Ham radio Interference
Dave H
of aerianalia. When he turns this in my direction and talks to his
contact, my picture on Sky jumps all over the place to the extent it is
unwatchable. Just like having the vertical hold set wrong. The sound on
my amplifier also cuts out when he is talking. Sky box is connected to a
video recorder by scart and then to the TV, in the next room, by RF
output (they don't make scart leads long enough).
(Turned on the electric keyboard the other day and there he was in
glorious SSB blasting out from the speakers)
I am also getting some mild noise-type interference on other occasions
but cannot be sure it is the same source.
Have been round to see him, nice chap, but he doesn't think he is doing
anything wrong and is not obliged to solve my problem. He has mentioned
some bit of equipment I could put in the 'line',even had a root around
his garage to see if he had one.
Does anyone know the legal position on this type of interference?
If I can't resolve it with him, to what body do I complain? Radio
Society of Great Britain? Ofcom?
Any advice would be welcome on the above or how I can minimise the
interference with a gadget.
David
Steve Terry
news:sbepl.29338$ot7....@newsfe15.ams2...
>I have a Ham Radio enthusiast living some 200 yards away with a big set of
>aerianalia. When he turns this in my direction and talks to his contact, my
>picture on Sky jumps all over the place to the extent it is unwatchable.
>Just like having the vertical hold set wrong. The sound on my amplifier
>also cuts out when he is talking. Sky box is connected to a video recorder
>by scart and then to the TV, in the next room, by RF output (they don't
>make scart leads long enough).
>
> (Turned on the electric keyboard the other day and there he was in
> glorious SSB blasting out from the speakers)
>
> I am also getting some mild noise-type interference on other occasions but
> cannot be sure it is the same source.
>
> Have been round to see him, nice chap, but he doesn't think he is doing
> anything wrong and is not obliged to solve my problem.
>
As long as he has checked the output of this TX to be clean, he hasn't.
You will have to contact Ofcom, who will help you fit filters to your
equipment that isn't supposed to receive radio signals.
Don't worry, it's very unlikely you'll be prosecuted for receiving
transmitions you aren't licensed to
Steve Terry
Erica Nurney
What he is doing is definitely wrong (ie illegal) if it can be proven
that it is his equipment causing the interference. I work on building
electrical control panels for machinery and we have go though all
sorts of standards and regulations hoops and spend thousands of pounds
to ensure our equipment does not ruin people's TV reception, amongst
other things - it is part of the CE marking of electrical equipment.
He has a right to use his amateur radio equipment, just as much as you
have a right to have interference-free TV reception, it is best to
reach a compromise and possibly accept his offer of filters etc. If
he is buggering up your reception, it's a fair bet that your
neighbours might be suffering as well so he might be providing filters
to a lot of people.
The regulatory body used to be the Post Office, I guess OfCom might be
the first place to try nowadays.
Ian Jackson
<f3583a31-7fb6-4964...@l22g2000vba.googlegroups.com>,
Erica Nurney <j_peasemold_...@hotmail.com> writes
>On 25 Feb, 16:18, Dave H <da...@springgrove.com> wrote:
>> I have a Ham Radio enthusiast living some 200 yards away with a big set
>> of aerianalia. When he turns this in my direction and talks to his
>> contact, my picture on Sky jumps all over the place to the extent it is
>> unwatchable. Just like having the vertical hold set wrong. The sound on
>> my amplifier also cuts out when he is talking. Sky box is connected to a
>> video recorder by scart and then to the TV, in the next room, by RF
>> output (they don't make scart leads long enough).
>>
>> (Turned on the electric keyboard the other day and there he was in
>> glorious SSB blasting out from the speakers)
>>
>> I am also getting some mild noise-type interference on other occasions
>> but cannot be sure it is the same source.
>>
>> Have been round to see him, nice chap, but he doesn't think he is doing
>> anything wrong and is not obliged to solve my problem. He has mentioned
>> some bit of equipment I could put in the 'line',even had a root around
>> his garage to see if he had one.
>>
>> Does anyone know the legal position on this type of interference?
>>
>> If I can't resolve it with him, to what body do I complain? Radio
>> Society of Great Britain? Ofcom?
>>
>> Any advice would be welcome on the above or how I can minimise the
>> interference with a gadget.
>>
>> David
>
>What he is doing is definitely wrong (ie illegal) if it can be proven
>that it is his equipment causing the interference.
It's not quite as simple as that. Although his equipment is 'causing'
the interference, it's extremely unlikely that it is technically at
fault. It's simply that the amateur is transmitting, and the affected
equipment is susceptible to picking up such transmissions.
>I work on building
>electrical control panels for machinery and we have go though all
>sorts of standards and regulations hoops and spend thousands of pounds
>to ensure our equipment does not ruin people's TV reception, amongst
>other things - it is part of the CE marking of electrical equipment.
>
The technical requirements are not the same. This sort of equipment is
not expected to transmit RF signals. If it does (and it often does),
such emissions must be suppressed to a specified level in order to
ensure that the possibility of interference is minimised.
>He has a right to use his amateur radio equipment, just as much as you
>have a right to have interference-free TV reception,
While he has a right to use his amateur radio equipment, he will be
expected to take reasonable steps to minimise the possibility of
interference in the immediate vicinity. It would be unwise for him to
ignore the problem.
> it is best to
>reach a compromise and possibly accept his offer of filters etc.
In most cases, it is essential to have an active and friendly mutual
co-operation between the amateur and the owner of the affected
equipment. Note that it might not simply be a question of 'fitting a
filter'. There may more to it than that.
> If
>he is buggering up your reception, it's a fair bet that your
>neighbours might be suffering as well
Maybe - maybe not. Is he causing interference in his own home? The
affected equipment is 200 yards from the amateur. That's quite a long
way for interference to occur.
> so he might be providing filters
>to a lot of people.
>
Although they have no obligation to do so, most radio amateurs are quite
happy to provide filters and other 'gadgets' if it solves the problem.
>The regulatory body used to be the Post Office, I guess OfCom might be
>the first place to try nowadays.
>
These days, Ofcom can provide only limited help. It would be better to
work with the radio amateur to achieve a mutually acceptable solution.
If necessary, he may be able to get advice and help from the RSGB and,
indeed, Ofcom.
--
Ian
Bill Wright
> interference with a gadget.
In theory, if he isn't radiating out of band it comes down to your equipment
lacking sufficient 'electromagnetic compatibility. In reality, if he is
running hundreds of watts into a high gain beam and pointing it at your
house there's no way your equipment can be expected to tolerate it. The
field strength will be absolutely enormous. You might be able to minimise
the problems, but I doubt if you'll eliminate them.
Depending on the topography, it can help if he tilts his beam upwards a bit.
If the matter can't be resolved by technical means you could ask him to
avoid pointing his aerial in your direction and to avoid transmitting at
times when you are likely to be watching TV. He could also reduce the power.
These are reasonable requests, and a refusal would be very un-neighbourly.
If he won't co-operate, you will have to complain immediately on every
occasion when the interference occurs. Either knock on his door or ring him
up. If you complain and the interference continues, ring or knock again,
repeatedly, until it stops.
These people should remember that in the real world their neighbours are
going to buy equipment which will not withstand the massive field strengths
they like to generate. To keep doing it when all possible supression
measures have failed is no better than having a smoky bonfire on washing
day, or a car with no silencer. It's beside the point that the problem is
technically the responsibility of the TV viewer. The hams should remember
that their hobby was founded by a fraternity that boasted of good manners
and consideration for others.
Bill
Graham.
We need to ascertain how the interference is getting in to your equipment
Your description seems to point to interference to video and audio
base-band.
You have no TV in the room with the satellite box? Only a VCR?
What happens if you make a recording from the satellite box when the
interference is present? When you replay the tape has the interference
also been recorded?
Also make a recording with all unnecessary leads disconnected, including
the RF cable to the TV, to eliminate these from acting as aerials.
You mention an audio amplifier but don't tell us how it is connected to
your system (If indeed it is).
One of the worst cases of RFI I dealt with was an electronic keyboard
(actually an electronic organ), but that was 30 years ago, I can only hope
the modern ones are more immune!
