I am wondering whether it may have been a matter of timing. The Lab authored
an article on LED bulbs in 2013. We found a 60 dB range between the best and
worst bulbs, and the worst came from an eBay sale, imported from China, if I
recall. The LEDs sold at the time in the big box stores were all compliant.
I don't know what language was returned in the "return with thanks letter," of
the time, but we generally don't provide detailed reasons for not accepting
articles, unless we are asking the author to make changes and resubmit. The
reasons to accept or return with thanks are often not simple, ranging from poor
quality to a similarity to recently published material.
I have seen both common-mode and differential-mode noise from LED bulbs. The
common-mode noise can propagate quite a distance, but differential noise
usually decays at 60 db/distance decade, so although you can hear noise when
right up at the bulb, 10 feet away, it may not be audible.
If you have the article in question, I'd love to see it, just to get a feel for
the measurements you made.
Ed, W1RFI
ARRL Lab
________________________________
From: RFI <rfi-bounces+w1rfi=arrl.org@contesting.com> on behalf of David
Eckhardt <davearea51a@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2022 7:07 PM
To: KD7JYK DM09 <kd7jyk@earthlink.net>
Cc: rfi@contesting.com <rfi@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [RFI] "LED noise"
Don't feel bad, Kurt! I have had submissions rejected by ARRL for being
"too technical". These days, they just want pablum for publication.
If I were not a life member (thanks to my ex-wife many decades ago), I
would not pay annual dues. But, ..........having access to this RFI site
possibly makes it all worth it.
Dave - WØLEV
Dave - WØLEV
On Tue, Dec 20, 2022 at 9:57 PM KD7JYK DM09 <kd7jyk@earthlink.net> wrote:
> The following was posted to a longwave forum yesterday. I found it
> interesting:
>
> "When LED bulbs first came out, I did a lot of testing for different
> brands/models (now gone). All produced interference if close enough. I
> wrote an article for QST on the results. They rejected the article and
> said "Do not resubmit it or a similar article to QST or any of ARRL's
> publications" and stated they would not discuss why nor give a reason.
> Totally bizarre. I later met the president of the ARRL and he was
> dumbfounded when I told him about this. (I have been an editor and
> reviewer of an optics technical publication, rejecting more papers than
> accepting, but ARRL's behavior was extremely nonprofessional.) A
> letter in a shortly later issue of QST years ago mentioned the need for
> research on this and QST replied that something was planned but I never
> saw anything. (I always question why I stayed a member.)"
>
> Kurt
> _______________________________________________
> RFI mailing list
> RFI@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rfi
>
--
*Dave - WØLEV*
_______________________________________________
RFI mailing list
RFI@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rfi
_______________________________________________
RFI mailing list
RFI@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rfi
|