Max, the amount of immunity a cable has is dependent upon the type of shielding it has and how well it is connected to the case ground. I have gone through a whole bunch of gyrations with the cable vendors I work with (my other responsibility at this company is high-speed signal cable development) in order to build EMC-tight cables.
If the cable is built and grounded well, then the likelyhood of a failure due to the effects of outside radiation is very low. Steve Chin StreamLogic Corp. Menlo Park, CA, USA -------------------------------------- List-Post: [email protected] Date: 2/13/97 2:18 PM To: Steve Chin From: Max Jon, That's great information--I also anticipate a requirement for heavy industrial immunity in the future and have been wondering what problems I might be in for. With PCs (and computers in general), isn't it the case that if the cables are shielded and grounded to the cabinet there isn't likely to be a problem? For emissions, BTW, I have also had good luck with DEC. Max Kelson [email protected] %> %>I have tested systems to the heavy industrial immunity specification which %>included class B PCs. Both HP Vectra computers and Dell computers faired %>well. Ocassionally the monitors sold with these systems are disturbed to %>the point of turning themselves off (a failure in most books). To date %>I've always been able to solve this problem by upgrading to an NEC %>multisync monitor. The key distinquinction of all these products is that %>they really do meet class B by wide margins and use very good shielding to %>get to that level. Once you have shielding that good and use digital %>techniques inside (as opposed to small signal, high impedance analog %>signals - thermocouples, etc.) heavy industrial immunity compliance is %>usually a given. %> %>Jon D. Curtis, PE %> %>Curtis-Straus LLC [email protected] %>One-Stop Laboratory for EMC, Product Safety and Telecom %>527 Great Road voice (508) 486-8880 %>Littleton, MA 01460 fax (508) 486-8828 %>http://world.std.com/~csweb %>On Wed, 12 Feb 1997, Tony Fredriksson wrote: %> %>> ------------------ RFC822 Header Follows ------------------ Received: by sledgehammer.com with SMTP;13 Feb 1997 13:57:18 -0800 Received: from ruebert.ieee.org by oz.sledgehammer.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA24215; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 13:57:34 -0800 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by ruebert.ieee.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id LAA15218 for emc-pstc-list; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:37:53 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <[email protected]> To: Jon D Curtis <[email protected]> cc: Tony Fredriksson <[email protected]>, comp_lab <[email protected]>, EMC-PSTC <[email protected]> Subject: Re: In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 12 Feb 1997 21:53:28 EST." <[email protected]> List-Post: [email protected] Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:31:30 -0700 From: Max <[email protected]> Sender: [email protected] Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Max <[email protected]> X-Resent-To: Multiple Recipients <[email protected]> X-Listname: emc-pstc X-List-Description: Product Safety Tech. Committee, EMC Society X-Info: Help requests to [email protected] X-Info: [Un]Subscribe requests to [email protected] X-Moderator-Address: [email protected]
