In article , Mike Coslo writes:
N2EY wrote:
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.
Yes, of course.
So what's the problem?
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.
In another post there was discussion about QRPers being mostly experienced,
operators, not beginners.
But back in 1967, when I got my Novice at the age of 13, my first transmitter
(homebrew, of course) ran all of 10 watts input. Output was maybe 5 to 7 watts,
antenna was a wire out to the crab apple tree in the back yard. Had a lot of
fun on 80 CW with that setup, even though I was not very skilled back then.
Let's see...there was the Ameco AC-1, the Heath AT-1, DX-20, DX-35,
DX-40, 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.
No argument with any of your points, Jim. But that isn't today. Today
the standard HF rig puts out 100 watts.
My point is simply that when the new license appeared, the manufacturers
quickly came up with rigs that matched the privileges of the license.
How much time do you think it would take Ikensu to come up with 40-50 watt
versions of their rigs? Heck, they already make 10 watt versions for their
domestic market.
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.
But that isn't answering my question. Perhaps I should phrase it
better. If technicians, who are allowed to toy with 1500 Watts, are not
being harmed by their hobby, then what is the reason for limiting their
power? More on this in a minute
One reason is to simplify the test. If the power level is kept low enough, many
of the RF exposure questions can be eliminated from the test.
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.
Are you arguing for or against this, Jim? If there were no questions on
RF exposure, and hams did okay, but we should limit new hams to 50 watts
because of safety concerns - it just isn't a good argument to me.
The hazards of RF exposure, even at relatively low levels, are better
understood now than before. But there is still a lot of work to be done.
Meanwhile, it makes sense to reduce exposure when possible.
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.
Sometimes change is good, and sometimes change is not so good.
All progress requires change, but all change is not progress.
All change comes from within the framework of what exists at the time of
the change.
Sometimes the framework is demolished by the change, though.
If we were to propose a class A class B system from scratch, then I
might say this is a good idea.
But it isn't a system from scratch, it's a tack-on to another system.
So we'll end up with:
1. Technicians - 1.5 kW privileges but no HF privileges, license period
10 years renewable.
2. Generals - HF plus 1.5 kW privileges, but no access to Extra
sections. License period ten years renewable.
3. Extras - all privileges, license period ten years renewable.
4. Class B - all privileges, 50 watt power limit, license period 10
years non renewable.
5. Class A - All privileges, full power, non expiring license.
I see it differently. First off, Extra and Class A will probably be merged
because there's essentially no difference. Maybe when an Extra renews, he/she
would get a nonexpiring Class A
Second, we'd still have Novices and Advanceds as well as the other classes,
until the last of those licenses expires or upgrades.
Now I would like to know why this is a better system than what I would
propose, a 3 tier system in which the setup is much like today.
Have you seen my three-tier system proposal?
The only
difference would be that if Morse code testing were to go away, the
writtens would be beefed up a bit.
That's going to be a very hard sell. In fact the "21st Century" folks want the
opposite, at least for the entry level license.
I suspect this system would more likely find favor with the FCC. No new
databases, and similar to something already in place.
They're currently maintaining a six-class database system.
All the safety issues are moot. I haven't seen the harm done by over 50
watts. In fact, is it even that *good* of an idea to look at limiting
power on the basis of "safety"? I mean if 50 Watts is safer than 100,
maybe 25 is safer than 50. Maybe the FCC should look very closely at the
power levels that hams use. Maybe all hams should be limited in power so
we don't hurt ourselves with RF. Could be a real can of worms to open.
It was done 7 years ago. In detail. That's how we got the curent rules.
I don't agree with all of Hans' proposal, but he *does* present some fresh new
ideas, rather than simply patching up the old 1951 vintage system one more
time.
And his proposal isn't just another "get rid of the code test and everything
will be fine" things, either.
It's really fascinating to read the reactions, too.
--
And now the answer to the "why 100 watts?" question.
The following is Just My Opinion.
Back about 1950 or so, RCA announced a new transmitting tube, the 6146. It had
been designed to eliminate many of the problems encountered with other tubes of
similar power rating, like the 807. Its design was based in part on comments
and suggestions from ARRL Technical Editor George Grammer (SK)
The 6146 was an instant hit with hams, because its electrical and mechanical
characteristics were just what hams were looking for. A single tube would
produce 50-60 watts on HF at full ratings, and a pair would do 100-120 watts
output. Both homebrewers and manufacturers used the 6146 and its cousins (6883,
6159, etc.) in a variety of ham rigs. The most popular setup was a pair of
them, producing a nominal 100 watts. Many small rigs used one tube, and at
least two (Johnson Viking Valiant, Yaesu FT-102) used three of them. Of all the
ham rigs made with tube finals, probably the most popular setup was "a pair of
6146s".
(but none of the Southgate rigs use that tube!)
When SSB transceivers became popular, almost all of them followed the lead set
by Collins in the KWM-1 and KWM-2, and used a pair of 6146s to get 100 W.
One noticeable exception was Drake, who used sweep tubes. Oddly enough, many
Drake owners are converting their rigs to use (you guessed it) 6146s.
So when transistors began to replace tubes in the final stages of ham rigs,
most of the manufacturers designed for the 100 W power level.
On top of all this was the development of grounded-grid zero bias "Class B"
(actually, Class AB2) linear amplifiers for amateur SSB use in the 1950s and
'60s. Most designs required "50 to 100 watts" of drive power - perfect match
for the usual 100W rig. A quad of 811As, pair of 572Bs, a single or pair of
3-400Zs or 3-500Zs, or a single 3-1000Z were (and still are) common designs.
Now ee have ceramic-metal indirectly heated tubes like the 3CX800A7 which
require less drive, but the old habits die hard...
73 de Jim, N2EY
|