Are RF safety questions too hard for the proposed new Novice exam?
 

Under the ARRL's proposal, current Novices will have certain
privileges REDUCED. This opposes the sensible concept of avoiding
automatic downgrades for any license class. The reason for stricter
power limits is to avoid the need for RF safety questions in the new
Novice exam.

What's wrong with testing prospective Novice licensees on RF safety?
Are RF safety questions that hard? It seems like an extremely
important topic to me, and learning about RF safety doesn't seem like
an undue burden. Furthermore, RF safety is just one topic on the
written exam and doesn't have the unilateral power that the Morse Code
exams currently have. What's wrong with making the Novice question
pool 10%-20% larger given how critical this topic is and given the
need to avoid downgrading privileges of current licensees?

Admittedly, there are very few active Novices at any given moment, as
these few active ones upgrade. But the same restructuring principles
(like no downgrades) for the higher license classes should still
apply.

Jason Hsu, AG4DG

Jason Hsu wrote:
Under the ARRL's proposal, current Novices will have certain
privileges REDUCED. This opposes the sensible concept of avoiding
automatic downgrades for any license class. The reason for stricter
power limits is to avoid the need for RF safety questions in the new
Novice exam.

What's wrong with testing prospective Novice licensees on RF safety?
Are RF safety questions that hard? It seems like an extremely
important topic to me, and learning about RF safety doesn't seem like
an undue burden. Furthermore, RF safety is just one topic on the
written exam and doesn't have the unilateral power that the Morse Code
exams currently have. What's wrong with making the Novice question
pool 10%-20% larger given how critical this topic is and given the
need to avoid downgrading privileges of current licensees?

Admittedly, there are very few active Novices at any given moment, as
these few active ones upgrade. But the same restructuring principles
(like no downgrades) for the higher license classes should still
apply.


I would hope that the people that want rf safety diminished on the
entry level tests would step up and assume responsibility for any person
that injures themselves even at the lower levels they want to grant
them. "Yes Virginia, it is possible to do terrible damage to yourself
with 100 watts!"

We have an accepted level of safety instruction and testing
established. It has been around for a few years, and appears to be
working well enough. The problem as I see it is that if we reduce this
in any way, then we are inviting controversy if people start harming
themselves with our dangerous if misused toys.

In a world where people can successfully sue because they did not know
coffee was hot, or that a bike manufacturer did not tell the rider that
if if becomes dark, they should turn on their headlights, people should
be very careful about removing safety requirements.

This is especially important when the purported aim of the requirement
reduction is to introduce more children into the radio environment. As a
person that had to have multiple millions of liability insurance on
myself in my dealings with children and their parents, I can say that
with some authority. It's a scary path to go down.

Given the way that people come into the hobby these days, when the
potential ham does not have the experience with high voltages that many
of us had in the past, and given our propensity to engage in litigation,
and that some of us are trying to get children involved in the hobby, I
support *more* safety related questions on the test, to include High
Voltage as well as R-F issues.


- Mike KB3EIA -

"Jason Hsu" wrote in message
om...
Under the ARRL's proposal, current Novices will have certain
privileges REDUCED. This opposes the sensible concept of avoiding
automatic downgrades for any license class. The reason for stricter
power limits is to avoid the need for RF safety questions in the new
Novice exam.

That is contrary to what I understand from having read
the ARRL proposal.

Exactly what privileges will be reduced for current Novices?

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

In article ,
(Jason Hsu) writes:

Under the ARRL's proposal, current Novices will have certain
privileges REDUCED.

That's not in the RM-10867 Petition for Rule Making I downloaded.

This opposes the sensible concept of avoiding
automatic downgrades for any license class. The reason for stricter
power limits is to avoid the need for RF safety questions in the new
Novice exam.

So, why weren't all those RF safety questions in the OLD Novice
exam?

What's wrong with testing prospective Novice licensees on RF safety?
Are RF safety questions that hard? It seems like an extremely
important topic to me, and learning about RF safety doesn't seem like
an undue burden.

Go back and review the two tables in 97.13.

