Member Discussion

What Are The Realistic Standards For Inclusion In A Specification?

There are many standards avaiable, but which ones do you feel would be realistic for a top teir camera specification without becoming a "Frankenspec". One of these could be ONVIF compliance/Registration but there are others such as FCC Standards, EIA standards, EN, IEC standards that could be appied to a range of products, not just cameras. Here is an example of one from a spec:

A. Comply with the following:

  1. Power over Ethernet IEEE 802.3af/802.3at Type 1 Class 2
  2. EN 55022 Class B, EN 61000-6-1, EN 61000-6-2, EN 55024,
  3. FCC Part 15 Subpart B Class B, ICES-003 Class B, VCCI Class B,
  4. C-tick AS/NZS CISPR 22 Class B, KCC KN22 Class B, KN24,
  5. IEC/EN/UL 60950-1, EN 50581, IEC 60068-2-1, IEC 60068-2-2,
  6. IEC 60068-2-14, IEC 60068-2-27, IEC 60068-2-64,
  7. IEC 60068-2-78

Feel free to suggest other standards that have to do with lenses, transformers , connectors, etc that would be applicable. Also, do you think that some of the above are unnecessarily restrictive?

I'm presuming the spec you cited above comes from New Zealand?

I have never seen a C-Tick AS/NZS specification before. A big problem with hard specs is they may inadvertently limit otherwise good options.

I can think of a handful of occasions where equipment was selected purely because it met spec (it was UL listing for controllers installed in plenums), but the way the equipment would be installed, the spec wouldn't apply. (Our best choice was equipment not installed in plenums).

Bottom line: I think specs are best when defined by performance.

Probably not the answer you are looking for, but I'm really biased against needlessly academic specifications that drive up cost.

Hi Brian. I totally agree; but standards are used in specs all the time. One need only go to any CSI format construction specification to see that there a pages and pages of standards invloved. What i am trying to determine is which of these are valid and reasonable. The one you mentioned is a good example of standards I probably need not include. Got any others that you feel do not apply?

Performance specs are nearly impossible to enforce (see IPVM); moreover, a client would not pay for a testing protocol to be run on each camera installed. Oh yeh, the product needs to be approved in the submittal stage at the latest…. Not after its installed. By that time 1000 cameras are installed and we have a huge problem.

In other words, as the designer, i need to have a way to specify a camera (or anything for that matter), that can provide a high level of performance without being so restrictive that equally good stuff is ruled out. Standards are one of a number of ways to do this (also keep in mind that you are only seeing part of the camera spec).