subject:"\[PSES\] Co\-located modules"

Re: [PSES] Co-located modules

2017-02-15 Thread Stephen Whalen

Michael / Bill,Really good points, thanks.One thought comes to mind; If the 
module is for Dedicated Short Range Communication (DSRC) and installed in a 
vehicle without it's own enclosure e.g. module board installed inside a vehicle 
under the dash board, would the entire vehicle be considered an enclosure?  My 
thought is the dashboard could be considered an enclosure.
Regards,Stephen 

On Wednesday, February 15, 2017 4:06 PM, Michael Derby 
<micha...@acbcert.com> wrote:
 

 #yiv9629491881 #yiv9629491881 -- _filtered #yiv9629491881 
{font-family:Helvetica;panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;} _filtered #yiv9629491881 
{panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv9629491881 
{font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv9629491881 
{font-family:Verdana;panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}#yiv9629491881 
#yiv9629491881 p.yiv9629491881MsoNormal, #yiv9629491881 
li.yiv9629491881MsoNormal, #yiv9629491881 div.yiv9629491881MsoNormal 
{margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv9629491881 a:link, 
#yiv9629491881 span.yiv9629491881MsoHyperlink 
{color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv9629491881 a:visited, #yiv9629491881 
span.yiv9629491881MsoHyperlinkFollowed 
{color:purple;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv9629491881 p 
{margin-right:0cm;margin-left:0cm;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv9629491881 
p.yiv9629491881Default, #yiv9629491881 li.yiv9629491881Default, #yiv9629491881 
div.yiv9629491881Default 
{margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;color:black;}#yiv9629491881 
span.yiv9629491881EmailStyle19 {color:#1F497D;}#yiv9629491881 
span.yiv9629491881EmailStyle20 
{color:#66;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;text-decoration:none 
none;}#yiv9629491881 span.yiv9629491881EmailStyle21 
{color:#66;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;text-decoration:none 
none;}#yiv9629491881 span.yiv9629491881EmailStyle22 
{color:#1F497D;}#yiv9629491881 .yiv9629491881MsoChpDefault {font-size:10.0pt;} 
_filtered #yiv9629491881 {margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}#yiv9629491881 
div.yiv9629491881WordSection1 {}#yiv9629491881 I would agree with Bill, that 
the FCC is certainly moving in the direction of a more “holistic approach 
toward the whole end product”, and less interested in the separation of the 
component parts (component parts, in the sense of assessing operations 
separately).  I would suspect that if Bill were to submit a KDB, my guess is 
that they will say “whole product”.  We see it with things like the 
clarification on spurious emissions testing of the unintentional emissions, 
where the upper frequency range for Part 15B testing is based on the highest 
frequency in the installed module.   They’re looking more at the full picture 
these days.    Michael.    From: Bill Stumpf [mailto:bstu...@dlsemc.com] 
Sent: 15 February 2017 19:28
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Co-located modules  I don't have any conclusively 
documented evidence from the FCC.  This supposition is taken from recent FCC 
presentations, current KDB's and conversations with trusted "co-inhabitants" in 
this industry.  An example of this indication is provided below. It is from an 
April 2015 FCC TCB Council presentation regarding KDB 551693 DR01.      Real 
purpose of no-collocation condition– Not to restrict device usage options– 
Instead is to require compliance of multi-radio simultaneous transmission 
operations within a single end product• In cases where that is not already 
evaluated in the applications, or• For use outside parameters/scope for which 
the device was already evaluated      I know in the past we've referenced 20cm 
as the minimum distance between antennas at which the FCC considered two 
simultaneously transmitting transmitters to be collocated.  Even that was 
unwritten though.  It would be nice to have a more clearly defined answer to 
what is considered collocation for requiring FCC multi-transmitter product 
procedures.  Perhaps I will submit a KDB inquiry to the FCC...  Bill      From: 
msherma...@comcast.net [mailto:msherma...@comcast.net] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2017 11:33 AM
To: Bill Stumpf <bstu...@dlsemc.com>
Cc: EMC-PSTC <EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Subject: Re: [PSES] Co-located modules  Bill --  This "in the same enclosure" 
interpretation sounds new and drastic to me. Do you have any official 
document/link on this interpretation?  thanks  Mike ShermanGraco Inc.  From: 
"Bill Stumpf" <bstu...@dlsemc.com>
To: "EMC-PSTC" <EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2017 7:34:19 AM
Subject: Re: [PSES] Co-located modules  The latest chatter I gathered on this 
topic is that the FCC considers collocated as "in the same enclosure".  
Indications are that any reference to <20cm being considered collocated has 
been set aside.  Bill From: Michael Derby [mailto:micha...@acbcert.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2017 2:18 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subj

