Re: Liberty CRD Diesel '06: Interference with 2m radio transmissions
So, why isn't there rf shielding in cars, at least as an option? Routing
noisy circuits through shielded cable or conduit has long been known. Again, autos continue to be designed as cheaply as they can get away with instead of no-compromise construction, regardless of model hierarchy, how much you overpay or how loudly they boast about "quality." |
Re: Liberty CRD Diesel '06: Interference with 2m radio transmissions
George Orwell wrote:
> So, why isn't there rf shielding in cars, at least as an option? Routing > noisy circuits through shielded cable or conduit has long been known. > Again, autos continue to be designed as cheaply as they can get away with > instead of no-compromise construction, regardless of model hierarchy, how > much you overpay or how loudly they boast about "quality." Not what I asked. Perhaps you could make that a separate topic? Thanks to eveyrone else for staying on topic. |
Re: Liberty CRD Diesel '06: Interference with 2m radio transmissions
George Orwell wrote:
> So, why isn't there rf shielding in cars, at least as an option? Routing > noisy circuits through shielded cable or conduit has long been known. > Again, autos continue to be designed as cheaply as they can get away with > instead of no-compromise construction, regardless of model hierarchy, how > much you overpay or how loudly they boast about "quality." Not what I asked. Perhaps you could make that a separate topic? Thanks to eveyrone else for staying on topic. |
Re: Liberty CRD Diesel '06: Interference with 2m radio transmissions
George Orwell wrote:
> So, why isn't there rf shielding in cars, at least as an option? Routing > noisy circuits through shielded cable or conduit has long been known. > Again, autos continue to be designed as cheaply as they can get away with > instead of no-compromise construction, regardless of model hierarchy, how > much you overpay or how loudly they boast about "quality." Not what I asked. Perhaps you could make that a separate topic? Thanks to eveyrone else for staying on topic. |
Re: Liberty CRD Diesel '06: Interference with 2m radio transmissions
George Orwell wrote:
> So, why isn't there rf shielding in cars, at least as an option? Routing > noisy circuits through shielded cable or conduit has long been known. > Again, autos continue to be designed as cheaply as they can get away with > instead of no-compromise construction, regardless of model hierarchy, how > much you overpay or how loudly they boast about "quality." Not what I asked. Perhaps you could make that a separate topic? Thanks to everyone else for staying on topic. |
Re: Liberty CRD Diesel '06: Interference with 2m radio transmissions
George Orwell wrote:
> So, why isn't there rf shielding in cars, at least as an option? Routing > noisy circuits through shielded cable or conduit has long been known. > Again, autos continue to be designed as cheaply as they can get away with > instead of no-compromise construction, regardless of model hierarchy, how > much you overpay or how loudly they boast about "quality." Not what I asked. Perhaps you could make that a separate topic? Thanks to everyone else for staying on topic. |
Re: Liberty CRD Diesel '06: Interference with 2m radio transmissions
George Orwell wrote:
> So, why isn't there rf shielding in cars, at least as an option? Routing > noisy circuits through shielded cable or conduit has long been known. > Again, autos continue to be designed as cheaply as they can get away with > instead of no-compromise construction, regardless of model hierarchy, how > much you overpay or how loudly they boast about "quality." Not what I asked. Perhaps you could make that a separate topic? Thanks to everyone else for staying on topic. |
Re: Liberty CRD Diesel '06: Interference with 2m radio transmissions
K7AAY wrote:
> George Orwell wrote: > > So, why isn't there rf shielding in cars, at least as an option? Routing > > noisy circuits through shielded cable or conduit has long been known. > > Again, autos continue to be designed as cheaply as they can get away with > > instead of no-compromise construction, regardless of model hierarchy, how > > much you overpay or how loudly they boast about "quality." > > Not what I asked. Perhaps you could make that a separate topic? This is Usenet. There isn't a king of "topics." Anybody is free to contribute and extend a discussion or conversation, even if it migrates away from what you might or might not post. As for rf shielding, car makers make sure that their vehicles work properly and don't cause interference with themselves. With any luck they follow the FCC regulations and guidelines for not producing harmful interference to others. I've seen Chrysler produce the occasional TSB to help alleviate interference with two way radio equipment or suggest places for grounding. But since most people won't have a problem, they probably see no need to build extensive shielding for all. |
Re: Liberty CRD Diesel '06: Interference with 2m radio transmissions
K7AAY wrote:
