QRZ! Ham Radio 4/QRZ Ham Radio Callsign Database - Volume 4.iso/digests/policy/940288.txt

Internet Message Format | 1994-11-13 | 14.4 KB

Date: Wed, 29 Jun 94 04:30:16 PDT
From: Ham-Policy Mailing List and Newsgroup <[e-mail]>
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: Bulk
Subject: Ham-Policy Digest V94 #288
To: Ham-Policy


Ham-Policy Digest           Wed, 29 Jun 94       Volume 94 : Issue  288

Today's Topics:
                       900Mhz Part 15 (3 msgs)
             Existing regulations limit our advancement.
                       Question about Radar Jam
                    Questions about Radar Jamming

Send Replies or notes for publication to: <[e-mail]>
Send subscription requests to: <[e-mail]>
Problems you can't solve otherwise to [e-mail].

Archives of past issues of the Ham-Policy Digest are available
(by FTP only) from UCSD.Edu in directory "mailarchives/ham-policy".

We trust that readers are intelligent enough to realize that all text
herein consists of personal comments and does not represent the official
policies or positions of any party.  Your mileage may vary.  So there.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 28 Jun 1994 10:56:41 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!agate!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!news.ysu.edu!yfn.ysu.edu![e-mail]
Subject: 900Mhz Part 15
To: [e-mail]

I'm interested in using the 902-928 Mhz band. Specificly, using it part 15.
I understand that as a ham I can transmit high power levels but I'm more
intrigued in not having the restrictions that go with the amateur service.
I think it's pretty cool that I could comunicate either 1 way or 2 way with
anyone. What are the rules concerning building your own part 15 equipment??

If anyone has any experience with this band I would appreciate hearing from
you. The 1 watt ERP limit, for many applications is all the power you would
need. A 1/2 watt transmiter right into jpole antenna on top of a tall build-
ing would give great coverage. It might not penatrate to the depths of the con-
crete canyons. But it would be fine for any line of sight work with reasonable
receive antennas. Now if there were just some 1/2 watt 900Mhz HTs for sale.
Imagine a part 15 900Mhz repeater!!  - you wouldn't even need an IDer.
There are so many posibilities.  Over a year ago a company that
makes spread spectrum radios advertised one of there radios in a ham magazine.
The spread spectrum radio was a part 15 unit operating in the 902-928Mhz range
at 128kbps. They claimed 1 watt of RF power and in the picture was a radio with
a little duck antenna. If you used a halfwave antenna that would put you over 1
watt ERP. Are there some forms of spread spectrum that are allowed slightly higher
output powers because of there wide band nature?  I know that the wavelan cards
put out a 1/4 watt of RF. It's very easy to exceed 1 watt ERP with any directional
antenna.  Many of the things I'm interested in doing would operate right on edge
of legality. Would the FCC require field strength measurements in order to take
into account things like the tower acting like a reflector? From what I gather the
1 watt ERP limit may not be strictly enforsed but you don't want to be the one
who is made the example of, especially if its not ham campatible.

Reid Savage N9SYW
Internet [e-mail]
--
Reid Savage N9syw
4015 Hiawatha Dr.
Madison,WI 53711
(608)-238-9870

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 28 Jun 1994 20:32:44 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!swrinde!gatech!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!zip.eecs.umich.edu!yeshua.marcam.com!news.kei.com!wang![e-mail]
Subject: 900Mhz Part 15
To: [e-mail]

[e-mail] (Reid Savage) writes:

>I'm interested in using the 902-928 Mhz band. Specificly, using it part 15.
>I understand that as a ham I can transmit high power levels but I'm more
>intrigued in not having the restrictions that go with the amateur service.
>I think it's pretty cool that I could comunicate either 1 way or 2 way with
>anyone. What are the rules concerning building your own part 15 equipment??

Could you post a summary of what you find out?  I agree - this could be
a lot of fun!

Dave, KZ1O
--
Dave Bushong, Wang Laboratories, Inc.

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 28 Jun 1994 23:05:42 GMT
From: news.Hawaii.Edu!kahuna![e-mail]
Subject: 900Mhz Part 15
To: [e-mail]

[e-mail] (Reid Savage) writes:

> What are the rules concerning building your own part 15 equipment??

They are as close as your nearest library containing a government
documents depository. LTURTEUNTDIFY!

