Sylvae in aeternum manent.
-Original Message-
From: Chuck Seyboldt [mailto:seybo...@gmail.com]
Sent: 22 July 2017 09:57
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Harmonised standard withdrawn [60335-2-24]
Dear Scott:
It doesn&#
Woodgate
Cc: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: [PSES] Harmonised standard withdrawn [60335-2-24]
Dear John:
Good point, and I assumed a condition where the deficient clause was
entirely deficient - any design solution in that clause creates a risk that
is not compatible with the
essage-
From: Chuck Seyboldt [mailto:seybo...@gmail.com]
Sent: 22 July 2017 09:57
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Harmonised standard withdrawn [60335-2-24]
Dear Scott:
It doesn't matter where, except for convenience or "luck"
in finding the remark sho
om: Chuck Seyboldt [mailto:seybo...@gmail.com]
Sent: 22 July 2017 09:57
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Harmonised standard withdrawn [60335-2-24]
Dear Scott:
It doesn't matter where, except for convenience or "luck"
in finding the remark should the need aris
Hi Chuck,
Thanks for your views! I am convinced to put the additional standard under
applicable standard(s) of DoC.
Regards,
Scott
On 22/7/2017, 4:56 PM, "Chuck Seyboldt" wrote:
Dear Scott:
It doesn't matter where, except for convenience or "luck"
in finding th
Dear Scott:
It doesn't matter where, except for convenience or "luck"
in finding the remark should the need arise.
In general, I structure the report to follow the
statements on the face of the Declaration. In this case, I
suggested declaring compliance with 60335-2-24 with exceptions.
S
Hi Chuck,
If we have to look after the additional concern in safety compliance, ie. fire
risk for this case, should we put the compliance standard under the risk
assessment of LVD or the applicable standards under LVD?
Regards,
Scott
On 22/7/2017, 10:31 AM, "Scott Xe" wrote:
Hi Chuck,
gh England
Sylvae in aeternum manent.
-Original Message-
From: Scott Xe [mailto:scott...@gmail.com]
Sent: 21 July 2017 18:01
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Harmonised standard withdrawn [60335-2-24]
Hi Chuck,
Appreciate
Hi Chuck,
Thanks for your good pointer!
Regards,
Scott
On 22/7/2017, 1:23 AM, "Chuck Seyboldt" wrote:
Dear Scott:
It does. See Articles 13 and 14 of 2014/35/EU
Regards,
Chuck Seyboldt
(207) 893-0352
(207) 838-4026 Cellular
(800) 893-8142
M Woodgate and Associates Rayleigh England
Sylvae in aeternum manent.
-Original Message-
From: Scott Xe [mailto:scott...@gmail.com]
Sent: 21 July 2017 18:01
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Harmonised standard withdrawn [60335-2-24]
Hi Chuck,
Appreciate your good
Dear Scott:
It does. See Articles 13 and 14 of 2014/35/EU
Regards,
Chuck Seyboldt
(207) 893-0352
(207) 838-4026 Cellular
(800) 893-8142 Facsimile
At 13:00 (-) on 17.07.21, Scott Xe wrote:
Hi Chuck,
Appreciate your good advice!
In other directive, such as RED, if harmonised s
Hi Chuck,
Appreciate your good advice!
In other directive, such as RED, if harmonised standard is not available,
relevant national or international standard can be used. Is there any reason
for LVD not to have these options?
Regards,
Scott
On 22/7/2017, 12:47 AM, "Chuck Seyboldt" wrote:
ilto:scott...@gmail.com]
Sent: 21 July 2017 17:12
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Harmonised standard withdrawn [60335-2-24]
Hi Chuck,
Thanks for your guidance! The source is useful to know the reason(s) of
objection. It will leave the supplier how
Dear Scott:
I wouldn't worry much about market surveillance. What
I've done in some cases is have the Declaration cite the standard
mostly followed (even if not harmonized), and list qualifications
or exceptions, etc. to make the market surveillance conformity
assessment job easier.
The
! OOO – Own Opinions Only
www.jmwa.demon.co.uk J M Woodgate and Associates Rayleigh England
Sylvae in aeternum manent.
-Original Message-
From: Scott Xe [mailto:scott...@gmail.com]
Sent: 21 July 2017 17:12
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Harmonised standard withdrawn
Hi Chuck,
Thanks for your guidance! The source is useful to know the reason(s) of
objection. It will leave the supplier how to tackle those issues. How can the
market surveillance determine the adequate level of acceptance?
Regards,
Scott
On 20/7/2017, 10:49 PM, "Chuck Seyboldt" wrote:
standard withdrawn [60335-2-24]
Find the reason for the withdrawal, and adapt inspection to account for that.
Even short of withdrawal, it is prudent to keep abreast of objections to
standards.
Formal Objection against EN 60335-2-24:2010 Household and similar electrical
appliances
Find the reason for the withdrawal, and adapt inspection to
account for that.
Even short of withdrawal, it is prudent to keep abreast of
objections to standards.
Formal Objection against EN 60335-2-24:2010 Household and similar
electrical appliances - Safety - Part 2-24: Particular
requir
18 matches
Mail list logo
