I don't understand the part I "snipped." Isn't that what immunity/susceptibility testing is all about? We already do that. The part I had a problem with was the statement that industry standards are not enough, we must try to anticipate all problems that might ever arise, in effect forcing the manufacturer to have god-like omniscience, and when he predictably fails, punishing him for not living up to our preconceived notions of how smart he should have been.
---------- >From: Rich Nute <ri...@sdd.hp.com> >To: ken.ja...@emccompliance.com >Cc: geor...@lexmark.com, emc-p...@ieee.org >Subject: Re: EMC-related safety issues >Date: Thu, Jan 3, 2002, 1:55 PM > > Today, we > simply don't have processes by which we can > test equipment for RF-induced bad experiences. > So, we argue both sides without a conclusion. ------------------------------------------- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson: pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Heald davehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
