d Richmond [mailto:k...@earthlink.net]
Sent: Tuesday, October 4, 2016 4:23 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] [RFI] Part 15 isn't enough..
On 10/3/2016 12:08 PM, dward wrote:
> To repeat the obvious. The fact that the CE marking is or is not on a
> product in the US is
. Of course
surge protectors help too.
-Dave
-Original Message-
From: Cortland Richmond [mailto:k...@earthlink.net]
Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2016 7:23 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] [RFI] Part 15 isn't enough..
On 10/3/2016 12:08 PM, dward wrote:
> To re
On 10/3/2016 12:08 PM, dward wrote:
To repeat the obvious. The fact that the CE marking is or is not on a product
in the US is really irrelevant to being able to be sold in the US. The US
market is not dependent upon other countries or Unions compliance agendas or
standards. It is only the
l
or attachments(s) are free from computer virus or other defect. Thank you.
-Original Message-
From: Grasso, Charles [mailto:charles.gra...@echostar.com]
Sent: Monday, October 3, 2016 8:37 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] [RFI] Part 15 isn't enough..
Gert
attachments(s) are free from computer virus or other defect. Thank you.
-Original Message-
From: Grasso, Charles [mailto:charles.gra...@echostar.com]
Sent: Monday, October 3, 2016 8:37 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] [RFI] Part 15 isn't enough..
Gert - That's a
Gert Gremmen [mailto:g.grem...@cetest.nl]
Sent: Saturday, October 01, 2016 3:57 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] [RFI] Part 15 isn't enough..
John Allen wrote:
>That's probably why the products from some major multinationals (as mentioned
>in the previously linked &
: Re: [PSES] [RFI] Part 15 isn't enough..
John Allen wrote:
>That's probably why the products from some major multinationals (as mentioned
>in the previously linked >website) could not be sold elsewhere in the major
>World markets without suitable compliance and >ver
G
Subject: Re: [PSES] [RFI] Part 15 isn't enough..
On 10/1/2016 6:26 AM, john Allen wrote:
> My comment about major manufacturers was partially based on the
> appearance of a Sony TV on the apartmenttherapy website, as linked by
> Cortland,
Right site, wrong appliance; it was an oven
Allen
W. London, UK
From: John Woodgate [mailto:jmw1...@btinternet.com]
Sent: 02 October 2016 07:58
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] [RFI] Part 15 isn't enough..
I didn't say that 120 V operation is not allowed under the LVD. I said that
120 V-only products
er 2, 2016 5:09 AM
To: John Woodgate ; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: [PSES] [RFI] Part 15 isn't enough..
I’ve not seen where conformity to the LVD (or MD) disallows operation at 120V.
While it wouldn’t make sense or perhaps not allowed to sell 120V rated
products for consumer
]
Sent: Saturday, October 01, 2016 10:06 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] [RFI] Part 15 isn't enough..
Products that work only on 120 V obviously won't be CE marked, even if they
meet the EMC Directive, because CE requires conformity to all applicable
Directives and tha
nity side of
things.
John E Allen
W. London, UK
From: Adam Dixon [mailto:lanterna.viri...@gmail.com]
Sent: 01 October 2016 17:15
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] [RFI] Part 15 isn't enough..
Well, it wasn't a totally wasted trip since I picked up trea
o.uk J M Woodgate and
Associates Rayleigh England
Sylvae in aeternum manent.
From: Adam Dixon [mailto:lanterna.viri...@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, October 1, 2016 5:15 PM
To: John Woodgate
Cc: EMC-PSTC@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: Re: [PSES] [RFI] Part 15 isn't enough..
Well, it wasn&
ae in aeternum manent.
>
>
>
> *From:* Adam Dixon [mailto:lanterna.viri...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Saturday, October 1, 2016 2:39 PM
> *To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> *Subject:* Re: [PSES] [RFI] Part 15 isn't enough..
>
>
>
> Reply to John's question about CE marki
Sorry, my error as I was posting from memory and did not check back on the site
in question.
John E Allen
W. London, UK
-Original Message-
From: Cortland Richmond [mailto:k...@earthlink.net]
Sent: 01 October 2016 12:22
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] [RFI] Part 15
on.co.uk/> www.jmwa.demon.co.uk J M Woodgate and
Associates Rayleigh England
Sylvae in aeternum manent.
From: Adam Dixon [mailto:lanterna.viri...@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, October 1, 2016 2:39 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] [RFI] Part 15 isn't enough..
Reply to
usly linked website) could not be
> sold elsewhere in the major World markets without suitable compliance and
> verification, and yet can be sold in the US.
