RadCom asks - me? - to help them out!

Last month, RadCom ran a second article about earthing an amateur radio station.

None of the following constitutes advice.  It is for you to engage qualified people to examine and install your system.

In this latest contribution, there was text, supported by a graphic, that showed, in essence, each piece of radio equipment attached to an earthing bus, connected to a stake/rod stuck in the ground outside.

Now, all amateurs are meant to have passed an examination which should mean they understand earthing to a reasonable level.  But, visit many shacks or listen to on-air QSOs, and you will quickly realise there are an awful lot of people who have absolutely no idea why they are earthing their equipment, or how to do it properly (i.e. safely.)

Unfortunately for RadCom and its author, who seem not to have thought an awful lot before publishing, they failed to include instructions on how to properly earth a shack that is served by what is actually a pretty common system in the UK - Protective Multiple Earth (PME).

The PME earthing layout, very common in the UK.

Setting up a shack with a ground rod attached to equipment in a PME-served household is potentially extremely dangerous.  The earth wire at the incoming mains is not a separate connection back to some remote earthing point, but one that is completed via a connection to the neutral wire.  If the neutral breaks during a storm or other failure, you could end up with a whole neighbourhood's supply trying to use your equipment and its questionable earthing to complete a ciruit.  Fire is the most likely outcome.

Solving this problem is not difficult.  You do the same as RadCom published - i.e. connect each equipment to a ground stake, but also add a separate wire that is connected directly to the stake, and runs back on its little own to the consumer unit. The wire needs to be a minimum of 10 square mm to handle the potentially high current that might try to use it, down to your earth stake.

Even then, the job may not be good enough.  I found that the very short earth wire between the incoming mains and the consumer unit was very thin - probably way below what modern regulations stipulate.  That was installed by the supply company about 40 years ago, so it's entirely their fault.  If your wire is similarly inadequate, you will need to ask the supply company to inspect and change the wire, hopefully without charge because it doesn't conform to their own regulations.

I pointed all this out to RadCom and the author of the article.  After a month, I received a sheepish e-mail from the editor of the magazine that said many people had been in touch about this issue, and would I consider writing an article to set the record straight?  I politely declined the offer, saying that they had better get someone with current electrical engineering qualifications to do so, and maybe pay more attention to proof reading and quality control in future.

So, if you have PME, do consult the document that RadCom and its author seemingly didn't, freely available here:  http://rsgb.org/main/files/2012/06/emc-leaflet-07.pdf

None of the foregoing constitutes advice.  It is for you to engage qualified people to examine and install your system.

RSGB Expenses Hike Prompts Departure

It's that time of year again when the finer details of the RSGB's accounts are slowly sinking in.


I'm always interested in the non-remuneration of the board members which, the Articles of the company say, is to cover legitimate expenses.  It is not, therefore, pay.

So, let's look at this latest accounting period.

In 2015, eight board members collectively claimed £15,000.  That's the equivalent of £1875 each.

In 2016, seven board members - one less than in 2015 - claimed £17,000.  A new equivalent of £2428 each.  Note that some members may have claimed more than others.  That's why I use the term "equivalent".

Now, these are not huge sums, and there is no suggestion that the claims are not legitimate and properly due.

What is surprising is that, despite the number of board members claiming dropping by 12.5%, the total claimed has nevertheless gone up by 13%.  Inflation is essentially flatlining, so that doesn't explain much of anything.

I find myself again questioning why I have joined the RSGB when, in practice, all I get is a magazine that I don't actually ever enjoy reading.  This is very different from the experience of being a member of the ARRL, where everything in QST and beyond is so much more practical and approachable, albeit with no influence in the UK.

I think the basic problem I have with the RSGB is (a) that it is a limited company where the directors each shoulder the non-responsibility of a £1 liability if it all goes belly-up.  That doesn't foster a sense of ownership and responsibility, as this event, or this one have fairly recently proven.  I think an alternative structure like a not-for-profit or community benefit organsiation might better match what we actually expect a hobby society to be.

And, (b) there is a very strange culture surrounding the RSGB.  I found this out with some amazement a few years ago when Len Paget, still an RSGB bigwig, decided to send his views of me (based on exchanging a couple of emails about planning matters) to 11 members of a non-radio organisation, questioning my suitability to be a representative of that organisation.  He used his personal e-mail address to do so, but was in practice representing the RSGB, because that was the only route through which I had ever approached him, via the 'haveyoursay@RSGB... address', and the RSGB (and ICO) accepted the breach was their responsibility, not a personal matter between myself and Paget. Paget was very lucky he didn't end up with a libel writ.  Sadly for him, I wasn't even a member of the society he contacted.  The ICO carpeted the RSGB for its poor data control.

With many of the same old people in charge, it's hardly surprising that I find the RSGB hasn't really changed very much with some new faces over the  past three or four years.  I can't even say I've been very impressed by the quality of advice offered by those volunteers I've approached for help; I could have done as well or better under my own steam.

For example, the RSGB continues to claim that a member using its planning advice service is more likely to gain planning approval than someone who doesn't use those services.  This is a big claim.  It's also a claim that, without a very extensive, expensive and, so far as I know, not actually undertaken exercise, one the RSGB is not in a position to make.

So, for the second time in about six years, I've decided this is not a society that represents my values, wishes and interests.

I thought I was clever in joining the GQRP Club, until I received a very unwelcoming email from someone there, who clearly showed this was not the place for me.  I demanded a refund - and was as relieved to receive it as they were to issue it.