Hi,
I do not contest the right of insurance companies to ask for
additional particularities they think required insurance wise.
The belgium law define that you have an alarm system ONLY and ONLY
when you have an EXTERNAL SOURCE of noise and/or flashing light (an
internal noise source is also prohibited when it can be heard on the
outside of the house. Sound level is undefined).
The origin of the law is to prevent false alarms and disturbances
caused by it due to unreliable systems.
This is past time since EMC and immunity approvals.
On the other side, if i install a what i call a SILENT alarm system
who calls only my cell phone, its not considered by law an alarm
system.
That seems quite normal to me otherwise i would even not be allowed to
have an automatic light going on in presence of a person on my front
door.
Now where the UPEA act and in my opinion is faulty is that they impose
that a system can only be relayable when it satisfy THEY'RE
REQUIREMENTS including they're para-EMC specifications.
That's false, systems are ok when satisfying EMC requirements.
That they claim that they can only admit reduction in insurance cost
when some other conditions are met is they're free choice.
But UPEA is indirectly also preventing free circulation of goods.
The reason why i comply is the fact that they're pressure goes behind
the scoop of insurance considerations.
They re-specify immunity and other EC requirements. Is that allowed?
Due to the above and as a consequence the manufacturers and they're
representatives prevent the free distribution and circulation of goods
when you do not comply as a purchaser with UPEA.
This forms some kind discrimination and auto protection against
competition and free circulation of goods from other countries,
they're systems are not good...
Can everybody adapt, reduce and impose hiss type of EMC requirements
in hiss specification given the impression that official requirements
do not preveal?
Is it allowed to publish some kind of EMC requirements beside the
official ounce?
Paul Rampelbergh
On Mon, 13 Mar 2000 07:17:32 -0500, you wrote:
>The objective of the CE mark is to enable the free movement of goods
>throughout Europe and for them to be placed on the market. The UPEA is not
>preventing this from being done.
>
>The UPEA is exercising its right as a user/consumer to “contractually” insist
>that a requirement that is possibly extra to the various pieces of EC
>legislation be met.
>If the requirement is detrimental to the various EC directives i.e. it makes a
>particular requirement easier to meet then you maybe have a reason to follow
>this up.
>However, provided this is not being used as a reason to prevent the equipment
>being placed on the market then you have no legal complaint.
>There are various organisations that already do this as the EC Directives,
>particularly EMC, do not cover the environment in which the equipment is to be
>used.
>
>Regards
>
>Ray Garner
>Consultant Datel-Ferranti Group
-------------------------------------------
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]
