Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: MassiveProng on 1 Feb 2007 21:00 On Thu, 01 Feb 07 12:46:52 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com Gave us: > >The old stove didn't mask all broadcasts. How do you know that unplugging the old stove, and plugging in the new didn't cause the loose connection in the outlet box, allowing for the noise condition? Did the installer attach a dedicated ground strap from the stove to the outlet fault return?
From: MassiveProng on 1 Feb 2007 21:05 On Thu, 01 Feb 07 12:48:15 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com Gave us: >In article <eef2s2l6gnqtqektdcp31p5lqe0h1edmeg(a)4ax.com>, > MassiveProng <MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: >>On Wed, 31 Jan 07 14:07:54 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com Gave us: >> >>>In article <cqrvr25071revcsdj1r31e9i7au4ui74j9(a)4ax.com>, >>> MassiveProng <MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: >>>>On Tue, 30 Jan 07 15:34:36 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com Gave us: >>>> >>>>>> You don't need an anechoic chamber btw. >>>>> >>>>>How do you measure the EMF in "noisy" environments? >>>>>Or don't you need numbers anymore? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>> Device off, sensors read baseline noise reading. >>>> >>>> Device on, sensors read local differential. Extrapolations get >>>>made, figures get arrived at. Task complete. >>> >>>No wonder my stove doesn't work. >>> >> >> It is your brain that isn't working. > >Most devices these days are in warm start mode. You are an assuming dip. > Instead >of measuring before and after power-on, the tests need >to measure before and after _plug-in_. You're silly. The standby watchdog circuits in products that do have them are very tiny, low consumption devices. They also have very low RF emission, if any at all. Try again. The discussion is about performing a test for EMI from a product in an "open field" setting. One takes a "baseline" reading of the local RFI/EMI noise in the area, THEN one applies power to the device one wants to test for noise emission. This is the same thing I stated above.
From: unsettled on 1 Feb 2007 21:06 MassiveProng wrote: > On Thu, 01 Feb 07 12:46:52 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com Gave us: > > >>It isn't the burners. It is the computer board in the stove that >>is bad. > > > The stove has a clock, a cooking timer, and maybe some thermal probe > monitoring ports. That isn't a computer. > > >>> If you want good AM reception, you need a good loop antenna. That >>>will keep the reception constant. Otherwise you have a serious issue >>>with your house wiring. >> >>I dismissed the wiring because no other object plugged does >>this. > > > The stove is not like ANY of the objects you describe. You have no > AC powered object in the house that is wired like, or gets its power > from the same branch... as the stove. It has its own SEPERATE AC > run. > > So you didn't even get that right. Might be a gas stove, dumbbell. They're plugged into regular branch circuits. Here's one with an embedded computer: http://www.ajmadison.com/cgi-bin/ajmadison/AGR5725RD.html
From: MassiveProng on 1 Feb 2007 21:26 On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 08:46:32 -0600, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> Gave us: >Eeyore wrote: >> >> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >> >>>MassiveProng <MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: >>> >>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com Gave us: >>>> >>>>> MassiveProng <MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Device off, sensors read baseline noise reading. >>>>>> >>>>>> Device on, sensors read local differential. Extrapolations get >>>>>>made, figures get arrived at. Task complete. >>>>> >>>>>No wonder my stove doesn't work. >>>> >>>>It is your brain that isn't working. >>> >>>Most devices these days are in warm start mode. Instead >>>of measuring before and after power-on, the tests need >>>to measure before and after _plug-in_. >> >> >> Nothing is measured when it isn't plugged in ! > >You display your ignorance. The background is measured. > >When's that brain transplant? You display your ignorance. There is no flaw in the test procedure.
From: MassiveProng on 1 Feb 2007 21:27
On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 14:47:45 +0000, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> Gave us: > > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> And how much did it cost you to have your anechoic chamber built? >> >> > >> >> >Why do you think he himself needs one ? >> >> > >> >> >You can rent them off test houses you know or indeed use an open field >> >> > site. >> >> >> >> If his company doesn't use production line assembling, then >> >> he is making them "by hand". Each one needs to be tested because >> >> a different "process" is used to make each individual system. >> > >> >You mean PCs ? >> > >> >All the component parts are compliant. The law assumes that any system made >> >of compliant parts will itself comply. >> >> I wouldn't assume that. > >It's a perfectly reasonable method. > > >> > Otherwise it *would* have been a nightmare ! >> >> Of course it is a nightmare. Why do you think we have the regs? > >It's not a nightmare. I should know, I'm the one dealing with it in my work not >you. > She gives "off the wall" a whole same meaning. |