Berry, I'm sorry, but this is such a crock. This is all theory, as in the real world it doesn't come down to a couple of db, but rather your piece of gear blowing the fire department's radio out of the water... You cannot in good faith take anything less than 6DB, when that is the margin the FCC uses to certify a test site. Even this is 1:1 and overlooks the random errors associated with environmental conditions. If we determine the measurement uncertainties don't matter, we have lost all traceability and may as well let the radio shack junkies do our designs and use the money saved to retain more lawyers.
Urging engineers to do the right thing because its the right thing. Marketing sure as hell isn't going get it done! Dave Spencer [email protected] wrote: > > Jon, I may be in the minority but I have to disagree with your comment > ' don't take the 0dB's into account ' > While every attempt is made to design well below the limit, a pass is still > a pass. It is my opinion that the standards bodies build in a 'measurement > uncertainty' when creating the requirements. This is probably one of the > factors contributing to their long incubation period. In fact one lab in > particular in the UK speaks about a +2, -3dB. limit. > If everybody chooses to move the goal posts by creating de-facto > requirements, then the game becomes very dull indeed. > > Best regards > Barry Singleton
