|
"Brian Kelly" wrote in message om... "James Wilson" wrote in message ... What does BPL sound like? Can someone post a wav file somewhere so it can be identified? The ARRL website is loaded with video and/or audio files which will clearly demonstrate what the various forms of BPL signals sound like and the havoc they generate throughout the HF spectrum. http://www.arrl.org/tis/info/HTML/plc/#Video That helps a lot. I see what was meant by "geiger counter" sound now, as well as the other sort of noise. I do have a spectrum analyzer here, so that will help, when the day comes. At the moment, the only broadband available here is DSL or cable modem, which have been well-behaved neighbors. I'm using a cable modem now, and I don't notice anything from it, even when I tune into the bands that it uses. We have regular overflights scanning for leakage, so it appears that Comcast is making the effort. |
Any hope of us non-arrl members getting something to listen to? Nevermind, a later post answered this. |
"Brian Kelly" wrote in message om... (N2EY) wrote in message ... In article , "Kim W5TIT" writes: "N2EY" wrote in message ... In article , "Ryan, KC8PMX" writes: Just found out today listening to a local, reputable radio station that Bay, Saginaw and Midland Counties in Michigan are going to be "test sites" for BPL, at least for Michigan. I don't know when it will be an actual reality, as opposed to being in the planning stages, but will keep current with their project! Ryan, If you have a 6 meter rig that can go mobile, you're set up to measure/observe (and report) BPL interference. 73 de Jim, N2EY heh heh. Yeah, and any ham worth being a ham would have a 6-meter rig that can go mobile so they can measure/observe (and report) BPL interference. Right? IIRC, Ryan has mentioned being active on 6 meters. So there's a good chance he has such a rig already. FWIW I haven't run into any documented instances of BPL operating as high as 50 Mhz yet. The BPL signals I've listened to in the Emmaus PA ran between 3 Mhz to somewhere just above 22 Mhz. That's pretty narrow by "broadband standards". If/when they get more users doing who knows what I suppose the BPL band edges will expand both up & down. 73 de Jim, N2EY w3rv Lets see now...3 to 22 Mhz.....80/75, 40, 30, 20, 17 and 15 meters turned into a wideband wasteland. With plans to expand to 12, 10, and six meters. Yep...thats a real good thing. We could all go to 160 and fight the 50/9 QRN most of the year, or 12 and ten which are dead during the low of the cycle, which we are heading for. Yep, lots to look forward to. Dan/W4NTI |
"Dick Carroll" wrote in message ... I seriously doubt the economics of BPL will ever bring it where I live, even if it is approved, but others need to know. That may indeed be true. However it will certainly make it tougher for you to communicate with someone in an area that is trashed by BPL. Dan/W4NTI |
Dan/W4NTI wrote:
"Brian Kelly" wrote in message om... (N2EY) wrote in message ... In article , "Kim W5TIT" writes: "N2EY" wrote in message ... In article , "Ryan, KC8PMX" writes: Just found out today listening to a local, reputable radio station that Bay, Saginaw and Midland Counties in Michigan are going to be "test sites" for BPL, at least for Michigan. I don't know when it will be an actual reality, as opposed to being in the planning stages, but will keep current with their project! Ryan, If you have a 6 meter rig that can go mobile, you're set up to measure/observe (and report) BPL interference. 73 de Jim, N2EY heh heh. Yeah, and any ham worth being a ham would have a 6-meter rig that can go mobile so they can measure/observe (and report) BPL interference. Right? IIRC, Ryan has mentioned being active on 6 meters. So there's a good chance he has such a rig already. FWIW I haven't run into any documented instances of BPL operating as high as 50 Mhz yet. The BPL signals I've listened to in the Emmaus PA ran between 3 Mhz to somewhere just above 22 Mhz. That's pretty narrow by "broadband standards". If/when they get more users doing who knows what I suppose the BPL band edges will expand both up & down. 73 de Jim, N2EY w3rv Lets see now...3 to 22 Mhz.....80/75, 40, 30, 20, 17 and 15 meters turned into a wideband wasteland. With plans to expand to 12, 10, and six meters. Yep...thats a real good thing. We could all go to 160 and fight the 50/9 QRN most of the year, or 12 and ten which are dead during the low of the cycle, which we are heading for. Yep, lots to look forward to. Dan/W4NTI Dan, Why don't you be the first to QSY to those bands so we don't have to listen to your crap on 20 and 75! |
"Dave VanHorn" wrote in message ... After having gone to the ARRL site and listened to the examples, all I can say is it sounds just like precipitation static and/or loose connections. No way would I be able to identify one from the other. I'm just going to have to complain every time I hear noise and make recordings. If it's noisy enough to be a problem it should be fixed. Any hope of us non-arrl members getting something to listen to? I wasn't aware you had to be a member to go klik on the link to the BPL file. Go check and see. Dan/W4NTI |
