SV: Generic emissions - EN 61000-6-3
AFAIK EN61000-6-3 is not harmonized yet. I have a problem to access the CENELEC web in order to check the current status of this standards. I have a copy of CISPR/CEI-IEC 1000-6-3:1996, but I don't know if this issue is the latest version because the IEC site is also down for the moment. In this version they still describe 30-1000MHz radiated emission (same limits as in 81-1) and 0.15-30MHz conducted emission (same limits as in 81-1). I would suggest that you use EN50081-1 until it become harmonized. Amund -Opprinnelig melding- Fra: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]Pa vegne av Chris Chileshe Sendt: 28. januar 2002 15:41 Til: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Emne: Generic emissions - EN 61000-6-3 Hi Group, I have just been touring the BSI website and discovered that the generic emissions standard EN 50081-1 for residential, commercial and light industrial, although current, has been superceded by EN 61000-6-3. If anyone has got a copy of this standard already, could they kindly advise - without resorting to replicating the entire standard on this forum!! - if there are major differences to be expected which would justify switching to this standard to avoid retesting in future - or is it a question of the emissions spectra now required for frequencies beyond 1GHz? Have the limits prescribed by EN50081-1 for the range 150kHz - 30Mhz - 1GHz stayed the same? Regards - Chris Chileshe - Ultronics Ltd - http://www.senstronics.com -Original Message- From: Chris Chileshe [SMTP:chris.chile...@ultronics.co.uk] Sent: Monday, January 28, 2002 9:11 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject:RE: CE Marking - Prototypes Regarding products for demo's and exhibitions, Enci writes .. >> Therefore the application of CE Marking or lack thereof is meaningless. You would think so wouldn't you. A small problem arises in that if you have competitors with a CE marked product, they will make it a point to display this and this means potential customers will be signing deals with them and not you because they have better and more reliable information on delivery dates. If you have no competitors, then you are OK. CE marked or not, make sure that the product is safe and further, that it will not go bang when connected to a supply with everybody else's non compliant stuff. It might be an idea to take a large filter if one is affordable. There is nothing quite as memorable as a product that explodes at an exhibition. In fact, it makes the exhibition worth attending the next time, and considering it has been the talk of the industry since the last time, you will get an unusually large crowd, and a quick check through their business cards will reveal they are competitors and not customers if the former exist! Having said this much, I feel it important that I state that these experiences were not personal to me or my current or previous employers. That's the truth. Best regards - Chris -Original Message- From: Enci [SMTP:e...@cinepower.com] Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2002 12:18 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject:RE: CE Marking - Protoypes Well, I found the guide I was looking for, and the key issue is the "placing on the market" or "taking into service". The guide clearly states demonstrating at an exhibition is not considered to be placing on the market. It also says a notice is required, as descibed below. Therefore the application of CE Marking or lack thereof is meaningless. Enci >Prototype, equipments for demostration aren't covered by the EMC or R&TTE >directive. >This is article 8.2 of RTTE a similar article exist in the EMC directive >"2. At trade fairs, exhibitions, demonstrations, etc., >Member States shall not create any obstacles to the >display of apparatus which does not comply with this >Directive, provided that a visible sign clearly indicates >that such apparatus may not be marketed or put into >service until it has been made to comply." >Ciao >Paolo --- 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 e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star Internet. The service is powered
Re: SV: Generic emissions - EN 61000-6-3
I read in !emc-pstc that cherryclo...@aol.com wrote (in <3f.61cee6f.29928...@aol.com>) about 'SV: Generic emissions - EN 61000-6-3', on Wed, 6 Feb 2002: >My intention was simply to remind people (if any reminding was needed) > that >achieving a presumption of conformity does not necessarily mean complying >with the EMC Directive. I'm sure that was your intention. But I also know how some people are likely to react. -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk After swimming across the Hellespont, I felt like a Hero. PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL! --- 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: SV: Generic emissions - EN 61000-6-3
Dear John My intention was simply to remind people (if any reminding was needed) that achieving a presumption of conformity does not necessarily mean complying with the EMC Directive. Regards, Keith Armstrong www.cherryclough.com In a message dated 05/02/02 22:57:37 GMT Standard Time, j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk writes: > Subj:Re: SV: Generic emissions - EN 61000-6-3 > Date:05/02/02 22:57:37 GMT Standard Time > From:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk (John Woodgate) > Sender:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org > Reply-to: mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk";>j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk > (John Woodgate) > To:emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org > > I read in !emc-pstc that cherryclo...@aol.com wrote (in <17b.31edfe2.299 > 12...@aol.com>) about 'SV: Generic emissions - EN 61000-6-3', on Tue, 5 > Feb 2002: > >Where the electromagnetic environment or proximity to sensitive > devices > >(such as radio receivers) for the intended use of a product is not > >adequately covered by the most relevant harmonised standard, there is > a > >possibility that the EMCD's Protection Requirements (Article 4 and > Annex III > >in 89/336/EEC) might not be complied with. > >In such situations, especially if there are complaints of actual > >interference related to the product, enforcement actions could be > taken > >against a manufacturer even though his product met the most relevant > >harmonised EMC standard in every detail. > > It's probably most unwise of me to comment on that, but it concerns in > practice only a very dire situation - probably interference with safety- > of-life communications. It is not a situation that is at all likely to > arise if John Doe stands his radio on top of the equipment and then > complains of interference. > > If such a case did occur, the first step that the regulatory authority > SHOULD take is to invoke Article 8 of the Directive and report to the > Commission that the harmonised EMC standard is not, in the case in > point, ensuring compliance with Article 4. The manufacturer can hardly > be held responsible if the relevant standard is defective. > > Furthermore 'enforcement action' in most countries is very much the last > resort - usually triggered by the manufacturer refusing to co-operate in > solving the problem. > > I think we had enough 'headless chicken syndrome' in past years about > the EMC Directive, and no new outbreak should be encouraged. > -- > Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. > http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk
Re: SV: Generic emissions - EN 61000-6-3
I read in !emc-pstc that cherryclo...@aol.com wrote (in <17b.31edfe2.299 12...@aol.com>) about 'SV: Generic emissions - EN 61000-6-3', on Tue, 5 Feb 2002: >Where the electromagnetic environment or proximity to sensitive devices >(such as radio receivers) for the intended use of a product is not >adequately covered by the most relevant harmonised standard, there is a >possibility that the EMCD's Protection Requirements (Article 4 and Annex > III >in 89/336/EEC) might not be complied with. >In such situations, especially if there are complaints of actual >interference related to the product, enforcement actions could be taken >against a manufacturer even though his product met the most relevant >harmonised EMC standard in every detail. It's probably most unwise of me to comment on that, but it concerns in practice only a very dire situation - probably interference with safety- of-life communications. It is not a situation that is at all likely to arise if John Doe stands his radio on top of the equipment and then complains of interference. If such a case did occur, the first step that the regulatory authority SHOULD take is to invoke Article 8 of the Directive and report to the Commission that the harmonised EMC standard is not, in the case in point, ensuring compliance with Article 4. The manufacturer can hardly be held responsible if the relevant standard is defective. Furthermore 'enforcement action' in most countries is very much the last resort - usually triggered by the manufacturer refusing to co-operate in solving the problem. I think we had enough 'headless chicken syndrome' in past years about the EMC Directive, and no new outbreak should be encouraged. -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk After swimming across the Hellespont, I felt like a Hero. PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL! --- 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: SV: Generic emissions - EN 61000-6-3
Dear Jim Just a couple of points on your item 2, which you and most others are probably well aware of anyway... If you are making 'multifunction' equipment (e.g. a refrigerator with an LCD display and internet browser) you may have to apply two different product-family standards. For the fridge example this could be EN 55014-1 and EN 55014-2 for the domestic appliance functions, plus EN 55022 and EN 55024 for the Internet functions. (Refer to EMCTLA Technical Guidance Note No. 40 at www.emctla.org) A presumption of conformity to the EMCD is only a presumption of conformity. Where the electromagnetic environment or proximity to sensitive devices (such as radio receivers) for the intended use of a product is not adequately covered by the most relevant harmonised standard, there is a possibility that the EMCD's Protection Requirements (Article 4 and Annex III in 89/336/EEC) might not be complied with. In such situations, especially if there are complaints of actual interference related to the product, enforcement actions could be taken against a manufacturer even though his product met the most relevant harmonised EMC standard in every detail. Regards, Keith Armstrong www.cherryclough.com In a message dated 01/02/02 21:16:44 GMT Standard Time, jim.eich...@xantrex.com writes: > Subj:RE: SV: Generic emissions - EN 61000-6-3 > Date:01/02/02 21:16:44 GMT Standard Time > From:jim.eich...@xantrex.com (Jim Eichner) > Sender:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org > Reply-to: HREF="mailto:jim.eich...@xantrex.com";>jim.eich...@xantrex.com (Jim > Eichner) > To:emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org > > Thanks to Enci, and the link he provided, I have my answer, and perhaps it > will cut through some of the semantics discussion, by introducing the one > term that seems to really count in discussing the standards route: > "presumption of conformity". > > The New Approach guideline seems pretty clear: a standard is NOT considered > to provide a presumption of conformity until it has been published in the > OJ. > > That tells us 2 things: > > 1. Until it is published in the OJ it does not satisfy the standards route > to compliance. You can use it but you're not within the bounds of the > standards route. > > 2. If a single standard applicable to your equipment is published in the OJ > without limitations, it provides presumption of conformity for your > equipment. You do not need to use any other standard, even if others that > appear also to cover your equipment have been published in the OJ. > > Comments? > > Jim Eichner, P.Eng. > Manager, Engineering Services > Xantrex Technology Inc. > Mobile Power > phone: (604) 422-2546 > fax: (604) 420-1591 > e-mail: jim.eich...@xantrex.com > web: www.xantrex.com >
Re: SV: Generic emissions - EN 61000-6-3
I read in !emc-pstc that Jim Eichner wrote (in <67C475A5ECE7D4118AEC0002B325CAB601767784@BCMAIL1>) about 'SV: Generic emissions - EN 61000-6-3', on Fri, 1 Feb 2002: >The New Approach guideline seems pretty clear: a standard is NOT considered >to provide a presumption of conformity until it has been published in the >OJ. > >That tells us 2 things: > >1. Until it is published in the OJ it does not satisfy the standards route >to compliance. You can use it but you're not within the bounds of the >standards route. Quite right. That's what really counts, but the 'harmonization' thing causes a lot of unnecessary confusion. Publication in the OJ is 'notification', not 'harmonization'. > >2. If a single standard applicable to your equipment is published in the OJ >without limitations, it provides presumption of conformity for your >equipment. You do not need to use any other standard, even if others that >appear also to cover your equipment have been published in the OJ. Not correct. The exceptions are the standards for low-frequency conducted emissions EN61000-3-2, -3 -11 and -12 (not yet published). These are 'product-family standards' and apply to everything connected to the *public* low-voltage supply (only certain voltage ranges). They stand alongside, *and apply in addition to*, more specialized product- family standards such as EN55022 and EN55014. Because they are so broad in scope and, unlike other product standards, are prepared by IEC SC77A, I have proposed that they should have a special designation, such as 'global product-family standards', but there is little or no support for this, so the uncertainty continues. -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk After swimming across the Hellespont, I felt like a Hero. PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL! --- 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: SV: Generic emissions - EN 61000-6-3
