| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
FCC Rules
Please pardon the slightly off-topic subject. I'm giving a class at
my grandson's school next month and I'm going to include ham radio, with some of the kids presumably getting on the air. Of course, an unlicensed person can operate if a properly licensed control operator is present. Is there a source of more detailed information? I keyword searched Part 97 and found no surprises. I think good sense prevails. But: If I set up two HTs to talk simplex across a room, how do I/we ID? KD6VKW/Alfa and KD6VKW/Bravo, maybe? Can the kids call CQ? Do they ID with my callsign or must I provide the ID in my own voice? Are there other sticking points? In the absence of official guidance, your opinions are welcome. Thanks. "Sal" (John, KD6VKW) |
FCC Rules
"Sal M. Onella" wrote in message ... Please pardon the slightly off-topic subject. I'm giving a class at my grandson's school next month and I'm going to include ham radio, with some of the kids presumably getting on the air. Of course, an unlicensed person can operate if a properly licensed control operator is present. Is there a source of more detailed information? I keyword searched Part 97 and found no surprises. I think good sense prevails. But: If I set up two HTs to talk simplex across a room, how do I/we ID? KD6VKW/Alfa and KD6VKW/Bravo, maybe? Can the kids call CQ? Do they ID with my callsign or must I provide the ID in my own voice? Are there other sticking points? In the absence of official guidance, your opinions are welcome. Thanks. "Sal" (John, KD6VKW) Sal, the only kind of people that would like to talk to kids is exactly the kind of people that you want to keep your little kids away from. Why not go find a couple of el cheapo PRS handi-talkies (Personal Radio Service - 450 plus MHz) and let the kiddies talk to each other that way? Why bring ham radio into it at all? The FCC rules are available to everyone for free at the FCC website. www.fcc.gov. Ed Cregger |
FCC Rules
On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 22:23:44 -0800 (PST), "Sal M. Onella"
wrote: Please pardon the slightly off-topic subject. I'm giving a class at my grandson's school next month and I'm going to include ham radio, with some of the kids presumably getting on the air. Of course, an unlicensed person can operate if a properly licensed control operator is present. Is there a source of more detailed information? I keyword searched Part 97 and found no surprises. I think good sense prevails. But: If I set up two HTs to talk simplex across a room, how do I/we ID? KD6VKW/Alfa and KD6VKW/Bravo, maybe? Can the kids call CQ? Do they ID with my callsign or must I provide the ID in my own voice? Are there other sticking points? In the absence of official guidance, your opinions are welcome. Thanks. "Sal" (John, KD6VKW) Don't ask too many questions. Marconi would not have invented radio transmissions according to FCC rules if he lived today. We would still live without radio. w. |
FCC Rules
On Dec 14, 1:23*am, "Sal M. Onella" wrote:
Please pardon the slightly off-topic subject. *I'm giving a class at my grandson's school next month and I'm going to include ham radio, with some of the kids presumably getting on the air. * Of course, an unlicensed person can operate if a properly licensed control operator is present. *Is there a source of more detailed information? *I keyword searched Part 97 and found no surprises. *I think good sense prevails. But: If I set up two HTs to talk simplex across a room, how do I/we ID? KD6VKW/Alfa and KD6VKW/Bravo, maybe? Can the kids call CQ? Do they ID with my callsign or must I provide the ID in my own voice? Are there other sticking points? In the absence of official guidance, your opinions are welcome. Thanks. "Sal" (John, KD6VKW) John Yes you have to ID but not in your own voice. Yes the kids can call CQ under your supervision. If you use the lowest power setting and an unpopular simplex frequency for the unit to unit calls it is rather unlikely that anyone except the kids and you will hear it. Check with your club and find a woman operator to respond to the CQ. Smaller children will respond better to a woman's voice. -- Tom Horne |
FCC Rules
On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 22:23:44 -0800 (PST), "Sal M. Onella"
wrote: Please pardon the slightly off-topic subject. I'm giving a class at my grandson's school next month and I'm going to include ham radio, with some of the kids presumably getting on the air. Of course, an unlicensed person can operate if a properly licensed control operator is present. Is there a source of more detailed information? I keyword searched Part 97 and found no surprises. I think good sense prevails. It's mixed in under the term "control operator". That's the licensed operator in charge of the station by the station owner. Note that much of the wording comes from the days when there were seperate station and operator licenses. The duties are scattered all over Part 97. For example: http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/news/part97/b.html But: If I set up two HTs to talk simplex across a room, how do I/we ID? KD6VKW/Alfa and KD6VKW/Bravo, maybe? The same way you do during field day or any other multi-operator station. Just the call sign of the station. If you want to get down to details, see 97.119(c) which discusses "self assigned designators". You could just use tactical call signs as in a typical emergency net, but that would really be a stretch. As long as there's a licensed operator in charge, and they ID every 10 minutes, you're fine. Can the kids call CQ? Yes. They can do anything that the control operator allows. Do they ID with my callsign or must I provide the ID in my own voice? They can ID on your behalf because it's a station license, not an operator license. Are there other sticking points? Yes. You'll bore the kids to death with such minutae and trivia. In the absence of official guidance, your opinions are welcome. One of the harzards of being a licensed radio operator is that it instantly tansforms one into a legal expert. If the rules were obvious and simple, we wouldn't need devine, official, or amateur guidance, but that's another rant. -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
FCC Rules
Jeff Liebermann wrote:
Yes. You'll bore the kids to death with such minutae and trivia. Show them the Jay leno morse code versus texting clip. Geoff. -- Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel N3OWJ/4X1GM New word I coined 12/13/09, "Sub-Wikipedia" adj, describing knowledge or understanding, as in he has a sub-wikipedia understanding of the situation. i.e possessing less facts or information than can be found in the Wikipedia |
FCC Rules
On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 17:24:03 +0000 (UTC), "Geoffrey S. Mendelson"
wrote: Jeff Liebermann wrote: Yes. You'll bore the kids to death with such minutae and trivia. Show them the Jay leno morse code versus texting clip. Geoff. The most effective song and dance I did in front of a Jr High Skool class was tearing apart various cell phones, walkie talkies, computahs, and consumer electronics to demonstrate that they should not be afraid of such things. Unfortunately, the parents hated my guts when the kids starting practicing what I showed them. Learn by Destroying(tm). 2nd best was dragging in my collection of old cell phones including an IMTS control head, various bag phones, and an unbelievable brick like handset that's VERY heavy. I also brought an early Motorola tube type Breaky-Backy with wet cells inside. Some of the stuff still works. Nobody was interested in Morse Code until I mentioned that it could be used for "secret communications". That means that the parents and teachers couldn't understand what the kids were saying. Lots of interest (and potential problems) there. The problem with todays version of ham radio is that it's really boring. Nobody wants to talk to someone around the world, when they can pickup a POTS or cell phone and do it with much less effort and expense. With the demise of Heathkit, building radios is no longer a draw. The magic of radio is gone. So, show them what they can do with radio. Weather stations, APRS, satellite, construction, etc are a good start. -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
FCC Rules
Jeff Liebermann wrote:
The problem with todays version of ham radio is that it's really boring. Nobody wants to talk to someone around the world, when they can pickup a POTS or cell phone and do it with much less effort and expense. With the demise of Heathkit, building radios is no longer a draw. The magic of radio is gone. So, show them what they can do with radio. Weather stations, APRS, satellite, construction, etc are a good start. The magic hasn't gone - it's just been refined. The numbers of enthusiasts may drop, but those left will be more focussed and dedicated. The quantity is being replaced by quality. For every ten new hams who buy an off-the-shelf radio, play with it for a year or two, then lose interest, there is one in whom the spark is truly lit. Building is alive and well in the form of QRP. The satisfaction of operating a TX which is the product of your own efforts and ideas beats driving a commercial radio any day. (There is a mirror to all this in the model aircraft hobby. Many now begin by buying a top-dollar almost-ready-to-fly radio controlled plane. All you need is money. Little achievement, little reward, other than the transient buzz of flying the thing. Same effect - 90 percent drop out, ten percent go on to greater things: building and designing their own creations). Don't believe the prophets of doom who tell us that ham radio is dead. They're just pessimists and losers. Ignore them and move on. |
FCC Rules
Gaius wrote:
The magic hasn't gone - it's just been refined. The numbers of enthusiasts may drop, but those left will be more focussed and dedicated. The quantity is being replaced by quality. For every ten new hams who buy an off-the-shelf radio, play with it for a year or two, then lose interest, there is one in whom the spark is truly lit. Building is alive and well in the form of QRP. The satisfaction of operating a TX which is the product of your own efforts and ideas beats driving a commercial radio any day. (There is a mirror to all this in the model aircraft hobby. Many now begin by buying a top-dollar almost-ready-to-fly radio controlled plane. All you need is money. Little achievement, little reward, other than the transient buzz of flying the thing. Same effect - 90 percent drop out, ten percent go on to greater things: building and designing their own creations). Don't believe the prophets of doom who tell us that ham radio is dead. They're just pessimists and losers. Ignore them and move on. Correct - The magic hasn't gone. Take 10GHz. A 10 GHz SSB setup can do well over 200 miles with only 2 watts with an old DSS dish. You can call CQ in a 10G contest off of a local 30 story building, or even better - a local rain cloud. The systems are normally built as transverters from kits. And learning is involved in construction as you figure out how to interface a 2m SSB rig to a transverter, and where you find mini hardline, and SMA relays for cheap. Using them teaches the user a lot about practical microwave propagation. Interested persons from the Midwest or those from anywhere else check out www.nlrs.org. We are one of the most active microwave groups in the US. tom K0TAR |
FCC Rules
On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 22:23:44 -0800 (PST), "Sal M. Onella"
, in an obviously impaired state, wrote: Please pardon the slightly off-topic subject. I'm giving a class at my grandson's school next month and I'm going to include ham radio, with some of the kids presumably getting on the air. Of course, an unlicensed person can operate if a properly licensed control operator is present. Is there a source of more detailed information? I keyword searched Part 97 and found no surprises. I think good sense prevails. But: If I set up two HTs to talk simplex across a room, how do I/we ID? KD6VKW/Alfa and KD6VKW/Bravo, maybe? Can the kids call CQ? Do they ID with my callsign or must I provide the ID in my own voice? Seems to me that "KD6VKW Portable 1" and and "KD6VKW Portable 2" would be appropriate. The addition of arbitrary letters and or numbers after your call sign could be misconstrued as meaning something other than what you intend. The use of Portable 1, Portable 2, etc., is more straightforward and accurately describes the type of conversation in progress. -- Raymond Sirois - KU2S http://www.hamxam.org 10-10 #70270 |
FCC Rules
