RE: New laser standards
Hello all, Doug has brought up some interesting questions. I too would like to follow this thread. Josh -Original Message- From: Massey, Doug C. [mailto:masse...@ems-t.com] Sent: Monday, June 11, 2001 1:55 PM To: 'IEEE Forum' Subject: New laser standards Hello Group - Can anyone direct me to an informative article, link, etc., that summarizes the impact of Amendment 2 to IEC 60825-1, released in January of this year ? I've reviewed the amendment and am aware of the basic differences it brings in classification, but it sure would be nice to have a synopsis of all the changes. Also, does anyone know how soon the changes will be incorporated into a new release of the standard ? The IEC website does not list a target date for release, although the status of edition 1.2 shows it being out for printing since early May. Also, CDRH Laser Notice # 50, published late May, harmonizes, to some degree, 21CFR to the IEC 60825-1 standard, with the notable exception of production line test requirments, record keeping, and some product marking requirements, which are being kept by the CDRH. Has anyone heard if the CDRH product report formats will be changed ? I'm thinking an IEC-60825-1 report, with US national deviations, if you will, may be acceptable to the CDRH at some point in the future, in lieu of their existing published report format. Of greater concern is the lack of a specified transition period and mandatory compliance dates in either standard (at least I can't find them). Will existing laser classifications be grandfathered? When will laser product manufacturers be required to label products according to the new classifications? I can see the new classifications causing much confusion among customers, who may have, say, Class2 laser products, then buying additional units of the same product, which might be labeled as Class 2M, for instance. Thanks for your help. Doug Massey Safety Approvals Engineer LXE, Inc. Norcross, GA., USA Ph. (770) 447-4224 x3607 FAX (770) 447-6928 e-mail: masse...@lxe.com Cruise our website at: http:\\www.lxe.com --- 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 Healddavehe...@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: http://www.rcic.com/ click on "Virtual Conference Hall,"
Wireless Network Issues
Hi All, I am currently researching wireless intereference issues for a project and I was wondering if anyone could answer a few of my questions. First off, any links to information that deals directly with wireless interference on airplanes or in hospitals would be appreciated. Secondly, I am curious how similar cell phone wireless technology is to wireless network technology(Wi-FI), from an EMI standpoint. The reason I ask is that I can find a lot of information about cell phone intereference, but I have found nothing about wireless network interference. I am still learning a lot about this, so any information that you could provide would be appreciated. Thanks, Kyle --- 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 Healddavehe...@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: http://www.rcic.com/ click on "Virtual Conference Hall,"
New laser standards
Hello Group - Can anyone direct me to an informative article, link, etc., that summarizes the impact of Amendment 2 to IEC 60825-1, released in January of this year ? I've reviewed the amendment and am aware of the basic differences it brings in classification, but it sure would be nice to have a synopsis of all the changes. Also, does anyone know how soon the changes will be incorporated into a new release of the standard ? The IEC website does not list a target date for release, although the status of edition 1.2 shows it being out for printing since early May. Also, CDRH Laser Notice # 50, published late May, harmonizes, to some degree, 21CFR to the IEC 60825-1 standard, with the notable exception of production line test requirments, record keeping, and some product marking requirements, which are being kept by the CDRH. Has anyone heard if the CDRH product report formats will be changed ? I'm thinking an IEC-60825-1 report, with US national deviations, if you will, may be acceptable to the CDRH at some point in the future, in lieu of their existing published report format. Of greater concern is the lack of a specified transition period and mandatory compliance dates in either standard (at least I can't find them). Will existing laser classifications be grandfathered? When will laser product manufacturers be required to label products according to the new classifications? I can see the new classifications causing much confusion among customers, who may have, say, Class2 laser products, then buying additional units of the same product, which might be labeled as Class 2M, for instance. Thanks for your help. Doug Massey Safety Approvals Engineer LXE, Inc. Norcross, GA., USA Ph. (770) 447-4224 x3607 FAX (770) 447-6928 e-mail: masse...@lxe.com Cruise our website at: http:\\www.lxe.com --- 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 Healddavehe...@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: http://www.rcic.com/ click on "Virtual Conference Hall,"
Re: Do we need a competent body?
