RE: CE Marking requirements
I have read most replies to your question and i agree. You referred to the correct standards and THE GUIDE (you may find it on our site http://www.cetest.nl ). There are some pitfalls however. The manufacturers of CPU boards need emission testing in a enclosure of their choice. We actually succeeded a board with heavy emission problems to pass Class B requirements, by selecting a PC enclosure of a reputable brand (and that we knew was EMC tight). My customer was warned that he should recommend his customers this special brand of PC's to keep ce-compliance. This is too often overlooked ( voluntarily) . This means that if the product (now ce-marked) is sold to a PC assembly company (NO-NAME Ltd) that might use any kind of enclosure to make it's NO-NAME brand of PC's, this customer of you might encounter serious problems getting compliant. A few UK based manufacturers said CE+CE=CE and got caught !!! You dont't want this do you ? So you should select an average enclosure of a questionable brand, and/or leave the cover open during testing. Here the open chassis test shows some value. Legally you are wrong too. A ce-marked board that creates interference in another enclosure then it was tested in, bears it's ce-mark against the ESSENTIAL REQUIREMENTS of the EMC-directive, although it passed Class B of EN 55022. Remember, appliance of standards alone gives only presumption of conformity, not proof. Due Diligence is required when ce-marking. Regards, Gert Gremmen Ing. == Ce-test, Qualified testing == Consultants in EMC, Electrical safety and Telecommunication Compliance tests for European standards and ce-marking Member of NEC/IEC voting committee for EMC. Our Web presence: http://www.cetest.nl List of current harmonized standards http://www.cetest.nl/emc-harm.htm 15 great tips for the EMC-designer http://www.cetest.nl/features01.htm -Original Message- From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org] On Behalf Of michael.garret...@radisys.com Sent: dinsdag 24 augustus 1999 22:44 To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject:CE Marking requirements Well group, if you care to help out another American confused by the specific requirements for Europe, I would appreciate it. I seem to be getting varying stories from different test houses as to what is required for one of our products. These are big enough players that pitting one against another is not something I want to undertake at this point. We currently manufacture a motherboard which is sold both by itself and with a chassis which includes power supply, hard drive and floppy. We are currently going through our internal EMC validation to ensure that we meet both FCC Class B and EN 55022 Class B levels. Our experience on previous products has been if we clear emissions, we haven't had problems in other areas, but we'll be testing to EN 55024 of immunity, as well. The issue arises when we discuss testing of the system versus testing of the motherboard alone. Within the US, the FCC regulations permit an additional 6dB margin for open chassis measurement, so long as those frequencies fall back within the class B levels with the cover on. This does not appear to be a problem for our product. We have been told by different parties that for Europe, (a) there is no requirement to test open chassis and that we can CE mark the board as compliant as long as we have shown that it can meet the class B levels within a chassis of our choosing and (b) we are still required to perform open chassis tests, however, there is no 6dB margin and the board will have to meet the EN 50022 class B levels with the cover off. We're having a little more difficulty making things work using the (b) approach. I am specifically concerned about staying far enough below the levels that we're not going to potentially pass today and fail 6 months from now due to a slight drift in tolerances of components, test equipment or test engineers' dispositions. I have the texts of the EMC directive, as well as the test requirements specified in the above documents and I'm happy to wade through them if you can point me in the right direction. I will be heading that direction in the next day or two if I don't receive a response. I'm hoping, however, that someone in the group can shave a few hours of exceptionally captivating reading from my life by pointing me in the right direction. Regards, Michael Garretson Compliance Engineer RadiSys Corporation - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
Re: CE Marking requirements
Allan, Thank you for your response. Allow me to play the Devil's Advocate for a moment. My understanding is that it is illegal for one EU country to make a rule/law without the agreement of all member states/nations, is this true? I understand that laws are interpreted differently depending on who is reading them but, all things being the same, one must be correct and the other is not. TRUE? Your statements lead me to believe that the EU is not truly harmonized after all. Zorro --- Allan G. Carr e...@acarr.demon.co.uk wrote: In article 19990825211939.9807.rocketm...@web1306.mail.yahoo.com, Don Diego zorro_1...@yahoo.com writes Charles, If you want to CE mark a component which has no intrinsic value (that is, it must be operated via another component),is CE marking illegal? Also, is a Declaration of Incorporation (DOI) needed instead of a Declaration of Conformity (DOC)? CE marking of a component is illegal however the definition of component is different between the UK France. The UK definition of a component includes a card with no intrinsic function supplied only to other manufacturers (not the public) however I understand that French Customs are refusing to allow into the country such cards which are not CE marked. Because it is illegal to CE mark the cards in the UK I had visions of sticking the labels on during the Channel Tunnel trip to France after it passed the half way point however the UK enforcement authority has stated they will not prosecute CE marking of components if they are being marked for export to France. Allan -- Allan G.Carr B.Sc.(Elec.Eng) AMIEE | AGC-Tel Consultants Ltd Telecommunications Consultant | Tel: +44(0)141-956-2506 European Approvals Specialist | Fax: +44(0)141-956-5347 62 Crawford Road, Milngavie | Voice Mail: +44(0)1252-30-3062 Glasgow, G62 7LF, Scotland | http://www.acarr.demon.co.uk - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). __ Do You Yahoo!? Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
