"Leo" wrote


Power limits: Basic licence: 250W; Advanced licence: 1KW.


Industry Canada RIC-2, Article 10.2 states this:


" The holder of an Amateur Radio Operator Certificate with Basic and Advanced
Qualifications is limited to a maximum transmitting power of:

(a) where expressed as direct-current input power, 1,000 W to the anode or
collector circuit of the transmitter stage that supplies radio frequency energy
to the antenna; or

(b) where expressed as radio-frequency output power measured across an
impedance-matched load,

(i) 2,250 W peak envelope power for transmitters that produce any type of
single sideband
emission, or

(ii) 750 W carrier power for transmitters that produce any other type of
emission."

"KØHB" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Leo" wrote


Power limits: Basic licence: 250W; Advanced licence: 1KW.


Industry Canada RIC-2, Article 10.2 states this:


" The holder of an Amateur Radio Operator Certificate with Basic and
Advanced Qualifications is limited to a maximum transmitting power of:

(a) where expressed as direct-current input power, 1,000 W to the anode or
collector circuit of the transmitter stage that supplies radio frequency
energy to the antenna; or

(b) where expressed as radio-frequency output power measured across an
impedance-matched load,

(i) 2,250 W peak envelope power for transmitters that produce any type
of single sideband
emission, or

(ii) 750 W carrier power for transmitters that produce any other type of
emission."


I notice that RIC-3 limits "Basic" licensees to 250W.

On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 22:59:11 GMT, "KØHB"
wrote:


"Leo" wrote


Power limits: Basic licence: 250W; Advanced licence: 1KW.


Industry Canada RIC-2, Article 10.2 states this:


" The holder of an Amateur Radio Operator Certificate with Basic and Advanced
Qualifications is limited to a maximum transmitting power of:

(a) where expressed as direct-current input power, 1,000 W to the anode or
collector circuit of the transmitter stage that supplies radio frequency energy
to the antenna; or

(b) where expressed as radio-frequency output power measured across an
impedance-matched load,

(i) 2,250 W peak envelope power for transmitters that produce any type of
single sideband
emission, or

(ii) 750 W carrier power for transmitters that produce any other type of
emission."


That is the full version alright - which applies to our Advanced
licence. I prefer to use the 'input to the final' limits myself, as
they are easily calculated using the plate voltmeter and ammeter.

RIC-2's wording is odd - 10.2 refers to the holder of 'both the Basic
and Advanced" license. As you cannot hold the Advanced without first
obtaining (and continuing to hold - you collect the whole set up
here!) the Basic, these are therefore the limits for holders of the
Advanced licence.

The limits for those holding only the Basic licence are covered under
10.1:

10.1 Amateur Radio Operator Certificate with Basic Qualification
The holder of an Amateur Radio Operator Certificate with Basic
Qualification is limited to a maximum transmitting power of:

(a) where expressed as direct-current input power, 250 W to the anode
or collector circuit of the transmitter stage that supplies radio
frequency energy to the antenna; or

(b) where expressed as radio-frequency output power measured across an
impedance-matched load,

(i) 560 W peak envelope power for transmitters that produce any type
of single sideband emission, or

(ii) 190 W carrier power for transmitters that produce any other type
of emission.

I should have clarified that I was referring to 'input power' in my
reply - my omission there!

73, Leo

"Dee Flint" wrote

And human nature being what it is, there needs to be
some type of discipline on the bands as to what goes where.

Sounds like an excerpt from a religious catechism!

Is "human nature" different in the USA? For that matter, is "human nature"
different between 1.8 and 2.0 MHz, where US hams themselves provide the "type of
discipline" to sort things out without FCC micromanaging it?

73, de Hans, K0HB

K=D8HB wrote:
wrote

97.3 Here are your authorized frequency bands. (list)
Stay inside of them.

97.4 Your are encouraged to tinker and experiment and
communicate and do public service and talk to strangers
in far away lands and launch communications satellites
into space and any other cool technical "radio stuff"
you may think up. The government doesn't
care what mode you use for any of this. (See 97.3)

. . . wall-to-wall Pactor and spread-spectrum and
it all goes downhill fast from there . . .

If that's true, I think it already would have happened.

Pactor is already in the HF bands, it's a royal pain in the tush and
the FCC will probably bring it's use under control based on all the
griping about it.

Considering the rapid pace of development work in the field of
high-speed wireless comms I expect it'll become technically much easier
as time goes on to get some form or another of wireless broadband
hardware running in the HF ham bands. Which would immediately raise
more hell on the bands than anything we've seen in the modern era.
Which it hasn't and it won't because those modes are not allowed to
happen under the current regs. So I disagree with your "unregulated
equal opportunity mode playground" concept.

The US is one of only a
very few countries which has mandated "mode sub-bands".

No counter, we've been very pointedly marching to our own drummer since
1776 and I sure hope we never become international sheep.

