Is this for real? (Rangemaster AGAINST licensed LPAM?)

[MonsterFM-KBKH]

No offense intended and I'm opening myself up to fire but, what is the general consensus on the following material?



From the FCC's ECFS:

----------Begin Quoted Material----------


Dear Sirs,

I am the president of RangeMaster Transmitters Inc., a manufacturer of a
Part 15 transmitter. We are against the petition to establish a low power
radio service.

We feel that the licensing and enforcing of compliance of hundreds or
thousands of LPAM transmitters would be an unnecessary burden on the FCC,
when there already is what we believe to be an adequate outlet for
communities and small business interests to broadcast on the AM Band. Our
Part 15 AM1000 transmitter, when properly installed, can achieve over a mile
radius of signal coverage, which is adequate for most small businesses and
some small towns. It is possible to use multiple transmitters to cover a
larger area.

Here is our web site: http:www.am1000orangemaster.com/

We feel that allowing a plurality of 100 or 1000 watt transmitters to
operate at night in this country would create a mess of the AM broadcast
band. At different times of the year, just a 10 watt signal can skip many
miles.

We feel that allowing any LPAM service to be commercial wouldn't be in the
public interest.

We are aware of many examples of communities and towns and businesses being
served by our AM1000 Part 15 transmitters, we frankly see no reason to
launch a new service. Part 15 already allows commercials. We do see a
need for local broadcasting and feel that Part 15 provides this. Perhaps a
modification of the current Part 15 rules would allow for more on the AM
Band and not cause other problems as outlined above. The 15.219 allowed
input power of 100mw could be increased to 250mw or even 500mw.

Thank You,


Keith Hamilton
President
RangeMaster Transmitters Inc.
[email protected]
(919) 367-0607"


----------End Quoted Material----------


Sorry. I'm kinda curious as to what's going on, here.

<P ID="signature">______________
Terry Keith Hammond

Message Boards: http://www.monsterfm.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi</P>

 

[radio8z]

I agree with Keith

Here we go!

Other posts on this board should satisfy your question about what is going on. I would like to respond to your call for a consensus. (remember, a consensus is just a bunch of people agreeing to what they can live with, and always involves compromise).

If unlicensed Part 15 broadcasting is allowed with increased range, there will be a free for all in many locations. I was on this frequency first, you're too close to my frequency, etc. If you were around in the 70's you remember what happened with CB radio. If you weren't, ask someone who was.

OK, we're all gentlemen and ladies, so let's self regulate. I recall bitter fights in the amateur radio community about 2 meter repeaters. The FCC finally said that the hams had to self regulate and coordinate frequencies. In my state, hams formed a repeater council and with the tacit authority of the FCC they regulate repeaters. The established clubs gobbled up all the available frequencies and nothing was left for the rest of us. Some clubs I know of put seven repeaters on the air. It continues to this day.

If it is higher power and licensed, then there will be fights over licenses and coverage areas and you will have the same thing you have now in commercial broadcasting with a few holding all the cards.

Neil

 

[carlvanorden]

Here is why it is interesting....

