N2EY wrote:
In article , Mike Coslo writes:


N2EY wrote:

In article , Mike Coslo writes:



But even if that is the case, it would seem to me to make more sense to
us a limit that is easily handled by virtue of equipment that will
handle the limit already on the market.



Exisitng equipment could still be used by LP licensees - they just have to
turn it down by 3 dB.

Yes, of course.


So what's the problem?

It's more of a problem than having a maximum of 100 watts, which just
happens to be what is the standard now.

I've gone over what I think are possible problems, such as the
likelihood of a ham to simply crank up the power if he or she is having
trouble getting through, or simply wanting to.

It's the apparent lack of Technicians being harmed by their allowed
power levels.

It's that the newly licensed class A will find their rig won't drive a
number of linear amps to full power.

I think that the rationale behind the lower limit, based on some rf
safety report, is not correct. If RF safety is important, and it is,
Then that should be the first thing taught to the prospective amateur.

I think that no amateur should be allowed to "mash that PTT" button
unless the testing authority is pretty darn sure that they are educated
enough that they can safely operate a 100 watt station.

I think that people can find creative ways to harm themselves.

I think allowing them 50 watts output without proper RF safety
instruction is irresponsible.

I think that once you have enough RF safety savvy to operate 50 watts,
you have enough RF safety savvy to run 100 watts.

I think all these things argue toward testing more for RF safety, and
since the new amateur would then have some knowledge of RF safety, the
new amateur would be qualified to run 100 watts, which just happens to
be the level that most HF rigs are already putting out.

I think you disagree.


No argument with any of your points, Jim. But that isn't today. Today
the standard HF rig puts out 100 watts.


My point is simply that when the new license appeared, the manufacturers
quickly came up with rigs that matched the privileges of the license.

How much time do you think it would take Ikensu to come up with 40-50 watt
versions of their rigs? Heck, they already make 10 watt versions for their
domestic market.

Why should they, if all you have to do is turn down the output power?
Don't you trust these people? 8^)


And the rationale for the reduction of power needs to be proven to me
anyway. How many Technicians have been hurt by using more than 50 watts
power?

Under Hans' plan, no existing hams would lose any privileges. So they don't
have to worry.

But that isn't answering my question. Perhaps I should phrase it
better. If technicians, who are allowed to toy with 1500 Watts, are not
being harmed by their hobby, then what is the reason for limiting their
power? More on this in a minute


One reason is to simplify the test. If the power level is kept low enough, many
of the RF exposure questions can be eliminated from the test.

And My opinion is that eliminating *those* questions is
counterproductive and not the most responsible thing to do. And you
already know what I think about simplifying the tests.


And do you think that the prospective ham should not know about RF
safety until they reach the equivalent of an Extra? This plan seems to
advocate that.

Until a few years ago there were no questions about RF exposure at all in
the pools.

Are you arguing for or against this, Jim? If there were no questions on


RF exposure, and hams did okay, but we should limit new hams to 50 watts
because of safety concerns - it just isn't a good argument to me.


The hazards of RF exposure, even at relatively low levels, are better
understood now than before. But there is still a lot of work to be done.
Meanwhile, it makes sense to reduce exposure when possible.

And this ties right into the part of my last post that you snipped.
Maybe in the interests of RF safety, and among people who think that it
makes sense to reduce exposure, it might seem like a good idea to limit
*all* hams maximum power. Let that dog sleep!

The idea is no more outlandish than the idea that the tests could be
getting simplified bit by bit to the point of giving up on testing
altogether.


sooooo...

People could be trotted out to expound on their QRP exploits around the
world. The success of 60 meters and it's lowered power limits are
another arguing point. I can hear it now: "After seeing the successful
operation of Amateur Radio operators under these circumstances, and the
general safety problems which Amateurs concede is a problem, it is only
prudent, sensible and reasonable to reduce transmitter power to 50 Watts
or perhaps less. This is in line with published tests dealing with RF
Safety. Coupled with these lowered and safer power limits, we can now
eliminate the regulatory morass of Amateur Radio testing altogether, and
turn our Amateur spectrum into a service that can be accessed safely by
all Americans."

Oh frabjous day!


snippage

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Steve Robeson, K4CAP" wrote:

(Len Over 21) wrote in message ...
In article . net, "Dwight
Stewart" writes:

Len, a lot of your messages lately are coming through with no reply added
(just the quote from the message you're replying to).

My bad. The "lot" was all of three messages.

Well...we can add THESE three messages to the numerous other
times you've done the same thing.

Last time it was some phantom friend's software that caused the
glitch.

Must be kinda embarrassing for a "professional" electronics
"engineer" such as yourself, eh Lennie...???

