Hi Steve.
I guess I said it privately, and not on reflector...but the
fine print matters a very great deal. Your description probably
should be on reflector. I've taken the liberty.
Does the proposed legislation consider guy anchors and guys
to be part of the structure? If so, that's a hidden setback
requirement which could nullify the benefit in urban villages.
There have to be more effective ways to organize lobbying than
the TT reflector. You need NY residents and taxpayers...and voters...
NOT opinions from across the border.
Jim/n2ea
-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen Mendelsohn [mailto:adam77@earthlink.net]
Sent: Sunday, June 30, 2002 8:38 PM
To: jljarvis
Subject: Re: [Towertalk] NY State antenna legislation
Jim, the bill would allow 95 feet WITHOUT a variance hearing.
Not LIMIT the height to 95 feet.
It's really sad that the many voice on TT dont bother to read
the bill....just comment on each others wrong interpretation.
-73- Steve, W2ML
jljarvis wrote:
>
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Towertalk mailing list
> Towertalk@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
--
ÐÏࡱá
|