> No offense intended and I'm opening myself up to fire but,> what is the general consensus on the following material?> > > > From the FCC's ECFS:> > ----------Begin Quoted Material----------> > > Dear Sirs,> > I am the president of RangeMaster Transmitters Inc., a> manufacturer of a > Part 15 transmitter. We are against the petition to> establish a low power > radio service.> > We feel that the licensing and enforcing of compliance of> hundreds or > thousands of LPAM transmitters would be an unnecessary> burden on the FCC, > when there already is what we believe to be an adequate> outlet for > communities and small business interests to broadcast on the> AM Band. Our > Part 15 AM1000 transmitter, when properly installed, can> achieve over a mile > radius of signal coverage, which is adequate for most small> businesses and > some small towns. It is possible to use multiple> transmitters to cover a > larger area.> > Here is our web site: http:www.am1000orangemaster.com/> > We feel that allowing a plurality of 100 or 1000 watt> transmitters to > operate at night in this country would create a mess of the> AM broadcast > band. At different times of the year, just a 10 watt> signal can skip many > miles.> > We feel that allowing any LPAM service to be commercial> wouldn't be in the > public interest.> > We are aware of many examples of communities and towns and> businesses being > served by our AM1000 Part 15 transmitters, we frankly see no> reason to > launch a new service. Part 15 already allows commercials. > We do see a > need for local broadcasting and feel that Part 15 provides> this. Perhaps a > modification of the current Part 15 rules would allow for> more on the AM > Band and not cause other problems as outlined above. The> 15.219 allowed > input power of 100mw could be increased to 250mw or even> 500mw.> > Thank You,> > > Keith Hamilton> President> RangeMaster Transmitters Inc.> [email protected]> (919) 367-0607"> > > ----------End Quoted Material----------> > > Sorry. I'm kinda curious as to what's going on, here.> Remember, Keith makes his living from selling Rangemasters, so it is no different than if you owned the patent on skyhooks and wrote the government saying it is not fair for others to manufacture them......Point is, if LPAM stations of more significant power are allowed on air, then not only would the part 15 businesses be out, but, as Keith put it, mayhem would exist on the air..............basically, Keith is correct in what he is saying......My thoughts turned to something inbetween what the FCC is thinking and what Keith is thinking:....100mW is really a small small power in regards to AM.....The solution is to blend the ideas of the FCC and those in the part 15 business; my proposal:....<1: allow part 15 am stations 1 or 2 watts of power during the day......this will alllow for the AM to saturate it's community and the amplitude will be strong in a larger contour instead of just a very very local area.>..<2. Allow only 500mW at night...here the trick is to enforce this, but 500mW at night will allow a part 15 to be heard in it's immediate area and not be drown out by skip or static>..3.If my plan were adopted, I would look to the FCC to actually take applications and issue licences for next to no money for these two reasons: A-The FCC could insure that companies and organizations did not capitalize on applying for these licences; they should be one to a customer and the customer should have no ties to a big company, B-The FCC could insure that interference would be kept to a minimum...meaning squarely if two stations wanted 1600am (as an example) and they were both within each others contour, one would get the licence, the other could apply for another frequency......................As Keith pointed out, or attempted to, and if you don't remember, the X band (1610-1710) was created to move standard band stations that were creating interference to clear channels so that their original assignment could be cancelled; thereby cleaning up the AM band. In theory, that works. But if we put again hundreds of high powered AM stations on the X-band, soon that band will be destroyed and unlistenable.......Lastly, again if my plan were adopted, I would ask for ONE licence per customer; I'm not against 5 Rangemasters on one frequency as long as that signal did not interfere with someone else.......as to kits, they are the sum of the parts of any type-accepted tx, and the best ones enjoy the best sales......I am all for a report to the FCC by any station owner, required yearly and range reported on a form as heard on a car radio (example; NE; .08, N: 1.0, NW; 1.1....etc.)NOT as complicated as it sounds and it would allow plenty of community stations on the air, at a power that would make them heard, yet not destroy the AM band in the future............Comments???AntennaGuyCarl<P ID="signature">______________
[email protected], [email protected],[email protected]</P>

 

[mikebatchelor]

Re: I agree with Keith

100 Watts is probably an overkill. Remember, there are many Class D "Full Powered" AMs that are relegated to running less than 20 watt flea power. IMHO, if LPAM is allowed to go 100 Watts full time, than they will end up opening up a can of worms interference wise on the AM band. If the FCC does this, they would almost have to co-incide with allowing all daytime only AMs to operate full time at up to 100 watts non directional. That isn't very likely to happen.

Not to mention that if they go through a similar process to assign licenses
as LPFM, mostly we will end up with a bunch more religious stations. Just what the dying AM band already doesn't need to attract any listeners.

I would propose that it would make sense to allow low powered AMs with a daytime power of up to 10 watts, and perhaps 1 Watt at nightime; and limit these signals to 1600 kHz and above, including opening up the non used 1710, so as to lessen the possibility of interference as fewer stations exist in the XBand. And make the licenses simple to obtain on a first come, first served basis.


