Hi Earl and the gang,
I may be atypical, but I have a shortwave radio in the same room (on
the same desk with much of it) with 4 computers, a unix server, a
print server, fax machine, large copy machine, and several printers,
the hub equipment of a good sized ethernet network (for 8 computers, a
unix server, and print server) and I expect to be able to hear WWV to
set my clocks and occasionally listen in on the Ham bands. The only
thing that bothered the radio was parallel port printing. But now that
I print over my 100 Mbit network, no problem.
The TV in this room (13 inch) seems to cause more interference than
the rest of it!
Doug
Morse, Earl (E.A.) wrote:
> Amen!
>
> I had 15 years of computer EMC when I left the PC sector this year.
> This was a never ending source of frustration.
>
> I won't even get into the shortcomings of the measurement standards.
>
> The emigration of PC manufacturing to the PAC rim is being followed by
> emigration of the design and validation teams also. Many PC
> manufacturers have completely outsourced their EMC testing to the OEM PC
> manufacturers even when they own several 10 meter semi anechoic
> chambers. This is akin to having the fox watch over the hen house.
> Management says it is more economical that way. When every test is
> compliant and product passes the first time every time then I guess it
> is. Besides, it isn't compliance that anyone is really after anymore
> but rather a piece of paper that says it is compliant. (Neville
> Chamberlain effect)
>
> Maybe it doesn't matter anyway. Most customers don't care if it meets
> EMC requirements. Most only relate features to price and EMC is not a
> feature they would pay for. An EMC engineer can't tell whether a PC
> passes or fails without an expensive test site chock full of equipment
> so how is a consumer supposed to tell? A few commercial and government
> customers perform audit tests before entering into contracts but most
> don't seem to care. I seem to remember an FCC employee speaking at a
> conference somewhere stating that they don't get computer interference
> complaints. Mostly telephone interference complaints but never computer
> interference.
>
> Most of the field complaints I worked on were immunity related.
> Customers care and complain about that.
>
> In today's computer industry the companies that aggressively pursue EMC
> are penalized by adding more cost while the companies that ignore it are
> able to produce a more inexpensive product. The vigilant companies will
> not be able to compete.
>
> I agree, enforce the emissions standards or drop them.
>
> Earl Morse
> ex-Major PC Company EMC guru
>
......
--
___ _ Doug Smith
\ / ) P.O. Box 1457
========= Los Gatos, CA 95031-1457
_ / \ / \ _ TEL/FAX: 408-356-4186/358-3799
/ /\ \ ] / /\ \ Mobile: 408-858-4528
| q-----( ) | o | Email: d...@dsmith.org
\ _ / ] \ _ / Website: http://www.dsmith.org
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:
Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com
Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com
For policy questions, send mail to:
Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org
Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line.
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