Thanks to Enci, and the link he provided, I have my answer, and perhaps it will cut through some of the semantics discussion, by introducing the one term that seems to really count in discussing the standards route: "presumption of conformity". The New Approach guideline seems pretty clear: a standard is NOT considered to provide a presumption of conformity until it has been published in the OJ. That tells us 2 things: 1. Until it is published in the OJ it does not satisfy the standards route to compliance. You can use it but you're not within the bounds of the standards route. 2. If a single standard applicable to your equipment is published in the OJ without limitations, it provides presumption of conformity for your equipment. You do not need to use any other standard, even if others that appear also to cover your equipment have been published in the OJ. Comments? Jim Eichner, P.Eng. Manager, Engineering Services Xantrex Technology Inc. Mobile Power phone: (604) 422-2546 fax: (604) 420-1591 e-mail: jim.eich...@xantrex.com web: www.xantrex.com -Original Message- From: Brian Jones [mailto:e...@brianjones.co.uk] Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 1:01 AM To: John Woodgate; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: SV: Generic emissions - EN 61000-6-3 John We will have to agree to disagree on the semantic issues BUT I will not accept your putting words in my mouth on interpretations of the current and draft EMC Directives. For the record, I deliberately used the word "apply" which is the wording of the current Directive. Apply does not necessarily mean "test". I did not mention the draft revision. Brian Jones EMC Consultant and Competent Body Signatory --- 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: SV: Generic emissions - EN 61000-6-3
I read in !emc-pstc that Brian Jones wrote (in <002001c1ab0b$47b63d00$9141c0c1@oemcomputer>) about 'SV: Generic emissions - EN 61000-6-3', on Fri, 1 Feb 2002: >John > >We will have to agree to disagree on the semantic issues Let us hope that that does not give rise to any difficulties in future. > >BUT I will not accept your putting words in my mouth on interpretations of >the current and draft EMC Directives. I didn't mean to do that: I thought that I had interpreted your words correctly. There is no possible advantage to me to put words into your mouth deliberately; in fact, your justified response would damage my position. > >For the record, I deliberately used the word "apply" which is the wording of >the current Directive. Apply does not necessarily mean "test". Is it possible to clarify what 'apply in full' means, in detail? There is a great deal of confusion about this: it is widely interpreted, AFAIK, as meaning that all the test methods have to be implemented *exactly* as given in the relevant Basic Standards. That interpretation could be said to be inconsistent with the provision that, if justified, certain tests can be omitted, but that provision is in the Generic Standards, not in the Directive, AFAIK. > >I did not mention the draft revision. I agree that you did not: I don't think I gave the impression that you did. > -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk After swimming across the Hellespont, I felt like a Hero. PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL! --- 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: SV: Generic emissions - EN 61000-6-3
John We will have to agree to disagree on the semantic issues BUT I will not accept your putting words in my mouth on interpretations of the current and draft EMC Directives. For the record, I deliberately used the word "apply" which is the wording of the current Directive. Apply does not necessarily mean "test". I did not mention the draft revision. Brian Jones EMC Consultant and Competent Body Signatory --- 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: SV: Generic emissions - EN 61000-6-3
I read in !emc-pstc that Brian Jones wrote (in
<008a01c1aa69$1c259e80$8441c0c1@oemcomputer>) about 'SV: Generic
emissions - EN 61000-6-3', on Thu, 31 Jan 2002:
>
>John and everyone
>
>I do not wish to get into a semantics argument as to whether the Commission
>has chosen the most appropriate word to describe the subset of standards in
>connection with the new approach, but the special use of the word
>"harmonised" in connection with new approach directives has been employed
>since at least the mid 1980s.
Many misinterpretations or misrepresentations have survived for a long
time until challenged.
> The term has particular relevance in the EMC
>Directive because if harmonised standards are not applied in full, the TCF
>route must be followed (which is not the case with the LVD).
Does that mean, as it seems to, that this 'special meaning' of
'harmonized' only applies to some Directives, then? That is a recipe for
confusion. Maybe this discussion exemplifies that.
I am extremely disappointed to learn that you support this draconian
interpretation ('applied in full') of the existing EMCD, and the
corresponding explicit, and highly controversial, statement in the draft
new EMCD. This insistence on 'full' application has no technical
justification whatsoever, and appears to be motivated by an intention to
drive all SMEs, who cannot afford their own EMC test facility, into the
welcoming arms of the test-houses.
For example, consider conducted emissions. If I do a broadband
measurement and the result is lower than the limits, why should I have
to do a frequency-selective measurement with a CISPR receiver?
If I measure mains harmonics with an audio wave- or spectrum-analyser
and they are below the limits and do not fluctuate significantly, why do
I have to measure with an IEC61000-4-7 instrument?
If my product does not cause a 60 W coiled-coil lamp to flicker, why
should I have to measure with an IEC61000-4-15 instrument?
In each case, the instrumentation, **which has to be designed to give an
'accurate' result (whatever that means) with the most complex 'EMC
signature'***, is extremely costly and cannot be used for any other
purpose. Few SMEs could justify the purchase or even hire, so are forced
to go to a test-house.
>
>Harmonisation Documents (HDs) are not (necessarily) harmonised standards in
>this context and I'm sure their use varies from directive to directive. HDs
>(now withdrawn) were produced for the IEC 801 series, which were basic
>standards.
I don't go along with that semantic argument. Furthermore, my points
were made in relation to ENs, not HDs. But, as it happens, HDs alone
support the very stringent requirements for cables.
>
>In respect of the extra requirements, I have tried to highlight the relevant
>words below as much as is possible with ASCII text. I know this is European
>English. They are the Commission's words, not mine! The final three points
>are the additional requirements.
