[Lowfer] Lowfer history

Wed Jul 11 08:36:50 EDT 2012

All very interesting. I wonder what was the purpose of the definitions
given in Part 15? Was it to maintain a radiated field strength below a
certain value? Why not just define that? I believe that was done for
the new 60-meter band.

Also, I think harmonic content would've been a concern of the FCC. A
square wave at 180 kHz fed to an antenna is likely to produce a lot
more interference with other services than a clean, filtered signal at
that frequency.

73, Zack W9SZ

On 7/10/12, JD <listread at lwca.org> wrote:
> ===================================
>>
>>     Boy if that's true almost all Lowfer activity is not Part-15
>> compliant!
>>
>
> There must be a lot more than 50 feet of wire in such a loading coil. [etc]
>
> ===================================
>
> And don't use Litz wire for the coil, guys!  Two turns on a goodly sized
> form, and you're over the limit.
>
> 8>(  Sigh.  Problem with a lot of anecdotal "history"--including the
> published kind--is often a lack of authoritative sources for many of the
> statements you'll find therein.  Unnamed FCC inspectors allegedly OKing
> not-hardly-Part 15 "broadcasters" who cover entire cities from a billboard,
>
> other times straining at every single strand of wire in an experimenter's
> beacon setup, coming up with personal interpetations which neither seem
> based on the plain wording of the Rules through strict exegesis, nor
> anything stated in OET-63...there's an awful lot of questionable,
> unverifiable, and half-truth-based "facts" in the history out there.  That
> sort of thing is perfect grist for political campaign strategies, but it
> makes a terrible basis for engineering.
>
> And, it always eventually seems to bring out the "hey, we're all really
> outlaws" discussion at some point, a view to which I don't subscribe in the
>
> slightest for two reasons: (1) it's fundamentally incorrect, and (2) it's so
>
> often used as a prelude to some variation of the tiresome old "anything goes
>
> as long as we don't get caught" argument.
>
> A coil is a coil, not an antenna or transmission line or ground lead.  As
> long as it's at the base of the antenna, I can't see it being anything but
> part of the transmitter tank circuit--for which there are no size limits in
>
> the Rules.  How do you tune your transmitter final?  In 99+% of Part 15
> installations these days, it's with.. the... variometer.  Where are the
> components of the final located in ~99% of Part 15 rigs?  In the same
> shelter with the variometer or other matching coil.   In nearly all cases,
> the inductor is part of the Part 15 device itself--not something separate in
>
> either an electrical or regulatory sense.
>
> What about an elevated loading coil?  That's a larger topic with more
> ramifications than can be dealt with concisely, but I have to believe the
> principle is similar.  With the probable exception of a helical antenna, a
> coil is still just a coil...a discrete component that might well be used to
>
> break up an antenna electrically into more than one section, which is _not_
>
> prohibited in any of the current LF or MF alternative provisions.  [Although
>
> it IS explicitly prohibited in the 49 MHz alternative regs, and it used to
> be a no-no in 11 meter homebrew devices too.  Point being, it's not as if
> the FCC reg-writers were unaware they could outlaw mid-mounted loading
> apparatus if they wanted to.  It's been done before.  If this had been a
> concern under the so-called original intent of the paragraphs under which
> _we_ operate, the prohibition would be explicit there as well.]
>
> And that last sentence brings to mind two things: (1) the whole matter of
> intent, and (2) quite unbidden, the punchline of the joke in which Tonto
> replies, "What you mean 'we,' Ke-mo-sabe?"
>
> First one first.  Ed mentioned, "The rules were never really written to
> cover what we do."  True enough, as far as that goes.  They weren't written
>
> to preclude it, either!  The Rules were written as they were to foster
> innovation in general, and afterward the pioneers of the hobby found
> fascinating ways to make use of the privileges they allowed...a logical
> progression.  After all, Part 15 is simply a catch-all way of covering all
> uses of radio that have low enough potential for interference to licensed
> services that it isn't worth the bother of licensing every single
> transmitter or user.  Some sections of Part 15 do have specific uses stated
>
> in connection with their provisions, but most do not.  Intent, original or
> otherwise, is immaterial to the bands we use.
>
> And we should not kid ourselves that the FCC is in any way unaware of "what
>
> we do" with the Part 15 Rules they've given us in the LowFER community.  Did
>
> anyone here read the Report & Order that followed the LF ham rulemaking
> proceding?  In saying that privileges would not be granted at that time,
> they specifically stated that interested parties had two options in the
> meantime...Part 5 experimental licenses, and traditional Part 15 operation
> at 160-190 kHz, citing lwca.org for examples of the kind of work that has
> been done in that band.
>
> And now that second matter.  I can't help but grin at the almost ironic use
>
> of "we" in this connection, as there are now so few of "we" still doing Part
>
> 15 in this group.  No need for anyone to take umbrage at that statement or
> defend their reasons--I'm NOT criticizing in any way!  It's all fine with
> me.  I'm just making a factual observation.
>
> I'm truly glad for all the great work that's been done under Part 5
> licenses, both because it has proven interesting on its own merits, and it
> paves the way for the eventual LF ham allocation that I hope to live long
> enough to see.  It's kind of heartwarming to witness this much interest in
> the challenge of traditional LowFERing again, even if it's from an
> historical or nostalgic standpoint, rather than operational.
>
> It's good to remember your roots.
>
> John
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> 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
>