...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: Applying the appropriate ENs
I feel that we are missing the point of Product Safety and trying to
over-simplify the issues (please read John Woodgate's excellent reply).
The culture for product safety is totally different to that required for
EMC
and Functionality
We are not far apart Rich,
However - I agree with the concept of teaching engineers to open their eyes
and seeing what is before them - that is how we make progress. I do not
believe that setting down even more rules will help the situation - it will
cause only opportunities to deviate from the
:21 AM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: Applying the appropriate ENs
I don't understand how testing to a different standard can make a product
safer. If there is a product specific standard, use it. If you are
testing a CD Recorder (presumably what you mean by a CDR) then you should
use
Hi Gregg:
Consider the number of PRODUCT standards written - these reflect the
accepted degree of protection (Operator or User) for each product under
specified operating conditions and accepted uses.
I invite consideration of INJURY, and the means by
which an injury can occur from
]
Sent: 27 September 2001 07:53
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Re: Applying the appropriate ENs
I read in !emc-pstc that Gregg Kervill gkerv...@eu-link.com wrote (in
002c01c146d3$99fc0a00$4e00a8c0@MENHADEN) about 'Applying the
appropriate ENs', on Wed, 26 Sep 2001:
We have
You do not make it clear as to what Directive you are referring to. I can
respond regarding safety and the LVD. The requirements under the LVD are
that equipment must be safe and complying with the principle elements of
the safety objectives of Annex I and that they should be constructed in
I read in !emc-pstc that Gregg Kervill gkerv...@eu-link.com wrote (in
002c01c146d3$99fc0a00$4e00a8c0@MENHADEN) about 'Applying the
appropriate ENs', on Wed, 26 Sep 2001:
We have recently obtained a UL Listing for a
UK product (The First Pocket CDR) - the test lab suggested '065 but I
insisted
I read in !emc-pstc that Rich Nute ri...@sdd.hp.com wrote (in
200109261701.kaa07...@epgc196.sdd.hp.com) about 'Applying the
appropriate ENs', on Wed, 26 Sep 2001:
Unfortunately, this archaic and provincial view on
the part of standards organizations
'Standards organizations' are people just
persons.
PETER S. MERGUERIAN
-Original Message-
From: Rich Nute
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Sent: 9/26/01 7:01 PM
Subject: Re: Applying the appropriate ENs
It is the primary end use of the product that dictates the
standard(s)
required.
Unfortunately, this archaic
26, 2001 1:02 PM
To: Product Safety Technical Committee
Subject: Re: Applying the appropriate ENs
It is the primary end use of the product that dictates the standard(s)
required.
Unfortunately, this archaic and provincial view on
the part of standards organizations that standards
should
It is the primary end use of the product that dictates the standard(s)
required.
Unfortunately, this archaic and provincial view on
the part of standards organizations that standards
should be per product has created problems that
most of us would like to avoid.
Consider product
I read in !emc-pstc that wo...@sensormatic.com wrote (in 846BF526A205F8
4BA2B6045BBF7E9A6A43A3B3@flbocexu05) about 'Applying the appropriate
ENs', on Wed, 26 Sep 2001:
Assume a product is primarily intended for a particular use (example: CCTV
for surveillance use) and the appropriate ENs
It is the primary end use of the product that dictates the standard(s)
required.
If a product is sold as X, but then used by the user as Y, the
manufacturer/etc only has to apply X relevant standards. But if the product
is sold/marketed as Y, then Y standards must be applied. As a
Assume a product is primarily intended for a particular use (example: CCTV
for surveillance use) and the appropriate ENs are applied for that intended
use and a Declaration of Conformity is issued listing the applied standard.
Now assume that the product is marketed and sold for a secondary
14 matches
Mail list logo