>
> John E Allen
> W. London, UK
>
> From: Paasche, Dieter [mailto:dieter.paas...@christiedigital.com]
> Sent: 30 September 2016 13:5
On 10/1/2016 6:26 AM, john Allen wrote:
My comment about major manufacturers was partially based on the appearance
of a Sony TV on the apartmenttherapy website, as linked by Cortland,
Right site, wrong appliance; it was an oven,
" was summertime and we weren’t using our oven much but we notice
bject: RE: [PSES] [RFI] Part 15 isn't enough..
John Allen wrote:
>That's probably why the products from some major multinationals (as
mentioned in the previously linked >website) could not be sold elsewhere in
the major World markets without suitable compliance and >verification, an
der.co.uk]
Sent: Friday 30 September 2016 15:31
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] [RFI] Part 15 isn't enough..
Dieter
Yes, that's what the words state, and have done for years - but, with no clear
requirements or guidelines as to the technical requirements (tests, l
7:26 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] [RFI] Part 15 isn't enough..
Do not confuse susceptibility of interference with immunity such as ESD, Fast
Transient, etc. The susceptibility spoken of is that of Spectrum Protection,
and the protection of licensed users, not ES
, 2016 3:14 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] [RFI] Part 15 isn't enough..
Dennis:
Not true. Congress passes a Communications Act, a law, and it directs the FCC
to implement that law. These Acts may stand for years or may be superseded with
a new Act whenever Congress
ers have been
compelled to comply with the EU immunity requirements!
John E Allen
W. London, UK
-Original Message-
From: Cortland Richmond [mailto:k...@earthlink.net]
Sent: 30 September 2016 21:04
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] [RFI] Part 15 isn't enou
: dward [mailto:dw...@pctestlab.com]
Sent: Friday, September 30, 2016 10:04 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] [RFI] Part 15 isn't enough..
Nor will there ever be anything in the FCC rules about immunity simply because
that, as Gherry state, has nothing to do with the prote
On 9/30/2016 2:16 PM, Ken Javor wrote:
I still don't understand what the applicability is, but if that statement
about MIL-STD-461 applies to products to be sold commercially, it has
serious issues and drawbacks that make it utterly impractical.
I suspect the choice of MIL-Standards was made to
ed. No warranty is made that the e-mail
or attachments(s) are free from computer virus or other defect. Thank you.
-Original Message-
From: Cortland Richmond [mailto:k...@earthlink.net]
Sent: Friday, September 30, 2016 10:28 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] [RFI] P
for the L1/L2 band(s)
whichever is appropriate. That adds cost and it isn't obvious there is a
need for the typical automotive application.
Ken Javor
Phone: (256) 650-5261
> From: Cortland Richmond
> Reply-To:
> Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2016 12:35:59 -0400
> To:
> Subject: Re: [PS
ssage-
From: Cortland Richmond [mailto:k...@earthlink.net]
Sent: Friday, September 30, 2016 5:36 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] [RFI] Part 15 isn't enough..
On 9/30/2016 12:04 PM, Ken Javor wrote:
> Was the original post that started this long thread saying th
]
Sent: Friday, September 30, 2016 5:59 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] [RFI] Part 15 isn't enough..
In general I believe that changing part 15 will be very difficult since it is a
legal (political) document and would need congress approval for changes.
Different that th
On 9/30/2016 1:03 PM, dward wrote:
Nor will there ever be anything in the FCC rules about immunity simply
because that, as Gherry state, has nothing to do with the protection
of the Spectrum.
The FCC already has the authority it needs to require *some* RF
immunity, and has since 1982:
http:
'EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG'
Subject: RE: [PSES] [RFI] Part 15 isn't enough..
Nor will there ever be anything in the FCC rules about immunity simply because
that, as Gherry state, has nothing to do with the protection of the Spectrum.
Dennis Ward
This communication and
Javor [mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com]
Sent: Friday, September 30, 2016 9:03 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] [RFI] Part 15 isn't enough..
The intent of the quoted statute is simply to protect licensed users of the
spectrum from unlicensed unintentional “poachers.”
16:27
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] [RFI] Part 15 isn't enough..
The FCC also is taking the route mandated by their charter - protect the radio
users from interference. Part 15 apparently does that adequately as
interference complaints to the FCC have dropped to the n
heir job while not making the
President look bad. Getting hauled into court doesn't do that so well. Just
another viewpoint...
