Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Dan McCoy" data-source="post: 121045" data-attributes="member: 6924">Re: ESDThis is not surprising to me.&nbsp; In a former life, as an electrical engineer, I designed cockpits for a large defense aircraft company.&nbsp;&nbsp; EMI hardening was part of every design not just in the parts themselves meeting MIL spec but in the installation, wiring etc.&nbsp;&nbsp; Shielding, separation, bonding, (for various frequencies), lightning, etc. all entered into our process for both radiated and conducted emissions and susceptibility.By having the UTP entering the box you are still providing a path for the EMI to enter. Protecting all the inputs is uber critical. Or leave your standby cold and don&#039;t plug it in.&nbsp;&nbsp; It&#039;s not in the active path so that&#039;s probably why it took longer influence it but it&#039;s still getting into the box and unless faraday caged internally is likely reradiating those conducted emissions internally.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Dan McCoy, post: 121045, member: 6924"] Re: ESD This is not surprising to me. In a former life, as an electrical engineer, I designed cockpits for a large defense aircraft company. EMI hardening was part of every design not just in the parts themselves meeting MIL spec but in the installation, wiring etc. Shielding, separation, bonding, (for various frequencies), lightning, etc. all entered into our process for both radiated and conducted emissions and susceptibility. By having the UTP entering the box you are still providing a path for the EMI to enter. Protecting all the inputs is uber critical. Or leave your standby cold and don't plug it in. It's not in the active path so that's probably why it took longer influence it but it's still getting into the box and unless faraday caged internally is likely reradiating those conducted emissions internally. [/QUOTE]

Verification