What bands is the amateur operating on?
--
Graham.
%Profound_observation%
David
if their not own fault.
I would write to their club body, RSGB.
Worst comes to the worst stick a pin through his coax.
Only joking, but I know of a TV debt collector who did that.
--
Regards,
David
FREESAT HD as it is now its a joke.
No BBC 1 or 2, no Ch4 or Five HD.
ITV1 a couple of programmes a week in HD
Please reply to News Group
Graham.
>
> What he is doing is definitely wrong (ie illegal) if it can be proven
> that it is his equipment causing the interference. I work on building
> electrical control panels for machinery and we have go though all
> sorts of standards and regulations hoops and spend thousands of pounds
> to ensure our equipment does not ruin people's TV reception, amongst
> other things - it is part of the CE marking of electrical equipment.
>
> He has a right to use his amateur radio equipment, just as much as you
> have a right to have interference-free TV reception, it is best to
> reach a compromise and possibly accept his offer of filters etc. If
> he is buggering up your reception, it's a fair bet that your
> neighbours might be suffering as well so he might be providing filters
> to a lot of people.
>
> The regulatory body used to be the Post Office, I guess OfCom might be
> the first place to try nowadays.
When I was active on the amateur bands, anyone complaining
about TVI got an invite to my shack where I would demonstrate
a perfect picture on all available TV channels (just three in the early
days!) on my set in the same room as my equipment.
Then we took it from there.
--
Graham.
%Profound_observation%
Graham.
"David" <david...@tesco.net> wrote in message
news:go446a$9e7$2...@news.motzarella.org...
>I always thought Radio Hams bent over backwards to solve these things even
>if their not own fault.
>
> I would write to their club body, RSGB.
>
> Worst comes to the worst stick a pin through his coax.
> Only joking, but I know of a TV debt collector who did that.
>
That was common practice in the 60s and 70s.
VHF downloads tended to have stranded inners so the pin easily found its
mark.
--
Graham.
%Profound_observation%
Ian Jackson
writes
--
Ian
JN
was blasting through my TV, wiped out whole bands of his reception. I
did talk to him but he was only interested in his own problem. The hobby
does seem to attract some of the strangest humans I've met (not me
obviously).
Peter Crosland
The legal position is that if his equipment is functioning correctly and
being operated within the terms of his licence then he is doing nothing
wrong. If the source of the interference is 200 yards away then the problem
is almost certainly in your equipment rather than his. Are you quite sure
that there is not another amateur, or much worse an illegal CB operator
using SSB nearby? There are various ways of removing the problem and it
really depends where, and how, the interference is getting into your various
pieces of equipment. With the audio kit the speaker leads are a favourite
for acting as an aerial. The RSGB have no jurisdiction at all, and in any
case he may not even be a member, but they may be able to put you in touch
with someone that can help. OFCOM are the regulatory body and if pressed
hard enough will come and investigate but they will charge you for the
visit. If at all possible try and work with the amateur concerned as he
should have the knowledge to assist.
Peter Crosland
Ian Jackson
<jim@home.?.invalid> writes
Indeed. I recall my wife (before she was my wife) saying that she
thought they were all definitely a bit queer (in the 'strange' sense of
the word).
--
Ian
Brian Gregory [UK]
news:go3shd$101$1...@news.albasani.net...
> Don't worry, it's very unlikely you'll be prosecuted for receiving
> transmitions you aren't licensed to
Last time I looked amateur radio was explicitly listed as just about the
only thing other than normal broadcast radio that you *are* allowed to
listen to without a license.
--
Brian Gregory. (In the UK)
n...@bgdsv.co.uk
To email me remove the letter vee.
James R
It would be in his own interest to solve the interference as OFCOM will be
on your side on this one. They will come out and investigate and pay him a
visit uninvited. They will monitor for a bit, then go and check his
equipment
AND licence to make sure he is using what he should in terms of power
and frequencies. Next they will ask him to demonstrate the equipment he is
required to have in order to check for interference. If he can't do that
he's
stuffed. OFCOM can shut him down and take his stuff. If it is found he is
operating where he shouldn't or with too much power for his licence, they
will
take the lot and prosecute him.
Complain to OFCOM next, tell him that as he doesn't think it is up to him to
sort, you will get it sorted.
Good luck!
James R
This is not a legal requirement in the UK. The equipment is not designed
to pick up mateur radio transmissions, so it isn't even a receiver meant for
that purpose! The interference is being caused by the radio amateur and
he must attempt to sort it out.
The original poster could always buy a number of Devolo Homeplug devices
which will ruin his HF reception instantly. I bet he would soon complain.
Ian Jackson
<James....@nospam.com> writes
--
Ian
DerekW
Goodness you must have very large rooms I've seen 10 and 15 metre scart on
ebay. In my CB days most interference was caused by poorly tuned aeriels
occasionally when the earth braid had been compromised- unlikely in the case
of a Ham ,also unscreened appliances or those using wrong frequencies. Its
been common practice for a number of years to sell imported short range
trancievers ( CCTV, TV and radio) which operate on restricted bands and are
illegal to use even maplin have stocked them , they are also subject to
interference with WiFI set ups
DerekW
Ian Jackson
<James....@nospam.com> writes
>
sorry to tell you that very little of what you're posting is actually
factual.
--
Ian
tony sayer
<da...@springgrove.com> scribeth thus
In general...
If he's keeping to the terms of his licence then the onus is on you to
make sure your equipment isn't affected by his transmissions.
Thats sometimes not the easiest thing to sort out;(..
The best route is co-operation and most amateurs are fine at that..
Generally the problem, is of severe overload in stages of the TV,
Satellite box, and other equipment that simply can't handle this level
of out of band power there're being subjected to.
What is generally done is a filter in line with the TV or set-top box
that keeps the interfering signal, or range of signals, out of them so
the overload/intermodulation problem doesn't happen.
Sometimes if the interfering field is -that- large then the TV might be
affected directly and thats a lot more difficult. In which case not a
lot can be done in practice. If you can give a bit more info then some
things might be suggested.
However the amateur licence does allow quite a lot of power to be
radiated and I think that in a built up area is rather socially
unacceptable to happen despite what the law might say and that was
drafted a long time ago when there was far less electronic equipment
around.
I suspect that if he's affecting you then there will be others that
haven't made the connection as yet and may be putting up with it not
knowing what it is!.
Equipment is now generally much better in this way now after years of
EMC (Electro Magnetic Compatibility) suppression and as an earlier
poster said he has to make his equipment not radiate he also in doing
that makes it much less susceptible to receiving any RF not intended for
it!.
A small demo of this can usually be noticed when a mobile phone thats in
use is held near most anything like computer speakers or a landline
phone a buzzing will sometimes be noticed.
It can be a real pain to sort out both technically and socially so if
you are on good relations then ask him what frequency bands he's
operating on, modes AM/FM SSB etc, and what sort of power he's running
and then a more detailed description of what your experiencing..
Ofcom are the legal body who deal with this and generally take a no
blame approach and will offer advice and try to mediate if they can but
unlike what another poster has suggested they will only take action if
he's radiating spurious harmonics, which is rather unlikely and hardly
ever the cause, gross overload is, or he's operating over his licensed
power buts thats a fair old bit anyway.
There is also the thorny issue that anything he does to any of your
equipment may well land him with a liability should that develop a fault
for which he will get the blame;!
So not the most straightforward problem to sort unfortunately;(....
--
Tony Sayer
Adrian C
> You seem to have a very jaundiced opinion about radio amateurs. I'm
> sorry to tell you that very little of what you're posting is actually
> factual.
There must be a bit of background about that. This seems to be the one
topic that the Tiscali Idiot has some consistancy about, and there is
some knowledge (though duff) about aerials and stuff. Perhaps he has had
a previous run in with the Radio Investigation Service in the past?
Say, illegal use of CB Radio, Pirate radio broadcasts or playing music
and repeated obscenities over a ham repeater on 2m?
