Re: [WISPA] IBM backs BPL
I was hoping someone more educated on these matters would speak up. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: "Jonathan Schmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2008 12:04 AM To: "'WISPA General List'" Subject: Re: [WISPA] IBM backs BPL > "You are correct, electric companies saw huge benefits for internal use > but the real reason it did not move forward was because electric companies > are conservative by nature and they didnt like the heat coming from the > ARRL over interference issues, which btw were not real." > > The interference is real. The ARRL is real and very conservative. And, > any conductor carrying RF that isn't a proper, geometrically arranged > transmission line, properly terminated in the proper impedance, will > radiate and radiate most of its RF energy. Where do you think that goes? > And, where do stubs dissipate their RF?...into the 4th dimension? > > Were it not for careful oversight of the spectrum, we would be back in the > stone ages with AM and FM and TV because of interference. Police and fire > radios would be hit and miss. Our licensed and unlicensed spectrum would > be a mess. > > Blasting the HF spectrum into random lengths of conductors and stubs at > watts of power has proved to be nasty. It isn't just the ARRL...the > courts have decided that. > > It isn't just RF on the power lines, either. You can hear DSL > interference in neighborhoods with overhead telephone wiring on poles when > you try to listen to local AM stations at night when they are forced to > drop their power. The political influence of the Telcos to force through > their agenda may be followed by that of the electric companies but it > won't be to our advantage. > > They have the right of way, the poles, and the money. Stringing a fiber > along the poles along with the wiring would seem to be a far better and > long term strategy than to pretend that wires are wires and that 60Hz is > the same as 600,000Hz and the ground return and distribution are > compatible architectures. > > The entire concept is pseudo-science, appealing to those who are easily > fooled into thinking wishes become true because it sorta makes sense. > > Jonathan Schmidt > > > > > > > > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > http://signup.wispa.org/ > > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] IBM backs BPL
How about BPL to transport data to the ap's? marlon - Original Message - From: "Brian Rohrbacher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Friday, November 14, 2008 7:09 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] IBM backs BPL >I have a motel I am trying to cover with internet. It's a L shaped > building 20-30 rooms. What type of bpl solutions would work for this? > Or maybe wireless is the way to go. > > Brian > > > > > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > http://signup.wispa.org/ > > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] IBM backs BPL
Anyone know if that Teletronics system is still out there? The one that used the existing catv cable and put a small wall plate antenna in each room? Pretty slick... marlon - Original Message - From: "3-dB Networks" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'WISPA General List'" Sent: Friday, November 14, 2008 8:31 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] IBM backs BPL > Brian, > > I'd rather go with this from Motorola: > http://www.motorola.com/Business/US-EN/Business+Product+and+Services/Private > +Broadband+Networks > > Basically it's a DSL type system... reuse the CAT3 wiring in the building > to > deliver 70Mbps full duplex to each room (instead of a shared system) plus > its cheaper than the BPL equipment (and you don't have to hire an > electrician to install it). > > If your interested hit my offlist... I have some powerpoint presentations > on > it. > > Daniel White > 3-dB Networks > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Brian Rohrbacher > Sent: Friday, November 14, 2008 8:09 AM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] IBM backs BPL > > I have a motel I am trying to cover with internet. It's a L shaped > building 20-30 rooms. What type of bpl solutions would work for this? > Or maybe wireless is the way to go. > > Brian > > > > > > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > http://signup.wispa.org/ > > > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > > > > > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > http://signup.wispa.org/ > > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] County
Yes, but he is on their tower for free in exchange for transporting traffic. Travis Chuck McCown - 3 wrote: We pay rent to one county to be in their building and on their tower. The sheriff's office might be on some paperwork somewhere. Not unheard of. - Original Message - From: "Travis Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "WISPA General List" Sent: Friday, November 14, 2008 10:29 PM Subject: [WISPA] County Hi, I discovered today that one of my competitors that has setup several (6+) new licensed links (using 11ghz, 18ghz and 23ghz) in the last year is using the local Sheriff's office as the contact and registered owner in the FCC database. I'm sure the Sheriff's office is using the links for their public safety service (because that's how they are registered on the FCC site), but I also know this competitor has setup at least one link that is not in an area where the Sheriff's office would need any type of service (and therefore is only using it for their own traffic). First, I assume this is legal because the Sheriff's office is probably paying for all this equipment. However, because they are a "public" office, I assume that anyone that wanted to use that transport should be allowed, since they are allowing this other provider that is installing them? Also, I would assume this would hold true for several towers (owned by the same county) that this competitor is on for free. If they allowed this person on the towers (in exchange for moving traffic), I would think they would have to allow me on as well? Thoughts? Travis Microserv WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] County
