(sigh) Chnage of plans

 I had a spot of bother yesterday which prevented me from making progress on the back yard antenna farm.... Namely, I couldn't find the proper masting I needed. I ordered three 5 foot sections from amazon, though and they'll be here by the time I get back next weekend. 

Plans for the weekend

Well, I have a number of plans for this weekend..... I've taken a couple days off from work to do this.

first let me explain what I have for Antennas and plans:

At the moment, I only have 2 antennas up.... a GP9, for VHF/UHF and an IMAX2000, both at about 30 feet.

The IMAX at the moment allows me to run the upper HF bands, fairly effectively, although 6m and 20m are pretty weak.  At 10m, 12m and 17m it's flat out stellar, with 5.2dbi. That gives me on the order of 300w PEP,ERP when you consider the line losses.  I bought this one used some time ago and frankly, it's the best $30 I ever invested in Ham radio.

The GP9 of course is a legendary gain monster and is likely the strongest omnidirectional performer one can buy for these bands.  With my 50w of input, I'm getting around 500w ERP.  Welllllll, okay.... Maybe 400 once you firgure in the line losses.... And given I'm running LMR400, that's probably a bit conservative.

The antennas are mounted on poles which are secured to some clothesline pole in my back yard.... one each.  My plan is to move these up to the back of the house, fastening them to the rear wall of the garage. This will give me a far shorter coax run, and a few added feet of ground height, since the backyard tilts down as you move toward the back fence. Additionally, I plan on getting a couple 15 foot masts, so the base of each will be at 15ft which would place them just over the roof line. .

The matter is made a bit complex by the idea that we live in a ranch style house with an overhang of 1.5 feet all the way around the house. So I've had to buy a couple standoffs which are pretty large. The maker of these standoffs insist that the base of the mast be on the ground.... the idea being that the standoff is only bearing the lateral weight of he antenna, not the vertical weight, as well.  This actually works in my favor because it gives a nice counterpoise to the verticals. 

I'd better get to it.

Buying New off the shelf instead of DIY?

Me,  Over at QRZ responding to the prices of wire antenna kits anymore::

Understand, I'm simply answering the question of "Why?", or at least giving one answer for it:

For myself, time is a factor, and likely the biggest one.

Look, All three of my antennas have some element of being "Store bought" attached to them. My verticals, (An IMAX2000 and a GP9) I simply bought. One used (Best $30 I ever invested in my station) One new.

I did so mostly, because I figured there was no way I'd be able to get the kind of performance those two antennas are famous for, (read that, "Gain") out of any omni that I could make myself,. (5.2 dBi, and 12dBi, respectively) and frankly, even given the time (which I don't have) I doubted that I had the skills in fiberglass to create such a beast.

Durability is also a factor. Could I get something working? Probably. Would it outperform the items I mentioned, if I did? No way. Would it hold together nearly as long in our weather here in Western NY? Not a bloody chance. And all that assumes that I have the time to dedicate to such a project.

Similarly, my End-fed is driven by a 1500 watt- capable un-un that I had Balun Designs create for me. (Great folks!) . Here again, my skill sets come to play, or rather their lack. Yeah, I MIGHT have had the ability to build an Un-un of lesser power handling ability. but it's performance would have been compromised, even at the lower power handing.

Oh, and no I'm not running full legal power.... I'm still running 100w TPO.... I over-spec'd the un-un for durability, particularly with higher actual SWR in mind.....(I burned up a couple of 49:1 un-uns rated at 100w, because I failed to take into account the back-fed power, through the un-un when running less than fully resonant... dumb)

And that shows another point; I have the skills and the personal radio experience needed to DESIGN such a project, and put it into action, given the parts. (I have an installation to do today, in fact) How many folks buying wire antennas off the shelf as in the examples given in the OP, have such a skill set? I'm guessing, not many. In that way, one can understand the attraction to such kits.

And yes, the prices for wire antenna kits are insane. But over the last three years, what prices are less so?

And look; here's the real issue hiding under all of this; I figure usually someone buying such a kit is striking out on their own. Likely, such a person hasn't got an Elmer to guide them through some of this stuff and lend a design and installation hand.

 

And there, I think, is likely to be the biggest factor of all; Nobody guiding these folks. They're willing to pay the larger price because they figure why they buy has a better shot at actually working than what they build themselves.

Now, in my case with my two verticals,  I have no doubt of this; The GP9 will outdo any omni I could make for those bands, hands down.. But will a store-bought 80mEFHW outperform what I can make? I doubt it, and in terms of bang for the buck, it's not even close.

Thing is, I'm kind of a one-off, in that I'm experienced enough to understand this, given my personal history with things radio.  That's a significant advantage that many, (I dare say most newer hams)  simply don't have. Mind, I'm not blowing my own horn, I'm not any better than most Hams, or even many.... it's simply that I've gotten to my level of understanding by way of sheer exposure. Like Brear Rabbitt, I've been here before.

Now, what course am I suggesting then? A greater involvement in the development of Newer Hams is in order, to begin with. Local ham clubs can have a massive impact here, and can benefit by their ranks growing if they simply take a greater interest in newer Hams, particularly younger hams.

I make no accusations, here. I merely suggest a course of action that would greatly benefit everyone.

Well, didn't make Dayton, but there are plans....

 

For a number of different reasons I decided I couldn't make Dayton this year. While I don't really regret that decision I have to admit a certain wistfulness while listening to the local repeater traffic in Dayton seeing some of the photographs coming from the site this morning.

 

As a formerly rabid Buffalo bills fan, you would think that I would be used to the phrase"maybe next year".

 

This year, my plans are to spend a bit more time at the local ham fests, and perusing the tables to pick up bits and pieces of what I need to build up my station, and spending a bit of time actually building up the station which is always a Time intensive process anyway.

 

Some of the station projects on my plate::

 

Moving my gp9 and my IMAX up to the back of the garage on slightly taller poles.

Rerunning the coax for those antennas through the rear of the garage wall.

Reestablishing my 40-m- end fed, with modifications to allow me to run 80 m. Probably a coil. This will involve burying the lmr400 feeding it because I plan to feed the antenna from the opposite end of the yard.

Getting something going on 6 m, probably a Halo or a cut down CB antenna.

Establishing a receive only antenna for the purpose of feeding my SDR.

Get my big gun computer going again. It currently has Linux installed on it I play Windows give it additional memory and probably a new processor. The mini computer I'm running at the moment is nice and will be useful with the new setup but it can't hold a candle to the big guy.

Something horizontal on 2 m and perhaps 70 cm again possibly a Halo.

 

By time being so blessedly limited because of my work I may end up asking for some help to get this stuff accomplished. 

 

Among the things I'd like to find at the hamfest tables this year: an antenna analyzer of some sort, possibly a rig expert, or an mfj.

A decent external tuner. Doesn't need to be an auto-tune but I wouldn't turn my nose up at it. Preferably one with several antenna outputs.

A DJ mix console. Nothing complex, perhaps four or five channels. This would allow me a bit more control over my processing stack. I actually bought a new one a few months ago but it doesn't work

 

 

So,What are the projects that are dancing around in your head?

Higher ARRL dues? Um, no thanks.

I've made no secret of my disdain for the ARRL, mostly because of the history of the code requirement, and the prevailing attitude about that requirement which extends to this day, among some League Life members. In other words, the few folks still funding the ARRL. Consider this comment from someone I assume to be one of them. It's a fairly typical, if distasteful comment:

The worst thing ever done was to do away with code. It has let a lot of idiots into ham radio. People that know absolutely nothing. It destroyed ham radio.

These are the bsame folks who, by and large will tell us endlessly how digi modes are "not Ham Radio". I can recall as a young SWL back in the early 60's listening to Hams operating on AM complaining that SSB would be the death of Ham Radio. Obviously, they were about as correct at those saying the same of FT8 today.  I usually respond to such folks that their operations are not ham radio, either, unless they're running spark gap transmitters like Hiram did it... Conversations tend to peter out at that point.

