Re: [PSES] MIL-HDBK-237B drastic changes

terConnect with me on LinkedIn  On Jun 19, 2024, at 5:55 PM, Michael Viau <michael.t.v...@gmail.com> wrote: Does anyone have any documentation (or even a story) on why the changes between MIL-HDBK-237B (1997) and 237C (2001) were so drastic?237B filled a sorely missed gap in terms of h

[PSES] MIL-HDBK-237B drastic changes

, and it seems odd that they went through the effort of deleting so much of rev B. Any suggestions for clues I could follow to paint the picture? Thanks everyone! Michael Viau - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety

Re: [PSES] List of Common Misuses

Personally, I’d accept an answer to this request in the form of how the equipment is designed to prevent an operator from misusing it. Like how plugs (US) are designed with a long lead and a short lead to prevent you from hooking them up “backwards”. Most connectors are built that way too now.  If

Re: [PSES] Origin of steps in radiated emissions limit lines

I don't know much about the commercial side, but there is a really well-written document for the US military standard (MIL-STD-461) called SAE EIA EMCB 1-1 - Historical Rationale for Military EMI Limits (behind a damned paywall, unfortunately, but I can try to send it to you if you'd like). (https:

[PSES] Boeing ESD Coordinator Opportunity

Boeing in St. Louis, MO has posted a full-time ESD coordinator position on our team and is looking for folks with 5+ years of experience with ESD standards and/or ESD management. > Saint Louis Region Senior Electrostatic Discharge Coordinator (JobID: > 0211792) > > https://boeing.wd1.mywor

Re: [PSES] Unreasonable Design Penalties on Receivers

shioned frequency-independent attenuation >> can and will be employed by an AGC circuit to keep the intended signal in >> the linear range of the IF strip, and maybe even out front of the mixer >> depending upon how sophisticated the design. >> >> >> >

Re: [PSES] Unreasonable Design Penalties on Receivers

e when procuring a radio receiver. > > If you are trying to determine whether or not the actual EME is going to > damage the receiver, you have to include antenna characteristics, and that is > an integration issue, not a radio procurement issue. > -- > Ken Javor > (256) 650

Re: [PSES] Unreasonable Design Penalties on Receivers

And for the second case we blast the heck out of it to > see if it survives!! > > I'm not an expert, just trying to figure this out myself... > > -Patrick > >> On Thu, May 28, 2020, 9:31 PM Michael Viau wrote: >> Can someone help me circle this square? >>

[PSES] Unreasonable Design Penalties on Receivers

Can someone help me circle this square? MIL-STD-461 (E-G) mentions in the Appendix for CS103/4 that we shouldn’t attempt to apply external levels like 200 V/m to this test. Even when accounting for antenna characteristics they mention that it would place unreasonable design penalties on the rec