New FCC RF Safety rules come into effect on May 3 - what you need to know

I'm curious where to find gain figures for obscure ham antennas such as the Isotron 160 not to mention homebrew jobs.
When I was working in Land Mobile gain figures and radiation patterns for, to use an example, a DB 224 were well documented.

 

I wonder how much power the boys on 11m can safely run lol!

http://www.lakewashingtonhamclub.org/resources/rf-exposure-calculator/#

I used the calculator here and it was pretty straight forward. I gave my antenna a generous 2db gain and checked for 1kw and 100w on 75m and 10m to get a general idea. I want the best ant possible that I can afford w the best efficiency. I've found that to be a full wave loop cut for my operating freq and typically don't need a amp and I'm much louder. So anyways I love how they make these rules and don't do anything about jammers or malicious people.

 

It's a good day to be a QRPer.

 

WHAT!!! I CAN'T BAKE A CHICKEN WITH A WIRE ANYMORE??? WHAT!!

 

Holy crap... LIGHTEN UP, FRANCES! You're taking this thing WAAAAY to seriously!

Quit trying to be the RF cop.

If you run the calculations with ZERO (0) cable loss, and you come out with satisfactory results, then you're good. It's called insertion LOSS, right?. If the calculations results show that the "exposure limits" are below the guidelines, then subtracting power due to losses will only make the results BETTER, not worse.

I ran my calculations with the assumption of zero cable & inserion losses, i.e. full 1500 watts at the antenna. My installation checks out good, and I've got plenty of room for error, and the errors can only benefit me.

 

Hello Alan,

I am sorry you have not found my comments, to date, valuable on this topic.

Perhaps I can offer some experience regarding a prior comment you made on the Zed:

"All mobile amateur stations are categorically excluded from this requirement. Such mobile stations are presumed to be used only for very infrequent intermittent two-way operation. They are, however, required to comply with the exposure guidelines. Otherwise the operation is categorically excluded from routine RF radiation evaluation except as specified in Sections 1.1307(c) and (d) of the FCC’s Rules."

Note that you took this to mean that all vehicle-based stations are exempt from an evaluation, although obligated to 'comply with the exposure guidelines'.

In fact, that means that any moving --mobile--Part 97 station is not obligated to present documents amounting to an 'evaluation'. However, the compliance requirement still requires evidence for compliance. The way this comes up is that 'evaluations' are typically done by independent--and usually certified-- third parties. The FCC does not require that. But you still have to show that the moving station is in compliance.

A vehicular station is not necessarily a moving station.

That means you, as a driver, and your passengers, are fixed with respect to the station and antenna and are required to "ensure compliance". You are not exempt. Even when driving, or being driven in the vehicle.

The "exclusion" occurs with respect to others, who are outside the moving (station) vehicle.

When the vehicle is stationary, you have no exclusions.

This means that if your vehicle is not moving, you are obligated to "ensure compliance".

I hope this helps.

It is important to present the conservative cases on the issue of "ensuring compliance". I am sorry that you do not wish to be aware of them, or think my information is incorrect, but others may find benefit.

73
Chip W1YW

 

Hi Chip,

Not sure how your response (in reference to the quote in your post above) has anything to do with my comments regarding insertion and feed line loss, and calculations. Perhaps you clicked on the wrong thread...

If you're going to reply to a post, please do it in the thread where the original comments were made, not in a different thread regarding the same subject. Makes it very confusing.

That said, it's not that I don't find your comments on this topic "valuable"... On the contrary, I find them quite valuable. The problem is, you don't seem to know when to stop commenting. You come across as THE know-it-all guy for all things FCC-regulatory.

Again, LIGHTEN UP FRANCES!

We all know you're the smartest guy in the room (you make it abundantly clear). Just stop being a dick by constantly reminding us. We don't need another RF cop, so stop telling everyone how we need to "ensure compliance!". We got it.

MHO. Thanks.

73 and all the best,
~Alan

 

Alan,

Please: its not a 'smart' issue. It's a 'seen it before' issue. Rf compliance has been an issue for years. Just not in ham radio. If you guys had taken a different tact, others would also have given their perspective. You totally turned them off it would seem. I would not, IMO, solely depend on ARRL interpretations at this early stage. Gather a bunch of perspectives. Not just opinions.

The 'new' frontier is the use of compliance among Part 97 and using the alleged absence of same to hold hams accountable for health and interference issues. It will happen. Shouldn't we take the conservative, prudent--and easy--steps up front to make that very,very difficult? The worst situation is if we don;t have a basic understanding on the factors in RF compliance. You don;t have to do a near field calculation, but it will be assumed we know the meaning of the concepts and words. We need to go beyond just plugging numbers into a spread sheet.

The FCC has done a poor job in the wording of their intent. Absolutely. Look where it has taken us--into la la land. The ambiguity on the determination of duty cycle is stultifying. Basically the FCC has left 800,000 licensees to take jumbled words and interpret them any old which way they want. Why can't they say what they mean? An imponderable riddle. Some of us don't want to see that happen.

You totally inverted my comment on insertion loss. Reverse the statement and you get the reality.

I mean, really, why are you being abusive here. Just chill bro'...

73
Chip W1YW