I can imagine that before trolling out on Usenet and adventuring in some
pirate radio newsgroups, the other mentioned places were where "James R"
used to get some of his sick kicks. I somehow don't see him as the type
of fellow who has any social friends - and this nasty spiteful problem
of his must have been brewing for quite somewhile. :-(
--
Adrian C
Andy Wade
> The RSGB have no jurisdiction at all, and in any case he may not even
> be a member, but they may be able to put you in touch with someone
> that can help.
http://www.rsgb.org/emc/emchelp.php
--
Andy
Norman Wells
"Ian Jackson" <ianREMOVET...@g3ohx.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:wWj21YP1...@g3ohx.demon.co.uk...
> In message <-s-dnb1qH-HcNzjU...@posted.plusnet>, JN
> <jim@home.?.invalid> writes
>>The hobby
>>does seem to attract some of the strangest humans I've met (not me
>>obviously).
>
> Indeed. I recall my wife (before she was my wife) saying that she thought
> they were all definitely a bit queer (in the 'strange' sense of the word).
Why should it be any more queer than talking to complete strangers from all
over the world on newsgroups? I'd have thought they were two sides of the
same coin.
Except that reception of newsgroup messages is much more reliable.
Unless you happen to be a Demon subscriber of course :(
Brian Gaff
used to know someone who lived near on of the hf coastal transmitters for
marine use, and they had a lot of this kind of problem. Braid breakers and
all sorts of filters were tried, with only partial success. ssb is by its
nature analogue and thus can disrupt a lot easier than fm, for example, as
the later does not vary its output.
I used to have an issue with the local sea scouts onn the Thames as well,
but a new amplifier fixed it.
I think its offcom you need to talk to at the moment. I think they have the
power to restrict his power at least until they can find a solution.The
problem is that these days we make such vulnerable equipment
Brian
--
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email: bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
"Dave H" <da...@springgrove.com> wrote in message
news:sbepl.29338$ot7....@newsfe15.ams2...
Brian Gaff
listening to anything unless you were using the output in some dodgy way.
Nothing to do with this problem however.
Brian
--
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email: bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
"Brian Gregory [UK]" <n...@bgdsv.co.uk> wrote in message
news:IbidnRSqHLGhXDjU...@pipex.net...
Brian Gaff
else is discretionary really, though a joint approach to offcom might be a
good idea. Also you need to talk to other people in the immediate area to
see if its aa common problem. Often phones get the brunt of this kind of
problem. Also, with his co operation, get him to do test on various bands
and aerials also, to see if its one specific situation which is the problem.
It could well be that a very narrow filter is required somewhere.
Brian
--
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email: bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
"James R" <James....@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:go4gb3$26a$1...@news.albasani.net...
Ian Jackson
<no-...@myarl.co.uk> writes
problems of interference, static, TV timebase whistles, switchmode power
supply hash, unreliability of propagation, problems with TVI to
neighbours etc etc, I'm finding that I now need to get used to
unreliable usenet connections. You can't that say life is boring!
--
Ian
Dave Farrance
>In message <go4g60$1rb$1...@news.albasani.net>, James R
>>It would be in his own interest to solve the interference as OFCOM will be
>>on your side on this one. They will come out and investigate and pay him a
>>visit uninvited. They will monitor for a bit, then go and check his
>>equipment
>>AND licence to make sure he is using what he should in terms of power
>>and frequencies. Next they will ask him to demonstrate the equipment he is
>>required to have in order to check for interference. If he can't do that
>>he's
>>stuffed. OFCOM can shut him down and take his stuff. If it is found he is
>>operating where he shouldn't or with too much power for his licence, they
>>will
>>take the lot and prosecute him.
>>
>>Complain to OFCOM next, tell him that as he doesn't think it is up to him to
>>sort, you will get it sorted.
>>
>>Good luck!
>>
>Have you personal experience of these happenings?
The Tiscali Idiot is wrong to state that OFCOM would necessarily be on
the side of the OP in this one, because the Ham's response in giving
advice about line filtering suggests that he knows that his kit is legal
and that the fault is with the television.
That doesn't mean that *everything* that the TI says is wrong, and in the
past the licencing authorities would respond in much the way that he
describes (although seizures and prosecution would only occur if the guy
was bad enough to be getting into pirate radio territory) which is fair
enough because if the Ham's kit *is* illegal then it should be shut down.
But these days, OFCOM doesn't really have the manpower to take such a
hands-on approach in domestic disputes, and mostly encourages people to
resolve their own disputes.
Of the hams that I knew in my student days, 1980ish, most would work
entirely legally but I knew more than one that surreptitiously added a
high-power booster to their kit.
--
Dave Farrance
Rickey
"Dave H" <da...@springgrove.com> wrote in message
news:sbepl.29338$ot7....@newsfe15.ams2...
>I have a Ham Radio enthusiast living some 200 yards away with a big set of
>aerianalia. When he turns this in my direction and talks to his contact, my
>picture on Sky jumps all over the place to the extent it is unwatchable.
>Just like having the vertical hold set wrong. The sound on my amplifier
>also cuts out when he is talking. Sky box is connected to a video recorder
>by scart and then to the TV, in the next room, by RF output (they don't
>make scart leads long enough).
>
> (Turned on the electric keyboard the other day and there he was in
> glorious SSB blasting out from the speakers)
>
> I am also getting some mild noise-type interference on other occasions but
> cannot be sure it is the same source.
>
> Have been round to see him, nice chap, but he doesn't think he is doing
> some bit of equipment I could put in the 'line',even had a root around his
> garage to see if he had one.
>
> Does anyone know the legal position on this type of interference?
>
> If I can't resolve it with him, to what body do I complain? Radio Society
> of Great Britain? Ofcom?
>
> Any advice would be welcome on the above or how I can minimise the
> interference with a gadget.
>
>
> David
>
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/radiocomms/ifi/glines/interference/interference/
If your TV or radio is affected by interference, Ofcom may be able to help.
Read the info on the link above and then decide if you want to proceed.
Also do any of your neighbours have the same problem.
Rickey
Dave H
sarcastic. I am not out to do any harm to my neighbour. I just want to
watch the footy without the problems I mentioned. Indeed, I was an
enthusiastic SWL of amateur radio in my teens (a few years back, now!)
David
Dave H
David
Dave H
David
Peter Crosland
> equipment lacking sufficient 'electromagnetic compatibility. In reality,
> if he is running hundreds of watts into a high gain beam and pointing it
> at your house there's no way your equipment can be expected to tolerate
> it. The field strength will be absolutely enormous. You might be able to
> minimise the problems, but I doubt if you'll eliminate them.
If the amateur is 200 yards away then the field strength will be greatly
reduced, and it is very doubtful if the problem is with the radio amateur's
equipment. My experience some twenty years ago was that even running 400
watts on 432 MHz into a large antenna I got perfect TV reception from a TV
aerial 20 feet away. The reason was that the TV got a decent TV signal and I
fitted good quality filters in the downlead. Even with the beam pointed
directly at the TV aerial there was no problem. Demonstrating this to a non
technically minded neighbour readily convinced him that his interference
problem was not in my equipment. In fact subsequent investigation found his
problem was an wrong group, old, poor quality, aerial and decrepit downlead.
Once that was replaced the problem was solved.
Peter Crosland
Bill Wright
I expected my remarks to cause the a storm of invective from the amateur
radio people. I fully expected battered Volvo estates with improbable
aerials to line up opposite my house and bombard me with RF until my head
exploded and my testicles shrivelled up.
I must try harder to be provocative next time. If I worked for the Daily
Mail I would probably have been fired by now.
Bill
tony sayer
Crosland <g6...@yahoo.co.uk> scribeth thus
>> In theory, if he isn't radiating out of band it comes down to your
>> equipment lacking sufficient 'electromagnetic compatibility. In reality,
>> if he is running hundreds of watts into a high gain beam and pointing it
>> at your house there's no way your equipment can be expected to tolerate
>> it. The field strength will be absolutely enormous. You might be able to
>> minimise the problems, but I doubt if you'll eliminate them.
>
>
>If the amateur is 200 yards away then the field strength will be greatly
>reduced, and it is very doubtful if the problem is with the radio amateur's
>equipment. My experience some twenty years ago was that even running
>400
>watts on 432 MHz into a large antenna
Blimey!, ever calculate the ERP?....
