[RFI] Leased Solar Panels: Operator Responsibility?

Dave Cole (NK7Z) dave at nk7z.net
Tue Nov 14 22:05:12 EST 2017


Certainly sounds like it.  Have you written Laura Smith regarding this?

73s and thanks,
Dave
NK7Z
http://www.nk7z.net

On 11/14/2017 06:52 PM, Mike Kirkland wrote:
> Two on-site visits by an FCC enforcement agent that verified the 
> interference. Notice of violation written to SolarCity and solaredge. 
> Notice of violation disappeared and was never published in the federal 
> registry.
> 
> I don't think this is an issue of accurate reporting.
> 
> I think this is an issue of money and power.
> 
> Basic law of nature them big, you small.
> 
> On Nov 14, 2017 6:47 PM, "Dave Cole (NK7Z)" <dave at nk7z.net 
> <mailto:dave at nk7z.net>> wrote:
> 
>     Respectfully, has everyone reporting RFI to the FCC done their
>     homework?  Please don't get the idea I am criticizing here, I am
>     not, just adding a bit more information to the discussion.
> 
>     Things added to your RFI log like everyone you have spoken too, what
>     you said, what they said, their names, signal reports,  any
>     recordings, the exact process used to pin things down to the
>     location etc., presented to the FCC in clean, clear written form. 
>     Anything less than that and the process slows...
> 
>     I had a few issues with grow operations over the years, and the FCC
>     has been johnny-on-the spot to send a letter(s) to the offender(s). 
>     In both cases, the issue resolved instantly after the letter.
> 
>     I spent a lot of time in each case documenting every step, (around a
>     year on one case), doing everything as if it were going to court,
>     (which thankfully it did not), treating every step like I was at
>     work, not doing my hobby...  In short being as unemotional as
>     possible, and as professional as possible.
> 
>     The expectation is on us as Amateur Operators to document things in
>     a way the FCC can use.  Neither the FCC, or the ARRL is going to do
>     this for us.
> 
>     It may not be right, and it may not be how all of us want it, but it
>     is the way it is...  If you want action from the FCC you have to
>     make it easy for the FCC to enforce.
> 
>     Again, I am not criticizing anyone, or anything that has happened
>     here, just offering some thoughts.
> 
>     73s and thanks,
>     Dave
>     NK7Z
>     http://www.nk7z.net
> 
>     On 11/14/2017 05:51 PM, dalej wrote:
> 
>         Well, it appears there is no authority.  These companies have
>         the free run to do what ever they want and nobody is going to
>         stop them except bad publicity and that is not easy unless it’s
>         airbag failures in automobiles, even then it’s  going to take a
>         long time for resolutions.
> 
>         This is sort of like anything goes.  Nobody is in charge.
> 
>         Good luck.
> 
>         Dale j.
> 
> 
>         On 14, Nov 2017, at 19:45, Mike Kirkland <radio.ns6q at gmail.com
>         <mailto:radio.ns6q at gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
>         I have a S9 + noise level across the entire VHF band caused by a
>         solaredge installation. I haven't looked at HF yet but I'm not
>         sure I want to.
> 
>         Part 15 seems really clear but that doesn't seem to make any
>         difference to solar Edge.
> 
>         On Nov 14, 2017 5:29 PM, "dalej" <dj2001x at comcast.net
>         <mailto:dj2001x at comcast.net> <mailto:dj2001x at comcast.net
>         <mailto:dj2001x at comcast.net>>> wrote:
>         Then who may I ask has authority over such matters??
> 
>         Dale j.
> 
> 
>         On 14, Nov 2017, at 18:06, chuck.gooden
>         <chuck.gooden at comcast.net <mailto:chuck.gooden at comcast.net>
>         <mailto:chuck.gooden at comcast.net
>         <mailto:chuck.gooden at comcast.net>>> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>         If I am recalling correctly, the Fcc does not include any
>         specifications for radiated emissions below 30 mhz and leave it
>         to "well engineering practice."  But that is never defined.
>         Chuck Gooden - K9LC
> 
>         -------- Original message --------
>         From: dalej <dj2001x at comcast.net <mailto:dj2001x at comcast.net>
>         <mailto:dj2001x at comcast.net <mailto:dj2001x at comcast.net>>>
>         Date: 11/14/2017  5:48 PM  (GMT-06:00)
>         To: Randy Standke <r55stan at gmail.com <mailto:r55stan at gmail.com>
>         <mailto:r55stan at gmail.com <mailto:r55stan at gmail.com>>>
>         Cc: rfi at contesting.com <mailto:rfi at contesting.com>
>         <mailto:rfi at contesting.com <mailto:rfi at contesting.com>>
>         Subject: Re: [RFI] Leased Solar Panels: Operator Responsibility?
> 
>         Wondering what they are going to knock down from S9+40 to what,
>         nothing or something less than?
> 
