>Hi All,
>Currently looking at getting CE approvals done on a product - but don't know
>what approvals to go for!
>
>Is there a website somewhere that has these documents?
>
>Thanks!
>
>Cheers,
>Peter Mcalpine
>Sydney, Australia
>
>
>
This link may be of help.
At 17.04 2005.02.10 +1100, you wrote:
>Hi All,
>Currently looking at getting CE approvals done on a product - but don't know
>what approvals to go for!
It's you that put the CE (I mean the European mark, not the Chinese one) on
your products *under your own responsability*.
>>Currently looking at getting CE approvals done on a product - but
>>don't know
>>what approvals to go for!
> It's you that put the CE (I mean the European mark, not the Chinese
> one) on
> your products *under your own responsability*.
That's essentially true. BUT the implication is that the product
meets all relevant EU standards.. Failure to do so can cause you
immense grief if someone - probably a competitor - complains.
>From: ThePicMan <spam_OUTthepicmanTakeThisOuTinfinito.it>
>Reply-To: "Microcontroller discussion list - Public." <.....piclistKILLspam@spam@mit.edu>
>To: "Microcontroller discussion list - Public." <piclistKILLspammit.edu>
>Subject: Re: [EE:] CE specification documents
>Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 09:12:54 +0100
>
>At 17.04 2005.02.10 +1100, you wrote:
> >Hi All,
> >Currently looking at getting CE approvals done on a product - but don't
>know
> >what approvals to go for!
>
>It's you that put the CE (I mean the European mark, not the Chinese one) on
>your products *under your own responsability*.
>
CE is a self certification. In other words, when you
document that it has passed certain tests, lets say
noise immunity, hi-pot and some level of emissions,
you can provide the documentation that backs it up.
I suppose, you could simply say, this product has
passed our QA proceedure (as long as it is documented)
and give it a CE mark.
However, generally you will take your product to a
testing lab (doesnt have to be a UL/TUV lab per se)
and have them run a standard suite of tests. They
will then provide you the necessary documents that if
a customer ever asks, you can provide.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
At 08.30 2005.02.10 -0600, you wrote:
>>It's you that put the CE (I mean the European mark, not the Chinese one) on
>>your products *under your own responsability*.
>
>Yes and you can go to jail if you do it fraudulently.
That's the meaning of "*under your own responsability*" I guess. ;)
What I meant is that you can self-certify everything, you don't need an official institute to do it for you.
Note the asterisks in *under your own responsability*.
>I suppose, you could simply say, this product has
>passed our QA proceedure (as long as it is documented)
>and give it a CE mark.
You really need to verify that it passes appropriate national/international
specs, such as ISO/VDE/UL etc which are appropriate for your product. You
then need to be able to provide traceable test results that can be produced
if there is any query about the product.
> >I suppose, you could simply say, this product has
> >passed our QA proceedure (as long as it is
> documented)
> >and give it a CE mark.
>
> You really need to verify that it passes appropriate
> national/international
> specs, such as ISO/VDE/UL etc which are appropriate
> for your product. You
> then need to be able to provide traceable test
> results that can be produced
> if there is any query about the product.
>
>Yes...thats what I was alluding to in my last
>paragraph.
>> You really need to verify that it passes appropriate
>> national/international
>> specs, such as ISO/VDE/UL etc which are appropriate
>> for your product.
Yeah, well the problem is that it is up to you to do the search and
determine what is relevant to your product :))
I did do a CE marking course last year, which was run as an in house thing,
but it was mainly related to mechanical things. Essentially you cannot
figure "I am making product X, which is the relevant standard?" as there are
some general ones, (e.g. using a green indicator to show power on) and some
which will be specific to your product, which may even be a different bunch
to another product you may make because of the market it is going into, or
some other issue. It all comes down to second guessing what the user is
likely to want to do, and testing for it appropriately.
Incidentally out of this course I got some strange bits of information. One
I specifically remember is that while most of the world uses a whacking
great red button as the emergency stop button on equipment, the Italians use
a green one - why? because it is putting the machine into a state where it
is safe, so you use green. You use red when the machine is going into an
unsafe state - e.g. setting a spindle rotating so it is not safe to allow
hands, etc, into the area. When you stop and think about it, it is quite
logical - after all this is how traffic lights work - green light is safe to
proceed, red light not safe to proceed.
These are all items that have to be considered for CE marking - you need to
know your market as well as your product, and may need to get it re-tested
in each country if doing international marketing, to catch this sort of
quirk.
> Incidentally out of this course I got some strange bits of
> information. One
> I specifically remember is that while most of the world uses a
> whacking
> great red button as the emergency stop button on equipment, the
> Italians use
> a green one - why? because it is putting the machine into a state
> where it
> is safe, so you use green. You use red when the machine is going
> into an
> unsafe state - e.g. setting a spindle rotating so it is not safe to
> allow
> hands, etc, into the area. When you stop and think about it, it is
> quite
> logical - after all this is how traffic lights work - green light is
> safe to
> proceed, red light not safe to proceed.
Maybe THAT explains the way they drive in Rome!!!
Didn't have too many problems elsewhere, but I don't really many
traffic lights either. We didn't drive in central Rome but the traffic
was, as everyone says, diabolical.
At pedestrian crossings they are unaware of the meaning of red or
green lights (if they have any meaning). The guide book says to walk
steadily across and they will avoid you. And it works!!!
A major proof of concept was tried on an extremely busy street at the
end of the Roman forum away from the Colosseum after any amount of
waiting hopefully at the kerbside had not produced any ebbing in the
flow. Take wife firmly by hand. Wait until light for traffic is red
(not green!*) and walk resolutely out. Hold wife's hand VERY firmly as
she is now screaming and trying to pull away. Pull her gently but
surely along behind you. Cars melt around you on either side as you
walk steadily across, speed not, apparently, slacking. If you think
I'm making this up then you haven't been to Rome :-).
