I read in !emc-pstc that Pettit, Ghery <ghery.pet...@intel.com> wrote (in <D9223EB959A5D511A98F00508B68C20C0226B522@ORSMSX108>) about 'New EMC standards; now CISPR24/EN55024 query', on Wed, 31 Oct 2001: >My point about class A and B in CISPR 22 is NOT irrelevant. If a regulatory >body wishes to override the loose definition in CISPR 22 (as Taiwan has >done, for example), they are free to do so. What I stated about CISPR 22 >(and EN 55022) is true and still stands. The FCC Rules are specific about >when a product is class A or B. To bring them into a discussion about CISPR >22 is irrelevant.
Would you care to read that again, because I would like to understand your point and I find it simply confusing. If '22' in the last line should be '24'.... Classification on the basis of emissions is almost independent of classification for immunity. Indeed, some products exist that have to meet Class B emission but industrial-level immunity requirements, not present in CISPR 24. -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Eat mink and be dreary! ------------------------------------------- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson: pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Heald davehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
