31, 2017 2:55 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] MD vs LVD for Laboratory Equipment
I’ve said this before, but laboratory equipment is the Redheaded Stepchild of
Regulatory Compliance. It’s like the powers-to-be didn’t know what to do with
us so the latest move was to toss us
y, March 31, 2017 7:55 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] MD vs LVD for Laboratory Equipment
I’ve said this before, but laboratory equipment is the Redheaded Stepchild of
Regulatory Compliance. It’s like the powers-to-be didn’t know what to do with
us so the latest move was to t
requ...@ieee.org]
Sent: Friday, March 31, 2017 12:54 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] MD vs LVD for Laboratory Equipment
All,
Well letting it stew longer usually makes the soup thicker.
The mfgrs of semi processing equipment worked to
ch 31, 2017 9:05 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] MD vs LVD for Laboratory Equipment
I’m with you here, Dave. Just because a product contains a cooling fan should
not mean the MD applies. But then, the products you cite are explicitly
excluded from the scope of the MD (I’m
I’m with you here, Dave. Just because a product contains a cooling fan should
not mean the MD applies. But then, the products you cite are explicitly
excluded from the scope of the MD (I’m sure you know this, since it appears you
took the text directly form the MD).
However, in Article 2 of the
05466247
>
> From: Kunde, Brian [mailto:brian_ku...@lecotc.com
> <mailto:brian_ku...@lecotc.com>]
> Sent: 30 March 2017 19:19
> To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
> Subject: [PSES] MD vs LVD for Laboratory Equipment
>
> Sorry
: Thursday, March 30, 2017 5:20 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] MD vs LVD for Laboratory Equipment
I concur with Michael Loerzer. IMO, the test labs didn’t feel comfortable doing
MD evaluations, so they used the “out” that was in the text of the previous MD
(98/37/EC) that said
mob...@globalnorm.de <mailto:loerzer_mob...@globalnorm.de>]
> Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 4:23 PM
> To: Kunde, Brian; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
> Subject: AW: [PSES] MD vs LVD for Laboratory Equipment
>
> Second comment
...@globalnorm.de [mailto:loerzer_mob...@globalnorm.de]
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 4:23 PM
To: Kunde, Brian; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: AW: [PSES] MD vs LVD for Laboratory Equipment
Second comment: on 8th of May, 2017 I have a meeting with the responsible
market surveillance authority in
of the
participants is the German representative for the MD in Brussels.
Michael
Von: Kunde, Brian [mailto:brian_ku...@lecotc.com]
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 30. März 2017 20:19
An: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Betreff: [PSES] MD vs LVD for Laboratory Equipment
Sorry to say, this issue has
ian_ku...@lecotc.com]
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 30. März 2017 20:19
An: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Betreff: [PSES] MD vs LVD for Laboratory Equipment
Sorry to say, this issue has once again reared its ugly head. I appreciate any
and all input.
History: For many many years, laboratory equipment fell
ISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] MD vs LVD for Laboratory Equipment
Sorry to say, this issue has once again reared its ugly head. I appreciate any
and all input.
History: For many many years, laboratory equipment fell under the Low Voltage
Directive (LVD), even products with moving parts. It
Sorry to say, this issue has once again reared its ugly head. I appreciate any
and all input.
History: For many many years, laboratory equipment fell under the Low Voltage
Directive (LVD), even products with moving parts. It was specifically excluded
from the Machinery Directive (MD). The Safet
13 matches
Mail list logo
