Geetha,
A sad but understandable response.
> Radiated emission testing is rather political / commercial
> than technical. This means if a commercial lab want to please the
> customer the tested device will be declared as a compliant device
> without any modifications or if the lab w
Hi Everyone,
I was away from my work (and from computers) for about a week and
hence i could not track the replies and postings in this thread. After going
through all the postings and understanding the experts opinions can i came to
the below conclusion.
Radiated emis
Charles,
I've had a look at your presentation and also at the Santa Clara paper. For
volume
products a statistical approach on many samples has always been advisable, and
indeed is actually mandated in CISPR standards when you are formally applying
the
80/80 rule. It's interesting to see such a st
Charles Grasso posted:
>>I would offer a "light at the end of the tunnel" <<
Exit, stage left, singing Hosannas, curtain.
Take Bows.
Or in NewYorkese:
The lied at the end of the tummel.
Cortland Richmond
This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society
emc-pstc discussion list
>The light at the end of the tunnel?
>Tim Williams
Let's talk about putting a 1,200 lb telco rack in a GTEM ...
Where I now work, an extensive study was done trying to see something
between a gtem, a three meter oats, and a three meter chamber and a
10 meter oats. I did a similar study over the c
Hi Tim- I whole heartedly agree with your comments vis a vis
the unsuitability of the OATS as a rigorous test platform.
I also completely agree with your comments on test repeatability.
I would offer a "light at the end of the tunnel" for you. A while back
Matt Aschenberg, a stats guy and myself p
6 matches
Mail list logo
