Re: Reasonable and unique, was Re: One Class of Amateur Radio License?
- From: hot-ham-and-cheese@xxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: 18 Dec 2005 15:57:41 -0800
N2EY@xxxxxxx wrote:
> Dave Heil wrote:
> > LenAnderson@xxxxxxxx wrote:
> > > From: Dee Flint on Dec 15, 3:21 pm
> > >> "Bill Sohl" <bills...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>
> > >> Actually the place that I see the difference in operating skills is on the
> > >> VHF bands in the VHF contests. When I review my contacts in those contests,
> > >> the large majority of them are Extra class operators. They seem to be the
> > >> ones to have the skill necessary to put together and operate a station
> > >> suitable to make long distance VHF contacts and the skill to do so.
> > >
> > > Wow! Someone should have TOLD the U.S. Army Signal Corps folks
> > > at Evans Signal Laboratory in 1946 when they were the first to
> > > bounce a radio signal off the moon!
> >
> > How much power was used by the Army?
>
> The transmitter used was a modified SCR-271 radar unit. It produced
> 3000 W on 111.5 Mc. (that's what the Signal Corps called them
> back then). Pair of 6C21 triodes in the output - they look similar to
> 1000Ts.
>
> 3000 W output with those tubes at that frequency means about 5000 W
> input.
> The amateur power limit back then was 1000 W input.
Was RADAR a legal mode? What was the PRF?
> > How large was the antenna?
>
> 64 dipoles in front of a plane reflector. At least 24 dB gain over
> isotropic.
>
> There's a lot more info at:
>
> http://www.campevans.com/diana.html
>
> btw, it was a moon RADAR experiment, not a communications system.
>
> The mode used was OOK CW. The echoes were heard as beeps. Had there
> been
> a second station, communication could have been done by Morse Code.
>
> But no Morse Code was used because no communication was done. There was
> no second station to communicate with.
>
> Those Diana folks had a some hams involved, though - all code tested at
> at
> least 13 wpm:
Conditionals or FCC tested?
> Lt. Col John H. DeWitt, officer-in-charge, W4ERI, ex-W4FU
FU suffix, huh? I'm suprised the fCC let that one through.
> E.K. Stodola, head of the lab's Research Section, W3IVF
>
> F. Elacker, Mechanical Engineer, ex-W2DMD
>
> H.P.Kaufmann, W2OQU was also involved at a high level.
>
> Those are just the hams I know of that were involved. There were
> probably more.
There always are.
> Note that a good number of the top people were radio amateurs.
>
> They used power levels 9 dB above those permitted to amateurs at the
> time, and
> an antenna that was quite beyond "backyard construction". They had lots
> of
> resources.
A fantastic use of post-war resources.
> Lt. Col. DeWitt, W4ERI, was the driving force behind the whole idea,
> which he
> first began working on in 1940.
What idea? To bounce a signal off of the moon for no communications
purpose?
Isn't that like bouncing a basketball off of a backboard with no
intention of making a basket?
> > Hams
> > are now doing moonbounce wherein one of the stations is using a modest
> > 50 MHz yagi and 100w or so.
>
> A few years back, a couple of hams (both code-tested, at least one
> an Extra) did microwave EME with less than
> 100 W and dishes less than 10 feet in diameter - at both ends. Using
> their own resources.
Go Hams!
> > > Yeah, they should have told the Signal Corps "how to do it" in
> > > Korea in the 1950s when they set out all that VHF radio relay
> > > equipment in the hills and valleys there.
> > >
> > > Where WAS the ARRL when all that was going on? They didn't tell
> > > the Signal Corps much of anything...
> >
> > Where Worked All States? During WWII, the Signal Corps used the ARRL
> > Handbook, Leonard. I'll bet that chafes you to no end.
>
> The ARRL actually produced a special "Defense Edition" Handbook
> for training purposes.
>
> There's also the story of "The Ghost of Guam".
>
> 73 de Jim, N2EY
A KG6, no doubt. BTW, I saw KG6DX listed in the CQWW.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Reasonable and unique, was Re: One Class of Amateur Radio License?
- From: LenAnderson
- Re: Reasonable and unique, was Re: One Class of Amateur Radio License?
- References:
- Re: Easier licensing
- From: LenAnderson
- Re: Easier licensing
- From: LenAnderson
- Re: One Class of Amateur Radio License?
- From: hot-ham-and-cheese
- ARBITRARY and REDUNDANT, was Re: One Class of Amateur Radio License?
- From: hot-ham-and-cheese
- Re: Reasonable and unique, was Re: One Class of Amateur Radio License?
- From: Dee Flint
- Re: Reasonable and unique, was Re: One Class of Amateur Radio License?
- From: KØHB
- Re: Reasonable and unique, was Re: One Class of Amateur Radio License?
- From: Dee Flint
- Re: Reasonable and unique, was Re: One Class of Amateur Radio License?
- From: Bill Sohl
- Re: Reasonable and unique, was Re: One Class of Amateur Radio License?
- From: Dee Flint
- Re: Reasonable and unique, was Re: One Class of Amateur Radio License?
- From: LenAnderson
- Re: Reasonable and unique, was Re: One Class of Amateur Radio License?
- From: Dave Heil
- Re: Easier licensing
- Prev by Date: Re: Definitely Not Qualified
- Next by Date: Re: FCC Affirms Jack Gerritsen $42,000 fine
- Previous by thread: Re: Reasonable and unique, was Re: One Class of Amateur Radio License?
- Next by thread: Re: Reasonable and unique, was Re: One Class of Amateur Radio License?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|