Dear all, This brings to mind about the rational behind the existence of product standards.
Given the typical product, I am convince that it is 'theoretically' impossible to predict which 'typical' configuration can give you the worst case, say for example, radiated emission testing. IMHO, one always needed detail knowledge of the product and its internal functions in order to produce the configuration that will produce the 'worst case'. Just my 2 ยข worth. However, till now, I do not see the constant and active involvement of the product designer with compliance testing to create the conditions or configurations that will yield the worst case for any given product. :-) This is not an anomaly. I suppose there are always vested interest in the part of the product designer to get the item to pass and not to fail on the first run with the standards! DFX: Design for X ? :-) Tim Foo "Peters, Michael" <[email protected]> wrote on 01/03/03 04:37 AM > ... specified in ANSI C63.4 and CISPR 22 to perform initial > emissions testing to determine worst-case configuration and > then to perform final emissions testing. This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: [email protected] with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: [email protected] Dave Heald: [email protected] For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: [email protected] Jim Bacher: [email protected] All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on "browse" and then "emc-pstc mailing list"