On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 21:55:07 +0000, Gaius wrote:
Jeff Liebermann wrote: The problem with todays version of ham radio is that it's really boring. Nobody wants to talk to someone around the world, when they can pickup a POTS or cell phone and do it with much less effort and expense. With the demise of Heathkit, building radios is no longer a draw. The magic of radio is gone. So, show them what they can do with radio. Weather stations, APRS, satellite, construction, etc are a good start. The magic hasn't gone - it's just been refined. For someone that's been in the hobby from before I could (legally) drive a car, the magic is gone. To someone new to the hobby, communicating with peoples on the other side of the planet is commonplace. Pickup a cell phone, dial, and talk. There's no magic in that. In the past, showing potential new hams how it works got an "amazing" reaction. These days, I get asked "what's all that noise"? It's no longer a technical hobby, but more like a "radio sport". It's no longer about building and refining a radio to the bleeding edge of the state of the art. It's now what you can do with a radio. Fortunately, there's plenty to do with a radio. I listed a few. There's plenty more (contesting, CW, boat anchors, xmitter hunts, microwave, field day, packet, meteor scatter, etc). Plenty to interest a Jr High Skool brat, but you have to show them first. I used to worry about overwhelming them. Not any more. I show them in everything I can find and let them find their own inspiration. Oddly, the local new hams seem to be coming from the 4-H Organization. The numbers of enthusiasts may drop, but those left will be more focussed and dedicated. The quantity is being replaced by quality. There was a surge of new hams wanting to use ham radio as a cheap cell phone. That didn't last, but it sure fattened the various club treasuries. I'm not sure those remaining are more dedicated. Most of the radio club members are 50 or more years old. There are younger members, that also tend to be very technical, but they're disappointed at the general lack of technical expertise of the older hams. Comments like "how do you expect to operate a software defined radio without any programming skills?" are common. I give at least one technical talk a year to the local clubs. I can tell by the audience's faces that only a few have a clue what I'm talking about. I passed out about 30 CD's with 4NEC2, EZNEC demo, and a zillion models at one meeting. I think perhaps 1 or 2 people tried it. Don't believe the prophets of doom who tell us that ham radio is dead. They're just pessimists and losers. Ignore them and move on. I like to think of myself of being part of the solution, rather than the prophet of doom and despair. Please ignore me and move on. -- # Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060 # 831-336-2558 # http://802.11junk.com # http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS |
FCC Rules
tom wrote in
. net: Gaius wrote: The magic hasn't gone - it's just been refined. The numbers of enthusiasts may drop, but those left will be more focussed and dedicated. The quantity is being replaced by quality. For every ten new hams who buy an off-the-shelf radio, play with it for a year or two, then lose interest, there is one in whom the spark is truly lit. Building is alive and well in the form of QRP. The satisfaction of operating a TX which is the product of your own efforts and ideas beats driving a commercial radio any day. (There is a mirror to all this in the model aircraft hobby. Many now begin by buying a top-dollar almost-ready-to-fly radio controlled plane. All you need is money. Little achievement, little reward, other than the transient buzz of flying the thing. Same effect - 90 percent drop out, ten percent go on to greater things: building and designing their own creations). Don't believe the prophets of doom who tell us that ham radio is dead. They're just pessimists and losers. Ignore them and move on. Correct - The magic hasn't gone. Take 10GHz. A 10 GHz SSB setup can do well over 200 miles with only 2 watts with an old DSS dish. You can call CQ in a 10G contest off of a local 30 story building, or even better - a local rain cloud. The systems are normally built as transverters from kits. And learning is involved in construction as you figure out how to interface a 2m SSB rig to a transverter, and where you find mini hardline, and SMA relays for cheap. Using them teaches the user a lot about practical microwave propagation. Interested persons from the Midwest or those from anywhere else check out www.nlrs.org. We are one of the most active microwave groups in the US. tom K0TAR Another lively form of ham radio exists where people use Pringles tubes and such to make small directional relays for RF-based localised internet. While the TCP protocol comes ready made, the spirit of ham radio is very alive in the way people coerce a pringles tube into doing these things. |
FCC Rules
Lostgallifreyan wrote:
Another lively form of ham radio exists where people use Pringles tubes and such to make small directional relays for RF-based localised internet. While the TCP protocol comes ready made, the spirit of ham radio is very alive in the way people coerce a pringles tube into doing these things. Unfortunately if they are properly made, they are illegal to use in the US and other places in the world. The EIRP limit in the US is 1W for portable/mobile and 4W for fixed (point to point use), a properly made Pringles antenna produces slightly over 4W with 100mW input. Here it's even worse, the EIRP limit is 100mW, so any gain antenna is technicaly illegal, though 5dbi ones they are sold here. It's become IMHO more like the spirit of modifiying CB rigs to transmit and receive in that little slice of radio spectrum between CB and the 10m ham band aka "freebanding" than the spirit of lawful, respectful ham radio. Geoff. -- Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel N3OWJ/4X1GM New word I coined 12/13/09, "Sub-Wikipedia" adj, describing knowledge or understanding, as in he has a sub-wikipedia understanding of the situation. i.e possessing less facts or information than can be found in the Wikipedia. |
FCC Rules
Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote:
