>>Not true for identical equipment. >Please cite the standard or regulation that supports that opinion.
If it were valid for a rack of equipment, then that configuration would have been part of the test standard. Just as all operating modes, all cable lay-out and all orientations. If multiple equipment in a rack are not tested it is not to be considered as true. Gert Van: John Woodgate [mailto:[email protected]] Verzonden: woensdag 28 oktober 2009 8:31 Aan: ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen CC: [email protected] Onderwerp: Re: certifying overall products vs. certifying individual constituant chassis In message <[email protected]>, dated Wed, 28 Oct 2009, "ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen" <[email protected]> writes: > >Not true for identical equipment. Please cite the standard or regulation that supports that opinion. >Any single product was tested as a single equipment and interaction in >the close field between single units is not part of the tests. The >current EMC regulations do *NOT* consider combining multiple pieces at >all. Radiation may (will) add up even if the signals are not in phase. >Same for harmonics and conducted emissions. Agreed. >EMC regulation was not made with the idea that a consumer may combine >multiple identical boxes in a rack. Please cite the standard or regulation that supports that opinion. > > >When buying a rack of equipment, the client may expect similar >protection as when buying a single piece of equipment, and the >Manufacturer is expected to have evaluated the consequences. If it's bought as a single item of commerce, yes. As a custom assembly, the individual DoCs and assessments are valid for EMC by additional safety tests may be required, usually for temperature effects only. > >This does however, not address the combination of multiple different >Items in a rack. Technically more or less like to buying a IKEA rack >and setting up a audio/video combination. > >In practice most equipment integrators make a mixture of different and >identical types of products, and in that case CE+CE <> CE at all. Please cite the standard or regulation that supports that opinion. -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK Help stamp out intolerance! - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to <[email protected]> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ 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]>
