RE: CE Mark product standards for purchased equipment
Of course this does make sense in an ideal world. But when company A is very small (low volume) and company B is very large, and if it can be shown that company B needs to fix something to get the system to comply, more often than not, company B does not have the financial incentive to do anything. Company B will also cook up some questionable technical reason to indicate that Company A's system is at fault. This does not occur in every case, but it is not unusual either. I tested a 15 FCC Class B monitor with a CE marked Class B video card yesterday that was only 19.5 dB over the EN 55022B limit. I can guarantee you 100% that the system was not the issue during the test since I looked at the display on 2 completely different systems and two completely different frame buffer circuits. and I am quite sure that this display would fail the limits by a wide margin on the majority of frame buffers available through the retail channel that will support the display's maximum resolution. This monitor was from a huge and reputable Japanese display vendor. Fortunately, I had another 15 monitor from a different Japanese vendor that was only 6dB over Class B so I was able to get a Class A report on the system (they also declare the product to be Class B). If the EU wants to test products to see if they comply with their MDoCs, 15 video displays would be a great place to start. They will have more issues than they can handle!:-(. Regards, tony_fredriks...@netpower.com -- From: Steve Chin To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RE: CE Mark product standards for purchased equipment List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: Thursday, March 13, 1997 11:29AM In my experience, the integrator is the party responsible for final system compliance, as configured (IOW - I agree with Bob). If something fails in the test in the final configuration, it's just good business sense for all parties involved to work trogether to solve the problem. Example: My company has a few deals with a few computer companies which integrate some of our cards into their systems. Our cards are CE-marked Class B, having been tested in a few representative systems from a few manufacturers (I suppose that's the due dilligence on our part). Computer company A has had no problems certifying with our cards. Computer company B has had a good track record with us, but finds with their new zippy SuperSpecial model that they have a problem which is related to our card (or a peripheral attached to our card). It makes sense for Computer company B, my company, and whomever is the peripheral supplier to look into this problem together and offer final solutions (this scenario has happened a few times in the past, and the problems were rectified to the satisfaction of all parties in a rather short time period). Steve Chin StreamLogic Corp. Bob Martin wrote: Most definitely The system integrator is ALWAYS responsible for the final outcome (whether it is internal cards or external printers as in the original case). snip Tony Fredriksson wrote: This is very intriguing. Let me throw out a scenario for comment. Let's say that I have a PC with CE marking and I integrate a video card and 15 monitor, also with CE Marking, and all declared to Class B levels. Now suppose I import the system to Germany and don't test to verify the combination since these new guidelines say that it is OK to do so based on the fact that all of the items bear the CE Marking. The authorities obtain a sample, test it, and find that video emissions are over the Class B limits at multiple frequencies (this happens all the time by the way). snip
Re: TAA and Year 2000 Requir
Reply to: RETAA and Year 2000 Requirements? Bob, You recently posted a reply on this issue saying the following:- Year 2000 is coming. All product softwares must be compliant with International Standard ISO 8601 Data Elements and Interchange Formats-Information Interchange Representation of Dates and Times Could you tell me what reason you have for saying ..must be compliant.. ? This seems to infer a mandatory requirement. I thought that ISO standards were voluntary.? Has there been some notification regarding the compliance of this standard? Any information would be gratefully received. Many thanks Chris Olliffe (Case Technology EMC Lab) http://www.case.co.uk
EN 60950, Amt 4, Published March 14, 1997
Hello All, This morning I received the following information from CENELEC in response to my query yesterday regarding the status of Amendment 4 of EN 60950. Regards, Art Michael, Editor - IPSN * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * International Product Safety News * *Check out our current offer on the * * Safety Link at http://www.safetylink.com * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * -- -- Forwarded message -- List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: Fri, 14 Mar 1997 12:32:42 + To: Art Michael amich...@connix.com Subject: Re: EN 60950, Amt 4 Hello, It must be telepathy - EN 60950:1992/A4:1997 was just published by CENELEC today (March 14). It can already be considered as a harmonized standard under the Low Voltage Directive, because under this directive the lists are published in the Official Journal for information only. Best regards, Gail
RE: Re[2]: Demos and Eval Units Now Require CE Mark???
