Dear Ken Your comments on what you took to be my views on the EMC testing in the automotive industry came from my ITEM UPDATE 2001 article, not from anything that I had posted on emc-pstc. As a result, people reading your posting would probably not have understood why you were referring to me.
As I have described to you in a personal email today, the automotive industry comments in the above article did not originate with me, but with independent automotive EMC specialists and an EC-funded research program into the application of the Automotive EMC Directive. And just for the record I am not in favour of tests that represent a massive overkill. I am in favor of always doing good engineering to minimise your employer's commercial and financial risks - something that I think engineers can do most effectively because only they have the necessary knowledge and abilities. Regards, Keith In a message dated 10/01/02 15:37:26 GMT Standard Time, ken.ja...@emccompliance.com writes: > Subj:Re: ISO 11452-4 Bulk Current Injection Test Requirements > Date:10/01/02 15:37:26 GMT Standard Time > From: ken.ja...@emccompliance.com (Ken Javor) > To: cherryclo...@aol.com > CC: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org > > Keith, > > I thought of you because of previous statements that the automotive > industry wasn't testing hard enough and this seemed to me a counter-example > of massive unjustified overkill. My apologies, in the future I will only > respond to direct postings. > > Ken Javor > > on 1/10/02 8:52 AM, cherryclo...@aol.com at cherryclo...@aol.com wrote: > > >> Dear Ken >> I have no problem with "The unalterable physics of field-to-wire >> coupling". >> But I am concerned to ensure that basic physics is correctly applied in >> engineering issues. >> >> Can I please ask you to place any criticisms of me in the threads I am >> contributing to, or send them directly to me, not hide them away where I >> might not see them. >> >> (I hope to be able to get around to reading the week's contributions on >> the EMC and safety threads this weekend.) >> >> Regards, Keith Armstrong >