--
Tony Sayer
Brian Gregory [UK]
Yes I have the same first name and initial of my last name as you.
You may company happens to be called something very similar to yours.
However it's a coincidance.
GET OVER IT.
Steve Terry
As you say his equipment isn't designed to receive radio signals,
so it must be at fault?
Or are you saying the radio amateur is transmitting some sort of audio
frequency induction transmission? As used by some cave explorers
Steve Terry
Steve Terry
"tony sayer" <to...@bancom.co.uk> wrote in message
news:JhuhmoBn...@bancom.co.uk...
>
>
If using that coax that was mentioned in another thread, about half a watt
;-)
Steve Terry
Steve Terry
> In message
> <f3583a31-7fb6-4964...@l22g2000vba.googlegroups.com>, Erica
> Nurney <j_peasemold_...@hotmail.com> writes
>>On 25 Feb, 16:18, Dave H <da...@springgrove.com> wrote:
<snip>
>>What he is doing is definitely wrong (ie illegal) if it can be proven
>>that it is his equipment causing the interference.
>
> It's not quite as simple as that. Although his equipment is 'causing' the
> interference,
<snip>
>
>
What are you on about? What causing?
The effect is RF breakthrough on audio equipment,
the cause is poorly designed audio equipment.
There seems to be a serious lack of understanding of cause and effect on
this NG?
Steve Terry
Steve Terry
news:go446a$9e7$2...@news.motzarella.org...
>I always thought Radio Hams bent over backwards to solve these things even
>if their not own fault.
>
>
You never get any thanks, only blame if the fuse or anything goes wrong
Steve Terry
Steve Terry
"JN" <jim@home> wrote in message
news:-s-dnb1qH-HcNzjU...@posted.plusnet...
> Graham. wrote:
>> "David" <david...@tesco.net> wrote in message
>> news:go446a$9e7$2...@news.motzarella.org...
>>> I always thought Radio Hams bent over backwards to solve these things
>>> even
>>> if their not own fault.
>>>
>>>
>>> Worst comes to the worst stick a pin through his coax.
>>> Only joking, but I know of a TV debt collector who did that.
>>
>> That was common practice in the 60s and 70s.
>> VHF downloads tended to have stranded inners so the pin easily found its
>> mark.
>
> Try and find an old Atari 520ST this certainly annoyed a local ham who
> was blasting through my TV, wiped out whole bands of his reception. I
> did talk to him but he was only interested in his own problem. The hobby
> does seem to attract some of the strangest humans I've met (not me
> obviously).
>
>
I bet you believe Ducks are made of wood?
Ducks float so does wood, therefore ducks are made of wood,
No? Then why do you believe RF interferes with Audio?
Steve Terry
Steve Terry
> It would be in his own interest to solve the interference as OFCOM will be
> on your side on this one.
>
>
It's possible Ofcom officals wouldn't understand cause and effect
as much as you?
But it's their job to do so
Steve Terry
Steve Terry
news:6qucq4pfvtp2kqlqe...@4ax.com...
> Ian Jackson <ianREMOVET...@g3ohx.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>In message <go4g60$1rb$1...@news.albasani.net>, James R
> Of the hams that I knew in my student days, 1980ish, most would work
> entirely legally but I knew more than one that surreptitiously added a
> high-power booster to their kit.
>
>
Would that be one of those high power boosters that transmits
Audio equipment absorbing waves?
I blame creationism for all this woolly thinking ;-)
Steve Terry
Graham.
His first and second sentences is an accurate statements of fact.
In his third sentence James is referring to the OPs equipment,
and I agree with him.
The amplifier and musical keyboard are clearly not radio receivers.
End of.
The satellite box, VCR and TV set clearly are radio receivers,
but one shouldn't pre-suppose that the unwanted signals are
being received via their tuners.
Fourth sentence seems to imply the amateur has an obligation under
the terms of his licence to intervene, this is incorrect.
It might well be the neighbourly thing to do though, but he should
be careful what he does in a strangers house because of his liability
should he damage something.
Last sentence is something frivolous about Homeplugs.
I have no opinion about this.
--
Graham.
%Profound_observation%
Graham.
"Steve Terry" <gFOU...@tesco.net> wrote in message
news:go76g7$vem$1...@news.albasani.net...
Ian is well aware of that, hence the inverted commas.
He's been licensed a lot longer than you, and me.
--
Graham.
G3ZVT
%Profound_observation%
Roderick Stewart
> Ducks float so does wood, therefore ducks are made of wood,
> No? Then why do you believe RF interferes with Audio?
RF can interfere with audio, video, servo controls, telemetry, or the
fillings in people's teeth.
Rod.
--
Virtual Access V6.3 free usenet/email software from
http://sourceforge.net/projects/virtual-access/
Ian Jackson
<gFOU...@tesco.net> writes
In the good olde days, there was at least one Post Office interference
inspector who seemed to be convinced that all interference was caused by
harmonics - even if the affected equipment was audio-only.
--
Ian
Graham.
>> Ducks float so does wood, therefore ducks are made of wood,
>> No? Then why do you believe RF interferes with Audio?
>
> RF can interfere with audio, video, servo controls, telemetry, or the
> fillings in people's teeth.
>
> Rod.
This is just an argument about semantics.
Sometimes it's useful look at it from the point of view of the
susceptibility
of the interfered apparatus, rather than the culpability of the radiating
apparatus,
but no doubt the man on the Clapham Omnibus would see it the way you do.
--
Graham.
%Profound_observation%
tony sayer
HISja...@g3ohx.demon.co.uk> scribeth thus
They, in general, weren't engineers .. but seem to be very good at
paperwork;)...
--
Tony Sayer
charles
most of the ones I met were engineers, but the new breed from the late
80s, fitted your description.
--
From KT24 - in "Leafy Surrey"
Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11
tony sayer
<cha...@charleshope.demon.co.uk> scribeth thus
--
Tony Sayer
Johnny B Good
from "Graham." <m...@privicy.com> contains these words:
Just my t'uppence worth, but I think it'll add a useful perspective to
the OP's problem.
Around 12 or 15 years back, when I was an active G0 working the ten
metre band and my in-laws were still alive, they had a TV set (a Sanyo,
iirc) which gave a rock solid picture, even when I was running 100 watt
PEP SSB through a retuned Avanti Sigma 4 (a famously excellent CB
antenna) mounted less than 6 foot away from the TV antenna. However, the
sound was badly affected, even when the Tx was throttled back to a mere
2 watts PEP and no amount of 'braid breaking' would fix this. I figured
the audio amp was using the foot or so of internal wiring to the
speaker(s) as a recieving antenna for the 30MHz signal.
In the meantime, a Philips brand of TV we used in the room next door to
my in-laws (also fed from the same antenna) had no such problem on the
sound, although the picture would suffer a small degree of 'herring
bone' interference at the 100W PEP transmit levels.
A homebrewed (and designed) 50W per channel amplifier was likewise
immune (probably the result of it being a bridged output design and the
speaker leads being a balanced circuit, rather than the more susceptable
unbalanced one typical of the more common single ended design).
In the OP's case, I can't believe he's experiencing anywhere near the
same levels of RF field strength that our domestic TV sets were being
subjected to and I have to conclude that the problem is down to the lack
of a few copper's worth of ceramic caps and ferrite beads in his
equipment. Sadly, an all too common situation with a lot of mass
produced kit these days.
In the case of TV reception, a simple 'braid breaker' will often
decouple the 'Long Wire' effect of the TV antenna feeder from the
chassis (the usual route for such MF breakthrough problems).
Such a simple braid breaker can be made from a 2 metre 'flylead' wound
onto a 2 or 3 inch diameter form made from plastic or cardboard.
Alternatively, a set of ferrite sleeves or small rings can be slipped
over the co-ax or an in-line filter can be made from a short length of
thin 75 ohm co-ax wound onto a larger ferrite ring (2 or 3 inches
outside diameter with 4 or 5 spaced turns occupying no more than 3
quarters of the ring's circumference) with a male and female belling lee
plug fitted to the cable ends.
