Hi John,
You wrote "such a provision cannot be included in a standard".
Actually, it is in the standard! In CISPR22:2008, section 9.5.1 (under
9.5 "EUT arrangement") says in the text.
"In case of dispute, tests shall be carried out as originally
performed."
Europe replaced the sentence with the below information in
EN55022:2010. In EN55022:2010 section 9.5.1 (under 9.5 "EUT
arrangement"), it says:
"Where this standard gives options for testing particular
requirements with a choice of test methods, compliance can be shown
against any of the test methods using the appropriate limit.
NOTE In any situation where the equipment is re-tested, the
test method originally chosen should be used in order to seek
consistency of the results."
Then both CISPR32:2012 and EN55032:2012 section 10 ("Compliance with
this publication") states:
"Where this publication gives options for testing particular
requirements with a choice of test
methods, compliance can be shown against any of the test methods
using the appropriate
limit. In any situation where it is necessary to re-test the
equipment to show compliance with
this publication, the test method originally chosen shall be used in
order to guarantee
consistency of the results, unless it is agreed by the manufacturer
to do otherwise."
It is clear that a re-test for "any situation" should be done using the
EUT arrangement originally chosen assuming the arrangement choice is
allowed by the emissions standards. Certainly, market surveillance would
count as an example "situation" for a re-test, and to do otherwise would
violate the emissions standards.
Have fun!
Monrad
<http://www.oracle.com>
On 9/5/2014 2:50 PM, John Woodgate wrote:
In message
<e7baf06cd71c4cc59654ac9ac55e6...@bn1pr0201mb0819.namprd02.prod.outlook.c
om>, dated Fri, 5 Sep 2014, Carpentier Kristiaan
<[email protected]> writes:
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?
As I explained, such a provision cannot be included in a standard. It
is extremely difficult to track down where provisions like this are
documented. I already have one similar query in with the British
authorities at present and I don't want to seem tiresome by adding
another query in quick succession.
If I find the source I will let you know.
-
----------------------------------------------------------------
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]>
