[RFI] re Nineteen Hour Noise

[Tom Thompson]

Hi Dave,

Yes I have contacted the ARRL.  I helped  Mike Gruber write the ARRL web 
page on grow lights.  Do you think it is best to deal with these rfi 
situations one at a time or try to get at the root of the problem and 
help the manufacturers clean up their ballast as impossible as that may 
seem?

Tom   W0IVJ


On 6/2/2013 6:11 PM, David Cole wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Have you contacted the ARRL?  They are the first step...  You need to
> keep very good logs of EVERY contact dealing with the RFI.  I have had
> very good luck with the FCC via a good log method.
>
> I have tried to stay totally away from the reason for the lights, and
> deal with just the RFI alone, I now call them Horticulture lights, not
> grow lights...
>
> I have had some contact with the FCC, and had very good luck there...  I
> had VERY good logs, one of my neighbors decided he did not need to pay
> attention as defined in Part 15.  I offered to buy new lamp transformers
> for him.  It was a bar light, not a horticultural light.  He refused,
> and basically said too bad...
>
> The "Come Hither" letter from the FCC ended the problem within 30 days
> of receipt.  It did take 6 months to get to that point, and some of that
> was my delay.  I suspect the fact that I took logs of EVERY single
> discussion I had had with this person, and supplied proof positive it
> was from his home is why the FCC sent the letter.  I have only asked for
> one letter, and I am trying to not abuse it with bad data, or lack of
> data...  So be very careful, log everything, take notes, make
> recordings, and separate you feelings from the issue, make sure you are
> totally right, then and only then contact the FCC or the ARRL.  A just
> the facts mindset is what is needed...  If you suspect it is a
> horticulture lamp, mention it if you want, but call it a horticulture
> lamp, not a grow light.  If folks get the idea that you are some sort of
> anti-pot warrior, your creditability goes in the dumper...
>