Hi Monrad and the group, First, Monrad please unblock my email at you company. Tried to send this but bounced.
Barth Electronics and I took tons of data this week on many ESD simulators and more are coming. Barth's measurement setup is likely the best one on the planet. Jon Barth understands metrology of time domain high voltage and high current waveforms better than any engineer or scientist I have met. He even makes his own resistors and capacitors as commercially available ones often do not work well. He is a perfectionist. So we have all this data, which we can make available to the IEC. The data was paid for by four parties (likely cost $20,000 to do it all) but I can get agreement from everyone to release if desired. We would ask only two things: 1. We intend to publish the data so it is important it not be released to the public, would like an NDA that only committee members can use if for development of the standard, not even their companies may have it. 2. Recognition of the four parties as having contributed to the standard in the appropriate page of the standard. Any thoughts? I feel like the NASA people when all the data came back from Pluto and they said it would take a long time to analyze. To save you weeks, if not months, of analysis, I suggest you come to Boulder City, NV to receive the data. In addition, myself and possibly Barth will go through the data with you and also show you how it was recorded. I can save you a LOT of time by pointing out what is happening in important parts of the data, and I can also describe why it is happening. I figure a day here would work, but you could tly out the second day afternoon to leave the morning if any more discussion were needed. Besides, the weather is much better in Boulder City than in Colorado this time of year (70s and warm sun typically). It is so rare not to have sunshine on a day that a local bar gives out free drinks if there is no sun. Of course the summertime is another matter (110-115 degrees) but I ran hundreds and hundreds of miles in that last summer, used to it. Doug [SYMBOL] From: Monrad Monsen <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, October 14, 2019 9:44 To: [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]<mailto:[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)<http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html> List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Mike Cantwell <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> David Heald <[email protected]<mailto:[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]>
