Many years ago while employed by a different company we had one of our products surveillance tested at a national test lab in another country. Our product failed radiated emissions by 2db. They said that because this was within their Measurement Uncertainty of 4.5db that they could not fail it and it was ok.
Is this pass/fail criteria common practice during surveillance testing? So if you originally passed by more than the measurement uncertainty and you can later fail during surveillance testing by the measurement uncertainty then you have an 8-9 db window, which most products should pass. The Other Brian Sent via the Samsung GALAXY S®4, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone -------- Original message -------- From: "Allen, Chris" Date:09/05/2014 11:39 AM (GMT-05:00) To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [PSES] Failure of Radiated emission Hi Kris, As long as the configuration that the customer / market surveillance authority has used is valid and representative of use and tested according to the standard I don't think you will have a leg to stand on. Have a look at Whereas: (17) in the EMC Directive 2004/108/EC. It states the following: ".... the electromagnetic compatibility assessment should confirm whether the apparatus meets the protection requirements in the configurations foreseeable by the manufacturer as representative of normal use in the intended applications; in such cases it should be sufficient to perform an assessment on the basis of the configuration most likely to cause maximum disturbance and the configuration most susceptible to disturbance". It is the manufacturer's job to determine what the worst case representative configuration is. Thanks, Chris. -----Original Message----- From: Carpentier Kristiaan [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 05 September 2014 15:36 To: [email protected] Subject: [PSES] Failure of Radiated emission Hi group, A ITE product is tested to EN55022 Radiated emission with a well defined setup (cables, traffic, etc...) trying to find the worst case emissions and it passes. I think finding the real worst case emission for all frequencies with one and the same set-up is in practice not possible in practice. That same product is retested by a customer or in case of market surveillance campaigns, then it is most likely not tested with the same set-up and results may fail. Would this be an issue or is it acceptable that it is retested with the same set-up as the initial testing? I refer to CISPR22, clause 8.4 that states that the operational conditions of the EUT shall be determined acc. to typical use.....The operat mode and rationale shall be stated in the report. So to me it looks sufficient to test a typical set-up, do your best to not make it best case and describe everything in the report. Any other thoughts? Best regards, Kris Carpentier - ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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]<mailto:[email protected]>> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Mike Cantwell <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> David Heald: <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> - ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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]<mailto:[email protected]>> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)<http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html> List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Mike Cantwell <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> David Heald <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> ________________________________ LECO Corporation Notice: This communication may contain confidential information intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you received this by mistake, please destroy it and notify us of the error. Thank you. - ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) 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]>
