Warning: Creating default object from empty value in /homepages/11/d132647312/htdocs/Amfone/mkportal/include/SMF/smf_out.php on line 47
Recent Posts




 
The AM Forum
January 18, 2019, 09:45:53 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Calendar Links Staff List Gallery Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2 ... 10
 1 
 on: Today at 12:52:04 AM 
Started by Steve - K4HX - Last post by Opcom
Glad to see the Feds slap that Tinpot Robber-BaronTM down/back into its place where it may serve/aid Citizens and not torment/financially abuse them.

Dallas TX uses a similar scheme to avoid permitting towers over 55FT. One must post a $300 nonrefundable hearing bond (no guarantee on the whims of the city) and then some city employees are sent around to all the neighbors to ask if they mind a huge tower going up. Guess what the result is each time. We have no HOA but the City, being quite diligent, steps in to foul the works when possible! FCC oughta do some slappin around here.

What effect it might have - it could help overturn other unfair and immoral practices. But that's an attorney question there!

The FCC is afraid of John Wiley Price.  Shocked
Haha no comment! The gentleman's antics are an astonishing example of many paradigms.

And yes thank you FCC for doing good!

 2 
 on: Today at 12:13:44 AM 
Started by KK4YY - Last post by Opcom
That would be pretty cool. People would talk!

Was trying to compare those conditions to similar sized triodes in the same voltage range. The 2A3 is smaller at 15W plate. Is there a 19-21W Triode that runs at 325-375V on plate?

No curves for 1614 triode mode, maybe the 807 which has the same curves can be extrapolated, with the 1614 as triode and the 2A3 both at 250V. -which might be acceptable for the 2A3/6B4.
The difference inbias for a given current  - this means the mu is quite different, right?
ahhh this may be pointless but it was interesting to look.

About the curves - the data says the 1614 user should use the 807 curves. But are they the same tube indeed? The 807 screen is rated 300V, but we see the 1614 running 400 ICAS. The 807 as a modulator can take 400V CCS in triode connection.

6L6, 1614, 807.. like three bottles from the same fine vinyard, of close vintage.

 3 
 on: Yesterday at 11:19:06 PM 
Started by Steve - K4HX - Last post by KK4YY
I believe this applies only in New York State, but it appears to apply to more than just antenna towers. Apparently, it puts an onus on all towns in NYS to justify the 'consulting' fees they charge petitioners for any special use permit or variance application from doghouse to subdivision.

I applaud the ARRL for backing this case. Smiley

Don

 4 
 on: Yesterday at 11:00:29 PM 
Started by Steve - K4HX - Last post by AG5CK
Glad to see the Feds slap that Tinpot Robber-BaronTM down/back into its place where it may serve/aid Citizens and not torment/financially abuse them.

Dallas TX uses a similar scheme to avoid permitting towers over 55FT. One must post a $300 nonrefundable hearing bond (no guarantee on the whims of the city) and then some city employees are sent around to all the neighbors to ask if they mind a huge tower going up. Guess what the result is each time. We have no HOA but the City, being quite diligent, steps in to foul the works when possible! FCC oughta do some slappin around here.

What effect it might have - it could help overturn other unfair and immoral practices. But that's an attorney question there!

The FCC is afraid of John Wiley Price.  Shocked

 5 
 on: Yesterday at 10:35:01 PM 
Started by PA0NVD - Last post by Opcom
second that. Replaced 7199 with 6GH8s in Stromberg Carlson amps. Two 'audiophiles' said the amps sounded amazing.

 6 
 on: Yesterday at 10:31:54 PM 
Started by Steve - K4HX - Last post by Opcom
Glad to see the Feds slap that Tinpot Robber-BaronTM down/back into its place where it may serve/aid Citizens and not torment/financially abuse them.

Dallas TX uses a similar scheme to avoid permitting towers over 55FT. One must post a $300 nonrefundable hearing bond (no guarantee on the whims of the city) and then some city employees are sent around to all the neighbors to ask if they mind a huge tower going up. Guess what the result is each time. We have no HOA but the City, being quite diligent, steps in to foul the works when possible! FCC oughta do some slappin around here.

What effect it might have - it could help overturn other unfair and immoral practices. But that's an attorney question there!

 7 
 on: Yesterday at 10:06:20 PM 
Started by K9EID - Last post by Opcom
Glad you were able to make the connector.
I found these Amphenol today while cleaning up the lab, but not sure they are the same as yours, I didn't see a pciture to go by.

