EMC testing, C Tick, CISPR22 radiated emissions

On Jun 19, 6:45 am, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

geoffjunks...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jun 18, 5:23 pm, Moonshadow <moonsha...@nospam.org> wrote:
Has anyone found and used a test house for the above (or AU-accepted
overseas standards) which doesn't charge like the proverbial wounded
bull? Overseas would be OK - China?

If you have a spec-an and lisn, do it yourself and do your own report.
ACA do not require a certified lab as far as I can remember (an ACA
uditer told me that), the test houses will try and tell you otherwise.

Right on. I had to look into C Tick at one time and I found there were
some sensible get outs too for products in low voume manufacture as well.
Up to 100 units p.a. IIRC. You just say "it's ok - it's sensibly designed
with regard to EMC - no-one's ever complained" basically. Prove me wrong !
I liked that approach.

The ACA info online I read was GOOD btw. But it will take you time to get
the feel for this little roller-coaster.

The report must have traceable technical content though, ie calibrated
instruments. The ACA is just as fussy as Germany and more
beaurocratic. I have been through 3 EMC audits here in Melbourne.

There's a word for this. It's like 'lab compliance accreditation' but
that's not it. There is a scheme though for labs worldwide to be mutually
accredited.

I think that is called a 'mutual recognition agreement' and knowing
about this got us through a sticky situation in Canada where we argued
that since Canada and Europe have an MRA then our product should
comply. MRA's work at the national level but they bought it.

I think $2000 per day is the current approx going rate.

For high end labs I'd say. They should be giving you advice and fixes for
that too. Plus ensure they 'understand' YOUR kind of kit. Don't take audio
to a lab that specialises in medical gear.

Good advise, but the choice of labs in Australia is quite small, as
you would expect. They all charge similar and high.

Most devices fail their first attempt, and you may need to re-schedule,
especially
Class B.

That's why asking about a pre-compliance check for obvious drop-offs is
such a good idea.

And as someone else said, you must monitor your equipment being tested
yourself and be ready for quick fixes if you expect a first time pass

Graham

 

On Jun 19, 11:23 am, "Den" <Inva...@someemail.com> wrote:

I knew the 5 essential elements the auditors look for and included
these. Later, I was told that the ACA did an EMC audit on this comapny
and they found no issues.

And the 5 essential elements are???    : )

1. The product name is the same in the test report, documentation and
DOC.
2. The Australian standard referenced on the DOC.
3. There is a clear statement of the conclusion of a pass in the
report.
4. Graphs of spectrum plots.
5. A photo of the product with its covers off.

Of course you should also check the completeness of the technical info
and other details but the above list is what they like to see. You'll
notice that photos are not required by law, but if they ask for them,
I say thats a good enough reason to supply.

 

On Jun 19, 11:53 am, Moonshadow <moonsha...@nospam.org> wrote:

geoffjunks...@gmail.com wrote:
They did not want to pay the big prices that the 2 major
players EMC Tech. and RFI Ind. charge.

I've used one of these co's on three previous occasions, and while their
service was OK, they charged more per hour than a brain surgeon. Not
reasonable given they were using perhaps $250,000 max worth of equipment
and the technician who did the testing was (to be polite) minimally
qualified.

Do you know of any other companies in the game in AU to whom I could go
for a quote?

Sorry, I don't know any cheaper ones. There are some consultants
around but I don't have any names any more. If you let us know the
type of equipment we may have more suggestions, if it is simple.

I have found with the test houses that I actually knew more sometimes
than they did about the detail of the standards, and in some cases the
tests themselves. (this was due to a lot of hard work myself, and I
only knew a couple of standards, whereas they have to cope with
dozens). If I was not there monitoring the tests, we would have
achieved a fail and a wasted day and $'s.

The benefits of high charges appear to go to the top guys, they do
very nicely but they pay peanuts to the test guys and admin staff.
Plenty of domestic air travel for conferences and the usual executive
trappings. The investment is pretty large though, and they also have a
huge calibration bill.

