"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
...
"Dan/W4NTI" wrote:

Its all hype Dwight. Ask the brits what it
sounds like. At 3 meters it is 30db over S9.
So if your in the house, or next door, or down
the street, or if the band is open, on the
next continent....you aint gonna hear nothing
but trash.


Man, that sucks. I suspected that might be the case. In the last place I
lived, I had a nearby transformer that absolutely raised heck on the
radio.
However, someone else was obviously bothered by it also - someone shot it
full of holes one evening. Anyway, if the normal devices can do that on
their own, signals carried over or through those devices is almost certain
to cause problems.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/


BINGO !!!!!

Dan/W4NTI

On 11 Jul 2003 07:56:06 -0700, Brian Kelly wrote:

I can visualize this phase being a real nit-picking and repositioning
exercise, perhaps a source of fodder for appeals.

Yup. Maybe that's why there are some 3000 communication attornies
in the Washington DC area (and one in Beaverton).

What's the relationship between an NOI and an NPRM? Doesn't the FCC
eventually have to publish an NPRM and go thru the whole comments and
rebuttals drill again?

Only if they decide to do it by a "publicly debated" rule change.

If they want to be sneaky (assuming that they have this much
imagination - Hey, Bill, pay attention - they can issue an Order and
Further Notice of Inquiry, dropping Element 1 and asking for further
input on Novice HF Refarming. (AKA "The SmokeScreen")

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

"Phil Kane" wrote in message
.net...
| On Fri, 11 Jul 2003 14:19:29 GMT, Dick Carroll wrote:
|
| There's no AM tower in Santa Clara (or at least none in the
last 40
| years that I know of), let alone one that meets that
description.
|
| OOP! that Should have been Santa Cruz. Ya know, the place with the
| big boardwalk and all the thong bikinis.......
|
| This one is right above the water level on a slough of some sort, I
| didn't get that good a look but observed it as we drove past. Sure
| looked like an local AM tower of the sort I've worked around.
|
| Ah yes - KSCO, whose long-time owner/engineer, the late Vern
Berlin.
| was colloquially known as "The Radio Sheriff of Santa Cruz".
Anyone
| do anything that wasn't kosher - bang, here comes the phone call
| from Vern. IIRC he was an olde-tymer ham as well.
|
| He's been gone for many years now.
|
| But yes, the multi-tower array is in a salt marsh (protected
| wetland) and the radials dribble off into the water. The use of a
| 120-radial counterpoise ground of proper length gives some
stability
| to the antenna impedance and to the vertical pattern which is
| important in MF work because of night-time sky-wave factors.
|
| --
| 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane
|
| I sure agree with that comment, Phil. What's really interesting is
a 4-tower inline array with one of the towers winding up as a negative
impedance. Lots of fun to keep that monster in tune. Glad I don't
have to do that any more. Same 4 towers are top loaded with the upper
most set of guy insulators on each tower shorted out, then no
additional insulators put lower down on the guys. Talk about a
drifting array when rime ice forms on the wires during the winter.

I also measured the peak RF voltage at the base of the two center
towers at over 15,000 volts each! This with only 5 KW of RF total
input.

73, Sam

"Phil Kane" wrote in message t.net...
On 11 Jul 2003 07:56:06 -0700, Brian Kelly wrote:

I can visualize this phase being a real nit-picking and repositioning
exercise, perhaps a source of fodder for appeals.

Yup. Maybe that's why there are some 3000 communication attornies
in the Washington DC area (and one in Beaverton).

Takes 3,000 of you guys in D.C. alone to "handle" the FCC huh?
Something is not just wrong with this picture, something is *really*
GOOFY. As far as BPL is concerned I'm wondering about how many hassles
will develop if the FCC abandons it's current rules in Part 15 in
order to accomodate BPL and/or related types of creative legal hassles
guys like you might be able to dredge up to stymie BPL, Tie it up in
the courts or wherever until the proponents give it up, etc.

What's the relationship between an NOI and an NPRM?
Only if they decide to do it by a "publicly debated" rule change.

If they want to be sneaky (assuming that they have this much
imagination - Hey, Bill, pay attention - they can issue an Order and
Further Notice of Inquiry, dropping Element 1 and asking for further
input on Novice HF Refarming. (AKA "The SmokeScreen")

I think ya slipped a thread. The BPL thing is currently the subject of
an NOI. Doesn't the FCC eventually have to publish an NPRM and go thru
the whole comments and rebuttals drill again for BPL before they can
authorize it?