About Us

March 25th 04, 06:46 PM

In article , PAMNO
(N2EY) writes:

You seem heck-bent on starting some more internecine warfare in
here.

I'm simply asking a question. You are avoiding that question. One would think
that a "radio electronics professional" with your claimed experience would
know the answer, but I guess you don't.

In that case you are wasting everyone's time. :-)

NOBODY has EVER worked with ANY sort of "antenna" that
stretches for miles...and has randomly-distributed "feed points"
from discontinuities all along both overhead and underground
electric power lines. That would be the case for Access BPL.

That observation isn't rocket science. It can be done by anyone
in the vicinity of overhead power lines...and trying to find a
reference to such long-stretching antennas in the best library
anywhere (nothing there).

Trying to come close to a computer model, even with Roy
Lewallen's excellent EZNEC might be done...but only for one
specific community area. THINK. The electric power lines
WERE NEVER DESIGNED AS HF-VHF TRANSMISSION
LINES. They work okay at 60 Hz. 60 Hz doesn't worry about
VSWR or discontinuities and those lines only need to worry
if a splice or other connection conducts and that everything is
insulated that should be insulated.

The electric power distribution lines don't even come close to
having any sort of constant impedance. LOOK. THINK about
observated spacings in overhead systems you can see at any
time there is sufficient light. Do you see uniformity? None
there. Go to another location and observe. Do you see any
uniformity to the first location? Maybe. Try another community.
Is that uniform? ELECTRIC POWER DISTRIBUTION LINES IN
CITIES WERE NEVER DESIGNED AS HF-VHF TRANSMISSION
LINES. THERE IS NO ELECTRIC STANDARD ANYWHERE
THAT SAYS THOSE MUST BE RF TRANSMISSION LINES.

If you can't understand that, then you are just wasting time for
everyone with trying to troll for arguments in here.

Now pull out your two degrees, wipe the dead ivy leaves from
them and show how YOUR "professionalism" says the Access
BPL will be safe and amateurs (or anyone else) won't have to
worry...go ahead, make everyone's day...

LHA / WMD

March 26th 04, 12:01 AM

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:

In article , PAMNO
(N2EY) writes:

You seem heck-bent on starting some more internecine warfare in
here.

I'm simply asking a question. You are avoiding that question. One would
think
that a "radio electronics professional" with your claimed experience would
know the answer, but I guess you don't.

In that case you are wasting everyone's time. :-)

NOBODY has EVER worked with ANY sort of "antenna" that
stretches for miles..

Yes, they have. One type is called a Beverage antenna, after its inventor,
H.H.Beverage.

and has randomly-distributed "feed points"
from discontinuities all along both overhead and underground
electric power lines. That would be the case for Access BPL.

That part is unique.

That observation isn't rocket science. It can be done by anyone
in the vicinity of overhead power lines...and trying to find a
reference to such long-stretching antennas in the best library
anywhere (nothing there).

Look under "Beverage" ;-)

Trying to come close to a computer model, even with Roy
Lewallen's excellent EZNEC might be done...but only for one
specific community area.

Then go ahead and do it.

THINK. The electric power lines
WERE NEVER DESIGNED AS HF-VHF TRANSMISSION
LINES.

Why are you shouting, Len?

They work okay at 60 Hz. 60 Hz doesn't worry about
VSWR or discontinuities and those lines only need to worry
if a splice or other connection conducts and that everything is
insulated that should be insulated.

The electric power distribution lines don't even come close to
having any sort of constant impedance. LOOK. THINK about
observated spacings in overhead systems you can see at any
time there is sufficient light. Do you see uniformity? None
there. Go to another location and observe. Do you see any
uniformity to the first location? Maybe. Try another community.
Is that uniform? ELECTRIC POWER DISTRIBUTION LINES IN
CITIES WERE NEVER DESIGNED AS HF-VHF TRANSMISSION
LINES. THERE IS NO ELECTRIC STANDARD ANYWHERE
THAT SAYS THOSE MUST BE RF TRANSMISSION LINES.

I know all that, Len. I knew it way back in my Novice days, I knew it when I
first read about the BPL concept.

The question isn't *why* BPL is a bad idea. The question is how *amateurs* are
supposed to convince the *professionals* that BPL is a bad idea.

