Dear All,

Aurelie asked in the last meeting for parties that ruled NOT in favour of a certain talking point and/or abstained, to write an alternative proposition or an addendum; In case of the use of a Reverberation Chamber for ESA and it's immunity level we've written a small list of parameters to ask the commission members to take into account when using this method for standarisation, all beeing it an alternative method.

Question/consideration 1:
How would the standarisation regulation R10 handle the documentation (report) and the folluw-up (audit) of the LUF (Lowest Usable Frequency) since this is dependend of

-	Room size,
-	Room configuration,
-	Stirrer Shape,
-	Stirrer dimensions,
-	Stirrer speed/modi

IN COMBINATION WITH ESA under test.

Each test requires a new validation of the facility in combination with a new ESA under test. There's a clear coupling described in ISO 11452-11 between ESA configuration and used materials in the ESA and all of these parameters! Similar parameters like type of antenna, distance of antenne, reflective properties of the chamber, ferrite loading of the antenna cable etc. are part of an accreditation demand list that are NOT depended of the ESA configuration and used materials because they ARE for standarisation pratices. Additional comment: Reverbation chambers were primairely developped for NON standarisation investigations and an effective tool for development and research. The above mentioned concerns/questions are the points holding us back to support this method for calling it suitable for standarisation practices, all beeing it an alternative method.

Question/consideration 2:
How is the calculation founded for a comparable level for immunity field in a reverb VERSUS the standard method (@30V/m)? Traditionally alterative methods have an extra margin to counter additional expanded uncertainties in regards to the base setup. E.g. Stripline testing and Bulk Current Injection is based on resonances in cable in regards to it's equivelant cable (dipole) moment/impedance. And still they have additional margin added to them to counter the additional uncertainty of that alternative method. Additional comment: In case there are differences found in the field between ESA's failing that were tested with the preferred method VERSUS this alternative method, is there a mechanisme in place that is monitoring this?

Final note:
I hope members can help this along. Our knowledge of this subject is not low. After more than 25 years in the field, having our own reverb (up to 40GHz) and a teammember that has worked with extreme large reverbs in the past, we have the basic knowledge to understand any talking point on this method.