This type of remedy is a non-invasive one that can be tried without
risk to warranty or equipment safety. Indeed, the amateur in question
may offer to supply a braid breaker filter FoC by way of good will (it's
a cheap way to maintain a 'Quiet Life' ;-)
If the OP uses his noggin, he can engage the amateur in an amicable two
way conversation that turns the 'complaint' into a form of flattery (as
in "Hey, that beam antenna of yours must be good, 'cos it's only when
you point it my way that my TV set succumbs to breakthrough; you don't
happen to know how to cure the problem by any chance?" sort of thing.
;-)
BTW, the problem might even be down to nearby metalwork with corroded
joints acting as a rectifier, distorting the resulting amateur band
transmission current flow that would otherwise be totally harmless and
produce harmonics extending into the UHF band, directly interfering with
the TV signal.
Often the nearby metalwork will be the support mast or lashing kit for
the TV antenna itself. In this case, no amount of "braid breaking" will
have any significant effect on the problem which needs to be directly
addressed (ie repair of the afflicted TV antenna installation - not an
entirely bad thing since such corroded joints are often the precursor to
catastrophic failure of the TV antenna installation come the next high
wind).
Most radio hams appreciate the need for co-operation with their
neighbours when such issues arise and will volunteer to help find a
solution when approached in a civil manner, Indeed the "Pirate CB
operator" is even more likely to offer such help since his position is
so much more precarious, legally speaking, than his radio ham
counterpart.
At the end of the day, you don't want to involve OFCon unless you
really have no further recourse.
HTH
--
Regards, John.
Please remove the "ohggcyht" before replying.
The address has been munged to reject Spam-bots.
Terry Casey
> I have a Ham Radio enthusiast living some 200 yards away with a big set
I doubt this won't be of any help to you but others may appreciate the
story ...
I first knew Tom 50 years ago. He had a G3K** call sign.
To put this into perspective, the only way to get a licence then was,
not only to pass the Radio Amateurs' Exam, but a stiff morse test as
well. Those three letters at the end of a call sign didn't progress very
rapidly in those days! As a guide, the Best Man at my wedding, 15 years
later, was G3RZP. (Anybody recognise this call?)
Anyway, back to Tom. Before I knew him, he'd done some long distance
lorry driving. No Motorways, very few dual carriageways and, in any
case, no commercial vehicle was allowed to travel faster than 40 mph!
(That included the car-based 5cwt van!)
Large antennae - particularly for the HF bands - were a dead give-away
if you were an amateur in those days - not much VHF around then!.
Often, his wife would answer a knock at the door during the course of
the evening and find a complete stranger on the step, who would regale
her thus:
"where's that bleedin' 'usband of yours? I know it's 'im - 'im and 'is
bloody 'am radio. Our telly's bloody awful tonight - we can't watch a
bleedin' thing! I wannit off, and I wannit off right now!!"
Tom's wife would then patiently explain that he was in Birmingham or
Bristol or somewhere equally distant and wouldn't be back to the
following day...
Norman Wells
> Often, his wife would answer a knock at the door during the course of
> the evening and find a complete stranger on the step, who would regale
> her thus:
>
> "where's that bleedin' 'usband of yours? I know it's 'im - 'im and 'is
> bloody 'am radio. Our telly's bloody awful tonight - we can't watch a
> bleedin' thing! I wannit off, and I wannit off right now!!"
>
> Tom's wife would then patiently explain that he was in Birmingham or
> Bristol or somewhere equally distant and wouldn't be back to the
> following day...
Very wise in the circumstances, whether he was in or not.
Ian Jackson
<no-...@myarl.co.uk> writes
blamed on some hapless local radio amateur. The problem is, once you
have 'caused' interference, from then on, all interference tends to get
blamed on you. This can happen even when the efforts of the amateur to
'cure' the interference have resulted in the 'sufferer' ending up with a
far better TV picture than he had previously, and the amateur is many
miles from home. Some people are so ungrateful.
--
Ian
Bill Wright
He's more sprightly.
Bill
Bill Wright
"Terry Casey" <k.t...@example.invalid> wrote in message
news:sfVpl.2325$%73....@newsfe26.ams2...
> Dave H wrote:
> "where's that bleedin' 'usband of yours? I know it's 'im - 'im and 'is
> bloody 'am radio. Our telly's bloody awful tonight - we can't watch a
> bleedin' thing! I wannit off, and I wannit off right now!!"
>
> Tom's wife would then patiently explain that he was in Birmingham or
> Bristol or somewhere equally distant and wouldn't be back to the following
> day...
When a radio amateur moves house or intends to start a station, he should
install a big aerial at least six months before he buys and radio equipment.
Then, when the complaints come in, he can show the complainer the end of the
cable, with no equipment attached.
Bill
Terry Casey
> I have a Ham Radio enthusiast living some 200 yards away with a big set
> contact, my picture on Sky jumps all over the place to the extent it is
> unwatchable. Just like having the vertical hold set wrong. The sound on
> (Turned on the electric keyboard the other day and there he was in
> glorious SSB blasting out from the speakers)
>
More years ago than I care to remember, I heard a story about a church
in Worcestershire which had a public address system installed (quite
rare, in those days.)
The first Sunday it was used, the vicar got up in the pulpit and proudly
flicked the microphone switch to 'on'.
From the speakers came: "It's 12 o'clock at home and away and time for
Two-Way Family Favourites ...!"
(Something to do with there being a 400kW transmitter nearby, I
understand ...)
Terry
Steve Terry
"Roderick Stewart" <rj...@escapetime.removethisbit.myzen.co.uk> wrote in
message news:VA.000006d...@escapetime.removethisbit.myzen.co.uk...
> In article <go77a5$mm$1...@news.albasani.net>, Steve Terry wrote:
>> Ducks float so does wood, therefore ducks are made of wood,
>> No? Then why do you believe RF interferes with Audio?
>
> RF can interfere with audio, video, servo controls, telemetry, or the
> fillings in people's teeth.
> Rod.
>
>
in people's teeth. can receive RF when they are not designed to
I'm shocked at the lack of understanding of cause and effect
on a technical NG
Steve Terry
Graham.
"Bill Wright" <insertmybu...@f2s.com> wrote in message
news:obqdndGx5r-ssTXU...@pipex.net...
Very true, I got more than one knock on my door before I was
licensed when all I had connected to my aerial was an R107
WWII ships receiver.
Mind you, the home-built valve super-regenerative sets I built
while I was still at school *did* have the potential to cause
interference.
--
Graham.
%Profound_observation%
Ian Jackson
writes
useful bit of advice often given to radio amateurs. There are two
advantages:
1. As already stated, if any interference problems arise, it should be
possible to convince the neighbours that amateur transmissions are not
responsible.
2. The neighbours don't immediately associate the onset of any
interference problems with the erection of the aerials, and then
complain to the local council that they are an eyesore. [They might be,
of course, but interference - or the threat of it - cannot legally be
used to challenge the granting of planning permission.]
[BTW, I'm sure that the R107 was an army receiver. I have one right
here, 3 feet away from me. I've had it since 1958.]
--
Ian
Steve Terry
>
>
He obviously had too much faith in the hymn sheet he'd learnt off by heart
Unless they were very low frequency sub harmonics? ;-)
Steve Terry
Graham.
I'm sure you are right, I got mine about 11 years later, it cost
£15 from G3MAXs place in Manchester; I really wanted
an AR88D but they were too expensive.
--
Graham.
%Profound_observation%
Bill Wright
>
> "Roderick Stewart" <rj...@escapetime.removethisbit.myzen.co.uk> wrote in
> message news:VA.000006d...@escapetime.removethisbit.myzen.co.uk...
>> In article <go77a5$mm$1...@news.albasani.net>, Steve Terry wrote:
>>> Ducks float so does wood, therefore ducks are made of wood,
>>> No? Then why do you believe RF interferes with Audio?
>>
>> RF can interfere with audio, video, servo controls, telemetry, or the
>> fillings in people's teeth.
>> Rod.