Should we do it by the methods you demonstrate, including the shouting (all
capitals)? Is that the way you professionals interact?

If you can't understand that, then you are just wasting time for
everyone with trying to troll for arguments in here.

I understand why BPL is a bad idea, Len. That's not the problem.

The problem is how to convince the FCC. For example, consider these quotes from
the Wall street Journal:

"The FCC and the utilities say new technologies have eliminated the
interference and accuse the hams of exploiting the issue for their own
gains."

'"We haven't seen the sun darken and everything electrical turn to
white noise and haze during a deployment," says Matt Oja, an executive at
Progress Energy, whose test Mr. Powell visited. "This is a fairly vocal
group that has been whipped into a frenzy by their organization." (ARRL).'

Or how about this one:

'Ed Thomas, the FCC's chief engineer, says the commission has spent a year
listening to the hams' concerns about power lines and is getting frustrated.
"Why is this thing a major calamity?" he says. "And honestly, I'd love the
answer to that."'

That's the *chief engineer* of the FCC saying that. Here it is again:

"Why is this thing a major calamity? And honestly, I'd love the
answer to that."

How do *amateurs* convince Mr. Thomas that BPL *is* a major calamity?

Now pull out your two degrees, wipe the dead ivy leaves from
them and show how YOUR "professionalism" says the Access
BPL will be safe and amateurs (or anyone else) won't have to
worry...go ahead, make everyone's day...

I've never claimed anything of the sort, Len. You're wrong - again...

March 26th 04, 05:34 PM

In article , PAMNO
(N2EY) writes:

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:

In article ,

(N2EY) writes:

You seem heck-bent on starting some more internecine warfare in
here.

I'm simply asking a question. You are avoiding that question. One would
think
that a "radio electronics professional" with your claimed experience would
know the answer, but I guess you don't.

In that case you are wasting everyone's time. :-)

NOBODY has EVER worked with ANY sort of "antenna" that
stretches for miles..

Yes, they have. One type is called a Beverage antenna, after its inventor,
H.H.Beverage.

Old Bev NEVER tried any "antenna" that can go MILES in mutually
perpendicular directions using MANY different and randomly-
varying paths in each direction. You should get to a community's
civil engineering office and look at the various electric line routings.

If you can't get out and LOOK at the surroundings where you are,
that's not my problem. The evidence is right in front of you, above
you, maybe below you. Old history books won't help you there.

I'd suggest you get a strong beverage, one that will relax you first
before trying to pull off that "ancient wisdom" dums**t again.

You waste too much of too many folks' time with arguments
over semantic minutae.

Plonk

LHA / WMD

March 27th 04, 07:59 AM

Subject: BPL NPRM v. NOI
From: (Len Over 21)
Date: 3/26/2004 11:34 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

In article , PAMNO
(N2EY) writes:

I'd suggest you get a strong beverage, one that will relax you first
before trying to pull off that "ancient wisdom" dums**t again.

You waste too much of too many folks' time with arguments
over semantic minutae.

Jim...is it just me, or does Lennie switch to profanity (actual or
ins*nu*ated) or suggest dropping to killfile ("plonk") when he's getting backed
into a corner by someone who can argue with him and make him look
silly....again...?

Seems he's been doing both a lot lately...

Steve, K4YZ

March 27th 04, 03:30 PM

Steve Robeson K4CAP wrote:
Subject: BPL NPRM v. NOI
From: (Len Over 21)
Date: 3/26/2004 11:34 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

In article , PAMNO
(N2EY) writes:

I'd suggest you get a strong beverage, one that will relax you first
before trying to pull off that "ancient wisdom" dums**t again.

You waste too much of too many folks' time with arguments
over semantic minutae.

Jim...is it just me, or does Lennie switch to profanity (actual or
ins*nu*ated) or suggest dropping to killfile ("plonk") when he's getting backed
into a corner by someone who can argue with him and make him look
silly....again...?

Who cares, as long as I stay plonked! 8^)

- Always wondered why that one kept responding to my posts when he knew
I read them and replied only to that which deserved reply.

- Mike KB3EIA -

March 27th 04, 08:58 AM

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:

In article , PAMNO
(N2EY) writes:

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:

In article ,

(N2EY) writes:

You seem heck-bent on starting some more internecine warfare in
here.

