John,
The full text you can find in my first mail - still present at the end:
1,4.Radio equipment falling within the scope of this Directive shall not
be subject to Directive 2014/35/EU, except as set out in point (a) of
Article 3(1) of this Directive.
3,1. Radio equipment shall be constructed so as to ensure: (a) the
protection of health and safety of persons and of domestic animals and
the protection of property, including the objectives with respect to
safety requirements set out in Directive 2014/35/EU, but with no voltage
limit applying;
(7) seems more clear but As it is before Article 1 I understand it as a
kind of wishful thinking set out before issuing the directive.
Now (reading it once more and once more and....) I think that probably
"shell be constructed.. with respect to ... requirements .. in LVD"
means "do everything like with LVD but don't name it as being subject to
LVD".
Understanding it that way LVD should not be listed in RED DoC, but what
for is such complex construction used (saying "no but yes").
Yes it is something like Gauka or Gawka with 'w' read as in what, when
(if I read it correct - I've never been in any English speaking country
:( ).
Piotr
W dniu 2017-08-03 o 14:45, John Woodgate pisze:
RE: Do really for native English speakers it is clear that "devices
shall not be subject to LVD, except as..." doesn't mean "except
as..... when yes"?
Well, we would say: "devices shall not be subject to LVD, except
as..." does mean "except as..... when they are"?
But your sentence has words left out, and I can’t trace the original
full text. I think the clearest relevant statement is ‘Whereas 7’ of
the RED:
(7)The objectives with respect to safety requirements laid down in
Directive 2014/35/EU are sufficient to cover
radio equipment, and should therefore be the reference and made
applicable by virtue of this Directive. In order
to avoid unnecessary duplications of provisions other than those
concerning such requirements, Directive
2014/35/EU should not apply to radio equipment.
This means that the RED applies the safety provisions of the LVD,
without the administrative texts that are not about safety, since if
they were included they would partly duplicate (even maybe contradict)
the corresponding provisions in the RED.
Regards
Piotr Galka
P.S.
If I write ma name with Polish letter (Piotr Gałka) do you see it
correctly?
JMW: I can see the special character, but I can’t necessarily
pronounce your name. Is it something like ‘Gauka’?
With best wishes DESIGN IT IN! OOO – Own Opinions Only
www.jmwa.demon.co.uk <http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk/> J M Woodgate and
Associates Rayleigh England
Sylvae in aeternum manent.
*From:*Piotr Galka [mailto:[email protected]]
*Sent:* 03 August 2017 12:57
*To:* [email protected]
*Subject:* Re: [PSES] RED DoC and LVD
My doubt comes not from less/more specific directive.
I don't consider LVD just from its scope.
But reading RED (devices shall not be subject to LVD, except as...) I
understand that LVD not except some situations when yes.
And these 'some situations' looks as wider scope than LVD.
I know there is common understanding that if RED then no LVD but I
don't like to relay on such sources if I can't understand why it is so.
Do really for native English speakers it is clear that "devices shall
not be subject to LVD, except as..." doesn't mean "except as..... when
yes"?
Regards
Piotr Galka
P.S.
If I write ma name with Polish letter (Piotr Gałka) do you see it
correctly?
W dniu 2017-08-03 o 04:49, Nyffenegger, Dave pisze:
Similar situation exists with the Machinery Directive. The MD
guideline says not to declare the LVD on the DoC but the directive
requires meeting LVD technical requirements. There is no exclusion
in the LVD for machinery either. I don’t think anyone argues that
the directive that is more specific to the product prevails.
-Dave
*From:*Piotr Galka [mailto:[email protected]]
*Sent:* Wednesday, August 02, 2017 2:39 PM
*To:* [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
*Subject:* Re: [PSES] RED DoC and LVD
Hi Mike,
Thanks for short and long answer :)
Reading RED Guide I understand: If RED than no EMCD and no LVD but
it is _only_ guide.
With EMCD everything is clear - in EMCD RED (R&TTE) devices are
clearly excluded from EMCD scope.
There is no such exclusion in LVD.
Reading RED I'm not sure how to read it to understand it (about
LVD) the same way as the RED Guide.
I really understand 1,4 and 3,1 (a) as RED devices are covered by
LVD (in some aspects but it looks for me as all aspects).
Regards
Piotr
W dniu 2017-08-02 o 16:19, Mike Sherman pisze:
Short answer: no.
Long answer: look at sections 9.5 and 11 of the "RED Guide,"
the Guide to the Radio Equipment Directive 2014/53/EU dated 19
May 2017.
Mike Sherman
Graco Inc.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From: *"Piotr Galka" <[email protected]>
<mailto:[email protected]>
*To: *"EMC-PSTC" <[email protected]>
<mailto:[email protected]>
*Sent: *Wednesday, August 2, 2017 8:58:54 AM
*Subject: *[PSES] RED DoC and LVD
Dear list members,
I'd like to know if the RED DoC should list LVD or not.
RED says:
1,4.Radio equipment falling within the scope of this Directive
shall not
be subject to Directive 2014/35/EU, except as set out in point
(a) of
Article 3(1) of this Directive.
3,1. Radio equipment shall be constructed so as to ensure: (a)
the
protection of health and safety of persons and of domestic
animals and
the protection of property, including the objectives with
respect to
safety requirements set out in Directive 2014/35/EU, but with
no voltage
limit applying;
Annex V (DoC) 5: relevant Union harmonisation legislation:
-RED, - Other
Union harmonisation legislation where applicable.
I really can't say that being/not being subject to LVD is
clear for me here!
My understanding:
3,1(a) - protection of persons, animals and property covers
really the
whole LVD requirements (extending its range on low voltage
devices).
1,4 - Radio equipment is not subject to LVD but in aspects
from 3,1(a)
it is subject to LVD.
So, as 3,1(a) covers the whole LVD requirements the RED device is
subject to LVD so LVD is applicable and should be listed in RED
equipment DoC.
May be my understanding stand up from that then till now, I
have been
reading the RED in Polish version. I have opened English
version for
first time when I come to copy citations from RED to this post.
Translating Polish to English it would be something like that:
1.4 Radio devices ... are not subject to LVD, except cases
defined in
3,1(a).
The essence of my question is:
Do the 'except' in 1.4 should be understand that what is after
'except':
- describes aspects of LVD in which the RED devices are
subject to LVD,
- describes requirements from LVD to be applied to RED devices
without
understanding that they are subject to LVD.
Or may be my mistake is that I don't see what parts of LVD are
not
covered by 3,1(a).
This leads to reading LVD Annex I and selecting points which
should be
not applied to RED devices as being not covered by 3,1(a) (can
be the
next question if here the decision would be to go that way).
If I can be sure that at least one of points from LVD Annex I
is not
covered by 3,1(a) than I can understand that RED devices are
not subject
to LVD and only some points from LVD Annex I should be applied as
requirements of applying RED and not requirements of applying LVD.
I hope you help in my doubts.
Best Regards
Piotr Galka
MicroMade
Poland
-
----------------------------------------------------------------
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]>
