| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
RE: [10GBASE-T] RE: EMI Discussion
Terry, That isn't quite correct as CISPR should also have a class specified. It would probably be good enough to say CISPR Class A without FCC. There is a part of the range where CISPR is 1 dB looser than FCC, but given the variability in measurement results, that isn't a very significant difference. Other than that, CISPR is the more restrictive of the two.
Pat
-----Original Message-----
From: Cobb, Terry R (Terry) [mailto:tcobb@avaya.com]
Sent: Friday, August 15, 2003 6:44 AM
To: stds-802-3-10gbt@ieee.org
Subject: RE: [10GBASE-T] RE: EMI Discussion
The correct reference should be:
"Meet or exceed FCC Class A/CISPR or better operation."
This is how we stated in 1000Base-T as an objective. It depends on the country.
Terry
-----Original Message-----
From: Geoff Thompson [mailto:gthompso@nortelnetworks.com]
Sent: Friday, August 15, 2003 1:27 AM
To: Booth, Bradley
Cc: a_flatman@compuserve.com; stds-802-3-10gbt@ieee.org
Subject: Re: [10GBASE-T] RE: EMI Discussion
Brad-
If CX4 referenced FCC instead of CISPR then that is something that should
get fixed during sponsor Ballot. The FCC reference is not proper for
something that is on track to be approved at ISO, as we assume that all of
our amendments are.Geoff
At 05:22 PM 8/14/2003 -0700, Booth, Bradley wrote:
>Alan,
>
>Thanks for the information. The many reason I referenced the FCC Class A
>was that it was what CX4 used in their draft. If CISPR is the better
>document to reference then we should do that. If we adopt this as an
>objective, then it will require us to comply which I believe is Dan's
>primary concern and intent (did I get that right Dan?).
>
>Thanks,
>Brad
>
>-----------------
>Sent from my BlackBerry.