In message <009b01d0ef5d$a6273a10$f275ae30$@cox.net>, dated Mon, 14 Sep
2015, Ed Price writes:
Probably much further than 111 million miles.
I?m very hopeful that any decent alien race will have finagled the
speed of light limit.
They have, but as all decent SF stories tell us, it can't be
In message <009601d0ef5d$3dc51eb0$b94f5c10$@cox.net>, dated Mon, 14 Sep
2015, Ed Price writes:
True, the FCC is essentially still following the Communications Act of
1934 in its scope. However, telegraph rates aren?t so important
anymore, while the issue of consumer electronics immunity certa
John:
Probably much further than 111 million miles.
I'm very hopeful that any decent alien race will have finagled the speed of
light limit.
Ed Price
WB6WSN
Chula Vista, CA USA
-Original Message-
From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk]
Sent: Monday, September 14, 20
Gary:
True, the FCC is essentially still following the Communications Act of 1934
in its scope. However, telegraph rates aren't so important anymore, while
the issue of consumer electronics immunity certainly is. We expect our laws
and regulations to evolve to address the important issues of th
The first post comes from the list server directly. The second is redirected to
you after it has been read and categorized by the NSA. It's easy to fix. All
you need to do is to -redacted and then redacted---. This should
fix redacted unless you redacted.
Ted Eckert
And twice.
Thanks,
Michael Sundstrom
Garmin Compliance Engineer
2-2606
(913) 440-1540
KB5UKT
"Never give up on a dream just because of the time it will take to accomplish
it.
The time will pass anyway."
Earl Nightingale
-Original Message-
From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.
And of course 15.5 General conditions of operation. (b) Operation of an
intentional, unintentional, or incidental radiator is subject to the conditions
that no harmful interference is caused and that interference must be accepted
that may be caused by the operation of an authorized radio stati
In message
cP12fcBAA==@blueyonder.co.uk>, dated Mon, 14 Sep 2015, John Allen
writes:
I started noticing this happening a few days ago, and it has been
consistent all today for posts from US contributors, but there seems to
be about a 2 minute gap between the 1st post and the 2nd post -
Hello!
Oracle has posted a job opening for an EMC Compliance Engineer -
150017QP. Today's preference is for candidates that are able to commute
to Menlo Park and Santa Clara area in California.
You can view the details of the job posting at the below web site.
Enter "150017QP" into the requ
IMO - The FCC was commissioned with protecting the public airways only - a far
different scenario than in the EU. As such they worry about emissions coming
from any unintentional or intentional radiator that would be detrimental to the
public airways recivers or transmitting equipment. They were
PS: just noticed that the 1st post is addressed to "John Allen
; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG" whereas the 2nd
is just to "EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG"
-Original Message-
From: John Allen [mailto:john_e_al...@blueyonder.co.uk]
Sent: 14 September 2015 19:23
To: 'EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG'
Su
Evening
I started noticing this happening a few days ago, and it has been consistent
all today for posts from US contributors, but there seems to be about a 2
minute gap between the 1st post and the 2nd post - but that does not seem
to be happening from UK/European contributors, where I am gettin
In message
ok.com>, dated Mon, 14 Sep 2015, Rodney Davis
writes:
Hi guys, in simple English.. the FCC does state in section
15.17 Susceptibility to interference..., you are responsible
for reducing the susceptibility for receiving harmful interference.
Who is 'you', and how does anyone kn
Exactly – and thank you for pointing that out Rodney. In the US, if you make a
product you are responsible for that product. You are responsible for it
meeting the frequency spectrum rules, you are responsible for it to meet safety
needs so that it is safe to use and you are responsible for it
Rocks have been thrown from lawnmower blades and have killed or injured people.
Do we now outlaw rocks because in some obscure instance they might get caught
in a mower blade. Is there really a need to put “do not light, may explode” on
stick of dynamite? Or ‘contents may be hot’ on a cup of ho
Hi guys, in simple English.. the FCC does state in section 15.17
Susceptibility to interference..., you are responsible for reducing the
susceptibility for receiving harmful interference.
This clause is enough to make you responsible for any immunity complaint
regardless of the levels!
Rodn
There always will be 'accidents' caused by bad products, even those that pass
all the tests. From Ford Pintos to toaster ovens to toys, you cannot regulate
them out of existence. A percentage will always slip through.
Dennis Ward
This communication and its attachements contain informati
The lawyers would prefer not to legislate the safety related requirements so
they can have more law suits to keep them busy and rich☺
From: John Allen [mailto:john_e_al...@blueyonder.co.uk]
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2015 1:05 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode
The old adage “buyer beware” fits.
That said, the price of freedom is that everyone takes responsibility for
themselves, they take responsibility on what they purchase and what they use.
They reject government intrusion. They set up things like the consumer
protection organizations in the US;
Seconded!
Anyway, what would one of your “average” US customers say if, for example, one
of their sophisticated modern consumer appliances (e.g. a robotic lawnmower/
vacuum cleaner/ “internet of things” kitchen appliance / “domestic robot”
[already almost here!) – need I go on?) went haywi
In message <002801d0ef00$de0b37e0$9a21a7a0$@pctestlab.com>, dated Mon,
14 Sep 2015, dward writes:
I for one would never want the US to get into this arena. Too much
regulation in the US as it is. Don’t need more and don’t want
more. I’ll decide what is best for me, not the government.
But
Dennis:
The rationale that you don’t need consumer electronics with a modicum of
immunity works only for you, because you are what I would call an expert
customer. You have the knowledge to ameliorate immunity problems, but most of
the population does not have this capability.
Ed Price
W
I for one would never want the US to get into this arena. Too much regulation
in the US as it is. Don’t need more and don’t want more. I’ll decide what is
best for me, not the government.
Dennis Ward
This communication and its attachements contain information from PCTEST
Engine
> Did you check it by tasting the milk?
> That IS the ultimate test , as the intended function is to preserve food, not
> maintain a temperature ;<)))
Perhaps the milk should be analyzed for bacteria content, before test and after.
And check for freezer burn for the stuff in the freezer.
And a h
Some thoughts
The basis should be:
- the description of intended operation and a listing of testable
parameters relevant to intended operation
- the manufacturers "product specifications under (EMC) test" for those
parameters and if not present,
- the specifications as published. Manufacture
In message <033d01d0eeda$824d0030$86e70090$@acbcert.com>, dated Mon, 14
Sep 2015, Michael Derby writes:
Well, once the document is finalised, I think it will be very important
to speak with standards committees, Notified Body groups, test lab
associations and manufacturer forums, etc. Of cour
Hello,
Yes, I think taking the comments to GEL 210 would be on the agenda for this
working idea.
ETSI too, of course.
The history of it is this
Some members had noticed a lot of EMC test reports which simply don't explain
how the device was tested, monitored or assessed for compliance.
Ima
Hi Ken,
Assuming your problem is radiated emissions I guess it depends at what
frequencies your problem emissions are at. If they are harmonics of the USB
data then it could be poor signal balance (a common mode choke could help) or
perhaps poor cable shielding (very likely with USB). If they a
28 matches
Mail list logo
