Ask Michael, KB9VBR: FCC now REQUIRES amateurs to perform antenna RF exposure calculations
Вставка
- Опубліковано 20 сер 2024
- On May 3rd 2023, After a two year waiting period, the FCC's rules regarding RF exposure calculations and surveys now are in effect. Here's what you need to know, as an amateur radio operator, to be in compliance.
RF Exposure Safety: www.arrl.org/r...
RF exposure calculator: arrl.org/rf-exp...
OET Bulletin 65: RF Safety: transition.fcc...
Like what you see? You can leave me a tip:
www.paypal.me/...
KB9VBR VHF/UHF Antennas:
www.jpole-anten...
Become a patron! Unlock exclusive content at: / kb9vbrantennas
Support Ham Radio Q&A by shopping at Amazon: amzn.to/2kO6LH7
My Parks on the Air setup:
Transceiver: amzn.to/3lmHoei
Battery: amzn.to/3xBGgbv
Tuner: amzn.to/2ZCNM9l
Folding Table: amzn.to/3xFIp5Z
Throw Weight: amzn.to/32QW2nB
Video Production Equipment:
Camera amzn.to/32UaXNX
Lens amzn.to/31mmDrX
Wireless Microphone: amzn.to/3xFVBb4
Microphone: amzn.to/3daoAdq
GoPro: amzn.to/3pkmP30
Music by license:
www.premiumbeat...
www.soundstripe...
As an Amazon Associate, I earn from qualifying purchases
Contact Information:
Questions, comments, or business inquiries may be directed to kb9vbr@jpole-antenna.com. If you wish for your product to be featured on my channel, please contact me.
#Hamradio #AmateurRadio #POTA #ParksOnTheAir #PortableHamRadio #FCC #RFexposure #RFcalculations #arrl
The comments have seem to go off the rails a bit. I'm not going to delete anything but instead respond categorically.
1. Get over it! You need to get outside and take a breath of fresh air. There isn't a vast conspiracy to track you down and take away your radios.
2. Rules concerning RF exposure have been in effect since the early 2000's. This information is on the Technician license exam. You need to know and care about this stuff if you wish to be a safe operator. The only thing that has changed is that the FCC no longer categorically exempts amateur radio operators from doing an evaluation.
3. The time it takes to do an evaluation is short, you spend more time whining and complaining about 'intrusion' than doing the actual survey.
4. Is the ARRL's RF calculator perfect? Not by any means. But it will get you to where you need to be. Make an estimation and stop over thinking the whole process.
5. Are there risks involved with other radio services? Yes there are. This video pertains to the amateur radio service and I'm not going to engage in 'whataboutism' as a justification to not having to do the evaluation.
6. Finally, conduct yourself over-the-air, online, and in person according to the Amateur's Code: www.jpole-antenna.com/about-2/the-amateurs-code/
if you don't want to hear comments than get off the internet. Why post chit and than get chitty about it because you don't appreciate the comments. You get over it.
You can't come into my house and poop on the floor, nor will you pollute my comments. If you want to have a cogent, civil discussion, I welcome that. Otherwise get lost.
I appreciate your spirit, but not your ignorance. You are correct. There is no "conspiracy" to track you, to monitor everything you say and do. They are doing it in the open. Anyone that cannot see this from the sheer facts, such as Snowden, and even what has happened to a former sitting president, is just stupid. The facts go on and on. So, not a conspiracy, this is true - but it was once and that cannot be denied except by ostriches.
@@KB9VBRAntennas I understand what you're saying but devil's advocate, you are renting this "house". "house" cause the platform + servers are owned by Google and frequented by the global public. Same can even be said of a blog if using a web host provider that owns the servers. Not here to cause trouble but thats just being realistic of the internet. A place where even AI and farmed accounts exist. Theres a reason why people have rolled their eyes at the UA-cam comments. Don't let it get to you. Cheers.
You're getting to be a cranky Elmer KB9VBR. AN Elmer FUDD...Stick-in-the-mud attitudes are what tick off potential new hams and actually are driving some of us older, less "nerdy nerd" hams away as well. We've got too many DEAD and UNUSED repeators that we better find something to talk about and USE. If some of mine don't start getting busy, I'm making a list, checking it twice, and am going to challenge in writing, thru my Senators and Congressmen the ownership of each and every one of the FIFTY FIVE, almost totally silent ones in my area.
USE it or LOSE IT!
AND sit down and SHUT UP for a second!. The Gov't is trying to gun-grab everything they can right now from everyone. What makes you believe, RADIO COMMUNICATIONS are immune. We certainly aren't. The ARRL, which actually hasn't done anything much lately of consequence to HELP us has ALL our information in a convenient little data base for whomever to come around and collect our equipment.
It makes one almost believe...Let me buy the stuff and hold on to it without being licensed so when the excrement hits the fan, they'll have to hunt me down.
BTW, your Wisconsin accent and liberal condescension gets quite annoying when your voice goes up. Atleast to our Freedom-Loving Southern Ears. BOOM, I insulted you. GOOD!. You and all the other "Elmer Fudds" deserve that and MORE! If you were actually useful, you'd STOP with all the digital crap and get back to telling PEEPS to buckle down and learn that CW...Learn that CW "well". Ham radio has made itself not only irrelevant in Skywarn type emergencies BUT is a major annoyance to licensed pilots and the FAA. Atleast with nasty ole' 11m and frequency limited GMRS, I get actual information of problems up ahead I can use!
