4 ms·

This doesn't surprise me. It's not unusual to find completely different results from "accredited" labs despite the test methodologies being the same.

by baz00 3y ago

mort96 3y ago
And that shouldn't necessarily be surprising or taken as an indication of foul play. Really small incidental differences in test setup or equipment can mean different labs doing the same test get different results. I do find this difference to be surprisingly large, it's not like the threshold is 4W/kg and Apple claims they measured 3.9 and France claims they measured 4.1... But what do I know.
bee_rider 3y ago
How are these labs accredited? Sounds like France has a problem with some labs or possibly an accreditation organization I guess.
- wirrbel 3y ago
  If the labs use a round robin method for validation of their testing methods the quality of their measurements should be high, shouldn’t they? In other words, who is validating apple’s labs?
  - OnACoffeeBreak 3y ago
    I have taken products through this sort of testing in a previous life. There are many hard-to-replicate factors that influence test results. For example, in my direct experience (not with phones, but networking gear), the way the product is placed in the test fixture and the way cables are dressed has an impact on emissions and measurements. In one scenario, as a product engineer supporting equipment through a certification lab, I had the mandate to pass with a 3 dB margin from the company I worked for, but, after days of testing and failing, it was decided that the equipment under test could pass with cables routed in a special way (which was not uncommon for normal customer use) and with quasi-peak detection (i.e. averaging the emission peaks) that ended up below the regulatory (FCC for example) passing below the regulatory mask/level by a fraction of a dB. I have always wondered whether a different test lab, without support from product engineers, would pass the same test. I think the answer in "no". Edit: Quasi-peaking was not a dirty trick that was pulled to pass certification. It was an acceptable method of measuring emission power suggested by the lab technicians.
    - CamperBob2 3y ago
      It's the required method, in fact.
    - wirrbel 3y ago
      Thanks for the technical explanation. For a regulatory system however I would assume it’s important that a third-party that follows a standardized procedure can reproduce low emissions, otherwise who could verify that numbers were not forged? If I bring my car to the testing to the accredited testing company in Germany, they test the exhaust fume profile and give me a certificate if it’s within range. I cannot just run my own testing regime and self-issue that.
  - bee_rider 3y ago
    I guess I assumed the flow would be something like: Apple wants to sell things in France. Apple submits the devices to some France-certified labs who do the test. They get an “OK” stamp, and the lab is responsible if there was a mistake in the testing. If the labs belong to Apple, then there’d just be an obvious conflict of interest, right?

This doesn't surprise me. It's not unusual to find completely different results from "accredited" labs despite the test methodologies being the same.

by baz00 3y ago

This doesn't surprise me. It's not unusual to find completely different results from "accredited" labs despite the test methodologies being the same.

mort96 3y ago

And that shouldn't necessarily be surprising or taken as an indication of foul play. Really small incidental differences in test setup or equipment can mean different labs doing the same test get different results. I do find this difference to be surprisingly large, it's not like the threshold is 4W/kg and Apple claims they measured 3.9 and France claims they measured 4.1... But what do I know.

bee_rider 3y ago

How are these labs accredited? Sounds like France has a problem with some labs or possibly an accreditation organization I guess.

wirrbel 3y ago
If the labs use a round robin method for validation of their testing methods the quality of their measurements should be high, shouldn’t they? In other words, who is validating apple’s labs?
- OnACoffeeBreak 3y ago
  I have taken products through this sort of testing in a previous life. There are many hard-to-replicate factors that influence test results. For example, in my direct experience (not with phones, but networking gear), the way the product is placed in the test fixture and the way cables are dressed has an impact on emissions and measurements. In one scenario, as a product engineer supporting equipment through a certification lab, I had the mandate to pass with a 3 dB margin from the company I worked for, but, after days of testing and failing, it was decided that the equipment under test could pass with cables routed in a special way (which was not uncommon for normal customer use) and with quasi-peak detection (i.e. averaging the emission peaks) that ended up below the regulatory (FCC for example) passing below the regulatory mask/level by a fraction of a dB. I have always wondered whether a different test lab, without support from product engineers, would pass the same test. I think the answer in "no". Edit: Quasi-peaking was not a dirty trick that was pulled to pass certification. It was an acceptable method of measuring emission power suggested by the lab technicians.
  - CamperBob2 3y ago
    It's the required method, in fact.
  - wirrbel 3y ago
    Thanks for the technical explanation. For a regulatory system however I would assume it’s important that a third-party that follows a standardized procedure can reproduce low emissions, otherwise who could verify that numbers were not forged? If I bring my car to the testing to the accredited testing company in Germany, they test the exhaust fume profile and give me a certificate if it’s within range. I cannot just run my own testing regime and self-issue that.
- bee_rider 3y ago
  I guess I assumed the flow would be something like: Apple wants to sell things in France. Apple submits the devices to some France-certified labs who do the test. They get an “OK” stamp, and the lab is responsible if there was a mistake in the testing. If the labs belong to Apple, then there’d just be an obvious conflict of interest, right?