Greetings John,
 
What is the possibility to have CISPR accept 3m measurement distance,
unconditionally, for Class B devices?  I feel 3m is more realistic in the
residential environment.  I argue with (friendly) BSMI (Taiwan's authority). 
The BSMI regulator tells me if CISPR accepts 3m unconditionally, BSMI will
follow.
 
The current version of CISPR 22 accepts 3m distance only under the condition
as Ghery pointed out.
 
Best regards,
Grace

 
On 7/31/08, John Woodgate <[email protected]> wrote: 

        In message <OF61E94BFA.FB76A93E-ON8825
[email protected]>, dated Thu, 31 Jul 2008,
[email protected] writes:
        
        
        

                Is it practical to get corresponding measurements in a 3m 
semi-anechoic
chamber, let alone a fully-anechoic chamber?
                


        This is an elephant in the EMC room at present, and I think my UK 
colleagues
and I are among the few that can see it yet. We had discussions in UK about
it, and agreed (after MUCH discussion) that a definition of 'corresponding',
or whichever word is used in a similar context, is required.
        
        Some experts are interpreting it as a strict numerical 'n dB for n dB'
equivalence, which is just not realistic, and not even compatible with
physics. A UK committee agreed that what was realistic to require was a
repeatable correlation, e.g. notionally in the form of a look-up table, and
this was submitted to CENELEC and CISPR.
        -- 
        OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk
<http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk/>  and www.isce.org.uk <http://www.isce.org.uk/> 
        Either we are causing global warming, in which case we may be able to 
stop it,
        or natural variation is causing it, and we probably can't stop it. You 
choose!
        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
        


- ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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 

Reply via email to