From: John Woodgate
Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2004 1:49 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: ... And they wonder why we test...?
<snip>
~~Many of these incidents are due to individual faults, not characteristic
~~defects in a design. Type testing doesn't control this, and a faulty
~~unit may have passed production-line scan but fail later.
<snip>
I was thinking less of individual units that fail in the field, and
more of the fact that simple, everyday, devices have the capability for
significant impact. In this case a television set in an apartment building may
interfere with the ability of a search-and-rescue team to reach a survivor.
This is why we do what we do.
If we do not design, test and fix with this potential (no pun) in mind
then many of the systems that we depend on for basic services may not function.
I sometimes find that this message is difficult to get across to the
non-believer. The case described in the article speaks this message better
than any hypothetical scenario I've ever come up with!
Thanks for the additional stories.
Patrick.
This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society
emc-pstc discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to [email protected]
Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/listserv/request/user-guide.html
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Ron Pickard: [email protected]
Scott Douglas [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:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