AND don't get smart with me. RESPECT not only your ELDERS but your BETTERS!😅😅😅
I've often wondered about this, I was a ship's radio officer in a previous life and met a few guys close to retirement who had done the job all of their working lives, and without exception they were a bit bonkers, definitely not normal. A typical ship's radio installation in those days didn't use coaxial transmission lines, the antenna connection was a copper pipe attached directly to the transmitter and often passed directly over the operator's head to an exit point on the other side of the room suspended by ceiling mounted insulators, we'd be running about 1.5kw on H/F, indeed, if I'd run out of matches I used to use to be able to stand up and draw an arc off it with an insulated screwdriver to set fire to a telegram form and use it to light my cigarette !! I know that cigarette smoking is bad for one's health but being engulfed in all that R/F probably wasn't beneficial either?
I heard smoking is what killed my 98 yr old neighbor....:)
Hello Rhoda, I was a 3rd engineer in the '80s. I noticed that sparks was a bit odd, but I attribute that to the empty Dewars bottle that he tossed out his porthole every other day, JK hihi. I always enjoyed listening to the marine traffic in his radio room. BTW, I was port engineer aboard the nuclear ship savannah and started K3SAV. The team will activate for museum ships weekend.
@@FightUni09 Yes, it's the R/F contamination that made us do things like that 🤣😂
I think most started out bonkers and got progressively worse
Five cv-19 shots plus a booster will do it.
I will have to talk to the cattle about this. Now the dog is mad at me because I didn’t tell him.
Haha! Lol. You should hear what the chicken said! 😁
Those poor birds and insects sitting on my antanna :(
Ridiculous that a government agency that is mostly concerned with selling spectrum to cell carriers and not enforcing existing regulations, even bothers with worrying with hams RF exposure.
The begining of the end for ham having a ham radio system in an urban settings.
New regulations and fees incoming
Big brother incoming.
True. I wonder what the FCC is doing about all those 1500 Watt CB stations and amped-up mobile CB rigs? Are they calculating their RF to meet regs? Yeah, right. Which installation is more likely to be dumping heavy RF all around.
Spot on, thank you, I was gonna say that.
Michael this was excellent information. Dave was great with the examples he provided. Well done !
This was helpful. Thank you. The ARRL's calculator makes this easy. For those who have the room, just enter the worst case in every field and if you can meet the distance you're all set for any other operating condition. It's really not that big of a deal. However, for those in a densely populated area, you'll have to sharpen you pencil and I understand it could be challenging and problematic.
I would like very much to see the supportive data showing that our exposure from Ham Radio operations is a leading cause of anything adverse.
I don;t think they are claiming that there are any adverse effects from ham radio operation. Also in todays world where the general public is terrified of any type of "radiation", regardless of whether its cell phone radiation, powerline radiation, atomic radiation, ham radio radiation, etc you are more likely to be confronted by "concerned neighbors" that are convinced your radio station is harming them. Performing and complying with the rf exposure evaluation can actually be beneficial on your behalf in supporting the premise that you are not a risk. I get it, I don't like more government oversight, particularly with regards to a hobby. For example the FAA coming down on model aviation despite its good safety record. However, if this case the exposure evaluation may be a benefit as opposed to a loss of freedoms.
Fantastic! I was the RTO for my platoon. I always used a PRC77, that was a FM transceiver at 20 watts. It was kept in my Ranger Ruck with the antenna folded to reduce height or fully extended. I did that for 5 years! Well that explains a lot!
Thank you for the program gentlemen.
73 de KB0WZH
Gentlemen, thank you for a great comprehensive report that takes the guess work out of the new regs. EMF has always been a concern for me when I use my Yaesu 101EE or G90. I primarily use a 134 foot end feed with a homemade 49:1, about 65ft up a tree on 2 acres, so I bought a field strength meter the Meterk EMF Tester MK08 and use it to read Micro Teslas (non ionizing) radiation. The meter came with a factory alarm setting at 0.40 uT Micro Teslas (non Ionizing) radiation and has been a big help keeping things safe.
I checked my 7S android cell phone one day and to my surprise it over ranged the meter, that would be >199.99 uT. I reported it to my ATT carrier who said they would check but have had no response. My wifes Iphone was 1.5 uT so I decided to switch to an Iphone but had the same problem as before. I just purchased a new Android S22 recently and it still over ranges the meter at times. I no longer hold the phone and warn others to have their phone tested before use. Not sure what's going on with some of our phones but there's a hidden danger that needs to be addressed. 73 KG5UWJ
Imagine police and law enforcement antenna RF exposure calculations! It would be off the charts!
I wouldn’t worry about it too much unless you’re standing right near by the antenna and putting out some serious wattage.
On most HT's, isn't it the case where you become part of the antenna unless you have added a "rat tail" counterpoise? If so, how does that factor in for exposure?
I operate exclusively QRP at 10 watts, the calculations I ended up with was something like a minimum safe distance from the antenna of three inches. I think I can accommodate that.
At least the FCC reduced the complexity of the calculation formula. The old formula was tough to figure out.
