Region 1 Database of Interference Signatures and Actions

Discussion in 'C7 - EMC Matters' started by M0JAV, Oct 30, 2015.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. M0JAV

    M0JAV Moderator

    It is proposed that a database of interference signatures be set up to help members identify their source of interference. This should include spectrum waterfalls, sound signatures and unique identifiers. Advice could be prepared on how to identify and then locate the source. Members would be encouraged to post their own examples and to suggest any remedial measures they have found effective.

    This could also be used to seed surveys to find out how common this source is and to encourage amateurs to take up the problem with their national enforcement agencies.

    John Rogers M0JAV
    Chairman EMC Committee
  2. M0JAV

    M0JAV Moderator

    Here is the draft of our proposed paper. We would welcome your comments and suggested additions. These will be required by end of December to allow a final version to be submitted in January.

    Attached Files:

  3. G3NYK

    G3NYK New Member

    John I note the quote from the background....
    The essential requirement of the EMC directive is intended “to ensure that the
    electromagnetic disturbance generated does not exceed the level above which radio and
    telecommunications equipment or other equipment cannot operate as intended”.

    This would seem to be imprecise to the level of being able to be intentionally misinterpreted. If the interference is received via the aerial terminal it does not stop the equipment "operating", though it may prevent the equipment from being used as it might be in a quieter environment. I would (obviously) like to see allowable levels related to historical noise levels as quoted in ITU recs. Surely equipment which is not required to radiate for its successfull operation should not significantly increase the local historically expected noise levels.

    The above statement could allow the maker of noisy equipment to claim it "did not stop the equipment operating" and it also gives a let out for regulatory bodies, which we have seen in some recent cases.

    I can also anticipate that there could be problems in the translation of such basis to other languages.

    Alan Melia
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page