In message <384ddcf824e208478e2aba72f5fbeb4cefa...@etsmsg-lonexm01.etsmsg.org>, dated Mon, 1 Dec 2008, [email protected] writes:
>An instrument, IMHO, should not primarily named by its application. In >this case, I would call it a test receiver, not an EMI receiver (not >good) or EMC receiver (even worse). It's also known as a 'CISPR receiver', but I've never been able to pick up any programmes from CISPR on one. I expect they'd be deadly dull anyway.(;-) -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk Either we are causing global warming, in which case we may be able to stop it, or natural variation is causing it, and we probably can't stop it. You choose! John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK - 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://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc 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]>