 8 
 on: Yesterday at 09:28:05 PM 
Started by Steve - K4HX - Last post by W4EWH
Does anyone have info about what, if any, affect this case will have on other antenna cases in other states?

Bill, W4EWH

 9 
 on: Yesterday at 08:19:55 PM 
Started by Steve - K4HX - Last post by Steve - K4HX
From the most recent ARRL Letter:

Court Rules Excessive Antenna Application Fees Violated Reasonable Accommodation

Long-pending Amateur Radio antenna litigation that ARRL helped to fund has finally borne fruit. The Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department has ruled in the case of Myles Landstein, N2EHG, that the Town of LaGrange, New York, not only overstepped its state-granted authority by assessing excessive fees, but violated the limited federal preemption PRB-1 in the process. PRB-1 requires municipalities and states to "reasonably" accommodate Amateur Radio antennas and to apply the "minimum practicable regulation" in handling Amateur Radio antenna applications. The ruling is slated to be published as a case decision. Landstein, who lives in the Bronx, had wanted to erect a 70-foot antenna support structure for a multioperator station in the Hamlet of Lagrangeville; the Town of LaGrange has a 35-foot height limit.

"This case, which goes back to 2013, was about applying PRB-1 to a situation in which a municipality attempted to thwart the installation and maintenance of ham radio antennas by imposing excessive permit application costs on the ham applicant," said communications attorney Chris Imlay, W3KD, who is familiar with the case. Imlay said the FCC has refused to clarify the cost-prohibition issue as it relates to PRB-1's "minimum practicable regulation" and reasonable accommodation provisions of PRB-1.

"The Town incurred more than $17,000 in legal consulting fees in connection with [Landstein's] applications, and informed the petitioner that he was required to reimburse the Town for these fees before any determination would be made with respect to the applications," the court decision recounted. "The Town subsequently, as 'an accommodation to the petitioner,' reduced the amount...to...$5,874, but also required the petitioner to maintain a minimum advance continuing escrow balance of at least $1,000 to cover the Town's future consulting costs..."

"We hold that, because the Town did not limit the consulting fees charged to the petitioner to those necessary to the decision-making function of the town's Planning Board and Zoning Board of Appeals, the town exceeded its state-granted authority by requiring payment of the consulting fees and, moreover, violated a rule promulgated by the [FCC]," the court concluded.

Given the significant delay, Imlay said both he and Landstein had lost hope that the case would ever be resolved in Landstein's favor -- and in the favor of radio amateurs in New York, generally -- much less be a case that would "create favorable precedent for Amateur Radio."

"ARRL originally was drawn to this case, because New York is the only state that, due to a very old case decision, has held that Amateur Radio antennas are not necessarily a 'normal accessory use' to residential real property," Imlay explained. "Because the issue in the case dealt with both that issue and the issue of cost prohibitions in the permitting process relative to the cost of the antenna installation, we decided to fund the case." Landstein lost at trial, and an appeal was filed in about 2015, for which ARRL provided memoranda of law about the cost-prohibition issue. "The antenna at issue and the support structure was to cost no more than $1,000," Imlay said.

The court concluded that the town "may not use its land-use regulatory authority to construct 'hoop after hoop' for the petitioner to jump through in order to erect his radio antenna tower [and] cannot impose unreasonable expenses so as to create an insurmountable financial barrier to the pursuit of the project. In this context, not only must the consultant fees be reasonable..., but the underlying services must be necessarily related to those municipal regulatory functions which are not preempted by federal law."

 10 
 on: Yesterday at 07:54:12 PM 
Started by PA0NVD - Last post by w4bfs
A great use for the common and unloved 6J6 - thanks for posting this novel design! 



Poor 6J6s.. Got a carton of them in military-like boxes stamped for Sperry Gyroscope. Wish they were more linear for audio, nice comon cathode to make a long tail pair.. I am a fan of feedback but nonetheless. They sit on the shelf next to the cases of 12BQ6s and 6GH8, 70L7s, and 3Q5s I think.. I must love the unfortunate. Cry

the 6gh8 makes a better replacement for a 7199 ... I have one in my Ampeg B25 bass amp and a few trace cuts and resistor changes were all that was necessary .... better sound

Pages: [1] 2 ... 10
AMfone - Dedicated to Amplitude Modulation on the Amateur Radio Bands
 AMfone 2001-2015
Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
Page created in 0.048 seconds with 14 queries.