From: bill.sloman@ieee.org
On 4/12/2025 3:18 pm, Joerg wrote:
> On 12/3/25 6:37 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
>> On 3/12/2025 12:25 pm, Joerg wrote:
>>> On 12/1/25 8:48 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
>>>> On 2/12/2025 5:05 am, Joerg wrote:
>>>>> On 11/29/25 9:38 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
>>>>>> On 30/11/2025 6:17 am, Joerg wrote:
>>>>>>> On 11/29/25 3:38 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
>>> IOW EMC work isn't very innovative. It's reactive.
>>
>> That's one way of looking at it. If you begin a design with EMC in
>> mind, you can anticipate a lot of problems. If you have a nasty fast
>> waveform to ship around, making a it half of a balanced drive and
>> shipping it around with with its complement on shielded twisted pair
>> (or paired off in a ribbon cable) can make life a lot easier.
>>
>> The junior engineers get the message fast if they see you making the
>> design messier and more extravagant than they would have done.
>>
>
> Problem is, consultants are perceived as expensive (they really aren't),
> so they get called in after all that. When stuff has hit the fan, when a
> hardcore fail at the EMC lab has happened. Then you are correcting
> mistake after mistake after mistake.
>
> If they had pulled us in at the beginning it wouldn't have happened.
If they had known enough to realise that they needed to pull us in, they
probably wouldn't have needed to pull us in.
The reactionless drive thread may be a more extreme example of the problem.
It is theoretically possible that they may have lucked onto to something
real, but the likeliest explanation of what's going on is that they
started off not knowing enough about how their measurements could go
wrong, and have now modified them to generate even bigger errors than
they started off with.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