>
I have already commented on that in my previous post. Nothing you have
added changes my opinion. It is thoroughly unreasonable to say that an
EN is not 'harmonized' when it is identical in all CENELEC countries,
whether the Commission mandated its preparation or not.
What has happened is that someone in the Commission has attempted, maybe
inadvertently, to hi-jack the term 'harmonized' to mean something that
it was not intended to mean.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk
After swimming across the Hellespont, I felt like a Hero.
PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL!
---
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: SV: Generic emissions - EN 61000-6-3
John and everyone I do not wish to get into a semantics argument as to whether the Commission has chosen the most appropriate word to describe the subset of standards in connection with the new approach, but the special use of the word "harmonised" in connection with new approach directives has been employed since at least the mid 1980s. The term has particular relevance in the EMC Directive because if harmonised standards are not applied in full, the TCF route must be followed (which is not the case with the LVD). Harmonisation Documents (HDs) are not (necessarily) harmonised standards in this context and I'm sure their use varies from directive to directive. HDs (now withdrawn) were produced for the IEC 801 series, which were basic standards. In respect of the extra requirements, I have tried to highlight the relevant words below as much as is possible with ASCII text. I know this is European English. They are the Commission's words, not mine! The final three points are the additional requirements. --- The "New Approach" directives are supported by "harmonised standards" which play a significant role in ensuring their application. Such standards have ***first*** the characteristics inherent to European Standards : The standards (typically EN, ETSs) are drafted by one of three European Standard Organisations (CEN,CENELEC, ETSI) The work is based on consensus Standards are adopted after a public inquiry with the national votes based on corresponding weighting features Standards remain voluntary but their transposition into national standards and the withdrawal of diverging national standards is mandatory according to the internal rules of the European Standards Organisations. Within the context of the "New Approach" ***additional conditions*** are superposed to the European Standards to cover the specific role of harmonised standards : *** The Commission issues a standardisation mandate according to the procedure of Directive 98/34/EC (consolidating Directive 83/189/EEC) *** The standards are developed in taking due account of the essential requirements *** The reference of the standard is published in the Official Journal with the indication of the Directive for which the presumption of conformity should apply Best wishes Brian Jones EMC Consultant and Competent Body Signatory - Original Message - From: John Woodgate To: Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2002 5:59 PM Subject: Re: SV: Generic emissions - EN 61000-6-3 > > No, that is 'notified', not 'harmonized'. > > > I don't see any 'extra requirements'. --- 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: SV: Generic emissions - EN 61000-6-3
"Compliance with Directives" http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/newapproach/legislation/guide/document/ chap04.pdf It's only 4 pages. Enci --- 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: SV: Generic emissions - EN 61000-6-3
I read in !emc-pstc that Jim Eichner wrote (in <67C475A5ECE7D4118AEC0002B325CAB601767759@BCMAIL1>) about 'SV: Generic emissions - EN 61000-6-3', on Wed, 30 Jan 2002: >If you are using the standards route to compliance, what determines which >standards you MUST use? Are we obligated to apply all applicable EN's that >are published, regardless of whether or not they have appeared in the OJ, or >are we only obligated to apply all EN's that have been published in the OJ? We are not obligated to apply ANY standards. If we apply those that have been notified in the OJ, we have a prima facie presumption of compliance with the Directive. If we apply any other standards, we have no such presumption, and our Declaration of Conformity is therefore weaker and more likely to be challenged. > >Related questions: > >- If more than one standard seems to apply, do you have to use all of them >in order to satisfy the standards route, or is one sufficient? There is no straight answer. We must deal with all the 'essential requirements', but that is too vague to be very useful - it doesn't do much more than tell us we must consider both emissions and immunity. We do not have to apply more than one standard for each phenomenon - e.g. we do not need to apply more than one standard that deals with high-frequency conducted emissions, but we must apply the one that is intended for our product, not one intended for quite a different product. If you really can't be sure which product standard applies, ask here for advice. We must **also** apply EN61000-3-2, and -3 or -11 (and -12 instead of -2 when -12 is published), because no product standard ENs deal with low- frequency conducted emissions or voltage changes. -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk After swimming across the Hellespont, I felt like a Hero. PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL! --- 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: SV: Generic emissions - EN 61000-6-3
My question should have been stated more clearly - my apologies. If you are using the standards route to compliance, what determines which standards you MUST use? Are we obligated to apply all applicable EN's that are published, regardless of whether or not they have appeared in the OJ, or are we only obligated to apply all EN's that have been published in the OJ? Related questions: - If more than one standard seems to apply, do you have to use all of them in order to satisfy the standards route, or is one sufficient? - If we are obligated to apply all applicable EN's that are published, regardless of whether or not they have appeared in the OJ, how the hell are we supposed to know those standards even exist?!?! The Europa site's lists of standards that are published in the OJ as pertaining to the various New Approach directives are the tool I count on as coming from an official source and being accurate and up to date. If we have to apply EN's that haven't been published in the OJ, where is an equivalent exhaustive list, how official is it, and how up to date is it? Thanks, Jim Eichner, P.Eng. Manager, Engineering Services Xantrex Technology Inc. Mobile Power phone: (604) 422-2546 fax: (604) 420-1591 e-mail: jim.eich...@xantrex.com web: www.xantrex.com -Original Message- From: Allen, John [mailto:john.al...@uk.thalesgroup.