In article , "Ryan, KC8PMX"
writes: Yeah Jim.... six meter all mode. I made a lucky guess. It's hard as hell to use it right now with the powerline interference in this freakin' county even before they implement this whole BPL stuff!!!!! Oh man...they can't even keep the lines quiet without BPL... Perhaps their own line noise will mess up BPL performance. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
"Dick Carroll" wrote in message ... Carl R. Stevenson wrote: "Dick Carroll" wrote in message ... [snip] You raise an interesting question, Carl. How exactly should the average ham go about proving that the RFI is indeed BPL, when the BPL people say "That's not us!'?? BPL has a unique "signature" (in the spectral/time domains) that can be used to ID it. Since there are different systems (SS from main.net and OFDM from Amperion, for example) they have different signatures, which are distinct from other sources of interference and more traditional power line noise (of course the utilities are responsible for fixing the latter, too ... though their record is poor). So to repeat, how does the average ham, whom you have exhorted to "make sure it's BPL that you're complaining about", go about detecting and sorting which is what, given that spectral analysis gear, and the training to use it if it was available, is virtually nonexistnt in the average hamshack? Is there a aural signature or more than one for the different BPL modes? Is the Emmaus test site video/audio clip reresentative enough to make the call, or is something more needed? The Emmaus test site video (test area #3) should be pretty representative of the "main.net" system ... test area #4 is the Amperion OFDM system. There could be others that might have different "signatures" ... I expect that if it was indeed BPL RFI it would follow the power grid pretty closely with signal strength highest when close, and tapering off with distance away from the lines. But from the one report posted here of a ham who said he heard it from a distance of 60 miles, seems like propagation will play into the picture-to be expected at HF as all experienced HF ham operators know. Or maybe *he* mis-identified it! I suspect that may be the case ... though it's not impossible that under ideal conditions of terrain, propagation, with good antenna, etc. that it *might* be detectable at some distance ... whether current levels of deployment would cause truly "harmful interference" at such a distance requires further study. So who do hams call for assistance, the ARRL? I haven't seen anything from them suggesting that. My recommendation would be to e-mail a .wav file or other common audio file format to Ed Hare, , and give him the particulars of time, location, if you *know* that your utility is doing a BPL trial, etc. (I'd appreciate a cc: of the audio file and particulars to my main e-mail address as well, just for my own information and analysis.) The MAIN thing is to NOT have a bunch of false "BPL interference complaints." The BPL industry is trying to paint the ARS as "exaggerating the potential for interference" and doing a lot of hand-waving ... inaccurate claims of "BPL interference" at this point will do more harm than good. Carl -wk3c |
"Dave VanHorn" wrote in message ... After having gone to the ARRL site and listened to the examples, all I can say is it sounds just like precipitation static and/or loose connections. No way would I be able to identify one from the other. I'm just going to have to complain every time I hear noise and make recordings. If it's noisy enough to be a problem it should be fixed. Any hope of us non-arrl members getting something to listen to? Dave, The ARRL video is not in the "members only" part of the site ... it's easy to find from the articles on BPL in the public area. Carl - wk3c |
"Dick Carroll" wrote in message ... Dave VanHorn wrote: After having gone to the ARRL site and listened to the examples, all I can say is it sounds just like precipitation static and/or loose connections. No way would I be able to identify one from the other. I'm just going to have to complain every time I hear noise and make recordings. If it's noisy enough to be a problem it should be fixed. Any hope of us non-arrl members getting something to listen to? Surely that file isn't on the members-only side of the site, is it? Certainly it shouldn't be, and if so I intend to protest. It isn't Dick ... it's open to the world. Carl - wk3c |
Surely that file isn't on the members-only side of the site, is it? Certainly it shouldn't be, and if so I intend to protest. It isn't Dick ... it's open to the world. Carl - wk3c Apparently my "nevermind" is taking a while to propagate :) |
Dick Carroll wrote in message ...