Ghery S. Pettit
-Original Message-
From: John Allen [mailto:john_e_al...@blueyonder.co.uk]
Sent: Friday, September 30, 2016 8:00 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV
On 9/30/2016 12:04 PM, Ken Javor wrote:
Was the original post that started this long thread saying that Part 15
wasn't enough, we also needed immunity requirements, or as I understood it,
that Part 15 limits weren't low enough?
The latter, sort of, but I added immunity (15.17) as a warranty i
l Message-
> From: John Allen [mailto:john_e_al...@blueyonder.co.uk]
> Sent: Friday, September 30, 2016 8:00 AM
> To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: Re: [PSES] [RFI] Part 15 isn't enough..
>
> Cortland
>
> Sound like Congress being "ruled" by &quo
Fri, 30 Sep 2016 11:43:55 -0400
> To:
> Subject: Re: [PSES] [RFI] Part 15 isn't enough..
>
> There are other countries not mentioned that have immunity requirements, at
> least for the telecom product that I work with.
>
> Mexico and Brazil immediately come to mind beca
asche, Dieter"
Reply-To: "Paasche, Dieter"
Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2016 12:59:04 +
To:
Conversation: [PSES] [RFI] Part 15 isn't enough..
Subject: Re: [PSES] [RFI] Part 15 isn't enough..
In general I believe that changing part 15 will be very difficult since it
is a legal
http://www.randolph-telecom.com
-Original Message-
From: ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen [mailto:g.grem...@cetest.nl]
Sent: Friday, September 30, 2016 3:38 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] [RFI] Part 15 isn't enough..
Hi Ghery,
You need to get yo
S. Pettit
-Original Message-
From: John Allen [mailto:john_e_al...@blueyonder.co.uk]
Sent: Friday, September 30, 2016 8:00 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] [RFI] Part 15 isn't enough..
Cortland
Sound like Congress being "ruled" by "big" and/o
and Richmond [mailto:k...@earthlink.net]
Sent: 30 September 2016 14:58
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] [RFI] Part 15 isn't enough..
On 9/30/2016 8:59 AM, Dieter Paasche wrote:
> The operator of a radio frequency device shall be required to cease
> operating the device
On 9/30/2016 8:59 AM, Dieter Paasche wrote:
The operator of a radio frequency device shall be required to cease
operating the device *upon notification by a Commission
representative* that the device is causing harmful interference.
[emphasis added]
The FCC has been reluctant to make that noti
markets without suitable compliance and
verification, and yet can be sold in the US.
John E Allen
W. London, UK
From: Paasche, Dieter [mailto:dieter.paas...@christiedigital.com]
Sent: 30 September 2016 13:59
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] [RFI] Part 15 isn't enough..
In general I believe that changing part 15 will be very difficult since it is a
legal (political) document and would need congress approval for changes.
Different that than in the EU where you have directives and harmonized
standards somehow separately.
Also the US is part of international com
delete the material from
any computer.
Thank you for your co-operation.
-Original Message-
From: john Allen [mailto:john_e_al...@blueyonder.co.uk]
Sent: Friday 30 September 2016 10:14
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] [RFI] Part 15 isn't enough..
Cortland
Morning
rial from any computer.
Thank you for your co-operation.
-Original Message-
From: john Allen [mailto:john_e_al...@blueyonder.co.uk]
Sent: Friday 30 September 2016 10:14
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] [RFI] Part 15 isn't enough..
Cortland
Morning
I have just rea
llective action is
taken to address it.
John E Allen
W. London, UK
-Original Message-
From: Cortland Richmond [mailto:k...@earthlink.net]
Sent: 30 September 2016 04:56
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] [RFI] Part 15 isn't enough..
On 9/29/2016 4:14 PM, Ghery S. Petti
ent: Friday 30 September 2016 00:20
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] [RFI] Part 15 isn't enough..
Immunity testing is required in the EU, South Korea and China. Nowhere else in
the world is it required for commercial products. I’d say that the US is in
the “real world”.
Ghery S
But this warranty business has nothing to do with Part 15!
Ken Javor
Phone: (256) 650-5261
> From: Cortland Richmond
> Reply-To:
> Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2016 23:55:52 -0400
> To:
> Subject: Re: [PSES] [RFI] Part 15 isn't enough..
>
> On 9/29/2016 4:14 PM, Ghery S. P
On 9/29/2016 4:14 PM, Ghery S. Pettit wrote:
Preventing harmful interference in all cases is a mighty tough call. How low
do you need to limit emissions? How high a signal must the product be immune
to? The limits in Part 15 provide a reasonable level of protection, assuming
the potential v
. Thank you.
From: john Allen [mailto:john_e_al...@blueyonder.co.uk]
Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2016 2:45 PM
To: 'dward' ; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: [PSES] [RFI] Part 15 isn't enough..