Re: CE Marking requirements
In article 19990825211939.9807.rocketm...@web1306.mail.yahoo.com, Don Diego zorro_1...@yahoo.com writes Charles, If you want to CE mark a component which has no intrinsic value (that is, it must be operated via another component),is CE marking illegal? Also, is a Declaration of Incorporation (DOI) needed instead of a Declaration of Conformity (DOC)? CE marking of a component is illegal however the definition of component is different between the UK France. The UK definition of a component includes a card with no intrinsic function supplied only to other manufacturers (not the public) however I understand that French Customs are refusing to allow into the country such cards which are not CE marked. Because it is illegal to CE mark the cards in the UK I had visions of sticking the labels on during the Channel Tunnel trip to France after it passed the half way point however the UK enforcement authority has stated they will not prosecute CE marking of components if they are being marked for export to France. Allan -- Allan G.Carr B.Sc.(Elec.Eng) AMIEE | AGC-Tel Consultants Ltd Telecommunications Consultant | Tel: +44(0)141-956-2506 European Approvals Specialist | Fax: +44(0)141-956-5347 62 Crawford Road, Milngavie | Voice Mail: +44(0)1252-30-3062 Glasgow, G62 7LF, Scotland | http://www.acarr.demon.co.uk - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
RE: CE Marking requirements
Charles, If you want to CE mark a component which has no intrinsic value (that is, it must be operated via another component),is CE marking illegal? Also, is a Declaration of Incorporation (DOI) needed instead of a Declaration of Conformity (DOC)? --- Grasso, Charles (Chaz) gra...@louisville.stortek.com wrote: As far as I know, the EU has not adopted the insane FCC Class B compliance process. So there is NO procedure for marking a motherboard as a compliant unit. What you can do is test it in a system (just like the old days) and mark the motherboard based on that test ALONE. If I understand your requirement, you are looking to adopt the infamous CE+CE=CE approach. Again, this has proven NOT to work especially for emissions. Comments: (a) there is no requirement to test open chassis and that we can CE mark the board as compliant as long as we have shown that it can meet the class B levels within a chassis of our choosing. RESPONSE: There is no requirement NOR is there a process for open chassis testing. The EMC Directive (nor the guidelines) can help you here. (b) we are still required to perform open chassis tests, however, there is no 6dB margin and the board will have to meet the EN 50022 class B levels with the cover off. RESPONSE: Nonsense. There is NO open chassis test. WARNING: Be careful. The next thing the testhouse will try is the TCF route. Ugh. Thank you Charles Grasso Advisory Engineer StorageTek 1 StorageTek Drive Louisville CO 80027 M/S 4247. Tel:303-673-2908 Fax:303-661-7115 email:gra...@louisville.stortek.com RMCEMC Web Site: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/r5/denver/rockymountainemc/ -Original Message- From: michael.garret...@radisys.com [mailto:michael.garret...@radisys.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 1999 2:44 PM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: CE Marking requirements Well group, if you care to help out another American confused by the specific requirements for Europe, I would appreciate it. I seem to be getting varying stories from different test houses as to what is required for one of our products. These are big enough players that pitting one against another is not something I want to undertake at this point. We currently manufacture a motherboard which is sold both by itself and with a chassis which includes power supply, hard drive and floppy. We are currently going through our internal EMC validation to ensure that we meet both FCC Class B and EN 55022 Class B levels. Our experience on previous products has been if we clear emissions, we haven't had problems in other areas, but we'll be testing to EN 55024 of immunity, as well. The issue arises when we discuss testing of the system versus testing of the motherboard alone. Within the US, the FCC regulations permit an additional 6dB margin for open chassis measurement, so long as those frequencies fall back within the class B levels with the cover on. This does not appear to be a problem for our product. We have been told by different parties that for Europe, (a) there is no requirement to test open chassis and that we can CE mark the board as compliant as long as we have shown that it can meet the class B levels within a chassis of our choosing and (b) we are still required to perform open chassis tests, however, there is no 6dB margin and the board will have to meet the EN 50022 class B levels with the cover off. We're having a little more difficulty making things work using the (b) approach. I am specifically concerned about staying far enough below the levels that we're not going to potentially pass today and fail 6 months from now due to a slight drift in tolerances of components, test equipment or test engineers' dispositions. I have the texts of the EMC directive, as well as the test requirements specified in the above documents and I'm happy to wade through them if you can point me in the right direction. I will be heading that direction in the next day or two if I don't receive a response. I'm hoping, however, that someone in the group can shave a few hours of exceptionally captivating reading from my life by pointing me in the right direction. Regards, Michael Garretson Compliance Engineer RadiSys Corporation - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac
RE: CE Marking requirements
The recent August 1999 issue of Conformity magazine indicates that indeed the test methodology of C63.4 does include the open chassis test and the 6 dB above limits. The article indicates a clarification was made about this process in a recent OET notice. The notice itself wasn't identified so you would have to search the FCC's site for it. Before one and all start throwing daggers and putting hexes on me. I want to point out that I am not endorsing the process, although I certainly understand, why folk like Michael might want this type of system. Finally, I will resist a dig at the sanity of many of the European rules. Gary -Original Message- From: Grasso, Charles (Chaz) [SMTP:gra...@louisville.stortek.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 1999 4:18 PM To: 'michael.garret...@radisys.com'; emc-p...@ieee.org Subject:RE: CE Marking requirements As far as I know, the EU has not adopted the insane FCC Class B compliance process. So there is NO procedure for marking a motherboard as a compliant unit. What you can do is test it in a system (just like the old days) and mark the motherboard based on that test ALONE. If I understand your requirement, you are looking to adopt the infamous CE+CE=CE approach. Again, this has proven NOT to work especially for emissions. Comments: (a) there is no requirement to test open chassis and that we can CE mark the board as compliant as long as we have shown that it can meet the class B levels within a chassis of our choosing. RESPONSE: There is no requirement NOR is there a process for open chassis testing. The EMC Directive (nor the guidelines) can help you here. (b) we are still required to perform open chassis tests, however, there is no 6dB margin and the board will have to meet the EN 50022 class B levels with the cover off. RESPONSE: Nonsense. There is NO open chassis test. WARNING: Be careful. The next thing the testhouse will try is the TCF route. Ugh. Thank you Charles Grasso Advisory Engineer StorageTek 1 StorageTek Drive Louisville CO 80027 M/S 4247. Tel:303-673-2908 Fax:303-661-7115 email:gra...@louisville.stortek.com RMCEMC Web Site: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/r5/denver/rockymountainemc/ -Original Message- From: michael.garret...@radisys.com [mailto:michael.garret...@radisys.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 1999 2:44 PM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: CE Marking requirements Well group, if you care to help out another American confused by the specific requirements for Europe, I would appreciate it. I seem to be getting varying stories from different test houses as to what is required for one of our products. These are big enough players that pitting one against another is not something I want to undertake at this point. We currently manufacture a motherboard which is sold both by itself and with a chassis which includes power supply, hard drive and floppy. We are currently going through our internal EMC validation to ensure that we meet both FCC Class B and EN 55022 Class B levels. Our experience on previous products has been if we clear emissions, we haven't had problems in other areas, but we'll be testing to EN 55024 of immunity, as well. The issue arises when we discuss testing of the system versus testing of the motherboard alone. Within the US, the FCC regulations permit an additional 6dB margin for open chassis measurement, so long as those frequencies fall back within the class B levels with the cover on. This does not appear to be a problem for our product. We have been told by different parties that for Europe, (a) there is no requirement to test open chassis and that we can CE mark the board as compliant as long as we have shown that it can meet the class B levels within a chassis of our choosing and (b) we are still required to perform open chassis tests, however, there is no 6dB margin and the board will have to meet the EN 50022 class B levels with the cover off. We're having a little more difficulty making things work using the (b) approach. I am specifically concerned about staying far enough below the levels that we're not going to potentially pass today and fail 6 months from now due to a slight drift in tolerances of components, test equipment or test engineers
RE: CE Marking requirements
Dear Michael, For European requirements, you have to read the EN55022 and its Amendments 1 and 2. In the Amendment1, the chapter 9.1 explain what you have to do with your mother board. You have to test it in a commercial unit (classB) and if the test results are OK, then you can affix the CE marking on your board. Pierre Selva Laboratory responsible EMC and Safety laboratory SMEE Actions MesuresPh : 33 4 76 65 76 50 ZI des Blanchisseries Fx : 33 4 76 66 18 30 38500 VOIRON - France e-mail : actionsmesu...@compuserve.com -Original Message- From: michael.garret...@radisys.com [SMTP:michael.garret...@radisys.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 1999 10:44 PM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject:CE Marking requirements Well group, if you care to help out another American confused by the specific requirements for Europe, I would appreciate it. I seem to be getting varying stories from different test houses as to what is required for one of our products. These are big enough players that pitting one against another is not something I want to undertake at this point. We currently manufacture a motherboard which is sold both by itself and with a chassis which includes power supply, hard drive and floppy. We are currently going through our internal EMC validation to ensure that we meet both FCC Class B and EN 55022 Class B levels. Our experience on previous products has been if we clear emissions, we haven't had problems in other areas, but we'll be testing to EN 55024 of immunity, as well. The issue arises when we discuss testing of the system versus testing of the motherboard alone. Within the US, the FCC regulations permit an additional 6dB margin for open chassis measurement, so long as those frequencies fall back within the class B levels with the cover on. This does not appear to be a problem for our product. We have been told by different parties that for Europe, (a) there is no requirement to test open chassis and that we can CE mark the board as compliant as long as we have shown that it can meet the class B levels within a chassis of our choosing and (b) we are still required to perform open chassis tests, however, there is no 6dB margin and the board will have to meet the EN 50022 class B levels with the cover off. We're having a little more difficulty making things work using the (b) approach. I am specifically concerned about staying far enough below the levels that we're not going to potentially pass today and fail 6 months from now due to a slight drift in tolerances of components, test equipment or test engineers' dispositions. I have the texts of the EMC directive, as well as the test requirements specified in the above documents and I'm happy to wade through them if you can point me in the right direction. I will be heading that direction in the next day or two if I don't receive a response. I'm hoping, however, that someone in the group can shave a few hours of exceptionally captivating reading from my life by pointing me in the right direction. Regards, Michael Garretson Compliance Engineer RadiSys Corporation - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
Re: CE Marking requirements
Michael, In looking at the standard to answer your question, you should refer to Section 8.1 of the most current EN55022 (EN55022:1998/CISPR 22:1997), which was published in the OJ earlier this year and was mandatory as of January of this year. Specifically, the 10th paragraph of section 8.1 statesIn the case of printed wiring board assemblies (PWBA), separately marketed for the enhancement of divers host units, the PWBA (such as ISDN, interface, CPU, adaptor cards, etc.) shall be tested in at least one appropriate representative host unit of the PWBA manufacturer's choice so as to ensure compliance of the PWBA with the entire population of hosts in which it is intended to be installed. The host shall be a typical compliant production sample. PWBA intended to be class B shall not be tested in host which are class A. If one interprets the phrase such as ISDN, interface, CPU, adaptor cards, etc. to mean such as ISDN cards, interface cards, CPU cards, adaptor cards etc. then neither of your options would be valid. If one interprets the reference to CPU to mean motherboard, then it seems that your option a is valid. You may find further guidance in the following document: GUIDELINES ON THE APPLICATION OF COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 89/336/EEC OF 3 MAY 1989 ON THE APPROXIMATION OF THE LAWS OF THE MEMBER STATES RELATING TO ELECTROMAGNETIC COMPATIBILITY (DIRECTIVE 89/336/EEC AMENDED BY DIRECTIVES 91/263/EEC, 92/31/EEC, 93/68/EEC, 93/97/EEC) This document states that any component, which performs a direct function is considered to be an apparatus as defined by the EMC Directive and thus subject to the Directive. The most pertinent section of this document follows: 6.2.3. Components performing a direct function These are components that can be placed on the market in retail outlets for distribution and/or putting into service, fulfilling the criteria defined in 6.2.1, therefore delivering a direct function. Plug-in cards, such as smart cards or input/output modules, designed for incorporation into computers are apparatus commonly found in retail outlets, and available to the general public. Once cards of this type are inserted in a PC they perform a direct function for the user. They must therefore be considered as apparatus and are, consequently, subject to the provisions of the EMC Directive. This does not mean that they must necessarily be intrinsically compliant from the EMC point of view in all cases, if this is either impossible or impracticable . However, in such cases, they must be designed in such a way that they become fully EMC compliant (emissions and immunity) when they are installed as intended in the apparatus, in any of its possible variants and configurations, without exceptions, and used in the electromagnetic environment determined by the manufacturer. The instructions accompanying the component must clearly indicate these requirements, the pertinent limitations of use and how to comply without resorting to an EMC specialist (such components are available to non-EMC specialists, for a wide range of applications). The manufacturer has the ultimate responsibility for this decision. Similar examples of components with a direct function are: * plug-in cards for computer systems, micro-processor cards, central processing unit cards/mother boards, electronic mail cards, telecommunication cards, etc.; * programmable logic controllers; * lift controls; * electric motors (except for induction motors, see chapter 5.4); * computer disk drives; * power supply units (PSU), where they take the form of autonomous equipment; * electronic temperature controls; Perhaps the above might shorten your research time or just further confuse you. Hopefully it's the former. The full text of the above quoted guidelines are available on the internet. I've lost the link from which I got it, but perhaps someone on the list can lead you there. If you have no luck finding it, please email me directly and I'll forward you a pdf file via email attachment. Best Regards Michael J. Azar / Senior Program Manager EMC Compliance Management Group http://www.emc-turntech.com Tel: 650-988-0900 x 103 Fax: 650-988-6647 High quality EMC/Safety Consultancy and Approvals -Original Message- From: michael.garret...@radisys.com michael.garret...@radisys.com To: emc-p...@ieee.org emc-p...@ieee.org List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: Tuesday, August 24, 1999 3:20 PM Subject: CE Marking requirements Well group, if you care to help out another American confused by the specific requirements for Europe, I would appreciate it. I seem to be getting varying stories from different test houses as to what is required for one of our products. These are big enough players that pitting one against another is not something I want to undertake at this point. We currently manufacture a motherboard which is sold both by itself and with a chassis
RE: CE Marking requirements
As far as I know, the EU has not adopted the insane FCC Class B compliance process. So there is NO procedure for marking a motherboard as a compliant unit. What you can do is test it in a system (just like the old days) and mark the motherboard based on that test ALONE. If I understand your requirement, you are looking to adopt the infamous CE+CE=CE approach. Again, this has proven NOT to work especially for emissions. Comments: (a) there is no requirement to test open chassis and that we can CE mark the board as compliant as long as we have shown that it can meet the class B levels within a chassis of our choosing. RESPONSE: There is no requirement NOR is there a process for open chassis testing. The EMC Directive (nor the guidelines) can help you here. (b) we are still required to perform open chassis tests, however, there is no 6dB margin and the board will have to meet the EN 50022 class B levels with the cover off. RESPONSE: Nonsense. There is NO open chassis test. WARNING: Be careful. The next thing the testhouse will try is the TCF route. Ugh. Thank you Charles Grasso Advisory Engineer StorageTek 1 StorageTek Drive Louisville CO 80027 M/S 4247. Tel:303-673-2908 Fax:303-661-7115 email:gra...@louisville.stortek.com RMCEMC Web Site: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/r5/denver/rockymountainemc/ -Original Message- From: michael.garret...@radisys.com [mailto:michael.garret...@radisys.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 1999 2:44 PM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: CE Marking requirements Well group, if you care to help out another American confused by the specific requirements for Europe, I would appreciate it. I seem to be getting varying stories from different test houses as to what is required for one of our products. These are big enough players that pitting one against another is not something I want to undertake at this point. We currently manufacture a motherboard which is sold both by itself and with a chassis which includes power supply, hard drive and floppy. We are currently going through our internal EMC validation to ensure that we meet both FCC Class B and EN 55022 Class B levels. Our experience on previous products has been if we clear emissions, we haven't had problems in other areas, but we'll be testing to EN 55024 of immunity, as well. The issue arises when we discuss testing of the system versus testing of the motherboard alone. Within the US, the FCC regulations permit an additional 6dB margin for open chassis measurement, so long as those frequencies fall back within the class B levels with the cover on. This does not appear to be a problem for our product. We have been told by different parties that for Europe, (a) there is no requirement to test open chassis and that we can CE mark the board as compliant as long as we have shown that it can meet the class B levels within a chassis of our choosing and (b) we are still required to perform open chassis tests, however, there is no 6dB margin and the board will have to meet the EN 50022 class B levels with the cover off. We're having a little more difficulty making things work using the (b) approach. I am specifically concerned about staying far enough below the levels that we're not going to potentially pass today and fail 6 months from now due to a slight drift in tolerances of components, test equipment or test engineers' dispositions. I have the texts of the EMC directive, as well as the test requirements specified in the above documents and I'm happy to wade through them if you can point me in the right direction. I will be heading that direction in the next day or two if I don't receive a response. I'm hoping, however, that someone in the group can shave a few hours of exceptionally captivating reading from my life by pointing me in the right direction. Regards, Michael Garretson Compliance Engineer RadiSys Corporation - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
