At least they were honest!Every lab has to have a first time that they
do each test, otherwise progress will never be made.
I hope I'm never in a role where I'm always doing things that I already know
how to do. :-)
I personally do not have any trouble in a lab needing to learn new things.
Michael asked if its our fault for pressuring labs to be cheaper and faster. I say not. I recon its down to the size and structure most labs seem to have have evolved to.
I (now reluctantly) use a once independent, mid-sized labthat was acquired bya large multinational company. Over the
Nice rant Tony.J
I heard on the new this week that there is already evidence (in the UK, at
least) of a society backlash against the big technology movement. People
putting down their social media enabled smartphones and shunning the large
super stores, to walk to the local food
Doug:
I took the liberty of severely editing you response, but I think the essence of
your story is:
“someone who goes to labs with no knowledge of how these tests are run are at a
real disadvantage”
I thought that the whole purpose of accreditation was to provide protection to
the
Well said. I’m really enjoying this topic.
Expecting customers to be Compliance Test experts would be nice, but a little
like expecting people to have to be auto mechanics to be able to take their
cars to the repair shop. But like auto repair shops, EMC and Safety test labs
are all in it for
We've heard so much from the manufacturers but little from the labs. The
relationship between labs and manufacturers as with many seller-buyer
interactions can be good or bad, but accrediting bodies are the ones that
ideally should have surveillance apparatus to discover whether a lab is
I’m not even talking about incorrect processes. I’m talking about lab setups
that aren’t in compliance with the standards. Simple things like power
supplied to the EUT via a cord connected “somewhere” under the turntable,
rather than via a receptacle flush with and bonded to the ground plane
Excellent point.
Ken Javor
Phone: (256) 650-5261
From: Ed Price edpr...@cox.net
Reply-To: Ed Price edpr...@cox.net
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2014 04:57:43 -0800
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] test errors
Doug:
I took the liberty of severely editing you response, but I think the
This is an organizational flaw similar to relying on ISO 9000
certification; unless day to day operations are monitored by staff, and
performance is periodically audited by subject matter experts from the
certifying agency, it is only an exercise in paperwork.
Consider that EMC standards now
Is there a practical way to have flush mounted receptacles in your turntable?
Do you know how many different receptacles there are in the world? And what if
I need to power a bunch or different equipment. Can you use a power strip
according to CISPR 22? What is the logic behind this? Our power
Hello Brian – with regards to the “Top Secret” box. It is my understanding that
the customer it responsible
for assuring that their product is tested to the correct standard and the test
lab is responsible for testing
the delivered product according to that standard. So I would say that yes –
I don’t think the original discussion is or was centered on testing ‘black
boxes’ or even the fact that a manufacturer should know his product and what it
takes to get it in the market. The original discussion was that labs which are
supposed to know what they are doing, because they have a
CISPR 22:2008, article 10.5.1, 2nd paragraph states, “The mains power outlet
shall be bonded to, and should not protrude above, the ground
reference plane. If used, the AMN shall be installed under the ground reference
plane.” As far as a practical way is concerned, all of our turntables are
Hi Dennis – Understood. What you point out is implied in my comment: “and the
test lab is responsible for testing
the delivered product according to that standard”.
Best Regards
Charles Grasso
Compliance Engineer
Echostar Communications
(w) 303-706-5467
(c) 303-204-2974
(t)
14 matches
Mail list logo
