For excessive radiation. It was called a SARs test in my days of working on cellphones. It's a human flesh radiation absorption limit for unintended emissions.

Actual comm transmissions are allowed to be higher.

Unintended emissions are largely contained by shielding inside the phone. We were working on phone reliability...doing things like temp cycling and long term high temp and humidity exposure. After one series of environmental stress we sent some
phones back to the emissions lab for SARs test. They all failed. We sent some more that had been through our environmental stress...they too failed.
We sent some old phones that had been just sitting around for a few years. They failed. Legal called....and said stop doing that and send us all your documentation. Claimed SARs is a "new" phone only requirement.

We tried to get lithium batteries to spontaneously combust too. Legal didn't like that either. It's better to not have a record of knowing there might be a problem when it comes to determining liability.

ScottW

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 9/14/23 10:26 AM, ScottW wrote:

For excessive radiation. It was called a SARs test in my days of
working on cellphones. It's a human flesh radiation absorption
limit for unintended emissions.

Actual comm transmissions are allowed to be higher.

Unintended emissions are largely contained by shielding inside the
phone. We were working on phone reliability...doing things like temp
cycling and long term high temp and humidity exposure. After one
series of environmental stress we sent some phones back to the
emissions lab for SARs test. They all failed. We sent some more
that had been through our environmental stress...they too failed. We
sent some old phones that had been just sitting around for a few
years. They failed. Legal called....and said stop doing that and
send us all your documentation. Claimed SARs is a "new" phone only requirement.

We tried to get lithium batteries to spontaneously combust too.
Legal didn't like that either. It's better to not have a record of
knowing there might be a problem when it comes to determining
liability.

No NOS sales to France then! Yes, before production would have been
better timing for safety tests.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday, September 14, 2023 at 9:47:34 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 9/14/23 10:26 AM, ScottW wrote:

For excessive radiation. It was called a SARs test in my days of
working on cellphones. It's a human flesh radiation absorption
limit for unintended emissions.

Actual comm transmissions are allowed to be higher.

Unintended emissions are largely contained by shielding inside the
phone. We were working on phone reliability...doing things like temp cycling and long term high temp and humidity exposure. After one
series of environmental stress we sent some phones back to the
emissions lab for SARs test. They all failed. We sent some more
that had been through our environmental stress...they too failed. We
sent some old phones that had been just sitting around for a few
years. They failed. Legal called....and said stop doing that and
send us all your documentation. Claimed SARs is a "new" phone only requirement.

We tried to get lithium batteries to spontaneously combust too.
Legal didn't like that either. It's better to not have a record of
knowing there might be a problem when it comes to determining
liability.

No NOS sales to France then! Yes, before production would have been
better timing for safety tests.

It's mandatory. They did it....and then France did it again with different results.

ScottW

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)