[Antennas] Any good definitions / simplke disertations ??

2004年3月10日 16:33:29 -0500

Hi Pat,
Yup.. it's my guess that the BPL proponents will look for any advantage they
can - a naturally occurring phenom in politics.
BPL has become a 'battle of the lawyers and politicians'. The science,
economic issues, technology, physics, and potential harm are no longer part
of the equation. I've heard of one 'test' where there are no licensed hams
within a few miles -- I wonder why the tester chose THAT locale ?
The rationale some proponents are using with the FCC is similar to what a
Cyanide maker would use if they wanted to build their chemical plant next to
your county reservoir. Their argument would be; "It's never been proven
that a Cyanide Plant next to a reservoir has caused any harm to drinking
water". Of course, none have been built YET.
Well.. I'll end my rant now and hope the ARRL and NTIA, whose technical
report on interference is due out pretty soon, can defuse the enthusiasm for
BPL. The FCC has rushed BPL forward (with a proposed rule making already in
progress) seemingly to beat the NTIA report and get this done before another
200,000 hams start on HF (why do you thing the FCC is dragging their feet on
dropping Morse proficiency for access to HF). The ITU dropped the
requirement last year and about 12 countries have since followed suit.
If BPL goes forward, I am expecting a huge jump -- nationwide, not just in
your local area -- in noise levels.
=====
Frank
 ._._.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Pat W" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2004 3:59 PM
Subject: Re: [Antennas] Any good definitions / simplke disertations ??
> That brings up an intersting scenario. What if the BPL people reference
their
> noise
> to the ambient noise, and run the tests during summer months in Manassas
Va ??
> THe added noise would look miniscule in that case.
> Pat W0OPW
>> On 2004年3月10日 14:38:50 -0500, A10382 <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > With BPL being a hot topic at the moment, it might not be a bad idea to
have
> > a good (and correct) understanding of things like 'noise floor' and Part
15
> > specs.
> >
> > There are lots of very technical dissertations and papers on this and
many
> > other subjects. What would probably be very valuable for most folks,
> > particularly non-radio folks you may talk to) is a simpler, less
scientific.
> > and NOT dumbed down paper(s) on things like:
> > Noise Floor
> > Interference types (QRM, QRN, etc).
> > Part 15 radiated specs (mv/m2)
> > -dbm
> > ERP
> > db ratios
> > etc.
> >
> > I find myself sometimes 'dumbing down' a discussion on interference to a
> > non-radio person as "just like snow on your TV". Of course, those that
grew
> > up on cable or satellite TV usually have no idea what "snow" is..
> >
> > Anyone ??
> > ========
> > 73, Frank
> > ._._.
> >
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.616 / Virus Database: 395 - Release Date: 3/8/04