In message 
<9d04b979323dcd428297dda95108893e0287f...@bb-corp-ex2.corp.cubic.cub>, 
dated Tue, 8 Sep 2009, "Price, Edward" <[email protected]> writes:

>I recently had a customer say that this method implied that I was using 
>"rectangular" shape factors, and thus, I should be taking the cube root 
>of the sum.
> 
>Rectangular? Cube root?

It's a subject with a lore of its own. There is extensive treatment in 
CISPR 16-4-1 to CISPR 16-4-5, but there are difficulties with these, 
mainly with certain inadequacies in CISPR 16-4-2. 16-4-3 to -5 are 
probably not relevant for your operations.

I don't see anything in 16-4-1 and -2 that permits a cube-root addition, 
but the statistical distributions of uncertainties is mentioned. Many 
quantities do have near-rectangular uncertainty distributions, but some 
do not.

Rather than rely on these standards as a source of understanding, it may 
be better to find a textbook, one that includes a reasonably full 
mathematical treatment. If that isn't there, some of the explanations 
are reduced to assertions, which may be counter-intuitive and thus hard 
to accept. I don't know a good textbook to recommend.
-- 
OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk
Things can always get better. But that's not the only option.
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]>

Reply via email to