RE: OK, what's going on?
Mark mentioned reports, a paper trail...or is it? Vendors doing the EMC/EMI ?, who might a vendor be for say IBM or Dell? would think the mfr'r would have an associate there during testing like most of us do. Seems it would be easy to look at the report, from which test lab did it, are they accredited? if yes, then there shouldnt be any questions.. only thing I see, maybe Disparity, as readings can be differnet from lab to lab. these days its ship now...or not at all.. and barely passing for PC's, since its class B may be enough for the PC companies. Richard, From: Mark Kirincic [mailto:mkirin...@houston.rr.com] Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2003 8:55 AM To: lfresea...@aol.com; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: OK, what's going on? I guess now its my turn to put in my two cents. The major reason that you are having a hard time finding units that pass is that all these major computer companies rely on their vendors to test the products to FCC and CE limits. Since the majority of these companies have suppliers in the Taiwan and China all of these units pass due to pressure from the major computer companies and the vendors themselves. These major computer companies then try to legitimize it by getting copies of test reports showing the units are in compliance. None of these companies will report each other to the authorities mainly because they can not guarantee that all of their products pass and they fear retaliation. Their philosophy is as long as we have this report we can sell this product until someone catches us and then they go into a major scramble to fix the problem that was uncovered. The only way to reduce this is through FCC and CE random audits. I have worked for several major computer companies in my 19 years of experience, and they all share this philosophy. One former company was the exception, they were deathly afraid of bad press and they went to great extremes to make sure their products passed with adequate margin. I will get off my soap box now. Mark J. Kirincic mkirin...@houston.rr.com - Original Message - From: lfresea...@aol.com To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2003 2:05 PM Subject: OK, what's going on? Hi all, This e-mail has been prompted because of a number of things that have all come together. This may take a little reading, but please stick with it. Last note... this is not intended to pick on any individuals, or organization, but I do want to stir the pot. I operate an engineering lab, helping clients harden their designs to meet EMC requirements. In this particular instance, I was working for a small client, on a card that goes in the PC . In order to test I need a host PC. So, to save money, the card maker supplies 2 clones. Neither of the two PCs passed emissions testing with the card, in fact, above 100 MHz, they fail even the Class A limit: badly! So, before calling my client, I pull his card, the PC is no different, I pull the monitor, then the keyboard, then the mouse... No different. I test just the PC chassis one at a time. On their own, booted and then the peripherals removed. Not even close to passing. Disgruntled, I get my office PC... Fail. I get my kids PC.. over 20 dB over the limit! So, I think so much for clones... I buy 2 Dell ( sorry, no point trying to hide names... ) desktops, both fail, quite badly. However, they have very similar noise profiles... Can 5 PC's all fail? I think my measuring system is set -up wrong. So I verify this. I am within 1 dB of what I expect when I inject a signal from a signal generator and account for antenna factors. Here lies the question: why can I not find a PC that passes? Worse, since they don't pass, who is chasing them down to enforce the requirements? I'm unhappy, because I am taking a clients money to make him meet the requirements, when it seems no one else is. Now, what's making this worse for me, is that I am an EMC Lab assessor. So, I go to labs and make them jump through hoops so that they produce, as consistently as possible, data the characterizes a product. Exercises, like those performed by USCEL, show that labs can have very consistent results. Anyone that stands up and says EMC is not a field where consistency can be achieved, should not be in the compliance business: please close your lab. So if the test are consistent, why the HUGE variations? In the 20+ labs I have assessed, I feel that almost every one had an ethical approach. Ironically, I felt that the bigger companies I visited like HP and Intel were exceptional: both ethically and technically. The rest of the labs were between good to very good. So cheating is unlikely.. I have now spent about 60 man-hours looking for a PC that passes FCC Class B emissions. Something that I should just be able to go to the store and get. As yet, I have no PC. Our field, it appears, is not a level playing field. It appears more like a rugby game in which we have no referee! So why
Re: OK, what's going on?
Some of these units are so far out that the variation from site to site is the least of their problems. Mark J. Kirincic mkirin...@houston.rr.com - Original Message - From: lfresea...@aol.com To: rsto...@lucent.com ; drcuthb...@micron.com ; mkirin...@houston.rr.com ; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Sent: Friday, March 28, 2003 12:21 PM Subject: Re: OK, what's going on? In a message dated 3/28/03 10:05:02 AM Central Standard Time, rsto...@lucent.com writes: what do you do to the company that passes site A oats,then fails site B...go to site C?...best 2 out of 3? HI Richard.. As an assessor, we have been taking great steps to get this problem down to only a few dB... And, it is working. I operate a proficiency test program, that shows consistant results between good labs. US CEL also recently did a study, and with the exception of a few outlying labs, the results were very encurraging. Cheers, Derek.
Re: Lab integrity (was: RE: OK, what's going on?)
In a message dated 3/27/2003 9:34:03 AM Central Standard Time, peter.tar...@sanmina-sci.com writes: While I can't speak for all OEM pc manufacturers or intend to contradict your personal experience My personal experience has only had me visit 2 OEM's Both were exceptional. You don't contradict me :-) Cheers, Derek.
Re: OK, what's going on?
John Woodgate j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk 03/28/03 04:11pm If products that exceed a limit by 20 dB don't cause an unacceptable increased level of complaints, why retain the stringent limit: cui bono? Just a thought about this argument about complaints. Having worked in the EMC business for nearly 10 years, I should be able to spot EMC / Interference problems. I had a journey about a year ago when my car radio was having trouble picking up stations and the RDS data was not being picked up at all. This was an intermittent problem on subsequent journeys but I of course assumed that the radio was on the blink. I mentally put a black mark against the manufacturer of the radio. Half a year later I finally worked out that my cheap (CE marked) carphone charger was causing the problem. I was going to complain to trading standards but didn't get round to it. I now either accept that I can't use the charger and radio together, or I make sure the phone is charged before going out. Dr Luke Turnbull Principal EMC Engineer TRW Conekt Stratford Road Solihull B90 4GW Tel: +44 (0)121.627.3966 Fax:+44 (0)121.627.4353 email: luke.turnb...@trw.com web: www.trw.com/conekt/ This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
Re: OK, what's going on?
Richard, I can live with a couple of dB failure that is in the minutia. What I am talking about is a signature that can be broad band in nature and having a class B product fail class A miserably. This is just a blatant disregard for the standards. Mark J. Kirincic mkirin...@houston.rr.com - Original Message - From: Stone, Richard A mailto:rsto...@lucent.com (Richard) To: 'drcuthbert' mailto:drcuthb...@micron.com ; 'Mark mailto:mkirin...@houston.rr.com Kirincic' ; Stone, Richard A (Richard) mailto:rsto...@lucent.com ; lfresea...@aol.com ; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Sent: Friday, March 28, 2003 10:03 AM Subject: RE: OK, what's going on? There has been an enormous amount of feedback from Dereks email this week. Including mine. I am beginning to get the notion this is all brand new to most of the people here.. it isn't..going on for years... were not going to change evolution, we can gripe and complain best thing to do is our own diligence on our product,..not censor someone elses... what do you do to the company that passes site A oats,then fails site B...go to site C?...best 2 out of 3? think bill gates would care if he sold PC's? and not just software...People who rely on word/excel and other programs would care less about failing by a few db. the FCC is in place they run itwe try our best Richard, From: drcuthbert [mailto:drcuthb...@micron.com] Sent: Friday, March 28, 2003 10:54 AM To: 'Mark Kirincic'; Stone, Richard A (Richard); lfresea...@aol.com; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: OK, what's going on? What would NARTE say about certified EMC engineers and technicians signing off on equipment that does not make the grade? It would be great if everyone and every company handled the issue of EMC ethically. But since the world does not always work this way...I favor the idea of a fine for every unit that is shipped from a lot that statistically fails. I.E. mandatory sampling (of boxed and shipped units) and only a certain percentage are allowed to fail, etc. Companies would then weigh the cost of compliance against the cost of non-compliance. Devils advocate speaking now: But from the viewpoint of economics this would of course add cost to every unit shipped. Is the additional manufacturing cost to the public offset by any savings due to lower emissions and lower susceptibility? Would society truly benefit from better EMC enforcement or does this serve only the EMC community? Dave Cuthbert Micron Technology From: Mark Kirincic [mailto:mkirin...@houston.rr.com] Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2003 8:53 PM To: Stone, Richard A (Richard); lfresea...@aol.com; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: OK, what's going on? To further clarify my point, all the major companies are guilty of this. I know of first hand information where a unit passed in Asia and failed here in the states at the companies test lab, and they are forced by upper management to ship the product anyway. These companies are trying to get their product out the door as cheaply as possible with little to no concern about the consequences. I have read in some of the responses that we should fine these companies, that is a good point but that is only a slap on the wrist and a chance most of them are willing to take. In my opinion, what really needs to be done is full accountability for failed products that the company by having the company name made public at the FCC and CE websites and trade journals. Also have the companies pay for audits of all the units that are in the country that fail to meet FCC and CE standards. What I am saying is to charge a flat fee per unit that fails. Secondly, I would prevent them form selling into a market segment if the audit shows non compliance of multiple units. Have the company provide future proof of compliance before shipping which will hurt them in their pocket book a lot more than just a simple fine. Mark J. Kirincic mkirin...@houston.rr.com - Original Message - From: Stone, mailto:rsto...@lucent.com Richard A (Richard) To: 'Mark Kirincic' mailto:mkirin...@houston.rr.com ; lfresea...@aol.com ; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2003 8:34 AM Subject: RE: OK, what's going on? Mark mentioned reports, a paper trail...or is it? Vendors doing the EMC/EMI ?, who might a vendor be for say IBM or Dell? would think the mfr'r would have an associate there during testing like most of us do. Seems it would be easy to look at the report, from which test lab did it, are they accredited? if yes, then there shouldnt be any questions.. only thing I see, maybe Disparity, as readings can be differnet from lab to lab. these days its ship now...or not at all.. and barely passing for PC's, since its class B may be enough for the PC companies. Richard, From: Mark Kirincic [mailto:mkirin...@houston.rr.com] Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2003 8:55 AM To: lfresea...@aol.com; emc-p
Re: OK, what's going on?
In a message dated 3/28/03 10:05:02 AM Central Standard Time, rsto...@lucent.com writes: what do you do to the company that passes site A oats,then fails site B...go to site C?...best 2 out of 3? HI Richard.. As an assessor, we have been taking great steps to get this problem down to only a few dB... And, it is working. I operate a proficiency test program, that shows consistant results between good labs. US CEL also recently did a study, and with the exception of a few outlying labs, the results were very encurraging. Cheers, Derek.
Re: OK, what's going on?
I guess now its my turn to put in my two cents. The major reason that you are having a hard time finding units that pass is that all these major computer companies rely on their vendors to test the products to FCC and CE limits. Since the majority of these companies have suppliers in the Taiwan and China all of these units pass due to pressure from the major computer companies and the vendors themselves. These major computer companies then try to legitimize it by getting copies of test reports showing the units are in compliance. None of these companies will report each other to the authorities mainly because they can not guarantee that all of their products pass and they fear retaliation. Their philosophy is as long as we have this report we can sell this product until someone catches us and then they go into a major scramble to fix the problem that was uncovered. The only way to reduce this is through FCC and CE random audits. I have worked for several major computer companies in my 19 years of experience, and they all share this philosophy. One former company was the exception, they were deathly afraid of bad press and they went to great extremes to make sure their products passed with adequate margin. I will get off my soap box now. Mark J. Kirincic mkirin...@houston.rr.com - Original Message - From: lfresea...@aol.com To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2003 2:05 PM Subject: OK, what's going on? Hi all, This e-mail has been prompted because of a number of things that have all come together. This may take a little reading, but please stick with it. Last note... this is not intended to pick on any individuals, or organization, but I do want to stir the pot. I operate an engineering lab, helping clients harden their designs to meet EMC requirements. In this particular instance, I was working for a small client, on a card that goes in the PC . In order to test I need a host PC. So, to save money, the card maker supplies 2 clones. Neither of the two PCs passed emissions testing with the card, in fact, above 100 MHz, they fail even the Class A limit: badly! So, before calling my client, I pull his card, the PC is no different, I pull the monitor, then the keyboard, then the mouse... No different. I test just the PC chassis one at a time. On their own, booted and then the peripherals removed. Not even close to passing. Disgruntled, I get my office PC... Fail. I get my kids PC.. over 20 dB over the limit! So, I think so much for clones... I buy 2 Dell ( sorry, no point trying to hide names... ) desktops, both fail, quite badly. However, they have very similar noise profiles... Can 5 PC's all fail? I think my measuring system is set -up wrong. So I verify this. I am within 1 dB of what I expect when I inject a signal from a signal generator and account for antenna factors. Here lies the question: why can I not find a PC that passes? Worse, since they don't pass, who is chasing them down to enforce the requirements? I'm unhappy, because I am taking a clients money to make him meet the requirements, when it seems no one else is. Now, what's making this worse for me, is that I am an EMC Lab assessor. So, I go to labs and make them jump through hoops so that they produce, as consistently as possible, data the characterizes a product. Exercises, like those performed by USCEL, show that labs can have very consistent results. Anyone that stands up and says EMC is not a field where consistency can be achieved, should not be in the compliance business: please close your lab. So if the test are consistent, why the HUGE variations? In the 20+ labs I have assessed, I feel that almost every one had an ethical approach. Ironically, I felt that the bigger companies I visited like HP and Intel were exceptional: both ethically and technically. The rest of the labs were between good to very good. So cheating is unlikely.. I have now spent about 60 man-hours looking for a PC that passes FCC Class B emissions. Something that I should just be able to go to the store and get. As yet, I have no PC. Our field, it appears, is not a level playing field. It appears more like a rugby game in which we have no referee! So why are there no fines being levied? Especially since it seems I can find non-compliant products everywhere! Is the self policing approach out of control? I intend to take this up with the FCC. Is there anyone out there that is supportive of this action ( which means you must be doing things right.. )? Am I wasting my time ( in which case if this is all lip service... why should we even test )? Or am I missing something ( I listen to 2 by 4's )? Derek Walton Owner of an EMC Lab EMC Lab Assessor NARTE EMC Engineer 30 years of EMC experience
Lab integrity (was: RE: OK, what's going on?)
