Hi, Pete. Isn't Charlie's option to say, with test results, that if he
plugs his product into a USBzilla source, it still remains safe under
any single-fault condition?
======================================================================================
Best wishes John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK
Istae nunc praetereunt nisi non ubicumque
On 2021-10-20 19:52, Pete Perkins wrote:
Charlie, Remember that 62368-3 was developed at the
direction of ACOS to move the powered communication interfaces info
from the 62368-1 base standard to a separate document that would be
available for use outside of 62368-1. The goal is to move this from
the Wild West into an orderly set of requirements that any product
standard can use.
You claim that for the ‘simple circuit’ you mentioned
the limited power is safe as you see it. How does the user know if
that simple solution is implemented in any particular product and that
it is safe?
The 62368-3 standard itself seems limiting so the
requirements are being rewritten into 2 new documents which will be
more tailored to the two realms under which these circuits work,
<60Vdc and >60Vdc. TC108 has this work underway.
Whether or not any of this is required is a matter for
product committees to specify and test labs to check.
Whether you want to use the requirements or not come
down to your understanding of the risk associated with the use (and
misuse) of products providing power over these communication
interfaces and/or having them specified in a mother standard.
:>) br, Pete
Peter E Perkins, PE
Principal Product Safety & Regulatory Affairs Consultant
PO Box 1067
Albany, ORe 97321-0413
503/452-1201
IEEE Life Fellow
IEEE PSES 2020 Distinguished Lecturer
www.researchgate.net <http://www.researchgate.net/Peter%20Perkins>
search my name
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
Entropy ain’t what it used to be
*From:* Charlie Blackham <[email protected]>
*Sent:* Wednesday, October 20, 2021 10:12 AM
*To:* [email protected]
*Subject:* [PSES] IEC 62368-3:2017 evaluation of USB 2.0 ports
All
I realise there are now applications where 100W or more can be
transferred, but for devices with only USB2.0 ports, that are coming
from the same chip, is there really any need for testing and CB
certification to this standard as part of an assessment to IEC 62368-1?
The particular products I’m looking at are powered from external 5V
LPS power supplies that shutdown at around 4.5 A
I may just be being cynical, but I can’t see how the -3 standard makes
such a product any safer, it just seems to make the test lab richer 😊
Is there something in the CB scheme rules that mandates using the -3
standard as well when seeking CB certificate?
Best regards
Charlie
**
*Charlie Blackham*
*Sulis Consultants Ltd*
*Mead House*
*Longwater Road*
*Eversley*
*RG27 0NW*
*UK*
*Tel: +44 (0)7946 624317*
*Email: [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>*
*Web: https://sulisconsultants.com/ <https://sulisconsultants.com/> *
Registered in England and Wales, number 05466247
-
----------------------------------------------------------------
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 <[email protected]>
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities
site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for
graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc.
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:
Scott Douglas <[email protected]>
Mike Cantwell <[email protected]>
For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher <[email protected]>
David Heald <[email protected]>
-
----------------------------------------------------------------
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 <[email protected]>
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities
site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for
graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc.
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:
Scott Douglas <[email protected]>
Mike Cantwell <[email protected]>
For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher <[email protected]>
David Heald <[email protected]>
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.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 <[email protected]>
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used
formats), large files, etc.
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:
Scott Douglas <[email protected]>
Mike Cantwell <[email protected]>
For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher: <[email protected]>
David Heald: <[email protected]>
