In message <[email protected]>, dated Wed, 12 Dec 2007, Bill Stumpf <[email protected]> writes:
>There is no such thing as fully automated emissions testing! Even if there were, it would be undesirable if it just gave 'PASS' or 'FAIL' results, or very little more. Further testing would be required, in the case of 'FAIL', to find out much more detail, so that the problem could be fixed. On the other hand, 1 GB of data from every test is just unmanageable. Probably the ideal is 3 levels of results: 1. Overview - enough to see the pass margin, or diagnose the probable cause of a failure (mainly numbers); 2. More detail, but processed sensibly to be easily comprehended (graphics?); 3. ALL of the raw data, accessible to be processed in different ways, if needed. -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk For very important information, please turn over. 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
