KØHB wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote



And it makes an unenforceable power level for no real purpose.


Two points:

POINT A
------------

This "unenforceable" mantra is a weak argument, which does not gain strength
by the repetition.

Of course it's enforceable, or at least just as enforceable as power levels
have ever been. "Unenforceable" is a complete cop out. If power level is
not enforceable at 50W, then it's not enforceable at 2.5W, 25W, 50W ERP,
100W, 200W, or 1.5KW, all of which are power currently exist in FCC Amateur
Radio regulations.

It's not a cop out, it's a statement of truth.

POINT B
------------

That particular power level has a real purpose. The purpose is two-fold.

Purpose #1) It allows us to institute a "learners permit" class of license
in which we can limit power to a level which FCC has stated is safe for both
the user and unknowing passers-by.

A ten year license is hardly a learners permit.


Purpose #2) It allows us to institute a "learners permit" class of license
in which the power level minimizes the unwanted side-effects of granting
broad spectrum access to relatively underqualified operators.

The operators should be qualified.


Now, before
you spin up your rotors about "but QRP operators work around the world",
bear in mind that most of the "bad" signals heard on HF are the result of
ignorant operators trying to run a lot of power, and the consequent
splatter, flat-topping, birdies, over-compression, etc.

And some of them are Generals and Extras. So a proposal to allow new
people on HF with less qualifications is probably not going to improve
the situation.


On the other hand,
I've never heard a distorted or crappy QRP station.

Ya want to operate qrp succesfully, you need to do things right. These
QRP'ers are not operating QRP because they are beginners. I suspect most
if not all of them are high quality, experienced ops.



In further support of
the idea is the fact that all these 100W-class rigs you keep harping on are
running at near their designed-in upper capability, making them more likely
to become purveyors of all the crappy-signal symptoms I just talked about.
At 50W they are much less likely to be straining their design specifications
and consequently radiating cleaner signals.

And that is quite irrelevent to the situation. If it was relevant
limiting them to 25 watts would be even better.

- mike KB3EIA -

"KØHB" wrote:
"Dwight Stewart" wrote

What you've offered so far has
certainly not provided that proof.

(snip) So you cling to your "unfairness" and
"unenforceable" jeremiads, even though they
have both been refuted and discredited here
with elementary logic.

The beauty of the situation is that I don't have
to prove anything to you anyhow. I just have
to persuade the FCC. (snip)


Considering your nonsense about QCAO, negative comments about Technicians,
the lack of any valid reason for your proposal, the lack of any evidence
supporting your claims, and so forth, I think your real intent was proven
very nicely. If you've offered the same to the FCC, I suspect they will just
as easily see through your proposal.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

KØHB wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote


But it was clever editing nonetheless.



Yes, it certainly was. Thank you for noticing.

Thanks! My teachers tell me I'm very observant - if a little annoying..

- Mike KB3EIA -

"KØHB" wrote:

And of course I haven't belittled any amateurs.


Of course you have. Your very proposal, recommending the Extra exam as the
sole license exam for full privileges, suggests everyone except Extras are
not educated enough and are therefore not qualified to be Amateur Radio
operators. It also suggests the material covered on the first three written
tests (Novice, Tech, and General), most of it not repeated in the Extra
test, is not necessary - only the material in the Extra test is needed to be
an Amateur Radio operator. Your proposal is the most elitest piece of
garbage I've ever seen promoted in this radio service.


I've only pointed out the inadequacies of the current
qualification process and suggested an alternative.


Don't be silly, Hans. You haven't pointed out any inadequacies at all.
Indeed, that is where the main objection to your proposal exists.


That you have decided to start bringing personality into
the argument speaks volumes about the inadequacy of
your arguments and logic skills.


Your personality, your views, your bias, is at the very heart of your
proposal, and therefore any discussion about this proposal.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

KØHB wrote:
"Dwight Stewart" wrote


What you've offered so far has
certainly not provided that proof.


Stewart, there's no polite way for me to say this. With your QCAO agenda snip


I'm almost afraid to ask, Hans. What is QCAO?

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Mike Coslo" wrote:
Bill Sohl wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote:
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.

