[Top] [All Lists]


To: "Tom Cox" <tomcox@iquest.net>, rfi@contesting.com
Subject: RE: [RFI] CQ-BPL
From: "Cortland Richmond" <ka5s@earthlink.net>
Reply-to: ka5s@earthlink.net
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 10:42:50 -0800
List-post: <mailto:rfi@contesting.com>

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 fleets of bombers heading their
way weren't for real.  Hmm.

However (emotional satisfaction aside) doing to our bands deliberately what
BPL does by accident seems to me -- how shall I put this? --
counterproductive. (grin)  It is also not much more likely to work than
plain old CW and SSB. The victim devices, as far as our transmissions are
concerned, are receiving devices in repeaters and subscriber homes, and
with their wide-open front ends and good antennas they are already

Visitors to some of New York hotels might want to take a rig along, as they
are putting in-house BPL systems in place. Be prepared to find other
lodging, though!


> [Original Message]
> From: Tom Cox <tomcox@iquest.net>
> Why imitate the BPL format? Isn't it obvious? Since we are assured by 
> the proponents of BPL that interference doesn't exist, because BPL 
> doesn't radiate from power lines, we should use a very similar signal 
> format.  It just makes sense -- if their signal doesn't leave the power 
> line and interfere with area radio users, our signal shouldn't enter the 
> powerlines and interfere with theirs. Right?

RFI mailing list

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