Spark transmission encouraged

Discussion in 'Wireless & RF Design' started by KL7AJ, May 10, 2019.

  1. KL7AJ

    Thread Starter AAC Fanatic!

    Nov 4, 2008
    2,208
    427
    From the Radio Act of 1912 (Not to be confused with the War of 1812)

    upload_2019-5-10_15-28-58.png
     
  2. nsaspook

    Expert

    Aug 27, 2009
    6,213
    6,989
  3. atferrari

    AAC Fanatic!

    Jan 6, 2004
    3,368
    1,318
    Thieves in my area use just small battery operated boxes, not full fledged warships, with rather bad (for owners) results.
     
  4. WBahn

    Moderator

    Mar 31, 2012
    24,562
    7,700
    Makes perfect sense to me, especially for 1912.

    Even today, if I were stranded, particularly on a ship in distress, and I couldn't establish comms any other way, I wouldn't hesitate to generate as much power with as much interference as I could. Let them come and arrest me -- if that's what it takes to get my ass off that boat, I'm okay with it.

    We used to quip that the warbling sound of an ELT (aircraft emergency locator transmitter) was specifically designed to be so grating on the nerves that search teams would be supremely motivated to find the wreck just so that they could shut the damn think off.

    I'd have to see the broader context to be sure, but I don't read that as encouraging the use of broadband interference transmissions, but rather that elsewhere in the act they likely prohibited such transmissions and here they are merely saying that they MAY be used under these conditions without being considered a violation of the act.

    The Federal Aviation Regulations have a very similar approach in that one of the very first regulations (namely FAR 91.3) specifically, under the regs, makes the pilot-in-command solely responsible for safety of flight and authorizes pilots of aircraft experiencing an emergency to deviate from ANY regulation to the extent deemed necessary in the interest of safety of flight.

    While it explicitly makes the pilot-in-command the sole and final authority for such actions (and all actions relating to the aircraft), it also requires that the pilot submit a written report, if requested, to the FAA. As a result of this rule, a pilot won't be held accountable for violation of the regs provided they assert it was done to meet the needs of an emergency. However, that does not prevent the FAA from deciding that the pilot's judgement was so bad that they have no business flying anything larger than a paper airplane and revoking their license. It also is of limited use in shielding the pilot from normal civil and criminal laws.
     
    Last edited: May 11, 2019
  5. SamR

    Well-Known Member

    Mar 19, 2019
    1,043
    424
    When I was a child one of the old Shrimp Boat Captains had gotten a war surplus Hi Freq rig the size of a footlocker and had it installed on his 35' shrimp trawler. He promptly got into a dispute with the US Navy over just who was allowed to use their frequencies and they demanded that he get rid of the radio or they were going to have him arrested. Now this ole boy was on a first name basis with our Governer Talmadge back in the day. He often had Herman down from Atlanta to go deer hunting with him and the good ole boys. So he was pretty well connected in Georgia politics and told the Navy in no uncertain terms where they could stick their "god damned regulations". I well remember him telling my dad "Hell if my boat's sinkin they damn well gonna know about it in their damn navy." I never knew what happened to that old radio, but Cap'n Bill wasn't about to get rid of it just cause some damn Admiral wanted him to and so-called laws be damned if his boat was sinking.
     
  6. WBahn

    Moderator

    Mar 31, 2012
    24,562
    7,700
    Seems like two different things. Operating on their frequencies when NOT in distress is VERY different from doing so when you are. It sounds like he was operating illegally just because he wanted to, not because his boat was sinking. I doubt the Navy would give a rat's ass if he had the rig sitting there looking stupid but available if and when the boat was actually in distress.
     
  7. nsaspook

    Expert

    Aug 27, 2009
    6,213
    6,989
    There were times during the 70's CB craze we would have a good old boy hashing up the HF bands with some over-modulated linear amp. We would DF the guy and spin a log periodic antenna his way with about 10KW from the transmitter site on the next island with a nice message about the FCC knocking on his door in an hour because of military radio interference. It usually fixed the problem pronto.

    What's left of the transmitter site.
    https://www.google.com/maps/@24.630...ata=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s2XLmAyvPiJYbTFA4Xmz-UQ!2e0
    https://www.google.com/maps/@24.6476583,-81.6057671,976m/data=!3m1!1e3
     
  8. SamR

    Well-Known Member

    Mar 19, 2019
    1,043
    424
    Willie was definitely in hot water for using it, but wasn't going to remove it just in case he really needed it. That was back in the 50's when boats didn't have radios so I have no idea who he thought he was going to talk to on that thing unless it was the Coast Guard. But he sure pissed off the Navy with it. I have no idea how he even got the thing installed back then but he knew a lot of different folks. He'd take that small trawler all the way from south Georgia into the Gulf and down to the Yucatan Peninsula and back.
     
Loading...