UK Vintage Radio Repair and Restoration Powered By Google Custom Search Vintage Radio and TV Service Data

Go Back   UK Vintage Radio Repair and Restoration Discussion Forum > Specific Vintage Equipment > Vintage Amateur and Military Radio

Notices

Vintage Amateur and Military Radio Amateur/military receivers and transmitters, morse, and any other related vintage comms equipment.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old 26th May 2021, 9:34 pm   #41
Sparky67
Heptode
 
Sparky67's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Great Barr, Sandwell, West Midlands, UK.
Posts: 584
Default Re: Licence revision from OFCOM.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dsergeant View Post
Distance from your own head Martin is irrelevant, the licencee is exempt.
Not fully Dave, the operator, unlike the public, is presumed to have the knowledge to be able to mitigate and control their own exposure. I am not an expert in the field so, for safety, my knowledge is now based on the RSGB / OfCom info.

Certainly for many of us who have less-than-ideal real estate for HF antenna systems and tall supports, compliance is going to be a challenge, particularly with the current reactive near field thinking below 10MHz. Especially where neighbours’ adjoining gardens are concerned. I could rattle on happily about working and playing with RF, much of it in the near-field, for the last 50 years or so with no noticeable ill effects except to my wallet, but it makes no difference to getting my amateur station compliant to protect others in the future.

Getting a reasonably efficient HF antenna here for 5MHz is now going to be a challenge, but is probably doable. Hopefully running coax to an auto ATU high in the roof space and going higher into the tree at the far end might also reduce the constant S8 noise floor!

Just to add a layer of interest, our neighbour sharing the fence with the counterpoise is a professional H&S compliance inspector...!

Cheers,

Martin
G4NCE
Sparky67 is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2021, 8:55 am   #42
AmadeusMozart
Triode
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Masterton New Zealand
Posts: 17
Default Re: Licence revision from OFCOM.

TLDR;

(Rant)

I do not understand the hypocracy of the goverment.

On the one hand HAM operators have to follow these rules yet on the other hand we are allowed to have these power digital amplifiers in the home throwing out how much RF?

Never mind that mobile phones come with a disclaimer and an instruction to hold that same mobile phone at leat 1.5 cm from your head.

And what about all this low level WiFi in the homes and around in the street etc.?

Do you know that some of those frequencies are the same as that microwave oven - one does not stick their head in that microwave oven yet these high frequencies are approved for general mobile phone use...duh!

(End rant)

FWIW: I used to work in the medical field and was a HAM operator before moving into IT as the result of health issues. I've seen brain scans that show how much the mobile RF travels into the head. I've had staff that were proud to have received a mobile phone, remember the Motorola bricks and the first Motorola flip hone? That side of the head would get warm if you used it for more than a few minutes. Had one staff member in support using it all the time but some years later he was unable to perform - basically early "burnt out" as they called it at the time. I call it "early dement due to brain damage", literally fried his neural pathways with his mobile phone.

Getting back to my health issue: I have regular blood tests since I have no immune system and rely on genetic modified medication to stay alive. And these bloodtest take a dive when I am exposed to WiFi, used a mobile phone for more than an emergency call. So our home has no WiFi, everything is hard wired.

And my optician says he has never seen so much retina damage in young adults since hte onset of mass use of smart phones.

Yet the general population is glued to their mobile phone, hmm no wonder there is no longer any common sense.

So why is this insedious pollution allowed while the government darn well knows the damage of RF and higher frequencies yet does absolutely zilch to stop the Telecoms and the computer industry shoving mobile phones and WiFi down everyones throat?

AM
AmadeusMozart is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2021, 1:29 pm   #43
Junk Box Nick
Octode
 
Junk Box Nick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: West Midlands, UK.
Posts: 1,571
Default Re: Licence revision from OFCOM.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AmadeusMozart View Post
So why is this insedious pollution allowed while the government darn well knows the damage of RF and higher frequencies yet does absolutely zilch to stop the Telecoms and the computer industry shoving mobile phones and WiFi down everyones throat?
I’d say it’s because it’s what keeps economies going.

I’ve had a mobile phone longer than most – over thirty years. I had the original Motorola ‘brick’ but as battery charge-life was so short and call costs both ways were expensive my exposure to RF was infrequent and short. I noticed about twenty years ago when I was now using a smaller higher frequency digital phone and use had become more frequent that I was getting mild headaches after a call and I invested in a headset. At home I use wired connections where I can though this is mainly down to other practical reasons. I do find some irony in the situation regarding my amateur licence that renders operation from home so constrained as to be barely viable, given that when I go to make a wi-fi connection it is clear I am assulted on all sides from multiple transmitters, but I am sanguine about it as compared to what I consider its heyday – the late 1960s to the early 1980s – amateur radio is a shadow of the shadow of what it once was.
Junk Box Nick is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2021, 2:09 pm   #44
GMB
Dekatron
 
GMB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: near Reading (and sometimes Torquay)
Posts: 3,086
Default Re: Licence revision from OFCOM.

The government knows what it reads in the ICNIRP reports. What other source of impartial and carefully researched RF safety information do you know of? Please give a reference to it.

There is loads of speculation of course and anecdotes too - but none of this seems to get turned into properly researched papers.

Comparing Wifi pollution with a microwave oven ignores the orders of magnitude difference in power levels for a radiation type that ICNIRP consider to be about heating effects.

And yet again I remind hams that there is no new requirements on safety. Only a requirement to document that you bothered to consider it.
GMB is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2021, 5:07 pm   #45
Restoration73
Nonode
 
Restoration73's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Surbiton, SW London, UK.
Posts: 2,801
Default Re: Licence revision from OFCOM.

Indeed it has been a requirement in the subject syllabus to be able to undertake volts/meter calculations to comply with both interference/immunity and also the former recommended Health Protection Agency limit of 20V/metre.
Restoration73 is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2021, 7:32 pm   #46
duncanlowe
Nonode
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: Stafford, Staffs. UK.
Posts: 2,529
Default Re: Licence revision from OFCOM.

Mmm. Interesting. Many years ago, when mobiles were starting to become popular, I was asked to attend a course run by the NRPB ( I have the certificate somewhere). They contended that there are two methods of interaction with the human body. That interaction depends on the frequency, and is split between ionising and non-ionising. Essentially the frequency determines that. Below the cutoff frequency there is not enough energy in the emissions to ionise anything no matter how much power, and there's simple physics behind that. They said, and I have no reason to believe otherwise, that below that frequency, there can be no direct chemical changes induced by the radiation. Once you go above that frequency, the radiation is capable of causing chemical changes because it can ionise matter (you). That said, when you are in the frequency range where ionisation doesn't (can't) occur there are still possible effects. Yes, absolutely, microwave ovens use a very similar frequency to WiFi and similar systems. They excite molecules so they vibrate, and in rubbing against each other the friction causes heating. And therein is the clue. For non-ionising radiation, any damage is caused by heating. And there CAN be damage caused this way. But the amount of power from a mobile, a WiFi router, a mobile base station and so on, can be calculated and shown not to do this. A microwave oven concentrates hundreds of watts of RF in a restricted cavity. Phones, WiFi, are using milliwatts. Mobile base stations use more but unless you climb the tower, and find a way of concentrating the whole power (20W?) in a tiny space, the exposure is similarly minuscule.

I have been a very early adopter of mobile phones. And I'm happy with the science that says they are safe. We are after all, about older technology, and I have quite a lot of my collection going on display in a couple of weeks time (anyone in Nuneaton look out for their 90's exhibition). That includes a 1990 Motorola, that isn't even GSM but analogue.
duncanlowe is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2021, 7:44 pm   #47
G6Tanuki
Dekatron
 
G6Tanuki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Wiltshire, UK.
Posts: 13,953
Default Re: Licence revision from OFCOM.

Pragmatically, I'm all in favour of the last-year or so of OFCOM 'reminding' us hams of our historic licence-conditions and the need to safeguard the rest-of-the-world from potential risks.

It's just that now they expect us to quantify the risks, document them, and record the exercise along with [where indicated] actions we've taken to reduce the risks to levels which correspond to current international legislation.

[Pragmatically, I've received quite a few RF burns over the years when my thumb has inadvertently become part of a transmitter-load; and once when dealing with a 10Kw induction-heater running at around 45KHz I felt the rims of my spectacles becoming significantly-warm!]

You can always put up a few of these MoD stickers around the place....
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	loiter.jpg
Views:	97
Size:	22.0 KB
ID:	237592  
G6Tanuki is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2021, 10:39 pm   #48
Cruisin Marine
Heptode
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: Worthing, West Sussex, UK.
Posts: 983
Default Re: Licence revision from OFCOM.

Whilst I can see both sides of this argument, it is for me anyway purely an argument of the way this code of practice is enforced or hope to be enforced.

