|
On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 16:00:39 GMT, Dave Shrader
wrote: Look at that BPL antenna in the foreground!!!! That's nearly half a mile away and probably not the type of lines they'd be using. I think they need their feed points closer together than those towers. So far I get very little noise from that line, but the one feeding the neighborhood comes in from the south through a mile of woods. It has some very noise spots, but of the intermittent variety. Roger Halstead wrote: On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 20:20:31 GMT, "Jim Hampton" wrote: Brian, I don't know about you, but I received a whole week pass from Belleveu :) I'm not sure about the crazy part, but... For those who have a "good" broadband connection here is a panoramic view from the top of my tower. If you don't have broad band, don't waste your time. This thing is 19.5 megs. It should take under a minute with cable, and close to 10 minutes with ADSL, so you can imagine how long it'd take with a dial up connection. http://www.rogerhalstead.com/towerview.htm I stood on the triangular top plate of the ROHN 45 G (at 100 feet) and shot the entire series hand held. The camera was set to manual, but BTW, I was thoroughly belted to the mast coming out the top of the tower. Where I was standing the mast is really two concentric steel tubes. One is 1 1/2 while the other is 2 inch. Both have 1/4 inch wall. There are two 21 foot lengths of 1 1/2 welded together and then a single two inch, 21 feet long over the middle. I put all that up by hand and welded the two center masts together inside the tower. the wind was gusting to 20 MPH plus, so a few of them didn't line up good enough for a proper match when making the panorama. 20 MPH gusts make all that steel shift around while the tower hardly quivers. When the wind gets up around 60 to 70 MPH the top of the mast with the pair of 12L 2 meter antennas and a pari of 11L 440s looks like a Bluegill fly rod that just hooked into a Largemouth Bass. It's amazing those two arrays have held together this long. Roger Halstead (K8RI EN73 & ARRL Life Member) www.rogerhalstead.com N833R World's oldest Debonair? (S# CD-2) Roger Halstead (K8RI EN73 & ARRL Life Member) www.rogerhalstead.com N833R World's oldest Debonair? (S# CD-2) |
On 15 Oct 2003 22:30:17 -0700, Brian Kelly wrote:
This means that the manufacturer is required to test them to ensure that they comply with the FCC regulations. Under the present rules, they must be tested at 3 typical locations. " What's the FCC definition of "typical locations"?? De facto: any place where the results support the stand that one is advocating. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane |
Yeah Roger, I used to live within 100 meters of three sets of 3 phase
high tension lines and they were VERY quiet. In 38 years of operation from that location I can't recall more than a handful of noisy times, generally during high humidity in July/August, when the insulators would corona. These were generally cleaned up within a few days to a week. DD, W1MCE Roger Halstead wrote: |
Is the ARRL preparing a FAQ for amateurs who have scopes, spectrum
analyzers, or service monitors, etc., as to how they might go about inspecting a suspected chunk of spectrum and how detect, identify, qualify whey they see/hear? Not at this time, Dan. I want to talk with amateurs who are going to go into the trial areas, to share my experiences and to make sure I learn as much as possible from theirs. FAQs are a great way for beginners to learn about a subject, but some things are still best left to real dialogue. 73, Ed Hare, W1RFI |
I think a general description of other RFI sources would be helpful for any
