Dave Shrader wrote in message .net...
The ARRL site, http://www.arrl.org/tis/info/HTML/plc/#Field , provides
links to the following information:

"PLC is a "carrier-current" system, designed to intentionally conduct
signals using electrical wiring. Although a carrier-current device is an
unintentional emitter, because the power lines have such a significant
potential to radiate and because a practical carrier-current device
generally needs more signal than the permitted conducted emissions
levels for unintentional emitters, carrier-current devices are not
required to meet those conducted-emissions limits, but are required to
meet the general radiated emissions limits in Sec. 15.209.

§ 15.209 states that the radiated emission limits of intentional
radiators generally can't exceed the field strength levels specified in
the following table:

Frequency (MHz) Field Strength (microvolts/meter @meters)

0.009-0.490 2400/F(kHz) 300

0.490-1.705 24000/F(kHz) 30

1.705-30.0 30 30

30-88 100 3

88-216 150 3

216-960 200 3

Above 960 500 3

Carrier-current devices are "Verified" as described in the Part-15
rules. 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"??

Note that the HF Spectrum allows a S8 to S9 signal level, 30 uV/m at 30
meters distance.

15.209 is the problem, it's grossly outdated, did not foresee anything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.

Another piece of it is that the BPL crowd wants permission to bust the
already inadequate limits in 15.209. They're playing the regulatory
loopholes game. The Japanese jumped past their regulatory Catch-22
techo-babble and abolished BPL period. We need to follow the Japanese
lead and we're working on it.

w3rv

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

"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 . .

(Brian Kelly) wrote in message . com...
"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 . .

Its a complex issue. Thank goodness we have lawyers and engineers to
figure it all out for us.

(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

(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."

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

(W1RFI) wrote in message ...
Under the present
rules, they must be tested at 3 typical locations. "

What's the FCC definition of "typical locations"??

There is none.

.. . . 'nuff sed . .


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?

Very good analogy. Choke = Dead. Get sombody from over at the EPA to
submit comments on w3hj's spectrum analyzer screen grabs of SS BPL.
He/she would no doubt understand the problem better than the FCC gloms
can.

The silence is deafening. Did I scare you away from the meeting?


73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI

w3rv