In message <d7b00ba5b5a75d44abb5117414b1341b03411...@eld-exch1.europe.echostar.com>, dated Mon, 2 Nov 2009, "Pawson, James" <[email protected]> writes:
>Does anyone have any thoughts / experience that they could share on >these points? The requirements in the standards are wholly pragmatic - they are achievable without unacceptable difficulty. But they certainly don't represent a realistic exposure to a real field from a distant source. However, like the immunity limits, they have been found to work. So do it the way the standard says. If you have the time and money to do additional tests to explore the matters that you mention, no-one will stop you. But no-one is likely to change the standards, either. -- 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 Help stamp out intolerance! - 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]>
