RE: Table Size in Emissions test - Why?

[emc-p...@ieee.org]

I don't know what to say. I too have a desire to meet the people we have
corresponded with over the many. Recent economical restraints have limited or
prohibited participation in the Expos, but I'm hopeful that soon things will
turn around. Until then I will have to rely on this email group for
information, continued education, and entertainment. :o)

The Other Brian

-Original Message-
From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Brian Oconnell
Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2011 1:56 PM
To: 'EMC-PSTC'
Subject: RE: Table Size in Emissions test - Why?

Being a sneaky, underhanded, despicable person; I have two installs - a
config that will match the pretty pics in the standards, and a config that
will make the measurements. The customer's auditor goes away happy after he
visits my site, but my reports clearly specify the test setup 'variation' in
text and pics. And customer's compliance engineers are happy.

As for Mr Kunde, you seem to have a cult following. I was asked by no less
than three people at the PSES symposium if I was 'The Other Brian'. You
should know that there are people out there that want to meet you. Was most
aghast that I would be associated with a reasonable and normal persona.

Brian

-Original Message-
From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org]On Behalf Of Kunde,
Brian
Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2011 10:29 AM
To: EMC-PSTC
Subject: RE: Table Size in Emissions test - Why?

Sorry to jump in on this so late but I've been on vacation.

What is the reason for the table size called out in ANSI and why 1.5m x 1m?
Is there some science behind it? Is it explained anywhere? Just curious.
Below 1Ghz isn't the table suppose to be invisible to RF anyway?

We test to CISPR11 which only calls out the height of the table (0.8m). The
other dimensions are not listed and I never questioned it because I always
assumed they were not important.

I see someone posted that only the height was important and the other
dimensions are "Nominal", but out 'big' test table is 0.8m deep by 3m long.
Can hardly be considered nominal.

Why I'm so curious is we are looking to purchase or build some new test
tables and I want to get the dimensions correct. They must be able to handle
instruments of 600 lbs, have wheels, and can fit through a standard 48"
doorway (3' 9" available). A 1m deep table is a tight fit with cables,
hoses, etc..

Are there any companies who sell test tables or do you still have to make
them?

The Other Brian


-Original Message-
From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of WNya
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2011 7:54 PM
To: EMC-PSTC
Subject: Table Size in Emissions test

Dear Experts,
Recently my company went through the first ISO17025 audit. We have a table
smaller than the standard requirement of 1.5m x 1m since our products are
small, typically 10cm x 10cm x 10cm. The height of our table was 0.8m. The
auditor wanted us to change the table size to follow the standard.
What does it matter since we never use the extra space on the table? I do
agree we must keep to the height requirement since the floor is a ground
plane and thus it sets a fixed capacitance to the EUT and also controls the
lengths of any attached cables.

Can we reject or challenge the auditor's request? Has anyone experience the
same situation?

-

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


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/
Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.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 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 


LECO Corporation Notice: This communication may contain confidential
information intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you received this by
mistake, please destroy it and notify us of the error. Thank you.

-

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


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/
Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.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 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

RE: Table Size in Emissions test - Why?

[emc-p...@ieee.org]

Being a sneaky, underhanded, despicable person; I have two installs - a
config that will match the pretty pics in the standards, and a config that
will make the measurements. The customer's auditor goes away happy after he
visits my site, but my reports clearly specify the test setup 'variation' in
text and pics. And customer's compliance engineers are happy.

As for Mr Kunde, you seem to have a cult following. I was asked by no less
than three people at the PSES symposium if I was 'The Other Brian'. You
should know that there are people out there that want to meet you. Was most
aghast that I would be associated with a reasonable and normal persona.

Brian

-Original Message-
From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org]On Behalf Of Kunde,
Brian
Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2011 10:29 AM
To: EMC-PSTC
Subject: RE: Table Size in Emissions test - Why?

Sorry to jump in on this so late but I've been on vacation.

What is the reason for the table size called out in ANSI and why 1.5m x 1m?
Is there some science behind it? Is it explained anywhere? Just curious.
Below 1Ghz isn't the table suppose to be invisible to RF anyway?

We test to CISPR11 which only calls out the height of the table (0.8m). The
other dimensions are not listed and I never questioned it because I always
assumed they were not important.

I see someone posted that only the height was important and the other
dimensions are "Nominal", but out 'big' test table is 0.8m deep by 3m long.
Can hardly be considered nominal.

Why I'm so curious is we are looking to purchase or build some new test
tables and I want to get the dimensions correct. They must be able to handle
instruments of 600 lbs, have wheels, and can fit through a standard 48"
doorway (3' 9" available). A 1m deep table is a tight fit with cables,
hoses, etc..

Are there any companies who sell test tables or do you still have to make
them?

The Other Brian


-Original Message-
From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of WNya
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2011 7:54 PM
To: EMC-PSTC
Subject: Table Size in Emissions test

Dear Experts,
Recently my company went through the first ISO17025 audit. We have a table
smaller than the standard requirement of 1.5m x 1m since our products are
small, typically 10cm x 10cm x 10cm. The height of our table was 0.8m. The
auditor wanted us to change the table size to follow the standard.
What does it matter since we never use the extra space on the table? I do
agree we must keep to the height requirement since the floor is a ground
plane and thus it sets a fixed capacitance to the EUT and also controls the
lengths of any attached cables.

Can we reject or challenge the auditor's request? Has anyone experience the
same situation?

-

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


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/
Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.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 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

RE: Table Size in Emissions test - Why?

[emc-p...@ieee.org]

Sorry to jump in on this so late but I've been on vacation.

What is the reason for the table size called out in ANSI and why 1.5m x 1m? Is
there some science behind it? Is it explained anywhere? Just curious. Below
1Ghz isn't the table suppose to be invisible to RF anyway?

We test to CISPR11 which only calls out the height of the table (0.8m). The
other dimensions are not listed and I never questioned it because I always
assumed they were not important.

I see someone posted that only the height was important and the other
dimensions are "Nominal", but out 'big' test table is 0.8m deep by 3m long.
Can hardly be considered nominal.

Why I'm so curious is we are looking to purchase or build some new test tables
and I want to get the dimensions correct. They must be able to handle
instruments of 600 lbs, have wheels, and can fit through a standard 48"
doorway (3' 9" available). A 1m deep table is a tight fit with cables, hoses,
etc..

Are there any companies who sell test tables or do you still have to make them?

The Other Brian


-Original Message-
From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of WNya
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2011 7:54 PM
To: EMC-PSTC
Subject: Table Size in Emissions test

Dear Experts,
Recently my company went through the first ISO17025 audit. We have a table
smaller than the standard requirement of 1.5m x 1m since our products are
small, typically 10cm x 10cm x 10cm. The height of our table was 0.8m. The
auditor wanted us to change the table size to follow the standard.
What does it matter since we never use the extra space on the table? I do
agree we must keep to the height requirement since the floor is a ground plane
and thus it sets a fixed capacitance to the EUT and also controls the lengths
of any attached cables.

Can we reject or challenge the auditor's request? Has anyone experience the
same situation?

Sent from Wendy.Nya iPhone

-

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


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/
Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.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 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 


LECO Corporation Notice: This communication may contain confidential
information intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you received this by
mistake, please destroy it and notify us of the error. Thank you.

-

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


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/
Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.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 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: Table Size in Emissions test - Intent

[emc-p...@ieee.org]

it seems to me the problem is an auditor who does not know what the test 
does, and what it takes to make it repeatable and accurate (as much as 
these tests are, anyway). In such a case, people tend to stick with what 
the reg says and not try to understand.

I was once at a test lab in California that had a vacuum variable 
capacitor with spark gap and a solenoid coil on display.  An auditor had 
rejected its use for damped sine wave Lightning Indirect Effects tests 
because it wasn't calibrated and had to be adjusted by the user.   Some 
of the list may know which lab. They bought a expensive piece of 
equipment that had to be calibrated. Problem... fixed.

Suggestion: Change the table as needed. If you do a test that has to 
meet someone elses' requirement, use the nominal size.

Cortland Richmond

On 10/11/2011 1:52 PM, don_borow...@selinc.com wrote:
> When confronted with problems like this, I always try to determine the
> intent of the particular statement in the test. To me, it is clear that
> the intent is to fully support the EUT and associated equipment, with
> cables dropping off the edges of the defined area, as needed. The table
> should serve this support function and be invisible to RF.
>
> In the case of a small EUT with no cables, the intent is satisfied with a
> table just large enough to support the EUT. Heck, for something like a
> digital camera without cables, a threaded plastic rod coming up from the
> turntable, screwed into the mounting hole in the bottom of the camera,
> would be sufficient to support it and satisfy the intent.
>
> Of course, getting an auditor to understand the intent, as opposed to a
> literal reading, might be difficult to do.
>
> Donald Borowski
> Senior EMC Compliance Engineer
> Schweitzer Engineering Labs
> Pullman, Washington, USA
>
>
> From:   Derek Walton
> To: dw...@acbcert.com
> Cc: "'Grace Lin'", "'WNya'"
> , "'EMC-PSTC'"
> Date:   10/11/2011 10:12 AM
> Subject:Re: Table Size in Emissions test
> Sent by:emc-p...@ieee.org
>
>
>
> Sorry Dennis,
>
> you are not correct. Nominal means:
>
> b : of, being, or relating to a designated or theoretical size that may
> vary from the actual.
>
> This is from Websters.
>
> As you indicate, there is NOTHING that says it has to be 1 by 1.5m
>
> I'm sorry to be so anal about this, but it is happening too much where
> assessors are assessing to opinions and personal agendas. We must follow
> the standard. Usually there are MUCH bigger fish to fry than quibbling
[SNIPPED]

-

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


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/
Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.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 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: Table Size in Emissions test

[emc-p...@ieee.org]

I really dislike having to repeat myself because my comments are being
misrepresented.

Accreditation is only useful if on average the assessors are significantly
more knowledgeable than the assessees. We should have a large number of
assessees represented within this forum.

Is there a general feeling that the the average assessor walks into the
average test house knowing significantly more than the average tester?
 
Ken Javor

Phone: (256) 650-5261





From: Dennis Ward 
Reply-To: 
List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 13:14:09 -0700
To: 'Ken Javor' , 'EMC-PSTC'

Subject: RE: Table Size in Emissions test

Accreditation is like coffee, you either like it or you don’t.
If you do not like it, then no one can make you accept the benefits.
If you like it, no one needs to explain the benefits.
 

Dennis Ward 


Director of Engineering
American Certification Body 
Certification Resource for the Wireless Industry http://www.acbcert.com
703-847-4700 fax 703-847-6888 
direct - 703-880-4841


From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Ken Javor
Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 12:48 PM
To: 'EMC-PSTC'
Subject: Re: Table Size in Emissions test

The issue isn’t with a properly written standard; the issue with an assumed
intelligentsia smart enough to tell various labs what they are and are not
doing correctly. While there is no doubt that some assessors are more
knowledgeable than some assessees, it is nowhere near obvious that is true in
the general case; in fact it seems quite the opposite is true in the general
case. Unless the average assessor is quite a bit more knowledgeable than the
average test house, the value of the process is as I stated below.

This accreditation process is nothing but window dressing to gussy up
something to look like something it’s not.
 
Ken Javor

Phone: (256) 650-5261




From: Dennis Ward 
Reply-To: 
List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 12:14:53 -0700
To: 'Ken Javor' , 'EMC-PSTC'

Subject: RE: Table Size in Emissions test

Heaven forbid we ever go back to the early 80’s when there was no acceptable
methods, no accepted procedures, no accepted setup and when the FCC expected
cable manipulation till the cows came home to find the maximum emissions
levels.  Talk about a waste of time – days upon days moving every cable into
every likely position finding the ‘worse’ case.  Then to find out that the
FCC or another lab found that one cable position that showed 10dB more than
the other lab measured.   Everyone was right in their own eyes and most of
those eyes were blind except to their own erroneous methods and practices.
No, conformity of setup, table size, configuration, support equipment etc, may
not be the best, but it is infinitely better than 30, even 25 years ago.
 

