<[email protected]>, David Gelfand <[email protected]> inimitably wrote: >We manufacture IT equipment with no radio interfaces. Our system is similar to >a PC, host motherboards can accept various i/o cards. > >There are two different opinions regarding competent bodies. > >Mine: Our equipment falls within the scope of harmonized standards, we test >"worst case configurations" and declare conformity without a competent body. > >Other: Since we do not test all possible permutations of cards and positions we >must use the technical construction file route and a competent body. > >Who is right?
You are right, as long as you conscientiously do choose the likely worst case. You do not have to include 'worster' cases that involve configurations that no-one is ever likely to use. In many cases, the number of configurations is so great that it would take longer than the product life-time to do all the tests! You are, of course, free to take third-party advice on what the worst- case configuration might be. -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. Phone +44 (0)1268 747839 Fax +44 (0)1268 777124. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Why not call a vertically- applied manulo-pedally-operated quasi-planar chernozem-penetrating and excavating implement a SPADE? ------------------------------------------- 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: [email protected] with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson: [email protected] Dave Heald [email protected] For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: [email protected] Jim Bacher: [email protected] All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.rcic.com/ click on "Virtual Conference Hall,"
