By cutting off discussion of this topic, you have allowed untruths to be
perpetuated about 3 meter semi-anechoic chambers and have left the readers
of this list server with the impression that 3 meter chambers are to be
viewed as "outlaw" test facilities.
You have done a great disservice to the EMC community.
If the 3 meter chamber is listed with the FCC then the following is true
(for the facilities only):
"Our 3m semi-anechoic chamber measuring 18 ft. wide, X 28 ft. long and 28
ft. high is FCC certified for testing Class A and Class B digital devices,
hence we are in compliance with ANSI C63.4/1992, CISPR 22 publication and
FCC Subpart B Class A regulations"
In fact, if the site is FCC listed, then the facilities can also test to
Part 68 as well as Part 15. If the chamber meets the volumetric site
attenuation requirements of ANSI C63.4, paragraph 5.4.6.5, CISPR 22,
paragraph 10.3.5, and CISPR 16, paragraph 16.7.1 then it is comparable to a
10 meter OATS.
NVLAP accredits 3 meter semi-anechoic chambers. The FCC published test
distance and limit line for 30 MHz and above is 3 meters.
If the "small commercial laboratory" lost a contract to a competitor, it
had nothing to do with the facilities. It was for other reasons such as
pricing.
An earlier e-mail that indicated that a chamber needed "900 points" of data
and made other statements. This e-mail is wrong. The listing requirements
for the FCC (chamber or OATS) can be found in 47 CFR Part 2, paragraph
2.948.
Bob Heller
============================================
Rich Nute <[email protected]> on 08/18/99 05:59:17 PM
Please respond to Rich Nute <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
cc: [email protected] (bcc: Robert E.
Heller/US-Corporate/3M/US)
Subject: Re: FCC approved 3m chamber suitable for 10m qualification
testing
Hello from San Diego:
Please respond privately to Steve on this topic.
We all need to protect both ourselves and the IEEE
from possible libel or slander.
If you want to discuss this request, please contact
me privately.
Thanks, and best regards,
Richard Nute
co-administrator, IEEE emc-pstc listserver.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Nute Product Safety Engineer
Hewlett-Packard Company Product Regulations Group
AiO Division Tel : +1 858 655 3329
16399 West Bernardo Drive FAX : +1 858 655 4979
San Diego, California 92127 e-mail: [email protected]
-------------------------------------------------------------
> Dear esteemed colleagues,
>
> Our small commercial laboratory lost a modest sized FCC verification
test
> and report to a competitor who DO NOT operate an OATS, but claim the
> following..........
>
> "Our 3m semi-anechoic chamber measuring 18 ft. wide, X 28 ft. long and
28
> ft. high is FCC certified for testing Class A and Class B digital
devices,
> hence we are in compliance with ANSI C63.4/1992, CISPR 22 publication
and
> FCC Subpart B Class A regulations"
>
> If this is in flagrant violation with the FCC rules then I would like
to
> decide on a course of action suitable enough to grab the attention of
those
> who misrepresent our industry. Does anyone have experience with this
same
> problem or approached A2LA, NVLAP or FCC?
>
> Regards,
>
> Steve
Reply-To: "Steve Kuiper" <[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], [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], [email protected], or
[email protected] (the list administrators).
