I read in !emc-pstc that Alex McNeil <alex.mcn...@ingenicofortronic.com> wrote (in <5685ADDE2285D511925200508BB9F5031EBD9F@FORT2>) about 'Radio Module, full product re-test?', on Mon, 12 Nov 2001: >I have an alternate Small Radio Device (SRD) Module, previous one obsoleted, >in a product. This new alternate Radio Module has ETS 300 683 (EMC) and EN >300 220-1 (Radio) approvals and DoC supplied by the manufacturer. The >product was already approved to these standards with the obsoleted module, >plus EN55022 and EN55024. > >To Show Due Dilligence (CE Mark) >What is the minimum I need to do for EMC re-verification, if any?
Write a report for your technical file that explains why you consider you do not need to carry out a full re-verification. Then consider what *may* have changed as a result of changing the module. For example, if it is grounded differently from the old one, the antenna cable may now be carrying microprocessor (if there is one) clock signals at a higher amplitude than before. Carry out any tests you consider necessary to give confidence in your DOC for the modified end-product. -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Eat mink and be dreary! ------------------------------------------- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson: pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Heald davehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
