[Top] [All Lists]

[TowerTalk] Re: Upcoming Compliance

To: <>
Subject: [TowerTalk] Re: Upcoming Compliance
From: (Scott Neustadter)
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 17:14:56 -0600
Check the latest Novice/Tech license manual (Question Pool) It has
numerous examples of common antenna setups and powers for both
controlled and uncontrolled limits (See Graphic NT0-1, which is used for
both elements 2 and 3A).

Ward Silver wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Nov 1997, Roderick M. Fitz-Randolph wrote:
> > (1)  "Problem areas seem to be mostly lowband dipoles low to the ground..."
> >
> >      That pretty much does away with 80 meter delta loops whose base leg
> >      is in proximity to the ground that places it out of compliance.  It
> >      also does away with "Cloud Warmers" for contesting.
> Only if the wire is VERY CLOSE to uncontrolled exposures - which
> translates to "don't put it up over your neighbor's property"...I think
> the recommended separations were on the order of 10-20 feet (going from
> memory here, don't take this as gospel) when running high-power.  A
> back-yard dipole, well away from your property lines will probably be
> comfortably within the exposure limits.
> If your antenna is a "stealth"  wire and you're running high-power, then
> you might want to reconsider.  Of course, in this situation, you're
> probably lighting up everything in the house and the spousal disapproval
> is more formidable than any possible governmental trouble.
> > (2)  "HF antennas mounted at reasonable heights are nowhere near exceeding
> >      exposure limits even at full power".
> >
> >      What's "reasonable heights"... this year?... next year?.. 10 years?
> >
> Thirty feet gets you out of the zone of concern in nearly all cases.
> The point about un-founded concerns is something to think about, of
> course.  The real problem that is completely unaddressed is that of
> cellular phones.  However, all the research has failed to turn up anything
> at all definite.
> My point in bringing all this up was not to get into a huge discussion of
> what is and isn't in compliance. (Actually, hams have ALWAYS been liable
> for compliance with exposure limts, it's just that the limits are
> changing.)  The comments were made only to say, "The ARRL has a team
> working on it and an excellent guide to making your evaluations will be
> made available shortly."  Also, from what I've seen, the vast majority of
> installations are comfortably within the exposure limits.
> 73, Ward N0AX
> --
> FAQ on WWW:     
> Submissions:    
> Administrative requests:
> Problems:       
> Search:         

Scotty Neustadter, W4WW  ex N4PYD
Chairman, Huntsville Hamfest            North Alabama DX Club
Question Pool Committee, NCVEC          Fax 205 880 9530
        "Hold the screwdriver by the fat yellow end"

FAQ on WWW:     
Administrative requests:

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>