Is an Antenna Analyzer an FCC violation?
 

"Jimmie D" wrote in message
...

"Bob Miller" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 21:37:06 GMT, "Thomas Magma"
wrote:

Hi,

I'm trying to determine if using an antenna analyzer is technically a
violation of the telecommunications Code of Federal Regulations. Typical
antenna analyzers inject a incident CW or sweeping CW to the antenna and
measure its return loss (reflection). Very few frequency bands have a CW
or
sweeping CW as their allowed modulation type. The way I see it is that by
using an antenna analyzer you are intentionally radiating an improper
modulation type that was allocated for the band and therefore you are in
violation of the Code of Federal Regulations.

Anyone have any thoughts on this topic?

Thomas Magma


I have an Oak Hills Research WM-2 QRP Wattmeter, which includes a
0-100 milliwatt scale.

With an MFJ 269 Antenna Analyzer hooked to the transmitter side of the
wattmeter, and an MFJ dummy load hooked to the load side of the
wattmeter, I get a reading of 3 milliwatts forward, 0 milliwatts
reflected.

Not sure whether the FCC is concerned with signals at the 3 milliwatt
level...

Bob
k5qwg

I think I remember a test conducted to see how much power it would take to
communicate across the United States coast to coast. They started out
making the contact at near legal limit and were still able to detect the
signal at just a few milliwatts. As I remember a few was less than 10. I
am sure this was part of a ham magazine article from many years ago.
perhaps someone else here knows the details better than I.


Jimmie


Last year, I contacted a ham station in New York state - he was running 10
milliwatts !!!! I was running 5 Watts.
The band --- Six Meters

Lamont

Is an Antenna Analyzer an FCC violation?
 

Michael Black wrote:
ANd one subset of QRP is to try to communicate with as little power
as possible. Sometimes that was deliberate, dropping power until
the signal was no longer receivable at theother end.

I've made solid PACTOR II contacts to Germany using
a 40 ft. high dipole with less than 5 watts. I could
not even hear the other signal.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Is an Antenna Analyzer an FCC violation?
 

"The Shadow" wrote in message
...

"Jimmie D" wrote in message
...

"Bob Miller" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 21:37:06 GMT, "Thomas Magma"
wrote:

Hi,

I'm trying to determine if using an antenna analyzer is technically a
violation of the telecommunications Code of Federal Regulations. Typical
antenna analyzers inject a incident CW or sweeping CW to the antenna and
measure its return loss (reflection). Very few frequency bands have a CW
or
sweeping CW as their allowed modulation type. The way I see it is that
by
using an antenna analyzer you are intentionally radiating an improper
modulation type that was allocated for the band and therefore you are in
violation of the Code of Federal Regulations.

Anyone have any thoughts on this topic?

Thomas Magma


I have an Oak Hills Research WM-2 QRP Wattmeter, which includes a
0-100 milliwatt scale.

With an MFJ 269 Antenna Analyzer hooked to the transmitter side of the
wattmeter, and an MFJ dummy load hooked to the load side of the
wattmeter, I get a reading of 3 milliwatts forward, 0 milliwatts
reflected.

Not sure whether the FCC is concerned with signals at the 3 milliwatt
level...

Bob
k5qwg

I think I remember a test conducted to see how much power it would take
to communicate across the United States coast to coast. They started out
making the contact at near legal limit and were still able to detect the
signal at just a few milliwatts. As I remember a few was less than 10. I
am sure this was part of a ham magazine article from many years ago.
perhaps someone else here knows the details better than I.


Jimmie


Last year, I contacted a ham station in New York state - he was running 10
milliwatts !!!! I was running 5 Watts.
The band --- Six Meters

Lamont

Opppsss
I am in San Diego CA

Is an Antenna Analyzer an FCC violation?
 

John Smith writes:

It seems to me, many here have suggested there are "tons" of active
hams out there; some have even went so far as to claim the bands are
"crowded."

How crowded?

CQ WW DX contest 2005 received 4430 logs for SSB, 4100 for CW. We all
agree that these events increase activity on the HF bands many
fold. How many of these are actually transmitting at any given time?
1000? (A few may be transmitting and listening at the same time, but
there are many more who aren't active for the entire permitted period.)

So how many simultaneous transmissions are there on the HF bands when
there isn't a contest going on? Low hundreds seems more likely.

73
Jon (LA4RT)

Is an Antenna Analyzer an FCC violation?
 

Jon Kåre Hellan wrote:
John Smith writes:

It seems to me, many here have suggested there are "tons" of active
hams out there; some have even went so far as to claim the bands are
"crowded."

How crowded?

CQ WW DX contest 2005 received 4430 logs for SSB, 4100 for CW. We all
agree that these events increase activity on the HF bands many
fold. How many of these are actually transmitting at any given time?
1000? (A few may be transmitting and listening at the same time, but
there are many more who aren't active for the entire permitted period.)

So how many simultaneous transmissions are there on the HF bands when
there isn't a contest going on? Low hundreds seems more likely.


When I scan the bands, I hear quite a bit of activity. Those who have
problems hearing other folks should first check their antenna system.

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

Is an Antenna Analyzer an FCC violation?
 

On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 21:37:06 GMT, "Thomas Magma"
wrote:

Hi,

I'm trying to determine if using an antenna analyzer is technically a
violation of the telecommunications Code of Federal Regulations. Typical
antenna analyzers inject a incident CW or sweeping CW to the antenna and
measure its return loss (reflection). Very few frequency bands have a CW or
sweeping CW as their allowed modulation type. The way I see it is that by
using an antenna analyzer you are intentionally radiating an improper
modulation type that was allocated for the band and therefore you are in
violation of the Code of Federal Regulations.

Anyone have any thoughts on this topic?

Thomas Magma
++++++++
Tom, I think Riley Hollingsworth has higher priority issues to worry
about.