I'm simply asking a question. You are avoiding that question. One would
think
that a "radio electronics professional" with your claimed experience would
know the answer, but I guess you don't.

In that case you are wasting everyone's time. :-)

NOBODY has EVER worked with ANY sort of "antenna" that
stretches for miles..

Yes, they have. One type is called a Beverage antenna, after its inventor,
H.H.Beverage.

Old Bev NEVER tried any "antenna" that can go MILES in mutually
perpendicular directions using MANY different and randomly-
varying paths in each direction. \

How do you know, Len? Did you know Mr. Beverage?

You should get to a community's
civil engineering office and look at the various electric line routings.

Why? Anyone can see where they run, just by looking.

If you can't get out and LOOK at the surroundings where you are,
that's not my problem. The evidence is right in front of you, above
you, maybe below you. Old history books won't help you there.

What is your point, Len? I know what power lines look like, how they work,
voltage levels, etc. In fact I probably know more about the electric power
distribution network than you do, particularly at the medium-voltage level.

You keep ducking the question of *how* to convince the "professionals" at FCC
and the BPL companies that BPL is not a good idea.

I'd suggest you get a strong beverage, one that will relax you first
before trying to pull off that "ancient wisdom" dums**t again.

You don't really know how to convince them, do you, Len?

You waste too much of too many folks' time with arguments
over semantic minutae.

Not me, Len. You're the absolute master of that sort of debate. You post here
more often, and at greater length, than anyone else. Yet you actually say
little or nothing of practical value. You're full of criticism for others,
particularly the ARRL, but can't take even the most well-mannered criticism or
disagreement on any issue.

You've waved your "professional" credentials here innumerable times, but you
can't tell us how to convince FCC of something that's blaringly obvious to even
us poor dumb amateurs.

Plonk

I don't think so.

March 27th 04, 09:18 PM

In article , PAMNO
(N2EY) writes:

You've waved your "professional" credentials here innumerable times, but you
can't tell us how to convince FCC of something that's blaringly obvious to
even us poor dumb amateurs.

I'm sorry to hear you have such a low self-image.

You can't bolster that low self-image by attempting to force others
into answering your questions...those usually a set-up for an
expected reply...:-)

But, on the thread SUBJECT...the FCC cannot directly stop Access
BPL. It doesn't have the direct legal authority to do so. All the FCC
can do right now is to set standards on the levels of incidental RF
radiation from an Access BPL system. That is what NPRM 04-29
is all about.

So far, literally thousands of amateurs have complained bitterly
about Access BPL to the FCC on proceedings 03-104, 04-37,
and 04-29. They've demanded that the FCC "stop" it. The FCC
cannot "stop" it. All the FCC can do is set standards for incidental
RF radiation from Access BPL systems. Very, very few, if any,
amateurs have suggested ANY levels of such RF radiation limits
other than zero as in stopping Access BPL entirely.

Since the FCC has NO power to "stop" any Access BPL now,
the thousands of amateurs complaining about it aren't going to be
at all effective in stopping it. All that proceedings 04-37, 03-104,
and 04-29 in the ECFS are seemingly good for is a place to vent
steam generated by whatever frustrations all those thousands of
amateurs must have.

Anyone who really wants to "stop" Access BPL would have better
luck contacting their federal congressperson or senator and tell
Congress to stop it. The FCC doesn't have the legal power to
stop Access BPL; all the FCC can do right now is to set regulations
for incidental RF radiation levels.

I've made my comments on all three proceedings. That's in the
public record. Maybe it is effective, maybe not. The point is that
I and all of us can DO it. We have the direct input to the FCC and
the congresspersons have web addresses and postal addresses.
I am NOT going to do anyone's work for them. I sure as heck
can't tell anyone in this newsgrope what to do, can I? :-)

Besides, argumentative one, you've implied so many times that
you "know" what the FCC thinks. That's a key to get them to
"stop" Access BPL, isn't it? Why don't you spread around that
information for all to share? Show your dedication and
committment to the "amateur community."

LHA / WMD

March 28th 04, 03:07 PM

Subject: BPL NPRM v. NOI
From: (Len Over 21)
Date: 3/27/2004 3:18 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

In article , PAMNO
(N2EY) writes:

You've waved your "professional" credentials here innumerable times, but you
can't tell us how to convince FCC of something that's blaringly obvious to
even us poor dumb amateurs.

