The GSM interference coming out of many audio systems drives me nuts. Is a system with a tube amplifier likely to be any better or any worse in this regard? I am not even really sure if the interference comes in at the amp, wires, or speaker, but I sure want to get rid of it. If tubes are still susceptible, would it be possible to shield a homemade tube amp from this effect?
The GSM burst transmitting waves are very sharp and disturb any electronic device . The solution is to not allow these in your neighbourhood 
Hi , If it is diy equipment, I would try ferrite beads on the inputs and outputs as well as the ferrite line cord clamp on filters. This can often block the signals from getting in. Another possiblity is if you are connected to a CATV system (for FM or share it with a HT system) you may have grounding issues. I had trouble with mine. There was a differential between the AC mains ground and CATV system (shouldn't be I know but....) I used an isolation transformer in the CATV line and all was well.
Hope it helps this sort of problem can be a nightmare.
Hope it helps this sort of problem can be a nightmare.
watermelonman said:
There are two reasons why tube amplifier might be better -- the first is that the power and output transformers have limited bandwidth over which to transmit the 860MHz frequency. (Of course, they have coupling capacitance which defeats this to some degree.)
As a ham radio guy I learned to deal with interference from transmissions on the many of the ham bands. Oftentimes, however, the problems could be traced to corner cutting on the part of the TV-Receiver. Sometimes it is defective tuning on the ham radio transmitter, or a poor keying circuit -- and chapters are written on dealing with these issues in the ARRL Handbook.
I looked at the FCC's web-site, and as per typical, (just like BPL which interferes with ham radio and emergency services), they turned a blind-eye to the issue of GSM interference.
Most of the time the problem can be relieved by ferrite beads on the input, placing a small capacitance on the input (220pF, 300pF), good grounding. Problem with high frequency data transmission (unlike voice, or analog) is that there are all sorts of harmonics which radiate up and down the spectrum.
That's not necessarily correct. They still have to pass local zoning in the U.S. -- it's an accomodation, not an absolute right. No one cares if you put a cell tower on top of a building near the Cross Bronx Expressway, but they bloody well holler if Verizon wants to put one of their eyesores on the Maplewood Country Club (you know the type I mean, the faux-Douglas Spruce which sticks out amongst all the old growth oaks!)
The pre-emption through the FCC doesn't completely rid you of the locals -- ask the folks at WFUV in the Bronx who had to fight the Botanical Garden for years to move their tower. In the end the horsey-set from the NYBG paid WFUV to place it elsewhere.
It can be really hard to put up a ham-radio tower in a lot of burbs in the U.S.
NJ has about the worst RFI of any state I have lived in. The crud which is emitted off the NJ Transit Rail lines makes short-wave unlistenable at times, the power grid is extremely noisy, they use all sorts of RF devices for traffic signalling which knock out a.m. radio in places -- this all comes about as the stuff is ancient, NJ having been one of the earliest to have a grid.
The pre-emption through the FCC doesn't completely rid you of the locals -- ask the folks at WFUV in the Bronx who had to fight the Botanical Garden for years to move their tower. In the end the horsey-set from the NYBG paid WFUV to place it elsewhere.
It can be really hard to put up a ham-radio tower in a lot of burbs in the U.S.
NJ has about the worst RFI of any state I have lived in. The crud which is emitted off the NJ Transit Rail lines makes short-wave unlistenable at times, the power grid is extremely noisy, they use all sorts of RF devices for traffic signalling which knock out a.m. radio in places -- this all comes about as the stuff is ancient, NJ having been one of the earliest to have a grid.
Jack,
I work for the NJ Judiciary and I have occasion to see some of the opinions coming out of the Appelate Division of Superior Court. With VERY few exceptions the cell phone companies win. Unless the GSM outfits' engineers and planners are total boneheads, who fail to get technical ducks in a row, Federal Law trumps local zoning, etc.
Some pretty "hoity toity" towns have had GSM facilities shoved down their throats. If competent engineers can demonstrate a lack of coverage, only a little nibbling around the fringes is left for the municipalites. As a private membership organization, the country club you described can't be forced to accept GSM tenants. However, if the deal is sweet enough for the members to take it and there is technical sense to the placement, municipal officials are very hard pressed to successfully oppose the matter. NIMBY just doesn't work under Congress' scheme.
I work for the NJ Judiciary and I have occasion to see some of the opinions coming out of the Appelate Division of Superior Court. With VERY few exceptions the cell phone companies win. Unless the GSM outfits' engineers and planners are total boneheads, who fail to get technical ducks in a row, Federal Law trumps local zoning, etc.
Some pretty "hoity toity" towns have had GSM facilities shoved down their throats. If competent engineers can demonstrate a lack of coverage, only a little nibbling around the fringes is left for the municipalites. As a private membership organization, the country club you described can't be forced to accept GSM tenants. However, if the deal is sweet enough for the members to take it and there is technical sense to the placement, municipal officials are very hard pressed to successfully oppose the matter. NIMBY just doesn't work under Congress' scheme.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.