In a message dated 8/19/2005 3:12:03 PM GMT Daylight Time, [email protected] writes:
Indeed the software does what it is designed to do, but that doesn't mean that the design is correct. I also use software that (when using drive tables from the field calibration) advances to the next frequency and then adjusts the drive. As was mentioned previously, the proper way of doing this would be to check the drive level for the next frequency. If the drive level is higher, advance to the next frequency, then change the drive level. If the drive level is lower, change the drive level and then advance the frequency. This is how I did it in my previous life where I "rolled my own" RF immunity test software. To get around this, I could take advantage of a feature of the software I'm now using - turning the RF off between each step. Unfortunately, this accelerates wear on the electromechanical attenuator. So I use this only when I need to, but I shouldn't need to. HI Don, professional software you can just about put money on it's correct. Apart from it's professionally written, when you have a significant install base, that gets rolled into the software. One of the things that in-house software just can't compete with. I want to stress... setting the software up is critical. Even the best software needs to be set up for the instruments it's controlling. There are tricks that SW vendors use to improve the process of level prediction: some of which are quite complex. The more major SW vendors do integration on site to help problems like this. But this all goes back to why an automated test differs from a manual test... the original post. The standard is currently deficient in the way the test should be run. As a result, implementation of the test produces differing results. Perhaps standards should be written by folks that actually run tests.... Having worked on come committees, it's fascinating to see opinions/political positions override facts and experience. Ah well, I've probably set myself up to be shot, again... Cheers, Derek Walton L F Research. ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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
