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

[Perry - K4PWO]

BTW, "full legal limit" for SS under the ARRL proposal is 100 watts.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Tim Gorman" <ab0wr at ab0wr.net>
To: "TAPR Mailing List for Ham Radio Use of 802.11" 
<ham-80211 at lists.tapr.org>
Sent: Monday, May 22, 2006 5:34 AM
Subject: Re: [Ham-80211] OT??? High power 2.4 GHz rules change


> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> ham-80211 mailing list
> ham-80211 at lists.tapr.org
> https://lists.tapr.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ham-80211
>