Michael, Standing back a bit, and defining how one sees SI, EMC, e-m fundamentals, etc., and how they relate to one another, couldn't come at a better time.
It is especially useful for those of us who are 'non-specialists', who nevertheless follow SI-List postings fairly regularly. This thread has been quite helpful, and I'm interested in seeing how other 'regulars' see the same issues. Michael Alderete Aerojet, Azusa CA USA -----Original Message----- From: Michael Vrbanac [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2000 1:59 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [SI-LIST] : 20H Revisited Sainaith, Thanks! Perhaps I should have originally said... "it was a 'non-SI' issue" to be more technically correct and be better understood. I hate to be a bit contrarian here but I don't think they are" two sides of the same coin". The underlying theory is the same but the "disciplines" aren't. I think there might be a bunch of folks who haven't yet figured that out. I'll bet you know of some brilliant SI folks who would not enjoy working with EMC for instance. They'd be out of their league. I believe there is a reason for this. Electromagnetics and field theory are the general labels for all the underlying physics for what we do. EMC would be a bit more specific to better define the specific use of electromagnetics and field theory to make an electrical device not only compatible with its environment but also with itself so that proper operation can be insured for the subject machine and all those in its environment. SI is even more defined and a subset of that. It is the use of electromagnetics and field theory to insure that the subject machine can properly operate and deal with its own internal issues. It is usually involving basic functional and reliability issues and essentially works with signal levels, thresholds, and purity as a specialty. Maybe that's not the best definitions but at least its a first cut at it. (BTW, there's always room for some exceptions.) When one considers the "language" of SI and the "language" of EMC and also the views, focus, and goals along with that, we find that they are different things. Even the simulation tools for the two are different. I have managed a group that did both EMC and SI so I know. People can bridge that distinction as I have but make no mistake. They aren't the same thing. Related in some ways but not the same. Michael E. Vrbanac Sainath Nimmagadda wrote: .... > **** To unsubscribe from si-list: send e-mail to [email protected]. In the BODY of message put: UNSUBSCRIBE si-list, for more help, put HELP. si-list archives are accessible at http://www.qsl.net/wb6tpu **** **** To unsubscribe from si-list: send e-mail to [email protected]. In the BODY of message put: UNSUBSCRIBE si-list, for more help, put HELP. si-list archives are accessible at http://www.qsl.net/wb6tpu ****