> Here we go!
>
> Other posts on this board should satisfy your question about
> what is going on. I would like to respond to your call for
> a consensus. (remember, a consensus is just a bunch of
> people agreeing to what they can live with, and always
> involves compromise).
>
> If unlicensed Part 15 broadcasting is allowed with increased
> range, there will be a free for all in many locations. I
> was on this frequency first, you're too close to my
> frequency, etc. If you were around in the 70's you remember
> what happened with CB radio. If you weren't, ask someone
> who was.
>
> OK, we're all gentlemen and ladies, so let's self regulate.
> I recall bitter fights in the amateur radio community about
> 2 meter repeaters. The FCC finally said that the hams had
> to self regulate and coordinate frequencies. In my state,
> hams formed a repeater council and with the tacit authority
> of the FCC they regulate repeaters. The established clubs
> gobbled up all the available frequencies and nothing was
> left for the rest of us. Some clubs I know of put seven
> repeaters on the air. It continues to this day.
>
> If it is higher power and licensed, then there will be
> fights over licenses and coverage areas and you will have
> the same thing you have now in commercial broadcasting with
> a few holding all the cards.
>
> Neil
>

 

[rfry]

> No offense intended and I'm opening myself up to fire but,
> what is the general consensus on the following material?

>> ----------Begin Quoted Material----------
>>I am the president of RangeMaster Transmitters Inc., a
>>manufacturer of a Part 15 transmitter. We are against the
>>petition to establish a low power radio service. (etc)
>>...
>> Keith Hamilton, President
>> RangeMaster Transmitters Inc.
_____________

Keith Hamilton might have viewed LPAM as a way to grow his business. If he gets ~$1,000 now for his 100 mW Part 15 tx, think how much more he would ask for a 100 W unit (1,000X the power).

Of course, there is more competition at that power level.
//

 

[MonsterFM-KBKH]

> Keith Hamilton might have viewed LPAM as a way to grow his
> business. If he gets ~$1,000 now for his 100 mW Part 15 tx,
> think how much more he would ask for a 100 W unit (1,000X
> the power).
>
> Of course, there is more competition at that power level.
> //
>

This is one case in qhich I can honestly understand both sides of the issue. I'm just curious as to what most people on this forum think. On the other hand, I would like to see some kind of licensingfopr those who "absolutely positively cannot possibly" be happy with legal Part-15.

At the same time, I don't want to see yet another attempt at a service "for the people and by the people" to be corrupted into yet another outlet for meaningless drivel such as that which the LPFM service was perverted (in some instances) into.

I'd rather see as few as a dozen GOOD citizens and/or entities who'll actually serve a local community (as in "baseball, football" and the such and NOT as in "God is great so send us a donation to prove that you love Him!") than to see THOUSANDS of individual "branches" of Calvary Chapel build a new station in every city and town nationwide.

Of course, those who are in it for the "hobby" aspect will say the service absolutely MUST be non-commercial while those who are in it for real and practical purposes will seek a commercial service. That arguement, I will stay out of. But, I would like to hear arguements for both sides as I'm very interested in the opinions on this board, which seems to offer a good "across the board" view from just about all angles (except for that view from commercial broadcasters and we both know where we can get that opinion).

Personally, as a commercial station owner, I'd welcome an LPAM or an LPFM into my community as I think it would keep everyone in "tip-top shape" due to the fact that competition forces a better product. I also know of some commercial station owners who will go so far as to fabricate complaints in the hopes of "nickle and diming" the "little guy" out of business so, it runs the gammut in that area, also.
<P ID="signature">______________
Terry Keith Hammond

Message Boards: http://www.monsterfm.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi</P>

 

[radio8z]

Re: You emphasize my point

Hi,

Whether or not this was your intention, I think you emphasized my point. You said "And make the licenses simple to obtain on a first come, first served basis.
"

This is exactly what I was talking about in my first post in this thread. What happens if you are not one of the first comes and are not served? See the problem?


Neil

 

[SamBuca]

> We feel that allowing a plurality of 100 or 1000 watt
> transmitters to
> operate at night in this country would create a mess of the
> AM broadcast
> band. At different times of the year, just a 10 watt
> signal can skip many
> miles.

