Richard, I don't know, i must read the standard first. Possibly the committee that made up the standard changed the scope ??? Or is it a standard created by a cam manufacturer protecting his business ? To my opinion the standard goes beyond the LVD scope.
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 [email protected] >>Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2000 1:46 PM >>To: [email protected] >>Subject: RE: CCTV and Access Control in the EU >> >> >> >>Gert, thanks for your comments. If what you say is true, how do >>you explain >>that the performance standard for b&w cameras has been published in the OJ >>under the LVD? >> >>Richard Woods >> >> ---------- >> From: Gert Gremmen [SMTP:[email protected]] >> Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2000 1:48 AM >> To: [email protected]; [email protected] >> Subject: RE: CCTV and Access Control in the EU >> >> >> Hello Richard, >> >> I do think that you are going to far in drawing conclusions. >> >> The requirements in the safety directive and safety standards under >>the LVD >> are concerned with dangers (hazards) some equipment may *create* for >>it's >> operators (and others...) by using it. The generic safety standard >>nor any >> safety standard is concerned by dangers the equipment might present >>by not >> operating as presumed. I sensed the latter in your conclusions. >> >> Said another way (like they do in insurances) dangers that are a >>direct >> cause of using the equipment, and not the indirect (consequently ?) >>dangers >> are covered. >> >> The danger by not operating as presumed is the same as not having >>the >> equipment at all. We can hardly say that is a danger caused by using >>the >> equipment. >> >> >> The EMC directive itself, by means of fa and especially the EN >>50130-4 does >> present functional demands however. In general all criteria in all >>immunity >> standards are concerned with maintaining a minimum level of >>operation. >> >> I would not be very opposite if such conditions were added to safety >> standards, as your customer relies on the equipment to detect any >>dangerous >> situation (fire , burglar etc) and a non-functional equipment is >>probably >> more dangerous (though possibly not to the operator :<), then no >>equipment >> at all. I think however, that this kind of standards go beyond the >> requirements for ce marking, essentially meant to gain access to >>community >> markets , not to be concerned about functional quality. >> >> I can imagine also that certain organizations are concerned with >> functionality and may impose such requirements before adding their >>label of >> "quality", or even demanding certain performance levels before >>granting >> installation. >> >> >> >> >> 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 [email protected] >> >>Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2000 10:27 PM >> >>To: [email protected] >> >>Subject: CCTV and Access Control in the EU >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>As you may know, there are several CENELEC performance standards >>for >> >>components of Alarm Systems and more in the works. For example, >> >>EN 50132-2-1 >> >>is for black and white cameras for CCTV surveillance systems for >>use in >> >>security applications. The Alarm Systems immunity standard, EN >>50130-4, >> >>makes reference to these component standards, but I never >>considered >> >>compliance to the performance standards themselves to be >>mandatory. That >> >>view has changed. >> >> >> >>Article 2 of the LVD contains a general safety clause which says, >>" . . . >> >>equipment may be placed on the market only if . . . . it does >> >>not endanger >> >>the safety of persons, domestic animals or property when installed >>and >> >>maintained and used in applications for which it was made." On >>22-9-1999, >> >>the performance standard for black and white CCTV cameras was >>published in >> >>the Official Journal of the EU (OJ) under the Low Voltage >>Directive (LVD). >> >>It now appears that "performance" of Alarm Systems is considered >>to be a >> >>safety concern. >> >> >> >>I concluded that all of the performance standards for Alarm System >> >>components will eventually be published in the OJ under the LVD. >> >> >> >>Now things get complicated. The LVD applies only to electrical >>products >> >>operating above 50VAC or 75VDC. Products operating at 24VAC, for >>example, >> >>are not required to comply with the LVD. However, they must >> >>comply with the >> >>General Safety Directive which applies to all products unless a >>specific >> >>safety directive applies. >> >> >> >>The General Safety Directive requires that a safe product "does >> >>not present >> >>any risk or only the minimal risks compatible with the product's >>use, >> >>considered as acceptable and consistent with a high level of >> >>protection for >> >>the safety and health of persons". These words combined with >>others in the >> >>directive leaves me with the conclusion that performance of a >>component of >> >>an Alarm System is a safety concern. The directive indicates that >> >>a standard >> >>may be used to demonstrate compliance. >> >> >> >>Do you agree with my analysis? >> >> >> >>Richard Woods >> >> >> >>------------------------------------------- >> >>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] >> >> >> >><<File: Gert Gremmen.vcf>> >> >>------------------------------------------- >>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] >> >>
<<attachment: Gert Gremmen.vcf>>
