Government control has exceeded constitutional limitations.
Dear members:
As we all know, the government has taken over just about every facet of our life, and the military is lock-step with that effort.
We need to start forcing a return to total civilian control of this bloated government we are now dealing with, and ensure it operates as 'we' direct it, and not at the whim of a single man (bush).
If the government can move in and wipe us off the planet, where does the will of the people fit in here?
We own everything the government has, as WE put the government into operation, we darn sure can regain control and demand things change to serve the will of the people far more and far better than it has been doing over these past 20 years.
It's high time the government adhere to the will of the people and address OUR concerns first and foremost, and stop usurping power at every turn, as it has been doing solidly since Bush was 'elected'.
From power grabbing to taking away that which it has
no right or legal authority to do so, but does regardless because we the sheeple have allowed this gluttonous form of government to take far more than it gives, which directly violates the enumerated powers we originally gave it.
Now the military is playing dictator as well?
Since when did that branch of civilian control become an arm of the executive or legislative branch?
I say shut down those two 'radar' sites and move on, history has shown that the closure of others has not affected this nation whatsoever, and the last remaining pair can't prove a 'need' remains it'ssimply grabbing for more control of our constitutionaly protected powers as a people.
It appears that outright disobedience and willful disregard may be required, then forcing the shut down of the last two operational sites as they are onviously not 'strategic' in nature or scope, and that prior shutdowns and closures proves beyond a shadow of a doubt, that they are no longer neccessary as there are very few nations with the capacity or capability to even launch long range ballisitic missiles toward our shores.
This is nothing more than sabre rattling to attract attention, and playing the doomsday scare bush so loves to perpetrate upon us as well, given his history for lies and deceipt.
With all our money at the government's disposal, you would think that their brilliant minds should be able to think their way through this so-called interference and find a sutiable solution to a simple problem, such as side lobe rejection, additional band pass filtering or whatever is required to minimize or eliminate this 'interference' althogether.
Here's a thought..MOVE THE RADAR'S OPERATING BAND UPWARDS!
Or maybe even down....to the 300 Mhz. band.
Oh wait, that's where the MILITARY operates, we cna't have them move, so shove the hams off instead...NOT!
We have every right to have access to spectrum WE own, it's ours in THIS nation, and WE must demand access to it just as much as any branch of government.
I know, most U.S hams prefer the wait and see approach, but this is getting ridiculous!
Every time the military or government agency hiccups, the hams lose a slice of spectrum, same goes for big business(remember 220?).
Last I read the declaration of independence, it was 'WE THE PEOPLE' and not I the government that ran this country!
A good house cleaning is needed, from the top on down.
Stop allowing the military to dictate policies, it's not legal or allowable, especially in light of the current situation.
Also, when was the last time the government actually worked for US?
The military doesn't need the entire radio spectrum to work with, give it only what it needs and that's all...THIS FAR, NO FURTHER...THE LINE MUST BE DRAWN HERE!
Ernest A. Erickson, KA9UCE Applied Electronic Communications, AEC 10711 East Verbina Lane Florence, AZ. 85232 520.723.0602 aec9823@yahoo.com
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
We need to start forcing a return to total civilian control of this bloated government we are now dealing with, and ensure it operates as 'we' direct it, and
Sometimes its the 'we' that we worry about...
I say shut down those two 'radar' sites and move on, history has shown that the closure of others has not affected this nation whatsoever,
Oh, I donno, it protected us from Nukes from Russia for quite a while...
...they are no longer neccessary as there are very few nations with the capacity... to even launch long range ballisitic missiles
China just shot one of theirs down last month. And created 10,000 bits of shrapnel that endangers all of our satellites. Every onve of those 10,000 bits has to be tracked along with our HAM satellites to keep things clean up there in orbit...
Here's a thought..MOVE THE RADAR'S OPERATING BAND UPWARDS!
As one of the 'we', I don't my taxes to pay for a new-re-build of a several hundred million dollar facility, that has been in place and working fine for a very long time.
We have every right to have access to spectrum WE own,
No, we have access to it on a secondary shared basis. We should be thankful for that and work with them to minimize our interference to them.
The military doesn't need the entire radio spectrum to work with, give it only what it needs and that's all...THIS FAR, NO FURTHER...THE LINE MUST BE DRAWN HERE!
They actually have very little. The biggest waste of spectrum is TV. What a wasteland.
I think patience and working it out is the best way to resolve spectrum issues, not shooting from the hip with all barrels blazing...
