Hi John, All,
The answer to your question is in my original e-mail on the subject.
I said at the end...
One error that may creep in, is if the device leg of the T is
extended with co-ax or is relatively long (lambda/20)
Having dealt with the fundamental of the problem, it is up to the user
to
Chris,
You state:
Another point I wanted to bring out we had a product tested to CSA
approvals. Inside, we used a power supply that carried a UL listing with C
US subscript which said that UL tested it to both UL and CSA standards. A
copy of the test report wasn't enough for CSA. Since UL
Hi Jim,
I understand your concerns, but that is exactly why harmonised standards
give only PRESUMPTION of Compliance only.
and not PROOF of compliance.
Definition of presumption:
PRESUMPTION - A fact assumed to be true under the law is called a
presumption. For example, a criminal defendant is
I read in !emc-pstc that tim.hay...@baesystems.com wrote (in 5814071626
092002/A14159/PLANET/1209D4070D00*@MHS) about 'MEASURING VSWR WITHOUT A
DIRECTIONAL COUPLER' on Thu, 26 Sep 2002:
Disconnect the T from the device
Sweep 2 across the range in same steps, making amplitude measurements
at each
I read in !emc-pstc that Chris Maxwell chris.maxw...@nettest.com wrote
(in 83d652574e7af740873674f9fc12dbaaf7e...@utexh1w2.gnnettest.com)
about 'subcontracted parts - compliance with EN's' on Thu, 26 Sep 2002:
1. There is occasionally an argument for using a power supply that doesn't
have
Can someone advise if the importer or manufacture takes the product to a
test house and asks to test to a certain standard is there any legal
obligation on the test house to advise of other implications or standards.
This could be tricky - the Directive place liability on ALL IN THE SUPPLY
Class III
As its weekend now, i can't look up the standard .
I am not fully sure but:
Fitted with a ground cord, but not using it : i believe
Was meant for luminaire to be used in areas with only
grounded outlets , where ungrounded plugs could not be
plugged in so required a grounde plug and
Thank you all who responded to this thread.
All inputs I got are generally in agreement, and in line with my opinions.
Here are the conclusions. They are mainly applicable to custom design, but
also extend to COTS equipment available on the market.
1. It is not relevant if subcontracted parts
A colleague recently showed me a Class III
identification mark. However, he had no
further information about the mark.
(The Class III mark would be used to identify
a Class III product similar to the way the
Class II mark square-within-a-square is used
to identify a double-insulated
In a message dated 9/27/02 3:38:55 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
pmerguer...@itl.co.il writes:
.Yes, UL and CSA unfortunately are the only organizations who would like
to
see their country standards covered by their own laboratories. That means
CSA will accept a UL Recognized component when
There have been many good issues raised in this thread in particular the
issue of bad case-law being set. I remember a very good UK lawyer friend
of mine predicting that initial case-law would be suspect and based upon
incomplete knowledge and understanding of the issues. And that until cases
2c
in addition to the rights and wrongs of the technical issue is the quesion of a
level playing field for all manufacturers that compete for the UK market with a
given product, like our hair dryer example.
EMC directive and regulations for domestic products gives teeth to the trading
Hi Gordon (and John)
This is a good example of a recent standard created by
IEC with stupid mistakes in it and voted by CENELEC without thinking.
While for conducted immunity the frequency boundaries are
defined (6.2 4th par) , for radiated immunity they are not.
One may argue that the this way
I have a black box device that takes in an RF video feed via a coax
cable and then translates that to light energy for transmission. Its
bi-direction, meaning that, I can also pump light into it and get the RF signal
back for distribution down the coax cable.
My opinion, for
I have BS EN61326:1998 which references IEC 61000-4-3:1995 which I believe
has no test method above 1.0 GHz. I don't actually have the 1995 version to
verify this. I have the IEC 61000-4-3:1998 which does describe test methods
from 1.4 to 2.4 GHz.
Therefore, for BS EN61326:1998, there are no
Hi Robert,
I think you will find ISO 7932 gives general guidance for the enumeration
of Bacillus cereus i.e. microbiology. Only a typo I know, but what a
difference it can make when you actually order the standard! I believe
you meant ISO 7637.
