[RFI] [Fwd: Message Undeliverable to cc:Mail]

tduffy tduffy <tduffy@sygnet.com>
Tue, 03 Mar 1998 14:04:43 -0800

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

Received: from dayton.akorn.net (unverified []) by mail.pathway.net
 (Rockliffe SMTPRA 2.1.5) with ESMTP id <B0001431914@mail.pathway.net> for <tduffy@sygnet.com>;
 Wed, 04 Mar 1998 09:32:21 -0500
Received: from mail-lax-1.pilot.net (mail-lax-1.pilot.net [])
	by dayton.akorn.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id JAA06080
	for <owner-rfi@contesting.com>; Wed, 4 Mar 1998 09:33:01 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mailgw.fdnet.com (unknown-c-23-148.fluordaniel.com [] (may be forged))
	by mail-lax-1.pilot.net (Pilot/8.8.8) with ESMTP id GAA21030
	for <owner-rfi@contesting.com>; Wed, 4 Mar 1998 06:33:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from wtswitch.fluordaniel.com ([]) by mailgw.fdnet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id GAA12592 for <owner-rfi@contesting.com>; Wed, 4 Mar 1998 06:32:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from x400@localhost) by wtswitch.fluordaniel.com (8.7.1/8.7.1) id JAA07805 for owner-rfi@contesting.com; Wed, 4 Mar 1998 09:33:09 -0500 (EST)
X-Authentication-Warning: wtswitch.fluordaniel.com: x400 set sender to cc#c#Mail-Gateway%ccmgw@wtgw.fluordaniel.com using -f
Received:  by MCI; Wed, 4 Mar 1998 9:29:31 -0500
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 9:29:31 -0500
From: "cc:Mail-Gateway%ccmgw" <cc#c#Mail-Gateway%ccmgw@wtgw.fluordaniel.com>
Subject: Message Undeliverable to cc:Mail
To: owner-rfi@contesting.com
Message-Id: <035.atjfu.1.980304142930Z.CC-MAIL*/O=CCMGW/PRMD=FLUORDANIEL/ADMD=MCI/C=US/@MHS>
X-Mailer: Worldtalk (NetJunction 4.5.1-p2)/MIME
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="---- =_WT29716.34fd6623.0a0/wtswitch"

------ =_WT29716.34fd6623.0a0/wtswitch
Content-Type: text/plain; name="non_del"; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="non_del"

*** cc:Mail reported the following errors ***
----------------------------------- Returned 
From: owner-rfi@contesting.com_at_-FDInternet at FDINET
Date: 3/3/1998 7:11:12PM
To: rfi@contesting.com_at_-FDInternet at FDINET
Subject: [RFI] FW: RFI

------ =_WT29716.34fd6623.0a0/wtswitch
Content-Type: text/plain; name="Authorized by..."; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Authorized by..."

Message authorized by:
    : ehare@arrl.org_at_-FDInternet at FDINET

------ =_WT29716.34fd6623.0a0/wtswitch

Hello, folks,

I wanted to share with with the RFI reflector, both as a heads up and to 
find out if anyone else has heard of manufacurers responding this way.  I 
just wish that consumer equipment was made well enough to stand up to the 
several hundred volts/meter that are allowed on some bands. :-)

Speaking of RF exposure, the "RF Exposure and You" book is available for 
sale.  (At 320 pages and$15, it is a bargain, but this is the author 
bragging!.)  It has chapters on the rules, EMF fundamentals, a large chapter 

on station evaluations, ARRL and FCC worksheets, reprints of OET Bulletin 65 

and Supplment B and about 87 pages of antenna tables from which to choose. 
 If you call HQ (888-277-5289 toll free for orders), tell them the Lab sent 
you. :-)

73 from ARRL HQ,
Ed Hare, W1RFI

>>I have to share this information with you.  I purchased a GE telephone
>>for the kitchen.  One of those phones with the memory and speaker
>>phone options.  Sure enough, RF gets into the phone as sure as water
>>runs downhill.  Seventy-five watts and I block out any conversation
>>on the phone.  No problem, I can learn to live with that except if a P5
>>comes on the air.

