Where COTS meets MOTS: Bridging the gap between commercial and military EMC standards
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
1 like•613 views
Hursley EMC Director, Julian Jones, covers COTS and MOTS, the pros and cons, as well as possible solutions to problems that may arise.
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Viewers also liked
Viewers also liked (20)
Similar to Where COTS meets MOTS: Bridging the gap between commercial and military EMC standards
Similar to Where COTS meets MOTS: Bridging the gap between commercial and military EMC standards (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Where COTS meets MOTS: Bridging the gap between commercial and military EMC standards
- 1. Where COTS meets MOTS Julian Jones R&S EMC Seminar
- 2. About Hursley EMC • UKAS Accredited • Established 1997 • Notified body for EMC Directive • International Compliance Military EMC Commercial EMC DEFSTAN 59-411 MIL 461 DO160 FCC Listed (USA) VCCI Listed (Japan) ICES Listed (Canada) KCC Listed (South Korea) BSMI Listed (Taiwan) We are an Independent EMC Test Laboratory based on the South Coast
- 3. About Me! • Background summary: • Product development & EMC Engineer for IBM • Present Role: • Director of Hursley EMC Services • EMC testing, developing new test area • Chairman EMC Test Labs Association (Working Group A) • Education and quality of EMC Test Labs • Writing Technical Guidance Notes for DEFSTAN 59-411
- 4. • Defining COTS and MOTS • Pros and Cons • Audience Participation • Comparison of COTS and MOTS environments • COTS into MOTS problems and possible solutions • MOTS into COTS process • Worked example of MOTS to COTS • Summary • Q & A Presentation Overview Look out for Top Tips
- 6. COTS = Commercial Off The Shelf MOTS = Military Off The Shelf What it is
- 7. Low Cost Quick to Develop Fast Deployment Technically advanced Pros of COTS
- 8. Not Certified for Military No build standard control Not robust Can disappear without trace Obsolescence management Cons of COTS
- 9. Low Cost Quick to Develop Fast Deployment Technically advanced Best and Worst Not Certified for Military No build standard control Not robust Can disappear without trace Obsolescence management
- 10. MIL461F COTS to MOTS Statement Simply put in Section 4.2.2 of MIL 461F:2007
- 12. CE MIL Bridging the Gap
- 13. DEFSTAN 59-411 Part 1 Risk Assessment
- 14. • System Requirement Document • Test Plan • Product Specification • Usage Environment Defining the Environment
- 15. Evaluating COTS Performance Collect evidence of existing performance CE Report (Accredited ?) Country of origin (pedigree) Product exerciser details Frequency ranges Test levels Create gap analysis (wary of different standards)
- 16. Military Commercial Origin Radiated E Field DRE01 EN55022 Generics Radiated E Field AVG DRE03 None - Radiated H Field DRE02 Annex A of EN55103-1 Pro AV Conducted Power Port DCE01 EN60945 Marine Conducted Signal Port DCE02 EN55022 ITE Exported Transients DCE03 None - Emissions Comparisons
- 17. Military Commercial Origin Radiated E Field DRS02 EN61000-4-3 Railway Radiated H Field DRS01 EN55103-2 ProAV Magnetic DC Field DRS03 EN61000-4-8 Railway Conducted AF Power port DCS01 EN61000-4-16 Railway Conducted AF Signal Port DCS03 None - BCI DCS02 EN61000-4-6 Alarm Immunity Comparisons
- 18. Military Commercial Origin Externally Generated DCS05 None - Imported Long DCS06 EN61000-4-12 Railway ESD DCS10 EN61000-4-2 Generic Imported Low Frequency DCS12 None - Transients Comparisons
- 19. Functional Criticality / Risk Rating Critical Function needs: • High Immunity performance • Low Emissions performance Gap Analysis tools are UNavailable If unsure get your EMC lab to do it
- 20. Mitigation of Risk Post Functional criticality review: two options 1. Identify additional works to improve EMC performance (Resultant engineering changes may invalidate CE Marking, unless just a new simple chassis/barrier) 2. Fully test product to relevant military standard
- 21. CE Reality of success for unmodified COTS More chance of Aston Villa topping the Premier Division
- 22. COTS reality
- 23. • Radiated Emissions • Conducted Emissions • Radiated Immunity • Conducted Immunity • Transients (brief statement only) • Keeping it simple with Sea and Land Class C & D. DEFSTAN 59-411 vs CE standards
- 24. 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 Below Deck Above Deck Ships Limits
