> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bandele Adepoju [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Friday, September 01, 2000 12:08 PM
> To: 'Ken Javor'
> Cc: [email protected]; '[email protected]'; jestuckey
> Subject: RE: Vibration and Shock Testing
>
>
>
> ...Regardless, I still feel the same about DoD Compliance
> (EMC, Environmental etc.,) overall today as I felt about
> it in the yesteryear - it is a bureaucratic maze cluttered
> with US Government jargon and disdain to the intelligence
> of the rest of the world. (For some reason, the expression
> "faraday shield" keeps popping into my mind every time I
> hear or see the phrase "military standard".)
>
> Anyway, DoD compliance is only really applicable to the
> USofA. It is not relevant to Europe, Asia, South America
> - or even Canada! You would find yourself continuously
> having to justify the rational of its standards in most
> areas of the world, if any are put to used for compliance
> at an international level. At least the commercial standards
> are ubiquitous in this aspect.
>
> The flavors out there of commercial standards on a subject
> are a derivative of a single standard on the same subject
> - in requirement and rational. I would advise you not let
> the plagiarism of standards in their various numerical
> schemes fool or confuse you.
>
> Bandele
> Jetstream Communications, Inc.
> [email protected]
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ken Javor [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2000 8:04 PM
> To: jestuckey; '[email protected]'; [email protected]
> Subject: Re: Vibration and Shock Testing
>
>
>
> A general philosophical response to Mr. Stuckey's specific
> and cogent reply.
> Twenty years ago when I told colleagues I did military
> engineering, I would
> uniformly get comments about how could I stand the
> bureaucracy, red tape,
> and yes, comments to the effect of Customers of limited intelligence.
>
> Fade to the present, and I feel exactly the same way when
> someone tells me
> they do commercial EMC/safety/etc., especially after
> reviewing the e-mail
> trails I get off this service. And DoD EMC seems to have a
> much better
> foundation in reality in terms of justifiable limits than the
> commercial
> world has. I realize that commercial EMC/safety is in a period of
> transition, but for now I am quite content to be where I am
> and simply sit
> back and watch the chaos and confusion...
>
> ----------
> >From: jestuckey <[email protected]>
> >To: "'[email protected]'" <[email protected]>,
> [email protected]
> >Subject: RE: Vibration and Shock Testing
> >Date: Thu, Aug 31, 2000, 5:24 PM
> >
>
> >
> > When in doubt and there are no defined industry
> requirements, you can
> safely
> > go to Mil STD 810 E and find profiles for the proposed
> environment and
> > shipping mode to which your equipment will be subjected.
> It provides you
> > with an articulable and justifiable position from which to answer
> questions.
> > Further before anyone questions the use of Mil STD, if you
> review other
> > Standards and practices the majority of them have as a
> reference Mil STD
> > 810.
> >
> > Hope this helps.
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > JOHN E. STUCKEY
> > EMC Engineer
> >
> > Micron Technology, Inc.
> > Integrated Products Group
> > Micron Architectures Lab
> > 8455 West Emerald St.
> > Boise, Idaho 83704
> > PH: (208) 363-5313
> > FX: (208) 363-5596
> > [email protected]
> >
[snip]
Bandele:
Faraday shields are your friends; embrace them (or at least let them embrace
you).
I find that DoD Mil Standards are fairly jargon-free, and they have been
edited for comprehension at about the level of a US 13-year-old. But
everyone has their own package of jargon (even if I lived on Main Street, I
would still get my electrical power delivered on lines, not mains).
In the EMC area, you will find that USA Mil Standards have had wide
international influence. The British Def Stan 59-41 is strongly derived from
Mil-Std-461C/462, with a splash of 461/462D and a filigree of Crown
decorations. The NATO Stanags also were influenced by the Mil Standards.
Cubic has an Australian program which used Mil-Std-461D, and a Canadian
program which uses the British MoD 59-41.
Finally, I suppose the USA DoD does insult worldwide intelligence by making
their documents available for FREE, downloadable from the web, 24 hours a
day. You have my sympathies.
Regards,
Ed
:-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-)
Ed Price
[email protected]
Electromagnetic Compatibility Lab
Cubic Defense Systems
San Diego, CA. USA
858-505-2780 (Voice)
858-505-1583 (Fax)
Military & Avionics EMC Services Is Our Specialty
Shake-Bake-Shock - Metrology - Reliability Analysis
:-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-)
-------------------------------------------
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
[email protected]
with the single line:
unsubscribe emc-pstc
For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Jim Bacher: [email protected]
Michael Garretson: [email protected]
For policy questions, send mail to:
Richard Nute: [email protected]
