Forgive me, I'm getting confused ;-).
As I recall, the question was the difference of opinion of PSMA & TUV vis
-a-vis CE marking on components specifically power supplies.
According to the Guide to the EMC Directive, the power supply is NOT
required to be CE marked. TUV is correct. PSMA is taking a conservative
approach as the CE marking implies testing which improves the performance
consistancy from manufacturer to manufacturer.
Where I differ with TUV is that is the psu is marked for safety, the EMCD
also applies.
--------------------------( Forwarded letter 1 follows )---------------------
X-Router: (TAO/SMTP Gateway 1.1.34) <emc2m...@ccsvm.stortek.com>
Received: from stortek.com by CCSVM.STORTEK.COM (IBM VM SMTP V2R3) with TCP;
Fri, 13 Sep 96 18:30:05 MDT
Received: from ms1.hinet.net by stortek.com with SMTP id AA28915
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for <grasso%stkww...@ccsvm.stortek.com>); Fri, 13 Sep 1996
18:31:33 -0600
Received: (from rene@localhost) by ms1.hinet.net (8.7.5/8.7.5) id IAA21605;
Sat, 14 Sep 1996 08:28:56 +0800 (CST)
List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org
Date: Sat, 14 Sep 1996 08:28:56 +0800 (CST)
From: r...@ms1.hinet.net.smtp
X-Sender: rene@ms1
To: Jim Lyons <jly...@gtech.com>
Cc: emc-p...@mail.ieee.org, grasso%stkww...@ccsvm.stortek.com
Subject: Re: CE Marking on Component Power Su
In-Reply-To: <9608138426.aa842649...@ccgate.gtech.com>
Message-Id: <Pine.SOL.3.91.960914082300.20550B-100000@ms1>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
On Fri, 13 Sep 1996, Jim Lyons wrote:
> The PSMA opinion seems pretty clear to me, and I will quote from their
> document "Guidance on CE Marking and Power Supplies":
>
> "4 Low Voltage Directive
>
> 4.1 Component Power Supplies
>
> These will be CE Marked under the Low Voltage Directive by
> manufactureres (sic) declaration to EN60950 with the provision that
> the final equipment manufacturer will be responsible for protection
> against personal contact with live parts."
>
> Of course, TUV says "We are a competent body....." and basically
> shoots down the PSMA as being just an opinion by a manufacturers'
> group. My experience with Competent Bodies is that you
> get a different interpretation or answer depending on which one you
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
In ambiguous situations that is natural, you find the same with
lawywers and physicians
> ask. Sort of goes against the definition of "competent" I would
think.
Can someone enlighten me which of the TUVs you are referring to?
> The problem I have is that the PSMA opinion seems to make a lot of
> sense to me, and I have a problem rationalizing the TUV stand. BTW,
> this is only one particular TUV organization I am referring to, so
> please do not associate all of the TUV organizations with this issue.
> However, I would be very interested in hearing the other TUV opinions
> also.
>
>
>
