Re: [PSES] Question re: Measuring a signal in a noisy environment

[Edward Price]

John:


I don’t see how a test house can “impose” compliance.
I thought all they could do was perform testing, and by looking at the results 
of the testing, declare compliance.

You also ask “how can a company know that the result is reliable?”
Isn’t that the entire justification for accreditation of a test lab by a 3rd 
party? I have had “expert customers” where they were so involved in the 
compliance process that they had their own QA representative sit in my lab and 
check off each step of a detailed, written test procedure as each step was 
started and completed. OTOH, a majority of my customers would say something 
like “call us when you know if we have passed.” When a lab customer is not 
qualified to determine the experience and capabilities of a test lab, the 
customer can increase his chances of reliable results by using a test lab that 
has had their facilities, people, procedures and support processes reviewed by 
an organization that specializes in the review of test labs.

In the example that started all this, I assumed the test lab was an accredited 
facility. As the test lab’s product proved to be unreliable, there was a 
breakdown of the test lab’s operations. That breakdown was supposed to have 
been made vanishingly improbable by the blessing of that test lab by an 
accreditation authority. I suppose that would mean that the accreditation 
authority’s process thus also broke down. I guess we then have to question the 
accreditation accreditors who accredited the test lab accreditors.

Sorry for making the chain of accreditation sound comical. I suppose you know a 
lot more than me about the efficacy of 3rd party oversight in ensuring reliable 
results. Can you elaborate just a bit about the amount the reliability should 
increase when a customer chooses an accredited test lab over an unaccredited 
test lab (assuming that was possible if the standard didn’t make accredited 
test labs a pre-condition)? Does the additional oversight layer (the 
accreditation) increase performance reliability by perhaps 1 or 2 Sigmas or 
some percentage?

Thanks!


Ed Price
WB6WSN
Chula Vista, CA USA

From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@woodjohn.uk]
Sent: Friday, April 19, 2019 1:19 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Question re: Measuring a signal in a noisy environment


I doubt anyone would disagree with that. But if a company allows a test house 
to impose compliance, how can it know that the result is reliable?

Best wishes

John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only

J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk

Rayleigh, Essex UK
On 2019-04-19 21:09, Grasso, Charles wrote:
With all due respect I made a different text section:

“Ultimately, I sold reliable answers..”  (underline added by me)

That is all I am looking for as a customer.

Thanks!

Charles Grasso
W: 303-706-5467


-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] Dated and undated references

[John Woodgate]

I think there is a fundamental trap that it is very easy to fall into, 
especially if the committee hasn't adopted (and enforced) a standardized 
format for filenames.


*If you change a document, you must change the filename, not only in 
itself but also if it appears (as it should) at the top of the page of 
the document.*


 Having said that, I am very surprised how difficult it is to persuade 
some exceedingly intelligent colleagues to adopt and stick to the agreed 
filename format.


The format that I like is illustrated by this (fictional) example: 
/SC199BWG27-190420Woodgate11/. No spaces, no underscores, no / or \, of 
course, because Windows doesn't allow them. The only separator is the 
simply hyphen, between adjacent fields of the same type. The number '11' 
is a continuous serial number, not re-starting at 1 every year, to 
eliminate the question, 'Which 'Woodgate4' of the three on file do you 
mean?'


Best wishes
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2019-04-20 16:21, Ghery Pettit wrote:


Mick,

I agree that a corrigendum would be the fastest way to fix this 
issue.  It wouldn’t be the first time it was necessary.  We had to 
issue one quickly after CISPR 32 Edition 1 was published as the IEC CO 
made some changes after the FDIS was voted that rendered the new 
standard useless. The corrigendum fixed their editing problem.


One must always check the new standards carefully to make sure that 
they are what was voted.  “Trust, but verify.”


Ghery S. Pettit

*From:* Mick Maytum 
*Sent:* Saturday, April 20, 2019 4:23 AM
*To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
*Subject:* Re: [PSES] Dated and undated references

John's comment "e.g. in the rare case where a dated reference standard 
is found to be seriously defective." reminded me of an IEC 
62368-1:2018 problem caused by a dated reference.


