Re: EMC compliance question

Liste des GroupesRevenir à se design 
Sujet : Re: EMC compliance question
De : jl (at) *nospam* glen--canyon.com (john larkin)
Groupes : sci.electronics.design
Date : 13. Oct 2024, 00:30:26
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <ki1mgjpeo0tjgmf8sn9bcngda8srcgg56d@4ax.com>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
User-Agent : ForteAgent/8.00.32.1272
On Sat, 12 Oct 2024 23:30:46 +0100, John R Walliker
<jrwalliker@gmail.com> wrote:

On 12/10/2024 18:07, john larkin wrote:
On Sat, 12 Oct 2024 12:25:27 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:
 
On 10/12/2024 11:22 AM, john larkin wrote:
>
48 is super common now. All our phones are PoE powered, which is
typically about 54 volts. Digikey sells warts up to 65.
>
The phones are cool. I can take one to Hawaii and plug it in and it
works just like it does here.
>
I imagine that europe has tens, maybe hundreds of millions of PoE
devices with the chinese version of the CE mark molded into the case.
>
So if european manufacturers realy have to do all the CE certs and
testing, they have one more reason that they can't compete with
imports.
>
>
So as of 2019 it looks like the US rules are similar to the European
"can't enforce" rules in that the manufacturer takes responsibility for
everything and it's up to the mfgr how and what tests they perform to
determine compliance:
>
<https://www.electronicdesign.com/technologies/test-measurement/article/21209868/recent-developments-in-emc-legislation>
>
This makes it sound like it's not too expensive to do some basic
compliance tests on a small-volume product in house:
>
<https://incompliancemag.com/emc-bench-notes-how-to-use-spectrum-analyzers-for-emc/>
>
Need a 1 GHz-ish spectrum analyzer at least as the main tool which
aren't exorbitantly expensive nowadays.
 
I can buy a spectrum analyzer and a surfboard antenna for under $1000,
and can take a product out in the country and do an open-field test
and crudely ballpark its EMI signature.
 
CE requires screen room testing and more quantitative measurement.
 
The reality today is that few products are honestly certified for EMI
or safety, and life goes on pretty well. If a product causes massive
EMI problems or hurts people, civil and criminal liabilities apply.
>
My experience differs.  Every product that I have been involved
with has been independently tested by Intertek or a test lab of
similar status.
 > It's impressive how few EMI problems there are in real life.
 
Maybe that is because many products are actually tested and compliant.
I can remember when audio equipment was very susceptible to
interference from many sources.  Those days are mostly gone.
I have come across exceptions of course.
>
John

Most audio equipment is digital now.


Date Sujet#  Auteur
10 Oct 24 * EMC compliance question54bitrex
10 Oct 24 +* Re: EMC compliance question13john larkin
10 Oct 24 i`* Re: EMC compliance question12bitrex
10 Oct 24 i +* Re: EMC compliance question10john larkin
10 Oct 24 i i`* Re: EMC compliance question9Clive Arthur
10 Oct 24 i i +* Re: EMC compliance question4John R Walliker
10 Oct 24 i i i+- Re: EMC compliance question1bitrex
10 Oct 24 i i i+- Re: EMC compliance question1bitrex
10 Oct 24 i i i`- Re: EMC compliance question1john larkin
10 Oct 24 i i `* Re: EMC compliance question4john larkin
10 Oct 24 i i  +- Re: EMC compliance question1Clive Arthur
10 Oct 24 i i  +- Re: EMC compliance question1Klaus Vestergaard Kragelund
11 Oct 24 i i  `- Re: EMC compliance question1Bill Sloman
10 Oct 24 i `- Re: EMC compliance question1legg
10 Oct 24 `* Re: EMC compliance question40Don Y
10 Oct 24  `* Re: EMC compliance question39john larkin
11 Oct 24   +* Re: EMC compliance question12Klaus Vestergaard Kragelund
11 Oct 24   i`* Re: EMC compliance question11john larkin
11 Oct 24   i +- Re: EMC compliance question1Phil Hobbs
12 Oct 24   i +- Re: EMC compliance question1Bill Sloman
12 Oct 24   i +- Re: EMC compliance question1Klaus Vestergaard Kragelund
12 Oct 24   i +* Re: EMC compliance question2Don Y
13 Oct 24   i i`- Re: EMC compliance question1Bill Sloman
13 Oct 24   i `* Re: EMC compliance question5legg
13 Oct 24   i  `* Re: EMC compliance question4Bill Sloman
14 Oct 24   i   `* Re: EMC compliance question3legg
14 Oct 24   i    `* Re: EMC compliance question2Klaus Vestergaard Kragelund
14 Oct 24   i     `- Re: EMC compliance question1Don Y
12 Oct 24   `* Re: EMC compliance question26legg
12 Oct 24    +- Re: EMC compliance question1Don Y
12 Oct 24    `* Re: EMC compliance question24Klaus Vestergaard Kragelund
12 Oct 24     +* Re: EMC compliance question8Don Y
13 Oct 24     i`* Re: EMC compliance question7Klaus Vestergaard Kragelund
13 Oct 24     i +* Re: EMC compliance question3Don Y
13 Oct 24     i i`* Re: EMC compliance question2Klaus Vestergaard Kragelund
13 Oct 24     i i `- Re: EMC compliance question1Don Y
13 Oct 24     i +- Re: EMC compliance question1john larkin
15 Oct 24     i +- Re: EMC compliance question1legg
15 Oct 24     i `- Re: EMC compliance question1legg
12 Oct 24     +* Re: EMC compliance question8john larkin
12 Oct 24     i+* Re: EMC compliance question6bitrex
12 Oct 24     ii`* Re: EMC compliance question5john larkin
13 Oct 24     ii `* Re: EMC compliance question4John R Walliker
13 Oct 24     ii  +- Re: EMC compliance question1Klaus Vestergaard Kragelund
13 Oct 24     ii  `* Re: EMC compliance question2john larkin
13 Oct 24     ii   `- Re: EMC compliance question1Bill Sloman
13 Oct 24     i`- Re: EMC compliance question1Bill Sloman
12 Oct 24     `* Re: EMC compliance question7Joe Gwinn
12 Oct 24      +* Re: EMC compliance question3john larkin
13 Oct 24      i`* Re: EMC compliance question2Joe Gwinn
13 Oct 24      i `- Re: EMC compliance question1Jan Panteltje
13 Oct 24      `* Re: EMC compliance question3legg
13 Oct 24       `* Re: EMC compliance question2Klaus Vestergaard Kragelund
13 Oct 24        `- Re: EMC compliance question1Don Y

Haut de la page

Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.

NewsPortal