Dennis Ward 


Director of Engineering
American Certification Body 
Certification Resource for the Wireless Industry http://www.acbcert.com
703-847-4700 fax 703-847-6888 
direct - 703-880-4841


From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Ken Javor
Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 11:29 AM
To: 'EMC-PSTC'
Subject: Re: Table Size in Emissions test

Within his frame of reference, Ward is correct, which is why this entire
accreditation process is flawed and broken.  We got along without it before,
and it is adding nothing but extra costs and bureaucracy, and negative value
to the process of controlling EMI.
 
Ken Javor

Phone: (256) 650-5261 




From: Dennis Ward 
Reply-To: 
List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 11:15:00 -0700
To: 'Derek Walton' 
Cc: 'Grace Lin' , 'WNya' ,
'EMC-PSTC' 
Subject: RE: Table Size in Emissions test

HI Derek
The point of anything ‘nominal’ is that it starts with what is expected
and allows reasonable variations of sorts. And you hit the right words
“relating to a designated or theoretical size”.  If you say you must
follow the standard, then follow it. The designated size of a table is 1m x
1.5m x 0.8m.  This then is the size generally expected.  It is not a
micrometer reading with 0.01m measurement uncertainty tolerances; it is a
general designated and expected size – a nominal size.  
 
Now, and without going into uncertainties and its minutia, a 0.8m x 1.2m
table, while not typically or generally expected, could be stretched to be
within a range of what could be considered within the nominal range.  Likewise
a table 1.2m x 1.8m would or should still be considered within an expected or
nominal value. To the contrary, a table 0.2m x 0.2m, for many reasons, would
not be generally considered expected and thus not nominal, but abnormal in
size for the intent and purposes of the standard.  
 
Remembering that there are three dimensions given (i.e. 1mx1.5mx0.8m), if we
take your ‘exception’, then 

RE: Table Size in Emissions test

[emc-p...@ieee.org]

And just like coffee, some assessors are great and some need to be thrown out.

 

Chris

 

From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Dennis Ward
Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 2:14 PM
To: 'Ken Javor'; 'EMC-PSTC'
Subject: RE: Table Size in Emissions test

 

Accreditation is like coffee, you either like it or you don’t.

If you do not like it, then no one can make you accept the benefits.

If you like it, no one needs to explain the benefits.

 

Dennis Ward 

Director of Engineering

American Certification Body 
Certification Resource for the Wireless Industry http://www.acbcert.com
703-847-4700 fax 703-847-6888 
direct - 703-880-4841

 

From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Ken Javor
Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 12:48 PM
To: 'EMC-PSTC'
Subject: Re: Table Size in Emissions test

 

The issue isn’t with a properly written standard; the issue with an assumed 
intelligentsia smart enough to tell various labs what they are and are not 
doing correctly. While there is no doubt that some assessors are more 
knowledgeable than some assessees, it is nowhere near obvious that is true in 
the general case; in fact it seems quite the opposite is true in the general 
case. Unless the average assessor is quite a bit more knowledgeable than the 
average test house, the value of the process is as I stated below.

This accreditation process is nothing but window dressing to gussy up something 
to look like something it’s not.
 
Ken Javor

Phone: (256) 650-5261



From: Dennis Ward 
Reply-To: 
List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 12:14:53 -0700
To: 'Ken Javor' , 'EMC-PSTC' 

Subject: RE: Table Size in Emissions test

Heaven forbid we ever go back to the early 80’s when there was no acceptable 
methods, no accepted procedures, no accepted setup and when the FCC expected 
cable manipulation till the cows came home to find the maximum emissions 
levels.  Talk about a waste of time – days upon days moving every cable into 
every likely position finding the ‘worse’ case.  Then to find out that the FCC 
or another lab found that one cable position that showed 10dB more than the 
other lab measured.   Everyone was right in their own eyes and most of those 
eyes were blind except to their own erroneous methods and practices.
No, conformity of setup, table size, configuration, support equipment etc, may 
not be the best, but it is infinitely better than 30, even 25 years ago.
 

Dennis Ward 


Director of Engineering
American Certification Body 
Certification Resource for the Wireless Industry http://www.acbcert.com
703-847-4700 fax 703-847-6888 
direct - 703-880-4841


From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Ken Javor
Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 11:29 AM
To: 'EMC-PSTC'
Subject: Re: Table Size in Emissions test

Within his frame of reference, Ward is correct, which is why this entire 
accreditation process is flawed and broken.  We got along without it before, 
and it is adding nothing but extra costs and bureaucracy, and negative value to 
the process of controlling EMI.
 
Ken Javor

Phone: (256) 650-5261



From: Dennis Ward 
Reply-To: 
List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 11:15:00 -0700
To: 'Derek Walton' 
Cc: 'Grace Lin' , 'WNya' , 'EMC-PSTC' 

Subject: RE: Table Size in Emissions test

HI Derek
The point of anything ‘nominal’ is that it starts with what is expected and 
allows reasonable variations of sorts. And you hit the right words “relating to 
a designated or theoretical size”.  If you say you must follow the standard, 
then follow it. The designated size of a table is 1m x 1.5m x 0.8m.  This then 
is the size generally expected.  It is not a micrometer reading with 0.01m 
measurement uncertainty tolerances; it is a general designated and expected 
size – a nominal size.  
 
Now, and without going into uncertainties and its minutia, a 0.8m x 1.2m table, 
while not typically or generally expected, could be stretched to be within a 
range of what could be considered within the nominal range.  Likewise a table 
1.2m x 1.8m would or should still be considered within an expected or nominal 
value. To the contrary, a table 0.2m x 0.2m, for many reasons, would not be 
generally considered expected and thus not nominal, but abnormal in size for 
the intent and purposes of the standard.  
 
Remembering that there are three dimensions given (i.e. 1mx1.5mx0.8m), if we 
take your ‘exception’, then I could place a device on the ground plane as long 
as it was on a nonconducting surface.  Yet I know of no lab nor auditor that 
would accept this as a ‘nominal’ height condition for any of the standards 
mentioned.  I would not be able to reject or challenge their claim that my 
table height was not 80cm by saying, nominal is “of, being, or rela

RE: Table Size in Emissions test

[emc-p...@ieee.org]

Accreditation is like coffee, you either like it or you don’t.

If you do not like it, then no one can make you accept the benefits.

If you like it, no one needs to explain the benefits.

 

Dennis Ward 



Director of Engineering

American Certification Body 
Certification Resource for the Wireless Industry http://www.acbcert.com
703-847-4700 fax 703-847-6888 
direct - 703-880-4841

 

From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Ken Javor
Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 12:48 PM
To: 'EMC-PSTC'
Subject: Re: Table Size in Emissions test

 

The issue isn’t with a properly written standard; the issue with an assumed 
intelligentsia smart enough to tell various labs what they are and are not 
doing correctly. While there is no doubt that some assessors are more 
knowledgeable than some assessees, it is nowhere near obvious that is true in 
the general case; in fact it seems quite the opposite is true in the general 
case. Unless the average assessor is quite a bit more knowledgeable than the 
average test house, the value of the process is as I stated below.

This accreditation process is nothing but window dressing to gussy up something 
to look like something it’s not.
 
Ken Javor

Phone: (256) 650-5261





From: Dennis Ward 
Reply-To: 
List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 12:14:53 -0700
To: 'Ken Javor' , 'EMC-PSTC' 

Subject: RE: Table Size in Emissions test

Heaven forbid we ever go back to the early 80’s when there was no acceptable 
methods, no accepted procedures, no accepted setup and when the FCC expected 
cable manipulation till the cows came home to find the maximum emissions 
levels.  Talk about a waste of time – days upon days moving every cable into 
every likely position finding the ‘worse’ case.  Then to find out that the FCC 
or another lab found that one cable position that showed 10dB more than the 
other lab measured.   Everyone was right in their own eyes and most of those 
eyes were blind except to their own erroneous methods and practices.
No, conformity of setup, table size, configuration, support equipment etc, may 
not be the best, but it is infinitely better than 30, even 25 years ago.
 

Dennis Ward 


Director of Engineering
American Certification Body 
Certification Resource for the Wireless Industry http://www.acbcert.com
703-847-4700 fax 703-847-6888 
direct - 703-880-4841


From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Ken Javor
Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 11:29 AM
To: 'EMC-PSTC'
Subject: Re: Table Size in Emissions test

Within his frame of reference, Ward is correct, which is why this entire 
accreditation process is flawed and broken.  We got along without it before, 
and it is adding nothing but extra costs and bureaucracy, and negative value to 
the process of controlling EMI.
 
Ken Javor

Phone: (256) 650-5261



From: Dennis Ward 
Reply-To: 
List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 11:15:00 -0700
To: 'Derek Walton' 
Cc: 'Grace Lin' , 'WNya' , 'EMC-PSTC' 

Subject: RE: Table Size in Emissions test

HI Derek
The point of anything ‘nominal’ is that it starts with what is expected and 
allows reasonable variations of sorts. And you hit the right words “relating to 
a designated or theoretical size”.  If you say you must follow the standard, 
then follow it. The designated size of a table is 1m x 1.5m x 0.8m.  This then 
is the size generally expected.  It is not a micrometer reading with 0.01m 
measurement uncertainty tolerances; it is a general designated and expected 
size – a nominal size.  
 
Now, and without going into uncertainties and its minutia, a 0.8m x 1.2m table, 
while not typically or generally expected, could be stretched to be within a 
range of what could be considered within the nominal range.  Likewise a table 
1.2m x 1.8m would or should still be considered within an expected or nominal 
value. To the contrary, a table 0.2m x 0.2m, for many reasons, would not be 
generally considered expected and thus not nominal, but abnormal in size for 
the intent and purposes of the standard.  
 
Remembering that there are three dimensions given (i.e. 1mx1.5mx0.8m), if we 
take your ‘exception’, then I could place a device on the ground plane as long 
as it was on a nonconducting surface.  Yet I know of no lab nor auditor that 
would accept this as a ‘nominal’ height condition for any of the standards 
mentioned.  I would not be able to reject or challenge their claim that my 
table height was not 80cm by saying, nominal is “of, being, or relating to a 
designated or theoretical size that may vary from the actual, and I don’t have 
to have a table 80cm high.”  

One might say, yes, but height matters. And they would be correct, however, the 
dimensions are together in the same frame of reference in the same sentence. So 
any exceptions 

Re: Table Size in Emissions test

[emc-p...@ieee.org]

The issue isn’t with a properly written standard; the issue with an assumed
intelligentsia smart enough to tell various labs what they are and are not
doing correctly. While there is no doubt that some assessors are more
knowledgeable than some assessees, it is nowhere near obvious that is true in
the general case; in fact it seems quite the opposite is true in the general
case. Unless the average assessor is quite a bit more knowledgeable than the
average test house, the value of the process is as I stated below.

This accreditation process is nothing but window dressing to gussy up
something to look like something it’s not.
 
Ken Javor

Phone: (256) 650-5261





From: Dennis Ward 
Reply-To: 
List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 12:14:53 -0700
To: 'Ken Javor' , 'EMC-PSTC'

Subject: RE: Table Size in Emissions test

Heaven forbid we ever go back to the early 80’s when there was no acceptable
methods, no accepted procedures, no accepted setup and when the FCC expected
cable manipulation till the cows came home to find the maximum emissions
levels.  Talk about a waste of time – days upon days moving every cable into
every likely position finding the ‘worse’ case.  Then to find out that the
FCC or another lab found that one cable position that showed 10dB more than
the other lab measured.   Everyone was right in their own eyes and most of
those eyes were blind except to their own erroneous methods and practices.
No, conformity of setup, table size, configuration, support equipment etc, may
not be the best, but it is infinitely better than 30, even 25 years ago.
 