You raise an interesting question, Carl. How exactly should the average ham go about proving that the RFI is indeed BPL, when the BPL people say "That's not us!'?? BPL has a unique "signature" (in the spectral/time domains) that can be used to ID it. Since there are different systems (SS from main.net and OFDM from Amperion, for example) they have different signatures, which are distinct from other sources of interference and more traditional power line noise (of course the utilities are responsible for fixing the latter, too ... though their record is poor). So to repeat, how does the average ham, whom you have exhorted to "make sure it's BPL that you're complaining about", go about detecting and sorting which is what, given that spectral analysis gear, and the training to use it if it was available, is virtually nonexistnt in the average hamshack? Is there a aural signature or more than one for the different BPL modes? Is the Emmaus test site video/audio clip reresentative enough to make the call, or is something more needed? There's no mistaking the BPL signals in the Emmaus test area which are SS although there's some discussion on that point. I didn't know what to look for on my first pass through Emmaus and found all sorts of crud particularly in the extensive commercial area. But I found a very odd-sounding strong clicking noise in the area around the Emmaus High School and reported it to Carl and Ed Hare who then told me the stuff sounds like geiger-counter clicks. So I'd nailed it out of the chute with just my little TS-50 HF mobile xcvr and a 2M magmaount whip. I've probably heard every form of QRN/QRM out there by now and there is *no* mistaking the BPL in use in Emmaus. The stuff grabs yer AGC and it's all over. The ARRL audio tracks and files don't do it justice, the spikes it kicks out are too sharp and short to be captured properly with the consumer-level digital recording/playback equipment used to generate the recordings. OFDM is another form of the beast which I haven't personally tuned on-site yet but the ARRL recordings ought to give you the drift. I expect that if it was indeed BPL RFI it would follow the power grid pretty closely with signal strength highest when close, and tapering off with distance away from the lines. But from the one report posted here of a ham who said he heard it from a distance of 60 miles, seems like propagation will play into the picture-to be expected at HF as all experienced HF ham operators know. Or maybe *he* mis-identified it! So who do hams call for assistance, the ARRL? I haven't seen anything from them suggesting that. Unfortunately the only help available is via the FCC and the ARRL is beating the FCC into the ground over this one. I seriously doubt the economics of BPL will ever bring it where I live, even if it is approved, but others need to know. w3rv |
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote: "Dave VanHorn" wrote in message ... After having gone to the ARRL site and listened to the examples, all I can say is it sounds just like precipitation static and/or loose connections. No way would I be able to identify one from the other. I'm just going to have to complain every time I hear noise and make recordings. If it's noisy enough to be a problem it should be fixed. Any hope of us non-arrl members getting something to listen to? Dave, The ARRL video is not in the "members only" part of the site ... it's easy to find from the articles on BPL in the public area. Carl - wk3c http://216.167.96.120/BPL_Trial-web.mpg http://216.167.96.120/BPL_Trial-small.mpg |
"N2EY" wrote in message ... In article , "Ryan, KC8PMX" writes: Yeah Jim.... six meter all mode. I made a lucky guess. Probably, but I also had made mention at least once somewhere in the past as well. It's hard as hell to use it right now with the powerline interference in this freakin' county even before they implement this whole BPL stuff!!!!! Oh man...they can't even keep the lines quiet without BPL... Perhaps their own line noise will mess up BPL performance. We could only hope so! Wouldn't that be the ultimate irony. Using my shortwave reciever is next to being a futile attempt. Have packed the damned thing away for that same reason. In the truck, the AM radio can be a trick to listen to if you are trying to listen to a station that is normally always 5-9. If you run along a line of powerlines that happen to be parallel to the roadway for a bit, forget listening to that station for a while..... -- Ryan, KC8PMX FF1-FF2-MFR --. --- -.. ... .- -. --. . .-.. ... .- .-. . ..-. .. .-. . ..-. ... --. .... - . .-. ... |
Precisely ..