radio amateur to make a 'first cut' assessment. It might also help you isolate the truly legitimate cases of BPL RFI--if and when they exist. There are several RFI sources that would be the most common ones misidentified as BPL. The first is "conventional" power-line noise. It is usually characterized by having a *noisy* 120-Hz component, as the sparking takes place on the positive and negative peaks of the 60-Hz wave. Another is similar, occurring from things like lamp dimmers, motor controllers, flourescent lights, etc. Those sources usually have a 120- or 60-Hz component, but the noise on the peaks is usually quite a bit less noisy looking. Switch-mode power supplies can also be noisy, but they generally have noise that ranges from reasonably coherent (carrier-like) to broad, buzzy clumps of noise, spaced every N kHz, where N is the free-running rate of the switcher frequency. N is typically 10-50 kHz or so. Some switchers make noise that is fairly close to gaussian-distributed noise, with a pretty uniform distibribution of power vs frequency (power spectral density). One key diagnostic for a switcher is that the N kHz tends to drift around a bit. A series of noisy carriers or clumps of noise that are spaced every 15 kHz, for example, may drift up the band as the unit is turned on and warms up over an hour or so. If so, it is almost certainly a switcher. (I do, btw, suspect that the "plasma tv" problem is really a switch-mode problem, as some amateurs have reported no interference from plasma TVs. On my long list of things to do is to take the Lab's Icom R-3 receiver to the local big electronics store and see if I can get some estimates of the noise level from various equipments.) Probably the most diagnostic, however, it the distribution of noise signal vs frequency. BPL is designed to use specific spectrum, and as one tunes a general coverage receiver from 2 to 80 MHz, its onset will be rather sudden, it will persist for at least several MHz, then taper off just as abruptly. I do have a concern that hams not make too many false alarms. Sounds like you are on top of the the problem and I wish you the best. There are no guarantees, but I am hoping that by talking to each of the hams that report BPL interference, between them and me we can reach the correct conclusion. If things don't add up, I will suggest that it not be reported. Each report of actual interference is precious right now, and I would be willing to go to the trial area to verify a questionable case. Thanks for your interest. 73, Ed Hare, W1RFI |
TV channels 2, 3, 4, and 5 will get clobbered by the junk going up to 80MHz.
The video signal is AM modulated onto the channel carrier (with a portion of the lower sideband suppressed) and will have no ability to reject the BPL noise. The effect would be somewhat similar to a sparky vacuum cleaner motor throwing white and black spots throuout the picture. The sound, being FM, will fare better. Well, there's digital HDTV, but most everyone still uses analog TV. And I don't get cable or satellite. 2 to 80 MHz is the spectrum that the BPL folks asked to try in their experimental license applications. I have not seen any BPL above 50 MHz -- so far. And at the levels I have seen BPL, digital TV won't help. The digital TV demodulation process can ignore noise up to a point. An analog TV signal that was somewhat noisy, but perfectly watchable, would probably be clean on digital. An analog signal that was noisy, but still just watchable would have many digital errors that would result in portions of the screen locking up for a few seconds at a time, loss of audio for seconds, etc. And just a little bit past that point, the digital TV signal would fall apart all together. 73, Ed Hare, W1RFI |
Under the present
rules, they must be tested at 3 typical locations. " What's the FCC definition of "typical locations"?? There is none. 15.209 is the problem, it's grossly outdated, did not foresee anything like BPL and the limits needs to be revised downward which is one piece of this brawl. Ref: Tailpipe emissions regs, same basic problem, different pollution media. A good tailpipe analogy would be to consider the present tailpipe emissions limits. We can still breathe with the number of cars that emit. Now, the equivalent to BPL emissions occurring on several MHz at a time would be to stack 100 cars on top of each other and have them all running at the same time. The equivalent to building the system as large as an entire community is to do that for every square inch of roadway. Would the emissions limits that work for an occasional car passing by your home still work under those circumstances, or would we all choke to death in a matter of minutes? 73, Ed Hare, W1RFI |
"Phil Kane" wrote in message . net...