Lostgallifreyan wrote: Another lively form of ham radio exists where people use Pringles tubes and such to make small directional relays for RF-based localised internet. While the TCP protocol comes ready made, the spirit of ham radio is very alive in the way people coerce a pringles tube into doing these things. Unfortunately if they are properly made, they are illegal to use in the US and other places in the world. The EIRP limit in the US is 1W for portable/mobile and 4W for fixed (point to point use), a properly made Pringles antenna produces slightly over 4W with 100mW input. Here it's even worse, the EIRP limit is 100mW, so any gain antenna is technicaly illegal, though 5dbi ones they are sold here. It's become IMHO more like the spirit of modifiying CB rigs to transmit and receive in that little slice of radio spectrum between CB and the 10m ham band aka "freebanding" than the spirit of lawful, respectful ham radio. Geoff. It is not illegal if it is done on an amateur frequency by a licensed amateur. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
FCC Rules
On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 16:14:04 +0000 (UTC), "Geoffrey S. Mendelson"
wrote: It is not illegal if it is done on an amateur frequency by a licensed amateur. You forgot the words "in the US". Is using WiFi equipment for ham radio legal? Hi Geoff, If it is done by a Ham radio operator. Ham radio operators (in the US) are the ONLY class of radio operation that do NOT have a type acceptance requirement. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
FCC Rules
In article ,
Richard Clark wrote: It is not illegal if it is done on an amateur frequency by a licensed amateur. You forgot the words "in the US". Is using WiFi equipment for ham radio legal? Hi Geoff, If it is done by a Ham radio operator. Ham radio operators (in the US) are the ONLY class of radio operation that do NOT have a type acceptance requirement. There are, of course, certain restrictions. The 13 cm band privileges for hams in the U.S. are not an exact overlap for the license-free 802.11b/g frequencies. You can't assert the use of your ham privileges if you're transmitting on channels not covered by the ham authorizations. You must ID properly (often done by setting the ESSID to the ham callsign). You may not encrypt the transmission for the purpose of obscuring its meaning. [Some feel that encryption is permitted for the purpose of ensuring that the link is used only by licensed hams, or for "privacy". Some feel that encryption is OK if you make the actual encryption key publicly available e.g. on a web site.] If you have a valid U.S. ham license, and respect all of these (and other) Part 97 ham restrictions, then you can legally use commercial WiFi gear to transmit on these frequencies. Under those conditions, you can use as much power as Part 97 will allow... the Part 15 rules do not apply. -- Dave Platt AE6EO Friends of Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads! |
FCC Rules
Jeff Liebermann wrote:
For someone that's been in the hobby from before I could (legally) drive a car, the magic is gone. For you, it is perhaps. Not for me. To someone new to the hobby, communicating with peoples on the other side of the planet is commonplace. Has been for years. Pickup a cell phone, dial, and talk. There's no magic in that. I remember making telephone calls to other countries when I was a little kid in the 60's. The Transatlantic cable was laid in the mid 19th century. People could talk a long way away then too. Worldwide communications pre-dates radio communications. It's a matter of infrastructure. some snippage I like to think of myself of being part of the solution, rather than the prophet of doom and despair. Please ignore me and move on. Not trying to bust your chops or anything, Jeff, but if you have no more magic in you for Ham radio, its going to be really hard being part of the solution. - 73 de Mike N3LI - |
FCC Rules
Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote:
wrote: It is not illegal if it is done on an amateur frequency by a licensed amateur. You forgot the words "in the US". Is using WiFi equipment for ham radio legal? For lack of a better word, yes. - 73 de Mike N3LI - |
FCC Rules
In article ,
"Geoffrey S. Mendelson" wrote: Unfortunately if they are properly made, they are illegal to use in the US and other places in the world. Not for a Hams in the USA, with a Tech or higher License, on the Ham portion of the 2.4 Ghz band... We can use up to 1 Kw output power, not in a Pringles can, but with the appropriate Feedhorn, and an old 8 ft TVRO Dish, Moon bounce is a very real activity. It is the Tracking Hardware that gets expensive.... that and the 2.4 Ghz TWT's..... |
FCC Rules
In article ,
"Geoffrey S. Mendelson" wrote: wrote: It is not illegal if it is done on an amateur frequency by a licensed amateur. You forgot the words "in the US". Is using WiFi equipment for ham radio legal? Geoff. Yep, as long as your in the Ham portion of the 2.4 Ghz band.... been there, done that...... |
FCC Rules
On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 18:07:32 -0500, Mike Coslo wrote:
Pickup a cell phone, dial, and talk. There's no magic in that. I remember making telephone calls to other countries when I was a little kid in the 60's. The Transatlantic cable was laid in the mid 19th century. People could talk a long way away then too. Worldwide communications pre-dates radio communications. It's a matter of infrastructure. I think I will drop my oar into this one too. Being able to call someone in China is not the same thing as calling out, and getting a response from someone in China. A.G. Bell's practical invention of telephony long preceded practical (or even impractical) radiotelephony and no one seemed to care, but many got excited. And to invert the argument. When I lived in Europe in the late 50s early 60s, Paris had such a funky telephone system that reportedly you could dial a "special number" that put you into an open common trunk where others would have been already deep in spontaneous conversation. It was very popular and "exciting...." until they fixed it (in their own time, of course - for the French that could have been many years later). 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
FCC Rules
On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 16:14:04 +0000 (UTC), "Geoffrey S. Mendelson"
