire are specified in the fire clause. And, they are different as the safeguard functions are different. If your product poses a fire hazard but not an electric shock hazard, then only the fire openings are required. And vice-versa. Such organization of requirements yields more freedom for the design of equipment. Once you understand the concepts, the new standard is not radical. It is a new and logical way of thinking about safety. Once this new way of thinking is mastered, safety becomes an engineering discipline, much less arbitrary, and not a standards check-off process. 4. To those that have attended the UL seminar on HBSE, and that have previous experience with IT and AV safety, did the seminar enable you to understand and implement any additional or new requirements, documentation, and/or procedures ? No comment. Best regards, Rich - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
RE: IEC 62368
Thanks much Rich. To further confuse item #2, please note public comments like this http://www.aeanet.org/Forums/uyjJDbXivUHVMhpKNeoAnHywYlFRFqkhSNGo SorUkafgtnTUQJRYEmBHxALldqWTyXItM.pdf (sorry about the wrap) Also, I have noted that many EU states have 'parallel' committees for both the IEC TC and their CENELEC reps. Sorta hoping to toss two stones at three birds. luck, Brian From: Richard Nute [mailto:ri...@ieee.org]On Behalf Of 'Rich Nute' Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 3:02 PM To: 'Brian O'Connell'; emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RE: IEC 62368 Hi Brian: 1. What is the status of IEC62368 and the associated and infamous IEC62441 ? Ultimately, when are 60950-1 and 60065 projected to be replaced by 62368 ? CDV2 will be issued to National Committees for voting this or next month. (You can get a copy from your National Committee.) Voting will be complete in 5 months. If the vote is yes, then a FDIS will be issued. Regarding replacement of 60950-1 and 60065, the CDV2 states: The attention of National Committees and National bodies who prepare national standards is drawn to the fact that equipment manufacturers and testing organizations may need a transitional period following publication of a new, amended or revised IEC publication in which to make products in accordance with the new requirements and to equip themselves for conducting new or revised tests. It is the recommendation of TC108 that the content of this publication be adopted for mandatory implementation nationally not earlier than five years from the date of publication of this standard. 2. As there have been several industry groups that have stated that an 8 year transition period is not adequate, has there been any response from CENELEC or other national groups ? The transition period is the result of input from National Committees. (CENELEC is not a member of IEC TC 108 or any other IEC committee.) If you do not like the 5-year transition period, comment to your National Committee with both why you object and with your proposal. (I have not heard a National Committee state that an 8- year transition is not adequate. I have heard National Committees state that an 8-year transition is too long.) 3. The oft-heard quote about HBSE is that it is a radical new approach. Other than a new way to draw hazard/protection/product dependency diagrams, what is so 'radical' about 62368 and HBSE ? The new standard introduces models for injury and models for safety. The models allow for prediction of injury. No past standard has used models for its requirements. I suppose one could call this radical. (In the past, most requirements were based on preventing recurrence of a safety incident, i.e., the inversion of a bad experience.) The new standard introduces the concepts of safeguards as the means for protection against injury. If you are not being injured, then one or more safeguards are in place. For many, identification of safeguards is a difficult concept. All of the required safeguards and safeguard parameters are based on engineering analysis. The clauses are organized according to the type of injury. For example, openings for control of electric shock are specified in the electric shock clause. Openings for the control of spread of fire are specified in the fire clause. And, they are different as the safeguard functions are different. If your product poses a fire hazard but not an electric shock hazard, then only the fire openings are required. And vice-versa. Such organization of requirements yields more freedom for the design of equipment. Once you understand the concepts, the new standard is not radical. It is a new and logical way of thinking about safety. Once this new way of thinking is mastered, safety becomes an engineering discipline, much less arbitrary, and not a standards check-off process. 4. To those that have attended the UL seminar on HBSE, and that have previous experience with IT and AV safety, did the seminar enable you to understand and implement any additional or new requirements, documentation, and/or procedures ? No comment. Best regards, Rich - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
