Ken,
Yes, you are right, the standards can sometimes be a compromise based on what
is technically feasible and practical. No point in a standard that requires
equipment that is not available or cost prohibitive. Unless you count the old
GR1089 bulk current injection standard that had a test level
lfresea...@aol.com wrote (in <1f5.102ef2e6.303a1...@aol.com>) about 'RF
Susceptibility: Sweep v/s spot check', on Sun, 21 Aug 2005:
>In a message dated 8/20/2005 4:18:48 PM GMT Daylight Time,
>j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk writes:
>
>The British Standards EMC committees have test houses very well
>represe
The issue as I understand it is that susceptibilities are found during a
61000-4-3 sweep, but cannot be found during a manual scan, or a manual
search for a threshold of susceptibility.
I suggest that at the levels at which testing is performed (1, 3 or 10 V/m
unmodulated), the threat simulated is
In a message dated 8/20/2005 4:18:48 PM GMT Daylight Time,
j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk writes:
The British Standards EMC committees have test houses very well
represented.
Two observations...
First: Test houses are entities that commercially exist to evaluate products.
It is unlikely that you will
lfresea...@aol.com wrote (in <87.2e27d439.303a0...@aol.com>) about
'Commercial EMC software', on Sun, 21 Aug 2005:
> I've found the US National Committee ( I live in Chicago ) unreceptive
>to assistance. Since I finance committee work myself, guess how much I
>persist pursuing committees where
In a message dated 8/20/2005 4:18:25 PM GMT Daylight Time,
j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk writes:
>As I've stressed, the standards are so poorly written that there are
>interpretations of how the test should be run.
But do you at least try to do something about that? Such as making
constructive critici
6 matches
Mail list logo