We have a whole pile of sweeping "restructuring" schemes before the FCC
and everybody is all atwitter over the minutia and their parochial hot
buttons, etc. The usual. Lotta nonsense, I have yet to read one of 'em
which if implemented wouldn't make conditions on the bands *worse* in
some way or another than what we have now. The bands ain't broken, why
are we so hell-bent on "fixing" something which ain't broke??

Bleh. =20
=20
73, de Hans, K0HB

w3rv

K=D8HB wrote:
wrote

Canada, IIRC, has less than 1/10th the number of
hams as the USA, spread out across a larger area.

90% of all Canadians live within 75 miles of the USA, a
distance trivial to HF propagation.

Within 75 miles of the border, maybe. But not within 75 miles of most
US hams.

Yet the Canadian HF ham bands are virtually
the same as the US ones.

Yes, they share the same bands with us, and without arbitrary
in-band segments based on mode or bandwidth.

But they do have arbitrary bandwidth limits.

On 160M, 80M, 40M, 20M, 17M, 15M, and 12M they are
limited to a 6kHz bandwidth signal anywhere inside the band.
On 30M they are
limited to 1kHz bandwidth, and on 10M they are limited to 20kHz bandwid=
th.

Since, as you point out, their bands are virtually the same
ones we use right
next door, certainly we'd know about any problems with their
style of regulation.

They have far fewer hams than the USA, spread out over a larger area.

the Canadian amateur power limit.

2.25 KW PEP output on SSB, 750W output on other modes.
Certainly sufficient to
spill outside their southern border.

It seems to me that it's more spectrum-efficient to
have like modes together, rather than mixed.

Our HF bands are hardly congested,

If they're not congested, why change the rules?

and as the "worldwide-except- USA" experience
shows, hams have pretty well figured out how to share the
spectrum without
governments imposing mode/bandwidth segments on them.

What works in the country (low-density-of-hams places) won't
necessarily work in the city (high-density-of-hams places).

An analogy:

Most of the rest of the developed world places far more restrictions on
the ownership of firearms than the USA. And they have far less violent
crime, too. Since that seems to work for them, would you propose the
USA adopt such restrictions?

IMHO, narrow and wide modes do not coexist well. That alone
is a good reason to have subbands-by-mode, or at least
subbands-by-bandwidth, on the ham bands.

Morse (a "narrow" mode) is allowed on all MF/HF frequencies
except the 60M
channels. Have you seen any problems caused by that?

Nope - because Morse operators, in general, voluntarily stay out of the
'phone/image subbands.

In Canada SSB is allowed anywhere on any MF/HF frequency. Have you hea=
rd
reports of problems with that?

I've experienced problems with that personally on 40 meters, from hams
both north and south of the USA. Region 2 hams, who have 7000 to 7300,
but operate high-power SSB on 7050 and lower.

'Bandplan? We don't need no steenkin' bandplan!'

Europe (much more densly populated than US or
Canada) doesn't seem to have mode coexistance problems.

How many hams in Europe? How many with HF stations?

It's time FCC quits micromanaging our assigned spectrum.

I disagree.

The proposal is similar to the idea of allowing walkers, runners,
skateboarders, cyclists, motorcycles, cars, light trucks, buses and 18
wheelers to all use the interstates - with no speed or lane limits.

btw, Hans, when are you going to submit your restructuring
proposal to FCC?

It's in their hands.

You mean it was formally submitted as a restructuring proposal in the
past year or two?

Or do you mean your comments of several years ago?

73 de Jim, N2EY

wrote:
K=D8HB wrote:
wrote

Canada, IIRC, has less than 1/10th the number of
hams as the USA, spread out across a larger area.

90% of all Canadians live within 75 miles of the USA, a
distance trivial to HF propagation.

Within 75 miles of the border, maybe. But not within 75 miles of most
US hams.

Yet the Canadian HF ham bands are virtually
the same as the US ones.

Yes, they share the same bands with us, and without arbitrary
in-band segments based on mode or bandwidth.

But they do have arbitrary bandwidth limits.

On 160M, 80M, 40M, 20M, 17M, 15M, and 12M they are
limited to a 6kHz bandwidth signal anywhere inside the band.
On 30M they are
limited to 1kHz bandwidth, and on 10M they are limited to 20kHz bandw=
idth.

Since, as you point out, their bands are virtually the same
ones we use right
next door, certainly we'd know about any problems with their
style of regulation.

They have far fewer hams than the USA, spread out over a larger area.

the Canadian amateur power limit.

2.25 KW PEP output on SSB, 750W output on other modes.
Certainly sufficient to
spill outside their southern border.

It seems to me that it's more spectrum-efficient to
have like modes together, rather than mixed.

Our HF bands are hardly congested,

If they're not congested, why change the rules?

Becuase the ARS is not esp healthy

and as the "worldwide-except- USA" experience
shows, hams have pretty well figured out how to share the
spectrum without
governments imposing mode/bandwidth segments on them.