Dick Carroll wrote: Proximity to the power grid would be the main clincher, IMO, but what about skywave propagation? That stuff could go around the world at QRP evels! And it will. You can even work VK6 from W5 on 40CW with one watt. If it radiates, it also radiates skywave. Which mnakes this issue one for WARC as well, bigtime. -- -- Sleep well; OS2's still awake! ;) Mike Luther |
"Ryan, KC8PMX" wrote in message ... "N2EY" wrote in message ... In article , "Ryan, KC8PMX" writes: Yeah Jim.... six meter all mode. I made a lucky guess. Probably, but I also had made mention at least once somewhere in the past as well. It's hard as hell to use it right now with the powerline interference in this freakin' county even before they implement this whole BPL stuff!!!!! Oh man...they can't even keep the lines quiet without BPL... Perhaps their own line noise will mess up BPL performance. We could only hope so! Wouldn't that be the ultimate irony. Using my shortwave reciever is next to being a futile attempt. Have packed the damned thing away for that same reason. In the truck, the AM radio can be a trick to listen to if you are trying to listen to a station that is normally always 5-9. If you run along a line of powerlines that happen to be parallel to the roadway for a bit, forget listening to that station for a while..... -- Ryan, KC8PMX FF1-FF2-MFR --. --- -.. ... .- -. --. . .-.. ... .- .-. . ..-. .. .-. . ..-. .. --. .... - . .-. ... Tell me about it. I've been fighting with Alabama Power for 4 years. And I still have noise. Dan/W4NTI |
"Dick Carroll" wrote in message ... Roger Halstead wrote: On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 23:27:27 -0400, a 32 bit process wrote: On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 16:56:50 GMT, "James Wilson" wrote: 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? It almost sounds like a geiger counter, but a lot louder and the clicking is quicker in pace. After having gone to the ARRL site and listened to the examples, all I can say is it sounds just like precipitation static and/or loose connections. No way would I be able to identify one from the other. I'm just going to have to complain every time I hear noise and make recordings. If it's noisy enough to be a problem it should be fixed. Proximity to the power grid would be the main clincher, IMO, but what about skywave propagation? That stuff could go around the world at QRP evels! BTW, most of the links failed and instead I ended up hijacked to QSL dot net. (they call it redirecting, but if I didn't select to go there, I don't want to go there...I'll settle for the 404 screen instead of giving some one advertizing points.) Roger Halstead (K8RI EN73 & ARRL Life Member) www.rogerhalstead.com N833R World's oldest Debonair? (S# CD-2) Yep.....I've worked QRPp stations using miliwatts of output. Can you imagine this garbage being generated and then propagated worldwide. My Gawd !!!! Dan/W4NTI |
Write or call your local AM broadcast stations and tell them that
thier signal is being wiped out and you can't recieve them. Clint KB5ZHT |
James Wilson wrote:
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 KB3EIA - |
Mike Coslo wrote in message .net...
