Inside the resistor, it is not vacuum, gas nor semiconductor, so resistor is not an electronic component?
Also in the IEC 60335-1 clause 19.11 abnormal test, it requires to short circuit of any electronic component. If so, we do not need to consider the case of short circuit the resistor (and other component such as capacitor)?
I assume you need to consider/read/give the context of this statement.
**
We can only guess:
My idea:
They talk about unwanted current flow, maybe you can call it "leakage current".
Current through or across isolating (usually non conductive) materials or current caused by inonized air - maybe causing a spark.
In opposite to current through conductive or partly conductive materials, where you can calculate the current according ohm´s law.
I guess that definition is useful to define an active electronic component. A resistor, part of an electronic circuit, is a passive electronic component.
A fluorescent tube, we all have somewhere in the house, is an electronic component? Here the electrons travel through through a gas and vacuum.
You could do the short circuit test on every resistor and fail none.
You could take exception to the test requirement and show data
to justify it. This is commonplace although it requires customers
to think and buy off.
In the fine print there may be a distinction between active and
passive component types, made. Presumably the fine folks who
make careers out of writing IEC specs would have worked this
in, somewhere upstream of the paragraph in question. Often a
paragraph in isolation does not convey the context or the full
scope of the requirement it expresses.
The surface of earth (soil, salt water, minerals, etc..) makes the earth a natural resistor. The earth surface is afaik not an electric component. So if the earth is a resistor, a resistor can't be an electric component - can it?
You could do the short circuit test on every resistor and fail none.
You could take exception to the test requirement and show data
to justify it. This is commonplace although it requires customers
to think and buy off.
In the fine print there may be a distinction between active and
passive component types, made. Presumably the fine folks who
make careers out of writing IEC specs would have worked this
in, somewhere upstream of the paragraph in question. Often a
paragraph in isolation does not convey the context or the full
scope of the requirement it expresses.
I copied all the text in the “definition” section for “electronic component”. The definition section is for the whole document. And at the later part such as the 19.11, it bold the word “electronic component”, so it should be refer to this “definition”.
I assume you need to consider/read/give the context of this statement.
**
We can only guess:
My idea:
They talk about unwanted current flow, maybe you can call it "leakage current".
Current through or across isolating (usually non conductive) materials or current caused by inonized air - maybe causing a spark.
In opposite to current through conductive or partly conductive materials, where you can calculate the current according ohm´s law.
The IEC60335 is the most common safety standard for home appliance. I copied all the text of the definition for an “electronic component” in the definition part. And this definition is for the whole document, unless there is other description in the context later. In the clause 19.11 abnormal test, they mean really shorting circuit of the component, for testing the circuit safety if an abnomal case occur.
- - - Updated - - -
I have this question is because understanding this is really helpful for us to design a circuit for professional use. The guys writing the IEC standard should be the most experienced and knowledgeable guys. Following the requirement listed in the standard could be a good guideline to ensure the circuit safety, although it is a minimum requirement. Also understand this can help us to avoid over-design or under-design the circuit when we need to pass the safety standard test.