Re: [PSES] Brick power supplies and test errors (two topics)
At least they were honest!Every lab has to have a first time that they do each test, otherwise progress will never be made. I hope I'm never in a role where I'm always doing things that I already know how to do. :-) I personally do not have any trouble in a lab needing to learn new things. That said, if the test was on the lab's scope of accreditation, they should already have researched and proved that they know how to do it. It does amaze me when I see test labs issue reports for a test (which is on their accreditation scope) and they did not use the correct test equipment. I ask them why and they tell me they don't have the correct equipment. Hmm, I'm sure I remember that being an important aspect of gaining accreditation. As Dennis said, we see too many test reports, apparently accredited, where the standard was not understood or correctly applied. It seems the labs are under a lot of pressure to be cheaper and faster. Is that our fault, as consumers? My concern is that compliance testing is viewed as an unwanted rubber-stamp hurdle, not as the technical study and research in engineering that it should be. It also explains why many labs struggle to find a good engineer who is happy to stay in the test lab. Michael. Michael Derby Senior Regulatory Engineer Director ACB Europe -Original Message- From: Brian Oconnell [mailto:oconne...@tamuracorp.com] Sent: 17 December 2014 21:36 To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] Brick power supplies and test errors (two topics) Pathos and tragedy, with a bit of comedy, in the EMC lab. Once had the sales manager for a major lab say we have never done that test but would give you a good deal so we could get experience... Brian From: Ed Price [mailto:edpr...@cox.net] Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2014 1:29 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] Brick power supplies and test errors (two topics) Ghery: I found that business conditions have created large labs which strive to provide one-stop compliance services, and that this concept is subject to corruption by enthusiasm. By that, I mean that the labs often have a little subsection which is tasked with doing nothing but expanding the range of accreditations; these are the chaps who paper entire hallways with certificates of accreditation, allowing you to take comfort that if you ever needed a machine safety certificate for Kleptostan, you were already in the right place. A certain disconnect exists between these certificate harvesters (think marketing) and the other part of the lab (think engineering) which actually has to do that rare and idiosyncratic test. Ed Price WB6WSN Chula Vista, CA USA From: Pettit, Ghery [mailto:ghery.pet...@intel.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2014 10:00 AM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] Brick power supplies and test errors (two topics) I brought up some serious problems with accredited labs at the ASC C63 meetings in Mesa last month. One accrediting body seems interested in dealing with the issue, the others not so much. It's so much fun to go into a lab that isn't properly equipped to perform tests listed on its Scope of Accreditation. Ghery S. Pettit From: Grasso, Charles [mailto:charles.gra...@echostar.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2014 9:57 AM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] Brick power supplies and test errors (two topics) It would appear that the best efforts of lab accreditations are not living up to expectations? Or am I expecting too much? Best Regards Charles Grasso Compliance Engineer Echostar Communications (w) 303-706-5467 (c) 303-204-2974 (t) 3032042...@vtext.com (e) charles.gra...@echostar.com (e2) chasgra...@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 - 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
Re: [PSES] Brick power supplies and test errors (two topics)
Michael asked if its our fault for pressuring labs to be cheaper and faster. I say not. I recon its down to the size and structure most labs seem to have have evolved to. I (now reluctantly) use a once independent, mid-sized labthat was acquired bya large multinational company. Over the course of a few years they now haveDirectors and Managing Directors and Executive Management who arent even on this site,marketing departments, HR departments, a services organisation that looks after the finance andinvoicing, and they and pay this fee and that royalty to the central group and for certificates and logo usage rights. They have Account Managers and Business Development Managers and Business Line Managers and Project Managers and Project Engineers and Department Managers and PAs and administrators. They even have a small handful of Test Engineers, but we dont hear much about them. Nope, thats why labs are cutting corners, shaving the core services while the dead wood continues to accumulate. Its the way of the world today it seems with the end consumer working ever harder to support it. Rant over! Tony Sent:Thursday, December 18, 2014 at 9:52 AM From:Michael Derby micha...