It is (quite correctly) explained in detail in many forum conversations that there was no call from most ARRL members, for a code-free ticket, back in those days... and therein lies my objection to the ARRL's actions there. Understand: In my view, the League has a dual role...

Yes, they are tasked to represent their dues paying membership to the government bodies.... but they also have a responsibility to the future of Ham radio as a whole, the vast majority of which are not league members.,nor were they at the time... and I firmly believe that the code requirement nonsense put those two responsibilities at odds with each other. At that point, the choice should have been to look to the future, instead of holding onto the past, in an effort, apparently to hang onto the dues paying membership.

They blew that decision. They failed to look to the future.

That error has been costing Ham radio ever since. Sorry, that's the reality.

 The result of that lack pushed many folks away from the hobby. There was a great deal of radio talent on CB back in those days, involved with clubs, public service projects (Remember REACT?)... which could have been shaped and molded into great hams. But they got pushed away by a group of people who in my view, couldn't get over themselves.  Amazingly, there's still a fair number of hams who agree with the quote above.  Amazing to me that a hobby that  bills itself as a welcoming one and on the cutting edge of radio technology, should suffer with folks who insist on century old technology being required, or to hell with you, you're not welcome.

Yes, I agree that the return of code requirements is a dead issue, which is as it should be. Reinstating Morse Code requirements is rather like someone being required to fix a Model A before they can fix a Lambo. Totally different skill sets are required. Put another way, the ham radio hobby is not your great grandfather's hobby.

Understand me clearly on this; The attitude of a goodly number of Ham radio ops that the requirement should never have gone away, is problematic. For the most part, those holding those views are life members of the league. The problem I have with that is twofold:

* It still has the likely effect of swaying league (and thereby governmental) policies. Even to a small degree, that's unacceptable.
* Even absent the first point, it's keeping people away from the hobby. Witness again, the quote above.  Think that attitude not a net negative for the hobby? Who wants to get into a high-dollar hobby where they're not wanted?

In fairness, such attitudes are increasingly a minority. But then again, as I've already pointed out, so is league membership.

Add to that, the nigh on useless LOTW,

A bit of personal history to explain my comments on that point: I spent a number of years as a computer professional. One of my tasks was supporting interfaces to mainframe legacy systems. 

I tell you straight out: LOTW  has the feel of a 1975 mainframe program with a cobbled together web front end, designed by a 12 year old genius. Yeah, I've heard that Newington has begun to understand the problems with LOTW have gotten too large for it not to be completely re-designed.... and have begun to move in that direction. Given the history of the thing and my conversations with some of the developers of that system, I personally expect the (Likely buggy as hell) first beta of this redesign in 2047. Such is the situation with every committee driven platform development. It is said that a camel is a horse built by committee.

I've been using QRZ as my primary logger and backfeeding it to LOTW. I've actually touched the LOTW front end 4 times in the last three years. I load to LOTW as a courtesy for the folks who insist on using it.  The attraction of award wallpaper is strong for some, I suppose. (Shrug) OK, I'll play that far, for their sake.

And finally, what are members really getting from the ARRL?  That seems an open question and the vast majority of Hams are asking that question and do not like the answer. Thus the pitiful membership numbers.

 Pan up to about the 42 minute mark of this vid.

One tidbit he shares in the vid is that each year there are approximately 30,000 new FCC amateur licensees. 3,000 of these join the ARRL, and only 600 of them keep their ARRL membership into the second year. 

Clearly, those numbers are not sustainable, particularly with the rate of members going SK. The ship is sinking.

Equally clearly, what is causing this is at least a problem of perception.... where folks don't see any bang for their increasingly tight dollars. Admittedly, and in fairness, that can go either way.... either they're not getting a value, or they are but they're not sold on the idea. One thing for certain, whichever way that goes........ jacking the prices up ain't gonna help that perception issue. If it's felt to be not worth the price currently, what in the world makes them think it's going to be worth the higher dues?

