[GCARC] What has the ARRL done for you lately?

[Christopher Wawak]

I often hear people complain the ARRL does little for the Amateur Radio
community. I’m a supporter, but I don’t often have effective examples of
how the ARRL is helping.

I believe residential solar power to be the biggest risk to our hobby based
on the interference I see and the growth that’s expected.

Ed Hare’s work on RFI is rarely showy, but what he’s doing with the solar
industry is probably our best shot at keeping noise levels at a place where
our hobby is viable.

This is a great example of how valuable the ARRL is for Amateur Radio
operators, and yet another reason why membership is important.

73 Chris KC2IEB

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Hare, Ed, W1RFI <w1rfi at arrl.org>
Date: Thu, May 19, 2022 at 6:45 PM
Subject: Re: [RFI] Solar Panel RFI Awareness At Dayton
To: Don Kirk <wd8dsb at gmail.com>, KD7JYK DM09 <kd7jyk at earthlink.net>
CC: rfi at contesting.com <rfi at contesting.com>


Sorry for the delay in getting back to this one.  Hopefully, folks are
checking emails.

To really understand this issue, we need to understand what rules these
systems meet.

Solar inverters and optimizers are regulated by CFR 47 Part 15 as
unintentional emitters. They are classified as digital devices. As such,
they must meet the Part 15 rules for emissions below 30 MHz that are
conducted onto the AC mains and the radiated emissions limits above 30
MHz.  There are no radiated emissions limits for any unintentional emitter
except for carrier current devices such as BPL.  It will be hard sell to
get the FCC to carve out radiated limits below 30 MHz for one type of
emitter.  It will be a tough sell in any event, because only a small number
of unintentional emitters that meet the rules are involved in harmful
interference complaints.  Industry and the FCC will insist that the
existing rules work, and, to a great degree, they are not wrong.  Many
manufacturers that meet the limit respond positively to harmful
interference complaints.

If the FCC were to adopt radiated limits below 30 MHz, it would almost hang
its hat on the limits for intentional emitters and carrier-current devices,
which essentially result in S9+10 dB interference levels, typically.  We do
NOT want this, and if the FCC extended the carrier-current limits to solar
systems,  the first line of defense from manufacturers would be, "We meet
the new rules."  ARRL already has a case where a new solar manufacturer is
taking that very approach.

Do not ignore the monkey-wrench effect.  If there were an open rulemaking,
it is a certainty that every solar company would hire a communications
attorney, who would then direct that every step in any interference case go
through the attorney.  That would effectively end cooperation, and muddy
the waters so badly the end result could be rather unpredictable.

Right now, ARRL has 2-1/2 solar companies working on resolving cases and
looking to improve the product.   The League is also looking to form an
industry standards working group to develop an IEEE recommended practice on
good design for EMC for solar systems and a reasonable program to respond
effectively to complaints.   If there ever were to be a rules change, this
is essentially the only way I could see the rules getting changed, if they
can be changed to harmonize with an industry standard that has the support
of a wide range of stakeholders.

I will have to look in the program to see when this gathering is taking
place and attend if I can.

Ed Hare, W1RFI
ARRL Lab
IEEE EMC Society Vice President for Standards
-- 
-- Chris