RE: FCC + FCC = FCC? - Outlaw
Actually went through this with a commercial product in about 1984. I received a letter (or call) from the FEDS that the police couldn't transmit or receive when they were going past a bank and they were blaming our equipment, turns out they were right. Jumped on a plane, found the problem and fixed it. (Some of the equipment had to be turned off to find the signal so no wonder I missed it during test) Wrote back to the FEDS, they called the cops who confirmed the problem was cured and I never heard from the FEDS again. I suspect it would have been different if I hadn't responded quickly. Gary While I had all of the equipment in the field updated - I was never asked nor did I tell the FEDS that we fixed all occurrences of the equipment. -Original Message- From: Ken Javor [mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com] Sent: Monday, June 25, 2001 10:26 AM To: Chris Maxwell; chris maxwell; 'emc-pstc internet forum' Subject: Re: FCC + FCC = FCC? - Outlaw Someone else on this thread quoted chapter and verse from Title 47 of the US code stating that individuals who built their own ITE were not covered by Part 15 rules. Regardless of that, I find it hard to imagine the FCC going after any individual other than to make him fix an interference or shut off an interference source. This comment specifically aimed at incidental transmissions. it does not apply to the case of an individual intentionally transmitting rf energy at levels greater than allowed by law. -- From: Chris Maxwell chris.maxw...@nettest.com To: 'Ken Javor' ken.ja...@emccompliance.com, Chris Maxwell chris.maxw...@nettest.com, 'EMC-PSTC Internet Forum' emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: FCC + FCC = FCC? - Outlaw Date: Mon, Jun 25, 2001, 8:00 AM 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
Re: FCC + FCC = FCC? - Outlaw
Someone else on this thread quoted chapter and verse from Title 47 of the US code stating that individuals who built their own ITE were not covered by Part 15 rules. Regardless of that, I find it hard to imagine the FCC going after any individual other than to make him fix an interference or shut off an interference source. This comment specifically aimed at incidental transmissions. it does not apply to the case of an individual intentionally transmitting rf energy at levels greater than allowed by law. -- From: Chris Maxwell chris.maxw...@nettest.com To: 'Ken Javor' ken.ja...@emccompliance.com, Chris Maxwell chris.maxw...@nettest.com, 'EMC-PSTC Internet Forum' emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: FCC + FCC = FCC? - Outlaw Date: Mon, Jun 25, 2001, 8:00 AM 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
RE: FCC + FCC = FCC? - Outlaw
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 Healddavehe...@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
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 Healddavehe...@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 Healddavehe...@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,
Re: FCC + FCC = FCC? - Outlaw
83d652574e7af740873674f9fc12dbaa675...@utexh1w2.gnnettest.com, Chris
Maxwell chris.maxw...@nettest.com inimitably wrote:
Why not call a vertically-
applied manulo-pedally-operated quasi-planar chernozem-penetrating and
excavating implement a SPADE?
BECAUSE SOMETIMES IT'S A SHOVEL!
All the rest of what you said is true, but a shovel is not quasi-planar:
it has a caustic curve cross-section, like '{'. (;-)
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. Phone +44 (0)1268 747839
Fax +44 (0)1268 777124. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Why not call a vertically-
applied manulo-pedally-operated quasi-planar chernozem-penetrating and
excavating implement a SPADE?
---
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 Healddavehe...@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,
RE: FCC + FCC = FCC? - Outlaw
Hi all, This thread has been interesting. However it has taken a somewhat philisophical turn. I'd like to distill it a little bit. In short, FCC + FCC does equal FCC in certain circumstances just like CE + CE = CE in certain circumstances. You need to ask yourself: (honestly and sincerley without the influence of mind altering substances) Self, 1. Do I manufacture all of the pieces of this system? 2. Are all of the pieces of this system already FCC approved? 3. Is the FCC approval appropriate for my intended environment (i.e needs Class B for residential)? 4. Am I satisfying the test assumptions for the pieces that are already FCC approved? (i.e am I using shielded cables where required, am I following the grounding recommendations?) 5. Am I using the pieces of this system in their intended environments? 6. Do I have design control over the pieces of the system? (i.e did you or your company layout the circuitboards, choose the components ...) 7. Will my system be used in situations in which interference could comprimise public or personal safety? (as opposed to simply screwing up the neighbor's reception of I Love Lucy.) 8. Have I spent a couple of years in compliance engineering? Do I feel comfortable making these decisions? Have I reviewed the test data? If you can answer: 1. No (A yes hurts only slightly) 2. Yes 3. Yes 4. Yes 5. Yes 6. No (A yes hurts only slightly) 7. No (This one MUST be No) 8. Yes, Yes, Yes Then you can be 95% certain that FCC+FCC = FCC. Only 95%!! Oh no! Hold on, before you write that $5,000 check for EMC testing, remember that most EMC tests themselves have double digit percentage errors. One warning. If you are going to make a Large Number of IDENTICAL systems, and you plan to make alot of money off of them; or if you have any gut feeling that someone could get hurt; do the test anyway. It's just good sense. (I'll let you decide what Large Number and alot mean :-) You can use the same reasoning for CE + CE = CE (from an EMC perspective) Yes, yes I know that there are some that will say that every system must be tested, even if you build it in your basement. But the reality is that EMC measurements are a fuzzy realm. Tests are fuzzy approximations of real world conditions. Some of the tests have error margins of 30-40%. The emissions and immunity standards have a built in 120dB safety margin to account for this (or you could argue that the safety margin was accidentally put there because the emissions standards were designed to protect antenna coupled receivers). Either way, it is there. It doesn't mean that we can be cavalier with EMC; but we can use good judgement to save time, money and hassles. The same time and money that can be better spent mitigating real EMC and safety problems. All of these rationales are behind why both the EMC directive and the FCC rules give some leeway with the Declaration of Conformity process. With many fuzzy logic questions the best piece of test equipment that you can use is a trained neural network. An experienced brain is a prime example. Why not call a vertically- applied manulo-pedally-operated quasi-planar chernozem-penetrating and excavating implement a SPADE? BECAUSE SOMETIMES IT'S A SHOVEL My opinions only. Chris --- 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 Healddavehe...@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,