Dennis Ward 


Director of Engineering
American Certification Body 
Certification Resource for the Wireless Industry http://www.acbcert.com
703-847-4700 fax 703-847-6888 
direct - 703-880-4841


From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Ken Javor
Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 11:29 AM
To: 'EMC-PSTC'
Subject: Re: Table Size in Emissions test

Within his frame of reference, Ward is correct, which is why this entire
accreditation process is flawed and broken.  We got along without it before,
and it is adding nothing but extra costs and bureaucracy, and negative value
to the process of controlling EMI.
 
Ken Javor

Phone: (256) 650-5261




From: Dennis Ward 
Reply-To: 
List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 11:15:00 -0700
To: 'Derek Walton' 
Cc: 'Grace Lin' , 'WNya' ,
'EMC-PSTC' 
Subject: RE: Table Size in Emissions test

HI Derek
The point of anything ‘nominal’ is that it starts with what is expected
and allows reasonable variations of sorts. And you hit the right words
“relating to a designated or theoretical size”.  If you say you must
follow the standard, then follow it. The designated size of a table is 1m x
1.5m x 0.8m.  This then is the size generally expected.  It is not a
micrometer reading with 0.01m measurement uncertainty tolerances; it is a
general designated and expected size – a nominal size.  
 
Now, and without going into uncertainties and its minutia, a 0.8m x 1.2m
table, while not typically or generally expected, could be stretched to be
within a range of what could be considered within the nominal range.  Likewise
a table 1.2m x 1.8m would or should still be considered within an expected or
nominal value. To the contrary, a table 0.2m x 0.2m, for many reasons, would
not be generally considered expected and thus not nominal, but abnormal in
size for the intent and purposes of the standard.  
 
Remembering that there are three dimensions given (i.e. 1mx1.5mx0.8m), if we
take your ‘exception’, then I could place a device on the ground plane as
long as it was on a nonconducting surface.  Yet I know of no lab nor auditor
that would accept this as a ‘nominal’ height condition for any of the
standards mentioned.  I would not be able to reject or challenge their claim
that my table height was not 80cm by saying, nominal is “of, being, or
relating to a designated or theoretical size that may vary from the actual,
and I don’t have to have a table 80cm high.”  

One might say, yes, but height matters. And they would be correct, however,
the dimensions are together in the same frame of reference in the same
sentence. So any exceptions to the dimensions would have to follow the same
process.  The issue then is not uncertainty and its issues, but what is
generally expected and accepted as a reasonable table for the intent of the
standard.  
 
Remembering that standards are produced as much to make something consistent
wherever used, then the nominal would be that which is generally consistent
within the population that uses the standard. 
 
As to ‘bigger fish to fry’, this would be a good size fish for a lab that
was seeking accreditation. Yes there are allowable variations, equipment
considerations, etc that can be discussed with the accred

Re: Table Size in Emissions test

[emc-p...@ieee.org]

Hi Dennis,

we have common ground, and I'm in agreement, except for table size. If we have 
to show it's not influencing the measurement, it's not a factor.  If you want 
to argue about height I'll pass on that. It's 80 cm.

Cheers,

Derek.

On 10/11/2011 2:14 PM, Dennis Ward wrote: 

Heaven forbid we ever go back to the early 80’s when there was no 
acceptable methods, no accepted procedures, no accepted setup and when the FCC 
expected cable manipulation till the cows came home to find the maximum 
emissions levels.  Talk about a waste of time – days upon days moving every 
cable into every likely position finding the ‘worse’ case.  Then to find out 
that the FCC or another lab found that one cable position that showed 10dB more 
than the other lab measured.   Everyone was right in their own eyes and most of 
those eyes were blind except to their own erroneous methods and practices.

No, conformity of setup, table size, configuration, support equipment 
etc, may not be the best, but it is infinitely better than 30, even 25 years 
ago.

 

Dennis Ward 



Director of Engineering

American Certification Body 
Certification Resource for the Wireless Industry http://www.acbcert.com
703-847-4700 fax 703-847-6888 
direct - 703-880-4841

 

From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Ken 
Javor
Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 11:29 AM
To: 'EMC-PSTC'
Subject: Re: Table Size in Emissions test

 

Within his frame of reference, Ward is correct, which is why this 
entire accreditation process is flawed and broken.  We got along without it 
before, and it is adding nothing but extra costs and bureaucracy, and negative 
value to the process of controlling EMI.
 
Ken Javor

Phone: (256) 650-5261







From: Dennis Ward  <mailto:dw...@acbcert.com> 
Reply-To:  <mailto:dw...@acbcert.com> 
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 11:15:00 -0700
To: 'Derek Walton'  <mailto:lfresea...@aol.com> 
Cc: 'Grace Lin'  <mailto:graceli...@gmail.com> , 
'WNya'  <mailto:wendy...@yahoo.com> , 'EMC-PSTC' 
 <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> 
Subject: RE: Table Size in Emissions test

HI Derek
The point of anything ‘nominal’ is that it starts with what is expected 
and allows reasonable variations of sorts. And you hit the right words 
“relating to a designated or theoretical size”.  If you say you must follow the 
standard, then follow it. The designated size of a table is 1m x 1.5m x 0.8m.  
This then is the size generally expected.  It is not a micrometer reading with 
0.01m measurement uncertainty tolerances; it is a general designated and 
expected size – a nominal size.  
 
Now, and without going into uncertainties and its minutia, a 0.8m x 
1.2m table, while not typically or generally expected, could be stretched to be 
within a range of what could be considered within the nominal range.  Likewise 
a table 1.2m x 1.8m would or should still be considered within an expected or 
nominal value. To the contrary, a table 0.2m x 0.2m, for many reasons, would 
not be generally considered expected and thus not nominal, but abnormal in size 
for the intent and purposes of the standard.  
 
Remembering that there are three dimensions given (i.e. 1mx1.5mx0.8m), 
if we take your ‘exception’, then I could place a device on the ground plane as 
long as it was on a nonconducting surface.  Yet I know of no lab nor auditor 
that would accept this as a ‘nominal’ height condition for any of the standards 
mentioned.  I would not be able to reject or challenge their claim that my 
table height was not 80cm by saying, nominal is “of, being, or relating to a 
designated or theoretical size that may vary from the actual, and I don’t have 
to have a table 80cm high.”  

One might say, yes, but height matters. And they would be correct, 
however, the dimensions are together in the same frame of reference in the same 
sentence. So any exceptions to the dimensions would have to follow the same 
process.  The issue then is not uncertainty and its issues, but what is 
generally expected and accepted as a reasonable table for the intent of the 
standard.  
 
Remembering that standards are produced as much to make something 
consistent wherever used, then the nominal would be that which is generally 
consistent within the population that uses the standard. 
 
As to ‘bigger fish to fry’, this would be a good size fish for a lab 
that was seeking accreditation. Yes there are allowable variations, equipment 
considerations, etc that can be discussed with the accredit

Re: Table Size in Emissions test - Intent

[emc-p...@ieee.org]

HI Dennis,

I did not in anyway state that table top size should dictate set-up. 
Wendy's EUT has no cables, it's 10cm by 10cm: A non issue.

There are rules for what has to reside on the table and their placement 
in terns of separation. I believe it's also addressed when a set up is 
too big for a table. So this is all covered.

The crux of my concern is that an assessor is wasting everyone's time 
for a non-event, time equals $$$. It gives credence to folks like 
Ken ( who I count as a very good friend ) who are not fans of the 
assessing process. And in cases like this, I agree with him.

For all the pontificating going on, nominal means big enough to hold 
your set-up in accordance with placement rules. Height means 80 cm.

Cheers,

Derek.

On 10/11/2011 2:07 PM, Dennis Ward wrote:
> Derek
> True, if you have one device, no cables, no power and no support equipment.
> If you have anything else, then there are stated separation distances
> between devices, stated cable routing etc.  Again, the standard is not
> written to the anomaly, but to the expected generalized configurations in
> which sufficient space must be given to accommodate expected support
> equipment, not just the EUT.
>
> The reason you have a suggested/recommended/designated table size is to
> allow a standardized setup, standardized configuration, standardized
> separation and standardized cable manipulation.
>
> And, remember the subject line " Table Size in Emissions test - Intent"
>
> Dennis Ward
>
> Director of Engineering
> American Certification Body
> Certification Resource for the Wireless Industry http://www.acbcert.com
> 703-847-4700 fax 703-847-6888
> direct - 703-880-4841
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Derek Walton [mailto:lfresea...@aol.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 11:50 AM
> To: Dennis Ward
> Cc: don_borow...@selinc.com; emc-p...@ieee.org
> Subject: Re: Table Size in Emissions test - Intent
>
> Dennis,
>
> Test set-up is independent of table size. Especially since we prove the
> table is not part of the equation..
>
> Cheers,
>
> Derek.
>
> On 10/11/2011 1:20 PM, Dennis Ward wrote:
>> Yes, and you can get accredited to test only cameras in that configuration
>> if that is what you do and what you want.
>>
>> But the intent of a general scope of accreditation to ANSI C63.4 or C63.10
>> (or any standard) is not the anomaly, but the general test configurations
>> specified in the standard. Consequently, unless you limit your testing
>> capabilities, going with the expected dimensions is simply easier, faster
>> and allows all configurations in test setup etc.
>>
>>
>>
>> Dennis Ward
>>
>> Director of Engineering
>> American Certification Body
>> Certification Resource for the Wireless Industry http://www.acbcert.com
>> 703-847-4700 fax 703-847-6888
>> direct - 703-880-4841
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of
>> don_borow...@selinc.com
>> Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 10:52 AM
>> To: emc-p...@ieee.org
>> Subject: Re: Table Size in Emissions test - Intent
>>
>> When confronted with problems like this, I always try to determine the
>> intent of the particular statement in the test. To me, it is clear that
>> the intent is to fully support the EUT and associated equipment, with
>> cables dropping off the edges of the defined area, as needed. The table
>> should serve this support function and be invisible to RF.
>>
>> In the case of a small EUT with no cables, the intent is satisfied with a
>> table just large enough to support the EUT. Heck, for something like a
>> digital camera without cables, a threaded plastic rod coming up from the
>> turntable, screwed into the mounting hole in the bottom of the camera,
>> would be sufficient to support it and satisfy the intent.
>>
>> Of course, getting an auditor to understand the intent, as opposed to a
>> literal reading, might be difficult to do.
>>
>> Donald Borowski
>> Senior EMC Compliance Engineer
>> Schweitzer Engineering Labs
>> Pullman, Washington, USA
>>
>>
>> From:   Derek Walton
>> To: dw...@acbcert.com
>> Cc: "'Grace Lin'", "'WNya'"
>> , "'EMC-PSTC'"
>> Date:   10/11/2011 10:12 AM
>> Subject:Re: Table Size in Emissions test
>> Sent by:emc-p...@ieee.org
>>
>>
>>
>> Sorry Dennis,
>>
>> you are not correct. Nominal means:
>>
>> b : of, being, or relating to a designated or theoretical size

RE: Table Size in Emissions test

[emc-p...@ieee.org]

Heaven forbid we ever go back to the early 80’s when there was no acceptable 
methods, no accepted procedures, no accepted setup and when the FCC expected 
cable manipulation till the cows came home to find the maximum emissions 
levels.  Talk about a waste of time – days upon days moving every cable into 
every likely position finding the ‘worse’ case.  Then to find out that the FCC 
or another lab found that one cable position that showed 10dB more than the 
other lab measured.   Everyone was right in their own eyes and most of those 
eyes were blind except to their own erroneous methods and practices.

No, conformity of setup, table size, configuration, support equipment etc, may 
not be the best, but it is infinitely better than 30, even 25 years ago.

