Re: RF detector circuit design

I agree. According to my own experience with intrinsic safety in industrial automation, I see, that safety practice is partly based on habitual concepts (justified and unfounded assumptions), but mostly on verified scientific results. I can accept, that the former play a role, but I won't pass assumptions off as calculable quantities.

I still think modelling the problem with respect to the basic DC parameters is risky. At the microscopic level it doesn't take much energy to obliterate a semiconductor junction via static etc. Presumably there was a lot of heat generated at this microscopic level despite the puny total energy from the burst of static. In a detonator it might be possible to set off a chain reaction from a very small amount of initial energy in part of the detonator due to high voltage because the detonator may look quite complex at high RF frequencies. This could happen over the course of time eg seconds or minutes.

This is completely different from modelling and analysing the overall detonator as a simple large resistive or reactive load that obeys basic equations.

However, I know nothing about the insides of detonators so maybe the above thoughts don't apply...

I think this entire thread is troll generated anyway but its fun to read and speculate.
Of course if the detonator was some special type a lower value than normal
could arguably trigger it. But who would ask such a question without having
the specification to hand before doing so?

Of course there is also the possibility of resonance causing an issue. Whilst
theoretically possible (we dont really understand resonance in all its modes fully I dont think) I think we'd have to close our eyes and count to ten before
believing in what is very close to magic.

When it comes to assumptions however - these are always a bad idea in real
world situations.

How many people out there think a bullet can be traced back to the gun that
fired it by comparing scratch marks on it to the barrel?
I bet 99% of the western world would say thats proven to be true.

In fact it turns out to be an assumption that almost everyone has made for over 100 years.

Genuine scientific tests were never carried out until last year. It turns out this
particular "assumption" is false. You cannot scientifically match a bullet to the gun that fired it let alone (as some claim and put people behind bars with) state what "batch" of lead it came from to identify the sources.
Scientifically it turns out - this assumption is close to nonesense.

fun fun fun for some some some - and yet police forces still do it and courts
still accept it because most people still assume it can be done.
Despite the fact we now have scientific proof it can't.

Assumptions. Hmmm.

jack