Jeff NH6IL

------------------------------

Date: 29 Jun 1994 01:48:51 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!agate!cat.cis.Brown.EDU!pstc3.pstc.brown.edu![e-mail]
Subject: Existing regulations limit our advancement.
To: [e-mail]

[e-mail] (Bob Wilkins  n6fri) writes:

> Show me the gray area of the law that allows a third party to
> automatically control an amateur repeater station.

a 3rd party isn't automatically controlling a repeater station
during a reverse patch. the repeater is simply responding to an
external stimulii (voltage fluctuation on a wall outlet) with a
ringing sound over the air. this is no different that if I put
up an external alarm that triggered when the repeater cabinent
door opened.]

if someone decides to answer the phone on the air, then you've
basically established a routine autopatch.

do you have any cases where the fcc has cited someone for operating
a reverse patch?

md
--
-- Michael P. Deignan
-- Amalgamated Baby Seal Poachers Union, Local 101
-- "Get 'The Club'... Endorsed by Baby Seal poachers everywhere..."

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 28 Jun 1994 10:56:20 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!swrinde!gatech!concert!hearst.acc.Virginia.EDU!murdoch!brain.neuro.virginia.edu![e-mail]
Subject: Question about Radar Jam
To: [e-mail]

In article <2ub44t$[e-mail]>,
Jesse L Wei <[e-mail]> wrote:
>John Maultsby ([e-mail]) wrote:
>:
>: The FCC jurisdiction starts at *9 kHz*??? Wow.... I can just see the FCC now,
>: saying "Turn that radio down, young man!" <grin>
>:
>Ha ha, very funny.  Remember that the FCC jurisdiction cover transmissions,
>rather thand reception. . .
>
>--jesse


But it is transmission at 9,000 Hertz--albeit audit.

=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
  Ned Hamilton                     NTC       Department of Neurosurgery
  [e-mail]                          University of Virginia
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=

------------------------------

Date: 29 Jun 1994 04:31:16 GMT
From: koriel!newsworthy.West.Sun.COM!abyss.West.Sun.COM!spot![e-mail]
Subject: Questions about Radar Jamming
To: [e-mail]

In article [e-mail], [e-mail] (John Mollan - Harm) writes:
>The police have been using some pretty neat tricks here in Washington.
>It really appeals to by sense of fair play.
>In various places, traffic radar transmitters are mounted.  These send a
>radar signal that causes all of the radar detectors in peoples' cars to
>trip and everyone hits their brakes, even though there isn't a cop within
>miles.
>Now, if we had these all over.
>
>Some Oregon departments are now using laser speed detectors.  Your radar
>detector is no more useful than a Hallicrafteers S38 for these.
>
>Perhaps if we just minded the speed limit, or at least limited our speed
>to our IQ?

Hmmmm.... I've only driven close to my IQ (in MPH) a few times.  On my
1100cc Honda, up I-5 by Bakersfield.  But, without a fairing, the bike
topped out at almost 150MPH and it wasn't very comfortable with my helmet
trying to blow off, so I never quite exceeded my IQ.  You sure get places
fast at this kind of speed.

Admittedly, this isn't a rec.radio.amateur.policy topic, so please note the
Followup-to: line above.

---
 * Dana H. Myers KK6JQ, DoD#: j    | Views expressed here are    *
 * [phone]         | mine and do not necessarily    *
 * [e-mail]    | reflect those of my employer    *
 * This Extra supports the abolition of the 13 and 20 WPM tests *

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 28 Jun 94 15:07:47 -0500
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!library.ucla.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!noc.near.net!news.delphi.com![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <[e-mail]>, <2ub063$[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>■Æ
Subject : Re: Existing regulations limit our advancement.

H. Peter Anvin <[e-mail]> writes:

>    "Reverse autopatch for N9ITP this is WB9AET repeater"

Sounds like a classic example of a transmission by one amateur station intended
to be received by one other specific station.  The only difference is that the
transmission is sent automatically rather than by a (human) control operator.