 

Dennis Ward 



Director of Engineering

American Certification Body 
Certification Resource for the Wireless Industry http://www.acbcert.com
703-847-4700 fax 703-847-6888 
direct - 703-880-4841

 

From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Ken Javor
Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 11:29 AM
To: 'EMC-PSTC'
Subject: Re: Table Size in Emissions test

 

Within his frame of reference, Ward is correct, which is why this entire 
accreditation process is flawed and broken.  We got along without it before, 
and it is adding nothing but extra costs and bureaucracy, and negative value to 
the process of controlling EMI.
 
Ken Javor

Phone: (256) 650-5261





From: Dennis Ward 
Reply-To: 
List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 11:15:00 -0700
To: 'Derek Walton' 
Cc: 'Grace Lin' , 'WNya' , 'EMC-PSTC' 

Subject: RE: Table Size in Emissions test

HI Derek
The point of anything ‘nominal’ is that it starts with what is expected and 
allows reasonable variations of sorts. And you hit the right words “relating to 
a designated or theoretical size”.  If you say you must follow the standard, 
then follow it. The designated size of a table is 1m x 1.5m x 0.8m.  This then 
is the size generally expected.  It is not a micrometer reading with 0.01m 
measurement uncertainty tolerances; it is a general designated and expected 
size – a nominal size.  
 
Now, and without going into uncertainties and its minutia, a 0.8m x 1.2m table, 
while not typically or generally expected, could be stretched to be within a 
range of what could be considered within the nominal range.  Likewise a table 
1.2m x 1.8m would or should still be considered within an expected or nominal 
value. To the contrary, a table 0.2m x 0.2m, for many reasons, would not be 
generally considered expected and thus not nominal, but abnormal in size for 
the intent and purposes of the standard.  
 
Remembering that there are three dimensions given (i.e. 1mx1.5mx0.8m), if we 
take your ‘exception’, then I could place a device on the ground plane as long 
as it was on a nonconducting surface.  Yet I know of no lab nor auditor that 
would accept this as a ‘nominal’ height condition for any of the standards 
mentioned.  I would not be able to reject or challenge their claim that my 
table height was not 80cm by saying, nominal is “of, being, or relating to a 
designated or theoretical size that may vary from the actual, and I don’t have 
to have a table 80cm high.”  

One might say, yes, but height matters. And they would be correct, however, the 
dimensions are together in the same frame of reference in the same sentence. So 
any exceptions to the dimensions would have to follow the same process.  The 
issue then is not uncertainty and its issues, but what is generally expected 
and accepted as a reasonable table for the intent of the standard.  
 
Remembering that standards are produced as much to make something consistent 
wherever used, then the nominal would be that which is generally consistent 
within the population that uses the standard. 
 
As to ‘bigger fish to fry’, this would be a good size fish for a lab that was 
seeking accreditation. Yes there are allowable variations, equipment 
considerations, etc that can be discussed with the accrediting organization.  
To say that because ‘nominal’ is used and because ‘shall’ is not, I can do what 
I want, is simply not the case if they want to become accredited. It is fairly 
easy and cheap to construct a nominal table of dimensions in the standards.  
There is probably more money, time and effort in trying to challenge or reject 
the assessment than to simply hire a carpenter and build one.
 
But the choice is the labs and how they wish to relate to their accreditation 
body.
 

Dennis Ward 


Director of Engineering
American Certification Body 
Certification Resource for the Wireless Industry http://www.acbcert.com
703-847-4700 fax 703-847-6888 
direct - 703-880-4841


From: Derek Walton [mailto:lfresea...@aol.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 10:09 AM
To: Dennis Ward
Cc: 'Grace Lin'; 'WNya'; 'EMC-PSTC'

RE: Table Size in Emissions test - Intent

[emc-p...@ieee.org]

Derek
True, if you have one device, no cables, no power and no support equipment.
If you have anything else, then there are stated separation distances
between devices, stated cable routing etc.  Again, the standard is not
written to the anomaly, but to the expected generalized configurations in
which sufficient space must be given to accommodate expected support
equipment, not just the EUT.

The reason you have a suggested/recommended/designated table size is to
allow a standardized setup, standardized configuration, standardized
separation and standardized cable manipulation.   

And, remember the subject line " Table Size in Emissions test - Intent"

Dennis Ward 

Director of Engineering
American Certification Body 
Certification Resource for the Wireless Industry http://www.acbcert.com
703-847-4700 fax 703-847-6888 
direct - 703-880-4841


-Original Message-
From: Derek Walton [mailto:lfresea...@aol.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 11:50 AM
To: Dennis Ward
Cc: don_borow...@selinc.com; emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: Re: Table Size in Emissions test - Intent

Dennis,

Test set-up is independent of table size. Especially since we prove the 
table is not part of the equation..

Cheers,

Derek.

On 10/11/2011 1:20 PM, Dennis Ward wrote:
> Yes, and you can get accredited to test only cameras in that configuration
> if that is what you do and what you want.
>
> But the intent of a general scope of accreditation to ANSI C63.4 or C63.10
> (or any standard) is not the anomaly, but the general test configurations
> specified in the standard. Consequently, unless you limit your testing
> capabilities, going with the expected dimensions is simply easier, faster
> and allows all configurations in test setup etc.
>
>
>
> Dennis Ward
>
> Director of Engineering
> American Certification Body
> Certification Resource for the Wireless Industry http://www.acbcert.com
> 703-847-4700 fax 703-847-6888
> direct - 703-880-4841
>
> -Original Message-
> From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of
> don_borow...@selinc.com
> Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 10:52 AM
> To: emc-p...@ieee.org
> Subject: Re: Table Size in Emissions test - Intent
>
> When confronted with problems like this, I always try to determine the
> intent of the particular statement in the test. To me, it is clear that
> the intent is to fully support the EUT and associated equipment, with
> cables dropping off the edges of the defined area, as needed. The table
> should serve this support function and be invisible to RF.
>
> In the case of a small EUT with no cables, the intent is satisfied with a
> table just large enough to support the EUT. Heck, for something like a
> digital camera without cables, a threaded plastic rod coming up from the
> turntable, screwed into the mounting hole in the bottom of the camera,
> would be sufficient to support it and satisfy the intent.
>
> Of course, getting an auditor to understand the intent, as opposed to a
> literal reading, might be difficult to do.
>
> Donald Borowski
> Senior EMC Compliance Engineer
> Schweitzer Engineering Labs
> Pullman, Washington, USA
>
>
> From:   Derek Walton
> To: dw...@acbcert.com
> Cc: "'Grace Lin'", "'WNya'"
> , "'EMC-PSTC'"
> Date:   10/11/2011 10:12 AM
> Subject:Re: Table Size in Emissions test
> Sent by:emc-p...@ieee.org
>
>
>
> Sorry Dennis,
>
> you are not correct. Nominal means:
>
> b : of, being, or relating to a designated or theoretical size that may
> vary from the actual.
>
> This is from Websters.
>
> As you indicate, there is NOTHING that says it has to be 1 by 1.5m
>
> I'm sorry to be so anal about this, but it is happening too much where
> assessors are assessing to opinions and personal agendas. We must follow
> the standard. Usually there are MUCH bigger fish to fry than quibbling
> over something like this
>
> I repeat, again, that there is NOTHING that says the table SHALL be 1 by
> 1.5m. Only then could a deficiency be written.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Derek.
>
>
> On 10/11/2011 11:43 AM, Dennis Ward wrote:
> Both ANSI C63.10 and ANSI C63.4, the typical standards for which ISO17025
> accreditation is used, contain the following statement, ?Tabletop devices
> shall be placed on a nonconducting platform, of nominal size 1 m by 1.5 m,
> raised 80 cm above the reference ground plane.
>
> While a bit more open to variation due to size of equipment, CISPR 22 has
> the statement ?Equipment intended for tabletop use shall be placed on a
> non-conductive table. The size of the table will nominally be 1,5 m × 1,0
> m but may ultimately be dependent on the horizontal dimensions of 

Re: Table Size in Emissions test

[emc-p...@ieee.org]

Ahh Ken,

Come on now, its not broken, only a flesh wound ;-)

We do have a problem with folks piddling around in none value added detail,
which is why I'm being so belligerent about this.

Just for good measure, we disagree over Denis being correct too :-)

Cheers,

Derek.

On 10/11/2011 1:29 PM, Ken Javor wrote: 

Within his frame of reference, Ward is correct, which is why this entire
accreditation process is flawed and broken.  We got along without it before,
and it is adding nothing but extra costs and bureaucracy, and negative value
to the process of controlling EMI.
 
Ken Javor

Phone: (256) 650-5261





From: Dennis Ward  <mailto:dw...@acbcert.com> 
Reply-To:  <mailto:dw...@acbcert.com> 
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 11:15:00 -0700
To: 'Derek Walton'  <mailto:lfresea...@aol.com> 
Cc: 'Grace Lin'  <mailto:graceli...@gmail.com> , 
'WNya'
 <mailto:wendy...@yahoo.com> , 'EMC-PSTC'
 <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> 
Subject: RE: Table Size in Emissions test

HI Derek
The point of anything ‘nominal’ is that it starts with what is expected
and allows reasonable variations of sorts. And you hit the right words
“relating to a designated or theoretical size”.  If you say you must
follow the standard, then follow it. The designated size of a table is 1m x
1.5m x 0.8m.  This then is the size generally expected.  It is not a
micrometer reading with 0.01m measurement uncertainty tolerances; it is a
general designated and expected size – a nominal size.  
 
Now, and without going into uncertainties and its minutia, a 0.8m x 1.2m
table, while not typically or generally expected, could be stretched to be
within a range of what could be considered within the nominal range.  Likewise
a table 1.2m x 1.8m would or should still be considered within an expected or
nominal value. To the contrary, a table 0.2m x 0.2m, for many reasons, would
not be generally considered expected and thus not nominal, but abnormal in
size for the intent and purposes of the standard.  
 
Remembering that there are three dimensions given (i.e. 1mx1.5mx0.8m), 
if we
take your ‘exception’, then I could place a device on the ground plane as
long as it was on a nonconducting surface.  Yet I know of no lab nor auditor
that would accept this as a ‘nominal’ height condition for any of the
standards mentioned.  I would not be able to reject or challenge their claim
that my table height was not 80cm by saying, nominal is “of, being, or
relating to a designated or theoretical size that may vary from the actual,
and I don’t have to have a table 80cm high.”  

One might say, yes, but height matters. And they would be correct, 
however,
the dimensions are together in the same frame of reference in the same
sentence. So any exceptions to the dimensions would have to follow the same
process.  The issue then is not uncertainty and its issues, but what is
generally expected and accepted as a reasonable table for the intent of the
standard.  
 
Remembering that standards are produced as much to make something 
consistent
wherever used, then the nominal would be that which is generally consistent
within the population that uses the standard. 
 
As to ‘bigger fish to fry’, this would be a good size fish for a lab 
that
was seeking accreditation. Yes there are allowable variations, equipment
considerations, etc that can be discussed with the accrediting organization. 
To say that because ‘nominal’ is used and because ‘shall’ is not, I
can do what I want, is simply not the case if they want to become accredited.
It is fairly easy and cheap to construct a nominal table of dimensions in the
standards.  There is probably more money, time and effort in trying to
challenge or reject the assessment than to simply hire a carpenter and build
one.
 
But the choice is the labs and how they wish to relate to their 
accreditation
body.
 

Dennis Ward 


Director of Engineering
American Certification Body 
Certification Resource for the Wireless Industry http://www.acbcert.com
703-847-4700 fax 703-847-6888 
direct - 703-880-4841


From: Derek Walton [mailto:lfresea...@aol.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 10:09 AM
    To: Dennis Ward
    Cc: 'Grace Lin'; 'WNya'; 'EMC-PSTC'
Subject: Re: Table Size in Emissions test

Sorry Dennis, 

you are not correct. Nominal means:

b : of, being, or relating to a designated or theoretical size that may 
vary
>from the actual.

This is from Websters.

As you indicate

Re: Table Size in Emissions test - Intent

[emc-p...@ieee.org]

Dennis,

Test set-up is independent of table size. Especially since we prove the 
table is not part of the equation..

