Red Wave Radio

Quote:

> And what would happen if a thousand breakers tripped and the lights go out
> again?  Is the conducted RF going to pass through the 'ether' ?

Uh, don't look now but if "a thousand breakers tripped" the s***king
computers won't power up anyhow and it's a moot point.

73, de Hans, K0HB

Quote:

> Or how about some high intensity E-skip.  

BPL works on conducted signals, not radiated signals.  The power grid
is an incredibly poor receiving antenna, so any microvolt-level or
even millivolt-level signal from "out there" won't even show up on the
copper.

73, de Hans, K0HB
--
  "Reality doesn't care what you believe."  -- K0HB

Quote:

> > 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.

Quote:

> > 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.

Quote:> 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

The power companies are not going to do a damn thing that will cost them
money.  I have been fighting with ALA Power for 5 years and still don't have
it ALL gone.

All these complaint letters began with me,  BTW.   I got the ARRL and Riley
involved and they jumped on the bandwagon.  But it STILL isn't fixed.

So when they put BPL into this mess there own RFI will trash their new found
toy.  Can't wait.  Gess its gonna be like a snake eating its own tail.

And with their track record it will be fun to watch...As they destroy HF in
the process.

Dan/W4NTI

Might as well. Moving into the country won't work since BPL will be
there too. And if there's any interference, the feds will go right to
the disgruntled hams and declare them enemy combatants and we'll never
see them again. The FCC has treated amateur radio like an annoyance to
be dumped, a relic of olden days when there were no satellites or cell
phones or other profitable stuff. And too few Americans listen to SW
radio to make a difference-Radio Shack dumped the Sangean line because
nobody bought them. In fact, SW listenership is declining around the
world, even in Latin America where every country has 150 transmitters. I
figure SW will eventually go the way of the dodo-satellite and the
internet have taken over.

Hans,

Do you think insulated 10 gauge ladder line from a 3 KW tuner plugged into
the electric stove outlet might make a good antenna?  For experimentation
only, of course :)

73 from Rochester, NY
Jim AA2QA

Quote:

> BPL works on conducted signals, not radiated signals.  The power grid
> is an incredibly poor receiving antenna, so any microvolt-level or
> even millivolt-level signal from "out there" won't even show up on the
> copper.

> 73, de Hans, K0HB
> --
>   "Reality doesn't care what you believe."  -- K0HB

---
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: 8/20/03

No problem, I understood what you meant.

Quote:> 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.redwaveradio.com/

"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.

Quote:> > > 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.

Quote:> > 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?

Quote:> 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".

Quote:

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***
around with the FCC."

- - - - -

Heh!

Quote:> Everyone is free to use SW radio, as long as they act in a
> responsible manner.

NO WAY!!

Quote:> If only Boy Scouts could go to Yellowstone, only Boy Scouts would care about
> Yellowstone.

> Frank Dresser

w3rv

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!)
--. ---  -.. ...    .-  -. --. . .-.. ...   .- .-. .  ..-. .. .-. . ..-.
.. --. .... - . .-. ...

        There are probably some tests out there on that.

        What is the mode in which solar storms interfere with or knock out
power transmission? Is is some kind of massive DC current thing?

        - Mike KB3EIA -

Quote:> 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

[..]

Quote:> 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

Quote:

> From http://www.redwaveradio.com/

> "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.

Thanks.  I do think interference is going to be a real problem for BPL
performance, but ham radio interference will be a very small part of that.
I suspect household devices will be far more significant.  I wouldn't expect
the ARRL to be in a position to test for that, at least in the demo phase.
But can be a problem for radio hobbyists if the BPL companies decide to
improve thier signal to noise ratio by boosting thier signal.  If they do
this after they establish BPL service, they can legitimately claim (after
they're caught, of course) they are doing it as a service to all their rural
voting customers.  If this turns into a numbers game between large number of
established BPL customers and radio hobbyists, the Part 15 rules may become
very flexible.

And if the BPL people don't share their results on how well thier system
fares under common everyday line noise, well, it might be a admission by
omission.