>         Also wondering if the FCC is kept informed of this?
> 
>         Dale j. K9VUJ
> 
> 
>         On 14, Nov 2017, at 17:14, Randy Standke <r55stan at gmail.com
>         <mailto:r55stan at gmail.com> <mailto:r55stan at gmail.com
>         <mailto:r55stan at gmail.com>>> wrote:
> 
>         Your spectrum plots look just like SolarEdge RFI does.
> 
>         I just met with a SolarEdge engineer.  His contact information
>         is Tefford Reed <Tefford.Reed at solaredge.com
>         <mailto:Tefford.Reed at solaredge.com>
>         <mailto:Tefford.Reed at solaredge.com
>         <mailto:Tefford.Reed at solaredge.com>>>.  They are working on
>         several houses surrounding a ham in Poway, CA (who has S9 +40dB
>         RFI from the new SolarEdge systems that just went in near him). 
>         They plan to correct the SolarEdge installations near me in two
>         weeks.  It is great to finally see some activity from them. 
>         Tefford told me to ask hams with SolarEdge RFI to contact him.
> 
>         Randy KQ6RS
> 
>         -----Original Message-----
>         From: Tony [mailto:dxdx at optonline.net
>         <mailto:dxdx at optonline.net> <mailto:dxdx at optonline.net
>         <mailto:dxdx at optonline.net>>]
>         Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 11:50 AM
>         To: Randy Standke <r55stan at gmail.com <mailto:r55stan at gmail.com>
>         <mailto:r55stan at gmail.com <mailto:r55stan at gmail.com>>>;
>         rfi at contesting.com <mailto:rfi at contesting.com>
>         <mailto:rfi at contesting.com <mailto:rfi at contesting.com>>
>         Subject: Re: [RFI] Leased Solar Panels: Operator Responsibility?
> 
>         Randy:
> 
>             In this case the solar panels could be covered with dark
>             tarps to stop
>             their interference.  They can stay covered until SolarEdge
>             comes out
>             and fixes that system. Randy KQ6RS
> 
> 
>         The tarp solution should work. My neighbors SolarEge system goes
>         quiet at night when the panels are inactive. The attached
>         screenshots show the difference between the daytime RFI noise
>         level and the nighttime noise level.
> 
>         Tony -K2MO
> 
> 
>         _______________________________________________
>         RFI mailing list
>         RFI at contesting.com <mailto:RFI at contesting.com>
>         <mailto:RFI at contesting.com <mailto:RFI at contesting.com>>
>         http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rfi
>         <http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rfi>
>         <http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rfi
>         <http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rfi>>
> 
>         _______________________________________________
>         RFI mailing list
>         RFI at contesting.com <mailto:RFI at contesting.com>
>         <mailto:RFI at contesting.com <mailto:RFI at contesting.com>>
>         http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rfi
>         <http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rfi>
>         <http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rfi
>         <http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rfi>>
>         _______________________________________________
>         RFI mailing list
>         RFI at contesting.com <mailto:RFI at contesting.com>
>         <mailto:RFI at contesting.com <mailto:RFI at contesting.com>>
>         http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rfi
>         <http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rfi>
>         <http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rfi
>         <http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rfi>>
> 
>         _______________________________________________
>         RFI mailing list
>         RFI at contesting.com <mailto:RFI at contesting.com>
>         <mailto:RFI at contesting.com <mailto:RFI at contesting.com>>
>         http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rfi
>         <http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rfi>
>         <http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rfi
>         <http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rfi>>
> 
>         _______________________________________________
>         RFI mailing list
>         RFI at contesting.com <mailto:RFI at contesting.com>
>         http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rfi
>         <http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rfi>
> 
>     _______________________________________________
>     RFI mailing list
>     RFI at contesting.com <mailto:RFI at contesting.com>
>     http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rfi
>     <http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rfi>
> 


More information about the RFI mailing list