In message
,
dated Thu, 10 May 2007, jim.hulb...@pb.com writes:
>My question is, what are the limits of an "operator response" to return
>to normal operation? Is there any futher guidance or explanation as to
>what is acceptable operator response?
I don't think so, beyond the general idea tha
Jim,
we've tossed the "operator response" thing around here for many years. We've
tried to keep it as simple as possible.
For instance, if a printer stops and recognizes an image quality fault as a
result of an ESD or EFT test, and then the printer prompts the operator to
discard the faulted print
Criterion B is "Self-Recoverable" without user intervention which means it
must return to normal operation on its own after the test. BUT during the
test, your printer is allowed to degrade in performance such as print
incorrectly or stop printing or reset itself. After the test, the printer
must
Jim, my thoughts an issue like this is not to be concerned with trying to
interpret what the standard means but what will the customer put up with.
The customer after all is the ultimate "standard" that must be complied
with. If a customer has to do it once a year, it is not a big deal but 30
times
From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk]
Sent: April 25, 2003 11:26 PM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Re: Performance Criterion
I read in !emc-pstc that Ralph McDiarmid
wrote (in <67C475A5ECE7D4118AEC0002B325CAB602D2F9E0@BCMAIL1>) about
'Performance Criterion' on Fri, 2
Ralph et al
A lawyer could have a field day with this sort of thing (at considerable
expense!).
The standards we all use from day to day are merely methods of demonstrating
compliance with the law of the land i.e. (in Britain) the statutory
instruments, passed by Parliament, which implement the EM
I read in !emc-pstc that Ralph McDiarmid
wrote (in <67C475A5ECE7D4118AEC0002B325CAB602D2F9F1@BCMAIL1>) about
'Performance Criterion' on Mon, 28 Apr 2003:
>I suggest each Performance Criterion might be re-written as follows:
>
>"Criterion A - No loss of function or performance allowed during or af
Ralph,
You'll never make it on a standards committee. You don't use enough words
to say what you mean. ;-)
Ghery Pettit
From: Ralph McDiarmid [mailto:ralph.mcdiar...@xantrex.com]
Sent: Monday, April 28, 2003 2:23 PM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: Performance Cri
hery [mailto:ghery.pet...@intel.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2003 4:51 PM
To: 'Frazee, Douglas (Douglas)'; Pettit, Ghery; 'Ralph McDiarmid'; 'EMC-PSTC'
Subject: RE: Performance Criterion
I'm going to contest this, but only slightly.
CISPR 24 defines Performance
0234-2726
Phone/Fax: (303) 538-4241
johnwag...@avaya.com
From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk]
Sent: Friday, April 25, 2003 12:11 AM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Re: Performance Criterion
I read in !emc-pstc that Pettit, Ghery wrote
(in )
about 'Performance
I read in !emc-pstc that Ralph McDiarmid
wrote (in <67C475A5ECE7D4118AEC0002B325CAB602D2F9E0@BCMAIL1>) about
'Performance Criterion' on Fri, 25 Apr 2003:
>They might just as well say, "It is the manufacturer's responsibility for
>defining an acceptable level of performance and functionality for
r user documentation which
accompanies the equipment". (no more Criteria A,B or C)
Ralph McDiarmid, AScT
Compliance Engineering Group
Xantrex Technology Inc.
From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk]
Sent: April 25, 2003 2:19 PM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Re: Performa
I read in !emc-pstc that Pettit, Ghery wrote
(in )
about 'Performance Criterion' on Fri, 25 Apr 2003:
> Sure glad these standards are crystal clear, aren't you?
>
The standard is crystal-clear; it's real life that's grey and fuzzy.