Why would requiring LPAM to power off at sunset be a problem?<P ID="signature">______________
</P>

 

[MonsterFM-KBKH]

> Why would requiring LPAM to power off at sunset be a
> problem?
>

Good question, Sam. I know of several full-power AM's (10,000 watts and more) that are "daytimers" and MUST shut-down at sunset (well, one of them is allowed 2.3 watts "Post Ssunset Authorization"). The above comment was quoted from Keith Hamilton's comments to the FCC. I'm just curious as to what everyone else thinks. This could be an unexpected "split" in the Part-15 community and I'd like to see where the majority of the chips would fall and for what reasons they would fall in that direction.<P ID="signature">______________
Terry Keith Hammond

Message Boards: http://www.monsterfm.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi</P>

 

[Levi]

> > Why would requiring LPAM to power off at sunset be a> > problem?> > > > Good question, Sam. I know of several full-power AM's> (10,000 watts and more) that are "daytimers" and MUST> shut-down at sunset (well, one of them is allowed 2.3 watts> "Post Ssunset Authorization"). The above comment was quoted> from Keith Hamilton's comments to the FCC. I'm just curious> as to what everyone else thinks. This could be an unexpected> "split" in the Part-15 community and I'd like to see where> the majority of the chips would fall and for what reasons> they would fall in that direction.> If you want to keep part15 you must keep it at 100mw.go up to 100w and the big boys are going to move in and the church boys also.What we need is 1710am

 

[dbdigital]

Re: Here is why it is interesting....

Remember, Keith makes his living
> from selling Rangemasters, so it is no different than if you
> owned the patent on skyhooks and wrote the government saying
> it is not fair for others to manufacture them......Point is,
> if LPAM stations of more significant power are allowed on
> air, then not only would the part 15 businesses be out, but,
> as Keith put it, mayhem would exist on the
> air..............basically, Keith is correct in what he is
> saying......My thoughts turned to something inbetween what
> the FCC is thinking and what Keith is thinking:....100mW is
> really a small small power in regards to AM.....The solution
> is to blend the ideas of the FCC and those in the part 15
> business; my proposal:........3.If my plan were adopted, I
> would look to the FCC to actually take applications and
> issue licences for next to no money for these two reasons:
> A-The FCC could insure that companies and organizations did
> not capitalize on applying for these licences; they should
> be one to a customer and the customer should have no ties to
> a big company, B-The FCC could insure that interference
> would be kept to a minimum...meaning squarely if two
> stations wanted 1600am (as an example) and they were both
> within each others contour, one would get the licence, the
> other could apply for another
> frequency......................As Keith pointed out, or
> attempted to, and if you don't remember, the X band
> (1610-1710) was created to move standard band stations that
> were creating interference to clear channels so that their
> original assignment could be cancelled; thereby cleaning up
> the AM band. In theory, that works. But if we put again
> hundreds of high powered AM stations on the X-band, soon
> that band will be destroyed and unlistenable.......Lastly,
> again if my plan were adopted, I would ask for ONE licence
> per customer; I'm not against 5 Rangemasters on one
> frequency as long as that signal did not interfere with
> someone else.......as to kits, they are the sum of the parts
> of any type-accepted tx, and the best ones enjoy the best
> sales......I am all for a report to the FCC by any station
> owner, required yearly and range reported on a form as heard
> on a car radio (example; NE; .08, N: 1.0, NW;
> 1.1....etc.)NOT as complicated as it sounds and it would
> allow plenty of community stations on the air, at a power
> that would make them heard, yet not destroy the AM band in
> the future............Comments???AntennaGuyCarl
>

In many ways it's actually a sound proposition although I'd like to see the power increased to a maximum of 10 watts day, 1 watt night depending on conditions. I don't think this amount of power would cause problems with channel spacing but, in an urban area, it would be enough to reach an adequate number of households with a decent quality signal. Our friendly local TIS station runs 10 watts and it barely covers 4 miles. Higher power output should be allowed for rural areas.

I also agree that it should be confined to one license per entity. To be sure, there is the problem of "godcasters" like Calvery Chapel overrunning this service, but I'm not sure how they can be stopped short of banning non-profit organizations from applying.

I realize too, that an LPAM service could actually diminish if not spell the end of part-15 community radio but, after all, aside from yard and hobbycasters isn't this the natural progression of those who are serious part-15 broadcasters?

Lets face it, having an FCC license would give the work we do legitimacy in the eyes of the community and, at the same time, keep other licensed broadcasters off our backs.

As for Keith's letter; quite frankly, sprinkling part-15 transmitters all over town and trying to link and synchronize them all is an expensive pain in the keester.

db

 

[wiradioguy]

Re: I agree

I work for one of those Class D Am's and we get a whopping 50 watts at night. As I have discussed in other posts, we have a very difficult time of covering our local area at night, and while we would like to do more nighttime events(like high school sports, city council, ect) its way too frustrating to try and do that and have listeners and advertisers complain they cant get us. And yes Ive heard about extending the nighttime range with all these rangemaster transmitters..but lets be realistic..that is too expensive and complicated for what it would be worth. Now LPAM with 100watt nighttime power? Well if that happens, I sure hope Friends of Clear Channel give us a power increase too! When I see some of these nighttime power levels I laugh. It may work for part15, but not for stations like the one I work for. Oh well..I guess we just have to stream on the internet.

 

[KeithHamilton]

WOW!
I got on the board this morning to respond to the mulitiple transmitter thread and was surprised to see all this about my comments!

Interesting spectulation on our motives, actually, I don't make a great income from RangeMaster, It's more of a fun hobby, secondary business thing. My main income is from my electronics design business.

To be probably overly honest what I was trying to do was to come at it from the FCC's point, they are underfunded and overworked and an additional service that requires enforcement I just don't think sounds much of a chance. However if the need for a public outlet (AM radio) is being effectivly communicated to them, I thought maybe they would be open to just increasing the part 15 limits which would mean little additional work for them.

I can tell you they almost fear mayhem in the airwaves and the idea of many 1000 watt stations operating at night I thought would put them off.

So really even though my comment seemed negative I guess I was pushing where I thought they could be pushed.

 

[MonsterFM-KBKH]

> So really even though my comment seemed negative I guess I
> was pushing where I thought they could be pushed.
>

I did not necessarily take it as a negative, Keith. Just a suggestion (and, if Mr. Fry will please chime-in with his comments, I'd apprerciate it):

What would be everyone's thoughts on a miniscule allowable part-15 power increase (you've suggested 500mw or maybe 1watt) or simply an increase in allowable antenna efficiency (say a 50 foot antenna instead of a 10 foot antenna)? In this manner, a limited field strength could possibly result so that signal levels are pretty much kept down to "non-interference causing levels" (outside of an almost near-field situation) but coverage would increase dramatically.

As you can see, I'm quite fascinated with the discussion and, again, interested in what the majority here have to say on the matter. I'd like to see if there's not some form of "dummy-proof" system whereby no licensing is required and yet a decent coverage is possible while preventing the inevitable interference with a licensed station. I know it's wanting the impossible but, it would seem to me that a "wider" (not as in "bandwidth") signal that remains relatively weak would be more serviceable than a powerful signal into a less than efficient antenna that could still create widespread interference.

In other words: I'd think that a 500mw signal into a .25 wavelength radiator would be more "manageable" (from a regulatory standpoint) than a 100 watt signal (or even a 10 watt signal) into a 50 foot radiator. You'd be AMAZED at what a 500mw medium-wave signal into a .25 wavelength radiator can do for coverage! Miles and miles and more miles while still remaining relatively weak outside of the nearby area. ("Relative" when referenced to a 1kw., 10kw. or a 50kw. signal.)

I'll sit back and watch and be fascinated with the replies as (even with almost 30 years of experience) I'm learning more and more every day and, yes, some of it I am learning right here.

By the way, you could all learn a LOT from Richard Fry's website. The thing is loaded with all sorts of information on antenna systems that is almost impossible to obtain even from manufacturers! (As an example: He's posted - in another thread - the resulting pattern of two sychronized transmitters. I'm surprised that he didn't touch on the possibilities that come with "fine-tuning the resulting interference by phase manipulating the signals so that the interference falls ove unpopulated areas. What can be done is simply amazing but, in all honesty, it gets prohibitely more expensive for the experimenter - and that is what I consider most on this board.)

Thanks, everyone, for indulging my curiosity with regards to your opinions!<P ID="signature">______________
Terry Keith Hammond

Message Boards: http://www.monsterfm.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi</P>

 

[rfry]

>... it would seem to me that a
> "wider" (not as in "bandwidth") signal that remains
> relatively weak would be more serviceable than a powerful
> signal into a less than efficient antenna that could still
> create widespread interference.

There really is no way to get "wider" AM coverage without increasing the amount of power radiated in the direction of the receiver. Other things equal, this can be done by applying more power to an inefficient radiator, or the same power to a more efficient radiator -- or some combination of both of those.

