In message <[email protected]>, dated Thu, 31 Jul 2008, Grace Lin <[email protected]> writes:
>What is the possibility to have CISPR accept 3m measurement distance, I don't know. Maybe Ghery could comment? > unconditionally, for Class B devices? I feel 3m is more realistic in >the residential environment. I agree. >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. Indeed, and it may be that the reason is that the 3 m measured values are often MORE than 10 dB above the 10 m values, so that it would be more difficult to pass at 3m if the limits were simply set at 10 dB above the 10 m limits. I would be pragmatic and set the 3 m limits at about 12 dB above the 10 m limits. But that is heresy and would not be accepted. -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and 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
