Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
David,
Looks like I'm going to have to research some nice linear as well as a decent HF station. I had been looking at a vertical to avoid all of the horizontal lines in the neighborhood, but, on second thought ... 1500 watts horizontally polarized, 50 feet from the power lines might prove interesting ![]() 73 from Rochester, NY Jim AA2QA ps - we need a study as to where the biggest ingress will occur ![]() "David Stinson" wrote in message ... Money talks, public service walks- BPL is a certainty. The "null it out- anyone can do it" argument is crap- works well in theory, poorly in the field. Even with excellent nulling, QRP and other weak signal work is finished. Shortwave DXing is finished. You have three choices- Give up radio. Move far enough into the country to avoid the polluted grid, "Gorilla warfare-" Power lines that leak out, can also leak IN. 50 watts of broadband noise generator plugged into the nearest socket would do. Note that I would never advocate anything illegal..... D.S. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.512 / Virus Database: 309 - Release Date: 8/19/03 |
#2
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Amazing, a scenario where an SWL would move into the city because of
less QRN. On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 15:41:04 GMT, David Stinson wrote: Money talks, public service walks- BPL is a certainty. The "null it out- anyone can do it" argument is crap- works well in theory, poorly in the field. Even with excellent nulling, QRP and other weak signal work is finished. Shortwave DXing is finished. You have three choices- Give up radio. Move far enough into the country to avoid the polluted grid, "Gorilla warfare-" Power lines that leak out, can also leak IN. 50 watts of broadband noise generator plugged into the nearest socket would do. Note that I would never advocate anything illegal..... D.S. |
#3
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "Jim Hampton" wrote in message ... David, Looks like I'm going to have to research some nice linear as well as a decent HF station. I had been looking at a vertical to avoid all of the horizontal lines in the neighborhood, but, on second thought ... 1500 watts horizontally polarized, 50 feet from the power lines might prove interesting ![]() 73 from Rochester, NY Jim AA2QA ps - we need a study as to where the biggest ingress will occur ![]() Hmmm. I can't imagine any way Ham radio interference would do any good, even if legal. Interference might not have effect it at all. Or it might cause a slowdown the BPL user would attribute to internet congestion. If the BPL user believes interference is casuing a problem with his gee-whiz powerline internet access, he's gonna squak to the power company and maybe the FCC. Face it, radio hobbyists are in no position for poor public relations. There are more people who will be attracted to the bright, shiny promise of BPL than there are radio hobbyists. Considering the numbers, would it be unlikely for the FCC to redefine the interference limits? I'd be curious to know how vunerable BPL is to interference. I have no doubt the BPL people have run tests, and I'm a little surprised they're not at the front of a webpage somewhere. Ham radio may not have alot of effect. The power lines will only absorb a fraction of what's transmitted, and will probably re-radiate most of that. I would think interference from devices plugged directly into the lines would have the most effect. Like spikey old universal motors and cheap switchmode power supplies. Politically, it's far better if damaging interference comes from everyday objects around the home. Like the vacuum cleaner, the microwave oven, the kid's computer, etc. And nothing will help as much as bringing new people into the radio hobby. Frank Dresser |
#4
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
I use the power line as an antenna for my baby SW RXs, when I carry them around
the house. In fact, using the power line provides better recpetion at 3.21 MHz on my Grundig eTR7 than I get with my 40M inverted vee on my DX-392. LOL Using the baby RXs on the power line, BPL might be fun. Bill, K5BY |
#5
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "Brian Kelly" wrote in message om... I'd be curious to know how vunerable BPL is to interference. I have no doubt the BPL people have run tests, and I'm a little surprised they're not at the front of a webpage somewhere. No sir, the BPL clods have *not* done much if any interfernce testing wherein lies the underlying reason for whole uproar and is the reason you can't find info on their "tests" online. It's all explained in depth and well documented in the ARRL website. When I wrote "vunerable BPL is to interference", I meant how outside sources of interference would effect the performance of BPL. Sorry if I wasn't clear. I still have no doubt the BPL people would test for things like that. I wouldn't expect them to care much about interference, as long as they can fit it into some interpretation of Part 15 regs. Or if they can get the Part 15 regs changed. Or if they don't get caught violating the Part 15 regs. I was wondering if there's