Towertalk
[Top] [All Lists]

[TowerTalk] Re: Upcoming Compliance

To: <towertalk@contesting.com>
Subject: [TowerTalk] Re: Upcoming Compliance
From: scotty@advicom.net (Scott Neustadter)
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 17:14:56 -0600
Check the latest Novice/Tech license manual (Question Pool) It has
numerous examples of common antenna setups and powers for both
controlled and uncontrolled limits (See Graphic NT0-1, which is used for
both elements 2 and 3A).

Ward Silver wrote:
> 
> On Fri, 14 Nov 1997, Roderick M. Fitz-Randolph wrote:
> 
> > (1)  "Problem areas seem to be mostly lowband dipoles low to the ground..."
> >
> >      That pretty much does away with 80 meter delta loops whose base leg
> >      is in proximity to the ground that places it out of compliance.  It
> >      also does away with "Cloud Warmers" for contesting.
> 
> Only if the wire is VERY CLOSE to uncontrolled exposures - which
> translates to "don't put it up over your neighbor's property"...I think
> the recommended separations were on the order of 10-20 feet (going from
> memory here, don't take this as gospel) when running high-power.  A
> back-yard dipole, well away from your property lines will probably be
> comfortably within the exposure limits.
> 
> If your antenna is a "stealth"  wire and you're running high-power, then
> you might want to reconsider.  Of course, in this situation, you're
> probably lighting up everything in the house and the spousal disapproval
> is more formidable than any possible governmental trouble.
> 
> > (2)  "HF antennas mounted at reasonable heights are nowhere near exceeding
> >      exposure limits even at full power".
> >
> >      What's "reasonable heights"... this year?... next year?.. 10 years?
> >
> 
> Thirty feet gets you out of the zone of concern in nearly all cases.
> 
> The point about un-founded concerns is something to think about, of
> course.  The real problem that is completely unaddressed is that of
> cellular phones.  However, all the research has failed to turn up anything
> at all definite.
> 
> My point in bringing all this up was not to get into a huge discussion of
> what is and isn't in compliance. (Actually, hams have ALWAYS been liable
> for compliance with exposure limts, it's just that the limits are
> changing.)  The comments were made only to say, "The ARRL has a team
> working on it and an excellent guide to making your evaluations will be
> made available shortly."  Also, from what I've seen, the vast majority of
> installations are comfortably within the exposure limits.
> 
> 73, Ward N0AX
> 
> --
> FAQ on WWW:               http://www.contesting.com/towertalkfaq.html
> Submissions:              towertalk@contesting.com
> Administrative requests:  towertalk-REQUEST@contesting.com
> Problems:                 owner-towertalk@contesting.com
> Search:                   http://www.contesting.com/km9p/search

-- 
Scotty Neustadter, W4WW  ex N4PYD       W4WW@nadxc.org
Chairman, Huntsville Hamfest            North Alabama DX Club
Question Pool Committee, NCVEC          Fax 205 880 9530
        "Hold the screwdriver by the fat yellow end"

--
FAQ on WWW:               http://www.contesting.com/towertalkfaq.html
Submissions:              towertalk@contesting.com
Administrative requests:  towertalk-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems:                 owner-towertalk@contesting.com
Search:                   http://www.contesting.com/km9p/search

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>