Re: [PSES] Co-located modules

2017-02-15 Thread Michael Derby

I would agree with Bill, that the FCC is certainly moving in the direction of a 
more “holistic approach toward the whole end product”, and less interested in 
the separation of the component parts (component parts, in the sense of 
assessing operations separately).

 

I would suspect that if Bill were to submit a KDB, my guess is that they will 
say “whole product”.

 

We see it with things like the clarification on spurious emissions testing of 
the unintentional emissions, where the upper frequency range for Part 15B 
testing is based on the highest frequency in the installed module.   They’re 
looking more at the full picture these days.

 

 

Michael.

 

 

From: Bill Stumpf [mailto:bstu...@dlsemc.com] 
Sent: 15 February 2017 19:28
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Co-located modules

 

I don't have any conclusively documented evidence from the FCC.  This 
supposition is taken from recent FCC presentations, current KDB's and 
conversations with trusted "co-inhabitants" in this industry.  An example of 
this indication is provided below. It is from an April 2015 FCC TCB Council 
presentation regarding KDB 551693 DR01.

 

 

 

Real purpose of no-collocation condition

– Not to restrict device usage options

– Instead is to require compliance of multi-radio simultaneous transmission 
operations within a single end product

• In cases where that is not already evaluated in the applications, or

• For use outside parameters/scope for which the device was already evaluated

 

 

 

I know in the past we've referenced 20cm as the minimum distance between 
antennas at which the FCC considered two simultaneously transmitting 
transmitters to be collocated.  Even that was unwritten though.  It would be 
nice to have a more clearly defined answer to what is considered collocation 
for requiring FCC multi-transmitter product procedures.  Perhaps I will submit 
a KDB inquiry to the FCC...

 

Bill

 

 

 

From: msherma...@comcast.net <mailto:msherma...@comcast.net>  
[mailto:msherma...@comcast.net] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2017 11:33 AM
To: Bill Stumpf <bstu...@dlsemc.com <mailto:bstu...@dlsemc.com> >
Cc: EMC-PSTC <EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> >
Subject: Re: [PSES] Co-located modules

 

Bill --

 

This "in the same enclosure" interpretation sounds new and drastic to me. Do 
you have any official document/link on this interpretation?

 

thanks

 

Mike Sherman

Graco Inc.

 

  _  

From: "Bill Stumpf" <bstu...@dlsemc.com <mailto:bstu...@dlsemc.com> >
To: "EMC-PSTC" <EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> >
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2017 7:34:19 AM
Subject: Re: [PSES] Co-located modules

 

The latest chatter I gathered on this topic is that the FCC considers 
collocated as "in the same enclosure".  Indications are that any reference to 
<20cm being considered collocated has been set aside. 

 

Bill

 

From: Michael Derby [mailto:micha...@acbcert.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2017 2:18 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> 
Subject: Re: [PSES] Co-located modules

 

Hi Stephen,

 

One thing to remember is that “must not be co-located” really just means “must 
not be co-located without some additional effort”

 

For example, co-locating two modules and then calculating the new combined RF 
Exposure MPE value to verify that the product still meets the requirements, 
would be acceptable.   It does not necessarily mean a C2PC is needed, for 
example.

 

I think you’re right that 20 cm is ‘good guidance’ with regard to RF Exposure.  
 But if your modules are 20.5cm apart, you might still want to consider the 
overall compliance of that final product… and a co-located MPE calculation is 
not too hard.

 

 

Thanks,

 

Michael.

 

 

 

From: Stephen Whalen [mailto:scwha...@bellsouth.net] 
Sent: 14 February 2017 23:34
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> 
Subject: [PSES] Co-located modules

 

All,

For a module that has "must not be co-located" restriction on FCC grant.  

What is the minimum separation distance allowed for another transmitter?  I 
recall 20cm but can't find where it is documented.

