In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

Those people are as shortsighted as the people proposing the "no
homebrew" rules. Your wording "avocation" is the proper term AFAIAC. I
practive my "hamliness" that way. Is it a hobby to work with disaster
preparedness teams? If so we are the only ones classed that way in the
group. Is it a hobby to be a part of the Skywarn system? Is it a hobby
to volunteer time for public events such as the NYC or LA marathons, or
bike races or local charity events?

Of course it isn't. And that's why some people deny that hams are a
significant part of such activities.

I have letters attesting that those people are wrong. I have experience
with a group trying to replace us with cell phones and failing at it.
The list goes on and on!

Of course! But some people just don't like facts.

DO some hams practice this as a hobby? Sure. But that doesn't make it a
hobby. In the overall, it is a service.

Or to put it another way, it's a nonprofit, volunteer activity.

Yet we have power limits on *all* hams in certain subbands today.

Of course! if there are no limits, then we'll have a few hams trying to
use broadcast station powers.

"Tetrode with handles", anyone?

Actually, you have just expressed the fundamental image problem that
Amateur Radio faces in the 21st century. Many people, including some hams,
don't really "get" what Amateur Radio is all about.

Here's my definition:

Amateur Radio is fundamentally about radio as an end in itself, rather than
as a means to another end.

Otherwise, might as well use a cell phone or email.

The point of license testing is not to protect someone from their own
ignorance, but to protect others from it.

Mostly, but RF safety is one exception. The danegrs of high power RF
and High voltages in general is mostly a danger to the operator.

I disagree in part. The danger of RF exposure is to anyone in the RF field.

Yes, but that old inverse square law coupled with the hidh voltages
being on the equipment that the ham operates means that they are the
most likely to suffer harm.

In the case of RF, it's distance to the antenna. Which may be closer to a
neighbor than the ham himself. PArticularly at VHF/UHF where the gain of even a
"small" directional array can be over 10 dB. Pump, say, 500 W into a 432 MHz
array with 16 dB gain...

Just like cigarette smokers.

Cigarette smoking is much more hazardous than RF.

Sure, but you do know what my point is, don't you?

Not really. There's no safe nonzero exposure level to cigarette smoking.

Wrong part to make the analogy from. A long time ago when I originally
made the analogy, I was addressing the 'guvmint's proponsity for
protecting us from ourselves.

Oh, OK.

Is that really a bad thing, in the case of cigarettes? The data clearly shows
the health effects. And remember that those health care costs wind up being
paid by all of us, in a variety of ways. Smokers and nonsmokers don't pay
different Medicare/Medicaid taxes nor get different benefits. Etc.

OTOH, there was a report from some Eastern European country (Czech?) a while
back that touched off a bit of a scandal. Said that smoking was actually *good*
for their benefits system because, while it raised the health care costs, it
also reduced the life expectancy so much that the reduction in old-age pension
payments more than compensated. Of course their health care costs are much
lower than in the USA.

Of course that's me. Does it make as much sense as *protecting* the
newbies from High power RF by not allowing them high power, as compared
to the alternative of giving them the knowledge?

It makes more sense to me that new hams have a sampling of all bands (I'd
give them a lot more HF/MF than bits of 80/40/15/10) than to restrict HF and
allow full power at "meat cooking frequencies" (tip of the hat to WK3C for
that
phrase)

I cooked a little bit of meat on my finger one day with somewhere
around 50 watts power. People concerned with this should collect stamps.
My point is that 50 watts can hurt you, so if you are worried about
safety, you better lower it below that, and not cap it at 100.

Point is that the hazard from 1500 W is much greater.

Safety note addendum:
I just read the part of the ARRL 2003 handbook regarding RF and
electrical safety. Those who want to limit the voltages on the finals
better lower that nomber to 24 volts. Chapter 9 page 19 is my reference.

bwaahaahaa

After all they only have safety in mind, gotta protect the newbies!

Which do you think is more common: hams on HF or hams running high power?

Of corse there are more hams on HF.

There ya go!

Depends. Our local club repeater is pretty busy most of the time. Others
aren't so busy. I know I've been given a lecture on occasion while
traveling by some disgruntled ham when I've called that I'm listening
and he comes back with "This is a private repeater - don't use it any
more". No mention of the private repeater in the book. Who the heck is
going to use that!

Funny, I've never run into that. If someone told me a repeate was private,
I'd simply say it's not in the book and try a different freq.

Sure, and that's what I did. My point is that just because you don't
hear anyone on it doesn't mean there aren't hams that "might" use it.

Ah.

It also makes for less of a class system.

Go down that road far enough, and you'll have a one class system.

I don't propose that, but even THAT is better than what the NCVEC proposes.

I almost have to agree.

As long as it isn't the debacle they propose to foist upon the newbies!

Hans is just biding his time, waiting for the right moment...

If the Tech has
the power and privileges for their respective bands, and they are happy
there, then it's a great thing.

Seems to me that it would make more sense to offer a wider sampling.

Also, if they were happy with it, would there be so many petitions and
arguments?

I don't know that any of these petitions are sponsored by Technicians
or Novices. Seems to me that this started when the requirement for
Element 1 testing was made voluntary, and all the worms started crawling
out of the woodwork so to speak.

Whatever the cause, you can see the "slippery slope" effect. Remember when I
pointed out how the anticode arguments could be used against much of the
writtens? Well, here we are with a major proposal that wants to dump a
significant part of the writtens because they're allegedly "too hard"...

All the proposals were made by Extras, AFAIK.

There you have it!

Once you take the really bad stuff out of the NCVEC proposal, you wind up
with the ARRL proposal.

Which still doesn't float my boat.

Lesser of two evils?

73 de Jim, N2EY