-- Ed Ellers, KD4AWQ

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 28 Jun 1994 13:52:22 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!swrinde!gatech!cs.utk.edu!stc06.CTD.ORNL.GOV!xdepc.eng.ornl.gov![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
Subject : Field Day (was Re: CW ... My view.)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:



>As a sidelight to this discussion, I copied the MCW telemetry of a
>high altitude balloon over the weekend, tracking it from ground
>level to 100,000 feet and back down again. It was a tedious process
>copying telemetry numbers and hand cranking them through the calibration
>routines on the computer. The coding effort and code size used in the
>encoding microprocessor to produce that MCW could be significantly
>reduced by switching to a more suitable coding, such as BCD or ASCII,
>and fed directly into the calibration program on the computer by a
>simple modem. And it will for the next launch. That the programmer
>knew Code was actually a *hindrance* to the experiment. If he hadn't
>automatically *assumed* that Code was the best way to encode the
>telemetry, he would have used a machine friendly code from the beginning.

Wow, no wonder I didn't catch you on field day!  What was the code speed
you were copying?  If you don't recommend MCW for BCD or ASCII, what mod.
technique will you use? :-)

73,
C. C. (Clay) Wynn N4AOX
[e-mail]

=========================================================================
= Cooperation requires participation.  Competition teaches cooperation. =
=========================================================================
       ..._  .. ..._  ._   _ . ._.. . __. ._. ._ .__. .... _.__

------------------------------

Date: 28 Jun 1994 17:11:13 -0700
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!news.cerf.net!ccnet.com!ccnet.com![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <2ub063$[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
Subject : Re: Existing regulations limit our advancement.

Ed Ellers ([e-mail]) wrote:
: H. Peter Anvin <[e-mail]> writes:
:
: >    "Reverse autopatch for N9ITP this is WB9AET repeater"
:
: Sounds like a classic example of a transmission by one amateur station intended
: to be received by one other specific station.  The only difference is that the
: transmission is sent automatically rather than by a (human) control operator.
:
: -- Ed Ellers, KD4AWQ

Show me the gray area of the law that allows a third party to
automatically control an amateur repeater station.

Bob


--
     Bob Wilkins                     work    [e-mail]
 Berkeley, California                home    [e-mail]
     94701-0710                      play    n6fri@n6eeg.#nocal.ca.usa.noam

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 28 Jun 1994 20:48:40 GMT
From: news.Hawaii.Edu!kahuna![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
Subject : Re: CW...hear, touch, simplicity


In article <[e-mail]>, Gary Coffman ([e-mail]) writes:
>
>the very early days, all amateur equipment had to be homebrew, but most
>amateurs merely copied circuits out of magazines like Home Amateur Mechanic
>(hence HAM). Very few actually designed their own circuits, or even fully
>understood the circuits that they copied.

I wish it was this easy. Winding inductors and determining their
inductance can take hours of trial and error work: trying various
coil forms of different diameters and spacing of turns isn't `copying
from a magazine'. I've had to fabricate my own variable capacitors -
I wouldn't call that `copying from a magazine'. I build my own ladder-
line but I guess you would call that `copying from the Antenna
Handbook'. Substituting a transistor sometimes calls for reworking
the design - again, I wouldn't call that `copying from a magazine'.

The QRP and Boatanchors email newsgroups each contain many of hundreds
of builders who don't just `copy from a magazine', and remember that
UseNet contains just a tiny fraction of the entire ham population.

You spew out some weird ideas in your quest to generalize - quit
attempting to pigeon-hole the amateur community; our interests and
abilities and activities are as varied as our individual traits.
Don't try to pass opinion as fact.

Jeff NH6IL

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 28 Jun 1994 13:46:06 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!dog.ee.lbl.gov!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!gatech!cs.utk.edu!stc06.CTD.ORNL.GOV!xdepc.eng.ornl.gov![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]><[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
Subject : Re: CW...hear, touch, simplicity

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Michael Silva) writes:


>That's just an astonishing statement.  Would any of you slavish copiers
>out there like to respond?

>Well then, I stand in the camp of folly.

>Mike, KK6GM
>
Your only folly is taking net legends too seriously.  All of this will also
pass.  IMHO you're making good sense.

73,
C. C. (Clay) Wynn N4AOX
[e-mail]

=========================================================================
= Cooperation requires participation.  Competition teaches cooperation. =
=========================================================================
       ..._  .. ..._  ._   _ . ._.. . __. ._. ._ .__. .... _.__

------------------------------

End of Ham-Policy Digest V94 #288
******************************