Korea - Differences to IEC60950, Third Edition (1999)
7 Addition: EMC. The apparatus shall complies with the relevant CISPR
requirements
As I understand it there are three options for this deviation.
1 - Have a Korean Test Report - Pass
2 - Don't have a report - Fail
3- Write a letter to the CB author stating you meet the requirements -
pass
Seems to be a particularly interesting case of circular reasoning going
on here.
Korea requires test data from a Korean approved lab to be submitted to
them for EMC approval.
Basic property of approval is that one meets the EMC requirements as
demonstrated by a test report from a Korean authorized laboratory and also
meets the Safety requirements as documented in a CB report. Most often these
documents are obtained from different companies, but all nicely bound in one
documentation bundle by the manufacturer when they submit for Korean acceptance.
Assume one has Korea as a market then this section in the CB report
makes no sense.
For the first option Korea already requires that one verifies emissions
with a test report from a Korean approved laboratory and presumably they read
it or at least check it off their bureaucracy forms when it arrives. The
equipment still can' t be imported until they see a CB report they accept. If
they have the emissions report and the CB report in front of them then the
first condition of this requiring the safety evaluator to confirm that they
also have a copy of this report is non-sensical. In fact I suspect that as
proof they have done their job the safety evaluator would include as an
appendix a copy of the emissions report. So know the Korean officials have two
copies of the same report.
For option 2, Either one doesn't have Korea as a market and is not
interested in meeting any of their deviations so the clause isn't needed, or
they are interested, have the report, and send it to CB author. So now we are
back to circular reasoning item 1.
Option 3 may be my favorite. They authorize only a few labs to submit
data. The only reason to require a Korean certified lab test is that they don't
trust manufactures when they simply tell them the requirements are met. On Its
own that is not an unreasonable request, independent verification of test
results is always better than just trusting the manufacturer. But now in the CB
report, that as I noted before either provides a copy of the emissions report
as an annex or amendment to the CB report because of circular reasoning item 1
or Circular reasoning item 2 comes into play, and defaults to item 1. But if
either of those two useless clauses isn't enough now there is a third option.
Just write a letter that says trust us. It will be included in the CB report as
an appendix or an annex. Of course this letter doesn't make any sense either
because they require along with the CB report, a test report from a previously
Korean approved lab. This requirement is because they !
obviously don't trust a manufacturer to just say they meet the requirements.
And back to useless option 1.
What am I missing here? Seems like its time to break out the old
Fecalencephalometer ( a large painful instrument intended to measure just how
far your head is up your rear end!
-------------------------------------------
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:
Ron Pickard: [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://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/
Click on "browse" and then "emc-pstc mailing list"