>>
>>
> Nope, audio, video, servo controls, telemetry, or the fillings
> in people's teeth. can receive RF when they are not designed to
RF can warm the cockles of your heart.
Bill
Johnny B Good
from "Bill Wright" <insertmybu...@f2s.com> contains these words:
====snip====
> RF can warm the cockles of your heart.
It can certainly warm the cockles, just put some in a microwave oven
and you'll soon see the truth of that statement. ;-)
tony sayer
>immune (probably the result of it being a bridged output design and the
>speaker leads being a balanced circuit, rather than the more susceptable
>unbalanced one typical of the more common single ended design).
FWIW ... most all interference is caused by unwanted demodulation
normally done in a semi conductor junction and usually the base emitter
one of yer average transistor. By pass that with a few pf of capacity
will see off most all RFI problems..a series RF choke sometimes does the
same thing..
Problem is that you have to identify which one and then get inside the
offending item.. Not straightforward..
> In the case of TV reception, a simple 'braid breaker' will often
>decouple the 'Long Wire' effect of the TV antenna feeder from the
>chassis (the usual route for such MF breakthrough problems).
>
> Such a simple braid breaker can be made from a 2 metre 'flylead' wound
>onto a 2 or 3 inch diameter form made from plastic or cardboard.
>Alternatively, a set of ferrite sleeves or small rings can be slipped
>over the co-ax or an in-line filter can be made from a short length of
>thin 75 ohm co-ax wound onto a larger ferrite ring (2 or 3 inches
>outside diameter with 4 or 5 spaced turns occupying no more than 3
>quarters of the ring's circumference) with a male and female belling lee
>plug fitted to the cable ends.
>
> This type of remedy is a non-invasive one that can be tried without
>risk to warranty or equipment safety. Indeed, the amateur in question
>may offer to supply a braid breaker filter FoC by way of good will (it's
>a cheap way to maintain a 'Quiet Life' ;-)
A braid breaker is a simple form of high pass filter .. fine if he's
operating on the HF channels but not quite so useful on 144 MHz (2
meters or 70 cms around 430 odd)..
However a TETRA filter might be worth a go for those..
>
> If the OP uses his noggin, he can engage the amateur in an amicable two
>way conversation that turns the 'complaint' into a form of flattery (as
>in "Hey, that beam antenna of yours must be good, 'cos it's only when
>you point it my way that my TV set succumbs to breakthrough; you don't
>happen to know how to cure the problem by any chance?" sort of thing.
>;-)
>
He might even join the fraternity .. people collect train numbers don't
they;)...
> BTW, the problem might even be down to nearby metalwork with corroded
>joints acting as a rectifier, distorting the resulting amateur band
>transmission current flow that would otherwise be totally harmless and
>produce harmonics extending into the UHF band, directly interfering with
>the TV signal.
>
Another form of semi conductor ;)
More found on radio comms sites...
> At the end of the day, you don't want to involve OFCon unless you
>really have no further recourse.
If they've got anyone left in the enforcement side;!..
>
>HTH
>
--
Tony Sayer
Woody
>> BTW, the problem might even be down to nearby metalwork with corroded
>>joints acting as a rectifier, distorting the resulting amateur band
>>transmission current flow that would otherwise be totally harmless and
>>produce harmonics extending into the UHF band, directly interfering
>>with
>>the TV signal.
>>
>
> Another form of semi conductor ;)
>
> More found on radio comms sites...
>
I've long thought this to be an urban myth. I'm in my 40th year in the
mobile radio business and 31st as a field tech for a large part of which
I covered the whole of the north of England and north Wales and I have
never come across this problem.
Now a woman near Scarborough that could hear the local council depot
(which did not have a Tx on site) on her radio, cassette recorder,
microwave, toaster...........
--
Woody
harrogate three at ntlworld dot com
Graham.
"Woody" <harro...@ntlworld.spam.com> wrote in message
news:Xzhql.20902$OT2....@newsfe29.ams2...
Well the manufactures of NLJDs for the counter-surveillance industry
don't think it's a myth.
Is the Scarborough woman on-going? Don't discount the possibility
that she "hears voices".
--
Graham.
%Profound_observation%
Bill
writes
>
>Is the Scarborough woman on-going? Don't discount the possibility
>that she "hears voices".
>
The voices may not be real, BUT, they do talk a lot of sense.
--
Bill
Bill Wright
"Graham." <m...@privicy.com> wrote in message
news:gocjac$ots$1...@news.motzarella.org...
>
>
> "Woody" <harro...@ntlworld.spam.com> wrote in message
> news:Xzhql.20902$OT2....@newsfe29.ams2...
>> [snip]
>>>> BTW, the problem might even be down to nearby metalwork with corroded
>>>>joints acting as a rectifier, distorting the resulting amateur band
>>>>transmission current flow that would otherwise be totally harmless and
>>>>produce harmonics extending into the UHF band, directly interfering with
>>>>the TV signal.
>>
>> mobile radio business and 31st as a field tech for a large part of which
>> I covered the whole of the north of England and north Wales and I have
>> never come across this problem.
trade would have told me were impossible!
>>
>> Now a woman near Scarborough that could hear the local council depot
>> (which did not have a Tx on site) on her radio, cassette recorder,
>> microwave, toaster...........
Ah yes, sometimes we enter the realms of clinical psychiatry. A recent job
for the council involved a lady whose complaint was that the neighbours were
spying on her via a camera mounted in the 'o' of Panasonic. As a temporary
repair I put some black tape over the 'o'. I say 'temporary' because I know
that these obsessive delusions simply find another home when the present one
is removed. It normally only takes a week or so. Then there was the lady
who was troubled by a 'sprite' that lived in the TV distribution system
cabinet on the landing. I screwed the lid tightly shut, but I could see in
her eyes that the sprite wouldn't be defeated. Nothing to do with work, but
I have a friend who has been convinced that every Post Office van is spying
on her (there are so many of them . . ), that the person who parks a white
van outside the chip shop every dinner time, goes in, buys chips, comes out,
drives away, is spying on her, that the weather monitor on the windowsill of
the flat across the road is spying on her, that the council (agents various)
is spying on her, and that her ex-boyfriend is . . . spying on her? No, of
course not! Why should he? What he's doing is slowly poisoning her because
he has contacts in all the local food shops, and they put poison in her food
to his instructions.
None of this is funny for the people concerned, although we can tell the
tale in an amusing way. Mental health is the orphan child of the NHS;
starved of funds and chronically under-resourced. Why? Because it isn't
glamorous, and because real cures are hard to come by. When did you last
hear of a million dollar research project into any aspect of mental illness?
But the suffering caused by mental problems equals or even exceeds that
caused by physical illnesses. It is little exaggeration to say that the
whole existence of severe schizophrenics is a torment, from onset to death.
Sorry, I seem to have accidentally got onto one of my high horses.
Apologies.
Bill
Grimly Curmudgeon
drugs began to take hold. I remember "Graham." <m...@privicy.com> saying
something like:
>When I was active on the amateur bands, anyone complaining
>about TVI got an invite to my shack where I would demonstrate
>a perfect picture on all available TV channels (just three in the early
>days!) on my set in the same room as my equipment.
>Then we took it from there.
<waves bottle>
"'Ello darlin', would you like to come up and look at my equipment?"
tony sayer
<harro...@ntlworld.spam.com> scribeth thus
>[snip]
>>> BTW, the problem might even be down to nearby metalwork with corroded
>>>joints acting as a rectifier, distorting the resulting amateur band
>>>transmission current flow that would otherwise be totally harmless and
>>>produce harmonics extending into the UHF band, directly interfering
>>>with
>>>the TV signal.
>>>
>>
>> Another form of semi conductor ;)
>>
>> More found on radio comms sites...
>>
>
>
>I've long thought this to be an urban myth. I'm in my 40th year in the
>mobile radio business and 31st as a field tech for a large part of which
>I covered the whole of the north of England and north Wales and I have
>never come across this problem.
>
It does happen .. especially on crowded shared sites with no bandpass
filtering or circulators etc..
Mind you the number of PMR shared sites is now in decline so perhaps not
as noticeable as it once was and sometimes it goes unnoticed and people
just put it down to interference..
