Bill Turner wrote:
> On Sun, 06 Oct 1996 12:15:00 -0300, WF3T wrote:
> > Now, it seems, they may be changing their plans, or just changing
> >their tactics to out and out lying about it. I certainly hope it is the
> >first. If that is the case, and Kenwood has rethought their plans, I would
> >like to see a public announcement stating the same.
> Check their web site. The announcement you're looking for is there.
> 73, Bill W7LZP
Way to go! Good announcement there, well thought out. Glad you could
point it out to the reflector.
"No Code - No HF....Know Code KNOW HF!"
>From firstname.lastname@example.org (John Brosnahan) Sun Oct 6 23:37:38 1996
From: email@example.com (John Brosnahan) (John Brosnahan)
Subject: Contest Computer Cabinets
I recently upgraded my computer system to a clone 6x86/133 MHz
in a mini-tower. The level of RF interference is probably 20 dB
worse (into a AM table radio) than the old 486-25. Of course the
486 had a case with an attempt of RF tightness. The mini-tower
has lotsa paint on all of the seams between cover and chassis.
I will experiment with trying to seal up the case a little better, but can
anyone help with a source of really RF-tight mini-tower cases. Don't
mind paying a premium to get a decent case, but the ones I have
ordered have all been disappointments.
I know someone must have solved this EMI/RFI problem with a commercial
solution. Want to see a case with finger contact stock
around all seams or lots of screws and any improvements to reduce
emmisions from any other leaks.
Thanks for any help.
La Salle Research Corp 24115 WCR 40 La Salle, CO 80645 USA
voice 970-284-6602 fax 970-284-0979 email firstname.lastname@example.org