EMC testing, C Tick, CISPR22 radiated emissions

Forgotten the C Tick details exactly. Do you NEED a test house ? You can self-certify for CE for example. Just employ a tame consultant who has or can borrow the kit.

Also, here in the UK, groups of smaller manufacturers get togethere to buy their own, sharing the costs. Ask an industry association.

You don't NEED shielded / anechoic rooms either etc if you can find a decent open field site.

Graham

Problem with overseas labs is that if your product fails - it's costly in terms of freight and time to send another modified unit for test. Where as it's quicker to run down to the lab and perhaps tweak the product.

Also if it fails how will you know which part of the circuit is the cause?

Joe

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. 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.

I think $2000 per day is the current approx going rate. Most devices fail their first attempt, and you may need to re-schedule, especially Class B.

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. 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.

I think $2000 per day is the current approx going rate. Most devices fail their first attempt, and you may need to re-schedule, especially Class B.

What EMC standard depends on device being tested

Joe

You HAVE to attend and monitor the tests. I always have. Their 'expert' may not even properly understand how the equipment is to be used and misinterpret readings. Unless you go for the 'pre-compliance' testing route anything else would be totally insane.

Graham

p.s there's a lowish (by western) cost ETL testing lab in Bombay near SEEPZ. That's not SO far from you. Some of my products went through perfectly successfully without at least MY personal attendance but I'm sure the sub-contractor's man was there.

What do you call expensive ?

For an EMC compliance test in the UK (last one I did was with SEMKO UK) it was ~ £2000. 2 days lab with me and one operative and included the official report IIRC.

Graham

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.

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.

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.

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

Graham

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

^^^^^^^^^^^ I'd love a reference to this part. den.

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.

Here's another personal anecdote. Having bought and made some equipment we decided to hire it out. Now, we are not a NATA lab but a manufacturer. An importer approached us to test some plug packs, AC and DC types. They did not want to pay the big prices that the 2 major players EMC Tech. and RFI Ind. charge. I did the testing myself and produced a report. Our company does have ISO9000 though so I was able to put that on the report, at least insofar as instrument cal goes. This did not involve an OATS test though since I justified why we chose not to do this in the test report.

Our company tests to European standards since we export, and I do all testing here. If a particular susceptibility test is not done, I justify it in the report. The ACA insists on the declaration being to an Aus/NZ standard though. I was first audited when the ACMA first started doing this, and initially they would not accept that I did not test to the Aus standard, but I argued and negotiated until they saw the light. So in essence, the test documentation is the technical evidence and the declaration involves the Australian standards. Be warned that to apply for a C-Tick you must provide your company details, so there is a good chance of being audited, unlike the European system.

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.

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??? : )

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.

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

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

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.

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.

In the archives sorry, bur ACA will still talk to you. Don't be afraid.

Graham

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 was an ACA document.