- 25. 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 Below Deck Above Deck Land Class D Land Class C Sea Limits + Land Class C & D
- 26. 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 Below Deck Above Deck 60945 RE QP Land Class D Land Class C Sea Limits + Land Class B & C + EN60945
- 27. 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 Below Deck Above Deck 60945 RE QP Cispr A QP Cispr B QP Cispr B Ave Land Class D Land Class C Class A Avg Sea Limits + Land Class B & C + EN60945 + EN55022 Class A
- 28. -20.00 0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00 120.00 140.00 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 dBuA Frequency (MHz) DCE01.B SAD DCE01.B SBD Conducted Emissions Sea Limits
- 29. -20.00 0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00 120.00 140.00 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 dBuA Frequency (MHz) DCE01.B SAD DCE01.B SBD EN60945 dBuA (50Ω) Conducted Emissions Sea Limits + EN60945
- 30. -20.00 0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00 120.00 140.00 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 dBuA Frequency (MHz) DCE01.B SAD DCE01.B SBD EN60945 dBuA (50Ω) CISPR A QP (dBuA) (50Ω) CISPR B QP (dBuA) (50Ω) Conducted Emissions Sea Limits + EN60945 + EN55022 A & B
- 31. 1 10 100 0.15 1.50 15.00 150.00 1500.00 15000.00 v/m MHz Above/Below Deck Below Deck Above Deck CW & AM Above Deck PM only Light Ind Heay Ind 60945 Radiated Immunity Sea + EN60945
- 32. 0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 Amplitude(V) Frequency (MHz) SBD (V) SAD (V) Level 2 Level 3 Conducted Immunity Sea Limits + EN60945 + Industrial
- 33. Radiated Magnetic Emissions Sea Limits + EN55103-1 50 70 90 110 130 150 170 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000 DRE02.B-Limits for Air Land and Sea Service use DRE02 55103
- 34. 50 70 90 110 130 150 170 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000 DRS01 55103-2 Radiated Magnetic Immunity Sea Limits + EN55103-2
- 35. • No easy comparison to commercial • EN61000-4-33 Measurement Methods for High Powered Transients • Different injection methods • Different output impedances • DCS05 switching levels OK, NEMP and Land need specials • DCS06 usually OK • DCS12 is ‘Brutal’ Transient Immunity
- 36. MIL 461F statement Most Commercial Mains filters are designed from 150kHz to 30MHz. Issues will be at the low frequency end, typically 10kHz to 100kHz. Additional power filtering needed likely to be 2 or 3 stages. (Ringing risk with existing filtering) Likely Outcomes – Conducted Emissions & Immunity
- 37. • Additional power filtering • Additional shielding (external chassis or cabinet) • Double screened interface cables • Perfect 360° screening at connector shell • Braided and foiled cable screen terminations • LCD overlay screen or ITO coating Likely Outcomes – Radiated Emissions & Immunity Ensure modifications do not compromise air-flow, causing unreliability
- 38. • Additional power filtering • Additional Transorbs, MOV, surge arrestors & VDR • Possible MOV on output of filter for DCS12 only • Double screened interface cables • Perfect 360° screening at connector shell • Braided and foiled cable screen terminations Likely Outcomes – Transient Immunity Ensure modifications do not compromise product electrical safety
- 39. Time to change direction
- 40. Certification to Product or Generic Standard ITE Lab Equipment Light / Heavy Industrial Maritime / Rail / Automotive MOTS to a COTS Environment
- 41. TR 50538
- 42. • Section 1 Scope • Section 2 Directives for Conformity • Section 3 Application of the EMC directive for military equipment • Annex A Defence Procurement Directive • Annex B Article 346 Treaty of Lisbon • Annex C List of exempt items • Annex D Environments • Annex E Decision diagram for apparatus • Annex F Decision diagram for fixed installations • Annex G Read Across Tables for Military and harmonised stds • Annex H Comparison of EMC test methods • Annex I Example of Gap Analysis • Annex J Example Case Studies TR 50538 Contents
- 43. • Harmonised standards appear in Official Journal (OJ) • How many Military stds are in OJ ? • Apparatus not in Annex C require a CE mark • Applicable to Apparatus and ‘Fixed Installations’ • Anything portable or mobile is Apparatus = None Issues
- 45. Consider the intended environment of Apparatus • Ships above and below decks • Aircraft internal and external • Land Service • Connection to existing commercial infrastructure • Choose most suitable standard from the OJ • Use these for your Declaration of Conformity Annex D
