, legal limits in USA
Yes, the FCC limits are for regulatory compliance but what is the purpose of a
cell phone or a cell modem if none of the cell carriers accept that device in
their network...
Thanks,
Deniz
-Original Message-
From: dward [mailto:dw...@pctestlab.com]
Sent: Monday
. Thank you.
From: john Allen [mailto:john_e_al...@blueyonder.co.uk]
Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2016 2:45 PM
To: 'dward' <dw...@pctestlab.com>; 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 the
Not a chance
Dennis Ward
This communication and its attachements contain information from PCTEST
Engineering Laboratory, Inc., and is intended for the exclusive use of the
recipient(s) named above. It may contain information that is confidential
and/or legally privileged. Any
[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 really irre
In Klingon; it seems that there is paghmo’ tIn mIS
Dennis Ward
This communication and its attachements contain information from PCTEST
Engineering Laboratory, Inc., and is intended for the exclusive use of the
recipient(s) named above. It may contain information that is confidential
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Cell phone power output, legal limits in USA
Are these parts in Title 47?
Thank you,
Ken Javor
Phone: (256) 650-5261
> From: dward <dw...@pctestlab.com>
> Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2016 08:25:07 -0700
> To: 'Ken Javor' <ken.ja...
It has served the community well. As the old saying goes - if it aint broke,
don't fix it.
Dennis Ward
This communication and its attachements contain information from PCTEST
Engineering Laboratory, Inc., and is intended for the exclusive use of the
recipient(s) named above. It may
for non-business
related activities is strictly prohibited. No warranty is made that the e-mail
or attachments(s) are free from computer virus or other defect. Thank you.
From: dward [mailto:dw...@pctestlab.com]
Sent: Friday, September 30, 2016 10:04 AM
To: 'Ken Javor' <ken
Dieter
The simple answer to your question “isn’t FCC indirectly stating that immunity
has to be met as well? FCC Part 15.5 (b), is no. While the FCC says that the
manufacturer should consider methods to avoid interference, the impetus on
15.5b only deals with interference to licensed users
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 its attachements contain information from PCTEST
Engineering Laboratory, Inc., and is
art 15 isn't enough..
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 *s
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 necessary push by manufacturers to
and expanded to enforce Congressional wishes.
Ed Price
WB6WSN
Chula Vista, CA USA
From: dward [mailto:dw...@pctestlab.com]
Sent: Friday, September 30, 2016 10:04 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Subject: Re: [PSES] [RFI] Part 15 isn't enough..
Depends on the voltage. If 120/240 then it is probably for world market and
the CE mark is probably on it. If it is only 120, then it would not be
acceptable for place a CE marking on the product. But then the CE marking has
no meaning in the US and is not acceptable for compliance issues.
what the Government should face up to and address – for the
> greater good of everyone in YOUR country.
>
> Without getting trying to “personal”, “get real”! - a lot of the rest of the
> “real world” has already adopted appropriate requirements to try to prevent
> undue interference p
to try to 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
<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Subject: RE: [PSES] [RFI] Part 15
Nah - we drive on the right side, the others drive on what's left. :)
From: Michael Derby [mailto:micha...@acbcert.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 8, 2016 4:45 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Automated vehicles.
And let's not forget that Americans drive on the wrong
I guess some just do not understand the 1st amendment of the US Constitution.
It says no laws shall be made…. It does not say you can say anything anytime.
Dennis Ward
This communication and its attachements contain information from PCTEST
Engineering Laboratory, Inc., and is
Or say what you mean and don’t say it if you are afraid you will be embarrassed
by it.
Dennis Ward
This communication and its attachements contain information from PCTEST
Engineering Laboratory, Inc., and is intended for the exclusive use of the
recipient(s) named above. It may
Michael make an excellent point. A standard is not harmonized because it is in
the OJ. It gets in the OJ because it is harmonized; and presumption of
compliance to a directive is only able to be done when an already harmonized
standard is listed in the OJ.
Dennis Ward
This
All measurements are subject to uncertainty. Because there is no “standard” for
sites above a specific frequency does not mean that measurements are not
‘uncertain’. It just means we may not know them in relation to a specific
standard. So, while measurement is always “uncertain”, it is
Thermal time constants deal with thermistors and how it changes from one
temperature to another or from one ‘ambient state’ to another. One thermal
time constant is approximately 63.2% of the total difference in temperature
form the initial temperature to a new temperature. They do not
Actually, C63,4:2014 is the FCC referenced standard now, not C63.4:2003. So,
the 2014 edition should be used. In any case, the FCC generally requires that
at least one of each type port be filled on the EUT and a minimum of at least
of the different type 2 ports be filled on a host that is
Here is the problem with the ‘2 dB rule’. If there are only two ports it
simply makes more sense to cable the ports. If the device passes, go no
further. If you only fill one port, then you have to still fill the remaining
port to meet the 2dB rule, even if it passes. So, why waste the
Depends. Any digital circuitry used in the process of a modulating the radio,
is considered as part of the overall transmitter and would need to pass
restricted band requirement for FCC.
If the DDR signal is not used by the radio in its transmission, is not required
to be on to transmit, or
Well, first, instantaneous does not mean zero, it means done in a short
duration of time. So, there is no such thing as averaging in zero time.
Dennis Ward
This communication and its attachements contain information from PCTEST
Engineering Laboratory, Inc., and is intended for the
that the e-mail
or attachments(s) are free from computer virus or other defect. Thank you.
From: John Woodgate [mailto:jmw1...@btinternet.com]
Sent: Friday, March 3, 2017 10:51 AM
To: 'dward' <dw...@pctestlab.com>; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: [PSES] CORRECTION (wrong page) P
If the BT module is a certified BT module not needing SAR, then, while the host
may not need to pass part 15C requirements, it will still need to pass any
digital device requirements in part 15B for unintentional radiators.
If the module is not certified, but the transmitter is being certified
A TCB is not allowed to arbitrarily accept test method but can only accept what
the FCC allows. For DTS the FCC accepts test methods used in either their KDBs
or C63.10.
Thanks
Dennis Ward
This communication and its attachements contain information from PCTEST
Engineering
We all know that Compliant + Compliant DOES NOT ALWAYS EQUAL COMPLIANT.
While a manufacturer may want to minimize testing, they still must remember IF
YOU MAKE IT YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR COMPLIANCE OF IT. IF you sell
non-compliant devices or systems, no matter what it includes,
101 - 130 of 130 matches
Mail list logo
