device must accept any interference received

English translation: the DEVICE must tolerate any interference...

13:43 Jul 30, 2005
English to English translations [PRO]
Tech/Engineering - Electronics / Elect Eng
English term or phrase: device must accept any interference received
"This device complies with Part 15 of the FCC rules. Operation is subject to the following two conditions: (1) this device may not cause harmful interference, and (2) this device must accept any interference received, including interference that may cause undesired operation."

What exactly does the "accept" mean here ?
Jörgen Slet
Estonia
Local time: 09:58
English translation:the DEVICE must tolerate any interference...
Explanation:
Please note that I have specialist professional experience in EMC and the application o standrads like the FCC rules.

This extract from the regulation FCC label does NOT, in any way, shape or form, say that the BUYER (or user) has to accept any interference --- it is SPECIFICALLY, CLEARLY and UNEQUIVOCALLY talking about THE EQUIPMENT ITSELF.

IN EMC / interference terms, there are lots of ways in which a piece of equipment might resist an external interfering signal (we usually say it is 'immune') --- the signal, up to a certain specified level, may leave the equipment completely unaffected; or it may allow the equipment to still fucntion, but with some impairement to operation; or it may stop it functioning altogether; worst of all is where the interefrence signal actually destroys the equipment concerned -either directly (like a lighting strike!) or indirectly (like a high level of RF interference causing an audio apmlifier to overlaod and then blow up)

So 'accept' in this specific context means that the equipment must be able to tolerate without catastrophic failure any interference that is thrown at it, even though it is not guaranteed to function normally under these circumstances. A pragmatic and usually realizable situation that doesn't really mean a great deal anyway...

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 17 hrs 0 min (2005-07-31 06:43:40 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

PCovs has very kindly provided a helpful link to a court ruling that in fact precisely confirms what I\'ve been saying all along --- and here is a direct quote of one of the occurrences of \'accepting interference\':

\"Simply put, their equipment must accept interference under FCC Part 15\"

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 17 hrs 2 mins (2005-07-31 06:45:57 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

I\'m really pleased to see that the FCC, the Texas 163rd District Court and I all agree on the interpretation of this particular clause from Part 15

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 17 hrs 28 mins (2005-07-31 07:12:12 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

OK, PC I see what you\'re getting at; the court document (NOT a court ruling, by the way, but simply a very partisan \"Defendant\'s memorandum in support of its motion for summary judgment\" uses \'accpt interference in 2 different ways.

Certainly, it tries to make use of FCC Pt 15 to say that the plaintiff has to accept the interference it is generating; but the underlying meaning of the Pt 15 wording itself is acknowledged as being that \"...the equipment must accept\", and this is the exact wording used in Asker\'s question.

It may or may not be consequentially true that the User or Owner of the equimpent has to like it or lump it and accept the results of any interference going, but the FCC rules and the equipment label they require make it abundantly clear that the \'accepting\' has to be done first and foremost by the equipment.

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 17 hrs 51 mins (2005-07-31 07:35:31 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

As I said, the defence document (NOT a \'ruling\'!) cited starts off by quoting the FCC rule that \"the equipment must accept interference\", and then, as part of its case, tries to extrapolate this into saying the \"the user must accept interference\" --- but this is not the underlying technical meaning of the text in Asker\'s question (and let\'s all remember that\'s what we\'re here for -- not to discuss the wording of FCC Pt 15!)
Selected response from:

Tony M
France
Local time: 08:58
Grading comment
Thank you, everybody. I selected Dusty's answer as I believe he is the authority on EE here, so his opinion is most useful for me, but I did find PCovs' notes very enlightening.
4 KudoZ points were awarded for this answer



Summary of answers provided
4 +9accept - tolerate - cope with
MPGS
5este aparato debe aceptar cualquier interferencia recibida
Silvina Jover-Cirillo (X)
4YOU must accept interference
PCovs
4the DEVICE must tolerate any interference...
Tony M
3 -1must be weaker than any other device
Charlesp


Discussion entries: 1





  

Answers


8 mins   confidence: Answerer confidence 4/5Answerer confidence 4/5 peer agreement (net): +9
accept - tolerate - cope with


Explanation:
:)

