[Laser] Laser comm and ARRL?

[Kerry Banke]

Art - As one of the few who logged a laser QSO during the last 10 Ghz & Up 
contest, I can see where you're coming from. I guess though that maybe the 
issue is not just Laser but most any of the bands above 24 Ghz for now.  I 
haul quite a pile of equipment to be able to work 24 GHz, 47 Ghz and laser 
and usually save it for a specific day/time so all that gear doesn't bounce 
around during 10 GHz/24 Ghz travel.  I am not much of a contester but do 
try to especially  support those that make an effort to travel far 
distances or operate on 24 GHz and above.  I do believe that to promote 
activity on the higher bands that some significant incentives should be 
provided that are somehow in line with the difficulty for that specific 
band  at that time (the incentives probably need to change as it becomes 
easier on the upper bands).   I'd also really like to see the laser rules 
not require coherent light as there are certainly some technically 
interesting & challenging communications possible with the high output LEDS 
these days ( I'm currently playing with a 1W Luxeon Star/0). I'd like to 
see those modes (very weak signal & NLOS) supported. I can certainly drum 
up some support for a petition within our local SDMG and SBMS microwave groups.
  - Kerry N6IZW -

At 12:15 PM 2/18/2004 -0500, you wrote:
>Good day all,
>
>Some number of years ago, there was a brief discussion about petitioning 
>the ARRL to update their standards regarding what they considered a valid 
>laser contact was.
>
>For now, it's any 2 way contact using laser (must be coherent) light, not 
>an LED or flashlight. There must be one electronic detection stage, and 
>the equipment must be capable of covering one KM. For conest purposes, 
>each laser Q must have a separate transmitter/receiver for each laser 
>contact made (to prevent manufactured QSO's).
>
>Despite the tremendous availability of laser gear we have today, laser 
>contacts during the vhf contest and the 10 Ghz and up contest is a pretty 
>rare event.
>
>I live 90 miles from Mt. Washington (NH) and it is a favorite destination 
>for rovers during the contests, but I easily work stations there on 2m. 
>Yet, every time I ask someone there (on Mt. Washington) for a laser Q, 
>they reply 'no laser', even though I know a few of them are QRV on laser.
>
>I can't say I blame them, laser is very time consuming (alignment/initial 
>signal acquisition) and is a little more difficult to do in daylight. But, 
>the real killer is that a laser contact counts no more than any other 
>microwave contact-so there is absolutely no incentive for a rover to carry 
>laser gear and to devote the additional time needed to make a laser Q.
>
>I'd like to see a laser qso with LED's count as a qso. I think that a 
>minimum distance for a laser contact might be 5 miles-this would ease the 
>fear among non-laser people that laser contacts could be easily 
>'manufactured' in great quantity. I'd like to see laser contacts score 10X 
>higher than a 10 GHz qso as well, after all, these qso's generally take 
>much longer to make because of the precision of the aiming equipment 
>needed. I'd like to see Laser VUCC standards lowered so that 3 QSO's with 
>surrounding grids counts for VUCC-after all, these contacts are much 
>harder than microwaves.
>
>Does anyone else feel the same way? Does anyone know what the accepted 
>manner to petition the ARRL to make changes regarding laser comm standards???
>
>Thanks,
>
>Art
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Laser mailing list
>Laser@mailman.qth.net
>http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/laser