wrote: wrote: It is not illegal if it is done on an amateur frequency by a licensed amateur. You forgot the words "in the US". Is using WiFi equipment for ham radio legal? Geoff. I don't want to comment on the legal part of the puzzle (because I already have a headache). However, it should be obvious that there's a potential conflict between unlicensed Part 15 operation, and licensed part 97 operation on 2.4GHz. Place your bets and blast a way with kilowatts on 2.4Ghz. Will 800,000 licensed US hams prevail over perhaps 300 million unlicensed wireless devices? Want to bet on who will win before an FCC tribunal? If there is a conflict, I'll place my bets on Part 15. Hint: When dealing with the FCC, don't ask any questions for which you don't already know the answer. It's highly likely that you'll get a very weird and undesireable answer that you don't really want to hear. -- # Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060 # 831-336-2558 # http://802.11junk.com # http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS |
FCC Rules
On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 17:21:01 -0800, Jeff Liebermann
wrote: I don't want to comment on the legal part of the puzzle (because I already have a headache). Oops. I forgot the link: http://www.arrl.org/tis/info/part15.html -- # Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060 # 831-336-2558 # http://802.11junk.com # http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS |
FCC Rules
Why not go find a couple of el cheapo PRS handi-talkies (Personal Radio Service - 450 plus MHz) and let the kiddies talk to each other that way? Why bring ham radio into it at all? It was by way of introducing them to our hobby in the course of giving a lesson. That's all. Thanks for your input. "Sal" |
FCC Rules
*Check with
your club and find a woman operator to respond to the CQ. *Smaller children will respond better to a woman's voice. -- Tom Horne Ah -- good idea. It will be out of my home area, but I'll bet if I scouted around after I get there, I'll be able to find someone. Thanks. |
FCC Rules
On Dec 14, 9:13*am, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
Are there other sticking points? Yes. *You'll bore the kids to death with such minutae and trivia. LOL TKS.. "Sal" |
FCC Rules
Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 16:14:04 +0000 (UTC), "Geoffrey S. Mendelson" wrote: wrote: It is not illegal if it is done on an amateur frequency by a licensed amateur. You forgot the words "in the US". Is using WiFi equipment for ham radio legal? Geoff. I don't want to comment on the legal part of the puzzle (because I already have a headache). However, it should be obvious that there's a potential conflict between unlicensed Part 15 operation, and licensed part 97 operation on 2.4GHz. Place your bets and blast a way with kilowatts on 2.4Ghz. Will 800,000 licensed US hams prevail over perhaps 300 million unlicensed wireless devices? Want to bet on who will win before an FCC tribunal? If there is a conflict, I'll place my bets on Part 15. Since 2.4 GHz is basically line of sight, few hams work 2.4 GHz, and the Part 15 devices running under Part 15 can hop to other frequencies including frequencies outside the ham bands, I don't see a lot of potential for conflicts. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
FCC Rules
Nobody was interested in Morse Code until I mentioned that it could be used for "secret communications". *That means that the parents and teachers couldn't understand what the kids were saying. *Lots of interest (and potential problems) there. The problem with todays version of ham radio is that it's really boring. *Nobody wants to talk to someone around the world, when they can pickup a POTS or cell phone and do it with much less effort and expense. *With the demise of Heathkit, building radios is no longer a draw. *The magic of radio is gone. * I have a diverse collection of demonstrations for them, hoping to catch each one of them with something they find interesting. I have a handout with eight Morse Code characters on it, enough to spell out some easy words, They're mostly 4th graders. I'm doing magnetism and communications and showing how they relate. I taught school in the Navy, but I have no experience with little kids, except my own. My Navy students were almost always well-motivated but I have no idea what the 4th graders are going to be like. They are all in the Gifted And Talented Education program and I think it's either going to be great or awful -- no in-between. |
FCC Rules
On Dec 14, 9:15*pm, KU2S wrote:
Seems to me that "KD6VKW Portable 1" and *and "KD6VKW Portable 2" would be appropriate. *The addition of arbitrary letters and or numbers after your call sign could be misconstrued as meaning something other than what you intend. *The use of Portable 1, Portable 2, etc., is more straightforward and accurately describes the type of conversation in progress. * I thought of that but the numbers would seem to imply geography, like when I was in Colorado in the summer, I signed "Portable 0." Thanks for the suggestion. |
FCC Rules
Richard Clark wrote:
And to invert the argument. When I lived in Europe in the late 50s early 60s, Paris had such a funky telephone system that reportedly you could dial a "special number" that put you into an open common trunk where others would have been already deep in spontaneous conversation. It was very popular and "exciting...." until they fixed it (in their own time, of course - for the French that could have been many years later). 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC It probably wasn't "funky". It was just hacked. It also existed in the US. The chances are that it was the same destination type as it was here. In the US you could dial a number that effectively put you into a conference. It was used for telco meet-me maintenance traffic. Neither person needed to know the other's number. I know someone that used to do music requests to their 6 MHz (plus/minus) pirate broadcasts using this hidden conference bridge. They were the first on the air as a pirate station in the US as far as I know. I don't condone it, but it was a long time ago, and the persons involved have paid their dues. And are all good taxpaying citizens now. tom K0TAR |
FCC Rules