 

Regards,

Stephen

-


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 
<emc-p...@ieee.org <mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org> >

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/
Instr

Re: [PSES] Co-located modules

2017-02-15 Thread John Woodgate

What is the purpose of the separation, anyway? Known effects of two close 
senders are cross-modulation and intermodulation, caused by the emission from 
one sender impinging on the non-linearity of the output stage of the other. But 
there is no way of specifying a distance (other than a trivial 100 miles!) 
which would prevent this in all cases. The magnitudes of the effects depend on 
the detailed designs of the senders' output stages and antennas.
 
With best wishes DESIGN IT IN! OOO – Own Opinions Only
 <http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk/> www.jmwa.demon.co.uk J M Woodgate and 
Associates Rayleigh England
 
Sylvae in aeternum manent.
 
From: Bill Stumpf [mailto:bstu...@dlsemc.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2017 7:28 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Co-located modules
 
I don't have any conclusively documented evidence from the FCC.  This 
supposition is taken from recent FCC presentations, current KDB's and 
conversations with trusted "co-inhabitants" in this industry.  An example of 
this indication is provided below. It is from an April 2015 FCC TCB Council 
presentation regarding KDB 551693 DR01.
 
 
 
Real purpose of no-collocation condition
– Not to restrict device usage options
– Instead is to require compliance of multi-radio simultaneous transmission 
operations within a single end product
• In cases where that is not already evaluated in the applications, or
• For use outside parameters/scope for which the device was already evaluated
 
 
 
I know in the past we've referenced 20cm as the minimum distance between 
antennas at which the FCC considered two simultaneously transmitting 
transmitters to be collocated.  Even that was unwritten though.  It would be 
nice to have a more clearly defined answer to what is considered collocation 
for requiring FCC multi-transmitter product procedures.  Perhaps I will submit 
a KDB inquiry to the FCC...
 
Bill
 
 
 
From: msherma...@comcast.net <mailto:msherma...@comcast.net>  
[mailto:msherma...@comcast.net] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2017 11:33 AM
To: Bill Stumpf <bstu...@dlsemc.com <mailto:bstu...@dlsemc.com> >
Cc: EMC-PSTC <EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> >
Subject: Re: [PSES] Co-located modules
 
Bill --
 
This "in the same enclosure" interpretation sounds new and drastic to me. Do 
you have any official document/link on this interpretation?
 
thanks
 
Mike Sherman
Graco Inc.
 
  _  

From: "Bill Stumpf" <bstu...@dlsemc.com <mailto:bstu...@dlsemc.com> >
To: "EMC-PSTC" <EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> >
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2017 7:34:19 AM
Subject: Re: [PSES] Co-located modules
 
The latest chatter I gathered on this topic is that the FCC considers 
collocated as "in the same enclosure".  Indications are that any reference to 
<20cm being considered collocated has been set aside. 
 
Bill
 
From: Michael Derby [mailto:micha...@acbcert.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2017 2:18 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> 
Subject: Re: [PSES] Co-located modules
 
Hi Stephen,
 
One thing to remember is that “must not be co-located” really just means “must 
not be co-located without some additional effort”
 
For example, co-locating two modules and then calculating the new combined RF 
Exposure MPE value to verify that the product still meets the requirements, 
would be acceptable.   It does not necessarily mean a C2PC is needed, for 
example.
 
I think you’re right that 20 cm is ‘good guidance’ with regard to RF Exposure.  
 But if your modules are 20.5cm apart, you might still want to consider the 
overall compliance of that final product… and a co-located MPE calculation is 
not too hard.
 
 
Thanks,
 
Michael.
 
 
 
From: Stephen Whalen [mailto:scwha...@bellsouth.net] 
Sent: 14 February 2017 23:34
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> 
Subject: [PSES] Co-located modules
 
All,
For a module that has "must not be co-located" restriction on FCC grant.  
What is the minimum separation distance allowed for another transmitter?  I 
recall 20cm but can't find where it is documented.
 
Regards,
Stephen
-

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 
<emc-p...@ieee.org <mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org> >
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) 
<h

Re: [PSES] Co-located modules

2017-02-15 Thread Bill Stumpf

I don't have any conclusively documented evidence from the FCC.  This 
supposition is taken from recent FCC presentations, current KDB's and 
conversations with trusted "co-inhabitants" in this industry.  An example of 
this indication is provided below. It is from an April 2015 FCC TCB Council 
presentation regarding KDB 551693 DR01.



