"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message
...
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
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?

- Mike KB3EIA -

Well, no matter what Hans believes on this, power level enforcement or
even
monitoring just can't be done--unless there'd be a whole lot more dollars
and effort going to it and we all know that's not going to happen.

Kim W5TIT

While enforcement might prove difficult, the implementation
of a power limit would, I believe, not be violated by the
majority of hams. Those of us that were Novices at one time
lived with a 75 watt limit. Did some novices violate
that? Probably, but by and large, most stayed within the
legal limit.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

Bill Sohl wrote:
"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message


some snippage


Well, no matter what Hans believes on this, power level enforcement or
even
monitoring just can't be done--unless there'd be a whole lot more dollars
and effort going to it and we all know that's not going to happen.

Kim W5TIT


While enforcement might prove difficult, the implementation
of a power limit would, I believe, not be violated by the
majority of hams. Those of us that were Novices at one time
lived with a 75 watt limit. Did some novices violate
that? Probably, but by and large, most stayed within the
legal limit.

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.

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.

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?

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.

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Mike Coslo" wrote

Would the manufacturers make equipment that only put out 50 watts?

I think they would if the market existed. In JA there is a class of 10W HF
hams, and there are all sorts of nice 10W HF rigs available there.

But let's just suppose that the manufacturers continue to build only 100W HF
rigs for the US market. It's not the manufacturers responsibility to comply
with the power limits. That responsibility lies with each individual
licensee.

In my experience, hams are almost universally scrupulous in observing the
limitations that their license grant imposes on them.

73, de Hans, K0HB

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
Bill Sohl wrote:
"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message


some snippage


Well, no matter what Hans believes on this, power level enforcement or
even
monitoring just can't be done--unless there'd be a whole lot more
dollars
and effort going to it and we all know that's not going to happen.

Kim W5TIT


While enforcement might prove difficult, the implementation
of a power limit would, I believe, not be violated by the
majority of hams. Those of us that were Novices at one time
lived with a 75 watt limit. Did some novices violate
that? Probably, but by and large, most stayed within the
legal limit.

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.

I agree, see more below.

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.

And that's a logical threshold point in my opinion.

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?

None I know of.

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

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

Bill Sohl wrote:

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...

Bill Sohl wrote:

"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message


some snippage


Well, no matter what Hans believes on this, power level enforcement or
even
monitoring just can't be done--unless there'd be a whole lot more

dollars

and effort going to it and we all know that's not going to happen.

Kim W5TIT


While enforcement might prove difficult, the implementation
of a power limit would, I believe, not be violated by the
majority of hams. Those of us that were Novices at one time
lived with a 75 watt limit. Did some novices violate
that? Probably, but by and large, most stayed within the
legal limit.

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.


I agree, see more below.


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.


And that's a logical threshold point in my opinion.


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?


None I know of.


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^)

- 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/

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 -

"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

"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/

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.

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.


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.

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.

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.

73 de Jim, N2EY