[ previous ] [ next ] [ threads ]
 
 From:  "David Cook" <david at dave dash cook dot co dot uk>
 To:  "Peer Dicken" <peer at dicken dot name>, <m0n0wall at lists dot m0n0 dot ch>
 Subject:  RE: [m0n0wall] CE sign
 Date:  Thu, 30 Sep 2004 19:19:12 +0100
Peer,

Apologies, something must have been lost in the communications going
back and forth between Pascal and I in July. At that point the WRAP1.D-2
was very new and all Pascal was able to pass on was the FCC results for
the WRAP1.C-2 testing.

My understanding is that there are still some bureaucratic procedures to
go through, documentation that needs to be available etc. Maybe now we
aren't faced with testing, which was the main problem at the time,
getting the WRAP CE marked won't be so problematic. I'll do a bit of
digging around and see if I can find out what is involved.

Best regards

David


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peer Dicken [mailto:peer at dicken dot name] 
> Sent: 30 September 2004 18:13
> To: m0n0wall at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
> Subject: Re: [m0n0wall] CE sign
> 
> 
> 
> Am 30.09.2004 um 17:31 schrieb David Cook:
> > July 2004) is to meet FCC 47 Part 15 Subpart B. He does not CE mark 
> > the devices, with cases or without, leaving this the 
> responsibility of the
> > EU
> >
> 
>  From the manual:
> CE Declaration of Conformity
> We, PC Engines GmbH, declare that WRAP.1C / WRAP.1D, when 
> installed in  
> the PC Engines metal enclosure, is in conformance with:
> - EN 61000-6-3 and EN 61000-6-4 (EMI emissions, residential and  
> industrial)
> - EN 61000-6-1 and EN 61000-6-2 (ESD, susceptibility, 
> residential and  
> industrial)
> A copy of the test report will be provided on request.
> 
> 
> 
> MfG / best regards,
> 
> Peer Dicken
> 
> AIM/iChat: peerdicken, IRC DerPeer@FreeNode
> 
> PGP KEY:  
> http://pgpkeys.pca.dfn.de:11371/pks/lookup? 
> op=get&search=0x72F6057F28B9E2CD
> 
>