any test results explaining how marvelously robust this BPL system is going to be. If you know where this is all explained in depth and well documented, please point me in that direction. And nothing will help as much as bringing new people into the radio hobby. By the time that might happen BPL will either have taken over the HF spectrum or been forgotten as another idiotic and failed dotcom maneuver. BPL might very well fail. Or it might hang on in a few communities. I have no idea. I'm sure, now that crackpot powerline schemes are here, they will never really go away. Far beyond the question of hams interfering with BPL comes the much more important question of BPL interfering with the long list of licensed incumbent HF users. Within that group radio hobbyists are basically bit players. Smart and noisy bit players but nonetheless bit players. Other users are *not* bit players and them's the folks who I expect will quietly and decisively torpedo BPL. w3rv Maybe, but much of the utility SW use has gone to sattelites. The bands are far quiter now than they were 30 years ago. Of course, I've got my own crackpot idea. The SW spectrum should be run rather like the way we run the National Parks. Everyone is free to use SW radio, as long as they act in a responsible manner. If only Boy Scouts could go to Yellowstone, only Boy Scouts would care about Yellowstone. Frank Dresser |
#6
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Jim:
Even BEFORE they start this BPL thing, the existing power lines emanate a ton of interference anyways. It is almost impossible for me to listen to anything HF around here because the lines around here are terrible. I can only imagine how much worse it will get with adding the BPL stuff as well. I am definitely a proponent of having the utilities switching (albeit expensive) to buried electrical lines. Only exception might be where the lines need to cross a river etc. -- Ryan, KC8PMX FF1-FF2-MFR-(pending NREMT-B!) --. --- -.. ... .- -. --. . .-.. ... .- .-. . ..-. .. .-. . ..-. ... --. .... - . .-. ... "Jim Hampton" wrote in message ... David, Looks like I'm going to have to research some nice linear as well as a decent HF station. I had been looking at a vertical to avoid all of the horizontal lines in the neighborhood, but, on second thought ... 1500 watts horizontally polarized, 50 feet from the power lines might prove interesting ![]() 73 from Rochester, NY Jim AA2QA ps - we need a study as to where the biggest ingress will occur ![]() "David Stinson" wrote in message ... Money talks, public service walks- BPL is a certainty. The "null it out- anyone can do it" argument is crap- works well in theory, poorly in the field. Even with excellent nulling, QRP and other weak signal work is finished. Shortwave DXing is finished. You have three choices- Give up radio. Move far enough into the country to avoid the polluted grid, "Gorilla warfare-" Power lines that leak out, can also leak IN. 50 watts of broadband noise generator plugged into the nearest socket would do. Note that I would never advocate anything illegal..... D.S. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.512 / Virus Database: 309 - Release Date: 8/19/03 |
#7
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Frank Dresser" wrote in message ...
"Brian Kelly" wrote in message om... I'd be curious to know how vunerable BPL is to interference. I have no doubt the BPL people have run tests, and I'm a little surprised they're not at the front of a webpage somewhere. No sir, the BPL clods have *not* done much if any interfernce testing wherein lies the underlying reason for whole uproar and is the reason you can't find info on their "tests" online. It's all explained in depth and well documented in the ARRL website. When I wrote "vunerable BPL is to interference", I meant how outside sources of interference would effect the performance of BPL. Sorry if I wasn't clear. No problem, I understood what you meant. I still have no doubt the BPL people would test for things like that. I wouldn't expect them to care much about interference, as long as they can fit it into some interpretation of Part 15 regs. Or if they can get the Part 15 regs changed. Or if they don't get caught violating the Part 15 regs. I was wondering if there's any test results explaining how marvelously robust this BPL system is going to be. If you know where this is all explained in depth and well documented, please point me in that direction. From http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2003/08/21/4/?nc=1 "The League also noted that comments in the proceeding so far have been silent on the interference susceptibility of BPL to ham radio signal ingress. The League predicted that even as little as 250 mW of signal induced into overhead power lines some 100 feet from an amateur antenna could degrade a BPL system or render it inoperative." I realize that this is not the statement about actual tests run by the BPL people which you'd like to see, they haven't published *any* test results at all, but the League technical guys are pretty sharp and I doubt they'd make a statement like this if that didn't have a good basis for making it. And nothing will help as much as