In message <c243b8aa.537ab%[email protected]>, dated Thu, 12 Apr 2007, Ken Javor <[email protected]> writes:
>I did not mean to imply that the 1:1 relationship is physically correct >under all conditions and most certainly not over all frequencies; I realise that. > I meant that the standard assumes a 1:1 relationship, and it is >clearer that is the case when discussing open-circuit potentials. Yes. I thought it was worthwhile mentioning that the assumption had been queried recently, not in the context of trying to mirror the real physics but simplistically, 'Should it be 1.5:1 or maybe 0.8327:1?'. -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk There are benefits from being irrational - just ask the square root of 2. John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex 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/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 ______________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email ______________________________________________________________________
