I guess to measure the cost of compliance; you certainly need to understand
the cost of non-compliance.
Safety, with regard to reputation, conscience, law suits, sleeping well at
night, jail time, etc.
EMC and Radio, with regard to quality, reputation, harmony within society,
etc.
In the USA, Can
I once worked with an EMC engineer who measured
the performance of himself and his time by the
cost of the components that were used in the
equipment solely for the purpose of EMC control.
His objective was to reduce the cost of compliance
by advising designers of careful layout so as to
minimize
Hi Brian,
I have to repeat Rich's sentiment below, Good luck. Hopefully, he/she will
have had some positive compliance exposure before the breaking in.
Best regards,
Ron
-Original Message-
From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Brian
Oconnell
Sent: Thursday, Marc
For some folks, I offer them the FCC form 730 (?, a senior moment!) The import
compliance one. And point out that sure they can import that product that has
no documentation, etc. Just sign here. Note this clause that details your
impending 5 year Federal vacation that you get to pay a quarte
I would add one thing to the list - in most cases compliance is a much a part
of the customers functional specification as are the more traditional values
for operating, intended environment, data rates, pixel size, fit and finish.
That is the case whether it's a custom designed product where sp
In message
,
dated Thu, 29 Mar 2012, Doug Powell writes:
>4) Compliance is not a roadblock to productivity; it is an
>essential function in of the company and it opens market doors. Sales
>people know how to buy into this idea.
>
8) "Compliance costs too much." Compared to what, not sell
Rich, Ron, John, et al,
Many thanks for the sanity check (not me, the process requirements). Reminds
me of (in another life) the boss's favorite retort: 'too many stupid people,
not enough napalm.' Where we were also taught to immediately assault
directly into an ambush. Intend to do that.
I have
Excellent advice Rich.
I am a proponent of “design for compliance” and have been for years.
Getting involved early solves more than you can possibly know; if possible
do it at the napkin design stage. Here is a list of ideas
that immediately come to mind, there's probably much more.
1) Earl
Mr. Woodgate suggests:
> What you do is make the design team leader *responsible*for the
> compliance of the design. He/she doesn't do the tests but has to
> understand the standards that apply enough to assess the test reports
> and sign them off.
Absolutely! I have successfully used this p
In message
>, dated Thu, 29 Mar 2012, Ron Pickard
writes:
So, I recommend that you hold fast against the hordes. In my opinion, I
suggest you tell them either FUGETABOUTIT or KWITCHEBELIAKIN. Maybe
John could impart some British witticisms here.
I'm fresh out of Wittish Briticisms. But I
Hi Brian,
I find the claim of those senior design engineers suspect, which in my opinion
appears to be self-serving. And, referring to "compliance people" in that way
reminds me that the rift between design and compliance still exists, even over
many years. But if, in fact, those compliance p
EMC re-test for changes in PCB layout? You betcha.
Ghery S. Pettit
-Original Message-
From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Brian Oconnell
Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2012 5:00 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: receiving/approval processes under fire
Th
Comments interspaced in your text below, but basically I agree with you, not
only here but over the last 30 years or so of doing this.
Gary
-Original Message-
From: Brian Oconnell [mailto:oconne...@tamuracorp.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2012 5:00 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
I am truly impressed by the number and the quality of your
answers/comments. The one below makes it pretty clear to me that in
the case I presented, the sub-assembly is not within scope. The
risk of being rejected at the border by a lazy customs inspector is
still prese
This idea has not been delayed by "unnecessary testing"
but by bad management. Testing should have been completed
a long time ago, and if the designers were competent,
testing might have shown it was unnecessary after all ;<)
Regards,
Ing. Gert Gremmen, BSc
g.grem...@cetest.nl
It's unusual to find a firm that could stay on schedule for EMC. We
managed to at (believe it or not) Tandy Computers, when Radio Shack
still made their own computers. I've seen SOME firms who think they can
lawyer their way around annoying requirements like these, long may
*they* fail.
Good
It seems a pity that such a great idea that will train tomorrows Software
Engineers is being slowed down by what many may argue is unnecessary testing.
Regards
Ian White
Compliance and Reliability.
From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Pawson, James
Sent: Thursday,
Hopefully their compliance guy is having a straightforward time of things!
http://www.reghardware.com/2012/03/29/raspberry_pi_supplier_apologises_for_ship_date_delay_glitch/
http://www.raspberrypi.org/archives/852
Worth reading the last link for some of the commentards :P
James Pawson
Leading
"Required" for what reason and by whom?
By law, by company procedure, by contract, by customer, to satisfy an
approvals mark scheme, to keep the insurers happy, etc., etc.?
To take your last example, where does the need for a CB report arise? We
have customers who always get CB reports done as p
In message <5AB06609F29645B0BF401F0345A4C081@RichardHPdv6>, dated Wed,
28 Mar 2012, Richard Nute writes:
All my part drawings include notes that the material must be
UL-recognized and the molder must be UL-recognized. The notes also
specify the material flame-rating.
I have found that putti
In message ,
dated Thu, 29 Mar 2012, "ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen"
writes:
I like your pragmatism, but to
what directive should you apply the ce mark then ?
Applying the ce mark without an applicable
directive is illegal and an economic crime.
I would invoke the Sanity Clau
21 matches
Mail list logo