Earl - While I can't speak for all OEM pc manufacturers or intend to contradict your personal experience, without question, Sanmina-SCI's Calgary and San Jose facilities DO NOT hedge on EMC or in any other compliance discipline. We have an excellent 10 m indoor semianechoic chamber in San Jose, staffed by competent test engineers and supervised by a *very* conscientious engineering manager, whom several subscribers on this list are personally familiar. All of our staff in each of our compliance disciplines (EMC, telecom and safety) and are similarly conscientious. We have also received very good cooperation from our internal design staff (PWB layout, signal integrity, mechanical design) in meeting the goal of designing not simply compliant products, but even a step beyond. Our group also has isolation from the manufacturing divisions up to the VP level. (The design staff are similarly isolated.) When we were divested from our previous employer (our group remains largely intact), we made explicit and voluminous noise regarding integrity and independence, and, to management's credit, we have been given that. Our accreditations tend to bear this out. It's the roosters watching this hen house. Crowing mode OFF. Regards, Peter L. Tarver, PE Product Safety Manager Sanmina-SCI Homologation Services San Jose, CA peter.tar...@sanmina-sci.com From: Morse, Earl Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2003 8:10 AM The emigration of PC manufacturing to the PAC rim is being followed by emigration of the design and validation teams also. Many PC manufacturers have completely outsourced their EMC testing to the OEM PC manufacturers even when they own several 10 meter semi anechoic chambers. This is akin to having the fox watch over the hen house. Management says it is more economical that way. When every test is compliant and product passes the first time every time then I guess it is. Besides, it isn't compliance that anyone is really after anymore but rather a piece of paper that says it is compliant. (Neville Chamberlain effect) This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
RE: OK, what's going on?
Doug Is the CuBe catalog available on the web as I would like to have a look at it? Thanks John Allen From: Doug Smith [mailto:d...@emcesd.com] Sent: 28 March 2003 04:51 To: George Stults Cc: Cortland Richmond; lfresea...@aol.com; ieee pstc list Subject: Re: OK, what's going on? Hi George and the group, The black marking is corrosion products from incompatible metals (too far aprart on the electrochemical series). CuBe springs are in this category for most chassis metals and should not be used uncoated. The little coating chart at the end of the catalog is the most important information in the catalog! Doug George Stults wrote: I suppose that vibration may be good to a point, but I offer the following. I bought a pair of PC's (These were Dell Dimension 500 and they did pass Class B) out of the box. I found however that after many repeated trips to the lab in my car, they no longer did. The I/O connectors did degrade somewhat, but the noise leakage was traced to the case. It appeared that the problem was fretting due to vibrating metal to metal contacts along various seams in concert with some kind of coating on the surfaces. Where metal fingers met metal surface, a kind of black marking had developed and I found it couldn't be cleaned with alcohol etc. Light sandpapering didn't help much either, although I suppose a dremel tool might have worked. Copper tape along the affected seams did work, but of course then, I had modified it George Stults WatchGuard Technologies Inc. -Original Message- From: Cortland Richmond [mailto:72146@compuserve.com] Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2003 11:10 AM To: lfresea...@aol.com; ieee pstc list Subject: Re: OK, what's going on? Derek wrote: the EUT should have been exposed to simulated shipping and installation by a user... FWIW, in the 1980's I worked in an audit lab where we tested samples of shipped equipment for FCC, vibration, heat, humidity, temperature, TEMPEST... it was not uncommon for equipment to do BETTER in EMC tests after it had been subjected to vibration testing. With oils, oxides and so on having been abraded, metal parts made better contact with each other. Cortland --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc -- ___ _ Doug Smith \ / ) P.O. Box 1457 = Los Gatos, CA 95031-1457 _ / \ / \ _ TEL/FAX: 408-356-4186/358-3799 / /\ \ ] / /\ \ Mobile: 408-858-4528 | q-( ) | o |Email: d...@dsmith.org \ _ /]\ _ / Website: http://www.dsmith.org This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
Re: OK, what's going on?
I read in !emc-pstc that Luke Turnbull luke.turnb...@trw.com wrote (in se87afb4.056@gwisegwc) about 'OK, what's going on?' on Mon, 31 Mar 2003: Half a year later I finally worked out that my cheap (CE marked) carphone charger was causing the problem. I was going to complain to trading standards but didn't get round to it. The EMC Directive doesn't apply to products for use in vehicles, but I doubt that the charger would pass the Automotive Directive (which contains the technical requirements). -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Interested in professional sound reinforcement and distribution? Then go to http://www.isce.org.uk PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL! This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
Re: OK, what's going on?
Prior, I do agree with you, but there are other large companies out there that are bucking the system and are playing on a level playing field. There are very few manufacturers that still manufacture in the States, and they legally and ethically follow the laws. Unfortunately this is reality. All large computer manufacturers have subcontractors based in the far east. I have seen and heard about many incidents were the test data is the same before and after adding peripherals and or making electrical changes, such events to think that this was done by accident. The large corporations here in the states just pass the burden on their suppliers and they play a dumb and happy role, since they do not want to test the product and find out that the unit fails miserably. Then they would be forced to do something about it since it becomes a more complicated matter. THIS IS REAL LIFE. Most of you remember the 80's and all the units that were tested here in the states to FCC and the vendors never bothered to implement the changes once the unit was certified. Lets bring it to more current issues, if someone within the CE finds a unit that is non compliant they give that manufacturer a chance to fix the problem and a slap on the wrist. Their names and offenses are never publicized in a public forum where everyone can see it. What type of enforcement is that. By the way this has nothing to do with NARTE Certified engineers since any representative from the company can sign a declaration of conformity. You really do not need an EMC engineer (NARTE Certified or not) to bless that type of document. Mark J. Kirincic mkirin...@houston.rr.com - Original Message - From: Pryor McGinnis mailto:c...@prodigy.net To: drcuthbert mailto:drcuthb...@micron.com ; 'Mark mailto:mkirin...@houston.rr.com Kirincic' ; Stone, Richard A (Richard) mailto:rsto...@lucent.com ; lfresea...@aol.com ; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Sent: Friday, March 28, 2003 12:08 PM Subject: RE: OK, what's going on? I have to add my 2 cents worth! This is getting out of hand and should stop. Do you not understand that the original unit submitted for EMC Testing may have passed with flying colors, only to be changed during production (either by parts from different vendors or production methods, etc.) that resuldted in the units being produced that no longer meet the limits? It could be that a prototype was the only unit tested and a production unit never sampled. There are a multitude reasons for non-compliant products being on the market. Not all are devious. Pryor McGinnis c...@prodigy.net drcuthbert drcuthb...@micron.com wrote: What would NARTE say about certified EMC engineers and technicians signing off on equipment that does not make the grade? It would be great if everyone and every company handled the issue of EMC ethically. But since the world does not always work this way...I favor the idea of a fine for every unit that is shipped from a lot that statistically fails. I.E. mandatory sampling (of boxed and shipped units) and only a certain percentage are allowed to fail, etc. Companies would then weigh the cost of compliance against the cost of non-compliance. Devils advocate speaking now: But from the viewpoint of economics this would of course add cost to every unit shipped. Is the additional manufacturing cost to the public offset by any savings due to lower emissions and lower susceptibility? Would society truly benefit from better EMC enforcement or does this serve only the EMC community? Dave Cuthbert Micron Technology From: Mark Kirincic [ mailto:mkirin...@houston.rr.com] Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2003 8:53 PM To: Stone, Richard A (Richard); lfresea...@aol.com; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: OK, what's going on? To further clarify my point, all the major companies are guilty of this. I know of first hand information where a unit passed in Asia and failed here in the states at the companies test lab, and they are forced by upper management to ship the product anyway. These companies are trying to get their product out the door as cheaply as possible with little to no concern about the consequences. I have read in some of the responses that we should fine these companies, that is a good point but that is only a slap on the wrist and a chance most of them are willing to take. In my opinion, what really needs to be done is full accountability for failed products that the company by having the company name made public at the FCC and CE websites and trade journals. Also have the companies pay for audits of all the units that are in the country that fail to meet FCC and CE standards. What I am saying is to charge a flat fee per unit that fails. Secondly, I would prevent them form selling into a market segment if the audit shows non compliance of multiple units. Have the company provide future proof of compliance before shipping which will hurt them
Re: OK, what's going on?
John, All that I am saying is that the manufacturer has to show the product that he produces is in compliance. It does not discriminate if the manufacture makes 10 pieces a year of 1 million they all have to comply. How does one do that? They have to periodically test product off the assembly line or document a engineering change. These are loosely worded in all regulations but just about always ignored. Mark J. Kirincic mkirin...@houston.rr.com From: John Woodgate j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Sent: Friday, March 28, 2003 10:07 AM Subject: Re: OK, what's going on? I read in !emc-pstc that Mark Kirincic mkirin...@houston.rr.com wrote (in 098201c2f521$284e4820$6501a8c0@kristina2005) about 'OK, what's going on?' on Fri, 28 Mar 2003: By the way I do not work for a test house, I didn't imply that you did. I am just trying to clean up and legitimize the rules that were set up by the EC and FCC as well as other EMC laws out there. But is that the right thing to do? More and more people are questioning the whole basis of EU EMC regulation, partly because it is over- stringent and partly because the testing is not based on sound technical principles. The latter is because we just don't know how to do that! The test methods and the limits are in many cases simply derived pragmatically. 'If we do the tests this way and apply this limit, we reduce complaints of EMI to an acceptable minimum.' For this to work as a practical measure, **there has to be an efficient complaints procedure and a system for following up complaints properly.*** In many cases now, neither of these conditions is met, due to constraints on expenditure. So, a lot of costly testing is being done, with no feedback on whether it is more than achieving its object, or dismally failing to achieve it. -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Interested in professional sound reinforcement and distribution? Then go to http://www.isce.org.uk PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL! --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
RE: OK, what's going on?
Yes, wouldn't it be good. IMHO, it's slightly less feasible than a combined 3D photocopier and perpetual motion machine. Someday, they'll be invented too. Although I don't want to be the guy that has to test the perpetual motion machine :-) Chris Maxwell | Design Engineer - Optical Division email chris.maxw...@nettest.com | dir +1 315 266 5128 | fax +1 315 797 8024 NetTest | 6 Rhoads Drive, Utica, NY 13502 | USA web www.nettest.com | tel +1 315 797 4449 | This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
Re: OK, what's going on?
I read in !emc-pstc that Pryor McGinnis c...@prodigy.net wrote (in 20030328180822.63646.qm...@web80210.mail.yahoo.com) about 'OK, what's going on?' on Fri, 28 Mar 2003: Do you not understand that the original unit submitted for EMC Testing may have passed with flying colors, only to be changed during production (either by parts from different vendors or production methods, etc.) that resuldted in the units being produced that no longer meet the limits? In Europe that wouldn't wash. The technical file has to be kept up to date with all engineering changes, **which are supposed to be signed off by the EMC authorized person as either not requiring re-testing or have been proved with re-testing**. Same for safety. -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Interested in professional sound reinforcement and distribution? Then go to http://www.isce.org.uk PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL! This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
Re: OK, what's going on?
I read in !emc-pstc that Chris Maxwell chris.maxw...@nettest.com wrote (in 83d652574e7af740873674f9fc12dbaaf7e...@utexh1w2.gnnettest.com) about 'OK, what's going on?' on Fri, 28 Mar 2003: However, as engineers, we could find a way to make the spot checks cheaper and more repeatable. Sort of a little field probe with an LED indicator Red = way out, Yellow = close , Green = OK. If the product were reliable and inexpensive, it could be marketed to national authorities as well as manufacturers to put at the end of their assembly lines.Take the example of hi-pot testing. An actual safety test goes through all sorts of paperwork, component checking, heat conditioning... But, the final test at the end of the assembly line is a simple hi-pot and ground bond. An analogous test/product for EMC appears to be begging for development. Some of these $100,000 mini - chambers are a poor excuse. I'm talking cheap/dirty and quick...no display, no readout of actual level...an antenna, an amplifier and a go/no-go indicator. Yes, wouldn't it be good. IMHO, it's slightly less feasible than a combined 3D photocopier and perpetual motion machine. -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Interested in professional sound reinforcement and distribution? Then go to http://www.isce.org.uk PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL! This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
RE: OK, what's going on?
The problem here is, the NARTE certified engineer probably did test a sample that passed. We can't blame him. Usually, the product non-compliance happens because the product sold isn't like the product tested. I think that there is an opportunity here. We're engineers after all; we can't help the fact that countries need EMC limits; we also can't help the fact that marketeers want to ship at lowest cost with a quality level as low as the general public can stomach. However, as engineers, we could find a way to make the spot checks cheaper and more repeatable. Sort of a little field probe with an LED indicator Red = way out, Yellow = close , Green = OK. If the product were reliable and inexpensive, it could be marketed to national authorities as well as manufacturers to put at the end of their assembly lines.Take the example of hi-pot testing. An actual safety test goes through all sorts of paperwork, component checking, heat conditioning... But, the final test at the end of the assembly line is a simple hi-pot and ground bond. An analogous test/product for EMC appears to be begging for development. Some of these $100,000 mini - chambers are a poor excuse. I'm talking cheap/dirty and quick...no display, no readout of actual level...an antenna, an amplifier and a go/no-go indicator. Ah! true engineers' satisfaction...we don't care if it is right or wrong. We'll just make a living producing the tool that the manufacturers and FCC will use to harass each other! Heck, the measurement could even be sampled...then you could use one digital notch filter/amplifier and use different digital mixers to fit the measured signal into the notch. I wish I had the time and resources; but I have to go back to work producing equipment that just barely scrapes by the EMC standards so my company can ship, I can collect a paycheck and my kids can have their soccer cleats and two boxes of corn flakes next week :-) Chris Maxwell | Design Engineer - Optical Division email chris.maxw...@nettest.com | dir +1 315 266 5128 | fax +1 315 797 8024 NetTest | 6 Rhoads Drive, Utica, NY 13502 | USA web www.nettest.com | tel +1 315 797 4449 | -Original Message- From: drcuthbert [SMTP:drcuthb...@micron.com] Sent: Friday, March 28, 2003 10:54 AM To: 'Mark Kirincic'; Stone, Richard A (Richard); lfresea...@aol.com; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: OK, what's going on? What would NARTE say about certified EMC engineers and technicians signing off on equipment that does not make the grade? It would be great if everyone and every company handled the issue of EMC ethically. But since the world does not always work this way...I favor the idea of a fine for every unit that is shipped from a lot that statistically fails. I.E. mandatory sampling (of boxed and shipped units) and only a certain percentage are allowed to fail, etc. Companies would then weigh the cost of compliance against the cost of non-compliance. Devils advocate speaking now: But from the viewpoint of economics this would of course add cost to every unit shipped. Is the additional manufacturing cost to the public offset by any savings due to lower emissions and lower susceptibility? Would society truly benefit from better EMC enforcement or does this serve only the EMC community? Dave Cuthbert Micron Technology -Original Message- From: Mark Kirincic [mailto:mkirin...@houston.rr.com] Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2003 8:53 PM To: Stone, Richard A (Richard); lfresea...@aol.com; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: OK, what's going on? To further clarify my point, all the major companies are guilty of this. I know of first hand information where a unit passed in Asia and failed here in the states at the companies test lab, and they are forced by upper management to ship the product anyway. These companies are trying to get their product out the door as cheaply as possible with little to no concern about the consequences. I have read in some of the responses that we should fine these companies, that is a good point but that is only a slap on the wrist and a chance most of them are willing to take. In my opinion, what really needs to be done is full accountability for failed products that the company by having the company name made public at the FCC and CE websites and trade journals. Also have the companies pay for audits of all the units that are in the country that fail to meet FCC and CE standards. What I am saying is to charge a flat fee per unit that fails. Secondly, I would prevent them form selling into a market segment if the audit shows non compliance of multiple units. Have the company provide future proof of compliance before shipping which will hurt them in their pocket book a lot more than just a simple fine. Mark J. Kirincic mkirin...@houston.rr.com mailto:mkirin...@houston.rr.com - Original Message - From
RE: OK, what's going on?
I have to add my 2 cents worth! This is getting out of hand and should stop. Do you not understand that the original unit submitted for EMC Testing may have passed with flying colors, only to be changed during production (either by parts from different vendors or production methods, etc.) that resuldted in the units being produced that no longer meet the limits? It could be that a prototype was the only unit tested and a production unit never sampled. There are a multitude reasons for non-compliant products being on the market. Not all are devious. Pryor McGinnis c...@prodigy.net drcuthbert drcuthb...@micron.com wrote: What would NARTE say about certified EMC engineers and technicians signing off on equipment that does not make the grade? It would be great if everyone and every company handled the issue of EMC ethically. But since the world does not always work this way...I favor the idea of a fine for every unit that is shipped from a lot that statistically fails. I.E. mandatory sampling (of boxed and shipped units) and only a certain percentage are allowed to fail, etc. Companies would then weigh the cost of compliance against the cost of non-compliance. Devils advocate speaking now: But from the viewpoint of economics this would of course add cost to every unit shipped. Is the additional manufacturing cost to the public offset by any savings due to lower emissions and lower susceptibility? Would society truly benefit from better EMC enforcement or does this serve only the EMC community? Dave Cuthbert Micron Technology From: Mark Kirincic [ mailto:mkirin...@houston.rr.com] Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2003 8:53 PM To: Stone, Richard A (Richard); lfresea...@aol.com; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: OK, what's going on? To further clarify my point, all the major companies are guilty of this. I know of first hand information where a unit passed in Asia and failed here in the states at the companies test lab, and they are forced by upper management to ship the product anyway. These companies are trying to get their product out the door as cheaply as possible with little to no concern about the consequences. I have read in some of the responses that we should fine these companies, that is a good point but that is only a slap on the wrist and a chance most of them are willing to take. In my opinion, what really needs to be done is full accountability for failed products that the company by having the company name made public at the FCC and CE websites and trade journals. Also have the companies pay for audits of all the units that are in the country that fail to meet FCC and CE standards. What I am saying is to charge a flat fee per unit that fails. Secondly, I would prevent them form selling into a market segment if the audit shows non compliance of multiple units. Have the company provide future proof of compliance before shipping which will hurt them in their pocket book a lot more than just a simple fine. Mark J. Kirincic mkirin...@houston.rr.com - Original Message - From: Stone, Richard A (Richard) mailto:rsto...@lucent.com To: 'Mark Kirincic' mailto:mkirin...@houston.rr.com ; lfresea...@aol.com ; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2003 8:34 AM Subject: RE: OK, what's going on? Mark mentioned reports, a paper trail...or is it? Vendors doing the EMC/EMI ?, who might a vendor be for say IBM or Dell? would think the mfr'r would have an associate there during testing like most of us do. Seems it would be easy to look at the report, from which test lab did it, are they accredited? if yes, then there shouldnt be any questions.. only thing I see, maybe Disparity, as readings can be differnet from lab to lab. these days its ship now...or not at all.. and barely passing for PC's, since its class B may be enough for the PC companies. Richard, From: Mark Kirincic [ mailto:mkirin...@houston.rr.com] Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2003 8:55 AM To: lfresea...@aol.com; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: OK, what's going on? I guess now its my turn to put in my two cents. The major reason that you are having a hard time finding units that pass is that all these major computer companies rely on their vendors to test the products to FCC and CE limits. Since the majority of these companies have suppliers in the Taiwan and China all of these units pass due to pressure from the major computer companies and the vendors themselves. These major computer companies then try to legitimize it by getting copies of test reports showing the units are in compliance. None of these companies will report each other to the authorities mainly because they can not guarantee that all of their products pass and they fear retaliation. Their philosophy is as long as we have this report we can sell this product until someone catches us and then they go into a major scramble to fix the problem that was uncovered. The only way
RE: OK, what's going on?
There has been an enormous amount of feedback from Dereks email this week. Including mine. I am beginning to get the notion this is all brand new to most of the people here.. it isn't..going on for years... were not going to change evolution, we can gripe and complain best thing to do is our own diligence on our product,..not censor someone elses... what do you do to the company that passes site A oats,then fails site B...go to site C?...best 2 out of 3? think bill gates would care if he sold PC's? and not just software...People who rely on word/excel and other programs would care less about failing by a few db. the FCC is in place they run itwe try our best Richard, From: drcuthbert [mailto:drcuthb...@micron.com] Sent: Friday, March 28, 2003 10:54 AM To: 'Mark Kirincic'; Stone, Richard A (Richard); lfresea...@aol.com; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: OK, what's going on? What would NARTE say about certified EMC engineers and technicians signing off on equipment that does not make the grade? It would be great if everyone and every company handled the issue of EMC ethically. But since the world does not always work this way...I favor the idea of a fine for every unit that is shipped from a lot that statistically fails. I.E. mandatory sampling (of boxed and shipped units) and only a certain percentage are allowed to fail, etc. Companies would then weigh the cost of compliance against the cost of non-compliance. Devils advocate speaking now: But from the viewpoint of economics this would of course add cost to every unit shipped. Is the additional manufacturing cost to the public offset by any savings due to lower emissions and lower susceptibility? Would society truly benefit from better EMC enforcement or does this serve only the EMC community? Dave Cuthbert Micron Technology From: Mark Kirincic [mailto:mkirin...@houston.rr.com] Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2003 8:53 PM To: Stone, Richard A (Richard); lfresea...@aol.com; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: OK, what's going on? To further clarify my point, all the major companies are guilty of this. I know of first hand information where a unit passed in Asia and failed here in the states at the companies test lab, and they are forced by upper management to ship the product anyway. These companies are trying to get their product out the door as cheaply as possible with little to no concern about the consequences. I have read in some of the responses that we should fine these companies, that is a good point but that is only a slap on the wrist and a chance most of them are willing to take. In my opinion, what really needs to be done is full accountability for failed products that the company by having the company name made public at the FCC and CE websites and trade journals. Also have the companies pay for audits of all the units that are in the country that fail to meet FCC and CE standards. What I am saying is to charge a flat fee per unit that fails. Secondly, I would prevent them form selling into a market segment if the audit shows non compliance of multiple units. Have the company provide future proof of compliance before shipping which will hurt them in their pocket book a lot more than just a simple fine. Mark J. Kirincic mkirin...@houston.rr.com - Original Message - From: Stone, Richard mailto:rsto...@lucent.com A (Richard) To: 'Mark Kirincic' mailto:mkirin...@houston.rr.com ; lfresea...@aol.com ; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2003 8:34 AM Subject: RE: OK, what's going on? Mark mentioned reports, a paper trail...or is it? Vendors doing the EMC/EMI ?, who might a vendor be for say IBM or Dell? would think the mfr'r would have an associate there during testing like most of us do. Seems it would be easy to look at the report, from which test lab did it, are they accredited? if yes, then there shouldnt be any questions.. only thing I see, maybe Disparity, as readings can be differnet from lab to lab. these days its ship now...or not at all.. and barely passing for PC's, since its class B may be enough for the PC companies. Richard, From: Mark Kirincic [mailto:mkirin...@houston.rr.com] Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2003 8:55 AM To: lfresea...@aol.com; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: OK, what's going on? I guess now its my turn to put in my two cents. The major reason that you are having a hard time finding units that pass is that all these major computer companies rely on their vendors to test the products to FCC and CE limits. Since the majority of these companies have suppliers in the Taiwan and China all of these units pass due to pressure from the major computer companies and the vendors themselves. These major computer companies then try to legitimize it by getting copies of test reports showing the units are in compliance. None of these companies will report each other to the authorities mainly
Re: OK, what's going on?
I read in !emc-pstc that Mark Kirincic mkirin...@houston.rr.com wrote (in 098201c2f521$284e4820$6501a8c0@kristina2005) about 'OK, what's going on?' on Fri, 28 Mar 2003: By the way I do not work for a test house, I didn't imply that you did. I am just trying to clean up and legitimize the rules that were set up by the EC and FCC as well as other EMC laws out there. But is that the right thing to do? More and more people are questioning the whole basis of EU EMC regulation, partly because it is over- stringent and partly because the testing is not based on sound technical principles. The latter is because we just don't know how to do that! The test methods and the limits are in many cases simply derived pragmatically. 'If we do the tests this way and apply this limit, we reduce complaints of EMI to an acceptable minimum.' For this to work as a practical measure, **there has to be an efficient complaints procedure and a system for following up complaints properly.*** In many cases now, neither of these conditions is met, due to constraints on expenditure. So, a lot of costly testing is being done, with no feedback on whether it is more than achieving its object, or dismally failing to achieve it. -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Interested in professional sound reinforcement and distribution? Then go to http://www.isce.org.uk PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL! This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
Re: OK, what's going on?
I read in !emc-pstc that Charles Grasso cgrassospri...@earthlink.net wrote (in anemkfollplfimkkheookejicgaa.cgrassospri...@earthlink.net) about 'OK, what's going on?' on Fri, 28 Mar 2003: John - Agreed. But I would pose the question. If we can demonstrate that products are on the market place - legitimatley - that FAIL by upwards of 20dB what direction would you go in: a) Status quo b) relaxation of the limits c) elemination of the limits See my other post about the need for **feedback** on the appropriateness of limits and the validity of test methods. If products that exceed a limit by 20 dB don't cause an unacceptable increased level of complaints, why retain the stringent limit: cui bono? But 20 dB is not infinity dB, even in consumer electronics (;-) Elimination of limits would allow things to be marketed that are effectively spark transmitters, and I don't think we'd tolerate that. -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Interested in professional sound reinforcement and distribution? Then go to http://www.isce.org.uk PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL! This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
RE: OK, what's going on?
What would NARTE say about certified EMC engineers and technicians signing off on equipment that does not make the grade? It would be great if everyone and every company handled the issue of EMC ethically. But since the world does not always work this way...I favor the idea of a fine for every unit that is shipped from a lot that statistically fails. I.E. mandatory sampling (of boxed and shipped units) and only a certain percentage are allowed to fail, etc. Companies would then weigh the cost of compliance against the cost of non-compliance. Devils advocate speaking now: But from the viewpoint of economics this would of course add cost to every unit shipped. Is the additional manufacturing cost to the public offset by any savings due to lower emissions and lower susceptibility? Would society truly benefit from better EMC enforcement or does this serve only the EMC community? Dave Cuthbert Micron Technology From: Mark Kirincic [mailto:mkirin...@houston.rr.com] Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2003 8:53 PM To: Stone, Richard A (Richard); lfresea...@aol.com; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: OK, what's going on? To further clarify my point, all the major companies are guilty of this. I know of first hand information where a unit passed in Asia and failed here in the states at the companies test lab, and they are forced by upper management to ship the product anyway. These companies are trying to get their product out the door as cheaply as possible with little to no concern about the consequences. I have read in some of the responses that we should fine these companies, that is a good point but that is only a slap on the wrist and a chance most of them are willing to take. In my opinion, what really needs to be done is full accountability for failed products that the company by having the company name made public at the FCC and CE websites and trade journals. Also have the companies pay for audits of all the units that are in the country that fail to meet FCC and CE standards. What I am saying is to charge a flat fee per unit that fails. Secondly, I would prevent them form selling into a market segment if the audit shows non compliance of multiple units. Have the company provide future proof of compliance before shipping which will hurt them in their pocket book a lot more than just a simple fine. Mark J. Kirincic mkirin...@houston.rr.com - Original Message - From: Stone, Richard A mailto:rsto...@lucent.com (Richard) To: 'Mark Kirincic' mailto:mkirin...@houston.rr.com ; lfresea...@aol.com ; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2003 8:34 AM Subject: RE: OK, what's going on? Mark mentioned reports, a paper trail...or is it? Vendors doing the EMC/EMI ?, who might a vendor be for say IBM or Dell? would think the mfr'r would have an associate there during testing like most of us do. Seems it would be easy to look at the report, from which test lab did it, are they accredited? if yes, then there shouldnt be any questions.. only thing I see, maybe Disparity, as readings can be differnet from lab to lab. these days its ship now...or not at all.. and barely passing for PC's, since its class B may be enough for the PC companies. Richard, From: Mark Kirincic [mailto:mkirin...@houston.rr.com] Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2003 8:55 AM To: lfresea...@aol.com; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: OK, what's going on? I guess now its my turn to put in my two cents. The major reason that you are having a hard time finding units that pass is that all these major computer companies rely on their vendors to test the products to FCC and CE limits. Since the majority of these companies have suppliers in the Taiwan and China all of these units pass due to pressure from the major computer companies and the vendors themselves. These major computer companies then try to legitimize it by getting copies of test reports showing the units are in compliance. None of these companies will report each other to the authorities mainly because they can not guarantee that all of their products pass and they fear retaliation. Their philosophy is as long as we have this report we can sell this product until someone catches us and then they go into a major scramble to fix the problem that was uncovered. The only way to reduce this is through FCC and CE random audits. I have worked for several major computer companies in my 19 years of experience, and they all share this philosophy. One former company was the exception, they were deathly afraid of bad press and they went to great extremes to make sure their products passed with adequate margin. I will get off my soap box now. Mark J. Kirincic mkirin...@houston.rr.com - Original Message - From: lfresea...@aol.com To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2003 2:05 PM Subject: OK, what's going on? Hi all, This e-mail has been prompted because of a number of things
RE: OK, what's going on?
John - Agreed. But I would pose the question. If we can demonstrate that products are on the market place - legitimatley - that FAIL by upwards of 20dB what direction would you go in: a) Status quo b) relaxation of the limits c) elemination of the limits Just wondering Chas From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of John Woodgate Sent: Friday, March 28, 2003 12:02 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: OK, what's going on? I read in !emc-pstc that Mark Kirincic mkirin...@houston.rr.com wrote (in 091001c2f4dd$85c69910$6501a8c0@kristina2005) about 'OK, what's going on?' on Thu, 27 Mar 2003: In my opinion, what really needs to be done is full accountability for failed products that the company by having the company name made public at the FCC and CE websites and trade journals. Also have the companies pay for audits of all the units that are in the country that fail to meet FCC and CE standards. What I am saying is to charge a flat fee per unit that fails. Secondly, I would prevent them form selling into a market segment if the audit shows non compliance of multiple units. Have the company provide future proof of compliance before shipping which will hurt them in their pocket book a lot more than just a simple fine. Can you produce a justification for such Draconian measures? Economic damage or risk to human life comparable with the penalties you propose? Remember, every penalty you apply to a company ends up with either its employees losing their jobs or its customers paying higher prices. So, who would benefit from your proposals, apart from test-houses? -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Interested in professional sound reinforcement and distribution? Then go to http://www.isce.org.uk PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL! This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
Re: OK, what's going on?
John, I understand your point in who will suffer. But the current fines that are imposed do not prevent these companies from curtailing their current activities. I believe at least a public humiliation of that company will help subside some of the blatant failures. By the way I do not work for a test house, I am just trying to clean up and legitimize the rules that were set up by the EC and FCC as well as other EMC laws out there. If these Rules do not have any teeth, then more people will be loosing their jobs because more and more companies will be doing the same. Mark J. Kirincic mkirin...@houston.rr.com From: John Woodgate j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Sent: Friday, March 28, 2003 1:02 AM Subject: Re: OK, what's going on? I read in !emc-pstc that Mark Kirincic mkirin...@houston.rr.com wrote (in 091001c2f4dd$85c69910$6501a8c0@kristina2005) about 'OK, what's going on?' on Thu, 27 Mar 2003: In my opinion, what really needs to be done is full accountability for failed products that the company by having the company name made public at the FCC and CE websites and trade journals. Also have the companies pay for audits of all the units that are in the country that fail to meet FCC and CE standards. What I am saying is to charge a flat fee per unit that fails. Secondly, I would prevent them form selling into a market segment if the audit shows non compliance of multiple units. Have the company provide future proof of compliance before shipping which will hurt them in their pocket book a lot more than just a simple fine. Can you produce a justification for such Draconian measures? Economic damage or risk to human life comparable with the penalties you propose? Remember, every penalty you apply to a company ends up with either its employees losing their jobs or its customers paying higher prices. So, who would benefit from your proposals, apart from test-houses? -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Interested in professional sound reinforcement and distribution? Then go to http://www.isce.org.uk PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL! --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
RE: OK, what's going on?
out of the box passed, thats important, built and shipped correctly... once you transport,' was it packaged the EXACT same way Geoerge, as you moved it to site # 2 for the second EMI test. odds are not...I have been guilty of moving equipment and seeing a change in emi profile.. alwyas for the worse...never better, Richard From: George Stults [mailto:george.stu...@watchguard.com] Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2003 9:39 PM To: Cortland Richmond; lfresea...@aol.com; ieee pstc list Subject: RE: OK, what's going on? I suppose that vibration may be good to a point, but I offer the following. I bought a pair of PC's (These were Dell Dimension 500 and they did pass Class B) out of the box. I found however that after many repeated trips to the lab in my car, they no longer did. The I/O connectors did degrade somewhat, but the noise leakage was traced to the case. It appeared that the problem was fretting due to vibrating metal to metal contacts along various seams in concert with some kind of coating on the surfaces. Where metal fingers met metal surface, a kind of black marking had developed and I found it couldn't be cleaned with alcohol etc. Light sandpapering didn't help much either, although I suppose a dremel tool might have worked. Copper tape along the affected seams did work, but of course then, I had modified it George Stults WatchGuard Technologies Inc. From: Cortland Richmond [mailto:72146@compuserve.com] Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2003 11:10 AM To: lfresea...@aol.com; ieee pstc list Subject: Re: OK, what's going on? Derek wrote: the EUT should have been exposed to simulated shipping and installation by a user... FWIW, in the 1980's I worked in an audit lab where we tested samples of shipped equipment for FCC, vibration, heat, humidity, temperature, TEMPEST... it was not uncommon for equipment to do BETTER in EMC tests after it had been subjected to vibration testing. With oils, oxides and so on having been abraded, metal parts made better contact with each other. Cortland This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
Re: OK, what's going on?
I read in !emc-pstc that Mark Kirincic mkirin...@houston.rr.com wrote (in 091001c2f4dd$85c69910$6501a8c0@kristina2005) about 'OK, what's going on?' on Thu, 27 Mar 2003: In my opinion, what really needs to be done is full accountability for failed products that the company by having the company name made public at the FCC and CE websites and trade journals. Also have the companies pay for audits of all the units that are in the country that fail to meet FCC and CE standards. What I am saying is to charge a flat fee per unit that fails. Secondly, I would prevent them form selling into a market segment if the audit shows non compliance of multiple units. Have the company provide future proof of compliance before shipping which will hurt them in their pocket book a lot more than just a simple fine. Can you produce a justification for such Draconian measures? Economic damage or risk to human life comparable with the penalties you propose? Remember, every penalty you apply to a company ends up with either its employees losing their jobs or its customers paying higher prices. So, who would benefit from your proposals, apart from test-houses? -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Interested in professional sound reinforcement and distribution? Then go to http://www.isce.org.uk PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL! This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
Re: OK, what's going on?
To further clarify my point, all the major companies are guilty of this. I know of first hand information where a unit passed in Asia and failed here in the states at the companies test lab, and they are forced by upper management to ship the product anyway. These companies are trying to get their product out the door as cheaply as possible with little to no concern about the consequences. I have read in some of the responses that we should fine these companies, that is a good point but that is only a slap on the wrist and a chance most of them are willing to take. In my opinion, what really needs to be done is full accountability for failed products that the company by having the company name made public at the FCC and CE websites and trade journals. Also have the companies pay for audits of all the units that are in the country that fail to meet FCC and CE standards. What I am saying is to charge a flat fee per unit that fails. Secondly, I would prevent them form selling into a market segment if the audit shows non compliance of multiple units. Have the company provide future proof of compliance before shipping which will hurt them in their pocket book a lot more than just a simple fine. Mark J. Kirincic mkirin...@houston.rr.com - Original Message - From: Stone, Richard A mailto:rsto...@lucent.com (Richard) To: 'Mark Kirincic' mailto:mkirin...@houston.rr.com ; lfresea...@aol.com ; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2003 8:34 AM Subject: RE: OK, what's going on? Mark mentioned reports, a paper trail...or is it? Vendors doing the EMC/EMI ?, who might a vendor be for say IBM or Dell? would think the mfr'r would have an associate there during testing like most of us do. Seems it would be easy to look at the report, from which test lab did it, are they accredited? if yes, then there shouldnt be any questions.. only thing I see, maybe Disparity, as readings can be differnet from lab to lab. these days its ship now...or not at all.. and barely passing for PC's, since its class B may be enough for the PC companies. Richard, From: Mark Kirincic [mailto:mkirin...@houston.rr.com] Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2003 8:55 AM To: lfresea...@aol.com; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: OK, what's going on? I guess now its my turn to put in my two cents. The major reason that you are having a hard time finding units that pass is that all these major computer companies rely on their vendors to test the products to FCC and CE limits. Since the majority of these companies have suppliers in the Taiwan and China all of these units pass due to pressure from the major computer companies and the vendors themselves. These major computer companies then try to legitimize it by getting copies of test reports showing the units are in compliance. None of these companies will report each other to the authorities mainly because they can not guarantee that all of their products pass and they fear retaliation. Their philosophy is as long as we have this report we can sell this product until someone catches us and then they go into a major scramble to fix the problem that was uncovered. The only way to reduce this is through FCC and CE random audits. I have worked for several major computer companies in my 19 years of experience, and they all share this philosophy. One former company was the exception, they were deathly afraid of bad press and they went to great extremes to make sure their products passed with adequate margin. I will get off my soap box now. Mark J. Kirincic mkirin...@houston.rr.com - Original Message - From: lfresea...@aol.com To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2003 2:05 PM Subject: OK, what's going on? Hi all, This e-mail has been prompted because of a number of things that have all come together. This may take a little reading, but please stick with it. Last note... this is not intended to pick on any individuals, or organization, but I do want to stir the pot. I operate an engineering lab, helping clients harden their designs to meet EMC requirements. In this particular instance, I was working for a small client, on a card that goes in the PC . In order to test I need a host PC. So, to save money, the card maker supplies 2 clones. Neither of the two PCs passed emissions testing with the card, in fact, above 100 MHz, they fail even the Class A limit: badly! So, before calling my client, I pull his card, the PC is no different, I pull the monitor, then the keyboard, then the mouse... No different. I test just the PC chassis one at a time. On their own, booted and then the peripherals removed. Not even close to passing. Disgruntled, I get my office PC... Fail. I get my kids PC.. over 20 dB over the limit! So, I think so much for clones... I buy 2 Dell ( sorry, no point trying to hide names... ) desktops, both fail, quite badly. However, they have very similar noise profiles... Can 5 PC's all fail? I
Re: OK, what's going on?
