John Taylor wrote: > The EMC directive failed to determine what levels were acceptable > and which were not. > If a complaint was lodged then the courts would decide based on > that one item only. > ie. The acceptable level would be related to what use would be made > of the item, so that a different level would apply to, say, domestic > use or industrial use.
I'm not sure what you mean by 'levels'. If you mean 'levels of performance' (in terms of emissions, immunity or whatever) then the omission is deliberate - it was/is the responsibility of the designer (if self-certifying) or the test house to identify and work to the appropriate classification as defined in the various BS/EN/ISO technical standards. Later directives (e.g. CPD) tend to appear less woolly in this regard, mainly because as time goes on there is an ever more extensive set of "harmonised" European standards: Directive (e.g. CPD) -> Product standard (e.g. Fire Alarm control panel) -> Family standard (e.g. Fire alarm systems) -> Generic standard (e.g. Emissions & Immunity) > This may not be correct. Whilst Stuart claimed he could no longer > sell the SGC's because of the EMC directive he was happy to sell > them to Quanta and let Quanta market them. So Quanta took the risk, not Stuart :-/ > No SGC had an EC mark. CE mark :-) This comes down to the question of whether something is a product, a sub-assembly or a component (as defined in the directive). At the time, there seemed to be very little guidance from the government on this, increasing the perceived level of risk... John _______________________________________________ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