 So, it comes down to the question to what can the ARRL do to improve the situation?  

 I'll tell you what they cannot do:... they cannot keep trying to feed the current membership. That's only going to drive those outside the fold away most of them permanently.  .... In any event, the league can't sustain that path, because current membership is going away anyway... attrition will cut the membership by roughly half in the next ten years, sadly.

The solution... and I think it's the only viable one... is going to be counter-intuitive to some.  Start representing hams who are NOT league members. They are the majority of ticket holders by a high factor, after all. It's the biggest target for improving membership numbers. . Make the ARRL something THEY wantt o be a part of. Make it worth their time and dollars, (by their lights, not yours.) 

But for the time being, until you get these issues resoled to THEIR satisfaction, the ARRL and Ham Radio as a whole would be better served by shelving the idea of increased dues.

The ARRL has much good to be said for it, and has much in the way of potential. For that potential to be realized, however, there are many changes that need to take place.... and I wonder if the ARRL, being a body of committees,seemingly bent on creating horses that look like duck-billed platypuses,  has the ability.... or the desire, for that matter,  to execute those changes. I have my hopes, but I have my doubts, as well.

 

RF Exposure Docuemnt

 

RF Exposure at Station K2ENF

Overview:

The purpose of this document is to satisfy the requirements of the FCC as regards RF exposure ¹ at the station and it’s documentation. All measurements and calculations are effective as of this document’s writing, 7/1/22, and are true to the best of my understanding.

K2ENF is an amateur radio station, which is located at 84 Wolcott Ave, Rochester, NY 14606. (43.17N / 77.70w) The address is a private home located in Located in the town of Gates, NY, which is physically to the west-northwest of Rochester’s downtown area.

Equipment at K2ENF:

K2ENF employs as it’s main transceiver , a Yaesu FT-991a,² which is capable of Am, FM, SSB, C4FM and CW. It has band coverage as follows:

Band	Modes	Max Power in PEP
160m	AM, FM,SSB,RTTY, and data modes	100watts PEP,TPO
80m	AM, FM,SSB,RTTY, and data modes	100watts PEP,TPO
60m	AM, FM,SSB,RTTY, and data modes	100watts PEP,TPO
40m	AM, FM,SSB,RTTY, and data modes	100watts PEP,TPO
30m	AM, FM,SSB,RTTY, and data modes	100watts PEP,TPO
20m	AM, FM,SSB,RTTY, and data modes	100watts PEP,TPO
17m	AM, FM,SSB,RTTY, and data modes	100watts PEP,TPO
12m	AM, FM,SSB,RTTY, and data modes	100watts PEP,TPO
10m	AM, FM,SSB,RTTY, and data modes	100watts PEP,TPO
6m	AM, FM,SSB,RTTY, and data modes	100watts PEP,TPO
2m	AM, FM,SSB,RTTY, and data modes	50w PEP,TPO
.7m	AM, FM,SSB,RTTY, and data modes	50w PEP,TPO

Other transmitters at K2ENF

K2ENF also employs three mobile units, and several portable units which are less powerful and therefore outside the scope of the RF exposure guidelines, and so are not a significant part of this examination. Mention is made for the sake of completeness, only.

Antennas at K2ENF:

The station normally employs three separate antennas for transmitting. ³

1. A VHF/UHF antenna (Tram) Being a fairly standard co linear design, it has 8dbi of gain at VHF frequencies, and 11,7dbi of gain at UHF frequencies. It is mounted on a 12ft metal pole which is in turn, ground mounted. This 12ft pole is fastened to the house by means of a custom mount, which reaches over the edge of the roof, to secure the mast. This places the antenna tip at 34~ ft Height above ground level. (HAG)

2. An IMAX-2000, which is designed and sold as a CB (11m) antenna, but is capable of being operated at 6m-17m. It is center turned at 10m. It is a fibreglass style vertical, in a colinear design. The advertised gain for this antenna at center tune is 5.2DBi. It is mounted on a 12ft metal pole which is in turn, ground mounted. This 12ft pole is fastened to the house by means of a custom mount, which reaches over the edge of the roof to secure the mast. This places the antenna tip at 38 ft Height above ground level. (HAG)

