Apologies for the late response on this but the concerns raised (market surveillance, test methodologies and standards interpretation) go right to the heart of the compliance engineering function - and has been this way for about 30 years!
Kris - the standards piece seems to be pretty well laid out, however you asked a key question at the end of your original email that raised my interest! You asked: "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" . This statement embraces the issue of consistent and accurate emissions testing because with that your concerns of failing due to a 3rd party test would be much reduced. However due to the very nature of the systems level of the test, the variabilities between sites, measurement uncertainty (which by itself acknowledges the variability in our test equipment!) and manufacturing variances makes consistent testing challenging. However there is one technique (that has fallen out of favor) that can help to ameliorate some of these concerns and that is cable maximization. Cable maximization IS time consuming frustrating at times but it will minimize your risks at a 3rd part location. Best Regards Charles Grasso Compliance Engineer Echostar Communications (w) 303-706-5467 (c) 303-204-2974 (t) [email protected] (e) [email protected] (e2) [email protected] -----Original Message----- From: Carpentier Kristiaan [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, September 05, 2014 8:36 AM 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]> 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]>
