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

Frank Mayer franksmayer28 at gmail.com
Fri May 20 09:47:06 EDT 2022 

All of this HF noise business will get nothing but worse.  We are in a dying hobby with less and less clout with the FCC.  With the virtual demise of AM radio,  both medium wave and shortwave, the average person is not affected by all of this RFI.  The only way to truly get relief is to have a QTH far from any neighbors which have become the major source of all this noise.  
My two cents.
Frank, W2SDR 

> On May 20, 2022, at 9:32 AM, Tony Starr <tstarr1450 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Chris,
> 
> This is all good to know, and I again thank you for bringing this to our
> attention.  I too have been bothered  by crippling RFI at times over the
> past couple of years, and it is one of the reasons I have been building a
> mobile HF station, so I could go out and drive around my area listening
> for a source.  One power line noise that was bothering me turned out not to
> be in my immediate neighborhood, as I initially suspected, but about a mile
> and a half down the road.  In that case, I was lucky to have a directional
> antenna to find the exact direction, using the null off the end of the
> elements of my tri-bander.  I still have not gotten that one corrected, but
> I at least know where it is coming from, within two or three poles anyway.
> 
> I would be very interested in forming a GCARC RFI task force team.  I
> figure that with the direction-finding expertise of our fox hunting
> enthusiasts, and the technical prowess of our Skunk Works participants, we
> should be able to track down just about any RFI source, especially the
> stealthy ones that seem to evade the efforts of individuals like you or I
> to track down.  Our club has proven very capable of meeting technical
> challenges when we work together, and I think this would be a great asset
> to the membership.  If anyone is interested in signing up for this, please
> contact me via email directly. I know that I have had some annoying RFI
> issues that I have not been able to figure out on my own, that I know I
> could have solved with a few associates to bounce ideas and observations
> off of.  What do you think, folks?  Is this a worthwhile effort for us to
> pursue?  I think it is! Let me hear from you.
> 
> Tony K3TS
> 
>> On Fri, May 20, 2022 at 7:11 AM Christopher Wawak <chris at wawak.org> wrote:
>> 
>> What's exciting isn't that they're working on the problem or that
>> they're working with individual manufacturers, but they're working
>> with IEEE and industry leaders to set an industry standard for good
>> design practices for residential solar systems. That means that not
>> only will new systems built to standard be quieter, but if systems
>> AREN'T built to standard, you now have an unbiased, industry group
>> document to show they're not using good engineering practices.
>> 
>> Right now with those 2 1/2 companies, if you can DF the solar noise
>> and point it out to Ed and his team, he can work with the different
>> solar companies to *turn off the solar system in question*, and verify
>> it's the culprit. If so, they leave the system off until it's able to
>> be remedied. Super cool!
>> 
>> I've had the displeasure of talking to the single FCC person who
>> handles all of amateur radio about an RFI complaint, and was told the
>> FCC doesn't have the resources to do anything. This is not a problem
>> that petitions will solve, and Ed's a smart dude doing what I think is
>> the best.
>> 
>> I honestly get very discouraged when I try to do some HF phone, and
>> see solar systems get louder and quieter during the day. Also my
>> jackass neighbor with his noisy-ass LED light that is on 24/7 directly
>> in line with my main antenna!
>> 
>> (He used no weather sealing when he drilled the hole into his house,
>> and you can see insulation coming out! He refused my offer of some
>> rectorseal until he could fix it properly. Hopefully he'll figure that
>> one out before his walls rot out!)
>> 
>> Mostly I stick to FT8, RTTY, and the true pinnacle of amateur radio
>> communication, SSTV these days unless the bands of noise are just
>> right.
>> 
>> This offer always stands: anyone who wants to take a field trip to
>> KC2IEB central and help me DF my noise can take a blind grab through
>> my junk bin. :)
>> 
>> 73 Chris KC2IEB
>> 
>> 
>>> On Thu, May 19, 2022 at 10:04 PM Tony Starr <tstarr1450 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Chris,
>>> 
>>> First off, thanks a ton for passing along the letter from Ed Hare. It is
>> good to know that ARRL is working on this issue, which has the potential to
>> be one of the largest sources of RFI around us.  While there have been a
>> number of issues over the years where the League has left me disappointed,
>> this is not one of them. My gripes about Part 15 fall right on the
>> shoulders of the FCC, for their lack of enforcement.  Much of the cheap
>> Chinese junk that is causing us problems has blatant cheat features built
>> right in. Empty spaces on printed circuit boards where RFI chokes and
>> bypass capacitors are supposed to be installed, right there for all to see,
>> and no penalties!  Well of course they were there on the units that
>> underwent RFI testing, and maybe they are there on the board when it is
>> installed in a brand-name item, but for the cheap off-brand copy sold on
>> Amazon?  They just leave those parts off!
>>> 
>>> If the ARRL is working with a couple of solar manufacturers, I sincerely
>> hope that they are successful. I would hate to see those manufacturers cure
>> their RFI ills and then go out of business because they got undercut by the
>> competitors who did nothing to improve their RFI performance. If it can be
>> done, it should be done, and this is where the enforcement should come into
>> play. Unfortunately, I don't have much faith in the FCC any more, since
>> they have gone from a sleepy regulatory agency to one that frequently
>> samples the crack pipe of massive revenue enhancement through spectrum
>> auctions.  How many times will they auction off the TV channels again? And
>> how long before some of our spectrum goes with it?  It may only be a matter
>> of time. This is why I am glad we have the ARRL. They may not be big and
>> powerful, but they are a voice for us.  Maybe the only voice we have.
>>> 
>>> My relationship with the League over the past 45 years has been tenuous
>> at times, and I have even let my membership lapse a few times, I am sorry
>> to say, but in the end, I always wind up going back. I have to. I belong to
>> the League for the same reasons that I belong to the NRA and AARP. Not
>> because I always agree with what they do; in fact I often don't. But
>> because they represent my interests and protect the things that are
>> important to me from those who would like to deny me those things, and use
>> my government to do it. That is why I just renewed my ARRL membership for
>> another three years. Hey, they sent me a nice coffee mug!  Thanks again and
>> 73!
>>> 
>>> Tony Starr, K3TS
>>> 
>>> On Thu, May 19, 2022 at 7:08 PM Christopher Wawak <chris at wawak.org>
>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> 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
>>>> ______________________________________________________________
>>>> GCARC mailing list
>>>> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/gcarc
>>>> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
>>>> Post: mailto:GCARC at mailman.qth.net
>>>> 
>>>> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
>>>> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> -- Chris
>> 
> ______________________________________________________________
> GCARC mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/gcarc
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:GCARC at mailman.qth.net
> 
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

More information about the GCARC mailing list