@acbcert.com To:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject:Re: [PSES] Brick power supplies and test errors (two topics) At least they were honest! Every lab has to have a first time that they do each test, otherwise progress will never be made. I hope Im never in a role where Im always doing things that I already know how to do. :-) I personally do not have any trouble in a lab needing to learn new things. That said, if the test was on the labs scope of accreditation, they should already have researched and proved that they know how to do it. It does amaze me when I see test labs issue reports for a test (which is on their accreditation scope) and they did not use the correct test equipment. I ask them why and they tell me they dont have the correct equipment. Hmm, Im sure I remember that being an important aspect of gaining accreditation. As Dennis said, we see too many test reports, apparently accredited, where the standard was not understood or correctly applied. It seems the labs are under a lot of pressure to be cheaper and faster. Is that our fault, as consumers? My concern is that compliance testing is viewed as an unwanted rubber-stamp hurdle, not as the technical study and research in engineering that it should be. It also explains why many labs struggle to find a good engineer who is happy to stay in the test lab. Michael. Michael Derby Senior Regulatory Engineer Director ACB Europe -Original Message- From: Brian Oconnell [mailto:oconne...@tamuracorp.com] Sent: 17 December 2014 21:36 To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] Brick power supplies and test errors (two topics) Pathos and tragedy, with a bit of comedy, in the EMC lab. Once had the sales manager for a major lab say we have never done that test but would give you a good deal so we could get experience... Brian From: Ed Price [mailto:edpr...@cox.net] Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2014 1:29 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] Brick power supplies and test errors (two topics) Ghery: I found that business conditions have created large labs which strive to provide one-stop compliance services, and that this concept is subject to corruption by enthusiasm. By that, I mean that the labs often have a little subsection which is tasked with doing nothing but expanding the range of accreditations; these are the chaps who paper entire hallways with certificates of accreditation, allowing you to take comfort that if you ever needed a machine safety certificate for Kleptostan, you were already in the right place. A certain disconnect exists between these certificate harvesters (think marketing) and the other part of the lab (think engineering) which actually has to do that rare and idiosyncratic test. Ed Price WB6WSN Chula Vista, CA USA From: Pettit, Ghery [mailto:ghery.pet...@intel.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2014 10:00 AM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] Brick power supplies and test errors (two topics) I brought up some serious problems with accredited labs at the ASC C63 meetings in Mesa last month. One accrediting body seems interested in dealing with the issue, the others not so much. Its so much fun to go into a lab that isnt properly equipped to perform tests listed on its Scope of Accreditation. Ghery S. Pettit From: Grasso, Charles [mailto:charles.gra...@echostar.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2014 9:57 AM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] Brick power supplies and test errors (two topics) It would appear that the best efforts of lab accreditations are not living up to expectations? Or am I expecting too much? Best Regards Charles Grasso Compliance Engineer Echostar Communications (w) 303-706-5467 (c) 303-204-2974 (t) 3032042...@vtext.com (e)
Re: [PSES] Brick power supplies and test errors (two topics)
Nice rant Tony.J I heard on the new this week that there is already evidence (in the UK, at least) of a society backlash against the big technology movement. People putting down their social media enabled smartphones and shunning the large super stores, to walk to the local food market and read a book. Concerns over security of information but also over the monopoly of some of the larger companies, as we see in our own industry. There was a 5G presentation at the TCB Council workshop in October which touched on this idea of the unpredictable social reaction to business advances. As a certification body, I do see a lot of people still going to the little local EMC labs where the person doing the test is actually an EMC expert. In some cases, the person doing the EMC test is an EMC engineer and also the EMC lab manager. I like to see it and many of them appear to be really busy. So, there’s hope yet. Michael. Michael Derby Senior Regulatory Engineer Director ACB Europe From: Anthony Thomson [mailto:ton...@europe.com] Sent: 18 December 2014 10:35 To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] Brick power supplies and test errors (two topics) Michael asked if it's 'our' fault for pressuring labs to be cheaper and faster. I say not. I recon it's down to the size and structure most labs seem to have have evolved to. I (now reluctantly) use a once independent, mid-sized lab that was acquired by a large multinational company. Over the course of a few years they now have Directors and Managing Directors and Executive Management who aren't even on this site, marketing departments, HR departments, a services organisation that looks after the finance and invoicing, and they and pay this fee and that royalty to the central group and for certificates and logo usage rights. They have Account Managers and Business Development Managers and Business Line Managers and Project Managers and Project Engineers and Department Managers and PA's and administrators. They even have a small handful of Test Engineers, but we don't hear much about them. Nope, that's why labs are cutting corners, shaving the core services while the 'dead wood' continues to accumulate. It's the way of the world today it seems with the end consumer working ever harder to support it. Rant over! Tony Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2014 at 9:52 AM From: Michael Derby micha...