It has always been my understanding that the CE mark could be put on the equipment by a distributor in the EU as long as the distributor has the TIF. If this is truly the case then a product does not have to be CE marked to enter the country or how else would it get to the distributor. Products should not have to have the CE mark until they are placed on the Market. As for Demos, a company should be able to send a non marked product into the EU, example Demo units have been shipped from Ingr USA to Ingr Germany with no hassles and no marks. We also have Marketeers bound for shows who hand carry PC Workstations like luggage and lap tops for personal use with obvious intent to put them into service and they go through customs with no hassle. These opinions are my own. Monty Griffith Product Safety Engineer Compliance Engineering Dept. Intergraph Computer Systems Phone (205) 730-6017 Fax (205) 730-6239 Pager (205) 720-0137 -- From: whis...@ccmailpc3.ctron.com[SMTP:whis...@ccmailpc3.ctron.com] Sent: Thursday, March 13, 1997 7:12 AM Cc: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject:Re[2]: Demos and Eval Units Now Require CE Mark??? Article 3 of the EMC Directive states, ...apparatus referred to in Article 2 may be placed on the market or taken into service only if it complies with the requirements laid down by this Directive when it is installed and maintained and when it used for the purposes for which it is intended. That placed into service statement has been interpreted to include any apparatus that is being used as intended. This would seem to include demos and may even be stretched into use at shows. As for placed on the market, might this include demonstration at a show and/or taking orders. I don not find any exclusions for demos or shows listed in the EMC directive. This analysis is my own of course. Tom Whissel Senior Compliance Engineer Cabletron Systems, Inc. -Reply Separator I don't have a copy of the EC EMC directive infront of me, but I'm fairly certain that an Article in that tome gives equipment destined for exhibitions a free run, and that may describe your Demo equipment. France is a proud and individualistic nation with a long history of unique scientific achievements and the world owes them much gratitude for such things as the Metric System and a singularly large statue situated at the entrance to New York's waterways. This individuality shows at the extremes of the national behavioural map as a particularly introspective view of the world which may seem to the Cosmopolitanly Challenged amongst us as slightly 'difficult' or 'protectionist', but I am sure that this is a distorted view. Europe has spent many years and expended much effort in finally getting all the European States to agree a common date for the time change used for Daylight Saving. Just as that was agreed, the French (for very good reasons which are extensively discussed in the French technical press) have had to pull out of the arrangement so painfully arrived at after so many years, and make entirely different plans. I'm sure they had no other choice, being uniquely placed so near the edge of the European land mass. Many years ago, I recall it was reported that in order to import Video Recorders into France, all had to be subject to the paperwork being arranged in one particular small office in the middle of France, rather than at the port of entry. This was a magnanimous gesture to speed things up, as the office in question was very small, and underworked, and so could concentrate on the task rather than making the applicants wait in a queue at a noisy and smelly port. It also provided this office with valuable work and alleviated the task placed hitherto on the port workers. This arrangement was to everybody's advantage, though the more cynical amongst the bitter baling hounds of the uninformed press suggested that this was a slowing tactic to give local products an advantage. Pish, let their pens turn to Grissini. Have a good day, Chris Dupres. Surrey, UK begin 600 WINMAIL.DAT M)\^(A@.`0:0 `$```!``$``00!@`(Y 0```#H``$(@ ` M ```$E032Y-:6-R;W-O9G0@36%I;Y.;W1E`#$(`06 `P`.S0#``X` M `B`!0`!0`H`0$@@ ,`#@```,T'`P`.``@`(@`6``4`*@$!8 !`$R M04(P-S,P140V.4)$,#$Q.3(X,S R,#P,3$Q-4(Q,@#+!@$-@ 0``@(` M`@`!!( !`#```!213H@4F5;,ETZ($1E;6]S(%N9!%=F%L(%5N:71S($YO M=R!297%U:7)E($-%($UAFL_/S\`Q$!`Y `*@.```:'@!P``$S M4F5;,ETZ($1E;6]S(%N9!%=F%L(%5N:71S($YO=R!297%U:7)E($-% M($UAFL_/S\```(!0`!P\+\ L;\@:2A;11'0DH,!P$16Q(` M,-=X@`#`X```,`!A(J@N6`P`'$/\,`@0`0```4```!)5$A! M4T%,5T%94T)%14Y-655.1$524U1!3D1)3D=42$%45$A%0T5-05)+0T]53$1 M15!55$].5$A%15%525!-14Y40EE!1$E35%))0E543U))3E1(145505-,3TY' M05-42$5$``,`$! ``P`1$ ``0D0`0```)4+``1P``HQ4` M`$Q:1G7WD',8_P`*`0\%0*D`^0%ZP*#`%
RE: EN 60950, Amt 4, Published March 14, 1997
What is the date of withdrawal for Amendment 3?