<009a01c0f274$06e87680$38581...@memotec.com>, David Gelfand inimitably wrote: >We manufacture IT equipment with no radio interfaces. Our system is similar to >a PC, host motherboards can accept various i/o cards. > >There are two different opinions regarding competent bodies. > >Mine: Our equipment falls within the scope of harmonized standards, we test >"worst case configurations" and declare conformity without a competent body. > >Other: Since we do not test all possible permutations of cards and positions we >must use the technical construction file route and a competent body. > >Who is right? You are right, as long as you conscientiously do choose the likely worst case. You do not have to include 'worster' cases that involve configurations that no-one is ever likely to use. In many cases, the number of configurations is so great that it would take longer than the product life-time to do all the tests! You are, of course, free to take third-party advice on what the worst- case configuration might be. -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. Phone +44 (0)1268 747839 Fax +44 (0)1268 777124. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Why not call a vertically- applied manulo-pedally-operated quasi-planar chernozem-penetrating and excavating implement a SPADE? --- 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 Healddavehe...@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: http://www.rcic.com/ click on "Virtual Conference Hall,"
Re: FW: Product Safety: A Matter of Law or Litigation?
, Massey, Doug C. inimitably wrote: >Now, assume that you have a product that is a battery powered, portable >device, not sold to the general consumer market. It has been evaluated to UL >60950, and listed, so there are periodic factory audits. I think there's a >mighty good case that because UL60950 and EN60950 are so similar >(identical?) in those areas that apply to the product (read that as: TNV >sections: N/A. AC Mains sections- N/A. on & on N/A'ing ad nauseum), the only >apparent reason for evaluating to EN60950 or IEC 60950 is to provide extra >money to some lucky test agency. OR - for marketing reasons, or by customer >request. Due diligence has been done, and then some. To pay for the >additional evaluation - actually, just the same report in a different >format, along with an over-priced certificate - is a mighty long extra mile. >It's like going the extra mile, but walking it on your hands. I very carefully **didn't** suggest you should go to such extremes! Yes, if you have such a product, it probably *is* OK to rely on your UL evaluation, but backed up by your **own** check on possible effects of the differences between the EN and the UL. There is NO requirement to use a test-house for things you can do yourself (or for anything, for that matter). -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. Phone +44 (0)1268 747839 Fax +44 (0)1268 777124. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Why not call a vertically- applied manulo-pedally-operated quasi-planar chernozem-penetrating and excavating implement a SPADE? --- 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 Healddavehe...@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: http://www.rcic.com/ click on "Virtual Conference Hall,"
Re: FW: Product Safety: A Matter of Law or Litigation?
, Andrew Wood inimitably wrote: >If you were to find yourself a defendant in court you would be facing a >specific >charge under your countrys domestic legislation. The scenario above would not >arise. Since we are talking about law, I will pettifog. Yes, the situation WOULD arise if Mr. Maxwell **based his defence** on the wording of the GPSD, rather than on teh wording of the national legislation. -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. Phone +44 (0)1268 747839 Fax +44 (0)1268 777124. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Why not call a vertically- applied manulo-pedally-operated quasi-planar chernozem-penetrating and excavating implement a SPADE? --- 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 Healddavehe...@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: http://www.rcic.com/ click on "Virtual Conference Hall,"
RE: FW: Product Safety: A Matter of Law or Litigation?
Chris, You can find the PLD via a link from the Safety Link website. It's great lawyer fodder, or good reading if you're having trouble falling asleep. Now, assume that you have a product that is a battery powered, portable device, not sold to the general consumer market. It has been evaluated to UL 60950, and listed, so there are periodic factory audits. I think there's a mighty good case that because UL60950 and EN60950 are so similar (identical?) in those areas that apply to the product (read that as: TNV sections: N/A. AC Mains sections- N/A. on & on N/A'ing ad nauseum), the only apparent reason for evaluating to EN60950 or IEC 60950 is to provide extra money to some lucky test agency. OR - for marketing reasons, or by customer request. Due diligence has been done, and then some. To pay for the additional evaluation - actually, just the same report in a different format, along with an over-priced certificate - is a mighty long extra mile. It's like going the extra mile, but walking it on your hands. Q: WHAT DO YOU CALL 1,000 LAWYERS ON THE BOTTOM OF THE SEA ? A: A GOOD START ! Do I get some kind of safety geek award for starting the longest running thread on this forum, or am I even in the running yet? Maybe some kind of medal, or even a chest to pin it on? And ya'll don't EVEN expect me to summarize this thread. So compliant it hurts, Doug -Original Message- From: Chris Maxwell [mailto:chris.maxw...@nettest.com] Sent: Monday, June 11, 2001 8:56 AM To: 'John Woodgate'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: FW: Product Safety: A Matter of Law or Litigation? Hi all, (refer to John's "inimitable" :-) reply below) Even though my previous response may not sound like it; I agree with you on this one John. Manufacturers should go the extra mile. I think that we're all trying to figure out which road to go the extra mile on. (with regard to products that fall outside the scope of the Low Voltage Directive, Machinery Directive, Toy Directive, RT&TTE Directive..even the General Product Safety Directive). I saw a reply from a collegue at Agilent. He mentioned a "Product Liability Directive". Ever heard of that one? Anybody have a copy of it that cares to comment? > Now imagine you are a defendant in a court case. Prosecuting counsel > says to you, 'So, Mr. Maxwell, you have explained to the court that your > company is not responsible for the dreadful injury inflicted on Mr. > Smith by your company's product, because the General Product Safety > Directive does not apply to 'commercial equipment'. Do you not agree > that what you are asking the jury to accept is that Mr. Smith should be > protected from injury by the law in his home, but that he forfeits any > such protection as soon as he sets foot in his workplace?' > > Go the extra mile: don't assume a 'whereas' will save you! > -- > --- 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 Healddavehe...@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: http://www.rcic.com/ click on "Virtual Conference Hall," --- 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 Healddavehe...@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: http://www.rcic.com/ click on "Virtual Conference Hall,"
RE: FW: Product Safety: A Matter of Law or Litigation?