MOST of the ham stations won't require any "performance
evaluation" now.

Furthermore, RF safety is just one topic on the
written exam and doesn't have the unilateral power that the Morse Code
exams currently have. What's wrong with making the Novice question
pool 10%-20% larger given how critical this topic is and given the
need to avoid downgrading privileges of current licensees?

The question POOL can be as large as the NCVEC QPC cares
to make it. There's no Commission rule on maxima, only on the
minima of 10 pool questions for each examination question.

LHA / WMD

In article , Mike Coslo writes:

Jason Hsu wrote:
Under the ARRL's proposal, current Novices will have certain
privileges REDUCED. This opposes the sensible concept of avoiding
automatic downgrades for any license class. The reason for stricter
power limits is to avoid the need for RF safety questions in the new
Novice exam.

What's wrong with testing prospective Novice licensees on RF safety?
Are RF safety questions that hard? It seems like an extremely
important topic to me, and learning about RF safety doesn't seem like
an undue burden. Furthermore, RF safety is just one topic on the
written exam and doesn't have the unilateral power that the Morse Code
exams currently have. What's wrong with making the Novice question
pool 10%-20% larger given how critical this topic is and given the
need to avoid downgrading privileges of current licensees?

Admittedly, there are very few active Novices at any given moment, as
these few active ones upgrade. But the same restructuring principles
(like no downgrades) for the higher license classes should still
apply.

I would hope that the people that want rf safety diminished on the
entry level tests would step up and assume responsibility for any person
that injures themselves even at the lower levels they want to grant
them. "Yes Virginia, it is possible to do terrible damage to yourself
with 100 watts!"

The "RF Safety" questions came about with the political need
to show concern for OTHERS, not the licensees themselves.

That is one thing you CAN blame on cell phones...uneducated
paranoia about radiation...all the scare books about all sorts of
radiation, even from the big MHV power lines.

We have an accepted level of safety instruction and testing
established. It has been around for a few years, and appears to be
working well enough. The problem as I see it is that if we reduce this
in any way, then we are inviting controversy if people start harming
themselves with our dangerous if misused toys.

Folkses have been playing with lots higher-power stuff than in
bitty 1 KW hamplifiers for decades before 97.13 (c) 1 and
97.13 (c) 2 were in Part 97. [also 1.1307 (b) and 1.1310]

The +100 VDC in transformerless 5-tube AM radios is lethal
but there weren't any "rules" or even "safety statements" on
those for decades. The semiconductor era with its resulting
low supply voltages was well established before anyone made
noises about tube voltages being hazardous. Where were all
the "safety" questions in ham exams then?

You're going to have to redefine what you say about "RF
Safety" as applying to OTHERS in the immediate vicinity of
ham stations.

In a world where people can successfully sue because they did not know
coffee was hot, or that a bike manufacturer did not tell the rider that
if if becomes dark, they should turn on their headlights, people should
be very careful about removing safety requirements.

They should be more careful about their attornies...

This is especially important when the purported aim of the requirement
reduction is to introduce more children into the radio environment. As a
person that had to have multiple millions of liability insurance on
myself in my dealings with children and their parents, I can say that
with some authority. It's a scary path to go down.

Are hockey sticks essential to ham radio? Are those radios to be
used on ice?

Given the way that people come into the hobby these days, when the
potential ham does not have the experience with high voltages that many
of us had in the past, and given our propensity to engage in litigation,
and that some of us are trying to get children involved in the hobby, I
support *more* safety related questions on the test, to include High
Voltage as well as R-F issues.

That's a good thought, of course, but now you are confusing
possible litigation with operating high voltage equipment.

By the way, you are reading this just a couple feet from a 24 KV
potential if you use a CRT. Do you feel "safe?" :-)

LHA / WMD

"Jason Hsu" wrote in message
om...
(Len Over 21) wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Jason Hsu) writes:

Under the ARRL's proposal, current Novices will have certain
privileges REDUCED.

That's not in the RM-10867 Petition for Rule Making I downloaded.

