On Jan 31, 1:14*pm, RHF wrote:
On Jan 31, 10:34*am, wrote:
-
- This link has the single best explanation of why
- the EMI radiation and emission levels were set
- at their current specifications.
-
- See page 2 of the PDF.
-
- http://www.edn.com/contents/images/81915.pdf
-
- Terry
-

Terry/SWLer,

EMI and Emissions: Rules, Regulations, and Options
http://www.edn.com/contents/images/81915.pdf

Wow 7 Pages and all too Technical for my little Brain
to Absorb in one Reading : So I will have to go back at
least 2~3 times to get a better understanding of it all.

Why not Tighten-Up the RFI/EMF/EMC Part 15 Regs by 1/3
for 5 Years; and then tighten that up by another 1/3 of that for
5 Years; with with a final 1/3 of those. *Over the course of 15
Years you would end-up-with a new Reduced RFI/EMF/EMC
Level-of-Acceptance that would be 30% of the current Standard.
Allows for long term Product and Process Improvement over
a normal Manufacturing and Technological Change Cycle.

IMHO - Practically speaking for the average Consumer that
uses Over-the-Air TV and AM/FM Radio along with Cable TV
and Satellite TV/Radio the Standard has NOT Changed. *The
only significant RFI/EMF/EMC Improvement for them has been
the migration to and the use of Quad-Shield RG-6 Coax Cable
from the old Single Shield RG59 Coax Cable.

~ RHF
*.
-ps- Telamon be sure to Count* this as another one
of my 'Clueless Posts' -cause- IT IS ! ;-{
Plus Extra Credit for the : Cut, Copy and Paste Stuff. )
* Rec.Radio.Shortwave Newsgroup Readers :
Please I Need Your Votes ! -and- I Want Your Votes !
In this Weeks Race for the RRS "Clueless Troll" Award.
*.


Telamon,

This Message and Thread Needed both
Your Vast Knowledge and Great Expertise.


but alas you were once again 'mia' ~ RHF


-ps- that's 13 for me and 0 for you