Real purpose of no-collocation condition
– Not to restrict device usage options
– Instead is to require compliance of multi-radio simultaneous transmission 
operations within a single end product
• In cases where that is not already evaluated in the applications, or
• For use outside parameters/scope for which the device was already evaluated






I know in the past we've referenced 20cm as the minimum distance between 
antennas at which the FCC considered two simultaneously transmitting 
transmitters to be collocated.  Even that was unwritten though.  It would be 
nice to have a more clearly defined answer to what is considered collocation 
for requiring FCC multi-transmitter product procedures.  Perhaps I will submit 
a KDB inquiry to the FCC...

Bill



From: msherma...@comcast.net [mailto:msherma...@comcast.net]
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2017 11:33 AM
To: Bill Stumpf <bstu...@dlsemc.com>
Cc: EMC-PSTC <EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Subject: Re: [PSES] Co-located modules

Bill --

This "in the same enclosure" interpretation sounds new and drastic to me. Do 
you have any official document/link on this interpretation?

thanks

Mike Sherman
Graco Inc.


From: "Bill Stumpf" <bstu...@dlsemc.com<mailto:bstu...@dlsemc.com>>
To: "EMC-PSTC" <EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>>
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2017 7:34:19 AM
Subject: Re: [PSES] Co-located modules

The latest chatter I gathered on this topic is that the FCC considers 
collocated as "in the same enclosure".  Indications are that any reference to 
<20cm being considered collocated has been set aside.

Bill

From: Michael Derby [mailto:micha...@acbcert.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2017 2:18 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Subject: Re: [PSES] Co-located modules

Hi Stephen,

One thing to remember is that “must not be co-located” really just means “must 
not be co-located without some additional effort”

For example, co-locating two modules and then calculating the new combined RF 
Exposure MPE value to verify that the product still meets the requirements, 
would be acceptable.   It does not necessarily mean a C2PC is needed, for 
example.

I think you’re right that 20 cm is ‘good guidance’ with regard to RF Exposure.  
 But if your modules are 20.5cm apart, you might still want to consider the 
overall compliance of that final product… and a co-located MPE calculation is 
not too hard.


Thanks,

Michael.



From: Stephen Whalen [mailto:scwha...@bellsouth.net]
Sent: 14 February 2017 23:34
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Subject: [PSES] Co-located modules

All,
For a module that has "must not be co-located" restriction on FCC grant.
What is the minimum separation distance allowed for another transmitter?  I 
recall 20cm but can't find where it is documented.

Regards,
Stephen
-


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 
<emc-p...@ieee.org<mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org>>

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)<http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html>
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas <sdoug...@ieee.org<mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org>>
Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org<mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org>>

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher <j.bac...@ieee.org<mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org>>
David Heald <dhe...@gmail.com<mailto:dhe...@gmail.com>>
-


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 
<emc-p...@ieee.org<mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org>>

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

Re: [PSES] Co-located modules

2017-02-15 Thread Mike Sherman ----- Original Message -----

Bill -- 

This "in the same enclosure" interpretation sounds new and drastic to me. Do 
you have any official document/link on this interpretation? 

thanks 

Mike Sherman 
Graco Inc. 

- Original Message -

From: "Bill Stumpf" <bstu...@dlsemc.com> 
To: "EMC-PSTC" <EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> 
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2017 7:34:19 AM 
Subject: Re: [PSES] Co-located modules 



The latest chatter I gathered on this topic is that the FCC considers 
collocated as "in the same enclosure". Indications are that any reference to 
<20cm being considered collocated has been set aside. 



Bill 




From: Michael Derby [mailto:micha...@acbcert.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2017 2:18 AM 
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG 
Subject: Re: [PSES] Co-located modules 




Hi Stephen, 



One thing to remember is that “must not be co-located” really just means “must 
not be co-located without some additional effort” 



For example, co-locating two modules and then calculating the new combined RF 
Exposure MPE value to verify that the product still meets the requirements, 
would be acceptable. It does not necessarily mean a C2PC is needed, for 
example. 



I think you’re right that 20 cm is ‘good guidance’ with regard to RF Exposure. 
But if your modules are 20.5cm apart, you might still want to consider the 
overall compliance of that final product… and a co-located MPE calculation is 
not too hard. 





Thanks, 



Michael. 








From: Stephen Whalen [ mailto:scwha...@bellsouth.net ] 
Sent: 14 February 2017 23:34 
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG 
Subject: [PSES] Co-located modules 





All, 


For a module that has "must not be co-located" restriction on FCC grant. 


What is the minimum separation distance allowed for another transmitter? I 
recall 20cm but can't find where it is documented. 





Regards, 


Stephen 


- 
 

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 < 
emc-p...@ieee.org > 

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 < sdoug...@ieee.org > 
Mike Cantwell < mcantw...@ieee.org > 

For policy questions, send mail to: 
Jim Bacher < j.bac...@ieee.org > 
David Heald < dhe...@gmail.com > 

- 
 

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 < 
emc-p...@ieee.org > 

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 < sdoug...@ieee.org > 
Mike Cantwell < mcantw...@ieee.org > 

For policy questions, send mail to: 
Jim Bacher < j.bac...@ieee.org > 
David Heald < dhe...@gmail.com > 
- 
 


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  
emc-p...@ieee.org  

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  sdoug...@ieee.org  
Mike Cantwell  mcantw...@ieee.org  

For policy questions, send mail to: 
Jim Bacher  j.bac...@ieee.org  
David Heald  dhe...@gmail.com  


-

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 
<emc-p...

Re: [PSES] Co-located modules

2017-02-15 Thread dward

The other issue is that, just because the FCC may consider collocated as being 
antennas in the same unit, does not affect the 20 cm rf exposure requirement 
for rf exposure in a mobile configuration.  I am not, however, that the FCC 
only considers collocation as stated.  For example, transmitter, other than 
part 15, that have multiple antenna placement using external antennas are still 
referred to this as collocation of antenna.  So, while the FCC may consider 
part 15 device antenna collocation as antennas in the same device, it may not 
hold true for other rule parts.

Thanks 

 



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 unauthorized use that may compromise that 
confidentiality via distribution or disclosure is prohibited.  Please notify 
the sender immediately if you receive this communication in error, and delete 
it from your computer system.  Usage of PCTEST email addresses 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: Bill Stumpf [mailto:bstu...@dlsemc.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2017 5:34 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Co-located modules

 

The latest chatter I gathered on this topic is that the FCC considers 
collocated as "in the same enclosure".  Indications are that any reference to 
<20cm being considered collocated has been set aside. 

 

Bill

 

From: Michael Derby [mailto:micha...@acbcert.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2017 2:18 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> 
Subject: Re: [PSES] Co-located modules

 

Hi Stephen,

 

One thing to remember is that “must not be co-located” really just means “must 
not be co-located without some additional effort”

 

For example, co-locating two modules and then calculating the new combined RF 
Exposure MPE value to verify that the product still meets the requirements, 
would be acceptable.   It does not necessarily mean a C2PC is needed, for 
example.

 

I think you’re right that 20 cm is ‘good guidance’ with regard to RF Exposure.  
 But if your modules are 20.5cm apart, you might still want to consider the 
overall compliance of that final product… and a co-located MPE calculation is 
not too hard.

 

 

Thanks,

 

Michael.

 

 

 

From: Stephen Whalen [mailto:scwha...@bellsouth.net] 
Sent: 14 February 2017 23:34
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> 
Subject: [PSES] Co-located modules

 

All,

For a module that has "must not be co-located" restriction on FCC grant.  

What is the minimum separation distance allowed for another transmitter?  I 
recall 20cm but can't find where it is documented.

