[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [RFI] CFL Bulbs that are OK! PLEASE STOP!!!!

To: RFI Reflector <rfi@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [RFI] CFL Bulbs that are OK! PLEASE STOP!!!!
From: Michael Coslo <mjc5@psu.edu>
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2010 08:30:35 -0500
List-post: <rfi@contesting.com">mailto:rfi@contesting.com>
On Dec 4, 2010, at 2:44 PM, Jim Brown wrote:

>> THe XYL replaced the incandescent bulbs in our living room fan with CFL's.
> Hey Guys,
> This is an RFI Reflector. It is not a chat room about light bulbs. The 
> original post, and a few early replies, were on topic. The other 50 or 
> so replies have been a waste of everyone's time.  There are some VERY 
> sharp EMC engineers on this reflector. Please do not drive them away 
> with this drivel.

Hi Jim,

Is comparing notes about CFL's and their RFI effects somehow outside the realm 
of RFI? Is my asking about lists of comparison a waste of time? I was 
interested and still interested in the seeming discrepancy of some people 
getting RFI from the lamps.

And while longevity isn't RFI, it does factor into CFL bulbs. Even more, there 
might be a connection between the two. Some times it is hard to have a 
discussion without a bit of digression. In fact, I think th elite digressions 
often lead to the answer to a problem.  I was a moderator for a group where we 
had another moderator who would reject anything that got off subject in the 
least, or anything he didn't like for that matter. That did a much better job 
of driving people away than letting people post, and the criteria was civil 
behavior and at least related to the topic at hand.

The really great thing is that if we don't want to read about something, we can 
filter the subject or poster to the trash. 

We can filter headers by CFL. That should do it. Of course then we won't get 
any posts about the Canadian Football League either! ;^)

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

RFI mailing list

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>