[Lowfer] 2200 Meter request for NPRM-Whedbee Reply

[James Whedbee]

Friends:

I've been following your thread for some time and recently received a kind e-mail from somebody friendly enough just to ask.  What follows is the essence of my e-mail to him.  This said, I am not a looking to be published in any magazines, a limelight lawyer (or any other lawyer for that matter), snake oil salesman (just to name a few of the characterizations referring to me), etc., so I was a bit surprised by folks who don't know me or understand my experiment mischaracterizing my work.  We are, after all, on the same side!

That being the case, I served in the Army signal corps during the first Gulf War as a node
manager, and wound up getting hurt; fortunately, I am an academic, so I
can still work following my retirement from the service.  My NPRM is the result of my own
observations of operators like yourself who are on the air in the LF
spectrum but not interfering at all with power company equipment.  The
EIRP limit of one watt is firm because international law (ITU Agenda
item 1.15, among others binds FCC) would prohibit FCC from establishing a higher power level. 
The 100 Watt transmitter power limit takes into consideration the power
companies' objections during RM-9404, and also the ITU's observation
that amateur transmitters with low power levels would not interfere. 
This overcomes FCC's previous reason for rejecting RM-9404.  The
narrowband emissions are merely an acceptance of reality that on so
narrow a range of frequencies, these are the emissions we'll be
permitted to use.  Because this is a Part 97 (Amateur Radio) petition, none of the current NPRM has any known implications to Part 5 operations...your transmitters are all safe from this NPRM.

As a ham, I've been licensed since 1981(then KA0MLG, and now as N0ECN).  Your friends' observations
that I am not well-known by others is correct; I am generally only
active during severe weather while I am working (and I work in academia, as a commissioner to Missouri from New Hampshire, and others).  That said, to my wife's chagrin, I quite
literally do have a number of transceivers ranging in frequency from "DC to daylight,"
including one of my personal favorites, an antique 10-10.5 GHz
Tellurometer that still does a good job.  

My home is itself on a
postage-stamp lot, but I have quite a few (much larger) parcels of land
throughout the US which allow for large antennas my HOA won't permit; I
am building a LPTV station (KZJW-LD) on one of those lots.  Because I
still have a mortgage payment, I teach, so I am experimenting under
WE2XTU mainly during the winter break periods and summer months (first
week of June through August).  If I do experiments during other times,
it's always on the weekend.  Since I'm working on antennas I hope to
later patent, I'm really not trying to draw attention to my
experiments; therefore, I don't make any attempt to make contacts.  Similarly, as you've noted, I have a very wide range of frequencies under WE2XTU, so the odds of inadvertently running across me on the air are still remote as I seldom use the same frequencies more than two or three times.

While
I have no way to get in their head to know why they've shown me favor in granting so much spectrum,
I suspect my success with FCC has a lot more to do with the fact that
they know I am an academic-they have all my credentials on record. 
Since this experimentation is in connection with my teaching, they seem
quite a bit more generous than I suspect others have experienced. 
However, if you look at other experimental applications covering large
swaths of spectrum you'll notice that the FCC is more prone to give you
greater leeway if your experiments are geared toward antenna design
because some antennas require a wide bandwidth.  

What I can say about
my own experimentation (that won't reveal anything I'd later patent) is
this: the reason ham radio operators (or anyone else) cuts a dipole for
95% of the free-space half-wavelength dimension is the dielectric
constant of air (in a vacuum, the 95% would be 100%).  Of the non-gain
antennas, dipoles are the most efficient of all antennas (94% if well
constructed) so of all antenna designs, they get more transmitter power
out than any other.  Well, it isn't necessary to put a dipole in air at
all.  The dielectric can be polystyrene, glass, or any number of
others.  This change in the dielectric constant can result in a vastly
shorter dipole antenna with the same high efficiency rating.  Of course
dipoles are pretty big at 2200 meters, so they're not the only antenna
interesting me with these experiments. 


73's,

James Whedbee
N0ECN, WE2XTU