>Now a woman near Scarborough that could hear the local council depot
>(which did not have a Tx on site) on her radio, cassette recorder,
>microwave, toaster...........
>
>
>
Perhaps she was in need of some "attention"......
--
Tony Sayer
Grimly Curmudgeon
saying something like:
>Why should it be any more queer than talking to complete strangers from all
>over the world on newsgroups? I'd have thought they were two sides of the
>same coin.
>
>Except that reception of newsgroup messages is much more reliable.
And you don't get bloody contesters sparking up on top of you.
Mota
You're 5&9 5&9. Your number is 545. Bye. QRZ?
Mota
wrote:
>I have a Ham Radio enthusiast living some 200 yards away with a big set
>of aerianalia. When he turns this in my direction and talks to his
>contact, my picture on Sky jumps all over the place to the extent it is
>unwatchable. Just like having the vertical hold set wrong. The sound on
>my amplifier also cuts out when he is talking. Sky box is connected to a
>video recorder by scart and then to the TV, in the next room, by RF
>output (they don't make scart leads long enough).
>
>(Turned on the electric keyboard the other day and there he was in
>glorious SSB blasting out from the speakers)
>
>I am also getting some mild noise-type interference on other occasions
>but cannot be sure it is the same source.
>
>Have been round to see him, nice chap, but he doesn't think he is doing
>anything wrong and is not obliged to solve my problem. He has mentioned
>some bit of equipment I could put in the 'line',even had a root around
>his garage to see if he had one.
>
>Does anyone know the legal position on this type of interference?
>
>If I can't resolve it with him, to what body do I complain? Radio
>Society of Great Britain? Ofcom?
>
>Any advice would be welcome on the above or how I can minimise the
>interference with a gadget.
>
>
>David
Cross posted to uk.radio.amateur.
Jeff
"Mota" <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:279lq4p8g1qta91he...@4ax.com...
I am afraid he is almost certainly correct, it is your equipment that is at
fault. You could complain to Ofcom BUT it will cost you quite a lot if the
problem is found to be with your equipment. Have a look on the Ofcom website
for info.
Regards
Jeff
Graham.
"tony sayer" <to...@bancom.co.uk> wrote in message
news:e2cUDYGi...@bancom.co.uk...
I can't think of any PMR system that would be resolved as intelligible
speech by simple demodulation.
If it's not a broadcasting station, that only leaves amateurs, pirates or
low flying aircraft.
--
Graham.
%Profound_observation%
Graham.
> Cross posted to uk.radio.amateur.
Thanks a bundle.
Frankly I would rather have more Air-Max Shoes spam!
--
Graham.
%Profound_observation%
Len GM0ONX
The truth is harsh but Jeff is right. Its almost certain that your
equipment is at fault. OFCOM can help with the TV by fitting high pass
filters but you may be on your own with the electric keyboard as it
should designed not to pick up radio signals.
Have you tried chatting to the radio amateur involved in a non
confrontational way. Going in with all guns blazing is liable to result
in being told its your problem mate(or harsher words to the same effect).
Len GM0ONX
Mota
>
>> Cross posted to uk.radio.amateur.
>
>Thanks a bundle.
>Frankly I would rather have more Air-Max Shoes spam!
Air-max spam, sausage, egg and spam?
How do you feel about uk.legal?
Bill Wright
"Len GM0ONX" <gm0...@goooooglemail.com> wrote in message
news:goeji4$m2n$1...@news.motzarella.org...
> Jeff wrote:
> The truth is harsh but Jeff is right. Its almost certain that your
> equipment is at fault. OFCOM can help with the TV by fitting high pass
> filters but you may be on your own with the electric keyboard as it should
> designed not to pick up radio signals.
Hams will always take this view. I dare they are 90% right. But in my
experience anyone living in the sort of field strength generated by 100s of
Watts multipled by the gain of a long beam is inevitably going to have
problems. Every piece of electonic equipment they buy might suffer
interference, and how can Joe Bloggs be expected to fit caps across all the
transistor junctions in his new bit of kit?
I think it's time that the law was changed. When the present regulations
were made home electronics amounted to much less than they do now. It is
just plain antisocial to generate that sort of field strength if you live on
in high density housing area. Anyone wanting to pursue their hobby with that
sort of power should move house, to somewhere where there are no neighbours.
The law should be altered so that no amateur can put more than a certain
field strength into any residential property except his own.
Bill
Johnny B Good
from "Bill Wright" <insertmybu...@f2s.com> contains these words:
I'll leave it to others to point out why just about everything you've
just said here is so wrong. ;-)
Spike
Bill Wright wrote:
>When the present regulations
>were made home electronics amounted to much less than they do now. It is
>just plain antisocial to generate that sort of field strength if you live on
>in high density housing area. Anyone wanting to pursue their hobby with that
>sort of power should move house, to somewhere where there are no neighbours.
>The law should be altered so that no amateur can put more than a certain
>field strength into any residential property except his own.
The OP might like to ask the Amateur concerned if he has performed the
field-strength calculations to determine whether he is exceeding the
limits put forward in the appropriate guidelines, and could he have a
copy to show to OFCOM.
There was a discussion of this on ukra a couple or so years ago.
Some RSGB info here:
http://www.rsgb.org/emc/pdfs/leaflets/emc11ofcom.pdf
and here:
http://www.rsgb.org/emc/pdfs/leaflets/emc10avoid.pdf
There's a fairly simple calculation on page 3 of this url, and on page
4 there's some figures for the immunity standards, which might be of
interest to the OP:
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/3639693/Dealing-with-alarm-EMC-problems-Advice-for-RSGB-members-Leaflet
HTH
--
from
Aero Spike
Not a member of the RSGB for 50 years 1959 - 2009
Ian Jackson
<insertmybu...@f2s.com> writes
>
>"Len GM0ONX" <gm0...@goooooglemail.com> wrote in message
>news:goeji4$m2n$1...@news.motzarella.org...
>> Jeff wrote:
>> The truth is harsh but Jeff is right. Its almost certain that your
>> equipment is at fault. OFCOM can help with the TV by fitting high pass
>> filters but you may be on your own with the electric keyboard as it should
>> designed not to pick up radio signals.
>
>Hams will always take this view. I dare they are 90% right. But in my
>experience anyone living in the sort of field strength generated by 100s of
>Watts multipled by the gain of a long beam is inevitably going to have
>problems.
From my own experiences (quite a long time ago), most equipment which
suffered from breakthrough problems had been designed without any
anticipation of the possibility of it having to work in the presence of
any RF field.
>Every piece of electonic equipment they buy might suffer
>interference, and how can Joe Bloggs be expected to fit caps across all the
>transistor junctions in his new bit of kit?
>
Joe Bloggs himself should not be expected to fit caps etc. Protection
against interference from reasonable RF fields should have been designed
into the equipment.
>I think it's time that the law was changed. When the present regulations
>were made home electronics amounted to much less than they do now.
Think of it another way. Because we have so much more electronic
equipment in the home, should it not be designed with higher immunity to
RF signals, bearing in mind that we also have a lot more 'RF stuff' than
we used to?
> It is
>just plain antisocial to generate that sort of field strength if you live on
>in high density housing area. Anyone wanting to pursue their hobby with that
>sort of power should move house, to somewhere where there are no neighbours.
>The law should be altered so that no amateur can put more than a certain
>field strength into any residential property except his own.
>
Many years ago, I believe that this was indeed considered. If I remember
correctly, the proposed field strength level was ridiculously low, and
well below that in which most reasonably well-designed domestic
equipment seemed to happy to operate.
While there is no hard-and-fast rule as to how much RF you can inflict
upon your neighbours, in cases where all reasonable precautions have
been taken (both by the amateur and the complainant), and the amateur is
running really high (but legal) power, the licensing authorities have
been known to step in and 'persuade' the amateur to use less power and
impose other restrictions. However, I believe that this has only
happened on one or two occasions.
