In message <bfeaa870.35479%[email protected]>, dated Wed, 11 Jan 2006, Ken Javor <[email protected]> writes
>I suggest that the opposite of that rule is necessary in the commercial >worlds. No more than one revision every five years. If the thing has >to be constantly updated and amended, it doesn't have the stature to be >called a standard in the first place. Both IEC and CENELEC are trying to do that. But it isn't always either correct or practicable, especially with EMC standards. For example, a test method may be adopted, based on a limited number of proving tests (can you say 'ferrites'? (;-)). When tried out by a much larger body of test houses, serious problems are found, backed up by new theoretical work showing why. It wouldn't be at all reasonable to say, 'we have to go on using the method for five years, even though we know it gives wrong answers.' -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk 2006 is YMMVI- Your mileage may vary immoderately. John Woodgate - 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/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: Jim Bacher: [email protected] David Heald: [email protected] All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
