I don’t think the original discussion is or was centered on testing ‘black boxes’ or even the fact that a manufacturer should know his product and what it takes to get it in the market. The original discussion was that labs which are supposed to know what they are doing, because they have a standards listed on their scope of accreditation, may not actually know what they are doing. It does not deal with off the wall testing specific to a particular manufacturer, it deals with common everyday expertise.
Any lab can test anything or anyway they want, but if they are saying the testing is to a specific standard and is in accordance with their scope, then they need to make sure it is. If it is not, then the accreditations generally only say (paraphrased) ‘if you didn’t test it correctly to the std on the scope, then don’t say you did. If you did test it according to your scope, then the results should clearly show you did.’ Thanks Dennis Ward This communication and its attachements contain information from PCTEST Engineering Laboratory, Inc., and I sintended for the exclusive use of the recipient(s) named above. It may contain information that is confidential and/or legally privileged. Any unauthorized use that may compromise that confidentiality via distribution or disclosure is prohibited. Please notify the sender immediately if you receive this communication in error, and delete it from your computer system. Usage of PCTEST email addresses for non-business related activities is strictly prohibited. No warranty is made that the e-mail or attachments(s) are free from computer virus or other defect. Thank you. From: Grasso, Charles [mailto:charles.gra...@echostar.com] Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2014 1:06 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] test errors Hello Brian – with regards to the “Top Secret” box. It is my understanding that the customer it responsible for assuring that their product is tested to the correct standard and the test lab is responsible for testing the delivered product according to that standard. So I would say that yes – you did what the customer asked so you tested the product correctly. Best Regards Charles Grasso Compliance Engineer Echostar Communications (w) 303-706-5467 (c) 303-204-2974 (t) 3032042...@vtext.com <mailto:3032042...@vtext.com> (e) charles.gra...@echostar.com <mailto:charles.gra...@echostar.com> (e2) chasgra...@gmail.com <mailto:chasgra...@gmail.com> From: Kunde, Brian [mailto:brian_ku...@lecotc.com] Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2014 8:26 AM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> Subject: Re: [PSES] test errors Well said. I’m really enjoying this topic. Expecting customers to be Compliance Test experts would be nice, but a little like expecting people to have to be auto mechanics to be able to take their cars to the repair shop. But like auto repair shops, EMC and Safety test labs are all in it for the money. They have payroll to meet just like any business and they are not likely to turn away work because it is something they are not 100% sure they know how to properly test until the customer arrives with it. And in those cases I’m sure they do the best they can. We also expect test labs to be experts in hundreds of standards and how they apply to an infinite number of products, configurations, and supporting equipment; many of which they may know absolutely nothing about how it even works. Such expectations are unrealistic. I once tested a metal box with something moving inside. “Top Secret” according to the customer. Did we test it correctly? How would I know? We did what the customer wanted. Yup, errors and mistakes are going to happen. That is part of life. Though I am not a fan of accreditation, one cannot expect anything more than an attempt to minimize the errors. I don’t think a stack of procedures in a file or book in the manager’s office is very affective at eliminating error, but it is better than nothing. And as test labs become more competitive, a long list of accreditations is like money in the bank. Personally, I like the “Accountability Method” or as mentioned early the “looking over the shoulder” method. This is where the test setup and testing is overseen by a second person in the lab who can most often see problems the main tester cannot see right in front of his face. It is like having someone proof read your memos (I cannot believe I make so many typos). Many of our customers hire Consultants to babysit or oversee their EMC testing. Some of them drill me all day long about how we do things. It can be exhausting. But, I prefer such customers over those who come in and don’t know anything about anything. I once tested a Sand Blast Cabinet which comprised of a metal box with a brushless AC blower motor and incandescent light bulb. I tried to explain that this product did not require emissions testing; even digging through standards and directives as proof, but they insisted. So the test results was basically our noise floor. Now if anyone who knows their stuff looks at that test report they will assume we ripped them off. Doug, I love your posts and your education videos. My greatest fear running a test lab is that we are doing something wrong. When someone like you who I greatly respect says that many labs are making common errors, it really freaks me out. I must know more because I’m afraid maybe we are making the same errors. I hope not, but as you know, it does happen. Anyone with similar discoveries, please pass it on so we can avoid such sleepless nights. :) The one thing that really grinds my gears is when I hear people say that the test results from non-accredited labs are no good or not as accurate because they are not accredited. I know this just shows their ignorance but I’m sure some accredited test lab told them that, so they believe it to be true. Most small labs don’t require accreditation to do a good job. I would back our testing and results against any other lab. And I know several other small labs that do a great job as well. Now don’t get me wrong; I have nothing against accredited labs. In fact, I believe labs large enough to support the financial and manpower burden should probably be accredited. My gripe is only with those who unjustly bad mouth us small labs. We are all looking to have a foot hold over our competition, but we would never bad mouth another test lab. Lets hang our hats on our testing ability, customer service, and test results. You may now return to your regularly scheduled program. This Other Brian From: Ed Price [mailto:edpr...