The only difference that I am aware of is that MIL-STD-461E merges -461D and 
462D into one document (list members, please correct me on this if I am in 
error.)
If you are looking for HEMP, you can refer to MIL-STD-464. It has unclassified 
requirements, but not test methods.
DB

> ----------
> From:         Darrell Locke[SMTP:[email protected]]
> Reply To:     Darrell Locke
> Sent:         Thursday, January 25, 2001 8:51 AM
> To:   'EMC-PSTC - forum' (E-mail)
> Subject:      MIL-STD-461E
> 
> 
> Dear Members,
> 
> I have received the new revision of MIL-STD-461 revision E.  It contains
> much more detail on testing to the existing requirements.  I have also been
> told by another source that it contains unclassified sections for HAEMP
> testing and parameters.  However, I do not see any reference to HAEMP in the
> E revision.  Can any of you military experts help me out here.
> 
> 1.  What are the differences between 461D and 461E?
> 
> 2.  Are there HAEMP requirements buried in the E revisions somewhere?
> 
> Thanks
>  
> Darrell Locke
> Advanced Input Devices
> 
> -------------------------------------------
> 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]

Reply via email to