Mechanical energy source 62368-1

Thread Starter

butthead

Joined Oct 21, 2018
36
Table 35 in 62368-1 shows that all wall/ceiling mounted equipment mounted above 2 meters, has the higest energy level (MS3) and can cause injury. It requires safeguards. Weight does not matter, as it does in MS1 and MS2.

Is this a mistake in the standard? A smoke detector has so muche nergy at 2m that is requires safeguards to protect from injury.
 
Last edited:

SamR

Joined Mar 19, 2019
2,386
That is an Underwriters Laboratory standard that applies to manufacturers seeking UL Certification. Application-wise, in the US, the National Electrical Code of the National Fire Protection Association applies. Just what are you trying to do?
 

Hymie

Joined Mar 30, 2018
846
Once the equipment is mounted more than 2m above the floor, the potential energy of anything falling through this distance is considered a hazard (MS3) – regardless of mass (it is not a mistake in the standard).

However it only need meet the fixing requirements/tests as set out in clause 8.7.
 

Thread Starter

butthead

Joined Oct 21, 2018
36
In europe it is called EN62368-1. In US IEC 62368-1. It has replaced 60950-1 which will be withdrawn end of this year.

It applies to IT products nd audio/video.
 

Hymie

Joined Mar 30, 2018
846
Although it is a UL standard, it is primarily an international IEC standard (also a CENELEC EN standard) - its title reading:- Audio/video, information and communication technology equipment Part 1: Safety requirements.
 

Thread Starter

butthead

Joined Oct 21, 2018
36
But it does not make sense that a 0.1kg product at 2m can cause injury. A 25kg product at 1.9m (MS2 example) will cause more pain (and injury?) than the smoke detector at 2m. Doesn't it?

MS2 only requiring 1 safeguard while MS3 requiring two.
 

Hymie

Joined Mar 30, 2018
846
But it would be a very simple matter for a 100g mass equipment to pass the test of clause 8.7 – the additional applied force is 3x the mass.
 

Thread Starter

butthead

Joined Oct 21, 2018
36
Yes. Propbably. I just thought it looked strange and was wondering if this was the intention of the standard to cover up lightweight products as capable of causing injury. And with polymeric materials it requires 7h heating before testning. Additional cost at the testlab, that feels unneccessary for a lightweight product.

Thanks for your answers.
 

Hymie

Joined Mar 30, 2018
846
If a polymeric enclosure is providing a safeguard against access to hazardous parts, then the 7 hour heating test would be applied regardless of the equipment being wall mounted.
 
Top