> We need to reign in the well-intentioned people in our
> fraternity who are actually doing us harm, which includes
> those who have data that could be good but who present it in
> a way that makes us look technically uneducated. (As an
> example using S meter readings .)
Few hams have the resources to collect their data in any other terms, Tom. I
am not sure what to do about that. One one hand, gathering some information
about the level of pre- and post-BPL noise is important, and if all we can get
is S meter readings, then that is better than no data at all. Although the S
meter has not been adopted world-wide as a standard, IARU Region 1 has adopted
an S meter standard that uses 50 uV for S9, 6 dB per S unit, so those readings
to have some standards-based traceability.
That is not consistent from receiver to receiver, but the alternative is no
data at all from most areas, so that would be equally subject to criticism.
Knowing that there is "S9" level interference is more than adequate for most
amateurs and professionals to understand that there is indeed interference.
Knowing that before BPL, the level of noise was S1 and that the noise level is
now 40 dB over S9 as was seen to an 80-meter mobile whip at one test site is
useful information, even if not absolutely traceable.
Ed Hare, W1RFI
ARRL Laboratory Manager
225 Main St
Newington, CT 06013
Tel: 860-594-0318
Internet: W1RFI@arrl.org
Web: http://www.arrl.org/tis
Member: ASC C63 EMC Committee
Chairman: Subcommittee 5, Immunity
Chairman: Ad hoc BPL Working Group
Member: IEEE SCC-28 RF Safety
Member: Society of Automotive Engineers EMC/EMR Committee
Member: IEEE
>
_______________________________________________
RFI mailing list
RFI@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rfi
|