In message <9d04b979323dcd428297dda95108893e0120c...@bb-corp-ex2.corp.cubic.cub>, dated Thu, 4 Dec 2008, "Price, Edward" <[email protected]> writes:
>The simplistic answer is that you should dwell at a frequency long >enough for the detector to respond to any emission that occurs. It's a base rumour that some regulatory test houses dwell until they get a 'FAIL'. (;-) Seriously, it's a very difficult question to answer. If the product has some sort of cyclic behaviour within a short time, waiting some tens of milliseconds may be acceptable, but what about a washing machine with a 150 minute cycle? -- 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. 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://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc 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]>
