Second Response.
It was pointed out to me that I didn't notice 'write a passing test
report'. Well, I did, but in the European context f manufacturer
self-certification. A consultant assessing a product for another market
could report that the product meets the standard BUT has emissions above
the limit when measured by a refined procedure (more directional
receiving antenna?). This puts the onus where it belongs - on the
manufacturer, either to rely on 'meeting the standard as written' or
improving the product so as to bring the more carefully measured
emissions below the limits.
9.2 of the standard is not really satisfactory: /The measurements shall
be made with a directive antenna of small aperture/
Apart from 'directive' instead of 'directional', 'small' is an
inadequate specification for the aperture if emissions can occur in
narrow lobes of high maximum field strength. 7.3.4 of CISPR 16-2-3
doesn't help; the only mention of aperture is in connection with
measurement distance a bizarrely refers to the receiving antenna
'illuminating' the EUT.
Best wishes
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK
On 2019-02-01 09:39, Bill Stumpf wrote:
Dear esteemed colleagues,
CISPR 11 test procedures for making radiate emissions measurements at
frequencies above 1GHz dictates that measurements are performed only
at 30 degree intervals around the microwave appliance. From my own
experience, this does not capture the highest emissions from the
microwave oven, and often will allow it to “pass” the emissions test
when there are emissions that are higher than the specified limit at
angles from the EUT that is not recorded using this methodology.
I expect the procedure was written to save time in testing, but how
can I, in good conscience, write a passing test report when I know the
EUT fails to meet the limit for radiated emissions at angles other
than the 30 degree increments recorded?
Can anyone give me some background on why this test method was written
into the standard?
Am I miss-interpreting the procedure?
Bill Stumpf
D.L.S. Electronic Systems, Inc.
-
----------------------------------------------------------------
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]>
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]>
