[email protected] wrote (in <[email protected]>) about 'Radiated emission measurement below 30MHz', on Tue, 12 Jul 2005:
>All that matters is the end result - the radiated field. This might >even come down to how it impacts the world. That's precisely what EMC is about; if the product can't reasonably produce interference, it should be permitted, like a digital watch. After all, emission LIMITS are about ALLOWING emission, capable of producing interference but only with an acceptably low probability. >Using a rule-based philosophy (think FCC) we must adhere to the rules >and the consequences do not matter much. Or, we can use virtue ethics >and it is our intent that matters. I think that the EMC community tends >towards Kant's categorical imperative, although I could be mistaken. >Perhaps we need a mix of philosophies. I haven't found one that I would >use for all of life's decisions. Anyone want to try Taoism or some >other philosophy on this issue? Enlightened self-interest works pretty well, but isn't really applicable in this case, I suppose. -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. Deadlines are 90% of deadliness. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk 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: Scott Douglas [email protected] Mike Cantwell [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
