[Lowfer] WM and MP post dinner shot

[JD]

Well, Bill, as you know, I've quietly gritted my teeth in the past over the 
Ken Cornell "interpretation" of the 15 meter antenna rule; that is, anything 
which would fit in an imaginary cylinder 15 meters long and 15 meters 
diameter.  The FCC specifically and explicitly rejected that idea, when it 
was proposed to formalize it in the Part 15 Rules in the 90s.  But I've been 
willing to quietly disagree with the "15 meters equals 200 feet" notion so 
long as it was presented as a personal interpretation that falls upon the 
heads of those insistent on employing it.

I'm very concerned at the change in wording here:  "The RF impact or 
interference to others in the local area as well as the skywave interference 
to others should not exceed the equivalent of an antenna fitting within a 
50ft tall and 50ft diam cylinder at 1 watt of RF power."

First of all, if we're going to talk about the SPIRIT of the FCC Rules, then 
let's be intellectually honest about that spirit.  Their precise purpose, as 
stated within the Rules themselves, is to allow operation of low power 
devices under certain explicitly defined conditions--and even then, ONLY if 
NO interference is caused to to anyone.  The "spirit" of the Rules is to 
entirely prevent it from occuring due to Part 15 devices, not to define a 
safe harbor for how much is acceptable.  So, invoking some personally 
defined corresponding amount of interference protection to justify a 
fictional alternative to the actual rule is mighty hard to justify. 
Ultimately, doesn't that just boil down to "anything's OK as long as we 
don't get caught?"

Second, as I said, even the wording of this alternate-alternate imaginary 
rule itself has now changed from the olden days.  I see it's no longer 
literally anything which could fit within the imaginary 15mX15m cylinder. 
That would preclude any side of a loop being 50 feet long, even under Ken 
Cornell's definion. Now it's "the equivalent of" an antenna meeting that 
spec?  Who defines that???  And, "at 1 watt of RF power," too.  Forget DC 
input, I guess.

Forget making your final or your coupling arrangement more efficient, too, 
for that matter.  Hence my remark in the earlier post.  If being 
"equivalent" to this arbitrary new definition is all that's necessary, why 
stop at 1 watt?  If #12 wire isn't giving the result you want, merely up the 
power until it gives you the "equivalent" of 1W of RF into an antenna made 
of 3" copper strap.  Or 6" strap.  Or whatever you personally define to be 
"equivalent" to those non-canonical conditions.

With all due respect:  If we can just make up our own rules for convenience, 
then why bother with experimental licenses or trying to create a ham band at 
all?  Just go ahead with whatever looks good and try not to get caught, eh.

Where do you draw the line?

Joh