In message <[email protected]>, dated Wed, 16 Sep 2015, John
Barnes <[email protected]> writes:
I was told that governments regulate EMC because the product that fails
is not the product/equipment that causes the problem-- thus the wrong
party gets the blame, and the culprit gets off scot-free.
Yes: in fact manufacturers would have a case at law in Europe against
enforcement of emissions requirements without immunity requirements.
But most governments consider EMI and ESD problems to be
self-correcting:
1. If a company makes a product that is very susceptible to EMI or
ESD,
there will be many problems with it in the field.
2. If the manufacturer or seller can't/doesn't resolve these
problems, unhappy customers will complain to anyone who will
listen-- severely damaging the manufacturer's reputation.
3. Prospective buyers will look for alternatives, and be leery of
buying/leasing *any* products made by the manufacturer.
4. Distributors and sellers will stop carrying the manufacturer's
products.
5. The manufacturer will eventually go out of business-- solving the
problem without government intervention/interference!
I put those arguments as a case for not making vast changes to CISPR
20/EN 55020 when the EMCD first came in.
Somewhere I heard/read that the European Union (EU) got into the
regulating of EMI and ESD susceptibility because of the Treaty of
Maastricht-- one of the major founding treaties of the European Union.
This treaty allowed countries (states) in the EU to pass legislation to
protect the "health and welfare" of their people-- and some countries,
such as Germany, made a very-broad interpretation of "health and welfare".
For example, Don Bush told me that in the 1970's, if you wanted to buy
a television in Germany, that the PTT (Postal, Telegraph and Telephone)
authority would send someone to your house to make signal-strength
measurements-- and they would specify:
* The type of television antenna you had to buy,
* Where to mount the antenna,
AND
* In which direction to aim the antenna,
to *guarantee* that you had an acceptable level of television
reception!
Yes, because historically they had deluges of complaints about poor
reception. So did other administrations, but they didn't adopt such a
fierce technological solution.
Therefore the EU started developing its market-wide EMI/ESD standards,
to preempt these countries from making standards/requirements that
could become barriers to free trade inside the EU.
Correct. There were also quite stringent regulations in other countries
that could not be justified.
--
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]>
