They did it because the motor industry wants to have all its standards
in ISO (obviously they have thousands of mechanical standards), not IEC,
and wants full control over them.
======================================================================================
Best wishes John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK
Istae nunc praetereunt nisi non ubicumque
On 2021-07-29 17:32, Pete Perkins wrote:
Specifically for this case; why did the committee write another
standard that seems to cover the same ground as a base standard IEC
61000-4-2? Wot’s the rationale for this additional standard?
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
-
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion
list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to <[email protected]>
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used
formats), large files, etc.
Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas <[email protected]>
Mike Cantwell <[email protected]>
For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher: <[email protected]>
David Heald: <[email protected]>
