Dear John In previous postings from Ken Javor and myself, I believe that Ken (who I was replying to in the fragment below) has made it clear that what he is really concerned with is "the kinds of emissions controlled by CISPR 22 and Title 47, part 15B of the US Code of Federal Regulations" (I hope I have got this right, Ken!).
In earlier postings I believe that Ken complained that I was widening the definition to include such things as the unintentional emissions from welding apparatus (I didn't think of your electric fence example). I think John's comments emphasise a point I made earlier in this correspondence, which is that we need to be very careful in an international forum when using terms like "unintentional emitter". Such terms can have specific definitions in some EMC standards or Regulations in some countries, but they can also have a wider EMC engineering usage, such as that mentioned by John below. Confusion is possible unless we are more precise. Regards, Keith Armstrong In a message dated 05/01/02 21:01:28 GMT Standard Time, j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk writes: > > And no, I still don't agree with you that only radio receivers are > sensitive > > enough to RF to have a problem with what you are still calling > > 'unintentional emissions' (even though this term means very little in > an > > international forum unless you define the relevant standards or laws). > > I think this term is quite legitimate and well-understood. If the > equipment requires to emit in order to perform its intended function, it > is an 'intentional emitter'. If it does not need to do so, but emits > anyway, it is an 'unintentional emitter'. It is difficult to see how > there could be any confusion or ambiguity about this.
