...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] > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [ mailto:[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> ] > Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2000 14:28 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Vibration and Shock Testing > > > > This may not be the correct group to ask environmental questions, but I > thought it was a good place to start considering so many in the group wear > different hats or have past experience. In an effort to understand > principles of shock and vibration compliance, I have searched companies > like HP, Compaq and CISCO only to find if vibration and shock are called > out it is not even the same within the same company. > > The task is to define the correct vibration and shock testing for > electronic equipment, considering operational, non-operational and > transportation will have different levels. > > Are there accepted existing standard like CISPR 22 and IEC 60950 for > vibration, shock or other environmental parameters? > > Is there a similar group to this one that deals with environmental testing > and compliance? > > Thank you in advance for time on this matter. > > Rick Linford > [email protected] > > > > > > ------------------------------------------- > 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] > > > > > ------------------------------------------- > 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] > > ------------------------------------------- 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] ------------------------------------------- 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]