MPGS
Local time: 08:58
Native speaker of: Native in SpanishSpanish

Peer comments on this answer (and responses from the answerer)
agree  Silvina Jover-Cirillo (X)
1 min
  -> thank you Silvina :)

agree  hecdan: yes, I think tolerate is the idea
6 mins
  -> thank you hecdan :)

agree  Tony M: Yes, the idea is tolerate, not be disturbed by...
26 mins
  -> thank you Dusty :)

agree  Harry Borsje: in Europe EMC (electromagnetic compatibility): 1. no emission of EM-radiation, 2. *immune* against EM-radiation
30 mins
  -> thank you Harry :)

agree  jennifer newsome (X)
39 mins
  -> thank you jennifer :)

agree  RHELLER: tolerate - continue to function despite interference
44 mins
  -> thank you Rita :)

agree  Saleh Chowdhury, Ph.D.
48 mins
  -> thank you Saleh :)

neutral  PCovs: The wording :"...including interference that may cause undesired operation" does suggest to me that this device does not necessarily 'tolerate' (i.e. is not disturbed by) interference.
1 hr
  -> thank you PCovs :)

neutral  Ken Cox: With PCovs: try googlling 'FCC "part 15" "accept interference" recourse'. This seems to be standard language for FCC Part 15 equipment and apparently means that the user has no legal recourse if operation of the device is impaired by interference.
2 hrs
  -> thank you Kenneth :)

agree  Alfa Trans (X)
4 hrs
  -> thank you Marju :)

agree  Vicky Papaprodromou
6 hrs
  -> thank you Vicky :)
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade)

8 mins   confidence: Answerer confidence 5/5
este aparato debe aceptar cualquier interferencia recibida


Explanation:
It's one possibility...
:)

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 9 mins (2005-07-30 13:53:13 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

Oops! I though you wanted the translation!

I agree with MPGS!

Silvina Jover-Cirillo (X)
United States
Local time: 02:58
Native speaker of: Native in SpanishSpanish, Native in EnglishEnglish
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade)

11 hrs   confidence: Answerer confidence 3/5Answerer confidence 3/5 peer agreement (net): -1
must be weaker than any other device


Explanation:
must be weaker than any other device, and not distrupt/disturb the operations of other equiptment

Charlesp
Sweden
Local time: 08:58
Native speaker of: English

Peer comments on this answer (and responses from the answerer)
disagree  Tony M: Not really a valid technical interpetation in this context
5 hrs
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade)

12 mins   confidence: Answerer confidence 4/5Answerer confidence 4/5
YOU must accept interference


Explanation:
"paraphrased), in part, "This device must accept interference, even when such interference causes undesirable operation." It basically says buyer beware, you have no recourse. But the vendors don't explain this in depth (again, it's not in their interest to do so and scare off potential customers). "
Please see link!
;-)


--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 13 mins (2005-07-30 13:57:03 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

Woops, didn\'t specify, that the wording (in \"\") is from the given link. Not my own words.

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 14 mins (2005-07-30 13:57:48 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

...and then a \'comma\' found its way in there where it really shouldn\'t be - hmmmm....:-)

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 1 hr 42 mins (2005-07-30 15:26:08 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

All the professionals in this industry have known this delicate state of affairs from the very beginning. But the consumers had no clue other than the common wisdom that \"your microwave oven might interfere with your household WLAN\". It\'s simply not in the interests of the wireless equipment vendors to say \"this wireless LAN device could stop working at any moment due to interference issues. You have no recourse if you encounter such interference - you must accept it.\"

Yet accept it they must. There\'s a tag that\'s supposed to be attached to EVERY Part 15 device that says (paraphrased), in part, \"This device must accept interference, even when such interference causes undesirable operation.\" Everyone seems to have a problem with this. It basically says buyer beware, you have no recourse. But the vendors don\'t explain this in depth (again, it\'s not in their interest to do so and scare off potential customers).



--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 1 hr 43 mins (2005-07-30 15:27:25 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

Sorry - once again this is a direct quote from the link given below.

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 15 hrs 58 mins (2005-07-31 05:42:14 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

Below new link and here a quote - this time from a court ruling: \"Users must not create interference, but must also accept all interference.\"

LINK: http://www.wispcon.info/US/WISPCON-IV/moot/response.htm


--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 17 hrs 17 mins (2005-07-31 07:01:22 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

Besides this rather semantic discussion with Dusty, I believe it\'s save to say that we are both right in some way - although I hate to admit it ;-).

