K1ZZ's monthly editorial in December QST discusses
spectrum challenges. One item that caught my eye was
a push to allocate spectrum between 3 and 50 mHz for oceanographic radar applications.
A quick Google search fetched the following (emphasis mine):
...Then starting in the late 90s, scientists got their hands on a new tool called high frequency (HF) radar. These instruments map surface currents in wide swaths of coastal waters up to 200 km off shore, 24 hours a day, and in all weather conditions. Researchers began installing HF radar stations along the East, West, and Gulf coasts, and today the network continues to expand...
The physics behind HF radar is fairly straightforward. A transmitter broadcasts electromagnetic waves usually between 5 and 25 megahertz. These signals scatter off waves on the ocean surface. If a signal strikes an ocean wave that is exactly half of the broadcast signal’s wavelength and if the ocean wave is traveling towards or away from the transmitter, the signal reflects back. This phenomenon is known as Bragg scattering. Since there are abundant waves of all wavelengths present in the ocean, there are always plenty of waves that fit this criterion.
...In most systems, the transmitter broadcasts signals in all directions at once. Signals therefore reflect back off the ocean from all angles at once, bombarding the antennas...
As more and more HF radar installations come on line, scientists are gaining greater confidence in their ability to accurately map currents...
Currently NOAA and the Scripps Institution of Oceanography are developing a system that links all of the HF radar installations to a central database...
As the network of HF radar installations continues to expand and as data becomes more accessible, the number of people taking advantage of these data will expand as well.
http://oceanmotion.org/html/gatheringdata/hfradar.htmThis is the first I had heard of this. Are we facing another threat of more trash dumped across the HF spectrum?
Also included in the editorial was
...On April 25 the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit confirmed what the ARRL has been saying for years about how the FCC was handling the BPL interference issue: FCC prejudice tainted the rulemaking process.
On July 9 the Court went one step further, ordering the FCC to pay the ARRL more than $6,000 toward our costs in pursuing the appeal (the check arrived in September). While this is a tiny fraction of our total investment, the award affirmed that – contrary to the “spin” the FCC had been trying to give to the Court’s decision – the ARRL substantially prevailed in its appeal.
The Court’s decision was a tremendous victory for radio amateurs and other licensed users of the radio spectrum – indeed, for anyone who cares about the federal administrative process. Yet, the remand does not guarantee that the FCC will correct its errors. We face another round of technical arguments. No doubt the FCC’s technical staff, many of whom want to do the right thing, will remain under heavy pressure to ignore the laws of physics and give preference to wishful thinking once again. When the FCC reopens the BPL proceeding as the Court has ordered, we must leave no room for these technical issues to be settled on anything other than technical grounds. There’s more work to do!
https://www.arrl.org/forms/fdefense/Which reminds me of the ill-fated lawsuit that K1MAN brought against the FCC regarding the AM power issue. Glenn totally blew it, and that lawsuit reportedly is what hardened the FCC's stand on the issue, in which they reneged on their stated commitment to revisit the issue in 1990, "if there was any justification". In that case the FCC did exactly what the ARRL lawsuit charged that they did with the BPL issue: FCC prejudice tainted the rulemaking process. This is clearly evident when one reads the FCC's response to the comments on the proposal and to the Petitions for Reconsideration that were filed. If Glenn had focused on that aspect, rather than the wonders of his IARN emergency communication effort in Mexico City after the earthquake, the outcome of the case might have been different.
