Making free clones of safety standards - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / projects

author: Standard Wizard
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: July 28, 2023, 04:17:29 pm
content: While I've already been privately thinking-up possible improvements to existing standards in a minor way, getting a peek (on a shady Chinese site) at the wonky IEC 60320 dimensional drawings (especially that of the C15A)reallygot me going; rather than desperately trying to free the original standards, let's develop some clones and make them better, don't you think?I've even created a logo (FSS for Free Safety Standards), set as my avatarI won't reveal the actual documents until much later (when I havesomemoney to fight any legal battles – Ishouldbe fine by copyright law given that I'm not copying the IEC's text nor reusing their wonky drawings, but just in case…), but here are my general improvements and additions so far:Added new 200°C 10A and 16A models (again keyed so that you can't use a lower-temperature cord in a 200°C appliance) using silicone cords (provided the higher resistivity of beryllium-nickel or whatever contacts remains acceptable to not overheat lower-temperature appliances; if they can be made to pass the UL/CSA's 15A and 20A with brass or phosphor-bronze contacts, then BeNi should be workable at the IEC currents; and if borderline on temperature rise, I could add copper heatspreading blocks behind the socket contacts…).Mandated ≥90°C cords for the 155°C connectors (unlike the IEC standard which just permits them on an ad-hoc basis for high ambient temperatures).Added variants for hot double-insulated appliances (every temperature rating) – sure there aren'tmanyof those, but then again IEC 60320 has the C23/C24 pair for 16A double-insulated appliances, and it's not like I have to worry about saving paper or anythingConnectors (and cords) must survive a 1.45× overload for 24 hours, not just the 1.25× in IEC 60320.Strict requirements for over-current protection of multi-way cordsets (or interconnected equipment) which can be evenslightlyoverloaded by the user.Enhanced requirements for corrosion resistance (compulsory nickel plating), mechanical robustness, fire retardance (allconnectors shall be suitable for unattended appliances) etc.Connector body plastics shall last for >100,000 hours at the rated pin temperature, and the 70°C types shall use plastics good for 90°C or better.New 6A models for both Class I and II (based on the 10A design but without chamfered corners) and in 70°C and 120°C variants (can't safely make them for 155°C or 200°C due to the keying design), with the IEC C9/C10 equivalent retained as a "compact" option. I don't expect many such cordsets to be made with "normal" plugs, but for interconnection they can help to meet the load limit (where the main appliance has a 10A inlet and draws up to 4A itself; or a 16A inlet and draws up to 10A itself) without OCP. (The 6A plugs may not fit IEC 10A outlets, but that's OK as you can just use a 10A cord there; I've revised the 10A outlets anyway.)More intuitive designations: First anS(socket)/I(inlet)/P(plug)/O(outlet), thenE(earthed)/D(double insulated), followed by the nominal current and finally a suffix for high temperature (Hfor "hot" 120°C,Xfor "extra-hot" 155°C orUfor "ultra-hot" 200°C). For example: IEC C5/C6/A/B → SE2.5/IE2.5/PE2.5/OE2.5; C7/C8/C/D → SD2.5/ID2.5/PD2.5/OD2.5, C9/C10 → SD6C/ID6C (C for compact), C13/C14/E/F → SE10/IE10/PE10/OE10, C15/C16 → SE10H/IE10H, C15A/C16A → SE10X/IE10X, C19/C20/I/J → SE16/IE16/PE16/OE16, C21/C22 → SE16X/IE16X and so on.Asymmetrical length tolerance (can be up to +2%, or +40mm for <2m cords; but no shorter than nominal) to guarantee that buyers get the length they pay for.Requirement that 100–127V only appliances (or manually-switched items set for 100–127V), when connected to 250V, must either survive or at least fail safely.Provisions to crack down on those North American perversions of the standard (uprated currents, their bonkers polarized C7/C8 which you can defeat just by inserting a normal C7).To reduce waste, when selling appliances the cordsets may only be offered on an opt-in basis.Where individual inlets or plugs are sold at retail, they must come in child-resistant packaging.If you have further suggestions or if there's something you don't think will work correctly, fire awayMy thinking is that these clones can initially be followed on top of the existing standards (as a mark of prestige), then later replace them…

author: CosteC
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2023, 05:44:14 pm
content: How expensive are those standards at your location? IEC 60320-1 at my place is 56 euro.Is it worth effort and risk?Long term thinking remind me of saying "wise people created standards. Stupid people multiply them".Not that all standards are good or sensible.Anyway, now NOBODY tries to enforce quality of cords in practice, and you propose significantly higher quality standard (with good reasons). Who and how would enforce this new, better and more expensive standard? There is huge graveyard for "new better standards".