Actually, I think they SHOULD know about the
basics of RF, RF hazards, etc

Seems like we're pretty much on the same page
here! 8^)


Actually, read over the Extra question pool, Mike. It doesn't extensively
cover RF exposure safety. Most of that is already covered in the Novice,
Tech, and General, and only lightly repeated in the Extra pools (with
perhaps one or two additions). Remember that each test builds onto the info
in the previous tests (Techs take both the Novice and Tech tests). All tests
now include some RF exposure safety questions to insure those who missed it
on earlier tests (a General that didn't get the latest info on tests taken
twenty years ago, for example) gets that info when they take the next test.
And, finally, remember that Hans' proposal would entirely drop the Novice,
Tech, and General (losing everything on those tests), making the Extra the
sole license test for full privileges.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"Len Over 21" writes:

- nothing -


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


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"Len Over 21" wrote:

"Technicians" are harming Hans' concept of
what is "harmful." :-)


LOL!! Exactly. And harming his vision of self. :-)


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

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.


Would the manufacturers make equipment that only put out 50 watts?
Possibly, but what will be the resale value of the equipment? So the new
Class A ham has to go out and buy a new rig to make use of his or her
new priveliges? Remember not everyone wants to run a lot of power. 100
watts is something most people are comfortable with.


When the Novice was created back in 1951, the power limit was 75 watts input.
Which works out to about 50 watts output.

In a short time there were many manufacturers making transmitters for the
Novice market. Their resale value was good because there were always new
Novices coming along looking for a bargain.

And those manufacturers had to compete with homebrew and surplus rigs which
were in abundance back then. (One of the reasons Novices were limited to 75 w
xtal control was so that homebrew rigs used by Novices would be kept simple).

In fact many Novices used less than the full power allowed.

Let's see...there was the Ameco AC-1, the Heath AT-1, DX-20, DX-35, DX-40, d
DX-60 and HW-16, the Johnson Adventurer, Challenger, Navigator and Ranger, the
Drake 2-NT, the Hallicrafters HT-40.......to name just a few.

And this was when the amateur radio market was a lot smaller than it is today.

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


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


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.


One question is being overlooked, though: Why are most manufactured rigs rated
100 watts? Why not 50 watts, or 250 watts, or something else? (A very few are
rated at other power levels). Why 100.

The answer is about 50 years old.

Sometimes change is good, and sometimes change is not so good.

All change comes from within the framework of what exists at the time of
the change.

If we were to propose a class A class B system from scratch, then I
might say this is a good idea.

But it isn't a system from scratch, it's a tack-on to another system.

So we'll end up with:

1. Technicians - 1.5 kW privileges but no HF privileges, license period
10 years renewable.

2. Generals - HF plus 1.5 kW privileges, but no access to Extra
sections. License period ten years renewable.

3. Extras - all privileges, license period ten years renewable.

4. Class B - all privileges, 50 watt power limit, license period 10
years non renewable.

5. Class A - All privileges, full power, non expiring license.


Now I would like to know why this is a better system than what I would
propose, a 3 tier system in which the setup is much like today. The only
difference would be that if Morse code testing were to go away, the
writtens would be beefed up a bit.

I suspect this system would more likely find favor with the FCC. No new
databases, and similar to something already in place.

All the safety issues are moot. I haven't seen the harm done by over 50
watts. In fact, is it even that *good* of an idea to look at limiting
power on the basis of "safety"? I mean if 50 Watts is safer than 100,
maybe 25 is safer than 50. Maybe the FCC should look very closely at the
power levels that hams use. Maybe all hams should be limited in power so
we don't hurt ourselves with RF. Could be a real can of worms to open.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Dwight Stewart wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote:

Bill Sohl wrote:

"Mike Coslo" wrote:

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.

Actually, I think they SHOULD know about the
basics of RF, RF hazards, etc

Seems like we're pretty much on the same page
here! 8^)



Actually, read over the Extra question pool, Mike. It doesn't extensively
cover RF exposure safety. Most of that is already covered in the Novice,
Tech, and General, and only lightly repeated in the Extra pools (with
perhaps one or two additions). Remember that each test builds onto the info
in the previous tests (Techs take both the Novice and Tech tests). All tests
now include some RF exposure safety questions to insure those who missed it
on earlier tests (a General that didn't get the latest info on tests taken
twenty years ago, for example) gets that info when they take the next test.
And, finally, remember that Hans' proposal would entirely drop the Novice,
Tech, and General (losing everything on those tests), making the Extra the
sole license test for full privileges.