- 46. Annex E – Route to Compliance Source TR 50538
- 47. • Use of Harmonised Standards • Mixed EMC Assessment • Detailed Technical EMC Assessment Full Testing = minimal risk (££££) Tricky to be confident of result will need some testing for Fast Transient Bursts, Surge, Harmonics & Flicker (£££) Section 3 – Conformity Assessment Theoretical exercise (££)
- 48. Review existing Reports Computer modelling Design evidence (best practice examples) Similarity to existing Apparatus Limitations of use (certain modes only) Gap Analysis (Annex I) Not difficult to create, but needs careful analysis for the correct result Ratified by Notified Body (optional) Beware concessions Detailed Technical Assessment
- 49. Commercial Test DEFSTAN Test Notes Decision EN55022 Radiated Emissions DRE01.B Most DEFSTAN should be ok but >1GHz unknown for Ships Accept with checking report profile EN60945 Radiated Emissions DRE01.B Sea Below Decks easier. Notch BW Unlikely to comply but check profile EN60945 Radiated Emissions DRE01.B Sea Above Decks mainly tighter Accept with checking report profile EN55022 Conducted Emissions Class A DCE01.B Class A is easiest to meet Accept with checking report profile EN60945 Conducted Emissions DCE01.B Very tight limit for its freq’ range Sea above decks possibly DEFSTAN to COTS Emissions
- 50. Radiated Emissions considerations • Military Ground Plane a huge factor in emissions performance • Shouldn’t assume 20dB / decade rule will be true from 1m to 3m (9.5dB) or 10m (20dB) • Consider broadband and narrowband differences
- 51. Commercial Test DEFSTAN Test Notes Decision EN61000-4-3 Radiated Immunity DRS02.B DEFSTAN is more severe Accept EN61000-4-6 Conducted Immunity DCS02.B DEFSTAN is more severe except below 1MHz Check if 3V or 10V requirement DEFSTAN to COTS Immunity
- 52. Commercial Test DEFSTAN Test Notes Decision EN61000-4-2 ESD DCS10.B Above & Below ok Accept EN61000-4-4 Fast burst No equivalent Needs testing Test EN61000-4-5 Surges No equivalent Needs testing Test EN61000-3-2 Harmonics No equivalent Needs testing Test EN61000-3-3 Flicker No equivalent Needs testing Test EN61000-4-11 Dips No equivalent Should pass Accept DEFSTAN to COTS Transients & Power
- 53. CE Mark product - it is ok to affix to the packaging or manual Perform a complete CE test to harmonised standards if possible, not so expensive or time consuming, and reduces the risk. CE Mark Apparatus
- 54. Sea Below Decks to EN60945 example Radiated Emissions 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 DRE01.B -Limits for All Platforms Below Deck Above Deck 60945 RE QP Cispr A QP Cispr B QP Cispr A Av Cispr B Ave D C
- 55. Sea Below Decks to EN60945 example Radiated Emissions Gap Analysis combination 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 DRE01.B -Gap analysis Sea above Decks & EN60945 Gap Analysis test Limits
- 56. Sea Above Decks to EN60945 example Conducted Emissions -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 DCE01 Limits for all platforms DCE01.B SAD DCE01.B SBD CISPR A QP (dBuA) CISPR B QP
- 57. Sea Above Decks to EN60945 example Conducted Emissions Gap Analysis combination -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 DCE01 Gap Analysis Gap Analysis Test Limits
- 58. Sea Above Decks to EN60945 example Immunity shortfall testing EN61000-4-4 as no direct equivalent EN61000-4-5 as no direct equivalent EN61000-4-6 as only 4V and needs to be 10V
- 59. COTS to MOTS isn’t possible Modified COTS to MOTS is possible No definite worst case Commercial or Military Standard Worst case Emissions and Immunity levels for both MOTS to COTS needs careful gap analysis Gap Analysis tools unavailable EMC Test Lab experience and support very important If in doubt or Risk Averse – Just Test ! Summing Up
Editor's Notes
- Operating for nearly 20 years Started out as commercial EMC moved into Military about 7 years ago
- Was a customer of EMC dept Moved into EMC dept by accident, but I really enjoy it, working with customers and finding solutions to problems. I have 30+ years of working in EMC. I perform these tests I will be describing today and the gap analysis exercises as well. I am an engineer and not a salesman / presenter, I have like you all have I am sure sat through countless power points, but this is my first presentation and if it goes badly my last ! Ive spent sometime thinking how to put this subject down simply and make it memorable for everyone.