Bob
Speaking of TV wasteland, as all TV stations have to transition to digital in 2009, the initial figures look like they are abandoning Ch 2 thru Ch 6 opening up the VHF lowband (under 88mHz) for whatever. 4 meter satellite or hambands anyone?
Roger WA1KAT
----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Bruninga" bruninga@usna.edu To: amsat-bb@amsat.org Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2007 2:40 PM Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Government control has exceededconstitutionallimitations.
We need to start forcing a return to total civilian control of this bloated government we are now dealing with, and ensure it operates as 'we' direct it, and
Sometimes its the 'we' that we worry about...
I say shut down those two 'radar' sites and move on, history has shown that the closure of others has not affected this nation whatsoever,
Oh, I donno, it protected us from Nukes from Russia for quite a while...
...they are no longer neccessary as there are very few nations with the capacity... to even launch long range ballisitic missiles
China just shot one of theirs down last month. And created 10,000 bits of shrapnel that endangers all of our satellites. Every onve of those 10,000 bits has to be tracked along with our HAM satellites to keep things clean up there in orbit...
Here's a thought..MOVE THE RADAR'S OPERATING BAND UPWARDS!
As one of the 'we', I don't my taxes to pay for a new-re-build of a several hundred million dollar facility, that has been in place and working fine for a very long time.
We have every right to have access to spectrum WE own,
No, we have access to it on a secondary shared basis. We should be thankful for that and work with them to minimize our interference to them.
The military doesn't need the entire radio spectrum to work with, give it only what it needs and that's all...THIS FAR, NO FURTHER...THE LINE MUST BE DRAWN HERE!
They actually have very little. The biggest waste of spectrum is TV. What a wasteland.
I think patience and working it out is the best way to resolve spectrum issues, not shooting from the hip with all barrels blazing...
Bob
Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
Isn't it going to be refarmed for public service use? Jim KQ6EA
--- Roger Kolakowski rogerkola@aol.com wrote:
Speaking of TV wasteland, as all TV stations have to transition to digital in 2009, the initial figures look like they are abandoning Ch 2 thru Ch 6 opening up the VHF lowband (under 88mHz) for whatever. 4 meter satellite or hambands anyone?
Roger WA1KAT
----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Bruninga" bruninga@usna.edu To: amsat-bb@amsat.org Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2007 2:40 PM Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Government control has exceededconstitutionallimitations.
We need to start forcing a return to total
civilian
control of this bloated government we are now
dealing
with, and ensure it operates as 'we' direct it,
and
Sometimes its the 'we' that we worry about...
I say shut down those two 'radar' sites and move
on,
history has shown that the closure of others has
not
affected this nation whatsoever,
Oh, I donno, it protected us from Nukes from
Russia for quite a
while...
...they are no longer neccessary as there are very few nations with the capacity... to even launch long range ballisitic missiles
China just shot one of theirs down last month.
And created
10,000 bits of shrapnel that endangers all of our
satellites.
Every onve of those 10,000 bits has to be tracked
along with our
HAM satellites to keep things clean up there in
orbit...
Here's a thought..MOVE THE RADAR'S OPERATING
BAND
UPWARDS!
As one of the 'we', I don't my taxes to pay for a
new-re-build
of a several hundred million dollar facility, that
has been in
place and working fine for a very long time.
We have every right to have access to spectrum
WE own,
No, we have access to it on a secondary shared
basis. We should
be thankful for that and work with them to
minimize our
interference to them.
The military doesn't need the entire radio
spectrum to
work with, give it only what it needs and that's all...THIS FAR, NO FURTHER...THE LINE MUST BE
DRAWN HERE!
They actually have very little. The biggest waste
of spectrum
is TV. What a wasteland.
I think patience and working it out is the best
way to resolve
spectrum issues, not shooting from the hip with
all barrels
blazing...
Bob
Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. Opinions expressed
are those of the author.
Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the
amateur satellite program!
Subscription settings:
http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
No, those channels are probably going to 802.22 services.
----Original Message Follows---- From: Jim Jerzycke kq6ea@pacbell.net To: Roger Kolakowski rogerkola@aol.com, bruninga@usna.edu, amsat-bb@amsat.org Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Government control hasexceededconstitutionallimitations. Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 11:58:55 -0700 (PDT)
Isn't it going to be refarmed for public service use? Jim KQ6EA
--- Roger Kolakowski rogerkola@aol.com wrote:
Speaking of TV wasteland, as all TV stations have to transition to digital in 2009, the initial figures look like they are abandoning Ch 2 thru Ch 6 opening up the VHF lowband (under 88mHz) for whatever. 4 meter satellite or hambands anyone?
