[Laser] Coherent Source - back on my soap box

[James Whitfield]

I appreciate the comments made on this topic.

I was particularly touched by WA2GFP.  Anyone that can refer to me as one of 
the "youngsters" deserves special recognition.  That he was able to clarify 
the situation and events leading up to the writing of rule 1.12 makes his 
comments significant.

Tim Toast showed considerable gumption to suggest an interpretation of what 
the rule means, though I have a hard time following a bandwidth 
interpretation as it does not address the fundamental issue of what is and 
is not a coherent source.  I suppose that an "official" interpretation would 
serve better than the current situation.  Better still would be a codicil 
written and posted so that the interpretation is clear.  The practical 
advantage of a codicil is that when the interpretation changes again, only 
it needs to be rewritten and posted.  I much prefer an honest discussion 
about a re-write of the actual rule.

In the comments of KA7OEI are both technological advances and what I will 
call socal issues for lack of a better term.  The technology has changed 
since rule 1.12 was included.  The most relevant to this discussion is ready 
availability of powerful LEDs coupled with the understanding that coherence 
serves to the detriment of  terrestrial communication.  The work of KA7OEI 
is well documented on the referenced websites.  As this is the case, there 
is not much value in repeating it here.

Which brings me to "social issues".  In particular, there is information 
that I did not previously know which disturbs me.  To explain, I need to set 
a little background.

As have others, W9SZ pointed out that contest rules only apply to contests. 
Respectfully, I disagree.  The impact of contest rules reaches out to the 
larger community.  Suppose for the moment that there is an organization that 
represents a large segment of the amateur radio hobby, and as such sponsors 
activities and contests.  Further, it has enough "pull" that its general 
rules are the blueprint for many contests, including those that it does not 
specifically sponsor.  Now suppose one of those general HF rules, formed 
many years ago, prohibits the use of DSBSC.  There may have been valid 
reasons at the time to do that, perhaps the organization wanted to promote 
SSB as being more frequency efficient.  To complicate matters, there were 
consessions for the AM old timers as a legacy mode, but DSBSC was tried and 
labeled as unfair since it used all the spectrum of AM but did not have the 
power "wasted" in the carrier.  On the other hand it was technologically 
simple to produce, costing far less than an SSB system.  The AM camp 
considers it a nusance since it is as hard to receive on their equipment as 
is SSB.  The SSB camp are equally annoyed since it is cheap, uses the 
bandwidth of AM, and has more power available in each sideband than AM, if 
only 3 dB less than SSB for the same emitted power.  The issue gets really 
angry during contests.  The SSB camp dominates any contest that is willing 
to mix AM and SSB, so segregation occurs "naturally".

Now, the "rule" only applies to contests.  But suppose the amateur radio 
community is in transition from a large fraction of the HAMs building CW and 
AM transmitters to mostly purchaced transceivers.  In all this, a 
manufacture of transceivers has to decide what features to include in the 
next model.  AM might be included, but DSBSC probably not.  SSB, a strong 
candidate.  Is that because the contest rules said to the transceiver 
manufacturer cannot include DSBSC?  Of course not.  However, contest rules 
are written for a variety of reasons.  Sometimes it is to promote a 
particular mode.  In any case, their influence extends out into the 
community.  From there into the equipment that becomes available, either 
commercially or the building projects in the popular literature.

Do I think ARRL VHF rule 1.12 had stifled the development of a commercially 
available equipment for light communication?  No.  But there was an article 
I came across about modulated light using a gas discharge source followed by 
filters to get a "monochromatic" source.  Since it was not coherent, it 
could not have been used in a contest.  It was a long way from flashligh and 
eyeball, but I doubt it would have met the standards of the day.

That brings me to the "pieces of paper" that KA7OEI received from the ARRL 
and the very disturbing social issues.  I respect KA7OEI and believe he 
fully deserves recognition for his work.  However, it is my opinion that 
Rule 1.12 specifically excludes the equipment he uses.  What I find most 
disturbing is that the officials at ARRL seem to not have the necessary 
ethical qualifications to read or follow their own rules.

I find no more compelling argument that KA7OEI equipment violates the 
coherent source section of rule 1.12 than his own words on his website.  He 
is very clear that it uses non-coherent light and that non-coherent light 
has communicaton advantages over coherent ( laser ) light.

Rule 1.12 clearly states the requirement for the use of coherent radiation. 
It is not ambiguous.  It allow no exceptions.  This I understand.  I can 
read it for myself.

What I don't understand is how the ARRL could issue a certificate in the 10 
gig and up contest to someone using the equipment.  It could be that the 
contest folks have never looked at, or cannot understand, the material in 
the KA7OEI website.  That would place them in the "light" of not being able 
to determine a violation of rule 1.12.

KA7OEI would seem to disagree with such an assessment.  He asserts that the 
ARRL does know the relavent facts and has chosen to "interpret" the rule as 
no longer requiring coherent radiation.

I confess, it certainly appears that he has proof to support his assertion. 
The first consequence of that is that we are back in the flashlight days, if 
not the reception by eyeball.  All that has been done is to ignore the 
coherent provisions.  They did not modify or expand the rule.  They simply 
ignore whatever portion of they find expedient at any given time.

That makes the ARRL contest officials as morally and ethically bankrupt as 
the worst of the politicians I have ever heard of.  Rules exist.  For 
whatever reasons they happen to have been created, once set in place, they 
should be followed.  If the rule has a problem, then fix it.  Recend it. 
Modify it.  Correct it.  If absolutely necessary, empower someone to provide 
exceptions.

Some of you may think that it is an acceptable practice.  If we were talking 
about our governmental legal system, it would be called selective 
enforcement.  It certainly exists.  There is even a governance philosophy of 
making all things illegal, then by selective enforcement, only the 
undesireables are prosecuted.  It works very well for the "IN".  Of course, 
who is "IN" can change...

I do not know what the ARRL may use as a canon of ethics.  For me, I would 
much rather think that they are uniformed or monumentally stupid.  That 
would be better than deliberate abandonment of ethical conduct.


James
 n5gui