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 12:59 AM To: 'Jim Eichner'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: SV: Generic emissions - EN 61000-6-3 Hi Folks To answer Jim's point: LVD Annex IV "Internal Production Control" states: 1) Internal production control is the procedure whereby the manufacturer or his authorized representative established within the Community, who carries out the obligations laid down in point 2, ensures and declares that the electrical equipment satisfies the requirements of this Directive that apply to it. The manufacturer or his authorized representative established within the Community must affix the CE marking to each product and draw up a written declaration of conformity. 2) The manufacturer must establish the technical documentation described in point 3 and he or his authorized representative established within the Community must keep it on Community territory at the disposal of the relevant national authorities for inspection purposes for a period ending at least 10 years after the last product has been manufactured. 3) Technical documentation must enable the conformity of the electrical equipment to the requirements of this Directive to be assessed. It must, as far as relevant for such assessment, cover the design, manufacture and operation of the electrical equipment. It must include: a general description of the electrical equipment, - conceptual design and manufacturing drawings and schemes of components, sub-assemblies, circuits, etc., - descriptions and explanations necessary for the understanding of said drawings and schemes and the operation of the electrical equipment, - a list of the standards applied in full or in part, and descriptions of the solutions adopted to satisfy the safety aspects of this Directive where standards have not been applied," (and so on) The last item clearly allows a solution that does not involve full - or even partial compliance - with standards may be acceptable provided that it satisfies the essential safety aspects of the Directive. Thus strict compliance with harmonised standards is not obligatory under an LVD self-declaration process. However, bear in mind that compliance with harmonised standards does bring a presumption of conformity - and most people would thus not stray far from the standards route. John Allen Thales Bracknell, UK -Original Message- From: Jim Eichner [mailto:jim.eich...@xantrex.com] Sent: 29 January 2002 20:11 To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: SV: Generic emissions - EN 61000-6-3 It "may" be applied, but MUST it be applied? Does the OJ not still provide force to the use of the standard, or is that only in the EMC Directive? Jim Eichner, P.Eng. Manager, Engineering Services Xantrex Technology Inc. Mobile Power phone: (604) 422-2546 fax: (604) 420-1591 e-mail: jim.eich...@xantrex.com web: www.xantrex.com -Original Message- From: richwo...@tycoint.com [mailto:richwo...@tycoint.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2002 9:49 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: SV: Generic emissions - EN 61000-6-3 As long as we are getting picky, let's don't forget that the Directives don't have a harmonized definition of what harmonized means. The defintion in the LVD does not include the need to be referenced in the OJ. Publication is for information only. Thus, a CENELEC safety standard may be applied as soon as it is ratified and presuption of conformity to the essential requirements is provided. Richard Woods Sens
RE: SV: Generic emissions - EN 61000-6-3
I seem to recollect that I have previously pointed out that the LVD states "electrical equipment which complies withharmonised standards shall be regardedas complying"; and "standards shall be regarded as harmonized once they are drawn up by common agreementand published under national procedures. FOR PURPOSES OF INFORMATION the list of harmonized standards and their references shall be published in the OJ". So I am in agreement with Rich Woods on this one !! John Crabb, Development Excellence (Product Safety) , NCR Financial Solutions Group Ltd., Discovery Centre, 3 Fulton Road, Dundee, Scotland, DD2 4SW E-Mail :john.cr...@scotland.ncr.com Tel: +44 (0)1382-592289 (direct ). Fax +44 (0)1382-622243. VoicePlus 6-341-2289. -Original Message- From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk] Sent: 29 January 2002 21:43 To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: SV: Generic emissions - EN 61000-6-3 I read in !emc-pstc that richwo...@tycoint.com wrote (in <846BF526A205F8 4BA2B6045BBF7E9A6A01F13D09@flbocexu05>) about 'SV: Generic emissions - EN 61000-6-3', on Tue, 29 Jan 2002: >As long as we are getting picky, let's don't forget that the Directives >don't have a harmonized definition of what harmonized means. The defintion >in the LVD does not include the need to be referenced in the OJ. Publication >is for information only. Thus, a CENELEC safety standard may be applied as >soon as it is ratified and presuption of conformity to the essential >requirements is provided. Pardon? Your text is rather unclear, but if you are claiming that an EN can be used to demonstrate conformity BEFORE it is *notified* in the Official Journal, I do not think that is correct. Harmonization is a separate issue. -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk After swimming across the Hellespont, I felt like a Hero. PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL! --- 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: SV: Generic emissions - EN 61000-6-3
Hi Folks To answer Jim's point: LVD Annex IV "Internal Production Control" states: 1) Internal production control is the procedure whereby the manufacturer or his authorized representative established within the Community, who carries out the obligations laid down in point 2, ensures and declares that the electrical equipment satisfies the requirements of this Directive that apply to it. The manufacturer or his authorized representative established within the Community must affix the CE marking to each product and draw up a written declaration of conformity. 2) The manufacturer must establish the technical documentation described in point 3 and he or his authorized representative established within the Community must keep it on Community territory at the disposal of the relevant national authorities for inspection purposes for a period ending at least 10 years after the last product has been manufactured. 3) Technical documentation must enable the conformity of the electrical equipment to the requirements of this Directive to be assessed. It must, as far as relevant for such assessment, cover the design, manufacture and operation of the electrical equipment. It must include: a general description of the electrical equipment, - conceptual design and manufacturing drawings and schemes of components, sub-assemblies, circuits, etc., - descriptions and explanations necessary for the understanding of said drawings and schemes and the operation of the electrical equipment, - a list of the standards applied in full or in part, and descriptions of the solutions adopted to satisfy the safety aspects of this Directive where standards have not been applied," (and so on) The last item clearly allows a solution that does not involve full - or even partial compliance - with standards may be acceptable provided that it satisfies the essential safety aspects of the Directive. Thus strict compliance with harmonised standards is not obligatory under an LVD self-declaration process. However, bear in mind that compliance with harmonised standards does bring a presumption of conformity - and most people would thus not stray far from the standards route. John Allen Thales Bracknell, UK -Original Message- From: Jim Eichner [mailto:jim.eich...