Hi John, In which document can I find the provision that market surveillance testing is done, in case of dispute, in the way the manufacturer did it?
Best regards, Kris Carpentier -----Original Message----- From: John Woodgate [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: vrijdag 5 september 2014 21:21 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [PSES] Failure of Radiated emission In message <65eb7d8099b14f948b584475acc1f...@bn1pr0201mb0819.namprd02.prod.outlook.c om>, dated Fri, 5 Sep 2014, Carpentier Kristiaan <[email protected]> writes: >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. Agreed. > >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? In Europe, there is provision that market surveillance testing is done, in case of dispute, in the way the manufacturer did it, unless that is obviously defective. It can't be written into standards because it's a 'regulatory' (legal) matter. >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. Take pictures; lots of pictures, and not just 'arty' pictures of dark blobs; you want to see in harsh light every detail of how the test was set up. > >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. I think you need to go a bit further than 'typical'. Cable length, for example; typical 3 m, but quite often 6 m to 10 m. Also, aim to do better than just meet the limits; establish a margin. -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. With best wishes. See www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Quid faciamus nisi sit? 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.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]> - ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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]>