Had one person ask about the RF exposure one time in a park. Told him I will gladly give you the number that the calculator spits out, but neither of us will understand. Short answer is you need to hold or kiss the antenna to suffer any problems. He said ok, thanks and went about his business.
just as a afterthought, this rf calculator is already in force here in the UK for amateur radio, and as another afterthought, back in the day when Radio Caroline was broadcasting using 2 phased 25kw linears and a 160m full size vertical ship mounted antenna(officially the worlds largest floating antenna), at night time when the crew used to go onto the deck they would carry a floresent tube, which would light up without any cables, such was the amount of stray rf floating about, in fact the DJ of the time Johnny walker is on film talking about it, my setup 100w ft8 on a beam 11m in the air or 80m sloper 10m @ its highest and 6 feet at its lowest, if someone want to climb up my tower and get a rf burn, they should not be there in the first place and there a burglar :) :), also checking that calculator theres nothing for ft8 (except rtty 100% duty), and no ability to drop below 1 minute tx or rx, but according to that calculator safe distance on 10.136 mhz is just under 4 feet with 10 db of antenna gain :)
Even though 100W seems low, I understand that the immediate vicinity of some of those compact transmitting loops that are sold for portable or indoor use has a very intense RF field. So stay clear of those when using. Maybe not so much at QRP.
I don't have one of them thar loops, I'm nowhere NEAR my antenna, and thus will ignore this.
@@silasmarner7586 I want to see some of the forms filled out by the channel 6 denisons, like BBI, Prime Minister, Motormouth Maul, and so on. I don't transmit enough or with over 100 watts to worry about this.
THANK YOU, Michael. I didn't think this was going to be this easy. Now I can tell my neighbors that the 40m dipole won't hurt them as long as they stay at least 7 inches away.... because … SCIENCE !
Thank you.
Did the calculations, printed them out, then filed them.
There was not an exposure problem for my station as configured.
If I change something, simply rerun the calculations. N0QFT
Do you have multiple antennas, operate multiple bands at multiple power levels? In other words did you have to do several calculations?
Do the calculations for each antenna on each band. Do it for the worst case scenario: highest power level and duty cycle. Everything else will fall under that.
What medical evidence of RF exposure incidents and direct problems were used to support this new regulation?
They don’t need a reason to introduce new regulations
@@tonyd6884 My point, precisely. Oy vey
The same evidence that masks, social distancing, and vaccines were effective against the coof...🤠
Supportive data? What? There probably is none…
There in with the vaccine evidence.
Very easy to use tool. I printed out sheets for 80, 10, 2 mtrs at 60 watts on vertical, and 60 watts on 10 element beam, and 2 mtrs on 4 watt HT. I will staple those together and hang them on the wall by my license. Thanks for the review. Seven Three - K4KID
Simple a EFHW 63 ft long at 100 watts with a 35 foot mast, is 1.7 feet. Im good. 😎
I have installed antennas with one foot positioned on a 10 KW commercial FM antenna and the tower while installing an antenna just above . Have never experienced any type of issues. I am 75 years old now and have very good health, BP, kidney, liver functions etc. Just saying. BTW, I enjoy your channel and comments.
RF exposure can cause serious and frequent weather reporting on the ham bands.
Just went through it for my station and I am relieved to say that any visitors to my property are safe, as long as they do not get closer to my antenna than "Minimum Safe Distance (feet): 0.3819" from my antenna that is 30' high. I do not think my 50W station is who they are after. But I did fulfill my legal requirement for my station to be an upstanding ham operator.
Good example Paul.
I was studying for my general exam but after hearing about doing all this I think that I don't want to. It sees like too much hassle just to enjoy a hobby !
Operating your station in a safe manner shouldn't be seen as a hassle.
I agree safety should always be Priority One all I was trying to say is it just seems overwhelming with all the amount of things that one has to keep up with. Thanks for the video I enjoy your Channel!
With the calculator, if you switch to AFSK from voice SSB, remember that you also likely use much less power. I, er, a friend forgot to change the 90w to 15w and the distances were several feet. Ahem.😁
Thank you very much for the video and your always great videos.
Did mine already. Simple. In the station log. Done ✅ Thanks!
So how did you do this? Did you do one for every combination of bands, power levels and multiple antennas you operate on routinely?
@@mssippijim I did the upper HF bands with the highest exposure values for 20-40-60-100 watts. Everything else is less. My mobile HF 60&100w 10m.
@@MisterBigDave Thanks. That's kind of the approach I came up with. I've done about four with "worse than worst case" scenarios for each mode, so I think I'm good to go. What a waste of government resources.
My typical station HF use is 15-20 watts in my house on a dipole, my truck is 60 on a stick, my qrp is 5-6 watts on a wire. I’m not going to make any big deal out of this. It’s over and filed in my log book. Back to coffee and fishing 🎣
@@MisterBigDave Wouldn't it be cool if they gave us a "fishing" calculator to tell us when to fish?
I live in a townhouse which precludes having a practical outside antenna. My neighbors know that I'm an amateur radio operator and are aware that I have a wire antenna (zig-zagged 132' OCFD) and VHF/UHF antenna in my attic space. Showing them the calculations last summer went a long way toward easing their concerns.
Nice walkthrough, and a good tool to have.
Good video, subject well-presented. Thx. IMHO, a severe lack of FCC issue and spending prioritization.
My wife is “aware” of my radio activities but it’s still an uncontrolled environment.
It never ceases to amaze me how some hams find new ways to make this hobby less enjoyable or keep away newbies.
