Re: EMC compliance question

Liste des GroupesRevenir à se design 
Sujet : Re: EMC compliance question
De : legg (at) *nospam* nospam.magma.ca (legg)
Groupes : sci.electronics.design
Date : 10. Oct 2024, 04:45:27
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <b9iegj5aal491gdr8bbpg9rcfrjh8asqm8@4ax.com>
References : 1 2 3
User-Agent : Forte Agent 4.2/32.1118
On Wed, 9 Oct 2024 21:29:09 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

On 10/9/2024 7:18 PM, john larkin wrote:
On Wed, 9 Oct 2024 19:03:28 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:
 
What's the deal with the "CPU board" exemption?
 
Where is there such an exemption?
>
It's under the section on sub-assemblies:
>
<https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-47/part-15/subpart-B#p-15.101(e)>
>
A "CPU board" as defined previously is considered a type of sub-assembly.
>
As a hypothetical say someone sells a product that's a PCB with a PIC on
it and some relays that has e.g. RS-232 port and terminal blocks to
connect to other stuff. It's in some sense a functional product, but the
user must at least connect it to some load of their choosing for it to
actually do anything. And they can put it in a housing if they wish, or
not, whatever.
>
Is this still a "sub-assembly"?
>
>
"CPU board. A circuit board that contains a microprocessor, or frequency
determining circuitry for the microprocessor, the primary function of
which is to execute user-provided programming, but not including:
A circuit board that contains only a microprocessor intended to operate
under the primary control or instruction of a microprocessor external to
such a circuit board; or
A circuit board that is a dedicated controller for a storage or
input/output device."
>
So if one sells a board that has say a PIC on it and some support logic,
and the 9kHz+ signals are all internal to the uP (self-clock), but it's
otherwise a functionally complete design other than it's not in a
housing, is that an exempt product?

A sub-assembly is employed inside a listed device - the final device
requiring compliance.

A subassembly is not a stand-alone product and cannot/neednot
demonstrate compliance or even full functionality on its own,
as the housing,interconnection and operational environment is
not present.

If it functions stand-alone, it CAN be tested for compliance, is
self contained and has well-defined IO sources/targets.

Products may contain parts that are self-compliant and list them
as subassemblies, but the final product inherits and is stuck with
that subassembly's red tape.

RL

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