In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

KØHB wrote:


On the contrary, my plan puts newcomers dead center in the mainstream of
amateur radio, with all the same privileges of EVERY other licensee, just
at
a more modest power level of 50watts.

How are you going to enforce that?

Same way all the other power limits are enforced.

73 de Jim, N2EY

N2EY wrote:

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:


KØHB wrote:



On the contrary, my plan puts newcomers dead center in the mainstream of
amateur radio, with all the same privileges of EVERY other licensee, just

at

a more modest power level of 50watts.

How are you going to enforce that?


Same way all the other power limits are enforced.

I imagine you're being a bit glib about that. If a ham is running way
too much power at the KW end of the scale, there will be possibilities
of TVI or RFI. There will be a local discernable problem with other hams
too.

But the difference between 50 and 100 watts? Not all that much that is
detectable. For this plan to work, (work means compliance) the equipment
manufacturers will have to throttle their transcievers to 50 watts.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Mike Coslo wrote in
:

N2EY wrote:

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:


KØHB wrote:



On the contrary, my plan puts newcomers dead center in the mainstream
of amateur radio, with all the same privileges of EVERY other
licensee, just

at

a more modest power level of 50watts.

How are you going to enforce that?


Same way all the other power limits are enforced.

I imagine you're being a bit glib about that. If a ham is running
way
too much power at the KW end of the scale, there will be possibilities
of TVI or RFI. There will be a local discernable problem with other
hams too.

But the difference between 50 and 100 watts? Not all that much that is
detectable. For this plan to work, (work means compliance) the
equipment manufacturers will have to throttle their transcievers to 50
watts.

- Mike KB3EIA -



It would be a better plan to make the limit 100W, i.e. base it on the
equipment, not vicea versa.

Alun wrote:

Mike Coslo wrote in
:


N2EY wrote:


In article , Mike Coslo
writes:



KØHB wrote:




On the contrary, my plan puts newcomers dead center in the mainstream
of amateur radio, with all the same privileges of EVERY other
licensee, just

at


a more modest power level of 50watts.

How are you going to enforce that?


Same way all the other power limits are enforced.

I imagine you're being a bit glib about that. If a ham is running
way
too much power at the KW end of the scale, there will be possibilities
of TVI or RFI. There will be a local discernable problem with other
hams too.

But the difference between 50 and 100 watts? Not all that much that is
detectable. For this plan to work, (work means compliance) the
equipment manufacturers will have to throttle their transcievers to 50
watts.

- Mike KB3EIA -




It would be a better plan to make the limit 100W, i.e. base it on the
equipment, not vicea versa.

BINGO! All plans have to incorporate some history and what is going on
at the moment. If a new ARS was to be made from nothing starting right
now, there would be no problem whatsoever dictating that the maximum
power for the so called class B license is to be 50 watts, or 48.7654
watts for that matter. But for years now, the standard max power for
most HF rigs has been 100 watts.

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Mike Coslo" wrote'

But for years now, the standard max power for
most HF rigs has been 100 watts.

In Japan, where there is a 10W power limit on one class of HF operators,
there is a plethora of 10W rigs available, most exactly the same as their
100W cousins except with a 10W final stage. As an example, the Icom 760
which is identical to the Icom 761 except it runs 10W. If the regulations
created a market for 50W-max HF radios, they'd be on the shelves of HRO in
time for Christmas giving.

73, de Hans, K0HB

"Alun" wrote

It would be a better plan to make the limit 100W, i.e. base it on the
equipment, not vicea versa.

That's a 'novel' idea! In that case the power limit should be 2.5KW,
because that's how much output my homebrew linear will produce if I supply
enough drive. If I build an even bigger linear, will FCC raise my power
limit? (Or will they expect me to obey the regulations?)

And we should make the speed limits in my town 140MPH, because that's how
fast my supercharged Ssei will run. (Try that one in front of the judge!)

Sunuvagun!

73, de Hans, K0HB

In article . net, "KØHB"
writes:

And we should make the speed limits in my town 140MPH, because that's how
fast my supercharged Ssei will run.

Your speed is too slow for Daytona. Get more supercharging..

LHA

KØHB wrote:

"Alun" wrote


It would be a better plan to make the limit 100W, i.e. base it on the
equipment, not vicea versa.


That's a 'novel' idea! In that case the power limit should be 2.5KW,
because that's how much output my homebrew linear will produce if I supply
enough drive. If I build an even bigger linear, will FCC raise my power
limit? (Or will they expect me to obey the regulations?)

And we should make the speed limits in my town 140MPH, because that's how
fast my supercharged Ssei will run. (Try that one in front of the judge!)

Are you seriously suggesting this is an appropriate reply to what Alun
wrote?

1. Who cares what your homebrew amp can run? You or I can make a larger
amp than that. You are arguing past people like Alun and myself. The
argument isn't about how much smoke any one person can put on the air.
The argument is about making a power limit that is accomodating of the
way that equipment has been made for quite a while and is still made
today. In fact if you were to call for a power limit of 100 watts, I
would say "that's fine."

2. I've been waiting for someone to bring up the automobile power
thing. That argument is completely irrelevant to this discussion. If
automobiles were made that could only go the speed limit and no more,
then they would have very little power. If ham transcievers were
comparable in any way to cars, we would have to start our transmissiona
at a high rate of power, and reduce power as we get up to whatever it is
we would have to get up to. The two just aren't related.

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Mike Coslo" wrote

Are you seriously suggesting this is an appropriate reply to what Alun
wrote?

Yes.

73, de Hans, K0HB

KØHB wrote:

"Mike Coslo" wrote


Are you seriously suggesting this is an appropriate reply to what Alun
wrote?


Yes.

That says quite a lot.

- Mike KB3EIA -