Kyle That is exactly the same strategy we take when selling products with integrated PCs. Specify a max power consumption and aim for using a Listed PC. If not, spec the PSU and try keep everything generic.
But wanted to high light that changing a mother board can be a little bit more involved. The BIOS will require a lithium power source, and the agencies will want to know specific battery details and the charge protection circuit. "Ehler, Kyle" wrote: > > > Hi Cecil! > > From a product safety point of view it depends on how extensive the > 'upgrade' is and how you have worded your product construction > descriptions and 'critical component list'. In this biz, it matters > to some degree that my lab is ISO 9001, COMPASS and a UL Client Test > Data Program (CTDP) participant. These credentials support the fact > that I can be trusted to use impeccable judgment in evaluating the > hazard impact to my listed products as they evolve. > > For example, in most of the ITE products I support, we may uprate the > disk drive to a larger capacity, or the controller interface to a > higher speed processor, or a different vendor fan. I spec these as a > component with a maximum current draw. Provided the alternate > components fit within these specifications, the task simplifies to > filing a change request with the agencies and providing certificates > for the alternate components. Depending on the item being alternately > listed, you may have to provide test data (as would be the case with a > new power supply with vastly different ratings). > > In your case, I would attempt to describe the computer as a listed > component with a maximum power consumption. When that pc goes end of > life, just spec another as alternate, but select a pc that is at or > below your previous descriptions. > > To the product safety agencies, these are simple SELV changes and the > underwriting agencies are not overly concerned in the hazards these > pose. I describe such components generically if possible to allow > substitution, but they must always bear some level of agency > recognition (UL listed or recognized component, and/or TUV/VDE marked) > that guarantees that the alternate construction components have been > evaluated for hazards. > > From the EMC point of view, you must fully test to verify compliance > and file the data. There is no easy way around it. > > Regards, > Kyle Ehler KCOIQE > <mailto:kyle.eh...@lsil.com> > Assistant Design Engineer > LSI Logic Storage Systems Div. > 3718 N. Rock Road > U.S.A. Wichita, Kansas 67226 > Ph. 316 636 8657 > Fax 316 636 8321 > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: cecil.gitt...@kodak.com [mailto:cecil.gitt...@kodak.com] > Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2001 4:42 PM > To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org > Subject: > > > From: Cecil A. Gittens > > Hi Folk, > > I have a computer that supports a Color Proofing System. > Since any given computer have life cycle of 4 to 6 months. > My question is there any way to avoid rectification testing of the > computer > with each upgrade. > > Regards > > Cecil > > ------------------------------------------- > 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. -- Andrew Carson - Product Safety Engineer, Xyratex, UK Phone: +44 (0)23 9249 6855 Fax: +44 (0)23 9249 6014