"Sal M. Onella" wrote in message ... Why not go find a couple of el cheapo PRS handi-talkies (Personal Radio Service - 450 plus MHz) and let the kiddies talk to each other that way? Why bring ham radio into it at all? It was by way of introducing them to our hobby in the course of giving a lesson. That's all. Thanks for your input. "Sal" Sal, who do you suppose that they will talk to if they did take the bait and get a license and a radio? I've heard kids calling CQ many times, only to go unanswered - even by me, I shamefully admit. I leave my ham rigs running while I'm working in my shop, so I seldom answer anyone's CQ if I'm busy working, so the kids weren't a special case, although I did feel guilty that I didn't answer their call. Ed, NM2K |
FCC Rules
On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 17:42:25 -0800 (PST), "Sal M. Onella"
wrote: I have a diverse collection of demonstrations for them, hoping to catch each one of them with something they find interesting. Perfect. That's the right idea. Lots of show and very little tell (unless they ask). I have a handout with eight Morse Code characters on it, enough to spell out some easy words, Good idea. Mind if I steal it? They're mostly 4th graders. I'm doing magnetism and communications and showing how they relate. 9-10 years old is the right age to start. Between 8 and 15, I tried literally everything I could find. Cooking, guns, sewing, carpentry, elecronics (buzzer and magnets), chemistry, fizzix, etc. Getting my attention for only a few minutes was easy. More than an hour was impossible. Somewhat later, I took the ones that were of interest and went deeper. I still recall round the clock repeater building sessions in my fathers garage. I taught school in the Navy, but I have no experience with little kids, except my own. When I took teacher prep, one of the first exercises was to reduce my vocabulary to about 9,000 words which was about right for a 12 year old. I later found out that the typical 12 year old knew far more words than officially recognized. Just avoid any technobabble with 3 or more syllables and you'll do ok. Try to get them to ask questions and answer the questions at the same level as was asked. My Navy students were almost always well-motivated but I have no idea what the 4th graders are going to be like. They will be out to see how far they can push or taunt you. Don't fight it. Just be their friend and not their diciplinarian. If they go over the top and riot, then maybe sacrifice the leaders for the greater good. Smart kids are much easier to deal with than the academic losers. My favorite line for getting them curious is "wanna see what's inside" or "wanna know how this thing works"? Don't be surprised if you get high level questions. Most of these kid so read magazines and techy stuff online, mostly ammunition to make themselves look good in class. Be prepared to answer tough basic questions like "why does one radio talk around the world, while others just talk down the street"? You might learn as much from their questions as they're learning from your demo. They are all in the Gifted And Talented Education program and I think it's either going to be great or awful -- no in-between. In the accellerated classes, they'll all be trying to show off how much (or little) they know. -- # Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060 # 831-336-2558 # http://802.11junk.com # http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS |
FCC Rules
On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 17:42:25 -0800 (PST), "Sal M. Onella"
wrote: I taught school in the Navy, but I have no experience with little kids, except my own. My Navy students were almost always well-motivated but I have no idea what the 4th graders are going to be like. I know what you mean because our experience has converged there. Outside of the Navy, and just yesterday, I was Mentoring 3 of my high school students to varying degrees of success. When asked how it went, I responded "up, down, and sideways." Luckily this response is not the typical experience. These kids are from the lower end of the socio-economic spectrum, but the school system here in Seattle has made an investment, and community (I do this through the NW Assoc. for Biological Researcher) does its part to. Computer literacy is tops (without the golden hand of Chairman Bill Gates being felt). From their interest and drive, their challenged background (or challenged emotional/developmental life) doesn't disrupt their momentum. One of the most profound lectures I have ever read, insofar as teaching science goes, dates back roughly 150 years to one of our own. "The Chemical History of the Candle" by Michael Faraday is a series of lectures by the master of inductance given to young students. It is the classic of its type and sets the standard even to this day. One might ponder about the significance of a history of the candle. In one sense, it is quite complete to that heading alone. But beyond it, and he goes vastly beyond it, there is coverage that is topical to the current energy debate, the current green debate, and current to the state of biology that is understandable by the mid-schooler on. One point that still astonishes me is when Faraday makes the point (and I will extrapolate to current capacities) that for every barrel of oil burned, a barrel of water is produced in the combustion process. I have to wonder at the plight of science understanding (not just training) when I see huge flame geysers burning in the desert (waste gas) of an oil rich country that has to import water: "What the ****? Over" 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
FCC Rules
On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 21:33:23 -0800, Richard Clark
wrote: "The Chemical History of the Candle" by Michael Faraday complete text available at: http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/14474 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
FCC Rules
On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 01:37:00 -0000, wrote:
Jeff Liebermann wrote: On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 16:14:04 +0000 (UTC), "Geoffrey S. Mendelson" wrote: wrote: It is not illegal if it is done on an amateur frequency by a licensed amateur. You forgot the words "in the US". Is using WiFi equipment for ham radio legal? Geoff. I don't want to comment on the legal part of the puzzle (because I already have a headache). However, it should be obvious that there's a potential conflict between unlicensed Part 15 operation, and licensed part 97 operation on 2.4GHz. Place your bets and blast a way with kilowatts on 2.4Ghz. Will 800,000 licensed US hams prevail over perhaps 300 million unlicensed wireless devices? Want to bet on who will win before an FCC tribunal? If there is a conflict, I'll place my bets on Part 15. Since 2.4 GHz is basically line of sight, few hams work 2.4 GHz, and the Part 15 devices running under Part 15 can hop to other frequencies including frequencies outside the ham bands, I don't see a lot of potential for conflicts. There's considerable overlap in frequencies in both the 2.4 and 5.7GHz bands between Part 15 (license free) and Part 97 (ham radio). See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_multimedia_radio#Frequencies_and_channels Most 802.11 direct sequence modulation on the 2.4Ghz band is about 20Mhz wide leaving exactly 3 non-overlapping channels (1, 6, and 11) to be used without mutual inference. Some access points have "automagic frequency selection" which allegedly finds an empty channel to use. The client radios will follow the access point channel. My experience with this feature has been dismal and I just turn it off. The real problem is that direct sequence 802.11 and 802.11b are not particularly immune to interference. Sure, there's about 10dB of processing gain, which helps. However, even a dead carrier anywhere in the 20MHz occupied bandwidth will stop thruput dead. OFDM (802.11g) does much better by breaking the data into 52 separate sub-carriers. Clobber a few sub-carriers and all it does is slow down. However, spray broadband garbage across all 52 carriers (i.e. microwave oven or frequency hopping spread spectrum, and it too will stop dead. So, what are hams doing? Well there's the traditional moon bounce, DX, and rover modes, all of which are narrow band. They mostly stay in the bottom part of the band, which does not overlap (much) with 802.11 data. They're not a problem. There are also a very small number of FM and ATV repeaters on 2.4GHz. Those might become a problem, if they weren't so rare. So, where's the problem? Several places, all of which I've seen. One is from Part 15 wireless network owners purchasing ATV amplifier hardware and generating what I call an alligator. That's an animal with a big mouth, but small ears. It can be heard everywhere, but can only hear a short distance. Kinda like what one gets when attaching a high power amplifier to a consumer grade wireless router. Another horror surrounds cordless phones. I caught one bozo with a modified Panasonic 2.4Ghz spread spectrum cordless phone, with a 10 watt amplifier attached, and using it like a cell phone in downtown Santa Cruz. I was sniffing the area trying to figure out why wi-fi was almost useless in parts of the downtown area. This guy wasn't a ham, but he had some relative that was build him the power amp. The alligator owners are epidemic and are sometimes hams that have decided that the Part 97 allows them to use high power regardless of how much interference it creates. Hams are also a licensed service, which takes priority over an unlicensed service. However, as I previously indicated, if the issue ever comes before the FCC, my bets are on 250 million wi-fi devices, versus 800,000 hams. Chances are really good that if hams create interference by using high power, we'll lose the whole band. The number of conflicts are certainly minimal, as there aren't enough hams using 2.4Ghz to make a difference. However, one high power ham ATV xmitter, in the middle of a crowded wi-fi infested area, will effectively jam everyone within a substantial radius. It only take one ham operator. -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
FCC Rules
Jeff Liebermann wrote in
: I have a handout with eight Morse Code characters on it, enough to spell out some easy words, Good idea. Mind if I steal it? Or make it a puzzle. Some text they're likely to know, maybe a long and eventful paragraph of Harry Potter or similar, and translate for a short line that uses only a few letters of the alphabet and that does not identify the source text or content, but allows substitution to fill in other words, completed by working out what other parts of the text are saying, or by simple elimination within a word. I never did learn Morse well, never needed to, but playing with that method with other people on an internet forum was by far the closest I ever got, and the most fun. Someone would paste something into a code translator, and instead of doing the reverse I'd start with the few I always remember, E,A,N,S,T,O,H, and build on those. It might sound like a lot for a young child, but if more than one are keen to find out what's being said they won't need much motivating, that will take care of itself. They won't remember every letter, but most adults who type every day would be hard put to locate every letter on a QUERTY keyboard without actually looking at one, what is retained is the memory of an important process. |
FCC Rules
Jeff Liebermann wrote:
I don't want to comment on the legal part of the puzzle (because I already have a headache). However, it should be obvious that there's a potential conflict between unlicensed Part 15 operation, and licensed part 97 operation on 2.4GHz. Place your bets and blast a way with kilowatts on 2.4Ghz. Will 800,000 licensed US hams prevail over perhaps 300 million unlicensed wireless devices? Want to bet on who will win before an FCC tribunal? If there is a conflict, I'll place my bets on Part 15. No one in their right mind is going to be running that much power - being line of sight, at those frequencies, there isn't any point. Regarding your hypothetical situation though, The likely outcome is that the Amateur would be asked to turn down the power. They usually ask the two parties to work together to get rid of the interference. But the real onus is on the part 15 device owner. Dunno if you read the F.C.C. enforcement actions, but the licensed service still "wins". BPL was an attempt by economic interests to turn technical reality aside for pecuniary reasons, but it looks like th elicensed services are going to win that war now also. After the ARRL got hold of the original documents the F.C.C. used during the run up to BPL, and founf out thet the commission ignored their own engineers findings, then tried to hide that fact, it kinda let the air outta that tire. - 73 de Mike N3LI - |
