Re: stopRFI group
- From: Roadie <hjsjms@xxxxxx>
- Date: 21 May 2007 10:07:19 -0700
On May 21, 12:05 pm, bill <gfrep...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On May 21, 10:29 am, e...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Michael Black) wrote:
bill (gfrep...@xxxxxxxxxxx) writes:
On May 21, 8:47 am, Roadie <hjs...@xxxxxx> wrote:
On May 21, 8:48 am, bill <gfrep...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
If anyone finds any articles or links that they consider flawed or in
error, please email me
at gfreport at hotmail dot com and provide correct information, a link
would be very nice.
So far the only article I've seen is this email. Are you going to be
posting additional documents under this thread on rec.radio.shortwave?
In the RFI world there are often contradictory ways that achieve the
same or very similar
levels of reduction.
While I intend the stopRFI group to mainly deal with SW, 1.8MHz
through 30MHz, RFI
reduction techniques for LW, MW or even VHF/UHF are appreciated and
will be included.
I hope to add a folder on non obvious "RFI" issues like front end over
load and "out of
band" interference such as MW or even FM BCB issues. I found the R2000
better at LF, 100KHz through 500KHz, with the addition of a "Low Pass,
MW reject filter",
such as the one offered by Kiwa.
For my purposes I consider any interference to be RFI and I hope to
include links to
sites that detail how to deal with all of them. For instance the Betts
really help a receiver like the R2000 in crowded band conditions.
The group can be found at <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopRFI/>.
Membership is open to all.
Posting is disabled.
At 65 links and 45 files there isn't really anyway to post it here.
So you've got a "group" that is only accessible if you join up. Yet
the content is coming from elsewhere.
That is not a good thing.
It's bad enough when I do websearches on my email addresses and find
a page where a post of mine about an old receiver appears, nobody every
told me that they were going to do that, but the subject header has
been garbled because the person who put it there things I'm saying
something I didn't say (I was correcting someone's notion here that
a certain older receiver used the Wadley loop, yet on that website
the subject header has been changed to suggest that I am reinforcing
the notion, or something like that, I forget).
There is a big difference between the google archive where newsgroup
postings are kept in context, and someone taking posts and sticking
them on webpages out of context. I think it's fair, and completely
useful, to link to relevant messages in the google archive, but I take
a dim view of messages being placed on websites out of that context.
But instead of making up a webpage to do all this, you've taken
the easy way, use yahoo, but the cost is that it's not available to
all. You have to sign up to see the links, to see the files. That
information is lost to the many.
When Mark Holden went off and created a yahoo group for discussing
synchronous detectors, I took issue with that because it balkanizes
things even further. And unlike setting up a new newsgroup to discuss
the topic, it's way off somewhere else, with little to connect
the two. Sure, the public can read the messages without signing up,
but the files and links are unavailable. Note, this is because the
commercial entity known as yahoo wants to use that content to lure
readership to their ads, and they want the minimal sign up information
in order to help sculpt the ads that the readers see. Newcomers may
not think anything is wrong with that, but those of us who have been
around the internet for long enough realize the whole point was to
let information loose, and that is contradicted by the notion of
little places on the internet where you have to sign up.
So not only did Mark Holden take away to some extent discussion of
synchronous detectors, not only did he not offer something up to
the whole world by making a simple webpage with the contents instead
of locking it behind some corporate signup, but after some initial
flurry of activity, that yahoo group is dead. A sympton, methinks,
of a too specific topic.
The only posts or threads form news groups are those that r2000swler
participant and he has mainly copied his comments only keeping the
of others as needed to keep the meaning clear. In the near future he
these few posts as stand alone text that he will have completed.
The links are an attempt to avoid geting anything out of context.
The files are complete and should not be ambigious or hopefully will
anything out of context. All are either public domain, or "fair use"
comercial with a link to the origianl file.
If you, or anyone for that matte, finds anything that has been taken
context", or presented in a way that you consider unfair, please let
and I will consider removing the link or the file. Clearly if someone
by anything in the public domain, like the "US NAVY AC Mains RFI
that is simply too bad.
For the most I have the permission of the creator of the that are
Dallas Lankford sent me the files of his that I have posted.
W1HIS granted me permission to publish some stuff he emailed to
Any requests for removal , or good links can be made in this group, or
me an email at gfreport at hotmail. dot com.
I did not start the stopRFI group to irrate anyone. I wanted to make a
clearing house with RFI info that people I trust feel is useful. But
are my choice. I haven't rejected anything yet, I have removed some
reviewing them and decciding they do not fit the "mission profile".
Will- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I think the clearinghouse approach is a good idea. In a perfect
world Yahoo would be free of spammers and trolls. Unfortunately the
real world is that an open Yahoo group can work only if the forum
leader patrols the posts constantly.
- Re: stopRFI group
- From: bill
- Re: stopRFI group
- Prev by Date: Re: (OT) Fluorescent Light Bulb Warning.
- Next by Date: Re: Interference to CHU Canada after 06:00 UT.
- Previous by thread: Re: stopRFI group
- Next by thread: Re: stopRFI group