Good People, Some background of the political environment for Yankee engineering.
Europeans expect to get their technical and philosophical sensibilities returned from their states. Their assumption is valid more oft than not because the state is small and the bureaucracy is relatively responsive and somewhat competent. Also, the executive of most EU states respond to the electorate as only parliamentary systems may (note the recent and rapid changes in Australia and UK). The American electorate, which is not necessarily the constituency , is insular and is loath to listen to the technical specialist. The technocracy does not trust the politicos, the politico thinks her constituency is ignorant and at times will intentionally misinform her constituency , and the constituency cannot afford to grant any significant level trust to anyone. And since there is no legitimate remaining 'Fourth Estate' in America, the ability of any group to discern and afford trust to any other group is limited. Americans cannot assume that the state is able to competently administer and implement; so any extension of technology regulations are greeted with caution and mistrust. Other than that, things are great - the local ales are damn good, and the burritos are most excellent. Brian From: dward [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2015 11:38 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question As a US citizen my premise on any government involvement is to make it as impossible or as hard for them to regulate anything as can be. This includes EMC, immunity or any other thing. Too many fall under the idea that personal safety outweighs personal freedom. That may work in a socialist type environment, but not in here. Dennis Ward From: John Allen [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2015 11:01 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question Ravinder W.r.t. your 2nd para, the 1st sentence is roughly what I said in an earlier post - but the 2nd sentence could be a misleading assumption because of what you said in the 1st para (and what I also said in my earlier post about bean counting for the US market!) ☹ John Allen W.London, UK -----Original Message----- From: Ravinder Ajmani [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 15 September 2015 18:51 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question Pardon my skepticism, but I have very little faith on the US industries self-enforcing any kind of regulations. When Wall Street analysts expect public companies to show higher profits quarter after quarter, lowering the cost becomes the key driver. However most US companies ship their products overseas, and almost all of these countries have some form of immunity requirements, similar to the EU regulations. Hence one can assume that the products built in US are designed to meet these requirements. The sad thing is that in until the eighties US was leading the world on EMC requirements, but now has fallen behind. My personal view. Regards Ravinder Ajmani HGST, a Western Digital company [email protected] 5601 Great Oaks Parkway San Jose, CA 95119 www.hgst.com -----Original Message----- From: Gary McInturff [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2015 9:16 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question Well not really John - ANSI has no regulatory authority but money does. A business isn't likely to simply add either NRE cost or cost per unit without justification - poor product performance, competitive advantage, regulation. Poor performance isn't even a clean definition - if I have one failure out of 10,000 because of ESD for example - just ship them another one etc. My personal opinion is that proper operation in the field is as important as any other functional specification but whether it's done through self-enforcement or governmental regulation is a thorny question. -----Original Message----- From: John Woodgate [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, September 14, 2015 11:38 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question In message <[email protected]>, dated Mon, 14 Sep 2015, Ed Price <[email protected]> writes: >True, the FCC is essentially still following the Communications Act of >1934 in its scope. However, telegraph rates aren?t so important >anymore, while the issue of consumer electronics immunity certainly is. >We expect our laws and regulations to evolve to address the important >issues of the day, junking the obsolete and helping with new conflicts. It is interesting that the US (ANSI) participates fully in the IEC committees on immunity, having four experts on each and holding the Convenership of one. Immunity is for other people, right?just -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. With best wishes. See www.jmwa.demon.co.uk When I turn my back on the sun, it's to look for a rainbow 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.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) 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]>
