This thread comes at a good time for me. I have a client that has a system of 3 computers, a disk array, and a UPS all mounted in a 19" rack. The computers and the disk array are powered by the UPS. Each computer, disk array, and the UPS have CE Marks. The system is currently being checked for radiated emissions to assure compliance to the EMC Directive. The question is, do these products which make up the system require re-testing to the EMC Directive and a DoC issued for the system or are the DoCs for the individual modules sufficient for importing and sale in the EU? Can a system DoC be generated based upon the individual module DoCs?
Thank you for any input! Pryor McGinnis Compliance Test Labs e-mail: c...@prodigy.net -----Original Message----- From: Chris Dupres <chris_dup...@compuserve.com> To: Brian Harlowe <bharl...@vgscientific.com> Cc: emc-pstc <emc-p...@ieee.org> List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: Friday, November 06, 1998 4:57 AM Subject: CE+ CE = CE >Hi Brian and the group. > >This is a bit of an old chestnut, with as many answers and reasons as you'd >care to make. It's just not possible to state a case which covers all >situations.. > >At the one end of the spectrum you have RF equipment emitting all over the >place, just under limit, and when you put these together you have additions >and subtractions which can entirely change the emissions envelope. > >At the other end you have essentially low frequency equipment which can >have it's emissions very easily predicted with a high degree of certainty. > >The EC last year allowed for 'systems' to be assembled with CE marked sub >systems, and claim compliance. This was a common sense approach to >situations in the automation and machine tool and laboratory type >industries where, for instance, you have an Inverter motor speed controller >which is CE marked in a panel, and another, and another, and another... >etc. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to realize that a multitude of >inverters = a lot of emissions, and that to make these compliant with 50081 >(for instance) would take a great deal of expense and hardware, if indeed >it was possible at all. It is not the intention of the Euro EMC directive >to make things impossible to market, but to ensure that no-one catches a >steal on marketing advantage by taking EMC shortcuts. > >We had a situation where any machine which had more than a few inverter >speed controls was uncompliable(?). The 'Systems' approach gave enough >versatility to the regs to enable such equipment to be manufactured and >supplied with evidence of 'Due Diligence' being applied. Essentially. this >really means that 10 seperate inverters in their own cabinets (all of which >have a CE mark) are not really any different to those same 10 inverters >placed into one cabinet. > >Another view might be that of equipment comprising many 19" rack mounted CE >marked instruments connected together with cables as an ad hoc 'system'. >If these instruments are standing on tables and benches, as would be in a >laboratory type situation, should they be subject to different rules than >if those same instruments and cables are stacked on top of each other, and >yet again if that stack of instruments is housed in a 19" rack. > >That's my twopence worth, look forward to hearing the views of others. > >Chris Dupres >Surrey, UK. > >--------- >This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. >To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org >with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the >quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, >j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or >roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). > --------- This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
