[RFI] Grow light RFI

Fri Dec 2 22:53:22 EST 2016

Scott,

Does your ordinance apply just to marijuana grow light ballasts?

Tom

On 12/2/2016 2:57 PM, nm8rmedic via RFI wrote:
> Jim,
>
> Actually we are well beyond the formative period for this ordinance. It has been in place for about a year-and-a-half.
>
> I did request advice from ARRL before I wrote the ordinance. Their's was basically: don't do it.   But we did not find inaction acceptable.  I had our attorneys vett it and it actually has held up quite well and already been successful in mitigating an RFI problem caused by a formerly illegal grow operation that sought licensing. The FCC was a participant in that process.
>
> And we continue to invoke the ordinance, which includes both Part 15 and Part 18 compliance, with any potential new grow operations.
>
> So it has already mitigated one, and with newly passed legislation here legalizing grow operations, it is preventing future problems.  What's not to like about that?
>
> Don't get too worried guys. We don't enforce the FCC regulations, nor do we add to them, we merely require that they be met.
>
> We decided to act boldly and take chances, otherwise it is a certainty that we're going to live in an RFI polluted world.
>   
>
> Scott
>
>
>
>
> Sent via the Samsung Galaxy Note® II, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <div>-------- Original message --------</div><div>From: Jim Brown <jim at audiosystemsgroup.com> </div><div>Date:12/02/2016  12:47 PM  (GMT-05:00) </div><div>To: rfi at contesting.com </div><div>Subject: Re: [RFI] Grow light RFI </div><div>
> </div>Hi Scott,
>
> I suggest that you get advice from ARRL and W1RFI on the wording of your
> ordinance. I suspect that they will advise you to avoid suggesting any
> specific products, and also that they will advise you to require
> compliance with Part 15 Class B for residential use. Or it may be that
> these products fall within Part 18.
>
> 73, Jim K9YC
>
> On Fri,12/2/2016 5:30 AM, nm8rmedic via RFI wrote:
>> Ed,
>>
>> Understood, and thank you.  The metodology is not my question, though.
>>
>> I still ask: what was the lowest frequency swept?  I infer from the tiny graph it was around 300 khz, but did not catch any numerical data at that point or outside of the points you mention.
>>
>> I ask b/c as a city manager we adopted an ordinance regulating marijauna grow operations and included a provision of local license approval based upon also meeting FCC regulations regarding RFI emissions.  We recommend an outboard filter for noisy ballasts, but I would like to also be able to make a recommendation for an effective and clean ballast from LF to VHF.
>>
>> Is this the one?
>>
>> Scott
>>
>>
>>
>> Scott
>>
>>
>> Sent via the Samsung Galaxy Note® II, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone
>>
>>
>>
>> <div>-------- Original message --------</div><div>From: "Hare, Ed  W1RFI" <w1rfi at arrl.org> </div><div>Date:12/01/2016  4:14 PM  (GMT-05:00) </div><div>To: nm8rmedic <nm8rmedic at rocketmail.com>, Tom Thompson <w0ivj at tomthompson.com> </div><div>Subject: RE: [RFI] Grow light RFI </div><div>
>> </div>It looks like they swept the entire frequency range with a spectrum analyzer in peak-detection mode, obtained the 6 highest values and frequency, then went back and measured just those frequencies in quasi peak detector mode.  This is a common test practice.
>>
>> Ed, W1RFI
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: RFI [mailto:rfi-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of nm8rmedic via RFI
>> Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2016 4:09 PM
>> To: Tom Thompson; rfi at contesting.com
>> Subject: Re: [RFI] Grow light RFI
>>
>> Tom,
>>
>> It looks like there were three test runs conducted. The tabular data shows the lowest frequency tested was 14 megahertz, in runs 1 and 2. The graphic data results show lower frequencies though. Can you verify the lowest frequency at which these were tested?  Scott
>>
>>
>> Sent via the Samsung Galaxy Note® II, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone
>>
>> <div>-------- Original message --------</div><div>From: Tom Thompson <w0ivj at tomthompson.com> </div><div>Date:12/01/2016  1:32 PM  (GMT-05:00) </div><div>To: Roger D Johnson <n1rj at roadrunner.com>, RFI <rfi at contesting.com> </div><div>Subject: Re: [RFI] Grow light RFI </div><div> </div>Roger,
>>
>> Here is an independent lab evaluation of a Galaxy ballast the may be a good bet.
>>
>> http://tomthompson.com/radio/GrowLight/RFI_Tests_Galaxy_902220_FCC-Report.pdf
>>
>> Tom   W0IVJ
>>
>>
>> On 12/1/2016 11:27 AM, Roger D Johnson wrote:
>>> Is there a list of ballasts that Don't cause RFI?
>>>
>>> 73, Roger
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> RFI mailing list
>>> RFI at contesting.com
>>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rfi
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> RFI mailing list
>> RFI at contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rfi
>> _______________________________________________
>> RFI mailing list
>> RFI at contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rfi
>> _______________________________________________
>> RFI mailing list
>> RFI at contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rfi
>
> _______________________________________________
> RFI mailing list
> RFI at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rfi
> _______________________________________________
> RFI mailing list
> RFI at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rfi