Hi George and the group, The black marking is corrosion products from incompatible metals (too far aprart on the electrochemical series). CuBe springs are in this category for most chassis metals and should not be used uncoated. The little coating chart at the end of the catalog is the most important information in the catalog! Doug George Stults wrote: I suppose that vibration may be good to a point, but I offer the following. I bought a pair of PC's (These were Dell Dimension 500 and they did pass Class B) out of the box. I found however that after many repeated trips to the lab in my car, they no longer did. The I/O connectors did degrade somewhat, but the noise leakage was traced to the case. It appeared that the problem was fretting due to vibrating metal to metal contacts along various seams in concert with some kind of coating on the surfaces. Where metal fingers met metal surface, a kind of black marking had developed and I found it couldn't be cleaned with alcohol etc. Light sandpapering didn't help much either, although I suppose a dremel tool might have worked. Copper tape along the affected seams did work, but of course then, I had modified it George Stults WatchGuard Technologies Inc. -Original Message- From: Cortland Richmond [mailto:72146@compuserve.com] Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2003 11:10 AM To: lfresea...@aol.com; ieee pstc list Subject: Re: OK, what's going on? Derek wrote: the EUT should have been exposed to simulated shipping and installation by a user... FWIW, in the 1980's I worked in an audit lab where we tested samples of shipped equipment for FCC, vibration, heat, humidity, temperature, TEMPEST... it was not uncommon for equipment to do BETTER in EMC tests after it had been subjected to vibration testing. With oils, oxides and so on having been abraded, metal parts made better contact with each other. Cortland --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc -- ___ _ Doug Smith \ / ) P.O. Box 1457 = Los Gatos, CA 95031-1457 _ / \ / \ _ TEL/FAX: 408-356-4186/358-3799 / /\ \ ] / /\ \ Mobile: 408-858-4528 | q-( ) | o |Email: d...@dsmith.org \ _ /]\ _ / Website: http://www.dsmith.org This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
RE: OK, what's going on?
I suppose that vibration may be good to a point, but I offer the following. I bought a pair of PC's (These were Dell Dimension 500 and they did pass Class B) out of the box. I found however that after many repeated trips to the lab in my car, they no longer did. The I/O connectors did degrade somewhat, but the noise leakage was traced to the case. It appeared that the problem was fretting due to vibrating metal to metal contacts along various seams in concert with some kind of coating on the surfaces. Where metal fingers met metal surface, a kind of black marking had developed and I found it couldn't be cleaned with alcohol etc. Light sandpapering didn't help much either, although I suppose a dremel tool might have worked. Copper tape along the affected seams did work, but of course then, I had modified it George Stults WatchGuard Technologies Inc. From: Cortland Richmond [mailto:72146@compuserve.com] Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2003 11:10 AM To: lfresea...@aol.com; ieee pstc list Subject: Re: OK, what's going on? Derek wrote: the EUT should have been exposed to simulated shipping and installation by a user... FWIW, in the 1980's I worked in an audit lab where we tested samples of shipped equipment for FCC, vibration, heat, humidity, temperature, TEMPEST... it was not uncommon for equipment to do BETTER in EMC tests after it had been subjected to vibration testing. With oils, oxides and so on having been abraded, metal parts made better contact with each other. Cortland This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
Re: OK, what's going on?
Derek wrote: the EUT should have been exposed to simulated shipping and installation by a user... FWIW, in the 1980's I worked in an audit lab where we tested samples of shipped equipment for FCC, vibration, heat, humidity, temperature, TEMPEST... it was not uncommon for equipment to do BETTER in EMC tests after it had been subjected to vibration testing. With oils, oxides and so on having been abraded, metal parts made better contact with each other. Cortland This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
Re: OK, what's going on?
In a message dated 3/27/2003 8:34:58 AM Central Standard Time, rsto...@lucent.com writes: Mark mentioned reports, a paper trail...or is it? Vendors doing the EMC/EMI ?, who might a vendor be for say IBM or Dell? would think the mfr'r would have an associate there during testing like most of us do. Seems it would be easy to look at the report, from which test lab did it, are they accredited? if yes, then there shouldnt be any questions.. only thing I see, maybe Disparity, as readings can be differnet from lab to lab. these days its ship now...or not at all.. and barely passing for PC's, since its class B may be enough for the PC companies. Richard, Hi Richard, you hit some key points.. There should be records... and it should show how a manufacturer guarantees that all products ship will pass, not just one, one a good day, with the wind behind it And, I hasten to add... the EUT should have been exposed to simulated shipping and installation by a user... not a nursemaid ( don't mean to be sexist ). And also, the report should cover how the EUT still passes once the user has done something to it ( that is expected to happen ) I would imagine that a big company would do their own EMI. If things are getting lax, then perhaps a couple of huge fines are in order to make folks take notice. I'm sure that that would help the EMI guy in a company trying to stand behind why those expensive components really are required. Lab to lab variation is getting very small. Interlab studies have helped that. I think the pressure to ship... at the lowest cost is a key factor... Cheers, Derek.
Re: OK, what's going on?
I read in !emc-pstc that Adrian F Davies davies...@virgin.net wrote (in dbegllgahbjcdoanbfjbgegccdaa.davies...@virgin.net) about 'OK, what's going on?' on Thu, 27 Mar 2003: this is not quite the case in the UK. EMC issues are policed by local Trading Standards Officers. There have been several successful prosecutions in the South Wales area. MISLEADING! The main recent prosecutions, regarding household appliances, were for safety standard violations. The EMC issue involved introduced serious doubts about the adequacy of the relevant standard, CISPR 14-1/EN 55014-1, which are still being studied. Experience has shown that a CE marked CPU unit will be close to the limit. However, plug another CE marked unit in - printer or monitor or mouse and .. CISPR 22/EN 55022 requires testing of products with typical peripherals connected. -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Interested in professional sound reinforcement and distribution? Then go to http://www.isce.org.uk PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL! This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
Re: OK, what's going on?
I read in !emc-pstc that Garnier, David S (MED) david.garn...@med.ge.com wrote (in D4DBD8568F05D511A1C20002A55C008CA2 d...@uswaumsx03medge.med.ge.com) about 'OK, what's going on?' on Wed, 26 Mar 2003: I discovered the our product's worst conducted emissions occured when our product was off and the UPS was trickle charging its batteries. I don't like surprises like this that end up add extra modes of operation for product testing. It's an effect that has been flagged up to CISPR and CENELEC, too (SMPS r.f. emissions on light load). So extra tests may well become necessary. -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Interested in professional sound reinforcement and distribution? Then go to http://www.isce.org.uk PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL! This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
RE: OK, what's going on?
... BB conducted emissions from a battery charger... The last product that I cert'ed was a PC based product, its ATX supply was a special model which contained a UPS. During product certification I discovered the our product's worst conducted emissions occured when our product was off and the UPS was trickle charging its batteries. I don't like surprises like this that end up add extra modes of operation for product testing. dave garnier David Garnier e GE Medical Systems ___ David S. Garnier Senior Technician PET Engineering 3000 N. Grandview Ave - M/S W-1250 Waukesha, Wi. 53188 Tel: 262.312.7246 From: Doug Smith [mailto:d...@emcesd.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2003 12:38 AM To: Grasso, Charles Cc: 'lfresea...@aol.com'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: OK, what's going on? Hi All, Just wanted to put my 2 cents worth in. The same thing may be happening in Mil-spec testing. Recently, I was at a client's site for a purpose unrelated to this story. I noticed interference to the measurement I was trying to make on a piece of equipment. The equipment had enough common mode current on its leads to fail emissions, even though it was turned off! There was a military battery charger for small batteries on their bench so I connected my current probe to its power cord and noticed enough common mode current to cause a 30 dB+ failure of emissions over a broad frequency range. I would suppose the battery charger had been tested to mil-specs. If so there is a problem here, even accounting for the repeatability problems in mil-spec testing. Doug Grasso, Charles wrote: Hi Derek - Go Reds!! This is not a surprise to me. I have railed at much length a couple of years ago as to the latest FCC changes to the emissions qualification. I am sure you are familiar with it so I won't belabour the point. Fundementally the FCC PC emissions procedure has rendered the EMC discipline almost irrelevent. The new procedures coupled with the lack of enfocement makes it difficult to justify the increased costs of EMC design test. It also makes the whole measurement uncertainty push ridiculous. After all if the procedures allow for prodcut that 20dB out of spec why bother with a couple of dB of error?? Lets give the emissions standards some teeth or eliminate it all together. Best Regards Charles Grasso Senior Compliance Engineer Echostar Communications Corp. Tel: 303-706-5467 Fax: 303-799-6222 Cell: 303-204-2974 Email: charles.gra...@echostar.com; mailto:charles.gra...@echostar.com; Email Alternate: chasgra...@ieee.org mailto:chasgra...@ieee.org -Original Message- From: lfresea...@aol.com [mailto:lfresea...@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2003 1:05 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: OK, what's going on? Hi all, This e-mail has been prompted because of a number of things that have all come together. This may take a little reading, but please stick with it. Last note... this is not intended to pick on any individuals, or organization, but I do want to stir the pot. .. -- ___ _ Doug Smith \ / ) P.O. Box 1457 = Los Gatos, CA 95031-1457 _ / \ / \ _ TEL/FAX: 408-356-4186/358-3799 / /\ \ ] / /\ \ Mobile: 408-858-4528 | q-( ) | o |Email: d...@dsmith.org \ _ /]\ _ / Website: http://www.dsmith.org This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail
RE: OK, what's going on?
Good morning all, this is not quite the case in the UK. EMC issues are policed by local Trading Standards Officers. There have been several successful prosecutions in the South Wales area. Experience has shown that a CE marked CPU unit will be close to the limit. However, plug another CE marked unit in - printer or monitor or mouse and .. Adrian F Davies C.Eng FIEE Tel: 029 2075 4250 Mob: 07770 894050 Email: afdav...@iee.org This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
RE: OK, what's going on?
Amen! I had 15 years of computer EMC when I left the PC sector this year. This was a never ending source of frustration. I won't even get into the shortcomings of the measurement standards. The emigration of PC manufacturing to the PAC rim is being followed by emigration of the design and validation teams also. Many PC manufacturers have completely outsourced their EMC testing to the OEM PC manufacturers even when they own several 10 meter semi anechoic chambers. This is akin to having the fox watch over the hen house. Management says it is more economical that way. When every test is compliant and product passes the first time every time then I guess it is. Besides, it isn't compliance that anyone is really after anymore but rather a piece of paper that says it is compliant. (Neville Chamberlain effect) Maybe it doesn't matter anyway. Most customers don't care if it meets EMC requirements. Most only relate features to price and EMC is not a feature they would pay for. An EMC engineer can't tell whether a PC passes or fails without an expensive test site chock full of equipment so how is a consumer supposed to tell? A few commercial and government customers perform audit tests before entering into contracts but most don't seem to care. I seem to remember an FCC employee speaking at a conference somewhere stating that they don't get computer interference complaints. Mostly telephone interference complaints but never computer interference. Most of the field complaints I worked on were immunity related. Customers care and complain about that. In today's computer industry the companies that aggressively pursue EMC are penalized by adding more cost while the companies that ignore it are able to produce a more inexpensive product. The vigilant companies will not be able to compete. I agree, enforce the emissions standards or drop them. Earl Morse ex-Major PC Company EMC guru -Original Message- From: Grasso, Charles [mailto:charles.gra...@echostar.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2003 7:38 PM To: 'lfresea...@aol.com'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: OK, what's going on? Hi Derek - Go Reds!! This is not a surprise to me. I have railed at much length a couple of years ago as to the latest FCC changes to the emissions qualification. I am sure you are familiar with it so I won't belabour the point. Fundementally the FCC PC emissions procedure has rendered the EMC discipline almost irrelevent. The new procedures coupled with the lack of enfocement makes it difficult to justify the increased costs of EMC design test. It also makes the whole measurement uncertainty push ridiculous. After all if the procedures allow for prodcut that 20dB out of spec why bother with a couple of dB of error?? Lets give the emissions standards some teeth or eliminate it all together. Best Regards Charles Grasso Senior Compliance Engineer Echostar Communications Corp. Tel: 303-706-5467 Fax: 303-799-6222 Cell: 303-204-2974 Email: charles.gra...@echostar.com; mailto:charles.gra...@echostar.com; Email Alternate: chasgra...@ieee.org From: lfresea...@aol.com [mailto:lfresea...@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2003 1:05 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: OK, what's going on? Hi all, This e-mail has been prompted because of a number of things that have all come together. This may take a little reading, but please stick with it. Last note... this is not intended to pick on any individuals, or organization, but I do want to stir the pot. I operate an engineering lab, helping clients harden their designs to meet EMC requirements. In this particular instance, I was working for a small client, on a card that goes in the PC . In order to test I need a host PC. So, to save money, the card maker supplies 2 clones. Neither of the two PCs passed emissions testing with the card, in fact, above 100 MHz, they fail even the Class A limit: badly! So, before calling my client, I pull his card, the PC is no different, I pull the monitor, then the keyboard, then the mouse... No different. I test just the PC chassis one at a time. On their own, booted and then the peripherals removed. Not even close to passing. Disgruntled, I get my office PC... Fail. I get my kids PC.. over 20 dB over the limit! So, I think so much for clones... I buy 2 Dell ( sorry, no point trying to hide names... ) desktops, both fail, quite badly. However, they have very similar noise profiles... Can 5 PC's all fail? I think my measuring system is set -up wrong. So I verify this. I am within 1 dB of what I expect when I inject a signal from a signal generator and account for antenna factors. Here lies the question: why can I not find a PC that passes? Worse, since they don't pass, who is chasing them down to enforce the requirements? I'm unhappy, because I am taking a clients money to make him meet the requirements, when it seems no one else is. Now, what's making this worse for me
RE: OK, what's going on?
