Right. Harmful interference makes any classification meaningless. Cortland
====================== Original Message Follows ==================== >> Date: 25-Aug-97 18:43:26 MsgID: 1054-4643 ToID: 72146,373 From: Doug McKean >INTERNET:dmck...@paragon-networks.com Subj: Re: Antenna Calibration/Site Attenuation Chrg: $0.00 Imp: Norm Sens: Std Receipt: No Parts: 1 > From: Cortland Richmond <72146....@compuserve.com> > To: "Grasso, Charles (Chaz)" <gra...@louisville.stortek.com>; ieee pstc list <emc-p...@ieee.org> > Subject: RE: Antenna Calibration/Site Attenuation > Date: Monday, August 25, 1997 11:19 AM > > If it's mutual coupling... sure. But if it's a surface wave, that's real field > strength. If the reason for 3 meters -- an approximation of distance to the > victim receiver in a residential area -- is to be preserved, then perhaps this > is a non-issue, as the error is all on the high side, and emissions will be > reduced even lower than they would be on a ten meter site. > > (As an aside, can anyone here say if the COmmission has ever specifically ruled > on how far away from residences Class A equipment must be kept? I remember a > few years ago some chap got a NAL for operating a graphics work station in his > home... but what about separate buildings out back, etc. ?) > > Cortland It would seem that businesses run in homes would tend to violate *any* distance requirement. I believe that the wording of the labeling specifically addresses "may not cause harmful interference" which could be at any distance. ====================== End of Original Message =====================