Quote:

> 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.

Almost everybody agrees it's goofy.  But it's still around, not because it's
technolgically elegant, but because it is seen to fill a need.  Maybe a
couple of needs.  It promises high speed internet access for what would
otherwise be higher cost customers.  And it might provide a revenue stream
for electric utilities who need to upgrade thier service.

Politicians have a choice.  Give the BPL thing a shot, or think about
letting 'em raise rates right now.

Quote:

> 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?

Some of the old utility frequencies near the SW band edges have gone to the
US domestics.  But your point is correct.  The Feds are holding onto alot of
spectrum.  What are they doing with it?  Dunno.  What do they do with the
vast tracts of federal land?  Mostly nothin', it seems.  How many
congressmen care?

Quote:

> From a post I launched in RRAP on 8 Feb 2000:

> - - - - -

[snip]

Quote:> 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***
> around with the FCC."

> - - - - -

[snip]

Sometimes I wonder how many more creative people would use amatuer
radio if amatuer radio could be used in more creative ways.  As an
example, Reggie Fessenden played his violin on the first non code
broadcast.  Might Blendor inventor Fred Waring have put on a radio
show on his own homebrew transmitter?  It's not inconcievable.  I've
read that Bo Diddley made his own guitars and amps.  Imagine how
many more radio hobbyists there would be now, if Bo was slamming
the strings on SW radio 30 years ago.  I'm sure plenty of people
would love to hear Joe Walsh do the same thing today.

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.

Frank Dresser

Quote:

> 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

Quote:

> From http://www.redwaveradio.com/

> "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.

Thanks.  I do think interference is going to be a real problem for BPL
performance, but ham radio interference will be a very small part of that.
I suspect household devices will be far more significant.  I wouldn't expect
the ARRL to be in a position to test for that, at least in the demo phase.
But can be a problem for radio hobbyists if the BPL companies decide to
improve thier signal to noise ratio by boosting thier signal.  If they do
this after they establish BPL service, they can legitimately claim (after
they're caught, of course) they are doing it as a service to all their rural
voting customers.  If this turns into a numbers game between large number of
established BPL customers and radio hobbyists, the Part 15 rules may become
very flexible.

And if the BPL people don't share their results on how well thier system
fares under common everyday line noise, well, it might be a admission by
omission.

Quote:

> 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.

Almost everybody agrees it's goofy.  But it's still around, not because it's
technolgically elegant, but because it is seen to fill a need.  Maybe a
couple of needs.  It promises high speed internet access for what would
otherwise be higher cost customers.  And it might provide a revenue stream
for electric utilities who need to upgrade thier service.

Politicians have a choice.  Give the BPL thing a shot, or think about
letting 'em raise rates right now.

Quote:

> 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?

Some of the old utility frequencies near the SW band edges have gone to the
US domestics.  But your point is correct.  The Feds are holding onto alot of
spectrum.  What are they doing with it?  Dunno.  What do they do with the
vast tracts of federal land?  Mostly nothin', it seems.  How many
congressmen care?

Quote:

> From a post I launched in RRAP on 8 Feb 2000:

> - - - - -

[snip]

Quote:> 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***
> around with the FCC."

> - - - - -

[snip]

Sometimes I wonder how many more creative people would use amatuer
radio if amatuer radio could be used in more creative ways.  As an
example, Reggie Fessenden played his violin on the first non code
broadcast.  Might Blendor inventor Fred Waring have put on a radio
show on his own homebrew transmitter?  It's not inconcievable.  I've
read that Bo Diddley made his own guitars and amps.  Imagine how
many more radio hobbyists there would be now, if Bo was slamming
the strings on SW radio 30 years ago.  I'm sure plenty of people
would love to hear Joe Walsh do the same thing today.

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.

Frank Dresser

I think there is a big panic about something that will probably be a minor
annoyance to some. Not a problem to most. Do people seriously think that
airports are just going to cease communicating with their planes? How about
the military HF network. I can see them now. Sitting around the pentagon
saying "forget national security, people have to get their email". Think
about it.

Quote:> 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