Kate, I have worked with two outside labs over the last 5 years. Both have had an almost identical policy with regard to this. My answers to your questions are below:
Question A: I have always been allowed into the laboratory area (unless there is a safety hazard). I usually sit with the test technician. So far, I have not had to worry about being kept away from competitors' equipment; but this is just a coincidence. It just so happens that our competitors don't use the same labs. One thing I have noticed is that one laboratory keeps equipment covered with cloths and/or locked in a "cage" area when not being tested. These are some simple measures that I have noticed them using to ensure their clients' equipment doesn't get tampered with or "inspected" by snooping competitors. Question B: My answer to question A above is true whether the tests were for design or for certification. Question C: Not sure what you mean by "formal witnessing". Question D: I like the policies as they are. Yes I would be influenced if they changed. I wouldn't like the idea of sending my product into a "black hole" for testing. I want to know how things are going. I want to know if I can help. I wouldn't like waiting in the lobby watching Barney the Dinosaur re-runs, smoking cigarettes, drinking coffee and reading those enthralling trade magazines like "Lock Washer Design News". It probably would also be a waste of the technician's time if they had to come get me any time they had a question. Question F: I have seen no change in the policies. They have been the same for the last 4 or 5 years. Question E: Other comments? I have sent some products off to the lab for testing without myself being present. However, I only do this for simple products and simple tests. Or products that are so over-designed that they are almost guaranteed "passes". If we have a product that is hard to set up and hard to monitor, I go to the lab with it. I usually provide written operating instructions and back it up by being there myself in order to help set up and monitor. I have had more than one experience where the "team" effort of the test technician's testing knowledge combined with my knowledge of our product has resulted in quick fixes of failures that we have encountered. As a matter of fact, many times, while the test is running, myself and the test technician are discussing possible failure mechanisms and possible fixes even before they are encountered. (We also may discuss family, kids, sports, politics ... but that's a different email) I also perform the task of making the required modifications if they are difficult. If I ruin my own circuitboard, than I only have myself to blame. It takes some pressure off of the technician. They only have to worry about performing and monitoring the test. The point is, my company pays about $150 per hour for testing. We want to get the most of our time. The most efficient usage of time sometimes requires a team effort of test technician and client. Most of my comments above relate to EMC testing. I usually leave the product for safety testing without my presence. My experience with safety testing is that it consists of a good deal of checklist reviewing and tests that show obvious pass/fail results. (i.e. burnt circuitboards). My feeling is that I would be wasting my time and hassling the technician if I were looking over their shoulder during safety testing. Chris Maxwell Design Engineer GN Nettest 6 Rhoads Drive, Building 4 Utica,NY 13502 email: chris.maxw...@gnnettest.com phone: 315-266-5128 fax: 315-797-8024 > -----Original Message----- > From: k.macl...@aprel.com [SMTP:k.macl...@aprel.com] > Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2001 8:04 PM > To: t...@world.std.com; emc-p...@ieee.org > Subject: Client Presence During Testing > > > Hello, Folks - > > Can you share with me how your favourite/preferred lab(s) handle client > presence during testing? I'd like to know > > a) Do they allow presence in lab (technical area) itself ? If not, then > where are clients who are at the lab normally placed? > b) Are engineering/design type tests handled differently than compliance > in > this respect? > c) What about formal witnessing of tests? > d) How you feel about the policies that are in use? Do they influence > your > choice of labs? > f) Have any related polices recently changed in the labs you use? How do > you feel about this, and is it an influencer? > e) Any other comments about this? > > Huge thanks in advance for your input! (Labs are welcome to comment, > too!) > > Kate > > Kathy M. MacLean > President, APREL Laboratories > -EMC-RF Safety-Antenna design/test-SAR/MPE- > -Environmental-Acoustics-Wireless- > 51 Spectrum Way, Nepean, Ontario K2R 1E6 > (613) 820-2730 fax (613) 820-4161 > cell (613) 791-3777 > Web site: http://www.aprel.com - watch for our new web site coming soon! > > > ------------------------------------------- > This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety > Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. > > 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: > Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com > Michael Garretson: pstc_ad...@garretson.org > > For policy questions, send mail to: > Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org > ------------------------------------------- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. 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: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson: pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
