70814, I'll relate as much of the theory that I can recollect. If AK has his eyes on, perhaps he'll provide a more thorough explanation. He's pretty good at summarizing technical aspects of electronics in brief lay terms.

First thing of interest, this piggy-backing effect of other frequencies riding on another frequency, is also something that gets a little bit of mention in the crumbs of the work from Rife we are left to ponder. For the most part, whatver the real and true Rife story is, the authorities did a pretty good job of muddling it for anyone like us to come by decades later and try to piece it together. This of course may have been one of their goals. From my perspective, they did a pretty good job. We don't have much to go on to really know what Rife did and did not. What we have are various isolated crumbs, some of which are contradactory. In my opinion, the Hoyland factor, coupled with the so-called official trial transcripts of the testimony that occured during the kangaroo courts used to prosecute Rife, combined, do a really good job in obfuscating the questions of 1) how exactly did Rife use frequencies; 2) which frequencies, exactly; 3) and the ever=present question - did he or did he not make use of audio frequencies coupled to a Megahertz carrier frequency? (many believe, for instance, that Rife had much success using a carrier around 11 megahertz, and depending upon the particular type of disease/cancer one needed treatment for, there was a corresponding list of audio frequencies to be used to modulate this carrier.)

This coupling effect, in radio lingo, is called Modulation. I used the previous example of 1370 KHz. Okay, so we have a transmitter that generates a Carrier Frequency of some energy level (kilo watts for itsy-bitsy momNpop sized stations, mega watts for big high profile corp-media style radio stations). This 1370 KHz carrier gets "modulated" (altered) by other frequencies. These other frequencies are also known as the "payload".... or cargo carried by the carrier frequency.... the sounds, voices, etc that come through to your ears out of your radio receiver.

When you look at the basic schematic of a radio transmitter, there will be a branch or segment of circuit that generates the carrier. The basics would be an oscillator circuit with some amplifiers. There will be a seperate segment that provides the source of the payload frequencies that are to be coupled to the carrier so as to modulate the carrier. Again I use the example of a DJ talking, or musicians singing and or performing with intstruments. In this era, there are multiple modulations schemes, many of which are quite complex, especially for data communication purposes (for instance - to send digital computer data over analog phone lines, like the POTS [plain old telephone system] dial phone lines) Back towards the infancy of the original development and invention of radio and tv technology, the two basic modulations schemes of that era were: AM, and FM. AM is the method whereby the input "payload" frequencies are used to alter the amplitude of the carrier IE> AM - amplitude modulation. In other words, the circuitry that couples the input frequs to the carrier freq causes the intensity of the carrier wave to be varied in synchronization to the pattern of the input frequencies. At the receiving end IE> where it comes out your radio to your ears) the reverse process is applied such that the carrier frequency is separated from the payload frequencies. The payload is what you want. They are also what your ears can hear - music, talk, etc.

As to your questions 2 & 3, I'm going to combine my answer. Among other reasons, I've been away from the nutsNbolts aspects of radio applications for long enough now that I'm not really current with whatever the present trends, regulations, "laws", etc may be. Also, my view as it relates to question #3 is equal parts objectivity and subjectivity. The FCC is and has been for many long years a racket just like most other government-sanctioned regulatory bodies. Such regulatory bodies openly operate as though they are performing some sort of great and herculean public service. At the end of the day, I suspect that they may in fact accomplish a little bit of this but this is generally by accident that occurs along the route of such regulatory activities endeavoring to operate as a front with the primary goal of effecting - establishing, fostering and protecting, a particular government-sanctioned monopoly. Radio, TV, broadcast media are three pretty good examples of separate monopolies that were established by the government many many moons ago and loosley policed by a government fabrication - FCC. These pattern by which these monopolies operate are very consistent in the patterns involve; so consistent that we can prety much call them standard-issue. The pattern: establish the government as the all-powerful controlling authority; preserve the bulk of the benefits derived from the use, application and further development of such technologies for government purposes; provide enough profitability for the relative few and required intermediate players within this racket to make it well worth their while to contribute to the government's monopoly at the expense of exploiting all the masses of people, average people on the street, so to speak, who are not part of this club, this monopoly.

Do I know anything regarding designing such personal amateur radio station? I remember enough of the theory but have never put this knowledge to practical hands-on experience, so I remember probably enough to be dangerous :)

Do we have the right to build one and transmit from our basement (or a potato field)? I can only say with confidence that this right has always existed. This said, I really do not know how such rights - the ones that people are endowed with by birth, square with fairly recent acts of congress purported as legitimate law. It's not that I really want to force this conversation into the realm of conspiracy. But for anyone who's ever tried to read, word for word, this excrement known as the Patriot Act II (I have), it basically leaves the doors wide open to very broad interpretation in painting anybody the government may have a whim for as a "terrorist"; this may even include a person who is trying to mind their own business while experimenting with building a home made radio transmitter. In all honesty, when it all gets boiled down, a person needs to decide for themselves if they want to assert and pursue such rights. Inalienable rights have alwasy been near infinite. Legislation has increasingly endeavored to render them finite. How this squares with your interest in radio experimentation is up to you to determine.

Do we need a specific permit from the FCC to broadcast those frequencies? Again, based upon how things used to be, for intance, prior to 5 years ago, there were fairly well known and established limites and guidelines for amateur radio enthusiasts and experimenters. These limits were to an extent bounded by how much power your radio emits. If your experimental design stayed under these limits, you could pretty much do as you pleased. Again, how this squares with today's political environment, I really do not know. The thought form that's been heavily promoted the last several years is that anyone with a knitting needle, cigarette lighter, or original thought bouncing around their head is ripe to be incarcerated for being suspected as a potential terrorist, without warrant, without reasonable and probable cause, without access to legal counsel, and most recently without avail to Habeas Corpus.

Hope this helps a little. Good luck!