My experience, is that all brands, commercial and custom private built, will
all make for different results.
The ESD generators can all make the required waveforms as poorly defined and
tested.
Yet each different brand or model will give different results.
Why ? Incomplete performance definition and verification procedures.
So we test to extremes and build to pass, then no matter what equipment is used
to test, the product complies, so far !
On Monday, October 14, 2019, 03:42:00 PM EDT, doug emcesd.com
<[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Montara,
There are more stories than I can type here. The standard as written is not
very good. We addressed this in the early to mid-1990s and determined what was
necessary. We also did a lot of round robin testing. Probably most of what you
want has been published in the 1990s. Look at the ESD Association papers from
the era. Look for authors like myself (we were all involved with revising
61000-4-2), Jon Barth, Ken Hall, Hugh Hyatt.
Everything you need was done back then and rejected by the EU members for
various reasons that I do not consider valid.
Sent from my iPhoneIPhone: 408-858-4528Office: 702-570-6108Email:
[email protected]: http://dsmith.orgFrom: Monrad Monsen
<[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 14, 2019 9:43:54 AM
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Subject: [PSES] Any Different Results in ESD Testing when Changing Brands of
ESD Simulator (IEC 61000-4-2)
Hi!
Does anyone have any stories that can be shared of a product getting a
different ESD test result when changing the brand/model of ESD simulator?
I am a member of the US Technical Advisory Group (TAG) for CISPR/I
international standards committee (Electromagnetic compatibility of information
technology equipment, multimedia equipment and receivers). There is a proposal
that SC77B begin work on changes to IEC 61000-4-2 (ESD) to improve the ESD
waveform verification (some call this “calibration”) because under today’s
rules different simulators create different levels of high frequency signal
content which some believe is the primary reason for different test results.
Some believe that the IEC 61000-4-2 waveform requirement fails to include any
evaluation of the slope (dV/dt or dI/dt) of the impulse, and that uncontrolled
parameter directly affects spectral content. I would like to know if anyone
has experienced any actual ESD test result consistency when using different
Brand/model ESD simulators even though they are all calibrated simulators under
today’s rules.
I admit that our company uses the same brand & model ESD simulator as local
labs, so I have never observed this issue myself. My initial preference is to
not add cost to testing and avoid forcing labs to buy new ESD simulators, but
perhaps this cost is warranted if there are actual wide variations in ESD test
results depending on the brand of ESD simulator.
Thanks.
Monrad Monsen | Hardware Compliance Strategist
Phone: +1.303.272.9612
Oracle Market Access & Hardware Compliance Strategy
500 Eldorado Blvd | Broomfield, CO 80021
-
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to
<[email protected]>
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used
formats), large files, etc.
Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas <[email protected]>
Mike Cantwell <[email protected]>
For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher <[email protected]>
David Heald <[email protected]>
-
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to
<[email protected]>
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web
at:http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used
formats), large files, etc.
Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas <[email protected]>
Mike Cantwell <[email protected]>
For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher <[email protected]>
David Heald <[email protected]>
-
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to
<[email protected]>
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used
formats), large files, etc.
Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas <[email protected]>
Mike Cantwell <[email protected]>
For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher: <[email protected]>
David Heald: <[email protected]>
