While this is belaboring the issue and, other than if I
happen to run across any relevant standards references, it
should be noted that most new and many updated standards we
have to deal with are written using SI as the primary and
sometimes only units.
Also, in most scientific and engineering
Dear Chuck and Peter,
When there's no enforcement, ther's no will. Correct me if I am wrong. You
may not get many enthusiastic responses because since 1997 the US governement
gave up on all decades-long efforts to introduce metric system. Whether we
like it or not, the SI comes into play
Sorry about that, here it is.
http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/electr_equipment/emc/guides/chapsev.htm
Best regards,
Garry Hojan
CEO/ President
Strategic Compliance Services (SCS)
a Division of NRL, L.L.C.
11402 E Mariposa Rd.
Stockton, CA 95215
Tel:209-465-0619
Fax:209-812-1931
Hi Joe,
I believe you already spoke with Jason, but you may also find this link very
useful in this particular instance.
Best regards,
Garry Hojan
CEO/ President
Strategic Compliance Services (SCS)
a Division of NRL, L.L.C.
11402 E Mariposa Rd.
Stockton, CA 95215
Tel:209-465-0619
Fax:
Re Peter Tarver's message yesterday on this subject:
It warmed my heart to find that there IS some coordination between these
standards organizations, at least sometimes!
When I read Peter's memo I wondered if there might be some agreement
between the IEC standards and the IEEE/ASTM standard
CISPR 16-4: Uncertainty in EMC Measurements has just been published. This
should give you all the ammunition you need to deal with the issue of how to
include NSA in your uncertainty budget. If 16-4 is not yet available from the
IEC, CISPR/A/355/FDIS is the draft standard upon which it is
Yes.
Best regards,
Kevin Richardson
Stanimore Pty Limited
Compliance Advice Solutions for Technology (including Australian Agent
Services)
(Legislation/Regulations/Standards)
Ph: 02-4329-4070 (Int'l: +61-2-4329-4070)
Fax: 02-4328-5639 (Int'l: +61-2-4328-5639)
Mobile:
KC,
You don't mention what organization/standard that you are undergoing an
audit with, I'll assume ISO 17025. I think you are correct that it would
be very difficult if not impossible to meet the requirements when you add
in uncertainty that takes into account the receiver, antennas,
Look at CISPR 16-1, Annex M for insight. This provides the basis for the
+/- 4 dB.
3 of the 4 dB is already measurement uncertainty with the remaining 1 dB as
site imperfections. However this MU does not
include the signal source or the repeatibility of the test procedure.
Bob Heller
3M
Hi all
I just got a tough question from our auditor about NSA and uncertainty. He
asked if we will include the uncertainty into our Normalized Site Attenuation
measurement or not.
If we include the uncertainty of NSA measurement, it is impossible for us to
ensure it is within the +/- 4dB
I don't know the particulars, but that line is old. It is the
Stoddart/Singer/Ailtech/Eaton/Tegam/ETS line. The basic 91550-1 model dates
back at least 50 years, so you are not looking at new technology, although I
expect that ferrite vendors have changed over the years. I used to be the
Thanks a lot for all for immediate reply and valuable information. These
information are well enough for me to take a decision.
Best Regards
Kuganesan
- Original Message -
From: Don Rhodes
To: 'Kuganesan'
Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2002 1:27 AM
Subject: RE: FCC report for our OEM
To all,
The following scenario is in regards to the EMC Directive.
We are a manufacturer located in the US. We have various products that
were placed on the EU market prior to the enforcement of the EMC Directive.
We need to repair some of these products. The repairs will not modify the
Dear All,
The CD is a good idea for distributing the proceedings vis-à-vis a physical
tome. There must be a great many number of discarded copies of the
proceedings in previous years.
My bit of disappointment is with the lack of page numbers on the documents
found the 2001 EMCS CD and hope
14 matches
Mail list logo
