Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[RFI\]\s+BPL\s+reply\s+comments\s*$/: 12 ]

Total 12 documents matching your query.

1. [RFI] BPL reply comments (score: 1)
Author: Kris Mraz <kilo.mike@gte.net>
Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2003 01:43:12 -0500
All, I want to publicly commend the ARRL, Chris Imlay, Ed Hare and any other supporting cast members for an excellent Reply To Comments filed on August 20. Very logical and convincing. I also want to
/archives//html/RFI/2003-08/msg00140.html (7,925 bytes)

2. Re: [RFI] BPL reply comments (score: 1)
Author: "Michael Tope" <W4EF@dellroy.com>
Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2003 01:10:37 -0700
Chris, et al, please check out my reply to Current Technologies original comments (much of their reply comments reiterate the b&llsh%t in their original comments). I did my best to counter their braz
/archives//html/RFI/2003-08/msg00141.html (6,898 bytes)

3. RE: [RFI] BPL reply comments (score: 1)
Author: "Richard Karlquist" <richard@karlquist.com>
Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2003 07:24:36 -0700
73 de Mike, W4EF...................................................... I just wanted to confirm something you said in your FCC comments about part 15 limits. This is in regard to some streetlight in
/archives//html/RFI/2003-08/msg00142.html (7,692 bytes)

4. Re: [RFI] BPL reply comments (score: 1)
Author: Kris Mraz <kilo.mike@gte.net>
Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2003 10:09:43 -0500
Very good, Mike. And I noticed that you sent your reply directly to Current Technologies, too. Good move. Thanks. BTW, I noticed that the ARRL has refocused the objective of the Amateur Radio Interf
/archives//html/RFI/2003-08/msg00143.html (7,351 bytes)

5. Re: [RFI] BPL reply comments (score: 1)
Author: "Michael Tope" <W4EF@dellroy.com>
Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2003 09:32:17 -0700
I am not an expert on part 15 regulations, Rick, but it is clearly stated in the text of the regulations that meeting the absolute emission limits is not sufficient for compliance if the device still
/archives//html/RFI/2003-08/msg00144.html (10,556 bytes)

6. RE: [RFI] BPL reply comments (score: 1)
Author: "Cortland Richmond" <ka5s@earthlink.net>
Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2003 10:2:53 -0700
Kris, I was very impressed with Mike Tope's Reply Comments. It looks like Mike knows how to do 'em! I hope that the rest of us aren't ruled out for not copying the folks we were replying to. Cortland
/archives//html/RFI/2003-08/msg00145.html (8,107 bytes)

7. Re: [RFI] BPL reply comments (score: 1)
Author: CliffHazen@aol.com
Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2003 13:09:05 EDT
Hi Rich, My suggestion would be to write complaint letters to the station advertisement manager and several of the on air advertisers, send copies to the FCC and local Field Office if you can find on
/archives//html/RFI/2003-08/msg00146.html (7,102 bytes)

8. Re: [RFI] BPL reply comments (score: 1)
Author: "Michael Tope" <W4EF@dellroy.com>
Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2003 11:30:37 -0700
No, not really, Cortland. I just copied what Lee, W6EM did. He is a registered professional engineer who works in the electric utility industry. Read his comments if you get a chance, they are very v
/archives//html/RFI/2003-08/msg00147.html (9,373 bytes)

9. RE: [RFI] BPL reply comments (score: 1)
Author: "Hare,Ed, W1RFI" <w1rfi@arrl.org>
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 10:04:08 -0400
Streetlights can be incidental or unintentional emitters. Incidental emitters don't deliberately generate RF energy, but just happen to do so as part of their operation. They have no specific radiate
/archives//html/RFI/2003-08/msg00148.html (14,163 bytes)

10. Re: [RFI] BPL reply comments (score: 1)
Author: "Michael Tope" <W4EF@dellroy.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 07:38:30 -0700
I am curious, Ed. Is it correct that BPL is classified by the FCC as an unintentional emitter? I seem to recall reading somewhere in part 15 that PLC systems are considered unintentional emitters, bu
/archives//html/RFI/2003-08/msg00149.html (16,228 bytes)

11. Re: [RFI] BPL reply comments (score: 1)
Author: "Cortland Richmond" <ka5s@earthlink.net>
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 8:37:27 -0700
Jumping in... BPL seems to be presently treated as a carrier current system for sections 15.107 (NO conducted current limit above 1.705 MHz) and 15.109 (radiated limits). BPL claims (hah) to be an un
/archives//html/RFI/2003-08/msg00150.html (8,397 bytes)

12. RE: [RFI] BPL reply comments (score: 1)
Author: "Hare,Ed, W1RFI" <w1rfi@arrl.org>
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 12:59:39 -0400
BPL is a carrier-current device. Some carrier-current devices, such as campus AM broadcast facilities, are intentional emitters. Those must meet the requirements for intentional emitters and avoid in
/archives//html/RFI/2003-08/msg00151.html (19,094 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 12
Page: [1]
This search system is powered by Namazu