No John, I'm not referring to you. (or anyone else in particular) I dont know you well enough -yet..<lol> I'm just spaking on how we do the job of ensuring that our products meet the standards.
We take this work very seriously and I agree with you that the CE mark is not a quality mark, but in our case it nearly becomes one when the customer's expectation of our products is to meet (or exceed) the presently applied Directives. We back the CE mark with a detailed test report. In a number of cases, the customer performs follow up testing. On rare occasions, the customer is followup testing to more stringent or severe levels and this is where agressive adherence to the Directives, along with painfully acquired margins, pays off in spades. On very rare occasions a test lab challenges our data, in which case we re-examine and submit or challenge, depending on the issue. I'm a second party and cannot take direct credit for the lab's work, but I can say that I advocate doing the right thing. Even when it creates a great deal of discomfort for our engineers and reasonably increases our costs. As a result, our engineers have at best a rancorous respect for our tiny department. I need to state that our lab is a combined EMC and Safety lab. That it is part of LSI Logic Storage Systems Division, that we are not independent of the company, and that we do no external testing or contracting. Also, what I say here are merely my opinions and are not necessarily those of LSI. <standard disclaimer> Take Care, Kyle Ehler KCOIQE <mailto:kyle.eh...@lsil.com> Product Safety Engineer / EMC Specialist LSI Logic Storage Systems Division 3718 N. Rock Road U.S.A. Wichita, Kansas 67226 Ph. 316 636 8657 Fax 316 636 8321 -----Original Message----- From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk] Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2001 1:37 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: ESD - time between successive discharges <95fbd8b0830ed511b7720002a51363f1319...@exw-ks.ks.lsil.com>, Ehler, Kyle <keh...@lsil.com> inimitably wrote: >I suppose what I am alluring to You aren't alluring to me, sailor!(;-) >is debugging for quality, but then, isnt the >purpose of compliance testing to 'test to fail' rather than test to pass? No, it isn't, if you mean 'compliance with EU Directives'. To suggest that it is creates an open invitation to militant test-houses to go looking for trouble, and you can be pretty sure that some of them are ingenious enough to find it in every case. [snip] > >For example, as an OEM (to a few of you out there) and direct mfr. we want >to be as thorough as possible because we want to make a quality product and >when we put "CE" on it, we mean it. The CE mark is absolutely NOT to be regarded as a quality mark. Thus spake the European Commission itself. You are welcome to institute whatever product-quality verification programs you wish, but please keep their consideration separate from issues concerning compliance with EU Directives. -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk This message and its contents are not confidential, privileged or protected by law. Access is only authorised by the intended recipient - this means YOU! The contents may be disclosed to, or used by, anyone and stored or copied in any medium. If you are not the intended recipient, please advise the sender yesterday at the latest. ------------------------------------------- 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: http://www.rcic.com/ click on "Virtual Conference Hall,"
