Hi John,
Something you wrote earlier has puzzled me a little. I’ve summarised the thread below, hopefully retaining the original context JMW: I doubt anyone would disagree with that. But if a company allows a test house to impose compliance, how can it know that the result is reliable? Ed: I don’t see how a test house can “impose” compliance. I thought all they could do was perform testing, and by looking at the results of the testing, declare compliance. JMW: People take or send an EUT to the test house, which finds that it fails. [The test house personnel] descend on it with ferrites, copper tape, capacitors, unicorn poo (rarely) until it passes. That's what I mean by 'imposing' I’m interested in your use of the word “reliable”. If the modifications applied achieve a “pass” in the test and are then implemented by the manufacturer, in what sense is this not reliable? I’d be interested to hear your thoughts. All the best James James Pawson EMC Problem Solver Unit 3 Compliance www.unit3compliance.co.uk <http://www.unit3compliance.co.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]>
