[ARC5] externally generated noise from switching controllers.

Wed Jun 9 23:13:20 EDT 2010

I am not aware of any attempt by the ARRL to "interfere" with the FCC's
jurisdiction over Part 15.  But if I could propose such a change and I knew
someone would actually listen, I would first distinguish between continuous
broadband high data rate comm over power lines and intermittent low data
rate comm.  I would outright ban the former;  my philosophy being that if
God wanted the power lines to be used for comm, he would have twisted them!
For the latter, I would permit it provided certain rules governing low duty
cycle operation were met.  There are a lot of applications in the home or
commercial building that would work just fine with such occasional low data
rate reporting, command and control signals.  Lighting is one of them.  The
problem with a lot of the low data rate comm schemes out there today is that
they leave the carrier(s) and some minimal modulation on continuously.  This
is unnecessary and contributes greatly to the RFI problem.

Dennis AE6C

On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 10:51 AM, Michael Bittner <mmab at cox.net> wrote:

> Has the ARRL shown any interest in this problem?  Not Spread Spectrum but
> the inadequacy Part 15 when it comes to light dimmers and such that use the
> house wiring as their all-band, omnidirectional antennas.
> Mike W6MAB
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dennis Monticelli" <dennis.monticelli at gmail.com>
> To: <jfor at quik.com>; "Discussion of AN/ARC-5 military radio equipment."
> <arc5 at mailman.qth.net>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2010 10:22 AM
> Subject: Re: [ARC5] externally generated noise from switching controllers.
>
>
> >I agree with John's assessment of spread spectrum. Taken to the limit,
> they
> > only end up raising the overall noise floor.  But in a world where analog
> > comm modes in effect must share spectrum with random digital pollution, a
> > spread spectrum RFI reduction technique is less onerous to narrow band
> > users
> > like hams than the alternative.  It is still evil, but the lesser of the
> > evils.  As for evading the law, the FCC Part 15 rules themselves are
> > outdated and inadequate in their protection of any weak-signal authorized
> > spectrum user.  The original rules never contemplated the extensive use
> of
> > digital "unintentional radiators" in such close proximity to weak-signal
> > users.  Manufacturers can comply with Part 15 yet the RFI problem is only
> > mitigated, not eliminated.  Meanwhile, unintentional radiators keep
> > multiplying like rabbits in our homes and neighborhoods.  I don't have a
> > solution to this madness. The quest for energy efficiency is the major
> > driving force behind PWM control techniques and that trend will only grow
> > stronger.
> >
> > Dennis AE6C
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 6:19 AM, J. Forster <jfor at quik.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Soapbox Mode On:
> >>
> >> IMO, the spread spectrum switchers are EVIL. They are, philosophically,
> >> equal to "Dilution is the solution to pollution" in the chem engineering
> >> business. They are a way of evading the law and getting away with it.
> >> What
> >> you wind up with is a raised noise floor everywhere.
> >>
> >> Soap Box Mode Off.
> >>
> >> -John
> >>
> >> =============
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > My company is a leading maker of LED drivers.  The switching style
> >> > controllers have to pass FCC Part 15 just like everything else.  The
> >> > bad
> >> > news is that passing does not insure RFI low enough to satisfy hams or
> >> > other
> >> > so-called "weak signal" spectrum users.  Part 15 did not contemplate
> >> > such
> >> > ubiquitous use of "unintentional radiators" when it was first drafted.
> >> > The
> >> > good news is that some manufacturers are trying to get below FCC
> limits
> >> by
> >> > using sophisticated spread spectrum techniques which are less onerous
> >> > to
> >> > narrow band users like ourselves.  But overall, it is kind of a losing
> >> > battle we hams wage as switch mode controllers of all types invade our
> >> > homes
> >> > and offices in the form of lighting, HVAC, solar arrays, and flat
> >> > screen
> >> > TV's to mention just a few.
> >> >
> >> > Dennis AE6C
> >> >
> >> > On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 9:03 PM, Brian Clarke
> >> > <brianclarke01 at optusnet.com.au>wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> OK, Les,
> >> >>
> >> >> It's just that this email stream started off with concern about the
> >> >> amount
> >> >> of RFI generated by household lamp dimmers, not that generated by the
> >> >> new
> >> >> CF
> >> >> lamps. That's why my question about dimming LEDs. My lad wants to dim
> >> >> LEDs,
> >> >> too, and I have told him the dynamic range is very small - perhaps
> 3:1
> >> >> at
> >> >> most.
> >> >>
> >> >> 73 de Brian, VK2GCE.
> >> >>
> >> >> Les said:
> >> >>
> >> >> > Hi Brian,
> >> >> > These lights are on or off.  There is no control over intensity -
> >> >> except
> >> >> > by changing the series resistor.  If I was going to control the
> >> >> intensity
> >> >> > I would do a very nasty thing.  I would connect an X2 rated cap (or
> >> >> series
> >> >> > of X2 rated caps) in series with the primary of the power
> >> >> > transformer.
> >> >> > (Or alternately a big fat inductor).>
> >> >> > Les
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> In response to Brian's:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> What dynamic dimming range do you get with these LEDs?
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> ______________________________________________________________
> >> >> ARC5 mailing list
> >> >> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/arc5
> >> >> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> >> >> Post: mailto:ARC5 at mailman.qth.net
> >> >>
> >> >> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> >> >> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> >> >>
> >> > ______________________________________________________________
> >> > ARC5 mailing list
> >> > Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/arc5
> >> > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> >> > Post: mailto:ARC5 at mailman.qth.net
> >> >
> >> > This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> >> > Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >> ______________________________________________________________
> >> ARC5 mailing list
> >> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/arc5
> >> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> >> Post: mailto:ARC5 at mailman.qth.net
> >>
> >> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> >> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> >>
> > ______________________________________________________________
> > ARC5 mailing list
> > Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/arc5
> > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> > Post: mailto:ARC5 at mailman.qth.net
> >
> > This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> > Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> >
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> ARC5 mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/arc5
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:ARC5 at mailman.qth.net
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>