KØHB wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote


And how are we going to take care of the "shack on a belt" crowd. A
awful lot of hams are quite happy with their Technician licenses.


And under my plan they are free to keep their Technician license.

And new people that intend to operate in this fashiion will have a very
different set up.

A forced upgrade with absolutely no advantage for a person
that only does public events, and uses the local repeater once
in a while is not going to be very popular with them.


I don't propose to force them to upgrade. Technicians are perfectly free to
renew their current license.

So you are saying that present licenses will continue with the ten year
operating cycle? This is beginning to look like there will be 5 classes
of license in the end.



And of course, how ya gonna enforce that 50 watt limit? Enacting
unenforceable laws is a great way to breed disrespect for laws.


There are currently many examples of limited power in the rules. How do we
enforce the current 50W limit which exists for EVERYONE on some HF
frequencies? How do we enforce the current 200W limit in the Novice
sub-bands? How did we enforce the old 75W limit for Novices? How did we
enforce the old 50W limits on 160 meters? How do we enforce the current
200W limit on 30 meters? How do we enforce the 50W PEP limit on 219-220MHz?
How do we enforce the current Novice 5W limit on 23 cm? How do we enforce
the current 25W limit for Novices on 1.25 cm? As a matter of fact, how do
we enforce the current 1.5KW limit? Are you suggesting that FCC discard
all these limits because they breed disrespect? What a 'novel' idea!!!! (I
quit using the word 'stupid'.)

Just because an idea is bad, doesn't mean it isn't repeated, eh? BTW,
you forgot ro add the ERP power limit on 60 meters. Rolling back the
output power to 50 watts when most HF transcievers will do 100 watts is
simply not going to work (if you want it to work that is)

Perhaps it is just as easy to detect someone running at 100 watts as it
is at 3kilowatts?

But okay, perhaps you have the evidence of all the Technicians that
have been injured by using 100 watts of RF power? What is the basis for
50 watts? Is it safety? Or is it arbitrary?

- Mike KB3EIA -

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

KØHB wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote


And how are we going to take care of the "shack on a belt" crowd. A
awful lot of hams are quite happy with their Technician licenses.


And under my plan they are free to keep their Technician license.

And new people that intend to operate in this fashiion will have a very

different set up.

A forced upgrade with absolutely no advantage for a person
that only does public events, and uses the local repeater once
in a while is not going to be very popular with them.


I don't propose to force them to upgrade. Technicians are perfectly free
to
renew their current license.

So you are saying that present licenses will continue with the ten year

operating cycle? This is beginning to look like there will be 5 classes
of license in the end.



And of course, how ya gonna enforce that 50 watt limit? Enacting
unenforceable laws is a great way to breed disrespect for laws.


There are currently many examples of limited power in the rules. How do we
enforce the current 50W limit which exists for EVERYONE on some HF
frequencies? How do we enforce the current 200W limit in the Novice
sub-bands? How did we enforce the old 75W limit for Novices? How did we
enforce the old 50W limits on 160 meters? How do we enforce the current
200W limit on 30 meters? How do we enforce the 50W PEP limit on
219-220MHz?
How do we enforce the current Novice 5W limit on 23 cm? How do we enforce
the current 25W limit for Novices on 1.25 cm? As a matter of fact, how do
we enforce the current 1.5KW limit? Are you suggesting that FCC discard
all these limits because they breed disrespect? What a 'novel' idea!!!!
(I
quit using the word 'stupid'.)

Just because an idea is bad, doesn't mean it isn't repeated, eh? BTW,
you forgot ro add the ERP power limit on 60 meters. Rolling back the
output power to 50 watts when most HF transcievers will do 100 watts is
simply not going to work (if you want it to work that is)

Perhaps it is just as easy to detect someone running at 100 watts as it

is at 3kilowatts?

But okay, perhaps you have the evidence of all the Technicians that
have been injured by using 100 watts of RF power? What is the basis for
50 watts? Is it safety? Or is it arbitrary?

It is all about injury to Hans' pride that all don't rush over and
celebrate his Grande Plan. :-)

LHA

Mike Coslo wrote

What is the basis for 50 watts?


NCRP Report No. 86, "Biological Effects and Exposure Criteria for
Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields", Copyright 1986, National
Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, and ANSI/IEEE
C95.1-1992, "Safety Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to Radio
Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, 3 kHz to 300 GHz", Copyright 1992,
IEEE, Inc.

73, de Hans, K0HB

Hans K0HB wrote:

Mike Coslo wrote


What is the basis for 50 watts?



NCRP Report No. 86, "Biological Effects and Exposure Criteria for
Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields", Copyright 1986, National
Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, and ANSI/IEEE
C95.1-1992, "Safety Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to Radio
Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, 3 kHz to 300 GHz", Copyright 1992,
IEEE, Inc.

And that 50 watts affects calss A different than Class B?

I seriously doubt that a person that cannot handle 100 watts shild have
any license. Maybe class A shouldn't be alloed to have antennas over 10
feet off the ground either. Nasy falls.

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Mike Coslo" wrote

And that 50 watts affects calss A different than Class B?

Of course not. (This is another of those 'novel' questions.)

But my intention is that the Class B (learners permit with training wheels)
test be ultra simple, to allow as many applicants as possible. For that
reason, requiring qualification in esoterica like "Biological Effects and
Exposure Criteria for Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields" is
inappropriate. Thus the 50W power level recommended by the NCRP and
ANSI/IEEE ensures a modicum of safety for these beginners.

In the process of preparing for Class A (without training wheels) license,
the candidate would need to explore the RF-exposure safety issues which
would be on the qualification test. Then we could expect that they'd have
some appreciation of the hazards and how to ensure that their station is
engineered in compliance with the MPE criteria mandated by 97.13(c).

73, de Hans, K0HB

KØHB wrote:

"Mike Coslo" wrote


And that 50 watts affects calss A different than Class B?


Of course not. (This is another of those 'novel' questions.)

But my intention is that the Class B (learners permit with training wheels)
test be ultra simple, to allow as many applicants as possible. For that
reason, requiring qualification in esoterica like "Biological Effects and
Exposure Criteria for Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields" is
inappropriate. Thus the 50W power level recommended by the NCRP and
ANSI/IEEE ensures a modicum of safety for these beginners.

I would counter that it is a good idea for the initiate to know right
off the blocks that RF has some potential problems associated with it.

And while everyone talks about RF exposure, there are other problems
associated with RF that a person should know before they are allowed to
legally operate a rig. I had a problem trying to tune a longwire once,
and my trusty MFJ tuner nailed me good - bad knob design - it shouldn't
have the metal rim on the knob, which allows for some capacitive
coupling, so it seems. RF burns hurt! Power was probably around 50 watts.

I think the responsible thing to do, if safety is a concern, would be
to get those safety guidelines out of the way BEFORE going to advanced
licenses.


I also hope that your regulations would prohibit the Class B hams from
making or using a magloop antenna. I just did some calcs on a small
magloop for 40 meters, and at 50 Watts there is almost 5 kV across the
tuning cap. Ouch!


In the process of preparing for Class A (without training wheels) license,
the candidate would need to explore the RF-exposure safety issues which
would be on the qualification test. Then we could expect that they'd have
some appreciation of the hazards and how to ensure that their station is
engineered in compliance with the MPE criteria mandated by 97.13(c).

I think the candidate needs to know the safety issues long before this.
If the potential ham is smart enough to learn them for class A, they
should be smart enough to learn them for class B. If safety is first,
they shouldn't learn it second.

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

Hans K0HB wrote:

Mike Coslo wrote

What is the basis for 50 watts?

NCRP Report No. 86, "Biological Effects and Exposure Criteria for
Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields", Copyright 1986, National
Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, and ANSI/IEEE
C95.1-1992, "Safety Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to Radio
Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, 3 kHz to 300 GHz", Copyright 1992,
IEEE, Inc.

Hans dropped in a nice bibliographic note but did NOT say HOW
he arrived at his magical 50 W limit. :-)

Way too many variables in the amateur radio "station" arrangement
to say with some kind of certainty that 50 W is THE limit for any
class. FCC already showed that with a survey of some typical
California ham stations along with measurements of fields courtesy
of a couple of other government agencies and the hams who let them
all prowl around their property.

And that 50 watts affects calss A different than Class B?

I seriously doubt that a person that cannot handle 100 watts shild have
any license. Maybe class A shouldn't be alloed to have antennas over 10
feet off the ground either. Nasy falls.

100 Watts in a 50 Ohm system has an RMS RF Voltage of 70.7.
That's on the verge of burning human skin tissue.

50 Watts in a 50 Ohm system has 50 V RMS RF...still on the verge
of burning human skin tissue, although not as badly.

100 W of RF is little, piddly stuff to what I'm used to...like 15 KW up-
close-and-personal on HF, including walking around in antenna
fields of many and varied HF emitters...and 40 KW PEP HF stuff in
antenna fields in 1955. Most of us being personal with such powers
weren't suffering ill effects and almost all of us weren't licensed in
any "classes." We got the messages through.

---------

For some really in-depth looks at radio frequency radiation, go to the
Brooks AFB website and the documents at the USAF School of
Aerospace Medicine. The following is the cover page for one of the
shorter documents released in 1996:

http://www.brooks.af.mil/afrl/HED/he...uman-exposure/
cover.gif.html

That document title number is AL/OE-TR-1996-0035. It was
prepared in 1994. Be prepared to do a little math to find the
permissible RF field strengths...not much, just a little.

There's also FCC Office of Engineering and Technology
Bulletins 56 and 65 available on the FCC RF Safety webpage.
Only a few ANSI standards are free for download (if available),
the same with the IEEE site.

Maybe Hans will reveal what kind of aluminum suit he wears when
he fires up his "2.5 KW with increased drive" HF amplifier. :-)

LHA

(Len Over 21) wrote in message ...

100 W of RF is little, piddly stuff to what I'm used to...like 15 KW up-
close-and-personal on HF, including walking around in antenna
fields of many and varied HF emitters...and 40 KW PEP HF stuff in
antenna fields in 1955. Most of us being personal with such powers
weren't suffering ill effects and almost all of us weren't licensed in
any "classes." We got the messages through.

I have no doubt whatsoever that your proximity to high RF sources
has made you the "man" you are today, Lennie.

No doubt what so ever!

Steve, K4YZ

PS: Perhaps this is why we hear you talking about child rearing but
never hear about YOUR child-rearing experiences???

SR