Recently, on a local HW forum we discussed a case, when a device failed when placed in vicinity of a bunch of strong RF transmitters (it was above the boxes on a car raceway). The device was otherwise working well in multiple installations and passed EMC testing etc.

There were various reactions on this, the extreme said "require scuderia Ferrari to turn down their radio" :-) . Of course, he simply had to improve the EM-resistance of this particular piece (or give up but that's a shame isn't it), but that's not the point.

The point is, the designer usually tries to meet certain standards (plus perhaps the special expectations if specified), but sometimes cannot influence all the circumstances. And, if it comes to extreme conditions, it is good to have some extra "security" around, especially if it doesn't cost too much (= zero, most of the time...).

And, as usually, matter of compromise...

So, if the microchip-1232 is breathe-sensitive, it still should work OK in "properly designed" device yet keep the mcu in defined state (reset) under extreme conditions. But if the breathe-sensitivity means that it triggers false resets in a reasonably well designed board under normal working conditions, it should be avoided perhaps.

This is, where the experience comes.


Jan Waclawek