I think that is what I was saying, Dwight. FR safety should be one of
the first things learned, not the final lesson! 8^)

- Mike KB3EIA -

Len, Way Over 21 wrote nothing but offered up copies of this and a
couple of other exchanges:

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

KØHB wrote:
"Dee D. Flint" wrote


Mike, You and I know it can't be enforced without invasion of privacy.

You

have to go on the operator's property and make local field strength
measurements.


The rules have a wide assortment of power level restrictions below 100W,
some as low as 2.5W, Many of them apply to every license class. Can I
presume from your flip answer that we can safely ignore those limits
because
it would be an "invasion of privacy" for FCC to enforce them?

You muddy the waters. The point as I see it is that Technicians now
have access to much higher power levels. Equipment is already out that
has 100 watts, and you can be hurt by 50 watt units as well as 100 watt
units. And it makes an unenforceable power level for no real purpose. No
reason why the first class of license can't have enough RF information
that it is expected to know that it can safely operate 100 watts.

I presume there is evidence that Technicians are harming themselves now?
If not, you have a pretty weak argument.

Another snarl of tape in the Anderson home communications center, Len
old boy?

Dave K8MN

Len Over 21 wrote:

In article et, "KØHB"
writes:

"Dwight Stewart" wrote

What you've offered so far has
certainly not provided that proof.

Stewart, there's no polite way for me to say this. With your QCAO agenda so
thoroughly clouding your thought processes, you wouldn't recognize proof if
Mr. Proof in a monogrammed sweater jumped out of your computer screen and
bit you square on the nose. So you cling to your "unfairness" and
"unenforceable" jeremiads, even though they have both been refuted and
discredited here with elementary logic.

WHAT "logic" heap big chief?

Power levels have been set by the FCC for decades. Perhaps you can
adequately logical reasons why such would be considered unfair or
unenforceable, kinly old gent.

All you've done so far is to ISSUE ORDERS OF THE DAY. No "logic,"
simply a set of demands which are labeled "TRUTH."

I must have missed the demands part, Len. Why not clarify it for us?

The beauty of the situation is that I don't have to prove anything to you
anyhow. I just have to persuade the FCC.

Fine. Convince the Commission you are god.

I'll be waiting, heap big chief. :-)

....not on the ham bands, you won't. You aren't involved in amateur
radio.

Dave K8MN

Len Over 21 wrote:

In article et, "KØHB"
writes:

"Mike Coslo" wrote


POINT B
------------

That particular power level has a real purpose. The purpose is two-fold.

Well, if YOU said it, it must have a "real purpose." :-)

Purpose #1) It allows us to institute a "learners permit" class of license
in which we can limit power to a level which FCC has stated is safe for both
the user and unknowing passers-by.

What do you mean "we," white man?

He added "unknowing passers-by". That pretty well covers you.

I think you think you think more than the OET and the IEEE and the
USAF and the ANSI.

Purpose #2) It allows us to institute a "learners permit" class of license
in which the power level minimizes the unwanted side-effects of granting
broad spectrum access to relatively underqualified operators. Now, before
you spin up your rotors about "but QRP operators work around the world",
bear in mind that most of the "bad" signals heard on HF are the result of
ignorant operators trying to run a lot of power, and the consequent
splatter, flat-topping, birdies, over-compression, etc. On the other hand,
I've never heard a distorted or crappy QRP station. In further support of
the idea is the fact that all these 100W-class rigs you keep harping on are
running at near their designed-in upper capability, making them more likely
to become purveyors of all the crappy-signal symptoms I just talked about.
At 50W they are much less likely to be straining their design specifications
and consequently radiating cleaner signals. In the hands of even a QCAO
life-member it would be hard to splatter/chirp/over-modulate when you're
running at half the design limit of the rig.

Of course. A "learner's permit." As if the ONLY radio emitters in
the world came from amateur radio stations. :-)

A learner's permit for amateur radio to be used in the pursuit of
amateur radio. You know, it's one of those things in life of which you
are not a part.

Geez...for a work manager supposedly with a degree you sure don't
know much about equipment that can go wrong, be misadjusted, and
lots of other little nasties lurking inside electronics boxes. Tsk, tsk.

"In the hands of you QCAO members," the "expertise" in radio
matters went out the window if you think that RF power output is the
ONLY thing causing splatter/chirp/over-modulation (etc.).

