On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 10:38:01 +0100 (CET),
r...@rpgarner.freeserve.co.uk wrote:
> Be warned, something like this was tried by a UK manufacturer.
> They failed the tests, then persauded a Competent body to sign off
> a TCF stating that the failed tests were not applicable or were
> unpassable by
passed.
And their equipment did pass after redesign.
Regards
Ray Garner
EMC Consultant WRSL
Message date : Nov 13 2003, 05:47 PM
>From : rehel...@mmm.com
To : T.Sato
Copy to : emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject : Re: Immunity testing mitigations
On 12 Nov 2003, Tom wrote
>If y
On 12 Nov 2003, Tom wrote
>If you are so sure that your product complies with the protection
>requirements of the EMC Directive even if it failed to pass the test,
>you have chance to use TCF Route instead of the Standard Route.
>Regards,
>Tom
Tom, could you explain your thinking on this a litt
On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 07:43:28 -0500,
Bill Flanigan wrote:
> I'm embarking on a CE test-cycle under EN61326 and I wonder...
>
> If I encounter problems under EFT, Burst or Vdips/interruptions, what
> mitigating steps are available?
If you are so sure that your product complies with the protect
Lurkers and posters,
I'm embarking on a CE test-cycle under EN61326 and I wonder...
If I encounter problems under EFT, Burst or Vdips/interruptions, what
mitigating steps are available? If you could point me to any FAQ-type
literature or EMC website for this info, that would be very helpful...
5 matches
Mail list logo