 

[Den]

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4859C210.6E5A5118@hotmail.com...

Moonshadow wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

Right on. I had to look into C Tick at one time and I found there were
some sensible get outs too for products in low voume manufacture as
well.
Up to 100 units p.a. IIRC. You just say "it's ok - it's sensibly
designed
with regard to EMC - no-one's ever complained" basically. Prove me
wrong !
I liked that approach

Is anyone able to point me to documentary evidence of this low-volume
"sensibleness" please. It seems out of character for our regulatory
bodies.

Sure, it knocked me out too. Sorry my readily accesible records don't go
back
that far but did it all on the internet.

Maybe they clamped up now but it sure WAS the way.

Graham

It's as tight as a fish's bum now. In my limited experience (testing once
every couple of years for the last decade or so) most of our problems have
been with "C-tick compliant" parts (LCD monitors & boxed SMPSs in
particular) making noise. Once these were fixed all was good. In the main
EMC compliance seems to be a farcical rort.

 

[Den]

<geoffjunkster@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0958493f-5413-4790-a245-a8f5c8bd1653@j1g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 19, 11:23 am, "Den" <Inva...@someemail.com> wrote:

I knew the 5 essential elements the auditors look for and included
these. Later, I was told that the ACA did an EMC audit on this comapny
and they found no issues.

And the 5 essential elements are??? : )

1. The product name is the same in the test report, documentation and
DOC.
2. The Australian standard referenced on the DOC.
3. There is a clear statement of the conclusion of a pass in the
report.
4. Graphs of spectrum plots.
5. A photo of the product with its covers off.

Of course you should also check the completeness of the technical info
and other details but the above list is what they like to see. You'll
notice that photos are not required by law, but if they ask for them,
I say thats a good enough reason to supply.



Cheers. The inspectors here on the west coast seem pretty reasonable (with
one exception!)
The main test house http://www.qdl.com.au/ is pretty good to work with.
Roman who owns the business runs it hands on and is very helpful in getting
your stuff passed. He won't cut corners in the testing but he doesn't screw
you over either. Hourly rate used to be $200 or $250 / hour for DIY
documentation.

 

[Moonshadow]

geoffjunkster@gmail.com wrote:

On Jun 19, 11:53 am, Moonshadow <moonsha...@nospam.org> wrote:
geoffjunks...@gmail.com wrote:
They did not want to pay the big prices that the 2 major
players EMC Tech. and RFI Ind. charge.
I've used one of these co's on three previous occasions, and while their
service was OK, they charged more per hour than a brain surgeon. Not
reasonable given they were using perhaps $250,000 max worth of equipment
and the technician who did the testing was (to be polite) minimally
qualified.

Do you know of any other companies in the game in AU to whom I could go
for a quote?

Sorry, I don't know any cheaper ones. There are some consultants
around but I don't have any names any more. If you let us know the
type of equipment we may have more suggestions, if it is simple.

I have found with the test houses that I actually knew more sometimes
than they did about the detail of the standards, and in some cases the
tests themselves. (this was due to a lot of hard work myself, and I
only knew a couple of standards, whereas they have to cope with
dozens). If I was not there monitoring the tests, we would have
achieved a fail and a wasted day and $'s.

The benefits of high charges appear to go to the top guys, they do
very nicely but they pay peanuts to the test guys and admin staff.
Plenty of domestic air travel for conferences and the usual executive
trappings. The investment is pretty large though, and they also have a
huge calibration bill.

Thanks for your comments and advice Geoff and Graham.

I've decided that in the short term we'll sell this product overseas
only so as to avoid our draconian regs and penalties.