Novices are currently allowed to transmit up to 200W on 80m, 40m, 15m,
and 10m. Under the proposal, Novices would be restricted to 100W on
80m, 40m, and 15m and 50W on 10m. Also, Novices are currently allowed
to transmit on 1270-1295 MHz but would be banned from that band in the
proposal.

Don't you think it's unfair to current Novices to cut their privileges
just so that the new Novices won't have to be tested on RF safety?

The number of Novices thatactually are on the air with rigs that
are over 100w but under 200 is probably miniscule. The issue,
if any, is more likly the 10m 50w limitation. I think that's
all but totally unenforceable.

The number of Novices that operate 1270-1295 MHz
is probably ZERO.

I see NO downside to the newly proposed Novice privileges,
especially since there are only about 32,000 current Novice
license holders now (less than 5% of all USA hams)
....and that number is constantly going down.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

"Bill Sohl" wrote in message link.net...
"Jason Hsu" wrote in message
om...
(Len Over 21) wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Jason Hsu) writes:

Under the ARRL's proposal, current Novices will have certain
privileges REDUCED.

That's not in the RM-10867 Petition for Rule Making I downloaded.

Novices are currently allowed to transmit up to 200W on 80m, 40m, 15m,
and 10m. Under the proposal, Novices would be restricted to 100W on
80m, 40m, and 15m and 50W on 10m. Also, Novices are currently allowed
to transmit on 1270-1295 MHz but would be banned from that band in the
proposal.

Don't you think it's unfair to current Novices to cut their privileges
just so that the new Novices won't have to be tested on RF safety?

The number of Novices thatactually are on the air with rigs that
are over 100w but under 200 is probably miniscule. The issue,
if any, is more likly the 10m 50w limitation. I think that's
all but totally unenforceable.

The number of Novices that operate 1270-1295 MHz
is probably ZERO.

I see NO downside to the newly proposed Novice privileges,
especially since there are only about 32,000 current Novice
license holders now (less than 5% of all USA hams)
...and that number is constantly going down.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

Great! Just Great!

We've got Hans referring to this as the "Great Giveaway." We've got
Jason referring to it as the "Great Takeaway."

I won't be able to sleep until TAFKARJ weighs in on this matter.

On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 16:38:42 -0400, Mike Coslo wrote:

In a world where people can successfully sue because they did not know
coffee was hot,

Here we go again.....

MacDonalds was sued successfully because they were on notice that
the coffee was excessively hot for its intended purpose and manner
of use but did nothing to prevent such injuries, and they were found
negligent in not reducing the temperature to where it would not
cause second-degree burns on exposed skin, let alone in customers'
mouths, the intended use.

A beautiful textbook case of negligence.

--

73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

In article ,
(William) writes:

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

Great! Just Great!

We've got Hans referring to this as the "Great Giveaway." We've got
Jason referring to it as the "Great Takeaway."

I won't be able to sleep until TAFKARJ weighs in on this matter.

He's probably back from the Roman Curia now and is preparing
another encyclical "Sermon On The Antenna Mount."

LHA / WMD

In article ,
(Jason Hsu) writes:

(Len Over 21) wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Jason Hsu) writes:

Under the ARRL's proposal, current Novices will have certain
privileges REDUCED.

That's not in the RM-10867 Petition for Rule Making I downloaded.

Novices are currently allowed to transmit up to 200W on 80m, 40m, 15m,
and 10m. Under the proposal, Novices would be restricted to 100W on
80m, 40m, and 15m and 50W on 10m. Also, Novices are currently allowed
to transmit on 1270-1295 MHz but would be banned from that band in the
proposal.

What can I say? The ARRL wants to "put Novices in their place"
and be nice subservient little serfs to the mighty morsemen of the
membership...from the impression they've always shown me.

If there's nit-picking needed (I think not) then in the final Report &
Order that MAY be issued, FCC will pick up on all the fly specks
and separate it from the pepper. IF and only IF ARRL will rule as
the "final winner" after no less than 18 petitions in one year's time.

Don't you think it's unfair to current Novices to cut their privileges
just so that the new Novices won't have to be tested on RF safety?

