I love the "ohms per square" term.  It drives the non-EE nuts. 

John Shinn, P.E.
 


From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Conway,
Patrick R (Houston)
Sent: Friday, June 23, 2006 9:22 AM
To: Sudhakar Wasnik; John Woodgate; emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: RE: [JunkMail] 1500 ohms 100 pF gun?

        If the clear, logical explanation does not work, then try my
fall-back plan:

        If it is an ME try this:  "Oh, think of ESD as the electrical
equivalent to the study of thermal gradients in non-homogeneous
stratified media".
                (or pick another incomprehensible subject in their area
of expertise-  but you gotta do it with a straight face!!)


        My favorite story about the EE / ME rift is about units.
                I know more than a few ME's who just cringe when they
hear the term from shielding: "Ohms per square".
                They are left hanging, waiting for you to complete the
sentence.
                "Ohms per square... WHAT?" they ask.
                They just can't conceive a system of measurement that
has a variable in the units!
        
        
        Can't help but find humor in that.
 


Best Regards,
Patrick Conway, NCE.

281.514.2259
281.524.5473 (fax)
p.con...@hp.com


From: Sudhakar Wasnik [mailto:swas...@sandisk.com]
Sent: Friday, June 23, 2006 3:58 AM
To: Conway, Patrick R (Houston); John Woodgate; emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: RE: [JunkMail] 1500 ohms 100 pF gun?

Thank you Sir,
I have toughest time of my career explaining this to my co-workers
(Mechanical engineers: I apologize for If unknowing I will hurt the
feeling of any mechanical engineer) who possess mysterious thinking
about ESD.

Sudhakar Wasnik


From: Conway, Patrick R (Houston) [mailto:p.con...@hp.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 12:47 PM
To: Sudhakar Wasnik; John Woodgate; emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: RE: [JunkMail] 1500 ohms 100 pF gun?

Ah, ha.

        Glad to find another engineer who thinks like I do -
unconventional! 

        anecdote-
        One time I visited a large, well respected IT company who was
having an ESD problem with a new product.
        They could not release to production because they could not pass
the ESD test.
        I made one change to their test procedure and they were able to
pass.
        Nothing spectacular really, just a little applied unconventional
thinking!
        I observed that their test engineer was doing the test and then
discharging the EUT after each strike (battery operated EUT).
        The EUT passed each and every strike, but had an upset during
his connection of the discharge wire.
        The discharge wire had no resistors in line.
        It was a straight dump to the horizontal coupling plane.

        I explained to the team, showed them the failures were only
during post-test charge dump.
        I explained that the discharge event is uncontrolled.
        It could have more ore less rise time, more or less fall time,
more or less peak amplitude.
        It is uncontrolled.
        If they wanted to test with that waveform- no problem.  
        But it is not required for CE Mark (their target).
        Everyone was happy!
        Much rejoicing.

        Anyway- clear evidence that even the post-test discharge needs
to be done correctly.
                And, evidence that more training is always a good thing!


Best Regards,
Patrick Conway, NCE.

281.514.2259
281.524.5473 (fax)
p.con...@hp.com


From: Sudhakar Wasnik [mailto:swas...@sandisk.com]
Sent: Friday, June 23, 2006 3:14 AM
To: Conway, Patrick R (Houston); John Woodgate; emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: RE: [JunkMail] 1500 ohms 100 pF gun?

You are correct sir, 

The current flow is from higher potential to lower potential.
So with repetitive zaps, the system accumulates the charge (potential)
higher than Gun potential, So current will flow from Object being zapped
to the Gun (Source).
That's why standard requires removing the unspent charge from the EUT by
manual discharge before applying next zap.

If we consider this is same as lightening event, Then John is correct.
It is mysterious even to think that the earth (Load) (earth) will pump
current in to Clouds (Source) during repetitive lightening strikes.

Sudhakar Wasnik

Phone. : 408-542-2928


From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Conway,
Patrick R (Houston)
Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 11:15 AM
To: John Woodgate; emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: RE: [JunkMail] 1500 ohms 100 pF gun?

<q>
I wonder if Michael would explain how the discharge energy gets back
>from the equipment being zapped to the source. It seems very mysterious.
<q>

Actually, not mysterious at all.
        But does require some thinking outside of what is considered
"normal" current flow.
        A simple experiment (real or just a thought experiment) can show
the answer.

Try this experiment-  run a normal ESD test for table top equipment.
        For this, doesn't matter what test standard.
        Must use a battery operated EUT.
        Make sure the EUT power cord is disconnected.
        
        Now discharge the ESD simulator to the EUT one time.
        Discharge works fine, no observable variance in the ESD.
        But, continue to zap the device.
        Notice that the observable characteristics of the ESD pulses
become less severe.
        Smaller "pop" sound, plus the simulator tip has to get closer to
the device to discharge.
        
        Eventually, you can no longer discharge to the EUT.

        So, what was happening?
        For all of those discharges what was the "Return path", since
the EUT cord was removed?
        Why is it that the simulator no longer discharges?
                Those last two questions have the same answer.
        
        Maybe the normal loop model,
"source-destination-return-to-source", does not apply?
 
        Hmm.

Best Regards,
Patrick Conway, NCE.

281.514.2259
281.524.5473 (fax)
p.con...@hp.com

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society
emc-pstc discussion list.    Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/

To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org

Instructions:  http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html

List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:

     Scott Douglas           emcp...@ptcnh.net
     Mike Cantwell           mcantw...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:

     Jim Bacher:             j.bac...@ieee.org
     David Heald:            emc-p...@daveheald.com

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:

    http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society
emc-pstc discussion list.    Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/

To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org

Instructions:  http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html

List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:

     Scott Douglas           emcp...@ptcnh.net
     Mike Cantwell           mcantw...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:

     Jim Bacher:             j.bac...@ieee.org
     David Heald:            emc-p...@daveheald.com

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:

    http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

________________________________________________________________________
_____
Scanned by Sanmina-SCI eShield
________________________________________________________________________
_____

CONFIDENTIALITY
This e-mail message and any attachments thereto, is intended only for use by
the addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged and/or
confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail
message, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or
copying of this e-mail message, and any attachments thereto, is strictly
prohibited.  If you have received this e-mail message in error, please
immediately notify the sender and permanently delete the original and any 
copies of this email and any prints thereof.
ABSENT AN EXPRESS STATEMENT TO THE CONTRARY HEREINABOVE, THIS E-MAIL IS NOT
INTENDED AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR A WRITING.  Notwithstanding the Uniform
Electronic Transactions Act or the applicability of any other law of similar
substance and effect, absent an express statement to the contrary hereinabove,
this e-mail message its contents, and any attachments hereto are not intended
to represent an offer or acceptance to enter into a contract and are not
otherwise intended to bind the sender, Sanmina-SCI Corporation (or any of its
subsidiaries), or any other person or entity.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Scanned by Sanmina-SCI eShield  _______
_____________________________________________________________________

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society
emc-pstc discussion list.    Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/

To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org

Instructions:  http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html

List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:

     Scott Douglas           emcp...@ptcnh.net
     Mike Cantwell           mcantw...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:

     Jim Bacher:             j.bac...@ieee.org
     David Heald:            emc-p...@daveheald.com

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:

    http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

Reply via email to