I read in !emc-pstc that [email protected] wrote (in <96.1cb9207c.2919d8 [email protected]>) about 'Mr Woodgate's response to Mr Taylor wrt test table', on Tue, 6 Nov 2001: >Until now I have been very impressed with the good manners shown by all the >respondents on this site. Even the most naive questions (and responses) >receive polite answers, or at worst are ignored. However, the tone of your >response to Mr. Taylor seems to heap ridicule on his statements and by >implication on Mr. Taylor.
Well, whatever your impression is, there was categorically no intention of 'heaping ridicule' on anything or any one. > >I am fairly new on the emc-pstc site, and until now felt safe in asking the >few questions I have submitted. By safe I mean I have not feared that I would >be "flamed" as if I were an ignoramus or poser asking questions of my >betters. Now I am not so sure about how safe I really am. Is this your intent? Absolutely not. I spend quite a lot of time researching the answers to questions asked here, and I would NEVER react badly to a question, however naive. > > Shouldn't you apologize to Mr. Taylor (and to the site) and clear the air? I just don't understand this. I subscribe to several mailing lists and newsgroups with no come-backs except on this one, where people seem to read offence into the most innocent remarks. You might find it enlightening, if unpleasant, to subscribe to sci.electronics.design and experience 'Robert' in full vituperative flood, or Steve Walz burning the ears off someone (often with good cause). This is what I wrote: I read in !emc-pstc that Michael Taylor <[email protected]> wrote (in <[email protected]>) about 'EMC test table construction plans', on Mon, 5 Nov 2001: > We successfully used these woods in stands that were subjected to charge > deposition in excess of 6000 micro Coulombs That doesn't sound very big. Well, it isn't, is it? It's the charge on a 600 uF capacitor charged at 10 V. Or 6 uF at 1 kV. I was hinting that the 'micro' might be suspect. >and direct lightning strikes of > 10.7MV without breakdown. Of course the appropriate design constraints > were > followed for stress equalization and gradient control. As a general rule > (if the wood is properly specified and moisture controlled) a value of > 0.76 > of Teflon can be used for calculation of properties. Value for what? Cost? (;-) What do you understand by 'a value of 0.76 of Teflon can be used for calculation purposes'? Do you not agree that the statement cannot be used unless the quantity involved is added? 'Cost?' is clearly a joke: a Teflon table would be very costly and only some very exotic wood could approach it in cost. -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Eat mink and be dreary! ------------------------------------------- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: [email protected] with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson: [email protected] Dave Heald [email protected] For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: [email protected] Jim Bacher: [email protected] All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
