Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#331
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Len, Way Over 21 wrote nothing but offered up copies of this and a
couple of other exchanges: In article , Mike Coslo writes: KØHB wrote: "Dee D. Flint" wrote Mike, You and I know it can't be enforced without invasion of privacy. You have to go on the operator's property and make local field strength measurements. The rules have a wide assortment of power level restrictions below 100W, some as low as 2.5W, Many of them apply to every license class. Can I presume from your flip answer that we can safely ignore those limits because it would be an "invasion of privacy" for FCC to enforce them? You muddy the waters. The point as I see it is that Technicians now have access to much higher power levels. Equipment is already out that has 100 watts, and you can be hurt by 50 watt units as well as 100 watt units. And it makes an unenforceable power level for no real purpose. No reason why the first class of license can't have enough RF information that it is expected to know that it can safely operate 100 watts. I presume there is evidence that Technicians are harming themselves now? If not, you have a pretty weak argument. Another snarl of tape in the Anderson home communications center, Len old boy? Dave K8MN |
#332
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Len Over 21 wrote:
In article et, "KØHB" writes: "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 so thoroughly clouding your thought processes, you wouldn't recognize proof if Mr. Proof in a monogrammed sweater jumped out of your computer screen and bit you square on the nose. So you cling to your "unfairness" and "unenforceable" jeremiads, even though they have both been refuted and discredited here with elementary logic. WHAT "logic" heap big chief? Power levels have been set by the FCC for decades. Perhaps you can adequately logical reasons why such would be considered unfair or unenforceable, kinly old gent. All you've done so far is to ISSUE ORDERS OF THE DAY. No "logic," simply a set of demands which are labeled "TRUTH." I must have missed the demands part, Len. Why not clarify it for us? The beauty of the situation is that I don't have to prove anything to you anyhow. I just have to persuade the FCC. Fine. Convince the Commission you are god. I'll be waiting, heap big chief. :-) ....not on the ham bands, you won't. You aren't involved in amateur radio. Dave K8MN |
#333
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Len Over 21 wrote:
In article et, "KØHB" writes: "Mike Coslo" wrote POINT B ------------ That particular power level has a real purpose. The purpose is two-fold. Well, if YOU said it, it must have a "real purpose." :-) 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. What do you mean "we," white man? He added "unknowing passers-by". That pretty well covers you. I think you think you think more than the OET and the IEEE and the USAF and the ANSI. 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. 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. On the other hand, I've never heard a distorted or crappy QRP station. 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. In the hands of even a QCAO life-member it would be hard to splatter/chirp/over-modulate when you're running at half the design limit of the rig. Of course. A "learner's permit." As if the ONLY radio emitters in the world came from amateur radio stations. :-) A learner's permit for amateur radio to be used in the pursuit of amateur radio. You know, it's one of those things in life of which you are not a part. Geez...for a work manager supposedly with a degree you sure don't know much about equipment that can go wrong, be misadjusted, and lots of other little nasties lurking inside electronics boxes. Tsk, tsk. "In the hands of you QCAO members," the "expertise" in radio matters went out the window if you think that RF power output is the ONLY thing causing splatter/chirp/over-modulation (etc.). Without RF power output, you wouldn't notice it, Len :-) :-) Dave K8MN |
#334
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#335
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article . net, "Dwight
Stewart" writes: Len, a lot of your messages lately are coming through with no reply added (just the quote from the message you're replying to). My bad. The "lot" was all of three messages. :-) Vehicular operation warning to mathematicians: "Never drink and derive." |
#336
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#337
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Alun wrote:
(N2EY) wrote in : In article , Mike Coslo writes: 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... You might be right about needing a 100W rig to drive most linears, but not about the 6146s. A pair of 6146 tubes will deliver 280W upto 30 MHz and half that upto 60MHz acoording to the spec. You're mistaken, Alun. A single 6146B is rated at 61 watts output in AB1. So a pair would be at the 120w level. The old Yaesu FTDX-560 was rated at 280W out with a pair off 6146s (560W input power, hence the model number). You're half right. The FT-DX560 was rated at 560w PEP input power but it used television sweep tubes. Dave K8MN |
#338
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article , Alun
writes: You might be right about needing a 100W rig to drive most linears, but not about the 6146s. Check the ratings. You'll find that I'm right. Sorry, Alun, but I checked my info before posting and it's accurate. A pair of 6146 tubes will deliver 280W upto 30 MHz and half that upto 60MHz acoording to the spec. The 6146 is rugged, but not that rugged. The maximum rated power output of a pair of 6146s in Class AB2 *audio* service is 131 watts. Typical Class AB1 RF service will deliver less. 6146Bs can deliver a bit more. But even at maximum ratings, a pair of 6146Bs is only rated at 240 watts *input* (Class C). The old Yaesu FTDX-560 was rated at 280W out with a pair off 6146s (560W input power, hence the model number). 560 W input is more than three times the maximum rated input power for 6146s and more than twice the rated input power for 6146Bs. The FTDX-560/570 (570 was a deluxe model rated 10 W more) and the earlier FTDX400 did not use 6146s or any member of the 6146 family. Those old Yaesus all used 6KD6 sweep tubes, as did the FL-2000 amplifier. (The FL-2000 was based on a QST article of about 1968 in which up to six 6KD6s were used in a low-cost amplifier). But don't take my word for it. NJ7P has a neat tube database, and there are web pages devoted to early Yaesus. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
#339
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#340
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
The 14 Petitions | Policy | |||
Responses to 14 Petitions on Code Testing | Policy | |||
Amateur Radio Newsline™ Report 1362– September 19 2003 | Policy | |||
Amateur Radio Newsline™ Report 1362– September 19 2003 | General | |||
Amateur Radio Newsline™ Report 1362– September 19 2003 | Dx |