The current IEC 61643-331:2017 is wrong in that an earlier draft 
document, instead of the IEC Editors draft was sent for publication. 
Heads rolled in SC 37B as a result and SC 37B is working of a 
replacement IEC 61643-331. This mishap made the IEC 62368-1:2018 
reference "from 8.1.1 of IEC 61643-331, Figure 4." is a misdirection 
as 8.1.1 doesn't exist in IEC 61643-331:2017.  The correct reference 
for IEC 61643-331:2017 is "from 8.2.2 of IEC 61643-331, Figure 4." 
Thinking about what John said, it seems to me the quickest way of 
fixing the IEC 62368-1:2018 reference, without invoking TC 108, would 
be for SC 37B to issue a clause 8 corrigendum.


Regards

Mick Maytum.

-- Original Message --

From: "John Woodgate" mailto:j...@woodjohn.uk>>

To: EMC-PSTC@listserv.ieee.org 

Sent: 20/04/2019 08:41:51

Subject: [PSES] Dated and undated references, was: Re: [PSES] Question 
re: Measuring a signal in a noisy environment


I changed the Subject,  because my comments on the extract below
are much more general.

The heading of Clause 2 (usually the Normative references clause
in the past and now always so) in IEC/EN standards has changed
over the years. and since I see IEC standards being cited without
the 60 000 addition to the number that took place in 1998,  I
guess that the changes haven't registered with some people.

This list isn't exhaustive but it illustrates the subject.

Long ago:  Mostly undated references with an invitation to
'explore the use of the latest edition'.

A few years ago: IEC restricted the use of dated references to
cases where a particular clause was cited in the text. Although
other dated references were allowed, IEC editors discouraged that.

Latest: As a result of a legal ruling in Europe, the Commission
requires all references in ENs that are to be notified in the OJ
under a Directive or Regulation to be dated, and IEC committees
are mostly accepting that, as they want their standards to be
adopted by CENELEC.

There always has been a lot of misunderstanding on this subject.

*Undated references:*The essential assumption is that all future
editions will be as equally applicable as the current edition is.
There can be *NO *guarantee of that, so the committee responsible
for the standard that includes the reference should (but hardly
ever does) review each new edition of undated standards to check
that they are still applicable.

*Dated references: *In this case, the user of the referencing
standard knows exactly which edition of the referred standard to
apply, but can misguidedly assume that the latest edition should
be applied. The committee responsible for the standard that
includes the reference should (but hardly ever does) review each
new edition of dated standards to check that they are still
applicable, and if so, amend the referencing standard at the
earliest reasonable opportunity. It's obviously unreasonable to
issue an amendment when 

Re: [PSES] Dated and undated references

[Ghery Pettit]

Mick,

 

I agree that a corrigendum would be the fastest way to fix this issue.  It 
wouldn’t be the first time it was necessary.  We had to issue one quickly after 
CISPR 32 Edition 1 was published as the IEC CO made some changes after the FDIS 
was voted that rendered the new standard useless.  The corrigendum fixed their 
editing problem.

 

One must always check the new standards carefully to make sure that they are 
what was voted.  “Trust, but verify.”

 

Ghery S. Pettit

 

 

From: Mick Maytum  
Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2019 4:23 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Dated and undated references

 

John's comment "e.g. in the rare case where a dated reference standard is found 
to be seriously defective." reminded me of an IEC 62368-1:2018 problem caused 
by a dated reference. 

 

The current IEC 61643-331:2017 is wrong in that an earlier draft document, 
instead of the IEC Editors draft was sent for publication. Heads rolled in SC 
37B as a result and SC 37B is working of a replacement IEC 61643-331. This 
mishap made the IEC 62368-1:2018 reference "from 8.1.1 of IEC 61643-331, Figure 
4." is a misdirection as 8.1.1 doesn't exist in IEC 61643-331:2017.  The 
correct reference for IEC 61643-331:2017 is "from 8.2.2 of IEC 61643-331, 
Figure 4." Thinking about what John said, it seems to me the quickest way of 
fixing the IEC 62368-1:2018 reference, without invoking TC 108, would be for SC 
37B to issue a clause 8 corrigendum.

 

Regards

Mick Maytum.

 

-- Original Message --

From: "John Woodgate" mailto:j...@woodjohn.uk> >

To: EMC-PSTC@listserv.ieee.org  

Sent: 20/04/2019 08:41:51

Subject: [PSES] Dated and undated references, was: Re: [PSES] Question re: 
Measuring a signal in a noisy environment

 

I changed the Subject,  because my comments on the extract below are much more 
general.

