40 meter phased array

[W8JITom at aol.com]

In a message dated 96-08-08 12:02:21 EDT, you write:

>
>     Am planning to build a 2-element wire phased array
>     for 40 meters. (It used 1/8-wave spacing, for my 'small'
>     lot.) This would have raised radials. My question is,
>     has anyone tried building a 2-element antenna
>     like this using the "Christman" feed method?

The closest system to the one you described I am aware of actually being
measured was at AM radio station in New Jersey. It has a four tower array
with closer spaced endfire (~1/4 wl) and broadside (~1/2 wl) spacing. When ~
100 ground mounted radials were installed in the system, FS dramatically
improved. FS improvement was quite noticable with the addition of only 30
radials on each tower.

The original system employed six elevated radials at each tower.

Here at my house, a 1/4 wl vertical demonstrated ~5 dB improvement when sixty
radials were substituted for four elevated radials. It made no difference if
the 60 radials were elevated or contacting the soil. Radial height made a big
difference when only four radials were used.

You'll find conflicting data or opinions on this subject since data from
proper single location tests is very scarce. Most of the data circulating,
while sounding impressive, is through long paper trails using FCC FS
estimatation charts.

My suggestion would be to try the small system, and take a FS reading some
distance away in the main lobe. If adding extra radials helps, you might
continue to add them until improvement falls off. Please let me know your
results if you measure (even crudely) FS changes with the number of radials.

73 Tom

>From n6ig at netcom.com (Jim Pratt)  Thu Aug  8 18:52:07 1996
From: n6ig at netcom.com (Jim Pratt) (Jim Pratt)
Date: Thu, 8 Aug 1996 10:52:07 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Gate 2 information
Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9608081016.A2281-0100000 at netcom13>

For those of you curious about when you may request your new CONTEST 
callsign via Gate Two of the Vanity Program:

I called the FCC's 800 number today and asked "when"?  The lady said she 
didn't know and that operators were told to tell people to call back "the 
end of August".

I also asked about the rumor that people would be able to request Vanity 
Calls via a WWW page.  She knew nothing about that either, and 
transferred my call to the "webmaster".  I have left a message on his 
voice mail and, if and when I get a response, I will post it here.

73,  Jim  N6IG (no, I'm not gonna change it)

                                             n6ig at netcom.com


>From wws at renaissance.cray.com (Walter Spector)  Thu Aug  8 04:04:45 1996
From: wws at renaissance.cray.com (Walter Spector) (Walter Spector)
Date: Thu, 8 Aug 1996 11:04:45 +0800
Subject: RFE
Message-ID: <9608081804.AA16056 at raphael.cray.com>

 DKMC at chevron.com (McCarty, DK 'Dav) asks:
> Would someone knowledgeable please explain the effects of RF exposure which
> the FCC/EPA are trying to avoid?  Explain the result of exposure just beyond
> the thresholds which have been set.

I've heard that you can go blind if you do it too much....

Someone I know used the RF exposure argument to prevent a cell
phone company from installing a low tower near his office.  His second
floor office would have been too near the panels, given the calculations
and charts in the ARRL Antenna Handbook combined with the specs for the
cell transmitters and antennas, for his comfort.  Discussions with the
FCC indicated that the cell company should not have been below 50 feet
and this was clearly being violated.  Though not a EE, this fellow is a
competent professional engineer.  His arguments were better founded than on
simply asthetic reasons.

The cell company then found a nearby site on a roof about 10 feet over the
heads of resteraunt patrons on an outdoor patio.  Despite the complaints of
many, including the resteraunt owner, the city council approved it.  I don't
think I want to sit on this patio with multiple 900 mhz transmitters beaming
at me while I drink my coffee...

I've also seen many instances of cell panels pointed directly at apartment
buildings, office buildings, etc. from seemingly a few feet away at the
lot or rooftop next door.

So I think the cell companies bear part of the blame in this situation.
In their zeal to install cell sites *everywhere*, they have given the
impression of 'sneaking' permissive building codes through local
governments and erecting antenna systems, block houses, etc. with little
or no public review.

