[mdlug] OT - IR jamming

[Dave Arbogast]

Garry Stahl wrote:

>Ingles, Raymond wrote:
>  
>
>> Well, it's not quite intended like that. Don't forget the other part of that,
>>that it must not cause interference. The intent of the law is to limit power
>>levels so that the signals generated by the device as it operates don't
>>interfere with the operations of other, legally-more-important devices. They
>>may in fact be shielded, but the intent of the law is to make it so that if a
>>legally-more-important device interferes with a less-important one, tough beans.
>>They can't, say, detect the interference and boost their power levels (beyond
>>legal limits) to compensate.
>>  
>>    
>>
>
>Nor apparently sufficiently shield themselves from said interference.
>That is the part I wonder about.  It's not sufficient to not cause
>interference, which I think it should be, but you must allow
>interference.  So If I come up with Garry's Superior RF shielding, that
>keeps my device not only from interfering but from being interfered with
>I can't use it?
>
>The wording of the rule is odd to say the least.
>
>  
>
OK, My K10D has the Part 15 rule requiring it to "must accept any 
interference received including interference that may cause undesirable 
operation"

But it goes on to say -

"Changes or modification not approved by the party responsible for the 
compliance could void the user's authority to operate the equipment."

So much for Tin Foil.  Sure wish I had a second chance to photo graph a 
high value person.

-dave