@acbcert.com To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] Brick power supplies and test errors (two topics) At least they were honest! Every lab has to have a first time that they do each test, otherwise progress will never be made. I hope I'm never in a role where I'm always doing things that I already know how to do. :-) I personally do not have any trouble in a lab needing to learn new things. That said, if the test was on the lab's scope of accreditation, they should already have researched and proved that they know how to do it. It does amaze me when I see test labs issue reports for a test (which is on their accreditation scope) and they did not use the correct test equipment. I ask them why and they tell me they don't have the correct equipment. Hmm, I'm sure I remember that being an important aspect of gaining accreditation. As Dennis said, we see too many test reports, apparently accredited, where the standard was not understood or correctly applied. It seems the labs are under a lot of pressure to be cheaper and faster. Is that our fault, as consumers? My concern is that compliance testing is viewed as an unwanted rubber-stamp hurdle, not as the technical study and research in engineering that it should be. It also explains why many labs struggle to find a good engineer who is happy to stay in the test lab. Michael. Michael Derby Senior Regulatory Engineer Director ACB Europe -Original Message- From: Brian Oconnell [mailto:oconne...@tamuracorp.com] Sent: 17 December 2014 21:36 To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] Brick power supplies and test errors (two topics) Pathos and tragedy, with a bit of comedy, in the EMC lab. Once had the sales manager for a major lab say we have never done that test but would give you a good deal so we could get experience... Brian From: Ed Price [mailto:edpr...@cox.net] Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2014 1:29 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] Brick power supplies and test errors (two topics) Ghery: I found that business conditions have created large labs which strive to provide one-stop compliance services, and that this concept is subject to corruption by enthusiasm. By that, I mean that the labs often have a little subsection which is tasked with doing nothing but expanding the range of accreditations; these are the chaps who paper entire hallways with certificates of accreditation, allowing you to take comfort that if you ever needed a machine safety certificate for Kleptostan, you
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 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 \ _ /]\ _ / 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 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
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 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
Re: [PSES] Brick power supplies and test errors (two topics)
We've heard so much from the manufacturers but little from the labs. The relationship between labs and manufacturers as with many seller-buyer interactions can be good or bad, but accrediting bodies are the ones that ideally should have surveillance apparatus to discover whether a lab is competent in evaluating to the standards in their scope. Besides the question of competence, the concern to offer a platform a voice of the customer and identify the good and great labs led us to compiling lab review. We're not promoting this but listmembers interested are welcome to share experiences at this link. Bayo - 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
Re: [PSES] Brick power supplies and test errors (two topics)
I’m not even talking about incorrect processes. I’m talking about lab setups that aren’t in compliance with the standards. Simple things like power supplied to the EUT via a cord connected “somewhere” under the turntable, rather than via a receptacle flush with and bonded to the ground plane as required in CISPR 22 5th and 6th Editions. Or labs that have C63.4 in their Scope of Accreditation who don’t have a way to vary the angle of the antenna (bore sighting, if you will). Neither an automatic mast or a way to manually change the angle. How did this get by the assessor? I’ve been told it’s a new requirement. Yup, new in 1991. Give me a break. Ghery S. Pettit From: CR [mailto:k...@earthlink.net] Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2014 7:49 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] Brick power supplies and test errors (two topics) On 12/17/2014 5:55 PM, Pettit, Ghery wrote: Indeed. I’m glad to see that I’m not the only one seeing this. Ghery S. Pettit I've also looked over testers shoulders and seen things done wrong. Often it was because they didn't what was SUPPOSED to be done. We all learn from mistakes, eh? Cortland Richmond - 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.orgmailto: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.orgmailto:sdoug...@ieee.org Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.orgmailto:mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.orgmailto:j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald dhe...@gmail.commailto: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
Re: [PSES] test errors
Excellent point. Ken Javor Phone: (256) 650-5261 From: Ed Price edpr...@cox.net Reply-To: Ed Price edpr...@cox.net Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2014 04:57:43 -0800 To: 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: ³someone who goes to labs with no knowledge of how these tests are run are at a real disadvantage² 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 that¹s evidence that the accreditation system is failing to deliver on its promise of a safe test environment. Perhaps accreditation can¹t deliver what we expect, or perhaps we aren¹t applying accreditation correctly. We have had about 35 years of EMC lab accreditation experience, and yet we still can¹t, in good conscience, send an innocent customer through the process. Your solution is to make your clients smarter (which I don¹t 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 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 \ _ / ] \ _ / 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 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 Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald 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
Re: [PSES] test errors
This is an organizational flaw similar to relying on ISO 9000 certification; unless day to day operations are monitored by staff, and performance is periodically audited by subject matter experts from the certifying agency, it is only an exercise in paperwork. Consider that EMC standards now require automated tests; this makes it possible to hire people to run the tests by rote and to lay off the expensive engineers and techs who did know what had to happen ad what to look out for. Even they made mistakes, but at least they could watch out for each other; a lab might now offer physically unachievable testing (HIRF might be a good example) and some customer will sign off on it. Cortland Richmond - 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
Re: [PSES] Brick power supplies and test errors (two topics)
Is there a practical way to have flush mounted receptacles in your turntable? Do you know how many different receptacles there are in the world? And what if I need to power a bunch or different equipment. Can you use a power strip according to CISPR 22? What is the logic behind this? Our power comes from a receptacle just inside the center of the turntable and it is bonded to the same ground as the turntable and ground plane. Why does it have to be ‘flush’? We test to CISPR11 which doesn’t have this requirement. As far as C63.4, where does it talk about bore sighting the antenna? I couldn’t find it. I though a bore sight mast was only required with Horn antennas. Good stuff. This is the kind of information I keep an eye out for. The Other Brian From: Pettit, Ghery [mailto:ghery.pet...@intel.com] Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2014 12:07 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] Brick power supplies and test errors (two topics) I’m not even talking about incorrect processes. I’m talking about lab setups that aren’t in compliance with the standards. Simple things like power supplied to the EUT via a cord connected “somewhere” under the turntable, rather than via a receptacle flush with and bonded to the ground plane as required in CISPR 22 5th and 6th Editions. Or labs that have C63.4 in their Scope of Accreditation who don’t have a way to vary the angle of the antenna (bore sighting, if you will). Neither an automatic mast or a way to manually change the angle. How did this get by the assessor? I’ve been told it’s a new requirement. Yup, new in 1991. Give me a break. Ghery S. Pettit From: CR [mailto:k...@earthlink.net] Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2014 7:49 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORGmailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] Brick power supplies and test errors (two topics) On 12/17/2014 5:55 PM, Pettit, Ghery wrote: Indeed. I’m glad to see that I’m not the only one seeing this. Ghery S. Pettit I've also looked over testers shoulders and seen things done wrong. Often it was because they didn't what was SUPPOSED to be done. We all learn from mistakes, eh? Cortland Richmond - 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.orgmailto: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.orgmailto:sdoug...@ieee.org Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.orgmailto:mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.orgmailto:j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald dhe...@gmail.commailto: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.orgmailto: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.orgmailto:sdoug...@ieee.org Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.orgmailto:mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.orgmailto:j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald dhe...@gmail.commailto: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 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
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 (e) charles.gra...@echostar.com (e2) 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 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.ORGmailto: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
Re: [PSES] test errors
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
Re: [PSES] Brick power supplies and test errors (two topics)
CISPR 22:2008, article 10.5.1, 2nd paragraph states, “The mains power outlet shall be bonded to, and should not protrude above, the ground reference plane. If used, the AMN shall be installed under the ground reference plane.” As far as a practical way is concerned, all of our turntables are equipped with receptacles correctly mounted per this requirement. This was added to CISPR 22 with the 5th Edition, published in 2005. C63.4 does not use the term “bore sight”. However, if you look at C63.4-2009, section 8.3.2, it states, “…Place the measurement antenna away from each area of the EUT determined to be a source of emissions at the specified measurement distance, while keeping the antenna in the “cone of radiation” from that area and pointed at the area both in azimuth and elevation, with polarization oriented for maximum response….” Note the “elevation” requirement. This is “bore sighting”. And, yes, this is only done above 1 GHz with horn antennas. Ghery S. Pettit From: Kunde, Brian [mailto:brian_ku...@lecotc.com] Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2014 1:09 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] Brick power supplies and test errors (two topics) Is there a practical way to have flush mounted receptacles in your turntable? Do you know how many different receptacles there are in the world? And what if I need to power a bunch or different equipment. Can you use a power strip according to CISPR 22? What is the logic behind this? Our power comes from a receptacle just inside the center of the turntable and it is bonded to the same ground as the turntable and ground plane. Why does it have to be ‘flush’? We test to CISPR11 which doesn’t have this requirement. As far as C63.4, where does it talk about bore sighting the antenna? I couldn’t find it. I though a bore sight mast was only required with Horn antennas. Good stuff. This is the kind of information I keep an eye out for. The Other Brian From: Pettit, Ghery [mailto:ghery.pet...@intel.com] Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2014 12:07 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORGmailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] Brick power supplies and test errors (two topics) I’m not even talking about incorrect processes. I’m talking about lab setups that aren’t in compliance with the standards. Simple things like power supplied to the EUT via a cord connected “somewhere” under the turntable, rather than via a receptacle flush with and bonded to the ground plane as required in CISPR 22 5th and 6th Editions. Or labs that have C63.4 in their Scope of Accreditation who don’t have a way to vary the angle of the antenna (bore sighting, if you will). Neither an automatic mast or a way to manually change the angle. How did this get by the assessor? I’ve been told it’s a new requirement. Yup, new in 1991. Give me a break. Ghery S. Pettit From: CR [mailto:k...@earthlink.net] Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2014 7:49 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORGmailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] Brick power supplies and test errors (two topics) On 12/17/2014 5:55 PM, Pettit, Ghery wrote: Indeed. I’m glad to see that I’m not the only one seeing this. Ghery S. Pettit I've also looked over testers shoulders and seen things done wrong. Often it was because they didn't what was SUPPOSED to be done. We all learn from mistakes, eh? Cortland Richmond - 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.orgmailto: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.orgmailto:sdoug...@ieee.org Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.orgmailto:mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.orgmailto:j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald dhe...@gmail.commailto: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.orgmailto: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.
Re: [PSES] test errors
Hi Dennis – Understood. What you point out is implied in my comment: “and the test lab is responsible for testing the delivered product according to that standard”. Best Regards Charles Grasso Compliance Engineer Echostar Communications (w) 303-706-5467 (c) 303-204-2974 (t) 3032042...@vtext.com (e) charles.gra...@echostar.com (e2) chasgra...@gmail.com From: dward [mailto:dw...@pctestlab.com] Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2014 2:38 PM To: Grasso, Charles; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: RE: [PSES] test errors 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.ORGmailto: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.commailto:3032042...@vtext.com (e) charles.gra...@echostar.commailto:charles.gra...@echostar.com (e2) chasgra...@gmail.commailto:chasgra...@gmail.com From: Kunde, Brian [mailto:brian_ku...@lecotc.com] Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2014 8:26 AM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORGmailto: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
