Re: Field Strength - Substitution Method
I read in !emc-pstc that Cortland Richmond 72146@compuserve.com wrote (in 200112271228_mc3-ec1b-a...@compuserve.com) about 'Field Strength - Substitution Method', on Thu, 27 Dec 2001: What you don't have -- and what, I think, is most difficult -- is a model that reliably correlates a substitution antenna as a source with the equipment under test. A rack seven feet tall and two feet on a side -- with wires overhead and off to its sides -- will NOT radiate the same as a dipole. And it will differ more from an antenna as its dimensions become larger than the antenna. I would expect differences to become more pronounced, in other words, at higher frequencies. This is what you saw. I don't think that's relevant. The EUT, whatever it is, produces X dB(uV/m) at the receiving antenna. The sig gen and bilog is then set up to produce the same field strength at the receiving antenna. The problem seems to be *independent of the EUT*. The calculated field strength of the sig gen and bilog doesn't agree with the *measured* value. Having said that, an EUT may have an entirely different radiation pattern from that of an antenna, but the normal OATS procedure is 'blind' to this, even if the EUT is large enough to subtend quite a large angle at the receiving antenna, so that the measured field strength is actually an average over a considerable volume of space. -- 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: Non-compliant product put into EU marked
Robert said: With no revenue, it is an exhibition, a test. What if a company decided to give away a thousand radiocommunications devices in London, and set up the required infrastructure to make them work, all for free? No revenue - but the devices sure did get put into service. Article 7.1 says this should happen only if the product complies with the essential requirements. It's my interpretation that a Beta test is 'putting into service'. Perhaps that's due to my experience - WLAN's - where a Beta test would be a large installation complete with Access Points, and (at least) dozens of clients. Hard to call that anything other than 'putting into service'. A customer agreeing to be a Beta test site probably would also be purchasing the equipment eventually, if not right away. Often equipment installed for beta test is left in service at the site. I'll grant you that Article 8.2 might be interpreted to include beta testing (call it a demonstration?), but I think beta testing will usually violate the spirit if not the text of the article. The article is intended to allow sales/promotional activities in advance of compliance. I think it also depends on how one defines 'beta test'. I'd like to hear how others interpret the RTTED on this point. It's a grey area, for sure. Doug Massey Lead Regulatory Engineer LXE, Inc. -Original Message- From: Robert Macy [mailto:m...@california.com] Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2001 9:56 AM To: Massey, Doug C.; IEEE - PSTC FORUM (E-mail) Subject: Re: Non-compliant product put into EU marked Wow! I've been telling clients that even a Beta test is allowed, as long as absolutely no revenue is derived from it. Can't sell it. Can't rent it. With no revenue, it is an exhibition, a test. Is this wrong? - Robert - Robert A. Macy, PEm...@california.com 408 286 3985 fx 408 297 9121 AJM International Electronics Consultants 619 North First St, San Jose, CA 95112 -Original Message- From: Massey, Doug C. masse...@ems-t.com To: IEEE - PSTC FORUM (E-mail) emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: Thursday, December 27, 2001 6:20 AM Subject: RE: Non-compliant product put into EU marked Article 8.2 of the RTTED (1999/5/EC) allows exemptions for .. trade fairs, exhibitions, demonstrations, etc.. It also requires that a visible sign clearly indicates that such apparatus may not be marketed or put into service until it has been made to comply. Beta testing at a customer site does not fall under the Art. 8.2 exemptions. A sales team demonstrating the product to a customer could be exempt for the period of their demonstration. However, you can't call a large scale Beta test a demonstration - the Beta test is 'putting into service'. IMHO, it's in clear violation of the RTTED. Doug Massey Lead Regulatory Engineer LXE, Inc. -Original Message- From: am...@westin-emission.no [mailto:am...