One thing which must be pointed out again and again. No radio amateur
'wants' to cause interference to a neighbour's equipment, and most will
bend over backwards to prevent this from happening, if only they are
given the chance to do so. Unfortunately, this becomes difficult when
the attitude of the neighbour is immediately "It's all your fault, and I
want you to stop it". Advice (as was given by one poster) to the effect
that Ofcom will step in, close the amateur down, confiscate his
equipment etc isn't true, and certainly doesn't help resolve the matter.
In the end, these problems can only be resolved by mutual co-operation -
and probably a certain amount of give-and-take - by both sides.
--
Ian
Jeff
> experience anyone living in the sort of field strength generated by 100s
> of Watts multipled by the gain of a long beam is inevitably going to have
> problems. Every piece of electonic equipment they buy might suffer
> interference, and how can Joe Bloggs be expected to fit caps across all
> the transistor junctions in his new bit of kit?
>
> I think it's time that the law was changed. When the present regulations
> were made home electronics amounted to much less than they do now. It is
> just plain antisocial to generate that sort of field strength if you live
> on in high density housing area. Anyone wanting to pursue their hobby with
> that sort of power should move house, to somewhere where there are no
> neighbours. The law should be altered so that no amateur can put more than
> a certain field strength into any residential property except his own.
>
I agree that it was time that the law was changed, but it should be the
regulations regarding the susceptibility of electronic equipment that need
improving, or in many cases just enforcing. I know that there is a lot of
equipment on the market that is CE marked that comes nowhere near the
required standard. It is cheaper for manufacturers to address problem as
they surface, rather than spend a little more money and have the required
immunity. It is not just radio amateurs out there, you have a myriad of
radio users from the Police to taxis and mobile phones, all of these have to
co-exist in our towns and cities.
Regarding the case in point, the distance quoted way 200 Yards! Hardly a
near neighbour, or high density housing!.
Spike
Spike wrote:
>There's a fairly simple calculation on page 3 of this url, and on page
>4 there's some figures for the immunity standards, which might be of
>interest to the OP:
>
>http://www.docstoc.com/docs/3639693/Dealing-with-alarm-EMC-problems-Advice-for-RSGB-members-Leaflet
Bad form, etc
A quick calculation shows that 4kW into a 6dB beam on say 20m will
give field strengths > 10V/m at that distance, and rather less than a
kW for a 15 dB gain yagi on 2m. These set-ups are feasible with
commonly-available Amateur equipment.
Bill Wright
> Joe Bloggs himself should not be expected to fit caps etc. Protection
> against interference from reasonable RF fields should have been designed
> into the equipment.
Should have, yes.But we live in the real world.
>
>>I think it's time that the law was changed. When the present regulations
>>were made home electronics amounted to much less than they do now.
>
> Think of it another way. Because we have so much more electronic equipment
> in the home, should it not be designed with higher immunity to RF signals,
> bearing in mind that we also have a lot more 'RF stuff' than we used to?
Of course it should. But it isn't.
Bill
ukmo...@hotmail.com
wrote:
> "Ian Jackson" <ianREMOVETHISjack...@g3ohx.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
I think that the health hazards associated with high power amateur
radio operation in built up urban areas also nees to be taken into
account.
The FCC has introduced and assessment programme (FCC form 610)
http://www.cfht.hawaii.edu/~veillet/rfsaf610.html which requires
compliance with various power limits and field strengths.
It would be useful if this also aligned with EMI susceptability limits
(but I bet it doesn't).
Which is the worst case senario for UK amateurs, having a complaint
from you neighbour that their TV is playing up, or a legal case based
on aligations of exposure to high intensity RF fields from amateur
radio causing cancer or some other equally emotive illness.
The mobile phone operators are increasingly haing to deal with this
sort of thing, sometimes because there is a genuine belief that there
is a link between rf 'radiation' and an illness, or sometimes simply
because folks can't object to having a cell phone tower placed at the
bottom of their garden, so stir up opposition by raising health
issues.
How long before neighbours of amateur radio operators with large
antenna arrays (or those experiencing EMI problems) start to use this
tactic.
UKM
charles
<60b48a14-5708-4d21...@a12g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
> I think that the health hazards associated with high power amateur
> radio operation in built up urban areas also nees to be taken into
> account.
> The FCC has introduced and assessment programme (FCC form 610)
> http://www.cfht.hawaii.edu/~veillet/rfsaf610.html which requires
> compliance with various power limits and field strengths.
The UK has had radiation limits for many years; now, I believe,
incorporated into EU requirements.
--
From KT24 - in "Leafy Surrey"
Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11
tony sayer
scribeth thus
Depends on how long go AM systems were quite fashionable sometime
ago;)..
Hover as this might have been -imaginary demodulation- ;)...
>If it's not a broadcasting station, that only leaves amateurs, pirates
>or
>low flying aircraft.
>
--
Tony Sayer
tony sayer
<jcs.comp...@plugzetnet.co.uk> scribeth thus
Don't think its -wrong- as such, times have changed and Its not that
socially acceptable these days to be radiating what can be Kilowatts in
a built up area and seeing that some housing estates are like rabbit
warrens ...
Ofcom might well have something to say if you proposed to site a
Broadcast TX in the same location for instance;!...
--
Tony Sayer
Bill Wright
<ukmo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:60b48a14-5708-4d21...@a12g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>How long before neighbours of amateur radio operators with large
antenna arrays (or those experiencing EMI problems) start to use this
tactic.
"Every night at bedtime my wife has a headache. It's that damned radio ham
next door!"
Bill
Bill Wright
> socially acceptable these days to be radiating what can be Kilowatts in
> a built up area and seeing that some housing estates are like rabbit
> warrens ...
Certainly as regards the fecundity of the inhabitants.
Bill
charles
tony sayer <to...@bancom.co.uk> wrote:
> Ofcom might well have something to say if you proposed to site a
> Broadcast TX in the same location for instance;!...
consider Luton mf (visible from the M1) - built in fields, now with houses
all around.
Jeff
> incorporated into EU requirements.
>
They never have been enshrined in legislation, merely recommendations:
From the HPA (ex-NRPB) website:
"There is no UK legislation specifically requiring compliance with any EMF
protection guidelines."
73
Jeff
DieSea
"Bill Wright" <insertmybu...@f2s.com> wrote in message
news:F8idnbv1Y4JldTbU...@pipex.net...
You're lucky
Matron is / has a permanent headache
I was thinking for her beanyfit to relieve her of it
But if the truth was told that wouldn't beanyfit any one
All I HAVE to do is turn my Hearing aid off
All I NEED to do is go out and buy a hearing aid
;-))
DieSea
Norman Wells
> In article <lgr625A+...@bancom.co.uk>,
> tony sayer <to...@bancom.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>> Ofcom might well have something to say if you proposed to site a
>> Broadcast TX in the same location for instance;!...
>
> consider Luton mf (visible from the M1) - built in fields, now with
> houses all around.
Yes...
"'Wiv a ladder and some glasses,
You could see to 'Ackney Marshes,
If it wasn't for the 'ouses in between."
Spike
ukmo...@hotmail.com wrote:
>How long before neighbours of amateur radio operators with large
>antenna arrays (or those experiencing EMI problems) start to use this
>tactic.
...or even merely live next door?
This scenario was raised on ukra some years ago.
Bill Wright
"Norman Wells" <no-...@myarl.co.uk> wrote in message
news:nnTql.25161$FN7....@newsfe04.ams2...
> charles wrote:
>
> "'Wiv a ladder and some glasses,
> You could see to 'Ackney Marshes,
> If it wasn't for the 'ouses in between."
>
> "'Wiv a ladder and some glarsers,
> You could see to 'Ackney Marshes,
> If it wasn't for the 'ouses in between."
A Yorksher version might be
"'Wiv a ladder and some glasses,
You could see the M1 crashes
If it wasn't for the 'ouses in between."
On Listen with Mother they used to chant, archly,
"Ride a cock horse
To Banbury Cross"
Which rhymed perfectly, but round these parts the children would sing
"Ride a cock 'oss
To Banbury Cross"
which also rhymed perfectly. But it was a completely different rhyme!
Anyone still with me?
Bill
Norman Wells
Sort of, but only by our fingertips.