A margin is not indicative of any specific measurement uncertainty. Measurement uncertainties can only provide a relevant margin for a particular measurement at a particular site for a particular configuration.
Have only read the measurement uncertainty stuff in C63.23, CISPR16-4-2, and CISPR22. Read outline-style draft of C63.11, and did not understand how the specified analysis for uncertainty could be used for a 'blanket' margin declaration. If anyone has specific example of standard with an uncertainty method that could be used as basis for universal margin, would very much like to hear about it. Will not comment on requirements per administrative law, as the FCC (title 47) and OSHA (title 29) tend to periodically re-write stuff to comply with directives and policies of each POTUS. But statutory law is clear about what is being referenced. Brian Sr Serrano Salsa Design Moderator -----Original Message----- From: dward [mailto:dw...@pctestlab.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2015 12:01 AM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] SV: [PSES] Stricter limits than legal (CISPR11, IEC, etc,) Where? Actually, that is not exactly correct. While many standards are written as 'voluntary' the FCC does in fact incorporate by reference some ANSI standards. To incorporate by reference means that the full content of the referenced document is part and parcel of the document to which it is referenced - except when specific disallowance of particular parts of the referenced std are mentioned. So, if the standard says there is a needed uncertainty, then it could very well also, in legal terms, mean that the CFRs in fact incorporate these uncertainties by reference to that stated standard. While it may not be enforced as yet, there is the possibility that, in a court of law, since some ANSI stds, except where specifically disallowed, are included by reference to the rules, uncertainties may also be included by that same reference. Dennis Ward This communication and its attachements contain information from PCTEST Engineering Laboratory, Inc., and is intended for the exclusive use of the recipient(s) named above. It may contain information that is confidential and/or legally privileged. Any unauthorized use that may compromise that confidentiality via distribution or disclosure is prohibited. Please notify the sender immediately if you receive this communication in error, and delete it from your computer system. Usage of PCTEST email addresses for non-business related activities is strictly prohibited. No warranty is made that the e-mail or attachments(s) are free from computer virus or other defect. Thank you. -----Original Message----- From: ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen [mailto:g.grem...@cetest.nl] Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2015 10:49 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] SV: [PSES] Stricter limits than legal (CISPR11, IEC, etc,) Where? They are not. No public standard enforces any margin. Even measurement uncertainty is not taken into account, unless (in some standards) your uncertainty is larger than an assumed (calculated) value (depending on test set up and test type). Regards, Ing. Gert Gremmen Approvals manager ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ + ce marking of electrical/electronic equipment Independent Consultancy + Services Compliance Testing and Design for CE marking according to EC-directives: - Electro Magnetic Compatibility 2004/108/EC - Electrical Safety 2006/95/EC - Medical Devices 93/42/EC - Radio & Telecommunication Terminal Equipment 99/5/EC + Improvement of Product Quality and Reliability testing Education Web: www.cetest.nl (English) Phone : +31 10 415 24 26 ------------------------------------------------------------------- This e-mail and any attachments thereto may contain information that is confidential and/or protected by intellectual property rights and are intended for the sole use of the recipient(s) named above. Any use of the information contained herein (including, but not limited to, total or partial reproduction, communication or distribution in any form) by persons other than the designated recipient(s) is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender either by telephone or by e-mail and delete the material from any computer. Thank you for your co-operation. -----Original Message----- From: Crane, Lauren [mailto:lauren.cr...@kla-tencor.com] Sent: Tuesday 13 October 2015 18:44 To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] SV: [PSES] Stricter limits than legal (CISPR11, IEC, etc,) Where? All the issues being raised regarding possible variability must be known to the members of various standards committees. Does anyone know that the issues are *not* taken into account when the committees set test levels? If standards are followed, including any instructions regarding EUT sampling and measurement uncertainty, why assume additional margins must be applied? Regards, Lauren Crane KLA-Tencor - ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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>
