Re: [PSES] Co-located modules
Michael / Bill,Really good points, thanks.One thought comes to mind; If the module is for Dedicated Short Range Communication (DSRC) and installed in a vehicle without it's own enclosure e.g. module board installed inside a vehicle under the dash board, would the entire vehicle be considered an enclosure? My thought is the dashboard could be considered an enclosure. Regards,Stephen On Wednesday, February 15, 2017 4:06 PM, Michael Derby <micha...@acbcert.com> wrote: #yiv9629491881 #yiv9629491881 -- _filtered #yiv9629491881 {font-family:Helvetica;panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;} _filtered #yiv9629491881 {panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv9629491881 {font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv9629491881 {font-family:Verdana;panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}#yiv9629491881 #yiv9629491881 p.yiv9629491881MsoNormal, #yiv9629491881 li.yiv9629491881MsoNormal, #yiv9629491881 div.yiv9629491881MsoNormal {margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv9629491881 a:link, #yiv9629491881 span.yiv9629491881MsoHyperlink {color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv9629491881 a:visited, #yiv9629491881 span.yiv9629491881MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:purple;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv9629491881 p {margin-right:0cm;margin-left:0cm;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv9629491881 p.yiv9629491881Default, #yiv9629491881 li.yiv9629491881Default, #yiv9629491881 div.yiv9629491881Default {margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;color:black;}#yiv9629491881 span.yiv9629491881EmailStyle19 {color:#1F497D;}#yiv9629491881 span.yiv9629491881EmailStyle20 {color:#66;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;text-decoration:none none;}#yiv9629491881 span.yiv9629491881EmailStyle21 {color:#66;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;text-decoration:none none;}#yiv9629491881 span.yiv9629491881EmailStyle22 {color:#1F497D;}#yiv9629491881 .yiv9629491881MsoChpDefault {font-size:10.0pt;} _filtered #yiv9629491881 {margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}#yiv9629491881 div.yiv9629491881WordSection1 {}#yiv9629491881 I would agree with Bill, that the FCC is certainly moving in the direction of a more “holistic approach toward the whole end product”, and less interested in the separation of the component parts (component parts, in the sense of assessing operations separately). I would suspect that if Bill were to submit a KDB, my guess is that they will say “whole product”. We see it with things like the clarification on spurious emissions testing of the unintentional emissions, where the upper frequency range for Part 15B testing is based on the highest frequency in the installed module. They’re looking more at the full picture these days. Michael. From: Bill Stumpf [mailto:bstu...@dlsemc.com] Sent: 15 February 2017 19:28 To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] Co-located modules I don't have any conclusively documented evidence from the FCC. This supposition is taken from recent FCC presentations, current KDB's and conversations with trusted "co-inhabitants" in this industry. An example of this indication is provided below. It is from an April 2015 FCC TCB Council presentation regarding KDB 551693 DR01. Real purpose of no-collocation condition– Not to restrict device usage options– Instead is to require compliance of multi-radio simultaneous transmission operations within a single end product• In cases where that is not already evaluated in the applications, or• For use outside parameters/scope for which the device was already evaluated I know in the past we've referenced 20cm as the minimum distance between antennas at which the FCC considered two simultaneously transmitting transmitters to be collocated. Even that was unwritten though. It would be nice to have a more clearly defined answer to what is considered collocation for requiring FCC multi-transmitter product procedures. Perhaps I will submit a KDB inquiry to the FCC... Bill From: msherma...@comcast.net [mailto:msherma...@comcast.net] Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2017 11:33 AM To: Bill Stumpf <bstu...@dlsemc.com> Cc: EMC-PSTC <EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> Subject: Re: [PSES] Co-located modules Bill -- This "in the same enclosure" interpretation sounds new and drastic to me. Do you have any official document/link on this interpretation? thanks Mike ShermanGraco Inc. From: "Bill Stumpf" <bstu...@dlsemc.com> To: "EMC-PSTC" <EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2017 7:34:19 AM Subject: Re: [PSES] Co-located modules The latest chatter I gathered on this topic is that the FCC considers collocated as "in the same enclosure". Indications are that any reference to <20cm being considered collocated has been set aside. Bill From: Michael Derby [mailto:micha...@acbcert.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2017 2:18 AM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subj
Re: [PSES] Co-located modules
