f0456d38489e0b4989d05ba531c78f88017...@cms21.t-yuden.com, Brian
O'Connell boconn...@t-yuden.com inimitably wrote:
Yes, the question is too vague/generic. I usually attempt to discern test
requirements from individual standards, and target areas of
compliance/coverage from the directive(s). And, I
Yes, the question is too vague/generic. I usually attempt to discern test
requirements from individual standards, and target areas of
compliance/coverage from the directive(s). And, I use the scope of the
standard to verify its usage. Is this a valid approach?
-Original Message-
From:
f0456d38489e0b4989d05ba531c78f88017...@cms21.t-yuden.com, Brian
O'Connell boconn...@t-yuden.com inimitably wrote:
So, as a general policy, would it be valid to be driven by an indvidual
standard's scope rather than the Directives?
Your question is too general to be safely answered
Don't forget the Product Liability Directive 85/374/EEC.
Regards,
+=+
|Ronald R. Wellman|Voice : 408-345-8229 |
|Agilent Technologies |FAX : 408-345-8630 |
|5301 Stevens Creek Blvd.,
Folks --
I've seen a lot of assertions in this email chain, some of which I'd like to
challenge on a factual basis. Note that I am not disagreeing with what a
prudent business decision might be, but am rather challenging the assertions
of what the laws state.
1. The General Product Safety
I don't mean to speak for John, but I think he means
The *scope of a directive* is to indicate WHAT to test.
The *scope of a standard* is to indicate HOW to test.
- Doug
---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical
Mr. Woodgate says:
Because the scope of the standard is quite independent of the scope of the
LVD.
Again, this begs the question - a matter of law or liability? The LVD is LAW
- if a product falls within the scope of the LVD, then the product must be
evaluated to the harmonized standard before
Hi Doug,
You've struck upon the same question that my company (and I assume, many
others) has wrestled with. To answer your question directly (considering
only the European market). Making your product safe is a matter of law.
Using a third party lab to evaluate the safety is a matter of
Once again, Mr. Woodgate has forced me to think...
So, as a general policy, would it be valid to be driven by an indvidual
standard's scope rather than the Directives?
Brian O'Connell
Taiyo Yuden (USA), Inc.
-Original Message-
From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk]
Having worked in the same industry as your products for many years, I think if
you go back and look at the products you'll find battery chargers, cradles,
scanners and RF base stations, access points, etc., in. addition to the handheld
computers and data acquisition products. Look at where your
Well, my two cents says that it's not ONLY the voltage
supply that decides safety by third parties. The safety
effort we go through tests for hazards and shocks
(all types): electrical, flame (really important), chemical,
mechanical, ... to the end user.
I would ask how and why your
Doug,
When the LVD does not apply, the General Product Safety Directive (GPSD)
does. Using EN 60950 to meet the requirements of the GPSD makes sense
if your product falls under the scope of EN 60950.
Regards,
+=+
|Ronald R.
Doug - as Glenn stated, one of your other customers may have a requirement
to obtain a third party safety approval that your device is installed in.
With out an approval on your device it would make their job allot harder and
the cost would probably increase. As the compliance engineer for a
EN60950 would apply, under the general product safety directive, however,
you would not be required to CE mark the item.
The directive is
Council Directive 92/59/EEC of 29 June 1992 on general product safety
FD27170820E5DD42B1D5B13DE96A775404BF80@mrl01, Massey, Doug C.
masse...@ems-t.com inimitably wrote:
If the LVD does
not apply to the product, then how can I argue that EN60950 applies to the
product?
Because the scope of the standard is quite independent of the scope of
the LVD.
--
Regards,
Hi Doug,
I believe the RTTE calls up the full requirements of the LVD but without
the voltage limits. If the RTTE directive applies to your product, I think
the link might be there.
My opinion and not that of my employer.
Regards,
Kaz Gawrzyjal
kazimier_gawrzy...@dell.com
-Original
Alex,
Thanks for your reply, and I agree. However, I don't need convincing. Here's
the rub - EN60950 is a harmonized standard under the LVD. If the LVD does
not apply to the product, then how can I argue that EN60950 applies to the
product?
Doug
-Original Message-
From: Alex McNeil
Doug,
As a general rule you should always have your products Safety Approved.
This is showing Due Dilligence in that you have had the product safety
evaluated. The latest EN60950:2000 covers ...mains powered or
battery-powered ITE with a Rated Voltage not exceeding 600V i.e. there
is no
FD27170820E5DD42B1D5B13DE96A775404BF7F@mrl01, Massey, Doug C.
masse...@ems-t.com inimitably wrote:
In the EU/EFTA, the justification is not so easy. As I mentioned earlier,
the products are exempt from the LVD. The General Product Safety Directive,
and the Product Liability Directive, do not
Doug, my recommendation is to obtain approval marks for the US and Canada
due to the potential of litigation. You will have shown due diligence which
may assist in limiting any liability issues. In the EU, however, they have
no-fault liability - if someone is hurt by a defect in your equipment,
Doug,
I don't know your product line, but one thing that might be an issue is that
some of your customers may use your products as part of their end products
that do fall into the scope of the LVD. In order for them to meet the
applicable requirements, they are going to need sufficient
21 matches
Mail list logo