I’d bet dollars to donuts that the typical amateur’s RF exposure risk is absolutely minuscule compared to his other daily habits (smoking, drinking, eating, lack of exercise, etc…).
This will, like most other things, never be enforced. I am far more concerned with the intentional interference going on on the airwaves today, than notifying someone that, if they come within 3" of my antenna, there is a snowballs chance in hell that they MIGHT get some radiation exposure. Albeit, less than using a cell phone, but still.
when the FCC starts going after those people intentionally interfering with POTA, then we can talk business. Until then, please keep 3" from my QRP antenna!!!
Agreed. The fastest you'll ever see the FCC move is if you QRM a commercial freq. Then the black helicopters will hover over your QTH Pronto.
Im no expert on radiology and tech stuff but i think I have been in the hobby, 40 or so years, and I know anytime you transmit a signal,are you already generating r.f.?
I guess it is what it is... Government involved in our personal lifes way too much,but anyway,all be vigilant and responsible and respectful,but stand up and speak out about our freedom and the privacy of our lives.
Peace and Blessings...💯👍🙏
This has nothing to do with your "freedom" or your "privacy". That said, I hope you find the "peace of a campfire every day."
I just did mine, a Vertical with radials, pushing 200 watts (176.893 watts after LRM400 loss 75 feet) and between 1.8MHz and 50MHz the WORST is under 4 feet. Pretty much negligible.
As far as the mobile calculations, don't forget to SUBTRACT the fact that you have some solid steel between you and your antenna.
If it is roof mounted, that is true. If it is mounted on your trunk lid, or front fender, you have nothing that attenuates the RF between you and the antenna. All of my mobile antennas are roof mounted. Three on each vehicle.
But attenuated how much? There is nothing in the calculator to adjust for it.
very interesting regardless of fcc rules. How about cell phones? My wife has a phone next to her head all day. Would like to see the results of that. It might explain a lot.
Calculate it at 1/10 of a watt... at GHZ frequencies.
should help Hams to prove they need a tall mast/Tower. Get the radiating element further away from the general public and household ,giving extra safety factor the higher you go.👍👍This will be one factor presented to my local council when I apply for a 20m(66ft) Mast Development Application. Currently allowed 10m mast /tower and a total of 3 exterior antennas without Council approval. Just did the calculations for 144mhz 400w (Max in Australia) 10dbi gain . 5min tx FM 5min RX. Needs to be 14 m in uncontrolled environment. The Neighbours on one side are slightly up hill by a few M so need to get the antenna above Them . If the council refuses then they are not allowing a safe environment for my licenced Radio Transmissions. Similar rules here in Australia , once 100w is used from memory you must calculate RF Exposure. Was also curious about cell ph pwr and freqs... So did 3w(cell ph with weak signal to cell tower pwr) at 750Mhz ( Telstra 4g In Australia) 5min tx 100% Duty cycle Controlled distance 0.143m 0.468 ft OMG. Speaker phone only it seems.
OMG, are we still on this RF is SCARY thing brought about by people who have no understanding of physics or science, yet have loud screaming voices of alarm about every damn thing? smh.
I recently spent 50$ helping a dear friend carefully 'deal' with her dicey, high risk female tenant, who announced one day that she's having a terrible time sleeping, because she's 'seeing electrons and electricity as bolts of lightning and sparks when she closes her eyes, and feel them shocking her internally.' She blamed the building electrical runs, outlets, light switches, etc.
My friend was afraid of being sued, so she asked me to do something. I ordered some faraday shield metallic cloth, and covered the tenants headboard and frame with it, and suggested to the tenant that she rotate her bed 90 degrees away from N/S orientation, because the Earth's magnetic field can amplify EMF energy levels in people.
She had me move it.
A week later, I checked in... She was elated that now she could finally sleep, and thanked me profusely for my intellect and abilities to fix the problem.
Yep. Really happened. Thanks to rabid social media nutjobs ever screaming about the sky falling, 5G cancer, etc...
We circle ever closer, back to mysticism. It concerns me.
Saw vids on UA-cam. Grounded shields sheets for beds and other personal grounding schemes is a real thing, cultlike ideas.
They're called Sheep.
Don;t forget 5G and a certain virus...LOL 🤣😂
I am less than personally concerned though, at a 100W power level. At one time we were advised that HF frequencies and below pretty much passed thru you without any absorption at all plus your body is a small portion of a wavelength down there. The only notable threat I think is maybe RF burns or zaps from touching a transmitting antenna!
I'll get right on that
Done my calculations and printed. I wonder how that would apply on mobile stations or SOTA/POTA events. Thank you for the video, I enjoyed watching it. 73
I did a basic 'worst case' calculation for my POTA antennas. Their location doesn't really matter, just the exposure limit based on power output, gain, and duty cycle.
So much RF power generated....
So few dead radio operators.
When the first FCC enforcement person comes to me and proves to me I have a problem running simple 25 watts or less they will have my license balled up and tossed at their feet.
Poor attitude Ronny. A serious ham should want to thoroughly understand his/her equipment. Plus balling up your license would not clear you from failure to follow the regulations. Seven Three.
@@SKYGUY1 Wow you missed the point entirely. My point was clear that I run QRP or maybe just a little bit more. I have always had no issue with keeping my antennas well out of harm. Sorry you feel this way but I won't bother replying anymore. You can't be confused with facts I see.
