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 -

"KØHB" wrote:
"Dwight Stewart" wrote

What you've offered so far has
certainly not provided that proof.

(snip) So you cling to your "unfairness" and
"unenforceable" jeremiads, even though they
have both been refuted and discredited here
with elementary logic.

The beauty of the situation is that I don't have
to prove anything to you anyhow. I just have
to persuade the FCC. (snip)


Considering your nonsense about QCAO, negative comments about Technicians,
the lack of any valid reason for your proposal, the lack of any evidence
supporting your claims, and so forth, I think your real intent was proven
very nicely. If you've offered the same to the FCC, I suspect they will just
as easily see through your proposal.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

KØHB wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote


But it was clever editing nonetheless.



Yes, it certainly was. Thank you for noticing.

Thanks! My teachers tell me I'm very observant - if a little annoying..

- Mike KB3EIA -

"KØHB" wrote:

And of course I haven't belittled any amateurs.


Of course you have. Your very proposal, recommending the Extra exam as the
sole license exam for full privileges, suggests everyone except Extras are
not educated enough and are therefore not qualified to be Amateur Radio
operators. It also suggests the material covered on the first three written
tests (Novice, Tech, and General), most of it not repeated in the Extra
test, is not necessary - only the material in the Extra test is needed to be
an Amateur Radio operator. Your proposal is the most elitest piece of
garbage I've ever seen promoted in this radio service.


I've only pointed out the inadequacies of the current
qualification process and suggested an alternative.


Don't be silly, Hans. You haven't pointed out any inadequacies at all.
Indeed, that is where the main objection to your proposal exists.


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


Your personality, your views, your bias, is at the very heart of your
proposal, and therefore any discussion about this proposal.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

KØHB wrote:
"Dwight Stewart" wrote


What you've offered so far has
certainly not provided that proof.


Stewart, there's no polite way for me to say this. With your QCAO agenda snip


I'm almost afraid to ask, Hans. What is QCAO?

- Mike KB3EIA -

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

Actually, I think they SHOULD know about the
basics of RF, RF hazards, etc

Seems like we're pretty much on the same page
here! 8^)


Actually, read over the Extra question pool, Mike. It doesn't extensively
cover RF exposure safety. Most of that is already covered in the Novice,
Tech, and General, and only lightly repeated in the Extra pools (with
perhaps one or two additions). Remember that each test builds onto the info
in the previous tests (Techs take both the Novice and Tech tests). All tests
now include some RF exposure safety questions to insure those who missed it
on earlier tests (a General that didn't get the latest info on tests taken
twenty years ago, for example) gets that info when they take the next test.
And, finally, remember that Hans' proposal would entirely drop the Novice,
Tech, and General (losing everything on those tests), making the Extra the
sole license test for full privileges.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"Len Over 21" writes:

- nothing -


Len, a lot of your messages lately are coming through with no reply added
(just the quote from the message you're replying to).


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"Len Over 21" wrote:

"Technicians" are harming Hans' concept of
what is "harmful." :-)


LOL!! Exactly. And harming his vision of self. :-)


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

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.


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.

Let's see...there was the Ameco AC-1, the Heath AT-1, DX-20, DX-35, DX-40, d
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.


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


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.


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 change comes from within the framework of what exists at the time of
the change.

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.


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. The only
difference would be that if Morse code testing were to go away, the
writtens would be beefed up a bit.

I suspect this system would more likely find favor with the FCC. No new
databases, and similar to something already in place.

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.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Dwight Stewart wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote:

Bill Sohl wrote:

"Mike Coslo" wrote:

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.

Actually, I think they SHOULD know about the
basics of RF, RF hazards, etc

Seems like we're pretty much on the same page
here! 8^)



Actually, read over the Extra question pool, Mike. It doesn't extensively
cover RF exposure safety. Most of that is already covered in the Novice,
Tech, and General, and only lightly repeated in the Extra pools (with
perhaps one or two additions). Remember that each test builds onto the info
in the previous tests (Techs take both the Novice and Tech tests). All tests
now include some RF exposure safety questions to insure those who missed it
on earlier tests (a General that didn't get the latest info on tests taken
twenty years ago, for example) gets that info when they take the next test.
And, finally, remember that Hans' proposal would entirely drop the Novice,
Tech, and General (losing everything on those tests), making the Extra the
sole license test for full privileges.


I think that is what I was saying, Dwight. FR safety should be one of
the first things learned, not the final lesson! 8^)

- Mike KB3EIA -