4 ms·
> It even has a “tinfoil hat” to prevent RF interference Isn't this a problem in the US, being against the famous part 15 of the FCC rules: «Operation is subj
by gioele 12y ago
> It even has a “tinfoil hat” to prevent RF interference
Isn't this a problem in the US, being against the famous part 15 of the FCC rules:
«Operation is subject to the following two conditions: (1) this device may not cause harmful interference, and (2) this device must accept any interference received, including interference that may cause undesired operation.»
- yen223 12y agoHuh, interesting. What's the rationale behind the 2nd condition?
- DanBC 12y agoYou have to design devices such that they don't fail when subject to interference. Put a mobile phone near a radio, send a text. You hear some burbling. Imagine that burbling is picked up by an insulin pump - you don't wan the pump to increase or decrease the dose based on that burble. See also analogue mobile phones which used to affect some gas station pump billing readouts. (CertInly some CB radios used to, whih caused bans, and phones are still banned in some stations today).
- yen223 12y agoI think I misread that. It's supposed to mean "this device must be able to accept any interference received"?
- nightcracker 12y agoI'm fairly sure that the "accept" does not refer to "absorb without any countermeasures". It's a bit poorly worded. I think it refers to the fact that if your device fails due to interference below the legal limit it is your problem to fix, not the device that generated the interference.
- dfox 12y agoI always assumed that it refers to the fact that interference under certain limit should not permanently destroy the device even when such interference may cause the device to behave erratically.
- roeme 12y agoYou got it in the reverse; the shielding is to ensure conformance. It's part of the device.