I'm seeing this as a positive. It is simple to prove amateur radio poses no threat to the neighbors. I haven't done calcs on 1500 watt setups, but given that most folks transmitting with that kind of power will have the antenna as high as they can, the inverse square law takes care of exposure risks. Why I see it as a positive is that I have a gut feeling that this new reg is there to create data in support of HR 9670.
I'm outputting 100W max. I shan't be doing this.
Great video, guys - thanks!!
No offense gentlemen, to the effort you took to make this video and inform the unwitting public …
But this whole thing takes known data, crunches it, spits out un-scientific “facts” and basically tells you, either:
A- You should not allow yourself or your neighbor closer than a few inches of your antenna, which is likely mounted on a pole, tower, or in the attic if you’re an HOA dweller. It would take a valiant effort to actually do that and the risk of death from falling off the ladder or roof is MUCH more likely than that of RF exposure.
Or…
B-Enter different numbers and it spits out and official-looking “results” which are subject to inspection by a federal agency at their request. And for the V/U bands, it produces “results” which are instantly directing us to abandon the hobby as we are all automatically in violation if we operate a base, mobile, or HT. and subject to potentially harming our head or genitalia.
We’re grown men and can use our words. After all, they are science words, just like this science project.
I golf-clap the ARRL for creating the Compliance Calculator. I give a Standing Ovation to them for convincing me beyond a shadow of a doubt I will never join because their position should have been to stand in opposition to this foolishness and protect its members from even needing to watch a video on the topic. (Which again, great job you two, you’re trying harder than the ARRL on a daily basis).
I am also a GMRS licensee (gasp!). I don’t have to do this with that service, and my body tissues are in even greater risk at the 462/467mhz range.
"a few inches?"
step away from my car or I’m gonna key the mic!
Here's my thoughts and I hardly speak out. Cell phones have been show to be over the limit along with towers. I really don't care for the FCC coming in and saying we have to do this. Most of it is common sense. I try to speak logically and not out of emotions though. We live in a different age. Instead of complaining, here are the benefits (and keep in mind I find all of this tedious and a pain in the arse even if it only took 5 minutes to do): We live in the age of Kens and Karens (my apologies if you an operator named Ken or Karen) who like nothing more than to cause issues.
I printed these into a PDF file, loaded them to my google drive, and have them on my field tablet and my phone. If you run into that busy body that likes to call people, let them show up, show them your exposure calculations, explain to them and be a proper ambassador to Ham Radio. Whoever they called can go over and explain to the Ken or Karen and deal with the issue and go about your business. In the days of POTA and SOTA (probably less of an issue with SOTA) more people are seeing what we do and asking questions. I'm sure the question might come up and now you have a visual on hand to explain.
Yes it's a pain but in reality I figured worst case scenario, highest power of each radio, the band I'm using, 100% duty cycle and proper gain of my antennas. It took 5 minutes. I don't like it more than any of you do, for most of us it's about principle. At the same time there is an aspect of these requirements that have a chance of making things easier out in the field. That's just my 2 cents for what it's worth. WIth inflation that isn't much. I don't expect anyone else to look at it the way I do. Just giving my thoughts.
I met guys in the Navy that told me that they had stood to close to the radar and melted a chocolate bar in their pocket. I heard stories about people warming their hands in the beam and heating hot dogs. These were older guys and this was a long time ago. It gave me the impression that you would feel it if you absorbed too much RF. It seems like it would be very painful past a limit. As far as cancer from it I have no idea. Who is going to use thousands of watts at gigahertz frequencies and stand in front of it though? Inside a car the roof is a metal shield, like a microwave only wavelengths smaller than the window will enter or exit. I wouldn't even consider it an issue unless you worked at a radio station putting out hundreds of thousands of watts.
Passing birds in front of Track radar used to drop dead (seagulls) haze gray and underway, painting targets for homing missiles like SM1 (mk52) and would be megawatts. My system, Phalanx mk15 CIWS, was much, much, more and everything about it was lethal to all life, thus the strobes and other standoff zones. Funny thing we still had back radiation so strong it shut down civilian radar so it was not operated at Great Lakes. Fun times. FC2 USN.
Feds and state get a pass on radiating us during drone and ground penetrating satellites far above. Lol 😮
@@super66craig Was that megawatts in bursts or continuous? For a satellite to do anything in that range it would have to be for a short amount of time, I am guessing, not sure you are saying satellites go that high like the CIWS.
RADAR uses very short pulses at gigawatt ERP.
The most powerful broadcast radio station in the US is a class C FM with an ERP of 100,000 watts.
"Who is going to use thousands of watts at gigahertz frequencies"
In the past I would probably be crazy enough to it provided I had the equipment required.
"and stand in front of it though?"
Yet I still would not have stood in front of or right next to it.
@@billfargo9616 That may be true for FM but some TV stations are 1MW (mega, not milli) ERP, I know also there is a 1MW FM tower but technically it's a bunch of FM station each combined to a single antenna.
OK this week I went to ARRL to use their calculator. With barefoot HF radios I am safe with SSB and CW outside of about 5 feet from my vertical, worst case they showed. And that is at 29 MHz. Lower bands are even alot closer. Close enough to touch it and get burned! I even disregarded feedline loss too.
My ham license is current but I haven't transmitted in years and don't currently have a radio connected to an antenna. Well. I have a CB in my car. Unmodified. If somebody can be harmed by 4 watts, it's more likely to be from poking their eye out on the antenna than from RF burns.
