Good People I am in the process of re-writing Type Test procedure and test condition requirements for the company's compliance lab. My principle objective is to not only represent the intent of the applicable safety standard, but to formalize multiple fault tests; that I currently perform, but are never included in the TCF or CB report, and are thus part of "engineering notes."
Some inspiration is from stupid stuff like this: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/01/17/dell_laptop_named_in_sa/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/09/03/ibm_recalls_adapaters/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/10/05/compaq_recalls_fiery_laptop_adapters/ Other inspiration comes from talking to customers and performing RMA analysis of abused units. While I have a decent understanding of the basic performance and construction requirements required by safety standards, I am not certain that some of my multiple fault test conditions are not (somewhat) contrived. Any ideas that are derived from "real-world" experience? Another (stupid) question: How did these units, mentioned in the above URLs, ever pass the most basic abnormal/SFC Type Tests in 950 or 65-based standards? Thanks much in advance. luck, Brian ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to [email protected] Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/listserv/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html 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://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