FCC Rules
Richard Clark wrote:
One of the most profound lectures I have ever read, insofar as teaching science goes, dates back roughly 150 years to one of our own. "The Chemical History of the Candle" by Michael Faraday is a series of lectures by the master of inductance given to young students. It is the classic of its type and sets the standard even to this day. Thankyew! I'm reading it now. The first thing I am struck by is the readability of the thing. So much from that era was so hyperliterate. One point that still astonishes me is when Faraday makes the point (and I will extrapolate to current capacities) that for every barrel of oil burned, a barrel of water is produced in the combustion process. I have to wonder at the plight of science understanding (not just training) when I see huge flame geysers burning in the desert (waste gas) of an oil rich country that has to import water: Most of those places have borrowed the technology to extract the oil in the first place. It isn't inherent in their lifestyle. They probably don't know about the water because we didn't tell them. And we were just worried about the oil. Excellent point however. - 73 de Mike N3LI - |
FCC Rules
On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 11:35:54 -0500, Michael Coslo
wrote: Jeff Liebermann wrote: I don't want to comment on the legal part of the puzzle (because I already have a headache). However, it should be obvious that there's a potential conflict between unlicensed Part 15 operation, and licensed part 97 operation on 2.4GHz. Place your bets and blast a way with kilowatts on 2.4Ghz. Will 800,000 licensed US hams prevail over perhaps 300 million unlicensed wireless devices? Want to bet on who will win before an FCC tribunal? If there is a conflict, I'll place my bets on Part 15. No one in their right mind is going to be running that much power - being line of sight, at those frequencies, there isn't any point. Most of the Wi-Fi installations are setup to go through walls where power is helpful. Not exactly line of sight. Some of the outdoor installations are installed by WISPs (Wireless Internet Service Providers) that sometimes user maximum legal power amplifiers. You can also buy relatively high power client radios: http://www.ubnt.com/products/xr2.php That's +28dBm or 630mw, which is considerably more power than the typical 50mw radios. There are also bi-directional power amplifiers allegedly sold only for ham, government, and industrial use only: http://www.ssbusa.com/kunamp1.html and the video equivalent: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/505472-REG/RF_Video_AMP_5000M_10_AMP_5000M_10_High_Power.html from of all places a camera store. I've also helped identify and shut down 3 such overpowered installations. What's happening is as the 2.4GHz band gets more and more polluted, some individuals seem to think that the solution is to increase their TX power level. That's resulting in a very slow power war. The Wi-Fi device manufacturers have caught on and are now advertising "high power" devices, which seems to be anything over +20dBm (100mw). Various pundits have predicted a power war, which fortunately hasn't happened. Regarding your hypothetical situation though, The likely outcome is that the Amateur would be asked to turn down the power. That's exactly what has happened in one of the situations that I was involved. He didn't realize he was causing a problem and was very cooperative. I also monitor the FCC enforcement actions: http://www.fcc.gov/eb/AmateurActions/Welcome.html and have not seen anything on 2.4 or 5.6GHz that required official action. However, I do know of some warnings sent to WISPs over the last 10 years or so for using too much power. So far so good. They usually ask the two parties to work together to get rid of the interference. But the real onus is on the part 15 device owner. Dunno if you read the F.C.C. enforcement actions, but the licensed service still "wins". That's exactly the problem I mentioned. The licensed ham using 2.4Ghz is within his rights to use 1Kw. He can also legally cause interference to unlicensed devices without much consideration. So it is written, and it must be. However, all it's going to take is a few industry groups (i.e. lobbying interests) to claim that ham radio operation on 2.4Ghz is somehow detrimental to the economy by impacting Wi-Fi equipment sales, and I suspect there will be changes that impact ham radio. Please consider my comments more as a warning than as a denunciation. BPL was an attempt by economic interests to turn technical reality aside for pecuniary reasons, but it looks like th elicensed services are going to win that war now also. BPL is going to die because the electric utility companies are not seeing any revenue from the exercise, are getting some really bad press, and really don't need the hassle. The interference issue gets the press, but the decisions are always made on the basis of dollars. After the ARRL got hold of the original documents the F.C.C. used during the run up to BPL, and founf out thet the commission ignored their own engineers findings, then tried to hide that fact, it kinda let the air outta that tire. True. Much credit to the ARRL for being able to do that. Still, nothing has really changed at the FCC end. BPL systems that are leaking well over established limits are still "working on the problem". Most are still running in what is becoming a permanent "trial" mode. http://p1k.arrl.org/~ehare/bpl/ex2.html Meanwhile, a rather large number of HomePlug devices, which is essentially BPL for home internet, are being sold. They don't leak as much RF power as real BPL systems, but still manage to make plenty of noise: http://www.mds975.co.uk/Content/amateur_radio_BPL_interference.html Hmmm... It's QRN, not QRM. Oh well. http://p1k.arrl.org/~ehare/bpl/Testing_HomePlug.htm At least the ARRL is involved. Some HomePlug devices have pre-programmed notch filters to reduce power on "sensitive" frequencies which include ham bands. - 73 de Mike N3LI - -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:09 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com