I would agree with Bill, that the FCC is certainly moving in the direction of a more “holistic approach toward the whole end product”, and less interested in the separation of the component parts (component parts, in the sense of assessing operations separately). I would suspect that if Bill were to submit a KDB, my guess is that they will say “whole product”. We see it with things like the clarification on spurious emissions testing of the unintentional emissions, where the upper frequency range for Part 15B testing is based on the highest frequency in the installed module. They’re looking more at the full picture these days. Michael. From: Bill Stumpf [mailto:bstu...@dlsemc.com] Sent: 15 February 2017 19:28 To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] Co-located modules I don't have any conclusively documented evidence from the FCC. This supposition is taken from recent FCC presentations, current KDB's and conversations with trusted "co-inhabitants" in this industry. An example of this indication is provided below. It is from an April 2015 FCC TCB Council presentation regarding KDB 551693 DR01. Real purpose of no-collocation condition – Not to restrict device usage options – Instead is to require compliance of multi-radio simultaneous transmission operations within a single end product • In cases where that is not already evaluated in the applications, or • For use outside parameters/scope for which the device was already evaluated I know in the past we've referenced 20cm as the minimum distance between antennas at which the FCC considered two simultaneously transmitting transmitters to be collocated. Even that was unwritten though. It would be nice to have a more clearly defined answer to what is considered collocation for requiring FCC multi-transmitter product procedures. Perhaps I will submit a KDB inquiry to the FCC... Bill From: msherma...@comcast.net <mailto:msherma...@comcast.net> [mailto:msherma...@comcast.net] Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2017 11:33 AM To: Bill Stumpf <bstu...@dlsemc.com <mailto:bstu...@dlsemc.com> > Cc: EMC-PSTC <EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> > Subject: Re: [PSES] Co-located modules Bill -- This "in the same enclosure" interpretation sounds new and drastic to me. Do you have any official document/link on this interpretation? thanks Mike Sherman Graco Inc. _ From: "Bill Stumpf" <bstu...@dlsemc.com <mailto:bstu...@dlsemc.com> > To: "EMC-PSTC" <EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> > Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2017 7:34:19 AM Subject: Re: [PSES] Co-located modules The latest chatter I gathered on this topic is that the FCC considers collocated as "in the same enclosure". Indications are that any reference to <20cm being considered collocated has been set aside. Bill From: Michael Derby [mailto:micha...@acbcert.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2017 2:18 AM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> Subject: Re: [PSES] Co-located modules Hi Stephen, One thing to remember is that “must not be co-located” really just means “must not be co-located without some additional effort” For example, co-locating two modules and then calculating the new combined RF Exposure MPE value to verify that the product still meets the requirements, would be acceptable. It does not necessarily mean a C2PC is needed, for example. I think you’re right that 20 cm is ‘good guidance’ with regard to RF Exposure. But if your modules are 20.5cm apart, you might still want to consider the overall compliance of that final product… and a co-located MPE calculation is not too hard. Thanks, Michael. From: Stephen Whalen [mailto:scwha...@bellsouth.net] Sent: 14 February 2017 23:34 To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> Subject: [PSES] Co-located modules All, For a module that has "must not be co-located" restriction on FCC grant. What is the minimum separation distance allowed for another transmitter? I recall 20cm but can't find where it is documented. Regards, Stephen - 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 <emc-p...@ieee.org <mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org> > 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/ Instr
Re: [PSES] Co-located modules
What is the purpose of the separation, anyway? Known effects of two close senders are cross-modulation and intermodulation, caused by the emission from one sender impinging on the non-linearity of the output stage of the other. But there is no way of specifying a distance (other than a trivial 100 miles!) which would prevent this in all cases. The magnitudes of the effects depend on the detailed designs of the senders' output stages and antennas. With best wishes DESIGN IT IN! OOO – Own Opinions Only <http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk/> www.jmwa.demon.co.uk J M Woodgate and Associates Rayleigh England Sylvae in aeternum manent. From: Bill Stumpf [mailto:bstu...@dlsemc.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2017 7:28 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] Co-located modules I don't have any conclusively documented evidence from the FCC. This supposition is taken from recent FCC presentations, current KDB's and conversations with trusted "co-inhabitants" in this industry. An example of this indication is provided below. It is from an April 2015 FCC TCB Council presentation regarding KDB 551693 DR01. Real purpose of no-collocation condition – Not to restrict device usage options – Instead is to require compliance of multi-radio simultaneous transmission operations within a single end product • In cases where that is not already evaluated in the applications, or • For use outside parameters/scope for which the device was already evaluated I know in the past we've referenced 20cm as the minimum distance between antennas at which the FCC considered two simultaneously transmitting transmitters to be collocated. Even that was unwritten though. It would be nice to have a more clearly defined answer to what is considered collocation for requiring FCC multi-transmitter product procedures. Perhaps I will submit a KDB inquiry to the FCC... Bill From: msherma...@comcast.net <mailto:msherma...@comcast.net> [mailto:msherma...@comcast.net] Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2017 11:33 AM To: Bill Stumpf <bstu...@dlsemc.com <mailto:bstu...@dlsemc.com> > Cc: EMC-PSTC <EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> > Subject: Re: [PSES] Co-located modules Bill -- This "in the same enclosure" interpretation sounds new and drastic to me. Do you have any official document/link on this interpretation? thanks Mike Sherman Graco Inc. _ From: "Bill Stumpf" <bstu...@dlsemc.com <mailto:bstu...@dlsemc.com> > To: "EMC-PSTC" <EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> > Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2017 7:34:19 AM Subject: Re: [PSES] Co-located modules The latest chatter I gathered on this topic is that the FCC considers collocated as "in the same enclosure". Indications are that any reference to <20cm being considered collocated has been set aside. Bill From: Michael Derby [mailto:micha...@acbcert.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2017 2:18 AM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> Subject: Re: [PSES] Co-located modules Hi Stephen, One thing to remember is that “must not be co-located” really just means “must not be co-located without some additional effort” For example, co-locating two modules and then calculating the new combined RF Exposure MPE value to verify that the product still meets the requirements, would be acceptable. It does not necessarily mean a C2PC is needed, for example. I think you’re right that 20 cm is ‘good guidance’ with regard to RF Exposure. But if your modules are 20.5cm apart, you might still want to consider the overall compliance of that final product… and a co-located MPE calculation is not too hard. Thanks, Michael. From: Stephen Whalen [mailto:scwha...@bellsouth.net] Sent: 14 February 2017 23:34 To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> Subject: [PSES] Co-located modules All, For a module that has "must not be co-located" restriction on FCC grant. What is the minimum separation distance allowed for another transmitter? I recall 20cm but can't find where it is documented. Regards, Stephen - 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 <emc-p...@ieee.org <mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org> > 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) <h
Re: [PSES] Co-located modules
I don't have any conclusively documented evidence from the FCC. This supposition is taken from recent FCC presentations, current KDB's and conversations with trusted "co-inhabitants" in this industry. An example of this indication is provided below. It is from an April 2015 FCC TCB Council presentation regarding KDB 551693 DR01. Real purpose of no-collocation condition – Not to restrict device usage options – Instead is to require compliance of multi-radio simultaneous transmission operations within a single end product • In cases where that is not already evaluated in the applications, or • For use outside parameters/scope for which the device was already evaluated I know in the past we've referenced 20cm as the minimum distance between antennas at which the FCC considered two simultaneously transmitting transmitters to be collocated. Even that was unwritten though. It would be nice to have a more clearly defined answer to what is considered collocation for requiring FCC multi-transmitter product procedures. Perhaps I will submit a KDB inquiry to the FCC... Bill From: msherma...@comcast.net [mailto:msherma...@comcast.net] Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2017 11:33 AM To: Bill Stumpf <bstu...@dlsemc.com> Cc: EMC-PSTC <EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> Subject: Re: [PSES] Co-located modules Bill -- This "in the same enclosure" interpretation sounds new and drastic to me. Do you have any official document/link on this interpretation? thanks Mike Sherman Graco Inc. From: "Bill Stumpf" <bstu...@dlsemc.com<mailto:bstu...