Cheers,

Derek.

On 10/11/2011 1:20 PM, Dennis Ward wrote:
> Yes, and you can get accredited to test only cameras in that configuration
> if that is what you do and what you want.
>
> But the intent of a general scope of accreditation to ANSI C63.4 or C63.10
> (or any standard) is not the anomaly, but the general test configurations
> specified in the standard. Consequently, unless you limit your testing
> capabilities, going with the expected dimensions is simply easier, faster
> and allows all configurations in test setup etc.
>
>
>
> Dennis Ward
>
> Director of Engineering
> American Certification Body
> Certification Resource for the Wireless Industry http://www.acbcert.com
> 703-847-4700 fax 703-847-6888
> direct - 703-880-4841
>
> -Original Message-
> From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of
> don_borow...@selinc.com
> Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 10:52 AM
> To: emc-p...@ieee.org
> Subject: Re: Table Size in Emissions test - Intent
>
> When confronted with problems like this, I always try to determine the
> intent of the particular statement in the test. To me, it is clear that
> the intent is to fully support the EUT and associated equipment, with
> cables dropping off the edges of the defined area, as needed. The table
> should serve this support function and be invisible to RF.
>
> In the case of a small EUT with no cables, the intent is satisfied with a
> table just large enough to support the EUT. Heck, for something like a
> digital camera without cables, a threaded plastic rod coming up from the
> turntable, screwed into the mounting hole in the bottom of the camera,
> would be sufficient to support it and satisfy the intent.
>
> Of course, getting an auditor to understand the intent, as opposed to a
> literal reading, might be difficult to do.
>
> Donald Borowski
> Senior EMC Compliance Engineer
> Schweitzer Engineering Labs
> Pullman, Washington, USA
>
>
> From:   Derek Walton
> To:     dw...@acbcert.com
> Cc: "'Grace Lin'", "'WNya'"
> , "'EMC-PSTC'"
> Date:   10/11/2011 10:12 AM
> Subject:Re: Table Size in Emissions test
> Sent by:emc-p...@ieee.org
>
>
>
> Sorry Dennis,
>
> you are not correct. Nominal means:
>
> b : of, being, or relating to a designated or theoretical size that may
> vary from the actual.
>
> This is from Websters.
>
> As you indicate, there is NOTHING that says it has to be 1 by 1.5m
>
> I'm sorry to be so anal about this, but it is happening too much where
> assessors are assessing to opinions and personal agendas. We must follow
> the standard. Usually there are MUCH bigger fish to fry than quibbling
> over something like this
>
> I repeat, again, that there is NOTHING that says the table SHALL be 1 by
> 1.5m. Only then could a deficiency be written.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Derek.
>
>
> On 10/11/2011 11:43 AM, Dennis Ward wrote:
> Both ANSI C63.10 and ANSI C63.4, the typical standards for which ISO17025
> accreditation is used, contain the following statement, ?Tabletop devices
> shall be placed on a nonconducting platform, of nominal size 1 m by 1.5 m,
> raised 80 cm above the reference ground plane.
>
> While a bit more open to variation due to size of equipment, CISPR 22 has
> the statement ?Equipment intended for tabletop use shall be placed on a
> non-conductive table. The size of the table will nominally be 1,5 m × 1,0
> m but may ultimately be dependent on the horizontal dimensions of EUT.
>
> So while you may challenge the accreditation organization, they are
> correct, your table does not meet the ?nominal? size requirements for at
> least the two standards ANSI C63.4 and C6310.
>
> Other standards may also have the nominal size issue as well.
>
> Thanks
> Dennis Ward
>
> Director of Engineering
> American Certification Body
> Certification Resource for the Wireless Industry http://www.acbcert.com
> 703-847-4700 fax 703-847-6888
> direct - 703-880-4841
>
> From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Grace Lin
> Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 4:16 AM
> To: WNya
> Cc: EMC-PSTC
> Subject: Re: Table Size in Emissions test
>
> Wendy,
>
> When I look for an accredited ANSI C63.4 laboratory, I expect the
> laboratory has the facility as stated in the standard, including a
> standard size of the table as defined in the standard.  For this reason,
> unless the accreditation certificate bears a restriction note, I support
> the auditor's comment.
>
> &g

Re: Table Size in Emissions test

[emc-p...@ieee.org]

Hi Dennis,

here again we disagree. Anything nominal is open to any interpretation: if
it's any difernt have the standard say "SHALL BE".

As you know we are beginning to require evidence the table does not influence
the measurement, therefore the size of the table is immaterial. The only
reason any dimensions are given is so that folks don't sit there twiddling
thumbs saying give us some clue

You cannot take my exception to height, the requirement says "Shall be placed
on a 80cm high table ( This is a definition: no arguments, it's 80 cm allowing
for tolerances ) Comma ( this is important in english ( and American too ) )
of nominal dimensions 1 by 1.5m."  This is clear. The height is not
negotiable, the size is.

As I stressed before, the table is starting to be proven to NOT influence the
measurement: If it has no influence on the measurement then I have the same
interest as I do in the colour shirt the operator has on.

What is crucial is that Assessing bodies have their assessors behave the same
way, including BETWEEN assessing bodies, and we follow the standard.

Cheers,

Derek.

On 10/11/2011 1:15 PM, Dennis Ward wrote: 

HI Derek

The point of anything ‘nominal’ is that it starts with what is expected
and allows reasonable variations of sorts. And you hit the right words
“relating to a designated or theoretical size”.  If you say you must
follow the standard, then follow it. The designated size of a table is 1m x
1.5m x 0.8m.  This then is the size generally expected.  It is not a
micrometer reading with 0.01m measurement uncertainty tolerances; it is a
general designated and expected size – a nominal size.  

 

Now, and without going into uncertainties and its minutia, a 0.8m x 1.2m
table, while not typically or generally expected, could be stretched to be
within a range of what could be considered within the nominal range.  Likewise
a table 1.2m x 1.8m would or should still be considered within an expected or
nominal value. To the contrary, a table 0.2m x 0.2m, for many reasons, would
not be generally considered expected and thus not nominal, but abnormal in
size for the intent and purposes of the standard.  

 

Remembering that there are three dimensions given (i.e. 1mx1.5mx0.8m), 
if we
take your ‘exception’, then I could place a device on the ground plane as
long as it was on a nonconducting surface.  Yet I know of no lab nor auditor
that would accept this as a ‘nominal’ height condition for any of the
standards mentioned.  I would not be able to reject or challenge their claim
that my table height was not 80cm by saying, nominal is “of, being, or
relating to a designated or theoretical size that may vary from the actual,
and I don’t have to have a table 80cm high.”  

 

One might say, yes, but height matters. And they would be correct, 
however,
the dimensions are together in the same frame of reference in the same
sentence. So any exceptions to the dimensions would have to follow the same
process.  The issue then is not uncertainty and its issues, but what is
generally expected and accepted as a reasonable table for the intent of the
standard.  

 

Remembering that standards are produced as much to make something 
consistent
wherever used, then the nominal would be that which is generally consistent
within the population that uses the standard. 

 

As to ‘bigger fish to fry’, this would be a good size fish for a lab 
that
was seeking accreditation. Yes there are allowable variations, equipment
considerations, etc that can be discussed with the accrediting organization. 
To say that because ‘nominal’ is used and because ‘shall’ is not, I
can do what I want, is simply not the case if they want to become accredited.
It is fairly easy and cheap to construct a nominal table of dimensions in the
standards.  There is probably more money, time and effort in trying to
challenge or reject the assessment than to simply hire a carpenter and build
one.

 

But the choice is the labs and how they wish to relate to their 
accreditation
body.



Dennis Ward 



Director of Engineering

American Certification Body 
Certification Resource for the Wireless Industry http://www.acbcert.com
703-847-4700 fax 703-847-6888 
direct - 703-880-4841

 

From: Derek Walton [mailto:lfresea...@aol.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 10:09 AM
To: Dennis Ward
Cc: 'Grace Lin'; 'WNya'; 'EMC-PSTC'
Subject: Re: Table Size in Emissions test

 

Sorry Dennis, 

you are not correct. Nominal means:

b : of, being, or relating to a designated or theoretical size that may 
vary
>from the actual.

This is from Websters.

As you indicate, there is NO

RE: Table Size in Emissions test - Intent

[emc-p...@ieee.org]

Well Don, this is the intelligent, technologically aware approach.
But we are not expected to think while reading standardsbut obey.
Common sense is explicitly excluded in ISO 17025 ;<))

Gert Gremmen



-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] Namens
don_borow...@selinc.com
Verzonden: dinsdag 11 oktober 2011 19:52
Aan: emc-p...@ieee.org
Onderwerp: Re: Table Size in Emissions test - Intent

When confronted with problems like this, I always try to determine the 
intent of the particular statement in the test. To me, it is clear that 
the intent is to fully support the EUT and associated equipment, with 
cables dropping off the edges of the defined area, as needed. The table 
should serve this support function and be invisible to RF.

In the case of a small EUT with no cables, the intent is satisfied with a 
table just large enough to support the EUT. Heck, for something like a 
digital camera without cables, a threaded plastic rod coming up from the 
turntable, screwed into the mounting hole in the bottom of the camera, 
would be sufficient to support it and satisfy the intent.

Of course, getting an auditor to understand the intent, as opposed to a 
literal reading, might be difficult to do.

Donald Borowski
Senior EMC Compliance Engineer
Schweitzer Engineering Labs
Pullman, Washington, USA


From:   Derek Walton 
To: dw...@acbcert.com
Cc: "'Grace Lin'" , "'WNya'" 
, "'EMC-PSTC'" 
List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org
Date:   10/11/2011 10:12 AM
Subject:Re: Table Size in Emissions test
Sent by:emc-p...@ieee.org



Sorry Dennis, 

you are not correct. Nominal means:

b : of, being, or relating to a designated or theoretical size that may 
vary from the actual.

This is from Websters.

As you indicate, there is NOTHING that says it has to be 1 by 1.5m

I'm sorry to be so anal about this, but it is happening too much where 
assessors are assessing to opinions and personal agendas. We must follow 
the standard. Usually there are MUCH bigger fish to fry than quibbling 
over something like this

I repeat, again, that there is NOTHING that says the table SHALL be 1 by 
1.5m. Only then could a deficiency be written.

Sincerely,

Derek.


On 10/11/2011 11:43 AM, Dennis Ward wrote: 
Both ANSI C63.10 and ANSI C63.4, the typical standards for which ISO17025 
accreditation is used, contain the following statement, ?Tabletop devices 
shall be placed on a nonconducting platform, of nominal size 1 m by 1.5 m, 
raised 80 cm above the reference ground plane.
 
While a bit more open to variation due to size of equipment, CISPR 22 has 
the statement ?Equipment intended for tabletop use shall be placed on a 
non-conductive table. The size of the table will nominally be 1,5 m × 1,0 
m but may ultimately be dependent on the horizontal dimensions of EUT.
 
So while you may challenge the accreditation organization, they are 
correct, your table does not meet the ?nominal? size requirements for at 
least the two standards ANSI C63.4 and C6310.
 
Other standards may also have the nominal size issue as well.
 
Thanks 
Dennis Ward 

Director of Engineering
American Certification Body 
Certification Resource for the Wireless Industry http://www.acbcert.com
703-847-4700 fax 703-847-6888 
direct - 703-880-4841
 
From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Grace Lin
Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 4:16 AM
To: WNya
Cc: EMC-PSTC
Subject: Re: Table Size in Emissions test
 
Wendy,
 
When I look for an accredited ANSI C63.4 laboratory, I expect the 
laboratory has the facility as stated in the standard, including a 
standard size of the table as defined in the standard.  For this reason, 
unless the accreditation certificate bears a restriction note, I support 
the auditor's comment. 
 
