开云体育

Don't take this the wrong way Ray, but given the response is you shouldn't be using the LA-1K at all on those bands due to legal limits - 100W on 60m and 200W on 30m - I don't see any value of your request asking them to resolve it.??

OTOH, I think it makes sense that Palstar blocked 11m amplification - this is the responsible thing to do - and eliminates an entire market/sale to a "target audience of abuse" by hams and CBers alike who push illegal power on that band.

Following the same logic, vehicle manufacturers should set hard speed limits on cars so that you can't travel above the speed limit ever, as well.
Just like I don't think vehicle makers should own responsible driving, I don't think Palstar should own enforcing hams knowing the rules and obeying them.

As a group of device owners, let's try to keep our requests to the manufacturer to things that matter and resolve usability issues.

So thanks for raising awareness, but no thanks on your suggested amp behavior enhancement.

--------------
David
AF6HO

On Sun, Apr 21, 2024 at 02:37 AM, tuneupmagic (null) wrote:

Rick, VE3PP, pleased be advised in my 7-Jun-2023 post /g/la1k/message/1316 I shared with this group I'd brought to Mark Ward's attention (Palstar's technician) that the LA-1K would put a licensed amateur radio operator solely at risks of violating FCC rules and regulations when making 60M/30M over-the-air transmissions (regardless of permissible power output levels) with the LA-1K in its present configuration.

In his reply to my said email notification, Mr. Ward advised me on 1 June 2023, stating "I will forward your comments to Paul on the separate band annunciators for 30M/60M.? This would be a display change, with antenna switching capability."

As of this writing (nearly a year later!!) Palstar still hasn't released the expected firmware update to address the issues.? As the saying goes.. hurry up and wait, my friend.

73
Ray
KJ5MI