Monty Griffith
Product Safety Engineer
Compliance Engineering Dept.
Intergraph Computer Systems
Phone (205) 730-6017
Fax (205) 730-6239
Pager (205) 720-0137
--
From: Art Michael[SMTP:amich...@connix.com]
Sent: Friday, March 14, 1997 10:52 AM
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject:EN 60950, Amt 4, Published March 14, 1997
Hello All,
This morning I received the following information from CENELEC in response
to my query yesterday regarding the status of Amendment 4 of EN 60950.
Regards, Art Michael, Editor - IPSN
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* International Product Safety News *
*Check out our current offer on the *
* Safety Link at http://www.safetylink.com *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
--
-- Forwarded message --
List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 1997 12:32:42 +
To: Art Michael amich...@connix.com
Subject: Re: EN 60950, Amt 4
Hello,
It must be telepathy -
EN 60950:1992/A4:1997 was just published by CENELEC today
(March 14). It can already be considered as a harmonized
standard under the Low Voltage Directive, because under this
directive the lists are published in the Official Journal
for information only.
Best regards,
Gail
begin 600 WINMAIL.DAT
M)\^(@3`0:0 `$```!``$``00!@`(Y 0```#H``$(@ `
M ```$E032Y-:6-R;W-O9G0@36%I;Y.;W1E`#$(`06 `P`.S0#``X`
M#0`M``0`!0`H`0$@@ ,`#@```,T'`P`.``T`+0`%``4`*0$!8 !`!\U
M,S(Q-T%!,3E#1# Q,3DR.#0P,C W,#$Q,35,3(`1 8!#8 $``(``(`
M`02 `0`O4D4Z($5.(#8P.34P+!!;70@-P@4'5B;ES:5D($UAF-H
M(#$T+ Q.3DW( `L# $#D 8`R ``!H`' ``0```L```!%3B V,#DU
M,P@06UT(#0L(%!U8FQIVAE9!-87)C: Q-P@,3DY-R ```(!0`!
MP\,*]6W7HA4D6H1'0DH0!P$16Q(``$C%X@`#`X```,`!A B
MNJY`P`'$D$`@0`0```4```!72$%425-42$5$051%3T97251(1%)!
M5T%,1D]204U%3D1-14Y4,S]-3TY464=2249251(4%)/1%5#5%-!1D54645.
M1TE.14520T]-4$Q)04Y#145.1TE.145224Y'1$505$E.``,`$! `
M`P`1$ ``0D0`0```+T$``Y! ``@D``$Q:1G6BUTG3_P`*`0\%0*D
M`^0%ZP*#`% 3`U0`-HL!S973N,@8`!L,@S(#Q@3`H,2,Q,/9C01)W!R
M12( =M`H,U#WIH96S1`R!$;@'T*@ C/Q0G9.QG/,C4U`H *@8,-L0M@
M;FQ,#,4()+A+R# %C`$ @5Q' DP5 ! `@=!A0(0T#$?4]F( /P'S!D
MK1A=P= ( (0X#,;F0@\05 ,S\*A0J/'PN1%5$+\070`B%Y($M!H%F
M( $B%5 #81UMF,%0 809A(`) !%'-#;X )X'(B%0A0;0M0!S!;F,?48
MX!G)!E=04P+B(520(P!) )PT@FXW4I01(QQ^0MUS)*9H`B ?4@!