Without RF power output, you wouldn't notice it, Len :-) :-)

Dave K8MN

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?

Would the manufacturers make equipment that only put out 50 watts?
Possibly, but what will be the resale value of the equipment? So the new
Class A ham has to go out and buy a new rig to make use of his or her
new priveliges? Remember not everyone wants to run a lot of power. 100
watts is something most people are comfortable with.

When the Novice was created back in 1951, the power limit was 75 watts
input. Which works out to about 50 watts output.

In a short time there were many manufacturers making transmitters for the
Novice market. Their resale value was good because there were always new
Novices coming along looking for a bargain.

And those manufacturers had to compete with homebrew and surplus rigs
which were in abundance back then. (One of the reasons Novices were
limited to 75 w xtal control was so that homebrew rigs used by Novices would
be kept simple).

In fact many Novices used less than the full power allowed.

In another post there was discussion about QRPers being mostly experienced,
operators, not beginners.

But back in 1967, when I got my Novice at the age of 13, my first transmitter
(homebrew, of course) ran all of 10 watts input. Output was maybe 5 to 7 watts,
antenna was a wire out to the crab apple tree in the back yard. Had a lot of
fun on 80 CW with that setup, even though I was not very skilled back then.

Let's see...there was the Ameco AC-1, the Heath AT-1, DX-20, DX-35,
DX-40, DX-60 and HW-16, the Johnson Adventurer, Challenger, Navigator
and Ranger, the
Drake 2-NT, the Hallicrafters HT-40.......to name just a few.

And this was when the amateur radio market was a lot smaller than it is
today.

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.

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 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.

One question is being overlooked, though: Why are most manufactured rigs
rated
100 watts? Why not 50 watts, or 250 watts, or something else? (A very few
are
rated at other power levels). Why 100.

The answer is about 50 years old.

Sometimes change is good, and sometimes change is not so good.

All progress requires change, but all change is not progress.

All change comes from within the framework of what exists at the time of
the change.

Sometimes the framework is demolished by the change, though.

If we were to propose a class A class B system from scratch, then I
might say this is a good idea.

But it isn't a system from scratch, it's a tack-on to another system.

So we'll end up with:

1. Technicians - 1.5 kW privileges but no HF privileges, license period
10 years renewable.

2. Generals - HF plus 1.5 kW privileges, but no access to Extra
sections. License period ten years renewable.

3. Extras - all privileges, license period ten years renewable.

4. Class B - all privileges, 50 watt power limit, license period 10
years non renewable.

5. Class A - All privileges, full power, non expiring license.

I see it differently. First off, Extra and Class A will probably be merged
because there's essentially no difference. Maybe when an Extra renews, he/she
would get a nonexpiring Class A

Second, we'd still have Novices and Advanceds as well as the other classes,
until the last of those licenses expires or upgrades.

Now I would like to know why this is a better system than what I would
propose, a 3 tier system in which the setup is much like today.

Have you seen my three-tier system proposal?

The only
difference would be that if Morse code testing were to go away, the
writtens would be beefed up a bit.

That's going to be a very hard sell. In fact the "21st Century" folks want the
opposite, at least for the entry level license.

I suspect this system would more likely find favor with the FCC. No new
databases, and similar to something already in place.

They're currently maintaining a six-class database system.

All the safety issues are moot. I haven't seen the harm done by over 50

watts. In fact, is it even that *good* of an idea to look at limiting
power on the basis of "safety"? I mean if 50 Watts is safer than 100,
maybe 25 is safer than 50. Maybe the FCC should look very closely at the
power levels that hams use. Maybe all hams should be limited in power so
we don't hurt ourselves with RF. Could be a real can of worms to open.

It was done 7 years ago. In detail. That's how we got the curent rules.

I don't agree with all of Hans' proposal, but he *does* present some fresh new
ideas, rather than simply patching up the old 1951 vintage system one more
time.

And his proposal isn't just another "get rid of the code test and everything
will be fine" things, either.

It's really fascinating to read the reactions, too.

--

And now the answer to the "why 100 watts?" question.

The following is Just My Opinion.

