On 9/30/2016 12:04 PM, Ken Javor wrote:
Was the original post that started this long thread saying that Part 15 wasn't enough, we also needed immunity requirements, or as I understood it, that Part 15 limits weren't low enough?
The latter, sort of, but I added immunity (15.17) as a warranty item I'd like to see.
Here's the original: Hey Gang, I know we have all discussed "part 15 isn't enough", particularly when we have talked about things like Solar systems I was wondering - What if you were to say "System shall be compliant with MIL-STD-461F, parts CE106, CS103,104,105,114,115,116 RE 102 and RS 103, 105" Think that should cover it? Gives them an objective system of numbers to work with 73 de KG2V Charlie Cortland KA5S - ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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]>