James Wilson wrote: 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 KB3EIA - Mike, that was kinda rude. |
Fortunately Charter around here is somewhat ameanable (sp.?) to repairing
their systems, but it is a challenge still. Consumers Energy around here is next to impossible to deal with though. I am still a strong proponent to buried power lines as opposed to powerlines on poles. -- Ryan, KC8PMX FF1-FF2-MFR-(pending NREMT-B!) --. --- -.. ... .- -. --. . .-.. ... .- .-. . ..-. .. .-. . ..-. ... --. .... - . .-. ... (snippage) a trick to listen to if you are trying to listen to a station that is normally always 5-9. If you run along a line of powerlines that happen to be parallel to the roadway for a bit, forget listening to that station for a while..... -- Ryan, KC8PMX FF1-FF2-MFR --. --- -.. ... .- -. --. . .-.. ... .- .-. . ..-. .. .-. . ..-. .. --. .... - . .-. ... Tell me about it. I've been fighting with Alabama Power for 4 years. And I still have noise. Dan/W4NTI |
"Ryan, KC8PMX" wrote in message ... Fortunately Charter around here is somewhat ameanable (sp.?) to repairing their systems, but it is a challenge still. Consumers Energy around here is next to impossible to deal with though. I am still a strong proponent to buried power lines as opposed to powerlines on poles. Even if the area distribution lines are buried, the wires come up to (usually pad-mounted above ground) transformers and the BPL signal will permeate all the wiring in your (and your neighbors') house(s) ... Underground distribution will help (some) but it doesn't actually solve the problem. Carl - wk3c |
"Ryan, KC8PMX" wrote in message ...
Fortunately Charter around here is somewhat ameanable (sp.?) to repairing their systems, but it is a challenge still. Consumers Energy around here is next to impossible to deal with though. As Carl points out, burying the distribution doesn't solve the BPL problem. The whole idea is to deliver the BPL signal to every outlet in your house - and your garage, and your neighbors' houses, and the street lights... I am still a strong proponent to buried power lines as opposed to powerlines on poles. There are pros and cons to aerial vs. underground utilities. Except in dense areas like the downtowns of cities where the cost of duct lines is comparable to that of poles, the installation cost of aerial is much lower. Although immune to most weather problems, buried utilities are subject to flooding. They are also not immune to lightning. Buried electric power distribution is less efficient than aerial. This effect increases with voltage and distance, too. Burying the drop from the road to your house isn't an efficiency problem, but burying miles of medium and high voltage stuff *is*. The net effect of burying a significant part of the aerial network would be to require the construction of many new generating facilities (and their pollution, etc.) to make up for the losses of the underground network. A real triple whammy - higher first cost of the line, lots of new plants to build and pay for, and higher overall operating cost. And buried lines make our antennas stick out that much more ;-) 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Even if the area distribution lines are buried, the wires come up
to (usually pad-mounted above ground) transformers and the BPL signal will permeate all the wiring in your (and your neighbors') house(s) ... Underground distribution will help (some) but it doesn't actually solve the problem. Right now, the emissions I heard in the trial areas were weaker in areas of underground distribution. However, the losses are higher, so the utility would have to install its digital repeaters more often along the underground lines. It is a safe assumption that the industry that is asking the FCC for higher emissions limits will increase the power so that underground wiring is at those limits, too. We need to stay focused on what the rules would permit -- 30 uV/m at 30 m -- rather than individual implementations that may be below the limits in some cases. Right now, the companies are probably using "stock" equipment for these marketing trials. When it goes live, you can bet they will develop higher powered systems as the most economical way to deploy in underground-wiring areas. 73, Ed Hare, W1RFI |
|
Wonder how much BPL garbage that setup would pick up?
My guess is about S7 at 100 feet spacing between houses, on frequencies that BPL was using. That is assuming they didn't crank up the power to meet Part 15 limits so they could go farther and/or have more immunity to noise. A question arises - 30 m from what? If every piece of house wiring has the BPL signals on it, in many locations you cannot get 30 meters away. Correct. The limit is for 30 meters distance. There are cases where it can't be measured there, and the FCC allows measurements to be made at other distances, and extrapolated to 30 meters. But here's the kicker -- they allow the extrapolation at a 40log(distance ratio), unlike virtually every other country in the world. That translates to an inverse-to-the-fourth power ratio. Think any of the Part 15 guys make measurements at 3 meters that COULD be made at 30 meters, just to gain that extra 20 dB? Is there stock equipment for BPL yet? Or could they be using prototypes? At this point, PPL is going commercial in the Allentown area. I have offered several times to show them exactly what they are getting themselves into, but their BPL engineer does not answer my email. That is kinda' odd, because if I were about to invest millions of dollars and a national organization came along and told me that there was a major problem with it, then offered to drive 200 miles to show me, I think I would want to hear what they had to say and would find an hour's time. Any PPL shareholders here? :-) 73, Ed Hare, W1RFI |
At this point, PPL is going commercial in the Allentown area. I have offered
several times to show them exactly what they are getting themselves into, but their BPL engineer does not answer my email. What makes you think they would waste there time dealing with the Enemy Any PPL shareholders here? :-) 73, Ed Hare, W1RFI Me for sure, and I do have alot invested. What you guys need to do is come with some Technical Whizzard Stuff to deal with this. I mean come on, you got all those New No-Code Technical Whizzards to pull from. If you cant think of any, try Karl, or NCI, Im sure they have the technical knowledge to combat this. |
On 19 Oct 2003 03:45:31 GMT, Dick Carroll wrote:
What's wrong with going after those engineers who are obscuring the technical facts of BPL? You seem to be missing an essential point: the "client" of an engineer is the employer. If the employer does not complain of unprofessional conduct, there's no case. Similarly, the licensing boards take action only if there is a complaint of unprofessional conduct from one with standing, namely the employer. The one exception is if the engineer violates a criminal statute and the complaint is brought by the District Attorney. If a doctor or lawyer messes up bigtime and people suffer for it, he can be called to account. Only on complaint by someone having standing - the client. No complaint, no case. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane Registered Professional Engineer |
"Dick Carroll" wrote in message ... I got no response to my private email so I'll ask again here in public. What's wrong with going after those engineers who are obscuring the technical facts of BPL? If a doctor or lawyer messes up bigtime and people suffer for it, he can be called to account. I see no reason whatever that those engineers behind the hiding of the facts of BPL can't be cited to answer to their state licensing boards for it. I see it as entirely possible that the negative publicity alone might change the nature of the situation-what investor owned company wants to answer to stockholders for spending many millions of dollars on such a technically flawed plan which is most likely to lose money because of a plan based on flawed engineering and deliberate bypassing of the rules? Another possible benefit of taking action against engineers would be the fact that FCC *should* be far less likely to approve a BPL plan that had been shown IN PUBLIC to be technically flawed, with citations given such as the "neon sign" diversionary. If that engineer won't answer your remails, send him a registered letter. If he doesn't answer that, see if he'll answer to his state licensing board. To do any less is to allow them to win by default. Of course you'll have to have your engineering all in place. Dick You should go after the company. The engineer almost certainly cannot answer you directly as it would be against corporate policy. He has to get it approved by his boss and the corporate lawyers. Keep in mind that no matter what he/she may have recommended internally to the company, management makes the decisions based on perceived profit. The engineer may have not hidden a thing but management very well may have (remember the first shuttle disaster). However, remove the perceived profit, and the project will be dropped like a hot potato. As far as going to the state licensing board, that will almost certainly fail. There are only a limited number of circumstances where engineers are required to be licensed and this probably isn't one of them. Very few engineers in this country are licensed. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
"Dick Carroll" wrote in message ... Phil Kane wrote: On 19 Oct 2003 03:45:31 GMT, Dick Carroll wrote: What's wrong with going after those engineers who are obscuring the technical facts of BPL? You seem to be missing an essential point: the "client" of an engineer is the employer. If the employer does not complain of unprofessional conduct, there's no case. That's neat. The employer can violate all sorts of statutes, and involve the engineers, and no one but the employer can do anything about it! VERY neat! Similarly, the licensing boards take action only if there is a complaint of unprofessional conduct from one with standing, namely the employer. So the adversly-affected public can have no standing in complaining about the fraudulant acts of licensed persons-actions that directly affect the public??? What sort of a system of regulation is this? It's almost useless! It licenses professionals to act contrary to law and standard industry professinal process! Actually there are very few cases where an engineer even needs to be licensed. An electrical engineer working for a utility probably does not need to be licensed. [snip] So you're saying the the public is afforded no protection whatever in licensing matters unless individuals compl;aining are are directly involved. Nice! Again, it is unlikely that the engineers working for the utility have to be licensed so the licensing board couldn't do anything anyway. So inform the stockholders of this fiasco and let them handle it. If they are made aware of the facts it would seem they would be interested in at least looking into the matter since their investment dollars are at risk. As usual the law is written to protect everyone except the public. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
Dick Carroll wrote in message ...
