I'll bet a lawyer could define and write a decent performance criterion. :^)
While I admit, there is a large range of instruments and equipment out there, the various types can all be classified into one of just a few categories. I mention again that a clear distinction between functionality and performance should be made in the criteria. For example, in a power supply, loss of performance would include a loss of voltage regulation. A loss of functionality would include loss of remote communication or loss of front-panel control. The criterion B also mentions loss of data or change of mode. Change of mode in a power supply would include an unintended change from remote to local control. If the standards nail down the test procedure and the precise setup, then I think they should show the same diligence in defining the pass/fail criteria. Otherwise, it's all a bit too vague to be informative. They might just as well say, "It is the manufacturer's responsibility for defining an acceptable level of performance and functionality for the equipment, both during and after the disturbance. This information must be included in the technical manual or other 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:[email protected]] Sent: April 25, 2003 2:19 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Performance Criterion I read in !emc-pstc that Ralph McDiarmid <[email protected]> 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 criteria up to the > manufacturer's interpretation? Because of the huge range of equipment covered AND the huge range of applications of many individual products (leading to different requirements for tolerable amounts of degradation), together with the enormous variety of symptoms of interference that can occur. >I would say that the evaluation of the test > is as crucial as the test setup and procedure and it should be carefully > defined. But in general it's an immense task to do that. You can see that even in the relatively restricted scope of CISPR 24, the large amount of text that is devoted to the immunity issue. -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Interested in professional sound reinforcement and distribution? Then go to http://www.isce.org.uk PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL! 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] Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc 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] Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
