Of course this does make sense in an ideal world. But when company A is very small (low volume) and company B is very large, and if it can be shown that company B needs to fix something to get the system to comply, more often than not, company B does not have the financial incentive to do anything. Company B will also cook up some questionable technical reason to indicate that Company A's system is at fault.
This does not occur in every case, but it is not unusual either. I tested a 15" FCC Class B monitor with a CE marked Class B video card yesterday that was only 19.5 dB over the EN 55022B limit. I can guarantee you 100% that the system was not the issue during the test since I looked at the display on 2 completely different systems and two completely different frame buffer circuits. and I am quite sure that this display would fail the limits by a wide margin on the majority of frame buffers available through the retail channel that will support the display's maximum resolution. This monitor was from a huge and reputable Japanese display vendor. Fortunately, I had another 15" monitor from a different Japanese vendor that was only 6dB over Class B so I was able to get a Class A report on the system (they also declare the product to be Class B). If the EU wants to test products to see if they comply with their MDoCs, 15" video displays would be a great place to start. They will have more issues than they can handle!:-(. Regards, [email protected] ---------- From: Steve Chin To: [email protected] Subject: RE: CE Mark product standards for purchased equipment List-Post: [email protected] Date: Thursday, March 13, 1997 11:29AM In my experience, the integrator is the party responsible for final system compliance, as configured (IOW - I agree with Bob). If something fails in the test in the final configuration, it's just good business sense for all parties involved to work trogether to solve the problem. Example: My company has a few deals with a few computer companies which integrate some of our cards into their systems. Our cards are CE-marked Class B, having been tested in a few "representative" systems from a few manufacturers (I suppose that's the "due dilligence" on our part). Computer company A has had no problems certifying with our cards. Computer company B has had a good track record with us, but finds with their new zippy SuperSpecial model that they have a problem which is related to our card (or a peripheral attached to our card). It makes sense for Computer company B, my company, and whomever is the peripheral supplier to look into this problem together and offer final solutions (this scenario has happened a few times in the past, and the problems were rectified to the satisfaction of all parties in a rather short time period). Steve Chin StreamLogic Corp. Bob Martin wrote: >Most definitely.... The system integrator is ALWAYS responsible for the >final outcome (whether it is internal cards or external printers as in >the original case). <snip> Tony Fredriksson wrote: >This is very intriguing. Let me throw out a scenario for comment. >Let's say that I have a PC with CE marking and I integrate a video >card and 15" monitor, also with CE Marking, and all declared to Class B >levels. > >Now suppose I import the system to Germany and don't test to >verify the combination since these "new guidelines" say that it is OK to >do so based on the fact that all of the items bear the CE Marking. >The authorities obtain a sample, test it, and find that video >emissions are over the Class B limits at multiple frequencies (this >happens all the time by the way). <snip>