@westin-emission.no] Sent: Monday, December 17, 2001 5:05 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: SV: Non-compliant product put into EU marked As far as I know the product shall be produced in a large scale. The reason for putting it on the marked for a time limiting period is (again as far as I know) to run the product ( beta version) in a test installation and thereafter will it go through the entire test program (EMC, LVD, etc). It seems that they did not manage to do the testing before the 1 month test period on the field. Again, I feel they are not doing things in the consecutive order and I also think they are no allowed to put in on the marked, even the short period. Amund -Opprinnelig melding- Fra: Tania Grant [mailto:taniagr...@msn.com] Sendt: 17. desember 2001 19:33 Til: am...@westin-emission.no; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Emne: Re: Non-compliant product put into EU marked Is the manufacturer serious, or completely ignorant? If serious, I would disassociate from them as much as possible. If merely ignorant, and you have some sort of association with them, I would recommend that you educate them fully. Another thought, -- is this product slated for mass distribution, even for only a month, or is it going to another location or a particular customer for some special in-house use or application? What does this customer think? Are they aware, and do they agree to this? The Directives do have special provisions for certain special applications where non-compliant (or is it merely untested !) product can be shipped to Europe, but I believe that under those circumstances, the name of the manufacturer and product model name or designation has to be published broadly in the EU. I don't remember the details. If anyone can shed more light, that would be very nice. taniagr...@msn.com - Original Message - From: am...@westin-emission.no To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2001 2:06 PM Subject: Non-compliant
Re: Non-compliant product put into EU marked
I read in !emc-pstc that Robert Macy m...@california.com wrote (in 000e01c18ee6$984ba0c0$8be10...@robert.macy.california.com) about 'Non- compliant product put into EU marked', on Thu, 27 Dec 2001: Wow! I've been telling clients that even a Beta test is allowed, as long as absolutely no revenue is derived from it. Can't sell it. Can't rent it. With no revenue, it is an exhibition, a test. Is this wrong? Yes, it is wrong. An extensive beta test means putting into the field numerous samples of a product which may be unsafe and/or may cause interference to safety-of-life systems. The exemption for exhibitions etc. is on the balance of probability that ONE unit is unlikely to cause a problem. This is the implication of the Directive wording about 'taking into service', which stands *in parallel* with 'placing on the market'. In other words, if you do EITHER of those things, the Directive applies. -- 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.
IEC 601-1 : Insulation between applied part and signal input
Hello from the Franch Alps, I need your help to determinate which insulation is required between an applied part (lin to the OV of the product thru a capacitor) and one signal input in a medical product, against IEC 601-1 requirements. The signal input is connected to the parallel port of a computer. I understand that the insulation has to be a supplementary one. Does this mean that I need to have a galvanic insulation (with optocoupleur, for example) or can I use another system ? Thanks a lot for your contribution. Bonnes fêtes de fin d'année et meilleurs voeux pour 2002 (happy new year and best whishes !) eLABs Pierre SELVA 18 Rue Marceau Leyssieux 38400 SAINT MARTIN D'HERES - FRANCE Phone : 33 (0)6 76 63 02 58 Fax : 33 (0)6 61 37 87 48 e-mail : e.l...@wanadoo.fr ps.el...@laposte.net ==
RE: Field Strength - Substitution Method
Sam, You should also consider the radiation may be from multiple sources on the EUT. Polarization of the source may not be the same at the substitution antenna. Try 0, 45, and 90 degree polarization of the bi-con. A tuned dipole would also give you better results as a bi-con has a very high SWR. This gives you addition loose which you may not have accounted for. Jim -Original Message- From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Cortland Richmond Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2001 12:26 PM To: Sam Wismer; ieee pstc list Subject: Re: Field Strength - Substitution Method Sam, I think you did it right with one AF and one gain. There's a problem with that method. You need more