Hi Folks. At the moment I'm examining as a generic case, the potential for interference with Item A (tested to comply with 3V/m radiated immunity) caused by Item B (tested to comply with FCC or EN Class A [industrial] emissions).
Using simple inverse distance ( E2 = E1 x d1/d2 ) extrapolation (assuming dominant interfering frequencies will be in the far field), I come up with a required separation distance of approximately 75cm to ensure the 3V/m immunity limit of Item A isn't exceeded by the 47dBuV/m emissions from Item B. Based on this, I'd expect then the risk for EMC problems should be relatively low provided: 1. A minimum separation of 1m was used between Items A & B; 2. No direct interconnection of A to B via cables; 3. Use of a mains filter and/or separate power supply sources for A & B; 4. The nature of Item B is such that no significant low (eg.power) frequency magnetic fields are emitted; Does anyone have any experience to suggest that the minimum separation of 1m under theses conditions would not be adequate? Thanks, Peter Poulos Design Engineer Foxboro Transportation (Invensys Rail Systems Australia) ------------------------------------------- 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.
