I read in !emc-pstc that Ralph McDiarmid <[email protected]> wrote (in <67C475A5ECE7D4118AEC0002B325CAB602D2F9D2@BCMAIL1>) about 'Performance Criterion' on Fri, 25 Apr 2003:
> Why would these standards call up specific levels of disturbances, voltage, > frequency and so on, and then leave the performance criteria up to the > manufacturer's interpretation? Because of the huge range of equipment covered AND the huge range of applications of many individual products (leading to different requirements for tolerable amounts of degradation), together with the enormous variety of symptoms of interference that can occur. >I would say that the evaluation of the test > is as crucial as the test setup and procedure and it should be carefully > defined. But in general it's an immense task to do that. You can see that even in the relatively restricted scope of CISPR 24, the large amount of text that is devoted to the immunity issue. -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Interested in professional sound reinforcement and distribution? Then go to http://www.isce.org.uk PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL! 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: Ron Pickard: [email protected] Dave Heald: [email protected] For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: [email protected] Jim Bacher: [email protected] Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
