In message <5422fdfd.2070...@oracle.com>, dated Wed, 24 Sep 2014, Monrad
Monsen <monrad.mon...@oracle.com> writes:
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.
I know, but that was not legally acceptable in Europe, hence the 'work
around' that you have quoted in the 2010 edition. 'Should' means 'not
mandatory', so the surveillance authorities are not bound by it. And
even the 2010 edition wording is not without allegations of being
'regulatory'.
I am therefore very surprised that EN 55032 has the 'shall' word. I
quite agree that it is completely sensible, but that doesn't count for
much in certain circles.
--
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 <emc-p...@ieee.org>
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 <emcp...@radiusnorth.net>
Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org>
For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher: <j.bac...@ieee.org>
David Heald: <dhe...@gmail.com>
