Talk:MIL-STD-810

Lack of sources in the "Applicability to Consumer Products" section

The Applicability to Consumer Products section contains strong statements that are not supported by sources. In particular, it states that many manifacturers do not actually perform tests. The reference given at the end of the section, however, states only:

Note, however, that the MIL-STD-810G does not mandate standards or set minimum goals for the various tests; for the most part it simply describes how testing is to be conducted. This leaves considerable room for interpretation, and it is therefore important for manufacturers of rugged notebooks to provide detailed information on what tests were conducted, how exactly they were conducted, what the results were, and what those results actually mean. The claim that a product is "MIL-STD-810G tested" is not enough, and prospective customers should ask for more detail.

I suggest either adding more sources for supporting the stronger statement or editing the section --Cricecio (talk) 11:08, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Remove advertisements?

File:Systel Inc twin server.JPG

Systel Inc Extreme Industrial 1U rack mount Twin server passed the Mil STD 810F 514.5,516.5& 520.2 for Temp, Shock & Vibration

The Applicability to Consumer Products section seems to have been used as an advertising section, which seems inappropriate. Should it be removed? Ed (talk) 19:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it seems intro to the section sais it all - the claims made by consumer product manufacturers are not verifiable and there are so many these days they are no longer even notable. --Miikka Raninen (talk) 07:04, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Removed yet another product endorsement. The world is full of products claiming 'MIL-STD-810 compliance'. See the article why this is not verifiable or notable. Unless you have some really good reason why mentioning a certain product illustrates or enhances the subject matter of this article, please don't add any more of these:

Removed "Tone" tag due to lack of discussion

Couldn't figure out what the "Tone" tag was complaining about, and whomever put it there didn't comment on the talk page. So I removed it. --John Nagle (talk) 19:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Corrected a lot of the verbiage about what MIL-STD-810 actually is. There is too much smoke and sloppy talk about this in the commercial world, and companies are using it to mean all manner of things that it's not. I could have a MIL-STD-810 banana here on my desk, who cares? Altaphon (talk) 23:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Electromagnetic compatibility

Just curious, but doesn't the MIL-STD-810 standard also have two other sections for communications and computing equipment, which address tolerances for operating with EMF interference present, and the survivability of the same equipment to EMP pulses? 75.192.161.86 (talk) 20:11, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

No, MIL-STD-810 does not deal with anything electromagnetic. Have a look at MIL-STD-461. --Miikka Raninen (talk) 07:04, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

No list of test labs

The list of some labs for performing 810 tests is a WP:LINKFARM. Wikipedia is not a commercial shopping list or a listing of qualified laboratories. See WP:EL, WP:SPAM, and WP:NOT#LINK for guidance. The list needs to go. Even when a company is in a list in Wikipedia, it needs to have proper citations to Wikipedia:Independent sources; links to corporate web pages are not Reliable Sources. Pkgx (talk) 16:15, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on MIL-STD-810. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130105021512/http://www.everyspec.com/DEF-STAN/DEFSTAN00-35_I4_4084/ to http://www.everyspec.com/DEF-STAN/DEFSTAN00-35_I4_4084/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:33, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Certification to 810?

In the section of “Applicability to ruggedized consumer products”, an editor has suggested that one company referenced 810 in a communication. I have removed that statement.

1. The claim that a company may have used part of MIL-STD-810 is not important and does not add to the content of this article. We all know that 810 is widely used by industry and government.

2. The claim is not referenced. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources.

3. MIL-STD-810 is Test Method Standard. It is neither a technical specification nor a purchasing document. It describes how to conduct some tests in general terms: it does not usually provide a sampling plan nor acceptance limits for the results of a test. It discusses test methods and does not impose design or test specifications. It does not imply “fitness for use”. Thus the claim that a company has used subsections of 810 as part of their own test plan is not close to specific and has no real meaning.

You cannot certify or conform with 810. Rlsheehan (talk) 21:26, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

• Please use the Talk page for a discussion. You have not addressed the issues. For example, corporate advertising is not a Reliable Source. Rlsheehan (talk) 02:33, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
• The material on a possible use of 810 by Apple has been challenged for relevance, verifiability, and need. The editor has not responded to this talk page, tags on the edit, or a note oh the editor's talk page. I am deleting this material. Rlsheehan (talk) 01:27, 24 September 2022 (UTC)