BPL vs MW & LW
 

Will BPL be prohibited at LW and MW frequencies? If so, can sub-harmonics still
QRM those bands?

"RFCOMMSYS" wrote in message
...
Will BPL be prohibited at LW and MW frequencies? If so, can sub-harmonics
still
QRM those bands?


No such things as subharmonics. The fundamental cannot produce frequencies
lower than itself. However, who knows what strange QRM the modems themselves
will produce..

Some reports are claiming it will run from 2 MHz to 80 MHz.
I wouldn't worry much about BPL it wont survive. It's a poor and
flawed technology and not economically viable.

On 15 Nov 2004 00:59:20 GMT, (RFCOMMSYS) wrote:

Will BPL be prohibited at LW and MW frequencies? If so, can sub-harmonics still
QRM those bands?

JuLiE Dxer wrote:

Some reports are claiming it will run from 2 MHz to 80 MHz.

80 MHz? American TV starts at 66 MHz or so. Do the morons at the FCC
know that BPL will interfere with American TV channels 2-5? I wonder how
the folks at all the TV stations on channels 2,3,4, and 5 will feel once
BPL blanks their signals? Or is this a way to force a move to digital
TV?

I wouldn't worry much about BPL it wont survive. It's a poor and
flawed technology and not economically viable.

On 15 Nov 2004 00:59:20 GMT, (RFCOMMSYS) wrote:

Will BPL be prohibited at LW and MW frequencies? If so, can sub-harmonics still
QRM those bands?




----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

know that BPL will interfere with American TV channels 2-5? I wonder how
the folks at all the TV stations on channels 2,3,4, and 5 will feel once
BPL blanks their signals? Or is this a way to force a move to digital
TV

one of our digital tv stations here is assigned to channel 2.

so BPL will interfere with the new digital tv .

In article ,
"Brenda Ann Dyer" wrote:

"RFCOMMSYS" wrote in message
...
Will BPL be prohibited at LW and MW frequencies? If so, can
sub-harmonics
still
QRM those bands?


No such things as subharmonics. The fundamental cannot produce
frequencies lower than itself. However, who knows what strange QRM
the modems themselves will produce..

Yes that is true that the fundamental by itself will not produce
harmonics of lower frequency but the fundamental is being modulated by
data so mixed products of variable data transmitted mixing with the
carrier will produce frequency energy above and below the fundamental.
If you have long strings of ones or zeros the mixed frequencies will be
as low as the inverse of the period of low frequency data rates.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

" Radio Flyer" wrote in message
.. .


It's true, It will cover the tv bands up to 80 MHZ except for 74.8-75.3


Gee, that's something to think about, isn't it? I mean ABC, CBS, NBC and
FOX aren't in a big panic about BPL, are they? Why the hell should SWLs
worry more than the networks?

BPL looks like another Y2K crisis, to me.


I bet it will survive since the FCC is in the pocket of the electricity
and
power industries.


Is that a rhetorical bet or an actual bet? You could drop your entire net
worth into the stock of BPL power companies and suppliers. One of the
suppliers has dropped from a high flyer to a penny stock. Your confidence
in BPL is certainly much higher than the professional investors. Just
think, if you're right, you could prove the "experts" wrong AND make
yourself rich!! Sweet!!!

Frank Dresser

"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
...

" Radio Flyer" wrote in message
.. .


It's true, It will cover the tv bands up to 80 MHZ except for 74.8-75.3


Gee, that's something to think about, isn't it? I mean ABC, CBS, NBC and
FOX aren't in a big panic about BPL, are they? Why the hell should SWLs
worry more than the networks?

BPL looks like another Y2K crisis, to me.


TV stations aren't concerned (yet) about BPL because the signal levels
needed to receive snow free television are on the order of 50 times higher
than those to receive a listenable signal on a good HF receiver (20uV for
HF, and 1000uV for television). In addition, most homes are now wired for
cable, which is much better shielded than your basic HF antenna.

"Brenda Ann Dyer" wrote in message
...



TV stations aren't concerned (yet) about BPL because the signal levels
needed to receive snow free television are on the order of 50 times higher
than those to receive a listenable signal on a good HF receiver (20uV for
HF, and 1000uV for television).

If you're saying most TVs are getting much higher signal levels than most
radios, I'll agree. But BPL radiation will go up with frequency and will be
much higher at 60 Mhz than it will be at 5 Mhz.


In addition, most homes are now wired for
cable, which is much better shielded than your basic HF antenna.




That may or may not be true in the proposed BPL areas. BPL is supposed to
be most attactive for outlying areas without DSL and cable acess.

Interference aside, BPL would be a slick solution if it's reliable.
However, there hasn't been much evidence that BPL can deliver wide bandwidth
to a significant number of customers over a long period of time.

Frank Dresser

Brenda Ann Dyer wrote:

"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
...

" Radio Flyer" wrote in message
.. .


It's true, It will cover the tv bands up to 80 MHZ except for 74.8-75.3


Gee, that's something to think about, isn't it? I mean ABC, CBS, NBC and
FOX aren't in a big panic about BPL, are they? Why the hell should SWLs
worry more than the networks?

BPL looks like another Y2K crisis, to me.

TV stations aren't concerned (yet) about BPL because the signal levels
needed to receive snow free television are on the order of 50 times higher
than those to receive a listenable signal on a good HF receiver (20uV for
HF, and 1000uV for television). In addition, most homes are now wired for
cable, which is much better shielded than your basic HF antenna.

Well of course. Why would one want a HF antenna to be shielded?

dxAce
Michigan
USA