information needed to make the _results_ right. Given a certain power at the antenna terminal, and a known gain and efficiency, you can calculate the free-space field strength at some distance due to RF applied to that antenna. Then you add loss or gain due to reflection from the ground plane. This gets you down to some fairly reliable way to estimate what field strength will be created over a ground plane at some distance from an antenna. What you don't have -- and what, I think, is most difficult -- is a model that reliably correlates a substitution antenna as a source with the equipment under test. A rack seven feet tall and two feet on a side -- with wires overhead and off to its sides -- will NOT radiate the same as a dipole. And it will differ more from an antenna as its dimensions become larger than the antenna. I would expect differences to become more pronounced, in other words, at higher frequencies. This is what you saw. Cortland (my own opinion and not that of my employers) --- 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: Field Strength - Substitution Method
Hear, hear. It may have been hand waving but I always assumed that test sites never correlated very well (although their calibration curves do) because the actual radiators one is measuring are strange and not well controlled impedances like an antenna. The sources can be low or high impedance and each act completely differently than one expects. With that in mind, I don't see how it is possible to substitute a controlled antenna, measure the power going to it, and predict anything to the original - within plus or minus 12 dB. Just opinion here and experience fighting battles at test sites. - Robert - Robert A. Macy, PEm...@california.com 408 286 3985 fx 408 297 9121 AJM International Electronics Consultants 619 North First St, San Jose, CA 95112 -Original Message- From: Cortland Richmond 72146@compuserve.com To: Sam Wismer swis...@bellsouth.net; ieee pstc list emc-p...@ieee.org List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: Thursday, December 27, 2001 10:12 AM Subject: Re: Field Strength - Substitution Method Sam, I think you did it right with one AF and one gain. There's a problem with that method. You need more information needed to make the _results_ right. Given a certain power at the antenna terminal, and a known gain and efficiency, you can calculate the free-space field strength at some distance due to RF applied to that antenna. Then you add loss or gain due to reflection from the ground plane. This gets you down to some fairly reliable way to estimate what field strength will be created over a ground plane at some distance from an antenna. What you don't have -- and what, I think, is most difficult -- is a model that reliably correlates a substitution antenna as a source with the equipment under test. A rack seven feet tall and two feet on a side -- with wires overhead and off to its sides -- will NOT radiate the same as a dipole. And it will differ more from an antenna as its dimensions become larger than the antenna. I would expect differences to become more pronounced, in other words, at higher frequencies. This is what you saw. Cortland (my own opinion and not that of my employers) --- 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: Field Strength - Substitution Method
Sam, I think you did it right with one AF and one gain. There's a problem with that method. You need more information needed to make the _results_ right. Given a certain power at the antenna terminal, and a known gain and efficiency, you can calculate the free-space field strength at some distance due to RF applied to that antenna. Then you add loss or gain due to reflection from the ground plane. This gets you down to some fairly reliable way to estimate what field strength will be created over a ground plane at some distance from an antenna. What you don't have -- and what, I think, is most difficult -- is a model that reliably correlates a substitution antenna as a source with the equipment under test. A rack seven feet tall and two feet on a side -- with wires overhead and off to its sides -- will NOT radiate the same as a dipole. And it will differ more from an antenna as its dimensions become larger than the antenna. I would expect differences to become more pronounced, in other words, at higher frequencies. This is what you saw. Cortland (my own opinion and not that of my employers) --- 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.