@xantrex.com] Sent: 29 January 2002 20:11 To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: SV: Generic emissions - EN 61000-6-3 It "may" be applied, but MUST it be applied? Does the OJ not still provide force to the use of the standard, or is that only in the EMC Directive? Jim Eichner, P.Eng. Manager, Engineering Services Xantrex Technology Inc. Mobile Power phone: (604) 422-2546 fax: (604) 420-1591 e-mail: jim.eich...@xantrex.com web: www.xantrex.com -Original Message- From: richwo...@tycoint.com [mailto:richwo...@tycoint.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2002 9:49 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: SV: Generic emissions - EN 61000-6-3 As long as we are getting picky, let's don't forget that the Directives don't have a harmonized definition of what harmonized means. The defintion in the LVD does not include the need to be referenced in the OJ. Publication is for information only. Thus, a CENELEC safety standard may be applied as soon as it is ratified and presuption of conformity to the essential requirements is provided. Richard Woods Sensormatic Electronics Tyco International -Original Message- From: Brian Jones [mailto:e...@brianjones.co.uk] Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2002 9:23 AM To: John Woodgate; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: SV: Generic emissions - EN 61000-6-3 John, and everyone It is not true that all ENs are "harmonised". The term, in this context, means specifically ENs which have been selected as relevant standards under one or more directives, and listed as such in the Official Journal. Thus, for example, basic standards are not harmonised. EN 61000-6-3, as a generic standard, will be listed in the OJ, but it is not in the current list published on 5 April 2001 as amended on 26 July 2001. It was published in October 2001 and will supersede EN 50081-1 on a date (the "doc") which will be published when it is listed in the OJ. This may be the "dow" published in the front of the EN (1 July 2004) or may be a different date decided by the Commission. Note that there are differences between the IEC and EN versions. The following is an extract from the Commission's website http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/newapproach/standardization/harmstds/vo rwort.html which explains in detail the extra requirements for harmonised standards. --- The "New Approach" directives are supported by "harmonised standards" which play a significant role in ensuring their application. Such standard
Re: SV: Generic emissions - EN 61000-6-3
I read in !emc-pstc that richwo...@tycoint.com wrote (in <846BF526A205F8 4BA2B6045BBF7E9A6A01F13D09@flbocexu05>) about 'SV: Generic emissions - EN 61000-6-3', on Tue, 29 Jan 2002: >As long as we are getting picky, let's don't forget that the Directives >don't have a harmonized definition of what harmonized means. The defintion >in the LVD does not include the need to be referenced in the OJ. Publication >is for information only. Thus, a CENELEC safety standard may be applied as >soon as it is ratified and presuption of conformity to the essential >requirements is provided. Pardon? Your text is rather unclear, but if you are claiming that an EN can be used to demonstrate conformity BEFORE it is *notified* in the Official Journal, I do not think that is correct. Harmonization is a separate issue. -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk After swimming across the Hellespont, I felt like a Hero. PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL! --- 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: SV: Generic emissions - EN 61000-6-3
It "may" be applied, but MUST it be applied? Does the OJ not still provide force to the use of the standard, or is that only in the EMC Directive? Jim Eichner, P.Eng. Manager, Engineering Services Xantrex Technology Inc. Mobile Power phone: (604) 422-2546 fax: (604) 420-1591 e-mail: jim.eich...@xantrex.com web: www.xantrex.com -Original Message- From: richwo...@tycoint.com [mailto:richwo...@tycoint.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2002 9:49 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: SV: Generic emissions - EN 61000-6-3 As long as we are getting picky, let's don't forget that the Directives don't have a harmonized definition of what harmonized means. The defintion in the LVD does not include the need to be referenced in the OJ. Publication is for information only. Thus, a CENELEC safety standard may be applied as soon as it is ratified and presuption of conformity to the essential requirements is provided. Richard Woods Sensormatic Electronics Tyco International -Original Message- From: Brian Jones [mailto:e...@brianjones.co.uk] Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2002 9:23 AM To: John Woodgate; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: SV: Generic emissions - EN 61000-6-3 John, and everyone It is not true that all ENs are "harmonised". The term, in this context, means specifically ENs which have been selected as relevant standards under one or more directives, and listed as such in the Official Journal. Thus, for example, basic standards are not harmonised. EN 61000-6-3, as a generic standard, will be listed in the OJ, but it is not in the current list published on 5 April 2001 as amended on 26 July 2001. It was published in October 2001 and will supersede EN 50081-1 on a date (the "doc") which will be published when it is listed in the OJ. This may be the "dow" published in the front of the EN (1 July 2004) or may be a different date decided by the Commission. Note that there are differences between the IEC and EN versions. The following is an extract from the Commission's website http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/newapproach/standardization/harmstds/vo rwort.html which explains in detail the extra requirements for harmonised standards. --- The "New Approach" directives are supported by "harmonised standards" which play a significant role in ensuring their application. Such standards have first the characteristics inherent to European Standards : The standards (typically EN, ETSs) are drafted by one of three European Standard Organisations (CEN,CENELEC, ETSI) The work is based on consensus Standards are adopted after a public inquiry with the national votes based on corresponding weighting features Standards remain voluntary but their transposition into national standards and the withdrawal of diverging national standards is mandatory according to the internal rules of the European Standards Organisations. Within the context of the "New Approach" additional conditions are superposed to the European Standards to cover the specific role of harmonised standards : The Commission issues a standardisation mandate according to the procedure of Directive 98/34/EC (consolidating Directive 83/189/EEC) The standards are developed in taking due account of the essential requirements The reference of the standard is published in the Official Journal with the indication of the Directive for which the presumption of conformity should apply Best wishes Brian Jones EMC Consultant and Competent Body Signatory - Original Message - From: John Woodgate To: Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2002 10:46 AM Subject: Re: SV: Generic emissions - EN 61000-6-3 > > I read in !emc-pstc that am...