Re: Symbols vs. text - was EN61010-1, Symbol 14 - validation
I read in !emc-pstc that Pete Perkins wrote (in <001f01c30a82$2f97a740$1522c6ac@oemcomputer>) about 'Symbols vs. text - was EN61010-1, Symbol 14 - validation' on Thu, 24 Apr 2003: > I'd like to see the validation evaluation for each of the symbols in >IEC 60417. Who can supply that? Whoever represents US interests on IEC SC3C working groups, responsible for IEC 60417. Maybe. But if no-one does -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Interested in professional sound reinforcement and distribution? Then go to http://www.isce.org.uk PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL! 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
RE: Performance Criterion
I'm going to contest this, but only slightly. CISPR 24 defines Performance criterion B as: "After the test, the equipment shall continue to operate as intended without operator intervention. No degradation of performance or loss of function is allowed, after the application of the phenomena below a performance level specified by the manufacturer, when the equipment is used as intended. The performance level may be replaced by a permissible loss of performance. During the test, degradation of performance is allowed. However, no change of operating state or stored data is allowed to persist after the test. If the minimum performance level (or the permissible performance loss) is not specified by the manufacturer, then either of these may be derived from the product description and documentation, and by what the end user may reasonably expect from the equipment if used as intended." Note that the change in operating state or stored data is a bit different than quoted by Doug. Obviously communications will be disrupted while the product re-boots, but re-sends should be possible and self-recovery would progress. Unless the recovery period was too long for the manufacturer to tolerate I would not call this a failure. In any case, what is and is not a failure is not clear cut. If the manufacturer is willing to allow the product to take a minute to recover, and the product does so without operator intervention, then a PASS is appropriate. If the manufacturer specifies that the product should recover more rapidly, then a FAIL is appropriate. I say nothing in the original message that indicated that there were any problems caused by the test, other than a crash that self recovered. Based on that limited information, I would call this product compliant and go on to the next test. Remember that the original message was suggesting that any loss of functionality was a failure, even though the product self recovered. If this is a manufacturer's expectation, then call it a failure. If this was a misunderstanding of criterion B, then we have this discussion. Doug, your point 9 would be a failure under criterion C, not just B. ;-) Ghery S. Pettit Intel Corporation From: Frazee, Douglas (Douglas) [mailto:dfra...@lucent.com] Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2003 1:32 PM To: 'Pettit, Ghery'; 'Ralph McDiarmid'; 'EMC-PSTC' Subject: RE: Performance Criterion Ralph, Ghery's response is somewhat correct, however I'd like to add several points. The definition of criterion B in 61000-6-2 allows degradation during the immunity test. It also states that, "No change of operating state or stored data is allowed." Thus, if communications are interrupted as a result of the ESD forcing a reboot, corrupting stored data, etc.; the EUT is non-compliant. Further, if the manufacturer has not specified a permissible performance loss (test plan is helpful here); it is appropriate to consult the user manual, product specifications and/or derive the minimum performance level" from what the user may reasonably expect from the apparatus when used as intended." This opens it up to interpretation! What is the impact of a 1-minute loss of communications, is it no impact, a minor annoyance or is it likely to set off an unpleasant chain reaction or cause a hazardous condition? I'm afraid that under the condition you describe, compliance may not be clear cut. Here's a summary of my interpretations: 1) EUT completely unaffected by ESD - compliant. 2) EUT shows degradation as a direct result of ESD, self-recovers immediately, operating state and stored data is unaffected - compliant. 3) EUT shows degradation as a direct result of ESD, operating state and stored data are unaffected, EUT self-recovers but not immediately. Manufacturer has defined a permissible performance level either in general or as a result of ESD or transient electromagnetic phenomena. Observed degradation is acceptable within the manufacturer defined parameters - compliant. 4) EUT shows degradation as a direct result of ESD, operating state and stored data are unaffected, EUT self-recovers but not immediately. Manufacturer has defined a permissible performance level either in general or as a result of ESD or transient electromagnetic phenomena. Observed degradation is not acceptable within the manufacturer defined parameters - non-compliant. 5) EUT shows degradation as a direct result of ESD, operating state and/or stored data are affected. - non-compliant. 6) EUT shows degradation as a direct result of ESD, operating state and stored data are unaffected, EUT does not self-recover. - non-compliant. 7) EUT shows degradation as a direct result of ESD, operating state and stored data are unaffected, EUT self-recovers but not immediately. Manufacturer has not defined a permissible performance level either in general or as a result of ESD or transient electromagnetic p
