You pose a darn good question below, but sorry, I don't have an answer, just
more commentary.
The 1984 version of IEC 801-2 differs quite significantly from the 1991
version (currently 1000-4-2):
- the discharge network is different: 150 ohm/150 pF versus 330 ohm/150 pF
- the discharge current waveform is different (single vs double hump)
- the fixture for simulator calibration is different
- when testing conductive surfaces, air discharge testing has a major
drawback, consistency--every discharge is different.
Just because CENELEC is dragging their feet on publishing the latest version
of EN 50082-1 (latest draft, I believe, is Oct.96) shouldn't preclude the
use of a better version of the 801-2 standard (its been technically
unchanged since 1991 and is good enough for EN 50082-2).
I'd like to hear more from a CB.
Geoff Skanes
EMC Engineer
Nortel
In message "ESD requirement for ITE.", you write:
> Hello everyone,
>
> I have a question in reference to the generic immunity standard EN50082-1.
> If I am not mistaken, as of now the "adapted" version is 1992. If this is
> so, the document clearly calls out IEC 801-2:1984 as the ESD test procedure.
> Here is my question:
>
> If you are testing an all metal device, and are using the waveform from
> IEC801-2:1991, and you are following the soon-to-be-adapted 1991 version (or
> using the 1000 series document), then you would simply perform 4 kV contact
> discharge and be done with it. However, while I was employed by a
> commercial test house, I was informed by a CB that this is not OK, because
> you are not meeting the 8 kV requirement as called out by EN50082-1.
>
> So my question is this - Do I really have to do 8 kV air discharge testing
> all of the user accessible conductive parts? Or, should I be doing Contact
> discharge to 8 kV?
>
> It seems to me that I could just ignore the CB and test to the new ESD
> procedure. Anyone have any input?
>