In a contract, there is offer, acceptance, consideration and performance. Consideration doesn't have to be monetary. If the Sheriff paid $1000/month for transport and charged $1000/month for rent, it wouldn't change anything. Each side is getting something of value. Transport, rent, dollars, it is all consideration. - Original Message - From: Travis Johnson To: WISPA General List Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2008 10:26 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] County Yes, but he is on their tower for free in exchange for transporting traffic. Travis Chuck McCown - 3 wrote: We pay rent to one county to be in their building and on their tower. The sheriff's office might be on some paperwork somewhere. Not unheard of. - Original Message - From: "Travis Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "WISPA General List" Sent: Friday, November 14, 2008 10:29 PM Subject: [WISPA] County Hi, I discovered today that one of my competitors that has setup several (6+) new licensed links (using 11ghz, 18ghz and 23ghz) in the last year is using the local Sheriff's office as the contact and registered owner in the FCC database. I'm sure the Sheriff's office is using the links for their public safety service (because that's how they are registered on the FCC site), but I also know this competitor has setup at least one link that is not in an area where the Sheriff's office would need any type of service (and therefore is only using it for their own traffic). First, I assume this is legal because the Sheriff's office is probably paying for all this equipment. However, because they are a "public" office, I assume that anyone that wanted to use that transport should be allowed, since they are allowing this other provider that is installing them? Also, I would assume this would hold true for several towers (owned by the same county) that this competitor is on for free. If they allowed this person on the towers (in exchange for moving traffic), I would think they would have to allow me on as well? Thoughts? Travis Microserv WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] County
On Sat, 15 Nov 2008, Chuck McCown - 3 wrote: >In a contract, there is offer, acceptance, consideration and >performance. Consideration doesn't have to be monetary. If the >Sheriff paid $1000/month for transport and charged $1000/month for >rent, it wouldn't change anything. Each side is getting something >of value. Transport, rent, dollars, it is all consideration. We've done this with some of the networks that were built for the mobility solutions I've deployed. The local ISP is handling the maintenance of the network for a $1500 or so monthly fee and they are paying a $1500/month access fee for the use of the network. The city/county governments will allow other ISPs on the network for the same $1500/month access fee given the same limitations the existing ISP lives with. Others have set the mantenance/rental so high it will NEVER make it feasible for other ISPs to rent access. Maybe not a "fair" business practice, but it is a smart one. -- * Butch Evans * Professional Network Consultation* * http://www.butchevans.com/* Network Engineering * * http://www.wispa.org/ * WISPA Board Member * * http://blog.butchevans.com/ * Wired or Wireless Networks * WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] IBM backs BPL
To clarify, by "real interference" I meant they are no worse than anything else we deal with. Like any RF transmission, there are emmisions, but those can be dealt with just like the way we (WISP's) deal with them. The ARRL made a mountain out of molehill and it was all political as far as I'm concened. They used the BPL as a scapegoat to try and get the electric companies to fix the interference hams receive from aging electrical insulators which causes all kinds of noise. I personally saw a perfect example of the bias against BPL interference. A parade of hams came to our pilot test site and claimed we were interferering with them then & there. The funny part: We had the system turned off! We showed it to them and they were totally embarrased and speechless. When we turned the system back on, they admitted that the noise was no worse than when it was off. We has spectrum analyzers to prove it. There are some hardliners out there that would not give up. To make their point they would drive their vehicles (equipped with ham radio and whip antenna) within a few feet and directly under the powerline and guess what? Give me break. Basically, except for a few viable installations still running, BPL was killed in it's infancy. Too bad. -RickG On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 1:04 AM, Jonathan Schmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "You are correct, electric companies saw huge benefits for internal use > but the real reason it did not move forward was because electric companies > are conservative by nature and they didnt like the heat coming from the > ARRL over interference issues, which btw were not real." > > The interference is real. The ARRL is real and very conservative. And, > any conductor carrying RF that isn't a proper, geometrically arranged > transmission line, properly terminated in the proper impedance, will > radiate and radiate most of its RF energy. Where do you think that goes? > And, where do stubs dissipate their RF?...into the 4th dimension? > > Were it not for careful oversight of the spectrum, we would be back in the > stone ages with AM and FM and TV because of interference. Police and fire > radios would be hit and miss. Our licensed and unlicensed spectrum would > be a mess. > > Blasting the HF spectrum into random lengths of conductors and stubs at > watts of power has proved to be nasty. It isn't just the ARRL...the > courts have decided that. > > It isn't just RF on the power lines, either. You can hear DSL > interference in neighborhoods with overhead telephone wiring on poles when > you try to listen to local AM stations at night when they are forced to > drop their power. The political influence of the Telcos to force through > their agenda may be followed by that of the electric companies but it > won't be to our advantage. > > They have the right of way, the poles, and the money. Stringing a fiber > along the poles along with the wiring would seem to be a far better and > long term strategy than to pretend that wires are wires and that 60Hz is > the same as 600,000Hz and the ground return and distribution are > compatible architectures. > > The entire concept is pseudo-science, appealing to those who are easily > fooled into thinking wishes become true because it sorta makes sense. > > Jonathan Schmidt > > > > > > > > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > http://signup.wispa.org/ > > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] IBM backs BPL
One of the electric companies I worked for, I did just that. We used BPL for backhaul and used an AP to catch the local area subscribers. It was great, especially when there are LOS issues. Of course, that was what Amperion's BPL product was all about. Obviously, the same hybrid concept also works on a smaller scale such as a motel. -RickG On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 12:17 PM, Marlon K. Schafer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > How about BPL to transport data to the ap's? > marlon > > - Original Message - > From: "Brian Rohrbacher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "WISPA General List" > Sent: Friday, November 14, 2008 7:09 AM > Subject: Re: [WISPA] IBM backs BPL > > >>I have a motel I am trying to cover with internet. It's a L shaped >> building 20-30 rooms. What type of bpl solutions would work for this? >> Or maybe wireless is the way to go. >> >> Brian >> >> >> >> >> WISPA Wants You! Join today! >> http://signup.wispa.org/ >> >> >> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org >> >> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >> >> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > > > > > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > http://signup.wispa.org/ > > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] IBM backs BPL
BPL on HV was and is a stupid idea. HV infrastructure was not built with the idea of being a transmission line for RF. To get any kind if speed you have to use lots of power, even then it is very very short range. You might as well set up a whole bunch of dragonwaves in a drop and insert system. It would be cheaper and work better. The idea of using natural gas distribution lines as circular waveguides is a much more viable technology. But you don't see that getting deployed either. BPL on HV is a lab experiment that caught the eye of Michael Powell and got talked about. Nothing more. On the secondary side it is nothing more than homeplug. That is viable and deployed and does just fine. - Original Message - From: "RickG" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2008 1:32 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] IBM backs BPL > To clarify, by "real interference" I meant they are no worse than > anything else we deal with. Like any RF transmission, there are > emmisions, but those can be dealt with just like the way we (WISP's) > deal with them. The ARRL made a mountain out of molehill and it was > all political as far as I'm concened. They used the BPL as a scapegoat > to try and get the electric companies to fix the interference hams > receive from aging electrical insulators which causes all kinds of > noise. > I personally saw a perfect example of the bias against BPL > interference. A parade of hams came to our pilot test site and claimed > we were interferering with them then & there. The funny part: We had > the system turned off! We showed it to them and they were totally > embarrased and speechless. When we turned the system back on, they > admitted that the noise was no worse than when it was off. We has > spectrum analyzers to prove it. There are some hardliners out there > that would not give up. To make their point they would drive their > vehicles (equipped with ham radio and whip antenna) within a few feet > and directly under the powerline and guess what? Give me break. > Basically, except for a few viable installations still running, BPL > was killed in it's infancy. Too bad. > -RickG > > On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 1:04 AM, Jonathan Schmidt > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> "You are correct, electric companies saw huge benefits for internal use >> but the real reason it did not move forward was because electric >> companies >> are conservative by nature and they didnt like the heat coming from the >> ARRL over interference issues, which btw were not real." >> >> The interference is real. The ARRL is real and very conservative. And, >> any conductor carrying RF that isn't a proper, geometrically arranged >> transmission line, properly terminated in the proper impedance, will >> radiate and radiate most of its RF energy. Where do you think that goes? >> And, where do stubs dissipate their RF?...into the 4th dimension? >> >> Were it not for careful oversight of the spectrum, we would be back in >> the >> stone ages with AM and FM and TV because of interference. Police and >> fire >> radios would be hit and miss. Our licensed and unlicensed spectrum would >> be a mess. >> >> Blasting the HF spectrum into random lengths of conductors and stubs at >> watts of power has proved to be nasty. It isn't just the ARRL...the >> courts have decided that. >> >> It isn't just RF on the power lines, either. You can hear DSL >> interference in neighborhoods with overhead telephone wiring on poles >> when >> you try to listen to local AM stations at night when they are forced to >> drop their power. The political influence of the Telcos to force through >> their agenda may be followed by that of the electric companies but it >> won't be to our advantage. >> >> They have the right of way, the poles, and the money. Stringing a fiber >> along the poles along with the wiring would seem to be a far better and >> long term strategy than to pretend that wires are wires and that 60Hz is >> the same as 600,000Hz and the ground return and distribution are >> compatible architectures. >> >> The entire concept is pseudo-science, appealing to those who are easily >> fooled into thinking wishes become true because it sorta makes sense. >> >> Jonathan Schmidt >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> WISPA Wants You! Join today! >> http://signup.wispa.org/ >> >> >> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org >> >> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >> >> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ >> > > > > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > http://signup.wispa.org/ > > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsub
Re: [WISPA] County
I know we checked into 4.9 use by a WISP, where a WISP told the local authorities he already had 4.9 online, all he had to do was flip a switch and they could share it. The FCC laughed, and said only till they got caught, and they were sure that I would start the complaint ball rolling.; Don't take your organs to heaven, heaven knows we need them down here! Be an organ donor, sign your donor card today. - Original Message - From: "Kurt Fankhauser" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'WISPA General List'" Sent: Friday, November 14, 2008 11:59 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] County > Welcome to politics... I would bet they have some sweetheart deal with the > Sheriff's Office, probably buddies with the Sheriff himself. I wouldn't > doubt if they started reselling bandwidth on 4.9ghz PTMP. > WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] IBM backs BPL
