RE: [SI-LIST] : 20H Revisited

About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

From: Alderete, Michael (MICHAEL.ALDERETE@Aerojet.com)
Date: Thu Jan 13 2000 - 14:39:50 PST


Michael,

Standing back a bit, and defining how one sees SI, EMC, e-m fundamentals,
etc., and how they relate to one another, couldn't come at a better time.

It is especially useful for those of us who are 'non-specialists', who
nevertheless follow SI-List postings fairly regularly.

This thread has been quite helpful, and I'm interested in seeing how other
'regulars' see the same issues.

Michael Alderete
Aerojet, Azusa CA USA

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Vrbanac [mailto:vrbanacm@swbell.net]
Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2000 1:59 PM
To: si-list@silab.eng.sun.com
Subject: Re: [SI-LIST] : 20H Revisited

Sainaith,

Thanks! Perhaps I should have originally said... "it was a 'non-SI' issue"
to
be more technically correct and be better understood.

I hate to be a bit contrarian here but I don't think they are" two sides of
the
same coin". The underlying theory is the same but the "disciplines" aren't.
I think there might be a bunch of folks who haven't yet figured that out.
I'll
bet you know of some brilliant SI folks who would not enjoy working with
EMC for instance. They'd be out of their league. I believe there is a
reason
for this.

Electromagnetics and field theory are the general labels for all the
underlying
physics for what we do. EMC would be a bit more specific to better define
the specific use of electromagnetics and field theory to make an electrical
device not only compatible with its environment but also with itself so that
proper operation can be insured for the subject machine and all those in its
environment. SI is even more defined and a subset of that. It is the use
of
electromagnetics and field theory to insure that the subject machine can
properly operate and deal with its own internal issues. It is usually
involving
basic functional and reliability issues and essentially works with signal
levels,
thresholds, and purity as a specialty. Maybe that's not the best
definitions
but at least its a first cut at it. (BTW, there's always room for some
exceptions.)

When one considers the "language" of SI and the "language" of EMC and also
the views, focus, and goals along with that, we find that they are different
things.
Even the simulation tools for the two are different. I have managed a group
that
did both EMC and SI so I know. People can bridge that distinction as I have
but make no mistake. They aren't the same thing. Related in some ways but
not the same.

Michael E. Vrbanac

Sainath Nimmagadda wrote:
....
>

**** To unsubscribe from si-list: send e-mail to
majordomo@silab.eng.sun.com. In the BODY of message put: UNSUBSCRIBE
si-list, for more help, put HELP.
si-list archives are accessible at http://www.qsl.net/wb6tpu
****

**** To unsubscribe from si-list: send e-mail to majordomo@silab.eng.sun.com. In the BODY of message put: UNSUBSCRIBE si-list, for more help, put HELP.
si-list archives are accessible at http://www.qsl.net/wb6tpu
****


About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Apr 20 2000 - 11:34:35 PDT