I suppose we all take a certain "pride of ownership" in those things to which we contribute, and in the following, I plead guilty to that.
MIL-STD-461D/-462D (and likewise companion standard MIL-STD-464) were the first E3-related standards (to my knowledge) to include appendices specifically devoted to giving the rationale behind both limits and test methods. The reason for including these appendices was to address precisely the situation described by Mr. Woodgate, and also to provide a basis for intelligent tailoring of both requirements and test methods, in case a particular program's needs were sufficiently different from that envisioned by the authors of the standard. If the OP had read the appendix supporting material on the use of absorber, he would have learned, in addition to it being mandatory in the main body, that the purpose was not to create an anechoic chamber, but to "detune" hi-"Q" resonances so as to make measurements a little more accurate than was previously (pre-1993) the case for MIL-STD-461. The appendix to -461 is very valuable, and the most often given response to the vast majority of questions posed concerning the standard is, "Read the appendix!" For MIL-STD-464, this is doubly so, because that standard is qualitative in nature and all the useful information is in the rationale appendix. Ken Javor Phone: (256) 650-5261 > From: John Woodgate <[email protected]> > Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2011 19:44:51 +0100 > To: <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: RE102 Vertical Ground Plane > > In message <ca8140fd.bec28%[email protected]>, dated Mon, 29 > Aug 2011, Ken Javor <[email protected]> writes: > >> To my knowledge, there has been no confusion about this topic since >> 1993. > > We are noticing this in other standards areas. 18 years on, most of the > people have changed, and what was agreed and why is becoming unknown. > This is one reason why I have taken steps to put 'preservation orders' > (called 'stabilized status') on legacy IEC TC100 standards. Other > standards committees could, with advantage, follow suit. > > In SC77A, we actually wrote a history - IEC 61000-1-4 - so that 'why' > would not be forgotten. > -- > OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk > John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK > When I point to a star, please look at the star, not my finger. The star will > be more interesting. > > - > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc > discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to > <[email protected]> > > All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: > http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ > Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. > > Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ > 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]> - ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to <[email protected]> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ 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]>