I disagree. I personally saw BPL work and work very well. As far as setting up a bunch of dragonwaves, you must have line of sight. As far as range, whats the point? Ethernet is only rated at 100 meters and it is widely used. BPL's range is much farther than that. It's all realitive. The powergrid is already setup & ready to go, why not use it? Shouldnt we utilize any and all resources to their fullest potential? To do otherwise is wasteful. BTW: BPL is more widely used and accepted in many other countries abroad. Several of our potential vendors were non-US. They couldnt figure out the hold up is here in the states. -RickG On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 4:21 PM, Chuck McCown - 3 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > BPL on HV was and is a stupid idea. HV infrastructure was not built with > the idea of being a transmission line for RF. To get any kind if speed you > have to use lots of power, even then it is very very short range. You might > as well set up a whole bunch of dragonwaves in a drop and insert system. It > would be cheaper and work better. > > The idea of using natural gas distribution lines as circular waveguides is a > much more viable technology. But you don't see that getting deployed > either. > > BPL on HV is a lab experiment that caught the eye of Michael Powell and got > talked about. Nothing more. On the secondary side it is nothing more than > homeplug. That is viable and deployed and does just fine. > - Original Message - > From: "RickG" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "WISPA General List" > Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2008 1:32 PM > Subject: Re: [WISPA] IBM backs BPL > > >> To clarify, by "real interference" I meant they are no worse than >> anything else we deal with. Like any RF transmission, there are >> emmisions, but those can be dealt with just like the way we (WISP's) >> deal with them. The ARRL made a mountain out of molehill and it was >> all political as far as I'm concened. They used the BPL as a scapegoat >> to try and get the electric companies to fix the interference hams >> receive from aging electrical insulators which causes all kinds of >> noise. >> I personally saw a perfect example of the bias against BPL >> interference. A parade of hams came to our pilot test site and claimed >> we were interferering with them then & there. The funny part: We had >> the system turned off! We showed it to them and they were totally >> embarrased and speechless. When we turned the system back on, they >> admitted that the noise was no worse than when it was off. We has >> spectrum analyzers to prove it. There are some hardliners out there >> that would not give up. To make their point they would drive their >> vehicles (equipped with ham radio and whip antenna) within a few feet >> and directly under the powerline and guess what? Give me break. >> Basically, except for a few viable installations still running, BPL >> was killed in it's infancy. Too bad. >> -RickG >> >> On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 1:04 AM, Jonathan Schmidt >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> "You are correct, electric companies saw huge benefits for internal use >>> but the real reason it did not move forward was because electric >>> companies >>> are conservative by nature and they didnt like the heat coming from the >>> ARRL over interference issues, which btw were not real." >>> >>> The interference is real. The ARRL is real and very conservative. And, >>> any conductor carrying RF that isn't a proper, geometrically arranged >>> transmission line, properly terminated in the proper impedance, will >>> radiate and radiate most of its RF energy. Where do you think that goes? >>> And, where do stubs dissipate their RF?...into the 4th dimension? >>> >>> Were it not for careful oversight of the spectrum, we would be back in >>> the >>> stone ages with AM and FM and TV because of interference. Police and >>> fire >>> radios would be hit and miss. Our licensed and unlicensed spectrum would >>> be a mess. >>> >>> Blasting the HF spectrum into random lengths of conductors and stubs at >>> watts of power has proved to be nasty. It isn't just the ARRL...the >>> courts have decided that. >>> >>> It isn't just RF on the power lines, either. You can hear DSL >>> interference in neighborhoods with overhead telephone wiring on poles >>> when >>> you try to listen to local AM stations at night when they are forced to >>> drop their power. The political influence of the Telcos to force through >>> their agenda may be followed by that of the electric companies but it >>> won't be to our advantage. >>> >>> They have the right of way, the poles, and the money. Stringing a fiber >>> along the poles along with the wiring would seem to be a far better and >>> long term strategy than to pretend that wires are wires and that 60Hz is >>> the same as 600,000Hz and the ground return and distribution are >>> compatible architectures. >>> >>> The entire concept is pseudo-science, appealing to those who are easily >>> fooled into thinking
Re: [WISPA] IBM backs BPL
One huge reason, powerlines are not constant impedance to RF. Nor are they balanced. This is like trying to pump natural gas down the water lines. Pipe, right? What's the problem? It is never going to ever work as well as balanced transmission lines, let alone coax or fiber. And it is going to leak so much that the American Red Cross in Afghanistan will be able to detect the static on their HF rigs. This has been proven time and time again. You can get BPL to work over a short range (like a mile) if it is running on a three phase line and the line is very balanced. Once it hits a cap bank, regulator, transposition, transformer or anything, you have to terminate the signal and figure a way to bypass the obstruction. Once you put it on a single phase line you might as well go back to the old G-Line concept (another oddity that ultimately failed). Really BPL is nothing more than G-Line. As long as you don't care about vomiting all over the RF spectrum you can do whatever you want. I actually do listen to AM radio. I want to listen to short-wave and ham if I decide to do so. A half baked idea like HV bpl has no place in ruining valuable spectrum that is absolutely necessary in the event of an emergency. - Original Message - From: "RickG" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2008 2:41 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] IBM backs BPL >I disagree. I personally saw BPL work and work very well. As far as > setting up a bunch of dragonwaves, you must have line of sight. As far > as range, whats the point? Ethernet is only rated at 100 meters and it > is widely used. BPL's range is much farther than that. It's all > realitive. The powergrid is already setup & ready to go, why not use > it? Shouldnt we utilize any and all resources to their fullest > potential? To do otherwise is wasteful. > > BTW: BPL is more widely used and accepted in many other countries > abroad. Several of our potential vendors were non-US. They couldnt > figure out the hold up is here in the states. > > -RickG > > On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 4:21 PM, Chuck McCown - 3 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: >> BPL on HV was and is a stupid idea. HV infrastructure was not built with >> the idea of being a transmission line for RF. To get any kind if speed >> you >> have to use lots of power, even then it is very very short range. You >> might >> as well set up a whole bunch of dragonwaves in a drop and insert system. >> It >> would be cheaper and work better. >> >> The idea of using natural gas distribution lines as circular waveguides >> is a >> much more viable technology. But you don't see that getting deployed >> either. >> >> BPL on HV is a