Well, if the meighbors are throwing a party in their back yard on the night of
contest,
that means they're not on the TV and you don't have any problems with them ....
Right ?
Wrong !!
They rented (or worse, yet,,, Bought) a bug zapper to kill the skeeters, etc.
in their back yard !!!! :-(
OK, Time to build the QRN nuller from CQ Magazine of this summer !!
N5RP
/////\\
( # # )
*****oOO-(_)-OOo**************************************
Bob & Mary Beth Perring
Houston, Texas
e-mail perring@infocom.net
Web site http://www.infocom.net/~perring/bucky.html
******************************************************
>From 71111.260@CompuServe.COM (Hans Brakob) Mon Aug 5 19:40:27 1996
From: 71111.260@CompuServe.COM (Hans Brakob) (Hans Brakob)
Subject: RF Exposure limits
Message-ID: <960805184026_71111.260_EHM83-1@CompuServe.COM>
Tim,
I missed your earlier post, so I can't comment.
Personally, I think this thing is largely an exercise in CYA
on the part of FCC.
I'd be surprised if they suddenly start wandering around with
frequency selective voltmeters. On the other hand, a knowledgeable
neighbor or zoning commission could wreak havoc by forcing hams to
demonstrate compliance. (Maybe it's a good argument for TALL towers!)
73, de Hans, K0HB/4ID
(Speaking strictly for K0HB)
>From hwardsil@wolfenet.com (Ward Silver) Mon Aug 5 19:56:29 1996
From: hwardsil@wolfenet.com (Ward Silver) (Ward Silver)
Subject: RF Exposure limits
Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.3.95.960805115029.11564H-100000@gonzo.wolfenet.com>
On 5 Aug 1996, Hans Brakob wrote:
> I'd be surprised if (the FCC) suddenly start wandering around with
> frequency selective voltmeters. On the other hand, a knowledgeable
> neighbor or zoning commission could wreak havoc by forcing hams to
> demonstrate compliance. (Maybe it's a good argument for TALL towers!)
>
It could be darn expensive to get a certified measurement. Test services
are NOT cheap...probably more expensive than having a PE do your tower
drawing for you. Yes, a very good argument for raising the tower.
On the other hand, does this mean that we could also bite back by asking
to see the certification of all those !@#$%^&* RF emitting appliances,
electric fences, etc.? It's gotta go both ways!
Does anyone have any info about whether these limits would be exceeded by
a typical "suburban kilowatt"? Say, 1.5kW into a large tribander at 60'?
It looks to me like the only problem areas are at 15 and 10 meters and
then on 80/160 where the ends of inverted vees would be close to ground
and property edges.
73, Ward N0AX
>From drussell@knox.net (Donald Russell) Mon Aug 5 22:16:53 1996
From: drussell@knox.net (Donald Russell) (Donald Russell)
Subject: NAQP CW - the "pse qsy" contest
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.91.960805170926.27649A-100000@jasper.knox.net>
After reveiwing some of the responses, I have to change my opinion on
this subject. I think a quick "QSY?" and a response of "r r r" or "no"
would serve the purpose just fine. It lets the ops get on the same page
and they can take it from there.
I don't get many requests myself, but I always QSY when asked. Complete
about 50% of the QSO's.
No rule changes please (I didn't start that one!).
73, Don WA8YRS drussell@knox.net
>From hwardsil@wolfenet.com (Ward Silver) Mon Aug 5 19:20:47 1996
From: hwardsil@wolfenet.com (Ward Silver) (Ward Silver)
Subject: NAQP QSY Freqs
Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.3.95.960805111855.11564A-100000@gonzo.wolfenet.com>
On Mon, 5 Aug 1996 KWIDELITZ@delphi.com wrote:
> The only problem with "pre-set" QSY frequencies is that when they are in use
> it undermines the purpose of the QSY request. You want to make it fast, so
> you pick a frequency that is empty. QSYs in NAQP are often marginal, running
> low power to a band with little propagation and you probably wouldn't make
> the QSO if you didn't know what you were listening for. I had a few
> occasions where I thought I picked a clear QSY frequency, but it turned out
> not to be the case and I couldn't make the QSO. Finding the QSY frequency is
> busy and moving up one or two just isn't going to be productive, cause the
> guy you are moving isn't going to have the patience to look for you.
>
This is true...having "standard" QSY frequencies is probably one of those
great ideas that works until it becomes too widely used...then it sucks!
However, I'll probably still keep 050, 030, etc. under observation.
73, Ward N0AX
>From foggie@dtx.net (foggie) Mon Aug 5 23:12:18 1996
From: foggie@dtx.net (foggie) (foggie)
Subject: N0AX CW NAQP score
Message-ID: <XFMail.960805172119.foggie@dtx.net>
On 05-Aug-96 KWIDELITZ@delphi.com wrote:
>>The only problem with "pre-set" QSY frequencies is that when they are in use
>it undermines the purpose of the QSY request. You want to make it fast, so
>you pick a frequency that is empty. QSYs in NAQP are often marginal, running
>low power to a band with little propagation and you probably wouldn't make
>the QSO if you didn't know what you were listening for.
I agree. I was running dual radios but only 3 antennas. So when asked to QSY
from 80, 40, or 20, I had to retune. That wasn't too bad, since I have the
tuner marked. The big prob was that 10 out of 10 times I was CQ'ing when
asked. My general rule was if I was CQ'ing and needed the mult on that band
I gave it a go. None worked out though. Some I ended up working later on,
others were never heard from. The first request was from walt (AC1O). That
was about 4 hours into the test, and I knew by then that LA was going to be
rare. Somehow I needed FL on 15, and it just didn't work. Later on is when
I started getting the 40, and 20 meter requests. I only got asked about 10
times, and not a single one worked out. as much the problem with my hearing
(wrote about it b4) as the propagation.
73,
Al - kk5zx
|