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.

- Mike KB3EIA -

"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.

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.

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.

73, de Hans, K0HB

In article et, "KØHB"
writes:

"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.

Then WHY have it?

Simply ISSUING ORDERS is a stupid idea without some reasoning
behind it.

So...why is the "maximum power" under your plan 50 W instead of
100 W?

Show your work.


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?

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. :-)

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.).

Someone do something nasty in your wheaties this morning? :-)

LHA

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

(Len Over 21) wrote in message ...

What do you mean "we," white man?

Your point for introducing a racial suggestion, Your Putziness?

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

The point here is training for Radio Amateurs...Not
"professional", Military, PLMRS, MURS, Special Emergency, etc etc
etc...

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.

And you'd know WHAT of current Amateur gear, Lennie?

Your CURRENT practical experience in AMATEUR Radio...?!?!

Show YOUR work.

Steve, K4YZ

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 -

"Mike Coslo" wrote:

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


Of course there isn't any evidence of that, Mike. As I said earlier, Hans'
proposal appears to be a solution looking for a problem (an answer looking
for a question). Actually, after reading what he's said about it in this
thread, his proposal really appears to be nothing more than a way for Hans
to build up his own self-image by belittling Technicians (and to a lesser
extent Generals).


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"Dwight Stewart" wrote

Actually, after reading what he's said about it in this
thread, his proposal really appears to be nothing more than a way for Hans
to build up his own self-image by belittling Technicians (and to a lesser
extent Generals).

In the inbred world of rrap, there is no self-image to build.

And of course I haven't belittled any amateurs. I've only pointed out the
inadequacies of the current qualification process and suggested an
alternative. That you have decided to start bringing personality into the
argument speaks volumes about the inadequacy of your arguments and logic
skills.

With kindest personal regards,

de Hans, K0HB

In article . net, "KØHB"
writes:

"Dwight Stewart" wrote

Actually, after reading what he's said about it in this
thread, his proposal really appears to be nothing more than a way for Hans
to build up his own self-image by belittling Technicians (and to a lesser
extent Generals).

In the inbred world of rrap, there is no self-image to build.

Tell that to the regulars. :-) :-) :-)

And of course I haven't belittled any amateurs. I've only pointed out the
inadequacies of the current qualification process and suggested an
alternative.

Gosh yes, heap big chief. :-)

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

Tsk, tsk, the nerve of some who wish to defy a radio god. :-)

LHA

In article . net, "KØHB"
writes:

"Dwight Stewart" wrote

Actually, after reading what he's said about it in this
thread, his proposal really appears to be nothing more than a way for Hans
to build up his own self-image by belittling Technicians (and to a lesser
extent Generals).

In the inbred world of rrap, there is no self-image to build.

And of course I haven't belittled any amateurs. I've only pointed out the
inadequacies of the current qualification process and suggested an
alternative. That you have decided to start bringing personality into the
argument speaks volumes about the inadequacy of your arguments and logic
skills.