Hello, Additional item for the EMC cheap rules!
There is a statistic called "probability of occurrence". How do the actual rules relate to small manufacturers who are producing 1 to maximum 3 equipment's of the same concept in total (for instance specific equipment for handicapped) as I do? Who will pay the extra expenses imposed by EMC rules for those already disfavored people (minimum +800%)? Who will pay the incredible extra cost the CE mark requires on equipment's who are basically sold on material cost + $US 200. Now one small question: if I can't produce this equipment for reasonable cost who can do it? Or do whe reject pure and simple this people? I agree the equipment should be safe and free from EMI and EMS as mutch as possible, but between that and the CE rules I think there is a big margin. Only the purshase of the rules cost already a lot! (+updates, +updates, +updates, +updates, +++ New rules) Is the probability of occurrence not an issue for EMC? For info: By the way, shiep rules is a concatenation of cheap and shuuuut (maybe sh.t also), my fault, my error .... .. Ron Fotino wrote: > > George, David L TR wrote: > > > > Maybe you are not sympathetic but you should be. EMC means eliminate > > minor companies. The way the rules are developed in many cases have > > little to do with the actual importance of the issue. Comparing > > regulatory requirements to the rules of physics is like comparing > > apples to oranges. If we do not question the need and validity > > for regulatory requirements we will find it increasingly difficult > > to deliver products. There many people out there eager to travel > > to far away places to develop additional requirements for us. > > We should ensure the requirements are necessary not just blindly > > accept everything. I applaud the people who question and probe > > the real need for requirements. > > Dave, > > HOORAAY! I have been singing that song for a long time and have had > many people attempt to put me off insinuating that I was going to allow > people to be hurt. My real story is: Let's never lose sight of WHY > particular regulations exist and if the reason is revenue generation, > then call a spade a spade and get rid of the rules when enough revenue > is generated. If there is a VALID reason for the rules, then OK. > > I don't mean to say all compliance rules are unnecessary, I just mean to > say that rules don't exist simply for the sake of rules, they must be > continually questioned!! For sure I can only applaud your reasonings and support it 100%. Its required to put pressure on those autocratic, dictatorial, monopolistic bureaucrats, somebody wrote to me, and I can only add iresponsible to. Paul Rampelbergh Wezembeek-Oppem (Belgium) -------------------------