(;-)
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. ht
I read in !emc-pstc that Ralph McDiarmid
wrote (in <67C475A5ECE7D4118AEC0002B325CAB602D2F9D2@BCMAIL1>) about
'Performance Criterion' on Fri, 25 Apr 2003:
>Why would these standards call up specific levels of disturbances,
voltage,
>frequency and so on, and then leave the performance cri
422 2622
fax: (604) 420 1591
From: Frazee, Douglas (Douglas) [mailto:dfra...@lucent.com]
Sent: April 25, 2003 9:43 AM
To: 'Pettit, Ghery'; Frazee, Douglas (Douglas); 'Ralph McDiarmid'; 'EMC-PSTC'
Subject: RE: Performance Criterion
Ghery,
I was hoping my response
Douglas (Douglas) [mailto:dfra...@lucent.com]
Sent: Friday, April 25, 2003 9:43 AM
To: 'Pettit, Ghery'; Frazee, Douglas (Douglas); 'Ralph McDiarmid'; 'EMC-PSTC'
Subject: RE: Performance Criterion
Ghery,
I was hoping my response would get a discussion going and am pl
s) [mailto:dfra...@lucent.com]
Sent: April 25, 2003 9:43 AM
To: 'Pettit, Ghery'; Frazee, Douglas (Douglas); 'Ralph McDiarmid'; 'EMC-PSTC'
Subject: RE: Performance Criterion
Ghery,
I was hoping my response would get a discussion going and am pleased that you
respon
I read in !emc-pstc that Wagner, John P (John)
wrote (in <4203D61676D0AE468AA5CEA90A891C130288F00D@cof110avexu4.global.
avaya.com>) about 'Performance Criterion' on Fri, 25 Apr 2003:
>Nonsense! Both the basic standard and the CISPR standard have words to the
>effect that performance degradation
Ralph,
If a product self-recovers without operator intervention, then you can say it
meets criterion B. The manufacturer has the ability within these criteria to
define the acceptable loss of function, as well. If 1 minute is an acceptable
time for the self-recovery, the product passes. If o
I read in !emc-pstc that Pettit, Ghery wrote
(in )
about 'Performance Criterion' on Thu, 24 Apr 2003:
>During the test, degradation of performance is allowed. However, no
change
>of operating state or stored data is allowed to persist after the test.
>
Yes, well, as is unfortunately f
alph McDiarmid'; 'EMC-PSTC'
Subject: RE: Performance Criterion
Ralph, Ghery's response is somewhat correct, however I'd like to add several
points.
The definition of criterion B in 61000-6-2 allows degradation during the
immunity test. It also states that, "N
[mailto:ghery.pet...@intel.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2003 11:13 AM
To: 'Ralph McDiarmid'; 'EMC-PSTC'
Subject: RE: Performance Criterion
Ralph,
If a product self-recovers without operator intervention, then you can say it
meets criterion B. The manufacturer has the
I read in !emc-pstc that Ralph McDiarmid
wrote (in <67C475A5ECE7D4118AEC0002B325CAB602D2F9C0@BCMAIL1>) about
'Performance Criterion' on Wed, 23 Apr 2003:
>I have a question about Performance Criterion B as described in EN61000-6-2.
>
>Scenario:
>A product temporary looses communication over a ne
I read in !emc-pstc that Colgan, Chris
wrote (in ) about
'performance criterion A', on Tue, 18 Sep 2001:
>According to EN50082-1, no degradation of performance below a performance
>level specified by the manufacturer is allowed whereas EN55020 gives a clear
>cut wanted/unwanted signal to noise r
I read in !emc-pstc that CE-test - Ing. Gert Gremmen - ce-marking and
more... wrote (in ) about 'performance criterion A', on Tue, 18 Sep 2001:
>But, for professional audio a specific product standard set
>for emission and immunity exists, EN 55103-1/2.
The immunity part, EN 55103-2, does call
Yes Chris, this is exactly
what the criterium A is about. The manufacturer
should specify the performance of the product during
exposure to radiated (or conducted) RF-interference.
The device should of course not loose 100 % of it's performance though.
This way, ideally, customers are able to cho
26 matches
Mail list logo
