Regarding the snip below. The fact that it is a radio that is the victim is still the salient factor here. The emissions in close to the lamp are higher than at three meters, but only enough higher to affect a radio, nothing else. Regarding the thermocouple based incubator issue (sensitivity on the order of uV). If the sensitivity is truly at the level of uV, then yes this device could respond to lower level emissions, IF the pickup mechanism were of the same efficiency as a radio antenna. If it is not, and they actually took some pains to shield the wiring, then it should have a little more immunity. But I said before, and I don't believe was rebutted on this, that if the device was susceptible at or near CISPR22/FCC limits, then it should never have worked from the get-go, as anyone who has ever made measurements on an OATS would understand.
1/7/02 6:49 AM, cherryclo...@aol.com at cherryclo...@aol.com wrote: Secondly maybe when you wrote the above you weren't thinking of the previous correspondence in this thread about the proximity of the low-energy lamp to a bedside radio. Yes, I know, this concerned a radio receiver, what I mean to draw your attention to is the discussion about the intention and validity of the EMC standards they simply do not cover situations where devices are placed close to each other so they cannot be relied upon to provide compatibility in such situations. Military EMC standards are more thorough in this respect.