Back about 1950 or so, RCA announced a new transmitting tube, the 6146. It had
been designed to eliminate many of the problems encountered with other tubes of
similar power rating, like the 807. Its design was based in part on comments
and suggestions from ARRL Technical Editor George Grammer (SK)

The 6146 was an instant hit with hams, because its electrical and mechanical
characteristics were just what hams were looking for. A single tube would
produce 50-60 watts on HF at full ratings, and a pair would do 100-120 watts
output. Both homebrewers and manufacturers used the 6146 and its cousins (6883,
6159, etc.) in a variety of ham rigs. The most popular setup was a pair of
them, producing a nominal 100 watts. Many small rigs used one tube, and at
least two (Johnson Viking Valiant, Yaesu FT-102) used three of them. Of all the
ham rigs made with tube finals, probably the most popular setup was "a pair of
6146s".

(but none of the Southgate rigs use that tube!)

When SSB transceivers became popular, almost all of them followed the lead set
by Collins in the KWM-1 and KWM-2, and used a pair of 6146s to get 100 W.

One noticeable exception was Drake, who used sweep tubes. Oddly enough, many
Drake owners are converting their rigs to use (you guessed it) 6146s.

So when transistors began to replace tubes in the final stages of ham rigs,
most of the manufacturers designed for the 100 W power level.

On top of all this was the development of grounded-grid zero bias "Class B"
(actually, Class AB2) linear amplifiers for amateur SSB use in the 1950s and
'60s. Most designs required "50 to 100 watts" of drive power - perfect match
for the usual 100W rig. A quad of 811As, pair of 572Bs, a single or pair of
3-400Zs or 3-500Zs, or a single 3-1000Z were (and still are) common designs.
Now ee have ceramic-metal indirectly heated tubes like the 3CX800A7 which
require less drive, but the old habits die hard...

73 de Jim, N2EY

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.

:-)















Vehicular operation warning to mathematicians: "Never drink and derive."

Alun wrote:

(N2EY) wrote in
:

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

On top of all this was the development of grounded-grid zero bias
"Class B" (actually, Class AB2) linear amplifiers for amateur SSB use
in the 1950s and '60s. Most designs required "50 to 100 watts" of drive
power - perfect match for the usual 100W rig. A quad of 811As, pair of
572Bs, a single or pair of 3-400Zs or 3-500Zs, or a single 3-1000Z were
(and still are) common designs. Now ee have ceramic-metal indirectly
heated tubes like the 3CX800A7 which require less drive, but the old
habits die hard...


You might be right about needing a 100W rig to drive most linears, but not
about the 6146s. A pair of 6146 tubes will deliver 280W upto 30 MHz and
half that upto 60MHz acoording to the spec.

You're mistaken, Alun. A single 6146B is rated at 61 watts output in
AB1. So a pair would be at the 120w level.

The old Yaesu FTDX-560 was
rated at 280W out with a pair off 6146s (560W input power, hence the model
number).

You're half right. The FT-DX560 was rated at 560w PEP input power but
it used television sweep tubes.

Dave K8MN

In article , Alun
writes:

You might be right about needing a 100W rig to drive most linears, but not
about the 6146s.

Check the ratings. You'll find that I'm right. Sorry, Alun, but I checked my
info before posting and it's accurate.

A pair of 6146 tubes will deliver 280W upto 30 MHz and
half that upto 60MHz acoording to the spec.

The 6146 is rugged, but not that rugged.

The maximum rated power output of a pair of 6146s in Class AB2 *audio* service
is 131 watts. Typical Class AB1 RF service will deliver less.

6146Bs can deliver a bit more. But even at maximum ratings, a pair of 6146Bs is
only rated at 240 watts *input* (Class C).

The old Yaesu FTDX-560 was
rated at 280W out with a pair off 6146s (560W input power, hence the model
number).

560 W input is more than three times the maximum rated input power for 6146s
and more than twice the rated input power for 6146Bs.

The FTDX-560/570 (570 was a deluxe model rated 10 W more) and the earlier
FTDX400 did not use 6146s or any member of the 6146 family.

Those old Yaesus all used 6KD6 sweep tubes, as did the FL-2000 amplifier. (The
FL-2000 was based on a QST article of about 1968 in which up to six 6KD6s were
used in a low-cost amplifier).

But don't take my word for it. NJ7P has a neat tube database, and there are web
pages devoted to early Yaesus.


73 de Jim, N2EY

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/

Dee D. Flint wrote:
"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).

