Woodgate; Richards, Carl
Cc: Ken Javor; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: FCC Immunity Requirements
No, the EMC and safety guys are told to make it pass, but don't change
anything. :-)
From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of John
Woodgate
Sent: Friday, May 02, 2008
>
Immunity is critical for anyone involved in safety or systems that can
impact the health of individuals. Three examples I know about:
Walkie-talkie interference causing control panel malfunction
Walkie-talkie interference causing death of an employee.
Cell phone usage causing malfunction of pa
In message
,
dated Fri, 2 May 2008, "Heiland, Leo J"
writes:
>I have to disagree with the statement
>
>"Only a few enlightened companies build in safety and EMC from Day 1 of
>the design phase."
>
>Many companies rely on already qualified devices for safety and to some
>extent EMC. As such
In message
<2c0b573b18ce4443bd0a51b829393c10011c4...@de01exm73.ds.mot.com>, dated
Fri, 2 May 2008, Luksich Mark-TXP763 writes:
>My solution was to hang a regulatory engineer in every development team
>from day 1. Then give the team a set of requirements in writing on day
>2. With a follow o
> From: Mark Luksich
> Sent: Friday, May 02, 2008 9:22 AM
>
> My solution was to hang a regulatory engineer in every
> development team from day 1.
I think the Romans just used a sword when they decimated the troops, but
hanging probably works just as well.
Peter
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e-mail
ee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Pettit,
Ghery
Sent: Friday, May 02, 2008 9:14 AM
To: John Woodgate; Richards, Carl
Cc: Ken Javor; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: FCC Immunity Requirements
No, the EMC and safety guys are told to make it pass, but don't change
anyt
ate; Richards, Carl
Cc: Ken Javor; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: FCC Immunity Requirements
No, the EMC and safety guys are told to make it pass, but don't change
anything. :-)
From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of John
Woodgate
Sent: Friday, May 02, 2008 9:
No, the EMC and safety guys are told to make it pass, but don't change
anything. :-)
From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of John
Woodgate
Sent: Friday, May 02, 2008 9:08 AM
To: Richards, Carl
Cc: Ken Javor; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: FCC Imm
In message
, dated
Fri, 2 May 2008, "Richards, Carl" writes:
>only the very poorest newcomer (poorest in the sense of piss poor
>planning) would embark upon the design of a product and then discover
>that it?s product failed to meet the regs during the testing phase.
Pardon? This is standar
In message , dated Fri, 2
May 2008, Ken Javor writes:
>I don?t understand how the first statement applies to the idea that all
>these regulations are a barrier to entry, but just a cost of doing
>business to the established players.
>
The e-mail had grown to metre-length, so it's a bit diffi
@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: FCC Immunity Requirements
I don’t understand how the first statement applies to the idea that all
these regulations are a barrier to entry, but just a cost of doing business to
the established players.
Ken Javor
Phone: (256) 650-5261
From
Ken,
> For those of you who live in California, or who have ever traveled
> there, just how many health hazards are ?known to the State of
> California? ? And what is the rate-of-increase of such postings? One
> would come to the conclusion that either the state of California is
> much smarter tha
: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org
List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org
List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org
Date: Fri, 2 May 2008 11:08:01 -0400
To: Ken Javor ,
Conversation: FCC Immunity Requirements
Subject: RE: FCC Immunity Requirements
Not at all, since the price of any product includes the cost of
In message , dated Fri, 2
May 2008, Ken Javor writes:
>First, has anyone anywhere bought ten of anything to find one that
>works ?
Excluding tin-openers, of course. (;-)
>and in the total absence of immunity requirements? Of course not, that
>is an exaggeration to make the author?s point.
From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Ken Javor
Sent: 02 May 2008 16:03
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: FCC Immunity Requirements
Apple is now and has been established since the introduction of the Mac
(1984). The point is that the established companies
uot;
List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org
List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org
List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org
Date: Fri, 2 May 2008 10:54:36 -0400
To:
Conversation: FCC Immunity Requirements
Subject: RE: FCC Immunity Requirements
Apple still turn out cracking products even with today’s r
ond
> Reply-To:
> Date: Fri, 2 May 2008 06:57:10 -0700
> To:
> Subject: Re: FCC Immunity Requirements
>
> Companies who make shoddy or even merely susceptible equipment may be
> expected to deny the problem exists,or to blame it on the (even lawful)
> source of interfere
position protection. :-)
Carl
From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Ken Javor
Sent: 02 May 2008 15:47
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: FCC Immunity Requirements
A lack of perspective is on display here. First, has anyone
.
Ken Javor
Phone: (256) 650-5261
From: Andrew McCallum
List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org
List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org
List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org
Date: Fri, 02 May 2008 14:48:15 +0100
To: Ken Javor ,
Subject: Re: FCC Immunity
Carl
Carl Richards,
Regulatory Compliance Manager,
Aspect Software
2, The Square
Stockley Park, Uxbridge, UB11 1AD,
United Kingdom
From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Derek
Walton
Sent: 02 May 2008 14:52
To: Ken Javor
Cc: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re
Companies who make shoddy or even merely susceptible equipment may be
expected to deny the problem exists,or to blame it on the (even lawful)
source of interference, or simply refuse to do anything about it. In the
United States there is almost always an implied warranty that an item sold
is suita
Ken Javor wrote:
>
>
> But in the absence of that situation, which is clearly where we are at
> in the USA, it is either comical or tragical that someone feels that
> the government must step in to provide protection not afforded by the
> invisible hand of the free market. If I buy a laptop tha
European standards are written up in consultation with industry to be
realistic and workable (in theory). It may be the STATE that enforces it but
industry has defined it.
I would rather buy one laptop knowing it will work rather than have to go
through 10 laptops till I find one that works.
Fascinating thought processes here.
Who will protect the consumer? And from whom?
It is one thing to impose EMI requirements on equipment to be installed in
close proximity on platforms. There as pointed out the close proximity of
susceptible equipment to high power sources, and not mentioned bu
In message
<9d04b979323dcd428297dda95108893e0120c...@bb-corp-ex2.corp.cubic.cub>,
dated Fri, 2 May 2008, "Price, Edward" writes:
>However, the US market has become just about as regulation-controlled
>as the European market, so I expect that someday we will see immunity
>standards imposed on
emc-p...@ieee.org cc
Subject
05/02/2008 07:38 Re: FCC Immunity Requirements
Subject: Re: FCC Immunity Requirements
Ian,
Years ago, I had an oppotunity to ask an FCC officer this question at
the FCC
booth during an IEEE symposium. The officer told me FCC cares if a product
produces high emission to the public. It is not
This message has been converted via the evaluation version of
Transend Migrator. Use beyond the trial period specified in
your Software Evaluation Agreement is prohibited. Please contact
Transend Corporation at (650) 324-5370 or sales.i...@transend.com
to obtain a license suitable for use in a prod
There are no immunity requirements in 47 CFR Part 15, the FCC rules for
unintentional radiators. However, this only covers unintentional
radiators. The FCC rules cover a wide range of products and some
categories do include some immunity testing. For example, 47 CFR Part 68
is a set of FCC regul
29 matches
Mail list logo
