Regulations for Low Voltage Applications?

[Phil Allison]

"David"
Phil Allison wrote:

** Why ???

It switches low current at a few Hz !!

The EMC regulations do not even apply in Australia below 150 kHz !!



No, the EMC regulations in Australia measure the RF emissions starting at
150KHz.

** Which is EXACTLY what I wrote

If you have a square wave or SMPS operating well below 150KHz, the
harmonics can still cause failure when testing.

** How about one operating at 3 Hz ???

Piss orrrfff.



.............. Phil

 

[Phil Allison]

"The Real Andy"

I read Reply to Phil say that C tick is electrical compliance,

** You drunk again ??

There was never a hint that safety was the issue.

Most products sold in AU are supposed to have C tick
complience.

** The whole lot, actually.

The discussion was about labelling requirements giving the identity of the
importer.

Testing for EMC compliance cost shitloads of money, so
lotsa people just ignore it.

** Vast majority of products are imported - EMC were done in another
country and do not need to be repeated here.

However if a complaint is bought against
you it may cost you some serious dollars to rectify it. It doesn't
looked seriously policed in AU so I really cant understand why ACA
even implemented it.

** If you read the SC article on this, there are spot inspections on
importers and manufacturers of the *required* documentation - no docs, big
trouble.





.............. Phil

 

[Geoff C]

The Real Andy
<.pearson@wayit_dot_com_dot_au_remove_the_obvious_to_reply> wrote in
news:219do0dbuep6nb4ssmleuk15feolcupje0@4ax.com:

** Well, having no SMPS makes them prize candidates for Level 1.

What *you* need to realise is that normal ( ie old fashioned)
analogue circuitry as used for audio signals has almost ZERO chance of
emitting RF energy.

A radio receiver, TV set , VCR, CD player, DVD player or uP based PC
accessory etc are in quite another league since any of them can ( if
poorly designed) emit significant RF energy.


I read Reply to Phil say that C tick is electrical compliance, It is
EMC copmliance. Most products sold in AU are supposed to have C tick
complience. Testing for EMC compliance cost shitloads of money, so
lotsa people just ignore it. However if a complaint is bought against
you it may cost you some serious dollars to rectify it. It doesn't
looked seriously policed in AU so I really cant understand why ACA
even implemented it.

Sorry but the policing of C-tick is fairly rigorous in Australia, more so
probably than most European countries except Germany. The reason is that
once you apply for C-tick, you MUST apply to the ACA for this and then you
are on their records. Once you are, you will be audited every 2 years for
your compliance folders. I know because I have now been through 3 audits. I
am responsible for my companys' folders and have passed every audit with
minor, correctible deficiencies. The auditing is pedantic in the way it
looks at the details of the documents and each auditer has had different
preferences in the way they wish the documents to be presented.

 

[The Real Andy]

On Tue, 02 Nov 2004 22:06:02 GMT, Geoff C <notinterestedin@spam.com>
wrote:

The Real Andy
.pearson@wayit_dot_com_dot_au_remove_the_obvious_to_reply> wrote in
news:219do0dbuep6nb4ssmleuk15feolcupje0@4ax.com:


** Well, having no SMPS makes them prize candidates for Level 1.

What *you* need to realise is that normal ( ie old fashioned)
analogue circuitry as used for audio signals has almost ZERO chance of
emitting RF energy.

A radio receiver, TV set , VCR, CD player, DVD player or uP based PC
accessory etc are in quite another league since any of them can ( if
poorly designed) emit significant RF energy.


I read Reply to Phil say that C tick is electrical compliance, It is
EMC copmliance. Most products sold in AU are supposed to have C tick
complience. Testing for EMC compliance cost shitloads of money, so
lotsa people just ignore it. However if a complaint is bought against
you it may cost you some serious dollars to rectify it. It doesn't
looked seriously policed in AU so I really cant understand why ACA
even implemented it.



Sorry but the policing of C-tick is fairly rigorous in Australia, more so
probably than most European countries except Germany. The reason is that
once you apply for C-tick, you MUST apply to the ACA for this and then you
are on their records. Once you are, you will be audited every 2 years for
your compliance folders. I know because I have now been through 3 audits. I
am responsible for my companys' folders and have passed every audit with
minor, correctible deficiencies. The auditing is pedantic in the way it
looks at the details of the documents and each auditer has had different
preferences in the way they wish the documents to be presented.

You must have just been unlucky..

 

[The Real Andy]

On Tue, 2 Nov 2004 10:32:49 +1100, "Phil Allison"
<philallison@tpg.com.au> wrote:

** If you read the SC article on this, there are spot inspections on
importers and manufacturers of the *required* documentation - no docs, big
trouble.