Field Strength - Substitution Method
Hi Group, I have been asked to perform field strength measurements using standard radiated methods as well as substitution methods on the same sample(an intentional radiator). While I have plenty of experience making radiated measurements, I have never made a substitution measurement. I thought I have read enough about it to at least give it a go, but I am getting some results that I didn't expect. I assumed that both measurement methods should produce similar results within reason(+-5dB or so or perhaps even closer). The results I am getting in some cases have deltas of up to 10dB. The procedure I am employing basically consists of: 1) Making the radiated field strength measurement on an OATS and recording the raw result at the receiver 2) Substitute the EUT with a signal generator and an antenna(I am using a Bi-log). 3) I adjust the signal generator level to produce the same level at the receiver 4) I take the SG level and subtract the losses and add the gains. The calculated result I figure should be close to the measured value obtained in step 1, but it's not. I've tried applying the correction factors in several ways to Back into the proper equation, but the results are all over the place. One question I have is should I use the AF's of both antennas or just one? And if just one, should I consider the gain of the other antenna? My logic is as follows: I presume the AF takes into account the 3 meter Path Loss in some fashion. Therefore, following my logic, if I use both AF's, the 3 meter Path Loss is applied twice. Using both AF's produces a result nowhere close to the measured value. I then used the AF of only one antenna and the gain of the other antenna. Logic is that the 3 meter path loss and one antenna is considered by the AF of one antenna, and the other antenna is considered by applying it's gain. Using this method, I can get with 4dB of the measured result at the fundamental, but I am still out by 10dB at the 3rd harmonic. Also, should I be using tuned dipoles? If so, why would that make a difference. Any publications I can reference? Any help is appreciated. Kind Regards, Sam Wismer Engineering Manager ACS, Inc. Phone: (770) 831-8048 Fax: (770) 831-8598 Web: www.acstestlab.com
Re: Non-compliant product put into EU marked
Wow! I've been telling clients that even a Beta test is allowed, as long as absolutely no revenue is derived from it. Can't sell it. Can't rent it. With no revenue, it is an exhibition, a test. Is this wrong? - Robert - Robert A. Macy, PEm...@california.com 408 286 3985 fx 408 297 9121 AJM International Electronics Consultants 619 North First St, San Jose, CA 95112 -Original Message- From: Massey, Doug C. masse...@ems-t.com To: IEEE - PSTC FORUM (E-mail) emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: Thursday, December 27, 2001 6:20 AM Subject: RE: Non-compliant product put into EU marked Article 8.2 of the RTTED (1999/5/EC) allows exemptions for .. trade fairs, exhibitions, demonstrations, etc.. It also requires that a visible sign clearly indicates that such apparatus may not be marketed or put into service until it has been made to comply. Beta testing at a customer site does not fall under the Art. 8.2 exemptions. A sales team demonstrating the product to a customer could be exempt for the period of their demonstration. However, you can't call a large scale Beta test a demonstration - the Beta test is 'putting into service'. IMHO, it's in clear violation of the RTTED. Doug Massey Lead Regulatory Engineer LXE, Inc. -Original Message- From: am...@westin-emission.no [mailto:am...@westin-emission.no] Sent: Monday, December 17, 2001 5:05 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: SV: Non-compliant product put into EU marked As far as I know the product shall be produced in a large scale. The reason for putting it on the marked for a time limiting period is (again as far as I know) to run the product ( beta version) in a test installation and thereafter will it go through the entire test program (EMC, LVD, etc). It seems that they did not manage to do the testing before the 1 month test period on the field. Again, I feel they are not doing things in the consecutive order and I also think they are no allowed to put in on the marked, even the short period. Amund -Opprinnelig melding- Fra: Tania Grant [mailto:taniagr...@msn.com] Sendt: 17. desember 2001 19:33 Til: am...@westin-emission.no; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Emne: Re: Non-compliant product put into EU marked Is the manufacturer serious, or completely ignorant? If serious, I would disassociate from them as much as possible. If merely ignorant, and you have some sort of association with them, I would recommend that you educate them fully. Another thought, -- is this product slated for mass distribution, even for only a month, or is it going to another location or a particular customer for some special in-house use or application? What does this customer think? Are they aware, and do they agree to this? The Directives do have special provisions for certain special applications where non-compliant (or is it merely untested !) product can be shipped to Europe, but I believe that under those circumstances, the name of the manufacturer and product model name or designation has to be published broadly in the EU. I don't remember the details. If anyone can shed more light, that would be very nice. taniagr...@msn.com - Original Message - From: am...@westin-emission.no To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2001 2:06 PM Subject: 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.
