KØHB wrote:
wrote

Deciding that the power level of 50 W is acceptable for Class B, but
100 W is not, is just a matter of judgement. It's the same kind of
judgement as saying that 3500-3525 kHz is not allowed for all
license classes.

Not the same at all, Jim.

How is it any different? They're both a matter of judgement, not
some absolute scientific or engineering fact or limit.

There is a clear safety advantage to lower power for less experienced users,
especially if you don't have a strenuous examination of safety issues.

Agreed!

But setting the line at 50 W output is purely a matter of judgement. Is
a
50 W transmitter somehow "safe" at the proposed testing level, but not
a 100 W transmitter?

Consider that if the 50 W license were created, a considerable
number of new Class B hams would probably use 100-150 W rigs
and simply not run them at full power.

As you have stated yourself, there is absolutely no fundamental difference
between operating at 3524 vs 3526,

What is the fundamental difference between operating a 50 W transmitter
and a 100 W transmitter? Under your plan, the former would be legal
for Class B but not the latter.

If your reason is RF exposure, consider that 50 W to an antenna with
gain
can be far more hazardous than 100 W to an antenna with no gain. Since
your proposed Class B could run 50 W on any authorized amateur
frequency,
including UHF, some RF exposure testing would be needed anyway.

obviating any rational regulatory reason for
carving up the bands to provide private reservations for higher class licensees.

Instead, what you propose is keeping the "lower class" at a low power
level,
even though the power limit proposed is not backed by any real safety
issue.

73 de Jim, N2EY