I can fully understand that there is a need to submit levels for an exisiting and permanently installed antenna system, but the grey area that one has to worry about is the experimental antenna's we all try at times.

We all live in the real world and I cannot see Amateurs all filling in forms to satisfy criteria for short term experiments.
It is meant to be an experimental and Amateur hobby after all. Isn't it?

As always, common sense should prevail over civil servants and their ilk.
Cruisin Marine is offline  
Old 13th Jul 2021, 3:01 am   #49
AmadeusMozart
Triode
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Masterton New Zealand
Posts: 17
Default Re: Licence revision from OFCOM.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GMB View Post
The government knows what it reads in the ICNIRP reports. What other source of impartial and carefully researched RF safety information do you know of? Please give a reference to it.

I know from personal experience the problems - my ear would get warm on the side where I was using the mobile phone. My bloodcounts later in life proved it to me.

There are papers that chaps who wear a mobile phone on the same side of their belt have less calcium in the hip on that side.

There are people that move to aeras that are "RF free" because they get tremendous headaches.

It has been documented that people that use mobile phone have earlier dementia (cooked their neural pathways?).

Different viewpoints will always exist, we need only to look at the USA and the division there, all brought forward through the world wide communication and manipulation and that people will always seek the information that reinforces their own beliefs.

But I am not going to try to convince you otherwise, am not going into an argument. You may believe what you want to believe, we live in a free world. If it does not affect you then fine, peace upon you.

AM
AmadeusMozart is offline  
Old 13th Jul 2021, 11:52 am   #50
Junk Box Nick
Octode
 
Junk Box Nick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: West Midlands, UK.
Posts: 1,571
Default Re: Licence revision from OFCOM.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cruisin Marine View Post
I can fully understand that there is a need to submit levels for an exisiting and permanently installed antenna system, but the grey area that one has to worry about is the experimental antenna's we all try at times.

We all live in the real world and I cannot see Amateurs all filling in forms to satisfy criteria for short term experiments.
The irony of the form-filling is that the requirement to keep a log ceased years ago.

When I was very active on the bands (many years ago) a lot of my time was spent experimenting with antennas. I couldn't tell you with much accuracy what gain they were or their radiation patterns; I just tried them out on the air. What is predicted in theory and what happens in practice are two different things. I am a pure amateur – most people on this forum will have forgotten more than I have ever known – and perhaps now you need a professional qualification to take part in amateur radio! Or perhaps the reality is that my time has gone and like so many activities in the past we didn’t realise how dangerous they were. If only the neighbours who complained to my parents about my eyesore aerials had known about EMF!

I’ve never operated from my current QTH. The thought of setting up a station was something that occurred during lockdown. Although aware of EMF my biggest fear, given the proximity of neighbours, was being a potential source of interference so big power was already a no and the installation would have to be a stealthy one. Any HF antenna would be a compromise. However, given the band conditions, planning issues, S9 interference from household appliances, general lack of band activity reflecting a hobby that is in reality dying, perhaps it’s simply not worth the bother. Yet, for all that, my neighbours (and myself) probably face a far greater health risk from the nearby major route that is busy 24/7/365 than my activities.

However, we are becoming an increasingly regulated society and, as the current crisis demonstrates, the debate about how we live our lives and the risks we pose to others, and the constraints imposed as a result, will only increase. Amateur radio is only one of many activities that will come under increasing scrutiny.

Radio amateurs are, in the main these days, appliance operators so perhaps the time will come where use of antennas of approved design will become mandatory in most settings and experimentation left to those who have enough suitable real estate to be permitted to do so.
Junk Box Nick is offline  
Old 13th Jul 2021, 2:18 pm   #51
Radio Wrangler
Moderator
 
Radio Wrangler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Fife, Scotland, UK.
Posts: 22,801
Default Re: Licence revision from OFCOM.

A number of companies and learned institutions have investigated RF exposure, especially at the field strengths and frequency bands used by hand-held radios and the various formats of cellphones.

Some companies would prefer not to find any linkage, some interest groups would be very happy if they did, and hopefully the academics had a balanced view with no wish to achieve a particular outcome.

Various reports were published and I've read some of them. The overall conclusion is that there is no definite connection between RF fields at non-ionising frequencies and non-heating intensities. There is no proof that there isn't, but there is experimental proof that if there is, it is lost in the randomness of general life.