> In other words: I'd think that a 500mw signal into a .25
> wavelength radiator would be more "manageable" (from a
> regulatory standpoint) than a 100 watt signal (or even a 10
> watt signal) into a 50 foot radiator. You'd be AMAZED at
> what a 500mw medium-wave signal into a .25 wavelength
> radiator can do for coverage! Miles and miles and more miles
> while still remaining relatively weak outside of the nearby
> area. ("Relative" when referenced to a 1kw., 10kw. or a
> 50kw. signal.)

And that is an example of a small amount of power into an efficient radiator. But how many Part 15-ers can install a 1/4 vertical radiator (about 137 feet high at 1.7 MHz), and a ground system of 120 buried radials each about 225 feet long?

> By the way, you could all learn a LOT from Richard Fry's
> website. The thing is loaded with all sorts of information
> on antenna systems that is almost impossible to obtain even
> from manufacturers!

Thanks for your endorsement.
//

 

[MonsterFM-KBKH]

> There really is no way to get "wider" AM coverage without
> increasing the amount of power radiated in the direction of
> the receiver. Other things equal, this can be done by
> applying more power to an inefficient radiator, or the same
> power to a more efficient radiator -- or some combination of
> both of those.


Very, very true. It's the old "get something for nothing" idea...


> And that is an example of a small amount of power into an
> efficient radiator. But how many Part 15-ers can install a
> 1/4 vertical radiator (about 137 feet high at 1.7 MHz), and
> a ground system of 120 buried radials each about 225 feet
> long?
>


Also very true. I have a tendency to think in terms of "small" from an unuasual standpoint in that I'm preparing to top-off an FM tower and, from that perspective, 137 feet is quite "small"...


> Thanks for your endorsement.
> //
>

Hey! It's honest and you deserve it! Your white papers on the FM antenna bay spacings and related materials are about as fascinating as it gets to me! I'd never have the time to sit down and model all of that. Thankfully, you've been generous enough to do it for the rest of us and to also make that information public! It is indeed appreciated and I hope that others will take advantage of the knowledge that you've made available to them (us).
<P ID="signature">______________
Terry Keith Hammond

Message Boards: http://www.monsterfm.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi</P>

 

[KeithHamilton]

As far as syncing transmitters what I am interested in is the effect of the radiation pattern of two radiators (500ft) as you vary the phase of the RF. I have people that want to control the direction of the carrier.

 

[JasonW]

Top-loaded Marconi "Tee" wire antennas can be physically short in height (20' - 50' tall), yet be pretty efficient radiators. Long Wave and Medium Wave aviation NDBs (Non-Directional Beacons) using these antennas can be received hundreds of miles away with only 25 watt transmitters and just 6 - 12 ground radials that are often only 50' - 100' long. The horizontal top-hat wires usually span 70' - 300'. Many NDB antennas use just 1 top-hat wire while others use 2 or 3 parallel top-hat wires.

At 1600 kHz - 1700 kHz (NDBs operate from 190 kHz to 525 kHz), these same-size antenna systems would be much more efficient. -- JasonW

> > There really is no way to get "wider" AM coverage without
> > increasing the amount of power radiated in the direction
> of
> > the receiver. Other things equal, this can be done by
> > applying more power to an inefficient radiator, or the
> same
> > power to a more efficient radiator -- or some combination
> of
> > both of those.
>
>
> Very, very true. It's the old "get something for nothing"
> idea...
>
>
> > And that is an example of a small amount of power into an
> > efficient radiator. But how many Part 15-ers can install
> a
> > 1/4 vertical radiator (about 137 feet high at 1.7 MHz),
> and
> > a ground system of 120 buried radials each about 225 feet
> > long?
> >
>
>
> Also very true. I have a tendency to think in terms of
> "small" from an unuasual standpoint in that I'm preparing to
> top-off an FM tower and, from that perspective, 137 feet is
> quite "small"...
>
>
> > Thanks for your endorsement.
> > //
> >
>
> Hey! It's honest and you deserve it! Your white papers on
> the FM antenna bay spacings and related materials are about
> as fascinating as it gets to me! I'd never have the time to
> sit down and model all of that. Thankfully, you've been
> generous enough to do it for the rest of us and to also make
> that information public! It is indeed appreciated and I hope
> that others will take advantage of the knowledge that you've
> made available to them (us).
>