On 15 Oct 2003 22:30:17 -0700, Brian Kelly wrote: This means that the manufacturer is required to test them to ensure that they comply with the FCC regulations. Under the present rules, they must be tested at 3 typical locations. " What's the FCC definition of "typical locations"?? De facto: any place where the results support the stand that one is advocating. Oh golly, I would never have guessed that . . |
http://www.rochesterdandc.com/biznew...business.shtml
Not a lot of hard info here, but politics in action. |
|
|
In article , Carl R. Stevenson
wrote: Hi Carl, I made a trip to the Cape Giradeu MO test area. This ws a very limited test area encompassing maybe 10 - 15 homes judging from the inductors I saw on the utility poles. I found that BPL seems to operate in an "idle" mode and a active demand mode. When in the idle mode the intereference from the upper BC band through 20 meters is quite noticable and was registering S7 - S9 on the meter of my IC-737 connected to a Hustler antenna with 40 and 20 meter resonators attached. It was also audible from about 1520 and up on the BC band. When in active mode, (probably when someone was downloading something) the S meter readings went to 30+ over S9 and the top of the broadcast band was seriously hacked up. I also detected effects at the bottem of the FM broadcast band. The highest reading I saw was on the 20 meter band. When in the active mode, I could detect serious levels of BPL interference at 500 feet growing weaker out to about 1,000 feet when it dropped below my traditional mobile noise level. After hearing it and seeing it's potential for devestating interference, I am of the opinion that it will be a serious problem for anyone using the spectrum between 1.6 and 88 MHZ. In addition, I am willing to bet that the radiation will be rich in harmonics. 73 George K3UD EX- WA3DNC, W3GEO "W1RFI" wrote in message ... Write or call your local AM broadcast stations and tell them that thier signal is being wiped out and you can't recieve them. When I was in Emmaus, PA, I turned on the car AM radio and didn't hear any noise on the AM broadcast band. I believe that some of the reports may have been in error. 73, Ed Hare, W1RFI I can confirm what Ed reports above ... on my first drive through the Emmaus BPL area, I didn't have my FT-817 with me ... I noted little/no BPL noise in the AM broadcast band ... perhaps a bit of extra noise at the very upper end of the band around 1600 kHz, but nothing like what exists on 80-15m. Again, I want to help Ed drive the point home - false claims of "BPL interference" will do a LOT of harm to our cause ... I encourage anyone who thinks they might be experiencing BPL interference to communicate with Ed and let him help to verify things. I also encourage everyone to send a donation to the ARRL's BPL fund - you don't have to agree with *everything* the ARRL does to be willing to help to overcome this major threat to our future on HF. Carl - wk3c |
"PDQ" wrote in message ... In article , Carl R. Stevenson wrote: Hi Carl, I made a trip to the Cape Giradeu MO test area. This ws a very limited test area encompassing maybe 10 - 15 homes judging from the inductors I saw on the utility poles. I found that BPL seems to operate in an "idle" mode and a active demand mode. You might want to contact this fellow. http://iamnee.com/ I don't remember if he's a ham, I worked with him on a project there a couple years ago. He does have nice spectrum analysis tools, and he lives there in Cape G. |
Most of this discussion on BPL focuses on the impact of
BPL on HF reception. What would 1500w of continuous RTTY do to the users of BPL? How would a BPL modem, which is necessarily wideband cope with gross overload? Tom - N1MM Check out the N1MM Free Contest Logger at: http://www.n1mm.com http://groups.yahoo.com/group/N1MMLogger/ |
|
I probably missed it, but will ask anyway, is there
a list of the areas that are being tested? Anything in the Northern IL or Southern WI areas? Nothing in those areas, at least not for now. I have most of the locations pinned down, but I have not posted them on a "public" URL. A few of the utilities and one of the BPL manufacturers (Ambient) is being very cooperative. One of the promises I made is that ARRL will help them determine the interference potential of BPL systems, but that we will do it in a way that is minimally disruptive to them. Having hordes of hams showing up in these areas would probably not be a good idea, especially seeing as it would only take one of the ones who offered to use the couplers for target practice to undermine months of building good will. If you are willing to do a more quiet foray into the test areas, email me and let me know and I can provide some info, although it will be a good drive for you. I have posted the cities involved, and can repeat the list if it is needed. 73, Ed Hare, W1RFI |
Having hordes of hams showing up in these areas
would probably not be a good idea, especially seeing as it would only take one of the ones who offered to use the couplers for target practice to undermine months of building good will. Defnintely not fair play! If you are willing to do a more quiet foray into the test areas, email me and let me know and I can provide some info, although it will be a good drive for you. I have posted the cities involved, and can repeat the list if it is needed. I can do a quiet sniff within any reasonable distance of east central indiana. BTW: I was wondering exactly how you calibrate your system for field strength values. |
|
|
On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 13:35:06 GMT, "Tom Wagner"
wrote: Most of this discussion on BPL focuses on the impact of BPL on HF reception. What would 1500w of continuous RTTY do to the users of BPL? How would a BPL modem, which is necessarily wideband cope with gross overload? It'll turn a "deaf ear" to the RTTY...rather it'll just go deaf if you are close enough. Roger Halstead (K8RI EN73 & ARRL Life Member) www.rogerhalstead.com N833R World's oldest Debonair? (S# CD-2) Tom - N1MM Check out the N1MM Free Contest Logger at: http://www.n1mm.com http://groups.yahoo.com/group/N1MMLogger/ |
(Steve Robeson, K4CAP) wrote in message . com...
(Brian) wrote in message . com... Its a complex issue. Thank goodness we have lawyers and engineers to figure it all out for us. Heaven forbid that you'd ever take the initiative to think for yourself, Brain. Steve, K4YZ Apparently you didn't see Phil's answer. Pull your head out - "The "pop" heard around the world." |
|
Steve Robeson, K4CAP wrote:
(Brian) wrote in message . com... What does BPL sound like? Can someone post a wav file somewhere so it can be identified? Is it worse that the Pennsylvania QSO party? Did someone take over a frequency you owned? Mike, that was kinda rude. Whoa....BRAIN suggesting to someone else what is rude! Whadid I doo? Heck just last weekend in a contest on 40 and 80 meters, I went to some open frequencies and asked "is the frequency in use? And several times a ham wouls reply and say "yes it is". Then nothing would happen. Silence. If those hams didn't own those frquencies they wouldn't lord over them would they? No wonder they don't like us contesters. Those poor guys had to sit by their radios all day to keep teletresspassers like me off their frequencies! - Mike KB3EIA - |
W1RFI wrote:
I have not looked at a plasma TV, Chip, but I would make that diagnosis primarily on on the basis of the sphere of influence. In the BPL test areas, the interference was heard over the entire area that had the BPL couplers in place. Hmmm - I wonder ... presumably the BPL couplers are capacitors coupling appropriate RF from one leg of the power system to the next. Would they also couple spuriously-generated RF at similar frequencies? (yeah, I'm sure the couplers are more involved than simple RF bypass caps - that's not the question here.) The PPL rep accused you of mis-interpreting the RF from a neon sign as a BPL signal. What DOES happen to the hash generated by a neon sign, then? is it propagated through the power grid much further when BPL couplers are present? How about other sources of broadband noise, like loose wires, arcing insulators, etc? Will the entire BPL scheme spread all these other spurious emissions far and wide? And, by the way, since aircraft use AM, do they receive hash when they fly over BPL lines? Are our brethren in aviation potentially useful allies in this war? Bob, KI8AB |
On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 13:36:17 -0500, Robert Lyons
wrote: W1RFI wrote: I have not looked at a plasma TV, Chip, but I would make that diagnosis primarily on on the basis of the sphere of influence. In the BPL test areas, the interference was heard over the entire area that had the BPL couplers in place. Hmmm - I wonder ... presumably the BPL couplers are capacitors coupling appropriate RF from one leg of the power system to the next. Would they also couple spuriously-generated RF at similar frequencies? (yeah, I'm sure the couplers are more involved than simple RF bypass caps - that's not the question here.) The PPL rep accused you of mis-interpreting the RF from a neon sign as a BPL signal. What DOES happen to the hash generated by a neon sign, then? is it propagated through the power grid much further when BPL couplers are present? How about other sources of broadband noise, like loose wires, arcing insulators, etc? Will the entire BPL scheme spread all these other spurious emissions far and wide? And, by the way, since aircraft use AM, do they receive hash when they fly over BPL lines? Are our brethren in aviation potentially useful allies in this war? We'd basically have to identify an area close to an airport. IF it were to interfere it would be more likely to interfere with nav radios such as the ILS and VORs. Even small planes are likely to be several thousand feet above any current test area and as the areas are small any interference would be brief and quite likely unnoticed. Now, if they'd put one off the approach end of a runway using an ILS and screw up the glide slope indication for an airliner, I think the PBL experiment would be over in a hurry. I don't think that is going to happen. Even if those frequencies are "notched out" I think it would affect an ILS indicator and I emphasize the "I think" part. I also think they will avoid putting anything near an airport until the system is in widespread use with the hopes that sheer pressure would force the continuance of the service. These people "ain't dumb". They are going to play everything to their advantage including attempts to discredit any testing that shows them in a bad light, as we've already seen. I wouldn't call them dishonest, or that they would resort to "prefabrication, or prevarication". I think everyone can draw their own conclusions. I would hope the FAA and FCC would require specific testing be done both in the laboratory and in the field due to the quite possible severe consequences were interference to aviation to occur. Roger Halstead (K8RI EN73 & ARRL Life Member) www.rogerhalstead.com N833R World's oldest Debonair? (S# CD-2) Bob, KI8AB |