I still think there is a fundamental problem I have with Morse code -
although I have come a long way, the effort I have to put in compared to
what others apparently have to do is nothing short of phenomenal. A half
hour at lunch, another half hour to an hour in the evening, 6 days a
week, and I am still struggling. I know I am nowhere near stupid, and
I've tried enough different methods to know that there is something
somewhere that makes my brain process sounds a bit differently than
those that find Morse easy.

But in most matters, I am one of those steely nerved types, and
consider myself too dumb to panic.

But, I persevere! I'm starting to catch whole words on the air (at
faster speeds) now, and it is exciting, despite my whining about it!

8^)

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Dwight Stewart" wrote

And, finally, remember that Hans' proposal would entirely drop the Novice,
Tech, and General (losing everything on those tests), making the Extra the
sole license test for full privileges.

Nope, you keep getting it wrong, Dwight. I'd also drop the Extra
examination, and institute a **new** Class A examination, similar in
difficulty (but with obviously different content) than the current Extra.

73, de Hans, K0HB

"Mike Coslo" wrote

Maybe the FCC should look very closely at the
power levels that hams use.

They recently did just that, and as a result the rules now include 97.13(c)
which require YOU to perform an environmental evaluation of your station if
you intend to use QRO, and certify that evaluation on your renewal
application. The "can of worms" is open.

73, de Hans, K0HB

"Mike Coslo" wrote


I think you disagree.


Yes, I do, but that doesn't make you (or me) a bad person. I appreciate
your input.

73, de Hans, K0HB

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
ink.net...

"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/


The angle of argument that Dee is trying to use is old, tired and *yawn*....

Kim W5TIT

"KØHB" wrote:

Nope, you keep getting it wrong, Dwight.
I'd also drop the Extra examination, and
institute a **new** Class A examination,
similar in difficulty (but with obviously
different content) than the current Extra.


I don't think so, Hans. You're advocating a test "similar in difficulty"
to the Extra. However, an Extra hasn't just taken that one test - he also
took the Tech and General prior to that. The material on each test is
different, with later tests building on the material in the earlier tests.
To cover the same material an Extra has covered today ("similar
difficulty"), your new test would have to include the material covered in
all three current tests (with over 120 questions in one sitting). So, are
you advocating that, advocating some type of reduced content test (less
questions), or did you simply forget the material on the first two tests?


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

Dwight Stewart wrote:
"KØHB" wrote:

Nope, you keep getting it wrong, Dwight.
I'd also drop the Extra examination, and
institute a **new** Class A examination,
similar in difficulty (but with obviously
different content) than the current Extra.



I don't think so, Hans. You're advocating a test "similar in difficulty"
to the Extra. However, an Extra hasn't just taken that one test - he also
took the Tech and General prior to that. The material on each test is
different, with later tests building on the material in the earlier tests.
To cover the same material an Extra has covered today ("similar
difficulty"), your new test would have to include the material covered in
all three current tests (with over 120 questions in one sitting). So, are
you advocating that, advocating some type of reduced content test (less
questions), or did you simply forget the material on the first two tests?


Well said, Dwight. Everything is built on what went before it. So now
what sounded kind of easy is not so easy. Someone here, perhaps Jim,
pointed out how the Extra license tests did not address RF safety much
if at all. But wait! the Class B tests are apparently not going to
address RF safety either because the power is limited to a "safe"
amount. So now safety related learning is confined to the second test
for class A.

Dat's gonna be one big test!


- Mike KB3EIA -

"Mike Coslo" wrote


Dat's gonna be one big test!


Back when I took the Extra exam it had 100 questions. Seems about right to
me.

73, de Hans, K0HB

"Dwight Stewart" wrote

To cover the same material an Extra has covered today ("similar
difficulty"), your new test would have to include the material covered in
all three current tests (with over 120 questions in one sitting).

I expect it would be a longer test than todays Extra, but probably not 120
questions (since some things, like band segments for example, would be the
same as for the learner-permit level), and perhaps not necessarily in one
sitting -- could be structured to be taken in 2 (or 3?) sessions for those
who are intimidated by lengthy exams or have weak bladders.

My Extra exam was 100 questions. You were allowed 3.5 hours to complete it.

73, de Hans, K0HB

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in
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



It's only the wrong perspective because it's not your perspective