Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #71   Report Post  
Old September 27th 03, 12:14 AM
Dee D. Flint
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
...

"Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com wrote in message
link.net...


The transmission lines are radiators. As such they will also receive.

Power lines are right up next to the rigs. The RF from the radios will
trash the BPL. Probably by causing drop outs and adding lots of extra
delays. Basically it will make BPL useless anywhere near a ham station.

Dan/W4NTI



OK, let's say it does slow or even stop BPL near a ham station. Why
wouldn't the FCC restrict amatuer operations around BPL areas?



Right now and under the new power level proposal, BPL must meet Part 15.
This means that it legally cannot cause interference to any authorized or
licensed radio service and must accept interference from any authorized or
licensed radio service. Therefore any problems in BPL must be resolved on
the BPL side under current regulations. It would require changes in both
Part 15 and Part 97 to restrict operations around BPL areas. Plus don't
forget the non-ham spectrum users. The FCC will have a heck of a time
telling commercial AM radio, FM radio, and over-the-air TV broadcasters to
shut down.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE




  #72   Report Post  
Old September 27th 03, 12:55 AM
Frank Dresser
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
.com...


Right now and under the new power level proposal, BPL must meet Part 15.
This means that it legally cannot cause interference to any authorized or
licensed radio service and must accept interference from any authorized or
licensed radio service. Therefore any problems in BPL must be resolved on
the BPL side under current regulations. It would require changes in both
Part 15 and Part 97 to restrict operations around BPL areas.


Yes, that's the question. If a currently legal amatuer radio operator could
shut down high speed internet access for a given area, is there any reason
the FCC couldn't change it's current regulations, and put in new
restrictions on amateur radio?


Plus don't
forget the non-ham spectrum users. The FCC will have a heck of a time
telling commercial AM radio, FM radio, and over-the-air TV broadcasters to
shut down.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE


I'm sure the FCC wouldn't restrict any of that. The TV networks, radio
networks and all the people who watch and listen won't let them.

Frank Dresser



  #73   Report Post  
Old September 27th 03, 12:55 AM
Frank Dresser
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
.com...


Right now and under the new power level proposal, BPL must meet Part 15.
This means that it legally cannot cause interference to any authorized or
licensed radio service and must accept interference from any authorized or
licensed radio service. Therefore any problems in BPL must be resolved on
the BPL side under current regulations. It would require changes in both
Part 15 and Part 97 to restrict operations around BPL areas.


Yes, that's the question. If a currently legal amatuer radio operator could
shut down high speed internet access for a given area, is there any reason
the FCC couldn't change it's current regulations, and put in new
restrictions on amateur radio?


Plus don't
forget the non-ham spectrum users. The FCC will have a heck of a time
telling commercial AM radio, FM radio, and over-the-air TV broadcasters to
shut down.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE


I'm sure the FCC wouldn't restrict any of that. The TV networks, radio
networks and all the people who watch and listen won't let them.

Frank Dresser



  #74   Report Post  
Old September 27th 03, 01:44 AM
Frank Dresser
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
.com...


Well interference caused by hams will be small potatoes compared to the
power that some of the commercial broadcasters are allowed to use. That
will compromise BPL over a much larger area than any ham station ever

could.
If BPL ever comes to my area, I'm within a few hundred yards of some of
these broadcasters so the BPL users will never even notice my signal since
they'll be constantly torn up by the commercial stuff.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE


I expect the BPLers would trap the broadcast frequencies. If the
interference from established broadcasters is still too high, they simply
won't offer service in that neighborhood.

But I don't think RF is the biggest problem for BPL. Overhead power lines
will only intercept a small percentage of the RF, and re-radiate at least
half of that. I think noise sources plugged directly into the power line
are going to cause far more problems.

Frank Dresser


  #75   Report Post  
Old September 27th 03, 01:44 AM
Frank Dresser
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
.com...


Well interference caused by hams will be small potatoes compared to the
power that some of the commercial broadcasters are allowed to use. That
will compromise BPL over a much larger area than any ham station ever

could.
If BPL ever comes to my area, I'm within a few hundred yards of some of
these broadcasters so the BPL users will never even notice my signal since
they'll be constantly torn up by the commercial stuff.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE


I expect the BPLers would trap the broadcast frequencies. If the
interference from established broadcasters is still too high, they simply
won't offer service in that neighborhood.

But I don't think RF is the biggest problem for BPL. Overhead power lines
will only intercept a small percentage of the RF, and re-radiate at least
half of that. I think noise sources plugged directly into the power line
are going to cause far more problems.

Frank Dresser




  #76   Report Post  
Old September 27th 03, 01:51 AM
Dee D. Flint
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
...

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
.com...


Well interference caused by hams will be small potatoes compared to the
power that some of the commercial broadcasters are allowed to use. That
will compromise BPL over a much larger area than any ham station ever

could.
If BPL ever comes to my area, I'm within a few hundred yards of some of
these broadcasters so the BPL users will never even notice my signal

since
they'll be constantly torn up by the commercial stuff.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE


I expect the BPLers would trap the broadcast frequencies. If the
interference from established broadcasters is still too high, they simply
won't offer service in that neighborhood.

But I don't think RF is the biggest problem for BPL. Overhead power lines
will only intercept a small percentage of the RF, and re-radiate at least
half of that. I think noise sources plugged directly into the power line
are going to cause far more problems.

Frank Dresser


Could very well be. If one of the neighbors has welding equipment, that can
really put a lot of noise onto an electrical line. It takes a lot of
filtering to keep that out of your radio and no doubt would do a good job of
interfering with the Internet signal.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

  #77   Report Post  
Old September 27th 03, 01:51 AM
Dee D. Flint
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
...

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
.com...


Well interference caused by hams will be small potatoes compared to the
power that some of the commercial broadcasters are allowed to use. That
will compromise BPL over a much larger area than any ham station ever

could.
If BPL ever comes to my area, I'm within a few hundred yards of some of
these broadcasters so the BPL users will never even notice my signal

since
they'll be constantly torn up by the commercial stuff.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE


I expect the BPLers would trap the broadcast frequencies. If the
interference from established broadcasters is still too high, they simply
won't offer service in that neighborhood.

But I don't think RF is the biggest problem for BPL. Overhead power lines
will only intercept a small percentage of the RF, and re-radiate at least
half of that. I think noise sources plugged directly into the power line
are going to cause far more problems.

Frank Dresser


Could very well be. If one of the neighbors has welding equipment, that can
really put a lot of noise onto an electrical line. It takes a lot of
filtering to keep that out of your radio and no doubt would do a good job of
interfering with the Internet signal.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

  #78   Report Post  
Old September 27th 03, 06:04 AM
shephed
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Capt. Carl would you please make BPL go away like you did the real Hams.

Thank you.

10-73's!


  #79   Report Post  
Old September 27th 03, 06:04 AM
shephed
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Capt. Carl would you please make BPL go away like you did the real Hams.

Thank you.

10-73's!


  #80   Report Post  
Old September 30th 03, 10:50 PM
James
 
Posts: n/a
Default

(Geoffrey S. Mendelson) ha scritto:

In article , Bob M. wrote:

The rest of your symptoms are very strange. I can offer no help at all.
Obviously something is wrong, but I can't even begin to tell you what to
look for.


They are very common. Kenwood potted the main PLL in a rubber compound
to isolate from thermal changes and mechanical shock. In plain English to
slow down the effect of temperature changes and prevent frequency jumping
if you tapped the radio, or when mobile went over a bump.

The problem is that over the years the rubber compound started to absorb
water from the air. If you were in a totaly dry enviornment this would
never happen. I have an R5000 (same problem). When I lived in the U.S. I
kept the radio in a basement that was so wet everything would rot in a
few days, so we kept a dehumidifier running and the basement was very
dry. The radio never had a problem.

After sitting in a box and then a freight container over the ocean, it
picked up enough moisture to fail in about 3 months.

The fix is simple in theory and is documented on the Kenwood web site.
You remove the shield from the main PLL, remove the rubber compound,
replace any parts damaged due to corrosion and readjust the PLL.

An experienced technician, such as Cliff at AAVID, can do it for
about $100 for parts and labor. Unless you have the correct tools
and equipment, I'm not sure you can do it, but many people have.

Geoff.

--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson
972-54-608-069
Icq/AIM Uin: 2661079 MSN IM:
(Not for email)
Carp are bottom feeders, koi are too, and not surprisingly are ferrets.


Well, others already said that, but I have looked pratically
every board in the TS-450 and found no rubber compunds.
Indeed, now I know buch better my rig and I was amazed on how
well the parts are put and fixed and how it is easy to unmount
them.

What I found up to know is in another message.

Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Kenwood TS-940 & TS-930 Repair Service John Boatanchors 1 March 6th 11 06:03 AM
Kenwood hf repair DXer Dx 2 September 11th 04 06:27 PM
Kenwood hf repair DXer Dx 0 September 11th 04 06:02 PM
Kenwood & Yaesu Repair Service John Boatanchors 0 January 31st 04 10:18 AM
Kenwood 930/940 Repair Service John Boatanchors 0 January 11th 04 01:34 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:48 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 RadioBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Radio"

 

Copyright © 2017