I've mentioned before (and stated on my resume, which is linked in the sidebar) that my primary area of professional experience is that of Electromagnetic Compatibility (EMC) engineering. At present I am (following a major plant-closure layoff where I used to work) part-timing as a lab hardware technician, but of course wanting to maintain my electrical engineering and EMC brain-connections during this rather unusual period of my life. Moreover, the whole reason I ended up specializing in EMC was because of how interesting it is -- and I expect more people would find it interesting if they actually knew about it. Thus, this post!
Anyway, the main objectives of EMC engineering are:
1) To prevent electrical/electronic devices (and their subsystems) from interfering with proper functioning of other devices (or subsystems within the same device), and
2) To design, build, and/or modify devices such that they are not unduly vulnerable to incoming interference (or self-interference at the subsystem level)
What amazes me is that I did not even know about EMC as a discipline* until I was already out of school and working as an (unspecialized, at the time) junior electrical engineer. After all, pretty much every device that enters the market has to pass an EMC test. Making sure a device will meet EMC requirements is a whole other layer of engineering beyond just having the device do what it is supposed to do from a functional standpoint.
That said, most of us living in cultures of electronic ubiquity likely have first-hand experience with EMC issues. My father was an avid amateur-radio hobbyist when I was little, and sometimes the signals associated with that equipment would end up coming through the television and random sets of speakers throughout the house. Sometimes it would just be audio interference, but (in the case of the television) visual interference was also observed on multiple occasions.
At the time I was mainly irritated at having my Zelda dungeon-crawls interrupted by bursts of scramble and garble, but part of me was also fascinated. Somehow, even though these connections were not overtly visible, all the electronic devices in my environment were interacting with one another on their own terms. Which is a notion I've had to revisit many times in the process of troubleshooting (and working to prevent in the first place) EMC issues at work.
The very nature of electromagnetism means that the only way to have a truly 100% interference-free environment is for no devices to be functioning at all -- which of course defeats the purpose of having them to begin with. Thus, EMC engineering must be performed along the lines of both optimization and compromise. I.e., in designing or modifying a device (or system of devices) you want to be able to get maximum performance while minimizing the chance of problematic emissions or vulnerability.
Some examples of situations entailing application of EMC principles are as follows:
- Many digital circuits/devices perform better when the "edge" of the square wave comprising, say, the clock signal is more defined. However, since square waves are generated via Fourier series implementation, you can end up hurting EMC performance if you simply attempt to make the edge of your signal as "sharp" as possible.
Waveforms with more gradual "edges" (such as sine waves) are much more EMC-friendly in this regard than square waves; the lack of steep/discontinuous slopes means fewer harmonic components at problematic amplitudes. There are some devices on the market that actually can operate with a sinusoidal clock, however, this is certainly not always going to be the case. Therefore, a design optimized for EMC and data integrity will often need to establish some compromise between a "nice-looking edge" and a signal whose harmonic components are within reasonable limits for EMC performance. This might entail anything from changing a resistor value (to alter a time constant) to changing the manner in which the data is transmitted (e.g., implementing differential conductor pairs).
- Say you have an electronic device housed in a metal enclosure or chassis. If the housing is intended to provide shielding as well as protection from dust and mechanical injury, etc., then you are going to have to consider such factors as "how large can I make the ventilation holes without compromising shield integrity?" You are also going to have to make sure and specify what parts of the enclosure and any associated fasteners should be left free of paint, because in some cases the circuit ground needs to be able to make good contact with the enclosure.
- A new circuit board is being created. Not only does the right number of layers to accommodate all the relevant signals need to be determined, but also the arrangement of those layers. E.g., where should the ground planes be located in relation to the signal planes?
- You install DSL internet in your apartment and afterward hear an obnoxious buzzing whenever you go to use the phone. Usually internet providers will include filters with your modem package, but if not, you can probably find them at a local electronics store or order them online.
Of course there are many other examples I could list here, but this is meant to be an "introduction to the subject" post so I will stop with those. The point of all this, though, is essentially to illustrate that while some aspects of EMC engineering definitely require a lot of deep technical analysis, there is also a very practical, everyday level on which EMC is relevant to pretty much everyone who is likely to be reading this (meaning, anyone who uses and/or lives in an area where multiple electronic devices are expected to peacefully coexist).