Just WHICH "RF safety" thing are you thinking of?

If it's personal "RF safety" then it is a matter of whether an
individual wants to either suicide or achieve bodily harm...about
the same as whether or not they won't have accidents climbing
a tower or tree putting up that "DX-winning super antenna."

If it's about the OTHER PEOPLE'S EXPOSURE "RF safety,"
then I think it is a lot of hooey as a result of mass paranoia of
cell phones next to the head or the ugliness of MHV power
lines spoiling orderly farm land or fear of unspecified fearsome
RADIATION boogeythings. Okay, that's the LAW [97.13 in
case you haven't looked it up yet or haven't heard of Part 1].
Maybe the LAW is a good thing, maybe it's a lot of extraneous
nonsense that doesn't need Federal Regulations (!) in a form of
Witless Protection Program.

Back in Junior High basic electricity shop class in 1947 I and
all classmates learned the "left-hand rule" (for right-handers)
which said "keep the left hand in the pocket if you have no
choice about turning the power off and working with the right
hand...that keeps a circuit from going through your heart."
Since we'd all had basic biology by then, that made a lot of
sense. Later at Fort Monmouth Signal School in 1952 a radar
basics instructor stuck a ball of steel wool on a bamboo pole
in front of a live 1 MW search radar beam. The steel wool
burned. Steel wool doesn't burn by itself. Class duly
impressed, lesson learned in a few seconds. Wasn't any
Federal Law on RF exposure then in any radio service.

Between 1953 and 1956 I worked IN an HF RF field of about
100 to 200 KW total RF energy, lived IN that field for five
months, 24/7. At least 600 others did also in that time at
that same station, not to mention all the civilian farmers living
IN that same field. Given same conditions at different sites
around the world, tens of thousands have been exposed to high
levels of RF. Nobody got cooked, fried, or rare. Was no LAW
on RF exposure then or in any radio service. Was so until the
1990s and the Big Radiation Paranoia time.

If there is so much "worry" over personal safety, do you think
any public safety agency of any kind can arrest and prosecute
a suicide? [go ahead, make my day...] Worry instead about
using your mighty amateur knowledge in TEACHING others
about electrical/RF safety, common sense in live circuits, etc.

If there is so much "worry" over Other People's RF safety, then
I'd suggest you or anyone else get a prescription for a
tranquilizer from your personal physician. That MD can't cure
legislated paranoia but it will make you feel better. It also might
give you and others some tranquility to look into more meaningful
radio subjects and quit trying to separate legal fly specks from
paranoia pepper.

LHA / WMD

Phil Kane wrote:
On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 16:38:42 -0400, Mike Coslo wrote:


In a world where people can successfully sue because they did not know
coffee was hot,


Here we go again.....

MacDonalds was sued successfully because they were on notice that
the coffee was excessively hot for its intended purpose and manner
of use but did nothing to prevent such injuries, and they were found
negligent in not reducing the temperature to where it would not
cause second-degree burns on exposed skin, let alone in customers'
mouths, the intended use.

A beautiful textbook case of negligence.


How hot is Excessively hot? Sounds almost like the law passage attempt
a few years back to force homeowners to limit the hot water to a pretty
low value - I don't recall, but it was like 110-120 degrees. This was to
protect children IIRC. Of course the lowered temperatures make a great
breeding ground for Legionellosis.


- Mike KB3EIA -

"Phil Kane" wrote in message
et...
On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 16:38:42 -0400, Mike Coslo wrote:
In a world where people can successfully sue because they did not know
coffee was hot,

Here we go again.....

Right you are, see below:

MacDonalds was sued successfully because they were on notice that
the coffee was excessively hot for its intended purpose and manner
of use

That is based on opinion ONLY. True it apparently found
support in a jury of 12, but that doesn't make it right. Many
people want "steaming hot" food...including coffee. The fact
that the old lady was so stupid as to put the cup in her croch
tells me a lot about how dumb she was.

Let's change the brew from coffee to tea. Anyone with an
ounce of brains or experience knows tea is made with boiling
water poured into a cup with a teabag. NOTE - boiling water
is the norm. Had Miss Idiot had tea in the cup instead of
coffee would she not have sued? I suspect we know the
answer to that since personal responsibility seems to be
abondoned today.

...but did nothing to prevent such injuries, and they were found
negligent in not reducing the temperature to where it would not
cause second-degree burns on exposed skin, let alone in customers'
mouths, the intended use.

So I ask...is it OK for a cup of tea to be served to a customer
at 212 degrees...boiling water? If you were at a friend's home and that
friend made you a cup of tea which you then spilled on yourself,
would you sue your friend because the water was poured
from a pot that had just been boiling?

A beautiful textbook case of negligence.

In your opinion anyway. More a case of screw the corporation
and make a few bucks when the case should have been dismissed.
If the logic is that it was too hot, then what should the temperature
threshold be for any food (i.e. tea, coffee, french fries, etc.)?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I notice there's no temperature
threshold so designated by any governmental entity I know of.

Sorry Phil, the public opinion is not a slam dunk in support of
your legal viewpoint on this.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...

Phil Kane wrote:
On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 16:38:42 -0400, Mike Coslo wrote:

In a world where people can successfully sue because they did not know
coffee was hot,

Here we go again.....
MacDonalds was sued successfully because they were on notice that
the coffee was excessively hot for its intended purpose and manner
of use but did nothing to prevent such injuries, and they were found
negligent in not reducing the temperature to where it would not
cause second-degree burns on exposed skin, let alone in customers'
mouths, the intended use.

A beautiful textbook case of negligence.

How hot is Excessively hot? Sounds almost like the law passage attempt
a few years back to force homeowners to limit the hot water to a pretty
low value - I don't recall, but it was like 110-120 degrees. This was to
protect children IIRC. Of course the lowered temperatures make a great
breeding ground for Legionellosis.
- Mike KB3EIA -

Good point Mike. In many houses (mine for example) there is NO
way to separately regulate the domestic hot water temperature from
the heating system's temperature because the heater is a dual funtion
unit whereby the domestic hot water is a coil inside the heating system
hot water unit... and in today's hot water heating units (mine is only
three years old), the water temp setting cuts off at the high end at
around 180 degrees F.

Frankly it really gets my goat about how everyone else has to have
their lives dictated by the blatent stupidity of a few.

Soapbox off :-) :-)

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

Bill Sohl wrote:
"Phil Kane" wrote in message
et...

On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 16:38:42 -0400, Mike Coslo wrote:

In a world where people can successfully sue because they did not know
coffee was hot,

Here we go again.....


Right you are, see below:


MacDonalds was sued successfully because they were on notice that
the coffee was excessively hot for its intended purpose and manner
of use


That is based on opinion ONLY. True it apparently found
support in a jury of 12, but that doesn't make it right. Many
people want "steaming hot" food...including coffee. The fact
that the old lady was so stupid as to put the cup in her croch
tells me a lot about how dumb she was.

I kind of wish that McD's would have taken the tack of printing "do not
try to hold the coffee in your crotch" on the coffee cups. simply
printing "caution, contents may be hot will not absolve them of
negligence for the people that do not know that they should not *sit on*
the cup, or try to pour it on their children.




Let's change the brew from coffee to tea. Anyone with an
ounce of brains or experience knows tea is made with boiling
water poured into a cup with a teabag. NOTE - boiling water
is the norm. Had Miss Idiot had tea in the cup instead of
coffee would she not have sued? I suspect we know the
answer to that since personal responsibility seems to be
abondoned today.

Stupidicus adoramicus



...but did nothing to prevent such injuries, and they were found
negligent in not reducing the temperature to where it would not
cause second-degree burns on exposed skin, let alone in customers'
mouths, the intended use.


So I ask...is it OK for a cup of tea to be served to a customer
at 212 degrees...boiling water? If you were at a friend's home and that
friend made you a cup of tea which you then spilled on yourself,
would you sue your friend because the water was poured
from a pot that had just been boiling?

And don't forget that the taste of the coffee changes with the
temperature it is brewed at. Boiled coffee is a from that some people enjoy.

