For the benefit of others who may read this at a later date, I will just say that I am in agreement with what Jim says here. The FCC's position on such things is well documented (albeit possibly not as enforced as it should be?).
I believe there are certain points of practicality that must prevail: The FCC position on commercial electronics acting as unlawful receivers aside, we as hams still have the responsibility to run the cleanest stations we can. This means that we should do everything practical to minimize the emission of RF in places where it does us no good. If this means taking a little extra time to re-route cables and place appropriate RFI countermeasures in place before marching our electronics back to the vendor for refunds, then it's time well spent. This also serves to reduce RF exposure to the humans and animals in our households, too. Even though we have all done our station assessments and deemed ourselves to be in compliance with the FCC's exposure guidelines (and we all have done this, right???), its always better to reduce exposure when we can. And finally, it is well known that most all commercial electronics are ridiculously susceptible to RF -- certainly more so than they should or could be. How they get away with it is a topic for another reflector. Suffice to say that if we can reduce our unintended emissions enough so as to not affect this equipment, it's likely more convenient for us. While it's well within our legal right to return this "defective" equipment, it is not always in our best interest. The time and energy spent returning the equipment, dealing with the inconvenience of finding a substitute, and/or the problems associated with not having the equipment at all, all must be accounted for. This is OT, so I'll quit for now. :-) 73 and Aloha, Dave AH6TD On Aug 23, 2010, at 5:13 PM, Jim Brown wrote: > >> Returning the computer for a refund seems a bit rash to me...the real >> problem I would think, is that there is some amount of RF at your wife's >> computing position coming from somewhere, > > NO, it is NOT harsh. She bought a computer, not a radio receiver, and it > should not act as a radio receiver. If it does, IT IS DEFECTIVE, either in > construction, or design, or both. Giving a manufacturer a pass for lousy > RFI design perpetuates the myth that it's somehow "overload." IT IS NOT. > IT IS POOR DESIGN. Never let a manufacturer make their problem your > problem. > > BTW -- if you doubt me, check out the FCC website. Their official position > is that ALL interference experienced by NON-RADIO equipment is the fault > of the victim equipment. Period. And as Chair of the Technical Committee > on RFI of the Audio Engineering Society, I can say that that position is > entirely correct from an engineering point of view. > > My RFI tutorial goes though most of the poor design, and outlines fixes > for some of them. > > 73, Jim Brown K9YC > > > ______________________________________________________________ > Elecraft mailing list > Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm > Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net > > This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net > Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html ______________________________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
