|
In article , "Phil Kane"
writes: On 9 Jul 2003 11:55:18 -0700, N2EY wrote: That amazed me too - but there's only one insulator on the pole pig and one wire crossing the street to same. Three phase primary is three wire, so there isn't even a Wye Neutral for return. I first saw this system along the Trans-Canada highway in Alberta in 1970 and I put it down to the rural-ness of the area. But suburban Portland in the 21st Century? Are there NO other wires on the pole? I checked it out a lot closer - there appears to be a neutral wire running quite a distance below the primaries but above the cable and telco stuff. It looked a lot like a messenger or guy wire, but it is most probably serves as the neutral of a Wye primary. That's exactly what it is. Most of the return current is in that wire. The system you describe is in use all over the Northeast. Earth return will work fine, if the ground is good enough. The rocks of western Oregon do not fall into that category..... Agreed - but the system described doesn;t use earth return. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
\"Sparky\" wrote: "N2EY" wrote in message om... | "Phil Kane" wrote in message t.net... | On Wed, 09 Jul 2003 03:02:43 GMT, Jim Hampton wrote: | | Phil, I doubt you're kidding, but a single wire with a ground return? That | is going to have a ton of problems even *without* putting broadband on it. | | That amazed me too - but there's only one insulator on the pole pig | and one wire crossing the street to same. Three phase primary is | three wire, so there isn't even a Wye Neutral for return. | | I first saw this system along the Trans-Canada highway in Alberta in | 1970 and I put it down to the rural-ness of the area. But suburban | Portland in the 21st Century? | | Are there NO other wires on the pole? | | Here in EPA, most residential areas have three-phase going down the | larger streets (like South Devon Ave. here in Wayne), with | single-phase feeders going to the side streets. The return is partly | through the dirt but mostly through the main messenger that carries | the 120/240 twisted wires. | | Earth return will work fine, if the ground is good enough. The few | HVDC lines that have been installed can be operated that way if one | conductor fails. | 73 de Jim, N2EY The problem is, in most parts of the country the ground conductivity is VERY poor. Just ask anyone who is familiar with commercial AM broadcast station operation. They all wouldn't bury literally MILES of copper wire around their towers in order to get somewhat of a ground if they didn't have to. I still wonder about that AM tower I once passed in Santa Clara,CA that was sitting on a salt marsh right at sea level....do they have all that wire in the ground, er, water, too? As far as BPL is concerned, BIG PROBLEMS LOOM for almost all licensed services, including amateur radio if this is allowed. That was exactly what I said in my comments to FCC on the docket: "The use of the HF part of the spectrum as we have always known it will be ended". Dick |
Phil,
As an expert in dealing with the FCC, what is your recommendation on the issues to bring to the FCC's attention? And how should our comments be phrased? Is preventing reception of shortwave broadcasts a first amendment issue? Thanks "Phil Kane" wrote in message t.net... On 9 Jul 2003 06:07:34 -0700, Brian Kelly wrote: Question for Phil: At what point can opponents of BPL take it out of the hands of the FCC and into the Federal courts? After the FCC hands down a ruling and the appellants can show that the ruling will cause them harm. The appellants must petition for reconsideration, and then take it to the U S Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, but they will have to show that the Commission did something that was against public policy or in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. If we lose there, we always have the option of petitioning the Supreme Court of the United States to take the case, but because it does not involve Contitutional or other high-profile issues, the chances of them doing so are slim IMNSHO. The biggest hurdle would be that the appellate courts are loath to overturn an agency ruling based on facts within the agency's expertise as long as there was an opportunity for public comment (there was), there is a record in the proceedings (there is) and the Commission's order makes reference to the record (I'm sure that it will, especially to the stuff submitted by the internet and power utility interests). The last time that the League tried this route was when 220-222 MHz was yanked away. We all know how that turned out. The other way to fight this crap is via The Congress, as if they know what the dickens it is all about other than "universal cheap internet". |
(snip)
| | I still wonder about that AM tower I once passed in Santa Clara,CA that was | sitting on a salt marsh right at sea level....do they have all that wire in the | ground, er, water, too? Not sure on that one. I haven't ever seen AM towers with salt marsh surrounding it, but in that case they sure would put out a much better signal than a tower located away on dry rocky ground with all the buried radials. | | As far as BPL is concerned, BIG PROBLEMS LOOM for almost all licensed | services, including amateur radio if this is allowed. | | That was exactly what I said in my comments to FCC on the docket: | | "The use of the HF part of the spectrum as we have always known it | will be ended". | | Dick Well stated, Dick. I totally agree. 73, Sam |
On 10 Jul 2003 08:38:07 -0700, Rob Kemp wrote:
Phil, As an expert in dealing with the FCC, what is your recommendation on the issues to bring to the FCC's attention? And how should our comments be phrased? The ARRL took the lead and emphasised the interference with essential communications. That is the only thing that will be of any value. In any event, the Comment phase is closed, and only Reply Comments - support or opposition/rebuttals to the comments already filed - can be accepted at this stage. Is preventing reception of shortwave broadcasts a first amendment issue? Not at all - the SCOTUS has been very clear in First Amendment cases that the free speech right is that of the speaker to speak, and does not guarantee an audience to to hear/receive what is being spoken. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane |
On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 19:04:29 -0600, \"Sparky\" wrote:
| I still wonder about that AM tower I once passed in Santa Clara,CA that was sitting on a salt marsh right at sea level....do they have all that wire in the ground, er, water, too? Not sure on that one. There's no AM tower in Santa Clara (or at least none in the last 40 years that I know of), let alone one that meets that description. There's one in Palo Alto (1220 kHz) and yes, it has the standard 120-radial ground system. The ground there isn't all -that- wet. In "the good old days" the radials were 8 AWG copper, but after several stations got their ground systems torn out by thieves who sold the copper on the scrap metal market, almost everybody replaced them with 8 AWG Copperweld, which has the same rf electrical properties but has no value on the scrap metal market. I haven't ever seen AM towers with salt marsh surrounding it, There are several other AM stations in the Bay Area whose antenna arrays are located right at the water line. In those cases, the radials go out from the base and into the Bay, which is tidal. but in that case they sure would put out a much better signal than a tower located away on dry rocky ground with all the buried radials. The ground system and conductivity are but two elements in the antenna efficiency. Other factors are the electrical height and the spacing and phasing of elements in a directive array. AM antenna design is more of an art than a science. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane |
"Phil Kane" wrote in message t.net...
On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 13:29:27 GMT, Dick Carroll wrote: (Actually, I wrote the next two sentences): Trying to "go over the FCC's head" is a last-ditch nothing-left-to-lose desperation move, I think. Correct me if I'm wrong, Phil. You are so right. Wish I wasn't. Remember, the ARRL *did* sue the FCC some years ago, seems like it was in the 80's, and IIRC the issue was the 220 mhz reallocation, though I'm not certain of that. Sure seemed a poor idea to me. It was a good idea - it showed the FCC management (which is no longer there) that the ARRL can do what the broadcasters do every week - take an adverse decision into the Court of Appeals. But only AFTER that adverse decision had actually been made, right? In the BPL case, it seems to me, such a move would only be advisable if FCC decided to authorize uncontrolled BPL in ways that were sure to cause massive interference, AND turned down petitions for recosideration. The problem was, it was done by an outside law firm which didn't do a very good job because they didn't understand what was at stake as precedent. Hence, the Amateur Spectrum Protection Bill which, at long last, has a chnace to be passed during this session. Yup. Tnx for all the info, Phil. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Phil Kane wrote: On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 19:04:29 -0600, \"Sparky\" wrote: | I still wonder about that AM tower I once passed in Santa Clara,CA that was sitting on a salt marsh right at sea level....do they have all that wire in the ground, er, water, too? Not sure on that one. There's no AM tower in Santa Clara (or at least none in the last 40 years that I know of), let alone one that meets that description. OOP! that Should have been Santa Cruz. Ya know, the place with the big boardwalk and all the thong bikinis....... There's one in Palo Alto (1220 kHz) and yes, it has the standard 120-radial ground system. The ground there isn't all -that- wet. This one is right above the water level on a slough of some sort, I didn't get that good a look but observed it as we drove past. Sure looked like an local AM tower of the sort I've worked around. In "the good old days" the radials were 8 AWG copper, but after several stations got their ground systems torn out by thieves who sold the copper on the scrap metal market, almost everybody replaced them with 8 AWG Copperweld, which has the same rf electrical properties but has no value on the scrap metal market. We still had all the copper radials at the (smaller) stations I worked for. Evidently the locals were adverse to working for it. |
"Phil Kane" wrote in message t.net...
On 10 Jul 2003 08:38:07 -0700, Rob Kemp wrote: Phil, As an expert in dealing with the FCC, what is your recommendation on the issues to bring to the FCC's attention? And how should our comments be phrased? The ARRL took the lead and emphasised the interference with essential communications. That is the only thing that will be of any value. In any event, the Comment phase is closed, and only Reply Comments - support or opposition/rebuttals to the comments already filed - can be accepted at this stage. I can visualize this phase being a real nit-picking and repositioning exercise, perhaps a source of fodder for appeals. What's the relationship between an NOI and an NPRM? Doesn't the FCC eventually have to publish an NPRM and go thru the whole comments and rebuttals drill again? Is preventing reception of shortwave broadcasts a first amendment issue? Not at all - the SCOTUS has been very clear in First Amendment cases that the free speech right is that of the speaker to speak, and does not guarantee an audience to to hear/receive what is being spoken. w3rv |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:06 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com