RE: FCC + FCC = FCC? - Outlaw
Ed, Not a problem with my relatives - they never pay for anything! Gary -Original Message- From: Price, Ed [mailto:ed.pr...@cubic.com] Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2001 3:54 PM To: 'Doug McKean'; EMC-PSTC Discussion Group Subject: RE: FCC + FCC = FCC? - Outlaw I hesitate only a bit in adding my opinion here, grin as I'm a known possessor of amplifiers that exhibit gain at 27 MHz and receivers which can tune the 900 MHz region. I think that you can build a device for your own use (as earlier defined), even up to the official 5 devices, but you get on very infirm ground when you SELL them (even at cost), even to your relatives. Regards, Ed Ed Price ed.pr...@cubic.com Electromagnetic Compatibility Lab Cubic Defense Systems San Diego, CA USA 858-505-2780 (Voice) 858-505-1583 (Fax) Military Avionics EMC Services Is Our Specialty Shake-Bake-Shock - Metrology - Reliability Analysis -Original Message- From: Doug McKean [mailto:dmck...@corp.auspex.com] Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2001 12:11 PM To: EMC-PSTC Discussion Group Subject: Re: FCC + FCC = FCC? - Outlaw Decide among yourselves who of you are outlaws ... TITLE 47--TELECOMMUNICATION CHAPTER I--FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION PART 15--RADIO FREQUENCY DEVICES--Table of Contents Subpart A--General Sec. 15.23 Home-built devices. (a) Equipment authorization is not required for devices that are not marketed, are not constructed from a kit, and are built in quantities of five or less for personal use. (b) It is recognized that the individual builder of home-built equipment may not possess the means to perform the measurements for determining compliance with the regulations. In this case, the builder is expected to employ good engineering practices to meet the specified technical standards to the greatest extent practicable. The provisions of Sec. 15.5 apply to this equipment. ... - Doug McKean --- 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 Healddavehe...@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 Healddavehe...@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,
Re: FCC + FCC = FCC?
3b3291d0.7f162...@intetron.com, Dan Kwok dk...@intetron.com inimitably wrote: So far, harmonised EMC standards seem to be product centric. But, when multiple products (boxes) are configured into a system, EMC issues can still arise. In some cases, EMC problems can result not from the design of any one individual box, but the the overall interconnection of multiple boxes together. A good example of that is the ground loop. You are correct, and in Europe this is because the EMC Directive is product-centric, to its, and industry's, disadvantage. An attempt has been made to address this in the revised Directive, but it is a weak attempt. Nevertheless, control of EMC at product level is, in many cases, the only practicable method. The EMC aspects of interconnections are under study, however, not entirely neglected. The Audio Engineering Society has a standards working group, SC-05-05, working on the subject. -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. Phone +44 (0)1268 747839 Fax +44 (0)1268 777124. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Why not call a vertically- applied manulo-pedally-operated quasi-planar chernozem-penetrating and excavating implement a SPADE? --- 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 Healddavehe...@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,
RE: FCC + FCC = FCC? - Outlaw
I hesitate only a bit in adding my opinion here, grin as I'm a known possessor of amplifiers that exhibit gain at 27 MHz and receivers which can tune the 900 MHz region. I think that you can build a device for your own use (as earlier defined), even up to the official 5 devices, but you get on very infirm ground when you SELL them (even at cost), even to your relatives. Regards, Ed Ed Price ed.pr...@cubic.com Electromagnetic Compatibility Lab Cubic Defense Systems San Diego, CA USA 858-505-2780 (Voice) 858-505-1583 (Fax) Military Avionics EMC Services Is Our Specialty Shake-Bake-Shock - Metrology - Reliability Analysis -Original Message- From: Doug McKean [mailto:dmck...@corp.auspex.com] Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2001 12:11 PM To: EMC-PSTC Discussion Group Subject: Re: FCC + FCC = FCC? - Outlaw Decide among yourselves who of you are outlaws ... TITLE 47--TELECOMMUNICATION CHAPTER I--FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION PART 15--RADIO FREQUENCY DEVICES--Table of Contents Subpart A--General Sec. 15.23 Home-built devices. (a) Equipment authorization is not required for devices that are not marketed, are not constructed from a kit, and are built in quantities of five or less for personal use. (b) It is recognized that the individual builder of home-built equipment may not possess the means to perform the measurements for determining compliance with the regulations. In this case, the builder is expected to employ good engineering practices to meet the specified technical standards to the greatest extent practicable. The provisions of Sec. 15.5 apply to this equipment. ... - Doug McKean --- 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 Healddavehe...@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,
RE: FCC + FCC = FCC? - Outlaw
I forgot to mention, however we do test four equipment for emissions to FCC Class B. -Original Message- From: Dick Grobner Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2001 3:33 PM To: 'Tania Grant' Cc: 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org' Subject: RE: FCC + FCC = FCC? - Outlaw Will put Tania and I agree with your reasoning! We don't deal with the FCC as we are a medical manufacturer, but we do deal with the FDA and the Europeans. We are a small medical manufacture compared to the Big Boys and we must play by the same rules! Size and dollars has nothing to do with it and shouldn't. -Original Message- From: Tania Grant [mailto:taniagr...@msn.com] Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2001 11:23 AM To: Doug McKean; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: FCC + FCC = FCC? - Outlaw Hello Doug, I may or may not agree with FCC (on some issues I agree, on others I don't); however, ignorance of the law is no excuse. The FCC Rules do make the assembler responsible for compliance. And the FCC was NOT created to protect big companies from themselves but to allocate spectrum and watch for abuses. The air waves were consigned to bona-fide communication equipment. The early computers were nothing more than super-whiz-bang typewriters-cum-adding machines and not considered communication devices. Thus, they were not supposed to interfere with communication equipment;-- e.g., the Rules. The fact that you can assemble your own, and that you are small fry compared to the big companies, has nothing to do with the fact that your assembled equipment need not comply with the Rules. (I sympathize with small fry, being one myself.) If you disagree with the Rules, you have ample opportunity to write to the FCC and present your case to them;-- they have to publish your letter and present an argument for or against your position. And the FCC in the past has relented and conceded many points when presented with convincing evidence from the industry and from communication companies. (Witness the recent changes to accept DoC instead of the cumbersome Certification procedure for Class B devices.) I believe that this is the democratic and responsible way of addressing the problem rather than disregarding the law because it is inconvenient for you, or because your equipment is just a small pebble in a big pond of boulders and no one will notice. Tania Grant taniagr...@msn.com - Original Message - From: Doug McKean Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2001 12:19 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: FCC + FCC = FCC? - Outlaw Sorry but I respectfully disagree ... If the FCC were to say yes to anyone being an outlaw for building their own PC and not having it tested, then why does the FCC label essentially tell everyone suffering from interefernce to take care of it themselves? The FCC was created to protect the big alphabet communication companies from themselves. Me building my own PC is peanuts compared to some of the issues these guys deal with. And cable tv is starting to make the issue of interfering with commercial broadcast a moot point. Heck, I don't even see the pixels blink at all anymore even with the microwave being used only 10 feet away. I was told, not sure how true it is, that the FCC in the early years of Part 15 took to task a famous computer company selling computers which hooked up to your tv screen. They were famous for intereference. I know, I had one. So the FCC threatened to confiscate the units from said company. Well, the sales were going down and the company said, sure big brother, to ahead ... So the FCC took them. Lots of them. In fact, so many, they had to store them all in an area which closed down part of the FCC facility. The company went on to declare it all as a loss. The FCC got stuck with the inventory. I don't think they want to repeat that again. And thus the reason for the wording of the label. Unless you're a real threat to commercial communications (such as a ham) they really don't want to be bothered. Just my 3.1415 cents worth ... - Doug McKean --- 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 Healddavehe...@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,
RE: FCC + FCC = FCC? - Outlaw
Will put Tania and I agree with your reasoning! We don't deal with the FCC as we are a medical manufacturer, but we do deal with the FDA and the Europeans. We are a small medical manufacture compared to the Big Boys and we must play by the same rules! Size and dollars has nothing to do with it and shouldn't. -Original Message- From: Tania Grant [mailto:taniagr...@msn.com] Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2001 11:23 AM To: Doug McKean; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: FCC + FCC = FCC? - Outlaw Hello Doug, I may or may not agree with FCC (on some issues I agree, on others I don't); however, ignorance of the law is no excuse. The FCC Rules do make the assembler responsible for compliance. And the FCC was NOT created to protect big companies from themselves but to allocate spectrum and watch for abuses. The air waves were consigned to bona-fide communication equipment. The early computers were nothing more than super-whiz-bang typewriters-cum-adding machines and not considered communication devices. Thus, they were not supposed to interfere with communication equipment;-- e.g., the Rules. The fact that you can assemble your own, and that you are small fry compared to the big companies, has nothing to do with the fact that your assembled equipment need not comply with the Rules. (I sympathize with small fry, being one myself.) If you disagree with the Rules, you have ample opportunity to write to the FCC and present your case to them;-- they have to publish your letter and present an argument for or against your position. And the FCC in the past has relented and conceded many points when presented with convincing evidence from the industry and from communication companies. (Witness the recent changes to accept DoC instead of the cumbersome Certification procedure for Class B devices.) I believe that this is the democratic and responsible way of addressing the problem rather than disregarding the law because it is inconvenient for you, or because your equipment is just a small pebble in a big pond of boulders and no one will notice. Tania Grant taniagr...@msn.com - Original Message - From: Doug McKean Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2001 12:19 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: FCC + FCC = FCC? - Outlaw Sorry but I respectfully disagree ... If the FCC were to say yes to anyone being an outlaw for building their own PC and not having it tested, then why does the FCC label essentially tell everyone suffering from interefernce to take care of it themselves? The FCC was created to protect the big alphabet communication companies from themselves. Me building my own PC is peanuts compared to some of the issues these guys deal with. And cable tv is starting to make the issue of interfering with commercial broadcast a moot point. Heck, I don't even see the pixels blink at all anymore even with the microwave being used only 10 feet away. I was told, not sure how true it is, that the FCC in the early years of Part 15 took to task a famous computer company selling computers which hooked up to your tv screen. They were famous for intereference. I know, I had one. So the FCC threatened to confiscate the units from said company. Well, the sales were going down and the company said, sure big brother, to ahead ... So the FCC took them. Lots of them. In fact, so many, they had to store them all in an area which closed down part of the FCC facility. The company went on to declare it all as a loss. The FCC got stuck with the inventory. I don't think they want to repeat that again. And thus the reason for the wording of the label. Unless you're a real threat to commercial communications (such as a ham) they really don't want to be bothered. Just my 3.1415 cents worth ... - Doug McKean --- 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 Healddavehe...@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,
Re: FCC + FCC = FCC? - Outlaw
20010621143204.UCHV1335.femail1.sdc1.sfba.home.com@[65.11.150.27], Ken Javor ken.ja...@emccompliance.com inimitably wrote: The limits as placed prevent most but not all interference. For instance, some AM radios are susceptible to conducted interference below 48 dBuV. The limits were placed, both in amplitude and frequency, to prevent the large majority of interferences, but not all. Whether it was done right or not may be open to debate, but the philosophy was to optimize: to get the least amount of interference while imposing the minimum design cost impact. Correct. The new(ish) CISPR/H committee is to review these radiated emission limits, some of which are very 'traditional'. -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. Phone +44 (0)1268 747839 Fax +44 (0)1268 777124. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Why not call a vertically- applied manulo-pedally-operated quasi-planar chernozem-penetrating and excavating implement a SPADE? --- 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 Healddavehe...@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,
