Channel Jumper wrote:

If a person cannot read the answer, then when they become combative,
they tend to drift off the subject with their own axe to grind.

Babble.

If you can get someone to read this to him, the only place other then 11
meters where a person can operate without a license is FRS - which
allows one half of one watt of transmit power....

Not true and irrelevant anyway.

A Band Plan - be it FCC - which I posted or ARRL is one in the same.

Nope.

ARRL band plan tends to just show Amateur Frequencies - since that is
all that amateurs are concerned with....

Nope.

Maybe you never heard of a pink slip - operate sometime on the CW
portion in SSB Phone or AM and see how long you can operate before
someone gives you heck...

Irrelevant.

Do it on a continous basis - and see how long you can operate before you
get a pink slip...

Babble.

Jef wrote:


A Band Plan - be it FCC - which I posted or ARRL is one in the same.
ARRL band plan tends to just show Amateur Frequencies - since that is
all that amateurs are concerned with....


That is not correct, The FCC limit what modes may be transmitted on what
frequency *on some bands*, but that is very different from the ARRL or
IARU bandplans, which are much more detailed. The FCC place no
restrictions on 70cms and above.

Jeff

Almost, but not quite.

The FCC defines the frequencies and the emission modes that MAY be used
on the frequencies and this is law.

A band plan such as the ARRL's is a voluntary suggestion for the best
practices use of the various emissions within a band, i.e. a band plan
will show where within a band FM repeaters, SSB, TV, etc. should operate.

Note that while band plans are voluntary and carry no legal authority,
gross violations of band plans can be concidered to be willful interference
to other users, and as such IS a legal issue.

And Basically, the FCC just says this is the allowable frequencies, and where they are located.
The ARRL Band Plan says this is our frequencies and this is how you can use them.
The FCC explain's how power is measured and how side bands affects performance and defines interference.
They even go so far as to explain how much spectrum your signal is allowed to occupy and how close to band limits you are allowed to approach.

As far as the log went, up and until recently - you still had to keep a log for 60 meters, - before the power increase and you are only allowed to operate into a dipole antenna.
I think it has something to do with the algorythym's of a persons heart and the ability to kill someone with your RF if they get too close or have heart problems.

The origional question is moot at this point, because you are not a licensed amateur and you do not have permission to have emmissions anywhere except a small segment of the UHF - called FRS and the 11 meters - which is where all of this started.

If you had an amateur radio license, we wouldn't even be talking about this right now, or the banter back n forth.
This is the purpose of the amateur radio license exams ' - to give everyone at least a little exposure to the rules and regulations and proper operating procedures. This is also the reason why I am dead set against reissueing licenses to people who left their license lasp and to allow ham in a day classes - where a person that doesn't know anything, is allowed to cram for one day and get a license without ever having to operate or know anything.

This mindset does not produce - trained radio operators - at no cost to the government.

Channel Jumper wrote:

snip old stuff


And Basically, the FCC just says this is the allowable frequencies, and
where they are located.

OK so far, except it should be "these are the allowable..." and once the
frequencies are stated you know "where they are located".

The ARRL Band Plan says this is our frequencies and this is how you can
use them.

Essentially, except it should be "these are our frequencies and this is how
you should use them".

The FCC explain's how power is measured and how side bands affects
performance and defines interference.

Not quite.

They even go so far as to explain how much spectrum your signal is
allowed to occupy and how close to band limits you are allowed to
approach.

Straying off into la-la land here.

As far as the log went, up and until recently - you still had to keep a
log for 60 meters, - before the power increase and you are only allowed
to operate into a dipole antenna.

Yep, into la-la land.

Operations concidered experimental, i.e. performed under a waiver, require
logging, normal operations do not and have not for a long time.

I think it has something to do with the algorythym's of a persons heart
and the ability to kill someone with your RF if they get too close or
have heart problems.

Nope, not even close.

The origional question is moot at this point, because you are not a
licensed amateur and you do not have permission to have emmissions
anywhere except a small segment of the UHF - called FRS and the 11
meters - which is where all of this started.

Who is it that you think is not a licensed amateur?

If you had an amateur radio license, we wouldn't even be talking about
this right now, or the banter back n forth.

If you mean me, I've been licensed since 1964 and the reason for this
"banter" is that most everything you post is nonsense.

This is the purpose of the amateur radio license exams ' - to give
everyone at least a little exposure to the rules and regulations and
proper operating procedures. This is also the reason why I am dead set
against reissueing licenses to people who left their license lasp and to
allow ham in a day classes - where a person that doesn't know anything,
is allowed to cram for one day and get a license without ever having to
operate or know anything.

Rambling nonsense.

This mindset does not produce - trained radio operators - at no cost to
the government.

Ditto.

On Mon, 07 Jan 2013 02:15:09 +0000, jimp wrote:

David wrote:
On Sat, 05 Jan 2013 04:02:59 -0800, JIMMIE wrote:

The beer got flowing the other day and some of my friends and I got to
BSing about the possibility of transmitting a microwave pulse and
reciving it reflected off the moon. Plans are to use a microwave oven
magnetron for the transmitter. We were wondering if this would be
legal.

No, it would not be legal to do it as you described. However, there
are lots of ways to do it legally:

And why not in the USA?

Microwave oven mangetrons operate at 2.45 GHz, which is the top of the
2.39 to 2.45 GHz band and should be trivial to pull down a little bit.

