Hi Gert,
It's not a absolute requirement for these board to be sold
as a bare PCB. It has consequences for the prices of course but
that is valid for each device, not for development boards only.
Not agree.
I hardly can imagine not development board sold without enclosure and
destined to normal use without enclosure so enclosures are real need in that
case (adds something else, not only price). If you can find some such
products it will be only few so not "it is valid for each device".
For development board enclosure is really not needed.
Specially for boards with some area to assemble your own circuits working
with circuits originally on board. Enclosure would function as just delivery
packaging so as device should be tested in configuration as in normal use
(it is logical) the device should be tested without such enclosure.
And it is not because you can touch a chip, that it need to be
tested. Standards speak about likely to be touched in normal use.
Connector internal pins on my Ipad are accessible too, but most standards
do
not include them for ESD testing. It may be wise to do so, but that is
another story.
Yes, it is another story, but touching of connector internal pins can be (up
to some level) understood as not likely, but touching internal circuits on
development board is likely. Each time you take such board in your hand you
touch some conducting things connected to some elements and probably IC pins
on it.
Your opinion about the EC in these, in casu their authors, is not mine.
EC texts do generally excel in quality, what need not be the same as
clear to us, or in line with our needs. Note that they are
addressed to the member states and their legal advisors and not to
the end users. If unclear on a special subject, than it
certainly is the case because the subject is not well enough defined, or
it would open a way to avoid requirements by what i call
smart naming or smart selling.
When I was discovering how directives work I understood (may be wrongly)
that directives need to be directly written into member law. It has to be so
because if it would not be so than they would not do the main job they are
intended to - to make the whole market the one market with the same rules.
As I remember I have read long time ago that one member was 1 year late in
adopting one directive and (during that year) some firms did something
according to the directive and not to the member law and later the firms won
in court (it was something about hotels as I remember, but not sure).
So in my opinion no other law source should be so clear as directives should
be. Any unclear point in them has the effect of many unclear in member laws
(and long discussions here :) ).
If I during first reading of directive (not reading any other directives
before) see some problems in it I don't believe no one noticed it. I think
they noticed, and I don't understand why they didn't do anything with it.
Regards
Piotr Galka
-
----------------------------------------------------------------
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.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used
formats), large files, etc.
Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
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]>
