Whoa! I work in CISPR 11 land, but as I recall, CISPR 22 works almost identically in this regard. The difference between CISPR 11 and 22 is what TYPE of equipment it is. CISPR 11 covers Industrial, scientific and medical (ISM) equipment. CISPR 11 covers Information technology equipment (ITE). BOTH standards contain classification instructions for Class A and Class B.
To paraphrase CISPR 11, Class A equipment is equipment suitable for use in all establishments other than domestic and Class B equipment is equipment suitable for use in domestic establishments. So, ITE equipment may certainly be classified either A or B. The trick is that a lot of ITE is now being used in "domestic establishments." I think what Gert was saying is that you can't sell something that has domestic users as logical buyers (like a PC), but sell it as Class A with a warning label about domestic use. THAT doesn't wash. Paul O'Shaughnessy Affymetrix, Inc. -----Original Message----- From: Pettit, Ghery [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2000 11:25 AM To: 'CE-test - Ing. Gert Gremmen - ce-marking and more...'; Pettit, Ghery; 'William D'Orazio'; EMC Posting (E-mail) Subject: RE: EN55024 Gert, All ITE equipment must meet the Class B limits? Where does it say that in either EN 55022:1998 or CISPR 22, 3rd Edition? Section 4.1 of CISPR 22 is quite clear about what equipment must meet the Class B limits. There are many types of ITE that do not fall into the examples provided in the document. EN 55022 does not amend this part of the document in its common modifications. As 89/336/EEC does not provide limits of any kind, where am I supposed to see a requirement that servers and mainframe computers (which are, indeed, ITE) must meet the Class B limits? Ghery Pettit -----Original Message----- From: CE-test - Ing. Gert Gremmen - ce-marking and more... [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2000 1:14 AM To: Pettit, Ghery; 'William D'Orazio'; EMC Posting (E-mail) Subject: RE: EN55024 Hi Group, The type of clause (see below) from EN 55022 about adding notes and restrictions to equipment is just the type the European Commission objects against their use in the EN 55022 standard. The reason is that the CENELEC was asked to propose limits and test methods, not to replace politics by limitng the applicability of their standards. The use of such a clause to sell ITE equipment to Class A limits is illegal and will not hold when the presumption of conformity to the essential requirements of the EMC-directive is being tested. Information equipment is and wil be used in all environments, therefore the distinction between such environments is artificial. Regards, Gert Gremmen, (Ing) ce-test, qualified testing =============================================== Web presence http://www.cetest.nl CE-shop http://www.cetest.nl/ce_shop.htm /-/ Compliance testing is our core business /-/ =============================================== >>-----Original Message----- >>From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf >>Of Pettit, Ghery >>Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2000 11:46 PM >>To: 'William D'Orazio'; Pettit, Ghery; EMC Posting (E-mail) >>Subject: RE: EN55024 >> >> >> >>OK. EN 55022 is the ITE specific emissions standard. It does >>have two sets >>of limits with a statement that Class B is intended for certain product >>types which may be used in a domestic type environment and a >>statement that >>Class A products should have a warning that they may cause interference if >>used in a domestic environment. CISPR 22 does not use the term >>"industrial" >>to define an environment. It merely warns that the class A limits may not >>provide enough protection to neighboring users of the RF spectrum if the >>device is used in a domestic environment. >> >>Ghery >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: William D'Orazio [mailto:[email protected]] >>Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2000 2:37 PM >>To: 'Pettit, Ghery'; William D'Orazio; EMC Posting (E-mail) >>Subject: RE: EN55024 >> >> >>BYI, EN55011 should read EN55022. >> >>William D'Orazio >>CAE Electronics Ltd. >>Electrical System Designer >> >>Phone: (514) 341-2000 (X4555) >>Fax: (514)340-5552 >>Email: [email protected] >> >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Pettit, Ghery [mailto:[email protected]] >>Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2000 5:33 PM >>To: 'William D'Orazio'; EMC Posting (E-mail) >>Subject: RE: EN55024 >> >> >>EN 55024 is the ITE specific immunity standard. It is based on CISPR 24 >>which makes no distinction between environments. EN 55011 is >>based on CISPR >>11 and relates to different product families. They do not come from the >>same subcommittees in CISPR, so it's like comparing apples and oranges. >> >>Ghery Pettit >>Intel >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: William D'Orazio [mailto:[email protected]] >>Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2000 1:22 PM >>To: EMC Posting (E-mail) >>Subject: EN55024 >> >> >> >>Gents, >> >> Why is it that EN55011 defines test levels for both industrial and >>residential environments (class A, B) and EN55024 does not? Are >>the levels >>in EN55024 applicable to all environments (obviously not) so how does one >>define the test levels for an ITE in an industrial environment? >> >>Thanks in advance, >> >> <<...>> >> >>William D'Orazio >>CAE Electronics Ltd. >>Electrical System Designer >> >>Phone: (514) 341-2000 (X4555) >>Fax: (514)340-5552 >>Email: [email protected] >> >> >>------------------------------------------- >>This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety >>Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. >> >>To cancel your subscription, send mail to: >> [email protected] >>with the single line: >> unsubscribe emc-pstc >> >>For help, send mail to the list administrators: >> Jim Bacher: [email protected] >> Michael Garretson: [email protected] >> >>For policy questions, send mail to: >> Richard Nute: [email protected] >> >> >> >> >>------------------------------------------- >>This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety >>Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. >> >>To cancel your subscription, send mail to: >> [email protected] >>with the single line: >> unsubscribe emc-pstc >> >>For help, send mail to the list administrators: >> Jim Bacher: [email protected] >> Michael Garretson: [email protected] >> >>For policy questions, send mail to: >> Richard Nute: [email protected] >> >> ------------------------------------------- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: [email protected] with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: [email protected] Michael Garretson: [email protected] For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: [email protected] ------------------------------------------- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: [email protected] with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: [email protected] Michael Garretson: [email protected] For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: [email protected]