@westin-emission.no wrote (in mhpeibnilaehgccaa.am...@westin-emission.no>) about 'SV: Generic > emissions - EN 61000-6-3', on Tue, 29 Jan 2002: > > >AFAIK EN61000-6-3 is not harmonized yet. > > ALL ENs are AUTOMATICALLY harmonized. I expect you mean that it may not > have been 'notified' in the OJEC. I think it has. > > >I have a problem to access the > >CENELEC web in order to check the current status of this standards. > >I have a copy of CISPR/CEI-IEC 1000-6-3:1996, > > Really? Then why have you not given the reference as '61000-6-3'? > > >but I don't know if this issue > >is the latest version because the IEC site is also down for the moment. In > >this version they still describe 30-1000MHz radiated emission (same limits > >as in 81-1) and 0.15-30MHz conducted emission (same limits as in 81-1). > > That IS the latest
Re: SV: Generic emissions - EN 61000-6-3
I read in !emc-pstc that Brian Jones wrote (in <009001c1a8d0$c4fc0840$d841c0c1@oemcomputer>) about 'SV: Generic emissions - EN 61000-6-3', on Tue, 29 Jan 2002: >It is not true that all ENs are "harmonised". The term, in this context, >means specifically ENs which have been selected as relevant standards under >one or more directives, and listed as such in the Official Journal. No, that is 'notified', not 'harmonized'. > Thus, >for example, basic standards are not harmonised. Ah, well now, this came up last week. We have to be VERY careful of the terminology. Basic EMC standards (EN61000-4-X) are not *notified*, but obviously they ARE harmonized otherwise there would be even more differences between test-house results in different countries.(;-) However, IEC Basic Safety Publications that are adopted as ENs, such as EN60529, CAN be, and usually are, notified. When harmonization was first introduced, it meant that national standards were brought into line with each other, maybe just in terms of technical requirements but preferably with identical texts. These documents were given 'harmonized' references, such as 'HD21.1 S2'. Some 600 still exist, but a large number have been *superseded by ENs*, which it is MANDATORY for the CENELEC members to implement as identical national standards (apart from Special National Conditions, normally to accommodate conflicting legal requirements). So these ENs are *even more harmonized*, de facto and de jure, than the HDs they replace or stand in place of. It would clearly be totally illogical to claim that HDs, which ARE harmonized by definition, are replaced by ENs which are more closely identical between member states but are not 'harmonized'. > [snip] > >The following is an extract from the Commission's website > >http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/newapproach/standardization/harmstds/vo >rwort.html > >which explains in detail the extra requirements for harmonised standards. I don't see any 'extra requirements'. > > >--- >The "New Approach" directives are supported by "harmonised standards" which >play a significant role in ensuring their application. Such standards have >first the characteristics inherent to European Standards : > >The standards (typically EN, ETSs) are drafted by one of three European >Standard Organisations (CEN,CENELEC, ETSI) > >The work is based on consensus > >Standards are adopted after a public inquiry with the national votes based >on corresponding weighting features > >Standards remain voluntary but their transposition into national standards >and the withdrawal of diverging national standards is mandatory according to >the internal rules of the European Standards Organisations. All this is not 'special' or 'new' or 'additional' in any way, as far as ENs are concerned. > >Within the context of the "New Approach" additional conditions are >superposed to the European Standards to cover the specific role of >harmonised standards : This is typical Brussels Euroenglish, and it can easily be misinterpreted. > >The Commission issues a standardisation mandate according to the procedure >of Directive 98/34/EC (consolidating Directive 83/189/EEC) > >The standards are developed in taking due account of the essential >requirements This is about the *role* of harmonized standards developed in order to allow conformity with the standard to demonstrate compliance with a Directive. It does not, as far as I can see, change the *definition* of a harmonized standard in any way. The 'Euroenglish' bit is actually saying that the Commission *may not accept* an EN that was not produced under a standardization mandate and/or does not, in the Commission's opinion, address the essential requirements. Although it could be seen to attempt, with the words 'additional conditions', to throw the 'harmonized' status of such an EN into doubt, I doubt very much whether that would stick if challenged. -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk After swimming across the Hellespont, I felt like a Hero. PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL! --- 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 Healdda
RE: SV: Generic emissions - EN 61000-6-3
As long as we are getting picky, let's don't forget that the Directives don't have a harmonized definition of what harmonized means. The defintion in the LVD does not include the need to be referenced in the OJ. Publication is for information only. Thus, a CENELEC safety standard may be applied as soon as it is ratified and presuption of conformity to the essential requirements is provided. Richard Woods Sensormatic Electronics Tyco International -Original Message- From: Brian Jones [mailto:e...@brianjones.co.uk] Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2002 9:23 AM To: John Woodgate; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: SV: Generic emissions - EN 61000-6-3 John, and everyone It is not true that all ENs are "harmonised". The term, in this context, means specifically ENs which have been selected as relevant standards under one or more directives, and listed as such in the Official Journal. Thus, for example, basic standards are not harmonised. EN 61000-6-3, as a generic standard, will be listed in the OJ, but it is not in the current list published on 5 April 2001 as amended on 26 July 2001. It was published in October 2001 and will supersede EN 50081-1 on a date (the "doc") which will be published when it is listed in the OJ. This may be the "dow" published in the front of the EN (1 July 2004) or may be a different date decided by the Commission. Note that there are differences between the IEC and EN versions. The following is an extract from the Commission's website http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/newapproach/standardization/harmstds/vo rwort.html which explains in detail the extra requirements for harmonised standards. --- The "New Approach" directives