Straight away your credibility has gone out the door. Please do not
reference SC as their articles are nearly always lacking any technical
accuracy.

 

[Phil Allison]

"The Real Andy"
"Phil Allison"

** If you read the SC article on this, there are spot inspections on
importers and manufacturers of the *required* documentation - no docs,
big
trouble.

Straight away your credibility has gone out the door.

** Lay off that damn XXXX Andy - you have few enough brain cells
left already.

Please do not
reference SC as their articles are nearly always lacking any technical
accuracy.

** Errrr - it was NOT a technical article.

It was a * first hand* report from Branko Justic at Oatley Electronics of
just such an inspection raid on their premises.

A real " true confessions " !!!!

A timely warning to the unwary and unprotected !!!





.......... Phil

 

[Phil Allison]

"The Real Andy"
Geoff C

Sorry but the policing of C-tick is fairly rigorous in Australia, more so
probably than most European countries except Germany. The reason is that
once you apply for C-tick, you MUST apply to the ACA for this and then you
are on their records. Once you are, you will be audited every 2 years for
your compliance folders. I know because I have now been through 3 audits.
I
am responsible for my companys' folders and have passed every audit with
minor, correctible deficiencies. The auditing is pedantic in the way it
looks at the details of the documents and each auditer has had different
preferences in the way they wish the documents to be presented.

You must have just been unlucky..

** So says a man who has never used a condom in his life .....




............ Phil

 

[Geoff C]

The Real Andy
<.pearson@wayit_dot_com_dot_au_remove_the_obvious_to_reply> wrote in
news:b88ho09iev9qlaj943b1q269i6smgeqk8m@4ax.com:

On Tue, 02 Nov 2004 22:06:02 GMT, Geoff C <notinterestedin@spam.com
wrote:

The Real Andy
.pearson@wayit_dot_com_dot_au_remove_the_obvious_to_reply> wrote in
news:219do0dbuep6nb4ssmleuk15feolcupje0@4ax.com:


** Well, having no SMPS makes them prize candidates for Level 1.

What *you* need to realise is that normal ( ie old fashioned)
analogue circuitry as used for audio signals has almost ZERO chance
of emitting RF energy.

A radio receiver, TV set , VCR, CD player, DVD player or uP based
PC
accessory etc are in quite another league since any of them can ( if
poorly designed) emit significant RF energy.


I read Reply to Phil say that C tick is electrical compliance, It is
EMC copmliance. Most products sold in AU are supposed to have C tick
complience. Testing for EMC compliance cost shitloads of money, so
lotsa people just ignore it. However if a complaint is bought
against you it may cost you some serious dollars to rectify it. It
doesn't looked seriously policed in AU so I really cant understand
why ACA even implemented it.



Sorry but the policing of C-tick is fairly rigorous in Australia, more
so probably than most European countries except Germany. The reason is
that once you apply for C-tick, you MUST apply to the ACA for this and
then you are on their records. Once you are, you will be audited every
2 years for your compliance folders. I know because I have now been
through 3 audits. I am responsible for my companys' folders and have
passed every audit with minor, correctible deficiencies. The auditing
is pedantic in the way it looks at the details of the documents and
each auditer has had different preferences in the way they wish the
documents to be presented.

You must have just been unlucky..

Not at all. From the first audit, the auditor actually told me that we
would be audited within 2 years. I was told this was standard practice.
The second auditor said the same thing. They were on time within a month.
I am actually surprised our 4th audit is a year overdue. Probably since
we have our docs in order they are concentrating on others whom may not.

 

[Dave, just Dave]

"Michael" <generic-spam-away@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
news:cm49f4$9kd$1@bunyip.cc.uq.edu.au...

If I wanted to build a battery-powered device (eg. an LED torch) and sell it
in Australia, are there any regulations/standards I would need to follow?

Interesting reading some of the other points of view. Here are mine:

1. The EMC Framework is very comprehensive in scope and not many products are
excluded from the framework. It would be safe to say there are no exceptions
for consumer products.

2. Compliance level 1 does allow for low risk apparatus to be supplied on the
basis of a declaration and without testing. The device does not need to be
labelled if it is a low risk device as defined in the labelling notice, see 7
(3) of
http://www.aca.gov.au/aca_home/legislation/radcomm/notices/emclabel2001.rtf

3. The definition of a low risk device appears in the above document. That
is:

/quote
low-risk device means a device:

(a) the operation of which has a low interference impact
on other devices using the radiofrequency spectrum; and

(b) that contains any of the following items:

(i) manually operated switches;
(ii) simple relays;
(iii) brushless squirrel cage induction motors;
(iv) conventional AC/AC transformers;
(v) resistive elements (for instance, heating elements).
/end quote

When practically applying this definition the words "any of the following..."
in sub-part (b) should be treated as if it said "only the following..."

