Mark, all,
I stand corrected:
> FCC part 15.31(i) requires that the peripherals be unmodified,
^^^^^
> commercially available devices.
This section applies regardless of whether the product is
FCC-certified, verified, or whether a DofC is issued.
I had only remembered the section in 47CFR2.1033, which
only applies to certification.
Next time I'll defer to the lawyers...
Regards,
Dan
> From [email protected] Wed Sep 2 15:31:20 1998
> Subject: Re: peripherals
> Date: Wed, 2 Sep 98 10:11:05 -0800
> x-sender: [email protected]
> From: Mark Briggs <[email protected]>
> To: "Gary McInturff" <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> X-Resent-To: Multiple Recipients <[email protected]>
> X-Listname: emc-pstc
> X-Info: Help requests to [email protected]
> X-Info: [Un]Subscribe requests to [email protected]
> X-Moderator-Address: [email protected]
>
> Gary, in answer to your comments:
>
> >I would appreciate some skull scratching here, but preferably can
> >someone provide the FCC/CISPR citation on this point.
> >I have spent an interesting amount of money testing big name devices
> >looking for very quite support equipment.
>
> FCC part 15.31(i) requires that the peripherals be unmodified,
> commercially available devices.
>
> ANSI C63.4 section 11 defines the minimum system configuration for
> computer peripherals and clearly shows, in section 6, the host PC and
> accompanying peripherals located on the test table. The last amendment
> to CISPR 22 (A2) began to align CISPR 22 with ANSI C63.4 such that it
> defines minimum system configurations for PC-type products.
>
> >Equally important in this argument is that you cannot identify through
> >test identify a non-complying signal as belonging to the support
> >equipment rather than the EUT and then claim compliance.
> >This concept has been stuck in my head for many years, probably dating
> >back to the earliest MP-4 documents and part 15 regulations. I vaguely
> >associate it with the sections that described peripherals to exercise
> >equipment and what was or was not acceptable.
>
> ANSI C63.4 (1992) section 6.1.2.1 (which discusses the use of remote
> support equipment under certain circumstances) clearly indicates that the
> purpose of the test is to evaluate "...the interference potential of the
> EUT, its accessories, and interconnecting cables or wires apart form the
> remotely located device...". This would suggest that the combination of
> EUT and local support equipment must meet the limits, i.e. you cannot
> switch off the support equipment.
>
> >Obviously, I would prefer to win this argument but on the other hand it
> >sure makes the search for peripherals that meet my needs a lot easier.
>
>
> Hope this doesn't add more fuel to the fire !
>
> Mark
>
>
>
> Mark Briggs
> [email protected]
>
>
> ---------
> This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
> To cancel your subscription, send mail to [email protected]
> with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
> quotes). For help, send mail to [email protected],
> [email protected], or [email protected] (the list
> administrators).
>
>
---------
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to [email protected]
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes). For help, send mail to [email protected],
[email protected], or [email protected] (the list
administrators).
