Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[RFI\]\s+CQ\-BPL\s*$/: 10 ]

Total 10 documents matching your query.

1. [RFI] CQ-BPL (score: 1)
Author: Tom Cox <tomcox@iquest.net>
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 13:14:40 -0500
I have a new approach to the BPL interference discussion. I'm quite certain no one on this list would engage in any activity by Amateur Radio Operators that would deliberately reduce the effectivenes
/archives//html/RFI/2004-01/msg00061.html (8,305 bytes)

2. Re: [RFI] CQ-BPL (score: 1)
Author: edoc <kd4e@verizon.net>
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 13:19:14 -0500
Perhaps the ARRL can post a Web page to provide assistance to CQ-BPL contestants in the design of longwire antennas? These antennas would run parallel to the BPL lines with the goal of using them as
/archives//html/RFI/2004-01/msg00062.html (8,943 bytes)

3. Re: [RFI] CQ-BPL (score: 1)
Author: Bill Turner <wrt@dslextreme.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 10:31:26 -0800
_________________________________________________________ No. Our signal would probably be many times stronger than theirs. Their signal could be barely audible while ours could be overwhelming. Give
/archives//html/RFI/2004-01/msg00063.html (7,479 bytes)

4. Re: [RFI] CQ-BPL (score: 1)
Author: edoc <kd4e@verizon.net>
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 13:29:59 -0500
Bill Turner wrote: On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 13:14:40 -0500, Tom Cox wrote: It just makes sense -- if their signal doesn't leave the power line and interfere with area radio users, our signal shouldn't ent
/archives//html/RFI/2004-01/msg00064.html (8,213 bytes)

5. RE: [RFI] CQ-BPL (score: 1)
Author: "Cortland Richmond" <ka5s@earthlink.net>
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 10:42:50 -0800
Tom, What an a intriguing proposal! It reminds me of the days when we'd sent our keyers to 25 wpm to drive the Woodpecker nuts. I understand that worked ONCE -- and that the Russians decided those fl
/archives//html/RFI/2004-01/msg00065.html (8,000 bytes)

6. RE: [RFI] CQ-BPL (score: 1)
Author: "Jim Brown" <jimbrown.enteract@rcn.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 13:17:08 -0600
I don't find this series of suggestions all that bad. While I don't condone deliberate interference, the practitioners and users of BPL need to learn as early as possible that it is quite vulnerable
/archives//html/RFI/2004-01/msg00066.html (8,464 bytes)

7. Re: [RFI] CQ-BPL (score: 1)
Author: Bill Turner <wrt@dslextreme.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 12:10:29 -0800
_________________________________________________________ I love humor as much as the next guy. I did spot a couple of feeble attempts there, but you will please note that at least two other people t
/archives//html/RFI/2004-01/msg00067.html (7,622 bytes)

8. Re: [RFI] CQ-BPL (score: 1)
Author: Martin Ewing <aa6e@arrl.net>
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 16:58:09 -0500
BPL interferes with ham reception, not transmission. So you need the gallon if the _other_ guy has BPL in his neighborhood. My idea is to develop a little kit for a "BPL beacon transmitter". This is
/archives//html/RFI/2004-01/msg00068.html (10,804 bytes)

9. Re: [RFI] CQ-BPL (score: 1)
Author: "Cortland Richmond" <ka5s@earthlink.net>
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 14:01:20 -0800
That comment was Jim Brown's not mine, actually. Cortland _______________________________________________ RFI mailing list RFI@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rfi
/archives//html/RFI/2004-01/msg00069.html (7,551 bytes)

10. Re: [RFI] CQ-BPL (score: 1)
Author: "Jim Miller" <JimMiller@STL-Online.Net>
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 19:24:48 -0600
I think I read in some of the testing that signals as small as five watts would disrupt areas as large as a subdivision(I believe they were referring to SSB at the time). Signals of "normal" power of
/archives//html/RFI/2004-01/msg00070.html (7,927 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 10
Page: [1]
This search system is powered by Namazu