- This is the plan for today. Quite a bit to get through Look at the issues with putting COTS kit into Military environment Comparing Limits of both environments via a short game, nothing to onerous but hopefully fun!! and then using our simplified Gap analysis tool compare COTS to MOTS Limits to see visually differences. Focussing on DEFSTAN and sea and Land Class C & D limits. Then Looking at the process for MOTS kit into the CE environment.
- Just so everyone is in the right room COTS and MOTS isn’t this !
- It’s the need to place your industry standard kit into service as Military equipment. There is a 3rd one, which is GOTS, which would apply to Urgent Operational Requirement, where you get what you get! But we are focusing on certified routes so this GOTS doesn’t apply.
- The advantages of COTS kit are clear With everyone looking at cost and time to get it into service COTS makes a lot of sense Someone else has spent time and money creating it. But just not for the military en vironment. But it does give access to the lastest leading edge technology
- But on the other hand The cons are the RISKS Its Unknown Untested Uncontrolled How long will the motherboard or LCD be around ? Mention banks a good choice for this as they have long supply needs One current issue we are seeing is touch sensitive buttons failing transients but you cant modify it to suit you as you don’t control it.
- Although I’ve listed 5 Cons, this is sort of a balancing point. We will look at how factors affect the decision making process
- This balancing act is neatly summed up my the Americans in MIL Standard 461 Cheap, quick and high tech ! But keep the standard still
- So as its my first presentation I thought we’d play a short game, just 8 quick questions, if you don’t know guess. to see what we know and also some differences between the CE and Military EMC specs PRESS I have no glamorous assistant like Brucie sadly.
- So From that short quiz, I think it is clear that perhaps the expectation that all Military EMC is tougher than the world of CE isn’t true. So how do we bridge the gap to a MOTS environment ?
- This is the flow chart from 59-411 part 1 The blue boxes show you what to do And the yellow balloons suggest how you go about it. It looks very simple, but it isn’t ! We will run through these stages now
- Ideally your customer will have a test plan that your product is going to have to meet this would define the environment and test levels and frequency ranges How it is going to be exercised and monitored during testing. Monitoring is key. Automotive products tend to do well in MOTS environment as their reports are very highly detailed with regard to testing and monitoring. Unlike some generic CE which can be a bit lax
- Ideally you will have a full CE report. But given that the CE process is a bit lax, this may not be the case. If you are lucky to have a report, where has it come from EU ? USA, Far East ? How was it exercised ? PC with 16 RS232 port story Any testing > 1GHz We will look at some simple examples in the next few slides on gap analysis
- The military column is showing the tests we need to cover and the Commercial one the possibilities from different standards that are the closest ITE products are often tested to FCC specs for USA and this can go up to 40GHz depending on product spec There are a couple of gaps you can see
- It’s the same here, showing that Rail spec are the best match for Military specs For DCS03, we could argue that EN61000-4-6 is close
- Transients are harder to analyse Only the ESD is very close marked in red
- This is always going to be difficult The higher the risk environment and function the less any gaps can be tolerated. The MOD do have a Gap analysis tool, but it is not yet in the market place. It is currently being updated to add new specs, and this might change in 2016. EMC labs all have their own. I would strongly advise to consult your EMC Test Lab, but I would wouldn’t I ? !!!
- Its then down to how you reduce the risk of putting COTS kit into MOTS service PRESS It may be the COTS kit can be put into a 19 inch rack with its own built in filters which wont require any mods so the CE marking is still valid. PRESS But if not then it will be a question of full testing.
- DON’T PRESS KEYS YET UNTIL YOU SPEAK Experience has shown that putting COTS kit into MOTS without any modifications isn’t going to work. It is effectively – hit button to bring in slide 1 And there is more chance of Aston Villa being on top of the Premier League today. Like the reality of unmodified COTS success here is the real Villa position -
- So our reality is that COTS is going to be modified COTS, with a power filter, possibly in a chassis with additional signal port filters depending on which environment its going in.
- So I’d like to run through in a bit more detail and compare the test levels and frequency range differences between CE and DEFSTAN. Ive just chosen a few as on the first trials the graphs were just too busy and too hard to understand.
- There are the limits at Hursley EMC we work most commonly with. Sea Above Decks quite rightly being tougher, but note both stop at 1GHz
- Adding in the Land C & D limits they are similar to the Sea, but extend to 18GHz. I haven’t shown the Land A & B, but these are an order lower. Land Class A & B equipment will need a customer enclosure to meet limits.
- The Commercial Marine standard EN60945 is a good comparison. As you can see it crosses over the Above decks limits in a few places but you can see where it is tighter in the VHF band 156 to 165 MHz. 60945 also stops at 2GHz.
- Then bringing in the generic Class A & B limits you can see these are better than Sea Above decks where they share the same frequency range. But there are huge gaps.
- Here we have the Sea conducted limits Military world is in dBuA ( except MIL 461 CE102) and the Commercial world in dBuV, so there is some converting, and allowance for LISN impedances etc. Ive kept is all in the military world as this is what we are focussing on.
- Again you can see the 60945 limit is a good starting point. But the commercial world stops at 30MHz. The Sea specs start at 500Hz, but the Land classes at 20Hz. If a product met 60945, there would be a good chance of a pass to Sea Above Decks unaltered.
- Adding the Generic Class A & B limits their 150kHz starting frequency means more testing will be needed. No commercial EMC will have testing below 150kHz ( except 60945)
- This is how I think we all expect it to look Military way above commercial for radiated immunity. But you can see that over the same frequency range there is correlation.
- For Conducted Immunity you can see that the heavy industrial limit is in fact higher than the Sea limits below 1MHz and higher above 30MHz, but the light industrial at 3V is consistently lower across the range.
- This is one that usually never has any comparisons as the professional AV spec is not widely used. But you can see there are some similarities and areas where you would need to retest ie 10khz to 100khz
- Likewise just to show the gap, the H field immunity from 55103-2 is below the military and will need full testing. We’ve tested a few hailing devices which started out as Pro AV kit.
- Transient comparisons are hardest to do 61000-4-33 shows a methodology to do this, but this is a presentation all in its self. If you want to know more, download a copy. PRESS We don’t get too many modified commercial items failing DCS05 switching levels, but NEMP is a different matter ! Likewise DCS06 is a pass first time 9 times out of 10. DCS12 though is the killer. Luckily it only applies to Sea Systems. Extra work is usually needed on power filters. Roughly 30mins!
- So a quick look at some potential requirements due to shortfalls in Commercial filters frequency range and attenuation performance. We’ve worked with a filter manufacturer now for about 5 years to develop a solution up to 6Amps. It has worked on virtually everything for sea below decks and Land Class C & D since then. PRESS Sea systems earth leakage is a big issue and MIL 461 again has some wise words on limiting capacitance values and hence leakage. PRESS As we never know what goes into high current filters, I am not sure this is always adhered to !
- You can see here the typical measures needed for COTS to MOTS The LCD would only be needed for a very low emissions environment like Land Class A Press button for top tip then It is important to focus on the potential over heating risks that all this shielding could bring
- Similar in a way, more protection as we mentioned before for DCS12 if its Sea systems you are designing for. Its important to check cables terminations are as per drawing and not as its easiest to make it with a pig tail instead. Double screening although expensive is usually more than twice as effective. Press for top tip. Finally PRESS Please check all the filtering add-ons and ground changes don’t affect the basic product safety.
- We’ve covered the COTS to MOTS now and will move on to the reverse Certifying a Military product for commercial use. This is a bit shorter as we wont need to revisit the gap analysis graphs.
- When doing MOTS to COTS it’s a question of picking the Product Specific Standard or Product Family Standard that you need to certify to. There are some examples here.
- Luckily there is a useful guide for this purpose. PRESS It isn’t a standard itself but a Technical Report It has a defined methodology and process to follow for CE marking, but it still needs experience and knowledge to use it successfully.
- Section 1 – defines applicability to military equipment not exempted by Annex C Section 2 – directives to use, EMC, R&TTE, automotive, Maritime Section 3 – application of the EMC directive to military equipment Annex A refers to setting up a European Defence equipment market legislative framework Annex B refers to protecting essential security issues Annex C – listing what you can ignore for CE Marking Annex D – Military standards DEFSTAN MIL , etc Annex E – flow diagram for Apparatus Annex F – flow diagram for fixed installations We will look at the relevant ones in more detail shortly. Its going to be too big cover in 15 minutes. And focus mainly on the annexes highlighted in red for this presentation
- PRESS The Official Journal is published usually twice a year. PRESS PRESS Everything Military based which isn’t excluded needs to be CE marked PRESS A fixed installation would be dockyard A Comms rack would be apparatus PRESS An aircraft carrier is a portable apparatus.
- This is fairly obvious one but each MOTS item will need to be declared to a Directive. The oddity is that military radios do not need to meet the R&TTE directive or soon to be RED Directive but the EMC Directive. But a radio used on site by contractors would
- Consider where it has been Certified for DEFSTAN Land MIL 461 Ships For examples Then also look at how it is going to interface to the infrastructure in its CE environment, this will help you to select the most appropriate standard from the OJ.
- Annex E shows us how to get that elusive CE mark. It is a simple flow chart with options, one to study over a coffee maybe ?
- These are our three choices PRESS Harmonised standards and testing reduces the risk but obviously has a cost involved. PRESS Mixed EMC assessment needs experience to interpret GAP analysis and there will be the need to do some testing as highlighted – lower costs than above Detailed Technical assessment PRESS ignores harmonised standards and use experience and a lot of work to analyse and make a decision – brings the highest risk. – this may be the only way for some apparatus, no testing costs, but consider consultant costs.
- These are the suggested methods from within TR50538. PRESS - check for concessions don’t assume full pass PRESS Experience and skill needed for Gap analysis Notified body can be used for additional confidence. (we have done this twice only for military equipment).
- Example tables of MOTS to COTS for the detailed technical assessment This is part of our in house gap analysis.
- Such difference in the set up mean nothing is guaranteed as a read across. Peak for Military and quasi peak for commercial have potential differences for broadband and narrow band signals 45 mins
- Less risk here as military levels are high and the frequency range wide
- Most products would pass EN61000-4-11 PLD specs. ESD is the same-ish But no easy read across for the transients
- So we’ve finally got round to our CE marking after one of these routes PRESS To avoid label confusion on approved MOTS kit there is no need to fix the CE sticker onto the apparatus the packaging or manual is fine. Press for top tip Then say I would recommend the testing route if you can.
- So we’ve finally got round to our CE marking after one of these routes PRESS To avoid label confusion on approved MOTS kit there is no need to fix the CE sticker onto the apparatus the packaging or manual is fine. Press for top tip Then say I would recommend the testing route if you can.
- So we’ve finally got round to our CE marking after one of these routes PRESS To avoid label confusion on approved MOTS kit there is no need to fix the CE sticker onto the apparatus the packaging or manual is fine. Press for top tip Then say I would recommend the testing route if you can.
- So we’ve finally got round to our CE marking after one of these routes PRESS To avoid label confusion on approved MOTS kit there is no need to fix the CE sticker onto the apparatus the packaging or manual is fine. Press for top tip Then say I would recommend the testing route if you can.
- So we’ve finally got round to our CE marking after one of these routes PRESS To avoid label confusion on approved MOTS kit there is no need to fix the CE sticker onto the apparatus the packaging or manual is fine. Press for top tip Then say I would recommend the testing route if you can.
- So we’ve finally got round to our CE marking after one of these routes PRESS To avoid label confusion on approved MOTS kit there is no need to fix the CE sticker onto the apparatus the packaging or manual is fine. Press for top tip Then say I would recommend the testing route if you can.
- We’ve seen that COTS to MOTS is a non starter unless its something like a battery lamp Military specs aren’t always tough than commercial ones Gap analysis tools don’t exist EMC lab experience and support is going to be essential for COTS to MOTS or MOTS to COTS exercises Finally I would like to thank Pete Dorey, Tim Williams and Ken Summerbell for help and support with material for this presentation.