Date: Mon, 1 Aug 94 04:30:18 PDT From: Ham-Digital Mailing List and Newsgroup Errors-To: Ham-Digital-Errors@UCSD.Edu Reply-To: Ham-Digital@UCSD.Edu Precedence: Bulk Subject: Ham-Digital Digest V94 #257 To: Ham-Digital Ham-Digital Digest Mon, 1 Aug 94 Volume 94 : Issue 257 Today's Topics: EMPLOYMENT OPPTY - RADIO COMMS - NYC/fSU Mic connection KAM--> HTX-202 Unattended Digital Probs in Britain (2 msgs) Send Replies or notes for publication to: Send subscription requests to: Problems you can't solve otherwise to brian@ucsd.edu. Archives of past issues of the Ham-Digital Digest are available (by FTP only) from UCSD.Edu in directory "mailarchives/ham-digital". We trust that readers are intelligent enough to realize that all text herein consists of personal comments and does not represent the official policies or positions of any party. Your mileage may vary. So there. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 31 Jul 1994 13:52:27 -0400 From: news.pipeline.com!not-for-mail@uunet.uu.net Subject: EMPLOYMENT OPPTY - RADIO COMMS - NYC/fSU To: ham-digital@ucsd.edu A great job with a great company is available for an experienced VHF/UHF systems engineer with extensive experience specifying land mobile radio systems --- base stations, repeaters, trunking. It's a "box" level assignment. The company deploys such systems throughout the former Soviet Union, through New York and Moscow offices. Experience in the following regions helpful: * Motorola experience, two-way; indoor and antenna * Point-to-multipoint UHF * Knowledge of vendors and comparative price/benefit of alternative solutions * Microwave terrestrial and satellite * Computer skills for presentation to clients & colleagues. * Internet to AX.25 radio links * Good health and ability to travel 4 times a year to remote sites in former SU * Amateur radio license/experience/fanatacism/menatlity a considerable plus Please state salary requirements in e-mail reply. Company offers full benefits and alot of challenges. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 31 Jul 1994 21:52:15 GMT From: iglou!gregl.slip.iglou.com!ke4dpx@uunet.uu.net Subject: Mic connection KAM--> HTX-202 To: ham-digital@ucsd.edu In article moleman@delphi.com writes: >I've spent the last 2 days trying to get my KAM and HTX-202 to communicate with >each other. I am receiving packet data just fine >but cannot seem to make a connection. The HTX-202 is transmitting, but I >suspect the mic connection is not wired properly and it therefore just >transmitting useless noise. I am not very technically oriented, so I would >appreciate any advice as to the correct wiring for the mic. Any other >suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Tnx. > >Dennis, N1RDN It's real easy to connect the HTX-202 to the KAM, Dennis. First install the HT jumper inside the KAM. This jumper includes the isolation circuitry for keeping audio out of the PTT line. Now connect ground to the ring and audio to the tip of the external speaker connector. The final step is to connect both the PTT and MIC lines to the tip of the microphone connector. Ring | v Tip |-----\ v AUDIO ----| ==== -|-----/ GND ---/ | |-----\ PTT+MIC ----| ==== -|-----/ ---/ Not a pretty picture perhaps, but hopefully it'll do the trick. ============================================================================ 73 de Greg AMPRNet - ke4dpx@ke4dpx.ampr.org [44.106.56.35] AX.25 - ke4dpx@wi9p.#ncky.ky.usa.noam Internet - gregl@iglou.com ============================================================================ ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 31 Jul 1994 12:11:45 +0000 From: pipex!demon!kirsta.demon.co.uk!John@uunet.uu.net Subject: Unattended Digital Probs in Britain To: ham-digital@ucsd.edu In article wyn@ornl.gov "C. C. Wynn" writes: > >In addition, all UK amateurs are now required to notify their local > >Radio Investigation Service office of unattended digital operation. > >The RSGB said this additional restriction was necessary following ''a > >number of problems'' with unattended operation. ''The procedure is far > >less onerous than that required for a repeater or beacon on a > >hilltop site, and requires only the agreeing of suitable emergency > >close-down procedures,'' the RSGB said. > >NNNN > >/EX > > It seems that automatic operation is causing problems in GB. Does anyone > have any of the details on this? What is an agreeable suitable emergency > close-down procedure? Is this a contractural obligation on the part of the > operator and the RIS? What are the penalties for failure to comply? There have, apparently, been a couple of cases of rogue transmitters interfering with other services, and the RIS not being able to close them down. The new condition is not particularly onerous: We just have to tell the RIS how the station can be closed down if the need arises. There are lots of nit-pick questions being asked about the fine