RE: Performance Criterion
Ralph, Ghery’s response is somewhat correct, however I’d like to add several points. The definition of criterion B in 61000-6-2 allows degradation during the immunity test. It also states that, “No change of operating state or stored data is allowed.” Thus, if communications are interrupted as a result of the ESD forcing a reboot, corrupting stored data, etc.; the EUT is non-compliant. Further, if the manufacturer has not specified a permissible performance loss (test plan is helpful here); it is appropriate to consult the user manual, product specifications and/or derive the minimum performance level“ from what the user may reasonably expect from the apparatus when used as intended.” This opens it up to interpretation! What is the impact of a 1-minute loss of communications, is it no impact, a minor annoyance or is it likely to set off an unpleasant chain reaction or cause a hazardous condition? I’m afraid that under the condition you describe, compliance may not be clear cut. Here’s a summary of my interpretations: 1) EUT completely unaffected by ESD – compliant. 2) EUT shows degradation as a direct result of ESD, self-recovers immediately, operating state and stored data is unaffected – compliant. 3) EUT shows degradation as a direct result of ESD, operating state and stored data are unaffected, EUT self-recovers but not immediately. Manufacturer has defined a permissible performance level either in general or as a result of ESD or transient electromagnetic phenomena. Observed degradation is acceptable within the manufacturer defined parameters – compliant. 4) EUT shows degradation as a direct result of ESD, operating state and stored data are unaffected, EUT self-recovers but not immediately. Manufacturer has defined a permissible performance level either in general or as a result of ESD or transient electromagnetic phenomena. Observed degradation is not acceptable within the manufacturer defined parameters – non-compliant. 5) EUT shows degradation as a direct result of ESD, operating state and/or stored data are affected. – non-compliant. 6) EUT shows degradation as a direct result of ESD, operating state and stored data are unaffected, EUT does not self-recover. – non-compliant. 7) EUT shows degradation as a direct result of ESD, operating state and stored data are unaffected, EUT self-recovers but not immediately. Manufacturer has not defined a permissible performance level either in general or as a result of ESD or transient electromagnetic phenomena. Minimum performance level is determined from EUT documentation and/or from what the user may reasonably expect from the apparatus when used as intended. Observed degradation is not acceptable within the parameters of minimum acceptable performance – non-compliant. 8) EUT shows degradation as a direct result of ESD, operating state and stored data are unaffected, EUT self-recovers but not immediately. Manufacturer has not defined a permissible performance level either in general or as a result of ESD or transient electromagnetic phenomena. Minimum performance level is determined from EUT documentation and/or from what the user may reasonably expect from the apparatus when used as intended. Observed degradation is acceptable within the parameters of minimum acceptable performance –compliant. 9) EUT releases smoke as a result of ESD infusion, shows no signs of life after test – non-compliant. 10) EUT shows degradation as a direct result of ESD, operating state and stored data are unaffected, EUT self-recovers but not immediately. Manufacturer has not defined a permissible performance level either in general or as a result of ESD or transient electromagnetic phenomena. Minimum performance level is determined from EUT documentation and/or from what the user may reasonably expect from the apparatus when used as intended. Observed degradation is acceptable within the parameters of minimum acceptable performance however tester is having a lousy day – non-compliant. Douglas G. Frazee Regulatory Compliance Manager Lucent Technologies PSAX Division dfra...@lucent.com From: Pettit, Ghery [mailto:ghery.pet...