[Laser] Lasers vs LEDs & ARRL contests

[Jack Isenberg]

Jon,

Best of luck to you and the VUAC.  This is at best a very tricky and 
controversial subject.

FWIW my opinion is:

1.Dont change rules unless you are absolutely sure it will improve the 
situation as perceived by a large majority of hams. Changing "the line"
could be a real problem.

2.The current rule is reasonably clear. coherent light is required.  This 
allows Lasers, but eliminates Luxor LEDs.

3.Spectral purity (on all bands) is a whole other subject. This should not 
be part of the issue.

4.I don't  think the rule should be changed, but if it is it should specify 
Laser only.

Jack
WA2IID

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <W0ZQ at aol.com>
To: <laser at mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 7:59 PM
Subject: [Laser] Lasers vs LEDs & ARRL contests


> Hello to all Laser/light enthusiast.
>
> As some of you may  know, I am the ARRL's Dakota Division VHF/UHF Contest
> Committee (VUAC)  representative.  I am seeking your comments.  One of the 
> items
> that  has been under discussion by your VUAC is the ARRL General VHF 
> Contest
> rule 1.12  that states "1.12. Above 300 GHz, contacts are permitted for 
> contest
> credit only  between licensed amateurs using coherent radiation on
> transmission (for example,  laser) and employing at least one stage of 
> electronic
> detection on  receive."  This rule requires that the contact be made by 
> licensed
> amateurs  and that the detection requires at least one stage of 
> electronics, that
> much  seems fairly clear despite whether you agree or disagree with that 
> part
> of the  rule.   What is less clear is the requirement that the source use
> "coherent radiation" and "(for example, laser)".  How coherent is coherent 
> ?
>
> What I would like your comments on is this.
>
> 1.   Given  this rule as it is now, does it include or exclude the use of
> narrow band  LEDs like the Luxor.  I am no optics expert but it seems to 
> me that
> some of  these newer power LEDs are very close in coherence to really poor
> lasers.   Does the current rule have enough latitude to include narrow 
> band LED
> emitters ?
>
> 2.  IF we could rewrite the rule, what should  the rule say ?  Do we want 
> to
> be much more specific and tighten the rule so  it states "Laser only", or 
> do
> we want to open the rule up to specifically allow  the use of newer
> technologies like power LEDs ?    In either case  what should the rule say 
> ?
>
> It seems that on the one hand we don't want to allow a blinking white 
> light
> bulb, but if not that where is the line ?
>
> Again, your  comments and perspective are most welcomed.
>
> 73, Jon
> W0ZQ
> Dakota  VUAC Rep
>
>
>
>
> **************Get fantasy football with free live scoring. Sign up for
> FanHouse Fantasy Football today.
> (http://www.fanhouse.com/fantasyaffair?ncid=aolspr00050000000020)
>
>