@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Onderwerp: Re: [PSES] Automotive Directive 2004/104/EC and EN 55012
On Wed, 11 Jun 2014 13:18:15 +0100,
McCallum, Andy andy.mccal...@mottmac.com wrote:
But the difference is only 2dB - I don't see the point.
Sorry, I forgot of thinking of vehicle limits in 2004/104/EC.
For the 2004/104
]
Verzonden: woensdag 11 juni 2014 23:43
Aan: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Onderwerp: Re: [PSES] Automotive Directive 2004/104/EC and EN 55012
On Wed, 11 Jun 2014 13:18:15 +0100,
McCallum, Andy andy.mccal...@mottmac.com wrote:
But the difference is only 2dB - I don't see the point
All
Can anyone explain the difference in the limits between the directive and EN
55012.
Regards
Andy
-
This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
discussion list. To post a message to the list,
On Wed, 11 Jun 2014 12:28:44 +0100,
McCallum, Andy andy.mccal...@mottmac.com wrote:
Can anyone explain the difference in the limits between the directive and EN
55012.
EN 55012 is intended to protect off-board receivers, and 2004/104/EC
(and ECE R10, CISPR 25, and OEM standards) are
Hi Tom
But the difference is only 2dB - I don't see the point.
Regards
Andy
-Original Message-
From: T.Sato [mailto:vef00...@nifty.ne.jp]
Sent: 11 June 2014 13:09
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Automotive Directive 2004/104/EC and EN 55012
On Wed, 11 Jun 2014 12
In message
beda313b3e2b304ca6a08001bd61c9c00186e49...@ukmb01.mottmac.group.int,
dated Wed, 11 Jun 2014, McCallum, Andy andy.mccal...@mottmac.com
writes:
But the difference is only 2dB - I don't see the point.
Politics.
--
OOO - Own Opinions Only. With best wishes. See www.jmwa.demon.co.uk
@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Automotive Directive 2004/104/EC and EN 55012
On Wed, 11 Jun 2014 12:28:44 +0100,
McCallum, Andy andy.mccal...@mottmac.com wrote:
Can anyone explain the difference in the limits between the directive and EN
55012.
EN 55012 is intended to protect off-board
with people who
know the story - chapter and verse.
Luke Turnbull
-Original Message-
From: McCallum, Andy [mailto:andy.mccal...@mottmac.com]
Sent: 11 June 2014 13:18
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Automotive Directive 2004/104/EC and EN 55012
Hi Tom
But the difference
[mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk]
Sent: 11 June 2014 13:39
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Automotive Directive 2004/104/EC and EN 55012
In message
beda313b3e2b304ca6a08001bd61c9c00186e49...@ukmb01.mottmac.group.int,
dated Wed, 11 Jun 2014, McCallum, Andy andy.mccal...@mottmac.com
In message
beda313b3e2b304ca6a08001bd61c9c00186e49...@ukmb01.mottmac.group.int,
dated Wed, 11 Jun 2014, McCallum, Andy andy.mccal...@mottmac.com
writes:
Politics ? Oh dear (or words to that affect)
So as 55012 is harmonised under the EMC directive you could in theory
meet that directive but
In message er323xh71fmtf...@jmwa.demon.co.uk, dated Wed, 11 Jun 2014,
John Woodgate j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk writes:
No: their scopes are, or should be, mutually exclusive.
Should be (perhaps) but aren't.
--
OOO - Own Opinions Only. With best wishes. See www.jmwa.demon.co.uk
Quid faciamus nisi
On Wed, 11 Jun 2014 13:18:15 +0100,
McCallum, Andy andy.mccal...@mottmac.com wrote:
But the difference is only 2dB - I don't see the point.
Sorry, I forgot of thinking of vehicle limits in 2004/104/EC.
For the 2004/104/EC vehicle narrow band limits which is 2 dB lower
than that of EN 55012,
12 matches
Mail list logo