RE: -2dB margin
Hi George, I don't think the margin makes any difference in applying the 80/80 rule. If you have a series produced product you must apply the 80/80 rule using a sample size of not less than 5 and not more than 12 pieces. See Clause 11, Assessment of conformity of equipment, of CISPR 11: 1999. Happy New Year to all! Best regards, Jim -Original Message- From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of George Stults Sent: Monday, December 24, 2001 2:43 PM To: 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org' Subject: -2dB margin Hello Group, I've been looking into the 80/80 rule for CISPR 22 compliance for mass produced equipment. I have found a description of the statistics in CISPR 22 :1997 Section 7.1 and 7.2. Its been my understanding that for testing at OATS, if the product has 2dB or less margin, then these statistical methods are required. Is that correct? And, where does the reference to '2dB margin' come from? Thanks in advance George S. --- 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: Non-compliant product put into EU marked
Article 8.2 of the RTTED (1999/5/EC) allows exemptions for .. trade fairs, exhibitions, demonstrations, etc.. It also requires that a visible sign clearly indicates that such apparatus may not be marketed or put into service until it has been made to comply. Beta testing at a customer site does not fall under the Art. 8.2 exemptions. A sales team demonstrating the product to a customer could be exempt for the period of their demonstration. However, you can't call a large scale Beta test a demonstration - the Beta test is 'putting into service'. IMHO, it's in clear violation of the RTTED. Doug Massey Lead Regulatory Engineer LXE, Inc. -Original Message- From: am...@westin-emission.no [mailto:am...@westin-emission.no] Sent: Monday, December 17, 2001 5:05 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: SV: Non-compliant product put into EU marked As far as I know the product shall be produced in a large scale. The reason for putting it on the marked for a time limiting period is (again as far as I know) to run the product ( beta version) in a test installation and thereafter will it go through the entire test program (EMC, LVD, etc). It seems that they did not manage to do the testing before the 1 month test period on the field. Again, I feel they are not doing things in the consecutive order and I also think they are no allowed to put in on the marked, even the short period. Amund -Opprinnelig melding- Fra: Tania Grant [mailto:taniagr...@msn.com] Sendt: 17. desember 2001 19:33 Til: am...@westin-emission.no; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Emne: Re: Non-compliant product put into EU marked Is the manufacturer serious, or completely ignorant? If serious, I would disassociate from them as much as possible. If merely ignorant, and you have some sort of association with them, I would recommend that you educate them fully. Another thought, -- is this product slated for mass distribution, even for only a month, or is it going to another location or a particular customer for some special in-house use or application? What does this customer think? Are they aware, and do they agree to this? The Directives do have special provisions for certain special applications where non-compliant (or is it merely untested !) product can be shipped to Europe, but I believe that under those circumstances, the name of the manufacturer and product model name or designation has to be published broadly in the EU. I don't remember the details. If anyone can shed more light, that would be very nice. taniagr...@msn.com - Original Message - From: am...@westin-emission.no To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2001 2:06 PM Subject: 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. --- 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
RE: New China Compulsory Certification
Forwarded for Alain Samlai alain.sam...@gigabyte.com.tw due to strange internet phenomena. Enjoy Dave Heald EMC-PSTC Admin Cecil the CCIB has a page relating to CCC, but in its Chinese section only. http://www.cqc.com.cn/ccc.htm just click the links to open the PDF files and view the new CCC mark. as far as I understand this new scheme, major points are: 1- the old certification scheme stay valid until 1st May 2003 2- the first batch of equipment subject to the new certicification scheme (CCC) includes 19 types of items (for a total of 132 products - according to the CCIB documents) 3- for the equipment listed in this first batch, application for CCC mark are accepted starting 1st May 2002. 4- after 1st May 2003, equipment listed and without CCC approval will not be allowed for sale, export or import. 5- this first batch includes household products, micro-computer, etc... and is close to the second batch of product subject to CCIB/CCEE certification. 6- CCC labels have to be purchased from authorized printers. Alain Sam-Lai Gigabyte Technology Safety Dpt. mailto:alain.sam...@gigabyte.com.tw --- 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.
