O/T Spark Gap Transmitters was: Interest in UUCP?

From: Tom Uban <uban_at_ubanproductions.com>
Date: Wed Jun 20 17:42:59 2001

Does that qualify as an early form of spread spectrum;-)

--tom

At 06:22 PM 6/20/01 -0400, you wrote:
> Actually, we got a special permit to activate a spark transmitter
>[1000 watts, quenched gap Navy WW I unit] several years ago at the AWA
>[Antique Wireless Association] annual meeting in Rochester, NY. We were
>allowed a 60 sec transmission once an hour for a 12 hour period for
>purposes of "historical demonstration".
> I'm sure the harmonics [multiple and MANY] played hell with the local
>TV and radio reception. Across the parking lot it could be received
>anywhere from 400KC [where it was "supposed to be tuned"] .. on up to
>about 50MC or so.
> Sorry about the O/T post but it's a special interest area for me.
>There a 500 watt, 500 cycle War I Navy transmitter sitting behind me in
>my office!
> Craig
>
>Jim Strickland wrote:
>>
>> It's my impression the FCC takes a pretty dim view of spark-gap
>> transmitters. But then I've never been a ham or anything like that.
>> I don't *do* analog (yet).
>>
>> > No packet hardware... I guess that my old Utica transciever would be
>> > useless for this. Since we're talking about sending/receiving data in
>> > a classic manner, wouldn't it be neat to use sparc-gap transmitters,
>> > and then never worrying about having to do any form of D/A or A/D
>> > conversion?
>>
>> --
>> Jim Strickland
>> jim_at_DIESPAMMERSCUMcalico.litterbox.com
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> BeOS Powered!
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
Received on Wed Jun 20 2001 - 17:42:59 BST