Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Looking at the way that antennae on spacecraft unwrap into
elaborate structures from a near-perfect spheroid, (not unlike the Japanese / Chinese tissue paper flowers when dropped into water), I wonder if there is scope for we amateurs (Brit) / Hams (Yank) to produce similar structures, but with the added capacity to fold back into a tight ball? That way, we could all have extensive antennae farms, but then being of a temporary nature, would not fall foul of the bureaucrato******s that plague local government (especially here in Brit). |
#2
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"gareth" wrote in message
... Looking at the way that antennae on spacecraft unwrap into elaborate structures from a near-perfect spheroid, (not unlike the Japanese / Chinese tissue paper flowers when dropped into water), I wonder if there is scope for we amateurs (Brit) / Hams (Yank) to produce similar structures, but with the added capacity to fold back into a tight ball? That way, we could all have extensive antennae farms, but then being of a temporary nature, would not fall foul of the bureaucrato******s that plague local government (especially here in Brit). Spheroids, Beanie? Is this another balls-up on your part? -- ;-) .. 73 de Frank Turner-Smith G3VKI - mine's a pint. .. http://turner-smith.co.uk |
#3
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Rambo" wrote in message
... On Sun, 6 Oct 2013 17:56:28 +0100, "gareth" wrote: Looking at the way that antennae on spacecraft unwrap into elaborate structures from a near-perfect spheroid, (not unlike the Japanese / Chinese tissue paper flowers when dropped into water), I wonder if there is scope for we amateurs (Brit) / Hams (Yank) to produce similar structures, but with the added capacity to fold back into a tight ball? That way, we could all have extensive antennae farms, but then being of a temporary nature, would not fall foul of the bureaucrato******s that plague local government (especially here in Brit). I think Sir Issac Newton may have thought about reasons why a spacecraft antenna is lighter and can adopt perfect spheroids easily. The gravity of the situation is certainly a consideration, so making elements open downwards onto a stop could use that attribute. |
#4
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"gareth" wrote in message
... "Rambo" wrote in message ... On Sun, 6 Oct 2013 17:56:28 +0100, "gareth" wrote: Looking at the way that antennae on spacecraft unwrap into elaborate structures from a near-perfect spheroid, (not unlike the Japanese / Chinese tissue paper flowers when dropped into water), I wonder if there is scope for we amateurs (Brit) / Hams (Yank) to produce similar structures, but with the added capacity to fold back into a tight ball? That way, we could all have extensive antennae farms, but then being of a temporary nature, would not fall foul of the bureaucrato******s that plague local government (especially here in Brit). I think Sir Issac Newton may have thought about reasons why a spacecraft antenna is lighter and can adopt perfect spheroids easily. The gravity of the situation is certainly a consideration, so making elements open downwards onto a stop could use that attribute. What about retracting upwards? |
#5
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
In the US, the FCC rules trump any planning commission or homeowners'
association, etc., allowing the licensed operator to erect an antenna that isn't subject to any restrictions on height, length, etc., as long as it doesn't extend beyond the land the owner controls, of course. Same for antennas for television reception, unless cable TV is supplied at no charge to the occupant. That doesn't mean that we wouldn't have to spend some time and trouble fighting to assert our rights, though, even though we are protected by law here in the US. The reasoning behind the law is that amateur radio is very useful in times of disaster or local emergencies and that anything impeding the use of such is counter to the public's general interests. Many amateur radio operators here skirt the issue and just erect "stealth antennas" that either can't be easily seen or aren't ugly (like a flagpole vertical). In doing so, rather than ask for permission, they just put it up and wait to see if the homeowner's association or local code enforcer decides to press the issue. If the amateur asks for permission, they increase the probability that everything they do from then on will be scrutinized carefully. Don On Sun, 6 Oct 2013 17:56:28 +0100, "gareth" wrote: Looking at the way that antennae on spacecraft unwrap into elaborate structures from a near-perfect spheroid, (not unlike the Japanese / Chinese tissue paper flowers when dropped into water), I wonder if there is scope for we amateurs (Brit) / Hams (Yank) to produce similar structures, but with the added capacity to fold back into a tight ball? That way, we could all have extensive antennae farms, but then being of a temporary nature, would not fall foul of the bureaucrato******s that plague local government (especially here in Brit). |
#6
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 10/12/2013 7:18 PM, Donald wrote:
In the US, the FCC rules trump any planning commission or homeowners' association, etc., allowing the licensed operator to erect an antenna that isn't subject to any restrictions on height, length, etc., as long as it doesn't extend beyond the land the owner controls, of course. Incorrect. FCC regulations say nothing about homeowner associations or other covenants; only laws and zoning regulations. Even then, there can be further restrictions, i.e. for safety reasons. About all PRB-1 says is the city/county/other AHJ cannot have restrictions due to scenic reasons. Even this is subject to interpretation. A recent court case in California (I forgot which one - you can look it up if you are interested) a judge ruled that a ham's 2M antenna was sufficient for him to enjoy the hobby, and the city could restrict him from any other antennas. Same for antennas for television reception, unless cable TV is supplied at no charge to the occupant. A completely different law, and also partially true. It allows satellite antennas anywhere - whether cable tv is supplied or not. It says nothing about outdoor broadcast antennas. That doesn't mean that we wouldn't have to spend some time and trouble fighting to assert our rights, though, even though we are protected by law here in the US. As I said - only partially true. And yes, it can cost several thousand dollars to fight - and you may or may not "win". The reasoning behind the law is that amateur radio is very useful in times of disaster or local emergencies and that anything impeding the use of such is counter to the public's general interests. Many amateur radio operators here skirt the issue and just erect "stealth antennas" that either can't be easily seen or aren't ugly (like a flagpole vertical). In doing so, rather than ask for permission, they just put it up and wait to see if the homeowner's association or local code enforcer decides to press the issue. If the amateur asks for permission, they increase the probability that everything they do from then on will be scrutinized carefully. Don -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry, AI0K ================== |
#7
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article ,
Donald wrote: In the US, the FCC rules trump any planning commission or homeowners' association, etc., allowing the licensed operator to erect an antenna that isn't subject to any restrictions on height, length, etc., as long as it doesn't extend beyond the land the owner controls, of course. Alas, that is not entirely true. The FCC rules do trump local zoning laws and regulations, to the extent that the FCC has declared... specifically, that such local government restrictions must make reasonable accommodation for the needs of amateur radio operators. Local government bodies can still have some rules and restrictions, but they can't have a blanket "no antennas" law or a policy which amounts to one. Unfortunately, the FCC's override does *NOT* apply to restrictive property covenants (the sorts of restrictions that homeowners' associations enforce). The FCC has specifically, and repeatedly refused to override such covenants, saying that it lacks the authority to do so. Such HOA rules aren't laws... rather, they are terms included in the contract under which a house or other property was purchased. The FCC says that they don't have the legal right to override such private contractual terms, unless Congress specifically authorizes them to do so. Congress *has* enacted such an override of HOA rules, but it applies only to television and satellite receiving antennas (and, I believe, to Internet-access antenna systems). It does not apply to amateur radio antennas. Hams have lobbied Congress, repeatedly, to try to get Congress to extend the override to include ham antennas, but every such attempt has failed... and until one succeeds, the FCC won't act. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Beating of Chicago teen filmed, posted online | Shortwave | |||
Steveo This Is Your Daily Beating | CB | |||
Planning permission - a lesson from satellite launching? | Antenna | |||
The planning permission | Antenna | |||
HCJB Australia gets planning permission for new antennas | Shortwave |