I wonder if McD's is negligent re the obesity lawsuits that a
group of lawyers are working on as we speak.


http://www.banzhaf.net/obesitylinks


- mike KB3EIA -

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

Phil Kane wrote:

On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 16:38:42 -0400, Mike Coslo wrote:


In a world where people can successfully sue because they did not know
coffee was hot,

Here we go again.....
MacDonalds was sued successfully because they were on notice that
the coffee was excessively hot for its intended purpose and manner
of use but did nothing to prevent such injuries, and they were found
negligent in not reducing the temperature to where it would not
cause second-degree burns on exposed skin, let alone in customers'
mouths, the intended use.

A beautiful textbook case of negligence.

How hot is Excessively hot? Sounds almost like the law passage attempt
a few years back to force homeowners to limit the hot water to a pretty
low value - I don't recall, but it was like 110-120 degrees. This was to
protect children IIRC. Of course the lowered temperatures make a great
breeding ground for Legionellosis.
- Mike KB3EIA -


Good point Mike. In many houses (mine for example) there is NO
way to separately regulate the domestic hot water temperature from
the heating system's temperature because the heater is a dual funtion
unit whereby the domestic hot water is a coil inside the heating system
hot water unit... and in today's hot water heating units (mine is only
three years old), the water temp setting cuts off at the high end at
around 180 degrees F.

My parents hot water heater is the same way. You do need to be careful,
but we should always be careful


Frankly it really gets my goat about how everyone else has to have
their lives dictated by the blatent stupidity of a few.


The bright spot in all this is that the pathetic losers do not know the
satisfaction of accepting responsibility for their own actions. They
remain lifelong victims. When I'm wrong, I'm wrong, and If I put a
flexible cup of hot coffee in my lap and it spills, I'm the stupid person.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Good point Mike. In many houses (mine for example) there is NO
way to separately regulate the domestic hot water temperature from
the heating system's temperature because the heater is a dual funtion
unit whereby the domestic hot water is a coil inside the heating system
hot water unit... and in today's hot water heating units (mine is only
three years old), the water temp setting cuts off at the high end at
around 180 degrees F.


My parents hot water heater is the same way. You do need to be
careful, but we should always be careful


We have that too, and every so often you get a cold shower because the
heating system
decided that the house was cold, and sucked all the heat out of the
unit. GRRRR!!!

Phil Kane wrote:

On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 16:38:42 -0400, Mike Coslo wrote:



In a world where people can successfully sue because they did not know
coffee was hot,



Here we go again.....

MacDonalds was sued successfully because they were on notice that
the coffee was excessively hot for its intended purpose and manner
of use but did nothing to prevent such injuries, and they were found
negligent in not reducing the temperature to where it would not
cause second-degree burns on exposed skin, let alone in customers'
mouths, the intended use.



I always chill my coffee a bit with some ice or water from the soda
machine. Otherwise
it's too damm hot. Maybe my mouth lacks insulation or something, but my
mouth
will scald before my skin would.

ubject: Are RF safety questions too hard for the proposed new Novice
exam?
From: "Alun L. Palmer"
Date: 4/19/2004 10:02 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(Len Over 21) wrote in news:20040415150839.09913.00000288
:

snip


Back in Junior High basic electricity shop class in 1947 I and
all classmates learned the "left-hand rule" (for right-handers)
which said "keep the left hand in the pocket if you have no
choice about turning the power off and working with the right
hand...that keeps a circuit from going through your heart."
Since we'd all had basic biology by then, that made a lot of
sense.

snip

LHA / WMD

Actually, it's a left hand rule regardless of which is your preferred hand,
because your heart is on your left side. (Some people's hearts are on the
right, but it's very rare).

I was taught to keep one hand in my pocket over 200V, and both hands in my
pockets over 1kV !!

Acutally, at potentially fatal amperages, it doesn't matter which hand you
grab the juice from. I've had to deal with electrocutions in which the victim
had no upper extremity contact with the source at all...they're dead
none-the-less.

