Jim,
Can you identify the U.S. standard that insists on a red LED indicator?
Thank you,
Tania Grant, Lucent Technologies, Octel Messaging Division
[email protected]
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Red Indicators and EN60950
Author: Jim Eichner <[email protected]> at P_Internet_Mail
List-Post: [email protected]
Date: 1/26/98 10:05 AM
Clause 1.7.8.2 of EN60950 says:
"Where safety is involved, colours of controls and indicators shall
comply with IEC73. Where colours are used for functional controls or
indicators, any colour, including red, is permitted provided that it is
clear that safety is not involved".
There has been a thread on this in the past so I looked it up at RCIC
and found that we never really talked about what exactly 950 means when
it says "Where safety is involved" and "provided that it is clear that
safety is not involved".
The situation I am considering is an LED used in conjunction with a
user-operable switch that is located in a control circuit (not a true
on-off switch) and controls the output of a DC-to-AC inverter. When the
switch is "on" the output of the inverter is enabled and 230Vac is
present on the output receptacle of the inverter. Allowing the user to
know at a glance whether or not there is 230Vac present on the output
could be construed as a safety function. On the other hand, the user
has no access to the 230Vac in terms of shock hazard (standard Schuko
outlet for example), so one could argue that safety is not a function of
this indicator.
Q: What are your opinions? Can this LED be red and still satisfy the
intent of EN60950?
The problem is a conflicting U.S. standard that insists on a red
indicator. We don't want to have to have a second version of the
control panel to cover both standards.
Thanks for your help.
Regards,
Jim Eichner
Statpower Technologies Corporation
[email protected]
http://www.statpower.com
Any opinions expressed are those of my invisible friend, who really
exists. Honest.
Received: from curly.eng.octel.com (148.147.200.26) by m-internet.corp.octel.com
with SMTP
(IMA Internet Exchange 2.1 Enterprise) id 0001B0B7; Mon, 26 Jan 98 10:37:38
-0800
Received: from gw3.octel.com (gw3.octel.com [148.147.1.15]) by
curly.eng.octel.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA03798; Mon, 26 Jan 1998
10:40:32 -0800
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by gw3.octel.com (8.6.10/8.6.12) id KAA07027;
Mon, 26 Jan 1998 10:40:01 -0800
Received: from ruebert.ieee.org(199.172.136.3) by gw3.octel.com via smap (V1.3)
id sma006648; Mon Jan 26 10:39:32 1998
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
by ruebert.ieee.org (8.8.8/8.8.8)
id NAA12840 for emc-pstc-list; Mon, 26 Jan 1998 13:07:39 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <73245390544AD11194940000F8D82F65152642@XG>
From: Jim Eichner <[email protected]>
To: "'EMC-PSTC - forum'" <[email protected]>
Cc: Rob Cameron <[email protected]>,
Jim Eichner
<[email protected]>
Subject: Red Indicators and EN60950
List-Post: [email protected]
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 10:05:41 -0800
X-Priority: 3
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1458.49)
Content-Type: text/plain
Sender: [email protected]
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Jim Eichner <[email protected]>
X-Resent-To: Multiple Recipients <[email protected]>
X-Listname: emc-pstc
X-Info: Help requests to [email protected]
X-Info: [Un]Subscribe requests to [email protected]
X-Moderator-Address: [email protected]
