The original post was not class A vs. Class B, but whether any FCC requirement applied. I can't see how they could not be required to qualify to class A.
Ken Javor Phone: (256) 650-5261 > From: Brian O'Connell <[email protected]> > Reply-To: Brian O'Connell <[email protected]> > Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2016 20:21:52 +0000 > To: <[email protected]> > Conversation: [PSES] [EXTERNAL] Re: [PSES] 47 CFR Part 15 Subpart B / > ICES-003 applicable/mandatory for an industrial personal computer? > Subject: Re: [PSES] [EXTERNAL] Re: [PSES] 47 CFR Part 15 Subpart B / ICES-003 > applicable/mandatory for an industrial personal computer? > > Generally agree, but government people can be capricious. For several years, > have loaned a 'measurement device' to customers having issues with interfacing > our stuff to their stuff. The device is marked "Property of the Empire. For > Test and Evaluation Only". The device is a small plastic box with an USB port > and a terminal block for analog and digital inputs that is embedded inside the > customer's equipment; and the box has no display/keyboard/etc. Inside this > little box is an ARM 4 processor and other stuff to measure and record. > > There was one site where the box was supposedly interfering with a zigbee > mesh, which resulted in another supplier making complaint. The brilliant and > charming government people said that my little box was essentially a computer > so should be Class B. > > The customer's laptop computer, while connected to the 'device' USB port, > caused the interference. The customer had defeated electromechanical > interlocks to run his equipment with their computer connected to my USB port. > > There are several mundane morals to this silly story, but will not restate the > obvious. > > Brian > > > From: Gary McInturff [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2016 11:49 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [PSES] [EXTERNAL] Re: [PSES] 47 CFR Part 15 Subpart B / ICES-003 > applicable/mandatory for an industrial personal computer? > > I interpreted the original post correctly this was a system that was developed > by the original posters company expressly to be used in the industrial market. > It might look like a personal computer but there is another factor to be > considered. > The OEC document provides an escape clause, if you will, in a couple of places > if you read it carefully enough. The term ³marketed² is important in this > context. Since I don¹t know who can see snippets of a PDF file and I don¹t > want type out the paragraphs I¹m going to just refer you to section 15.3 (h), > 15.3 (i) and 15.3(s) > Section (s) defines a personal computer stating ³computers that are ³marketed² > through retail outlets, mail order, and advertised to the general public. > If the original poster is building a computer that isn¹t marketed to > the average consumer, advertises in trade magazines rather that Best Buy type > circulars, and/or is too big or bulky or even lacking consumer esthetics then > it¹s not a personal computer is industrial equipment. The marketing can also > include price and supported software functions. 3X the price of an average > computer, optimized to support only a CNC machine etc. takes it out of the > personnel computer definition. > > Section h and I essentially do the same thing: Class A digital devices are > ones that are are ³marketed Exclusively² for use in Business, industrial and > commercial environments. > > I had this discussion many years ago with the FCC. We were building banking > automation systems, and we developed our own workstations hardware (IBM > compatible) and banking specific software. I believe it was running MS O/S, > and one could play with Excel or Lotus if you bought those applications and > loaded it onto the computer but the marketing was as I described above, > advertised in trade journals, was pricey, and was supplied only with our > custom designed banking automation software. The agreed FCC agree it was not a > personal computer and was in fact an industrial machine. > > For what it¹s worth > Gary > > - > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc > discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to > <[email protected]> > > All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: > http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html > > Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at > http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used > formats), large files, etc. > > Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ > Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to > unsubscribe) > List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html > > For help, send mail to the list administrators: > Scott Douglas <[email protected]> > Mike Cantwell <[email protected]> > > For policy questions, send mail to: > Jim Bacher: <[email protected]> > David Heald: <[email protected]> - ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to <[email protected]> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas <[email protected]> Mike Cantwell <[email protected]> For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: <[email protected]> David Heald: <[email protected]>