He's not embarrassed, Steve. We've simply fallen into another of his
carefully laid traps :-) :-) :-)

Dave K8MN

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
hlink.net...
Few people today
(especially boys and men) have not learned code, or at least played around
with it, at some point in their lives. When we were kids, many of us sent
messages to friends using flashlights or walkie-talkies with code printed
on
the side. Many other games and toys over the years have featured messages,
secret or otherwise, sent by Morse code. Others learned code in groups
like
the Boy Scouts. Still others learned it in the military. In reality, most
adults today are familiar enough with code to know whether they have any
real interest in it.

Strange where do you come up with this "fact" that most adults are familiar
with the code. The Boy Scouts that I knew did not except for one or two
individuals who went for a merit badge. In the military, only those who
went for radio might have had any introduction to it and not all of those.
My neighborhood friends when I was a kid did not play around with sending
Morse code with flashlights.

Of the adults that I have talked to, only those in ham radio had any
familiarity with Morse code.

So please cite the statistical data that shows people have had enough
exposure to Morse code to be able to evaluate it even though they don't know
it.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
hlink.net...
"Dee D. Flint" wrote:

"Dwight Stewart" wrote:
Really? You mean all those things I did
to get a properly operating station (putting
coax and connectors together, water-
proofing, antenna tuning, SWR tests,
ground radials, masts, guy wires, wiring a
microphone, equipment grounding,
lightning protection, RF exposure level
estimates, and so on) wasn't really needed
and didn't really require any skills to do
properly? (snip)

Soldering requires some modest skill but one
can hire that done if desired. The other items
are necessary but no skill is required just
taking the time to do it. (snip)


If you truly believe there is no skill involved to do those things
properly, I suspect you haven't done most of them (at least not properly).


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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



Done them many times and done them properly.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , Alun
writes:

I think you're missing the point. I took _code_ tests to get _phone_
subbands. There's no logic in that. Never was, even from the beginning.

Sure there is. Here it is, though you may argue that it doesn't hold much
water
today:


In addition, anyone one who thinks they took the code tests to get phone
subbands isn't really viewing it from the right perspective anyway. The
code test, as well as the additional writtens, was to get HF privileges or
should have been. It happens that phone privileges are included when one
earns HF privileges.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"KØHB" wrote in message
nk.net...
"Dwight Stewart" wrote

some would certainly object to "Extra" as an adverb
meaning unusual or exceptional.

I agree that some would, which is why my proposal has simple alphabetic
characters to designate the two license levels.

Going with letter designations don't get around perceptions. Class "A"
would be perceived as "better" than "Class B" so what's the point in
renaming the classes.

Extra simply means that they did "extra" testing and have "extra"
privileges. Seems pretty simple to me.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
t...
[snip]
Reminds me of the first time I took the General test. I got up early
and drove to the Hamfest in Butler PA from State College PA. Drank
several cups of coffee on the way. I took the writtens first, and no
problem acing it. Then the combination of the trip and too much coffee
kicked in as I sat down for the Morse code test. As they say in the
Bronx fuggitaboudit! So I had to wait a while for my ticket.

Which makes me wonder, I do not do Morse well under stress. I wonder how
some of those who had to do it under some awful condx ever managed.

- Mike KB3EIA -


Those who can hold it together under stress come in two types: a - nerves
of steel (only a few of those around) OR b - they've done it so long that
it's no more stressful than talking (probably the more common reason).

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
gy.com...

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , Alun
writes:

I think you're missing the point. I took _code_ tests to get _phone_
subbands. There's no logic in that. Never was, even from the beginning.

Sure there is. Here it is, though you may argue that it doesn't hold
much
water
today:


In addition, anyone one who thinks they took the code tests to get phone
subbands isn't really viewing it from the right perspective anyway. The
code test, as well as the additional writtens, was to get HF privileges or
should have been. It happens that phone privileges are included when one
earns HF privileges.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE


I endured the study of and took the test for CW *just* for the phone
privleges on 10M, specifically to join in on a nightly ragchew with a whole
bunch of local folks--which is no longer going on but it was neat while it
did. That is the *only* reason I did anything involving CW. So, you can
word it any way you want, Dee, but what compels one person to work with CW
at all, may not be what compels someone else.

Kim W5TIT

Mike Coslo wrote:




Which makes me wonder, I do not do Morse well under stress. I wonder how
some of those who had to do it under some awful condx ever managed.


Try it after getting up at 3am to drive 5 hrs to the nearest FCC office
and set there in front of an FCC examiner. I managed it OK but the other
guy going for General was so nervous that when he was asked to send he
could only get out a string of meaningless dots and dashes. The exam
officer told him to go get a cup of coffee while he had me do my sending
test then come back and try again. He did make it, but just under the wire.

"Dee D. Flint" wrote:

So please cite the statistical data that shows
people have had enough exposure to Morse
code to be able to evaluate it even though
they don't know it.


I'll tell you what, Dee. You show me where such statistical data is
collected and I'll cite it for you. Until then, it is clear that my comments
were nothing more than opinions. Of course, you knew that before responding.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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