Note: Table I not Table III. HIRF.
Cortland Richmond
KA5S
From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Cortland
Richmond
Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 9:35 PM
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: Re: RE102 Vertical Ground Plane
Excerpted:
…Anyone know ADS-37A? A really
-0400
To:
Subject: Re: RE102 Vertical Ground Plane
A lot of us here are getting to be old hands, emphasis on getting old.
I've run into newer hands not as well versed in what was once called the
"radio art" as a lot of us are. This thread is like looking at over-reliance
on &q
A lot of us here are getting to be old hands, emphasis on getting old. I've
run into newer hands not as well versed in what was once called the "radio
art" as a lot of us are. This thread is like looking at over-reliance on "the
book" to the exclusion of "good engineering practice."
I've onl
: Tue, 30 Aug 2011 09:07:06 -0400
To:
Subject: Re: RE102 Vertical Ground Plane
Hard to make a shielded room without walls.
Cortland Richmond
KA5S
(opinions mine,not my employer's)
On 8/30/2011 4:52 AM, rehel...@mmm.com wrote:
And Figures 2 and 3 of the Figures 1 through 5 cl
Hard to make a shielded room without walls.
Cortland Richmond
KA5S
(opinions mine,not my employer's)
On 8/30/2011 4:52 AM, rehel...@mmm.com wrote:
And Figures 2 and 3 of the Figures 1 through 5 clearly show a vertical
back
plane with the tabletop horizontal ground plane bonded to it (o
eee.org
Subject: Re: RE102 Vertical Ground Plane
And Figures 2 and 3 of the Figures 1 through 5 clearly show a vertical back
plane with the tabletop horizontal ground plane bonded to it (or at least it
implies a vertical back plane). It is either a vertical back plane or the
floor back plane bent
-6252
=
emc-p...@ieee.org wrote on 08/29/2011 01:13:33 PM:
> From:
>
> Ken Javor
>
> To:
>
> Untitled
>
> Date:
>
> 08/29/2011 01:17 PM
>
> Subject:
>
> Re: RE102 Vertical Ground Plane
>
> Se
the standard is, "Read the
appendix!"
For MIL-STD-464, this is doubly so, because that standard is qualitative in
nature and all the useful information is in the rationale appendix.
Ken Javor
Phone: (256) 650-5261
> From: John Woodgate
> Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2011 19:44:51 +0100
> T
In message , dated Mon, 29
Aug 2011, Ken Javor writes:
>To my knowledge, there has been no confusion about this topic since
>1993.
We are noticing this in other standards areas. 18 years on, most of the
people have changed, and what was agreed and why is becoming unknown.
This is one reason
Mon, 29 Aug 2011 05:16:59 -0500
To:
Subject: Fw: RE102 Vertical Ground Plane
> From:
> Robert E. Heller/US-Corporate/3M/US
> To:
> "Steve Ferguson"
> Cc:
> emc-p...@ieee.org
> Date:
> 08/29/2011 05:11 AM
> Subject:
> Re: RE102 Vertical Ground Plane
>
rek Walton ; reheller
Cc: emc-pstc
Sent: Mon, Aug 29, 2011 8:24 am
Subject: RE: RE102 Vertical Ground Plane
Derek,
Good point. I just know that a lot of the tailoring gets recommended by the
labs as direct support during QTP preparation. We do a lot of direct support
to manufacturers that have
Derek Walton
L F Research
-Original Message-
From: reheller
To: Steve Ferguson
Cc: emc-pstc
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)
> 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: rehel...@mmm.com [mailto:rehel...@mmm.com <mailto:rehel...@mmm.com> ]
> Sent: Monday, August 29, 2011 6:11 AM
> To:
13 matches
Mail list logo
