Donations needed for Amateur Radio Antenna Defense Foundation

I always get a kick out of folks who start off with such remarks. Really adds to the discussion.

Working DX was used to prove my point. The commenter who "put down wire antennas" unfairly has other problems if he can't work stations within 400 to 1500 miles of his QTH on 40M. Of course, propagation does matter. And, yes, 6dB of antenna gain and 10dB of 'kicker' amplifier adds one and half S units.

That's a real laugh. No, I happen to have a very low noise level here. Even when I lived in CA, I was fortunate to have underground utilities, so the power line noise was virtually non existant, except for an occasional hair dryer.

I said what I said to prove a point, not to claim I'm all that successful at working DX in pileups. One of the reasons antenna relief hasn't been considered in Congress is that ARRL keeps insisting that it apply to Yagis atop towers. It will never happen. If and when ARRL comes down to earth and pleads for simple wire antenna preemption of CC&Rs, that's when amateur radio will get some assistance. Statements that just aren't true, factually, from folks like KY6LA, only serve to defeat our overall cause. I support limited preemption, not for the tower crowd, but for removal of the roadblock that so many have from participating in amateur radio in a meaningful, convenient way. Being "born into CC&Rs" for a young person who might otherwise want to study, get licensed and on the air is somewhat of a curse.

Why do you think folks get excited about QRP? The challenge, of course.

I was happy to read that this group was introduced at the Visalia DX meeting. Why? Because I had apparently mistakenly thought that ARRL had been 'pulling punches' in much of the antenna restriction battle due to your expressed attitude being the prevalent one toward new 'little people' trying to work DX. Now, when municipalities begin going after existing aluminum umbrellas, well, the DX crowd wakes up and screams foul ball. Your reaction to 'little people' serves to validate my former concerns.

Well, you will need a small fortune to fight the cities and counties to obtain injunctions and such from their machinations. There are no criminal penalties attached to violation of state versions of PRB-1 that I know of. And, if I'm correct about the codified version in Part 97, the most it would be is a $300 federal misdemeanor. It's not a violation of the Communications Act.

About a 16dB increase in em field strength pointed at a neighbor 50 feet away in an urban subdivision really isn't going to be attenuated all that much by going up 50 feet in the air. It falls off in magnitude as 1/r. Oh, I suppose if you agree not to point your Yagi-Uda array in his or her direction, that would help.

Frankly, I've always thought that towers set where the fall down foot print would include a neighbor's home, let alone his property, are a tad foolish. Especially in CA earthquake country. And, just where would the guys go? And, if to posts and not earth anchors, well are those at the property line? Good luck using a fence post. Frankly, liability coverage premiums ought to be a great deal higher if the fall down footprint extends beyond a property line. Perhaps they are. Of course, if the assumption is structural failure vertically, with no horizontal component, then it would only be the amateur's loss. But, that's not too realistic in seismic events, since there is often side to side sway. And, of course it probably wouldn't be vertical if wind loading and guy/anchor failure is involved.

BTW, for those who are asked to have a Professional Engineer design and/or certify the entire tower installation in CA, I think that would mean a licensed Structural Engineer. CA is a branch-specific practice/licensing state. As such, a routine Civil doesn't have that experience or he'd have taken and passed the Structural exam and gotten a Structural license. Just one of the reasons why there are fewer claims of engineering malpractice in CA, since each discipline is separately licensed.

73.

 

Any tower or mast structure with a fall-down footprint that extends beyond a property line is a safety concern to the adjoining property and/or the public if into a dedicated street. Anyone who believes otherwise has blinders on.

As to health concerns, aquaint yourself with 47 CFR 97.13(c)(1), 1.1307(b) and 1.1310.

Anyone using an amplifier should be thoroughly familiar with and have made the calculations required by the above. And, if necessary, limited output power and/or field strengths to comply.

 

I really don't see how a monster 20 meter beam at 85 feet handles local and regional communications. That would normally fall on either 2 meters or 75 meters, and that antenna isn't likely to work on either. But I admit I am not familiar with that model antenna. It just doesn't seem like a 'local contact' antenna.

In many cases, amateurs seeking exemptions for Public Safety, are actually asking for large antenna arrays to work Lower Slobbovia on 20 meters. Probably 99.5 percent of Public Safety is done on two meters. For those hams, it becomes a lie, claiming one thing when in reality they are chasing an entirely different dream.

Not all of them, by any means. Most who do pursue Public Safety Radio, do so with mobile units or handhelds, a few with a 'base unit' and a mag mount on the refrigerator.

Despite the fact, and I know it is indeed a fact, that many municipalities try to ignore the FCC exemption for 'reasonable accomodation' I think approaching those communities with the idea "I do public service radio" while asking for a tower and beam to work across the world, definitely misleads them, resulting in even more antagonism. Very few of them understand what amateur radio is. Virtually none of them believe it is 'public safety radio,' as they already have that they are funding from tax dollars, and rightfully so.

I don't think the FCC exemption is intended to award 'overkill.' It is, after all, termed "reasonable accomodation." One could stretch that to mean eight 100 foot towers, but that redefines the word 'reasonable.'

Ed
...

 

But hasn't that changed? Is that what HOAs do today, keep out Blacks and Jews? I honestly don't know, since I don't live in such a neighborhood. But I would think what 'used to be' in perhaps 1945 is not 'what is' today.

I suspect the reason HOAs are proliferating is because people want them. I know some people in some very fine neighborhoods who would be extremely upset if John Neighbor started burning his household trash in a barrel in his back yard.

Again, I realize this thread is not about HOAs, so this is a bit off topic. However, even where I live, there is a neighbor a half mile west of me who occasionally burns trash in a barrel, and prevailing winds bring the smoke and odor my way. I don't have any protection from that. We have local restrictions on burning on 'bad hair' days, of course, or in extremely low humidity.

It seems the majority of people want protections from unsightly things, such as junk cars in the driveway, or falling-down fences in the back yard. Or that motor home parked at the curb. A minority do not want such protections. We may have to decide which rules - the majority or the minority.

I understand the original posting on this thread. To be honest, I had incorrectly assumed the FCC 'reasonable accomodation' rule was obeyed. But then I also need to understand the word 'resaonable,' Does it mean an 85 foot tower? Does it mean a nested crankup that settles to 25 feet? Does it mean a mast that supports a doublet? Does it mean three 125 foot towers? What is 'reasonable' to one person, the user, may not be at all reasonable to the viewer.

I think my next question is "Why?" Why do these municipalities fly in the face of the FCC ruling? There has to be a reason, and I'd like to know what it is. Is it for aesthetics? Is it for safety? Is it for tax dollars (give me enough money for permits and I'll grant you one.)

Ed

 

Add to 'those hams' our own ARRL.

Ed, you hit the nail on the head. DX dreams cloud reality.

What you said is classic. ARRL has historically chosen to 'redefine the word reasonable' in its attempts to secure preemption. Whether it be local, state or federal. In an old Florida state bill that would have preempted CC&Rs for wire antennas in FL, ARRL sought to block its passage. Yes, I was amazed. They worked to defeat it. Hard to believe, but that **cemented**, at least in my mind, that ARRL's intentions were themselves not honorable. "Towers or Bust" is not the way to garner support for the most basic, effective, reasonable antennas.

As we all know, truthfully, a lot can be accomplished with aesthetically accommodative antennas. Sure, maybe not 5-band DXCC, but that isn't a reasonable expectation. DX Cowboys that diminish the credibility (and future existence) of amateur radio by lying to government bodies about what is the minimum antenna configuration needed to communicate effectively for emergency purposes are part of reason why we don't yet have limited CC&R preemption. And, if Lieberman's senate homeland security survey bill becomes law, ARRL won't be able to sell DX arrays atop towers as a reasonable accommodation for homeland security communications. There are a few of us out here who WILL tell the truth, despite the collective liars.

 

.....no telecommunications equipment allowed on the property....

As far as who wrote the HOA and who approved the rules.....
My HOA documents do not allow any type of antennas nor do the rules allow any type of telecommunications equipment. The builder wrote the docs back in the early 80s and they were more concerned about CB radio but they threw threw baby out with the bath water.
I installed a GAP vert next to a sappy pine tree, painted it to blend in with the surroundings. It was up for about 8 months until my neighbor had cable tv problems and blamed the trouble on my antenna. I took it down and got my wife elected to the board, (That's another fiasco) (for ex-wife reasons, I am not listed on the deed so I could not be elected to the board) and got the HOA and the master HOA to waive the rule and I installed it again. Between the time I tried to get permission to reinstall ans was given 101 reasons why I could not, lightning strikes, TVI, RFI, radiation poisoning, aesthetics (could not see the antenna unless you stood next to it), if you get to have one everybody will want one, and the list goes on.
My point is that the rules in most cases were written by inept, ignorant and biased committees. I guess I could ask permission to install a tower and when they deny my request, I can take them to court for selective enforcement as everyone that lives in my HOA has a telephone, TV, cell phone, car radio and car radio antenna, WiFi and other telecomm equipment. I cannot afford an attorney much less a tower at this point. So don't say the rules were written and approved by a vote of the residents.
Can't have pick-up trucks parked here after 11:00PM, when nobody can see them. You can park it between 7AM and 11PM when you can see them. Point is, most HOA rules do not make sense and most are outdated.
BTW, I worked ZS10WCS with my peanut whistle station and worked a VK with a wire installed out side my house (my wife's house), both on 20. I don't think the NEC allows transmitting antennas in the attic. I may be wrong though.???

73
Rob

 

Actually, you'd be incorrect there. The reason for HOAs is because local governments demand that they be included in the building of a subdivision. The reason for this is that the local governents do not want to undertake the effort of "code enforcement", so they foist that obligation onto HOAs.

You cannot build a stick of houses in many parts of Florida without presenting to the planning commission a HOA draft or a promise to develop one. Requisite building permits will not be issued without one.

 

I wonder... Could you come up with a 'retro' antenna design from pre-WWII and try to get that approved?

 

One of the big problems here is the 'boilerplate' examples for setting up HOAs.

The same thing is going on in business nowadays with 'company policies', such as on personal weapons. If you find your company is considering a 'company policy' enactment, you really need to find out where they are getting there template from or you can get stuck with something silly. The templates generally have EVERYTHING that you MIGHT want in, but too many HR departments just leave it all there unless requested to take it out.

 

Sounds Like Florida.....

Rob. My CC&Rs when I lived in Bradenton, FL sounded just like yours. A bunch of BS, frankly. As to antennas, they've got you because there's no preemption for amateur antennas. For satellite and broadcast TV, there is. As to no telecomm apparatus, well, that would have to include, by definition, cable TV and Internet modems. So, rip out the coax and toss the set top boxes.

I had to laugh about your 'no pickup trucks' rule. Only one permitted per household in ours. We had one rule that said no vehicles with a sign on the door could be parked in the home driveways.

I asked the HOA Board just how they'd enfarce that if a state trooper or even a local sheriff (both drive their patrol cars home) were to buy a home in the development. A thousand laughs.

Good luck. You have my sympathy.

 

I do those calculations all the time and except for VHF-UHF, it's almost impossible to not comply with amateur power limits.

For example, 1500W output power to a 10 dBi gain antenna (!) at 7 MHz yields .514mW/cm2 at 50 feet distance. The limit per the Standard is 3.6785mW/cm2. We're obviously way below that, even at a paltry 50' separation and running 15kW e.r.p.

At 14 MHz, the exposure level is still .514mW/cm2 per the formula (15kW e.r.p. and 50' separation) and the limit per the Standard is .9234mW/cm2.

With a directional antenna 50' above where humans are located, the e.r.p. is far lower down below the antenna's boresight horizon and it would be almost impossible to violate the Standard using amateur power levels even at 50 MHz with very large antennas (unless they were pointed into people's homes and not at the horizon).

So, meeting the exposure limits is a great mathematical exercise that will almost always reveal that anyone having a beam on a tower will be in compliance...

 

I've never once heard of a communications tower falling due to an earthquake, and I live in southern CA. If it's ever happened, I'd love to see evidence of this. Anything's possible, but I think windstorms are far more likely to take towers down.

To comment further: Here in L.A. where I am, I did get a building permit for my tower and setback by the antenna system/support height is not a requirement. Following certified engineering documents with regard to foundation preparation and installation, tower loading, etc. is a requirement, and they inspect to those. Many towers are self-supporting and require no guys at all -- like mine. These require a lot larger foundation and more concrete, but digging a big hole is cheap and so is concrete. I didn't have room for guys and never considered a guyed tower. Luckily there are self-supporting towers designed and manufactured in CA, and they come with PE stamps and certifications issued in CA. That won't help people in other states, much, but it helps, here.

 

Blessed

Hi Steve,

Now now Steve, we in the amateur community are truly blessed to have an individual like Lee, who is all knowing on each and EVERY subject. It is not for you to question any of his (or Ed's) comments, as they are ALWAYS correct and blessed by these super human beings.

BTW Lee where are the guys? : http://dodropin.org/w5jon.html

73,

John W5JON

 

During the 2003 Fires primary communications was on 2M locally AND 40M to the Office of Emergency Services in Sacramento. 80M was useless during the daylight hours.

During Katrina, we participated in the SATERN efforts on 20M AND 40M

During the 2007 Fires primary communications was on 2M locally AND 40M to the Office of Emergency Services in Sacramento. 80M was useless during the daylight hours.

40M was the primary HF EMCOMM frequency we used for the major fires....


One of the issues was terrain... which was very mountainous especially where I live... so unless we had a high antenna, we could not provide reliable communications... the emperical results in 2003 where I could not communicate effectively especially after most local repeaters failed proved that point beyond a doubt.

This is not debatable this is fact....

IN 2007 Fires, the higher antennas with improved gain (3 Elements on 40M) made a huge difference. I was able to act as net control for several nights. We made a difference...


Here is the story of what happened in 2007
http://www.ky6la.com/firestorm_2007.htm

You might find it interesting.....

 

Thanks for the kudos, there John. I don't think I said that there HAS to be guys. If I did, then gee, I guess I'm getting too old and can't see the forest for the trees.

I did go to your site, and that's quite a tower you have there. Your QTH is in Hurricane Alley. I guess that tilt-over motor is on either a generator or must run off of 12volts, since if the power goes out with a big storm approaching, you might find out how accurate the claimed windloading is. 85MPH isn't all that much into category 1.

If I had no room for a safe fall-down radius, I wouldn't put one up. Simple as that. Others are free to think otherwise.

I have plenty of room and buried conduit with multiple runs of heliax, so I guess if I decide to cut down a tree to put one up, its fall down radius won't be a factor. For now, I'll just play with wires. Multiple sets of wires.