My opinion only. There was a time when the reputation of a manufacturer or business in general was a very important part of the success of that company, and the honesty and integrity of that company, extending to high quality products, was the major part of a good reputation. That is part of a free-market economy. The rationale behind immunity standards (indeed, gov't enforced emission standards) is that the free-market place does not work and it is more efficient to impose external political control. This is untrue a priori but becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy: once you impose rigid governmental standards industry-wide, there is nothing to be gained by exceeding the standard performance and everything to be gained by finding ways to meet these limits in the most cost-effective way. In effect, industry-wide standards tend to make what might have been a unique product into a commodity to be purchased from the lowest priced vendor. In this way, gov't imposed standards are are an assault on the integrity of the marketplace and ultimately justify their imposition by destroying the integrity that previously existed, while destroying the perception of individual integrity on the part of the consumer. Here is a simple example that works in the USA. Sometime in the 1930s the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation was formed to insure bank deposits. Banks still like to boast about how "strong" they are, but for the average depositor the strength of the bank (the quality of their loans) is a moot point of little or no interest. If the bank goes bust, they are insured by the Fed. One bank looks pretty much like another to the average depositor.
---------- >From: "Gregg Kervill" <gkerv...@eu-link.com> >To: "'John Woodgate'" <j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk>, <emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org> >Subject: Have we lost something? was John Woodgate - RE: New EMC standards; now CISPR24/EN55024 query >Date: Thu, Nov 1, 2001, 9:20 AM > > > I agree whole heartedly with John's point.....And while deliberation may not > always be a bad thing, a lack of immunity in an industrial computer must > always be a bad thing, and very possibly a BAD THING! > -- > > However it is not so much a lack of standards but a lack of will and > commitment to Quality designs that I believe is the problem. > > Back in the dark ages - long ago - one of my design jobs was with a company > making industrial photo-electric controls. We checked out emissions on all > of our products using a LW/MW/VHF radio and a TV. We checked out > susceptibility by wiring a BIG contactor as a buzzer and put x-y caps > between the open contact end of the coil and ground and neutral. IT wiped > out radios for about 50 feet! (But was only used sparingly maybe less than > 30 seconds a month) > > > GOOD - meant the unit continued to function normally. That was my EMC > practice during the 1970's. Product Safety followed a similar pattern.... > > > Later I worked in a larger company that employed a few sages; although they > may have been a little past their prime in terms of innovation they were > wonderful mentors and ensured that we did not kill anyone with our designs! > In the same way that nurses protect patients from newly appointed doctors. > > > > During the last 10 years the mentors seem to have be down-sized (due to > efficiencies) - Old Traditional (empirical) practices are displaced - > standards (safety and EMC) are seen as intrusive and an excuse to design > down to minimal requirements (at best) or as a challenge to the integrity > (dare I say manhood) of designers. > > > During my 20 years in R&D I did some very dumb things and designed several > 'iffy power supplies - I know now that they are non-compliance but a few > escaped into the market place. > > Take away the mentors - allow companies to Self Assessment and Self > Certification in Safety are will things get better or worse. Do we need to > direct a change of design culture? > > Is there a need for a recognized EMC or safety credential? > > DISCUSS....... > > > > > Gregg > > Eurolink Ltd. -One Link-199 Countries > P.O. Box 310 > Reedville, Virginia 22539 > Phone: (804) 453-3141 > Fax: (804) 453-9039 > Web: www.eu-link.com > > > > > ------------------------------------------- > This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety > Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. > > Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ > > To cancel your subscription, send mail to: > majord...@ieee.org > with the single line: > unsubscribe emc-pstc > > For help, send mail to the list administrators: > Michael Garretson: pstc_ad...@garretson.org > Dave Heald davehe...@mediaone.net > > For policy questions, send mail to: > Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org > Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org > > All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: > No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old > messages are imported into the new server. > ------------------------------------------- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson: pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Heald davehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
