Hi Bob, just so we are clear, the tailoring is for the procurement agencies, not the test labs. Ken is likely to correct me here if I'm wrong.
Mil Tests should really be run to a QTP, approved by the procuring agencies: usually thats the prime contractor, though for bigger systems that may mean the DOD too. My humble opinion is that the manufacturer should prepare the QTP. Only he/she/it really knows the EUT. Though as a test lab, we like to offer our expertise. I know of no MIL test that requires a vertical ground plane. I have nothing nice to say about the IRS.... Cheers, Derek Walton L F Research -----Original Message----- From: reheller <[email protected]> To: Steve Ferguson <[email protected]> Cc: emc-pstc <[email protected]> Sent: Mon, Aug 29, 2011 6:29 am Subject: RE: RE102 Vertical Ground Plane Agreed on the tailoring and it has to be that way. As I have often said about the IRS (Internal Revenue Service in the US), you never ever want to ask the IRS for a tax explanation because then you will run into the danger of knowing for certain. : ) Bob Heller 3M EMC Laboratory, 76-1-01 St. Paul, MN 55107-1208 Tel: 651-778-6336 Fax: 651-778-6252 ================================= "Steve Ferguson" <[email protected]> wrote on 08/29/2011 05:59:46 AM: > From: > > "Steve Ferguson" <[email protected]> > > To: > > <[email protected]> > > Cc: > > <[email protected]>, "Mike Violette" <[email protected]> > > Date: > > 08/29/2011 05:59 AM > > Subject: > > RE: RE102 Vertical Ground Plane > > Bob, > > I tend to agree that to pick and choose may not the best approach. > Tailoring is supported by the standard and I believe that includes > taking necessary steps to properly evaluate the test article. This > includes adjustments of limits, employing transducer options and > configuring for unique/difficult installation simulation. The more > tailoring that is incorporated, the more demanding for detail in the > report so the approach taken is well documented. > > Since the RE102 reference indicates to maintain the same basic test > setup I believe that we have to take that as tailoring is allowed. > > Steven G. Ferguson, iNCE > Executive V.P. > [email protected] > V 301-216-1500 x 112 > C 240-401-7177 > F 301-216-1590 > > Please check our website (www.wll.com) for Wl Academy Seminars or > contact me with any questions! > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> ] > Sent: Monday, August 29, 2011 6:11 AM > To: Steve Ferguson > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: RE102 Vertical Ground Plane > > Thanks Steven. that was my take as well. The problem comes in > because the RE-102 procedure references the Figures and a reference > is a reference unless it states that portions of the reference are > to be ignored. If we are allowed to start to "pick and choose" the > parts of the procedures or references that we like or dislike then > there is no sense in writing the procedure. > > Bob Heller > 3M EMC Laboratory, 76-1-01 > St. Paul, MN 55107-1208 > Tel: 651-778-6336 > Fax: 651-778-6252 > ================================= > > > From: > > "Steve Ferguson" <[email protected]> > > To: > > <[email protected]> > > Cc: > > "Mike Violette" <[email protected]> > > Date: > > 08/28/2011 03:26 PM > > Subject: > > RE102 Vertical Ground Plane > > > > > > > [image removed] > Bob, > > I reviewed the test configuration MIL-STD-461F figures (Figure 1 and > Figure 2) you mentioned and in my opinion it was not the intent to > imply a vertical ground plane. The figure are carry-overs from > early revisions and the goal was to provide a generic sketch of the > ground plane layout. The vertical portion represents the anechoic > chamber wall (note that there is no RF absorber in the sketch). > Reading the associated text, there is no mention of a vertical plane. > > If a vertical plane were incorporated, the desired effect for the > anechoic material would be negated. I believe that the generic > sketch used in the standard should be used for layout guidance only. > > Please contact me if you want to discuss or need more information. > > Steven G. Ferguson, iNCE > Executive V.P. > Washington Laboratories, Ltd > 7560 Lindbergh Drive > Gaithersburg, MD 20879 > [email protected]\ > V 301-216-1500 x 112 > C 240-401-7177 > F 301-216-1590 > > Please check our website (www.wll.com) for Wl Academy Seminars or > contact me with any questions! > - ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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]>
