[Lowfer] Rant (was Re: Re: Update on Progress toward LF Allocation in USA: July 2010...

Sun Jul 25 17:39:03 EDT 2010

John (rant follows),

       No one seems willing to figure out why the ITU picked such an arbitrary number.
I'd have some respect for the ARRL if they would actually inform themselves as to what its like to operate on 137 and argue the case for higher power with the ITU.

Frankly, I don't see why there is a limit at all. On LF ERP is really self limiting, no amateur is going to have 10kW ERP there - even 10W is a stretch.
The UK guys say that they can rarely reach 1W. Once you get past a few watts ERP things get very hairy with voltage breakdown etc.
The highest ERP that a ham has run is Ed RU6LA - he apparently has access to a commercial tower once or twice a year and he estimates his ERP at 5-15W.

If the power companies are still worried about interference to PLC equipment they should be ashamed of themselves for having such a poor, vulnerable system that a ham (or terrorist) could bring down the grid NINE YEARS after 9/11.

There !

73 Warren K2ORS
          WD2XGJ
          WD2XSH/23
          WE2XEB/2
          WE2XGR/1

Jul 25, 2010 11:37:50 AM, lowfer at mailman.qth.net wrote:

Warren,

Any request for a higher radiated power is probably irrelevant, as the 
ITU recommendation for an Amateur allocation is for 1 watt ERP. Since 
that has translated to 1 watt EIRP in EU and Canada, it is uncertain 
whether the U.S. would follow its traditional reference to a dipole or 
to an isotropic radiator. Probably the best we can hope for in the U.S. 
is that they stick with the dipole reference. But I'll bet that they 
would take no arguments on something greater than 1 watt.

My personal preference is maybe 10 watts ERP, but we probably won't get 
a chance to have that argument seriously considered.

John, W1TAG

On 7/25/2010 9:38 AM, k2ors at verizon.net wrote:
> James,
>
>    Great idea but I sincerely hope that you didn't ask for 1W ERP.
>
> 73 Warren K2ORS
>            WD2XGJ
>            WD2XSH/23
>            WE2XEB/2
>            WE2XGR/1
>
>
> Jul 25, 2010 08:25:11 AM, lowfer at mailman.qth.net wrote:
>
> ===========================================
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: RE: PRM09ET vis-z-vis Today's Order making technical
> corrections...
> From: "Ira Keltz"
> Date: Thu, July 22, 2010 12:25 pm
> To:
>
>
> Mr. Whedbee - Thank you for your e-mail regarding the Petition for Rulemaking
> you filed for the 135.7-137.8 MHz band.  We plan to address this WRC-07 Final
> Acts as it relates to this band as well as other bands in a future Rulemaking
> proceeding.  At that time, a Rulemaking number will be assigned to your petition
> for inclusion in the record.
>
> Ira Keltz
>
>
> Ira Keltz
> Deputy Chief
> Office of Engineering and Technology
> Federal Communications Commission
> ira.keltz at fcc.gov
> (202) 418-0616
>
>
> ________________________________
>   From: kzjw at kzjw-ld.com [mailto:kzjw at kzjw-ld.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2010 2:43 PM
> To: Ira Keltz
> Subject: PRM09ET vis-z-vis Today's Order making technical corrections...
> Importance: High
>
>
> Memorandum for Office of Engineering&  Technology
> Federal Communications Commission
> Washington, D.C. 20554                                        07-21-2010
>
> Attn:  Ms. Ira Keltz, Deputy Chief
>
> CC:  Legal Counsel
>
>
> From:  James Edwin Whedbee, M.Ed.
>
> Re: Petition for Rulemaking, PRM-09ET
> for Secondary Allocation of 135.7-137.8 kHz
> to Amateur Radio Service
>
> Dear Ms. Keltz:
>
> In November 2009, I filed a Petition for Rulemaking seeking a secondary
> allocation for the Amateur Radio Service on 135.7-137.8 kHz to bring the
> Commission's rules and regulations in line with the WRC-07 Final Acts.  Today
> (July 21, 2010), the Commission issued its Order making technical corrections to
> the Commission's rules, including a change to the Table of Allocations, which
> reflects that WRC-07 action.  Today's Order suggests that rulemaking to make
> substantive rule changes was forthcoming.  My Petition for Rulemaking does just
> that and I was hoping the OET would get back to me today telling me if it will
> assign a rulemaking number to my petition.  Can you please get back to me with
> an answer about that?  In advance, I thank you very much.  To you and yours...
>
> Best wishes,
>
> James Edwin Whedbee
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> Lowfer mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/lowfer
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:Lowfer at mailman.qth.net
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> ______________________________________________________________
> Lowfer mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/lowfer
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:Lowfer at mailman.qth.net
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>
>
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 8.5.441 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3027 - Release Date: 07/25/10 06:36:00
>
______________________________________________________________
Lowfer mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/lowfer
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Lowfer at mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html