Jerry,
If I received a letter like the one you have then I wouldn't be satisfied with the answer. Personally speeaking I would contact the MHRA for advice - I don't think it's beyond a biomedical engineering graduate to find their contact details.....
Marcel,
The references are the general, collateral and particular BS standards. I have found problems in the past with the classification of new devices and stated leakage limits on applied parts. I have found earth and enclosure limits close to the maximum values. Without knowing what you're testing and why then you can't pick upon this sort of thing in my opinion.
Geoff,
In my opinion it's easier to do applied parts tests than enclosure, earth leakage and insulation resistance between enclosure and mains parts, for example. Once the applied parts have been selected, connected and the safety analyser has been configured appropriately then it does all the work - only real concern is whether to do mains on applied part SFC for BF/CF. No probing required.
Admittedly, looking at proposed standards, in future it may not be necessary to routinely test applied parts nor perform some leakage tests under SFC, e.g. enclosure leakage. But items may fail routine tests if the leakage of devices can be shown to be within 10% of the maximum allowed leakage - thus limits may not need to be exceeded for a fail.
Safety testing is not the be all and end all really but we need to know what's being tested and why. Lose that knowledge and some manufacturers will try to get away with fobbing us off with any old excuse for equipment. The example above may be an illustration of this if Jerry has his facts right.