Derek, doesnt say whether you took the uncompliant equipment straight from your lab to another without making any changes... be interesting to see what the data is, since PC's are listed to class B... you may have something.. but its always good to get a second result from lab B. Richard, From: lfresea...@aol.com [mailto:lfresea...@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2003 3:05 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: OK, what's going on? Hi all, This e-mail has been prompted because of a number of things that have all come together. This may take a little reading, but please stick with it. Last note... this is not intended to pick on any individuals, or organization, but I do want to stir the pot. I operate an engineering lab, helping clients harden their designs to meet EMC requirements. In this particular instance, I was working for a small client, on a card that goes in the PC . In order to test I need a host PC. So, to save money, the card maker supplies 2 clones. Neither of the two PCs passed emissions testing with the card, in fact, above 100 MHz, they fail even the Class A limit: badly! So, before calling my client, I pull his card, the PC is no different, I pull the monitor, then the keyboard, then the mouse... No different. I test just the PC chassis one at a time. On their own, booted and then the peripherals removed. Not even close to passing. Disgruntled, I get my office PC... Fail. I get my kids PC.. over 20 dB over the limit! So, I think so much for clones... I buy 2 Dell ( sorry, no point trying to hide names... ) desktops, both fail, quite badly. However, they have very similar noise profiles... Can 5 PC's all fail? I think my measuring system is set -up wrong. So I verify this. I am within 1 dB of what I expect when I inject a signal from a signal generator and account for antenna factors. Here lies the question: why can I not find a PC that passes? Worse, since they don't pass, who is chasing them down to enforce the requirements? I'm unhappy, because I am taking a clients money to make him meet the requirements, when it seems no one else is. Now, what's making this worse for me, is that I am an EMC Lab assessor. So, I go to labs and make them jump through hoops so that they produce, as consistently as possible, data the characterizes a product. Exercises, like those performed by USCEL, show that labs can have very consistent results. Anyone that stands up and says EMC is not a field where consistency can be achieved, should not be in the compliance business: please close your lab. So if the test are consistent, why the HUGE variations? In the 20+ labs I have assessed, I feel that almost every one had an ethical approach. Ironically, I felt that the bigger companies I visited like HP and Intel were exceptional: both ethically and technically. The rest of the labs were between good to very good. So cheating is unlikely.. I have now spent about 60 man-hours looking for a PC that passes FCC Class B emissions. Something that I should just be able to go to the store and get. As yet, I have no PC. Our field, it appears, is not a level playing field. It appears more like a rugby game in which we have no referee! So why are there no fines being levied? Especially since it seems I can find non-compliant products everywhere! Is the self policing approach out of control? I intend to take this up with the FCC. Is there anyone out there that is supportive of this action ( which means you must be doing things right.. )? Am I wasting my time ( in which case if this is all lip service... why should we even test )? Or am I missing something ( I listen to 2 by 4's )? Derek Walton Owner of an EMC Lab EMC Lab Assessor NARTE EMC Engineer 30 years of EMC experience
Re: OK, what's going on?
In a message dated 3/25/2003 4:11:56 PM Central Standard Time, drcuthb...@micron.com writes: most interesting data. I have two questions: What software are you exercising the PC's with and is the spread spectrum enabled? I assume you are using an RBW of 120 kHz and using Quasi-peak detection. Hi Dave, the PC's are not Spread Spectrum based. What makes me say this is that in real time, the discrete frequencies are rock solid. I don't see the modulation that an SS clock would show. The RBW is 120 kHz. The PC's were tested first with a DOS based SW, that was written by my client to excercise his card ( It's a 100 base T Ethernet card. Then, once I'd pulled his card, the PC's were booted to windows, and I left them at the desktop. I did not bother with scrolling H's. I have friends at Matrox and Nvidea that have suggested that is a bit bogus therse days, so I really have not used that. Besides, pulling the CRT ( LCD and CRT ) didn't make a huge difference. The LCD though I believe is a better monitor ( my back likes it better ), and is usually quieter if I use it as a second monitor on a laptop. In my limited experience I have found that the software that is exercising the PC can make quite a difference. It is my understanding that many PC's are tested with H's printing to the screen. When running a game such as Doom the emissions will go up several dB. And if the spread spectrum is not enabled there will be an increase of 8 dB or so. I'm curious as to what the failing frequencies are. The 2 mainstream PC's had emissions from 30 MHz to 50 MHz. I attributed this to the power supply, it looked just like BB noise from reverse recovery times. These two PC's looked good over 100 MHz The clones touched the spec line to about 150 MHz, then, discrete spurs could be seen all the way past 1000 MHz. I stopped at 1 GHz. From memory I don't recall wht they were, but a quick guess would be about 30 MHz spacing. Don't hold me to that. Cheers, Derek.
RE: OK, what's going on?
I support contacting the FCC to look into it. Provide supporting documentation. Otherwise we're all wasting our time and money making striving for compliant product. This is my personal opinion, which may not necessarily reflect that of my employer. John A. Juhasz GE Interlogix Fiber Options Div. Bohemia, NY From: lfresea...@aol.com [mailto:lfresea...@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2003 3:05 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: OK, what's going on? Hi all, This e-mail has been prompted because of a number of things that have all come together. This may take a little reading, but please stick with it. Last note... this is not intended to pick on any individuals, or organization, but I do want to stir the pot. I operate an engineering lab, helping clients harden their designs to meet EMC requirements. In this particular instance, I was working for a small client, on a card that goes in the PC . In order to test I need a host PC. So, to save money, the card maker supplies 2 clones. Neither of the two PCs passed emissions testing with the card, in fact, above 100 MHz, they fail even the Class A limit: badly! So, before calling my client, I pull his card, the PC is no different, I pull the monitor, then the keyboard, then the mouse... No different. I test just the PC chassis one at a time. On their own, booted and then the peripherals removed. Not even close to passing. Disgruntled, I get my office PC... Fail. I get my kids PC.. over 20 dB over the limit! So, I think so much for clones... I buy 2 Dell ( sorry, no point trying to hide names... ) desktops, both fail, quite badly. However, they have very similar noise profiles... Can 5 PC's all fail? I think my measuring system is set -up wrong. So I verify this. I am within 1 dB of what I expect when I inject a signal from a signal generator and account for antenna factors. Here lies the question: why can I not find a PC that passes? Worse, since they don't pass, who is chasing them down to enforce the requirements? I'm unhappy, because I am taking a clients money to make him meet the requirements, when it seems no one else is. Now, what's making this worse for me, is that I am an EMC Lab assessor. So, I go to labs and make them jump through hoops so that they produce, as consistently as possible, data the characterizes a product. Exercises, like those performed by USCEL, show that labs can have very consistent results. Anyone that stands up and says EMC is not a field where consistency can be achieved, should not be in the compliance business: please close your lab. So if the test are consistent, why the HUGE variations? In the 20+ labs I have assessed, I feel that almost every one had an ethical approach. Ironically, I felt that the bigger companies I visited like HP and Intel were exceptional: both ethically and technically. The rest of the labs were between good to very good. So cheating is unlikely.. I have now spent about 60 man-hours looking for a PC that passes FCC Class B emissions. Something that I should just be able to go to the store and get. As yet, I have no PC. Our field, it appears, is not a level playing field. It appears more like a rugby game in which we have no referee! So why are there no fines being levied? Especially since it seems I can find non-compliant products everywhere! Is the self policing approach out of control? I intend to take this up with the FCC. Is there anyone out there that is supportive of this action ( which means you must be doing things right.. )? Am I wasting my time ( in which case if this is all lip service... why should we even test )? Or am I missing something ( I listen to 2 by 4's )? Derek Walton Owner of an EMC Lab EMC Lab Assessor NARTE EMC Engineer 30 years of EMC experience
Re: OK, what's going on?
Hi Earl and the gang, I may be atypical, but I have a shortwave radio in the same room (on the same desk with much of it) with 4 computers, a unix server, a print server, fax machine, large copy machine, and several printers, the hub equipment of a good sized ethernet network (for 8 computers, a unix server, and print server) and I expect to be able to hear WWV to set my clocks and occasionally listen in on the Ham bands. The only thing that bothered the radio was parallel port printing. But now that I print over my 100 Mbit network, no problem. The TV in this room (13 inch) seems to cause more interference than the rest of it! Doug Morse, Earl (E.A.) wrote: Amen! I had 15 years of computer EMC when I left the PC sector this year. This was a never ending source of frustration. I won't even get into the shortcomings of the measurement standards. The emigration of PC manufacturing to the PAC rim is being followed by emigration of the design and validation teams also. Many PC manufacturers have completely outsourced their EMC testing to the OEM PC manufacturers even when they own several 10 meter semi anechoic chambers. This is akin to having the fox watch over the hen house. Management says it is more economical that way. When every test is compliant and product passes the first time every time then I guess it is. Besides, it isn't compliance that anyone is really after anymore but rather a piece of paper that says it is compliant. (Neville Chamberlain effect) Maybe it doesn't matter anyway. Most customers don't care if it meets EMC requirements. Most only relate features to price and EMC is not a feature they would pay for. An EMC engineer can't tell whether a PC passes or fails without an expensive test site chock full of equipment so how is a consumer supposed to tell? A few commercial and government customers perform audit tests before entering into contracts but most don't seem to care. I seem to remember an FCC employee speaking at a conference somewhere stating that they don't get computer interference complaints. Mostly telephone interference complaints but never computer interference. Most of the field complaints I worked on were immunity related. Customers care and complain about that. In today's computer industry the companies that aggressively pursue EMC are penalized by adding more cost while the companies that ignore it are able to produce a more inexpensive product. The vigilant companies will not be able to compete. I agree, enforce the emissions standards or drop them. Earl Morse ex-Major PC Company EMC guru .. -- ___ _ Doug Smith \ / ) P.O. Box 1457 = Los Gatos, CA 95031-1457 _ / \ / \ _ TEL/FAX: 408-356-4186/358-3799 / /\ \ ] / /\ \ Mobile: 408-858-4528 | q-( ) | o |Email: d...@dsmith.org \ _ /]\ _ / Website: http://www.dsmith.org This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
RE: OK, what's going on?
Most of the stuff I worked on was global. The same box went everywhere with the appropriate language pack installed. There are some companies that are NA sales only and we did have a few consumer products that were marketed that way. From: Stone, Richard A (Richard) [mailto:rsto...@lucent.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2003 11:44 AM To: 'Morse, Earl (E.A.)'; 'Grasso, Charles'; 'lfresea...@aol.com'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: OK, what's going on? thats true Earl, good point on company B, not caring but selling with a higher profit, less EMC..company A busting butt to pass and comply with integrity. as for immunity... do any PC makers manufacturer any PC's strictly for sales in USA...only need Emissions here. that would save 1000's in emc costs, never mind engineering to fix the problems.. of course you would need diff. p/n's then. and sales,manuals, compliance certs..etc would be altered. has anyone ever done a cost estimate based on building a USA vs. EU chassis? curious to see if its worth the time. From: Morse, Earl (E.A.) [mailto:emo...@ford.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2003 11:10 AM To: 'Grasso, Charles'; 'lfresea...@aol.com'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: OK, what's going on? Amen! I had 15 years of computer EMC when I left the PC sector this year. This was a never ending source of frustration. I won't even get into the shortcomings of the measurement standards. The emigration of PC manufacturing to the PAC rim is being followed by emigration of the design and validation teams also. Many PC manufacturers have completely outsourced their EMC testing to the OEM PC manufacturers even when they own several 10 meter semi anechoic chambers. This is akin to having the fox watch over the hen house. Management says it is more economical that way. When every test is compliant and product passes the first time every time then I guess it is. Besides, it isn't compliance that anyone is really after anymore but rather a piece of paper that says it is compliant. (Neville Chamberlain effect) Maybe it doesn't matter anyway. Most customers don't care if it meets EMC requirements. Most only relate features to price and EMC is not a feature they would pay for. An EMC engineer can't tell whether a PC passes or fails without an expensive test site chock full of equipment so how is a consumer supposed to tell? A few commercial and government customers perform audit tests before entering into contracts but most don't seem to care. I seem to remember an FCC employee speaking at a conference somewhere stating that they don't get computer interference complaints. Mostly telephone interference complaints but never computer interference. Most of the field complaints I worked on were immunity related. Customers care and complain about that. In today's computer industry the companies that aggressively pursue EMC are penalized by adding more cost while the companies that ignore it are able to produce a more inexpensive product. The vigilant companies will not be able to compete. I agree, enforce the emissions standards or drop them. Earl Morse ex-Major PC Company EMC guru -Original Message- From: Grasso, Charles [mailto:charles.gra...@echostar.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2003 7:38 PM To: 'lfresea...@aol.com'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: OK, what's going on? Hi Derek - Go Reds!! This is not a surprise to me. I have railed at much length a couple of years ago as to the latest FCC changes to the emissions qualification. I am sure you are familiar with it so I won't belabour the point. Fundementally the FCC PC emissions procedure has rendered the EMC discipline almost irrelevent. The new procedures coupled with the lack of enfocement makes it difficult to justify the increased costs of EMC design test. It also makes the whole measurement uncertainty push ridiculous. After all if the procedures allow for prodcut that 20dB out of spec why bother with a couple of dB of error?? Lets give the emissions standards some teeth or eliminate it all together. Best Regards Charles Grasso Senior Compliance Engineer Echostar Communications Corp. Tel: 303-706-5467 Fax: 303-799-6222 Cell: 303-204-2974 Email: charles.gra...@echostar.com; mailto:charles.gra...@echostar.com; Email Alternate: chasgra...@ieee.org From: lfresea...@aol.com [mailto:lfresea...@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2003 1:05 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: OK, what's going on? Hi all, This e-mail has been prompted because of a number of things that have all come together. This may take a little reading, but please stick with it. Last note... this is not intended to pick on any individuals, or organization, but I do want to stir the pot. I operate an engineering lab, helping clients harden their designs to meet EMC requirements. In this particular instance, I was working for a small client, on a card that goes in the PC
Re: OK, what's going on?