@intel.com] Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2003 11:13 AM To: 'Ralph McDiarmid'; 'EMC-PSTC' Subject: RE: Performance Criterion Ralph, If a product self-recovers without operator intervention, then you can say it meets criterion B. The manufacturer has the ability within these criteria to define the acceptable loss of function, as well. If 1 minute is an acceptable time for the self-recovery, the product passes. If operator intervention was required, then a clear failure of criterion B would exist. Ghery Pettit From: Ralph McDiarmid [mailto:ralph.mcdiar...@xantrex.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2003 5:01 PM To: 'EMC-PSTC' Subject: Performance Criterion I have a question about Performance Criterion B as described in EN61000-6-2. Scenario: A product temporary lo
Re: Performance Criterion
I read in !emc-pstc that Ralph McDiarmid wrote (in <67C475A5ECE7D4118AEC0002B325CAB602D2F9C0@BCMAIL1>) about 'Performance Criterion' on Wed, 23 Apr 2003: >I have a question about Performance Criterion B as described in EN61000-6-2. > >Scenario: >A product temporary looses communication over a network connection during an >EMC disturbance like an ESD event. It self-recovers and resumes >communication after about a minute. > >Question: >Is the above event considered an acceptable loss of performance or a loss of >functionality? > >If it is a loss of functionality, even a temporary one, then I would say >that is fails Criterion B, but meets Criterion C. I don't think it a >question of loss of performance in this example. > >Is this a correct interpretation? It depends on whether the delay in resuming normal communication matters or not. If it doesn't matter, it's Criterion B. If it does matter, it's C. -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Interested in professional sound reinforcement and distribution? Then go to http://www.isce.org.uk PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL! 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
Step by Step procedure for calculating and performing Data Correl ation
This is a multi-part message in MIME format. All, I am working with a GTEM Cell and wish to perform self verification of our Class A products. We have going to an outside testing house for FCC verification and wish now to do our own verification. * WHAT I AM LOOKING FOR IS THE Step by Step procedure for calculating and performing Data Correlation between a GTEM Cell and OATS ! ** In researching what has to be done to accomplish this task, I have gathered the following information... 1)I Do NOT have to submit the correlated data to the FCC 2) The test does require that we do three ( 3 ) "separate" setups and break down when we start to collect data. 3) The correlation between a GTEM and an OATS must be performed with a device of the type for which you wish to qualify the GTEM. The OATS must comply with the requirements of ANSI C63.4 and the correlation measurements must be performed per C63.4. The same measuring instruments should ( but is not necessary )be used at both test locations. If anyone has "done the math" and the setups for such testing , would you pls contact me or point me in the direction where I could possibly "educate" myself. Regards, Reg Henry <> Title: Step by Step procedure for calculating and performing Data Correl ation All, I am working with a GTEM Cell and wish to perform self verification of our Class A products. We have going to an outside testing house for FCC verification and wish now to do our own verification. * WHAT I AM LOOKING FOR IS THE Step by Step procedure for calculating and performing Data Correlation between a GTEM Cell and OATS ! ** In researching what has to be done to accomplish this task, I have gathered the following information... 1)I Do NOT have to submit the correlated data to the FCC 2) The test does require that we do three ( 3 ) "separate" setups and break down when we start to collect data. 3) The correlation between a GTEM and an OATS must be performed with a device of the type for which you wish to qualify the GTEM. The OATS must comply with the requirements of ANSI C63.4 and the correlation measurements must be performed per C63.4. The same measuring instruments should ( but is not necessary )be used at both test locations. If anyone has "done the math" and the setups for such testing , would you pls contact me or point me in the direction where I could possibly "educate" myself. Regards, Reg Henry <> <>
RE: Repeat and late messages?
Ken, The outgoing IEEE e-mail server has been having problems. The problem is affecting more than just this list and is actively being worked on. I expect the issue to be fixed shortly. Jim Jim Bacher, Senior Engineer Paxar Americas, Inc. 170 Monarch Lane Miamisburg, Ohio 45342 USA e-mail: jim.bac...@paxar.com voice: 1-937-865-2020 fax: 1-937-865-2048 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
