"Strongly suggest you consider using the IEC test from 1089, which is
supposed to be the primary environmental document anyway.... It's based on
IEC, simulators are readily available, and it's a realistic test with a lot
of precidence....
Hope this is helpful,
Best Regards,
Mike Hopkins
Thermo KeyTek"
Michael,
I am surprised as well, and would love to do exactly that but it is
GR-78 is still being identified and there is a dichotomy in test methods
between this reference GR-78 and the GR-1089 reference. GR-1089 discusses ESD
on final equipment, and does reference IEC 801 methods. GR-78 calls out circuit
pack handling tests and identifies the waveform we are discussing. E.G. The
board is removed and several discharges around the periphery of the pack later
it is re-installed into the chassis to verify functionality.
At least on RBOC requires GR-78 circuit pack tests as part of its
equipment checklist and full compliance with the NEBS requirements, as they see
it, others may/do not.
Unlike government standards like the FCC or EN standards they don't
carry the weight of law, they are part of the purchase agreement. That actually
makes them worse than public standards because the customer can pick and choose
the sections they feel are pertinent and which are not and currently there is
no consensus between the customers. The reviewing arms at each of these
customers is inundated with work and unless you have a specific project open
with them they simply haven't the time to respond to random inquiries. Even if
you have a current project customer A might say use the IEC waveforms and
company B says follow the standard.
Even when weaknesses in the standards are identified and are addressed
by technical committees (1089 and 63 both have updates - and 78 has gone from a
TR to a GR but with no changes in the ESD waveform) there is no consensus among
the parties. In fairness to that group most have participated and agreed to the
revised standards, but pretty much a single entity, for reasons that are
unfathomable at best, has rejected them and put forth their own version. The
remaining RBOC's aren't accepting it, and in my understanding for good reason.
Heavy sigh! It really is the definition of, "Between a rock and a hard place".
I guess Damned if I do and Damned is also applicable.
The confusion fuels an ego and costs the industry money but what are
you going to do?
Thanks
Gary
-------------------------------------------
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.
Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/
To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
[email protected]
with the single line:
unsubscribe emc-pstc
For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Ron Pickard: [email protected]
Dave Heald: [email protected]
For policy questions, send mail to:
Richard Nute: [email protected]
Jim Bacher: [email protected]
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/
Click on "browse" and then "emc-pstc mailing list"