The court ruling I am referring to both states that \"User...must also accept all interference.\" and \"...their equipment must accept interference...\"

Thanks for the discussion, Dusty ;-))


    Reference: http://www.bwianews.com/2002/06/cringely-running-interferenc...
PCovs
Denmark
Local time: 08:58
Specializes in field
Native speaker of: Native in DanishDanish

Peer comments on this answer (and responses from the answerer)
neutral  Tony M: Sorry, PCovs, but your court ruling proves my point! Please see note added to my own answer...
23 mins
  -> ...and I believe it perfectly proves mine! ;-) It clearly states that the user must accept interference. I rather like this discussion ;-))) // New comment in my answer!

neutral  Can Altinbay: I see nothing in the sentence that would imply that. In fact, this is FCC regulations. Why would they stipulate what the buyer must accept?//I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here.
1 hr
  -> Sorry, this was not intended for you :z
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade)

8 hrs   confidence: Answerer confidence 4/5Answerer confidence 4/5
the DEVICE must tolerate any interference...


Explanation:
Please note that I have specialist professional experience in EMC and the application o standrads like the FCC rules.

This extract from the regulation FCC label does NOT, in any way, shape or form, say that the BUYER (or user) has to accept any interference --- it is SPECIFICALLY, CLEARLY and UNEQUIVOCALLY talking about THE EQUIPMENT ITSELF.

IN EMC / interference terms, there are lots of ways in which a piece of equipment might resist an external interfering signal (we usually say it is 'immune') --- the signal, up to a certain specified level, may leave the equipment completely unaffected; or it may allow the equipment to still fucntion, but with some impairement to operation; or it may stop it functioning altogether; worst of all is where the interefrence signal actually destroys the equipment concerned -either directly (like a lighting strike!) or indirectly (like a high level of RF interference causing an audio apmlifier to overlaod and then blow up)

So 'accept' in this specific context means that the equipment must be able to tolerate without catastrophic failure any interference that is thrown at it, even though it is not guaranteed to function normally under these circumstances. A pragmatic and usually realizable situation that doesn't really mean a great deal anyway...

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 17 hrs 0 min (2005-07-31 06:43:40 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

PCovs has very kindly provided a helpful link to a court ruling that in fact precisely confirms what I\'ve been saying all along --- and here is a direct quote of one of the occurrences of \'accepting interference\':

\"Simply put, their equipment must accept interference under FCC Part 15\"

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 17 hrs 2 mins (2005-07-31 06:45:57 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

I\'m really pleased to see that the FCC, the Texas 163rd District Court and I all agree on the interpretation of this particular clause from Part 15

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 17 hrs 28 mins (2005-07-31 07:12:12 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

OK, PC I see what you\'re getting at; the court document (NOT a court ruling, by the way, but simply a very partisan \"Defendant\'s memorandum in support of its motion for summary judgment\" uses \'accpt interference in 2 different ways.

Certainly, it tries to make use of FCC Pt 15 to say that the plaintiff has to accept the interference it is generating; but the underlying meaning of the Pt 15 wording itself is acknowledged as being that \"...the equipment must accept\", and this is the exact wording used in Asker\'s question.

It may or may not be consequentially true that the User or Owner of the equimpent has to like it or lump it and accept the results of any interference going, but the FCC rules and the equipment label they require make it abundantly clear that the \'accepting\' has to be done first and foremost by the equipment.

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 17 hrs 51 mins (2005-07-31 07:35:31 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

As I said, the defence document (NOT a \'ruling\'!) cited starts off by quoting the FCC rule that \"the equipment must accept interference\", and then, as part of its case, tries to extrapolate this into saying the \"the user must accept interference\" --- but this is not the underlying technical meaning of the text in Asker\'s question (and let\'s all remember that\'s what we\'re here for -- not to discuss the wording of FCC Pt 15!)


Tony M
France
Local time: 08:58
Specializes in field
Native speaker of: Native in EnglishEnglish
PRO pts in category: 300
Grading comment
Thank you, everybody. I selected Dusty's answer as I believe he is the authority on EE here, so his opinion is most useful for me, but I did find PCovs' notes very enlightening.

Peer comments on this answer (and responses from the answerer)
neutral  PCovs: Please see the quote: The user must accept it; a user made a claim which is denied!//Then why do they say that the user must accept it?//Please also see note added to my own answer ;-)
8 hrs
  -> Thnaks, PCovs! Yes indeed -- but it is defined as I have said, it is the EQUIPMENT that must accept, and NOT the people!!
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade)



Login or register (free and only takes a few minutes) to participate in this question.

You will also have access to many other tools and opportunities designed for those who have language-related jobs (or are passionate about them). Participation is free and the site has a strict confidentiality policy.

KudoZ™ translation help

The KudoZ network provides a framework for translators and others to assist each other with translations or explanations of terms and short phrases.


See also:

Your current localization setting

English

Select a language

Term search
  • All of ProZ.com
  • Term search
  • Jobs
  • Forums
  • Multiple search