Walt kk6nr

>From k6km at mail2.quiknet.com (cncnet - Bill Snider)  Thu Aug  8 19:14:21 1996
From: k6km at mail2.quiknet.com (cncnet - Bill Snider) (cncnet - Bill Snider)
Date: Thu, 8 Aug 1996 11:14:21 -0700
Subject: Lawyers
Message-ID: <19960808181416.AAA18322 at LOCALNAME>

At 10:43 AM 8/8/96 -0400, Tim VE6SH wrote:

>I hope your derogatory comments are not aimed at the many lawyer/amateurs
who volunteer
>their time and services on behalf of the hobby?
>
>Tim VE6SH

Of course not! The term "attack lawyer" and the context are intended to
differentiate. The few attorneys I know personally are, without exception,
truly fine people. Apologies to any "good" lawyers who might be offended. 

Bill K6KM


>From gswanson at arrl.org (Swanson, Glenn,  KB1GW)  Thu Aug  8 20:36:00 1996
From: gswanson at arrl.org (Swanson, Glenn,  KB1GW) (Swanson, Glenn,  KB1GW)
Date: Thu, 8 Aug 1996 15:36:00 -0400
Subject: ARRL Letter: NEW FCC RF SAFETY STANDARDS
Message-ID: <m0uoZzR-000f5AC at mgate.arrl.org>



This is an excerpt from the August 9, 1996 edition of the ARRL Letter. 
 While the ARRL does not normally "pre-publish" material,  as a service to 
the amateur community, I am taking the liberty of posting this to 
rec.radio.amateur.misc and placing it on the ARRL Web Page (see 
http://www.arrl.org/news/rfsafety/) as soon as it is ready, in anticipation 
that it may take a few days for news to percolate to some sites.  The Letter 
is scheduled to be released tomorrow.

73, Ed Hare, KA1CV,
ARRL Laboratory Supervisor


[And since there is such wide-spread discussion on the reflectors, this is 
being posted to the DX and CQ-Contest Reflectors.  * Special thanks to the 
sysops of these specialized reflectors (DX and Contest) that this is 
information being posted to. *
 -- A personal note: Hopefully these reflectors can soon return to their 
intended
usage. In other words, thanks for the bandwidth. --  73, Glenn Swanson, 
KB1GW.]


The standard notice applies:

The purpose of the ARRL Letter is to provide the essential news of interest 
to active, organizationally minded radio amateurs faster than it can be 
disseminated by our official journal, QST.  We strive to be fast, accurate 
and readable in our reporting. Material from the Letter may be reproduced in 
whole or in part, in any form, including photoreproduction and electronic 
databanks, provided that credit is given to the ARRL Letter and the American 
Radio Relay League.

NEW FCC RF SAFETY STANDARDS INCLUDE AMATEUR RADIO

New FCC RF safety standards that become effective January 1, 1997, could 
affect the way some hams operate. As a result of a Report and Order adopted 
by the FCC on August 1 (ET Docket No. 93-62, Guidelines for Evaluating the 
Environmental Effects of Radiofrequency Radiation), Part 97 will require 
hams running more than 50 W PEP to conduct routine RF radiation evaluations 
to determine if RF fields are sufficient to cause human exposure to RF 
radiation levels in excess of those specified. "Measurements made during a 
Commission/EPA study of several typical amateur stations in 1990 indicated 
that there may be some situations where excessive exposures could occur," 
the FCC said in ending the blanket exemption for Amateur Radio. Amateur 
operation at power levels of 50 W PEP or less is "categorically excluded" 
from the new requirement in most cases. Where routine evaluation indicates 
that the RF radiation could be in excess of the limits, "the licensee must 
take action to prevent such an occurrence," the Report and Order stated. The 
FCC said this could mean altering operating patterns, relocating the 
antenna, revising the station*s technical parameters--such as frequency, 
power or emission type--or "combinations of these and other remedies." 
Although the new exposure criteria will apply to portable and mobile devices 
in general, at this time routine evaluation for compliance will not be 
required of devices such as "push-to-talk" portable radios and 
"push-to-talk" mobile radios used by Amateur Radio operators. These 
transmitting devices will be excluded from routine evaluation.

The FCC encouraged the amateur community "to develop and disseminate 
information in the form of tables, charts and computer analytical tools that 
relate such variables as operating patterns, emission types, frequencies, 
power and distance from antennas." The Commission said it intends to provide 
"straightforward methods for amateur operators to determine potential 
exposure levels" by year*s end.

"Exactly what is involved in conducting a *routine RF radiation evaluation* 
is not yet clear," observed ARRL Executive Secretary David Sumner, K1ZZ, 
adding that the FCC has promised to release a revised OST/OET Bulletin 
Number 65, "Evaluation Compliance with FCC-Specified Guidelines for Human 
Exposure to Radiofrequency Radiation." The League is now studying the 
100-plus page docket, to see if the League should seek reconsideration of 
any aspects of the FCC decision.

In the Report and Order, the Commission adopted Maximum Permissible Exposure 
(MPE) limits for electric and magnetic field strength and power density for 
transmitters operating at frequencies from 300 kHz to 100 GHz. These MPE 
limits are generally based on recommendations of the National Council on 
Radiation Protection and Measurement (NCRP) and, in many respects, are also 
generally based on the guidelines issued by the Institute of Electrical and 
Electronics Engineers Inc (IEEE) and subsequently adopted by the American 
National Standards Institute (ANSI) as an ANSI standard (ANSI/IEEE 
C95.1-1992). The Commission used the 1992 ANSI/IEEE standards instead of the 
1982 ANSI standards that had formed the basis for the existing rules under 
which Amateur Radio stations were categorically exempted.

ARRL Laboratory Supervisor Ed Hare, KA1CV, said the new regulations will 
give hams an incentive to demonstrate that Amateur Radio operation is safe. 
"Although this means that hams will have to become more educated about RF 
safety, most amateur stations are already in compliance with the new 
regulations," Hare said.

Sumner said that for certain unusual situations where there is "uncontrolled 
exposure" to neighbors and the general public, "amateurs may well have to 
make changes in how they operate." The ARRL Lab staff and the RF Safety 
Committee are continuing to evaluate the new requirements.

Hare noted that the administrative burden for hams will be minimal, and the 
FCC does not require amateurs to submit any documentation to the FCC. "In 
essence, the FCC is telling amateurs that if they run more than 50 W, they 
need to learn about RF safety and evaluate how this applies to their own 
operation," he said.

The new regulations also will require the addition of five questions on RF 
environmental safety to the amateur examinations for Novice, Technician, and 
General-class elements 2, 3(A) and 3(B). Sumner noted that the Commission*s 
Report and Order does not take into account the practical problems 
associated with such a significant revision to the volunteer-administered 
amateur examinations, and that more time than the Commission has allowed 
will be required to do a good job.

The Commission acknowledged the updated guidelines generally are more 
stringent than the current rules and are based on recommendations of the 
federal health and safety agencies, including the Environmental Protection 
Agency and the Food and Drug Administration. The Commission said that the 
new rules will protect the public and workers from strong RF emissions. 
Adoption of the new rules by August 6 was required by the Telecommunications 
Act of 1996.

The Commission also incorporated into its rules provisions of Section 704 of 
the Telecommunications Act of 1996 that preempt state or local government 
regulation of personal wireless services facilities based on RF 
environmental effects, to the extent that such facilities comply with the 
Commission*s rules concerning such RF emissions. This preemption does not 
directly affect Amateur Radio, however.

The FCC said amateur stations "present an unusual case with respect to 
compliance with RF exposure guidelines," in part because they are authorized 
to transmit from any place where the Commission regulates the service, as 
well as on the high seas, and the FCC does not pre-approve individual 
amateur station transmitting facilities and no additional application is 
made for permission to relocate an amateur station or to add additional 
stations at the same or other locations. The FCC also noted that amateur 
stations "vary greatly" from one location to another, transmit 
intermittently, and can involve "as many as 1300 different emission 
types--each with a distinctive on-off duty cycle." The FCC said most amateur 
stations engage only in two-way communication, thus cutting the transmitting 
time of any given ham station. "There are many variables, therefore, to be 
considered in determining whether an amateur station complies with 
guidelines for environmental RF radiation," the FCC said in the Report and 
Order.

