Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:27 AM - Re: Computer radiation (FCC part 15, everything you want know) ()
2. 06:19 AM - Antenna siting (Fergus Kyle)
3. 07:04 AM - Re: Antenna siting (Dave Morris \)
4. 08:47 AM - Re: Re: Computer radiation (David)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Computer radiation (FCC part 15, everything you |
want know)
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com>
Here is some interesting info on FCC part 15
http://www.arrl.org/tis/info/part15.html#Myths
Interesting. Part 15 sticker may not necessarily mean it meets it.
(Read article above, honor system)
However, Part 15 does address a very small amount of *harmful interference*
but not necessarily none. It also describes classes and other good info.
Read link above, it is written in easy to understand English and I found it
very interesting.
George
>From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
>Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Computer radiation
>AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
>>--> Posted by: "Dave Morris \"BigD\"" <BigD@DaveMorris.com>
>>
>>My problem stems from the fact that I'm designing a completely
>>computerized instrument panel, where the RF generator will be in
>>close proximity to the RF receiver. I was trying to use a tablet
>>computer, but it appears I'm going to have to put the computer in a
>>shielded compartment away from the receivers and just put the display
>>on the panel. The tablet computers I've tried were Fujitsu Stylistic
>>1200 and 2400 models, and they broke the squelch (full quieting) of
>>my com radio from a distance of 100 feet.
>>
>>www.MyGlassCockpit.com has the details.
>>
>>Dave Morris
>Yup, those things can be horrific radiators. Processor
>based autopilots I've tested were quite noisy at and
>below the processor clock speed. We always mounted them
>in totally enclosed cabinets and brought wiring out
>through filtered pathways. They're FCC Part 15 tested
>which says, "Yeah, I'm really noisy but still below certain
>limits and by the way, if I do interfere with some other
>system, its your duty to turn me off or separate me from
>the higher priority service."
>For the most part, portable devices aboard large aircraft
>are located far enough from antennas and from cockpit mounted
>equipment to be very tiny risks. But as you've noted, when
>you bring this class of product aboard a small aircraft and
>even consider mounting it on the panel, the playing field
>can change dramatically.
---------------------------------
---------------------------------
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Fergus Kyle" <VE3LVO@rac.ca>
......followed the string on the reduced signal level climbing out.
Perhaps I shouldn't push this too often, but signal levels around
antennas is old and easy stuff for Hams - it's what many old-timers do now
that surface-mount technology has squeezed home building somewhat.
The easy way is to contact your local Amateur Radio club. Many are
listed locally in the 'phonebook, but can be found at ARRL website. Drop by
on meeting night, or dial up the big kahuna (?) and ask if anyone is
interested in measuring your baby. Someone is bound to offer and the job
will probably be done in an hour - often with a graph sheet to store in the
build log.
I have done several of these (you get to see another build project
up close) and it's worth the time. Home builds and AR have much in common.
Ferg
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Antenna siting |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dave Morris \"BigD\"" <BigD@DaveMorris.com>
That's a good point, Ferg. And if any of you are still unable to
locate a ham radio club, email me privately and I'll see if I can
find you somebody local from among the 100,000 hams registered
worldwide on one of the web sites I operate.
Dave Morris, N5UP
At 08:16 AM 4/2/2006, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Fergus Kyle" <VE3LVO@rac.ca>
>
>......followed the string on the reduced signal level climbing out.
> Perhaps I shouldn't push this too often, but signal levels around
>antennas is old and easy stuff for Hams - it's what many old-timers do now
>that surface-mount technology has squeezed home building somewhat.
> The easy way is to contact your local Amateur Radio club. Many are
>listed locally in the 'phonebook, but can be found at ARRL website. Drop by
>on meeting night, or dial up the big kahuna (?) and ask if anyone is
>interested in measuring your baby. Someone is bound to offer and the job
>will probably be done in an hour - often with a graph sheet to store in the
>build log.
> I have done several of these (you get to see another build project
>up close) and it's worth the time. Home builds and AR have much in common.
>Ferg
>
>
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Computer radiation |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: David <ainut@hiwaay.net>
Dave, make a study of Tempest computer techniques.
David M.
Dave Morris "BigD" wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dave Morris \"BigD\"" <BigD@DaveMorris.com>
>
> My problem stems from the fact that I'm designing a completely
> computerized instrument panel, where the RF generator will be in
> close proximity to the RF receiver. I was trying to use a tablet
> computer, but it appears I'm going to have to put the computer in a
> shielded compartment away from the receivers and just put the display
> on the panel. The tablet computers I've tried were Fujitsu Stylistic
> 1200 and 2400 models, and they broke the squelch (full quieting) of
> my com radio from a distance of 100 feet.
>
> www.MyGlassCockpit.com has the details.
>
> Dave Morris
>
>
> At 06:07 AM 4/1/2006, you wrote:
>
>>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com>
>>
>>
>>Dave if your laptop is wiping out your Com, I would
>>look into your avionics installation or get a new
>>laptop or both. Back in the day was only 20 years
>>ago, airplanes had few computers and laptop an cel
>>phones rare.
>>
>> All major consumer electronic devices has to meet
>>FCC specification for EMF & RFreq interference. Before
>>everyone panics when the iPod, PDA or laptop comes
>>out on a plane, the power of the RF is so nil its of
>>little concern. Again as Kevin and yes Myth Busters
>>have shown, commercial aircraft are very well shielded
>
>>from RF, by design. Lightning strikes is even more of a
>
>>worry than a passenger laptop. Notice that FM radios
>>and many devices are forbidden at all times on airliners.
>>
>> To be honest if you wanted to be perfect no portable
>>device should be used, including computers, but the
>>fly consumer, business traveler would not stand for
>>that. We agree the risk is small. Yes?
>>
>>The truth is if there is enough power on the right freq
>>you can hurt any avionics, at least certainly the NAV
>>signal and even COM. Typical portable devices don't
>>radiate enough energy.
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|