At 09.50 2005.02.11 +0000, you wrote:
>
>Incidentally out of this course I got some strange bits of information. One
>I specifically remember is that while most of the world uses a whacking
>great red button as the emergency stop button on equipment, the Italians
>use
>a green one - why? because it is putting the machine into a state where it
>is safe, so you use green. You use red when the machine is going into an
>unsafe state - e.g. setting a spindle rotating so it is not safe to allow
>hands, etc, into the area. When you stop and think about it, it is quite
>logical - after all this is how traffic lights work - green light is safe
>to proceed, red light not safe to proceed.
You know, the "Italians do it better" way to say didn't born by accident. ;D
On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 09:50:46 -0000, Alan B. Pearce wrote:
>...<
> Incidentally out of this course I got some strange bits of information. One
> I specifically remember is that while most of the world uses a whacking
> great red button as the emergency stop button on equipment, the Italians use
> a green one - why? because it is putting the machine into a state where it
> is safe, so you use green. You use red when the machine is going into an
> unsafe state - e.g. setting a spindle rotating so it is not safe to allow
> hands, etc, into the area. When you stop and think about it, it is quite
> logical - after all this is how traffic lights work - green light is safe to
> proceed, red light not safe to proceed.
Of course, this is one of those situations where something "intuitive" is actually nothing of the sort! I did
wonder what the large green mushrooms were for at ski-lift stations in Italy - I can't say I would have
immediately hit one if there was a problem unless they were marked "Stop" in some language or other!
You could look at the switch colours the rest of the world uses as meaning "go" and "stop", not "safe" and
"danger". Or that by pressing green you are telling the equipment that it is safe to start...
I don't know who decided that Green/Red were to be the colours for Safe/Danger (presumably someone on the
early railways) but they have done us a great disservice. Red/green colourblindness is the most common type
and train drivers and pilots are tested to ensure they can distinguish them, for obvious safety reasons.
Drivers, at least as far as I know, aren't! Yellow is nature's danger signal (ask any wasp or bee!) and it
would have been the best choice for a "Danger" signal/traffic light. Too late to change it now, though!
I always thought that Bomb Disposal would be the worst job to have if you're colourblind... "I'm about to cut
the reddy-greeny-greyish wire..." ;-)
>Yellow is nature's danger signal (ask any wasp or bee!)
Human eye's response is best in the yellow-green area. Maybe animal's
eyes are too? Strange as various animals see differently than we.
Maybe bees etc are evolved/designed for our eyes :-)
> I don't know who decided that Green/Red were to be the
> colours for Safe/Danger
Its got to do with red light being scattered the least by dust and
suspended particles in the air. So of all wavelengths it travels the
most. Compared to other colour signals you can therefore see a red
signal from farther away.
>> I don't know who decided that Green/Red were to be the
>> colours for Safe/Danger
> Its got to do with red light being scattered the least by dust and
> suspended particles in the air. So of all wavelengths it travels the
> most. Compared to other colour signals you can therefore see a red
> signal from farther away.
Rather it has to do with the fact that the first used danger and signal
lights were fires, to be followed later by oil lamps (still yellow-red)
and only recently by electrically powered things.
>>> I don't know who decided that Green/Red were to be the
>>> colours for Safe/Danger
>> Its got to do with red light being scattered the least by dust and
>> suspended particles in the air. So of all wavelengths it travels the
>> most. Compared to other colour signals you can therefore see a red
>> signal from farther away.
> Rather it has to do with the fact that the first used danger and signal
> lights were fires, to be followed later by oil lamps (still yellow-red)
> and only recently by electrically powered things.
I'm always a bit suspicious when people say they know why things happened.
To say that and how they happened, that's all in the realm of facts (when
it is). But "why"... that's by definition not a fact, unless it is about
one decision and one knows it first hand or through a reliable source from
the person or group that took the decision.
In this case, like in many others, there are probably a number of reasons
in the numerous and to a degree independent situations where people decided
about colors. So I guess instead of "rather this than that" it's more
likely that all of the good reasons and also all of the bad reasons where
involved at some point. And who's to say there was a reason at all... so
many things are decided by completely unrelated and often arbitrary issues
and then become a de facto standard.
One such "other" reason is maybe that in nature, red is often used for
alerts, seemingly more than other colors. Animals that are poisonous and as
such want to be recognized by their enemies often have clear red colors on
them. Which may have to do with the fact that most in nature is green, it
may have to do with other reasons not related to anything "danger", and it
may have created the disposition to consider red a color for danger, even
before signal fires were widely used.
>>>> I don't know who decided that Green/Red were to be the
>>>> colours for Safe/Danger
>
>>> Its got to do with red light being scattered the least by dust and
>>> suspended particles in the air. So of all wavelengths it travels the
>>> most. Compared to other colour signals you can therefore see a red
>>> signal from farther away.
>
>> Rather it has to do with the fact that the first used danger and signal
>> lights were fires, to be followed later by oil lamps (still yellow-red)
>> and only recently by electrically powered things.
>
> I'm always a bit suspicious when people say they know why things happened.
> To say that and how they happened, that's all in the realm of facts (when
> it is). But "why"... that's by definition not a fact, unless it is about
> one decision and one knows it first hand or through a reliable source from
> the person or group that took the decision.
My mistake. Should have started that phrase with 'I think that it has
rather ...'.
On the other hand the best teaching or experience anyone ever received
from someone else has been at best second hand and after the fact (of
research or experiment).
.....rl.ac.uk> wrote:
