Ed,
I've had to deconflict switched mode power supply issues anywhere from 144 to
800 MHz where interference was noted in Public Safety, Amateur Radio, and
cellular services.
AM broadcasters in particular write about this issue all the time in their
journals. Maybe their management lacks the resources to address this problem
but the engineering departments can't convince the advertising sales department
to understand that they lose listeners to the noise.
I can drive up the road here and hear the AM broadcast band become unusable for
quite a distance. So offensive is the RF noise that no one would tune in an AM
radio while traveling through. Lost customers to the advertisers is the
effect. It needs to become a business decision and will not be until the issue
is demonstrated to their business management.
73,
J. Gordon "Gordie" Beattie, Jr., W2TTT
201.314.6964
W2TTT@ATT.NET
Gordon.BeattieJr@VIAVISolutions.com
Get On The Air!
________________________________
From: Hare, Ed, W1RFI <w1rfi@arrl.org>
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2022 1:50:37 PM
To: James Gordon Beattie Jr <w2ttt@att.net>; Pete Smith N4ZR
<pete.n4zr@gmail.com>; rfi@contesting.com <rfi@contesting.com>
Subject: RE: [RFI] Another Solar Panel RFI Victim
The AM broadcasters are somewhat concerned, but not to the point where their
organizations throw the level of resources that ARRL expends on these issues.
In most cases, ARRL is not only the only entity at the table representing
amateur radio, we are often the only entity at an industry table that
represents radiocommunication in general.
From: James Gordon Beattie Jr <w2ttt@att.net>
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2022 1:24 PM
To: Hare, Ed, W1RFI <w1rfi@arrl.org>; Pete Smith N4ZR <pete.n4zr@gmail.com>;
rfi@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [RFI] Another Solar Panel RFI Victim
Ed,
Two things to consider here:
As you pointed out the FCC can and does often address the effect of harmful
interference and that was my point in saying, "quantified measurements and
their effects". Having measurements alone is insufficient as you pointed out
and I agree.
The other is that the case for "RF quietness" is not an Amateur Radio issue,
but an issue for a long list of services some of which I listed. Collaboration
with the users, manufacturers, and providers of the elements of these services
is going to be key in getting critical mass of regulatory, political and
financial interests to focus enough to address these types of problems.
Thoughts?
73,
J. Gordon "Gordie" Beattie, Jr., W2TTT
201.314.6964
W2TTT@ATT.NET<mailto:W2TTT@ATT.NET>
Gordon.BeattieJr@VIAVISolutions.com<mailto:Gordon.BeattieJr@VIAVISolutions.com>
Get On The Air!
________________________________
From: Hare, Ed, W1RFI <w1rfi@arrl.org<mailto:w1rfi@arrl.org>>
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2022 1:08:12 PM
To: James Gordon Beattie Jr <w2ttt@att.net<mailto:w2ttt@att.net>>; Pete Smith
N4ZR <pete.n4zr@gmail.com<mailto:pete.n4zr@gmail.com>>;
rfi@contesting.com<mailto:rfi@contesting.com>
<rfi@contesting.com<mailto:rfi@contesting.com>>
Subject: RE: [RFI] Another Solar Panel RFI Victim
This sounds good in theory, Gordon, but in reality, it is never going to happen
to a level good enough to truly protect amateur radio. “Push back” would be
too mild of a term and the US regulations are in line with what is done pretty
much across the board internationally.
We are actually better off than most countries. In most of Europe, with
emissions limits similar to ours, the emissions limits are the determining
factor for “harmful interference.” This means that if a device meets the
limits, there is no recourse for interference. This is bad in a number of
ways. The most obvious is that S6 to S9 interference is likely in close
quarters. An even bigger problem is that to deem something to be “harmful
interference,” the complainant would have to demonstrate that the device
exceeds the limits, and that is not practical in almost all circumstance.
In the US, we are able to make the case that a given noise is “harmful
interference,” and the FCC can and does act without the need to make
measurements of the offending device.
My fear is that if we squeezed a few dB out of “better” regulations, FCC would
deem that to set the threshold for “harmful interference.” ARRL has done all
it can to NOT have the FCC draw any lines in the sand as to what constitutes
harmful interference because I can guaran-darn-tee that we would not like the
line.
Ed Hare, W1RFI
ARRL Lab
From: James Gordon Beattie Jr <w2ttt@att.net<mailto:w2ttt@att.net>>
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2022 10:34 AM
To: Hare, Ed, W1RFI <w1rfi@arrl.org<mailto:w1rfi@arrl.org>>; Pete Smith N4ZR
<pete.n4zr@gmail.com<mailto:pete.n4zr@gmail.com>>;
rfi@contesting.com<mailto:rfi@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [RFI] Another Solar Panel RFI Victim
Ed,
I think you're raising the point that the current standards for radiated and
conducted emissions are seemingly inadequate and need to be revisited.
Naturally, equipment vendors and manufacturers are going to "push back", but
these emissions are blanketing the spectrum from DC to light (metaphorically).
We need quantified measurements and their effects documented in order to start
making the case for improved standards in both FCC Part 15 and Part 18. It's
not just an Amateur Radio issue. It impacts AM and FM radio, OTA television,
public safety and aviation, cellular and potentially other services. The only
way to proceed is to collect measurements and the impact on these and other
services.
73,
J. Gordon "Gordie" Beattie, Jr., W2TTT
201.314.6964
W2TTT@ATT.NET<mailto:W2TTT@ATT.NET>
Gordon.BeattieJr@VIAVISolutions.com<mailto:Gordon.BeattieJr@VIAVISolutions.com>
Get On The Air!
________________________________
From: RFI
<rfi-bounces+w2ttt=att.net@contesting.com<mailto:rfi-bounces+w2ttt=att.net@contesting.com>>
on behalf of Hare, Ed, W1RFI <w1rfi@arrl.org<mailto:w1rfi@arrl.org>>
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2022 9:57:18 AM
To: Pete Smith N4ZR <pete.n4zr@gmail.com<mailto:pete.n4zr@gmail.com>>;
rfi@contesting.com<mailto:rfi@contesting.com>
<rfi@contesting.com<mailto:rfi@contesting.com>>
Subject: Re: [RFI] Another Solar Panel RFI Victim
On what basis do you believe that the SE equipment is in violation of the
emissions limits, Pete? The FCC rules set limits on radiated emissions above 30
MHz and on emissions conducted onto the AC mains below 30 MHz. There is no
emissions limits on radiated or conducted emissions below 30 MHz on any wiring
except the 120/240 volt AC mains.
________________________________
From: RFI
<rfi-bounces+w1rfi=arrl.org@contesting.com<mailto:rfi-bounces+w1rfi=arrl.org@contesting.com>>
on behalf of Pete Smith N4ZR <pete.n4zr@gmail.com<mailto:pete.n4zr@gmail.com>>
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2022 9:35 AM
To: rfi@contesting.com<mailto:rfi@contesting.com>
<rfi@contesting.com<mailto:rfi@contesting.com>>
Subject: Re: [RFI] Another Solar Panel RFI Victim
I'm just curious - have you contacted the FCC., or has the ARRL done so?
This seems like a clear case of SolarEdge violating emission limits,
which they are supposed to care about.
73, Pete N4ZR
One of the RBN team
On 12/10/2022 8:16 PM, Tony wrote:
> All:
>
> A few years ago, I posted a video on solar panel RFI and it's affect
> on HF. Since then, I've heard from many hams who've experienced the
> same issue. Most send emails but a few post comments on my Youtube
> channel like the one below received yesterday from MI5UTC in Ireland:
>
> "I see exactly the same here with my recently installed SolarEdge
> system. My IC7300 is pretty much unusable during the day until it gets
> dark."
>
> One of the saddest comments was received last year from a 15 year old
> SW listener Nick:
>
> "I'm only 15, and super into MW and SW radio, my parents installed
> solar panels only a few years ago, and I knew it would cause
> interference. At least by nightfall they shut off for dxing."
>
> The common denominator in nearly all of these solar panel RFI cases
> (including my own) are systems manufactured by SolarEdge. My case with
> this company is 6 years old and has yet to be resolved. See:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x9awWs4mwC4
>
> Thankfully, the ARRL continues to work with SolarEdge to find a solution.
>
> Tony -K2MO
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> RFI mailing list
> RFI@contesting.com<mailto:RFI@contesting.com>
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rfi
_______________________________________________
RFI mailing list
RFI@contesting.com<mailto:RFI@contesting.com>
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rfi
_______________________________________________
RFI mailing list
RFI@contesting.com<mailto:RFI@contesting.com>
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rfi
_______________________________________________
RFI mailing list
RFI@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rfi
|