Re: Liberty CRD Diesel '06: Interference with 2m radio transmissions
12-03-2006, 07:10 PM
#1
Guest
Posts: n/a
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."
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."
12-03-2006, 07:51 PM
#2
Guest
Posts: n/a
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.
> 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.
12-03-2006, 07:51 PM
#3
Guest
Posts: n/a
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.
> 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.
12-03-2006, 07:51 PM
#4
Guest
Posts: n/a
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.
> 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.
12-03-2006, 07:51 PM
#5
Guest
Posts: n/a
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.
> 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.
12-03-2006, 07:51 PM
#6
Guest
Posts: n/a
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.
> 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.
12-03-2006, 07:51 PM
#7
Guest
Posts: n/a
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.
> 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.
12-04-2006, 12:30 AM
#8
Guest
Posts: n/a
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.
> 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.
12-04-2006, 12:30 AM
#9
Guest
Posts: n/a
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.
> 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.
12-04-2006, 12:30 AM
#10
Guest
Posts: n/a
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.
> 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.