I would like to see the discussion stay on list...
73s and thanks,
Dave
NK7Z
http://www.nk7z.net
On 12/03/2016 06:45 AM, nm8rmedic via RFI wrote:
Dear Group,
If anyone else is interested in this contact me directly, off list.
We can stay if the body thinks this merits the bandwidth on the list, but
sometimes the culture of Yahoo groups demands things be QSY'ed.
..--..
Scott
Sent via the Samsung Galaxy Note® II, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone
<div>-------- Original message --------</div><div>From: Tom Thompson <w0ivj@tomthompson.com> </div><div>Date:12/02/2016
10:53 PM (GMT-05:00) </div><div>To: nm8rmedic <nm8rmedic@rocketmail.com>, jim@audiosystemsgroup.com, rfi@contesting.com
</div><div>Subject: Re: [RFI] Grow light RFI </div><div>
</div>Scott,
Does your ordinance apply just to marijuana grow light ballasts?
Tom
On 12/2/2016 2:57 PM, nm8rmedic via RFI wrote:
Jim,
Actually we are well beyond the formative period for this ordinance. It has
been in place for about a year-and-a-half.
I did request advice from ARRL before I wrote the ordinance. Their's was
basically: don't do it. But we did not find inaction acceptable. I had our
attorneys vett it and it actually has held up quite well and already been
successful in mitigating an RFI problem caused by a formerly illegal grow
operation that sought licensing. The FCC was a participant in that process.
And we continue to invoke the ordinance, which includes both Part 15 and Part
18 compliance, with any potential new grow operations.
So it has already mitigated one, and with newly passed legislation here
legalizing grow operations, it is preventing future problems. What's not to
like about that?
Don't get too worried guys. We don't enforce the FCC regulations, nor do we add
to them, we merely require that they be met.
We decided to act boldly and take chances, otherwise it is a certainty that
we're going to live in an RFI polluted world.
Scott
Sent via the Samsung Galaxy Note® II, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone
<div>-------- Original message --------</div><div>From: Jim Brown <jim@audiosystemsgroup.com>
</div><div>Date:12/02/2016 12:47 PM (GMT-05:00) </div><div>To: rfi@contesting.com </div><div>Subject: Re: [RFI]
Grow light RFI </div><div>
</div>Hi Scott,
I suggest that you get advice from ARRL and W1RFI on the wording of your
ordinance. I suspect that they will advise you to avoid suggesting any
specific products, and also that they will advise you to require
compliance with Part 15 Class B for residential use. Or it may be that
these products fall within Part 18.
73, Jim K9YC
On Fri,12/2/2016 5:30 AM, nm8rmedic via RFI wrote:
Ed,
Understood, and thank you. The metodology is not my question, though.
I still ask: what was the lowest frequency swept? I infer from the tiny graph
it was around 300 khz, but did not catch any numerical data at that point or
outside of the points you mention.
I ask b/c as a city manager we adopted an ordinance regulating marijauna grow
operations and included a provision of local license approval based upon also
meeting FCC regulations regarding RFI emissions. We recommend an outboard
filter for noisy ballasts, but I would like to also be able to make a
recommendation for an effective and clean ballast from LF to VHF.
Is this the one?
Scott
Scott
Sent via the Samsung Galaxy Note® II, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone
<div>-------- Original message --------</div><div>From: "Hare, Ed W1RFI" <w1rfi@arrl.org> </div><div>Date:12/01/2016 4:14 PM
(GMT-05:00) </div><div>To: nm8rmedic <nm8rmedic@rocketmail.com>, Tom Thompson <w0ivj@tomthompson.com> </div><div>Subject: RE: [RFI] Grow
light RFI </div><div>
</div>It looks like they swept the entire frequency range with a spectrum
analyzer in peak-detection mode, obtained the 6 highest values and frequency, then
went back and measured just those frequencies in quasi peak detector mode. This is a
common test practice.
Ed, W1RFI
-----Original Message-----
From: RFI [mailto:rfi-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of nm8rmedic via RFI
Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2016 4:09 PM
To: Tom Thompson; rfi@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [RFI] Grow light RFI
Tom,
It looks like there were three test runs conducted. The tabular data shows the
lowest frequency tested was 14 megahertz, in runs 1 and 2. The graphic data
results show lower frequencies though. Can you verify the lowest frequency at
which these were tested? Scott
Sent via the Samsung Galaxy Note® II, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone
<div>-------- Original message --------</div><div>From: Tom Thompson <w0ivj@tomthompson.com> </div><div>Date:12/01/2016 1:32 PM
(GMT-05:00) </div><div>To: Roger D Johnson <n1rj@roadrunner.com>, RFI <rfi@contesting.com> </div><div>Subject: Re: [RFI] Grow light
RFI </div><div> </div>Roger,
Here is an independent lab evaluation of a Galaxy ballast the may be a good bet.
http://tomthompson.com/radio/GrowLight/RFI_Tests_Galaxy_902220_FCC-Report.pdf
Tom W0IVJ
On 12/1/2016 11:27 AM, Roger D Johnson wrote:
Is there a list of ballasts that Don't cause RFI?
73, Roger
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
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
|