Call Search
     

New to Ham Radio?
My Profile

Community
Articles
Forums
News
Reviews
Friends Remembered
Strays
Survey Question

Operating
Contesting
DX Cluster Spots
Propagation

Resources
Calendar
Classifieds
Ham Exams
Ham Links
List Archives
News Articles
Product Reviews
QSL Managers

Site Info
eHam Help (FAQ)
Support the site
The eHam Team
Advertising Info
Vision Statement
About eHam.net

donate to eham
   Home   Help Search  
Pages: Prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 Next   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Parity has returned, 2019-2020  (Read 3445 times)
K1VSK
Member

Posts: 401




Ignore
« Reply #30 on: February 19, 2019, 02:02:31 PM »

I believe the proposed rule is, as others have said, a good start.  The language is not very different from the FCC OTARD language.  The HOA I live in has CCRs that are actually sideways with the OTARD language and I am in the process of educating/assisting the Board revise the CCRs to come into conformance.  Hopefully the proposed rule will get passed this year. 

Danny - KF9BD
It’s difficult to conform to an as yet unknown rule if in fact one ever materializes from this litany of past failures and certainly, it seems counterproductive to suggest anyone conform to a failed concept. My suggestion is to be Up-front with your HOA about how OTARD has little relationship here and not mislead anyone about what form any future legislation might take.

If the HOA wants to be prospective here, it’s not difficult to write a local rule mirrored after many others which allow unobtrusive antennas which conform to the neighborhood aesthetic.
Logged
WA7PRC
Member

Posts: 2291


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #31 on: February 19, 2019, 02:10:21 PM »

One always can argue that "effective" means that it allows to achieve 1500W of effective radiated power permitted by FCC license.
One can argue that but, I suggest not betting the farm on it being accepted. An antenna's measure is how well it converts between conducted and radiated energy. This is gain, and is independent of an absolute signal level.
Logged
K1VSK
Member

Posts: 401




Ignore
« Reply #32 on: February 19, 2019, 02:54:37 PM »

One always can argue that "effective" means that it allows to achieve 1500W of effective radiated power permitted by FCC license.
One can argue that but, I suggest not betting the farm on it being accepted. An antenna's measure is how well it converts between conducted and radiated energy. This is gain, and is independent of an absolute signal level.
I’d like to be in the room when someone  tried to rationalize “effective” in terms of either power output or ERP.  Especially to a group concerned solely with appearance.
Logged
W9IQ
Member

Posts: 2849




Ignore
« Reply #33 on: February 19, 2019, 03:04:56 PM »

One always can argue that "effective" means that it allows to achieve 1500W of effective radiated power permitted by FCC license.
One can argue that but, I suggest not betting the farm on it being accepted. An antenna's measure is how well it converts between conducted and radiated energy. This is gain, and is independent of an absolute signal level.

The US regulations generally permit 1,500 watts of power out of the amplifier. Effective radiated power is calculated by multiplying power times the gain of the antenna system. It is therefore quite easy to get 15,000 watts EIRP. A basic backyard dipole with 1,500 watts can easily produce 9,500 watts EIRP. But in any case most, but not all, of our bands have no ERP limit.

The ratio of conducted to radiated energy does not establish gain. Antenna gain is efficiency times directivity.

- Glenn W9IQ
« Last Edit: February 19, 2019, 03:12:05 PM by W9IQ » Logged

- Glenn W9IQ

I never make a mistake. I thought I did once but I was wrong.
KF0QS
Member

Posts: 71




Ignore
« Reply #34 on: February 19, 2019, 05:55:39 PM »

Quote
The FIRST misconception is that there is any actual "public need or convenience", to having millions of contracts/agreements/promises abrogated. Hams have many other ways to get on the air to mostly ragchew/DX/contest. IOW, this legislation is a poorly worded solution looking for a problem.

First, contracts are abrogated all the time for a variety of reasons.  An easy example is the government's power of eminent domain, which can run roughshod over all sorts of contractual rights.  There are a number of basic contractual analyses that allow for abrogating contracts independent of governmental action, such as contracts of "adhesion" (one-sided contracts by parties with unequal bargaining power), and unconscionable contracts (contracts in which one party's behavior justifies allowing the other party to escape from performance).  In the law, there's nothing particularly sacred about contracts in and of themselves.

Secondly, the actual "public need or convenience" is 1) the public's need to have effective emergency communications, and 2) the public benefit of having a cadre of experienced radio operators and experimenters. 

Third, as noted in the first thread on this particular forum (it's locked by one of the moderators from further comment), it's not helpful to state that hams have other alternatives than being able to build up an "effective" station in their homes.  In some parts of the country (including the Denver area, where I live), it's very difficult to find housing in which outdoor antennas are allowed.  If you are lucky enough to live in such an area, more power to you.  Many of us don't have that opportunity.

