In message <001301c84d5b$92427250$1dfca8c0@Toshibanotepad>, dated Wed, 2 Jan 2008, Derek Walton <[email protected]> writes:
>This is interesting, in fact it's news to me that CISPR 11 is not for >in-situ testing. A significant proportion of products I test are >industrial equipments that would not fit in a shield room, or have >power sources that would make the 200 amp room filters look like fuses. > >When did that change happen, and what are we supposed to use now? I should not have used the word 'intended', but it isn't satisfactory. The point is that clause 9 is totally inadequate to address the multifarious problems of in situ testing. -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk For very important information, please turn over. John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to [email protected] Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas [email protected] Mike Cantwell [email protected] For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: [email protected] David Heald: [email protected] All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
