In message <[email protected]>,
dated Sat, 12 Sep 2015, "ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen"
<[email protected]> writes:
This is an example of economic drive "fast cheap & pragmatic testing"
and this exemption clause
is a recipe for problems in the field.
It hasn't proved to be, over the long life of this provision, which was
introduced after strong evidence of 'no failures' during third-party
test, where the stringent construction requirements were shown to be
met.
As you know, immunity standards requirements do not guarantee total
freedom from interference where the disturbance is unusually strong.
--
OOO - Own Opinions Only. With best wishes. See www.jmwa.demon.co.uk
When I turn my back on the sun, it's to look for a rainbow
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.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]>