I got no response to my private email so I'll ask again here in public. Hey, I responded. What's wrong with going after those engineers who are obscuring the technical facts of BPL? If a doctor or lawyer messes up bigtime and people suffer for it, he can be called to account. I see no reason whatever that those engineers behind the hiding of the facts of BPL can't be cited to answer to their state licensing boards for it. I see it as entirely possible that the negative publicity alone might change the nature of the situation-what investor owned company wants to answer to stockholders for spending many millions of dollars on such a technically flawed plan which is most likely to lose money because of a plan based on flawed engineering and deliberate bypassing of the rules? Another possible benefit of taking action against engineers would be the fact that FCC *should* be far less likely to approve a BPL plan that had been shown IN PUBLIC to be technically flawed, with citations given such as the "neon sign" diversionary. If that engineer won't answer your remails, send him a registered letter. If he doesn't answer that, see if he'll answer to his state licensing board. Engineers are not required to become Registered Professional Engineers and most of us are not P.E.s. Phil is a P.E., I'm not. The state boards can spank Phil but they can't spank me because I'm outside their jurisdiction. Also note that the FCC does not require engineers to have P.E. licenses in order to participate as technical experts in regulatory matters. Phil is 100% correct about an engineer's employer having the bottom line responsibility for his/her actions (there are exceptions). If an engineer screws up and somebody gets hurts some way or another the engineer might be fired by the employer but the lawyers and regulators will hold the the employer responsible for the screwup, not the engineer. The legal and medical industries play different ballgames in this respect. So the PP&L engineer who is playing silly games can completely ignore and/or mislead anybody he chooses without suffering any legal consequences at all, P.E. or not. Within the limits his employer sets on his actions. To do any less is to allow them to win by default. Of course you'll have to have your engineering all in place. He does. But we still have to continue supporting his ongoing efforts and beasting on the FCC as private citizens and as ARRL members. Dick w3rv |
W1RFI wrote:
Wonder how much BPL garbage that setup would pick up? My guess is about S7 at 100 feet spacing between houses, on frequencies that BPL was using. That is assuming they didn't crank up the power to meet Part 15 limits so they could go farther and/or have more immunity to noise. A question arises - 30 m from what? If every piece of house wiring has the BPL signals on it, in many locations you cannot get 30 meters away. Correct. The limit is for 30 meters distance. There are cases where it can't be measured there, and the FCC allows measurements to be made at other distances, and extrapolated to 30 meters. But here's the kicker -- they allow the extrapolation at a 40log(distance ratio), unlike virtually every other country in the world. That translates to an inverse-to-the-fourth power ratio. Think any of the Part 15 guys make measurements at 3 meters that COULD be made at 30 meters, just to gain that extra 20 dB? Is there stock equipment for BPL yet? Or could they be using prototypes? At this point, PPL is going commercial in the Allentown area. I have offered several times to show them exactly what they are getting themselves into, but their BPL engineer does not answer my email. That is kinda' odd, because if I were about to invest millions of dollars and a national organization came along and told me that there was a major problem with it, then offered to drive 200 miles to show me, I think I would want to hear what they had to say and would find an hour's time. Any PPL shareholders here? :-) 73, Ed Hare, W1RFI Has anyone addressed the security issues with BPL? If BPL radiates from the powerlines, what is to keep some savy hacker from receiving those signals and with a little bit of software engineering they could read your email, get your passwords and see everything you do on the internet. I remember back in my days in the computer industry, long before the internet, one of the big defense contractors did this very thing. They discovered that enough signal radiated from the coaxial cable between the main frame and dumb terminals they could pick the signals up some distance outside the building and see everything going on on every terminal. Should be even easier with the amount of radiating that BPL will do. |
|
On 20 Oct 2003 02:03:29 GMT, Dick Carroll wrote:
