Sujet : Re: EMC compliance question
De : bill.sloman (at) *nospam* ieee.org (Bill Sloman)
Groupes : sci.electronics.designDate : 12. Oct 2024, 04:27:40
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <vecqbp$156j$1@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 12/10/2024 6:20 am, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 11 Oct 2024 20:59:09 +0200, Klaus Vestergaard Kragelund
<klauskvik@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 10-10-2024 23:11, john larkin wrote:
On Thu, 10 Oct 2024 13:41:07 -0700, Don Y
<blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:
On 10/9/2024 4:03 PM, bitrex wrote:
<snip>
The guys I was working with in Oxford laughed at me when I asked if
our atom probe system would need to be CE tested. "CE means Cant
Enforce."
>
>
Some just takes the risks. If you are caught it can be an expensive
risk. On the other hand, I have never heard of a case where the company
went bankrupt. Have heard of large fines, but nothing that killed the
company
What's crazy is how expensive the CE specs are. I can buy one PDF for
$600, and it will reference a bunch of others. Recursively.
These specs have the force of law. It's like being forced to pay to
know what's legal or not.
That's what keeps lawyers in business. If you think about it, that's also what keeps up in business - most of us have learned which elelctronic circuits will work in a particular context, and we can give good advice - for a fee - to anybody who asks.
If we also build the circuit, we sell it for more than what it cost to put it together, which includes the fee for knowing what would work.
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
EMC compliance question
Re: EMC compliance question