Dear All,
Within the framework of the EMCD, all configurations shall be conform,
so if you choose to actually test,
all configurations shall be part of the test. The subject of worse case
is a "miroir d'alouette"... how will you ever know which
is worst case without carrying out the test ? A pre-scan is informative
but the radiated emission test contains already a pre-scan (peak) for
the final QP-measurement. We already require a EMC risk analysis which
is a kind of pre-scan too. How many pre-pre-prescans will we need to be
sure ?
"to repeat _some_ (which?) test to make sure nothing was broken"....
it's another discipline, but that is how Boeing lost a door in flight.
And that is not a unregulated sector without thorough quality scans
(understatement), and still it happens. Imagine the costs and effort for
Boeing to rebuild their reputation ? Didn't we all learned the
exponential graph of EMC costs versus development time ?
If you need proof (for authorities, or for yourself), nothing can
replace the actual test.
Gert Gremmen
On 6-4-2024 0:47, Lfresearch wrote:
Hi folks,
I would like to advise a client at where to draw the line on what needs
testing. I would like to solicit opinions besides my own. Otherwise it’s the
fox urging the chicken coop…
So a manufacturer that makes a product of which there will be several variants.
All use the same board, but have different sections of circuits populated. This
may require slightly different code to run on the same uP in each case.
So.. The burning question is can we perform and analysis that postulates a
worse case hardware/software combination and test just one configuration? Or,
do we have to do every combination?
Or, are there some guidelines about where we draw the line of what to test and
what can be claimed as similarity?
Off list responses are welcome too.
Thanks,
Derek Walton
LFResearch/SSCLabs.
-
----------------------------------------------------------------
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
[email protected]
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
Website:https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to
unsubscribe)
List rules:https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html
For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at:[email protected]
Rick Linford at:[email protected]
For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:<[email protected]>
_________________________________________________
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following
link:https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1
--
Independent Expert on CE marking
EMC Consultant
Electrical Safety Consultant
-
----------------------------------------------------------------
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
[email protected]
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html
For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: [email protected]
Rick Linford at: [email protected]
For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher: <[email protected]>
_________________________________________________
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1
BEGIN:VCARD
FN:Gert Gremmen
N:Gremmen;Gert;;;
ADR:;;1261 Route de Pirot;Chauffailles;;71170;France
EMAIL;PREF=1:[email protected]
TEL;TYPE=cell:+33 7 84507010
NOTE:Independent Expert on CE marking \n Harmonised Standards (HAS-) Consu
ltant @ European Commission for RED\, LVD and EMC\n EMC Consultant\n Elect
rical Safety Consultant\n
X-MOZILLA-HTML:TRUE
END:VCARD
