Dear Mr Ling,
I respect your opinion (and that of others). Especially on the subject of electrical safety. Judging by your posts, you obviously know what you are talking about. Never the less, I have different views on some matters which are based on spending lost of time in continental Europe, where people also know what is best, based on years of experience. There will always be a difference in opinion between parties who have developed their own best. All, I am sure are in the best interest of the end-user, the patient, employee, member of the public etc.
Perhaps, we can drive the forum to suggestions on how to make the IEC 62353 better than it currently is (to this who have their concerns).
In answer to your question 1) and 2)
1) Default limits are set to the latest standard applicable. We do advocate safe practises hence we are (as a group) actively involved in safety standards committees. Limits can be set by users to reflect other standards or requirement (ie set a limit at 90% or much lower typical value or as per 2nd edition).
2) IEC 62353 and IEC 60601 are treated separately in terms of measurements. Following IEC 60601 limits does not impact on the IEC 62353 tests (or did I misread your question?)
A note on the Alternative Method(main reason for UK to vote against); This test is identical to the dielectric Strength test in IEC 60601 however at a saver voltage (ie 230V instead of 1500V)
By using mains (current limited), a better indication is provided at the insulation at the expected frequency rather than the 500VDC which might give readings subject to caps. Perhaps those who were against this test could see it as a quick (and save) pre test prior to switching on the EUT instead of an insulation test.
regards,
john