> George Orwell wrote: > > So, why isn't there rf shielding in cars, at least as an option? Routing > > noisy circuits through shielded cable or conduit has long been known. > > Again, autos continue to be designed as cheaply as they can get away with > > instead of no-compromise construction, regardless of model hierarchy, how > > much you overpay or how loudly they boast about "quality." > > Not what I asked. Perhaps you could make that a separate topic? This is Usenet. There isn't a king of "topics." Anybody is free to contribute and extend a discussion or conversation, even if it migrates away from what you might or might not post. As for rf shielding, car makers make sure that their vehicles work properly and don't cause interference with themselves. With any luck they follow the FCC regulations and guidelines for not producing harmful interference to others. I've seen Chrysler produce the occasional TSB to help alleviate interference with two way radio equipment or suggest places for grounding. But since most people won't have a problem, they probably see no need to build extensive shielding for all. |
Re: Liberty CRD Diesel '06: Interference with 2m radio transmissions
K7AAY wrote:
> George Orwell wrote: > > So, why isn't there rf shielding in cars, at least as an option? Routing > > noisy circuits through shielded cable or conduit has long been known. > > Again, autos continue to be designed as cheaply as they can get away with > > instead of no-compromise construction, regardless of model hierarchy, how > > much you overpay or how loudly they boast about "quality." > > Not what I asked. Perhaps you could make that a separate topic? This is Usenet. There isn't a king of "topics." Anybody is free to contribute and extend a discussion or conversation, even if it migrates away from what you might or might not post. As for rf shielding, car makers make sure that their vehicles work properly and don't cause interference with themselves. With any luck they follow the FCC regulations and guidelines for not producing harmful interference to others. I've seen Chrysler produce the occasional TSB to help alleviate interference with two way radio equipment or suggest places for grounding. But since most people won't have a problem, they probably see no need to build extensive shielding for all. |
Re: Liberty CRD Diesel '06: Interference with 2m radio transmissions
"K7AAY" <john.bartley@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1165193509.338767.56210@j44g2000cwa.googlegro ups.com... > George Orwell wrote: > > So, why isn't there rf shielding in cars, at least as an option? Routing > > noisy circuits through shielded cable or conduit has long been known. > > Again, autos continue to be designed as cheaply as they can get away with > > instead of no-compromise construction, regardless of model hierarchy, how > > much you overpay or how loudly they boast about "quality." > > > Not what I asked. Perhaps you could make that a separate topic? > He just did you idiot. > Thanks to everyone else for staying on topic. > Oh, Usenet cop, are we? I guess your not interested in being educated. To the other poster the reason why there's no RF shielding in cars in the US is simple. The law in the United States gives the FCC sole authority over resolving interference issues. In other words you cannot sue an auto manufacturer for failing to put shielding in their equipment because the law states that no body can write laws that apply to interference, that all interference issues are under FCC control. And therein is the problem. The FCC states that in an interference issue, the transmitter has the responsibility to make sure that his equipment is operating within specifications. The receiver has a responsibility to make sure that their equipment does not malfunction in the presense of a properly operating transmitter. And that is it. In other words, there's no hard and fast line in the sand that the FCC has drawn up. The FCC has set some tech standards but stated that they are all voluntary - the manufacturers don't have to follow them if they don't want to. If your car malfunctions as a result of your transmitter you can legally demand the automaker resolve the issue if your transmitter is properly operating, under FC regulations. The automaker can of course, simply choose to give you a set of instructions about how to shield your car, and refuse to pay for the work to actually do it, that is enough of a resolution to satisfy FCC requirements. If your receiver malfunctions your receiver manufacturer can demand the automaker resolve the issue of unlicensed RF transmissions from their product. This is a little more interesting, since if you can document that this is a problem in the model of car, the FCC can require that the automaker fix it - because the automaker does not have a license to operate a transmitter. Ted |
Re: Liberty CRD Diesel '06: Interference with 2m radio transmissions