For the record, I do live in an HOA in which limited outside antennas are allowed, and so I have some outside antennas, though not what I'd like to have.  However, I remember how hard it was to find a place in which I could do this when the XYL and I were looking to buy a house.  The prevalence of restrictive covenants seriously limited the options we had when selecting a home to buy.  And I should point out that I am the only amateur radio operator in the whole neighborhood (about 100 homes).  I wonder if the HOA will ever try to amend their covenants to exclude outdoor antennas entirely (it only takes a 3/4 vote of the neighborhood to change the covenants).  I don't particularly relish the fact that I might be vulnerable to some of my neighbors in this fashion after living here for almost 20 years.
Logged
K1VSK
Member

Posts: 401




Ignore
« Reply #35 on: February 19, 2019, 07:12:07 PM »


For the record, I do live in an HOA in which limited outside antennas are allowed, and so I have some outside antennas, though not what I'd like to have...
To put this in the proper context, do you make contacts with those antennas? Presuming you do, that should constitute the threshold question of efficacy.  The issue of what you would “like to have” is irrelevant.
« Last Edit: February 19, 2019, 07:14:40 PM by K1VSK » Logged
KF0QS
Member

Posts: 71




Ignore
« Reply #36 on: February 19, 2019, 11:02:20 PM »


For the record, I do live in an HOA in which limited outside antennas are allowed, and so I have some outside antennas, though not what I'd like to have...
To put this in the proper context, do you make contacts with those antennas? Presuming you do, that should constitute the threshold question of efficacy.  The issue of what you would “like to have” is irrelevant.

I do make contacts with those antennas.  I make plenty. 

Having answered your question, the rest of your comment (sorry) makes no sense.
Logged
K7KB
Member

Posts: 789




Ignore
« Reply #37 on: February 19, 2019, 11:50:07 PM »

There is too much ambiguity on what can be considered “effective”. One HOA might consider making a contact to another ham in the same city is “effective”, while another might consider might consider making a contact in another state being so. My thought is an effective antenna, useful for emergency services, is one that can consitently make contacts with hams within our own country 24 hours a day no matter where we live. We all have our own interpretation.
Logged
K1VSK
Member

Posts: 401




Ignore
« Reply #38 on: February 20, 2019, 06:43:56 AM »


For the record, I do live in an HOA in which limited outside antennas are allowed, and so I have some outside antennas, though not what I'd like to have...
To put this in the proper context, do you make contacts with those antennas? Presuming you do, that should constitute the threshold question of efficacy.  The issue of what you would “like to have” is irrelevant.

I do make contacts with those antennas.  I make plenty. 

Having answered your question, the rest of your comment (sorry) makes no sense.
You just proved my point -that being, the term “effective” is ambiguous and therefore any language using it is essentially meaningless. The only certainty here is that HOAs can and will interpret any rule containing that term as they see fit. In other words, had any form of ARPA become law, nothing would change.
Logged
AC2RY
Member

Posts: 665




Ignore
« Reply #39 on: February 20, 2019, 09:26:38 AM »

The US regulations generally permit 1,500 watts of power out of the amplifier. Effective radiated power is calculated by multiplying power times the gain of the antenna system. It is therefore quite easy to get 15,000 watts EIRP. A basic backyard dipole with 1,500 watts can easily produce 9,500 watts EIRP. But in any case most, but not all, of our bands have no ERP limit.

The ratio of conducted to radiated energy does not establish gain. Antenna gain is efficiency times directivity.

- Glenn W9IQ

There is no antenna GAIN on its own. Total radiated power cannot exceed power applied to antenna. What we call gain is a result of directivity, when most of energy is sent to one direction. Thus antenna has effective gain comparing with anisotropic radiator. When we talk about total radiated power (in all directions), we can call it effective radiated power (applied power minus antenna system loss). That way we can argue about EFFICIENCY as a difference between applied power and radiated power. This removes subjective meaning of that term. When FCC allows use of 1500W transmitter with potentially zero loss in antenna, we can use that to request antenna that allows these 1500W to be radiated when applied.



Logged
W9IQ
Member

Posts: 2849




Ignore
« Reply #40 on: February 20, 2019, 09:52:03 AM »

There is no antenna GAIN on its own. Total radiated power cannot exceed power applied to antenna. What we call gain is a result of directivity, when most of energy is sent to one direction. Thus antenna has effective gain comparing with anisotropic radiator. When we talk about total radiated power (in all directions), we can call it effective radiated power (applied power minus antenna system loss). That way we can argue about EFFICIENCY as a difference between applied power and radiated power. This removes subjective meaning of that term. When FCC allows use of 1500W transmitter with potentially zero loss in antenna, we can use that to request antenna that allows these 1500W to be radiated when applied.

Your concepts are basically OK but of course in antenna engineering the term "gain" is well established and well respected so it isn't helpful to try to refute it. You particularly don't want to mess with engineering terms when applying them in a legal context.

But be aware that gain is not equivalent to directivity as you state. Gain is defined as directivity times efficiency. A common example of this is the small "magnetic" loop antenna. It has very good directivity - almost equivalent to a 1/2 wavelength dipole, but it has very poor efficiency. As a result the gain is greatly reduced.

Similarly, very small dipole antennas (<0.05 wavelengths) have a directivity that is only 0.4 dB less than a 1/2 wavelength dipole. But due to their very low radiation resistance, the inefficiency is often quite high so their gain is much lower than the directivity would indicate. Add to that the difficulty of efficiently matching the feedpoint impedance.

Your redefinition of effective radiate power does not align with the well accepted use of the term. The FCC regulations, including part 97, clearly talk about and define the use of the terms ERP (effective radiated power) and EIRP (effective isotropic radiated power). You should follow that lexicon to avoid confusion among peers and observers.

- Glenn W9IQ





Logged

- Glenn W9IQ

I never make a mistake. I thought I did once but I was wrong.
KF0QS
Member

Posts: 71




Ignore
« Reply #41 on: February 20, 2019, 12:53:55 PM »


For the record, I do live in an HOA in which limited outside antennas are allowed, and so I have some outside antennas, though not what I'd like to have...
To put this in the proper context, do you make contacts with those antennas? Presuming you do, that should constitute the threshold question of efficacy.  The issue of what you would “like to have” is irrelevant.

I do make contacts with those antennas.  I make plenty. 

Having answered your question, the rest of your comment (sorry) makes no sense.
You just proved my point -that being, the term “effective” is ambiguous and therefore any language using it is essentially meaningless. The only certainty here is that HOAs can and will interpret any rule containing that term as they see fit. In other words, had any form of ARPA become law, nothing would change.

Actually, your point that; "the term 'effective' is ambiguous and therefore any language using it is essentially meaningless", is wrong.  There are multiple terms frequently used in the law that a lay person would consider ambiguous but which have a rich body of case law, or interpretations from an administrative agency, that render the term not ambiguous.  An example of case law is the term "reasonable".  There are actually multiple cases interpreting the term "reasonable", and the law does not consider the term ambiguous at all.  An example of an agency interpretation is PRB-1 which proscribes the ability of state and local governments to restrict amateur antennas.

Congress (and state legislatures) will frequently use terms like "reasonable" and "effective" with the expectation that either court interpretations or administrative agency interpretations will fill in any ambiguity.  This process allows legislatures to state broad principles without getting bogged down in the weeds.  It's tough enough to pass legislation without having extensive debate on whether "effective" means you can have a yagi vs. a ground mounted vertical (and to me, the answer to that question will vary depending on the specific location).

My point is that "effective" is not at all ambiguous once you consider how legislatures work, and how courts and the FCC would enforce the law.
Logged
K1VSK
Member

Posts: 401




Ignore
« Reply #42 on: February 20, 2019, 01:32:53 PM »





My point is that "effective" is not at all ambiguous once you consider how legislatures work, and how courts and the FCC would enforce the law.

Sigh...

We're discussing HOA implementation of imprecise language, not case law which, contrary to your opinion,  is as precise as the proverbial 'barn door' when it comes to meaning. And in the case of the governing body, an HOA, such terminology is going to be interpreted by them, not you or me. Therefore, using such language adds nothing to the status quo which was what I was trying to impart here.

HOAs would determine what is reasonable, effective or acceptable (under all prior ARPA iterations). Congrats - we win nothing.

Logged
AC2RY
Member

Posts: 665




Ignore
« Reply #43 on: February 20, 2019, 03:15:46 PM »


We're discussing HOA implementation of imprecise language, not case law which, contrary to your opinion,  is as precise as the proverbial 'barn door' when it comes to meaning. And in the case of the governing body, an HOA, such terminology is going to be interpreted by them, not you or me. Therefore, using such language adds nothing to the status quo which was what I was trying to impart here.

HOAs would determine what is reasonable, effective or acceptable (under all prior ARPA iterations). Congrats - we win nothing.



If parties (homeowner and HOA) cannot agree on interpretation of terms, then court will decide that for them. If there are no terms written, then there is nothing to argue about.
Logged
K7KB
Member

Posts: 789




Ignore
« Reply #44 on: February 20, 2019, 04:06:13 PM »

Actually we can argue about this forever, but I think the new leadership in the ARRL has seen the folly of ARPA as it stands now:

"At its annual meeting January 18 – 19, 2019 the ARRL Board of Directors decided that the organization needs to “review, re-examine, and reappraise ARRL’s regulatory and legislative policy with regard to private land use restrictions.”

In order to effectively undertake such a review, the Board adopted a resolution to withdraw its December 18 Petition for Rule Making to the FCC, which sought to amend the Part 97 Amateur Service rules to incorporate the provisions of the Amateur Radio Parity Act (ARPA), without prejudice to refiling. The resolution also is asking members of Congress who had refiled legislation to enact the Amateur Radio Parity Act (ARPA) to refrain from seeking to advance that legislation pending further input from the ARRL."

There is more to the story on the ARRL website:

http://www.arrl.org/amateur-radio-parity-act
Logged
Pages: Prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 Next   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!