are supported by "harmonised standards" which play a significant role in ensuring their application. Such standards have first the characteristics inherent to European Standards : The standards (typically EN, ETSs) are drafted by one of three European Standard Organisations (CEN,CENELEC, ETSI) The work is based on consensus Standards are adopted after a public inquiry with the national votes based on corresponding weighting features Standards remain voluntary but their transposition into national standards and the withdrawal of diverging national standards is mandatory according to the internal rules of the European Standards Organisations. Within the context of the "New Approach" additional conditions are superposed to the European Standards to cover the specific role of harmonised standards : The Commission issues a standardisation mandate according to the procedure of Directive 98/34/EC (consolidating Directive 83/189/EEC) The standards are developed in taking due account of the essential requirements The reference of the standard is published in the Official Journal with the indication of the Directive for which the presumption of conformity should apply Best wishes Brian Jones EMC Consultant and Competent Body Signatory - Original Message - From: John Woodgate To: Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2002 10:46 AM Subject: Re: SV: Generic emissions - EN 61000-6-3 > > I read in !emc-pstc that am...@westin-emission.no wrote (in mhpeibnilaehgccaa.am...@westin-emission.no>) about 'SV: Generic > emissions - EN 61000-6-3', on Tue, 29 Jan 2002: > > >AFAIK EN61000-6-3 is not harmonized yet. > > ALL ENs are AUTOMATICALLY harmonized. I expect you mean that it may not > have been 'notified' in the OJEC. I think it has. > > >I have a problem to access the > >CENELEC web in order to check the current status of this standards. > >I have a copy of CISPR/CEI-IEC 1000-6-3:1996, > > Really? Then why have you not given the reference as '61000-6-3'? > > >but I don't know if this issue > >is the latest version because the IEC site is also down for the moment. In > >this version they still describe 30-1000MHz radiated emission (same limits > >as in 81-1) and 0.15-30MHz conducted emission (same limits as in 81-1). > > That IS the latest (and only) issue. > > > > -- > Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk > After swimming across the Hellespont, I felt like a Hero. > PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL! > > --- > 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 lin
Re: SV: Generic emissions - EN 61000-6-3
John, and everyone It is not true that all ENs are "harmonised". The term, in this context, means specifically ENs which have been selected as relevant standards under one or more directives, and listed as such in the Official Journal. Thus, for example, basic standards are not harmonised. EN 61000-6-3, as a generic standard, will be listed in the OJ, but it is not in the current list published on 5 April 2001 as amended on 26 July 2001. It was published in October 2001 and will supersede EN 50081-1 on a date (the "doc") which will be published when it is listed in the OJ. This may be the "dow" published in the front of the EN (1 July 2004) or may be a different date decided by the Commission. Note that there are differences between the IEC and EN versions. The following is an extract from the Commission's website http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/newapproach/standardization/harmstds/vo rwort.html which explains in detail the extra requirements for harmonised standards. --- The "New Approach" directives are supported by "harmonised standards" which play a significant role in ensuring their application. Such standards have first the characteristics inherent to European Standards : The standards (typically EN, ETSs) are drafted by one of three European Standard Organisations (CEN,CENELEC, ETSI) The work is based on consensus Standards are adopted after a public inquiry with the national votes based on corresponding weighting features Standards remain voluntary but their transposition into national standards and the withdrawal of diverging national standards is mandatory according to the internal rules of the European Standards Organisations. Within the context of the "New Approach" additional conditions are superposed to the European Standards to cover the specific role of harmonised standards : The Commission issues a standardisation mandate according to the procedure of Directive 98/34/EC (consolidating Directive 83/189/EEC) The standards are developed in taking due account of the essential requirements The reference of the standard is published in the Official Journal with the indication of the Directive for which the presumption of conformity should apply Best wishes Brian Jones EMC Consultant and Competent Body Signatory - Original Message - From: John Woodgate To: Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2002 10:46 AM Subject: Re: SV: Generic emissions - EN 61000-6-3 > > I read in !emc-pstc that am...@westin-emission.no wrote (in mhpeibnilaehgccaa.am...@westin-emission.no>) about 'SV: Generic > emissions - EN 61000-6-3', on Tue, 29 Jan 2002: > > >AFAIK EN61000-6-3 is not harmonized yet. > > ALL ENs are AUTOMATICALLY harmonized. I expect you mean that it may not > have been 'notified' in the OJEC. I think it has. > > >I have a problem to access the > >CENELEC web in order to check the current status of this standards. > >I have a copy of CISPR/CEI-IEC 1000-6-3:1996, > > Really? Then why have you not given the reference as '61000-6-3'? > > >but I don't know if this issue > >is the latest version because the IEC site is also down for the moment. In > >this version they still describe 30-1000MHz radiated emission (same limits > >as in 81-1) and 0.15-30MHz conducted emission (same limits as in 81-1). > > That IS the latest (and only) issue. > > > > -- > Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk > After swimming across the Hellespont, I felt like a Hero. > PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL! > > --- > 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 Comm
Re: SV: Generic emissions - EN 61000-6-3
I read in !emc-pstc that am...@westin-emission.no wrote (in ) about 'SV: Generic emissions - EN 61000-6-3', on Tue, 29 Jan 2002: >AFAIK EN61000-6-3 is not harmonized yet. ALL ENs are AUTOMATICALLY harmonized. I expect you mean that it may not have been 'notified' in the OJEC. I think it has. >I have a problem to access the >CENELEC web in order to check the current status of this standards. >I have a copy of CISPR/CEI-IEC 1000-6-3:1996, Really? Then why have you not given the reference as '61000-6-3'? >but I don't know if this issue >is the latest version because the IEC site is also down for the moment. In >this version they still describe 30-1000MHz radiated emission (same limits >as in 81-1) and 0.15-30MHz conducted emission (same limits as in 81-1). That IS the latest (and only) issue. > -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk After swimming across the Hellespont, I felt like a Hero. PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL! --- 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.
