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