Ah, I see what you're saying.
Point 7 was intended to say that a test should be performed if there was any doubt of a safety problem. I never intended to say that someone should market a product if they know that it will interfere with people's reception of radio or TV. Even "I Love Lucy" re-runs. I'll restate with a more clear example. Someone could buy a system with an FCC Class B computer, an FCC class B printer, an FCC class B keyboard and an FCC class B mouse only to find out that, by some freak of physics (a resonance condition ...) this system is now radiating at levels higher than class B and it is fouling up a neighbor's TV reception. In this case, the person would be required to fix the emissions, after the fact. I think we can all agree on this. The finer point of what I'm saying is: If this person was ever brought to the attention of the FCC, there would probably be no punitive action against him/her (other than correcting the emissions) because this person should be able to connect FCC approved equipment together, without performing a system level EMI test, with a reasonable assumption of conformity. But, if the person assembling this system had any knowledge beforehand that the emissions could cause a personal or public safety problem; I don't think the FCC would be so nice. It would have been more clear if I had never mentioned "Lucy" at all. Chris > -----Original Message----- > From: Ken Javor [SMTP:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com] > Sent: Friday, June 22, 2001 6:08 PM > To: Chris Maxwell; 'EMC-PSTC Internet Forum' > Subject: Re: FCC + FCC = FCC? - Outlaw > > I have no trouble with your checklist except #7. Like it or not, the FCC > RE > limits protect "I Love Lucy" broadcasts. More basically, the limits > protect > the broadcasters' market. If excess RE from consumer appliances interfere > with reception in fringe areas, the broadcaster's customer base is > reduced, > which in turn reduces the value of advertising time that he can charge. > You > are literally putting him out of business, and he has a license to > transmit > and your appliance does not. > > ---------- > >From: Chris Maxwell <chris.maxw...@nettest.com> > >To: "'EMC-PSTC Internet Forum'" <emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org> > >Subject: FW: FCC + FCC = FCC? - Outlaw > >Date: Fri, Jun 22, 2001, 2:59 PM > > > > > > >> Hi Ken, > >> > >> Come on guys, these flames are burning me :-) > >> > >> I'm just advocating sound engineering judgement. I understand that a > user > >> would have to take "adequate measures" if his/her appliance was messing > up > >> the neighbor's "I Love Lucy" reception. I understand that those > >> "adequate measures" would include fixing the emissions or turning the > unit > >> off. > >> > >> The 120dB safety margin is there. We can't argue whether it is right > or > >> wrong. It's a fact. I agree that it would be wrong for anybody to > >> abuse the safety margin and willfully produce a non-compliant product. > >> One 911 that gets slammed by a non-compliant product would be too much. > >> > >> More to the point. > >> > >> I assume that you have a good enough background in EMC to make a sound > >> judgement. (probably more so than I) What would you do with a product > >> that you evaluated using my checklist? Would you have your company > write > >> the check for a re-test? > >> > >> Chris > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Ken Javor [SMTP:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com] > >> Sent: Friday, June 22, 2001 3:21 PM > >> To: Chris Maxwell; 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org' > >> Subject: Re: FCC + FCC = FCC? - Outlaw > >> > >> NO!!!! > >> > >> The 120 dB safety margin comment and point number 7 are self-consistent > >> but > >> consistently WRONG! > >> > >> If you screw up "I Love Lucy" reception, regardless of your subjective > >> assessment of the nuisance value that represents, you are in violation > of > >> not only the philosophy of FCC emissions control, but also the verbiage > >> attached to the FCC sticker that says regardless of measured > compliance, > >> if > >> it causes interference, fix it or turn it off. > >> > >> I reiterate, the fact that your product could be out not 30 - 40% but > 30 - > >> 40 dB has no safety impact to a non-antenna connected receiver. But if > it > >> interferes with either I Love Lucy, or a cell phone calling in 911, you > >> are > >> violating the spirit and letter of the law. > >> > >> > > > > ------------------------------------------- > > This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety > > Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. > > > > Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ > > > > To cancel your subscription, send mail to: > > majord...@ieee.org > > with the single line: > > unsubscribe emc-pstc > > > > For help, send mail to the list administrators: > > Michael Garretson: pstc_ad...@garretson.org > > Dave Heald davehe...@mediaone.net > > > > For policy questions, send mail to: > > Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org > > Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org > > > > All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: > > http://www.rcic.com/ click on "Virtual Conference Hall," > > ------------------------------------------- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson: pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Heald davehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.rcic.com/ click on "Virtual Conference Hall,"
