Actually it's not a new standard but a new version of the previous standard GB4943-2001, which is for ITE (Information Technology Equipment) safety. So the power supplies covered by this new standard (version) only apply for ITE equipment. There is another symbol for non-torrid zone use besides the higher altitude symbol which is less stringent than increasing the clearance distance. More questions please contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org
This WAS a somewhat interesting story about the potential trade protectionism that Chinese standards are usually all about. Then it's revealed as mere posturing and marketing for Power Integrations. Sad that you've sold out your souls for $$, EET.
Keeping the safety at the first place is very important requirement for any company. Because we never what level of damage a spark can cause bass on the area where this power supply is used. Manufacturers should actually agree to put a sticker on or changes their designs in few months of time frame,
"Nobody wants to put a sticker on their box that says, 'Don't use above 2,000 meters,' "
Of course, no manufacturer wants that. But if the standard is genuinely useful and important, then it's valuable to consumers and I would be in support of it. If it's primarily a way of making things more expensive for foreign competition, then I would not be in favor of it.
I really applaud the Chinese for this. I'm all for safety, especially when it adds so little cost and the benefits could be someone's life is saved.
I also liked their mandate that all new cellphones use the same power connector so you don't have to buy a new power adapter every time you change phones.
Good long range thinking. We need more of this!
I think this could be a very important story. It's notable that China's dominance of manufacturing of power supplies means that this safety standard will likely be applied to power supplies sold all over the world. Perhaps it is a glimpse of things to come. China isn't exactly known for safety standards, but if China begins pushing more safety standards, they could end up being applied to a lot more products, considering how much stuff is built there.
Drones are, in essence, flying autonomous vehicles. Pros and cons surrounding drones today might well foreshadow the debate over the development of self-driving cars. In the context of a strongly regulated aviation industry, "self-flying" drones pose a fresh challenge. How safe is it to fly drones in different environments? Should drones be required for visual line of sight – as are piloted airplanes? Join EE Times' Junko Yoshida as she moderates a panel of drone experts.