it seems to me the problem is an auditor who does not know what the test does, and what it takes to make it repeatable and accurate (as much as these tests are, anyway). In such a case, people tend to stick with what the reg says and not try to understand.
I was once at a test lab in California that had a vacuum variable capacitor with spark gap and a solenoid coil on display. An auditor had rejected its use for damped sine wave Lightning Indirect Effects tests because it wasn't calibrated and had to be adjusted by the user. Some of the list may know which lab. They bought a expensive piece of equipment that had to be calibrated. Problem... fixed. Suggestion: Change the table as needed. If you do a test that has to meet someone elses' requirement, use the nominal size. Cortland Richmond On 10/11/2011 1:52 PM, [email protected] wrote: > When confronted with problems like this, I always try to determine the > intent of the particular statement in the test. To me, it is clear that > the intent is to fully support the EUT and associated equipment, with > cables dropping off the edges of the defined area, as needed. The table > should serve this support function and be invisible to RF. > > In the case of a small EUT with no cables, the intent is satisfied with a > table just large enough to support the EUT. Heck, for something like a > digital camera without cables, a threaded plastic rod coming up from the > turntable, screwed into the mounting hole in the bottom of the camera, > would be sufficient to support it and satisfy the intent. > > Of course, getting an auditor to understand the intent, as opposed to a > literal reading, might be difficult to do. > > Donald Borowski > Senior EMC Compliance Engineer > Schweitzer Engineering Labs > Pullman, Washington, USA > > > From: Derek Walton<[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Cc: "'Grace Lin'"<[email protected]>, "'WNya'" > <[email protected]>, "'EMC-PSTC'"<[email protected]> > Date: 10/11/2011 10:12 AM > Subject: Re: Table Size in Emissions test > Sent by: [email protected] > > > > Sorry Dennis, > > you are not correct. Nominal means: > > b : of, being, or relating to a designated or theoretical size that may > vary from the actual. > > This is from Websters. > > As you indicate, there is NOTHING that says it has to be 1 by 1.5m > > I'm sorry to be so anal about this, but it is happening too much where > assessors are assessing to opinions and personal agendas. We must follow > the standard. Usually there are MUCH bigger fish to fry than quibbling [SNIPPED] - ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to <[email protected]> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ 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]>
