In message <1abb0f6ff6cb7545adad042f566d5f4401ba5...@sv-mailbox01.ohdc.com>, dated Tue, 10 Aug 2010, "Sundstrom, Michael" <michael_sundst...@overheaddoor.com> writes:
>I seem to recall that the military wants to see ambient scans with at >least 6dB under any limit. Kind of a inside out measurement >uncertainty?. Yes, it's a sort of insurance against a 6 dB favourable error. But the point is that it's FAR easier to cope with in practice, and it may well give a more dependable assurance of compliance than a complex uncertainty assessment. Of course, in some cases it may be difficult to achieve, but for products made in any significant volume a 6 dB margin at the compliance test stage is no more than is needed for a quiet life in the months to come! -- 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>