>From the other point of view, many manufacturers' laboratories are for 
internal use only, including my employer's.  For this reason, the auditor 
may be willing to accept the smaller size of the table.  The question is 
how to determine if the laboratory is for internal use only (for testing 
certain type of products).  An example is Alcatel-Lucent's EMC laboratory 
in New Jersey, USA.  It opens to the general public.
 
With regards,
Grace
 
 
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 7:54 PM, WNya  wrote:
Dear Experts,
Recently my company went through the first ISO17025 audit. We have a table 
smaller than the standard requirement of 1.5m x 1m since our products are 
small, typically 10cm x 10cm x 10cm. The height of our table was 0.8m. The 
auditor wanted us to change the table size to follow the standard.
What does it matter since we never use the extra space on the table? I do 
agree we must keep to the height requirement since the floor is a ground 
plane and thus it sets a fixed capacitance to the EUT and also controls 
the lengths of any attached cables.

Can we reject or challenge th

RE: Table Size in Emissions test

[emc-p...@ieee.org]

nominal dimension

  

Definition

Approximate or roughcut dimension by which a material is generally called or
sold in trade, but which differs from the actual dimension. In lumber trade,
for example, a finished (dressed) 'two by four' piece is less than 2 inches
thick and less than 4 inches wide. Also called nominal size.

 

“ but which differs from the actual dimension”  

 

Mcgrawhill:

(design engineering) Size used for purposes of general identification; the
actual size of a part will be approximately the same as the nominal size but
need not be exactly the same; for example, a rod may be referred to as ¼
inch, although the actual dimension on the drawing is 0.2495 inch, and in this
case ¼ inch is the nominal size. 


IMHO it relates to identification of the size within a number of defined
classes, such a lumber standard sizes, and or clothing sizes. As there are no
classes of table sizes, this word is misused here. Any table will do. The
normative aspect as EUT size and height.

BTW the inaccuracy of the sizes is also omitted. In the absence of definition,
usage is 50% of least relevant digit. Interpreted this way the table length
may be 0.50 to 1m5 in one size and 1m45 to 1m55 in the other. The table height
must be within 79.5 and 80.5 

 

Regards,

 

Ing. Gert Gremmen

 

 

 

g.grem...@cetest.nl

www.cetest.nl

 

Kiotoweg 363

3047 BG Rotterdam

T 31(0)104152426

F 31(0)104154953

 Before printing, think about the environment. 

 

 




Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/nominal-size#ixzz1aUzLeYzu
<http://www.answers.com/topic/nominal-size#ixzz1aUzLeYzu> 

 

 

Van: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] Namens Dennis Ward
Verzonden: dinsdag 11 oktober 2011 18:44
Aan: 'Grace Lin'; 'WNya'
CC: 'EMC-PSTC'
Onderwerp: RE: Table Size in Emissions test

 

Both ANSI C63.10 and ANSI C63.4, the typical standards for which ISO17025
accreditation is used, contain the following statement, “Tabletop devices
shall be placed on a nonconducting platform, of nominal size 1 m by 1.5 m,
raised 80 cm above the reference ground plane.

 

While a bit more open to variation due to size of equipment, CISPR 22 has the
statement “Equipment intended for tabletop use shall be placed on a
non-conductive table. The size of the table will nominally be 1,5 m × 1,0 m
but may ultimately be dependent on the horizontal dimensions of EUT.

 

So while you may challenge the accreditation organization, they are correct,
your table does not meet the ‘nominal’ size requirements for at least the
two standards ANSI C63.4 and C6310.

 

Other standards may also have the nominal size issue as well.

 

Thanks 

Dennis Ward 

Director of Engineering

American Certification Body 
Certification Resource for the Wireless Industry http://www.acbcert.com
703-847-4700 fax 703-847-6888 
direct - 703-880-4841

 

From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Grace Lin
Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 4:16 AM
To: WNya
Cc: EMC-PSTC
Subject: Re: Table Size in Emissions test

 

Wendy,

 

When I look for an accredited ANSI C63.4 laboratory, I expect the laboratory
has the facility as stated in the standard, including a standard size of the
table as defined in the standard.  For this reason, unless the accreditation
certificate bears a restriction note, I support the auditor's comment.  

 

>From the other point of view, many manufacturers' laboratories are for
internal use only, including my employer's.  For this reason, the auditor may
be willing to accept the smaller size of the table.  The question is how to
determine if the laboratory is for internal use only (for testing certain type
of products).  An example is Alcatel-Lucent's EMC laboratory in New Jersey,
USA.  It opens to the general public.

 

With regards,

Grace

 

 

On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 7:54 PM, WNya  wrote:

Dear Experts,
Recently my company went through the first ISO17025 audit. We have a table
smaller than the standard requirement of 1.5m x 1m since our products are
small, typically 10cm x 10cm x 10cm. The height of our table was 0.8m. The
auditor wanted us to change the table size to follow the standard.
What does it matter since we never use the extra space on the table? I do
agree we must keep to the height requirement since the floor is a ground plane
and thus it sets a fixed capacitance to the EUT and also controls the lengths
of any attached cables.

Can we reject or challenge the auditor's request? Has anyone experience the
same situation?

Sent from Wendy.Nya iPhone

-

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


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/
Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. ca

Re: Table Size in Emissions test

[emc-p...@ieee.org]

Within his frame of reference, Ward is correct, which is why this entire
accreditation process is flawed and broken.  We got along without it before,
and it is adding nothing but extra costs and bureaucracy, and negative value
to the process of controlling EMI.
 
Ken Javor

Phone: (256) 650-5261





From: Dennis Ward 
Reply-To: 
List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 11:15:00 -0700
To: 'Derek Walton' 
Cc: 'Grace Lin' , 'WNya' ,
'EMC-PSTC' 
Subject: RE: Table Size in Emissions test

HI Derek
The point of anything ‘nominal’ is that it starts with what is expected
and allows reasonable variations of sorts. And you hit the right words
“relating to a designated or theoretical size”.  If you say you must
follow the standard, then follow it. The designated size of a table is 1m x
1.5m x 0.8m.  This then is the size generally expected.  It is not a
micrometer reading with 0.01m measurement uncertainty tolerances; it is a
general designated and expected size – a nominal size.  
 
Now, and without going into uncertainties and its minutia, a 0.8m x 1.2m
table, while not typically or generally expected, could be stretched to be
within a range of what could be considered within the nominal range.  Likewise
a table 1.2m x 1.8m would or should still be considered within an expected or
nominal value. To the contrary, a table 0.2m x 0.2m, for many reasons, would
not be generally considered expected and thus not nominal, but abnormal in
size for the intent and purposes of the standard.  
 
Remembering that there are three dimensions given (i.e. 1mx1.5mx0.8m), if we
take your ‘exception’, then I could place a device on the ground plane as
long as it was on a nonconducting surface.  Yet I know of no lab nor auditor
that would accept this as a ‘nominal’ height condition for any of the
standards mentioned.  I would not be able to reject or challenge their claim
that my table height was not 80cm by saying, nominal is “of, being, or
relating to a designated or theoretical size that may vary from the actual,
and I don’t have to have a table 80cm high.”  

One might say, yes, but height matters. And they would be correct, however,
the dimensions are together in the same frame of reference in the same
sentence. So any exceptions to the dimensions would have to follow the same
process.  The issue then is not uncertainty and its issues, but what is
generally expected and accepted as a reasonable table for the intent of the
standard.  
 
Remembering that standards are produced as much to make something consistent
wherever used, then the nominal would be that which is generally consistent
within the population that uses the standard. 
 
As to ‘bigger fish to fry’, this would be a good size fish for a lab that
was seeking accreditation. Yes there are allowable variations, equipment
considerations, etc that can be discussed with the accrediting organization. 
To say that because ‘nominal’ is used and because ‘shall’ is not, I
can do what I want, is simply not the case if they want to become accredited.
It is fairly easy and cheap to construct a nominal table of dimensions in the
standards.  There is probably more money, time and effort in trying to
challenge or reject the assessment than to simply hire a carpenter and build
one.
 
But the choice is the labs and how they wish to relate to their accreditation
body.
 

Dennis Ward 


Director of Engineering
American Certification Body 
Certification Resource for the Wireless Industry http://www.acbcert.com
703-847-4700 fax 703-847-6888 
direct - 703-880-4841


From: Derek Walton [mailto:lfresea...@aol.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 10:09 AM
To: Dennis Ward
Cc: 'Grace Lin'; 'WNya'; 'EMC-PSTC'
Subject: Re: Table Size in Emissions test

Sorry Dennis, 

you are not correct. Nominal means:

b : of, being, or relating to a designated or theoretical size that may vary
>from the actual.

This is from Websters.

As you indicate, there is NOTHING that says it has to be 1 by 1.5m

I'm sorry to be so anal about this, but it is happening too much where
assessors are assessing to opinions and personal agendas. We must follow the
standard. Usually there are MUCH bigger fish to fry than quibbling over
something like this

I repeat, again, that there is NOTHING that says the table SHALL be 1 by 1.5m.
Only then could a deficiency be written.

Sincerely,

Derek.


On 10/11/2011 11:43 AM, Dennis Ward wrote: 
Both ANSI C63.10 and ANSI C63.4, the typical standards for which ISO17025
accreditation is used, contain the following statement, “Tabletop devices
shall be placed on a nonconducting platform, of nominal size 1 m by 1.5 m,
raised 80 cm above the reference ground plane.

While a bit more open to variation due to size of equipment, CISPR 22 has the
statement “Equipment intended for tabletop use shall be placed on a
non-conductive table. The size of the table wil

RE: Table Size in Emissions test - Intent

[emc-p...@ieee.org]

Yes, and you can get accredited to test only cameras in that configuration
if that is what you do and what you want. 

But the intent of a general scope of accreditation to ANSI C63.4 or C63.10
(or any standard) is not the anomaly, but the general test configurations
specified in the standard. Consequently, unless you limit your testing
capabilities, going with the expected dimensions is simply easier, faster
and allows all configurations in test setup etc.



Dennis Ward 

Director of Engineering
American Certification Body 
Certification Resource for the Wireless Industry http://www.acbcert.com
703-847-4700 fax 703-847-6888 
direct - 703-880-4841

-Original Message-
From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of
don_borow...@selinc.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 10:52 AM
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: Re: Table Size in Emissions test - Intent

When confronted with problems like this, I always try to determine the 
intent of the particular statement in the test. To me, it is clear that 
the intent is to fully support the EUT and associated equipment, with 
cables dropping off the edges of the defined area, as needed. The table 
should serve this support function and be invisible to RF.

In the case of a small EUT with no cables, the intent is satisfied with a 
table just large enough to support the EUT. Heck, for something like a 
digital camera without cables, a threaded plastic rod coming up from the 
turntable, screwed into the mounting hole in the bottom of the camera, 
would be sufficient to support it and satisfy the intent.

Of course, getting an auditor to understand the intent, as opposed to a 
literal reading, might be difficult to do.

Donald Borowski
Senior EMC Compliance Engineer
Schweitzer Engineering Labs
Pullman, Washington, USA


From:   Derek Walton 
To: dw...@acbcert.com
Cc: "'Grace Lin'" , "'WNya'" 
, "'EMC-PSTC'" 
List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org
Date:   10/11/2011 10:12 AM
Subject:Re: Table Size in Emissions test
Sent by:emc-p...@ieee.org



Sorry Dennis, 

you are not correct. Nominal means:

b : of, being, or relating to a designated or theoretical size that may 
vary from the actual.

This is from Websters.

As you indicate, there is NOTHING that says it has to be 1 by 1.5m

I'm sorry to be so anal about this, but it is happening too much where 
assessors are assessing to opinions and personal agendas. We must follow 
the standard. Usually there are MUCH bigger fish to fry than quibbling 
over something like this

I repeat, again, that there is NOTHING that says the table SHALL be 1 by 
1.5m. Only then could a deficiency be written.

Sincerely,

Derek.