Re: FCC + FCC = FCC? - Outlaw
Decide among youselves who of you are outlaws ... TITLE 47--TELECOMMUNICATION CHAPTER I--FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION PART 15--RADIO FREQUENCY DEVICES--Table of Contents Subpart A--General Sec. 15.23 Home-built devices. (a) Equipment authorization is not required for devices that are not marketed, are not constructed from a kit, and are built in quantities of five or less for personal use. (b) It is recognized that the individual builder of home-built equipment may not possess the means to perform the measurements for determining compliance with the regulations. In this case, the builder is expected to employ good engineering practices to meet the specified technical standards to the greatest extent practicable. The provisions of Sec. 15.5 apply to this equipment. - Doug McKean --- 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 Healddavehe...@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,
Re: FCC + FCC = FCC? - Outlaw
Hello Doug, I may or may not agree with FCC (on some issues I agree, on others I don't); however, ignorance of the law is no excuse. The FCC Rules do make the assembler responsible for compliance. And the FCC was NOT created to protect big companies from themselves but to allocate spectrum and watch for abuses. The air waves were consigned to bona-fide communication equipment. The early computers were nothing more than super-whiz-bang typewriters-cum-adding machines and not considered communication devices. Thus, they were not supposed to interfere with communication equipment;-- e.g., the Rules. The fact that you can assemble your own, and that you are small fry compared to the big companies, has nothing to do with the fact that your assembled equipment need not comply with the Rules. (I sympathize with small fry, being one myself.) If you disagree with the Rules, you have ample opportunity to write to the FCC and present your case to them;-- they have to publish your letter and present an argument for or against your position.And the FCC in the past has relented and conceded many points when presented with convincing evidence from the industry and from communication companies. (Witness the recent changes to accept DoC instead of the cumbersome Certification procedure for Class B devices.) I believe that this is the democratic and responsible way of addressing the problem rather than disregarding the law because it is inconvenient for you, or because your equipment is just a small pebble in a big pond of boulders and no one will notice. Tania Grant taniagr...@msn.com - Original Message - From: Doug McKean Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2001 12:19 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: FCC + FCC = FCC? - Outlaw Sorry but I respectfully disagree ... If the FCC were to say yes to anyone being an outlaw for building their own PC and not having it tested, then why does the FCC label essentially tell everyone suffering from interefernce to take care of it themselves? The FCC was created to protect the big alphabet communication companies from themselves. Me building my own PC is peanuts compared to some of the issues these guys deal with. And cable tv is starting to make the issue of interfering with commercial broadcast a moot point. Heck, I don't even see the pixels blink at all anymore even with the microwave being used only 10 feet away. I was told, not sure how true it is, that the FCC in the early years of Part 15 took to task a famous computer company selling computers which hooked up to your tv screen. They were famous for intereference. I know, I had one. So the FCC threatened to confiscate the units from said company. Well, the sales were going down and the company said, sure big brother, to ahead ... So the FCC took them. Lots of them. In fact, so many, they had to store them all in an area which closed down part of the FCC facility. The company went on to declare it all as a loss. The FCC got stuck with the inventory. I don't think they want to repeat that again. And thus the reason for the wording of the label. Unless you're a real threat to commercial communications (such as a ham) they really don't want to be bothered. Just my 3.1415 cents worth ... - Doug McKean --- 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 Healddavehe...@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,
Re: FCC + FCC = FCC? - Outlaw
Doug: I think you hit the crux of the matter with one correction, if I may. Hams in the U.S. are operating as amateurs but have a legal obligation to the country in times of need . In Canada , we operate ( myself included) with permission and have no legal obligations to the government. Our equipment could be comandeered but not the operator. This is a disticntion between our two countries. I advise any consumer in a known high ambient RF area ( such as near broadcast /commercial /ham transmitters to look for the CE mark. 9 times out of 10 the additional components have not been omitted to seel to North America. Likewise in Canada, Industry Canada no longer investigates consumer EMC complaints ( i.e. lack thereof) as of two years ago. Ralph Cameron EMC Consulting and Suppression of Consumer Electronic Equipment ( after sale) - Original Message - From: Doug McKean dmck...@gte.net To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2001 2:32 AM Subject: RE: FCC + FCC = FCC? - Outlaw Sorry but I respectfully disagree ... If the FCC were to say yes to anyone being an outlaw for building their own PC and not having it tested, then why does the FCC label essentially tell everyone suffering from interefernce to take care of it themselves? The FCC was created to protect the big alphabet communication companies from themselves. Me building my own PC is peanuts compared to some of the issues these guys deal with. And cable tv is starting to make the issue of interfering with commercial broadcast a moot point. Heck, I don't even see the pixels blink at all anymore even with the microwave being used only 10 feet away. I was told, not sure how true it is, that the FCC in the early years of Part 15 took to task a famous computer company selling computers which hooked up to your tv screen. They were famous for intereference. I know, I had one. So the FCC threatened to confiscate the units from said company. Well, the sales were going down and the company said, sure big brother, to ahead ... So the FCC took them. Lots of them. In fact, so many, they had to store them all in an area which closed down part of the FCC facility. The company went on to declare it all as a loss. The FCC got stuck with the inventory. I don't think they want to repeat that again. And thus the reason for the wording of the label. Unless you're a real threat to commercial communications (such as a ham) they really don't want to be bothered. Just my 3.1415 cents worth ... - Doug McKean --- 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 Healddavehe...@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 Healddavehe...@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,
RE: FCC + FCC = FCC?
Bonjour de Montréal, The FCC regulation allows the construction and marking (see FCC2.jpg) of PC when they are assembled using separately authorized components. Here are a copies of sections of the FCC regulation 15.19 Labelling requirements. (a) In addition to the requirements in Part 2 of this chapter, a device subject to certification or verification shall be labelled as follows: (1) Receivers associated with the operation of a licensed radio service, e.g., FM broadcast under Part 73 of this chapter, land mobile operation under Part 90, etc., shall bear the following statement in a conspicuous location on the device: This device complies with Part 15 of the FCC Rules. Operation is subject to the condition that this device does not cause harmful interference. (2) A stand-alone cable input selector switch, shall bear the following statement in a conspicuous location on the device: This device is verified to comply with Part 15 of the FCC Rules for use with cable television service. (3) All other devices shall bear the following statement in a conspicuous location on the device: This device complies with Part 15 of the FCC Rules. Operation is subject to the following two conditions: (1) this device may not cause harmful interference, and (2) this device must accept any interference received, including interference that may cause undesired operation. (4) Where a device is constructed in two or more sections connected by wires and marketed together, the statement specified under paragraph (a) of this section is required to be affixed only to the main control unit. (5) When the device is so small or for such use that it is not practicable to place the statement specified under paragraph (a) of this section on it, the information required by this paragraph shall be placed in a prominent location in the instruction manual or pamphlet supplied to the user or, alternatively, shall be placed on the container in which the device is marketed. However, the FCC identifier or the unique identifier, as appropriate, must be displayed on the device. (b) Products subject to authorization under a Declaration of Conformity shall be labelled as follows: (1) The label shall be located in a conspicuous location on the device and shall contain the unique identification described in §2.1074 of this chapter and the following logo: (i) If the product is authorized based on testing of the product or system; or See FCC1.jpg (ii) If a personal computer is authorized based on assembly using separately authorized components, in accordance with §15.101(c)(2) or (c)(3), and the resulting product is not separately tested: SEE FCC2.jpg2 Copy of 15.101 (c) Personal computers shall be authorized in accordance with one of the following methods: (2) The personal computer is authorized under a Declaration of Conformity or a grant of certification, and the CPU board or power supply in that computer is replaced with a CPU board or power supply that has been separately authorized under a Declaration of Conformity or a grant of certification; or (3) The CPU board and power supply used in the assembly of a personal computer have been separately authorized under a Declaration of Conformity or a grant of certification; and Hope this help Regards, == Benoît Nadeau, ing., M.ing. (P.Eng., M.Eng) Gérant du Groupe Conformité (Conformity Group Manager) Matrox 1055 boul. St-Regis Dorval (Quebec) Canada H9P 2T4 == Tel : (514) 822-6000 (2475) Fax : (514) 822-6275 mailto:bnad...@matrox.com http://www.matrox.com == Président / Chairman 2001 IEEE International Symposium on Electromagnetic Compatibility mailto:bnad...@ieee.org http://www.2001emcmtl.org -Original Message- From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Ralph Cameron Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2001 09:18 To: Doug McKean; EMC-PSTC Discussion Group Subject: Re: FCC + FCC = FCC? I think this raises a parallel issue of testing methodology versus practical application. Many devices/ boards/ add ons are tested with minimal connecting attachments i.e. conductors, other than those to power the devie and those required to make the measurement. When separate devices such as those mentioned are placed into actual service , the systems themselves become attached to conductors with sizeable electrical lengths. Here we have a computer with internal modem , external speakers, keyboard and display- all have connecting cables external to the deices which have been tested but now the environment contributes external signals which weren't present when these devices were
Re: FCC + FCC = FCC? - Outlaw
The reason for the FCC disclaimer is not what you say (although it is satisfying to think so). The limits as placed prevent most but not all interference. For instance, some AM radios are susceptible to conducted interference below 48 dBuV. The limits were placed, both in amplitude and frequency, to prevent the large majority of interferences, but not all. Whether it was done right or not may be open to debate, but the philosophy was to optimize: to get the least amount of interference while imposing the minimum design cost impact. Hence the disclaimer that says that if interference to broadcast reception still occurs, it is your responsibility to ameliorate it, up to and including ceasing usage of the offending device. -- From: Doug McKean dmck...@gte.net To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: FCC + FCC = FCC? - Outlaw Date: Thu, Jun 21, 2001, 1:32 AM Sorry but I respectfully disagree ... If the FCC were to say yes to anyone being an outlaw for building their own PC and not having it tested, then why does the FCC label essentially tell everyone suffering from interefernce to take care of it themselves? The FCC was created to protect the big alphabet communication companies from themselves. Me building my own PC is peanuts compared to some of the issues these guys deal with. And cable tv is starting to make the issue of interfering with commercial broadcast a moot point. Heck, I don't even see the pixels blink at all anymore even with the microwave being used only 10 feet away. I was told, not sure how true it is, that the FCC in the early years of Part 15 took to task a famous computer company selling computers which hooked up to your tv screen. They were famous for intereference. I know, I had one. So the FCC threatened to confiscate the units from said company. Well, the sales were going down and the company said, sure big brother, to ahead ... So the FCC took them. Lots of them. In fact, so many, they had to store them all in an area which closed down part of the FCC facility. The company went on to declare it all as a loss. The FCC got stuck with the inventory. I don't think they want to repeat that again. And thus the reason for the wording of the label. Unless you're a real threat to commercial communications (such as a ham) they really don't want to be bothered. Just my 3.1415 cents worth ... - Doug McKean --- 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 Healddavehe...@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 Healddavehe...@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,
Re: FCC + FCC = FCC?
