wolfox
Gentle Wolfox
join:2002-11-27
Dunnellon, FL
| reply to kc8jwt
Re: BPL is not goin to help people who save lifes
Hehe, I had the honor of speaking to the son whose father is one of the local power utility commissioners. They rejected testing and small-scale implementation of BPL in the area, they actually had a clue that was making more sense than the monetary bribe...er....contribution they were willing to make to make AEP turn Fayettenam into a test center. Paraphrasing of course, but the quote was along the lines of: "Demonstrate how this technology can be used over our existing power structure without making drastic modifications, or unnecessarily burdening the amateur radio community. They were here long before you guys...and everything on our poles is meant to carry one thing - 60Hz AC. Nothing more, nothing less."
The lobbyists and technology pushers picked up their toys and left without argument. Seems like one smart man is all it took to expose the patent *FLAWS* inherent in BPL implementation. Don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure it out. Really. |
|
wolfox
Gentle Wolfox
join:2002-11-27
Dunnellon, FL
| reply to amigo_boy
said by amigo_boy  :As I said: The last time this topic came up someone posted a link to ARRL approving of a BPL implementation. Mark Weak...such an utterly weak defense. If you did read that article that I THINK you are referencing to, it was an implementation of BPL that only worked in a laboratory too. ;D
There is no way to use the frequencies BPL wants to use over OPEN RADIATING ANTENNA WIRES (Read: Power distribution lines) in the *real world* without contrived or carefully shielded laboratory environment wrapping about the test bench. I work in several RF labs, everything DOES work and play nice in there until you open the door. *laugh*
Repeat for the common sense differentially abled: There is no way to push a modulated RF signal at 14K+ volts down a wire without it bleeding all over the countryside. And it only takes 35mw under the right circumstances on HF radio bands to pollute the spectrum for EVERYONE. Even the people that have a licensed right to be there. This is not your cable or DSL communications we are talking here where everything is instant, sanitized and clean being delivered *balanced* pair or *coaxial* lines.
While searching out the tables on the ham spectrum allotted by the FCC, pick up some basic reading on radio theory, physics, open air radio signal propagation and then maybe...maybe we will believe a post by you in the future.
My favorite quote from Akira on The Simpsons, "First fill your head with knowledge. *Then* you may break things with it."
--
The RIAA killed my legal webcast. Sadly it will never be mourned... |
|
moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD | reply to amigo_boy
said by amigo_boy :"Mene, mene, tekhel upharsin." Far from it. |
|
moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to amigo_boy
said by amigo_boy :said by wolfox :so you now understand the ham and ARRL stance on the subject. As I said: The last time this topic came up someone posted a link to ARRL approving of a BPL implementation. Mark Classic duck and weave. |
|
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX
| reply to amigo_boy
said by amigo_boy :Either way it leads to a less effective "service." Either fewer participants. Or, lower standards. That's a recipe for a political majority to question the merit of this service, the squawking of its enthusiasts, etc. I hear this just about every time somebody questions the effectiveness of current HAMs, yet every time a disaster strikes HAMS prove their worth. Considering the effectiveness of HAMs on the article you are commenting on I would say your argument on this aspect is moot. |
|
kc8jwt
join:2005-10-27
Cheshire, OH
1 edit | reply to amigo_boy
But when the company that came up with the only solution doesn't see the need to get into BPL, what good does it do? When you are making a boatload on radios and cable modems and there are only a few BPL projects on the drawing board, why would you sink a fortune into something that has drawn fire? I am a ham and I don't oppose BPL. You don't realize that there are ALOT of hams that don't support most of what the ARRL does, and I don't "oppose" BPL.
You must not have read the part about sending a modulated RF signal over a unshielded wire for miles. That is what I oppose about BPL is the shoddy science and engineering that is behind it. As a result, you're just asking for interference issues all up and down the HF band, not just ham bands. What's not to say a FEMA trailer sets up with government HF radios near a BPL operations and it affects them too? Your argument that BPL ONLY affects hams is not valid. I am also a member of the US Coast Guard Auxiliary. We use HF too. So if I am trying to help a mariner on an HF frequency and I am getting interfered from a near by BPL install, and that person dies because I could not copy his/her position because of interference, who's to blame? Me? The mariner? The BPL operator? According to your statements, it would be the mariner for get stranded in the first place and using outdated modes of communication. |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
 ·Cox HSI
 ·magicjack.com
| reply to NoOneButMe
said by NoOneButMe :we are goin to lose the ham bands becuse of people like amigo_boy in time we will lose it all I agree that you're going to lose the bands. It will be because of the very reasons that the ARRL has supported reduced standards for licensing. You guys have been facing reduced membership which leads to questions about the efficacy of amateur radio (compared to 50 years ago). To increase the membership, standards are lowered, and "fun" is emphasized (as a previous poster did) instead of social responsibility. The result is CB-like behavior on the licensed frequencies. I've heard it myself. Amateur hobbiests I know (who started in the '60s and '70s) have walked away from their radios.
Either way it leads to a less effective "service." Either fewer participants. Or, lower standards. That's a recipe for a political majority to question the merit of this service, the squawking of its enthusiasts, etc.
I think it's a very real possibility that amateur radio could be lodged with Homeland Security (or a similar authority) who would coordinate volunteers, and expect a greater emphasis on service instead of hobby.
"Mene, mene, tekhel upharsin."
Mark |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| reply to kc8jwt
said by kc8jwt :Motorola has been the only people that have come up with something that will minimize the interference. Exactly. Therefore, it's wrong to say opposing BPL is the ARRL's position (as the previous poster did). The ARRL participated in that implementation.
Mark |
|
NoOneButMe
join:2001-08-24
TX | reply to kc8jwt
ya thay wont do it right eather but who cares i think we are goin to lose the ham bands becuse of people like amigo_boy in time we will lose it all |
|
kc8jwt
join:2005-10-27
Cheshire, OH
| reply to amigo_boy
said by amigo_boy :said by NoOneButMe :you even bashed the ham's for what ? nm im done Sounds like you're bashing BPL for no reason. The last time this discussion came up it was admitted that ARRL approves of BPL if it's done right. The key phrase is "if it's done right." When you put modulated signals on unshielded wires, you get interference. Motorola has been the only people that have come up with something that will minimize the interference.
The BPL people say they can "notch" the ham bands, and they have, but what about the users outside of the ham bands that could be affected?
That is what all of the hams are mad about. All the utilities and manufacturers are worried about is the bottom line and making a quick buck, not following the law. |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| reply to wolfox
said by wolfox :so you now understand the ham and ARRL stance on the subject. As I said: The last time this topic came up someone posted a link to ARRL approving of a BPL implementation.
Mark |
|
wolfox
Gentle Wolfox
join:2002-11-27
Dunnellon, FL
| reply to amigo_boy
BPL is an FCC class-C use device/service. Meaning it is unlicensed and must make way for licensed services and accept interference that may affect it's operation. In NO WAY, SHAPE or MANNER shall it interfere with licensed use of spectrum, but that is exactly what it does - so you now understand the ham and ARRL stance on the subject. Also, find a nice big radio chart over at the FCC or ARRL sites and *LOOK* for yourself just how much spectrum is allocated for amateur radio use and then come back in here and say what you have all along. The emptiest carts indeed make the loudest noise. 
--
The RIAA killed my legal webcast. Sadly it will never be mourned... |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| reply to NoOneButMe
said by NoOneButMe :you even bashed the ham's for what ? nm im done Sounds like you're bashing BPL for no reason. The last time this discussion came up it was admitted that ARRL approves of BPL if it's done right. Typical of circle-the-wagons mentality, amateur hobbyists can't accept that kind of constructive, accommodating middle ground. It's all or nothing. Always the *other* guy who's bashing the poor old hobbyists.
Mark |
|
NoOneButMe
join:2001-08-24
TX | reply to amigo_boy
Mark i dont get ya but BPL is goin to make alot of noise in low bands do you know how BPL works ? nm you probly do i dont get ya man your pro control of every thang you even bashed the ham's for what ? nm im done |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ | reply to NoOneButMe
It's not going to hurt people who save lives either.
Mark |
|
NoOneButMe
join:2001-08-24
TX | we dont need bpl and this is why |
|
