BPL industry take on why power lines are not antennas
 

These are the reply comments of Ameren Energy Corporation:

http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/r...f=pdf&id_docum
ent=6514683314

They outline why power lines are excellent RF transmission lines that radiate
only at points of "discontinuity."

And, for those that may wonder: there was a typo in the formula, but the
calculations that follow had been done correctly. (Too bad they used the typo
to do all of their calculations incorrectly...)

I re-ran the antenna models and easily found the gain that the ARRL paper had
documented. (The easiest wa to do that is to run a 3 D model in EZW, then check
the box for a 2D display. It will display the plot of maximum gain). Maybe
they can sign up for the ARRL modeling course.

Those that want an easy list of the links to the industry and organizational
filings on BPL can go to:

http://www.arrl.org/~ehare/bpl/hyperlinks.html

73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI

The EE Times August 25, 2003 cover article is "Smarter grid could warn
of impending blackouts". Leftari Tsoukalas of Purdue University (and
others) proposes smart monitors on the grid. The idea is to prevent
massive blackouts by better understanding and controlling the grid.
Good as far as it goes. However...

The article carefully does not mention how the information gets around
the grid. The implication appears to be BPL. E.g., they refer to
microcontrollers at the power meter (few of which have ethernet cables
and DSL connections as far as I know).

Is anyone in a position to actually find out what Purdue is up to?
And perhaps forward the BPL RFI concerns to them before this goes much
further?

Frankly, the article's timing looks amazingly similar to the energy
industy's "Gosh, 9/11, we'd better drill ANWR" opportunism.

[snip]
W1RFI wrote:

These are the reply comments of Ameren Energy Corporation:
http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/r...f=pdf&id_docum
ent=6514683314
They outline why power lines are excellent RF transmission lines
that radiate
only at points of "discontinuity." And, for those that may wonder:
there was a typo in the formula, but the
calculations that follow had been done correctly. (Too bad they used the typo
to do all of their calculations incorrectly...)
I re-ran the antenna models and easily found the gain that the ARRL
paper had
documented. (The easiest wa to do that is to run a 3 D model in EZW, then check
the box for a 2D display. It will display the plot of maximum gain). Maybe
they can sign up for the ARRL modeling course.
Those that want an easy list of the links to the industry and
organizational
filings on BPL can go to:
http://www.arrl.org/~ehare/bpl/hyperlinks.html
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI

This subject (BPL) will become huge,

Yea, with today's car radios, nobody will be able to listen to AM, no front end
selectivity. Just drive by power line noise or BC station and it is all over
the dial.
I wonder what the noisy power lines, insulators will do to BPL, QRM it hell?

Yuri

My suggestion to you: double- or triple-check your postings for easy
stuff like typo's.

We did, but with having to create and run over 100 EZNEC models, document same
in a 40+ page technical write-up, do two other technical write-ups, plan the
BPL field-trial testing, do the BPL field-trial testing, all on the fastest
fuse I have ever seen the FCC put a major issue on, it was inevitable that
small errors crept in. Every single publication I know, ARRL or other, contains
errors. The fumble-fingered typing of 115 where 135 was intended is just not
something that would have been caught in a proofreader's read.

73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI