This reaches back a bit and I hope you'll forgive my tardy
entrance. I come from a test house background and would
like to shed some light on certain assertions made in this
thread.
Scott Douglas tells us, In my years of being a compliance
type, I have found many cases where I could not get an
agency or test house to make a bold statement about this or
that. Often one can accept that and understand why they will
not commit. For one reason, they do not want to be the one
sued by some disgruntled customer because something happened
(or didn't happen). But just as often, I have found it
extremely frustrating that I cannot get a straight answer
from the same people.
It's also important to keep in mind that anything said by
the engineer might be contradicted, when presented to their
reviewing engineer, leading to personal embarrassment. A
bad decision could also lead to a precedent that is
difficult to be rid of. Mulling things over is good for all
concerned, especially the public's safety.
I do agree, though, with Scott's advice to question anything
that doesn't make sense. Insisting on clear engineering
rationale is good practice and will even help the test house
engineer maintain clarity. Sometimes the (unsatisfying)
answer might only be it's a compliance issue, implying a
standards revision is called for.
Chris Maxwell advises, Personnel at a lab may deal with the
same standard everyday. They should know the standard like
the back of their hand.
This is sometimes true and sometimes not true. In one
department, I recall handling an average of 15-25 and as
many as 40 projects at any given time, usually with little
customer or technology overlap, often with only a little
overlap in product standard. [In the case of industrial
control equipment, the range covered products are so broad
that it can be daunting to know even half of what an
expert might need to know; a good understanding may be
more difficult to muster (thank goodness for dash
standards - a relatively recent innovation).] At any given
time, for example: relays, branch circuit breakers,
cartridge fuses, Class 2 transformers, unit substations,
pool and spa equipment, panelboards, energy management
equipment, printed wiring boards, general purpose
transformers...the list goes on. It can be a juggling act
to keep the requirements clearly in mind for any particular
product and standard, especially in busy times.
There are also relatively new employees that are still
cutting their teeth on a standard, those that transfer
between departments that handle different products and have
to learn new standards, almost anything of the ilk.
Nevertheless, there are some groups within these
organizations that deal with relatively few standards and
perhaps the back of the hand idea applies (for instance, ITE
and telecom equipment, polymeric materials), but it depends
sharply on the internal structure of the test house and how
they run their businesses.
The odds are great that we'll all act the teacher to test
house engineers in our careers. Many serving on standards
making panels on this forum fulfill this function regularly.
Chris is right, though, that it can make a big difference if
the test house engineer is familiar with a customers
products and design philosophy.
Regards,
Peter L. Tarver, PE
Product Safety Manager
Sanmina-SCI Homologation Services
San Jose, CA
peter.tar...@sanmina-sci.com
---
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
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/
Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
