In message <[email protected]>,
dated Sat, 12 Sep 2015, "ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen"
<[email protected]> writes:
A Ham never can be a source of interference, by definition (if they
respect their limits- in more than one way).
It is clearly not true, given the unlimited lack of immunity exhibited
by some products. Immunity isn't even controlled in the Americas.
To me an amateur is not a HAM, but that is a matter of language I
suppose.
Yes. 'Amateur' is the larval form. (;-)
My example showed a (spiced up) example of lack of immunity in a
professional audio installation , that due pragmatic testing, too
cables with average screening properties
Was it definitely due to cables? Much professional PA equipment is none
too good on immunity. And there are far too many installations that
don't exclusively use balanced lines.
--
OOO - Own Opinions Only. With best wishes. See www.jmwa.demon.co.uk
When I turn my back on the sun, it's to look for a rainbow
John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK
-
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion
list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to <[email protected]>
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used
formats), large files, etc.
Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas <[email protected]>
Mike Cantwell <[email protected]>
For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher: <[email protected]>
David Heald: <[email protected]>
