In message <[email protected]>, dated Wed, 27 Jun 2007, Gary Stuyvenberg <[email protected]> writes:
>Just caught the tail end of this thread so I might be repeating >something already said. I think the answer is contained in the EMC >Directive itself which states there shall be no interference. The >standards are just there for guidance in helping you meet the intent of >the directive. They have a bit more value that that; they provide a presumption of conformity. > If your product causes interference, you are in violation of the >directive no matter if you meet the standards or not. No; there may be a lack of immunity and/or the separation distance may be too small. The Directive and most standards appear not to take separation distance into account, but in the real world it has to be. Just stand an AM radio on top of a working TV! -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk There are benefits from being irrational - just ask the square root of 2. John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to [email protected] Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas [email protected] Mike Cantwell [email protected] For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: [email protected] David Heald: [email protected] All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc ______________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email ______________________________________________________________________
