In message <[email protected]>, dated Tue, 22 Sep 2009, Brian O'Connell <[email protected]> writes:
> >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. From Article 1, point 2 of 278/2009: 2. This Regulation shall not apply to: (a) voltage converters; (b) uninterruptible power supplies; (c) battery chargers; (d) halogen lighting converters; (e) external power supplies for medical devices; Note item (c). -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk Things can always get better. But that's not the only option. John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK - 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]>
