Hello Charles Grasso, Phillip Ford and all the others,
Thanks for your replays.
I like to make a little comment on yours and my previous mail.
Paul Rampelbergh (that's me) wrote:
> I put products on the market without performing ALL the required
> EMC tests and stick the CE label on it. ... scrunch ...
> Now this doesn't mean that I do nothing to make the product conform.
> The product is checked by simple measurements means ... scrunch ...
> Use of specific EMC well designed metal box, etc..
Grasso, Charles (Chaz) wrote:
> So why don't you chat with a few competent bodies and have them sign
> up to your approach. ... scrunch ...
> TUVPS typically costs $2500 for a CE mark vased on a CoC.
The cost that's where it all boils down to.
I can not afford on a $350 equipment for handicapped
to add MINIMUM $2500 for EMC tests.
It are specialized equipment's, the production qty is mostly 1 to
max. 3 pieces.
The problem with the rules is that everybody is placed on the same
cumulative level of requirements not taking in account probability of
occurrence nor the operating environment, and that the rules imposing
people don't take any responsibility on the exactness and/or needs of
their statements.
Let me clarify:
For instance, I test my equipment for immunity in a very close vicinity
of a GSM and Radio Ham transmitters but NOT in the whole range of
frequencies as required by EMC.
I realize that in the case that the equipment has to be used outside
the house for handicapped and when it is a rolling chair control device,
that it can be very very dangerous when it start moving without reason
due to the close proximation of a transmitter.
But on the other side, are you sure that when the equipment satisfy
the EMC rules it will not be influenced by the close vicinity of
a radio ham, police and other transmitters?
I'm not sure at all!
And if it is influenced, even if all relevant required tests in all
aspects to the rules have been performed, is it the rule making people
who take the responsibility, pay the eventual damages, etc. or is it
still the manufacturers responsibility?
Rule making people isn't that a good and nice job?
They don't have to justify their position on the necessity of the
requirements stated nor do they engage their responsibility if the
rules are not satisfactory.
They just put as much as possible constrains in the rules required or not
and use a big umbrella strategy (in other words: the chicken structure).
Paul Rampelbergh wrote:
> Isn't that in fact the basic and general purpose of the EMC rules:
> - Protection against pollution and
> - Assurance of reliable operation in that polluted world?
> >Phillip Ford wrote:
> >> I was under the impression that the CE mark "in itself" was supposed to
> >> show compliance with all relevant Directives and so permit free movement
> >> of goods within the borders of the EC. ... scrunch....
That the rules permit free circulation of goods in the European community
is an outcome / objective which I don't denied.
But this should not be the major objective and certainly not the reason
to allow accumulation of all country depending previously existing rules,
disregarding the basic objective of the rules:
our polluted world accommodation.
Paul Rampelbergh
Wezembeek-Oppem (Belgium)
-------------------------