3. An 80m End-fed halfwave (EFHW) which covers all the HF bands the radio covers. It is normally used only for 80-20m, though occasionally is used for 10m and 6m…. the latter with the aid of an Antenna tuner. (ATU). At it’s highest point it is perhaps 45ft up. While the standard gain for such an antenna were it installed in a more or less straight line, is normally regarded as being 2 dBi, the unique installation which is required by the rather small space it’s installed in, compromises that normal figure greatly. *⁴

Important note: K2ENF has gone to some lengths to ensure that all antennas are located in an enclosed and gated back yard, and are essentially inaccessible to outsiders, absent a serious breech of trespassing laws. Thus the only exposure would be to those with legal access to the yard and who are therefore familiar with the station and it’s operation.

FCC requirements for evaluation of RF exposure ⁵

Band	Maximum TPO of FT-991a:	Evaluation required by the FCC if TPO exceeds:
160n	100w	500w
80m	100w	500w
75m	100w	500w
60m (assumed)6	100w	500w
40m	100w	500w
30m	100w	425w
20m	100w	225w
17m	100w	125w
15m	100w	100w
12m	100w	75w (evaluation required)
10m	100w	50w (evaluation required)
2m	50w	50w
.7m	50w	50w

Conclusion:

K2ENF is in compliance with the FCC’s RF exposure guidelines, without any modification to existing equipment, or of existing real estate fixtures. By the FCC’s definition, (By way of the listed document), there are only two operational bands where this evaluation is even required. Those being 10m and 12m. Given the antenna installations and the physically limited access, station K2ENF, at worst, poses a very limited RF exposure threat. Therefore, it should also be noted that this document goes well beyond the FCC’s stated requirements for reporting such exposure.

Even exclusive of matters like duty cycle for various modes…. And even assuming 100% duty cycle, the conclusion regarding the threat of RF exposure comes down to distance from the antennas used for these two bands the commission says should be evaluated. Since both the antennas employed in the required bands and power levels ( are well over 2m away from any living being, based on height above ground level alone), even if someone were to be standing directly below them, (Unlikely given they are both in a fenced in back yard) it is felt that in no case are emissions from K2ENF outside the boundaries of the FCC rules as regards RF exposure.

This document will be updated as required by equipment changes.

1(See the FCC's Rules and Regulations [47 C.F.R. 1.1307(b), 1.1310, 2.1091, 2.1093]. )

2See: https://www.yaesu.com/indexVS.cfm?cmd=DisplayProducts&ProdCatID=102&encProdID=490C4A71118AD0F4E825E89D821B73BB&DivisionID=65&isArchived=0&currTab=tab_Description&currDiv=DescriptionDiv&ExpandID=2077,Features

3 These are semi-permanent. Owing to the experimental nature of Amateur radio, other antennas may be employed on a temporary basis from time to time, but listed here are the ones that are a more permanent part of the station.

4 The antenna is a typical end fed, fed by a 49:1 transformer and lofted horizontally, (more or less) with a peak height of 45ft, at 132ft long, but due to the size of the property, it is almost a loop, running around the fence line of the back yard. It is fed at the 10foot level on the southwest corner of the back yard, and runs through several trees along the fence line around the edges of the property, and comes back up to nearly the feed point. Antenna modeling, not included here, has suggested that its configuration actually creates some loss of effective radiated power, instead of the usual 2.1 dBi gain. Also, because of the height above ground, (less than a half wavelength) it is further assumed most of the radiated power goes more or less straight up. (NVIS) It is thereby assumed to be less of an RF exposure hazard at ground level.

5(Source for FCC requirements: https://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineering_Technology/Documents/bulletins/oet65/oet65b.pdf

6The figures for 60m are assumed, and added in a desire for completeness, because the specified FCC document makes no mention of the 60m band, and yet the station is capable of operating there.