RFI
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [RFI] PLCA Response to WSJ Article

To: "Eric Rosenberg" <wd3q@starpower.net>, <rfi@contesting.com>,"Pete Smith" <n4zr@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [RFI] PLCA Response to WSJ Article
From: "Michael Tope" <W4EF@dellroy.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 12:01:23 -0700
List-post: <mailto:rfi@contesting.com>
Does anyone know what he means by a "low power
frequency"?

The fact that he toutes the low-duty cycle (e.g. not always
on) nature of the system in the context of arguing for
lack of BPL interfererence, is to me, a tacit admission
that BPL does cause interference. After all, if there were
no interference whatsoever as he claims, then the duty
cycle wouldn't matter.

And the argument that they have spent millions proving
that BPL causes no interference is also complete rubbish.
All Ed Hare had to do was drive under a powerline with
a $500 receiver to prove that BPL radiates as predicted.
In every article I have read in the professional literature
(mostly the IEEE Communications Magazine), the authors
express concern over regulatory emission limits and how
they will limit BPL performance. This is a tacit admission
that BPL systems will radiate at or above the current
regulatory limits. Current regulatory limits will result in
harmful interference. That fact is indisputable (at least by
those with a rational understanding of science). Those who
wish to argue that James Clerk Maxwell is all wrong may
have a different position, I suppose. When Mr. Clark says
that the industry has spent millions on "exhaustive research
and testing" to prove that BPL doesn't cause interference,
what he really means is that they have spent millions of
dollars on propaganda that is designed to make people
(like Michael Powell) believe that there is no interference
problem with BPL.

Me thinks Pinocchio's nose is getting longer again.

73 de Mike, W4EF................

----- Original Message -----
From: "Pete Smith" <n4zr@contesting.com>
To: "Eric Rosenberg" <wd3q@starpower.net>; <rfi@contesting.com>
Sent: Friday, April 16, 2004 11:00 AM
Subject: Re: [RFI] PLCA Response to WSJ Article


>
>
> What gibberish.  On the other hand, may their public arrogance come back
to
> haynt them when Part 15 is invoked to force them to shut down their
> service, or when we shut it down with our "on demand" signals whose
"signal
> length" is very short.
>
> 73, Pete N4ZR
>
> _______________________________________________
> RFI mailing list
> RFI@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rfi
>



_______________________________________________
RFI mailing list
RFI@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rfi

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>