In message <c8872923.84265%ken.ja...@emccompliance.com>, dated Tue, 10 Aug 2010, Ken Javor <ken.ja...@emccompliance.com> writes:
>That is all background. The unalterable fact, regardless of how MU has >been misapplied and perverted, is that it applies to the measurement >facility itself; something that inherently will have an uncertainty on >the order of several dB. It does not apply to things that can be >measured to tenths of a dB, or are not even spec?d in dB, such as the >modulation waveform of a signal generator, or its frequency accuracy. CISPR 16-4-1 appears to disagree, citing things like the height of the antenna and even 'routing of cables' as having uncertainty assessment applied to them (clause 4.2.4). -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK If at first you don't succeed, delegate. But I support unbloated email http://www.asciiribbon.org/ - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to <emc-p...@ieee.org> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas <emcp...@socal.rr.com> Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org> For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: <j.bac...@ieee.org> David Heald: <dhe...@gmail.com>
