Hi Ron:
I don't know about the IECEE, but the TRF for Ed 1 is done.
I would guess that the TRF for Ed 2, if not done, should be
done shortly and in time for the standard Ed 2.
TC 108 is meeting March 18-22 where all should be revealed.
Best regards,
Rich
On 2/26/2013 3:37 PM, Ron Pickard w
Hi Rich,
Adding one more question to Brian's list.
I know this may be a bit rhetorical, but do you have an idea when the IECEE
will align the CB Scheme to IEC62368 Ed 2, including the TRFs?
Best regards,
Ron Pickard
Sent from my Android phone
Original message
From: Brian Oco
Hi Brian:
On 2/26/2013 10:06 AM, Brian Oconnell
wrote:
More good stuff from Mr. Nute. And more questions from the peanut gallery.
1. Other than the SPD and flame test issues, what where the problems that
the TC had with the 1st edition?
Hi Brian,
>From a cost perspective, it seems perhaps you are seeing the tip of an
>iceberg. Non-technical commentary floating in the ether, often points to
>predictions of significant cost increases and imminent chaos presented by
>early adopters and unavoidable divergent interpretations of th
More good stuff from Mr. Nute. And more questions from the peanut gallery.
1. Other than the SPD and flame test issues, what where the problems that
the TC had with the 1st edition?
2. Is TC108 still scheduled to vote in March?
3. Do organizations such as UL and CSA have the influence to get the n
Hi Ron:
IEC 62368-1 Edition 1 is an "approved" IEC standard.
It was not voted down, but its adoption as a national
or regional standard has been discouraged due to a
number of problems in the standard. (This is what
prompted the urgent work on a second edition.)
(UL and maybe others have been
In message
<617eb8c8634c9149aa66c853d7b8ac53040e4...@by2prd0310mb389.namprd03.prod.o
utlook.com>, dated Tue, 26 Feb 2013, "Crane, Lauren"
writes:
The unique aspect of the problem here is that the "unique DoC" issue
seems embedded in the New Legislative Frame (NLF) legislation, the
ideas of
You can reach out by email to the parliamentary committee managing the RTTE
project, particularly the leader (the "rapporteur") and the "shadow
rapporteurs". I'll see if I can dig up their names and share. I know it seems
like a long shot, but I also know from personal experience it can be effec
For fun, let's look at what we would have to do if we did everything the
current and future proposed EU Directives states regarding DofCs. Let's assume
unique everything.
At the end of every production line you would have an officer of the company
(director level or higher). For each product pr
Hi Rich,
Thank you and Tom getting this out to us. After reviewing this document, I
noticed that it references IEC 62368 Edition 1. As this Edition 1 was voted
down I believe by most NCBs causing Edition 2 to be created, will ECMA be
updating this document to reflect a comparison to IEC 62368 Editi
In message <7B529F5F748344499F9D6BA0A8C663C8@LENVOR61iJOHN>, dated Tue,
26 Feb 2013, John Cotman writes:
It would defy all common sense if it got in. Among other matters,
there has to be a regulatory impact assessment of any new legislation.
But if people don't protest, it is assumed that t
It would defy all common sense if it got in. Among other matters, there has
to be a regulatory impact assessment of any new legislation.
John C
-Original Message-
From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk]
Sent: 26 February 2013 10:59
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re:
I believe John's advice related to the National Standards bodies' input and
influence into the European Commission's Directives processes. Please correct
me if I misunderstood this.
As for being an issue... If you're manufacturing broadcast transmitters or 4G
cellular base stations in volumes o
In message <2EC8CC67196B4ED1BB7595C6964E7620@LENVOR61iJOHN>, dated Tue,
26 Feb 2013, John Cotman writes:
Surely if this is a real issue, (and I?m not convinced that it is), it
would have to be in the text of the directive(s), and is nothing to do
with standards?
See the Subject line: it IS
In message <20130226101739.148...@gmx.com>, dated Tue, 26 Feb 2013,
Anthony Thomson writes:
So who is driving and supporting the requirement for uniquely
serialised DoC's and what is their technical and economical
justification for doing so.
Probably some enthusiastic 'experts' (maybe lawye
Surely if this is a real issue, (and I'm not convinced that it is), it would
have to be in the text of the directive(s), and is nothing to do with
standards?
John C
_
From: Anthony Thomson [mailto:ton...@europe.com]
Sent: 26 February 2013 10:18
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subje
I’m with Scott on this and I appreciate John’s advice about canvassing one's
relevant National Standards body.
However, I would like to understand who is driving and supporting the
rquirement for uniquely serialised DoC’s and their motives and rationale behind
the requirement. Because at the mom
In message <512c27c6.4020...@radiusnorth.net>, dated Mon, 25 Feb 2013,
Scott Douglas writes:
So who do we complain to about having a unique DofC for each specific
product? How do we get our voices heard?
Contact your National Standards body, (i.e. ANSI, CSI, DIN, BSI...) and
persevere until
18 matches
Mail list logo
