>-----Original Message----- >From: Mazzola, Santo [mailto:santo.mazz...@baesystems.com] >Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2003 12:21 PM >To: 'Ken Javor'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org >Subject: RE: Correlation of MIL-STD-461C and MIL-STD-461E > > > >Ken, > > I mixed up some of the procedures in my e-mail. I think you >inherently figured that out. My specific question would be >comparing the >MIL-STD-461E CE102 Basic curve performance (28 volt system) >compared against >results gotten against MIL-STD-461 class A1b (28 volt system). > I think you answered it by saying that the limits are very >close and >that with different impedances it will still depend on how >your test item >reacts to the new LISN impedance. > I guess the general question would be: Has MIL-STD-461E >turned out to be >more difficult then MIL-STD-461C or are the pass/fail rates similar. > As always really appreciate your technical expertise. > >Thank You >Sandy Mazzola >BAESYSTEMS Inc > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Ken Javor [mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com] >Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2003 2:33 PM >To: Mazzola, Santo; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org >Subject: Re: Correlation of MIL-STD-461C and MIL-STD-461E > > >In general the two versions are very close where they overlap, >but specific >answers must be on a case-by-case basis. Comparing CE03 with CE102 is >complex in terms of how the test item interacts with a LISN as >opposed to a >a feedthrough capacitor, but the limits are very close. For >RE102, there >are several different curves, dependent on platform and >Service usage, so >more specificity is necessary before rendering a judgment. > >I served on the committee which drafted MIL-STD-461E and can >likely answer >any specific questions. > >Ken Javor > >---------- >>From: "Mazzola, Santo" <santo.mazz...@baesystems.com> >>To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org >>Subject: Correlation of MIL-STD-461C and MIL-STD-461E >>Date: Wed, Jan 15, 2003, 12:27 PM >> > >> >> To all, >> >> >> I was wondering if anyone has any experience in the >correlation of >> results of MIL-STD-461 C RE02 versus MIL-STD-461E RE102. >MIL-STD-461 C >> uses a current probe and measures current while MIL-STD-461 >E uses LISN's >> and measures voltage. More specifically, would a power >supply that met >> MIL-STD-461C RE02 meet MIL-STD-461E RE102 if all other things were >> unchanged. Also has anyone any experience with correlating >MIL-STD-461C >> CS01 versus MIL-STD-461E CS101. >> I think what I am trying to find out is; has the MIL-STD-461E >version >> turned out to be more stringent or less stringent in the >areas of RE102 >and >> CS101. >> >> Thank You in advance for any responses. >> Have a great day >> >> Sandy Mazzola >> BAESYSTEMS Inc
>From the view of compliance with Test Methods CS101 and RE102, I would generally say that 461E is not more stringent than 461C. Our stuff usually passes CS101 and fails RE102, just like we always do (we're traditionalists; that is, we always make the same mistakes from program to program). OTOH, 461E is a more (justifiably) paranoid document than 461C, requiring the lab to perform and document things like automated data acquisition system calibration. In that respect, 461E is harder to perform. Regards, Ed Ed Price ed.pr...@cubic.com Electromagnetic Compatibility Lab Cubic Defense Systems San Diego, CA USA 858-505-2780 (Voice) 858-505-1583 (Fax) Military & Avionics EMC 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. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on "browse" and then "emc-pstc mailing list"