author: switchabl
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2023, 05:56:28 pm
content: European harmonised standards may have to be made available for free in the future. At least that is what the Advocate General has argued in a case currently before the CJEU (Public.Resource.Org and Right to Know v Commission). The court usually follows the opinion of the Advocate General but not always.https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2023-06/cp230110en.pdfIn the meantime, I think cheapest way to get EN IEC standards is from Estonia:https://www.evs.ee/en/evs-en-iec-60320-1-2021(27.60€ for the pdf, 2.40€ to browse for 24h).

author: Standard Wizard
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: July 28, 2023, 06:07:12 pm
content: Quote from: CosteC on July 28, 2023, 05:44:14 pmWhoever has the skills and equipment (ready-made or home-rolled to satisfy the test criteria) to test things to it, basicallyI'm not expecting the offical labs/bureaus to do more than they (hardly) manage.And if you mean "more expensive" in manufacturing cost, then I think the savings from not manufacturing all those surplus cords will more than make up for it.Besides, have you even watched Dave's video (regarding Australian Standards, but same principle)?

author: switchabl
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2023, 06:15:17 pm
content: In the EU, if you follow harmonised standards, there is a legal presumption that your product complies with safety (and other) regulations. In most areas, you are allowed to make up your own "standard" but then naturally the burden of proof is on you and you need to have the technical analysis, measurements, studies, etc to back it up rigorously. Unless there is no suitable standard available, this is usually not a very attractive option.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2023, 06:19:15 pm
content: If a safety standard is in any kind of legal web, as most of the key ones are, any parallel standard is irrelevant.

author: Gyro
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2023, 06:23:08 pm
content: It seems to me that somebody could end up having areallybad day in court when they reveal that they were adhering to an FFS standard rather than the appropriate legal safety standard. If an accident or injury occured as a result of an error or omission in the FFS 'standard' , the design engineer and company wouldn't have a leg to stand on.This seems to be a rather naive [Edit: but well intentioned] idea.

author: ajb
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2023, 07:05:47 pm
content: Quote from: Gyro on July 28, 2023, 06:23:08 pmI'm very much a don't-leave-well-enough-alone type myself, but I have to agree with Gyro here. Creating good standards is hard and expensive. Creating good safety standards is REALLY hard and REALLY expensive and REALLY risky. There has to be fairly significant benefit to justify the cost, and I'm not sure what the real benefit is here. The proposed changes seem to only really be beneficial in relatively narrow applications, which aside from all the other challenges will make it much harder to get the support required to get anything like this into practice.

author: Neilm
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 29, 2023, 04:31:55 pm
content: If you want to be involved in standards, put your comments to the relevent people in your country.In the EU, you have to meet legal directives (RED / Low voltage etc). Following approved standards (standards that have appeared in the Official Journal) gives you the ability to "presume conformity" to those directives. Unless your free standard makes it into the OJ, no one selling in Europe would pay them any attention.I should note that the price paid for a standard is generally to pay for the publishing of the standard (typsetting, editing etc). Imagine the costs for very highly qualified engineers to fly across the world for a week to meet - a few Euros, Pounds etc wouldn't begin to cover one meeting. A single, resonably non-complex standard could take several meetings to develop.

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 29, 2023, 06:08:10 pm
content: Quote from: Neilm on July 29, 2023, 04:31:55 pmI wish. There’s no excuse for how expensive so many standards are, especially as PDFs. It certainly doesn’t cost $65-300 per PDF.

author: switchabl
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 29, 2023, 06:38:16 pm
content: I think it just isn't true, at least not in general. For the IEC, they claim that almost half of their income is from publication sales (https://www.iec.ch/what-we-do/how-iec-funded). I seem to remember that it was less for CENELEC and that a lot of their funding comes directly from the EU but I can't find the numbers right now.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 29, 2023, 06:40:53 pm
content: Quote from: tooki on July 29, 2023, 06:08:10 pmQuite a lot of standards cost thousands of dollars. Each part might be reasonably priced, but they create a web of documents referencing documents, and the whole set you need is really expensive. The worst case I've seen was a chain which lead to a document with maybe 10 pages of preamble, and one line of actual information - a single value.

author: ebastler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 29, 2023, 06:57:50 pm
content: Quote from: Standard Wizard on July 28, 2023, 04:17:29 pmI don't get it. Who would be using these "stricter-than-official" standards, in your opinion?Cable manufacturers, who would then find that nobody wants to buy their cables since they are more expensive, to meet requirements which exceed the official standards?Instrument manufacturers, who would then find that the higher-spec cables can't be sourced anywhere, since making them is not a profitable business?Sounds like a proposal for failing with one's business, in exchange for saving a few bucks on standards documents.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 29, 2023, 11:49:45 pm
content: Quote from: ebastler on July 29, 2023, 06:57:50 pm.. audiophile manufacturers seeking a point of improvement (since many of them seem to ignore/throw out safety standards anyway) for their veblen goods.

author: Standard Wizard
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: July 30, 2023, 07:23:41 am
content: Quote from: CosteC on July 28, 2023, 05:44:14 pmThen the Americans are stupid for increasing the current ratings (especially since theydon'tmandate the higher-rated cords) and adding their bizarre polarized C7/C8 variant.I also saw a cord from an old Remington shaver which had a pseudo-C7 end shortened 2mm below the allowed length, so unsafe to use elsewhere.

author: Standard Wizard
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: July 30, 2023, 07:25:10 am
content: Quote from: switchabl on July 28, 2023, 05:56:28 pmMaybe so, but since the petition Dave signed (to Australian Parliament, regarding Australian Standards) failed, I wouldn't count on it.

author: Standard Wizard
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: July 30, 2023, 07:39:36 am
content: That aside, does anyone have anythingtechnicalto add? If not, then I'll be out

author: Standard Wizard
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: July 30, 2023, 07:44:16 am
content: Quote from: coppice on July 28, 2023, 06:19:15 pmI know, but A) that's why I proposed to initially use iton top ofthe official standard, and B) frankly, I'm losing my ability to care…

author: Siwastaja
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 30, 2023, 09:06:30 am
content: Since implementing the existing standards easily costs like $100 000 - $1000 000, and probably implementing more demanding standards would cost $100 000 more, I fail to see why anyone would do that to save $100.

author: Gyro
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 30, 2023, 09:22:27 am
content: Quote from: Standard Wizard on July 30, 2023, 07:44:16 amThat "initially" word is your whole problem in a nutshell....You could maybe run it alongside the legal standard for companies that buy in to a higher 'standard' (although something like this would normally be put in the requirements spec to a specific supplier / subcontractor). However, only the official standard counts in law.What happens after "initially"? To replace the official standard, it mustbecomethe official standard. That means that it must be adopted and maintained by the Standards bodies in all relevant countries. Is that honestly going to happen.As I said above, if you want an item that goes beyond the official standard, then put it in your supplier requirements and take the price hit.

author: Terry Bites
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2023, 08:11:41 pm
content: The dangerous idea of "free standards" was a determining factor in the Breckzit vote I can tell you.You can't just give it away, that would be insane, what's next, free online encyclopedias?We have to protect the value of our BS. (BS-EN) =pure BS.Its all over the papers.

author: Gyro
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2023, 08:35:21 pm
content: Ha, it's in the ' Fail', with their usual slant on things.I'd be interested to know which other papers it's in.

author: b_force
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 02, 2023, 12:04:19 pm
content: Quote from: CosteC on July 28, 2023, 05:44:14 pmDepending on the language, but often that is a lot more.Especially when you have to use and comply to a couple of them.Which adds up VERY quickly!Depending on your field of operation, but in some you can't ignore certain standards.If you agree or disagree with it, is out of the question, unless you want to face serious financials and legal risks.Or worse, competitors who sometimes will actively sue you.Do they all make sense to me? No, but that is not even a question anymore.Also, having the standards by themselves (as in readable form) is one thing.Understanding and interpreting them, is a skill on its own.We have someone full-time working on it for that reason.Coming up with your own open free standards is cute and all, it's kinda worthless if governments don't use them.All that being said, I found totally insane and ridiculous that companies and people MUST comply to standards.But at the same time, those standards are behind a very expensive paywall with very difficult and hard to understand language.That combination doesn't make ANY sense to me at all.