Steve, K4YZ

Alun wrote:

snippage

The current kills you, but it takes volts to jump the gap, thousands of
them. I have a little L-shaped scar on my right index finger from 10kV that
I didn't touch. I'm an EE amongst other things, and I assume you are a
physician?? If you say it doesn't matter which hand it is, then I beleive
you, as it sounds like you know. I've never worked with power transmission
or distribution, only with electronics, so that limits the current quite a
bit (but not necessarily the volts)!


IIRC, the accepted lower limit for electrocution is 24 volts. That is
under some extraordinary conditions to be sure, but hey, don't
misunderestimate (hehe) the ability of idiots! 8^) mebbe we better lower
that 48 volt finals limit to 24 volts.

And of course, even lesser voltages van do lots of damage, like 5 volt
power supplies for large computers. Come into contact with one of them
with your wedding ring on, and you'll have to find a new finger to wear
it on. Oh... the new ring that is.

These are the reasons that I really want to stress safety, as we
remake the ARS. I'm capable of and willing to handle high voltages
safely. If the tests are simplified badly, as it looks like will happen,
there will be a new cadre of hams that may have little to no experience
in these matters.

Maybe the ARS is going to do their own version of Fear Factor.....

- Mike KB3EIA -

Subject: Are RF safety questions too hard for the proposed new Novice
exam?
From: Alun
Date: 4/19/2004 7:35 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

The current kills you, but it takes volts to jump the gap, thousands of
them. I have a little L-shaped scar on my right index finger from 10kV that
I didn't touch. I'm an EE amongst other things, and I assume you are a
physician?? If you say it doesn't matter which hand it is, then I beleive
you, as it sounds like you know. I've never worked with power transmission
or distribution, only with electronics, so that limits the current quite a
bit (but not necessarily the volts)!

Nope...Not an M.D....An ER/Trauma Nurse with 15 years of EMS behind that.
But it only took one electrocution to make me a believer. The one victim in
particular was in a trench along a runway installing new lights...Somehow his
feet came into contact with buried power lines that the work crew was unaware
were there.

Typical paddle application for defibrillation is to the left chest wall
and upper midline sternum. The placement of the paddles in combination with
the delivered current attempts to repolarize the the irratically firing SA node
causing ventricular fibrillation. (That's the "HE'S IN VEE-FIB" you hear on
countless episodes of "E.R." and "Third Watch".)

Congrats on being an EE. Does it make you immune to electrocution? Does
my NOT being an M.D. in any way diminish the fact that sufficient current
sustained by adequate voltage can be fatal regardless of how or where it's
applied to human tissue?

73

Steve, K4YZ

On 20 Apr 2004 02:13:51 GMT, Steve Robeson K4CAP wrote:

But it only took one electrocution to make me a believer. The one
victim in particular was in a trench along a runway installing new
lights...Somehow his feet came into contact with buried power lines
that the work crew was unaware were there.

Shudder....

My wife's present specialty is runway utility and lighting design
for upgrades of major airports and conversions of military airfields
to civilian use. Although she doesn't go onto the jobsite - that's
done by electrical contractors on bid - she has mentioned many times
that the "as-installed" drawings were missing or they were inaccurate.
I'm thinking of two particular SAC bases (one is still active, the
other is a conversion) that she's working on now which I had
"intimate familiarity with" when I worked for SAC 40 years ago.
Like "old home week"..... ggg

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

Subject: Are RF safety questions too hard for the proposed new Novice
exam?
From: Alun
Date: 4/19/2004 10:02 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

Congrats on being an EE. Does it make you immune to
electrocution?

No

Does
my NOT being an M.D. in any way diminish the fact that sufficient
current sustained by adequate voltage can be fatal regardless of how or
where it's applied to human tissue?

No


Then why did you deem it important to raise either in the exchange?

73

Steve, K4YZ

Subject: Are RF safety questions too hard for the proposed new Novice
exam?
From: Alun
Date: 4/20/2004 8:58 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in
:

Then why did you deem it important to raise either in the exchange?

To explain my background and find out if you had some kind of medical
training, which you do

OK. Thanks.

73

Steve, K4YZ