No, it is not about the rock group. It is about the doors of GR-1089-CORE. Over the last couple of days I have enjoyed observing multiple opinions and supporting evidence of the proper limit to apply to a product that has no cabinet doors (Table 3-1 Vs Table 3-2). It is clear that at minimum, the emission levels with cabinet doors open must meet the open door requirement and with cabinet doors closed must meet the closed door requirement. Perhaps this is a fine way to limit the shielding effectiveness of the enclosure so that in real life, when the doors have been removed and tossed, the threat of interference remains low. And how about "cabinet" doors. That type of language seams to indicate a large 7ft cabinet in which rack mount devices are contained. Is the actual housing/chassis of the EUT considered a "cabinet" ? There does seam to be an indication that another type of door exists - one that is not intended to be opened during EUT operation, maintenance, and/or repair. What type of door is this that remains closed during all of those circumstances. And what is the un-identified operation mode for which it is opened? And now finally for equipment that is not intended to be placed in a cabinet - maybe table-top or open-rack type. Notwithstanding the ultimate decision being driving by the RBOCs, what do you think? See some of you at the conference next week.
Regards, Dale Albright EMCI