lab experiment that caught the eye of Michael Powell and >> got >> talked about. Nothing more. On the secondary side it is nothing more >> than >> homeplug. That is viable and deployed and does just fine. >> - Original Message - >> From: "RickG" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: "WISPA General List" >> Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2008 1:32 PM >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] IBM backs BPL >> >> >>> To clarify, by "real interference" I meant they are no worse than >>> anything else we deal with. Like any RF transmission, there are >>> emmisions, but those can be dealt with just like the way we (WISP's) >>> deal with them. The ARRL made a mountain out of molehill and it was >>> all political as far as I'm concened. They used the BPL as a scapegoat >>> to try and get the electric companies to fix the interference hams >>> receive from aging electrical insulators which causes all kinds of >>> noise. >>> I personally saw a perfect example of the bias against BPL >>> interference. A parade of hams came to our pilot test site and claimed >>> we were interferering with them then & there. The funny part: We had >>> the system turned off! We showed it to them and they were totally >>> embarrased and speechless. When we turned the system back on, they >>> admitted that the noise was no worse than when it was off. We has >>> spectrum analyzers to prove it. There are some hardliners out there >>> that would not give up. To make their point they would drive their >>> vehicles (equipped with ham radio and whip antenna) within a few feet >>> and directly under the powerline and guess what? Give me break. >>> Basically, except for a few viable installations still running, BPL >>> was killed in it's infancy. Too bad. >>> -RickG >>> >>> On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 1:04 AM, Jonathan Schmidt >>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: "You are correct, electric companies saw huge benefits for internal use but the real reason it did not move forward was because electric companies are conservative by nature and they didnt like the heat coming from the ARRL over interference issues, which btw were not real." The interference is real. The ARRL is real and very conservative. And, any conductor carrying RF that isn't a proper, geometrically a
Re: [WISPA] IBM backs BPL
Chuck, It's as though you didnt read my post! BPL works - with acceptable interference - I saw it with my own eyes along with dozens of skeptical ham operators. Theory does not matter, those issues are conquered. Seeing is believing. -RickG On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 5:24 PM, Chuck McCown - 3 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > One huge reason, powerlines are not constant impedance to RF. Nor are they > balanced. This is like trying to pump natural gas down the water lines. > Pipe, right? What's the problem? > > It is never going to ever work as well as balanced transmission lines, let > alone coax or fiber. And it is going to leak so much that the American Red > Cross in Afghanistan will be able to detect the static on their HF rigs. > This has been proven time and time again. > > You can get BPL to work over a short range (like a mile) if it is running on > a three phase line and the line is very balanced. Once it hits a cap bank, > regulator, transposition, transformer or anything, you have to terminate the > signal and figure a way to bypass the obstruction. > > Once you put it on a single phase line you might as well go back to the old > G-Line concept (another oddity that ultimately failed). Really BPL is > nothing more than G-Line. As long as you don't care about vomiting all over > the RF spectrum you can do whatever you want. > > I actually do listen to AM radio. I want to listen to short-wave and ham if > I decide to do so. A half baked idea like HV bpl has no place in ruining > valuable spectrum that is absolutely necessary in the event of an emergency. > > > > > - Original Message - > From: "RickG" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "WISPA General List" > Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2008 2:41 PM > Subject: Re: [WISPA] IBM backs BPL > > >>I disagree. I personally saw BPL work and work very well. As far as >> setting up a bunch of dragonwaves, you must have line of sight. As far >> as range, whats the point? Ethernet is only rated at 100 meters and it >> is widely used. BPL's range is much farther than that. It's all >> realitive. The powergrid is already setup & ready to go, why not use >> it? Shouldnt we utilize any and all resources to their fullest >> potential? To do otherwise is wasteful. >> >> BTW: BPL is more widely used and accepted in many other countries >> abroad. Several of our potential vendors were non-US. They couldnt >> figure out the hold up is here in the states. >> >> -RickG >> >> On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 4:21 PM, Chuck McCown - 3 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> wrote: >>> BPL on HV was and is a stupid idea. HV infrastructure was not built with >>> the idea of being a transmission line for RF. To get any kind if speed >>> you >>> have to use lots of power, even then it is very very short range. You >>> might >>> as well set up a whole bunch of dragonwaves in a drop and insert system. >>> It >>> would be cheaper and work better. >>> >>> The idea of using natural gas distribution lines as circular waveguides >>> is a >>> much more viable technology. But you don't see that getting deployed >>> either. >>> >>> BPL on HV is a lab experiment that caught the eye of Michael Powell and >>> got >>> talked about. Nothing more. On the secondary side it is nothing more >>> than >>> homeplug. That is viable and deployed and does just fine. >>> - Original Message - >>> From: "RickG" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> To: "WISPA General List" >>> Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2008 1:32 PM >>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] IBM backs BPL >>> >>> To clarify, by "real interference" I meant they are no worse than anything else we deal with. Like any RF transmission, there are emmisions, but those can be dealt with just like the way we (WISP's) deal with them. The ARRL made a mountain out of molehill and it was all political as far as I'm concened. They used the BPL as a scapegoat to try and get the electric companies to fix the interference hams receive from aging electrical insulators which causes all kinds of noise. I personally saw a perfect example of the bias against BPL interference. A parade of hams came to our pilot test site and claimed we were interferering with them then & there. The funny part: We had the system turned off! We showed it to them and they were totally embarrased and speechless. When we turned the system back on, they admitted that the noise was no worse than when it was off. We has spectrum analyzers to prove it. There are some hardliners out there that would not give up. To make their point they would drive their vehicles (equipped with ham radio and whip antenna) within a few feet and directly under the powerline and guess what? Give me break. Basically, except for a few viable installations still running, BPL was killed in it's infancy. Too bad. -RickG On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 1:04 AM, Jonathan Schmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "You are correct, electric