It’s well past time we did this, but I feel it should be an advisory not a requirement. If the individual wants to accept the risk to themselves, that’s fine. Most amateurs are going to be well within compliance where it comes to 3rd party exposure by default on all bands due to simply having roofline or above antennas
I would think for a HF station you would only need to do the calculation for 10 meters which would be the worst case scenario. I am on an acreage my antenna is 15 feet high a lowest point and 50 feet at the lowest an the tower is 120ft from the house and probably 400 ft from any neighbor. My calculation for my 500 watt SSB station is about 4 feet. So I think the whole thing for my case is kind of silly. 73 W5HJ
It’s pretty silly for most of us.
just did mine 40m to 70cm printed for log . Not a big deal .
Did the FCC endorse the ARRL methodology?
I see that the ARRL calculator has a note on it "This calculator should not be used for antennas that are less than 20 cm (8 in) from a person". I guess that means you can not use it for any handheld radios.
I lived on the 11th floor of an 11-story high-rise and above my head were 24 high-power cellular towers had 800 megahertz 900 MHz 1.8 GHz, and 2.3 GHz antennas
My RF field strength meter was pegged off-scale every second of every day
The antennas were licensed for 120 Watts
I would estimate the ERP was over 180 Watts
These microwave signals we're not regulated in any way
Every cellular company used the roof of my apartment
We really need to get together and demand the FCC remove all antennas from residential buildings
Cell towers transmit at 3 watts max.
The ERP emitted from the directional cell tower antenna array is WAY more than 3 watts, but the immediate proximity of your 2 or 3 watt cell phone immediately adjacent to your head is a far more concerning exposure risk.
KZ9V
What if your antenna is a random wire that zig-zags here & there? You don't know the gain or the pattern.
I would call it no gain at all, omni directional
I always worry / or take into consideration RF exposing with my ft-891 man pack .
And people say that groups complaining about 5 ghz Smart meters are crazy for complaining about these transmitters attached to their houses. Nice. FCC just gave grounds for suits against the power companies.
Many of the same people who are railing against 2 - 5 ghz are the same people who want seamless wireless connectivity everywhere. They don't want to have to answer the door and let the meter reader in as we did in the old days. They want this total networked connected world where they can communicate with their toaster from around the world, yet they don't want the very technology that will make it possible.
With high speed Internet conceivably there could be a data link that allows remote antenna access. IE Commonly shared antennas that would be safe where the actual broadcasting equipment is off site.
To be consistent, the FCC will probably apply this to GMRS users as well. Being that GMRS is UHF and that it's licensed.
Cellular is also UHF so be waiting for the FCC to be testing and seizing non-compliant smartphones.
@@billfargo9616 LOL
Thanks, did not know this. Won't be a problem for me.
And who is going to come around to verify the calculations?
I wonder how many linear amplifiers will end up on flebay.
I am using a J-Pole designed for the 11meter band, commonly talking on 27.3850Mhz according to my RF Power at Antenna (not listing my power output) but according to this calculator people must stay away by 16feet Which where my antenna is located No one can get to it and it has a natural barrier of 25 feet. so seems I am in compliance
Hang on. Can't get a good read on my field meter. A Subaru just drove by a mile away and wiped it out...
As popular as EFHW and EFRW antennas are with many of us, the lack of that antenna being listed in the need help with gain page makes the calculator not so useful.
Does anyone have any gain numbers we can use? Seems my GoogleFu isn't finding anything.
Probably not much better than a dipole, use 3 dB. Use 6dB as a worst case.
The last amateur enforcement action that I could find was four years ago. Good to be safe but realistically this is not gibing to be enforced.
The Sun releases more RF than all radios will ever on humans
The universe showers us with gamma radiation that dwarf anything the sun can offer.
The 60 or so miles of atmosphere surrounding Earth does attenuate a great deal of that RF though.
@@SKYGUY1 It does indeed, but the radiation that does make it through is still more than all the ham radios combined. The universe also splatters us with plenty of ionizing radiaton that can cause DNA mutations. I've come across more hams with skin cancers and skin conditions due to strong sun exposure than from their radios.
I thought this would happen in the uk Ofcomm introduced them this year unless you run a lot of power in a small area i dont see why you need them but that the rules now and at least we are getting more power next year which is probably why
Ya know what? I think the bigger issue is that many of you run more power than you are legally allowed to.
Think not? You are allowed 1500W ERP. Not TPO. So if you run 1500W TPO into a 4 element cubical quad with a gain 12, you are actually transmitting 24KW ERP.
Think about it.
Been a Ham radio requirement in UK for about 1 year ITU started this nonsense to comply The International Telecommunication Union 73
I always tune for maximum smoke, and when my metal plate warms up in my head I back off a touch. Is that bad??
As long as your plate isn't bimetal. Otherwise warping may occur, which could be painful.
such a flat head
Let’s see. The FCC can’t police CB, Businesses, or GMRS, but wants me to do this none sense. And will the police, fire and other services be doing this too. I don’t think so. And why are you worried about this. Been a ham for decades and none have of this has has ever effected anyone I know. The compliance part s doing this none sense, not n operating with these minimums. Liberal none sense.
Now, while I will never advocate breaking the rules, my issue is this...
Okay, they have new required examination...
