Order Tray | Contact Us | Home | SIG Lists

[Ham-80211] OT??? High power 2.4 GHz rules change

Tim Gorman ab0wr at ab0wr.net
Mon May 22 10:34:46 UTC 2006

On Sunday 21 May 2006 23:17, jeff at aerodata.net wrote:

> >
> > No, not already covered. If it were already covered we wouldn't have the
> > problem on the HF bands with people running amplifiers when they are not
> > needed.
> So your saying another law to make up for another law that people already
> are not following?

Have you really thought your logic through? If some people don't follow the 
law then get rid of the law. That logic would lead to no speed limits on the 
highways, no laws against pollution or littering, and on and on and on.

> > You can pooh-pooh it all you want, it is still a fact of life.
> I'm not saying your wrong, I am saying this is amateur radio, and the best
> way to promote experimentation is to have as few rules as possible. Good
> amateur practice and minimum power need to communicate, which we have on
> the books now, covers your concerns but at the same time doesn't overly
> change Part 97 to a Part 15 service.

But the APC rule does NOT affect experimentation. No one on here has yet to 
point out a scenario where it does. They just complain that it *does*. When I 
build a transmitter (I am working on one now) I don't build the PA first and 
try to run it at maximum power allowed. I build it up and experiment at *low* 
power levels first. I don't know of any engineer I respect who starts out 
experimenting at high power first.

> > And no one has answered why 100watts is needed on any SS point-to-point
> > link.
> I seem to recall at least one fellow that did. One might need the link
> margin. Do the math Tim, I think it is in the ARRL handbook.

He gave no viable answers at all. Just rationalizations for blasting away at 
full legal limit all the time regardless of whether it is required or not. 
The *very* rationale that you seem to think amateurs don't indulge in.

I *have* done the math. Have you? 1 watt is more than sufficient for fixed 
point-to-point operation over a 7 to 10 mile radio horizon, especially with 
high gain antennas of 7-14dbi gain. 

> Your outrage seems misplaced. You do realize all thos amplifiers you cite,
> are squarely aimed at the Part 15 audience, don't you? Its like saying,
> boy we should punish those hams for all the illegal amplifiers the CB
> radio operators are using. Oh wait, that already happened. Guess you big
> goverment boys do know a thing or two.

Do you really think it matters what the purpose behind them is? The point is 
that they are available, they *do* contribute to spectrum pollution, it 
doesn't matter whether it is a Part 15 user or a Part 97 user that is doing 
the contribution, and they are very rarely needed. Is that really such a hard 
concept to grasp?

> > Do you really think the rest of us are so stupid as to not be able to
> > look back on history and be able to learn from it?
> Rest of us? Interesting... who is "us"?

The ones that don't agree with you. Did you think I was the only one that 
isn't in your camp?

tim ab0wr

More information about the ham-80211 mailing list