Dale, et al,
For what it's worth, I have a Bosch dishwasher (probably installed in this
house in 2003) and there is no CE mark on the label.
Howard N7SO
On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 11:04 AM, Dale <svetanoff@earthlink.net> wrote:
> 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
>
_______________________________________________
RFI mailing list
RFI@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rfi
|