[BC] FCC Approves proposed AM MoM Rules

[dynotherm at earthlink.net]

Oh yeah, those guys who fake it will have problems now. <g>

The funny thing about **those** proofs is that if you have been
around long enough you can usually smell that stale, cheap motel 
room smell right there in the numbers, and the way they chart
on the GC graph.

But one thing just as bad is the real "screwed up in the field"
proof that is no better than the motel proof because some
so called consultant 1000 miles away sent a map to a field
crew with points pre-mapped. Those proofs stink as bad as the
motel fabrications to my nose.

I think the Commish erred seriously back about 60 years ago
when they failed to include a requirement for reflected FI,
i.e., rhe reading with the direct wave nulled by turning the
FIM antenna 90 degrees to the incident wave, which is the way 
I learned it back in the day and have always done it since 
then. I started out using a tripod but after a few years found 
I could learn to hold the FIM by hand well enough to see a 
meter null 40 dB (2 clicks) down from the incident reading. 
Where do you find a field that clear?  Well, even today it IS 
possible! Hint: Look for new subdivisions with u/g utilities.

Moral to the story is that it is not that much more work if
you do it correctly the first time. The problem is there are
too many cell towers and not enough subdivisions with u/g
utilities. Now, there is a way to do it right that takes the
far field environment out of the picture. The big difference
is now the unethical and ignorant cheats will find hiding
their "method" is harder than doing it right in the first
place. The cheats will always be around but when modeling
enters the picture it becomes much harder for them to hide
their tracks.

Phil Alexander, CSRE, AMD



-----Original Message-----
>From: Broadcast List USER <Broadcast at fetrow.org>
>
>This means proofs can be done in the office, rather than in a hotel  
>room!  <ggg>
>
>(And if you don't think this is funny, you just haven't been around  
>long enough!)