Roger WA1KAT
----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Bruninga" bruninga@usna.edu To: amsat-bb@amsat.org Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2007 2:40 PM Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Government control has exceededconstitutionallimitations.
We need to start forcing a return to total
civilian
control of this bloated government we are now
dealing
with, and ensure it operates as 'we' direct it,
and
Sometimes its the 'we' that we worry about...
I say shut down those two 'radar' sites and move
on,
history has shown that the closure of others has
not
affected this nation whatsoever,
Oh, I donno, it protected us from Nukes from
Russia for quite a
while...
...they are no longer neccessary as there are very few nations with the capacity... to even launch long range ballisitic missiles
China just shot one of theirs down last month.
And created
10,000 bits of shrapnel that endangers all of our
satellites.
Every onve of those 10,000 bits has to be tracked
along with our
HAM satellites to keep things clean up there in
orbit...
Here's a thought..MOVE THE RADAR'S OPERATING
BAND
UPWARDS!
As one of the 'we', I don't my taxes to pay for a
new-re-build
of a several hundred million dollar facility, that
has been in
place and working fine for a very long time.
We have every right to have access to spectrum
WE own,
No, we have access to it on a secondary shared
basis. We should
be thankful for that and work with them to
minimize our
interference to them.
The military doesn't need the entire radio
spectrum to
work with, give it only what it needs and that's all...THIS FAR, NO FURTHER...THE LINE MUST BE
DRAWN HERE!
They actually have very little. The biggest waste
of spectrum
is TV. What a wasteland.
I think patience and working it out is the best
way to resolve
spectrum issues, not shooting from the hip with
all barrels
blazing...
Bob
Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. Opinions expressed
are those of the author.
Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the
amateur satellite program!
Subscription settings:
http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
_______________________________________________ Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
The frequencies from 30 mHz to 50 mHz, have been left for spoils because of antenna size and "skip"...where will the industry decide "skip" stops?
Roger WA1KAT
----- Original Message ----- From: "Jim Jerzycke" kq6ea@pacbell.net To: "Roger Kolakowski" rogerkola@aol.com; bruninga@usna.edu; amsat-bb@amsat.org Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2007 3:58 PM Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] Re: Government control has exceededconstitutionallimitations.
Isn't it going to be refarmed for public service use? Jim KQ6EA
--- Roger Kolakowski rogerkola@aol.com wrote:
Speaking of TV wasteland, as all TV stations have to transition to digital in 2009, the initial figures look like they are abandoning Ch 2 thru Ch 6 opening up the VHF lowband (under 88mHz) for whatever. 4 meter satellite or hambands anyone?
Roger WA1KAT
----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Bruninga" bruninga@usna.edu To: amsat-bb@amsat.org Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2007 2:40 PM Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Government control has exceededconstitutionallimitations.
We need to start forcing a return to total
civilian
control of this bloated government we are now
dealing
with, and ensure it operates as 'we' direct it,
and
Sometimes its the 'we' that we worry about...
I say shut down those two 'radar' sites and move
on,
history has shown that the closure of others has
not
affected this nation whatsoever,
Oh, I donno, it protected us from Nukes from
Russia for quite a
while...
...they are no longer neccessary as there are very few nations with the capacity... to even launch long range ballisitic missiles
China just shot one of theirs down last month.
And created
10,000 bits of shrapnel that endangers all of our
satellites.
Every onve of those 10,000 bits has to be tracked
along with our
HAM satellites to keep things clean up there in
orbit...
Here's a thought..MOVE THE RADAR'S OPERATING
BAND
UPWARDS!
As one of the 'we', I don't my taxes to pay for a
new-re-build
of a several hundred million dollar facility, that
has been in
place and working fine for a very long time.
We have every right to have access to spectrum
WE own,
No, we have access to it on a secondary shared
basis. We should
be thankful for that and work with them to
minimize our
interference to them.
The military doesn't need the entire radio
spectrum to
work with, give it only what it needs and that's all...THIS FAR, NO FURTHER...THE LINE MUST BE
DRAWN HERE!
They actually have very little. The biggest waste
of spectrum
is TV. What a wasteland.
I think patience and working it out is the best
way to resolve
spectrum issues, not shooting from the hip with
all barrels
blazing...
Bob
Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. Opinions expressed
are those of the author.
Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the
amateur satellite program!
Subscription settings:
http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
The TV channels being refarmed as result of digital-TV are high-end UHF channels (so called 700-MHz band). I have not heard anything about the low VHF channels (2-6). I would be surprised if this were true. Channels 2-4 have long been prized for there long-range coverage ability.
Two years ago I stopped using on-air Broadcast TV and switched to satellite feed of local Network TV ($6.95/mo on Dish Network). At my QTH the off-air signal at 70-miles is not very good. On ku-band satellite it is DVD perfect.
73 Ed - KL7UW
At 10:58 AM 4/24/2007, Jim Jerzycke wrote:
Isn't it going to be refarmed for public service use? Jim KQ6EA
--- Roger Kolakowski rogerkola@aol.com wrote:
Speaking of TV wasteland, as all TV stations have to transition to digital in 2009, the initial figures look like they are abandoning Ch 2 thru Ch 6 opening up the VHF lowband (under 88mHz) for whatever. 4 meter satellite or hambands anyone?
Roger WA1KAT
----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Bruninga" bruninga@usna.edu To: amsat-bb@amsat.org Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2007 2:40 PM Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Government control has exceededconstitutionallimitations.
We need to start forcing a return to total
civilian
control of this bloated government we are now
dealing
with, and ensure it operates as 'we' direct it,
and
Sometimes its the 'we' that we worry about...
I say shut down those two 'radar' sites and move
on,
history has shown that the closure of others has
not
affected this nation whatsoever,
Oh, I donno, it protected us from Nukes from
Russia for quite a
while...
...they are no longer neccessary as there are very few nations with the capacity... to even launch long range ballisitic missiles
China just shot one of theirs down last month.
And created
10,000 bits of shrapnel that endangers all of our
satellites.
Every onve of those 10,000 bits has to be tracked
along with our
HAM satellites to keep things clean up there in
orbit...
Here's a thought..MOVE THE RADAR'S OPERATING
BAND
UPWARDS!
As one of the 'we', I don't my taxes to pay for a
new-re-build
of a several hundred million dollar facility, that
has been in
place and working fine for a very long time.
We have every right to have access to spectrum
WE own,
No, we have access to it on a secondary shared
basis. We should
be thankful for that and work with them to
minimize our
interference to them.
The military doesn't need the entire radio
spectrum to
work with, give it only what it needs and that's all...THIS FAR, NO FURTHER...THE LINE MUST BE
DRAWN HERE!
They actually have very little. The biggest waste
of spectrum
is TV. What a wasteland.
I think patience and working it out is the best
way to resolve
spectrum issues, not shooting from the hip with
all barrels
blazing...
Bob
Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. Opinions expressed
are those of the author.
Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the
amateur satellite program!
Subscription settings:
http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
73, Ed - KL7UW ====================================== BP40IQ 50-MHz - 10-GHz www.kl7uw.com 144-EME: FT-847, mgf-1801, 4x-xpol-20, 185w DUBUS Magazine USA Rep dubususa@hotmail.com ======================================
At 03:14 AM 4/25/2007, Roger Kolakowski wrote:
Speaking of TV wasteland, as all TV stations have to transition to digital in 2009, the initial figures look like they are abandoning Ch 2 thru Ch 6 opening up the VHF lowband (under 88mHz) for whatever. 4 meter satellite or hambands anyone?
Hmm, 4m would be nice, but down here it's a well occupied commercial band (never was used for TV). If that did happen though, there's a LOT of surplus equipment out there that can be easily retuned. :) Some of it currently gets converted to 6m, other models are too hard to convert and they tend to kick around on eBay and the like for cheap prices and wind up as spare parts or for those people who are looking for a real challenge. :)
I know it wouldn't take me long to get on 4m, if it ever (dream on ;) ) became a ham band here.
As far as a satellite allocation goes, another VHF band would be a nice dream. The low Doppler shift, relatively high signal strengths and modest (compared to HF) noise floor and antenna requirements on the satellite are unbeatable, especially for mobile LEO applications. Can't see it happening for several WRCs though, in all honesty.
73 de VK3JED http://vkradio.com
--- Roger Kolakowski rogerkola@aol.com wrote:
Speaking of TV wasteland, as all TV stations have to transition to digital in 2009, the initial figures look like they are abandoning Ch 2 thru Ch 6 opening up the VHF lowband (under 88mHz) for whatever.
Actually, some television stations WILL be returning to low-band VHF with 8VSB broadcasts after the Feb 2009 analog cut-off date.
73, de John, KD2BD
Visit John on the Web at:
http://kd2bd.ham.org/ . . . .
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
--- Ernest Erickson aec9823@yahoo.com wrote:
With all our money at the government's disposal, you would think that their brilliant minds should be able to think their way through this so-called interference and find a sutiable solution to a simple problem, such as side lobe rejection, additional band pass filtering or whatever is required to minimize or eliminate this 'interference' althogether.
I agree.
This discussion came up recently on the "Tech Net", hosted by K2RIW on Long Island, an audio archive of which can be found at: http://amateurradio.tv/
Specifically, 40 minutes into the following clip, the PAVE PAWS discussion can be found:
http://amateurradio.tv/TechNet/Library/2007tech/070401tech/070401tech-001.mp...
(It's a 6.5 MB file)
The discussion points out that this RADAR system has been around for quite a number of years and is an extremely agile system, so it should be immune to simple forms of interference caused by regular Amateur Radio communications.
If PAVE PAWS is *THAT* easily interfered with, and that fact is not a secret, what does that say about its usefulness?
73, de John, KD2BD
Visit John on the Web at:
http://kd2bd.ham.org/ . . . .
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Or it makes you wonder what else they have that uses this band that they're not telling us about..... Jim KQ6EA
--- John Magliacane kd2bd@yahoo.com wrote:
--- Ernest Erickson aec9823@yahoo.com wrote:
With all our money at the government's disposal,
you
would think that their brilliant minds should be
able
to think their way through this so-called
interference
and find a sutiable solution to a simple problem,
such
as side lobe rejection, additional band pass
filtering
or whatever is required to minimize or eliminate
this
'interference' althogether.
I agree.
This discussion came up recently on the "Tech Net", hosted by K2RIW on Long Island, an audio archive of which can be found at: http://amateurradio.tv/
Specifically, 40 minutes into the following clip, the PAVE PAWS discussion can be found:
http://amateurradio.tv/TechNet/Library/2007tech/070401tech/070401tech-001.mp...
(It's a 6.5 MB file)
The discussion points out that this RADAR system has been around for quite a number of years and is an extremely agile system, so it should be immune to simple forms of interference caused by regular Amateur Radio communications.
If PAVE PAWS is *THAT* easily interfered with, and that fact is not a secret, what does that say about its usefulness?
73, de John, KD2BD
Visit John on the Web at:
http://kd2bd.ham.org/ . . . .
Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
On 4/24/07, John Magliacane kd2bd@yahoo.com wrote:
The discussion points out that this RADAR system has been around for quite a number of years and is an extremely agile system, so it should be immune to simple forms of interference caused by regular Amateur Radio communications.
If PAVE PAWS is *THAT* easily interfered with, and that fact is not a secret, what does that say about its usefulness?
It is pretty simple to infer that the real thing being interfered with probably isn't PAVE PAWS, of course.
The rest is just speculation. There were upgrades in 2001, but they don't seem to be related to today's issue.
http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/program/uewr.htm
Additionally, the exact takeoff angles of the phased arrays and the direction of those arrays is known... as it was part of the environmental impact statements made for RF exposure for all the active sites in the early 2000's.
http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/program/eisnmddraft/uewr.pdf
What we know from the above:
- The antenna is capable of a 2.2 degree beamwidth (3dB) - The two faces of the station only cover 240 degrees of the sky around the facility. - The beam center is never is pointed lower than 3 degrees above the horizon and is launched from 52' above ground level.
(Putting the main beam of this very tight antenna system 131' into the air by the time it's 2200' from the antenna...at its LOWEST to the horizon useage, according to the above document, their math, not mine.)
Hard to believe ham repeaters are bothering something that well-engineered. Sounds like they seriously cocked-up an upgrade on the receive side, or they're trying some side-scatter receiving techniques from other locations and the ham repeaters are screwing up their results. Just a guess.
If you had a 340W UHF system capable of transmitting in a 2.2 degree beamwidth and hitting things and bouncing off them, wouldn't you try seeing the bounces from other places, too? (GRIN).
Sounds like they need some smarter RF engineers, if they can't figure out how to filter out the effects of constant-carrier FM sources like ham repeaters.
Nate WY0X
I for one am happy the government allows us to be a guest on this band and I always strive to be a courteous guest. I do not want to impose costs and limitations to their system(s). The government has clearly stated what they consider to be acceptable behavior, which is not onerous. Surely the amateur community can operate effectively with these restrictions.
Nor do I want to be kicked out because of rude behavior from others. I am glad the ARRL is trying to present a good face for the amateur radio community. In the past, the government has provided us with free launches, still provides orbital elements, and has protected this band from commercial incursions. I want friendly relations to be maintained and do not like the in your face attitude of many amateur radio operators.
The government has more systems in this band. As a former radar operator on US Navy E-2 Hawkeye aircraft, I often saw amateur transmissions, including ATV, on the radar which operates in the 70cm band. In most cases, I merely changed channels up or down in frequency to avoid any mutual interference. The Navy also has shipboard radars in this band, SPS-40, etc.
The PAVE PAWS serves many task masters including the tracking of satellites and spacecraft.
While the PAVE PAWS radars are capable of narrow beam widths, they are still susceptible to interference from signals entering the antenna sidelobes. Any reduction in sensitivity or function is a cost to us all.
John WA4WDL
In Boston, we have been restricted to 50W output from our repeaters on 440 for 10 years. By complying with this restriction I believe we have been a "courteous guest."
Roger WA1KAT
----- Original Message ----- From: "jmfranke" jmfranke@cox.net To: "AMSAT BB" amsat-bb@amsat.org Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2007 5:52 PM Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Government control has exceededconstitutionallimitations.
I for one am happy the government allows us to be a guest on this band and
I
always strive to be a courteous guest. I do not want to impose costs and limitations to their system(s). The government has clearly stated what
they
consider to be acceptable behavior, which is not onerous. Surely the amateur community can operate effectively with these restrictions.
Nor do I want to be kicked out because of rude behavior from others. I am glad the ARRL is trying to present a good face for the amateur radio community. In the past, the government has provided us with free
launches,
still provides orbital elements, and has protected this band from
commercial
incursions. I want friendly relations to be maintained and do not like
the
in your face attitude of many amateur radio operators.
The government has more systems in this band. As a former radar operator
on
US Navy E-2 Hawkeye aircraft, I often saw amateur transmissions, including ATV, on the radar which operates in the 70cm band. In most cases, I
merely
changed channels up or down in frequency to avoid any mutual interference. The Navy also has shipboard radars in this band, SPS-40, etc.
The PAVE PAWS serves many task masters including the tracking of
satellites
and spacecraft.
While the PAVE PAWS radars are capable of narrow beam widths, they are
still
susceptible to interference from signals entering the antenna sidelobes. Any reduction in sensitivity or function is a cost to us all.
John WA4WDL
Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
- The antenna is 2.2 degree beamwidth (3dB)
Hard to believe ham repeaters are bothering something that well-engineered.... Sounds like they need some smarter RF engineers, if they can't figure out how to filter out ... constant-carrier FM...ham repeaters.
The laws of physics are pretty hard to beat. The radar equation is 1/R^4th and normal radio is 1/R^2. Hams know that that it takes 4 times the power to double the range. For a Radar it takes 16 times the power to double the range.
Or, said another way. For a 100 mile repeater (line of site) lets say it takes 1 watt for communications. For the Radar that might be trying to track some debris headed for the Space Station at 1000 miles, then it takes an effective power of 10,000 watts. Reverse that and it is easy to see that, a 1 watt Ham signal at 100 miles can mask the signal coming back from the target.
Carry that one step further, and this means a 10 milliwatt signal from a ham repeater at 10 miles is the same as the radar return signal from the 10,000 watt radar. Unfortunately, "filtering" is not the answer, just like when a ham radio is interferred with by a birdie on your favorite frequency, then "filtering" doesn't help there either...
Bob
On 4/24/07, Ernest Erickson aec9823@yahoo.com wrote:
... proves beyond a shadow of a doubt, that they are no longer neccessary as there are very few nations with the capacity or capability to even launch long range ballisitic missiles toward our shores.
Yeah, but it only takes one to ruin your whole day.
-- 73 de Maggie K3XS Editor, Phil-Mont Mobile Radio Club Blurb - http://www.phil-mont.org Elecraft K2 #1641 -- AOPA 925383 -- ARRL 39280
participants (11)
-
Edward Cole -
Ernest Erickson -
Jim Jerzycke -
jmfranke -
John Champa -
John Magliacane -
Margaret Leber -
Nate Duehr -
Robert Bruninga -
Roger Kolakowski -
Tony Langdon