Update regarding Amendment 3:2024 to BS 7671:2018

Thank you all for your comments. Unfortunately, there has been a delay with the DPC going live today. The team has been working with BSI to resolve this as quickly as possible, but it will likely not go live until tomorrow now (9 May 2024). We’re sorry for the inconvenience caused and thank you for your patience.

Still not listed in their drafts as of today. Also noticed they have re-categorised this standard so it now sits outside of my BS subscription access. Seems hopefully like an admin issue but needs sorting ?

Kevin Jeffery said:

Still not listed in their drafts as of today. Also noticed they have re-categorised this standard so it now sits outside of my BS subscription access. Seems hopefully like an admin issue but needs sorting ?

If you log in (you may need to make an account) on the BSI standards development web-site https://standardsdevelopment.bsigroup.com/ you will then be able to click on the link below to access the DPC:

https://standardsdevelopment.bsigroup.com/projects/2024-01247#/section

I believe the process for all DPC documents is they are first placed on the Standards Development site, and later may appear as part of the back-catalogue, say on British Standards On-Line or BSI Knowledge?

Will there be a set ISO/BSI/IET logo or character for bi-direction device on the unit itself and on schematics?

Sergio Fernandez said:

Will there be a set ISO/BSI/IET logo or character for bi-direction device on the unit itself and on schematics?

As things stands there's not even consistency between device standards on how they describe unidirectional devices, and bi-directional is simply the absence of unidirectional instructions.

Proteus have symbol to indicate that some of their devices are suitable for bi-directional use - I suspect others have too. But it's really one for the product standards which are IEC/ENs so I wouldn't expect anything soon.

It might be one for Graham.K to give a heads up to the team that work on IEC 60617 symbols

It might be one for Graham.K to give a heads up to the team that work on IEC 60617 symbols

Sergio Fernandez said:

It might be one for Graham.K to give a heads up to the team that work on IEC 60617 symbols

Yes I'd be interested if he can add anything.

In any case I think one of the advantages of this ammendment - let's see the final wording - is that it gets the ball rolling here.

Standards ultimately develop in response to real world issues. Now this is more topical it will focus the minds of manufacturers to think about if their products are particularly suitable for bi-directional operation - which isn't quite the same thing as saying their product is strictly unidirectional as provided for in existing standards.

That can only be a good thing. Good manufacturers will see the product standards as a baseline as opposed to a checkbox exercise. The best manufacturers will seek to innovate.

Keir Stitt said:

Yes I'd be interested if he can add anything.

We can be sure it's not a matter for BS 7671, but the relevant product standard as to which symbols are to be used for a product.

Sergio Fernandez said:

Graham.K to give a heads up to the team that work on IEC 60617 symbols

This one will actually come under IEC 60417 Graphical symbols for use on equipment. This will follow if and when product standards start to have the requirements.

(For info IEC 60617 is Graphical symbols for diagrams (i.e. technical and engineering drawings).

If you do open this site: https://www.iso.org/obp/ui#home and select the graphical symbols button, you can search the database that contains symbols for use on products and safety signs. Before anyone asks, there is no such facility for IEC 60617 symbols for diagrams (that is, without paying for it).