The heading of Clause 2 (usually the Normative references clause in the past 
and now always so) in IEC/EN standards has changed over the years. and since I 
see IEC standards being cited without the 60 000 addition to the number that 
took place in 1998,  I guess that the changes haven't registered with some 
people.

This list isn't exhaustive but it illustrates the subject.

Long ago:  Mostly undated references with an invitation to 'explore the use of 
the latest edition'.

A few years ago: IEC restricted the use of dated references to cases where a 
particular clause was cited in the text. Although other dated references were 
allowed, IEC editors discouraged that.

Latest: As a result of a legal ruling in Europe, the Commission requires all 
references in ENs that are to be notified in the OJ under a Directive or 
Regulation to be dated, and IEC committees are mostly accepting that, as they 
want their standards to be adopted by CENELEC.

There always has been a lot of misunderstanding on this subject.

Undated references: The essential assumption is that all future editions will 
be as equally applicable as the current edition is. There can be NO guarantee 
of that, so the committee responsible for the standard that includes the 
reference should (but hardly ever does) review each new edition of undated 
standards to check that they are still applicable.

Dated references: In this case, the user of the referencing standard knows 
exactly which edition of the referred standard to apply, but can misguidedly 
assume that the latest edition should be applied. The committee responsible for 
the standard that includes the reference should (but hardly ever does) review 
each new edition of dated standards to check that they are still applicable, 
and if so, amend the referencing standard at the earliest reasonable 
opportunity. It's obviously unreasonable to issue an amendment when each new 
edition is published. Normal maintenance time-scales are sufficient, although 
there could be exceptions, e.g. in the rare case where a dated reference 
standard is found to be seriously defective.

Best wishes
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk  
Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2019-04-19 23:42, Ghery Pettit wrote:

 

We had a problem in the past where CISPR 24 (Edition 1) called out (dated 
reference) an older version of IEC 61000-4-4 than the latest version.  No 
problem except that the test setup for table top equipment was different.  I 
audited a lab to put them on the Intel approved EMC lab list and caught the 
error.  And they had IEC 61000-4-4 on their Scope of Accreditation.  Got that 
problem (now not a problem with CISPR 24 Edition 2 or CISPR 35) fixed.

-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
emc-p...@ieee.org  

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

Re: [PSES] Dated and undated references

[Mick Maytum]

John's comment "e.g. in the rare case where a dated reference standard 
is found to be seriously defective." reminded me of an IEC 62368-1:2018 
problem caused by a dated reference.


The current IEC 61643-331:2017 is wrong in that an earlier draft 
document, instead of the IEC Editors draft was sent for publication. 
Heads rolled in SC 37B as a result and SC 37B is working of a 
replacement IEC 61643-331. This mishap made the IEC 62368-1:2018 
reference "from 8.1.1 of IEC 61643-331, Figure 4." is a misdirection as 
8.1.1 doesn't exist in IEC 61643-331:2017.  The correct reference for 
IEC 61643-331:2017 is "from 8.2.2 of IEC 61643-331, Figure 4." Thinking 
about what John said, it seems to me the quickest way of fixing the IEC 
62368-1:2018 reference, without invoking TC 108, would be for SC 37B to 
issue a clause 8 corrigendum.


Regards
Mick Maytum.

-- Original Message --
From: "John Woodgate" 
To: EMC-PSTC@listserv.ieee.org
Sent: 20/04/2019 08:41:51
Subject: [PSES] Dated and undated references, was: Re: [PSES] Question 
re: Measuring a signal in a noisy environment


I changed the Subject,  because my comments on the extract below are 
much more general.


The heading of Clause 2 (usually the Normative references clause in the 
past and now always so) in IEC/EN standards has changed over the years. 
and since I see IEC standards being cited without the 60 000 addition 
to the number that took place in 1998,  I guess that the changes 
haven't registered with some people.


This list isn't exhaustive but it illustrates the subject.

Long ago:  Mostly undated references with an invitation to 'explore the 
use of the latest edition'.


A few years ago: IEC restricted the use of dated references to cases 
where a particular clause was cited in the text. Although other dated 
references were allowed, IEC editors discouraged that.


Latest: As a result of a legal ruling in Europe, the Commission 
requires all references in ENs that are to be notified in the OJ under 
a Directive or Regulation to be dated, and IEC committees are mostly 
accepting that, as they want their standards to be adopted by CENELEC.


There always has been a lot of misunderstanding on this subject.

Undated references: The essential assumption is that all future 
editions will be as equally applicable as the current edition is. There 
can be NO guarantee of that, so the committee responsible for the 
standard that includes the reference should (but hardly ever does) 
review each new edition of undated standards to check that they are 
still applicable.


Dated references: In this case, the user of the referencing standard 
knows exactly which edition of the referred standard to apply, but can 
misguidedly assume that the latest edition should be applied. The 
committee responsible for the standard that includes the reference 
should (but hardly ever does) review each new edition of dated 
standards to check that they are still applicable, and if so, amend the 
referencing standard at the earliest reasonable opportunity. It's 
obviously unreasonable to issue an amendment when each new edition is 
published. Normal maintenance time-scales are sufficient, although 
there could be exceptions, e.g. in the rare case where a dated 
reference standard is found to be seriously defective.


Best wishes
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK
On 2019-04-19 23:42, Ghery Pettit wrote:



We had a problem in the past where CISPR 24 (Edition 1) called out 
(dated reference) an older version of IEC 61000-4-4 than the latest 
version.  No problem except that the test setup for table top 
equipment was different.  I audited a lab to put them on the Intel 
approved EMC lab list and caught the error.  And they had IEC 
61000-4-4 on their Scope of Accreditation.  Got that problem (now not 
a problem with CISPR 24 Edition 2 or CISPR 35) fixed.



-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society 
emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your 
e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html


Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site 
at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in 
well-used formats), large files, etc.


Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe) 

List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas sdoug...@ieee.org
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.org
David Heald dhe...@gmail.com

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering 

[PSES] Dated and undated references, was: Re: [PSES] Question re: Measuring a signal in a noisy environment

[John Woodgate]

I changed the Subject,  because my comments on the extract below are 
much more general.


The heading of Clause 2 (usually the Normative references clause in the 
past and now always so) in IEC/EN standards has changed over the years. 
and since I see IEC standards being cited without the 60 000 addition to 
the number that took place in 1998,  I guess that the changes haven't 
registered with some people.


This list isn't exhaustive but it illustrates the subject.

Long ago:  Mostly undated references with an invitation to 'explore the 
use of the latest edition'.


A few years ago: IEC restricted the use of dated references to cases 
where a particular clause was cited in the text. Although other dated 
references were allowed, IEC editors discouraged that.


Latest: As a result of a legal ruling in Europe, the Commission requires 
all references in ENs that are to be notified in the OJ under a 
Directive or Regulation to be dated, and IEC committees are mostly 
accepting that, as they want their standards to be adopted by CENELEC.


There always has been a lot of misunderstanding on this subject.

*Undated references:* The essential assumption is that all future 
editions will be as equally applicable as the current edition is. There 
can be *NO *guarantee of that, so the committee responsible for the 
standard that includes the reference should (but hardly ever does) 
review each new edition of undated standards to check that they are 
still applicable.


*Dated references: *In this case, the user of the referencing standard 
knows exactly which edition of the referred standard to apply, but can 
misguidedly assume that the latest edition should be applied. The 
committee responsible for the standard that includes the reference 
should (but hardly ever does) review each new edition of dated standards 
to check that they are still applicable, and if so, amend the 
referencing standard at the earliest reasonable opportunity. It's 
obviously unreasonable to issue an amendment when each new edition is 
published. Normal maintenance time-scales are sufficient, although there 
could be exceptions, e.g. in the rare case where a dated reference 
standard is found to be seriously defective.


Best wishes
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2019-04-19 23:42, Ghery Pettit wrote:


We had a problem in the past where CISPR 24 (Edition 1) called out 
(dated reference) an older version of IEC 61000-4-4 than the latest 
version.  No problem except that the test setup for table top 
equipment was different.  I audited a lab to put them on the Intel 
approved EMC lab list and caught the error.  And they had IEC 
61000-4-4 on their Scope of Accreditation.  Got that problem (now not 
a problem with CISPR 24 Edition 2 or CISPR 35) fixed.




-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion 
list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: