December 2016 16:36
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Subject: [PSES] ETSI EN 302 195 v2.1.1 Receiver Blocking
Dear Members,
Could you please comment if testing of receiver blocking is required for a
Class 3 receiver per ETSI EN 302 195 v2.1.1 (the lates
Dear Members,
Could you please comment if testing of receiver blocking is required for a
Class 3 receiver per ETSI EN 302 195 v2.1.1 (the latest version of the
standard)? There is no limits for Class 3 receivers. Annex A lists
Receiver Blocking as Unconditional Applicable.
For reference. Clau
http://ec.europa.eu/DocsRoom/documents/16681/attachments/1/translations/en/renditions/pdf
Regards
Charlie
From: Peter Tarver [mailto:ptar...@enphaseenergy.com]
Sent: 03 November 2016 17:54
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] ETSI EN 302 195 V2.1.1
Charlie –
Article 49
Transpositi
Charlie –
Article 49
Transposition 1.
Member States shall adopt and publish, by 12 June 2016, the laws, regulations
and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive. They
shall forthwith communicate the text of those measures to the Commission. They
shall apply those measur
On 11/3/2016 3:36 AM, John Woodgate wrote:
I think ETSI is justified in resisting the Commission's bid to insist
that 'a standard is only harmonized if we say so'.
*Someone* has missed the astounding concept that "harmony" and
"harmonize" are English words ANYONE can use. And that one should
wa.demon.co.uk J M Woodgate and
Associates Rayleigh England
Sylvae in aeternum manent.
From: ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen [mailto:g.grem...@cetest.nl]
Sent: Thursday, November 3, 2016 7:25 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] ETSI EN 302 195 V2.1.1
>Harmonis
he material from any computer.
Thank you for your co-operation.
From: Grace Lin [mailto:graceli...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday 2 November 2016 15:39
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] ETSI EN 302 195 V2.1.1
Dear Members,
The title on the cover page of the ETSI EN 302 195 V2.1.1 states:
&
lvae in aeternum manent.
From: dward [mailto:dw...@pctestlab.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 2, 2016 5:25 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] ETSI EN 302 195 V2.1.1
Michael make an excellent point. A standard is not harmonized because it is in
the OJ. It gets in the OJ because
t; www.jmwa.demon.co.uk J M Woodgate and
Associates Rayleigh England
Sylvae in aeternum manent.
From: Michael Derby [mailto:micha...@acbcert.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 2, 2016 3:28 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] ETSI EN 302 195 V2.1.1
Hi Grace,
Are you asking beca
-mail
or attachments(s) are free from computer virus or other defect. Thank you.
From: Michael Derby [mailto:micha...@acbcert.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 2, 2016 8:28 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] ETSI EN 302 195 V2.1.1
Hi Grace,
Are you asking because the
RED doesn’t need to be used until next June, so I would wait as it may well
be published in the next listing which is likely to be within next 2 months.
Regards
Charlie
From: Grace Lin [mailto:graceli...@gmail.com]
Sent: 02 November 2016 14:39
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] ETSI EN
conformity.
Thanks,
Michael.
From: Grace Lin [mailto:graceli...@gmail.com]
Sent: 02 November 2016 14:39
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] ETSI EN 302 195 V2.1.1
Dear Members,
The title on the cover page of the ETSI EN 302 195 V2.1.1 states:
"
Short
Dear Members,
The title on the cover page of the ETSI EN 302 195 V2.1.1 states:
"
Short Range Devices (SRD);
Ultra Low Power Active Medical Implants (ULP-AMI) and accessories
(ULP-AMI-P) operating in the frequency range 9 kHz to 315 kHz
Harmonised Standard covering the essential requirements of a
13 matches
Mail list logo