 

Regards,

Stephen

-


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 
<emc-p...@ieee.org <mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org> >

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) 
<http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html> 
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html 

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas <sdoug...@ieee.org <mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org> >
Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org <mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org> > 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher <j.bac...@ieee.org <mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org> >
David Heald <dhe...@gmail.com <mailto:dhe...@gmail.com> > 

-


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 
<emc-p...@ieee.org <mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org> >

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) 
<http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html> 
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html 

For help, send mail to t

Re: [PSES] Co-located modules

2017-02-15 Thread Stephen Whalen

Thank you, everyone!
Regards,Stephen 

On Wednesday, February 15, 2017 8:37 AM, Bill Stumpf <bstu...@dlsemc.com> 
wrote:
 

 #yiv1807988800 #yiv1807988800 -- _filtered #yiv1807988800 {panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 
4 6 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv1807988800 {font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 
4 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv1807988800 {font-family:Verdana;panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 
4 2 4;}#yiv1807988800 #yiv1807988800 p.yiv1807988800MsoNormal, #yiv1807988800 
li.yiv1807988800MsoNormal, #yiv1807988800 div.yiv1807988800MsoNormal 
{margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv1807988800 a:link, 
#yiv1807988800 span.yiv1807988800MsoHyperlink 
{color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv1807988800 a:visited, #yiv1807988800 
span.yiv1807988800MsoHyperlinkFollowed 
{color:purple;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv1807988800 p 
{margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv1807988800 
span.yiv1807988800EmailStyle18 {color:#1F497D;}#yiv1807988800 
span.yiv1807988800EmailStyle19 
{color:#66;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;text-decoration:none 
none;}#yiv1807988800 .yiv1807988800MsoChpDefault {font-size:10.0pt;} _filtered 
#yiv1807988800 {margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}#yiv1807988800 
div.yiv1807988800WordSection1 {}#yiv1807988800 The latest chatter I gathered on 
this topic is that the FCC considers collocated as "in the same enclosure".  
Indications are that any reference to <20cm being considered collocated has 
been set aside.     Bill    From: Michael Derby [mailto:micha...@acbcert.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2017 2:18 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Co-located modules    Hi Stephen,    One thing to remember 
is that “must not be co-located” really just means “must not be co-located 
without some additional effort”    For example, co-locating two modules and 
then calculating the new combined RF Exposure MPE value to verify that the 
product still meets the requirements, would be acceptable.   It does not 
necessarily mean a C2PC is needed, for example.    I think you’re right that 20 
cm is ‘good guidance’ with regard to RF Exposure.   But if your modules are 
20.5cm apart, you might still want to consider the overall compliance of that 
final product… and a co-located MPE calculation is not too hard.       Thanks,  
  Michael.          From: Stephen Whalen [mailto:scwha...@bellsouth.net]
Sent: 14 February 2017 23:34
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Co-located modules    All, For a module that has "must not be 
co-located" restriction on FCC grant.  What is the minimum separation distance 
allowed for another transmitter?  I recall 20cm but can't find where it is 
documented.    Regards, Stephen -
 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 <emc-p...@ieee.org> 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 athttp://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 <sdoug...@ieee.org>
Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org>  For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher <j.bac...@ieee.org>
David Heald <dhe...@gmail.com>  -
 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 <emc-p...@ieee.org> 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 <sdoug...@ieee.org>
Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org>  For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher <j.bac...@ieee.org>
David Heald <dhe...@gmail.com>  -

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 
<emc-p...@ieee.org>All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web 
at:http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.htmlAttachments are not permitted but the 
IEEE PSES Online Communities

Re: [PSES] Co-located modules

2017-02-15 Thread Bill Stumpf

The latest chatter I gathered on this topic is that the FCC considers 
collocated as "in the same enclosure".  Indications are that any reference to 
<20cm being considered collocated has been set aside.

Bill

From: Michael Derby [mailto:micha...@acbcert.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2017 2:18 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Co-located modules

Hi Stephen,

One thing to remember is that “must not be co-located” really just means “must 
not be co-located without some additional effort”

For example, co-locating two modules and then calculating the new combined RF 
Exposure MPE value to verify that the product still meets the requirements, 
would be acceptable.   It does not necessarily mean a C2PC is needed, for 
example.

I think you’re right that 20 cm is ‘good guidance’ with regard to RF Exposure.  
 But if your modules are 20.5cm apart, you might still want to consider the 
overall compliance of that final product… and a co-located MPE calculation is 
not too hard.

Thanks,

Michael.

From: Stephen Whalen [mailto:scwha...@bellsouth.net]
Sent: 14 February 2017 23:34
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Subject: [PSES] Co-located modules

All,
For a module that has "must not be co-located" restriction on FCC grant.
What is the minimum separation distance allowed for another transmitter?  I 
recall 20cm but can't find where it is documented.

Regards,
Stephen
-

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 
<emc-p...@ieee.org<mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org>>

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)<http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html>
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas <sdoug...@ieee.org<mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org>>
Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org<mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org>>

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher <j.bac...@ieee.org<mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org>>
David Heald <dhe...@gmail.com<mailto:dhe...@gmail.com>>
-

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 
<emc-p...@ieee.org<mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org>>

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)<http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html>
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas <sdoug...@ieee.org<mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org>>
Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org<mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org>>

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher <j.bac...@ieee.org<mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org>>
David Heald <dhe...@gmail.com<mailto:dhe...@gmail.com>>

-

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 
<emc-p...@ieee.org>

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 <sdoug...@ieee.org>
Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org>

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  <j.bac...@ieee.org>
David Heald: <dhe...@gmail.com>

Re: [PSES] Co-located modules

2017-02-15 Thread John Woodgate

Yes. But what's a factor of 1.852 x 10^12 between friends?
 
With best wishes DESIGN IT IN! OOO – Own Opinions Only
 <http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk/> www.jmwa.demon.co.uk J M Woodgate and 
Associates Rayleigh England
 
Sylvae in aeternum manent.
 
From: alfred1520list [mailto:alfred1520l...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2017 8:40 AM
To: John Woodgate <jmw1...@btinternet.com>; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Co-located modules
 
Nautical miles?
On February 14, 2017 11:48:13 PM PST, John Woodgate <jmw1...@btinternet.com 
<mailto:jmw1...@btinternet.com> > wrote:
OT story.  I saw an official instruction for aircraft that specified a minimum 
separation of '5 nm'. Pretty close!
 
With best wishes DESIGN IT IN! OOO – Own Opinions Only
 <http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk/> www.jmwa.demon.co.uk J M Woodgate and 
Associates Rayleigh England
 
Sylvae in aeternum manent.
 
From: Stephen Whalen [mailto:scwha...@bellsouth.net] 
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2017 11:34 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> 
Subject: [PSES] Co-located modules
 
All,
For a module that has "must not be co-located" restriction on FCC grant.  
What is the minimum separation distance allowed for another transmitter?  I 
recall 20cm but can't find where it is documented.
 
Regards,
Stephen
-

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 
<emc-p...@ieee.org <mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org> >
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) 
<http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html> 
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html 
For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas <sdoug...@ieee.org <mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org> >
Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org <mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org> > 
For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher <j.bac...@ieee.org <mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org> >
David Heald <dhe...@gmail.com <mailto:dhe...@gmail.com> > 
-

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 
<emc-p...@ieee.org <mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org> >
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) 
<http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html> 
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html 
For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas <sdoug...@ieee.org <mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org> >
Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org <mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org> > 
For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher <j.bac...@ieee.org <mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org> >
David Heald <dhe...@gmail.com <mailto:dhe...@gmail.com> > 

-- 
Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

-

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 
<emc-p...@ieee.org>

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 <sdoug...@ieee.org>
Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org>

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  <j.bac...@ieee.org>
David Heald: <dhe...@gmail.com>

Re: [PSES] Co-located modules

2017-02-15 Thread alfred1520list

Nautical miles?

On February 14, 2017 11:48:13 PM PST, John Woodgate <jmw1...@btinternet.com> 
wrote:
>OT story.  I saw an official instruction for aircraft that specified a
>minimum separation of '5 nm'. Pretty close!
> 
>With best wishes DESIGN IT IN! OOO – Own Opinions Only
><http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk/> www.jmwa.demon.co.uk J M Woodgate and
>Associates Rayleigh England
> 
>Sylvae in aeternum manent.
> 
>From: Stephen Whalen [mailto:scwha...@bellsouth.net] 
>Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2017 11:34 PM
>To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
>Subject: [PSES] Co-located modules
> 
>All,
>For a module that has "must not be co-located" restriction on FCC
>grant.  
>What is the minimum separation distance allowed for another
>transmitter?  I recall 20cm but can't find where it is documented.
> 
>Regards,
>Stephen
>-
>
>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 <emc-p...@ieee.org <mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org> >
>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) <http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html> 
>List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html 
>For help, send mail to the list administrators:
>Scott Douglas <sdoug...@ieee.org <mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org> >
>Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org <mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org> > 
>For policy questions, send mail to:
>Jim Bacher <j.bac...@ieee.org <mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org> >
>David Heald <dhe...@gmail.com <mailto:dhe...@gmail.com> > 
>
>-
>
>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 <emc-p...@ieee.org>
>
>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 <sdoug...@ieee.org>
>Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org>
>
>For policy questions, send mail to:
>Jim Bacher:  <j.bac...@ieee.org>
>David Heald: <dhe...@gmail.com>

-- 
Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

-

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 
<emc-p...@ieee.org>

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 <sdoug...@ieee.org>
Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org>

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  <j.bac...@ieee.org>
David Heald: <dhe...@gmail.com>

Re: [PSES] Co-located modules

2017-02-15 Thread Michael Derby

Hi Stephen,

 

One thing to remember is that “must not be co-located” really just means “must 
not be co-located without some additional effort”

 

For example, co-locating two modules and then calculating the new combined RF 
Exposure MPE value to verify that the product still meets the requirements, 
would be acceptable.   It does not necessarily mean a C2PC is needed, for 
example.

 

I think you’re right that 20 cm is ‘good guidance’ with regard to RF Exposure.  
 But if your modules are 20.5cm apart, you might still want to consider the 
overall compliance of that final product… and a co-located MPE calculation is 
not too hard.

 

 

Thanks,

 

Michael.

 

 

 

From: Stephen Whalen [mailto:scwha...@bellsouth.net] 
Sent: 14 February 2017 23:34
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Co-located modules

 

All,

For a module that has "must not be co-located" restriction on FCC grant.  

What is the minimum separation distance allowed for another transmitter?  I 
recall 20cm but can't find where it is documented.

 

Regards,

Stephen

-


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 
<emc-p...@ieee.org <mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org> >

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) 
<http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html> 
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html 

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas <sdoug...@ieee.org <mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org> >
Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org <mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org> > 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher <j.bac...@ieee.org <mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org> >
David Heald <dhe...@gmail.com <mailto:dhe...@gmail.com> > 


-

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 
<emc-p...@ieee.org>

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 <sdoug...@ieee.org>
Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org>

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  <j.bac...@ieee.org>
David Heald: <dhe...@gmail.com>

Re: [PSES] Co-located modules

2017-02-14 Thread John Woodgate

OT story.  I saw an official instruction for aircraft that specified a minimum 
separation of '5 nm'. Pretty close!
 
With best wishes DESIGN IT IN! OOO – Own Opinions Only
 <http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk/> www.jmwa.demon.co.uk J M Woodgate and 
Associates Rayleigh England
 
Sylvae in aeternum manent.
 
From: Stephen Whalen [mailto:scwha...@bellsouth.net] 
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2017 11:34 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Co-located modules
 
All,
For a module that has "must not be co-located" restriction on FCC grant.  
What is the minimum separation distance allowed for another transmitter?  I 
recall 20cm but can't find where it is documented.
 
Regards,
Stephen
-

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 
<emc-p...@ieee.org <mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org> >
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) 
<http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html> 
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html 
For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas <sdoug...@ieee.org <mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org> >
Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org <mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org> > 
For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher <j.bac...@ieee.org <mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org> >
David Heald <dhe...@gmail.com <mailto:dhe...@gmail.com> > 

-

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 
<emc-p...@ieee.org>

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 <sdoug...@ieee.org>
Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org>

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  <j.bac...@ieee.org>
David Heald: <dhe...@gmail.com>

[PSES] Co-located modules

2017-02-14 Thread Stephen Whalen

 All,For a module that has "must not be co-located" restriction on FCC grant.  
What is the minimum separation distance allowed for another transmitter?  I 
recall 20cm but can't find where it is documented.
Regards,Stephen

-

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 


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 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald:

Re: [PSES] Co-located modules

Re: [PSES] Co-located modules

Re: [PSES] Co-located modules

Re: [PSES] Co-located modules

Re: [PSES] Co-located modules

Re: [PSES] Co-located modules

Re: [PSES] Co-located modules

Re: [PSES] Co-located modules

Re: [PSES] Co-located modules

Re: [PSES] Co-located modules

Re: [PSES] Co-located modules

Re: [PSES] Co-located modules

[PSES] Co-located modules

13 matches

Site Navigation

Mail list logo

Footer information