And "who" exactly will they get to perform these examinations? Us ham radio operators? We're suppose to be self-policing, anyway.
What about the "outlaws" who already operate ham radios out of frequency? I doubt they will "self examine?"
Or will the already under-manned and under-financed omnipotent, omniscient FCC come knocking to violate the 4th amendment or do they expect us to (5th amendment) self-incriminate? And, yes, I do consider it violations of the 4th amendment to have to have an open door policy for the FCC. No US government agency should supersede the Constitution. That is why they make warrants, if the need arises.
No, I imagine this will go over about as well as their letter to licensed law-abiding ham radio operators to not commit crimes using their ham radios.
Ok, Mr. FCC officer...I don't need directives...Yes, sir, I won't eat yellow snow and will look both ways before crossing the street. LOL...
Just like going after law abiding gun owners for the crimes of others. They always focus on what the problem isn't!
@Eric Mattinen Exactly. It's the law-abiding citizen that government attacks. It's all about control and eventual depopulation.
It’s good someone mad a video on this . I think deep down a lot people want to ignore rf exposure.Great content
Why doesn't the FCC make the amateur licenses lifetime term like the GROL?
I only have 50 w Yaesu FT-7800 mobile with dual-band magmount on a small outside ground plane and a couple HTs. No HF at all.
Then calculate for VHF or UHF or both.
But, what is to be done with the test results?
What about the military? They Should NOT BE EXEMPT FROM THESE REGULATIONS. I DONT HAVE ANY BASE ANTENNAS. SIMPLY BECAUSE I DONT HAVE A RESIDENCE IN THE STATES. I RENT but I work mobile on everything from 40 to 10 meters, 6 meters, V, U, and up to 24ghz. If I am stateside. Inside a Military steel slant back HUMMVE. Plenty of shielding for the antennas. Coax is double sheilded and FME CONNECTORS on the NMO mounts on the roof. Having used an RF sniffer inside the vehicle with no known RF leakage. Most of my comms are 100 watts on HF SSB, 50 watts on everything up to 500 MHz. Several watts on the higher bands until we get to microwave which is less than 5 watts. Many times when I am stateside it’s just portable. We have no such regs in SV land for RF exposure. I use common sense considering I have worked in the industry since 1982. There was a Ohio State Patrolman who used one of the older handheld radar guns. Between clocking motorists he would place it between his legs. After twenty rears he wound up frying his nuts and wound up with testicular cancer. I wonder why…….
I would agree. The Department of Defense has their own rules and don't fall under the FCC's purview. The Ohio patrolman is an excellent example why RF safety is taught for the amateur Technician license exam.
What is the health risk of over exposure in HF bands? Running above VHF, can have health effects. If you are low enough power to not have RF arcing and RF burns, what is the issue? I too have worked on broadcast equipment for AM FM and UHF television. In the AM transmitter site, the RF field was strong enough to ignite steel wool between conduit and HVAC ductwork.
Hahaha guys on channel 6 on cb still alive with 10 k i think we are all going to survive
If you operate all mode, all band, QRP and QRO, Mobile, and stationary, Do you need to calculate for every variable mention?
Do we have FCC form for this report?
How often do we need to do this report?
Is RF effect accumlative? If so, where the time input?
For a mobile 10Ghz station using 1000 watts (Microwave Oven Magnetron) beacon mode and a omni direction antenna. Is that safe for the freeway?
How hard do you have to make it? I did it once for worst-case scenario and my farthest safe distance is less than 2 meters. The antenna is higher up than that.
Yes, no, when something changes, yes on your station log if you keep record of all contacts, and of course it is safe, you can heat the fellow drivers hot pockets while you pass them...lol
I think a remote control focused beam would cook pigeons faster!
Do the calculations for worse case scenario, everything else will fall under that. You don't file for the FCC, it's for your own records. But its good to have if there is ever a question. RF energy is non-ionizing. It is not accumulative, but once damage is done, it's done. Stop being silly.
I would say hams are far more concerned about RF radiation exposure and the health consequences than our benevolent Federal government (FCC)❗️
Running calculator for 850mhz cellphone at 3w (FCC maximum) and you get 6" safe distance.
That can't be good.
Most cellphones now are milliwatts though.
Your cell phone power output is automatically dictated by your proximity to the nearest tower. That's why your battery wears out faster when you're out on the fringe of usable service. Many phones are capable of 2 or 3 watts RF output. .
KZ9V
Not a ham, but I have a question. As RF exposure is generally harmless, so long as it is not intense enough to cause tissue heating, what the hell is this all about? I expect that it's the beginning of the end of amateur radio.
RF exposure is harmless, until it is not harmless. The poinf of doing exposure surveys is to determine if you are safely operating your equipment.
Generally barefoot transceivers are not gonna be an issue at all on HF but I also am in suspicion of how accurately you can calculate this stuff versus actual measured, which is complicated and expensive
I have long wondered how much longer I would enjoy ham radio. I’ve been soldering stuff together for over 50 years. It becomes less fun every regulation cycle. This may be the last time I’m legally licensed. Imagine the physics & math degree I’ll need to renew next time. And just you watch the number of pirate stations on the air go up in number.
My thoughts exactly. A curtailment of the last bastion of free speech
Just curious, Are the 11 meter people going to have to do the same calculations? Our mobile radios put out 35 to 50 watts on 70 cm and 2 meter bands straight out of the box and with repeaters we really do not need much else. The 5 watt radios they have on 11 meters with amps put out 500 watts or more.