I have never had to design for a cigarette lighter
I read in !emc-pstc that Gordon,Ian ian.gor...@edwards.boc.com wrote
(in E1BA0362B28ED211A1E80008C71EA306018190CD@EXC_EAS01) about
'RADIATED IMMUNITY TESTING ABOVE 1GHz' on Fri, 27 Sep 2002:
Does anyone know whether it is necessary to perform radiated immunity tests
above 1GHz when applying BS
I read in !emc-pstc that Alan E Hutley nutwoo...@nutwood.eu.com wrote
(in 01a501c26624$cce34f20$0d01a8c0@alan) about 'EMC prosecution UK' on
Fri, 27 Sep 2002:
Can someone advise if the importer or manufacture takes the product to a
test house and asks to test to a certain standard is there any
I've never heard this from the compliance engineer of any of my employer's
customers. But I have observed an agency engineer question the adequacy of
an unit's test data (as delineated in the CB report) for the end-user's
particular installation. One instance of this was an engineer from the
THE 2003 IEEE INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON ELECTROMAGNETIC
COMPATIBILITY (EMC)
Istanbul Hilton Hotel, Istanbul, Turkey, May 11-16, 2003
Dear colleagues and fellow EMC engineers, Hello from Turkey
We take great pleasure in inviting you to participate in the 2003 IEEE
International
Symposium on
On the other hand
There seems to be some question about this recently reported case, and
regardless of the outcome of any appeal, the following points need to be
remembered.
1)The cost goes far beyond a fine. The TS can prohibit the sale of
goods in store until any required
snip
Anyway, we were only interested in CE marking (not UL/CSA) so we simply had
the design reviewed and tested with our product. As for continuation, it
was a custom part; so we added the compliance requirements to the part
specifications. Yes, I know this doesn't give us complete control;
You are right Neil. TS have removed a very large number from stock. And I
understand some other models. So whilst the fine was small the total cost
was far higher.
Can someone advise if the importer or manufacture takes the product to a
test house and asks to test to a certain standard is there
We are developing a device which will have a charging adapter using a 12V
cigarette lighter. What EMC standards for emission and immunity cover such
devices. We have looked at ISO 7937-2. it seems to cover only 24V commercial
vehicles. There is a draft version that we do not have, but the tile
Everybody
Does anyone know whether it is necessary to perform radiated immunity tests
above 1GHz when applying BS EN61326 which is the product standard titled
Electrical equipment for measurement, control and laboratory use - EMC
requirements? The products concerned are not telecom or IT devices.
I read in !emc-pstc that tim.hay...@baesystems.com wrote (in 2714440827
092002/A03673/PLANET/1209DA2C0D00*@MHS) about 'MEASURING VSWR WITHOUT A
DIRECTIONAL COUPLER' on Fri, 27 Sep 2002:
The answer to your question is in my original e-mail on the subject.
I said at the end...
One error that may
I read in !emc-pstc that Kevin Richardson kevin.richard...@ieee.org
wrote (in nebbihdflagbliikmlbkcelidlaa.kevin.richard...@ieee.org)
about 'EN or IEC 61000-3-12' on Fri, 27 Sep 2002:
As I thought. Thank you John.
Sorry have not had the chance to come back earlier.
I have been out of office all
I read in !emc-pstc that Gert Gremmen g.grem...@cetest.nl wrote (in
oleokfnbajjejfkplbbmcelgcdaa.g.grem...@cetest.nl) about 'EMC
Prosecution in UK' on Fri, 27 Sep 2002:
I understand your concerns, but that is exactly why harmonised standards
give only PRESUMPTION of Compliance only.
John,
As I thought. Thank you John.
Sorry have not had the chance to come back earlier.
I have been out of office all week and difficult to get time to read
postings etc.
Any idea when -12 is likely to be published?
Best regards,
Kevin Richardson
Stanimore Pty Limited
Compliance Advice
There seems to be some question about this recently reported case, and
regardless of the outcome of any appeal, the following points need to be
remembered.
1) The cost goes far beyond a fine. The TS can prohibit the sale of goods
in store until any required corrective action has been
30 matches
Mail list logo
