--- On Mon, 09 Sep 1996 21:14:59 EDT w1aw@arrl.org wrote:
SB QST @ ARL $ARLB062
ARLB062 ARRL Petitions FCC To Change Safety Rules
ZCZC AG42
QST de W1AW
ARRL Bulletin 62 ARLB062
>From ARRL Headquarters
Newington CT September 10, 1996
To all radio amateurs
SB QST ARL ARLB062
ARLB062 ARRL Petitions FCC To Change Safety Rules
The ARRL has petitioned the FCC to reconsider and reverse portions
of the Commission's August 1, 1996, Report and Order that imposed
RF-emission safety standards on Amateur Radio, including a 50-W
threshold to trigger an RF-safety evaluation. In setting the 50-W
threshold, the ARRL said, the FCC failed to consider the effect of
antenna height, antenna gain, emission mode, duty cycle or operating
frequency. The League asked the FCC either to scale the evaluation
threshold by frequency to match the maximum permissible exposure
(MPE) limits--directly corresponding to the way the regulations
scale the exposure levels with frequency--or to set the evaluation
threshold for all HF operation at 150 W at a distance of 10 meters
from all parts of the antenna.
At or below that power level and at that distance from the radiator,
''you'd be well on the side of safe, even at 100 duty cycle, with
any antenna likely to be encountered on HF,'' said ARRL Laboratory
Supervisor Ed Hare, KA1CV, our HQ staff liaison to the ARRL RF
Safety Committee. ''Some VHF/UHF and microwave station configurations
could result in an RF exposure exceeding the requirements of the
regulations, so the 50-W limit to trigger an evaluation is more
appropriate above 30 MHz,'' said Hare. He emphasized that all
stations, regardless of output power or frequency, still must abide
by the specified MPE limits for RF.
The new rules, effective January 1, 1997, require licensees of
amateur stations running 50 W output or more on any band to conduct
a routine RF-safety evaluation to determine if the station could
expose people to RF levels that exceed the MPE limits specified in
the new rules. (Mobile installations using push-to-talk, regardless
of power, are exempt from the environmental evaluation requirement.)
In its reconsideration filing, the League called the 50-W threshold
''regulatory overkill'' and ''without scientific basis.'' Among other
things, the League said the means to conduct RF radiation
evaluations are not yet available, and the ability to reconfigure a
station that might exceed the new limits ''is highly problematic.''
Coupled with any state and local land-use and RF-exposure
regulations that might exist, application of the new rules ''may
constitute a de facto revocation or modification of the station
license,'' the League said.
The League also said the FCC adopted the rules ''through flawed
procedures'' and without advance notice and opportunity for prior
comment.
The ARRL said that the new rules differentiate between ham stations
and other Commission licensees ''which are treated far less
restrictively.'' While the FCC preempted state and local government
regulation of personal wireless service facilities based on
environmental effects of RF emissions, it refused to do the same for
ham radio ''without any basis for the distinction.''
The ARRL already has asked the FCC to extend the deadline to change
amateur examinations and modify question pools, but the Commission
has yet to act on the request. The League said that, as it now
stands, hams have no way to determine the scope of their obligations
under the new rules.
The League suggested the FCC vacate its new RF safety rules
governing amateur stations and issue a further notice to permit
comment on the proposed rules, and, in particular, the 50-W
evaluation threshold.
NNNN
/EX
-----------------End of Original Message-----------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
E-mail: frenaye@pcnet.com
Tom Frenaye, K1KI, P O Box 386, West Suffield CT 06093 Phone: 860-668-5444
>From ac6ef@usa.pipeline.com (Terry Dunlap) Tue Sep 10 03:47:12 1996
From: ac6ef@usa.pipeline.com (Terry Dunlap) (Terry Dunlap)
Subject: COM3/COM4 - Solution
Message-ID: <199609100247.CAA25955@pipe3.la1.usa.pipeline.com>
First of all, I would like to thank everyone that responded to my
questions. I had email from 4 countries with suggestions and requests for
sharing my solution.
Several people suggested the Flexport 42 card from Quickpath Systems. This
card comes with 4 serial ports & 2 parallel ports. It is terrific! The 4
serial ports can be configured for any of 8 addresses and IRQs
3,4,5,7,9,10,11,12,14 & 15. The parallel ports can be configured for 3
addresses and the standard IRQ 7 or 5. The manual is small because that's
all that is needed, the card is laid out terrific. The 4 serial ports are
accessed through a 4 cable octopus that attaches to the card with a 37 pin
"D" connector. The 2 parallel connectors are attached to brackets on 2
used PC slots. Flexport's tech support was very good and they also have a
BBS. Quickpath is available on the web at www.quickpath.com. Their phone#
is (510) 440-7288. No connection, just a very satisfied customer.
My system is now configured with 6 serial ports and 3 parallel ports:
COM 1, IRQ4, 3F8 KPC3 on Packetcluster (internal port on motherboard)
COM 2, IRQ3, 2F8 Internal 28.8 modem
COM 3, IRQ5, 3E8 Rig Control
COM 4, IRQ9, 2E8, --unused--
COM 5, IRQ11, 340, KAM Plus
COM 6, IRQ3, 290, -unused- (ran out of IRQs, figured same IRQ as modem)
LPT1, IRQ 7, 3BC Printer
LPT2, IRQ 7, 378 Keyer
LPT3, IRQ 7, 278 -unused-
Some people were interested in a summary of my responses. I will send that
if people are interested.
Thanks again for everyone's help!
73 de Terry AC6EF
ac6ef@pipeline.com
>From w5xd@delphi.com (Wayne E. Wright) Tue Sep 10 11:01:52 1996
From: w5xd@delphi.com (Wayne E. Wright) (Wayne E. Wright)
Subject: free software update
Message-ID: <01I9AIU9NFFM8X8QTW@delphi.com>
I added support for the Stew Perry, W1BB, 160m Distance Challenge to
WriteLog. And I have a new WEB page for WriteLog:
http://people.delphi.com/w5xd/WriteLog.html
This page has the software on it and will download from your internet
browser. My internet provider, Delphi, doesn't appear to have ftp access,
so, as far as I can tell, the browser is the only way to download.
Now that I have a Web page, I won't need to broadcast updates on cq-contest
any more--especially if I can get a mention in the cq-contest FAQ (blatant
request to Trey) and other contester-frequented places. So add my page to
your favorites list else you miss out on the goodies.
GL,
Wayne, W5XD
>From wa2syn@li.net (Jeff Singer) Tue Sep 10 04:36:51 1996
From: wa2syn@li.net (Jeff Singer) (Jeff Singer)
Subject: Cable Attenuation Question
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.95.960909233541.23511C-100000@linet01>
On Mon, 9 Sep 1996 JACKBLY@delphi.com wrote:
> This is a word Problem.
> If I have a 150 Feet of RG-9913, which the charts say should have
> a loss of 1.2 dB per 100 Feet at 28MHz. And I put 100 Watts of power
> into the coax, how much power should I expect to see at the other end?
> Thanks, Jack, KA8D
----------------------
Jack:
The answer is 75 watts (I'm not so smart; this from a little program on
QRZ CD).
73 de Jeff WA2SYN
js@li.net
>From trey@cisco.com (Trey Garlough) Tue Sep 10 08:17:39 1996
From: trey@cisco.com (Trey Garlough) (Trey Garlough)
Subject: How do I submit my sprint log?
Message-ID: <199609100717.JAA01418@trey-sun.cisco.com>
> If my information is correct, my cw sprint log goes to tree@cmicro.com.
>
> Do I send the binary log file as an attachment, or do I send the summary sheet
> and text file?
Generally speaking, you should never send something as an "attachment"
unless you are certain that the person you are sending the message to
can deal with attachments. For instance, my unix workstation can deal
with attachments, but even once it extracts your *.bin file, what is it
going to do with it? Since there is so little "value added" in sending
most logs as something other than straight ASCII text, I don't really
see the point.
Also, one should never send email with attachments to CQ-Contest because
this is a complete and total waste of time.
--Trey
>From va3wto@pathcom.com (Rui wittwer) Tue Sep 10 08:18:25 1996
From: va3wto@pathcom.com (Rui wittwer) (Rui wittwer)
Subject: Help on B.P.F. - TANK YOU
Message-ID: <199609100719.DAA07729@pathway1.pathcom.com>
Tank you to all these nice people for there prompted answer to my question
on W3LPL
B.P.F..
They were:
W3LPL W3ZZ
K1VUT VE5FN
KG5U Jim Hollenback
N4TO
See all you guy`s at CQWW SSB From VA3SK M\S QTH and maybe if i got time
from my qth next weekend WAE.
73 de Rui.
>From sevar@mbox.vol.it (Dal Grande Severino) Tue Sep 10 08:48:59 1996
From: sevar@mbox.vol.it (Dal Grande Severino) (Dal Grande Severino)
Subject: contest field day
Message-ID: <32351D6B.765@mbox.vol.it>
Ciao,
sorry, not speaker english,
please, wanted address contest commmitee Field Day Contest 07-08 Set
1996
Tnx, 73 de IK3PQG Severino.
>From ppvvpp@mixcom.com (Gary Sutcliffe) Tue Sep 10 13:53:45 1996
From: ppvvpp@mixcom.com (Gary Sutcliffe) (Gary Sutcliffe)
Subject: NCJ CTT&T Column
Message-ID: <199609101253.HAA04055@mixcom.mixcom.com>
Hi Gang!
Once again the deadline for my NCJ Contest Tips, Tricks & Techniques column
approaches. This issue's topic is:
Open microphone: What is your favorite contesting tip, trick or
tecnique. Anything goes.
Please email your your response directly by Sept. 13. Please include your
call sign. Thanks again to everyone for your help.
73 - Gary
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary Sutcliffe, W9XT Unified Microsystems
ppvvpp@mixcom.com PO Box 133 Slinger, WI 53086
http://www.qth.com/w9xt 414-644-9036
>From w7zrc@micron.net (Rod Greene) Tue Sep 10 13:13:00 1996
From: w7zrc@micron.net (Rod Greene) (Rod Greene)
Subject: How do I submit my sprint log?
Message-ID: <2.2.16.19960910054912.49cff8f2@micron.net>
Trey
I agree with everything you say, good advice. However, how do I send logs
that are too large to handle (as a single message) by the Mail Server
Software at my ISP? Sprint logs are not that large and are no problem. But
a large DX or SS Log would most likely not be handled completely. Any
suggestions are appreciated. For my last SS, logs I FTP'd em to ARRL.
73, Rod
At 09:17 AM 9/10/96 +0200, Trey Garlough wrote:
>> If my information is correct, my cw sprint log goes to tree@cmicro.com.
>>
>> Do I send the binary log file as an attachment, or do I send the summary
sheet
>> and text file?
>
>Generally speaking, you should never send something as an "attachment"
>unless you are certain that the person you are sending the message to
>can deal with attachments. For instance, my unix workstation can deal
>with attachments, but even once it extracts your *.bin file, what is it
>going to do with it? Since there is so little "value added" in sending
>most logs as something other than straight ASCII text, I don't really
>see the point.
>
>Also, one should never send email with attachments to CQ-Contest because
>this is a complete and total waste of time.
>
>--Trey
>
>
----- Rod Greene, w7zrc@micron.net, <>< -----
|