RadioBanter - QRP is for sissies!

RadioBanter (https://www.radiobanter.com/)

- Policy (https://www.radiobanter.com/policy/)

- - QRP is for sissies! (https://www.radiobanter.com/policy/85501-qrp-sissies.html)

QRP is for sissies!

"Dee Flint" wrote in message
...

And the "legal no-no" (§97.315, §97.317) does not apply to homebrewed
amplifiers, which the item in question appears to be. Amateur-to-amateur
sales are also exempt.

Sunuvagun!

73, de Hans, K0HB
--
Lord High Liberator of the Electric Smoke

Didn't the FCC change that in the last year or two? Since it didn't
successfully keep the amplifiers off the CB band anyway, I believe they
dropped that restriction.

§97.315 and §97.317 remain in effect.

73, de Hans, K0HB
--
Lord High Liberator of the Electric Smoke

QRP is for sissies!

wrote in message
ups.com...

KØHB wrote:
http://tinyurl.com/bps4v

73, de Hans, K0HB

Snipped

Back when folk like Carroll, Hare, Tennehill and McCollum populated
this NG and the average IQ hereabouts was 30 points higher than it is
these days.

Snipped
giggle!

After reading many of the posts in this NG, I doubt if the average IQ
hereabouts is more than 30 points these days.
Ace - WH2T

QRP is for sissies!

After reading many of the posts in this NG, I doubt if the average IQ
hereabouts is more than 30 points these days.
Ace - WH2T

BINGO ....give that man a seegar ........

Take care all .....

73 KI3R Tom Belle Vernon PA

QRP is for sissies!

"KØHB" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Dee Flint" wrote in message
...

And the "legal no-no" (§97.315, §97.317) does not apply to homebrewed
amplifiers, which the item in question appears to be.
Amateur-to-amateur sales are also exempt.

Sunuvagun!

73, de Hans, K0HB
--
Lord High Liberator of the Electric Smoke

Didn't the FCC change that in the last year or two? Since it didn't
successfully keep the amplifiers off the CB band anyway, I believe they
dropped that restriction.

§97.315 and §97.317 remain in effect.

73, de Hans, K0HB
--
Lord High Liberator of the Electric Smoke

Well it looks like that item (WT Docket 04-140) is still in limbo. Part of
it does include changing the amplifier rules but it hasn't been implemented.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

QRP is for Sissies!

(§97.315, §97.317) still in effect

Dee Flint wrote:
"KØHB" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Dee Flint" wrote in message
...

And the "legal no-no" (§97.315, §97.317) does not apply to homebrewed
amplifiers, which the item in question appears to be.
Amateur-to-amateur sales are also exempt.

Didn't the FCC change that in the last year or two? Since it didn't
successfully keep the amplifiers off the CB band anyway, I believe they
dropped that restriction.

§97.315 and §97.317 remain in effect.

Well it looks like that item (WT Docket 04-140) is still in limbo. Part of
it does include changing the amplifier rules but it hasn't been implemented.

IIRC, those rules date back to 1978.

They're a result of widespread use of external "linear" amplifiers by
cb and freeband users.

FCC thought that outlawing the manufacture and sale of such amplifiers
would
decrease their use, which is completely illegal. Of course no such
effect
occurred, and the manufacture, sale and use of such amplifiers by cb
and
freeband users continues even today.

The only real effect those rules have is on amateurs, who could no
longer
buy amplifiers capable of operation on 10 and 12 meters unless
modified,
and who could no longer buy amplifiers suitable for use with HF QRP
rigs
at all. The rules also affect kits, leaving homebrew as the only
option.

Amateurs were punished for what nonamateurs did.

One manufacturer found a way to produce a legal QRP-to-100W HF
amplifier,
however. The amplifer is designed so that it can only work with the rig
for which
it is designed, because it needs control information from the main
rig's microprocessor
control system. The controlling rig is designed so that it will not
transmit outside the
amateur bands above 25 MHz, and that feature is not defeatable by
anything other
than a rewrite of the firmware.

So both the rig and its amplifier (which is meant to be mounted inside
the rig) are
useless for cb and freeband use. FCC has accepted the design.

73 de Jim, N2EY

(§97.315, §97.317) still in effect

BEGIN QUOTE

wrote in message
oups.com...
Dee Flint wrote:
"KØHB" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Dee Flint" wrote in message
...

And the "legal no-no" (§97.315, §97.317) does not apply to homebrewed
amplifiers, which the item in question appears to be.
Amateur-to-amateur sales are also exempt.

Didn't the FCC change that in the last year or two? Since it didn't
successfully keep the amplifiers off the CB band anyway, I believe they
dropped that restriction.

§97.315 and §97.317 remain in effect.

Well it looks like that item (WT Docket 04-140) is still in limbo. Part
of
it does include changing the amplifier rules but it hasn't been
implemented.

IIRC, those rules date back to 1978.

They're a result of widespread use of external "linear" amplifiers by
cb and freeband users.

FCC thought that outlawing the manufacture and sale of such amplifiers
would
decrease their use, which is completely illegal. Of course no such
effect
occurred, and the manufacture, sale and use of such amplifiers by cb
and
freeband users continues even today.

