The ISO and IEC should develop and publish the rationale along with the release
of the standard itself. Avoid forcing the data fit an existent conjecture.
ANSI, SCC, CENELEC, etc should never harmonize a new standard without the
engineering rationale.
As for a comparative tabulations - they
It appears that my copy of 60950-1 is a bit old. It was hand written on a
vellum scroll. My company antiquities director prohibits me from cutting off a
piece for spectrographic analysis.
Ted Eckert
Microsoft Corporation
The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of
And if you print the standards, they are both made of paper. But it
doesn't help. Steep learning curve!
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK
On 2017-12-06 19:48, Ted Eckert wrote:
A spectrographic analysis of a plum and coconut
A spectrographic analysis of a plum and coconut might find them to be quite
similar.
https://www.improbable.com/airchives/paperair/volume1/v1i3/air-1-3-apples.html
Ted Eckert
Microsoft Corporation
The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my
employer.
From:
Back in the day, the question was asked: "What's the difference between an
elephant and a plum?" Answer: "They're exactly the same, except the
elephant."
On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 12:19 PM, Pete Perkins <
0061f3f32d0c-dmarc-requ...@ieee.org> wrote:
> Leo,
>
>
>
> The
Leo,
The requirements in 62368-1 are supported by the rationale
document 62368-2 which more fully explains the basis for the requirements in
the standard. It has been put together to help standards committees - such
as yours - understand these.
There
The short answer is they are about the same as a coconut and a plum,
particularly in regards to telecommunications criteria (Now called ES1, ES2,
ES3, ID#'s, and communications circuits, not SELV and TNV anymore), gets worse
once 62368-3 is published in a few months.
Jim Wiese
Senior
Re 'rationale', there is some information in Clause 0 of 62368-1 and in
IEC 62368-2. But 60950-1 and 62368-1 are fundamentally different,
because most of the provisions of 60950-1 were derived from experience
and ad-hoc reasoning but those of 62368-1 are derived from structured
reasoning
Hi Leo!
ECMA released a Technical Report (TR-106) in February 2013, so be
forewarned that it only compares IEC60950-1, 2nd ed (2005) to the *1st*
(2010) edition of 62368-1. A significant number of clauses were moved or
renumbered between 1st and 2nd edition (enough that it made it difficult to
ECMA TR106, but was done for 1st ed only.
Brian
From: Leo Eisner [mailto:l...@eisnersafety.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2017 4:40 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Was there ever a comparison between IEC 60950-1 and IEC 62368-1
(current edition preferable)? And any
10 matches
Mail list logo
