Scott This seems logical. But your examples seem to indicate that the EPS is still providing a function, so there might not be any requirement for standby or off mode limits. But there will eventually be efficiency requirements for the EPS.
If there are any people in listserv land that helped write the EuP and/or its IMs, we would very much appreciate some guidance. Brian > -----Original Message----- > From: Scott Xe [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 9:21 AM > To: 'Brian O'Connell'; 'EMC PSTC' > Subject: RE: EuP Directive Conundrum > > > Brian, > > A typical example would be notebook computer. It uses EPS > that must comply > the IM for EPS and the whole unit complies with IM for Off > and Standby mode. > It is very challenge to this type of product as the battery > pack may be > charged up after the pc is turned off. The power > consumption would be the > total of EPS, battery charger and notebook pc. > > Scott > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Brian > O'Connell > Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 11:18 PM > To: 'EMC PSTC' > Subject: RE: EuP Directive Conundrum > > According to several NCB people, the off switch does not > necessarily meet > the requirements of off 'mode' limits. If the unit is not > performing any > function, then it must meet power consumption limits, or it must be > automatically go into a reduced power mode that meets the > off mode limit. > > The problem with the IM for an EPS is that it also includes battery > chargers, where the power converter is integral - so the > defining scope > factor between the two IMs seems to be whether the unit meets Class B > CISPR22 emission limits. > > Brian > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of > > Carpentier Kristiaan > > Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 7:17 AM > > To: Scott Xe; Scott Douglas; EMC PSTC > > Subject: RE: EuP Directive Conundrum > > > > Scott, > > > > Yes it is. > > As you have the choice between off mode & standby, you can > > consider to > > equip a switch in your device. > > > > Kind regards, > > > > Kris Carpentier > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf > > Of Scott Xe > > Sent: dinsdag 22 september 2009 16:09 > > To: 'Scott Douglas'; 'EMC PSTC' > > Subject: RE: EuP Directive Conundrum > > > > >For example, I have a gadget that uses an EPS. The EPS by > > itself when > > >plugged into the mains and not connected to the product > > consumes 0.4 W. > > > > >But when you connect the product to the EPS, the pair > consume 1.1 W > > when > > >the gadget is in standby mode. > > > > Under this example, the EPS complies with EC Regulation > > 278/2009 while > > the > > pair failed in EC Regulation 1275/2008 if the EPS is not a > > Low Voltage > > one > > after 7 Jan 2010. Is it an appropriate interpretation? > > > > Thanks and regards, > > > > Scott - 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]>