END QUOTE

Yes, the reason and date are correct. There's an extensive discussion of
the docket on the ARRL website.

Because the current rules have not stopped the illegal CB use, the FCC
proposed to eliminate these restrictions but has not yet acted to do so.
The use of these amplifiers is already prohibited by the CB regulations and
the additional regulation had no impact since there was no significant level
of enforcement.

Reminds me of a state that hired a consultant to evaluate what new laws were
needed to reduce the number and severity of car/bicycle accidents. His
conclusion was that the state needed to enforce the laws already on the
books and that no new laws were needed.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

all steve can realy do is try to hijack threads

On 3 Jan 2006 00:45:19 -0800, "K4YZ" wrote:

wrote:
On 1 Jan 2006 07:48:55 -0800, "K4YZ" wrote:
wrote:
On Sun, 01 Jan 2006 05:03:46 GMT, "KØHB"
wrote:

http://tinyurl.com/bps4v

73, de Hans, K0HB

...(personaly don't seethe point but)...(SNIP)

There's a hot flash.

agains stevie why do try to hijack another thread

And YOUR comment was...?!?!

made and reconfimred

Steve, K4YZ

everyone should be advised that The following person
has been advocating the abuse of elders making false charges of child rape, rape in general forges post and name

he may also be making flase reports of abusing other in order to attak and cow his foes
he also shows signs of being dangerously unstable

STEVEN J ROBESON
151 12TH AVE NW
WINCHESTER TN 37398
931-967-6282

well stevie you assked for it you got it
Mark Morgan

_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 140,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account

(§97.315, §97.317) still in effect

On Wed, 4 Jan 2006 07:07:50 -0500, "Dee Flint"
wrote:

BEGIN QUOTE

wrote in message
roups.com...
Dee Flint wrote:
"KØHB" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Dee Flint" wrote in message
...

And the "legal no-no" (§97.315, §97.317) does not apply to homebrewed
amplifiers, which the item in question appears to be.
Amateur-to-amateur sales are also exempt.

Didn't the FCC change that in the last year or two? Since it didn't
successfully keep the amplifiers off the CB band anyway, I believe they
dropped that restriction.

§97.315 and §97.317 remain in effect.

Well it looks like that item (WT Docket 04-140) is still in limbo. Part
of
it does include changing the amplifier rules but it hasn't been
implemented.

IIRC, those rules date back to 1978.

They're a result of widespread use of external "linear" amplifiers by
cb and freeband users.

FCC thought that outlawing the manufacture and sale of such amplifiers
would
decrease their use, which is completely illegal. Of course no such
effect
occurred, and the manufacture, sale and use of such amplifiers by cb
and
freeband users continues even today.

END QUOTE

Yes, the reason and date are correct. There's an extensive discussion of
the docket on the ARRL website.

Because the current rules have not stopped the illegal CB use, the FCC
proposed to eliminate these restrictions but has not yet acted to do so.
The use of these amplifiers is already prohibited by the CB regulations and
the additional regulation had no impact since there was no significant level
of enforcement.

Reminds me of a state that hired a consultant to evaluate what new laws were
needed to reduce the number and severity of car/bicycle accidents. His
conclusion was that the state needed to enforce the laws already on the
books and that no new laws were needed.

the only p"problem" with your line of reasoning in this matter is that
it is in fact logical, and that the Govt is involved

to end the reg today would be an addistion in some eyes that the FCC
made a mistakes in writing them and no crat wants to admit a mistake
eiter his own or that of anynother crats lest he be denounced as
makking a mistake himself some day

the same reason keep in place the silly about rnage of conatct (being
100 or 150 miles I don't recall) on a band that can support long range
with breaking the other rules even I have borke that by accientedt
near the last peak thinking i was tlaking to someone around
springfeild (without checking it was ILLinois ) til is became clear
iit wasn't) thus breaking the rule

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

everyone should be advised that The following person
has been advocating the abuse of elders making false charges of child rape, rape in general forges post and name

he may also be making flase reports of abusing other in order to attak and cow his foes
he also shows signs of being dangerously unstable

STEVEN J ROBESON
151 12TH AVE NW
WINCHESTER TN 37398
931-967-6282

well stevie you assked for it you got it
Mark Morgan

_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 140,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account

More Markie Mularkie

wrote:
On 3 Jan 2006 00:45:19 -0800, "K4YZ" wrote:
wrote:
On 1 Jan 2006 07:48:55 -0800, "K4YZ" wrote:
wrote:
On Sun, 01 Jan 2006 05:03:46 GMT, "KØHB"
wrote:

http://tinyurl.com/bps4v

73, de Hans, K0HB

...(personaly don't seethe point but)...(SNIP)

There's a hot flash.

agains stevie why do try to hijack another thread

And YOUR comment was...?!?!

made and reconfimred

No it wasn't. It was nearly indecipherable.

well stevie you assked for it you got it

No where did I ask you to be an idiot, Mark...It's just your way.

Steve, K4YZ