|
"Jim Hampton" wrote in message ...
I hate to say it, but I'll probably put up a 10 meter beacon. Of course, FCC rules state using the minimum amount of power necessary for communications. This means searching out folks on the internet that are perhaps 40 miles away and you'd need some 'reasonable' power on 10 meters. Best to use a horizontal dipole. A vertical will reduce BPL interference in both directions and a yagi would reduce your horizontal signal spread (as well as aid communications). 100 watts or so ... I wonder what would be most effective? AM/SSB/FM? Again, you simply increase power on the mode selected to obtain decent communications. You also happen to choose a mode that would tend to disrupt BPL. Of course, if the power companies do happen to filter to protect amateur bands, they also will protect themselves from signal ingress. Obviously, they are smart enough to stay away from the commercial FM band, but I'd bet there will be problems in fringe areas for channel 2 and 3 television. It will be interesting to see how it plays out. 73 from Rochester, NY Jim AA2QA But, but, but... Jim, all you need is a wet noodle and you can work the world on the "kiddie band." |
|
You miss the point. I'm interested in showing how this BPL is a two-way
street. Beacons are legal on 10 meters. 6 meters would also likely be effective. I'd prefer not using 20 meters for a 40 miles circuit which would require a considerable signal and also cause that signal to be stronger thousands of miles away. I'm interested in a band that isn't open and working someone far enough away to require 50 watts or more. That is how you demonstrate the two-way possibilities of BPL. Ya keep it all legal. Daytime 160 or 75 meters would also require a fair amount of power for a 60 mile or so circuit, but you wouldn't generate the e-fields which would bother the BPL as much (but, on second thought, those power lines are long and would tend to pick up quite a signal). You have given me another thought here ... :)) You see, if an unlicensed transmitter is going to put some electric field into my receiver, I simply want to return the favor - with interest. 73 from Rochester, NY Jim AA2QA "William" wrote in message om... But, but, but... Jim, all you need is a wet noodle and you can work the world on the "kiddie band." --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.592 / Virus Database: 375 - Release Date: 2/18/04 |
"Jim Hampton" wrote in message ...
You miss the point. I'm interested in showing how this BPL is a two-way street. Beacons are legal on 10 meters. 6 meters would also likely be effective. I'd prefer not using 20 meters for a 40 miles circuit Not a circuit. which would require a considerable signal and also cause that signal to be stronger thousands of miles away. I'm interested in a band that isn't open and working someone far enough away to require 50 watts or more. That is how you demonstrate the two-way possibilities of BPL. Ya keep it all legal. Your entire response is conspiracy to commit an illegal act: intentional interference. Daytime 160 or 75 meters would also require a fair amount of power for a 60 mile or so circuit, but you wouldn't generate the e-fields which would bother the BPL as much (but, on second thought, those power lines are long and would tend to pick up quite a signal). You have given me another thought here ... :)) I don't recall mentioning MW. You see, if an unlicensed transmitter is going to put some electric field into my receiver, I simply want to return the favor - with interest. 73 from Rochester, NY Jim AA2QA You might want to run it by the ARRL and/or Riley. ;^) |
|
William wrote:
"Jim Hampton" wrote in message ... You miss the point. I'm interested in showing how this BPL is a two-way street. Beacons are legal on 10 meters. 6 meters would also likely be effective. I'd prefer not using 20 meters for a 40 miles circuit Not a circuit. which would require a considerable signal and also cause that signal to be stronger thousands of miles away. I'm interested in a band that isn't open and working someone far enough away to require 50 watts or more. That is how you demonstrate the two-way possibilities of BPL. Ya keep it all legal. Your entire response is conspiracy to commit an illegal act: intentional interference. Dear Beeping Bill: How can a licensed user intentionally interfere with an unlicensed user? You see, if an unlicensed transmitter is going to put some electric field into my receiver, I simply want to return the favor - with interest. You might want to run it by the ARRL and/or Riley. ;^) You might want to consider that word "unlicensed". Part 97 = licensed Part 15 = unlicensed Dave K8MN |
Dave,
You are correct, of course. Also, using 20 meters for a 40 mile away contact would not sit favourably with many folks and might be looked upon unfavourably by the FCC. Certainly neither I nor many folks would intentionally interfere with anyone. The unlicensed devices are not protected and must put up with any interference. Although there exist some filters to protect amateurs (and likely other users of rf spectrum), they are not overly efficient. They would tend (I would think) to distort the BPL somewhat - and the higher the speed, the less distortion the modems can put up with. I probably shouldn't even have posted. These were indeed my thoughts, but the reality is that much of the posting (certainly much of mine) is not really related to policy. BPL would be related, but most of the posts are intended to inflame rather than discuss. Your point, Dave, is well made and is, in fact, current policy with the FCC. I'd like to think this stuff could coexist with various HF/VHF communications, but have *severe* reservations about it; especially after W1RFI and others went through areas with BPL and put the video on the net. Actually, the BPL question should cause many folks to try and reach some kind of argreement rather than the constant flames. BPL will affect amateurs who have passed code exams, amateurs who have not taken a code exam, CBers, SWL enthusiasts and others. Certainly there will be 'attacks' (if you will) on some of the UHF/SHF amateur bands. Some accomodations will have to be made, hopefully with some spectrum replacement. Pagers and cellphones require bandwidth and now we have cellphones that take (and transmit) pictures. Wireless cameras will pass information over the air. The cameras will, most likely, be very low power and not a concern. Cellphones and similar devices, along with many other users (hey, digital tv has arrived) will make some demands. Hopefully, the FCC will try and accomodate everyone as much as possible (however, don't hold your breath on any government agency - both Republicans and Democrats are beholden to various, albeit often different, special interest groups). What amazes me is that this *one* interest (the power companies with BPL) may well be allowed to wreck havoc with many (far more than just amateur, which is what some folks think) users. I'm not even sure how inexpensively BPL could be rolled out in a rural area. They would either need some kind of boosters or run a *lot* of rf power at the source. Maybe I'm wrong, but my thinking is that BPL would likely be targeted at suburbs where many might live too far away for DSL, but the distribution costs for BPL might not be too much. In any case, thanks for your input, Dave. 73 from Rochester, NY Jim AA2QA "Dave Heil" wrote in message ... William wrote: Your entire response is conspiracy to commit an illegal act: intentional interference. Dear Beeping Bill: How can a licensed user intentionally interfere with an unlicensed user? You might want to consider that word "unlicensed". Part 97 = licensed Part 15 = unlicensed Dave K8MN --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.592 / Virus Database: 375 - Release Date: 2/18/04 |
"William" wrote in message m... "Jim Hampton" wrote in message ... You miss the point. I'm interested in showing how this BPL is a two-way street. Beacons are legal on 10 meters. 6 meters would also likely be effective. I'd prefer not using 20 meters for a 40 miles circuit Not a circuit. which would require a considerable signal and also cause that signal to be stronger thousands of miles away. I'm interested in a band that isn't open and working someone far enough away to require 50 watts or more. That is how you demonstrate the two-way possibilities of BPL. Ya keep it all legal. Your entire response is conspiracy to commit an illegal act: intentional interference. Interfering with a Part 15 device doesn't happen to be illegal. Part 15 devices are not allowed to interfere with any licensed radio service and must accept (i.e. tolerate) interference from any licensed radio service. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
"Jim Hampton" wrote in message ... Dave, What amazes me is that this *one* interest (the power companies with BPL) may well be allowed to wreck havoc with many (far more than just amateur, which is what some folks think) users. I'm not even sure how inexpensively BPL could be rolled out in a rural area. They would either need some kind of boosters or run a *lot* of rf power at the source. Maybe I'm wrong, but my thinking is that BPL would likely be targeted at suburbs where many might live too far away for DSL, but the distribution costs for BPL might not be too much. The marketing hype is cheap broadband for the rural areas. Economic reality is that it will probably never be extended into the rural areas even if some suburban areas do go for it. Every single transformer between the injection point of the signal and the end user must be bypassed with the BPL signal for that signal to work. If you only have one user every few miles, it will never pay off. And of course you've mentioned the power and/or signal boosters required. Periodic boosters all along the line will be needed. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
Dee D. Flint wrote:
Interfering with a Part 15 device doesn't happen to be illegal. Part 15 devices are not allowed to interfere with any licensed radio service and must accept (i.e. tolerate) interference from any licensed radio service. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE If/when BPL gets rolling and big bucks start rolling in to the BPL folks, you don't really think it will remain under Part 15 rules do you? |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:54 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com