"K7AAY" <john.bartley@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1165193509.338767.56210@j44g2000cwa.googlegro ups.com... > George Orwell wrote: > > So, why isn't there rf shielding in cars, at least as an option? Routing > > noisy circuits through shielded cable or conduit has long been known. > > Again, autos continue to be designed as cheaply as they can get away with > > instead of no-compromise construction, regardless of model hierarchy, how > > much you overpay or how loudly they boast about "quality." > > > Not what I asked. Perhaps you could make that a separate topic? > He just did you idiot. > Thanks to everyone else for staying on topic. > Oh, Usenet cop, are we? I guess your not interested in being educated. To the other poster the reason why there's no RF shielding in cars in the US is simple. The law in the United States gives the FCC sole authority over resolving interference issues. In other words you cannot sue an auto manufacturer for failing to put shielding in their equipment because the law states that no body can write laws that apply to interference, that all interference issues are under FCC control. And therein is the problem. The FCC states that in an interference issue, the transmitter has the responsibility to make sure that his equipment is operating within specifications. The receiver has a responsibility to make sure that their equipment does not malfunction in the presense of a properly operating transmitter. And that is it. In other words, there's no hard and fast line in the sand that the FCC has drawn up. The FCC has set some tech standards but stated that they are all voluntary - the manufacturers don't have to follow them if they don't want to. If your car malfunctions as a result of your transmitter you can legally demand the automaker resolve the issue if your transmitter is properly operating, under FC regulations. The automaker can of course, simply choose to give you a set of instructions about how to shield your car, and refuse to pay for the work to actually do it, that is enough of a resolution to satisfy FCC requirements. If your receiver malfunctions your receiver manufacturer can demand the automaker resolve the issue of unlicensed RF transmissions from their product. This is a little more interesting, since if you can document that this is a problem in the model of car, the FCC can require that the automaker fix it - because the automaker does not have a license to operate a transmitter. Ted |
Re: Liberty CRD Diesel '06: Interference with 2m radio transmissions
"K7AAY" <john.bartley@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1165193509.338767.56210@j44g2000cwa.googlegro ups.com... > George Orwell wrote: > > So, why isn't there rf shielding in cars, at least as an option? Routing > > noisy circuits through shielded cable or conduit has long been known. > > Again, autos continue to be designed as cheaply as they can get away with > > instead of no-compromise construction, regardless of model hierarchy, how > > much you overpay or how loudly they boast about "quality." > > > Not what I asked. Perhaps you could make that a separate topic? > He just did you idiot. > Thanks to everyone else for staying on topic. > Oh, Usenet cop, are we? I guess your not interested in being educated. To the other poster the reason why there's no RF shielding in cars in the US is simple. The law in the United States gives the FCC sole authority over resolving interference issues. In other words you cannot sue an auto manufacturer for failing to put shielding in their equipment because the law states that no body can write laws that apply to interference, that all interference issues are under FCC control. And therein is the problem. The FCC states that in an interference issue, the transmitter has the responsibility to make sure that his equipment is operating within specifications. The receiver has a responsibility to make sure that their equipment does not malfunction in the presense of a properly operating transmitter. And that is it. In other words, there's no hard and fast line in the sand that the FCC has drawn up. The FCC has set some tech standards but stated that they are all voluntary - the manufacturers don't have to follow them if they don't want to. If your car malfunctions as a result of your transmitter you can legally demand the automaker resolve the issue if your transmitter is properly operating, under FC regulations. The automaker can of course, simply choose to give you a set of instructions about how to shield your car, and refuse to pay for the work to actually do it, that is enough of a resolution to satisfy FCC requirements. If your receiver malfunctions your receiver manufacturer can demand the automaker resolve the issue of unlicensed RF transmissions from their product. This is a little more interesting, since if you can document that this is a problem in the model of car, the FCC can require that the automaker fix it - because the automaker does not have a license to operate a transmitter. Ted |
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:49 AM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands