Jim,

What electric utility do you work for? Or maybe it is the equipment
manufacturer that sells the interface devices and equipment to the utility?
Where they are testing BPL in Cincinnati, there is S9 noise and you can't
get rid of it.

Duffy

"Jim Nye" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 14:47:06 -0000, David Robbins wrote:

"Jim Nye" wrote in message
...
The claim that BPL will seriously and negatively impact amateur radio
is simply fear, uncertainty, and doubt (FUD) spread by the ARRL. That
organization needs to justify its existence, and the BPL issue is a
convenient way for it to show its activism. The ARRL has apparently
followed the path of other self-justifying organizations such as NOW
and the NAACP.

Unfortunately, the technically unsophisticated do not recognize the
difference between coherent and non-coherent noise, and this makes it
easy for the ARRL to spread its FUD. But the fact is that, if BPL
signals are heard at all, they are coherent (have a predictable phase
and amplitude) and therefore can be completely removed at the

if they are predictable then they must be constant, if they are constant
then they can't carry data, doesn't make much sense to me.

You clearly haven't become acquainted with the mathematical definition
of "coherent," which doesn't demaind a constant signal at all. What
it DOES demand is either a sharply peaked or a periodic
autocorrelation function -- properties which enable engineers to come
up with predictive filters.

receiver. This can be done in many ways, most of which amount to
nulling the BPL signals by introducing an identical signal which is
180 degrees out of phase with the original. As a matter of fact, most

now, just where do you propose getting this out of phase signal? true,
there are devices out there now that can do this, but they are fussy and
must be constantly adjusted as you change frequency or switch antennas.
and
they also have problems with overloading and distortion.

current HF transceivers have what they call a "noise reduction" option
already built into them which uses the nulling method to accomplish
its goal. Therefore, many amateurs and SWLers already have the needed

sorry, not with this type of signal. the common noise reduction
processors

Sorry, but that's not right. The Icom 746PRO for example, has two
noise reduction functions, one of which samples slightly out-of-band
signals to come up with a time-varying estimate of the values to be
subtracted from the in-band signals. There is no need for the signal
to be constant with respect to time. The second noise reduction
function is directed at impulse noise and is a traditional noise
blanker.

In any case, you are missing the main point of the original post, and
that was that the ARRL FUD conveniently ignores the coherent nature of
BPL leakage signals -- a property which makes them far less formidable
than the ARRL articles would lead you to believe.

Jim,

What electric utility do you work for? Or maybe it is the equipment
manufacturer that sells the interface devices and equipment to the utility?
Where they are testing BPL in Cincinnati, there is S9 noise and you can't
get rid of it.

Duffy

"Jim Nye" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 14:47:06 -0000, David Robbins wrote:

"Jim Nye" wrote in message
...
The claim that BPL will seriously and negatively impact amateur radio
is simply fear, uncertainty, and doubt (FUD) spread by the ARRL. That
organization needs to justify its existence, and the BPL issue is a
convenient way for it to show its activism. The ARRL has apparently
followed the path of other self-justifying organizations such as NOW
and the NAACP.

Unfortunately, the technically unsophisticated do not recognize the
difference between coherent and non-coherent noise, and this makes it
easy for the ARRL to spread its FUD. But the fact is that, if BPL
signals are heard at all, they are coherent (have a predictable phase
and amplitude) and therefore can be completely removed at the

if they are predictable then they must be constant, if they are constant
then they can't carry data, doesn't make much sense to me.

You clearly haven't become acquainted with the mathematical definition
of "coherent," which doesn't demaind a constant signal at all. What
it DOES demand is either a sharply peaked or a periodic
autocorrelation function -- properties which enable engineers to come
up with predictive filters.

receiver. This can be done in many ways, most of which amount to
nulling the BPL signals by introducing an identical signal which is
180 degrees out of phase with the original. As a matter of fact, most

now, just where do you propose getting this out of phase signal? true,
there are devices out there now that can do this, but they are fussy and
must be constantly adjusted as you change frequency or switch antennas.
and
they also have problems with overloading and distortion.

current HF transceivers have what they call a "noise reduction" option
already built into them which uses the nulling method to accomplish
its goal. Therefore, many amateurs and SWLers already have the needed

sorry, not with this type of signal. the common noise reduction
processors

Sorry, but that's not right. The Icom 746PRO for example, has two
noise reduction functions, one of which samples slightly out-of-band
signals to come up with a time-varying estimate of the values to be
subtracted from the in-band signals. There is no need for the signal
to be constant with respect to time. The second noise reduction
function is directed at impulse noise and is a traditional noise
blanker.

In any case, you are missing the main point of the original post, and
that was that the ARRL FUD conveniently ignores the coherent nature of
BPL leakage signals -- a property which makes them far less formidable
than the ARRL articles would lead you to believe.

I am fortunate that I am far enough from the Emmaus, PA "pilot"
area that PP&L is running (Test Site #3 on Ed Hare's video on
the ARRL web page) that I'm not noticing interference here from
that small deployment.

However, if I go down off the hill into the deployment area, the
noise is HORRIBLE throughout the HF bands ...

The ARRL is not spreading FUD about Access BPL ... it's
the truth and I've heard it for myself.

Carl - wk3c

"J. D. Beischel" wrote in message
...
Jim,

What electric utility do you work for? Or maybe it is the equipment
manufacturer that sells the interface devices and equipment to the
utility?
Where they are testing BPL in Cincinnati, there is S9 noise and you can't
get rid of it.

Duffy

"Jim Nye" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 14:47:06 -0000, David Robbins
wrote:

"Jim Nye" wrote in message
...
The claim that BPL will seriously and negatively impact amateur
radio
is simply fear, uncertainty, and doubt (FUD) spread by the ARRL.
That
organization needs to justify its existence, and the BPL issue is a
convenient way for it to show its activism. The ARRL has apparently
followed the path of other self-justifying organizations such as NOW
and the NAACP.

Unfortunately, the technically unsophisticated do not recognize the
difference between coherent and non-coherent noise, and this makes
it
easy for the ARRL to spread its FUD. But the fact is that, if BPL
signals are heard at all, they are coherent (have a predictable
phase
and amplitude) and therefore can be completely removed at the

if they are predictable then they must be constant, if they are
constant
then they can't carry data, doesn't make much sense to me.

You clearly haven't become acquainted with the mathematical definition
of "coherent," which doesn't demaind a constant signal at all. What
it DOES demand is either a sharply peaked or a periodic
autocorrelation function -- properties which enable engineers to come
up with predictive filters.

receiver. This can be done in many ways, most of which amount to
nulling the BPL signals by introducing an identical signal which is
180 degrees out of phase with the original. As a matter of fact,
most

now, just where do you propose getting this out of phase signal?
true,
there are devices out there now that can do this, but they are fussy
and
must be constantly adjusted as you change frequency or switch
antennas.
and
they also have problems with overloading and distortion.

current HF transceivers have what they call a "noise reduction"
option
already built into them which uses the nulling method to accomplish
its goal. Therefore, many amateurs and SWLers already have the
needed

sorry, not with this type of signal. the common noise reduction
processors

Sorry, but that's not right. The Icom 746PRO for example, has two
noise reduction functions, one of which samples slightly out-of-band
signals to come up with a time-varying estimate of the values to be
subtracted from the in-band signals. There is no need for the signal
to be constant with respect to time. The second noise reduction
function is directed at impulse noise and is a traditional noise
blanker.

In any case, you are missing the main point of the original post, and
that was that the ARRL FUD conveniently ignores the coherent nature of
BPL leakage signals -- a property which makes them far less formidable
than the ARRL articles would lead you to believe.

I am fortunate that I am far enough from the Emmaus, PA "pilot"
area that PP&L is running (Test Site #3 on Ed Hare's video on
the ARRL web page) that I'm not noticing interference here from
that small deployment.

However, if I go down off the hill into the deployment area, the
noise is HORRIBLE throughout the HF bands ...

The ARRL is not spreading FUD about Access BPL ... it's
the truth and I've heard it for myself.

Carl - wk3c

"J. D. Beischel" wrote in message
...
Jim,

What electric utility do you work for? Or maybe it is the equipment
manufacturer that sells the interface devices and equipment to the
utility?
Where they are testing BPL in Cincinnati, there is S9 noise and you can't
get rid of it.

Duffy

"Jim Nye" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 14:47:06 -0000, David Robbins
wrote:

"Jim Nye" wrote in message
...
The claim that BPL will seriously and negatively impact amateur
radio
is simply fear, uncertainty, and doubt (FUD) spread by the ARRL.
That
organization needs to justify its existence, and the BPL issue is a
convenient way for it to show its activism. The ARRL has apparently
followed the path of other self-justifying organizations such as NOW
and the NAACP.

Unfortunately, the technically unsophisticated do not recognize the
difference between coherent and non-coherent noise, and this makes
it
easy for the ARRL to spread its FUD. But the fact is that, if BPL
signals are heard at all, they are coherent (have a predictable
phase
and amplitude) and therefore can be completely removed at the

if they are predictable then they must be constant, if they are
constant
then they can't carry data, doesn't make much sense to me.

You clearly haven't become acquainted with the mathematical definition
of "coherent," which doesn't demaind a constant signal at all. What
it DOES demand is either a sharply peaked or a periodic
autocorrelation function -- properties which enable engineers to come
up with predictive filters.

receiver. This can be done in many ways, most of which amount to
nulling the BPL signals by introducing an identical signal which is
180 degrees out of phase with the original. As a matter of fact,
most

now, just where do you propose getting this out of phase signal?
true,
there are devices out there now that can do this, but they are fussy
and
must be constantly adjusted as you change frequency or switch
antennas.
and
they also have problems with overloading and distortion.

current HF transceivers have what they call a "noise reduction"
option
already built into them which uses the nulling method to accomplish
its goal. Therefore, many amateurs and SWLers already have the
needed

sorry, not with this type of signal. the common noise reduction
processors

Sorry, but that's not right. The Icom 746PRO for example, has two
noise reduction functions, one of which samples slightly out-of-band
signals to come up with a time-varying estimate of the values to be
subtracted from the in-band signals. There is no need for the signal
to be constant with respect to time. The second noise reduction
function is directed at impulse noise and is a traditional noise
blanker.

In any case, you are missing the main point of the original post, and
that was that the ARRL FUD conveniently ignores the coherent nature of
BPL leakage signals -- a property which makes them far less formidable
than the ARRL articles would lead you to believe.

"David Robbins" wrote in message ...
"Agent Smith" wrote in message
news:3ff6666b.4278809718@feadnread...
On 19 Aug 2003 19:55:22 -0700, Brian Kelly wrote:

I'm familiar with Emmaus and drove around the borough today looking
for the stuff with my TS-50 but struck out. Kindly cite an
intersection where the stuff is in use, I'll try again. Also
characterize the signal if you can/will.

Such 'powerful' interference that even someone who knows where it
is supposed to be can't find it? g

Sounds like the stuff of FUD to me. g

ah, but all he knows is that it is supposed to be in town somewhere. these
tests may only cover a mile or two along one road. and as k1rfi found they
aren't always on... and then again, could they have thrown in a placebo??? a
claimed test area where they really didn't put it in just to see how many
complaints they get?

Turns out I did locate it on my first pass but was not sure what BPL
sounded like so I kept sniffing around the town yesterday. It's only
in a specfic area in the town so I restricted my listening today to
that area once Carl alerted me to the details offline. What I heard
today can't possibly be the "fullbore" BPL others have described.
They're definitely playing with it.

w3rv

"David Robbins" wrote in message ...
"Agent Smith" wrote in message
news:3ff6666b.4278809718@feadnread...
On 19 Aug 2003 19:55:22 -0700, Brian Kelly wrote:

I'm familiar with Emmaus and drove around the borough today looking
for the stuff with my TS-50 but struck out. Kindly cite an
intersection where the stuff is in use, I'll try again. Also
characterize the signal if you can/will.

Such 'powerful' interference that even someone who knows where it
is supposed to be can't find it? g

Sounds like the stuff of FUD to me. g

ah, but all he knows is that it is supposed to be in town somewhere. these
tests may only cover a mile or two along one road. and as k1rfi found they
aren't always on... and then again, could they have thrown in a placebo??? a
claimed test area where they really didn't put it in just to see how many
complaints they get?

Turns out I did locate it on my first pass but was not sure what BPL
sounded like so I kept sniffing around the town yesterday. It's only
in a specfic area in the town so I restricted my listening today to
that area once Carl alerted me to the details offline. What I heard
today can't possibly be the "fullbore" BPL others have described.
They're definitely playing with it.

w3rv

One wonders why he would bother to post his message here where he is
certain to get negative if not hostile responses.
Perhaps he's tuning his argument for some future, more important,
forum.
Steve


JJ wrote in message
Carl R. Stevenson wrote:
It's also interesting that Mr. Nye points us to the websites of folks
who are advocating BPL ...

I wonder, is Mr. Nye a consultant to the utilities or BPL manufacturers?


Yep, obviously a paid misinformant.

One wonders why he would bother to post his message here where he is
certain to get negative if not hostile responses.
Perhaps he's tuning his argument for some future, more important,
forum.
Steve


JJ wrote in message
Carl R. Stevenson wrote:
It's also interesting that Mr. Nye points us to the websites of folks
who are advocating BPL ...

I wonder, is Mr. Nye a consultant to the utilities or BPL manufacturers?


Yep, obviously a paid misinformant.