In comments filed earlier with the FCC, the ARRL strongly opposed adoption 
of the new requirements. The ARRL said most Amateur Radio users do not 
possess the requisite equipment, technical skills, and/or financial 
resources to conduct an environmental analysis. The League has, for several 
years, recommended a policy of "prudent avoidance" of exposure to 
electromagnetic radiation as a common-sense approach to potential--but not 
yet proven--health hazards and against such practices as running high power 
to indoor antennas or to mobile antennas that might expose the vehicle*s 
occupants. The ARRL also argued that amateur stations, because of their 
intermittent operation, low duty cycles, and relatively low power levels, 
rarely exceed the 1992 ANSI/IEEE standard. Finally, the ARRL noted that 
unlike other radio services, RF safety questions already are included in 
amateur license examinations.

The FCC agreed in part. "We concur with the ARRL that amateur operators 
should follow a policy of prudent avoidance of excessive RF exposure," the 
Commission said. "We will continue to rely upon amateur operators, in 
constructing and operating their stations, to take steps to ensure that 
their stations comply with the MPE limits for both occupational/controlled 
and general public/uncontrolled environments." But the FCC expressed concern 
that Amateur Radio operations "are likely to be located in residential 
neighborhoods and may expose persons to RF fields in excess of the MPE 
guidelines."

For now, the League advises hams not to panic and to read up on the subject. 
You can download the complete Report and Order by pointing to 
http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineering_Technology/Orders/ fcc96326.txt. 
Other resources are available on the ARRLWeb page at 
http://www.arrl.org/news/rfsafety/.

General information on RF safety is available in the safety sections of the 
1996 edition of The ARRL Handbook and in the 15th edition of The ARRL 
Antenna Book. These materials offer guidelines on how to comply with the 
ANSI standard the Report and Order refers to. Additionally, the ARRL 
Technical Information Service offers an information package on RF safety. It 
includes a reprint of the Handbook material, an April 1994 QST article by 
Wayne Overbeck, N6NB, and a bibliography on the subject. This package is 
available for $2 for ARRL members or $4 for nonmembers, postpaid. Nonmembers 
should include payment with orders. Contact Bridget DiCosimo, e-mail 
bdicosimo at arrl.org or write 225 Main St, Newington, CT 06111. Other 
resources are available on the ARRLWeb page at: 
http://www.arrl.org/news/rfsafety/.
The ARRLWeb information will be updated as circumstances dictate.

eof

>From seay at alaska.net (Del Seay)  Thu Aug  8 19:55:10 1996
From: seay at alaska.net (Del Seay) (Del Seay)
Date: Thu, 08 Aug 1996 11:55:10 -0700
Subject: SprINT contest THIS WEEKEND!!
References: <199608081732.KAA04404 at lady.axian.com>
Message-ID: <320A380E.2C6C at alaska.net>

Larry Tyree wrote:
> 
>                      ELEVENTH INTERNET CW SPRINT CONTEST
> 
> Contest period: 01:00:00Z to 03:00:00Z on Sunday August 11th UTC.  This
>        is Saturday evening in the USA.
> 
> Bands: 40 and 20 meters only (this is a real radio contest, no internet).


Hi Tree. This should be interesting, because WAE-CW is also this
weekend!  See ya' in the qrm de KL7HF

>From p00259 at psilink.com (John Dorr K1AR)  Thu Aug  8 21:02:58 1996
From: p00259 at psilink.com (John Dorr K1AR) (John Dorr K1AR)
Date: Thu, 08 Aug 96 15:02:58 -0500
Subject: Photo Ops for Quads
Message-ID: <3048616802.0.p00259 at psilink.com>

Our roving photo man at CQ is in search mode for cool looking quads (no this 
is not a spin-off from my recent experiences with the beast at 
WRTC--honest!). If any of you (especially in the East) have such an 
animal in the air, please send me a message via return mail. 

Thanks...

73 John, K1AR