Has a radio station lost income because advertisers
are not having their messages heard by some listeners? Have any radio stations complained of interference of any sort ? These people count much more than anybody because they have money which means influence. What would really count is to vote out the present government so that it would cost twice as much as was originaly thought as influence costs would have to start all over again. On the other hand is local broadcasting on the way out together with ham radio? We appear to know everything that counts so that with mystery gone so will curiousity. Our monthly magazine is not eagerly awaited anymore as the first portion is really of interest to the few and the second portion is devoted to organisational business. Seems like a lot of hams have migrated to the internet to discuss items of interest. You certainly do not hear technical discussions anymore I personaly have not been on the air for ages other than an occasional test, and I suspect that I am not alone. Maybe it is time to move on and give up the frequencies anyway. Do enjoy my RADCOM tho because it talks to me, not down to me as someone who should get an education and rise up to the publishers level. Frankly our membership and influence is dwindling fast, so maybe we would regain it back if we let this scheme go ahead so we can say ' we told you so ' rather than howling into the wind. Since most things are now discussed on the internet rather than ham radio perhaps we should think more of what is best to the common interest, perpetuating ham radio for the few old people until they die or enlarging internet access for the many and for the future, something that our hobby does not have. Art Please throw your rocks into this basket and not at me ! TIA i i i i i i i______1 x |
On 7 Nov 2003 17:56:52 -0800, (Art Unwin KB9MZ)
wrote: Has a radio station lost income because advertisers are not having their messages heard by some listeners? Have any radio stations complained of interference of any sort ? These people count much more than anybody because they have money which means influence. Unless they end up interfering with safety services and aviation. how'd you like to have the airliner you are riding in suddenly lose the glide slope on the way down the ILS in a heavy rain with a 200 foot ceiling? What would really count is to vote out the present government so that it would cost twice as much as was originaly thought as influence costs would have to start all over again. On the other hand is local broadcasting on the way out I don't support the local stations if that's what you mean. They and I have had some disagreements. together with ham radio? We appear to know everything that counts I think that was said about Physics, Astronomy, and a number of other fields way back in the eighteen hundreds too. so that with mystery gone so will curiousity. Our monthly magazine is not eagerly awaited anymore as the first portion is really of interest to the few and the second portion is devoted to What few. I read the adds and haven't had to pay for it in over 30 years. organisational business. Home brewing programmable QRP rigs and projects is becoming much more popular in our area, although I still prefer QRO. I'm over hauling an old Henry 2K4 that lost a bout with lightening although it survived pretty well. Just the SWR circuitry and bias diode were fried. Seems like a lot of hams have migrated to the internet to discuss items of interest. You certainly do not hear technical discussions anymore Those make up about a quarter of what you hear on our local repeater (147.00) I personaly have not been on the air for ages other than an occasional test, and I suspect that I am not alone. I'm more active now than in the last 20 years. snip perhaps we should think more of what is best to the common interest, Other than BPL doesn't do what they say. It still requires a broad band cable to run along with it to feed the power line on the order of every block or less. So what is the advantage of running BPL if you already have the required broad band cable? perpetuating ham radio for the few old people until they die or enlarging internet access for the many and for the future, something that our hobby does not have. Novice classes and upgrading here in the Midland area are going great with plans for a new class coming up. The choice now, is how much upgrading to they want to add to the classes.. Roger Halstead (K8RI EN73 & ARRL Life Member) www.rogerhalstead.com N833R World's oldest Debonair? (S# CD-2) Art Please throw your rocks into this basket and not at me ! TIA i i i i i i i______1 x |
a!