That's contrary to what was posted some time ago here on this subject. In fact, I think it was Phil that said that before one can advertise himself as an engineer or sign off on engineering projects s/he must be licensed by the state as a Professional Engineer, after taking an examination, and that to work as an engineer without the PE license is to risk severe sanctions. That depends on the state law. In Califoria, there are two levels. "Title Act" and "Practice Act". There are five specialties (Electrical. Civil, Mechanical, Petroleum, and Structural) in which one cannot use the title or do the practice (be in responsible charge of the work) to the public without being a PE. All the other specialties are "Practice Act" specialties. Different employers regard this differently. My wife's employer - the largest environmental engineering consultant in the world - requires all engineers to hold PE registration in their specialty from at least one state to advance beyond the "Junior Engineer" level, and that all work submitted to a client - public sector or private sector - be signed and stamped by a PE. Most of their contracts require this as well. When it comes to the civil and structural engineers, it is almost universal that state law requires that the engineer be a registered PE and also provides a "handle" to "reach" said engineer if the work is done in a negligent manner. The usual grounds for sanctions against land surveyers and civil engineers in California is negligent determination of or failure to file property boundaries. In general, state statutes also provide a "handle" for the state registration board to discipline registrants who perform work in a negligent manner, but a finding of negligence requires a nexus between the engineer personally and the affected/damaged party - the complainant. I have a soninlaw who is a PE (civil engineer) and he took some tests for the license. I understood that was a profeffional qualification put in place to protect the public from the inferionr work of unqualified persons posing as qualified and competent. According to Phils last post, that was wrong. The publis gets no protection and the employers can't be held accountble either, unless there is a prosecutable criminal offense. You misinterpreted what I said. The employer is always liable for the misconduct of employees in the course of employment. The complaint, however, has to be by an affected party (client) or by the DA if there is a criminal violation involved. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane |
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 - |
Brian wrote: (Steve Robeson, K4CAP) wrote in message om... (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.... That's how a good Moresman stops his conveyance. Nahh, all this was on SSB. Besides, I wasn't rude to the folks who chased me off their frequencies. I just left quietly. That was the essence of my question to the guy. Maybe he told someone in the contest that it was his frequency and the other ham didn't listen to him. - Mike KB3EIA - |
Mike Coslo wrote in message ...
Brian wrote: (Steve Robeson, K4CAP) wrote in message om... (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.... That's how a good Moresman stops his conveyance. Nahh, all this was on SSB. Besides, I wasn't rude to the folks who chased me off their frequencies. I just left quietly. That was the essence of my question to the guy. Maybe he told someone in the contest that it was his frequency and the other ham didn't listen to him. - Mike KB3EIA - Mike, you must realize that its important for these guys to retell their biopsy stories day after day, year after year, and any interruption by any danged contest is unacceptable. ;^) Brian |
Mike, you must realize that its important for these guys to retell
their biopsy stories day after day, year after year, and any interruption by any danged contest is unacceptable. ;^) Brian What makes you think you can tell anyone what to say, or talk about on Ham Radio. Go back to 11 meters CBer |
I was referring to the noise in the power lines as it is now.... not with
BPL going...... -- Ryan, KC8PMX FF1-FF2-MFR --. --- -.. ... .- -. --. . .-.. ... .- .-. . ..-. .. .-. . ..-. ... --. .... - . .-. ... "Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ... "Ryan, KC8PMX" wrote in message ... Fortunately Charter around here is somewhat ameanable (sp.?) to repairing their systems, but it is a challenge still. Consumers Energy around here is next to impossible to deal with though. I am still a strong proponent to buried power lines as opposed to powerlines on poles. Even if the area distribution lines are buried, the wires come up to (usually pad-mounted above ground) transformers and the BPL signal will permeate all the wiring in your (and your neighbors') house(s) ... Underground distribution will help (some) but it doesn't actually solve the problem. Carl - wk3c |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:59 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com