Consultants say interference in vehicle electronics is possible
in [Technical]
|
From: Scott Dorsey on 26 Mar 2010 19:53 dbu'' <nospam(a)nobama.com.invalid> wrote: >To sum, p.15 deals with cable, power lines, motors, switching supplies, >TV's, wireless products, computers, industrial devices and related >interferences to licensed services. > >I never mentioned legal or illegal CB operations of which I am not >involved with. I did, as did the person whom I was replying to in the message that you flamed. That was the whole point of the message you were replying to. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
From: Scott Dorsey on 27 Mar 2010 10:08 dbu'' <nospam(a)nobama.com.invalid> wrote: >> The SSB limit is actually calculated as peak envelope power directly since >> there's no carrier with SSB. > >That's not true, SSB is suppressed carrier. Carrier wave is present, >but suppressed. It may or may not internally generated, but it's not being transmitted. if it _were_ transmitted, it would create an annoying beat note on playback unless the receiver BFO was right on the mark. But, more importantly, it counts against your total output power... any residual carrier leakage is wasted power. That's bad, especially when the legal limit is so low you want as much as possible of your signal to actually be carrying information. Type acceptance requirements for aircraft, marine, and commercial SSB gear have limits for how much residual carrier leakage is allowed, and it's very little. Amateur radio operators don't have any such requirements but they are expected to know what they are doing. I don't know what the CB type acceptance requirements are like. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
From: C. E. White on 28 Mar 2010 16:45 "Tegger" <invalid(a)invalid.inv> wrote in message news:Xns9D455E8CFBB15tegger(a)208.90.168.18... > dbu'' <nospam(a)nobama.com.invalid> wrote in > news:VoCdnaFE4_R_kjfWnZ2dnUVZ_hc6AAAA(a)giganews.com: > > >> >> I run high power two way radio equipment in my Toyota and have NEVER >> in almost seven years had one glitch of any kind. Nor has any of my >> cell phone equipment ever caused any glitches. EMI can easily be >> suppressed and I believe Toyota has done an extremely good job of >> suppressing it. > > > > I find it difficult to imagine how stray EMI could interfere with the > throttle over a period of time and distance sufficiently long enough to > cause a vehicle to accelerate to a high speed. > > I also find it difficult to imagine how EMI could override many systems > all > at once, such that the car would be impossible to control or shut down. Unfortunatley, it only matters what a jury of untrained people can be convinced of... Ed
From: Tegger on 29 Mar 2010 07:57 "C. E. White" <cewhite3remove(a)mindspring.com> wrote in news:JbednSC0l5uZXTLWnZ2dnUVZ_vSdnZ2d(a)earthlink.com: > > Unfortunatley, it only matters what a jury of untrained people can be > convinced of... > Just like the Vioxx trial. I remember what the jury foreman said after the Vioxx trial, that the jury understood the defense's arguments no better than, "Mwa, mwa, mwa", like how the adults sound in a Charlie Brown cartoon. And then they voted to convict anyway. Very scary. -- Tegger
From: Obveeus on 29 Mar 2010 08:04
"Tegger" <invalid(a)invalid.inv> wrote in message news:Xns9D4A50DF3DBA0tegger(a)208.90.168.18... > "C. E. White" <cewhite3remove(a)mindspring.com> wrote in > news:JbednSC0l5uZXTLWnZ2dnUVZ_vSdnZ2d(a)earthlink.com: > > >> >> Unfortunatley, it only matters what a jury of untrained people can be >> convinced of... >> > > > Just like the Vioxx trial. > > I remember what the jury foreman said after the Vioxx trial, that the jury > understood the defense's arguments no better than, "Mwa, mwa, mwa", like > how the adults sound in a Charlie Brown cartoon. And then they voted to > convict anyway. Very scary. An even better example would be Dow Corning and the 'Silicone Breast Implant'. The entire company was run into bankruptcy for a decade as the result of nothing more than incorrect speculation not backed up by scientific research. |