It would be inappropriate--and probably negative in impact,
for out of state hams to comment on a NY legislative matter.
However, if this law does, indeed, specify a 95 foot limit, it's a
gross mistake. Right now, PRB-1 allows an application for "the
intended purpose." 95 feet is barely adequate for stacked antennas
on 10 and 15. It is sub-optimal on 20. It is inadequate for a 40m yagi
unless your intended purpose is domestic communications. It is inadequate
for an 80 meter dipole, for international work, and it is inadequate for a
160 meter vertical, for pete's sake.
If your intended purpose is vhf line of site, or domestic HF, or international
HF communications only some of the time....then maybe it'd work. The
argument for height can ONLY be resolved by looking at gain vs. elevation
plots vs. antenna height, and comparing that against statistical arrival angles
on desired paths. Far too complex to argue or legislate for, in the general
case.
Unreliable communications cannot, a priori, be relied upon in an emergency.
95 feet may seem a lot, when you consider an urban village....but that
height could be wholly inappropriate and unsafe, if you didn't have
a proper fall radius. (I won't debate what that is, here.)
If you DID have a safe fall radius, for a given 'intended-purpose', then
it wouldn't matter how tall the antenna was.
New York has a lot of open space, as you move up-country, and west.
Why constrain what's possible for upstate folks?
>We are very close to getting a PRB tower bill passed in New York that
> even a contester would love -- 95 foot limit! But the local government
> lobby is giving us a lot of trouble and support email and faxes are
> needed to counter their power. See the attached for detail.
>
Be careful what you wish for; you may get it.
N2EA
Jim Jarvis
Essex Vermont
|