I'm revealing no secrets by saying that ACMA have never liked amateurs running high power, especially in suburbia...it creates more problems (for AMCA) than it is worth.
Given the prevailing ACMA attitude, and the results from the current survey (whether accurate or not, Minister.....), I really can't see an increase from 400 PEP.
A well engineered kW is no problem in the bush, as we all know...
As for single suffix callsigns.....that hoary old chestnut has been around for ages.
ACMA replies to WIA questions on the High Power Trial
-
VK2KN
Re: ACMA replies to WIA questions on the High Power Trial
It is certainly interesting to see comments about this trial from what I would call arm chair experts.. To correct some of the misconceptions in this blog (as many will probably be reading the blog thinking the blog has some semblance of accuracy).
[b]1.[/b] The ACMA rules and calculations DO NOT SIMULATE your operating environment, quite the opposite, only key attributes of your station are relevant to make a distance assessment. For a full simulation, it would probably cost in excess of $10K to have measurement apparatus on site and accurate field models constructed... and that could never happen in a ham environment / budget.
[b]2.[/b] Comments about the software tolls available being inaccurate, agreed, and I am happy to own up that my initial calculator version (circa 2002) was conservative, and with the major change in 2005 (where safe distances almost doubled overnight), my calculator was erring on the safe side (only by 0.5dB or so) Direct feedback to me by the ACMA at the 1kW trial commencement corrected that, and in the same breath, highlighted the rules could be read in a couple of different ways. I was in the process of writing up a tutorial article to bridge the gap between general punter ham understanding and the ACMA rules.. but work got in my way, and the negative rhetoric about "why do you need any RF power at all argument" started...
[b]3.[/b] The ACMA rules adopted are based a regionalised version of the FCC guidelines, as both the FCC and ACMA calculations reveal the same (flawed) deep logic that does not translate from the tensor calculus needed to solve the equations. You can see this in my MS Excel calculations - as I have not hidden any of the calcs. Simple case in point, the safe RF distance in the regulations (and the calculators) is identical for frequencies at 50MHz and above, incl 23cm !!... whereas safe RF distance calculations differ vastly from say 28MHz to 50Mhz. The declation of compliance in my calculator says that it models the 'rules' .. even though reality is quite different.
[b]4.[/b] The 1kW trial in VK was to assert if VK hams could at least do a basic assessment of their station, much in the same way a car driver can read a speedometer.. The reasons for the end of the trial are best known by the WIA and understand it was a WIA directive to the ACMA. ACMA had already close dialogue with NZ Regulatory as well as input from the FCC, indeed, much hardware in use here in Australia is already FCC certified for use at 1.5kW. [[ Yes ham radio kit in most countries required type certification, USA, Canada, Singapore, EU etc.. ]].. something the ACMA has not pursued here.
[b]5.[/b] The ACMA had in fact opened the door to allow VK hams access to 1.5Kw power levels based 'purely on safe RF distance calculations', and scrap the old 807 tube limts we still wear from the 1940's. Rather than recognising that strategic opportunity, I guess it was easy to extinguish that opportunity by the armchair experts.
The safe working calculators (MS Excel based) I have available at VKHAM and the IEEE GHN for Australia, USA and NZ are all compliant, and will keep them up to date with future alterations, and as nothing is hidden, you can do your own checks on my logic, math and results.
73,
David Burger VK2CZ / VK8AA
k3hz@ieee.org
[[sry, I don't have a logon to vkhammer, tks to Peter]]
[b]1.[/b] The ACMA rules and calculations DO NOT SIMULATE your operating environment, quite the opposite, only key attributes of your station are relevant to make a distance assessment. For a full simulation, it would probably cost in excess of $10K to have measurement apparatus on site and accurate field models constructed... and that could never happen in a ham environment / budget.
[b]2.[/b] Comments about the software tolls available being inaccurate, agreed, and I am happy to own up that my initial calculator version (circa 2002) was conservative, and with the major change in 2005 (where safe distances almost doubled overnight), my calculator was erring on the safe side (only by 0.5dB or so) Direct feedback to me by the ACMA at the 1kW trial commencement corrected that, and in the same breath, highlighted the rules could be read in a couple of different ways. I was in the process of writing up a tutorial article to bridge the gap between general punter ham understanding and the ACMA rules.. but work got in my way, and the negative rhetoric about "why do you need any RF power at all argument" started...
