Return-Path: X-Spam-DCC: paranoid 1290; Body=2 Fuz1=2 Fuz2=2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on lipkowski.org X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DNS_FROM_AHBL_RHSBL, FORGED_MUA_OUTLOOK,HTML_90_100,HTML_MESSAGE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no version=3.1.3 Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by paranoid.lipkowski.org (8.13.7/8.13.7) with ESMTP id u2AFuUYr005520 for ; Thu, 10 Mar 2016 16:56:30 +0100 Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1ae2tE-0003ko-HD for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Thu, 10 Mar 2016 15:52:40 +0000 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1ae2tE-0003kf-0n for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Thu, 10 Mar 2016 15:52:40 +0000 Received: from rgout0304.bt.lon5.cpcloud.co.uk ([65.20.0.210]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.86) (envelope-from ) id 1ae2tC-0000hq-75 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Thu, 10 Mar 2016 15:52:38 +0000 X-OWM-Source-IP: 81.129.182.138 (GB) X-OWM-Env-Sender: alan.melia@btinternet.com X-RazorGate-Suspect: true X-CTCH-RefID: str=0001.0A090201.56E19845.008F,ss=1,re=0.000,recu=0.000,reip=0.000,cl=1,cld=1,fgs=0 X-Junkmail-Premium-Raw: score=56/50,refid=2.7.2:2016.2.29.32415:17:56.218,ip=81.129.182.138,rules=__HAS_MSGID, __SANE_MSGID, MSGID_32HEX_LC, INVALID_MSGID_NO_FQDN, __MSGID_32HEX, __HAS_FROM, __PHISH_FROM2, __FRAUD_WEBMAIL_FROM, __TO_MALFORMED_2, __TO_NO_NAME, __REFERENCES, __BOUNCE_CHALLENGE_SUBJ, __BOUNCE_NDR_SUBJ_EXEMPT, __MIME_VERSION, __CT, __CTYPE_MULTIPART_ALT, __CTYPE_HAS_BOUNDARY, __CTYPE_MULTIPART, __HAS_X_PRIORITY, __HAS_MSMAIL_PRI, __HAS_X_MAILER, USER_AGENT_OE, __OUTLOOK_MUA_1, __USER_AGENT_MS_GENERIC, __ANY_URI, __URI_NO_WWW, __FRAUD_MONEY_BIG_COIN_DIG, __SUBJ_ALPHA_NEGATE, SUPERLONG_LINE, __HTML_MSWORD, __HTML_AHREF_TAG, __HAS_HTML, HTML_NO_HTTP, BODY_SIZE_10000_PLUS, BODYTEXTP_SIZE_3000_LESS, BODYTEXTH_SIZE_3000_MORE, __MIME_HTML, __TAG_EXISTS_HTML, RDNS_GENERIC_POOLED, __URI_NS, SXL_IP_DYNAMIC[138.182.129.81.fur], HTML_70_90, __FRAUD_MONEY_BIG_COIN, RDNS_SUSP_GENERIC, __PHISH_FROM, __OUTLOOK_MUA, RDNS_SUSP, __FRAUD_WEBMAIL, FORGED_MUA_OUTLOOK, REFERENCES, NO_URI_HTTPS, PHISH_HTML_MSWORD X-CTCH-Spam: Unknown Received: from gnat (81.129.182.138) by rgout03.bt.lon5.cpcloud.co.uk (8.6.122.06) (authenticated as alan.melia@btinternet.com) id 56D09A2C016E40E4 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Thu, 10 Mar 2016 15:52:37 +0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=btinternet.com; s=btcpcloud; t=1457625158; bh=2S4frE5OmAz8sXOYg8jMBxuDuwKlNCtGjA32EgUFl3g=; h=Message-ID:From:To:References:Subject:Date:MIME-Version:X-Mailer; b=BVGcO0R1QWLw7K4C/zK77wHa93qDVTtlAiE1+4zt8RzEyV7I4IgTP4qAHc+JkNkejkts33N3XUkCLqZGdgwMwDSQPDtl2UYfw3MnZGa4fWNTzU2JgQCoVbb3UJTsEhmiAx6p1IT5RyrPdvh68pa3uGeLm8hgJ82eaThXhTkr1yM= Message-ID: From: "Alan Melia" To: References: <56E18E66.7010809@t-online.de> Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2016 15:52:35 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157 X-Scan-Signature: c793d0c4de6e7a8e9de14f2dfb1e95c8 Subject: LF: Re: Touch switched lamp influenced by lf/mf transmission Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0004_01D17AE4.DD28DD30" X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org X-Listname: rsgb_lf_group X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: rs_out_1@blacksheep.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No; SAEximRunCond expanded to false X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.56 on 10.1.3.11 Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 7281 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0004_01D17AE4.DD28DD30 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Chris I doubt it. It sounds like an internal mod would be = required.....definitely a no-no unless it is your own unit. If it is = possible to supply some more detail i.e. make and model, I would like to = pass this to the RSGB EMC committee, more for information than anything = I doubt we can do anything about it. It is basically a sensitive unit, = its not really "non compliant" with the regs, I think, as there is no = spec below 150kHz. The problem is the touching body acts as an aerial. Alan G3NYK ----- Original Message -----=20 From: christoph=20 To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org=20 Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2016 3:10 PM Subject: LF: Touch switched lamp influenced by lf/mf transmission Dear all, my neighbour uses a very expensive lovely designer lamp switched by a = four step touch switch. Unfortunately that switch follows keying of my = mf transmitter. Is there somebody having experience with that kind of = malfunction? The distance to the antenna feeding point is approximately 16m (ANT = voltage app. 2.5kV). I tested a chain of eight common mode chokes in = series to the affected lamp (mains separation of more than 100kOhms at = the desired frequency). That showed improvement in sensitivity but the = switch did not work anymore during transmission. The most effective = solution is replacing the touch switch by a normal dimmer. Are there better ideas to keep in use the original touch switch? 73, Chris dl7saq ------=_NextPart_000_0004_01D17AE4.DD28DD30 Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =EF=BB=BF
Hi Chris I doubt it. It sounds like an = internal mod=20 would be required.....definitely a no-no unless it is your own unit. If = it is=20 possible to supply some more detail i.e. make and model, I would like to = pass=20 this to the RSGB  EMC committee, more for information than anything = I doubt=20 we can do anything about it. It is basically a sensitive unit, its not = really=20 "non compliant" with the regs, I think, as there is no spec below = 150kHz.=20 The problem is the touching body acts as an aerial.
 
Alan
G3NYK
 
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 christoph
Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2016 = 3:10=20 PM
Subject: LF: Touch switched = lamp=20 influenced by lf/mf transmission

Dear all,

my neighbour uses a very expensive lovely designer lamp = switched by=20 a four step touch switch. Unfortunately that switch follows keying of = my mf=20 transmitter. Is there somebody having experience with that kind of=20 malfunction?

The distance to the antenna feeding point is = approximately 16m (ANT=20 voltage app. 2.5kV). I tested a chain of eight common mode chokes in = series to=20 the affected lamp (mains separation of more than 100kOhms at the = desired=20 frequency). That showed improvement in sensitivity but the switch did = not work=20 anymore during transmission. The most effective solution is replacing = the=20 touch switch by a normal dimmer.

Are there better ideas to keep in use the original touch=20 switch?

73, Chris

dl7saq

------=_NextPart_000_0004_01D17AE4.DD28DD30--