On 9/3/2014 6:23 PM, Richard Nute wrote:
such reviews only address how they evaluate
to a standard. The don't address how the cert house
addresses things that are not included in the standard
such as
True story.
A reputable and well run lab once tested an EUT for RF susceptibility
while I was watching. I had expected the product to pass.
It failed.
I asked how they knew they had 80 percent AM, and they said that when
audio signal generator was set for 1VRMS, they should get 80 percent
modulation when the RF generator's modulation meter read 80 on a 0-100
scale. That's when I asked they look at the signal in zero span.
It took some convincing and I had to get the head engineer, but they
learned they'd been clipping, and going far below 100% negative modulation.
The product still didn't pass. Heh!
I wonder if ANY assessors would have caught over-reliance on disparate
operating instructions.
Cortland Richmond
-
----------------------------------------------------------------
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.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used
formats), large files, etc.
Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas <emcp...@radiusnorth.net>
Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org>
For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher: <j.bac...@ieee.org>
David Heald: <dhe...@gmail.com>
