|
|
Michael LaFleur wrote:
There's no reason at all a one men operation couldn't
practice the same methods and processes. Build a
tester load box. Write some test code for the module
to exercise the inputs and outputs. PC controlled
instrumentation is not that expensive. Used
thermochambers are cheap at auctions. I've seen big
ones go for $500 - $1000. EMC is trickier, but it can
be done. Get a spectrum analyzer.
If I have to spend $500 - $1000, then take the time to design an experiment, then build a test box and write some code for every part of my build, it will never get built. In another post, you say that you meant this to apply only to manufacturers. Problem is that that WE are the manufacturers of our airplanes (at least that's what the FAA says). I have a stack of 'experiments' sitting on the bench, that have been sitting there for "a long time", and I expect that they'll be there a while yet. The problem is that every time I think about performing an experiment, building an actual airplane gets in the way. It has been like this for over three years now. The experiments that do get performed are ones that will have an immediate impact on the system currently under construction, and then only if there is no other way to get the data and someone else hasn't performed it.
But like you said, your only building bulkheads right now. After you've been at it a while you'll see that thinking about an experiment takes a lot less time than actually doing it. --
,|"|"|, |
----===<{{(oQo)}}>===---- Dyke Delta |
o| d |o www.ernest.isa-geek.org |
|
|