In message <55f9cfdf.3090...@oracle.com>, dated Wed, 16 Sep 2015, Monrad
Monsen <monrad.mon...@oracle.com> writes:
I note that even while some in the standards community are adding cost
in their efforts to systematically remove variation in measurements, no
one is then passing on the benefits of this improved measurement system
to manufacturers & their customers by accordingly raising the allowed
emissions limits. Wonder why???
Because the initial approach from the metrological theory was that MU
involved tightening all the limits. So it was decreed that the existing
limits were set taking MU into account and didn't need to be made more
stringent.
Incidentally, the main object of studying MU is to control and quantify
it, not to reduce it unless it's clearly out-of-control.
--
OOO - Own Opinions Only. With best wishes. See www.jmwa.demon.co.uk
When I turn my back on the sun, it's to look for a rainbow
John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK
-
----------------------------------------------------------------
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 <sdoug...@ieee.org>
Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org>
For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher: <j.bac...@ieee.org>
David Heald: <dhe...@gmail.com>
