Hi All,

Test failures (performance, compliance, or any other) just before product 
introduction are very expensive. It is not unusual to cost a company US$100,000 
or more revenue per day of product delay. Given that...........

There is an issue with IEC61000-4-2 based ESD testing, and it is costing 
companies millions of $/year in incorrect failures on equipment that in fact 
was compliant!!! I have observed this for decades now but not much has been 
done about it. What we really need is a maximum di/dt specification anywhere on 
the waveform (I proposed this when I was on WG9 of TC77b almost 30 years ago) 
and an E-field emissions amplitude and de/dt specifications for ESD simulators. 
They are all over the map in their ability to fail equipment that is actually 

Given that, one's only recourse is to try and use a simulator that meets the 
"intent" not just the letter of the requirements. Along those lines, you might 
be interested in my latest Technical Tidbit article for November about data I 
have taken on most of the current simulators on the market using special 
measurement techniques (both equipment and technique of measurement). In the 
article I give an example of di/dt issues. Here is the link:


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 

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:

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:
Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org>

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  <j.bac...@ieee.org>
David Heald: <dhe...@gmail.com>
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 

Reply via email to