Re: [WISPA] IBM backs BPL
I read your post, I was also involved in the testing. They didn't hit their throughput nor did they achieve any of the interference mask parameters. We tried several versions of this. If you want 512kbps you can do it. But Michael Powell was promising 500 mbps magically flowing through all the power lines and lighting up a whole city. You are not going to get bi directional 500 mbps on high voltage power lines (as promised by some) without causing unacceptable interference and regenerating the signal every 1000 feet. Secondary... as in low voltage... as in 240 volt single phase from transformer to the house does work. Like I said homeplug is a very viable technology. What some people call BPL is secondary BPL. HV BPL is not going to be a viable backhaul technology for a variety of reasons. Yes, secondary BPL barely works with arguably acceptable (by some). Show me a HV system that works as advertised. - Original Message - From: "RickG" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2008 4:03 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] IBM backs BPL > Chuck, > > It's as though you didnt read my post! > > BPL works - with acceptable interference - I saw it with my own eyes > along with dozens of skeptical ham operators. Theory does not matter, > those issues are conquered. Seeing is believing. > > -RickG > > On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 5:24 PM, Chuck McCown - 3 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: >> One huge reason, powerlines are not constant impedance to RF. Nor are >> they >> balanced. This is like trying to pump natural gas down the water lines. >> Pipe, right? What's the problem? >> >> It is never going to ever work as well as balanced transmission lines, >> let >> alone coax or fiber. And it is going to leak so much that the American >> Red >> Cross in Afghanistan will be able to detect the static on their HF rigs. >> This has been proven time and time again. >> >> You can get BPL to work over a short range (like a mile) if it is running >> on >> a three phase line and the line is very balanced. Once it hits a cap >> bank, >> regulator, transposition, transformer or anything, you have to terminate >> the >> signal and figure a way to bypass the obstruction. >> >> Once you put it on a single phase line you might as well go back to the >> old >> G-Line concept (another oddity that ultimately failed). Really BPL is >> nothing more than G-Line. As long as you don't care about vomiting all >> over >> the RF spectrum you can do whatever you want. >> >> I actually do listen to AM radio. I want to listen to short-wave and ham >> if >> I decide to do so. A half baked idea like HV bpl has no place in ruining >> valuable spectrum that is absolutely necessary in the event of an >> emergency. >> >> >> >> >> - Original Message - >> From: "RickG" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: "WISPA General List" >> Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2008 2:41 PM >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] IBM backs BPL >> >> >>>I disagree. I personally saw BPL work and work very well. As far as >>> setting up a bunch of dragonwaves, you must have line of sight. As far >>> as range, whats the point? Ethernet is only rated at 100 meters and it >>> is widely used. BPL's range is much farther than that. It's all >>> realitive. The powergrid is already setup & ready to go, why not use >>> it? Shouldnt we utilize any and all resources to their fullest >>> potential? To do otherwise is wasteful. >>> >>> BTW: BPL is more widely used and accepted in many other countries >>> abroad. Several of our potential vendors were non-US. They couldnt >>> figure out the hold up is here in the states. >>> >>> -RickG >>> >>> On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 4:21 PM, Chuck McCown - 3 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> wrote: BPL on HV was and is a stupid idea. HV infrastructure was not built with the idea of being a transmission line for RF. To get any kind if speed you have to use lots of power, even then it is very very short range. You might as well set up a whole bunch of dragonwaves in a drop and insert system. It would be cheaper and work better. The idea of using natural gas distribution lines as circular waveguides is a much more viable technology. But you don't see that getting deployed either. BPL on HV is a lab experiment that caught the eye of Michael Powell and got talked about. Nothing more. On the secondary side it is nothing more than homeplug. That is viable and deployed and does just fine. - Original Message - From: "RickG" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2008 1:32 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] IBM backs BPL > To clarify, by "real interference" I meant they are no worse than > anything else we deal with. Like any RF transmission, there are > emmisions, but those can be dealt with just like the way we (WISP's) > deal with th
Re: [WISPA] IBM backs BPL
Chuck is right on the spot. RF is very demanding both in transmission lines and radiators. We all know how much discipline we need to invoke when deploying successful RF links. RF on an unbalanced, geometrically variable conductor will barely move with most being dissipated as heat or radiated away. Chuck is correct that elevated, balanced three phase lines, as far as the geometry remains stable, might have some short range applicability when coupled with notch filters and other carefully designed, customized equipment. Short range and expensive. That's why it isn't out there. The ARRL and other interested parties did observe a number of vendor products under FCC monitoring...monitoring that was later shown to be comparable to the Katrina effort. The results were effectively decided in the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit earlier this year: http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2008/04/25/10064/?nc=1 The momentum for BPL on HV has come from investors who point to the sky and convince people that the wires, like your cable TV coax, are conductors and, therefore, should carry RF just like 60Hz. Anecdotal recollections of bumbling (on both sides, I agree) experiments don't invalidate Smith Charts and pure science. However, the power company has right-of-way and pole-to-pole LOS. Any of the WISPA members would drool over that geography and would be better shepherds of the effort