[RFI] Why we badly need "party line" materials for all hams

[Pete Smith]

At 05:18 PM 7/19/2004, Hare,Ed, W1RFI wrote:

> > We need to reign in the well-intentioned people in our
> > fraternity who are actually doing us harm, which includes
> > those who have data that could be good but who present it in
> > a way that makes us look technically uneducated. (As an
> > example using S meter readings .)
>
>Few hams have the resources to collect their data in any other terms, 
>Tom.   I am not sure what to do about that. One one hand, gathering some 
>information about the level of pre- and post-BPL noise is important, and 
>if all we can get is S meter readings, then that is better than no data at 
>all.  Although the S meter has not been adopted world-wide as a standard, 
>IARU Region 1 has adopted an S meter standard that uses 50 uV for S9, 6 dB 
>per S unit, so those readings to have some standards-based traceability.
>
>That is not consistent from receiver to receiver, but the alternative is 
>no data at all from most areas, so that would be equally subject to 
>criticism.  Knowing that there is "S9" level interference is more than 
>adequate for most amateurs and professionals to understand that there is 
>indeed interference.  Knowing that before BPL, the level of noise was S1 
>and that the noise level is now 40 dB over S9 as was seen to an 80-meter 
>mobile whip at one test site is useful information, even if not absolutely 
>traceable.

Moreover, for the non-ham audience, many of whom have had experience with 
signal strength meters on FM receivers or VU meters on tape recorders, the 
meter deflection at least offers a relative indication of the intensity of 
the interference, even if the precision is limited to "nothing much" to "wow."


73, Pete N4ZR
The World HF Contest Station Database
was updated on June 5, 2004
2728 contest stations at
www.pvrc.org/WCSD/WCSDsearch.htm