Hi Ken and the group, Thanks for the information. The common mode current was in the 100 MHz region and WAY over what would be enough to exceed just about any limits of radiation, and this was on the power cord (and therefore any other leads to some extent). Doug Ken Javor wrote: I have seen the same kind of thing, but I believe there is a simple explanation. The input leads must meet CE102, but the output leads need only meet RE102, so they shield the output leads running to a dummy load in a control chamber. The fact that the customer can't shield the leads is another problem for another day. This doesn't happen when equipment is procured by an integrator and designed per the integrator's definition, but it is common with off-the-shelf gear. for a son 3/26/03 1:38 AM, Doug Smith at d...@emcesd.com wrote: Hi All, Just wanted to put my 2 cents worth in. The same thing may be happening in Mil-spec testing. Recently, I was at a client's site for a purpose unrelated to this story. I noticed interference to the measurement I was trying to make on a piece of equipment. The equipment had enough common mode current on its leads to fail emissions, even though it was turned off! There was a military battery charger for small batteries on their bench so I connected my current probe to its power cord and noticed enough common mode current to cause a 30 dB+ failure of emissions over a broad frequency range. I would suppose the battery charger had been tested to mil-specs. If so there is a problem here, even accounting for the repeatability problems in mil-spec testing. Doug Grasso, Charles wrote: Hi Derek - Go Reds!! This is not a surprise to me. I have railed at much length a couple of years ago as to the latest FCC changes to the emissions qualification. I am sure you are familiar with it so I won't belabour the point. Fundementally the FCC PC emissions procedure has rendered the EMC discipline almost irrelevent. The new procedures coupled with the lack of enfocement makes it difficult to justify the increased costs of EMC design test. It also makes the whole measurement uncertainty push ridiculous. After all if the procedures allow for prodcut that 20dB out of spec why bother with a couple of dB of error?? Lets give the emissions standards some teeth or eliminate it all together. ... -- ___ _ Doug Smith \ / ) P.O. Box 1457 = Los Gatos, CA 95031-1457 _ / \ / \ _ TEL/FAX: 408-356-4186/358-3799 / /\ \ ] / /\ \ Mobile: 408-858-4528 | q-( ) | o |Email: d...@dsmith.org \ _ /]\ _ / Website: http://www.dsmith.org This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
RE: OK, what's going on?
thats true Earl, good point on company B, not caring but selling with a higher profit, less EMC..company A busting butt to pass and comply with integrity. as for immunity... do any PC makers manufacturer any PC's strictly for sales in USA...only need Emissions here. that would save 1000's in emc costs, never mind engineering to fix the problems.. of course you would need diff. p/n's then. and sales,manuals, compliance certs..etc would be altered. has anyone ever done a cost estimate based on building a USA vs. EU chassis? curious to see if its worth the time. From: Morse, Earl (E.A.) [mailto:emo...@ford.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2003 11:10 AM To: 'Grasso, Charles'; 'lfresea...@aol.com'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: OK, what's going on? Amen! I had 15 years of computer EMC when I left the PC sector this year. This was a never ending source of frustration. I won't even get into the shortcomings of the measurement standards. The emigration of PC manufacturing to the PAC rim is being followed by emigration of the design and validation teams also. Many PC manufacturers have completely outsourced their EMC testing to the OEM PC manufacturers even when they own several 10 meter semi anechoic chambers. This is akin to having the fox watch over the hen house. Management says it is more economical that way. When every test is compliant and product passes the first time every time then I guess it is. Besides, it isn't compliance that anyone is really after anymore but rather a piece of paper that says it is compliant. (Neville Chamberlain effect) Maybe it doesn't matter anyway. Most customers don't care if it meets EMC requirements. Most only relate features to price and EMC is not a feature they would pay for. An EMC engineer can't tell whether a PC passes or fails without an expensive test site chock full of equipment so how is a consumer supposed to tell? A few commercial and government customers perform audit tests before entering into contracts but most don't seem to care. I seem to remember an FCC employee speaking at a conference somewhere stating that they don't get computer interference complaints. Mostly telephone interference complaints but never computer interference. Most of the field complaints I worked on were immunity related. Customers care and complain about that. In today's computer industry the companies that aggressively pursue EMC are penalized by adding more cost while the companies that ignore it are able to produce a more inexpensive product. The vigilant companies will not be able to compete. I agree, enforce the emissions standards or drop them. Earl Morse ex-Major PC Company EMC guru -Original Message- From: Grasso, Charles [mailto:charles.gra...@echostar.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2003 7:38 PM To: 'lfresea...@aol.com'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: OK, what's going on? Hi Derek - Go Reds!! This is not a surprise to me. I have railed at much length a couple of years ago as to the latest FCC changes to the emissions qualification. I am sure you are familiar with it so I won't belabour the point. Fundementally the FCC PC emissions procedure has rendered the EMC discipline almost irrelevent. The new procedures coupled with the lack of enfocement makes it difficult to justify the increased costs of EMC design test. It also makes the whole measurement uncertainty push ridiculous. After all if the procedures allow for prodcut that 20dB out of spec why bother with a couple of dB of error?? Lets give the emissions standards some teeth or eliminate it all together. Best Regards Charles Grasso Senior Compliance Engineer Echostar Communications Corp. Tel: 303-706-5467 Fax: 303-799-6222 Cell: 303-204-2974 Email: charles.gra...@echostar.com; mailto:charles.gra...@echostar.com; Email Alternate: chasgra...@ieee.org From: lfresea...@aol.com [mailto:lfresea...@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2003 1:05 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: OK, what's going on? Hi all, This e-mail has been prompted because of a number of things that have all come together. This may take a little reading, but please stick with it. Last note... this is not intended to pick on any individuals, or organization, but I do want to stir the pot. I operate an engineering lab, helping clients harden their designs to meet EMC requirements. In this particular instance, I was working for a small client, on a card that goes in the PC . In order to test I need a host PC. So, to save money, the card maker supplies 2 clones. Neither of the two PCs passed emissions testing with the card, in fact, above 100 MHz, they fail even the Class A limit: badly! So, before calling my client, I pull his card, the PC is no different, I pull the monitor, then the keyboard, then the mouse... No different. I test just the PC chassis one at a time. On their own, booted and then the peripherals removed. Not even close
Re: OK, what's going on?
I have seen the same kind of thing, but I believe there is a simple explanation. The input leads must meet CE102, but the output leads need only meet RE102, so they shield the output leads running to a dummy load in a control chamber. The fact that the customer can't shield the leads is another problem for another day. This doesn't happen when equipment is procured by an integrator and designed per the integrator's definition, but it is common with off-the-shelf gear. for a son 3/26/03 1:38 AM, Doug Smith at d...@emcesd.com wrote: Hi All, Just wanted to put my 2 cents worth in. The same thing may be happening in Mil-spec testing. Recently, I was at a client's site for a purpose unrelated to this story. I noticed interference to the measurement I was trying to make on a piece of equipment. The equipment had enough common mode current on its leads to fail emissions, even though it was turned off! There was a military battery charger for small batteries on their bench so I connected my current probe to its power cord and noticed enough common mode current to cause a 30 dB+ failure of emissions over a broad frequency range. I would suppose the battery charger had been tested to mil-specs. If so there is a problem here, even accounting for the repeatability problems in mil-spec testing. Doug Grasso, Charles wrote: Hi Derek - Go Reds!! This is not a surprise to me. I have railed at much length a couple of years ago as to the latest FCC changes to the emissions qualification. I am sure you are familiar with it so I won't belabour the point. Fundementally the FCC PC emissions procedure has rendered the EMC discipline almost irrelevent. The new procedures coupled with the lack of enfocement makes it difficult to justify the increased costs of EMC design test. It also makes the whole measurement uncertainty push ridiculous. After all if the procedures allow for prodcut that 20dB out of spec why bother with a couple of dB of error?? Lets give the emissions standards some teeth or eliminate it all together. Best Regards Charles Grasso Senior Compliance Engineer Echostar Communications Corp. Tel: 303-706-5467 Fax: 303-799-6222 Cell: 303-204-2974 Email: charles.gra...@echostar.com; mailto:charles.gra...@echostar.com; Email Alternate: chasgra...@ieee.org mailto:chasgra...@ieee.org -Original Message- From: lfresea...@aol.com [mailto:lfresea...@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2003 1:05 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: OK, what's going on? Hi all, This e-mail has been prompted because of a number of things that have all come together. This may take a little reading, but please stick with it. Last note... this is not intended to pick on any individuals, or organization, but I do want to stir the pot. ... -- Ken Javor EMC Compliance Huntsville, Alabama 256/650-5261 This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
Re: OK, what's going on?
Hi All, Just wanted to put my 2 cents worth in. The same thing may be happening in Mil-spec testing. Recently, I was at a client's site for a purpose unrelated to this story. I noticed interference to the measurement I was trying to make on a piece of equipment. The equipment had enough common mode current on its leads to fail emissions, even though it was turned off! There was a military battery charger for small batteries on their bench so I connected my current probe to its power cord and noticed enough common mode current to cause a 30 dB+ failure of emissions over a broad frequency range. I would suppose the battery charger had been tested to mil-specs. If so there is a problem here, even accounting for the repeatability problems in mil-spec testing. Doug Grasso, Charles wrote: Hi Derek - Go Reds!! This is not a surprise to me. I have railed at much length a couple of years ago as to the latest FCC changes to the emissions qualification. I am sure you are familiar with it so I won't belabour the point. Fundementally the FCC PC emissions procedure has rendered the EMC discipline almost irrelevent. The new procedures coupled with the lack of enfocement makes it difficult to justify the increased costs of EMC design test. It also makes the whole measurement uncertainty push ridiculous. After all if the procedures allow for prodcut that 20dB out of spec why bother with a couple of dB of error?? Lets give the emissions standards some teeth or eliminate it all together. Best Regards Charles Grasso Senior Compliance Engineer Echostar Communications Corp. Tel: 303-706-5467 Fax: 303-799-6222 Cell: 303-204-2974 Email: charles.gra...@echostar.com; mailto:charles.gra...@echostar.com; Email Alternate: chasgra...@ieee.org mailto:chasgra...@ieee.org -Original Message- From: lfresea...@aol.com [mailto:lfresea...@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2003 1:05 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: OK, what's going on? Hi all, This e-mail has been prompted because of a number of things that have all come together. This may take a little reading, but please stick with it. Last note... this is not intended to pick on any individuals, or organization, but I do want to stir the pot. .. -- ___ _ Doug Smith \ / ) P.O. Box 1457 = Los Gatos, CA 95031-1457 _ / \ / \ _ TEL/FAX: 408-356-4186/358-3799 / /\ \ ] / /\ \ Mobile: 408-858-4528 | q-( ) | o |Email: d...@dsmith.org \ _ /]\ _ / Website: http://www.dsmith.org This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
Re: OK, what's going on?
In a message dated 3/25/2003 8:49:04 PM Central Standard Time, cgrassospri...@earthlink.net writes: So the next obvious question is: Are the majority of the PC failures clones?? So far, from what I've seen... no. Derek.
Re: OK, what's going on?
What no one checks -- no one does. Got an OLD PC? One certified under the old rules, with an ID number? Try THAT. A local computer store (of a national chain) is selling computer chassis' with plastic sides. No complaints, no problems. It appears no one is CHECKING. Cortland This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
RE: OK, what's going on?
Hi Ken, I remember that thread. I think I even started it!! There is no way that FCC + FCC = FCC but the current rules and regs allow that to happen. its no surprise that Derek is finding PCs that fail. Question to Derek: Do the PCs have the infamous assembled from FCC compliant components label?? From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Ken Javor Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2003 6:19 PM To: lfresea...@aol.com; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: OK, what's going on? All, I would suggest a little literature survey and analysis before approaching the FCC. Answers to the following questions would be helpful to have in hand before approaching authorities: What bands were the outages in? I don't mean a list of frequencies vs. dB above limit, but outage frequencies vs. spectrum usage. If not many people are trying to use the spectrum where the outages occur, then you don't get many complaints. For instance, the broadcast television band extends from 54-87 MHz, and then picks up again from 174-216, and then from 470-890, except maybe the cell bands overlap the last part nowadays. But how many people in fringe TV reception areas in the USA are still trying to receive broadcast, vs. satellite or cable distribution? How many of this subset would operate their PC and also need their TV to receive on a channel that encompasses a problem frequency? The FCC responds to consumer complaints, or the potential for such. If the answers to these questions fall a certain way, it might make more sense to relax the limits... Related to the above: What does 20 dB above the limit mean? Look at the derivation of FCC Class A/B RE limits and it is tied to received signal quality. But how far are you from a transmitter before the broadcast signal is low enough that a 20 dB outage would cause a problem? Finally, I know Derek and am fully confident he is making accurate measurements, and is smart enough to differentiate an ambient from an EUT-sourced signal. But what anyone needs to know, before running to the FCC, is what is the configuration of the PC you tested, relative to the golden unit that was qualified to Class B. How did the design change between qualification and mass production? How many vendor changes were made, how many vendors changed parts but didn't change part numbers? I think this is most likely the root of the problem, but you will find the FCC very unwilling to crack down here, because the implication of enforcing this level of configuration control would be to kill the PC peripheral market. There was a thread here some time ago, about FCC + FCC = FCC? It is a very real EMC problem, but the economic forces here are very strong. I think that all these issues need to be addressed before making a case to the FCC. I don't believe the test houses are the weak link. -- Ken Javor EMC Compliance Huntsville, Alabama 256/650-5261 on 3/25/03 3:05 PM, lfresea...@aol.com at lfresea...@aol.com wrote: Hi all, This e-mail has been prompted because of a number of things that have all come together. This may take a little reading, but please stick with it. Last note... this is not intended to pick on any individuals, or organization, but I do want to stir the pot. I operate an engineering lab, helping clients harden their designs to meet EMC requirements. In this particular instance, I was working for a small client, on a card that goes in the PC . In order to test I need a host PC. So, to save money, the card maker supplies 2 clones. Neither of the two PCs passed emissions testing with the card, in fact, above 100 MHz, they fail even the Class A limit: badly! So, before calling my client, I pull his card, the PC is no different, I pull the monitor, then the keyboard, then the mouse... No different. I test just the PC chassis one at a time. On their own, booted and then the peripherals removed. Not even close to passing. Disgruntled, I get my office PC... Fail. I get my kids PC.. over 20 dB over the limit! So, I think so much for clones... I buy 2 Dell ( sorry, no point trying to hide names... ) desktops, both fail, quite badly. However, they have very similar noise profiles... Can 5 PC's all fail? I think my measuring system is set -up wrong. So I verify this. I am within 1 dB of what I expect when I inject a signal from a signal generator and account for antenna factors. Here lies the question: why can I not find a PC that passes? Worse, since they don't pass, who is chasing them down to enforce the requirements? I'm unhappy, because I am taking a clients money to make him meet the requirements, when it seems no one else is. Now, what's making this worse for me, is that I am an EMC Lab assessor. So, I go to labs and make them jump through hoops so that they produce, as consistently as possible, data the characterizes a product. Exercises, like those performed by USCEL, show that labs can have very consistent results
RE: OK, what's going on?
So the next obvious question is: Are the majority of the PC failures clones?? From: lfresea...@aol.com [mailto:lfresea...@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2003 7:32 PM To: cgrassospri...@earthlink.net; ken.ja...@emccompliance.com; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: OK, what's going on? In a message dated 3/25/2003 8:28:40 PM Central Standard Time, cgrassospri...@earthlink.net writes: Question to Derek: Do the PCs have the infamous assembled from FCC compliant components label?? The clones do, the others do not. Little more news.. 2 laptops, an older Micron, 350 MHz, looks good. Brand new Prostar 2.8 GHz, looks good... If I could only get my PCI card in a laptop! Cheers, Derek.
Re: OK, what's going on?
In a message dated 3/25/2003 8:28:40 PM Central Standard Time, cgrassospri...@earthlink.net writes: Question to Derek: Do the PCs have the infamous assembled from FCC compliant components label?? The clones do, the others do not. Little more news.. 2 laptops, an older Micron, 350 MHz, looks good. Brand new Prostar 2.8 GHz, looks good... If I could only get my PCI card in a laptop! Cheers, Derek.
Re: OK, what's going on?
In a message dated 3/25/2003 7:27:32 PM Central Standard Time, ken.ja...@emccompliance.com writes: What bands were the outages in? Sorry Ken... got to stop you here. When I assess, I do so to the standard. The FCC make the rules, we either comply or we don't. No need to second guess the rules. If the rules are inappropriate, that's not what I'm complaining about. What I'm chasing is that few people seem to be complying with the rules! And I'm taking money from folks that are trying. It isn't fair. Given my druthers.. I would rather we enforced the immunity requirements first I seem to for ever be watching things responded to undesired stimuli, but rarely to I have to turn my PC off to hear my phone etc... But, that's another battle :-) Peace, Derek.
RE: OK, what's going on?
Hi Derek - Go Reds!! This is not a surprise to me. I have railed at much length a couple of years ago as to the latest FCC changes to the emissions qualification. I am sure you are familiar with it so I won't belabour the point. Fundementally the FCC PC emissions procedure has rendered the EMC discipline almost irrelevent. The new procedures coupled with the lack of enfocement makes it difficult to justify the increased costs of EMC design test. It also makes the whole measurement uncertainty push ridiculous. After all if the procedures allow for prodcut that 20dB out of spec why bother with a couple of dB of error?? Lets give the emissions standards some teeth or eliminate it all together. Best Regards Charles Grasso Senior Compliance Engineer Echostar Communications Corp. Tel: 303-706-5467 Fax: 303-799-6222 Cell: 303-204-2974 Email: charles.gra...@echostar.com; mailto:charles.gra...@echostar.com; Email Alternate: chasgra...@ieee.org From: lfresea...@aol.com [mailto:lfresea...@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2003 1:05 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: OK, what's going on? Hi all, This e-mail has been prompted because of a number of things that have all come together. This may take a little reading, but please stick with it. Last note... this is not intended to pick on any individuals, or organization, but I do want to stir the pot. I operate an engineering lab, helping clients harden their designs to meet EMC requirements. In this particular instance, I was working for a small client, on a card that goes in the PC . In order to test I need a host PC. So, to save money, the card maker supplies 2 clones. Neither of the two PCs passed emissions testing with the card, in fact, above 100 MHz, they fail even the Class A limit: badly! So, before calling my client, I pull his card, the PC is no different, I pull the monitor, then the keyboard, then the mouse... No different. I test just the PC chassis one at a time. On their own, booted and then the peripherals removed. Not even close to passing. Disgruntled, I get my office PC... Fail. I get my kids PC.. over 20 dB over the limit! So, I think so much for clones... I buy 2 Dell ( sorry, no point trying to hide names... ) desktops, both fail, quite badly. However, they have very similar noise profiles... Can 5 PC's all fail? I think my measuring system is set -up wrong. So I verify this. I am within 1 dB of what I expect when I inject a signal from a signal generator and account for antenna factors. Here lies the question: why can I not find a PC that passes? Worse, since they don't pass, who is chasing them down to enforce the requirements? I'm unhappy, because I am taking a clients money to make him meet the requirements, when it seems no one else is. Now, what's making this worse for me, is that I am an EMC Lab assessor. So, I go to labs and make them jump through hoops so that they produce, as consistently as possible, data the characterizes a product. Exercises, like those performed by USCEL, show that labs can have very consistent results. Anyone that stands up and says EMC is not a field where consistency can be achieved, should not be in the compliance business: please close your lab. So if the test are consistent, why the HUGE variations? In the 20+ labs I have assessed, I feel that almost every one had an ethical approach. Ironically, I felt that the bigger companies I visited like HP and Intel were exceptional: both ethically and technically. The rest of the labs were between good to very good. So cheating is unlikely.. I have now spent about 60 man-hours looking for a PC that passes FCC Class B emissions. Something that I should just be able to go to the store and get. As yet, I have no PC. Our field, it appears, is not a level playing field. It appears more like a rugby game in which we have no referee! So why are there no fines being levied? Especially since it seems I can find non-compliant products everywhere! Is the self policing approach out of control? I intend to take this up with the FCC. Is there anyone out there that is supportive of this action ( which means you must be doing things right.. )? Am I wasting my time ( in which case if this is all lip service... why should we even test )? Or am I missing something ( I listen to 2 by 4's )? Derek Walton Owner of an EMC Lab EMC Lab Assessor NARTE EMC Engineer 30 years of EMC experience
RE: OK, what's going on?
Derek, most interesting data. I have two questions: What software are you exercising the PC's with and is the spread spectrum enabled? I assume you are using an RBW of 120 kHz and using Quasi-peak detection. In my limited experience I have found that the software that is exercising the PC can make quite a difference. It is my understanding that many PC's are tested with H's printing to the screen. When running a game such as Doom the emissions will go up several dB. And if the spread spectrum is not enabled there will be an increase of 8 dB or so. I'm curious as to what the failing frequencies are. Dave Cuthbert Micron Technology From: Stone, Richard A (Richard) [mailto:rsto...@lucent.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2003 1:30 PM To: 'lfresea...@aol.com'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: OK, what's going on? Derek, doesnt say whether you took the uncompliant equipment straight from your lab to another without making any changes... be interesting to see what the data is, since PC's are listed to class B... you may have something.. but its always good to get a second result from lab B. Richard, From: lfresea...@aol.com [mailto:lfresea...@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2003 3:05 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: OK, what's going on? Hi all, This e-mail has been prompted because of a number of things that have all come together. This may take a little reading, but please stick with it. Last note... this is not intended to pick on any individuals, or organization, but I do want to stir the pot. I operate an engineering lab, helping clients harden their designs to meet EMC requirements. In this particular instance, I was working for a small client, on a card that goes in the PC . In order to test I need a host PC. So, to save money, the card maker supplies 2 clones. Neither of the two PCs passed emissions testing with the card, in fact, above 100 MHz, they fail even the Class A limit: badly! So, before calling my client, I pull his card, the PC is no different, I pull the monitor, then the keyboard, then the mouse... No different. I test just the PC chassis one at a time. On their own, booted and then the peripherals removed. Not even close to passing. Disgruntled, I get my office PC... Fail. I get my kids PC.. over 20 dB over the limit! So, I think so much for clones... I buy 2 Dell ( sorry, no point trying to hide names... ) desktops, both fail, quite badly. However, they have very similar noise profiles... Can 5 PC's all fail? I think my measuring system is set -up wrong. So I verify this. I am within 1 dB of what I expect when I inject a signal from a signal generator and account for antenna factors. Here lies the question: why can I not find a PC that passes? Worse, since they don't pass, who is chasing them down to enforce the requirements? I'm unhappy, because I am taking a clients money to make him meet the requirements, when it seems no one else is. Now, what's making this worse for me, is that I am an EMC Lab assessor. So, I go to labs and make them jump through hoops so that they produce, as consistently as possible, data the characterizes a product. Exercises, like those performed by USCEL, show that labs can have very consistent results. Anyone that stands up and says EMC is not a field where consistency can be achieved, should not be in the compliance business: please close your lab. So if the test are consistent, why the HUGE variations? In the 20+ labs I have assessed, I feel that almost every one had an ethical approach. Ironically, I felt that the bigger companies I visited like HP and Intel were exceptional: both ethically and technically. The rest of the labs were between good to very good. So cheating is unlikely.. I have now spent about 60 man-hours looking for a PC that passes FCC Class B emissions. Something that I should just be able to go to the store and get. As yet, I have no PC. Our field, it appears, is not a level playing field. It appears more like a rugby game in which we have no referee! So why are there no fines being levied? Especially since it seems I can find non-compliant products everywhere! Is the self policing approach out of control? I intend to take this up with the FCC. Is there anyone out there that is supportive of this action ( which means you must be doing things right.. )? Am I wasting my time ( in which case if this is all lip service... why should we even test )? Or am I missing something ( I listen to 2 by 4's )? Derek Walton Owner of an EMC Lab EMC Lab Assessor NARTE EMC Engineer 30 years of EMC experience
Re: OK, what's going on?
I read in !emc-pstc that lfresea...@aol.com wrote (in 70.2c4379f4.2bb21 0...@aol.com) about 'OK, what's going on?' on Tue, 25 Mar 2003: I have now spent about 60 man-hours looking for a PC that passes FCC Class B emissions. Something that I should just be able to go to the store and get. As yet, I have no PC. Our field, it appears, is not a level playing field. It appears more like a rugby game in which we have no referee! You really must take into account that your measurements, however you have verified them, may be in error. So why are there no fines being levied? Especially since it seems I can find non-compliant products everywhere! Is the self policing approach out of control? That is very unlikely. The emission limits are realistic. If everything failed, the complaint level would rise and that would be noticed quickly. I intend to take this up with the FCC. DON'T do that until you have done a lot more work and taken advice. Is there anyone out there that is supportive of this action ( which means you must be doing things right.. )? I do not support running to FCC on the basis of the evidence you present. Am I wasting my time ( in which case if this is all lip service... why should we even test )? Or am I missing something ( I listen to 2 by 4's )? You may well be missing something. Do you have an OATS that passes the NSA requirements? Did new transmitters open up within 100 km of your site, so that's what you are measuring? Check the site background. Do you listen to 4 by 2s as well, my life?(;-) -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Interested in professional sound reinforcement and distribution? Then go to http://www.isce.org.uk PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL! This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
