In message <051020071739.1736.464358DD000819DA000006C82200760180CECE020A900A02@comca st.net>, dated Thu, 10 May 2007, [email protected] writes:
>I do not sit on these standards and I am in no way associated with the >committees. All my observations are coming from reading the standards >and papers, my personal experience with issues observed on many >projects across many companies worldwide, and from my lab work trying >to measure and understand these issues, especially conversion >mechanisms and balance in the Ethernet and other high-speed >differential-signaling world. And isn't THAT really the problem? The standards committees NEED people like you, to comment on the absence of clothes on the Emperor. In many countries, it's very difficult to 'break into the circle' to get your voice heard, first at National Committee level and then, when necessary, at international level. It's somewhat easier in UK, but it could be made easier. It's a case where 'what you know' and 'who you know' are complementary. If you can't get on to the appropriate committee, but you know someone who is a member, can you convince them of your case? I don't mean just a phone call or an e-mail, but a properly-reasoned and structured Word document [1], preferably no more than 1500 words, that can be submitted to the committee without a lot more work. With regard to the particular subject of balanced circuits, there is (or was) a problem for people with POTS experience, where a CMRR of 46 dB is 'highly balanced', who have to learn that conditions are different in other fields. This presented a difficulty for professional audio people, whose balanced circuits often have to have a CMRR of 80 dB or better. When you get to this level of performance, there is no question of breaking into the circuit; only non-invasive methods are satisfactory. [1] Structure: 1. Introduction [you need to explain the background to people outside your field] 2. The problem [define any special technical terms and abbreviations] Don't include complaints! 3. Proposed solution [you usually get a much better reception of you propose a solution rather than just dumping the problem on the committee] -- 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 ______________________________________________________________________
