[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] - [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index]

Re: Eagle and P3E



Quoting Robert McGwier <rwmcgwier@comcast.net>:

> Nate:
> 
> 
> Amateurs operating in the amateur service are allowed to transmit IN OUR
> 
> BANDS with power and gains exceeding part 15 with 802.11 equipment.  
> ARRL's  HSMM group has been attempting to do this for a while.   The 
> content restrictions are just onerous (you can't legally surf the web 
> doing and other things).   If I get another shot at the board of 
> directors of the ARRL,  I am going to really shove as hard as I can 
> without getting thrown out, that we move to have the content 
> restrictions relaxed considerably above NNN MHz to encourage 
> experimentation.  I might get shot down or their might be some serious 
> pitfalls that I am overlooking. I would at least like them to consider 
> pro-change arguments.
> 
> Bob
> N4HY

Bob and the list:

This ties in nicely with what is surely one of the very compelling
applications of the Eagle concept. In the second paragraph of section #5 of
this post
<http://128.54.16.15/amsat/archive/amsat-bb/200601/msg00221.html>, I
wondered about a small, portable station providing an internet bridge to a
disaster-stricken area. Of course, if the 802.11b/g side of that station
were to be high-power, it could act as a hub for links to terrestrial
802.11b/g disaster-relief amateur stations with equally high-power
equipment. These would support the relief workers and agencies using their
customary internet communication tools.

Disasters and emergencies aren't the only places where this would be of
use. I'm told that research vessels at sea often still don't have a live
internet link and use satellite phones to uplink email over a modem at
great cost.

The recent discussion about using 'social engineering' techniques to
mitigate S-band QRM has convinced me that the Eagle team is right to avoid
this band for downlink: *that* toothpaste is apparently already out of the
tube.  However, high-power 802.11 might be part of a *system* that argues
strongly for Eagle. I suppose that as we develop the S/C system, we might
want to experiment with bridging to 802.11, to illustrate this potential
use and to ensure that the S-band xmitter doesn't QRM potential 802.11
links. (Of course, we'd have control over the channel on these links.)

Finally, Dom and others argue for Eagle to have a C band downlink the same
as the uplink for P3E. I must be missing something: wouldn't this run the
risk of Eagle QRM'ing P3E?  


73, Bruce
VE9QRP

P.S. Thanks for to everyone for the high level of discussion recently. One
of the great pleasures of this list for me (and, I'm sure, many others) is
to be witness to the engineering process. Soul of a New Machine, indeed. 
----
Sent via amsat-bb@amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author.
Not an AMSAT member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program!
To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe amsat-bb" to Majordomo@amsat.org



AMSAT Top AMSAT Home