I read in !emc-pstc that cherryclo...@aol.com wrote (in <92.1f676722.296 88...@aol.com>) about 'EMC-related safety issues', on Sat, 5 Jan 2002: > I am truly sorry if I irritated you by misunderstanding your words, but I > took your posting to imply that electronic circuits which are not designed > as RF receivers would not respond very well to radio frequencies.
They DON'T respond very well, if compared with a receiver. > > My example was not intended to be a full answer to your example (there are > other postings which are dealing with that) just to indicate that the > frequency response of slow and commonplace ICs can be very high indeed. Well, that is not really correct. The r.f is demodulated at the first junction (usually) and beyond that point the device is only handling the modulation, at much lower frequencies. > > I am sensitive to this issue because I keep on running across electronics > designers who say things like: "I don't need to worry about the RF > immunity > of my audio amplifier/motor > controller/temperature/pressure/flow/weight/velocity measurement and > control > system (please delete where applicable) because the opamps I use have a > GBW > of under 1MHz so they won't see the RF" which is of course complete > bollocks (a UK phrase that I hope translates well enough for all emc-pstc > subscribers). There are always some! > > 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. > > I think the problem you are concerned with is application dependant and we > cannot make such broad assumptions. As I said earlier, most interference > problems are caused by radio transmitters or radio receivers, but not all. > Well, electric fences.... -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk After swimming across the Hellespont, I felt like a Hero. ------------------------------------------- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson: pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Heald davehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
