I've had customers state that painted surfaces are insluative. I generally disagree. But, there is a point buried in there.
What is the dielectrict with-stand of the painted surface? AND how does the product's ESD immunity differ in either case? ASH From: Derek Walton <[email protected]> To: "Grasso, Charles" <[email protected]> Cc: John Woodgate <[email protected]>; [email protected] Sent: Friday, May 22, 2009 12:08:53 PM Subject: Re: [PSES] ESD testing Hi Chas, This is how I interpret the standard. Somewhere I recall if painted surfaces can be penetrated by the point, then Contact also applies. Cheers, Derek. Grasso, Charles wrote: > The ESD standard is perfectly clear (at least to me) - The product > is tested using contact discharge for conductive surfaces AND air discharge on insulating surfaces. > > I don't perceive an interpretation issue. > > If your product is a object constructed entirely of a conductive material - contact discharge only applies. Similarly if > the product is an object constructed entirely of an insulator then only > air discharge applies. If your product has combinations of both - then > both types of discharges apply. > > Is this reasoning flawed?? > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of John > Woodgate > Sent: Friday, May 22, 2009 7:50 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [PSES] ESD testing > > In message <[email protected]>, dated Fri, 22 May 2009, Kate Savo <[email protected]> writes: > > >> Safety/EMC Standards frequently omit the "and" in a list of items such as you excerpted here from 61000-4-2 - they only put an "or" in where they truly mean it to be interpreted as such. >> >> The "and" is implied and Contact ESD must be done on all conductive surfaces, and Air ESD on all insulating surfaces. If your product has both surface types, you should not omit either test scenario. Your local EMC/ESD lab should confirm this. >> > > I do not support that interpretation. If the list just said: > > - air discharge; > > - contact discharge > > to conductive surfaces, conducting planes and insulating surfaces. > > then 'and' might be inferred. But in fact, the inclusion of further words, defining the surfaces to which the two types of discharge shall be applied, excludes such an inference: > > a) contact discharge to the conductive surfaces and coupling planes; > > b) air discharge at insulating surfaces. > > > - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to <[email protected]> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas <[email protected]> Mike Cantwell <[email protected]> For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: <[email protected]> David Heald: <[email protected]> - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to <[email protected]> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas <[email protected]> Mike Cantwell <[email protected]> For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: <[email protected]> David Heald: <[email protected]>