>>I call Thomson Consumer Electronics in Indianapolis, IN, and they
>>send out a survey form.  I fill it out and they return it because I
>>missed some questions which I thought related to the hook-up with
>>an answering machine.  I don't have an answering machine, but they
>>wanted some questions answered.  They also asked me, on the cover
>>of my second go-around with the returned survey, the following

>>"Please confirm that your antenna has a proper "standing wave ratios"
>>(SWR), and is properly grounded.  Lastly confirm that it is meeting
>t>he new FCC RF guidelines."

>>My reply to the first two questions is that I have low SWR and the
>>grounding system is proper.  I didn't know how to be polite on the
>>Third question about RF guidelines, so I only responded that I was
>>only aware that the FCC RF Exposure Regulations were designed
>>specifically for people and not for equipment.

>>I know that I was correct in my assumption that the RF exposure
>>situation deals only with humans, but I wanted to show you what the
>>consumer industry is trying to make up believe.

>>Is the consumer electronic industry going to use this RF exposure
>>regulation to skirt their responsibility and try to shove the problem
>>back to me the consumer and the ham radio operator?  We are only
>>several months into the implementation of the new FCC RF Exposure
>>Regulation and already there are uninformed and/or misinformed
>>people in the consumer electronic industry.  Will this same industry
>>respond the same way to all my neighbors and all the neighbors of all
>>the ham radio operators around the country who use their telephones?
>>Will the industry try to hide behind these RF Exposure Guidelines?

>>I should be interesting to see what happens after I mail this
>>re-written survey back to Thomson Consumer Electronics.

>>Again, I only sent this information to you so that you may see what is
>>really happening in the industry.  Let?s hope that this is the only such
>>case and is an exception rather that the rule.

>>BTW, I followed the guideline in the January, 1998 QST, and my station 
>>the requirements for RF exposure.Ed, you might want to send this along to 
Chris Imlay.  Interesting stuff.

>>73.  Gene

>From: Hare, Ed, W1RFI
>Date: Monday, March 02, 1998 3:32PM

>Hello, Gene,

>I should have seen this one coming. :-)  Actually, you are correct; the 
guidelines are for exposure to humans, not >for RFI immunity.  I tend to 
agree; the manufacturer is, at least to some extent, hiding behind the new 

>That is not nearly as bad as it sounds!  If you answer "yes," and most hams 

will, where does that leave the >manufacturer?  The current voluntary 
industry standards call for immunity of 3 volts per meter; the RF exposure 
>guidelines permit 27.5 v / m on 30 - 300 MHz, as much as 614 v / m on lower 

HF!  If the manufacturers do indeed >start tying their immunity to these 
levels, this could be a Good Thing for RFI.  Of course, they certainly are 
not >doing so.

>Perhaps one way to turn this around is to ask THEM the question, and ask if 

the level of immunity of their >products is equivalent to the levels in the 
new guidelines.   That would, at least, put the burden of immunity 
>responsibility back on them.

>This one does bear some watching, and I, and the ARRL RFI Task Group, will 
certainly do so.

>73 from ARRL HQ,
>Ed Hare, W1RFI

Submissions:              rfi@contesting.com
Administrative requests:  rfi-REQUEST@contesting.com
WWW:                      http://www.contesting.com/rfi-faq.html
Questions:                owner-rfi@contesting.com

------ =_WT29716.34fd6623.0a0/wtswitch
Content-Type: text/plain; name="err_msg"; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="err_msg"

<Unknown body part from cc:Mail discarded>

------ =_WT29716.34fd6623.0a0/wtswitch--


Submissions:              rfi@contesting.com
Administrative requests:  rfi-REQUEST@contesting.com
WWW:                      http://www.contesting.com/rfi-faq.html
Questions:                owner-rfi@contesting.com