@dlsemc.com>> To: "EMC-PSTC" <EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>> Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2017 7:34:19 AM Subject: Re: [PSES] Co-located modules The latest chatter I gathered on this topic is that the FCC considers collocated as "in the same enclosure". Indications are that any reference to <20cm being considered collocated has been set aside. Bill From: Michael Derby [mailto:micha...@acbcert.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2017 2:18 AM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> Subject: Re: [PSES] Co-located modules Hi Stephen, One thing to remember is that “must not be co-located” really just means “must not be co-located without some additional effort” For example, co-locating two modules and then calculating the new combined RF Exposure MPE value to verify that the product still meets the requirements, would be acceptable. It does not necessarily mean a C2PC is needed, for example. I think you’re right that 20 cm is ‘good guidance’ with regard to RF Exposure. But if your modules are 20.5cm apart, you might still want to consider the overall compliance of that final product… and a co-located MPE calculation is not too hard. Thanks, Michael. From: Stephen Whalen [mailto:scwha...@bellsouth.net] Sent: 14 February 2017 23:34 To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> Subject: [PSES] Co-located modules All, For a module that has "must not be co-located" restriction on FCC grant. What is the minimum separation distance allowed for another transmitter? I recall 20cm but can't find where it is documented. Regards, Stephen - 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 <emc-p...@ieee.org<mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org>> 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)<http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html> List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas <sdoug...@ieee.org<mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org>> Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org<mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org>> For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher <j.bac...@ieee.org<mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org>> David Heald <dhe...@gmail.com<mailto:dhe...@gmail.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 <emc-p...@ieee.org<mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org>> 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
Re: [PSES] Co-located modules
Bill -- This "in the same enclosure" interpretation sounds new and drastic to me. Do you have any official document/link on this interpretation? thanks Mike Sherman Graco Inc. - Original Message - From: "Bill Stumpf" <bstu...@dlsemc.com> To: "EMC-PSTC" <EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2017 7:34:19 AM Subject: Re: [PSES] Co-located modules The latest chatter I gathered on this topic is that the FCC considers collocated as "in the same enclosure". Indications are that any reference to <20cm being considered collocated has been set aside. Bill From: Michael Derby [mailto:micha...@acbcert.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2017 2:18 AM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] Co-located modules Hi Stephen, One thing to remember is that “must not be co-located” really just means “must not be co-located without some additional effort” For example, co-locating two modules and then calculating the new combined RF Exposure MPE value to verify that the product still meets the requirements, would be acceptable. It does not necessarily mean a C2PC is needed, for example. I think you’re right that 20 cm is ‘good guidance’ with regard to RF Exposure. But if your modules are 20.5cm apart, you might still want to consider the overall compliance of that final product… and a co-located MPE calculation is not too hard. Thanks, Michael. From: Stephen Whalen [ mailto:scwha...@bellsouth.net ] Sent: 14 February 2017 23:34 To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: [PSES] Co-located modules All, For a module that has "must not be co-located" restriction on FCC grant. What is the minimum separation distance allowed for another transmitter? I recall 20cm but can't find where it is documented. Regards, Stephen - 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 < emc-p...@ieee.org > 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 < sdoug...@ieee.org > Mike Cantwell < mcantw...@ieee.org > For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher < j.bac...@ieee.org > David Heald < dhe...@gmail.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 < emc-p...@ieee.org > 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 < sdoug...@ieee.org > Mike Cantwell < mcantw...@ieee.org > For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher < j.bac...@ieee.org > David Heald < dhe...@gmail.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 emc-p...@ieee.org 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 sdoug...@ieee.org Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald dhe...@gmail.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 <emc-p...