* Some may consider EMC to be a sub-discipline/offshoot of RF engineering, and it definitely overlaps somewhat with signal integrity as well.
10 comments:
Isn't that illegal? Because electronics all say they have to accept all interference no matter what. Isn't it illegal, then, to make them so they don't?
Oh and I forgot to sign my comment. It's H.
Fascinating post! So given what you know about EMC, do you think it is possible that cell phones on planes can interfere with the plane's electronics? My take has always been that if there really truly was any evidence that they could, there would be a much more stringent procedure for ensuring phones are off than just telling people to turn them off.
> To prevent electrical/electronic
> devices (and their subsystems)
> from interfering with proper
> functioning of other devices
> (or subsystems within the same
> device)
I had an unfortunate taste of this quite recently.
I purchased a (used) Class D power amplifier for one of my stereo systems. As you may know, a Class D amp is quite different from a traditional amp using either solid state or vacuum tube output stages as linear amplifying devices. A Class D amp switches its output devices on and off at an ultrasonic frequency (hundreds of kilohertz up to megahertz) in a "duty cycle" corresponding to the amplitude of the audio input signal (it's called "pulse-width modulation", as you no doubt know).
Anyway, I own and use several Class D amps based on Tripath chips, and they sound great IMO, but I wanted to try out another design -- in this case, a B&O "ICEpower"-based design. So the amp incorporating the ICEpower modules is an H2O S-100, bought, as I say, used on a trading site called Audiogon.
So the amp arrived, and I hooked it up, and to cut to the chase, it **fried** two (in a row!) D-to-A converters **upstream** of the amp, while leaving the entire rest of the system (including two intervening components -- an active crossover and a preamp, both tube-based) undamaged. The amp's designer says he's never heard of such a thing, but since I subsequently found evidence (the audibility of loose components rattling around in the case) that the amp may have been damaged in shipment, it's going back to the manufacturer for repair (the seller has generously agreed to reimburse me for the cost -- there was no obvious external damage, so I doubt I'd have a claim against the shipper).
My best (barely educated) guess is that the ultrasonic switching signal from the (undoubtedly malfunctioning) amp leaked out through its **inputs** back through the crossover and the preamp (leaving them unaffected, possibly because they're tube units) and into the **outputs** of the D/A converter(s), frying some or all of their (solid state) circuitry. The power supplies in the DACs seem OK (the front-panel LEDs come on, and the line fuses didn't blow). Neither DAC will sync to an incoming S/PDIF signal, so at least the S/PDIF receiver chips are likely blown. How much of the rest of the digital and/or analog circuitry is also blown I do not know. **Both** DACs had that exquisite smell of cooked electronics after the adventure.
Electromagnetic interference, indeed! It's gonna cost me to have those two DACs fixed. I'm just lucky nothing else was fried (including the speakers and subwoofer). The system continues to play, using an older (Tripath) Class D amp, and a third D/A converter ahead of the preamp and crossover.
H., it is not ALL electronics that need to accept ALL interference of all types/levels. For one thing, there's sort of a priority hierarchy. As in, regulatory entities may set different limits for different types of devices, Consider, for instance, the situation in a hospital where you have some sort of life-support machine operating. You are not likely to see that same kind of FCC sticker on the life support machine, because obviously it is more important for that machine to operate than for someone's portable CD player to operate in that room (not that those two things would necessarily interfere with each other, but you get the idea).
Basically, the disclaimer you see about having to accept interference is there so people using (mainly) "consumer electronics"-type items don't get the idea that they can complain about interference caused by, say, police/fire signals, and also because there is really only so much you can do (especially within particular cost/material constraints) to make interference a complete non-issue. It is, therefore, pretty normal for people to have to do things like be careful what things they are plugging into the same outlet in their house and have to orient or arrange their various home electronics differently. It would be impractical to design and build absolutely everything to not interfere with anything else or be vulnerable to interference from anything else. A lot of it is therefore about compromise and gradually just figuring out what makes the most sense to protect the most.
CPP: Regarding cell phone interference, as far as I know the EMC consensus is that there is a *small* chance for cellular/wireless devices to specifically interfere with aspects of the plane's navigation systems. You are right, though, that if that were actually a terrible risk more stringent measures would likely be taken.
