Excellent..... Well stated, Kim. Lawyers are trouble. Nothing but
trouble. Goodwill and understanding without ANY venom is the best
approach!!!
One point, however, I'd like to raise - several questions. Ed of ARRL,
W1RFI in a previous email, alluded to tests having been conducted in the
ARRL lab of Solar Power electronics (name brand....?). He commented they
failed FCC regs by quite a large margin. This must have been for RE?? For
those systems that meter unused power back to the Grid power providers,
legally, aren't these considered 120 vac connected? Aren't the connections
to the house they serve considered connected to the AC distribution. As
such, should they not come under the conducted limits? Possibly, Ed, W1RFI
could weigh in on these considerations?
A number of us on this group have/do serve as EMC/RFI engineers with years
of experience and are familiar with the FCC and world wide regulations
regarding CE and RE. I, as one of these, would nudge ARRL to share the
measured data with us. I'll certainly respect if the decision is 'no', but
personally, I'd like to see the data shared with the ARRL members.
Speaking only for myself, I've been and am a life member of ARRL for well
over 40 years. While I do not agree with everything that ARRL stands for
or proposes (Technicians gaining large portions of our HF privileges), this
is one area where ARRL is our best friend in working amiably and
non-confrontatively with both FCC and the solar power industry (I hope, as
a whole). So long as ARRL stays the course, I strongly believe we should
support their efforts and KEEP THE LAWYERS OUT OF THE MIX.
Dave - WØLEV
On Mon, Dec 23, 2019 at 6:00 PM Kim Elmore <cw_de_n5op@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> Excellent comment and information, Ed. A Merry Christmas to you!
>
> Everyone stop with the class action, call-the-lawyers nonsense. One of
> the quickest ways to kill goodwill and cooperation is to involve
> lawyers. It's not the lawyers themselves that cause problems for us, but
> what they're tasked to do. They're responsibility is to their client,
> not us. They're job is to reduce, as much as possible, risk for their
> client. Solar Edge and Tesla expose themselves to considerable liability
> risk by recognizing there is any issue to be solved. They meet the
> letter of the law and, so far, have chosen to go beyond that by fixing
> installations that need fixing and even redesigning their systems to
> mitigate the problem in the future. No, don't expect them to replace
> every existing system with a redesigned one...
>
> Why start a war? They have deeper pockets than we do, by a fair margin,
> and once lawyers become involved, the lawyers will have access to those
> pockets. While I've dealt with RFI on many occasions, I've never
> resorted to lawyers to do it: I've almost always used goodwill and
> cooperation to solve the problems. In a few instances, I've not
> succeeded and, when the neighbor contacted the FCC, I had clearly
> documented all my interactions and the FCC wound up telling them exactly
> what I had. In this case, SolarEdge has chosen to address the issues as
> they occur. That's far better than TV manufacturers did when
> over-the-air VHF TV was the only TV entertainment option.
>
> If you'd like to blow up any possibility at solving these problems
> amicably then, by all means, contact your attorney and have at it. But,
> you'll spoil it for all the rest of us in doing so. If you insist that
> "there ought to be a law!" then be prepared for the inevitable
> unintended consequences that will come with such an effort, because they
> will be many, varied, and far less tractable than what we have now.
>
> Kim N5OP
>
> On 12/22/2019 6:34 PM, Hare, Ed W1RFI wrote:
> > And just what would you have lawyers do? Solar Edge is already handing
> the problems and replacing systems. Tesla is a new player and that
> initial letter was written by their lawyers. You saw the result. If we
> take this out of the hands of the engineers who are trying to fix this and
> to improve future designs, the lawyers will try to stop that. This is not
> a case for the lawyers nor for the FCC. The systems meet the limits and
> the vast majority of harmful interference complaints have been or are
> being resolved.
> >
> > The verbiage I have typed so far talks about how working together is
> working.
> >
> >
> >
> > Ed
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Dale Johnson <dj2001x@comcast.net>
> > Sent: Sunday, December 22, 2019 6:34 PM
> > To: Hare, Ed W1RFI <w1rfi@arrl.org>
> > Cc: rfi@contesting.com <rfi@contesting.com>; jim@audiosystemsgroup.com <
> jim@audiosystemsgroup.com>
> > Subject: Re: [RFI] Update: Tesla's Response to Solar Panel RFI
> >
> > Seems like it should go to the lawyers. The verbiage I read here is
> lawyer stuff. I think it�s all in the hands of lawyers. NOT technicians.
> >
> > Anyway good luck with it.
> >
> > Dale j.
> >
> >
> >
> > On 22, Dec 2019, at 17:25, Hare, Ed W1RFI <w1rfi@arrl.org> wrote:
> >
> > JIm,
> >
> > We are in contact with Solar Edge and Tesla, the two major players. If
> you can summarize what you previously provided, we can make sure it gets
> into the hands of the engineers.
> >
> > Ed
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: RFI <rfi-bounces@contesting.com> on behalf of Jim Brown <
> jim@audiosystemsgroup.com>
> > Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2019 2:42 PM
> > To: rfi@contesting.com <rfi@contesting.com>
> > Subject: Re: [RFI] Update: Tesla's Response to Solar Panel RFI
> >
> > On 12/17/2019 10:55 AM, Hare, Ed W1RFI wrote:
> >> Let me see if I can put this into perspective.
> > Thanks for your detailed summary of this. I have also contributed to
> > this matter, consulting with Tefford Reed, the Solar Edge field tech who
> > was working on K2MO's neighbor's installation. By coincidence, Reed
> > lived in the SF Bay area, driving distance to me, and we met twice for
> > lunch to discuss the project.
> >
> > My contributions were to 1) educate the tech with respect to possible
> > mechanisms; 2) address installation-related factors unique to it that
> > could be affecting this particular installation; 3) wind and measure
> > more than a dozen chokes on several combinations of #31 to be applied to
> > the rooftop loop of optimizers and make specific recommendations; 4)
> > advised that the best and most cost effective solution was redesign of
> > problematic circuitry to minimize the HF noise products. One of those
> > installation-related factors was that the frame for the panels were
> > (are?) bonded to earth electrodes on the opposite side of the building
> > from the mains service, setting up a large loop for noise currents,
> > which would in turn establish a magnetic field that is strong in the
> > near field (like next door).
> >
> > A few months later, I learned from K2MO that Reed had subsequently left
> > the company, and I have no idea of the extent to which my
> > recommendations reached anyone beyond him.
> >
> > 73, Jim K9YC
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
> >
> --
>
> Kim Elmore, Ph.D. (Adj. Assoc. Prof., OU School of Meteorology, CCM, PP
> SEL/MEL/Glider, N5OP, 2nd Class Radiotelegraph, GROL)
>
> /"In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. But, in
> practice, there is." //� Attributed to many people; it�s so true that
> it
> doesn�t matter who said it./
>
> _______________________________________________
> RFI mailing list
> RFI@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rfi
>
--
*Dave - WØLEV*
*Just Let Darwin Work*
*Just Think*
_______________________________________________
RFI mailing list
RFI@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rfi
|