Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[RFI\]\s+Re\:\s+rfi\-digest\s+V1\s+\#70\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[RFI\]\s+Re\:\s+rfi\-digest\s+V1\s+\#70\s*$/: 2 ]

Total 2 documents matching your query.

1. [RFI] Re: rfi-digest V1 #70 (score: 1): Author: James L. Keyes" <jkeyes@mtnhome.com (James L. Keyes); Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 09:14:30 -0500; Speaking as a "rules guy" [i.e. having digested government regs all my life], I would have to say that the FCC has no interest in what goes into a dummy load. Although they are handy devices for meas; /archives//html/RFI/1998-05/msg00027.html (8,299 bytes)
2. [RFI] Re: rfi-digest V1 #70 (score: 1): Author: Cortland Richmond" <cortland_richmond@qmgate.optilink.dsccc.com (Cortland Richmond); Date: 22 May 1998 09:56:53 -0800; Bob Wanderer wrote in issue V1 #70: The FCC measures transmitter spurious products at the output with the transmitter operating into its designed load. However... our responibility, IMO, is to _radi; /archives//html/RFI/1998-05/msg00028.html (8,359 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 2
Page: [1]