Non-compliant product put into EU marked
Hi all, You place a radio product into the EU marked with the following status: - Not been EMC, radio or safety tested (the previous model was tested and compliant, major modifications have later been implemented) - The product will only be in the marked for a time limiting period ( 1 month) - During the time limiting period it will be operating as in a normal condition - No CE mark on the product and no DoC I mean that you can't do this. You have to confirm that you fulfil the EMC, radio and safety requirements, DoC in place, even that the product just will be in the marked for 1 month and thereafter withdrawal. Any other comments from the list members ? Best regards Amund Westin, Oslo/Norway --- 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: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
SV: RTTE Directive
If you have listed the draft standard in the DoC and the new harmonized standard covers same test levels and test methods (draft standard = Harmonized standard), I would have issued a new DoC updating the test standard reference. No action towards the NB. Amund -Opprinnelig melding- Fra: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]På vegne av richwo...@tycoint.com Sendt: 13. desember 2001 18:01 Til: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Emne: RTTE Directive I previously used a Notified Body in the conformity process to the RTTE Directive since only a draft radio standard existed at the time. However, a harmonized standard now exists. I understand that I have two choices: 1) Continue to use the existing Declaration of Conformity to the essential requirements of the RTTE, or 2) Issue a new Declaration in which we declare compliance with the harmonized radio standard and make no mention of the participation of the Notified Body. Is my understanting correct? Richard Woods Sensormatic Electronics Tyco International --- 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: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server. --- 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: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
SV: EMI guard bands
Cecil, When thinking of EMI guard band (margins), I put the following into mind: 1. variation in production (a couple of dB) 2. uncertainly during measurements (5-6 dB at lower frequencies like 30MHz) 3. variation from labs to labs (I don't know 4-6 dB ?? ) I think 6-8dB should give you a good feeling. Amund -Opprinnelig melding- Fra: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]Pa vegne av cecil.gitt...@kodak.com Sendt: 10. desember 2001 13:46 Til: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Emne: EMI guard bands From: Cecil A. Gittens I am in the process of putting a document together for products that are tested for Radiated Conducted Emissions that should have a Guard-band of 6 dB for FCC or CISPR22 class A or B. Does it depend if the product is class A or B? Does anyone have any pointers or suggestions? Thanks. --- 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: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server. --- 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: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
RE: What happened to the IEC60417 symbol library?
Hello Doug, Dr. Ikeda, the Secretary of IEC SC/3C (the committee responsible for symbols), has decommissioned his private site. That is the bad news. The good news is that IEC has placed this information on the web, officially, but you must pay for it. The bureaucrats are protecting their revenue stream! http://www.iec.ch/ and look in the upper right for: IEC 60617 online Graphical symbols database Best regards, Dave Osborn Philips Medical Systems Cardiac and Monitoring Systems Secretary, ISO TC 121/SC3 d.g.osb...@ieee.org + 1 978 659 3178 fax +1 978 685 5624 -Original Message- From: POWELL, DOUG [mailto:doug.pow...@aei.com] Sent: Friday, December 14, 2001 12:41 PM To: EMC-PSTC (E-mail) Subject: What happened to the IEC60417 symbol library? Hello all, Today it came to my attention the IEC website in Japan is down. I checked with InterNIC and their domain name is no longer registered. I checked with GOOGLE.COM and search results are: - Graphical Symbols Compliant to IEC Standard 417 - http://w3.hike.te.chiba-u.ac.jp/iec417/ver2.0/html/index.html a database by Ikeda Lab., Chiba University. IEC 417 has been renumbered to IEC 60417. - But of course the link is dead. Does anyone know if it moved? -doug _ In the face of adversity, be patient, in the face of a basenji, be prudent, be canny, be on your guard! _ This message, including any attachments, may contain information that is confidential and proprietary information of Advanced Energy Industries, Inc. The dissemination, distribution, use or copying of this message or any of its attachments is strictly prohibited without the express written consent of Advanced Energy Industries, 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: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server. --- 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: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
Re: Sometimes product safety just isn't enough
I read in !emc-pstc that Tania Grant taniagr...@msn.com wrote (in oe105nrrmqyirkou1wl9...@hotmail.com) about 'Sometimes product safety just isn't enough', on Sat, 15 Dec 2001: I see where you have drawn the line! I can just see now the IEC rewriting the definition of users of 60950 equipment as 1) trained servicepersons, 2) fools, and 3) all others. The definition of fools would be mindless persons who ignore all instructions and logic. Safety would be achieved, in addition to the usual compliance, by having users signing a paper when placing an order or purchasing equipment that they will read all instructions and agree to abide by the conditions of use placed on the equipment. This document gets back to the manufacturer who files away this bureaucracy, to be retrieved when a fool tries to sue for hot coffee in their lap, or a tingle when drilling under rafters when standing on an aluminum ladder in the swimming pool. This would take care of the crazies who try to sue for any possible misuse of their brains. I think that if I were marketing a product in USA, I would seriously consider doing just that! And I bet my product-liability insurance company would be very pleased if I did it! Seriously, I am all for protecting the innocent and uneducated user. But the user should also be accountable for responsible use of equipment. The problem is, how does one define that??? I'm not sure that 'responsible' is quite the right word in this context. There is also the question of 'foreseeable misuse'; there is now a requirement in some legislation for manufacturers to take this into account, but I don't know of a definition of it! I doubt if it's practicable to do better than to say, as a pair of formal definitions (which I believe we NEED!): Correct use: Use in accordance with the manufacturers instructions, including the obeying of all 'warning' and 'caution' notices. Foreseeable misuse: Use of, or activity involving, the product which does not violate the manufacturer's instructions, or involve the ignoring of a 'warning' or 'caution' notice, but which is not intended by the manufacturer and may result in damage or injury or both. For example, the replacing of a user-accessible fuse by an incorrect type is, I think, foreseeable misuse, simply because fuse specifications are now so complex for the layman: 'F 1.6 A E 250 V'. Since it's at least exceedingly difficult to ensure continued safety with a 'T 6.3 A L 32 V' fuse in this position (!), I think user-accessible fuses (i.e. no tool required) have to go! -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk After swimming across the Hellespont, I felt like a Hero. --- 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: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
Re: Regulatory General Discussion : ouput of Compliance group
Doug, You've described the poles-apart situations of regulatory compliance very well. I've worked in both types of situations, and can say that my contribution and worth to the company in the first example far exceeds anything that can be achieved in a company of your last example. I've felt underused and undervalued, and made haste to find another job. Educating management just did not work when they have their minds set otherwise. taniagr...@msn.com - Original Message - From: Doug McKean Sent: Friday, December 14, 2001 4:59 PM To: EMC-PSTC Discussion Group Subject: Re: Regulatory General Discussion : ouput of Compliance group Andre, Pierre-Marie wrote: So has anybody some thoughts or argument on the measurement or evaluation of an Compliance Group ? Well, I'd hate to let the dirty little secret out of the bag for those of us who would fall under such and evaluation. Important in such an evaluation would be that the company has allowed the compliance engineer to have significant input to the design/mfring processes. I've been in companies where evaluations from the compliance engineer amounted to nothing more than a suggestion. Very frustrating. Other places had the compliance engineer greatly involved as a signatory in product release and with ECR/ECOs. Start with an ideal world where the compliance engineer has complete planning, budgeting, signatory/approval powers with the complete product cycle from prototype-to-product release-to product obsolescence. Consider that as the complete model. Then, as the person has less and less involvement/approval power in those areas, they are thus less responsible for them and thus, they are not to be evaluated in those areas. You'll probably find the typical compliance engineer ends up in reality scheduling tests w/no approval powers, has input to ECR/ECOs but no signatory powers, inputs into product design by way of memos, sometimes are the last to know about significant design changes, and might answer to someone who knows little about compliance engineering. IMO, evaluation would be difficult. Regards, Doug McKean --- 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: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
Re: Sometimes product safety just isn't enough
Hello, John, I see where you have drawn the line! I can just see now the IEC rewriting the definition of users of 60950 equipment as 1) trained servicepersons, 2) fools, and 3) all others. The definition of fools would be mindless persons who ignore all instructions and logic. Safety would be achieved, in addition to the usual compliance, by having users signing a paper when placing an order or purchasing equipment that they will read all instructions and agree to abide by the conditions of use placed on the equipment. This document gets back to the manufacturer who files away this bureaucracy, to be retrieved when a fool tries to sue for hot coffee in their lap, or a tingle when drilling under rafters when standing on an aluminum ladder in the swimming pool. This would take care of the crazies who try to sue for any possible misuse of their brains. Seriously, I am all for protecting the innocent and uneducated user. But the user should also be accountable for responsible use of equipment. The problem is, how does one define that??? taniagr...@msn.com - Original Message - From: John Woodgate Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2001 1:07 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: Sometimes product safety just isn't enough I read in !emc-pstc that Tania Grant taniagr...@msn.com wrote (in oe527cewuohvfufnkig3...@hotmail.com) about 'Sometimes product safety just isn't enough', on Fri, 14 Dec 2001: And we have strayed here from the subject matter (although I don't mind!). Just how much does a product designer and a product safety professional owe to make the product safe under any circumstances? In my estimation, the line has to be drawn somewhere. Do we have to protect the user against obvious sabotage? (What is 'obvious'?) My point was that we, product safety professionals, also have an obligation to educate the user in product safety, not just submit product to bureaucratic agencies for proof of compliance. It is impossible to make anything foolproof, because the Devil keeps making more and more ingenious fools. (Unknown author acknowledged) -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk After swimming across the Hellespont, I felt like a Hero. --- 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: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
