Paul,
Depending upon application, but for home and office use, the EU requirements
(to get the "CE" mark) for equipment susceptibility require ability to fend off
undesired operation at or below 3V/m in EM fields (I don't recall the frequency
range). That is why when I buy computers and associated equipment, I try to
obtain units with the CE mark. Many manufacturers do not want to make and
stock different units for different markets of the same model, so you can get
several items in the USA that not only meet the FCC Part 15 requirements for
Class B (pathetic that they are), but also meet the CE requirements.
I can not vouch for the accuracy of the story, but way back in the mid-1990s,
when the EU requirements for the CE mark were about to become official (and
many makers of equipment were screaming about the cost of meeting the
susceptibility issues), the tale that circulated around some of the EMC
engineering community was this: (I heard the following story at an EMC seminar
sponsored by the US Navy!)
The British Royal Navy was testing a new computer-driven system for controlling
steering of a ship, a destroyer, as I recall. All was going well until someone
on board the vessel fired up a radio xmtr to send some traffic. At that
moment, the ship veered off course. It was unclear to me if that was THE
defining moment for setting European susceptibility requirements for computers,
but if the event truly happened, then it had to be at least a darned good
reason.
Whatever the reason, the Europeans stuck to their demands and the CE mark does
require meeting susceptibility requirements. Meanwhile, the FCC caved in and
we are all reaping the results of that (in)action.
Regarding susceptible appliances, has anyone noticed (or bothered to look) if
appliances made by European manufacturers (such as Bosch) carry the CE mark
here in the US? If so, they might be worth checking out. I have certainly
found it worthwhile to get CE marked computers. As for radiated emissions, as
someone else noted, the ham population is too small to impact a huge market
like major appliances. My own approach is shop as smart as possible and then
be prepared to hack and chop as required to implement my own fix if necessary.
It is unfortunate that "Consumer Reports" does not test for RF emissions.
73, Dale
WA9ENA
-----Original Message-----
>From: Paul Christensen <w9ac@arrl.net>
>Sent: Sep 24, 2013 12:53 PM
>To: rfi@contesting.com
>Subject: Re: [RFI] Are newer LG models still RF quiet??? - Washing Machine
>RFI revisited
>
>> You mean Part 15?
>
>Did I really say Part 95? And of all the CFR sections, it was 95? Sheesh
>and I can't use lack of coffee as an excuse! Specifially, I meant Sec.
>15.103(d) for starters...
>
>> You'd be right except...
>>
>> Part 15 is ineffectual because its limits are too high to preclude harmful
>> interference below 30MHz (and some above), especially since interference
>> now is much different than 50 or 60 years ago.
>>
>> Given the current legislative climate, however, asking for change would
>> probably result in revoking Part 15 and throwing every complaint into the
>> civil courts.
>
>Except that the FCC and the federal courts still have exclusive jurisdiction
>over all EM matters in the U.S. In addition to the League, organizations
>like the NAB and SBE (to protect AMBC listenership) have been engaged in
>these discussions. I've not kept up on any related FCC petitions, but I'm
>not aware of any Petitions for Rulemaking (PRM) that affect 15.103. If
>there is/are, I would like a cite. The FCC can invoke a PRM on their own
>motion -- but it will never happen. That's why it will take you, me, and a
>damn financially strong lobbying effort to get any traction. This is
>probbaly a more important issue to us than spectrum protection -- or at
>least equally so.
>
>I could see existing devices being grandfathered in. There's just no way of
>going back an enforcing a rule change on existing appliances. But there's
>no reason why EMC compliance cannot be invoked on new product to some of the
>same standards used in the EU. I'm not an expert in EU EMC compliance, but
>I'm lead to believe there's no such 15.103(d) type of exemption there.
>
>Paul, W9AC
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>RFI mailing list
>RFI@contesting.com
>http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rfi
_______________________________________________
RFI mailing list
RFI@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rfi
|