[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [RFI] Paying for information

To: "RFI List" <rfi@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [RFI] Paying for information
From: "Jim Brown" <jimbrown.enteract@rcn.com>
Reply-to: Jim Brown <jimbrown.enteract@rcn.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 11:34:30 -0600
List-post: <mailto:rfi@contesting.com>
Thanks to the efforts of some of my compadres on the AES Standards
Committee, AES Standards can be downloaded at no cost. That wasn't true
before our involvement. By contrast,  many standards bodies to whom the
AES makes major contributions (the IEC, for example) do charge for
standards, they aren't cheap, and you need to buy a bunch of them to
have enough of them. The IEEE Green Book and Emerald Book are IEEE
Standards (and are also tutorial), and they cost about $70 each to

A clarification. The work I have done is, to some extent, in support of
the Standards processs (I am vice-chair of the AESSC WG on EMC), but it
is also in support of ham radio, because it documents that deficiencies
in cable and equipment is the cause of RFI, not the ham next door or
the AM broadcast station down the street. 

All AES Standards work is on a volunteer basis. I was not paid to write
these papers, and the work was not supported (except by the fees from
my one man consulting  business). 

But the simple fact is that my work has shown that some of our
assumptions about how cable behaves are incorrect. How much are they
wrong?  Braid-shielded cable (Belden 8412 and equivalent) has SCIN
performance that is roughly 30 dB better than foil/drain shielded cable
(Belden 8451 and equivalent) in the AM broadcast band! This is based on
lab measurement of 20 cables of varying construction from major vendors
(Belden, Gepco, West Penn, Gotham), and by field tests of a few of
those cable types. 

A couple of posts up in this thread, I did give a basic explanation of
the physics at work. 


On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 9:13:9 -0800, Cortland Richmond wrote:

>There's a long wrangle possible in this topic. Let's make it a short one
>Jim's paper wasn't in aid of the hobby, but the EMC profession. In this
>particular case, it appears the publisher owns the copyright (a "made for
>hire" work, perhaps). But while one might talk about physics openly,
>handing away one's livelihood is another matter.  People who write books
>and magazine articles should be paid for them.
>In any event there is a LOT of "free" information to be garnered on the
>There IS a case to be made for free access to _standards_. If government
>regulations reference standards one must BUY (ANSI and IEC standards, EN's,
>GR's, etc.), it is rather like selling the right to know what the law says.
>Hi, Mister. I'm selling subscriptions to stoplights. You can't drive
>without one!
>> [Original Message]
>> From: Tom Rauch <w8ji@contesting.com>
>> To: RFI List <rfi@contesting.com>; Jim Smith <jimsmith@shaw.ca>
>> Date: 12/23/2003 2:39:45 AM
>> I draw the line at paying. I make it a point to NOT pay for references in
>> hobby where people are here to help people, no matter who gets the profit.
>RFI mailing list

RFI mailing list

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