"Roger Halstead" wrote in message ... On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 13:36:17 -0500, Robert Lyons wrote: W1RFI wrote: I have not looked at a plasma TV, Chip, but I would make that diagnosis primarily on on the basis of the sphere of influence. In the BPL test areas, the interference was heard over the entire area that had the BPL couplers in place. Hmmm - I wonder ... presumably the BPL couplers are capacitors coupling appropriate RF from one leg of the power system to the next. Would they also couple spuriously-generated RF at similar frequencies? (yeah, I'm sure the couplers are more involved than simple RF bypass caps - that's not the question here.) The PPL rep accused you of mis-interpreting the RF from a neon sign as a BPL signal. What DOES happen to the hash generated by a neon sign, then? is it propagated through the power grid much further when BPL couplers are present? How about other sources of broadband noise, like loose wires, arcing insulators, etc? Will the entire BPL scheme spread all these other spurious emissions far and wide? And, by the way, since aircraft use AM, do they receive hash when they fly over BPL lines? Are our brethren in aviation potentially useful allies in this war? We'd basically have to identify an area close to an airport. IF it were to interfere it would be more likely to interfere with nav radios such as the ILS and VORs. Even small planes are likely to be several thousand feet above any current test area and as the areas are small any interference would be brief and quite likely unnoticed. Now, if they'd put one off the approach end of a runway using an ILS and screw up the glide slope indication for an airliner, I think the PBL experiment would be over in a hurry. I don't think that is going to happen. Even if those frequencies are "notched out" I think it would affect an ILS indicator and I emphasize the "I think" part. I also think they will avoid putting anything near an airport until the system is in widespread use with the hopes that sheer pressure would force the continuance of the service. These people "ain't dumb". They are going to play everything to their advantage including attempts to discredit any testing that shows them in a bad light, as we've already seen. I wouldn't call them dishonest, or that they would resort to "prefabrication, or prevarication". I think everyone can draw their own conclusions. I would hope the FAA and FCC would require specific testing be done both in the laboratory and in the field due to the quite possible severe consequences were interference to aviation to occur. Roger Halstead (K8RI EN73 & ARRL Life Member) www.rogerhalstead.com N833R World's oldest Debonair? (S# CD-2) Bob, KI8AB |
Hmmm - I wonder ... presumably the BPL couplers are capacitors coupling
appropriate RF from one leg of the power system to the next. Would they also couple spuriously-generated RF at similar frequencies? Absolutely. The couplers I have seen inductively couple the BPL signal from the low-voltage wiring onto a single phase of the medium-voltage wiring. One manufacturer has provided an estimate that they have about 6 dB of loss. Right now, you and perhaps 3-4 neighbors share a common electrical-wiring noise pool. Their noise goes out their AC wiring and into yours. These couplers will create community-wide noise pools, taking all electrical noise -- BPL or other -- from house wiring, where it is radiated inefficiently, to overhead wiring. You guys know about transmission lines and antennas -- do the math. Will the entire BPL scheme spread all these other spurious emissions far and wide? Yes, it will. And, by the way, since aircraft use AM, do they receive hash when they fly over BPL lines? Are our brethren in aviation potentially useful allies in this war? http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2003/11/14/101/?nc=1 73, Ed Hare, W1RFI |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:27 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com