to bring broadband to rural areas. Meanwhile, I'll go back to my Smith Charts, grid dip meter, SWR cross-needle meter, and TDR equipment that served me so well all these years. I run a clean shop. . . . J o n a t h a n -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chuck McCown - 3 Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2008 4:25 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] IBM backs BPL One huge reason, powerlines are not constant impedance to RF. Nor are they balanced. This is like trying to pump natural gas down the water lines. Pipe, right? What's the problem? It is never going to ever work as well as balanced transmission lines, let alone coax or fiber. And it is going to leak so much that the American Red Cross in Afghanistan will be able to detect the static on their HF rigs. This has been proven time and time again. You can get BPL to work over a short range (like a mile) if it is running on a three phase line and the line is very balanced. Once it hits a cap bank, regulator, transposition, transformer or anything, you have to terminate the signal and figure a way to bypass the obstruction. Once you put it on a single phase line you might as well go back to the old G-Line concept (another oddity that ultimately failed). Really BPL is nothing more than G-Line. As long as you don't care about vomiting all over the RF spectrum you can do whatever you want. I actually do listen to AM radio. I want to listen to short-wave and ham if I decide to do so. A half baked idea like HV bpl has no place in ruining valuable spectrum that is absolutely necessary in the event of an emergency. - Original Message - From: "RickG" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2008 2:41 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] IBM backs BPL >I disagree. I personally saw BPL work and work very well. As far as > setting up a bunch of dragonwaves, you must have line of sight. As far > as range, whats the point? Ethernet is only rated at 100 meters and it > is widely used. BPL's range is much farther than that. It's all > realitive. The powergrid is already setup & ready to go, why not use > it? Shouldnt we utilize any and all resources to their fullest > potential? To do otherwise is wasteful. > > BTW: BPL is more widely used and accepted in many other countries > abroad. Several of our potential vendors were non-US. They couldnt > figure out the hold up is here in the states. > > -RickG > > On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 4:21 PM, Chuck McCown - 3 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: >> BPL on HV was and is a stupid idea. HV infrastructure was not built with >> the idea of being a transmission line for RF. To get any kind if speed >> you >> have to use lots of power, even then it is very very short range. You >> might >> as well set up a whole bunch of dragonwaves in a drop and insert system. >> It >> would be cheaper and work better. >> >> The idea of using natural gas distribution lines as circular waveguides >> is a >> much more viable technology. But you don't see that getting deployed >> either. >> >> BPL on HV is a lab experiment that caught the eye of Michael Powell and >> got >> talked about. Nothing more. On the secondary side it is nothing more >> than >> homeplug. That is viable and deployed and does just fine. >> - Original Message - >> From: "RickG" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: "WISPA General List" >> Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2008 1:32 PM >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] IBM backs BPL >> >> >>> To clarify, by "real interference"
Re: [WISPA] IBM backs BPL
What do you call BPL? HV or MV or LV? LV works. I don't call that BPL. It isn't a method to magically distribute broadband to a city. It is only a way to use the power drop as a way to get into the house. Some of those systems used Motorola Canopy to get to the distribution point. MV worked a bit in some of the deployments. The most successful one that I heard of allowed about 512 kbps. I don't recall what the guys in Texas were using, but it reportedly got up into the 20-30 Mbps range (with repeaters every 1000 feet). That is what I am talking about and what I was involved in testing. It is not economically feasible and you have to put up a bunch of technology to feed a neighborhood. And then you only have 20-30 Mbps to share amongst the neighbors. I can do the same with a Motorola Canopy 400 series for a very small fraction of what BPL on MV costs. HV was the pie in the sky, using the magnetic fields around the power lines as a containment structure for a microwave signal. Hundreds of Mbps. Lab oddity, but picked up by the press. Which one of these are we talking about here? - Original Message - From: "RickG" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2008 4:03 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] IBM backs BPL > Chuck, > > It's as though you didnt read my post! > > BPL works - with acceptable interference - I saw it with my own eyes > along with dozens of skeptical ham operators. Theory does not matter, > those issues are conquered. Seeing is believing. > > -RickG > > On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 5:24 PM, Chuck McCown - 3 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: >> One huge reason, powerlines are not constant impedance to RF. Nor are >> they >> balanced. This is like trying to pump natural gas down the water lines. >> Pipe, right? What's the problem? >> >> It is never going to ever work as well as balanced transmission lines, >> let >> alone coax or fiber. And it is going to leak so much that the American >> Red >> Cross in Afghanistan will be able to detect the static on their HF rigs. >> This has been proven time and time again. >> >> You can get BPL to work over a short range (like a mile) if it is running >> on >> a three phase line and the line is very balanced. Once it hits a cap >> bank, >> regulator, transposition, transformer or anything, you have to terminate >> the >> signal and figure a way to bypass the obstruction. >> >> Once you put it on a single phase line you might as well go back to the >> old >> G-Line concept (another oddity that ultimately failed). Really BPL is >> nothing more than G-Line. As long as you don't care about vomiting all >> over >> the RF spectrum you can do whatever you want. >> >> I actually do listen to AM radio. I want to listen to short-wave and ham >> if >> I decide to do so. A half baked idea like HV bpl has no place in ruining >> valuable spectrum that is absolutely necessary in the event of an >> emergency. >> >> >> >> >> - Original Message - >> From: "RickG" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: "WISPA General List" >> Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2008 2:41 PM >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] IBM backs BPL >> >> >>>I disagree. I personally saw BPL work and work very well. As far as >>> setting up a bunch of dragonwaves, you must have line of sight. As far >>> as range, whats the point? Ethernet is only rated at 100 meters and it >>> is widely used. BPL's range is much farther than that. It's all >>> realitive. The powergrid is already setup & ready to go, why not use >>> it? Shouldnt we utilize any and all resources to their fullest >>> potential? To do otherwise is wasteful. >>> >>> BTW: BPL is more widely used and accepted in many other countries >>> abroad. Several of our potential vendors were non-US. They couldnt >>> figure out the hold up is here in the states. >>> >>> -RickG >>> >>> On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 4:21 PM, Chuck McCown - 3 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> wrote: BPL on HV was and is a stupid idea. HV infrastructure was not built with the idea of being a transmission line for RF. To get any kind if speed you have to use lots of power, even then it is very very short range. You might as well set up a whole bunch of dragonwaves in a drop and insert system. It would be cheaper and work better. The idea of using natural gas distribution lines as circular waveguides is a much more viable technology. But you don't see that getting deployed either. BPL on HV is a lab experiment that caught the eye of Michael Powell and got talked about. Nothing more. On the secondary side it is nothing more than homeplug. That is viable and deployed and does just fine. - Original Message - From: "RickG" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2008 1:32 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] IBM backs BPL > To clarify, by "real interference" I meant
[WISPA] smith charts
This summer I had a couple of junior year EE interns in the shop to do some dirtywork. They got very very familiar with antenna range measurements by the end of the summer. But I had to laugh when I would ask them to measure the return loss on a new design. They would look confused and then spend time on the phone and google to figure out what I had just asked them. I finally gave them the manuals for the two main types of vector network analyzers we use and told them to read them. So, once they got that down, the next time I asked them to measure the VSWR. Again, confusion, google, phone calls. I was having fun. Third time I asked for S11 measurement, by then they were catching on and it wasn't much of a problem. But then, I asked for impedance. Arrgh, you would have thought I had asked them to re-take a semester of calculus. Calls, google etc etc. They were getting agitated. So I finally showed them where the smith chart button was on the VNA. It popped up showing a nice little arc somewhat near the center. You would have thought I had dropped an ice cube down their backs. They thought that was some ancient method that was never used anymore. Au Contraire... By the end of the summer they finally figured out that RL and S11 and Z parameters and VSWR were all manifestations of the same thing. And they finally accepted the fact that we really do use all that crap they teach in college. This fall they were about to embark on their first semester of electrodynamics, as a parting comment I said "you guys do remember partial differential equations, don't you". Pained expressions... "they told us we would never have to use them"! Too bad I didn't have a slotted line and crystal detector. But I was paying them, so just as well. They might be still making that first measurement. - Original Message - From: "Jonathan Schmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Meanwhile, I'll go back to my Smith Charts, grid dip meter, SWR > cross-needle meter, and TDR equipment that served me so well all these > years. I run a clean shop. > > . . . J o n a t h a n WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] tower demolition video
We had an old 95' rohn25 tower (probably 100' with 5' in the ground) that is 50+ years old and we took it down. It came with the site when I bought it ten years ago. It was quickly reguyed early in my ownership and had served us well. The old (unused) guys were crusty rusty and brittle, so I figured the tower wasn't far behind. We'd built a replacement tower to better serve our needs, and didn't want the old tower to come down in an inevitable winter/icy storm. We picked a calm day so wind was not an issue. We had two people in the woods pulling it where we wanted it to go with ropes at the 30 and 60' points. We removed the bottom two of three guys, and cut the top one to make it fall. I started with thermite (and magnesium fuse) as I didn't want to be near the guy point when it let go, but I ended up needing to cut through a turnbuckle with a power tool. The thermite destroyed the terracotta flower pot it was in and wasn't properly directed onto the anchor. Just as well. It came down where we wanted it perfectly with no damage to other stuff. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-tXQULhaM0 -- /* Jason Philbrook | Midcoast Internet Solutions - Wireless and DSL KB1IOJ| Broadband Internet Access, Dialup, and Hosting http://f64.nu/ | for Midcoast Mainehttp://www.midcoast.com/ */ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] tower demolition video
Nice, my favorite part was the truck at the end pulling the tower out of the woods. Quite a few antennas on that other tower. Kurt Fankhauser WAVELINC P.O. Box 126 Bucyrus, OH 44820 419-562-6405 www.wavelinc.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of jp Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2008 11:02 PM To: wireless@wispa.org Subject: [WISPA] tower demolition video We had an old 95' rohn25 tower (probably 100' with 5' in the ground) that is 50+ years old and we took it down. It came with the site when I bought it ten years ago. It was quickly reguyed early in my ownership and had served us well. The old (unused) guys were crusty rusty and brittle, so I figured the tower wasn't far behind. We'd built a replacement tower to better serve our needs, and didn't want the old tower to come down in an inevitable winter/icy storm. We picked a calm day so wind was not an issue. We had two people in the woods pulling it where we wanted it to go with ropes at the 30 and 60' points. We removed the bottom two of three guys, and cut the top one to make it fall. I started with thermite (and magnesium fuse) as I didn't want to be near the guy point when it let go, but I ended up needing to cut through a turnbuckle with a power tool. The thermite destroyed the terracotta flower pot it was in and wasn't properly directed onto the anchor. Just as well. It came down where we wanted it perfectly with no damage to other stuff. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-tXQULhaM0 -- /* Jason Philbrook | Midcoast Internet Solutions - Wireless and DSL KB1IOJ| Broadband Internet Access, Dialup, and Hosting http://f64.nu/ | for Midcoast Mainehttp://www.midcoast.com/ */ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