Really the main reason (as far as I know) that people are told to turn off their phones is because cell phones can get "confused" when they can see multiple towers simultaneously. This can result in, among other things, your service being shut off because the phone "thinks" it may have been stolen or something. I don't know why they don't just tell people that on planes, though...maybe they figure it's tl;dr for most passengers or something. But the short version is basically that turning off your phone while a plane is landing is generally much more about protecting your phone service than about protecting the plane!
(reply to jimf, part I):
jimf wrote:
I purchased a (used) Class D power amplifier for one of my stereo systems. As you may know, a Class D amp is quite different from a traditional amp using either solid state or vacuum tube output stages as linear amplifying devices. A Class D amp switches its output devices on and off at an ultrasonic frequency (hundreds of kilohertz up to megahertz) in a "duty cycle" corresponding to the amplitude of the audio input signal (it's called "pulse-width modulation", as you no doubt know).
Yep, I've heard of Class D amps and PWM. Never played with them on stereo systems, though.
Anyway, I own and use several Class D amps based on Tripath chips, and they sound great IMO, but I wanted to try out another design -- in this case, a B&O "ICEpower"-based design. So the amp incorporating the ICEpower modules is an H2O S-100, bought, as I say, used on a trading site called Audiogon.
Okay, now you're speaking "audiophile"...I've never heard of Audiogon or the designs of which you speak, so I will have to take your word that that sort of thing can make a difference sound-wise! :P
So the amp arrived, and I hooked it up, and to cut to the chase, it **fried** two (in a row!) D-to-A converters **upstream** of the amp, while leaving the entire rest of the system (including two intervening components -- an active crossover and a preamp, both tube-based) undamaged.
o_0 o_0...wow. How bizarre. But not entirely unsurprising the tube-based stuff survived! Any idea what the D-to-A converters were (as in, what chip/model no.)?
The amp's designer says he's never heard of such a thing, but since I subsequently found evidence (the audibility of loose components rattling around in the case) that the amp may have been damaged in shipment, it's going back to the manufacturer for repair...
Ew, yeah...rattling is generally not a good sign. At my last job we actually had a qualification test for new units that literally involved shaking them upside-down to make sure there weren't any loose parts or metal bits. This was important not just because it's bad for stuff to be loose, but because even a tiny piece of metal (e.g., a component lead that was cut off during assembly) can result in nasty short-circuits if it happens to fall across a PCB or set of connector pins, etc.
My best (barely educated) guess is that the ultrasonic switching signal from the (undoubtedly malfunctioning) amp leaked out through its **inputs** back through the crossover and the preamp (leaving them unaffected, possibly because they're tube units) and into the **outputs** of the D/A converter(s), frying some or all of their (solid state) circuitry.
I couldn't say for sure without examining the hardware myself, but your conjecture at least sounds reasonable.
(reply to jimf, part 2):
...**Both** DACs had that exquisite smell of cooked electronics after the adventure.
Heh, I am *quite* familiar with that smell. Its presence generally prompts at least a few cracks about how one has "let the magic smoke out" [of the electronics].
Electromagnetic interference, indeed! It's gonna cost me to have those two DACs fixed. I'm just lucky nothing else was fried (including the speakers and subwoofer). The system continues to play, using an older (Tripath) Class D amp, and a third D/A converter ahead of the preamp and crossover.
Well, good it continues to play with the old bits at least. Though I am not sure you've experienced an EMI/EMC issue so much as a "poor circuit protection" issue, which would (in my experience) fall in the realm of survivability/reliability. EMC principles definitely factor into designing against things like what you experienced, though...I am wondering whether perhaps (in addition to any physical damage to the device, per your suspicion) someone didn't take differing ground potentials (between, say, the tube parts and the digital comps) into account and set the scene for a voltage to build up somewhere it shouldn't have.
(This is especially likely if the burnout happened right when the system was first plugged in and connected.) Good luck getting it properly repaired, at any rate...
I have read of people making aluminum foil beanies for themselves, to stop the alien mind-control rays. I have always poo-pooed that silliness, thinking that if they knew what they were doing, they would make them out of mu-metal.
What can you tell us about mu-metal and its ability (or lack thereof) to block magnetic influences?
So, I take it you would consider it rude behavior on my part to construct and use an old-fashioned spark-gap transmitter? (Snork!)
Post a Comment