For a long time the west relied on a simple heating model and set a max level of 10mW/sq cm. Rumours out of the Soviet Union were that they had set somewhat lower levels. We never found out why at the time, later we heard it was just playing safe and they'd picked a different factor to us.

So my take on it is that we can't prove there are no risks, but the amount of exposure to say habitual phone users and the amount of various cancers etc doesn't show any noticeable correlation. So, I'm not worried. The risks I see are electric shock or heating related.

I got asked by the part of the Scottish Education authorities which handle approving lab equipment if I could provide some gear for a pupil doing a science project, to measure the emanations from a mast on top of their multi-storey school. At the time Agilent was getting towards the end of a new product development of a portable base-station tester for GSM, but had cancelled the project right at the end. We had prototypes running, but were going to get scrapped at some point. So I organised a loan. Thinking of a multimillion pound development leaving only three boxes to show for it all makes these rather expensive boxes. Production ones wouldn't have been cheap, but these had cost millions each. The headmaster was dead worried about liability given how expensive they looked. I explained that if they phoned me to say it had been dropped off the roof, my first response would have been 'Is everyone alright?' followed closely by "Do you want to borrow another one?"

I sketched antennae they could make and what the antenna factors would roughly be. But the teachers could tell I was on the verge of laughing and they asked why. I suggested they also tried measuring the field from their own phone at the surface of their skull when using it, and compared this to what they got from the tower in their classrooms and grounds. Asked why, I just said "Let it be a surprise" and left it at that.

So the sixth former had the proper machine to characterise carrier group powers, pulse timing and everything. We'd disabled the signal generation side of it, otherwise the thing would have set up a conversation with the base station and exercised it.

The business of field regs getting applied to amateurs is not a UK thing, it's pretty much worldwide, and it's been applied to broadcasters cell operators etc for quite some time.

It is a loophole being closed. But the actual acceptance level isn't on any solid foundation. Do you have to do it? Yes Does it matter? Probably not. But we still have to do it.

Measurement of antenna characteristics is notoriously inaccurate. Add in real life situations, other things nearby, ground conditions and you've got to wildly inaccurate.

So, do the spreadsheet for a frequency in each band and you've ticked the regulatory boxes and made them happy. Don't worry about it not really doing anything useful.

David
__________________
Can't afford the volcanic island yet, but the plans for my monorail and the goons' uniforms are done
Radio Wrangler is online now  
Old 13th Jul 2021, 2:53 pm   #52
GMB
Dekatron
 
GMB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: near Reading (and sometimes Torquay)
Posts: 3,086
Default Re: Licence revision from OFCOM.

And to highlight how anecdotal reports of RF affecting people are, let us not forget the several occasions where a mobile tower was built but where commissioning got delayed for some reason - but in spite of not being powered many people reported all kinds of effects that they attributed to the tower's radiation.

This is why anecdotes just muddy the waters.
GMB is offline  
Old 14th Jul 2021, 11:14 pm   #53
AmadeusMozart
Triode
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Masterton New Zealand
Posts: 17
Default Re: Licence revision from OFCOM.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GMB View Post
And to highlight how anecdotal reports of RF affecting people are, let us not forget the several occasions where a mobile tower was built but where commissioning got delayed for some reason - but in spite of not being powered many people reported all kinds of effects that they attributed to the tower's radiation.

This is why anecdotes just muddy the waters.
Thank you very much for insinuating that what I have relayed is just imagination.

Bloodtest are facts and so are bone density scans.

Before I changed careers I worked in the medical world and had lots to do with this subject, it was a part of my profession.

It is a known fact that some people are more sensitive than others, it is not unlike the Covid: Just because not everyone dies from it should we then abandon all precautions?

As I mentioned before, believe what you want to believe but I trust personally experienced facts.

Peace
AM
AmadeusMozart is offline  
Old 15th Jul 2021, 8:40 am   #54
Paul Stenning
Administrator
 
Paul Stenning's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Cardiff
Posts: 9,060
Default Re: Licence revision from OFCOM.

This thread is starting to become unpleasant (as well as pushing the boundaries of the forum Covid rules) so it's time to revoke its license.
__________________

Paul Stenning
Forum Admin/Owner and BVWS Webmaster
Paul Stenning is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 7:37 am.


All information and advice on this forum is subject to the WARNING AND DISCLAIMER located at https://www.vintage-radio.net/rules.html.
Failure to heed this warning may result in death or serious injury to yourself and/or others.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright ©2002 - 2023, Paul Stenning.