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 >To: "'Ken Javor'" , Chris Maxwell , "'EMC-PSTC Internet Forum'" >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 >> >To: "'EMC-PSTC Internet Forum'" >> >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 >> >> "adequa
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 >To: "'Ken Javor'" , Chris Maxwell , "'EMC-PSTC Internet Forum'" >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 >> >To: "'EMC-PSTC Internet Forum'" >> >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- >> &g
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 > >To: "'EMC-PSTC Internet Forum'" > >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
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 >To: "'EMC-PSTC Internet Forum'" >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 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
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. -- >From: Chris Maxwell >To: "'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org'" >Subject: RE: FCC + FCC = FCC? - Outlaw >Date: Fri, Jun 22, 2001, 12:15 PM > > > 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.e
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, 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? - Outlaw
I hesitate only a bit in adding my opinion here, 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
<20010621143204.UCHV1335.femail1.sdc1.sfba.home.com@[65.11.150.27]>, Ken Javor 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
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
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" To: 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? - 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" >To: >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? - 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
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,"