I think this raises a parallel issue of testing methodology versus practical application. Many devices/ boards/ add ons are tested with minimal connecting attachments i.e. conductors, other than those to power the devie and those required to make the measurement. When separate devices such as those mentioned are placed into actual service , the systems themselves become attached to conductors with sizeable electrical lengths. Here we have a computer with internal modem , external speakers, keyboard and display- all have connecting cables external to the deices which have been tested but now the environment contributes external signals which weren't present when these devices were tested indicidually. Without reducing CE or taking steps to improve conducted immunity it seems logical that emissions will be radiated by the connecting attachments and the devices become more susceptible to external interfering sources such as high ambient RF signals. Ralph Cameron EMC Consulting and Suppression of Consumer Electronics (After sale) - Original Message - From: Doug McKean dmck...@corp.auspex.com To: EMC-PSTC Discussion Group emc-p...@ieee.org Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2001 8:32 PM Subject: Re: FCC + FCC = FCC? Building your own machine doesn't constitute you being a PC mfr. I think that's the reading here. - Doug - Original Message - From: Steve Grobe ste...@transition.com To: 'IEEE Forum' emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2001 2:03 PM Subject: RE: FCC + FCC = FCC? If you are so am I. As are a few dozen people I know. The only way to get an OS other than Windows to run well is to build your own machine. Steve -Original Message- From: Massey, Doug C. [mailto:masse...@ems-t.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2001 2:42 PM To: 'IEEE Forum' Subject: RE: FCC + FCC = FCC? Just to further confuscate the issue - I once built my own home PC. I bought a box, motherboard, CPU, memory, variety of ISA cards, etc. It worked so well, I built a couple or three more for family and friends, and sold them to those family and friends at a good price. I didn't check radiated emissions. Am I an FCC Outlaw ? Doug Massey LXE, Inc. snip --- 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 Healddavehe...@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 Healddavehe...@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 Healddavehe...@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,
RE: FCC + FCC = FCC? - Outlaw
Sorry but I respectfully disagree ... If the FCC were to say yes to anyone being an outlaw for building their own PC and not having it tested, then why does the FCC label essentially tell everyone suffering from interefernce to take care of it themselves? The FCC was created to protect the big alphabet communication companies from themselves. Me building my own PC is peanuts compared to some of the issues these guys deal with. And cable tv is starting to make the issue of interfering with commercial broadcast a moot point. Heck, I don't even see the pixels blink at all anymore even with the microwave being used only 10 feet away. I was told, not sure how true it is, that the FCC in the early years of Part 15 took to task a famous computer company selling computers which hooked up to your tv screen. They were famous for intereference. I know, I had one. So the FCC threatened to confiscate the units from said company. Well, the sales were going down and the company said, sure big brother, to ahead ... So the FCC took them. Lots of them. In fact, so many, they had to store them all in an area which closed down part of the FCC facility. The company went on to declare it all as a loss. The FCC got stuck with the inventory. I don't think they want to repeat that again. And thus the reason for the wording of the label. Unless you're a real threat to commercial communications (such as a ham) they really don't want to be bothered. Just my 3.1415 cents worth ... - Doug McKean --- 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 Healddavehe...@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,
Re: FCC + FCC = FCC?
Building your own machine doesn't constitute you being a PC mfr. I think that's the reading here. - Doug - Original Message - From: Steve Grobe ste...@transition.com To: 'IEEE Forum' emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2001 2:03 PM Subject: RE: FCC + FCC = FCC? If you are so am I. As are a few dozen people I know. The only way to get an OS other than Windows to run well is to build your own machine. Steve -Original Message- From: Massey, Doug C. [mailto:masse...@ems-t.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2001 2:42 PM To: 'IEEE Forum' Subject: RE: FCC + FCC = FCC? Just to further confuscate the issue - I once built my own home PC. I bought a box, motherboard, CPU, memory, variety of ISA cards, etc. It worked so well, I built a couple or three more for family and friends, and sold them to those family and friends at a good price. I didn't check radiated emissions. Am I an FCC Outlaw ? Doug Massey LXE, Inc. snip --- 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 Healddavehe...@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 Healddavehe...@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,
Re: FCC + FCC = FCC?
Re: FCC + FCC = FCC?Massey, Doug C. wrote: Just to further confuscate the issue - I once built my own home PC. I bought a box, motherboard, CPU, memory, variety of ISA cards, etc. It worked so well, I built a couple or three more for family and friends, and sold them to those family and friends at a good price. I didn't check radiated emissions. Am I an FCC Outlaw ? I'd say no. I could make my own, which I've done, never test, and not be concerned. I'm not a mfr-ing location and the quantities are so low, it's not a real concern. - Doug --- 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 Healddavehe...@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,
RE: FCC + FCC = FCC? - Outlaw
I think the FCC would say- Yes!! However - with component level tests you would not be. OK - Before you all jump all over me.. Yes there will be cost added to the components. After all it is hard to skim every cent out of a part when you do not know the system it will go in. However the advantages from a compliance standpoint are many. Here are some I can think of: 1. Testing can be done either on the bench or in a chamber 2. Testing can be done without the entire system 3. Testing and debug can be done during the design phase. 4. Once completed - the component can be immediately released. 5. System tests can be cut to a minimum. 6. There is some assurance that the assembled product has had mitigation work done on the\ components irrespective of the manufacuring location. 7. Add your own.. --- 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 Healddavehe...@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,
RE: FCC + FCC = FCC?
If you are so am I. As are a few dozen people I know. The only way to get an OS other than Windows to run well is to build your own machine. Steve -Original Message- From: Massey, Doug C. [mailto:masse...@ems-t.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2001 2:42 PM To: 'IEEE Forum' Subject: RE: FCC + FCC = FCC? Just to further confuscate the issue - I once built my own home PC. I bought a box, motherboard, CPU, memory, variety of ISA cards, etc. It worked so well, I built a couple or three more for family and friends, and sold them to those family and friends at a good price. I didn't check radiated emissions. Am I an FCC Outlaw ? Doug Massey LXE, Inc. snip --- 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 Healddavehe...@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,
RE: FCC + FCC = FCC?
Just to further confuscate the issue - I once built my own home PC. I bought a box, motherboard, CPU, memory, variety of ISA cards, etc. It worked so well, I built a couple or three more for family and friends, and sold them to those family and friends at a good price. I didn't check radiated emissions. Am I an FCC Outlaw ? Doug Massey LXE, Inc. -Original Message- From: Ken Javor [mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2001 8:01 PM To: John Cronin; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: FCC + FCC = FCC? Talk about ripping the lid off of Pandora's box... -- From: John Cronin croni...@hotmail.com To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: FCC + FCC = FCC? List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: Tue, Jun 19, 2001, 5:24 PM Hi Group This is a question regarding a plug in PC card that has been stated as FCC compliant which is inserted in a PC that is also stated to be FCC compliant and the emissions are found to actually exceed the FCC limits. What is the responsibility of the manufacturer who is intending to place this on the market as a functional unit? Are they liable for the overall unit or can they sell on the basis that it comprises FCC compliant sub assemblies, albeit evidently originally tested in different configurations. If they are liable, how can anyone sell any PC/PC card combination considering that the card could have originally been tested in a so called golden PC. Many thanks John Cronin _ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. --- 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,
Re: FCC + FCC = FCC? - What?
Let's not carried away. Those radiated emission limits protect broadcast radio reception, period. As such, your personal electronics are turned off when aircraft safety requires glitch-free operation of its NAV systems. Hospitals already prohibit INTENTIONAL electromagnetic transmissions which can affect patient safety. -- From: kyle_cr...@dell.com To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: FCC + FCC = FCC? - What? Date: Wed, Jun 20, 2001, 8:28 AM I think the answer is that the FCC allows declared compliant devices to be sold in another unit WITHOUT testing. This has allowed PCs on the market with as much as 30dB over Class B limits. It was my understanding that testing always had to be done for the most common configurations of equipment as it is shipped. If this new PC card is going to be shipped in more than 50% of a given line of products I believe that line needs to pass testing with the PC card. The intent of the standards is to limit testing to configurations within reason. I am guessing that the only reason this PC card has been tested so far is because it is going to be used in a majority of at least one line of products. Based on this the product (a PC I take it) should pass emissions tests with the PC Card, or a different PC Card should be used. I have to say that it is frightening how flippantly some of my colleagues accept that PCs are being released into the market up to 30 dB over the limit. The limits are there for a reason, and it is machines such as these that can interfere with airplanes, hospital equipment and the like. Although it may make your job a little harder some days, I think the next time you are on a plane or having surgery you will be happy that a notebook or a cell phone doesn't cause a failure of those critical systems. Sincerely, Kyle Cross --- 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 Healddavehe...@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 Healddavehe...@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,
Re: FCC + FCC = FCC? - NO However..
Glad to know that the safety brethren are doing something right! Or is it because we're concerned about liability and our reputation (anytime anything goes wrong, the safety guy gets fired!) whereas the FCC merely fines the officer of the company;-- and even then they've not been doing very much of that! Tania Grant taniagr...@msn.com - Original Message - From: chasgra...@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2001 10:18 PM To: ken.ja...@emccompliance.com; croni...@hotmail.com; emc-p...@majordomo..ieee.org Subject: Re: FCC + FCC = FCC? - NO However.. I think the answer is that the FCC allows declared compliant devices to be sold in another unit WITHOUT testing. This has allowed PCs on the market with as much as 30dB over Class B limits. Why did the FCC put in place a compliance methodology that guarantees non-compliant products are released? The answer IMHO is simple. Volume. Sheer volume of PC manufacturers and PC related products. Manufacturers of assembled PCs didn't bother with the test anyway so the FCC tried to make some sense out of it. The time had come for the regulatory bodies to face facts. Even with the high number of non-compliant products, stuff seems to be working OK. I would suggest that the regulatory bodies either relieve the emissions spec limit by 20db ( thereby allowing diligent manufacturers to save money) and/or rewite the standards to reflect the process our safety brethern use. That is: component level compliance. Charles Grasso --- 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 Healddavehe...@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,
[Fwd: Re: FCC + FCC = FCC?]
Forwarded for Dan Irish dan.ir...@sun.com Original Message Subject: Re: FCC + FCC = FCC? List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 19:14:03 -0400 (EDT) From: Dan Irish - Sun BOS Hardware dan.ir...@sun.com Reply-To: Dan Irish - Sun BOS Hardware dan.ir...@sun.com To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org, croni...@hotmail.com John, See 47CFR2.909, Responsible party: The following parties are responsible for compliance of radio frequency equipment with the applicable standards: [snip] (c) In the case of equipment subject to authorization under the Declaration of Conformity procedure: (1) The manufacturer or, if the equipment is assembled from individual component parts and the resulting sustem is subject to authorization under a Declaration of Conformity, the assembler. I just downloaded this section to verify that it hasn't changed. http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/index.html#page1 Use the search terms: 47cfr2 and 909 I hope this helps. Regards, Dan X-Originating-IP: [159.134.229.84] From: John Cronin croni...@hotmail.com To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: FCC + FCC = FCC? Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 22:24:35 - Mime-Version: 1.0 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Jun 2001 22:24:35.0260 (UTC) FILETIME=[9EA13FC0:01C0F90E] X-Resent-To: Multiple Recipients emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org X-Listname: emc-pstc X-Info: Help requests to emc-pstc-requ...@majordomo.ieee.org X-Info: [Un]Subscribe requests to majord...@majordomo.ieee.org X-Moderator-Address: emc-pstc-appro...@majordomo.ieee.org Hi Group This is a question regarding a plug in PC card that has been stated as FCC compliant which is inserted in a PC that is also stated to be FCC compliant and the emissions are found to actually exceed the FCC limits. What is the responsibility of the manufacturer who is intending to place this on the market as a functional unit? Are they liable for the overall unit or can they sell on the basis that it comprises FCC compliant sub assemblies, albeit evidently originally tested in different configurations. If they are liable, how can anyone sell any PC/PC card combination considering that the card could have originally been tested in a so called golden PC. Many thanks John Cronin --- 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 Healddavehe...@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,
RE: FCC + FCC = FCC? - What?
I think the answer is that the FCC allows declared compliant devices to be sold in another unit WITHOUT testing. This has allowed PCs on the market with as much as 30dB over Class B limits. It was my understanding that testing always had to be done for the most common configurations of equipment as it is shipped. If this new PC card is going to be shipped in more than 50% of a given line of products I believe that line needs to pass testing with the PC card. The intent of the standards is to limit testing to configurations within reason. I am guessing that the only reason this PC card has been tested so far is because it is going to be used in a majority of at least one line of products. Based on this the product (a PC I take it) should pass emissions tests with the PC Card, or a different PC Card should be used. I have to say that it is frightening how flippantly some of my colleagues accept that PCs are being released into the market up to 30 dB over the limit. The limits are there for a reason, and it is machines such as these that can interfere with airplanes, hospital equipment and the like. Although it may make your job a little harder some days, I think the next time you are on a plane or having surgery you will be happy that a notebook or a cell phone doesn't cause a failure of those critical systems. Sincerely, Kyle Cross --- 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 Healddavehe...@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,
Re: FCC + FCC = FCC? - NO However..
I think the answer is that the FCC allows declared compliant devices to be sold in another unit WITHOUT testing. This has allowed PCs on the market with as much as 30dB over Class B limits. Why did the FCC put in place a compliance methodology that guarantees non-compliant products are released? The answer IMHO is simple. Volume. Sheer volume of PC manufacturers and PC related products. Manufacturers of assembled PCs didn't bother with the test anyway so the FCC tried to make some sense out of it. The time had come for the regulatory bodies to face facts. Even with the high number of non-compliant products, stuff seems to be working OK. I would suggest that the regulatory bodies either relieve the emissions spec limit by 20db ( thereby allowing diligent manufacturers to save money) and/or rewite the standards to reflect the process our safety brethern use. That is: component level compliance. Charles Grasso --- 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 Healddavehe...@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,
Re: FCC + FCC = FCC?
John Cronin wrote: Hi Group This is a question regarding a plug in PC card that has been stated as FCC compliant which is inserted in a PC that is also stated to be FCC compliant and the emissions are found to actually exceed the FCC limits. I work with this type of issue all the time. In fact, if I didn't have to work with this type of issue, half my job would be non-existant ... grin What is the responsibility of the manufacturer who is intending to place this on the market as a functional unit? Are they liable for the overall unit Yes. or can they sell on the basis that it comprises FCC compliant sub assemblies, albeit evidently originally tested in different configurations. No. If they are liable, how can anyone sell any PC/PC card combination considering that the card could have originally been tested in a so called golden PC. Very good question. The counter argument is that variability of constructions in end products in which the cards are used is so large that only some representative construction is used for the original approval. It would be impossible for a mfr of said card to make some blanket statement that said card can in fact be such and such in *any* type of PC construction. - Doug McKean --- 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 Healddavehe...@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,
Re: FCC + FCC = FCC?
Talk about ripping the lid off of Pandora's box... -- From: John Cronin croni...@hotmail.com To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: FCC + FCC = FCC? List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: Tue, Jun 19, 2001, 5:24 PM Hi Group This is a question regarding a plug in PC card that has been stated as FCC compliant which is inserted in a PC that is also stated to be FCC compliant and the emissions are found to actually exceed the FCC limits. What is the responsibility of the manufacturer who is intending to place this on the market as a functional unit? Are they liable for the overall unit or can they sell on the basis that it comprises FCC compliant sub assemblies, albeit evidently originally tested in different configurations. If they are liable, how can anyone sell any PC/PC card combination considering that the card could have originally been tested in a so called golden PC. Many thanks John Cronin Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. --- 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,