Dennis
I really do wonder what World you live in – but then, TBH, based on
o:dw...@pctestlab.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2016 4:15 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] [RFI] Part 15 isn't enough..
As to John’s comment about the train wreck in the US, try looking at the so
called safety record of train travel in the EU. Wrecksin Spin killed 4 in
that the US is
> in the “real world”.
>
> Ghery S. Pettit
>
> From: Ken Javor [mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com]
> Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2016 3:01 PM
> To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: Re: [PSES] [RFI] Part 15 isn't enough..
>
> Withou
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] [RFI] Part 15 isn't enough..
Without getting into the specifics of this particular argument, the idea that
the “rest of the world” has dome something doesn’t necessarily imply that North
America is “behind.” In the same sense that if a
curve”, maybe?
John E Allen
W. London, UK
From: Ken Javor [mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com]
Sent: 29 September 2016 23:01
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] [RFI] Part 15 isn't enough..
Without getting into the specifics of this particular argument, the idea
Javor [mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com]
Sent: 29 September 2016 22:28
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] [RFI] Part 15 isn't enough..
Saying that Part 15 limits are not low enough has nothing to do with the
imposition of immunity requirements. Regardless of how high or low
behind and needs to catch up.
Ken Javor
Phone: (256) 650-5261
From: john Allen
Reply-To: john Allen
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2016 22:44:48 +0100
To:
Subject: Re: [PSES] [RFI] Part 15 isn't enough..
Dennis
I really do wonder what World you live in – but then, TBH, based on your
previous com
interference problems and so N. America is behind on this issue.
John E Allen.
W. London, UK
From: dward [mailto:dw...@pctestlab.com]
Sent: 29 September 2016 22:28
To: 'john Allen'; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: [PSES] [RFI] Part 15 isn't enough..
The federal gov
.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Subject: Re: [PSES] [RFI] Part 15 isn't enough..
Almost sounds like a call for N. America to encompass our equivalent immunity
requirements (often denigrated - even with Europe, but they generally do seem
to work!) :)
John E A
pair jammed up
side-by-side. If that¹s what you want, you are looking at MIL-STD-461, as
someone else pointed out.
Ken Javor
Phone: (256) 650-5261
From: john Allen
Reply-To: john Allen
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2016 21:27:14 +0100
To:
Subject: Re: [PSES] [RFI] Part 15 isn't enough..
Almost s
Subject: Re: [PSES] [RFI] Part 15 isn't enough..
Dennis
And why not – seriously?
As was said many years ago – and often repeated! - “what’s right for the goose
is right for the gander”.
In this case (and many others) In simple terms, that means that implies that
electronic devices need
ensure they will work “anywhere” they
are likely to be used!
John E Allen
W. London, UK
From: dward [mailto:dw...@pctestlab.com]
Sent: 29 September 2016 21:53
To: 'john Allen'; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: [PSES] [RFI] Part 15 isn't enough..
Not a chance
to:n6...@comcast.net]
Sent: 29 September 2016 21:14
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Subject: Re: [PSES] [RFI] Part 15 isn't enough..
Preventing harmful interference in all cases is a mighty tough call. How low
do you need to limit emissions? How high a
September 2016 21:14
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] [RFI] Part 15 isn't enough..
Preventing harmful interference in all cases is a mighty tough call. How low
do you need to limit emissions? How high a signal must the product be immune
to? The limits in Part 15 prov
may need more
suppression.
Ghery S. Pettit, NCE
-Original Message-
From: Cortland Richmond [mailto:k...@earthlink.net]
Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2016 12:29 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] [RFI] Part 15 isn't enough..
On 9/29/2016 2:07 PM, Ken Javor wrote
On 9/29/2016 2:07 PM, Ken Javor wrote:
I missed out on the prologue and am curious as why Part 15 limits aren't low
enough. Not low enough for what?
Actually preventing harmful interference. Requiring a warranty in the
purchase contract would put
manufacturers on notice that they're actually
I missed out on the prologue and am curious as why Part 15 limits aren't low
enough. Not low enough for what?
Ken Javor
Phone: (256) 650-5261
> From: Cortland Richmond
> Reply-To:
> Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2016 13:36:36 -0400
> To:
> Subject: Re: [PSES] [RFI] Part 15 isn
On 9/29/2016 6:53 AM, Charles Gallo wrote:
But part 15 limits are not low enough
That's why you'd want to require the manufacturer to warrant
non-interference per the OTHER provisions of Part 15.
Cortland Richmond
ka5s
-
This
68 matches
Mail list logo
