HI Eric and the group,
The main difference in the ESD test is in how the waveform is
specified. The waveform is not being changed, just a better
specification and calibration procedure for the simulator. Some ESD
simulators may need little or no change while others will need a
redesign. Some changes to testing procedure will make testing easier to
pass because the original intent in the test was not explicit enough
and resulted in overtesting. In any event a new document is sometime in
the future as far as being in place in the EU requirements.
Since document changes can still take place, it would not be wise to
change any decisions now, even if you had the draft document. But, to
keep things in perspective, the price of an ESD simulator a few years
from now, when the standard MAY be in place, will be small compared to
your cost if a perfectly good product fails because the simulator can
pass calibration, yet significantly overstress your equipment compared
to a different brand of simulator. I think everyone's cost will in fact
be lower overall.
There has been a tendency lately for chip manufacturers to claim their
chips "pass IEC 61000-4-2" in their advertising. This test was never
intended for chips and has no methodology to do such a test. The
wording in the document will make it plain that it is a misapplication
of 61000-4-2 to test chips with it. Another problem resolved.
Doug
On Tuesday, Nov 12, 2002, at 09:54 US/Pacific, [email protected] wrote:
I want to make sure everyone is aware of the tidbit of information Doug
offered on the GR-78 thread. Readers may want to reconsider capital
equipment purchases of related test equipment, and certainly the
impact on
manufacturers of sustained product lines (typically industrial) over
the next
three or four years.
In a message dated 11/11/02 11:08:35 PM, [email protected] writes:
<< Interesting coincidence, I am in Chandler, AZ USA for a meeting of
IEC
TC77b (high frequency immunity) to rewrite the ESD (61000-4-2) and the
EFT (-4) specs. The new test will be quite different than the existing
one with the main benefit being more repeatable results.
Comment - I applaud efforts to improve a test, however the broad
impact of
these standards may not help the EMC community gain favor with
corporate
management.
Best Regards,
Eric Lifsey
[email protected]
http://ewh.ieee.org/r6/utah/
-------------------------------------------
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"
------------------------------------------------------------
___ _ Doug Smith
\ / ) P.O. Box 1457
========= Los Gatos, CA 95031-1457
_ / \ / \ _ TEL/FAX: 408-356-4186/358-3799
/ /\ \ ] / /\ \ Mobile: 408-858-4528
| q-----( ) | o | Email: [email protected]
\ _ / ] \ _ / Web: http://www.dsmith.org
------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------
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"
