In message 20060215174652.842.qm...@web30506.mail.mud.yahoo.com, dated
Wed, 15 Feb 2006, Doug Beckwith dougbeckw...@yahoo.ca writes
Isn't CISPR 16-4 the preferred method? This is what was specified to
us by our accrediting agency.
No. Because the ETSI reference is dated, that is the reference
Hi,
Isn't CISPR 16-4 the preferred method? This is what was
specified to us by our accrediting agency.
Regards
Doug
--- Sykes, William Thomas (Tom) wsy...@lucent.com wrote:
All:
Elliott:
If one looks in the back of TR 100028-1 V1.3.1, under Document
History, one will find:
History
In message
f5f54e2ec6fec14aac3c9f28e8ee7eb80b8db...@nj9620exch002u.mh.lucent.com,
dated Wed, 15 Feb 2006, Sykes, William Thomas (Tom)
wsy...@lucent.com writes
All:
Elliott:
If one looks in the back of TR 100028-1 V1.3.1, under Document History,
one will find:
History
Document history
All:
Elliott:
If one looks in the back of TR 100028-1 V1.3.1, under Document History, one
will find:
History
Document history
Edition 1 March 1992 Publication as ETR 028
Edition 2 March 1994 Publication as ETR 028
V1.3.1 March 2001 Publication,
so there was no 1998 version.
Of course,
4 matches
Mail list logo