[b]3.[/b] The ACMA rules adopted are based a regionalised version of the FCC guidelines, as both the FCC and ACMA calculations reveal the same (flawed) deep logic that does not translate from the tensor calculus needed to solve the equations. You can see this in my MS Excel calculations - as I have not hidden any of the calcs. Simple case in point, the safe RF distance in the regulations (and the calculators) is identical for frequencies at 50MHz and above, incl 23cm !!... whereas safe RF distance calculations differ vastly from say 28MHz to 50Mhz. The declation of compliance in my calculator says that it models the 'rules' .. even though reality is quite different.
[b]4.[/b] The 1kW trial in VK was to assert if VK hams could at least do a basic assessment of their station, much in the same way a car driver can read a speedometer.. The reasons for the end of the trial are best known by the WIA and understand it was a WIA directive to the ACMA. ACMA had already close dialogue with NZ Regulatory as well as input from the FCC, indeed, much hardware in use here in Australia is already FCC certified for use at 1.5kW. [[ Yes ham radio kit in most countries required type certification, USA, Canada, Singapore, EU etc.. ]].. something the ACMA has not pursued here.
[b]5.[/b] The ACMA had in fact opened the door to allow VK hams access to 1.5Kw power levels based 'purely on safe RF distance calculations', and scrap the old 807 tube limts we still wear from the 1940's. Rather than recognising that strategic opportunity, I guess it was easy to extinguish that opportunity by the armchair experts.
The safe working calculators (MS Excel based) I have available at VKHAM and the IEEE GHN for Australia, USA and NZ are all compliant, and will keep them up to date with future alterations, and as nothing is hidden, you can do your own checks on my logic, math and results.
73,
David Burger VK2CZ / VK8AA
k3hz@ieee.org
[[sry, I don't have a logon to vkhammer, tks to Peter]]
-
VK4WDM
Re: ACMA replies to WIA questions on the High Power Trial
David,The reasons for the end of the trial are best known by the WIA and understand it was a WIA directive to the ACMA.
That statement seems to say that the WIA issued a directive to the ACMA to stop the trial. Surely that cannot be right. As I understand it, the WIA was informed by the ACMA that the trial was being terminated. Please clarify.
73
Wayne VK4WDM (not an "armchair expert in anything, but concerned that facts are straight
)Re: ACMA replies to WIA questions on the High Power Trial
A well engineered Kw in suburbia isn't a problem either. I had it and it complied. No interference before, during or after. Earth bonding everything is the secret.VK4DU wrote:I'm revealing no secrets by saying that ACMA have never liked amateurs running high power, especially in suburbia...it creates more problems (for AMCA) than it is worth.
Given the prevailing ACMA attitude, and the results from the current survey (whether accurate or not, Minister.....), I really can't see an increase from 400 PEP.
A well engineered kW is no problem in the bush, as we all know...
As for single suffix callsigns.....that hoary old chestnut has been around for ages.
Tony
VK2TS
VK2TS
Re: ACMA replies to WIA questions on the High Power Trial
I am a little perplexed by this statement, to my mind the ACMA is the regulator, and the WIA is a group that represent users, which in this context makes it a lobby group.The reasons for the end of the trial are best known by the WIA and understand it was a WIA directive to the ACMA.
The WIA may have requested that the trial be terminated (which sort of flies in the face of their lobbying function) but they have no authority to direct the ACMA to do anything.
______________________________________________________________
Colin
VK2CSW
Where are we going? And exactly why am I in a hand-basket?
Colin
VK2CSW
Where are we going? And exactly why am I in a hand-basket?
Re: ACMA replies to WIA questions on the High Power Trial
This is untrue.Quoting from a reputed blog posting, posted here by Peter Kohlmayer VK2KN:
The reasons for the end of the trial are best known by the WIA and understand it was a WIA directive to the ACMA.
As a director of the WIA and a member of the WIA's Spectrum Strategy Committee, I attended the meeting of 5 August 2013 between the ACMA and the WIA. The ACMA told us that the High Power Trial would end on the previously announced date, 31 Agust 2013, and that the regulatory arrangements to enable the use of 1 kW on the HF bands by all Advanced licensees would not be made permanent. See: http://www.wia.org.au/newsevents/news/2 ... /index.php
73, Roger Harrison VK2ZRH