Re: [PSES] Co-located modules
The other issue is that, just because the FCC may consider collocated as being antennas in the same unit, does not affect the 20 cm rf exposure requirement for rf exposure in a mobile configuration. I am not, however, that the FCC only considers collocation as stated. For example, transmitter, other than part 15, that have multiple antenna placement using external antennas are still referred to this as collocation of antenna. So, while the FCC may consider part 15 device antenna collocation as antennas in the same device, it may not hold true for other rule parts. Thanks Dennis Ward This communication and its attachements contain information from PCTEST Engineering Laboratory, Inc., and is intended for the exclusive use of the recipient(s) named above. It may contain information that is confidential and/or legally privileged. Any unauthorized use that may compromise that confidentiality via distribution or disclosure is prohibited. Please notify the sender immediately if you receive this communication in error, and delete it from your computer system. Usage of PCTEST email addresses for non-business related activities is strictly prohibited. No warranty is made that the e-mail or attachments(s) are free from computer virus or other defect. Thank you. From: Bill Stumpf [mailto:bstu...@dlsemc.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2017 5:34 AM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] Co-located modules The latest chatter I gathered on this topic is that the FCC considers collocated as "in the same enclosure". Indications are that any reference to <20cm being considered collocated has been set aside. Bill From: Michael Derby [mailto:micha...@acbcert.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2017 2:18 AM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> Subject: Re: [PSES] Co-located modules Hi Stephen, One thing to remember is that “must not be co-located” really just means “must not be co-located without some additional effort” For example, co-locating two modules and then calculating the new combined RF Exposure MPE value to verify that the product still meets the requirements, would be acceptable. It does not necessarily mean a C2PC is needed, for example. I think you’re right that 20 cm is ‘good guidance’ with regard to RF Exposure. But if your modules are 20.5cm apart, you might still want to consider the overall compliance of that final product… and a co-located MPE calculation is not too hard. Thanks, Michael. From: Stephen Whalen [mailto:scwha...@bellsouth.net] Sent: 14 February 2017 23:34 To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> Subject: [PSES] Co-located modules All, For a module that has "must not be co-located" restriction on FCC grant. What is the minimum separation distance allowed for another transmitter? I recall 20cm but can't find where it is documented. Regards, Stephen - 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 <emc-p...@ieee.org <mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org> > 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) <http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html> List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas <sdoug...@ieee.org <mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org> > Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org <mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org> > For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher <j.bac...@ieee.org <mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org> > David Heald <dhe...@gmail.com <mailto:dhe...@gmail.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 <emc-p...@ieee.org <mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org> > 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) <http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html> List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to t
Re: [PSES] Co-located modules
Thank you, everyone! Regards,Stephen On Wednesday, February 15, 2017 8:37 AM, Bill Stumpf <bstu...@dlsemc.com> wrote: #yiv1807988800 #yiv1807988800 -- _filtered #yiv1807988800 {panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv1807988800 {font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv1807988800 {font-family:Verdana;panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}#yiv1807988800 #yiv1807988800 p.yiv1807988800MsoNormal, #yiv1807988800 li.yiv1807988800MsoNormal, #yiv1807988800 div.yiv1807988800MsoNormal {margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv1807988800 a:link, #yiv1807988800 span.yiv1807988800MsoHyperlink {color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv1807988800 a:visited, #yiv1807988800 span.yiv1807988800MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:purple;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv1807988800 p {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv1807988800 span.yiv1807988800EmailStyle18 {color:#1F497D;}#yiv1807988800 span.yiv1807988800EmailStyle19 {color:#66;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;text-decoration:none none;}#yiv1807988800 .yiv1807988800MsoChpDefault {font-size:10.0pt;} _filtered #yiv1807988800 {margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}#yiv1807988800 div.yiv1807988800WordSection1 {}#yiv1807988800 The latest chatter I gathered on this topic is that the FCC considers collocated as "in the same enclosure". Indications are that any reference to <20cm being considered collocated has been set aside. Bill From: Michael Derby [mailto:micha...@acbcert.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2017 2:18 AM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] Co-located modules Hi Stephen, One thing to remember is that “must not be co-located” really just means “must not be co-located without some additional effort” For example, co-locating two modules and then calculating the new combined RF Exposure MPE value to verify that the product still meets the requirements, would be acceptable. It does not necessarily mean a C2PC is needed, for example. I think you’re right that 20 cm is ‘good guidance’ with regard to RF Exposure. But if your modules are 20.5cm apart, you might still want to consider the overall compliance of that final product… and a co-located MPE calculation is not too hard. Thanks, Michael. From: Stephen Whalen [mailto:scwha...@bellsouth.net] Sent: 14 February 2017 23:34 To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: [PSES] Co-located modules All, For a module that has "must not be co-located" restriction on FCC grant. What is the minimum separation distance allowed for another transmitter? I recall 20cm but can't find where it is documented. Regards, Stephen - 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 <emc-p...@ieee.org> 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 athttp://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 <sdoug...@ieee.org> Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org> For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher <j.bac...@ieee.org> David Heald <dhe...@gmail.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 <emc-p...@ieee.org> 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 <sdoug...@ieee.org> Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org> For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher <j.bac...@ieee.org> David Heald <dhe...@gmail.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 <emc-p...@ieee.org>All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.htmlAttachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities
Re: [PSES] Co-located modules
The latest chatter I gathered on this topic is that the FCC considers collocated as "in the same enclosure". Indications are that any reference to <20cm being considered collocated has been set aside. Bill From: Michael Derby [mailto:micha...@acbcert.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2017 2:18 AM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] Co-located modules Hi Stephen, One thing to remember is that “must not be co-located” really just means “must not be co-located without some additional effort” For example, co-locating two modules and then calculating the new combined RF Exposure MPE value to verify that the product still meets the requirements, would be acceptable. It does not necessarily mean a C2PC is needed, for example. I think you’re right that 20 cm is ‘good guidance’ with regard to RF Exposure. But if your modules are 20.5cm apart, you might still want to consider the overall compliance of that final product… and a co-located MPE calculation is not too hard. Thanks, Michael. From: Stephen Whalen [mailto:scwha...@bellsouth.net] Sent: 14 February 2017 23:34 To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> Subject: [PSES] Co-located modules All, For a module that has "must not be co-located" restriction on FCC grant. What is the minimum separation distance allowed for another transmitter? I recall 20cm but can't find where it is documented. Regards, Stephen - 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 <emc-p...@ieee.org<mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org>> 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)<http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html> List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas <sdoug...@ieee.org<mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org>> Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org<mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org>> For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher <j.bac...@ieee.org<mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org>> David Heald <dhe...@gmail.com<mailto:dhe...@gmail.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 <emc-p...@ieee.org<mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org>> 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)<http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html> List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas <sdoug...@ieee.org<mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org>> Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org<mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org>> For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher <j.bac...@ieee.org<mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org>> David Heald <dhe...@gmail.com<mailto:dhe...@gmail.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 <emc-p...@ieee.org> 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 <sdoug...@ieee.org> Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org> For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: <j.bac...@ieee.org> David Heald: <dhe...@gmail.com>
Re: [PSES] Co-located modules
Yes. But what's a factor of 1.852 x 10^12 between friends? With best wishes DESIGN IT IN! OOO – Own Opinions Only <http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk/> www.jmwa.demon.co.uk J M Woodgate and Associates Rayleigh England Sylvae in aeternum manent. From: alfred1520list [mailto:alfred1520l...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2017 8:40 AM To: John Woodgate <jmw1...@btinternet.com>; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] Co-located modules Nautical miles? On February 14, 2017 11:48:13 PM PST, John Woodgate <jmw1...@btinternet.com <mailto:jmw1...@btinternet.com> > wrote: OT story. I saw an official instruction for aircraft that specified a minimum separation of '5 nm'. Pretty close! With best wishes DESIGN IT IN! OOO – Own Opinions Only <http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk/> www.jmwa.demon.co.uk J M Woodgate and Associates Rayleigh England Sylvae in aeternum manent. From: Stephen Whalen [mailto:scwha...@bellsouth.net] Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2017 11:34 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> Subject: [PSES] Co-located modules All, For a module that has "must not be co-located" restriction on FCC grant. What is the minimum separation distance allowed for another transmitter? I recall 20cm but can't find where it is documented. Regards, Stephen - 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 <emc-p...@ieee.org <mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org> > 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) <http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html> List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas <sdoug...@ieee.org <mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org> > Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org <mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org> > For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher <j.bac...@ieee.org <mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org> > David Heald <dhe...@gmail.com <mailto:dhe...@gmail.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 <emc-p...@ieee.org <mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org> > 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) <http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html> List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas <sdoug...@ieee.org <mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org> > Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org <mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org> > For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher <j.bac...@ieee.org <mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org> > David Heald <dhe...@gmail.com <mailto:dhe...@gmail.com> > -- Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. - 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 <emc-p...@ieee.org> 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 <sdoug...@ieee.org> Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org> For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: <j.bac...@ieee.org> David Heald: <dhe...@gmail.com>
Re: [PSES] Co-located modules
Nautical miles? On February 14, 2017 11:48:13 PM PST, John Woodgate <jmw1...@btinternet.com> wrote: >OT story. I saw an official instruction for aircraft that specified a >minimum separation of '5 nm'. Pretty close! > >With best wishes DESIGN IT IN! OOO – Own Opinions Only ><http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk/> www.jmwa.demon.co.uk J M Woodgate and >Associates Rayleigh England > >Sylvae in aeternum manent. > >From: Stephen Whalen [mailto:scwha...@bellsouth.net] >Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2017 11:34 PM >To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG >Subject: [PSES] Co-located modules > >All, >For a module that has "must not be co-located" restriction on FCC >grant. >What is the minimum separation distance allowed for another >transmitter? I recall 20cm but can't find where it is documented. > >Regards, >Stephen >- > >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 <emc-p...@ieee.org <mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org> > >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) <http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html> >List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html >For help, send mail to the list administrators: >Scott Douglas <sdoug...@ieee.org <mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org> > >Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org <mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org> > >For policy questions, send mail to: >Jim Bacher <j.bac...@ieee.org <mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org> > >David Heald <dhe...@gmail.com <mailto:dhe...@gmail.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 <emc-p...@ieee.org> > >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 <sdoug...@ieee.org> >Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org> > >For policy questions, send mail to: >Jim Bacher: <j.bac...@ieee.org> >David Heald: <dhe...@gmail.com> -- Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. - 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 <emc-p...@ieee.org> 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 <sdoug...@ieee.org> Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org> For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: <j.bac...@ieee.org> David Heald: <dhe...@gmail.com>
Re: [PSES] Co-located modules
Hi Stephen, One thing to remember is that “must not be co-located” really just means “must not be co-located without some additional effort” For example, co-locating two modules and then calculating the new combined RF Exposure MPE value to verify that the product still meets the requirements, would be acceptable. It does not necessarily mean a C2PC is needed, for example. I think you’re right that 20 cm is ‘good guidance’ with regard to RF Exposure. But if your modules are 20.5cm apart, you might still want to consider the overall compliance of that final product… and a co-located MPE calculation is not too hard. Thanks, Michael. From: Stephen Whalen [mailto:scwha...@bellsouth.net] Sent: 14 February 2017 23:34 To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: [PSES] Co-located modules All, For a module that has "must not be co-located" restriction on FCC grant. What is the minimum separation distance allowed for another transmitter? I recall 20cm but can't find where it is documented. Regards, Stephen - 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 <emc-p...@ieee.org <mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org> > 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) <http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html> List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas <sdoug...@ieee.org <mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org> > Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org <mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org> > For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher <j.bac...@ieee.org <mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org> > David Heald <dhe...@gmail.com <mailto:dhe...@gmail.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 <emc-p...@ieee.org> 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 <sdoug...@ieee.org> Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org> For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: <j.bac...@ieee.org> David Heald: <dhe...@gmail.com>
Re: [PSES] Co-located modules
OT story. I saw an official instruction for aircraft that specified a minimum separation of '5 nm'. Pretty close! With best wishes DESIGN IT IN! OOO – Own Opinions Only <http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk/> www.jmwa.demon.co.uk J M Woodgate and Associates Rayleigh England Sylvae in aeternum manent. From: Stephen Whalen [mailto:scwha...@bellsouth.net] Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2017 11:34 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: [PSES] Co-located modules All, For a module that has "must not be co-located" restriction on FCC grant. What is the minimum separation distance allowed for another transmitter? I recall 20cm but can't find where it is documented. Regards, Stephen - 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 <emc-p...@ieee.org <mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org> > 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) <http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html> List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas <sdoug...@ieee.org <mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org> > Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org <mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org> > For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher <j.bac...@ieee.org <mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org> > David Heald <dhe...@gmail.com <mailto:dhe...@gmail.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 <emc-p...@ieee.org> 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 <sdoug...@ieee.org> Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org> For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: <j.bac...@ieee.org> David Heald: <dhe...@gmail.com>
[PSES] Co-located modules
All,For a module that has "must not be co-located" restriction on FCC grant. What is the minimum separation distance allowed for another transmitter? I recall 20cm but can't find where it is documented. Regards,Stephen - 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 toAll 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 Mike Cantwell For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: David Heald: