We don't get to set any limits; the FCC does, and they would probably set
limits at the median value of man-made noise in all residential environments --
about S7 on 10 MHz, for example.
________________________________
From: RFI <rfi-bounces+w1rfi=arrl.org@contesting.com> on behalf of KD7JYK DM09
<kd7jyk@earthlink.net>
Sent: Tuesday, December 31, 2019 5:57 PM
To: rfi@contesting.com <rfi@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [RFI] FCC Limits on Harmful Interference: Clarification
"the worded definition is better than any numbers. Why? Because all the
utility needs to do is find an instrument that shows the number the FCC
wants it to be in order to send data to the FCC proving the utility
doesn't have to do anything since they met the number. One number on one
HF frequency and they're off the hook. You do NOT want a specific number
that can satisfy the FCC and utility. The verbal definition requires
that the ham be satisfied, not a specific data number. Do you get it now?"
Make the requirement lower, don't like -120, make it -130 @ 1m across a
specific range, and leave the worded requirement of satisfying others
beyond that for those that still produce crap. Right now the
requirements are so convoluted with so many variables, and exemptions,
almost everyone gets away with almost everything.
Kurt
_______________________________________________
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
|