So if a product has anything other than just the above parts it will be a
'medium risk' device and it must be labelled and supported by some form of
technical evidence.

4. Note that AC/AC transformers are low risk devices only when by themselves.
AC/DC power adaptors or supplies are not 'low risk' as defined since they
contain semi-conductors (rectifier diodes, etc).

5. The LED torch the original poster asked about would be a medium risk device
as it contains semi-conductors. The Standard applying to luminaires (AS/NZS
CISPR 15) includes battery powered apparatus in its scope but the tests for
radiated emissions (magnetic field) apply only if the operating frequency is
100 Hz or greater.

In my opinion, it may slip through the cracks as there are no specified
requirements. The ACA auditor may have a different personal opinion as to
whether they device escapes the test/labelling requirement and may, for
instance, expect the device to comply with another standard. Get written
advice from the ACA State Manager in the relevant State.

6. With respect to audio and similar products, these do not fall within the
'low risk' category as practically applied by the ACA. As they contain
semi-conductors they are outside the definition of low risk devices. From
personal experience, simple devices such as 78xx/79xx based supply regulators
have failed the conducted emissions tests due to the regulator not being
properly bypassed (small cap at the input).

Simple devices that should be low risk do fail and they fail more often than I
for one expect. Very poor construction and very poor design is usually the
reason.

7. From what I have been told, and from experience, the ACA aims to audit each
company thats has registered to use the compliance mark(s) on a rotational
basis. It is not a random process as our market is small enough to not
require the process be randomised. The auditors follow a checklist that lists
what a 'compliant' folder must contain. They also record the details of any
samples sited, the report numbers of applicable reports and any inadequate
procedural matters relating to the labelling notice (eg. record retention).

8. These audits are paper based and no additional product testing is
involved - but this can be ordered if irregularities are exposed or suspected.
Proper technical enforcement is really complaints driven. A
maker/distributor/import dobs in a competitor and this triggers firstly a
paper audit and a technical audit if necessary.

I know of several companies that have thought the EMC regulations should
not apply to them as they have been building xxxxx product for xxxxx years
without
complaints or problems. In some cases that is fair enough as it is a simple
product and low risk. For others it comes as a shock to find their simple
device needs a test report or worse still it needs substantial change as it
may be non-compliant. An ACA audit is the wrong time to find out as they can
hand out on-the-spot fines (albeit at the auditor's discretion).

--

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Any email address associated with the sender of
this message, either in the headers or body
is valid but munged to help combat spam. To
email simply remove the dash.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

[The Real Andy]

On Wed, 3 Nov 2004 21:10:04 +1100, "Phil Allison"
<philallison@tpg.com.au> wrote:

"The Real Andy"
"Phil Allison"


** If you read the SC article on this, there are spot inspections on
importers and manufacturers of the *required* documentation - no docs,
big
trouble.

Straight away your credibility has gone out the door.


** Lay off that damn XXXX Andy - you have few enough brain cells
left already.

A further reduction will do me know harm, it might bring me closer to
you brain cell count.

Please do not
reference SC as their articles are nearly always lacking any technical
accuracy.


** Errrr - it was NOT a technical article.

My exact point, no SC article ever is.

It was a * first hand* report from Branko Justic at Oatley Electronics of
just such an inspection raid on their premises.

A real " true confessions " !!!!

A timely warning to the unwary and unprotected !!!

So he got bent over and fucked up the arse for importing crap?

 

[Phil Allison]

"The Real Andy"
"Phil Allison"

** If you read the SC article on this, there are spot inspections on
importers and manufacturers of the *required* documentation - no docs,
big
trouble.

Straight away your credibility has gone out the door.


** Lay off that damn XXXX Andy - you have few enough brain cells
left already.

A further reduction will do me know harm, it might bring me closer to
you brain cell count.





Please do not
reference SC as their articles are nearly always lacking any technical
accuracy.


** Errrr - it was NOT a technical article.

My exact point, no SC article ever is.


It was a * first hand* report from Branko Justic at Oatley Electronics of
just such an inspection raid on their premises.

A real " true confessions " !!!!

A timely warning to the unwary and unprotected !!!

So he got bent over and fucked up the arse for importing crap?

** Andy does have a certain ..... errrrr, way with words ....





................ Phil