All modes are allowed in the band.

All licencess other than Novice can use the band.

Microwave magnetrons would likely have unacceptable spurs and sidelobes,
as the frequency is not very stable.

David wrote:
On Mon, 07 Jan 2013 02:15:09 +0000, jimp wrote:

David wrote:
On Sat, 05 Jan 2013 04:02:59 -0800, JIMMIE wrote:

The beer got flowing the other day and some of my friends and I got to
BSing about the possibility of transmitting a microwave pulse and
reciving it reflected off the moon. Plans are to use a microwave oven
magnetron for the transmitter. We were wondering if this would be
legal.

No, it would not be legal to do it as you described. However, there
are lots of ways to do it legally:

And why not in the USA?

Microwave oven mangetrons operate at 2.45 GHz, which is the top of the
2.39 to 2.45 GHz band and should be trivial to pull down a little bit.

All modes are allowed in the band.

All licencess other than Novice can use the band.

Microwave magnetrons would likely have unacceptable spurs and sidelobes,
as the frequency is not very stable.

Spurs are highly unlikely with a cavity based device like a magnetron.

Sidelobes are an artifact of antennas, not oscillators, unless you are
talking about modulation sidelobes which are pretty trivially dealt with
in a pulse device.

The frequency stability of a magnetron is highly correlated to the
power supply, i.e. the anode voltage.

The power supply and pulse control of an oven would be useless for any
sort of communications, so one would need to build one that pulled
the frequency down into the amateur band and provided for some sort of
modulation scheme.

The simplest modulation would be very high speed CW.

Jef wrote:


Spurs are highly unlikely with a cavity based device like a magnetron.

Sidelobes are an artifact of antennas, not oscillators, unless you are
talking about modulation sidelobes which are pretty trivially dealt with
in a pulse device.

The frequency stability of a magnetron is highly correlated to the
power supply, i.e. the anode voltage.

The power supply and pulse control of an oven would be useless for any
sort of communications, so one would need to build one that pulled
the frequency down into the amateur band and provided for some sort of
modulation scheme.

The simplest modulation would be very high speed CW.


Some years ago a local ham injection locked his microwave oven and
produced a pretty stable source in the 2.4GHZ band.

Jeff

That would be the smart thing to do if one wants frequency stability and
these days it is pretty easy to do.

In message ,
writes
Jef wrote:


Spurs are highly unlikely with a cavity based device like a magnetron.

Sidelobes are an artifact of antennas, not oscillators, unless you are
talking about modulation sidelobes which are pretty trivially dealt with
in a pulse device.

The frequency stability of a magnetron is highly correlated to the
power supply, i.e. the anode voltage.

The power supply and pulse control of an oven would be useless for any
sort of communications, so one would need to build one that pulled
the frequency down into the amateur band and provided for some sort of
modulation scheme.

The simplest modulation would be very high speed CW.


Some years ago a local ham injection locked his microwave oven and
produced a pretty stable source in the 2.4GHZ band.

Jeff

That would be the smart thing to do if one wants frequency stability and
these days it is pretty easy to do.

While these technical discussions are very interesting, I can't help
feeling that most of it will go over the head of the OP. Even if he
knows nothing about amateur radio, he will by now have realised that
moonbounce is quite a specialist subject, and not something that the
ordinary man-in-the-street would be able to suddenly decide to have a go
at. If he does know about amateur radio, he probably knows this already!
--
Ian

Ian Jackson wrote:
While these technical discussions are very interesting, I can't help
feeling that most of it will go over the head of the OP. Even if he
knows nothing about amateur radio, he will by now have realised that
moonbounce is quite a specialist subject, and not something that the
ordinary man-in-the-street would be able to suddenly decide to have a go
at. If he does know about amateur radio, he probably knows this already!

Well, I have not personally used moonbounce but I have visited a moonbounce
station back in the late seventies and I sometimes read about moonbounce
as it is today, and I get the impression that it has become a lot
easier for the average ham to build a moonbounce station.
It may not be for the ordinary man-in-the-street and probably also
not for the ordinary novice radio amateur, but someone who can read
and think and is not without money should be able to assemble a
JT65 moonbounce station. Back in the seventies it required you to
be a lunatic, have a suitable location, and a real lot of money.

Rob wrote:
Ian Jackson wrote:
While these technical discussions are very interesting, I can't help
feeling that most of it will go over the head of the OP. Even if he
knows nothing about amateur radio, he will by now have realised that
moonbounce is quite a specialist subject, and not something that the
ordinary man-in-the-street would be able to suddenly decide to have a go
at. If he does know about amateur radio, he probably knows this already!

Well, I have not personally used moonbounce but I have visited a moonbounce
station back in the late seventies and I sometimes read about moonbounce
as it is today, and I get the impression that it has become a lot
easier for the average ham to build a moonbounce station.
It may not be for the ordinary man-in-the-street and probably also
not for the ordinary novice radio amateur, but someone who can read
and think and is not without money should be able to assemble a
JT65 moonbounce station. Back in the seventies it required you to
be a lunatic, have a suitable location, and a real lot of money.

When I got my Novice many decades ago, my transmitter was a 6AQ5 xtal
oscillator and a superregen receiver, all homebrew down to the power
supplies with parts mostly from salvaged TV sets.

Given all the stuff available today, I would rank building a moonbounce
station of some sort at 2.4 GHz to be about the same order of difficulty.