I feel sure, and I expect you do too, that the IEC simply cannot agree
to your first condition, because of the constitutional requirements of
IEC and its constituent National Committees for stakeholder, and later
public, consultation through the National Committees. While unusual,
your second condition might be accepted, but it would be simpler if you
published your results in a peer-reviewed journal, so that the paper(s)
could be cited in the Bibliography of the standard.
I really don't see what you expect to achieve by attempting to impose
these conditions. What you most probably will achieve, if you maintain
the first one, is nothing, despite all your work.
Best wishes
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK
On 2019-11-08 23:08, doug emcesd.com wrote:
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
OracleMarket 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
<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/
<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] <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] <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)
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]>
