In message <[email protected]>, dated Wed, 9 Apr 2008, Mark Briggs <[email protected]> writes:
>From an EN perspective I suppose if you did have a device that used a >product standard without provisions for discontinuous interference that >could not meet the conducted emissions requirements, you could always >apply the provisions for clicks from EN 55014 and document the fact in >your technical file as justification for meeting the requirements of >the EMC Directive versus meeting the requirements of the product >specific standard. No, you can't 'cherry-pick' like that. People have been caught out applying EN 55011 outside its scope because of its less stringent requirements. -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk Murphy's Law has now been officially re-named The Certainty Principle 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
