In message <[email protected]>, dated Fri, 16 Feb 2007, Doug Kramer <[email protected]> writes:
>The device is obviously part of a social alarm system, for which there >are requirements (50130-x). I suggested that they take a similar >approach as a PC peripheral maker by demonstrating that the resistive >device does not cause a typical, compliant product, to be >non-compliant. Is that reasoning sound? It's passive, so it doesn't emit, and I hardly think it could lack immunity, so it's 'EMC benign' and is exempt from the Directive (see 'Whereas (9)' in the new Directive. > >The latest twist in the tail is that the devices are to be marketed to >long term elder care facilities. Does this fall under the MDD? And if >so, what is the road to compliance for such a device? I feel sure that's taking the MDD a lot too far. -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk There are benefits from being irrational - just ask the square root of 2. John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to [email protected] Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas [email protected] Mike Cantwell [email protected] For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: [email protected] David Heald: [email protected] All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc ______________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email ______________________________________________________________________