I'm sorry to hear you have such a low self-image.

You can't bolster that low self-image by attempting to force others
into answering your questions...those usually a set-up for an
expected reply...

But, on the thread SUBJECT...the FCC cannot directly stop Access
BPL. It doesn't have the direct legal authority to do so. All the FCC
can do right now is to set standards on the levels of incidental RF
radiation from an Access BPL system. That is what NPRM 04-29
is all about.

Sure it can.

The second a complaint is filed by an FCC licensee they ahve the authority
to stop it.

So far, literally thousands of amateurs have complained bitterly
about Access BPL to the FCC on proceedings 03-104, 04-37,
and 04-29. They've demanded that the FCC "stop" it. The FCC
cannot "stop" it. All the FCC can do is set standards for incidental
RF radiation from Access BPL systems. Very, very few, if any,
amateurs have suggested ANY levels of such RF radiation limits
other than zero as in stopping Access BPL entirely.

Sure they can "stop it".

Steve, K4YZ

March 28th 04, 10:32 PM

In article , (the
paralegal gunnery nurse) rants, raves, and writes:

But, on the thread SUBJECT...the FCC cannot directly stop Access
BPL. It doesn't have the direct legal authority to do so. All the FCC
can do right now is to set standards on the levels of incidental RF
radiation from an Access BPL system. That is what NPRM 04-29
is all about.

Sure it can.

The second a complaint is filed by an FCC licensee they ahve the
authority to stop it.

To "stop" WHAT? There's NO Report and Order from the FCC saying
that Access BPL exists per se. If the proposed rulemaking given in
NPRM 04-29 becomes an R&O, then it has a specific definition in
terms of incidental RF radiation levels.

Right now, the FCC regulations on incidental radiation devices, Part
15, Title 47 C.F.R., simply acknowledge devices that radiate RF and
include maximum signal levels. There are limitations on the FCC's
"stopping" power since they must investigate interference claims
first in order to determine unspecified or unidentifiable sources of
such interference. There are NO "radio police officers" at the FCC,
just an Enforcement Bureau which may or may not ask for U.S.
Federal Marshals to be the "police officers" accompanying FCC
investigating agents.

There are NO widely-distributed public documents on the technical
details of any of the Access BPL systems currently undergoing
tests. There are NO specific details available on the incidental RF
radiation signal levels from any of those Access BPL test sites.
The FCC doesn't have any. The ARRL has only some audio and
video examples for download. Access BPL proponents have NO
specific data for public release other than a lot of PR BS. NO
radio amateurs have done any quantitative calculation or modeling
to simulate the actual Access BPL test installations' levels.

Further, the FCC is NOT "in charge" of approval or disapproval
of Access BPL as a system despite what a lot of commenters on
three ECFS procedings think. All the FCC can do is regulate the
amount of incidental RF radiation from the system. Right now,
NOBODY, probably not even the proponents, have any real
numbers on those RF radiation levels. Until someone comes up
with those real numbers from real tests done by real instruments
at real sites, all the complainants are shouting and hollering in
the dark, posturing and ranting like so many did during the
McCarthy communist witch hunting during the 1950s. Federal
law on technical subjects requires actual information that can be
incorporated into that law. Until then all of the fuss and furor,
the fist-shaking and shield-waving, posturing, and epithet-throwing,
threats of "action" is just a lot of silly, ignorant BS tossing.

In NPRM 04-29, the FCC is asking for DATA to use, just as they
did in NOI 03-104. I don't see any of that data.in 5,956 documents
of three proceedings in the ECFS. Show real numbers.

Kind of spoils all your ranting and posturing with reality of the
situation, doesn't it? Tsk, tsk.

LHA / WMD

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
NPRM and VEC	Richard Hoskins	General	2	April 21st 04 05:51 AM
BPL NPRM Approved	Keith	Policy	78	March 4th 04 02:11 AM
BPL NPRM	Len Over 21	Policy	5	February 23rd 04 03:15 AM
NCVEC NPRM for elimination of horse and buggy morse coderequirement.	D. Stussy	Policy	0	July 31st 03 07:12 AM
NCVEC NPRM for elimination of horse and buggy morse code requirement.	Keith	Policy	1	July 31st 03 03:46 AM

Menu

About Us