Chris & Friends See 85/374/EEC, as amended by 1999/34/EC, The General Product Liability Directive http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/lif/dat/1999/en_399L0034.html Regards John Allen Thales Defence Bracknell -Original Message- From: Chris Maxwell [mailto:chris.maxw...@nettest.com] Sent: 11 June 2001 13:56 To: 'John Woodgate'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: FW: Product Safety: A Matter of Law or Litigation? Hi all, (refer to John's "inimitable" :-) reply below) Even though my previous response may not sound like it; I agree with you on this one John. Manufacturers should go the extra mile. I think that we're all trying to figure out which road to go the extra mile on. (with regard to products that fall outside the scope of the Low Voltage Directive, Machinery Directive, Toy Directive, RT&TTE Directive..even the General Product Safety Directive). I saw a reply from a collegue at Agilent. He mentioned a "Product Liability Directive". Ever heard of that one? Anybody have a copy of it that cares to comment? > Now imagine you are a defendant in a court case. Prosecuting counsel > says to you, 'So, Mr. Maxwell, you have explained to the court that your > company is not responsible for the dreadful injury inflicted on Mr. > Smith by your company's product, because the General Product Safety > Directive does not apply to 'commercial equipment'. Do you not agree > that what you are asking the jury to accept is that Mr. Smith should be > protected from injury by the law in his home, but that he forfeits any > such protection as soon as he sets foot in his workplace?' > > Go the extra mile: don't assume a 'whereas' will save you! > -- > --- 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 Healddavehe...@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: http://www.rcic.com/ click on "Virtual Conference Hall," --- 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 Healddavehe...@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: http://www.rcic.com/ click on "Virtual Conference Hall,"
Re: Shielding Effectivness Question
I thank all off you who answered my question. Neven > -Original Message- > From: Neven Pischl [mailto:npis...@cisco.com] > Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2001 12:16 PM > To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org; si-l...@silab.eng.sun.com > Subject: Shielding Effectivness Question > > > I would appreciate if anyone could let me know if there are any references > (books, application notes, anythig ..) that deal with shielding efectivness > in cases when a source is close to an (electrically small) opening in a > shield (enclosure). In such a situation, the field will penetrate through > the hole and leak even if the size is much smaller than the wavelength. I am > particularly interested in situation when high-frequency source, such as a > PCB edge or a component operating at (say) 1 GHz and above is in proximity > of the venting holes, "small" gaps in the chassis etc. > > All references that I have deal with uniform plane wave propagating incident > to a metal plane with a slot or hole, in which case it is enought o have > electrically small size of the opening (e.g. lambda/10) to efficiently block > any field propagation through the barrier. I can't find any useful reference > that deals in any analytical way with the situation I am intersted in. > > I believe I might get some answers using some of the simulation programs, > but at the moment I am more intersted in the analysis of the problem than in > simulating it. > > Thank you, > > Neven Pischl --- 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 Healddavehe...@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: http://www.rcic.com/ click on "Virtual Conference Hall,"
RE: FW: Product Safety: A Matter of Law or Litigation?
> -- > From: John Woodgate[SMTP:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk] > Reply To: John Woodgate > Sent: 08 June 2001 18:32 > To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org > Subject: Re: FW: Product Safety: A Matter of Law or Litigation? > > In a reply to Chris Maxwell Mr. Woodgate wrote... > Now imagine you are a defendant in a court case. Prosecuting counsel > says to you, 'So, Mr. Maxwell, you have explained to the court that your > company is not responsible for the dreadful injury inflicted on Mr. > Smith by your company's product, because the General Product Safety > Directive does not apply to 'commercial equipment'. Do you not agree > that what you are asking the jury to accept is that Mr. Smith should be > protected from injury by the law in his home, but that he forfeits any > such protection as soon as he sets foot in his workplace?' > > Go the extra mile: don't assume a 'whereas' will save you! > I don't think anyone would argue with the spirit of the last line. However the proceeding paragraph is perhaps misleading. As already mentioned today, as with all European directives, the General Product Safety Directive (GPSD) is a Directive from the EC to the governments of the member states, Directing them to pass certain laws within each country. This is known as the enacting legislation. The purpose of the directive is to ensure that the domestic laws on certain matters , within each member state, are as near as possible identical. Thus it is for the government lawyers to interpret whether the GPSD requires them to enact specific legislation to protect consumers and/or industrial users of certain equipment. If you were to find yourself a defendant in court you would be facing a specific charge under your countrys domestic legislation. The scenario above would not arise. (It is probably fair to say that people are already well protected under legislation whilst in the work place. Maybe the GPSD was aimed to give them similar protection at home? ) Regards Andy Wood Engineer (Special Products) Land Instruments International UK Usual disclaimer about own opinions and please excuse following message This e-mail and its contents may be confidential, privileged and protected by law. Access is only authorised by the intended recipient. The contents of this e-mail may not be disclosed to, or used by, anyone other than the intended recipient, or stored or copied in any medium. If you are not the intended recipient, please advise the sender immediately. --- 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 Healddavehe...@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: http://www.rcic.com/ click on "Virtual Conference Hall,"
RE: FW: Product Safety: A Matter of Law or Litigation?
The Product Liability Directive is 85/374/EEC of 25 July 1985. * Establishes the principle of liability without fault on the part of the producer in the event of damage caused by a defect in his product * The "injured person" must prove actual damage, the defect in the product and the causal relationship * Lack of safety which the general public is entitled to expect determines the defectiveness of a product * Liability ends 10 years after the product is placed in circulation * No contractual clause may limit the producer's limit of liability * The liability limit, set by each state, must be at least ECU 70 million Richard Woods -- From: Chris Maxwell [SMTP:chris.maxw...@nettest.com] Sent: Monday, June 11, 2001 8:56 AM To: 'John Woodgate'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: FW: Product Safety: A Matter of Law or Litigation? Hi all, (refer to John's "inimitable" :-) reply below) Even though my previous response may not sound like it; I agree with you on this one John. Manufacturers should go the extra mile. I think that we're all trying to figure out which road to go the extra mile on. (with regard to products that fall outside the scope of the Low Voltage Directive, Machinery Directive, Toy Directive, RT&TTE Directive..even the General Product Safety Directive). I saw a reply from a collegue at Agilent. He mentioned a "Product Liability Directive". Ever heard of that one? Anybody have a copy of it that cares to comment? > Now imagine you are a defendant in a court case. Prosecuting counsel > says to you, 'So, Mr. Maxwell, you have explained to the court that your > company is not responsible for the dreadful injury inflicted on Mr. > Smith by your company's product, because the General Product Safety > Directive does not apply to 'commercial equipment'. Do you not agree > that what you are asking the jury to accept is that Mr. Smith should be > protected from injury by the law in his home, but that he forfeits any > such protection as soon as he sets foot in his workplace?' > > Go the extra mile: don't assume a 'whereas' will save you! > -- > --- 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 Healddavehe...@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: http://www.rcic.com/ click on "Virtual Conference Hall," --- 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 Healddavehe...@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: http://www.rcic.com/ click on "Virtual Conference Hall,"
Re: Do we need a competent body?
David You are correct. If the worst case configurations (they may be different for emission and immunity) are demonstrated to be compliant by meeting the requirements of the harmonised standards, you can also place the other variants on the market. Your declaration of conformity should cover all the variants. You should document your reasons for the selection of the variant(s) you have tested, and keep it in your files, in case there is a challenge by enforcement authorities in the future. Best wishes Brian Jones EMC Consultant and Competent Body Signatory > - Original Message - > From: David Gelfand > To: > Sent: Monday, June 11, 2001 1:42 PM > Subject: Do we need a competent body? > > > > > > We manufacture IT equipment with no radio interfaces. Our system is > similar to > > a PC, host motherboards can accept various i/o cards. > > > > There are two different opinions regarding competent bodies. > > > > Mine: Our equipment falls within the scope of harmonized standards, we > test > > "worst case configurations" and declare conformity without a competent > body. > > > > Other: Since we do not test all possible permutations of cards and > positions we > > must use the technical construction file route and a competent body. > > > > Who is right? > > > > Best regards, > > > > David. > > > > David Gelfand > > Regulatory Approvals > > Memotec Communications Inc. > > > > > > > > --- > > 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 Healddavehe...@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: > > http://www.rcic.com/ click on "Virtual Conference Hall," > > > > > > > --- 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 Healddavehe...@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: http://www.rcic.com/ click on "Virtual Conference Hall,"
RE: FW: Product Safety: A Matter of Law or Litigation?