Moonshadow

 

[Moonshadow]

Eeyore wrote:

Den wrote:

"Moonshadow" <moonshadow@nospam.org> wrote in message
news:4859ae88$1@news.comindico.com.au...
Eeyore wrote:
Right on. I had to look into C Tick at one time and I found there were
some sensible get outs too for products in low voume manufacture as well.
Up to 100 units p.a. IIRC. You just say "it's ok - it's sensibly designed
with regard to EMC - no-one's ever complained" basically. Prove me wrong
!
I liked that approach

Is anyone able to point me to documentary evidence of this low-volume
"sensibleness" please. It seems out of character for our regulatory
bodies.
I'd love to be proven wrong but I think this is BS.

It was an ACA document.

I seem to recall that NZ had such provision, but not AU.

 

On Jun 19, 3:25 pm, "Den" <Inva...@someemail.com> wrote:

geoffjunks...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:0958493f-5413-4790-a245-a8f5c8bd1653@j1g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 19, 11:23 am, "Den" <Inva...@someemail.com> wrote:

I knew the 5 essential elements the auditors look for and included
these. Later, I was told that the ACA did an EMC audit on this comapny
and they found no issues.

And the 5 essential elements are??? : )

1. The product name is the same in the test report, documentation and
DOC.
2. The Australian standard referenced on the DOC.
3. There is a clear statement of the conclusion of a pass in the
report.
4. Graphs of spectrum plots.
5.     A photo of the product with its covers off.

Of course you should also check the completeness of the technical info
and other details but the above list is what they like to see. You'll
notice that photos are not required by law, but if they ask for them,
I say thats a good enough reason to supply.

Cheers. The inspectors here on the west coast seem pretty reasonable (with
one exception!)

Any anecdotes you'd like to share? No names needed.

The main test househttp://www.qdl.com.au/is pretty good to work with.
Roman who owns the business runs it hands on and is very helpful in getting
your stuff passed. He won't cut corners in the testing but he doesn't screw
you over either. Hourly rate used to be $200 or $250 / hour for DIY
documentation.

 

[Den]

<geoffjunkster@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ea6e9473-354a-4dae-886e-a219f699832e@p39g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 19, 3:25 pm, "Den" <Inva...@someemail.com> wrote:

geoffjunks...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:0958493f-5413-4790-a245-a8f5c8bd1653@j1g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 19, 11:23 am, "Den" <Inva...@someemail.com> wrote:

I knew the 5 essential elements the auditors look for and included
these. Later, I was told that the ACA did an EMC audit on this comapny
and they found no issues.

And the 5 essential elements are??? : )

1. The product name is the same in the test report, documentation and
DOC.
2. The Australian standard referenced on the DOC.
3. There is a clear statement of the conclusion of a pass in the
report.
4. Graphs of spectrum plots.
5. A photo of the product with its covers off.

Of course you should also check the completeness of the technical info
and other details but the above list is what they like to see. You'll
notice that photos are not required by law, but if they ask for them,
I say thats a good enough reason to supply.

Cheers. The inspectors here on the west coast seem pretty reasonable (with
one exception!)

Any anecdotes you'd like to share? No names needed.



Let's just say that it doesn't help having your know-all boss tell the guy
how to do his job and how well we'd done ours when it was patently obvious
we hadn't and that was the reason he was there. Subsequent follow up audits
were ok. The guys while not letting anything nasty get through were happy
that we had made reasonable efforts to get gear tested & documented - there
were quite a few products, all of them low risk.

%< %<

 

[Joe G (Home)]

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:485974AE.12E6314B@hotmail.com...

"Joe G (Home)" wrote:

What EMC standard depends on device being tested
http://www.acma.gov.au/WEB/STANDARD/pc=PC_310707

They're all IEC standards (except in the USA - and even that's changing
and maybe Canada a bit ) no matter what anyone else tells you. And they
can't refuse an
IEC standard AIUI either.

All that happens with the 'national' standard is they put a new cover
sheet on it and add a 'national foreword'. LOL !

What's your kit ? I might be able to save you some trouble.

Graham

Yes.... The Aust puts a rapper on the IEC or EN55022 etc... but... in some
cases there are variations not tested in the international standards.

Joe