RayW
Premium
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT
clubs:
 ·XMission
| reply to p51d007
Re: hopeful
Keep your batteries charged.
We had a baby F1 tornado here a few years ago, surprise! no cell, no POTS, and from what I was told, half of the emergency radio system did not work. Guess what did? (yup, them 'worthless' hams)
Caveat: All I need is to learn Morse, then I will have a extra license instead of a tech.
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time. |
|
Slacker44
join:2001-05-10
Gilbert, AZ | And once again, BPL has ZERO to do with effecting HAMS during emergency situations. ZERO. Nothing.
And it never will. |
|
RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
·AT&T Midwest
| said by Slacker44  :And once again, BPL has ZERO to do with effecting HAMS during emergency situations. ZERO. Nothing. And it never will. How do you figure that?
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. |
|
N3EVL
join:2004-12-13
Shrewsbury, MA | reply to Slacker44
You seem exceptionally confident in your findings - please share your research. |
|
Slacker44
join:2001-05-10
Gilbert, AZ | reply to Slacker44
Hmm ok.
No power. No BPL. Doesn't effect HAMS.
Please don't play the disaster card. |
|
RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
·AT&T Midwest
| Transmission isn't the issue. Reception is. BPL would be up and running and happily interfering with reception of the portable, low power transmitters being used in the blacked out area.
Try again.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. |
|
Slacker44
join:2001-05-10
Gilbert, AZ
| So you are saying that the emergency services who would be contacting the HAMS in the blacked out area would be near BPL? Not a chance.
Or am I not understanding this correctly. The HAMS in the blacked out area will obviously not be effected by BPL. The people they are contacting won't either because I dont think they would be stupid enough to set up near BPL. What about along the way? |
|
RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
·AT&T Midwest
| You are assuming that the BPL system(s) would be isolated, away from any receivers, and would not be causing interference by significantly raising the noise floor miles from the power lines. The receiving stations (outside the blackout area) would most likely be using directional antennas from fixed locations (these things can be quite large) and if there is an operating BPL system nearby, reception could easily be disrupted by it.
You seem to be totally ignorant of how ad-hoc emergency communications are set up in these situations.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. |
|
RayW
Premium
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT
clubs:
·XMission
| reply to Slacker44
said by Slacker44 :Hmm ok. No power. No BPL. Doesn't effect HAMS. Please don't play the disaster card. Get a life! People in the emergency area do not have power, but they want to talk to people OUTSIDE of the area who do! And they are running lower power systems to conserve the limited power (battery, solar, wind, portable generators both hand and gas powered) they do have. No 1500 watt transmitters with 6 element beams 300 feet in the air to give 3000 to 5000 watt effective radiated power to cut through the hash, think sub 100 watt units with verticals and long wires close to the ground. I can not believe you are foolish enough to believe that the relief supplies and manpower will perform a miracle and just appear where they are needed without information as to where it needs to go?
Get involved with the national relief groups of the Red Cross, the LDS, Baptist, and Catholic Churches, and others that are involved in this and see what goes on. These groups do not agree with you that no one needs to use a radio outside any piddling disaster area. Or if they do, then they are wasting a lot of money and time getting infrastructure to do so.
Do not know about your cities, but the cities around here are all getting EOCs that have ham radios both long and short distance. Your tax dollars being wasted? Maybe you ought to go check it out and complain to the city council if you feel so strongly about 'outdated' 'worthless' technology being paid for with your taxes? That is also why I want my Ham license, it will be much safer in the EOC than out casing buildings or whatever the disaster is.
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time. |
|
Slacker44
join:2001-05-10
Gilbert, AZ
| reply to RadioDoc
So MAYBE there will be interference IF they are within range. Right. And that is your entire justification for the anti-BPL BS we get from all the HAM nerds. That is what annoys me the most. People like me that don't understand HAMS at all can easily understand disaster argument is crap no matter how you spice it up. If the moons align right and all is wrong in the world, nerd #1 may not be able to talk to nerd #2. I am sure nerd #3 can handle it. You guys seem to be everywhere not that we see you in your basement. |
|
Slacker44
join:2001-05-10
Gilbert, AZ
| reply to RayW
That was a lot of stuff. All I am saying is that I don't think you are right. I don't think BPL is going to cut off all the nerds from talking to eachother. I don't think BPL is going to take down the entire national relief program. You sir are a foolish nerd if you think so. Nerd HAM #1 in the disaster area can contact SOMEONE outside the disaster area I am sure. I bet he has a phone. All he as to do is call someone. Problem solved. You can get a life now. |
|
N3EVL
join:2004-12-13
Shrewsbury, MA
| reply to Slacker44
said by Slacker44 :So you are saying that the emergency services who would be contacting the HAMS in the blacked out area would be near BPL? Not a chance. Or am I not understanding this correctly. The HAMS in the blacked out area will obviously not be effected by BPL. The people they are contacting won't either because I dont think they would be stupid enough to set up near BPL. What about along the way? It's not a case of stupidity with respect to the remote stations' locations! If BPL moves into my neighborhood and renders significant portions of spectrum unusable then that's one less station that can participate. If BPL were to become as ubiquitous as its proponents would desire then that's potentially many stations that cannot participate. I'm not prepared to accept _your_ guarantee that there will always be a station in an unaffected area!
Note also that the present abundance of potential stations is in part due to the fact that appropriate, unpolluted spectrum IS avaialable; were that spectrum resource to disappear, it is not unreasonable to assume that the pool of station resources would evaporate - who wants to maintain radios and related equipment that can never be used; how can necessary operating skills be developed or refined?
How likely is this scenario? that's the $64,000 question. With the abundant technical alternatives to BPL (or, indeed the more benign flavors of BPL such as is the topic of this thread) I see little need to proliferate such implementations of BPL that could bring about this situation. |
|
Slacker44
join:2001-05-10
Gilbert, AZ | So then we go back to Hobby vs. Disaster argument. Is this a hobby? Then you lose. Sorry. But what about the disaster!! You lose again. Some nerd somewhere can get a hold of someone with a phone. End of story. |
|
N3EVL
join:2004-12-13
Shrewsbury, MA
| reply to Slacker44
There is certainly more to the BPL issue as it relates to spectrum pollution than you seem to be aware of. As has been stated many times in related threads, a _wired_ technology that pollutes _wireless_ spectrum and does so coincidentally as a byproduct of its operation is BAD technology. While you might be prepared to turn a blind eye to such pollution, thankfully, those better informed than yourself are prepared to speak up against this. If you have valid counter arguments as to why this is an acceptable byproduct of this technology, then please let us hear them - preferably without the demeaning references to the amateur radio community (if you wish to be taken seriously). |
|
N3EVL
join:2004-12-13
Shrewsbury, MA
| reply to Slacker44
There seems little merit in debating a point with someone whose principal argument is that his argument automatically wins. Please come back and join in serious debate when you can qualify your statements or give valid counter arguments to those that have been presented. |
|
Slacker44
join:2001-05-10
Gilbert, AZ
| reply to N3EVL
When BPL is mentioned, HAMS automatically chime in and use the disaster card. I don't think that is valid. I can't see an instance where a HAM within the effected disaster area can't contact another HAM outside the disaster area who has a phone. All it takes in 1 person. Without the disaster card to play, HAMS are then just a hobby. This isn't going to get you far in fighting BPL. You can agrue that BPL is only going into areas where broadband is already in place therefore no need for it. I think everyone agrees with that. I also think they are smart by doing it that way. I am sure BPL rural america would be a lot more expensive to trial than in areas they are testing now. I just hate the disaster card. It doesn't fly. |
|
GeekJedi
RF is Good For You
Premium
join:2001-06-21
Mukwonago, WI
clubs: | reply to Slacker44
That's nice. An idiot calling someone a nerd.
Sweet! |
|
moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to Slacker44
said by Slacker44 :When BPL is mentioned, HAMS automatically chime in and use the disaster card. I don't think that is valid. I can't see an instance where a HAM within the effected disaster area can't contact another HAM outside the disaster area who has a phone. All it takes in 1 person. And there is the point of your mis-understanding.
The person in the affected area is not going to get interference as much as those in a non-affected area. If BPL (using the polluting type) is in the un-affected area, then the HAM in that un-affected area is not going to be able to hear the person in the affected area.
said by Slacker44 :Without the disaster card to play, HAMS are then just a hobby. This isn't going to get you far in fighting BPL. You can agrue that BPL is only going into areas where broadband is already in place therefore no need for it. I think everyone agrees with that. I also think they are smart by doing it that way. I am sure BPL rural america would be a lot more expensive to trial than in areas they are testing now. I just hate the disaster card. It doesn't fly. O.k. then why have a slower technology in an area already serviced by faster competitors who cost the same or less?
The disaster card doesn't fly with you because you have never seen first hand how it works or how it affects people. I have seen how it works and can see the benefits of it. |
|
rf_engineer
join:2003-08-04
USA
| reply to Slacker44
said by Slacker44 :I bet he has a phone. All he as to do is call someone. Problem solved. You can get a life now. That's a pretty intense disaster communications plan you have there. What do you do if the disaster took out the telco lines which in turn takes out 90% of the cell towers that use telco backhaul? |
|
dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
| reply to Slacker44
said by Slacker44 :Hmm ok. No power. No BPL. Doesn't effect HAMS. Please don't play the disaster card. Exacly how does a HAM use his radio with no power? 
--
You can never be too rich, too thin or have too much Bandwidth |
|
