edoc kd4e at verizon.net
Fri Jan 30 13:19:14 EST 2004

Perhaps the ARRL can post a Web page to provide assistance to CQ-BPL
contestants in the design of longwire antennas?

These antennas would run parallel to the BPL lines with the goal of
using them as reflector elements, given the "passive" nature of BPL.

;-0  73, doc kd4e

Tom Cox wrote:
> I have a new approach to the  BPL interference discussion.
> I'm quite certain no one on this list would engage in any activity by 
> Amateur Radio Operators that would deliberately reduce the effectiveness 
> of nearby (unlicensed) BPL activity. Perish the thought! That certainly 
> is the farthest thing from MY mind.
> However, it would be interesting to determine what the signal format of 
> BPL is in a given area, so we can explore operating modes that most 
> resemble that format --  within the Part 97 regulatory constraints, of 
> course -- and use them extensively in those same areas. Who knows? Some 
> digital format, such as Digtrx, may already fill the bill.
> 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?
> We should make a good-faith effort to test this new operating mode, 
> perhaps with a nation-wide contest or two. We could call it "CQ-BPL," 
> and grant a multiplier for every contact made to or from BPL-serviced 
> areas of the country, and a big bonus if both operators are in areas 
> with BPL activity. High-power stations should get extra points.
> Doing anything this weekend?
> 73,
> Tom, KT9OM

More information about the RFI mailing list