Hi all, (refer to John's "inimitable" :-) reply below) Even though my previous response may not sound like it; I agree with you on this one John. Manufacturers should go the extra mile. I think that we're all trying to figure out which road to go the extra mile on. (with regard to products that fall outside the scope of the Low Voltage Directive, Machinery Directive, Toy Directive, RT&TTE Directive..even the General Product Safety Directive). I saw a reply from a collegue at Agilent. He mentioned a "Product Liability Directive". Ever heard of that one? Anybody have a copy of it that cares to comment? > Now imagine you are a defendant in a court case. Prosecuting counsel > says to you, 'So, Mr. Maxwell, you have explained to the court that your > company is not responsible for the dreadful injury inflicted on Mr. > Smith by your company's product, because the General Product Safety > Directive does not apply to 'commercial equipment'. Do you not agree > that what you are asking the jury to accept is that Mr. Smith should be > protected from injury by the law in his home, but that he forfeits any > such protection as soon as he sets foot in his workplace?' > > Go the extra mile: don't assume a 'whereas' will save you! > -- > --- 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 Healddavehe...@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: http://www.rcic.com/ click on "Virtual Conference Hall,"
Do we need a competent body?
We manufacture IT equipment with no radio interfaces. Our system is similar to a PC, host motherboards can accept various i/o cards. There are two different opinions regarding competent bodies. Mine: Our equipment falls within the scope of harmonized standards, we test "worst case configurations" and declare conformity without a competent body. Other: Since we do not test all possible permutations of cards and positions we must use the technical construction file route and a competent body. Who is right? Best regards, David. David Gelfand Regulatory Approvals Memotec Communications Inc. --- 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 Healddavehe...@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: http://www.rcic.com/ click on "Virtual Conference Hall,"
RE: EN61000-3-2 +A14
Is the product a PC or is it some commercial product that just happens to have some processing capability? Consider the reason computers and TVs were included in the Class D list -- a large number of products put on the public power grid with "significant" harmonic heating. Then consider all of the exceptions -- products that are just as dirty but are low volume, therefore have minimal impact to the public power grid and are considered Class A. I believe that the product is defined by its market. If the product uses a computer as a portion of its design but is a commercial product (low volume), a case could be made for Class A. I strongly suggest anyone considering this route present this argument carefully to a Competent Body so as to provide justification in your files. My opinion only and not necessarily that of the Company. Don Umbdenstock Sensormatic Electronics Corporation > -- > From: John Woodgate[SMTP:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk] > Reply To: John Woodgate > Sent: Friday, June 08, 2001 6:07 PM > To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org > Subject: Re: EN61000-3-2 +A14 > > > <4FBEA8857476D311A03300204840E1CF027439E2@whq-msgusr- > 02.pit.comms.marconi.com>, Wolak, Marvin > inimitably wrote: > >Sorry for the confusion. I refer to it as an industrial PC in that > >mechanically it is in a no frills metal case which can be rack mounted. > > > >The basic question I has was, is a PC no longer considered a PC when its > use > >becomes dedicated to a particular commercial task insofar as EN61000-3-2 > is > >concerned? > > > >The point-of-sale(POS) example illustrates my question. On many POS > >systems, you can connect a mouse, bring up Windows and play solitaire. > The > >peripherals connect to the standard PC ports. (At least they used to, > its > >been awhile since I had exposure to POS development.) > > What matters for EN61000-3-2 is the sort of supply it's used on, not > whether you can play games on it or not. > -- > Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. Phone +44 (0)1268 747839 > Fax +44 (0)1268 777124. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Why not call a > vertically- > applied manulo-pedally-operated quasi-planar chernozem-penetrating and > excavating implement a SPADE? > > --- > 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 Healddavehe...@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: > http://www.rcic.com/ click on "Virtual Conference Hall," > --- 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 Healddavehe...@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: http://www.rcic.com/ click on "Virtual Conference Hall,"