How does this affect CB operators with 10KW linears and big beams?
How many 10kW linears have you ever actually seen?
@@billfargo9616 3 bay area
Do the calculation... use 27 mhz
Thank you for your video. I have concerns over the accuracy of using calculations to determine rf exposure. For example, swr, the type of feed line (coax or 450 Ohm ladder line), complex impedance produced by the feed line antenna combination, and the loss of the rf signal caused by the antenna tuner. I am wishing for a certified rf field strength meter at a reasonable cost to actually measure the strength of the rf field at the station location. I have looked for field strength meters. I found that there are many meters out there, but their lowest frequency that can be measured is way above the lower hf frequencies such that you would find at 160 or 75 meters. The lowest advertised frequency range I could find started at 10 mHz. Most of the field strength meters start at or above 50 mHz and extend into the microwave region. I did find a study performed by the FCC where they used a EFS-1 field strength meter. I was lucky enough to find one on Ebay. The meter works, but I don't know about the calibration. I used it to measure the field strength of the rf at my station as I was transmitting. I was transmitting digital data at an output of 85 Watts measured at the transmitter. I measured between 3 to 5 V/meter. I'm not sure how to convert to milliwatts/meter squared. This was at around 3.5 mHz. I would mention that the antenna set up does work quite well at that frequency. I tried the same antenna set up at 7 mHz with much different results. My antenna feedline set up did not work well as far as swr, but the signal was getting out. The EFS-1 gave a much higher reading than it did at 3.5 mHz. At other frequencies where the antenna and feedline set up did work well with low swr, the field strength meter gave a much lower reading than at frequencies where the antenna feedline set up had a higher swr.
I was wondering in order to keep the FCC happy and to be safe in regards to rf exposure, is it okay to make the calculations assuming a perfectly working system with low swr where maximum radiation is happening at the antenna and not to worry about where the rf is really being radiated? Most locations at the home are at least greater than 10 feet from the antenna except for possible rf radiation from the ladder line. Can you recommend an accurate but reasonable price field strength meter. Thank you.
Plus guessing the pattern of random antennas or do you have a beam? Calculate exposure every 30 degrees of rotation?
@@tomsherwood4650 How do you calculate the exposure with the direction of the antenna as a factor? There is nothing to go on except what you think is happening. This is why I would like to find a certified field strength meter that would actually tell you what the field strength is.
When allocating federal funds for grants to industry, the FCC requires actual measurement.
So, Does this affect mobile operation? I have no fixed antenna systems.
Wait a minute are we required to do the RF calculations for the call phones that every man, woman, and child above 4 years old gets hit with from their cell phones? Maybe theFCC should have the job of doing that for the public. Now how many watts of RF is being radiated from say three hundred million cell phones a day at say 2.5 watts each . Thats almost seven hundred megawatts hours a day...
1/4 wave length on 10,Meters is close to the height of a human being. So a human being pretty much is a receiver antenna. On 10, meters.something to think about.
See AB9GO's comment below. He hit the nail on the head.
Dave N9HF
been talking for 20 more years on handy talkies aint dead yet
Use QRP. Nothing over 5 Watts here. Plus you don't splatter across the band. Why do some hams need to be the loudest station on the band?
We had this a while back.
I had Pye Pocketphones on 433 MHz years ago and didn't like the aerial so close to my face even only running 100 mW. Never did contact anybody but heard stations about 20 miles away. I don't want a mobile phone either but if I had one it wouldn't be in my pocket all day switched on as studies have suggested a risk a of testicular cancer. No thanks.
G4GHB
I STILL shudder whenever I see a Rubber Duckie attached to someone's hat as they wander through a Swapmeet chatting away on a repeater. 2M is bad enough, but on 440 ? or HIGHER ??? Devastating ...
Why not just stuff your head inside a MICROWAVE oven !
73 KG5RK
Along with the nerd factor of walking around like that; I shake my head, too.
They even want transmission durations? Then I don't see how this is supposed to be meaningful. A commercial broadcast station has a fixed schedule, I don't. A commercial station runs at a fixed output power, I don't. A commercial station will usually run on one antenna, that doesn't apply to many hams. Therefore, I would be VERY conservative with those values...
Are the people running GMRS and FRS covered by this also?
rolling my eyes
Wish they would fine those ppl who have those key down vehicles doing more than 10,000 watts
Very informative; thanks! So, are we supposed to just calculate and know the distance, or are we required save our calculations on tangible media and file them away with our station records in the event the FCC wants to review them?
It's not specified, but you should have a copy for your records that is readily accessible, be it paper, PDF, or some other type of file.
@@KB9VBRAntennas Thanks!
Looming above my G5RV in the backyard, I see the 500' tower of WDEL and WJBL. Reminds me of the Eye of Sauron. My 100W of CW will not budge the RF Smog meter in comparison with the commercial giants. And for 38 years, I worked at nuclear power plants. That's real radiation plus 60hz electric fields. No wonder I'm bald and glow in the dark.
I don't think he was talking about the kidneys Michael. I think he was talking about the kid makers. And yes i woulf rather not cook any of it 😄 however i would say what the calculator spits out is a much shorter distance than i would be comfortable with anyway, so i dont think anyone (who was transmitting legally to begin with) needs to worry about this limiting them.