|
Censored post ...
If you ever think about posting to the moderated group, don't ... Here is an example of a censored post, of mine: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 A 5 KW amplifier is not lawful for use under Part 97. Please strike reference on any resubmit. - K3FU I'm pretty sure a ham CAN use a 5KW PA, as long as he limits the power out to the maximum allowed under our FCC rules. Its not the hardware that is not permited, its the actual power out that counts. Ed K7AAT |
Censored post ...
Ed wrote:
... I'm pretty sure a ham CAN use a 5KW PA, as long as he limits the power out to the maximum allowed under our FCC rules. Its not the hardware that is not permited, its the actual power out that counts. Ed K7AAT I am fairly confident that is true, and running such a rig at an "idle" would certainly guarantee a loooooong lifetime for the finals! ... but, with lawyers, you never know. Anyway, a paranoid ham can certainly keep one in the basement for "The Big One!" But, my post which started this thread was rather cryptic in its' intent; and, in my haste I failed to make that intent obvious. I meant to show what can be accomplished with censorship and why it is a most diabolical and evil weapon. Especially since the censor can "load the dice." A bully, a biased media, a pseudo-government entity--such as the arrl, etc., when, in the background, attempts to influence the public, that publics' options and access to ideas, well, this has always managed to get my blood to heat. One thing I like about the r.r.a.antenna news thread is that we have "nuts" here, and sometimes that is exactly what is needed to seed new ideas, designs, etc. Or, to go where no mind has gone before (or is that StarTrek? grin) Someone, somewhere, quite possibly from this group, will go to bed one night, much like John Kanzius. That someone will awake during the night, perhaps, and end up constructing the "new antenna" from his wifes pie plates. It may "change things." Well, at least I think that much more plausible then someone from r.r.a.m (hey, is that a pseudonym for arrl? wink) awaking and saving the world with their rig and moderated newsgroup! ;-) Regards, JS |
Censored post ...
John Smith quoted someone:
"A 5 KW amplifier is not lawful for use under Part 97." Back in the 60's, a ham friend of mine ran a surplus AM transmitter capable of 10KW output. However, he never adjusted his input power to more than the legal 1KW limit. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Censored post ...
The rules stipulate how much power can be run. They do not stipulate
how much power could -possibly- be run. It's up to the user to stay legal. Simple as that. - 'Doc |
Censored post ...
"Ed" wrote in message . 192.196... If you ever think about posting to the moderated group, don't ... Here is an example of a censored post, of mine: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 A 5 KW amplifier is not lawful for use under Part 97. Please strike reference on any resubmit. - K3FU I'm pretty sure a ham CAN use a 5KW PA, as long as he limits the power out to the maximum allowed under our FCC rules. Its not the hardware that is not permited, its the actual power out that counts. Ed K7AAT -------------- Yep, you are right. We are regulated by emission standards. Not equipment standards. Ed, NM2K |
Censored post ...
Ed Cregger wrote:
... Yep, you are right. We are regulated by emission standards. Not equipment standards. Ed, NM2K But, we here, in r.r.a.a, can "cheat" that quite legally! It is called high gain antennas ... (or, ERP) However, those get more difficult with "distance" (i.e, meters) ... and age. :-( (not to mention rules/regulations.) Regards, JS |
Censored post ...
Cecil Moore wrote:
John Smith quoted someone: "A 5 KW amplifier is not lawful for use under Part 97." Back in the 60's, a ham friend of mine ran a surplus AM transmitter capable of 10KW output. However, he never adjusted his input power to more than the legal 1KW limit. Recently, over in r.r.a.m, the following exchange took place between me and another: EXCERPT FROM MY POST: " These freqs, being opened up for the net, is a very exciting development ... I believe the opportunities and access provided will greatly expand the availability to the net under adverse circumstances, and make greater speeds available to those who were lacking the same ..." HIS RESPONSE: "I do believe that the thrust of this group is to further Amateur Radio, not "the 'net". Then there are those of us who are professionals in spectrum regulatory management who believe that this is a harebrained idea from the get-go that violates good professional practice." My NSHPO." [Not So Humble Personal Opinion? -- by JS] MY ANALYSIS OF THE ABOVE EXCHANGE: This individual, apparently/obviously, has no real respect for the Scientific Method (i.e., Scientific Thinking.) He would have the citizens suffer the will(s) of "us who are professionals." snicker (Is that like alcoholics, they are, when they say they are one? grin) And, I feel I could easily make a 1:1 replacement of "regulatory management" with "religious devotion/doctorine." And, his use of, "... from the get-go that violates good professional practice" simply restates his preference to a "religious devotion" to "arrl doctorine" over any REAL use of the scientific methods/thinking. The "Coup De Grace" of his "thrust" being "NSHPO", indications of a rather large ego, and usually held by an ego-manic! Anyway, this "mans'" complete ramblings can be read over in r.r.a.m ... it is well worth your trouble--if you need a laugh today; they are, now, a matter of public record. ;-) Regards, JS |
Censored post ...
In article ,
Cecil Moore wrote: John Smith quoted someone: "A 5 KW amplifier is not lawful for use under Part 97." Back in the 60's, a ham friend of mine ran a surplus AM transmitter capable of 10KW output. However, he never adjusted his input power to more than the legal 1KW limit. Whom, ever "Someone" is, he isn't versed in 47CFR97, and doesn't understand, or can't comprehend, the actual Rule that Part 97 operations are REQUIRED to operate under. Specifically Part 97.313. I wonder if "Said Person" has ever actually READ 47CFR90.313? Apparently NOT...... -- Bruce in alaska add path after fast to reply |
Censored post ...
Bruce in alaska wrote:
... Whom, ever "Someone" is, he isn't versed in 47CFR97, and doesn't understand, or can't comprehend, the actual Rule that Part 97 operations are REQUIRED to operate under. Specifically Part 97.313. I wonder if "Said Person" has ever actually READ 47CFR90.313? Apparently NOT...... Your post is inspiring, and immediately brings a hypothetical question to mind: If an amateur is near a QRP'er on a field-day, they both have made contact with the same ham, on the same freq/mode and within seconds of ones' QSO ending, the other began ... and the QRP'er did it with 5w the other ham with 100w ... Is the 100w'er in violation of the law? grin Or, and perhaps more importantly, do you know of any amateurs who would "turn him in?" Or, call for his license to be revoked? -- I mean other than those in r.r.a.m, apparently? Or, who really enjoys contacts barely above the noise floor? Well, sometimes ... ROFLOL! Regards, JS |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:29 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com