@cox.net] Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2014 7:58 AM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> Subject: Re: [PSES] test errors Doug: I took the liberty of severely editing you response, but I think the essence of your story is: “someone who goes to labs with no knowledge of how these tests are run are at a real disadvantage” I thought that the whole purpose of accreditation was to provide protection to the customer who is not an EMC expert and who cannot personally evaluate the quality of the EMC test services. Some 3rd party would police the test labs, and, to the extent that you trusted this 3rd party, you could trust the quality of accredited services. Sure, humans make mistakes, but the frequency of these mistakes should be statistically down in the same range as say, the number of times your test lab had a fire in the past year. However, since you know that it is necessary for a test services customer to be well-informed, then that’s evidence that the accreditation system is failing to deliver on its promise of a safe test environment. Perhaps accreditation can’t deliver what we expect, or perhaps we aren’t applying accreditation correctly. We have had about 35 years of EMC lab accreditation experience, and yet we still can’t, in good conscience, send an innocent customer through the process. Your solution is to make your clients smarter (which I don’t argue with at all), but what does that say of the efficacy and value of accreditation? Ed Price WB6WSN Chula Vista, CA USA From: Douglas Smith [mailto:d...@emcesd.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2014 10:28 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> Subject: Re: [PSES] Brick power supplies and test errors (two topics) Hi Ed and the Group, Ed said: "Did you create a write-up on what those errors specifically were, and how it happened that you noticed them in time to control them?" I have not specifically written them up although I do tell them as war stories during my presentations. The biggies I remember were antenna placement, wrong antenna factors, and injecting more current in the conducted immunity test than was called for Other biggies are ESD test setups non-compliant (the lab test area) and the EFT test run with the clamp backwards. But someone who goes to labs with no knowledge of how these tests are run are at a real disadvantage. Recently I have rolled up a lot of this information in to a short web presentation I give to my clients so they can avoid these problems. Doug University of Oxford Tutor Department for Continuing Education Oxford, Oxfordshire, United Kingdom -------------------------------------------------------------- ___ _ Doug Smith \ / ) P.O. Box 60941 ========= Boulder City, NV 89006-0941 _ / \ / \ _ TEL/FAX: 702-570-6108/570-6013 / /\ \ ] / /\ \ Mobile: 408-858-4528 | q-----( ) | o | Email: d...@dsmith.org <mailto:d...@dsmith.org> \ _ / ] \ _ / Web: http://www.dsmith.org - ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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 <emc-p...@ieee.org <mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org> > 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) <http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html> List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas <sdoug...@ieee.org <mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org> > Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org <mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org> > For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher <j.bac...@ieee.org <mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org> > David Heald <dhe...@gmail.com <mailto:dhe...@gmail.com> > _____ LECO Corporation Notice: This communication may contain confidential information intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you received this by mistake, please destroy it and notify us of the error. Thank you. - ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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 <emc-p...@ieee.org <mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org> > 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) <http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html> List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas <sdoug...@ieee.org <mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org> > Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org <mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org> > For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher <j.bac...@ieee.org <mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org> > David Heald <dhe...@gmail.com <mailto:dhe...@gmail.com> > - ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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 <emc-p...@ieee.org <mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org> > 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) <http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html> List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas <sdoug...@ieee.org <mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org> > Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org <mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org> > For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher <j.bac...@ieee.org <mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org> > David Heald <dhe...@gmail.com <mailto:dhe...@gmail.com> > - ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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 <emc-p...@ieee.org> 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 <sdoug...@ieee.org> Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org> For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: <j.bac...@ieee.org> David Heald: <dhe...@gmail.com>
