On Thu, 03 Jul 2003 13:54:46 GMT, Duane Allen wrote:

I would think that the University already has or can easily get
non-amateur resources (both hardware and spectrum allocation) that would
support your research projects. The challenging task is finding out who
may have such resources. In addition to checking with the project lead
faculty, you may need to check with the department head and the college
dean. An often overlooked channel for information is contacting the
purchasing persons at the department/college/campus levels. They know
who requisitioned what. From there you can go to the requisitioners and
find out what administrative activities they went through for licensing.

Yes, UC does have such resources, and the source of who has what
where throughout the UC system is the Office of the Vice President
of Administration, located on the UC Berkeley campus.

At least that's who we used to deal with concerning radio spectrum
assignment and licensing matters for the UC system.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

On Thu, 03 Jul 2003 19:04:25 GMT, S. Sampson wrote:

Are you being employeed by UC to conduct university research projects?

Graduate students aren't considered employee's of a University.

However, when I did my graduate research at UCLA 40+ years ago, the
result was considered "for" the University, not for me as a private
individual.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

"Phil Kane" wrote
S. Sampson wrote:

Are you being employeed by UC to conduct university research projects?

Graduate students aren't considered employee's of a University.

However, when I did my graduate research at UCLA 40+ years ago, the
result was considered "for" the University, not for me as a private
individual.

I would put it this way: If the University intends to patent any part of the
research, then the ARS should not be used.

Note: The following is just my interpretation of the rules.

In article , Leo Szumel
writes:

If you don't use a specified code, you must identify using a specified
code.
For example, if you design your own protocol (unspecified code), then you
should design the system to ID every 10 minutes, or every transmission.

That should not be a problem. I envisage we would use an unspecified
code for our data transmissions, but we could self-identify with an RTTY
broadcast every 10 min. This will all be computer-controlled so that
should be easy.

I think there's a problem with using a code that is not publicly available. ID
is not enough; if the message cannot be read by a suitably-equipped monitoring
station (read: FCC) what you have is a form of encryption.

Amateurs are not allowed to intentionally encrypt or otherwise conceal
transmission meaning or content, with one exception: remote control commands.
So the "turn off" command would be OK to encrypt, but not the data coming from
the remote sensors.

73 es GL de Jim, N2EY

Hi Jim,

N2EY wrote:
I think there's a problem with using a code that is not publicly available. ID
is not enough; if the message cannot be read by a suitably-equipped monitoring
station (read: FCC) what you have is a form of encryption.

Amateurs are not allowed to intentionally encrypt or otherwise conceal
transmission meaning or content, with one exception: remote control commands.
So the "turn off" command would be OK to encrypt, but not the data coming from
the remote sensors.

I see your point. How about this, though:

97.217:

"Telemetry transmitted by an amateur station on or within 50 km of the
Earth's surface is not considered to be codes or ciphers intended to
obscure the meaning of communications."

97.3(45):
"Telemetry. A one-way transmission of measurements at a distance from
the measuring instrument."

Also, 97.309(b) indicates that unspecified codes can be used so long as
the purpose is not to obscure the meaning of a communication.

Thanks for your input,

-Leo

--
Leo Szumel | ECE Graduate Student, UC Davis | KD5SZT
Email:

In article , Leo Szumel
writes:

Hi Jim,

Hello Leo

N2EY wrote:
I think there's a problem with using a code that is not publicly available.
ID
is not enough; if the message cannot be read by a suitably-equipped
monitoring
station (read: FCC) what you have is a form of encryption.

Amateurs are not allowed to intentionally encrypt or otherwise conceal
transmission meaning or content, with one exception: remote control
commands.
So the "turn off" command would be OK to encrypt, but not the data coming
from
the remote sensors.

I see your point. How about this, though:

97.217:

"Telemetry transmitted by an amateur station on or within 50 km of the
Earth's surface is not considered to be codes or ciphers intended to
obscure the meaning of communications."

97.3(45):
"Telemetry. A one-way transmission of measurements at a distance from
the measuring instrument."

Also, 97.309(b) indicates that unspecified codes can be used so long as
the purpose is not to obscure the meaning of a communication.

Good point!

As I interpret it, what this means is that the telemetry message doesn;t have
to be self-explanatory. For example, a remote sensor might report "534A0" as a
telemetry message in, say, ASCII, which is a "specified code", but there's no
need to have the remote sensor indicate what the symbols mean.

Thanks for your input,

You're welcome!

73 de Jim, N2EY

Just go ahead and do it !!!

Don't worry about the "barracks lawyers". Hams are the biggest bunch of
wannabe cops that exist.

Your research will be a better use of the bandwidth than 99.999% of the
mindless jabber on the amateur bands today,

Moron.

"keep-it-clean" wrote in message
...
Just go ahead and do it !!!

Don't worry about the "barracks lawyers". Hams are the biggest bunch of
wannabe cops that exist.

Your research will be a better use of the bandwidth than 99.999% of the
mindless jabber on the amateur bands today,

"keep-it-clean" wrote

Now then, I take it you disagree with my advice to the original poster.

That really wasn't "advice," it was just noise.