points of what "unattended" and "attended" actually mean; but with a few dissenting voices the new condition has been accepted as reasonable and even desirable: if your gear does go crazy it is better that it can be closed down reasonably quickly. Suitable procedure? Not well defined. Concensus seems to be "if need be, can your transmitter be switched off within minutes, even if you are away on holiday at the time?". The trouble is that nobody yet knows what is. One datum: Our club station, way up in the hills, runs an unattended node. The close-down procedure we have set up for that is to provide the home and work phone numbers of three key holders, any one of whom should be able to get to the site within about 30 minutes. The RIS have raised no objection to this. Contractual obligation? Well, it runs roughly like this: The RIS are the field arm of the RA. The RA is a branch of government. The government makes laws. If they get *really* out of line we vote them out of office... Penalties: Nobody knows yet, as no-one has yet fallen foul of the change. Available sanctions range from a verbal or written warning, through removal of priveleges, through to a fine of several thousand pounds. From recent history, the RIS are only interested in the most egregious offenders. 73, John. -- John Morris email: John@kirsta.demon.co.uk AX25: GM4ANB@GB7EDN.#77.GBR.EU Absurdity: A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with one's own opinion - Ambrose Bierce ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 31 Jul 1994 21:41:32 +0000 From: pipex!demon!hartford.demon.co.uk!greg@uunet.uu.net Subject: Unattended Digital Probs in Britain To: ham-digital@ucsd.edu In article wyn@ornl.gov "C. C. Wynn" writes: |> It seems that automatic operation is causing problems in GB. Does anyone |> have any of the details on this? What is an agreeable suitable emergency |> close-down procedure? Is this a contractural obligation on the part of the |> operator and the RIS? What are the penalties for failure to comply? One of the problems has apparently been that unattended stations have been sending signals out of band which have interfered with our emergency serices. I understand that the Fire Brigades have suffered this from time to time. One possible cause of the problem is the proliferation of ex-PMR transceivers, re-aligned by amateurs but fitted with amateur spec Xtals instead of the commercial spec for which they were originally designed. Either way, there have been instances of transmissions obliterating traffic outside the amateur bands and some of those instances have been traced to unattended operation. The RIS appear to be happy to accept notification, per se, that a station will be running unattended, provided only that they are given a means of having it switched off if necessary. Different OM have obviously submitted different arrangements, ranging from complicated "open OFF / coded (or keyed) ON" switches outside the shack and a list of telephone numbers manned by other amateurs to simple assurances that someone on the end of a (supplied) telephone number will be in a position to switch the station off if asked so to do by the RIS. The RIS do not appear to be adopting a difficult attitude to the new requirements and first reports are that local officers are actually being very helpful. There's plenty of argument (as usual) within the hobby about what does and what does not constitute "unattended operation". Likewise about what length of delay between being asked by the RIS to switch the station off and actually getting it switched off is acceptable. There hasn't been a specific definition of "unattended" and it's probably better that there isn't. Most of us are applying common sense to simple English ;-} As to the delay aspect of it, some local RIS officers are known to have accepted arrangements with a built-in maximum delay of as much as two hours ! In so far as these requirements now form part of the UK Licensing Conditions, I guess you could say that they are part of a contractual obligation imposed on the licensee. Penalties for non-observance (possible loss / suspension of licence, fines, seizure of equipment etc) are the same as for any other transgression of the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949. I'd have liked to quote them for you, as you asked, but I don't have the Act handy. Maybe someone else in the thread will elucidate on them shortly. .~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~. | Greg REILLY-COOPER : greg@hartford.demon.co.uk | | ax25: G0MAM @ GB7CHS (Remote Co-SysOp) | | Emergency Communications Officer (RSGB + RAYNET) | | ======================================================== | | Be a cynic - they probably expect it of you anyway ! | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ------------------------------ End of Ham-Digital Digest V94 #257 ******************************