RFI
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [RFI] Update: LG washer WT1501CW - EMI

To: Rfi List <rfi@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [RFI] Update: LG washer WT1501CW - EMI
From: Michael Coslo <mcoslo@comcast.net>
Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2018 12:51:30 -0500
List-post: <mailto:rfi@contesting.com>
Exactly, there are almost always a solution, and keeping friendly comms with 
the offending party is kinda important. LG has a vested interest in fixing the 
issue,  especially depending on just whose feet they might be trodding upon. 

- Michael Coslo -
Frequency Coordinator, Beaver Stadium
814-404-3991
mjc5@psu.edu
mjcn3li@gmail.com

> On Nov 18, 2018, at 10:20 AM, Hare, Ed W1RFI <w1rfi@arrl.org> wrote:
> 
> The FCC has not generally tried to interpret things as appliances that are 
> not. The devices are still subject to the requirement that the operator of 
> the device not cause harmful interference.
> 
> Ed, W1RFI
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: RFI <rfi-bounces@contesting.com> On Behalf Of David Eckhardt
> Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2018 11:19 AM
> To: pchristensen@ieee.org
> Cc: Rfi List <rfi@contesting.com>
> Subject: Re: [RFI] Update: LG washer WT1501CW - EMI
> 
> Totally agree, Paul.  The appliance lobby must be at least as strong as the 
> energy (petroindustries) lobbies.
> 
> Our Maytag washer/dryer interfers with my radio astronomy efforts on 20.1 
> MHz, but at least those are very low duty cycle.
> 
> Yes, 15.103(d) has been beaten to death in this group.  I discovered this 
> group roughly a year or so ago.  However, with all the newbies, I think it 
> warrants bringing it up on occasion.  It always irritates me to look it up
> and read it, again, for the umpteenth time!   Where is the radio astronomy
> lobby - there isn't one.  Where is the FCC of old where a "Pink Slip" from 
> the FCC breathed fear into any licensed amateur radio operator of the time?
>  I've never gotten one in my (almost) 60 years as a licensed ham, but I did 
> receive one OO notice as a Novice.
> 
> Dave - WØLEV
> 
> On Sat, Nov 17, 2018 at 12:14 PM Paul Christensen <pchristensen@ieee.org>
> wrote:
> 
>> §15.103(d) has been discussed here several times during the last decade.
>> 
>> There are two troubling aspects of the current rule that we must accept:
>> (1) digital devices that would otherwise require compliance are 
>> safeguarded in the wrapping of an appliance enclosure; (2) the 
>> definition of an appliance under this subsection is infinitely broad, thanks 
>> to the "etc."
>> term.
>> 
>> It would be an incredibly difficult and futile exercise to try and 
>> rein-in
>> 15.103(d) in the face of consumer electronics lobbying.
>> 
>> Paul, W9AC
>> 
>> §15.103(d):   "A digital device utilized exclusively in an appliance,
>> e.g., microwave oven, dishwasher, clothes dryer, air conditioner 
>> (central or window), etc."
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> RFI mailing list
>> RFI@contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rfi
>> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> *Dave - WØLEV*
> *Just Let Darwin Work*
> *Just Think*
> _______________________________________________
> 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

_______________________________________________
RFI mailing list
RFI@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rfi
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>