What works in the country (low-density-of-hams places) won't
necessarily work in the city (high-density-of-hams places).


An analogy:

Most of the rest of the developed world places far more restrictions on
the ownership of firearms than the USA. And they have far less violent
crime, too. Since that seems to work for them, would you propose the
USA adopt such restrictions?

Not realy but it not realted to hi low density issues

IMHO, narrow and wide modes do not coexist well. That alone
is a good reason to have subbands-by-mode, or at least
subbands-by-bandwidth, on the ham bands.

Morse (a "narrow" mode) is allowed on all MF/HF frequencies
except the 60M
channels. Have you seen any problems caused by that?

Nope - because Morse operators, in general, voluntarily stay out of the
'phone/image subbands.

Gee guess you were listening to the same stuff I was on Feild day

In Canada SSB is allowed anywhere on any MF/HF frequency. Have you h=
eard
reports of problems with that?

I've experienced problems with that personally on 40 meters, from hams
both north and south of the USA. Region 2 hams, who have 7000 to 7300,
but operate high-power SSB on 7050 and lower.

'Bandplan? We don't need no steenkin' bandplan!'

Europe (much more densly populated than US or
Canada) doesn't seem to have mode coexistance problems.

How many hams in Europe? How many with HF stations?

It's time FCC quits micromanaging our assigned spectrum.

I disagree.

Obviously

The proposal is similar to the idea of allowing walkers, runners,
skateboarders, cyclists, motorcycles, cars, light trucks, buses and 18
wheelers to all use the interstates - with no speed or lane limits.

Gee it by and large works in the world and with HF being world wide
would not we be better not going our own way


btw, Hans, when are you going to submit your restructuring
proposal to FCC?

It's in their hands.

You mean it was formally submitted as a restructuring proposal in the
past year or two?

Or do you mean your comments of several years ago?
=20
73 de Jim, N2EY

K=D8HB wrote:
"Dee Flint" wrote

And human nature being what it is, there needs to be
some type of discipline on the bands as to what goes where.

Sounds like an excerpt from a religious catechism!

Is "human nature" different in the USA? For that matter, is "human natur=
e"
different between 1.8 and 2.0 MHz, where US hams themselves provide the "=
type of
discipline" to sort things out without FCC micromanaging it?

The FCC dumped micromanaging 160 on the ARRL, less work and flak for
the FCC. =20

73, de Hans, K0HB

w3rv

wrote in
ups.com:

KØHB wrote:
wrote

97.3 Here are your authorized frequency bands. (list)
Stay inside of them.

97.4 Your are encouraged to tinker and experiment and
communicate and do public service and talk to strangers
in far away lands and launch communications satellites
into space and any other cool technical "radio stuff"
you may think up. The government doesn't care what mode you use
for any of this. (See 97.3)

. . . wall-to-wall Pactor and spread-spectrum and it all goes
downhill fast from there . . .

If that's true, I think it already would have happened. The US is one
of only a very few countries which has mandated "mode sub-bands".

The US is also one of the few countries with a large and relatively
affluent amateur radio population licensed to use relatively high
powered transmitters.

Canada, IIRC, has less than 1/10th the number of hams as the USA,
spread out across a larger area. Of course Canada also has a
proportionately smaller population. Yet the Canadian HF ham bands are
virtually the same as the US ones. Perhaps Leo can give us a more
precise comparison, and the Canadian amateur power limit.

--

The problems of repeater coordination on 2 meters (a band wider than
all amateur HF/MF bands put together!) show the difficulties of
depending solely on informal agreements. And repeaters are relatively
local!

It seems to me that it's more spectrum-efficient to have like modes
together, rather than mixed.

There's also the robot station situation to consider.


--

IMHO, narrow and wide modes do not coexist well. That alone is a good
reason to have subbands-by-mode, or at least subbands-by-bandwidth, on
the ham bands.


--

btw, Hans, when are you going to submit your restructuring proposal to
FCC?

73 de Jim, N2EY



AFAIK, Canada is the _only_ country with a higher power limit than the US!
They can use 2.25 kW (with an Advanced licence), and have no subband
limitations. Mind you, Canadians are very polite.

"KØHB" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Dee Flint" wrote

And human nature being what it is, there needs to be
some type of discipline on the bands as to what goes where.

Sounds like an excerpt from a religious catechism!

Is "human nature" different in the USA? For that matter, is "human
nature" different between 1.8 and 2.0 MHz, where US hams themselves
provide the "type of discipline" to sort things out without FCC
micromanaging it?

73, de Hans, K0HB


While human nature is the same, the higher number of hams means you will see
more of it.

160 meters has the self limiting factor of the size of workable antennas.
Many hams simply can manage to get anything reasonable in the air.

And the European system of self imposed band plans doesn't work as well as
you seem to think. Just listen to them during one of their European
contests. They are supposed to follow the band plans but don't since the
rules generally only suggest they follow the band plans rather than
requiring them to do so. They are every bit as bad as the US hams.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE