I've been following this topic and after reading Frank's reply everything I'd
say would be redundant.
If any of you get tired of reading long winded replies read Frank's reply again
and save it. When you hear these questions again just forward to all and save a
lot of time.
That was perfect.
Mike Martin
RFI Services
www.rfiservices.com
240.508.3760
Sent from the office in my pocket!
"Frank N. Haas KB4T" <utility.rfi.pro@gmail.com> wrote:
>I find the discussion about arcing and sparking to be somewhat amusing.
>It's much like arguing over the importance of the number of dimples on a
>golf ball.
>
>I can only speak about my employer and the process we use but some of what
>I share here may be helpful when dealing with any utility.
>
>When I am asked, "How should I contact the utility to request an
>interference investigation?" I always respond with, "Keep it simple."
>
>Generally speaking the customer service representative taking your call has
>no idea what RFI is or the difference between arcing and sparking. If you
>are calling about a situation you consider dangerous, the key words are
>smoke, fire, flames, sparks, red hot metal drippings or other terms that
>unquestionably describe a clearly dangerous situation. Urgent situations of
>this sort elicit a prompt response from the utility by a line person who is
>trained to assess overhead or underground facilities and report back, using
>the language of the utility, exactly what he sees.
>
>If you are looking to have the utility investigate interference, don't
>bother with such descriptive terms as arcing, sparking, microsparking or
>any of that stuff. The person taking your call won't know what you mean,
>won't care and is looking only to fill-in blanks on a card or computer
>screen. The very best approach I have found is to describe as simply as
>possible what you want or what you are experiencing and then let the
>customer service rep ask questions which will allow them to fill in the
>blanks easily.
>
>I have even suggested that customers use the phrase "Television
>Interference" even though a radio is the affected equipment. I suggest this
>because TELEVISION INTERFERENCE is a key word or phrase found in the list
>of complaints the rep will check to fill in a blank. You can always reveal
>the truth when you speak with the investigator directly. Providing any
>meaningful detail is an utter waste of time at this point in the process.
>Save the detail for your first conversation with the investigator.
>
>And now for some brutal honesty...
>
>When I make initial contact with a customer, I'm looking for certain
>specific information. I ignore references to specific poles or facilities.
>Instead I focus on the symptoms and details pertaining exclusively to the
>symptoms. Customers who specify poles or individual facilities are wrong
>90% of the time. I don't even make note of such details.
>
>Think about it: The investigator is essentially going to listen for what
>you hear in your receiver and then find it using direction finding
>techniques and equipment. My job is to find the problem and get it
>corrected or prove the utility innocent.
>
>Thus, the most important information to me as the investigator is:
>
>1. The frequency band being affected or the highest frequency at which the
>interference can be heard.
>2. How often the interference occurs if it isn't continuous. Is there a
>pattern to the occurrences?
>
>If the customer tells me that the interference can be heard with their
>ears, I discount that information because many audible sources don't
>produce RFI. Frankly, I don't need to know that you can hear the
>interference with your ears.
>
>I may ask to listen to the interference on the affected equipment to get a
>clear idea of what I'm chasing. I can usually tell by listening if I'm
>chasing a real power line source or a consumer electronic device (i.e.
>switching power supply.)
>
>If a customer insists on reciting his technical resume and attempts to
>impress me with their credentials, I am obligated to be polite and listen
>but it does nothing to speed the location of the interference source. No
>matter how skilled or experienced they might be, I am the one who has to
>find and confirm the source. If a customer overwhelms me with tons of
>detailed information, I am once again obligated to be polite and listen but
>most of what they tell me is of little value.
>
>In the end, it's always better to let the service provider ask the
>questions and you provide the shortest, simplest answers. After all, those
>of you who think you know it all really annoy the heck out of those of us
>who do!!!!
>
>Like most things in life, it's a waste of time to quibble over trivial
>details. Boil the situation down to its essence, keep the most important
>facts in the forefront and keep things as simple as possible.
>
>Once again, I'm speaking strictly from my perspective here in Florida. You
>have to assess the situation as you see it. However, I am certain that the
>general principle of keeping things simple will apply to every encounter
>you have with a utility.
>
>Good luck in your search(es)!
>
>--
>Frank N. Haas KB4T
>Utility Interference Investigator
>Florida
>_______________________________________________
>RFI mailing list
>RFI@contesting.com
>http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rfi
_______________________________________________
RFI mailing list
RFI@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rfi
|