On 10/11/2011 11:43 AM, Dennis Ward wrote: 
Both ANSI C63.10 and ANSI C63.4, the typical standards for which ISO17025 
accreditation is used, contain the following statement, ?Tabletop devices 
shall be placed on a nonconducting platform, of nominal size 1 m by 1.5 m, 
raised 80 cm above the reference ground plane.
 
While a bit more open to variation due to size of equipment, CISPR 22 has 
the statement ?Equipment intended for tabletop use shall be placed on a 
non-conductive table. The size of the table will nominally be 1,5 m × 1,0 
m but may ultimately be dependent on the horizontal dimensions of EUT.
 
So while you may challenge the accreditation organization, they are 
correct, your table does not meet the ?nominal? size requirements for at 
least the two standards ANSI C63.4 and C6310.
 
Other standards may also have the nominal size issue as well.
 
Thanks 
Dennis Ward 

Director of Engineering
American Certification Body 
Certification Resource for the Wireless Industry http://www.acbcert.com
703-847-4700 fax 703-847-6888 
direct - 703-880-4841
 
From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Grace Lin
Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 4:16 AM
To: WNya
Cc: EMC-PSTC
Subject: Re: Table Size in Emissions test
 
Wendy,
 
When I look for an accredited ANSI C63.4 laboratory, I expect the 
laboratory has the facility as stated in the standard, including a 
standard size of the table as defined in the standard.  For this reason, 
unless the accreditation certificate bears a restriction note, I support 
the auditor's comment. 
 
>From the other point of view, many manufacturers' laboratories are for 
internal use only, including my employer's.  For this reason, the auditor 
may be willing to accept the smaller size of the table.  The question is 
how to determine if the laboratory is for internal use only (for testing 
certain type of products).  An example is Alcatel-Lucent's EMC laboratory 
in New Jersey, USA.  It opens to the general public.
 
With regards,
Grace
 
 
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 7:54 PM, WNya  wrote:
Dear Experts,
Recently my company went through the first ISO17025 audit. We have a table 
smaller than the standard requirement of 1.5m x 1m since our 

RE: Table Size in Emissions test

[emc-p...@ieee.org]

HI Derek

The point of anything ‘nominal’ is that it starts with what is expected
and allows reasonable variations of sorts. And you hit the right words
“relating to a designated or theoretical size”.  If you say you must
follow the standard, then follow it. The designated size of a table is 1m x
1.5m x 0.8m.  This then is the size generally expected.  It is not a
micrometer reading with 0.01m measurement uncertainty tolerances; it is a
general designated and expected size – a nominal size.  

 

Now, and without going into uncertainties and its minutia, a 0.8m x 1.2m
table, while not typically or generally expected, could be stretched to be
within a range of what could be considered within the nominal range.  Likewise
a table 1.2m x 1.8m would or should still be considered within an expected or
nominal value. To the contrary, a table 0.2m x 0.2m, for many reasons, would
not be generally considered expected and thus not nominal, but abnormal in
size for the intent and purposes of the standard.  

 

Remembering that there are three dimensions given (i.e. 1mx1.5mx0.8m), if we
take your ‘exception’, then I could place a device on the ground plane as
long as it was on a nonconducting surface.  Yet I know of no lab nor auditor
that would accept this as a ‘nominal’ height condition for any of the
standards mentioned.  I would not be able to reject or challenge their claim
that my table height was not 80cm by saying, nominal is “of, being, or
relating to a designated or theoretical size that may vary from the actual,
and I don’t have to have a table 80cm high.”  

 

One might say, yes, but height matters. And they would be correct, however,
the dimensions are together in the same frame of reference in the same
sentence. So any exceptions to the dimensions would have to follow the same
process.  The issue then is not uncertainty and its issues, but what is
generally expected and accepted as a reasonable table for the intent of the
standard.  

 

Remembering that standards are produced as much to make something consistent
wherever used, then the nominal would be that which is generally consistent
within the population that uses the standard. 

 

As to ‘bigger fish to fry’, this would be a good size fish for a lab that
was seeking accreditation. Yes there are allowable variations, equipment
considerations, etc that can be discussed with the accrediting organization. 
To say that because ‘nominal’ is used and because ‘shall’ is not, I
can do what I want, is simply not the case if they want to become accredited.
It is fairly easy and cheap to construct a nominal table of dimensions in the
standards.  There is probably more money, time and effort in trying to
challenge or reject the assessment than to simply hire a carpenter and build
one.

 

But the choice is the labs and how they wish to relate to their accreditation
body.

Dennis Ward 



Director of Engineering

American Certification Body 
Certification Resource for the Wireless Industry http://www.acbcert.com
703-847-4700 fax 703-847-6888 
direct - 703-880-4841

 

From: Derek Walton [mailto:lfresea...@aol.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 10:09 AM
To: Dennis Ward
Cc: 'Grace Lin'; 'WNya'; 'EMC-PSTC'
Subject: Re: Table Size in Emissions test

 

Sorry Dennis, 

you are not correct. Nominal means:

b : of, being, or relating to a designated or theoretical size that may vary
>from the actual.

This is from Websters.

As you indicate, there is NOTHING that says it has to be 1 by 1.5m

I'm sorry to be so anal about this, but it is happening too much where
assessors are assessing to opinions and personal agendas. We must follow the
standard. Usually there are MUCH bigger fish to fry than quibbling over
something like this

I repeat, again, that there is NOTHING that says the table SHALL be 1 by 1.5m.
Only then could a deficiency be written.

Sincerely,

Derek.


On 10/11/2011 11:43 AM, Dennis Ward wrote: 

Both ANSI C63.10 and ANSI C63.4, the typical standards for which ISO17025
accreditation is used, contain the following statement, “Tabletop devices
shall be placed on a nonconducting platform, of nominal size 1 m by 1.5 m,
raised 80 cm above the reference ground plane.

 

While a bit more open to variation due to size of equipment, CISPR 22 has the
statement “Equipment intended for tabletop use shall be placed on a
non-conductive table. The size of the table will nominally be 1,5 m × 1,0 m
but may ultimately be dependent on the horizontal dimensions of EUT.

 

So while you may challenge the accreditation organization, they are correct,
your table does not meet the ‘nominal’ size requirements for at least the
two standards ANSI C63.4 and C6310.

 

Other standards may also have the nominal size issue as well.

 

Thanks 

Dennis Ward 




Director of Engineering

American Certification Body 
Certification Resource for the Wireless Industry http://www.acbcert.com
703-847-4700 fax 703-847-6888 
direct - 703-880-4841

 

Re: Table Size in Emissions test - Intent

[emc-p...@ieee.org]

When confronted with problems like this, I always try to determine the 
intent of the particular statement in the test. To me, it is clear that 
the intent is to fully support the EUT and associated equipment, with 
cables dropping off the edges of the defined area, as needed. The table 
should serve this support function and be invisible to RF.

In the case of a small EUT with no cables, the intent is satisfied with a 
table just large enough to support the EUT. Heck, for something like a 
digital camera without cables, a threaded plastic rod coming up from the 
turntable, screwed into the mounting hole in the bottom of the camera, 
would be sufficient to support it and satisfy the intent.

Of course, getting an auditor to understand the intent, as opposed to a 
literal reading, might be difficult to do.

Donald Borowski
Senior EMC Compliance Engineer
Schweitzer Engineering Labs
Pullman, Washington, USA


From:   Derek Walton 
To: dw...@acbcert.com
Cc: "'Grace Lin'" , "'WNya'" 
, "'EMC-PSTC'" 
List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org
Date:   10/11/2011 10:12 AM
Subject:Re: Table Size in Emissions test
Sent by:emc-p...@ieee.org



Sorry Dennis, 

you are not correct. Nominal means:

b : of, being, or relating to a designated or theoretical size that may 
vary from the actual.

This is from Websters.

As you indicate, there is NOTHING that says it has to be 1 by 1.5m

I'm sorry to be so anal about this, but it is happening too much where 
assessors are assessing to opinions and personal agendas. We must follow 
the standard. Usually there are MUCH bigger fish to fry than quibbling 
over something like this

I repeat, again, that there is NOTHING that says the table SHALL be 1 by 
1.5m. Only then could a deficiency be written.

Sincerely,

Derek.


On 10/11/2011 11:43 AM, Dennis Ward wrote: 
Both ANSI C63.10 and ANSI C63.4, the typical standards for which ISO17025 
accreditation is used, contain the following statement, ?Tabletop devices 
shall be placed on a nonconducting platform, of nominal size 1 m by 1.5 m, 
raised 80 cm above the reference ground plane.
 
While a bit more open to variation due to size of equipment, CISPR 22 has 
the statement ?Equipment intended for tabletop use shall be placed on a 
non-conductive table. The size of the table will nominally be 1,5 m × 1,0 
m but may ultimately be dependent on the horizontal dimensions of EUT.
 
So while you may challenge the accreditation organization, they are 
correct, your table does not meet the ?nominal? size requirements for at 
least the two standards ANSI C63.4 and C6310.
 
Other standards may also have the nominal size issue as well.
 
Thanks 
Dennis Ward 

Director of Engineering
American Certification Body 
Certification Resource for the Wireless Industry http://www.acbcert.com
703-847-4700 fax 703-847-6888 
direct - 703-880-4841
 
From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Grace Lin
Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 4:16 AM
To: WNya
Cc: EMC-PSTC
Subject: Re: Table Size in Emissions test
 
Wendy,
 
When I look for an accredited ANSI C63.4 laboratory, I expect the 
laboratory has the facility as stated in the standard, including a 
standard size of the table as defined in the standard.  For this reason, 
unless the accreditation certificate bears a restriction note, I support 
the auditor's comment. 
 
>From the other point of view, many manufacturers' laboratories are for 
internal use only, including my employer's.  For this reason, the auditor 
may be willing to accept the smaller size of the table.  The question is 
how to determine if the laboratory is for internal use only (for testing 
certain type of products).  An example is Alcatel-Lucent's EMC laboratory 
in New Jersey, USA.  It opens to the general public.
 
With regards,
Grace
 
 
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 7:54 PM, WNya  wrote:
Dear Experts,
Recently my company went through the first ISO17025 audit. We have a table 
smaller than the standard requirement of 1.5m x 1m since our products are 
small, typically 10cm x 10cm x 10cm. The height of our table was 0.8m. The 
auditor wanted us to change the table size to follow the standard.
What does it matter since we never use the extra space on the table? I do 
agree we must keep to the height requirement since the floor is a ground 
plane and thus it sets a fixed capacitance to the EUT and also controls 
the lengths of any attached cables.

Can we reject or challenge the auditor's request? Has anyone experience 
the same situation?

Sent from Wendy.Nya iPhone

-

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 <
emc-p...@ieee.org>

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/
Graphi

Re: Table Size in Emissions test

[emc-p...@ieee.org]

Sorry Dennis, 

you are not correct. Nominal means:

b : of, being, or relating to a designated or theoretical size that may vary
>from the actual.

This is from Websters.

As you indicate, there is NOTHING that says it has to be 1 by 1.5m

I'm sorry to be so anal about this, but it is happening too much where
assessors are assessing to opinions and personal agendas. We must follow the
standard. Usually there are MUCH bigger fish to fry than quibbling over
something like this

I repeat, again, that there is NOTHING that says the table SHALL be 1 by 1.5m.
Only then could a deficiency be written.

Sincerely,

Derek.


On 10/11/2011 11:43 AM, Dennis Ward wrote: 

Both ANSI C63.10 and ANSI C63.4, the typical standards for which 
ISO17025
accreditation is used, contain the following statement, “Tabletop devices
shall be placed on a nonconducting platform, of nominal size 1 m by 1.5 m,
raised 80 cm above the reference ground plane.

 

While a bit more open to variation due to size of equipment, CISPR 22 
has the
statement “Equipment intended for tabletop use shall be placed on a
non-conductive table. The size of the table will nominally be 1,5 m × 1,0 m
but may ultimately be dependent on the horizontal dimensions of EUT.

 

So while you may challenge the accreditation organization, they are 
correct,
your table does not meet the ‘nominal’ size requirements for at least the
two standards ANSI C63.4 and C6310.

 

Other standards may also have the nominal size issue as well.

 

Thanks 

Dennis Ward 



Director of Engineering

American Certification Body 
Certification Resource for the Wireless Industry http://www.acbcert.com
703-847-4700 fax 703-847-6888 
direct - 703-880-4841

 

From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Grace 
Lin
Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 4:16 AM
To: WNya
Cc: EMC-PSTC
Subject: Re: Table Size in Emissions test

 

Wendy,

 

When I look for an accredited ANSI C63.4 laboratory, I expect the 
laboratory
has the facility as stated in the standard, including a standard size of the
table as defined in the standard.  For this reason, unless the accreditation
certificate bears a restriction note, I support the auditor's comment.  

 

From the other point of view, many manufacturers' laboratories are for
internal use only, including my employer's.  For this reason, the auditor may
be willing to accept the smaller size of the table.  The question is how to
determine if the laboratory is for internal use only (for testing certain type
of products).  An example is Alcatel-Lucent's EMC laboratory in New Jersey,
USA.  It opens to the general public.

 

With regards,

Grace

 

 

On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 7:54 PM, WNya  wrote:

Dear Experts,
Recently my company went through the first ISO17025 audit. We have a 
table
smaller than the standard requirement of 1.5m x 1m since our products are
small, typically 10cm x 10cm x 10cm. The height of our table was 0.8m. The
auditor wanted us to change the table size to follow the standard.
What does it matter since we never use the extra space on the table? I 
do
agree we must keep to the height requirement since the floor is a ground plane
and thus it sets a fixed capacitance to the EUT and also controls the lengths
of any attached cables.

Can we reject or challenge the auditor's request? Has anyone experience 
the
same situation?

Sent from Wendy.Nya iPhone

-

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


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/
Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to 
that URL.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.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 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 


-

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


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/
Graphics (i

RE: Table Size in Emissions test

[emc-p...@ieee.org]

Both ANSI C63.10 and ANSI C63.4, the typical standards for which ISO17025
accreditation is used, contain the following statement, “Tabletop devices
shall be placed on a nonconducting platform, of nominal size 1 m by 1.5 m,
raised 80 cm above the reference ground plane.

 

While a bit more open to variation due to size of equipment, CISPR 22 has the
statement “Equipment intended for tabletop use shall be placed on a
non-conductive table. The size of the table will nominally be 1,5 m × 1,0 m
but may ultimately be dependent on the horizontal dimensions of EUT.

 

So while you may challenge the accreditation organization, they are correct,
your table does not meet the ‘nominal’ size requirements for at least the
two standards ANSI C63.4 and C6310.

 

Other standards may also have the nominal size issue as well.

 

Thanks 

Dennis Ward 



Director of Engineering

American Certification Body 
Certification Resource for the Wireless Industry http://www.acbcert.com
703-847-4700 fax 703-847-6888 
direct - 703-880-4841

 

From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Grace Lin
Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 4:16 AM
To: WNya
Cc: EMC-PSTC
Subject: Re: Table Size in Emissions test

 

Wendy,

 

When I look for an accredited ANSI C63.4 laboratory, I expect the laboratory
has the facility as stated in the standard, including a standard size of the
table as defined in the standard.  For this reason, unless the accreditation
certificate bears a restriction note, I support the auditor's comment.  

 

>From the other point of view, many manufacturers' laboratories are for
internal use only, including my employer's.  For this reason, the auditor may
be willing to accept the smaller size of the table.  The question is how to
determine if the laboratory is for internal use only (for testing certain type
of products).  An example is Alcatel-Lucent's EMC laboratory in New Jersey,
USA.  It opens to the general public.

 

With regards,

Grace

 

 

On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 7:54 PM, WNya  wrote:

Dear Experts,
Recently my company went through the first ISO17025 audit. We have a table
smaller than the standard requirement of 1.5m x 1m since our products are
small, typically 10cm x 10cm x 10cm. The height of our table was 0.8m. The
auditor wanted us to change the table size to follow the standard.
What does it matter since we never use the extra space on the table? I do
agree we must keep to the height requirement since the floor is a ground plane
and thus it sets a fixed capacitance to the EUT and also controls the lengths
of any attached cables.

Can we reject or challenge the auditor's request? Has anyone experience the
same situation?

Sent from Wendy.Nya iPhone

-

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


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/
Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.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 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 


-

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


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/
Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. 

Website: http://www.ieee-pses.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 
Mike Cantwell  

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher 
David Heald  

-

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


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/
Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. 

Website: http://www.ieee-pses.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 
Mike Cantwell  

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher 
David Heald  

Re: Table Size in Emissions test

[emc-p...@ieee.org]

Derek,

I agree with you. I also checked CISPR22, only the height is mentioned.

Sent from Wendy.Nya iPhone

On Oct 11, 2011, at 9:21 PM, Derek Walton  wrote:



Wendy,

please see my earlier comment. The table dimensions are NOMINAL. This 
is NOT cast in stone.

The deficiency is Bogus.

Sincerely,

Derek Walton.

On 10/11/2011 6:15 AM, Grace Lin wrote: 

Wendy,
 
When I look for an accredited ANSI C63.4 laboratory, I expect 
the laboratory has the facility as stated in the standard, including a standard 
size of the table as defined in the standard.  For this reason, unless the 
accreditation certificate bears a restriction note, I support the auditor's 
comment.  
 
From the other point of view, many manufacturers' laboratories 
are for internal use only, including my employer's.  For this reason, the 
auditor may be willing to accept the smaller size of the table.  The question 
is how to determine if the laboratory is for internal use only (for testing 
certain type of products).  An example is Alcatel-Lucent's EMC laboratory in 
New Jersey, USA.  It opens to the general public.
 
With regards,
Grace
 
 
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 7:54 PM, WNya < 
 wendy...@yahoo.com> wrote:


Dear Experts,
Recently my company went through the first ISO17025 
audit. We have a table smaller than the standard requirement of 1.5m x 1m since 
our products are small, typically 10cm x 10cm x 10cm. The height of our table 
was 0.8m. The auditor wanted us to change the table size to follow the standard.
What does it matter since we never use the extra space 
on the table? I do agree we must keep to the height requirement since the floor 
is a ground plane and thus it sets a fixed capacitance to the EUT and also 
controls the lengths of any attached cables.

Can we reject or challenge the auditor's request? Has 
anyone experience the same situation?

Sent from Wendy.Nya iPhone

-


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 <  emc-p...@ieee.org>

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on 
the web at:
 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/
Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can 
be posted to that URL.

Website:    
http://www.ieee-pses.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...@radiusnorth.net>
Mike Cantwell <  
mcantw...@ieee.org>

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  <  
j.bac...@ieee.org>
David Heald: <  
dhe...@gmail.com>



-

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 <  emc-p...@ieee.org>

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at 
 http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/
Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be 
posted to that URL. 

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.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 < 

Re: Table Size in Emissions test

[emc-p...@ieee.org]

Wendy,

please see my earlier comment. The table dimensions are NOMINAL. This is NOT
cast in stone.

The deficiency is Bogus.

Sincerely,

Derek Walton.

On 10/11/2011 6:15 AM, Grace Lin wrote: 

Wendy,
 
When I look for an accredited ANSI C63.4 laboratory, I expect the 
laboratory
has the facility as stated in the standard, including a standard size of the
table as defined in the standard.  For this reason, unless the accreditation
certificate bears a restriction note, I support the auditor's comment.  
 
From the other point of view, many manufacturers' laboratories are for
internal use only, including my employer's.  For this reason, the auditor may
be willing to accept the smaller size of the table.  The question is how to
determine if the laboratory is for internal use only (for testing certain type
of products).  An example is Alcatel-Lucent's EMC laboratory in New Jersey,
USA.  It opens to the general public.
 
With regards,
Grace
 
 
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 7:54 PM, WNya  wrote:


Dear Experts,
Recently my company went through the first ISO17025 audit. We 
have a table
smaller than the standard requirement of 1.5m x 1m since our products are
small, typically 10cm x 10cm x 10cm. The height of our table was 0.8m. The
auditor wanted us to change the table size to follow the standard.
What does it matter since we never use the extra space on the 
table? I do
agree we must keep to the height requirement since the floor is a ground plane
and thus it sets a fixed capacitance to the EUT and also controls the lengths
of any attached cables.

Can we reject or challenge the auditor's request? Has anyone 
experience the
same situation?

Sent from Wendy.Nya iPhone

-

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


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/
Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be 
posted to that URL.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.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 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 



-

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


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/
Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to 
that URL. 

Website: http://www.ieee-pses.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 
Mike Cantwell  

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher 
David Heald  

-

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


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/
Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. 

Website: http://www.ieee-pses.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 
Mike Cantwell  

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher 
David Heald  

Re: Table Size in Emissions test

[emc-p...@ieee.org]

Wendy,
 
When I look for an accredited ANSI C63.4 laboratory, I expect the laboratory
has the facility as stated in the standard, including a standard size of the
table as defined in the standard.  For this reason, unless the accreditation
certificate bears a restriction note, I support the auditor's comment.  
 
>From the other point of view, many manufacturers' laboratories are for
internal use only, including my employer's.  For this reason, the auditor may
be willing to accept the smaller size of the table.  The question is how to
determine if the laboratory is for internal use only (for testing certain type
of products).  An example is Alcatel-Lucent's EMC laboratory in New Jersey,
USA.  It opens to the general public.
 
With regards,
Grace
 
 
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 7:54 PM, WNya  wrote:


Dear Experts,
Recently my company went through the first ISO17025 audit. We have a 
table
smaller than the standard requirement of 1.5m x 1m since our products are
small, typically 10cm x 10cm x 10cm. The height of our table was 0.8m. The
auditor wanted us to change the table size to follow the standard.
What does it matter since we never use the extra space on the table? I 
do
agree we must keep to the height requirement since the floor is a ground plane
and thus it sets a fixed capacitance to the EUT and also controls the lengths
of any attached cables.

Can we reject or challenge the auditor's request? Has anyone experience 
the
same situation?

Sent from Wendy.Nya iPhone

-

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


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/
Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to 
that URL.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.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 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 



-

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


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/
Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. 

Website: http://www.ieee-pses.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 
Mike Cantwell  

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher 
David Heald  

Re: Table Size in Emissions test

[emc-p...@ieee.org]

HI Wendy,

I have a problem with deficiencies being cited for this requirement, 
especially against ANSI C63.4 where the requirement is "nominal size"  
Looking up the meaning of nominal will confirm you have lots of freedom.

For you to be cited as deficient, the requirement would have to have 
been worded something like the table top SHALL be 1m by 1.5m and you 
would have to have fallen OUTSIDE that size +/- dimensional tolerances.

I have reported this inappropriate deficiency writing to the assessing 
body I work for requesting assessors either be asked to NOT cite this, 
OR to contact the standards writing body such that the dimensions are 
made definitive.

I urge you to reject the deficiency.

Sincerely,

Derek Walton.

On 10/10/2011 6:54 PM, WNya wrote:
> Dear Experts,
> Recently my company went through the first ISO17025 audit. We have a table
smaller than the standard requirement of 1.5m x 1m since our products are
small, typically 10cm x 10cm x 10cm. The height of our table was 0.8m. The
auditor wanted us to change the table size to follow the standard.
> What does it matter since we never use the extra space on the table? I do
agree we must keep to the height requirement since the floor is a ground plane
and thus it sets a fixed capacitance to the EUT and also controls the lengths
of any attached cables.
>
> Can we reject or challenge the auditor's request? Has anyone experience the
same situation?
>
> Sent from Wendy.Nya iPhone
>
> -
> 
> 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
>
> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
> http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/
> Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL.
>
> Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.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
> Mike Cantwell
>
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Jim Bacher:
> David Heald:
>

-

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


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/
Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.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 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: