Derek, If this is an IEC based standard and you are currently working with an agency such as CSA, ETL, UL, or TUV you should be able to obtain a document that outlines the differences and which testing clauses may be carried forward vs which must be retested under the new revision. If you are talking about an update involving multiple revisions of the test standard and the IEC TRF, you will need to reassess in a step wise fashion. If the revision of the standard is more than amendments and corregenda such as a full edition update, then you must obtain the relevant IEC TRF and fully transfer all the former test data and add all new test data into the new form. A revision of the original test report is not adequate. And in any case, with edition changes the technical committees will often renumber clauses. Thanks, - doug Douglas Powell http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01
Hi John,
-yes, this for product destined for Europe. The company are looking to "future proof" a little so we don't need to do this for a while.
Sincerely,
Derek. -----Original Message-----
From: John Woodgate <[email protected]> To: EMC-PSTC <[email protected]> Sent: Mon, May 26, 2014 11:05 am Subject: Re: [PSES] Testing comparison In message <[email protected]>, dated Mon, 26 May 2014, Derek Walton <[email protected]> writes: >I'm trying to a gap analysis for Testing done in 1999 to what they >should be complying with today. > >In a nutshell, the product standard never called out dated versions, >and still doesn't, This is user-unfriendly. While the advantages and disadvantages of dated and undated references are *nearly* balanced, the uncertainty of the standards user, faced with a string of undated references, very much tips the balance for me. Undated references are OK for standards that aren't related to regulatory issues, but for EMC and safety standards, I believe all normative references must be dated. >so I believe I can just compare the test standard active at the time of >the original testing, to what is active now. In so doing, I can develop >a list of areas where the original testing is no longer adequate. > >Question 1: Is this the optimum approach? Or, is this an OK way to >validate the product is currently compliant. Are we talking about Europe or elsewhere? You really need to compare the *test report* with whatever standard is acceptable now according to the OJ list. That would be the latest 'notified' version plus any older version that is still in 'transition'. > >So, Question 2. To make life easier, is anyone aware of a summary of >changes between each version? Otherwise I see myself going through each >standard one at a time: a laborious prospect now the weathers turned >nice. Some IEC/CISPR standards are available in 'redline' versions that show the text changes from the previous edition. See the IEC web site for more information. Third-party summaries can be risky insofar as they tend to paraphrase the actual changed wording, perhaps not mentioning new Notes or cross-references, and that might be critical for your product. They also don't usually mention changes to normatively referenced standards. -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. With best wishes. See www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Nondum ex silvis sumus John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK - ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) 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.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ For help, send mail to the list administrators: For policy questions, send mail to: ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ For help, send mail to the list administrators: For policy questions, send mail to: | ||
- [PSES] Testing comparison Derek Walton
- Re: [PSES] Testing comparison John Woodgate
- Re: [PSES] Testing comparison Derek Walton
- Re: [PSES] Testing comparison Doug Powell
