Rules are rules. Because we let NVLAP into the situation we now have a more ridged and rigorous certification system in the US than in Europe for some applications. If we are not careful how we implement the rules it will only get worse. There are many people in the government who have not "been there and done that" who want to design a system by which we all must live. Uncertainty is one of the issues.
Michael Barge is on the ball and he has a good perspective. As I understand it most of you are applying Uncertainty too broadly. The rules should be applied only as they pertain to the certification requirements. For example, Europe has one application and the USA another. For minimum impact they should not be mixed. In the USA uncertainty only applies to calibration of test instruments and then only if you wish to become a NVLAP approved test lab. If we easily accept it for the entire EMC test protocol, NVLAP will gladly apply it to the entire certification procedure. Before we go off and rant an rave over this net, we should read the rules, understand what they say and know what the limitations are. Please read NIST Technical Note 1297 and note its applicability. It seems only the test labs are preaching accreditation, certification and Uncertainty while most of the producing companies just quietly integrate the testing into the quality process and leave it at that. I have news for the test labs. Trying to create a closed association with licensing and other impedances to block competition only raises the price of service. It does not improve quality of service and the competition will not be reduced. Why make it hard on yourselves? Dave George Unisys Regulatory Compliance
