Below are the questions asked during the live event, along with their respective answers.

Q: Can you please clarify between broadband noise and Narrowband Noise?
A: Much of the definition depends on the bandwidth of the receiver being used for emissions testing. If an emission is less than the bandwidth of the receiver, it is narrowband. If it is wider than the receiver bandwidth, it is broadband. Typically, narrowband emissions are “spikey” in their appearance on a spectrum analyzer while broadband emissions cover a wider region, but the true definition is dependent on the bandwidth in use at the time.

Q: Hello, thank you for your presentation. Is it possible to have the INF file for CISPR 32?
A: Unfortunately, IEC documents cannot be shared with people outside the working groups, maintenance teams, committees or national committees. You would need to contact your national committee to see if they can share this document.

Q: Given that EN55035 was recently announced as a harmonized standard of the EMC Directive, would you know the mandatory implementation date of this standard in Europe, or would the on-going development of a new version possibly delay the said implementation date?
A: The publication of the harmonized standard should have the Date of Withdrawal (DoW) for the standard listed. You have the option of using the superseded standard or the new one until that date, upon which you must use the new standard only. When I worked in industry the company I worked for had the habit of adopting the new standard as quickly as possible to avoid last-minute scrambles if there were significant differences. As far as this work delaying it, I would recommend that you contact representatives of CENELEC TC210 or the EU for that information. I do not have that information available as I am not involved in that work. I would be surprised if it did delay it, however.

Q: In your presentation, you indicate that according to CISPR32 Ed2 standard it is not allowed to perform Radiated emission testing in a FAR for frequencies > 1GHz. This confuses me. I looked into the standard. In table clause A1.3 I find the following text for the definition of an FSOATS facility. “An FSOATS may be a SAC/OATS with RF absorber on the RGP or a FAR.” Hence I concluded that a FAR is allowed… Which is contradictory to your statement. Could you clarify this further?
A: There appears to be some confusion with respect to this point. CISPR/I/637/INF, which lists the items to be considered for the next revision of CISPR 32 has listed under item 7, “FAR and RVC – consider inclusion of these methods above 1 GHz.” Table A.3 (limits above 1 GHz for Class A products) and Table A.5 (limits above 1 GHz for Class B products) both call out the FSOATS as the appropriate test facility for these measurements. Table A1.3 does say that a FAR may be used as a FSOATS for measurements above 1 GHz. So, from that statement, a FAR may be used above 1 GHz. I will need to bring this up in the next CISPR SC I MT7 meeting, currently scheduled for the final week of June in Turin, Italy. Given the current COVID-19 situation, and the situation in Italy related to it, I will be surprised if this meeting occurs at the location specified. In the meantime, your conclusion is correct and I stand corrected on this point. Thank you.

I will forward this to the convenor of MT7 and get his feedback on this question. It has me confused, as well.