bringing new people into the radio hobby. By the time that might happen BPL will either have taken over the HF spectrum or been forgotten as another idiotic and failed dotcom maneuver. BPL might very well fail. Or it might hang on in a few communities. I have no idea. I'm sure, now that crackpot powerline schemes are here, they will never really go away. Heh. Yeah, the recent grid debacle is not setting a very good stage for a huggy kissy relationship between the BPL types and *anybody* else including the FCC. I've seen some economic analyses of BPL and from the standpoint of an investor BPL is a big go-nowhere dud. Far beyond the question of hams interfering with BPL comes the much more important question of BPL interfering with the long list of licensed incumbent HF users. Within that group radio hobbyists are basically bit players. Smart and noisy bit players but nonetheless bit players. Other users are *not* bit players and them's the folks who I expect will quietly and decisively torpedo BPL. w3rv Maybe, but much of the utility SW use has gone to sattelites. The bands are far quiter now than they were 30 years ago. That's quite true. But we can't hear HF listeners and we can't normally tune some modes but they're out there and apparently in profusion. We almost didn't get any 60M band at all because certain feds didn't want hams on "their HF frequencies". I dunno who they are, those freqs appear dead when ya tune around. But they're there. FBI, CIA, NSA, FCC, the military? Of course, I've got my own crackpot idea. The SW spectrum should be run rather like the way we run the National Parks. From a post I launched in RRAP on 8 Feb 2000: - - - - - W3RV "There isn't enough bandwidth in all the HF ham bands combined to pull off the kinds of ham technology development work we'll see in the coming years, much of it undoubtedly will be done by nocode computer jocks on the millimeter bands. Code tests have been a no-counter wrt to "fostering ham radio as a tehnical hobby" for the past nine years". K4YZ: and that HF is for recreation, period. W3RV: "PRECISELY: If I had my druthers I'd have the regulation of HF ham radio moved over to the National Park Service and let the geeks screw around with the FCC." - - - - - Heh! Everyone is free to use SW radio, as long as they act in a responsible manner. NO WAY!! If only Boy Scouts could go to Yellowstone, only Boy Scouts would care about Yellowstone. Frank Dresser w3rv |
#8
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
In rec.radio.amateur.policy Frank Dresser wrote:
When I wrote "vunerable BPL is to interference", I meant how outside sources of interference would effect the performance of BPL. Sorry if I wasn't [..] If you know where this is all explained in depth and well documented, please point me in that direction. I don`t know the details, but here in Europe several pilot projects were basically stopped and several larger companies got out of that technology again, after trying to hype it for several years. I do not know if this is due to unreliability or due to other factors, but it *seems* to have worked better in the lab than in the real world. If enough problems make it too unreliable and/or expensive, this might be the easiest way out. There *are* some companies still trying to bring this to market though (my local utility does). /ralph |
#9
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "Ralph Aichinger" wrote in message ... I don`t know the details, but here in Europe several pilot projects were basically stopped and several larger companies got out of that technology again, after trying to hype it for several years. I do not know if this is due to unreliability or due to other factors, but it *seems* to have worked better in the lab than in the real world. If enough problems make it too unreliable and/or expensive, this might be the easiest way out. There *are* some companies still trying to bring this to market though (my local utility does). /ralph Yeah. As proposed, it might have too many problems to go into widespread use. However, if the biggest problem is their signal to noise ratio, they might fix it by boosting their signal. Let's hope not! Frank Dresser |
#10
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Frank Dresser" analogdial@worldnet
If radio were open to the public, there would be thousands more people who give a damn about radio. And any politican will desire the support of thousands who give a damn every bit as much as he desires a snappy wardrobe and a full head of hair. Hey Frank, where'd you ever get the idea that radio *isn't* open to the public? I never knew anyone whatever who wanted a ham radio license who was barred from getting one. There is a small matter of qualifying for it, of course, as there is in every endeavor where others can and will be impacted when the licensee knows not which way is up. But it has always been open to all comers. Now if you're talking "open" like CB is open, that's a horse of an entirely different color. Dick |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
new kenwood ts480 voip internet ready | Dx | |||
new kenwood ts480 voip internet ready | General | |||
READY! AIM! FIRE! | CB | |||
Twithed Get Ready | CB |