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

In article ,
(W1RFI) writes:

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.

That's to be expected if you stayed on the street. If you drove up to a house,
the racket might be a lot more.

The real killer test would be to have a "typical" amateur station in a
neighborhood served by underground utilities carrying BPL. Say, a 2 story frame
house on a half-acre or so, with a G5RV or dipole at 50 feet strung over the
the house.

Wonder how much BPL garbage that setup would pick up?

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.

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.

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.

Is there stock equipment for BPL yet? Or could they be using prototypes?

73 es tnx for all the hard work de Jim, N2EY

I still owe ya that lobstah, Ed.

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