MT `U*2 W,S M-H@P,3B%49AN:R#(S.22F86J,2NEY0'0+2Q0,SBVBQ@
M(@]''TPNRP,3@P`M%I\TQ-#0-\ S0-!,+6;PQ-C#0`V ?D5A+38WKSW
M-.L,,#6V1@-A.C^SS6V#((305 36D1L1A@`%M33510.F%ME3M$0 6@;@,`
MX%H/QM73;?-^T8 (P.1\Z*^4XTD?'DL!= *P!PQB T$$' ,3DY,)
M\0Z-1(@04T]3S?M5(YO/X\Z*RJ@8RUP*HL8T (D G@+@6P9T-?3Y=6)J
M-?%%?SHK11.(Q .34P0 @X%L%0$)14$IP)S!S%!D]T'(:\S0S,L0 M
M%(,`;4UMD@886\3!AP+$]/%1H'P$$8 2@*))(/,9T=P:79.,1\R`A!2
M9\#\@QX @H0# =D( \@D -A)N!,L$5,14-S5B%4L7-P`B 1\#U=%52
MDTD`'$*4'(D`'GO!Y I0415+%GQ$H(A\RNRJ 'M!U! ?P2#H-!^RUTRV
M**8PM5):4W--,3L(74' 15J06. %PTI$%#4TY/73JR87J8@]C'[]CQSU
M93YCL%R*2-N5I/_('$E'0?!!!AQ#*.J-F0_)#%!C:Q^P*A!JT07 _F,(
M!G0(5$?P6P!!6P\?,FC/:=EE4P+@K 'M'_4.T0Q@; UM3-@;N!.
M0()H`D!P.B\O=W'@_YS):,G,[@//)0[S74_V'Q.J-DWV?=O]X#T]--CC_
MK][SWS?-DYYORS@!; @8/\+($XQ!X%R(Z@-B\8D!^!/TK006%85Q@0%
M=3(ZZC.#P#02(LSL#.P4V:S16$Z^2 \/ \##XPM7]*9UX@2M!,O4]4E-2
MYDEM!4!M6V %0(?4!^0;'LH![0:0`7_ PM4RV.N%@3(O032-DC0(#=
M!!JBW(J`$WF8B0`5T:76.!!D3U*$'F*2Z+(LYC`Y$'0!G0860D`(NQWSR1
M`) $@4XQCH%A6 *P/L$8 ,`@F ,+5;(2$0Q%('4A$HQ'S),5= @SE8
M\ 0@0%$:53!5J#_51!!P(NPD@!;8!]0E98$`-\PM5J0EQ4?(TWQ=).Q=!7
MCOE7P1\R3R118PQ('Y*%G03U(*)6.@(@;'IY73U6;%:-5Z ,+5'_PMP
MG+9/SS2W'@4UMCU/$`*200 `Y`$ NK3:P,+P!`P#Q/PD$```#`8`
M``,`-@```@%'``$N8SU54SMA/2 [#U)3E1%4D=205!(
M.VP]2%$U+3DW,#,Q-#$Y-#4P-%HM,34S`@'Y/P$```!*`-RG
M0,C 0A :M+D(`LOX8(!`]//4E.5$521U)!4$@O3U4]2%$O0TX]
M4D5#25!)14Y44R]#3CU-1U))1D9)5 ```!X`^#\!$ ```$=R:69F:71H
M+!-;VYT0``?L_`0```$H`W*= R,!$!JTN0@`*R_A@@$`
M+T\]24Y415)'4D%02]/53U(42]#3CU214-)4$E%3E13+T-./4U'4DE
M1DE4'@#Z/P$01W)I9F9I=@L($UO;G1Y`$ `!S 0IZLVL#\
M`4 `#W/HVL#\`0,`#33]/P```@$4- $05)2APE_$!NEAP@`
M*RHE%QX`/0`!!0```%)%.B `P`I```+`,```(!?P`!
M10```#QC/553)6$]7R5P/4E.5$521U)!4$@E;#U(434M.3P,S$T,3DT
D-3 T6BTQ-3- :'$Q-2YP8VUA:6PN:6YGBYC;VT^`!U
`
end
